Fwd: [Ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

[Guest guest]

Yes, your take is correct, but what sets Vedic Hinduism apart from other religions is that its most revered religious 'texts' do present a logical and coherent notion about the nature of existence that is very clearly revealed to us by great commentators like Shankara. Some Indian scholars argue that the Veda contains reference to a number of what are considered modern scientific inventions, and they may be right about that, but they may also be focusing on these sometimes obscure and not so easy to argue scientific references in the Veda and be blind to the very strong possibility that they have presented very clearly in the Vedic 'texts' what could arguably be the most perfect theory about the nature of existence ever conceived. That theory being the concept of the One or Brahman. BruceOn 19/11/2008, at 7:25 PM, ODDISILAB wrote:My take on the question is SPRITUALITY. (this issue has been long long ago settled- Read Vivekananda, Sankara,.....) -Kamlesh Kapur Tuesday, November 18, 2008 8:47 PMRE: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....Can you please explain your ideas-<what is the fundamental principle of Hinduism (Vedic Hinduism)>It is important to know the perspective of diverse people on the subject.I teach Hindu Dharma to various age groups and am currently compiling a book of lesson plans for three different age groups.You can send it as a private Email in case the group does not want to have a thread on the discussion on the subject.Also, we are helping the state dept of education to improve their core curriculum for teaching Hinduism.Regards,Kamlesh On Behalf Of Bruce DuffyTuesday, November 18, 2008 8:39 AM Re: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....Dear Kishore, earlier today, in relation to the below message, I wrote: "Dear Kishore, although I enjoyed reading it I find this message somewhat puzzling. In the below story who is the very conservative, judgmental man and who is the somewhat liberated and free spirited woman. Is it just a story or are they characters I should be familiar with?All the best, Bruce."After a second reading of the below message it came across as a rather inspired piece of writing and the author as being a lot less judgmental than I had at first judged him to be. A second reading of the below short passage saw it as beautifully capturing the awkward attempts of two people who have a respect for each other, but come from very different backgrounds and cultures trying to relate to each other and accept each others values without being too judgmental. With a bit of imagination and artistic license Radhakrishna Warrier could have the basis of a good novel here that as well as describing the attempts of a man and a woman from two very different backgrounds trying to relate to each other in a meaningful way would also give the author ample opportunity to discuss the Vedic religion and Hinduism.I would love to answer his question about what is the fundamental principle of Hinduism (Vedic Hinduism) and to be able to talk about brahman, but I am not sure his Yavana Sundari would be ready to hear about such a concept, and an important teaching of the Upanishads and Bhagavadgita is about how one should not expose a person to such knowledge if they are not fit to hear it or ready to hear it. As far as my query about the identity of the people being discussed in the message please ignore it. I was getting confused and thinking it may have been referring to members of our group.Bruce

[Guest guest]

Dear Bruce,I completely agree. However to add a perspective to define Vedic Hinduism, this is an extract from one of my articles.

Scope and Definition

What classifies one as belonging

to or outside the fold of Sanatana Dharma, is not as straight forward as

answering what classifies one as belonging to or outside the fold of any

particular community.

 

Sanatana Dharma, as it means, is

the eternal law – hence anyone by definition is included in it. It does not

classify people as followers and non-followers, believers and non-believers and

so on. Thus by definition, it is universal and all-inclusive. This is because

it talks of the natural and universal order or law, and not of the universe as

seen by any particular seer.

 

However, when seen in a social

context there do exist many classifications. The people belonging to the

civilization of Bharata share a common cultural and social base; they differ in

philosophy and few social aspects. The first such division is Vedic-Unvedic.

 

Accepting the authority of Veda

is the primary criterion, for defining a person as belonging to Veda mata. And

this covers all the branches, such as srauta, smarta, Tantric and so on.

However, there are further classifications in this: There are schools that hold

Atharva vedins as unvedic. There are schools that hold some Tantras as unvedic.

And so on. However, with all the philosophical and religious differences, they

all share one cultural-social base.

 

The schools that do not hold Veda

as a primary authority are called Unvedic. Bauddha and Jaina, though they

believe in salvation (having their own versions of Nirvana and Kaivalya

respectively) are thus called Unvedic. They do not however call the Veda as

false knowledge. Bauddha and Jaina also share the same civilizational and

philosophical base, and the worldview as Vedic religion. Hence they are very

much parts of the Bharatiya Civilization.

 

However it should not be

understood in the sense that Veda is to be taken as an “authority”. Veda is

taken as a Pramana or a source and reference for validation of knowledge. And a

school that does not accept Veda as pramana, implies that it does not believe

in statements other than those that could be validated through other means of

knowledge. There are acceptable pramanas under each school, like pratyaksha,

anumana, upamana and so on which could be translated as (perception, logic,

comparison, etc.). And the knowledge that could not be validated by these,

according to Vedic religion, is to be taken as valid, if it finds validation in

the Veda. The reasoning given for this by the followers of Vedic religion is

that Veda is knowledge of the eternal and contains that knowledge which cannot

be validated. So “something that cannot be validated can exist and still be

accepted as true” is the premise. And this pramana was not listed first; in

fact it was listed after pratyaksha and so on, to imply that you do not need

the pramana of Veda for something that can be validated through direct means.

According to Unvedic darsanas like Bauddha, only the knowledge that could be

validated by pratyaksha and anumana is to be taken as valid. Thus, the

difference is purely at a philosophical level, and not really at a religious

level. Therefore we could see there are a lot of similarities in the religious

practices of all these schools, such as Tantric and other methods. However,

high level philosophical differences had social implications, such as accepting

the Vedic social order or Varna-Ashrama dharma. Still, they all shared the same

cultural-civilizational base. However, it was easy to assimilate them in the

social order – for they did not create a new social order, and they were not different

socio-cultural systems.

 

Thus the Vedic-unvedic became a

slightly different classification, Astika - Nastika. There are two criteria

that make one an Astika or having astikya: believing in Veda’s pramanya, and

following varna-ashrama dharma. The belief in Veda translating as Astikya

borrows sense from the above explanation, of “something that cannot be

validated can exist and still be accepted as true”.

 

Accepting God or Iswara, has

never been a criterion in classifying something as Astika or Vedic or Hindu for

that matter. Owing to the differences in approach and diversity in worldviews,

accepting the existence of God has always been a matter of choice and one’s

philosophy. Diversity in attribution of supremacy to God, religious practices,

philosophical traits, none of these matter in classifying something as

Vedic-Unvedic.

 

However, Carvaka differs greatly

from all other systems including Bauddha and Jaina – they accept pratyaksha

(sense-perception) as the only pramana. Every other school, Vedic or Unvedic

accepts at least two pramanas. And they do not accept akasha as a mahabhuta or

a primordial element, which all other schools accept. Akasha is the element

which is both the origin of all the other elements and listed as an element (in

its unmanifest form). This causes all other differences such as treating body

as self, not accepting rebirth and so on. In this, Carvaka comes very close to

the western materialistic thought pattern. For this reason, not only did

Carvaka have a different philosophical but also an entirely different social

style emanating from an entirely alien worldview which is incompatible with all

the other schools.

 

However, all other Bharatiya

peoples, including tribal, should be called as sharing the same philosophical

base. Either by their practices, or by their goals, their origin lies in the

same.

Any philosophy that came from

outside, or developed independently in Bharata and came in contact with

Sanatana Dharma, has been assimilated in its comprehensive, all-inclusive system.

 

 

However, the ones that are not

assimilated are the exclusivist ideologies like Abrahamic religions. In a way,

they are as philosophically and socially incompatible with Sanatana Dharma as

Carvaka was at one time.

 

So any other school is,

technically speaking, belonging to or related to Sanatana Dharma. One one hand

there are schools like Shanmatas that are part of it, and on the other hand

there are schools like Bauddha that have origin in it but are outgrowths from

it.

Bruce Duffy <bwduffy Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 7:54:18 PMRe: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

 

Yes, your take is correct, but what sets Vedic Hinduism apart from other religions is that its most revered religious 'texts' do present a logical and coherent notion about the nature of existence that is very clearly revealed to us by great commentators like Shankara. Some Indian scholars argue that the Veda contains reference to a number of what are considered modern scientific inventions, and they may be right about that, but they may also be focusing on these sometimes obscure and not so easy to argue scientific references in the Veda and be blind to the very strong possibility that they have presented very clearly in the Vedic 'texts' what could arguably be the most perfect theory about the nature of existence ever conceived. That theory being the concept of the One or Brahman. BruceOn 19/11/2008, at 7:25 PM, ODDISILAB wrote:My take on the question is SPRITUALITY. (this issue has been long long ago settled- Read Vivekananda, Sankara,.... .) -Kamlesh KapurTuesday, November 18, 2008 8:47 PMRE: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....Can you please explain your ideas-<what is the fundamental principle of Hinduism (Vedic Hinduism)>It is important to know the perspective of diverse people on the subject.I teach Hindu Dharma to various age groups and am currently compiling a book of lesson plans for three different age groups.You can send it as a private Email in case the group does not want to have a thread on the discussion on the subject.Also,

we are helping the state dept of education to improve their core curriculum for teaching Hinduism.Regards,Kamlesh [ancientindi a ] On Behalf Of Bruce DuffyTuesday,

November 18, 2008 8:39 AMRe: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....Dear Kishore, earlier today, in relation to the below message, I wrote: "Dear Kishore, although I enjoyed reading it I find this message somewhat puzzling. In the below story who is the very conservative, judgmental man and who is the somewhat liberated and free spirited woman. Is it just a story or are they characters I should be familiar

with?All the best, Bruce."After a second reading of the below message it came across as a rather inspired piece of writing and the author as being a lot less judgmental than I had at first judged him to be. A second reading of the below short passage saw it as beautifully capturing the awkward attempts of two people who have a respect for each other, but come from very different backgrounds and cultures trying to relate to each other and accept each others values without being too judgmental. With a bit of imagination and artistic license

Radhakrishna Warrier could have the basis of a good novel here that as well as describing the attempts of a man and a woman from two very different backgrounds trying to relate to each other in a meaningful way would also give the author ample opportunity to discuss the Vedic religion and Hinduism.I would love to answer his question about what is the fundamental principle of Hinduism (Vedic Hinduism) and to be able to talk about brahman, but I am not sure his Yavana Sundari would be ready to hear about such a concept, and an important teaching of the Upanishads and Bhagavadgita is about how one should not expose a person to such knowledge if they are not fit to hear it or ready to hear it. As far as my query about the identity of the people being discussed in the message please ignore it. I was getting confused and thinking it may have been referring to members of our group.Bruce

[Guest guest]

Thanks Ravi ji,

My simplest explanation is Dharyati it Dharma and under that

statement I mention that righteous conduct which sustains the universe/humanity

is Dharma.

Carl Sagan’s statement is also pretty significant, ‘Dharma is

the Cosmic purpose of existence.’

Regards,

Kamlesh

 

 

 

 

 

On Behalf

Of Ravi

Wednesday, November 19, 2008 7:32 AM

 

Re: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kamaleshji

 

 

The moderator

finds no objection to members answering your question through the list itself

but it is their choice. As we all know truth is one but each see same in

manifest ways.

 

 

My personal view

is that the fundamental principle is Dharma and what is Dharma can be

interpreted in various ways starting with the simple meaning of Just,

Right,Fulfilling etc.

 

 

Ravi

 

 

 

 

Kamlesh Kapur

 

 

Tuesday, November

18, 2008 8:47 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

RE:

Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can you please explain your ideas-

<what is the

fundamental principle of Hinduism (Vedic Hinduism)>

It is important to know

the perspective of diverse people on the subject.

I teach Hindu Dharma to

various age groups and am currently compiling a book of lesson plans for three

different age groups.

You can send it as a private Email in

case the group does not want to have a thread on the discussion on the subject.

Also, we are helping the state dept of

education to improve their core curriculum for teaching Hinduism.

Regards,

Kamlesh

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

[Guest guest]

Dear Khandavalliji,I just want to add that Lord Buddha was trained in Sankhya by his guru Alara Kalama. Sankhya says that existence of God cannot be proved and for this very reason Sankhya and the teachings of Buddha are Godless but not atheistic. Lord Buddha believed that there is ''Cause'' for this world in a Cause-Effect relationship, which is a Sankhya approach. After six years of Tapashya he found that there is ultimately no separateness in this world and that is how he could explain that finally there will not remain separate freed souls but all in a non-separate state.Further Lord Buddha had high regard for the Vedas as he said that one should understand the true meaning of the Vedas.Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Thu, 11/20/08, ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli

<shankarabharadwaj wrote:ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwajRe: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence .... Date: Thursday, November 20, 2008, 6:34 AM

 

Dear Bruce,I completely agree. However to add a perspective to define Vedic Hinduism, this is an extract from one of my articles.

Scope and Definition What classifies one as belonging

to or outside the fold of Sanatana Dharma, is not as straight forward as

answering what classifies one as belonging to or outside the fold of any

particular community.

Sanatana Dharma, as it means, is

the eternal law – hence anyone by definition is included in it. It does not

classify people as followers and non-followers, believers and non-believers and

so on. Thus by definition, it is universal and all-inclusive. This is because

it talks of the natural and universal order or law, and not of the universe as

seen by any particular seer.

However, when seen in a social

context there do exist many classifications. The people belonging to the

civilization of Bharata share a common cultural and social base; they differ in

philosophy and few social aspects. The first such division is Vedic-Unvedic.

Accepting the authority of Veda

is the primary criterion, for defining a person as belonging to Veda mata. And

this covers all the branches, such as srauta, smarta, Tantric and so on.

However, there are further classifications in this: There are schools that hold

Atharva vedins as unvedic. There are schools that hold some Tantras as unvedic.

And so on. However, with all the philosophical and religious differences, they

all share one cultural-social base.

The schools that do not hold Veda

as a primary authority are called Unvedic. Bauddha and Jaina, though they

believe in salvation (having their own versions of Nirvana and Kaivalya

respectively) are thus called Unvedic. They do not however call the Veda as

false knowledge. Bauddha and Jaina also share the same civilizational and

philosophical base, and the worldview as Vedic religion. Hence they are very

much parts of the Bharatiya Civilization.

However it should not be

understood in the sense that Veda is to be taken as an “authority”. Veda is

taken as a Pramana or a source and reference for validation of knowledge. And a

school that does not accept Veda as pramana, implies that it does not believe

in statements other than those that could be validated through other means of

knowledge. There are acceptable pramanas under each school, like pratyaksha,

anumana, upamana and so on which could be translated as (perception, logic,

comparison, etc.). And the knowledge that could not be validated by these,

according to Vedic religion, is to be taken as valid, if it finds validation in

the Veda. The reasoning given for this by the followers of Vedic religion is

that Veda is knowledge of the eternal and contains that knowledge which cannot

be validated. So “something that cannot be validated can exist and still be

accepted as true” is the premise. And this pramana was not listed first; in

fact it was listed after pratyaksha and so on, to imply that you do not need

the pramana of Veda for something that can be validated through direct means.

