Friday, March 19, 2010

Is Tradition an Anthropological Specialty?


Tradition constitutes Whom? Is It An Anthropological specialty?

Just have a look on one of the oldest records from human civilization: I have posted in these blogs all available translations.

Rig Veda (10,129) "nAsadIya sukta

nAsadAsInno sadAsIttadAnIm |
nAsIdrajo no paro yat vyomA |
kimAvarIvaH kuhakasya sharmann |
aMbhaH kimAsIdgahanaM gabhIram | | 1 | |

Vivekananda:
Existence was not then, nor non-existence,
the world was not, beyond the sky was neither.
What the mist covered? Of Whom was that?
What was in the depths of darkness thick ?

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=353619293730

Beginning, from there has been an eternal tradition the Perennis can we limit it to anthropomorphism?
A link  to discussion http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=322600307846&ref=mf 
43 minutes ago · Delete post

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Guenon's Conviction to Tradition

Sati Shankar
The Perennis we are seeking, assimilates all, religions came later like Gods, I wonder why Rene Guenon changed to Islam, (like usual conversions from one camp to other) if he really trusted his own convictions to Tradition,for which he is known to be one of initiators, even it does not come to my mind I or AKC are hindu,or muslim or Christian or..., we are riding over undercurrent which pervades All.
Does it mean he compromised with his stands on Tradition, for which he has been adored?

Charles Salvo
I addressed that questions here: http://www.gornahoor.net/?p=262
Sati Shankar
@CS, beautiful, thanks for the link, can I quote a few lines it here?
Charles Salvo
Of course.

Sati Shankar
Quoted for convenience from @CS link above:

Guenon offers this explanation, apparently in light of his own seeming exterior conversion: “those who, for reasons of an esoteric an initiatic order, adopt a traditional form different form that to which they would seem to be linked by their origin [do this] either because their native tradition provides them with not possibility of an esoteric order, or because their chose tradition give them a foundation that is more appropriate to their nature, and consequently more favorable to their spiritual work.”

“Contrary to what takes place in ‘conversion’, nothing here implies the attribution of the superiority of one traditional form over another. It is merely a question of what one might call reasons of spiritual expediency, which is altogether different from simple individual ‘preference’.”

So we see that for the elite, it is the intellectual conversion that is important. The outer form is secondary. Therefore, the various attempts to recover lost forms for their own sake or to critique living forms based solely on their exteriority are misguided. The criteria are these:

Is the form rich and varied enough to incorporate true metaphysical teachings?
Is the exterior form able to capture the allegiance of the general population, given their various capacities to understand?
Does the exterior form provide a safe haven within which the elite can accomplish their tasks?

Ismail Radpour
When some perennialists such as Schuon or Guenon encounter impossoblity of esoterism in Christianity, they decide to choose either Sufism and Islam or Vedanta and Hinduism as the first and the last religions. But it is not possible to convert into Hinduism, for a Hindu should be born Hindu. Then they choose Islam and initiate into Sufism.
40 minutes ago ·

Sati Shankar
I think there is a little to add , there is no concept of conversion in Sanatan Dharma, which later named as Hinduism, Here almost every one , I stress, every one, every living being, not only Homo sapiens, is part of Sanatan, the eternality in cosmos, even if he is an atheist or follower of any sect or path, that is why it includes all and for the same reason the term "conversion"never existed in Sanatan .The Sophia Perennis pervades almost all.
The misleading term Hinduism was introduces very very late,during last millennium, while recorded evidence on Sanatan Dharma are available since arounf5000 to 6000 BC.
Even majority of Hindued do not know this drama of super grafting of term and keep on fighting and defending thoose facts whic did never have a genuine emergence.
Now you decide where did you find that to be a Hindu one has to be born in a Hindu family.

We view:
sarve bhavantu sukhinah sarve santu nirāmayā
sarve bhadrāṇi paśyantu mā kaścitdukhbhāgbhavet|

May all be happy! (sukhinah) May all be free from disabilities! (niraamayaah)
May all look (pashyantu)to the good of others! May none suffer from sorrow! (duhkha)

All means ALL without any reason.withour any calculation and without any politics.
21 minutes ago ·

Sati Shankar
Another issues which I wish we must address, whom constitutes the tradition? Is is an anthropological specialty?

