I'm sure we've all heard this parable:

There were 5 blind men, and they were walking together when they approached an elepephant. They each groped at its body to see if they could determine what it was like. One said, as he felt the ear, "an elephant is like a giant leaf". Another, holding the tail, said, "No, in fact an elephant is rather like a rope." The third, feeling the elephant's trunk, said, "Actually, it is more like a fire hose than anything else." The man feeling the animal's legs explained, somewhat condescendingly, "No, No. You're all wrong. Clearly an elephant is very much like a tree trunk." The last man (who was rubbing the elephant's belly) said, "An elephant is so large, it's like the side of a mountain!"

You know, that might work if God wasn't a TALKING elephant.

Matt

I've heard this parable before in connection with the idea that different people can approach the same thing from different points of view and say different things about it which are accurate from within their point of view/paradigm but are not complete statements about the totality of the thing.

I don't understand the point of this topic. How is the parable fallacious? In what way is it exclusively Hindu?

The parable serves its purpose within its limitations whether or not there is or is not a God who is or is not a talking elephant.

Errr...doesnt the whole thing just imply that knowledge about reality is pluralistic in nature? Contextual and situational.

And what does god got to do anything with this parable?

I think matt is trying to say that the xian god is "talking" thru some "special" xians.

IMVHO I think that those "special" xians are more like the blind men.

Revelation :
1 the act of revealing.
2 something that is revealed, esp. something not realized or understood before.
3 in Christianity, the making known of God to the world; divine manifestation.

"Revelations - delusions from a Xian perspective."

Could well be. It was a little bit subtle for me unfortunately.

[This message has been edited by Waning Moon Conrad (edited June 15, 2001).]

I agree with phaedrus and WMC. This parable simply points out that we all adopt points of view in understanding a totality, and it is helpful to look at an issue from as many points of view as one can in order to achieve a comprehensive understanding. The parable is not an argument for the existence of God that I am aware.

I am under the impression that Matt is a Christian---

so my <guess> is that this parable is meant to show that everyone has the parable's view of god--- except the Christians, to whom god 'talks' and clears up the confusion.

Is that right, Matt?

Matt, I'm interested to know how you make the leap from the parable itself to the parable not working if God isn't a talking elephant.

Considering that God isn't a talking elephant then according to you, the parable works, but why then is it fallacious?

And what's particularly Hindu about it?

The parable is definitely Eastern but as to its origin I'm not so sure. I did read about it once in a big book of parables (in Chinese). The "moral" of the story is to teach people to be more co-operative. If each blind man were to relate his "experience" to the other, together they could form a clearer "picture" of what an elephant looks like.

PS If xians are more willing to accept the world-views of others & strive for more knowledge of the world, they would find this parable most "enlightening".


[This message has been edited by KCTAN (edited June 15, 2001).]

KCTAN,

I like the moral you've just related.

Matt,

Considering that you don't believe God is a talking elephant, you think the parable works? Why then did you call it fallacious?

How can a parable be fallacious in and of itself? I can understand how the misuse or misinterpretation of a parable can be fallacious, but I can't see how a parable in and of itself can be.

Could you enlighten me?

I'm seriously sorry to keep carping on about this and belabouring the point and everything and I'll definitely stop now but I just have to say that Eternal used to make lots of worthless assertions and then not bother addressing the issues arising. Is this what christians do?

Are you some sort of relatively benign troll?

[This message has been edited by Waning Moon Conrad (edited June 16, 2001).]