Idea of devataavaividhya harmonious with ekatva of brahman, an imitation of monotheism ?

[nagarajpaturi]

I thought of starting this thread after a scholar respected by us is mentioned to have said that claims of monotheism of Hinduism are in imitation of Christianity. I am not in favour of applying categories such as 'polytheism' and 'monotheism' to 'Hinduism'. Using our own categories, I was wondering how the fact well known to most of us in India  that the idea of devataavaividhya harmonious with ekatva of brahman is as old as at least the Upanishads got distorted like this and the imitation theory got currency among even the learned. 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

atha hainaṃ vidagdhaḥ śākalyaḥ papraccha -- kati devā yājñavalkyeti |
sa haitayaiva nividā pratipede yāvanto vaiśvadevasya nividy ucyante |
trayaś ca trī ca śatā trayaś ca trī ca sahasreti |
om iti hovāca |
katy eva devā yājñavalkyeti |
trayastriṃśad iti |
om iti hovāca |
katy eva devā yājñavalkyeti |
ṣaḍ iti |
om iti hovāca |
katy eva devā yājñavalkyeti |
traya iti |
om iti hovāca |
katy eva devā yājñavalkyeti |
dvāv iti |
om iti hovāca |
katy eva devā yājñavalkyeti |
adhyardha iti |
om iti hovāca |
katy eva devā yājñavalkyeti |
eka iti |
om iti hovāca |
katame te trayaś ca trī ca śatā trayaś ca trī ca sahasreti || BrhUp_3,9.1 ||

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 7:57 PM, nagarajpaturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

I thought of starting this thread after a scholar respected by us is mentioned to have said that claims of monotheism of Hinduism are in imitation of Christianity. I am not in favour of applying categories such as 'polytheism' and 'monotheism' to 'Hinduism'. Using our own categories, I was wondering how the fact well known to most of us in India  that the idea of devataavaividhya harmonious with ekatva of brahman is as old as at least the Upanishads got distorted like this and the imitation theory got currency among even the learned. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

 

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/brdup/brhad_III-03.html

has an English translation of this portion of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.

Only towards the end of the page there is some Advaitic tone. Otherwise, the whole translation appears to be beyond the differences of the sub-schools of Vedanta.

[Hnbhat B.R.]

एकं सद् विप्रा बहुधा वदन्ति । (Rgveda1.164.46) 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Thanks Dr Bhat. But the the other side might say that this is not specifically about dEvatAbahutva and its being viewed in consonance with Ekatva of Brahman or any such concept of the ultimate such as parama+Atman etc.

तस्याः शिखाया मध्ये परमात्मा व्यवस्थितः ।
स ब्रह्म स शिवः स हरिः स इन्द्रः सोऽक्षरः परमः स्वराट् ॥

of Narayana suktam which is from Taittiriya Aranyakam

may suit.

On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

एकं सद् विप्रा बहुधा वदन्ति । (Rgveda1.164.46) 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

नमस्ते ।

Suppose we are talking about a set of deities {a, b, c, d, e, f, g} in certain context (of which the presiding deity is, say, d).

How do we reduce the multiplicity of deities to a singularity? In two ways:

1. To the core deity d. This makes sense as d is anyway the deity of the context (say, a Hindu sect), and is therefore the "core deity" (the deity under focus/ इष्ट देवता of the sect) in the set {a, b, c, d, e, f, g}.
2. To the विराट देवता D = d | a+b+c+e+f+g, which is a "summation" performed on deities , while still retaining deity d at the core of the sum.

An example:
d = पार्वती
D = दुर्गा

In this way, each Hindu sect can operate as some form of monism/ monotheism, even while Hinduism, overall, remains polytheistic. So there is no contradiction.

Now let us come to the context of वेदान्त where ब्रह्म is the इष्टदेवता.
d = ब्रह्म
D = पुरुष / ब्रह्मा

Here, पुरुष is more of a generic term which can be used for any D-deity (पुंदेवता only), e.g. for विष्णु, शिव, इत्यादि (again, depending on the d-deity of the context).

ब्रह्मा is rarely used in Vedantic contexts, but that is purely due to historical reasons (duly enunciated in Purana-s).

This maths of d & D is exactly what Br.Up is seen performing. But all that is when we holistically understand the वाक्यानि, taking into account the contexts they are found in.

I have said this earlier: Upanishads' वाक्यानि have been systematically quoted out of context. By whom? People who saw/ see शास्त्र as a gravy train.

Regards,

KT

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Thanks pujya Kalicharanji for joining the discussion.

> To the core deity d. This makes sense as d is anyway the deity of the context (say, a Hindu sect), and is therefore the "core deity" (the deity under focus/ इष्ट देवता of the sect) in the set {a, b, c, d, e, f, g}.

------ This suits

          (a) the panchaayatana model. There are Vishnu panchaayatana, Shiva panchaayatana etc. where one of the five is the

              'presiding' or 'central' deity.

          (b) paaramya sampradaayas: 'shaNmatas' : Saiva, Vaishnava, Sakteya (well known) and the less known Soura, GaaNaapatya

               and Soura.

> In this way, each Hindu sect can operate as some form of monism/ monotheism, even while Hinduism, overall, remains polytheistic. So there is no contradiction.

--------- The English words 'monism/monotheism are problematic. But for want of a better alternative, we can compromise and say that this is one of the ways in which polytheism and monotheism, in stead of being mutually exclusive binary as in the western parlance, are mutually inclusive and mutually coherent in 'Hinduism'.

> Now let us come to the context of वेदान्त where ब्रह्म is the इष्टदेवता.
d = ब्रह्म
D = पुरुष / ब्रह्मा

Sir, probably your 'd' seems to be the pauraaNic god brhma, the creator who is part of the trimurti set.

Your 'D' seems to be Brhman, the central concept of Vedanta.  

> Here, पुरुष is more of a generic term which can be used for any D-deity (पुंदेवता only), e.g. for विष्णु, शिव, इत्यादि (again, depending on the d-deity of the context).

-------- Sir, you are completely mistaken in thinking that पुरुष has reference to पुंदेवता only or male or masculine gender.

(a)  पुरुष of the Vedas such as Virat purusha, samvatsara purusha etc. is a word similar to the English word 'person'. In fact, I would even say that it is used in the sense of 'organism'. It is used to describe 'organismic' coherent organization of various entities into a set, or organism-like ( self-regulated and self-sustained ) functioning of a system, such as an eco-system.

(b) पुरुष of Saankhya is a concept meaning something like 'motive' or 'dynamising' aspect of reality in contrast to 'prakriti ' the motivated or the dynamised aspect of reality.

(c) पुरुष of Vedanta is also a super-gender (beyond gender distinctions ) concept, not any deity . Gita has a detailed, intricate discussion of various aspects of this concept.    

> ब्रह्मा is rarely used in Vedantic contexts, but that is purely due to historical reasons (duly enunciated in Purana-s).

-- You are probably talking about your small /lower case 'd' here.

>This maths of d & D is exactly what Br.Up is seen performing. But all that is when we holistically understand the वाक्यानि, taking into account the contexts they are found in.

------- I agree.

          

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[सा. श्रेयसः]

-------- Sir, you are completely mistaken in thinking that पुरुष has reference to पुंदेवता only or male or masculine gender.

...

...

... 

.

(c) पुरुष of Vedanta is also a super-gender (beyond gender distinctions ) concept, not any deity . Gita has a detailed, intricate discussion of various aspects of this concept.    

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

Dear Prof. Nagaraj,

Namaste.

I believe this a well established point of difference among various traditional schools of Vedanta.

So Sri Kalicharan's point here is accepted by some systems (like Vishishtadvaita) based on their interpretation

of Srimath Bhagavath Geetha Chapter 15 and some references in Srimath Bhaagavatham, Narasimha Purana, 

Paadma Purana, etc.  Also (तै. उ.)  "स यश्चायं पुरुषे। यश्चासावादित्ये। स एकः। ".  

Coming back to the main subject, commentaries on the following vaakyams

might be of some relevance-  

सदेव सोम्य इदमग्र आसीत् एकमेव अद्वितीयम् । - (छ. उ. ६-२-१)

तत् ब्रह्म। स आत्मा। अङ्गान्यन्या देवताः  (तै. उ.)

Regards,

-Shreyas

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

Highest Pranama-s,

Prof. Nagaraj ji.

पुरुष the word is not the key issue here. I admit that पुरुष, much like 'Man', can also mean the gender-neutral "(human) being". So it would be an overkill assigning exclusively either "male" or "being" to पुरुष.

My point was that पुरुष is a generic term for D-देवता, i.e. the विराट (so Samkhya interpretation isn't considered here). In the same Br.Up, he is also called पिता.

Re: ब्रह्म, ब्रह्मन्, ब्रह्मा

I did mean ब्रह्मा as the D-देवता/ पुरुष, as described with detail in Purana-s (one of the Trinity). In the first para itself of the wiki page on ब्रह्मा says — "In the epics, he is conflated with Purusha."

By ब्रह्म, I did mean the d-देवता, ब्रह्मन्. However, as we know ब्रह्म is many times used to mean ब्रह्मा, ब्राह्मण, prayer, etc as well. I will henceforth use ब्रह्मन् for ब्रह्म, to avoid confusion.

व्याकरण dictates that it is ब्रह्मा who carries ब्रह्मन् within, and not the other way around. It is D-देवता that has d-देवता within himself.

So the एकत्व-context can mean either 'd' or 'D', and Upanishads are full of both descriptions. Cha.Up. ६.२.२ for example talks about 'd'.

Creation can start in mainly two ways:

A. An undifferentiated D-देवता starts naming/ formulating his parts.

B. A d-देवता, by the summation process (discussed earlier), expands itself. There are intermediate stage deities involved in this process.

