Metaphysics

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ananda-ji and followers of this thread,

 

To Amplify:

When you use terms like philosophy, ontology, epistemology and metaphysics

you are using terms that have matured from their simple beginnings as

everyday words to a glossary with a more or less established range of

meaning. It is not legitimate to dissolve their present meaning and go

back and begin all over again claiming that one is free to refresh them

in this manner.

 

If we feel that there is a need for a nuance that has dropped away from

the original root then the amplitude and openendedness of ordinary words

can be utilised. (Adhyasa, upadhi and vritti started out as plain words)

Such is the practice of modern thinkers such as Heidegger, Marcel, Sartre

and, Kierkegaard. For instance I took the term that you are fond of,

'reflecting back', to be just such a usage. It seems not but it could

be. Suppose I felt that the world that I was aware of was a sort of

reflection in the mirror of my personality. My awareness then would be my

reflection coming back at myself. What I saw would be the reflection of

my inner state and not the passive awareness of a tabula rasa.

 

You can see that this is a more acceptable and useful approach than

dissolving the mature and slightly technical word 'perception' into its

root and claiming that your new use is an authentic one. Etymology can be

a false friend!

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Michael,

 

In message #44686 of Wed Apr 22, you wrote:

 

<<When you use terms like philosophy, ontology, epistemology and metaphysics you

are using terms that have matured from their simple beginnings as everyday words

to a glossary with a more or less established range of meaning. It is not

legitimate to dissolve their present meaning and go back and begin all over

again claiming that one is free to refresh them in this manner.>>

 

Thank you for your ruling. But I must tell you that I don't agree with it. To

me, philosophy is not a subject that can be governed by any such academic

ruling. Without a persistent questioning of present meaning, there could be no

true philosophy. Here, truth is sought precisely by questioning back to it; so

that one may begin all over again, from beneath all made-up constructions of

doubtfully believing mind.

 

We do indeed seem to have rather different views about what's meant by the word

'philosophy'. What need is there to rule on each other's views? Why not agree to

differ in our ways of seeking truth?

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:51:28 +0100, Ananda Wood <awood wrote:

 

> Namaste Shri Michael,

>

> In message #44686 of Wed Apr 22, you wrote:

>

> <<When you use terms like philosophy, ontology, epistemology and

> metaphysics you are using terms that have matured from their simple

> beginnings as everyday words to a glossary with a more or less

> established range of meaning. It is not legitimate to dissolve their

> present meaning and go back and begin all over again claiming that one

> is free to refresh them in this manner.>>

> |||||||||||||

Reply:

> Thank you for your ruling. But I must tell you that I don't agree with

> it. To me, philosophy is not a subject that can be governed by any such

> academic ruling. Without a persistent questioning of present meaning,

> there could be no true philosophy. Here, truth is sought precisely by

> questioning back to it; so that one may begin all over again, from

> beneath all made-up constructions of doubtfully believing mind.

>

> We do indeed seem to have rather different views about what's meant by

> the word 'philosophy'. What need is there to rule on each other's views?

> Why not agree to differ in our ways of seeking truth?

>

> Ananda

 

|||||||||||||||||

 

Namaste Ananda-ji,

If that is your predeliction Philosophy can do that

too, " a persistent questioning of present meaning " , but it also a great

many other things. To make a part of the subject albeit an important part

equivalent to the whole is like offering to exchange my worn ¤100 note for

a crisp new ¤10 note. No thanks.

 

Another questionable proposal of yours is move attention away from

Shankara's classics to the lesser works of disputed authorship such as

Atma Bodha and Vivekacudamani. How, even on your own terms, are they more

philosophical?

 

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

----------

 

 

----------

 

 

 

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.12.1/2070 - Release 04/20/09

17:56:00

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Michael and Shri Ananda

 

I don't understand much of your discussions. However, a question came to my mind

after reading this -

 

How much philosophy is needed to know the Truth?

 

I used to think - when we empty all our pockets, we come out realising that $10

note and $100 note are not different and they don't mean a thing.

 

Regards,

Padma

advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

>

> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:51:28 +0100, Ananda Wood <awood wrote:

 

> Namaste Ananda-ji,

> If that is your predeliction Philosophy can do that

> too, " a persistent questioning of present meaning " , but it also a great

> many other things. To make a part of the subject albeit an important part

> equivalent to the whole is like offering to exchange my worn ¤100 note for

> a crisp new ¤10 note. No thanks.

>

> Best Wishes,

> Michael.