Sati Shankar
Just have a look on one of the oldest record from human civilization:I have posted it on wall on this group with all available translations.

Rig Veda(10.129)" nAsadIya sUkta

nAsadAsInno sadAsIttadAnIm |
nAsIdrajo no vyomA paro yat |
kimAvarIvaH kuhakasya sharmann |
aMbhaH kimAsIdgahanaM gabhIram || 1 ||

Vivekananda:
Existence was not then, nor non-existence,
The world was not, the sky beyond was neither.
What covered the mist? Of whom was that?
What was in the depths of darkness thick?

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=353619293730

Beginning , from there has been an eternal tradition the Perennis can we limit it to anthropomorphism?

When viewed and understood, all the secondary..tertiary....factions start realizing their own place for themselves.

Sati Shankar
@IR esoterism in Christianity,
Impossibility of esoterism in Christianity, as you pointed out is the result of the controversy between St Augustine & Meister Eckhart, the later being in spiritual tradition but given the State and Church Powers, St. Augustine had heavier weight, and esoterism in Christianity got back seat. It has a recorded history...
I can quote a Dominican Priest who confesses that how he did not hear a singe word on Eckhart during his Christian priesthood in Dominica, despite the fact the Echkart him self belonged to the same place. The priest later took abode in Buddhism. So religious camps too, have been prone to powers and implications thereof.

Monday, March 15, 2010

Unity in Diversity: Rig Veda(10.129)" nAsadIya sUkta (7)

Unity in Diversity in SanAtana is grounded in the Rig Veda, It may well have originated in the charming humility of the Nasadiya verse :Rig Veda(10.129)
“[In the beginning] there was neither being nor non-being … [but] who really knows? … [for] the gods came afterwards.” This questioning attitude, might also have led to the invention of a god whose name was the interrogative pronoun, [ka.] For the creator once asked Indra, “Who am I?” Indra replied, “Just what you said: Who.” And this is how the creator got the name, Ka or Who.
In all humility, and with due reverence to all the sages and scholars who have interpreted the famous 'nAsadIya sUkta', I have attempted a compilation of some interpretations of the SUkta, adding my own thoughts to the discussions.
It is intended to lay a basis for further meditation on it.All the seven verses will be taken up one by one.To gain consensus on translation, many available ones are given.

Text Interpretations

iyaM visRuShTiryata AbabhUva | yadi vA dadhe yadi vA na |
yo asyAdhyakShaH parame vyomann | so aMga veda yadi vA na veda || 7 ||

Vivekananda:
This projection whence arose,
Whether held or whether not,
He the ruler in the supreme sky, of this
He, O Sharman! knows, or knows not He perchance!

Krishnananda:
Whence all creation had its origin,
he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
he, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows - or maybe even he does not know.

Wilson, HH:
He from whom this creation arose,
he may uphold it, or he may not (no one else can);
he who is superintendent in the highest heaven,
he assuredly knows, or if he knows not (no one else does).

Max Mueller:
He from whom this creation arose,
whether he made it or did not make it,
the highest seer in the highest heaven,
he forsooth knows, or does even he not know?

Raimundo Panikkar
That out of which creation has arisen,
whether it held it firm or it did not,
He who surveys it in the highest heaven,
He surely knows - or maybe He does not!

-Translation by Prof. Raimundo Panikkar (Ref. 3, pp 58)
Prof. Raimundo Panikkar, "The Vedic Experience- Mantra-manjari" Pub. by Motilal Banarasidas

dadha - preserve, maintain, uphold; adhyakSha - exercising supervision, superintendent; vyoman - space, sky, ether, heaven; aMga/anga - well, indeed! veda - knows.

Unity in Diversity: Rig Veda(10.129)" nAsadIya sUkta (6)

Unity in Diversity in SanAtana is grounded in the Rig Veda, It may well have originated in the charming humility of the Nasadiya verse :Rig Veda(10.129)
“[In the beginning] there was neither being nor non-being … [but] who really knows? … [for] the gods came afterwards.” This questioning attitude, might also have led to the invention of a god whose name was the interrogative pronoun, [ka.] For the creator once asked Indra, “Who am I?” Indra replied, “Just what you said: Who.” And this is how the creator got the name, Ka or Who.
In all humility, and with due reverence to all the sages and scholars who have interpreted the famous 'nAsadIya sUkta', I have attempted a compilation of some interpretations of the SUkta, adding my own thoughts to the discussions.
It is intended to lay a basis for further meditation on it.All the seven verses will be taken up one by one.
To gain consensus on translation, many available ones are given.

