Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

[Klaus]

^^^ Also the NDA lost the 2004 round inspite of being in power in MP and Rajasthan. It just validates the theory that D-I is not sustainable without Greater Magadha/Gangetic plains. If one reads Atri ji's excellent post (viewtopic.php?f=24&t=5479&start=0) on the Saptha Sindhu, the Narmada-Tapti and the Mahanadi act as facilitators for the interaction between Gangetic plains and Krishna Godavari region.

This role play is more so for the Mahanadi since it was navigable, providing maritime trade opportunities supplementary to the Gangetic delta, this might be one of the reasons why Kalinga was so coveted, another reason was that Gangetic delta might have not remained under a single ruler and hence the issue of cross border taxation might have risen, the Mahanadi posed no such problems being entirely under Kalinga rule.

PS: Though rivers have been navigable throughout most of human history, wind-powered or sailboats were necessary for trade in large volumes. It is only a handful of riverine environments which also fulfilled this essential criteria so that boats could travel upstream with goods.

[Klaus]

Could gurus enlighten us on the nature and extent of the naval battle which is said to have taken place between Bharata (brother of Rama) and a nishadha king in the erstwhile Gulf of Katch region?

Apparently this has been documented in great detail in Hanumath Ramayana, there are also vague references to this in Sindhi and Rajasthani folklore. It seems to me somehow that a lot of literature and data about the Saraswathi civilisation and culture has been wilfully destroyed so as to keep the status of the Ganges intact.

[Pulikeshi]

It would be awesome to create a video OR a series of maps and upload it on youtube.. we need to do something about this knowledge which is being generated here.. I am trying to create a series of articles and currently working on one to show these memes and how they affect India.. (as implied in B-ji's last post).

Atri and B,

All I am suggesting is the following:

1. Tie up the data and avoid jumping to modern conclusions. Keep the results relevant to the data and time period.
Meaning: Present the theory for what happened during MB timeframe first. Perhaps the Ramayana timeframe next.

2. Once a lot of intermediate dots have to be connected from mythological timeframe to Sarawathi civilization, to Iron Age (Janapadas, Maghada, Nanda, Maurya, etc), to churn of the middle ages (Palas, Rastrakutas, Harsha, Karavela, etc.), to the Islamic, to the British, to present day India. Then if any cycles or trends can be highlighted. The extrapolation right now is based on scant data and conjectures (nothing wrong with that as a starting point, but one needs to prove it)

3. Right now, there seems to be a jump from Mythology (of the ancient) to the Mythology (of the modern Indian Politics) -> Does not compute!

4. There is more to what has sustained Dharma than just D-I or any East-West axis.
Each and every areas of Indian sub-continent has contributed, however, there have been only a few power centers. Many of them seem to be tied to river plains (no surprise) choke points. India as drawn by the British has at best not taken this into account, and at worst maliciously caused weakness. A lot of natural flows of goods (channels) were disrupted. The first order is to identify the historic linkages, next is to identify what is broken, then comes the step of cure. The natural power centers all over Bharatha varsha needs to be nurtured back as new centers develop due to changes.

[RamaY]

^
+1

There is limited information. AFAIK the emphasis of puranic Indic literature is on establishment of Dharma than anything else. Necessary affiliations were formed to achieve that singular goal.

The versions/examples I mentioned before were done keeping this in mind; not the geographical Bharat alone. Bharata Varsha is where Vedas reign prime.

[sampat]

can tantra be practiced without any guru guidance?

i would be very careful with that stuff. My grandmother had healing powers and villagers visited her for cures and such. She was also said to have powers to sermon rain at her will and once she was not able to stop the rain so she had to give up her life. Now, i don't know if this was all stories for us kids or truth but stories like this definitely made all the kids in our household more spiritually inclined.

I have also seen friend's uncle going to shamshan ghatt, every night to learn tantra vidhya from some trantrik. According to his uncle, they used to burn human body with ONE matchstick. Later on, friend's grandfather found out about his uncle's adventures and gave him a sound beating with lathi, poor guy broke his legs when he jumped out of second floor window to escape his father. That ended all his dream of becoming tantrik and last i heard, he had joined Indian army.

Before, you enter tantra practice read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhumavati

i think it will be better to do it under the guidance of competent Guru.

I have few other stories to share but maybe they are OT and moreover, BR will be labeled andhvishwasi if we start discussing it here

[Pulikeshi]

RamaY,

Depends on your sources and depends on your definition of Dharma.
The controversial Dharma is not religious or spiritual at all
It is what establishes security and stability - therefore it includes geo-politics.

