[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Lots of hogwash!NOT!!!!!!
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu,soc.culture.indian,uk.religion.hindu
Subject: Re: Lots of hogwash!NOT!!!!!!
References: <4kks8b$kam@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <4kt6sd$jdb@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
<ghenDrEv6K.Bx7@netcom.com>
X-Url: http://www.rit.edu/~mrreee/dvaita.html
nnyxsi@ny.ubs.com (Kunal Singh) wrote:
> In article <ghenDr9H1z.IwH@netcom.com> shrao@nyx.net (Shrisha Rao) writes:
> In addition to that, how is it known that the world of experience is
> an illusion? Illusion is known only with reference to a higher
> reality. But once experience itself is denigrated wholesale, where is
> the higher reality that can show it to be illusion? Thus, experience
> does not prove illusion.
>
> The answer to the definition behind the world illusion lies in your
> own statement. That it is the "world of experience." The term
> illusion should not be taken to mean that it is unimportant, it means
> that the perceived world is relative to the experience of an
> individual's consciousness. Experience does indeed prove the illusory
> charactersitics of the world, as limits of perception, and of reason
> all prove the relative nature of the percieved universe.
To define illusion as "the world of experience" is ludicrous, to say the
least -- *everything* then becomes illusory for being part of "the world
of experience," and the intuitive split between reality and illusion is not
reflected by the definition since all is illusory. In fact, since the only
real entities are things *not* of experience, such things as a rabbit's
horn, a childless-woman's son, etc., which are never experienced, must be
real, for being outside the world of experience -- under the circumstances,
many would say that you have switched the concepts of real and illusory
completely around. If you say that all things of experience are illusory,
and some things such as a rabbit's horn, which are not experienced, are also
so, then your initial definition was flawed because it failed to cover all
cases of illusion -- and besides, an ad hoc modification of it would be held
inadmissible in any event. Also, even granting that such is the definition,
for better or for worse, it does not make sense to say that experience
proves illusion -- if illusion is *defined* to be the experienced, then that
is tantamount to saying that experience proves the experienced -- which is
quite right, but is also quite unhelpful in proving illusion.
> Can illusion be inferred? All inference is of the form "if A, then B."
> Now, no illusion-proving inference can exist that considers its
> antecedent itself to be illusory. If we have "if A, then the world is
> illusory," then A cannot itself be a statement of illusion (because
> such is being proved and is not yet known) and must be a statement of
> reality -- which means that the illusion-inference itself needs an a
> priori acceptance of reality. Besides, how is the inference rule
> itself known? The rule itself cannot be from illusory
> experience. Thus, illusion is not known from inference either.
>
> Let's not get into something as silly as inference to prove anything.
> I think you should keep your inference tookit in your toolbox before
> we start to chip away at your tool and prove inference to be relative
> to experience.
Come again, please? I didn't understand what exactly you're trying to say
here.
> For a last alternative, suppose you have a scripture that declares the
> world to be an illusion. Now, is that scripture real or not? If it is
> thought to be not real, i.e., as illusory, its interpretation strikes
> at the roots of its own validity. If the scripture itself is real, as
> it must be for it to be meaningful, then the interpretation cannot be
> right, and the world cannot be illusory.
>
> The scripture is indeed illusory as it is subject to interpretation.
Non sequitur. Where is the proof that anything subject to interpretation is
illusory?
> However, the scripture states that it is possible to go beyond the
> realm of illusion and perceive the reality.
Is this, too, subject to interpretation? If not, then your previous
statement is wrong, for there are statements in scripture not subject to
interpretation, and thus, scripture cannot be uniformly stated to be so. If
yes, then what scripture states is of no consequence, since it is inherently
subjective based upon interpretations of it -- I can interpret it
differently than you, and owing to its inherent subjective quality, your
interpretation has no sway over me since either is possible.
> So, it makes the illusory nature of the scripture irrelevant.
Non sequitur. See above.
> Whether you choose to believe or
> not believe in the scripture or its declaration is irrelevant, as
> neither disallows the possibility of the possibility of achieving the
> absolute (the Brahman) through the relative (scripture). You have to
Now see, per your own statement previously, scripture is subject to
interpretation. As such, I can only see *your* declaration that scripture
states something; scripture itself has no binding authority of itself.
> use the sense of discrimination to attain to the Brahman by ruling out
> all that is relative until you reach the absolute. That indeed seems
> like the way to go.
Perhaps it does, but one has to get rid of some of the logical absurdities
first.
> It is for reasons such as these that Madhva emphatically declares that
> the universe is not illusory: `tatra pramaaNaabhaavaat.h' -- because
> there isn't, and cannot be, any proof of illusion. All three types of
> pramaaNa -- `pratyaksha' (experience), `anumaana' (inference) and
> aagama (scripture) fail to show illusion because of the inherent
> self-contradictions in any attempt at so showing. To accept something
> that cannot be upheld by any evidence plays hell with the very
> concepts of reality and illusion, and one might as well accept that
> such non-entities as a rabbit's horn, a childless-woman's-son, etc.,
> are also real.
>
> The "perceived universe" is indeed illusory. That is not to say that
> there are no absolute principles within the universe, but they cannot
> be perceived by the senses. And it can indeed be proven, even by
> something as fallible as reason, that perception is relative.
> Illusory means relativity. And that is indeed supported by
> conflicting experience of the same phenomenon.
If `illusory' means `relative', as you suggest above, and if reason (a.k.a.
inference) can prove that "perception is relative," thus proving it to be
illusory, then you have contradicted yourself, for you earlier said, and I
quote, "Let's not get into something as silly as inference to prove
anything." As such, the flawed nature of your inference is accepted by you a
priori.
Besides, if it is the case that there are absolute principles "within the
universe," but they cannot be perceived by the senses, then one might as
well say there are rabbits' horns which cannot be perceived by the senses.
There is no difference at all in the claims. Besides, to say that one knows
that there are absolute principles, and to also say that one has no
experience of any such, is obviously self-contradictory.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
