Siddha Pranali

[Jagat]

mAnanIyA zazideviji

 

"mujhe lagtA hai" aur "someone is telling me" ekdam alag bAten hain. is liye ApkI bAt merI samajh men nahIn AyI. mAph kIjiye.

 

lekin, main ab bhI kahtA hUM ki bhagavAn apnI zaktiyoN se kabhI alag nahIn hotA.

 

mujhe kuch badalne kI zarUrat nahIn. Ap ne to sab spaST kar diyA hai. jo paRhegA vo dekhke samajh legA.

 

merI hindI men koi galat rahe to Ap zarUr saMzodhan karengI. dhanyavAd.

 

jai rAdhe!

 

[This message has been edited by Jagat (edited 05-04-2002).]

[Shashi]

Originally posted by raga:

Shashi, if you don't know how to spell English properly, I suggest you don't start debating on proper English grammar with one who is a native English speaker.

 

The original sentence where the word "BUT" appeared was rather confusing, since it had at least eight major mistakes in grammar and one spelling mistake on top of it.

 

So you should not be upset if your posting was not properly understood. I suggest that instead of trying to prove how you were right with the sentence with eight plus mistakes, you try to focus on the actual discussion at hand.

 

To keep things together, I suggest we try our best to stick to common standards of expression.

 

If I quote you and say "This person is telling like this and that", and then it turns out after two and half pages of debate that this "this person" was actually my inner sound of wisdom and not you, it is very difficult to get a comprehensible discussion together.

 

Would you have something to contribute in regards to the actual topic under examination? Everyone, please see the top left corner of your screen in case you can't figure it out by reading the last three pages or so.

 

[This message has been edited by raga (edited 05-04-2002).]

 

[This message has been edited by raga (edited 05-04-2002).]

You are not knowing but my husband is being a native english speaker and a linguist also. He is being a little irritated with me but is still saying the SYNTAX of my sentence is correct despite the the other errors as you are saying. My sentence is most fully relevant to the discussions at the pwoint where I was making same. Husband is too busy but is commanding my sentence may have been written like:

 

"The Lord CAN exist outside (ie without) the energies BUT the energies cannot exist outside (without) the Lord."

 

You can be comparing this with Lord saying:

 

"All things are in Me BUT I am not in all things."

 

Both the transcriptions are saying the similar thing and the BUT is used likewise and correctly.

 

Are you not ever have said something like, "It never rains but pours"?

The two clause are not in the contradiction but still the but is used correctly. So JagatJI made the wrong pwoint about BUT. One is not need be one grammarian to understand meanings

 

If you are having problem with my english towards the extent that you are not wanting me here what chance your darshan with acharyas who have the broken english? Others are understaning well enough and sometimes are laughing with me.This is communication.

 

 

[Jagat]

om santi santi santi.

 

Of course we don't want you to go away!

 

atha mUlam anusarAmaH, anyone?

[theist]

Shashi,

 

I understood what you meant.I would suggest not spending anymore time on this one.Grammarians can't help themselves.They are forced to dissect sentences and subject the same to critical review.It is like a reflex for them.We must show tolerance.

 

 

[Shashi]

Originally posted by Jagat:

merI hindI men koi galat rahe to Ap zarUr saMzodhan karengI. dhanyavAd.

 

Vahan par galat nahin lekin apane gyaan par kafi GALAT ho sake!

 

GALAT 1

that the swarup shakti (inherent potency) of Lord is operating like the prakrit (as created by external potency ).

 

GALAT 2

that inherent potency of LOrd is being the process oriented in as much as the Gopis and the cows etc are being a the "transformation" of the inherent shakti implying the causation for one that is being ETERNAL and thereby the contradicting their non difference form LOrd and their eternal status as confirmation by shastra.

 

GALAT 3

not fully knowing the prpoer appreciation of the scrpitural words in other language and thinking the english translation as the literal passage of the meaning.

Like where is being the word transformation in the CC verse that 'raga" presenting above some time ago?

 

GALAT 4

(this one really one subset of galat 1)

that Radha Krishna = Kamala Narayan = Lakshmi Vishnu = Rukmini Krishna or = Prakrit Purush

Even with the Rukmini KRishna we are having

LOrd inclusive of Radha and the Gopis and Gopas. Everywhere is Krishna there is consideration of His associates being also.

