passion objectivity

[Bob Peck]

Dear Indology Members:

in reference to Lynken Ghose  and the responses to:

>- However, I think that there is a middle ground between the extreme
>scholarly distance of "objectivity" or "dispassion" and the extreme
>"passion" of the type of theologian who puts forth theories in order to
>justify his or her particular slant on things. In my opinion, this middle
>ground is what we should strive for.


Cannot the question be answered with the difference between dhAranA and
dhyAna?
I interpret dhArana as the application of an idea or concept onto an object
of the mind or labeling it, DhyAna is the reverse, with the object
projecting back its own nature.   Bhadraiah's question of mathematics being
a good example.

This site seems to be a good example of the exchange of nAma or ideas and
concepts. I question however, the acceptance of dhyAna. This seems ironic
since India seemed to introduce this practice to the world.

I have a suspicion that members of this groups reject the metaphysical
nature of dhyAna because of the discipline of academia which requires the
labeling of events or objects of the mind.

Does not true scholarship require the mastery of DhArAna first, but then the
search for DhyAna as a particular field is chosen?  The results of dhyAna
can then be subject to normal academic review that then separates it from
pure belief.

regards,
Bob Peck
rpeck at neca.com