[Advaita-l] Jnana and ajnana (Bhakti vs. Jnana)
svidyasankar at hotmail.com
Thu Jul 7 08:29:39 CDT 2011
Let me offer another piece of unsolicited advice. If the only intent of a post is
to shoot off a barbed comment, please hit the cancel button after typing it out
and getting the response out of your system. Three lines of text from you,
after quoting fifteen-twenty (or more) lines of a previous post, does not add
to the quality of the list. A few days ago, you quoted an entire posting of three
paragraphs and added one comment, "Yup - agree." Before doing the "Send"
action on your email, please ask yourself what value addition your email
provides to the list. Also, remember that writing an email is an extension of
your speech and it would be good to heed gItA 17.15 with regard to tapas
pertaining to vAk - anudvegakaraM vAkyaM satyam priyahitaM ...
Coming to the immediate topic on hand, please note that when someone says
tarka-SAstra or tarka-vidyA, the referent is only the nyAya-SAstra. By definition,
adding the term SAstra to tarka rules out ku-tarka. On the other hand, note that
there is no such term as vitaNDA SAstra.
> Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 12:57:38 +0100
> From: rajaramvenk at gmail.com
> To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Jnana and ajnana (Bhakti vs. Jnana)
> As you propose that it is okay to call nyaya (whole) as tarka (a part), I
> suggest you call your style of nyaya as vitanda (another part). I will call
> style of nyaya as vada (another part). ha ha ha.
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 10:13 AM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
> > rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list