[Assam] beef-eating in india: History is from Hindu texts?

[umesh sharma]

Iraq war took place as did WW2 -we have some evidence of it now. What is the certainty that this evidence would remain after 5,000 years -when all the damaged aircrafts, guns , cannon and warships are melted and used to make some other tools: When the buildings  are remade to house new tenants.
   
  The only facts (historically provable ) would be the texts, photographs etc -to prove Iraq war o WW2 took place. Similarly about Jesus or Hitler or anyone including my great grandfather (i have no DNA match to prove that he was really my great grandfather --we all believe so -about our anscestors:) ). Hindu texts are first and foremost --written texts -the few written texts or knowledge we have about that era. 
   
  Why pick and choose. Why take up a small issue of who ate what and not who was the king and what wars and polictics took place in those days - gleaned from these texts?
   
  It can be argued that if some Hindu saint today wrote some literary piece or was quoted in some newsreport as admonishing or cautioning some small segment of  Hindus (read tribals , neo-converts etc) not to eat beef (which they had been doing earlier -as in NE India USA's ISKCON members etc)-----and later such a text is found after 5,000 years --they might assume that all Hindus today eat beef---going by your logic of quoting Hindu texts.
   
  Your comments are welcome.
   
  Umesh

xourov pathok <xourov at yahoo.com> wrote:
  

--- umesh sharma wrote:

> even Xourav-da's article quotes only Hindu religious
> texts --where is the historical info -- which is not
> in religious tests. Why don't you believe Hindu
> texts when they say that Mahabharat war took place
> and Ram and Krishna etc were heroes born and bred in
> India. Why do you declare them to be myths -and they
> do not find a place in history of ancient India.
> Why such one-sided version of history --why cow
> killing is more important that the Mahabharat war?
> 

a point to note here is that something is historical
if someone or something bears witness to things. 
things are never so clear cut in real life and a very
reliable witness is rare, but this is a good thumb
rule. generally, if there are more than one witness,
our confidence increases.

religious texts are excellent witnesses to certain
things. religious belief systems, for instance. if
you wanted to find out what christianity believes in,
then the bible is an excellent source. 

but the bible is not a good guide for other things. 
like the historicity of jesus christ, for instance. 
this has to be backed up from other sources too. 
leave alone the historicity of the seize of troy even
the existence of troy is not fully established.

you may hate history for it, but generally this is
the best choice.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

_______________________________________________
assam mailing list
assam at assamnet.org
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org



Umesh Sharma
5121 Lackawanna ST
College Park, MD 20740

 1-202-215-4328 [Cell Phone]

Ed.M. - International Education Policy
Harvard Graduate School of Education,
Harvard University,
Class of 2005

weblog: http://jaipurschool.bihu.in/
 		
---------------------------------
Win tickets to the 2006 FIFA World Cup Germany with Yahoo! Messenger.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.assamnet.org/pipermail/assam-assamnet.org/attachments/20060618/3e8bf5a1/attachment.htm>