01-09-2006, 11:30 AM
I'll just put the descriptions for a few more religions for comparison of dates (taken from same Encyclopedia) according to the 1977 worldview. It's quite instructive.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Hinduism</b>, Western term for the religion and social system of loosely-related sects which incl. most of India's pop. Has no single founder but grew over period of c 5000 years, assimilating many beliefs. All Hindus traditionally subscribe to caste system and the sacredness of Veda scriptures.
<b>Veda</b>, general term for scriptures of Hinduism. Oldest, Rig-Veda, incl. c 1000 hymns in praise of gods; Sama-Veda, incl. stanzas extracted from the former Yajur-Veda has liturgical formulas and Atharva Veda incantations to appease demons.
<b>Jainism</b>, Indian religion. Arose (c 6th cent. BC) with Buddhism as protest against formalism of Hinduism. Doctrine based on belief in eternity of all living things, stresses ascetism, respect for all forms of life. The soul retains identity through transmigration and eventually attains Nirvana. Adhered to by c 2 million Indians.
<b>Buddha</b>, (Sanskrit, = the enlightened one), title given to Siddhartha Gautama (c 563-483 BC), Indian ascetic, founder of Buddhism. Renounced luxury for ascetism following prophetic vision and after 6 years' contemplation found perfect enlightenment under sacred bo tree in Buddh Gaya, thus becoming the Buddha. Life then devoted to teaching path to enlightenment.
<b>Buddhism</b>, religion of followers of Buddha, widespread in SE Asia, China and Japan; originally related to Hinduism, it was in part reaction against its formalism. The 'four noble truths' are: life is sorrow; origin of sorrow is desire; sorrow ceases when desire ceases; desire is ended by following the 'noble eightfold path'. That path comprises: right belief, right resolve, right speech, right conduct, right occupation, right effort, right contemplation, right meditation. Final goal is Nirvana, the annihilation of desires and passions and the cessation of rebirth. See Mahayana and Zen Buddhism.
<b>Taoism</b>, Chinese religion and philosophy. Based on book Tao-teh-king, traditionally ascribed to Lao-tse (6th cent. BC) but prob. written 3rd cent. By AD 5th cent., developed into religious system with influences from Mahayana Buddhism. Emphasized effortless action, cessation of all striving. Condemned social philosophy of Confucius.
<b>Confucius</b>, latinized form of K'ung Fu-tzu (c 551-c 479 BC), Chinese philosopher and social reformer. Advocate of ethical system founded on absolute justice and moderation with the aim of stabilizing society. Teachings became basis of Confucianism, developed as state religion with adherence to traditional values.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't approve of the given dates for old religions like Jainism and Taoism. And the date for Buddhism according to Mahayana Buddhists in China is supposed to be 1000 BCE*, which present Western scholarship is spending a lot of time fighting. Taoism is traditionally dated to the Yellow Emperor - considered mythic in some circles - though said to be written down by Lao-tse in the 6th century BCE, but who will I trust? The Chinese Taoists or the Bible-dependent western 'scholars' dating others' religions?
It's good to see that back in 1977, they didn't lie about the currently popular "Buddhism and Jainism arose as protests against the caste system", but the more accurate version: as protest against ritualism. Although, instead of "Nirvana", Jainism's entry should have contained the word "Kaivalya".
And about Buddhism they accurately said "originally related to Hinduism". Something the secularists are in denial about.
The Vedas here are left without a date, but it's nice to know that at least in 1977-1981, Hinduism was still given an ancientry of 2500 BCE.
The Encarta Encyclopaedia Editions of 1996 and even of 1998 or 1999 had a page on <i>Hinduism </i>that dated the Vedas to 2500 BCE, and a page on the <i>Vedas</i> in the same Encarta edition that dated it to 1500 BCE. Two different both non-Indian non-Hindu authors had written these two articles. Today the online Encarta, like Wikipedia, is open for all to 'contribute', and the Vedas is now dated to 1000 BCE - 800 BCE I think! Probably due to our very own Christian lobby.
