Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

rkirankr · Post by **rkirankr** » 22 Apr 2010 14:12

Premji,

As far as whatever I have heard or learnt from some scholars , philosophers and commentaries of some philosophers, the Upanishads mention the earlier Buddha , the avatar of Vishnu and not Gautama Buddha who is known as the founder of Buddhism.

sanjeevpunj · Post by **sanjeevpunj** » 22 Apr 2010 18:42

Shankaracharya rightly said "Bhaja Govindam, Bhaja Govindam,Govindam Bhaja Mudha Mateh...Samprapte Sannihite kale nahi nahi rakshati dukrunjkarane" At the time of death, no amount of grammar rules are going to help so chant govinda! govinda!

The conclusive truth is mentioned in the Gita. Lord Krishna says it clearly and this has not been challenged by anyone ever.

He says

"sarganam adir antas ca
madhyam caivaham arjuna
adhyatma-vidya vidyanam
vadah pravadatam aham"

SYNONYMS

sarganam--of all creations; adih--beginning; antah--end; ca--and; madhyam--middle; ca--also; eva--certainly; aham--I am; arjuna--O Arjuna; adhyatma-vidya--spiritual knowledge; vidyanam--of all education; vadah--natural conclusion; pravadatam--of arguments; aham--I am.
TRANSLATION

Of all creations I am the beginning and the end and also the middle, O Arjuna. Of all sciences I am the spiritual science of the self, and among logicians I am the conclusive truth.

The very self within each of us is a part and parcel of this conclusive truth, though we may not know this.Once we know who we are, all search for the truth ends....spiritual knowledge was not meant to confound mankind but to simplify his existence.Once having know who you really are, you can perform all your obligatory duties with perfection, detachment and can rise to a state of complete illumination with time and experience by your side.

Interestingly, Ramana Maharishi arrived at this conclusion even when he was a kid. He sat down in meditation at the temple of Lord Shiva in Tiruvannamalai, oblivious of the external world, he was like the Buddha then, hadn't eaten for days, till a priest noticed him and began feeding him daily with prasadam.Eventually Ramana Maharishi was recognised by the world, and many a famous writers have written about their experiences with him. At the time of leaving the body,a dazzling shooting star was observed in the skies in South India.

In my opinion, the illusion is that we believe what we see as truth, and ignore the truth within, while all the time, the self within is just witnessing the passage of events unattached.Illusion of what we ar seeing or hearing keeps our minds trapped and prevents us from seeing what we really are.We keep saying stuff like "I am this...I am that" without experiencing the silent and powerful illuminating light within us.Once we begin to observe this light we can reach its source, and verify the message in the Gita. "Of all creations I am the beginning and the end and also the middle, O Arjuna. Of all sciences I am the spiritual science of the self, and among logicians I am the conclusive truth."

This is where the path of Bhakti actually begins. Having established oneself within onself, having understood the logicians, the philosophers and the saints, one should retire from material pursuits (in due course when the age comes) and dedicate oneself to the inner search.Definitely the light does shine for all, and is impartial to color caste creed and religious inclination.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 22 Apr 2010 23:00

rkirankr wrote:Premji,

As far as whatever I have heard or learnt from some scholars , philosophers and commentaries of some philosophers, the Upanishads mention the earlier Buddha , the avatar of Vishnu and not Gautama Buddha who is known as the founder of Buddhism.

Thanks, i was curious as One Upanishad mention "even the Great Buddha did not Know/ expound it". If the old Buddha was Vishnu Avatar he must have known the relation between Atma and Pamatama or high Vedantic truth . The fact Upanishd make this remark , cast doubt on the theory of one of the ancient Buddhaa being Bishnu.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 23 Apr 2010 19:55

Just heard a beautiful poem on Telugu-Bhakti channel.

In the context of Arjuna-Urvasi samvada during his trip to Devaloka and Arjuna's answer to Urvasi's advances

Mother you are talking about the laws of your bhoga-bhoomi (pleasure land)
But I am from the land of Vedas; where every karma must be dharmic
Where even god is made to take avatars to enjoy the fruits of karma
Where a king gave up flesh from his thigh to save a mere pigeon
Where dharmic humans defeat even devas (different from Daivam = the God)

...

I also came across a wonderful speech on Sri Rudram that captured Karma, Dharma and social constructs/structures. Will summarize the relevant parts for our discussion.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 23 Apr 2010 20:59

On Krishna's "Vastra Apahara Leela" there are many misunderstanding. I am surprised to see even Sri Ravi Sankar going on with general perspective of Krishna being "play boy" before imposing Bhakti aspect on it.

