|
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
  
Location: A Blue State | Creation Hymn (Nasadiya) - There was neither non-existence nor existence then; there was neither the realm of space nor the sky which is beyond. What stirred? Where? In whose protection? Was there water, bottomlessly deep?
- There was neither death nor immortality then. There was no distinguishing sign of night or day. That one breathed, windless, by its own impulse. Other than that, there was nothing beyond.
- Darkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning; with no distinguishing sign, all this was water. The life force that was covered with emptiness, that one arose through the power of heat [tapas].
- Desire came upon that one in the beginning; that was the first seed of mind. Poets seeking in their heart with wisdom found the bond of existence in non-existence.
- Their cord was extended across. Was there below? Was there above? There were seed-placers; there were powers. There was impulse beneath; there was giving-forth above.
- Who really knows? Who will here proclaim it? Whence was it produced? Whence is this creation? The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe. Who then knows whence it has arisen?
- Whence this creation has arisen – perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not—the one who looks down on it, in the highest heaven, only he knows – or perhaps he does not know.
From the Rig Veda (10.129). Translated by Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty
Edited by Bay Guy 2006-03-20 9:23 AM
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
 
| Thanks BG 
"Darkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning; " I like this, in particular.... | |
| | |
| that pretty nifty...
its a hymn, so whats the tune its sang too?
I doubt its my fair lady...eh  | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | These "hymns" would have been chanted (in Sanskrit). I don't know whether there's been any preservation of the melody of such chants, and I would assume that the "original" patterns might have changed so much over time as to be, effectively, lost. The word "hymn" is kind of an odd designation, since it has such a different sense in English that what seems to be intended in its use as a descriptor of these verses. I haven't managed to track down a solid historical etymology of the use of that word to refer to these poem-like subsections of the Rg Veda. | |
| | |
| Hi BayGuy,
"These "hymns" would have been chanted (in Sanskrit). I don't know whether there's been any preservation of the melody of such chants, and I would assume that the "original" patterns might have changed so much over time as to be, effectively, lost."
As with all Vedic literature, the "melody" we have today is nearly exactly the same one as it was for at least the past two thousand five hundred years or so. The stresses and the method of chanting are conserved extremely meticulously and the precise accenting of the verses and everything is maintained in great detail.
There are several classical lines of recitation called "sakhas". Each sakha is linked to a specific Veda (Rig, Sama, Shukla Yajur, Krishna Yajur or Atharva). Originally there were supposed to be hundreds of lines of recitation (I don't know if this is true or hyperbole) but today there are about 6-7. It is well-established that many were lost though. Nearly all Hindu families (or at least the twice-born castes) have a sakha of which they are a part and traditionally this would be the sakha which one learned from and then passed on (this is still done in many places of course),
No one knows really when the sakha system started, but it started a long time ago and ever since it started, it is very likely that extremely little change took place. It is a bit of a grey area historically though,
Regards. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | Thanks, Beloved, that's very interesting. The Rg Veda was passed along orally for a thousand years or more before it was ever written, and from what you write it seems that the oral tradition has been carefully preserved in some circles. I wonder whether the ongoing evolution of language must've impacted to some extent the meticulous efforts at accurate teaching and transmission. For example, English as spoken 400 years ago would be hard for us moderns to understand and English from 1000 years ago would be essentially unintelligible. In a similar way, there are endless debates among the so-called "early music" people about how instruments might have been played just a few hundred years ago. They have endless silliness about vibrato/no-vibrato and so on. Even with the strict efforts you mention, I still wonder about the changes in oral transmission over a period of several thousand years --- But I know so little about linguistics that I'm at a loss to even approximate an answer to the question! | |
| | |
| Hi BayGuy,
"I wonder whether the ongoing evolution of language must've impacted to some extent the meticulous efforts at accurate teaching and transmission."
I don't know about linguistics much either but Vedic Sanskrit and classical Sanskrit are quite different. Classical Sanskrit was systematized by Panini (again no one knows when he lived but people say 300-700BC, nice range!) and ever since Panini Sanskrit itself has more or less remained the same.
Keep in mind that compared to other languages, Sanskrit lost its status as a spoken, everyday language a very long time ago (by the Buddha's time people already ceased speaking Sanskrit for ordinary transactions) so the pressures from local dialects, etc... don't really force Sanskrit, which is scriptural and literary language, to change much. English was the ordinary people's language so overtime as different influences melted together, it would change considerably. On the other hand, most Indian literature was written by people who would have spoken local languages everyday but only written (and perhaps taught Dharma, etc...) in Sanskrit. So it would be easier for them to keep the written and spoken language seperate.
Of course there are some movements where a twist was given to the language (Mahayana Sutras with Hybrid Sanskrit and some Tantras with intentionally bad Sanskrit for shock factor) but these did not really catch on and most Buddhist writers and Tantric writers wrote in good classical Sanskrit.
I agree there would be some changes in recitation but if you see how meticulous they are even today (to the point of annoyance) and how many checks they have evolved, they are quite well-preserved. Also the Vedas recited by knowledgable people all over the subcontinent has basically no differences. Even with other more recent texts (for instance Puranas), the differences in recitation tend to be much more,
Regards. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | These are all good points. Another consideration is the wide differences in translation and commentary on the Vedic scriptures. Translations and interpretations vary in any language, of course, but I also wonder to what extent the renderings vary over time. For example, the Victorian translators seem to have routine excised and euphemized anything that seemed too sexual in nature. There's that lousy Chandra.Bose.Vasu translation of the Siva Samhita, for example. (Richard Burton was something of an exception to Victorian prudishness, giving us the Arabian Nights and his reflections on circumcision, for example; but I don't recall that he every got around to Sanskrit.) Even as recently as the 1960's, translations of the Upanishads got clipped to avoid procreative references. Wendy Doniger (who did the translation above in ~1980), starts her translation saying that it is "for real people" as opposed to scholars. She also wrote a book titled Siva: the Erotic Ascetic, which I own but have not yet read. So, perhaps she has a particular angle from which she presents these works. All this makes me wonder whether our understanding of both the text and the words has varied over time, and to what extent the meanings may have changed. Our understanding of tone and melody has changed as well. The 12-tone, well-tempered scale was a product of the 17thC. Of course, Vedic music uses and entirely different tonal pattern, or so I am told. | |
| | |
| Hi BayGuy,
In general Doniger's translation is considered reputed to be very poor by most people who I have talked to who are familiar with the original (apparently she doesn't know the language properly and thats why she never translates texts that are previously untranslated). I have not read it myself and so cannot judge. The Nasidiya translation as far as I can tell seems to be okay.
One thing is Doniger is very much disliked amongst a large number of Indians because she apparently gives a sexual twist/emphasis (as you mention) to just about everything she can. I don't know if this is true because I haven't read her works, but in such cases often its half-true and half because of the reader's insecurities (I think most Indians are also very victorian).
You make a good point avout translation and interpretation. These, with respect to the Rig Veda, is extremely important and difficult issue. In general, the Rig Veda is not a text commented a lot by classical Indian commentators since its role for a very long time has been largely ritualistic and this demanded little interpretation. The best known classical interpretation is that of Sayana which is a ritual interpretation.
In general spiritual interpretations of the Rig Veda (and all Vedic literature other than the Upanishads) has been relatively rare largely because of the culturally dominant position that other than the Upanishads, the Vedas are karma-kanda and deal with just rituals. That being assumed, people didn't really see a need to comment. One exception was Madhva of the Dvaita Vedanta school who did not accept Shankara's division of Vedas and commented on the Rig Veda in a monotheistic fashion (ie: deities' names in hymns refer to the supreme deity, identified by Madhva with Vishnu) - this is quite possible given a lot of passages in the Vedas.
We have Advaitic interpretation/translations by Aurobindo and so on. The case of these translations is well-argued (though sometimes far-fetched) and it does often seem like Vedic Sanskrit uses many words differently from normal Sanskrit. This site has the word-by-word meaning of the Rig Veda as approached by Aurobindo, etc... : http://www.vedah.com/
I tend to think that the sound of the Vedas is conserved better than the meaning in many cases. Even with the Upanishads, some passages are completely obscure and no one really knows what they mean (even though the classical commentators do comment, even their commentary is quite tentative at places),
Regards. | |
| | |
| I hear you belovedofthegod. I think Doniger's translation is outmoded, it based more on the translations of early Sanskrit scholars, which today is considered to be quite poor. That said, her translation of the Nasadiya Sukta(creation hymn) is not bad.
