06-06-2005, 06:58 PM
Mysticism and philosphy are two different beasts. That is not to say that any one of them is invalid.
A philosophy has to deal with categories/symbols and their relationships and logic has to be a necessary part of the exercize.
Mysticism on the other hand can go beyond logic. Zen usually asks its practitioners to dwell on a contadiction to go beyond logical, symbolic way of thinking.
Philosophy and mysticsm can be complementary, but they should not be mixed up carelessly. The outcome of a careless mixing can be hilarious or even outrageous.
A philosophy can tolerate a paradox, as long as there is a way to explain away the paradox. But a philosphy is dead if it has a contradiction in it.
Even though monism (advaita of shankra) has been called here to be full of 'contradicions', I must disagree. Even a single contradiction kills a philosophy. Advaita is very much alive and kicking. But since Carl is very insistent that Advaita is riddled with contradictions, I would very much appreciate if he were to start a new thread, say called 'Mayavada' and expand on those contradictions. I am very much keen to find out what those claimed 'contradictions' are.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Er, do you actually understand Achintya Bheda-bheda tattva (or any Vaishnava philosophy)?? Achintya bheda-abheda means "the inconceivable paradox of simultaneous Oneness and Difference". Vaishnavism is centered around this deep paradox, this singularity, but everything else falls beautifully into place in relation to this axiom. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I mentioned earlier I have been trying for a while to understand 'achintya bheda-abheda'. The dificulty for me is that 'achintya bheda-abheda' appears not like a mere paradox. It seems very much like a contradiction. In logic a contradition is a statement of form
a and (not a)
Achintya bheda-abheda is very much like that statement. Krishna is one AND he is not one.
Logically speaking this statement is a contradiction. This statement would be called a paradox if there were a way to explain away the apparent contradiction.
In the hindu (not just vaishnva) scripture, such statements are found many times, it is clear that this idea of God being one as well as being many is pretty widespread in hinduism. So it appears that a concept like 'Achintya bheda-abheda' is faithful to a large body of the scripture.
But my persistent frustration has been in getting anything new from the idea of 'achintya bheda-abheda'. It merely seems to package the contradiction in a phrase, but hasn't quite managed to explain the paradox. It is like using terminology to explain away a problem. This is in conitnuation of the discussion we had in the Vedanta thread about 'Narayana'.
And about everything else falling beautifully into place if one accepts the axiom of 'achintya bheda-abheda', lets recall that in logic if a contradiction is taken as an axiom, any other statement can be derived from it. A contradiction taken as an axiom can indeed make derivation of any number of previously problematic statements a piece of cake which may be called 'falling beautifully into place'. I am not saying that this is what is done in vishishta-advaita. I don't know. But the dangers of starting from a contradictory axiom are always there.
My ideas are as follows:
1. Something like 'Achintya bheda-abheda' is implied in a vast number of Hindu scriptural statements.
2. Vishishta-advaitis take it literally where it appears like a paradox, if not an outright contradiction. God is one and many 'simultaneously'.
3. Contradictions are not fatal to a system of mysticism.
4. But a single contradiction kills a philosophical theory.
5. Therfore in my opinion, vishista-advaita appears to be more a system of mysticism, rather than a system of philosophy.
6. Mysticism is not inferior or superior to a philosophy, merely a different beast. Mysticism emphasizes knowledge by experience, while a philosophy emphasizes knowledge by logic/language/symbols etc. It is quite possible that the concept of 'one and not one' has necessarily to be experienced than explained.
6. 'Achintya-bheda-abheda' is not the only way of explaing the statements in scriptures like 'God is one and many'. There are other ways. Advaita vedanta handles this by saying that 'one' and 'many' are not simultaneously true for any observer. The observer is either in multiplicity under Maya or when light of knowledge are turned on, is witness to the unity. But not both 'unity' and 'multiplicity' simultneously. This removes the contradiction. Shaiva agama of Kashmir has yet anothet way to explain this.
