Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [greenlogic] Fw: Re: [Wisdom-l] RE: [TheBecoming] Philosophy: Restoring the Soul -hilarious -

Expand Messages
  • Bhanu Padmo
    ... From: Raghu Anthanarayanan Subject: Re: [greenlogic] Fw: Re: [Wisdom-l] RE: [TheBecoming] Philosophy: Restoring the
    Message 1 of 6 , Feb 14, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      --- On Tue, 2/12/13, Raghu Anthanarayanan <raghu@...> wrote:

      From: Raghu Anthanarayanan <raghu@...>
      Subject: Re: [greenlogic] Fw: Re: [Wisdom-l] RE: [TheBecoming] Philosophy: Restoring the Soul -hilarious -
      To: "TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com" <TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com>
      Cc: "TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com" <TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com>, "greenlogic@..." <greenlogic@...>, "Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com" <Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com>, "seerseeker@yahoogroups.com" <seerseeker@yahoogroups.com>, "Alan Kuzlev" <esotericismspirituality@yahoogroups.com>, "existlist@yahoogroups.com" <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
      Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2013, 7:29 AM
















       









      Dear Bhanu,
      Aapta means to attain to, as well as trustworthy. In Sankhya where aapta vachana is used in a specific context, the meaning explicated by Yogacharya Krishnamacharya is 'the words of a trustworthy person'.
      Raghu

      Equanimity just looks on and observes, while calmly settled in composed neutrality. It is manifested as the quieting of both resentment and approval. Gautham Buddha

      On Feb 12, 2013, at 1:19, Bhanu Padmo <greenbhanu@...> wrote:
















       










      Dear Raghu1


      (Legacy of Wisdom)


      Aapta
      Vachana means literary legacy (aapta = acquired, received / vachana = narration).
      This meaning is nowhere close to *authentic narration*. Please note that such
      inaccuracy of literary expression has been the anathema against the legacy of
      philosophical wisdom.

       

      Matam
      means opinion. You are right. If teachings of seers are taken as body of
      mutable opinions, the notion of aapta vachana wouldn*t ever invoke the bigotry
      of indiscriminate following.

       

      Again,
      we agree with you over the need for yama (ascertaining the scope) and niyama
      (discipline) during inter-personal dialectics and personal reflections, provided
      evolution of idea is emphasized as intellectual objective throughout verbal and
      literary interactions.

       



      (Bhanu Padmo)

      http://www.bhanupadmo.com


      You
      may reply this thread upon http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/greenlogic/%c2%a0
      as well

      or consign a copy to greenlogic@...   for extended discussions.



      --- On Wed, 2/6/13, Raghu Anthanarayanan <raghu@...> wrote:

      From: Raghu Anthanarayanan <raghu@...>
      Subject: Re: [greenlogic] Fw: Re: [Wisdom-l] RE: [TheBecoming] Philosophy: Restoring the Soul -hilarious -
      To: "TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com" <TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com>
      Cc: "TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com" <TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com>, "greenlogic@..." <greenlogic@...>, "Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com" <Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com>, "seerseeker@yahoogroups.com" <seerseeker@yahoogroups.com>, "Alan Kuzlev" <esotericismspirituality@yahoogroups.com>, "existlist@yahoogroups.com" <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
      Date: Wednesday, February 6, 2013, 2:32 AM
















       






      Dharma also means nourishing that which is standing, restring that which is falling and regenerating that which has fallen. There is no equivalent to religion. The word Matham meaning opinion is used to refer to the teachings of seers. For example Bauddha Matham,  there is also the idea of an Aapta Vachana, an authentic source. One has the responsibility to make a choice. The demand from the person is to observe the Yama and Niyama, the boundaries and discipline that govern interpersonal and intrapersonal behaviour.
      Getting caught with the idea of Religion as it is in the Abhrahamic traditions is a political process!
      Regards,
      Raghu

      Equanimity just looks on and observes, while calmly settled in composed neutrality. It is manifested as the quieting of both resentment and approval. Gautham Buddha

      On Feb 5, 2013, at 12:25, S kumar <kumar_8134@...> wrote:
















       






      Dharma in Sanskrit means-established order, usage, institution, custom, prescription, rule, duty, virtue, moral merit, good works, right, justice, law.. Ref.Pg.130 of Sanskrit-English Dictionary by Arthur A.Macdonnel, MA,PhD, Corpus Christ College, University of Oxford- Published by Longmans Green and Co. in 1893.Nowhere it is mentioned Dharma refers to Religion Similarly, Samskruthi in Sanskrit means Preparation, formation, consecration, page 320. If you desire to have a detailed meaning, Refer Amarakosam in Sanskrit or other languages for these terms. From: devindersingh gulati <dgulhati@...>
      To: "greenlogic@..." <greenlogic@...>; "Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com" <Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com>; "seerseeker@yahoogroups.com" <seerseeker@yahoogroups.com>; "TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com" <TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com>; Alan Kuzlev <esotericismspirituality@yahoogroups.com>; "existlist@yahoogroups.com" <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 9:12 AM
      Subject: Re: [greenlogic] Fw: Re: [Wisdom-l] RE: [TheBecoming] Philosophy: Restoring the Soul -hilarious -















       






      "When the word was spoken to me the image would appear vividly"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4kcsXiwNbo%c2%a0> BHANU: What else could be the translation of the English term *religion* in Sanskrit or that of the Sanskrit term *dharma* in English? What could be the translation of the English term *culture* in Sanskrit or that of the Sanskrit term
      *samskriti* in English? Isn*t the matter straight forward?
      No indeed:http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/TheBecoming/message/4173
      Gulati
      From: Bhanu Padmo
      <greenbhanu@...>
      To: greenlogic@...
      Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013 12:29 AM
      Subject: [greenlogic] Fw: Re: [Wisdom-l] RE: [TheBecoming] Philosophy: Restoring the Soul -hilarious -















       








      --- On Mon, 2/4/13, ankh <ankhaton@...> wrote:

      From: ankh <ankhaton@...>
      Subject: Re: [Wisdom-l] RE: [TheBecoming] Philosophy: Restoring the Soul -hilarious -
      To: Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Monday, February 4, 2013, 2:23 PM
















       






      Instead of scripture  words

      the word 'LOVE' covers it all

      God constantly searching each cubic nanometre of his xillions² spheres
      to collect the LOVE wherever he sees it

      All else is hilarious

      ankhaton

      --- On Mon, 2/4/13, Bhanu Padmo <greenbhanu@...> wrote:

      From: Bhanu Padmo <greenbhanu@...>
      Subject: [Wisdom-l] RE: [TheBecoming] Philosophy: Restoring the Soul
      To: "TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com" <thebecoming@yahoogroups.com>, "greenlogic@yahoogroups.com" <greenlogic@yahoogroups.com>, "TheRampaPath@yahoogroups.com" <therampapath@yahoogroups.com>, "seerseeker@yahoogroups.com"
      <seerseeker@yahoogroups.com>, "Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com"
      <wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com>, TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Monday, February 4, 2013, 5:11 AM
















       











      Dear
      Tilak,

       

      Wishfulness,
      Wistfulness and Lazy Gossips about Dharma. 
      I understand your sentiments about religiosity. That is not very
      difficult to understand or achieve at our level. What is being pointed at is
      *terminology and semantics*. It is what it is. It may not be what it ought to
      be. We should refrain from imposing our wistfulness and have patience in
      implementing our wishfulness. Wistfulness is to be passed by because of its
      non-reasonability. And the reason of wish needn*t be implementable right away,
      without general preparedness.

       

      What
      else could be the translation of the English term *religion* in Sanskrit or
      that of the Sanskrit term *dharma* in English? What could be the translation of
      the English term *culture* in Sanskrit or that of the Sanskrit term *samskriti*
      in English? Isn*t the matter straight forward?

       

      What
      you have been trying to point at is the difference between religion (dharma)
      and culture (samskriti), as we are all wary of mistaking one for the other. A
      culture is a particular case of the generic/ theoretical religion (paaribhaashika
      dharma) and may be deemed to be a practical/ localized dharma (praakruta
      dharma).

       

      This
      much matter isn*t so intricate that all of us (all wise people) would get entangled
      here inextricably! Just say *no* to lazy gossips.

       

      Green Pyramid Analogy
      of Dharma.  Take this analogy (Green Pyramid Analogy)
      about religion (dharma) to understand first the *seed/ genes of religion* (dharmabeeja)
      and then its *logical/ deductive amplification* and its *temporal/ shapely magnification*
      thereafter.

       

      A
      small green mango grows into a bigger one keeping the shape intact. This we
      shall refer here as temporal/ shapely magnification. Had the small green mango been
      a small green living pyramid, we would have witnessed temporal/ shapely
      magnification of the pyramid.

       

      Assuming
      that the pyramid is contemporaneously a dynamic one in so far as its causal
      apex as the *seed of the pyramidal body* (deha-beeja) would progressively
      precipitate commensurably and progressively the lower layers resulting in what
      we have termed logical/ deductive amplification, the maiden small pyramid would
      also continually grow adding respective effect to original temporal/ shapely
      magnification as well.

