Hindu helping someone learn Buddhism?

[Jainarayan]

I think it's common knowledge I come up with some humdinger subjects, but this one surprises even me. :D

I have someone who is becoming interested in Nichiren Buddhism, specifically, chanting the Nam Myoho Renge Kyo mantra and parts of the Lotus Sutra. He has an altar set up with statues and pictures of Guan Yin and the Buddha, a water vessel, a green plant, and a gohonzon in the form of a statue (he's a nepophyte and not initiated to use a true gohonzon).

Now, I know less than nothing about Buddhism... heck, I'm still learning about Hinduism! It's not my intention to incorporate Buddhist practices into my worship, but because I am a quick study, and I was a chanter in my EOC days, I find it easy to chant. I'd like to help him learn the chants and intonations. Due to my quick-study abilities, I believe I can guide him in the basics of Nichiren-sho practices.

Does anyone see any problem with this, specifically if I chant the parts of the Lotus Sutra with him to teach him? That is, is it disrespectful to Buddhists that a non-Buddhist do this? (I did not intend that to rhyme, but it does underscore my rhythmic abilities :D).

[Friend from the West]

Hari Om

Namaste Touched by the Lord,

With the exception of those that may have some different affixation on the founder of this form of school, do not know how one could be offended. Think is good thing to help in this regard. Very good.

TBTL, can you rap?

Om Shanti.

FFTW

[PARAM]

------------------

These are corrupt chants which do not need to be chanted.

Buddhism was a section of Hinduism but it was separated in the later parts, I have mentioned it earlier too.

[wundermonk]

These are corrupt chants which do not need to be chanted.

I have to disagree there. As long as a chant gives an individual peace of mind, it is not corrupt for him/her. More so when we dont know what these chants actually mean.

As long as the chants dont give the chanter the belief that "There is no God but Buddha and Buddha is his last prophet", there neednt be any worry about any chant.


Buddhism was a section of Hinduism but it was separated in the later parts, I have mentioned it earlier too.

This is true. There are deep and significant philosophical differences between between Hinduism and certain schools of Buddhism. But these differences have helped Hinduism establish the Siddhanta position [one's own position] against the Purvapaksha [opponent's position]. Buddhism and Hinduism have had a mutually symbiotic relationship historically.

[Jainarayan]

TBTL, can you rap?

Om Shanti.

FFTW

I can, but I won't. :D


These are corrupt chants which do not need to be chanted.

In the eyes of the beholder. I said it's not for me, but for someone else who is drawn to it. Your comments, as usual were not helpful, and not appreciated. Unless you have something constructive to offer, please do not comment just to vent your spleen. :rolleyes:


I have to disagree there. As long as a chant gives an individual peace of mind, it is not corrupt for him/her. More so when we dont know what these chants actually mean.

Thanks wundermonk. I haven't read any of these, so I don't know what they say or mean either, except that they are the sermons and discourses of the Buddha. Parts are in prose and parts are in verse. The verse parts are the ones chanted. I have also found out that followers of Nichiren-Shoshu school are fairly numerous.


As long as the chants dont give the chanter the belief that "There is no God but Buddha and Buddha is his last prophet", there neednt be any worry about any chant.

If that happened, then there's a problem with Buddhist philosophy at a very fundamental level. :D

[Jainarayan]

Namaste FFTW.


Hari Om

Think is good thing to help in this regard. Very good.



I neglected to mention that he is just coming out of a rehab for self-medication due to emotional, stress, depression and anxiety issues, and facing three DWIs in two towns.

He is RC, but doesn't find complete solace there. He seems to feel solace and peace in seeing Guan Yin and the Buddha as expansions of the Blessed Mother and Jesus.

I'm not proselytizing him one way or another, or to one belief system or another. I'm taking a disinterested third party approach in helping him study and learn.

So there's some more background I should have mentioned. ;)

[charitra]

dont see problems with chanting buddhist slokas generally speaking. But them buddhists dont reciprocate our good gesture, thats unfair. Namaste.

[Jainarayan]

dont see problems with chanting buddhist slokas generally speaking.

Especially for a Buddhist. :p Though I'm sure there are some Hindus who incorporate Buddhist, and maybe Sikh practices.


But them buddhists dont reciprocate our good gesture, thats unfair. Namaste.

How do you mean? Do Buddhists somehow feel superior to Hindus, and/or distance themselves? If so that's unfortunate and dismaying.

