Apoureshyatva - Faith or Logic?

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

Few months ago, I was under the impression that apaureshyatvam can be
established logically. I had a few arguments to support but it was not yet
fool proof. Some of the members expressed the opinion that it is not easy.
Amd it may not even be possible as it is more a matter of faith. I
discussed with a few experts and read further. Though there have been
attempts in the past, it seems they are on the premise that words refer to
classes of objects eternally. For example, go refers to the jati of go
though individual members may take birth and die. Though there was a clear
appreciation of the fact that the individual members of the jati do not
exist before creation and after parlaya, the jati continues to exist
eternally because the individual members existed in a previous cycle and
will do in the next. But modern science shows that living and non-living
entities evolved gradually rather than get created in one shot. Linguistic
analysis shows that (sanskrit) language also evolved from
proto-indo-european languages. The evidence for evolution of life forms and
language is as strong as that for a spherical earth. Both these challenge
the notion of externality of words and class of entities that forms the
foundation for the argument of veda apoureshyatvam. It makes me wonder if
it is a matter of faith rather than facts and logic. I would like to know
if the scholarly members feel it is a matter of faith or logic please.

[Venkata sriram P]

Namaste,
 
Swami Tattvavidananda Saraswati, a great scientist in his pUrvAshrama, writes as:
 
///
 
The concept of apaursheyatva of vedas is, after all, not unscientic and not an irrational dogma.  A statement or word, the veracity of which is not adversely effected by time
and space, is deemed to be universal law.  It is called *trikAlAbAdhitaM satyaM*.
Such truths which existed before they were discovered and which will exist even if
man would forget them in future, are called reveletions.  Veda is a bunch of such
reveletions, unadulterated by man's weaknesses.  Vedas are considered to be
anAdi and ananta.  This idea is again rational, because veda is a collection of
spiritual experiences and revelations of various sages from times immemorial
and the universal truths enunciated in vedas will be valid for ever.  In this way,
Vedas are unique in their scope and content and are different from any other
book written by man.
 
////
 
Source: Relevance of Vedas to the Modern World
 
regs,
sriram

[V Subrahmanian]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 2:52 AM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
rajaramvenk-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> It makes me wonder if it is a matter of faith rather than facts and
> logic. I would like to know if the scholarly members feel it is a matter of
> faith or logic please.
>

In all matters other than the Atman, the ONLY siddha vastu, no absolute
finality can be reached. It is because its nature is so. It is pertaining
to mAyA. And it has to be so. What logic we might rely upon is also
within this realm alone and it is enough if it serves its purpose. And the
purpose is: go beyond the words and look at the spirit. The true Acharya
will point out to the spirit and let the true aspirant get the most benefit
of it. For, the purpose of the apaurusheya veda is getting him the
knowledge of his true self and thereafter itself recede into the not-self,
mAyA/mithyA. Shankara explicitly says : the shruti has no real purpose of
asserting creation; the talk about creation is aimed at a completely
different purpose: to turn the aspirant's attention from the creation to
the conscious creator. The questions regarding cosmology, evolution, etc.
will remain for ever with one asserting and another challenging it. But the
Self, when one realizes it needs no asserting and cannot be challenged
either. That is the end ( I mean also the purpose) of the Veda. That is
why the Lord says in the Gita: shraddhaavAn labhte jnAnam: the one with
faith will attain Knowledge. The logic the sampradaya uses is sufficient
to make this faith work and take it to its logical end: realization of the
Self and end of samsara, with which the Veda too ends, for him. This is
the message of the adhyAsa bhashya. I have come to see the root of every
question and every solution to be already contained in this peerless
masterpiece. The more we understand, appreciate, this work the less will
be our questions.

regards,
subrahmanian.v

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

Subbiji - PraNAms

Wonderful explanation.
I was going to write exactly the same as Vedas themselves declare that they are also apara vidyaa. In addition not only Vedas even the objective knowledge is also apourusheyam, as I think Noble laurate Dr. Chandrashekar put it, in that even the scientific knowledge is dis-covered by intuition. Intuition is nothing but a mind in meditation. The Rishis are also veda drashtaas as veda (knowledge) is revealed to them when they are in meditation. Intuition is like jnaana kshakshu.

My 2c

Hari Om!
Sadananda


>
> In all matters other than the Atman, the ONLY siddha vastu,
> no absolute
> finality can be reached.  It is because its nature is
> so.  It is pertaining
> to mAyA.  And it has to be so.  What logic we
> might rely upon is also
> within this realm alone and it is enough if it serves its
> purpose.  And the
> purpose is: go beyond the words and look at the
> spirit.  The true Acharya
> will point out to the spirit and let the true aspirant get
> the most benefit
> of it.  For, the purpose of the apaurusheya veda is
> getting him the
> knowledge of his true self and thereafter itself recede into
> the not-self,
> mAyA/mithyA.   Shankara explicitly says : the
> shruti has no real purpose of
> asserting creation; the talk about creation is aimed at a
> completely
> different purpose: to turn the aspirant's attention from the
> creation to
> the conscious creator. The questions regarding cosmology,
> evolution, etc.
> will remain for ever with one asserting and another
> challenging it. But the
> Self, when one realizes it needs no asserting and cannot be
> challenged
> either.  That is the end ( I mean also the purpose) of
> the Veda.  That is
> why the Lord says in the Gita: shraddhaavAn labhte jnAnam:
> the one with
> faith will attain Knowledge.  The logic the sampradaya
> uses is sufficient
> to make this faith work and take it to its logical end:
> realization of the
> Self and end of samsara, with which the Veda too ends, for
> him.  This is
> the message of the adhyAsa bhashya.  I have come to see
> the root of every
> question and every solution to be already contained in this
> peerless
> masterpiece.  The more we understand, appreciate, this
> work the less will
> be our questions.
>
> regards,
> subrahmanian.v
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org
>

[Sudhakar Kabra]

--- On Thu, 6/21/12, Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

From: Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk-***@public.gmane.org>
Subject: [Advaita-l] Apoureshyatva - Faith or Logic?
To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+***@public.gmane.orgta.org>
Date: Thursday, June 21, 2012, 2:52 AM

>Few months ago, I was under the impression that apaureshyatvam can be
established logically. I had a few arguments to support but it was not yet
fool proof. Some of the members expressed the opinion that it is not easy.
Amd it may not even be possible as it is more a matter of faith. I
discussed with a few experts and read further. Though there have been
attempts in the past, it seems they are on the premise that words refer to
classes of objects eternally. For example, go refers to the jati of go
though individual members may take birth and die. Though there was a clear
appreciation of the fact that the individual members of the jati do not
exist before creation and after parlaya, the jati continues to exist
eternally because the individual members existed in a previous cycle and
will do in the next. But modern science shows that living and non-living
entities evolved gradually rather than get created in one shot. 
Sastras say:  Yatha purvam apalkayat ,which means as it was previously. It never says about any aspect of time whether instantaneous or gradual. From where it ends from there it starts.

>Linguistic
analysis shows that (sanskrit) language also evolved from
proto-indo-european languages. The evidence for evolution of life forms and
language is as strong as that for a spherical earth. Both these challenge
the notion of externality of words and class of entities that forms the
foundation for the argument of veda apoureshyatvam. It makes me wonder if
it is a matter of faith rather than facts and logic. I would like to know
if the scholarly members feel it is a matter of faith or logic please.

The apoureshaya jnana remians before all poureshaya jnana and also after that.In this sense it is widely different from modern scientific knowledge.
Regards
sudhakar kabra
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

For whatever it is worth, here are my thoughts on this.

My stance on the axiomatic nature versus logical proof for the pramANatva
and apaurusheyatva of the veda has been articulated on this list before, so
I won't reiterate that. Still, it seems to me that the reasons you cite are the
wrong reasons for thinking that apaurusheyatva is not something to be
proved logically.

For example:

>Though there was a clear
> appreciation of the fact that the individual members of the jati do not
> exist before creation and after parlaya, the jati continues to exist
> eternally because the individual members existed in a previous cycle and
> will do in the next. But modern science shows that living and non-living
> entities evolved gradually rather than get created in one shot.

Why is the traditional notion of the eternal existence of a jAti before creation
and after pralaya opposed to the concept of gradual evolution of species? I
don't see that this is necessarily the case and I think this is a false pitting of
science against the mImAMsaka traditions.

The eternal existence of a jAti is always distinguished from the particular
and short-lived existences of individual manifestations of that jAti. Nothing
in the traditional thinking about this says that every jAti is manifested in at
least one individual in one shot, at the very beginning of the next cycle of
creation. The traditional mImAMsaka/vedAntin can easily say that when an
individual cow makes its appearance through biological evolution, all that is
really happening is that the eternal jAti of "cow" is getting manifested within
this particular cycle, in the course of time, as and when the conditions are
met in order for the particular manifestation of the universal "cow" to take
the form of the particular cow.

Even within the perspective of science, there are numerous ways to think in
a philosophical way about the prior existence or non-existence of living beings
and about the origins of life itself. I don't think biology or any other science
needs to be inextricably wedded to the notion that there is no existence of the
general except in that of its many particulars.

>Linguistic
> analysis shows that (sanskrit) language also evolved from
> proto-indo-european languages.


The same argument as above would apply here as well. This is also not a
major problem for the traditional thinking about how the veda gets revealed.
In every creation cycle, the general jAti of "Indo-European languages" could
be considered as lying in wait for Homo sapiens to evolve, develop the capacity
to speak, to learn to discern meaning in speech, then go through the social
evolution whereby the speech gets refined (sam-s-kRta). The general jAti of
"Sanskrit" can therefore be said to be waiting for "Indo-European languages"
to manifest fully as particular members of a linguistic family. Then, the jAti of
"Rshi" needs to get manifested in the form of particular human beings who
speak this refined speech and endowed with the right characteristics. The jAti
of "veda" is waiting for these right kinds of human minds to manifest, before
getting revealed to them.

After all, nobody in the tradition is claiming that the Rshis who saw the veda
in our current cycle were all born at time t = 0 when the universe came into
being. If the tradition can say that the veda was seen by a large number of
Rshis who necessarily lived over large periods of time, it can accommodate
quite easily the ideas of biological evolution and linguistic evolution, by viewing
these two processes as being the mechanisms by which the individuals of each
eternal jAti manifest.

The real problem, therefore, lies not in directly pitting traditional thinking
vs. modern scientific and humanistic theories, but in the details of what is
really meant by eternal existence of the universal in comparison to the
manifestations of the individual particulars.

Vidyasankar

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <http://www.lalitaalaalitah.com/>
lalitAlAlitaH <http://dooid.com/lalitaalaalitah>*



On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 11:40 PM, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <
***@hotmail.com> wrote:

> The real problem, therefore, lies not in directly pitting traditional
> thinking
> vs. modern scientific and humanistic theories, but in the details of what
> is
> really meant by eternal existence of the universal in comparison to the
> manifestations of the individual particulars.
>

Nice presentation.
One must remember that even mImAMsaka-s can't deny that entities are
subject to birth. They just say that jAti-s are nitya.
Why ?
Because they see that birth and death are only related to person(vyakti).
Moreover, those mImAMsaka-s who accept pralaya, kalpa, etc. and vedAntin-s
have to accept that everything, including earth and human beings, has
begining. Even then they say that all jAti-s, words and their relation is
eternal. How is it possible as it is opposed to purANa-s, etc. ?
Because, birth of a person(vyakti) is not opposed to eternity of
sAmAnya(jAti).
How does they apply this ?
As said by Vidyasankar.
One more thing is needed to be remembered : satkAryavAda.
Everything which takes birth is accepted existing in it's cause before it's
birth.
So, when vyakti-s are dissolved in Ishvara, even then they exist. Here we
differ from others.
So, what is tagged as non-existence of language or jAti, etc. is known as
concealed-state by us. And same is true for birth. We say that an
expression of nitya-things(jAti, etc.) is known as birth by others. So, we
are on different planes here.
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listm

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Sri lalitAlAlitaH wrote:

> > The real problem, therefore, lies not in directly pitting traditional
> > thinking
> > vs. modern scientific and humanistic theories, but in the details of what
> > is
> > really meant by eternal existence of the universal in comparison to the
> > manifestations of the individual particulars.
> >
>
> Nice presentation.
> One must remember that even mImAMsaka-s can't deny that entities are
> subject to birth. They just say that jAti-s are nitya.

And Sri Ramesh Krishnamurthy wrote:

> The point is simply that by straitjacketing our intellectual
> traditions and presenting them (falsely) as being pitted against this
> or that scientific or other laukika pramANa based theory, we are only
> a doing a great disservice to our dharma and our intellectual
> traditions.

Thank you both! It appears to me that you got the spirit of my response
outlining some possible ways by which the nitya-tva of Sabda (in the pUrva
mIMAmsA sense) is not compromised by biological evolution and linguistic
evolution. I merely wished to point out that if one so wishes, one can easily
accommodate these lines of thinking within one's world view and that they
indicate nothing negative about veda-prAmANya and veda-apaurusheyatva.

Speaking as a scientist and as a vedAntin, I fail to see how the latest scientific
theories and findings impinge upon the vedAntic view of scripture in any way,
positive or negative. It is a simple matter of logic that logic itself requires an
axiom or two. Any attempt to prove the validity of an axiom, within the bounds
of that logical system, is going to be, by default, a circular argument eventually.

If one's acceptance of veda-prAmANya is contingent upon one's acceptance of
veda-apaurusheyatva, then one has to be very, very clear about what is meant
by the word apaurusheya. And if one further goes around looking for "proof"
of apaurusheyatva, then one has to, by definition, accept a standard of proof
that is completely independent of the veda in the first place. So why should
such a line of thought bother about the veda and its prAmANya/apaurusheyatva
at all? It can stay content with its methods of proof that are independent of the
veda and leave the veda alone, safe in the hands of its traditional custodians!

What is the "creationism" in the veda? Is it supposed to be taken literally, like
the story of an old, white-haired god in heaven who created everything in a six
day period and then rested on the seventh? Or is it something else altogether?
Which "creationism" should one uphold as supreme - the one in the upanishads
(where the typical order is AtmA -> AkASa -> vAyu -> agni -> ApaH -> pRthivI
-> oshadhi -> annam -> purusha) or something else, say from the purANa-s,
where a lotus emerged from the sleeping Vishnu's navel, with Brahma sitting
upon it, who then created all living beings?

If either of these general accounts is taken as if they were historical events
that occured at the beginning of the universe and then pitted against the most
contemporary form of scientific thinking about the origins of the universe, which
is also taken as "really real", then what value is one attaching to the vedAntic
insight that all that is perceived as the universe is ultimately mithyA? The more
one insists upon a "vedic creationism", what value is one attaching to vedAntic
teaching that the ultimate truth is ajAti and that creation is only described as an
upAya to bring one's attention back to the highest Atman?

Even apart from the highest level of vedAntic discourse, why should science
be brought into every aspect of life and thinking? Science is its own domain;
it has its uses and the scientific process has its own insights and benefits to
offer to human beings as well as a lot to contribute towards the downfall of
human beings too. But who appointed science as the ruler over the arts, law,
religion, philosophy and all other dimensions of human life as well?

Vidyasankar

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

On Monday, June 25, 2012, Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote:

>
>
> What is the "creationism" in the veda? Is it supposed to be taken
> literally, like
> the story of an old, white-haired god in heaven who created everything in
> a six
> day period and then rested on the seventh? Or is it something else
> altogether?
> Which "creationism" should one uphold as supreme - the one in the
> upanishads
> (where the typical order is AtmA -> AkASa -> vAyu -> agni -> ApaH ->
> pRthivI
> -> oshadhi -> annam -> purusha) or something else, say from the purANa-s,
> where a lotus emerged from the sleeping Vishnu's navel, with Brahma sitting
> upon it, who then created all living beings?

RV: If contradictory, sruti over smrti?

>
> If either of these general accounts is taken as if they were historical
> events
> that occured at the beginning of the universe and then pitted against the
> most
> contemporary form of scientific thinking about the origins of the
> universe, which
> is also taken as "really real", then what value is one attaching to the
> vedAntic
> insight that all that is perceived as the universe is ultimately mithyA?
> The more
> one insists upon a "vedic creationism", what value is one attaching to
> vedAntic
> teaching that the ultimate truth is ajAti and that creation is only
> described as an
> upAya to bring one's attention back to the highest Atman?

RV: Mithya does not mean that we can say any thing about observed
phenomena. Can we?

>
> Even apart from the highest level of vedAntic discourse, why should science
> be brought into every aspect of life and thinking? Science is its own
> domain;
> it has its uses and the scientific process has its own insights and
> benefits to
> offer to human beings as well as a lot to contribute towards the downfall
> of
> human beings too. But who appointed science as the ruler over the arts,
> law,
> religion, philosophy and all other dimensions of human life as well?
>
RV: Religion has also caused a lot of damage to lives. In the pursuit of
truth, I see no difference between a scientist and a philosopher. Both deal
with matters such as self, consciousness, origin etc. If what Sri Sadananda
said is right, that scientific insight is apaureshya, then there is no
fundamental difference even in the methodology adopted by rishis and
scientists though conclusions are different.

[V Subrahmanian]

On this topic I have some questions that could get resolved by inputs from
learned members:


1. If we have a situation where the Veda has to wait to get revealed
till a proper Rishi evolves, then there is this question: Are there no
human beings before such a special human being evolves to be called a Rishi
to receive the Veda?
2. In the Vedic or rather traditional thinking an evolution of a person
is owing to his having practiced the veda vihita anushthanas and thus
having qualified to the exalted status either in this or earlier birth or
even in a future birth.
3. If the vedas can get revealed to a Rishi, an evolved person, and only
then get propagated and available for other humans, what is the fate of the
humans who evolved and remained before the Rishi-human evolved and received
the Veda?
4. There is a verse: tenaivoktam nigamavachasA.....kArayAmaasa...which
means: the Lord, what He Himself has said through the Vedas, got them
spoken through the smRtis composed by others...Rshis, etc. for the benefit
of humans.
5. The BG verse 'saha yajnAH prajAH sRShTvA purovAchaH prajApatiH. anena
prasaviShyadhvam eSha vo'stviShTakAmadhuk - says 'the PrajApati created the
beings (especially the humans for whom the veda is addressed) along with
the Vedas (containing the yajnas, etc.) and made them available for the
humans to use the Veda for fulfilling their purusharthas.'
6. If the veda has to wait till a rishi is evolved, the humans, the less
efficient ones than the rishi, who evolved logically before the more
efficient one evolved (progressive), will be deprived of the means to
purushartha. This is unfair.
7. The former Sringeri Acharya, Jagadguru Sri Abhinava Vidyatirtha
SwaminaH in His replies to the (modern-educated scientist) disciple who
asked Him about the admissibility of the modern theory of evolution into
the Vedic thinking exactly cited the above BG verse and had said that along
with creation of humans the vedas were made available, along with many
other points in support of His explanation. (see the Book: Exalting
Elucidations (formerly known as 'The Jagadguru Replies' published by Sri
Vidyatirtha Foundation, Chennai)
8. In fact the BGB introduction also talks of the creation of MarIchi,
etc. and the sanaka, etc. for the practice of pravRtti and nivRtti - the
two-fold Vedic dharma for the benefit of the humans.
9. The Vedic method is peculiar in that there are the Devatas who are
admissibly highly evolved beings. Yet, these have become so only by their
performing vedic yajnas, etc. which are also invariably addressed to
devatas. Thus, there have to be devatas even before devatas come into
existence owing to their past karma directed at devatas. That is the
reason why an anAdi concept is invariably attached to creation, jiva,
avidya, samsara, bandha, etc.
10. There is the Br.Up. mantra: tad yo yo devaanAm pratyabudhyata,
tathaRShINAm tathaa manuShyANAm ...which says that whoever from the human,
rishi or devata classes comes to realize this Brahman, becomes Brahman,
with sarvAtmabhAva. This mantra recognizes the categories of manushyas
distinct from rishis and devatas.
11. There is the statement of a krama sRShTi (a gradual creation) and a
yugapat sRShTi ( a simultaneous creation of all beings) in the Veda. Both
these are recognized by the traditon. The Mundaka mantra: tadetat satyam
yathA sudIptAt pAvakAt visphulingAH sahasrashaH utpadyante...meaning: just
as sparks, in thousands, emanate from the blazing fire, the various beings
come into being. A similar mantra from the Kaivalya upanishad and the
Br.Up are quoted to support yugapat sRShti. The Vedic sRShTi is always of
the type where all the beings, with their classes and sub classes, are
created, rather manifest, at the time of sRShTi, after pralayam ends. The
Veda is also available at the very beginning for the humans to apply it in
their lives. For, as soon as a child is born, or rather even before the
birth of a child, the Veda-based rituals are to be performed for
samskara.

Maybe members have suitable explanations to the above while accommodating
the evolution theory into the Vedic method. Also, a question arises: Is it
a flaw if for some reason the Veda apaurusheyatva/prAmANya is not
understood/explained logically within the context of the modern evolution
theory? My answer is: In the past there have been a number of jnanis who
have followed the Veda as the traditional pUrvAchAryas followed and
obtained freedom from samsara. The so-called illogicality behind veda
apaurusheyatva/pramANya did not come in their way of becoming
self-realized. The modern theory of evolution was completely unknown to
them.

Some loud thinking, to evoke further thoughts...

regards,

subrahmanian.v

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <http://www.lalitaalaalitah.com/>
lalitAlAlitaH <http://dooid.com/lalitaalaalitah>*



On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 1:21 PM, V Subrahmanian wrote:

> 1. If we have a situation where the Veda has to wait to get revealed
> till a proper Rishi evolves, then there is this question: Are there no
> human beings before such a special human being evolves to be called a
> Rishi
> to receive the Veda?
>

This will need study of purANa-s.
Although, I think that the texts about sR^iShTi do not go in this much
detail.
They just say brahmA came and gave it to manu, etc.
Moreover, R^iShi-s are accepted in deva-loka, etc. also.


> 3. If the vedas can get revealed to a Rishi, an evolved person, and
> only
> then get propagated and available for other humans, what is the fate of
> the
> humans who evolved and remained before the Rishi-human evolved and
> received
> the Veda?
>

If this happened then those people got birth for bhoga only. Although
practice of satya, etc. is also dharma, is to be remembered.


> 6. If the veda has to wait till a rishi is evolved, the humans, the less
> efficient ones than the rishi, who evolved logically before the more
> efficient one evolved (progressive), will be deprived of the means to
> purushartha. This is unfair.
>

Talk of unfairness doesn't apply to facts. If the above said happened, then
it was result of their karma, is to be accepted. There is nothing without
cause.


> 7. The former Sringeri Acharya, Jagadguru Sri Abhinava Vidyatirtha
> SwaminaH in His replies to the (modern-educated scientist) disciple who
> asked Him about the admissibility of the modern theory of evolution into
> the Vedic thinking exactly cited the above BG verse and had said that
> along
> with creation of humans the vedas were made available, along with many
> other points in support of His explanation. (see the Book: Exalting
> Elucidations (formerly known as 'The Jagadguru Replies' published by Sri
> Vidyatirtha Foundation, Chennai)
>

'Along with' means to say that in the same time. But, was this time a
second, is the wuestion.


> 10. There is the Br.Up. mantra: tad yo yo devaanAm pratyabudhyata,
> tathaRShINAm tathaa manuShyANAm ...which says that whoever from the
> human,
> rishi or devata classes comes to realize this Brahman, becomes Brahman,
> with sarvAtmabhAva. This mantra recognizes the categories of manushyas
> distinct from rishis and devatas.
>

Because they are common to both or distinct from both. They have some
qualities which are uncommon to manuShya and devatA-s.


> The Vedic sRShTi is always of the type where all the beings, with their
> classes and sub classes, are created, rather manifest, at the time of
> sRShTi, after pralayam ends. The Veda is also available at the very
> beginning for the humans to apply it in their lives. For, as soon as a
> child is born, or rather even before the birth of a child, the Veda-based
> rituals are to be performed for samskara.
>

Again the same question arises about the time called sR^iShTi. Is it a
specific second or vast flow of time ?
In first case, there could be no solution other than illusion for such
thing(sR^iShTi-kriyA) to take place.
In second case, which is accepted by mImAMsaka-s as well as scientists,
words quoted above don't fit.
mImAMsaka-s generally don't accept sR^iShTi and pralaya. They take this
world as pravAha-nitya.


> Is it
> a flaw if for some reason the Veda apaurusheyatva/prAmANya is not
> understood/explained logically within the context of the modern evolution
> theory?


apauruSheyatva and prAmANya, both are different things - is to be
understood first.
If apauruSheyatva is not established and prAmANya is established anyhow,
then there is not problem for vaidika-s.
But, if prAmANya can not be established, either by establishing
apauruSheyatva or pauruSheyatva, then everything said by veda-s loses it's
validity. If words are not pramANa, then they must be generators of bhrama
or saMshaya. So, this option is not acceptable.

My answer is: In the past there have been a number of jnanis who
> have followed the Veda as the traditional pUrvAchAryas followed and
> obtained freedom from samsara. The so-called illogicality behind veda
> apaurusheyatva/pramANya did not come in their way of becoming
> self-realized. The modern theory of evolution was completely unknown to
> them.
>

Your question and answers are not in harmony.
You question is related to people who feel that evolution theory is opposed
to prAmANya, etc. of veda-s and you answer talks about people unaware of
this problem.
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 4:39 PM, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <
***@lalitaalaalitah.com> wrote:

> *श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <http://www.lalitaalaalitah.com/>
> lalitAlAlitaH <http://dooid.com/lalitaalaalitah>*
>

> > 7. The former Sringeri Acharya, Jagadguru Sri Abhinava Vidyatirtha
> > SwaminaH in His replies to the (modern-educated scientist) disciple who
> > asked Him about the admissibility of the modern theory of evolution
> into
> > the Vedic thinking exactly cited the above BG verse and had said that
> > along
> > with creation of humans the vedas were made available, along with many
> > other points in support of His explanation. (see the Book: Exalting
> > Elucidations (formerly known as 'The Jagadguru Replies' published by
> Sri
> > Vidyatirtha Foundation, Chennai)
> >
>
> 'Along with' means to say that in the same time. But, was this time a
> second, is the question.
>

This is the excerpt from that book I had referred to in my previous post:

// Disciple: Long ago, through the process of evolution, man gradually
came into being. In the early stages, his brain was much
less developed than the human brain is now. He led a
primitive existence. In due course, his brain improved to
the present level. Thereafter, the Lord could have taught
him the Veda. Is there any flaw in conceiving thus? If we
have it this way, the findings of palaeontologists are not
contradicted and, at the same time, it is admitted that the
Veda was revealed by Ìshvara. What does Acharyal have
to say about this?

AcharyaL: This is faulty. *Simultaneous* with His creation of man, the
Lord should have taught him the Veda. In the
Bhagavadgita, the Lord says:
_*सह*-*यज्ञाः प्रजाः* सृष्ट्वा पुरोवाच प्रजापतिः । (BG, III.10)
(At the outset, having created mankind along with yajña-s,
the Creator said…)
Yajña-s (scriptural sacrifices) have the Veda-s for their
basis. For a yajña to be performed, the Veda is needed.
Thus, the Lord’s words imply that Ìshvara taught the
Veda when He created the world. If we do not accept this
view, we cannot give logical replies to many queries. If a
primitive man predated the Veda, he could not have known
what is dharma and what is adharma. Since, the norms
of righteousness and unrighteousness were not revealed to
him by God, did God simply treat his actions as virtuous
and reward him or just treat them as sinful and punish
him? If his actions fetched him the rewards of
righteousness, we are forced to conclude, “Before the
Veda came into being, good fruits were obtained for
whatever one did but after Veda came to light, one also
reaps unpleasant fruits for one’s actions.” Is this fair?
Further, can one accept the conclusion that before the
Veda came to light, one did not have to go to hell at all as
one always secured good results, whereas after the
revelation of Veda, the possibility of going to hell arose? If
the view that all actions led to bad consequences
were accepted, then also the implication is queer.
Therefore, when the Lord created the world, He should
have revealed the Veda. That is to say, He should have, at
the outset itself, made known what is dharma and what is
adharma. Thus, it is improper to hold that the Veda came
to light only much after the appearance of man. //

End of the excerpt.