But Bhagavatam clearly tells us that Sri Krishna was hardly 10 years old when he moved to Mathura. Vastrapaharana happened before he moved from Vrindavana to Mathura. How could gopikas pray "Katyayani" to give Krishna as their husband in physical terms? How could people impose kama on Krishna?

http://mathuravrindavan.com/mathura1/aboutkrishna.htm

Krishna stayed for three years and four months in Gokula. Since the residents of Gokula were being harassed by the demon friends of Kamsa such as Putana and Trinavarta they decided to move from Gokula. They first went to Chatikara and Vrindavana. They stayed in Vrindavana until Krishna was six years and eight months old. Vrishabhanu Maharaja, the father of Radharani, and his community moved from Raval to Vasanti. Nanda Maharaja then moved to Dig and then he went to Kamyavana, which is where Yasoda's parents are from. Vrishabhanu Maharaja also came to Kamyavana at this time. They then went to Kelanvan and stayed there for a while. Nanda Maharaja then went to Nandagram and Vrishabhanu Maharaja went to Varsana. Krishna stayed in Nandagram until he was 10 years old. He then went to Mathura and lived there from the ages of 10 to 28 years and four months. He then moved to Dwarka and lived there for 96 years and eight months, until he was 125 years old.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Apr 2010 23:07

I was watching the "uttara go-grahana" episode of Mahabharata on Star TV yesterday. What struck me is Arjuna defeats the entire Kaurava warrior pantheon single handedly and could have finished them off as Uttara Kumara suggests. Arjuna says he doesnt want such a victory of slaughtering the drugged/sleeping Kauravas. The Kauravas had no such compunction and kill the upa-pandavas in the camp after the War. Nor at using the Brahmaastra on the Pandavas, as a Samson option, even after the cause is lost and Duryodhana is killed.

The scene shifts to the Virata court where the King eventually recognizes the Pandavas and pledges them eternal support. Again the thought that struck me was all the Virata kingdom players: Virata Raja, Uttara Kumar and Abhimanyu the son-in-law get killed in the War. They sure did pay a heavy price for their eternal support.

Its a very good illustration of when evil has to be terminated at least cost but wasnt done for 'dharmic' reasons. many times the Pandavas could have terminated evil a low cost yet allowed the problem to fester and grow. True we wouldn't have the Gitopkhyana but its a heavy price.

And I look at Pakistan and how its was allowed to fester and become more evil as time goes by(Aleination-> Islamization-> sectarian Islamism) and India, the modern Pandavas, is helpless or reluctant to do the needful to reduce the weight of TSP except in 1971. I see no Lord Krishna on the horizon to pull our chestnuts out of the fire of self-inflicted inaction.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 26 Apr 2010 23:26

Ramana Sir ji,
Indian DIE ruling elites dont take inspiration from India's own Ramayan, Mahabharta or any Granth so how can they act upon the teachings. Chacha ji laid down the course and as they say consistency is the virtue of the Ass , no one has made amend to this fundamental shortcoming and the path is still being treaded by the politcians. The current PM takes pride in being the CC of JLN so no punishment can be expected for Paki behaviour.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 26 Apr 2010 23:38

Ramana-ji

Your post reminds me of my heated discussions with Shiv-ji and others on people waiting for a Krishna and do nothing on their own.

The problem is (we had this discussion on this very thread a few weeks ago) that many (like Karna) do not even take Krishna's lead even when he reincarnates. That is the "sad" state of karmic evolution.

***

Pandava's demonstrated their worth many a times before the final war. Another episode is (during Aranyavasa) Bhima and Arjuna defeating Gandharvas when they take kauravas as prisoners. This resembles the attitudes of some BD-land leaders.

***

And the Cashmere issue reminds me of Rayabara episode. Even Bhagavan krishna couldn't convince the Kauravas on peace. What can our WKKs achieve?

The WKK/Jhollawalah logic sounds exactly like "Sanjaya Rayabara".

***

We have entire Mahabharata reenactment on our western borders. On the eastern borders it is a different story altogether. It demands another Deepavali (Naraka and Pragjyothishapura)

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 26 Apr 2010 23:44

Dont forget Kandhari Mamma oorf Talibans are playing their part of current Mahabharta.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 27 Apr 2010 00:36

Prem wrote:Dont forget Kandhari Mamma oorf Talibans are playing their part of current Mahabharta.

In my analysis Kandhara mama is over rated. His father was just a small feudal (not even a king). That is why they gave Gandhari to a blind king of Hastinapura. And she demonstrated her (portion of greed/impatience) when she wanted to have a child before Kunti even at the cost of premature cesarean.

One info I came across recently says that all Sakuni-mama knew was deception. He was used (on his pointer) by Kauravas for a purpose and was disposed as a used c*ndom afterward. Yudhister fell for this deception (kshudra vidya) when it is elaborately setup (S-e-S?) of a place and time of Kaurava's selection. But when the Rishi (is it Brihadasva in Aranyavasa) taught "Akshaya Vidya" to Yudhistira Sakuni mama's deception is ineffective.