So Rukmini Krishna = Rukmini {Krishna & all the Gopis and deniszens of Braj}

QUALIFICATION: in Dwarak, Lord as

{Krishna & all the Gopis and deniszens of Braj} means {Krishna missing His beloved and the Gopis missing their beloved}

So, when Quenn Rukmini Devi is relating to Lord she is relating to Lord and Radha missing each other.

Are you understanding this?

Radha and Krishna are not belonging to Yin/Yang paradimes as can be fitted for Kamala Narayan or Shiva Shakt etc. Radha Krishna transcending same.

 

GALAT 5

Thinking that if someone woman is not expressing her meanings well she is idiot.

 

 

PS: Someone is telling me that I should explain foreign word "GALAT" which is meaning

fault or the mistake. It is also riming with Jagat

 

[This message has been edited by Shashi (edited 05-04-2002).]

[suryaz]

So what of the Mohini incarnation? How does she fit into this Divinised gender dichogamy of opposites? Who/What is the hladini sakti of Mohini?

 

This leads us to ask is it sakti that creates the expressions of the Absolute? If so what of the maleness of the Krsna expression, the Vishnu expression? With that in view, we can also ask, are these (Vishnu male expressions) all male expression of the hladini sakti? This then leads to the question - how feminine is hladini sakti?

 

Furthermore, opposites are only functional within a dominated – dominant dichogamy. The term “opposite” is functional in conflict theory. When the power struggle is absent the perception centres on difference not opposites.

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 05-04-2002).]

[suryaz]

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 05-04-2002).]

[Jagat]

mAph kIjiye, mAtAji, mere samajh men kuch nahIn AtA. Ap mujhe tattva samAjhnA cAhtI to hindI men likhen. merA TikAnA hai jankbrz@. vahAn par likhen to yeh sab marAmat karne kI koziz karenge. mujh par ApkA itnA ghussA kyon?

 

Ap avazya hI mujh-se baDi vidvatI hotI hain. main parAjit hUn. ApkA jai jai kAr daz dik ghoSit ho.

 

jai rAdhe!

 

 

[Shashi]

Originally posted by Jagat:

mujh par ApkA itnA ghussA kyon?

 

 

 

I am not being angry with you JagatJi. FRustrating you misquoting me but I am forgetting that as you are explaining your confusion. Of course it may be somewhat my faults due to cultural differences in the expressions and the clumsy styles.

But still are you able to be understanding

my pwoints called "galat 1 to galat 4"? Those are on topic.

 

I am just now cooking my husband the lunch but I am thinking he is already the fed up.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by raga:

Ram, that is because I wish to first define the basis for our discussion. Otherwise our exchange may turn out to be a non-fruitful exchange of passionate opinions where one tries to convince the other of his own view without reference to proper, commonly accepted pramana.

 

I completely agree with you on that. In fact any spiritual discussion should be based on accepted pramanas. In fact that is one thing that should improve in this forum. Here discussions tend to be passionate. A spiritual discussion is meant for evolution not victory.

 

Originally posted by raga:

My standards for authority:

 

I am following the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition introduced by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and established by the Gosvamis of Vrindavana.

 

The main books of authority from which I draw my understanding of the practices of this particular path of bhakti are the "Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu" of Sri Rupa Gosvami, the "Prema-bhakti-candrika" of Sri Narottama Dasa, and the "Raga-vartma-candrika" of Sri Visvanatha Cakravarti.

 

Additionally, I accept as authoritative the entire corpus of literature compiled by the six Gosvamis and their direct associates, as well as those of Sri Visvanatha Cakravartipada.

 

Whichever later books exist draw their authority from these foundational works, and are authoritative inasmuch as they are in allegiance with the originals.

 

Is that all right with you?).]

 

In principle, yes. But I am travelling and I am not having any of these books with me now. Secondly I dont have scholarship in these. So you have to help me by quoting the exact verses and the context - basically educate me. Thirdly, any of these authorties must be in line with sruti and not contradict it. If you are okay with that, then we can discuss. I think it will be a good learning.

 

To conclude with, of course everyone follows certain niyamas, in accordance with their respective practice and its coveted goal. This is clearly demonstrated in the famous sravanotkirtanadini verse.

