Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2018 8:34:58 GMT
Now that, we are seeing a transition of self questioning about our identitites and exitense, according to me, philosophers have uneaerthed this question. My favorite is this aristocratic or brahman , the old ones, from the land of bengal, long time back, when the vedic cultures were getting declined, he, at the age of 80 years, actually went to the university of nalanda, and defeated the buddhists monk. This was the time, when the subcontinent was seeing radical changes. His name is Kumarila Bhattacharya. The picture here is his self immolation in guilt, because he defeated his own teacher. and on the left side is Shankaracharya, the founder of Advaita philosophy, a monastic tradition of theism. However, advaita philosophy is opposed by all other scholars, and have been criticized heavily. Kumarila bhatta himself was against any type of material form of god. This is known as 'NIRGUNA', who is formless, timeless, yet the SUPREME BEING exists in reality. He also propagated that it is only works which makes men gods. This is known as KARMAKANDA, the theosophy of work. Karma means work He was a scholar on MIMAMSA school of thoughts: Mimamsa (IAST: Mīmāṃsā) is a Sanskrit word that means "reflection" or "critical investigation".[1][2] Also known as Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā or Karma-Mīmāṃsā,[3]) it is one of six orthodox (astika) schools of Hinduism. The school is known for its philosophical theories on the nature of dharma, based on hermeneutics of the Vedas.[4] The Mīmāṃsā school was foundational and influential for the vedāntic schools, which were also known as Uttara-Mīmāṃsā. The differences were that the Mīmāṃsā school developed and emphasized karmakāṇḍa, or the study of ritual actions, using the four early Vedas, while the Vedānta schools developed and emphasized jñanakāṇḍa, the study of knowledge and spirituality, using the later parts of Vedas like the Upaniṣads.[4]
Mīmāṃsā has several sub-schools, each defined by its epistemology. The Prābhākara sub-school, which takes its name from the seventh-century philosopher Prabhākara, described the five epistemically reliable means to gaining knowledge: pratyakṣa or perception; anumāna or inference; upamāṇa, by comparison and analogy; arthāpatti, the use of postulation and derivation from circumstances; and śabda, the word or testimony of past or present reliable experts.[5][6] The Bhāṭṭa sub-school, from philosopher Kumārila Bhaṭṭa, added a sixth means to its canon; anupalabdhi meant non-perception, or proof by the absence of cognition (e.g., the lack of gunpowder on a suspect's hand)[5][7]
The school of Mīmāṃsā consists of both atheistic and theistic doctrines, but the school showed little interest in systematic examination of the existence of God. Rather, it held that the soul is an eternal, omnipresent, inherently active spiritual essence, and focused on the epistemology and metaphysics of dharma.[3][8][9] For the Mīmāṃsā school, dharma meant rituals and social duties, not devas, or gods, because gods existed only in name.[3] The Mīmāṃsakas also held that Vedas are "eternal, authorless, [and] infallible", that Vedic vidhi, or injunctions and mantras in rituals are prescriptive kārya or actions, and the rituals are of primary importance and merit. They considered the Upaniṣads and other texts related to self-knowledge and spirituality as subsidiary, a philosophical view that Vedānta disagreed with.[4][3]
Mīmāṃsā gave rise to the study of philology and the philosophy of language.[10] While their deep analysis of language and linguistics influenced other schools of Hinduism,[11] their views were not shared by others. Mīmāṃsakas considered the purpose and power of language was to clearly prescribe the proper, correct and right. In contrast, Vedāntins extended the scope and value of language as a tool to also describe, develop and derive.[3] Mīmāṃsakas considered orderly, law driven, procedural life as central purpose and noblest necessity of dharma and society, and divine (theistic) sustenance means to that end.The Mīmāṃsā school is a form of philosophical realism.[12] A key text of the Mīmāṃsā school is the Mīmāṃsā Sūtra of Jaimini.[3][13] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kum%C4%81rila_Bha%E1%B9%AD%E1%B9%ADaupload an image
