Guest guest Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 CNji wrote: No problem.... unless you were to say that Shankara's words relating to 'cranes and thunder' proves that he was unaware of the lower vidyas. Shankara is Mantra Maheswara, the author of Saundarya Lahari, and his knowledge of the mantras is his knowledge of the lower vidyas as well because mantras are the root of the lower vidyas. |||||||||||||||||| Namaste CNji, Thanks for this bottom line statement which is more or less what I was saying in the first instance. I admitted his omniscience could be operative when it was called upon ("Certain aspects of his gnosis may become operative due to the demands of compassion") I also held that otherwise he was operating on the normal knowledge base of a man of his time. This appears to be the case in the section under discussion where the illustration of cranes & lotuses are plucked from the air so to speak. The matter discussed in relation to B.S.B. II.i.35 re the begininglessness of creation or the transmigratory state and the assumption that it has always been more or less like we see it now give or take a millenium may seem a more serious instance of the same deficency in the knowledge base. Is it I ask. My view is that it is not. From what knowledge base should he operate, given his omniscience, from today's or from 50 years from now or from a 1000 years from now. What would be the point of the latter when the scientists of today would barely get it. In this case Mythos is more powerful than Logos. No matter what the current state of the knowledge base myth reaches into the depths of the mystery and can draw consciousness into sympathetic vibration. There I have sketched for you a much more fruitful approach than the 19th. century image of watchmakers and watch parts rattling in a box which I notice has sat on your desk since the year 2000. At least apply yourself to the best arguments of your opponents as Shankara did. Richard Dawkins 'The Blind Watchmaker' and 'Unweaving the Rainbow' are readable. Best Wishes, Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 Dear Sri Michaelji, advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote: > Thanks for this bottom line statement which is more > or less what I was saying in the first instance. It appears I misread your statement initially. But all's well that ends well. :-) > The matter discussed in relation to B.S.B. II.i.35 > re the begininglessness of creation or the transmigratory > state and the assumption that it has always been more or > less like we see it now give or take a millenium > may seem a more serious instance of the same deficency > in the knowledge base. Is it I ask. My view is that it > is not. From what knowledge base should he operate, > given his omniscience, from today's or from 50 years from > now or from a 1000 years from now. I am not sure I understand the question. > In this case Mythos is more powerful than Logos. > No matter what the current state of the knowledge base > myth reaches into the depths of the mystery and can draw > consciousness into sympathetic vibration. I don't see Mythos as being fundamentally different from Logos. Mythos is the first stirring of Logos as well as the penultimate destination at which Logos arrives after its voyage round the universe. Mythos I think is largely anamnetic, whereas Logos operates through weighment (ratio-cination) of (Logos) itself before it arrives at the anamnesis. > There I have sketched for you a much more fruitful > approach than the 19th. century image of watchmakers > and watch parts rattling in a box which I notice has sat > on your desk since the year 2000. I was trying to avoid cluttering my desk. :-) > At least apply yourself to the best arguments of your > opponents as Shankara did. Richard Dawkins 'The Blind > Watchmaker' and 'Unweaving the Rainbow' are readable. Richard Dawkins generates more questions than provide answers, and some of his statements are bizarre. I have many questions for Dawkins, but since he isn't on this discussion list, I shall let them pass. Warm 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.