This Hymn, when actually read in it's proper Sanskrit form and with understanding of what each words means, it reads about the same, only that it has a much more scientific signifcance. It is often compared to the Big Bang, string and the unified field theory.
Basically it says this:
In the beginning there was absolute darkness and void, only the primordial substance of Akasha/ether existed in it's unmanifest state(i.e. non existence and existence) and a power arose of the one, that was the vibration of Aum. What is translated as "Breath" is from "Svara" which translated as a vibration/sound, and as this vibrates this universal field of Akasha. Then, the universe became manifest as a singularity, containing within it the sum total of the universe and the seed of all creation.
If you read the next crucial Hymn, the Purush Sukta, it explains that this singuality, unleashes all of it's power, and then expands to form the universe and gradually the cosmos, replete with it's solar systems(Brahmandas) comes into being, then life, society etc. All of this comes into being by the initial power of the "one"
The word "Kama" is often translated as "Desire" It should mean Love. So where Doniger has said "Desire arose" it should be "Love arose" | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | This is all really interesting. I'm not surprised at your comments on Doniger, since her books do seem to have a racy slant in title and subject matter. And it is certainly clear (after reading some of them) that the Rg Veda hymns would not invite much commentary. How do we order all of this? We have the Rg Veda, then the various Upanishads (in their 108 tracts, I suppose), and the subsequent texts....the Yoga Sutras (chronologically parallel to the later Upanishads, I think), classical commentaries, the H.Y.P., the later Samhitas... | |
| | |
| Hi Suraj,
Have you read Doniger's works in general? If so, what do you think of them?
Hi BayGuy,
"How do we order all of this? We have the Rg Veda, then the various Upanishads (in their 108 tracts, I suppose), and the subsequent texts....the Yoga Sutras (chronologically parallel to the later Upanishads, I think), classical commentaries, the H.Y.P., the later Samhitas... "
Well ordering all scripture that falls into the "Hindu" category can be an extremely complicated affair, but I geuss its something like this.
The first category would be Vedic literature proper lets says.
There are the four Samhitas: Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Sama Veda and Atharva Veda. Then there are the Brahmanas which are the ritual instructions and injunctions (dealing with karma in the sense of ritual actions). Then there are the Aranyakas which are more meditative and contemplative than the Brahamans (these are in many sense not too relevant today). Then there are the Upanishads which deal more with knowledge.
In general the 108 Upanishads are divided into several categories but only some of them are strictly speaking "Vedic". There are the 10 major Upanishads commented upon by Shankara, 24 Samanya Vedanta Upanishads, 17 Sanyasa Upanishads, 20 yoga Upanishads, 14 Shaiva Upanishads, 14 Vaishnava Upanishads and 9 Shakta Upanishads.
Some of the Samanya Vedanta and Sanyasa Upanishads are fairly old and really wonderful texts but unfortunately they don't get the kind of exposure they deserve - and they are mostly translated too. You get a kind of old Upanishad-style exposition but its more modern so the langauge is clearer. The Yoga Upanishads deal mostly with Kundalini Yoga and related practices (again some of these are great texts, I think far more impressive than something like the HYP) and the Shaiva, Shakta and Vaishnava are sectarian Upanishads but generally are texts of a good standard. Keep in mind that the Upanishads range through a huge period of time, starting from at least around 1000BC and go to perhaps as late as 1500AD. A person nicknamed Upanishad Brahmendra who lived in the 18th century has commented on all these Upanishads. These 108 Upanishads are generally all fairly good (I haven't read all of them but have read most) but there are some other texts called Upanishads which are more questionable. There is even an Allah Upanishad from the post-Akabar time!
Then after Vedic literature, the other fairly old set of literature that is given importance is the six sutras of the six classical philosophical systems (Nyaya-sutra, Vedanta Sutra, Yoga Sutra, Mimamsa Sutra etc...) Then there are commentaries on this (the classical commentary on the Yoga Sutra is the Yoga Sutra Bhasya) and sub-commentaries on these commentaries. Here especially with the Vedantra Sutra we have a wide range of interpretations. With the Yoga Sutra, there are wide range of interepretation these days, but this a relatively new phenomenon (doesn't mean that these new interpretations are automatically wrong of course). These sutras are not considered scripture by anyone but they play a role similar to scripture in practice.
The other important bunch of texts are the Smritis (that which is remembered, as opposed to Sruti, that which is heard). One important set of Smriti texts are the dharmashastras which are basically a religious law book. The most famous is the Manu Smriti. These are quite controversial and a lot of modern Hindus tend not to accept these, though orthodoxy has always taken them as scripture.
The other classes of scripture that generally falls into Smriti are the Puranas and Ithiasa (ie: Mahabharata and Ramayana). There are many texts called Puranas but classically 18 that are considered to be fairly old and authoratative. Of the Puranas, the most important for Shaivas is the Shiva Purana and for Vaishnavas - a really, really key text - is the Bhagavata Purana. It has been translated by the Hare Krishna people but unfortunately its a very slanted translation. Another very important piece of literature in the Puranas is the Devi Mahatmyam in the Markandeya Purana, which is the oldest text that we can term Shakta. This is an extremely powerful text for recitation purposes. In the Mahabharata we have the Bhagavadgita which is like a new testament to probably most Hindus. There are many different authors who wrote different Ramayanas with different emphasis but the best known and oldest one is Valmiki's Ramayana of course. Even in this there are parts which were added later and are missing in some manuscripts and so on. The Ramayana is very important text culturally and in setting a lot of values of course. A lot of stotras (kind of prayers) are extracted from these texts and chanted by people daily or whenever. And of course there are commentaries on texts such as the Gita and so on.
Then there are the Tantras and the Agamas in general. Even here there is a huge number and scholars have no real idea how to order them. Usually they are dived into at least Shaktagamas, Shaivagamas and Vaishnavagamas based on whether the main deity is Shakti, Shiva or Vishnu.
Now in addition there are huge number of random texts that don't really fit any of these categories strictly speaking (eg: Yoga Vasistha, Tripurarahasya, etc...). There are also a lot of manuals and texts of various schools which become like scripture (for instance the Hatha Yoga Pradipika is a post-medieval Natha manual, or Tantraloka which is a synthesis of Kashmir Shaivism), commenatries on these, etc... You also have short texts called the prakaranagranthas which are independent compositions such vivekachudamani, atmabodha, etc... as well as commenatries on these. Actually some of the "best texts" are in this kind of category.
The other thing to remember is that the set of scripture is by no means complete. People still compose independent works in Sanskrit today and they get commented upon and used as a basis of teaching. One example is Ramana Maharshi's Upadesha Saram which many teachers (even quite unrelated with Ramana) teach because its like any other prakaranagrantha and useful for their purposes,
I don't know if this creates more confusion or clarity!
Regards.
Edited by belovedofthegod 2006-03-29 12:53 PM
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | I don't know if this creates more confusion or clarity!
It creates plenty of clarity, but I'm going to have to think about it for while before answering! As a limited response, I found the Siva Purana a bit tedious, although some of the stories were interesting. There was one long passage that gave the 1000 (or 1008?) names of Siva, one after another with no explanation at all. I guess if you had digested the rest of the text (in four volumes) and knew Sanskrit, they may have been self-explanatory. | |
| | |
| Yes, Beloved God. I read her translation of the Rig Veda, released by Penguin Classics, I thought it was awful and even offensive.
Regarding Hindu literature, I agree Bad Boy, having knowledge of Sanskrit and the tradition is very important in understanding them. It is sometimes best to use the original Sanskrit words, than to try and use their translated form, because it can change their meaning e.g. The word 'Dharma' is often translated as "Religion" and it really means the "The nature, way and laws of things" E.g., water has a dharma of flowing. In a personal context, dharma means duty. Hinduism's proper Sanskrit name is Santana Dharma, which translates to the eternal nature, way and laws of existence.
