From: pvr@rice.edu (PVR Narasimha Rao)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: On the existence of Paramatma
Date: 11 Apr 1992 22:10:13 -0500
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

In article <92102.173653U08991@uicvm.uic.edu>, <U08991@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
> In article <9204102254.AA06818@argo.rice.edu>, pvr@rice.edu (PVR Narasimha Rao)
> says:
> >I find it objectionable to ridicule Sankara (whom many respect as a great
> >thinker) without a serious and sincere attempt to understand him.
>
> I don't. Remember, the net is to DISCUSS issues, not to hold someone's
> sayings in the highest esteem. If you feel that Leslie was criticizing

I have nothing against criticism. Also, I completely agree that the net is for
discussions. But I found it objectionable to ridicule. There is a difference
between ridiculing and criticizing.

> Sankara, post an article presenting the logic that we must use in
> evaluating Sankara's sayings, you know, to confirm that what he is saying

In my article, I clearly said I didn't claim to have an understanding of
Sankara's works. I was just pointing out what assumptions Leslie was making without really knowing (presumably) she was making some assumptions.

> is not something that he pulled out of thin air but actually something
> meaningful. Until then, what Leslie says makes a heckuva lot more sense
> to me than what Sankara said.

That's fine. You are free to think that way. Also, I am not asking you to
blindly believe in what Sankara said.

> In order to actually understand something, you need not SINCERELY
> evaluate it.

I wasn't talking about "evaluating sincerely". I was talking about "attempting
sincerely to understand". Here the problem was Leslie (and many others) didn't
understand it. And, instead of leaving it or criticizing it, she was making
fun, which I found irresponsible. Anyway, that's just my opinion.

> You can look at it with a critical point of view until you really understand
> what it is saying or meaning. Then, you make a decision as to whether it is

You can look at something with a critical point of view, only if you know what
the problem is. If the problem is ill-stated or you don't know it fully, you
can do nothing constructive. Here you don't know what Sankara was meaning by
the realition "to be" in "Self _is_ the reality". You don't know fully what
he meant by "reality and illusion". I may add even "world and self" to the
list.

There is a big gap. You don't know what exactly he was saying. Then you may
not succeed either in proving or disproving him. I see no point in it.

Don't get me wrong. I am not asking you to believe in him. I am only asking
you to stop wandering without knowing the goal (you don't know what exactly
you are trying to prove/disprove). Moreover, don't ridicule him.

> right or wrong. That is why God gave us eyes, ears , etc. And a BRAIN too.

The ability of BRAIN is a debatable topic. But, let me leave it for now.

> So that we may utilize them to understand this complex universe. Not to

I see. When you "understand this complex universe", please send me an email,
for I too want to share your understanding!

> blindly accept that someone or something is great because "many people
> respect him". Aristotle was also respected by his contemporaries.

I didn't ask you to blindly accept it.

I only asked you (or rather, Leslie) to be more responsible and not say things
like "oh, now I get it. It is like Clinton potting ...". Because, when dealing
with an Aristotle or a Sankara (even if he will turn out to be wrong, later
on), you must display some responsibility. If you don't understand what he was
saying, leave it rather than make fun of it. That's not blindly accepting.

--------
PVR Narasimha Rao