May want to ponder on why Janapadas were allowed and came into being...
Why the Rajan (not King, but leader) was still subject to the rules of Dharma.
Catallaxy is the closest modern Westerns have come to understanding Dharma...
Each king/Kshatirya made alliances in self interest.... many times Dharmic, not always!
Heck even the MB is full of Adharmic acts to enable Dharma to win!

Notice the definition of Bharata Varsha is more solid in the peninsula, the East and North.
Breakdown of the structure occurs to the North and West.... it is entirely geograhic.
There are networks/channels and grand trunks - in a continuous process of evolution.
This is true of entire IOR and goes further than where the Indian plate meets the Asian plate.

There is also the matter of boot-strapping when civilization radiated from the
Saraswathi-Gujarat region outwards into rest of the sub-continent... the mythology
we grew up with has traces of this flow. Further you can see through different ages
different channels opened up and took shape to cover the entire sub-continent.
Of course I've not made much of the outward flow of civilization to the North and West... that one needs even more work.

I am not convinced that enough data has been collected yet.
I certainly agree that a good start has been made.... Kudos to some of you...

[brihaspati]

sampat wrote
i think it will be better to do it under the guidance of competent Guru.
I have few other stories to share but maybe they are OT and moreover, BR will be labeled andhvishwasi if we start discussing it here

The "smashana ghaat"/burning-funeral-pyre type of tantra is based on the requirement of shava-sadhana. Apart from that the karoti+shiba+vama+ashob (skull+jackal+woman+alcohol) is just one way in the many different forms of tantrika methods. It typically gives the so-called nimna-parjaya siddhi's - low level "attainments" like turning ordinary water sweet, or ash taste like molasses, or making scents out of thin air. But this is not really necessary. It depends on what primarily is "inside you". It is more a matter of developing the "latent" rather than gaining anything from outside. In that sense, you can do a "tantra" even in your bedroom. Main point is a kind of introversion method that focuses all attention. You can try it simply by drawing two or one circle in the wall above your headboard of the bed, sit traight and concentrate on those two circles and let you mind go blank. Breathing control is more difficult but be very careful about this. If you get too practised, it can start off slowing down when you are involved in something that requires physical alertness. Instead of the circle, I would reco the flame of a candle or an oil lamp in total darkness otherwise to be a very good initiation. This may also help in projecting into distances and over time gaps.

But frankly the more exoctic settings and upakaranas are not "necessary" but just one of the "sufficient" methods.

[RamaY]

A discussion between a spiritual father F, and son S (source: http://www.srividya.org)

S: What is my relationship to you?

F: None, really. You are given by Siva and Shakti to me. Mom and I happen to be your trustees.

S: What is your role then?

F: Same as that of a trustee. To help you mature from beast to human to divine being.

S: What is the purpose?

F: As far as I know, it is just a game. We are playing roles in a drama.

S: If I decide to be a bad guy?

F: That is your choice. Who am I to say no?

S: You won't correct me?

F: No.

S: Why not?

F: I choose to support your decision. If you choose to play the role of a bad guy, I will support you to be very good at that.

S: What is your message to me?

F: Do as you like. Findout who you are.

S: Wont you help me find out?

F: Of course I will. Here is a hint. You are much bigger than who you think you are. You are the creator of the universe.

S: How can that be? The world is very big, ten to the power of 48 times my size.

F: It is.

S: How can the small create the big?

F: Small and big are illusions.

S: How so?

F: Let me ask you a question, for a change. Where was this world before you were born?

S: I don't know

F: Where will it be after you die?

S: Ditto.

F: OK. Could it be that the world you see exists only in your mind?

S: Possible

F: Then you are its creator because it eists only in your mind.

S: Possible, but...

F: But, what?

S: I am so small, the world is so big...

F: Now, now. Haven't we agreed that small and big are illusions?

S: May be, but they are real to me.

F: Why?

S: If I am the creator, the world should obey me. But it does not. I feel powerless to control it.

F: Mom and I created you. Do you listen to us and obey?

S: Why should I obey you?

F: Then why should the world you created obey you?

S: But I have seperate life of my own

F: Exactly. The world you created does not obey you, because it has a life its own.

S: You are tricking me with words.

F: Yes I am

S: Give me an experience of being the whole world.

F: I can't give you that experience. But I can tell you how to get one.

