Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 Krishna Prasad, in his interesting post on kutarka, tarka and vitarka, seemed to be diplomatically suggesting that I was talking a load of rubbish! I don't mind being so accused! It is certainly a problem to discuss many of these topics in a logical way but we cannot escape the fact that this is what we are attempting to do. This (correct me if I am wrong) is the purpose of the group. We are trying, through logical discussion, to reach some mutual understanding - the best these minds and intellects can do, *knowing all the time that we are certain to fail*. The alternative, it seems to me, would be simply to accept all that the shruti tell us, without question or even to ignore j~nana altogether and simply follow the karmakanda. But then there would not be much point in the Advaitin list would there? If there is some specific point where I have used kutarka and claimed it to be tarka, please enlighten me - I have no problem with this. Namaste, Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 Logic and intuition are often at opposite ends of the continuum, Dennis! | | Dennis Waite [dwaite] | Thursday, 14 June 2001 21:23 | Advaitin | kutarka implication | | | Krishna Prasad, in his interesting post on kutarka, tarka | and vitarka, | seemed to be diplomatically suggesting that I was talking a | load of rubbish! | I don't mind being so accused! It is certainly a problem to | discuss many of | these topics in a logical way but we cannot escape the fact | that this is | what we are attempting to do. This (correct me if I am | wrong) is the purpose | of the group. We are trying, through logical discussion, to | reach some | mutual understanding - the best these minds and intellects | can do, *knowing | all the time that we are certain to fail*. The alternative, | it seems to me, | would be simply to accept all that the shruti tell us, | without question or | even to ignore j~nana altogether and simply follow the | karmakanda. But then | there would not be much point in the Advaitin list would there? | | If there is some specific point where I have used kutarka | and claimed it to | be tarka, please enlighten me - I have no problem with this. | | Namaste, | | Dennis | | | Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of | nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. | Advaitin List Archives available at: | http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ | To Post a message send an email to : advaitin | Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages | | | | Your use of is subject to | | | Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 Dear Dennisji: As one of the moderator of this list, I want to assure you that none of the fellow moderators and the members who have acquaintance with you believe that your enquiry is genuine with good intentions. Honestly, when we post a message with the good intention to educate and clear our doubts, we should ignore unreasonable criticisms. At the same time, we should be humble enough to accept our shortcomings. Our advantage as a human being is that we all accept that we are limited and have life-time license to committ errors and omissions. Here is my understanding of the term, 'kutarka' which becomes 'kutarkam' in Tamil. When someone knowingly tries to discredit another person using inappropriate logic and or by attributing inappropriate interpretation. Mostly the kutarki (one who applies the kutarka) will change his/her logic quite often and quite untrustworthy. I was following these discussions closely and I am quite confident to say that your logic is only 'tarka' and never 'kutarka.' The list is quite fortunate and I am yet to see a 'kutarki' in this list. Many of us including me have made many logical errors and I am glad to be corrected when I am wrong. Finally, I do believe that your perception is just an illusion and with this clarification will hopefully disappear! warmest regards, Ram Chandran Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 Correction!! I am sure you meant to say "we believe .... that (Dennis's) inquiry is anything but genuine with good intentions!" > As one of the moderator of this list, I want to assure you that none > of the fellow moderators and the members who have acquaintance with > you believe that your enquiry is genuine with good intentions. - Ram Chandran <rchandran <advaitin> Thursday, June 14, 2001 5:41 PM Re: kutarka implication > Dear Dennisji: > > As one of the moderator of this list, I want to assure you that none > of the fellow moderators and the members who have acquaintance with > you believe that your enquiry is genuine with good intentions. > Honestly, when we post a message with the good intention to educate > and clear our doubts, we should ignore unreasonable criticisms. At the > same time, we should be humble enough to accept our shortcomings. Our > advantage as a human being is that we all accept that we are limited > and have life-time license to committ errors and omissions. > > Here is my understanding of the term, 'kutarka' which becomes > 'kutarkam' in Tamil. When someone knowingly tries to discredit > another person using inappropriate logic and or by attributing > inappropriate interpretation. Mostly the kutarki (one who applies the > kutarka) will change his/her logic quite often and quite > untrustworthy. I was following these discussions closely and I am > quite confident to say that your logic is only 'tarka' and never > 'kutarka.' > > The list is quite fortunate and I am yet to see a 'kutarki' in this > list. Many of us including me have made many logical errors and I am > glad to be corrected when I am wrong. > > Finally, I do believe that your perception is just an illusion and > with this clarification will hopefully disappear! > > warmest regards, > > Ram Chandran > > > > > Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. > Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > To Post a message send an email to : advaitin > Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages > > > > Your use of is subject to > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 Yes, that seems right! At 06:19 PM 6/14/01 -0400, Nirbhay and Geetha wrote: >>>> Correction!! I am sure you meant to say "we believe .... that (Dennis's) inquiry is anything but genuine with good intentions!" > As one of the moderator of this list, I want to assure you that none > of the fellow moderators and the members who have acquaintance with > you believe that your enquiry is genuine with good intentions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 Namaste Geethaji: Thanks for your timely correction. My apologies to Dennisji and I have demonstrated my human limitation by this error! warmest regards, Ram Chandran advaitin, "Nirbhay and Geetha" <nkgb@e...> wrote: > Correction!! > I am sure you meant to say "we believe .... that (Dennis's) inquiry is anything but genuine with good intentions!" 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.