 

Additionally, in the Raga-vartma-candrika, Visvanatha has discussed how each activity on the path of devotion may be classified as svAbhISTa-bhAvamaya, svAbhISTa-bhAva-sambandhinI, svAbhISTa-bhAvAnukUlAni, svAbhISTa-bhAvAviruddhAni and svAbhISTa-bhAva-viruddhAni, and are to be adopted accordingly, having first commented on the aforementioned verse of Sri Rupa and the other two core verses defining the path of practice of the Gaudiya-sadhakas.

 

[This message has been edited by raga (edited 05-04-2002).]

[raga]

In principle, yes. But I am travelling and I am not having any of these books with me now. Secondly I dont have scholarship in these. So you have to help me by quoting the exact verses and the context - basically educate me. Thirdly, any of these authorties must be in line with sruti and not contradict it. If you are okay with that, then we can discuss. I think it will be a good learning.

Ram, would you mind if we switched over to Raganuga Discussions? There we'll find more pandits with scholarship and reference libraries, and correspondingly less passion, to create a smooth discussion. I think it will be good learning for both of us.

 

Here the conversation gets often jammed due to non-adherence to commonly accepted pramana, as you have noted.

 

I mean, I don't mind, anyone can believe as they wish, but discussions leading to a solid conclusion are impossible if there are no premises for the discussion.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by raga (edited 05-04-2002).]

[gHari]

There goes Jagat again, writing in Canadian.

[Shashi]

Originally posted by gHari:

There goes Jagat again, writing in Canadian.

No no PrabhuJi. My husband is telling me the official tongues of Canada are being the English and the French. So if JagatJi is writing in Engllish it is not being said as Canadian but English. He has also been writing a little Bhindi but that is being other story for winter firesides.

 

JagatJi my husband is strongly suggesting me that I must be improviving my English and to be avoid unecessairy using my mother tongue in a forums where persons are saying in English. He is telling I must be devaloping my skill to be express the complex philosophies from my culture with the devotees from other places. Thanking you for gentleman offer to discuss in Bhindi but I am must pursue in common language of the English here.

 

If you are having problem understanding my clumsy stiles a local hindu pundit who is knowing me and the English well is promising to assist me. He is making the one condition that nobody will be thinking that his input in what I say but only his translatery will be in there and nothing more. Also he will only assisting in the complex philosophy matters and not in day two day sayings or any jokings.

 

Please ever let me know when his assitance you think is needed for something I am saying. I am too tired now so wishing you all good bye. The night is come.

 

 

[gHari]

Sashi, I am Canadian too, eh. That's how I can understand Jagat's humour and the colours of his devotion when he's out and about. So, I was trying to be humorous, knowing he was either talking Inuit or Bengali or Hindi or Urdu or some language that you could understand.

[Guest guest]

Why are you interested in who I accept as Guru?

Obviously I accept Srila Prabhupada,He is where most of us recieved Mahaprabhus message.

But Guru,is God.

This is the reality.

The physical body of the devotee,is not Guru,Guru is the message of Godhead.

Guru is the Personality of Godhead giving us guidance,according to our capacity,to understand.

We are initially advised to see Guru only in the Devotee,and the Sastra.

As we are able,we shall recieve.

If we can see with the vision of knowledge,the eyes of limitation,are transformed into the eyes of absolute awareness,at that point ,guru is manifested,everywhere,in everything.

[Jagat]

Why are you interested in who I accept as Guru?

 

Because that is a way of getting to know you better. We kanishtha adhikaris don't trust people who think they know everything without having followed the process given by Rupa Goswami: "guru-padAzrayas tasmAd kRSNa-dIkSAdi-zikSaNam."

 

Diksha makes you legitimate in Gaudiya Vaishnavism. We won't judge you as a human being, but as a Vaishnava, we will automatically classify you as "in" or "out."

 

Diksha is the beginning of sadhana bhakti. Of course you may be a kripa siddha, but if you have insight into sadhana bhakti, it is because you are a practitioner at one level or another.

 

kRSNeti yasya giri taM manasAdriyeta

dIkSAsti cet praNatibhis taM bhajantam Izam

 

Obviously I accept Srila Prabhupada. He is where most of us received Mahaprabhus message.

 

That has not been altogether obvious up until now. Are you a Ritvikvadi, then?