Our dates keep getting nearer to present, while Zoroastrianism is starting to get pushed back to 1000 BCE in the present Encarta, Wikipedia and elsewhere and is even moved to further back in time (even 1200 BCE and 1500 BCE). However, the contributors are not consistent as it is a fact that it can not go beyond the date of the Vedas. That's because the Vedic Sanskrit of the Vedas is older than the Iranian language used in Zoroaster's scripture of the Avesta. The Avesta's dating has always been determined by the dating of the Vedas. See http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/bo...t/ch13.htm (look for the word Zoroaster).
Ironically, Jains and Taoists and even some Buddhists are allowed to claim much older dates for their religions (Jains and Taoists date them to somewhere in 1000 BCE or even earlier) at least unofficially. But Hinduism's date isn't allowed to budge. With the invention of the AIT, the Jains belong to invading Aryans too, so upper limit on Jainism's age is also determined by the AIT.
The Zoroastrians themselves seem to give various dates for Zoroaster: 600 BCE, 1000 BCE and 6000 BCE, so perhaps there were several Zoroasters merged into one. On the other hand, that 6000 BCE is likelier when the Vedas gets pushed back to a more acceptable date too (comparatively 8000 BCE or 9000 BCE).
*The preoccupation of dating Buddha in current <b>Indology</b> is quite interesting. Skim the introduction of The Dating of the Historical Buddha: A Review Article for the dates (East-Asia has Buddha's time ranging between 1000 BCE to 700 BCE)
And then read the conclusion of the paper:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->From the point of view of reasonable probability the evidence seems to favour some kind of median chronology and we should no doubt speak of a date for the Buddha's Mahaparinibbana of <b>c.400 B.C </b>- I choose the round number deliberately to indicate that the margins are rather loose.
It follows that the <b>date of Mahavira and kings such as Pasenadi or Bimbisara must be correspondingly brought down</b>, as they are part of the same historical context. Probably also the date of the <b>Upanisads must be later and possible connexions with the Greek world must be rethought.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->With it they want to not only frustrate Buddhism (setting Buddha's life about a century lower than ever before), but also Jainism and our Upanishads. Negating the well-known and well-researched fact of Buddhist influence on Christianity via Greece seems to be their main goal.
Or perhaps they merely want to undo the results of the research of the book The Shape of Ancient Thought: Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies which shows that what's known as the fundamentals of Western civilisation isn't purely western.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Hinduism</b>, Western term for the religion and social system of loosely-related sects which incl. most of India's pop. Has no single founder but grew over period of c 5000 years, assimilating many beliefs. All Hindus traditionally subscribe to caste system and the sacredness of Veda scriptures.
<b>Veda</b>, general term for scriptures of Hinduism. Oldest, Rig-Veda, incl. c 1000 hymns in praise of gods; Sama-Veda, incl. stanzas extracted from the former Yajur-Veda has liturgical formulas and Atharva Veda incantations to appease demons.
<b>Jainism</b>, Indian religion. Arose (c 6th cent. BC) with Buddhism as protest against formalism of Hinduism. Doctrine based on belief in eternity of all living things, stresses ascetism, respect for all forms of life. The soul retains identity through transmigration and eventually attains Nirvana. Adhered to by c 2 million Indians.
<b>Buddha</b>, (Sanskrit, = the enlightened one), title given to Siddhartha Gautama (c 563-483 BC), Indian ascetic, founder of Buddhism. Renounced luxury for ascetism following prophetic vision and after 6 years' contemplation found perfect enlightenment under sacred bo tree in Buddh Gaya, thus becoming the Buddha. Life then devoted to teaching path to enlightenment.
<b>Buddhism</b>, religion of followers of Buddha, widespread in SE Asia, China and Japan; originally related to Hinduism, it was in part reaction against its formalism. The 'four noble truths' are: life is sorrow; origin of sorrow is desire; sorrow ceases when desire ceases; desire is ended by following the 'noble eightfold path'. That path comprises: right belief, right resolve, right speech, right conduct, right occupation, right effort, right contemplation, right meditation. Final goal is Nirvana, the annihilation of desires and passions and the cessation of rebirth. See Mahayana and Zen Buddhism.
<b>Taoism</b>, Chinese religion and philosophy. Based on book Tao-teh-king, traditionally ascribed to Lao-tse (6th cent. BC) but prob. written 3rd cent. By AD 5th cent., developed into religious system with influences from Mahayana Buddhism. Emphasized effortless action, cessation of all striving. Condemned social philosophy of Confucius.
