| Sajha.com Archives | |
| Username | Post |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 08-Nov-03 06:16 AM
This is interesting. Is she the Indian version of Archbishop Usher? Thanks to kalanki bro for sending me the link: 'Lord Ram was born in 5114 BC' SUNIT BEZBAROOWA & ARVIND JOSHI TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 08, 2003 02:12:42 AM ] "Ram was and is for real. He was born on January 10, 5114 BC," Saroj Bala, IRS, Commisioner of Income Tax says, calmly, with the assurance of one who has tangible facts. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?msid=273107 |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 08-Nov-03 06:19 AM
This paragraph says it all. :-) So, how can we say Ram was born on January 10, 5114 B.C& My colleague Pushkar Bhatnagar of Indian Revenue Service is the real originator of this theory. He acquired a software named Planetarium, used to predict planetary movements and configurations. By entering in this software, precise details of planetary positions vis-à-vis zodiac constellations described by Maharishi Valmiki in the Valmiki Ramayan, it is possible to determine important dates starting from Shri Ram's birth-date to the date of his return to Ayodhya. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 08-Nov-03 06:28 AM
Thea rticle is yet another weak attempt on the part of Indian journalists and scholars to prove what can not be proved. Seriously, if we go by this logic, thenw e have to believe that there was a girl named Sita in janakpur, and if we believe that, you have to believe that there was a king called janak, and if we believe that , we have top believe that there was a 200 metric tons (a slight exaggeration) bow! Its kinda interesting what the Indian archeaologists and now tax officers come up with every once in a while: from the birth place of Buddha to the birthplace of Krishna to the stairway to heaven. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 08-Nov-03 06:32 AM
believe that, you have to believe =( you=we) |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 08-Nov-03 10:39 AM
Ok, here's why you can outright dismiss this claim: (ACCEPT MY APOLOGIES BEFOREHAND IF IT HURTS YOUR RELIGIOUS SENTIMENTS). 1. There's no hard evidence to support this claim. 2. There's no rule in archeaology that says you have to go past 60m to unearth artifacts whicg are 5000 or more years + 3.The claim is not endorsed by the Archaeological Survey of India. 4. The lady who claims to date Rama is not even an Archaeologist or a history student. 5. The verse - matsya kurma barah-scha, nrisimho bamanasta tatha rama, ramayo, ramascha, buddha kalki tathaiwacha- proves that Rama was a mythical figure (not a real figure) and was incoporated in Hiduism much later. I mean, Buddha was born 2500 years ago. So, the sloka can't be more than 1200-800 years old, and that means Ram's story came into existence somewhere 1200-1600 years ago. So, how can he be born 5000 years ago? 6. That's why I compare this finding to that of Arcbishop Usher who, based on his bible readings, actually calculated the exact hour/day/year when God created the earth. Of course, this was later rejected by others who looked beyond the Bible to udnerstand things. **** I don't think the Indian media is trustworthy. Not long ago, an Indian Archaeologist claim that Buddha was actually born in Orisa, India. These stories help boost teh circulation and spark controversies. IF this claim was endoresed by the Archaeological Survey of India then you could probably question the methodology+evidence to support the claim, but this piece of news is nothing. The ASI hasn't endorsed it; other scholars are quiet and the funny thing is, the research/finding doesn't include a single field/on site study. Its like looking at the cover page of patro and saying the world was created this many years ago by God and we are living at this age of kaliYuga. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 08-Nov-03 10:40 AM
that Buddha was actually born claim -claimed |
| Biruwa | Posted
on 09-Nov-03 05:36 PM
Couple Compatriots have posted in this and other thread trying to disprove the news about extrapolation by some amateurs regarding Ram's birth and various incidents in this life. I don't think I need to answer each of their points. After all, each person needs to find out the truth for himself/herself. External facts and figures goes only so far. Buddha has said that you do not go after material things in your seach for the truth. I am answering a few of their points: >>3.The claim is not endorsed by the Archaeological Survey of India. So the claim about Maharabhat and Ramayan being written 1500 years ago is endorsed by the Archaeological Survey of India? Is it? >>4. The lady who claims to date Rama is not even an Archaeologist or a history student. So Archaeologist or a history student reserve the sole rights to discover or analyze historical facets? In fact it was not even the lady but another of her amature friend who did those analysis. Please read the article more carefully. You do not have to believe every thing that every body says but that not not necessarily make it untrue. I am sure there are many amatures who seriously pursue their interest. >>The verse - matsya kurma barah-scha, nrisimho bamanasta tatha rama, ramayo, ramascha, buddha kalki