 

Or are you ashamed of your guru? Are you afraid that if we know your guru's name we will make fun of him, or you? Are you afraid we will criticize him? I could understand that. In general, we kanishthas are generally quite good at Vaishnava ninda. But this is not Istagosthi.

 

This is quite a problem. I think if one is not proud of his guru, he will have trouble in spiritual life. I often meet people in Iskcon and when I ask them who initiated them, they hang their head, turn kind of red and say, "Harikesh" or someone. If your guru is an embarrassment to you, it makes spiritual life problematic.

 

People who are too proud of their guru sometimes become quite annoying and cause turmoil by going around like little children saying, "My guru is better than yours, nya nya." But on the whole, these people have a better chance in the long run than those who were pressured into taking some kind of vyavaharika relationship with a bureaucratic company man or those who have not had the direct association of a living Bhagavata and received the "mala imbued with prem and the Holy Name" and the empowerment ("sakti-sanchar") to engage in bhajan from him. (See Chaitanya Sikshamrita, Bengali edition, p. 306)

 

But Guru is God. This is the reality. The physical body of the devotee is not Guru. Guru is the message of Godhead. Guru is the Personality of Godhead giving us guidance, according to our capacity to understand.

 

This is of course true. But the message of Godhead always begins with a question: kArpaNya-doSo'pahata svabhAvaH pRcchAmi tvAm dharma-saMmUDha-cetaH...

 

We are initially advised to see Guru only in the devotee and the Sastra.

 

So you have passed this initial stage, have you?

 

As we are able, we shall receive. If we can see with the vision of knowledge, the eyes of limitation are transformed into the eyes of absolute awareness. At that point, guru is manifested everywhere and in everything.

 

So this is where you are?

 

Then let me manifest as your comma guru. Reread the above as I have edited it and try to reduce your comma usage and put spaces after commas! God is everywhere, but commas have to follow their svadharma and keep to their place: zreyAn sva-dharmo viguNaH.

 

Commas should never do the work of spaces! -- para-dharmo bhayAvahaH.

 

People will give up reading your posts altogether if you make it to great a test to read them. So if you must post, post with proper comma usage, I say!!

 

 

[raga]

Jagat guru, thank you,formanifestin!

<center><marquee behavior="alternate" direction="left"> </marquee>

<marquee behavior="alternate" direction="right"> </marquee></center>

Jagat: But on the whole, these people have a better chance in the long run than those who were pressured into taking some kind of vyavaharika relationship with a bureaucratic company man or those who have not had the direct association of a living Bhagavata and received the "mala imbued with prem and the Holy Name" and the empowerment ("sakti-sanchar") to engage in bhajan from him. (See Chaitanya Sikshamrita, Bengali edition, p. 306)

Can you give me the chapter reference, so I can check this up in my English edition? Would you have other references at hand for "sakti-sancar" and the specific meaning of receiving the mala from the guru? Some think there is no specific significance for the guru-given mala beyond other tulasi malas.

 

Shiva: But Guru is God. This is the reality. The physical body of the devotee is not Guru. Guru is the message of Godhead.

Yes, the physical body of the devotee in itself is not the guru, but you kinda have to pay attention to the existence of the physical body of the guru if you intend to hear from his lotus mouth. guru mukha padma vakya hrdoye koriya aikya, like that. The lotus lips from which the nectarine message of Godhead emanate are still kinda attached to the physical body of the guru, I say.

[theist]

One point on Guru.I like shiva's understanding that guru is ultimately Supersoul and is everywhere.

 

But simultaneously this personalism includes His devotee.That person who opened your eyes with the torchlight of knowledge is a particular person.He is Supersoul as well, but he doesn't just dissolve into Paramatma as one becomes more advanced.

 

It wasn't guru in the clouds that had two heart attacks on the Jaladuta for example.

 

It's about love and gratitude and all those good things.

 

I don't think shiva was saying anything contrary to this by the way.

 

 

[raga]

According to Jiva Gosvamin, there are two features of the principle of guru, the samasti-guru and the vyasti-guru. The first is Sri Krishna as the original, collective guru, and the second is the devotee-guru who manifests in this world.

 

The original vyasti-guru who delivered the jiva is not forgotten or set aside when we become more advanced. Jiva describes:

<blockquote>yathA ya eva bhagavAn atra vyaSTi-rUpatayA bhaktAvatAratvena zrI-guru-rUpo vartate, sa eva tatra samaSTi-rUpatayA sva-vAma-pradeze sAkSAd-avatAratvenApi tad-rUpo vartata iti.