S: Fair enough.

F: This is going to be a little long. You have patience to listen now?

S: Willing.

F: You are familiar with three states of your being: awake, dreaming, and asleep.

When you awake, you can know and act. Time is flowing continuously
When you are dreaming, you know but can't act. Time is going in jumps
When you are asleep, you cant know, cant act. Time also sleeps

Time is like space. Life is its property, like energy-matter.
Time arranges things.
Things without life move things to disorder, bad acts.
Things with life move towards order, good acts.
Time moves forward, towards more disorder.

Life makes time move backward, to more order.
Are you with me still?

S: Sure

F: Good, Time is father, Life is mother. Time is Siva, Life is Power, Shakti, OK?

S: May be (starts yawning).

F: Understand Shakti to go into the source, the state of perfect order when there is only one thing; you may call it Sivashakt. What is in a name? You could call it Siva, you could call it Shakti; both are same.

S: What does all this have to do with my experiencing my bigger self?

F: I am coming to that. I told you about being awake, dreaming, and sleeping right?

S: Yes, may be.

F: But I didn't tell you about waking dream, and waking sleep did I?

S: No.

F: Waking dream is when you are manifesting an imaginary world. Because you are awake, you have control over your dream, you can redirect it the way you want. Lucid dreaming manifests.

Waking sleep has two parts.
1. Thinking in words (memory or mind) is absent, feeling body movements are present. This is called yoga.
2. The other part is when both words and feelings are absent, but consciousness alone is. This is pure witness state. This is the pure witness state. This is called Samadhi.

S: Can you please summarize all this?

F: Sure . The way to Samadhi consists of three steps.
1. Yoga Nidra (consicous dream, astral interactions)
2. Nata Nidra (conscious feeling, dynamic mediation of Nataraja)
3. Samadhi (pure consciousness when no object is visible, antarmukha witness)

S: Good. But why is pure consciousness state important?

F: Because you are the witness of yourself. Ask the question: Who is your witness? The answer is the world. So, when you are the world, you are identifying with the world.

S: I am the creator state?

F: Yes. Then it is true to say that. Then the world obeys you, because you are everywhere, at all times, and in all energies (including matter. Because you exist at all times, you become deathless.


S: So, when the world does not obey me, I am saying that I am different from the world, separated from it, and the world obeys me, agreeing with me that it is not separate.

What does all this have to do with Sri Chakra?

F: I have been talking about the first three enclosures, the square-waking awareness. 16 petals-dreaming imagining awareness, 8 petals-sleeping unconsciousness. The inner circle has to be approachd through puttin thinking mind to sleep, and feeling mind to sleep, putting both to sleep, just abiding in a pure consciousness. Then you enter the world state, and then the energies making this world, the trinity and beyond. All this is Srichakra.

S: Is there some course on achieving "I am creator" state of Samadhi?

F: Sure. Pray to Shakti to reveal Her secrets and be your companion-mentor-guide-guru. She will surely help you. If your compassionate mother doesn't help you, who will?

S: What about science?

F: All science is mother, Saraswathi. She can teach you. Love and Nature are also your mothers. They can also mentor you. Siva dances because Shiva gives him life.

S: One final question. If I choose to be good, will you help me?

F: What more can I ask for??

[brihaspati]

Pulikeshi ji,
Ganges appears to be geologically steadier than the western wash. The western wash increases temporarily for say acouple of thousand years after glacial retreat when atmospheric moisture increases. So the desertification is cyclical. The obvious increased rainfall period is too short on geological timescales to sustain "civilizational" stability.

Looking at the earlier "myths" we see a predominance of the Ganges.

Even starting from the foundational myth of the "modern" Kurus in MB, we see the roving eyes of Shantanu settle on "Ganga". The Ganga based powere were too strong for Shantanu to ignore. Taking the story at multiple levels as they were perhaps originally encoded as :

1st layer : literal: A Kuru prince catches sight of the curves of a local lady who perhaps belongs to a culture having strong matriarchal or matrilineal legal system and agrees to the matriarchal society's terms and conditions. This meant either a literal sacrifice of earlier borns, or an actual condition by which the sons had to be given up to the matriarchal society who "owned" them. The fact that an obviously patriarchal Kuru scion agrees to this implies the Ganga civilizations are powerful enough.

When the Kuru's try to impose their own laws, Ganga breaks the "marital" agreement and the Kurus get to keep one son. But it still implies Kurus not pwerful enough to revert the agreement.