Who will teach "Aksha Vidya" to our Yudhister? a seer from DRDO/DAE perhaps!

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 27 Apr 2010 03:23

Krishna's ultimate purpose was the all-encompassing war. Through war he wanted to destroy the small regional powers and have a clear winner under whom the devasted and destroyed regional powers could be rolled into a single cohesive rashtryia system.

If you look at Krishna's entire movements and steps from early life - you can see that he realizes the fundamental weakness of Indian society through his own early experiences. The internecine jealousies and petty ambitions of regional elite for personal power disunited Indian society and destroyed the fabric of society through arbitrariness [Kauravas looting cows and women of neighbours]. He himself was an exile for a large part, and even after "defeating" Kangsa, he still took his group "west" to a coastal area where he could rebuild a safe power base [probably his folks also had some settlements there before - or clan connections existed - or the area was originally known to his ancestors...I am not speaking of MB reasons, which are clearly stated, but my own surmise of what really could be happening in western India between 5000 and 3000 BCE]. He finds the obstruction to his plans in the upper Indian power centres of UP+Punjab [Kauravas] and the eastern sector in Bihar+WB [Magadha]. He destroys both.

His choice of Pandavas as his tool is obvious. First he can call upon kinship influences through Kunti. Second, the Pandavas are obviously under some degree of shadow of dubious legitimacy because of the "niyoga" process of birth. Such a group would be always vulnerable to attacks and disloyalty from the established coteries based around bloodlines. Therefore they would be free from attempts by these coteries to draw them in - into the inner circles of politics. This would make them disconnected from the previous cliques and more amenable to Krishna's manipulations.

Everything that Krishna does after leaving Mathura is destruction of regional elite and the fractures he sees as obstacles in his project of unification of India not just territorially but also through the establishment of certain principles of rashtra - which he calls "dharma".

He makes people try to use non-war options to show the futility of such methods. So that ultimately everyone is drawn in into his grand plan of a "cleansing conflict". Those who can, will know what to look for in MB.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 27 Apr 2010 04:01

You brought us back to square one B-ji

(remember the Srikrishna strategy article I posted?)

India needs a strong center and the regional power centers have to be weaken/destroyed (perhaps there is some logic to T-state). And the process have to be repeated every so often.

Sambhavami Yuge Yuge

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 27 Apr 2010 04:13

RamaY wrote:You brought us back to square one B-ji (remember the Srikrishna strategy article I posted?)

India needs a strong center and the regional power centers have to be weaken/destroyed (perhaps there is some logic to T-state). And the process have to be repeated every so often.

Sambhavami Yuge Yuge

Is Kalyug on the last leg , end nigh in our life time.

naren · Post by **naren** » 27 Apr 2010 06:49

brihaspati wrote:Through war he wanted to destroy the small regional powers and have a clear winner under whom the devasted and destroyed regional powers could be rolled into a single cohesive rashtryia system.

I disagree B ji. Your theory ignores the very founding principle of Varnashrama - that intelligentsia enforces control over aristocracy. This is the important difference between Indian civilization and other civilizations. Rest of the world, aristocracy was at the top. The tiny little states fought with each other. The winner totally destroys the defeated identity. In Indian history we dont find that. One Kshatriya clan fights another Kshatriya clan; but the winner doesn't attempt to homogenize or engage in cultural destruction. Thats why we have so much diversity today.

What I'm getting at is that Bharat was defined by Varnashrama, not a unified Kshatriya identity.

niran · Post by **niran** » 27 Apr 2010 07:08

Prem wrote:
Is Kalyug on the last leg , end nigh in our life time.

Worry not Saarji, there are 4 hundred thousand years still left.
lotsa time to reborn and troll BRF no?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Apr 2010 07:29

Google book:

Works of Kalidasa by C.Deodhar

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 29 Apr 2010 00:16

naren wrote:
brihaspati wrote:Through war he wanted to destroy the small regional powers and have a clear winner under whom the devasted and destroyed regional powers could be rolled into a single cohesive rashtryia system.
I disagree B ji. Your theory ignores the very founding principle of Varnashrama - that intelligentsia enforces control over aristocracy. This is the important difference between Indian civilization and other civilizations. Rest of the world, aristocracy was at the top. The tiny little states fought with each other. The winner totally destroys the defeated identity. In Indian history we dont find that. One Kshatriya clan fights another Kshatriya clan; but the winner doesn't attempt to homogenize or engage in cultural destruction. Thats why we have so much diversity today.