नेति नेति is the "process of subtraction" to arrive at d-देवता starting from D-देवता or the multiplicity {a, b, c, d, e, f, g}.

An inability to read differentiation between D-देवता and d-देवता in Upanishads has resulted in conflating of ब्रह्मन् (d-देवता) with पुरुष (D-देवता). A tragedy indeed.

Re Hinduism

Yes I agree that Monism/ Monotheism in Hinduism is merely complementary to Polytheism in Hinduism. So much so that applying such filters on Hinduism is not productive at all. Unfortunately, however, these facts are not projected at all in media.

KT

P.S. apologies in advance for any typo

[Bijoy Misra]

What is the point of this discussion?

Is it to provoke interest or express a separate point of view?  If the latter, why not a paper?

I don't understand what the thread is all about?

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Thanks Vidwan Shreyas Saranganji, for the excellent quotes:

सदेव सोम्य इदमग्र आसीत् एकमेव अद्वितीयम् । - (छ. उ. ६-२-१)

तत् ब्रह्म। स आत्मा। अङ्गान्यन्या देवताः  (तै. उ.)

Particularly,

तत् ब्रह्म। स आत्मा। अङ्गान्यन्या देवताः  (तै. उ.)

so vivid.  

[K S Kannan]

Continuity in the comprehension of the Unitary principle eulogised in manifold manners is evidenced too - as in Nirukta 7.4:

mAhAbhAgyAd devatAyA
eka AtmA bahudhA stUyata
ekasyAtmano'nye devAH
pratyan'gAni bhavanti....

This is the mAhAbhAgya of the devatA.

KSKannan

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Numerous Namaskaaras Prof. Kannan!

What an excellent expression! Every dEvatA can be viewed as the one of which the other dEvatAs are pratyangAni!

Such a powerful food for thought!

Namaskaaras again.

Nagaraj

[Nagaraj Paturi]

The same  Nirukta 7.4 has

sarvadevatā.āśrayanāt.ca.''.agnir.vai.sarvā.devatāh,.atra.vai.sarvā.vasati.devatā.iti.ha.vijñāyate"

The entire 7.4 (from GRETIL) is:

7,4: tad.ye.anādista.devatā.mantrās.teṣu.devatā.upaparīkṣā/[733]
7,4: yad.devataḥ.sa.yajño.vā.yajña.aṅgam.vā.tad.devatā.bhavanti/[733].[prakaraṇād.hi.saṃdigdha.devateṣu.devatā.niyama.iti.nyāyaḥ..ḍ;.prātahsavane.yo.viniyujyate.sa.āgneyaḥ.yo.mādhyandine.sa.aindraḥ.yas.tṛtīya.savana.sa.ādityaḥ..ḍ.734].
7,4: atha.anyatra.yajñāt.prājāpatyā.iti.yājñikā,.nārāśaṃsā.iti.nairuktāh/[733].
7,4: [``yajña.iti.kātthakyah,.agnir.iti.śākapūnih''.iti/
7,4: yajña.śabdena.ca.visnur.ucyate.''.viśnur.vai.yajñah''.iti.hi.vijñāyate/''.agnir.hi.bhūyistha.bhāk.devatānām''.iti.ato.anāviskṛta.devatā.liṅgo.mantra.āgneyaḥ.syāt/
7,4: sarvadevatā.āśrayanāt.ca.''.agnir.vai.sarvā.devatāh,.atra.vai.sarvā.vasati.devatā.iti.ha.vijñāyate/''.ḍ.735-736,.]
7,4: [kecit.tu.yena.narāḥ.praśasyante.sa.nārāśaṃso.mantra.iti.paśyanto.manuṣya.stuti1p.ity.evam.manyante/
7,4: tad.ayuktam,.na.hi.manuṣyānām.anāviskṛta.liṅgair.mantraiḥ.stutir.upapadyate,.durbodhyatvāt.teṣām.alpa.buddhitvāt.ca.manuṣyānām.iti..ḍ.736]
7,4: api.vā.sā.kāma.devatā.syāt/[733].[kāmato.hi.icchātas.tasmin.devatā.kalpayitavyā..ḍ.736]
7,4: prāyas[=adhikāra.ḍ.736].devatā.vā,.[athavā.bāhulyam.ḍ.736]..asti.hy.ācāro.bahulam.loke,.devadeva.ity.atithi.devatyam.pitṛdevatyam.[tatra.evam.nirdiste.tato.rāśer.anyad.avaśiṣyate.tad.deva.pitṛ.manuṣyānām.sādhāranam.bhavati..ḍ.p.737]/[733].
7,4: yājña.daivato.mantrah/[733].
7,4: [yo.anāviskṛta.devatā.liṅgo.mantraḥ.sa.yājño.vā.syād.daivato.vā/''.visnur.vai.yajñah''.iti.ha.vijñāyate/
7,4: visnuḥ.punar.āditya.eva.nairuktānām.dyu.sthāne.samāmnānāt,.''.yat.ca.kiṃcit.pravalhitam(enigmatical).āditya.karma.eva.tat''.iti.hi.vakṣyati/
7,4: tasmād.āditya.devataḥ.sa.mantra.iti.syāt/
7,4: athavā.daivataḥ.sa.mantrah,.devatā.asmin.devatā.iti.daivatah,.avaśistam.hi.devatātvam.agni7.eva,.sarva.devatā.abhivādāt,.''.agnir.vai.sarvā.devatāh''.iti.hi.vijñāyate/''.agnir.vai.devatānām.bhūyistha.bhāk.''..iti.ca/''.aparigrahaṃś.ca.pradhāna.gāmi''.iti.nyāhah,.tasmād.āgneyaḥ.sa.mantra.syād.iti/
7,4: tad.yad.upodghāta.uktam.''.nārāśaṃsā.iti.nairuktāh''.iti.tad.eva.kātthakya.śākapūni.matena.avadhṛtam.''.yajño.agnir.vā''.iti,.tau.hi.nairuktāv.iti..ḍ.737-738]
7,4: api.hy.adevatā.devatāvat.stūyante.yathā.aśva.prabhṛtīny.osadhi.paryantāny,.atha.apy.astau.dvandvāni/[733]
7,4: sa.na.manyeta.āgantūn.iva.arthān.devatānām,.pratyakṣa.dṛśyam.etad.bhavati/
7,4: māhābhāgyād.devatāyā.eka.ātmā.bahudhā.stūyate,.ekasya.ātmano.anye.devāḥ.pratyaṅgāni.bhavanti/[733]
7,4: api.ca.sattvānām.prakṛti.bhūmabhir.ṛṣayaḥ.stuvanti.ity.āhuḥ.prakṛti.sārvanāmnyāt.ca/
7,4: itaretara.janmāno.bhavanti/
7,4: itaretara.prakṛtayah/
7,4: karma.janmānah/
7,4: ātma.janmānah/.ātmā.eva.eṣām.ratho.bhavaty.ātmā.aśvā.ātmā.āyudham.ātmā.isu1p/
7,4: ātmā.sarvam.devasya.devasya/[723-724]

[K S Kannan]

Dr Paturi,

I just drew the key passage after going through the long text. You have done a more helpful job by citing the text in full. More people will be grateful to you!

KSKannan

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

तैत्तिरीयोपनिषत् | शिक्षावल्ली | पञ्चमोऽनुवाकः

भूर्भुवः सुवरिति वा एतास्तिस्रो व्याहृतयः । तासामुह स्मैतां चतुर्थीं माहाचमस्यः प्रवेदयते । मह इति ।

तत् ब्रह्म । स आत्मा । अङ्गान्यन्या देवताः । भूरिति वा अयं लोकः । भुव इत्यन्तरिक्षम् । सुवरित्यसौ लोकः ॥ १ ॥

मह इत्यादित्यः । आदित्येन वाव सर्वे लोका महीयन्ते । भूरिति वा अग्निः । भुव इति वायुः । सुवरित्यादित्यः ।

मह इति चन्द्रमाः । चन्द्रमसा वाव सर्वाणि ज्योतीँषि महीयन्ते । भूरिति वा ऋचः । भुव इति सामानि । सुवरिति यजूँषि ॥  

Here, भूर्, भुवस् & सुवर् are mentioned as pointers to different लोका:. Then ॐ ("मह") is added as the Fourth — the location of ब्रह्मन्. This ब्रह्मन् is then likened to आत्मा (soul/ core of a being), and the deities of other realms are likened to various parts (of a being). This is further illustrated with models of - (a) सूर्य as the soul and अग्नि, वायु etc as body parts - and, (b) चन्द्रमा as the core and ऋच, सामानि etc as parts.

अग्नि, वायु etc are not mentioned as parts of सूर्य, rather सूर्य is shown to be the core - the soul, guide, controller - of the mentioned set of deities.

"तत् ब्रह्म । स आत्मा । अङ्गान्यन्या देवताः" therefore means that अन्या देवता: are "non-core members" (one of the meanings of word अङ्गानि) of पुरुष even as ब्रह्मन् is the "core/ soul" ('d-deity') of पुरुष ('D-deity'). Only a Being has both आत्मा and अङ्गानि; आत्मा doesn't have any अङ्गानि of its own; further, if one were to concern solely with ब्रह्मन् - with no context of Being involved - a more apt word would be: आत्म.

Errors typically emerge when a Upanishadic वाक्य is quoted out of context. (Upanishads, being literatures of lesser depth than वेद, operate at the resolution level of वाक्य, unlike the resolution of शब्द in वेद, and hence need the context of the paragraph)

Vedanta ("ब्राह्म ") - one of many Hindu sects - can be in this way characterised by ब्रह्मन् as its d-deity and पुरुष (ब्रह्मा) as its D-deity. A pertinent quote from Nirukta by Dr Kannan in this thread indicates that this broad framework is equally true of other Hindu sampradaya-s as well (that have their own इष्ट and/or विराट deities).