[kallol]

Wow !! that helps both you and him !

Him to learn how to chant and you to show the flexibility of your belief !

[Jainarayan]

Wow !! that helps both you and him !

Him to learn how to chant and you to show the flexibility of your belief !

I hope so. I try to keep an open mind (but not so open my brain falls out :D), and respect other people's beliefs. And because of that it annoys the snot out of me when I see people buying little statues of Lord Ganesha or the Buddha or Guan Yin for "good luck" and sit them on a shelf or on top of the tv.

[PARAM]

Great Kumarill Bhatta and Adi Shankar exposed the corrupt chant of Buddhism during their time centuries ago and all corrupt chants were replaced with shuddh Hindu chants.

[sm78]

I have to disagree there. As long as a chant gives an individual peace of mind, it is not corrupt for him/her. More so when we dont know what these chants actually mean.

Not just that, buddhist are not sanskritists and never cared much for the sanctity of the language. buddha chose prakrit. As buddhism spread everywhere - they chose the local languages.

So corruption of the language is essentially an orthodox hindu position which is completely meaningless basis to criticize buddhist and would not stand modern day logic. But medieval polemics is another story. I find much of it laughable, boring and meaningless - but nonetheless incredibly convoluted to position one opinion as correct based on wrong assumptions or false assumptions not applicable to the doctrine being criticized.

When you look at Buddhist chanting, please objectively verify its efficacy (the scientific method -> only correct logical method), instead of drawing bogus conclusions based on your brahminical prejudices. Sankara, Madhwa and Purva Mimamsakas reveled in it is no reason to bind ourselves to this absurdity.

Tibetan lamas pronounce sanskrit mantras which is completely wrong from classical grammar pov. But it often works much better than the fat hindu purohita's insincere incantations. The reason is in the sound and meaning. Sanskrit is not the only way to express sound, even if it may be one of the most refined ways. Other means like drum beats or sitar can also work wonder - not to mention contemplative human voice following a tradition which well understood the science of sound but expressed it differently than brahminical bigots would like. If one understands the science one can devise methods of chants in English also which would be equally effective. But Hindus don't know any science, they don't care about any understanding beyond the meaningless medieval bogus bigotry which have reduced a ocean of knowledge into isolated dying ponds.

The irony is the vedas and vedic chant is all wrong from classical sanskrit position - but those who have heard know its potency due to the svaras and the way of chanting. The hypocrites ofcourse won't explain why then vedas are not corrupt based on their logic. But would be glad to target others who they didn't want with the same piece of logic and invent some nonsense of apaurasheya dogma to keep vedas beyond challenge.

[wundermonk]

dont see problems with chanting buddhist slokas generally speaking. But them buddhists dont reciprocate our good gesture, thats unfair. Namaste.

I think this is generally true. Hindu philosophy, being the "mother" of Buddhism will have to live with the unfortunate exclusivity preached by some Buddhists. Many Buddhists who are critical of Hinduism are non-Indians. The general "backwardness" of India may be the cause of this. The non-Indian Buddhists tend to link India's poverty with Hinduism, somewhat unaware that Buddha himself was an Indian! Samkhya and Upanishads predated the Buddha and he might have culled out his philosophy based on these pre-existing philosophies.

In any case, Buddha himself was an agnostic on a variety of issues and forbade his followers from speculating on metaphysical issues - telling them that it would cause them vexation and madness.

Present-day Buddhists come in a variety of types - those who believe in reincarnation, those who dont, etc.

[JaiMaaDurga]

Namaste,

Pardon my intrusion into this discussion, but it has prompted some thoughts: as I understand it, your friend has reached a level of realization concerning his life's path, and although perhaps not absolutely certain as to the details of the correct path to be taken, is aware that an opportunity to extricate himself from maladaptive coping mechanisms is at hand- and does not wish to throw away this moment of clarity. You, upon seeing this, have an instinct to reach out and help, without insisting that this help be conditional. However, you are also concerned about the possibility that you are the "wrong man for the job", so to speak.

All of this seems to me very positive and commendable- in every aspect I see the effort to set ego aside. As far what should be done, I can only tell you what I would do in your position. It sounds as if your friend has encountered Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism, possibly SGI. I say this because a member of my family had been talked into giving it a try back in the '80s, during a rough time in his life- so the mention of "Nam-myoho-renge-kyo" and "Gohonzon" immediately rang a bell for me. Nichiren Buddhism is different from other Buddhist lineages in that "spreading the Dharma" is emphasized. If one cares to understand the flavor of thought behind their proselytizing activities, this page (http://www.nst.org/articles/special-study-lectures/the-importance-of-shakubuku/) provides insight.

