When we think of Mahabharat, we usually considered it as Historical account of the King of Hastinapur. As a matter of fact we should analyze the entire Vedik scriptures and decide their validity as regards to History. Many a times we are compelled because of our sentimental attachement and some times because of social and political compulsions. We do not at any stage want to say that Ved Vyas did not write Mahabharat. What we are forcing with all humbleness is that it would be total injustice to our great rishis like Maharishi Valmiki and Ved Vyas if we simply consider them as History writers. The scriptures themselves proclaim about their non-historicity which we usually overlook. When we read some ridiculous story in these scriptures,we reason that people at time had the habbit of exagaration or In those days it was possible but now it is not. Sometimes, in the name of modern analysis we try to make out some moral,mundane, and Good & Bad kind of inferances from these stories. We belive that we must belive it as it is without any quries or deep analysis. What is important should be told without any baised. We should be open enough to see a person analyzing our beloved scriptures in a manner that would be more suitable in our scientific and technological pursuits. There is no point in arguing for the sake of arguments.
We as Indians have a very strange concept of self realizations. We belive that 'Namaskar' is the only way of self realization. We have some past cultivations regarding our religious aspects. We are born up with 'Namaskar' kind of enviornment. First time when we do 'Namaskar' we dont have any chance of knowing about it. Over the period we cultivate ourselves about 'Good' and how it is 'Bad' not to 'Namaskar'. In this sitiuation if someone tries to reason out the belief, we simply start using some highly intellectual sanskrit words. Most of the time we are not required and aware of it. It is very easy to confuse anybody(including ourselves) using some Sanskrit vocab. What is the point in arguing about the Vigyan and dry vigyan? Vigyan is Vigyan. We know it but we are force to say because of our past cultivations. We dont belive the utility of our scriptures for the modern sciences. We dont want to see Krishna getting understood in some different manner. We belive act of analyzing Radhe-Krishna in some scientific manner is itself an act of HOLES and by HOLES. We are tempted to reject this so vehmently that we dont respect the dignity of a person in suggesting that.
Analysis of Radha-Krishna was done with all respect and in accordance to the Ved Vyas. By doing that the importance of Radha or Krishna was never rejected but we still considered a new analysis as worth enough to be rejected in most inhumane fashion. We belive, by doing this our intemacy to Krisna would further increase! We at the same time want to be open minded and hence demand proof in the form of scriptures. We dont read Gita or we dont understand it. If some one tells us in some different fashion and in a manner that would require us to think more, then we are in trouble.
"We for last so many years are listening in the company of our Guru and this new person now is telling us something that is not told to us", we must reject this. The Guru himself have told us to listen to all corners and Guru himself have told us about openness one should have in religious teaching. We forget this and start applying our little brain to reject any other theory that does not suit us and that to in the name of Guru. This is the level and status of our understanding in religious studies. We are sure about our understanding that we say we can not become supreme. We forget basics of Vedic studies as "Aham Bramhasmi" and interpret the scriptures unnecessarily. We belive that entire intelligence is by chance available with us and anybody else who dares to apply intelligence to understand the scripturs is a greatest fool because he is not doing in accordance to our thought process.
So lets honor each other intelligence and appriciate the scripturs. We are going to do that if we belive in other person as we belive in ourselves.