Regards,

KT

[Shreyas Sarangan]

Please refer the attached pdf extracts-

i. "monotheism.pdf"

@book{chari1994vaiṣṇavism,

  title={Vaiṣṇavism: Its Philosophy, Theology, and Religious Discipline},

  author={Chari, S.M.S.},

  isbn={9788120810983},

  lccn={lc93910757},

  url={https://books.google.co.in/books?id=evmiLInyxBMC},

  year={1994},

  publisher={Motilal Banarsidass Publishers}

ii. Sankara-bhashyam

iii.Sankara-bhashyam-translation

iv. Srirangaramanuja-Bhashyam ("Upanishad Bhashyakar" of Visishtadvaita school)

v. Kuranarayana Jeeyar Bhashyam

Thanks,

-Shreyas

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Many thanks Vidwan Shreyasji,

for all the excellent references.  

The English file on monotheism is very well substantiated.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Prof. Misra,

The initiating post of the thread is self-explanatory. It makes it clear that the thread is indended to do purvapaksha of a position:

'Hinduism was polytheistic before the arrival of the British and the colonial time Christian evangelism. Hindus started claiming their religion to be monotheistic only in imitation of Christian monotheism.'

For any Saskrit-knowing Hindu, that this position is wrong is well known. So to write a paper on this , as if this is a path-breaking new idea, is not required.

We engage in such manana of our own known ideas just for the purpose of a svaadhyaaya with a purpose, reminiscing our past knowledge on a specific issue reminding ourselves that our understanding contrary to the above position is well founded.

The problem with these positions is that they are getting into the textbooks of young children and are turning into the 'common sense' of educated Indians.

One of the purposes of the thread is to remind the concerned list members that they use their respective platforms to counter such misinformation.   

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 11:18 PM, Bijoy Misra <misra...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Bijoy Misra]

Prof Nagaraj,

You got the point.  The message has to reach our youth.  Whatever we think is educational,

should be enumerated as readable articles.  It is the latter where we have to alert ourselves

for the future.  While I realize it is not straightforward, but I believe it is a part of the national

service specially when massive cultural invasion has been underway.

Best regards,

Bijoy Misra 

[K S Kannan]

Your point, sir,  bears any amount of repetition.

- KSKannan

[V Subrahmanian]

Namaste

The idea of monotheism also presupposes that the angas are non-different from the angi.  Only then can one properly understand the concept of monotheism at the highest level.  If this is not admitted, there will be the defect of 'sāvayavatva' of the angi devatā and the resultant logical consequence of its anityatva, dravyatva, etc. cannot be avoided.  

In the Prasnopanishat 2.9 we have:

इन्द्रस्त्वं प्राण तेजसा रुद्रोऽसि परिरक्षिता । 
त्वमन्तरिक्षे चरसि सूर्यस्त्वं ज्योतिषां पतिः ॥ ९ ॥

भाष्यम्

किंच, इन्द्रः परमेश्वरः त्वं हे प्राण, तेजसा वीर्येण रुद्रोऽसि संहरन् जगत् । स्थितौ च परि समन्तात् रक्षिता पालयिता ; परिरक्षिता त्वमेव जगतः सौम्येन रूपेण । त्वम् अन्तरिक्षे अजस्रं चरसि उदयास्तमयाभ्यां सूर्यः त्वमेव च सर्वेषां ज्योतिषां पतिः ॥

In the Vishnu sahasra nama we have a name 'śivaḥ' (27) where Shankaracharya comments:

निस्त्रैगुण्यतया शुद्धत्वात् शिवः   ’स ब्रह्मा स शिवः..’ (कैवल्योपनिषत् ८) इत्यभेदोपदेशात् शिवादिनामभिर्हरिरेव स्तूयते ।

At the beginning of VSN we have: भूतकृत्, etc. where Shankara has commented that it is one Brahman that assuming the three guṇas appears as Rudra, Brahmā and Vishnu, to perform the functions of destruction, etc. Then, in the following name 'pūtātmā' (10) Shankara says:

भूतकृतादिभिर्गुणतन्त्रत्वं प्राप्तं प्रतिषिध्यते पूतात्मा इति, पूत आत्मा यस्य स पूतात्मा, कर्मधारयो वा ’केवलो निर्गुणश्च’ (श्वे.उ.६.११) इति श्रुतेः । गुणोपरागः स्वेच्छातः पुरुषस्येति कल्प्यते ।

We also have the grand description of the 'viśvarūpa' of Brahman at the start of the VSN:

भूः पादौ यस्य नाभिर्वियदसुरनिलश्चन्द्र सूर्यौ च नेत्रे
कर्णावाशाः शिरो द्यौर्मुखमपि दहनो यस्य वास्तेयमब्धिः ।
अन्तःस्थं यस्य विश्वं सुरनरखगगोभोगिगन्धर्वदैत्यैः 

चित्रं रंरम्यते तं त्रिभुवन वपुषं विष्णुमीशं नमामि ॥ २॥   

where the entire cosmos is shown to be inhering in Brahman. If we consider the sura, nara, gandharva, daitya, etc. as different from the Supreme, then the flaw of the container-contained cannot be avoided, which presupposes sāvayavatva for samyoga rūpa āśraya-āśrayi bhāva. Only dravya can have these attributes.

One can see the above scheme demonstrated in the Sri Rudram of the Krishna yajur veda too. The Brahma sutra bhashya 2.3.43: 

अंशो नानाव्यपदेशादन्यथा चापि दाशकितवादित्वमधीयत एके - तथा ह्येके शाखिनो दाशकितवादिभावं ब्रह्मण आमनन्त्याथर्वणिका ब्रह्मसूक्ते — ‘ब्रह्म दाशा ब्रह्म दासा ब्रह्मैवेमे कितवाः’ इत्यादिना ; दाशा य एते कैवर्ताः प्रसिद्धाः, ये च अमी दासाः स्वामिष्वात्मानमुपक्षपयन्ति, ये च अन्ये कितवा द्यूतकृतः, ते सर्वे ब्रह्मैव — इति हीनजन्तूदाहरणेन सर्वेषामेव नामरूपकृतकार्यकरणसङ्घातप्रविष्टानां जीवानां ब्रह्मत्वमाह ; तथा अन्यत्रापि ब्रह्मप्रक्रियायामेवायमर्थः प्रपञ्च्यते — ‘त्वं स्त्री त्वं पुमानसि त्वं कुमार उत वा कुमारी । त्वं जीर्णो दण्डेन वञ्चसि त्वं जातो भवति विश्वतोमुखः’ (श्वे. उ. ४-३) इति, ‘सर्वाणि रूपाणि विचित्य धीरो नामानि कृत्वाभिवदन्यदास्ते’ इति च ..

Thus, the scheme of monotheism is not one of One Supreme Being as the overlord and all the other beings as entities different from that Supreme. It is One being appearing as all the others and performing those respective functions. Annamāchārya sang: hariyavatāramule akhila devatalu..[All the devatās are only incarnations of Hari, the Supreme].

regards

subrahmanian.v

 

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 12:04 AM, Shreyas Sarangan <sarang...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Shreyas Sarangan]

Dear Sri Subrahmanian,

Given the fundamentally divergent metaphysical frameworks of each Vedanta tradition wrt the other, I think we need to separately analyze  

and map out what "monotheism" means (and assumes!) for each individual philosophy - i. Advaita, ii. Visishtadvaita iii. Dvaita iv. bheda-abheda etc. 

It might be confusing to discuss on a single thread. 

Namaste,

-Shreyas

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/2RnuVTQaaBQ/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

[rniyengar]

Prof.Paturi ji wrote: The initiating post of the thread is self-explanatory. It makes it clear that the thread is intended to do purvapaksha of a position:

 

'Hinduism was polytheistic before the arrival of the British and the colonial time Christian evangelism. Hindus started claiming their religion to be monotheistic only in imitation of Christian monotheism.'

 

Well, for scholars learned in the Śāstras, the Vedic and Vedāntic positions may be very clear. But for an average Hindu, like the undersigned, with bits and pieces of knowledge picked up from inherited tradition and listening and reading here and there, the situation is not that easy.  Referring to Hinduism as a religion vis a vis Xtianity and Islam itself is not proper. However if we agree that we are all Hindu insiders for this discussion, monotheism has to be first defined or at least explained. Quoting from ancient texts does not address the Position at all. Let me explain my difficulties. As is well known and repeated by many, Abrahamic religions have only Single Prophet and One Book. Coming to the concept of One God, as far as I have understood, Xtianity (corrections welcome) the Oneness is contrasted with anti-God or Satan, who is not to be worshiped. It appears to me by definition monotheism in the Position is a Male Godhead isolated from His Creation but existing with a Polar opposite, making space for Sin and Evil. AFAIK Xtianity accepts God to be (3 O) Omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. But I am not sure about the “sarvāntaryāmitva” of the Xian God among the living (chit) and also the non-living (achit). If this were to be accepted, His Creation cannot be separated from Him and monotheism collapses. Still one can bring in Prakṛti, but this is not at all same as anti-God. Brahman-Māyā; Savitṛ-Sāvitrī; Śiva-Śakti; Viṣṇu-Śri; are not antagonistic to each other and the Hindu does not despise the Female-God. In fact Hindus can as well worship Her instead of Him. So, worshiping Bhāratamātā is as good as worshiping Bhūdevi which will give the same result; but it is not so for the Abrahamics mainly due to monotheism defined in the Books.  Hence, to me it seems Hinduism (as a religion) at the Vyāvaharika level gets automatically differentiated from Xtianity and Islam. But how to reconcile with what Yāska has pointed out and all our great saints; men and women; have realized?  My humble submission is Hinduism is a Meta-religion (it can subsume Abrahamic vyavahāra in its outreach) and it is Uni-theistic, which is neither polytheism nor monotheism.

