Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby shiv » 03 Jul 2014 07:17

ramana wrote:Applying that insight to Homer's epic looks like the order is reversed and the stories inverted from Ramayana and Mahabharata and devoid of Dharma.

I do need to put in some more reading - but it appears to me that Plato had some inkling of dharma which was unable to pin down or express - or at least it is not clear from his writimg as far as I can tel. He speaks of searching for the "good" which acts as a "binding force". Astoundingly, "Dharma" is, as most of us probably know derved from the root "dhr-" - "to hold" or "grasp". and dharma itself is what binds society together.

Coming to dates as per western calendar , if the Hindu concept of dharma already existed by the time of Buddha then it pre dates Plato by a long period of time. Dharma itself has been clearly defined in many ways and Plato's inabilty to find it could either mean that he had only half information, or he was being cryptic and stating that his own society lacked that binding force. But it is counter intuitive to imagine that Plato conceived of (or learned from Socrates) a concept of a "binding force" for society as well as a tri-layered society strikingly similar to Indian varnas without having any input from or contact with India because all these concepts were "old hat" in India by the time of Plato.

It is interesting that Eurocentric authors calling themselves scholars have tried to explain this away as some "proto-Indo-European" culture. No one seems to have asked them how that culture is attested in India several centuries before it gets attested in Europe while the route of spread is claimed to be foro Europe to India.

If this is not OIT you can have my left testimonial for keeps.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby UlanBatori » 03 Jul 2014 07:24

I have my reservations on this whole thing about dissing the "Asuras". Sounds too much like profs discussing each other at conference beer bashes.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby shiv » 03 Jul 2014 08:14

One thing that I got while searching for info on this subject on and off for the last 1-2 years (since this thread was started) was the differing "perceptions of ancient India" from our (Indian) perspective and from the ancient Greek perspective.

The Greek perspective has always come through a Persian filter. What the ancient Greeks saw or heard of India was always coloured by the huge and ancient Persian empire that stood between Greece and India. Now the "Persian empire" that we hear of is relatively recent - from the time of Darius - around 500 BC. With the Zoroastrians having dominated Persia for many centuries, the history of Zorastrianism becomes crucial in figuring out what the Greeks heard of India.

Most Zoroastrian texts are lost. Whatever exists has come almost entirely from Indian sources. One big source was a Frenchman called Anquetil who lived with a Zoroastrian priest in Gujarat and then wrote a book about the "Zend Avesta". An even more comprehensive source seems to be a Sanskrit translation that dates back to something like 300 or 600 AD (Can't recall exact date but it is AD and it is Sanskrit). In fact that mainly Sanskrit origins of information about Zoroastrianism has caused Witzel great takleef. But I digress.

Greece saw India via a Persian lens. How old is that lens. If Zoroastrian tradition started in India and the "Zend Avesta" is actually the lost "Chhand Upastha" / "Bhargava Atharva veda" then it is easy to see how Vedic concepts could have reached Greece albeit with a Zoroastrian twist.

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Pulikeshi » 03 Jul 2014 08:30

UlanBatori wrote:(1) Accept the Universal as a starting premise, after all, that is the only premise that is compatible with a Unity and a ParamAtman. If you don't accept that, then there is no foothold to proceed within an SD context.
...
Q.E.D. There is no discord between Universalism and Local Specialization that I can see.


The Mangolian may be missunderestimating the scope of my question -
Universal model - has nothing to do with ParamAtma or ParaBrahma or any Moksha madness per se...

Dharma - The one supported by the Veda is it a truth claim or not? If so, is it Universally applicable?
That is, is it the duty of the adherents to the Dharmic truth claim to convert others or not?

If Dharma, the truth claim, is unique to the Indian Sub-Continent then it is a Localised Specialisation.
This does not diminish its importance or applicability, just that it is Indian onlee & no need for anyone to follow it...

Given this backdrop two questions arise -

  • Did one Universal model go out of India in one discreet movement, and did it get corrupted into multiple models? If not, where there waves of outward migrations that caused the corruption as the Universal model was carried in these waves piecemeal.
  • If Localised Specialisation was the case - did leakage occur due to trade and military contacts? Did this localised specialisation in turn create new Universals detached from the mother ship so to speak? If so, can India make a claim to the Western Universalism?

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby member_20317 » 03 Jul 2014 10:01

JohneeG garu this is for you.

So many times I have been to marriages in my extended family but could no connect it till I saw my daughter do it. Apparently we in Uttarakhand do not have any name for it and my daughter was simply referred to as 'kanya' but then she was asked to hold a lota/kalash/steel tumbler, with some mango leaves with it and to stand besides the bride during the haldi application rituals.

Bridesmaid for you :P. Actually the otherway round. Because my daughter was doing it not because she knew that there is something called a brides made but because she was told to and she felt good/important about it - IOW mere traditions. Traditions that have not heard of a common noun 'Bridesmaid' but know what needs to be done. So I guess you can add one more item to your list - ie. if its already not there.

Women folk seem to have preserved much more of the ancient stuff.

Speaks volumes about my own servility too. But hell, kya karein.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby shiv » 03 Jul 2014 10:19

Pulikeshiavare

Two comments
Dharma - The one supported by the Veda is it a truth claim or not? If so, is it Universally applicable?
That is, is it the duty of the adherents to the Dharmic truth claim to convert others or not?


That is three questions in one and the answer can only be a philosophy discussion. You are asking 9 mark full question in the guise of 1 mark MCQ

Did one Universal model go out of India in one discreet movement, and did it get corrupted into multiple models? If not, where there waves of outward migrations that caused the corruption as the Universal model was carried in these waves piecemeal.
If Localised Specialisation was the case - did leakage occur due to trade and military contacts? Did this localised specialisation in turn create new Universals detached from the mother ship so to speak? If so, can India make a claim to the Western Universalism?


To my mind these questions have no direct answers as long as we go overboard in applying western techniques of proof and attestation as we expect from ourselves and others

However if we apply the standards actually followed by western "scholars", particularly linguists, historians and others - the rigorousness of proof required becomes featherlite and virtually anything can be proven.

Ultimately dharma must guide one in choosing the answer, and as regards whether we should be actively correcting what is wrong, the answer should come from your earlier set of three questions

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Pulikeshi » 03 Jul 2014 10:31

I say this with amusement....

Here is what the Mangolian can teach his 10 yrs old curious Injun Yaks -

  • Something went out of India so long time ago... We are so beyond AIT...
  • This something was corrupted by Iranians as the Zend Avesta
  • This was adopted without Dharma by the Greeks
  • Western Universalism is therefore based on something that went from India long time ago
  • We cannot and need not define Something as it is either Universal or Local, but it is all Western technique to think like this...
  • You can have the Doc's left testimonial if the above is untrue

The above is our truth claim so help us all!

<sarc never off/> :mrgreen:

johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby johneeG » 03 Jul 2014 11:21

Chapter 8
India and Greece

The movement of men and ideas from the West to the East is a recent phenomenon. There was a time when the movement was in the opposite direction and the East had gone to the West in a big way.

At that time, India's cultural frontiers too were wider than her political frontiers and her ideas influenced lands and people far away from her physically. Vedic India shared many of her Gods with Iran and one of them, Mithra (Mitra), went on a long journey to the West. Mithraea, temples dedicated to Mithra, have been found all over Syria, Asia Minor, Spain and even in many Western ports. One Mithraeum was found in London in 1954. Many relics have been found in Germany too, as at Hedernheim, near Frankfurt-on-Main.

The great Manu makes a very interesting observation. He says that originally the Paundrakas, Andhras, Dravidas, Yavanas, Shakas, Paradas, Pahlvas, Chinas, Kiratas, Daradas and Khasas were Khsatriyas, but at some stage they lost the guidance of the Brahmins; as a result, they lapsed from their sacred sacraments (kriyâlopa) and lost their caste (10.43-4). At what time and under what compulsions of history Brahmanic guidance ceased is an interesting question.


Greeks

Hindu thought also exerted a great influence on ancient Greek thought as M.E. Pococke shows in his India in Greece. It is believed that Pythagoras visited Indian and learnt the doctrine of transmigration and many ascetic practices from here. One meets many parallel ideas in the Upanishads and Plato. These similarities are not fortuitous but they emanated from a common deeper vision and life-philosophy. Apollonius the "wise man of Tyana", perhaps the greatest saint of the Hellenistic world, a contemporary of Jesus, visited the wise men of India and was highly satisfied. Later on, he also visited Ethiopia to meet her naked ascetics, who, he believed, had borrowed their spirituality from India. But, as he already suspected, he did not find them worthy pupils of India.

Pythagoras and Orphic mysteries stand very high in Greek religion and they have family likeness with Hinduism. Lecky in his History of European Morals quotes an old tradition in Greece that Pythagoras had himself come to India and learnt philosophy from the gymnosophists. It seems he believed in an "all-pervading soul" which is at least one important attribute of Hindu âtman. He believed in rebirth or transmigration; he taught and practised harmlessness or non-injury; chastity was the leading virtue of his school of thought; he taught silence; he taught that the end of man is to "become like God". Orphic mysteries taught release (lysis) from all material entanglements, which is close to moksha of the Hindus.