What I'm getting at is that Bharat was defined by Varnashrama, not a unified Kshatriya identity.

No this is a different angle you are leading up to! First I have my own reservations about the so-called Varnashrama Dharma as "dharma" and whether it existed in the form we are no told it was - at the time.

If you mean that the acceptance of "Varnashrama" itself indicates acceptance of "intelligentsia" than that may not correct. Just because you agree to follow certain principles need not mean they were formulated by a specific group different from yourself.

Moreover if you look at it carefully, you cannot separate the kshatryias from brahmans in the early formulation of "dharma". Search for who was the first guru for the first "brahmin". Many of the perfect "brahmins" all appear to be adept at "kshatryia work" - for example Ravana, ParashuRama. And then, ultimately why is it that "Vishnu" has to re-establish this intelligentsia created "dharma" through "kshatryia" means in almost all the avataras?

Varnashrama was not an uniformly and universally accepted concept even within the various narrators. In the beginning the separation between "intelligentsia" and the "warrior" was rather blurred. The same person showed different aspects in different situations - which is perhaps how it originated and was how it was constructed to be. Philosophy is primarily an attempt to model what "is" and what "has been". So it is more of explanation rather than creating new phenomenon to explain.

I am looking at not what Krishna has been ascribed as saying in BG, but what his actions are. In that, he shows little concern about empowering the "intelligentsia" over the "aristocracy". The real Krishna was a visionary statesman who dreamt of unifying his lands and the people on it. What laws he wanted them to follow is less important since we want to analyze him for relevance to current situations. Laws are modified according to real socio-economic experiences, and therefore only relevant for the time they are created for, and they cannot characterize Krishna's essential motivation.

naren · Post by **naren** » 29 Apr 2010 05:43

brihaspati wrote:First I have my own reservations about the so-called Varnashrama Dharma as "dharma" and whether it existed in the form we are no told it was - at the time.

Me too. My take on it is more on a philosophical/sociological level rather than on a textual level. What I mean by "intelligentsia" is the organization which plays role in the society, rather than a group of birth-privileged people. Thats why I chose to use this word, because the word "brahmin" has been distorted and has negative connotation.

Just because you agree to follow certain principles need not mean they were formulated by a specific group different from yourself.

Moreover if you look at it carefully, you cannot separate the kshatryias from brahmans in the early formulation of "dharma".

Agree with you. Even better, Swami Vivekananda quotes Mahabharata and says that all the castes in the beginning were from one Brahmin caste (no Brahmana/Kshatriya TFTAs conquered Vaishya/Shudra SDREs). They split into different castes because of the work to be done. He says that eventually they will go back to the source and become one caste again. (unfortunately I dont bookmark lot of the goodies I read

will post if I do find it)

Search for who was the first guru for the first "brahmin". Many of the perfect "brahmins" all appear to be adept at "kshatryia work" - for example Ravana, ParashuRama.

Brahmins, the organizational body, is the preserver of culture. Brahmins' task is to learn all forms of professions ("low" included) & pass it on to the respective castes. Thats why we see Drona teaching warfare. And he also ended up in "hell" because he overstepped his role.

Varnashrama was not an uniformly and universally accepted concept even within the various narrators. In the beginning the separation between "intelligentsia" and the "warrior" was rather blurred. The same person showed different aspects in different situations - which is perhaps how it originated and was how it was constructed to be. Philosophy is primarily an attempt to model what "is" and what "has been". So it is more of explanation rather than creating new phenomenon to explain.

I highly recommend to read this article. It pretty much summarizes the western & Indian society.

PROGRESS OF CIVILISATION - Swami Vivekananda

If you have time, read the whole series, you will not regret !

The East & the West

The real Krishna was a visionary statesman who dreamt of unifying his lands and the people on it.

This is where I disagree. Administrative separation is not the same as cultural separation. Many India-bashers (esp those annoying 50 cent robots) love to point out to the fact that Bharat was united only under few kingdoms. The point to be noted is that eventhough Bharat was fragmented administratively, there was a strong sense of unity among the people in terms of culture. Before the invasion of Mlechchas under Alexander on Bharat, nobody really bothered with central unification. Even after the unification, the Maurya's didnt attempt to overrun the Mediterranean (shows that motivation for Mauryan empire was Cultural rather than expansionist). It was considered beneath the dignity of Aryan kings (South Indian included; before Dravidian nationalists pounce on me, blij to read the SV article above) to rule Mlechcha lands.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 29 Apr 2010 06:43

naren ji,
I am aware of SV's articles.

A long time ago on this forum, we had a merry fight over the existence of the concept of the "nation" and the sense of "unity" - and as far as I remember, I was firmly on the side of existecne of that concept prior to the advent of the Europeans and in fact prior even to the advent of Alexander or Islamics. I will try to fish out that post.