       

      These
      twin phenomena portrayed in this analogy are applicable to dharma (religion)
      which arrives amidst a community in the form of a code. The code is indeed a
      pyramid of laws that is initiated by its causal apex in the form of a philosophical/
      metaphysical and jurisprudential prelude. This philosophical/ metaphysical and
      jurisprudential signature isn*t really the integral philosophy/ metaphysics
      (darshana) and jurisprudence (nyaya-vijnaana) proper that would embody
      community*s respective *unified theory of creation and life*.

       

      The
      apex of the code depicts the seed of religion (dharma-beeja) that would propel religion*s
      logical/ deductive amplification across contemporaneous themes and that would
      propel religion*s temporal/ shapely magnification across evolving/ insinuated
      themes down the ages.

       

      This
      much matter isn*t so intricate that all of us (all wise people) would get entangled
      here inextricably! Just say *no* to lazy gossips.

        

      Thanks. (Bhanu Padmo)

      http://www.bhanupadmo.com/


      You
      may reply this thread upon http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/greenlogic/%c2%a0
      as well
      or consign a copy to greenlogic@...   for extended discussions.



      --- On Fri, 1/25/13, Tilak Shrestha <tilakbs@...> wrote:

      From: Tilak Shrestha <tilakbs@...>
      Subject: RE: [TheBecoming] Philosophy: Restoring the Soul [1 Attachment]
      To: "TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com" <thebecoming@yahoogroups.com>, "greenlogic@yahoogroups.com" <greenlogic@yahoogroups.com>, "TheRampaPath@yahoogroups.com" <therampapath@yahoogroups.com>, "seerseeker@yahoogroups.com" <seerseeker@yahoogroups.com>, "Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com" <wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com>
      Date: Friday, January 25, 2013, 5:37 PM
















       









      Dear Bhanu Jee Namaste No, 'Dharma' is not 'Religion.' They are apples and oranges. Matter of fact, we must make the distinction even more pronounced to make any dialogue clear. Religions are about social control, to make individuals into soldiers. There theme is: "Only my religion is true and direction to heaven. All others are wrong and hell bound. We are brothers, others are enemies to be converted. You believe and obey whatever your religion dishes out to you without any question." Dharma is about inner nature and improvement on it through seeking truth 'Satya' and discipline 'Yoga.' An individual may practice any or go to any temple. There is always overlaps of people's ideas and practices. To group people into a legal boxes like Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim etc. is good only in the census. Otherwise, it has absolutely no merit in real spiritual studies. Do Hindus go to Buddhist temple and pray or not?
      Matter
      of
      fact, Hinduism is not Dharma, but collection of Dharmas evolved in Indian sub-continent like - Vaishnav, Shaiva, Baudha, Jain, Tantra etc. Do you see any Muslims praying in Church or Temple? No, you will not see any. On the contrary, they destroyed Bamiyan Buddha. Let us be very clear about it. Sincerely, Tilak Shrestha, Ph.D.To: TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com; greenlogic@yahoogroups.com; TheRampaPath@yahoogroups.com; seerseeker@yahoogroups.com; Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com From: greenbhanu@... Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 04:59:58 -0800 Subject: Re: [TheBecoming] Philosophy: Restoring the Soul














       











      BHANU :

       

      Understanding
      Dharma and Materialistic Anarchy :

      Proposing *Political Religion*

       

                  Shouldn*t
      we make the matter of understanding dharma simpler by shedding exaggerated
      mystique about the word *dharma* by way of taking the term *religion* as its
      trans-language synonym? The current usage of the term *dharma* in its place of
      origin (India) is almost identical with the usage of the term *religion* in its
      place of origin (the West).

       

                  According
      to the current usage, religion may be defined as a set of moral and social
      rules that sprout a commensurate culture composed of characteristic public
      behaviors and events that include moralizing ritualism.

       

                  Philosophy
      is a body of fundamental postulates that explains the nature of religion.
      Though it is likely that the three terms - religion, culture and philosophy -
      would get mixed up quite often in lay conversations, the formal line of
      demarcation between the three ought to be invoked when necessary. The Sanskrit
      translations for the trio *philosophy-religion-culture* is *darshana-dharma-samskriti*.

       

                  With
      this prelude, I would like to check your (Devinder Singh Gulati*s) given narration
      line by line and issue my opinions. This juxtaposition will be a good beginning
      for mutual understanding, I suppose. The manner of this interaction ought to be
      candid and we shouldn*t leave between us much room for shallow fusses. Let the
      discussion henceforth be put down in conversation format.

      (Devinder
      – Bhanu Dialog)

       

      DEVINDER : In evolving standards of conduct and
      shaping values, we have to take into consideration the variety and complexity
      of human life and nature.

       

      BHANU : Yes, human life and human nature is
      very complex and variegated. Yes, evolving standards of conduct and shaping
      values need extreme precaution and care. But who are the people you have in
      mind who would be undertaking such a gigantic project. This project is
      tantamount to invention of a religion (dharma).

       

                  Let*s
      assume that you are the person who have set sail in that direction. That is
      fine. You would be the founder guru (adi-guru) who would collect information as
      much as possible and combine them into a hierarchy of inferences till you have a
      world view and an integrated philosophy of life (darshana).

       

                  That
      you do at a very personal level according to your intellectual capacity. In
      other words, all the constituent inferences that would make the world view and
      integrated philosophy of life would be your *personal truths*. Even the world
      view and integrated philosophy you would arrive at are only *peak* personal
      truths, characteristic of your own intellect.

       

                  Let*s
      get rid of the baffle that we experience across such utterances as *truth*,
      *reality*, *actuality* etc. You perceive actuality as the immediate cause and
      conceive the underlying deeper causes as realities and connect the sequence of realities
      into a truth. It is useful to remind ourselves of this *actuality-reality-truth
      axis* quite often lest we are not lost in the dazzle of such words.

       

                  If
      all inferences you accede to are mere *personal truths*, what about the *absolute
      truth*? No, you don*t accede to the absolute truth ever. Practically or
      effectively, an acknowledged and relatively higher understanding in the form of
      a higher inference may sometimes be addressed to as absolute truth. But that
      isn*t an accurate approach, though practical and effective to a great extent.

       

                  Absolute
      truth may lie in the direction of the median (locus) that runs through and connects
      the sequence of personal truths. Thus the absolute truth can only be an intellectual
      direction, never a particular inference.

       

                  Degree
      of sustainability of a guru thus is his/ her ability to be more resolute and less
      lax intellectually, so that lesser and lesser number of resolute personal
      inferences portend the *absolute direction of truth*. This inverse proportion
      makes appraisal of guru, philosophy and religion quite paradoxical and critical,
      often precarious.

       

                  The
      pyramid of truth accruing out of the founder guru and a sequence of follower
      gurus foreshadows a social code, a body of practical rules that need to be
      pronounced, propagated and implemented. This code also ought to include a lean moralizing
      ritualism that would optimally remind the crowd of the cardinal inferences and
      principles that reinforce the pyramid of truth.

                  This
      psycho-intellectual process is religion (dharma). The ensuing metamorphosed
      public behavior and elevated events would constitute the commensurate culture
      (sanskriti).

       

      DEVINDER : The Dharma, at once religious law of
      action and deepest law of our nature, is not, as in the Western idea, a creed,
      cult or ideal inspiring an ethical and social rule; it is the right law of
      functioning of our life in all its parts.

       

      BHANU : We were talking about the generic
      guru and the commensurate religion, philosophy or  culture. A particular guru would give rise to
      a particular commensurate religion, philosophy or culture. The sequence of the
      founder gurus of generic religion would endeavor to traverse forward along the *absolute
      direction of truth* to discover higher and higher particular religions,
      philosophies and cultures.

       

                  We
      mustn*t mistake *generic religion* for *absolute religion*. As we have already
      noted, there is no absolute religion, no absolute philosophy, no absolute
      culture, no absolute guru, no absolute truth. We have only a series of
      practicable religions of differing potentialities and capacities for public
      welfare.

       

                  So
      no particular religion can be deemed to have harbored the deepest law of human
      nature or the law of deepest human nature. However, a particular religion can
      promote the *absolute direction of truth* by teaching the commensurable public methodology
      and mechanism. At any point of time or space, the generic religion can emerge
      as only a creed, developing into a cult (a particular religion), with an ideal.

       

                  What
      about a particular religion which has discovered, enunciated and begun to
      implement the public methodology and mechanism of following the *absolute
      direction of truth*? This would be a magnanimous religion, a pragmatic
      religion, a progressive religion and yet it wouldn*t be the absolute religion.

       

                  We
      have to get rid of the specter of overemphasizing own insufficient religiosity
      in the name of absoluteness. This has been a tragic philosophical error in the
      realm of theology.

                 

      DEVINDER : The tendency of man to seek after a
      just and perfect law of his living finds its truth and its justification in the
      Dharma. Everything indeed has its dharma, its law of life imposed on it by its
      nature; but for man the dharma is the conscious imposition of a rule of ideal
      living on all his members.

