Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

kittoo · Post by **kittoo** » 31 Mar 2010 12:24

Slightly OT.
The rendering of 'Yada yada hi dharmasya...' by Ghulam Ali is so beautiful it gives me goosebumps..it kind of takes me to old times. Listen to it.

negi · Post by **negi** » 31 Mar 2010 12:55

Here the original score from Mahabharat (Mahendra Kapoor) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYGyK9M4 ... re=related

svenkat · Post by **svenkat** » 31 Mar 2010 13:55

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 31 Mar 2010 14:11

RamaY wrote:After Parasu Rama’s destroying all Kshatriya kings, Haihayas and Ikshwakas became eligible to wear crowns. From those two clans came 101 kshatriya clans. 14 other clans came from Yayati and Bhoja (does it mean Parasu Rama did not kill these kings?). Jarasandha defeated all these 114 kingdoms.

In Krishna’s fight against Jarasandha (Emperor or Magadha), Krishna got help from Vrishti, Bhoja and Andhaka kingdoms.

Where does the king Kalayavana come here? He is supposed to be a staunch ally of Jarasandha and is supposed to boast of an army which was reportedly 23 yojanas from side to side. He was also supposed to be more powerful than Jarasandha. I know that Kalayavana was killed by Krishna's trick and awakening of Muchukunda, also Yavana means Greek but it is said that his army invaded from the Himalayas, which would mean that it put him on the Eastern side of India, so Yavana could actually be a misnomer. Also, Kalyavana's story is told only with respect to Krishna and as Krishna's rival/enemy.

If Jarasandha was the chief obstacle in Krishna's strategy, wouldnt Kalayavana have played a bigger role? Also, wouldnt there be some kind of rivalry between Jarasandha and Kalayavana (I'm assuming Kalayavana is a Kshatriya here but obviously details about his "empire" and his origins are largely unknown).

The most likely explanation I can think of is that Kalayavana is not a Kshatriya and actually comes from outside Jambudvipa (he could be from one of the pagan-tribal cults which might have existed at that time in Laos/Vietnam/Cambodia and his empire eventually came to border Jarasandha's conquered kingdoms on the border of what is currently Nagaland/Myanmar border area. This would mean that Mahabharatha actually had a lot of Proto/Neo Chinese/Asian and Central Asian component to it. In that case, the name "Jambudvipa" could actually mean the entire Eurasian landmass and not just the Indian subcontinent!

Also, is there any part in the Mahabharatha which talks about any of the kingdoms crossing the seas on boats? I have a hunch that there could be a portion which is yet unearthed/undiscovered which could have the naval/merchant shipping scene of these supposedly "mythological" times.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 31 Mar 2010 16:39

anyone who wants to know about ashtang yog, dharana, dhyan, samadi, ishwar, consciousness, awareness, pranayam, i strongly recommend referring to yogasutra by muni shri patanjali - patanjal yogsutra.

a commentary by swami vivekanand on rajyog (patanjal yogsutra) is worth reading for clearly understanding the intricacies of various spiritual terms.

for primary translation kindly refer to this

http://www.arlingtoncenter.org/Sanskrit-English.pdf

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 01 Apr 2010 10:27

ramana wrote:Pulikeshi, A Telugu uty art gallery

http://teluguuniversity.ac.in/museum/pa ... akesi.html

Hi Ramana,

Thanks for sharing, very interesting gallery.
Hope more is done to develop multi-media content to provide Ithihasa instead of HisStory.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Apr 2010 21:08

BRF is always ahead of the curve.

Seminar is studying the Mahabharata!

Enduring Epic

Look at the authorship! Its majority located in the West.

http://www.india-seminar.com/2010/608.htm

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 02 Apr 2010 21:20

Regarding Parasurama's "nihkshatryia-karan" - may simply mean destruction of the "power/kshatrya". If he had to do it according to some sources, 21 times, it simply means that a complete genocide could not be effected - since the "kshatryias" regenerated their power. One possibility is that the regeneration took place from as yet unborn children of pregnant "kshatryia women". Incidentally, Parasurama also thought of this angle. When the narrative is quited, this other part is usually omitted. Those interested can look into this - if there was any reco for "Brahmins" to produce children on the "kshatriya/ni-s" after their men were killed.

There indeed appears to be indirect hints of extra-subcontinental "affairs". More on this later!