tathaiwacha- proves that Rama was a mythical figure Why would you think so? Unless you are also implying that the other figures mentioned in the verse are imaginary as well. Also the verse says nothing about ram being after Buddha. To me personally it is a null point. I admire the character of Buddha as well as Ram. Hinduism (Induism - called by Chinese) is comprehensive enough that the concepts expounded by Buddha is engrained in core teachings. Within the Hindu family Shivism, Bishnavism and Buddhism and various other beliefs such as Tantrism are held equally. In fact, meditation (Buddhist think they own it!) was practiced by Hindus before Buddha's time and is still practiced. What buddha did was renew the message so that it fits the present mindset. I also have one question. Just changing few words by removing the "r" does not make your religion different. Yes, it may satisfy the rebel in you. But if you are going to confirm to fundamental beliefs of Hinduism then why not admit it. Why have you changed the following words by taking the "r" from them? Dharma, Karma. and saying Dhamma and Kamma. I respect your search for the truth which I hope you are doing. And I have no interest in trying to change your beliefs. Each person is responsible for his/her belief. But criticising others belief does not necessarily take you closer to the truth. Be mindful about it. |
| sewak | Posted
on 09-Nov-03 06:05 PM
Biruwa: Just wanted to correct your point before anyone else get misled. Buddhist and Buddha never said They own the meditation. the very fact of owning is developing ego which goes against a good practise. There are many commentary in the script about this matter. In fact Buddha said, "Nobody owns DHARMA. Dharma belongs to those who practise it." |
| Biruwa | Posted
on 09-Nov-03 06:22 PM
Sewak: Buddha never said Meditation is owned by Buddhists. There is no record of him trying to carve out a different religion. Since I did not say that about Buddha do not try to drag buddha into this. In fact I would like to correct you. You said buddha said Dharma belongs to those who practise it. But What is Dharma? Dharma is nature. We all know that the the apple Plant's dharma is to bear apples just like it is the water's Dharma to flow. Dharma cannot be possessed and yet people try to make it belong to them. Yes, Buddhists do act as if they own Meditation! And say that somehow Buddha's teachings are totally different than hindu(said first by the British) teachings. |
| Biruwa | Posted
on 09-Nov-03 06:28 PM
Just wanted to add 2 more lines :) Dharma just is. This word cannot be translated into the english word 'religion'. |
| sadabichar | Posted
on 09-Nov-03 07:26 PM
Biruwa wrote: >>I also have one question. Just changing few words by removing the "r" does not make your religion different. Yes, it may satisfy the rebel in you. But if you are going to confirm to fundamental beliefs of Hinduism then why not admit it. Why have you changed the following words by taking the "r" from them? Dharma, Karma. and saying Dhamma and Kamma." The language used at the time of Buddha was Pali. Therefore, all the teachings discourses done by Buddha was in Pali Language. And all the suttas documented are in Pali language. Therefore, in Pali the words are "dhamma" and "kamma". And the sanskrit version is "Dharma" and "karma". However, if you try to understand the meanings of "dhamma" and "kamma", they are difference between "dhamma" and "dharma" similarly, "kamma" with "karma" That's why it is suggested you try to learn the discourses in pali language itself. The translated version to any other language may offer you skewed version of the true meanings of Buddha's teachings. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 10-Nov-03 06:20 AM
I am answering a few of their points: >>3.The claim is not endorsed by the Archaeological Survey of India. So the claim about Maharabhat and Ramayan being written 1500 years ago is endorsed by the Archaeological Survey of India? Is it? No, it isn't. Its justa wild gueass on the part of Historians and Archaeologists. There was an article published in one of the Indian Newspapers (nava-bharat times) written by a prominent historian of India in 95-96. I don't remember the exact date, but its on one of their Sunday Supplemets. He has some good points to support that both ramayana and Mahabharata aren't more than 1500 years old. I eman, look at the facts: The odlest surviving copy of the Mahabharata was taken from the Bir Pustakalaya by the Bhadrakar research Institute and that's not 1500 eyars old. Yeah, its the same book that was used by the BR chopra et al. to make the Mahabahartata serial. 2. So Archaeologist or a history student reserve the sole rights to discover or analyze historical facets? In fact it was not even the lady but another of her amature friend who did those analysis. Please read the article more carefully. Well, to be honest and frank, Yes. Because, archeaologists and historians have the proper training to come to a conclusion regarding dating and deciphering codes/scripts. So, I would trust an archeaologist or a historian than jagat Guru Sankaracharya's claim of Ram's birth. I don't think looking for facts maes me a less of a Hindu. Come on, if we go by your don't ask questions regarding religion logic, then we have to believe that Budhanilkantha bhwgwan emerged from Patal, Changu Narayan emerged from a tree and so on. I respect those self-originate sentiments but having had an overdose of Archaeology and Religion while growing up, I do not believe in those. 