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2018 8:37:19 GMT
Unfortunately, such overlords are no longer present in India
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Apr 30, 2018 21:30:26 GMT
Now that, we are seeing a transition of self questioning about our identitites and exitense, according to me, philosophers have uneaerthed this question. My favorite is this aristocratic or brahman , the old ones, from the land of bengal, long time back, when the vedic cultures were getting declined, he, at the age of 80 years, actually went to the university of nalanda, and defeated the buddhists monk. This was the time, when the subcontinent was seeing radical changes. His name is Kumarila Bhattacharya. The picture here is his self immolation in guilt, because he defeated his own teacher. and on the left side is Shankaracharya, the founder of Advaita philosophy, a monastic tradition of theism. However, advaita philosophy is opposed by all other scholars, and have been criticized heavily. Kumarila bhatta himself was against any type of material form of god. This is known as 'NIRGUNA', who is formless, timeless, yet the SUPREME BEING exists in reality. He also propagated that it is only works which makes men gods. This is known as KARMAKANDA, the theosophy of work. Karma means work He was a scholar on MIMAMSA school of thoughts: Mimamsa (IAST: Mīmāṃsā) is a Sanskrit word that means "reflection" or "critical investigation".[1][2] Also known as Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā or Karma-Mīmāṃsā,[3]) it is one of six orthodox (astika) schools of Hinduism. The school is known for its philosophical theories on the nature of dharma, based on hermeneutics of the Vedas.[4] The Mīmāṃsā school was foundational and influential for the vedāntic schools, which were also known as Uttara-Mīmāṃsā. The differences were that the Mīmāṃsā school developed and emphasized karmakāṇḍa, or the study of ritual actions, using the four early Vedas, while the Vedānta schools developed and emphasized jñanakāṇḍa, the study of knowledge and spirituality, using the later parts of Vedas like the Upaniṣads.[4]
Mīmāṃsā has several sub-schools, each defined by its epistemology. The Prābhākara sub-school, which takes its name from the seventh-century philosopher Prabhākara, described the five epistemically reliable means to gaining knowledge: pratyakṣa or perception; anumāna or inference; upamāṇa, by comparison and analogy; arthāpatti, the use of postulation and derivation from circumstances; and śabda, the word or testimony of past or present reliable experts.[5][6] The Bhāṭṭa sub-school, from philosopher Kumārila Bhaṭṭa, added a sixth means to its canon; anupalabdhi meant non-perception, or proof by the absence of cognition (e.g., the lack of gunpowder on a suspect's hand)[5][7]
The school of Mīmāṃsā consists of both atheistic and theistic doctrines, but the school showed little interest in systematic examination of the existence of God. Rather, it held that the soul is an eternal, omnipresent, inherently active spiritual essence, and focused on the epistemology and metaphysics of dharma.[3][8][9] For the Mīmāṃsā school, dharma meant rituals and social duties, not devas, or gods, because gods existed only in name.[3] The Mīmāṃsakas also held that Vedas are "eternal, authorless, [and] infallible", that Vedic vidhi, or injunctions and mantras in rituals are prescriptive kārya or actions, and the rituals are of primary importance and merit. They considered the Upaniṣads and other texts related to self-knowledge and spirituality as subsidiary, a philosophical view that Vedānta disagreed with.[4][3]
Mīmāṃsā gave rise to the study of philology and the philosophy of language.[10] While their deep analysis of language and linguistics influenced other schools of Hinduism,[11] their views were not shared by others. Mīmāṃsakas considered the purpose and power of language was to clearly prescribe the proper, correct and right. In contrast, Vedāntins extended the scope and value of language as a tool to also describe, develop and derive.[3] Mīmāṃsakas considered orderly, law driven, procedural life as central purpose and noblest necessity of dharma and society, and divine (theistic) sustenance means to that end.The Mīmāṃsā school is a form of philosophical realism.[12] A key text of the Mīmāṃsā school is the Mīmāṃsā Sūtra of Jaimini.