Rigveda on Conquest of India by Vedic Aryans.

Status
Closed

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,845
New Delhi, India
Aug 2017
249
USA
Indian philosophy is a different kind of philosophy from the Western one. Western Philosophy is primarily rooted in the ancient Greek one, based upon critical questioning, examination and analysis, and on reason and logic of an objective world. That in the end resulted in the creation of the Modern World.

Indian philosophy is more of a combination of metaphysical philosophy and theology, often called Theosophy or Mysticism. Listening to such philosophy one feels a satisfaction more like a spiritual satisfaction. India produces many of these mystics, and often they travel the world addressing to primarily South Asians, but also have other followers. People feel good listening to it, but it doesn't improve their earthly material existence. Even after thousands of years of continued propagation of the Indian philosophy, it never really improved the lives of the people, because of its metaphysical aspects. For real change to start to happen, things had to wait till the arrival of the western philosophies with the coming of the British.

So if two people are trying to understand a motorcycle problem using Indian philosophy, good luck! Lol! Unfortunately this Indian philosophy is allowed to creep into Indian science congress.
I typically I refrain from commenting on your posts as they're often simplistic or wrong, and unabashedly rooted in prejudices transparently stemming from Eurocentric and pro-colonial worldviews bearing a suspicious resemblance to those I typically encounter from Christians here in the West. In this instance though, I felt compelled to respond since your statements about Indian philosophy in comparison to Western philosophy are not just completely wrong but are unfortunately prevalent.

Let’s begin by deconstructing your comments systematically. Though I am not a philosopher, I’ve read a large number of works in Western philosophy, have taken a few philosophy courses at a university level, and interact with philosophers fairly often. Your statement that “Western Philosophy is primarily rooted in the ancient Greek one, based upon critical questioning, examination and analysis, and on reason and logic of an objective world” is a simplistic stereotype at best and wrong at worst. If we examine ancient Greek philosophies in particular, the fact is that while they reflect a broad underlying commitment to critical thought and reasoning, it nevertheless contains numerous streams of thought which are given to “metaphysical philosophy” (a nonsensical combination of terms, which I’ll elaborate upon later) and “theology”. By these terms, I assume you have in mind the cliched image of thinkers elaborating on “mystical” or “spiritual” entities and abstractions like souls, divinities, and so on. If so, such type of thinking is evident in almost every type of Ancient Greek thought, from that of the Pre-Socratics, to Plato (whose works I’ve almost entirely read), Aristotle (even though he is depicted as more empirically minded), the Stoics, and the Neo-Platonists. The ancient Greek philosophers who were closest to fitting your stereotypical image were the atomists/Epicureans and the Cynics but even they “fail” your simplistic criteria in some respects.

Indian philosophy, contrary to popular perception, had/has a similar commitment to critical thought and reasoning regardless of the specific content it was applied to. Indian philosophers independently developed theories of atomism, had its own school of materialism, developed its own systems of logic (in fact probably the only other civilization to independently do so), its own "rationalist" philosophy, and (without giving a long list) generally displayed an awareness of some of the same fundamental issues that the Greeks and later Europeans grappled with in metaphysics, epistemology, logic, ethics, political philosophy, and aesthetics. In case you think that Indian logic was somehow primitive and not worthy of being academically investigated, it has actually generated considerable interest lately in Western academia. My undergraduate institution’s philosophy department even offered a course in the on Indian logic taught by a non-Indian who specialized in mathematical logic. Unfortunately, I could not take it as I did not have the time then.

The goals of Indian philosophy weren’t necessarily the same as in Greek or later European thought (and there’s no reason a priori to expect them to be) but that does not invalidate the larger point that Indian philosophy was similarly sophisticated and was fundamentally characterized by critical reasoning and systematic argumentation. This brings me to my next point that philosophy in general is characterized by its investigation of questions in metaphysics, epistemology, political philosophy, ethics, aesthetics through methods such as argumentation, systematic reasoning, etc. The details aren’t necessarily as important as the “what” and “how” of philosophizing. Note how I said “metaphysics” in my list of topics that are a part of philosophy. This is why the phrase “metaphysical philosophy” is silly since metaphysics, by definition, is a branch of philosophy equally worthy of being investigated as any other.

Even as late as the 20th century, Western philosophy had (and has) major branches devoted to investigating issues that, from a modern and scientific standpoint, would have been deemed absurd, silly, and irrational. The entirety of continental European philosophy up until the 20th century was full of the sort of “metaphysical” (in the colloquial sense) and “mystical” thinking in the form of early rationalist philosophy, later German idealism, and the still later phenomenology and post-modernism. This is in stark contrast to early British empiricism and, eventually, 20th century analytic philosophy which largely distanced themselves from this sort of philosophizing. I wager British empiricism and modern analytic philosophy are what you have in mind when you fantasize about the superior quality of Western philosophy. However, they by no means define Western philosophy as a whole. Indian philosophy, despite popular perceptions, did not die out but progressed down to modern times and, once again, cannot be classified as "different" in its methodologies. My knowledge about that is limited but on the side of logic, it was characterized by advancements that were rather close to those concurrently made in 19th century Europe.

In some respect, you are not necessarily at fault for thinking Indian philosophy is somehow fundamentally “different” and characterized by mysticism and spirituality since this is precisely how some Indian thinkers in colonial times marketed them to contrast with spirituality impoverished Western philosophies. In recent times though, it is considered a field onto itself like Ancient Greek philosophy that can be systematically investigated and understood in its own right. Here's an excellent podcast by Professor Peter Adamson, which has an entire section on Indian philosophy produced in conjunction with Professor Jonardon Ganeri. I've been listening to it and have learned much about the content and nature of Indian philosophy. I encourage you to do the same, though I doubt you will as you dislike having challenged the anti-Hindu and anti-Indian prejudices you persistently display on these forums.

Lastly, no type or amount of philosophy can help you understand a "motorcycle problem" as philosophy is trivially not the same as engineering or science. Of course, your glib comment may refer to the birth of modern science in Europe from certain philosophical roots. This is practically an entire research area onto itself and it suffices to say the matter is significantly more complicated than certain places in Europe having the "right" type of philosophy for the genesis of science.
 
Last edited:

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,608
USA
Sure, Sage VedaVyasa was a shudra of mixed parentage. His mother being Satyavati, a fisher woman, who later married the Kuru King Shantanu.Would you kindly give me the reference to the hymn/hymns. I would like to read it.On the contrary, I dismiss the skin-color. Gods or people, they are what they are.
We do not know if Satyavati was from outside the Aryan fold. So saying that Veda Vyasa, the son of Sage ParAshara and disciple of Sage JAtUkarNya also learned Sanskrit is silly. As the son of a Rishi, he was expected to learn that.

As to the Rig Veda hymn related to the legend of Shani, see RV 10.17.1 and RV 10.17.2. In these hymns, there is no Shani but Manu. These hymns have a deeper meaning, and there are two interpretations in the traditional commentary by SAyaNa. I found an answer to the 8 AdityAs legend that you were asking too, and also an insight intoto the Rudra hunting PrajApati legend as well.

As for the skin color, your conscience would know what you said.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aupmanyav

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,845
New Delhi, India
We do not know if Satyavati was from outside the Aryan fold. So saying that Veda Vyasa, the son of Sage ParAshara and disciple of Sage JAtUkarNya also learned Sanskrit is silly. As the son of a Rishi, he was expected to learn that.
These hymns have a deeper meaning, and there are two interpretations in the traditional commentary by SAyaNa. I found an answer to the 8 AdityAs legend that you were asking too, and also an insight intoto the Rudra hunting PrajApati legend as well.
Sure Sage VedaVyasa was the son of Sage Parashara, but Parashara never married Satyavati. It was a trade off. The deal between them was 'you sleep with me, I will cure your off your bad smell'.
Thanks for the RV hymn reference, though it does not tell me anything new. Hazy, very hazy.
Hah, even Sayana gives two meanings and not one. That is what happens when things are separated by time and distance. Nobody knows the real meaning. If you have found something on eight Adityas and Rudra hunting Prajapati, then you have not described it here.
 
Last edited:

Dreamhunter

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
7,505
Malaysia
Sure Sage VedaVyasa was the son of Sage Parashara, but Parashara never married Satyavati. It was a trade off. The deal between them was 'you sleep with me, I will cure your off your bad smell'.
So it was not really love. But rather just a very short term biological necessity. And what a crude & unchivalrous pickup line. Not kshatriya grade at all.?
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,845
New Delhi, India
It was a Nikah Mut'ah. Gandharva Vivah (marriage for love, attraction) is permitted in Hinduism, but is not among the best types of marriages. The emperor after whom India is named (Bharata), was born of such a marriage between King Dushyanta and Shakuntala. Vivaah - Wikipedia, Dushyanta - Wikipedia, Shakuntala - Wikipedia, Bharata (Mahabharata) - Wikipedia.

"Nikah mut'ah (Arabic: نكاح المتعة‎, romanized: nikāḥ al-mutʿah, literally "pleasure marriage"; or Sigheh (Persian: صیغه‎) is a private and verbal temporary marriage contract that is practiced in Twelver Shia Islam [dubious – discuss] in which the duration of the marriage and the mahr must be specified and agreed upon in advance. It is a private contract made in a verbal or written format. A declaration of the intent to marry and an acceptance of the terms are required as in other forms of marriage in Islam."
Nikah mut'ah - Wikipedia

"Sage Parashara .. on one of his travels across the country, halted for the night in a little hamlet on the banks of the river Yamuna. He was put up in the house of the fisherman-chieftain Dusharaj. When dawn broke, the chief asked his daughter, Matsyagandha, whose name means "one with the smell of fish", to ferry the sage to his next destination. When in the ferry, Parashara was attracted by the beautiful girl. He created an island within the river by his mystic potency and asked her to land the boat there. Seeing people on the river's bank, she demurred, at which time the sage created a dense fog which enveloped the entire river. Parashara blessed her with a son, Krishna Dvaipāyana, who was dark-complexioned and hence may be called by the name Krishna (black), and also the name Dwaipayana, meaning 'island-born'. Krishna Dwaipayana later compiled the classic Vedic literatures of India, and so is called Vyasa, who is the 17th incarnations of Lord Vishnu. Parashara granted her the boon that the finest fragrance may emit from her person. She was thereafter known as Satyavati (pure fragrance).

Parashara was known as the "limping sage". He had his leg wounded during an attack on his āśrama. When Sage Parashara was walking through a dense forest he and his students were attacked by wolves. He was unable to get away in his old age with a lame leg he left this world merging into the wolves." (I think that means being eaten up by wolves)

Works ascribed to Sage Parashara:
- Parashara Smṛti (also called Parashara Dharma Saṃhitā): a code of laws which is stated in the text to be for Kali Yuga.
- Speaker of Viṣṇu Purana considered by scholars as one of the earliest Purāṇas.
- Speaker of the Bṛhat Parāśara Horāśāstra, also written as BPHS. It is considered a foundational text of astrology. The Sanskrit in which it is composed dates to the 7th or 8th centuries CE.
- Speaker of the Vṛikṣāyurveda ("the science of life of trees"), one of the earliest texts on botany. This text was considered to be an ancient botany primer for students of Traditional Indian Medicine.
- Krishi Parasaram, a book that dealt with agriculture and weeds.
Parashara - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
Oct 2015
1,138
India
@EternalWay

Thanks for taking time to post on philosophy, a subject of which I have no knowledge.

On the history side there was intense interaction between Greek and Indian civilizations for 600 years in antiquity. This was during Hellenistic Greece (323-146 BCE), Roman Greece (146-27 BCE), and early Roman Empire (26 BCE to ~300 CE). In one area at least the Greeks had deep influence on India, which is Indian astronomy.

If one probes, there will be some parallels in philosophy as well.
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,845
New Delhi, India
More in mythology, one can find a Vedic equivalent of all Greek mythological stories, than in philosophy. They were branches of the same Indo-European people.
 
Oct 2015
1,138
India
Yes mythology also.

The Hindu Kamadeva and Greek Cupid both have a bow and arrow.

Similarly, when Greeks came in c. 300 BCE; they were able to use names of Greek Gods for Indian ones as there was - presumably - much similarity between them: Herakles and Dionysus. Though Indian religion had changed so much that we can identify them with any of the present-day Indian.
 
Status
Closed