Dvaita and Sophistry - Part 2(Reality and Unreality)
shrao at NYX.NET
Thu Mar 13 20:21:40 CST 2003
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, kalyan chakravarthy wrote:
> >Before we get ahead of ourselves, do you have any rational or valid
> >for these questions and answers? How many classical scholars or texts
> >can you suggest which respond with a "why should I answer" to anything?
> Is it not a matter of commonsense that the reason why a question must be
> answered be examined?
Non sequitur. It may be *your* benighted notion of common sense, but it
is not to the point. The questions and answers themselves have no valid
basis in traditional discourse, and further, the "why should I answer" is
without precedent in Vedantic scholastic debate as well.
> Does it require years of study of books to get common
Also a non sequitur.
Vedanta is not a matter of common sense, and yes, it does take years (or
even lifetimes if the traditional understanding is correct) to achieve
understanding of it.
> A comprehensive philosophy must answer all possible questions.
Which is why no one ever says "why should I answer" when faced with one.
> >You are merely setting up a strawman, and have not cited anything from
> >the website correctly. Your arguments merely expose your own lack of
> >understanding (or even lack of reading comprehension!).
> If the website is really yours, then it exposes your own sophistry.
Hmm... the reading comprehension needs more work.
You clearly have failed to grasp the import of my point, which was that
without citing me exactly, you are merely setting up a strawman. How this
"exposes my sophistry" is unfathomable.
> >As was stated in the other forum, there is no single property called
> >difference between the real and the unreal" that is inherent to both.
> Excuse me. What is this other forum?
The `Dwaita' (sic) forum on www.hindunet.com. As if you didn't know.
> How can you justify your statement that there is no single property
> called difference between the real and the unreal?
That's a different question. The fact is that given that there is no such
acceptance on my part, your criticism which assumed such acceptance is
invalid on its face.
You cannot foist an opinion on me that I have rejected and then criticise
it; indeed, your question even shows that in spite of your own criticism,
you yourself value such a position, which makes your situation rather
(Indeed, the fact that such acceptance would be subject to said criticism
is good reason to avoid it, as may be realized on a moment of reflection.)
> What makes you say that difference is a property in the first place?
Try the dictionary, which defines difference as "the quality of being
unlike or dissimilar," etc. If you are using `difference' to mean
something else than the standard meaning, (i) you first would have to
supply and justify an alternative meaning for it, and (ii) justify your
criticisms as carrying over in spite of the non-standard usage.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list