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 04 Apr 2010 12:14

The reason I brought on the incident about Kalayavana and Krishna is as follows:
1. It was naturally assumed that Yavana meant Greek. Though it would be correct in a literary sense, if you see it metaphorically it could mean any foreigner or rather an 'invader'.
2. Krishna and Balarama managing to outwit, kill and defeat this much larger invasion force would be the first time that a desi SDRE force stood up to and defeated a foreign force invading from the North West and Khyber Pass. Assuming the literary meaning of Yavana, this meant that the NWFP/Khyber Pass area was always an Achilles Heel for India, even in the Itihaasa. Also, if this force really did come from Greece/Crete/Malta, it means that they had a naval component which allowed them into the Levant.
3. It proved that Magadha was always a global seat of power to be reckoned with and that India did have contact with the wider world even then.
4. Sadly, this event has become almost a footnote in the Mahabharata (or has been interpreted in such a way that it has become just barely mentioned), the truth being that this had a lot of implications for the future of India. Inadequate interpretation of this chapter meant that it was not understood for what it was and later Hindu kings in the medieval era did not take any action to block the Northwest invasion route. If this incident had been accorded its due importance, we would definitely not have had the invasion of Greeks, Kushans, Sakas and the Islamic hordes later on, it would have definitely saved us so much of bloodshed and plunder.

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 04 Apr 2010 12:27

brihaspati wrote:Those interested can look into this - if there was any reco for "Brahmins" to produce children on the "kshatriya/ni-s" after their men were killed.

There indeed appears to be indirect hints of extra-subcontinental "affairs". More on this later!

This could indeed be true because recent genealogical analysis carried out (by who else but our western brethren!) has shown that women have managed to move up the social ladder in the subcontinent, so quirks of fate and 'circumstances' could lead to a brahmin taking up a kshatriyani/vaishya as his mistress or wife.

Although I would love to know how the present gene pool of the NE states came to being, right from the days of Pragjyotisha and Kamboja kingdoms of Mahabharatha till today. Considering that the Himalayas have always proved to be a closed door, I would like to know the patrilineal/matrilineal trace up to Tibet, Yunnan, Myanmar and other places.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 05 Apr 2010 19:35

brihaspati wrote:Those interested can look into this - if there was any reco for "Brahmins" to produce children on the "kshatriya/ni-s" after their men were killed.

There indeed appears to be indirect hints of extra-subcontinental "affairs". More on this later!

Based on what I read in various books, this looks like a common practice in vedic as well as puranic times leading upto post-Buddha's times. Somewhere between 0AD - 1000AD the varna structure became rigid and some one wrote (one Rediff article long time ago) that it could be due to islamic invasions (this needs to be confirmed). There are many instances that well-known puranic/epic characters going thru these cross-varna marriages especially between Brahmins and Kshatriyas. If you remember the table I posted a while ago, there is no classification of children born between Brahmin and Kshatriya varnas (in both Anuloma and Viloma traditions)

It is said that one famous caste in Andhra Pradesh is nothing but the intermarriage between Brahmins and Kshatriyas.

For example (from Valmiki Ramayana):

This Parashu Rama or Bhaargava Rama is believed as the sixth incarnation of Vishnu on earth, prior to Dasharatha Rama. The word parashu 'an axe...' is prefixed to this Rama because he wields a merciless axe. His father was sage Jamadagni and mother Renuka. This Jamadagni is the son of Sage Riciika, a Brahman, and he married Satyavati, the sister of Vishvamitra, a Kshatriya.

{deleted part of the quote}

I remember one legend that Dasaratha (father of Rama) hid in rishi-vatikas wrapping women's cloaths to esacape from Parashu Rama. Those were the days of Parashu Rama's "Kshatriya Nasana" progam.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 05 Apr 2010 21:29

I did not want to explicitly state this - as there are some narratives that describe Parashurama's injunction in this direction. This will sound useful for Islamophiles. Hence the reluctance!

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 05 Apr 2010 21:41

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Apr 2010 23:59

Partial X-Post...

For folks looking for a translation and transliteration in English, here is one online:
Ananda Lahari and Soundarya Lahiri at Sankaracharya.org

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 08 Apr 2010 10:23

self deleted

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Apr 2010 09:36

Narayana Rao garu posted this...

Yes some guru has to study this

The numerous weapons and the way the forces were used and described is vast. But most impressive is the methods which are organisational and political as per our epics.