Pythagoras taught the doctrine of the witness, drashTâ of the Hindus. He said that life is like a gathering at the Olympic Games, where some come to buy and sell, others to play, but the best of them come to look on. This is just like the Upanishads' two birds on a tree, one eating its fruits and the other just looks on. It has reference to the witness self of the Upanishads, the kûTastha of the Gita. In higher Greek religion the doctrine of the life of a spectator holds a high place.

When we come to the period of recorded history, we find that India had intimate contacts with Greece which at this time was more a part of Asia than of Europe. Greek religion, philosophy and literature show lively Indian influences. India even at this time was known for its wisdom and many Greek philosophers like Democritus, Anaxarchus and Pyrrho visited India and according to Lucianus, the Goddess of philosophy first descended upon "the Indians, the mightiest nation upon the earth".


Apolionius

Apollonius of Tyna (born c. 4 AD), the great saint of the Greek world, was a Pythogorian teacher, a great ascetic, a celebate, a vegetarian; he was against every form of cruelty to animals; he protested against gladiatorial shows. He was a great name throughout the Pagan world. Dio Casius tells us that that Caracalla (211-216) erected a chapel to his memory. Apuleius ranked him with Moses and Zoroaster. Lampridius tells us that Alexander Severus included Apollonius with Abraham, and Orpheus amongst his household Gods. For this very fact, he became a hated name among the Christians. In their struggle against Christianity, Pagan philosophers often invoked his name. Hierocles, proconsul of Bithynia under Diocletian (c. 305) cited Apollonius' miracles to show that miracles were not the peculiar property of Christianity. Eusebius and later on Lactantius (c. 315) attacked Hierocles for this. But orthodox Christians could not believe that there could be such a great ethical and divine character outside the Christian fold. Augustine did not speak ill of him but rebuked those who regarded him as equal of Jesus. Among the early Christians he acquired the name of Antichrist, and he continued to be berated by the Church. Even in the fifteenth century, he was denounced as a detestable magician.


Âtma-vâda and Advaita

He visited India to meet its wise men. He met one Iarchus and was deeply satisfied. The latter asked him: "What knowledge do you think we have that you lack?" Apollonious replied: "It is my opinion that your ways are wiser and much more godly. But if I were to find among you nothing that I do not know, I would also have learned that there is nothing further for me to learn." Iarchus told him: "You, our visitor, have (already) a share of this wisdom, but yet not all of it." Then the teaching began but what it was and about its nature nothing is said. The biographer, however, relates many anecdotes and throws interesting sidelights. He tells us that in their very first meeting, Iarchus told Apollonius everything about him, his ancestry on his father's and mother's side, his journey and the people he met and talks he had with them. Apollonius was amazed. Iarchus also told him about Apollonius' nature and said: "We discern every kind of soul, and have countless clues to discover them." "Ask me whatever you like, since you have come among men who know everything," said the chief of the Indian wise men to his distinguished visitor. He in turn asked the Indians if they knew themselves, expecting them to be like the Greeks in thinking it is difficult to know oneself. But to his surprise, Iarchus replied: "We know everything because we begin by knowing ourselves. None of us would approach our kind of philosophy without knowing himself first." Apollonius had no difficulty in accepting this statement for it was also his own belief. He asked Iarchus what they thought they were, and the latter replied: "Gods." And why? "Because we are good men," Iarchus said (p. 80). Later on in his life when he used this doctrine before the Emperor of Rome when he was being tried for instigating treason, he also told him that Iarchus and Phraotes, the two Indians, "are the only humans whom I consider Gods and worthy of being called so".

Apollonius discussed the Greek heroes with Iarchus, and he well knew them. Iarchus said: "Troy was destroyed by the Achaeans that sailed there then, and you Greeks have been destroyed by the tales about it. You think the only heroes are those that attacked Troy, and so you neglect a larger number of more godlike men produced by your own country, by Egypt, and by India." Discussing Achilles, the hero of the Trojan war, he remarked that Homer makes Achilles come to Troy for Helen, and says that on his way he had captured twelve cities by sea and eleven by land. Then he compares him with an old Indian hero - in fact, he himself in an old incarnation - who founded sixty cities, most esteemed in the country. And who could believe that "sacking cities is more glorious than building them?" he asks. He further observes that "to prove your courage defending the liberty of your own land is far better than bringing slavery on a city, especially when it is because of a woman who probably did not mind being carried off".

Earlier when he had met an Indian king at Taxila, the descendent of Porus, the meeting with him was as memorable. The king lived simply and wisely. Asked about his diet, the king replied: "Of wine I drink as much as I sacrifice to the sun. What I catch in the hunt others eat: the exercise is enough for me. My food is vegetables, the centre of date-palms and their fruit and everything that grows beside the river. I also eat many things that grow on trees: they are harvested by these hands of mine."

Not that the king neglected kingly duties and military arts. He practised javelin and discus even while he went out to bathe. Learning shooting and archery went on while the king's party ate. "Shooting through a sling, using a hair as a target, and drawing an outline of one's own son in arrows while he stands against a board are others of their convivial pursuits." These continued even while they dined and drank.

The Greek saint was highly satisfied with his Indian visit. When he left the Indian philosophers, he wrote to them that they had shown him "a path through heaven," and that "I will continue to enjoy your conversation as if still with you, if I have not drunk of the cup of Tantalus in vain". He said that "he would recall all this to the Greeks, and enjoy your conversations as if you were present". He often spoke of these wise men to his audience later on in his life. To the Egyptians, he said: "I saw the Indian Brahmans living on the earth and not on it, walled without walls, and with no possessions except the whole world."

Apollonius believed that Egypt and Ethiopia derived their wisdom from India, and that the Naked Philosophers of Ethiopia were emigrants from India. He also believed that Pythagoras (about 500 BC) and his sect derived their philosophy from India.

Apollonius's idea of a spiritual life was the same as that of the Hindus. He believed that spirituality belongs to purified buddhi and it was native to man and he distrusted those who hawked revealed truths. He advised a Roman emperor, Euphrates, to "approve and pursue the kind that is in accordance with nature. But avoid the kind that claims to be inspired: people like that about tell lies about Gods, and urge us to do many foolish things" (p. 130).

Once when asked why he studied philosophy, he said that it was "to know the Gods and to understand men, since knowing oneself was less difficult than knowing another" (p. 106).

He visited all the shrines and he could see his God in all the Gods. He said that "none of the Gods refuse me, but they let me share their roof". We are told by his biographer that Apollonius lived in different sanctuaries, moving and changing from one to another. When criticized for this, he said, "Even the Gods do not live in heaven all the time. They travel to Ethiopia, to Olympia and to Athos. I think it illogical that the Gods travel around every country of mankind, while men do not visit all the Gods" (p. 103).

It seemed that while he was outside the Greek and Roman world visiting barbarian countries which included India, all shrines were open to him.

It seems that it was not the custom even in Rome, so hospitable to all the Gods, for Telesinus, a Roman consul commented: "The barbarians have anticipated the Romans in a very praise-worthy deed."

He spoke of two Zeuses: one the statue of Zeus made by Phidias at Olympia; it was seated since that was the decision of the artist. But there was also another Zeus, Homer's Zeus "whom the poet describes in many shapes, and who is a more marvellous creation than the Zeus of ivory; for this Zeus was visible on earth, while the other was supposed to be in everything in the universe"1 (p. 90-91).

Apolonious was not only open to various Gods, he was open to worshipping them with different rites. Not to him one rite or creed. When he met the wise men of India, he wanted to participate in all their religious worships. "I would certainly be doing a wrong to the Caucasus and the Indus, which I passed coming here to see you, if I did not steep myself in all your rites," he told the chief of the wisemen of India.

He practised non-injury to living beings. On one occasion he refused even when invited even by a kinge to participate in the chase. He believed in non-injury to living beings. He made no blood sacrifice. Apollonious said that "men make virtuous requests when their sacrifices are pure"; he said that "he believed that the Gods shared these opinion about sacrifice". He was accused of being a magician, of being able to foresee. To this he answered that his food was different from other men; that it was light which "keeps my senses in a kind of mysterious clarity, and prevents cloudiness from affecting them; and causes me to discern everything that is and will be, as if it were reflected in a mirror... Gods are aware of things before they happen, men when they happen, and wise men when they are about to happen" (p. 218-9).

Apollonius explains why he and Pythagoras stayed away from meat and used linen in their dress: He said that Earth grows everything for mankind and those who are willing to live at peace with the animals need nothing. But some "disobey the earth and sharpen knives against the animals to gain clothing and food. The Indian Brahmans disapproved of this personally and taught the Naked Philosophers of Egypt to disapprove of it too. From there Pythagoras, who was the first Greek to associate with Egyptians, borrowed the principle. He let the earth keep living creatures, but held that what the earth grows is pure, and so lived off that because it was sufficient to feed body and soul. Clothing made from dead creatures, which most people wear, he considered impure; he dressed in linen and, for the same reason, made his shoes of plaited bark. He derived many advantages from this purity, above all that of perceiving his own soul" (p. 212).