A philosophy has to deal with categories/symbols and their relationships and logic has to be a necessary part of the exercize.
Mysticism on the other hand can go beyond logic. Zen usually asks its practitioners to dwell on a contadiction to go beyond logical, symbolic way of thinking.
Philosophy and mysticsm can be complementary, but they should not be mixed up carelessly. The outcome of a careless mixing can be hilarious or even outrageous.
A philosophy can tolerate a paradox, as long as there is a way to explain away the paradox. But a philosphy is dead if it has a contradiction in it.
Even though monism (advaita of shankra) has been called here to be full of 'contradicions', I must disagree. Even a single contradiction kills a philosophy. Advaita is very much alive and kicking. But since Carl is very insistent that Advaita is riddled with contradictions, I would very much appreciate if he were to start a new thread, say called 'Mayavada' and expand on those contradictions. I am very much keen to find out what those claimed 'contradictions' are.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Er, do you actually understand Achintya Bheda-bheda tattva (or any Vaishnava philosophy)?? Achintya bheda-abheda means "the inconceivable paradox of simultaneous Oneness and Difference". Vaishnavism is centered around this deep paradox, this singularity, but everything else falls beautifully into place in relation to this axiom. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I mentioned earlier I have been trying for a while to understand 'achintya bheda-abheda'. The dificulty for me is that 'achintya bheda-abheda' appears not like a mere paradox. It seems very much like a contradiction. In logic a contradition is a statement of form
a and (not a)
Achintya bheda-abheda is very much like that statement. Krishna is one AND he is not one.
Logically speaking this statement is a contradiction. This statement would be called a paradox if there were a way to explain away the apparent contradiction.
In the hindu (not just vaishnva) scripture, such statements are found many times, it is clear that this idea of God being one as well as being many is pretty widespread in hinduism. So it appears that a concept like 'Achintya bheda-abheda' is faithful to a large body of the scripture.
But my persistent frustration has been in getting anything new from the idea of 'achintya bheda-abheda'. It merely seems to package the contradiction in a phrase, but hasn't quite managed to explain the paradox. It is like using terminology to explain away a problem. This is in conitnuation of the discussion we had in the Vedanta thread about 'Narayana'.
And about everything else falling beautifully into place if one accepts the axiom of 'achintya bheda-abheda', lets recall that in logic if a contradiction is taken as an axiom, any other statement can be derived from it. A contradiction taken as an axiom can indeed make derivation of any number of previously problematic statements a piece of cake which may be called 'falling beautifully into place'. I am not saying that this is what is done in vishishta-advaita. I don't know. But the dangers of starting from a contradictory axiom are always there.
My ideas are as follows:
1. Something like 'Achintya bheda-abheda' is implied in a vast number of Hindu scriptural statements.
2. Vishishta-advaitis take it literally where it appears like a paradox, if not an outright contradiction. God is one and many 'simultaneously'.
3. Contradictions are not fatal to a system of mysticism.
4. But a single contradiction kills a philosophical theory.
5. Therfore in my opinion, vishista-advaita appears to be more a system of mysticism, rather than a system of philosophy.
6. Mysticism is not inferior or superior to a philosophy, merely a different beast. Mysticism emphasizes knowledge by experience, while a philosophy emphasizes knowledge by logic/language/symbols etc. It is quite possible that the concept of 'one and not one' has necessarily to be experienced than explained.
6. 'Achintya-bheda-abheda' is not the only way of explaing the statements in scriptures like 'God is one and many'. There are other ways. Advaita vedanta handles this by saying that 'one' and 'many' are not simultaneously true for any observer. The observer is either in multiplicity under Maya or when light of knowledge are turned on, is witness to the unity. But not both 'unity' and 'multiplicity' simultneously. This removes the contradiction. Shaiva agama of Kashmir has yet anothet way to explain this.