Post 200:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/3491
this above message contains a refutation of the neo-western contention that china harbored a more ancient strand of normative virtue ethics. these herrenvolks never do seem to stop with their allegations, limitless in number and directed at all and sundry. really amazing if you think about it..<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Dhu, could you please post the message itself? Not being a member of the yahoo group, I can't access it. Would like to read it.
Post 199 and particularly 201:
Incredibly perceptive and very true.
Balagangadhara's insight and understanding is deeply cool (#201). He clarifies the matter like someone clearing cobwebs to reveal the shape underneath.
Post 197:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Joseph Jacobs in 1888[24] offers a less coercive interpretation of how the Panchatantra/Kalila and Dimna stories might work more effectively to modify human behaviour: " . . . . if one thinks of it, the very raison d'être of the Fable is to imply its moral without mentioning it."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Yes, I thought the stories were self-explanatory too. It kind of holds a mirror up to you, and you decide what you want to be.
What I always thought was that the character you naturally sympathise with, or whose actions you approve of, need not always be the character that triumphs in the Indian fables. It triggers a response of some sense of not wanting unrighteousness to be allowed to win, and wanting to make the world and human behaviour - particularly one's own - such that positive characters/actions are not met with unwarranted disaster. It speaks to the innate righteousness in young children, and tells them to sharpen their wits at the same time. IMO.
And what's up with 'Professor' Edgerton describing the Panchatantra as 'Machiavellian'? And writing:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The morals of the stories are often amoral.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Why did the west always need the morals spelled out to it, when one can develop them by having stories that get you to subconsciously reflect on them?
Makes me wonder what 'professor' means when such experts don't even 'get' what they profess to be experts on. Explains Wendy Doniger et al.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/3491
this above message contains a refutation of the neo-western contention that china harbored a more ancient strand of normative virtue ethics. these herrenvolks never do seem to stop with their allegations, limitless in number and directed at all and sundry. really amazing if you think about it..<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Dhu, could you please post the message itself? Not being a member of the yahoo group, I can't access it. Would like to read it.
Post 199 and particularly 201:
Incredibly perceptive and very true.
Balagangadhara's insight and understanding is deeply cool (#201). He clarifies the matter like someone clearing cobwebs to reveal the shape underneath.
Post 197:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Joseph Jacobs in 1888[24] offers a less coercive interpretation of how the Panchatantra/Kalila and Dimna stories might work more effectively to modify human behaviour: " . . . . if one thinks of it, the very raison d'être of the Fable is to imply its moral without mentioning it."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Yes, I thought the stories were self-explanatory too. It kind of holds a mirror up to you, and you decide what you want to be.
What I always thought was that the character you naturally sympathise with, or whose actions you approve of, need not always be the character that triumphs in the Indian fables. It triggers a response of some sense of not wanting unrighteousness to be allowed to win, and wanting to make the world and human behaviour - particularly one's own - such that positive characters/actions are not met with unwarranted disaster. It speaks to the innate righteousness in young children, and tells them to sharpen their wits at the same time. IMO.
And what's up with 'Professor' Edgerton describing the Panchatantra as 'Machiavellian'? And writing:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The morals of the stories are often amoral.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Why did the west always need the morals spelled out to it, when one can develop them by having stories that get you to subconsciously reflect on them?
Makes me wonder what 'professor' means when such experts don't even 'get' what they profess to be experts on. Explains Wendy Doniger et al.