Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 26 Jul 2014 15:58

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8328 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187 ... 209  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 06 Mar 2013 19:36 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14030
shiv wrote:

Impressive List!

Makes it all the more regretful that we failed to adopt Sanskrit as our national language! With the help of Russians, one could have even made it into the primary international language! Instead we have English!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Mar 2013 20:03 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 22461
Location: Embarrassed by fresh-off-the-boat Indians
RajeshA wrote:
shiv wrote:

Impressive List!

Makes it all the more regretful that we failed to adopt Sanskrit as our national language! With the help of Russians, one could have even made it into the primary international language! Instead we have English!


Rajesh Russia and other Slavic speaking nations all have languages similar to Sanskrit. All have R1a1a1 (M17) which originated in India 12,000 years ago and all have R1a1a7 (M458) which originated in Poland 6,000 years ago, but never came to India so Indians don't have that. M17 moved out, evolved and got a mutation M458. That stayed in Europe.

Go figure


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Mar 2013 20:27 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 17 Feb 2012 20:45
Posts: 1886
shiv garu, in fact until you mentioned (long back) about the absence of M458 in Indian version of R1A1A , it was very difficult for me to see the directionality of the genetic flow. Even wiki entries makes it look the flow is from W-E. I thank you for that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Mar 2013 20:33 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 17 Apr 2006 20:02
Posts: 2559
on russia, i have book published by the kanchi matha (prolly authored by jayendra saraswati, cant remember).

in that, the author mentions parts of russia as a part of the vedic sphere. movement from there to here and here to there he says was matter of fact. he also mentions some of the cognates in that list (shweta, sveta etc).

at the time i thought it was interesting. if the movement was so matter of fact, why did it stop i wondered. why not greater cultural transfusion in later stages?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Mar 2013 20:39 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 13 Aug 2005 02:41
Posts: 612
Location: Bangalore
In Lithuanian "my" is mum similar to Sanskrit mum:
We also need to see the resemblance to Prakrit. As I feel while Sanskrit was like pure form of language the more prevalent form was Prakrit. Similar to chaste Prayag Allahabad Hindi compared to more common tongue we speak.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Mar 2013 20:57 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 22461
Location: Embarrassed by fresh-off-the-boat Indians
venug wrote:
shiv garu, in fact until you mentioned (long back) about the absence of M458 in Indian version of R1A1A , it was very difficult for me to see the directionality of the genetic flow. Even wiki entries makes it look the flow is from W-E. I thank you for that.


More than one genetics paper (all of which I have downloaded) record this fact. R1a was initially touted as the Indo-European gene - but once M17 was found to have originated in India the enthusiasm for the Indo-European gene dwindled. The other thing is that we on BRF are merely slaves to world opinioon that slobbers after English language research papers and books. Start looking at non English sources and you find all sorts of alternate views that are suppressed by an academic caste system.

We need to overturn this rubbish.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Mar 2013 21:25 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 17 Feb 2012 20:45
Posts: 1886
Quote:
The other thing is that we on BRF are merely slaves to world opinioon that slobbers after English language research papers and books. Start looking at non English sources and you find all sorts of alternate views that are suppressed by an academic caste system.


I agree, I have this tendency, Like Rajan ji, anything that is said or mentioned in the 'peer reviewed English journals' is taken to be a fact, I don't think twice if there are alternative views in circulation and how much truth exists in the published journals or if the material is engineered to force a point of view.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Mar 2013 21:26 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14030
shiv wrote:
Rajesh Russia and other Slavic speaking nations all have languages similar to Sanskrit. All have R1a1a1 (M17) which originated in India 12,000 years ago and all have R1a1a7 (M458) which originated in Poland 6,000 years ago, but never came to India so Indians don't have that. M17 moved out, evolved and got a mutation M458. That stayed in Europe.

Go figure


I tried to make a summary of possible migrations Out-of-India based on genetics.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2013 07:50 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 27 Jul 2012 21:32
Posts: 1092
Shiv ji, Rajesh ji, Venug ji et al..

This is wonderful stuff (Russian/slavic languages and Sanskrit). Both Ramayana and Mahabharata have geographical descriptions that allows one to assert knowledge of geography (at least) straight north from India to Arctic sea (including route via Gobi desert).

Keep up your good work.

Nilesh


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2013 16:43 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14030
Books for the Library


Image

Sanskrit Studies: Vol. 2, Samvat 2063-64 (CE 2006-07) [Amazon]
Author: Wagish Shukla
Publication Date: December 30, 2007

Description
The cultural heritage of India is marked by the Sanskrit intellectual tradition whose flowering resulted in rich literature and development of philosophy, art and the sciences. Sanskrit Studies vol. 2 is the second issue showcasing the rich ancient heritage of Sanskrit brought out by the Centre.

This volume is a collection of articles that throws light on various aspects of the Sanskrit tradition. The scholarly writings deal with schools of interpretation of the Vedas like the Niruktas and the Itihasas and evidences and arguments for a pre-Harappan date of composition for the Rigveda. They examine atomistic doctrines in Indian thought tradition, the charms and spells that constitute the Atharvaveda, the place of the Hindu women vis-a-vis ancient Indian society and traditions, and the philosophy and the aesthetics of rasa. Throughout they cite ancient Indian epics and mythologies, religious thoughts, literary works, philosophical traditions and scientific achievements to carry out a thorough and comprehensive study of the subject. There is an interesting article on issues involved in comparative studies of philosophies of two different traditions, as of the East and the West.

The volume will appeal to students, teachers and scholars of Indology.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2013 20:28 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47
Posts: 1916
There is something interesting to ponder on:

There are 4 festivals: Valentine's Day, April Fool's Day, Halloween, Christmas.

I think all these 4 festivals are Pagan festivals originally which were later given christian coloring by church.

These festivals have corresponding Hindu festivals.

Valentine's day == Vasant(Basant) Utsav (Spring Festival) & Holi.
April Fool's day (original New Year) == Ugadi or Gudi Padva (Hindu New Year).
Halloween == Pitru Amavasya.
Christmas == Makara Sankranti.

Pumpkins play a special role in Halloween. Why? According to the Hindu literature, Pumpkins(Kushmanda) are the favourite food of pitris(deceased ancestors). Pitri Amavasya is day, just a few days before Dusherra, which is marked for performing Shraaddha of the pitris. Halloween falls very close to this.

The differences in the exact dates may be explained due to the changes in the calendar. Most of the Indian festivals(except Makara Sankranti) follow Lunar Calendar. So, the dates can vary.

Holi and Basant Utsav are the days when young girls and boys enjoy themselves. Romans used to follow similar festival(most probably they inherited it from the earlier cultures). This was given a christian makeover by the church.

Similarly, Makara Sankranti was made it into the birthday of Jesus, while Sunday was made into the holyday.

The connections are obvious. There is a definite Hindu connection. So, the theory is that once upon a time all the humanity followed a single religion(Hinduism) with some local variations. The newer ideologies sprang from Hinduism(or some derivative of Hinduism). These newer ideologies altered/erased the local customs. But, there are still certain points that could not be altered/erased which reveal the common Hindu past of the entire world.

shiv wrote:


Fantastic list. But, did you notice that the blog has following claim:

Quote:
Compared to Sanskrit, Russian phonetics has not undergone a drastic change.


So, this genius claims that Russian did not undergo change, but Sanskrit underwent drastic change...! Woah...! Mindblowing...!

K Mehta wrote:
In Lithuanian "my" is mum similar to Sanskrit mum:
We also need to see the resemblance to Prakrit. As I feel while Sanskrit was like pure form of language the more prevalent form was Prakrit. Similar to chaste Prayag Allahabad Hindi compared to more common tongue we speak.


Indeed, Sanskrit(s) and Prakrit(s) are not two different languages, but rather one and the same. Sanskrit is chaste Prakrit or Prakrit is rustic Sanskrit. Sanskrit is a more standardized version, while Prakrits retain the local variations and flavour.

X-posting from Off-topic thread:
johneeG wrote:
pentaiah wrote:
You are 100 percent correct on dot

Malayalam is Sanskrit with accent
Like
French is Spanish with attitude :mrgreen:

Sanskrit Malayalam. Assembler
Tamil COBOL
Kannada C
Telugu C++
As it picks up methods from Sanskrit, Tamil and Kannada IMVHO


Visual Basic, Java?
- Marathi, Oddissi, Hindi...?

I am starting to think that all spoken languages(not just Indian) are related in the following manner:

Image

Red part is prakrit. And white part is Sanskrit. Sanskrit is nothing but systematized prakrit. or in other words Prakrit is nothing but rustic Sanskrit.

The smaller circles are various languages. The way I am imagining is that they were earlier dialects. And as the time passed by, the dialect became distinct from other dialects and was accepted as the new language. Imagine, in the above picture, a small dot growing into a small circle and then growing bigger and bigger with time. As the circle becomes more predominant, it is accepted as a separate language. Similarly, the reverse process shrinking is also possible. That means a language slowly loses its predominance and becomes a dialect of another language(that is being absorbed by another language). This process of growing and shrinking is inherent in all languages except Sanskrit.

The best example would be Telugu and Kannada. Both are very similar to the extent that one can be considered a dialect of another. Over a period, they 'became' independent languages.

I think there is no distinction of Dravidian-Aryan in the above model. Of course, it is possible that a particular language developed solely in the Prakrit part and was uninfluenced by the Sanskrit. But it is not probable.

Please note that I am talking only about 'Spoken Languages' and not about Scripts. Scripts seem to be a totally different beast.



It would be interesting exercise to collect all the independent words in all the Indian languages and compare them.

Carl wrote:
johneeG wrote:
The number of Vishnu's avataras cannot be numbered, according to Bhagavatam.

True. But they fall into different categories.

johneeG wrote:
So, more than one avatara of Vishnu can roam the worlds simultaneously. There is no limit on the number of avatars of Lord Vishnu. The 10 avataras(dasha-avataras) that are popular are only that. Popular...!

Not quite. Vishnu's incarnations are broadly divided into Amshavatara, Vibhutyavatara, Mahatmyavatara, Yugavatara, Mahavatara, Lilavatara and Poornavatara. Each has its own significance. Kapila's case is not in the same category as the 10 "popular" avataras.

johneeG wrote:
It is only Dvaitas who seem to have developed this worship of Buddha. Other Vaishnavas(worshipers of Lord Vishnu) do not worship Buddha avatara even though it is acknowledged as an avatara of Vishnu. Because, it is an avatara whose purpose is not to enlighten but to delude.

This is mistaken info. Vaishnavas worship a Buddha that they say is different from Shakyamuni Buddha. There is kalpa-bheda. They consider Shakyamuni to be an impostor at worst or a provisional reformer at best. In the second half of your post you have written more about this quite correctly, but for some reason you say that "Dvaita nonsense" thinks all the wrong things! :)


Saar,
I this may become OT here. But, my understanding is that Buddha(avatar of Vishnu) was not traditionally worshiped by Hindus(Vaishnavas or otherwise). The worship of Buddha(avatar of Vishnu) seemed to have been started by Dvaitas(more specifically, Madhva Dvaitas). The trend may have spread to other vaishnava sects also.

About the difference among various avataras of Vishnu:
the differences given by you are based on dvaita philosophy or vaishnava philosophy or are they accepted universally?

As far as I understand, there are two kinds of avataras avesha avatara and general avatara. Avesha is a temporary possession. Eg: Parashurama. All the general avataras are equal equal broadly. Of course, there is a saying that 'Krishnah tu swayam bhagavan'.

Carl wrote:
johneeG wrote:
The number of Vishnu's avataras cannot be numbered, according to Bhagavatam.

True. But they fall into different categories.

johneeG wrote:
So, more than one avatara of Vishnu can roam the worlds simultaneously. There is no limit on the number of avatars of Lord Vishnu. The 10 avataras(dasha-avataras) that are popular are only that. Popular...!

Not quite. Vishnu's incarnations are broadly divided into Amshavatara, Vibhutyavatara, Mahatmyavatara, Yugavatara, Mahavatara, Lilavatara and Poornavatara. Each has its own significance. Kapila's case is not in the same category as the 10 "popular" avataras.

johneeG wrote:
It is only Dvaitas who seem to have developed this worship of Buddha. Other Vaishnavas(worshipers of Lord Vishnu) do not worship Buddha avatara even though it is acknowledged as an avatara of Vishnu. Because, it is an avatara whose purpose is not to enlighten but to delude.

This is mistaken info. Vaishnavas worship a Buddha that they say is different from Shakyamuni Buddha. There is kalpa-bheda. They consider Shakyamuni to be an impostor at worst or a provisional reformer at best. In the second half of your post you have written more about this quite correctly, but for some reason you say that "Dvaita nonsense" thinks all the wrong things! :)


RajeshA wrote:
venug ji, johneeG ji,

I am not too conversant in these matters so bear with my somewhat amateurish theories.

What I have always found confusing is why did Buddhism spread so far and wide within India without much of a reaction from Aastiks.

It is just a theory and I have to do much much more study on this. I think, Buddhism spread because it built upon on the increasing practice among the people for animal sacrifice which they thought went against Vaidik authority. Subhash Kak has somewhere written about the animal sacrifice even if alluded to mean something totally different - it can symbolize the death of some season for example or the death of the year - and that the yagyas were performed without really sacrificing any animals.

However the concept of animal sacrifice may have of course come into the Vedic lore from even an earlier time when humans in the Indian Subcontinent had not really gained the maturity of the Vedic era.

After the Vedic era with no real animal sacrifice had gone on for some time (a few thousand years), came a time when the practice of real animal sacrifice again crept in possibly through contact with Mlecchas during the Saraswati-Sindhu civilization period and the practice spread across India when the people of Saraswati-Sindhu Civilization migrated eastwards as the Saraswati started drying up.

This brought this practice of animal sacrifice in Vihara (Bihar) as well, and there sometime in 1860s BCE Sri Sugata Buddha, i.e. Lord Buddha (considered Avatara of Vishnu), who took birth in 1887 BCE in Kikata (now Bodhgaya) started a movement to cleanse society of this new "scourge" of animal sacrifices and to reestablish the original authority of the Vedas according to which there was no real animal sacrifice (only symbolic). He established "Karuna", compassion again in the world.

It was for this reason that Buddhism spread out in India, as it was considered as reestablishing the Vaidik spirit but perhaps separate from the Brahmanical order. So for a long time there Buddhism spread without much hindrance, for more than 1200 years. It did not challenge the Vedas, only the Brahmanical order, and yagyas being the sole way of living in the Vedic spirit. It was not the Vedas which were challenged by the Buddha and those who followed him, but the yagyas etc, and the Buddhists maintained they could achieve the same punya and dharma through meditation.

Now it is unclear whether Sri Sugata Buddha (who is considered Avatar of Vishnu) really meant Buddhism to develop in this direction, as a challenge to Brahmanical authority as the overseers of yagyas, but Sri Sugata Buddha was not a nastika. And other Vaidik paramparas accepted him as an Avataar of Vishnu considering his impact on society to show Karuna.

Gautama Buddha though born in a family (~700 BCE) which was immersed in Brahmanical customs chose to change his path and he chose the path of the Buddhas.

He may have exacerbated the divide between the Brahmanical path and the Buddhist path, and perhaps it was his decision to reject authority of the Vedas completely which gave Adi Shankaracharya the means, the arguments to put a stop to the expanding Buddhism in India.

Just a theory from what I have read.

But one needs to think about two things:
1) Why is Sri Buddha considered an Avataar of Vishnu?
2) Why did Buddhism expand between 1860s BCE to 490 BCE unchallenged?

It was probably Gautama Buddhas break with Vedas which triggered Buddhism's collapse in India, though it continued to flourish in the rest of Asia, as there Brahmanical presence was limited.


RajeshA saar,
this is quite a complicated topic. And quite a muddled one too.

