,
4 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
Interesting thread on the Hindu canon and its evolution
There are two extremes
1. A historicist tendency to sequence texts...e.g...samhita->brahmana->upanishad->itihAsas->purANas
2. A naive traditionalist view that the shruti canon is apaurusheya and anAdi
There are two extremes
1. A historicist tendency to sequence texts...e.g...samhita->brahmana->upanishad->itihAsas->purANas
2. A naive traditionalist view that the shruti canon is apaurusheya and anAdi
The former assumes that texts can be bucketed into specific timeframes
This approach bases itself on the current recension of the texts, and ignores that many of these "texts" were originally oral traditions which have undergone much accretion
This approach bases itself on the current recension of the texts, and ignores that many of these "texts" were originally oral traditions which have undergone much accretion
So while it may be true that the current recension of the mahApurANas is likely much younger than the early upanishads, there may be parts of the mahApurANas which indeed date back to the late Vedic period, as the thread hints
The latter extreme avoids historical analysis altogether
Denies history and historical processes so to speak
And assumes that every text is immeasurably old.
This tendency found among many "neo-trads" is equally problematic
Denies history and historical processes so to speak
And assumes that every text is immeasurably old.
This tendency found among many "neo-trads" is equally problematic
