[Advaita-l] shaDdarhana and other unorthodox schools
garib_ram at yahoo.co.in
Tue Jan 30 12:29:43 CST 2007
Sri Ramesh Krishnamurthy wrote:
> By the way, what I find problematic is that your
> basic framework seems
> to be at odds with the Indian tradition. What about
> testing western
> philosophy on our benchmark - i.e. producing
> 'spiritual wisdom'?
It will fail. But does it come as a reprieve for
Indian schools? Let us take an example.
On a deeper level, structure of vedAnta is founded on
mImAmsA epistemology, which holds that words are
eternal. Now, such a proposition would be seriously
challenged by works of linguistic philosphers such as
Freage and Kaplan that base words on a much more
modest footing than Jaimini. Just because linguistic
philosophy does not produce any spiritual wisdom, do
their conclusions become irrelevant in such contexts?
Consider another case. Most of the vedAntic arguments
are based on yes/no operators in a true/false world.
(For the time being let us ignore 'anirvachaniya'.
Even proponents of advaita find its formulation
messy). Today, we have more than a dozen logical
operators discovered. Why would such discoveries not
affect the vedantic arguments of previous era?
As far as I understand, vedAnta itself accepts that
the issues other than dharma and moxa must derive
their justification from secular disciplines. Logic or
linguistics or most of the other tools developed in
western philosophy do not pertain to either dharma or
moxa. Therefore, by vedAnta's own logic, if they
contradict vedAnta in such spheres, they cannot simply
be dismissed away by an appeal to 'spiritual wisdom'.
Yahoo! India Answers: Share what you know. Learn something new
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list