2nd layer : translate "marital relationship" as treaties between societies and nations or tribes in the ancient world. Taking this into Shantanu Ganga dynamic we see that the Kurus were not powerful enough to break down the Ganga powers and impose treaties on their favourite lines.

The withdrawal of Devabrata from succession probably therefore indicates internal politics of Kurus by which a racist and ethnic discrimination hardline is setting in within the Kuru clans, realizing the futility of subduing and manipulating the Ganga's through diplomatic means.

3rd layer : Civilization differences : There is a possible indication that the Ganga civilization was superior in material/skill and value terms than the Kurus in the story of Devabrata. Note that with the exception of Bhisma's supposed silence at the public molestation of Draupadi, Bhisma represents in general ethical conduct or more a insistence on duty and agreed code of conduct - which is the foundation of civilization apart from technological progress [ values more important because if we think of it, the Nazis managed spectacular tehcnological progress or say Soviets under Stalin - but do we dub them "advanced" civilization?!!!]

We note that the code of conduct for war breaks down after Bhisma retires from field and he was the only one insistent on such a code of conduct.

The story is perhaps saying that the root culture of Devabrata- the Ganga was at a higher level value wise or ethics wise.

Ethics is a luxury that can be indulged more by powerful and rich societies than hungry, starving or resource crunched societies.

[Abhi_G]

Ethics is a luxury that can be indulged more by powerful and rich societies than hungry, starving or resource crunched societies.

Pardon me for being OT, but since we are talking about MB, it boils down to understanding the nuances and the applications in current context. The above is an extremely complex assertion. Some people relate islamic invasions and atrocities on Hindus to hunger in the desert sands of arabia - usually the marxist leaning. That seems to make all atrocities on the victim justified - however unjust the methods may be; even today for example J&K. In the end, more "civilized" societies are destroyed by lesser number of less civilized but determined aggressors. Is it meant to be that way or there is something more subtle that needs to be understood?

[brihaspati]

I am not making a normative statement. I am saying that ethical considerations are more a concern for rich and powerful societies. Guilt and ethics all come from enjoyment of security and wealth. I am not justifying the 7th century desert cultures claims to loot and rape.

When a society ahs already attained power and wealth, it can afford to be ethical because it can retaliate and impose that ethics and ordered interaction. Or say tactical flexibility is no longer necessary to satisfy survival or biological instincts.

I am against blind following of ethics without realizing when, how and for whom those ethical values were created. Because as we discussed a long time ago, sometimes strict following of dharma in the short term leads to acceptance of adharma over the long term. Whereas sometimes short term adharma can ensure long term dharma. Here dharma is taken to mean commonly accepted code of conduct - and I do not mean it as universal and permanent and in a normative sense.

[Pratyush]

Guru logs,

I wish to start a study of the vedas, as I have just discovered the 4 vedas along with a lot of puranic kathas in my Parents collection, it is in sanskrit with hindi translation. My question is which one should I start with first.

Rigved, Samved, Yajusrved or Arthved.

Will highly appreciate your guidence.

[Carl_T]

Start with the Rgved, because that is how the texts work, they tend to reference each other going back to the rgved, as rigvedic concepts are developed further in the brahmanas then the puranas and so on etc. You will see some interesting things like seeing the same stories appear in different versions and the distinct changes in Hindu philosophy as you move from text to text and through time.

Not gonna lie, it's not exactly fun reading.

[Pulikeshi]

B,

Lets not confuse Ethics for Dharma.

Manu VIII-15

Dharma yeva hato hanti, Dharmo rakshati rakshitaha
Tasmadharmo na hanthavyo ma no Dharmo hanthobaditam

Those who destroy Dharma get destroyed
Dharma protects those how protect it
Therefore Dharma should not be destroyed
to prevent us from being destroyed as a consequence

Madhavacharya, the minister of Hakka & Bukka of Vijayanagar Empire in Parashara Smrithi:

Abyudya nishayase sadhanatvena daarayathi - ithi Dharma
Sa cha lakshana-pramanabyam chodanasutrevyavasthapithaha

Dharma is that which sustains and ensures progress and welfare of all.
Dharma is promulgated in the form of commands

Dharma != Ethics

[Atri]

^^^



http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 61#p902561

[brihaspati]

B,

Lets not confuse Ethics for Dharma.

Manu VIII-15

Dharma yeva hato hanti, Dharmo rakshati rakshitaha
Tasmadharmo na hanthavyo ma no Dharmo hanthobaditam

Those who destroy Dharma get destroyed
Dharma protects those how protect it
Therefore Dharma should not be destroyed
to prevent us from being destroyed as a consequence

Madhavacharya, the minister of Hakka & Bukka of Vijayanagar Empire in Parashara Smrithi:

Abyudya nishayase sadhanatvena daarayathi - ithi Dharma
Sa cha lakshana-pramanabyam chodanasutrevyavasthapithaha

Dharma is that which sustains and ensures progress and welfare of all.
Dharma is promulgated in the form of commands

Dharma != Ethics

What I wrote was : I am against blind following of ethics without realizing when, how and for whom those ethical values were created. Because as we discussed a long time ago, sometimes strict following of dharma in the short term leads to acceptance of adharma over the long term. Whereas sometimes short term adharma can ensure long term dharma. Here dharma is taken to mean commonly accepted code of conduct - and I do not mean it as universal and permanent and in a normative sense.

Strictly speaking, most of those who have attempted to define "dharma" have done it tautologically [which is what is done in Manu Smriti]- which is the worst possible way of defining anything. So I clarified the sense in which I was using the term in my post.

Madhavacharya is faced with the concrete task of implementing the ephemeral concept, and he reveals exactly what the problem is. That which sustains and ensures progress and welfare of all : do we see what is implicit in that short expression? There are presumed value-preference hierarchies or orderings - which in modern terms would translate into utility. Progress and welfare have to be measurable by some value system or preference ordering to allow judging whether a certain desired quantity is increasing or not. What is progress and welfare for one may not be progress or welfare for another. Goats could be the height of progress and welfare for a certain society, for another the number of wives or sex-slaves for a man, for another the quantity of gold stored underground in a pot never to be used in lifetime. Therefore the above statement is actually making the assumption that everyone and every society has the same value-assignment procedure.

The possible awareness of this underlying conflict is there in the second line : it takes the form of command. Which in turn implies that an authority is needed to impose this underlying value system on all to homogenize the value-prefernce system across individuals and societies.

This need for authoritarian imposition shows that dharma is after all the implementation of principles not intrinsic to everyone and all societies, and therefore based on the value-system of a proper subgroup who have the power to impose it or get it commonly accepted - whether by force, influence, or persuasion or a combination of all three. The value-system of a subgroup of a society is the "ethics" of that subgroup.

[RamaY]

Guru logs,

I wish to start a study of the vedas, as I have just discovered the 4 vedas along with a lot of puranic kathas in my Parents collection, it is in sanskrit with hindi translation. My question is which one should I start with first.

Rigved, Samved, Yajusrved or Arthved.

Will highly appreciate your guidence.

If you are in India find a vedic guru and learn from them. Veda mantras need proper pronounciation as well and their meaning changes if you pronounce them incorrect. Do your reading of books at home in parallel.

Often times the study of Vedas start with suktas (Pursha, Sri, Durga etc.,), Mantrapushpam, Sri Rudram etc.,

You will enjoy that study as you read them swara-yuktam.

*

If you are in massa land, many temples now have veda classes on weekends. That is a good start.

[Pratyush]

Will try to find a guru and then learn from him. The problem is that the office timing is an A$$

[RamaY]

Will try to find a guru and then learn from him. The problem is that the office timing is an A$$

You are starting the journey, which is a great thing!

I know a friend of mine started learning Vedas in massaland. One class per week in the weekends... and during weekdays, he would repeat what he learned while driving to work...

I am yet to start... perhaps next year...

[Mauli]

Will try to find a guru and then learn from him. The problem is that the office timing is an A$$

if you know Hindi visit the following link and download all the audio files related to Upnishads. Starting to listen them will be a good start.

http://maharajshri.net/

and then goto "online video" section. Its free. If you want to perform online self study of vedas in Vedic tradition there is no better place than this. Otherwise you can opt for Maxmuller and his present day progenies, even many cloaked in Bhagwa color.

[Pulikeshi]

B,

This one we have may have to agree to disagree on:

Let us start with where we agree, to start with some definition:
A valid argument is one where there is no way to make every premise true and make the conclusion false. That is, an argument is valid, if and only if, you get a tautology when you connect all the premises with ANDs and append an 'implies' to the conclusion.

All that means is you can prove something if all your hypothesis and conclusion are not tautologies. Inherently, there is nothing either right or wrong about tautologies.

Your explanation of the problem with Manu's tautology which is unprovable and much later Madvacharya's explanation is correct. However, you are missing the point entirely.

Ethics addresses questions perhaps as complex as Dharma can, but they are not the same!
Yes, ethics is a common value-system. However, Dharma has a very interesting history.

Dharmic laws (sorry for the Hindus who believe their religion grants them absolute freedom)
are established for that kala (time), stala (geography), jana (people or tribe), etc.
There are sections of Dharma (Sthuti) that are immutable and sections (Smrithi) that evolves periodically.
That is Dharma is based on the texts of the Vedas, Vendangas and Dharma Sashtras.
The diversity of opinion in these texts have a FORMAL way of reconciliation for the specifics of a particular case.
The methodology is well established and anyone versed in the history of Indian law is aware of it.
Show me something similar with Ethics?

What I mean to say is -
If you think Ethically or Dharmically about a problem, you may reach a similar conclusion.
However, one need not come to a similar conclusion. What is ethical and fair need not be Dharmic and vice versa.
That is structure of Dharma is vastly different from that of Ethics.
Of course you are welcome to argue that they are the same.

[ramana]

I dont know if I had posted links to this book here:

Political history of ancient India, from the accession of Parikshit to the extinction of the Gupta dynasty (1923)

By: Raychaudhuri, HemaChandra

[Pulikeshi]

^ Ramana, timely - should be a nice bed time read. I've meant to read this book for a while.

[brihaspati]

Pulikeshi ji,
there is no escaping Godel's incompleteness theorem. Even in the resolution procedures to overcome contradictory injunctions or values, ultimately they always invoke this or that axiomatically "higher" principle. This is what turns out in every such legal dialogue. Sometimes commentators are not even aware of it. They are faced with the same wall as Islamists are but are subject to a much greater self-criticism than the islamists. They have to interpret something belonging to a different time and make future applications or interpretations time consistent [interpret in a way such that future interpretations of interpretations will be consistent].

So what appeared in my own study, was that ultimately the prevailing dominant interests of the most dominant subgroup chose which axioms to pull out of the bag and call it dharma. This is their subgroup value system - which is where I feel the similarity is to "ethics". Ethics are merely axioms invoked to derive codes of behaviour and interactions, which are not themselves justified by any other values. In this sense I called "dharma" of a period and a society - the ethics of the then dominant subgroup. If you try to find the commonalities in even the shruti part, the number of common axioms are very few -primarily dealing with relationship between "atma" - body - action and cosnequence. Even these differ from text to text.

A good illustration of how contradictions were resolved would be Betala-Panchabingshati. Every story ultimately throws up an axiomatic principle. But if you compare some of them with earlier texts - there are problems. One example comes to mind that is the story of Manaswi. Here the cohabitation is approved and given status as valid legal marriage and superseding the official marriage, even though different texts have different ideas and definitions of this "gandharva" marriage, and according to some of them Manaswi's cohabitation with the princess could not be one of the valid marriages - even in Gandharva form. The principle if of course the assumption of validity of consent. But then consent is not necessarily the underlying superior axiom - because then other forms of marriage become invalid.

[KrishG]

I dont know if I had posted links to this book here:

Political history of ancient India, from the accession of Parikshit to the extinction of the Gupta dynasty (1923)

By: Raychaudhuri, Hem Chandra

Seems like an excellent read! Will go through it. Thanks for posting Ramana-saar!

[ramana]

Only thing is recall he wrote in 1923 so the timeline is off but his collation of the regnal lists and some of the key events are still valid.

[jamwal]

Can anyone please guide me to any online source or any easily available book that deals with the atheist philosophy in Hindusim ?

[Pulikeshi]

Jamwal,

Will post some more when I get time... but could help but post this:

Gori Girl's take on Atheist 2 Hindu

[Atri]

Can anyone please guide me to any online source or any easily available book that deals with the atheist philosophy in Hindusim ?

For starters check this out.

[brihaspati]

Pulikeshi!
the evil tempter! you ensnared me into making a comment to the lady!

[RamaY]

^ Bji, is that you in those gori garl pics

[brihaspati]

nah - thats a kid!

[RamaY]

just kidding Bji

That long essay, quoting Hiranyagarbha, red background, and the groom hiding his face... lots of resemblance

[Pulikeshi]

^

This is a good one! back to serious topics at hand....

