Re: What does the Supreme really want?
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté
I have been following some of the conversations offered above. There is some attention given to debate, (constructive ) criticism and the like.
Let me mention that many of the schools within sanātana dharma over the ages had no problem with debating each other. It was done in a civil but vigorous manner. Yet one thing they did that seems remiss within HDF is the following format that was practiced by other darśana-s ( schools) of the past:
- Each school took care to learn the other school’s views
- Before any discussion or debate or even jalpa (a kind of disputation) would occur it was the responsibility of the tārkika ( philosopher, logician) to state the views of his opponent i.e.the opponent’s school of thought as he understood it.
- This statement as we are told is called pūrvapakṣa or the prior view.
- Then followed his refute/issues with this view; this was called khaṇḍana or refuting; the word also means grinding, reducing to pieces. In modern-day language we would call it, taking the subject apart, piece by piece. An interrogation with commentary on each level.
- Last came the statements of proof offered by the tārkika – his positon on the matter in question. This was called uttarapakṣa (demonstrated truth , or conclusion)
If one wishes to see this approach in action you can view the brahmasūtra-s ( some call the vedāntasūtra-s), or one can look to the mīmāṁsa sutras-s of jaiminī.
Do you see this approach applied ( in part or in whole) on HDF ? Could we not do a better job of asking the other side for their understanding of the subject at hand... or, stating what you believe the other side to be? Just this one thing of clarifying the point of view ( without daggers from the lips as the wise would say) goes a long way.
iti śivaṁ
Last edited by yajvan; 29 September 2014 at 12:24 PM.
यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
because you are identical with śiva
_
Bookmarks