I will point out my basic understanding of the subject:
1) Vishnu took many(innumerable) avataras. Some of these avataras even live simultaneously.
2) Some of the avataras of Vishnu are intended to delude people from the Dharma.
3) Such avataras that delude the people are called Buddhas because they teach from their own Buddhis(intellect) overriding shastras(Vedas).
4) There are several instances of such Buddhas in Puranas.
a) There was Buddha who deluded the Tripuras to facilitate their annihilation in the hands of Lord Shiva. That Buddha's name was Arihant. The word 'arihant' or 'arhat' is used by Jainas to denote their monks.
b) There was another Buddha who deluded the citizens of Kashi during the ruling of Divodasa.
5) Gautama Buddha is not a Vishnu avatara according to Puranas or Buddhist literature.
6) Sugata Buddha is same as Gautama Buddha according to Buddhism.
7) There was no Buddhism before Buddha according to Buddhism. The previous Buddhas were in different Kalpas. There is only a vague mention of previous Buddhas, no details.
8 ) Gautama Buddha's biography has many memes and motifs that are remarkably similar to that of Ramayana(bio of Rama) and Bhagavatam(bio of Krishna). To me, this indicates piracy. Buddha's bio was a pirate copy of the bio of Rama and bio of Krishna.
9) Buddhist literature uses the memes and motifs of Hindus by inculturation and distortion.
10) Shakyas, themselves, were considered foreigners and 'mlecchas' by Hindus. There is an attempt to increase the stature of Shakyas in the buddhist literature.
11) It seems to me that patrons of Buddhism were 'foreign'(or maybe Indic peripheral regions) rulers like Shakyas, Kushanas, ...etc. Like all royalty, these clans claimed divine descent by claiming themselves to the descendents of the clans mentioned in the Puranas. In the attempt to establish these claims, they distort the history, genealogy and Puranas.
12) Jainas were strict vegetarians. Ahimsa of animals(and all beings) was a Jaina idea. Whether the early Buddhists were insistent on vegetarian is doubtful. They seem to have opposed the slaughter of animals in Vedic ceremonies. But, there is also the story of Gautama Buddha dying after eating pork. Of course, some buddhist sects don't accept that Gautama Buddha ate pork. One does not know the original buddhist position. It seems to me that Buddhist position has continued to evolve and was never static.
13) Hindu position on ahimsa has many people pulling their hair. Hindu position is that ahimsa is the highest dharma. Yet, there are vedic rites which involve animal slaughter. Sacrificing animals in vedic rites is not considered an act of violence. Eating such meat is also not considered wrong(atleast in earlier Yugas. It seems, all that is banned in Kali Yuga). In general, the job of butcher is considered lowly. Eating meat is also not seen favourably, in general. Of course, eating meat is allowed for some people, while it is prohibited for others. Similarly, sex is allowed with one's wife. But, sex is prohibited outside marriage.
14) A Hindu ascetic gives up sex, meat, and other intoxicating foods. He takes up only ahimsa as his primary job. Other Hindus follow their social responsibilities according to the scriptures.
15) Jaina and Buddhist schools start off as the ascetic Hindu schools. Gradually, they branch out as separate religions. They were considered separate from Hindu because of their rejection of Vedas.
16) Jaina and Buddhist schools try to enforce asceticism on entire society. Buddhism includes even the women.
17) Hinduism, on the other hand, is made up of ashramas i.e. stages of life and recommends asceticism after retirement for common folk. Meanwhile, Hinduism recommends that people prepare themselves slowly for this eventuality. Of course, people with vairagya(dispassion) are allowed by Hinduism to take up asceticism as soon as they please.
18) Hinduism is made up of general rules and exceptions. There are many exceptions and many of these exceptions become popular(precisely because they are exceptional). The prevalence and popularity of exceptions makes many people conflate exceptions with rules and leads to confusion on several topics. For example: is non-veg good or bad? is sex good or bad? is their one god or multiple Gods?
19) Many newer sects spring from Hinduism by giving up parts of Hinduism. Jainism and Buddhism are such phenomenons. The difference between other sects of Hinduism and Buddhism/Jainism is the acceptance/rejection of Vedas as the ultimate authority.
20) Pitakas(Baskets) refers to the teachings and biography of the Buddha(Gautama). There are different schools of Buddhism. Each school of Buddhism has their own version of Pitakas. The different schools of Buddhism may or may not agree on several points. Adi Shankara's main criticism of Buddhism, in His magnum opus, Brahma-Sutra Bhashyas, was that there is no clarity on what Buddha taught. He says that if Buddha has taught different things to different people, then either he is deliberately confusing people or himself confused.
21) Buddhism spread because of patronization by the Kings and control of Universities(educational centers). It seems to me that the patrons of Buddhists were foreign clans/kingdoms like Shakyas or Kushanas, ...etc.
22) Buddhism was not the only one to rise, many other such sects also rose at that time like Ajivika, Jaina, ...etc. The common point was that there absolute numbers were always miniscule.

X-posting from Off-topic thread:
johneeG wrote:
RamaY wrote:

RajeshAji


quote="RajeshA"]johneeG ji,

as of now I see two original Mathas in favor of 507 BCE date, so I'll go with them. If anything changes on that front, may be I could revise my thoughts on it.

I just think that if Buddha's age was 1887 BCE - 1807 BCE, then 2675 years till Adi Shankara was born (789 CE) is too long a time for Buddhism to go unchallenged. 1380 years seem more like it.

This thread is however not the right place to have a detailed discussion on the subject. Perhaps the subject can be discussed elsewhere.[/quote


It is possible that Buddhism went unchallenged till 8th century AD. One reason is the existence of Buddhist kings (Satavahanas) in Andhra area between 230bc - 200ad.

Adi Samkara removed Buddhism completely from entire India.

Perhaps the lack of data on kings meeting Samkara can be attributed to the chaos persisted in his time which resulted in Islamic invasions?

Whether right or wrong, the Buddhist kings and populate had an understanding till that time. But when Adi Samkara pulled the public plug from the buddhist kings, their legitimacy was gone?

Just a thought. Perhaps members with better historical knowledge can throw some light..


Saar,
According to Chandrashekarendra Saraswati of Kanchi:

Quote:
Many believe that Buddhism ceased to have a large following in India because it came under the attack of Sankara. This is not true. There are very few passages in the Acarya's commentaries critical of that religion, a religion that was opposed to the Vedas. Far more forcefully has he criticised the doctrines of Sankhya and Mimamsa that respect the Vedic tradition. He demolishes their view that Isvara is not the creator of the world and that it is not he who dispenses the fruits of our actions. He also maintains that Isvara possesses the laksanas or characteristics attributed to him by the Vedas and the Brahmasutra and argues that there can be no world without Isvara and that it is wrong to maintain that our works yield fruits on their own. It is Isvara, his resolve, that has created this world, and it is he who awards us the fruits of our actions. We cannot find support in his commentaries for the view that he was responsible for the decline of Buddhism in India.

Then how did Buddhism cease to have a considerable following in out country? Somebody must have subjected it to such rigorous attack as to have brought about its decline in this land. Who performed this task? The answer is the mimamsakas and the tarkikas. Those who are adept in the Tarka-sastra(logic) are called tarkikas. The Tarka is the part of Nyaya which is one of the fourteen branches of Vedic learning and which comes next to Mimamsa. People proficient in Nyaya are naiyayikas; those well versed in grammar are "vaiyakaranis"; and those proficient in the Puranas are "pauranikas".

Udayanacarya, the tarkika, and Kumarilabhatta, the mimamsaka, opposed Buddhism for different reasons. The former severely criticised that religion for its denial of Isvara. To mimamsakas, as I have said earlier, Vedic rituals are of the utmost importance. Even though they don't believe that it is Isvara who awards us the fruit of our actions, they believe that the rituals we perform yield their own fruits and that the injunctions of the dharmasastras must be carried out faithfully. They attacked Buddhism for its refusal to accept Vedic rituals. Kumarilabhatta has written profusely in criticism of that religion. He and Udayanacarya were chiefly responsible for the failure of Buddhism to acquire a large following in this country. Our Acarya came later and there was no need for him to make a special assault on that religion on his own. On the contrary, his chief task was to expose the flaws in the systems upheld by the very opponents of Buddhism, Kumarilabhatta and Udayanacarya. He established that Isvara is the creator of the universe and that it is he who awards the fruits of our actions.

I am mentioning this fact so as to disabuse you of the wrong notions you must have formed with regard to Sankara's role in the decline of Buddhism. There is a special chapter in one of Kumarilabhatta's works called "Tarkapadam" in which he has made an extensive refutation of Buddhism. So too has Udayanacarya in his Bauddhadhikaram. These two acaryas were mainly responsible for the decline of Buddhism in our land and not Sankara Bhagavatpada. What we are taught on the subject in our textbooks of history is not true.

In my opinion at no time in our history did Buddhism in the fullest sense of that religion have a large following in India. Today a number of Hindus, who are members of the Theosophical Society, celebrate our festivals like other Hindus and conduct marriages in the Hindu way. There are many devotees of Sri Ramakrsna Parmahamsa practising our traditional customs. Sri C. Ramanujacariyar, "Anna" (Sri N. Subramanya Ayyar) and some others are intimately associated with the Ramakrsna Mission but they still adhere to our traditional beliefs.

When great men make their appearance people are drawn to them for their qualities of compassion and wisdom. In the organisations established after them our sanatana dharma is followed with some changes. But a large number of the devotees of these men still follow the old customs and traditions in their homes.

Many regard Gandhiji as the founder almost of a new religion (Gandhism), and look upon him as one greater than avataras like Rama and Krsna. :D But in their private lives few of them practise what he preached- for instance, widow marriage, mixing with members of other castes, and so on. People developed esteem for Gandhiji for his personal life of self-sacrifice, truthfulness, devotion and service to mankind. But applying his ideas in actual life was another matter.

It was in the same way that the Buddha had earned wide respect for his lofty character and exemplary personal life. "A prince renounces his wife and child in the prime of his youth to free the world from sorrow": the story of Siddhartha, including such accounts, made an impact on people. They were moved by his compassion, sense of detachment and self-sacrifice. But it did not mean that they were ready to follow his teachings. They admired the Buddha for his personal qualities but they continued to subscribe to the varnasrama system and the ancient way of religious life with its sacrifice and other rites. Contrary to what he wished, people did not come forward in large numbers to become monks but continued to remain householders adhering to Vedic practices.

Emperor Asoka did much to propagate Buddhism; but in society in general the Vedic dharma did not undergo any change. Besides, the emperor himself supported the varnasrama dharma as is evident from his famous edicts. But for the Buddhist bhiksus(monks), all householders followed the Vedic path. Though they were silent on the question of Isvara and other deities, some book written by great Buddhist monks open with hymns to Sarasvati. They also worshipped a number of gods. It is from Tibet that we have obtained many Tantrik works relating to the worship of various deities. If you read the works of Sriharsa, Bilhana and so on in Sanskrit, and Tamil poetical works like that of Ilango Adigal, you will realise that even during times when Buddhism wielded influence in society, Vedic customs and varnasrama were followed by the generality of people.

Reformists today speak in glowing terms about Vyasa, Sankaracarya, Ramanujacarya and others. But they do not accept the customs and traditions I ask people to follow. Some of them, however, come to see me. Is it not because they feel that there is something good about me, because they have personal regard for me, even though they do not accept my ideas? Similarly, great men have been respected in this country for their personal qualities and blameless life notwithstanding the fact they advocated views that differed slightly from the Vedic tradition or were radically opposed to it. Our people any way had long been steeped in the ancient Vedic religion and its firmly established practices and, until the turn of the century, were reluctant to discard the religion of their forefathers and the vocations followed by them. Such was our people's attitude during the time of the Buddha also. When his doctrines came under attack from Udayanacarya and Kumarilabhatta even the few who had first accepted them returned to the Vedic religion.

Link

People, at large, did not formally convert to Buddhism nor did they completely follow the Vedic religion(or Hinduism). For eg: today, many Hindus follow secularism(christianity without church) or sarva-dharma-samabhava(all religions equal equal). That means, they go to temples, churches, masjids, dargahs, ...etc. They celebrate new year day and valentines' day with great gusto. Yet, they have not completely abandoned the Hinduism. They follow it but customize it to suit their convenience and sensitivities. Similarly, at that time, people were enamored by Buddhism. People acknowledged the validity and superiority of Buddhism. But, that does not mean they completely abandoned the Hinduism and formally converted to Buddhism. It just means that they now made variations in their Hindu rituals and started praying to Buddha's image also(as if they were praying to Rama or Krishna). The ordinary people never understood the intricate philosophies of various Buddhist schools. But, they understood that the elites and the intellectuals had accepted the Buddhist views as a superior to Vedic ones. So, the masses followed the lead of elites and intellectuals.

The courts and assemblies of Kings(and other cultural venues) were dominated by the intellectuals who were ardent votaries of one or the other Buddhist philosophies. Therefore, invariably, the political power was wielded by the Buddhism. This phenomenon is very similar to how 'eminent' historians wield power in India. Yatha raja, thatha praja. The major educational centers were also under the grip of Buddhists. For eg: Takshashila and Nalanda were Buddhist centers as much as they were great educational centers. This is similar to how JNU or OU are under the grip of commies today.

All this control on various choke points of society allowed various Buddhist schools to disseminate their views into public effectively. Since all the intellectuals, elites and power were already wedded to Buddhism, there was no major coherent intellectual opposition to their views. These views were considered to be 'scientific' and those who disagreed were seen as 'superstitious'.

The major thrust of all these philosophies was against Vedas. Vedas were specifically chosen as special targets. Vedas were, rightly, understood to be the fundamentals of Hinduism. So, invalidating the Vedas was seen as the best and most effective way of countering Hinduism. The version of Buddhism that was practiced by the general masses(who were still nominally Hindus), was more or less similar to Hinduism(with some variations). The various schools of Buddhism differed from each other as much as they differed from Hinduism. The one thing that united all Buddhists was 'Buddha', while the one thing that united all Hindus was Vedas. While, the one thing that differentiated the Buddhists from Hindus was(and is) Vedas. So, it was only natural that Vedas were the target of Buddhists. This is similar to how the christians criticize the belief in Mohammad, but not other aspects of Islam.

So, the Buddhists attacked Vedas. Given their social, political and economical power, their arguments easily prevailed. These attacks were also quite intellectual and intelligent. So, the common masses had no counter to them but to accept them. At one point, Vedas were so maligned that they virtually became a word to be abused. Sri Bharathi Theertha of Sringeri once said that things had come to such a pass at that time that if anyone uttered the word Veda, then others would remark, 'chi, chi'...

Such attitudes can be seen today also. Some people are so taken in by AIT, commies, secularism, or something else and hate Vedas, even though they are still nominally Hindus. At that time, this attitude was more widely spread.

There is one more point. Buddhists studied the Hinduism and were aware of Hindu beliefs and views. Even otherwise, everyone and his aunt knew about elementary Hinduism. This allowed them to make arguments against Hindu beliefs and views. Ridicule these beliefs/views and malign them. On the other hand, Hindus(masses and intellectuals) were not aware of the intricacies of various Buddhist schools and their exact views on various topics. This lack of knowledge was a serious impediment in forming a coherent retort to the Buddhist attack on Hinduism.

This lack of knowledge was not necessarily the fault of Hindus. This was a Buddhist strategy. Buddhist schools believed that all the masses were not equiped to understand the high philosophical points. So, they had to be told what they could grasp. If they could be made to believe in Buddha, that was enough for them. Only those who had the intellectual capacity to understand the philosophy should be given the philosophical details, that too only after checking that he will not divulge these secrets to general masses. So, there were two versions that were pouted by Buddhists: one version was for the consumption of gullible general masses and another version was the actual philosophy. The version for the general masses was varied to suit the tastes of listening audience. The primary point was to create faith in Buddha. How that was achieved was beside the point. The actual philosophy was only told to those who had proven their 'loyalty'.

Saddharma-Pundarika Sutram(or Lotus Sutra), a buddhist missionary manual(considered to be written before 200 AD), lays down these points for the buddhist missionaries. This method was used to devastating effect by the buddhist missionaries to spread buddhism far and wide throughout the world in various disguises. At each place(or time-period), it was customized to suit the audience. I think Europe could not have stayed out of the radar of the Buddhist missionaries. Particularly Greece may have been the prime target where Buddhism could be mixed with the prevailing Hellenism for wide dissemination.

Christian Lindtner showcases this behaviour and connects it with the Jesus NT tales and says that like many other tales, Jesus tale is also a crypto-Buddhist missionary tale where Jesus ids the Buddha in disguise.

Thus, it was a well-thought out strategy of the Buddhists to keep their real philosophy secret while using all tricks to lure the people into keeping faith in Buddha. So, it was very difficult to form actual refutation of Buddhists philosophies which held sway in intellectual assemblies and royal courts while the masses were in the kept in thrall of Buddha.

The masses indulged in the ritualistic worship of images of Buddha which were made of costly metals and materials. This worship was carried out in great pomp and splendour. In many ways, it was nothing more than a corrupted form of Vedic rituals where Buddha was given a pre-eminent position. Huge, I mean really huge images of Buddha were installed. Here is a good article on image worship of Buddha. Link

Viharas started springing up all over the place. They were also built in gigantic proportions in a very rich manner. Buddhist Viharas, which were supposed to be residence for 'beggar' monks, became centers with great economic and political power apart from social influence. Very much similar to the modern day Sanyasis and their 'ashrams'.

The elites who supported Buddhism, lived a luxurious life in their mansions with several slaves.

There was urgent need for a Hindu revival lest the Hinduism be digested by Buddhism.

At such a time, Kumarilla Bhatta and Udayanacharya appeared. They presented arguments refuting the Buddhist arguments and supporting the Vedas and Hindu beliefs. Kumarilla even studied in Nalanda specifically to learn about actual position of Buddhist philosophies, so that he could counter them. Armed with this knowledge, Kumarilla demolished the Buddhist philosophies and reasserted the Hindu position about pre-eminence of Vedas. Thanks to these efforts, masses reverted to Hindu rituals and abandoned their infatuation of Buddha along with Buddhist philosophies.

But, that does not mean, the Buddhists stopped existing. They continued to have pockets of control(just as today). But, they lost their absolute dominance. Moreover, Vedas regained respect in the eyes of the ordinary people.

