<<< regarding this assertion, perhaps even Vaj's.) > > At the risk of being somewhat irritating here, although that is not my intention, Hindutva > is in some senses equated with the concept of Hindu fundamentalism, and every religious > fundamentalism with which I am aquainted is at variance with scholarly and academic > traditions. > >>>
L B S Well, if what the majority and mainstream of Western scholars believes...that Buddha came from and was immersed in a Vedic culture, that Sankrit is - strongly correlated (if not synonymous) with the Vedas, and that vedic-like cultures and language was carried by , among others, the Kelts (from the region of Afghanistan and Pakistan where many scholars believe vedic culture originated - although that view is expanding) across Europe (into Italy, Greece, France, Britain, to name a few), and that ayurved and sthapatyaved and the six systems of Indian philosphy are a part of what is generally termed a Vedic tradition..... if that is what a Hindutva is then , yes I am one. Saying that early Buddhism was not Vedic, is like saying that Protestantism is not Christianity. (Buddha may have rejected priest rituals, but Buddhism has plenty rituals. So I don't see the big deal. The concept of 'anatman' in Buddhism is to my mind no different than the concept of 'Atman'. Its just Semantics. Same with Hindu 'moksha' and Buddhist 'Nirvana') I also consider human beings to have a limited vocabulary that LOOKS very complicated. There are an abundance of words for what are, when you boil it all down , fairly few concepts. The same I feel is true of philosphy and cultures. We are all the same, saying the same thing, and not that much difference exists. It appears Buddhists (who say 'no this' and 'no that') want to draw a very BIG THICK LINE between things in which there is no line. > In point of fact, I do not believe that either camp holds the total truth, but the scholarly > and academic traditions have one advantage in that they hold the prospect of advancing > knowledge. They are open to change and revision. The fundamentalist schools hold that > they have the invariant truth, and therefore are somewhat more closed to new knowledge > �except perhaps by revelation, which for some reason only the ancients seemed capable > of. > > L B S I've come to believe that 'Truth' is a naive concept. In science for example you don't look for 'truths' you look for consistency in a small part of the universe or life. However, human concepts have not really come up with amillion concepts across the globe, just an interesting variation on the same themes. I would put revelation in the same boat as I just described. I'd like to hear your further input and insights also, as I know you have a lot of experience in various areas. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