He believed in rebirth. Pythogoras had many births. In one birth, he also fought at Troy, and then "passed into several bodies according to the law of Adrasteia, whereby souls migrte. (according to tradition, a name of Namesis derived from an altar erected to her by Adrastus. But could it be Hindu adrishTa in the ultimate analysis?). Finally, he returned to human form and was born the son. of Mensarchides of Samos, so that he became a wise man who had been a barbarian, an Ionian who had been a Trojan, and a man so immortal that he did not even forget he had been Euphorbus" (p. 212). Apollonius also knew his past and future births though as he himself says, "I did not announce before the Greeks what my soul had changed into or changed from in the past, or what it will in future, even though I know" (p. 215). Apollonius believed in the doctrine of the immortality of the soul but discoursed his pupils from meddling too much in such questions:

"The soul's an immortal thing, not yours to own
But Providence's. When the body wastes,
Like a swift horse that breaks its bonds, the soul
Leaps nimbly out, and mingles with light air,
Shunning its hatred, dreary servitude.
But what is this to you, who when you've gone
Will know it well? And why among the living
Bother yourself with thinking on such things?"


Buddhism goes West

In later times, Buddhism followed the track left by the Upanishadic teachers. Emperor Ashoka facilitated but did not initiate the process. In fact, long before he came on the scene, there were contacts, commercial and cultural, between India and Egypt through Yemen for a thousand years. The celebrated Girnar inscription of King Ashoka says that Buddhism was followed even in the domain of Antiochus, the Greek king whose empire included Syria, Phoenicia, Babylonia, Persia, Medea and Abyssinia.

Later on, though Buddhism withdrew from this region, the memory of this contact lingered for a long time. Alberuni (997-1030 AD) tells us that "in former times, Khurasan, Persia, Irak, Mosul the country upto the frontiers of Syria, was Buddhistic". Later on it "had to emigrate to the countries east of Balkh" when King Gushtasp came under the influence of Zaruthusthra's religion and his son, Isfendiyar, persecuted the Buddhists. But though Buddhism withdrew, it kept exerting its influence. According to the same authority, when the prophet Mani (216-76 AD) was banished from Iranshahr, he went to India, the usual asylum for those who faced religious persecution at home. Here he learnt the doctrine of transmigration and incorporated it into his own system. Later, through Manichaeism and other parallel channels. it became part of early Christianity.


Darkness descends on the Mediterranean World

A new phenomenon was taking place all over the Mediteranean world. While Rome was expanding outwards, it was contracting internally and losing inwardness. Its deeper spirituality connected with the names of Pythagoras, Plato, Stoics, and Plotinus began to withdraw within. Whether there was something in the new social and political environment or there was a change in the psyche is difficult to say; but old spirituality was getting to be understood less and less. On the other hand, there was a demand for Saviours and there were Saviours all around. A spirituality of hell and heaven, and last day, apocalyptical and millenarian, occupied the stage. Dogmas were fashionable. The external mind was taking over and projecting its own religions and Gods. A spirituality, not of seekers, but useful and serviceable to the kings was in the forefront.

This new religious cast of mind was forging a new iron-curtain, a far more effective one than a physical one. The new mind that was taking over was incapable of understanding deeper things of the spirit; it understood dogmas and creeds; it dropped the law of karma, the theory of the Self. Antoninus, a neo-Platonist of the 4th century predicted that "a fabulous and formless darkness is about to tyrannize over all that is beautiful on earth" (Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, 9.317).

But Indian spirituality remained an attraction throughout even when Europe was getting confused and swept off its feet. Plotinus whose name shines even up to this day, wanted to visit India.

Hindu thought, however, continued to exert influence on Europe through various channels. One channel was the works of Dionysius the Arepogite.

His work were seen and translated by John Scotus Erigena of the 9th century. He questioned the presence of Christ in consecrated bread and wine. He exalted reason above Biblical and clerical authority. He said that while "all authority that is not approved by true reason seems weak, but true reason, since it rests on its own strength, needs no reinforcement by any authority". He said that "God is everything that truly is, since He makes all things and is made in all things"; he also said that there was no creation in time, that God was neither masculine nor faminine; that God as "Father" merely meant that he was the creative substance or essence of every thing, and "Son" merely meant the divine Wisdom according to which all things are made or governed, and "Spirit" merely meant life and vitality of creation. This was dissolvent of the whole Trinity. He also said that heaven and hell are not places, but conditions of the soul. He said that all things are immortal, that animals too, like men, have souls that pass back, after death, into God or creative spirit from whom they emanated, that all history is a vast outward flow of creation by emanation, and an irrestible inward tide that finally draws all things back into God. Pope Nicholas in 865 wrote to Charles the Bald either to send John to Rome for trial, or dismiss him from the Palace School, "that he may no longer give poison to those who seek for bread". We do not know what happened but we hear no more of him. William of Malmesbury relates that he "came to England and our monastery, as report says; was pierced with iron pens of the boys whom he instructed", and died from the results. He was later on forgotten but in the thirteenth century his book De divisions naturae was exhumed from oblivion; it was condemned by the Council of Sens (1225), and Pope Honorious III ordered that all copies should be sent to Rome and there be burned (Will Durant, The Age of Faith, pp. 477-79).


Footnotes:


1 It does not mean Apollonius was opposed to image-worship. We are told of an interesting dialogue he had on the subject with an Egyptian priest. Apollonius defended the Greek fashion of worshipping the Divinity under the form of human image, sculptured by Phidias and Praxiteles, this being the noblest form we can conceive and therefore the least inadequate to the Divine perfections. Speaking for the Egyptian fashion of worshipping the Deity in the form of animals, the Egyptian priest said that as it is blasphemous to attempt to conceive an image of the Deity, the Egyptians therefore concentrate the imagination of the worshipper on objects that are plainly allegorical or symbolical, and do not pretend to offer any such image (Philostraus, Apollonius of Tyna, vi. 19).


Link

----
There is some interesting discussion of Vedhas. It seems to me that this is a vast topic in itself and should get a separate thread of its own. Discussion about Vedhas is fundamental to the Bhaarathiya culture/civilization(and arguably to the human civilization) and therefore it is of prime importance. I think it should be discussed separately away from OIT, AIT, ...etc.

What does Vedhas teach?
What are Vedhas?
Do they have any origin?
What does it mean when Vedhas are said to be eternal?
If Vedhas are used just as Abrahamics use their 'book', then what is the difference between Hindhuism and Abrahamics?
Why use Vedhas as the cornerstone of Hindhuism?

And various other questions can be discussed in such a separate thread. I think the discussion on Vedhas will be lost on this present vast thread. It also seems to suffocate discussion on other aspects of OIT.

So, I think that it should get a separate thread of its own.


----
ravi_g wrote:JohneeG garu this is for you.

So many times I have been to marriages in my extended family but could no connect it till I saw my daughter do it. Apparently we in Uttarakhand do not have any name for it and my daughter was simply referred to as 'kanya' but then she was asked to hold a lota/kalash/steel tumbler, with some mango leaves with it and to stand besides the bride during the haldi application rituals.

Bridesmaid for you :P. Actually the otherway round. Because my daughter was doing it not because she knew that there is something called a brides made but because she was told to and she felt good/important about it - IOW mere traditions. Traditions that have not heard of a common noun 'Bridesmaid' but know what needs to be done. So I guess you can add one more item to your list - ie. if its already not there.

Women folk seem to have preserved much more of the ancient stuff.

Speaks volumes about my own servility too. But hell, kya karein.


In Thelugu, its called Thodu-pelli kuthuru i.e. companion of bride.
Similarly, there is also a thodu-pelli koduku i.e. companion of groom.

:)

About the 'Mathra' and confusion on Vibhakthi:

ravi_g wrote:JohneeG garu,

Here is why I got confused.

In the case of maatraa and duhitraa the 3rd vibhakti gets used. but in case of svásṛ the 4th vibhakti gets used.

http://end.translatum.gr/wiki/%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%83

स्वसृ (svásṛ) f.
sister
Declension
Feminine ṛ-stem declension of स्वसृ
Singular Dual Plural
स्वसा (svasā) स्वसारौ (svasārau) स्वसारः (svasāraḥ)
स्वसः (svasaḥ) स्वसारौ (svasārau) स्वसारः (svasāraḥ)
स्वसारम् (svasāram) स्वसारौ (svasārau) स्वसॄः (svasṝḥ)
स्वस्रा (svasrā) स्वसृभ्याम् (svasṛbhyām) स्वसृभिः (svasṛbhiḥ)
स्वस्रे (svasre) स्वसृभ्याम् (svasṛbhyām) स्वसृभ्यः (svasṛbhyaḥ)
स्वसुः (svasuḥ) स्वसृभ्याम् (svasṛbhyām) स्वसृभ्यः (svasṛbhyaḥ)
स्वसुः (svasuḥ) स्वस्रोः (svasroḥ) स्वसॄणाम् (svasṝṇām)
स्वसरि (svasari) स्वस्रोः (svasroḥ) स्वसृषु (svasṛṣu)


Obviously I cannot say Maharishi Manu is ignorant of Sanskrit grammar. Cannot hold deepak to the suraj.

I also cannot say Pandit G. P. Dvivedi or Agnimitra garu or yourself are wrong. You know the practice good enough.

Some of the options available to me are (non-exclusive):
1) I don't know enough Sanskrit.
2) Somebody in the listening-writing-reading sequence messed up what Maharishi Manu had to say. I don't think Maharishi Manu had writing available to him. He could absolutely as hell listen and speak.
2) The pauranic practice was there and that found voice in the interpretation afforded.

I am quite willing to take all of these at the same time. But my position while truthful is not helpful for using Sanskrit as a tool to find out OIT or anything else.