However, there was a side-effect to this. After the decline(not elimination) of Buddhism, Hinduism saw an explosion in newer sects. Each sect holding that its own view was correct and backed by Vedas. Another effect was that Hinduism became dogmatic with excessive emphasis on rituals(to the extent that some schools denied the existence of God). Soon, there were sectarian divisions. The Vedantic portion of Vedas was ignored and only the Purva Mimamsa was given importance.

It is at such a time that Adi Shankara appeared and reasserted the Vedanta without undermining the Purva Mimamsa. He also emphasized on all the Shan Matas(6 paths) of Hinduism that are agreed by Vedas. They are: Shiva, Vishnu, Devi, Ganapati Skandha and Surya. These 6 can be worshiped as the ultimate God/Goddess(Eshwara) according to the Hinduism. Any other figure is not suitable. Disparaging any of these 6 is prohibited. He toured entire India thrice on foot and restored the right practiced in several temples apart from refuting all kinds of sects and sub-sects(Hindu, Buddhist and Jaina). He wrote commentaries on Brahma Sutras, Upanishad, Bhagavad Gita and Vishnu Sahasranama. He authored Shiva Ananda Lahari and Soundarya Lahari. He wrote many long and short Vedantic works for various audience. He established 4 monastries in 4 directions of India(which proves beyond doubt that India was considered a single country long before the advent of muslims or british). These monastries became important centers to protect the Hinduism during long foreign invasions by the muslims and british.

It seems to me that only after Adi Shankara wrote commentaries, some of these scriptures became popular(or re-popular after the long Buddhist interval). Perhaps, that was one reason to write commentaries on these scriptures. After Him, all sorts of people(specially would be philosophies) wrote commentaries on these scriptures.

But, the buddhists continued to survive with some of the followers being elite and powerful. Hoever, the masses were now firmly established in Hinduism(with both Purva and Uttara Mimamsa). It seems to me that even the Kings were not pro-buddhists as in the past. So, Buddhists were relegated to their Viharas. At this time, the muslims started their invasions.

The idol destroying Ghazis were attracted to the rich Viharas and huge images of Buddha. This was the last nail in the coffin for Buddhism in India.

----
There is a misconception that Buddhism is against caste. It does not seem to be true. I don't know how to say this, but it seems that the stress of caste/Kula was so much that they were prepared to commit incest rather than marry outside Kula(more specifically Kshatriya).

Quote:
In several places in the Pāli Canon, including the Ambaṭṭha Sutta (D.i.92), the progenitors of the Śākyas are related to King Okkāka. Pāli Okkāka is identified with the Sanskrit Ikṣvāku, who is known from Purāṇic stories, and in Jainism he is an ancestor to all of the Tirthaṅkaras. The king banishes his elder brothers from his kingdom and they make their home on the slopes of the Himalayas. But they can find no one suitable to marry, so they take their own sisters as wives, and these incestuous relationships give birth to the Śākyas. Given the prejudice against incest in India society generally it is remarkable that this detail was preserved, and this suggests that it might have a grain of truth. If so it points to Iran "there is good evidence for this practice called xᵛaētuuadaθa, so-called next-of-kin or close-kin marriage."
Wiki Link

As you can see, they believed incest was better than marriage outside caste. In fact, they continued to believe that they were progeny of pure castes.

This incest in Buddhism had curious effect. They justified it through their theology by ascribing this behaviour to many other figures in their theology. But, most of the figures in Buddhism were borrowed from Hinduism. So, essentially, Buddhism redefined these figures and some of them were ascribed incest to justify their own incestous behaviour.

For ex:

Quote:
In the Udaya Jataka the Bodhisattva is a prince who is compelled to marry his half-sister. Although the two sleep in the same room for many years they remain celibate (Ja.IV,105). In the Dasaratha Jataka the princes Rama and Lakkhana marry their sister (Ja.IV,130). As with many ancient peoples the Sakyans, the tribe the Buddha belonged to, had a myth about their origins which included brother-sister incest. When the Koliyans were involved in a dispute with the Sakyans they taunted them by sayings that they ‘cohabite with their sisters like dogs, jackals and other animals’ (Ja.V,413). During the Buddha’s life there was an incident where a nun became infatuated with her son who was a monk and had sex with him, an offence entailing expulsion from the Sangha (Vin.III,35). When this was brought to the Buddha’s attention he said, ‘Does not this foolish man know that a mother shall not lust after her son or a son after his mother?’
Link

So, Buddhists created a version of Ramayana where Sita is both the sister and wife of Rama. All this for what?! Caste! It is ironic since, according to Valmiki Ramayana, Rama killed Vali for committing incest with his sister-in-law. Rama explains that a sister-in-law is equivalent to one's daughter and should never be thought of as wife material. And the only punishment for such incest is death. If incest with sister-in-law in punishable by death, then what is the punishment for incest with sister?

But, all that is irrelevant when one has an agenda. So, Buddhists tarnish Rama to justify their incest.

There is another example: Brahma and Saraswathi relationship is presented as incest in Buddhism. Abraham and Sarah are most probably derived from this presentation of Buddhists. Abraham's Incestuous Marriage with Sarah

Without knowing this, some anti-Hindu morons latch on to this Buddhist presentation.

AFAIK, Hinduism does not agree with this portrayal of these figures(Rama, Sita, Brahma, Saraswathi,... etc). One must understand that just because the names of these personalities are same in Hinduism and Buddhism does not mean their deeds, definitions and portrayals will also be same.

Thats why one must not try to think that all 'dharmas'(indic or foreign) are same.


----

venug wrote:
Quote:
a) whether Gautama Buddha brought about any doctrinal change in Buddhism as it existed earlier?
b) whether it is possible to separate the teachings of the two Buddhas?

Rajesh garu,
The following is conjectural. Buddhists themselves believe that Gautama was one of the Buddhas and he had many predecessors. What is the shape of Buddhism before him is difficult to say as Buddhism evolved over time and Gautama too added bits and pieces like middle path and Sunyata to the Buddhist canon. Being a dharmic school, like Sanatana Dharma, it too wasn't history centric, hence none of the teachers like Dharmakirti, Dignaga, Nagarjuna debated over who propounded what. But each Buddhist school maintains a long list of teachers which they recite everyday. The list starts with Gautama, and it doesn't include Avatara-Buddha in spite of their belief that Gautama had Predecessors, proto-Buddhas are limited to Buddhist mythology.

Immediately after enlightenment, Gautama Buddha falls into a dilemma, if what he discovered through his enlightenment will be understood by common man at all. This could mean that what he discovered is starkly different from other traditions of those times, something different from what is commonly believed then or what is commonly understood before his enlightenment. So if Avatara-Buddha had propounded a concept before him, it is either an unrelated concept or something completely different (antithesis) to what Gautama had discovered, else, he wouldn't have thought so much about whether he should teach others what he learnt. And his discovery wouldn't be revolutionary of his times if it followed astika school. And his teaching were in sharp contrast to other nastika schools like Carvaka. So it can be surmised that his teachings were very different from Avatara-Buddha.


Saar,
you are conflating many issues here.
Don't mix Hindu version of events and Buddhist version events. They are making different claims.

Buddhist claims:
There was a Gautama Buddha. He became enlightened and created a new religion. The main feature of his religion was ahimsa. He opposed Vedic rites which involved animal slaughter. He created a new path called middle-path. Hindus indulge in tapas, where the body is treated extremely harshly by denying it even basic necessities. Buddha tried this method but found it useless. So, he created middle-path. He taught this path to his followers. He showed miracles to people and converted the teachers of other schools also to his school.

Before Buddhism, there was Hinduism. Buddhism is Hinduism with some reformations introduced by Buddha.

Buddha phenomenon is a rare phenomenon. It happened before Gautama Buddha also, but it happened in other Kalpas. The total number of Buddhas is too large to count. In this Kalpa(or Yuga), Buddha started Buddhism. There was no Buddhism before Buddha in this Yuga(or Kalpa).

Gautama Buddha became buddha after several lives. The previous lives of Gautama are preserved in Jataka tales. Sugata Buddha is same as Gautama Buddha.

a) Mahayana Buddhism:
They claim that Buddha taught some of his superior teachings to Yakshas(divine beings) because no human being was capable of grasping them. These Yakshas taught these teachings to the teachers of Mahayana buddhism several years(centuries) after the death of Buddha. I think Nagarjuna, Dignaga and Dharmakriti belong to the schools of Mahayana Buddhism. It is implicit that they all attribute the teachings to Gautama Buddha only.

b) Theravada Buddhism:
They claim that Buddha's teachings were well-known to his contemporaries. These contemporaries preserved his teachings in Pali(Magadhi) language.

Some sects believe in the advent of future Buddha called Amitabha.

Hindu claims:
Vishnu takes many avataras. Some of these avataras deliberately delude people(sinful people) from the correct path, so that they can be punished. There are many such avataras which delude the poeple(primarily asuras are deluded). For example, Mohini avatara also deluded the asuras. This is a trick that Vishnu plaays on asuras. Buddhas(not Gautama) were/are one such avatara.

My understanding:
Buddhist literature is a pirate copy of Hindu literature. Gautama Buddha's existence is doubtful. Buddhist literature distorts the history, genealogy and Puranas to establish its claims. The fact that most of the famous (Indian) Buddhist teachers belong to the schools of Mahayana Buddhism, shows that Mahayana Buddhism had relegated Theravada Buddhism in India. All schools of Buddhism were active in missionary activity. Stephan Knapp is trying to paint Shankaracharya as crypto-Buddhist. It is an old allegation by Dvaita and Vishishta-Advaita.

In debating against Buddhism or Jainism, Hindu teachers(like Kumarilla and Adi Shankara) point out the flaws that they think invalidates Buddhism or Jainism. Sometimes, to point out certain flaws, one has to assume(accept) the claims of the opponent on face-value. One such implicitly accepted and assumed claim of the opponent(Buddhism) is the existence of Gautama Buddha(Sugata Buddha). This implicit acceptance(by Hindu leaders) does not mean that they are arguing in favour of the existence of any real historical Buddha.

Buddhists call Gautama Buddha as Sugata Buddha. They are NOT two different personalities, as far as Buddhism is concerned.

Many people(Hindus and Buddhists) routinely conflate the Gautama Buddha with the avataras of Buddha. The example given by Stephen Knapp is one such. But, Stephen Knapp is trying to spin it in a new direction for a different agenda.

Buddhism is not a Dharmic creed, as far as Hinduism is concerned. As far as Buddhism is concerned, Dharma means the teachings of Buddha. As far as Hinduism is concerned, Dharma means the teachings of Veda. Buddhists accept those teachings of Veda which are in consonance with the teachings of Buddha and disregard other teachings of Veda. Hindus accept those teachings of Buddha that are in consonance with the teachings of Veda and disregard other teachings of Buddha.

Buddhism is a history centric creed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2013 20:44 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31
Posts: 1573
JohneeG ji,
Can you explain in detail (perhaps in the GD forum) all the avtaras of Vishnu and how is one different from other?
Thanks,
fanne


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2013 20:45 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Posts: 3845
Location: Smoking Piskobidis
Sweat and Sved - don't they seem to have connection?

Sometimes, I see, yavanas coming to Bharat and find that these Bharat desh has some words about things they only wonder about.

yavan reaches a rshi and asks - what this water like thing on skin is

Rishi: prasved, sved
Yavan: swet?
Rishi: sved..
Yavan: svet...

Rishi: you dont understand the haard of things
Yavan: haart?
Rishi: O come on! Go to Meneka and ask
Yavan: Monika?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2013 21:11 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14030
johneeG ji,

thanks for your insights on this. I would hold on to the theory that the two Buddhas were separate Sri Sugata Buddha, the first Buddha, considered Vishnu Avatar, and Sakya Simha Gautama Buddha.

Sugata Buddha introduced Ahimsa as a major feature, and without refuting the authority of Vedas, encouraged adhyatmik vidya. For a long time this path remained a stream within the Aastikmat.

It is only Gautama Buddha who took the Buddhist stream out of the Vaidik Authority because of his anathema to Brahminical/Vedic rituals and perhaps his "imperfect enlightenment". :wink:

Same thing happened with Jainism!

The reason why I say so has to do with the regal genealogies in the Puranas, where the Mauryan Dynasty's start is anchored at 1534 BCE and the Buddha (Lord Buddha, Avatara of Vishnu) must have preceded them. The reason why it was so easy for the Bharatiyas at that time to accept Sugata Buddha (Lord Buddha, Avatara of Vishnu) was because his teachings were reformist and not rejectionist! It was Sakya Simha Gautama, who turned them rejectionist over a thousand years later and it were this development that mobilized Udayanacarya, the tarkika, Kumarilabhatta and Adi Shankara to criticize them. By this time the whole Buddhist movement had been impacted (or hijacked) by the teachings of Sakya Simha Gautama, and so these Aastika luminaries rejected the whole movement.

johneeG wrote:
Emperor Asoka did much to propagate Buddhism; but in society in general the Vedic dharma did not undergo any change. Besides, the emperor himself supported the varnasrama dharma as is evident from his famous edicts. But for the Buddhist bhiksus(monks), all householders followed the Vedic path. Though they were silent on the question of Isvara and other deities, some book written by great Buddhist monks open with hymns to Sarasvati. They also worshipped a number of gods. It is from Tibet that we have obtained many Tantrik works relating to the worship of various deities. If you read the works of Sriharsa, Bilhana and so on in Sanskrit, and Tamil poetical works like that of Ilango Adigal, you will realise that even during times when Buddhism wielded influence in society, Vedic customs and varnasrama were followed by the generality of people.


As I mentioned, Buddhism till the advent of Sakya Simha Gautama was not rejectionist of the Vedas, simply reformist. The above underlines this.

The theological aspects of this discussion are really secondary to this thread. The main point is the historical and that in order to reinstate India's true history, one would have to recognize Sri Sugata Buddha, the reformist Vaidik!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2013 21:28 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 17 Feb 2012 20:45
Posts: 1886
Quote:
Buddhism is not a Dharmic creed, as far as Hinduism is concerned. As far as Buddhism is concerned, Dharma means the teachings of Buddha. As far as Hinduism is concerned, Dharma means the teachings of Veda. Buddhists accept those teachings of Veda which are in consonance with the teachings of Buddha and disregard other teachings of Veda. Hindus accept those teachings of Buddha that are in consonance with the teachings of Veda and disregard other teachings of Buddha.

Buddhism is a history centric creed.


JohneeG garu, thank you, always enlightening and enjoyed learning from you. I am not sure about the Buddhism not being Dharmic creed though. May be in the philosophy thread? I will post my questions there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2013 21:56 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 17 Feb 2012 20:45
Posts: 1886
JohneeG garu, a question to you here:
viewtopic.php?p=1421190#p1421190


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2013 22:42 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Jan 2013 21:03
Posts: 186
Location: Bhuloka
Buddha didn't venture out to create a new religion per se. He came to learn in Bodh Gaya and became enlightened there. He preached in Pali which was the local language and thus threw open the doors to common man. This created a lot of friction with Brahmins who were having a monopoly of sorts. Moreover, he was against elaborate rites and other rituals - animal sacrifices were only small part of rites. Brahmins ofcourse did everything in their power to stop him and made him an outcast of sort. The trained prince in him created organisations to counter that. They slowly evolved over a period of time with a separate identity to form Buddhism. In reality, Buddha was another rishi in the great lineage of rishis produced by India.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2013 22:51 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14030
vinod ji,

which Buddha? :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2013 23:07 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 17 Apr 2006 20:02
Posts: 2559
first. i think effort should not be in creating an alterative theory by itself, but more on augmenting current understanding with alternate theories. alternate theories, should be vetted with current known methods of empricism and results supplied as addendums to current understanding. eventually supplanting current understanding with a more balanced and nuanced future understanding.

second. If Buddhism is not native enough and not dharmic enough all i have to say is OMG. Buddhism is basically Advaita (other way around actually) with the caveat that the vedas are not considered canonical. in all other senses it is basically a natural organic outgrowth of the upanishadic thought. if such a thing is today deemed undharmic, then all i have to say is OMG (pardon the pun).

i think we should hang our heads in shame, as rakshaks, if we cannot be proud of the bauddha thought as native seminal thought.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2013 23:17 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31
Posts: 4267
Location: Tejo Mahalaya
johneeG wrote:
Fantastic list. But, did you notice that the blog has following claim:

Quote:
Compared to Sanskrit, Russian phonetics has not undergone a drastic change.


So, this genius claims that Russian did not undergo change, but Sanskrit underwent drastic change...! Woah...! Mindblowing...!

Since I had posted shiv ji's comment about genetics on his blog, the author of that blog, "borissoff", has been reading this thread. He took note of this comment above and requested me to post his response here:

"I looked at the discussion going on at Bharat Rakshak’s blog. Among other things there was a comment by JoheeG “Fantastic list. But, did you notice that the blog has following claim:

Quote:
Compared to Sanskrit, Russian phonetics has not undergone a drastic change.