According to Unvedic darsanas like Bauddha, only the knowledge that could be

validated by pratyaksha and anumana is to be taken as valid. Thus, the

difference is purely at a philosophical level, and not really at a religious

level. Therefore we could see there are a lot of similarities in the religious

practices of all these schools, such as Tantric and other methods. However,

high level philosophical differences had social implications, such as accepting

the Vedic social order or Varna-Ashrama dharma. Still, they all shared the same

cultural-civilizati onal base. However, it was easy to assimilate them in the

social order – for they did not create a new social order, and they were not different

socio-cultural systems.

Thus the Vedic-unvedic became a

slightly different classification, Astika - Nastika. There are two criteria

that make one an Astika or having astikya: believing in Veda’s pramanya, and

following varna-ashrama dharma. The belief in Veda translating as Astikya

borrows sense from the above explanation, of “something that cannot be

validated can exist and still be accepted as true”.

Accepting God or Iswara, has

never been a criterion in classifying something as Astika or Vedic or Hindu for

that matter. Owing to the differences in approach and diversity in worldviews,

accepting the existence of God has always been a matter of choice and one’s

philosophy. Diversity in attribution of supremacy to God, religious practices,

philosophical traits, none of these matter in classifying something as

Vedic-Unvedic.

However, Carvaka differs greatly

from all other systems including Bauddha and Jaina – they accept pratyaksha

(sense-perception) as the only pramana. Every other school, Vedic or Unvedic

accepts at least two pramanas. And they do not accept akasha as a mahabhuta or

a primordial element, which all other schools accept. Akasha is the element

which is both the origin of all the other elements and listed as an element (in

its unmanifest form). This causes all other differences such as treating body

as self, not accepting rebirth and so on. In this, Carvaka comes very close to

the western materialistic thought pattern. For this reason, not only did

Carvaka have a different philosophical but also an entirely different social

style emanating from an entirely alien worldview which is incompatible with all

the other schools.

However, all other Bharatiya

peoples, including tribal, should be called as sharing the same philosophical

base. Either by their practices, or by their goals, their origin lies in the

same.

Any philosophy that came from

outside, or developed independently in Bharata and came in contact with

Sanatana Dharma, has been assimilated in its comprehensive, all-inclusive system.

 

However, the ones that are not

assimilated are the exclusivist ideologies like Abrahamic religions. In a way,

they are as philosophically and socially incompatible with Sanatana Dharma as

Carvaka was at one time.

So any other school is,

technically speaking, belonging to or related to Sanatana Dharma. One one hand

there are schools like Shanmatas that are part of it, and on the other hand

there are schools like Bauddha that have origin in it but are outgrowths from

it.

Bruce Duffy <bwduffy (AT) netspace (DOT) net.au>Thursday, November 20, 2008 7:54:18 PMRe: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

 

Yes, your take is correct, but what sets Vedic Hinduism apart from other religions is that its most revered religious 'texts' do present a logical and coherent notion about the nature of existence that is very clearly revealed to us by great commentators like Shankara. Some Indian scholars argue that the Veda contains reference to a number of what are considered modern scientific inventions, and they may be right about that, but they may also be focusing on these sometimes obscure and not so easy to argue scientific references in the Veda and be blind to the very strong possibility that they have presented very clearly in the Vedic 'texts' what could arguably be the most perfect theory about the nature of existence ever conceived. That theory being the concept of the One or Brahman. BruceOn 19/11/2008, at 7:25 PM, ODDISILAB wrote:My take on the question is SPRITUALITY. (this issue has been long long ago settled- Read Vivekananda, Sankara,.... .) -Kamlesh KapurTuesday, November 18, 2008 8:47 PMRE: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....Can you please explain your ideas-<what is the fundamental principle of Hinduism (Vedic Hinduism)>It is important to know the perspective of diverse people on the subject.I teach Hindu Dharma to various age groups and am currently compiling a book of lesson plans for three different age groups.You can send it as a private Email in case the group does not want to have a thread on the discussion on the subject.Also,

we are helping the state dept of education to improve their core curriculum for teaching Hinduism.Regards,Kamlesh [ancientindi a ] On Behalf Of Bruce DuffyTuesday,

November 18, 2008 8:39 AMRe: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....Dear Kishore, earlier today, in relation to the below message, I wrote: "Dear Kishore, although I enjoyed reading it I find this message somewhat puzzling. In the below story who is the very conservative, judgmental man and who is the somewhat liberated and free spirited woman. Is it just a story or are they characters I should be familiar

with?All the best, Bruce."After a second reading of the below message it came across as a rather inspired piece of writing and the author as being a lot less judgmental than I had at first judged him to be. A second reading of the below short passage saw it as beautifully capturing the awkward attempts of two people who have a respect for each other, but come from very different backgrounds and cultures trying to relate to each other and accept each others values without being too judgmental. With a bit of imagination and artistic license

Radhakrishna Warrier could have the basis of a good novel here that as well as describing the attempts of a man and a woman from two very different backgrounds trying to relate to each other in a meaningful way would also give the author ample opportunity to discuss the Vedic religion and Hinduism.I would love to answer his question about what is the fundamental principle of Hinduism (Vedic Hinduism) and to be able to talk about brahman, but I am not sure his Yavana Sundari would be ready to hear about such a concept, and an important teaching of the Upanishads and Bhagavadgita is about how one should not expose a person to such knowledge if they are not fit to hear it or ready to hear it. As far as my query about the identity of the people being discussed in the message please ignore it. I was getting confused and thinking it may have been referring to members of our group.Bruce

 

,

[Guest guest]

Dear Kamlesh, the below short simplistic synopsis of the concept of brahman is off the top of my head without recent reference to the religious texts that it is based on. I will follow it up with a slightly revised and referenced version as soon as time permits. Kamlesh, the fundamental principle underlying Vedic Hinduism is the concept of brahman (brahma with the short 'a'). According to Vedic religious 'texts' like the Rigveda, Principal Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita brahman is a supreme formless divine entity that is without parts and whole and pervades the universe. Everything in the universe exists in brahman and is pervaded by brahman but brahman does not exist in them. Because man exists in and is pervaded by that supra-physical energy called brahman he is deluded by a power called maayaa into mistakenly thinking that what is actually brahman pervading his form is his individual self and that he is an individualized and separate entity. Due to the power of maayaa he is incapable of seeing brahman, the all pervading Self, as the underlying reality that underlies everything in the phenomenal world and is the Self in himself and every one else in the universe. Everything in the universe, including divine beings like brahmaa, vis.n.u, shiva and kr.s.n.a are manifestation of brahman and owe their luminosity, energy, consciousness or life force to brahman. When a man who is still deluded by the belief that he is an individualized self dies, because at the time of death he believed himself to be an individualized self, his essential non-physical Self retains an individual 'form'. After leaving the body that non-physical Self, which contains the residual affects of his actions in his past life and previous lives, becomes associated with a molecule of water and becomes part of a cycle where multitudes of individualized Selves in association a water molecule are being continually evaporated into the atmosphere and traveling to higher regions and then after a period of time eventually being returned to earth with their individual water molecules as rain. An overwhelming number of these individualized Selves keep repeating this cycle of being evaporated back up into the atmospheric regions along with their water molecule and then rained back, but relatively small percentage of these individualized Selves with their particular associated water molecule are taken up by plants. Out of those taken up by plants a small percentage of these individualized Selves are absorbed by men when those men eat particular plants as food, and even though the majority of these individualized Selves are passed out of those men as waste and return to the above described cycle a very small percentage become processed as seed in those men and an even smaller percentage of those that have become processed as seed in men get to be injected into the wombs of women where very occasionally an even smaller percentages get to germinate and result in the birth of a human being.Although the overwhelming number of individualized souls, in some manner as described above, keep repeating the above described cycle, very occasionally a man is born who in his life is granted, due to his righteous behavior and strivings in previous lives, the ability to see the all pervading brahman as the underlying reality of the phenomenal world and as being the same one Self that is the Self of himself and the Self of everyone else in this the world. When such a man who truly sees and knows brahman dies he becomes one with what in reality he always has been (the all pervading brahman) and becomes liberated from the cycle of rebirths and deaths. Kamelesh, although all of what I have presented above has to do with the religious-philosophical concept of brahman what I find most exciting about the concept from a scientific point of view is the idea that the whole universe is pervaded by an energy, life-force, giving entity and that everything in the universe exists in that energy, life force, giving entity. Such a concept could possibly help better explain how small particles like atoms can give off such an enormous amount of energy or how spinning a metal wire in a magnetic field can endlessly keep producing electricity. Present thinking seems to be focused on the idea that atoms are the source of their own energy and that the life force of human beings is a product of a biological phenomenon. It is interesting to ponder on the notion the energy of the atom is present because it exists in and is pervaded by a greater unseen energy and that the life force in man occurs for exactly the same reason.Bruce On 19/11/2008, at 2:17 AM, Kamlesh Kapur wrote: Can you please explain your ideas-<what is the fundamental principle of Hinduism (Vedic Hinduism)>It is important to know the perspective of diverse people on the subject.I teach Hindu Dharma to various age groups and am currently compiling a book of lesson plans for three different age groups.You can send it as a private Email in case the group does not want to have a thread on the discussion on the subject.Also, we are helping the state dept of education to improve their core curriculum for teaching Hinduism.Regards,Kamlesh

[Guest guest]

Sri Sunil ji,

 

There are a few things here:

 

Buddha's sayings and Bauddha as a darsana are not exactly synonymous, since Bauddha developed big deal post Buddha.

 

Having regard for Veda is different from accepting it as a Pramana for technical purposes. Karma Mimamsa and Sankara Advaita accept six pramanas - pratyaksha, anumana, upamana, ardhapatti, anupalabdi and sabda. Bauddha accepts two. World view depends on which school accpets how many pramanas, along with the notion of eternal. Sabda pramana is the big difference between Bauddha and Sankhya. And as I said, this makes the difference between whether you admit something you cannot validate through pratyaksha and anumana. Answer: Sankhya accepts if it is supported by Veda, while Bauddha does not. So the point is not whether Buddha himself said anything against Veda. Moreover, Bauddha and Sankhya differ in the notion of Purusha. Sankhya holds that Purusha can exist in a liberated state, beyond the influence of Prakriti.

"Theistic" if we go by the technical definition for Astikya, it is accpeting Veda pramana. It is not whether Isvara is accepted or not. Three out of six Vedic darsanas (vaiseshika, sankhya and karma mimamsa) do not hold that Isvara exists. They continue to be "astika". But Bauddha does not fall under the same category.

 

However this is not to say Bauddha is any "less" but if we are to go by definition it is not the same as Sankhya or any Vedic darsana.

 

 

 

 

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 11:05:21 PMRe: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Khandavalliji,I just want to add that Lord Buddha was trained in Sankhya by his guru Alara Kalama. Sankhya says that existence of God cannot be proved and for this very reason Sankhya and the teachings of Buddha are Godless but not atheistic. Lord Buddha believed that there is ''Cause'' for this world in a Cause-Effect relationship, which is a Sankhya approach. After six years of Tapashya he found that there is ultimately no separateness in this world and that is how he could explain that finally there will not remain separate freed souls but all in a non-separate state.Further Lord Buddha had high regard for the Vedas as he said that one should understand the true meaning of the Vedas.Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Thu, 11/20/08, ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ > wrote:

ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ >Re: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....Thursday, November 20, 2008, 6:34 AM

 

 

 

 

Dear Bruce,I completely agree. However to add a perspective to define Vedic Hinduism, this is an extract from one of my articles.

Scope and Definition

What classifies one as belonging to or outside the fold of Sanatana Dharma, is not as straight forward as answering what classifies one as belonging to or outside the fold of any particular community.

 

Sanatana Dharma, as it means, is the eternal law – hence anyone by definition is included in it. It does not classify people as followers and non-followers, believers and non-believers and so on. Thus by definition, it is universal and all-inclusive. This is because it talks of the natural and universal order or law, and not of the universe as seen by any particular seer.

 

However, when seen in a social context there do exist many classifications. The people belonging to the civilization of Bharata share a common cultural and social base; they differ in philosophy and few social aspects. The first such division is Vedic-Unvedic.

 

Accepting the authority of Veda is the primary criterion, for defining a person as belonging to Veda mata. And this covers all the branches, such as srauta, smarta, Tantric and so on. However, there are further classifications in this: There are schools that hold Atharva vedins as unvedic. There are schools that hold some Tantras as unvedic. And so on. However, with all the philosophical and religious differences, they all share one cultural-social base.

 

The schools that do not hold Veda as a primary authority are called Unvedic. Bauddha and Jaina, though they believe in salvation (having their own versions of Nirvana and Kaivalya respectively) are thus called Unvedic. They do not however call the Veda as false knowledge. Bauddha and Jaina also share the same civilizational and philosophical base, and the worldview as Vedic religion. Hence they are very much parts of the Bharatiya Civilization.

 

However it should not be understood in the sense that Veda is to be taken as an “authority”. Veda is taken as a Pramana or a source and reference for validation of knowledge. And a school that does not accept Veda as pramana, implies that it does not believe in statements other than those that could be validated through other means of knowledge. There are acceptable pramanas under each school, like pratyaksha, anumana, upamana and so on which could be translated as (perception, logic, comparison, etc.). And the knowledge that could not be validated by these, according to Vedic religion, is to be taken as valid, if it finds validation in the Veda. The reasoning given for this by the followers of Vedic religion is that Veda is knowledge of the eternal and contains that knowledge which cannot be validated. So “something that cannot be validated can exist and still be accepted as true” is the premise.

And this pramana was not listed first; in fact it was listed after pratyaksha and so on, to imply that you do not need the pramana of Veda for something that can be validated through direct means. According to Unvedic darsanas like Bauddha, only the knowledge that could be validated by pratyaksha and anumana is to be taken as valid. Thus, the difference is purely at a philosophical level, and not really at a religious level. Therefore we could see there are a lot of similarities in the religious practices of all these schools, such as Tantric and other methods. However, high level philosophical differences had social implications, such as accepting the Vedic social order or Varna-Ashrama dharma. Still, they all shared the same cultural-civilizati onal base. However, it was easy to assimilate them in the social order – for they did not create a new social order, and they were not different socio-cultural systems.

