05-19-2005, 11:41 AM
Carl, Thanks for long and interesting posts.
There are many points where you carry your points through. But IMHO in several others, my understanding clashes with your statements.
The main reason for this I can think of, is a pretty sectarian approach. Although you used the allopathy vs ayurveda argument to justify it, I do not think that that example is valid or that this approach has been of much producttivity.
What I see is strong criticisms for competeing views, but also indications that the competing views haven't been comprehended fully. Quite evidently with the rope-snake argument as Gangajal also mentioned.
I venture strongly that many people who are using strong language against other views perhaps do not comprehend other views fully.
I think it would be very nice if people get together to discuss different views in a more conciliatory manner, to understand them first as understood by the protagonists, not as understood by the opponents. Once we understand the opposing view according to its protagonsists, only then a meanigful debate will take place. Otherwise we will just be firing real arrows at imaginary targets.
I saw your strong views about 'mayavad'. You also mentioned the superiority of 'achintya bheda-abheda' . I have been trying to understand this point for a while now. But so far haven't been satisfied. In fact many arguments that can be leveled against 'mayavad' or even 'shunyavad' can also be leveled against 'achintya-bheda-abheda'. In my so far half baked understanding of the concept, I frankly am stranded at a point where I find that this concept tries to roll contradictions into one supposed whole, which so far hasn't computed for me.
I will be much obliged if you expand on this point. May be in a separate thread. Perhaps the Vedanta thread.
There are many points where you carry your points through. But IMHO in several others, my understanding clashes with your statements.
The main reason for this I can think of, is a pretty sectarian approach. Although you used the allopathy vs ayurveda argument to justify it, I do not think that that example is valid or that this approach has been of much producttivity.
What I see is strong criticisms for competeing views, but also indications that the competing views haven't been comprehended fully. Quite evidently with the rope-snake argument as Gangajal also mentioned.
I venture strongly that many people who are using strong language against other views perhaps do not comprehend other views fully.
I think it would be very nice if people get together to discuss different views in a more conciliatory manner, to understand them first as understood by the protagonists, not as understood by the opponents. Once we understand the opposing view according to its protagonsists, only then a meanigful debate will take place. Otherwise we will just be firing real arrows at imaginary targets.
I saw your strong views about 'mayavad'. You also mentioned the superiority of 'achintya bheda-abheda' . I have been trying to understand this point for a while now. But so far haven't been satisfied. In fact many arguments that can be leveled against 'mayavad' or even 'shunyavad' can also be leveled against 'achintya-bheda-abheda'. In my so far half baked understanding of the concept, I frankly am stranded at a point where I find that this concept tries to roll contradictions into one supposed whole, which so far hasn't computed for me.
I will be much obliged if you expand on this point. May be in a separate thread. Perhaps the Vedanta thread.