So, this genius claims that Russian did not undergo change, but Sanskrit underwent drastic change…! Woah…! Mindblowing…!”

Could you please answer him that he took this phrase completely wrong. The idea was that if we take Sanskrit as an older attested language and compare Russian with it, there has not been a drastic change in phonetics.

Also I would like to clarify that I am not a genius. I merely register and systematize facts which are pretty obvious.

Thank you!"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2013 23:23 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 17 Feb 2012 20:45
Posts: 1886
I agree, Buddhism could be wrong in terms of assuming Dharma can be known through perception. But never was against the very aspect of looking within to know the truth similar to Sanatana Dharma. I personally think it is another school of Hindusim like Cavarka school who are nastikas. But it still is in spirit of Indian Dharmic thought. Even though Gods were considered secondary, still many of the Hindu Gods like Yama, Kubera, Indra etc still are part of Buddhist mythology.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2013 23:55 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 17 Feb 2012 20:45
Posts: 1886
Sorry just noticed, OT again, I didn't mean to derail, one last one:
Quote:
pentaiah wrote:
You are 100 percent correct on dot

Malayalam is Sanskrit with accent
Like
French is Spanish with attitude :mrgreen:

Sanskrit Malayalam. Assembler
Tamil COBOL
Kannada C
Telugu C++
As it picks up methods from Sanskrit, Tamil and Kannada IMVHO


Pentaiah garu, sometime back someone posted a link to a blog about how and why Sanskrit can be a good programming language, that too OO. Here is another to justify that claim:
How Sanskrit provides programming concepts similar to classes, objects and pointers


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2013 02:09 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47
Posts: 1916
Carl wrote:
Since I had posted shiv ji's comment about genetics on his blog, the author of that blog, "borissoff", has been reading this thread. He took note of this comment above and requested me to post his response here:

"I looked at the discussion going on at Bharat Rakshak’s blog. Among other things there was a comment by JoheeG “Fantastic list. But, did you notice that the blog has following claim:

Quote:
Compared to Sanskrit, Russian phonetics has not undergone a drastic change.

So, this genius claims that Russian did not undergo change, but Sanskrit underwent drastic change…! Woah…! Mindblowing…!”

Could you please answer him that he took this phrase completely wrong. The idea was that if we take Sanskrit as an older attested language and compare Russian with it, there has not been a drastic change in phonetics.

Also I would like to clarify that I am not a genius. I merely register and systematize facts which are pretty obvious.

Thank you!"


Oh, I am extremely sorry for misunderstanding. Please convey my regards to "borissoff" for the excellent list prepared by him. :)

Murugan wrote:
Sweat and Sved - don't they seem to have connection?

Sometimes, I see, yavanas coming to Bharat and find that these Bharat desh has some words about things they only wonder about.

yavan reaches a rshi and asks - what this water like thing on skin is

Rishi: prasved, sved
Yavan: swet?
Rishi: sved..
Yavan: svet...

Rishi: you dont understand the haard of things
Yavan: haart?
Rishi: O come on! Go to Meneka and ask
Yavan: Monika?


Then, that Yavan goes to his homeland and starts teaching to his compatriots. :mrgreen:

venug wrote:
JohneeG garu, thank you, always enlightening and enjoyed learning from you. I am not sure about the Buddhism not being Dharmic creed though. May be in the philosophy thread? I will post my questions there.


Venug saar,

I don't think I deserve the brickbats in this particular case(not referring to you, but generally speaking).

johneeG wrote:
Buddhism is not a Dharmic creed, as far as Hinduism is concerned.


The point that is being missed here is that when people say," so and so is 'dharmic'...", then the question to be asked is,"from whose perspective?".

Buddhism IS dharmic, from Buddhist perspective. Hinduism is NOT dharmic from Buddhist perspective.
Buddhism is NOT dharmic from Hindu perspective. Hinduism IS dharmic from Hindu perspective.

Why?
Because the fundamental definition of Dharma is different.

johneeG wrote:
As far as Buddhism is concerned, Dharma means the teachings of Buddha. As far as Hinduism is concerned, Dharma means the teachings of Veda.


So,

johneeG wrote:
Buddhists accept those teachings of Veda which are in consonance with the teachings of Buddha and disregard other teachings of Veda. Hindus accept those teachings of Buddha that are in consonance with the teachings of Veda and disregard other teachings of Buddha.




----
johneeG wrote:
Buddhism is a history centric creed.


venug wrote:
JohneeG garu, Buddhism as you know, never had any history centric event or personality that defined the discourse. Even Gautama Buddha, if he ever existed never seemed to have claimed (from the Buddhist texts) neither as God nor as the Dharma giver like in the case of all desert religions.
The only reason Bhuddist temples list lineage of teachers is to venerate them. Not all teachings were because of Buddha as you know, each one added bits and pieces of their understanding, many overlapping and validating the findings of their predecessors. This validating is very similar to the validation of each and every Dharmic teacher of Sanata Dharma. Neither it is true to say Buddhists are obsessed with any aspects of buddhist history. In fact any acknowledgement of existence of any teacher would be against the very teachings of Buddhism, for then it is an acknowledgement of existence of self. So I like to understand your understanding as to why you think it is a history centric creed. Even Rajiv Malhotra ji has grouped Buddhism with Sanatana Dharma as a dharmic creed. It is a different matter that Buddhism is a nastika creed.


Venug garu,
the point is that none of the latter day Buddhist teachers are Buddha. So, they cannot overrule the teachings of Buddha. If they overrule Buddha(or contradict Buddha), then they will not be Buddhists anymore. Similarly, none of the latter day rishis can overrule Vedas. If they do, they cannot be Hindus anymore.

So, invariably, all Buddhist teachers depend on Buddha directly or indirectly to justify their teachings. The least requirement is that their 'new' teachings should not contradict the teachings of Buddha. This requirement can be fulfilled in many ways:
a) One can claim that the 'new' teachings are derivatives(or complementary or corollaries) of teachings of Buddha.
b) One can claim that the 'new' teachings are the real meanings of what Buddha meant from his old teachings i.e. claim that the 'new' teachings are the correct interpretation and the old teachings are wrong interpretation.
c) One can claim that the 'new' teachings are the teachings of Buddha that were not previously well-known i.e. the 'new' teachings are old teachings which were hidden from the public so far.

One can insert one's own views(inadvertently or deliberately) into the old teachings by writing commentaries on old teachings.

But, if any Buddhist teacher outrightly rejects the teachings of Buddha, then he will not be Buddhist anymore. He would have started a new creed separate from Buddhism.

The same applies to Hinduism. All the teachers of Hinduism derive their authority directly or indirectly from Vedas. If any teacher rejects the Vedas, then he will not be Hindu anymore. He would have started a new creed separate from Hinduism.

Also, I think the missionary aspect of Buddhism is being missed and only the philosophical aspect is being concentrated upon. Philosophy was restricted to only few privileged. Infact, it seems to have been the active policy of the Buddhists to restrict the philosophy only to those that had proved their loyalty and intellectual capacity. The general masses were fed the missionary version. Buddhism, in its missionary avatar, presented Buddha as a 'saviour' or 'deity'. The pilgrimage sites of Buddhists are intimately related to the supposed life of Gautama Buddha: the place he was born, the place he acquired his Buddhahood, the place where he gave his first sermon and the place where he gave up his body.

Buddhism, as practiced, by common folk is very similar to the x-nity. Buddha is the savior.
To give an analogy: Buddhism is to Hinduism, what X-nity is to Judaism. I am not using this analogy just like that. I am using this analogy quite consciously.

Will Jews accept X-nity as a continuation of Judaism? Why not? More or less, the same applies to the relationship of Hinduism and Buddhism.

Hindus await the coming of Kalki, avatar of Vishnu. Some(most?) sects of Buddhism pray to a future Buddha named Amitabha whose advent is awaited. Jews await the coming of their Christ. Similarly, X-ians AND muslims await the second coming of of Jesus.

One can see a continuous line. One borrowing the motifs from the other.

According to Buddhism, theoretically, only a Boddhisatva can become a Buddha. Boddhisatva are special beings. Not every Boddhisatva becomes a Buddha.

The only religion that is not history centric is Hinduism. And this is attributable to the concept of Vedas being eternal according to Hinduism. If Vedas had a human author, then even Hinduism would have become history centric. If Vedas were born at particular event, then that particular moment would have become historically important for Hindus. If Vedas were born at a particular place, then that place would have become historically important for Hindus.

Everything else, in all religions(including Hinduism) is history centric. Sri Rama and Sri Krishna are history centric. Rama is born at Ayodhya. That place is an important pilgrimage for Hindus. Sri Krishna was born on Janmashtami, that date is important for Hindus. This is history-centricism as far as I understand.

The only differentiating factor between all other creeds and Hinduism is Vedas. Hinduism started with Vedas. This is the reason, Hinduism is never going to accept that Vedas are created by Human authors. Hinduism is never going to accept that Vedas are born in particular time or place. At best, one can only discover Veda by revelation. Yajnavalkya was revealed Krishna Yajur Veda by Surya. Essentially, Surya passed down Krishna Yajur Veda to Yajnavalkya. Neither Surya nor Yajnavalkya created Krishna Yajur Veda. Even Brahma does not create Vedas. They simply manifest, according to Hinduism.

So, the point is when I say," Buddhism is not dharmic, from Hindu perspective", I stress on 'Hindu perspective'. I hope I am able to convey what I am trying to say. Similarly, vice versa also applies.

dharmam sharnam gachami
Buddham sharnam gachami
sangam sharnam gachami
What is dharma in the above instance? In the above instance, 'Dharma' means the teachings of Buddha ONLY.

One should not confuse or conflate the Buddhist definition of Dharma and Hindu definition of Dharma.

vinod wrote:
Buddha didn't venture out to create a new religion per se. He came to learn in Bodh Gaya and became enlightened there. He preached in Pali which was the local language and thus threw open the doors to common man. This created a lot of friction with Brahmins who were having a monopoly of sorts. Moreover, he was against elaborate rites and other rituals - animal sacrifices were only small part of rites. Brahmins ofcourse did everything in their power to stop him and made him an outcast of sort. The trained prince in him created organisations to counter that. They slowly evolved over a period of time with a separate identity to form Buddhism. In reality, Buddha was another rishi in the great lineage of rishis produced by India.


The above is mostly the Buddhist version of the events. Even in this version, it seems the portrayal of Brahmins as villains was a later development(much later). Initially, Brahmins were well respected and were actively sought to be converted into the new creed, by Buddha himself according to the Buddha's bio from Buddhist sources.

I think there are lots of bogus claims in the above version which were developed later.

The primary adversaries of Buddha, in his own time were, Jainas(Nirgranthas) and Devadatta(cousin of Buddha) according to the Buddha's bio. Brahmins(or the society in general) were neutral. They receive him as a holyman and pay him due respect, if the Buddha's bio is to be believed.

---
I think you guys should read the full Buddha bio. And before that, also read Ramayana and Bhagavata. You would be amazed at the common memes. There was definitely copying. The question is who copied from whom? Did Hindus copy Ramayana and Bhagavatam from Buddha's bio or did Buddhists copy Buddha's bio from Ramayana and Bhagavatam, thats the question.

BTW, according to Buddha's bio:
Krishna-Dwaipayana was the Teacher of Buddha in his previous life. In that life, he was crucified on false charges(like Jesus). Buddha had a son and daughter. These children of Buddha started the Ikshvaku dynasty!

Some Shakya prices and princesses(brothers and sisters) were exiled. They met Kapila maharshi who showed them a place to live by marking it with golden sand. So, that place came to be called Kapilavastu. Kapila maharshi also told them to marry their sisters. Shuddhodhana was born in this dynasty. Shuddhodhana's father fought and defeated a hill tribe called (guess what?) Pandavas. As a gift, Shuddhodhana was allowed to be married more than once. Shakyas had a custom of monogamy. But, Shuddhondhana was allowed to marry twice: Mahamaya and Mahapajapati(sisters).

Boddhisatva is in Tushita heaven. He is requested by the Gods to go and take birth in earth. So, Boddhisatva chooses Mahamaya. He takes into account the social stature of the family also before taking birth. Boddhisatva is born. Later, there seems to be portrayal of Mahamaya as being a virgin despite the birth of Boddhisatva.

Any Hindu who knows elementary info about Hinduism would take serious offense at this portrayal of Krishna-dvaipayana, Ikshvaku dynasty, Pandavas, and Kapila Maharshi.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2013 03:48 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 17 Feb 2012 20:45
Posts: 1886
Rajesh ji, I apologize, yes I will post in philosophy thread.
--deleted--


Last edited by venug on 08 Mar 2013 04:09, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2013 04:04 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14030
johneeG ji, venug ji,

Believe me the whole Aastik-Bauddh dynamic is indeed very interesting, but it is very much off-topic here.

Here, the ONLY aspect of interest is whether the dating of Buddha, e.g. in 1887 BCE can be justified as that has repurcussions on AIT itself!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2013 05:42 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 22461
Location: Embarrassed by fresh-off-the-boat Indians
RajeshA wrote:
johneeG ji, venug ji,

Believe me the whole Aastik-Bauddh dynamic is indeed very interesting, but it is very much off-topic here.

Here, the ONLY aspect of interest is whether the dating of Buddha, e.g. in 1887 BCE can be justified as that has repurcussions on AIT itself!


Rajesh AIT can be quashed without bringing in Buddha, or even using AIT dates for Buddha.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2013 07:08 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 22461
Location: Embarrassed by fresh-off-the-boat Indians
Anyone who listens to old Hindi songs (who doesn't?) should lsten to this Polish folk song, which also has a Russian version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMAZ4cPkH9o


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2013 14:46 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14030
shiv wrote:
RajeshA wrote:
johneeG ji, venug ji,

Believe me the whole Aastik-Bauddh dynamic is indeed very interesting, but it is very much off-topic here.

Here, the ONLY aspect of interest is whether the dating of Buddha, e.g. in 1887 BCE can be justified as that has repurcussions on AIT itself!


Rajesh AIT can be quashed without bringing in Buddha, or even using AIT dates for Buddha.


Of course! AIT has so many holes one can use any one to *crew it!

However with AIT out of the way, one has to look at the historical evidence with fresh eyes and re-date much of it. I think the date of the Buddha, i.e. that of Sugata Buddha (1887 BCE) is an anchor-sheet to correct the regal lines and as such the history of the Subcontinent!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2013 17:06 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14030
The Two Buddhas


Image

Śrī Vedānta-sūtra, Adhyāya 2
By David Bruce Hughes (Gaurahari Dāsānudās Bābājī)
Published by Esoteric Teachings

Adhikaraṇa 3: Buddhist Doctrine Examined

However Mr. Hughes seems to have fallen out with ISKCON and seems to be lifting writings of others. This he seems to have copied from Stephen Knapp! But the collation is still interesting!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2013 02:59 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Posts: 14913
Location: Hindu Enclave, Narrow-Mind Street
Julia Pastrana
Image

Quote:
Pastrana was advertised and displayed as a hybrid between an ape and a human, as well as a "Bear Woman". She was examined several times to dispel the accusation that she was of African descent. One doctor, Alexander B. Mott, M.D., certified that she was specifically the result of the mating of a human and an "Orang Outang".[5] Another, Dr. S. Brainerd of Cleveland, declared that she was of a "distinct species".[6] However, Samuel Kneeland, Jr., a comparative anatomist of the Boston Society of Natural History, declared that she was human and of Indian descent.[7] Francis Buckland stated similarly that she was "only a deformed Mexican Indian woman".[6]

Theodore Lent (also known as Lewis B Lent) discovered her and purchased her from a woman who might have been her mother. Lent taught her to dance and play music and took her on a worldwide tour with the name "Bearded and Hairy Lady". She also learned to read and write in three languages. They married and she became pregnant.

During a tour in Moscow, Pastrana gave birth to a baby with features similar to her own. The child survived only three days, and Pastrana died of postpartum complications five days later.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2013 11:48 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20
Posts: 922
Behold !! Standard IXth history as taught to our Kumars and Kumaris :-

Image

Regards,
Virendra


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2013 17:00 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47
Posts: 1916
shiv wrote:
Rajesh AIT can be quashed without bringing in Buddha, or even using AIT dates for Buddha.


True. There is a need to understand history in correct perspective devoid of the biased european constructs like AIT. In this endeavor, the role of Buddhism needs to be re-evaluated. The impact and imprint of Buddhism is not limited to India...

---
dharmaraj wrote:
Quote:
How human language could have evolved from birdsong

http://web.mit.edu/press/2013/how-human ... dsong.html


Linguistics and biology researchers propose a new theory on the deep roots of human speech.
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — “The sounds uttered by birds offer in several respects the nearest analogy to language,” Charles Darwin wrote in “The Descent of Man” (1871), while contemplating how humans learned to speak. Language, he speculated, might have had its origins in singing, which “might have given rise to words expressive of various complex emotions.”