 

Thus the Vedic-unvedic became a slightly different classification, Astika - Nastika. There are two criteria that make one an Astika or having astikya: believing in Veda’s pramanya, and following varna-ashrama dharma. The belief in Veda translating as Astikya borrows sense from the above explanation, of “something that cannot be validated can exist and still be accepted as true”.

 

Accepting God or Iswara, has never been a criterion in classifying something as Astika or Vedic or Hindu for that matter. Owing to the differences in approach and diversity in worldviews, accepting the existence of God has always been a matter of choice and one’s philosophy. Diversity in attribution of supremacy to God, religious practices, philosophical traits, none of these matter in classifying something as Vedic-Unvedic.

 

However, Carvaka differs greatly from all other systems including Bauddha and Jaina – they accept pratyaksha (sense-perception) as the only pramana. Every other school, Vedic or Unvedic accepts at least two pramanas. And they do not accept akasha as a mahabhuta or a primordial element, which all other schools accept. Akasha is the element which is both the origin of all the other elements and listed as an element (in its unmanifest form). This causes all other differences such as treating body as self, not accepting rebirth and so on. In this, Carvaka comes very close to the western materialistic thought pattern. For this reason, not only did Carvaka have a different philosophical but also an entirely different social style emanating from an entirely alien worldview which is incompatible with all the other schools.

 

However, all other Bharatiya peoples, including tribal, should be called as sharing the same philosophical base. Either by their practices, or by their goals, their origin lies in the same.

Any philosophy that came from outside, or developed independently in Bharata and came in contact with Sanatana Dharma, has been assimilated in its comprehensive, all-inclusive system.

 

However, the ones that are not assimilated are the exclusivist ideologies like Abrahamic religions. In a way, they are as philosophically and socially incompatible with Sanatana Dharma as Carvaka was at one time.

 

So any other school is, technically speaking, belonging to or related to Sanatana Dharma. One one hand there are schools like Shanmatas that are part of it, and on the other hand there are schools like Bauddha that have origin in it but are outgrowths from it.

 

 

 

Bruce Duffy <bwduffy (AT) netspace (DOT) net.au>Thursday, November 20, 2008 7:54:18 PMRe: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

 

Yes, your take is correct, but what sets Vedic Hinduism apart from other religions is that its most revered religious 'texts' do present a logical and coherent notion about the nature of existence that is very clearly revealed to us by great commentators like Shankara. Some Indian scholars argue that the Veda contains reference to a number of what are considered modern scientific inventions, and they may be right about that, but they may also be focusing on these sometimes obscure and not so easy to argue scientific references in the Veda and be blind to the very strong possibility that they have presented very clearly in the Vedic 'texts' what could arguably be the most perfect theory about the nature of existence ever conceived. That theory being the concept of the One or Brahman.

Bruce

 

 

On 19/11/2008, at 7:25 PM, ODDISILAB wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

My take on the question is

 

SPRITUALITY.

 

(this issue has been long long ago settled- Read Vivekananda, Sankara,.... .)

 

 

-

Kamlesh Kapur

 

Tuesday, November 18, 2008 8:47 PM

RE: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

 

 

 

 

Can you please explain your ideas-

<what is the fundamental principle of Hinduism (Vedic Hinduism)>

It is important to know the perspective of diverse people on the subject.

I teach Hindu Dharma to various age groups and am currently compiling a book of lesson plans for three different age groups.

You can send it as a private Email in case the group does not want to have a thread on the discussion on the subject.

Also, we are helping the state dept of education to improve their core curriculum for teaching Hinduism.

Regards,

Kamlesh

 

 

 

[ancientindi a ] On Behalf Of Bruce DuffyTuesday, November 18, 2008 8:39 AMRe: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

 

 

 

 

Dear Kishore, earlier today, in relation to the below message, I wrote:

 

 

 

"Dear Kishore, although I enjoyed reading it I find this message somewhat puzzling. In the below story who is the very conservative, judgmental man and who is the somewhat liberated and free spirited woman. Is it just a story or are they characters I should be familiar with?

 

All the best, Bruce."

 

 

 

After a second reading of the below message it came across as a rather inspired piece of writing and the author as being a lot less judgmental than I had at first judged him to be. A second reading of the below short passage saw it as beautifully capturing the awkward attempts of two people who have a respect for each other, but come from very different backgrounds and cultures trying to relate to each other and accept each others values without being too judgmental. With a bit of imagination and artistic license Radhakrishna Warrier could have the basis of a good novel here that as well as describing the attempts of a man and a woman from two very different backgrounds trying to relate to each other in a meaningful way would also give the author ample opportunity to discuss the Vedic religion and Hinduism.

 

 

 

I would love to answer his question about what is the fundamental principle of Hinduism (Vedic Hinduism) and to be able to talk about brahman, but I am not sure his Yavana Sundari would be ready to hear about such a concept, and an important teaching of the Upanishads and Bhagavadgita is about how one should not expose a person to such knowledge if they are not fit to hear it or ready to hear it.

 

 

 

As far as my query about the identity of the people being discussed in the message please ignore it. I was getting confused and thinking it may have been referring to members of our group.

 

 

 

Bruce

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

,

[Guest guest]

Dear Khandavalliji,Kindly consider the fact that the Svetasvatara Upanishada says that the concept of Brahman is taught only to the most advanced students of Sankhya. Further also read, in conjunction, that Lord Buddha taught about Bodhakaya, Tathagatagarbha and Shunyata to his advanced disciples only. Madam Blavatsky was of the opinion that Lord Buddha (probably as the Kshatriyas were entitled to) studied the Vedas but he was under oath not to teach the Vedas. This is in line with the fact that only the brahmanas were entitled to teach the Vedas. This also explains why Lord Buddha said that his next avatara as Jnani-Buddha (Maitreya) would be in a brahmin family. Some people like Yamunacharya believed that Adi Sankaracharya could be Lord Buddha reborn.Regards,Sunil K. BhattacharjyaLet us consider only original teachings or

sayings of Lord Buddha. To my understanding Adi Sankara was not against the teachings of Lord Buddha but against the interpretations of Dignaga and Dharmahirti.Regards,--- On Sun, 11/23/08, ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj wrote:ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwajRe: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence .... Date: Sunday, November 23, 2008, 2:40 AM

 

Sri Sunil ji,

 

There are a few things here:

 

Buddha's sayings and Bauddha as a darsana are not exactly synonymous, since Bauddha developed big deal post Buddha.

 

Having regard for Veda is different from accepting it as a Pramana for technical purposes. Karma Mimamsa and Sankara Advaita accept six pramanas - pratyaksha, anumana, upamana, ardhapatti, anupalabdi and sabda. Bauddha accepts two. World view depends on which school accpets how many pramanas, along with the notion of eternal. Sabda pramana is the big difference between Bauddha and Sankhya. And as I said, this makes the difference between whether you admit something you cannot validate through pratyaksha and anumana. Answer: Sankhya accepts if it is supported by Veda, while Bauddha does not. So the point is not whether Buddha himself said anything against Veda. Moreover, Bauddha and Sankhya differ in the notion of Purusha. Sankhya holds that Purusha can exist in a liberated state, beyond the influence of Prakriti.

"Theistic" if we go by the technical definition for Astikya, it is accpeting Veda pramana. It is not whether Isvara is accepted or not. Three out of six Vedic darsanas (vaiseshika, sankhya and karma mimamsa) do not hold that Isvara exists. They continue to be "astika". But Bauddha does not fall under the same category.

 

However this is not to say Bauddha is any "less" but if we are to go by definition it is not the same as Sankhya or any Vedic darsana.

 

 

 

 

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>Friday, November 21, 2008 11:05:21 PMRe: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Khandavalliji,I just want to add that Lord Buddha was trained in Sankhya by his guru Alara Kalama. Sankhya says that existence of God cannot be proved and for this very reason Sankhya and the teachings of Buddha are Godless but not atheistic. Lord Buddha believed that there is ''Cause'' for this world in a Cause-Effect relationship, which is a Sankhya approach. After six years of Tapashya he found that there is ultimately no separateness in this world and that is how he could explain that finally there will not remain separate freed souls but all in a non-separate state.Further Lord Buddha had high regard for the Vedas as he said that one should understand the true meaning of the Vedas.Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Thu, 11/20/08, ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ >

wrote:

ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ >Re: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....Thursday, November 20, 2008, 6:34 AM

 

 

 

 

Dear Bruce,I completely agree. However to add a perspective to define Vedic Hinduism, this is an extract from one of my articles.

Scope and Definition

What classifies one as belonging to or outside the fold of Sanatana Dharma, is not as straight forward as answering what classifies one as belonging to or outside the fold of any particular community.

 

Sanatana Dharma, as it means, is the eternal law – hence anyone by definition is included in it. It does not classify people as followers and non-followers, believers and non-believers and so on. Thus by definition, it is universal and all-inclusive. This is because it talks of the natural and universal order or law, and not of the universe as seen by any particular seer.

 

However, when seen in a social context there do exist many classifications. The people belonging to the civilization of Bharata share a common cultural and social base; they differ in philosophy and few social aspects. The first such division is Vedic-Unvedic.

 

Accepting the authority of Veda is the primary criterion, for defining a person as belonging to Veda mata. And this covers all the branches, such as srauta, smarta, Tantric and so on. However, there are further classifications in this: There are schools that hold Atharva vedins as unvedic. There are schools that hold some Tantras as unvedic. And so on. However, with all the philosophical and religious differences, they all share one cultural-social base.

 

The schools that do not hold Veda as a primary authority are called Unvedic. Bauddha and Jaina, though they believe in salvation (having their own versions of Nirvana and Kaivalya respectively) are thus called Unvedic. They do not however call the Veda as false knowledge. Bauddha and Jaina also share the same civilizational and philosophical base, and the worldview as Vedic religion. Hence they are very much parts of the Bharatiya Civilization.

 

However it should not be understood in the sense that Veda is to be taken as an “authority”. Veda is taken as a Pramana or a source and reference for validation of knowledge. And a school that does not accept Veda as pramana, implies that it does not believe in statements other than those that could be validated through other means of knowledge. There are acceptable pramanas under each school, like pratyaksha, anumana, upamana and so on which could be translated as (perception, logic, comparison, etc.). And the knowledge that could not be validated by these, according to Vedic religion, is to be taken as valid, if it finds validation in the Veda. The reasoning given for this by the followers of Vedic religion is that Veda is knowledge of the eternal and contains that knowledge which cannot be validated. So “something that cannot be validated can exist and still be accepted as true” is the premise.

And this pramana was not listed first; in fact it was listed after pratyaksha and so on, to imply that you do not need the pramana of Veda for something that can be validated through direct means. According to Unvedic darsanas like Bauddha, only the knowledge that could be validated by pratyaksha and anumana is to be taken as valid. Thus, the difference is purely at a philosophical level, and not really at a religious level. Therefore we could see there are a lot of similarities in the religious practices of all these schools, such as Tantric and other methods. However, high level philosophical differences had social implications, such as accepting the Vedic social order or Varna-Ashrama dharma. Still, they all shared the same cultural-civilizati onal base. However, it was easy to assimilate them in the social order – for they did not create a new social order, and they were not different socio-cultural systems.

 

Thus the Vedic-unvedic became a slightly different classification, Astika - Nastika. There are two criteria that make one an Astika or having astikya: believing in Veda’s pramanya, and following varna-ashrama dharma. The belief in Veda translating as Astikya borrows sense from the above explanation, of “something that cannot be validated can exist and still be accepted as true”.

 

Accepting God or Iswara, has never been a criterion in classifying something as Astika or Vedic or Hindu for that matter. Owing to the differences in approach and diversity in worldviews, accepting the existence of God has always been a matter of choice and one’s philosophy. Diversity in attribution of supremacy to God, religious practices, philosophical traits, none of these matter in classifying something as Vedic-Unvedic.

 

However, Carvaka differs greatly from all other systems including Bauddha and Jaina – they accept pratyaksha (sense-perception) as the only pramana. Every other school, Vedic or Unvedic accepts at least two pramanas. And they do not accept akasha as a mahabhuta or a primordial element, which all other schools accept. Akasha is the element which is both the origin of all the other elements and listed as an element (in its unmanifest form). This causes all other differences such as treating body as self, not accepting rebirth and so on. In this, Carvaka comes very close to the western materialistic thought pattern. For this reason, not only did Carvaka have a different philosophical but also an entirely different social style emanating from an entirely alien worldview which is incompatible with all the other schools.

 

However, all other Bharatiya peoples, including tribal, should be called as sharing the same philosophical base. Either by their practices, or by their goals, their origin lies in the same.

Any philosophy that came from outside, or developed independently in Bharata and came in contact with Sanatana Dharma, has been assimilated in its comprehensive, all-inclusive system.

 

However, the ones that are not assimilated are the exclusivist ideologies like Abrahamic religions. In a way, they are as philosophically and socially incompatible with Sanatana Dharma as Carvaka was at one time.

 

So any other school is, technically speaking, belonging to or related to Sanatana Dharma. One one hand there are schools like Shanmatas that are part of it, and on the other hand there are schools like Bauddha that have origin in it but are outgrowths from it.

 

 

 

Bruce Duffy <bwduffy (AT) netspace (DOT) net.au>Thursday, November 20, 2008 7:54:18 PMRe: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

 

Yes, your take is correct, but what sets Vedic Hinduism apart from other religions is that its most revered religious 'texts' do present a logical and coherent notion about the nature of existence that is very clearly revealed to us by great commentators like Shankara. Some Indian scholars argue that the Veda contains reference to a number of what are considered modern scientific inventions, and they may be right about that, but they may also be focusing on these sometimes obscure and not so easy to argue scientific references in the Veda and be blind to the very strong possibility that they have presented very clearly in the Vedic 'texts' what could arguably be the most perfect theory about the nature of existence ever conceived. That theory being the concept of the One or Brahman.

Bruce

 

 

On 19/11/2008, at 7:25 PM, ODDISILAB wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

My take on the question is

 

SPRITUALITY.

 

(this issue has been long long ago settled- Read Vivekananda, Sankara,.... .)

 

 

-

Kamlesh Kapur

 

Tuesday, November 18, 2008 8:47 PM

RE: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

 

 

 

 

Can you please explain your ideas-

<what is the fundamental principle of Hinduism (Vedic Hinduism)>

It is important to know the perspective of diverse people on the subject.

I teach Hindu Dharma to various age groups and am currently compiling a book of lesson plans for three different age groups.

You can send it as a private Email in case the group does not want to have a thread on the discussion on the subject.

Also, we are helping the state dept of education to improve their core curriculum for teaching Hinduism.