If you're interested in Hindu literature, I always advise to begin with the Upanishids and the Bhagvad Gita. You can read them, free of cost, online. The most important and richest texts of Hinduism are the Vedas(Rig, Sama, Yajur and Atharva) but they prequisite a high level of knowledge in Sanskrit and it helps to have an understanding of other Hindu literature, without that, you will find them confusing, banal and meaningless, depending on whose translation you consult. The Vedas are like the highest scripture and can only be understood by those who are already "enlightened" about the nature, ways and laws of existence. It's akin to picking up a degree level book on quantum physics, without knowing quantum physics
Edited by Suraj 2006-03-30 7:09 AM
| |
| | |
| Hello BayGuy,
"As a limited response, I found the Siva Purana a bit tedious, although some of the stories were interesting. There was one long passage that gave the 1000 (or 1008?) names of Siva, one after another with no explanation at all. I guess if you had digested the rest of the text (in four volumes) and knew Sanskrit, they may have been self-explanatory."
Well I think most people would find most Puranas quite tedious to just read page after page like that. Its important to remember how the Puranas were traditionally used (and still are)/
The Puranas generally are a presentation of spiritual knowledge into stories for ordinary people without particular spiritual interest. So the basic idea is that some person sits down and tells the stories in an interesting way. The stories should create devotion in people and create interest in the spiritual life. In addition to devotion towards the deity, the Puranas also present many quite impressive sages and people will then be inclined to go out and look for them. The Puranas thus became indirectly a manual on how to choose a proper Guru.
In between the stories and in the stories, there are sometimes very explicitly (ie: non-metaphorically even) quite advanced teachings (especially in something like the Bhagavata Purana but even in the Shiva Purana talks about various kinds of Yogas, etc...)
The other thing is that there are a lot of stotras and so on in the Puranas which people recite independently. What you mention, the 1008 names, is a sahasranama stotra and these are meant to be recited. There are sahasranama stotras for most deities but the main (the most popular) Shiva sahasranama stotra is from the Linga Purana and not the Shiva Purana. For something like that, I am sure you can find extended commentaries and so on. There are also stotras with 108 names or even 32 names for the very lazy!
I'm sorry if this is too much information to assimilate at once!
Suraj,
Thank you for the information, I'm going to look into this translation to see what its like (I'm curious now).
"Regarding Hindu literature, I agree Bad Boy, having knowledge of Sanskrit and the tradition is very important in understanding them."
Bad Boy...
Regards. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | Hi Suraj and Beloved, I'm not a "bad boy". But I am flat out busy, and still trying to find a few minutes to think on all this. On the Siva Purana, it's a lot easier for me to see it used as a collection than a linear text. It does have sections on Siva Yoga, which seemed heavily oriented toward Siddhis, and various stories interspersed here and there. On Doniger, I guess that I found her translation of the Rg Veda to be written more like a book of poetry than an explication or direct translation of the text. Her Introduction explained very little about the Rg Veda itself, focusing mainly on matters of language (despite being a translation "for ordinary people"), and as I read through it, I did not gain much of a sense of the RV as a coherent whole. It was more like an anthology of ancient poems. On the overall structure of Vedic literature, I gather that the strong recommendation is to start with the Upanishads. I've got two different translations of that, one with an excellent (70 page) introduction; but I do find that commentary might be more useful that a straight read-through. For example, "One must venerate the High Chant" begs for an explanation of the what the High Chant is. The text appears to make it separate from "OM", and the passage (in the Chandogya Upandishad) is apparently focused mainly on the Horse Sacrifice. I've found it useful to read this thinking of the High Chant simply as "OM". But I'm obviously missing something. It's also interesting to read your comment about the HYP being a handbook for the Nath sect. That seems to peg it fairly well, as it dwells upon procedures without expressing much of the underlying philosophical framework. This is especially troublesome, given that some of the procedures are 1000 years out of step with a modern understanding of health and anatomy. And then there are the Sankaracharya Commentaries... can you recommend a good translation of those? (I saw him as a statue in a gopuram at the Ashtalakshmi Temple in Chennai, but had been after his work before that...the statue of course couldn't tell me anything). Hasta pronto, ............ bg | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | Opps, I meant to type "Soma" not "Horse". I've picked up another translation of the Chandogya Upanishad this afternoon, which unpacks the circular reasoning of the first text. Here, from Olivelle's translation: 1.1 OM -- one should venerate the High Chant as this syllable, for one begins the High Chant with OM. Now from Swami Nikhilanananda's translation: 1.1 The syllable OM, called the Udgitha,should be meditated upon; for people sing the Udgitha beginning with OM. Nikhilanananda's translation includes notes identifying the Udgitha as a hymn sung at the time of a sacrifice... in the Sama-Veda (from the four volume version that I got today, not the condensed version that Dover sells and which has no useful notes). Both translations seem to equate the Udgitha (or High Chant) with OM while at the same time noting that OM is the first word, not the entire chant. ~~ My point is that these ancient books do seem to require a great deal of contextual knowledge before they make any sense. | |
| | |
| My point is that these ancient books do seem to require a great deal of contextual knowledge before they make any sense.
Yes, they do require a lot of knowledge of the tradition. The Vedas in particular are the most difficult to translate, and that is why there are so many different translations of them. The Upanishads, are supposed to be based on them. In those times, the students use to gather around their Gurus and listen and discuss the teachings in the Vedas and these became the Upanishads.
Doniger translation, is based on early Western translations, which many Sanskritists have noted to be inconsistent with the Upanishads, and other Indian texts and their validity and accuracy has been questioned and many old ideas, that Doniger resurrects, have been discredited. Doniger insists that there is nothing spiritual in the Rig Veda, that is all about worldly living and ritual. This is a rather unfortunate, because whatever we know about Yoga and Indian philosophy and arts is from the Vedas. This is why it is important to know Sanskrit and have a lot of contexual knowledge, otherwise they just go amiss on you, as they have on Doniger.
So, the Vedas are not the best place to start, even though they are the highest and most respected of Indian ancient texts. The Upanishads, Bhagvad Gita, Yoga Sutras, Brahma Sutras and even the Yoga Vasishta are really good to gain some background. Then when it is time to read the Vedas and contemplate on what they say, you will recognise the same concepts occuring in them.
The study of these texts is actually another crucial limb of Yoga. | |
| | |
| Hi BayGuy,
"On the Siva Purana, it's a lot easier for me to see it used as a collection than a linear text. It does have sections on Siva Yoga, which seemed heavily oriented toward Siddhis, and various stories interspersed here and there."
Yes, the Puranas in general are organized like a collection and not neccesarily a single entirely continous text.
" On Doniger, I guess that I found her translation of the Rg Veda to be written more like a book of poetry than an explication or direct translation of the text. Her Introduction explained very little about the Rg Veda itself, focusing mainly on matters of language (despite being a translation "for ordinary people"), and as I read through it, I did not gain much of a sense of the RV as a coherent whole. It was more like an anthology of ancient poems."
Well the Rig Veda is made up of distinct hymns and its not really an organic, single text. Also Doniger's translation is of selected hymns - translating the whole thing runs into several volumes.
"I've got two different translations of that, one with an excellent (70 page) introduction; but I do find that commentary might be more useful that a straight read-through."
This is surely the case because large parts of the text are practically impossible to understand without commentary.
Of course the problem is that which commentary represents best the Upanishads is subjective. When studying someone like Shankara, it is as much about studying Shankara as studying the Upanishads.
In general when studying Shankara's works, the order in terms of commentaries is Bhagavadgita Bhasya, Upanishad Bhasyas and then the Brahma Sutra Bhasya. Shankara can be difficult to read and sometimes very boring if you are not interested in medieval Indian polemical literature because a lot of it is arguments and counter-arguments with other schools.
I think you should familiarize yourself with the Upanishads first.
Then if you want to understand Shankara, I suggest starting with some modern material from people in Shankara's lineage teaching in the same style as Shankara. In particular, Swami Dayananda of Arsha Vidya is a good bet. His introductory work on Vedanta and his commentary on 108 select verses from the Vivekachudamani are good start. Shankara is really very different from the standard Yoga-based models of practice which strongly stress meditation. He puts great emphasis on the fact that the Upanishads when taught correctly in a special manner by a proper guru, gives intuitive knowledge of Brahman not not merely intellectual knowledge - one then practices inquiry into the teachings to continuously remain in that knowledge until there is perfect clarityc This is different from the Yoga and Yoga-Vedanta paradigm of getting intellectual knowledge through study and then practicing meditation to understand it directly. So because of such reasons its important to see an explanation of Shankara's method in modern language so that one can better appreciate his works.
If you are interested, I can give you more precise citations for the modern material which makes a good start.
" It's also interesting to read your comment about the HYP being a handbook for the Nath sect. That seems to peg it fairly well, as it dwells upon procedures without expressing much of the underlying philosophical framework. This is especially troublesome, given that some of the procedures are 1000 years out of step with a modern understanding of health and anatomy."
Yes, from the earliest times (the HYP is a relative recent book) the Nathas have had their philosophical framework and Yoga instructions in different texts which don't overlap that much in context. As time passed on, unfortunately, the transmission of knowledge and initiation in general that was evident with the earlier Nathas seemed to dwindle and the Yoga got extremely complex and demanding (see HYP!).
"Both translations seem to equate the Udgitha (or High Chant) with OM while at the same time noting that OM is the first word, not the entire chant."
Yes, this kind of thing can be very misleading. Udgitha can refer to either Om or the Sama Veda. Om is the essence of the Sama Veda. So the Udgitha (Sama Veda) begins with the Udgitha (Om).
I have no idea how someone who is not told that clearly will figure that out,
Regards.
Edited by belovedofthegod 2006-04-03 8:17 PM
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | Hi Beloved, Thanks much for the long response. "If you are interested, I can give you more precise citations for the modern material which makes a good start." Yes, I'd be quite interested in that. I'm not at a point where I could successfully approach medieval polemics. "Yes, from the earliest times (the HYP is a relative recent book) the Nathas have had their philosophical framework and Yoga instructions in different texts which don't overlap that much in context. As time passed on, unfortunately, the transmission of knowledge and initiation in general that was evident with the earlier Nathas seemed to dwindle and the Yoga got extremely complex and demanding (see HYP!)." This raises the question of which texts the Nathas were following for philosophical instruction originally -- it seems clear how the yoga instruction ended up. "I have no idea how someone who is not told that clearly will figure that out" It might evolve from extended study, but this certainly is an example of the value of commentary in reading ancient texts. Commentary so often comes with point-of-view, of course, so it isn't always an unbiased reading. Time for sleep.... bg | |
| | |
| Hi BayGuy,
"Yes, I'd be quite interested in that. I'm not at a point where I could successfully approach medieval polemics."
To get a general familiarization of the teachings I suggest (just in case its really not your kind of thing):
http://www.avgsatsang.org/index.html
I suggest reading this article to understand a bit about the gist of the tradition:
http://www.avgsatsang.org/hhpsds/pdf/Vision_of_the_Rishis.pdf
Also, please look at the other articles on the site as they interest you. Keep in mind that some are adressed to a less knowledgeable audience than others so they vary.
Then in terms of literature I suggest the following books:
Introduction to Vedanta (Understanding the Fundamental Problem)
Vivekachudamani (Talks on 108 Selected Verses)
Both by Swami Dayananda Saraswati and you can get them from the bookstore here:
http://www.arshavidya.org/
Advaita Vedanta in Shankara's tradition specifically in India has largely morphed into different entities. There are a lot of Advaita Vedantins who are just intellectuals (really a huge number). Then there are a lot of people who just practice Raja Yoga or Kundalini Yoga with an Advaita Vedanta view (this too is quite common). However, Shankara's method of Advaita Vedanta is not purely intellectual (though it is easy for it to degenerate into intellectualism) nor is it Raja Yoga (nothing wrong with Raja Yoga of course, but in Shankara's system Raja Yoga is mostly an aid to the main process which is deep inquiry based on instruction). This classical method of Vedanta is quite hard to find and it is even harder to find with people who have taught in English so teachings like Swami Dayananda's are quite hard to come across.
"This raises the question of which texts the Nathas were following for philosophical instruction originally -- it seems clear how the yoga instruction ended up."
Well one of the key Natha metaphysical/philosophical texts is the Siddha Siddhanta Paddhati (there is a summary online). The early practice manual that is best known is the Goraksha Shataka and its commentary, the Goraksha Paddhati. There is a translation of the latter (which includes the former) online somewhere.
Other texts which you could find include Amaraughasasana which is in Silburn's book about Kundalini. There is the Goraksha Vacana in books called "Philosophy of Gorakhnath". All these texts are attributed to Gorakhnath, who is more or less the founder of the Nathas - whether he actually wrote them is another issue, but these are good texts.
Regards. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | Thanks very much, Beloved. I've spent some time perusing those links, and I will surely spend more. My time is sorely pressed these days, so I'm sorry not to have a more substantive reply...I've printed out some of this for further study. I noticed that several interesting Iyengar workshops are being held there, so I may follow up in that regard during the next year as well. I read Vivekananda's "Thoughts on Vedanta" during January (something I picked in Tamil Nadu). It was very much a product of its time and place, I think, in that it reminded me of a number of Western philosophical works of the same era (ca.1890) and in that it was a collection of out-takes from lectures he'd given in the West. I'd very much like to read something in English that is not colored that way, so Swami Dayananda's writings are a good opportunity. ... bg | |
| | |
| Bay Guy, Bad Boy, and all other discussants who chose this most beautiful hymn and made me join the forum:
Along with the problems of sound (which I believe is very well preserved) and the words (which also I believe are very well preserved) for the length of time gone through, 5000 years? 7000 years? 10000 years? (the reason for Aryans migrating from their homeland is glaciation in Parsi Avesta, and RigVeda mentions Vernal Equinox in Beta Geminorium, 6000 BC), as you said is the problem of location (where were the Aryans when these verses were written, most probably Central Asia, but they remembered their two month long nights of the sub-polar homeland), and the problem of meaning (there is a separate study of Vedic Sanskrit). The writer of Taittariya Sanhita in 2,500 BC, was making a guess as best as he could for some portions of RigVeda and some others were already unintelligible to him. | |
| | |
| Then beware of the later Sanhitas and Puranas (1500 AD or later), mostly brahmanic trash. Also beware of the new age commentators on Vedas with their own axe to grind, like Madhva (my apologies to SriVaishnavas, Madhva, whom I deeply rever, only wanted to counter the philosophical excesses of Sankara), Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati or Aurobindo.
Edited by amarnath 2006-04-08 5:26 AM
| |
| | |
| belovedofthegod: Talking like Doniger, Indians are victorians, what about Kamasutra? It is not half true and half false, it is plain ****. The philosophers did not have sex on their mind. Then, only the 13 Upanishads have antiquity. All the rest should be read separately and with caution. It is the indigenous Hindu thought in action, discarding the Vedic Gods, highlighting Shiva, Vishnu, and Shakti, thousands of Indian deities coalesced in them and their avataras. Shiva's destruction of Daksha's yagna and Krishna's Govardhan episode also are part of it. I appreciate your write-up on puranas, this is exactly what they are, they are not always history, they are not always philosophical treatises. Yoga is like Buddism, getting you entangled in Kundalini, Nibbana and Buddha Mind. Modern world needs a more direct explanation.
Suraj: Love, what love, christian love, muslim love? Kama is Kamana, plain desire.
Bay Guy: I suggest going to 'Divine Life Society'/Swami Krishnananda pages on the web. Good material, no distortion, modern writing. You could leave 'OM' for later, I suppose it is preparatory for concentration on a serious subject. I am not sold on Yoga as perhaps Suraj is. RigVeda is an anthology of ancient poems and widsom, also a record of their times, mostly more than 5000 years old, don't see anything wrong with that.
Thanks for bearing with me. | |
| | |
| The Aryan invasion, or the recent variant(Aryan migration) theory is part of a very heated controversy. It would seem from the arguments being raised that the Arya people were always indigenous to Asia and there was an Asia migration to Europe.
As for Kama. There is a big semantical difference between how love and sex is understood in the West and in the East. It has always been something more spiritual and sacred in the East and is as seen as the union of opposites. In the Tantra for instance, the union of the male and female energies of Shiva and Shakti leads to creation. In the Bhagvad Gita, the union of Purush and Prakriti, interchangable with Tantric Shiva and Shakti, is what leads to creation of the universe. This is an act of divine loe.
So when it says that Kama arose, it does literally mean love arose. This supreme energy that we call god is love. The act of creation is indeed an act of making love. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | I'm not familiar with the details of the Aryan migration, but I have been looking at the Chandogya Upanishad, so I'll offer this on Siva and Shakti. 1.4: What ulitmately is the Rg verse? What ultimately is the Saman chant? What ultimately is the High Chant? These questions have been the subject of critical enquiry. 1.5: The Rg is nothing but speech; the Saman is breath; the High Chant is the syllable OM. Speech and breath, the Rg and the Saman -- each of these sets, clearly, is a pair in coitus. 1.6: This pair in coitus unites in the syllable OM, and when a pair unites in coitus they satisfy each other's desire. 1.7: So, when someone knows this and venerates the High Chant as this syllable, he will surely become a man who satisfies desires. translation: Patrick Olivelle, 1996. | |
| | |
| Greetings, Suraj. Aryans remained in Central Asia for a long period of time. Hindus (with Shiva and Vishnu ideologies) also were there. Here they met for the first time and liked each other. Later many Aryans came and settled in India (perhaps Kauravas also who hailed from Uttarakuru in Uttarapatha, our name for Trans-Oxiana). Those who remained in Central Asia accepted Zorastrianism with the rise of that religion and Persian empire; and later Buddhism, before finally being converted to Islam. According to Avesta, some of the Aryans who came to India did not like heat/fever of the Saraswati plains (their fifteenth home) and went away to Rangha (by the 'sea shore?', their final and sixteenth home). They may have moved to Iran and Kurdistan (they have a section known as Sindis) and beyond from India.
Love, sexual or otherwise, is a noble sentiment. I do not know a God who is love. Yes, Indian philosophy has always juxtopposed the substance and its inherent properties as a God and Shakti, which is a nice way to present the truth. I will wait for science to answer questions about matter/energy and creation of the universe and would not make a mystical guess. | |
| | |
| I am a bit amused by your questions. For me you are stuck at the wrong questions, I have no mystic tendencies, sorry for that, so some random thoughts.
1.4 What ultimately is the Rg verse or Saman chant - poems by wise people. High Chant -The Rishi may have meant 'OM". What is so critical about this enquiry? 1.5 For a song (Saman), breath is important. Rg also has its own way to be uttered. I see no coitus here. 1.6 I may be more satisfied with a question and the right mental make-up to think about it. Enjoyable just like coitus. 1.7 It will satisfy my desire, I may not be able to satisfy the desires of (late?) Greta Garbo (he will surely become a man who satisfies desires).
We live fully as far as possible before we die. There are few who will not have regrets in life. A man can never realize his full potential, there is a lot of reserve. | |
| | |
| Hey, Amarnath. Yes, what you just said is what is also called Aryan migration theory, proposed by Witzel. It is controversial, does not seem to be supported by a good body of evidence and at this stage is only an unproven theory.
The opposite, which claims that Aryans were always indigenous to the subcontinent and the Harapans were Aryans seems to be supported by a much more compelling body of evidence. The most compelling is indeed that the Arya people had no memory of a foreign origin and Indian history claims very distant antiquity.
There has been no significant difference ground between North Indians and South Indians in culture, race and the religions of Shivaism and Hinduism, and recent genetic studies also show the same. The Harapan cities agree with the urban and seafaring civilisation described in the Vedic literature, particularly with it's geography, that it would seem they are the same. Also to be found were seals depiting Yogic Asanas and Vedic fire altars.
As I said there is a lot of controversy about this. From an Indian historical perspective, it is clear that the Arya people were always indigenous to India and the Vedas are more than 10,000 years old. I think it is a difficult proposition for modern historians to accept that urban civilisation existed so far back. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | amarnath - 2006-04-09 7:18 AM I am a bit amused by your questions. For me you are stuck at the wrong questions, I have no mystic tendencies, sorry for that, so some random thoughts. 1.4 What ultimately is the Rg verse or Saman chant - poems by wise people. High Chant -The Rishi may have meant 'OM". What is so critical about this enquiry? 1.5 For a song (Saman), breath is important. Rg also has its own way to be uttered. I see no coitus here. 1.6 I may be more satisfied with a question and the right mental make-up to think about it. Enjoyable just like coitus. 1.7 It will satisfy my desire, I may not be able to satisfy the desires of (late?) Greta Garbo (he will surely become a man who satisfies desires). We live fully as far as possible before we die. There are few who will not have regrets in life. A man can never realize his full potential, there is a lot of reserve. Those were not *my* questions. That is a direct quotation from the Chandoyga Upanishad.. Those questions are posed in the Upanishad itself... | |
| | |
| Dear Amarnath,
"Then beware of the later Sanhitas and Puranas (1500 AD or later), mostly brahmanic trash."
Its interesting how very few people have actually read the Puranas, but everyone seems to have an opinion about them.
"Also beware of the new age commentators on Vedas with their own axe to grind, like Madhva (my apologies to SriVaishnavas, Madhva, whom I deeply rever, only wanted to counter the philosophical excesses of Sankara)"
Its great that you apologize to Sri Vaishnavas but its also useful to know that Madhva is not a Sri Vaisnhava - you are confusing Madhva and Ramanuja. Madhva is someone else who everyone has an opinion about without reading.
And there is not even a piece of a good reason to think Madhva is just trying to counter Shankara. Dvaitins are very serious people and have strong arguments for what they say. Read Vyasa Tirtha, and you will see why he is consider the greatest logician in Indian history.
Its a bit amusing to call Madhva new age in any case...
"Talking like Doniger, Indians are victorians, what about Kamasutra? It is not half true and half false, it is plain ****."
If you read my post, it is clear I was referring to modern Indians (medieval Indians have not as far as I know responded to Doniger's works yet). You will find most modern Indians are very Victorian in this matter.
"Then, only the 13 Upanishads have antiquity. All the rest should be read separately and with caution."
No historian has succesfully defined antiquity so this is a bold statement indeed. Here it is even more difficult because even the 13 Upanishads (not sure which these would be in addition to the dasopanishads - and an Upanishad is not older just because Shankara comments on it, for instance the Kau****aki and Shvetasvatara are older than something like the Mandukya) are spread out over a period of time.
"Suraj: Love, what love, christian love, muslim love? Kama is Kamana, plain desire."
Actually kama can also mean love, you will see this if you look at a normal sanskrit-english dictionary such as mornier-williams,
Regards. | |
| | |
| Good, I seem to have disturbed a hornet's nest with my posts, of which I can perhaps manage to reply to what Suraj has written. It will be more difficult to reply to Bay Guy and Regular. So first my comment on Suraj's post:
I am a follower of Lokmanya Tilak's theory of Arctic Homes in Vedas. There is evidence galore for migration of Aryans, their mention of two-month long night (Ati-Ratra); that of Ushas, 30 sisters who tarried in coming and whose horses were slow; and the sun who got stuck in the middle of the sky. This is supported by evidence in Avesta which talks of 'Ariyanaam Vaejo' from where the Aryans moved because of a snake and cold (glaciation?) and makes Haraiwaiti (Saraswati) the fifteenth home of the Aryans. Some of them moved to their sixteenth and the last (as mentioned in Avesta, Rangha?, by the sea-shore) because of heat/fever. The Aryan story and the Vedas are certainly much older than 8000 years, when the Aryan new year started with sun rising in Punarvasu ('Sacrifice begins and ends in Aditi'). I, a former follower of 'Aryans are indigenous' theory, could not explain these.
It seems Aryans met Hindus in Uttarapatha (trans-oxiana - Sogdiana, Merv, Bactria, Herat, etc., as mentioned in Avesta; also Kamboja, Gandhara), liked them, interacted, merged into them, and later migrated to India as Hindus (including possibly Kauravas from Uttarakuru). The merging is so complete that you can not make out any dividing line. People in Uttarapatha embraced Zorastrianism with the rise of Persian Empire, later Buddhism, and were finally made to convert to Islam.