Acceptance/Santosh/Shradha is certainly established by these choices/set of choices. A position which is complete and sufficient for all my requirements.

The logic behind the grammar can be found in something like this.

http://www.jainworld.com/education/tatvagyan2/lesson06.htm
And that is why I was not interested in the 'karan' and instead was interested in the 'adhikaran'.

What do the mother and daugher cause. Nothing. The causative factor is the pull of the Indriyas.

Added later : Deleted the english cases. They were causing conphusion only.


Link

there is no confusion. Its just that in certain styles, the 8th vibhakthi is put as 2nd Vibhakthi.

You posted this style:
स्वसृ (svásṛ) f.
sister
Declension
Feminine ṛ-stem declension of स्वसृ
Singular Dual Plural
1) स्वसा (svasā) स्वसारौ (svasārau) स्वसारः (svasāraḥ)
2) स्वसः (svasaḥ) स्वसारौ (svasārau) स्वसारः (svasāraḥ)
3) स्वसारम् (svasāram) स्वसारौ (svasārau) स्वसॄः (svasṝḥ)
4) स्वस्रा (svasrā) स्वसृभ्याम् (svasṛbhyām) स्वसृभिः (svasṛbhiḥ)
5) स्वस्रे (svasre) स्वसृभ्याम् (svasṛbhyām) स्वसृभ्यः (svasṛbhyaḥ)
6) स्वसुः (svasuḥ) स्वसृभ्याम् (svasṛbhyām) स्वसृभ्यः (svasṛbhyaḥ)
7) स्वसुः (svasuḥ) स्वस्रोः (svasroḥ) स्वसॄणाम् (svasṝṇām)
8 ) स्वसरि (svasari) स्वस्रोः (svasroḥ) स्वसृषु (svasṛṣu)


I posted this style:
स्वसृ (svásṛ) f.
sister
Declension
Feminine ṛ-stem declension of स्वसृ
Singular Dual Plural
1) स्वसा (svasā) स्वसारौ (svasārau) स्वसारः (svasāraḥ)
2) स्वसारम् (svasāram) स्वसारौ (svasārau) स्वसॄः (svasṝḥ)
3) स्वस्रा (svasrā) स्वसृभ्याम् (svasṛbhyām) स्वसृभिः (svasṛbhiḥ)
4) स्वस्रे (svasre) स्वसृभ्याम् (svasṛbhyām) स्वसृभ्यः (svasṛbhyaḥ)
5) स्वसुः (svasuḥ) स्वसृभ्याम् (svasṛbhyām) स्वसृभ्यः (svasṛbhyaḥ)
6) स्वसुः (svasuḥ) स्वस्रोः (svasroḥ) स्वसॄणाम् (svasṝṇām)
7) स्वसरि (svasari) स्वस्रोः (svasroḥ) स्वसृषु (svasṛṣu)
8) स्वसः (svasaḥ) स्वसारौ (svasārau) स्वसारः (svasāraḥ)



Note that the 8th vibhakthi in my posting is same as the 2nd vibhakthi in your posting. Except that, the rest is same same. Anyway, Svasra or Mathra means with Mother or with sister.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby shiv » 03 Jul 2014 17:21

Pulikeshi wrote:I say this with amusement....

Here is what the Mangolian can teach his 10 yrs old curious Injun Yaks -

  • Something went out of India so long time ago... We are so beyond AIT...
  • This something was corrupted by Iranians as the Zend Avesta
  • This was adopted without Dharma by the Greeks
  • Western Universalism is therefore based on something that went from India long time ago
  • We cannot and need not define Something as it is either Universal or Local, but it is all Western technique to think like this...
  • You can have the Doc's left testimonial if the above is untrue

The above is our truth claim so help us all!

<sarc never off/> :mrgreen:

tch tch tch Pulikeshi.

Has your ability to respond with wisdom and clarity been compromised to such an extent that you must advertise how much responses to your questions made you laugh? That reveals something about your mind that i didn't expect. Are you asking for a suitably sarcastic and humorous (to some) response to this post? I could go down that path if you like.

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Pulikeshi » 03 Jul 2014 21:44

Shiv Saab,

For over a century AIT proponents have contorted, twisted, produced part fiction to try defend AIT.
AIT is just the sharp tip of the instrument called Western Universalism.
None of the opponents seem to have understood that to truly counter AIT one really has to take on Western Universalism.

It does not help the OIT or NOIT cause to date the Veda, find commonality with Greece, Iran, Kurdistan, Ireland, etc.. None of these will do a lick of good to change OIT from theory to truth.
60 odd yrs of independence, 200+ pages on this thread and similar pages on other forums, groups, etc. prove my case.
The bottom line is India/Indians/Diaspora does not have a coherent answer to Western Universalism.

Don't take my sarcasm personally, it was to make a point, beyond that the choice is yours on response.

SanjayC
BRFite
Posts: 1557
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby SanjayC » 03 Jul 2014 22:16

^^^ Rajiv Malhotra's Being Different provides a good answer to Western Universalism.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby shiv » 03 Jul 2014 22:30

Pulikeshi wrote:It does not help the OIT or NOIT cause to date the Veda, find commonality with Greece, Iran, Kurdistan, Ireland, etc.. None of these will do a lick of good to change OIT from theory to truth.
60 odd yrs of independence, 200+ pages on this thread and similar pages on other forums, groups, etc. prove my case.
The bottom line is India/Indians/Diaspora does not have a coherent answer to Western Universalism.

Don't take my sarcasm personally, it was to make a point, beyond that the choice is yours on response.


Pulikeshi. Your opinions are your opinions. It is only when your opinions are not accepted by others that you seem to find a need to show sarcasm, mockery or triumphalism while belittling answers that people give to hi falutin questions that you ask. I admit it was my fault taking your bait - knowing that you were already showing irritation with others' answers.

It is pure sophistry to laugh at replies to your questions and then apologetically state that some aspects of your post should not be taken seriously, while some other aspect should presumably be taken seriously. If your entire post did not contain any material that could be taken seriously why on earth did you make the post at all? What point were you trying to make other than state that you were laughing and being sarcastic at a bunch or replies you got to your questions.

You seem to have a final answer that satisfies you and that is good for you. It is only when you are dissatisfied with others' answers that you find the need to mock. Only your answers are good for you. If you have better answers to your own questions it would be more polite for you to state them up front rather than making a worthless post containing emotion rather than information. If others want to carry on and find answers for themselves why not simply let them do it rather than troll them by asking questions and mocking answers that you find unsatisfying? The fact that others have views different from yours should not bother you.
Last edited by shiv on 03 Jul 2014 22:38, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby shiv » 03 Jul 2014 22:35

Pulikeshi wrote:[*] Western Universalism is therefore based on something that went from India long time ago

While we are on the subject, could you please point me to a post by anyone that claims that western Universalism is based something that went from India long time ago?

i seem to have missed such a post. I just need to know that you were not imagining it or bluffing.

Incidentally, I don't know the meaning of "Western Universalism", but i expect i will find out, by and by.

SanjayC
BRFite
Posts: 1557
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby SanjayC » 03 Jul 2014 22:47

What is Western universalism, according to Rajiv Malhotra:

Being Different, An Indian Challenge to Western Universalism (HarperCollins, 2011) is to refute Western claims of universalism. According to these claims, the West is both the driver of history and the ultimate, desirable destination of the entire world. The West purportedly provides the ideal template to which all other civilizations and cultures must contort, be pruned, trimmed or reconfigured to fit, or else be eliminated or sidelined by some means.


Western universalism involves Western people pretending that the values, lifestyle and culture derived from their unique civilization and historical expereinces are universal in nature and applicable to the whole world, and therefore should be the end goal of entire humanity. And cultures which refuse to adhere to those values are abnormal, have not evolved and deserve to be destroyed.

This would be like the Chinese claiming that since their women used to blacken their teeth to make themselves beautiful, this idea of beauty is universal in nature, all men should find women with black teeth attractive, and women all over the world should aspire to blacken their teeth to make themselves attractive to men, and women who refuse to blacken their teeth are abnormal and inferior and deserve to be shunned by men.

When a particular culture in some corner of the world claims that its religious and cultural values deserve to be the ultimate aspiration of every human in this world, it is called universalism of that culture.

For example, Chinese universalists would argue that no woman in the world would be considered beautiful till she looks like this:

Image
Last edited by SanjayC on 03 Jul 2014 22:59, edited 3 times in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby shiv » 03 Jul 2014 22:53

SanjayC wrote:What is Western universalism, according to Rajiv Malhotra:

Being Different, An Indian Challenge to Western Universalism (HarperCollins, 2011) is to refute Western claims of universalism. According to these claims, the West is both the driver of history and the ultimate, desirable destination of the entire world. The West purportedly provides the ideal template to which all other civilizations and cultures must contort, be pruned, trimmed or reconfigured to fit, or else be eliminated or sidelined by some means.


Western universalism involves Western people pretending that the values, lifestyle and culture derived from their unique civilization and historical expereinces are universal in nature and applicable to the whole world, and therefore should be the end goal of entire humanity. And cultures which refuse to adhere to those values are abnormal and have not evolved.

This would be like the Chinese claiming that since their women used to blacken their teeth to make themselves beautiful, this idea of beauty is universal in nature, all men should find women with black teeth attractive, and women all over the world should aspire to blacken their teeth to make themselves attractive to men, and women who refuse to blacken their teeth are abnormal and inferior.

