The purpose of my posting and, I presume, this entire forum
is to discuss Shri Balagangadhara's book, and not to debate what
specifically the Indian traditions try to do. For my intentions here, it
does not matter to me whether anyone's own made-up speculations or
hypotheses differ from what I have written in that regard. The point I
am trying to make is simple: the `Conditions of Possibility'
that Shri Balagangadhara claims do not exist in India are in fact
present in some form and they do have specific roles.
That said, if anyone would like to discuss these specifics, I would
suggest that we do so outside of this forum, perhaps by email. But I
would like to call attention to one fact which seems to be commonly
overlooked, both here and in world at large. The Indian traditions
teach. Only knowledge can be taught. Like any other field of knowledge,
these traditions have very systematic pedagogy, terminology, and
analyses. And like any other field of knowledge, only a teacher trained
in that field can correctly use and discuss these systems. So before we
go about hypothesizing about the traditions or agreeing on our own
imagined definitions of words, it is imperative that we study in a
tradition and not merely keep them as objects of our study. This does
not mean that one has to subscribe to any belief (for, teaching can only
be of verifiable knowledge), but one will realise that what the Indian
traditions say is very clear, and there is no room for interpretation or
hypothesis in the matter.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]