I mention this not to criticize or encourage judgement of a different path from my own, but to encourage a policy of thorough investigation, when dealing with something as important as the nature of self and reality.

The expression "Any port in a storm" is often used to explain actions taken during times of crisis that do not align with professed beliefs or values; and while it is not my business to instruct anyone in matters of philosophy or faith, I would be remiss not to suggest that one should strive to learn as much as possible, both internally and externally, no matter what path is chosen.

Therefore, to make a long story short- yes, I would help- but not without being honest as to my limitations...

"Others can help cook the meal, but no one can eat it for you"...

JAI MATA DI

[Jainarayan]

The irony is the vedas and vedic chant is all wrong from classical sanskrit position

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was Pāṇini who codified and laid down the grammar for what is now Classical Sanskrit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81%E1%B9%87ini#The_Ashtadhyayi I don't think there is anything that gives any clue to the pronunciations of Vedic Sanskrit, other than what Pāṇini described and attempted to preserve. And I believe he did that because the language was diverging. That divergence is why we have Hindi, Gujarati, Bengali, etc. They all derive from Sanskrit, as Italian, French, Portuguese, Spanish et. al. all derive from Latin.

Wasn't Vedic Sanskrit an oral language for centuries if not milennia before it was written, and even then written using Pāṇini's grammar? Pāṇini is from the 400s BCE, which is milennia after the Vedas were composed. I don't know if there are any of those ancient manuscripts left, or what Pāṇini used to work from.

So I guess my question is, how can we know what Vedic Sanskrit really sounded like? Especially considering that everyone speaks with their own accent and intonations based on their biomechanics. Many native English speakers cannot pronounce 'th', not to mention non-native English speakers. "That" comes out as "dat". I've heard many an Indian-American do that too. And none of this has anything to do with education. It's just the nature of human speech. I know some people won't like that, and this isn't an attempt to start another tormenta de mierda (the censor would catch s**tstorm ;)), but these are things I like to learn.

[Jainarayan]

I think this is generally true. Hindu philosophy, being the "mother" of Buddhism will have to live with the unfortunate exclusivity preached by some Buddhists.


Many Buddhists who are critical of Hinduism are non-Indians. The general "backwardness" of India may be the cause of this.

No, I disagree with you there... it's called "uppityness"... ;) Do you see American tv commercials? OK, if not, there is an advertising campaign for Straight Talk telephone service which portrays people saving so much money they think they are wealthier than they are. In one tv ad... well, they say a picture is worth a thousand words...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiD6Ozpv-xg

Maybe I've been guilty of this myself, being a convert, but I prefer to keep in mind R.V. 1.164.46 ekam sat viprah bahudha vadanti.

[Jainarayan]

Namaste JaiMaaDurga.


Namaste,

Pardon my intrusion into this discussion, but it has prompted some thoughts: as I understand it, your friend has reached a level of realization concerning his life's path, and although perhaps not absolutely certain as to the details of the correct path to be taken, is aware that an opportunity to extricate himself from maladaptive coping mechanisms is at hand- and does not wish to throw away this moment of clarity. You, upon seeing this, have an instinct to reach out and help, without insisting that this help be conditional. However, you are also concerned about the possibility that you are the "wrong man for the job", so to speak.

It's no intrusion, I asked because I want to know if I'm the right man for the job. And you know exactly where I am coming from.

Everything you discern about the situation is true. Actually what I want, and yes it's an ulterior motive that will make life easier for me for reasons I need not go into, is that he find "his way" to inner peace and self-control.


All of this seems to me very positive and commendable- in every aspect I see the effort to set ego aside. As far what should be done, I can only tell you what I would do in your position. It sounds as if your friend has encountered Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism, possibly SGI. I say this because a member of my family had been talked into giving it a try back in the '80s, during a rough time in his life- so the mention of "Nam-myoho-renge-kyo" and "Gohonzon" immediately rang a bell for me. Nichiren Buddhism is different from other Buddhist lineages in that "spreading the Dharma" is emphasized. If one cares to understand the flavor of thought behind their proselytizing activities, this page (http://www.nst.org/articles/special-study-lectures/the-importance-of-shakubuku/) provides insight.