Some things like

Jointness of using forces like the Akshowhini. Even at the time of Ramayana and Dasaradha offers to Vishvamuthya that he will come to forest with one Akshiowhini of his army. Each sub division of this unit is consisting of all 4 types of army like foot horse elephant and chariots. We don't find such combinedness in ancient times in other armys - may be in China

What do we consider th ploy of telling a person that his beloved son is dead or putting a person born as women in front to kill a warrior who will not use weapons on women. War for use always include some things other than mere use of weapons to kill others.

Political steps to weaken the support to other side king - Like Rama making Vibhishana as king.

Unfortunately we do not study this aspect.

Sending raiding party in to deep enemy territory - Lakshmana going after Indrajit.

Take symbolisms - Did any one tried to think the godess durga with weapons in 15 hands and one hand giving Abhayam to the people. Vishnu with a Koumodaki, Sudarshan, Shankham (panchajanyam) in 3 hands and then one hand with flower and Abhayam. The people who made these representations know that to give assurance of protection with one hand you need rest of the hands full with weapons. So for we failed to understand that by preparing best and by being powerful than our enemies we ensure peace. We are still think that some how there will be peace with good intentions.

negi · Post by **negi** » 12 Apr 2010 09:48

Gurulog this question has always bugged me hence let me get rid of my misery .

Has anyone on this board read the Vedas ? I have been reading brief transcripts of their english translated versions and I am not impressed (Read the Atharva veda it seems it only deals with Hyms for getting rid of diseases , how to get a good husband , child and other boring stuff )

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 12 Apr 2010 10:08

It is not light reading. Partly because, well they're not meant to be read.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 12 Apr 2010 10:23

negi,

na vedam veda!

What is your purpose to read the Vedas - may be able to help if I knew that...

For example the Vedas are divided into Karma-Kanda, GNana-Kanda and Upasana-Kanda.
The above division is based on subject matter...
Most of us are aware of the more standard: Rik, Sama, Yajur & Atharva

Karma-Kanda: How to do rituals for dummies
Upasana-Kanda: How to do worship for dummies
GNana-Kanda: How to attain supreme knowledge for dummies

These are all muddled up and in the older books such as the Rik (Rig) it may be miles and miles of bravado of Indra, etc.

Also, are you trying to read it in the original Samskrit?
PS: Just the Naasadiya Sukta can take years to understand - nay study.
I find that Sukta to be the mother of all knowledge in Sanathana Dharma.

Also, dear Dr. Radhakrishnan's "The Principle Upanishads" is a good read.
If my memory serves me right it has romanized Samskrit original.
Best way to learn is with a teacher if you can understand and read/write Samskrit.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 12 Apr 2010 10:28

Pulikeshi wrote:
Karma-Kanda: How to do rituals for dummies
Upasana-Kanda: How to do worship for dummies
GNana-Kanda: How to attain supreme knowledge for dummies

Not familiar with this division, could you clarify how they are divided that way? I've never looked at the Sama although I hear it has a lot of the same verses as in the Rgved.

As for reading them in Sanskrit, it will take a few years to learn enough Sanskrit to do that, especially for the older sections.

negi · Post by **negi** » 12 Apr 2010 10:32

^ My knowledge of Sanskrit is very elementary as I mentioned earlier I was reading English translation of 'Atharva Veda' . I was just curious as to what sort of 'Gnyaan' are we referring to when we talk about Vedas . I was captivated and completely blown away with the hym which was played as the OST for 'Bharat ek khoj' and wanted to to read about vedas in more detail . Lastly of all the fascinating weapons and stuff mentioned in our mythology only Vedas continue to exist till this day and I got this crazy idea to read all of them and get my name in the same list as likes of lankesh Ravana (another interesting individual ) .

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 12 Apr 2010 15:06

Diyar Negiullah

http://www.vedpuran.com/default.asp

If you are comfortable with Hindi, bliss to try this link.. This is Gita-Press translation of the Vedas (all four of them along with some Puranas) and more importantly, the translation is done in Indian language which is derivative of sanskrit (Hindi) by a sanskrit ved-Pandit himself instead of a western Indologist like Ralph Grifith.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 12 Apr 2010 18:12

negi wrote:Gurulog this question has always bugged me hence let me get rid of my misery .