Also, for the scripture, creation is for the sake of jiva-s. So a creation
of lokas first and jivas only much later is of no use for the scripture.
That is why we see, for example, in the BGB introduction: the Lord created
the world and created marichi, etc. for pravrtti dharma.

There is no reason to imagine a time gap. As I pointed out the marIchi,
etc. were created for pravRtti dharma at the very beginning of creation.
They were made known this dharma (grAhayAmAsa). The scheme in the puranas
is, I think, reasonable. The Prajapatis bring forth people and they
continue the lineage. All this happens with the Vedic jnanam already
available in tact. If one reads the Vivekachudamani bhashyam for 'jantUnAm
narajanmadurlabham...' the Acharya establishes through logic how even the
first-born BrahmA's knowledge of dharma/adharma was due to the Lord's
anugraha. So, the vedic knowledge is there even at the time of the
creation of the very first being. He further creates the world, along with
the beings along with the appropriate persons fit to receive the Veda.

Here is the ShAnkara bhashyam for the BG 3.10 referred above:

सहयज्ञाः यज्ञसहिताः प्रजाः त्रयो वर्णाः ताः सृष्ट्वा उत्पाद्य पुरा
पूर्वं*सर्गादौ
* उवाच उक्तवान् प्रजापतिः प्रजानां स्रष्टा अनेन यज्ञेन प्रसविष्यध्वं प्रसवः
वृद्धिः उत्पत्तिः तं कुरुध्वम्। एष यज्ञः वः युष्माकम् अस्तु भवतु
इष्टकामधुक् इष्टान् अभिप्रेतान् कामान् फलविशेषान् दोग्धीति इष्टकामधुक्।

A reading of the subsequent verses/bhashya will give a clear picture of how
the sRShTi chakra is yajna/veda-based according to Scripture.

>
> Your question and answers are not in harmony.
> You question is related to people who feel that evolution theory is opposed
> to prAmANya, etc. of veda-s and you answer talks about people unaware of
> this problem.
>

Even if they had been aware of the modern evolution theory, it would not
have been a problem for them for they could see, as in the case of the
Sringeri Acharya's replies, that it is not a problem coming in the way of
their pursuing with the faith in the Veda, just as their pUrvAchAryas did,
and attaining the purushartha. This is because, as one of the reasons, the
Veda itself is not teaching sRiShTi as paaramArthika. Its purpose is not
to affirm/assert a creation but to talk about the Creator Atman.
paramArthachintakAnAm
sRShTau anAdaraH says Shankara in the G.Karika 1 chapter verse: 7 The
traditional followers of the Veda know this and therefore are not
confronted by the modern theories of creation/evolution. The knowledge
they possess is enough for dharma anushthana and moksha sadhana. For
ultimately the Veda itself is to be seen as belonging to the mithya
anAtmA. ajAti is the final word. So, any kind of theory about jAti is
taken as just an explanation, to be given up finally. Those fields/persons
who see it is useful can happily benefit from it. The Veda is in no way
affected by these. Just as the advancements in medical science.

subrahmanian.v
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
***@adv

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 6:40 AM, V Subrahmanian <***@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 4:39 PM, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <
> ***@lalitaalaalitah.com> wrote:
>
> Also, for the scripture, creation is for the sake of jiva-s. So a creation
> of lokas first and jivas only much later is of no use for the scripture.
> That is why we see, for example, in the BGB introduction: the Lord created
> the world and created marichi, etc. for pravrtti dharma.
>
> There is no reason to imagine a time gap. As I pointed out the marIchi,
> etc. were created for pravRtti dharma at the very beginning of creation.
>

RV: If anyone says that the sastras dont teach creationism, they have to
state why. Did anyone in the past understand sastras to imply evolution?
It is untruthful to re-interpret in the face of opposing evidence. I think
the traditional mutts are doing the right thing by holding on to their
traditional beliefs. If these beliefs are wrong, we may have to discard
them, however painful emotionally it may be to us, but not change what
people believed in the past.

Sri Lalitalalita brought up the point that evolution is not correct. If
this can be shown logically to be so, it is a path breaking achievement. I
would like to point out that Christians unsuccessfully tried both
discarding evolution theory and introducing intelligent design so that they
can protect their faith from the onslaught of reason. In ISKCON, the
position is that evolution is not true because it is opposed to
creationism. Even on cosmology, they would rather accept puranic version
and are building a 800 crore vedic planetarium in mayapur! This is in spite
of the fact that gaudiya theology does not consider sastras inerrant. Even
the Lord is not totally reliable according to them. Whatever He says
becomes true or false according to His sweet will!

BTW, if sastras are not right (from scientific perspective) about the
origin of life or universe, how can they be right about god, dharma or
atma? If I am not right on verifiable topics, how can I be considered
reliable on those that cannot be verified? I know there are traditional
views that sastras are an authority on supersensuous. But what to do when
sastras contradict scientific facts (realm of pratyaksha)? I know that
there are statements such as 1000 upanishadic statements cannot make fire
cold or a pot in to a cloth. But does mimamsa allow us to explicitly reject
sastras as incorrect if it contradicts direct experience or inference? I
dont think so but would like to know what learned members think.
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:

[Sudhakar Kabra]

--- On Mon, 6/25/12, Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

RV  :BTW, if sastras are not right (from scientific perspective) about the
origin of life or universe, how can they be right about god, dharma or
atma? 

SK:Why the sastra has to be verifiable from scientific perspective?Why not the other way around?So far even the scientific perspective has not been able to come out with a unified theory of creation. All the theories proposed have some flaws/ faults or other. So from which scientific perspective verification need to be done. 
Since there are many scientific theories same way there are many philosophical theories.


RV:  If I am not right on verifiable topics, how can I be considered
reliable on those that cannot be verified? 
SK: How did panchabhutas evolve? How did ahankara come about?One who takes birth and thereafter tries to analyze the origin which is prior to it is not verifiable as per sastras because it will always be tainted by the vasanas/experiences of that person. Hence sastras say: Vigyataram are ken vijaniyat

RV:  I know there are traditional views that sastras are an authority on supersensuous. But what to do when sastras contradict scientific facts (realm of pratyaksha)?
SK: Sastras are not verifiable by pratyaksha because it then come into the realm of indriyas. That is why it requires sabd pramanas. Sastra say it is atindriya as you yourself have said in other thread.

RV:  I know that there are statements such as 1000 upanishadic statements cannot make fire cold or a pot in to a cloth. But does mimamsa allow us to explicitly reject
sastras as incorrect if it contradicts direct experience or inference? I
dont think so but would like to know what learned members think. 
SK: Mimamsakas talk of karma to achieve a fruit mainly designed for people who are looking for a result -karma phala. It could be immediate or at a later time like swarga. 
Vedanta talk of no phala and teaches us to realize our original nature which is ever present.


RV: The notion of evolution (albeit with room for god) is there in vaiseshika world view but it was not acceptable to other Vedic traditions. Please note that the theory of evolution does not accept intelligent design, where god guides evolution, because the evolutionary process seems to be highly error prone and random.

SK: If you see a constructed house, immediately a thought of a creator comes into mind. So if you see a world out there, immediately a thought of a creator comes to mind. this is the nyaya theory.
How vedanta comes over it can be seen by refutations and question answers between nyaya acharya and vedantin. It can be found in many comparative philosophy books. (Sarva darshan sangraha )
Best regardsSudhakar kabra

[Shyam]

Pranams Shri Subbuji and others following this thread.
 
A brief response.
 
Following this line of thinking we have to conclude that our SaptaRishis were barely done brushing their gorilla ape hair off their bodies when they received their revelations and we, with brains far more evolved than theirs have to take such revelations as pramana? And extending this further, in a hundred thousand years, with monstrous foreheads to accomondate their now enlarged prefrontal lobes, will our descendants now receive far better revelations of unauthored nature to guide Dharma?
 
I really think it is unwarranted to try and accomodate Vedic truths into the framework of evolutionary theory - not because of the reason that such an accomodation is impossible, which it is, but because such a evolutionary theory is mere flight of fancy and not anything that is established on factual basis.
 
If you hear a melodious song, and asked me who is the composer, and I told you that different random sounds, gradually  evolved from rudimentary notes, into more complex arrangements, and finally over many many centuries, manifested forth as this composition that you now hear, you would very likely advice me urgent psychiatric help. And yet there are many thinking individuals who, in the name of scientific thinking, freely consume of the abiogenesis/evolution Koolaid.
 
What is readily evident is that human clairvoyance has only deteriorated, severely at that, from the time of Vyasa, and in more recent history, Gaudapada and Sankara to our own modern times, and that Dharma as the Veda/Itihasas themselves express and predict, only deteriorates with the passage of time yugA upon yugA.
 
May I humbly suggest that we are better off understanding scripture with a standpoint of faith, and approaching Science with a healthy scientific spirit of skepticism and rigor, instead of using logic to accomodate an understanding of Scripture that is line with the current status of Science's ignorance. By its very definition Veda pertains only to that which is outside the purview of pratyaksha and Science by its very defintion deals with that which is only in the realm of pratyaksha.
 
Hari OM
 
Shyam 
 
 
 


________________________________
From: V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian-***@public.gmane.org>
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+9d9q/***@public.gmane.org.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 3:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Apoureshyatva - Faith or Logic?

On this topic I have some questions that could get resolved by inputs from
learned members:


  1. If we have a situation where the Veda has to wait to get revealed
  till a proper Rishi evolves, then there is this question:  Are there no
  human beings before such a special human being evolves to be called a Rishi
  to receive the Veda?
  2. In the Vedic or rather traditional thinking an evolution of a person
  is owing to his having practiced the veda vihita anushthanas and thus
  having qualified to the exalted status either in this or earlier birth or
  even in a future birth.
  3. If the vedas can get revealed to a Rishi, an evolved person, and only
  then get propagated and available for other humans, what is the fate of the
  humans who evolved and remained before the Rishi-human evolved and received
  the Veda?
  4. There is a verse: tenaivoktam nigamavachasA.....kArayAmaasa...which
  means: the Lord, what He Himself has said through the Vedas, got them
  spoken through the smRtis composed by others...Rshis, etc. for the benefit
  of humans.
  5. The BG verse 'saha yajnAH prajAH sRShTvA purovAchaH prajApatiH. anena
  prasaviShyadhvam eSha vo'stviShTakAmadhuk - says 'the PrajApati created the
  beings (especially the humans for whom the veda is addressed) along with
  the Vedas (containing the yajnas, etc.) and made them available for the
  humans to use the Veda for fulfilling their purusharthas.'
  6. If the veda has to wait till a rishi is evolved, the humans, the less
  efficient ones than the rishi, who evolved logically before the more
  efficient one evolved (progressive), will be deprived of the means to
  purushartha.  This is unfair.
  7. The former Sringeri Acharya, Jagadguru Sri Abhinava Vidyatirtha
  SwaminaH in His replies to the (modern-educated scientist) disciple who
  asked Him about the admissibility of the modern theory of evolution into
  the Vedic thinking exactly cited the above BG verse and had said that along
  with creation of humans the vedas were made available, along with many
  other points in support of His explanation. (see the Book: Exalting
  Elucidations (formerly known as 'The Jagadguru Replies' published by Sri
  Vidyatirtha Foundation, Chennai)
  8. In fact the BGB introduction also talks of the creation of MarIchi,
  etc. and the sanaka, etc. for the practice of pravRtti and nivRtti - the
  two-fold Vedic dharma for the benefit of the humans.
  9. The Vedic method is peculiar in that there are the Devatas who are
  admissibly highly evolved beings.  Yet, these have become so only by their
  performing vedic yajnas, etc. which are also invariably addressed to
  devatas.  Thus, there have to be devatas even before devatas come into
  existence owing to their past karma directed at devatas.  That is the
  reason why an anAdi concept is invariably attached to creation, jiva,
  avidya, samsara, bandha, etc.
  10. There is the Br.Up. mantra: tad yo yo devaanAm pratyabudhyata,
  tathaRShINAm tathaa manuShyANAm ...which says that whoever from the human,
  rishi or devata classes comes to realize this Brahman, becomes Brahman,
  with sarvAtmabhAva.  This mantra recognizes the categories of manushyas
  distinct from rishis and devatas.
  11. There is the statement of a krama sRShTi (a gradual creation) and a
  yugapat sRShTi  ( a simultaneous creation of all beings) in the Veda. Both
  these are recognized by the traditon. The Mundaka mantra: tadetat satyam
  yathA sudIptAt pAvakAt visphulingAH sahasrashaH utpadyante...meaning: just
  as sparks, in thousands, emanate from the blazing fire, the various beings
  come into being.  A similar mantra from the Kaivalya upanishad and the
  Br.Up are quoted to support yugapat sRShti.  The Vedic sRShTi is always of
  the type where all the beings, with their classes and  sub classes, are
  created, rather manifest, at the time of sRShTi, after pralayam ends.  The
  Veda is also available at the very beginning for the humans to apply it in
  their lives.  For, as soon as  a child is born, or rather even before the
  birth of a child, the Veda-based rituals  are to be performed for
  samskara.

Maybe members have suitable explanations to the above while accommodating
the evolution theory into the Vedic method.  Also, a question arises: Is it
a flaw if for some reason the Veda apaurusheyatva/prAmANya is not
understood/explained logically within  the context of the modern evolution
theory?  My answer is: In the past there have been a number of jnanis who
have followed the Veda as the traditional pUrvAchAryas followed and
obtained freedom from samsara.  The so-called illogicality behind veda
apaurusheyatva/pramANya did not come in their way of becoming
self-realized.  The modern theory of evolution was completely unknown to
them.

Some loud thinking, to evoke further thoughts...

regards,

subrahmanian.v
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org

[Sudhakar Kabra]

Respected Subramanianji,
1. If we have a situation where the Veda has to wait to get revealed
   till a proper Rishi evolves, then there is this question:  Are there no
   human beings before such a special human being evolves to be called a Rishi
   to receive the Veda? 

If we consider the case from evolution to devolution, then the question might get answered.Say, special human beings or rishis existed in the beginning and for some reason by not following vedic practices they were devolved to ordinary human beings. These now require revelation of vedas.
Example to support could be:
1. From manasic shristi (evolved) to maithunic srishti (devolved)2. From satya yuga (comparative evolved) to Kali yuga (comparative devolved).
 Of course not to forget that it is cyclical and from which point you are looking.RegardsSudhakar kabra



--- On Sun, 6/24/12, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

From: V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian-***@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Apoureshyatva - Faith or Logic?
To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+***@public.gmane.orgta.org>
Date: Sunday, June 24, 2012, 1:21 PM

On this topic I have some questions that could get resolved by inputs from
learned members:


   1. If we have a situation where the Veda has to wait to get revealed
   till a proper Rishi evolves, then there is this question:  Are there no
   human beings before such a special human being evolves to be called a Rishi
   to receive the Veda?
   2. In the Vedic or rather traditional thinking an evolution of a person
   is owing to his having practiced the veda vihita anushthanas and thus
   having qualified to the exalted status either in this or earlier birth or
   even in a future birth.
   3. If the vedas can get revealed to a Rishi, an evolved person, and only
   then get propagated and available for other humans, what is the fate of the
   humans who evolved and remained before the Rishi-human evolved and received
   the Veda?
   4. There is a verse: tenaivoktam nigamavachasA.....kArayAmaasa...which
   means: the Lord, what He Himself has said through the Vedas, got them
   spoken through the smRtis composed by others...Rshis, etc. for the benefit
   of humans.
   5. The BG verse 'saha yajnAH prajAH sRShTvA purovAchaH prajApatiH. anena
   prasaviShyadhvam eSha vo'stviShTakAmadhuk - says 'the PrajApati created the
   beings (especially the humans for whom the veda is addressed) along with
   the Vedas (containing the yajnas, etc.) and made them available for the
   humans to use the Veda for fulfilling their purusharthas.'
   6. If the veda has to wait till a rishi is evolved, the humans, the less
   efficient ones than the rishi, who evolved logically before the more
   efficient one evolved (progressive), will be deprived of the means to
   purushartha.  This is unfair.
   7. The former Sringeri Acharya, Jagadguru Sri Abhinava Vidyatirtha
   SwaminaH in His replies to the (modern-educated scientist) disciple who
   asked Him about the admissibility of the modern theory of evolution into
   the Vedic thinking exactly cited the above BG verse and had said that along
   with creation of humans the vedas were made available, along with many
   other points in support of His explanation. (see the Book: Exalting
   Elucidations (formerly known as 'The Jagadguru Replies' published by Sri
   Vidyatirtha Foundation, Chennai)
   8. In fact the BGB introduction also talks of the creation of MarIchi,
   etc. and the sanaka, etc. for the practice of pravRtti and nivRtti - the
   two-fold Vedic dharma for the benefit of the humans.
   9. The Vedic method is peculiar in that there are the Devatas who are
   admissibly highly evolved beings.  Yet, these have become so only by their
   performing vedic yajnas, etc. which are also invariably addressed to
   devatas.  Thus, there have to be devatas even before devatas come into
   existence owing to their past karma directed at devatas.  That is the
   reason why an anAdi concept is invariably attached to creation, jiva,
   avidya, samsara, bandha, etc.
   10. There is the Br.Up. mantra: tad yo yo devaanAm pratyabudhyata,
   tathaRShINAm tathaa manuShyANAm ...which says that whoever from the human,
   rishi or devata classes comes to realize this Brahman, becomes Brahman,
   with sarvAtmabhAva.  This mantra recognizes the categories of manushyas
   distinct from rishis and devatas.
   11. There is the statement of a krama sRShTi (a gradual creation) and a
   yugapat sRShTi  ( a simultaneous creation of all beings) in the Veda. Both
   these are recognized by the traditon. The Mundaka mantra: tadetat satyam
   yathA sudIptAt pAvakAt visphulingAH sahasrashaH utpadyante...meaning: just
   as sparks, in thousands, emanate from the blazing fire, the various beings
   come into being.  A similar mantra from the Kaivalya upanishad and the
   Br.Up are quoted to support yugapat sRShti.  The Vedic sRShTi is always of
   the type where all the beings, with their classes and  sub classes, are
   created, rather manifest, at the time of sRShTi, after pralayam ends.  The
   Veda is also available at the very beginning for the humans to apply it in
   their lives.  For, as soon as  a child is born, or rather even before the
   birth of a child, the Veda-based rituals  are to be performed for
   samskara.

Maybe members have suitable explanations to the above while accommodating
the evolution theory into the Vedic method.  Also, a question arises: Is it
a flaw if for some reason the Veda apaurusheyatva/prAmANya is not
understood/explained logically within  the context of the modern evolution
theory?  My answer is: In the past there have been a number of jnanis who
have followed the Veda as the traditional pUrvAchAryas followed and
obtained freedom from samsara.  The so-called illogicality behind veda
apaurusheyatva/pramANya did not come in their way of becoming
self-realized.  The modern theory of evolution was completely unknown to
them.

Some loud thinking, to evoke further thoughts...

regards,

subrahmanian.v
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org

[Ramesh Krishnamurthy]

On 22 June 2012 23:40, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidyasankar-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
> Even within the perspective of science, there are numerous ways to think in
> a philosophical way about the prior existence or non-existence of living beings
> and about the origins of life itself. I don't think biology or any other science
> needs to be inextricably wedded to the notion that there is no existence of the
> general except in that of its many particulars.
>

Thanks to Vidyasankar for presenting the argument so beautifully. I
have often encountered similar questions from fellow sAdhaka-s and my
approach has always been that one must steer clear of exceedingly
short-sighted and simplistic interpretations which unnecessarily lead
to a false pitting of science against the mImAMsaka and other such
traditions.

At a fundamental level, one must also remember that the Veda's
independent prAmANya is on atIndriya vishaya-s only. When understood
to its fullest extent, this in itself is sufficient to prevent such
false pitting. Biological evolution is a well-established scientific
theory based on pratyakShAdi pramANa-s, and at a fundamental level,
the Veda simply has no jurisdiction in the matter. Even if one thinks
that biological evolution is false, the arguments have to be based on
laukika pramANa-s and not on the Veda.

Coming to Sri Subrahmanian's questions, I think there can be several
ways of addressing the matter. But I will take a cue from
Vidyasankar's post and provide one possible approach. The idea is not
to provide an "answer" but to merely illustrate why one need not get
stuck with short-sighted or simplistic interpretations that lead to
the kind of false pitting mentioned above.

Here are two ideas:

1. Apply the differentiation of general and particular to the Veda
itself, i.e. look at what we specifically refer to as Veda (a corpus
of literature largely in pre-classical Sanskrit) as a particular case
of a generic Veda which is "trans-linguistic". I am sure there would
be enough pointers to this kind of idea in the shAstra itself.

2. Think of terms like "manuShya" and "prithivi" used in the shAstra
as being more generic than "homo sapiens" and "planet earth". For
example, manuShya could simply mean any jIva that is capable of
exercising judgement in the matter of karma (act, don't act, act
differently). There is no need to presume that in the entire cosmos,
homo sapiens is the only jIva with the ability to do so. Likewise,
prithivi could be any loka where such manuShya-s live.

With these two ideas, let us look at Sri Subrahmanian's questions:

We could take Vidyasankar's approach and say that the generic Veda
manifested itself in the particular form we know (pre-classical
Sanskrit etc) when the concerned R^iShI-s were born. For humans who
lived before, they either had access to the Veda in some other form,
or were born purely for bhoga in accordance with their past karma. For
that matter, a human living in, say, Peru just 800 years ago would not
have had any inkling of the Sanskritic Veda. Neither did they know of
any derived texts such as the smR^iti-s, itihAsa-s, etc.

The point about jIva-s needing to be anAdi etc can also be easily
taken care of. As long as one does not insist that manuShya means homo
sapiens only and that prithivi means planet earth only, there is no
problem. Indeed, one would think that a Hindu rooted in his tradition
would intuitively appreciate the idea that there could be infinitely
many prithivi-s, infinitely many types of manuShya-s and infinitely
many manifestations of the Veda. Biological and other forms of
evolution could proceed at their own pace in each of these cases, with
the time trajectories being vastly different.

I honestly don't see any problem unless one insists on straitjacketing
the Veda, strips it of its cosmic grandeur and restricts its essential
insights to one particular form of life on one particular piddly
little planet.

By the way what would happen if a big asteroid were to strike our
planet tomorrow and wipe out all life on it? How would Sri
Subrahmanian's questions change if he were to take into account this
possibility?

As mentioned earlier, I am not saying all this to provide specific
answers. There could be any number of ways of looking at these things.
The point is simply that by straitjacketing our intellectual
traditions and presenting them (falsely) as being pitted against this
or that scientific or other laukika pramANa based theory, we are only
a doing a great disservice to our dharma and our intellectual
traditions.

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

On Monday, June 25, 2012, Ramesh Krishnamurthy wrote:

> On 22 June 2012 23:40, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidyasankar-***@public.gmane.org<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks to Vidyasankar for presenting the argument so beautifully. I
> have often encountered similar questions from fellow sAdhaka-s and my
> approach has always been that one must steer clear of exceedingly
> short-sighted and simplistic interpretations which unnecessarily lead
> to a false pitting of science against the mImAMsaka and other such
> traditions.


RV: Sri Vidyasankar's argument is well presented. However, the problem of
accepting modern scientific position on evolution is truthfully highlighted
by Sringeri Acharya (rf. Sri Subrahmanian's post).

The notion of evolution (albeit with room for god) is there in vaiseshika
world view but it was not acceptable to other Vedic traditions. Please note
that the theory of evolution does not accept intelligent design, where god
guides evolution, because the evolutionary process seems to be highly error
prone and random.

Even if I did nothing about it, the scientific and traditional view stand
opposed to each other.

>
> At a fundamental level, one must also remember that the Veda's
> independent prAmANya is on atIndriya vishaya-s only. When understood
> to its fullest extent, this in itself is sufficient to prevent such
> false pitting. Biological evolution is a well-established scientific
> theory based on pratyakShAdi pramANa-s, and at a fundamental level,
> the Veda simply has no jurisdiction in the matter. Even if one thinks
> that biological evolution is false, the arguments have to be based on
> laukika pramANa-s and not on the Veda.


RV: Origin of the Universe or life forms is atindriya only. It may not be
beyond the manas as we can think about it but they are not matters for
pratyaksha to deal with. Vedas talk about how universe is created, life is
formed etc. in great detail. When it contradicts observed facts, we
cannot selectively reject those portions. By the same logic, if
neuroscience or physics explains the nature of self or consciousness we
should reject Vedic view of the same. Sringeri acharya rejects evolution
not because the genetic or fossil evidence is not convincing but because it
is not in alignment with the principles of Veda dharma.

>
> Coming to Sri Subrahmanian's questions, I think there can be several
> ways of addressing the matter. But I will take a cue from
> Vidyasankar's post and provide one possible approach. The idea is not
> to provide an "answer" but to merely illustrate why one need not get
> stuck with short-sighted or simplistic interpretations that lead to
> the kind of false pitting mentioned above.
>
> RV: Your interpretations are smart indeed. But can it change the past
beliefs held by the traditional scholars? They did not believe in evolution.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy-***@public.gmane.org>wrote:

>
>
> At a fundamental level, one must also remember that the Veda's
> independent prAmANya is on atIndriya vishaya-s only. When understood
> to its fullest extent, this in itself is sufficient to prevent such
> false pitting. Biological evolution is a well-established scientific
> theory based on pratyakShAdi pramANa-s, and at a fundamental level,
> the Veda simply has no jurisdiction in the matter. Even if one thinks
> that biological evolution is false, the arguments have to be based on
> laukika pramANa-s and not on the Veda.
>

Dear Sri Ramesh ji,

The quote I provided from the Sringeri Acharya's conversation does not say
or imply that the biological evolution is false. It only says that
applying it to the Vedic system is faulty. And several reasons were
provided for this. So, to insist that only laukika pramanas should be used
is not fair for the very question that was posed to the Acharya linked the
biological evolution to the Vedic revelation, etc.

>
> Coming to Sri Subrahmanian's questions, I think there can be several
> ways of addressing the matter. But I will take a cue from
> Vidyasankar's post and provide one possible approach. The idea is not
> to provide an "answer" but to merely illustrate why one need not get
> stuck with short-sighted or simplistic interpretations that lead to
> the kind of false pitting mentioned above.
>
> Here are two ideas:
>
> 1. Apply the differentiation of general and particular to the Veda
> itself, i.e. look at what we specifically refer to as Veda (a corpus
> of literature largely in pre-classical Sanskrit) as a particular case
> of a generic Veda which is "trans-linguistic". I am sure there would
> be enough pointers to this kind of idea in the shAstra itself.


I will leave this out for I have not discoursed on this topic before here.

