(no subject)

[Guest guest]

Dear Fellow Madhvas,

Permit me to express my viewpoints regarding the " debate "

or " friendly stating of the position " and regaring some points Mani has raised.

 

It is good to carry on the " debate " format. Synthesis and summary can follow.

For me personally as perhaps for most of us time to indulge in these

activities is a luxury - life obtrudes. Hence all I and some others may be

able to do are to offer quick rejoinders albiet not well thought out. However

such process can lead to " knowledge " of shastras...etc even if miniscule.

That may be all some on this list will ever see. So I for one am for

continuing this dialogue/debate.

 

Now to some specific points raised by Mani. Let me begin with a later posting

where he says :

 

>However, I am not qualified to " debate " anyone on these

>issues, and I would likely inadequately defend the position,

>and incorrectly attack another position. I see nothing to be

>gained by substandard debate. Furthermore, the very approach

>and texts used to decide the " verdict " are very different

>between the sampradAyas, so in an email forum such as this,

>a debate is fruitless and counterproductive.

 

I disagree. Whether we are qualified or not is immaterial. Every one of

faces philosophical questions - Who am I ? Is there a purpose to this

creation ? Is there a creator ? and I mean EVERYONE. Whether one is qualified

or not one is forced to face these questions. Since the length of one's stay

here is uncertain - one cannot wait till one is qualified. The questions

press on us. As to " verdicts " if there is any objective " truth " it must

be independent of " sampradAyas " or that the " truth " is so complex the

" sampradAyas " are like " blind men feeling the elephant " each seeing only

part of the whole - which remains great and mysterious.

 

>It is like two mice fighting over rulership of the earth,

>when neither of them understand its vastness or complexity.

 

The mice are acting from whatever knowledge they have. I find that nobler

than just giving up.

 

>What I *do* object to is the claim that a modern, English-educated

>person with a little bit of Sanskrit knowledge and a desire to destroy

>opposing views can show logical inconsistencies in the positions of

>ancient and great philosophers who studied tarka, vyAkaraNa, nyAya,

>etc., and whose systems have been elaborated and defended to a great

>extent by subsequent thinkers. We owe the great acharyas more respect

>than that. Thinking that a single question pokes a real hole in, say,

>Sri Ramanuja's philosophy is rather arrogant. This is why little

>people like us " debating " the merits of Madhva vs. Ramanuja is

>stupid.

 

Like it or not there has been a break in our tradition and most of us fall

into the above category, i.e, " English-educated ... " . Many of us are also

educated in the " scientific method " . That to me says not accept or respect

blindly no matter who professes; as Feynman put it " what one fool can do

another can do better " . What he meant was that we should not be awe-struck

by " greatness " - indeed if Madhva was in " awe " of the great philosphers

preceding him he might have said that all that is worthy of saying has already

been said. Being a physicist I have used example from my area, others can

come up with other examples. To state more explicitly Feynman came after

Einstein and yet made fundamental contributions to physics. He must have

thought it still worth while to do physics inspite of great names like

Einstein and Newton who preceded him.

 

If we are to reclaim our tradition and indeed make it come alive we have to

question and continue to build . Otherwise Indian philosophy will remain

dead and nothing new will emerge. Implicit in this statement is of course

the belief that " everything worthy of saying has NOT been said " . If this makes

me arrogant so be it.

 

Now to come to an earlier posting. I speak here as " a modern, English-educated

person with a little bit of Sanskrit knowledge " , but I have no desire to

" destroy " any philosophical position. Anyway to proceed boldly (or is it

" arrogantly " ?) where " the greats have gone before " :

 

>This can be understood by using light as an analogue for knowledge.

>How can we perceive an object? If light is shined on it. Similarly,

>objects external to ourself can only be " known " if jnAna (knowledge)

>can " shed light " on it. But the jIva at the same time is said to

>be an " atom " of consciousness, and therefore non-expansive and incapable

>of shedding light on external objects.

 

External objects can be known not just through sight but by touch,smell ..etc

What is needed is an " interaction " (physics jargon). In case of light

- photons deflected off an object from a source impinge on the retina leading

to a whole set of biological processes in the optic nerve .. etc cause the

sensation of " seeing " . So I shall assume that Mani is using the phrase

" shed light " in this " interaction " sense. So in order for Jiva to " see "

it need not " shed light " itself but merely recieve - to belabour the physics

analogy. Perhpas Mani can explain this in more detail.

 

>So, something else other than the svarUpa of the jIva has to be posited

>to explain how we know other things. As explained by Sri Nelgamangala,

>in Dvaita, the " manas " is posited as an external organ which can act

>as a channel for knowing external objects. In Visishtadvaita, we say

>that consciousness of the form of an attribute (i.e., different from

>the svarUpa of the jIva) allows the jIva to know something other than

>itself. This is known as " attributive consciousness " or dharma-bhUta-

>jnAna.

 

what is the nature of " attributive consciousness " ? how does it differ

from " svarUpa " ? Incidentally, modern physics has given up the notion of a

" point particle " . An elementary particle like an electron is surrounded by

a cloud of " virtual " particles arising and decaying spontaneously from the

vaccuum. Therefore in physics atleast, the concept of someting " localized "

does not necessarily imply " non-expansive " . So logical consistency (as seen

in above argumentation regarding atoms being non-expansive) alone is not

sufficient. Indeed with the present emphasis on " fields " as opposed to

" particles " the " atomic " (read elementary,partless,point ..etc) can be at the

" same time " everywhere !!!

 

While the above example from physics may superficially taken to be analogous

to VisistAdvaitic position there is a a crucial difference. The " electron "

is BOTH ( " atomic " and therefore) " localized " and " everywhere " . Defies logic!

 

I remain yours truly,

" a modern, English-educated person with a little bit of Sanskrit knowledge "

though desirous of " shastraic knowledge "

 

Shri Kanekal