Has anyone on this board read the Vedas ? I have been reading brief transcripts of their english translated versions and I am not impressed (Read the Atharva veda it seems it only deals with Hyms for getting rid of diseases , how to get a good husband , child and other boring stuff )

Negi-ullah...

I haven't read Vedas. I heard that before one gets to learn Vedas, one should learn vedic-sanskrit with its grammar and many other angas so the meaning of each word becomes clear. The meaning changes by the way you pronounce each word and where you put punctuations...

If you are expecting to find mantras (or formulas) for this and that astra, you will be disappointed. A couple of sources I came across require significant penance, guru-krupa etc to achieve an astra. Looks like the Astra-Vidya strictly follows guru-parampara.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 12 Apr 2010 21:39

negi wrote:I was just curious as to what sort of 'Gnyaan' are we referring to when we talk about Vedas . I was captivated and completely blown away with the hym which was played as the OST for 'Bharat ek khoj' and wanted to to read about vedas in more detail . Lastly of all the fascinating weapons and stuff mentioned in our mythology only Vedas continue to exist till this day and I got this crazy idea to read all of them and get my name in the same list as likes of lankesh Ravana (another interesting individual ) .

1. 'Gnyaan' the Vedas will not impart. Also, they are not organized in a way we moderns appreciate.
We are used to 'FACT + ASSUMPTION = CONCLUSION' type writing.
The Vedas are primarily empirical and written as poetry, so 'left-brained' modern types will have to exercise their right-brains and allow for a lot of fluff and weed out the ASSUMPTIONs and CONCLUSIONs. There is very little FACT that can be deciphered given we are in a plane of reference that is not only anachronistic but also out of context. The little FACT that can be weeded out hence is controversial and busily fought over!

2. Sanathana Dharmic [SD] thought was originally lined up with Karma-Kanda (ritualism). In some South Indian languages today, words such as 'Adviata' and 'Karma-Kandam' are used derogatorily as 'nonsense' and or 'the fate of my ancestors and me' kind of way...
Why am I explaining all this... With advent of Buddhism, the ritualism of SD waned out and the 'Adviata' theory became paramount. However, one fundamental issue with Buddhism & Advaita is that ritualism protected capital (wealth and human resources), renunciation does not. I say this even if I prefer 'Advaita' philosophy personally. However, it is important for SD followers today to recognize this wisdom in the Vedas - The creation and protection of wealth (Arth), the freedom to pursue desires (Kam), the freedom to pursue salvation (Moksh) is paramount. However, your actions (Karm) has to be in the path of Social Stability (Dharma). In my very humble opinion - Samkara (Shankaracharya) went too far, perhaps appropriate, to address the intellectual challenge of Buddhism to SD ritualism. It is time to preserve the 'Adviata' core but fall back not into ritualism (which is what has happened in Bharat today) but on a more scientific Karm (action oriented) way to think about Dharma.
This needs a new Vivekanada or someone of his stature to show a new way....
or then again, we perhaps together show the way by living and learning about the Vedas & Upanishads in this new way...
most importantly act (Karma) in a way that stabilizes society...

3. On the Naasadiya Sukta will post a separate post - this is the first stanza from Bharat Ek Khoj. It is translated incorrectly into Hindi in that serial

The rest of the verbiage - Hindi Lyrics - have nothing to do with the Naasadiya Sukta. They seem like Nehru's bad interpretation of the wisdom of Sanathana Dharma

Albeit, sounds cool and has some good meaning...

4. On weapons and such, most of those are in the Puranas. I would suspect these to be just Sci-Fi of that day and age. Since, I have never seen a Aastra or a Vimana fly. Nor evidence for it having made a difference in any battle from the time of the Mauryas. Even the Arthashastra, etc. are weak on specific weapons of warfare. There is enough material there on strategy and kuta-neethi (secret strategies) - like visha kanya (poison women, etc.).

Just some random ramblings as usual

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 12 Apr 2010 21:48

Pulikeshi wrote:
2. Sanathana Dharmic [SD] thought was originally lined up with Karma-Kanda (ritualism). In some South Indian languages today, words such as 'Adviata' and 'Karma-Kandam' are used derogatorily as 'nonsense' and or 'the fate of my ancestors and me' kind of way...
Why am I explaining all this... With advent of Buddhism, the ritualism of SD waned out and the 'Adviata' theory became paramount.