       

      BHANU : Dharma is always *the enunciated one*.
      We can say that a group of people ought to have a dharma if they do not have one
      at the moment. We can*t say that they have a dharma just because they wish to
      have one, although they haven*t yet been able to enunciate it even crudely.

       

                  Saying
      that everything has a dharma would replace *enunciated inference* and *promulgated
      commensurate law* by *property* (guna) in the aforesaid definition of dharma.
      This would further baffle understanding of dharma and thwart its emergence.

       

                  You
      are right when you say that dharma is conscious and consented and collective self-imposition
      of a integral body of enunciated social and moral rules to promote the highest realized
      ideal.

       

      DEVINDER : Dharma is fixed in its essence, but
      still it develops in our consciousness and evolves and has its stages; there
      are gradations of spiritual and ethical ascension in the search for the highest
      law of our nature.

       

      BHANU : Dharma remains still a search even as
      it gets implemented, true, but it never has a fixed intellectual essence in metaphysical,
      moral, social or spiritual terms. The elusive absolute truth hasn*t been in the
      grip of the current dharma ever.

       

                  As
      we say this, we are aware of the importance of the public methodology and
      mechanism of achieving the *absolute direction of truth*.

       

                  You
      are right when you say that inferences about nature form a pyramidal hierarchy whose
      understanding facilitates spiritual and ethical ascension.

       

      DEVINDER : All men cannot follow in all things
      one common and invariable rule. Life is too complex to admit of the arbitrary
      ideal simplicity which the moralizing theorist loves. Natures differ; the
      position, the work we have to do has its own claims and standards; the aim and
      bent, the call of life, the call of the spirit within is not the same for
      everyone: the degree and turn of development and the capacity, adhikara, are
      not equal. Man lives in society and by society, and every society has its own
      general dharma, and the individual life must be fitted into this wider law of
      movement. But there too the individual’s part in society and his nature and the
      needs of his capacity and temperament vary and have many kinds and degrees: the
      social law must make some room for this variety and would lose by being rigidly
      one for all.

       

      BHANU : You are right when you say that the
      body of moral and social laws constitutes of situation-specific adapted constituents.
      Codification has been a herculean task. It is easier to talk about ethereal matters
      than to translate them into earthen affairs. Here comes the fallacy of
      exaggerations about absoluteness as a fatal hindrance.

       

      DEVINDER : A lawless impulsion of desire and
      interest and propensity cannot be allowed to lead human conduct; even in the
      frankest following of desire and interest and propensity there must be a
      governing and restraining and directing line, a guidance. There must be an
      ethic or a science, a restraint as well as a scope arising from the truth of
      the thing sought, a standard of perfection, an order.

       

      BHANU : Take the other perspective.
      Law-making ought to be a democratic process so that its implementation is
      acknowledged integrally by the society. Impulsive lawlessness is ruled out
      through disciplinary enforcement. That is not a problem. The real problem is
      with the process of law-making.

       

                  Take
      two societies of differing intellectual achievements. The two respective pyramids
      of inferences vary in height and sprawl. Naturally, the respective qualities of
      laws will vary, one being guided by a higher ideal (higher peak inference) than
      the other.

       

                  And
      accordingly, the former will be rewarded with larger progress than the latter.
      This will create consternation in the latter society. If the explanation for
      the civilization lag is denied too long, this society would revolt against
      itself quite implicitly, the wealth in the neighborhood being the source of
      distraction.

       

                  The
      ultimate cause for this *purported* materialistic anarchy is not being able to cope
      intellectually with the neighboring society. *Intellectually* refers here to *civil
      intellectualism*, not to a stunted academicism. Please note that public desire in
      any form, however contrary it may seem, need not be always seen as *lawless*.

       

                  You
      have raised the most pertinent issue of *public guidance*. Who could guide a sovereign
      society? If *inferring* is the prime process by which it achieves intellectual
      height and material progress, what is that public methodology and mechanism
      that could achieve this (public process of widespread inferring)? This
      methodology and mechanism also would also discover and implement the *absolute
      direction of truth* as well.

       

                  The
      generic name for this methodology and mechanism is *polity*. So, we are looking
      forward to that particular type of polity that would accomplish the twin
      objective of finding the absolute direction of truth and effecting intellectual
      coping.

       

                  As
      the story unfolds further, we are drawn to the consideration of the *political
      religion* (raja-dharma) that would surpass existing cultural religions in
      import and worth.

       

                  What
      is that model? However, that is another phase altogether.  

       

      DEVINDER : The universal embracing dharma in the
      Indian idea is a law of ideal perfection for the developing mind and soul of
      man; it compels him to grow in the power and force of certain high or large
      universal qualities which in their harmony build a highest type of manhood.

       

      BHANU : The phrases *universe-embracing
      dharma* and *Indian idea* don*t go together - me and your are sure. Perfection
      that connotes absoluteness too is, in a way, ruled out. What you could be
      looking forward to is the aforesaid public methodology and mechanism that could
      unravel and implement absolute direction of truth and that could bring about
      fastest psycho-cultural coping among societies.

       

      DEVINDER : Dharma has two aspects: universal,
      which is common to all humanity and the individual or specific, which is unique
      to the nature of the individual or the community.

       

      BHANU : You are right when you differentiate
      generic religion (dharma) from its particular cases in the form of a cultures
      (samskritis)......................

      (Bhanu Padmo)

      http://www.bhanupadmo.com/


      You may reply this thread
      upon http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/greenlogic/%c2%a0
      as well

      or consign a copy to greenlogic@...   for extended discussions.

       



      From: devindersingh gulati
      <dgulhati@...>

      To: "TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com"
      <TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com>

      Sent: Wednesday, 19 December 2012, 7:49

      Subject: Re: [TheBecoming] Fw: Tears of Reason for Connecticut's Slain
      Children

       

       

      In evolving standards
      of conduct and shaping values, we have to take into consideration the variety
      and complexity of human life and nature.

      The Dharma, at once
      religious law of action and deepest law of our nature, is not, as in the
      Western idea, a creed, cult or ideal inspiring an ethical and social rule; it
      is the right law of functioning of our life in all its parts.

      The tendency of man
      to seek after a just and perfect law of his living finds its truth and its
      justification in the Dharma. Everything indeed has its dharma, its law of life
      imposed on it by its nature; but for man the dharma is the conscious imposition
      of a rule of ideal living on all his members.

      Dharma is fixed in
      its essence, but still it develops in our consciousness and evolves and has its
      stages; there are gradations of spiritual and ethical ascension in the search
      for the highest law of our nature.

      All men cannot follow
      in all things one common and invariable rule. Life is too complex to admit of
      the arbitrary ideal simplicity which the moralizing theorist loves. Natures
      differ; the position, the work we have to do has its own claims and standards;
      the aim and bent, the call of life, the call of the spirit within is not the
      same for everyone: the degree and turn of development and the capacity,
      adhikara, are not equal. Man lives in society and by society, and every society
      has its own general dharma, and the individual life must be fitted into this
      wider law of movement. But there too the individual’s part in society and his
      nature and the needs of his capacity and temperament vary and have many kinds
      and degrees: the social law must make some room for this variety and would lose
      by being rigidly one for all.

      A lawless impulsion
      of desire and interest and propensity cannot be allowed to lead human conduct;
      even in the frankest following of desire and interest and propensity there must
      be a governing and restraining and directing line, a guidance. There must be an
      ethic or a science, a restraint as well as a scope arising from the truth of
      the thing sought, a standard of perfection, an order.

      The universal
      embracing dharma in the Indian idea is a law of ideal perfection for the
      developing mind and soul of man; it compels him to grow in the power and force
      of certain high or large universal qualities which in their harmony build a
      highest type of manhood.

      Dharma has two
      aspects: universal, which is common to all humanity and the individual or
      specific, which is unique to the nature of the individual or the community.
      [More...]

      http://fdi.sasociety.in/cms/index.php/fdi/article/360_The_Way_of_Dharma

       

      Gulati



































































































































































      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Bhanu Padmo
      Raghu!   I noted this postscript in your e-mail : **Equanimity just looks on and observes, while calmly settled in composed neutrality. It is manifested as
      Message 2 of 6 , Feb 14, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Raghu!

         

        I noted this
        postscript in your e-mail :

        **Equanimity
        just looks on and observes, while calmly settled in composed neutrality. It is
        manifested as the quieting of both resentment and approval. (Gautama Buddha)**

        I have
        something to say over this statement.

         

        (Understanding Buddha*s Equanimity : Theory of
        Opposites and Fallacy of Composed Neutrality)



        When somebody quotes or transcribes Buddha*s ideas, directly or indirectly, in
        this manner, we can*t do without undergoing a spell of reflection over the
        *theory of opposites*.

        Take the
        cases of sensation of light and darkness. Darkness is absence of light. Not
        vice versa. That is to say, light isn*t absence of darkness. Why?

        It is because
        light is the actual, the real, the existent entity. The existent can afford to
        be absent. This consideration precipitates the sister analogy i.e. the
        matter-space analogy.