[3][13] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kum%C4%81rila_Bha%E1%B9%AD%E1%B9%ADaupload an imageAs defined above, Mimansa (critical investigation) is, in one language, what we call Phlosophy, whose ultimate goal is that of attaining true knowledge. For one sub-school, Perception is one way of gaining knowledge. But I wander: Was this position attained by critical investigation? I know that Plato (one of my favorite philosophers) devoted one book, one dialogue, "Theaetetus" to the question whether Perception is true knowledge, and philosophically )by investigation), he concluded in the negative. [This implied that we have no true knowledge of the perceptible -- the physical -- world.] He also dealt with the question whether any true knowledge is possible at all. What is the answer in Hinduism?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2018 19:59:58 GMT
Now that, we are seeing a transition of self questioning about our identitites and exitense, according to me, philosophers have uneaerthed this question. My favorite is this aristocratic or brahman , the old ones, from the land of bengal, long time back, when the vedic cultures were getting declined, he, at the age of 80 years, actually went to the university of nalanda, and defeated the buddhists monk. This was the time, when the subcontinent was seeing radical changes. His name is Kumarila Bhattacharya. The picture here is his self immolation in guilt, because he defeated his own teacher. and on the left side is Shankaracharya, the founder of Advaita philosophy, a monastic tradition of theism. However, advaita philosophy is opposed by all other scholars, and have been criticized heavily. Kumarila bhatta himself was against any type of material form of god. This is known as 'NIRGUNA', who is formless, timeless, yet the SUPREME BEING exists in reality. He also propagated that it is only works which makes men gods. This is known as KARMAKANDA, the theosophy of work. Karma means work He was a scholar on MIMAMSA school of thoughts: Mimamsa (IAST: Mīmāṃsā) is a Sanskrit word that means "reflection" or "critical investigation".[1][2] Also known as Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā or Karma-Mīmāṃsā,[3]) it is one of six orthodox (astika) schools of Hinduism. The school is known for its philosophical theories on the nature of dharma, based on hermeneutics of the Vedas.[4] The Mīmāṃsā school was foundational and influential for the vedāntic schools, which were also known as Uttara-Mīmāṃsā. The differences were that the Mīmāṃsā school developed and emphasized karmakāṇḍa, or the study of ritual actions, using the four early Vedas, while the Vedānta schools developed and emphasized jñanakāṇḍa, the study of knowledge and spirituality, using the later parts of Vedas like the Upaniṣads.[4]
Mīmāṃsā has several sub-schools, each defined by its epistemology. The Prābhākara sub-school, which takes its name from the seventh-century philosopher Prabhākara, described the five epistemically reliable means to gaining knowledge: pratyakṣa or perception; anumāna or inference; upamāṇa, by comparison and analogy; arthāpatti, the use of postulation and derivation from circumstances; and śabda, the word or testimony of past or present reliable experts.[5][6] The Bhāṭṭa sub-school, from philosopher Kumārila Bhaṭṭa, added a sixth means to its canon; anupalabdhi meant non-perception, or proof by the absence of cognition (e.g., the lack of gunpowder on a suspect's hand)[5][7]
The school of Mīmāṃsā consists of both atheistic and theistic doctrines, but the school showed little interest in systematic examination of the existence of God. Rather, it held that the soul is an eternal, omnipresent, inherently active spiritual essence, and focused on the epistemology and metaphysics of dharma.[3][8][9] For the Mīmāṃsā school, dharma meant rituals and social duties, not devas, or gods, because gods existed only in name.[3] The Mīmāṃsakas also held that Vedas are "eternal, authorless, [and] infallible", that Vedic vidhi, or injunctions and mantras in rituals are prescriptive kārya or actions, and the rituals are of primary importance and merit. They considered the Upaniṣads and other texts related to self-knowledge and spirituality as subsidiary, a philosophical view that Vedānta disagreed with.[4][3]
