Well said Sir. The intellectual dishonesty in this thread is shocking. People who apparently have not even read a book - still used its name to concoct stories against a faith.
The person waxed eloquent that some verses of the Gita were edited by *somebody* in *some period* since they were inconvenient and antagonistic to the *Krishna Cult*. That person who claimed he had a copy - however - is as yet unable to produce a single verse to support his claim - except probably trying to boost the sales of some book. Healthy criticism bah! Vested interest group bah!
Shri KRN ji,
I have not run away, I am here only. As I said earlier, typing is difficult for me and that is the main reason for my inability to post the 45 verses in question here. I have no interest in promoting the book or its sales, but I thought that since you appeared to be very much conversant with almost the entire Sanskrit literature, and since you said you were posting from a smartphone, etc., it may not be difficult for you to buy a copy of that book (Rs. 350/=) and make use of all the info. available in it.
That was when I found you quoting that verse from M. Bh. wrongly in the Vaikuntha thread and thought that either your knowledge of sanskrit is shallow, like myself, or that you lack the metrical sense to realize that one Maatra was missing in that verse quoted in the post. I do not honestly think that I had argued that the BG was edited just to remove any anti-krishna material; if you can point out such post or posts of mine, I shall be very thankful. Anyway, I do not believe that our scriptures are some kind of sacrosanct things and that they are in any way different from the literary works of any later writer/poet/dramatist—from Bhasa to our current generation including Jeyamohan. I do believe therefore that all our scriptures including our vedas (whose accuracy was sought to be maintained by the "vikruti" readings, including the Jata parayanams, could have been altered, at some time or another.
In respect of BG all that I wanted to say was that the eliminaion of 45 verses could not have been without purpose; what that purpose is, I did not say - that is what I think at least. I wrote,
"Hence, it is very plausible that 45 verses had been 'edited out' for some reason or the other during the course of time."
Talking of intellectual dishonesty, one of my collegemates took up Sanskrit, to become a very well-known sanskrit scholar later on. Though an ignoramus in sanskrit myself, I thus came to know about Sastri, Bhasa's works, etc. I also know that even now those 15 plays are not accepted as Bhasa's works by many scholars including some from Kerala itself. When, in such circumstances, you made an obfuscating statement like
"After over 2 millennia Bhasa¡®s works are found preserved intact (Quotations by later dramatists found matching) in Kerala in the remote South - despite those works not following any of the later rules of dramaturgy.This shows the level of accurate transmission and preservation of ancient texts in the South. Editions if locally made would have been caught out.", I realized that it would be impossible to carry on any honest discussion with you, because you seem to consider your opponent as a fool and that you can go on making any kind of statement in order to defend your orthodox views. (Lying for God's sake!)
That was when I thought it best to follow the saying xxxx கண்டால் தூர விலகு, even though I had earlier appreciated you "
Shri KRN ji, you are very learned and it is a pleasure interacting with you." Hope I have clarified my position.
