Ancient thinker

[Operacast]

It seems fair to ask for other posters' own takes on the extant fragments of this ancient philosophy/code:


"Invitations to dinner are only thought up to benefit indigents.
"The building of temples, resting places, and such like, please only travelers."

"The wise should enjoy the pleasures of this world through the proper visible means of agriculture, keeping cattle, trade, political administration, etc."

"Merit and demerit also do not exist. Nor is there any fruit of virtue and vice."

"Oh! The one who has become all the more beautiful! Drink and eat. Oh! The one with a charming body! That which is past does not belong to you. Oh! The timid one! The past never comes back."

"The pleasure that is produced in a person due to the obtainment of the desired and the avoidance of the undesired is useless.
"The implication of the conclusions is to be critically discussed by the intelligent."

"While life is yours live joyously[.]"

"That the pleasure arising to man
from contact with sensible objects,
is to be relinquished because accompanied by pain-
such is the reasoning of fools.
The kernels of the paddy, rich with finest white grains,
What man, seeking his own true interest,
would fling them away
because of a covering of husk and dust?"

"While life remains, let a man live happily,
let him feed on melted ghee though he runs in debt[.]"


Thoughts?

Cheers,

Operacast

 

[Operacast]

Since putting that up, I've acquired a better, more scholarly translation of the text containing the first three paragraphs in this lineup. Here are the same three paragraphs from the newer translation:

[1] "Chastity and other such ordinances are laid down by clever weaklings; gifts of gold and land, the pleasure of invitations to dinner, are devised by indigent people with stomachs lean with hunger.
[2] "The building of temples, houses for water-supply, tanks, wells, resting places, and the like, please only travelers, not others."

[3] "The wise should enjoy the pleasures of this world through the proper visible means of agriculture, keeping cattle, trade, political administration, etc."

Cheers,

Operacast

 

[Operacast]

[1] "Chastity and other such ordinances are laid down by clever weaklings; gifts of gold and land, the pleasure of invitations to dinner, are devised by indigent people with stomachs lean with hunger.

[2] "The building of temples, houses for water-supply, tanks, wells, resting places, and the like, please only travelers, not others."

[3] "The wise should enjoy the pleasures of this world through the proper visible means of agriculture, keeping cattle, trade, political administration, etc."

[4] "Merit and demerit also do not exist. Nor is there any fruit of virtue and vice."

[5] "Oh! The one who has become all the more beautiful! Drink and eat. Oh! The one with a charming body! That which is past does not belong to you. Oh! The timid one! The past never comes back."

[6] "The pleasure that is produced in a person due to the obtainment of the desired and the avoidance of the undesired is useless.

[7] "While life is yours live joyously[.]"

[8] "That the pleasure arising to man
from contact with sensible objects,
is to be relinquished because accompanied by pain-
such is the reasoning of fools.
The kernels of the paddy, rich with finest white grains,
What man, seeking his own true interest,
would fling them away
because of a covering of husk and dust?"

[9] "While life remains, let a man live happily,
let him feed on melted ghee though he runs in debt[.]"

Although I was sort of hoping that I might resist from any prompting on my part as to which aspects especially intrigued me here until hearing from others, it may have been impractical of me to ask for any off-the-cuff reflections with no context of any kind. So I will simply say what chief aspect here has intrigued me, and I'd be sincerely curious, please, as to how that aspect strikes others here. Thanks.

These are the only extant fragments of an ancient Indian philosopher's take on ethics and normative principles. There is more where this came from, but not dealing with ethics. This is a complete rundown of what we have in any direct sources concerning the ethical code he adopted, specifically.

Paragraphs 1-3 come from one source, 4-6 from a second, and 7-9 from a third. I'll admit that I see a slight conflict among some of these, perhaps reflective of the sources (some of them unreliable?) from which these paragraphs come. But I'll zero in on just one seeming conflict and let others note any others that I may have overlooked.

As one example, I seem to see a slight disconnect between where [3] is "coming from" versus [9]. Do you? Specifically, how would you assess the degree to which [3] appears to (partly) involve one's responsible treatment of others? And related to that, does [9] seem to imply a thoughtless treatment of others instead? Or am I just reading too much into each of the two paragraphs?

Many thanks,

Operacast

 

[Operacast]

I do hope nothing I said here seemed to foreclose further discussion. In fact, I am still sincerely interested -- please? -- in the extent to which anyone here might feel that [3] could be taken as partly addressing the responsible treatment of others and [9] an implicit recommendation of thoughtlessness toward others.

Many thanks,

Operacast

 

[wil]

I could just be incredibly dense...but it all seemed when I first read it quite disjointed. I had nothing to grab onto...nothing I vehemently disagreed with, nothing that sparked an ah-hah moment, nothing which reinforced a concept that I was struggling with...

It could be the tempo of the words or the grouping of the concepts, but still I read and reread and am not able to offer anything....

I too read your offering and awaited others to add some spice prior to indulging.

