tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post2605983269219477608..comments2024-03-26T13:06:41.178-04:00Comments on Jagat: More on cultural specificsJagadananda Dashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05887720845815026518noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-85442636048187061052009-10-05T21:11:36.945-04:002009-10-05T21:11:36.945-04:00I think, Jagat, that if the history of civilizati...I think, Jagat, that if the history of civilization wasn't silly to begin with, we wouldn't be striving to be better humans as a consequence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-75089265957505620482009-10-05T19:56:43.904-04:002009-10-05T19:56:43.904-04:00Who invented children? It was all a plot.
We don...Who invented children? It was all a plot. <br /><br />We don't have to be silly about the history of civilization in order to be better humans.Jagadananda Dashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05887720845815026518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-27611360880317790892009-10-05T19:20:43.257-04:002009-10-05T19:20:43.257-04:00"Who started this "vedic culture" f..."Who started this "vedic culture" fetish?"<br /><br />The same people who started the Asian women fetish, i.e., insecure males.<br /><br />"and why?"<br />To keep women under control. <br /><br />Next question?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-76757864788864668012009-10-05T12:22:56.190-04:002009-10-05T12:22:56.190-04:00I've yet to read anything written by Rupa Gosw...I've yet to read anything written by Rupa Goswami about "vedic culure". Why do western "devotees" talk about it so much? What does it have to do with bhakti?<br /><br />Who started this "vedic culture" fetish, and why?AFnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-50020336870522172442009-10-04T12:58:39.853-04:002009-10-04T12:58:39.853-04:00"Who cares what "vedic culture" mea..."Who cares what "vedic culture" means? It's over. If it ever even existed at all."<br /><br />Woah easy there now, lest we start applying the same <i>logic</i> to the myth of Radha herself. Of course there is always Mr. Buddha to live with, and that is one fellow who, if he didn't exist, we can always invent on demand. My own private buddha right now - he needs cash.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-74010520456338837052009-10-02T15:36:22.806-04:002009-10-02T15:36:22.806-04:00"So it is interesting if this approach helpes..."So it is interesting if this approach helpes us as westeners and indians alike to gain insight in what vedic culture actually means".........<br /><br />Who cares what "vedic culture" means? It's over. If it ever even existed at all.AFnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-28223320090337270532009-10-02T04:35:32.242-04:002009-10-02T04:35:32.242-04:00"Cultural psychology is a field of psychology..."Cultural psychology is a field of psychology which assumes the idea that culture and mind are inseparable, thus there are no universal laws for how the mind works and that psychological theories grounded in one culture are likely to be limited in applicability when applied to a different culture.".....<br /><br />So because both are inseperable their is a mental aspect to culture. Culture is mental. Culture is people. Cultural context is people. Psychological theories are as grouned in culture as they are in mind. The paradigma has always been to explain culture as a constant variable when it comes to theories about the mind. That is a mistake, a logical connection argument, the assumption that they can be seperated and then assuming that one causes the other.<br /><br />So it is interesting if this approach helpes us as westeners and indians alike to gain insight in what vedic culture actually means not as a static given, but as a dynamic between people.<br />Even the color of a sari or dhoti can cary more (psychological)meaning than that we previously held possible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-34410829225160809082009-09-29T17:49:35.129-04:002009-09-29T17:49:35.129-04:00More on cultural psychology;
"Cultural psych...More on cultural psychology;<br /><br />"Cultural psychology is a field of psychology which assumes the idea that culture and mind are inseparable, thus there are no universal laws for how the mind works and that psychological theories grounded in one culture are likely to be limited in applicability when applied to a different culture.".....<br /><br /><br />this became obvious to me while living in India.AFnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-43660753024496538732009-09-28T16:27:52.893-04:002009-09-28T16:27:52.893-04:00"In the field of cultural psychology the appr..."In the field of cultural psychology the approach to culture is almost opposite as in other social studies, like sociology.<br /><br />Culture is not seen as a given that explains behaviour, but as something that needs to be explained, as something that happens between people.<br /><br />We know very little about culture from this perspective."<br /><br />Assuming that "we" here refers to human society in general and scientists in the field of psychology in particular, I think the observation above is very very timely. In other words, actual experts in the field recognize that in reality culture does not explain behavior but instead presents even further questions as to why individuals (and by extention societies) behave as they do. My wild guess is that it has something to do with genetics/biology. But only something, not all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-91420073291505725842009-09-27T05:25:23.124-04:002009-09-27T05:25:23.124-04:00In the field of cultural psychology the approach t...In the field of cultural psychology the approach to culture is almost opposite as in other social studies, like sociology.<br /><br />Culture is not seen as a given that explains behaviour, but as something that needs to be explained, as something that happens between people.<br /><br />We know very little about culture from this perspective.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-79022565829523818452009-09-21T14:42:31.264-04:002009-09-21T14:42:31.264-04:00Jagat, I was re-reading your articles and I think ...Jagat, I was re-reading your articles and I think I am starting to get your point. I need some time to give it further thought, though. Thanks for the answers.KRISHNA DASAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359762371537677705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-87403009151233539572009-09-21T07:23:20.766-04:002009-09-21T07:23:20.766-04:00Yes, I started on that viseshana-visheshya thing, ...Yes, I started on that viseshana-visheshya thing, but never finished because I don't really understand what you meant. Perhaps you can give references also. <br /><br />I was going to refer to BRS 1.3.1, 1.4.1 and 2.1.9, but I would have to think of what Rupa Goswami meant about the relation between rasa and prema. But I would like to hear more about what you intended.<br /><br />With regards the other, I would call it a development on BVT's theory. How would you defend his (or Satya Naraya's position), other than by appeal to shastra?<br /><br />The main point of my argument is to disagree with a kind of linear or "gross" way of looking at the nitya-lila and the svayam bhagavan concept. I accept the logical arguments that place Radha Krishna lila at the innermost level of the bhakti universe, etc. So, in a way, you could call it a six/half-dozen question.Jagadananda Dashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05887720845815026518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-31537023359012518862009-09-20T11:54:36.026-04:002009-09-20T11:54:36.026-04:00Dear Jagat, I do not think you really answered my ...Dear Jagat, I do not think you really answered my comment. You did not address the visesana-visesya relationship I had pointed out. I am wondering if you can elaborate on that. <br /><br />And in fact, I do think that what you say differs from BVT's reflection theory, because according to his theory material forms are reflection (mayika praticchaya) of spiritual forms. Advaitins deny reality to this world, but that is not the issue here. I did not mean to say that you consider the material world unreal. The problem which makes you differ from BVT is that you seem to deny the existence of the "cultural specifics" of Krishna Lila in the spiritual world. Hence, you cannot claim alliance with BVT's reflection theory because there is nothing to be reflected. The "cultural specifics" are something concrete that stands for somethings abstract, formless, undefinable. They exist in the material world only, and not in both worlds as BVT has it. Please correct me if I am wrong and misread you.KRISHNA DASAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359762371537677705noreply@blogger.com