When a particular culture in some corner of the world claims its ideas and values deserve to be the ultimate aspiration of every human in this world, it called universalism of that culture.


Ah thanks. In other words "No one but me, my kind and my opinions can be right".

Sounds like Pakiness to me. 60 years since independence, and several thousand pages of discussions on Pakistan - we still have no solution for Pakiness.

Therefore there can be no solution. This is my "proof"

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby A_Gupta » 04 Jul 2014 01:48

UlanBatori wrote:If I follow some of the posts above, I would have to tell the yaks that SDs actually have NO core beliefs of anything, that anything is OK, we have no beliefs at all, we have no religion, the concept of any AlMighty is wrong, religion is wrong, birth and death are all unreal, words don't mean anything, yet words are the most significant things in the Universe, only those who have been officially indoctrinated in the Vedas have any hope, anyway there is no Salvation, you just gotta keep working, no one Up There to see or care, only reading the Vedas aloud in the properly trained manner after 10 yeas of nonstop training and discipline mean anything, and we don't know what it means, but only those who have been trained for 10 years in the Vedas will know ... u get the picture.


No, it means you are approaching the understanding of Indian civilization in a framework in which it cannot make sense. As a simple example of what I mean - the Quran or Hadiths teach Muslims that every culture was sent one or more Prophets (long before Prophet Muhammad, the ultimate Prophet). It is just that those cultures have distorted the teachings of the prophets that were sent to them.

So Mussalmans come along and try to identify the Indian "prophets". They might say Krishna of the Bhagavad Gita was a prophet, and the Buddha was a prophet, and Mahavira of the Jains was a prophet.

We Hindus say - are you crazy? We never had any prophets.

We are not so Islamicized as we are Westernized; so after we deny having any prophets, we do not get into a tizzy about "we have no religion, etc., etc., etc.". Unfortunately, when someone points out that the analogy with Christianity, which is the archetype of the western notion of religion, does not work, too many people's minds go blank. It results in passages like the just-quoted one.

Sir Syed Ahmed Khan in his 1858 book on the causes of the 1857 revolt (1873 translation) had this observation:

All these causes rendered the Muhammadans more uneasy than the Hindus. The reason of this, I take to be that Hindu faith consists rather in the practice of long-established rites and forms, than in the study of doctrine. The Hindus recognise no canons and laws, or appeals to the heart and conscience. Their creed does not admit of such things. Hence it is that they are exceedingly indifferent about speculative doctrine. They insist upon nothing excepting the strict observance of their old rites, and of their modes of eating and drinking. It does not annoy or grieve them to see such rites and observances as they consider necessary, disregarded by other men.

Muhammadans, on the contrary, looking upon the tenets of their creed as necessary to Salvation and upon the neglect of them as damnation, are thoroughly well-grounded in them. They regard their religious precepts as the ordinances of God. Hence it was that the Muhammadans were more uneasy than the Hindus, and that, as might have been expected, they formed the majority of the rebels. It is wrong and impolitic on the part of a government to interfere in any way with the faith of its subjects. But of all courses, the most unjust is to hinder the study of the tenets of their religion: and especially of such an one as is heartily believed by its votaries to be true. But be this as it may, all I wish to prove is that, whatever the intentions of Government might be, matters were so managed that the people were left to stumble on in error, suspicion, and ill-will.


Sir Syed Ahmed Khan was both so right and so wrong!

Hindus have no creed - no Kalimat ash-Shahādah, no Nicene Creed - (any more than e.g., mathematicians or physicists or musicians or soccer players have a Kalima, a profession of faith). But he or the translator is compelled to use "their creed", lacking the conceptual basis that some system can exist without a creed.

Hindus recognize no canons or laws - Hindus actually have many law-givers. It is almost a free-for-all. But law is not derived from one canonical scripture, like the Quran. Again, conceptual poverty renders it necessary for Sir Syed Ahmed Khan to say that since Hindus do not derive law like the Muslims do, they have no law. This is a Mongolia-sized mistake.

Hindus are indifferent to speculative doctrine. In that Hindus do not get moved to violence over doctrinal differences - if that is indifference - yes, Sir Ahmed is correct. But to say Hindus don't have speculative doctrines because they have not spilled blood over these like the medieval Christians and Muslims is ridiculous.

Hindus are indifferent to other people not following their rites - that is true in general.

Hindus insist on the strict observance of their old rites - there is truth in that. Unfortunately, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan fails to think of a framework in which practice is more important than belief. There are certainly some core **ideas** in the Hindu framework, but they are not beliefs in the sense of creed.

I don't know - maybe this will help:
http://www.hipkapi.com/2012/04/01/histo ... angadhara/

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby A_Gupta » 04 Jul 2014 02:09

A dialog:
When I discovered, or when it was explained to me, that Hinduism is a pedagogical religion, namely, that the best “good deed” of a Hindu consisted of explaining something or the other, I lost my inhibitions and began with questions…

A young Balinese became my primary teacher. One day I asked him if believed that the history of Prince Rama – one of the holy books of the Hindus – is true.

Without hesitation, he answered it with “Yes”.

“So you believe that the Prince Rama lived somewhere and somewhen?”

“I do not know if he lived”, he said.

“Then it is a story?”

“Yes, it is a story.”

“Then someone wrote this story – I mean: a human being wrote it?”

“Certainly some human being wrote it”, he said.

“Then some human being could have also invented it”, I answered and felt triumphant, when I thought that I had convinced him.

But he said: “It is quite possible that somebody invented this story. But true it is, in any case.”

“Then it is the case that Prince Rama did not live on this earth?”

“What is it that you want to know?” he asked. “Do you want to know whether the story is true, or merely whether it occurred?”

“The Christians believe that their God Jesus Christ was also on earth”, I said, “in the New Testament, it has been so described by human beings. But the Christians believe that this is the description of the reality. Their God was also really on Earth.”

My Balinese friend thought it over and said: “I had been already so informed. I do not understand why it is important that your God was on earth, but it does strike me that the Europeans are not pious. Is that correct?”

“Yes, it is”, I said.


The commentator on this passage then asks, are we talking about something like "Sherlock Holmes lived in 221B Baker Street - true or false"? Rejecting that,

In the case of this Indonesian, or the Asian, who believes in his ‘holy books’, the situation is more complicated: in his culture, Ramayana is as ‘true’ though it is not clear what the status of the book is. Perhaps it is fiction perhaps it is not. He neither knows nor cares. To know that the Bible is true, suggests this Balinese, makes the Europeans impious. Impiety is to believe that one’s ‘religion’ is true!


The contrast with Christianity:

Suppose one says the following: Jesus might or might not have existed; he might be The Saviour or he might not be; he might have asked Peter to found the Church or he might not have; the Gospels might be the fictitious invention of some four people or it might not be. As far as he
is concerned, any of the above possibilities could be true, and the truth or falsity of none affects his belief in the truth of the Gospels. How could we understand such a person? Probably, The Holy Bible is not ‘holy’ to him; perhaps, he sees the Bible as a moral tract or a story-based philosophical treatise on the human condition. Whether or not such an attitude is justified, it is not enough to make him a Christian.

There is a second point. Even where the Gospel is seen as a story, it becomes an object of investigation as a text. Only as a text can the Bible provide ‘knowledge’ (of whatever kind). Such an attitude dovetails into a point made earlier on (see chapter #3) that knowledge is primarily
textual in nature in the West. Consequently, even the narrative turn – if and where it does turn radical – requires knowledge of the text. Further, it will look at the text of the Bible as a story, and will talk about the way the Gospels talk about the world, etc., without, however, being able to look at stories in other ways. That is to say, stories are treated as knowledge-claims.

The difference, with respect to the Indonesian, lies along these two lines: to him, the story of Rama does impart knowledge without being a knowledge-claim. Stories are ‘true’ not because they are ‘fictions’ and even less because they are historical facts.

SriKumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2009
Joined: 27 Feb 2006 07:22
Location: sarvatra

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby SriKumar » 04 Jul 2014 04:44

johneeG wrote: There is some interesting discussion of Vedhas. It seems to me that this is a vast topic in itself and should get a separate thread of its own.

What does Vedhas teach?
What are Vedhas?
Do they have any origin?
What does it mean when Vedhas are said to be eternal?
If Vedhas are used just as Abrahamics use their 'book', then what is the difference between Hindhuism and Abrahamics?
Why use Vedhas as the cornerstone of Hindhuism?

And various other questions can be discussed in such a separate thread. I think the discussion on Vedhas will be lost on this present vast thread. It also seems to suffocate discussion on other aspects of OIT.

So, I think that it should get a separate thread of its own.
Not a fan of yet another thread but I agree with the points you made. Discussing Vedas under an AIT/OIT thread is really dicey, putting it mildly. I think the discussion would be more open if the two are delinked. It should be its own thread, if there is interest and the participating pundits are willing to continue with their vaad-vivaad.....the questions you raise are good questions. Basic questions, but it should start with the basics....