 

[Operacast]

You are a sharp reader. There is a good reason for this seeming disjointed. These are from extant fragments (which are all we have) of the thinking of an ancient Indian philosopher of ca. 600 B.C.E. The fragments from those fragments that I chose here constitute the sum total that we have of the ethics component of this figure's doctrine. What I put together here was an assemblage made up from the three most direct sources that we have for whatever this man wrote or said:

#1) Sarvasiddhantasamgraha by Samkara (ca. 750 C.E.);

#2) Sad-Darsana-Samuccaya by Haribhadra Suri (ca. 750 C.E.); and

#3) Sarvadarshansamgraha by Madhavacarya (ca. 1350 C.E.).

Since the first two are much earlier than the third, I tend to trust those more than the third, particularly since (I find that) the first two agree with each other slightly more than with the third in a few respects.

As for my cited passages above, paragraphs 1 - 3 come from #1, prgrphs. 4 - 6 from #2, and 7 - 9 from #3.

Further thoughts? And might anyone here want to evaluate each of these three groups of statements separately?

Cheers,

Operacast

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

It makes perfect sense OC. In all the scriptures and expressions of spirituality the one thing most often missing is the address of personal fulfillment. The history of religion is one of suppression of individuality in the service of the state or other power structure. One finds this in Taoism and Confucianism as well as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity. Texts such as these have no value in service to the power structure, but hint at a larger truth found in bits in Epicurean and other thought venues: that the real path to enlightenment for the individual in terms of his real interests lies in the embracing of the mundane pleasures of life, not in asceticism or the sacrifice of one's self to the larger mechanism.

Chris

 

[Operacast]

Would you say that #[3] --

[3] "The wise should enjoy the pleasures of this world through the proper visible means of agriculture, keeping cattle, trade, political administration, etc." --

has a trace of a component of preferring public usefulness in it, or does it, like some of the other statements here, address primarily the individual -- or does it address the individual's needs by suggesting ultimate fulfilment in public usefulness?

Cheers,

Operacast

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

All of the above!

The philosopher should be useful to the public structure if he wishes his work to be considered and preserved. That kinda goes without saying.

Chris

 

[Operacast]

I'm most interested of all in this specific philosopher and the three statements at the top of the lineup -- the statements that come from the earliest source. Beyond perceiving many different things being addressed in individual statements, I'm most interested in what I perceive as a distinct change in emphasis going from [1] to [3]. Putting aside the six statements that follow them, just look at these three for a second:

[1] "Chastity and other such ordinances are laid down by clever weaklings; gifts of gold and land, the pleasure of invitations to dinner, are devised by indigent people with stomachs lean with hunger.

[2] "The building of temples, houses for water-supply, tanks, wells, resting places, and the like, please only travelers, not others."

[3] "The wise should enjoy the pleasures of this world through the proper visible means of agriculture, keeping cattle, trade, political administration, etc."

In the first statement [1], we see the writer -- among other things -- apparently criticising (I believe?) the notion of feeding the hungry, then [2] moving on to imply that sheltering the weary traveler is not really a useful effort -- and then [3] abruptly citing the benefits of agriculture, politics, etc., as ways of having fulfilment.

I have to say, in terms of public usefulness, I seem to see an abrupt change in stance going into [3] after the general tone of [1] and [2].

I'm wondering what you and others see in this progression. Just bear in mind that the first three all come from the same earliest text and are part of the identical sequence (then the next three come from one very slightly later, and the last three from much later).

Please?

Thanks,

Operacast

 

[Operacast]

I'm most interested of all in this specific philosopher and the three statements at the top of the lineup -- the statements that come from the earliest source. Beyond perceiving many different things being addressed in individual statements, I'm most interested in what I perceive as a distinct change in emphasis going from [1] to [3]. Putting aside the six statements that follow them, just look at these three for a second:

[1] "Chastity and other such ordinances are laid down by clever weaklings; gifts of gold and land, the pleasure of invitations to dinner, are devised by indigent people with stomachs lean with hunger.

[2] "The building of temples, houses for water-supply, tanks, wells, resting places, and the like, please only travelers, not others."

[3] "The wise should enjoy the pleasures of this world through the proper visible means of agriculture, keeping cattle, trade, political administration, etc."

In the first statement [1], we see the writer -- among other things -- apparently criticising (I believe?) the notion of feeding the hungry, then [2] moving on to imply that sheltering the weary traveler is not really a useful effort -- and then [3] abruptly citing the benefits of agriculture, politics, etc., as ways of having fulfilment.

I have to say, in terms of public usefulness, I seem to see an abrupt change in stance going into [3] after the general tone of [1] and [2].

I'm wondering what you and others see in this progression. Just bear in mind that the first three all come from the same earliest text and are part of the identical sequence (then the next three come from one very slightly later, and the last three from much later).

Please?

Thanks,

Operacast

Still continuing to "noodle" this on my own -- incorrigibly, I guess. I've just recently started to wonder if perhaps [1] could be partly a tacit expression of admiration for the "indigent" having (apparently) effected a custom (of that ancient time) of dinner invites through their lucky resourcefulness rather than a blanket disapproval of feeding the indigent in the first place(?).