Mīmāṃsā gave rise to the study of philology and the philosophy of language.[10] While their deep analysis of language and linguistics influenced other schools of Hinduism,[11] their views were not shared by others. Mīmāṃsakas considered the purpose and power of language was to clearly prescribe the proper, correct and right. In contrast, Vedāntins extended the scope and value of language as a tool to also describe, develop and derive.[3] Mīmāṃsakas considered orderly, law driven, procedural life as central purpose and noblest necessity of dharma and society, and divine (theistic) sustenance means to that end.The Mīmāṃsā school is a form of philosophical realism.[12] A key text of the Mīmāṃsā school is the Mīmāṃsā Sūtra of Jaimini.[3][13] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kum%C4%81rila_Bha%E1%B9%AD%E1%B9%ADaupload an image May I ask some questions? A. Why Advaita philosophy was criticized, because of its dialectic positions? B. Why Kumarila is sitting opposed to Shankaracharya, the teacher of Advaita? Because everyone was againgst Advaita, including Mīmāṃsā's school? C. Why Mīmāṃsā's school studied the ritual actions? Killing the teacher of philosophy is the ritual action or not? D. Why Mīmāṃsā's sub-schools of epistemology were divided? I mean why each school belonged to just one tradition of interpretation of some principle of gaining knowledge? Were there any schools which taught synthesis principles? And teaching of 'the absence of cognition' had any with study of Math? Because, I think, it is the great principle for Math to prove something. Without it, it would hard to prove something in Math. E. It reminds me the arguing between Protestants (Solo Scriptura; Solo Vedas), and Orthodoxy (liturgy is of primary importance; the rituals are of primary importance). I wonder how good Mīmāṃsakas ruled with these principles together, not complaining at it. Probably, in history traditions and words were together earlier. Now, we're dealing with separation, individualization, analyzations, breaking apart... Perhaps, our Universe is under very slowly explosion. F. What do you think about Mīmāṃsa's views on it? Were they right about language, or here Vedāntins were more power on it? Because in my opinion the language has at least two side: a. Consciousness side (the core principles of ruling ideas in our minds); b. Language is a tool in its verbal, rhetoric form.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2018 20:00:49 GMT
joustos I also like Plato's dialogues. May I ask you a question? Does the main arguments (in "Theaetetus" and some other dialogues, like "Parmenidus" or "Gorgius") belong to Socrates, or it's just a Plato's work/invention?
|
|
|
Post by joustos on May 1, 2018 21:03:18 GMT
The fact that Socrates is the main speaker or inquirer in the dialogues written by Plato can be quite confusing. Scholars classify certain dialogues as "Socratic", that is, as actually representing Socrates, when the discussions are about the nature of the virtues (justice, piety, etc.) Supposedly, then, discussions about Truth, Being, the Soul, etc., are Plato's own concerns. (We do not really know how much Socrates and Plato differed.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2018 0:02:45 GMT
The fact that Socrates is the main speaker or inquirer in the dialogues written by Plato can be quite confusing. Scholars classify certain dialogues as "Socratic", that is, as actually representing Socrates, when the discussions are about the nature of the virtues (justice, piety, etc.) Supposedly, then, discussions about Truth, Being, the Soul, etc., are Plato's own concerns. (We do not really know how much Socrates and Plato differed.) Yes, it seems to hard to divide them. Reading almost every dialogue, I can't left a thing that every of it contains the same pattern, the same mechanism of speaking, and it raises a question? How is it possible to avoid development (I don't know the more matching word for this...; maybe 'progress') of your methods of maieutics through all these dialogues? Socrates is shown as some kind of character in the dialogues, too typical character I'd say. Anyway, Plato's Socrates seems to be more real and "lively", than Xenophon's. And at the same time Plato's Socrates is so wise person, that reading Socrates words in many dialogues pushes me to compare Christ with Socrates (or Christ with Plato?).