Regards,

Kamlesh

 

 

 

[ancientindi a ] On Behalf Of Bruce DuffyTuesday, November 18, 2008 8:39 AMRe: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

 

 

 

 

Dear Kishore, earlier today, in relation to the below message, I wrote:

 

 

 

"Dear Kishore, although I enjoyed reading it I find this message somewhat puzzling. In the below story who is the very conservative, judgmental man and who is the somewhat liberated and free spirited woman. Is it just a story or are they characters I should be familiar with?

 

All the best, Bruce."

 

 

 

After a second reading of the below message it came across as a rather inspired piece of writing and the author as being a lot less judgmental than I had at first judged him to be. A second reading of the below short passage saw it as beautifully capturing the awkward attempts of two people who have a respect for each other, but come from very different backgrounds and cultures trying to relate to each other and accept each others values without being too judgmental. With a bit of imagination and artistic license Radhakrishna Warrier could have the basis of a good novel here that as well as describing the attempts of a man and a woman from two very different backgrounds trying to relate to each other in a meaningful way would also give the author ample opportunity to discuss the Vedic religion and Hinduism.

 

 

 

I would love to answer his question about what is the fundamental principle of Hinduism (Vedic Hinduism) and to be able to talk about brahman, but I am not sure his Yavana Sundari would be ready to hear about such a concept, and an important teaching of the Upanishads and Bhagavadgita is about how one should not expose a person to such knowledge if they are not fit to hear it or ready to hear it.

 

 

 

As far as my query about the identity of the people being discussed in the message please ignore it. I was getting confused and thinking it may have been referring to members of our group.

 

 

 

Bruce

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

,

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Sunil ji,I am a bit confused about "concept of Brahman" being taught to the "advanced students of Sankhya". Sankhya holds that Purusha can be liberated from Prakriti, but Purusha is not really singular. It holds multiplicity of Purushas - in fact dvaita borrows the notion of Paramatma being different from Atma, from Sankhya (they quote Sankhya chapter from BG to assert multiplicity of Atma). And moreover Sankhya does not hold that there is a single Parama purusha around all Purushas exist. So I did not understand what you mean by "Brahman" here in the context of Sankhya. Can you help me understand... "Let us consider only original teachings or sayings of Lord Buddha.

To my understanding Adi Sankara was not against the teachings of Lord

Buddha but against the interpretations of Dignaga and Dharmahirti."Like I said, Bauddha has gone quite a long way after Buddha's teachings. And we are not really discussing Bauddha darsana when we limit to Buddha's teachings. Coming to Sankara-Buddha, the difference pointed out by one of the esteemed members holds valid: Atma/Purusha is an existence that Bauddha does not accept and all the six Vedic Darsanas accept. Even Sankhya holds Purusha as an eternal existence, though it holds multiplicity of Purushas. Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 7:24:27 AMRe: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

 

Dear Khandavalliji,Kindly consider the fact that the Svetasvatara Upanishada says that the concept of Brahman is taught only to the most advanced students of Sankhya. Further also read, in conjunction, that Lord Buddha taught about Bodhakaya, Tathagatagarbha and Shunyata to his advanced disciples only. Madam Blavatsky was of the opinion that Lord Buddha (probably as the Kshatriyas were entitled to) studied the Vedas but he was under oath not to teach the Vedas. This is in line with the fact that only the brahmanas were entitled to teach the Vedas. This also explains why Lord Buddha said that his next avatara as Jnani-Buddha (Maitreya) would be in a brahmin family.

Some people like Yamunacharya believed that Adi Sankaracharya could be Lord Buddha reborn.Regards,Sunil K. BhattacharjyaLet us consider only original teachings or

sayings of Lord Buddha. To my understanding Adi Sankara was not against the teachings of Lord Buddha but against the interpretations of Dignaga and Dharmahirti.Regards,--- On Sun, 11/23/08, ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ > wrote:ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ >Re: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....Sunday, November 23, 2008, 2:40 AM

 

Sri Sunil ji,

 

There are a few things here:

 

Buddha's sayings and Bauddha as a darsana are not exactly synonymous, since Bauddha developed big deal post Buddha.

 

Having regard for Veda is different from accepting it as a Pramana for technical purposes. Karma Mimamsa and Sankara Advaita accept six pramanas - pratyaksha, anumana, upamana, ardhapatti, anupalabdi and sabda. Bauddha accepts two. World view depends on which school accpets how many pramanas, along with the notion of eternal. Sabda pramana is the big difference between Bauddha and Sankhya. And as I said, this makes the difference between whether you admit something you cannot validate through pratyaksha and anumana. Answer: Sankhya accepts if it is supported by Veda, while Bauddha does not. So the point is not whether Buddha himself said anything against Veda. Moreover, Bauddha and Sankhya differ in the notion of Purusha. Sankhya holds that Purusha can exist in a liberated state, beyond the influence of Prakriti.

"Theistic" if we go by the technical definition for Astikya, it is accpeting Veda pramana. It is not whether Isvara is accepted or not. Three out of six Vedic darsanas (vaiseshika, sankhya and karma mimamsa) do not hold that Isvara exists. They continue to be "astika". But Bauddha does not fall under the same category.

 

However this is not to say Bauddha is any "less" but if we are to go by definition it is not the same as Sankhya or any Vedic darsana.

 

 

 

 

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>Friday, November 21, 2008 11:05:21 PMRe: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Khandavalliji,I just want to add that Lord Buddha was trained in Sankhya by his guru Alara Kalama. Sankhya says that existence of God cannot be proved and for this very reason Sankhya and the teachings of Buddha are Godless but not atheistic. Lord Buddha believed that there is ''Cause'' for this world in a Cause-Effect relationship, which is a Sankhya approach. After six years of Tapashya he found that there is ultimately no separateness in this world and that is how he could explain that finally there will not remain separate freed souls but all in a non-separate state.Further Lord Buddha had high regard for the Vedas as he said that one should understand the true meaning of the Vedas.Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Thu, 11/20/08, ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ >

wrote:

ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ >Re: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....Thursday, November 20, 2008, 6:34 AM

 

 

 

 

Dear Bruce,I completely agree. However to add a perspective to define Vedic Hinduism, this is an extract from one of my articles.

Scope and Definition

What classifies one as belonging to or outside the fold of Sanatana Dharma, is not as straight forward as answering what classifies one as belonging to or outside the fold of any particular community.

 

Sanatana Dharma, as it means, is the eternal law – hence anyone by definition is included in it. It does not classify people as followers and non-followers, believers and non-believers and so on. Thus by definition, it is universal and all-inclusive. This is because it talks of the natural and universal order or law, and not of the universe as seen by any particular seer.

 

However, when seen in a social context there do exist many classifications. The people belonging to the civilization of Bharata share a common cultural and social base; they differ in philosophy and few social aspects. The first such division is Vedic-Unvedic.

 

Accepting the authority of Veda is the primary criterion, for defining a person as belonging to Veda mata. And this covers all the branches, such as srauta, smarta, Tantric and so on. However, there are further classifications in this: There are schools that hold Atharva vedins as unvedic. There are schools that hold some Tantras as unvedic. And so on. However, with all the philosophical and religious differences, they all share one cultural-social base.

 

The schools that do not hold Veda as a primary authority are called Unvedic. Bauddha and Jaina, though they believe in salvation (having their own versions of Nirvana and Kaivalya respectively) are thus called Unvedic. They do not however call the Veda as false knowledge. Bauddha and Jaina also share the same civilizational and philosophical base, and the worldview as Vedic religion. Hence they are very much parts of the Bharatiya Civilization.

 

However it should not be understood in the sense that Veda is to be taken as an “authority”. Veda is taken as a Pramana or a source and reference for validation of knowledge. And a school that does not accept Veda as pramana, implies that it does not believe in statements other than those that could be validated through other means of knowledge. There are acceptable pramanas under each school, like pratyaksha, anumana, upamana and so on which could be translated as (perception, logic, comparison, etc.). And the knowledge that could not be validated by these, according to Vedic religion, is to be taken as valid, if it finds validation in the Veda. The reasoning given for this by the followers of Vedic religion is that Veda is knowledge of the eternal and contains that knowledge which cannot be validated. So “something that cannot be validated can exist and still be accepted as true” is the premise.

And this pramana was not listed first; in fact it was listed after pratyaksha and so on, to imply that you do not need the pramana of Veda for something that can be validated through direct means. According to Unvedic darsanas like Bauddha, only the knowledge that could be validated by pratyaksha and anumana is to be taken as valid. Thus, the difference is purely at a philosophical level, and not really at a religious level. Therefore we could see there are a lot of similarities in the religious practices of all these schools, such as Tantric and other methods. However, high level philosophical differences had social implications, such as accepting the Vedic social order or Varna-Ashrama dharma. Still, they all shared the same cultural-civilizati onal base. However, it was easy to assimilate them in the social order – for they did not create a new social order, and they were not different socio-cultural systems.

 

Thus the Vedic-unvedic became a slightly different classification, Astika - Nastika. There are two criteria that make one an Astika or having astikya: believing in Veda’s pramanya, and following varna-ashrama dharma. The belief in Veda translating as Astikya borrows sense from the above explanation, of “something that cannot be validated can exist and still be accepted as true”.

 

Accepting God or Iswara, has never been a criterion in classifying something as Astika or Vedic or Hindu for that matter. Owing to the differences in approach and diversity in worldviews, accepting the existence of God has always been a matter of choice and one’s philosophy. Diversity in attribution of supremacy to God, religious practices, philosophical traits, none of these matter in classifying something as Vedic-Unvedic.

 

However, Carvaka differs greatly from all other systems including Bauddha and Jaina – they accept pratyaksha (sense-perception) as the only pramana. Every other school, Vedic or Unvedic accepts at least two pramanas. And they do not accept akasha as a mahabhuta or a primordial element, which all other schools accept. Akasha is the element which is both the origin of all the other elements and listed as an element (in its unmanifest form). This causes all other differences such as treating body as self, not accepting rebirth and so on. In this, Carvaka comes very close to the western materialistic thought pattern. For this reason, not only did Carvaka have a different philosophical but also an entirely different social style emanating from an entirely alien worldview which is incompatible with all the other schools.

 

However, all other Bharatiya peoples, including tribal, should be called as sharing the same philosophical base. Either by their practices, or by their goals, their origin lies in the same.

Any philosophy that came from outside, or developed independently in Bharata and came in contact with Sanatana Dharma, has been assimilated in its comprehensive, all-inclusive system.

 

However, the ones that are not assimilated are the exclusivist ideologies like Abrahamic religions. In a way, they are as philosophically and socially incompatible with Sanatana Dharma as Carvaka was at one time.

 

So any other school is, technically speaking, belonging to or related to Sanatana Dharma. One one hand there are schools like Shanmatas that are part of it, and on the other hand there are schools like Bauddha that have origin in it but are outgrowths from it.

 

 

 

Bruce Duffy <bwduffy (AT) netspace (DOT) net.au>Thursday, November 20, 2008 7:54:18 PMRe: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

 

Yes, your take is correct, but what sets Vedic Hinduism apart from other religions is that its most revered religious 'texts' do present a logical and coherent notion about the nature of existence that is very clearly revealed to us by great commentators like Shankara. Some Indian scholars argue that the Veda contains reference to a number of what are considered modern scientific inventions, and they may be right about that, but they may also be focusing on these sometimes obscure and not so easy to argue scientific references in the Veda and be blind to the very strong possibility that they have presented very clearly in the Vedic 'texts' what could arguably be the most perfect theory about the nature of existence ever conceived. That theory being the concept of the One or Brahman.

Bruce

 

 

On 19/11/2008, at 7:25 PM, ODDISILAB wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

My take on the question is

 

SPRITUALITY.

 

(this issue has been long long ago settled- Read Vivekananda, Sankara,.... .)

 

 

-

Kamlesh Kapur

 

Tuesday, November 18, 2008 8:47 PM

RE: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

 

 

 

 

Can you please explain your ideas-

<what is the fundamental principle of Hinduism (Vedic Hinduism)>

It is important to know the perspective of diverse people on the subject.

I teach Hindu Dharma to various age groups and am currently compiling a book of lesson plans for three different age groups.

You can send it as a private Email in case the group does not want to have a thread on the discussion on the subject.

Also, we are helping the state dept of education to improve their core curriculum for teaching Hinduism.

Regards,

Kamlesh

 

 

 

[ancientindi a ] On Behalf Of Bruce DuffyTuesday, November 18, 2008 8:39 AMRe: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

 

 

 

 

Dear Kishore, earlier today, in relation to the below message, I wrote:

 

 

 

"Dear Kishore, although I enjoyed reading it I find this message somewhat puzzling. In the below story who is the very conservative, judgmental man and who is the somewhat liberated and free spirited woman. Is it just a story or are they characters I should be familiar with?

 

All the best, Bruce."

 

 

 

After a second reading of the below message it came across as a rather inspired piece of writing and the author as being a lot less judgmental than I had at first judged him to be. A second reading of the below short passage saw it as beautifully capturing the awkward attempts of two people who have a respect for each other, but come from very different backgrounds and cultures trying to relate to each other and accept each others values without being too judgmental. With a bit of imagination and artistic license Radhakrishna Warrier could have the basis of a good novel here that as well as describing the attempts of a man and a woman from two very different backgrounds trying to relate to each other in a meaningful way would also give the author ample opportunity to discuss the Vedic religion and Hinduism.

 

 

 

I would love to answer his question about what is the fundamental principle of Hinduism (Vedic Hinduism) and to be able to talk about brahman, but I am not sure his Yavana Sundari would be ready to hear about such a concept, and an important teaching of the Upanishads and Bhagavadgita is about how one should not expose a person to such knowledge if they are not fit to hear it or ready to hear it.

 

 

 

As far as my query about the identity of the people being discussed in the message please ignore it. I was getting confused and thinking it may have been referring to members of our group.

 

 

 

Bruce

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

,

[Guest guest]

Dear Khandavalliji,Have you had a look at the relevant portion in the Svetasvatara Upanishad? The six Darshanas are not six competing philosophies. These are six Perspectives at different spiritual and intellectual levels. Yoga begins where Sankhya leaves and Yoga brings in Ishvara so that the purushas are with Ishvara after liberation. Then at the ultimate level the Vedanta explains that there is no difference between Brahman and the purushas. One sometimes gets confused by the different terminologies used in these different Darshanas or Perspectives. The compassionate Lord Buddha, though oath-bound not to teach the Vedanta, expressed the Vedantic truth when he spoke about non-separateness and that is the same as telling that there is none but the Brahman alone. Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Sun, 11/23/08,

ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj wrote:ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwajRe: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence .... Date: Sunday, November 23, 2008, 11:59 PM

 

Dear Sri Sunil ji,I am a bit confused about "concept of Brahman" being taught to the "advanced students of Sankhya". Sankhya holds that Purusha can be liberated from Prakriti, but Purusha is not really singular. It holds multiplicity of Purushas - in fact dvaita borrows the notion of Paramatma being different from Atma, from Sankhya (they quote Sankhya chapter from BG to assert multiplicity of Atma). And moreover Sankhya does not hold that there is a single Parama purusha around all Purushas exist. So I did not understand what you mean by "Brahman" here in the context of Sankhya. Can you help me understand.. . "Let us consider only original teachings or sayings of Lord Buddha.

