Does the dichotomy between the objective and the subjective exist in the Vedas?
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
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)
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?
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
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.
Objective truth is parmarth ie for use by the others. There one hasc to rigorously establish it. Like
- That hill has fire.
- Because it has smoke
- All objects that have smoke have fire eg the kitchen hearth
- That hill too has smoke.
- 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:
