Guest guest Posted April 16, 2001 Report Share Posted April 16, 2001 Miguel-Angel said "I must say that I feel very uncomfortable with the notion of "revealed truth". From the context you seem to imply that while Western philosophy is of human origin, Advaita is of divine origin. I can't take this." Sorry, Miguel, I did not mean revealed in the sense of apaurushheya, though I admit this is a fairly obvious reading. What I meant was revealed by having become enlightened. Once moksha has been obtained, the understanding of the nature of things is direct rather than intellectually derived. Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2001 Report Share Posted April 16, 2001 Hi Dennis, Yes, I agree, with your assessment of these monisms. They didn't mean to say so much that the table *is* water. Rather, as you say, water can be the single explanatory substance for the table and the rest of the world. Actually you are not naive at all in Western philosophy. You are quite acute, and in terms of your interests *and* abilities, I'd say you are a crypto-philosopher yourself. I mean that as a compliment, not an insult!!!! :-) Another thing about monisms is that according to them, things are one. So there's no free will at the same level at which the water or air exists, plus no reincarnation, no jiva, etc. No paycheck or TV show, either. But, among the philosophies that unify, how many go beyond the One that they pivot the whole world on? How many say, "it's all water, but even that is too much"? Harih Om! --Greg At 03:11 PM 4/16/01 +0100, Dennis Waite wrote: >>>> Hi Greg, I think we should probably stop there! My questions were based only upon your original brief descriptions of the various categories of idealism etc., not upon any specific author (because I haven't really read any apart from some of the 'Three Dialogues' of Berkeley that you once recommended). I was interested only in what made sense (to me) in what you had said, not in what any given philosopher meant by his particular brand of idealism/monism. It seemed that some of the explanations that you gave were contradictory or insufficiently clear. However, I accept your point that specific questions can only be elucidated in respect of a specific philosopher. I suppose I am being incredibly naïve in Western Philosophical terms. It just seemed that, in essence, all these apparently different philosophies (monisms and Absolute Idealisms) were claiming the same thing - namely that everything is One. The fact that Anaximenes might have believed this One was air, while Heraclitus thought it was fire and Hegel thought it was mind (?), seems irrelevant. Presumably each thought that all apparent phenomena could be adequately explained in terms of their chosen One so what difference does it effectively make what you call it? I agree that there is a very significant difference between water and idea, from the standpoint of multiplicity, but there cannot be any distinction if there is only one (thing), can there? Sorry for waffling on after suggesting we stop! Regards, Dennis Greg Goode (e-mail: goode) Computer Support Phone: 4-5723 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.