 

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Michael and Shrimati Padma,

 

Thank you for your messages #44703 and #44707 of Thu Apr 23. Shrimati Padma

asks:

 

<<How much philosophy is needed to know the Truth?>>

 

My answer is one hundred percent. The word 'philosophy' quite literally implies

an uncompromising 'love of truth', from the Greek 'philo' meaning 'love' and

'sophos' meaning 'wisdom' or 'true knowing'. It's only a one hundred percent

love that can lead finally to truth, beyond all taint of falsity.

 

Perhaps even Shri Michael might agree that some such 'love of truth' is

essentially implied to this day, in what we call 'philosophy'.

 

In this regard, the Viveka-cudamani says (in stanza 31):

 

mokSha-sAdhana sAmagryAM

bhaktir eva garIyasI .

sva-svarUpA-'nusandhAnaM

bhaktir ity abhidhIyate ..

 

[Among all ways of striving to be free,

it's love that is the best, one must agree.

To question one's own truth, to ask what's there:

that is the love of those who ask with care.]

 

For me, all truly philosophical reasoning serves basically to intensify and to

deepen that love for truth, until it completely purifies the 'great many other

things' that are pursued in the name of philosophy.

 

Shri Michael is of course quite right to point out this 'great many other

things' that get pursued in the course of philosophical debate. Indeed, Shri

Shankara's 'maya' theory gives an explanation of how this 'great many other

things' has come about, upon a false basis of 'ajnyana' or 'ignorance'.

 

It's in this sense that I take Shri Shankara's prakarana works (like Atmabodha

and Viveka-cudamani) to be more philosophical than the maya theory which he put

forward in his commentaries on the Upanishads the Brahma-sutras and the

Bhagavad-gita.

 

These commentaries and their maya theory are often taken to be Shankara's

classic works, as Shri Michael points out. But they are more concerned with

scholastic debate than with spiritual enquiry. They were of course appropriate

for their time in establishing Shri Shankara's Advaita Vedanta as an instituted

tradition that would carry on through India's medieval period.

 

But for me, as a sadhaka who is in need of better understanding, it should be

the spiritual enquiry that takes precedence over any scholarly or intellectual

debate. And I do find that Shri Shankara's prakarana works deal more directly

with the spiritual enquiry. They may have less prestige among many instituted

scholars, but since when has scholarly prestige determined any final truth?

 

In the end, it must be love that takes a questioning mind back from the 'great

many other things' of a seeming world that has been dubiously founded upon

ajnyana or ignorance. It's only an uncompromising love that can leave all many

falsities behind, so as to find what's plainly and simply uncompromised by any

falsity.

 

It's only for lack of such love that people like yours truly keep on arguing

about unnecessary differences.

 

With apologies for this,

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Shree Ananda Wood and Shree Michael - PraNAms

 

First, interesting discussions with divergent philosophical approaches.

 

Anandaji - here are some points to ponder as part of reflecting back -as you

used the term.

 

I do appreciate your concern about the burden that the common usage of the term

will slowly pick up in the course of time which derails the very original

intention if there is one or initial application as in the case of the word

metaphysics as originally evolved and subsequently derailed in recent times by

free thinkers.

 

At the same time in spite of the original etymological meaning of the words such

as vRitti or upaadhi or reflecting consciousness in contrast to the meaning that

you want to associate for reflecting back as an inquiry - There are technical

definitions associated with the word developed in any particular field - In the

Indian philosophical system, vRitti and upaadhiis are very well defined - as

Shree Sastriji provided for the later recently. There is no reason not to

examine these concepts too as under your heading 'reflecting back', but one has

to be careful in the communication of this to others since connotations become

important and gets in built in its usage - as with the term metaphysics.

 

I like your statement:

 

.............Without a persistent questioning of present meaning, there could be

no true philosophy. Here, truth is sought precisely by questioning back to it;

so that one may begin all over again, from beneath all made-up constructions of

doubtfully believing mind........

 

------

True - but this is what is referred to as inquiry into the nature of truth -

whether it is in objective sciences or in Vedanta. But in objective sciences

the inquiry is to be done systematically following a well developed methodology

in each field. The process has to take from known to the unknown or observations

or experiences to the underlying the cause for those, by process of negation and

assertion.

 

The same applies to Vedanta to even though the fundamental nature is beyond the

cause-effect relation - but even for that one has to go beyond the reflecting

back to the one who is reflecting back. That requires again the well developed

methodology of Vedanta by negating that which is objectified to the one who is

objectifying. That forms only one aspect and the second aspect involves

reflecting back the need for reflecting back on the very source for the

observed effects or on the nature of the world that is perceived which is

different from reflecting mind.