 

"Bhagavan descends here in a localized form (vyasti-rupa) in the form of Sri Guru as the devotee. When Bhagavan appears directly in the collective form of Guru (samasti-rupa), Sri Guru is located there on His left side."

 

(Bhakti-sandarbha, Anuccheda 286/5)</blockquote>

 

In the Caitanya Caritamrta, it is very clearly recommended that we approach the devotee-guru on account of our inability to directly perceive the original guru-feature of Bhagavan. Adi-lila, 1.58:

<blockquote><center>jIve sAkSAt nAhi tAte guru caittya-rUpe

zikSA-guru haya kRSNa-mahAnta-svarUpe</center>

"The living entity can't directly perceive the guru within the heart (caitya-guru), therefore Sri Krishna appears as the instructing guru in the form of a great devotee."</blockquote>

 

Of course any kripa-siddha individual may exist joyfully in his own ecstacy without a need to worry about anything or anyone at all, but for those who intend to interact with others, for instance in the form of a siddhantic dialogue, it is important that one refer to a known, unbroken lineage of gurus from whom one has personally learned the message of Godhead.

[Jagat]

By the way, Shiva, those references about commas were from the Gita's third chapter, "comma-yoga."

[raga]

<center><table width="80%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><td></td>

<td>

Originally posted by Jagat:

 

By the way, Shiva, those references about commas were from the Gita's

third chapter, "comma-yoga."

</td>

</table></center>

 

[Shashi]

Originally posted by theist:

One point on Guru.I like shiva's understanding that guru is ultimately Supersoul and is everywhere.

 

But simultaneously this personalism includes His devotee.That person who opened your eyes with the torchlight of knowledge is a particular person.He is Supersoul as well, but he doesn't just dissolve into Paramatma as one becomes more advanced.

 

It wasn't guru in the clouds that had two heart attacks on the Jaladuta for example.

 

It's about love and gratitude and all those good things.

 

I don't think shiva was saying anything contrary to this by the way.

 

 

This is being the very good referencing for our discussions here.

I am agreeing with most thoroughly TheistJi.

You must being a woman also for the such sensitive incite.

It is appearing to me like ShivaJi is unfortunate becoming the scapegote for the doubting projections of those that are criticisng.

You are liking my inputs sometimes?

I am asking earlier of others but now I am asking of you - should I get the helping from learned PanditJi to trnaslate mine messages into the better English so I am not wasting everyone's times in the deep discussions?

 

 

 

[suryaz]

 

It is for certain, a tangled web.

 

[Shashi]

Originally posted by raga:

Sri Caitanya Caritamrta, Adi-lila, 4.59-72:

<blockquote>

59.

 

rAdhikA hayena kRSNera praNaya-vikAra

svarUpa-zakti hlAdinI nAma yAGhAra

 

zrImatI RAdhikA is the transformation of KRSNa's love. She is His internal energy called hlAdinI.

 

 

Which Bengali word is having the translation as "transformation" please?

 

 

[Jagat]

At the end of 6th vrishti, fourth dhara. This is pretty interesting actually, to get back to siddha pranali.

 

I've been reading through Chaitanya Sikshamrita and I am getting the distinct impression that Bhaktivinoda Thakur is saying that really there is NO sadhana other than siddha-pranali. He builds up to it slowly but surely, and if one is sensitive to his terminology, one starts to get the picture. He never actually uses the term "siddha-pranali", but "bhajana-pranali" or (in CS) "nama-bhajana-pranali." So that ties in the serious chanting of the Holy Name with the five dashas quite directly.

 

Krishna is chinmoy, everything is spiritual, so one has to have an appropriate body to serve in that world. He talks about upAsya-niSThA and upAsaka-niSThA sAdhana. Cultivating the spiritual identity is as important as hearing and chanting about the lila.

 

Just like that section I just posted over on raganuga from Jaiva Dharma. The Thakur says that there are two kinds of hearing Krishna lila. He calls them krama-hIna and krama-zuddha, which I translated in or not in "the proper sequence." I am considering changing that to "in the proper order." The difference between the two is that one is done by someone without vyavasAyAtmikA buddhi and is done asaMlagna-bhAve. I had some difficulty figuring out what was meant by the latter, but I believe I translated "with a personal involvement or interest." In other words, when you listen to Krishna lila without any particular personal involvement, in a detached manner, you cannot develop the lobha that leads to raganuga bhakti.

