[MD] The Oriental intellect(ual) level

[Akshay Peshwe]

1. In relation to whether Upanishadic philosophy can be classified as
"intellectual" or not:

The answer is "to a certain extent". In Hindu tradition, the mind is often
grouped along with the five senses, and so the (mystic's) goal is to not
only still the senses but also the mind, which means the very thought
patterns. However, this absolute inhibition of the senses is a peculiarly
Hindu idea (or so it seems to me) and this lacuna exists in that the Vedic
tradition considers the senses and the mind more as a tool rather than an
enemy. So, the important thing to understand here is that *thought is only a
tool*, just as sight is a tool, because without the faculty of sight, my
conceptions of the world would be way different. The ultimate goal is to
realise Purusha (according to the Samkhya school) or Brahman (according
to the Vedanta schools).

Hence, if I am permitted to make such an addition to the MoQ, Upanishadic
philosophy seems to transcend the intellectual patterns of SQ into the
"spiritual patterns of SQ". In fact, in the Katha Upanishad, five levels are
mentioned: objects, senses, mind, intellect, self. (
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe15/sbe15012.htm).

2. Relation between Upanishadic wisdom and Greek thought:

To tell you frankly, the entire Greek tradition of philosophy is directly
derived from the Vedic tradition. Of course, modern historians like to say
that it was the Proto-Indo-European religion that is the true mother of all
religions, however, the more we discover about the Vedic way of life, the
more we come to agree that it indeed is the true religion (refer to works by
Subhash Kak, David Frawley, Vivekananda). The first record of the speed of
light (Sayanacharya's commentary on the Vedas), the best meditation and
medication system (Ayurveda and Yoga), the first book on air transport
(Vimana shastra), myriad instances of futuristic thoughts (eg., idea of
cloning in the Mahabharata)... and this is not even the tip of the iceberg.
What's Greek thought's greatness compared to that?

Akshay


On 08/11/2007, skutvik at online.no <skutvik at online.no> wrote:
>
> All MOQ discuss. Akshay the Hindu in particular.
>
> The question (sparked by Pirsig's letter to Paul Turner) about a
> (separate) Oriental intellectual level has intrigued me ever since.
>
>    "The argument that Oriental cultures would not be
>    classified as intellectual is avoided by pointing out that
>    the Oriental cultures developed an intellectual level
>    independently of the Greeks during the Upanishadic
>    period of India at about 1000 to 600 B.C. (These dates
>    may be off.)"
>
> Paul addressed Pirsig due to a prolonged discussion over my
> thesis that the Intellectual level emerged with the Greeks and
> consequently=SOM. Pirsig's answer however leaves the issue as
> enigmatic as ever. For instance no one has argued that "Oriental
> cultures can't be classified as intellectual", as for me I have just
> argued that intellect=S/O and if so it's S/O be it in India or on the
> far side of the moon.
>
> As I interpret things he (inadvertently) admits that the Greeks
> "developed" intellect (meaning =SOM) and that the Upanishads
> period corresponds to the Greeks' albeit "independently". Then
> the question is what the Upanishads period is/was in the Indian
> culture?  In LILA he says:
>
>    "But what made the Hindu experience so profound was
>    that this decay of Dynamic Quality into static quality was
>    not the end of the story. Following the period of the
>    Brahmanas came the Upanisadic period and the flowering
>    of Indian philosophy.  Dynamic Quality re-emerged within
>    the static patterns of Indian thought."
>
> Even if this is at the end of the book I believe it's from an earlier
> stage while the Dynamic/Static relationship was the big issue,
> thus "this decay of Dynamic Quality into static quality" is without
> reference to any particular level.
>
> Yet, what does it say in a MOQ context?  If "decay" means static
> "this decay"=the social level, must be if "the Upanishadic
> period"= the intellectual level. Thus "... the flowering of Indian
> philosophy" corresponds to the flowering of Greek philosophy and
> that it resulted in an "Indian SOM".  Any thoughts?
>
> Bo
>
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>