Baba Ji, you mentioned in the last class how Panini’s Ashtadhayi was a description of common usage. In an earlier class you mentioned that by the 16th or 17th century students of the Ashtadhayi could no longer relate to it, understand it and it had to be simplified to accommodate the contemporary student. Perhaps it’s my own bias but I took this to mean the Ashtadhayi was “dumbed down” so it could be understood. But I wonder if this was instead a natural even inevitable process. Since the Ashtadhayi was a description of common usage is it not likely that common usage had changed so much over ~2000 years that the original text would no longer describe common usage.
The Western mindset might describe this as evolutionary. I know there is a bias that evolution is progressive, better than what came before. Perhaps it’s this bias that is one of the pillars of Orientalism. But I wonder if perhaps a better understanding of evolution is that it is adaptive rather than progressive. Life embodies change and if an organism, cultural or organic, doesn’t adapt it will eventually become extinct.
Kurt Bruder
9 Mar 2014
I think you’re correct to view evolution as (mutual) adaptation to the total life-world (“environment”) rather than as continuous sequential improvement. Whether evolution results in changes in an organism’s anatomy or its extensions (preeminently, in the case of human beings, language), evolution implies a systemic transformation through time that is continuously tested against prevailing conditions. Whether predicated on genes of memes, those forms that “work” (i.e., are adaptive) in their present context will be the more likely to endure.
Hari Karam Singh
10 Mar 2014
I was left with the impression that it wasn’t simplified but “rearranged” by the mentioned professor in an order more logical for the studies of the students – the implication being perhaps that the original order was/is technically more logical but not as easy to grasp.
Hari Karam Singh – Yes, you’re right – it’s hardly simplified, let alone dumbed down, at least for me – I struggled with “Laghu Siddhant Kaumadi”, as has every student of Sanskrit – and its commentaries give even greater access to Panini through its more contemporary logic.
Rick Bonin Kurt Bruder – Sanskrit is unique among languages as it’s usage has not really changed that much over a couple of thousand years!
Some relativist baggage that accompanies evolution, in the sense of human history as progressive, is that of the human scientist requires a background to measure human activity against.
For example, could we not establish a category of “primitive” destructiveness, such as activities of monkeys or mis-behaving children, informed by economic resources dedicated to developing and producing weapons and other human destructive agents? If we were to use that category and others along that line, we might come to different conclusions about “evolution” as well as human activity in general. If we put aside the category of economic resource dependant “technology” for a moment, what are those other signs of a progressive history of human kind?
Rick Bonin
11 Mar 2014
I assume by technology you are including all forms of technology from agriculture to electronics. Some would argue that democracy is a product of progress made from a more feudal model of society. Other might argue that capitalism or socialism is another sign of progress.
Hari Karam Singh
11 Mar 2014
“The advantage of democracy is that at it’s most corrupt, it’s the least worst of the political systems so far” – Prof. Michael Sugrue’s conclusion at the end of my university course entitled “POL201, The Just Society”
Hari Karam Singh
11 Mar 2014
I sometimes think that our self-concept of being an advanced race is very heavily skewed by our developments solely in material science. Look around your room and subtract anything made with plastic, or even better, everything whose production in some way depended on petroleum – what’s left? I don’t mean this is an environmental plea but rather as a way to illustrate just how thin the separation might be between now and what we would call a “primitive” version of now.
Baba Rampuri
MODERATOR
12 Mar 2014
But Plato, who many associate with “democracy” thought of it as a bad system, as it guaranteed mediocrity, whereas, so the reasoning goes, even with a king or dictator you might get lucky and have an enlightened ruler.
Rick Bonin
12 Mar 2014
I wasn’t saying that democracy was a sign of progress only that it was considered so by most in the West where the progressive model prevails. I also suspect that most would prefer mediocrity to luck. In the context of our journey isn’t this conceit another pillar of Orientalism.
Hari Karam Singh
12 Mar 2014
I know, I didn’t mean it as a retort. It just reminded me of the somewhat humorous moment. I agree with Plato, +Baba Rampuri. The fact that this was the conclusion of one of the brightest minds of modern political philosophy didn’t really fill me with great hope for society. Incidentally the other piece of information he stressed heavily is that you absolutely cannot study philosophy without studying history or you will misinterpret the meaning unaware of the context of the discourse.Enlightened rulers all the way! Or least an advisory panel of apolitical spiritual adepts to start.