Now researchers from MIT, along with a scholar from the University of Tokyo, say that Darwin was on the right path. The balance of evidence, they believe, suggests that human language is a grafting of two communication forms found elsewhere in the animal kingdom: first, the elaborate songs of birds, and second, the more utilitarian, information-bearing types of expression seen in a diversity of other animals.

“It’s this adventitious combination that triggered human language,” says Shigeru Miyagawa, a professor of linguistics in MIT’s Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, and co-author of a new paper published in the journal Frontiers in Psychology.

The idea builds upon Miyagawa’s conclusion, detailed in his previous work, that there are two “layers” in all human languages: an “expression” layer, which involves the changeable organization of sentences, and a “lexical” layer, which relates to the core content of a sentence. His conclusion is based on earlier work by linguists including Noam Chomsky, Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser.

Based on an analysis of animal communication, and using Miyagawa’s framework, the authors say that birdsong closely resembles the expression layer of human sentences — whereas the communicative waggles of bees, or the short, audible messages of primates, are more like the lexical layer. At some point, between 50,000 and 80,000 years ago, humans may have merged these two types of expression into a uniquely sophisticated form of language.

“There were these two pre-existing systems,” Miyagawa says, “like apples and oranges that just happened to be put together.”

These kinds of adaptations of existing structures are common in natural history, notes Robert Berwick, a co-author of the paper, who is a professor of computational linguistics in MIT's Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems, in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science.

“When something new evolves, it is often built out of old parts,” Berwick says. “We see this over and over again in evolution. Old structures can change just a little bit, and acquire radically new functions.”

A new chapter in the songbook

The new paper, “The Emergence of Hierarchical Structure in Human Language,” was co-written by Miyagawa, Berwick and Kazuo Okanoya, a biopsychologist at the University of Tokyo who is an expert on animal communication.

To consider the difference between the expression layer and the lexical layer, take a simple sentence: “Todd saw a condor.” We can easily create variations of this, such as, “When did Todd see a condor?” This rearranging of elements takes place in the expression layer and allows us to add complexity and ask questions. But the lexical layer remains the same, since it involves the same core elements: the subject, “Todd,” the verb, “to see,” and the object, “condor.”

Birdsong lacks a lexical structure. Instead, birds sing learned melodies with what Berwick calls a “holistic” structure; the entire song has one meaning, whether about mating, territory or other things. The Bengalese finch, as the authors note, can loop back to parts of previous melodies, allowing for greater variation and communication of more things; a nightingale may be able to recite from 100 to 200 different melodies.

By contrast, other types of animals have bare-bones modes of expression without the same melodic capacity. Bees communicate visually, using precise waggles to indicate sources of foods to their peers; other primates can make a range of sounds, comprising warnings about predators and other messages.

Humans, according to Miyagawa, Berwick and Okanoya, fruitfully combined these systems. We can communicate essential information, like bees or primates — but like birds, we also have a melodic capacity and an ability to recombine parts of our uttered language. For this reason, our finite vocabularies can generate a seemingly infinite string of words. Indeed, the researchers suggest that humans first had the ability to sing, as Darwin conjectured, and then managed to integrate specific lexical elements into those songs.

“It’s not a very long step to say that what got joined together was the ability to construct these complex patterns, like a song, but with words,” Berwick says.

As they note in the paper, some of the “striking parallels” between language acquisition in birds and humans include the phase of life when each is best at picking up languages, and the part of the brain used for language. Another similarity, Berwick notes, relates to an insight of celebrated MIT professor emeritus of linguistics Morris Halle, who, as Berwick puts it, observed that “all human languages have a finite number of stress patterns, a certain number of beat patterns. Well, in birdsong, there is also this limited number of beat patterns.”

Birds and bees

The researchers acknowledge that further empirical studies on the subject would be desirable.

“It’s just a hypothesis,” Berwick says. “But it’s a way to make explicit what Darwin was talking about very vaguely, because we know more about language now.”

Miyagawa, for his part, asserts it is a viable idea in part because it could be subject to more scrutiny, as the communication patterns of other species are examined in further detail. “If this is right, then human language has a precursor in nature, in evolution, that we can actually test today,” he says, adding that bees, birds and other primates could all be sources of further research insight.

MIT-based research in linguistics has largely been characterized by the search for universal aspects of all human languages. With this paper, Miyagawa, Berwick and Okanoya hope to spur others to think of the universality of language in evolutionary terms. It is not just a random cultural construct, they say, but based in part on capacities humans share with other species. At the same time, Miyagawa notes, human language is unique, in that two independent systems in nature merged, in our species, to allow us to generate unbounded linguistic possibilities, albeit within a constrained system.

“Human language is not just freeform, but it is rule-based,” Miyagawa says. “If we are right, human language has a very heavy constraint on what it can and cannot do, based on its antecedents in nature.”


Written by: Peter Dizikes, MIT News Office


weren't we discussing about some part of samveda being similar to birdsongs?


Taittriya samhita(including Taittriya Upanishad) of Krishna Yajur Veda?

Wiki:
Quote:
According to tradition, Yājñavalkya was the son of Devarāta and was the pupil of sage Vaisampayana .[3] Once, Vaisampayana got angry with Yājñavalkya as the latter argued too much to separate some latter additions to Yajurveda in being abler than other students. The angry teacher asked his pupil Yājñavalkya to give back all the knowledge of Yajurveda that he had taught him.[3]

As per the demands of his Guru, Yājñavalkya vomited all the knowledge that he acquired from his teacher in form of digested food. Other disciples of Vaisampayana took the form of partridge birds and consumed the digested knowledge (a metaphor for knowledge in its simplified form without the complexities of the whole but the simplicity of parts) because it was knowledge and they were very eager to receive the same.[3]

The Saṃskṛt name for partridge is "Tittiri". As the Tittiri (partridge) birds ate this Veda, it is thenceforth called the Taittirīya Yajurveda. It is also known as Kṛṣṇa Yajurveda or Black-Yajurveda on account of it being a vomited substance. The Taittirīya Saṃhitā thus belongs to this Yajurveda.[4]

Then Yājñavalkya determined not to have any human guru thereafter. Thus he began to propitiate the Sun God, Surya. Yājñavalkya worshipped and extolled the Sun, the master of the Vedas, for the purpose of acquiring the fresh Vedic portions not known to his preceptor, Vaiśampāyana.[5]

The Sun God, pleased with Yājñavalkya penance, assumed the form of a horse and graced the sage with such fresh portions of the Yajurveda as were not known to any other. This portion of the Yajurveda goes by the name of Śukla Yajurveda or White-Yajurveda on account of it being revealed by Sun. It is also known as Vajasaneya Yajurveda, because it was evolved in great rapidity by Sun who was in the form of a horse through his manes.The rhythm of recital of these vedas is therefore to the rhythm of the horse canter and distinguishes itself from the other forms of veda recitals. In Sanskrit, term "Vaji" means horse. Yājñavalkya divided this Vajasaneya Yajurveda again into fifteen branches, each branch comprising hundreds of Yajus Mantras. Sages like Kanva, Madhyandina and others learnt those and Śukla Yajurveda branched into popular recensions named after them.[3]

Yājñavalkya married two wives. One was Maitreyi and the other Katyaayanee.[6] Of the two, Maitreyi was a Brahmavadini (one who is interested in the knowledge of Brahman).The descendant sects of Brahmans are the progeny of the first wife Katyaayanee. When Yājñavalkya wished to divide his property between the two wives, Maitreyi asked whether she could become immortal through wealth. Yājñavalkya replied that there was no hope of immortality through wealth and that she would only become one among the many who were well-to-do on.[3] When she heard this, Maitreyi asked Yājñavalkya to teach her what he considered as the best. Then Yājñavalkya described to her the greatness of the Absolute Self, the nature of its existence, the way of attaining infinite knowledge and immortality, etc. This immortal conversation between Yājñavalkya and Maitreyi is recorded in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.[7]

Wisdom of Yājñavalkya is shown in Brhadaranyaka Upanishad where he gives his teachings to his wife Maitreyi and King Janaka.[3] He also participates in a competition arranged by King Janaka about the selecting great Brhama Jnani (knower of Brahman). His intellectual dialogues with Gargi (a learned scholar of the times) form a beautiful chapter filled with lot of philosophical and mystical question-answers in Brhadaranyaka Upanishad.[3] In the end, Yājñavalkya took Vidvat Sanyasa (renunciation after the attainment of the knowledge of Brahman) and retired to the fores


There seems to be another instance connected to birds-Vedas:

Quote:
"Birds Know"
Image
Threskiornis aethiopicus
Sacred ibis

The old Markandeya Purana is an Indian book that is written as a dialogue between the sage Markandeya and a disciple of Vyasa, called Jaimini. The text begins with telling that Jaimini asked four questions of the sage.

Markandeya replied, "Birds know, and these wise birds stay in the caves among the Vindhya Hills."

A surprised Jaimini asked again, 'It is surprising that birds have Veda knowledge, which is even rare to find among humans."

Markandeya told him the birds had been elves earlier, but then they had tried to seduce a sage, and were to be reborn as birds for it. Then, after some time a sage found four eggs and took care of them until they hatched. He fostered the chicks in his hermitage. As they got feathers and started to flow about, they also listened in to discourses on the Vedas and other texts that the sage gave to gathered disciples.

One day the birds told the sage, "Tell us what we should do, please."

He advised them to go to the Vindhya Hills, and so they did. While they stayed there, they studied the Vedas and advised seekers at times too.

When Jaimini came to them, he said, "Learned birds! Kindly listen. Sage Markandeya told me to come here and see you."

They replied, "God has many forms. And here is a story: Once a Brahmin instructed his son to study Vedas. The son laughingly said, "I know everything already."

His father got pleased and asked him many questions about life and death. The son answered, "I was blessed with an extraordinary memory in my previous birth. That is why I remember the knowledge and virtues of previous lives.

Those who lack solid virtues suffer great pain at the time of death, and some have to undergo scores of tortures in hell. Sinners pass through different hells and may not enjoy their imperfect future lives much - but as their actions improve, they may eventually attain a god's position."

Jaimini asked further questions, and the four wise, talking birds answered to their ability; repeating teachings of Markandeya. [Some abstract of their lessons]

The Ibis among ancient Egyptians
Image
Thoth
Toth of ancient Egyptians depicted with an Ibis head.

The deity Thoth of ancient Egyptians, was often depicted as a man with the head of an ibis. This bird was sacred to him, and the baboon too. According to Theodor Hopfner, Thoth's Egyptian name, which runs something like Djehuty (Tehuti), denotes that he possessed the attributes of the ibis. His name means "He who is like the ibis".

Thoth has been depicted in many ways. Usually, he is depicted in his human form with the head of an ibis. In this form, he can be represented as the reckoner of times and seasons. Sometimes he was depicted wearing the Atef crown or the United Crowns of Upper and Lower Egypt. When not depicted in this common form, he sometimes takes the form of the ibis directly. He also appears as a dog faced baboon or a man with the head of a baboon when he is A'an, the god of equilibrium. In the form of A'ah-Djehuty he took a more human-looking form. These forms are symbolic and metaphoric. The Egyptians did not believe gods actually looked like humans with animal heads.

Thoth (also Thot) is a Greek version from the letters dhwty. Hellenic Greeks interpreted him to be their god Hermes because of similar attributes and functions. In Egyptian mythology, he played many vital and prominent roles in maintaining the universe. He was often considered as the heart, that is, the seat of intelligence or the mind. He was also thought of as the tongue of the sun god Ra. Thoth also became associated with the arts of magic, writing, science, and more. He came to be seen as god of wisdom, magic, measurement, regulation, of events, of time.

His roles in Egyptian mythology were many, and he had many shrines in his honour. The ancient Egyptians regarded Thoth as One, self-begotten, and self-produced. He was the master of both physical and moral law. His is feminine counterpart, Ma'at was the force which maintained the Universe. Without his words, the Egyptians believed, the gods would not exist. The Egyptians credited him as the author of all works of science, religion, philosophy, and magic. He was also credited with creating the 365 day calendar. Thoth could also heal and resurrect.

In one ancient myth an egg was laid upon the Milky Way by a cosmic goose, a celestial bird. The egg contained Ra, the sun god. After the rise of the cult of Thoth, the egg was said to have been a gift from Thoth, and laid by an ibis, the bird with which he was associated. [More]

Among ancient Egyptians, Thoth was also known by specific sides to himself, such as "god father". One of Thoth's titles, "Three times great, great" was translated to the Greek Trismegistos, making Hermes Trismegistus. The Greeks also declared him the inventor of such as geometry, botany, and oratory. He was related to the Logos of Plato and the mind of God.


Link

There is also a story of Jajali-Tuladhara in MB where birds(Chataka birds) play a key role. In Nala-Damayanti story, Hamsa bird becomes the messenger. In Uttara Ramayana, there is an instance of two birds complaining to Sri Rama about a 'property dispute'.

In Shankara Vijayam, Sri Adi Shankara is searching for the address of Mandana Mishra. Adi Shankara asks some people for the address of Mandana Mishra. They tell Him that the place, where even the birds recite Vedas, is the location of Mandana Mishra's house.

About bees: In Srisailam, the Goddess is called Bramaramba. 'Bramara' means bee. It is said that the temple in Srisailam is such that, at a certain place it resonates like the sound made by a bee(bramara).

----

X-posting from Archeo-astronomy and dating of texts:
Sushupti wrote:
I am deliberatly putting this in Astro thread. No comment."Bolunga to Bolega ki Bolta hai"

Image


+108 to the person who has discovered this gem of encoded in Hanuman Chalisa. And thanks Sushupti saar for posting this didn't know it. Could you give the link to this info? I mean the link to source of this pic...

RamaY wrote:
^ Could someone pls translate it into our National Language Telugu?


'our National Language' is ENGLISH, so I'll translate it into that:

(Hanuman Chalisa verse 20)
Juug Sahastra Jojan Par Bhaanu,
Leelyo Taahi Madhur Phal Jaanu .

Meaning:
In your childhood, you gulped the Sun which is at a distance of thousands of miles considering it to be a sweet fruit.

Juug == Yug (Yugas),
Sahasra == Thousand,
Jojan == Yojan,
Bhaanu == Sun,
Leelyo == gulped
Madhur == Sweet
Phal == Fruit
Jaanu == thinking/knowing.

Here, Yuga means the combination of all the 4 Yugas i.e. Krita(Satya) + Treta + Dwapara + Kali.

Before we proceed, there is one thing that must be understood.

1 divine(divya) day(for Gods in heaven/swarga) == 360 solar days(i.e. 1 solar year).
1 divine(divya) year(for Gods in heaven/swarga) == 360 solar years.

1 Krita Yuga = 17,28,000 solar years or 4800 divine years.
1 Treta Yuga = 12,96,000 solar years or 3600 divine years.
1 Dwapara Yuga = 8,64,000 solar years or 2400 divine years.
1 Kali Yuga = 4,32,000 solar years or 1200 divine years.

1 Mahayuga = 1 Krita(17,28,000) + 1 Treta(12,96,000) + 1 Dwapara(8,64,000) + 1 Kali(4,32,000) = 43,20,000 years.
or
1 Mahayuga = 1 Krita(4800) + 1 Treta(3600) + 1 Dwapara(2400) + 1 Kali(1200) = 12000 years.

Dwapara = 2*Kali; Treta = 3*Kali; Krita = 4*Kali;

1 Mahayuga = 1 Krita + 1 Treta + 1 Dwapara + 1 Kali;
=> 1 Mahayuga = 4*Kali + 3*Kali + 2*Kali + 1*Kali;
=> 1 Mahayuga = 10*Kali;
=> 1 Mahayuga = 10 * (4,32,000) = 43,20,000 solar yrs;
or 1 Mahayuga = 10 * (1200) = 12000 divine years.

Here, when Tulsidas ji uses the word 'Jug'(or Yug) he means Mahayuga or Chaturyuga(i.e. a single cycle of all the 4 Yugas). So, Yuga == 43,20,000 solar years or 12000 divine years.

Sahasra means thousand.

Jojana(or Yojana) is an Indian unit of distance. When it is converted to Miles, 1 Yojana is about 8-9 Miles. I think the exact conversion would be in decimals, so it is approximated to either 8 or 9. There seems to be some disagreement on when it should be approximated to 8 or 9 miles. Here, it has been taken to mean 8 miles.

So, Tulsidas ji says,"
Juug Sahastra Jojan Par Bhaanu,
Leelyo Taahi Madhur Phal Jaanu ."

Meaning:
In your childhood, you(Hanuman) gulped(leelyo) the Sun(Bhaanu) which is at a distance(par) of Jug(12000) Sahasra(1000) Jojan(8 miles) miles considering(jaanu) it to be a sweet(madhur) fruit(phal).

So, the distance of Sun from earth is: Jug(12000) * sahasra(1000) * jojan(8 miles) = 9,60,00,000 miles.

1 miles = 1.6 KM.
So, the distance of sun from earth is:
9,60,00,000 miles = 15,36,00,000 KM.

According to modern science the distance between sun and earth is:
14,96,00,000 km.