        Space is
        absence of matter. Not vice versa. That is to say, matter isn*t absence of
        space. Because, matter is the actual, the real, the existent entity. The existent
        can afford to be absent.

        The
        perception that imparts us the notion of *the opposite* is that of *absence of
        existence*. That is how the light-darkness opposites are perceived. That is how
        the matter-space opposites are perceived.

        Surreptitious
        incursion by an inscrutable mystery makes the idea of opposites a dangerous
        bottomless pit. To understand this new development, we may take the help of
        this koan.

        As one walks
        back along number-line (in opposite direction) from a finite number, say 10,
        he/ she reaches the zero-point which could be described in a way as absence of
        number and could be comported to absence of existence. Of course, here the
        presumption is that number comports with existence (of value).

        The theory of
        opposites propounds that existence and absence of existence are the two unique
        opposites. According to this theory of opposites, a number (say, 10) and zero
        could qualify to be the opposites. Let it be so.

        If so, what
        would further happen as you continue to 
        traverse backward from the waypoint (+10) along the number line (in
        opposite direction) beyond zero-point? Then, you enter the mysterious domain.

        How would you
        explain then the status of (-10) with respect to zero firstly and with respect to
        (+10) secondly?

        Many tend to
        believe that +10 is the legitimate opposite of -10. However, this belief
        doesn*t comport with the exposition of *theory of opposites* that states that
        +10 and zero are the unique opposites. Thus the mystery deepens about the
        relationship between (+10) and (-10). Call it the *mystery of opposites*.

        Mirror-symmetry
        of number line about the pivotal *zero* provides a clue to understand the
        mystery of opposites. Set a mirror at *zero* facing +10. Now look at the mirror
        while standing on the number line beyond +10. The virtual image of the positive
        side of number line seen upon the mirror would coincide with the negative side
        of the number model (number line). So the mirror-image of number (+10) may be
        deemed to be virtually coincident with number (-10). The latter lies across the
        mirror-face.  And the mirror-face harbors
        the zero-point. How does this narration help in solving the mystery of
        opposites?

        Let* think
        over this new proposition. If zero is the opposite of +10 by the theory of
        opposites (that states that *absence of existence* is uniquely the opposite of *existence*),  -10 is then the *doubled/ deepened opposite*
        of +10 insofar as absence of value is further deepened in the former.

        The notion of
        *doubled/ deepened opposite* may be described rather as *absence of magnitude*
        (when magnitude refers to magnitude of value), not simply as *absence of value*.
        Ten (10) is not only a value, this value has a magnitude measuring ten (10). If
        zero is the opposite of value (of any magnitude), -10 may be deemed to be the
        deepened/ doubled opposite of value of magnitude +10.

        Virtuality of
        mirror-image (image upon a plane mirror) may be ascribed to the doubled/
        deepened opposite (perception of *absence of magnitude*) from rather a queer
        viewpoint. Think of darkness as the absence of light (of any magnitude). Now
        darkness is sensed as blackness, the opposite of sensation of light. How would
        this blackness be deepened or doubled practically, if it was to be the absence
        of magnitude (say, absence of light of magnitude +10 i.e. absence of a light
        ten time brighter)?

        Darkness as
        complete absence of light is perfectly black. Are there differing shades of
        perfect blackness? Similarly, in the matters of absence of matter, are there
        differing shades of space? No.

        The doubled/
        deepened opposite is perceptibly virtual (indiscernible) when the simple
        opposite is perceptibly actual (discernible). In other words, perception of the
        simple opposite (of the absence of existence) is simple and ordinary (non-intellectual,
        non-psychic), when experiencing of the deepened opposite is hyper-active and
        extraordinary (psycho-intellectual).

        Coming back
        to the given quotation from Buddha, contrary to what is said, equanimity isn*t
        composed neutrality. It is a fallacy. Because such neutrality rather connotes
        psycho-intellectual inertness. According to our arguments, equanimity ought to
        be a composed hyper-active experience, the equable experiencing of own superlative
        psycho-intellectual state.

        Equanimity
        isn*t any form of quieting, neither of approval nor of resentment. Further, any
        attempt to combine approval and resentment into a continuum would be
        metaphysically anomalous as there are as many as two U-turns in between
        resentment and approval, the former being the doubled/ deepened opposite of the
        latter. The first U-turn brings into sight *the opposite* out of absence of any
        existence and the second U-turn brings into sight *the doubled opposite* out of
        absence of magnitude of existence.


        (Bhanu Padmo)

        http://www.bhanupadmo.com


        You
        may reply this thread upon http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/greenlogic/%c2%a0
        as well

        or consign a copy to greenlogic@...   for extended discussions.
        --- On Tue, 2/12/13, Raghu Anthanarayanan <raghu@...> wrote:

        From: Raghu Anthanarayanan <raghu@...>
        Subject: Re: [greenlogic] Fw: Re: [Wisdom-l] RE: [TheBecoming] Philosophy: Restoring the Soul -hilarious -
        To: "TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com" <TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com>
        Cc: "TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com" <TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com>, "greenlogic@..." <greenlogic@...>, "Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com" <Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com>, "seerseeker@yahoogroups.com" <seerseeker@yahoogroups.com>, "Alan Kuzlev" <esotericismspirituality@yahoogroups.com>, "existlist@yahoogroups.com" <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
        Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2013, 7:29 AM
















         









        Dear Bhanu,
        Aapta means to attain to, as well as trustworthy. In Sankhya where aapta vachana is used in a specific context, the meaning explicated by Yogacharya Krishnamacharya is 'the words of a trustworthy person'.
        Raghu

        Equanimity just looks on and observes, while calmly settled in composed neutrality. It is manifested as the quieting of both resentment and approval. Gautham Buddha

        On Feb 12, 2013, at 1:19, Bhanu Padmo <greenbhanu@...> wrote:
















         










        Dear Raghu1


        (Legacy of Wisdom)


        Aapta
        Vachana means literary legacy (aapta = acquired, received / vachana = narration).
        This meaning is nowhere close to *authentic narration*. Please note that such
        inaccuracy of literary expression has been the anathema against the legacy of
        philosophical wisdom.

         

        Matam
        means opinion. You are right. If teachings of seers are taken as body of
        mutable opinions, the notion of aapta vachana wouldn*t ever invoke the bigotry
        of indiscriminate following.

         

        Again,
        we agree with you over the need for yama (ascertaining the scope) and niyama
        (discipline) during inter-personal dialectics and personal reflections, provided
        evolution of idea is emphasized as intellectual objective throughout verbal and
        literary interactions.

         



        (Bhanu Padmo)

        http://www.bhanupadmo.com


        You
        may reply this thread upon http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/greenlogic/%c2%a0
        as well

        or consign a copy to greenlogic@...   for extended discussions.



        --- On Wed, 2/6/13, Raghu Anthanarayanan <raghu@...> wrote:

        From: Raghu Anthanarayanan <raghu@...>
        Subject: Re: [greenlogic] Fw: Re: [Wisdom-l] RE: [TheBecoming] Philosophy: Restoring the Soul -hilarious -
        To: "TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com" <TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com>
        Cc: "TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com" <TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com>, "greenlogic@..." <greenlogic@...>, "Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com" <Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com>, "seerseeker@yahoogroups.com" <seerseeker@yahoogroups.com>, "Alan Kuzlev" <esotericismspirituality@yahoogroups.com>, "existlist@yahoogroups.com" <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
        Date: Wednesday, February 6, 2013, 2:32 AM
















         






        Dharma also means nourishing that which is standing, restring that which is falling and regenerating that which has fallen. There is no equivalent to religion. The word Matham meaning opinion is used to refer to the teachings of seers. For example Bauddha Matham,  there is also the idea of an Aapta Vachana, an authentic source. One has the responsibility to make a choice. The demand from the person is to observe the Yama and Niyama, the boundaries and discipline that govern interpersonal and intrapersonal behaviour.
        Getting caught with the idea of Religion as it is in the Abhrahamic traditions is a political process!
        Regards,
        Raghu

        Equanimity just looks on and observes, while calmly settled in composed neutrality. It is manifested as the quieting of both resentment and approval. Gautham Buddha

        On Feb 5, 2013, at 12:25, S kumar <kumar_8134@...> wrote:
















         






        Dharma in Sanskrit means-established order, usage, institution, custom, prescription, rule, duty, virtue, moral merit, good works, right, justice, law.. Ref.Pg.130 of Sanskrit-English Dictionary by Arthur A.Macdonnel, MA,PhD, Corpus Christ College, University of Oxford- Published by Longmans Green and Co. in 1893.Nowhere it is mentioned Dharma refers to Religion Similarly, Samskruthi in Sanskrit means Preparation, formation, consecration, page 320. If you desire to have a detailed meaning, Refer Amarakosam in Sanskrit or other languages for these terms. From: devindersingh gulati <dgulhati@...>
        To: "greenlogic@..." <greenlogic@...>; "Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com" <Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com>; "seerseeker@yahoogroups.com" <seerseeker@yahoogroups.com>; "TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com" <TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com>; Alan Kuzlev <esotericismspirituality@yahoogroups.com>; "existlist@yahoogroups.com" <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 9:12 AM
        Subject: Re: [greenlogic] Fw: Re: [Wisdom-l] RE: [TheBecoming] Philosophy: Restoring the Soul -hilarious -















