Hindu helping someone learn Buddhism?

[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 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?