Guest guest Posted July 6, 1999 Report Share Posted July 6, 1999 In the past few days I received some interesting views of many members. The most interesting one was this one and it may be of some interest to others on the list too: > >Dear Sriman Sudarshan : > >Adiyen saw your postings on LNKS and the following mail. >You have put ...what Thomas Kuhn argues in >his seminal book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions >(pages 14 and 15 and continued for a few pages >thereafter). I would like to quote the entire chapter but >the following may do : > >'... No natural history can be interpreted in the absence >of at least some implicit body of intertwined theoretical >and methodological belief that permits selection, >evaluation, and criticism. If that body of belief is not >already implicit in the collection of facts - in which >case more than "mere facts" are at hand -- it must be >externally supplied, perhaps by a current metaphysic, by >another science, or by personal and historical accident. >No wonder then, that in the early stages of the >development of any science different men confronting the >same range of phenomena, describe and interpret them in >different ways. What is surprising, and perhaps also >unique in its degree to the fields we call science, is >that such initial divergences should ever largely >disappear....' > > >In some respects, (with some reservation) this statement >can be applied to evolution of philosophy as well. I >think time and again, discussions on this list have >pondered over the differences in interpretations, >premises and axioms of different schools of thought. > Sudarshan ____ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 1999 Report Share Posted July 7, 1999 Dear Bhagavatas, NamO nArAyaNA. I would like to highlight and discuss the merits of the phrase "In the history of the evolution of ideas" used by Sri. Sudarshan in reference to Vedenta based philosophies. Please note the following: 1.These philosophies represent mutually exclusive expositions on the nature of reality. -Given that the philosophies are mutually exclusive, it is absurd to talk of evolution of ideas (there is no systematic refinement process) - Further, the nature of reality (or truth), by definition, is immutable. Thus, when you have two mutually exclusive expositions, one is true and the other is false; there is no middle ground. The idea of associating evolution to Vedanta based philosophies is absurd! adiyEn ramanuja dasan, Venkat krishNArpaNam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 1999 Report Share Posted July 7, 1999 > Dear Bhagavatas, > NamO nArAyaNA. > > I would like to highlight and discuss the merits of the phrase > "In the history of the evolution of ideas" used by Sri. Sudarshan in > reference to Vedenta based philosophies. > > Please note the following: > > 1.These philosophies represent mutually exclusive expositions on the > nature of reality. Are you saying that that Visishtadvaita, Advaita, and Dvaita have not mutually influenced one another? I don't think there can be any doubt that Visishtadvaita has taken ideas from Advaita and vice versa. In the old days, followers of these philosophies were not watertight "castes" like they are now. People speculated, thought, and talked amongst themselves. While I agree that a theory that thought has evolved along the lines of Advaita -> Visishtadvaita -> Dvaita (or anything similar) can hardly be historically justified, one has to admit that ideas have been shared between these traditions, and are not entirely "mutually exclusive", despite the protests of the "purists". Mani Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.