Regards

RN Iyengar

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Vidwan Shreyasji,

I agree and I am with you in asking scholars to avoid, as far as possible, discussions that bring in the differences of opinion between different schools of Vedanta.

An American Indologist asked me, "is such a discussion of Vedanta possible?" . I confidently answered him in the affirmative. This was in response to my proposal of what I called 'Nirvivaada Vedanta' or 'vaadabhEdaateeta Vedanta'. He exclaimed with utter disbelief in and tone and facial expression, "Eh, is this a valid notion? Can anything like that ('Nirvivaada Vedanta' or 'vaadabhEdaateeta Vedanta') exist or thought of?  " 

I again answered in the affirmative with the same confidence.

It may suit a full separate thread to discuss the details of my idea of 'Nirvivaada Vedanta' or 'vaadabhEdaateeta Vedanta'.

But such a view is the need of the hour and should be incorporated in the discussions such as the one in the present thread.

Humbly,

Nagaraj

[Nagaraj Paturi]

> Well, for scholars learned in the Śāstras, the Vedic and Vedāntic positions may be very clear.

---- I agree. Considering that BVP has many 'scholars learned in the Śāstras, the Vedic and Vedāntic positions ', expecting them to say, 'all this is obvious to us, why to discuss the well known again?' , I have been saying 'it is well known' etc. 

List members know that Prof. Iyengar among these learned members of BVP, as such they take his words such as, 'But for an average Hindu, like the undersigned, with bits and pieces of knowledge picked up from inherited tradition and listening and reading here and there'  as expressions of humility which they naturally take as the hallmark of again his greatness as a scholar only. 

> Referring to Hinduism as a religion vis a vis Xtianity and Islam itself is not proper.

Absolutely. That is the reason, why, as I do in all my posts except when I am unalert, kept the word 'Hinduism' in quotes.

It may be noted that I did the same in the thread initiating post, here, too.

My words there: "I am not in favour of applying categories such as 'polytheism' and 'monotheism' to 'Hinduism'. "  

> My humble submission is Hinduism is a Meta-religion (it can subsume Abrahamic vyavahāra in its outreach) and it is Uni-theistic, which is neither polytheism nor monotheism.

Leaving aside other portions of this sentence (for a separate discussion ) , the claim   ".... Hinduism is....... neither polytheism nor monotheism."  is well in agreement with the thread initiating post where it is said, 

"I am not in favour of applying categories such as 'polytheism' and 'monotheism' to 'Hinduism'. Using our own categories, I was wondering how the fact well known to most of us in India  that the idea of devataavaividhya harmonious with ekatva of brahman is as old as at least the Upanishads got distorted like this and the imitation theory got currency among even the learned." 

'Imitation theory' here means the theory that 'claims of monotheism of Hinduism are in imitation of Christianity'.

Thus on the whole Prof. Iyengar doesn't seem to disagree with any of the words in the first post of the thread. Nor does that post has anything in contradiction with the present post of Prof. Iyengar.

Thanks to Prof. Iyengar for providing a detailed explanation for why 'I am not in favor of applying categories such as 'polytheism' and 'monotheism' to 'Hinduism''.

Warm regards,

Nagaraj

 

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

नमस्ते ।

भाष्यानि उपनिषदेषु, after all, are secondary sources - no matter who wrote them. Indispensable for स्वाध्याय, no doubt, but far from unequivocally authoritative in scholarly citations.

This doesn't mean neglecting/ overturning historical scholarship on Vedanta. Let me demonstrate this using the terminology I've already used in this thread.

D = d | a+b+c+e+f+g   is the पुरुष देवता understood as the "oriented sum" of deities a-g. I call this "oriented sum" because the deity d has a special place in this sum - one that of being a "guide" or the "giver of direction".

D is greater than merely the sum of its parts (as the saying goes), and one needn't emphasise how "D exemplifies एकत्व and is far from being hodgy-podgy".

But the more interesting question is the nature of the "oriented sum", especially the meaning of the "orientation" part. Because in the sum D, the d-deity enters with a slightly different operation (symbolised by " | " here) compared to " + " in case of other deities.

अद्वैत says, there is no difference between | and + and therefore there is no special deity such as 'd'. All that we have is 'D'.

द्वैत says | is like a पूर्ण विराम and therefore the separation between d and (a+b+c+e+f+g) is complete. All we have is 'd', and the "others".

विशिष्ट अद्वैत says | is neither + nor पूर्ण विराम exclusively.

We can transcend this question, especially for contexts such as the present one, by plainly referring to "oriented sum". (I hope scholars will pinpoint the exact Sanskrit word used for it)

****

The next important question is how D-देवता comes to be also identified with प्राण. This is what we saw in Nagaraj-ji's original quote from Br. Up. and also in Shri V. Subrahmanyam's quote from प्रश्नोपनिषद २.९.

Why is प्राण देवता so important to Upanishads?

[Sundareswaran N.K]

ആംഗല കാലസൂചികാനുസാരിജന്മദിനാശംസകൾ 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

N. K. Sundareswaran,

Department of Sanskrit,

University of Calicut,

Kerala - 673635

INDIA

https://universityofcalicut.academia.edu/SundareswaranNK

[Sundareswaran N.K]

Very sorry. Sincerely regret for the erroneous posting.

nks

[Aurobind Padiyath]

The + usage may not be the right one as the Upanishad says "tat srshtva tad eva Anu pravishyat" meaning a,b,c,etc is only in appearance different but not in it's reality and essence . Also during Vedic period the term prana were being used to denote brahman not the breath.

Aurobind Padiyath

[Sati Shankar]

mAnyavar

In our Sanatan tradition, we consider "devatA", "devi", or whatever we perceive the form and name it, nAma -  rUpa, is realised in our tradition as vishvam ekam, (RV. 3.54.8), the many are the One  and the One that is manifold, vishvam satyam, (RV. 2.24.12); the manifold truth,and vishvam .....garbham (RV. 10.121.7). therefore, if asked, "Is He One or many?", our tradition says,"One and many", The general principle is ,the devah is every where of one and the same form. (RV.8.11.8)., that is, "Even as he seems, so is he named" RV. 5.44.6., the way being anurUpah, pratirUpah, (JBU.I.27). Here, He, Prajapati, manifests in "Himself", so this universe, idam sarvam, pecieved according to anurUpam, pratirUpam,to be declared " One and many", there by clarifying that the translation of the NasadIya Sukta, the Manifestation Hymn, as the "Creation Hymn", signifies the error interpretation and naming by the Indologists had in their minds the "Creationist presuppositions" of Christianity. Therefore, using the "God" for the  "Self Manifested", idam sarvam, is like limiting Him and equally makes "theology" a term unfit to proceed for brahma jijnAsA of our tradition.PrajApti, thus manifested in Himself, idam sarvam,selforganizes in dharma by his own  multifarious sva-bhAva, such that in Him are all beings, idam sarvam, manas, prAnah, nAma-rUpa, are within, as coincident; " sent by Him onto him, and born of Him into him, it is in Him that all this universe is stabilised, that is how our tradition invokes for shAnti, ... sarve devAh shAntih, nakshatrh shAntih, vanaspatayah shantih.....aum shAntih, shAntih, shAntih... to keep the equilibrium  in idam sarvam intact, for welfare of the cosmos. Our scriptures teach,"idam sarvam brahm" and therefore, being a manifestation within,   Aham brahmAsmi  since we ,aikik and samyaka are this "idam sarvam", well connected in such a way that a chance deviation at any level, be it microcosm or macrocosm, does not leave unaffected within. These are just examples within the limits of this forum. 

On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 7:57:06 PM UTC+5:30, nagarajpaturi wrote:

I thought of starting this thread after a scholar respected by us is mentioned to have said that claims of monotheism of Hinduism are in imitation of Christianity. I am not in favour of applying categories such as 'polytheism' and 'monotheism' to 'Hinduism'. Using our own categories, I was wondering how the fact well known to most of us in India  that the idea of devataavaividhya harmonious with ekatva of brahman is as old as at least the Upanishads got distorted like this and the imitation theory got currency among even the learned. 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

The theory of imitation of Christianity is probably proposed to explain the claims of monotheism in the colonial time born organizations such as Arya Samaj and Brahmo Samaj.

Even in that case

(1) Based on the claims of these new organizations, to generalize that entire Hinduism brought in monotheism claims in imitation of Christianity has ativyaapti dosha.

(2) Even limited to organizations such as Arya Samaj, the imitation theory is wrong because what Swami Dayananda Saraswati did was to counter argue or to do purva paksha of the claims or false understanding that the Vedic tradition was polytheistic and not to create a new monotheistic interpretation of the Vedas. He showed, the way we are doing in this thread, from the evidences within the Vedic texts that those texts had the concept of "One as many" (to use Prof. Sati Sankar's words) as central to them. So it was a rejoinder and  revival not an imitation, even in the case of Arya Samaj.  

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 6:47 AM, Aurobind Padiyath <aurobind...@gmail.com> wrote:

The + usage may not be the right one as the Upanishad says "tat srshtva tad eva Anu pravishyat" meaning a,b,c,etc is only in appearance different but not in it's reality and essence . Also during Vedic period the term prana were being used to denote brahman not the breath.

Aurobind Padiyath

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[V Subrahmanian]

अजायमानो बहुधा विजायते

[Sati Shankar]

Hinduism? Here is something more fromthe Hon Supreme Court...

Hinduism is dead. Shut the temples down

http://linkis.com/www.dailyo.in/politi/qHQ0n

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/2RnuVTQaaBQ/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Sati Shankar  

Global Synergetic Foundation 

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

Let us take a fresh look at the situation --

In the first place we do not have either Hinduism or Religion .

If you argue that since the term Hinduism has gained currency let us take it as a synonym of सनातनधर्म , at least temporarily , then okay .

