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.
Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10542
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

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

Postby Vayutuvan » 30 Jun 2014 09:40

Pulikeshi wrote:Dharma (Smrithi based) applies critically to Artha & Kama parts of Purushartha.


Very nice.

Recently I was going through Wendy O' Falherty's (AKA Wendy Doniger) Rigveda Penguin classic. Her bhAshaNa on one of the hymns clearly brings out her ignorance of ashrama dharma. I am guessing from this that there is very high probability that several of the western commentators (especially in olden days when they came in contact with SD for the first time) would have no understanding at the gut level of the mind of Indian genius which produced all the religions that are extant in most of the eastern world even to this day.

KLP Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 1310
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby KLP Dubey » 01 Jul 2014 02:32

Nilesh Oak wrote:
KLP Dubey wrote:Why blame only Griffiths ? Nirukta (see sections 11.2-11.5) assigns the following primary meaning to soma, and that is a juice/drink extracted from some herbs. Yaska goes to great lengths to explain this meaning. He does mention a secondary meaning (the moon) but doesn't discuss it. As far as the moon is concerned, he only discusses "candramas" (11.6).

KLP ji,

Do we know time of Nirukta?


I don't know how old Nirukta is. You can find the conventional 'western' viewpoint on the age of the Nirukta by a simple Google search.

KLP Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 1310
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby KLP Dubey » 01 Jul 2014 03:19

Pulikeshi wrote:This is beyond (Upa-ni-sat as in near-down-sit). To say Brahman is not a principle of Vaidika is to say democracy is not the principle of the constitution :mrgreen:


You are discussing Vedanta, not Veda. When a Vedanti talks about the "veda", he/she is usually referring to the Upanishads.

I am speaking of Mantra (Rk-Saman-Yajus) and the injunctions in the Brahmanas which are applied along with Mantra. That is Vaidikadharma.

Brahman is about as much a convenient construct as you are... The Vaidika do not even like to call it by a name... In my view Brahman can never be attained (the path is different attainment is not same as doing so), why does one need Sanyasa for that? Moksha as an end goal is the illusion, not Brahman. We need to change our thinking from Param-Atma to Karma-Atma. But this needs changing the way we see Purusharta... That is human Karma needs to be given it's due importance and we need to attenuate the Moksha business. The order is Artha, Kama and then Moksha.


You are more than welcome to proceed on this path (and let me know what happens). However, I am speaking of Veda. According to you there is "no knowledge in the Veda", which to me means there is "no knowledge in Rk-Saman-Yajus". I'm wondering if you have a coherent explanation for that.

KLP Dubey wrote:So is Brahman a concept or not?
So if one knows the Veda one automatically realises Brahman?


Neither I, you, nor anyone else "knows the Veda". However, you are right, that if and when the laws of nature are clearly revealed in the future, that will certainly include brahman.

This criticism of Advaita shows ur bias more than it does illuminate anything new.


It is not a bias (or even a criticism). It is simply an awareness of the limits of applicability and usefulness. As far as Vaidikadharma is concerned, the Vedanta understanding of "brahman" is a commendable but "so-what" type of result at this point. No useful branches of knowledge have come out of it. On the other hand, Veda has led to a number of useful knowledge streams (e.g., the Vedangas) which in turn spawned mathematics, astronomy, logic, atomic theory, music, etc etc. The main use of Brahman was to make Buddhism disappear, and the purpose has been served.

KLP Dubey wrote:Within the contours of Dharma, there will never be an end to argumentation, and I for one welcome it, but to denounce a dictum since it comes from one school or an other does not strengthen ur argument against what I am proposing. Even the Budha-mata and Jaina-mata followers have commented on the Vedas, who is to say who has authority and who does not?


It *is* a question of which school, because each school is expected to define their epistemological basis. Anyone can comment, but not all comments make any sense or have a valid basis. Did you check what happened to the Buddhist criticism of the Veda ? How was it handled by Kumarila and Shankara ?

In the present case, you appear to be convinced of the validity of the Brahman concept developed by Vedanta. But this cannot be derived by Vedanta if "Vaidika-shabda" (Vedic testimony) is rejected as a pramana ("reliable means of gaining knowledge"). There will be no basis for claiming any "brahman" at all. So you cannot claim to believe in "na vedam veda" and at the same time claim Brahman is valid!

This reminds me of the anti-Vedic "arguments" of Buddhist "luminaries" like Dignaga and Dharmakirti, which is fundamentally based upon rejecting any notion of "eternal texts" and their value as a pramana. At the end of the day when confronted with the Mimamsa tenet of Eternal Veda and after all criticisms against Vedic eternality having been debunked, their last argument basically amounts to: "OK, if you claim your texts are eternal, then we can also claim our texts are eternal !"

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

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

Postby member_20317 » 01 Jul 2014 09:08

UlanBatori wrote:Perhaps what is needed (at least for me) is when humans figured out various technologies. Did these occur at the same time all over the world? Why/how? Could it be that technology/civilization could have been far more advanced in certain parts, but isolated from the rest of the world because there was (a) no easy way of reaching there and (b) those who reached were likely to be eaten?


I am like you a votary of the long duration Vedas. Presuming a no godly preferences or chosen man (Neo) scenario and a plain vanilla prakriti-purusha interaction, if something is meant to be transmitted through practice then the practice will perforce establish itself only in time. This is not to deny that special sort of prakriti-purusha interaction cannot take place. Rather it is an attempt to recognize that the special interaction requires special kripa and in a sparsely populated world (human count wise) which is what the available evidence points to, merely being allowed to live and work (without getting eaten up by a tiger) is Special Kripa - thank you god. Under such a scenario there is no need for veneration of Mount Kailash to be subjected to its multi-yug existence. Nor any such thing as a genetic memory needed for certain types of rocks or water making sounds in the Shanka which even if made could not possibly have been a worthwhile pursuit, considering the circumstances and expressed desires. It also does not require the eternity of the Vedas to be challenged by the act of finding meaning in its chants. The meanings could have come at any time after but not before the Eternal Vedas.

It is sufficient to simply allow the ancient people the same presumptions that we hold as being existential for ourselves. A dignity in their respective karm-kshetras. For example if we did not find any mention of a microscope yantra in say Ramayana while finding mention of minute observations, then we can deduce that the act of observation has a scale and scope different and probably even superior to what the currently microscope-armed people can achieve. This essentially boils down to saying that the oldies did not have any sort of keeda in them and they had a lot more of the acceptance-bhaav compared to modern day parameter/classification oriented understandings. I would rather posit that the acceptance-bhaav was what allowed them to treat their poems as works of art extolling a certain lifestyle instead of actually finding flying saucers in their poems. For gods sake even somebody like Javed Aktar will not put a flying saucer in his works. They say it is about dharm and purush and maa prakriti - I accept it as such.

On the equally pink-coy-lovely-mushy feelings culled out of Vedanta, I find it difficult to believe that a group of people who could talk across time and make sense would fall so much in love with their theories that they would not allow the more practical aspect of survival and growth to figure in their messages. The point KLPD ji is raising as to the absence of any real off-springs of Vedanta is for me a valid objection. It is about anta how the hell can it be about the eternal :P. I would believe that yes there is a finality to the Vedanta too, but only in some special context. The eternal by definition would encompass but not be dependent on special contexts. However what is to say that Vedanta was about pink-coy-lovely-mushy feelings. As they say the acorn does not fall far from the oak. What we need to take care of is that the oak that this acron grows into has to be Nilesh Oak and not P.N.Oak.

..................................

Though I admit P. N. Oak is more fun and for myself, more identifiable with, than Nilesh Oak. Hein ji. Always good to have a crazy man in the family.

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

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

Postby Pulikeshi » 01 Jul 2014 14:42

I am going to rearrange some of your post for convenience but mean no disrespect:
KLP Dubey wrote:You are discussing Vedanta, not Veda. When a Vedanti talks about the "veda", he/she is usually referring to the Upanishads.


Veda – anta :-) Can’t make a distinction between the head and tail of the proverbial elephant!

KLP Dubey wrote:However, I am speaking of Veda. According to you there is "no knowledge in the Veda", which to me means there is "no knowledge in Rk-Saman-Yajus". I'm wondering if you have a coherent explanation for that.


Veda and after all criticisms against Vedic eternality having been debunked, their last argument basically amounts to: "OK, if you claim your texts are eternal, then we can also claim our texts are eternal !"



The following is the argumentation of Kumarila:
  • All knowledge is derived from sense perception, expect those obtained from Veda
  • This means that no direct knowledge is possible of current actions on future time. This means there is no possibility of Human Omniscience – which was the foundation of the Jina (Jain) and later Baudha (Buddhist), Christian and Islamic schools. The Knowledge in question here is restricted to what is Dharma – not what is Brahma Gnana as in true knowledge
  • Why is the Veda a source of Dharma – because it is anaditva (timeless), apaurusheya (authorless) and svatahpramana (necessary and sufficient substrate)
  • The Heterodox schools lost their shirt to Kumarila – as in they could not claim what you have in the last statement of “your texts are eternal, so is ours” for the following reason:
    • The founders of Jina and Baudha schools claim omniscience
    • Their prescriptions for the right path is one not Dharma and two error prone given they are based on human sense perception – mired in circumstance and sense organ bound knowledge
    • The language used in transmission is prone to corruption – similar reason

All this argumentation is based on the fact that all 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. Why is this important – Vedas present cognitions that cannot be disproved by either of these two ways – no other cognitions contradict them and circumstance and sense organs do not come into play. This is why the Veda is necessary and sufficient pramana acceptable as a source of Dharma. The best argument in the modern West to this is, "We find this claim incredulous!" :rotfl:

Therefore it is not possible to determine what the impact of current actions is (even those bound in Dharma) on the future. Ipso facto, it is irrelevant to try to attain Moksha. The only reason to follow Dharma is the tautology – Dharmo rakshati rakshitaha. That is, in as much as you protect Dharma, it protects you and yours, but to say you will receive Moksha or Naraka, etc. is illogical.

KLP Dubey wrote:The main use of Brahman was to make Buddhism disappear, and the purpose has been served.


This is based on what? The Purva Mimansa basis of argumentation can be furthered against more modern religions as I have indicated above but not explored yet…. Kumarila himself did his work Slokavarrttika to defeat the Buddhist, but believed in ParaBrahman... But vehemently argued against any creator - please note the distinction.

KLP Dubey wrote:So you cannot claim to believe in "na vedam veda" and at the same time claim Brahman is valid!


Brahman (cannot even be tagged by a name) – you are dealing with a singular four fold negation Catuskoti, the Veda is the substrate for Dharma, but as I have shown logically, no human action or cognition can predict a future prosperity (Artha, Kama or Moksha), therefore, all the knowledge in the Veda is only limited to telling you what is Dharma.

Karma marga is the only path in the first three ashramas, post that if interested please ponder all this... Attaining Brahman is impossible, it requires a different path, but that has to be realized – and no it does not need sansaya, neither does it make you superior being or in any way omniscient as I have shown before, indeed all such claims are exaggerated but more importantly false.

KLP Dubey wrote:This reminds me of the anti-Vedic "arguments" of Buddhist "luminaries" like Dignaga and Dharmakirti, which is fundamentally based upon rejecting any notion of "eternal texts" and their value as a pramana.


As I have clearly shown based on Kumarila’s – nothing other than the Veda is Dharma – Purva Mimamsa or Karma Mimamsa of Kumarila is predominantly the substrate of all my arguments, albeit, I am inclined towards Uttara Mimansa or works based on Vedanta – but to term them as distinct is unnecessary – Prabhakara was a student of Kumarila as best as we can gather from history.

Since folks from Mangolia (Batori saab) asked about how to teach all of this to a 10 year old, I will try to put together a list. However, what is needed is for Dharmic scholars to argue Kumarila & Prabhakara against Hobbes, Paine, Augustine, etc. as well as Al-Kindi, Al-Farabi, Ibn Sina, etc. as well as Blaise Pascal, Ludwig Von Mises, F.A. Hayek, etc. Who is ready for this challenge?

Alas all the smart folks take up Vedas too late in life and perceive it as a path to Moksha!

It is more a guide to human actions – Karma Mimamsa needs to be evolved beyond the ritual.

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

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

Postby Pulikeshi » 01 Jul 2014 14:58

ravi_g wrote:It is about anta how the hell can it be about the eternal :P.


The anta their has to do with ur finishing ur Vedic studies 8)

That is when u were an expert in ritual u were given the secret knowledge of vedanta - finishing school
More imp it's about Vedas being eternal, not about the eternal :P

KLP Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 1310
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby KLP Dubey » 01 Jul 2014 18:10

I am having difficulty in understanding the "main thrust" (if any) of your argument:

The following is the argumentation of Kumarila:

All this argumentation is based on the fact that all 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. Why is this important – Vedas present cognitions that cannot be disproved by either of these two ways – no other cognitions contradict them and circumstance and sense organs do not come into play. This is why the Veda is necessary and sufficient pramana acceptable as a source of Dharma. The best argument in the modern West to this is, "We find this claim incredulous!" :rotfl:


OK, up till this point you are making perfect sense, and display at least a basic understanding of the Vedic philosophy. The above is a good paraphrase of the introduction to Jaimini's mimamsasutra.

KLP Dubey wrote:The main use of Brahman was to make Buddhism disappear, and the purpose has been served.


This is based on what?


This is based upon the timeline and history of Vedanta. The Vedantic impetus to develop and assert the validity of Brahman as the universal substratum was in direct proportion to the rise of Bauddha and other heterodox philosophy. Certainly these speculations were contained in the Upanishads, and the Brahmasutra of Badarayana also deals with this issue. However, unlike Jaimini's Mimamsasutra, the Brahmasutra gives a much larger leeway for differing interpretations. Add to that the Bhagavadgita, which emerged as a powerful 'religious' force and needed to be contended with. It is a collection of widely disparate philosophical and religious views, meaning that it took some extraordinary acrobatics from "brahmavadis" to reconcile it with their core tenets.

The Purva Mimansa basis of argumentation can be furthered against more modern religions as I have indicated above but not explored yet…. Kumarila himself did his work Slokavarrttika to defeat the Buddhist, but believed in ParaBrahman... But vehemently argued against any creator - please note the distinction.


I am very well aware of the "distinction". However, I'm entirely confused: why should anyone "argue" with "more modern religions" using Purvamimamsa ? Unless I am mistaken, it appears you consider this some sort of a "religious" or "spiritual" tussle.

Vedadharma in essence is concerned with a practical matter of extreme importance: maintenance of World-Order through Veda. It is not concerned with any religions or "uniting your soul with Gawd".

Brahman (cannot even be tagged by a name) – you are dealing with a singular four fold negation Catuskoti, the Veda is the substrate for Dharma, but as I have shown logically, no human action or cognition can predict a future prosperity (Artha, Kama or Moksha), therefore, all the knowledge in the Veda is only limited to telling you what is Dharma.


I am having difficulty in understanding what you are after, considering that there are a large number of different types of statements in your posts.

Your statement above (bolded by me) is partially correct. It is certainly true that only Veda can form the correct basis of Dharma. However, who told you that the Veda is "limited only to telling you about dharma". There is no such argument in Mimamsa or any other similar philosophy.

Keep in mind, the distinction between "Veda" in the context of dharma as per Mimamsa (we are talking about the Brahmanas) and "Veda" in the context of Mantra. I am not sure there is a proper understanding of Brahmanas and Upanishads versus Mantra (Rk-Saman-Yajus). There was another poster a while ago - I don't remember who - that had a similar issue. According to Mimamsa, the Mantra does not directly tell us about Dharma, since it has no injunctions. According to them, only the Brahmanas - and even there, only the statements containing injunctive verbs - can be used for direct guidance on Dharma.

As far as mimamsa is concerned, the "practical use" of Mantra is to obtain certain information relevant for correctly executing injunctive verbs. However, Mimamsa strenuously argues for the importance of the Mantras which describe natural processes that remain to be understood and are of vital importance to connect the earthly actions being carried out in the Yajna to the cosmic processes occurring in nature. Delete the Mantra and the Yajna loses all meaning. An "apurva" cannot be generated by a Mantra-less Yajna even if the injunction is correctly executed on the ground.

The great advantage of the Mimamsa over Vedanta in terms of a correct path towards Dharma is that fact that the Mantra plays an important role in the former. There is no Yajna without Mantra and there is no actuation of any beneficial effects without it. Whereas in Vedanta the importance of Mantra is pretty much rejected. It is mainly a "spiritual" exercise, which has also acquired religious overtones over the centuries.

Karma marga is the only path in the first three ashramas, post that if interested please ponder all this... Attaining Brahman is impossible, it requires a different path, but that has to be realized – and no it does not need sansaya, neither does it make you superior being or in any way omniscient as I have shown before, indeed all such claims are exaggerated but more importantly false.


I have seen, read, analyzed and pondered all these arguments before. There are major differences in the views of Advaita proponents on this matter. The "founder" of Advaita is considered to be one Gaudapada (in his karika on the Mandukya Upanishad). Gaudapada does not advocate "sanyasa" as a requirement. He himself was quite possibly a "grhastha". However, read the commentary of later Advaitis on the Brahmasutras. Even today, I am hard-pressed to find any significant Vedanta schools which are run by grhasthas and varnashramis.

Since folks from Mangolia (Batori saab) asked about how to teach all of this to a 10 year old, I will try to put together a list. However, what is needed is for Dharmic scholars to argue Kumarila & Prabhakara against Hobbes, Paine, Augustine, etc. as well as Al-Kindi, Al-Farabi, Ibn Sina, etc. as well as Blaise Pascal, Ludwig Von Mises, F.A. Hayek, etc. Who is ready for this challenge?


I think this would be a ridiculous and time-wasting argument. Dharma does not have anything to do with religion or religious philosophy. Again, the greater danger is that Veda Dharma is being hijacked by all manner of "religious" proponents and being misused by reducing it to a "religious" activity.

If you want to contrast things like Vedanta, Vaishnava, Shaiva etc scriptural beliefs and philosophy with Messianic religions or Western philosophy, feel free. I agree that is necessary in a different sense.

However, the request from the "Mongolian" is perhaps misunderstood. He asked how to teach Vedadharma to a 10 year old, not how to compare Vedadharma to religious beliefs. Veda Dharma is about Mantra (eternal Words containing information on natural processes) and Yajna (path to correct actions based upon the Mantra, and is currently represented by the Brahmanas). It has nothing to do with any religious/spiritual activities or "Gawd". I don't understand why we are mixing up all these together.

Alas all the smart folks take up Vedas too late in life and perceive it as a path to Moksha!


Who told you that "smart folks" perceive Veda as a "path to Moksha" ?

What one must do is to take correct Actions and preserve the World-Order. This is Dharma. And only Veda can be the basis for that. The requirements for that are (1) the correct articulation of Mantra, and (2) correct performance of Yajna. The rest is all interpretation of human minds. One can have all manner of brilliant theories and philosophical speculations and "intellectual" acrobatics, but they are of no use to humanity on their own if the World-Order is not maintained on earth in the first place.

It is more a guide to human actions – Karma Mimamsa needs to be evolved beyond the ritual.


Again your last few statements appear contradictory. Most people would agree with your statement quoted above. The point is how to "evolve" it beyond what is known already.

For example, what do you think organizations like Arya Samaj have done with "Karma" ? "Evolution" attempts must provide new understanding/hypotheses of the Mantra in order to "evolve" "Karma" further. In a nutshell, Mimamsa confesses a lack of detailed understanding of the Mantra contents, but clearly states that it is absolutely required in Yajnas in order to connect eternal and impersonal cosmic processes (encoded in the Mantra sounds themselves) with earthly actions. If you want to go beyond that, one must explain new understanding of the Mantra. Arya Samaj "evolution" of karma, for example, is based upon Dayanand Saraswati's new interpretation/hypothesis of Mantra and what it means.

So that brings me back yet again to my original question: are we going to talk about understanding Mantra (Rk-Saman-Yajus), or are you talking about other things like Vedanta, Brahman, comparative religion, Moksha, and such ? I am not opposed to any of the latter being discussed on the thread, but when arbitrary statements about Veda (e.g., "no knowledge in Veda") are made then I will have to step in for corrections.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5245
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

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

Postby ShauryaT » 01 Jul 2014 18:33

KLP Dubey wrote:So that brings me back yet again to my original question: are we going to talk about understanding Mantra (Rk-Saman-Yajus), or are you talking about other things like Vedanta, Brahman, comparative religion, Moksha, and such ? I am not opposed to any of the latter being discussed on the thread, but when arbitrary statements about Veda (e.g., "no knowledge in Veda") are made then I will have to step in for corrections.

I for one, seek to understand the Samhitas and understand "how" does Vedas uphold "Dharma". With some exposure to the works of the Arya Samajis, I am looking for more such works that seek to "interpret" and "understand". Pointers please? Books will also do, you know of the paper kind.

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

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

Postby UlanBatori » 01 Jul 2014 19:13

Thx.

However, the request from the "Mongolian" is perhaps misunderstood. He asked how to teach Vedadharma to a 10 year old, not how to compare Vedadharma to religious beliefs. Veda Dharma is about Mantra (eternal Words containing information on natural processes) and Yajna (path to correct actions based upon the Mantra, and is currently represented by the Brahmanas). It has nothing to do with any religious/spiritual activities or "Gawd". I don't understand why we are mixing up all these together.


Request from Mongolia is how to explain:
1. What r ur Core Beliefs?
2. What is the hierarchy of literature relevant to ur core beliefs?

Core beliefs are those that can be considered to be common (or should be if understood) to all believers whether they realize it or not. I list the belief in the AvatAras, as in
paritrAnAya sAdhoonam
vinAsaya ca dushkrtAm
dharmasamshApanArthaya
sambhAvAmi yuge yuge


as one of these. A lot of other things can be derived from there. It also conveys the idea that one does not always have to sitting around pining after Lost Golden Ages etc. This is an example how a Core Belief can lead to explaining many secondary aspects, and relating to other Core Beliefs.

To me there must also be a Core Belief that one is responsible for what one does. Without this there is no society and no civilization, and no advancement. the Core Belief that the repercussions may come not in this life but in a later one, is also key to sustaining the belief system.

These are examples. In addition, the Hierarchy of Literature is very important because it answers the question:
So I am not a resident of India, or specifically the Indus Valley. Does any of this apply to me or am I excluded? Can I be treated as an equal?


The literature base has to satisfy that questioner. Do I have to turn towards Pakistan (Indus Valley) or China (Mt. Kailash) and pray because the AlMighty does not exist where I live? Or does ur belief apply in Tahiti? This is also where I have to draw the line between the Sruti and say, ManuSmriti or Uttara Ramayana, or the tale of 5 Herrows all taking turns being married to the same woman, just because of a misinterpretation of an idle remark by her Mom-in-Law.

I have to be able to say clearly that the Sruti says nothing of the sort, these are all later appendages that came from poetic license, soap-opera producer's license, etc. and reflect the social issues of the times. Won't go into the caste issue here, but you can gather my attitude to that as well. I can confront that easily and point out that only the Constitution applies, and said Constitution is completely in line with the Sruti once Article 270 is scrapped and a Uniform Civil Code is put into place.

These to me are the issue. Then of course there is the standard curiosity:
Why should I believe any of this? How do you know it's not all derived from what some Bavarian goat-herders dreamt up while on hooch on a Saturday night by the banks of a long-dried-up river?

Which is where Out of India becomes very relevant to establishing the Sruti as Sruti. It is NOT important to prove Out of India to show where the AlMighty resides/resided, or how the Ganga river came to flow, but it is important to establish that the Sruti can be credibly traced back to minus infinity if possible.

Now to clarify re: a couple of comments of a prior postor:
1. I don't have to resort to flying saucers to argue anything. I do maintain that present-day research establishes quite convincingly that the general conditions for life as we know it, could/could have existed on a good number of planets, at least many (thousands of?) years ago (the present observations come from many light-years away!). So just in our neighborhood of our Galaxy, there are all these places, and they are at the extreme limits of present observation, which is why really Earth-sized planets, and really Earth-like distances from Sun-like stars, cannot yet be detected. So again, Belief Systems that are centered around one Garden or one Rock or whatever are the ones ripe for having to resort to flying saucers to explain why. My Belief systems is completely consistent with Life all over the known Universe, and with decomposition into elementary particles, collapse of the present Universe and re-Creation in another Big Bang, not that these are of any interest to my present form.

2. The relevance of sounds produced by flowing air or water over Shankh, is that there must be means of knowledge/wisdom transmittal that have nothing to do with oral acoustic instruction. Because there MUST have been wisdom transmittal (what we call Genetic Knowledge) that tells a salmon to swim up the Columbia river for hanky-panky, or a minutes-old deer to get up and start jumping around, etc etc. Same for how plants and trees do their thing. Or for animals to run to higher ground when they see the ocean receding. If one accepts this, then the way is clear to accept Sruti as having predated oral transmission (which must have been a huge technological development!!) and organized language, and scripts, all of which must have taken aeons of yada-yada-yada and more than a few fist-fights.

The generalization to all forms of life, to all over the Universe, and to the beginning of time, are all essential, and are consistent with, my Core Beliefs and entire Belief System. This is what I am trying to sharpen for teaching smart yaks.

All deep arguments about what SD proponent said what when, are I am sure, quite relevant and deeply admirable, but not to me in my present focus. That to me is no different from citing what someone said in some post on some forum at some url or fB or Twitter. A quasi-infinite and expanding universe of entropy.

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

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

Postby Pulikeshi » 01 Jul 2014 19:35

KLP Dubey wrote:I am having difficulty in understanding the "main thrust" (if any) of your argument:


KLPD Saab why to thrust anything onlee?

KLP Dubey wrote:This is based upon the timeline and history of Vedanta.


Your contention that Brahman did not exist (as a concept) prior to Vedanta is untenable. You may be considering only the written word as evidence, but the Vedas and the anta were orally transmitted. No scholar/teacher I have talked to has this view. The Vedanta formalised Brahman but that does not mean this concept did not exist since the Vedas themselves. Even the Naasadiya Sukta speculates openly beyond a creator god...

KLP Dubey wrote:I am very well aware of the "distinction". However, I'm entirely confused: why should anyone "argue" with "more modern religions" using Purvamimamsa ? Unless I am mistaken, it appears you consider this some sort of a "religious" or "spiritual" tussle.


There was no spiritual or religious tussle with Jina or Baudha as well, merely an existential crisis :)
The tussle with Christianity and Islam is also similar, see Hobbes' works where he argues for a Christian sovereign as the moral authority for example...

KLP Dubey wrote:Vedadharma in essence is concerned with a practical matter of extreme importance: maintenance of World-Order through Veda. It is not concerned with any religions or "uniting your soul with Gawd".


The world order can be protected by protecting the key - ie Vedas and therefore Dharma. While we can borrow a lot from the Mimamsa it is turning the cause and effect on its head to suggest that merely reciting the mantra and performing the rituals preserve the world order (rta). Following ones Karma and performing ones duty according to ones ashrama, etc, is a better way...

KLP Dubey wrote:I am having difficulty in understanding what you are after, considering that there are a large number of different types of statements in your posts.


This is because u are trying to fit all arguments made into the conformity of the schools u are familiar with... But that is similar to Abrahamic systems trying to digest all knowledge gained from other systems into its own framework... I want to know, even learn, what u posit us to do? Learn recitation of the Veda (check), perform yagna (check), now what? World order already preserved?

KLP Dubey wrote:If you want to contrast things like Vedanta, Vaishnava, Shaiva etc scriptural beliefs and philosophy with Messianic religions or Western philosophy, feel free. I agree that is necessary in a different sense.


NO, there is no value in an argument when there is no intellectual basis to argue upon.

KLP Dubey wrote:So that brings me back yet again to my original question: are we going to talk about understanding Mantra (Rk-Saman-Yajus), or are you talking about other things like Vedanta, Brahman, comparative religion, Moksha, and such ? I am not opposed to any of the latter being discussed on the thread, but when arbitrary statements about Veda (e.g., "no knowledge in Veda") are made then I will have to step in for corrections.


Correct what? Permit discussion on this thread? Did not realise u are an admin!
I have no need to either stick to Mimamsa or Vedatanta or anything for the matter... My original point was not to try and date the Rig Veda, even that is not a dictum, just a appeal to the absurdity of that exercise.... You seem to think Kumarila was only worried about recitation of mantras, if so why was he arguing against ahimsa as preached by the Baudha and argued for himsa as long as based on Vedic injunction in accordance with Dharma?

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

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

Postby Pulikeshi » 01 Jul 2014 19:41

UlanBatori wrote:Request from Mongolia is how to explain:
1. What r ur Core Beliefs?
2. What is the hierarchy of literature relevant to ur core beliefs?


Brilliant, I await Shri KLPD's response.

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

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

Postby A_Gupta » 01 Jul 2014 22:17

UlanBatori wrote:Thx.

Request from Mongolia is how to explain:
1. What r ur Core Beliefs?
2. What is the hierarchy of literature relevant to ur core beliefs?


I'm not sure all practices arise from belief. E.g., if I am a football fanatic, watching games, etc., does that arise from some belief, let alone core belief?


Core beliefs are those that can be considered to be common (or should be if understood) to all believers whether they realize it or not. I list the belief in the AvatAras, as in
paritrAnAya sAdhoonam
vinAsaya ca dushkrtAm
dharmasamshApanArthaya
sambhAvAmi yuge yuge


as one of these.


What am I supposed to believe about this? That someone said it? That it is a true promise? That the conditions of the promise can be met (e.g., dharma needs to be established and establishing is beyond human capacities, so avataar is needed)?

To me there must also be a Core Belief that one is responsible for what one does. Without this there is no society and no civilization, and no advancement. the Core Belief that the repercussions may come not in this life but in a later one, is also key to sustaining the belief system.


Do I "believe" 2+2=4 or do I "know" 2+2=4?

These to me are the issue. Then of course there is the standard curiosity:
Why should I believe any of this? How do you know it's not all derived from what some Bavarian goat-herders dreamt up while on hooch on a Saturday night by the banks of a long-dried-up river?


1. Is any substitute you can suggest any better?

2. If you ditch what some Bavarian goat-herder dreamt up, does it leave you susceptible to what some Arabian goat-herder dreamt up?

3. Is anyone really asking/requiring you to believe it? There is no statement of belief akin to the Kalima or the Christian catechism or Nicene Creed, so please explicate what you mean by "believe any of this"? My hint would be - if you read Ramayana or Mahabharata, there is very little discussion of what characters believe in or doesn't believe in - it is all about the characters' externally visible behavior - what they say and what they do. So, IMO, belief does not enter the picture.

Remember what Muhammad Ali said about Gandhi - he is lower than a Muslim thief or murderer. This comes from the idea that belief, as expressed in "La illaha ...." makes the believer superior. There is very little of such in our Indic tradition. To the extent there is "belief", Ravana is a Vedic "believer" par excellence. But actually, he is a Vedic performer par excellence, his yajnas have met with success, resulting in him having a lot of powers. To the extent there is belief, it is that Ravana believes kidnapping of Sita is justified.

IMO, it is one of the distressing things about the submergence of our civilization that we have reduced all of this to competing beliefs.

PS: a more meaningful question would be - why should I do any of these things that are prescribed (if sruti prescribes doing anything)? As far as I know, it is smriti that prescribes doing things, based on the dharma of that yuga.

KLP Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 1310
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby KLP Dubey » 01 Jul 2014 23:54

Pulikeshi wrote:
UlanBatori wrote:Request from Mongolia is how to explain:
1. What r ur Core Beliefs?
2. What is the hierarchy of literature relevant to ur core beliefs?


Brilliant, I await Shri KLPD's response.


Epistemology (what you state as "core beliefs"): Fully aligned with Purva Mimamsa (and by extension, Advaita Vedanta)

The basic material relevant to the core doctrines is the accented and metered oral reproduction of Rk, and by extension the Saman and Yajus.

Main Literature:

- The Brahmanas (e.g., of Rgveda and Yajurveda)
- The foundational texts of the six Vedangas (I personally have not read much on Jyotish, however)
- Jaimini Mimamsasutra and its main commentaries
- Upanishads (mainly the 8-10 "canonical" Upanishads)
- Badarayana Brahmasutra and its commentary by Shankara

KLP Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 1310
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby KLP Dubey » 02 Jul 2014 01:25

Pulikeshi wrote:
Your contention that Brahman did not exist (as a concept) prior to Vedanta is untenable. You may be considering only the written word as evidence, but the Vedas and the anta were orally transmitted. No scholar/teacher I have talked to has this view. The Vedanta formalised Brahman but that does not mean this concept did not exist since the Vedas themselves. Even the Naasadiya Sukta speculates openly beyond a creator god...



Look, in my last post, I already said that the "concept" of Brahman is indeed present in Upanishadic speculations. That is the earliest evidence of it. I am not considering any "written word" as evidence. These oft-repeated quotations of "Nasad-iya Sukta" as evidence for "brahman" in the Mantra are well known and are entirely speculative.

Whether somebody or other was thinking about brahman even "before" Upanishadic times, that is irrelevant. The Vedic Word (specifically the Mantra) is eternal, real, well differentiated, impersonal, and universal. To some minds it may appear "undifferentiated and blissful" etc etc. That is all very well, and it can provide a "zero level" working explanation. However, the fact of the matter is that Veda is the universal substratum and "brahman" (in whatever form it is claimed by various Vedanta schools) is a simplistic way to look at it.

I can discuss with you in minute detail the chapter and verse of all important Advaita texts, but this is not the place.

The tussle with Christianity and Islam is also similar, see Hobbes' works where he argues for a Christian sovereign as the moral authority for example...


That is all very well, but I am wondering why you are discussing this in Out-of-India thread. The OIT and AIT (as presented in western discourse and in "rebuttals" by certain Indians) are concerned with claiming historical explanations of the Mantra specifically that of the Rgveda. My main reason to be on this thread is to counter all such fake allegations, and I have nothing to do with any religious discussions based upon "spiritualism" or "religion". I don't understand why we are discussing all these topics here.