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby shiv » 04 Jul 2014 06:25

I think the Vedas got into the OIT thread because "translations" of Vedas were used to support AIT, Opponents of AIT used the same "translations" to diss AIT. The idea that Vedas should not be part of this discussion actually came with KLP Dubey many moons ago but it took fairly long for the idea to sink in that the Vedas carry no intrinsic history or information that can be dated, or for that matter a history of races, architecture and diet on ancient Indians (or Martians)'

That would have to exclude the Veda from this thread although every single reference to AIT has "Veda" as a fundamental "proof" of AIT.

One of the biggest hurdles in looking for any information that may have gone OIT is to first swallow the fact that the Vedas constitute a unique heritage to Indians that does not fit into the mould of any other body of knowledge that has come down to the modern day from some ancient time. The Vedas are not books and were never "written down" until late in their history. The Vedas are not claimed to be a history or a narrative but simply essential knowledge that forms a cornerstone of Hindu thought. Here again they do not constitute "knowledge" as in pages and pages of descriptions of God or epics. They are simply said to represent sounds, to be heard and recited. Not written or read. Any meaning attached to any of those sounds came later. The "benefit" if any is in accepting this as is.

From the modern viewpoint this is so weird that few people will believe this to be the case unless they have a very open mind about the nature of existence and the human mind or they are simply born into Indian tradition and have always accepted it from a very young age. Accepting the Vedas as existing eternally with or without humans requires, from a modern day viewpoint, a total suspension of disbelief.

The explanation is not simple at all. Indian "knowledge" has headed in a direction that is totally different from where modern scientific observation takes us. It is simply a matter of curiosity, almost coincidence that some conclusions of modern science and some ancient Indian knowledge handed down happen to agree. For most part the discovery of knowledge and the definition of what "knowledge" means are different.

The modern method, synonymous with western method is of "observation" - that is trusting one's senses to tell the truth. Seeing, feeling, smelling, weighing, smashing, mixing and burning things to make observations are all valid methods of western science. Such science cannot accept any "knowledge" that is handed down with the caveat that one must simply learn and recite and not look for hidden meanings. Yet that is what is required from the Vedas. The Indian method has revolved around not necessarily trusting one's senses, but in trying to explore what cannot be sensed or reached for the purpose of "seeing, feeling, smelling, weighing, smashing, mixing and burning".

To my knowledge there is no via media. You cannot follow the Indian method without using the prescribed tools and the same is true for the western "modern" method. From a western research (search for knowledge) viewpoint this just won't do. Nothing can be "known" to modern science unless it is dissected, broken up into parts, magnified, measured, weighed and compared. The Vedas are not amenable to this and therefore do not constitute what is understandable from the modern scientific perspective. If one restricts one's mental worldview to the idea that "What cannot be measured by western science does not constitute knowledge" then one is excluding oneself from several millennia of Indian exploration into the idea of knowledge. The idea that knowledge can extend beyond what we expect from modern science is an old Indian one.

Clearly the "Vedas" as known to us have not been "found" anywhere else in the world so they cannot be said to have gone out of India. So leaving the Vedas out of an OIT thread seems reasonable. Some things have gone out of India and an exploration of that is about as far as I have been trying to go.
Last edited by shiv on 04 Jul 2014 07:31, edited 1 time in total.

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1670
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Nilesh Oak » 04 Jul 2014 07:28

^ Shiv ji,

+11

Well said.

Do want to make few points regarding your comment on "modern and/or western method of science.. or observation".

What you are saying is what is assumed and even propagated by many who consider themselves scientists (of all hues and color.. from Athiest Dawkins to theist (insert name here)).

This observation leading to a proposal/laws/theory ...is misguided assumption upon which likes of communists, social scientists, anthropologist (bar few exceptions in each of these fields), and of course there are many in physics, chemistry and biology too..who wants to claim their discipline as scientific.
-----
The method of science is that of irrational leap of faith, ingenious speculation. Observation certainly play a key role, but only to the extent of corroborating (tending to support) the theory, by agreeing with consequences of a theory, which is otherwise expected to not agree.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby shiv » 04 Jul 2014 07:59

Nilesh Oak wrote:Do want to make few points regarding your comment on "modern and/or western method of science.. or observation".

What you are saying is what is assumed and even propagated by many who consider themselves scientists (of all hues and color.. from Athiest Dawkins to theist (insert name here)).

This observation leading to a proposal/laws/theory ...is misguided assumption upon which likes of communists, social scientists, anthropologist (bar few exceptions in each of these fields), and of course there are many in physics, chemistry and biology too..who wants to claim their discipline as scientific.
-----
The method of science is that of irrational leap of faith, ingenious speculation. Observation certainly play a key role, but only to the extent of corroborating (tending to support) the theory, by agreeing with consequences of a theory, which is otherwise expected to not agree.

Nilesh Oak ji I think you have exposed a minefield that is so abstruse that many "people of science" (as in "western science") would find it incredible or even abhorrent. The topic is not for everyone and gels in well with why the Indian method of exploration, while being equally abstruse actually leads to interesting and counter-intuitive results as compared to modern science.

There is much that I have observed in "modern science" (particularly medicine) in which a leap of faith has led to a "breakthrough" and that leap of faith has even been supported by observation. But as the period of observation increases, the "breakthrough" looks less and less conclusive, and a search is initiated for new ideas to explain why the old "ingenious speculation proven by observation" no longer looks as good as it used to look. In other words absolute answers are difficult to come by.

A classic case is the linking of saturated fat with heart disease and the widespread replacement of dietary fat with polyunsaturated fat all over the world. In India you visit a store and you will get ten brands of sunflower oil and no more vanaspati or groundnut oil. But suddenly after three decades people find that saturated fat is not as bad as it was made out to be. And this is possibly because the initial "leaps of faith" were themselves only guesswork that happened to get some support from observation and promoted by believers who said "i believe in the truth of modern medical research". It is equally possible for someone else to repose faith in the Vedas and say "i believe in the Vedas"

A comparison of which is "more true" - the Vedas or modern medical research may become valid only after 1000 years of comparison - well beyond human lifetimes. But modern science does not wait that long. In modern science one lifetime is usually too long to wait and proof, and "solutions" must be derived well within that period.

I can write out a long list of long term, and practically insoluble problems created by the discovery of short term solutions in science, and that is OT. But to me it appears that the failures of science will only provoke a new war with religion and I think most religions do not have answers either. This is where the Indian method comes in.

Now if this "Indian method" is valid, it is also true that it is very very old. Why did it not become more widespread? or if it had become more widespread, what were the reasons that caused its relegation to the background? These are the questions that concern me on this "OIT" thread

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Pulikeshi » 04 Jul 2014 09:26

The method of science is that of irrational leap of faith, ingenious speculation. Observation certainly play a key role, but only to the extent of corroborating (tending to support) the theory, by agreeing with consequences of a theory, which is otherwise expected to not agree.


Many schools of Indian thought agree foundationally that cognition is valid unless proven otherwise. That is, any cognition can be overturned in one of two ways – one by another cognition that shows matters to be different or a defect can be identified in the circumstance or the sense organ that presented it.

How is this incongruous with what is considered Western method of science?
The only place I see the West having "incredulity" is when Vedas become a Pramana (evidence) as well.
Last edited by Pulikeshi on 04 Jul 2014 09:48, edited 1 time in total.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby A_Gupta » 04 Jul 2014 09:32

The only reliable methods for choosing between AIT & OIT are archaeology and genetics.

As to the Veda - the interpretation depends on what you bring to the interpretation.

1. If you assume the sounds are what matter, not the meaning, there is evidence for that.
2. If you assume that the Veda is about rites and rituals, that is what you find.
3. If you assume that the Veda is about nomadic central Asian barbarians, that is what you find.
4. If you assume the Veda supports OIT, that is what you find.
5. If you assume the Veda supports AIT, that is what you find.
6. If you assume that Veda contains deep philosophical ideas (like Sri Aurobindo does), that is what you find. You can find the opposite too, (e.g., Max Mueller, "““It (The Rigveda) is the root of their religion and to show them what the root is, I feel sure, is the only way of uprooting all that has sprung from it during the last three thousand years.”).
7. If you assume that the Veda supports monotheism, like Arya Samaji Swami Dayananda Saraswati, that is what you find.
8. If you assume that the Veda supports poly/heno-theism, that is what you find.
9. You can find a high Hindu ancient culture in the Veda, or you can find that Hindus never progressed beyond childhood beliefs.

I think there is a reflection of this in the Vedantic story, from the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad, where Prajapathi gives the devas, asuras and humans the message "da, da, da". The asuras interpret it as dayadhvam (compassion), the humans interpret it as datta (charity), and the devas interpret it as damyata (self-control).

Two truths about the Veda are (1) that Hindus have striven to preserve it, sound-perfect. One could argue that the whole society was organized to make that preservation possible; and (2) Hindus haven't come to blows over the Veda.

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Pulikeshi » 04 Jul 2014 09:38

shiv wrote:i seem to have missed such a post. I just need to know that you were not imagining it or bluffing.

Incidentally, I don't know the meaning of "Western Universalism", but i expect i will find out, by and by.


Shiv, it is not a post - If you can prove OIT (big IF - IMVHO as the current approaches
only lead to never ending self discovery threads - no harm in that by itself) -

Then, your something that went out of India would have made a claim to Indian Universalism. You can disagree all you want with me, I sure hope we don't get to be disagreeable, but the consequence of Indian Universalism having a takkar with Western Universalism is inevitable. This is as true as Neo taking on Mr. Smith :mrgreen:

Without a structured approach to this issue by Indian intellectuals we will only be wasting daylight...
Few like Rajiv, Balaganghadara and others have seen this writing on the wall already...
Once again, I have no hesitation in apologising to you for any unintended grief caused by my post.

