Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 52

Thread: Dear ISKCONITES & Hare Krishna-s

  1. #21

    Re: Dear ISKCONITES & Hare Krishna-s

    Quote Originally Posted by Sudas Paijavana View Post
    Hello,

    I believe I am being misunderstood. I'm simply using the logic and reasoning of both Ms. Desmond and Dr. Chopra. I was countering their misappropriation of both "Vedicism" and "yoga" as "Indo-European" by stating that the very logic that they are using would nullify "yoga" as "Indo-European", because the mere Western-application of "Indo-Euorpean" semantical digressions in trying to "prove" "yoga's" "non-Hindu" origins would conclude in the end a false correlation. Since they take on a "historical" stance, I did the same with my statement above. In other words: the "mendicant" practitioners of Yoga (even though they were of the astika) were not "Vedicists" or yajvano-s. In fact, using their own paradigm, it is easier to argue that Yoga in its initial stages was a movement away from the "staunch ritualism" (as Western Indologists put it) of "Vedicism". So while Yoga definitely had "origins" in "Vedic" India...it is not "Vedic", as per the re-applied logic one may utilize in abiding by the paradigm of both Ms. Desmond and Dr. Chopra. In simpler terms: 'dey be preachin' horse manure, ya feel me, dawg?
    Oops,my bad

    Anyway,if they accept Yoga as IE,then they should also accept Indus-Sarasvati culture as IE



    A yogic seal from Indus-Sarasvati civilization.
    "Only one is the fire,which is inflamed in numerous ways.Only one is the sun, which pervades the whole universe.Only one is the dawn,which illuminates all things. Similarly,all that exists is The One and it has manifested into everything here.”

    ~ Rg Veda 8.58.2

  2. #22
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    bhUloka
    Posts
    250
    Rep Power
    358

    Re: Dear ISKCONITES & Hare Krishna-s

    If one is referring just to the various types of yogAsanAni in haThayogam, then I would say that some individual must have done a similar posture since the beginning of human history, and since all humans originate in Africa, therefore "yogam" (using the aforementioned secularized view of "yogam" as usually thought of in the west) most probably has its origin in Africa (in my opinion). Oh, and sudAs, different types of yogAsanAni can also be seen even in European cultures, like with Cernunnos [a Celtic deity] depicted in something which looks similar to a mUlabandhAsana:

    I don't see yogam as just the Asana-s though; I see it as one of the ShaDdarshana-s of Hinduism/vaidika dharma. Hence, in my opinion taking the Hinduness out of yoga takes away it's essence. I agree that no one owns yoga (well, except for bhagavAn shiva, since he's the paramayogI/yogeshvara), but that doesn't mean that yogam (as I consider it) has origins that predate "Hinduism" (unless you change the definition of yogam). I write too much, I realize that, .
    படைபோர் புக்கு முழங்கும்அப் பாஞ்சசன்னியமும் பல்லாண்டே
    May your pA~nchajanya shankha which reverberates on the battlefield, last thousands upon thousands of years...
    http://archives.mirroroftomorrow.org...anchajanya.jpg

  3. #23

    Re: Dear ISKCONITES & Hare Krishna-s

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaskaran Singh View Post
    If one is referring just to the various types of yogAsanAni in haThayogam, then I would say that some individual must have done a similar posture since the beginning of human history, and since all humans originate in Africa, therefore "yogam" (using the aforementioned secularized view of "yogam" as usually thought of in the west) most probably has it's origin in Africa (in my opinion). Different types of yogAsanAni can be seen in European cultures, like with Cernunnos depicted in something which looks similar to a mUlabandhAsana:

    I don't see yogam as just the Asana-s though; I see it as one of the ShaDdarshana-s of Hinduism/vaidika dharma. Hence, in my opinion taking the Hinduness out of yoga takes away it's essence. I agree that no one owns yoga (well, except for bhagavAn shiva, since he's the paramayogI/yogeshvara), but that doesn't mean that yogam (as I consider it) has origins that predate "Hinduism" (unless you change the definition of yogam). I write too much, I realize that, .
    No, no, no, no, no. You have it all wrong. Shiva is Indo-European. Africa is Indo-European. And, Cerunnos is Japanese.


