Mesopotamia and Buddhism

[Joe Shearer]

@Kashmiri Pandit

What is the source of your two citations? Where is it taken from?

 

[Harisudan]

Only a Hindu would say that, Buddhism is the anti thesis of Brahmanism which is the core value in Hinduism

Who said that?? one should express his or her views about something after doing exhaustive study on the same.. I'm a hinud, and I've studies religious texts from my birth.. No where I found Brahmanism a dominant influencing factor.. That is all mythical or purposefully created by people who wanted to create an ill reputation for Hinduism..

 

[Joe Shearer]

Who said that?? one should express his or her views about something after doing exhaustive study on the same.. I'm a hinud, and I've studies religious texts from my birth.. No where I found Brahmanism a dominant influencing factor.. That is all mythical or purposefully created by people who wanted to create an ill reputation for Hinduism..

That, then, begs the question: what do you mean by Brahmanism, and how do you say that it was not a dominant influencing factor? They composed the canon, they supervised each and every ritual and sacrifice, they took the auspices, they guided and counselled, they guarded the succession - what was left out? agriculture?

 

[Harisudan]

That, then, begs the question: what do you mean by Brahmanism, and how do you say that it was not a dominant influencing factor? They composed the canon, they supervised each and every ritual and sacrifice, they took the auspices, they guided and counselled, they guarded the succession - what was left out? agriculture?

Yes, The word Brahman denotes to human being that descended from god Brahma since Brahma is the creator he is considered as the father of all human beings.. Now in vedas and Upanishads, there was no mentioning of a sect or community called Brahmanism, but there was a lot of mentioning about brahman or the righteous human being and Brahmanism or the righteous way of living.. There were rules on who is considered as a Brahman..? What are the deeds of brahman? etc.. But people over many years or centuries took the meaning wrongly and interpreted brahman as a Caste or community.. There is no such caste.. Brahman is a person who follows the way of living mentioned in vedas, without harming any human beings or living beings infact, doing righteous deeds etc.. And the most important misinterpretation is that Brahmans need not be born out of a certain community, anyone who follows the way of life mentioned in the vedas is brahman..

 

[Joe Shearer]

Yes, The word Brahman denotes to human being that descended from god Brahma since Brahma is the creator he is considered as the father of all human beings.. Now in vedas and Upanishads, there was no mentioning of a sect or community called Brahmanism, but there was a lot of mentioning about brahman or the righteous human being and Brahmanism or the righteous way of living.. There were rules on who is considered as a Brahman..? What are the deeds of brahman? etc.. But people over many years or centuries took the meaning wrongly and interpreted brahman as a Caste or community.. There is no such caste.. Brahman is a person who follows the way of living mentioned in vedas, without harming any human beings or living beings infact, doing righteous deeds etc.. And the most important misinterpretation is that Brahmans need not be born out of a certain community, anyone who follows the way of life mentioned in the vedas is brahman..

This is not over many years or over many centuries but from the most ancient times. By the time we get to the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, we have clear distinct families and distinctions between the Brahmin caste and others, including rules as to what the descendant of mixed caste marriages would be. There is most decidedly such a caste, and it has existed for at least two millennia now, so you need to shed your addled thinking and join the rest of the world.

@Kashmiri Pandit

What is the source of your two citations? Where is it taken from?

@Kashmiri Pandit I asked you a question.

 

[Harisudan]

This is not over many years or over many centuries but from the most ancient times. By the time we get to the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, we have clear distinct families and distinctions between the Brahmin caste and others, including rules as to what the descendant of mixed caste marriages would be. There is most decidedly such a caste, and it has existed for at least two millennia now, so you need to shed your addled thinking and join the rest of the world.

No, there were, a group of people who were saints and Teachers in the Vedic periods.. They were treated respectfully and separately to make sure that these elite group of people are made to do their job without any hindrances, ie Teaching and performing auspicious rituals..
But the very same respect and elite treatment, got them to a point were they became influential and all their relatives and friends though they are not involved in teaching expected to be treated likewise.. This is the beginning of Brahmanism.. And for your Information, Brahmanism emerged as a sect after 900 BC in later Vedic periods..

 

[Joe Shearer]

No, there were, a group of people who were saints and Teachers in the Vedic periods.. They were treated respectfully and separately to make sure that these elite group of people are made to do their job without any hindrances, ie Teaching and performing auspicious rituals..
But the very same respect and elite treatment, got them to a point were they became influential and all their relatives and friends though they are not involved in teaching expected to be treated likewise.. This is the beginning of Brahmanism.. And for your Information, Brahmanism emerged as a sect after 900 BC in later Vedic periods..

