IC please clarify for us

[Dubious]

As an example — and I am here thinking of The Grouch Dubious — it might become possible to actually talk about the notion, or the fact, of salvation.

Indeed, it can, but you're self-endorsed sense of superiority makes any such conversation or follow-up nearly impossible.

Salvation is a hugely inclusive word. It's nuances or customizations are applied on whatever deficiencies you feel need to be rectified or saved from. It can as easily refer to anything in this life as well as a supposed after-life. In effect, salvation requires context in which your simple mention of it becomes, once again, meaningless.

[Immanuel Can]

Now, "best" in what way? Or, to put it another way, using your own preferred terms, in what way do you believe Vedanta is "generally superior" to other systems? In what way does it have an "advantage"?

I explained very specifically what precisely I admire in Vedanta’s metaphysics. Explanatory strength.

Explanatory of exactly what?

I am not interested in the “interrogation” mode that you are stepping into.

Well, the person who started this OP did so as an interrogation of me. And I haven't chickened out on that. Why would you?

It's a simple question. If you say Indian thought is "superior" and has "intellectual and clarifying power," you should be able to say what that refers to. If not, why should anybody accept your claim? You'll have made vague statements of approbation, but given no substance to your claims.

What I admire in late Indian thought is its intellectual and clarifying power.

Explaining and clarifying what, in specific? Let's have some particulars to talk about.

[Walker]

"Principles" exist without "intelligent biological beings"?

Platonic forms?

Are they floating around in the vacuum of space?

Floating around like dark matter?

[Alexis Jacobi]

My darling IC: i stated exactly in what I see Vedanta philosophy as having (superior) explanatory value. Comment on that if it please thee.

[Immanuel Can]

My darling IC: i stated exactly in what I see Vedanta philosophy as having (superior) explanatory value. Comment on that if it please thee.

"Superior" ability to "explain" exactly what?

If you can't say, then I call BS.

[Alexis Jacobi]

But isn’t that your primary position, IC? And your necessary one? It is as I say the very basic Hebrew-Christian position: You would not be able to see or recognize anything of value in any religion or metaphysical conception in any of “the nations” because, in the view that you are aligned with, they are aligned with inferior and ultimately demonic entities. Honestly, that is the Christian position and I think obviously it cannot but be your own. That is your interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita reduced to the most basic is it not?

Now Grumpy Dubious come closer and heed my Teaching, I won’t beat you today: You suppose that I am somehow aligned with darling IC because I continually engage with him, and as I say this is true but only in a conceptual sense.

Put another way, I cannot de-align myself from a sort of ‘essence’ within Christianity, and though you may well piss yourself with the reference, it was René Guénon who noted that there were still strong traces of purer metaphysical concepts even in corrupted Catholicism (i.e. original Christianity: the amalgamation of many currents (as you cynically stated) into a sort of Frankensteinian contraption).

And I think it necessary to say here that if we are seeking a “pure metaphysics” that might explain or say fulfill the religious impulse in it’s best sense (if such exists) then it seems quite realistic to seek that metaphysical clarity in the most coherent system we have access to: that of the Indian subcontinent.

See, I think that when you are in a state of profound relationship with one of your beautiful pieces of music, that really you are deeply involved, if I may put it like this, in a spiritual meditation. And in our own traditions and culture it is the musicians and composers who “explain” to us non-verbally and with musical language their own relationship with “the Divine”. And through this, you see, we actually do ascend in the sense I referred to earlier. And as far as I am able to see and understand, that is the point of religion and spirituality, and if you will the purpose of “God” (or the God-concept) in our world: to aid in “spiritual ascent”.

Now IC, you just listen to me right now: you are being very very naughty and difficult, and yes Yes! I know you have “called BS” with such power and force as all who have read you over the months feel in you, but you are just going to have to wait your turn!

[Alexis Jacobi]

What, pray, have you offered as insight so far except a refurbished Christian cosmos ensconced in old mysticisms upgraded to function as a new prevailing paradigm and hope; a disfigured kind of synthesis between eastern and western worldviews. This forced fusion creates more distortion and incompleteness than if each simply stood on its own rooted in its origins. The world now needs a new paradigm which acknowledges nature and science more than the cross-fertilization of old scriptures and mysticisms. Most religions contain features which overlap regarding the divine. That much is understood by most regardless of denomination. To appreciate each according to its own narratives is far more mentally lucrative than artificially trying to combine them into some sort of metaphysical monstrosity which has no real relevance to any group.

I do not think I have defined a “Christian cosmos” in any sense, nor defined Cosmos. And I have never defined “mysticism” though, yes, I do see spiritual life as being mystical in the sense of personal and hard to define, communicate. But there are other words, too. How could I possibly examine any other Worldview or consider it if I do not on some level synthesize both? Thinking is synthesis. I have no idea where things tend now nor how, or if, the former “horizon” will be recovered or replaced. And I cannot say I disagree that syncretism between varying systems might not be such a good thing.

The world now needs a new paradigm which acknowledges nature and science more than the cross-fertilization of old scriptures and mysticisms.