The world order can be protected by protecting the key - ie Vedas and therefore Dharma. While we can borrow a lot from the Mimamsa it is turning the cause and effect on its head to suggest that merely reciting the mantra and performing the rituals preserve the world order (rta). Following ones Karma and performing ones duty according to ones ashrama, etc, is a better way...


Again, it is very difficult to have any productive discussion if the conclusions and claims are completely at variance with the epistemological basis (if any, in the first place). In the last post, for example, you claimed that "no knowledge in the Veda" is a dictum, but at the same time supported Advaita Vedanta's position on Brahman (which is critically based on the very premise that Veda contains reliable knowledge).

Whatever recommendations are made by Purva Mimamsa are based fundamentally upon Mantra and Brahmana. Whatever recommendations are made by Vedanta are based fundamentally upon Upanishad. The common threads here are:

1) Both these branches of inquiry are indeed "Out-of-India" products focused on understanding Veda.

2) Both unequivocally hold that Veda is Eternal and is a Pramana (means of reliable knowledge).

3) Eternal Veda is a STATUS QUO in India from earliest recorded history. It was not some "brilliant idea" that someone came up with in order to "protect" Veda from attacks. This critical concept was passed down over many millennia. It is only later that other viewpoints emerged. These anti-Veda viewpoints have not passed muster as of today.

Correct what? Permit discussion on this thread? Did not realise u are an admin!
I have no need to either stick to Mimamsa or Vedatanta or anything for the matter... My original point was not to try and date the Rig Veda, even that is not a dictum, just a appeal to the absurdity of that exercise.... You seem to think Kumarila was only worried about recitation of mantras, if so why was he arguing against ahimsa as preached by the Baudha and argued for himsa as long as based on Vedic injunction in accordance with Dharma?


Please see my comment above regarding Out-of-India thread. You and I seem to both agree the Rgveda is not "datable" since there is no history in it. That is enough for me.

I never said Kumarila was only worried about "recitation of Mantras". Why needlessly create these impressions ? It is obvious that Kumarila was primarily concerned (in a practical sense) with Injunction as given in the Brahmanas. But his basic philosophical framework extended to the Mantra as well, and even to some of the Smriti texts.

I only posted to dispel the misunderstanding created by your posts speculating on the content of the Veda and claimed "dictums" and "myths" and "no knowledge" in it.

The point is this: the Veda is not datable and is ahistorical, not because it was set up that way by some clever and wily authors, but because it is eternal, consists of natural laws and processes, and has its own creative power due to its 'linguistic' features. That is truly the unique (and OUT-OF-INDIA) message propagated by the Indian civilization over the ages.

In order to uphold and preserve this message, the Indian inquiry over the ages has developed systematic principles and methods. It took a very long time and much debate and discussion. This is the way to make real and worthwhile progress. "Random" methods which are not based upon any solid principles, and taking things from here and there without consistency/reality checks, are not likely to have much use or impact. Just my two naya paisa.
Last edited by KLP Dubey on 02 Jul 2014 21:19, edited 1 time in total.

KLP Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 1310
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby KLP Dubey » 02 Jul 2014 01:38

ShauryaT wrote:I for one, seek to understand the Samhitas and understand "how" does Vedas uphold "Dharma". With some exposure to the works of the Arya Samajis, I am looking for more such works that seek to "interpret" and "understand". Pointers please? Books will also do, you know of the paper kind.


Have already given references here and in previous pages. To learn Vaidikadharma it is better to start with Mimamsa. That is the discipline relevant to your desires. The first chapter of Jaimini's mimamsasutra and the Slokavartika of Kumarila give an excellent introduction.

If you really want an entirely new interpretation (or attempt) at understanding the Mantra, try 'Vedic Physics' by Rammohan Roy.

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

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

Postby UlanBatori » 02 Jul 2014 02:00

Epistemology (what you state as "core beliefs"): Fully aligned with Purva Mimamsa (and by extension, Advaita Vedanta)
The basic material relevant to the core doctrines is the accented and metered oral reproduction of Rk, and by extension the Saman and Yajus.
Main Literature:
- The Brahmanas (e.g., of Rgveda and Yajurveda)
- The foundational texts of the six Vedangas (I personally have not read much on Jyotish, however)
- Jaimini Mimamsasutra and its main commentaries
- Upanishads (mainly the 8-10 "canonical" Upanishads)
- Badarayana Brahmasutra and its commentary by Shankara


This is one good starting point, though I personally would not feel comfortable with it. One immediate question is "what about the BG?" That is a much more concise and understandable set of advice, if not prescriptions, and relates much better to core beliefs. Most people have heard about that, and would count it as #1 in "what does Hinduism teach?" I bow to the primacy of the Rg Veda, but the BG is supposedly a concise explanation of it. It also comes as close to "sruti" as anything in the literature, though it is honestly presented as what Sanjaya said to his King after the fact, and hence had already gone through at least 1 level of human interpretation and contemporary contextual editing/sanitizing to present to a King without fear of losing head.

Guptaji, the "y should I believe this?" is the question that any interested student would have. If one blows those off with "what else r u gonna believe" etc, one loses the student immediately. So that is not an option. The questions have to be respected, and if one does not know the answers, then more thought/research is needed.

Same problem with saying that "it's all in the RV". As demonstrated above, very few, if anyone, has actually read or heard and memorized the RV in full, and those are very divided on what each Rk means, or whether each means anything at all in isolation.

Now one cannot expect to step into a class on nuclear pissicks and say, hey, explain to me in 10 sentences how nuclear energy is actually generated, and make sure it is an explanation that goes to the fundamentals of particles etc (although this is apparently what happens in the Massively Open Online Courses or MOOCs that I take as a prototype for the type of course that I have in mind). But at the same time, a good prof cannot be satisfied with saying: "it's all in Einstein's notes, go read them, that's all that one needs to know!"

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.

That's hippie/LSD rationalization for doing nothing and living like animals, hain? Bhavitavyam Bhavet Eva. All is Maya. No no no no yaaar, there is noo point in trying to do anything, all is Vyartham. One should just sit contemplating one's navel and breathe deeply, or stand on one hand and hold one's breath for a century. BTW, the ancients could climb limp ropes straight into Space by sheer Mental Power, and of course somewhere in the Vedas is the prescription for Controlled Fusion Power and AntiGravity. All invented by the Ancients 1,700,000,000 years ago onlee.

Not acceptable.

KLP Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 1310
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby KLP Dubey » 02 Jul 2014 02:54

UlanBatori wrote:This is one good starting point, though I personally would not feel comfortable with it. One immediate question is "what about the BG?" That is a much more concise and understandable set of advice, if not prescriptions, and relates much better to core beliefs. Most people have heard about that, and would count it as #1 in "what does Hinduism teach?" I bow to the primacy of the Rg Veda, but the BG is supposedly a concise explanation of it. It also comes as close to "sruti" as anything in the literature, though it is honestly presented as what Sanjaya said to his King after the fact, and hence had already gone through at least 1 level of human interpretation and contemporary contextual editing/sanitizing to present to a King without fear of losing head.


Veda and Bhagavad-gita are two different things and have no relation to each other. They have different purposes altogether.

Veda is not dependent on Hinduism and has no specific connection to it. However, Hinduism as a religion has arisen from attempts to find Gawd and other spiritual entities in the Veda. Just as many non-religious subjects have also arisen from the Veda.

Bhagavad-Gita is not a "concise explanation" of Veda. That is just people trying to sell it to you using the Veda brand name.

Things like "morality", "human values", "righteousness", "goodness" etc are all subject to human passions, opinions, and mores of the day. They keep changing. That being said, texts such as Bhagavad-Gita are not necessarily unauthoritative or entirely useless. They may serve their own purpose in controlling the human society and making it more harmonious in some manner. If Bhagavad-Gita or another text helps you "deal better with life and with other human beings", that is all very well.

The literature I cited deals with understanding Veda, which is eternal and impersonal.

KLP Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 1310
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby KLP Dubey » 02 Jul 2014 03:30

UlanBatori wrote:Guptaji, the "y should I believe this?" is the question that any interested student would have. If one blows those off with "what else r u gonna believe" etc, one loses the student immediately. So that is not an option. The questions have to be respected, and if one does not know the answers, then more thought/research is needed.

This Same problem with saying that "it's all in the RV". As demonstrated above, very few, if anyone, has actually read or heard and memorized the RV in full, and those are very divided on what each Rk means, or whether each means anything at all in isolation.


Isn't that the point ? The entire basis of Vedadharma is that the Veda is yet to be **fully understood and experienced**. If it was already fully understood, then there would be no need to argue about/discuss things like Dharma at all.

The Veda is Eternal and contains the laws of nature (not just in a passive "descriptive form" but in also in actual operation). The Universe has no independent existence outside of these operative laws. Thus Veda not a passive mass of "code waiting to be cracked".