धर्म cannot be translated (Al India Radio does as Religion) as it is pregnant with meaning and conforms to meaning - ध्रियते अनेन इति धर्मः ।

If धर्म is translated as Religion it is wrong as the back translation fails -- Religion = मतम्( not धर्म) । मतम् means इष्टम् , i e liked by some people (but not all) .

धर्म is universal - applicable to all irrespective of caste and Religion  -- सत्यं वद , धर्मं चर , अहिंसा परमो धर्मः etc.

All we have is सनातनधर्मः - सनातनः = नित्यः ; धर्मः = धर्मः । And the same is अनादि --

in सनातनधर्म ( even outside )  , we have to accept certain things as अनादि --

अद्वैत - वेदान्तिन्s accept six अनादिs - जीव also among them and the कर्म , since associated with जीव , is also अनादि ।

मीमांसकs do not accept प्रलय  - न कदाप्यनीदृशं जगत् ( the universe had never been different than what it is today), यः कल्पः स कल्पपूर्वः (each कल्प is preceded by a कल्प) .

The relation between शब्द and अर्थ  is as old as (  i e अनादि) the same between इन्द्रिय and विषय -

इन्द्रियाणां स्वविषयेष्वनादिर्योग्यता यथा ।

अनादिरर्थैश्शब्दानां संबन्धो योग्यता तथा ॥ वाक्यपदीयम् , पदकाण्डः, संबन्धसमुद्देशः।

So also other दर्शनानि ।

Such a धर्म , that is अनादि  is supported by  वेद (जात्येकवचनम्) that is also अनादि ।

वेद proposes a thing called ब्रह्मन्  as the very cause of  the universe .

The same is also called परमात्मा , which can , being indestructible , manifest into many ' things'  - सर्वं खलु इदं ब्रह्म , नेह नानास्ति किञ्चन (उप.)

In order to arrest the  cycle of death and birth , one has to realize the ब्रह्मन् । The same is called मोक्षः ।

There are two ways - सगुणोपासना and निर्गुणोपासना ।

The former is easier than the latter.

शिवः , विष्णुः , गायत्री etc are for सगुणोपासना and the entities are called - देवः or देवता (the latter applicable to both genders) .

भगवान् is another name of देव - what is / are भग and who is भगवान् ?--

ऐश्वर्यस्य समग्रस्य वीर्यस्य यशसः श्रियः ।

ज्ञानवैराग्ययोश्चैव षण्णां भग इतीरणा ॥ विष्णुपुराणम्

अणिमा , महिमा, गरिमा , लघिमा , प्राप्तिः , प्राकाम्यम् , ईशित्वम् , वशित्वम् - अष्टैश्वर्याणि ।

ईश्वरः is a term used for both सगुणब्रह्मन् and निर्गुणब्रह्मन् ।

ईश=ऐश्वर्ये - ’ स्थेशभासपिसकसो वरच् ’ पा सू  - अन्तोदात्तः ( स्थावरः, ईश्वरः, भास्वरः, पिस्वरः, कस्वरः) ।

Now one has to decide as to whether ' God ' can be a faithful translation of ईश्वर " ।

This is just a brief account to counter the concept of Religion . 

वाद or विवाद can be there  between समानौ । 

The terminology  used by 'others' (monotheism etc) does not mean anything in terms of Indian Philosophy .

ब्रह्मन् - देवः - जीवाः - निर्जीवाः - is the order.

धन्यो’स्मि

Dr.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit, CALTS,
University of Hyderabad,
Ph:09866110741(M),91-40-23010741(R),040-23133660(O)

Skype Id: Subrahmanyam Korada

Blog: Koradeeyam.blogspot.in 

[Satish Kumar Dogra]

Professor Korada,

                              You are a scholar and the following arguments are not intended to challenge your views, but just to project a counter-point.

It has become customary to say that Hinduism is not a religion but a way of life. This is stated by persons of different persuasions: those who wish to say that Hinduism is vague and confused; those who wish to present Hinduism as 'scientific' and useful in a world in which religion seems to be becoming irrelevant and is even seen as a negative force; by those who try and fail to draw a circle and say this is what Hinduism is; and by those who have never studied the scriptures and have picked up the phrase from others.

Since, then, "Hinduism is not a religion but a way of life" is stated not only by the opponents of the religion, but also by its supporters, the whole issue needs to be examined. There are questions that need to be examined along with this, if the final answer is not to suffer from ambiguities. Two of these questions are implied in what you have written: 1) Does the concept of religion apply in the Indian context where ancient Indians believed more in 'mata' or opinion and 'path' or different approaches to God. 2) Should Hinduism not be equated with Sanatana Dharma.

There is no doubt that we have moved into an age where different religions are not only in competition with one another, but also tend to take a rigid and exclusive position. This rigidity is antithetical to a faith that says "यो यथा मां प्रपद्यन्ते तान्स्थैव भजाम्यहम्" Hinduism is a spiritual philosophy where the worshiped adjusts to the desires of the worshiper rather than expecting the worshiper to stick to a rigid method of worship.

Then, where is the problem?

The problem arises when Zakir Naik quotes from Hindi scriptures to prove that some of the attributes of God in Hindu scriptures are those of Allah, and, therefore, Allah is there in Hindu scriptures. As a Hindu I am ready to accept this. But would Zakir Naik accept if I sit in a mosque and worship a Hindu God because that is afterall a representation of Allah?

What creates the problem is that one is forced in today's world to defend Hinduism against attacks that are not based on spiritual philosophy or logic, but upon religion as a social force. That is what brings in 'religion', even though 'dharma' is a universal law applicable to all human beings.

Let us look at the issue from another angle. Psychologists have been trying to understand the inscrutable human mind. Psychoanalysts, Behaviorists, Gestaltists, Positivists, Congnitivists, Personality theorists and innumerable others have given their different approaches to an understanding of the mind. None of these approaches is the mind. Just as none of the religions is God.

To the faithful Hindu, of course, God is Rama, just as to the faithful Christian it is the Holy Spirit. But discussions involve logic, not faith.

Western monism begins to confuse our own द्वैत-अद्वैत dichotomy because we have got used to understanding our scriptures through Western eyes and through a Western language. In the following shlokah from Srimad Bhagwad Geeta, do we infer द्वैत or अद्वैत when He who says this is an avatar?

ब्रह्मार्पणं ब्रह्महविर्ब्रह्माग्नौ ब्रह्मणा हुतम्।
ब्रह्मैव तेन गन्तव्यं ब्रह्मकर्मसमाधिना।।

In my opinion both  द्वैत and  अद्वैत are the गुणाः of ईश्वरः Like so much else seems contradictory when we try to understand it through human logic, the simultaneous existence of द्वैत and  अद्वैत seems contradictory when we try to understand it logically.

We have failed because we have made English the medium of our discussions of Hindu spirituality. We need to start the tradition of discussing in Sanskrit. You as a great scholar can give the lead and take along the beginners like me. I hope to soon jump on the bandwagon of those who write fully in Sanskrit. We should build up a tradition of discussing our scriptures in Sanskrit and bring the standards of discussion to a level where the Westerners feel compelled to learn our language to get wisdom. The possibility of putting up our articles on our websites removes the difficulty you mentioned in one of your posts where you said the Western press ignored your book on linguistics.

First and foremost, we must learn to approach our ancient writings with an open mind operating like a blank slate. We need to be led by what TS Eliot said in his essay on Philip Massinger in his book The Sacred Wood, published in 1920. He says:  "the advantage of good scholarship is that it presents us with evidence which is an invitation to the critical faculty of the reader: it bestows a method, rather than a judgment."

We need to focus on new interpretive tools rather than rigidify our views about the scriptures. For, if we try to look at the scriptures every time with a new perspective we might find meanings that we had never thought of.

Take the following shlokah from Srimad Bhagwad Geeta, for example:    

श्रोत्रादीनीन्द्रियाण्यन्ये संयमाग्निषु जुह्वति
शब्दादीन्विषयानन्य इन्द्रियाग्निषु जुह्वति

I take the second line to mean that even deep indulgence of the senses is a kind of yajna. Interpreters of the shlokah with a rigid 'Hindu' mind try to fit this into 'family dharma' and all that. But where is the need for such forced fitting? Why can't we simply accept and say, "Yes, complete application of the senses, when for instance listening to a raga or watching a dance, is also a kind yajna"?

Thanks for your patience in reading this long note.

Regards,

Dogra, Chennai.

============================================
Read my websites:
Sanskrit: dograindia.org
English: satishkumardogra.com

Tamil: dogratamil.com

My contact number:
+91 98400 93148

[Bijoy Misra]

Excellent.. I loved it!

They make some Hindu Studies colloquium locally.  They make up their own vocabulary and look for "God."

They call it Comparative Theology.  I learn that it is rampant in Europe.

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 11:41 PM, Satish Kumar Dogra <dogra...@gmail.com> wrote:

. We should build up a tradition of discussing our scriptures in Sanskrit and bring the standards of discussion to a level where the Westerners feel compelled to learn our language to get wisdom

​Historically Sanskrit was not the only language in which spirituality was discussed for popular reading and understanding of philosophy. Philosophy was extensively discussed in regional languages. When philosophy can be discussed in regional languages why not English. The problem is we loosely use western Philosophical terms whose usage for Indian systems of philosophy, many concepts are similar but not identical.​ Why do we need to compel any one? Westerner easterner or even an Indian. If you say I am wise listen to me forget westerners even Indian wont listen. Don't we many sub schools in Indian philosophy?

​1) Does the concept of religion apply in the Indian context where ancient Indians believed more in 'mata' or opinion and 'path' or different approaches to God. 2) Should Hinduism not be equated with Sanatana Dharma. ​

​I don't know mata but each school of philosophy was and is called a darshana. The word Sanatana Dharma is not found in Vedas or any old philosophical texts. Its a recent word and should be ignored. The problem starts if we start writing like chauvinists.