>
> 2. Think of terms like "manuShya" and "prithivi" used in the shAstra
> as being more generic than "homo sapiens" and "planet earth". For
> example, manuShya could simply mean any jIva that is capable of
> exercising judgement in the matter of karma (act, don't act, act
> differently). There is no need to presume that in the entire cosmos,
> homo sapiens is the only jIva with the ability to do so. Likewise,
> prithivi could be any loka where such manuShya-s live.
>

In the Taittiriya Upanishad bhashyam for the mantra: annaat puruShaH (from
food man is born..) Shankara raises a question: When so many beings are
born from food, why mention only purusha? And answers: because only a
manushya is an adhikArin for the vedokta karma. And in the shastra a
'manushya' is essentially a homo sapien and even defined so:
shiraHpANyAdimAn - the one with heads, hands, etc. In fact the anna maya
kosha itself is demonstrated in the upanishad here with the humanistic
model: head, right and left hands and torso etc. And Shankara even gives
examples such as when one turns to the sun (east) and stretches his arms
sideways, the right hand is pointed to the south, dakshina, etc. And the
brahmasutra has an adhikarana to decide whether or not devataa-s too have
karma adhikAra and concludes that they might have adhikara for jnana but
only manushyas have karma adhikara. All said and done, in the shAstra,
that is tradition, it is only the homo sapien species that is meant by the
term manushya. There is no need or reason for the shastra to imagine other
beings in other lokas who might have karma adhikara. It is addressed to
us, homo sapiens, and wants us to relate to it in the most natural way.

For the term prithvI, it is simply earth, not restricted to planet Earth.
Prithvi is the effect after the element water, in the vedic context. But
the term 'pArthiva' is from prthvI and exists in all physical created
objects in gross form and in subtle form in sUkshma shrIram too. So there
can be jivas in pitR loka, deva loka and Brahma loka including the fourteen
lokas - seven above and seven lower ones. These are necessarily not
restricted to just the planet Earth.

>
> With these two ideas, let us look at Sri Subrahmanian's questions:
>
> We could take Vidyasankar's approach and say that the generic Veda
> manifested itself in the particular form we know (pre-classical
> Sanskrit etc) when the concerned R^iShI-s were born. For humans who
> lived before, they either had access to the Veda in some other form,
> or were born purely for bhoga in accordance with their past karma.


There is no admissibility to this proposition in the vedic context. Only
animals and devas are born chiefly for bhoga, in the latter case they can
try for moksha but the former do not have that faculty. In the case of
humans it is his bounden duty to seek and know his status and act
accordingly. That is why there is the upanayana samskara and the gurukula
thereafter. If he fails, he invites sin. Till he gets the ability to seek
for himself, his parents have that responsibility of grooming him to that,
in the form of upanayana and sadAchAra shikShaNa. And for this reason the
Veda has to be there. If it is not made available it is the fault of
Ishwara. Ishwara can fault the jiva only when the latter has not made use
of the teaching provided. That is the idea underlying the reply of the
Sringeri Acharya. In order to preclude the possibility of humans,
non-rishis, coming into being before the rishi the Vedic srishti is just
commencing with the prajapati, marIchi, etc. people, with the already
available vedic knowledge. For, the first-born BrahmA is endowed with
vedic knowledge, which he automatically imparts to his mind-born
prajApatis, and so on. All this may not fit in the evolution theory but
that is not the problem of the Veda/tradition. They are not worse off
without accommodating the evolution theory in their scheme. And they will
continue to reject/refuse/refute such attempts even at the risk of their
being dubbed short-sighted, simplistic, etc. And such of those who have
attempted to do this have been clearly kept away as a-sampradaayic. But
they will not and cannot prevent individuals forming their own ideas about
these. A traditional teaching of the prasthana traya will not include
these topics in the syllabus.


> For
> that matter, a human living in, say, Peru just 800 years ago would not
> have had any inkling of the Sanskritic Veda. Neither did they know of
> any derived texts such as the smR^iti-s, itihAsa-s, etc.
>
> The point about jIva-s needing to be anAdi etc can also be easily
> taken care of. As long as one does not insist that manuShya means homo
> sapiens only and that prithivi means planet earth only, there is no
> problem. Indeed, one would think that a Hindu rooted in his tradition
> would intuitively appreciate the idea that there could be infinitely
> many prithivi-s, infinitely many types of manuShya-s and infinitely
> many manifestations of the Veda. Biological and other forms of
> evolution could proceed at their own pace in each of these cases, with
> the time trajectories being vastly different.
>

All this can exist as fanciful thinking but the tradition, as I pointed out
above, will not accept it. They do not see any need or reason for it. If
they are rejected for not accommodating these ideas, they are not
bothered.

I honestly don't see any problem unless one insists on straitjacketing
> the Veda, strips it of its cosmic grandeur and restricts its essential
> insights to one particular form of life on one particular piddly
> little planet.
>

Are you implying that those who reply to such questions, as for example,
the Sringeri Acharya and the disciple ( a modern educated post doctoral
scientist) are insisting on straitjacketing the Veda and stripping
it...etc? I do not see any problem in their holding views such as they
do. After all, they are trying to show how one can understand the shastra
by not contradicting it. And the specific question that was put to the
Acharya by the disciple did show that it was contradicting the shastra.

>
> By the way what would happen if a big asteroid were to strike our
> planet tomorrow and wipe out all life on it? How would Sri
> Subrahmanian's questions change if he were to take into account this
> possibility?
>

Well, I will not be there to witness the effects of such a catastrophe. It
is, now, purely hypothetical.

>
> As mentioned earlier, I am not saying all this to provide specific
> answers. There could be any number of ways of looking at these things.
> The point is simply that by straitjacketing our intellectual
> traditions and presenting them (falsely) as being pitted against this
> or that scientific or other laukika pramANa based theory, we are only
> a doing a great disservice to our dharma and our intellectual
> traditions.
>

I think you are surely not implying that the Sringeri Acharya, by giving
those replies, was doing a great disservice to our dharma and the thinking
traditions. Nor have they pitted the shastra against science. They have
the greatest respect, regard and appreciation of both. In fact, if one
reads Sri Umesh ji's writings about The Acharya, one can appreciate how
'scientific' the latter was. You can have a talk about these with
traditional scholars whom you know of and find out what they have to say.

I am not being skeptical while responding as above. Somehow, I was taught
and trained in that line. Many of those Vedantins who have influenced me
were themselves scientists. I thank Sri Vidyasankar for his ideas on this,
especially his showing that science and shastra need not be fused. I have
said what I was taught and understood on this/these topic/s. My intention
is not to contradict anyone.

Regards,
subrahmanian.v

> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org
>

[Ramesh Krishnamurthy]

Namaste Subrahmanian-ji,

On 26 June 2012 00:04, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> The quote I provided from the Sringeri Acharya's conversation does not say
> or imply that the biological evolution is false.

I said nothing about the Sringeri AchArya's views in my post. I have
read the book "Exalting Elucidations" and also its Hindi version
"shishya ke prashna, jagadguru ke uttar". These books are not
treatises by the AchArya on any topic, they are merely collections of
random questions on myriad topics asked by various seekers and the
AchArya's brief replies. There simply isn't enough context in them for
me to form any definitive conclusion about the AchArya's views. As
such, I did not take it into account at all.

<<There is no need or reason for the shastra to imagine other beings
in other lokas who might have karma adhikara.  It is addressed to us,
homo sapiens, and wants us to relate to it in the most natural way.>>

It is clear that you are simply not appreciating the spirit of my
post. I am not trying to "imagine" beings in other loka-s. All I am
saying is that the insights of the veda (especially the vedAnta) are
applicable to all beings irrespective of whether we (homo sapiens)
know of the existence of such beings or not.

Please try to appreciate the spirit of the message.

> There is no admissibility to this proposition in the vedic context.  Only
> animals and devas are born chiefly for bhoga, in the latter case they can
> try for moksha but the former do not have that faculty.

Let us leave deva-s aside for the time being. What is the difference
between an "animal" and a "human"? The difference is that the latter
is capable of making decisions on the basis of considerations like
ethics etc, rather than on just instinct. Hence the point on
"kartum/akartum/anyathA kartum" which one of my AchArya-s emphasizes
to no end.

Hence, for the shAstra, the relevant characteristic of a manuShya is
this capability for autonomous decision making, which is what makes
him a puruShArthI, in particular a seeker of dharma and mokSha. Just
because the only type of jIva we (homo sapiens) know that is capable
of this is homo sapiens, it does not logically follow that there
cannot be other such beings. So I merely keep an open mind on this. On
the other hand, by making a strict equation of manuShya=homo sapiens,
it is you who are "imagining" things and placing a limit on the Veda.

<< In the case of humans it is his bounden duty to seek and know his
status and act accordingly.  That is why there is the upanayana
samskara and the gurukula
thereafter.  If he fails, he invites sin.>>

And what about the guy in Peru who lived 800 years ago? I hope you
will not say that I am "imagining" him. If you appreciate the spirit
behind my message, you will have no problem accommodating him too.
Otherwise you will either have to say that he was born for bhoga
alone, or you will end up making him a "sinner".


> Till he gets the ability to seek
> for himself, his parents have that responsibility of grooming him to that,
> in the form of upanayana and sadAchAra shikShaNa.  And for this reason the
> Veda has to be there.  If it is not made available it is the fault of
> Ishwara.

Again, so what happens to the the Peruvian guy?


> Ishwara can fault the jiva only when the latter has not made use
> of the teaching provided.  That is the idea underlying the reply of the
> Sringeri Acharya.

Great. And this would essentially imply that the essential
teachings/insights of the Veda have to be available in one form or the
other to all beings capable of seeking dharma/mokSha, irrespective of
desha/kAla/loka. Can you now appreciate the spirit behind my post?


>
> All this can exist as fanciful thinking but the tradition, as I pointed out
> above, will not accept it.  They do not see any need or reason for it.  If
> they are rejected for not accommodating these ideas, they are not
> bothered.

Again, you simply fail to appreciate the spirit behind my post. The
above is totally tangential and irrelevant to my post. As I have
immense personal respect for you, I will refrain from saying anything
more.

[r***@public.gmane.org]

Dear Sri Ramesh,

I, for one, fail to see the spirit behind your post though oft repeated. What Sri Subrahmanian has pointed out is the traditional position. Our ancients did NOT believe in evolution and Sringer Acharya is true to his tradition. Sri Lalilalalita, Sri Sudhakar and Sri Shyam have restated this in clear terms. The closest to evolution was vaiseshika position but that's nothing like
the modern theory.


Regarding person in Peru, please read Traces of Vedic Civilazation around the world. Peruvian caves have paintings of monkey carrying a mountain etc. In Egypt, goddess of fortune Hathore is believed to incarnate as the cow. They have rath yatra for a blue god. The myth of boat over floods is present across cultures.

Best Regards
Raj
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

-----Original Message-----
From: Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy-***@public.gmane.org>
Sender: advaita-l-bounces-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+***@public.gmane.org
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:46:34
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta<advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+9d9jxlLJML/***@public.gmane.orgorg>
Reply-To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
<advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+***@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Apoureshyatva - Faith or Logic?

Namaste Subrahmanian-ji,

On 26 June 2012 00:04, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> The quote I provided from the Sringeri Acharya's conversation does not say
> or imply that the biological evolution is false.

I said nothing about the Sringeri AchArya's views in my post. I have
read the book "Exalting Elucidations" and also its Hindi version
"shishya ke prashna, jagadguru ke uttar". These books are not
treatises by the AchArya on any topic, they are merely collections of
random questions on myriad topics asked by various seekers and the
AchArya's brief replies. There simply isn't enough context in them for
me to form any definitive conclusion about the AchArya's views. As
such, I did not take it into account at all.

<<There is no need or reason for the shastra to imagine other beings
in other lokas who might have karma adhikara.  It is addressed to us,
homo sapiens, and wants us to relate to it in the most natural way.>>

It is clear that you are simply not appreciating the spirit of my
post. I am not trying to "imagine" beings in other loka-s. All I am
saying is that the insights of the veda (especially the vedAnta) are
applicable to all beings irrespective of whether we (homo sapiens)
know of the existence of such beings or not.

Please try to appreciate the spirit of the message.

> There is no admissibility to this proposition in the vedic context.  Only
> animals and devas are born chiefly for bhoga, in the latter case they can
> try for moksha but the former do not have that faculty.

Let us leave deva-s aside for the time being. What is the difference
between an "animal" and a "human"? The difference is that the latter
is capable of making decisions on the basis of considerations like
ethics etc, rather than on just instinct. Hence the point on
"kartum/akartum/anyathA kartum" which one of my AchArya-s emphasizes
to no end.

Hence, for the shAstra, the relevant characteristic of a manuShya is
this capability for autonomous decision making, which is what makes
him a puruShArthI, in particular a seeker of dharma and mokSha. Just
because the only type of jIva we (homo sapiens) know that is capable
of this is homo sapiens, it does not logically follow that there
cannot be other such beings. So I merely keep an open mind on this. On
the other hand, by making a strict equation of manuShya=homo sapiens,
it is you who are "imagining" things and placing a limit on the Veda.

<< In the case of humans it is his bounden duty to seek and know his
status and act accordingly.  That is why there is the upanayana
samskara and the gurukula
thereafter.  If he fails, he invites sin.>>

And what about the guy in Peru who lived 800 years ago? I hope you
will not say that I am "imagining" him. If you appreciate the spirit
behind my message, you will have no problem accommodating him too.
Otherwise you will either have to say that he was born for bhoga
alone, or you will end up making him a "sinner".


> Till he gets the ability to seek
> for himself, his parents have that responsibility of grooming him to that,
> in the form of upanayana and sadAchAra shikShaNa.  And for this reason the
> Veda has to be there.  If it is not made available it is the fault of
> Ishwara.

Again, so what happens to the the Peruvian guy?


> Ishwara can fault the jiva only when the latter has not made use
> of the teaching provided.  That is the idea underlying the reply of the
> Sringeri Acharya.

Great. And this would essentially imply that the essential
teachings/insights of the Veda have to be available in one form or the
other to all beings capable of seeking dharma/mokSha, irrespective of
desha/kAla/loka. Can you now appreciate the spirit behind my post?


>
> All this can exist as fanciful thinking but the tradition, as I pointed out
> above, will not accept it.  They do not see any need or reason for it.  If
> they are rejected for not accommodating these ideas, they are not
> bothered.

Again, you simply fail to appreciate the spirit behind my post. The
above is totally tangential and irrelevant to my post. As I have
immense personal respect for you, I will refrain from saying anything
more.
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Ramesh Krishnamurthy
<rkmurthy-***@public.gmane.org>wrote:
Dear Ramesh ji,

Thanks for your response. I only stated the position as the traditional
Acharyas have it. And I do not feel they are wanting in their
understanding of the extent of the Veda and its applications.

Coming to the 'kartum...' this has been said by Shankara with respect to
both laukikam and vaidikam karma. That is, both these types of karmas are
'capable' of being done or not done or done in a different way. 'kartum
akartum anyathA vA kartum shakyam laukikam vaidikam cha karma.' (BSB 4th
sutra, if I am not wrong). In fact behaving in alternative ways, thinking
of those possibilities, abstaining from taking an action, for whatever
reasons, like fear of being attacked/caught/harmed/killed, etc. are
observed in animals also and have been well demonstrated too. So the above
ability does not restrict itself to humans. I do not see a clear link
between this ability and one being a purusharthi. So the conclusion you
arrive at below is not of use for this discussion.

>
> Hence, for the shAstra, the relevant characteristic of a manuShya is
> this capability for autonomous decision making, which is what makes
> him a puruShArthI, in particular a seeker of dharma and mokSha. Just
> because the only type of jIva we (homo sapiens) know that is capable
> of this is homo sapiens, it does not logically follow that there
> cannot be other such beings. So I merely keep an open mind on this. On
> the other hand, by making a strict equation of manuShya=homo sapiens,
> it is you who are "imagining" things and placing a limit on the Veda.
>
> << In the case of humans it is his bounden duty to seek and know his
> status and act accordingly. That is why there is the upanayana
> samskara and the gurukula
> thereafter. If he fails, he invites sin.>>
>
> And what about the guy in Peru who lived 800 years ago? I hope you
> will not say that I am "imagining" him. If you appreciate the spirit
> behind my message, you will have no problem accommodating him too.
> Otherwise you will either have to say that he was born for bhoga
> alone, or you will end up making him a "sinner".
>

No. There is a classic case of the Sringeri Acharya Sri Chandrashekhara
Bharati Swamiji's dialogue with a Westerner who was enamored by the Vedic
religion and wanted to convert to Hinduism. The Acharya advised him: //
There is no need for you to convert. In fact there will be problems if you
convert. Ishwara had a purpose in giving you birth in that religion
(Christianity) and in that land. Go back to your country and consult your
religious leaders and they will sure have a way for your spiritual
progress. That is the best one suited for you. //

So, the Peruvian guy, if he had the burning quest, could have sought and
got the necessary path for his upliftment that is most suitable for him.

>
>
> > Till he gets the ability to seek
> > for himself, his parents have that responsibility of grooming him to
> that,
> > in the form of upanayana and sadAchAra shikShaNa. And for this reason
> the
> > Veda has to be there. If it is not made available it is the fault of
> > Ishwara.
>
> Again, so what happens to the the Peruvian guy?
>

Ishwara has made it available. Only that one has to open his eyes and make
the necessary search. The Vedic scripture speaks and demonstrates in the
context of this land. That is why one finds all examples, even in the
Veda, of things of this land. All places, rivers, etc. are
locatable/traceable in this country, if not with the present political
map. AkhaNDa BhArata Varsha extending to Afghanistan on one side and
Cambodia on the other has been mapped by the RSS-like people. The devatas
and lokas talked about are never considered 'foreign' or from 'alien'
galaxies. The various lokas described in the puranas too are of this
genre. That is a separate study about the continents, the dveepas and all
that are contained in that description. That is one of the reasons why
no one in the tradition, gifted they are with great imagining capacities,
have talked of the possible beings that could be grouped under manushyas
living elsewhere. There is no use of such a kalpana. A kalpana could be
made in order to circumvent a problem within the Vedic context. Just
because one likes to accommodate theories one finds appreciable, there is
no justification in making such kalpanas in the Vedic context. Nor is the
tradition putting a limit, as though it is a punishment or offence, on the
Vedas by not making such a kalpana. I think this is the kind of thinking
the traditional Acharya-s and those trained in the modern scientific
methods but also exposed to the Vedic methods would appreciate.

I draw the attention of readers who have the book 'Exalting Elucidations'
to go through the chapter 38. 'SAstra and science' on pp283-287 for more
clarifications regarding several topics that we have touched upon in this
thread. I wish someone even copies that chapter for posting here for the
benefit of all readers.

Regards,
subrahmanian.v



>
>

[Bhaskar YR]

Coming to the 'kartum...' this has been said by Shankara with respect to
both laukikam and vaidikam karma. That is, both these types of karmas are
'capable' of being done or not done or done in a different way. 'kartum
akartum anyathA vA kartum shakyam laukikam vaidikam cha karma.' (BSB 4th
sutra, if I am not wrong).

praNAms
Hare Krishna

I think shankara talks about 'dhyAna' (purusha tantra) here not on
vaidika karma in 4th sUtra. Because for the vaidika karma shAstra is the
ONLY pramANa. Hence, akartuM anyathA vA kartuM invites 'pApa/dOsha' and
more importantly shAstra viruddha.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr-zOhu8KlzJ1LQT0dZR+***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> Coming to the 'kartum...' this has been said by Shankara with respect to
> both laukikam and vaidikam karma. That is, both these types of karmas are
> 'capable' of being done or not done or done in a different way. 'kartum
> akartum anyathA vA kartum shakyam laukikam vaidikam cha karma.' (BSB 4th
> sutra, if I am not wrong).
>
> praNAms
> Hare Krishna
>
> I think shankara talks about 'dhyAna' (purusha tantra) here not on
> vaidika karma in 4th sUtra. Because for the vaidika karma shAstra is the
> ONLY pramANa. Hence, akartuM anyathA vA kartuM invites 'pApa/dOsha' and
> more importantly shAstra viruddha.
>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
>

Dear Bhaskar ji,

Let me gently remind you, a veritable master of the Acharya's Bhashya
vAkyams, that it is a case of laukika and vaidika karma. In the
janmAdyasya yataH (second sutra bashyam and not the fourth as I had
doubtfully mentioned erlier) Acharya goes on to give examples as: ashvena
gacchati, padbhyAm gacchati, na vA gacchati [one transports himself by
horseback, or walks or does not undertake the journey at all] for laukika
karma. For vaidika karma the examples given in the BSB are: udite juhoti,
anudite juhoti, atirAtre ShoDashinam grRnhAti, nAtirAtre ShoDashinam
grRnhAti, etc. [here the shastra itself gives two or more options of which
one can choose to do one or the other. Of course, opting not to perform
the karma is also open to the individual. Shankara is bringing out the
difference between the ever-established vastu, bhUtavastu, Brahman and
karma which has to be engaged in in order to bring about a result. That is
the context.

Hence there will be no 'doSha' from choosing one or the other options
provided by the shAstra. Of course, if one refrains from either of the
options, within a main karma, there will be karma lopa. This kind of
dosha/lopa is there for any act/abstinence, even laukika. For example, in
a medical emergency I have to rush to a hospital. I have the options of
taking an autorickshaw or call the neighbor to take me in his/my car. Or I
can choose not to go at all. The consequences of each of these is there,
favorable or otherwise.

As an aside, I wish to say that in these discussions, we are exchanging
opinions/views/understandings and certainly not blows. When such exchanges
happen, we go back to the shastra, bhashyam, to look in more detail. I am
struck by the benefit such an exchange gives, especially in the current
discussion. I had noted a few days ago, either here or elsewhere, that all
questions/solutions have their fundamental base in the adhyAsa BhAShya.
Now, in a previous post I had made a comparison, not contrast, between man
and animal. Even this is beautifully explained by the AB:
pashvAdibhishcha avisheShAt. The psychology of man is not very different
from that of an animal. The Acharya is making this remark, will
illustration of such behaviour, both in an animal and man, in the context
of the pramANa-prameya vyavahAra. And the fundamental seeking to free from
duhkha and seek sukha. All purusharthas, even the seeking of moksha
purushartha, is based on this fundamental seeking. Hence He says all
pramana prameya vyavahara, laukika, vaidika and EVEN moksha, is in the
realm of avidyA.



Regards
subrahmanian.v

>
>

[r***@public.gmane.org]

I did not quite see how the position on apaureshyatva is answered in adhyasa bhashya. The pramana to conclude that there is adhyasa between atma and anatma due to avidya is veda only.

It seems apaureshyatva of vedas is based on faith in the statement of the rishis and traditional teachers. Their logic to prove it is based on the assumption of an eternal connection words and class of object and their existence even in the source. By this logic, everything is apaureshya only and the special place to veda vakyams is a boundary given by the tradition. Apaureshyatva cannot be justified if we do not accept these two assumptions and say that language and objects evolved.

I am happy to be corrected.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

-----Original Message-----
From: V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian-***@public.gmane.org>
Sender: advaita-l-bounces-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+***@public.gmane.org
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:51:31
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta<advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+9d9jxlLJML/***@public.gmane.orgorg>
Reply-To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
<advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+***@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Apoureshyatva - Faith or Logic?

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr-zOhu8KlzJ1LQT0dZR+***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> Coming to the 'kartum...' this has been said by Shankara with respect to
> both laukikam and vaidikam karma. That is, both these types of karmas are
> 'capable' of being done or not done or done in a different way. 'kartum
> akartum anyathA vA kartum shakyam laukikam vaidikam cha karma.' (BSB 4th
> sutra, if I am not wrong).
>
> praNAms
> Hare Krishna
>
> I think shankara talks about 'dhyAna' (purusha tantra) here not on
> vaidika karma in 4th sUtra. Because for the vaidika karma shAstra is the
> ONLY pramANa. Hence, akartuM anyathA vA kartuM invites 'pApa/dOsha' and
> more importantly shAstra viruddha.
>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
>

Dear Bhaskar ji,

Let me gently remind you, a veritable master of the Acharya's Bhashya
vAkyams, that it is a case of laukika and vaidika karma. In the
janmAdyasya yataH (second sutra bashyam and not the fourth as I had
doubtfully mentioned erlier) Acharya goes on to give examples as: ashvena
gacchati, padbhyAm gacchati, na vA gacchati [one transports himself by
horseback, or walks or does not undertake the journey at all] for laukika
karma. For vaidika karma the examples given in the BSB are: udite juhoti,
anudite juhoti, atirAtre ShoDashinam grRnhAti, nAtirAtre ShoDashinam
grRnhAti, etc. [here the shastra itself gives two or more options of which
one can choose to do one or the other. Of course, opting not to perform
the karma is also open to the individual. Shankara is bringing out the
difference between the ever-established vastu, bhUtavastu, Brahman and
karma which has to be engaged in in order to bring about a result. That is
the context.

Hence there will be no 'doSha' from choosing one or the other options
provided by the shAstra. Of course, if one refrains from either of the
options, within a main karma, there will be karma lopa. This kind of
dosha/lopa is there for any act/abstinence, even laukika. For example, in
a medical emergency I have to rush to a hospital. I have the options of
taking an autorickshaw or call the neighbor to take me in his/my car. Or I
can choose not to go at all. The consequences of each of these is there,
favorable or otherwise.

As an aside, I wish to say that in these discussions, we are exchanging
opinions/views/understandings and certainly not blows. When such exchanges
happen, we go back to the shastra, bhashyam, to look in more detail. I am
struck by the benefit such an exchange gives, especially in the current
discussion. I had noted a few days ago, either here or elsewhere, that all
questions/solutions have their fundamental base in the adhyAsa BhAShya.
Now, in a previous post I had made a comparison, not contrast, between man
and animal. Even this is beautifully explained by the AB:
pashvAdibhishcha avisheShAt. The psychology of man is not very different
from that of an animal. The Acharya is making this remark, will
illustration of such behaviour, both in an animal and man, in the context
of the pramANa-prameya vyavahAra. And the fundamental seeking to free from
duhkha and seek sukha. All purusharthas, even the seeking of moksha
purushartha, is based on this fundamental seeking. Hence He says all
pramana prameya vyavahara, laukika, vaidika and EVEN moksha, is in the
realm of avidyA.



Regards
subrahmanian.v

>
>
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji
Hare Krishna

Let me gently remind you, a veritable master of the Acharya's Bhashya
vAkyams, that it is a case of laukika and vaidika karma. In the
janmAdyasya yataH (second sutra bashyam and not the fourth as I had
doubtfully mentioned erlier)

> If memory serves me right, shankara, similarly, does talk about dhyAna
in 4th sUtra bhAshya. dhyAnaM purusheNa kartuM, akartuM anyathAvA kartuM
shakyaM ( exact words cannot recall, but it should be something similar to
this!!).

Hence there will be no 'doSha' from choosing one or the other options
provided by the shAstra.

> I agree that if anyathAkartuM is an alternative option provided by
shAstra itself.

Of course, if one refrains from either of the options, within a main
karma, there will be karma lopa. This kind of dosha/lopa is there for any
act/abstinence, even laukika.

> Yes, but shAstra vihita vidhi/nishedha plays an important role in the
sAdhaka's path unlike laukika 'akartuM' option :-))

Anyway, this topic is not directly related to 'aparusheyatva of veda-s',
so let us stop this discussion.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar

[Bhaskar YR]

No. There is a classic case of the Sringeri Acharya Sri Chandrashekhara
Bharati Swamiji's dialogue with a Westerner who was enamored by the Vedic
religion and wanted to convert to Hinduism. The Acharya advised him: //
There is no need for you to convert. In fact there will be problems if
you
convert. Ishwara had a purpose in giving you birth in that religion
(Christianity) and in that land. Go back to your country and consult your
religious leaders and they will sure have a way for your spiritual
progress. That is the best one suited for you. //

praNAms
Hare Krishna

Since my doubt is not related to the aparusheyatva, I have changed the
subject heading.