To my understanding Adi Sankara was not against the teachings of Lord

Buddha but against the interpretations of Dignaga and Dharmahirti. "Like I said, Bauddha has gone quite a long way after Buddha's teachings. And we are not really discussing Bauddha darsana when we limit to Buddha's teachings. Coming to Sankara-Buddha, the difference pointed out by one of the esteemed members holds valid: Atma/Purusha is an existence that Bauddha does not accept and all the six Vedic Darsanas accept. Even Sankhya holds Purusha as an eternal existence, though it holds multiplicity of Purushas. Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>Monday,

November 24, 2008 7:24:27 AMRe: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

 

Dear Khandavalliji,Kindly consider the fact that the Svetasvatara Upanishada says that the concept of Brahman is taught only to the most advanced students of Sankhya. Further also read, in conjunction, that Lord Buddha taught about Bodhakaya, Tathagatagarbha and Shunyata to his advanced disciples only. Madam Blavatsky was of the opinion that Lord Buddha (probably as the Kshatriyas were entitled to) studied the Vedas but he was under oath not to teach the Vedas. This is in line with the fact that only the brahmanas were entitled to teach the Vedas. This also explains why Lord Buddha said that his next avatara as Jnani-Buddha (Maitreya) would be in a brahmin family.

Some people like Yamunacharya believed that Adi Sankaracharya could be Lord Buddha reborn.Regards,Sunil K. BhattacharjyaLet us consider only original teachings or

sayings of Lord Buddha. To my understanding Adi Sankara was not against the teachings of Lord Buddha but against the interpretations of Dignaga and Dharmahirti.Regards,--- On Sun, 11/23/08, ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ > wrote:ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ >Re: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....Sunday, November 23, 2008, 2:40 AM

 

Sri Sunil ji,

 

There are a few things here:

 

Buddha's sayings and Bauddha as a darsana are not exactly synonymous, since Bauddha developed big deal post Buddha.

 

Having regard for Veda is different from accepting it as a Pramana for technical purposes. Karma Mimamsa and Sankara Advaita accept six pramanas - pratyaksha, anumana, upamana, ardhapatti, anupalabdi and sabda. Bauddha accepts two. World view depends on which school accpets how many pramanas, along with the notion of eternal. Sabda pramana is the big difference between Bauddha and Sankhya. And as I said, this makes the difference between whether you admit something you cannot validate through pratyaksha and anumana. Answer: Sankhya accepts if it is supported by Veda, while Bauddha does not. So the point is not whether Buddha himself said anything against Veda. Moreover, Bauddha and Sankhya differ in the notion of Purusha. Sankhya holds that Purusha can exist in a liberated state, beyond the influence of Prakriti.

"Theistic" if we go by the technical definition for Astikya, it is accpeting Veda pramana. It is not whether Isvara is accepted or not. Three out of six Vedic darsanas (vaiseshika, sankhya and karma mimamsa) do not hold that Isvara exists. They continue to be "astika". But Bauddha does not fall under the same category.

 

However this is not to say Bauddha is any "less" but if we are to go by definition it is not the same as Sankhya or any Vedic darsana.

 

 

 

 

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>Friday, November 21, 2008 11:05:21 PMRe: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Khandavalliji,I just want to add that Lord Buddha was trained in Sankhya by his guru Alara Kalama. Sankhya says that existence of God cannot be proved and for this very reason Sankhya and the teachings of Buddha are Godless but not atheistic. Lord Buddha believed that there is ''Cause'' for this world in a Cause-Effect relationship, which is a Sankhya approach. After six years of Tapashya he found that there is ultimately no separateness in this world and that is how he could explain that finally there will not remain separate freed souls but all in a non-separate state.Further Lord Buddha had high regard for the Vedas as he said that one should understand the true meaning of the Vedas.Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Thu, 11/20/08, ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ >

wrote:

ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ >Re: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....Thursday, November 20, 2008, 6:34 AM

 

 

 

 

Dear Bruce,I completely agree. However to add a perspective to define Vedic Hinduism, this is an extract from one of my articles.

Scope and Definition

What classifies one as belonging to or outside the fold of Sanatana Dharma, is not as straight forward as answering what classifies one as belonging to or outside the fold of any particular community.

 

Sanatana Dharma, as it means, is the eternal law – hence anyone by definition is included in it. It does not classify people as followers and non-followers, believers and non-believers and so on. Thus by definition, it is universal and all-inclusive. This is because it talks of the natural and universal order or law, and not of the universe as seen by any particular seer.

 

However, when seen in a social context there do exist many classifications. The people belonging to the civilization of Bharata share a common cultural and social base; they differ in philosophy and few social aspects. The first such division is Vedic-Unvedic.

 

Accepting the authority of Veda is the primary criterion, for defining a person as belonging to Veda mata. And this covers all the branches, such as srauta, smarta, Tantric and so on. However, there are further classifications in this: There are schools that hold Atharva vedins as unvedic. There are schools that hold some Tantras as unvedic. And so on. However, with all the philosophical and religious differences, they all share one cultural-social base.

 

The schools that do not hold Veda as a primary authority are called Unvedic. Bauddha and Jaina, though they believe in salvation (having their own versions of Nirvana and Kaivalya respectively) are thus called Unvedic. They do not however call the Veda as false knowledge. Bauddha and Jaina also share the same civilizational and philosophical base, and the worldview as Vedic religion. Hence they are very much parts of the Bharatiya Civilization.

 

However it should not be understood in the sense that Veda is to be taken as an “authority”. Veda is taken as a Pramana or a source and reference for validation of knowledge. And a school that does not accept Veda as pramana, implies that it does not believe in statements other than those that could be validated through other means of knowledge. There are acceptable pramanas under each school, like pratyaksha, anumana, upamana and so on which could be translated as (perception, logic, comparison, etc.). And the knowledge that could not be validated by these, according to Vedic religion, is to be taken as valid, if it finds validation in the Veda. The reasoning given for this by the followers of Vedic religion is that Veda is knowledge of the eternal and contains that knowledge which cannot be validated. So “something that cannot be validated can exist and still be accepted as true” is the premise.

And this pramana was not listed first; in fact it was listed after pratyaksha and so on, to imply that you do not need the pramana of Veda for something that can be validated through direct means. According to Unvedic darsanas like Bauddha, only the knowledge that could be validated by pratyaksha and anumana is to be taken as valid. Thus, the difference is purely at a philosophical level, and not really at a religious level. Therefore we could see there are a lot of similarities in the religious practices of all these schools, such as Tantric and other methods. However, high level philosophical differences had social implications, such as accepting the Vedic social order or Varna-Ashrama dharma. Still, they all shared the same cultural-civilizati onal base. However, it was easy to assimilate them in the social order – for they did not create a new social order, and they were not different socio-cultural systems.

 

Thus the Vedic-unvedic became a slightly different classification, Astika - Nastika. There are two criteria that make one an Astika or having astikya: believing in Veda’s pramanya, and following varna-ashrama dharma. The belief in Veda translating as Astikya borrows sense from the above explanation, of “something that cannot be validated can exist and still be accepted as true”.

 

Accepting God or Iswara, has never been a criterion in classifying something as Astika or Vedic or Hindu for that matter. Owing to the differences in approach and diversity in worldviews, accepting the existence of God has always been a matter of choice and one’s philosophy. Diversity in attribution of supremacy to God, religious practices, philosophical traits, none of these matter in classifying something as Vedic-Unvedic.

 

However, Carvaka differs greatly from all other systems including Bauddha and Jaina – they accept pratyaksha (sense-perception) as the only pramana. Every other school, Vedic or Unvedic accepts at least two pramanas. And they do not accept akasha as a mahabhuta or a primordial element, which all other schools accept. Akasha is the element which is both the origin of all the other elements and listed as an element (in its unmanifest form). This causes all other differences such as treating body as self, not accepting rebirth and so on. In this, Carvaka comes very close to the western materialistic thought pattern. For this reason, not only did Carvaka have a different philosophical but also an entirely different social style emanating from an entirely alien worldview which is incompatible with all the other schools.

 

However, all other Bharatiya peoples, including tribal, should be called as sharing the same philosophical base. Either by their practices, or by their goals, their origin lies in the same.

Any philosophy that came from outside, or developed independently in Bharata and came in contact with Sanatana Dharma, has been assimilated in its comprehensive, all-inclusive system.

 

However, the ones that are not assimilated are the exclusivist ideologies like Abrahamic religions. In a way, they are as philosophically and socially incompatible with Sanatana Dharma as Carvaka was at one time.

 

So any other school is, technically speaking, belonging to or related to Sanatana Dharma. One one hand there are schools like Shanmatas that are part of it, and on the other hand there are schools like Bauddha that have origin in it but are outgrowths from it.

 

 

 

Bruce Duffy <bwduffy (AT) netspace (DOT) net.au>Thursday, November 20, 2008 7:54:18 PMRe: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

 

Yes, your take is correct, but what sets Vedic Hinduism apart from other religions is that its most revered religious 'texts' do present a logical and coherent notion about the nature of existence that is very clearly revealed to us by great commentators like Shankara. Some Indian scholars argue that the Veda contains reference to a number of what are considered modern scientific inventions, and they may be right about that, but they may also be focusing on these sometimes obscure and not so easy to argue scientific references in the Veda and be blind to the very strong possibility that they have presented very clearly in the Vedic 'texts' what could arguably be the most perfect theory about the nature of existence ever conceived. That theory being the concept of the One or Brahman.

Bruce

 

 

On 19/11/2008, at 7:25 PM, ODDISILAB wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

My take on the question is

 

SPRITUALITY.

 

(this issue has been long long ago settled- Read Vivekananda, Sankara,.... .)

 

 

-

Kamlesh Kapur

 

Tuesday, November 18, 2008 8:47 PM

RE: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

 

 

 

 

Can you please explain your ideas-

<what is the fundamental principle of Hinduism (Vedic Hinduism)>

It is important to know the perspective of diverse people on the subject.

I teach Hindu Dharma to various age groups and am currently compiling a book of lesson plans for three different age groups.

You can send it as a private Email in case the group does not want to have a thread on the discussion on the subject.

Also, we are helping the state dept of education to improve their core curriculum for teaching Hinduism.

Regards,

Kamlesh

 

 

 

[ancientindi a ] On Behalf Of Bruce DuffyTuesday, November 18, 2008 8:39 AMRe: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

 

 

 

 

Dear Kishore, earlier today, in relation to the below message, I wrote:

 

 

 

"Dear Kishore, although I enjoyed reading it I find this message somewhat puzzling. In the below story who is the very conservative, judgmental man and who is the somewhat liberated and free spirited woman. Is it just a story or are they characters I should be familiar with?

 

All the best, Bruce."

 

 

 

After a second reading of the below message it came across as a rather inspired piece of writing and the author as being a lot less judgmental than I had at first judged him to be. A second reading of the below short passage saw it as beautifully capturing the awkward attempts of two people who have a respect for each other, but come from very different backgrounds and cultures trying to relate to each other and accept each others values without being too judgmental. With a bit of imagination and artistic license Radhakrishna Warrier could have the basis of a good novel here that as well as describing the attempts of a man and a woman from two very different backgrounds trying to relate to each other in a meaningful way would also give the author ample opportunity to discuss the Vedic religion and Hinduism.

 

 

 

I would love to answer his question about what is the fundamental principle of Hinduism (Vedic Hinduism) and to be able to talk about brahman, but I am not sure his Yavana Sundari would be ready to hear about such a concept, and an important teaching of the Upanishads and Bhagavadgita is about how one should not expose a person to such knowledge if they are not fit to hear it or ready to hear it.

 

 

 

As far as my query about the identity of the people being discussed in the message please ignore it. I was getting confused and thinking it may have been referring to members of our group.

 

 

 

Bruce

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

,

[Guest guest]

Sri Sunil ji,"Yoga begins where Sankhya leaves and Yoga brings in Ishvara so that the purushas are with Ishvara after liberation. Then at the ultimate level the Vedanta explains that there is no difference between Brahman and the purushas. "Darsanas are different perspectives, I totally agree. And when we talk of Nireeswara schools, I do not think it will be appropriate to say they fall short - for instance Madhwacarya explicitly says that Brahman and Purushas are different and that the difference is real and eternal. I am not debating which of them is valid, but saying that their difference is difference at that level. Coming to Bauddha, there does exist a difference philosophically. It is not similar to the difference Sankhya has with Yoga, it is a bigger difference -

because Bauddha does not accept Purusha beyond prakriti in the first place. It is not saying the same thing, when one says "everything is Brahman" and when one says "all is illusion". In fact the darsanas themselves take different stands on the universe, whether it is eternal or has a beginning, whether it is a transformation of Brahman or an appearance of Brahman, whether jiva and Brahman are same or undifferentiated, if undifferentiated in what states, and so on. All these interpret the same Upanishads in different ways. Because they make a fundamental admission of Purusha. The Nireeswara schools too, admit that. Bauddha differs there. It does not admit Purusha in the first place. "World is an illusion" is philosophically quite different from "world appears so, but what exists is Brahman alone". They have very different implications, in their approaches, methods and world views. Like I already said, Buddha's teachings and Bauddha as a darsana are not synonyms. Buddha himself did not develop a full-fledged darsana so to say. So it does not really make sense to me, to limit Bauddha to his teachings. Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 7:16:03 AMRe: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

 

Dear Khandavalliji,Have you had a look at the relevant portion in the Svetasvatara Upanishad? The six Darshanas are not six competing philosophies. These are six Perspectives at different spiritual and intellectual levels. Yoga begins where Sankhya leaves and Yoga brings in Ishvara so that the purushas are with Ishvara after liberation. Then at the ultimate level the Vedanta explains that there is no difference between Brahman and the purushas. One sometimes gets confused by the different terminologies used in these different Darshanas or Perspectives. The compassionate Lord Buddha, though oath-bound not to teach the Vedanta, expressed the Vedantic truth when he spoke

about non-separateness and that is the same as telling that there is none but the Brahman alone. Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Sun, 11/23/08,

ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ > wrote:ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ >Re: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....Sunday, November 23, 2008, 11:59 PM

 

Dear Sri Sunil ji,I am a bit confused about "concept of Brahman" being taught to the "advanced students of Sankhya". Sankhya holds that Purusha can be liberated from Prakriti, but Purusha is not really singular. It holds multiplicity of Purushas - in fact dvaita borrows the notion of Paramatma being different from Atma, from Sankhya (they quote Sankhya chapter from BG to assert multiplicity of Atma). And moreover Sankhya does not hold that there is a single Parama purusha around all Purushas exist. So I did not understand what you mean by "Brahman" here in the context of Sankhya. Can you help me understand.. . "Let us consider only original teachings or sayings of Lord Buddha.