  4. #24
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    bhUloka
    Posts
    250
    Rep Power
    358

    Re: Dear ISKCONITES & Hare Krishna-s

    Quote Originally Posted by Sudas Paijavana View Post
    No, no, no, no, no. You have it all wrong. Shiva is Indo-European. Africa is Indo-European. And, Cerunnos is Japanese.
    Anthropologically, the first statement is technically correct, the latter two are incorrect (just had to point that out, I know you were joking)...
    Addendum: the second isn't completely incorrect, since many Africans do indeed speak languages that are linguistically classified as Indo-European (e.g. French, English, etc.).
    Last edited by Jaskaran Singh; 12 January 2014 at 03:19 AM.
    படைபோர் புக்கு முழங்கும்அப் பாஞ்சசன்னியமும் பல்லாண்டே
    May your pA~nchajanya shankha which reverberates on the battlefield, last thousands upon thousands of years...
    http://archives.mirroroftomorrow.org...anchajanya.jpg

  5. #25

    Re: Dear ISKCONITES & Hare Krishna-s

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaskaran Singh View Post

    Anthropologically, the first statement is technically correct, the latter two are incorrect (just had to point that out, I know you were joking)...
    Even more wrong. "Statement" is Eskimoan. "Joking" is Pleiadian with a hint of Jet Li and Gerard Butler. And, "anthropologically" is Tremors with a hint of Battle Royale.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    bhUloka
    Posts
    250
    Rep Power
    358

    Re: Dear ISKCONITES & Hare Krishna-s

    Quote Originally Posted by Sudas Paijavana View Post
    Even more wrong. "Statement" is Eskimoan. "Joking" is Pleiadian with a hint of Jet Li and Gerard Butler. And, "anthropologically" is Tremors with a hint of Battle Royale.
    We get it, Indo-European is a very broad linguistic term used to refer to over 50% of the world's population often from cultures which vary drastically (and therefore has no practical usage), but nothing you're saying makes any sense anymore, .
    படைபோர் புக்கு முழங்கும்அப் பாஞ்சசன்னியமும் பல்லாண்டே
    May your pA~nchajanya shankha which reverberates on the battlefield, last thousands upon thousands of years...
    http://archives.mirroroftomorrow.org...anchajanya.jpg

  7. #27

    Re: Dear ISKCONITES & Hare Krishna-s

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaskaran Singh View Post


    We get it, Indo-European is a very broad linguistic term used to refer to over 50% of the world's population often from cultures which vary drastically (and therefore has no practical usage), but nothing you're saying makes any sense anymore, .
    I wouldn't say very broad...I would say it is usually misapplied in these types of circumstances. For example: "Yoga is Indo-European" not "Hindu", as if "Hindu" is automatically equated with "Indian". I'm not that big on Yoga, BTW. But, this scenario brings up a vivid problem that is caused by few pedantic Vedic Historians when it comes to classifying rather obviously Indic things. No one suggests that the Spartans weren't Greek, that they were rather Indo-European...but, it's totally okay to make the Shri Rig Veda "Indo-European" rather than Indic. However, no one makes the Avesta "Indo-European" - instead, they usually always categorize it as Iranic through and through. And, we both know...the early portions of the Avesta are very similar to the Rig Veda. Yet, the Rig Veda is unnecessarily dissected where as the Avesta, with all honors, is given the usually Iranic classification repeatedly. Why? Another example: the Pahlevani Sport and Ritual of Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varzesh-e_bastani is always credited as Iranic, even by Western practitioners here in the States. Not once do they unnecessarily apply it with the designation of "Indo-European", even though, "legend-wise"...Varzesh E Bastani is from the period of Ancient Iran, established by Iranic "Indo-Europeans" (if we were to use the same paradigm of analysis as that of Ms. Desmond, Chopra, and various Western Academicians of South Asian Studies).

  8. #28
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    bhUloka
    Posts
    250
    Rep Power
    358

    Re: Dear ISKCONITES & Hare Krishna-s

    Quote Originally Posted by Sudas Paijavana View Post
    I wouldn't say very broad...I would say it is usually misapplied in these types of circumstances. For example: "Yoga is Indo-European" not "Hindu", as if "Hindu" is automatically equated with "Indian". I'm not that big on Yoga, BTW. But, this scenario brings up a vivid problem that is caused by few pedantic Vedic Historians when it comes to classifying rather obviously Indic things. No one suggests that the Spartans weren't Greek, that they were rather Indo-European...but, it's totally okay to make the Shri Rig Veda "Indo-European" rather than Indic. However, no one makes the Avesta "Indo-European" - instead, they usually always categorize it as Iranic through and through. And, we both know...the early portions of the Avesta are very similar to the Rig Veda. Yet, the Rig Veda is unnecessarily dissected where as the Avesta, with all honors, is given the usually Iranic classification repeatedly. Why?
    Your question makes absolutely no sense, no one ever said that the R^igveda is not Indian, but only Indo-European (which wouldn't make sense as saMskR^itam is classified as both Indian and Indo-European), so I don't see how the label "Indo-European" in incorrect. What I find more odd is that Uralic languages are not called Indo-European despite the fact they're spoken in Eastern Europe and are related to Dravidian languages (like tamizh, kannaDa, etc.) which are spoken in India. I guess it's because they're completely unrelated to the other languages originally termed "Indo-European" (but they are still technically related to Indo-European languages if one accepts the Nostratic language theory). I'm over-complicating things, aren't I? Anyway, Indo-European is definitely a broad term to me; any term that encompassesmore than 3 billion speakers is broad by my standard. By the way, am I the only one who finds it slightly odd that the term draviDian is a term which has its origin in a saMskR^ita term (drAviDa) and was definitely spoken by paNDit-s and others in the ancient drAviDa rAShTra, yet it's not classified as draviDian, but only as Indo-European. Did you also know that approximately 40% of the tamil vocabulary originates from saMskR^itam (and out of all major Indian languages, tamil is the second oldest and has the least saMskR^ita influence)? Did you also know that drAviDa "proper" technically only included the region which would presently be considered as Andhra pradesh and karNATaka and not ancient tamilakam (wherein the early form of tamil, from which mAlayAlam and modern tamil descend, was spoken)? Why do you care about a linguists classification of languages is; at the end of the day, they're just going to call something what is easiest for them, right?
    Last edited by Jaskaran Singh; 12 January 2014 at 03:53 AM.
    படைபோர் புக்கு முழங்கும்அப் பாஞ்சசன்னியமும் பல்லாண்டே
    May your pA~nchajanya shankha which reverberates on the battlefield, last thousands upon thousands of years...
    http://archives.mirroroftomorrow.org...anchajanya.jpg