Hari Karam Singh
12 Mar 2014
But I also agree with you Rick Bonin. English history will definitely attest to the preference of not trusting in luck for the benevolence of its monarchs.
Kurt Bruder
12 Mar 2014
Regarding the “other signs of a progressive history of human kind,” I think that there are some useful indicators of relatively greater adequacy of development across the several dimensions of our individual and corporate lives. There was a time not so very long ago when folks commonly attributed disease, and a host of other misfortunes (from crop failure, to earthquakes, to weather-related disasters) to magic or other malign occult powers. The development of human knowledge concerning microbiology, medicine, plate tectonics, and meteorology, have made certain effective interventions possible that have had a direct, positive impact on human happiness and survival.
In many other domains of human endeavour, analogous innovations in understanding and action have yielded similar gains (e.g., from the subjugation of women as de facto property to something rather more in the neighborhood of sexual equality; from cherishing the concentration of power in one or a few as a “divine right,” to the privileging of inclusivity of participation among the governed in civil discourse).
Jennifer Harford
12 Mar 2014
Yes, Kurt. I agree. Perhaps if the Dalai Lama were the world dictator, things would go well. But that would be very good luck indeed.
Kurt Bruder
12 Mar 2014
Much as I appreciate His Holiness (he is my Kalachakra Guru, after all), and regard highly his efforts to secure the welfare of his compatriots and others, the decentralization of political power–together with other moves toward the multiplication of voices being consulted (and, especially, of the formerly dispossessed and disenfranchised)–does seem to be a beneficial trend in human affairs across history since the Axial Period (roughly since the time of Gautama Buddha).
Funny though with regards to modern sciences illuminating the purely mechanical nature of weather: From what I’ve studied of the esoteric, weather can be manipulated by those with certain siddhis (there’s a good video somewhere talking about the Chinese inv
Funny though with regards to modern sciences illuminating the purely mechanical nature of weather: From what I’ve studied of the esoteric, weather can be manipulated by those with certain siddhis (there’s a good video somewhere talking about the Chinese invading a Tibetan monastery of a well known saint and meeting an unseasonable blizzard) as well as there being certain spirits (i.e. conscious entities) that do play a part in the weather. Same applies to illnesses, especially things like parasites.From my study of science, it seems to me that the closer you look at the details – specifically those involved with understanding the “mechanism” in a particular instance of a phenomenon (as opposed to generalising “theories”) the more you discover that it is all based on something about which we understand very little. Weather’s a good example. It’s the posterboy for Chaos theory which says that even with entirely known initial parameters, the end result is infinitely unpredictable – that’s even before quantum mechanics comes into it.Personally, I’ve always felt these mysterious areas are where the link lies between occult/occident understanding.
Kurt Bruder
12 Mar 2014
I didn’t suggest that modern science has the capacity to CONTROL the weather, but that it “made certain effective interventions possible that have had a direct, positive impact on human happiness and survival” (e.g., early warning allows for timely retreat from, or salutary preparations in, affected areas).
As for the possibility of weather-manipulating siddhis, I remain skeptical of all magical claims. The putative causal connection (in the physical domain) between a magical operation and its alleged effect is simply unconvincing to me (typically due to a failure to demonstrate the production of necessary and sufficient conditions for bringing about the effect-event in question).
That said, if Babaji invites us to repeat a sequence of syllables with the assurance that we can produce desirable outcomes (including, but not limited to, controlling the weather), I’m going to do so and watch the results!
Hari Karam Singh
I know, but you did imply that we went from a position of ignorance about the weather phenomena to a one of understanding which refuted our initial primitive beliefs. There are a lot of assumptions there. The first is that science didn’t through the baby out of with the bath water when it rejected “magic” and developed “rationality”. A lot of that dichotomy is actually re-invented history after certain political occurrences in Europe late 16th-17th century. In fact Newton had the “Divine Pymander” (a book of natural magic) in his library.The other assumption is that early society was indeed in a state of superstitious ignorance. I would argue that a very close look would reveal that this often was not exactly the case and that this common academic assessment is born of an entire other host of questionable assumptions.