However, my representation of Krishna's motives is not a questioning of whether the concept of a "culture based nation" existed prior to MB war or not. My representation was more concerned about what fundamental timeless drives could we identify in the actions of Krishna. Here, two things stand out after we identify and drop all the features specific to the period and society and the artifices of the main storyline. These are

(1) Krishna moves in a very planned step by step fashion to eliminate the main regional despots in the Gangetic valley to the north and east, using the Pandavas while he clears up the western sector bit by bit himself. He is rising here above kinship relations - for the kings of Mathura and Magadha he kills are kins by marital connections. He orchestrates the "harana" of Subhadra against the opposition of his own kin - Balarama's.

(2) He justifies the bloodshed even of kin, consistently, by saying that "establishment" of "dharma" came supreme.

Now if "dharma" had to be established or re-established, it meant that for him at least - dharma had been lost or non-existent. Since Krishna is going against the then obviously prevalent norms of behaviour (both Yudhisthira and Arjuna raise the issue) and "dharma" in urging killing of even blood relations if they were felt to have been "adharmic", Krishna is placing principle (dharma) as the foundation of a nation rather than mere political convenience and alliances.

Since Krishna has to convene a war to establish a "principle" behind the foundation of a rashtra, surely such "principled foundations" were lacking before or when Krishna appeared on the scene. Krishna therefore marks this transition from mere political entities existing for exercise of power by powerful clans or kings, to the concept of a rashtra based on "principles" - an anticipation of "social contract". Before Krishna's MB war the nation was equated with the king and dynasty. From Krishna and MB war the nation becomes an entity equated primarily with "dharma" or principles. A king or a regime can rule not just because they have inherited the power - but only if they are also maintaining and upholding the principles of foundation of the rashtra.

I have my own interpretation on "varna" and how I think it was originally meant and how we should define it nowadys. I have written this explicitly on this thread before also - so not going into it!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 29 Apr 2010 10:00

Actually, B ji, MB is fundamentally about Dharma, played through by two of its CENTRAL characters, Dev-vrta Bishma and Sri Krishna. Bishma is the archetype of Dharma, he followed pretty much every thing that he was supposed to to a T, including self-renunciation for elders sake. A very high Indic goal (others over self) yet his actions set into a chain of events which were fundamental in getting to MB.

Not only that he was compelled by his Dharma to be with the King of the throne on the wrong side despite his personal views.

Bishma is as important to MB as Krishna, the Dharmic counterpoint.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 29 Apr 2010 17:24

Sanku ji,
I agree and disagree! MB is showing that mere formal adherence to a set of rules does not define dharma - so that Bhisma's formal adherence and insistence on observing ritualistic "dharma" is not the essence of being "dharmic" - for in the end it helps justify and maintain "adharma" on a very large scale. Krishna on the other hand is using "dharma" in the correct sense - and places it above mere ossified rules.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 29 Apr 2010 18:10

brihaspati wrote:Sanku ji,
I agree and disagree! MB is showing that mere formal adherence to a set of rules does not define dharma - so that Bhisma's formal adherence and insistence on observing ritualistic "dharma" is not the essence of being "dharmic" - for in the end it helps justify and maintain "adharma" on a very large scale. Krishna on the other hand is using "dharma" in the correct sense - and places it above mere ossified rules.

No you are only agreeing. Not disagreeing.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 29 Apr 2010 21:28

Sanku wrote:
brihaspati wrote:Sanku ji,
I agree and disagree! MB is showing that mere formal adherence to a set of rules does not define dharma - so that Bhisma's formal adherence and insistence on observing ritualistic "dharma" is not the essence of being "dharmic" - for in the end it helps justify and maintain "adharma" on a very large scale. Krishna on the other hand is using "dharma" in the correct sense - and places it above mere ossified rules.
No you are only agreeing. Not disagreeing.

Funny, few years ago i had chat with a famous Sikh Scholar Maskeen and he had come to the same conclusion about what Lord Krishna accomplished and taught.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Apr 2010 22:06

Prem, The Sikh scholar should be called "Gnani" instead of Maskeen.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 29 Apr 2010 23:46

Ramana ji, the nice fellow died recently. He was called Giani Sant Singh Maskeen, in the community he was known simply as Maskeen Sahib.

naren · Post by **naren** » 30 Apr 2010 10:26

B ji,

Analyzing Krishna as a politician/strategist is a certainly a very interesting view. Your thoughts on that is very interesting & certainly very awe inspiring when I imagine Krishna on that role.

But in matters of faith, I have my own view and I also respect others view even if it contradicts mine. As SV said, Man progresses from truth to truth and not from error to truth.

brihaspati wrote:Since Krishna has to convene a war to establish a "principle" behind the foundation of a rashtra, surely such "principled foundations" were lacking before or when Krishna appeared on the scene.