To uphold the World-Order to any extent large or small, it is necessary that Mantra be *understood* and *experienced*. For example if "purushartha" (material or earthly benefits to humans, large or small) are desired, then it is necessary to find ways to connect earthly actions to harness the power of the cosmic actions continuously taking place by means of Veda. The Yajna is a central method developed by the Indians to do so. There may be other possible methods, and certainly more work may be warranted to develop them.

I do not see why you think it is so difficult to answer the question "why should I study Veda?"

I suspect the more difficult question is: "why should I believe the Veda is eternal and has the laws of nature?" That is a central dogma held by the Indians from time immemorial and passed down with great seriousness. One must have a certain level of trust (which boils down to fixing an Epistemological basis). It is the same trust that students in *any* discipline start off with. This central dogma/axiom cannot be "proved" by any other means (which is the whole point, really). It can however be "disproved", and so far not a single successful attempt to disprove the Eternal Veda has ever emerged.

SriKumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2023
Joined: 27 Feb 2006 07:22
Location: sarvatra

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

Postby SriKumar » 02 Jul 2014 04:01

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.........Not acceptable.
Dont want butt into this conversation but I agree with the spirit of the comment here. By its very definition.....'the 'n' years of study in the properly trained manner only will tell you anything worthwhile about the Vedas'....it excludes 99.999% of people who are aware of and have any respect for the Vedas (even if they dont understand them). I guess they'll never understand any part of the Veda, and they have to remain content from the knowledge there is a miniscule minority of specially-trained people who truly get it, but the larger group has no hope. Seems like there are no shades of grey, only black and white; its all or nothing.... any attempt to tease things apart is reductionist and therefore to be avoided.

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 » 02 Jul 2014 05:01

SriKumar wrote:
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.........Not acceptable.
Dont want butt into this conversation but I agree with the spirit of the comment here. By its very definition.....'the 'n' years of study in the properly trained manner only will tell you anything worthwhile about the Vedas'....it excludes 99.999% of people who are aware of and have any respect for the Vedas (even if they dont understand them). I guess they'll never understand any part of the Veda, and they have to remain content from the knowledge there is a miniscule minority of specially-trained people who truly get it, but the larger group has no hope. Seems like there are no shades of grey, only black and white; its all or nothing.... any attempt to tease things apart is reductionist and therefore to be avoided.


A response here: viewtopic.php?p=1681776#p1681776

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

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

Postby UlanBatori » 02 Jul 2014 06:09

Ah, thanks. RamaY. That's a good question to ponder, thanks. But I am not trying to attack the Vedas, mind you. I am trying to see how to convey the answers to those two questions to people who want to start getting a grasp of what SD is, and why it is special:
1. What are the Core Beliefs?
2. What is the hierarchy of the literature base?
To me it seems that these are keys to getting an understanding, at least a good starting point. It is like learning physics as an undergraduate, with due respect for the laws as they are understood now, or, maybe more like learning thermodynamics, starting with the laws of thermodynamics (which also have no theoretical proof and are like laws of human/natural behavior). This is a better way to study than, say, starting by memorizing the long proofs of Ptolemy, Copernicus, Galileo, etc etc. and having to do the entire 2000 years of false leads. One does not become a Master of Physics or Thermodynamics by learning the basic laws, but it is an organized, useful approach.

This is what has been missing in SD/Hinduism, IMO. The innocent questions of the eager student are met with huge cliffs of obtacles:
Go Learn the Vedas, all 10,328 verses in just Volume 1, before you can move any further!

I say, no, there must be a better approach, no disrespect to the Vedas, but I reject the 20-year-Devoted-Study-Or-It's-Blasphemy approach.

As for Vedas vs. BG, there's another example. I agree that the BG is "sold" as SK giving Arjuna the very brief pep talk to say, "hey, you were hired to do a job, quit :(( and Just Do It!" Arjuna is the one who goes into long rambling contortions from his vast memorized knowledge, trying to rationalize not doing his job. But for most of us, the BG is as close as we will ever get to understanding anything of what is in the Vedas. And so, if someone asks to find the core literature and lessons of SD, the BG does top the list as the first stop, before delving into the Vedas.

This whole debate is familiar to anyone who deals with specialists/experts vs problem-solvers. The former will insist that without the minute detail, there is no hope of getting something done right, and of course they are right. However, the problem-solver sees that without a perspective on all the areas, and enough understanding to grasp their relevance, one would completely miss the areas where the solution may be feasible. IOW, one would not even see the importance of the area, so the specialist will go unappreciated. And getting that perspective requires going in and "hitting the high spots", as much as one has to control one's panic in doing so.

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 » 02 Jul 2014 06:20

^
A response to your question on What does it take to be a Hindu? viewtopic.php?p=1681584#p1681584

A response on Bhagavatgita & its association with Vedas: viewtopic.php?p=1681796#p1681796

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5245
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

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

Postby ShauryaT » 02 Jul 2014 07:41

Does this work as a 101 level introduction for UlanBatori's students?

Sanatana Dharma: Anusmriti and Anudhyâyana

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 » 02 Jul 2014 08:14

UlanBatori wrote:This is a better way to study than, say, starting by memorizing the long proofs of Ptolemy, Copernicus, Galileo, etc etc. and having to do the entire 2000 years of false leads. One does not become a Master of Physics or Thermodynamics by learning the basic laws, but it is an organized, useful approach.

This is what has been missing in SD/Hinduism, IMO. The innocent questions of the eager student are met with huge cliffs of obtacles:
Go Learn the Vedas, all 10,328 verses in just Volume 1, before you can move any further!


Mongolian - you are approaching this from the viewpoint of your education that may not have involved memorizing long proofs. Unfortunately, studying medicine involves exactly that - memorizing things - not proofs but blindly memorizing, for example the location, purpose and attachment of every bump, hole and notch on every one of all 200 plus bones in the body (in anatomy) and memorizing (with no requirement for understanding) long cycles of biochemical reactions in and what chemicals mediate them. And much more under the intriguing headings "anatomy, histology, physiology, biochemistry, pharmacology, pathology and microbiology". All cliffs and obstacles. Nothing "interesting". Nothing to "understand". Plenty to simply commit to memory all that exists and happens before anyone can fiddle with anything.

All this crap pays "dividends" at a much later stage when it becomes easy to understand why one guy with chest pain drops dead and the other guy walks around as if nothing has happened, and how to know which is which.

To that extent what Dubey states about the Vedas may be perfectly accurate - with no alternative to simply accepting them as is with a view to getting something tangible later.

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

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

Postby UlanBatori » 02 Jul 2014 08:22

with no alternative to simply accepting them as is with a view to getting something tangible later.

Excellent explanation. I can accept that, thanks! In fact it works wonderfully with prayers (and multiplication tables which, as you say, have stood me in good stead through the decades, supercomputers be da**ed). I can remember what I was taught as a child, though I didn't understand much beyond a few words. Mangolian or Samskrtam, it made no difference, I just learned it from my Mother. Nowadays I try parsing and understanding, and find that I DID catch the words with amazing precision and accuracy. Wish I had memorized a whole lot more...

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

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

Postby Pulikeshi » 02 Jul 2014 09:43

^^^Status quo - Mangolians & Injuns are all satisfied... :rotfl:

Riddle me this -
So what went out? Was/is it a Universal or was/is it a Localalized system corrupted when it went out?

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

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

Postby Pulikeshi » 02 Jul 2014 09:57

KLP Dubey wrote:That is all very well, but I am wondering why you are discussing this in Out-of-India thread. The OIT and AIT (as presented in western discourse and in "rebuttals" by certain Indians) are concerned with claiming historical explanations of the Mantra specifically that of the Rgveda. My main reason to be on this thread is to counter all such fake allegations, and I have nothing to do with any religious discussions based upon "spiritualism" or "religion". I don't understand why we are discussing all these topics here.


KLPD Saab, we agree on some things and on others well there is an opportunity...

Christianity (and it's secular cousin Western universalism) as well as Islam claim Universalism.
The Chinese for example have started working on Confucian principles - I have talked to profs who claim both Localized Specialization and other make the bolder pitch for Universalism.

Your strict adherence to Mimamsa indicates Your desire for extreme Localized Specialization...
Nothing wrong with that, but to bury ones head in the sand and then claim no Universalism
is possible for Dharmics sets me rolling on the floor with laughter... But that too is just another claim.
That Mimamsa can be used to epistemologically argue truth claims by other universals is a given whether you support it or not...

Your contention seems to be that India does not matter as it is irrelevant given the Rig Veda is eternal and was prior to even Earth - so in ur frame why worry about AIT or OIT onlee!

