shabda (was Re: [Advaita-l] 'End' not 'Means')

[Aditya Varun Chadha]

from your response i doubt you read my entire post (no ad hominem
here), but I guess we can let it rest.

On 4/30/06, S Jayanarayanan <sjayana at yahoo.com> wrote:
> This will be my last posting on this topic. There are fundamental
> misconceptions about words and meanings that I cannot help with
> unless there is a deliberate effort to understand the arguments
> presented and references submitted. I will reiterate what I said
> before and then leave it at that.
>
> --- Aditya Varun Chadha <adichad at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > wearing my nAstika hat for a while...
> >
> > On 4/29/06, S Jayanarayanan <sjayana at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > But the
> > > > basis of morality (pertaining to AcharaN) is ultimately based
> > in
> > > > pratyakSa (which happens to be encoded in the scriptures also).
> > notice, I said ENCODED.
> >
> > > According to the mImAmsA perspective, all WORDS and MEANINGS (not
> > > only of those of the Vedas) are not in the realm of the physical,
> > but
> > > exist eternally in a metaphysical realm. This is ESTABLISHED, and
> > is
> > > not merely a tall claim. Check out:
> >
> > > A small gist of the arguments:
> > >
> > > 1) If the words you are viewing in the computer monitor really
> > > existed only in the monitor, the word should be destroyed when
> > the
> > > screen-saver comes on. But the word doesn't get destroyed.
> >
> > the words I see on the monitor are the result of electrical
> > signals.
>
> The words are not on the monitor at all. Re-read my previous posting
> as to why:
>
> -----
> 1) If the words you are viewing in the computer monitor really
> existed only in the monitor, the word should be destroyed when the
> screen-saver comes on. But the word doesn't get destroyed (for
> obvious reasons - the word is used and perceived by someone else).
>
> Conclusion: the monitor merely contains *symbolic representations* of
> the words are not words themselves. For instance, "2" is not a
> number, but only a symbolic representation of a number.
> -----
>
>
> If you think "2 (in decimal form)" or "II (in Roman numeral
> representation)" or "10 (in binary arithmetic)" are all referring to
> different entities or that the number so referred to is an electrical
> signal, I cannot help you!
>
> This reference might help:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics
>
> -Kartik
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>


--
Aditya Varun Chadha | http://www.adichad.com | +91 9840076411 (M)
Room#1024, Cauvery Hostel | IIT Madras | Chennai - 600036 | India