The way I see it, Krishna wanted to "vinasaya ca duskratam" as a means to "dharma samstha panarthaya" (BG 4:8). National unification was a consequence, not the primary motive. He wanted to create a bad-a$$ war and cause huge destruction. Naturally, at the end of the war, the localized power centres were terribly weakened and there was a central govt. But I certainly would not take it as a lesson for nation-building. He caused tremendous damage to the people and it totally wiped out His own clan too. I also believe that Dharma can exist without a central political entity. We can stop here. I just wanted to share my view in the spirit of discussion, not to enforce it on anybody. We can agree to disagree

I was able to find the quote I talked about earlier. Enjaaaay.

The Future of India - Swami Vivekananda

There is a theory that there was a race of mankind in Southern India called Dravidians, entirely differing from another race in Northern India called the Aryans, and that the Southern India Brâhmins are the only Aryans that came from the North, the other men of Southern India belong to an entirely different caste and race to those of Southern India Brahmins. Now I beg your pardon, Mr. Philologist, this is entirely unfounded. The only proof of it is that there is a difference of language between the North and the South. I do not see any other difference. We are so many Northern men here, and I ask my European friends to pick out the Northern and Southern men from this assembly. Where is the difference? A little difference of language. But the Brahmins are a race that came here speaking the Sanskrit language! Well then, they took up the Dravidian language and forgot their Sanskrit. Why should not the other castes have done the same? Why should not all the other castes have come one after the other from Northern India, taken up the Dravidian language, and so forgotten their own? That is an argument working both ways. Do not believe in such silly things. There may have been a Dravidian people who vanished from here, and the few who remained lived in forests and other places. It is quite possible that the language may have been taken up, but all these are Aryans who came from the North. The whole of India is Aryan, nothing else.

Then there is the other idea that the Shudra caste are surely the aborigines. What are they? They are slaves. They say history repeats itself. The Americans, English, Dutch, and the Portuguese got hold of the poor Africans and made them work hard while they lived, and their children of mixed birth were born in slavery and kept in that condition for a long period. From that wonderful example, the mind jumps back several thousand years and fancies that the same thing happened here, and our archaeologist dreams of India being full of dark-eyed aborigines, and the bright Aryan came from — the Lord knows where. According to some, they came from Central Tibet, others will have it that they came from Central Asia. There are patriotic Englishmen who think that the Aryans were all red-haired. Others, according to their idea, think that they were all black-haired. If the writer happens to be a black-haired man, the Aryans were all black-haired. Of late, there was an attempt made to prove that the Aryans lived on the Swiss lakes. I should not be sorry if they had been all drowned there, theory and all. Some say now that they lived at the North Pole. Lord bless the Aryans and their habitations! As for the truth of these theories, there is not one word in our scriptures, not one, to prove that the Aryan ever came from anywhere outside of India, and in ancient India was included Afghanistan. There it ends. And the theory that the Shudra caste were all non-Aryans and they were a multitude, is equally illogical and equally irrational. It could not have been possible in those days that a few Aryans settled and lived there with a hundred thousand slaves at their command. These slaves would have eaten them up, made "chutney" of them in five minutes. The only explanation is to be found in the Mahâbhârata, which says that in the beginning of the Satya Yuga there was one caste, the Brahmins, and then by difference of occupations they went on dividing themselves into different castes, and that is the only true and rational explanation that has been given. And in the coming Satya Yuga all the other castes will have to go back to the same condition.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 02 May 2010 06:24

Here is my rambling about what I have searched for as the main thread in Bharatyia epics/texts/treatises :

(1) What is the main goal : seeking knowledge. This knowledge is primarily about awareness of what is self, non-self and the relationship between the two. The non-self includes everything in the universe and hence inlcudes the natural sciences we study.
(2) Method of seeking knowledge : both through the senses as well as possibly beyond the organ-sense. Knowledge should not be stationary, and previously acquired knowledge should be repeatedly tested as the very process of acquisition of knowledge could have affected or contaminated the knowledge itself. That is we may need to realize how far the context, and specific background of a particular piece of knowledge influenced that knowledge. Since organ-senses are an important tool of acquiring knowledge, having and holding a human body is an important part of seeking knowledge. Since the body can increase its range of experiences through action, action is also an important part of gaining knowledge.
(3) Preservation of previously acquired knowledge : Since previously acquired knowledge by other humans is also something that can be partly absorbed through senses, and knowledge is something to be acquired - it is crucial to ensure that knowledge is presrved in humans, and transmitted to new generations. Under the current levels of development of human biology, this means ensuring that a society capabale of reproducing humans to preserve and carry on the process of acquiring and passing on knowledge - survives.

