One cannot describe more than self.
2006-10-05 20:27:18 · 11 answers · asked by The Knowledge Server 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
No, unfortunately the rest of the world is not just my imagination, it doesn't all revolve around me, and I even understand somethign about the revolutions of it beyond myself. Oh well.
2006-10-05 20:33:11 · answer #1 · answered by theinfalliblenena 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Lady, what have you taken overdoze of ?
Philosophy ?
I think you need to give yourself a rest and a break.
Go see a good movie and enjoy.
Don't trouble yourself with all these kinds of funny philosophies which anyway don't mean a thing.
Are you trying to become some sort of a philosophical nerd ?
Take it easy and don't strain yourself too much with such things.
Life is to live happily. Not to torchure yourself with such complex puzzles.
Note : None of the 6 non-atheistic Hindu philosophies have stated this. Neither does J. Krishnamurthy or Shree Shree Ma have said this. I don't care what your philosopher friend tells you.
But I will say this :
I know you are either Samlyn Josfyn or that funny philosopher.
So does that mean since I can describe you, you are within my "self" ? If yes then prove it to me.
What all great Hindu scholars and even Shree Shree Ma has said is : You can not describe the ONE (or the "self") with words.
Their ways are unfathomable. Everything is possible there.
Which means your statement can be true as well as FALSE.
In fact your statement is just FALSE.
That's all. And there is no way you can disprove it.
Since to disprove it you will go on logically.
But the ONE, the "self" is beyond logic.
So your statement is utterly FALSE.
One person's (the philosopher's) beliefs and logic does not stand against popular statements of scriptures, J Krishnamurthy and Shree Shree Ma.
That philosopher is funny and useless too.
His logic is simply illogical.
This statement is not in line with any of the traditional or contemporary popular Hindu or Indian philosophies.
In fact it is against them and it logically disproves all of them !
Call spade a spade. Don't try to prove it a club.
My advice to you is do not waste your valuable time with such foolish philosopher who is basically useless and not a good person. Association with such foolish philosopher will hurt you more than what benefits you will get.
So be wise. Avoid funny and foolish associations.
And do not ask me whether this statement is true.
IT IS FALSE. THAT'S ALL.
I can prove that this statement is logically FALSE.
Premise : One can not describe more than self.
A logical derivative of this will mean that the "self",
or "Brahaman" is Dvait.
Logical derivative of the premise will lead to a fault of
changability and perishability in Brahman.
It no longer remains unchangeable, but becomes
changeable and hence perishable.
Since Philosophies (and wisdom) proclaim (and prove) that Brahman is unchangable and eternal.
Hence our Premise (the statement itself) must be FALSE.
Hence,
it is a false staement.
It is incorrect to state or believe that
"One can not describe more than self".
Smartie
2006-10-06 03:38:34 · answer #2 · answered by James 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes the statement is correct and true. The observer is the observed. All descriptions are images of self. The descriptions of the indescribable are just the content of the one describing. The description of the truth is not the truth. This is my humble observation about the essence of the question. I wish a small ember could shed the light in the dark.
2006-10-06 22:29:49 · answer #3 · answered by ol's one 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No it is not correct that one could not describe more than the self.
Subjectively, we each have our own consciousness, and each holds our own description to be the correct one for ourselves.
Objectively, we could describe the same thing with the same exact words and agree to the correctness, for each other.
2006-10-06 04:15:53 · answer #4 · answered by : ) 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know if that's "correct," or even if it's true in the learned sense. What I see in it is that one cannot describe anything that he has not experienced and, once he has experienced something, should he undertake to describe it, the description will be based upon his subjective interpretation.
2006-10-06 03:41:33 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why can not u describe more than self? Eientien described much more. Newton , Edison or thousands of researchers gave much more. Panini, Parasher creator of grammar and astrology described much. See2 Discoverer of "Zero" or "infinity" or "Veda-vyas" creator of " geeta". I read books of "tagore"/ "premchand" & I think they have discribed much more.
Have u read " Autobiography of a Yogi" by " Yogananda"
Pl.read it. It will describe much more
Also take a course in "bipasana" by "Goyanka ji" at Igatpuri, u will describe much more of U- u will find God in U..--
2006-10-06 03:42:23 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
self can be described so far the existence concerns.
2006-10-08 11:15:52 · answer #7 · answered by prince47 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. One can describe what one chooses to describe.
2006-10-06 03:34:56 · answer #8 · answered by a_phantoms_rose 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, let others describe you. You can have a bias for yourself.
2006-10-06 03:37:20 · answer #9 · answered by prakash s 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes and no, in that everyone's description is valid only to THEM.
2006-10-06 03:30:28 · answer #10 · answered by backinbowl 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