In that case, wise man, Brahmanism was very much part of the milieu in 600 BC.

 

[Harisudan]

In that case, wise man, Brahmanism was very much part of the milieu in 600 BC.

Your Point is???

 

[Joe Shearer]

Your Point is???

That #19 was wrong.

 

[Kashmiri Pandit]

This is not over many years or over many centuries but from the most ancient times. By the time we get to the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, we have clear distinct families and distinctions between the Brahmin caste and others, including rules as to what the descendant of mixed caste marriages would be. There is most decidedly such a caste, and it has existed for at least two millennia now, so you need to shed your addled thinking and join the rest of the world.



@Kashmiri Pandit I asked you a question.

Mesopotamia and Buddhism - Indrajala's Depository

 

[Joe Shearer]

Mesopotamia and Buddhism - Indrajala's Depository

This is VERY INTERESTING, although I was startled at some of the things he said, and certain inelegancies in his interpretations. I am going to spend some very good time with his analysis. Thank you for bringing it to everyone's notice. Delightful.

You really deserve a positive rating.

 

[Kashmiri Pandit]

This is VERY INTERESTING, although I was startled at some of the things he said, and certain inelegancies in his interpretations. I am going to spend some very good time with his analysis. Thank you for bringing it to everyone's notice. Delightful.

You really deserve a positive rating.

This year I have Indian Philosophy as a Subject .

There are many things that have confused me .

In my studies it has been written that Vedic culture began somewhat as a Polytheistic tradition but with passage of time became Monoistic (Monism )( Upanishads ) , Vaisesika is pluralistic .

Then there is talk about it being Henotheistic .
There is also talk about evolution of Indian Philosophy due to conflict between the Vedic Brahmins and the ruling class .
( This point is not completely studied by me )

This is VERY INTERESTING, although I was startled at some of the things he said, and certain inelegancies in his interpretations. I am going to spend some very good time with his analysis. Thank you for bringing it to everyone's notice. Delightful.

You really deserve a positive rating.

I used to think , Vedas were compiled by a single Guy .

But now I am reading that Vedas are divided into stages , Mantras , Brhamanas , Aryankas , Upanishads .
Some parts of Rig Veda are written as late as 1000 BCE to 500 BCE .
( The actual date of Rig Veda is debatable though )

 

[Gibbs]

Who said that?? one should express his or her views about something after doing exhaustive study on the same.. I'm a hinud, and I've studies religious texts from my birth.. No where I found Brahmanism a dominant influencing factor.. That is all mythical or purposefully created by people who wanted to create an ill reputation for Hinduism..

I think Joe has given a clear reason than i could have, Validating my comment

 

[Joe Shearer]

This year I have Indian Philosophy as a Subject .

There are many things that have confused me .

In my studies it has been written that Vedic culture began somewhat as a Polytheistic tradition but with passage of time became Monoistic (Monism )( Upanishads ) , Vaisesika is pluralistic .

Then there is talk about it being Henotheistic .
There is also talk about evolution of Indian Philosophy due to conflict between the Vedic Brahmins and the ruling class .
( This point is not completely studied by me )

What is the confusion? the culture began with worship of nature personifications - the wind, the rain, thunder, fire, water, and the like - and the highly refined speculations of the Upanishads drove thinking inexorably towards Monism. The latest Vedic stage, the pre-Puranic stage, if we can possibly distinguish these phases, which really fall into each other in an indistinguishable manner, is as purely monotheistic as it is possible to get outside an Abrahamic religion. This said with a clear understanding that monotheism and monism are two different categories.

That is a clear development and not difficult to trace. What complicates the matter is that the six broad philosophical schools then took over - Nyaya, Mimamsa, Vaiseshika, Sankhya, Yoga and Vedanta - and just to add to the confusion that a simple scholar faces, the three broad schools of worship - Saiva, Vaishnava and Shakta - had their own philosophical, theological and scriptural distinctions.

You mention Vaiseshika. It is easiest to keep track of each of these schools by themselves, and not try to grapple with them all at one time. For those of us brought up in modern times, without the concentrated effort that might have gone into these at the time, and for centuries thereafter, even today, in orthodox places of learning, that is a prescription for insanity. It is important of course to avoid the machine-like homogenisation of the great latter-day Hindu machine, which pretends to be Hindu and is actually Semitic, and converts the diversity of thought and practice into a homogeneous and wholly misleading porridge. That is one of the reasons why I hate a certain line of bigotry; it seeks to homogenise without understanding what it is doing.