​In my opinion both  द्वैत and  अद्वैत are the गुणाः of ईश्वरः Like so much else seems contradictory when we try to understand it through human logic, the simultaneous existence of द्वैत and  अद्वैत seems contradictory when we try to understand it logically. ​

​
I don't understand  the above sentence​.

​The problem arises when Zakir Naik quotes from Hindi scriptures to prove that some of the attributes of God in Hindu scriptures are those of Allah, and, therefore, Allah is there in Hindu scriptures. As a Hindu I am ready to accept this. But would Zakir Naik accept if I sit in a mosque and worship a Hindu God because that is afterall a representation of Allah?​

​Let me ask the same question if some one sits in temple and loudly read Koran will it be fine. (Personally for me it does not matter). If one says there is God and theology​ in Hindu texts whats wrong one may call God allah or Ram.

​श्रोत्रादीनीन्द्रियाण्यन्ये संयमाग्निषु जुह्वति
शब्दादीन्विषयानन्य इन्द्रियाग्निषु जुह्वति

I take the second line to mean that even deep indulgence of the senses is a kind of yajna. Interpreters of the shlokah with a rigid 'Hindu' mind try to fit this into 'family dharma' and all that. But where is the need for such forced fitting? Why can't we simply accept and say, "Yes, complete application of the senses, when for instance listening to a raga or watching a dance, is also a kind yajna"?​

​This might be popular interpretation or your own interpretation of the sholka. This interpretation is neither shastric or traditional or has logical backing.

There is no doubt that we have moved into an age where different religions are not only in competition with one another, but also tend to take a rigid and exclusive position.​

​This is because many Indian saints saints and good meaning God men and women have made yoga and other Indian concepts a commodity and are earning millions of dollars which is against our Dharma Shastras for Dharma is never for sale.​ If my followers are making more money than your followers then the problem starts.

​We need to focus on new interpretive tools rather than rigidify our views about the scriptures. For, if we try to look at the scriptures every time with a new perspective we might find meanings that we had never thought of. ​

​There are enough tools and there always scope for​ more I agree

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Is not the thread  getting digressed from the original theme ?

Young children are being told that 'Hinduism', before the British had polytheism. It is when the Christian missionaries told them that you are polytheistic, but see we are monotheistic, they started claiming that 'ours is also a monotheistic religion'. This, when told to a young audience knows the ancient Greek Polytheism which is a polytheism that excludes monotheism and Christianity which is a monotheism that excludes polytheism, there is a scope for misunderstanding. That what is being called as 'Hinduism' has a different situation is to be communicated to such audience.   

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Aurobind Padiyath]

Hypothetically if Christ and Mohamed were to be born in India or were allowed to be included in the "Vasudaiva kudumbhakam" , won't they also be like Karthikeya and Buddha?  Just that they were in other countries we have problem in including them. Are we not allowing Sai followers and others to function? Only when these followers try to impose and tramp on the existing systems and undertake forceful conversations, people react. 

Are we not taught to accept noble thoughts from all over the world to be accepted? If not can we ever would have seen any footprints of Zorashtrians etc in this country? 

While we accept noble thoughts It's our right to protect what's rightfully our's. 

Aurobind 

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/2RnuVTQaaBQ/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Aurobind Padiyath
+91-9689755499

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

​Yes it did deviate . I tried to give my understanding or reply to​ Satish Kumar Dogra jis mail.

There is no one single acceptable view which can be said as Hindu view. Many views have been propounded by many people from various parts of India from various times under varied circumstances have given a set of opinions on varied topics. All these views can be considered as Hinduism. Hinduism has ​polytheism, ​monotheism, ​theism, atheism etc. The problem starts when we use the word Hinduism and say it is for  a particular view and other views are not there. A Hindu has no quarrel with any religion. If I communicate one view and say this Hinduism another parson will give another view and say that too is Hinduism. Both my view and another person view can be traced in Hindu texts. Each view has to be examined within the context  traditions in which a view has been said. Views bereft of context will simply give raise to debates not having any bearing on the views. There can be no single communication to any audience say this Hinduism and this is not Hinduism. Was there or is there one common unitary principle that is or was universally accepted at any one given point of time by all people spread across a vast and culturally varied land such as India is difficult or impossible to answer.

On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

Is not the thread  getting digressed from the original theme ?

Young children are being told that 'Hinduism', before the British had polytheism. It is when the Christian missionaries told them that you are polytheistic, but see we are monotheistic, they started claiming that 'ours is also a monotheistic religion'. This, when told to a young audience knows the ancient Greek

​​

Polytheism which is a polytheism that excludes

​​

monotheism and Christianity which is a monotheism that excludes polytheism, there is a scope for misunderstanding. That what is being called as 'Hinduism' has a different situation is to be communicated to such audience.  

[Sati Shankar]

"The situation is analogous to the Indic position on religious salvation—that a human being has access to it not by virtue of belonging to this or that religion—but by the mere fact of being a human being."

The fact of matter is that the duality inherent in our own reasoning makes it more convincing to believe in all those things which are consequences of duality. And the process goes on, leading to very many interpretation and consequent uses and abuses by those superior in power, be it intellectual power, or physical might and wealth. It is due to this fact, for centuries deliberate interpretations have been made by power brokers to satisfy their vested-interests.

Like Mr. Tully, Kerry Brown observes, “… the culture that we know now as Hinduisms and that the Indian ones call SanAtana Dharma - the Law Eternal - precedes this name by thousands of years. This is more than a religion, more than the theological direction in which the west understands religion. One can believe in all divinities or in no divinity and remain Hindu. This is a manner to living."

It is due to this prevalent undercurrent, Mr. Mark Tully observes that Indian secularism does respect all religions and rejoices in the diversity of faiths we Indians follow but, “the Western world and the Indian elite who imitate it ignore the genius of the Indian mind. They want to write a full stop in the land where there are no full stops.” This is why he writes, “for thousands of years, in changing historical circumstances, in different countries, and cultures and climates,people had experienced what appears to be the same reality, although describing that reality differently, I saw that a universal God made far more sense rationally than one who limited his activities to Christians.”

Regards

Sati Shankar

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

We need not teach our children this is Hinduism this is not Hinduism. They can read explore and find out. We can teach them our family traditions at a personal level. If they are interested they continue else they do not. We are living in times where lively hood is not dependent on religion. Only time can decide is this is best method or not. “superior in power, be it intellectual power, or physical might and wealth. It is due to this fact, for centuries deliberate interpretations have been made by power brokers to satisfy their vested-interests.” This is not created by west alone historically we are also responsible. Our Kings and past policy makers should also share and take blame to large extent. Many are fed up with this have preferred to keep religion at a personal level and talk only about philosophy Art ,Music language and other aspects on Indian culture.. The more such concepts Santana Dharma in the connotations its used are discussed more disgusting it becomes

[Satish Kumar Dogra]

Shri Nagaraj Paturi, Shri Aurobind and Shri Ajit,

Is the thread going off-track? I believe not. The basic issue to my mind is that Hinduism is under attack and the nature of attack and the methods of warding it off need to be identified by those who are in the fore-front of think-tanks.

As Mr. Ajit says, a Hindu could be an atheist, a theist or an agnostic. As Mr. Aurobind says, but for the rigidity that has crept into religions during the past few decades, Christ and Mohammed could well be having their idols side-by-side with Krishna and Rama in our temples. This is the beauty of Hinduism, because a Hindu is a seeker and spiritual explorer who starts out with the view that the scriptures and the Gurus are only guides. It is he himself who must seek his path and find the Truth for himself.

Therefore, when Hinduism is attacked, it is this spirit of free thinking and free exploration which comes under attack. The all-accommodating philosophy that treats theism and atheism, Buddha and Krishna with equal value is sought to be replaced by a belief-system that prescribes and says, "You shall do this and only this." It is this prescriptive and proscriptive approach which makes an attack on Hinduism dangerous for humanity.

Centuries ago, Hinduism came under attack and the leaders-of-thought at that time failed to identify the symptoms of the attack and to take steps to ward it off. That is how a centuries-long tradition was broken, and now we are trying to bring about its resurgence. Should that mistake be repeated?

Dogra

============================================
Read my websites:
Sanskrit: dograindia.org
English: satishkumardogra.com

Tamil: dogratamil.com

My contact number:
+91 98400 93148

--

[vishal jaiswal]

Unfortunately, what is easy on the mind is what is most attractive -
just like healthy food does not stand a preliminary chance in face of
junk food.
Therefore, the question of children being interested or not is
irrelevant because they never had that conscious choice in the first
place.

[sadasivamurty rani]

I fully agree with Sri Ajit Ji as far as his statements "We need not teach our children this is Hinduism this is not Hinduism. They can read explore and find out. We can teach them our family traditions at a personal level." are concerned. 

Here I would like to add a few reasons for supporting his views. 

1. The words Hindu and Hinduism are popularized and given more focus as a result of social and historical necessity in the recent centuries. Moreover these two words are very late originated too. 

2. Christianity and Islam are surely two religions in modern terms.  Where as we do not have any religion by name. These two and many of such other religions have - One God, One Text and One Pravakta or Preacher system. 

 

But We don't have any religion but a perennial stream of Dharma - the way of living of Bharatiyas - I don't even prefer the word - Indians - to call ourselves. So we have multitude of Gods, Plethora of Texts and a galaxy of Teachers. 

Thus this Sanatana Dharama or Bharatiya Dharma with an ever uninterrupted TRADITION gifted us PRICELESS LEGACY and GLORY of spiritualistic elevation of individual with full freedom of worshiping many Gods or Single God.  

3. Meanwhile, some of the prominent leaders of 19th and 20th centuries who inspired our entire nation during the British rule and led our country in the freedom struggle felt the need of a label to unite all of us and adapted these words HINDU and HINDUISM of persian  origin.  As a token of our respect to them we are accustomed to accept these terms.  

So as said by AJITJI let us teach our younger generations  our family traditions - I add a phrase 'without any amendments '-  at a personal level.  यद्यदाचरति श्रेष्ठ: तत्तदेवेतरो जन:._ As the elders do so the younger generations. If we have commitment in teaching them surely a majority of our younger generations will respect our tradition and systems. Sometimes we need not even teach them if we regularly and systematically practise they too will follow. 

II. Idea of Devataavaividhya

As far as this Devataavaividhya is concerned Our seers seems to have preferably recommended us to worship GODS and not any Single GOD only. Let us see the following statements from Vedic Texts, Smritis, Puranas etc :

जायमानो वै त्रिभिर् ऋणवान् जायते (तै. सं) and 

अथोच्यते गृहस्थस्य नित्यकर्म यथाविधि।

यत्कृत्वाऽनृण्यमाप्नोति दैवात् पैत्राच्च मानुषात् ॥ आश्वलायन गृह्यसूत्रम्)

These two statements say that any human being in this world is born with three debts : 1. To Gods, 2. To Sages and 3. To Human beings (fore fathers).

 To set ourselves free from these three debts we have to perform Nitya Karma Anusthana. The next question that confronts us is: What are the main deeds of Nitya Karma Anusthana? The following slokas from Brhat Parasaraa Smriti and Parasara Smriti answer this question. 

सन्ध्यास्नानं जपश्चैव देवतानां च पूजनम्।

वैश्वदेवं तथाऽऽतिथ्यं षट् कर्माणि दिने दिने॥ (बृहत् पराशरस्मृति:)

सन्ध्यास्नानं जपो होमो देवतानां च पूजनम्।

आतिथ्यं वैश्वदेवं च षट्कर्माणि दिने दिने ॥ (पराशरस्मृति:)

Here Devataanaam ca Puujanam is in plural form suggesting the Polytheistic worship.  Further to say: 

ब्रह्मादयो ये देवा: ताऩ् देवांस्तर्पयामि।

सर्वान् देवांस्तर्पयामि।

सर्वाऩ् देवगणांस्तर्पयामि।

सर्वा: देवपत्नीस्तर्पयामि।

सर्वान् देवपुत्रांस्तर्पयामि।

सर्वान् देवपौत्रांस्तर्पयामि।

भूर्देवांस्तर्पयामि।

भुवर्देवांस्तर्पयामि।

सुवर्देवांस्तर्पयामि।

भूर्भुवस्सुवर्दॆवांस्तर्पयामि।

All this is an illustration of polytheism only. 

Vyasa in the sloka:

वेदोदितं स्वकं कर्म नित्यं कुर्यादन्तन्द्रित:। 

तद्धि कुर्वन् यथा शक्ति प्राप्नोति परमां गतिम् ॥ (व्यासवचनम्)

emphasizes that one who following the Vedic injunctions as specified above performs all his daily rituals etc will attain salvation at the end. 

Following the same concept, we have the Panchayatana system of worship with the placement positions of the Gods according to the preference of the worshiper. 

पञ्चायतनविधि:

शिवपञ्चायतनस्थानानि : मध्ये - शिव:, ईशान्ये-विष्णु:, आग्नॆये-सूर्य:,निऋत्यां-गणेश:,वायव्ये - अम्बिका

विष्णुपञ्चायतनस्थानानि : मध्ये -विष्णु:, ईशान्ये-शिव:, आग्नॆये-गणॆश:,निऋत्यां- रवि:, वायव्ये-अम्बिका

अम्बिकापञ्चायतनस्थानानि : मध्ये- अम्बिका,ईशान्ये-विष्णु:, आग्नॆये-शिव:, निऋत्यां-गणेश:, वायव्ये - सूर्य:

गणेशपञ्चायतनस्थानानि : मध्ये - गणेश:, ईशान्ये-विष्णु:, आग्नॆये - शिव:,  निऋत्यां - सूर्य:, वायव्ये-अम्बिका 

सूर्यपञ्चायतनस्थानानि : मध्ये - सूर्य:, ईशान्ये-विष्णु:, आग्नॆये-गणेश:निऋत्यां- शिव:, वायव्ये-अम्बिका 

Even the Puranas recommend us never to discriminate between any Gods or Goddesses. 

शिवाय विष्णुरूपाय शिवरूपाय विष्णवे।

शिवस्य हृदयं विष्णु: विष्णोश्च हृदयं शिव:॥

यथा शिवमयो विष्णुरेवं विष्णुमयश्शिव:।

यथान्तरं न पश्यामि तथा मे स्वस्तिरायुषि॥

and the Slokas like: 

यं शैवा: समुपासते शिव इति ब्रह्मेति वेदान्तिनो

बौद्धा बुद्ध इति प्रमाणपटव: कर्तेति नैयायिका:।

अर्हन्नित्यथ जैनशासनरता: कर्मेति मीमांसका:

सोऽयं नो विधधातु वांछितफलं त्रैलोक्यनाथो हरि:॥

But there were some ideal preceptors who attained fulfillment even by worshiping any single God or Goddess. So they preached to worship any single GOD.  This we had Vaishavities, Shaivites, Shaki worshipers and so on. It doesn't suggest us to worship only a single god and to shun all the other gods. This is to develop our faith in our family tradition. 

Most of the things which I mentioned here are not uncovered by the previous writers of this thread. Yet I chose these aspects to supplement the necessity of protecting and propagating our tradition. 

Warm regards,

Prof. Rani Sadasiva Murty

---

From: Ajit Gargeshwari <ajit.gar...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 17 April 2016 10:26 AM

Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Idea of devataavaividhya harmonious with ekatva of brahman, an imitation of monotheism ?

We need not teach our children this is Hinduism this is not Hinduism. They can read explore and find out. We can teach them our family traditions at a personal level. If they are interested they continue else they do not. We are living in times where lively hood is not dependent on religion. Only time can decide is this is best method or not. “superior in power, be it intellectual power, or physical might and wealth. It is due to this fact, for centuries deliberate interpretations have been made by power brokers to satisfy their vested-interests.” This is not created by west alone historically we are also responsible. Our Kings and past policy makers should also share and take blame to large extent. Many are fed up with this have preferred to keep religion at a personal level and talk only about philosophy Art ,Music language and other aspects on Indian culture.. The more such concepts Santana Dharma in the connotations its used are discussed more disgusting it becomes

 

From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com [mailto:bvpar...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sati Shankar
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 10:15 AM
To: भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Idea of devataavaividhya harmonious with ekatva of brahman, an imitation of monotheism ?

 

"The situation is analogous to the Indic position on religious salvation—that a human being has access to it not by virtue of belonging to this or that religion—but by the mere fact of being a human being."

The fact of matter is that the duality inherent in our own reasoning makes it more convincing to believe in all those things which are consequences of duality. And the process goes on, leading to very many interpretation and consequent uses and abuses by those superior in power, be it intellectual power, or physical might and wealth. It is due to this fact, for centuries deliberate interpretations have been made by power brokers to satisfy their vested-interests.

 

Like Mr. Tully, Kerry Brown observes, “… the culture that we know now as Hinduisms and that the Indian ones call SanAtana Dharma - the Law Eternal - precedes this name by thousands of years. This is more than a religion, more than the theological direction in which the west understands religion. One can believe in all divinities or in no divinity and remain Hindu. This is a manner to living."

It is due to this prevalent undercurrent, Mr. Mark Tully observes that Indian secularism does respect all religions and rejoices in the diversity of faiths we Indians follow but, “the Western world and the Indian elite who imitate it ignore the genius of the Indian mind. They want to write a full stop in the land where there are no full stops.” This is why he writes, “for thousands of years, in changing historical circumstances, in different countries, and cultures and climates,people had experienced what appears to be the same reality, although describing that reality differently, I saw that a universal God made far more sense rationally than one who limited his activities to Christians.”

Regards

Sati Shankar

 

[Bijoy Misra]

Ajitji,

This is a strange observation.  There is something called India and something called Indian tradition.  It is necessary that the

intellects in India refresh what India has been and where her core beliefs lie.  A human being is a spiritual entity, the life is

lived through beliefs.  Our society, interaction, respect, friendship, habitat and basic living are influenced by our belief.  Belief

is a part of human psychology which is inescapable through its cosmological design.  The inquiry, enunciation and articulation

of belief is important, actually more the better.  As I see from a distance,m India's uniqueness in the world is through her 

belief system and the speculative inquiry.  Prof Korada reintroduced the word "sanAtana" .,  There should be a more thorough

analysis and discussion of this concept.  The other word is anAdi.  They both may not be complementary.  I would like

the scholars to probe into the concepts and bring clarity.  He also said "sagunA" and "nirguNa" which could be linked to the

other concepts.  I agree the efforts to nail a "theology" on Indian speculations have be rejected.

Best regards,

BM  

--

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dr Gargeshwariji,

For a moment, let us assume that Hinduism can be anything for anyone is true.  

Even in that case, is it not wrong to tell the young children that Hinduism had polytheism only before the British and it is only after the Christians told them about Christianity being monotheistic that the Hindus started claiming their religion to be monotheistic?

For a moment, let us go with your view that 'We need not teach our children this is Hinduism this is not Hinduism. They can read explore and find out.'

You or me did not write that Hinduism is polytheistic only. Someone else wrote that. Someone is else is teaching our children that 'this is Hinduism this is not Hinduism'. Then what would you do?