  9. #29

    Re: Dear ISKCONITES & Hare Krishna-s

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaskaran Singh View Post

    Your question makes absolutely no sense, no one ever said that the R^igveda is not Indian, but only Indo-European (which wouldn't make sense as saMskR^itam is classified as both Indian and Indo-European), so I don't see how the label "Indo-European" in incorrect. What I find more odd is that Uralic languages are not called Indo-European despite the fact they're spoken in Eastern Europe and are related to Dravidian languages (like tamizh, kannaDa, etc.) which are spoken in India. I guess it's because they're completely unrelated to the other languages originally termed "Indo-European" (but they are still technically related to Indo-European languages if one accepts the Nostratic language theory). I'm over-complicating things, aren't I? Anyway, Indo-European is definitely a broad term to me; any term that encompassesmore than 3 billion speakers is broad by my standard. By the way, am I the only one who finds it slightly odd that the term draviDian is a term which is has its origin in saMskR^itam (drAviDa) and was definitely spoken by paNDit-s and others in the ancient drAviDa rAShTra, yet it's not classified as draviDian, but only as Indo-European. Did you also know that approximately 40% of the tamil vocabulary originates from saMskR^itam (and out of all major Indian languages, tamil is the second oldest and has the least saMskR^ita influence)? Did you also know that drAviDa "proper" technically only included the region which would presently be considered as Andhra pradesh and karNATaka and not ancient tamilakam (wherein the early form of tamil, from which mAlayAlam and modern tamil descend, was spoken).
    No, I didn't know any of that regarding Tamil. And, I think what I said makes sense, if you take into account that I am only stating those things in order to abide by the paradigm of Ms. Desmond and Deepak Chopra regarding their statements on Yoga being "Indo-European" rather than "Indian" or "Hindu" as quoted in the first article I linked a few posts ago to show the categorization of both the Rig Veda and Yoga as "Indo-European" rather than "Indian" or "Hindu". If it is still confusing, let me know. And, I'll explain more clearly.

    Why do you care about a linguists classification of languages is; at the end of the day, they're just going to call something what is easiest for them, right?
    You're right. I shouldn't care. Yoga is to Xerxes as Pindar is to Chief Eagle-Eye.

    Anyway, I don't see where they say that yogam does not have its origins in India, could you show where they say that?
    I'll quote it once more: "Ms. Desmond believes that yoga originated in the Vedic culture of Indo-Europeans who settled in India in the third millennium B.C., long before the tradition now called Hinduism emerged..." If Ms. Desmond was well familiar with the semantical path that she has undertaken...it would be intellectually dishonest that she didn't mention that it was rather Indo-Iranic tribes that "settled" in India bringing their "Vedic culture".

    What, that doesn't make any sense, what do Xerxes and Pindar have to do with yogam? Who's Chief Eagle Eye, is that the name of some fighter jet or is that the name of a Native American man [or woman]?
    And here I thought you were creative enough to root out the displeasure evident in my quote and relate it back to what it is that I am objecting. But, to be honest...it's not that much of a big deal to me. It's just something that comes to my mind once in awhile. People are most certainly free to choose what they view as "yoga" or "Vedic". That is their inalienable right. Listen, I just rented a scary movie from iTunes. I am going to go watch it now. This was a good digression. I'll make a reply tomorrow. Peace out cub scout.
    Last edited by Sudas Paijavana; 12 January 2014 at 04:24 AM.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    bhUloka
    Posts
    250
    Rep Power
    358