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Pulikeshi » 04 Jul 2014 09:47

A_Gupta wrote: Two truths about the Veda are (1) that Hindus have striven to preserve it, sound-perfect. One could argue that the whole society was organized to make that preservation possible; and (2) Hindus haven't come to blows over the Veda.


Only truths about the Veda - Anaditva (timeless),Apaurusheya (authorless) and Svatahpramana (necessary and sufficient substrate)

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby shiv » 04 Jul 2014 10:19

Pulikeshi wrote:
Then, your something that went out of India would have made a claim to Indian Universalism.

Pulikeshi - until you brought up the subject and somehow connected up western universalism to something I posted I did not know what western Universalism means and I was not trying to prove that India had anything to do with it.

I have been on this thread from the outset and the title is a sort of bluff or a handwave to get people talking about OIT rather than AIT. That was easy enough, but proving that something went out of India and attaching to that "proof" the sort of rigorous documentation and attestation that modern science (and my own day to day work demand) is far more difficult. At best there are only hints that something went out - other than the usual references to "zero", "chess" and a few other concepts.

If one degrades this requirement for rigorous proof then it gets easier to cook up rubbish and surprisingly (or unsurprisingly) it is precisely this lack of rogor that is evident from the people who have tried to promote AIT. It is easy to trip them up for their lack of rigor and false constructs to cook up AIT. But there is equal difficulty in "proving" OIT with the sort of rigor and attested proof I am looking for - and mind you I have done lot of reading.

As far as I am concerned your questions about western Universalism never came up. Western universalism again is a concept that lacks the rigorous proof that is demanded by science. it is just a belief that has been foisted as true. But it has nothing to do with OIT. It may be the tip of AIT but in my view AIT itself stands on such shaky grounds that it is a blunt tip that happened to be effective for a short period of history.

I am not seeking to prove or disprove anything with a pre-conceived plan of what i want to prove or disprove. I have satisfied myself that AIT is false. I am trying to see if:
1. Did anything go OIT at all?
2. if something went where did it go? And what went?
3. What became of it after it went wherever it went
4. If something went why is it not clearly evident today.

That is the current limit of my quest. I saw your linking of my replies as having some connection with proof that something going OIT resulted in Western Universalism as a specious and unnecessary construct with no connection whatsoever to what i has said, considering that I did not even know what Western Universalism is till 12 hours ago. In retrospect i now realize that all your questions about "localized" and "universal" were heading in that direction.

I do consider Dharma as universal. Does dharma demand that we impose it on others and make everyone believe it? "Imposition" of something on someone else is what I struggle with - but that would be a philosophy discussion unrelated to OIT.

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Pulikeshi » 04 Jul 2014 10:36

shiv wrote:I do consider Dharma as universal. Does dharma demand that we impose it on others and make everyone believe it? "Imposition" of something on someone else is what I struggle with - but that would be a philosophy discussion unrelated to OIT.


AIT may have had its origins in Western racism, colonial prejudice & politics, etc. but that the Dharma truth claim will become an imposition is exactly what the West fears - this is the real reason why even an intellectually well argued OIT theories will find stiff opposition when they do arrive.
Just my 2 paisa for free as always... I've made my point.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby svinayak » 04 Jul 2014 11:11

shiv wrote:
Pulikeshi wrote:[*] Western Universalism is therefore based on something that went from India long time ago

While we are on the subject, could you please point me to a post by anyone that claims that western Universalism is based something that went from India long time ago?

i seem to have missed such a post. I just need to know that you were not imagining it or bluffing.

Incidentally, I don't know the meaning of "Western Universalism", but i expect i will find out, by and by.


West did not have the concept of universal ism. The concept of western universal-ism was born during the western intellectual revolution during 1600-1700s. The contribution of India in the concept of logic is profound in the western thought process.

The Indian concept of logic and reason is the Indian universal-ism. This is what the west appropriated and pretend that west is the moral upholder and also originator of universal ism

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby A_Gupta » 04 Jul 2014 19:36

Pulikeshi wrote:
A_Gupta wrote: Two truths about the Veda are (1) that Hindus have striven to preserve it, sound-perfect. One could argue that the whole society was organized to make that preservation possible; and (2) Hindus haven't come to blows over the Veda.


Only truths about the Veda - Anaditva (timeless),Apaurusheya (authorless) and Svatahpramana (necessary and sufficient substrate)


As I was saying, if you assume timeless, authorless, necessary and sufficient substrate, then that is what you find. If you assume an incoherent collection of crude poetry made by drunken nomadic barbarians that prized cows, horses collected over some centuries, then that is what you find. I cannot think of an objective "scientific" decision procedure to decide between the two, just as we cannot know what Prajapati meant in saying "da, da, da". This means the truth of the Veda is something that you experience/understand/know/believe that depends on your prior knowledge, experience, understanding and beliefs.

Having said that, I add though it is outside my knowledge and understanding, I would take on trust what the wisest among us says to likely be the truth about the Veda. The assumption is that if I keep the self-discipline and do the study, I too will eventually arrive at this truth, and directly understand it, and not have to rely on the words of some other. They have described to me the mango, but I have to taste it myself. The teaching of even the wisest is nothing more than a map to a destination.

It is of course possible that success at this is beyond my capabilities, just as winning a sprint at the Olympics is beyond the capabilities of this body. My refuge then is the assurance of the wisest that the effort will still not be wasted.

To answer Ulan Batori's question about what the core beliefs are, I think they are only these two -
(1) that there is something to be understood as an astika.
(2) even without achieving full success, the effort is worthwhile.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby UlanBatori » 04 Jul 2014 19:45

Western Universalism

I still have no clue what that ism is, and I don't think it's worth asking Maharani Goo-gal

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby A_Gupta » 04 Jul 2014 20:40

UlanBatori wrote:Western Universalism

I still have no clue what that ism is, and I don't think it's worth asking Maharani Goo-gal


Here is the anti-thesis of Western Universalism:

François Bernier, in his famous Voyages, recounts a conversation that he had with some Brahmins. Discussing the frequency of ablutions, which they maintained,
when I told them that in cold countries it would be impossible to observe their law during the winter, which showed that it was nothing but a pure invention of men, they gave me this rather amusing reply: that they were not claiming that their law was universal, but that God had made it for them alone, which was why they could not receive a foreigner into their religion;...they were not in the least claiming that our religion was false, but that it might be good for us and that God might have made several different paths to heaven; but they would not agree that as ours was general for the whole world, theirs could be but fable and pure invention. (In Dumont 1966: 402-403.)


As Chatfield (1808: 324) records, partially referring to Bernier,
When the Brahmins have been pressed by the arguments of the Christians, that their law could only be observed in their own country, on account of its peculiar ordinances, their answer has been uniform, “that God had only made it for them, and therefore they did not admit into it strangers; that they pretended not that Christianity was false; and since God could make many roads to heaven, it was not thence to be presumed that their religion was mere fable and invention.”


Hope that helps.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby UlanBatori » 04 Jul 2014 21:13

Well.. thanks. But that argument is no different from ("We R Da Cho-Sen Ppl, U don't b-long", aka "Alla*h created Whole Duniya Onlee 4 *******, all others can be robbed, raped, mutilated, killed with All*h's compliments" aka "Racial Purity" aka ""Jaati Purity" aka "U R a Sinner Until U Repent and Accept That ***** Died on the ***** 4 Da Sins of All Duniya, Other Faiths Are Pagan and Idli-Warship, Destroy The Heathain!")

It is Universally used by E-Diots.

It comes down to an unthinking adamant superstition. (bcoz thought is Haraam, Brasht, Ashuddam, Blasphemy, not Kosher).

It may have been generally OK in the 18th century when anyone crossing the oceans was considered "Brasht", but TODAY? When Hindus are all over the planet and some have gone into Space?

So, sorry, the moment someone goes into such argument lines, I go out. My version rejects all such things as irrelevant. My take is that SD is the ONLY line of belief that IS "Universal" in its applicability and relevance. For this, one has to very carefully negotiate between the minefields of very "localized" stuff.

Clearly one cannot go "Out of India" with that. You take out a nice technology, a belief system and on top of that an irrelevant ritual that is foisted as "mandatory" for the rest to work, and someone simply takes the whole thing, strips out the irrelevant ritual, and declares the rest their own.

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Pulikeshi » 04 Jul 2014 22:32

^^^Mangolians now clearly understand the lament of the Universal out of Local Injuns!

Please to look at winkipedlia onlee... "Out of India Theory"
"The Out-of-India view has virtually no academic credibility today,[6] but it was revived as a political topic in Hindu nationalism in the late 1990s."

That is agreeing with OIT makes one a "Internet Hindu" aka a rabble rousing, boorish Hindu Nationalist.

SanjayC
BRFite
Posts: 1557
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby SanjayC » 04 Jul 2014 22:37

^^^ Goras are scared shit of OIT. Will go to any extent to prevent any discussion or research. If OIT is proved or becomes respectable, their whole civilizational narrative will come crashing down. Their strategy is to abuse and ridicule it so much that Indians think twice before even broaching the topic.