         






        "When the word was spoken to me the image would appear vividly"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4kcsXiwNbo%c2%a0> BHANU: What else could be the translation of the English term *religion* in Sanskrit or that of the Sanskrit term *dharma* in English? What could be the translation of the English term *culture* in Sanskrit or that of the Sanskrit term
        *samskriti* in English? Isn*t the matter straight forward?
        No indeed:http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/TheBecoming/message/4173
        Gulati
        From: Bhanu Padmo
        <greenbhanu@...>
        To: greenlogic@...
        Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013 12:29 AM
        Subject: [greenlogic] Fw: Re: [Wisdom-l] RE: [TheBecoming] Philosophy: Restoring the Soul -hilarious -















         








        --- On Mon, 2/4/13, ankh <ankhaton@...> wrote:

        From: ankh <ankhaton@...>
        Subject: Re: [Wisdom-l] RE: [TheBecoming] Philosophy: Restoring the Soul -hilarious -
        To: Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Monday, February 4, 2013, 2:23 PM
















         






        Instead of scripture  words

        the word 'LOVE' covers it all

        God constantly searching each cubic nanometre of his xillions² spheres
        to collect the LOVE wherever he sees it

        All else is hilarious

        ankhaton

        --- On Mon, 2/4/13, Bhanu Padmo <greenbhanu@...> wrote:

        From: Bhanu Padmo <greenbhanu@...>
        Subject: [Wisdom-l] RE: [TheBecoming] Philosophy: Restoring the Soul
        To: "TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com" <thebecoming@yahoogroups.com>, "greenlogic@yahoogroups.com" <greenlogic@yahoogroups.com>, "TheRampaPath@yahoogroups.com" <therampapath@yahoogroups.com>, "seerseeker@yahoogroups.com"
        <seerseeker@yahoogroups.com>, "Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com"
        <wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com>, TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Monday, February 4, 2013, 5:11 AM
















         











        Dear
        Tilak,

         

        Wishfulness,
        Wistfulness and Lazy Gossips about Dharma. 
        I understand your sentiments about religiosity. That is not very
        difficult to understand or achieve at our level. What is being pointed at is
        *terminology and semantics*. It is what it is. It may not be what it ought to
        be. We should refrain from imposing our wistfulness and have patience in
        implementing our wishfulness. Wistfulness is to be passed by because of its
        non-reasonability. And the reason of wish needn*t be implementable right away,
        without general preparedness.

         

        What
        else could be the translation of the English term *religion* in Sanskrit or
        that of the Sanskrit term *dharma* in English? What could be the translation of
        the English term *culture* in Sanskrit or that of the Sanskrit term *samskriti*
        in English? Isn*t the matter straight forward?

         

        What
        you have been trying to point at is the difference between religion (dharma)
        and culture (samskriti), as we are all wary of mistaking one for the other. A
        culture is a particular case of the generic/ theoretical religion (paaribhaashika
        dharma) and may be deemed to be a practical/ localized dharma (praakruta
        dharma).

         

        This
        much matter isn*t so intricate that all of us (all wise people) would get entangled
        here inextricably! Just say *no* to lazy gossips.

         

        Green Pyramid Analogy
        of Dharma.  Take this analogy (Green Pyramid Analogy)
        about religion (dharma) to understand first the *seed/ genes of religion* (dharmabeeja)
        and then its *logical/ deductive amplification* and its *temporal/ shapely magnification*
        thereafter.

         

        A
        small green mango grows into a bigger one keeping the shape intact. This we
        shall refer here as temporal/ shapely magnification. Had the small green mango been
        a small green living pyramid, we would have witnessed temporal/ shapely
        magnification of the pyramid.

         

        Assuming
        that the pyramid is contemporaneously a dynamic one in so far as its causal
        apex as the *seed of the pyramidal body* (deha-beeja) would progressively
        precipitate commensurably and progressively the lower layers resulting in what
        we have termed logical/ deductive amplification, the maiden small pyramid would
        also continually grow adding respective effect to original temporal/ shapely
        magnification as well.

         

        These
        twin phenomena portrayed in this analogy are applicable to dharma (religion)
        which arrives amidst a community in the form of a code. The code is indeed a
        pyramid of laws that is initiated by its causal apex in the form of a philosophical/
        metaphysical and jurisprudential prelude. This philosophical/ metaphysical and
        jurisprudential signature isn*t really the integral philosophy/ metaphysics
        (darshana) and jurisprudence (nyaya-vijnaana) proper that would embody
        community*s respective *unified theory of creation and life*.

         

        The
        apex of the code depicts the seed of religion (dharma-beeja) that would propel religion*s
        logical/ deductive amplification across contemporaneous themes and that would
        propel religion*s temporal/ shapely magnification across evolving/ insinuated
        themes down the ages.

         

        This
        much matter isn*t so intricate that all of us (all wise people) would get entangled
        here inextricably! Just say *no* to lazy gossips.

          

        Thanks. (Bhanu Padmo)

        http://www.bhanupadmo.com/


        You
        may reply this thread upon http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/greenlogic/%c2%a0
        as well
        or consign a copy to greenlogic@...   for extended discussions.



        --- On Fri, 1/25/13, Tilak Shrestha <tilakbs@...> wrote:

        From: Tilak Shrestha <tilakbs@...>
        Subject: RE: [TheBecoming] Philosophy: Restoring the Soul [1 Attachment]
        To: "TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com" <thebecoming@yahoogroups.com>, "greenlogic@yahoogroups.com" <greenlogic@yahoogroups.com>, "TheRampaPath@yahoogroups.com" <therampapath@yahoogroups.com>, "seerseeker@yahoogroups.com" <seerseeker@yahoogroups.com>, "Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com" <wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com>
        Date: Friday, January 25, 2013, 5:37 PM
















         









        Dear Bhanu Jee Namaste No, 'Dharma' is not 'Religion.' They are apples and oranges. Matter of fact, we must make the distinction even more pronounced to make any dialogue clear. Religions are about social control, to make individuals into soldiers. There theme is: "Only my religion is true and direction to heaven. All others are wrong and hell bound. We are brothers, others are enemies to be converted. You believe and obey whatever your religion dishes out to you without any question." Dharma is about inner nature and improvement on it through seeking truth 'Satya' and discipline 'Yoga.' An individual may practice any or go to any temple. There is always overlaps of people's ideas and practices. To group people into a legal boxes like Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim etc. is good only in the census. Otherwise, it has absolutely no merit in real spiritual studies. Do Hindus go to Buddhist temple and pray or not?
        Matter
        of
        fact, Hinduism is not Dharma, but collection of Dharmas evolved in Indian sub-continent like - Vaishnav, Shaiva, Baudha, Jain, Tantra etc. Do you see any Muslims praying in Church or Temple? No, you will not see any. On the contrary, they destroyed Bamiyan Buddha. Let us be very clear about it. Sincerely, Tilak Shrestha, Ph.D.To: TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com; greenlogic@yahoogroups.com; TheRampaPath@yahoogroups.com; seerseeker@yahoogroups.com; Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com From: greenbhanu@... Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 04:59:58 -0800 Subject: Re: [TheBecoming] Philosophy: Restoring the Soul














         











        BHANU :

         

        Understanding
        Dharma and Materialistic Anarchy :

        Proposing *Political Religion*

         

                    Shouldn*t
        we make the matter of understanding dharma simpler by shedding exaggerated
        mystique about the word *dharma* by way of taking the term *religion* as its
        trans-language synonym? The current usage of the term *dharma* in its place of
        origin (India) is almost identical with the usage of the term *religion* in its
        place of origin (the West).

         

                    According
        to the current usage, religion may be defined as a set of moral and social
        rules that sprout a commensurate culture composed of characteristic public
        behaviors and events that include moralizing ritualism.

         

                    Philosophy
        is a body of fundamental postulates that explains the nature of religion.
        Though it is likely that the three terms - religion, culture and philosophy -
        would get mixed up quite often in lay conversations, the formal line of
        demarcation between the three ought to be invoked when necessary. The Sanskrit
        translations for the trio *philosophy-religion-culture* is *darshana-dharma-samskriti*.

         

                    With
        this prelude, I would like to check your (Devinder Singh Gulati*s) given narration
        line by line and issue my opinions. This juxtaposition will be a good beginning
        for mutual understanding, I suppose. The manner of this interaction ought to be
        candid and we shouldn*t leave between us much room for shallow fusses. Let the
        discussion henceforth be put down in conversation format.

        (Devinder
        – Bhanu Dialog)

         

        DEVINDER : In evolving standards of conduct and
        shaping values, we have to take into consideration the variety and complexity
        of human life and nature.

         

        BHANU : Yes, human life and human nature is
        very complex and variegated. Yes, evolving standards of conduct and shaping
        values need extreme precaution and care. But who are the people you have in
        mind who would be undertaking such a gigantic project. This project is
        tantamount to invention of a religion (dharma).