To my understanding Adi Sankara was not against the teachings of Lord

Buddha but against the interpretations of Dignaga and Dharmahirti. "Like I said, Bauddha has gone quite a long way after Buddha's teachings. And we are not really discussing Bauddha darsana when we limit to Buddha's teachings. Coming to Sankara-Buddha, the difference pointed out by one of the esteemed members holds valid: Atma/Purusha is an existence that Bauddha does not accept and all the six Vedic Darsanas accept. Even Sankhya holds Purusha as an eternal existence, though it holds multiplicity of Purushas. Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>Monday,

November 24, 2008 7:24:27 AMRe: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

 

Dear Khandavalliji,Kindly consider the fact that the Svetasvatara Upanishada says that the concept of Brahman is taught only to the most advanced students of Sankhya. Further also read, in conjunction, that Lord Buddha taught about Bodhakaya, Tathagatagarbha and Shunyata to his advanced disciples only. Madam Blavatsky was of the opinion that Lord Buddha (probably as the Kshatriyas were entitled to) studied the Vedas but he was under oath not to teach the Vedas. This is in line with the fact that only the brahmanas were entitled to teach the Vedas. This also explains why Lord Buddha said that his next avatara as Jnani-Buddha (Maitreya) would be in a brahmin family.

Some people like Yamunacharya believed that Adi Sankaracharya could be Lord Buddha reborn.Regards,Sunil K. BhattacharjyaLet us consider only original teachings or

sayings of Lord Buddha. To my understanding Adi Sankara was not against the teachings of Lord Buddha but against the interpretations of Dignaga and Dharmahirti.Regards,--- On Sun, 11/23/08, ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ > wrote:ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ >Re: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....Sunday, November 23, 2008, 2:40 AM

 

Sri Sunil ji,

 

There are a few things here:

 

Buddha's sayings and Bauddha as a darsana are not exactly synonymous, since Bauddha developed big deal post Buddha.

 

Having regard for Veda is different from accepting it as a Pramana for technical purposes. Karma Mimamsa and Sankara Advaita accept six pramanas - pratyaksha, anumana, upamana, ardhapatti, anupalabdi and sabda. Bauddha accepts two. World view depends on which school accpets how many pramanas, along with the notion of eternal. Sabda pramana is the big difference between Bauddha and Sankhya. And as I said, this makes the difference between whether you admit something you cannot validate through pratyaksha and anumana. Answer: Sankhya accepts if it is supported by Veda, while Bauddha does not. So the point is not whether Buddha himself said anything against Veda. Moreover, Bauddha and Sankhya differ in the notion of Purusha. Sankhya holds that Purusha can exist in a liberated state, beyond the influence of Prakriti.

"Theistic" if we go by the technical definition for Astikya, it is accpeting Veda pramana. It is not whether Isvara is accepted or not. Three out of six Vedic darsanas (vaiseshika, sankhya and karma mimamsa) do not hold that Isvara exists. They continue to be "astika". But Bauddha does not fall under the same category.

 

However this is not to say Bauddha is any "less" but if we are to go by definition it is not the same as Sankhya or any Vedic darsana.

 

 

 

 

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>Friday, November 21, 2008 11:05:21 PMRe: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Khandavalliji,I just want to add that Lord Buddha was trained in Sankhya by his guru Alara Kalama. Sankhya says that existence of God cannot be proved and for this very reason Sankhya and the teachings of Buddha are Godless but not atheistic. Lord Buddha believed that there is ''Cause'' for this world in a Cause-Effect relationship, which is a Sankhya approach. After six years of Tapashya he found that there is ultimately no separateness in this world and that is how he could explain that finally there will not remain separate freed souls but all in a non-separate state.Further Lord Buddha had high regard for the Vedas as he said that one should understand the true meaning of the Vedas.Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Thu, 11/20/08, ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ >

wrote:

ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ >Re: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....Thursday, November 20, 2008, 6:34 AM

 

 

 

 

Dear Bruce,I completely agree. However to add a perspective to define Vedic Hinduism, this is an extract from one of my articles.

Scope and Definition

What classifies one as belonging to or outside the fold of Sanatana Dharma, is not as straight forward as answering what classifies one as belonging to or outside the fold of any particular community.

 

Sanatana Dharma, as it means, is the eternal law – hence anyone by definition is included in it. It does not classify people as followers and non-followers, believers and non-believers and so on. Thus by definition, it is universal and all-inclusive. This is because it talks of the natural and universal order or law, and not of the universe as seen by any particular seer.

 

However, when seen in a social context there do exist many classifications. The people belonging to the civilization of Bharata share a common cultural and social base; they differ in philosophy and few social aspects. The first such division is Vedic-Unvedic.

 

Accepting the authority of Veda is the primary criterion, for defining a person as belonging to Veda mata. And this covers all the branches, such as srauta, smarta, Tantric and so on. However, there are further classifications in this: There are schools that hold Atharva vedins as unvedic. There are schools that hold some Tantras as unvedic. And so on. However, with all the philosophical and religious differences, they all share one cultural-social base.

 

The schools that do not hold Veda as a primary authority are called Unvedic. Bauddha and Jaina, though they believe in salvation (having their own versions of Nirvana and Kaivalya respectively) are thus called Unvedic. They do not however call the Veda as false knowledge. Bauddha and Jaina also share the same civilizational and philosophical base, and the worldview as Vedic religion. Hence they are very much parts of the Bharatiya Civilization.

 

However it should not be understood in the sense that Veda is to be taken as an “authority”. Veda is taken as a Pramana or a source and reference for validation of knowledge. And a school that does not accept Veda as pramana, implies that it does not believe in statements other than those that could be validated through other means of knowledge. There are acceptable pramanas under each school, like pratyaksha, anumana, upamana and so on which could be translated as (perception, logic, comparison, etc.). And the knowledge that could not be validated by these, according to Vedic religion, is to be taken as valid, if it finds validation in the Veda. The reasoning given for this by the followers of Vedic religion is that Veda is knowledge of the eternal and contains that knowledge which cannot be validated. So “something that cannot be validated can exist and still be accepted as true” is the premise.

And this pramana was not listed first; in fact it was listed after pratyaksha and so on, to imply that you do not need the pramana of Veda for something that can be validated through direct means. According to Unvedic darsanas like Bauddha, only the knowledge that could be validated by pratyaksha and anumana is to be taken as valid. Thus, the difference is purely at a philosophical level, and not really at a religious level. Therefore we could see there are a lot of similarities in the religious practices of all these schools, such as Tantric and other methods. However, high level philosophical differences had social implications, such as accepting the Vedic social order or Varna-Ashrama dharma. Still, they all shared the same cultural-civilizati onal base. However, it was easy to assimilate them in the social order – for they did not create a new social order, and they were not different socio-cultural systems.

 

Thus the Vedic-unvedic became a slightly different classification, Astika - Nastika. There are two criteria that make one an Astika or having astikya: believing in Veda’s pramanya, and following varna-ashrama dharma. The belief in Veda translating as Astikya borrows sense from the above explanation, of “something that cannot be validated can exist and still be accepted as true”.

 

Accepting God or Iswara, has never been a criterion in classifying something as Astika or Vedic or Hindu for that matter. Owing to the differences in approach and diversity in worldviews, accepting the existence of God has always been a matter of choice and one’s philosophy. Diversity in attribution of supremacy to God, religious practices, philosophical traits, none of these matter in classifying something as Vedic-Unvedic.

 

However, Carvaka differs greatly from all other systems including Bauddha and Jaina – they accept pratyaksha (sense-perception) as the only pramana. Every other school, Vedic or Unvedic accepts at least two pramanas. And they do not accept akasha as a mahabhuta or a primordial element, which all other schools accept. Akasha is the element which is both the origin of all the other elements and listed as an element (in its unmanifest form). This causes all other differences such as treating body as self, not accepting rebirth and so on. In this, Carvaka comes very close to the western materialistic thought pattern. For this reason, not only did Carvaka have a different philosophical but also an entirely different social style emanating from an entirely alien worldview which is incompatible with all the other schools.

 

However, all other Bharatiya peoples, including tribal, should be called as sharing the same philosophical base. Either by their practices, or by their goals, their origin lies in the same.

Any philosophy that came from outside, or developed independently in Bharata and came in contact with Sanatana Dharma, has been assimilated in its comprehensive, all-inclusive system.

 

However, the ones that are not assimilated are the exclusivist ideologies like Abrahamic religions. In a way, they are as philosophically and socially incompatible with Sanatana Dharma as Carvaka was at one time.

 

So any other school is, technically speaking, belonging to or related to Sanatana Dharma. One one hand there are schools like Shanmatas that are part of it, and on the other hand there are schools like Bauddha that have origin in it but are outgrowths from it.

 

 

 

Bruce Duffy <bwduffy (AT) netspace (DOT) net.au>Thursday, November 20, 2008 7:54:18 PMRe: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

 

Yes, your take is correct, but what sets Vedic Hinduism apart from other religions is that its most revered religious 'texts' do present a logical and coherent notion about the nature of existence that is very clearly revealed to us by great commentators like Shankara. Some Indian scholars argue that the Veda contains reference to a number of what are considered modern scientific inventions, and they may be right about that, but they may also be focusing on these sometimes obscure and not so easy to argue scientific references in the Veda and be blind to the very strong possibility that they have presented very clearly in the Vedic 'texts' what could arguably be the most perfect theory about the nature of existence ever conceived. That theory being the concept of the One or Brahman.

Bruce

 

 

On 19/11/2008, at 7:25 PM, ODDISILAB wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

My take on the question is

 

SPRITUALITY.

 

(this issue has been long long ago settled- Read Vivekananda, Sankara,.... .)

 

 

-

Kamlesh Kapur

 

Tuesday, November 18, 2008 8:47 PM

RE: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

 

 

 

 

Can you please explain your ideas-

<what is the fundamental principle of Hinduism (Vedic Hinduism)>

It is important to know the perspective of diverse people on the subject.

I teach Hindu Dharma to various age groups and am currently compiling a book of lesson plans for three different age groups.

You can send it as a private Email in case the group does not want to have a thread on the discussion on the subject.

Also, we are helping the state dept of education to improve their core curriculum for teaching Hinduism.

Regards,

Kamlesh

 

 

 

[ancientindi a ] On Behalf Of Bruce DuffyTuesday, November 18, 2008 8:39 AMRe: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

 

 

 

 

Dear Kishore, earlier today, in relation to the below message, I wrote:

 

 

 

"Dear Kishore, although I enjoyed reading it I find this message somewhat puzzling. In the below story who is the very conservative, judgmental man and who is the somewhat liberated and free spirited woman. Is it just a story or are they characters I should be familiar with?

 

All the best, Bruce."

 

 

 

After a second reading of the below message it came across as a rather inspired piece of writing and the author as being a lot less judgmental than I had at first judged him to be. A second reading of the below short passage saw it as beautifully capturing the awkward attempts of two people who have a respect for each other, but come from very different backgrounds and cultures trying to relate to each other and accept each others values without being too judgmental. With a bit of imagination and artistic license Radhakrishna Warrier could have the basis of a good novel here that as well as describing the attempts of a man and a woman from two very different backgrounds trying to relate to each other in a meaningful way would also give the author ample opportunity to discuss the Vedic religion and Hinduism.

 

 

 

I would love to answer his question about what is the fundamental principle of Hinduism (Vedic Hinduism) and to be able to talk about brahman, but I am not sure his Yavana Sundari would be ready to hear about such a concept, and an important teaching of the Upanishads and Bhagavadgita is about how one should not expose a person to such knowledge if they are not fit to hear it or ready to hear it.

 

 

 

As far as my query about the identity of the people being discussed in the message please ignore it. I was getting confused and thinking it may have been referring to members of our group.

 

 

 

Bruce

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

,

[Guest guest]

Dear Khandavalliji,At the Vyavaharic Satya level the purushas are different from Brahman. Please remember what Adi Sankaracharya said. ''Bhaktyarth kalpitam Dvaita Advaitadapi sundaram''. Some Dvaita scholars believe that the concept of ''Maya'' was first conceived by Adi Sankaracharya, forgetting that Lord Krishna mentioned it in Bhagavad Gita more than 5000 years ago. Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Tue, 11/25/08, ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj wrote:ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwajRe: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence .... Date: Tuesday, November 25, 2008, 4:58

AM

 

Sri Sunil ji,"Yoga begins where Sankhya leaves and Yoga brings in Ishvara so that the purushas are with Ishvara after liberation. Then at the ultimate level the Vedanta explains that there is no difference between Brahman and the purushas. "Darsanas are different perspectives, I totally agree. And when we talk of Nireeswara schools, I do not think it will be appropriate to say they fall short - for instance Madhwacarya explicitly says that Brahman and Purushas are different and that the difference is real and eternal. I am not debating which of them is valid, but saying that their difference is difference at that level. Coming to Bauddha, there does exist a difference philosophically. It is not similar to the difference Sankhya has with Yoga, it is a bigger difference -

because Bauddha does not accept Purusha beyond prakriti in the first place. It is not saying the same thing, when one says "everything is Brahman" and when one says "all is illusion". In fact the darsanas themselves take different stands on the universe, whether it is eternal or has a beginning, whether it is a transformation of Brahman or an appearance of Brahman, whether jiva and Brahman are same or undifferentiated, if undifferentiated in what states, and so on. All these interpret the same Upanishads in different ways. Because they make a fundamental admission of Purusha. The Nireeswara schools too, admit that. Bauddha differs there. It does not admit Purusha in the first place. "World is an illusion" is philosophically quite different from "world appears so, but what exists is Brahman alone". They have very different implications, in their approaches, methods and world views. Like I already said, Buddha's teachings and Bauddha as a darsana are not synonyms. Buddha himself did not develop a full-fledged darsana so to say. So it does not really make sense to me, to limit Bauddha to his teachings. Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>Tuesday, November 25, 2008 7:16:03 AMRe: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

 

Dear Khandavalliji,Have you had a look at the relevant portion in the Svetasvatara Upanishad? The six Darshanas are not six competing philosophies. These are six Perspectives at different spiritual and intellectual levels. Yoga begins where Sankhya leaves and Yoga brings in Ishvara so that the purushas are with Ishvara after liberation. Then at the ultimate level the Vedanta explains that there is no difference between Brahman and the purushas. One sometimes gets confused by the different terminologies used in these different Darshanas or Perspectives. The compassionate Lord Buddha, though oath-bound not to teach the Vedanta, expressed the Vedantic truth when he spoke

about non-separateness and that is the same as telling that there is none but the Brahman alone. Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Sun, 11/23/08,

ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ > wrote:ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ >Re: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....Sunday, November 23, 2008, 11:59 PM

 

Dear Sri Sunil ji,I am a bit confused about "concept of Brahman" being taught to the "advanced students of Sankhya". Sankhya holds that Purusha can be liberated from Prakriti, but Purusha is not really singular. It holds multiplicity of Purushas - in fact dvaita borrows the notion of Paramatma being different from Atma, from Sankhya (they quote Sankhya chapter from BG to assert multiplicity of Atma). And moreover Sankhya does not hold that there is a single Parama purusha around all Purushas exist. So I did not understand what you mean by "Brahman" here in the context of Sankhya. Can you help me understand.. . "Let us consider only original teachings or sayings of Lord Buddha.

To my understanding Adi Sankara was not against the teachings of Lord

Buddha but against the interpretations of Dignaga and Dharmahirti. "Like I said, Bauddha has gone quite a long way after Buddha's teachings. And we are not really discussing Bauddha darsana when we limit to Buddha's teachings. Coming to Sankara-Buddha, the difference pointed out by one of the esteemed members holds valid: Atma/Purusha is an existence that Bauddha does not accept and all the six Vedic Darsanas accept. Even Sankhya holds Purusha as an eternal existence, though it holds multiplicity of Purushas. Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>Monday,

November 24, 2008 7:24:27 AMRe: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

 

Dear Khandavalliji,Kindly consider the fact that the Svetasvatara Upanishada says that the concept of Brahman is taught only to the most advanced students of Sankhya. Further also read, in conjunction, that Lord Buddha taught about Bodhakaya, Tathagatagarbha and Shunyata to his advanced disciples only. Madam Blavatsky was of the opinion that Lord Buddha (probably as the Kshatriyas were entitled to) studied the Vedas but he was under oath not to teach the Vedas. This is in line with the fact that only the brahmanas were entitled to teach the Vedas. This also explains why Lord Buddha said that his next avatara as Jnani-Buddha (Maitreya) would be in a brahmin family.

Some people like Yamunacharya believed that Adi Sankaracharya could be Lord Buddha reborn.Regards,Sunil K. BhattacharjyaLet us consider only original teachings or

sayings of Lord Buddha. To my understanding Adi Sankara was not against the teachings of Lord Buddha but against the interpretations of Dignaga and Dharmahirti.Regards,--- On Sun, 11/23/08, ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ > wrote:ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ >Re: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....Sunday, November 23, 2008, 2:40 AM

 

Sri Sunil ji,

 

There are a few things here:

 

Buddha's sayings and Bauddha as a darsana are not exactly synonymous, since Bauddha developed big deal post Buddha.

 

Having regard for Veda is different from accepting it as a Pramana for technical purposes. Karma Mimamsa and Sankara Advaita accept six pramanas - pratyaksha, anumana, upamana, ardhapatti, anupalabdi and sabda. Bauddha accepts two. World view depends on which school accpets how many pramanas, along with the notion of eternal. Sabda pramana is the big difference between Bauddha and Sankhya. And as I said, this makes the difference between whether you admit something you cannot validate through pratyaksha and anumana. Answer: Sankhya accepts if it is supported by Veda, while Bauddha does not. So the point is not whether Buddha himself said anything against Veda. Moreover, Bauddha and Sankhya differ in the notion of Purusha. Sankhya holds that Purusha can exist in a liberated state, beyond the influence of Prakriti.

"Theistic" if we go by the technical definition for Astikya, it is accpeting Veda pramana. It is not whether Isvara is accepted or not. Three out of six Vedic darsanas (vaiseshika, sankhya and karma mimamsa) do not hold that Isvara exists. They continue to be "astika". But Bauddha does not fall under the same category.

 

However this is not to say Bauddha is any "less" but if we are to go by definition it is not the same as Sankhya or any Vedic darsana.

 

 

 

 

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>Friday, November 21, 2008 11:05:21 PMRe: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Khandavalliji,I just want to add that Lord Buddha was trained in Sankhya by his guru Alara Kalama. Sankhya says that existence of God cannot be proved and for this very reason Sankhya and the teachings of Buddha are Godless but not atheistic. Lord Buddha believed that there is ''Cause'' for this world in a Cause-Effect relationship, which is a Sankhya approach. After six years of Tapashya he found that there is ultimately no separateness in this world and that is how he could explain that finally there will not remain separate freed souls but all in a non-separate state.Further Lord Buddha had high regard for the Vedas as he said that one should understand the true meaning of the Vedas.Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Thu, 11/20/08, ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ >

wrote:

ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ >Re: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....Thursday, November 20, 2008, 6:34 AM

 

 

 

 

Dear Bruce,I completely agree. However to add a perspective to define Vedic Hinduism, this is an extract from one of my articles.

Scope and Definition

What classifies one as belonging to or outside the fold of Sanatana Dharma, is not as straight forward as answering what classifies one as belonging to or outside the fold of any particular community.

 

Sanatana Dharma, as it means, is the eternal law – hence anyone by definition is included in it. It does not classify people as followers and non-followers, believers and non-believers and so on. Thus by definition, it is universal and all-inclusive. This is because it talks of the natural and universal order or law, and not of the universe as seen by any particular seer.

 

However, when seen in a social context there do exist many classifications. The people belonging to the civilization of Bharata share a common cultural and social base; they differ in philosophy and few social aspects. The first such division is Vedic-Unvedic.

 

Accepting the authority of Veda is the primary criterion, for defining a person as belonging to Veda mata. And this covers all the branches, such as srauta, smarta, Tantric and so on. However, there are further classifications in this: There are schools that hold Atharva vedins as unvedic. There are schools that hold some Tantras as unvedic. And so on. However, with all the philosophical and religious differences, they all share one cultural-social base.

 

The schools that do not hold Veda as a primary authority are called Unvedic. Bauddha and Jaina, though they believe in salvation (having their own versions of Nirvana and Kaivalya respectively) are thus called Unvedic. They do not however call the Veda as false knowledge. Bauddha and Jaina also share the same civilizational and philosophical base, and the worldview as Vedic religion. Hence they are very much parts of the Bharatiya Civilization.

 

However it should not be understood in the sense that Veda is to be taken as an “authority”. Veda is taken as a Pramana or a source and reference for validation of knowledge. And a school that does not accept Veda as pramana, implies that it does not believe in statements other than those that could be validated through other means of knowledge. There are acceptable pramanas under each school, like pratyaksha, anumana, upamana and so on which could be translated as (perception, logic, comparison, etc.). And the knowledge that could not be validated by these, according to Vedic religion, is to be taken as valid, if it finds validation in the Veda. The reasoning given for this by the followers of Vedic religion is that Veda is knowledge of the eternal and contains that knowledge which cannot be validated. So “something that cannot be validated can exist and still be accepted as true” is the premise.

And this pramana was not listed first; in fact it was listed after pratyaksha and so on, to imply that you do not need the pramana of Veda for something that can be validated through direct means. According to Unvedic darsanas like Bauddha, only the knowledge that could be validated by pratyaksha and anumana is to be taken as valid. Thus, the difference is purely at a philosophical level, and not really at a religious level. Therefore we could see there are a lot of similarities in the religious practices of all these schools, such as Tantric and other methods. However, high level philosophical differences had social implications, such as accepting the Vedic social order or Varna-Ashrama dharma. Still, they all shared the same cultural-civilizati onal base. However, it was easy to assimilate them in the social order – for they did not create a new social order, and they were not different socio-cultural systems.

 

Thus the Vedic-unvedic became a slightly different classification, Astika - Nastika. There are two criteria that make one an Astika or having astikya: believing in Veda’s pramanya, and following varna-ashrama dharma. The belief in Veda translating as Astikya borrows sense from the above explanation, of “something that cannot be validated can exist and still be accepted as true”.

 

Accepting God or Iswara, has never been a criterion in classifying something as Astika or Vedic or Hindu for that matter. Owing to the differences in approach and diversity in worldviews, accepting the existence of God has always been a matter of choice and one’s philosophy. Diversity in attribution of supremacy to God, religious practices, philosophical traits, none of these matter in classifying something as Vedic-Unvedic.

 

However, Carvaka differs greatly from all other systems including Bauddha and Jaina – they accept pratyaksha (sense-perception) as the only pramana. Every other school, Vedic or Unvedic accepts at least two pramanas. And they do not accept akasha as a mahabhuta or a primordial element, which all other schools accept. Akasha is the element which is both the origin of all the other elements and listed as an element (in its unmanifest form). This causes all other differences such as treating body as self, not accepting rebirth and so on. In this, Carvaka comes very close to the western materialistic thought pattern. For this reason, not only did Carvaka have a different philosophical but also an entirely different social style emanating from an entirely alien worldview which is incompatible with all the other schools.

 

However, all other Bharatiya peoples, including tribal, should be called as sharing the same philosophical base. Either by their practices, or by their goals, their origin lies in the same.

Any philosophy that came from outside, or developed independently in Bharata and came in contact with Sanatana Dharma, has been assimilated in its comprehensive, all-inclusive system.

 

However, the ones that are not assimilated are the exclusivist ideologies like Abrahamic religions. In a way, they are as philosophically and socially incompatible with Sanatana Dharma as Carvaka was at one time.

 

So any other school is, technically speaking, belonging to or related to Sanatana Dharma. One one hand there are schools like Shanmatas that are part of it, and on the other hand there are schools like Bauddha that have origin in it but are outgrowths from it.

 

 

 

Bruce Duffy <bwduffy (AT) netspace (DOT) net.au>Thursday, November 20, 2008 7:54:18 PMRe: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

 

Yes, your take is correct, but what sets Vedic Hinduism apart from other religions is that its most revered religious 'texts' do present a logical and coherent notion about the nature of existence that is very clearly revealed to us by great commentators like Shankara. Some Indian scholars argue that the Veda contains reference to a number of what are considered modern scientific inventions, and they may be right about that, but they may also be focusing on these sometimes obscure and not so easy to argue scientific references in the Veda and be blind to the very strong possibility that they have presented very clearly in the Vedic 'texts' what could arguably be the most perfect theory about the nature of existence ever conceived. That theory being the concept of the One or Brahman.

Bruce

 

 

On 19/11/2008, at 7:25 PM, ODDISILAB wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

My take on the question is

 

SPRITUALITY.

 

(this issue has been long long ago settled- Read Vivekananda, Sankara,.... .)

 

 

-

Kamlesh Kapur

 

Tuesday, November 18, 2008 8:47 PM

RE: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

 

 

 

 

Can you please explain your ideas-

<what is the fundamental principle of Hinduism (Vedic Hinduism)>

It is important to know the perspective of diverse people on the subject.

I teach Hindu Dharma to various age groups and am currently compiling a book of lesson plans for three different age groups.

You can send it as a private Email in case the group does not want to have a thread on the discussion on the subject.

Also, we are helping the state dept of education to improve their core curriculum for teaching Hinduism.

Regards,

Kamlesh

 

 

 

[ancientindi a ] On Behalf Of Bruce DuffyTuesday, November 18, 2008 8:39 AMRe: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

 

 

 

 

Dear Kishore, earlier today, in relation to the below message, I wrote:

 

 

 

"Dear Kishore, although I enjoyed reading it I find this message somewhat puzzling. In the below story who is the very conservative, judgmental man and who is the somewhat liberated and free spirited woman. Is it just a story or are they characters I should be familiar with?

 

All the best, Bruce."

 

 

 

After a second reading of the below message it came across as a rather inspired piece of writing and the author as being a lot less judgmental than I had at first judged him to be. A second reading of the below short passage saw it as beautifully capturing the awkward attempts of two people who have a respect for each other, but come from very different backgrounds and cultures trying to relate to each other and accept each others values without being too judgmental. With a bit of imagination and artistic license Radhakrishna Warrier could have the basis of a good novel here that as well as describing the attempts of a man and a woman from two very different backgrounds trying to relate to each other in a meaningful way would also give the author ample opportunity to discuss the Vedic religion and Hinduism.

 

 

 

I would love to answer his question about what is the fundamental principle of Hinduism (Vedic Hinduism) and to be able to talk about brahman, but I am not sure his Yavana Sundari would be ready to hear about such a concept, and an important teaching of the Upanishads and Bhagavadgita is about how one should not expose a person to such knowledge if they are not fit to hear it or ready to hear it.

 

 

 

As far as my query about the identity of the people being discussed in the message please ignore it. I was getting confused and thinking it may have been referring to members of our group.

 

 

 

Bruce

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

,

[Guest guest]

Sri Sunil ji,I am an Advaiti myself, so please do not think I differ in the view that Purusha is essentially Brahman only. But when it comes to different philosophical schools, we cannot afford to ignore the diversity in them on this subject. That is all I am trying to say. Practically, it does not make any difference to the seeker whether Purusha is Brahman or exists separately, once he is liberated from the binding of Prakriti. Samanvaya scholars have put different visions in front of us, regarding

the reconciliation of these darsanas. Some feel they are diverse views,

some feel they all are under some kind of hierarchy. And the follower

of each darsana puts his own in the top obviously!