|
|
|
Post by joustos on May 4, 2018 13:45:59 GMT
The fact that Socrates is the main speaker or inquirer in the dialogues written by Plato can be quite confusing. Scholars classify certain dialogues as "Socratic", that is, as actually representing Socrates, when the discussions are about the nature of the virtues (justice, piety, etc.) Supposedly, then, discussions about Truth, Being, the Soul, etc., are Plato's own concerns. (We do not really know how much Socrates and Plato differed.) Yes, it seems to hard to divide them. Reading almost every dialogue, I can't left a thing that every of it contains the same pattern, the same mechanism of speaking, and it raises a question? How is it possible to avoid development (I don't know the more matching word for this...; maybe 'progress') of your methods of maieutics through all these dialogues? Socrates is shown as some kind of character in the dialogues, too typical character I'd say. Anyway, Plato's Socrates seems to be more real and "lively", than Xenophon's. And at the same time Plato's Socrates is so wise person, that reading Socrates words in many dialogues pushes me to compare Christ with Socrates (or Christ with Plato?). I think that Plato (the writer) actually reports some of the saying of Socrates. Most importantly, Plato uses the "Socratic method" of questioning, so as to elicit truths. //Like many Greeks, both Socrates and Plato were Orphics, but I think it was Plato that was concerned with the nature of the soul and whether the soul is really immortal. In these matters, Socrates was a believer, whereas Plato was the philosopher.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2018 18:09:32 GMT
Yes, it seems to hard to divide them. Reading almost every dialogue, I can't left a thing that every of it contains the same pattern, the same mechanism of speaking, and it raises a question? How is it possible to avoid development (I don't know the more matching word for this...; maybe 'progress') of your methods of maieutics through all these dialogues? Socrates is shown as some kind of character in the dialogues, too typical character I'd say. Anyway, Plato's Socrates seems to be more real and "lively", than Xenophon's. And at the same time Plato's Socrates is so wise person, that reading Socrates words in many dialogues pushes me to compare Christ with Socrates (or Christ with Plato?). I think that Plato (the writer) actually reports some of the saying of Socrates. Most importantly, Plato uses the "Socratic method" of questioning, so as to elicit truths. //Like many Greeks, both Socrates and Plato were Orphics, but I think it was Plato that was concerned with the nature of the soul and whether the soul is really immortal. In these matters, Socrates was a believer, whereas Plato was the philosopher. Well, maybe, but I also read that Plato belonged to Pythagorean school, whereas Socrates had no money to be taught, and he spend his last to be taught by Prodicus (sophistic school). Recently, I reread "Meno", and there was an interesting moment when Socrates showed to Meno how was possible to remember something from our past life (anamnesis). He used geometrical explanations, as Socrates said, and explained by deducing to Meno's slave - a young fellow - how to create 8 foot square from 16 foot square using basic geometry principles. Also, Socrates used geometrical terms. At first sight we can see that such terms as anamnesis was using my Orphics, as you said it in your last post. But geometrical terms, and also this constructions, plus Socrates words that he tried to prove to Meno about the nature of virtue (the main concept which was being discussed through the dialogue) using geometrical method allowed me to suppose that Plato took a huge role on himself, primary he played himself instead of Socrates, or his role of using methods were large. What allows me to think so? Firstly, Socrates invited only Prodicus as he said it in the dialogue "Protagorus", and was study sophistic (or maybe rhetoric; it depends on what exactly Prodicus told him in his few lessons to Socrates); Socrates could heard about as Orphics' teachings as geometry language because of his manner of speaking with many different citizens of Athens; and at the same time, such program that was used by Pythagoreans to which Plato belonged had close, esoteric character, and more secrets kept well by the followers of the famous mathematician and philosopher. These