[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Becoming Hindu
"janahan (j.) skandaraniyam" <skandar@nortel.ca> wrote:
> Shrisha Rao wrote:
>
> > If an insane person's delusions need to be specially justified for
> > you, I wonder what worth to your world-view at all.
>
> How do you know the person is insane? You assume too much.
I assume nothing at all; the point being made did not refer to the
insanity or otherwise of a specific person, but was only something
referring to an example for argument's sake, a theoretical index
case. If I were to assert that a specific person was insane, then the
question of proof would arise.
> > The first is possible (and has already been dealt with in extensive
> > detail on the Dvaita list)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Oh, that explains it all. You wouldn't happen
> to be a member of ISKCON would you?
I don't know what that explains. No, I do not happen to be a member
of ISKCON; in fact, had I been such, the list would probably not exist.
> >and the second untrue.
>
> Nope. The second true.
And why, if one may ask?
> > By proving the existence of the referent of the vision, viz., Krishna,
> > in a rational process, and also proving by a rational process that the
> > someone has the characteristics of having had a vision, by a rational
> > process. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> These characteristics only appear on those that have intense
> visions, on those who are very spiritually advanced.
That's fine, but I fail to see how that constitutes a rebuttal. Which
is presumably what you were attempting.
> > >Do you think that the realization of Brahman can be "proved"
> > >using a "rational" process?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> Prove it to me.
Again, when I have not claimed that a certain specific individual has
such realization, the demand makes no sense. *If* I were to assert
that a certain specific person has realization of Brahman, then you
could ask, prove it. But I have not made such a claim with any
specific person.
If, on the other hand, it is your intention to ask that the very fact
that the realization of Brahman is provable by a rational process be
proved, then you are making a mistake. Note that I said that the
realization of Brahman is provable by a rational process, but not that
the fact that the realization of Brahman is provable by a rational
process, itself is provable by a rational process. There is a
significant epistemic difference, and you have no case for making such
a demand as a consequence of my statement. (If you manage to work
your way around this problem, I will give you such a rational process,
though. This is just to make sure that the game is fair.)
> > >Your statements are similar to the famous
> > >statement : "If there is a God, show him to me.".
> >
> > No.
>
> Yes.
The reason I said no, is that "if there is a God, show him to me"
makes several implicit, unsupportable intermediate assumptions, the
foremost among them being that anything that exists much be visible,
or show-able; i.e., that things not visible do not exist. However, I
have not at any point assumed that things not amenable to one's vision
have no existence; I have not assumed that all that exists must be
show-able; furthermore, there are no implicit arguments of any other
kind in my statements, on which ground you could assert such
similarity as you have claimed. Therefore, I said no.
On what basis would you say yes?
> > Your brand is one that involves such chimerisms as a "third eye,"
> > etc.
>
> When did I say that my brand involves the "third eye"? I get
That it so involves, is a consequence of your statement "the third eye
is a spiritual phenomenon" which clearly demonstrates that your
world-view of spirituality involves that particular entity.
> the feeling you do not know what I mean by the "third eye",
> it is not an extra eye, physical or anything else. It is
> the "Chakra" located between the eyebrows and referred
> to extensively in the Tantric scriptures.
That's fine. However, then you must bring up and justify the Tantric
scriptures, and prove that they accord with Vedanta (which is what
we're discussing here, not Tantra).
> > >>I am distinguishing between Vedanta and bunk, to be more precise.
> > >
> > >OK, explain to me why it is bunk?
>
> > Because, as I said, a "third eye" is like a rabbit's horn, and any
> > theory that rests on the fallacious assumption re the existence of the
> > one must be no different from a delusion re the latter.
>
> Oh boy, not your comparisons again. Haven't you read my other post yet.
Sorry, was away from the Net a while. But I have read and replied
recently, and that posting of mine should appear at around the same
time as this one.
> But again, we are comparing V's Vedanta. V's Vedanta to my knowledge
> makes no reference to the third eye. I'm talking about his
> Vedanta, not his writings on the various yogas etc. So, explain why
> V' Vedanta is bunk.(If you have read his Vedanta that is, not heard
> it from someone else.)
See, that's not acceptable. First you go ahead and make statements on
behalf of Vivekananda, in the sense that he had stuff "transmitted" to
him by a "realized" teacher (this in response to my pointing out that
Vivekananda did not have classical training); that "realization" (of
the type which he allegedly had) may be ascertained by the "third
eye," with no apparent recourse to any other source, etc. And now,
when cornered, you say I must answer based on what I have read, etc.,
rather than answer my points made in response to your previous
statements.
> > It is not obvious that spiritual development spans more than one
> > incarnation. That has to be proved also, as part of said development
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> Rationally I assume?
Of course; that goes without saying.
> > itself, and cannot be assumed a priori. Second, it is certainly
> > possible that medical knowledge can also be gained over more than one
> > lifetime. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Rationally prove the above to me!!
The possibility needs no proof. In fact, since you have previously
asserted that spiritual development, whose nature is, alas, as yet
undefined, spans more than one incarnation, you have opened the gate
to the question if other things might also so span. For one thing,
because spiritual development itself has not been defined by you, one
might wonder if medical knowledge is, or is part of, spiritual
development, and that might it thence also span more than one
incarnation? That is not a statement of fact, but only one of
possibility, or a question raised.
> > So would you accept a quack as a physician, who perhaps in
> > addition to what I'd said above, said he'd earned an M.D. in some
> > other lifetime?
>
> The fact that spiritual develpment "can" span a number of incarnations
> is shown in many scriptures.
Ah. Now we're getting places, at last. So, the fact that spiritual
development "can" (why the quotes?) span a number of incarnations is
shown by scripture, meaning that as a consequence (i) the
characteristics of scripture must be determined in some fashion (i.e.,
one must know what is scripture and what is not); (ii) scripture
itself must be proven, or else accepted as a priori evidence, with
some justification; and also, (iii) conflicting views and
interpretations of scripture must be considered at length, and settled
in favor of the case that you assert.
And all this, I submit, is precisely the function and business of
"classical" Vedanta, that you so disfavor.
> But on the note of someone needing a Phd, or some high qualification
> to speak on certain matters is, as you say, "rubbish". If you
> disagree, explain Einstein to me.
Note: I did not at any time assert that one needs a PhD to speak on
certain matters. The right of free speech is constitutionally
guaranteed in most parts of the world; one does not need anything to
speak about whatever one wishes to. There are some ethical, and legal
restrictions on this, such as the need to maintain decency and
truthfulness, preserve personal or national secrets, avoid hurt (vide
the famous statement by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Chief Justice of the
U.S. Supreme Court in the early years of this century, that the right
to free speech did not give one the right to falsely shout "fire" in a
crowded theater and cause a stampede), etc. But those things are
invariant across the cases of having or not having a PhD, and are thus
irrelevant with respect to it.
What I did say was that someone not having a PhD cannot pretend to
have one, and that is not changed. I also asked if you'd accept that
someone not having an M.D. was nonetheless qualified to practice
medicine on the same grounds as you accepted someone not having
classical training in Vedanta as being qualified in Vedanta. That,
too, is unchanged.
> > Does that mean you say he didn't?
>
> It means that I don't know if he did or didn't, otherwise why
> would I ask you if he did?
> Since you made the statement, you still have to answer,
> Did he say that?
As far as I know, yes.
> > No; that isn't what is irrelevant. What is irrelevant is your asking
> > "how do you know I am not classically qualified," etc.
>
> Yes, it is relevant. It tells me what type of a person you
> are. You have made many assumptions, e.g. Vivekananda's statements,
> etc.
Does one use two Latin expressions (particularly `exempli gratia' and
`et cetera' which are so closely related) in the same sentence? Never
seen that before. But that wanders. I have not assumed anything;
also, this matter about Vivekananda's statements is largely extraneous
to the main issue, inasmuch as none of the things I've said rests upon
the truth or otherwise of his having made such statements.
Anyway, I'll tell you where I got that from. Someone made a posting
to the Bhakti mailing list many months ago asserting that about
Vivekananda, and someone else brought that posting to my notice much
later and asked me for comments, because the substance of said posting
appeared to conflict with what I had said on the same subject. From
that posting, I gathered what I did.
> If you are a person who simply assumes everything, it tells me
> alot.
And if I am not such a person, what does "it" tell you?
> > A very wise policy, given the obvious absence of it.
>
> Not wise, but private.
I don't know what a private policy is, except perhaps in the context
of what kind of insurance policy a person may buy in a personal
capacity, in excess of any corporate or affiliated insurance she may
have due to employment or suchlike circumstances. That hardly seems
appropriate here, however.
> > In what way, exactly?
>
> That is what I made claims to and that is what started
> this thread.
"That" being?
> > Please define "Brahman," "spiritually complete," "liberated," and
> > "God." If you fail to give a proper definition, then your point, if
> > there is one, needs must be dismissed as rubbish.
>
> A very wise policy, given the obvious absence of an answer.
Try to be a little more original.
> Take your own definitions of Brahman, liberated, and God,
> and give me an answer.
With my own definitions, the answer is yes. My own definitions arise
from the first three Suutra-s of the Brahma-Suutra:
athAto brahma-jij~nAsA
Therefore, let us begin the study of Brahman.
This is the statement of purpose, that sets out the scope. And what
is Brahman?
janmAdyasya yataH
[Brahman is] He by whom birth, liberation, etc., take place.
That is, Brahman is the Creator, God, etc.
And how is such a Brahman to be known?
shAstrayonittvAt.h
[Knowledge of Brahman] arises from study of shaastra.
Therefore, by my own definitions, everything is as I stated them.
> > >What is the use of constant argument?
> >
> > Differentiation between right and wrong is the use.
>
> If you harp too much on what is right and what is not,
> you will end up nowhere.
If that is supposed to be a prediction, you will first have to qualify
as a soothsayer. If that is a conclusion, then you'll have to give
the argument that shows why.
> > >The purpose of Vedanta is to know Truth.
> >
> > Wherefrom did you come to the conclusion? My seventh ear hears
> > differently.
>
> I came to this conclusion from my eight ear. :-)
Very good. I was hoping you'd say something like that. That's
exactly what I was getting at before; if one asserts such
imponderables as a "third eye" to be manners of proof, then one
exposes oneself to such dead-end responses, and there canot be a
satisfactory conclusion.
> > >Once you do, what is there to argue about?
> >
> > Let's see. Given that you yourself have been arguing for a while now,
> > it must be that you have not known "Truth" yet
>
> Correct.
If that is correct, then how do you know what "Truth" is? You
necessarily must, for otherwise, you cannot have a comprehension of
what the purpose of Vedanta is, while you have asserted it to be
"Truth."
> >although you spoke of
> > your "third eye," etc., previously. Perhaps the "third eye" needs
> > specs?
>
> On the way to Truth, you come across various truths and things, and
> experiences. The "third eye" is one of these. But in no way does it
> mean that I have reached the end.
If you have not reached the end, then you cannot assert the first
sentence you wrote just above. Might it not be that on your way
*away* from Truth (i.e., while proceeding in a manner not suitable for
your quest) you come across these things?
> > I expressly said I was speaking of people I knew; I unfortunately
> > don't know any of the Shankaracharya-s, past or present, although I
> > fail to see how they would take you seriously for claiming a "third
> > eye."
>
> How about if we go and meet the four of them. It will
> be "ratinal" proof to you.
No, unfortunately it will not. But that's off-track.
> > Hmm... perhaps they'd change their minds if you showed them the
> > optician's prescription for it...
>
> Your continuous line of jests show only that you cannot
> argue with me, and you are looking for a way out of
> this argument.
There's a tad bit of presumptiveness there, I fear, matched step to
step by a lack of modesty.
> > Thanks. But I am no longer looking. I found what I was looking for
> > years ago.
>
> NO you haven't. You have been blinded by what you found years ago.
> People who say that they have found it when they haven't simply
> have the luxury of blind-faith, they don't even have two eyes.
And how's that any different from those who assert that they have come
across various "truths and things" such as the "third eye" on the way
to the "Truth"? What do they have the "luxury of," besides
"blind-faith"?
> PS. If you are going to reply again, reply with
> some solid answers , not with bunk similar to
> the above. Your above post was simply a run-around.
I'm sorry my previous post did not meet your exacting standards. One
can but try...
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
> J.