Text Interpretations
ko addhA veda ka iha pravochat | kut AjAtA kut iyaM visRuShTiH |
arvAgdevA asya visarjanAya | athA ko veda yata AbabhUva || 6 ||

Vivekananda:
Who knew the way? Who there declared
Whence this arose? Projection whence?
For after this projection came the gods.
Who therefore knew indeed, came out this whence?

Krishnananda:
But, after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
the gods themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?

Wilson, HH:
Who really knows? Who in this world may declare it!
whence was this creation, whence was it engendered?
The gods (were) subsequent to the (world's) creation;
so who knows whence it arose?

Max Mueller:
Who then knows, who has declared it here,
from whence was born this Creation?
The gods came later than this creation,
who then knows whence it arose?

Raimundo Panikkar
Who really knows? Who can presume to tell it?
Whence was it born? Whence issued this creation?
Even the Gods came after its emergence.
Then who can tell from whence it came to be?

addhA - certainly, truly, manifestly; pravacha - declare, announce, expose; AjAta - born; visRuShTi - creation, production (secondary creation in Puranas); arvAk - behind in time or space; devaH - gods, the Devas; visarjana - creating (RV), sending forth, dismissal;

Sunday, March 14, 2010

Unity in Diversity: Rig Veda(10.129)" nAsadIya sUkta (5)

Unity in Diversity in SanAtana is grounded in the Rig Veda, It may well have originated in the charming humility of the Nasadiya verse :Rig Veda(10.129)

“[In the beginning] there was neither being nor non-being … [but] who really knows? … [for] the gods came afterwards.” This questioning attitude, might also have led to the invention of a god whose name was the interrogative pronoun, [ka.] For the creator once asked Indra, “Who am I?” Indra replied, “Just what you said: Who.” And this is how the creator got the name, Ka or Who.
In all humility, and with due reverence to all the sages and scholars who have interpreted the famous 'nAsadIya sUkta', I have attempted a compilation of some interpretations of the SUkta, adding my own thoughts to the discussions.It is intended to lay a basis for further meditation on it.All the seven verses will be taken up one by one.To gain consensus on translation, many available ones are given.

Text Interpretations

tirashchIno vitato rashmireShAmadhaH | svidAsI duparisvidAsI |
retodhA AsanmahimAn Asanna | svadho avastAt prayatiH parastAt || 5 ||

Vivekananda:
Creative then became the glory,
With self-sustaining principle below.
And Creative Energy above.

Krishnananda:
And they have stretched their cord across the void,
and know what was above, and what below.
Seminal powers made fertile mighty forces.
Below was strength, and over it was impulse.

Wilson, HH:
Their ray was stretched out, whether across,
or below, or above;
(some) were shedders of seed, (others) were mighty;
food was inferior, the eater was superior.

Max Mueller:
Their ray which was stretched across,
was it below or was it above?
There were seed bearers,
there were powers, self-power below, and will above.
Raimundo Panikkar
A crosswise line cut Being from Nonbeing.
What was described above it, what below?
Bearers of seed there were and mighty forces,
thrust from below and forward move above.

tiras - across, apart; vitata - spreading, extending; rashmi - a string or cord, a beam or ray of light; and 'reSha' is 'to howl, yell'; adhas - there, in that (remote) place'; svid - whether, or; upari - upward; AsIt - it was'.

My thoughts: 'tiras' is 'across, apart', 'vitata' is 'spreading, extending', 'rashmi' is 'a string or cord, a beam or ray of light' and 'reSha' is 'to howl, yell'. As the rays of 'kAma' spread in all directions, further creation happened by insemination, signifying the advent of duality.

Saturday, March 13, 2010

Unity in Diversity: Rig Veda(10.129)" nAsadIya sUkta (4)

Unity in Diversity in SanAtana is grounded in the Rig Veda, It may well have originated in the charming humility of the Nasadiya verse :Rig Veda(10.129)
“[In the beginning] there was neither being nor non-being … [but] who really knows? … [for] the gods came afterwards.” This questioning attitude, might also have led to the invention of a god whose name was the interrogative pronoun, [ka.] For the creator once asked Indra, “Who am I?” Indra replied, “Just what you said: Who.” And this is how the creator got the name, Ka or Who.
In all humility, and with due reverence to all the sages and scholars who have interpreted the famous 'nAsadIya sUkta', I have attempted a compilation of some interpretations of the SUkta, adding my own thoughts to the discussions.
It is intended to lay a basis for further meditation on it.All the seven verses will be taken up one by one.
To gain consensus on translation, many available ones are given.

Text Interpretations

kAmastadagre samavartatAdhi | manaso retaH prathamaM yadAsIt |
sato bandhumasati niravindanna | hRudi pratIShyA kavayo manIShA || 4 ||

Vivekananda:
First desire rose, the primal seed of mind,
(The sages have seen all this in their hearts
Sifting existence from non-existence.)
Its rays above, below and sideways spread.

Krishnananda:
In the beginning desire descended on it -
that was the primal seed, born of the mind.
The sages who have searched their hearts with wisdom
know that which is is kin to that which is not

Wilson, HH:
In the beginning there was desire,
which was the first seed of mind;
sages having meditated in their hearts have discovered by their wisdom,
the connexion of the existent with the non-existent.

Max Mueller:
Love overcame it in the beginning,
which was the seed springing from mind,
poets having searched in their heart found by wisdom,
the bond of what is in and what is not.

Raimundo Panikkar
In the beginning Love arose,
which was primal germ cell of mind.
The Seers, searching in their hearts with wisdom,
discovered the connection of Being in Nonbeing.

Unity in Diversity: Rig Veda(10.129)" nAsadIya sUkta (3)

Unity in Diversity in SanAtana is grounded in the Rig Veda, It may well have originated in the charming humility of the Nasadiya verse :Rig Veda(10.129)
“[In the beginning] there was neither being nor non-being … [but] who really knows? … [for] the gods came afterwards.” This questioning attitude, might also have led to the invention of a god whose name was the interrogative pronoun, [ka.] For the creator once asked Indra, “Who am I?” Indra replied, “Just what you said: Who.” And this is how the creator got the name, Ka or Who.
In all humility, and with due reverence to all the sages and scholars who have interpreted the famous 'nAsadIya sUkta', I have attempted a compilation of some interpretations of the SUkta, adding my own thoughts to the discussions.
It is intended to lay a basis for further meditation on it.All the seven verses will be taken up one by one.
To gain consensus on translation, many available ones are given.

Text Interpretations

tama AsIttamasA gUhLamagre praketaM | salilaM sarvamAidam |
tuchChenAbhvapihitaM yadAsIt | tamasastanmahinA jAyataikam || 3 ||

Vivekananda:
At first in darkness hidden darkness lay,
Undistinguished as one mass of water,
Then That which lay in void thus covered
A glory did put forth by Tapah!

Krishnananda:
At first there was only darkness wrapped in darkness.
All this was only unillumined water.
That One which came to be, enclosed in nothing,
arose at last, born of the power of heat.

Wilson, HH:
There was darkness covered by darkness in the beginning,
all this (world) undistinguishable water;
that empty united (world) which was covered by a mere nothing,
was produced through the power of austerity.

Max Mueller:
Darkness there was, in the beginning;
all this was a sea without light;
the germ that lay covered by the husk,
that One was born by the power of heat (tapas).

Raimundo Panikkar
Darkness was there, all wrapped around by darkness,
and all was Water indiscriminate, Then
that which was hidden by Void, that One, emerging,
stirring, through power of Ardor, came to be.

The literal meaning is perhsps 'Darkness (tama) lay in darkness (tamasa) hidden (guha) at first (agre), (or so) it appeared (praketa).' All the four interpretations covey same meaning.

'salilaM' means 'water', 'sarvamAidam' is 'all, everywhere'. The interpretations correspond to each other.

tuchCha=void, empty, abhva=immense, monstrous, pihita=covered, concealed; Max Mueller takes 'tuch' for 'germ, offspring, children' and 'tuchCha' for 'husk'.

'tapasa' is 'heat' and 'stan' as 'crackle (as of fire)' corroborates it; 'mahina' means 'sovereignty, dominion' and 'mahIna' is 'earth-ruler'; 'jAyate' is 'born of' and 'aikam' is 'the One'. Thus, the personal god, the 'earth-ruler' was born of It by its own heat of 'tapas' caused by the earlier 'vibration' in verse 2.