If you believe that 'Hinduism has ​polytheism, ​monotheism, ​theism, atheism etc.', would you not tell those who are teaching our children that Hinduism is only this,

Either 

(a)  " Please don't teach my children anything about Hinduism. I would like to 'teach them our family traditions at a personal level. If they are interested they continue else they do not.' " ?

or

(b) "Please don't teach my children that Hinduism has polytheism only. In fact 'Hinduism has ​polytheism, ​monotheism, ​theism, atheism etc.'. Please teach these facts about Hinduism to them." ?

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[BVKSastry(Gmail)]

Namaste  Aurobind Padiyath

 

On <  Hypothetically if Christ and Mohamed were to be born in India or were allowed to be included in the "Vasudaiva kudumbhakam" , won't they also be like Karthikeya and Buddha?  >

 

A.            The Hypothetical  answer is < Both would have taught in their recorded teachings and history two important things, after acknowledging the ‘ ANCIENT VEDIC SANATANA DHARMA TRADITION’.

 

First:  New Testament would have been one of the <    branched out  narratives taking recourse to  the roots in Post  Mahabharata  narratives  and  embedded in to   Purana Narratives / Buddhist tales ; positioning ‘Old Testament’ as one of the   intermediary historical documents   in between the time period     < Sindhu Sarasvati civilization circa 6000 BCE upper limit  and  Pre-Dhammapada  >  

 

Second: The Abrahamic religions and indology –linguistics would have their ‘ Tower of Babel’ based language- branching  using the ‘Vedic Narratives’ ! And Samskruth scholars would be working to derive ‘ Hebrew’ from ‘ Vedic Sanskrit’ ! 

 

B.         The Hypothetical  situation  would have resulted in a total absence of     ‘Religion anchored Thousand Years war ( in Europe) as war of infidels (Saber and Cross for thousand years), and eliminated the seeds of ‘ race supremacy ending in genocide and last world -war’.

 

C.     The Hypothetical INDIAN  HISTORIC  SCENARIO would have been the HISTORY OF ‘RAMA-RASHTRA (– Or Dharma Rajya/ RASHTRAM ) from Ayodhya  (Or HASTINAPAUR’) in the place of  ‘Sultanates  rule from Red-Fort’ .

 

D.   On < Are we not taught to accept noble thoughts from all over the world to be accepted? If not can we ever would have seen any footprints of Zorashtrians etc in this country? 

While we accept noble thoughts It's our right to protect what's rightfully our's.   >  YES, the TIME is not appropriate to fight the Cyber Wars from ‘ inscribing Stylus’ on ‘Palm leaves’.  

 

There has to be a sense and direction of ‘ Strategy and action for protection of what is rightfully a part of WROLD CIVILIZATION AND HUMAN HERITAGE beyond ‘ Places of Religion’

 

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

[Aurobind Padiyath]

Pranams respected Sastri ji,

Your views are not going to be questioned as they are hypothetical answers to my hypothetical questions. But the points are well taken. 

Regards, 

Aurobind 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Pujya Prof. Raniji said: Most of the things which I mentioned here are not uncovered by the previous writers of this thread. Yet I chose these aspects to supplement the necessity of protecting and propagating our tradition. 

The double negative 'not uncovered' , I assume, means : Most of the things which I mentioned here are covered by the previous writers of this thread.

For example, combining Prof. Raniji's  two statements :

 (1) As far as this Devataavaividhya is concerned Our seers seems to have preferably recommended us to worship GODS and not any Single GOD only.

(2)    "But there were some ideal preceptors who attained fulfillment even by worshiping any single God or Goddess. So they preached to worship any single GOD......... It doesn't suggest us to worship only a single god and to shun all the other gods." ,

we probably get the idea contained in 

But for want of a better alternative, we can compromise and say that this is one of the ways in which polytheism and monotheism, in stead of being mutually exclusive binary as in the western parlance, are mutually inclusive and mutually coherent in 'Hinduism'.

The early posts of this thread were focussed on one of the chief early sources of what is being called as 'Hinduism' namely, the Vedas and the Upanishads. That is why the focus was on the concepts such as Brahman and the Vedic gods.

The later textual sources such as the Puranas too continued the mutual inclusivity of Devataavaividhya and the Parama daivata such as Shiva, Vishnu or S'akti. This is inherent in the Vedaartha upabrimhaNa nature of  the Puranas.   

 

[Sati Shankar]

mAnyavar

We are accustomed to use words by common sense, we use them without specifically knowing what they denote, in every day life it works since transmitters and receivers both operate at the same platform of commonsense, but becomes critical when we proceed to textual and scriptural interpretations. This is source of most of  the controversies and disagreements.

Recently I had pointed out in another thread how misfit it is to use the word "Theology" in our context, and even in this thread we are continuing to discuss mono-"theism", , poly-"theism" and going on superimposing over "idam-sarvam". We are overloaded with such mis-marriages and superimposition  of concepts.

It is this crisis I have been advocating that we need our own dictionaries of technical terms, defining terms based on our own systems and traditions but most often found a discouraging or blunt replies even from some of my professor friends who make their living out of the same subject. Unless we will be very clear of our own terminologies we can not hope to refute some body using his or her own mistaken notions. I see grave problem at this front without any satisfactory resolution in immediate future.

It is surprising to see a discussion whether we should teach our children what  and what not the Hinduism is. We will be fooling them if we do so. as we yourselves are not, at the moment, sure of what it is. But tradition moves forward through our culture and customs and not by memorizing dictionary words and that is why our tradition has survives jolts exerted upon it for thousands of years.

Things need to be meditated upon and settle down to some interpretations based on our own tradition, to a satisfactory level for now, future generations will be adopt or adapt as per their own circumstances. It is our responsibility if we can realise.

[Satish Kumar Dogra]

Mr. Sati Shankar,

                             What you say is correct. There is need for well-informed discussions in order to define the contours of meanings. Otherwise, we might be talking of different things while using the same terms. Words are afterall combinations of vowels and consonants. What makes them meaningful is the vague mass of thoughts they produce in our mind when we read or hear them. Unless the vague mass they produce in the minds of different people is roughly the same, there is bound to be misunderstandings. Therefore, as you rightly say, scholars must undertake an exercise to define what is what. Initially, perhaps, this can be in the form of articles, which can then be converted into dictionaries and encyclopedias as archives and reference materials.

Regards,

Dogra

============================================
Read my websites:
Sanskrit: dograindia.org
English: satishkumardogra.com

Tamil: dogratamil.com

My contact number:
+91 98400 93148

--

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear listmates,

The old California text book issue is getting refreshed.

http://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology_list.indology.info/2016-April/043167.html

Our list colleague Sri Nityanandji made a significant correction to the info provided here by giving a link to 

http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/cc/cd/documents/hsssummarypubcomments.doc)

through his posts:

http://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology_list.indology.info/2016-April/043170.html

http://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology_list.indology.info/2016-April/043171.html

http://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology_list.indology.info/2016-April/043177.html

During the original debate, the three main issues to which dissenting parents raised objections were : (a) Hinduism is polytheistic (b) Caste system and caste discrimination is part of Hinduism (c) Status of women in ancient India was inferior.

These are textbooks written in English, meant to be read by sixth grade children of US. The terminology to be used here can not be other than English. Any other solution would need elaborate explanations.

There were similar debates on CBSE books here. Language /communication difficulties can be lesser on account of the readers being Indian. But nevertheless the medium being English, children being very young poses similar communication problems.

Suggestion of Prof. Sati Shankar is helpful in improving the knowledge of the authors. But ultimately when the idea is to be communicated to children as young as the sixth graders in English medium, the issue turns out to be highly tricky.

[Sati Shankar]

That is the only way Sir. We already have so many interpretations from people of various eastern and western origines, all feel correct from their point of view.

To be practical, we can take up significant key words, meditate upon them individually, do cross referencing, discussions  and write a n article explaining that fully. Then take up next one..... and at the end we will have a compedium of key words in our tradition fully explained and defined, compilation will be a good reference from within our own tradition and that we should use as a standard reference.

Works are already available on this line from some western Sanskritists loke J gonda and V S Agrawala from India, just to cite example,

Regards

Sati Shankar

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Satish Kumar Dogra <dogra...@gmail.com> wrote:

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/2RnuVTQaaBQ/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Sati Shankar                                            

Global Synergetic Foundation

Social Links:  Facebook  Twitter  G+

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

May be you might want say as to why postings from other lists are being posted here I thought cross postings or postings from other groups or blogs are not normally posted here.

[Sati Shankar]

On School books:

Sir 

We must be realistic. In our own country school books with anti national, contents such as India bombarded Nagaland and acquired it, so is Kashmir etc.... were cited by Education Minister in the Parliament. We must realize that it is part of education policy of the Govt and depends on hoe vigilent the Govt is. What is anti-national content here is well received in pakistan. For the same content authour here is wrong but right there in pakistan. so who selects the content and what and where is vital.

What they teach in California is their matter, in a sense if a student writes in exam there based on our tradition, may fail, he has to read and write what is correct from their point of view, irrespective of what facts are.

Sati Shankar 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

For the substantiation of my point of current relevance of the  issue and the point that school books were involved , as proof, references were given to posts on another list. 

I copied my own posts from other lists here, when I was asked to do so, as you remember. 

The recent link to Sanskrit word frequency post was also from the same list. 

Thanks for suggesting me to provide reason. 

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

I think we are discussing all topics under the sun on this thread.  From Califor nia text books to NCERT next what? Time to move on or make new threads.

 

From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com [mailto:bvpar...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Nagaraj Paturi

Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 2:36 PM
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Idea of devataavaividhya harmonious with ekatva of brahman, an imitation of monotheism ?

[Nagaraj Paturi]

That one of the issues of the California Text Books issue is the theme of the thread can be understood if one goes through the whole discussion.

Just in a lighter vein, it can be said that just as in  the theme of the thread where apparent many gods is on ultimate understanding is one God only, the apparent many themes of the thread is on a closer reading realized to be one theme only.

Yes, let us move on.