Yes, it is indeed SGI, Nichiren Shoshu. I started explaining some of the tenets: what the Odaimoku means; what SGI and Nichiren Shoshu are; the Gohonzon; even going so far as to say he was approached because SGI is to Buddhism what Hare Krishnas are to Hindus, as it were. That is, both groups proselytize and actively seek converts; they have a slightly different view and philosophy of their respective "mother faiths", though that doesn't make them "bad" or "false", just different.

That may have been an over-simplification for him, but at this point he can relate to it; he knows what Hare Krishnas are, and knows what I am and am not as a Hindu.


I mention this not to criticize or encourage judgement of a different path from my own, but to encourage a policy of thorough investigation, when dealing with something as important as the nature of self and reality.


The expression "Any port in a storm" is often used to explain actions taken during times of crisis that do not align with professed beliefs or values; and while it is not my business to instruct anyone in matters of philosophy or faith, I would be remiss not to suggest that one should strive to learn as much as possible, both internally and externally, no matter what path is chosen.

Therefore, to make a long story short- yes, I would help- but not without being honest as to my limitations...

"Others can help cook the meal, but no one can eat it for you"...

JAI MATA DI

Someone who is non-SGI Nichiren Shoshu said almost exactly the same thing. I tend to seek out several opinions and sources, so I admit this is not the only time or place I've asked this question. That person said that there have been prospective believers who, after an hour's conversation and consultation with a minister were told this path is not for them.

I don't think he is ready for consultation with a minister; he is about to start intensive out-patient emotional and substance "misuse" ("abuse" is too strong a word and concept in his case) counseling.

So in the end, I don't know how ready he is to follow up on this endeavor, but I want to be ready if he is ready.

[Spiritualseeker]

Namaste,


I feel that there is nothing wrong with helping him learn the chants of Nichiren Buddhism. It is the chanting of certain sections of the Lotus Sutra. The Lotus Sutra is an amazing teaching of the Buddha. It contains so many gems. Why would this be against the Dharma? The only errors I would see, would not be in teaching this to your friend, but of your friend learning about how dogmatic Nichiren Daishonin was. Think of Nichiren as being as dogmatic as Param is on this forum. It is not good, because it only strengthens the ego. I find that this is a common trend amongst many Nichiren Buddhist. Now this does not mean that all of the Nichiren Buddhist are like this. There are some amongst the Nichiren Shu sect that seem to be a bit softer in their approach. Other sects of Nichiren Buddhism are very dogmatic in their approach that only the Nichiren path will lead to salvation. Nichiren Daishonin himself felt that his path was the only path and claimed that other paths would lead one to hell. He even selected certain passages of the Lotus Sutra that were to be accepted and only advised chanting those. He also did not want others to learn other Sutras, because he felt the Lotus Sutra was the only Sutra that can save on in this age.

If you do some research into the different sects and even talk to many Nichiren Buddhist, you are bound to see that there are many sects and people who will speak ill of not only non-nichiren sects, but also other Buddhist sects such as Zen, Dzogche, and Pure Land Buddhism.

To me this would be the only ill affect of your friend learning about this path. On the other hand this path might be right for your friend and perhaps he or she will look past the dogmatism.

Om Namah Shivaya

[Jainarayan]

Namaste Spiritualseeker


Namaste,


I feel that there is nothing wrong with helping him learn the chants of Nichiren Buddhism. It is the chanting of certain sections of the Lotus Sutra. The Lotus Sutra is an amazing teaching of the Buddha. It contains so many gems. Why would this be against the Dharma? The only errors I would see, would not be in teaching this to your friend, but of your friend learning about how dogmatic Nichiren Daishonin was.


On the other hand this path might be right for your friend and perhaps he or she will look past the dogmatism.

Om Namah Shivaya

Thanks for the perspective. :)

At this point he's not interested in dogma or a particular school, but in finding inner peace in learning the teachings in the Lotus Sutra. I often quote passages of the Bhagavad Gita to him also, if I think it's relevant.

For his purposes and for what it's worth, he could explore Mahāyāna itself, of which I think Nichiren is a sub-school of, if he decides to delve deeper. Though I doubt he'll make a full conversion.

I've obtained the shindoku chants (chapters 2 & 16). I am going to get an English translation of the Lotus Sutra for him, so he can read it in its entirety, if he so desires. There's little worse than reciting something in a language you don't understand, or following dogma blindly.