         

                    Let*s
        assume that you are the person who have set sail in that direction. That is
        fine. You would be the founder guru (adi-guru) who would collect information as
        much as possible and combine them into a hierarchy of inferences till you have a
        world view and an integrated philosophy of life (darshana).

         

                    That
        you do at a very personal level according to your intellectual capacity. In
        other words, all the constituent inferences that would make the world view and
        integrated philosophy of life would be your *personal truths*. Even the world
        view and integrated philosophy you would arrive at are only *peak* personal
        truths, characteristic of your own intellect.

         

                    Let*s
        get rid of the baffle that we experience across such utterances as *truth*,
        *reality*, *actuality* etc. You perceive actuality as the immediate cause and
        conceive the underlying deeper causes as realities and connect the sequence of realities
        into a truth. It is useful to remind ourselves of this *actuality-reality-truth
        axis* quite often lest we are not lost in the dazzle of such words.

         

                    If
        all inferences you accede to are mere *personal truths*, what about the *absolute
        truth*? No, you don*t accede to the absolute truth ever. Practically or
        effectively, an acknowledged and relatively higher understanding in the form of
        a higher inference may sometimes be addressed to as absolute truth. But that
        isn*t an accurate approach, though practical and effective to a great extent.

         

                    Absolute
        truth may lie in the direction of the median (locus) that runs through and connects
        the sequence of personal truths. Thus the absolute truth can only be an intellectual
        direction, never a particular inference.

         

                    Degree
        of sustainability of a guru thus is his/ her ability to be more resolute and less
        lax intellectually, so that lesser and lesser number of resolute personal
        inferences portend the *absolute direction of truth*. This inverse proportion
        makes appraisal of guru, philosophy and religion quite paradoxical and critical,
        often precarious.

         

                    The
        pyramid of truth accruing out of the founder guru and a sequence of follower
        gurus foreshadows a social code, a body of practical rules that need to be
        pronounced, propagated and implemented. This code also ought to include a lean moralizing
        ritualism that would optimally remind the crowd of the cardinal inferences and
        principles that reinforce the pyramid of truth.

                    This
        psycho-intellectual process is religion (dharma). The ensuing metamorphosed
        public behavior and elevated events would constitute the commensurate culture
        (sanskriti).

         

        DEVINDER : The Dharma, at once religious law of
        action and deepest law of our nature, is not, as in the Western idea, a creed,
        cult or ideal inspiring an ethical and social rule; it is the right law of
        functioning of our life in all its parts.

         

        BHANU : We were talking about the generic
        guru and the commensurate religion, philosophy or  culture. A particular guru would give rise to
        a particular commensurate religion, philosophy or culture. The sequence of the
        founder gurus of generic religion would endeavor to traverse forward along the *absolute
        direction of truth* to discover higher and higher particular religions,
        philosophies and cultures.

         

                    We
        mustn*t mistake *generic religion* for *absolute religion*. As we have already
        noted, there is no absolute religion, no absolute philosophy, no absolute
        culture, no absolute guru, no absolute truth. We have only a series of
        practicable religions of differing potentialities and capacities for public
        welfare.

         

                    So
        no particular religion can be deemed to have harbored the deepest law of human
        nature or the law of deepest human nature. However, a particular religion can
        promote the *absolute direction of truth* by teaching the commensurable public methodology
        and mechanism. At any point of time or space, the generic religion can emerge
        as only a creed, developing into a cult (a particular religion), with an ideal.

         

                    What
        about a particular religion which has discovered, enunciated and begun to
        implement the public methodology and mechanism of following the *absolute
        direction of truth*? This would be a magnanimous religion, a pragmatic
        religion, a progressive religion and yet it wouldn*t be the absolute religion.

         

                    We
        have to get rid of the specter of overemphasizing own insufficient religiosity
        in the name of absoluteness. This has been a tragic philosophical error in the
        realm of theology.

                   

        DEVINDER : The tendency of man to seek after a
        just and perfect law of his living finds its truth and its justification in the
        Dharma. Everything indeed has its dharma, its law of life imposed on it by its
        nature; but for man the dharma is the conscious imposition of a rule of ideal
        living on all his members.

         

        BHANU : Dharma is always *the enunciated one*.
        We can say that a group of people ought to have a dharma if they do not have one
        at the moment. We can*t say that they have a dharma just because they wish to
        have one, although they haven*t yet been able to enunciate it even crudely.

         

                    Saying
        that everything has a dharma would replace *enunciated inference* and *promulgated
        commensurate law* by *property* (guna) in the aforesaid definition of dharma.
        This would further baffle understanding of dharma and thwart its emergence.

         

                    You
        are right when you say that dharma is conscious and consented and collective self-imposition
        of a integral body of enunciated social and moral rules to promote the highest realized
        ideal.

         

        DEVINDER : Dharma is fixed in its essence, but
        still it develops in our consciousness and evolves and has its stages; there
        are gradations of spiritual and ethical ascension in the search for the highest
        law of our nature.

         

        BHANU : Dharma remains still a search even as
        it gets implemented, true, but it never has a fixed intellectual essence in metaphysical,
        moral, social or spiritual terms. The elusive absolute truth hasn*t been in the
        grip of the current dharma ever.

         

                    As
        we say this, we are aware of the importance of the public methodology and
        mechanism of achieving the *absolute direction of truth*.

         

                    You
        are right when you say that inferences about nature form a pyramidal hierarchy whose
        understanding facilitates spiritual and ethical ascension.

         

        DEVINDER : All men cannot follow in all things
        one common and invariable rule. Life is too complex to admit of the arbitrary
        ideal simplicity which the moralizing theorist loves. Natures differ; the
        position, the work we have to do has its own claims and standards; the aim and
        bent, the call of life, the call of the spirit within is not the same for
        everyone: the degree and turn of development and the capacity, adhikara, are
        not equal. Man lives in society and by society, and every society has its own
        general dharma, and the individual life must be fitted into this wider law of
        movement. But there too the individual’s part in society and his nature and the
        needs of his capacity and temperament vary and have many kinds and degrees: the
        social law must make some room for this variety and would lose by being rigidly
        one for all.

         

        BHANU : You are right when you say that the
        body of moral and social laws constitutes of situation-specific adapted constituents.
        Codification has been a herculean task. It is easier to talk about ethereal matters
        than to translate them into earthen affairs. Here comes the fallacy of
        exaggerations about absoluteness as a fatal hindrance.

         

        DEVINDER : A lawless impulsion of desire and
        interest and propensity cannot be allowed to lead human conduct; even in the
        frankest following of desire and interest and propensity there must be a
        governing and restraining and directing line, a guidance. There must be an
        ethic or a science, a restraint as well as a scope arising from the truth of
        the thing sought, a standard of perfection, an order.

         

        BHANU : Take the other perspective.
        Law-making ought to be a democratic process so that its implementation is
        acknowledged integrally by the society. Impulsive lawlessness is ruled out
        through disciplinary enforcement. That is not a problem. The real problem is
        with the process of law-making.

         

                    Take
        two societies of differing intellectual achievements. The two respective pyramids
        of inferences vary in height and sprawl. Naturally, the respective qualities of
        laws will vary, one being guided by a higher ideal (higher peak inference) than
        the other.

         

                    And
        accordingly, the former will be rewarded with larger progress than the latter.
        This will create consternation in the latter society. If the explanation for
        the civilization lag is denied too long, this society would revolt against
        itself quite implicitly, the wealth in the neighborhood being the source of
        distraction.

         

                    The
        ultimate cause for this *purported* materialistic anarchy is not being able to cope
        intellectually with the neighboring society. *Intellectually* refers here to *civil
        intellectualism*, not to a stunted academicism. Please note that public desire in
        any form, however contrary it may seem, need not be always seen as *lawless*.

         

                    You
        have raised the most pertinent issue of *public guidance*. Who could guide a sovereign
        society? If *inferring* is the prime process by which it achieves intellectual
        height and material progress, what is that public methodology and mechanism
        that could achieve this (public process of widespread inferring)? This
        methodology and mechanism also would also discover and implement the *absolute
        direction of truth* as well.

         

                    The
        generic name for this methodology and mechanism is *polity*. So, we are looking
        forward to that particular type of polity that would accomplish the twin
        objective of finding the absolute direction of truth and effecting intellectual
        coping.

         

                    As
        the story unfolds further, we are drawn to the consideration of the *political
        religion* (raja-dharma) that would surpass existing cultural religions in
        import and worth.

         

                    What
        is that model? However, that is another phase altogether.  

         

        DEVINDER : The universal embracing dharma in the
        Indian idea is a law of ideal perfection for the developing mind and soul of
        man; it compels him to grow in the power and force of certain high or large
        universal qualities which in their harmony build a highest type of manhood.