Another blunt way to ask this is why Vidyaranya (Sringeri acharya) worked with Hakka & Bukka onlee? After all as an Advaitin he ought to have sat back and pondered the 'nothingness' and mayavada!

The Mongolian questionare is questionable as it is seeking a Universal, but accepting a Localized Specialization ;-)

All is maya onlee :mrgreen:

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 » 02 Jul 2014 10:19

Pulikeshi wrote:^^^Status quo - Mangolians & Injuns are all satisfied... :rotfl:

Riddle me this -
So what went out? Was/is it a Universal or was/is it a Localalized system corrupted when it went out?


No proof but i can hazard a guess - from my own reading - leading to my own conclusions. While none of my knowledge is original, the extrapolation and conclusions are mine.

Much as been told to us about the power of mantra. Even today in Hindu rituals, mantras are chanted at specific times under specific circumstances and we are told that certain benefits accrue from that. Nowadays this is a matter of belief. Either you believe it or you don't.

But, I am told that the atharva veda is a "book of spells". The work that the spells are supposed to do would break our modern-day bullshit meters. But let us simply assume that there may have been a germ of truth at some time way back then -at least everyone believed it because they did not have modern foreign made bullshit meters.

Now some sources (as discussed earlier) in this thread linked the Artharva Veda with the Parsi holy literature - which has been given what i consider a fake and faltu name, the Zend Avesta. Why I consider that a fake name is off topic for this post. But the "Zend Avesta" was also partly a book of spells like the Atharva Veda. It was the Parsis that went west from India - from Pakistan perhaps. They went all over Iran and further west. They took along with them a set of people who came to be known as "magi" Magi were feared because they seemed to be able to predict the future using astronomy. This sounds suspiciously similar to our own Vedic astrologers. The Magi also had other tricks up their sleeves and gave rise to the word "magic". The three "magi" from the east have been used in the story of Yesu Krista's birth. Perhaps the magi story is fake - and the magi are used only to give credence to a story which required that this baby be recognized even by the feared/respected magi.

Many concepts that appear in old Greek texts - available now only as fragments seem to correspond suspiciously with what we learn to accept as normal in India. I will have to put in a great deal more Googling before I can make list of examples I have read.

So something has gone out and it has gone out a very long time ago.

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

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

Postby UlanBatori » 02 Jul 2014 19:40

The Doc beat me to it.

The Mongolian questionare is questionable as it is seeking a Universal, but accepting a Localized Specialization ;-)
All is maya onlee :mrgreen:


It is our style in Mongolia to accept and adapt. Otherwise could we have survived for 1,700,000,00 years, going out to commit genocide now and then, with the Rooskies on one side and the Tarrel and Gleater Fliends on the other, hain?

The Questionnaire does seek Universal answers.
"Accepting a local specialization" is not incompatible with that. And the answer to "what went out" is compatible with this.

(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.

(2) Given (1), one postulates that Original Knowledge must have come in all parts of the Universe, more or less at the same time. But it may have evolved very differently in different places, and even among beings in the same place. So this is super-super-micro-Local Specialization. IOW, only Equal Opportunity (aka Equal Probability of All Microstates, the fundamental premise of Statistical Mechanics and Thermodynamics) is assumed, what happens in any given place or even one mind given that, can be quite different. In fact, Statistical Thermodynamics shows beautifully by simple Math that Equal Probability of All Microstates (which sounds hopeless!) leads inexorably to the conclusion that The Vast Majority of All MacroStates generated from the Microstates, Are Negligibly Different From The Most Probably Macrostate! Thus, massively complex but seemingly integrated systems can develop from totally random "chaos". They may each be different, but to an external observer they would look all the same.

(3) The Indian subcontinent, since it wisely departed from the Roo Continent just a short 10 million years ago and Gondwana somewhat earlier, has been in a part of the world that is basically hospitable to Life year-round. No known Ice Age, nor Desert Age, here. No record or legend of a flood that covered the Deccan, the Vindhyas and the Western Ghats. The source of the flood legend in Punjab/Gujarat/Singh could be due to tectonics or El Nino - look at what happened to Pakis even a couple of years ago. Coastal communities have probably seen quite a few Tsunamis, including some macro-macro-Tsunamis during the age when India reached Asia.

But in most of India, there is no need for shelter and fire to survive a year. No shortage of edible plants or water. HENCE, continuous civilization (meaning can sit in one place and do yada yada yada instead of having to get on camel/donkey/horse and move twice a year) was most likely to develop here.

(4) Hence, there can be a continuous record of knowledge accumulation and wisdom extraction, here, much more probably than elsewhere. Competing places are Iran (hot/cold desert), Central Asia (extreme cold and drought punctuated with raiding Pakis), Bavaria (extreme cold and raiding cannibals), Greece/Italy (extreme cold, it snows there), Ukraine (extreme cold). Compatible places are parts of Central America/northern South America, southeast Asia, north Africa and Papua-New Guinea. And there IS evidence of ancient civilization in those places.

(5) Unlike the competing places, however, much of India was relatively isolated from invading hordes, except for the neighborly assassination squads/ AswaMedha chest-thumping bullies. South America did develop fairly well (Incas/Mayas), and something developed in places like Easter Island. But invasions wiped out most of these, and the Church/Inquisition and Spanish/Portuguese/British/French/Dutch loot-rape gangs did the rest. In the isolated outposts such as Easter Island, the civilized ppl were isolated once the mainland societies got destroyed, and in turn they were consumed by cannibals/Pakis/European-Imported VD and SmallPox.

(6) SO! India provided the most likely environment for early development of civilization, long enough to enable an economy that supported spread of culture to other places during peacetime. In India, the original pass-down SURVIVED. Long enough to develop extensive, powerful, wealthy trade-based economies, and hence the means for developing and spreading knowledge and wisdom among peaceful people. That is why there was a SPREAD of civilization. I am talking about what went out LOOOOONG AGO, not circa 2000BCE, nor any time later. This is why I say that The Doc very succinctly beat me to it.

So the main shift in thinking has to be that we should not be in bissing contests with the Harvard-Oxford-JNU types on what happened in 1500 BCE or 500BCE. The Out of India started/occurred a VERY long time ago.

Just consider this: Had the Vedas/Puranas not survived, and had Aurangazeb procreated a few dozen more mass-murderers instead of going into isolation, they might very well have wiped out all our ancient wisdom and treasures. Then there would be no competition to the 4004BCE Origin of Creation stuff, regardless of what scientists could see.

Q.E.D. There is no discord between Universalism and Local Specialization that I can see.

KLP Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 1310
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby KLP Dubey » 02 Jul 2014 20:24

Pulikeshi wrote:Your contention seems to be that India does not matter as it is irrelevant given the Rig Veda is eternal and was prior to even Earth - so in ur frame why worry about AIT or OIT onlee!


Your assertions of "burying head in the sand etc" are not well considered. If you think Mimamsa is somehow opposed to intellectual and material progress, you are quite mistaken. In fact it has historically been a key force driving the development of all the things that make our civilization and culture unique, i.e. truly our OUT-OF-INDIA achievements.

Please read my posts in many previous pages of this thread. I never said "India is irrelevant" or "why worry about OIT and AIT". I have said very clearly - and especially to the posters such as RajeshA and Nilesh Oak - is that OIT (or AIT or any other historical theory) cannot be proved using Rgveda since there is no history in it. One should take a number of other available routes which actually contain historical information.

The only potential "history" in the Rgveda is relating to what humans have done with the Words in it. For example, we can ask "when did somebody assign the word "sarasvati" in the Mantra to some river flowing previously in India?" But the Rgveda itself can have no answer for such a question and it has to be obtained independently from other methods.

I will strongly oppose all attempts to use Veda in settling some historical arguments. This latter tendency will do a great and irrecoverable damage to the Indian ethos, which is truly (and *uniquely in the world*) based upon Eternal Veda. Similarly, all attempts by external forces to claim "eternal words of gawd" or some such other nonsense originating in arabia or middle west, are of a spurious nature and are easily disproven by historical records.

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 » 02 Jul 2014 20:24

shiv wrote:Now some sources (as discussed earlier) in this thread linked the Artharva Veda with the Parsi holy literature - which has been given what i consider a fake and faltu name, the Zend Avesta. Why I consider that a fake name is off topic for this post. But the "Zend Avesta" was also partly a book of spells like the Atharva Veda. It was the Parsis that went west from India - from Pakistan perhaps. They went all over Iran and further west. They took along with them a set of people who came to be known as "magi" Magi were feared because they seemed to be able to predict the future using astronomy. This sounds suspiciously similar to our own Vedic astrologers. The Magi also had other tricks up their sleeves and gave rise to the word "magic". The three "magi" from the east have been used in the story of Yesu Krista's birth. Perhaps the magi story is fake - and the magi are used only to give credence to a story which required that this baby be recognized even by the feared/respected magi.

