"eisegesis" == "upapatti" and "exegesis" == "anupapatti" ?

[Guest guest]

Just curious -

 

I have heard of sanskRt terms, "upa-patti" and "an-upa-patti".

 

Do "eisegesis" and "exegesis" described in the post below, possibly go

by "upa-patti" and "an-upa-patti" in sanskRt respectively ?

 

Could someone illustrate "eisegesis" and "exegesis" with examples?

 

Thanks

 

rAmAnuja-dAsan

//Ramkumar

 

 

bhakti-list, Martin Gansten <Martin.Gansten@t...> wrote:

> [...]

> One instance of this perspective is the scholarly [hyper]sensitivity

to

> eisegesis, that is, reading things *into* a text rather than *out of*

it

> (exegesis). Now, to some degree all theologians (of whatever

religion)

> always do this: it is in the nature of a systematic theology. But

when

> eisegesis is carried beyond a certain point, so that the general

tenor of

> the reading begins to differ significantly from that of the text

itself, I

> cannot help feeling that the text is being violated.

>

> In general, I find that Ramanuja's eisegesis, particularly of the

BhG,

> takes the form of exaggeration: overstating a tendency which is

already in

> the text. (For instance: the BhG clearly advocates karmayoga over

> jnanayoga. Ramanuja overstates this case to the point where jnanayoga

is

> said to be possible only for disincarnate beings!) With some other

acaryas,

> I find that the tendency is often to argue *against* the tenor of the

text,

> with 'ingenious usage of grammar', as pointed out by our Moderator.

> [...]

>

> Ramanuja Dasa,

> MG

 

 

 

Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax

http://taxes./