<b>Religion</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The pre-cristian religions in europe was very similar whit brahmanism.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Sounds like a missionary. Missionaries invented the term brahmanism and talked about it as a religion separate from Hinduism (today others in India have learnt to repeat it). It is not. Just like there's no vaishyaism, shudraism and kshatriyaism, etcetera.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->You cant compare Vedas whit semitic writings because only IE languageshave the natural tendency for philosophy while semitic languages have a tendency for law and morality.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Then let me compare some of the philosophical outlook in our Vedas with African traditional religion and Native American religion. I have read prayers of north American Native people and of Africans, which were previously passed down orally among them. Not a few of them share a philosophical viewpoint (that the whole of creation is one and that there should be peace amongst all things) with that stated in the Vedas. Does a natural tendency for philosophy imply a connection? If so, the Hindu Vedas and the prayers of Africans and Native Americans (among many other cultures, including the Shamanist traditions of Siberian and Turkic people) show deep connections too. There's nothing surprising about these similarities, because natural traditions which evolved over millennia and countless generations, have all had the time to come to the same/similar conclusions.
Philosophy is not limited by one's language, but by the freedom for natural mental evolution. The ancient heathen Arabians, who spoke Arabic (a Semitic language), also understood that all of humanity was one. Just because Islam is full of stringent laws does not mean Arabic is to blame for its existence.
Samskritam is full of terms that do not exist in any other language, all of which describe intricate concepts. When people have the freedom to philosophize, they will invent terms to denote complex new ideas if there are none to be found in their language.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In a clasament made by ancient greeks over the nation whit philosophy and wisdom they put the greeks on the first place,brahmans on the secons place,thracians<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The Persians would have put themselves in first place, the Chinese themselves, the Indians ourselves - before duly according the others respectful places. This does not signify anything. Where philosophy leads to truth, it is useful. And there may be many philosophies that do so - none of them better than another. But how did the Greeks decide when it came to ordering philosophy? That one was more <i>true</i> than another or just based on the amount of effort put into the field of philosophy (Greece had many philosophers, such-and-such none)? Or did they decide based on the simplicity or complexity of an idea? Yet profound truths may be simple and complex ideas may be utterly unfactual however quaint (the AIT springs to mind).
As much as I respect them, why must the Greek ordering be the only acceptable one?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The pre-cristian religions in europe was very similar whit brahmanism.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Sounds like a missionary. Missionaries invented the term brahmanism and talked about it as a religion separate from Hinduism (today others in India have learnt to repeat it). It is not. Just like there's no vaishyaism, shudraism and kshatriyaism, etcetera.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->You cant compare Vedas whit semitic writings because only IE languageshave the natural tendency for philosophy while semitic languages have a tendency for law and morality.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Then let me compare some of the philosophical outlook in our Vedas with African traditional religion and Native American religion. I have read prayers of north American Native people and of Africans, which were previously passed down orally among them. Not a few of them share a philosophical viewpoint (that the whole of creation is one and that there should be peace amongst all things) with that stated in the Vedas. Does a natural tendency for philosophy imply a connection? If so, the Hindu Vedas and the prayers of Africans and Native Americans (among many other cultures, including the Shamanist traditions of Siberian and Turkic people) show deep connections too. There's nothing surprising about these similarities, because natural traditions which evolved over millennia and countless generations, have all had the time to come to the same/similar conclusions.
Philosophy is not limited by one's language, but by the freedom for natural mental evolution. The ancient heathen Arabians, who spoke Arabic (a Semitic language), also understood that all of humanity was one. Just because Islam is full of stringent laws does not mean Arabic is to blame for its existence.
Samskritam is full of terms that do not exist in any other language, all of which describe intricate concepts. When people have the freedom to philosophize, they will invent terms to denote complex new ideas if there are none to be found in their language.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In a clasament made by ancient greeks over the nation whit philosophy and wisdom they put the greeks on the first place,brahmans on the secons place,thracians<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The Persians would have put themselves in first place, the Chinese themselves, the Indians ourselves - before duly according the others respectful places. This does not signify anything. Where philosophy leads to truth, it is useful. And there may be many philosophies that do so - none of them better than another. But how did the Greeks decide when it came to ordering philosophy? That one was more <i>true</i> than another or just based on the amount of effort put into the field of philosophy (Greece had many philosophers, such-and-such none)? Or did they decide based on the simplicity or complexity of an idea? Yet profound truths may be simple and complex ideas may be utterly unfactual however quaint (the AIT springs to mind).
As much as I respect them, why must the Greek ordering be the only acceptable one?