 

Anyway, this is a wider understanding of shravana-dasha when compared to what is given in Harinama-chintamani, where it is strictly hearing about the ekadasa bhava.

 

Similarly, in CS 4.6, BVT speaks of the five dashas in a broader manner than in HNC or JD. Sravana dasha includes all instructions about nama-bhajan, including everything that is in the HNC:

"nAmAparAdh zUnya nAma-grahaNa-sambandhe jata kathA Ache, evaM nAma-grahaNa karibAr praNAlI o yogyatA samudaya zravaNa-dazAya lAbha hoy. tAhAte-i nAmera nairantarya siddhi udita hoy."

Here he does not mention ekadasa bhava at all, though the hint of it is there.

 

Then he describes varaNa-dasha in terms that look more like Harinam diksha--

"yogya hoiyA zri-gurudever nikaT nAma-prema-grathita mAlA pAoA jAy, arthAt ziSya parama santoSe zri-guru-caraNe zuddha-bhajanAGgIkAra-rUpa varaNa karen evaM zri-gurur nikaT zakti-saJcAr prApta hon | tAhar-i nAm varaN dashA |"

Here again, the ekadash bhava is not directly mentioned, but the zuddha-bhajanAGgIkAr can be taken that way if we know what BVT has said in JD and HNC.

 

The next section on smarana dasha is also interesting: BVT associates smarana with the Holy Name, dhyAna with Krishna's form; dhAraNA with Krishna's qualities; dhruvAnusmriti with Krishna's lila, and samadhi with full entry into the lila and tasting Krishna rasa. As elsewhere, samadhi and Apana-dasha are equated.

 

Apana-dasha is of course the same as svarupa-siddhi. The term "svarupa siddhi" is introduced at the end of the previous chapter. The final paragraph in that chapter goes as follows:

"The premarurukshu (i.e., the devotee desiring to attain prema) who wishes to take up the bhajan of the Holy Name should first be reminded of some important points. They are no doubt already well aware that Krishna's true form (svarupa), the true form of Krishna's name, the true form of Krishna's service, and the true form of Krishna's servant are all eternally liberated and spiritual in nature. Krishna, His abode and the companions with whom He shares His pastimes are all spiritual and beyond the world of illusion. The service relation is in no way mundane. Krishna's seat, His home, His gardens, the forests of Vrindavan, the Yamuna, and whatever else is in His abode are all completely spiritual and therefore transcend matter. These devotees will also be aware that their belief [that this is true] is not a blind mundane faith. This faith is true and eternal. All these true forms (svarupa) are never truly visible in the material world. However, a sense of identity with them (tat-tad-abhimAna) can manifest in a fundamental way (svarUpataH) in the heart of the pure devotee. The result of this practice is called identity perfection (svarUpa-siddhi). Those who have attained svarUpa-siddhi quickly go on to attain vastu siddhi (concrete perfection) by Krishna's mercy. In this world, only a semblance of this most perfect achievement can be attained through practice. Its first modality (prathA) is called liberation (muktir hitvAnyathA-rUpaM svarUpeNa vyavasthitiH), while its final modality is called prema.

It's very interesting to see how Bhaktivinoda uses unusual and unexpected vocabulary and invents terminology to develop his ideas. This to me is a sign of the originality of his thought. He is clearly basing everything on the previous acharyas, but his language is novel.

 

I should probably clean this up and post it over on raganuga, but I have yet read through the whole CS. I read from the beginning of the fifth vrishti and found it pretty interesting. It's been ages since I read this book and it is well worth it.

 

Academically speaking, I found certain features fascinating. When the Thakur speaks about mundane knowledge, for instance, he lists a number of sciences, using the current names in Bengali and English as he knew them. Many of these are no longer in use in one or the other languages, reminding us that many of these sciences were in their infancy when he wrote (in 1886). Positivism was the big thing (that was what Bankim was into). But he has "manas-tattva (mind-science)" rather than "psychology," etc.

 

I think that was useful, for me anyway.

 

Ys, Jagat<font color=#dedfdf><small>

 

[This message has been edited by Jagat (edited 05-05-2002).]