word

[Guest guest]

Namaste CNji,

I think it's well to attend to what I actually

wrote.

 

" The realised man does not become perfect in

scientific knowledge. In B.S.B. you will find

that Shankara thought that Cranes conceived by

hearing the sounds of clouds and that Lotuses

travelled from lake to lake mysteriously.

Certain aspects of gnosis may become operative

due to the demands of compassion but not in

his own mind for himself to put it crudely."

 

I think that you have a problem with the idea that the

realised man is not omniscient with regard to all manner

of knowledge including scientific knowledge even when

that knowledge has no relevance for his devotees. This is

causing you to overinterpret what is plainly there. The opponent

that Shankara introduces to put a contrary point also shares that

basic belief but puts his own spin on it. He says that the

crane conceives by hearing the sounds of the clouds and

the lotus uses its body like a creeper. Thus the analogy

does not hold with Brahman who is supposed to create

by Itself without looking for external means. That is the

difference between Shankara and the imaginary opponent

who is probably espousing a typical counter argument.

 

Having brought up the argument about cranes and lotuses

Shankara dismisses the objection that anyway the point

is that gods and others do not need external aids

 

Now it takes very little research into the annals of

pre-scientific people to realise that such beliefs(about

cranes)

are

entirely possible. Does it make any difference to his

prowess as a philosopher? Not really for the reason

that practical science is a continuing adventure into

the unknown whilst philosophy deals with perennial

considerations such as being/non-being/Self/self etc.

If that were not the case then the study of philosophy

would be a history of curiosities.

 

Traditionally gathered together with the works of Aristotle are

collections which are not regarded as being his work.

One of these is 'On Marvellous Things Heard'.

#149: In Mesopotamia, a region of Syria, and at Istrus, they

say that there are certain little snakes, which do not bite

the people of the country, but do great injury to strangers.

 

The more serious question for the philosopher is whether

indeed there exist analogies for the creation without the

use of external means or indeed out of nothing. In the case

of material reality it is clear that does not happen. All

contemporary events are factors though some are salient.

As indeed Shankara suggests when he states: "there

cannot be any such invariable rule that the power of everybody must

conform to that of somebody we are familiar with". (II.i.25)

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.