Basically, Tulsidas ji has mentioned the approx. distance of Sun from earth in simple words in Hanuman Chalisa. Tulsidas ji lived in 16th century(1497-1623 CE). This was the time when the Alauddin Khilji and Malik Kafur were plundering the entire India, looting the temples and destroying the grand temples(which were the centres of learning as much as they were religious centres) and forcibly converting the people. This was the time when Mongols, under Babur, finally succeeded in establishing their rule in India by defeating the Dilli sultanate(Lodhi was defeated in Panipat in 1526). Till then, Mongols were launching their raids on India. The frequency and the brazenness of the raids was steadily increasing. Timur(great grand-father of Babur) had sacked Dilli in 1398(during the rule of Tughlaq's father).

In that picture, the author says that the modern day Indians are unable to recognize that all this scientific knowledge was already known to Indians. The author says that the modern day Indians, trained in convent schools, will only accept(and admire) the words of westerners like Newton. The author thinks that the westerners like Newton had formulated their theories after stealing the ancient Indian knowledge.
----

Sushupti wrote:
RajeshA wrote:
Sushupti ji,

isn't the length of a Yojana somewhat unclear?


Rajesh Ji, Prof. Subhash Kak did a much better job in his article

"The Speed of Light and Puranic Cosmology"

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9804020

My point about "Hanumaan chalissa" thing was why degrade it by using it for such cheap intellectual stunt?.



Quote:
Speed of Light discovered by Vedic scholar Sayana - Professor Subhash Kak
14/02/2013 15:01:15 Courtesy: S C Sharma

Professor Subhash Kak of Louisiana State University recently discovered a statement by Sayana, a 14th century Indian scholar. In his commentary on a hymn in the Rig Veda, Sayana says: "With deep respect, I bow to the sun, who travels 2,202 yojanas in half a nimesha."

A yojana is approximately 9 miles; a nimesha is 16/75 of a second. Therefore: 2,202 yojanas x 9 miles x 75/8 nimeshas = 185,794 miles per second

How could a Vedic scholar who died in 1387 A.D. have known the correct figure for the speed of light?

The yogic tradition is full of such coincidences. Take for instance the mala of traditional beads. Students often ask why they have 108 beads instead of 100. The reason is that the mala represent the ecliptic, the path of the sun and moon across the sky. Yogis divide the ecliptic into 27 equal sections called nakshatras, and each of these into four equal sectors called padas, or "steps," marking the 108 steps that the sun and moon take through heaven.

Professor Kak points out that the distance between the earth and the sun is approximately 108 times the sun's diameter. The diameter of the sun is about 108 times the earth's diameter. And the distance between the earth and the moon is 108 times the moon's diameter.

Could this be the reason the ancients considered 108 to be a sacred number? If the microcosm (us) mirrors the macrocosm (the solar system), maybe you could say there are 108 steps between our human awareness and the divine light. Each time we chant another mantra as our mala beads slip through our fingers, we are taking another step toward our own inner sun.

The Surya Siddhanta is the oldest surviving astronomical text in the Indian tradition, dating to the 6th A.D. or earlier It states that the earth is shaped like a ball, and that at the very opposite side of the planet from India is a great city where the sun is rising at the same time it sets in India. In this city, the Surya Siddhanta claims, lives a race of siddhas, or advanced spiritual adepts. Is it possible that the ancient Indians were aware of the Mayans and Incas?

While European traditions claimed that the universe was created approximately 6,000 years ago, Indian sages have always maintained that our cosmos is billions of years old, and that it's just one of many such universes which have arisen and dissolved in the vastness of eternity.

In fact the Puranas describe the birth of our solar system out of a "milk ocean" ~ the Milky Way? Through the will of the Creator, they tell us, a vortex shaped like a lotus arose from the navel of eternity. It gradually coalesced into our world, but will perish some day billions of years hence when the sun expands to many times it present size, swallowing all life on earth.

In the end, the Puranas say, the ashes of the earth will be blown into space by the cosmic wind. Today we known this is a scientifically accurate, if poetic, description of the fate of our planet.


Link

Buddhists copied the 108 from Hindus. So, the Buddhist rosary also has 108 beads, just like Hindus.

And Christianity(distorted crypto-Buddhism) also has 108 beads. It is justified in the following manner. Ten decades(10 * 10 ==100) for Ave Maria, and eight units for Pater Noster. But, the reality is that it is based on Buddhist rosary, which in turn, is based on Hindu rosary.

Even the word 'rosary' is based on the sanskrit word: 'Japa'. In sanskrit 'Japa' means 'chanting'. So, 'Japa maala' means a 'chanting garland'. But, in sanskrit, 'Japaa' means a red flower(like a rose). So, instead of called it 'Japa maala', it has been translated as 'Japaa maala' i.e. 'rose garland' or rosary(or rosarium).

This is not a misunderstanding, but a deliberate intentional pun on the sanskrit original.

----
Quote:
Bhaskaracharya's Law of Gravity

Did you know that the famous Hindu astronomer, Bhaskaracharya in his Surya Siddhanta wrote:

"Objects fall on the earth due to a force of attraction by the earth. Therefore, the earth, planets, constellations, moon and sun are held in orbit due to this attraction."

It was not until 1687, 1200 years later did Issac Newton "rediscover" the Law of Gravity.

In Surya Siddhanta, dated 400-500 AD, the ancient Hindu astronomer Bhaskaracharya states,

"Objects fall on the earth due to a force of attraction by the earth. Therefore, the earth, planets, constellations, moon, and sun are held in orbit due to this force."

Approximately 1200 years later (1687 AD), Sir Isaac Newton rediscovered this phenomenon and called it the Law of Gravity.


Link

The sanskrit word 'graha' is generally translated as 'planets', in astronomical context. This is a mistake, IMHO. The actual meaning of 'graha' is 'grasping'. So, in astronomical context, the word 'graha' should mean 'a body that exerts attractive force on earth'.

9 Grahas are listed by Indians:
1) Sun (Ravi/Aditya)
2) Moon (Soma/Chandra)
3) Mars (Mangal)
4) Mercury (Budha)
5) Jupiter (Guru/Brihaspati)
6) Venus (Shukra)
7) Saturn (Shani)
8 ) Rahu
9) Ketu

Rahu and Ketu are called chaya(shadow) graha(bodies exerting attractive force on earth). They are merely shadow bodies and therefore, the actual grahas are only 7. These 7 grahas are used to denote the 7 weekdays.
1) Sun (Ravi/Aditya) - Sunday (In Indian astrology, Sun is considered the King of the grahas).
2) Moon (Soma/Chandra) - Moonday or Monday ( In Indian astrology, Moon is considered a minister or a weak king of the grahas. Moon is called Soma. 'Soma' also means elixir. Essentially, Moon is considered the reason for the formation of medicinal
3) Mars (Mangal) - Tuesday (in Latin, it is called dies of Mars i.e. day of Mars. Mars is a god of war according to the romans. The etymology of Tuesday comes from 'Tiw's day' Tiw is a god of war just like Mars. In fact, one could say that Tiw is another avatar of Mars. But, why is Mars associated with wars? In Indian astrology/jyothishya, there is a dosha called Mangala. People with this dosha are called Mangliks. If an unmarried person has a mangala dosha, then he/she should marry a person with the same dosha. The idea is that a person with mangala dosha(Mars affliction) will be aggressive and passionate. It is better if such a person marries another aggressive and passionate person. So, in Indian astrology, Mars symbolizes aggression and passion, not necessarily war. In Japanese, Tuesday is called fire day because Mars is called fire star.)
4) Mercury (Budha) - Wednesday (in Latin, it is called dies of Mercury i.e. day of Mercury. The etymology of Wednesday comes from Woden's day. Woden is interpreted as the germanic mercury god.)
5) Jupiter (Guru/Brihaspati) - Thursday (in Latin, it is Jupiter's day. The etymology of Thursday is 'Thor's day'. Thor is a germanic god who weilds a mighty hammer.)
6) Venus (Shukra) - Friday (in Latin, it is dies of veneris i.e. a day of Venus. The etymology of Friday is 'Frigg's day'. The germanic goddess Frigg is associated with the roman goddess Venus)
7) Saturn (Shani) - Saturnday or Saturday

The 7 weekdays(starting with Sunday and ending with Saturday) is, thus, an Indian invention(or discovery), which was copied by others. They even wove theology around it(sabbaths :rotfl: ).

----
brihaspati wrote:
So we now have assumptions of "quality" versus "quantity", "per capita" or not. I just wonder why people stick in their thumbs with a presumed position, without doing a research on their preferred position from sources that have no need to be hagiographic.

Take locomotives for example - the crucial design element that made steam locomotives possible was actually a certain small continental European country's innovation - and the design was stolen by the Brit now most illustriously assigned the glory of making the locomotive feasible.

Apart from that the debate about industrial revolution has been going on for a very long time - and British historians or their hagiographers in the colonies [like in India], whether Marxist or anti-Marxists - have spent a large part of heir career trying to deny the role of industrial espionage, circumstantial constraints of labour, as well as the needs of transAtlantic or so-called triangular slave trade - in sparking off "industrial revolution".

The whole issue of technological innovation is a hotly disputed one - and throughout history, technological innovation has primarily been driven by war+conquest, as well as copying and stealing others' stuff and adapting it for a more advanced or different use. Almost every piece of legendary Roman technology was an adaptation from non-Roman sources, as goes most of the Greek invention stuff. There is a huge debate about how the "spinning jenny" idea went into Englishtan. If non-hagiographic research had resources to support it - many of the so-called "industrial revolution" aspects of Britistan would be traceable to non-Brit sources.

Yes, capitalist development is a hotly disputed area even in European context - and people from Dobb, Schumpeter to people down the feeding chain ever since have been fighting over it - whether it was the Church- or Puritans or monarchical intervention - or constraints of labour, as well as capital accumulation from colonial looting and slave trade or early extreme exploitation of Brit's own labour of the disempowered sections of the populace.

For India, capital accumulation could not take place becuase of factors that can be explicitly traced to Islam - and the Muslim way of rule in India, including the mughals. There are some indications that it might have been going the capitalist way - in a faintly identifiable form - through the development of the "state" karkhanas. but other aspects of the economic regime that Islamism and Muslims imposed on the society meant that no meaningful capital accumulation would take place. The economy was virtualy stagnant from the time of the Ghoris and decreased slightly over the centuries.

From Khalji times the explciit policy of bare survival/[labour reproduction onlee] policy of Islamism was made official, leaving little or no surplus to be reinvested. Mughal policy was no heavenly advance - as the temporary relaxation was countered by the extreme exploitation needed to coerce the population as well as maintain the lavish decadence of the aamirs and their retinue. Mughal empure was a progressive story of land alienation, de-agrarianization, forestation. Both sultanate and mughal actively maintained a policy of exporting Indian labour into slavery into CAR, but did not invest the profits of thsi CAR slave trade into the economy - rather for their pleasures of the flesh and futile wars or importing overpriced islamist items from the Gulf/Persia.

Now where exactly do people want to compare and raise India and indian economy in comparison to UK for this matter?


brihaspati wrote:
The so-called famous inventions and innovations - even tracking the most often shouted about ones -
(1) iron and steel works [tools for slave trade - and the earliest concentration/marekt developed in Bristol - the main port for slave trade]
(2) cotton spinners - people should look up on the shape and spatial positioning of the axle/axis of rotation. The "invention" happened onlee after, onlee after EIC took up control over the spinners of India, and came in touch Indian spindles.
(3) military rockets - again from India, stolen from Tipu's arsenal and adapted for naval warfare
etc., etc.,

Indian innovation flourished more in the areas where Islamic military/state rule had less time, or penetrated later. For example, by a miracle, too, Liebnitz and Newton simultaneously "invented" calculus - after, after, Europeans came in touch with the Kerala school of maths. The further north - greater the luminance of Islamism in India - lesser the luminance of intellectual signs, and inventions.

Why do most of European "technological" innovation come onlee after colonial/trade/scholarly contact with India and China? All in an explosive burst after the twin fall of Islamist Spain and Constantinople - and the libraries/books/scholars dispersed and seeking patronage of the numerous princelings cropping up post plague? This is the same phenomena that characterizes the burst of Arab genius onlee after the fall of the university townships of India and "greater India" to Islamic hordes. Once that phase passes - no inventions - unfortunately.

Look at the great innovators of UK - in its pre-colonial and colonial phase. One of the most famous engineering innovators, responsible for suspension bridges and railways and "metro" and propeller ships - was actually French. It was also continental Europeans who created iron cannons for the sadistical philanderer of a monarch - Henry VIII.

Capital formation is always a complex issue. Its not always a straightforward question of "quality" vs "quantity".


brihaspati wrote:
The really really pious who would be trusted with such manuscripts at the repositories at V- would be vetted to make sure that they do not say or reveal anything that lowers imperial icons. With such a great sarcastic knowledge of the process, surely the process by which someone can gain access is also very very well known to be used for sarcasm?

A non-pious can try and and see what happens. For that matter, much of the original manuscripts of the early "genius-es" of Europe are not available. Much of Newton's voluminous "works" are still "missing". Brits are particularly adept at destroying incriminating evidence - especially any info that might lower the image or stature of any of their icons. Its all in the "national interest" onlee.

But there is also an intersting angle to this - more Indians are up bristling in righteous anger, at perceived diminishing of British image, and bringing their admirable talents at sarcasm all directed at fellow Indians who are supposedly insinuating against the Brits. Thats diversity and liberalism, "nuanced views" which is onlee to be given by Indians to Brits but never returned in favour by the Brits.


brihaspati wrote:
There is also a certain Dr. C.K. Raju
http://www.indianscience.org/essays/31-%20E--Infinitesimal%20Calculus.PDF
Not many guesses as to why it will not be a very popular one with any of the editorial boards of "peer reviewed" journals.


brihaspati wrote:
Did India's population remain constant? Any awareness of any sources based on which calculations have been attempted? On what sort of assumptions of constant rates for 1000-2000 years? Which proxies have been used? Did the authors themselves find Mughal records reliable? What are the models used to extrapolate?

The three who are most quoted - all appear to agree, two of them as late as 2010, that that "ubiquitious" "per capita" thingie actually decreased during the latter part of Mughal rule and decreased at a faster rate on Brit colonial transition.


Link to original posts

----
To understand the concept of divine years and solar years better:
johneeG wrote:
devesh wrote:
Sri Rama is supposed to have been born in the 26th Mahayuga of the Vaivaswata Manvantara.

we are** in the 28th Mahayuga. Krishna and the Krishna-Dwaipayana Vyasa both belong to the current - 28th - Mahayuga.

**as per Bhagavatham.


Yep, Sri Rama was born in this Manvantara but different Mahayuga.

1 Mahayuga = 1 Krita(17,28,000) + 1 Treta(12,96,000) + 1 Dwapara(8,64,000) + 1 Kali(4,32,000) = 43,20,000 years.

Dwapara = 2*Kali; Treta = 3*Kali; Krita = 4*Kali;

1 Mahayuga = 1 Krita + 1 Treta + 1 Dwapara + 1 Kali;
=> 1 Mahayuga = 4*Kali + 3*Kali + 2*Kali + 1*Kali;
=> 1 Mahayuga = 10*Kali;
=> 1 Mahayuga = 10 * (4,32,000) = 43,20,000 yrs;

1 Manvantara = 71 Mahayugas.(There are also Sandhi periods).

1 Kalpa = 14 Manvantaras.

Every Manvantara has a Manu, Indra and a set of Saptarishis. Or in other words the positions of Manu, Indra and Saptarishis have a term(allocated time period) of 1 Manvantara. So, a single Kalpa has 14 Manus(& 14 sets of Saptarishis).

The list of 14 Manus are:
01)Svayambhuva Manu(The Dhruva/polestar episode happened in this Manvantara. Dhruva was a descendent of this Manu).
02)Svarocisha Manu
03)Uttama Manu
04)Tamasa Manu
05)Raivata Manu
06)Cakshusha Manu
07)Vaivasvata Manu (current Manu and Manvantara)
08)Savarni Manu
09)Daksha-savarni Manu
10)Brahma-savarni Manu
11)Dharma-savarni Manu
12)Rudra-savarni Manu
13)Deva-savarni Manu
14)Indra-savarni Manu
Wiki Link

1 Kalpa forms a daytime of Lord Brahma. There is an equivalent night time for Lord Brahma when there is no creation. He rests at this time. So 24 hr period of Lord Brahma is equal to 2 Kalpas.

1 Single Day of Lord Brahma = 2 Kalpas.
360 such days = 1 year for Lord Brahma.
Total lifetime of Lord Brahma is 100 such years.

A Vishnu day is equivalent to the whole life span of Brahma. The whole life span of Vishnu is equivalent to a day of 'Rudra'. The whole life span of Rudra is equivalent to a day of lord Shiva. In the whole life of lord Shiva five lakh and four thousand numbers of Rudras come and go.
A Shiva's day commences with the creation and before the end of the night the whole creation gets annihilated. Sadashiva is eternal.(According to Shiva Mahapuranam.Link ).

