Philosophy vs vedAnta

[Guest guest]

>suvidya@o... wrote:

>In one of his lectures, Dadaji Pandurang Shastri Athavale commented

>on the Western attitude that ancient Indians did not have

>philosophy. He said that Yajnavalkya (of the Upanishads) was the

>first philosopher. To the charge that Y. was a ritualist, Dadaji's

>answer was that the Indian philosophers after climbing up, do not

>kick down the ladder.

 

To my understanding the word philosophy can not be used as a

substitute for vedAnta(!) like religion is not same as dharma. We can

discuss more on this later. (Please remember discussion of sarva

dharma samabhAva on a different list in which it was concluded that

this principle does not include non-Hindu religions because they are

not dharmas).

 

In my opinion, vedAnta is not an improvement over the ritual and

there is no progression of thought from ritual to vedAnta. vedAnta

and upaniSats are an over-simplification of the karmakANDa for the

benefit of lesser mortals like us. karma kANDa is the higher

knowledge.

 

LS: I like that joke re: gita yajna. What are you upto now ;-)

 

Regards

Bhadraiah