Many concepts that appear in old Greek texts - available now only as fragments seem to correspond suspiciously with what we learn to accept as normal in India. I will have to put in a great deal more Googling before I can make list of examples I have read.

So something has gone out and it has gone out a very long time ago.


A response here: viewtopic.php?p=1682138#p1682138

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 » 02 Jul 2014 21:12

Pulikeshi, in the general mode of riddle me this, let me bring up the subject of Plato, and Socrates, Plato's teacher.

i will quote from Wikipedia and ask you if the description of Plato's work tickles any Indian sensibilities in you (or in anyone else)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato#Recurrent_themes
Socrates inverts the common man's intuition about what is knowable and what is real. While most people take the objects of their senses to be real if anything is, Socrates is contemptuous of people who think that something has to be graspable in the hands to be real. In the Theaetetus, he says such people are "eu a-mousoi", an expression that means literally, "happily without the muses" (Theaetetus 156a). In other words, such people live without the divine inspiration that gives him, and people like him, access to higher insights about reality.

Socrates's idea that reality is unavailable to those who use their senses is what puts him at odds with the common man, and with common sense. Socrates says that he who sees with his eyes is blind, and this idea is most famously captured in his allegory of the cave, and more explicitly in his description of the divided line. The allegory of the cave (begins Republic 7.514a) is a paradoxical analogy wherein Socrates argues that the invisible world is the most intelligible ("noeton") and that the visible world ("(h)oraton") is the least knowable, and the most obscure.

Socrates says in the Republic that people who take the sun-lit world of the senses to be good and real are living pitifully in a den of evil and ignorance. Socrates admits that few climb out of the den, or cave of ignorance, and those who do, not only have a terrible struggle to attain the heights, but when they go back down for a visit or to help other people up, they find themselves objects of scorn and ridicule.

According to Socrates, physical objects and physical events are "shadows" of their ideal or perfect forms, and exist only to the extent that they instantiate the perfect versions of themselves. Just as shadows are temporary, inconsequential epiphenomena produced by physical objects, physical objects are themselves fleeting phenomena caused by more substantial causes, the ideals of which they are mere instances.

<snipsnip>

The Theory of Forms (or Theory of Ideas) typically refers to the belief that the material world as it seems to us is not the real world, but only an "image" or "copy" of the real world. In some of Plato's dialogues, this is expressed by Socrates, who spoke of forms in formulating a solution to the problem of universals. The forms, according to Socrates, are archetypes or abstract representations of the many types of things, and properties we feel and see around us, that can only be perceived by reason (Greek: λογική). (That is, they are universals.) In other words, Socrates was able to recognize two worlds: the apparent world, which constantly changes, and an unchanging and unseen world of forms, which may be the cause of what is apparent.


Plato and Socrates have dates - so any relationship of their thoughts to any other knowledge forms that we are familiar with as Indians also get a date - either before or after. Before strikes me as the right way.

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 » 02 Jul 2014 21:18

Here is some more Wiki-Plato
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamnesis_%28philosophy%29
his theory of anamnesis. He suggests that the soul is immortal, and repeatedly incarnated; knowledge is actually in the soul from eternity (86b), but each time the soul is incarnated its knowledge is forgotten in the trauma of birth. What one perceives to be learning, then, is actually the recovery of what one has forgotten. (Once it has been brought back it is true belief, to be turned into genuine knowledge by understanding.)


It is entirely possible that Socrates and Plato came up with all this on their own - but there is some evidence that they had influences from the east. I need to dig those up.

In any case, using the "Winner takes all" doctrine - what is first is first. If the idea first appeared in India, India gets the credit.

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 » 02 Jul 2014 21:32

The more I read about Plato - the more it seems that he was influenced by Indian thought - not the Vedas but what came after. Plato apparently struggled with something that he called a "binding force" - "the good" that held everything together and kept social order

Here is a quote of what Plato has said, and before posting someone please riddle me this. Where have you heard this before?
http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/re ... mmary.html
An ideal society consists of three main classes of people—producers (craftsmen, farmers, artisans, etc.), auxiliaries (warriors), and guardians (rulers); a society is just when relations between these three classes are right. Each group must perform its appropriate function, and only that function, and each must be in the right position of power in relation to the others. Rulers must rule, auxiliaries must uphold rulers’ convictions, and producers must limit themselves to exercising whatever skills nature granted them (farming, blacksmithing, painting, etc.) Justice is a principle of specialization: a principle that requires that each person fulfill the societal role to which nature fitted him and not interfere in any other business.

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

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

Postby UlanBatori » 02 Jul 2014 21:42

Hmm! Now that u mention it, "Socrates" was most certainly the Mongolian Rishi (we had a few in those days, now all Rakshasas :(( ) "Sukradesi". Plato I don't recognize. May have been Pilatha Muni, but not sure. 8)

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

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

Postby UlanBatori » 02 Jul 2014 21:45

When do u find time to read Sukradesi Rishi's and Pilatha Muni's writings after doing your research on Pakistan? :eek:

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54509
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 03 Jul 2014 00:25

UB, Something more for you to think about or ruminate!

Georges Dumezil

Georges Dumézil (French: [dymezil]; 4 March 1898 – 11 October 1986, Paris) was a French comparative philologist best known for his analysis of sovereignty and power in Proto-Indo-European religion and society. He is considered one of the major contributors to mythography, in particular for his formulation of the trifunctional hypothesis of social class in ancient societies.



As shiv pointed out its from Plato....

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54509
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 03 Jul 2014 01:02

shiv wrote:
Pulikeshi wrote:^^^Status quo - Mangolians & Injuns are all satisfied... :rotfl:

Riddle me this -
So what went out? Was/is it a Universal or was/is it a Localalized system corrupted when it went out?


No proof but i can hazard a guess - from my own reading - leading to my own conclusions. While none of my knowledge is original, the extrapolation and conclusions are mine.

Much as been told to us about the power of mantra. Even today in Hindu rituals, mantras are chanted at specific times under specific circumstances and we are told that certain benefits accrue from that. Nowadays this is a matter of belief. Either you believe it or you don't.

But, I am told that the atharva veda is a "book of spells". The work that the spells are supposed to do would break our modern-day bullshit meters. But let us simply assume that there may have been a germ of truth at some time way back then -at least everyone believed it because they did not have modern foreign made bullshit meters.

Now some sources (as discussed earlier) in this thread linked the Artharva Veda with the Parsi holy literature - which has been given what i consider a fake and faltu name, the Zend Avesta. Why I consider that a fake name is off topic for this post. But the "Zend Avesta" was also partly a book of spells like the Atharva Veda. It was the Parsis that went west from India - from Pakistan perhaps. They went all over Iran and further west. They took along with them a set of people who came to be known as "magi" Magi were feared because they seemed to be able to predict the future using astronomy. This sounds suspiciously similar to our own Vedic astrologers. The Magi also had other tricks up their sleeves and gave rise to the word "magic". The three "magi" from the east have been used in the story of Yesu Krista's birth. Perhaps the magi story is fake - and the magi are used only to give credence to a story which required that this baby be recognized even by the feared/respected magi.

Many concepts that appear in old Greek texts - available now only as fragments seem to correspond suspiciously with what we learn to accept as normal in India. I will have to put in a great deal more Googling before I can make list of examples I have read.

So something has gone out and it has gone out a very long time ago.



When I look at Greek epics I feel somehow I read them in different form and order.

Georges Dumezil introduced the concept that ancient societies should be studied in pairs.
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.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7385
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

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

Postby disha » 03 Jul 2014 02:41

UlanBatori wrote:Hmm! Now that u mention it, "Socrates" was most certainly the Mongolian Rishi (we had a few in those days, now all Rakshasas :(( ) "Sukradesi". Plato I don't recognize. May have been Pilatha Muni, but not sure. 8)


Shukracharya was the perceptor of Asuras! And there is the problem of "Socrates" since Socrates' as a "person" is known only via other's writings incl. Plato and even Plato might not have known the real Socrates but used "him" as a literary device and I think might have attributed Socrates to Shukracharya.

Further Shukracharya himself learnt vedas from Angirasa (the receiver of the fourth veda, Atharvaveda). So it is quiet possible that the seeds of the Greek philosophy comes from the vedic philosophy itself.

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 07:05

UlanBatori wrote:When do u find time to read Sukradesi Rishi's and Pilatha Muni's writings after doing your research on Pakistan? :eek:

Using my aunt Kokila I can find 72,420,007 links to Pilatha Muni in one kshana and sixty three samays.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests