Guest guest Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 Namaste Ananda-ji, The question is how far are we allowed to develop our own ideosyncratic views of philosophy, metaphysics, scholastic use of texts etc before the connections with commonly accepted usages and approaches become so tenuous that they break free from the main body of common understanding. A hazard is drifting off into the space of an ideolect. Best Wishes, Michael On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 00:55:49 +0100, Ananda Wood <awood wrote: > Namaste Shri Michael, > > In message #44672 of Mon Apr 20, you wrote: > > <<So much metaphysics in that short extract and so many assumptions that > require justification. Is the concept of an external world coherent? > How are we acquainted with it? 'Reflection back' is a theory that needs > clarification. Start with something simple, the perception of a chair > that is before me. What role does 'reflecting back' play in that > event? How is 'reflecting back' related to core advaita theory of > upadhi and vritti? > > <<In this way we will gain a picture of your system of projection and > its advantages like a Mercator's projection of the world, metaphorically > speaking.>> ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Anada-ji wrote: > > We seem to be using words in different ways. For me, the word > 'metaphysics' is not basically concerned with the justifying of > assumptions. Nor with the construction of coherent concepts or theories > or pictures of an external world. 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.