My doubt is whether mleccha-s ( Westerners) are not eligible to come to
the fold of vaidika dharma according to strict vedik rules?? I dont know
what our dharma shAstra-s say about the conversions. In the above case,
H.H. might be knowing the 'fate' of this Westerner and advised him to
follow his sva-dharma. But is this advice applicable to ALL people who
want to pursue their adhyAtmika sAdhana according to vaidika tradition ??
Or is there any possibility to invite them into the traditional circle of
vaidika dharma? We've been seeing this type of conversions in ashrama-s
like Arsha Vidya, Ramakrishna, Chinmayananda etc. wherein foreigners
with the new Hindu names & traditional hindu attire (with shikha, dhOti,
nAma/tripundra etc.) doing the sAdhana & even discoursing the Hindu
dharma to the interested audience. Is this type of conversions allowed /
acceptable to the orthodox trimatastha mutts in general & Amnaya shankara
mutts in particular?? Please clarify.

Kindly also let me know whether there is any talk by H.H. Sri
Chandrashekharendra Saraswati with regard to the conversions in Hindu
Dharma??

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar

[Ramesh Krishnamurthy]

On 26 June 2012 12:52, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
<<So the above ability does not restrict itself to humans.  I do not
see a clear link
between this ability and one being a purusharthi.  So the conclusion
you arrive  at below is not of use for this discussion.>>

I am talking about the ability to take into account something more
than just instinct (such as ethics) in one's decision to act, not act
or act differently. The common laukika view is that animals act on the
basis of instinct, and that only humans can take into account ethical
and other such considerations. The traditional association of
puNya-pApa with actions is based on this ability that humans have. In
general, tradition does not associate puNya-pApa with the actions of
cows, horses, etc

So the point is that it is this ability to rise above instinct and
take autonomous decisions on actions (on the basis of ethical and
other considerations) that makes the dharma puruShArtha relevant for a
jIva.

> No. There is a classic case of the Sringeri Acharya Sri Chandrashekhara
> Bharati Swamiji's dialogue with a Westerner who was enamored by the Vedic
> religion

I am aware of this and it supports my argument.

> So, the Peruvian guy, if he had the burning quest, could have sought and
> got the necessary path for his upliftment that is most suitable for him.

So you accept that this 12th century Peruvian guy is a
dharma/mokSha-puruShArthI?

If yes, do you see that you are actually agreeing with my views?

As long as you are accommodating the Peruvian guy into the framework
of dharma and mokSha, you are essentially agreeing with what I wrote
earlier.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy-***@public.gmane.org>wrote:

>
>
> I am talking about the ability to take into account something more
> than just instinct (such as ethics) in one's decision to act, not act
> or act differently. The common laukika view is that animals act on the
> basis of instinct, and that only humans can take into account ethical
> and other such considerations. The traditional association of
> puNya-pApa with actions is based on this ability that humans have. In
> general, tradition does not associate puNya-pApa with the actions of
> cows, horses, etc
>
> So the point is that it is this ability to rise above instinct and
> take autonomous decisions on actions (on the basis of ethical and
> other considerations) that makes the dharma puruShArtha relevant for a
> jIva.
>

In the Purana-s the case of a non-homo sapien, non-deva and non-animal
class of entities who has this capacity is recognized. We have the example
of Hanuman, a vAnara. Prahlada and Bali (his grandson) and Vibhishana,
asuras, to name a few. In the Vishnusahasranama dhyana shloka:
bhUHpAdau....there are these: sura-nara-khaga-go-bhogi-gandharva-daityaH.
Here sura is deva, nara is manushya (homo sapien), gandharva, super-humans
with skill in singing, and daitya - asura-s/rakshasas. Added to this we
have siddha, kinnara, chAraNa, apsara-s, etc. who are all super humans with
capacity to decide on appropriate action. In fact they have risen to this
status only by practicing dharma, etc. There is also a 'jAmbavAvn' (bear) a
great devotee of Sri Rama who lived in the time of Krishna too and gave his
daughter in marriage to Krishna. Nowhere do we have the term 'manushya'
being used to mean someone other than the homo-sapien, who is also called
nara, despite there being so many candidates specified above. One instance
where the word manushya is meant to mean only homo-sapiens is in the
Ramayana when BrahmA reminds Rama of his Supreme Divinity and Rama replies:

AtmAnam mAnuSham manye Raamam dasharathAtmajam

I consider myself a human, Rama, the son of Dasharatha.

It is to be noted that Rama does not invoke any other class here mentioned
above. If the word manushya were to mean any being other than the homo
sapien, the purana would have recognized it and given it a name. Since it
has not done so, it is evident that there is no such being. If you say that
in future a being of this class can evolve, then the shastra will not
recognize it, come what may. For, there is no provision to include
anything to the shastra by way of updating. And all the types enumerated
above must be distinguishable from their physical features. And they
mostly possess the ability to assume any form at will and appear in any
place at will.

>
> > No. There is a classic case of the Sringeri Acharya Sri Chandrashekhara
> > Bharati Swamiji's dialogue with a Westerner who was enamored by the Vedic
> > religion
>
> I am aware of this and it supports my argument.
>
> > So, the Peruvian guy, if he had the burning quest, could have sought and
> > got the necessary path for his upliftment that is most suitable for him.
>
> So you accept that this 12th century Peruvian guy is a
> dharma/mokSha-puruShArthI?
>
> If yes, do you see that you are actually agreeing with my views?
>
> As long as you are accommodating the Peruvian guy into the framework
> of dharma and mokSha, you are essentially agreeing with what I wrote
> earlier.
>

Let me clarify that I accommodated the above person only because he is a
homo sapien manushya hopefully and that he is not someone who had evolved
before a mantra drashta rishi evolved. Even otherwise, our Acharyas accept
that sAmAnya dharma is available for everybody and only vishesha dharma is
for the appropriate adhikarins.

Regards,
subrahmanian.v

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

The discussion on this topic has wandered far afield, from the fundamental question
of veda prAmANya and apaurusheyatva.

Whether people born outside of the usual Indian jAti-s have one or another
saMskAra is not quite pertinent to whether the veda is apaurusheya, as a
matter of faith or as a matter of being established logically, in whatever way.

Whether evolution theory in biology is correct or not, whether theories of
linguistic evolution are correct or not and whether the universe began with
a big bang or a whimper - none of these is relevant to veda apaurusheyatva.

All I wanted to say to Rajaram was (a) that veda apaurusheyatva is to be
taken as a given (in my opinion) and no proof need be established for it,
and consequently, (b) if one wants to establish a proof and then concludes
that a proof is not possible, citing evolution of species and languages as a
reason for giving up is flawed as a reason. If one so wishes, one could
easily accommodate any theories of origins of the universe, formation of
livable planets, specie and language evolution (not just the currently
accepted ones) within the ambit of how and when the apaurusheya veda
has come to us in its present form and structure. That is all. This is not to
suggest that any traditional mImAMsaka or vedAntin today needs to modify
their thinking and conclusions to accommodate them. This also does not
imply, in any way whatsoever, that apaurusheyatva means the same thing
as scientifically established truths, such as the law of gravity. A description
of a physical property of all matter is not the same as the statement
"svargakAMo yajeta" or "tat tvam asi".

I don't have much else to add to this.

Regards,
Vidyasankar

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

Thank for bringing the focus back.

On Tuesday, June 26, 2012, Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote:

>
>
> Whether evolution theory in biology is correct or not, whether theories of
> linguistic evolution are correct or not and whether the universe began with
> a big bang or a whimper - none of these is relevant to veda apaurusheyatva.


> All I wanted to say to Rajaram was (a) that veda apaurusheyatva is to be
> taken as a given (in my opinion) and no proof need be established for it,

RV: But mimamsakas and vedantins tried to provide logical arguments in
favour of apaureshyatva. They did not ask us accept it on faith or as a
given. They tried to reason why Vedas are apaureshya. They don't tell us
why only sruti is apaureshya and not any sentence. Or I don't understand
their logic correctly. But there was definitely an effort to prove it.

> and consequently, (b) if one wants to establish a proof and then concludes
> that a proof is not possible, citing evolution of species and languages as
> a
> reason for giving up is flawed as a reason. If one so wishes, one could
> easily accommodate any theories of origins of the universe, formation of
> livable planets, specie and language evolution (not just the currently
> accepted ones) within the ambit of how and when the apaurusheya veda
> has come to us in its present form and structure. That is all.

RV: Such an exercise will be like the Intelligent Design of the church.
Vedas hold a position on the origin of the inverse, life and languages.
Science holds a different position. We cannot say both are equally valid
and pair them up.

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

> > All I wanted to say to Rajaram was (a) that veda apaurusheyatva is to be
> > taken as a given (in my opinion) and no proof need be established for it,
>
> RV: But mimamsakas and vedantins tried to provide logical arguments in
> favour of apaureshyatva. They did not ask us accept it on faith or as a
> given. They tried to reason why Vedas are apaureshya. They don't tell us
> why only sruti is apaureshya and not any sentence. Or I don't understand
> their logic correctly. But there was definitely an effort to prove it.
>

It is not what you mean by "proof". The pUrva mImAMsaka discussions of
veda apaurusheyatva are in the nature of explaining what they mean by the
term, why the Sabda/jAti/varNa nityatva supports apaurusheyatva, etc. The
only laukika pramANa used in the argument is that of abhAva, which the
pUrva mImAMsaka-s take as a separate pramANa, distinct from pratyaksha
and anumAna - "No author has ever been known of the veda." They reject the
opponent's arthApatti "somebody MUST have been the author(s) of the veda".
Strictly speaking, they also do not accept an ISvara as the source of the veda
or as the source of the universe.

The pUrva mImAMsA argument about veda apaurusheyatva will therefore be
indifferent to any statement about the evolution of species or languages.

vedAntins take over most of the pUrva mImAMsA arguments, but in a modified
manner. From the perspective of the material universe, brahman is the source
(except for dvaitins). From the perspective of the veda, brahman is the source.
From the perspective of brahman, nothing is ever really created or destroyed,
either the material universe or the veda (for advaitins). I leave it to others to
see where scientific theories of species evolution and historical linguistic change
fit in (or not) with these primary vedAntic stances on brahman and the universe.

Among the vedAntins, advaitins accept the framework of the pramANa-s laid
out by pUrva mImAMsaka-s without any modification. The dvaitins, if I have
their thinking right, have no use for abhAva as a separate pramANa and they
classify it as nothing more than a special kind of anumAna. So, the dvaitin
arguments about how they understand apaurusheyatva are not the same as
what the pUrva mImAMsaka-s said before them.

Please, let us have some rigor in these kinds of arguments and do AnandatIrtha,
Sankara and kumAriLa proud, rather than going around in circles and talking
about all sorts of extraneous things.

Regards,
Vidyasankar

[Shyam]

Pranams Rameshji
__________________________________________________
<<Given your views on extraterrestrials and nonhumans in other planets
obtaining vedic knowledge of a different variety I do not find this in
the least surprising and consider it a blessing that my views are far
removed from yours.>>

Feel free to be consider yourself blessed. Regarding extraterrestrials
and non-humans, I have repeatedly stated that I was not advancing any
"views". I was only using them as devices to get people out of a
certain rut. There can be many ways of explaining these issues and
there is really no need to get stuck up with this or that view.

Repeatedly criticizing me for my supposed "views" or "imagination"
regarding extra-terrestrials etc is a really bad case of missing the
point.
__________________________________________________
Those were views that sprout forth from your imagination as possibilities. I didnt invent them.
If you find those views to be a source of discomfiture I do understand.
It does not mattter. I will instead focus on what you write below, as I believe you are either missing the point once again, or failing to address it.
 
____________________________________________________
<<That would be difficult to do even if I wished to for the simple
fact that your own "position" is extremely muddled, as is evident when
you state two contradictory things:>>

There is absolutely nothing contradictory about non-overlapping
jurisdictions at the level of pramANa on the one hand and mature
philosophies such as the various mImAMsA sysems being able to
accommodate different cause-effect models on the other. A philosophy
is based on multiple pramANa-s and indeed one of the signal
contributions of the pUrva-mImAMsaka-s has been the enunciation of a
mature pramANa-shAstra.

To be even clearer, let me state that it is the mImAMsA systems which
lay out what the pramANa-s are and what are their areas of
applicability.

<<The fact that Vedic dictums are orthogonal to scientific theories-
both fact-based and fantasy based - means that there is no question of
accomodation. The very question of accomodation comes in only if there
are overlapping domains. Please be clear in your own mind wheter you
consider the two orthogonal or overlapping.>>

Again, the orthogonality is at the level of pramANa-s. The ability to
accommodate different cause-effect models is at the level of a mature
philosophy which uses the pramANa-s in a certain way and responds
appropriately to environmental changes. The mImAMsA systems can do
this because of the robustness of their pramANa-shAstra and also the
robustness of the constructs they use for fashioning their system. An
example of such a construct was provided earlier in this thread by
Vidyasankar, which I had quoted in my previous post.
_____________________________________________________

You do not seem to get the idea of non-overlapping domains.
If I say the science of investment banking and the science of biofuel engineering have non-overlapping domains, it means that nothing within each of these two systems has anything to do with each other. There is no question then of one system having the flexibility internally to render possible an import of aspects of the other system by means of accomodation. The integrity of each system is self-contained.
 
To use a more simpler explanation let us say I live in a house in Chennai which is domain A and you live in a house of your own imaginations which is domain B. And a 3rd person knowing your imaginary children may be visiting Chennai asks if I may be so kind as to accomodate those imaginary children in my home. I would be so foolish were I to rearrange the furniutre in my home in preparation for the arrival of the imaginary children from your imaginary home. I hope the idea is now a little more clear to you. It is the same with the Vedic truth of Srshti and the evolutionary biologists imaginations of abiogenesis and the origin of species.
 
Take another example of two parallel systems of science - modern medicine and ayurveda. Let us take the case of a man with a wheezing problem. A modern medical practictioner may examine the man and come to a diagnosis of bronchial asthma. Now everything about the disease process, its pathophysiology, its therapeutic implications etc etc all have complete internal validity in the domain of the medical system of allopathy. Now a traditional ayurvedic physician may feel the pulse of the verisame individual and diagnose some imbalance of kapha  and pitta. Now his system too, if sound and true, has complete internal validity in its own domain. The allopathic practitioners diagnosis of asthma, and his ability to provide biopsy specimens showing eosinophilic infiltration and more sophisticated interleukin assays from the lung lavage specimens etc etc in no way impinge beyond the boundaries of what constitutes his domain and hence have no impact on the
validity of the diagnosis of the ayurvedic practitioners domain. This is because the ayurvedic physician is not treating this eosinophilic disease called asthma - he is treating a particular imbalance that he has diagnosed based on the tenets of his philosophy.
What is important here is to note
The tenets of ayurveda are not contradicted by the physiologic progress of modern medicine
The tenets of ayurveda are non-overlapping with those of allopathy
The ayurveda system cannot and need not "accomodate" in any way shape or form the tenets of modern medicine.
 
I hope you have a clearer picture of what non-overlapping domains means now. All what you talk about internal to the Vaidika parampara - in terms of pramanas and their types and origin and about the mimamsakas models is intrinsically valid to the vaidkika system alone. The progress of modern scientific thought based on the epicurean objectivisim with a reliance on tracing everything back to observable and hence verifiable phenomena is no doubt laudable as it is breathtaking but it matters concerning that which is only in the realm of the supersensuous it by default touches upon an area a domain that is beyond its very scope. And therefore, for a vaidika, in all such matters the Veda is and will alone remain the source of truth. So in this realm, there is simply no question of anything in the scientific realm that needs to be accomodated nor acknowledged, and any attempt at doing so will only lead one into a convoluted labyrythin of ever-changing
conceptual constructs which latter then in due course will be shorne of all sense of cogency and internal consistency.
 
 
Hari OM
Shri Gurubhyo namah
Shyam


________________________________
From: Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidyasankar-***@public.gmane.org>
To: Advaita List <advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Apoureshyatva - Faith or Logic?



> > All I wanted to say to Rajaram was (a) that veda apaurusheyatva is to be
> > taken as a given (in my opinion) and no proof need be established for it,
>
> RV: But mimamsakas and vedantins tried to provide logical arguments in
> favour of apaureshyatva. They did not ask us accept it on faith or as a
> given. They tried to reason why Vedas are apaureshya. They don't tell us
> why only sruti is apaureshya and not any sentence. Or I don't understand
> their logic correctly. But there was definitely an effort to prove it.
>

It is not what you mean by "proof". The pUrva mImAMsaka discussions of
veda apaurusheyatva are in the nature of explaining what they mean by the
term, why the Sabda/jAti/varNa nityatva supports apaurusheyatva, etc. The
only laukika pramANa used in the argument is that of abhAva, which the
pUrva mImAMsaka-s take as a separate pramANa, distinct from pratyaksha
and anumAna - "No author has ever been known of the veda." They reject the
opponent's arthApatti "somebody MUST have been the author(s) of the veda".
Strictly speaking, they also do not accept an ISvara as the source of the veda
or as the source of the universe.

The pUrva mImAMsA argument about veda apaurusheyatva will therefore be
indifferent to any statement about the evolution of species or languages.

vedAntins take over most of the pUrva mImAMsA arguments, but in a modified
manner. From the perspective of the material universe, brahman is the source
(except for dvaitins). From the perspective of the veda, brahman is the source.
From the perspective of brahman, nothing is ever really created or destroyed,
either the material universe or the veda (for advaitins). I leave it to others to
see where scientific theories of species evolution and historical linguistic change
fit in (or not) with these primary vedAntic stances on brahman and the universe.

Among the vedAntins, advaitins accept the framework of the pramANa-s laid
out by pUrva mImAMsaka-s without any modification. The dvaitins, if I have
their thinking right, have no use for abhAva as a separate pramANa and they
classify it as nothing more than a special kind of anumAna. So, the dvaitin
arguments about how they understand apaurusheyatva are not the same as
what the pUrva mImAMsaka-s said before them.

Please, let us have some rigor in these kinds of arguments and do AnandatIrtha,
Sankara and kumAriLa proud, rather than going around in circles and talking
about all sorts of extraneous things.

Regards,
Vidyasankar

_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org                                             

[Shyam]

Pranams Rameshji
"my approach has always been that one must steer clear of exceedingly
short-sighted and simplistic interpretations which unnecessarily lead
to a false pitting of science against the mImAMsaka and other such
traditions."

What is short sighted and simplistic is to try to accomodate what is clearly laid out in the Vedas into a framework of Science - which latter, has been and is always going to be a moving target, as it uncovers more layers of ignorance through every layer of acquired knowledge. Such an enforced conjugality is as disingenious as it is unwarranted. It is what leads to the kind of hilarity-strewn jargon that you outline such as "There is no need to presume that in the entire cosmos, homo sapiens is the only jIva with the ability to do so. Likewise, prithivi could be any loka where such manuShya-s live." So are there mantradrshtas amongst those non-homo-sapiens that are inhabiting a planet XYZ in a far far way galaxy ABC? Do you really want to take a "scientific" excursion down this path with the idea of Vedic validity??


"We could take Vidyasankar's approach and say that the generic Veda manifested itself in the particular form we know (pre-classical Sanskrit etc) when the concerned R^iShI-s were born. For humans who lived before, they either had access to the Veda in some other form, or were born purely for bhoga in accordance with their past karma."

I am amazed that the illogicality of such a preposterous presumption are seemingly lost on you.  Can there be a human form which is purely for bhoga - meaning this particular human in your fertile imagination has no free will? And all his karmas are akarma? And one fine day unto one mantradrshta will be revelaed a section of the infinite Veda? And from that time on, selectively, over a certain period of time, various other mantradrshtas will keep adding to this corpus so that gradually humans will gradually in bits and pieces be given codes of conduct and access and information to rituals and the like? And during this interim phase also humans will only have partial responsibility for the precepts selectively laid out by the section of the Veda that has been revealed thus far. And so you accept that human brain needed to "evolve" with time and get progressively more refined in order to account for the emergence of exalted mantradrshtas from more
primitive humanoids? Which means that the brain of todays man- says an Einsteins'  - would surely be far more evolved than those of Vishwamitra and Vashishta? And what about a ten thousand years later? Our intellects by then presumably would have scaled even greater degrees of cortical refinement with enlarged amygdalas capable of intuiting much more vedic datum? Use of scientific method and reasoning could tear to shreds any attempt at a universal theory that harmonizes the Vedic ideas with the current state of knowledge of Science as far as this particular issue of evolution and abiogenesis is concerned, no matter how ingeniously and indulgently one may stretch the interpretation of the Vedas. 

"I honestly don't see any problem unless one insists on straitjacketing
the Veda, strips it of its cosmic grandeur and restricts its essential
insights to one particular form of life on one particular piddly
little planet."

The very Veda has relevance in the plane of existence of this piddly little planet alone. Giving free reign to ones imagination and coming up with bizarre ideas of a nonhuman life in planets as yet unseen certainly strips a Vaidika off any degree of fidelity.


"The point is simply that by straitjacketing our intellectual
traditions and presenting them (falsely) as being pitted against this
or that scientific or other laukika pramANa based theory, we are only
a doing a great disservice to our dharma and our intellectual
traditions."

To the complete contrary, without first examining the current state of knowledge of the scientific method and harboring a healthy degree of skepticism which that very scientific method demands in terms of rigor, and identifying the limitations of those very concepts and theories, (instead of blindly accepting them as fact), while in the meantime, hastening to reinterpret Vedic dictums in a wantonly liberal manner, in a misguided attempt at avant-garde sensibility, is what will rob our tradition of any sense of credibility and coherence. And to undertake such an exercise to accomodate a halfbaked theory of evolution that cannot stand scrutiny in its own light will certainly be tragic.


Hari OM
Shri Gurubhyo namah
Shyam

----- Original Message -----
From: Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy-***@public.gmane.org>
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+9d9q/***@public.gmane.org.org>
Cc:
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 8:50 AM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Apoureshyatva - Faith or Logic?

On 22 June 2012 23:40, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidyasankar-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>

_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <http://www.lalitaalaalitah.com/>
lalitAlAlitaH <http://dooid.com/lalitaalaalitah>*



On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 2:35 AM, Shyam <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> To the complete contrary, without first examining the current state of
> knowledge of the scientific method and harboring a healthy degree of
> skepticism which that very scientific method demands in terms of rigor, and
> identifying the limitations of those very concepts and theories, (instead
> of blindly accepting them as fact), while in the meantime, hastening to
> reinterpret Vedic dictums in a wantonly liberal manner, in a misguided
> attempt at avant-garde sensibility, is what will rob our tradition of any
> sense of credibility and coherence. And to undertake such an exercise to
> accomodate a halfbaked theory of evolution that cannot stand scrutiny in
> its own light will certainly be tragic.


This is correctly said.
We must remember that we are talking in terms of If and then here. It shows
that we are talking about possibilites only and not truth.
That's why I told somewhere that anumAna is different from saMbhAvanA.
Moreover, test of validity is applicable of both apauruSheyatva of veda-s
and theories of science. Granting any one validity without tests is just a
fancy show of faith and lack of wit.
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
***@advaita-ve

[Ramesh Krishnamurthy]

Namaste Sri Shyam,

I have seen some of your writings on these topics on the advaitin
list. Needless to say, your views and even your basic approach to such
issues are far removed from mine, which was why I never bothered to
respond to you on that list. But now that you have responded to a post
of mine, I am forced to engage with you .

It is clear that you have simply failed to appreciate the spirit of my
post. So instead of taking up your post point by point, I will simply
respond to the last paragraph.

Sri Shyam wrote:

<< To the complete contrary, without first examining the current state
of knowledge of the scientific method and harboring a healthy degree
of skepticism which that very scientific method demands in terms of
rigor, and identifying the limitations of those very concepts and
theories, (instead of blindly accepting them as fact), while in the
meantime, hastening to reinterpret Vedic dictums in a wantonly liberal
manner, in a misguided attempt at avant-garde sensibility, is what
will rob our tradition of any sense of credibility and coherence. And
to undertake such an exercise to accomodate a halfbaked theory of
evolution that cannot stand scrutiny in its own light will certainly
be tragic.>>

Response:

You are totally misrepresenting my position. In fact, you are creating
your own strawman and knocking it down.

First of all, I never said anything about biological evolution except
that it is a "well-established scientific theory", which is simply a
fact in the sense that the vast majority of the scientific
establishment accepts it. If you are of the opinion that biological
evolution is not accepted in the scientific establishment, then you
are free to hold such an opinion - I am not interested in debating it.

At no point did I even venture into giving my own opinions on whether
biological evolution is right or wrong. I do have my views on this
topic, based on my own scientific studies, but they are of no
relevance to my earlier post and I am not even interested in
discussing them, not with you at any rate.

My stance is that the essential teaching/insights of the Veda, and
also the prAmANya of the Veda, are **orthogonal** to scientific
theories such as biological evolution. Such scientific theories have
no bearing on the Veda and its prAmANya, and likewise, the Veda has no
bearing on these scientific theories. Let me also add that by
"essential teachings/insights of the Veda" I am referring to the
teachings concerning mokSha and dharma. To be even more clear, I am
referring to a) the mahAvAkya and related teachings, and b) vaidika
karma and related teachings.

However, **some people** (not me) have the notion that certain
scientific theories such as biological evolution are *incompatible*
with the Veda. Such a notion can arise only from another pre-existent
notion, which is the notion that the Veda (as a pramANa) and
scientific theories have an overlapping domain, so that there is a
possibility of difference of opinion and hence incompatibility. Such a
notion in turn can arise because the Veda *seems to* talk about issues
that are also within the domain of other pramANa-s (such as certain
aspects of sR^iShTi).

Personally, I adhere to the vedAntic teaching that the shruti has no
prima facie interest in sR^iShTi, and indeed it deliberately teaches
mutually contradictory ideas about sR^iShTi in order to drive home the
point that sR^iShTi, and causation in general, are mithyA. gauDapAda
himself makes this point in his kArikA-s. I also adhere to the view,
in line with sha~Nkara's famous dictum of a "hundred shruti vAkya-s
not making fire cold", that it is the laukika pramANa-s that hold sway
on laukika matters.

So I have no personal interest whatsoever in "reinterpreting" any
vedic dictum in accordance with any scientific theories. That was
simply not the intention behind my post.

I would prefer that people appreciate the idea that the shruti has no
prima facie interest in sR^iShTi etc and also that it is a pramANa
only on matters of dharma and mokSha. However, if someone is not able
to internalize the above, the least I would expect is that s/he look
at the shruti (and the various philosophies based on the shruti, such
as the mImAMsA systems) in broad enough terms to avoid a false pitting
against any laukika-pramANa based systems. It was in the latter sense
that Vidyasankar made the following comments in his earlier post:

"Even within the perspective of science, there are numerous ways to think in
a philosophical way about the prior existence or non-existence of living beings
and about the origins of life itself. I don't think biology or any other science
needs to be inextricably wedded to the notion that there is no existence of the
general except in that of its many particulars."

AND

"After all, nobody in the tradition is claiming that the Rshis who saw the veda
in our current cycle were all born at time t = 0 when the universe came into
being. If the tradition can say that the veda was seen by a large number of
Rshis who necessarily lived over large periods of time, it can accommodate
quite easily the ideas of biological evolution and linguistic
evolution, by viewing
these two processes as being the mechanisms by which the individuals of each
eternal jAti manifest."

All I was doing was to give some more expression to the above two
comments from Vidyasankar. Both the ideas mentioned in my earlier post
(of applying the differentiation of general and particular to the Veda
itself, and of looking at terms like 'manuShya' in more general terms)
were simply two possible expressions of the more general idea
mentioned by Vidyasankar, concerning the manifestation of particulars
within an eternal jAti. Also, I clearly stated that these ideas were
not meant to be "answers"; their purpose was merely to dismantle
straitjacketed thinking. There could be many other ways of presenting
Vidyasankar's general idea.

Unfortunately, respondents like you (and even Sri Subrahmanian) are
attacking these ideas, and by doing so are simply missing the point.
Funnily, I am in complete agreement with Sri Subrahmanian when it
comes to the centrality of the adhyAsa-bhAShya.

Lastly,

Sri Shyam wrote:

<<Can there be a human form which is purely for bhoga - meaning this
particular human in your fertile imagination has no free will?>>

This idea was first articulated not by me but by Sri Lalitaalaalitah
in an earlier post. He defended it too. I merely presented it as a
consequence of not accepting my more general and preferred
philosophical (not historical) view that any being in the cosmos who
is capable of seeking dharma and mokSha must have access to suitable
teachings (essentially the Vedic teaching in some form, if not in the
particular form familiar to us, which is literature in pre-classical
Sanskrit). I have explained this in somewhat more detail in my
response to Sri Subrahmanian earlier today.

The rest of your stuff about Einsteins and Vishvamitra-s is all
totally irrelevant. Far from being in a position to judge the truth or
otherwise of biological evolution, even your basic understanding of
evolution is evidently flawed. But that is besides the point. I have
already stated my position that the Veda and its prAmANya are quite
*orthogonal* to any scientific theories. These theories have no impact
on the Veda and its prAmANya, and neither does the Veda have any say
(as an independent pramANa) on the truth or otherwise of these
theories.

So at a fundamental level, my posts have nothing to do with the truth
or otherwise of biological evolution and neither do they have anything
to do with my own views on biological evolution. The question is
whether our traditional philosophies can accommodate evolutionary
ideas (which is different from whether such ideas are true) and on
this point I entirely agree with Vidyasankar when he says that our
traditional philosophies "can accommodate quite easily the ideas of
biological evolution and linguistic evolution...."

dhanyavAdaH

[Shyam]

Pranams Shri Rameshji
 
"I have seen some of your writings on these topics on the advaitin list. Needless to say, your views and even your basic approach to such issues are far removed from mine"
 
Given your views on extraterrestrials and nonhumans in other planets obtaining vedic knowledge of a different variety I do not find this in the least surprising and consider it a blessing that my views are far removed from yours. Please do not feel compelled to engage.
 
"You are totally misrepresenting my position."
 
That would be difficult to do even if I wished to for the simple fact that your own "position" is extremely muddled, as is evident when you state two contradictory things:
 
A.
"The question is
whether our traditional philosophies can accommodate evolutionary
ideas"
 
and also state
 
B.
"My stance is that the essential teaching/insights of the Veda, and
also the prAmANya of the Veda, are **orthogonal** to scientific
theories such as biological evolution."
 
 
The fact that Vedic dictums are orthogonal to scientific theories-  both fact-based and fantasy based - means that there is no question of accomodation.
The very question of accomodation comes in only if there are overlapping domains. Please be clear in your own mind wheter you consider the two orthogonal or overlapping.
 
 
Let me also add that by
"essential teachings/insights of the Veda" I am referring to the
teachings concerning mokSha and dharma. To be even more clear, I am
referring to a) the mahAvAkya and related teachings, and b) vaidika
karma and related teachings.
 
Why this specification - the entire Veda deals with dharma and moksha alone.


________________________________
From: Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy-***@public.gmane.org>
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+9d9q/***@public.gmane.org.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Apoureshyatva - Faith or Logic?

Namaste Sri Shyam,

I have seen some of your writings on these topics on the advaitin
list. Needless to say, your views and even your basic approach to such
issues are far removed from mine, which was why I never bothered to
respond to you on that list. But now that you have responded to a post
of mine, I am forced to engage with you .

It is clear that you have simply failed to appreciate the spirit of my
post. So instead of taking up your post point by point, I will simply
respond to the last paragraph.


 
"However, **some people** (not me) have the notion that certain
scientific theories such as biological evolution are *incompatible*
with the Veda. Such a notion can arise only from another pre-existent
notion, which is the notion that the Veda (as a pramANa) and
scientific theories have an overlapping domain, so that there is a
possibility of difference of opinion and hence incompatibility."
notion in turn can arise because the Veda *seems to* talk about issues
that are also within the domain of other pramANa-s (such as certain
aspects of sR^iShTi).

"Personally, I adhere to the vedAntic teaching that the shruti has no
prima facie interest in sR^iShTi, and indeed it deliberately teaches
mutually contradictory ideas about sR^iShTi in order to drive home the
point that sR^iShTi, and causation in general, are mithyA."
 
This is not how Shankara deals with the subject of Srshti in his shareerika bhashya. In fact what Shankara says in his sutrabhashya that despute there being seemingly contradictory passages in the Shruti regarding Srshti there is a need to present a outline of srshti that harmonizes all the varied presentations. Please not the context of the sutrabhashya is moksha,and it would have been very easy for Shankara, or even for Vyasa, to simply dismiss all these references to Srshti as mithya or even assert that the very reason they are talked of in contradictory terms by Shruti is to emphasise their falsity. It is one thing to say Srshti is mithya, it is quite another to dismiss Srshti as being false.  
 
"I would prefer that people appreciate the idea that the shruti has no
prima facie interest in sR^iShTi etc and also that it is a pramANa
only on matters of dharma and mokSha."

 
Please note that the scope of dharma is all inclusive in that it influences and talks about every facet of human life - its origin, existence, and the afterlife, as well, including various aspects related to the cosmos. When dharma talks about the shuklagati and krishnagati, and svargaloka, pitrloka, it is all very much in the realm of dharma alone. Just because your proclivity is to advaita does not confer on you the right to be dismissive about all that Shruti asserts and endorses.
 
Please do not feel compelled to respond. It suffices if you gain clarity regarding the source of your own confusion.
Hari OM
Shyam

[Ramesh Krishnamurthy]

On 27 June 2012 03:24, Shyam <shyam_md-/***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

<<Given your views on extraterrestrials and nonhumans in other planets
obtaining vedic knowledge of a different variety I do not find this in
the least surprising and consider it a blessing that my views are far
removed from yours.>>

Feel free to be consider yourself blessed. Regarding extraterrestrials
and non-humans, I have repeatedly stated that I was not advancing any
"views". I was only using them as devices to get people out of a
certain rut. There can be many ways of explaining these issues and
there is really no need to get stuck up with this or that view.

Repeatedly criticizing me for my supposed "views" or "imagination"
regarding extra-terrestrials etc is a really bad case of missing the
point.

<<That would be difficult to do even if I wished to for the simple
fact that your own "position" is extremely muddled, as is evident when
you state two contradictory things:>>

There is absolutely nothing contradictory about non-overlapping
jurisdictions at the level of pramANa on the one hand and mature
philosophies such as the various mImAMsA sysems being able to
accommodate different cause-effect models on the other. A philosophy
is based on multiple pramANa-s and indeed one of the signal
contributions of the pUrva-mImAMsaka-s has been the enunciation of a
mature pramANa-shAstra.

To be even clearer, let me state that it is the mImAMsA systems which
lay out what the pramANa-s are and what are their areas of
applicability.

<<The fact that Vedic dictums are orthogonal to scientific theories-
both fact-based and fantasy based - means that there is no question of
accomodation. The very question of accomodation comes in only if there
are overlapping domains. Please be clear in your own mind wheter you
consider the two orthogonal or overlapping.>>

Again, the orthogonality is at the level of pramANa-s. The ability to
accommodate different cause-effect models is at the level of a mature
philosophy which uses the pramANa-s in a certain way and responds
appropriately to environmental changes. The mImAMsA systems can do
this because of the robustness of their pramANa-shAstra and also the
robustness of the constructs they use for fashioning their system. An
example of such a construct was provided earlier in this thread by
Vidyasankar, which I had quoted in my previous post.


<<Why this specification - the entire Veda deals with dharma and moksha alone.>>

If you understood this properly, you wouldn't say that my views are
self-contradictory.

<<It is one thing to say Srshti is mithya, it is quite another to
dismiss Srshti as being false.>>

I am quite familiar with how the bhAShya-s address the issue of
sR^iShTi. The simple point is that the basic upaniShadic frameworks of
cause-effect, even though used as adhyAropa-s only by the advaitin-s,
are robust enough to permit a wide variety of models.


<< Please note that the scope of dharma is all inclusive in that it
influences and talks about every facet of human life - its origin,
existence, and the afterlife, as well, including various aspects
related to the cosmos. When dharma talks about the shuklagati and
krishnagati, and svargaloka, pitrloka, it is all very much in the
realm of dharma alone. Just because your proclivity is to advaita does
not confer on you the right to be dismissive about all that Shruti
asserts and endorses.>>

At no point did I dismiss the shruti. Regarding dharma/karma, only the
atIndriya aspects are completely inaccessible to laukika pramANa-s. I
don't need the shruti to tell me that I should not steal someone
else's property. However, only the shruti tells me that if I steal, it
will lead to pApa which may fructify even in a later life. Likewise,
many aspects of the cosmos and living organisms are well within the
domain of laukika pramANa-s, and a properly educated mImAMsaka can
comfortably make use of laukika pramANa-s in addressing these aspects.

<<Please do not feel compelled to respond. It suffices if you gain
clarity regarding the source of your own confusion.>>

As the Hindi saying goes: "ulTA chor kotvAl ko dA.NTe", somewhat like
"pot calling the kettle black" :-))

[r***@public.gmane.org]

Dear Sri Ramesh, we say clay pot is made of clay. We cannot say clay pot is made of gold. If you say that multiple mutually contradictory cause - effect models are possible, you should be willing to exchange my clay pot for your gold pot! Even when multiple models exist, they have to be reconciled in to a hierarchy of relative truths or view points.

Let us keep it focussed. The mimamsakas did not just say it is a matter of faith or a given (as Sri Vidyasankar put it) that Vedas are apaureshya. They gave some logic that words and class of objects have an eternal connection. Even before objects and words come in to being, they exist in the cause. The problem with this logic is that all objects and hence words exist in the cause. So, every word, not just Vedas, should be apaureshya. But this is not the traditional position. They say that the speciality of the vedic sentences is jnana pravagam. In every kalpa, the words follow the same sequence, metre etc. I have not seen the logic for this as it is a matter of faith.

If you can answer to the point, great. One Madhwa scholar wrote to me that advaitins don't get it but dwaitins have cracked this. I'm exploring what he has to say.

Best Regards
Rajaram Venkataramani
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

-----Original Message-----
From: Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy-***@public.gmane.org>
Sender: advaita-l-bounces-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+***@public.gmane.org
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:55:09
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta<advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+9d9jxlLJML/***@public.gmane.orgorg>
Reply-To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
<advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+***@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Apoureshyatva - Faith or Logic?

On 27 June 2012 03:24, Shyam <shyam_md-/***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

<<Given your views on extraterrestrials and nonhumans in other planets
obtaining vedic knowledge of a different variety I do not find this in
the least surprising and consider it a blessing that my views are far
removed from yours.>>

Feel free to be consider yourself blessed. Regarding extraterrestrials
and non-humans, I have repeatedly stated that I was not advancing any
"views". I was only using them as devices to get people out of a
certain rut. There can be many ways of explaining these issues and
there is really no need to get stuck up with this or that view.

Repeatedly criticizing me for my supposed "views" or "imagination"
regarding extra-terrestrials etc is a really bad case of missing the
point.

<<That would be difficult to do even if I wished to for the simple
fact that your own "position" is extremely muddled, as is evident when
you state two contradictory things:>>

There is absolutely nothing contradictory about non-overlapping
jurisdictions at the level of pramANa on the one hand and mature
philosophies such as the various mImAMsA sysems being able to
accommodate different cause-effect models on the other. A philosophy
is based on multiple pramANa-s and indeed one of the signal
contributions of the pUrva-mImAMsaka-s has been the enunciation of a
mature pramANa-shAstra.

To be even clearer, let me state that it is the mImAMsA systems which
lay out what the pramANa-s are and what are their areas of
applicability.

<<The fact that Vedic dictums are orthogonal to scientific theories-
both fact-based and fantasy based - means that there is no question of
accomodation. The very question of accomodation comes in only if there
are overlapping domains. Please be clear in your own mind wheter you
consider the two orthogonal or overlapping.>>

Again, the orthogonality is at the level of pramANa-s. The ability to
accommodate different cause-effect models is at the level of a mature
philosophy which uses the pramANa-s in a certain way and responds
appropriately to environmental changes. The mImAMsA systems can do
this because of the robustness of their pramANa-shAstra and also the
robustness of the constructs they use for fashioning their system. An
example of such a construct was provided earlier in this thread by
Vidyasankar, which I had quoted in my previous post.


<<Why this specification - the entire Veda deals with dharma and moksha alone.>>

If you understood this properly, you wouldn't say that my views are
self-contradictory.

<<It is one thing to say Srshti is mithya, it is quite another to
dismiss Srshti as being false.>>

I am quite familiar with how the bhAShya-s address the issue of
sR^iShTi. The simple point is that the basic upaniShadic frameworks of
cause-effect, even though used as adhyAropa-s only by the advaitin-s,
are robust enough to permit a wide variety of models.


<< Please note that the scope of dharma is all inclusive in that it
influences and talks about every facet of human life - its origin,
existence, and the afterlife, as well, including various aspects
related to the cosmos. When dharma talks about the shuklagati and
krishnagati, and svargaloka, pitrloka, it is all very much in the
realm of dharma alone. Just because your proclivity is to advaita does
not confer on you the right to be dismissive about all that Shruti
asserts and endorses.>>

At no point did I dismiss the shruti. Regarding dharma/karma, only the
atIndriya aspects are completely inaccessible to laukika pramANa-s. I
don't need the shruti to tell me that I should not steal someone
else's property. However, only the shruti tells me that if I steal, it
will lead to pApa which may fructify even in a later life. Likewise,
many aspects of the cosmos and living organisms are well within the
domain of laukika pramANa-s, and a properly educated mImAMsaka can
comfortably make use of laukika pramANa-s in addressing these aspects.

<<Please do not feel compelled to respond. It suffices if you gain
clarity regarding the source of your own confusion.>>

As the Hindi saying goes: "ulTA chor kotvAl ko dA.NTe", somewhat like
"pot calling the kettle black" :-))
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Ramesh Krishnamurthy
<rkmurthy-***@public.gmane.org>wrote:

>
>
> There is absolutely nothing contradictory about non-overlapping
> jurisdictions at the level of pramANa on the one hand and mature
> philosophies such as the various mImAMsA sysems being able to
> accommodate different cause-effect models on the other. A philosophy
> is based on multiple pramANa-s and indeed one of the signal
> contributions of the pUrva-mImAMsaka-s has been the enunciation of a
> mature pramANa-shAstra.
>
> To be even clearer, let me state that it is the mImAMsA systems which
> lay out what the pramANa-s are and what are their areas of
> applicability.
>

I had a detailed talk about the theory of evolution viz-a-viz the Vedic
tradition with the widely admitted authority in pUrvamImAmsA shAstra, Dr
Mani Dravid SastrigaL. In just one remark, a true mark of an eminent
scholar of his genre, he dismissed the possibility of accommodating the
above theory into the Vaidika method of thinking: He said, in Tamil: 'avA
tarkattai vecchunDuthAne chollara, adu eppaDi oru tIrmAnamAgum?' [They say
only based on tarka, logic. How can it be a conclusive proof?] And went on
to allude to the Sutra bhashya on tarkApratiShThAnAt where it is
established that 'a conclusion based on tarka today can be unsettled by a
more efficient tarka of tomorrow. It is impossible to bring together at
one platform, at one point of time, the logicians of all the times of past
present and future and determine things.'

And he approved the arguments the Sringeri Acharya had given on the topic
as the correct view to hold on this.

Regards,
subrahmanian.v

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji
Hare Krishna

In just one remark, a true mark of an eminent scholar of his genre, he
dismissed the possibility of accommodating the above theory into the
Vaidika method of thinking:

> Yes, one of the scholars, (who does not have enough time to participate
in this discussion) off the list told me that :


//quote//

My opinion is that the theory of evolution is probably not compatible with
the Vedas, but I also think it is a serious scientific theory.

// unquote//

> So, without scratching our head to arrive at a logical conclusion with
regard to apaurusheyatva of veda-s, as Sri Vidya prabhuji suggested, it is
better to take it 'as it is given' since it is an axiomatic statement
which has the base in saMpradAya and Apta vAkya.
He said, in Tamil: 'avA tarkattai vecchunDuthAne chollara, adu eppaDi oru
tIrmAnamAgum?' [They say
only based on tarka, logic. How can it be a conclusive proof?]

> Yes, tarka never ends when it is not supported by shruti
(shrutyanugraheeta tarka)!! But the 'subject' in question is 'shruti's /
veda's apaurusheyatva'!!?? so, in this case we cannot take 'shruti'
pramANa to prove veda's apaurusheyatva!! And, I donot know how pUrva
meemAmsaka-s justified this claim.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr-zOhu8KlzJ1LQT0dZR+***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> So, without scratching our head to arrive at a logical conclusion with
> regard to apaurusheyatva of veda-s, as Sri Vidya prabhuji suggested, it is
> better to take it 'as it is given' since it is an axiomatic statement
> which has the base in saMpradAya and Apta vAkya.


RV: Sri Vidyasankar did not say that taking it as a given is the only way
to do it. He has been actively reviewing and guiding my efforts to write a
paper on Logical Basis of Apaureshyatva. If Sri Vidyasankar did say that we
should not scratch our heads, it is his personal opinion. The mimamsa and
vedanta tradition did not take that approach. They did not say accept it on
faith or as a given. They defended it logically. When I met Sri Mani Dravid
Sastrigal, he extended the time from one to three hours as he thought the
topic is important though he has access to qualified scholars to discuss or
teach to pass time. As Sri Subrahmanian said he did not believe in
evolution of life or languages. But he did not refrain from a logical
discussion on the topic of apaureshyatva. I told him how yajnas could have
evolved and he countered it. (Briefly, I argued that the PIE linguistic
root of water is dr. Someone in the past facing draught and wanting atleast
a drop of water would have assumed that isn (god) will provide dr (water).
He would have called out to Indra (isn + dr). If it worked, either because
there is a real Indra or not, others will learn it from them. When it does
not work, they will try to get their method by exactly replicating the
dress, hair style, incantation, sitting direction etc. He explained that
the sanskrit root for Indra cannot be broken down to PIE roots. Also, the
use of the stress on letters in words follow a specific pattern related to
other words in the mantra. He exaplined that with the help of the word
prajapati.)


> And, I donot know how pUrva
> meemAmsaka-s justified this claim.
>
I have posted my understanding briefly and also highlighted what I see as
defect in their logic. If we dont take the effort to establish why Vedas
are a pramana (leave alone apaureshya), we are doing injustice to the
intellect given to us. All things in the realm of pratyaksha are objects
denoted by words. The words and objects have a connection as we are able to
recognize the connection between a pot and the word pot. Before the
creation of a particular instance of a pot and after its destruction, we
still recognize the word pot as referring to the pot. We dont recognize it
as referring to a particular instance but to a class of pots. Thus the
connection between the word and pot is inseparable. Now, the pot and the
word are both present in the source as the source. So, even when the word
or pot is in an unmanifested state, the connection between them does not
cease to be. This is the case for all words and objects. The uniqueness of
the Vedas is not in their containing unique words or referring to unique
objects. If that is the case, then they cannot be understood as we can
understand only laukika words and objects of perception. The uniqueness of
the Vedas is that the sequence in which these words are connected (jnana
pravagam) is also indestuctible. It is where the logic breaks, as I see it,
and goes in to faith.

[Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 3:59 AM, V Subrahmanian
<v.subrahmanian-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

>> There is absolutely nothing contradictory about non-overlapping
>> jurisdictions at the level of pramANa on the one hand and mature
>> philosophies such as the various mImAMsA sysems being able to
>> accommodate different cause-effect models on the other. A philosophy
>> is based on multiple pramANa-s and indeed one of the signal
>> contributions of the pUrva-mImAMsaka-s has been the enunciation of a
>> mature pramANa-shAstra.
>>
>> To be even clearer, let me state that it is the mImAMsA systems which
>> lay out what the pramANa-s are and what are their areas of
>> applicability.
>>
>
> I had a detailed talk about the theory of evolution viz-a-viz the Vedic
> tradition with the widely admitted authority in pUrvamImAmsA shAstra, Dr
> Mani Dravid SastrigaL.  In just one remark, a true mark of an eminent
> scholar of his genre, he dismissed the possibility of accommodating the
> above theory into the Vaidika method of thinking:  He said, in Tamil: 'avA
> tarkattai vecchunDuthAne chollara, adu eppaDi oru tIrmAnamAgum?' [They say
> only based on tarka, logic.  How can it be a conclusive proof?] And went on
> to allude to the Sutra bhashya on tarkApratiShThAnAt where it is
> established that 'a conclusion based on tarka today can be unsettled by a
> more efficient tarka of tomorrow.  It is impossible to bring together at
> one platform, at one point of time, the logicians of all the times of past
> present and future and determine things.'
>

Unfortunately this quote refers to the true nature of reality or
brahman which cannot be settled by tarka and is quite different from
the way it is being used here (in the realm of "creation" or rather
transformation of one thing into another). Ramesh has already referred
to the passages on creation and the interpretation by Sankara in the
sUtra bhAShya. There seems to be a concerted effort in misinterpreting
what Ramesh is saying - all he is saying is that the vedantic view is
*not contradicted* by theories of evolution. Whys is this so difficult
to understand?

Rama

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:28 PM, Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan <
***@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> Unfortunately this quote refers to the true nature of reality or
> brahman which cannot be settled by tarka and is quite different from
> the way it is being used here (in the realm of "creation" or rather
> transformation of one thing into another).


Sir, if you see that BSB 2.1.11 it will be clear that it is a discussion on
the sAnkhya's claim that the pradhAna is the 'jagat kAraNam'. In other
words, on the basis of being the cause of the world (creation) the
pradhAna is sought to be presented as the Supreme. This stand is being
refuted by the siddhAntin. Since the sAnkhya's claim is mainly based on
tarka, for he has not seen how the world originated but based on the
kArya-kAraNa bhAva seen in the world, extrapolates it to the world-creation
too. The siddhAntin shows that regarding things such as these, which are
beyond the ken of the senses and tarka, (only) the Agama is to be relied
upon. At the same time the siddhAntin does not jettison tarka; he wants
tarka to be subservient to Agama:

अत आगमवशेनागमानुसारितर्कवशेन च चेतनं ब्रह्म *जगतः कारणं प्रकृतिश्चेति*स्थितम्
। । ११ । ।



> Ramesh has already referred to the passages on creation and the
> interpretation by Sankara in the sUtra bhAShya. There seems to be a
> concerted effort in misinterpreting what Ramesh is saying - all he is
> saying is that the vedantic view is
> *not contradicted* by theories of evolution. Whys is this so difficult
> to understand?
>

This was not disputed at all. In fact from the beginning I have been
emphasizing that the shruti itself does not hold sRiShTi to be
pAramArthika, based on Shankara's bhashyam. Yet, it is not for nothing
that a question such as this was posed to the Sringeri Acharya:

//We learn from science that man evolved from animals. Thousands of years
ago, man was living in caves. Cooking too was unknown to him. How cold
the Veda-s have been there at that time? Further, how could the people then
have lived as per the dictates of the Veda-s? // [Excerpted from the book:
Exalting Elucidations, ch.36, p.284]

It is only since people who come to religion/philosophy with modern
education/training, might, and most probably will, find the
teachings/explanations found in the scripture not easily agreeable in the
background of their own education/thinking/training, questions such as the
above were posed to the Acharya and replies published so that they can form
a guideline to the modern mind coming to Vedanta. Some centuries ago such
questions would not have been thought of but today they are required. They
are required to show that the methods of the scripture and the modern
scientists are different. Another question from there:

//Scientists say that life has evolved from matter. They also say
consciousness is produced when the elements of matter evolve into a
particular form, such as that of a cell or a brain. Is such an opinion
wrong?//

regards,
subrahmanian.v



>
>
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contac

[Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 1:13 PM, V Subrahmanian
<***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:28 PM, Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan <
> ***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Unfortunately this quote refers to the true nature of reality or
>> brahman which cannot be settled by tarka and is quite different from
>> the way it is being used here (in the realm of "creation" or rather
>> transformation of one thing into another).
>
>
> Sir, if you see that BSB 2.1.11 it will be clear that it is a discussion on
> the sAnkhya's claim that the pradhAna is the 'jagat kAraNam'.  In other
> words, on the basis of  being the  cause of the world (creation) the
> pradhAna is sought to be presented as the Supreme.  This stand is being
> refuted by the siddhAntin.  Since the sAnkhya's claim is mainly based on
> tarka, for he has not seen how the world originated but based on the
> kArya-kAraNa bhAva seen in the world, extrapolates it to the world-creation
> too. The siddhAntin shows that regarding things such as these, which are
> beyond the ken of the senses and tarka, (only) the Agama is to be relied
> upon.  At the same time the siddhAntin does not jettison tarka; he wants
> tarka to be subservient to Agama:
>
> अत आगमवशेनागमानुसारितर्कवशेन च चेतनं ब्रह्म *जगतः कारणं प्रकृतिश्चेति*स्थितम्
> । । ११  । ।
>

Not really. The question being addressed here is whether pradhAna can
be counted as an entity **independent** of brahman for the creation of
the universe. The sAnkhyA says that the creation is by modification of
pradhAna, which is independent of brahman. Sankaras point is that if a
creation is posited, then the ultimate cause is brahman. But if you
read the bhAShya, he also clearly states that if the sAnkhyA wants to
posit the creation of a world by modification of a supposed pradhAna,
*which is subservient to brahman*, then he has no problem with such a
theory. So, as I said this has nothing to with creation passages, nor
contradictory of evolution theories.

>
>> Ramesh has already referred to the passages on creation and the
>> interpretation by Sankara in the sUtra bhAShya. There seems to be a
>> concerted effort in misinterpreting what Ramesh is saying - all he is
>> saying is that the vedantic view is
>> *not contradicted* by theories of evolution. Whys is this so difficult
>> to understand?
>>
>
> This was not disputed at all.  In fact from the beginning I have been

Then I am not clear what you are addressing by all the stuff below.
Ramesh did not address anything about evolution vs creationism or
whatever.