But seers who had deeper vision, realized that these differences have huge practical implications in religion and socio-cultural evolution. Each vision was a product of its times (though eternally valid), with emphasis on those methods/paths that are most needed for those times. We should also understand that this diversity is not only not harmful, but has been a secret of the strength and invincibility of our system. There is no need to achieve uniformity at such philosophical level in order to attain social unity/strength. Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjyaTo:

Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 7:57:18 AMRe: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

 

Dear Khandavalliji,At the Vyavaharic Satya level the purushas are different from Brahman. Please remember what Adi Sankaracharya said. ''Bhaktyarth kalpitam Dvaita Advaitadapi sundaram''. Some Dvaita scholars believe that the concept of ''Maya'' was first conceived by Adi Sankaracharya, forgetting that Lord Krishna mentioned it in Bhagavad Gita more than 5000 years ago. Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Tue, 11/25/08, ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ > wrote:ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@

>Re: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....Tuesday, November 25, 2008, 4:58

AM

 

Sri Sunil ji,"Yoga begins where Sankhya leaves and Yoga brings in Ishvara so that the purushas are with Ishvara after liberation. Then at the ultimate level the Vedanta explains that there is no difference between Brahman and the purushas. "Darsanas are different perspectives, I totally agree. And when we talk of Nireeswara schools, I do not think it will be appropriate to say they fall short - for instance Madhwacarya explicitly says that Brahman and Purushas are different and that the difference is real and eternal. I am not debating which of them is valid, but saying that their difference is difference at that level. Coming to Bauddha, there does exist a difference philosophically. It is not similar to the difference Sankhya has with Yoga, it is a bigger difference -

because Bauddha does not accept Purusha beyond prakriti in the first place. It is not saying the same thing, when one says "everything is Brahman" and when one says "all is illusion". In fact the darsanas themselves take different stands on the universe, whether it is eternal or has a beginning, whether it is a transformation of Brahman or an appearance of Brahman, whether jiva and Brahman are same or undifferentiated, if undifferentiated in what states, and so on. All these interpret the same Upanishads in different ways. Because they make a fundamental admission of Purusha. The Nireeswara schools too, admit that. Bauddha differs there. It does not admit Purusha in the first place. "World is an illusion" is philosophically quite different from "world appears so, but what exists is Brahman alone". They have very different implications, in their approaches, methods and world views. Like I already said, Buddha's teachings and Bauddha as a darsana are not synonyms. Buddha himself did not develop a full-fledged darsana so to say. So it does not really make sense to me, to limit Bauddha to his teachings. Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>Tuesday, November 25, 2008 7:16:03 AMRe: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

 

Dear Khandavalliji,Have you had a look at the relevant portion in the Svetasvatara Upanishad? The six Darshanas are not six competing philosophies. These are six Perspectives at different spiritual and intellectual levels. Yoga begins where Sankhya leaves and Yoga brings in Ishvara so that the purushas are with Ishvara after liberation. Then at the ultimate level the Vedanta explains that there is no difference between Brahman and the purushas. One sometimes gets confused by the different terminologies used in these different Darshanas or Perspectives. The compassionate Lord Buddha, though oath-bound not to teach the Vedanta, expressed the Vedantic truth when he spoke

about non-separateness and that is the same as telling that there is none but the Brahman alone. Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Sun, 11/23/08,

ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ > wrote:ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ >Re: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....Sunday, November 23, 2008, 11:59 PM

 

Dear Sri Sunil ji,I am a bit confused about "concept of Brahman" being taught to the "advanced students of Sankhya". Sankhya holds that Purusha can be liberated from Prakriti, but Purusha is not really singular. It holds multiplicity of Purushas - in fact dvaita borrows the notion of Paramatma being different from Atma, from Sankhya (they quote Sankhya chapter from BG to assert multiplicity of Atma). And moreover Sankhya does not hold that there is a single Parama purusha around all Purushas exist. So I did not understand what you mean by "Brahman" here in the context of Sankhya. Can you help me understand.. . "Let us consider only original teachings or sayings of Lord Buddha.

To my understanding Adi Sankara was not against the teachings of Lord

Buddha but against the interpretations of Dignaga and Dharmahirti. "Like I said, Bauddha has gone quite a long way after Buddha's teachings. And we are not really discussing Bauddha darsana when we limit to Buddha's teachings. Coming to Sankara-Buddha, the difference pointed out by one of the esteemed members holds valid: Atma/Purusha is an existence that Bauddha does not accept and all the six Vedic Darsanas accept. Even Sankhya holds Purusha as an eternal existence, though it holds multiplicity of Purushas. Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>Monday,

November 24, 2008 7:24:27 AMRe: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

 

Dear Khandavalliji,Kindly consider the fact that the Svetasvatara Upanishada says that the concept of Brahman is taught only to the most advanced students of Sankhya. Further also read, in conjunction, that Lord Buddha taught about Bodhakaya, Tathagatagarbha and Shunyata to his advanced disciples only. Madam Blavatsky was of the opinion that Lord Buddha (probably as the Kshatriyas were entitled to) studied the Vedas but he was under oath not to teach the Vedas. This is in line with the fact that only the brahmanas were entitled to teach the Vedas. This also explains why Lord Buddha said that his next avatara as Jnani-Buddha (Maitreya) would be in a brahmin family.

Some people like Yamunacharya believed that Adi Sankaracharya could be Lord Buddha reborn.Regards,Sunil K. BhattacharjyaLet us consider only original teachings or

sayings of Lord Buddha. To my understanding Adi Sankara was not against the teachings of Lord Buddha but against the interpretations of Dignaga and Dharmahirti.Regards,--- On Sun, 11/23/08, ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ > wrote:ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ >Re: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....Sunday, November 23, 2008, 2:40 AM

 

Sri Sunil ji,

 

There are a few things here:

 

Buddha's sayings and Bauddha as a darsana are not exactly synonymous, since Bauddha developed big deal post Buddha.

 

Having regard for Veda is different from accepting it as a Pramana for technical purposes. Karma Mimamsa and Sankara Advaita accept six pramanas - pratyaksha, anumana, upamana, ardhapatti, anupalabdi and sabda. Bauddha accepts two. World view depends on which school accpets how many pramanas, along with the notion of eternal. Sabda pramana is the big difference between Bauddha and Sankhya. And as I said, this makes the difference between whether you admit something you cannot validate through pratyaksha and anumana. Answer: Sankhya accepts if it is supported by Veda, while Bauddha does not. So the point is not whether Buddha himself said anything against Veda. Moreover, Bauddha and Sankhya differ in the notion of Purusha. Sankhya holds that Purusha can exist in a liberated state, beyond the influence of Prakriti.

"Theistic" if we go by the technical definition for Astikya, it is accpeting Veda pramana. It is not whether Isvara is accepted or not. Three out of six Vedic darsanas (vaiseshika, sankhya and karma mimamsa) do not hold that Isvara exists. They continue to be "astika". But Bauddha does not fall under the same category.

 

However this is not to say Bauddha is any "less" but if we are to go by definition it is not the same as Sankhya or any Vedic darsana.

 

 

 

 

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>Friday, November 21, 2008 11:05:21 PMRe: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Khandavalliji,I just want to add that Lord Buddha was trained in Sankhya by his guru Alara Kalama. Sankhya says that existence of God cannot be proved and for this very reason Sankhya and the teachings of Buddha are Godless but not atheistic. Lord Buddha believed that there is ''Cause'' for this world in a Cause-Effect relationship, which is a Sankhya approach. After six years of Tapashya he found that there is ultimately no separateness in this world and that is how he could explain that finally there will not remain separate freed souls but all in a non-separate state.Further Lord Buddha had high regard for the Vedas as he said that one should understand the true meaning of the Vedas.Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Thu, 11/20/08, ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ >

wrote:

ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ >Re: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....Thursday, November 20, 2008, 6:34 AM

 

 

 

 

Dear Bruce,I completely agree. However to add a perspective to define Vedic Hinduism, this is an extract from one of my articles.

Scope and Definition

What classifies one as belonging to or outside the fold of Sanatana Dharma, is not as straight forward as answering what classifies one as belonging to or outside the fold of any particular community.

 

Sanatana Dharma, as it means, is the eternal law – hence anyone by definition is included in it. It does not classify people as followers and non-followers, believers and non-believers and so on. Thus by definition, it is universal and all-inclusive. This is because it talks of the natural and universal order or law, and not of the universe as seen by any particular seer.

 

However, when seen in a social context there do exist many classifications. The people belonging to the civilization of Bharata share a common cultural and social base; they differ in philosophy and few social aspects. The first such division is Vedic-Unvedic.

 

Accepting the authority of Veda is the primary criterion, for defining a person as belonging to Veda mata. And this covers all the branches, such as srauta, smarta, Tantric and so on. However, there are further classifications in this: There are schools that hold Atharva vedins as unvedic. There are schools that hold some Tantras as unvedic. And so on. However, with all the philosophical and religious differences, they all share one cultural-social base.

 

The schools that do not hold Veda as a primary authority are called Unvedic. Bauddha and Jaina, though they believe in salvation (having their own versions of Nirvana and Kaivalya respectively) are thus called Unvedic. They do not however call the Veda as false knowledge. Bauddha and Jaina also share the same civilizational and philosophical base, and the worldview as Vedic religion. Hence they are very much parts of the Bharatiya Civilization.

 

However it should not be understood in the sense that Veda is to be taken as an “authority”. Veda is taken as a Pramana or a source and reference for validation of knowledge. And a school that does not accept Veda as pramana, implies that it does not believe in statements other than those that could be validated through other means of knowledge. There are acceptable pramanas under each school, like pratyaksha, anumana, upamana and so on which could be translated as (perception, logic, comparison, etc.). And the knowledge that could not be validated by these, according to Vedic religion, is to be taken as valid, if it finds validation in the Veda. The reasoning given for this by the followers of Vedic religion is that Veda is knowledge of the eternal and contains that knowledge which cannot be validated. So “something that cannot be validated can exist and still be accepted as true” is the premise.

And this pramana was not listed first; in fact it was listed after pratyaksha and so on, to imply that you do not need the pramana of Veda for something that can be validated through direct means. According to Unvedic darsanas like Bauddha, only the knowledge that could be validated by pratyaksha and anumana is to be taken as valid. Thus, the difference is purely at a philosophical level, and not really at a religious level. Therefore we could see there are a lot of similarities in the religious practices of all these schools, such as Tantric and other methods. However, high level philosophical differences had social implications, such as accepting the Vedic social order or Varna-Ashrama dharma. Still, they all shared the same cultural-civilizati onal base. However, it was easy to assimilate them in the social order – for they did not create a new social order, and they were not different socio-cultural systems.

 

Thus the Vedic-unvedic became a slightly different classification, Astika - Nastika. There are two criteria that make one an Astika or having astikya: believing in Veda’s pramanya, and following varna-ashrama dharma. The belief in Veda translating as Astikya borrows sense from the above explanation, of “something that cannot be validated can exist and still be accepted as true”.

 

Accepting God or Iswara, has never been a criterion in classifying something as Astika or Vedic or Hindu for that matter. Owing to the differences in approach and diversity in worldviews, accepting the existence of God has always been a matter of choice and one’s philosophy. Diversity in attribution of supremacy to God, religious practices, philosophical traits, none of these matter in classifying something as Vedic-Unvedic.

 

However, Carvaka differs greatly from all other systems including Bauddha and Jaina – they accept pratyaksha (sense-perception) as the only pramana. Every other school, Vedic or Unvedic accepts at least two pramanas. And they do not accept akasha as a mahabhuta or a primordial element, which all other schools accept. Akasha is the element which is both the origin of all the other elements and listed as an element (in its unmanifest form). This causes all other differences such as treating body as self, not accepting rebirth and so on. In this, Carvaka comes very close to the western materialistic thought pattern. For this reason, not only did Carvaka have a different philosophical but also an entirely different social style emanating from an entirely alien worldview which is incompatible with all the other schools.

 

However, all other Bharatiya peoples, including tribal, should be called as sharing the same philosophical base. Either by their practices, or by their goals, their origin lies in the same.

Any philosophy that came from outside, or developed independently in Bharata and came in contact with Sanatana Dharma, has been assimilated in its comprehensive, all-inclusive system.

 

However, the ones that are not assimilated are the exclusivist ideologies like Abrahamic religions. In a way, they are as philosophically and socially incompatible with Sanatana Dharma as Carvaka was at one time.

 

So any other school is, technically speaking, belonging to or related to Sanatana Dharma. One one hand there are schools like Shanmatas that are part of it, and on the other hand there are schools like Bauddha that have origin in it but are outgrowths from it.

 

 

 

Bruce Duffy <bwduffy (AT) netspace (DOT) net.au>Thursday, November 20, 2008 7:54:18 PMRe: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

 

Yes, your take is correct, but what sets Vedic Hinduism apart from other religions is that its most revered religious 'texts' do present a logical and coherent notion about the nature of existence that is very clearly revealed to us by great commentators like Shankara. Some Indian scholars argue that the Veda contains reference to a number of what are considered modern scientific inventions, and they may be right about that, but they may also be focusing on these sometimes obscure and not so easy to argue scientific references in the Veda and be blind to the very strong possibility that they have presented very clearly in the Vedic 'texts' what could arguably be the most perfect theory about the nature of existence ever conceived. That theory being the concept of the One or Brahman.

Bruce

 

 

On 19/11/2008, at 7:25 PM, ODDISILAB wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

My take on the question is

 

SPRITUALITY.

 

(this issue has been long long ago settled- Read Vivekananda, Sankara,.... .)

 

 

-

Kamlesh Kapur

 

Tuesday, November 18, 2008 8:47 PM

RE: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

 

 

 

 

Can you please explain your ideas-

<what is the fundamental principle of Hinduism (Vedic Hinduism)>

It is important to know the perspective of diverse people on the subject.

I teach Hindu Dharma to various age groups and am currently compiling a book of lesson plans for three different age groups.

You can send it as a private Email in case the group does not want to have a thread on the discussion on the subject.

Also, we are helping the state dept of education to improve their core curriculum for teaching Hinduism.

Regards,

Kamlesh

 

 

 

[ancientindi a ] On Behalf Of Bruce DuffyTuesday, November 18, 2008 8:39 AMRe: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

 

 

 

 

Dear Kishore, earlier today, in relation to the below message, I wrote:

 

 

 

"Dear Kishore, although I enjoyed reading it I find this message somewhat puzzling. In the below story who is the very conservative, judgmental man and who is the somewhat liberated and free spirited woman. Is it just a story or are they characters I should be familiar with?

 

All the best, Bruce."

 

 

 

After a second reading of the below message it came across as a rather inspired piece of writing and the author as being a lot less judgmental than I had at first judged him to be. A second reading of the below short passage saw it as beautifully capturing the awkward attempts of two people who have a respect for each other, but come from very different backgrounds and cultures trying to relate to each other and accept each others values without being too judgmental. With a bit of imagination and artistic license Radhakrishna Warrier could have the basis of a good novel here that as well as describing the attempts of a man and a woman from two very different backgrounds trying to relate to each other in a meaningful way would also give the author ample opportunity to discuss the Vedic religion and Hinduism.

 

 

 

I would love to answer his question about what is the fundamental principle of Hinduism (Vedic Hinduism) and to be able to talk about brahman, but I am not sure his Yavana Sundari would be ready to hear about such a concept, and an important teaching of the Upanishads and Bhagavadgita is about how one should not expose a person to such knowledge if they are not fit to hear it or ready to hear it.

 

 

 

As far as my query about the identity of the people being discussed in the message please ignore it. I was getting confused and thinking it may have been referring to members of our group.

 

 

 

Bruce

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

,