I am quite uncertain what “the world needs”, Old Chap, and I can really only talk about what I feel that I need if, indeed, a foundation in eternal being is what is to be sought. And anyway, who in the heck does not ‘acknowledge’ nature and science?

To appreciate each according to its own narratives is far more mentally lucrative than artificially trying to combine them into some sort of metaphysical monstrosity which has no real relevance to any group.

Yeah, OK, I guess, but we here follow the impetus, however imperfectly, of our philosophical forebears. You see? We stand away and apart from each system and examine them intellectually.

Oh Dubious! You have said so many hurtful things today! Will your desire to wound ever resolve itself!

[Alexis Jacobi]

My dear dear Children! Let’s put aside strife and contempt and meditate together! If only for one pathetic, short moment!

[Immanuel Can]

But isn’t that your primary position, IC?

Not if you have an answer.

I want to see what you think you know about Vedanta. I want a chance to evaluate your claim that it's "explanatory." After all, "explanatory" means "illuminative to a rational interlocutor." Assuming, then, that we are both rational men, there should be absolutely no difficulty.

But there is, apparently. And that's making you evasive. It's also making you resort to the pseudo-pedantic tone and the distractors. I think we can suspect, at this point, that you may have nothing on that. It was an empty claim. It was BS.

But I'm ready for you to show that's untrue. If you wish to pretend you can't explain it to me, well, there are other rational persons present at this site, surely: and I'm certain that if Vedanta has "explanatory power" you can explain to them, put my skepticism to shame, and rout me publicly.

So...go ahead.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I want to see what you think you know about Vedanta. I want a chance to evaluate your claim that it's "explanatory." After all, "explanatory" means "illuminative to a rational interlocutor." Assuming, then, that we are both rational men, there should be absolutely no difficulty.

No, that is not what you are after. What you are after is exactly what I described: For you, and wedded as you are to the fanaticism of a strict Evangelical Christian position, all foreign (of the nations) religious, spiritual or metaphysical perspectives or viewpoints are a priori false and misleading. That is the bottom-line truth about your perspective and what really you are up to.

In order to converse with you on this topic you need to have familiarity with the topic. I do not think you have any background at all. But could I be wrong?

Explanatory" certainly does means "illuminative to a rational interlocutor." And what I think is needed here is to define what in spirituality and religious life, or simply the life we have here to live and fulfill, that needs explanation. Is explanation necessary?

Tell me, and our eager interlocutors, your thoughts.

Assuming, then, that we are both rational men

This is very interesting. My view of you is that your rationalism is of an afflicted variety. You mimic reason but I think your fanaticism afflicts your ability to be, say, really “rational”. Would I describe you as irrational then? Hmmmm. Not quite. I will go with “afflicted rationalism conditioned by religious fanaticism”.

What do you think? Will that work?

[Immanuel Can]

I want to see what you think you know about Vedanta. I want a chance to evaluate your claim that it's "explanatory." After all, "explanatory" means "illuminative to a rational interlocutor." Assuming, then, that we are both rational men, there should be absolutely no difficulty.

No, that is not what you are after.

Yes, it is. And slandering me will not get you off the hook. You claimed Vedanta had special "explanatory power." I'm prepared to see you justify that claim. So is everybody else. Go ahead.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I do not perceive myself to be on any sort of “hook”, dear IC.

The question has to do with “explanation”. In your view, what is to be explained in religious or metaphysical discourse? Surely something, no? What are we here talking about ultimately? If you engage with the topic perhaps something will come of it.

But I need to know what you believe needs explanation? Or perhaps you feel that nothing requires explanation?

I do not think I ‘slander’ you. I believe that I provide honest appraisals. Are you not a “fanatical Evangelical Christian”? Is that an inaccurate statement about you?

[Immanuel Can]

I do not perceive myself to be on any sort of “hook”, dear IC.

And yet, you are. You put yourself there, by making the claim. You may wish you hadn't now, because you may not want to justify it. But you did. And you were quite dogmatic about it: Vedanta is "incomparably" better, you insisted. It has "explanatory power." And yet, you can't use it to "explain" anything.

I guess you've given us the answer anyway. Your evasiveness tells the whole tale.

[Alexis Jacobi]

No IC, you pretend you are interested in discourse. But honestly you are not. You play games. If you want honest engagement you will need to relinquish the game you are playing of attempting to control the conversation.

My question has to do with “explanation”. Is explanation needed? And what requires explanation? If you engage, dear one, what honest people call conversation may result.

I guess you've given us the answer anyway. Your evasiveness tells the whole tale.

This too is dishonest. I do not evade any aspect of the ideas and conversations I feel are worthy. I side-step your dishonest and counter-productive methods and tactics. It is that simple.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You said that you regard the narrator of the Bhagavad Gita (the figure giving the narration is Krishna) and specifically that portion where the narrator describes his universal form, as being false and demonic, isn’t that right? Am I right in assuming that this view, the view of that chapter and its message, prejudices your view of the value of that book (school of thought really), so that my question is do you find any value, say, and any explanatory value, in any part of the Gita? or is it all corrupt in your view?

This is an important question to answer, I think.

Isn’t the issue that you regard it as having no explanatory relevance?

What are your thoughts?