<b>Confucius</b>, latinized form of K'ung Fu-tzu (c 551-c 479 BC), Chinese philosopher and social reformer. Advocate of ethical system founded on absolute justice and moderation with the aim of stabilizing society. Teachings became basis of Confucianism, developed as state religion with adherence to traditional values.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't approve of the given dates for old religions like Jainism and Taoism. And the date for Buddhism according to Mahayana Buddhists in China is supposed to be 1000 BCE*, which present Western scholarship is spending a lot of time fighting. Taoism is traditionally dated to the Yellow Emperor - considered mythic in some circles - though said to be written down by Lao-tse in the 6th century BCE, but who will I trust? The Chinese Taoists or the Bible-dependent western 'scholars' dating others' religions?
It's good to see that back in 1977, they didn't lie about the currently popular "Buddhism and Jainism arose as protests against the caste system", but the more accurate version: as protest against ritualism. Although, instead of "Nirvana", Jainism's entry should have contained the word "Kaivalya".
And about Buddhism they accurately said "originally related to Hinduism". Something the secularists are in denial about.
The Vedas here are left without a date, but it's nice to know that at least in 1977-1981, Hinduism was still given an ancientry of 2500 BCE.
The Encarta Encyclopaedia Editions of 1996 and even of 1998 or 1999 had a page on <i>Hinduism </i>that dated the Vedas to 2500 BCE, and a page on the <i>Vedas</i> in the same Encarta edition that dated it to 1500 BCE. Two different both non-Indian non-Hindu authors had written these two articles. Today the online Encarta, like Wikipedia, is open for all to 'contribute', and the Vedas is now dated to 1000 BCE - 800 BCE I think! Probably due to our very own Christian lobby.
Our dates keep getting nearer to present, while Zoroastrianism is starting to get pushed back to 1000 BCE in the present Encarta, Wikipedia and elsewhere and is even moved to further back in time (even 1200 BCE and 1500 BCE). However, the contributors are not consistent as it is a fact that it can not go beyond the date of the Vedas. That's because the Vedic Sanskrit of the Vedas is older than the Iranian language used in Zoroaster's scripture of the Avesta. The Avesta's dating has always been determined by the dating of the Vedas. See http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/bo...t/ch13.htm (look for the word Zoroaster).
Ironically, Jains and Taoists and even some Buddhists are allowed to claim much older dates for their religions (Jains and Taoists date them to somewhere in 1000 BCE or even earlier) at least unofficially. But Hinduism's date isn't allowed to budge. With the invention of the AIT, the Jains belong to invading Aryans too, so upper limit on Jainism's age is also determined by the AIT.
The Zoroastrians themselves seem to give various dates for Zoroaster: 600 BCE, 1000 BCE and 6000 BCE, so perhaps there were several Zoroasters merged into one. On the other hand, that 6000 BCE is likelier when the Vedas gets pushed back to a more acceptable date too (comparatively 8000 BCE or 9000 BCE).
*The preoccupation of dating Buddha in current <b>Indology</b> is quite interesting. Skim the introduction of The Dating of the Historical Buddha: A Review Article for the dates (East-Asia has Buddha's time ranging between 1000 BCE to 700 BCE)
And then read the conclusion of the paper:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->From the point of view of reasonable probability the evidence seems to favour some kind of median chronology and we should no doubt speak of a date for the Buddha's Mahaparinibbana of <b>c.400 B.C </b>- I choose the round number deliberately to indicate that the margins are rather loose.
It follows that the <b>date of Mahavira and kings such as Pasenadi or Bimbisara must be correspondingly brought down</b>, as they are part of the same historical context. Probably also the date of the <b>Upanisads must be later and possible connexions with the Greek world must be rethought.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->With it they want to not only frustrate Buddhism (setting Buddha's life about a century lower than ever before), but also Jainism and our Upanishads. Negating the well-known and well-researched fact of Buddhist influence on Christianity via Greece seems to be their main goal.
Or perhaps they merely want to undo the results of the research of the book The Shape of Ancient Thought: Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies which shows that what's known as the fundamentals of Western civilisation isn't purely western.