To clarify, what do you mean by thought was originally lined up with Karma-Kanda, and why do you feel Sankaracharya went too far?

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 12 Apr 2010 22:59

Carl,

This is my empirical interpretation

Originally, the Kshatriya's who rendered the older books in the Vedas rose to the status of Rishis. The Brahmin Varna evolved out of this group. Hence initially, we see the bravado and bravery of the warriors as the primary theme with interspersed nuggets of wisdom.

As the Brahmin Varna became established, it focused on the Karma-Kanda (rituals). Methods of worship (Upasana-Kanda), secret incantations, metallurgy, etc. (Atharva) and method of pronunciation (Sama), etc.
Eventually, the feudal and guilded setups led to a Tri-Varna (Kshatriya, Brahmana, Vyshya) eventually leading to the final Shudra Varna. Once this became codified, the ritualism (Karma-Kanda) marga (way) was predominant.

Eventually, this structural rigidity causes the advent of multiple challengers to the Karma-Kanda tradition. Many use 'renunciation' in their mechanism. Maya comes into vogue. Karma (action) becomes one's Fate (misinterpretation). The principle challenger, Buddhism, is intellectual and psychological. Samkara, takes on the challenge of the intellectual and defeats the 'pundits' in intellectual battles. He does not address the psychological - equality, how to deal with suffering, etc. other than to offer that everything is maya and only a fool attaches himself or herself to this suffering. The side effect of this battle is the that that already ba5tardized Karma marga (path of ritual action) is further eroded. See for example the defeat of Mandana Mishra (follower of Kumarila Bhatta Karma Mimansa traditions).

Ironically, this also means now we have folks who have no yoga (yoke) of ritual to bind society into an orderly entity. If everyone is an 'Advaitin' or true follower of the Buddha, society does not exist.
As my Sri Lankan friend aptly summarized - Buddha gets the incense sticks, but the Hindu Gods get the goodies - coconuts, flowers, fruits, sweets, etc. Ritualism ironically is mechanism that encourages capitalism

I know this is an extreme argument, but I am trying to illustrate a point. The 'secular' aspect of traditions such as Karma marga provided for the Dharmashastras, etc. these provided structure for the preservation of society (Dharma). Example, the Smritis (Manu as well) have more verbiage on contract law and partnership codes than it has on preventing someone from reading Vedas, etc.

Samkara may have gone too far in that he not only defeated the Boudha (Buddhists), but ended up wiping out he Karma marga followers as well. This means, today we have such common wisdoms that Hinduism - believes all path to God.

Instead of the original - one one single path to God can claim to be better than any other.
That there is no rules, that Hinduism offers the greatest freedom.
It does, but there seems to be no yoke on Karma to follow Dharma.

Finally, the confusion has also resulted in Hindu's outsourcing their religious obligations and rules to the Personal Law as laid down by the Constitution and code of Secular India.
Therefore, Hindu citizens foolish keep going back to the Secular GOI to protect their Dharma, whereas it is their duty to protect Dharma as much as it is GOI's duty to protect all citizens irrespective of religious beliefs.
The same reason why Hindu's believe its GOI's job to work against EJs as well...

How is that for more random ramblings

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 13 Apr 2010 00:09

Pulikeshi ji

more random rumblings...

Does Advaita-marga really denounce karma (action)?

I remember a couple of references where it is said that entire Astra vidya has been removed from human kind after what happened in Maha Bharata war (Ashwatthama's brahmastra episode). As mentioned earlier I came across a reference to Agneyastra, in some Tantric book. Looks like the seers hid most of these divya-astras in Hindu marriage mantras. They will come out as and when a true-seeker realizes the vedic-knowledge.

I see Veda's as a multi-dimensional pyramid of knowledge. Sanatana Dharma accepts the reality that the entire society cannot be expected to be at the same level of consciousness at a given time. That is why the pyramid-ic structure in everything we see.

Even Bhagavad gita has this structure. Tilak, Vivekananda etc got inspired by Karma Yoga chapter, where as few others got inspired by Bhakti yoga, and few others by Jnana Yoga.

The reality is a mixture of everything.

The art of "statecraft" lies in harmonizing all these aspects and bringing a dharmic-structure in the society...