         

        BHANU : The phrases *universe-embracing
        dharma* and *Indian idea* don*t go together - me and your are sure. Perfection
        that connotes absoluteness too is, in a way, ruled out. What you could be
        looking forward to is the aforesaid public methodology and mechanism that could
        unravel and implement absolute direction of truth and that could bring about
        fastest psycho-cultural coping among societies.

         

        DEVINDER : Dharma has two aspects: universal,
        which is common to all humanity and the individual or specific, which is unique
        to the nature of the individual or the community.

         

        BHANU : You are right when you differentiate
        generic religion (dharma) from its particular cases in the form of a cultures
        (samskritis)......................

        (Bhanu Padmo)

        http://www.bhanupadmo.com/


        You may reply this thread
        upon http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/greenlogic/%c2%a0
        as well

        or consign a copy to greenlogic@...   for extended discussions.

         



        From: devindersingh gulati
        <dgulhati@...>

        To: "TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com"
        <TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com>

        Sent: Wednesday, 19 December 2012, 7:49

        Subject: Re: [TheBecoming] Fw: Tears of Reason for Connecticut's Slain
        Children

         

         

        In evolving standards
        of conduct and shaping values, we have to take into consideration the variety
        and complexity of human life and nature.

        The Dharma, at once
        religious law of action and deepest law of our nature, is not, as in the
        Western idea, a creed, cult or ideal inspiring an ethical and social rule; it
        is the right law of functioning of our life in all its parts.

        The tendency of man
        to seek after a just and perfect law of his living finds its truth and its
        justification in the Dharma. Everything indeed has its dharma, its law of life
        imposed on it by its nature; but for man the dharma is the conscious imposition
        of a rule of ideal living on all his members.

        Dharma is fixed in
        its essence, but still it develops in our consciousness and evolves and has its
        stages; there are gradations of spiritual and ethical ascension in the search
        for the highest law of our nature.

        All men cannot follow
        in all things one common and invariable rule. Life is too complex to admit of
        the arbitrary ideal simplicity which the moralizing theorist loves. Natures
        differ; the position, the work we have to do has its own claims and standards;
        the aim and bent, the call of life, the call of the spirit within is not the
        same for everyone: the degree and turn of development and the capacity,
        adhikara, are not equal. Man lives in society and by society, and every society
        has its own general dharma, and the individual life must be fitted into this
        wider law of movement. But there too the individual’s part in society and his
        nature and the needs of his capacity and temperament vary and have many kinds
        and degrees: the social law must make some room for this variety and would lose
        by being rigidly one for all.

        A lawless impulsion
        of desire and interest and propensity cannot be allowed to lead human conduct;
        even in the frankest following of desire and interest and propensity there must
        be a governing and restraining and directing line, a guidance. There must be an
        ethic or a science, a restraint as well as a scope arising from the truth of
        the thing sought, a standard of perfection, an order.

        The universal
        embracing dharma in the Indian idea is a law of ideal perfection for the
        developing mind and soul of man; it compels him to grow in the power and force
        of certain high or large universal qualities which in their harmony build a
        highest type of manhood.

        Dharma has two
        aspects: universal, which is common to all humanity and the individual or
        specific, which is unique to the nature of the individual or the community.
        [More...]

        http://fdi.sasociety.in/cms/index.php/fdi/article/360_The_Way_of_Dharma

         

        Gulati



































































































































































        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Bhanu Padmo
        Dear Krishna Kumar,   1        Sophisticated Idea and Simple Terminology.   Don*t you see a problem there when you suggest use of simplistic wording
        Message 3 of 6 , Feb 17, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Krishna Kumar,

           

          1       
          Sophisticated Idea and Simple Terminology.

           

          Don*t you see a problem there when you suggest use of
          simplistic wording to represent sophisticated ideas? Isn*t there a proportional
          relationship between the two?

           

          You are possibly talking about simplicity of later sequential
          interpretations. What about the maiden/ basic definitive expression that would
          by and by emanate the later sequential interpretations in bits and pieces.

           

          If it is a case of sparse/ sporadic writing, your suggestion
          is immensely considerable. But if the writing project is about protracted
          building-up of a *unified theory* / *theory of everything* or its like, the
          maiden expressions ought to be etymologically sophisticated.

           

          The first line of targeted people need not be ordinary
          public, by the way. The target line is that of extra-ordinary readers from whom
          the unusual idea would percolate to lay populace drop by drop. It is a long
          process.

           

          I think I have successfully nurtured in me the requisite
          patience for such a protracted project. It is towards the end of the third
          decade of the project that I have met you.

           

          2       
          Uniqueness of Sanatana Dharma.

           

          Would you be interested in eternal uniqueness? Have you
          imagined the consequences of eternal uniqueness? Its perils? *Silent apocalypse*
          is the other name for what you prescribe in the name of *eternal uniqueness*.

           

          Being *uniquely evolutionary* is the supreme attribute we
          should be looking for. But it brings along with it perplexing consequences.
          Understanding of post-evolution vivacity and perplexity is the objective of study,
          analysis and ensuing wisdom.

           

          Transition of current religious identity strikes one as the
          greatest contingency and is mistaken for fatal peril. You have to come out of
          that selfish horror and be prepared for religious/ spiritual metamorphosis and
          actual cultural mutation.

           

          What you identify as complex and unique Sanatani thought
          process may not be that complex really. Anyway, it needs to be augmented/
          complemented. We have to develop the *evolutionary uniqueness* of Sanatana
          Dharma.

           

          To say that Sanatana Dharma is endowed with inherent
          evolutionary uniqueness doesn*t befit a speaker who doesn*t even accept the *cardinal/
          empirical index of religiosity/ spirituality* for own religion.

           

          The supreme index of religiosity and culture and morality is
          the current crime/ immorality status of its people. Set amidst the worst
          criminal scenario, there is every reason for castigating ourselves for being
          superfluously proud of the ineligible. We should deem ourselves as potential
          criminals, at least figuratively, until we cause the scenario to change.

           

          Relative religious eligibility of Sanatana Dharma lies in
          our hermeneutic power (power of interpretation) that could synthesize interface
          anomalies seamlessly. Harping on some internal pronouncements of altruistic and
          inert tenor doesn*t suffice the Herculean task of propagating this great
          religion.  

           

          3       
          Linguistic Power of Sanskrit.

           

          As I say this, I do appreciate the linguistic value of
          Sanskrit language (including semantic value of its terminology). Let me compare
          this mother language with its daughter languages (in spite of comparing it to
          English) to indicate its shortfalls (viz, its relative lack of accuracy or vitality)
          as a prelude to my attempts to pull you out of the obsession of considering the
          daughter as evolutionarily inferior.

           

          You are surely aware of the biological fact that the
          offspring is genetically superior to the parent and so the former is potentially
          a contender for higher morality. Applying this analogy to Sanskrit language, it
          may be proposed that its linguistic heir apparent ought to be by far a superior
          language.

           

          Many would tend to think skeptically about the existence
          (reality) of an heir apparent of this classical language, implicitly taking it
          for granted that the heir apparent could have perished in some historical
          linguistic epidemic. They are wrong.

           

          Out of the three eligible contenders for direct linguistic
          inheritance of *Sanskrit linguistic age* (viz. Odia, Bengali and Assamese),
          take the case of Odia (the language of Odisha) which is believed to be the
          eldest of these three sisters. This daughter*s inherent Sanskrit etymology and
          an evolved grammar would make the level of its apparent similarity with its
          mother rise to the metaphorical 101%.

           

          An elite Odia poem or an elite passage in prose would almost
          be indiscernible from a Sanskrit sloka except for the narrow grammatical
          crevices strewn sparsely over the body of the narration.  If we further reckon the expressive prowess
          of this daughter language with respect to the mother, the former would score
          much higher than its apparent parental similarity.

           

          There is a reason why this language (Odia or rather, Odriyaa
          – the language of Odra Desha) could be a contender to such dignity and glory.
          As history unfolds in unprejudiced new anthropology (after shedding off western
          anthropology about Indian History), genesis of erstwhile original and tiny India (original
          and tiny AaryaaVarta) becomes ascribable to internal affair of erstwhile
          Odisha. That is another subject altogether.

           

          The
          present concern is the need for casting away linguistic necrophilia about
          Sanskit in order to develop greater linguistic dimensions to be commensurable
          with evolutionary aspect of Sanatani philosophy and to rescue the drowning
          present.




          (Bhanu
          Padmo)

          http://www.bhanupadmo.com


          You may
          reply this thread upon http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/greenlogic/%c2%a0 as well

          or consign a copy to greenlogic@...   for extended
          discussions.



          --- On Tue, 2/12/13, Krishna Kumar Pillalamarri <pkrishnak@...> wrote:

          From: Krishna Kumar Pillalamarri <pkrishnak@...>
          Subject: Re: [greenlogic] Fw: Re: [Wisdom-l] RE: [TheBecoming] Philosophy: Restoring the Soul -hilarious -
          To: TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com
          Cc: greenlogic@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2013, 6:37 AM
















           









          Dear Mr. Bhanu Padmo,
          Luckily I saw this just as I was going to bed. The point I was making is not to avoid sophistication of thought, but your statements are highly complex sentences that defeat the purpose of conveying the thought itself to a wide readership. With increase in written word sophistication, the analysis required to ensure we understand what your saying, and the number of interpretations this gives rise to defeats your very purpose. This serves no purpose at all, with the purpose being conveyance of a singular thought unsullied by misinterpretations. You may perhaps use Rajiv Malhotra's definitions in his book, 'Being Different' for the purpose.

