Guest guest Posted February 27, 2004 Report Share Posted February 27, 2004 Namaste Vishalji, advaitin, Vishal D <vishaldeshpande4> wrote: > Namaste Chittranjanji > > So the two different philosophies of Advaita and sunyaVada are > similar at the very fundamental level. Difference arises only > when we try to explain it words. It might appear that way when reason has done its job of taking one to the indescribable, but there is a vast difference between Advaita and Sunyavada which comes to the fore if one considers that Brahman is Satchitananda. When we speak through the instruments of logic, we forget that Brahman is living, vibrantly living. Sat, chit and ananda are His essential natures which are reflected as attributions in the chitta of Savikalpa and which are absorbed into Himself in Nirvikalpa. How does one logically formulate love in a rational system? Brahman is all Love. Brahman is purnam, full, not sunya. Brahman is the lack of all privation. With regards, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2004 Report Share Posted February 27, 2004 Namaste Chittaranjanji, You have started a great many hares in your reply to me. Let me follow just one. You wrote: "Yes, we need to be aware, but we also need to be free of the impulse to impose our own valuations, as far as possible, on the subject that we are trying to understand." If the matter under consideration is one of ethical import then oughtn't we assess it ethically. This is Plato laying down the law and so it is valid to enquire about his assumptions. Socrates would have approved of that. We are invited to admire the manner of Socrates' death but was he heroically wrongheaded? As a contrary individual he would approve of this also. Take nothing on faith (except faith itself), 'the unexamined life is not worth living'. About sense and reference I am not teeming with a lot of news and perhaps the other members have little appetite for such esoterica so we had better leave it. Best Wishes, Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2004 Report Share Posted February 28, 2004 Namaste Michaelji, advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...> wrote: > Namaste Chittaranjanji, > You have started a great many hares in your reply to me. Maybe the next time I should get along a tortoise. I've heard it does the job better. :-) > Let me follow just one. You wrote: > "Yes, we need to be aware, but we also need to be free of > the impulse to impose our own valuations, as far as possible, > on the subject that we are trying to understand." > > If the matter under consideration is one of ethical import > then oughtn't we assess it ethically. That depends on the object of the investigation. If it is to understand history, like the context of the Greeks having slaves, then the answer is no. Here, to under-stand is to stand under and see how it all was, not to pass judgement. Otherwise one is derailed from the understanding. > This is Plato laying down the law and so it is valid to > enquire about his assumptions. We were discussing Plato's philosophy, the greatness of which is in no way related to whether the Greeks had slaves. Again, it is not valid to introduce the Ideal Republic here without understanding the context of both the dialogue and the ancient culture in which it is set. One cannot understand the ancient world by passing moral judgments about it based on the equipment of our own set of values. If we do, we would be passing judgments not on the ancients, but on our own ideas about the ancients, which would become a kind of skewed self-enquiry, no? :-) > Socrates would have approved of that. We are invited to admire > the manner of Socrates' death but was he heroically wrongheaded? > As a contrary individual he would approve of this also. I agree that Socrates approved of enquiry, but if you've read the Phaedo, you will recall that Socrates didn't approve of a certain question that was thrown in by someone in the group. It is a pointer that we need to sift the chaff from the object and stay focussed on the object of our enquiry. > Take nothing on faith (except faith itself), 'the unexamined > life is not worth living'. I agree. > About sense and reference I am not teeming with a lot of news > and perhaps the other members have little appetite for such > esoterica so we had better leave it. Okay. Esoterica is indeed the right word -- the relation between word and object is sacred and esoteric. With regards, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 29, 2004 Report Share Posted February 29, 2004 Namaste Michaelji, I believe I owe you an apology. While I have been saying that one should avoid imposing one's own set of values on the subject of study, I have been guilty of this same offense. I believe that characterising the nineteen century as "the twilight of European philosophy" is rather value-laden and is sufficient cause to hurt the modern philosopher. I am sorry if I have said anything to hurt your sensibilities. With regards, Chittaranjan 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.