There is no beginning to either the Aryan civilization which merged into Hinduism or the Hindu civilization itself, they are aboriginal (Sanatan), and have evolved all the time (do so even today). The dates given by Western scholars and the Indian progressives (Romila Thapaer, etc.) are nothing else but trash. Regards.
Edited by amarnath 2006-04-10 1:04 AM
| |
| | |
| Bay Guy: By the grace of the great scholars of India, the writers of Vedic verses, the Upanishads, SrimadBhagawatam, SrimadBhagawatGeeta, SriRamacharitManasa, and the scientists of the 20th Century, I have found answers to all my questions. I do not usually go back to the books unless I get into difficulty by replying to posts like yours. But it is not necessary that every verse in these books is of equal importance. Then, the answers that I have arrived at are a bit different from the usual. That the writer of the verses was a great Rishi of old does not frieghten me to toe his line (Hindu independence of thought, there is nothing greater than Truth). What suprised me was the mention of 'coitus' in connection of the word 'OM'. I am not in that sort of mysticism, I am not into siddhis. When I come to such passages, I say the writer has goofed up things. The times are different, what we know now was not known to the writer of 'Chhandogya Upanishad' around 2000 BC. I will try to find the passages that you mention and get at their meaning. Regards. | |
| | |
| Amarnath,
There were no Aryans. When you say Aryans and the Hindus, you give the impression that they are different, and they are not. The Aryans was a cultural term given to the noble men of yore, particularly those who spoke Sanskrit and were learned and noble men of Dharma.
I really am not sure what the Avesta says, but as far as what the oldest of Sanskrit literature, Rig Veda, it is clear that the subcontinent was always the home of the Arya people. The cities were built on the banks of the Saraswati river, which was thriving before some 3000BC. The Harapan sites unearthed by modern researchers indeed extend to a very a distant antiquiity, approaching some 10,000 years ago.
Indian historical records record a continuous and unbroken history of the Indians and the Arya culture; santana dharma. There are no memories of foreign invasions or migrations or of some North and South dichotomy. However, there are records of migrations outside of the subcontinent and into Europe. The original Hebrew people are said to be from the Yadav clans, that fled India after great upheavel and floods. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | amarnath - 2006-04-10 2:11 AM Bay Guy: When I come to such passages, I say the writer has goofed up things. The times are different, what we know now was not known to the writer of 'Chhandogya Upanishad' around 2000 BC. I will try to find the passages that you mention and get at their meaning. Regards. Okay, I look forward to your translation of the Sanskrit. I've read two from relatively well-recognized people, and they both said essentially the same thing; but it's always interesting to compare different translations. Or are you saying that you will reinterpret the meaning, in the sense that the author of the CU did not mean what he wrote? | |
| | |
| Would you kindly refer to me the page where I can find the the original and/or translation. I could find Swami Krishnananda's detailed explanation, which of course must be superb coming from a great scholar like him; but it does not give verses separately. All things are possible, different translation, different meaning, different stress, different goal. Thanks.
Got to one by Swami Nikhilananda just now.
It is, to me, as I said earlier, preparation to serious thinking on any subject, concentrating the mind on the purpose at hand, removal of thoughts which could distract one. You could concentrate, if not with 'OM', with 'Rama' also. Let us see further.
Atidanvan says to Udarashandilya, continuation of tradition is important, your descendants must know Udgitha.
You got stuck at the four verses, there are more, and eight chapters of that. Read all that with little understanding. Get the context. Then read it with greater understanding.
Edited by amarnath 2006-04-10 11:05 PM
| |
| | |
| Part II: Udgita is life itself at full bloom, at its best. Sun - What he is at midday is udgita. Seasons - Udgita is rain (that probably means that Chhandogya was written after Aryans had come to India, in their homeland spring or summer would have been the king of seasons). Senses - Udgita is sight. Animals - Udgita is cow. Yajnayajniya Saman - Udgita is flesh. And so on. Let us see.
Edited by amarnath 2006-04-11 1:06 AM
| |
| | |
| Sorry, double entry.
Edited by amarnath 2006-04-11 6:35 AM
| |
| | |
| The Aryans were there, those who named Iran, those who sealed a treaty in the name of Mitra, Varun, and Nasatya in Mesopotamia (Mittani), those who had sun rescued by Herakles with the help of the dog, Cerberus, from the Titans, those who gave a 304 day calender (and 61 days of the long night) to the Romans (that is why their twelveth month is still called December), those who gave a Sanskrit-based language to the Germans and Scandinavians.
In Uttarapatha, Hindus and Aryans merged into one. India was home to a part of Aryans from around 3000 BC. There is mention of migrations, Kauravas came here from Uttarakuru. Only that Uttarapatha was part of a greater India at that time with close links to Hindus; Kabul, Kandhar, Herat, Balkh, Badakshan, Samarkand, Tashkent, Merv, etc. You have a very limited picture of pre-historic India, it did not end at Khyber. Hindus resided in Uttarapatha, there were trade routes to China in East and to Dwaraka, Baruch, etc. via Indus in South. Lothal too was an active port. Perhaps the Panis (Phonecians) reached as far as the shores of Mediterranian and gave the first alphabet to the western world.
Please do not call Hebrews Yadavas, otherwise they would accept Yadavas as a clan of Jews and open their gates for migration. They have done this with Mizos. They need fodder to fight Palestinians. | |
| | |
| I would be more careful, another double entry.
Edited by amarnath 2006-04-11 7:14 AM
| |
| | |
| Part III: The Honey Doctrine. The whole universe depends on Honey. 'Brahman' is the nectar. The Bee is the Upanishad. It transforms nectar into Honey. Transforms 'Brahman' into something which we can partake. The universal rainbow has Vasus in red, Rudra in white, aditya in dark colour (black?), and so on. All these complete the universal rainbow. The light which shines everywhere and is the brightest, shines in Man also (All things are constituted by 'Brahman'). 'When I shall have departed hence I shall certainly reach Him: one who has this faith and has no doubt will certainly attain to that Godhead.''Austerity, almsgiving, uprightness, non-violence and truthfulness-these are the gifts (dakshina) for the priests.' (Not money).
He who, knowing this, meditates on the 'Brahman' - pleasant sounds will quickly approach him and continue to delight him, yea, continue to delight him (whether you meditate on sun as the 'brahman' or moon as the 'brahman', does it really matter?).
I hope my reading is useful to you. | |
| | |
| I am not completely sure what you are saying Amarnath. You said the Aryans were one part of India from 3000BC, so where were the rest from? In fact define Aryan for me, because I think we maybe using different definitions. I also don't know what you mean when you say Aryans and Hindus?
I am aware that the ancient Indian people had very extensive trade and exchanges with many parts of the world in prehistory, such as Mesopotamia and Egypt. There is even a school of thought that the Assiryans and Egyptians were Indian migrants. I agree with you about the Indians giving the the Westerners their alphabet, as well as numerals and some common history.
As for the Jews being the Yadavs. This is an actually a surprisingly old idea that early Greek historians, such as Aristotlle held. The common stories that can be found in the Sanskrit and Hebew texts is the story of the ark, the great flood etc. Have you ever wondered that Abraham might be the same as Brahman? | |
| | |
| The rest, dear friend, were earlier immigrants. The present-day scientific theory is that modern man came up in Africa and radiated world-wide. I know, not very gratifying to all others and Indians - Why was Eve not Indian? But keep heart, scientific theories keep changing.
Aryans on the other hand were people from sub-arctic Tundra regions who were forced to move out because of cold. Around 3,000 BC they were in Central Asia and interacting with Hindus. One of their parties had moved to Greece and later to Rome. Hindus knew them as residents of Uttarapatha (Trans-Oxiana and Afghanistan) with traditions a little different from their own. Some of them came to India and merged with Hindus. Others left 'Saraswati' region to move to 'Rangha' (by the sea shore? Caspian?) according to Avesta, their sixteenth and last homeland because of heat/fever. Both (the Greek and Avestan parties) separated before 2,500 BC when the sun rose on Vernal equinox in Orion. The Aryan/Hindu calender was changed to Vernal equinox in Pleidas (Krittika) around 2,500 BC when Taittiriya Sanhita was written, but those who separated have no tradition for that. (Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak, 'Arctic Homes in Vedas' - http://www.vaidilute.com/books/tilak/tilak-contents.html).