[sm78]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was Pāṇini who codified and laid down the grammar for what is now Classical Sanskrit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81%E1%B9%87ini#The_Ashtadhyayi I don't think there is anything that gives any clue to the pronunciations of Vedic Sanskrit, other than what Pāṇini described and attempted to preserve. And I believe he did that because the language was diverging. That divergence is why we have Hindi, Gujarati, Bengali, etc. They all derive from Sanskrit, as Italian, French, Portuguese, Spanish et. al. all derive from Latin.

Wasn't Vedic Sanskrit an oral language for centuries if not milennia before it was written, and even then written using Pāṇini's grammar? Pāṇini is from the 400s BCE, which is milennia after the Vedas were composed. I don't know if there are any of those ancient manuscripts left, or what Pāṇini used to work from.

So I guess my question is, how can we know what Vedic Sanskrit really sounded like? Especially considering that everyone speaks with their own accent and intonations based on their biomechanics. Many native English speakers cannot pronounce 'th', not to mention non-native English speakers. "That" comes out as "dat". I've heard many an Indian-American do that too. And none of this has anything to do with education. It's just the nature of human speech. I know some people won't like that, and this isn't an attempt to start another tormenta de mierda (the censor would catch s**tstorm ;)), but these are things I like to learn.

We know good bit about vedic sanskrit and even pre-vedic proto sanskrit through work done by many scholars. It is regarded as a reconstructed language based on the remnants of the vedic chanting still preserved today which gives some clues, especially those of the highly isolated communities like namboodri brahmins of kerala. vedic sanskrit as we know now is not same as panini's characterization and what followed since. But all this is besides the point.

But, I find the navya-naya criticism funny, since one of its argument against buddhism was that buddhist texts had grammartical errors and hence could not be correct. Using the logic that grammartical errors is enough to discard the content of a book is terrible and can only work with those who believe such retarded things like religious books penned by Gods and have to flawless. It carries no weight in modern day world and sceintific thinking. The argument can work against Islam or Xianity who believe in such concepts but not buddhist - but even then it would be just argument for arguments sake with nothing to do with content or undertanding or knowledge. In colloquial term it is the quintessential "ponga pundit".

[Jainarayan]

Namaste.


We know good bit about vedic sanskrit and even pre-vedic proto sanskrit through work done by many scholars. It is regarded as a reconstructed language based on the remnants of the vedic chanting still preserved today which gives some clues, especially those of the highly isolated communities like namboodri brahmins of kerala. vedic sanskrit as we know now is not same as panini's characterization and what followed since. But all this is besides the point.

Very cool, thanks for that. I'm fascinated by linguistics, especially historical and comparative linguistics. Now I know something new. :)


But, I find the navya-naya criticism funny, since one of its argument against buddhism was that buddhist texts had grammartical errors and hence could not be correct. Using the logic that grammartical errors is enough to discard the content of a book is terrible and can only work with those who believe such retarded things like religious books penned by Gods and have to flawless. It carries no weight in modern day world and sceintific thinking. The argument can work against Islam or Xianity who believe in such concepts but not buddhist - but even then it would be just argument for arguments sake with nothing to do with content or undertanding or knowledge. In colloquial term it is the quintessential "ponga pundit".

If there were no "grammatical errors" in any mother language we would not have Italian, French, English, Hindi, Gujarati, etc. Languages change because of errors. People do puja and worship in their native languages; even in temples. I can't believe that invalidates the worship.

But again, that aside, I just looked up Navya-Nyāya and Nyāya and it seems (unless I missed something again) that it's really just a p'ing contest between schools of thought and philosophy. 'Tis a shame to throw rocks at each other over something like that.

Does "ponga pundit" have something to do with the movie? I can't find anything else. It seems to be a convoluted story.

[sm78]

Namaste.



Very cool, thanks for that. I'm fascinated by linguistics, especially historical and comparative linguistics. Now I know something new. :)

It is believed by some scholars that current renditions of veda samhitas available through various oral traditions are not fully correct - because unnaural joins of words, compounds etc were created to aid a particular way of chanting and rituals. Vedic ritualism set in brahmanas don't dwell much on the content of the mantras but just various formualtions of the mantras to be applied to ritual. Meaning often took a back-seat to ritual application. You can search "metrically restored rik veda" to find out the work done in UCLA to restore metrically correct rik veda. Ofcourse changes are not huge, but minor here and there - but some words and phrases become meaningful. Ofcourse this is one attempt and may not be fully correct. I havent studied it as such.