          On the other hand, I will submit that a better way is to use Sanskrit words to convey the meaning properly. English as a language is highly inadequate in conveying complex thought processes that are unique to Sanatana Dharma. While the medium forces us to use English as a common language, it is perhaps best to use English only as a link language to the correct Sanskrit terminology. Else, your memos are in danger of looking almost like pontification.(Again, a term which perhaps eulogizes the Christian hierarchy, but I am searching for terms here!)

          Regards,
          Krishna

          On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Bhanu Padmo <greenbhanu@...> wrote:
















           











          Dear
          Krishna Kumar,

           

          (Verbose Complexity
          and Verbal Ingenuity)

           

          We
          are not looking for what has been said down the ages to inadequately explain
          dharma, but trying to complement the inadequacies; looking forward to a *you-me
          binary dialectic* in that context, therefore.

           

          Critical
          thinking is greatly advanced in such binary dialectics, not in multi-lateral
          information-seeking. I would certainly abide by your suggestion to not resort
          to complex verbiage, if this complexity connotes verbose complication. You may
          kindly note the other connotation of complexity viz. verbal sophistication.

           

          If
          a straight and simple wire was to serve as the filament of a bulb (an electric
          circuit) or was to sing a song (when set in a radio-circuitry), we wouldn*t opt
          for complex wire-work.

           

          Sophistication
          (sophisticated configuration) yields result. Bare simplicity seldom gives
          desired result. *Simple sophistication* is another thing altogether. It is
          ingenuity or creativity proper.

           

          If
          your call for avoidance of verbal/ verbose complexity means obviating verbal
          sophistication or verbal ingenuity, I will request you to kindly rethink.




          (Bhanu Padmo)

          http://www.bhanupadmo.com


          You
          may reply this thread upon http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/greenlogic/%c2%a0
          as well

          or consign a copy to greenlogic@...   for extended discussions.



          --- On Tue, 2/5/13, Krishna Kumar Pillalamarri <pkrishnak@...> wrote:


          From: Krishna Kumar Pillalamarri <pkrishnak@...>
          Subject: Re: [greenlogic] Fw: Re: [Wisdom-l] RE: [TheBecoming] Philosophy: Restoring the Soul -hilarious -

          To: TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Tuesday, February 5, 2013, 6:58 PM
















           






          Hi Bhano,
          Religion and Dharma are not the same. For complete explanation of what these words mean, and how correct usage changes our perspective and that of the Western thinkers, read Rajiv Malhotra's 'Being Different' and 'Breaking India'. 


          I would also request you to not use complex verbage to discuss any of the points you are trying to make. It clouds the message you are trying to give. It probably shows that you are hiding behind language complexity instead of writing with thought complexity. A simple and straight forward messaging will give enough room for others to participate and challenge you; that is unless you are trying to avoid exactly that.


          Regards,
          Krishna Kumar Pillalamarri

          On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:42 PM, devindersingh gulati <dgulhati@...> wrote:

















           









          "When the word was spoken to me the image would appear vividly"

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4kcsXiwNbo%c2%a0

          > BHANU: What else could be the translation of the English term *religion* in Sanskrit or that of the Sanskrit term *dharma* in English? What could be the translation of the English term *culture* in Sanskrit or that of the Sanskrit term
          *samskriti* in English? Isn*t the matter straight forward?


          No indeed:http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/TheBecoming/message/4173


          Gulati


          From: Bhanu Padmo
          <greenbhanu@...>
          To: greenlogic@...


          Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013 12:29 AM
          Subject: [greenlogic] Fw: Re: [Wisdom-l] RE: [TheBecoming] Philosophy: Restoring the Soul -hilarious -


















           








          - web post



          Reply to sender



          Reply to group


          Start a New Topic


          Messages in this topic
          (7)












          Recent Activity:



          New Members
          72




          Visit Your Group







          Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback



















          .























          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Bhanu Padmo
          Dear Gulati, (1) No two theories about the same context will be equally correct and equally plausible.   (2) Academic and Philosophical Blackmail.  The
          Message 4 of 6 , Feb 17, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Gulati,

            (1) No two
            theories about the same context will be equally correct and equally plausible.

             

            (2) Academic and Philosophical
            Blackmail.  The
            so-called scientific theories are about *objectivity* only. Their themes do not
            include any form of *subjectivity-objectivity connectivity*. How could anybody
            be able to or expect to experience *subjectively-objectivity relationship* in
            the course of a so-called scientific experiment?

             

            The implicit
            complaint which your statement connotes is about the definition of *science*. Science
            ought to deal with the *unified theory* which can not exclude epistemic/
            subjective aspect of this cosmos/ creation. Moreover, the subjective aspect of
            knowing needs to be *prioritized* over objective aspect, though the latter is *absolutely
            indispensable* as well.

             

            The *truncated
            science* of academy fails to integrate the two aspects as it decisively
            amputates the subjective aspect off and yet it continues to boast of its
            endeavors after offering us a unified theory which can never take off as such.

             

            The problem is
            over when we differentiate *objectivity-dwelling non-science* from *objectivity-intensive
            science* and *integral science*. The latter two would undertake the task of
            complementing the unified theory by way of taking both subjective and objective
            aspects into consideration while ascribing primacy to the subjective aspect and
            acknowledging absolute indispensability of the objective aspect.

             

            It may be noted
            that the classical subjectivists had been committing the grave error of denying
            or ignoring *absolute indispensability* of objectivism when they were to
            explicitly acknowledge it. Thus they propagated *exclusive subjectivism* often
            in the name of religion and spirituality. The latter act is tantamount to
            philosophical blackmail.

             

            They were as
            erroneous as the modern objectivists who propagate *exclusive objectivism* in
            the name of science. This is academic blackmail.

             

             

            (3) There can
            be many interpretations of a passage/ discourse/ theory that can be seen as
            phases of the hermeneutic (meaning-mutating, meaning-updating) process. The objective
            of the sequence of interpretations is evolution of meaning. With this objective
            out of view, interpretations would go awry and be infinite in number.

             

            (4) Yes. That
            is why we have to start with given or acknowledged or average meaning of words.
            If any doubt crops up in the course of a discussion, the contending parties
            would seek clarification.

             

            (5) Academic Sapience.  You are going too far in
            generalizing the matter. The contenders are not blind people. They should have
            basic qualification which is confirmed by the fact that they have agreed to
            commence the conversation.

             

            Their verbal
            juxtaposition couldn*t bring out unlimited linguistic or semantic variation,
            unless one or both of them suddenly decides/ decide to enter respective narrow
            capillary-like academic tunnel/ tunnels.

             

            Sapience of
            academic specialization (that has lost sight of unified knowledge) is the
            greatest danger against philosophical advancement. That is why it is essential
            that the contenders assent to *civility* (of civil research) qualifiably even
            if they are academicians.

             

            Let*s broaden
            the meaning of the term *academician*. For our purposes, it should not mean
            only *tax-supported/ salaried professor who has not been able to cast off the
            slavish hangover and who has not been able to transcend the salary-thick
            information-barrier*.

             

            The causal
            essence of such a status is *protracted unconditional/ unlimited/
            disproportionate social-financial security*.

             

            If you apply
            this causal essence to other fields, the curtain is raised to disclose the
            identity of other type of culture-supported academicians who erroneously enjoy
            implicit sapience over learned philosophy conditioned by direct/ indirect
            materialistic concerns.

             

             (6) Which speaker do you have in mind? Me?
            You? If any of us prove to be sapient and adamant and so cracked, the content
            will slip through our fingers. Right!!

             



            (Bhanu
            Padmo)

            http://www.bhanupadmo.com


            You may
            reply this thread upon http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/greenlogic/ as well

            or consign a copy to greenlogic@...   for extended
            discussions.



            ......................


            TheRampaPath] Re: [greenlogic] Re: [Wisdom-l] Re:
            [TheBecoming] Fw: The soul,re;latest missive. / Concept of Physical Life

            Friday,
            February 15, 2013 5:25 AM

            From:

            "devindersingh gulati" <dgulhati@...>

            Add sender to Contacts

            To:

            "greenlogic@..."
            <greenlogic@...>, "TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com"
            <TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com>, "seerseeker@yahoogroups.com"
            <seerseeker@yahoogroups.com>... more

            Several
            different theories may offer equally plausible accounts of the same
            situationScientific
            theories are "undetermined" by experience

            There
            are infinite interpretations of a discourse depending on the context Words
            have a meaning only relative to the other words they are connected to in
            the sentences that we assume to be trueThe
            meaning of a sentence depends on the interpretation of the entire
            language. Its meaning can even change in time.The
            meaning of language is not in the mind of the speaker

             

            Gulati


















            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.