Friday, March 12, 2010

Unity in Diversity: Rig Veda(10.129)" nAsadIya sUkta (2)

Unity in Diversity in SanAtana is grounded in the Rig Veda, It may well have originated in the charming humility of the Nasadiya verse :Rig Veda(10.129)
“[In the beginning] there was neither being nor non-being … [but] who really knows? … [for] the gods came afterwards.” This questioning attitude,might also have led to the invention of a god whose name was the interrogative pronoun, [ka.] For the creator once asked Indra, “Who am I?” Indra replied, “Just what you said: Who.” And this is how the creator got the name, Ka or Who.
In all humility, and with due reverence to all the sages and scholars who have interpreted the famous 'nAsadIya sUkta', I have attempted a compilation of some interpretations of the SUkta, adding my own thoughts to the discussions.
It is intended to lay a basis for further meditation on it.All the seven verses will be taken up one by one.
To gain consensus on translation, many available ones are given.


Unity in Diversity: Rig Veda(10.129)" nAsadIya sUkta (2)

Text Interpretations

na mRutyurAsIdamRutaM na tarhi | na rAtryA ahna AsItpraketaH |
AnIdavAtaM svadhayA tadekaM | tasmAddhAnyannaparaH ki~jchanAsa || 2 ||

Vivekananda:
Death was not then, nor immortality,
The night was neither separate from day,
But motionless did That vibrate
Alone, with Its own glory one-—Beyond That nothing did exist.

Krishnananda:
Then there was neither death nor immortality
nor was there then the torch of night and day.
The One breathed windlessly and self-sustaining.
There was that One then, and there was no other.

Wilson, HH:
Death was not nor at that period immortality,
there was no indication of day or night;
That One unbreathed upon breathed of his own strength,
other than That there was nothing whatever.

Max Mueller:
There was no death, hence was there nothing immortal.
There was no light (distinction) between night and day.
That One breathed by itself without breath,
other than it there has been nothing.

Raimundo Panikkar
There was no death then, nor yet deathlessness;
of night or day there was not any sign.
The One breathed without breath by its own impulse.
Other than that was nothing at all.


mRutyu - death; AsIda - come to; tarhi - at that time, then, if then, in that case, if so, because of that, so (therefore);
AnAhaH - binding, swelling; Anila - proceeding from or produced by wind; svadhaya - according to one's habit or pleasure, spontaneously, freely, willingly; tad - that; ekam - one.
tasmAt - therefore, from that, on that account; anya - another, other than that, opposed to; para - supreme, highest, best or worst, previous or following; chanas - delight, satisfaction; to delight in, enjoy, be satisfied with.

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Unity in Diversity: Rig Veda(10.129)" nAsadIya sUkta

Unity in Diversity in SanAtana is grounded in the Rig Veda, It may well have originated in the charming humility of the Nasadiya verse :Rig Veda(10.129)
“[In the beginning] there was neither being nor non-being … [but] who really knows? … [for] the gods came afterwards.” This questioning attitude, might also have led to the invention of a god whose name was the interrogative pronoun, [ka.] For the creator once asked Indra, “Who am I?” Indra replied, “Just what you said: Who.” And this is how the creator got the name, Ka or Who.
In all humility, and with due reverence to all the sages and scholars who have interpreted the famous 'nAsadIya sUkta', I have attempted a compilation of some interpretations of the SUkta, adding my own thoughts to the discussions.
It is intended to lay a basis for further meditation on it.All the seven verses will be taken up one by one.
To gain consensus on translation, many available ones are given.

Text Interpretations


nAsadAsInno sadAsIttadAnIm | nAsIdrajo no vyomA paro yat |
kimAvarIvaH kuhakasya sharmann | aMbhaH kimAsIdgahanaM gabhIram || 1 ||


Vivekananda:
Existence was not then, nor non-existence,
The world was not, the sky beyond was neither.
What covered the mist? Of whom was that?
What was in the depths of darkness thick?

Krishnananda:
Then even nothingness was not, nor existence,
There was no air then, nor the heavens beyond it.
What covered it? Where was it? In whose keeping
Was there then cosmic water, in depths unfathomed?

Wilson, HH:
The non-existent was not, the existence was not;
then the world was not, not the firmament, nor that which is above (the firmament).
How could there be any investing envelope, and where?
Of what (could there be) felicity? How (could there be) the deep unfathomable water?

Max Mueller:
There was then neither what is nor what is not,
there was no sky, nor the heaven which is beyond.
What covered? Where was it, and in whose shelter?
Was the water the deep abyss (in which it lay)?

Wendy Doniger O'Flaherty:
There was neither non-existence nor existence then.
There was neither the realm of space nor the sky which is beyond.
What stirred? Where? In whose protection?
Was there water, bottlemlessly deep?

Raimundo Panikkar:
At first was neither Being nor Nonbeing.
There was not air nor yet sky beyond.
What was wrapping? Where? In whose protection?
Was Water there, unfathomable deep?

nAsad = na + asat - non-existence; AsIn - sitting; tadAnIm - then, at that time.
nAsI drajo = na + AsId + rajas; rajas - atmosphere, air, firmament; vyoman - sky, air, ether, heaven.
AvaraNa - cover; kuha - where? (MVD), a rogue, cheat; kuhA - fog, mist, kuhAvRuta - foggy; sharman - shelter, refuge; happiness, comfort, joy;
ambhas - celestial waters; gahana - an abyss, depth, impenetrable darkness; gabhIram - not to be penetrated or investigated or explored; uninterrupted (time); deepsounding, hollow-toned.

Saturday, March 6, 2010

Some thoughts on "Self" & "Compassion"

Some Conversations on Facebook
Sati Shankar Compassion is the footing which comes only when we realise, whatever we call, the Buddha, the "Self", or whatever one name it....which pervades in ALL and every one, the same Self.This brings Equality in Vision, and we become Samdarshi.
Then we realise what we feel,suffer or face is same for others also and Compassion is seeded in our thought and behaviour.
about an hour ago ·

David Holmes Compassion, Yes, but Self in the universal sense in not BuddhaDhamma. What is based on self cannot be married into the family of non-self.
You cannot absorb Buddhism into Hinduism.

Sati Shankar I understand the riddle between the two.And working in the line Coomaraswamy enlightened. As summarily but brilliantly presented by AKC in his "Hinduism and Buddhism". Buddhism doesn't reject the idea of a "Self" but only denies that our smaller self, our ego, is a real essence with unity and transcendence.
This is one of the most common misunderstandings about Buddhism. *Anatta* (Sanskr. *anatman*), no-self, is exclusively used in reference to elements of psycho-physical vehicle, the *skandhas*, aggregates (“All these aggregates are anicca, dukkha, and anatta.”).
The so-called "Doctrine of Anatta" exists only in relation with the *skandhas*. It does not claim that no Self beyond the *skandhas* exists. In fact, the Buddha emphasizes the importance of the eternal element when he says:

"There is, O monks, an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. Were there not, o monks, this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, there would be no escape from the world of the born, originated, created, formed." (~ Udana, 80-81)

Modernist anti-soul doctrines are essentially nothing more than atheist propaganda by people who are afraid to deal with such "super-natural" elements of reality.

David Holmes I can see the cultural perspective which you refer to, but I would suggest your reading quite open-mindedly through the books In the BPS Wheel Series edited by Venerable Nyanaponika Maha Thera. [Buddhist Publication Society, Kandy, Sri Lanka]. Venmerable Nyanaponika had an overall vision of what should be published based on his thorough knowledge of the original Pali texts. He is the man to talk to, even if he is no longer with us. This is a great self-access learning process opportunity for you. Perhaps the one limitation you should sey yourself is that you read the text free of a cultural point of view and be totally objective about the words of the language

Sati Shankar I am noting down all your suggestions and hints. It is true that I am in learning process and try my best to keep myself open minded.
Though my own bringing up has been in the same geographical and cultural setup whrere Buddhism Originated,
Please keep your suggestions and pointers flowing towards me

David Holmes I also recommend Prof. G.P Malalasekera to you. With the questions you put, you should consult scholars much more knowledgable than me. Come and see.

Sati Shankar Infact, it is going to keep me busy fo rthe rest of my life, It is a journey I started when I was 14,when first found Coomaraswamy,completely independently,mostly self guided and guided by books in libraries.