If there were no "grammatical errors" in any mother language we would not have Italian, French, English, Hindi, Gujarati, etc. Languages change because of errors. People do puja and worship in their native languages; even in temples. I can't believe that invalidates the worship.
True


But again, that aside, I just looked up Navya-Nyāya and Nyāya and it seems (unless I missed something again) that it's really just a p'ing contest between schools of thought and philosophy. 'Tis a shame to throw rocks at each other over something like that.

If not Nyaya, at least navya-nyaya was basically a mud slinging competition where people demonstrate their ability for fruitless argumentation. People give great credit to them for defeating buddhism in arguments- but in modern day debate sense people will throw shoes at them. But not just them, religious scholars from all religions use such argumentation techniques to deflect away from the core discussion aboyut truth objectively, focus on establishing some contradition in opponents un-important theological detail and claim victory. You can see these tactics even now in religious debates of Willaim Craig and such.

Just winning debate is no important skill, and does not deserve any special mention. There are many christian and islamic scholars who always win debates inspite of the absurdity of their scripture, because they know how to trap opponents in absurd logical inconsistencies and score below the belt. Dawkins declined to debate Craig and said "I cannot debate a person whose only achievement is winning debates. There got to be something more."

On the flip side, such otherwise waste of time actvities, did have positive contribution in form of development of logic (both in east and west). Although it finally took scientists to take logic from the depths of fruitless argumentation to a elegant science on which we owe the present age of computers. In mathematics, mathematical logic remains one of the most intellectually elegant and as well as profound systems.

So nyaya has its contributions, like aristotle had for western science. But this contribution is not in their model of truth and least of all for mud slinging at buddhists (which hindus take great pride in even though no hindu follows the nyaya school anymore). It is in the development of the science of logic. But since Hindus remained stuck at the level of religious argumentation and became more and more divorced from reality through middle ages ~ we could never take Nyaya Logic to the next level, like westerners did with Aristotelian logic.

My contention has always been not to treat past achievements and theories as framed photos to be worshipped and always trying overlook or sidestep past mischiefs and wrongdoing in hindudharma. This has only kept us stuck in the past. But worse, we show respect to past doctrines and acharyas for the wrong reasons. So we couldn't do anything more with Logic nyaya provided, but we do keep remembering them as guys who humiliated buddhist.



Does "ponga pundit" have something to do with the movie? I can't find anything else. It seems to be a convoluted story.

No its a common slang term for argumentative but knowledgeless hindu purohita / scholar. I think so. I am not sure.

[wundermonk]

@sm78:

You are simply shooting randomly here.


But this contribution is not in their model of truth and least of all for mud slinging at buddhists (which hindus take great pride in even though no hindu follows the nyaya school anymore).

Umm...Nyaya is a philosophy. How exactly should someone convince you that she is "following the nyaya school"? Given a "follower of the nyaya school" and a "follower of an idealist school", how would you be able to infer from their behaviour what philosophy they follow? If you cannot differentiate, how do you know "no hindu follows the nyaya school anymore"?


Dawkins declined to debate Craig and said "I cannot debate a person whose only achievement is winning debates. There got to be something more."

You need to stop bowing down at the altar of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, et al. They are no more closer to the truth of the world out there than the average theist. WLC is a good debater. The reason why Dawkins resists debating WLC is because of some ego clashes between the two of them. Videos like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14YM7MP6HzY) do not help either.


But since Hindus remained stuck at the level of religious argumentation and became more and more divorced from reality through middle ages ~ we could never take Nyaya Logic to the next level, like westerners did with Aristotelian logic.

AFAIK, the lead of the West over the rest is ascribed to the invention of the steam engine. Please deductively lead me from the premiss of Aristotelian logic to the conclusion of steam engine.

Also, do keep in mind that India wasnt always as poor as she is today. There was a time when her philosophy/science/statehood/economy were the light of the world. Christopher Columbus did set sail to discover India.


Although it finally took scientists to take logic from the depths of fruitless argumentation to a elegant science on which we owe the present age of computers.

Philosophy and science have their separate realms although they do overlap on certain areas. Science has no doubt its own answers to questions considered by philosophy - for instance, cosmogony, etc. - but philosophy continues to be relevant. In any case, science itself is based on mathematics which is in turn a page of logic/philosophy.

Would you want to abolish PhDs and academic departments of philosophy?