reasons, I guess, picture us Socrates with the "Plato's face", because the role of the last one is great as it can be seen. Secondly, I think that Socrates described in many Plato's dialogues is about to be god. He's so cool and so wise, that impressions of many readers (I'm one of them) often make them to conclude that Socrates has been a saint at least, because of his many qualities, and virtues. This statement (of saintness of Socrates) is less well as the previous one, and also this thesis is weak of its literature side - Socrates as protagonist - however, it can be take into account as support to the thesis of "Plato's face" of Socrates. I don't object the role of Socrates, and in anyway not to claim that the character of the dialogues is Plato, but I really doubt about the truthfulness of the portrait of Socrates in Plato's dialogues. It seems that Socrates was just a figure using the form of discussion (majeutics) while almost every statements has been producing by Plato. I agree with you here, just with a little correction, I think that the soul theory in Plato's dialogues (mainly in "Fedr" and "Republic") can be a lemma concept or helpful concept to explanation of his big system. Yes, I also think that immortality of soul has deep meaning for Plato, because he was an idealist, speaking in modern terms. No doubt that Plato is the philosopher; but, I couldn't fully agree that Socrates was a believer, because even if he had no whole system, his methods showed his more critique purposes in discussions, and also Socrates' followers like the famous Diogenes (in the barrel ) and Antisthenes were strong critiques for everything, trying to improve methods of his teacher. A pair of last statements push me to thought that Socrates was weaker in philosophy than Plato, but not being a believer. Thank you for answering. Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by AmericanCharm on Jun 30, 2018 6:36:43 GMT
I have a handful of favorite philosophers I don’t think I could choose one specific favorite. I have a top 6.
Plato Rene Descartes Baruch Spinoza Immanuel Kant Friedrich Nietzsche Soren Kierkegaard
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2018 13:56:53 GMT
Now that, we are seeing a transition of self questioning about our identitites and exitense, according to me, philosophers have uneaerthed this question. My favorite is this aristocratic or brahman , the old ones, from the land of bengal, long time back, when the vedic cultures were getting declined, he, at the age of 80 years, actually went to the university of nalanda, and defeated the buddhists monk. This was the time, when the subcontinent was seeing radical changes. His name is Kumarila Bhattacharya. The picture here is his self immolation in guilt, because he defeated his own teacher. and on the left side is Shankaracharya, the founder of Advaita philosophy, a monastic tradition of theism. However, advaita philosophy is opposed by all other scholars, and have been criticized heavily. Kumarila bhatta himself was against any type of material form of god. This is known as 'NIRGUNA', who is formless, timeless, yet the SUPREME BEING exists in reality. He also propagated that it is only works which makes men gods. This is known as KARMAKANDA, the theosophy of work. Karma means work He was a scholar on MIMAMSA school of thoughts: Mimamsa (IAST: Mīmāṃsā) is a Sanskrit word that means "reflection" or "critical investigation".[1][2] Also known as Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā or Karma-Mīmāṃsā,[3]) it is one of six orthodox (astika) schools of Hinduism. The school is known for its philosophical theories on the nature of dharma, based on hermeneutics of the Vedas.[4] The Mīmāṃsā school was foundational and influential for the vedāntic schools, which were also known as Uttara-Mīmāṃsā. The differences were that the Mīmāṃsā school developed and emphasized karmakāṇḍa, or the study of ritual actions, using the four early Vedas, while the Vedānta schools developed and emphasized jñanakāṇḍa, the study of knowledge and spirituality, using the later parts of Vedas like the Upaniṣads.[4]