Sridhar K · Post by **Sridhar K** » 13 Apr 2010 00:54

Pulikeshiji

If Sankara denounced Karma Ganda, how does it explains the rituals in Smartha Sampradayam and why establish a Sampradaya in the first place. ? My limited understanding is that during Sankara's time, the Vedic religion became too ritualistic with no focus on Gnana and Sankara's actions were just to tilt the balance. Perhaps, the concept of renounciation was almost non existent prior to Sankara. Though his disciples were also into renounciation, did not they guide the Grahathas in the Smartha fold to focus on their Karmic duties? I think this is in line with Krishna stating that both modes are fine as long as Gnana margi is at a level of maturity that will lead him through the treacherous path or in other words Karma for a regular person and Gnana for the enlightened.

Is it not more apt to state that the later day Sankara followers took *Aham Brahmasmi*, mayawad too seriously and started denouncing the karma/of the Vedas, after which Ramanuja and Madhvacharya came in later to recalibrate the balance again.

Disclaimer: I am a novice in this and excuse me for the inaccuracies.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 13 Apr 2010 03:40

Actively engaged in a "karmayoga" to entice people to "renounce" - I think that is a very political move. Whenever that was used, if we look at the concerned society - it was facing a crisis and external aggression. Those who use dthe device of "renunciation" were actually trying to "alienate" individuals from their bindings to duties/affections/love that prevents a new unification and mobilization. Unless you can detach people from their existing moorings, how can you remould them for a greater purpose and mobilization society wide!

I tend to think Shankara was preparing the grounds for a new unification and mobilization for "mass" karma, and use dthe pre-existing meme of "renunciation" as a device. We see similar devices in many of the Shaiva and Vaishnava leaders.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 13 Apr 2010 04:23

Sridhar K wrote: Is it not more apt to state that the later day Sankara followers took *Aham Brahmasmi*, mayawad too seriously and started denouncing the karma/of the Vedas, after which Ramanuja and Madhvacharya came in later to recalibrate the balance again.

Good question. Perhaps in one way this is correct.
A better way to ask this is what upholds Dharma?
Knowledge of the Vedas/Brahman or actions of humans?
If you believe it to be the latter, you will agree with me that for the
collective - actions (Karma) - matters a lot more.
For the individual - moksha is attained by realization of the ultimate truth.
The question becomes can ultimate truth be attained as a householder?
Or can it only be attained by renunciation?

Also notice Mandana Mishra/Kumarila Bhatta and others were trying to argue and defeat the Buddhists using semantics and structure and nature of the language used to propound Buddhism.
Again, I do not mean to trivialize these folks -
Samkara perhaps understood less about Buddhism than Kumarila Bhatta (given he received first hand knowledge from Dharmakirti at Nalanda).
However, Samkara correctly saw that this was not going help...
Buddhism had to be defeated intellectually, not via semantics or tarka (logic).

The followers of Dvaitha (Madvacharya) or Visishta-Dvaitha (Ramanujacharya) only offered incremental recalibration. In that they too place too much emphasis on Bhakti or Upasana-Kanda (worship).
So we swung from Karma to Gnana to Upasana

One more ramble - The West seems to have cornered the market on Rational.
SD is actually empirical (in the Karma marga) and substitutes at a higher level rationalism (Upasana/Bhakti way) with skepticism (Gnana marga).
That is why it is a more comprehensive system. Notice again that none of the systems of thinking are discarded.
They are just another way to articulate our experience of ourselves and the infinite.
If any sub-system or the system of SD became the only perfect system -
by definition it would collapse as no-system

Hence - na vedam veda

More ramblings later...

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Apr 2010 05:56

Can you put all your ramblings in a structured manner? I plan to disseminate it widely.

Some of my Western colleagues want to understand Sanathan Dharma.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 13 Apr 2010 11:14

Ramana,

Sure will post a draft soon...

If I had my druthers, I'd write a non-mystical, empirical version of the SD experience of the Universe.
The notion of Eastern mysticism is somewhat of a yawn to me.

I find neither the West morally depraved or bankrupt,
nor I find anything mystical or irrational about the East!

What I do find are systems that are built on affirmation of one and rejection of another set for concepts.
Versus, systems that are based on bridging the weave between systems.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 13 Apr 2010 11:50

Ishavasyopanishad or Ishopanishad categorically states about three things:

1) kUrVanNevh kArmANi jiJiviShecHHatang SamAh

2) vIdya cHa aVidYanCHA yAstadVedo BhyAM Saha.. AviDyayaM ....