Michelle Synnestvedt
12 Mar 2014
Hari Karam Singh I am aligned with your last statement here about science and magic. There was a time when spirituality/ the mysterious (magic)and science were all woven together..I see this complete separation as devolution
Kurt Bruder
12 Mar 2014
“Mystery” comes from the Greek, musterion, ‘secret’; ‘unknown unless revealed’. “Science” comes from a Latin root, meaning ‘knowledge’ (and, by implication, the procedures for achieving valid knowledge). I’m not positing a distinction between Mystery and Science, except in the obvious sense of distinguishing the Question and the effort undertaken to Answer it. No doubt, Magic represents a method of sorts for addressing questions (and other kinds of concerns). But it does so in a manner fundamentally different from science. I may be biased, and mistaken about Babaji’s approach, but I regard his method thus far as eminently scientific; i.e., empirical observation of the sites of vocalization and of the operations in those sites. He has not asserted, for example, that doing so would increase our “harvest,” except of direct knowledge through experience.
Hari Karam Singh
I sometimes think that our self-concept of being an advanced race is very heavily skewed by our developments solely in material science. Look around your room and subtract anything made with plastic, or even better, everything whose production in some way depended on petroleum – what’s left? I don’t mean this is an environmental plea but rather as a way to illustrate just how thin the separation might be between now and what we would call a “primitive” version of now.
Baba Rampuri
MODERATOR
12 Mar 2014
But Plato, who many associate with “democracy” thought of it as a bad system, as it guaranteed mediocrity, whereas, so the reasoning goes, even with a king or dictator you might get lucky and have an enlightened ruler.
Rick Bonin
12 Mar 2014
I wasn’t saying that democracy was a sign of progress only that it was considered so by most in the West where the progressive model prevails. I also suspect that most would prefer mediocrity to luck. In the context of our journey isn’t this conceit another pillar of Orientalism.
Hari Karam Singh
12 Mar 2014
I know, I didn’t mean it as a retort. It just reminded me of the somewhat humorous moment. I agree with Plato, Baba Rampuri. The fact that this was the conclusion of one of the brightest minds of modern political philosophy didn’t really fill me with great hope for society. Incidentally the other piece of information he stressed heavily is that you absolutely cannot study philosophy without studying history or you will misinterpret the meaning unaware of the context of the discourse.Enlightened rulers all the way! Or least an advisory panel of apolitical spiritual adepts to start. But I also agree with you, Rick Bonin. English history will definitely attest to the preference of not trusting in luck for the benevolence of its monarchs.
Kurt Bruder
12 Mar 2014
Regarding the “other signs of a progressive history of human kind,” I think that there are some useful indicators of relatively greater adequacy of development across the several dimensions of our individual and corporate lives. There was a time not so very long ago when folks commonly attributed disease, and a host of other misfortunes (from crop failure, to earthquakes, to weather-related disasters) to magic or other malign occult powers. The development of human knowledge concerning microbiology, medicine, plate tectonics, and meteorology, have made certain effective interventions possible that have had a direct, positive impact on human happiness and survival.
In many other domains of human endeavour, analogous innovations in understanding and action have yielded similar gains (e.g., from the subjugation of women as de facto property to something rather more in the neighborhood of sexual equality; from cherishing the concentration of power in one or a few as a “divine right,” to the privileging of inclusivity of participation among the governed in civil discourse).
Jennifer Harford
Yes, Kurt. I agree. Perhaps if the Dalai Lama were the world dictator, things would go well. But that would be very good luck indeed.
Kurt Bruder
12 Mar 2014
Much as I appreciate His Holiness (he is my Kalachakra Guru, after all), and regard highly his efforts to secure the welfare of his compatriots and others, the decentralization of political power–together with other moves toward the multiplication of voices being consulted (and, especially, of the formerly dispossessed and disenfranchised)–does seem to be a beneficial trend in human affairs across history since the Axial Period (roughly since the time of Gautama Buddha)
Jennifer Harford
12 Mar 2014
I agree, Kurt.
Hari Karam Singh
12 Mar 2014
“meteorology, have made certain effective interventions possible that have had a direct, positive impact on human happiness and survival” – not in London!
Jennifer Harford
12 Mar 2014
Hi Hari, I was not able to locate the source of that quotation through google, which maybe is a good thing…. Not sure what you are implying with the quotation. Perhaps some sarcasm? I seem to be one of the ones who needs a lot of commentary in order to catch on…. No worries if you don’t have the time.
