Black as Evil

[Kendra Crossen Burroughs]

V. V. Raman wrote:

> 1. Very gently and politely stated....

> This is the conflict in many Indology-related discussions:
> (a) On the one hand, there are the mystical, esoteric, sometimes
> pseudoscientific, interpretations of ancient views and visions, based on
the
> premise that those are <higher truths> emanating from a supernatural
source.
> (b) On the other hand, there are the no-nonsense, post-Enlightenment,
> scholarly, analytical discussions, based on the premise that everything is
> simply historical/cultural/human.

Thank you for your kindness.

I understand what you're saying. But there could be a third way of writing
about these subjects, which is to present a tradition from the inside, as it
were, revealing how people inside the tradition understand it. That would be
distinct from (a) because the writer need not necessarily be a "spiritual
seeker" or believer in a particular metaphysical system.

I prefer to feel that we are not disagreeing but rather stating different
possible vantages of the same reality. Doesn't the Rgveda state that the
truth is ever the same, though the wise speak of it differently?