Jamwal,

My favorite is Sarvadarshana Samgraha - Madhavacharya (Vidyaranya) the guru of
Hakka/Bukka of Vijayanagar fame and the Samkaracharya of Sringeri.
Most of the internet based writeups seem to have borrowed verbatim his commentary
of Carvaka, Samkya, etc. schools of 'Atheistic' Dharmic thought.

Sarvadarshana Samgraha

The above may be a bit too much, but it is a good solid read.

[brihaspati]

Is not that an exposition of atheism from "opposition"? Its difficult to get the original version from the atheist side.

[RamaY]

I was looking at these pics and this thought came to my mind. Is this replay of Saraswathi story?

Paki flood images, before and after

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Natura ... p?id=45091

Bji, apologies, if I went too far...

[RamaY]

In Ramayana we see Jabali giving "aethist" logic to Rama in order to stop him fromgoing to forests and accept coronation when Bharata pleads for the same. Rama categorically denies that path as Adharmic.

In Mahabharata, Charvaka (means aethist IMO) argues with Dharmaraja to stop him from taking over the throne after Kurukshetra war, blaming him as war mongerer. Other Brahmins get angry and kill Charvaka by creating fire from their eyes; saying he was adharmic.

AFAIK, aethism was never denied or prohibited in SD but it was never accepted ad Dharmic. Any concept/darshana that did not accept Vedas as standard, is not SD and is adharmic. It is a different story that aethists were not prosecuted.

To my knowledge even Vedanta (there is only one, that is you) demands existence of god, till the seeker becomes that Sat. Once seeker reaches that state he is God

this is where Gautama the Buddha failed. He understood his atma-tatva (self-realization) but couldn't get god realization as he didn't accept existence of God.

Tolerance of aethism as a darshana is different and acceptance of it's Vedicness is different IMO.

JMHT

[brihaspati]

I was looking at these pics and this thought came to my mind. Is this replay of Saraswathi story?

Paki flood images, before and after

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Natura ... p?id=45091

Bji, apologies, if I went too far...

No, no that was great! Did not mind at all. Wondered though at why he was moving his face away so much from cam. Looking at ground more - seems to be under social embarassment. In similar situation I looked up boldly. The lady appears more confident - which is also what is expected. Because she had to make a greater jump than the man. A certain threshold of commitment has to be crossed fro the woman from such a background to cross-over.

[brihaspati]

Sankhyo would be the closest to what we understand as "atheism" from within the Vedic. If you think into it, almost all the subsequent "atheistic" schools derive fundamentally from Sankhyo.

One of the problems of using western terms like "god" is problematic. "God" in the western sense, was never really present in the Vedic. The closest that comes is "deva" - in spite of all shenanigans and lofty painting of image in abstract terms - it is still after all a reflection of humanoid flaws. But devas are not "atman/parabrahma" - they are as much part of creation and design as mere humans.

The Indic "atheist" schools typically deny the claims made on behalf of the "devas" by interested schools of organized priesthood and their demand for rituals. They are still "Vedic" if we consider the subtle difference in meaning between western "god" and Indian deva on the one hand - and Vedic "Brahman" (not braahman).

[Atri]

X-posting from deracination thread...

About God, Gods and Devas

The terms like Bhagwaan, Ishwara are used liberally in Indic texts while referring to some supernatural power which manifests itself in some form OR as a formless force. With translation of texts into English, the words like God, Gods were introduced as synonyms of the aforementioned Sanskrit words.

However, one word which predates all these "adjectives" is the word "Dev (देव)". The word Dev comes from word-root "Div" which means "Luminiscent". In other words, an entity OR a person OR a force which radiant (tejaswi). The word Dev is the parent word for "Daeva (the evil forces in Zoroastrian literature)", for Greek "Theos", for Latin "Deus". Dev is the root for the name of Zeus in Greek Pantheon. Thus, outside India, the derivatives of the word "Dev" is specifically used for certain supernatural forces.

This trend is however broken in India. While the noun Dev is used for supernatural forces and natural forces which are imagined in personified form (agni, varuna, Indra, Vishnu, Shiva, Buddha etc); it was not limited to them. We see the liberal usage of the word "Dev" while addressing men of honour, kings, sages, knowledgeable and rich men. Thus, similar to the noun "Aarya" which signifies nobility and aristocracy, the noun "Dev" refers to a being who possesses some quality which makes him "shine (literally and/or figuratively)".