Hari Karam Singh
Funny though with regards to modern sciences illuminating the purely mechanical nature of weather: From what I’ve studied of the esoteric, weather can be manipulated by those with certain siddhis (there’s a good video somewhere talking about the Chinese invading a Tibetan monastery of a well known saint and meeting an unseasonable blizzard) as well as there being certain spirits (i.e. conscious entities) that do play a part in the weather. Same applies to illnesses, especially things like parasites.From my study of science, it seems to me that the closer you look at the details – specifically those involved with understanding the “mechanism” in a particular instance of a phenomenon (as opposed to generalising “theories”) the more you discover that it is all based on something about which we understand very little. Weather’s a good example. It’s the posterboy for Chaos theory which says that even with entirely known initial parameters, the end result is infinitely unpredictable – that’s even before quantum mechanics comes into it.Personally, I’ve always felt these mysterious areas are where the link lies between occult/occident understanding.
Kurt Bruder
12 Mar 2014
I didn’t suggest that modern science has the capacity to CONTROL the weather, but that it “made certain effective interventions possible that have had a direct, positive impact on human happiness and survival” (e.g., early warning allows for timely retreat from, or salutary preparations in, affected areas).
As for the possibility of weather-manipulating siddhis, I remain skeptical of all magical claims. The putative causal connection (in the physical domain) between a magical operation and its alleged effect is simply unconvincing to me (typically due to a failure to demonstrate the production of necessary and sufficient conditions for bringing about the effect-event in question).
That said, if Babaji invites us to repeat a sequence of syllables with the assurance that we can produce desirable outcomes (including, but not limited to, controlling the weather), I’m going to do so and watch the results!
Hari Karam Singh
I know, but you did imply that we went from a position of ignorance about the weather phenomena to a one of understanding which refuted our initial primitive beliefs. There are a lot of assumptions there. The first is that science didn’t through the baby out of with the bath water when it rejected “magic” and developed “rationality”. A lot of that dichotomy is actually re-invented history after certain political occurrences in Europe late 16th-17th century. In fact Newton had the “Divine Pymander” (a book of natural magic) in his library.The other assumption is that early society was indeed in a state of superstitious ignorance. I would argue that a very close look would reveal that this often was not exactly the case and that this common academic assessment is born of an entire other host of questionable assumptions.
Michelle Synnestvedt
12 Mar 2014
Hari Karam Singh I am aligned with your last statement here about science and magic. There was a time when spirituality/ the mysterious (magic)and science were all woven together..I see this complete separation as devolution
Kurt Bruder
12 Mar 2014
“Mystery” comes from the Greek, musterion, ‘secret’; ‘unknown unless revealed’. “Science” comes from a Latin root, meaning ‘knowledge’ (and, by implication, the procedures for achieving valid knowledge). I’m not positing a distinction between Mystery and Science, except in the obvious sense of distinguishing the Question and the effort undertaken to Answer it. No doubt, Magic represents a method of sorts for addressing questions (and other kinds of concerns). But it does so in a manner fundamentally different from science. I may be biased, and mistaken about Babaji’s approach, but I regard his method thus far as eminently scientific; i.e., empirical observation of the sites of vocalization and of the operations in those sites. He has not asserted, for example, that doing so would increase our “harvest,” except of direct knowledge through experience.
Jan Baggerud Larsen
8 Mar 2014
I just listened to MasterClass 8 and it was very helpful. The first half hour I was smiling and feeling very joyous. I had several aha moments where I suddenly felt I could experience and understand much more about the vocal geography and I could relate this to Babaji’s speech at the Basel Conference which still feels very magical to me.But then suddenly a lot of my believed understanding fell apart when I understood that I still want to and believe that I can map the operations directly to “meaning” or “effect”. In my mind I WANT to superimpose the operations. Still seeing the map as the treasure. But I still feel that the treasure/magic is there somewhere and I see that it is not the map.
I just listened to MasterClass 8 and it was very helpful. The first half hour I was smiling and feeling very joyous. I had several aha moments where I suddenly felt I could experience and understand much more about the vocal geography and I could relate this to Babaji’s speech at the Basel Conference which still feels very magical to me.But then suddenly a lot of my believed understanding fell apart when I understood that I still want to and believe that I can map the operations directly to “meaning” or “effect”. In my mind I WANT to superimpose the operations. Still seeing the map as the treasure. But I still feel that the treasure/magic is there somewhere and I see that it is not the map.
