If people find some scriptural statements historically incorrect, how do we respond?

This is an AI-generated transcript and it might not be fully accurate:

Historical Objections to Scripture: A Valid Concern

Sometimes people have historical objections to the Scripture. I think that’s a valid concern

saying in emperor religion, it has what is called a sacred history. Now sacred history and what

you can call as empirical history. They often don’t agree. So that the normal academic or

actual tendency was to dismiss sacred history as was, as mythological.

Sacred History and Empirical History

But especially in the Middle East it has happened that say for example many things you talk about the Bible in the

Old Testament, New Testament also. Some extent the Quran but the Quran doesn’t have so much of

a that Old is different. Mometh came about in 676th century.

So the thing is many things you are dismissed by historians as mythological. As further research has been done as excavations have been done, archaeological studies have been done. Many cities which were considered mythological have turned out to be actually historical.

From Myth to History: Changing Scholarly Views

So like that I think by around 2000 the mainstream Academy of Pianian was a Christianized and mythological figure. But after the excavations in the arkah of the coast, almost gradually almost all historians and all I would say majority historians accept that Kṛṣṇa existed.

So now history can never prove that Kṛṣṇa was God, Kṛṣṇa is God.

Limits of History and Science

See that is what history can prove is that Kṛṣṇa is a person existed.

Now can history prove that he was God? No that’s a even if Kṛṣṇa were here right now. Now how would science prove that Kṛṣṇa is God? How would history prove that Kṛṣṇa is God?

We can say that the sort of actions done in those actions are evidence that he is God. But that’s ultimately whether somebody is divine or not the world for that has to be in each human heart.

Challenges of Historical Evidence in the Indian Context

So now within the Indian tradition, the three factors that we consider, first is that India is extremely hot and because of that the tropical climate means everything gets destroyed, the territory will be destroyed. It doesn’t last.

Like food gets food in the hot burden, like that parchment. So what indications of the past can we have?

Written Records and Architecture

So one is if you have parchment like written record, parchment is getting destroyed and it will get damaged very easily.

The second is architecture. Now India has a history of invasions. So architecture, how much remains do we have? That’s a question.

It’s how India we have some, but North India has been huge amount of invasions.

Fossils and Cremation Practices

Now we could go into fossils. But the problem with that is that the whole field of paleontology, studies fossils is based on the assumption that people who die are buried.

But in the Indian tradition there’s cremation. So there could have been millions of people who have been living who had lived and who would not have a single fossil of that.

So in that sense, many of the assumptions and assumes that define historical study from the West, West and Perspective, they do not apply the Indian perspective.

Absence of Evidence Is Not Evidence of Absence

So having said this, there is a principle in historical research, which has to be, which has to be, which is relevant, but has to be carefully understood.

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Now of course, the absence of evidence is not proof of presence also, but it is not just, it is not evidence of absence. So it’s just that we don’t know.

Archaeology and the Ram Temple Case

So for example, the Ram temple in India that just my historical research itself, the case was made that there was a temple over there, that there’s not thousands of years ago. But it’s a few hundred years ago, at least there was a temple over there.

So I think there’s a lot of scope for archaeological research historical research by which the case can be made stronger.

Domains of Reality in Vedic History

Now with respect to something like say the King Xuwaku and other things, many of these things are described as different domains of reality.

In the Vedic history, that the celestial and the terrestrial, what happens in the heavens and what happens in the earth? So almost like a seamless connection between the two.

Limits of Archaeology in Celestial Narratives

So what has happened in the celestial level? No amount of historical research is going to point to evidence of Brahma from his naval, from from his naval universe coming out of a Brahma, the four-headed in Kameh.

Brahma doesn’t exist on the earth.

So I would say that to some extent, we need to recognize that there are domains of reality or domains of the Vedic universe, which are going to forever be beyond the scope of historical research to either prove or despot.

What Can Be Proven, and What May Yet Be Discovered

Now, but are there areas which can be proven? I think that it’s definitely a lot. And as research is happening, I think more and more will become manifest.

So if somebody thinks of this as nonhistorical, well, I think we have to recognize, we have to explain to them that this is our our scriptures teachings.

There is a historical element in them.

History-Centered vs Principle-Centered Traditions

But our scriptures are not as history centered as say, “Juddha is a Mokraschayaniya Islam.”

Because what happens in each of these or at least Christianity in Islam, there is one key feature and a whole religious industry is centered on that one feature.

So if there were no Jesus, then there would be no Christianity.

Sanatana Dharma Beyond a Single Historical Event

But if there had been no Krishna, no Krishna means the descent of Krishna to the world.

Sanatana there have always still have been there because there are so many of that as.

So if you see, there are some religious, there are more history centered and the Vedic tradition broadly is more principle centered, more teaching center, more truth centered.

Teachings That Transcend Historical Verification

So dharma, you know, so that’s why even if particular historical truths cannot be proven, that does not in itself invalidate the core teachings of iteration.

Because our teachings, like even when Krishna is teaching the Bhagavad Gita, he says that I am repeating what was taught in the past, that he’s summarising in a particular context and establishing some links which we not so highlighted in the past.

Continuity of Knowledge in the Gita

But he is, it is not Krishna is creating some new knowledge which he’s saying has never been given before.

He says that the Vishvarup Darshan that he gave, that was Athurushtapurbo.

But not to the knowledge itself says, “Pura, in the sense of being spoken in the past and I am repeating it now.”

Addressing Historical Concerns Without Making Them Central

So that’s I think history, the concerns of those who interest in history need to be acknowledged.

But it’s also need to be clearly explained that those concerns, why they have been addressed, why they have not been addressed, how they can be addressed and may be addressed in the future.

Spirituality as Experiential Knowledge

And more importantly, why those concerns need not be primary concerns in somebody is studying spirituality or study, but this spirituality of an experiential danger.