Presently, we live in 1st Kalpa(1st day) of 51st year of Lord Brahma(50 yrs of Lord Brahma are completed and 51st is running). The name of this Kalpa is Shwetavaraha(White Boar) Kalpa. The name comes from Varaha avatara(of Lord Vishnu) which appeared at the starting of this Kalpa. Lord Varaha slew Hiranya-aksha(uncle of Prahladdha) and saved Bhumata(Earth). Then, He settled down at Tirupati. Later(in the present Kali Yuga), Lord Venkateshwara leased Tirupati from Lord Varaha for a period of 1 Kali Yuga(present Kali Yuga).

Presently, we live in 7th Manvantara(6 Manvantaras are completed and 7th is running). The present Manu is Vaivasvata Manu(son of Vivasvan/sun->Kasyapa->Marichi->Brahma). Ikshvaku is the son of Vaivasvata Manu. The descendents of Ikshvaku established Surya Vamsha(into which Lord Rama was born) with Ayodhya as the seat. The famous Maandhata, Raghu, and Ambarisha were born in Surya Vamsha. Vaivasvata Manu had another progeny named Ila who married Buddha/Mercury(son of Chandra/Moon). They had a son named Purarava. His descendents established Chandra Vamsha(into which Pandavas and Lord Sri Krishna were born). The famous Bharata, Nahusha, Yayati, Kuru, Puru, Yadu were all born in Chandra Vamsha.

Presently, we live in 28th Mahayuga(27 are completed and 28th is running). We live in Kali Yuga which started in 3102 BCE. Krita, Treta, Dwapara of the present Mahayuga are completed.

Lord Sri Krishna appeared in the Dwapara Yuga of present 28th Mahayuga(i.e approx 5000yrs ago). Lord Sri Rama appeared in Treta Yuga of 24th Mahayuga.

So, the time lapse between Lord Sri Rama's appearance to now would be:
Dwapara Yuga(24th Mahayuga) + Kali Yuga(24th Mahayuga) + entire 25th Mahayuga + entire 26th Mahayuga + entire 27th Mahayuga + Krita Yuga(28th Mahayuga) + Treta Yuga(28th Mahayuga) + Dwapara Yuga(28th Mahayuga) + Present Kali Yuga(so far i.e. 3102BCE+2012CE=5112yrs);
=> 2*Kali + Kali + 10*Kali + 10*Kali + 10*Kali + 4*Kali + 3*Kali + 2*Kali + 5112;
=> 42*Kali + 5112;
=> 42*(4,32,000) + 5112;
=> 1,81,44,000 + 5112;
=> 1,81,49,112 yrs;

A minor Pralaya (annihilation/destruction) happens at the end of every yuga. The pralaya which happened around 3102 was Mahabharata War and dessication of river Saraswati. At the end of a Chaturyuga/Mahayuga (4 yuga cycle), there is a bigger pralaya. At the end of Kalpa, the creation ceases.

Each Mahayuga has its own Vyasa figure. Vyasa means editor/compiler. The job of Vyasa is to compile or edit the Vedas and Puranas so that they are intelligible and accessible to people of later Yugas(particularly Kali Yuga). Krishna Dwaipayana(son of Satyavati) is the Vyasa figure of the present Mahayuga. Other people have occupied that position before. For example, Krishna Dwaipayana's father Parashara was Vyasa figure for a certain Mahayuga. And Valmiki(who authored Srimadh Ramayana) was also a Vyasa figure for a certain Mahayuga.

- According to Vishnu Puranam(by Samavedam Shanmukha Sharma) and other sources.

-----
Pentiah garu, Edited it. :D

----
EDIT: Earlier I wrote Sri Rama was born in 26th Mahayuga(from memory). But, it seems, I was wrong. It is not 26th Mahayuga, but 24th Mahayuga. Accordingly, I am changing the calculations. Link



johneeG wrote:
RajeshA wrote:
Or Kali Yuga may already be over, depending on how one interprets the Yuga Cycle Calendar!

The Daivik Kali Yuga is long (432,000 years) but the Manavik Kali Yuga may be much shorter (1200 years, 3,000 years depending on the model).


Saar ji,
after Kali Yuga, Krita Yuga will come(not Dwapara). Conditions in Krita Yuga have been given in MB. I have posted them in one of the previous posts in this thread. You can check whether those conditions are satisfied or not.

In fact, all the conditions given for Kali are well satisfied.

Also, you are wrong saar. Daivik is shorter(12000), while the human one is longer (432000). In fact, the concept here is of relativity of time (and time dilation). The rate of time for Devas is slower than that of human beings. Similarly, rate of time in heavenly planes is slower than that of lower planes. So, the same time period is equal to 12000yrs for Devas, while it is equal to 432000 yrs for humans. The rate of time is based on velocity according to modern science. While, in Hinduism, rate of time is an inherent quality of a plane(and different planes having different rates of time). So, a single day for Brahma is equal to 4.32 billion yrs(432 crore yrs). To Brahma, it seems like a normal time(within a single day). But, to human beings, it is an exceptionally long time. What happens if a human being were to travel to Brahma Loka and spend some time there? Then, such a human being's aging process will also slow down(due to the affect of Brahma Loka). They would not know the difference, it would feel normal to them.

There is a incident on this:
Quote:
Revati was the only daughter of King Kakudmi (sometimes called Kakudmin, or Raivata), a powerful monarch who ruled Kusasthali, a prosperous and advanced kingdom under the sea, and who also controlled large tracts of land, including Anarta kingdom. Feeling that no human could prove to be good enough to marry his lovely and talented daughter, King Kakudmi took Revati with him to Brahma-loka (the plane of existence where Lord Brahma, the Creator, resides) to ask Lord Brahma's advice about finding a suitable husband for Revati.

When they arrived, Lord Brahma was listening to a musical performance by the Gandharvas, so they waited patiently until the performance was finished. Then, Kakudmi bowed humbly, made his request and presented his shortlist of candidates. Lord Brahma laughed loudly, and explained that time runs differently on different planes of existence, and that during the short time they had waited in Brahma-loka to see him, 27 chatur-yugas (a chatur-yuga is a cycle of four yugas, or Ages of Man, hence 27 chatur-yugas total 108 yugas) had passed on Earth (see time dilation theory). Also see the astronomical explanation. Lord Brahma said to Kakudmi, "O King, all those whom you may have decided within the core of your heart to accept as your son-in-law have passed away in the course of time. Twenty-seven chatur-yugas have already passed. Those upon whom you may have already decided are now gone, and so are their sons, grandsons and other descendants. You cannot even hear about their names."abhiyātaḥ — have passed; tri — three; nava — nine; chatur-yuga — four yugas; vikalpitaḥ — thus measured. [1] 'for many successions of ages have died whilst you were listening to our songsters: now upon earth the twenty-eighth great age of the present Manu is nearly finished, and the Kali period is at hand.' You must therefore bestow this virgin gem (i.e. Revati) upon some other husband, for you are now alone, and your friends, your ministers, servants, wives, kinsmen, armies, and treasures, have long since been swept away by the hand of time."[2]

King Kakudmi was overcome with astonishment and alarm at this news.[2] However, Lord Brahma comforted him, and added that Lord Vishnu, the Preserver, was currently incarnate on Earth in the forms of Krishna and Balarama, and he recommended Balarama as a worthy husband for Revati.

Kakudmi and Revati then returned to earth, which they regarded as having left only just a short while ago. They were shocked by the changes that had taken place. Not only had the landscape and environment changed, but over the intervening 27 chatur-yugas, in the cycles of human spiritual and cultural evolution, mankind was at a lower level of development than in their own time (see Ages of Man). The Bhagavata Purana describes that they found the race of men had become "dwindled in stature, reduced in vigour, and enfeebled in intellect."

Marriage to Balarama

Daughter and father found Balarama and proposed the marriage. Because she was from an earlier yuga, Revati was far taller and larger than her husband-to-be, but Balarama, "beholding the damsel of excessively lofty height," tapped his plough (his characteristic weapon) on her head and she shrunk to the normal height of people in that yugas. The marriage was then duly celebrated.

Revati bore her husband two sons, Nisatha and Ulmuka. Both her sons Nisatha and Ulmuka were killed in the Yadu fratricidal war, after which Balarama also ended his earthly incarnation in meditation by the sea.[3] At his funeral ceremony, Revati ascended onto his funeral pyre and was immolated with him.



You are uncomfortable with the long timelines given by traditional Yugas(because they are incompatible with modern science). So, you want to take up the Yukteshwar model. Fine. In fact, it seems even Yukteshwar was trying to fit Yugas into science of his time.

But, frankly, Indian time periods are incompatible with modern science. Simple. Lets say we accept Yukteshwar model that means 12000 years is equal to one Mahayuga(Krita+Treta+Dwapara+Kali). 12000 years seems like a reasonable time period which would be acceptable to the modern science. But, there is a glitch. Indian history does not start with this Mahayuga. No. The Indian history(particularly Hindu history) starts from this Manvantara.

Please see the following post:
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?p=1339211#p1339211

Sri Rama was born in 24th Mahayuga's Treta Yuga. We currently live in 28th Mahayuga's Kali Yuga. So how much time elapsed between Rama and us, if we take one Mahayuga to be 12000 yrs? 51, 312 yrs. How much time elapsed from Ikshvaku(start of manvantara)? 3,39,012 yrs. Are these figures acceptable to modern science? No. So, even if the Yuga periods are shortened, the modern science is incompatible with the Indian one.

-----
A good source of time and its divisions: Harivamsam Ch 8

Hari Vamsam is considered a sequel of MB.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Mar 2013 00:59 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31
Posts: 4267
Location: Tejo Mahalaya
borissoff ji added another response on his blog:

Sorry for the delay. Genetics is a highly specialised are of study. My approach is purely linguistic. As a linguist I can clearly see the fundamental affinity lying at the base of all Indo-European languages. I can also clearly see the undeniable remarkable affinity between Slavonic and ancient Indo-Iranian languages. This affinity is confirmed by the genetic closeness. Even the early and rather rough studies demonstrated this. Look at this genetic map (Kivisild, T. ‘The Genetic Heritage of the Earliest Settlers Persists Both in Indian Tribal and Caste Populations’ The American Journal of Human Genetics, 2003, Volume 72, Issue 2, 313-332) showing the average genetic distances of various Eurasian populations. Is not it amazing that the average genetic difference between a Punjabi and an Eastern-European is twice as close as between Punjabi and Gujarati! There was a period when I tried to resolve this riddle reading lots of articles on genetic research but I soon found that they were as controversial as linguistic studies. The crucial question is with the dating of mutations. There are also many other issues: founder effect, multiple bottlenecks etc. I do not feel qualified to argue with what you wrote but there is an interesting theory uniting both the AIT and the OIT proposed by Anatole A. Klyosov, Igor L. Rozhanskii in their article “Haplogroup R1a as the Proto Indo-Europeans and the Legendary Aryans as Witnessed by the DNA of Their Current Descendants” .. This is the abstract:
Quote:
This article aims at reconstructing history of R1a1 ancient migrations between 20,000 and 3500 years before present (ybp). Four thousand four hundred sixty (4460) haplotypes of haplogroup R1a1 were considered in terms of base (ancestral) haplotypes of R1a1 populations and timespans to their common ancestors in the regions from South Siberia and northern/northwestern China in the east to the Hindustan and further west across Iranian Plateau, Anatolia, Asia Minor and to the Balkans in Europe, including on this way Central Asia, South India, Nepal, Oman, the Middle East, Comoros Islands, Egypt, etc. This study provides a support to the theory that haplogroup R1a arose in Central Asia, apparently in South Siberia and/or neighboring regions, around 20,000 ybp. Not later than 12,000 ybp bearers of R1a1 already were in the Hindustan, then went across Anatolia and the rest of Asia Minor apparently between 10,000 and 9000 ybp, and around 9000 – 8000 ybp they arrived to the Balkans and spread over Europe east to the British Isles. On this migration way or before it bearers of R1a1 (or the parent, upstream haplogroups) have developed Proto Indo-European language, and carried it along during their journey to Europe. The earliest signs of the language on passing of bearers of R1a1 through Anatolia were picked by the linguists, and dated by 9400 – 9600 – 10,100 ybp, which fairly coincides with the data of DNA genealogy, described in this work. At the same time as bearers of the brother haplogroup R1b1a2 began to populate Europe after 4800 ybp, haplogroup R1a1 moved to the Russian Plain around 4800 – 4600 ybp. From there R1a1 migrated (or moved as military expeditions) to the south (Anatolia, Mitanni and the Arabian Peninsula), east (South Ural and then North India), and south-east (the Iranian Plateau) as the historic legendary Aryans. Haplotypes of their direct descendants are strikingly similar up to 67 markers with contemporary ethnic Russians of haplogroup R1a1. Dates of those Aryan movements from the Russian Plain in said directions are also strikingly similar, between 4200 and 3600 ybp.

This theory of two ways of ancient migrations, in my opinion, does explain a lot of linguistic facts. However, I would not like to start here a discussion in the area where I am not qualified. In this blog I try to stick to linguistics and philology.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Mar 2013 17:02 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14030
Published on Mar 17, 2013
By Koenraad Elst
The Rg-Vedic reference to Sati

Quote:
The Rg-Veda contains a famous passage mentioning Sati – and preventing it. To a widow who is with her husband on his funeral pyre, the text says: rise up, abandon this dead man and re-join the living (10:18:8). The Vedic testimony proves two things: (1) Sati already existed, and (2) it was disapproved of by the mainstream of the Hindu tradition.

Of course it already existed, going back at least to Proto-Indo-European days. It is also recorded among the Germanic and Celtic branches of Indo-European (in the Siegfried saga, his beloved Brunhilde follows the hero into death). As a general rule, it was more frequent in societies where women had honour to uphold, whereas societies where women were treated as household commodities (like the Greek) did not know the practice at all. Variations on Sati, with harem wives and servants following their kings into death, are recorded in ancient Egypt, ancient China, Mongolia (where the introduction of Tibetan Buddhism put an end to it) and other societies. So India was not that exceptional.

The Mahabharata confirms the practice’s existence among the aristocracy, esp. with the self-immolation of Pandu’s beloved wife Madri (while his other wife Kunti does not consider it). She may have felt guilty, having seduced Pandu to have intercourse with her in spite of knowing that he was cursed to die from it; but she may also not have valued life without her husband. Greek sources of the last centuries BCE testify that the wives of Indian warriors killed in battle committed self-immolation. One episode even describes how a dead soldier’s two widows quarrel over who will be the Sati. Mind you, they quarreled for the right to self-immolate, not to make the other one self-immolate, for it was voluntary and indeed required some will-power to overcome the family’s resistance. The Hindu warrior caste, at least in some areas, upheld the practice until the collective Sati of several of Shivaji Bhonsle’s and of Ranjit Singh’s wives. The last great self-immolation by a Hindu ruler was indeed committed upon the death of the Sikh ruler Ranjit Singh in 1839. (If Sati is Hindu, the latter incident only offers extra proof that, much to the displeasure of the Khalistanis, Sikhism is Hindu.)

It is not true that, as some internet Hindus claim, Sati dates to the Muslim or even to the British period. It may be true that in some cases, families forced widows to commit Sati under pressure from altered British inheritance laws, but under these new circumstances it was still Hindus themselves who misused a hoary Hindu practice. They even cited a skewed reading of the Rg-Vedic verse in support of Sati, a classic case of the pliability of “tradition”. As for the Muslim period, typical for some battles was that Hindu warriors fought to the death and their wives who had remained in the towns committed collective self-immolation or Jauhar, not to fall into the hands of the Muslims. This was a specific practice building on the long-existing Hindu practice of Sati, but not to be confused with it.

It was confined to the real or would-be warrior castes, though, in keeping with their ethos of pride and passion. For Brahmins it was forbidden, a negative judgment going back to this Rg-Vedic verse. Taking such a momentous decision within at most 24 hours between the husband’s death and his cremation, under the impact of heavy emotions, was deemed to be in conflict with the Brahmin ethos of self-control. It is only logical that some rulers in the Brahmin-dominated Maratha confederacy forbid the practice even before the British East India Company Governor Lord William Bentinck (under prodding from Hindu reformer Ram Mohan Roy) abolished it by law in 1829. Brahmin and other high-caste widows were expected to remain loyal to their deceased husbands and refrain from remarrying, no matter how young they were. They became white-clad widows, often kept at a distance because of the stench of death figuratively hanging over them: primitive belief held them responsible for the death of their husbands (the converse implication of the belief that the wife’s force protected the husband). Though lower castes widely emulated this practice by the time European travelers recorded Hindu customs, the rule and often still the practice among low-castes had been that no womb should go unused and so widows remarried.

What is so puzzling about Sati for moderns in general and multiculturalists (in India: secularists) in particular, is that as per numerous testimonies, most self-immolating widows went into the pyre voluntarily, often overcoming pressure from their relatives or from the authorities not to do it. The shrill feminists who were protesting the Sati of Roop Kanwar in 1987 (calling it “murder”, a view which the Court refused to uphold) don’t want to understand this, but the testimonies are clear. The problem is that willing Satis confront the multiculturalists with a really different view of death, of freedom and of a woman’s place. Multiculturalism may be fun as long as it’s about exotic cuisine or Buddha statues in the garden, but here it gets really serious: actual difference between our and their conception of the rights of woman. Here was a class of women who, even as brides, knew very well that their husband’s death would leave them with the option of self-immolation, and accepted the custom.