These three factors require that we do everything to protect our society and ensure that its biological health is ensured. That we have a system of education to carry on the tradition of acquiring and adding on to that knowledge. This also means that we should not throw away older experiences surviving in our memory or records - since they can contain important clues as to under what conditions those knowledges formed. This may turn out to be useful in future scenarios where similar conditions arise. On the other hand e should not accept such knowledge blindly as applicable everywhere.

A lot of things make better sense if we try to think of the above as the guiding principles of our civilization.

The Vedas are of primary importance because they represent a search for knowledge at a specific phase of our civilization when previously acquired material knowledge, complexities of urban life and advances of technology had not yet been heavy enough to have possibly contaminated the search process and the conclusions. So this is the part that is most revealing as to the quest for understanding the non-material parts of the human experience.

The Vedas are poetry and the first expressions of human joy and awareness of a sense of life. This is why wherever human to human interactiosn are being considered, and it is desirable to reduce the non-human or material as much as possible from coming in between that interaction, it is worthwhile to look into the Vedic understanding. This is where the sentiments of the Vedic marriage vows makes sense. I feel that the Vedic approcah and sentiments expressed in the core hymns celebrating life - especially birth, marriage and even death of the physical body as an act of regenerayion of life in broader sense should be retained and revived.

The rituals should be carefully analyzed and those that retain a sense of homage to the early experience of our civilization can still be adopted. But we should take them as homage to the sentiments of our ancestors - with such a clear understanding that for example, the sheaf of grass or barley or copper coin put up as token offering are all symbols of the most important aspects of life that our ancestors were fascinated about - at that point of time. If for some reason those symbols are not available or cannot be made available, it os not a disaster. In essence, try to absorb the sentiments and feelings behind rituals and not repaet them as set in stone forever and an injunction or dogma.

Only two other aspects I think form our core belief :

How to arrange and structure our thinking about the practical action of living while we acquire knowledge? The primary start off point can be the structure of varnas as gunas - qualities to be cultivated by all humans. As brhamin to indicate the fundamental purpose of life to acquire knowledge, as a shudra to work - (thus being a sshudra becomes a core part of the fundemntal quest - for rate of acquisition of knowledge increases phenomenally when we take action) and do all the practical physical or skilled labour that is necessary to presreve the body and and the body of the society. To be productive. As a Vaishya to engage in the exchange and transport of the products of that labour or commerce in modern parlance. And to cultivate the art of war and fighting in order to defend the body and the body of the society from physical damage and destruction. All qualities to be practised and set as an objective. Some people will excel in one guna compared to others. But they should all have a minimum of all four. Almost like forcing modern kids to have abroad based exposure at school even if they will eventually specialize.

As for life after physical death, we should take it that part of our quest is also about understanding our connection to the non-self. That consciousness is part of an all encompassing entity and that we take human life to enrich ourselves in knowledge through interaction with the material world. We never really die.

Give a common outward symbol that reinforces the sense of belonging to this thought process - as a memebr of the society that collectively and individually help each other to achieve the collective and indivdual target of the fundamental quest. Since knowledge seeking is the root - the quality of having teh brahmin guna - all indviduals should take up wearing the sacred thread to show the primary importance in life given to seeking knowledge.

We should feel free to publicly and collectively express our admiration of life as the Vedic hymns do - and music and songs are an essential part of our culture. So the mass gatherings and processions where everyone joins up in singing out this admiration can very well be part of our lives.

These can be the simple, minimal core of our principles of living our lives as individuals as well as a society.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 02 May 2010 20:13

niran wrote:
Prem wrote:
Is Kalyug on the last leg , end nigh in our life time.
Worry not Saarji, there are 4 hundred thousand years still left.
lotsa time to reborn and troll BRF no?

This is another misunderstanding niran-ji and prem-ji.

Avataras can come anytime they want. They are not determined by Yuga (as in Kali, Dwapara, Treta, and Satya). Here "yuge yuge" means time and time again, as needed.

Bhagavan-Srikrishna visit us anytime. I strongly believe that he is with us all the time and giving us his strategic vision. It is our leadership that became "psuedo-secular" a.k.a Kauravas and see the kinship with gandhara

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 03 May 2010 01:12

RamYa

Only After Gandhara can come Gandh Hari ( Gandh=Dirt Hari= one who taketh away)
RK said he with be back within 300 year as purpose of his current visit was just to asses the downfall in Aryavart. Somehow i feel the events leading to major show down within a century as humanity need to wake itself from tamasic slumber and stop the fools runing around spreading their dumb ethos. A major coincident is see is the Advent of Guru Nanak exactly at the time of Babur and the Departure of Auranga /Mughal with the Gur Gobind Singh leaving the body. So the power has always been here but we lost the way to recognize, earn and use it .