3. Why would you think so? Unless you are also implying that the other figures mentioned in the verse are imaginary as well. Also the verse says nothing about ram being after Buddha. To me personally it is a null point. matsya avatar, Kurma Avatar etc were imagined later. I mean, there was no matsya kurma baraha avatar. This verse was used to explain the evolution. Hinduism is very symbolic and the old rishi munis thought that not everyone should know about everything, so they came up with this brilliant idea of coding. So, hidnsuism is all about coding and decoding. Biruwa, believe me, I have no rebel inside me and I am as hindu as you are. However, I tend to discard the findings like "ram was born here in this date" or " met Shiva in Kailash" |
| Biruwa | Posted
on 10-Nov-03 12:23 PM
Isolated Freak ji, It does not make any difference whether you are as hindu as I am. I am just disagreeing with your thoughts on the topic at hand and not with you as a person. I think two hindus can discuss too :-) We should all take every thing with a pinch of salt. But not considering anything that goes against your belief is folly. Your belief as you have stated above is that " I tend to discard the findings like "ram was born here in this date" or " met Shiva in Kailash". We must have our hearts and minds open to all possibilities. Yes, nothing is constant forever. If we don't know something then that does not mean it is untrue. If something doesn't feel possible that does not mean it is impossible. Many so called experts are funded by special interest groups. For instance, Sitara mentioned in one thread that there were so called egyptologists who were considered experts in their findings about the Pyramids at one time. At the time, there findings were taken as the ultimate truth. Then later came Archaeologists and other so called "experts". And their findings are now treated as the gospel. But is this the final ending? No! There will be new findings. In fact what we know about the past is ever changing. So I would not discard any findings out of hand, if I were you. Remember anything is possible! In fact new science has always been developed by amateurs. For rarely have the big funders trusted them. For instance wright brothers were amateurs of their time. When telephone was first developed Western Union internal memo said This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us. Ha, and look at the development in communication now. Some writings in Hindu Books (including Buddhist books) seems to works of fiction and they may well be. I would like to advise you not to look the other way but to try to understant what is written in them and their correlation to the discoveries being made by the researchers (including amateurs). |
| sewak | Posted
on 10-Nov-03 02:46 PM
Biruwa: I am relating Dharma in terms of what you believe in. You can stretch its meaning in many direction since it is very philosophical. But you know exactly what I mean. If you are one of those who thinks that Buddhist hold that point of view, then I have nothing to say. But note that you will always meet one of those psycho who may say that. In general, Buddhist never think Buddha own or invented the meditation. One of the approach of the Buddhism is to utilize various traditions for the goodness of living being. I also dont believe in any religion being greater or better than the other. If one feels good about what he/she believes in, then that's great. At the same time, we must respect others. And YES, there is vast difference as well as some similarities between BUDDHISM AND HINDUISM. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 11-Nov-03 07:07 AM
Some writings in Hindu Books (including Buddhist books) seems to works of fiction and they may well be. I would like to advise you not to look the other way but to try to understant what is written in them and their correlation to the discoveries being made by the researchers (including amateurs). This is exactly what I do. Unlike you, I try to udnerstand the symbolism behind those writings. Anyway,s we have totally opposing views, and I respect your views. namaste. |
| Biruwa | Posted
on 11-Nov-03 09:06 AM
Sewak: I have noticed that in pali language, mittra (friend) is called mitta. I also looked at various other words. This seems to indicate that the pali language doesn't have 'r' pronounciation. Is it so? and if yes then why? I hope you won't mind me asking this. I am interested in knowing what exactly do words like dhamma, kamma and mitta mean and how do they differ from the corresponding sanskrit or nepali words. IF, namaste. |
| sewak | Posted
on 11-Nov-03 02:35 PM
I have never read Pali and it is irrelevant to my argument. What I am saying is that we as Buddhist dont think WE OWN THE MEDITATION. Difference in R or whatever between dharma or dhamma & kamma or Karma or which ever you spell them dont matter to me. I am sure meditation has existed way before Buddha. I am just curious to know source of your Statement, " In fact, meditation (Buddhist think they own it!)." Because it bothers me greatly when other accuses Buddhist for no apparent reason. |