The words like Sur, Dev all refer to "Shining". Thus, when Nasadiya sukta (Rigveda 10.129) proclaims all "Devas" were born much later than the moment of creation, it refers to all such people and supernatural forces. Thus, even while the figures from Indian "Itihaasa" (E.g.Raam, Krishna, and other characters) are referred to as "dev" in the literature, it is illogical to conclude on this evidence alone that they are ishwara.

The word Ishwara OR Eesh literally means Master, Lord. The word Bhagwaan literally means the "divider". Bhakti means to divide one's "self" infinitely so that no existence of "I" remains in the process. And Bhagwaan is the divider of this infinitesimal division. Prabhu refers to Pra+Bhu (One who exists intensely); in other words Supreme Truth, Satya.

Thus, we have established the true meanings of words which are commonly used in Indic literature while referring to both supernatural forces in universe and talented people in society.

Meaning of God

The Proto-Germanic meaning of *ǥuđán and its etymology is uncertain. It is generally agreed that it derives from a Proto-Indo-European neuter passive perfect participle *ǵʰu-tó-m. This form within (late) Proto-Indo-European itself was possibly ambiguous, either derived from a root *ǵʰeu̯- "to pour, libate" (Sanskrit huta, see hotṛ), or from a root *ǵʰau̯- (*ǵʰeu̯h2-) "to call, to invoke" (Sanskrit hūta). Sanskrit hutá = "having been sacrificed", from the verb root hu = "sacrifice", but a smallish shift of meaning could give the meaning "one to whom sacrifices are made."

Depending on which possibility is preferred, the pre-Christian meaning of the Germanic term may either have been (in the "pouring" case) "libation" or "that which is libated upon, idol" — or, as Watkins opines in the light of Greek χυτη γαια "poured earth" meaning "tumulus", "the Germanic form may have referred in the first instance to the spirit immanent in a burial mound" — or (in the "invoke" case) "invocation, prayer" (compare the meanings of Sanskrit brahman) or "that which is invoked". - From Wiki.

Translation as synonyms.

On the lighter note, we observe that according to this etymology of the word "god", it refers to Hotaara OR Hutaashana or "Agni". Thus, if we act as grammar nazis , then God = Agni and hence we can proudly declare that there is no God but "Agni". (think of this in context of Islamic Shahada, it is fun).

Coming back to topic. With time, the word God was used as the word for the middle-eastern diety of Yahveh/Allah in his pristine monotheistic form with all its positive and negative attributes. The "panch-naamaa" of the Abrahmic god is done by Prof. Richard Dawkins in his book "The God Delusion". I won't go into that, since that is outside the scope of this article.

What I would like to do is draw the attention of the gentle readers towards the discrepancy of using the term "God" as synonyms of Deva. I am talking about the psychological equation of Abrahmic God with Indic Ishwara and devas in the process of translation. The metaphors, the adjectives, the similies and the arguments which are used by western system for and against the existence of "God" started being used as it is, in Indic context. We have a huge problem of Christian missionaries competing for the souls to harvest and indulging in mass-conversions using such misleading and specious translations which are most of the times used for defamation of Indic historical and mythological characters which were referred to as "Devas". On the other end of the spectrum, we have new-age atheists who think that "Hinduism" is a religion which similar to Abrahmic religions and use the arguments of Western atheistic intellectuals against Abrahmic god verbatim while negating the existence of Indic "Ishwara" and "Devas".

India possessed a system of systematic proselytizing of particular form of Ishwara and systematic negation of "Ishwara's existence". We have produced far more atheists and agnostics of various degrees and varieties than west has ever produced and all of them have argued and counterargued with each other without getting confused between usage of words Bhagwaan, Ishwara, Prabhu and Deva and other nouns and adjectives.

Deracination: Deracination here, as it is clear, is misunderstanding that Indic Devas and Ishwara is equivalent to Abrahmic "God". I am not asking everyone to stop using the word "God" and start using Ishwara. That will be acting like a Paki where they started enforcing removal of the word "Khuda" from vocabulary. God is an addition to Indian linguistic richness. It need not be discarded.

But it needs to be Indianized. One needs to understand the "nature" of Indic Ishwara and Deva and the meaning of these words. These words are used in different contexts and for different entities and people who may not qualify as "Abrahmic God". Abrahmic God is a small subset of Indic "Deva" and Dev is much more than abrahmic god alone. Only then, Indics will be able to withstand the ideological assault of Abrahmics and answer back from an advantageous position.

Most of the Indic "Devas" are as human and as divine as rest of us. Not all "Devas" in India are "God" and not all "Gods" are "Devas".