As I say, incorrigibly,

Operacast

 

[Operacast]

Still continuing to "noodle" this on my own -- incorrigibly, I guess. I've just recently started to wonder if perhaps [1] could be partly a tacit expression of admiration for the "indigent" having (apparently) effected a custom (of that ancient time) of dinner invites through their lucky resourcefulness rather than a blanket disapproval of feeding the indigent in the first place(?).

As I say, incorrigibly,

Operacast

I finally consulted with a New York Public Library specialist/scholar on this entire passage in the Samkara summary, and the hungry are definitely being dismissed here as a pointless consideration, rendering the notion of general feasts for the less well fed a definite waste of valuable time, in the writer's opinion.

More to come.

Best,

Operacast

 

[Operacast]

I'm most interested of all in this specific philosopher and the three statements at the top of the lineup -- the statements that come from the earliest source. Beyond perceiving many different things being addressed in individual statements, I'm most interested in what I perceive as a distinct change in emphasis going from [1] to [3]. Putting aside the six statements that follow them, just look at these three for a second:

[1] "Chastity and other such ordinances are laid down by clever weaklings; gifts of gold and land, the pleasure of invitations to dinner, are devised by indigent people with stomachs lean with hunger.

[2] "The building of temples, houses for water-supply, tanks, wells, resting places, and the like, please only travelers, not others."

[3] "The wise should enjoy the pleasures of this world through the proper visible means of agriculture, keeping cattle, trade, political administration, etc."

The same NYPL specialist I consulted suggested an even more precise translation of #3:

"The wise should enjoy the pleasures of this world through the more appropriate available means of agriculture, tending cattle, trade, political administratrion, etc."

In the first statement [1], we see the writer -- among other things -- apparently criticising (I believe?) the notion of feeding the hungry,

Yes, says the specialist.

then [2] moving on to imply that sheltering the weary traveler is not really a useful effort

Again, yes.

-- and then [3] abruptly citing the benefits of agriculture, politics, etc., as ways of having fulfilment.

Well, as appropriate behavior, to be more specific.

I have to say, in terms of public usefulness, I seem to see an abrupt change in stance going into [3] after the general tone of [1] and [2].

I'm wondering what you and others see in this progression. Just bear in mind that the first three all come from the same earliest text and are part of the identical sequence (then the next three come from one very slightly later, and the last three from much later).

And in connection with that, the second one, which is practically contemporaneous with the first, means -- in its statement about "the desired" -- the "enjoyable", not something else like the "admirable" or the "praiseworthy" (which would have made the meaning very different!). Since the second one is therefore speaking of the "enjoyable", both the first and second summation come off as strikingly more prudent than the third, with its reckless talk of going into debt. That and the fact that the third is also the latest one of the three make me less inclined now to read it as closely as the others or to trust it as a worthwhile guide to this very pragmatic doctrine.

Best,

Operacast

 

[Operacast]

It makes perfect sense OC. In all the scriptures and expressions of spirituality the one thing most often missing is the address of personal fulfillment. The history of religion is one of suppression of individuality in the service of the state or other power structure. One finds this in Taoism and Confucianism as well as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity. Texts such as these have no value in service to the power structure, but hint at a larger truth found in bits in Epicurean and other thought venues: that the real path to enlightenment for the individual in terms of his real interests lies in the embracing of the mundane pleasures of life, not in asceticism or the sacrifice of one's self to the larger mechanism.

Chris

Sentiments like these (from the very earliest extant text of direct quotes of this ancient thinker) --

"The pleasure of invitations to dinner are devised by indigent people with stomachs lean with hunger.

"The building of temples, houses for water-supply, tanks, wells, resting places, and the like, please only travelers, not others."

-- don't leave you a bit uneasy? They don't really propel the fulfillment of the individual's enjoyment of mundane pleasures, but rather the deliberate neglect of the needy, no?

Sincerely,

Operacast

 

[bob x]

Or it could be taken as a Confucian-like concern for how the entirety of society is impacted: that is, the wise one should act for the benefit of all as in #3, while being wary of "welfare-state" actions like #1 that may just create unhealthy dependencies and sloth.

 

[Operacast]

Or it could be taken as a Confucian-like concern for how the entirety of society is impacted: that is, the wise one should act for the benefit of all as in #3, while being wary of "welfare-state" actions like #1 that may just create unhealthy dependencies and sloth.

I thought of that, so I applied to two or three Sanskrit specialists, including the leading Sanskrit specialist at the New York Public Library. The translation of #3 that I was using actually soft-pedaled the extreme self-orientation of the sentiment. You already see above the idiomatic translation that the NYPL specialist gave me. In addition, though, to my considerable chagrin, the specialist took me through the original of #3 in its literal form as well:

The unidiomatic but even more literal word-for-word meaning of #3 reads "The wise one should pleasure for oneself in the world's appropriate visible means of agriculture, keeping cattle, trade, political administration, etc."

Questionable English, true, but perhaps -- since it comes as a conclusion to #s 1 & 2 -- this may be questionable ethics too?...........

Best,

Operacast