The deluge story is sure striking with similarities between Manu and Noah. The Avesta has a different story of which you might not be aware, in which God, Ahur Mazda, informs Yima, king of men (our Yama) of a deluge by snow. Yima, then made a 'Vara' (Hindi - Bara, Punjabi - Vera), collected specimen of all living beings and vegetation, and kept them safe till the storm passed over. Kindly remember that at places, Avesta and Vedas are the same, word by word. | |
| | |
| Dear friend, you remind me of the song 'Jin Mat Pita ki seva ki, Tirath Dham kiyo na kiyo' (For those who have served their parents, it does not matter if they have not gone on pilgrimages). I have read Srimad Bhagawat Puran, so I have read all others. Some of them make Muhammad as an avatar of Vishnu (Kalki), or may have prescriptions for sins in donations to brahmins. Such books do not represent Hinduism.
Yes, Maharshi Dayanad and Aurobindo tried to explain Vedas in their own way which is far ffrom truth. With a 10,000 year history, Sankara and Madhva can be taken as new age. Sankara made each one of us into God. Madhva responded by his philosophy of five differences. Sankara, Madhva, Ramajuna, Nimbarka, all are my idols. All were greats and serious philosophers. Tags to philosophies really do not matter. I am indebted to all of them, but the answers that I have arrived at are different from all of them. Some of us need to search for our own version of truth. And there is nothing greater than truth, that is what my religion teaches me.
Modern Indians also are not victorian, though we have our traditions. Sex is a purushartha, must for life, no liberation without paying pitri-rina, though exhibition of it is not.
Upanishads, that is simple. If Sankara commented on any, that is old and should be respected. | |
| | |
| Dear amarnath,
"I have read Srimad Bhagawat Puran, so I have read all others. Some of them make Muhammad as an avatar of Vishnu (Kalki), or may have prescriptions for sins in donations to brahmins. Such books do not represent Hinduism."
Its just some versions of the Bhavisya Purana that talk about Muhammad and this is not canonical for most people. The key Puranas are the Bhagavatam, Shiva Purana, Vishnu Purana, and the Garuda Purana for liturgical reasons.
Also, reading the Bhagavata Purana does not mean you have read all the others. If I want to read book A, I can only accomplish that by reading Book A - I cannot accomplish it by reading. You also cannot claim that what the Bhagavatam says includes what all the other Puranas say because you haven't read the other ones!
" With a 10,000 year history, Sankara and Madhva can be taken as new age."
" If Sankara commented on any, that is old and should be respected"
How can an Upanishad be declared old just because it is commented by Shankara, who according to you is new age?
"I am indebted to all of them, but the answers that I have arrived at are different from all of them."
I am surprised by how many people come to the internet to boast their "realizations". I doubt that if you found any serious "answers", you would have to resort to telling everyone in an internet forum.
Simply put, there is no reason for anyone to accept what you say unless it is backed by solid knowledge and sound reasoning. Saying "I found answers" is something no one can check (especially on the internet) and I do not see why anyone would say this other than to try to gain authoritativeness.
"Modern Indians also are not victorian, though we have our traditions. Sex is a purushartha, must for life, no liberation without paying pitri-rina, though exhibition of it is not."
This is in fact very Victorian - do you think Victorians were opposed to having sex for procreation?
Regards.
| |
| | |
| Aryans on the other hand were people from sub-arctic Tundra regions who were forced to move out because of cold. Around 3,000 BC they were in Central Asia and interacting with Hindus.
This is an interesting theory, but there seems to be a few obvious problems with it. It does not agree with Indian historical records. Around 3000 BC, supposedly the Mahabharata war occurred and Krishna lived.
There does not appear to be any memory of a foreign origin of the Arya people. Since Manu, the home of the Arya people was India on the Saraswati river. Hinduism is an umbrella term for all the religions of India. They were similar and based on the same scriptures. The most central, as you know, are the Vedas. The entire society of ancient India was based on these.
So that is Hinduism. So when you say the Aryans and Hindus, it sounds odd, because they are the same. I think you are referring to the Aryans(the vedics) and the Dravidians, and you are calling Shivaism, Hinduism. If it was indeed true that the Aryans migrated from the Artic and then joined and intermixed with Shivaism, what was new that they added? They are both practically the same religion, except Shivaism worhips the deity Shiva in particular. In the Vedas, Shiva is Rudra.
You will find that a race of Aryans is never mentioned in Indian history. What is mentioned is Bharat(India) and in that time Bharat was divided into many kingdoms. The word Aryan was used to describe the noble men and women of Bharat, who spoke Sanskrit. There were other languages in that time too, such as Tamil, except Sanskrit was a language of the intellects and common to all who lived there. There were many South Indian Risi's(seers/sages) that contributed in composing the Vedas.
There is little evidence that shows a North and South racial dichotomy. In fact on the contrary recent genetic studies have shown that the Eurasian DNA is found equally in North Indians and South Indians at about 5%, compared to 70% in people in Europe. They are practically two peas of the same pod.
I think the reason there is so much similarity between European and Indian history and languages, is explained by an Indian or Asian migration into Europe. This is discussed in the Puranas, that discusses how after the great deluge or flood, the inhabitants fled out of India and into Europe. But do the Europeans have a memory of a migration from the Far East? Yes, as a matter of fact they do. It is recorded in Grecian times, how the Ethopians and the hebrew people were originally Indian migrants and the Egyptians too claimed descent from a land in the Far East, called "Punt" which is believed to be India.
I don't really believe in the Out of Africa theory. Not for any political or emotional reasons, it makes no difference to me if we were originally African. However, it seems to be based a lot on speculation and on fossil evidence which only show that the oldest remains of human fossils so far have been found in Africa. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | amarnath - 2006-04-10 10:38 PM Would you kindly refer to me the page where I can find the the original and/or translation. I could find Swami Krishnananda's detailed explanation, which of course must be superb coming from a great scholar like him; but it does not give verses separately. All things are possible, different translation, different meaning, different stress, different goal. Thanks. Got to one by Swami Nikhilananda just now. From what you wrote, I rather had the impression that you were familiar with this text. After all, you chose to contradict a straight translation. I guess that maybe you had absolutely no basis for disagreeing with the translation I posted, as you clearly do not have sufficient familiarity with that Upanishad to critique a translation of it. You got stuck at the four verses, there are more, and eight chapters of that. This is a distortion. I posted those four verses in response to specific comments about Siva/Shakti and the union of opposites. I did not post them seeking advice or because I was "stuck". Cheers. ...... bg | |
| | |
| It was long ago since I went through the Upanishads (Translation and comments by Swami Sivananda - Ten Upanishads). That was a very satisfying and enlightening experience. There is no Shiva/Shakti union in the verses mentioned by you. Union is like Yoga, if you understand this and you understand that. As for 'Udgeetha', I am sure, the writer meant the 'song of life'. | |
| | |
| None of the dates mentioned by me are exact. Kauravas may have come to India around 3,500 BC, I do accept the 3,139 BC date for Mahabharata. The immigrants from Uttarapatha were not foreigners, they were Hindus. Aryans by that time had accepted Hinduism. As I have already said, Uttarapatha was part of the greater India, larger than 'Akhand Bharat' of Hindu Mahasabha.
The most central are the indigenous Hindu deities, Shiva and Vishnu. That we accepted Vedas because of the wisdom contained in them does not make them central. The Vedic Gods were repudiated in Daksha's yagna, Indra hiding under Vishnu's seat, Daksha loosing his head and getting a goat's head only through the kindness of Shiva. It was an Aryan ceremony where an indigenous God was slighted. Krishna's Govardhan episode again shows the victory of Hindu Gods over Gods of Aryan pantheon. The whole of India did not live in the Saraswati region, there were many others. Is Shaivism not Hinduism? Is Vaishnavism not Hinduism? Is Shaktism not Hinduism?
