Re: bad poetry?

Okay. But isn't focusing specifically on the Vedic enlightenment missing a more general principle?

If the Vedas are correct in the "specific belief about the world and things in it" they convey, then other conflicting views must be incorrect. This demands the existence of absolute truth, or a general principle of truth. Conflicting notions of truth certainly motivate the Vedic tradition; the Rig Veda emerges following conquest, and thanking the gods for military success seems to me one of the most powerful acknowledgements of a general truth as is possible.

Or, if the Vedas are correct AND other religious philosophies are also correct, they must share some uniting general principle of truth. In this case also, absolute truth exists. There's no getting around generality, ultimately, unless one wants to argue that one philosophy is correct for some people, another for other people.... Even then, those people who choose to pursue one philosophy vs. another must believe in general principles that their chosen philosophy prescribes, and believe that they are correct.

There doesn't seem any way of getting around discrimination, either. There's a difference between good and superlative horses; there must be discrimination based on spiritual qualities, as the story suggests. At the end of the story, it is acknowledged that the chosen horse is superlative, an absolute truth conjectured on a general notion of what spiritually is "superlative."

You're not wrong in this argument, Jim, and I'm not right. Neither is the reverse true. The argument itself has beauty, is a superlative horse, because what is the purpose of discussion, if not in search of an absolute?

And if such an absolute won't make us happy (I suppose when I say happy, you're thinking painters and chicken broth; but I should clarify this as inextricably linked with a more profound understanding and grasp of truth) then what is the point of searching?

luke

-------Original Message-------
From: Jim Rovira <jrovira@drew.edu>
Sent: 07/04/03 08:42 PM
To: bananafish@roughdraft.org
Subject: Re: bad poetry?

>
> You're speaking of enlightenment too generally -- it's defined so
completely differently in each religious tradition that calling it a
"general truth" or "general principle of happiness" is meaningless.
This is a very Enlightenment (in the sense, now, of a specific
philosophical movement/period arising from rationalism) concept and
completely nonsense, once you get close enough to actual religious texts
to see what they really say. This supports Blake's dictum, by the way.
It's one thing to speak of enlightenment (in the sense of illumination)
generally, and another to represent it accurately as it is held in each
individual religious tradition. The latter requires some study, the
former doesn't require much at all, really.

I don't see enlightenment in the Vedic sense as being a "generalization"
at all -- it follows from a very specific belief about the world and
things in it. It doesn't guarantee "happiness" in any real sense, and
actually moves the individual beyond happiness or sorrow.

Jim

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
>
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Sat Jul 5 10:25:05 2003