"The Out-of-India view has virtually no academic credibility today,[6] but it was revived as a political topic in Hindu nationalism in the late 1990s."


What a coincidence -- all the "academics" denying "academic credibility" to OIT happen to be Whites. Talk about a Kangaroo court!!

Actually, the conclusion of OIT is so natural after considering how big and advanced Indian civilization was and how primitive and undeveloped European civilization was in years before CE, the earliest British Indologists proposed OIT as the only explanation for similarities in language and folklore of the two continents. Later, as Goras conquered more and more of India, the racists took over and reversed the direction of knowledge exchange, without giving any proof or arguments, as they simply felt racially offended by the suggestion of OIT.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby svinayak » 04 Jul 2014 23:38

SanjayC wrote:^^^ Goras are scared shit of OIT. Will go to any extent to prevent any discussion or research. If OIT is proved or becomes respectable, their whole civilizational narrative will come crashing down. Their strategy is to abuse and ridicule it so much that Indians think twice before even broaching the topic.

"The Out-of-India view has virtually no academic credibility today,[6] but it was revived as a political topic in Hindu nationalism in the late 1990s."


What a coincidence -- all the "academics" denying "academic credibility" to OIT happen to be Whites. Talk about a Kangaroo court!!

Actually, the conclusion of OIT is so natural after considering how big and advanced Indian civilization was and how primitive and undeveloped European civilization was in years before CE, the earliest British Indologists proposed OIT as the only explanation for similarities in language and folklore of the two continents. Later, as Goras conquered more and more of India, the racists took over and reversed the direction of knowledge exchange, without giving any proof or arguments, as they simply felt racially offended by the suggestion of OIT.


OIT is connected to the Indius valley civilization.
Indus valley civilization is the core of the Indian history, sanskrit/language and geo graphy for the Out of India theory

The British world view and their followers have made the Indus valley civilization as having no academic credibility.
India has to depend on Indian academic community for discussing Indian history and Indian civilization

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby A_Gupta » 05 Jul 2014 19:23

Ulan Batori,

IMO, you misunderstood completely. In that dialog, the Christians are saying - something cannot be valid unless it is universally applicable. Therefore your practices/beliefs are invalid. The Brahmins reply, sorry, that things are only locally applicable does not make them invalid.

The Indian law-givers understand that such practices are local both to place and time (yuga-dharma).

Anyway, since I have achieved the coveted certified E-diot status from the Mongolian, I can consider myself graduated from this discussion. On to post-graduate studies!

PS: It should be clear that Western Universalism is the insistence by the West that their values are universally valid and their values alone are universally valid. Afghan women are not liberated if they can go to a doctor on their own, or get an education or a job, if they must wear a head-scarf when doing so; they are liberated only when they can wear mini-skirts. And so on.

The approach in line with Indian traditions is that as Hindus move into other eco-systems, they tailor their practices, rituals, etc., to meet the local conditions. You will notice that Christian conversion has started making inroads into India only after doing that. But of course, Indian civilization will thrive when it is made into a mini-copy of the Western one or the Islamic one. The question left hanging is what competitive advantage do the Hindu systems have left after they've been cast into that form.

FYI - the British historian Philip Mason records the 18th century incident where the British recruited sailors and soldiers from some South Indian communities for some East Bay-of-Bengal expeditions. Conditions were horrible, and the men suffered greatly. On subsequent recruitment efforts, these communities decided that sea voyages violated their religious practices - so they told the British. I'm sure similar "religious objections" probably came up after experiences of Indians transported for indentured labor percolated back home. Where I see an attempt at adaptation, you see superstition. Which is why you're the degree-administering authority, and I am only a student seeking post-E-diot certification.

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby RamaY » 05 Jul 2014 22:14

shiv wrote:The modern method, synonymous with western method is of "observation" - that is trusting one's senses to tell the truth. Seeing, feeling, smelling, weighing, smashing, mixing and burning things to make observations are all valid methods of western science. Such science cannot accept any "knowledge" that is handed down with the caveat that one must simply learn and recite and not look for hidden meanings. Yet that is what is required from the Vedas. The Indian method has revolved around not necessarily trusting one's senses, but in trying to explore what cannot be sensed or reached for the purpose of "seeing, feeling, smelling, weighing, smashing, mixing and burning".

To my knowledge there is no via media. You cannot follow the Indian method without using the prescribed tools and the same is true for the western "modern" method. From a western research (search for knowledge) viewpoint this just won't do. Nothing can be "known" to modern science unless it is dissected, broken up into parts, magnified, measured, weighed and compared. The Vedas are not amenable to this and therefore do not constitute what is understandable from the modern scientific perspective. If one restricts one's mental worldview to the idea that "What cannot be measured by western science does not constitute knowledge" then one is excluding oneself from several millennia of Indian exploration into the idea of knowledge. The idea that knowledge can extend beyond what we expect from modern science is an old Indian one.


A response here: viewtopic.php?p=1683510#p1683510

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby shiv » 06 Jul 2014 06:34

A_Gupta wrote:In that dialog, the Christians are saying - something cannot be valid unless it is universally applicable. Therefore your practices/beliefs are invalid. The Brahmins reply, sorry, that things are only locally applicable does not make them invalid.

Very interesting. I never knew that an absolutely brainless concept called "universalism" could give rise to so much debate.

What would be a universally valid rule for a car manufacturer? For example, would left hand drive be universal? Would "engine in front" be universal? Would four wheels be universal? Would two passengers be universal? Would internal combustion engines be universal?

Applying logic for a few milliseconds, an act that people who attempt to impose rigid concepts of universalism on others do not seem capable of doing, it is clear that none of the above concepts are universal. Every one of those features is modified on local conditions. But the vehicles made are still cars.

Apply universalism to lifestyle and holidays. Is it universalism to say that people should have one day off in a week like God did? Then why do people get two days off? Why are doctors, policemen, firemen, soldiers often called upon to get less than one day off per week. Again, the amount of free time between acts of performing one's duty is not universal. If one day off per week is declared universal then two days off is invalid.

There are certain concepts that have crept in from both Christianity and Islam that have been insinuated into the mindsets of a large proportion of people in some societies. The concept of "universalism" seems to be a concept that tries to reduce everything to one - a single God, single root cause, single rule, single belief. Not only is this absurd, but it is astounding how deep this absurdity has sunk in - to affect life in ways that most people do not even realize, although there have been others who have always spoken up against such unifying unitary absurdity.

The imposition of "One God" or "One belief" has extended to search for "single causes"

For example "western" medicine has always searched for "single root causes" - assuming pinpoint origins for diseases or pinpoint single solutions. This works only "locally" in instances where the cause or cure really is single. Where it is multi-factorial, it fails. I will not bother quoting examples of diseases and drugs where the concept of a universal unitary cause or effect fails.

Another favourite "single root" concept is about Lucy the African female skeleton who is widely quoted as the ancestor of every human on earth. But wait. Dig a little deeper and it appears that humans have genes from at least a couple of non human groups - Neanderthal and "Denisovian" and perhaps others. it cannot be proven that a single proto-human line split into several minor variations that intermingled leaving behind the fact that there may be no single human ancestor.

Unversalism is "cut off marks" that says anything to the left or right of these lines on this bell curve is not universal and everything that lies within the bell curve but outside my lines is invalid. It is one thing if someone tries is to push this idiocy as universal. Worse is for others to believe it and unthinkingly accept it as true.

For this thread, universalism is a digression, unless we head into a discussion that shows the shaky grounds on which this completely brainless concept exists. But that would be a digression from the topic of what went out of India.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21155
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Prem » 06 Jul 2014 10:02

4,000 Year Old Vishnu Statue Discovered in Vietnam

http://www.indiadivine.org/news/history ... etnam-r766

Interesting Pictures. Unfortunately cant seem to copy and paste the article.Please click the flik.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby shiv » 06 Jul 2014 10:05

On further contemplation, that which is universal should be unquestionably universal from every perspective and for all things. There should be no scope for argument regarding its universality. If anything that is deemed universal can be shown to have one situation in which it is not universal, it ceases to be universal. If Christian missionaries have to argue with Brahmins about the universality of some concept, that concept cannot be universal because universal means universal. It does not mean "i think it is universal and I demand that you too consider it universal even if you don't think so". That which requires coercion indicates the universal appeal of coercion, not of the entity claimed to be universal. For example if you need to kill, hurt or threaten someone to enforce the concept that there is only one God and his name is xyz, then the threat of violence is what is universally applicable, not the identity of that god.

Unfortunately this logic, compelling as it may seem, will go over the heads of over 90% of people

When anyone talks about the word "universal" - it is better to be serious about what is "universal". This is not about being "World famous in Bangalore" or "Best pizza in the street" being worse or better than its neighbour, "Best pizza in the city"

Is the universe universal? Yes
Are you part of this universe? Yes
Are you universal? No. You are only part of the universe. The entire universe in its totality is universal.
Are you made up of atoms? Yes
Are atoms universal? No. Atoms are part of the universe, not the whole.
Nothing that is less than the universe can be universal. if you draw an artificial line and say that "universal" does not have to mean "universe" but something less than the universe, then that new universal is merely what it is as defined by someone. Someone else can have a different definition


If one particular definition of "universal" is pushed by means of rhetoric, propagandu and coercion, it still does not mean that it really is universal

Like I said - the topic is a digression.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests