[Xmca-l] Re: Imagination or Fantasy (Vedanta)

[Ed Wall]

Annalisa

    Language can be ambiguous. I though the term darshan might be helpful. To quote from the Internet:

Darshan. In Indian philosophy the term designates the distinctive way in which each philosophical system looks at things, including its exposition of sacred scriptures and authoritative knowledge. The six principal Hindu darshans are Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Mimamsa, and Vedanta

This, of course, obscures by re-introducing the category of philosophy that you had concerns about; however, I have always thought of these, in part, as modes of analysis. In the West, we have, in a sense, something similar (e.g. analytical philosophy, continental philosophy, psychology, marxism, science, critical theory, cultural historical and the list goes on - although this list could be debated), but, in my opinion, not as well developed.  
    Perhaps more interestingly, people on this list seem to be viewing things in very different ways (Mike’s request for appropriate subject lines underlies this) although such viewing seems to be leading to a sort of commonality. I don’t mean agreement by this, but, perhaps, more of a recognition of or acceptance of something (in a sense, we are pointing in the same direction). There is an old ‘proverb’ about a number of blind wise people and an elephant. In a way, and this is my opinion, we seem to each be reaching so as to grab hold of imagination and, perhaps, due to the vantage point (or fulcrum) we take, we find something somewhat different, but, more importantly somewhat the same. One might say, the ‘knowledge' of imagination in play is acceptable to each of us.

Speaking, for myself, I always try to do an analysis on two or so levels and it would be fascinating to do an non-Western analysis on six (smile). 

Ed

> On Dec 8, 2015, at  2:19 PM, Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Ed,
> 
> I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by darshans. I've not heard the word used in the way you are using it.
> 
> It's OK. I'm not trying to present myself as an expert or as a representative of "the East." I am only trying to employ some ideas as a means to getting out of the straightjacket of Cartesian, dualist thinking, that's all.
> 
> My suggestions are not the only way to do that, of course, just one I'm exploring. 
> 
> I'm also exploring how these ideas coincide with "Western" philosophy, another grab bag of ideas with various cultural flavors and perspectives.
> 
> I just thought it would be odd that I examine all Indian "philosophies" in order to make my comparisons. Sorry if I seemed reactive.
> 
> Perhaps what is getting confused here is the difference between "is" and "ought"?
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Annalisa