 

Taking the example of the chair, perception of the chair itself is a mystery

since substantive of any object is never perceived and what is perceived in the

mind is only a reflection of the object rather than the object itself. The

assumptions and assertions do enter in taking what is perceived in the mind vs.

what is out there beyond the perceiving mind - and the subject who is perceiving

the object out there via the reflection (vRitti) in the mind. Even without

worrying about the sentiments associated with that particular chair, even

perception of an object becomes a metaphysical inquiry (I am not using in the

sense Michael favors to use it) that is in the sense of your reflecting back the

mystery of perception. Hence Kena says - that which one can not perceive but

because of which one has the capacity to perceive - that alone is Brahman not

this that you worship - Here a methodology is prescribed in terms of how to

reflect back to arrive at the

metaphysical nature of the truth underlying both seer and seen.

 

Shankara's prakaraNa Granthaas like Atmabhoda, dakshinamuurthy stotram (Subbu

provided the elaborate analysis of this in the files) some times provide more

direct understanding of the truth than mind-boggling discussion of objections

and counter objections discussed in Shankara Bhaashyaas. If one wants to reflect

back to understand the underlying truth, these texts along with yoga Shaastra,

Giita, for purification of the mind to do the analysis is sufficient.

 

May be stray thoughts but reflecting back when I read the ongoing discussion.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Ananada

 

Thanks for answering my question. That helped me to understand what philosophy

really means and it will help further to put my current understandnig of various

things in perspective.

 

Regards,

Padma

advaitin , " Ananda Wood " <awood wrote:

>

> Namaste Shri Michael and Shrimati Padma,

>

> Thank you for your messages #44703 and #44707 of Thu Apr 23. Shrimati Padma

asks:

>

> <<How much philosophy is needed to know the Truth?>>

>

> My answer is one hundred percent. The word 'philosophy' quite literally

implies an uncompromising 'love of truth', from the Greek 'philo' meaning 'love'

and 'sophos' meaning 'wisdom' or 'true knowing'. It's only a one hundred percent

love that can lead finally to truth, beyond all taint of falsity.

 

>

> Ananda

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Sadananda,

 

Thank you for your helpful posting #44709 of Fri Apr 24. In particular, you say:

 

<< ... in spite of the original etymological meaning of the words such as vRitti

or upaadhi or reflecting consciousness in contrast to the meaning that you want

to associate for reflecting back as an inquiry - There are technical definitions

associated with the word developed in any particular field - In the Indian

philosophical system, vRitti and upaadhiis are very well defined - as Shree

Sastriji provided for the later recently. >>

 

Yes indeed, there do come to be technical definitions associated with words like

'vritti' and 'upadhi' in particular fields of scholastic debate. But does it

follow then that these words and their meanings cannot afterwards be examined

independently of the scholastic texts that have recorded the debate?

 

I would say definitely not. The freedom to re-examine concepts -- by reflecting

back to their essential meanings -- is essential to a living tradition. And it

is essential to the Sanskrit tradition in particular. It's only narrow-minded

western scholars who have been suspicious of etymology (and who have in

particular kept criticizing Shri Shankara for his use of it). Indeed, it is in

Sanskrit learning that etymology has particularly been emphasized, and modern

linguistics quite openly admits its debt to Sanskrit in this regard.

 

In the modern world, as a variety of ancient traditions are opened up to

individual questioning, there is quite naturally more freedom to question and to

investigate directly, without having to supply scholastic references from this

or that tradition.

 

Let me take an example from modern physics. One large part of it is of course

Newtonian physics, which was originated by Newton's great text, which is called

the 'Principia' and which he composed in Latin. But is it now appropriate, in

the modern world, to teach or study or discuss or investigate Newtonian physics

with any mandatory reference to this centuries old text?

 

Of course it is not. Modern Newtonian physicists have kept on developing new

teaching and investigating methods and new notations that are specifically

appropriate to modern times and conditions, which are different from those of

the historic Newton.

 

These new methods of investigation and discussion do no dishonour to the great

Newton. In fact, they repeatedly honour his determined spirit, in their variety

of adaptations to modern times and places.

 

Similarly, I would suggest that Shri Shankara does not have to be honoured only

by insistence on quotation from his scholastic texts. Those who wish to make

such scholastic quotations are of course completely free to do just that.

 

But Shri Shankara may also be honoured by a more direct questioning of his

concepts, like 'vritti' and 'upadhi'. When I am told that such a questioning is

not legitimate, I am sorry to say that I find this no honour to Shri Shankara.

What he had to say can hardly need protection from those direct questions which

each sadhaka must ask for herself or himself, in modern times that are quite

different from Shri Shankara's.

 

Ananda