The beauty of Hinduism is the way they amalgamate Gods and theories. Rudra amalgamated with Shiva, the various village Gods amalgamated in Bhairava and made officers in Shiva's army, the various female deities amalgamated in one Adi Shakti, and, possibly, the various avataras of Vishnu also arising out of such amalgamation. Then all of them being amalgamated in one 'Brahman'. The new thing that Aryans gave to us was surely, the Vedas and Sanskrit, without which Hinduism would not have been what it is now. Aryans have long been part of Hinduism. The Vedic tradition was kept alive only by Hindus. It was forgotton everywhere else. Hinduism values all wisdom and does not throw away things. | |
| | |
| If a Upanishad is not commented upon by one of the Acharyas, Sankara, Madhva, Ramanuja or Nimbarka, I do not think it would have much of value. I have definite problems with the likes of Garuda Purana. I do not think it stands scrutiny in 21st Century. If I have found my answers, why must I declare it on internet, they are not your answers. 'Munde Munde Matirbhinna'. Though I have no compunction is telling you about them.
I do not believe in Gods, I do not believe in rebirth in the way most understand it, I do not believe in the existence of soul, I do not believe in heaven or hell, and I do not believe in the doctrine of Karma. I believe that Shiva, Vishnu, Shakti, Rama, Krishna and all others are heroes of my culture. I find the way to live by their stories, some of the stories may be complimentary to them while the others may not be, that does not lessen the lessons to be learned from these stories. They have given unity to my people, so their idea is venerable to me. 'Brahman' constitutes the universe (Sarva Khalvidam Brahma), 'Brahman' is matter/energy, it is indestructible, we cannot give human attribute to 'Brahman' like it being 'merciful' and 'bountiful', its attributes are more physical.
I am composed of atoms which perhaps arose 14 billion years ago and have chanced to collect in me from millions of sources. There is a rotation of these atoms in me every moment of my life but in a way that it does not change the overall picture other than my aging. When I die, these atoms will go back to millions of things, animate and inanimate. There is really no death. 'Brahman'/Matter/energy does not die. I believe in 'Dharma', my duty, I have an obligation to fulfill it because I am a part of a society. 'Dharmo Rakshati Rak****ah'. I do not ask anybody to believe what I believe. But please let me know of any shortcoming that you find in my views. Sex is not only for procreation, it is great fun, socially accepted and safe fun in the institution of marriage.
Sorry, if Ra****ah comes back as Rak****ah, the computer would not understand that I am not profaning.
Edited by amarnath 2006-04-13 6:23 AM
| |
| | |
| Dear Amarnath,
There are several Upanishads quoted by Shankara that he does not comment upon (Paingala, Shvetashvatara, Kau****aki, Mahanarayana, etc...) Do these pass your antiquity text?.
Now since you say:
" But please let me know of any shortcoming that you find in my views."
The problem with your view (which is close to other such views that are very popular today) as I see it is that it is based on the existence of conciousness-independent substance called matter. This matter is infered from some cognitions we have but its only an inference.
No one has actually seen it, no one is seeing it now, no one will ever see it. This material world independent of conciousness is unverifiable and unfalsifiable. It seems, to me at least, superstitious to believe in such fictitious, mysterious entities, which are eternally out of the range of experience.
We can't say matter exists because we apply existence to things we know about. If we don't know X, then we cannot say X exists, because we don't know X! I can't say ikajsdjfs exists, because ikajsdjfs is not something known to me. A conciousness independent matter is not something that is being known, thus how can we even attribute existence to it?
Regards. | |
| | |
| Dear friend, how long you would hide behind the facade 'no one has actually seen it'. This is 21st century. I give below a hastily prepared list of sites where you can see actual photographs of atoms. There are many more on the internet as also photographs showing what energy is (Bikini, Pokran, partical accelerator laboratories, etc.).
http://www.andrewlost.com/atoms_molecules_k1.htm
http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/atoms.htm
http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/feenstra/ (See Picture Gallery)
You are seeing 'Brahman' in these photographs. Various techniques, x-ray, infrared, laser, are used for these photographs. Should we not be thankful for these glimpses? Should we wonder if we cannot see 'Brahman' more clearly?
Shvetashvatara is a beautiful book. I am sure Kausheetaki (I might have read it, if not my loss), Paingala and others also are beautiful books. These have an element of poetry in them, like the 'Udgeetha' in Chhandogya which I am going through. One has to see behind these poetical constructs. Is it really difficult to feel whether the book is talking sense or is it just a mass of mystical nonsense? I think it is not at all difficult.
That is the 'Sankara' problem as also that of many western philosophers, 'what you see does not exists or exists only in your mind'. No, 'Brahman' exists even without there being a seer. Homo Sapiens Sapiens have been here for just about 120,000 years, the universe/'Brahman' has existed at least for 14 billion years.
Edited by amarnath 2006-04-14 12:50 AM
| |
| | |
| Dear Amarnath,
" I give below a hastily prepared list of sites where you can see actual photographs of atoms."
Are you seriously claiming that the sense data based on which you infer the existence atoms is outside conciousness? If it was outside conciousness, then how did you see it?
In those images, you recieve a sense data. Based on that sense data, you infer that there is an atom. But what you really know is that there is sense data and this sense data is never outside conciousness.
No one has seen anything outside conciousness by definition - these things outside conciousness are all infered. No one has seen this substance that you have called matter and cannot by definition whether in the 21st century or the 92nd one,
Regard. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | This is a very interesting and centuries old problem in epistemology. Cogito, ergo sum.
I think that it is all quite subjective, and that reality is by individual acquiescence of a group consensus. At the same time, I recognize that it hurts when somebody slugs me in the nose after I have annoyed him too much. Is that a reality, or just my reality? Perhaps I only imagine having a nose that was broken by a man whom I imagined. Considerations like the latter make it very hard for me dismiss the input of the senses. At the same time, I find that the most subjective realities are those which lead us to assign meaning to the terms "good" and "bad", in their infinite permutations and realizations. To take the perspective of the Yoga Sutras on this, I would try to reduce my attachment to whatever it was that might cause me to make that fellow break my nose; and, if my nose were already broken, I would try to release my attachment to the anger and loss that went with that event (I might also get a nose job, if that reduced the disadvantages and angry memories of the broken nose). I guess that I would think that "reality" has both highly subjective and apparently concrete aspects, but that neither should be taken so seriously as to tie me to painful or stimulating experiences that might separate me from the light within. visoka va jyotismati
..... bg | |
| | |
| I agree with you, atom is not a ball of gue. But what comes out in the photograph is not nothing, that is what I am pointing to, no smoke without fire. Humans are researching on matter/energy/wave/force, they would perhaps not get all answers in our lifetime though we may still see a great advance. We cannot do much about it except not to get caught in wrong conclusions. These photographs are not strictly sense data, and from these the only inference we derive is the existence of something. That something is a matter of research. | |
| | |
| I agree with you too. There are two kind of realities (a matter of difference of scale), the grosser, where the nose gets broken, and the finer, where two waves perhaps interfere with each other. | |
| | |
| Dear Amarnath,
"But what comes out in the photograph is not nothing, that is what I am pointing to, no smoke without fire."
Yes, but there is no good reason to relate that smoke (sense data) with that particular sense data (a conciousness-independent entity).
We infer smoke from fire because in the past we have seen the fire after seeing the smoke. If you never say the fire after the smoke and no one told you, you would not infer fire from smoke. It is only because we see fire everytime after seeing smoke that we think that there is a fire when there is smoke.
However, you have seen the sense data but neither you nor anyone else has seen an actual conciousness-independent atom out there. Given this, such an inference is uncalled for.
"These photographs are not strictly sense data, and from these the only inference we derive is the existence of something."
I agree that we infer the existence of something, but there is no reason why we should infer the existence of a mysterious conciousness-independent entity. You can't just infer whatever you like without a good reason - and I don't see a good reason for inferring this thing called matter.
Btw, I don't want to sound completely negative. Its great that you have studied the texts and tried to understand them on your own terms rather than following other people's opinion dogmatically,
Regards.
Edited by belovedofthegod 2006-04-18 5:47 PM
| |
| | |
| The working of physical forces/constructs like atoms, till now, has not been found to be consciousness-dependent, my reason to believe in a physical sort of 'Brahman'. Thanks for your appreciation of my line of thought (though, of course, you believe in something else). | |
| |
|
Creation Hymn from the Rg Veda