3) sAmBhootn cHa VinASHanCHA yAstadVedo BhyAM Saha..

clearly mentions the importance of karma - living 100 years actively karma-rat and attain moksha by acquired abhyuday and nishreyas - using vidya and avidya as a vehicle. there is strictly no mention of denouncing karma. also asking to attain materialistic and spiritual upliftment simultaneously

a hindi, giti translation of Ishopanishad says it all

http://hindinest.com/dharma/003.htm

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 13 Apr 2010 19:55

Origin of Atheism in India

Negiji,

bliss to phind the verse you mentioned (Bharat ek khoj fame - both of them) in this linky..

Abhi_G · Post by **Abhi_G** » 13 Apr 2010 20:12

Question to Pulakeshi guru, since Adi Shankara and the Budhdhism are being discussed. Budhdhism does not recognize the existence of the soul (naastikvaad). Even Jaina pantha believes in the same if I am not wrong. Still these two schools of thought arose from Indic society only.

1. Under what circumstances did Gautam Budhdha reach this conclusion of non-existence of soul?

2. Was this causing a problem in society in the sense that social cohesion was falling apart? I am talking about pre-Islamic invasion time.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Apr 2010 21:37

Atri wrote:Origin of Atheism in India

Negiji,

bliss to phind the verse you mentioned (Bharat ek khoj fame - both of them) in this linky..

This is our Chiron's blog.

svenkat · Post by **svenkat** » 13 Apr 2010 22:27

ramana wrote:
Atri wrote:Origin of Atheism in India

Negiji,

bliss to phind the verse you mentioned (Bharat ek khoj fame - both of them) in this linky..

This is our Chiron's blog.

Then who is Atri?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Apr 2010 23:17

Damn, this renaming is doing a lot of harm!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Apr 2010 08:39

Richness of Meaning
An exposition on Sanskrit and nanartham

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 15 Apr 2010 10:08

Abhi_G wrote:Question to Pulakeshi guru, since Adi Shankara and the Budhdhism are being discussed. Budhdhism does not recognize the existence of the soul (naastikvaad). Even Jaina pantha believes in the same if I am not wrong. Still these two schools of thought arose from Indic society only.

1. Under what circumstances did Gautam Budhdha reach this conclusion of non-existence of soul?

2. Was this causing a problem in society in the sense that social cohesion was falling apart? I am talking about pre-Islamic invasion time.

Abhi,

1. The question on the Boudha marga (Buddhism) needs a bit more
foundation setting before I can answer that one reasonably.
Will start on that front in this post, will do a more detailed post later as time permits.

Astika and Nastika are translated as 'theist' and 'atheist' incorrectly.
In the historical context, all it meant was "accepts the authority of the
Vedas" or "does not accept the authority of the Vedas" - that is orthodox versus heterodox.
In some sense if one accepted the supremacy of the Vedas, one was given
the license to interpret it variously...

Anyway, this is one of the examples of viewing SD incorrectly using modern context.

That the Buddhists believe in a 'santana' (fleeting) soul versus the
hard 'atman' versus 'brahman' distinction is a finer point.
Notice for example the Lamas are reincarnated, so it is not that they do
not believe in the soul, but it is the nature of the soul that is in question.
More later...

2. Buddhism or Jainism were reactions to a rigid orthodoxy. Not the other way around.
Also, the subtleties of the idea of a soul was not a prime issue.
However, if the soul was not bound by Karmic duties - here I mean actions,
then what incentive does the individual have in upholding Dharma? That is society itself?
Society is stable only with Darayathi (that stabilizes) eva Dharma.
Notice, that Rta (righteous order similar to cosmos from the Greek)
is upheld in dhARma.
This is why 'Ritualism' was very important for the orthodoxy.

Western scholars (even well meaning ones) mistakenly refer to this as
'Brahminism' - it is total nonsense.
What they fail to understand is that the west had to invent 'social contract'
for adjusting the individual with the state in society.
SD framework allows for 'network contract' between the individuals/groups in society with each other.
This means even the Rajan (King or Emperor) is bound by and governed
by the same Dharma.
Heck, even the Gods are bound by and governed by the same Dharma.
With Dharma, everything is networked with everything else in a complex
web of relationships whose only purpose is the cyclic nature of
stabilizing the network