Ishwa helper Reged: 03/03/02 Posts: 553

Re: Rama & MEAT (he did or didn't eat meat) [Re: dhilwala2001] #18621 - 07/10/02 06:21 PM Edit Reply Quote

Of course there are inaccuracies when there are more versions, and that's very interesting. But then it's up to investigators to reconstruct the story. I understand that you don't bother about historical values, but how can you then ever say anything about the historical value when you don't bother? What exactly is accurate and what not and how can you underline this? Who says that the preaching message is a part of the Ramayana? That was my point. If one cannot say anything about the historicity, how can one say anything about the spirituality, for one needs to READ and then UNDERSTAND the work(s), which you obviously didn't. Being spiritual or preaching. etc. doesn't bother me at all. The only thing is when there are remarks off the point without substantiating. It becomes really odd, when the work(s) in question aren't even read, but relied upon referring to a another one. This is not clinching to texts, another assumption, but just the way people are used to working to substantiate anything from texts to avoid hollow phrases. What makes you think that someone who is working with texts is clinching to the texts? And what makes you think that anything in the books is accepted as 100% truth? Where are you looking for which Kingdom? Hinduism doesn't know any Kingdom (and for sure not outside oneself). That is clinching to the idea of seeking something outside, the Kingdom, which is very alien to Hinduism. These are a lot of assumptions. But then faith without an historical base is assuming?