> emphasizing that the shruti itself does not hold sRiShTi to be
> pAramArthika, based on Shankara's bhashyam.  Yet, it is not for nothing
> that a question such as this was posed to the Sringeri Acharya:
>
> //We learn from science that man evolved from animals.  Thousands of years
> ago,  man was living in caves.  Cooking too was unknown to him.  How cold
> the Veda-s have been there at that time? Further, how could the people then
> have lived as per the dictates of the Veda-s? // [Excerpted from the book:
> Exalting Elucidations, ch.36, p.284]
>
> It is only since people who come to religion/philosophy with modern
> education/training, might, and most probably will, find the
> teachings/explanations found in the scripture not easily agreeable in the
> background of their own education/thinking/training, questions such as the
> above were posed to the Acharya and replies published so that they can form
> a guideline to the modern mind coming to Vedanta.  Some centuries ago such
> questions would not have been thought of but today they are required.  They
> are required to show that the methods of the scripture and the modern
> scientists are different. Another question from there:
>
> //Scientists say that life has evolved from matter.  They also say
> consciousness is produced when the elements of matter evolve into a
> particular form, such as that of a cell or a brain.  Is such an opinion
> wrong?//

Rama
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For as

[V Subrahmanian]

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan <
***@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> >
> > अत आगमवशेनागमानुसारितर्कवशेन च चेतनं ब्रह्म *जगतः कारणं
> प्रकृतिश्चेति*स्थितम्
> > । । ११ । ।
> >
>
> Not really. The question being addressed here is whether pradhAna can be
> counted as an entity **independent** of brahman for the creation of the
> universe. The sAnkhyA says that the creation is by modification of
> pradhAna, which is independent of brahman. Sankaras point is that if a
> creation is posited, then the ultimate cause is brahman. But if you read
> the bhAShya, he also clearly states that if the sAnkhyA wants to posit the
> creation of a world by modification of a supposed pradhAna, *which is
> subservient to brahman*, then he has no problem with such a theory. So, as
> I said this has nothing to with creation passages, nor contradictory of
> evolution theories.
>

I think you are referring to a different sutra's bhashya above. What I
have spoken about is regarding the sutra तर्काप्रतिष्ठानादपि....2.1.11
where the entire bhashya is about the topic of tarka. That it is chiefly
to address the pradhAnavAdin, sAnkhya is not in doubt:

नच प्रधानवादी तर्कविदामुत्तम इति सर्वैस्तार्किकैः परिगृहीतो येन तदीयं मतं
सम्यग्ज्ञानमिति प्रतिपद्येमहि |

Could you pl. show me the exact bhashya sentences, *from the BSB
2.1.11*that represent what you say above?


subrahmanian.v
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

F

[Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 9:41 PM, V Subrahmanian
<***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan <
> ***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> >
>> > अत आगमवशेनागमानुसारितर्कवशेन च चेतनं ब्रह्म *जगतः कारणं
>> प्रकृतिश्चेति*स्थितम्
>> > । । ११  । ।
>> >
>>
>> Not really. The question being addressed here is whether pradhAna can be
>> counted as an entity **independent** of brahman for the creation of the
>> universe. The sAnkhyA says that the creation is by modification of
>> pradhAna, which is independent of brahman. Sankaras point is that if a
>> creation is posited, then the ultimate cause is brahman. But if you read
>> the bhAShya, he also clearly states that if the sAnkhyA wants to posit the
>> creation of a world by modification of a supposed pradhAna, *which is
>> subservient to brahman*, then he has no problem with such a theory. So, as
>> I said this has nothing to with creation passages, nor contradictory of
>> evolution theories.
>>
>
> I think you are referring to a different sutra's bhashya above.  What I
> have spoken about is regarding the sutra   तर्काप्रतिष्ठानादपि....2.1.11
> where the entire bhashya is about the topic of tarka.  That it is chiefly
> to address the pradhAnavAdin, sAnkhya is not in doubt:
>
> नच प्रधानवादी तर्कविदामुत्तम इति सर्वैस्तार्किकैः परिगृहीतो येन तदीयं मतं
> सम्यग्ज्ञानमिति प्रतिपद्येमहि |
>
> Could you pl. show me the exact bhashya sentences, *from the BSB
> 2.1.11*that represent what you say above?
>

I am on travel and don't have the books with me. It's however
irrelevant whether it's under this sUtra or anywhere else. For the
simple reason - shankara could have said "Your model of creation
violates so and so sentences in shruti about creation". Instead he
says "Make pradhAna subservient to brahman and I have no problem with
your theory of creation by pradhAna". This clearly shows that these
theories of creation are orthogonal to what Shankara thinks is
important and as long as they don't violate the essential things it's
irrelevant to him where the theory of creation sprung from - shruti
texts themselves or from sAnkhyA texts.

Rama
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
***@adv

[Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan]

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan
<***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 9:41 PM, V Subrahmanian
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan <
>> ***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> > अत आगमवशेनागमानुसारितर्कवशेन च चेतनं ब्रह्म *जगतः कारणं
>>> प्रकृतिश्चेति*स्थितम्
>>> > । । ११  । ।
>>> >
>>>
>>> Not really. The question being addressed here is whether pradhAna can be
>>> counted as an entity **independent** of brahman for the creation of the
>>> universe. The sAnkhyA says that the creation is by modification of
>>> pradhAna, which is independent of brahman. Sankaras point is that if a
>>> creation is posited, then the ultimate cause is brahman. But if you read
>>> the bhAShya, he also clearly states that if the sAnkhyA wants to posit the
>>> creation of a world by modification of a supposed pradhAna, *which is
>>> subservient to brahman*, then he has no problem with such a theory. So, as
>>> I said this has nothing to with creation passages, nor contradictory of
>>> evolution theories.
>>>
>>
>> I think you are referring to a different sutra's bhashya above.  What I
>> have spoken about is regarding the sutra   तर्काप्रतिष्ठानादपि....2.1.11
>> where the entire bhashya is about the topic of tarka.  That it is chiefly
>> to address the pradhAnavAdin, sAnkhya is not in doubt:
>>
>> नच प्रधानवादी तर्कविदामुत्तम इति सर्वैस्तार्किकैः परिगृहीतो येन तदीयं मतं
>> सम्यग्ज्ञानमिति प्रतिपद्येमहि |
>>
>> Could you pl. show me the exact bhashya sentences, *from the BSB
>> 2.1.11*that represent what you say above?
>>
>
> I am on travel and don't have the books with me. It's however
> irrelevant whether it's under this sUtra or anywhere else. For the
> simple reason - shankara could have said "Your model of creation
> violates so and so sentences in shruti about creation". Instead he
> says "Make pradhAna subservient to brahman and I have no problem with
> your theory of creation by pradhAna". This clearly shows that these
> theories of creation are orthogonal to what Shankara thinks is
> important and as long as they don't violate the essential things it's
> irrelevant to him where the theory of creation sprung from - shruti
> texts themselves or from sAnkhyA texts.
>

I thought my reference would have been obvious in my first post, but
will expand a little. It seems that people are more interested in
finding which page numbers references occur rather than to get the
basic idea which runs through the entire text of the bhAShya. Note
that the sAnkhyA theory of pradhAna modification is *not* from shruti.
It is formed by using tarka. Shankara makes it clear that his problem
is not the theory of creation per se, but rather pradhAna being
independent of brahman. While he could have claimed that this theory
was not found in the shruti texts and is obtained through tarka, he
merely remarks that the true nature of *brahman being the cause of the
world* cannot be determined by tarka. However if one wants to posit a
transformation of a substance such as prakR^iti as the cause of the
world, he is ok with it *as long as it is subservient to brahman*.
Positing such a theory is again through tarka, but making it
subservient to the fundamental tenet of vedAnta - viz brahman is the
cause of the world - makes it ok in Shankaras eyes. This is quite
different from what has been claimed, viz, "a theory of creation
cannot be determined by logic whether or not it violates the basic
tenets of vedAnta". Please go back and read what Ramesh and I are
trying to say.

Rama
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For

[V Subrahmanian]

On 6/28/12, Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan <rama.balasubramanian-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:


> I thought my reference would have been obvious in my first post, but
> will expand a little. It seems that people are more interested in
> finding which page numbers references occur rather than to get the
> basic idea which runs through the entire text of the bhAShya. Note
> that the sAnkhyA theory of pradhAna modification is *not* from shruti.
> It is formed by using tarka. Shankara makes it clear that his problem
> is not the theory of creation per se, but rather pradhAna being
> independent of brahman. While he could have claimed that this theory
> was not found in the shruti texts and is obtained through tarka, he
> merely remarks that the true nature of *brahman being the cause of the
> world* cannot be determined by tarka. However if one wants to posit a
> transformation of a substance such as prakR^iti as the cause of the
> world, he is ok with it *as long as it is subservient to brahman*.
> Positing such a theory is again through tarka, but making it
> subservient to the fundamental tenet of vedAnta - viz brahman is the
> cause of the world - makes it ok in Shankaras eyes.


I have amply emphasized that the sAnkhya theory is based on tarka alone.

The position that you state is not the correct representation of
Shankara. He has in several places pointed to the Shruti 'mAyAm tu
prakRtim vidyAn mAyinam tu maheshwaram' of the Shve.Up. in proof of a
Shakti that is inevitable/indispensable for Brahman to be the
jagatkAraNaM. It is certainly not on the basis of tarka alone that
Shankara admits a shakti. In the bhashya for the sutra 1.4.3
'tadadhInatvAdarthavat' (perhaps the one from which you are saying
the above) Shankara, soon after saying what you are alluding to above,
gives a number of references, to support the various terms which go to
represent that shakti such as avyaktam, aakAshaH, akShara, mAya, etc.
After citing specific shruti passages in respect of these, Shankara
cites the Shve.Up. passage I have quoted above. Thus, Shankara does
not accept the pradhAna-like shakti just on the basis of tarka; He
essentially bases His premises on the firm ground of the Shruti.


This is quite
> different from what has been claimed, viz, "a theory of creation
> cannot be determined by logic whether or not it violates the basic
> tenets of vedAnta".

You can easily see how your above observation is not supported by the
facts of the bhashya. It is only because the ateendriya event called
sRiShTi cannot be theorized merely on the basis of tarka does Shankara
insist that the shruti primarily and tarka as subsidiary are to be
resorted to in this matter. The passage I cited earlier in this
thread from the BSB 'tarkaapratiShThAnAt...' says exactly this.

There is no point in simply repeating what has been said already.

Regards
subrahmanian.v

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Let me state how I see this. The sAMkhya pUrvapakshin who listens to Sankara's
argument about brahman and makes pradhAna subservient to brahman has already
moved away from what he originally established, based on tarka alone. And when
Sankara says that such a modified version of sAMkhya is okay, what he is doing is
that he is accommodating the modified version of the opponent's thought.

Let us set aside biological evolution for the time being and focus on the origins of
material reality. I am sure even list members who are not scientists are aware of
the basic details of the big bang theory, how the first stars were formed, and how
hydrogen and then helium and then all the heavier elements came into being, etc.
Now, Sruti talks of AkASa, vAyu, agni, ap and pRthvI. Are we to take this literally
and say that if any atoms and molecules exist, they have to be of space, air, fire,
water and earth only? That hydrogen atoms and uranium atoms are not material
realities because they are not mentioned in Sruti? This, I think, would be a quite
wrong approach to what Sruti really conveys about the material universe. And
does it necessarily follow that a vedAntin needs to reject any and all scientific
theories of the origins of the material universe as being contradicted by Sruti?
I don't think so.

Now, if a vedAntin were to say to the astrophysicist,

"fine, the universe began with a big bang and has a finite age. But the collapse
of a wave function only happens under an act of observation. The very first wave
function collapse at the big bang, being a unique event, had to have been a
unique act of observation, implying a unique conscious observer. If you agree
with this, then I am okay with your science."

is he compromising on vedAnta? I don't think so.

A similar kind of argument can be made for biological evolution theories too, I
should think.

Regards,
Vidyasankar

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

On Wednesday, June 27, 2012, Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 3:59 AM, V Subrahmanian
> <v.subrahmanian-***@public.gmane.org <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> Unfortunately this quote refers to the true nature of reality or
> brahman which cannot be settled by tarka and is quite different from
> the way it is being used here (in the realm of "creation" or rather
> transformation of one thing into another). Ramesh has already referred
> to the passages on creation and the interpretation by Sankara in the
> sUtra bhAShya. There seems to be a concerted effort in misinterpreting
> what Ramesh is saying - all he is saying is that the vedantic view is
> *not contradicted* by theories of evolution. Whys is this so difficult
> to understand?
>

RV: Sringeri Acharya could have said,"You can have any view regarding
creation of life. It does not contradict Vedantin view". It would have been
a populist stand as we can then have two models of formation of life forms
or ignore complicated questions taking shelter of ajati vada. But he did
not. He stuck to teaching the traditional belief that life forms were
created. He gave his reason for that based on sastras. Sri Mani Dravid
Sastrigal boldly rejected the theory of biological evolution on the grounds
that it is based on logic. Most traditionalists on this forum also stated
that they reject the biological theory of evolution. In the worst case,
they are all wrong but even then they are true their belief and tradition.
By saying that the theory of biological evolution can fit in to Vedic view
of creation, we are true to neither the tradition nor the scientific
method.

They dont say that veda apaureshyatvam is to be accepted as a given. They
use pratyaksha and anumana to establish that. If I was totally convinced by
it, I would not have posted on the forum. I was not because their model
will be challenged by linguists and evolutionists.

In its own right, their model fails to argue convincingly why Vedas are
considered apaureshya and not any vakya. Any sentence is a flow of
knowledge (jnanapravagam) and the words in the sentences have connection
with objects, which we can say is eternal as objects and the words exist in
the source. Any further post on this is useful to me only if it answers
this.

[Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Rajaram Venkataramani
<rajaramvenk-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 27, 2012, Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 3:59 AM, V Subrahmanian
>> <v.subrahmanian-***@public.gmane.org <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>
>> Unfortunately this quote refers to the true nature of reality or
>> brahman which cannot be settled by tarka and is quite different from
>> the way it is being used here (in the realm of "creation" or rather
>> transformation of one thing into another). Ramesh has already referred
>> to the passages on creation and the interpretation by Sankara in the
>> sUtra bhAShya. There seems to be a concerted effort in misinterpreting
>> what Ramesh is saying - all he is saying is that the vedantic view is
>> *not contradicted* by theories of evolution. Whys is this so difficult
>> to understand?
>>
>
> RV: Sringeri Acharya could have said,"You can have any view regarding
> creation of life. It does not contradict Vedantin view". It would have been
> a populist stand as we can then have two models of formation of life forms
> or ignore complicated questions taking shelter of ajati vada. But he did
> not. He stuck to teaching the  traditional belief that life forms were
> created. He gave his reason for that based on sastras. Sri Mani Dravid
> Sastrigal boldly rejected the theory of biological evolution on the grounds
> that it is based on logic. Most traditionalists on this forum also stated
> that they reject the biological theory of evolution. In the worst case,
> they are all wrong but even then they are true their belief and tradition.
> By saying that the theory of biological evolution can fit in to Vedic view
> of creation, we are true to neither the tradition nor the scientific
> method.

First of all, as Ramesh pointed out these are questions bereft of
context and we have to be careful in using such conversations.

That said, using your own logic, Sankara could have told the SankhyA
that there is no pradhAna since life was created and given some vedic
statements in support. But no - all he says is that pradhAna cannot
be *independent* of brahman and also clearly adds that if the sAnkhyA
wants to posit a pradhanA which has that function they want of it, but
is subservient to brahman, he is acceptable to that view. It all boils
down to the fact that theories of creation are orthogonal (to use
Ramesh's phraseology) to what is important.

> They dont say that veda apaureshyatvam is to be accepted as a given. They
> use pratyaksha and anumana to establish that. If I was totally convinced by
> it, I would not have posted on the forum. I was not because their model
> will be challenged by linguists and evolutionists.
>
> In its own right, their model fails to argue convincingly why Vedas are
>  considered apaureshya and not any vakya. Any sentence is a flow of
> knowledge (jnanapravagam) and the words in the sentences have connection
> with objects, which we can say is eternal as objects and the words exist in
> the source. Any further post on this is useful to me only if it answers
> this.

Can I ask you if you have actually read any pUrva-mImAmsA arguments on
apauruSheyatva? If yes, can you tell me which part of the argument is
contradicted by any theory of evolution, be it the pradhAna of sAnkhyA
or the modern evolution theories?

Rama

[Venkata sriram P]

Namaste,
 
What is the definition of a mlEccha and re all westerners mlEcchAs ?  Need to be careful in categorizing. 
 
Actually, that westerner who approached the Acharya was bent upon establishing a church in Sringeri and hence the teaching was directed to him alone.  It was this orthodox peeTa which is responsible for reconverting  couple of *mlEcchAs* into hindufold under the supervision of vidyAraNya namely harihararAya & bukkarAya.
 
So, *lOkOyaM bhAratavarSaH* says the amarakOsa.   If one possess the grand & noble vision of sloka *mAtA cha pArvati dEvO pitA dEvO mahEshwaraH / bAndhavAH shivabhaktAscha swadEshO bhuvanatrayaM*, one can take the westerners into the hindu fold.  Once they come into our fold, they become *shUdrAs*.  Let they undergo shUdra saMskAra as per shUdra kamalAkara mayUkha. 
 
Not to nitpick, why then chaNDI yAgAs & rudrahOmAs are being conducted in *mlEccha dEsAs* now with the approval of current acharya?  Why then vEda mantrAs are chanted
loudly in loudspeakers when shUdrAs are not entitled to listen to them.
 
That aside, most of the westerners are extremely far better than some of the half-baked
hindus who boast of their heritage & culture and never care for sanAtana dharma.
 
You know there is a saying in telugu and the true translation of that in english is
*my grandfathers consumed lots of ghee; if you want to test, come and smell my palm".
This is how our so-called brahmins have become.
 
regs,
sriram
 
 
 
 
 
 

[S L Shivashankar]

Namaste Sriram,



> So, *lOkOyaM bhAratavarSaH* says the amarakOsa. If one possess the grand
> & noble vision of sloka *mAtA cha pArvati dEvO pitA dEvO mahEshwaraH /
> bAndhavAH shivabhaktAscha swadEshO bhuvanatrayaM*, one can take the
> westerners into the hindu fold. Once they come into our fold, they become
> *shUdrAs*. Let they undergo shUdra saMskAra as per shUdra kamalAkara
> mayUkha.
>
>
>
I can speak from years of personal experience here: I have myself undergone
upanayanam many years ago, and I have never on any occasion encountered any
traditional pandit or acharya who has said this was a mistake. On the
contrary, they have been very happy finding out that a westerner (i am from
Sweden) have undergone upanayanam, and they have encouraged me and
instructed me to strictly perform my sandhyavandanam, performing pujas and
study traditional vedic chanting. Moreover, I have several western friends
with similar experiences from traditional acharyas, pandits and mathas.

Warmest regards
S. L. Shivashankar
(a.k.a. Stig Lundgren)






>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org
>

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

PraNAms

I just saw Shivashankar/Lundgren mail. I have a fond memories of meeting him in person in Stockholm and almost had daily extensive discussions on Advaita Vedanta. He organized my talk at the local Hindu temple and we had after scrumptious South Indian dinner.

He is more a Hindu than many Hindus I have met and more a Brahmin than many I know.

Hari Om!
Sadananda

--- On Tue, 6/26/12, S L Shivashankar <slshivashankar-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:


> I can speak from years of personal experience here: I have
> myself undergone
> upanayanam many years ago, and I have never on any occasion
> encountered any
> traditional pandit or acharya who has said this was a
> mistake. On the
> contrary, they have been very happy finding out that a
> westerner (i am from
> Sweden) have undergone upanayanam, and they have encouraged
> me and
> instructed me to strictly perform my sandhyavandanam,
> performing pujas and
> study traditional vedic chanting. Moreover, I have several
> western friends
> with similar experiences from traditional acharyas, pandits
> and mathas.
>
> Warmest regards
> S. L. Shivashankar
> (a.k.a. Stig Lundgren)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org
>

[ravi chandrasekhara]

It is wonderful to hear, but per shastras he has no adhikara for Upanayna and sandhya-vandana. There is alternative Sandhya method for those who do not have adhikara.  Dvijas who default on their duties on the other hand will hav eto answer/pay for it later.

Ravi Chandrasekhara


________________________________
From: kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada-/***@public.gmane.org>
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+9d9q/***@public.gmane.org.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] mleccha-s not eligible to take Hinduism??


PraNAms

I just saw Shivashankar/Lundgren mail. I have a fond memories of meeting him in person in Stockholm and almost had daily extensive discussions on Advaita Vedanta. He organized my talk at the local Hindu temple and we had after scrumptious South Indian dinner. 

He is more a Hindu than many Hindus I have met and more a Brahmin than many I know.

Hari Om!
Sadananda

--- On Tue, 6/26/12, S L Shivashankar <slshivashankar-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:


> I can speak from years of personal experience here: I have
> myself undergone
> upanayanam many years ago, and I have never on any occasion
> encountered any
> traditional pandit or acharya who has said this was a
> mistake. On the
> contrary, they have been very happy finding out that a
> westerner (i am from
> Sweden) have undergone upanayanam, and they have encouraged
> me and
> instructed me to strictly perform my sandhyavandanam,
> performing pujas and
> study traditional vedic chanting. Moreover, I have several
> western friends
> with similar experiences from traditional acharyas, pandits
> and mathas.
>
> Warmest regards
> S. L. Shivashankar
> (a.k.a. Stig Lundgren)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org
>
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org

[Sunil Bhattacharjya]

Dear Raviji,

The guru can give the adhikara in the deserving cases. Satyakama is an example.

Regards,
Sunil KB



________________________________
From: ravi chandrasekhara <vadhula-/***@public.gmane.org>
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+9d9q/***@public.gmane.org.org>
Cc: RAVI CHANDRASEKHARA <vadhula-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 9:34 AM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] mleccha-s not eligible to take Hinduism??

It is wonderful to hear, but per shastras he has no adhikara for Upanayna and sandhya-vandana. There is alternative Sandhya method for those who do not have adhikara.  Dvijas who default on their duties on the other hand will hav eto answer/pay for it later.

Ravi Chandrasekhara


________________________________
From: kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada-/***@public.gmane.org>
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+9d9q/***@public.gmane.org.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] mleccha-s not eligible to take Hinduism??


PraNAms

I just saw Shivashankar/Lundgren mail. I have a fond memories of meeting him in person in Stockholm and almost had daily extensive discussions on Advaita Vedanta. He organized my talk at the local Hindu temple and we had after scrumptious South Indian dinner. 

He is more a Hindu than many Hindus I have met and more a Brahmin than many I know.

Hari Om!
Sadananda

--- On Tue, 6/26/12, S L Shivashankar <slshivashankar-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:


> I can speak from years of personal experience here: I have
> myself undergone
> upanayanam many years ago, and I have never on any occasion
> encountered any
> traditional pandit or acharya who has said this was a
> mistake. On the
> contrary, they have been very happy finding out that a
> westerner (i am from
> Sweden) have undergone upanayanam, and they have encouraged
> me and
> instructed me to strictly perform my sandhyavandanam,
> performing pujas and
> study traditional vedic chanting. Moreover, I have several
> western friends
> with similar experiences from traditional acharyas, pandits
> and mathas.
>
> Warmest regards
> S. L. Shivashankar
> (a.k.a. Stig Lundgren)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org
>
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org

[ravi chandrasekhara]

May be true but from what Jaldhar I think mentioned few years ago on this is list is that Shankaracharya in his bhashya stated Jabala was a Braahmana by birth. But in general, even Gurus (Not Rishis) may not have authority to convert one to a Shudra, Braahmana, etc. In addition, "who is the correct Guru" ? For example, Dayanand Saraswati of Arya Samaj would give Upanayana Samskara to anyone, but the traditional Sampradaya Acharayas (Shankaracharyas, Madhwa Mutts, Sri Vaishnava, etc) state it is contrary to Shastras and not correct.

Ravi Chandrasekhara


________________________________
From: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya-/***@public.gmane.org>
To: ravi chandrasekhara <vadhula-/***@public.gmane.org>; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] mleccha-s not eligible to take Hinduism??


Dear Raviji,

The guru can give the adhikara in the deserving cases. Satyakama is an example.

Regards,
Sunil KB



________________________________
From: ravi chandrasekhara <vadhula-/***@public.gmane.org>
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+9d9q/***@public.gmane.org.org>
Cc: RAVI CHANDRASEKHARA <vadhula-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 9:34 AM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] mleccha-s not eligible to take Hinduism??

It is wonderful to hear, but per shastras he has no adhikara for Upanayna and sandhya-vandana. There is alternative Sandhya method for those who do not have adhikara.  Dvijas who default on their duties on the other hand will hav eto answer/pay for it later.

Ravi Chandrasekhara


________________________________
From: kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada-/***@public.gmane.org>
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+9d9q/***@public.gmane.org.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] mleccha-s not eligible to take Hinduism??


PraNAms

I just saw Shivashankar/Lundgren mail. I have a fond memories of meeting him in person in Stockholm and almost had daily extensive discussions
on Advaita Vedanta. He organized my talk at the local Hindu temple and we had after scrumptious South Indian dinner. 

He is more a Hindu than many Hindus I have met and more a Brahmin than many I know.

Hari Om!
Sadananda

--- On Tue, 6/26/12, S L Shivashankar <slshivashankar-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:


> I can speak from years of personal experience here: I have
> myself undergone
> upanayanam many years ago, and I have never on any occasion
> encountered any
> traditional pandit or acharya who has said this was a
> mistake. On the
> contrary, they have been very happy finding out that a
> westerner (i am from
> Sweden) have undergone upanayanam, and they have encouraged
> me and
> instructed me to strictly perform my sandhyavandanam,
> performing pujas
and
> study traditional vedic chanting. Moreover, I have several
> western friends
> with similar experiences from traditional acharyas, pandits
> and mathas.
>
> Warmest regards
> S. L. Shivashankar
> (a.k.a. Stig Lundgren)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org
> >
>
_______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org
>
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org

[Abhishek Madhyastha]

I remember a dialogue from the movie on acharya which goes somewhat
like-"The shastras forbade sanyasins from performing the rites of a
person but a sanyasin is one who is not bound by the shastras at all!
So he is free to perform the rites when necessary."

Regarding parakaya pravesha, I remember having read somewhere that
while ascending the Sarvajna peetha, Sharada devi questioned Shankara
as to how he is pure even after doing parakaya pravesha? For this I
believe Shankara replied- "That which is not done in my body cannot be
regarded as a taint on my purity. Moreover, the question of purity is
for my body alone but I am not a body, I am the self who is ever
pure."

