(continued from above...) I am simply asking what that principle is, in a manner that doesn't collapse into tautology. Refer to what I said above about it not being a definition of formula that can be written in a book, and it's being the name for a unity that is declared or posited. It (that there is a singular underlying order) is known to be true for a fact only with realization or enlightenment or what have you. It is as silly as saying, "I am simply asking what Brahman is!". Knowing it takes sustained effort according to the paths written in the scriptures or suggested by saints. If you find that unsatisfactory, then fine, you can discard it. For Hindus what is written in the scriptures and the testimony of generations of seers, besides the coherence and utility of Hindu thought, is good enough to find the position credible, and to persist with their efforts and enquiry on the paths suggested on its basis. For those for whom the concept is so unappealing as to not even embark on the path which might show it to be true, it will remain a tautology.
Right, but "animals" are real which include cats and dogs. "Laws" is an abstraction to note that there are real moral laws and real natural laws, but not that there are laws for both. And... "animals" is not an abstraction??? Is there an animal which is not a cat or a dog or some other particular species of animal? To question your statement from the opposite direction, there are tax laws, civil laws, local laws, international laws... does this mean there are there no "real Laws"? In what sense are "animals" just as real as cats and dogs are, but "laws" not as real as natural laws and moral laws are?
That is exactly correct. It claims to offer the unity, and yet I can find no justification for the claim Please quote the part of the Hindu scriptures where the claim of "offering" the "unity" is made in the sense you allege.
This seems much more like an observation rather than a principle To repeat for the nth time, it is not a principle arrived at through deduction, but a statement about reality declared to be true by the scriptures and verified by those who have found spiritual illumination. And yes, it's a tenable position going by observation like you say.
A natural fallacy claims that because something is the case, that it ought to be the case. Because England has had a royal family it ought to have a royal family. As you can see this is an argument which starts with a statement of fact and then uses it as moral justification. And, pray, my lord, how does the concept of Rta lead to such a fallacy? To take one example: it is true that people commit murders; how does this fact in combination with belief in the existence of Rta lead us to conclude that people should commit murders? And I hope this application is pragmatic enough for you!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-12-14 08:59 pm (UTC)I am simply asking what that principle is, in a manner that doesn't collapse into tautology.
Refer to what I said above about it not being a definition of formula that can be written in a book, and it's being the name for a unity that is declared or posited. It (that there is a singular underlying order) is known to be true for a fact only with realization or enlightenment or what have you. It is as silly as saying, "I am simply asking what Brahman is!". Knowing it takes sustained effort according to the paths written in the scriptures or suggested by saints. If you find that unsatisfactory, then fine, you can discard it. For Hindus what is written in the scriptures and the testimony of generations of seers, besides the coherence and utility of Hindu thought, is good enough to find the position credible, and to persist with their efforts and enquiry on the paths suggested on its basis. For those for whom the concept is so unappealing as to not even embark on the path which might show it to be true, it will remain a tautology.
Right, but "animals" are real which include cats and dogs. "Laws" is an abstraction to note that there are real moral laws and real natural laws, but not that there are laws for both.
And... "animals" is not an abstraction??? Is there an animal which is not a cat or a dog or some other particular species of animal? To question your statement from the opposite direction, there are tax laws, civil laws, local laws, international laws... does this mean there are there no "real Laws"? In what sense are "animals" just as real as cats and dogs are, but "laws" not as real as natural laws and moral laws are?
That is exactly correct. It claims to offer the unity, and yet I can find no justification for the claim
Please quote the part of the Hindu scriptures where the claim of "offering" the "unity" is made in the sense you allege.
This seems much more like an observation rather than a principle
To repeat for the nth time, it is not a principle arrived at through deduction, but a statement about reality declared to be true by the scriptures and verified by those who have found spiritual illumination. And yes, it's a tenable position going by observation like you say.
A natural fallacy claims that because something is the case, that it ought to be the case. Because England has had a royal family it ought to have a royal family. As you can see this is an argument which starts with a statement of fact and then uses it as moral justification.
And, pray, my lord, how does the concept of Rta lead to such a fallacy? To take one example: it is true that people commit murders; how does this fact in combination with belief in the existence of Rta lead us to conclude that people should commit murders? And I hope this application is pragmatic enough for you!