Does the dichotomy between the objective and the subjective exist in the Vedas?

Discussion in 'Eastern Philosophy' started by wynn, Jun 19, 2009.

  1. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Does the dichotomy between the objective and the subjective exist in the Vedas, and if yes, how?








    Thank you.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    The vedas talks about different potencies (primarily the internal and external (which are further subdivided into many categories) and the marginal.

    the idea is that all of these are contingent on one personality - god

    Everything else is a combination of these potencies.

    SO for god there is no dichotomy between objective and subjective.

    For everyone else there is (because there is always something "greater" than one's self ... sheesh even for the jiva the external energy is attributed as being "daivi" - as in daivi hi esa guna mayi etc etc)
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    But for the individual soul, is this dichotomy between subjective and objective a) real and b) can be overcome?

    IOW, can the individual soul ever have the objective perspective?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. rcscwc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    721
    Vedas do not actually contain philosophical works, which are found in Upanishads and subsequent sutras of different schools. There this dichotomy is clearly recognised and dealt with. Subjective truth is for swarth ie use by self, and does not need rigorous and detailed arguments. I see the distant has smoke, I immidiately conclude it has fire.

    Objective truth is parmarth ie for use by the others. There one hasc to rigorously establish it. Like

    1. That hill has fire.
    2. Because it has smoke
    3. All objects that have smoke have fire eg the kitchen hearth
    4. That hill too has smoke.
    5. Hence it has fire.

    This inferential process. This has induction and deduction both. But the Charvaks reject inference as a source of knowledge. Go to the hill and establish that it has FIRE. This is not always feasible.

    Indian philosophy recgnises that even perception is fallible. A jaundiced person will see that the cup has a yellow milk, but those with healthy eyes see it as white. Both men might be upright and truthful, but one is wrong.

    PS: Nyaya school had advanced a set of proofs for existence of God. They are a superset of all such proofs in west from Plato to Augustine to Aquinas to Kalam. But they were rejected and debunked thoroughly by all otheir theist or atheist schools. No other school gave any such proofs and a stalemate was recognised.
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2010
  8. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Oh, I'm sorry, I misread. I thought this thread was titled "Does the dichotomey between the objective and the subjective exist in Vegas

    In Vegas, only the odds are objective, everything else is subjective.
     

Share This Page