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 May 2010 00:45

I know its leftist journal

Seminar on Mahabharata

Do read some of the papers.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 May 2010 00:58

Interesting news about Neanderthal-Human interaction. Could this be the basis of the vanara story. What always intrigued me was description of Tara et al vanara females who are described in human terms while male were the vanara type.

Neanderthal-Human mating genetic evidence

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 08 May 2010 01:09

Why vanaras? Neanderthals are not monkeys.

I suspect that some people I know have neanderthal ancestry.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 08 May 2010 03:45

yes I suspect too!

On a more serious note, the latest opinion is inclined to allow full functional speech capabilities for Neanderthals. Also supposed to have comparable brains (older theory had lower compared to HSS).

The south Indian scene seems to have an overlay of later or newer males from east over an older female layer. Also note that the vanara of epics are on the whole equal or superior in civilizational terms compared to their guestsfrom the north. So this is indeed intriguing.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 08 May 2010 04:16

Actually I believe neanderthals had slightly larger cranial cavity so they may have had bigger brains..

naren · Post by **naren** » 08 May 2010 05:23

ramana wrote:Interesting news about Neanderthal-Human interaction. Could this be the basis of the vanara story. What always intrigued me was description of Tara et al vanara females who are described in human terms while male were the vanara type.

Neanderthal-Human mating genetic evidence

Swami Vivekananda's explanation:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Compl ... e_Ramayana

The Aryans did not know who were the inhabitants of these wild forests. In those days the forest tribes they called "monkeys", and some of the so-called "monkeys", if unusually strong and powerful, were called "demons".

There's also the possibility of "island dwarfism" and "island gigantism" in Sri Lanka & then migration to South India.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 08 May 2010 05:28

ramana wrote:Interesting news about Neanderthal-Human interaction. Could this be the basis of the vanara story. What always intrigued me was description of Tara et al vanara females who are described in human terms while male were the vanara type.

Neanderthal-Human mating genetic evidence

Or that Vanaras could be just the tribal who were yet to get assimilated into then society. As per the current (being the keyword) evidences, Asia did not fall under the Neanderthal's habitat, at least the sub-continent. If one were to consider parts of West or Central Asia, then King Rama and Ramayanam has to be pushed to those regions as well.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 08 May 2010 07:28

Carl_T wrote
Actually I believe neanderthals had slightly larger cranial cavity so they may have had bigger brains..

Yes. Though they are still having a technical fight over exact magnitude. So I said comparable.

naren wrote
Swami Vivekananda's explanation:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Compl ... e_Ramayana

Quote:
The Aryans did not know who were the inhabitants of these wild forests. In those days the forest tribes they called "monkeys", and some of the so-called "monkeys", if unusually strong and powerful, were called "demons".

This was based on the then knowledge of Aryans being "foreign" to the subcontinent and of not knowing about "natives" in the forests or being non-forest dwellers right from the beginning even if indigenous [which would be rather strange]. I find both incompatible with his position of Aryans being indigenous to India. If they were so all pervasive and native they must have known forest dwellers especially because they themselves show intimate knowledge of a forest life. But the problem is that the actual word Swamyji intended was "rakshasa" who are clearly mentioned in the texts as having common parentage with devas, and therefore would have been known to Aryans. Ravana, Kubera are descended from Pulastya, or rakshasas in general from Shiva (Rudra == Nrrta) and are therefore mixed in with descendants of Manu, and therefore connected to Aryans.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 08 May 2010 09:59

Weren't the forest dwellers/tribals called nishadas, with ekalavya being one of them?

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 08 May 2010 12:07

Maybe they were just monkeys....talking animals, especially organized in the form of kingdoms are not unusual in stories, why link them to neanderthals?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 11 May 2010 19:52

Maybe they were just monkeys....talking animals, especially organized in the form of kingdoms are not unusual in stories, why link them to neanderthals?

perhaps because there is very likely a historical core to the 'story' and it is enlightening to propose valid historical hypotheses in order to unravel the real history from the myth ? there are just too many associations between ramayana and local narratives for it to be just a story.

IMHO the vanara were a tribe with a monkey totem who aligned with the ayodhan kingdom. animal totems were very commonplace in proto-historic cultures, such a tribe could have gone to battle in monkey masks and a false tail, for example and other tribes would have referred to them by their totem animal. we have a perfect example of this very concept in the naga people described in the ancient literature.

in time however, the real historical basis would have been lost (it's also likely that ancient chroniclers had no need to explain who the vanaras were, it was well known that they were a forest dwelling tribe rather than literally monkeys) in subsequent revisions of the text and as the civilizational memory of the totem culture died away.