Then again, we’ve been here before. In some Western countries, progressives have stood up for the right of women (effectively, of their parents) to commit female circumcision. All over the Western world, it is considered progressive to stand up for the right of Muslim women to cover their faces, even on passport photographs. Under their creed of cultural relativism, progressives ought to defend Sati as well, instead of being judgmental and applying narrow-minded Western prejudice to it. Alternatively, they might hold on to the modern “prejudice”, condemn Sati, and admit that multiculturalism has its limits.

Only a tiny minority of the Hindus, and even of the caste most famous for it, the Rajputs, ever committed Sati, but the practice had and largely still has a much wider constituency of supporters. Temples are erected for the women who committed it, where their heroism and loyalty is venerated: the Satisthal-s (now rebaptized as Shaktisthal-s, since Roop Kanwar’s Sati triggered a prohibition on the glorification of Sati). In South India, these women are commemorated with standing stones or Satikal-s, while men who have died while defending their villages get their Virakal-s, “hero stones”. So, whereas few women ever committed Sati, those who saw and venerated the heroism of it, were many.

But is it a “Hindu practice”? Firstly, the practice goes back to the time when the current belief in reincarnation didn’t exist yet. Husband and wife were supposed to go to heaven together, for “going to heaven” prevailed over reincarnation. The later version that they would “reincarnate together” is an unconvincing compromise. If there is anything to reincarnation, it means that if we are somehow entangled, we meet again even if we don’t die together.

Secondly, Hindu scripture largely frowns on it but accepts it for the warrior caste. A good but also difficult point in Hindu ethics is its relativity: depending on caste, age group and circumstances, the rules may differ. Caste autonomy is also recognized, and the decision of the caste Panchayat (council) effectively overruled anything written in the so-called law books. For instance, Brahmins wrote law books sternly condemning abortion, yet pre- and postnatal abortion was rife in some castes. The current problem of female feticide is based on this “Hindu” tradition, yet is clearly forbidden by the equally Hindu law books. So, Sati also had a place in the Hindu commonwealth even if it was forbidden for most people.

The well-known Somali-born ex-Muslim writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali, while campaigning for atheism as an alternative to Islam, accepts that Muslim women in large majority will go on believing in Allah and venerating Mohammed for a while, and therefore encourages a progressive interpretation of Islamic law, esp. regarding the treatment of women. But one problem she runs into, is the decentralization of Islam: no matter that a lone liberal Mufti (jurisconsult) issues an opinion giving a progressive reading of Islamic law, this innovation is not binding on other Muftis or on the masses. It is not like in the Catholic Church, where the Pope or the Council can take decisions which are binding on every Catholic. Reform may be slow, but at least it has teeth. By contrast, in decentralized religions, paradoxically it is very difficult to impose change. In particular, no matter how many Hindu authorities or commoners say that they don’t want Sati, if one caste upholds it, it will continue at least in that community.

Hindus, however, much in contrast with Muslims, can effect reform starting below, through a change in mentality. Even the law books, deemed a hotbed of unchanging orthodoxy, explicitly lay down that reform is permissible, esp. if effected by those familiar with the spirit of the law books, who judge that in new circumstances it is better served by a new concretization. Hindus have spontaneously adapted much better to modernity. With some prodding from the secular state, but mainly be an evolution in mentalities, Sati is becoming a quaint memory. The conviction that for a widow, there is life after the death of her husband, is becoming generalized even among the castes where self-immolation was customary.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Mar 2013 21:27 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14030
Image

Published on Mar 12, 2013
By François Gautier
Arise Again O Ancient India

Quote:
Once again, a country, Italy, shows how little respect it has for India, this time by refusing to honor its word to send back the accused marines. Is it not then time to say: “Arise O India, be proud once more of Thyself”.

This should be India’s motto for the Third Millennium, after five centuries of self-denial. For, in spite of its poverty, in spite of the false Aryan invasion, in spite of the Muslim holocaust, in spite of European colonialism, in spite of Macaulay’s children, in spite of the Partition, in spite of the Chinese threat, in spite of the westernised framework, India still has got tremendous potential. Everything is there, ready to be manifested again, ready to mould India in a new modern nation, a super power of the 21st century. Of course, India has to succeed its industrialisation, it has to liberalise, because unless you can compete economically with the West, no nation can become a super power. India has also to solve its political problems, settle its separatist troubles, get rid of corruption and bureaucracy. And lastly, it has to apply quickly its mind and genius to its ecological problems, because the environment in India is in a very bad way, near the point of no-return. Thus, if India can succeed into its industrialisation and liberalisation, become a force to be reckoned militarily, economically and socially, then the wonder that IS India could again manifest itself.

And what is this Wonder ? Beyond the image of poverty, of backwardness, beyond even the wonder that is Hinduism, there is a Knowledge – spiritual, occult, esoteric, medical even – still alive today in India. This Knowledge was once roaming upon the shores of this world – in Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece… – but it has now vanished to be replaced by religions, with their dogmas and rituals, do’s and don’t, hells and heavens. For we have lost the truth. we have lost the Great Sense, the meaning of our evolution, the meaning of why so much suffering, why dying, why getting born, why this earth, who are we, what is the soul, what is reincarnation, where is the ultimate truth about the world, the universe… But India has kept this truth, India has managed to preserve it through seven millenniums of pitfalls, of genocides and attempts at killing her santanam dharma.

And this will be India’s gift to this planet during the next century: to restore to the world its true sense. to recharge humanity with the real meaning and spirit of life, to gift to this dolorous Planet That which is beyond mind : the Supra-Mental. India will become the spiritual leader of the world :

“It is this religion that I am raising-up before the world, it is this that I have perfected and developed through the Rishis, Saints, and Avatars, and now it is going forth to do my work among the nations. I am raising forth this nation to send forth my word…When therefore it is said that India shall rise, it is the Santana Dharma that shall rise, it is the Santana Dharma that shall be great. When it is said that India shall expand and extend herself, it is the Santana Dharma that shall expand and extend itself over the world. It is for the Dharma and by the Dharma that India exists”. (IUttarpara speech)

This knowledge does not necessarily reside in mystical realms, but in authentic Indian traditional forms of genius which can be very practical. Take for example ancient medical systems, like Ayurveda, or Siddha. Today, allopathic medecines are found even in India’s remotest villages, making people dependant on harmful drugs which are expensive and only serve to enrich the big foreign multinationals. It takes a Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, to remind the world that Ayurveda is one of the greatest medical systems ever devised; that 3000 years ago, when the rest of the planet lived in total medical ignorance, Indian doctors were already performing plastic surgery, knew that the origin of many diseases were psychosomatic, had found in Mother nature the cure for most of man’s ailments and realised that the five natural elements have to be made balanced in the human body for a perfect harmonious life. Not only that, but Indian doctors were also yogis. They perceived that beyond the human body was another divine reality, of which the soul was the vehicle on earth. Today, Western doctors (and many Indian ones) are totally ignorant of the different planes of consciousness which superimpose our terrestrial life. Hence these doctors and the psychiatrists of the West are, as Sri Aurobindo pointed out, « searching with a torch light in the dark caverns of man’s Unconscious ». This ancient knowledge is unfortunately now being neglected. As a result, American companies are attempting to patent medicines using the properties of neem or haldi, for instance, which were known 3000 years ago by India’s forefathers. As in the case of Sanskrit, the Indian Government should thus put its energies and resources towards the reviving of Ayurveda.

Or take pranayama, the science of breathing. The effects of pranayama have been studied for thousands of years and Indian teachers know exactly what results will this type of exercise have on you and what kind of routine you should do to improve that particular problem, or develop this certain faculty in you. Pranayama, in Sanskrit, means breath – and in India, it is known that prana circulates in the whole body and that one breathes not only trough the nose and mouth, of course, but through ANY part of the body, making thus prana flow everywhere. Thus, according to yogis, prana can revitalise all these parts of our body which do not receive enough energy – and which, as a consequence, become weak and lose their vitality, like the eyes for instance. Pranayama is in fact everywhere : in the air which surrounds us, of course, but also in animals, in Nature, in the mineral world even. It is also found in food : today, one speaks of vitamins, proteins, calories – but one does not understand that it is actually the prana in the food which gives us energy; and the quality of this prana depends on the sort of food we are partaking.

Pranayama is probably the best suited Indian yogic discipline for the West, as His Holiness Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, founder of the Art of Living Movement has shown. It is so down to earth, so scientific : there are no miracles, no levitation, no smoky mysticism, as everything can be explained in a rational way. And again, the U.S.A., always prompt to experience new techniques, is using this knowledge : quite a few American companies have included exercises of pranayama in the peps sessions of their executives; sportsmen too are experimenting with it to improve their performances, as the film « the Great Blue », has shown when the hero does a series of breathing exercises known in India as « Viloma », to store as much air as possible in his lungs, before breaking a world record in underwater diving without oxygen.

And what about Kalaripayat, a very ancient multi-faceted martial art, which is still practised in the villages of Kerala ? In 522 A.D., an Indian Buddhist monk named Boddidharma, who had become a master of Kalaripayat (Buddhist monks, who travelled a lot in Asia to propagate their religion, used bare-handed fighting and the bamboo stick they used for walking to defend themselves against attacks) and was the son of the king of Kancheepuram in the state of Tamil Nadu, arrived at the court of the Chinese Emperor Liang Nuti of the 6th dynasty. The Emperor granted him a, audience and gave him travel documents to walk to the Kingdom of Wei (now Junan province) at the foot of the Han Shan mountains, to a Buddhist monastery called the temple of Shaolin.

Father and founder of Zen Buddhism (called C’han in China and Dhyana in India), Boddidharma taught the Chinese monks the barehanded fighting techniques of Kalaripayat, a very ancient Indian martial art, so that they could defend themselves against the frequent attacks of bandits. In time the monks became know all over China as skilled exponents of barehanded fighting, which came to be known as the Shaolin boxing art.

The Shaolin temple which was handed back a few years ago to the C ’han Buddhist monks by the Chinese Government, inheritors of Boddhidharma’s spiritual and martial teachings, is now open to visitors. On one of its walls, one can see a fresco depicting dark-skinned Indians teaching their lighter-skinned brothers the art of barehanded fighting. On the painting is inscribed : « Tenjiku Naranokaku », which means : « the fighting techniques to train the body (which come) from India.

Kalaripayat, or Shaolin boxing as it is came to be known, passed from China to Japan, through the Ryukyu islands, landing in Okinawa to blossom in the art of the Empty Hand, or later, Karate. Later it manifested in the Japanese mainland as jiu-jiu-tso, judo, Shorinji Kempo, etc. Karate, the art of the Empty Hand, father of all Japanese martial arts, is a blend of Boddhidharma’s martial teachings and the local fighting techniques, which existed there before the advent of Zen Buddhism. All Asian martial arts, particularly those of China and Japan, recognize their origin in the Shaolin Temple and honour Boddhidarma, (whom the Japanese call Dharuma). His portrait is often displayed in their dojos, where martial arts are practised.

And what of meditation, queen of all the yogic sciences ? That which is above everything, that without which any yogic discipline is impossible. That which interiorizes us, carries us within ourselves, to the discovery of our true soul and nature. There are hundreds of different mediation techniques, simple, cartesian, easy to experience, which have been devised by Indian sages since the dawn of Bharat. Each one has its own characteristics, each one gives particular results, which has been experienced by the billions of aspirants who have practised them since the dawn of Vedic times. Meditation is being practised more and more in the West and there have been numerous scientific studies, which have shown the positive effect of meditation on heart problems, psychological stress or blood circulation.

The irony of it all is that not only most of the Indian upper class and intellectual elite does not practise meditation and pranayama, ignores what is Kalaripayat and does not gets treated for its problems with Ayurveda, but that none of these wonders are included in the schools and universities curriculum. So you have this wonderful knowledge, which has disappeared from the rest of the world, but if you go to cities like Delhi, or Bombay, you realise that most of the youth there have no idea about meditation, or have never heard of pranayama. They are totally cut off from their ancient culture, from the greatness of their tradition, and even look down on it. So unless Indians start taking pride in their own culture, India will never be able to gift it to the world.

Famous French writer Andre Malraux had said that unless the 21 century is spiritual, then it will not be. What he meant was that the world has now come to such a stage of unhappiness, of material dryness, of conflicts within itself, that it seems doomed and there appears no way that it can redeem Itself : it is just going towards self-destruction, – ecologically, socially, spiritually. So unless the 21st century allows a new spiritual order to take over – not a religious order, because religion has been a failure, all over the world – then the world is going towards pralaya. And India holds the key to the world’s future, for India is the only nation which still preserves in the darkness of Her Himalayan caves, on the luminous ghats of Benares, in the hearts of her countless yogis, or even in the minds of her ordinary folk, the key to the planetary evolution, its future and its hope.

The 21st century then, will be the era of the East; this is where the sun is going to rise again, after centuries of decadence and submission to Western colonialism; this is where the focus of the world is going to shift. And as when India used to shine and send forth Her Dharma all over the Orient: to Japan, Thailand, China, Burma, or Cambodia and influence their civilisations and religions for centuries to come, once more She will emit Her light and radiate, Queen among nations: “India of the ages is not dead nor has She spoken Her last creative word; She lives and has still something to do for Herself and the human peoples. And that which She must seek now to awake, is not an anglicised oriental people, docile pupil of the West and doomed to repeat the cycle of the Occident’s success and failure, but still the ancient immemorial Shakti recovering Her deepest self, lifting Her head higher towards the supreme source of light and strength and turning to discover the complete meaning and vaster form of Her Dharma”.


Great Article!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Mar 2013 12:03 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20
Posts: 922
The South Industry's actor (Bwood 'Force' starrer) Vidyut Jamwal gave an interview recently that I read in TOI.
He's a Kalaripayat baddie, crazy fit, Veda reader. He also mentioned the same Bodhi Dharma and his migration to China.
But why are we discussing this in OIT thread ??


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Mar 2013 12:07 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14030
Virendra wrote:
But why are we discussing this in OIT thread??


The thread includes "knowledge which has Indian origin and migrated to other countries", but for various reasons today the connections have become blurred.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Mar 2013 13:07 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47
Posts: 1916
Quote:
The concept of qi(or chi) seems very similar to the concept of Prana and Chit in Hinduism(from India). The word Prana in Sanskrit means life, it also refers to air. In Hinduism, human body contains major 5 Prana(Pancha-Prana) and minor 5 Prana. These different Pranas are essentially air residing in different parts of the body and performing different functions(or flowing in different directions).

The word qi(or Chi) sounds phonologically similar to the word Chit(of Hinduism). It is very difficult to translate the sense of the term Chit. Broadly, Chit means a conscious(or intelligent) energy. Essentially, qi(or chi) seems like a combination of the concepts of Prana(life or breath/air) and Chit(conscious energy).

The concepts of Prana and Chit are intrinsic and important parts of Hindu philosophy, ritual and even martial arts(like Kalaripayattu) or spiritual exercises(like Yoga) or medicine(Ayurveda). Buddhism is essentially Hinduism with some omissions and commissions. The essential difference between Hinduism and Buddhism is on two topics: Vedas and Gautama Buddha. Hinduism takes Vedas as the final authority, while Buddhism takes Gautama Buddha's teachings as the final authority. Buddhism is like Hinduism with the addition of Gautama Buddha's teachings and minus those teachings of Vedas which are perceived as being in conflict with the teachings of Gautama Buddha. Similarly, Hinduism is like Buddhism with the addition of teachings of Veda and minus those teachings of Gautama Buddha which are perceived as being in conflict with the teachings of Vedas.

Takshashila and Nalanda were major learning centers in India. People from across the world flocked to these universities to learn Indian concepts. These two universities were also major buddhist centers. The students of these universities would then go to their respective countries and spread the Indian concepts(including Buddhism). Along with Buddhism, many of these concepts were exported by India to various parts of the world including China.


Link

I think 'Chi' sound very similar to 'Chit'(of Sat-Chit-Ananda).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Mar 2013 14:16 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14030
johneeG ji,

thanks for pointing out that many of spiritual elements in East Asia do have an Indian origin. As the star of China rises, we need to do a better job of also emphasizing India's contributions to the spiritual, cultural, martial, scientific and technological advancement of East Asian people.

It doesn't mean they owe us anything more than acknowledgement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Mar 2013 16:04 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Posts: 2450
JohneeG , RajeshA
Yet another pointer.


This is the symbol for "Yin and Yang"
Image


A month ago, I was at Arunachala temple, Tiruvannamalai. On some pillars of the temple, nearly the same symbol (minus the dots) had been carved out.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8328 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187 ... 209  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: chadev, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], nageshks, priyankji, Rupesh and 17 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group