Read on Twitter
"<insert random western scholar> considers the origin of the name Vishnu as obscure and possibly non-Aryan"
+
+
"Number of deities and their cults got assimilated in the Vedic religion of Vishnu. Narayana is one among them"
+
+
"In course of time Vasudeva-Krishna too was recognised as an incarnation of Vishnu"
+
+
"The earliest evidence in favour of the identification of Narayana with Vishnu probably to be traced in the Baudhayana Dharma-Sutra (about the fifth century B.C.)"
+
+
"The Taittiriya Aranyaka (X.II) contains the passage. Narayanaya vidmahe Vasudevaya dhimahi, tan no Vishnuh pracodayat, in which Narayana, Vasudeva and Vishnu are regarded as one and the same deity"
+
+
"Here Narayana is aslo called Hari and the 'Eternal Deity', the Supreme, and Lord. But this part of Taittiriya Aranyaka is a later addition and appears to be considerably later than Baudhayana Dharma- Sutra.."
+
+
All lines from this book
"Mythology of Vishnu and His Incarnations"
(Sourced from Google books)
+
"Mythology of Vishnu and His Incarnations"
(Sourced from Google books)
+
Clear illustration of why their methods are of no use for us.
I landed on this book as i was doing some reading of Pandit Madhavacharya Sastri's "Puran Digdarshan".
A masterclass of sorts on understanding our stories based on our own drishti / worldview.
+
I landed on this book as i was doing some reading of Pandit Madhavacharya Sastri's "Puran Digdarshan".
A masterclass of sorts on understanding our stories based on our own drishti / worldview.
+
The traditional understanding of our sources is poles apart from the historian and indologist reading. No truce is possible. Just not possible. If you take the indologist/historian view seriously you can't believe in your Gods ..period.
/End
/End
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
