|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
77. Lindbeck 1984, p. 31. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
78. Lindbeck 1984, p. 16. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
79. Lindbeck 1984, p. 33. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
80. See especially chapter 6. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
81. Lindbeck 1984, pp. 63-69. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
82. Lindbeck 1984, p. 63. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
83. Lindbeck 1984, p. 64. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
84. Lindbeck 1984, p. 64. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
85. Lindbeck 1984, p. 65. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
86. Lindbeck 1984, p. 66. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
87. Lindbeck 1984, p. 68. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
88. The grammar and intratextual organization of the Text itself constitutes a significance irreducible to any of the meanings included within it, and available only to the careful and patient reader. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
89. Lindbeck also observes that the further refinements of religious language through the articulation of "technical theology and official doctrine," are more and not less distant from the possibility of ontological reference. For in these statements, "one rarely if ever succeeds in explaining, defending, analyzing, and regulating the liturgical, kerygmatic, and ethical modes of speech and action within which such affirmations from time to time occur. Just as grammar by itself affirms nothing either true or false regarding the world in which language is used, but only about language, so theology and doctrine, to the extent that they are second-order activities, assert nothing either true or false about God and his relation to creatures, but only speak about such assertions. These assertions, in turn, cannot be made except when speaking religiously, i.e., when seeking to align oneself and others performatively with what one takes to be the most important in the universe by worshiping, promising, obeying, exhorting, preaching." (Lindbeck 1984, p. 69) These remarks on the linguistic constitution of the believers' world and the transition from intrasystemic truth to a performative, "liturgical" connectedness to the inscribed world aid us to understand how Advaita as a theological system adequately accounts for its truth, while yet not adopting experiential or propositional models of truth. The bottom line, in Advaita and Lindbeck, is an involved and literate commitment to the Text and all that is thereby implied. |
|
|
|
|
|