Please do not get diverted by what I am about to say next, but be aware - and be amused and engaged with it - that it has been suggested, after a study of the distinct ways to salvation preached by different schools of theology - the Saiva, the Vaishnava and the Shakta, to keep it simple - that these are all in a sense distinct from one another, that they share a common cosmogony, rather like the Abrahamic religions do, but that they are essentially as distinct from one another as Judaism is from Christianity, or the two of them are from Islam. A very good case has been made, incidentally, and it should not be dismissed outright.

Finally, your excerpt challenges the last sentence you wrote. Please bear with me for the next paragraph.

The classic model has always been that the Aryan speakers - the Indo-Aryan speakers, to be technically correct - entered south Asia in dribs and drabs, no longer it being thought or claimed that masses rolled in and smashed everything that lay in their way. They settled in the northern hills first, then in the plains between the upper reaches of the Ganga and the Yamuna and the rivers of the Punjab, and gradually, over centuries, pushed down the Ganga valley and moved east. Essentially, this was one group, and the Battle of Ten Kings offered an opportunity for political consolidation. As they moved, the original migrants diminished in number and absorbed the character and culture of the surrounding masses among whom they lived, masses who had had nothing to do with the original homelands of the Indo-Aryan speakers, except for trade and commerce links. The language evolved; Indo-Aryan gave way to Prakrit, and that was divided into Magadhi and Suraseni Prakrit, and gave rise, over the centuries, to modern Indian languages. Finally, the religious practices moved from a recognition of universal divine spirits to a god who came home, who lived in temples sponsored by the local gentry, and in some way supporting and being supported by them. The priests, the Brahmins were the sponsors of this major change in the relationship between God and man, and took the fullest advantage of this position of vantage. Over time, the degeneration of the early religion into mechanically-designed and implemented worship in hackneyed ways led to a deep psychological dissatisfaction, and this led to an age of ferment, when two great world religions were born. These were both evolved and preached by individuals born into noble families and who found themselves in opposition to the sterile practices of the priests.

This is not what your blogger says. He is saying something very interesting.

He says that there were distinct groups of immigrants, and the Kuru-Panchal ones were not the only ones descended from the original migrants. He says that there were, in fact, several waves - a perfectly plausible, in fact, an instinctively right-sounding pattern - and that some migrants settled at the beginning of Aryavarta, while others passed through and landed up on the other side of the Kosi.

He says, and this is where it gets challenging, that these other waves carried with them their own cultural specifics, which were not identical to the cultural pattern of the Kuru-Panchal migrants. He says that these differentiated cultural aspects were what gave rise to the formal theology of Buddhism and Jainism alike, and in fact, he claims, far from being a revolt against Brahmanism by the Kshatriyas, or by the ruling classes generally, it was a differentiated version of the old faith-system. It was not against Brahmanism, but it was not for it either; it was born out of common ancestry but not within the older settlements, which despised the newer ones and clearly held them to be subtly outside the fold. He goes on to speculate about connections to Mesopotamia that this new doctrine might have had, and from there, to the region he calls Greater Magadha.

So now you see how the land lies!

I think Joe has given a clear reason than i could have, Validating my comment

Yes, indeed. But the matter is complex. Do keep reading. It is fascinating if you have the patience for such things. To be honest, I was a better Christologist than an Indologist (in terms of religion) until a few years ago.

How do I even begin to explain these things to a good Muslim, even one with an enquiring mind and a positive disposition such as @Hyperion?

 

[Kashmiri Pandit]

@Joe Shearer
Indian Philosophy is divided into Orthodox and Heterodox Schools of Thoughts .
2 of the Heterodox schools of Thought have become independent religions in Buddhism and Jainism .

Hindus are divided into several sects .
Shaivism , Shakta and Vaishnavism are sects yet can be termed as independent religions .
Shaivism and Shakta's can be described as Monotheistic , while Vaishnavism is more Pantheistic than Monotheistic .

Where do these sects stand in Indian Philosophy ?
The above have their Origin in Puranas .

BUT ;
Vishnu makes an appearance in Rig Veda but as Brother to Indra .
Shiva makes an appearance as Rudra in Rig Veda .
Concept of Shakti or Divine Mother is older than Vedas but re appears in Hindu society through Puranas .

Then we have this concept of Para Brahman ( Brahman and Atman ) , Which further complicates things .
Then out of no where , Comes the Trimurti concept where Brahma , Vishnu and Mahesh become aspects of the GODHEAD . Now this GODHEAD is Krishna for some , Shiva for some , Divine Mother for others or simply Nirgun Brahman .