On 6/27/12, ravi chandrasekhara <vadhula-/***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> May be true but from what Jaldhar I think mentioned few years ago on this is
> list is that Shankaracharya in his bhashya stated Jabala was a Braahmana by
> birth. But in general, even Gurus (Not Rishis) may not have authority to
> convert one to a Shudra, Braahmana, etc. In addition, "who is the correct
> Guru" ? For example, Dayanand Saraswati of Arya Samaj would give Upanayana
> Samskara to anyone, but the traditional Sampradaya Acharayas
> (Shankaracharyas, Madhwa Mutts, Sri Vaishnava, etc) state it is contrary to
> Shastras and not correct.
>
> Ravi Chandrasekhara
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya-/***@public.gmane.org>
> To: ravi chandrasekhara <vadhula-/***@public.gmane.org>; A discussion group for Advaita
> Vedanta <advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+***@public.gmane.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] mleccha-s not eligible to take Hinduism??
>
>
> Dear Raviji,
>
> The guru can give the adhikara in the deserving cases. Satyakama is an
> example.
>
> Regards,
> Sunil KB
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: ravi chandrasekhara <vadhula-/***@public.gmane.org>
> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
> <advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+***@public.gmane.org>
> Cc: RAVI CHANDRASEKHARA <vadhula-***@public.gmane.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 9:34 AM
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] mleccha-s not eligible to take Hinduism??
>
> It is wonderful to hear, but per shastras he has no adhikara for Upanayna
> and sandhya-vandana. There is alternative Sandhya method for those who do
> not have adhikara.  Dvijas who default on their duties on the other hand
> will hav eto answer/pay for it later.
>
> Ravi Chandrasekhara
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada-/***@public.gmane.org>
> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
> <advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+***@public.gmane.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 9:39 AM
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] mleccha-s not eligible to take Hinduism??
>
>
> PraNAms
>
> I just saw Shivashankar/Lundgren mail. I have a fond memories of meeting him
> in person in Stockholm and almost had daily extensive discussions
> on Advaita Vedanta. He organized my talk at the local Hindu temple and we
> had after scrumptious South Indian dinner.
>
> He is more a Hindu than many Hindus I have met and more a Brahmin than many
> I know.
>
> Hari Om!
> Sadananda
>
> --- On Tue, 6/26/12, S L Shivashankar <slshivashankar-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
>
>> I can speak from years of personal experience here: I have
>> myself undergone
>> upanayanam many years ago, and I have never on any occasion
>> encountered any
>> traditional pandit or acharya who has said this was a
>> mistake. On the
>> contrary, they have been very happy finding out that a
>> westerner (i am from
>> Sweden) have undergone upanayanam, and they have encouraged
>> me and
>> instructed me to strictly perform my sandhyavandanam,
>> performing pujas
> and
>> study traditional vedic chanting. Moreover, I have several
>> western friends
>> with similar experiences from traditional acharyas, pandits
>> and mathas.
>>
>> Warmest regards
>> S. L. Shivashankar
>> (a.k.a. Stig Lundgren)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>> >
>> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>> >
>> > For assistance, contact:
>> > listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org
>> >
>>
> _______________________________________________
>> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>>
>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>
>> For assistance, contact:
>> listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org
>

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012, Sunil Bhattacharjya wrote:

> The guru can give the adhikara in the deserving cases. Satyakama is an
> example.
>

No he cannot and Satyakama is not an example. See the bhashya on
Brahmasutra 1.3.37 where the passage from Chhandogyopanishad 4.4.5 is
discussed. Shankaracharya observes that Gautama Haridrumat says "None but
a Brahmana could thus speak out." In the chhandogyabhashya Shankaracharya
glosses this phrase as "Such a straightforward assertion none but a
Brahmana could make; because it is Brahmanas and not others that are
naturally straightforward. Since you have not flinched from the truth,
the charactaristic of your caste; hence, inasmuch as you are a Brahmana I
shall initiate you."

The reformist view has it backwards. It is not "speaking the truth makes
you a Brahmana" but "Brahmanas are people who speak the truth even when it
is embarrassing."

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012, Gopal wrote:

> Here goes our sanathana dharma protectors talking about sastras-sampradayas
> in saying who has adhikara or who is not.
>

Well yes. Does this surprise you? Then go back and look up the purpose
of this list again.

> I know of dozens in my family - adult /
> not-yet-adult males, hundreds among the so called friends/acquaintances,
> thousands who call themselves brahmanas by their accent, look, stiff-lipped
> ness, madi and acharas etc. only but cannot even say one of the pancha
> suktas properly.
>

Perhaps if more in your family and friends circle talked about shastra and
sampradaya you wouldn't have this problem? However I fail to see why
this bears any relationship to the subject at hand.

In essence your argument is this. "It is wrong to judge the morality of
anothers action when we ourselves are not acting with moral perfection."
But this is nonsense. I am naturally left-handed. Some time ago I was
talking to my wife at dinner and absent-mindedly began eating with my left
hand. My son who is 7 years old noticed this and pointed it out. Should
he have waited until he became a chaturveda ghanapathi to tell me? Should
I have been offended that an impertinent child dared to criticise me who
knows magnitudes more about dharma than him? No I apologized, corrected
my fault, and praised him for understanding the rules. This is how you
raise generations who will care about pronouncing suktas correctly.

> If the answer is a 'no', then it is time to seriously
> learn to be ashamed of ourselves...

What if the answer is yes? Then do we have your permission to point out
the obvious?

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012, Krunal Makwana wrote:

> Please accept my apologies for this out burst but I had to vent it out.
> Can't the members stop having a 'pop' at one and rather constructively
> dialogue whilst respecting each others points of view regardless if it does
> not fit into your belief framework?

Thanks for taking the time to remind us of something we should all try to
practice. But please understand that the issue here is that we who are
criticizing him think Stig/Shivashankara is wrong. We don't respect his
point of view. Now it may turn out there is more to this and we may be
barking up the wrong tree. Then I hope we are mature enough to apologize
and revise our opinions. But respect has to be earned because the point
of view in question, prima facie, is wrong.

>
> With all due respect Sri lalitAlAlitaH, who are you to question his Guru
> and how much he knows about shastra?

Because his Guru is apparently teaching nastikata. Now as I mentioned
before, I could be wrong. There may be some brilliant proof that will
turn my worldview on its ear. I wouldn't bet on it but the possibility
exists. Consider this analogy. You attend a lecture by a prize-winning
mathematician who says 2 + 2 = 5. You might but wonder "Hmm there must be
some reason why a mathematician of his calibre is saying this." But then
you would ask him "Excuse me sir, why are you saying 5 when it is 4" What
you would not do is say "Well he is a famous mathematician so who am I to
judge?" And should you ask and the response is "Shut up, I am a famous
mathematician. Don't question me." the answer would still be 4.

> Bhagavan Ramana Maharishi knew squat about shastra

Actually he knew quite a bit. He didn't talk about shastra which is
something else and not really relevant to the topic at hand.

> but wasn't he realised didn't he not know the science of
> advaita? Does the authenticity of being pure have to be stamped by your
> pure self before we accept them as authoritive.
>

But we are not talking about the science of Advaita but upanayana which is
part of karmakanda. This is what makes the whole situation so bizarre.
It is totally unnecessary. There are plenty of people who never had janoi
who are considered jnanis even by the most orthodox so one wonders what
kind of guru thinks it is required.

> Shankara entered into a women's body to experience the science of love, he
> performed the final rites of his mother. Will you class these actioned
> tainted with kAma?

Yes. The ulterior motive was victory in a crucial debate but the action
was what it was.

> If so your fundamental belief system in advaita is
> rocked to the core as the very person you rest on is flawed.

No that particular body was flawed. Advaita fundamentally teaches me that
the person is not the body! Upanayana and other duties of varna and
ashrama are actions related to a body. This is why sannyasis in the
Advaita tradition break their janois and cut off their shikhas. They give
up all the rites like sandhya even if they have meticulously followed them
from childhood.

So again I ask, what is the point of this exercise?

> Even Adi Shankara wasn't stupid to follow the scriptures and law
> blindly. He used his intelligence and heart to make decisions, though he
> venerated and followed the vedic texts diligently he was not afraid to
> divert where he thought necessary and we should learn from that too.
>

Shankaracharya himself denies this stating repeatedly that only
sampradayavids should be followed on dharmic matters. The other example
you gave does not show any deviation either. He did not willy-nilly
decide to perform his mothers shraddha. It was to uphold a promise made
to her _before_ he took sannyasa.


>
>
> I apologise again in advance, but where does this madness end? You are now
> questioning the actions of an AcArya, what qualifications do you hold to
> question and disrespect the actions of a present AcArya who himself is the
> embodiment of Adi saMkara, who I mentioned earlier violated rules in his
> time.

Weren't you a rather trenchant critic of Satya Sai Baba? He was the
spiritual guide of many thousands, including, God help them, people who
thought he was an authority on Advaita Vedanta. Despite this you found
his particular violations of rules worthy of note without stopping to
consider your qualification did you not? (I for one think you were right
to do so.)

> Though I agree Vedic dharma fundamentally has to be intact including that
> of the advaitic position, we have to move with the times, even we have to
> admit the Vedic dharmic practices we follow now is not what was practiced
> during the time saMkara let alone bhagavAna kR^iSNa!

The issue at hand is upanayana and the rules are well known and
practically applicable in our times.

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012, Kathirasan K wrote:

> While I do not disagree with your distinction between traditionalists and
> the reformists, I beg to differ in the choice of words used based on the
> characteristics you have mentioned for each of them. I would say that
the
> traditionalists you are talking are more the 'conservatives' while the
> reformists are 'evolutionaries'.
>

Those are rather tendentious definitions. For instance I prefer to use
the power of computers and the Internet for the propogation of Dharma
rather than palm leaf manuscripts. doesn't that make me a conservative
evolutionary? Rather I would say a traditionalist avoids change when he
can but if must change insists that it is in a way that doesn't do
violence to the ways of the past. A reformist is one who wants to make
dharma into something else (however "something else" is defined.)


> I personally resonate with the evolutionaries who are endowed with the
> 'sukshma buddhi' to bring about a change in the social fabric of the
> vaidikas or Hindus. I would illustrate the evolution of Hinduism from
> allowing a polygamous marriage to a monogamous one as also part of the
> evolution I am talking about.

This is a case in point. The drive against polygamy was the obsession of
Victorian prudes who wanted to look good for their colonial masters not
some internal sea change in Hindu dharma. The current laws have driven
the practice underground but there are many Hindu polygamists out there,
the same types who were polygamists centuries ago. In fact I know of a
Gujarati Rajput man in America who has two wives.

--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar-***@public.gmane.org>

[Kathirasan K]

Namaste Jaldhar,

I am not sure if the Victorian prudes did it. But I am sure the Bhagavatam
extols Rama for being a ekapatnivrata and that he had set a role model for
all common folk. (please see Bhagavatam 9.10)

A traditionalist is a sampradayavit or a shrotriya in my opinion and he can
be either an evolutionary or a conservative, at times even a hybrid based
on the value he has on different matters.

On 27 June 2012 15:16, Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

>
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012, Kathirasan K wrote:
>
> While I do not disagree with your distinction between traditionalists and
>> the reformists, I beg to differ in the choice of words used based on the
>> characteristics you have mentioned for each of them. I would say that
>>
> the
>
>> traditionalists you are talking are more the 'conservatives' while the
>> reformists are 'evolutionaries'.
>>
>>
> Those are rather tendentious definitions. For instance I prefer to use
> the power of computers and the Internet for the propogation of Dharma
> rather than palm leaf manuscripts. doesn't that make me a conservative
> evolutionary? Rather I would say a traditionalist avoids change when he
> can but if must change insists that it is in a way that doesn't do violence
> to the ways of the past. A reformist is one who wants to make dharma into
> something else (however "something else" is defined.)
>
>
>
> I personally resonate with the evolutionaries who are endowed with the
>> 'sukshma buddhi' to bring about a change in the social fabric of the
>> vaidikas or Hindus. I would illustrate the evolution of Hinduism from
>> allowing a polygamous marriage to a monogamous one as also part of the
>> evolution I am talking about.
>>
>
> This is a case in point. The drive against polygamy was the obsession of
> Victorian prudes who wanted to look good for their colonial masters not
> some internal sea change in Hindu dharma. The current laws have driven the
> practice underground but there are many Hindu polygamists out there, the
> same types who were polygamists centuries ago. In fact I know of a
> Gujarati Rajput man in America who has two wives.
>
> -
>

[S L Shivashankar]

Dear Kathirasan and others,
Namaste,



A traditionalist is a sampradayavit or a shrotriya in my opinion and he can
> be either an evolutionary or a conservative, at times even a hybrid based
> on the value he has on different matters.
>
>
This a valid definition, I think.

I have now received many replies to my posting of yesterday (which in turn
was a reply to Sriram´s posting). I am familiar with the arguments
regarding non-Indian aspirants, caste issues etc prevalent on this list for
many years, so I have not encountered anything previosly unknown to me.
Moreover, I have a very vast collection of traditional hindu litterature in
my home, so I am also quite familiar with the quotations and views
discussed in this thread.

However, I have also noticed on many occassions that exceptions have been
made by learned pandits and acharyas - also pandits and acharyas highly
respected by the "conservative" members of this list, like it or not. The
ways of dealing with things in traditional mathas doesn´t always follow the
patterns suggested by members of this list. I have noticed several times
over the years that things related to foreginers (who´s a foreginer by the
way? Many people born in hindu families are today born and raised in other
parts of the world than India) are discussed here without paying attention
to specific cases when foreginers have been embraced and initiated into the
hindu fold. Such cases seems to be unknown to most people, and hence the
discussions goes on endlessly by delivering seemingly contradictory quotes
from shastras.The actual examples are left behind, most probably because
they are unknown to most people. I have noticed the same pattern when there
have been discussons on, for example, whether a brahmana or sannyasi is
permitted by the shastras to cross the ocean or not. The discussions have
been going on and on, quotes from shastras have been piled against each
other, without paying much attention to recent actual cases of pandits or
sannyasis travelling overseas by the blessings of jagadgurus. It was in
this context my yesterday posting regarding my upanayanam was made. I
pointed to myself as an example that vedantins and pandits also from very
traditional folds do actually - sometimes at least - judge the "mleccha"
issue different from what some people may think. Many people on this list
apparently are unfamiliar with the fact that quite a few Westerners over
the years have been initiated and given upanayanam or mantropadesha also by
strict sampradayavits.

For example, Swami Akhandananda Saraswati of Vrindavan - a very traditional
vedantin and brilliant scholar - gave sannyasa to at least two Westerners,
and they where staying at his ashram. One of them is a dear friend of mine,
so I know quite a lot of details regarding this. Prior to sannyasa, my
friend was wearing his upavitam, he performed sandhyavandanam, puja etc.

I know of westerners who has got mantropadesha from HH the Sringeri
Jagadguru Bharati Tirtha Swamigal. Also, a fairly well-know example is
Swami Yogananda Saraswati, a frenchman by birth who is living sannayasa
life in a small cottage on the french countryside. His way of life and
activities have the full blessings by HH Bharati Tirtha Swamigal, and he is
also the European representative of Sringeri Peetham. If I´m not remember
wrong he is also a boardmember of the Tattvaloka magazine (a Sringeri
publication).

Dr Michael Comans (Sri Vasudevacharya) who I referred to in an earlier
posting, is a disciple of Swami Dayananda Saraswati, but he has also
studied for Sri R. Krishnamurthi Sastrigal in Chennai. To my knowledge,
this strictly traditional and most respected vedantin didn´t have any
objections to the fact that Michael Comans is a westerner wearing an
upavitam.

I shall not bother you by presenting further examples. I just wanted to
point out that things are not always just black or white. There are nuances
in between.

Warmest regards
Shivashankar

[Bhaskar YR]

I shall not bother you by presenting further examples.

praNAms Sri Shivashankara prabhuji
Hare Krishna

I'd like to add one more example to the list of names you have mentioned.
That name is none other than Sri shivashankara prabhuji. IMHO, if at all
there is a provision for upanayana saMskAra for the Westerners, the first
and foremost person entitle to undergo that saMskAra is your goodself.
Your shraddha, bhakti, jnAna is nowhere less than that of a shrOtreeya
brAhmaNa.

But I,m still wondering whether there is any suitable provision for this
saMskAra with prAyaschitta in our uncompromising rigid dharma shAstra!! .
Why I am getting this doubt is, sometime back, I had asked a question to
well respected scholar in this list with regard to upanayana saMskAra to
one of the ligAyat boys whose father is ligAyat but mother is smArta
brAhmin (love marriage!!:-)) who wants to get upanayana saMskAra done to
her son!! The answer from that scholar & also from Mattur pundits
(including my guruji ) was strict 'NO'.

But again, after reading all these explanations from the replies, I am
getting an impression that upanayana saMskAra can be done, as a special
case, to the sincere adhyAtama student/sAdhaka who wants to do his
sAdhana in veda mArga. But there is no provision as such to do conversion
in general & upanayana saMskAra in particular to the person from 'outside'
(outside the caste of brAhmaNa but within Hindu fold or a Westerner) who
wants to lead a normal (loukika) life of a Hindu brAhmaNa.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar

[S L Shivashankar]

Dear Bhaskarji
Pranams,

Good to hear from you again! Thank you for your kind words.



> Why I am getting this doubt is, sometime back, I had asked a question to
> well respected scholar in this list with regard to upanayana saMskAra to
> one of the ligAyat boys whose father is ligAyat but mother is smArta
> brAhmin (love marriage!!:-)) who wants to get upanayana saMskAra done to
> her son!! The answer from that scholar & also from Mattur pundits
> (including my guruji ) was strict 'NO'.
>
> But again, after reading all these explanations from the replies, I am
> getting an impression that upanayana saMskAra can be done, as a special
> case, to the sincere adhyAtama student/sAdhaka who wants to do his
> sAdhana in veda mArga. But there is no provision as such to do conversion
> in general & upanayana saMskAra in particular to the person from 'outside'
> (outside the caste of brAhmaNa but within Hindu fold or a Westerner) who
> wants to lead a normal (loukika) life of a Hindu brAhmaNa.
>


I think you have made a very good point here. All the special cases I know
of (including myself, I dare to say) are due to sadhana/spritual reasons
alone, namely "to the sincere adhyAtama student/sAdhaka who wants to do his
sAdhana in veda mArga", as you beautifully puts it. The guru have
considered the Westerner suitable for such a sadhana. However, I don´t know
of any case when a Westerner has been given upanayanam just in order "to
lead a normal (loukika) life of a Hindu brAhmaNa." Probably Arya Samaj
would agree to perform upanyanam also for the reason of just living a
normal brahmana life, but that´s another story.

Warmest regards
Shivashankar

[ramesam vemuri]

Just a 2c contribution if it has any worth but not from the position of any "expertise" on sastrAs or to contest the opinions of stalwart Pundits. I write from the standpoint of my understanding.
1. No really ancient scriptural texts on "Dharma" could have ever talked about, IMHO, Hindus or Hinduws or Hinduism.
2. Conversions would have been an "unknown" concept for them because they operated on the explicit premise of "vasudeva kutumbakam."
That means any one born in the entire universe legitimately belongs to and automatically becomes a "sanAtana Dharmi' by birth itself. No eligible natives and ineligible aliens. He/she would not have needed a stamped certificate from an assigned authority to be called a "sanAtana Dharmi."
It is akin to any one being born in India, automatically becoming a citizen of the country. (A certificate may be needed for transactions later in life but that is a different matter).
3. If, however, there is a need to change what is naturally obtained by birth, a conversion will be required. For example: I am an Indian citizen and I want to convert to become an American citizen. This is possible when there are more than one such countries (in this case India and the USA) and there is a stipulated legally approved procedure.
In times of yore, there was one and only one universe (no divisions), vausdaiva kutumbakam and one Dharma. So neither a possibility for conversion nor an approved procedural text. Perhaps, I venture to surmise, this was the reason why sanAtna Dharma never found a need for "proselytizing."
Whom to proselytize when every one is the same - one is however free to follow/practice any belief system or philosophy of life including Charvaka - one will not lose the legality of being a sanAtana Dharmi.
 
 
4. So conversions are possible only after there the delimiting boundary conditions dividing people come in to exist. With the arrival of "Hinduism" as a distinct Dharma, conversions must be possible. The original dharmic texts cannot give guidelines as they preceded any divisions like Hindu, Christian . Can we find an answer to subtle issues of transborder information flows in the satellite communiction age in the outdated old Indian Telegraphic Act of 1875?
5. Talking of conversions within the four varnas, it is reasobale to take perhaps Bhagavad-Gita as the principal source to derive applications for later times.

 

________________________________
From: S L Shivashankar <slshivashankar-***@public.gmane.org>
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+9d9q/***@public.gmane.org.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] mleccha-s not eligible to take Hinduism??

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

> That means any one born in the entire universe legitimately belongs to and automatically becomes a "sanAtana Dharmi' by birth itself. No eligible natives and ineligible aliens. He/she would not have needed a stamped certificate from an assigned authority to be called a "sanAtana Dharmi."
> It is akin to any one being born in India, automatically becoming a citizen of the country. (A certificate may be needed for transactions later in life but that is a different matter).
>

That is precisely what a number of Acharyas of different sampradAya-s in recent times
have said. There is no general conversion rite because by birth everyone already has a
place under that vast umbrella called dharma.

I wish this discussion had not veered off into avenues such as this. Personally speaking,
let me applaud Sri Shivashankar for speaking up and stating his position. He has long
been a mostly silent member of this list. sanAtana dharma is a lived tradition; unlike
some other religions, it is not fossilized in books. Yes, we need thorough grounding in
the texts, but at the same time, we need to look at what decisions have been taken in
specific cases, by AcArya-s whose knowledge of nuances of dharma far outstrips the
average member of this list.

In the course of this discussion, the names of Swami Dayananda Saraswati of Arsha
Vidya Gurukulam and Sringeri Jagadguru, Swami Bharati Tirtha, have been brought up.
I have no authority to speak for either of them and what they do certainly doesn't need
any defense from the likes of me. But knowing what I do of both, let me just say that
they do not do things lightly or for the sake of name, fame or political goodwill. Sringeri
has a long reputation of being one of the most traditional and arch-conservative voices,
but again, it is Sringeri that has historically demonstrated numerous instances of "liberal"
action. Sri Sriram already pointed out the example of the founders of Vijayanagara, who
had the blessings of Swami Vidyaranya, 700 years ago. When a Sringeri Sankaracharya
says something and does it, rest assured that there is deep reason and thinking behind
it. The beneficial consequences for the world will be seen for centuries to come.

Regards,
Vidyasankar

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr-zOhu8KlzJ1LQT0dZR+***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> I shall not bother you by presenting further examples.
>
> praNAms Sri Shivashankara prabhuji
> Hare Krishna
>
> Why I am getting this doubt is, sometime back, I had asked a question to
> well respected scholar in this list with regard to upanayana saMskAra to
> one of the ligAyat boys whose father is ligAyat but mother is smArta
> brAhmin (love marriage!!:-)) who wants to get upanayana saMskAra done to
> her son!! The answer from that scholar & also from Mattur pundits
> (including my guruji ) was strict 'NO'.
>

I recently heard this from a Kannada smArta family: They have a son who
works in a small hotel as a cashier and finding a match for him was a great
difficulty. They told me that many smarta/madhwa families have started
taking brides from a Lingayat sub-sect called 'panchama sAli'. It is
learned that this sect is authorised to perform puja (archaka) in
Shiva/Devi Temples. When my friend's family went to a house of this
community to see a prospective bride, they informed them that the elder
sister of this girl is married into a Madhwa family in Bangalore who gave
them (the bride's family) a decent sum of money apart from spending money
for the marriage themselves. I heard that this practice of (arranged)
inter-marriage between brahmins and panchama sAli-s is now becoming
popular.

So, smarta/madhwa families are getting 'cosmopoliton'. I mentioned this
not as a non-advaitic topic but since the discussion on conversion, etc.
is initiated now. Many say those brahmana men in the purohita profession
also face this difficulty and this solution is becoming popular.

subrahmanian.v

>
>

[V Subrahmanian]

Members may note this too:

http://madhwabrahmanas.blogspot.in/2009/03/sri-sri-vadiraja-teertha.html

//VAdirAja gets HayagrIva icon

Hare Srinivasa

There were thousands of goldsmiths living in the coastal regions of
Karnataka. One issue dogging them was lack of social status and acceptance
in religious circles.

Once, a goldsmith melted an alloy of 5 metals and put it into the mould,
with the intention of making a Ganapati icon. When he opened the mould he
was surprised to see a Hayagriva icon with a horse's head and four arms.
Another surprising aspect was that the icon was still red hot and radiant.
He decided to destroy it and reuse the metal the next day.

That night he was instructed in his dream to hand over the icon to
VadirAja. VAdirAja too had a dream in which he was told that he would
receive a special HayagrIva icon. Since HayagrIva was the IshTa devata
(favorite deity) of VAdirAja he was overjoyed.

The next day a delegation of goldsmiths met VAdirAja and handed over the
icon to him. They also shared their sorrow at being social outcasts.
VAdirAja took pity on them and decided to uplift them.

Accordingly, on a suitable occasion, the entire community of goldsmiths was
provided with chakrAnkana and brought into the fold of bhAgavata (dvaita)
dharma. From then, members of that community (daivajna brahmans) have
regarded VAdirAja as their guru, and Sode maTha as their maTha.

VAdirAja also admitted kOTeshwara brahmins into the dvaita fold, bringing
them status and respect in society.//

I myself know of such a family in Bangalore who say they are Madhwas. I do
not know if other orthodox Madhwas mingle with them for matrimonial
purposes.

subrahmanian.v


>
> I recently heard this from a Kannada smArta family: They have a son who
> works in a small hotel as a cashier and finding a match for him was a great
> difficulty. They told me that many smarta/madhwa families have started
> taking brides from a Lingayat sub-sect called 'panchama sAli'. It is
> learned that this sect is authorised to perform puja (archaka) in
> Shiva/Devi Temples. When my friend's family went to a house of this
> community to see a prospective bride, they informed them that the elder
> sister of this girl is married into a Madhwa family in Bangalore who gave
> them (the bride's family) a decent sum of money apart from spending money
> for the marriage themselves. I heard that this practice of (arranged)
> inter-marriage between brahmins and panchama sAli-s is now becoming
> popular.
>
> So, smarta/madhwa families are getting 'cosmopoliton'. I mentioned this
> not as a non-advaitic topic but since the discussion on conversion, etc.
> is initiated now. Many say those brahmana men in the purohita profession
> also face this difficulty and this solution is becoming popular.
>
> subrahmanian.v
>
>>
>>
>

[V Subrahmanian]

Apart from the 'mixing' of varNas due to marriage and the offspring through
such marriage being / becoming eligible for upanayana, there is another way
also in which this comes about: There are many childless couples who wish
to adopt a child. A brahmin couple known to me adopted a male child of
about one year. The adoption Agency does not, as a policy, reveal the
background of the child. So the adoptive parents do not know the varNa of
the child. When he was about eight years this couple performed his
upanayanam, Now, on observation, we can say that infants coming for
adoption are extremely rarely from brahmin community or even the others of
the traivarnikas. The adoptive parents are most likely getting a child
from a non-traivarnika community, or even different religion. Yet, a legal
adoption, makes this child theirs and this couple performed the upanayanam
as in the case of any other brahmin boy. And this 'brahmin' brahmacharin
can even take up veda adhyayana, and become a purohit and even marry a
brahmin bride.

I just mentioned this as an additional way in which one gets a brahmin
lineage continuing, without being sure of the varNa of the adopted child.

There were and are rarely cases where childless couples adopted someone
from their relatives. Here there is no unknown factor as above. But in a
large majority of cases it is unknown alone and the brahmaNa lineage gets
going with upanayanam and veda adhyayanam. I am not saying this is right
or wrong. I only mentioned the vastu sthitiH.

subrahmanian.v

I recently heard this from a Kannada smArta family: They have a son who
> works in a small hotel as a cashier and finding a match for him was a great
> difficulty. They told me that many smarta/madhwa families have started
> taking brides from a Lingayat sub-sect called 'panchama sAli'. It is
> learned that this sect is authorised to perform puja (archaka) in
> Shiva/Devi Temples. When my friend's family went to a house of this
> community to see a prospective bride, they informed them that the elder
> sister of this girl is married into a Madhwa family in Bangalore who gave
> them (the bride's family) a decent sum of money apart from spending money
> for the marriage themselves. I heard that this practice of (arranged)
> inter-marriage between brahmins and panchama sAli-s is now becoming
> popular.
>
> So, smarta/madhwa families are getting 'cosmopoliton'. I mentioned this
> not as a non-advaitic topic but since the discussion on conversion, etc.
> is initiated now. Many say those brahmana men in the purohita profession
> also face this difficulty and this solution is becoming popular.
>
> subrahmanian.v
>
>>
>>
>

[vadhula-/]

I do not know if that is shastrically sanctioned where a Braahmana family can adopt a non-Dvija boy and "make him a Braahmana". I have heard through personal communication that it is not. Legal matters are a different issue.