    Re: Dear ISKCONITES & Hare Krishna-s

    Quote Originally Posted by Sudas Paijavana View Post
    No, I didn't know any of that regarding Tamil. And, I think what I said makes sense, if you take into account that I am only stating those things in order to abide by the paradigm of Ms. Desmond and Deepak Chopra regarding their statements on Yoga being "Indo-European" rather than "Indian" or "Hindu" as quoted in the first article I linked a few posts ago to show the categorization of both the Rig Veda and Yoga as "Indo-European" rather than "Indian" or "Hindu". If it is still confusing, let me know. And, I'll explain more clearly.
    The portion you posted never said that yogam is "not Indian, but Indo-European;" it said that it predated Hinduism (by that, I'm assuming they mean modern Hinduism). All aspects of modern Hinduism are not the exact same as thousands of years before or even, say, 100 years before (for example, didn't santoshI mA/devI only started being worshipped somewhere around the 1960's and didn't some so-called "Hindu" cults like brahmA kumArI-s and Arya samAj form only within the last 100 or so years, ?). Anyway, I don't see where they say that yogam does not have its origins in India, could you show where they say that?
    Quote Originally Posted by Sudas Paijavana View Post
    You're right. I shouldn't care. Yoga is to Xerxes as Pindar is to Chief Eagle-Eye.
    What, that doesn't make any sense, what do Xerxes and Pindar have to do with yogam? Who's Chief Eagle Eye, is that the name of some fighter jet or is that the name of a Native American man [or woman]?
    Quote Originally Posted by Sudas Paijavana View Post
    I'll quote it once more: "Ms. Desmond believes that yoga originated in the Vedic culture of Indo-Europeans who settled in India in the third millennium B.C., long before the tradition now called Hinduism emerged..." If Ms. Desmond was well familiar with the semantical path that she has undertaken...it would be intellectually dishonest that she forgot to mention that it was rather Indo-Iranic tribes that "settled" in India bringing their "Vedic culture".
    That's a strange statement on your behalf. Indo-Iranic groups are considered Indo-European, just as both Indian and Iranic groups are classified as Indo-European; so too is the case with Celts, Romans, Slavs, etc. Again, how are they incorrect? Also, fArsI is probably considered Indo-European I think (not just Iranian) as I can speak it and I notice that it does have some similarities with saMskR^itam, like the word for eye in fArsI is چشم (chashm) which is probably a cognate with चक्षसम् (chakShasam) which means "to the eye," so your statement that "the Rig Veda is unnecessarily dissected where as the Avesta, with all honors, is given the usually Iranic classification repeatedly" doesn't mean anything to me. The former (R^igveda) is Indian [which classifies under Indo-European] and the latter (Avesta) is Iranic [which also classifies under Indo-European]. You're being far too picky, sheesh.
    Also, when you type in R^igveda on wikipedia, the first sentence that comes up states the following:
    "The Rigveda is an ancient Indian sacred collection of Vedic Sanskrit hymns."
    Let's look at this logically though (if you still don't understand). If Indian ⊂ Indo-European and a text is classified as Indian, is it not therefore Indo-European? Come on, this isn't complicated like proving Fermat's Last Theorem or something, this is basic to understand in my opinion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sudas Paijavana View Post
    And here I thought you were creative enough to root out the displeasure evident in my quote and relate it back to what it is that I am objecting. But, to be honest...it's not that much of a big deal to me. It's just something that comes to my mind once in awhile. People are most certainly free to choose what they view as "yoga" or "Vedic". That is their inalienable right. Listen, I just rented a scary movie from iTunes. I am going to go watch it now. This was a good digression. I'll make a reply tomorrow. Peace out cub scout.
    Dang, you buy things off itunes? I usually just torrent them (or am I not supposed to share that?), . This is so ironic, because my dad thinks gujarAti-s are stingier than pAkistAni-s.
    Last edited by Jaskaran Singh; 12 January 2014 at 04:52 AM.
    படைபோர் புக்கு முழங்கும்அப் பாஞ்சசன்னியமும் பல்லாண்டே
    May your pA~nchajanya shankha which reverberates on the battlefield, last thousands upon thousands of years...
    http://archives.mirroroftomorrow.org...anchajanya.jpg

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. GOLDEN AGE OF THIS KALI YUGA
    By Krsna Das in forum Hare Krishna (ISKCON)
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 25 November 2010, 11:15 PM
  2. Hare Krishna! Need your help
    By satay in forum Hare Krishna (ISKCON)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 20 January 2008, 02:01 PM
  3. Namaste and Hare Krishna!
    By ardhanari in forum Introductions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 16 November 2007, 03:22 AM
  4. Veda
    By sarabhanga in forum Vedas & Brahmanas
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 21 January 2007, 06:42 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •