[MD] The Oriental intellect(ual) level

[Abey John]

I normally don't participate in the thread - primary reason being time and
invariably if I hang around long enough someone or the other will echo my
take on most discussions.  :-)  To add a bit to what Akshay says below I'd
like to recount something I came across when I moved into this house where I
now stay.

I live in Chennai, that's in the south of India.  The house we moved into
was previously occupied by a practitioner of the Siddha Medicine
System<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddha_Medicine>and I found this
laminated card which he'd left behind.  The card had some
religious symbols and said "Kan Drishti Yantram", which translates as
"Device to Ward off the Evil Eye".

What gave me goosebumps was the Pirsig like feeling of looking at the debris
of some ancient technology the actual principles of which have been lost and
what remains is a superstitious clinging on to the form of what may have
been something much greater.  What set me thinking though was the use of the
word "yantram" or "device".  Why yantram?  Why not charm or spell or magic
formula or mantra?  Is yantram an alternate word for mantra?  Or is the
meaning of yantram as we now understand it something that has been passed on
unchanged in meaning...ie a mechanistic operation that is repeatable aka
device?

If yantram=device then what is implied is that the foundational principles
is empirical since the act of creating a device is an empirical
process...(this is about as far as I have got)

Going on to what Akshay says about the Vedas and other ancient Indian
literature...it in turn implies that ancient India was run by a bunch of
empiricists giving credence to much of what the was propounded in terms of
WMDs and other such esoteric mechanicals :-)

On Nov 8, 2007 10:15 PM, Akshay Peshwe <akshay.infosys at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/
> >
> 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/
>



-- 
Best regards,

Abey John
+91 98840 15642 (Chennai)
Ascomp Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
http://ascomp.com