Mīmāṃsā has several sub-schools, each defined by its epistemology. The Prābhākara sub-school, which takes its name from the seventh-century philosopher Prabhākara, described the five epistemically reliable means to gaining knowledge: pratyakṣa or perception; anumāna or inference; upamāṇa, by comparison and analogy; arthāpatti, the use of postulation and derivation from circumstances; and śabda, the word or testimony of past or present reliable experts.[5][6] The Bhāṭṭa sub-school, from philosopher Kumārila Bhaṭṭa, added a sixth means to its canon; anupalabdhi meant non-perception, or proof by the absence of cognition (e.g., the lack of gunpowder on a suspect's hand)[5][7]
The school of Mīmāṃsā consists of both atheistic and theistic doctrines, but the school showed little interest in systematic examination of the existence of God. Rather, it held that the soul is an eternal, omnipresent, inherently active spiritual essence, and focused on the epistemology and metaphysics of dharma.[3][8][9] For the Mīmāṃsā school, dharma meant rituals and social duties, not devas, or gods, because gods existed only in name.[3] The Mīmāṃsakas also held that Vedas are "eternal, authorless, [and] infallible", that Vedic vidhi, or injunctions and mantras in rituals are prescriptive kārya or actions, and the rituals are of primary importance and merit. They considered the Upaniṣads and other texts related to self-knowledge and spirituality as subsidiary, a philosophical view that Vedānta disagreed with.[4][3]
Mīmāṃsā gave rise to the study of philology and the philosophy of language.[10] While their deep analysis of language and linguistics influenced other schools of Hinduism,[11] their views were not shared by others. Mīmāṃsakas considered the purpose and power of language was to clearly prescribe the proper, correct and right. In contrast, Vedāntins extended the scope and value of language as a tool to also describe, develop and derive.[3] Mīmāṃsakas considered orderly, law driven, procedural life as central purpose and noblest necessity of dharma and society, and divine (theistic) sustenance means to that end.The Mīmāṃsā school is a form of philosophical realism.[12] A key text of the Mīmāṃsā school is the Mīmāṃsā Sūtra of Jaimini.[3][13] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kum%C4%81rila_Bha%E1%B9%AD%E1%B9%ADaupload an image May I ask some questions? A. Why Advaita philosophy was criticized, because of its dialectic positions? B. Why Kumarila is sitting opposed to Shankaracharya, the teacher of Advaita? Because everyone was againgst Advaita, including Mīmāṃsā's school? C. Why Mīmāṃsā's school studied the ritual actions? Killing the teacher of philosophy is the ritual action or not? D. Why Mīmāṃsā's sub-schools of epistemology were divided? I mean why each school belonged to just one tradition of interpretation of some principle of gaining knowledge? Were there any schools which taught synthesis principles? And teaching of 'the absence of cognition' had any with study of Math? Because, I think, it is the great principle for Math to prove something. Without it, it would hard to prove something in Math. E. It reminds me the arguing between Protestants (Solo Scriptura; Solo Vedas), and Orthodoxy (liturgy is of primary importance; the rituals are of primary importance). I wonder how good Mīmāṃsakas ruled with these principles together, not complaining at it. Probably, in history traditions and words were together earlier. Now, we're dealing with separation, individualization, analyzations, breaking apart... Perhaps, our Universe is under very slowly explosion. F. What do you think about Mīmāṃsa's views on it? Were they right about language, or here Vedāntins were more power on it? Because in my opinion the language has at least two side: a. Consciousness side (the core principles of ruling ideas in our minds); b. Language is a tool in its verbal, rhetoric form. My bad, I saw this thread late. I need to do lot of research. But, on advaita philosophy, being attacked is, the political agenda in India, as they say Shankaracharya was a crypto buddhist, and turned the buddhist form of liberative thought into BRAHMANICAL spirituality, and this way, brahmans imposed themselves on hindus, and COLONISED india. What they forget is this - BUDDHA himself had many brahmans/aryans scholars,in that era, who developed buddhism, and he cried heavily, when a local indian king, back then, insulted brahmins, because, they were spreading buddha's message. I need to search for that episode of buddha.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 3, 2020 20:45:47 GMT
I wonder who was that deleted member of the Arktos? I am sure I remember him, but I can't remember his name.
|
|