spin

The context of a statement is important. By taking it out of context, as you have done here, you miss the import. The context is "one's biases" (as in interpreting the world "from where we are"). Science does indeed proceed on the basis of testing one's hypotheses, but our biases make the need for certain testing difficult to see and make us construct false theses, as in the case of Percival Lowell's gas giant outside the orbit of Neptune or of Michelson & Morley's search for ether and thinking their experiment a failure for not finding it.

(And plainly, in the post you responded to I wasn't talking about science, mentioning politicians, historians and religionists.)


spin

Roger Pearse

Ouch.

Nothing respectable is ever introduced with those words, and we need to treat them as a red flag, whether we write or read them. As a rule such phrasing means "I hope that... but I certainly don't know of any concrete evidence".

All the best,

Roger Pearse

semiopen

It would not be surprising if you turned out to be the most knowledgeable contributor here Roger.

No Robots

I see what you did there.

rcscwc

Does SA know modern and pre modern Sanskrit too. Cause Bhagvat Purana is mostly in pre modern Sanskrit. Or like Graves et el she depends on translations. There arte pitfalls. Graves etc. mention Bhagvata Gita as their source of Krishna's crucifixation. IT DOES NOT have that account at all.

Solo

так правилъно: зта статъя нет единственным источником моего мнения. Если у тебя настоящий интерес к вопросам русской традиции двоеверия по отношению к богу Перуну, советуйся по следующем:

В. Петрухин. «Проводы Перуна»: древнерусский «фольклор» и византийская традиция // Язык культуры: семантика и грамматика. М., 2004

Jiri

GakuseiDon

(modified and bumped for Dave)
Yes, and is that not the strangest thing??? Here is what she writes at the top of that article (my emphasis):
http://www.truthbeknown.com/kcrucified.htm

"This article represents reportage of a debate and does not draw any firm conclusion as to whether or not Krishna was ever depicted as "crucified" in the Christian sense"

But the sources she uses do MOST DEFINITELY state that Krishna was portrayed as crucified -- one below actually says "like Christ" and another says "on a tree", even.

So: Are her sources wrong? If so, why use them? If not, why does she doubt them? Can you answer this conundrum, Dave?

Here are what her sources write:
http://www.truthbeknown.com/kcrucified.htm

Doane: ... we find that Crishna is represented hanging on a cross, and we know that a cross was frequently called the so cursed tree. It was an ancient custom to use trees as gibbets for crucifixion, or, if artificial, to call the cross a tree

Acharya: However, it is not just tradition but artifacts that have led to the conclusion that Krishna was crucified. Indeed, there have been found in India numerous images of crucified gods, one of whom apparently is Krishna, important information not to be encountered in mainstream resources such as encyclopedias.

Dr. Inman: Crishna, whose history so closely resembles our Lord's, was also like him in his being crucified.

Acharya: Thus, we discover from some of the more erudite Christian writers, admitting against interest, that images of a Indian god crucified, with nail holes in the feet, had been discovered in India, and that this god was considered to be Krishna, as Wittoba.

Acharya: To be sure, an image of a crucified Krishna, prior to Christianity, is a fact not easily ignored, and one must wonder how it came to be so disregarded.

So Dave, WHY exactly is Acharya "not drawing any firm conclusion" that Krishna was crucified (in the Christian sense)? Does she not have confidence in her sources?

rcscwc

http://www.truthbeknown.com/kcrucified.htm

The picture at top is not even in Indian style. It is ALL WRONG. Dress is WRONG. It is more like an Egyptian outfit than anything else.

Second one seems to be Roman. Roman gods are frequently shown in the nude, but never so in case of Hindus.

Third one clearly of xian origin.

AS thinks that encyclopreduas are main sources. WRONG. In case of Krishna, one and only one primary sources is valis: Bhagavar Purana. If AS has not gone though it, then it is due her dishonesty. Period.

GakuseiDon

(bumped for Dave)

rcscwc

Acharyas

What is an ACHARYA? Hindus bestow this title to a learned, truthful, unbiased and wise teacher. An Acharya MUST tell the pupils all the pros and cons of a particuler issue and leave the judgement to the pupils. He should not berate or insult the pupil if latter's interpretation deiffers. A teacher is ARROGANT if (s)he ASSUMES this title. Shankar is called Shankaracharya by the Hindus, and this suffix is attached to many other teachers and philosophers, not only of religion but even secular sceinces too.

Anyone who calls him(herslf/ an Acharya have to be charaltans in Hindun eyes, even if they claim that Krishna was CRUCIFIED. Even an indirect claim falls in that category.

Given that clarification about an acharya...