Ravi Chandrasekhara

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 28, 2012, at 5:21 AM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> Apart from the 'mixing' of varNas due to marriage and the offspring through
> such marriage being / becoming eligible for upanayana, there is another way
> also in which this comes about: There are many childless couples who wish
> to adopt a child. A brahmin couple known to me adopted a male child of
> about one year. The adoption Agency does not, as a policy, reveal the
> background of the child. So the adoptive parents do not know the varNa of
> the child. When he was about eight years this couple performed his
> upanayanam, Now, on observation, we can say that infants coming for
> adoption are extremely rarely from brahmin community or even the others of
> the traivarnikas. The adoptive parents are most likely getting a child
> from a non-traivarnika community, or even different religion. Yet, a legal
> adoption, makes this child theirs and this couple performed the upanayanam
> as in the case of any other brahmin boy. And this 'brahmin' brahmacharin
> can even take up veda adhyayana, and become a purohit and even marry a
> brahmin bride.
>
> I just mentioned this as an additional way in which one gets a brahmin
> lineage continuing, without being sure of the varNa of the adopted child.
>
> There were and are rarely cases where childless couples adopted someone
> from their relatives. Here there is no unknown factor as above. But in a
> large majority of cases it is unknown alone and the brahmaNa lineage gets
> going with upanayanam and veda adhyayanam. I am not saying this is right
> or wrong. I only mentioned the vastu sthitiH.
>
> subrahmanian.v
>
> I recently heard this from a Kannada smArta family: They have a son who
>> works in a small hotel as a cashier and finding a match for him was a great
>> difficulty. They told me that many smarta/madhwa families have started
>> taking brides from a Lingayat sub-sect called 'panchama sAli'. It is
>> learned that this sect is authorised to perform puja (archaka) in
>> Shiva/Devi Temples. When my friend's family went to a house of this
>> community to see a prospective bride, they informed them that the elder
>> sister of this girl is married into a Madhwa family in Bangalore who gave
>> them (the bride's family) a decent sum of money apart from spending money
>> for the marriage themselves. I heard that this practice of (arranged)
>> inter-marriage between brahmins and panchama sAli-s is now becoming
>> popular.
>>
>> So, smarta/madhwa families are getting 'cosmopoliton'. I mentioned this
>> not as a non-advaitic topic but since the discussion on conversion, etc.
>> is initiated now. Many say those brahmana men in the purohita profession
>> also face this difficulty and this solution is becoming popular.
>>
>> subrahmanian.v
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org

[r***@public.gmane.org]

In the case Satyakama, which gotra did he get in to? He sure needs that to say abhivadaye and more importantly to avoid sa-gotra marriage. It seems his guru took a decision on that. Is it not?
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

-----Original Message-----
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar-***@public.gmane.org>
Sender: advaita-l-bounces-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+***@public.gmane.org
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 03:16:37
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta<advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+9d9jxlLJML/***@public.gmane.orgorg>
Reply-To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
<advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+***@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] mleccha-s not eligible to take Hinduism??

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012, Sunil Bhattacharjya wrote:

> The guru can give the adhikara in the deserving cases. Satyakama is an
> example.
>

No he cannot and Satyakama is not an example. See the bhashya on
Brahmasutra 1.3.37 where the passage from Chhandogyopanishad 4.4.5 is
discussed. Shankaracharya observes that Gautama Haridrumat says "None but
a Brahmana could thus speak out." In the chhandogyabhashya Shankaracharya
glosses this phrase as "Such a straightforward assertion none but a
Brahmana could make; because it is Brahmanas and not others that are
naturally straightforward. Since you have not flinched from the truth,
the charactaristic of your caste; hence, inasmuch as you are a Brahmana I
shall initiate you."

The reformist view has it backwards. It is not "speaking the truth makes
you a Brahmana" but "Brahmanas are people who speak the truth even when it
is embarrassing."

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012, Gopal wrote:

> Here goes our sanathana dharma protectors talking about sastras-sampradayas
> in saying who has adhikara or who is not.
>

Well yes. Does this surprise you? Then go back and look up the purpose
of this list again.

> I know of dozens in my family - adult /
> not-yet-adult males, hundreds among the so called friends/acquaintances,
> thousands who call themselves brahmanas by their accent, look, stiff-lipped
> ness, madi and acharas etc. only but cannot even say one of the pancha
> suktas properly.
>

Perhaps if more in your family and friends circle talked about shastra and
sampradaya you wouldn't have this problem? However I fail to see why
this bears any relationship to the subject at hand.

In essence your argument is this. "It is wrong to judge the morality of
anothers action when we ourselves are not acting with moral perfection."
But this is nonsense. I am naturally left-handed. Some time ago I was
talking to my wife at dinner and absent-mindedly began eating with my left
hand. My son who is 7 years old noticed this and pointed it out. Should
he have waited until he became a chaturveda ghanapathi to tell me? Should
I have been offended that an impertinent child dared to criticise me who
knows magnitudes more about dharma than him? No I apologized, corrected
my fault, and praised him for understanding the rules. This is how you
raise generations who will care about pronouncing suktas correctly.

> If the answer is a 'no', then it is time to seriously
> learn to be ashamed of ourselves...

What if the answer is yes? Then do we have your permission to point out
the obvious?

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012, Krunal Makwana wrote:

> Please accept my apologies for this out burst but I had to vent it out.
> Can't the members stop having a 'pop' at one and rather constructively
> dialogue whilst respecting each others points of view regardless if it does
> not fit into your belief framework?

Thanks for taking the time to remind us of something we should all try to
practice. But please understand that the issue here is that we who are
criticizing him think Stig/Shivashankara is wrong. We don't respect his
point of view. Now it may turn out there is more to this and we may be
barking up the wrong tree. Then I hope we are mature enough to apologize
and revise our opinions. But respect has to be earned because the point
of view in question, prima facie, is wrong.

>
> With all due respect Sri lalitAlAlitaH, who are you to question his Guru
> and how much he knows about shastra?

Because his Guru is apparently teaching nastikata. Now as I mentioned
before, I could be wrong. There may be some brilliant proof that will
turn my worldview on its ear. I wouldn't bet on it but the possibility
exists. Consider this analogy. You attend a lecture by a prize-winning
mathematician who says 2 + 2 = 5. You might but wonder "Hmm there must be
some reason why a mathematician of his calibre is saying this." But then
you would ask him "Excuse me sir, why are you saying 5 when it is 4" What
you would not do is say "Well he is a famous mathematician so who am I to
judge?" And should you ask and the response is "Shut up, I am a famous
mathematician. Don't question me." the answer would still be 4.

> Bhagavan Ramana Maharishi knew squat about shastra

Actually he knew quite a bit. He didn't talk about shastra which is
something else and not really relevant to the topic at hand.

> but wasn't he realised didn't he not know the science of
> advaita? Does the authenticity of being pure have to be stamped by your
> pure self before we accept them as authoritive.
>

But we are not talking about the science of Advaita but upanayana which is
part of karmakanda. This is what makes the whole situation so bizarre.
It is totally unnecessary. There are plenty of people who never had janoi
who are considered jnanis even by the most orthodox so one wonders what
kind of guru thinks it is required.

> Shankara entered into a women's body to experience the science of love, he
> performed the final rites of his mother. Will you class these actioned
> tainted with kAma?

Yes. The ulterior motive was victory in a crucial debate but the action
was what it was.

> If so your fundamental belief system in advaita is
> rocked to the core as the very person you rest on is flawed.

No that particular body was flawed. Advaita fundamentally teaches me that
the person is not the body! Upanayana and other duties of varna and
ashrama are actions related to a body. This is why sannyasis in the
Advaita tradition break their janois and cut off their shikhas. They give
up all the rites like sandhya even if they have meticulously followed them
from childhood.

So again I ask, what is the point of this exercise?

> Even Adi Shankara wasn't stupid to follow the scriptures and law
> blindly. He used his intelligence and heart to make decisions, though he
> venerated and followed the vedic texts diligently he was not afraid to
> divert where he thought necessary and we should learn from that too.
>

Shankaracharya himself denies this stating repeatedly that only
sampradayavids should be followed on dharmic matters. The other example
you gave does not show any deviation either. He did not willy-nilly
decide to perform his mothers shraddha. It was to uphold a promise made
to her _before_ he took sannyasa.


>
>
> I apologise again in advance, but where does this madness end? You are now
> questioning the actions of an AcArya, what qualifications do you hold to
> question and disrespect the actions of a present AcArya who himself is the
> embodiment of Adi saMkara, who I mentioned earlier violated rules in his
> time.

Weren't you a rather trenchant critic of Satya Sai Baba? He was the
spiritual guide of many thousands, including, God help them, people who
thought he was an authority on Advaita Vedanta. Despite this you found
his particular violations of rules worthy of note without stopping to
consider your qualification did you not? (I for one think you were right
to do so.)

> Though I agree Vedic dharma fundamentally has to be intact including that
> of the advaitic position, we have to move with the times, even we have to
> admit the Vedic dharmic practices we follow now is not what was practiced
> during the time saMkara let alone bhagavAna kR^iSNa!

The issue at hand is upanayana and the rules are well known and
practically applicable in our times.

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012, Kathirasan K wrote:

> While I do not disagree with your distinction between traditionalists and
> the reformists, I beg to differ in the choice of words used based on the
> characteristics you have mentioned for each of them. I would say that
the
> traditionalists you are talking are more the 'conservatives' while the
> reformists are 'evolutionaries'.
>

Those are rather tendentious definitions. For instance I prefer to use
the power of computers and the Internet for the propogation of Dharma
rather than palm leaf manuscripts. doesn't that make me a conservative
evolutionary? Rather I would say a traditionalist avoids change when he
can but if must change insists that it is in a way that doesn't do
violence to the ways of the past. A reformist is one who wants to make
dharma into something else (however "something else" is defined.)


> I personally resonate with the evolutionaries who are endowed with the
> 'sukshma buddhi' to bring about a change in the social fabric of the
> vaidikas or Hindus. I would illustrate the evolution of Hinduism from
> allowing a polygamous marriage to a monogamous one as also part of the
> evolution I am talking about.

This is a case in point. The drive against polygamy was the obsession of
Victorian prudes who wanted to look good for their colonial masters not
some internal sea change in Hindu dharma. The current laws have driven
the practice underground but there are many Hindu polygamists out there,
the same types who were polygamists centuries ago. In fact I know of a
Gujarati Rajput man in America who has two wives.

--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar-***@public.gmane.org>
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org

[ravi chandrasekhara]

Dear All,

There was a situation in our local temple (DFW Hindu Temple) in which was chanted out loud in the childrens' religion class. The children included those of Dvija Jaathis (Those who had Upanayana and those who have not undergone Upanayana yet), Non-Dvija jaathis, and females. I protested against this as #1 should not be chanted aloud and #2there are those without adhikara to Gayatri Mantra. I asked Jaldhar Vyas for refereneces and provided via email. (1,2,3 below  are from Jaldhar)

1.The Gayatri is a vedokta mantra and the same rules apply as for any other mantra.  So I don't think you will find any quotes specifically dealing with adhikara for Gayatri.  But adhikara for Veda mantras in general is clearly restricted to Brahmana, Kshatriya, and Vaishyas only.
See brahmasutra 1.3.34-38.  Shankaracharya, Ramanuja, Madhva
and Vallabha all agree that it is only the traivarnikas who are entitled to learn Vedas.  (English translation of Shankaracharyas bhashya at:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe34/sbe34103.htm onwards, Ramanujas bhashya at http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe48/sbe48131.htm onwards.)


2.Among them, only the men may learn Vedas.  This is shown in Shruti itself which consistently uses the masculine pronoun.  See Shatapatha Brahmana 11 5.4  (English translation at:http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe44/sbe44028.htm) This passage also shows that the principal rite of upanayana is Gayatri mantra diksha.


3.Yagnavalka Smriti lists age from conception based on birth in the trivarnika jaathis, when the son should undergo Upanayana.

4.There is no provision for Shudras and those outside of Chatur Varnas.

5.We know varna is by birth based on Manu Smriti, Vaidyanatha Dixitam quoting Devala Smriti, Gita and the commentaries of Shankaracharya, Madhvacharya, and Ramanujacharya, etc. Smritis and Puraanas list those outside of Chatur Varna.

6.Although due to change in times, materialism, economic circumstances, etc that people born into their varnas may not follow their svadharma exactly/minimally/etc; in general we know which jaathis belong to which varna based on family history which is also corroborated in books, etc (Thurston's Caste and Tribes of South India, Bhattacharya's Hindu Castes and Sects, and some references in Hindu Dharma at www.kamakoti.org)

7.Kanchi Paramacharya in his bbook: Hindu Dharma states that if 3 generations have passed without chanting of Gayatri/Upanayana; then subsequent generations in that family cannot undergo Upanayana.

8.I also read on a Madhva site, that if one parent is a Dvija, and another a Shudra; then the sons have no adhikara for Upanayana.

9.Based on the above; those of non-Hindu/Dvija origin do not have adhikara for Upanayana.

10.  I read in Sanatana Dharma and Hindutva by AH Srinivas that quotes Pooratapani Upanishad and Adi Shankara's commentary on it; that is detrimental for those without adhikara to undergo Upanayana/chant Gayatri.

Ravi Chandrasekhara

[Gopal]

Namaste.

Here goes our sanathana dharma protectors talking about sastras-sampradayas
in saying who has adhikara or who is not.

I know Sri Shivashanker by email, got to know his eagerness and dedication
in learning veda mantras through skype middle of the night from Sweden
after having searching for a so-called "ISO9000-certified" brahmanas who
knows enough to teach him. I know of dozens in my family - adult /
not-yet-adult males, hundreds among the so called friends/acquaintances,
thousands who call themselves brahmanas by their accent, look, stiff-lipped
ness, madi and acharas etc. only but cannot even say one of the pancha
suktas properly.

Forget about paying it later in another life and another place: we do not
say, " I do not pay tax this year, let it be taken care of in my next
life". When it bites us in the wrong place, we care. When it goes to an
invisible karma account, we wipe our hands at the back and move on for the
next entertainment or TV soap or even to pitch-in for the never-ending
online game like "did our rishis know of gravity before they "saw" RV ninth
mandala suktas?"

Let us stop taking the scale and judging others. Even if we do not want to
take one step forward necessary for veda rakshana, before making judgements
assuming we are rishiputra-s or rishi -poutra-s, we should get a bathroom
mirror, look at ourselves eye-to-eye and ask the question: " what adhikara
i have (not my father, not my grandfather but just me) to pass on these
judgements?"

As we are very close to Vivekananda's mahasamadhi day and just passed swami
chinmayananda's jayanthi day, let us pause and ask this question comparing
ourselves with them: "These are two hindus with no adhikara to recite,
study and practice vaideeka at par with brahmanas of their times ( my
grandfathers included ;-)), but have I done more than either of these
mahapurushas to the rakshana and proper stationing of sanathana dharma in
the world arena? ". If the answer is a 'no', then it is time to seriously
learn to be ashamed of ourselves...

-gopal



On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 12:34 PM, ravi chandrasekhara <vadhula-/***@public.gmane.org>wrote:

> It is wonderful to hear, but per shastras he has no adhikara for Upanayna
> and sandhya-vandana. There is alternative Sandhya method for those who do
> not have adhikara. Dvijas who default on their duties on the other hand
> will hav eto answer/pay for it later.
>
> Ravi Chandrasekhara
>
>
>

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <http://www.lalitaalaalitah.com/>
lalitAlAlitaH <http://dooid.com/lalitaalaalitah>*



On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Gopal <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> Here goes our sanathana dharma protectors talking about sastras-sampradayas
> in saying who has adhikara or who is not.
>

Whatever you say is about certain people and their qualities. We are
talking irrespective of people and their inclinations. We are talking about
rules with firm bases.
Everyone is free to do according to wish. We can't stop them. And
definitely we are not writing for that purpose. We are just checking that
whether the person converting hindu is doing that according to shAstra-s or
not. If not why is he doing that ? Will he be benefited by doing karma and
upAsanA according to shAstra-s ? Has he faith in shAstras or not ? If yes,
why isn't he accepting that conversion is not applicable ? If he has no
faith in shAstra-s, then why is he converting to hindu ? And why is he
following rules laid by a less-knowing person ? Was the person who made or
suggested a new system able to view alaukika-things ? If not, why he did
that ? etc.
These questions go against every samAja-sudhAraka, including vivekAnanda,
dayAnanda, chinmayAnanda, etc.
So, better accept that they are forming a new stream which is not so much
based on shAstra-s. They follow shAstra-s as long as they wish and part of
rules and system laid by them is based on free will.
Then just leave the talk after knowing differences. That's it.
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assis

[S L Shivashankar]

2012/6/26 श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <***@lalitaalaalitah.com>

> *श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <http://www.lalitaalaalitah.com/>
> lalitAlAlitaH <http://dooid.com/lalitaalaalitah>*
>

Everyone is free to do according to wish. We can't stop them. And
> definitely we are not writing for that purpose. We are just checking that
> whether the person converting hindu is doing that according to shAstra-s or
> not.



I don´t know if "the person" is referring to me specifically. In any case,
I would like to comment upon what you have written.



> If not why is he doing that ? Will he be benefited by doing karma and
> upAsanA according to shAstra-s ?



Apparently my guru thinks so, obviously holding a different view from
yours.




> Has he faith in shAstras or not ?
>
If yes,
> why isn't he accepting that conversion is not applicable ?




Quite obviously there are many people from very traditional backgrounds who
differs from your view, and who are willing to make an exception and adopt
into the hindu fold, giving upanayanam etc. people like me. This is not the
"standard procedure" or the common way to do it, that´s for sure, but such
adoptions are done as an "exception from the rule". I now of several such
cases. I´m not the only one.




> I And why is he
> following rules laid by a less-knowing person ?



I can assure you he´s not a "less-knowing person", unless your definition
of such a person is someone who happens to disagree with your own
interpretations :-)



> These questions go against every samAja-sudhAraka, including vivekAnanda,
> dayAnanda, chinmayAnanda, etc.
>


I´m not a disciple of Swami Dayananda, Swami Chinmayananda or any of their
disciples, although I respect them very much and have read several of their
books. Talking about Swami Dayananda, did you know that he recently got
the Adi Shankara Award from Sringeri Jagadguru HH Bharati Tirtha Swamigal?
Do you think that Dayananda would have got such an award if the Jagadguru
and the Sringeri Matha thought that Dayananda and his disciples where
heavily violating dharma? Please keep in mind that at Arsha Vidya Gurukulam
there are many Westerners, and upanayanam is given also to some Western
students, for instance the brilliant scholar Dr Michael Comans
(Vasudevacharya), author of several books on vedanta. It is a well-known
fact that Swami Dayananda has a very "liberal" attitude on caste-issues,
and there´s no chance that the Sringeri Jagadguru and the Matha doesn´t
know about this. The spreading of vedanta, veda and hindu values among
people also outside the traditional brahmana group is one of the hallmarks
of Swami Dayananda and Arsha Vidya Gurukulam. Nevertheless, he is given the
Adi Shankara Award. Does this mean that the Sringeri Jagadguru is a
"less-knowing person" according to you, or does it mean that the Jagadguru
does not consider Swami Dayananda a violator of hindu dharma?

Warmest regards
Shivashankar
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster@

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <http://www.lalitaalaalitah.com/>
lalitAlAlitaH <http://dooid.com/lalitaalaalitah>*



On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 2:09 AM, S L Shivashankar
<***@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> Everyone is free to do according to wish. We can't stop them. And
> > definitely we are not writing for that purpose. We are just checking that
> > whether the person converting hindu is doing that according to shAstra-s
> or
> > not.
>
> I don´t know if "the person" is referring to me specifically. In any case,
> I would like to comment upon what you have written.
>

Person is not S L Shivashankar. He is anyone who wants to convert hindu. It
was declared already.
As you already converted, you are not being talked here. Because my
questions are for a person who has not yet converted and wants to know
everything about conversion and it's validity, etc.


> > If not why is he doing that ? Will he be benefited by doing karma and
> > upAsanA according to shAstra-s ?
>
> Apparently my guru thinks
>

Faith on a person. OK.
But, how to check that he knows enough about shAstra-s and is pure enough
to stand steadfast in truth ?
Just one way, study yourself and check.


> > Has he faith in shAstras or not ?
> >
> If yes,
> > why isn't he accepting that conversion is not applicable ?
>
> Quite obviously there are many people from very traditional backgrounds who
> differs from your view, and who are willing to make an exception


OK. The making of exception is based on wish of those person. We don't
consider this base enough.


> > I And why is he
> > following rules laid by a less-knowing person ?
>
> I can assure you he´s not a "less-knowing person", unless your definition
> of such a person is someone who happens to disagree with your own
> interpretations :-)
>

My definition is not based on faith on a person. Knowing enough shAstra-s,
including mImAMsA is the standard with qualities like truthfulness, lack of
greed, etc.
According to sha~Nkara and others the injunctions of shAstra-s are left
away and opposed views are followed only when one is tainted with kAma,
which expresses itself in many ways.


> > These questions go against every samAja-sudhAraka, including
> vivekAnanda,
> > dayAnanda, chinmayAnanda, etc.
>

dayAnanda = AryasamAja's establisher.
But, including AVG's dayAnanda is also not barred.
He is also doing something like reformation of vaidika-s.


> Swami Dayananda, did you know that he recently got
> the Adi Shankara Award from Sringeri Jagadguru HH Bharati Tirtha Swamigal?
>

I know. Some prize from some organization can't prove someone valid for all
his moves. Award was specific for specific work.


> Do you think that Dayananda would have got such an award if the Jagadguru
> and the Sringeri Matha thought that Dayananda and his disciples where
> heavily violating dharma?


It is now a custom to ignore violations of shAstra-s by insiders of
hinduism, because in a way or other they are helping hindu community,
either by teaching world about us or by bringing money, etc.
Checking violators is now a dangerous thing and in many ways impractical.
It needs enough courage too.


> Please keep in mind that at Arsha Vidya Gurukulam
> there are many Westerners, and upanayanam is given also to some Western
> students, for instance the brilliant scholar Dr Michael Comans
> (Vasudevacharya), author of several books on vedanta.


AVG is not an authority on dharmashAstra-s. It's moves reflect it's own
rules and observations which are not necessarily based on scriptures.


> It is a well-known
> fact that Swami Dayananda has a very "liberal" attitude on caste-issues,
>

That liberal attitude makes him outsider for vaidika-s.


> and there´s no chance that the Sringeri Jagadguru and the Matha doesn´t
> know about this. The spreading of vedanta, veda and hindu values among
> people also outside the traditional brahmana group is one of the hallmarks
> of Swami Dayananda and Arsha Vidya Gurukulam.


This is what we appreciate, spreading good things. Nothing more.


> Nevertheless, he is given the
> Adi Shankara Award. Does this mean that the Sringeri Jagadguru is a
> "less-knowing person" according to you, or does it mean that the Jagadguru
> does not consider Swami Dayananda a violator of hindu dharma?
>

He may be contacted for clarification.
Unlike others, we don't believe a person because he is chief of an
organization. We didn't hesitate to refute buddha, so will we oppose
everything which is not valid according to shAstra-s.

Anyway, I don't want to hurt your feelings. Please keep going with respect
for whatever you are doing. Take everything I said as impractical and
academic.
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
***@advaita-vedanta.org

[Krunal Makwana]

Jai Sri Krsna

Namaste All,

I have been a silent spectator on this advaita list now for quite a few
years and have gained much via the words of the learned scholars which I am
ever indebted for. However for the last few months the tone and replies of
many members is baffling and rude to the point of common courtesy being
non-existent, but my respect to the moderators for tolerating such
behaviour and allowing looping arguments to continue in the wish for a
positive out put (though the wish is left in vain :-) ).

Please accept my apologies for this out burst but I had to vent it out.
Can't the members stop having a 'pop' at one and rather constructively
dialogue whilst respecting each others points of view regardless if it does
not fit into your belief framework?

On 26 June 2012 23:15, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <
***@lalitaalaalitah.com> wrote:

> *श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <http://www.lalitaalaalitah.com/>
> lalitAlAlitaH <http://dooid.com/lalitaalaalitah>*
>
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 2:09 AM, S L Shivashankar
> <***@gmail.com>wrote:



> > Apparently my guru thinks
>
>
Faith on a person. OK.
> But, how to check that he knows enough about shAstra-s and is pure enough
> to stand steadfast in truth ?
> Just one way, study yourself and check.
>

With all due respect Sri lalitAlAlitaH, who are you to question his Guru
and how much he knows about shastra? Bhagavan Ramana Maharishi knew squat
about shastra but wasn't he realised didn't he not know the science of
advaita? Does the authenticity of being pure have to be stamped by your
pure self before we accept them as authoritive.


> According to sha~Nkara and others the injunctions of shAstra-s are left
> away and opposed views are followed only when one is tainted with kAma,
> which expresses itself in many ways.
>

Shankara entered into a women's body to experience the science of love, he
performed the final rites of his mother. Will you class these actioned
tainted with kAma? If so your fundamental belief system in advaita is
rocked to the core as the very person you rest on is flawed. Even Adi
Shankara wasn't stupid to follow the scriptures and law blindly. He used
his intelligence and heart to make decisions, though he venerated and
followed the vedic texts diligently he was not afraid to divert where he
thought necessary and we should learn from that too.


> > Do you think that Dayananda would have got such an award if the Jagadguru
> > and the Sringeri Matha thought that Dayananda and his disciples where
> > heavily violating dharma?
>
> It is now a custom to ignore violations of shAstra-s by insiders of
> hinduism, because in a way or other they are helping hindu community,
> either by teaching world about us or by bringing money, etc.
> Checking violators is now a dangerous thing and in many ways impractical.
> It needs enough courage too


I apologise again in advance, but where does this madness end? You are now
questioning the actions of an AcArya, what qualifications do you hold to
question and disrespect the actions of a present AcArya who himself is the
embodiment of Adi saMkara, who I mentioned earlier violated rules in his
time.

Anyway, I don't want to hurt your feelings. Please keep going with respect
> for whatever you are doing. Take everything I said as impractical and
> academic.


After a complete blow of the AcArya, establishing everything against your
views as funadmentally nAstika, belittling someones guru, you don't want to
hurt someones feelings, i frankly find it too late and insincere.

Though I agree Vedic dharma fundamentally has to be intact including that
of the advaitic position, we have to move with the times, even we have to
admit the Vedic dharmic practices we follow now is not what was practiced
during the time saMkara let alone bhagavAna kR^iSNa! We have to move with
the times using out heart and mind without the need of disrespecting
someone elses belief system.

Once again I am sincerely sorry for this rant but the old members of this
list will understand the reason for my post and (I hope) share my thoughts
on the tone and direction of the recent posts.

Please show courtesy, respect, humility and prem when posting or replying
to posts. It's just a shame that we as people with belief in one true
AcArya and his directions of this divine path can't sometimes practice the
mere basics.

AcArya devo bhavaH | prema devo bhavaH

--
Kind regards,

Krunal
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, cont

[Krunal Makwana]

Jai Sri Krsna

Namaste all,

I meant saMkara entering another males body - my apologies :-)

Krunal

Sent from my iPhone

On 27 Jun 2012, at 00:28, Krunal Makwana <***@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Jai Sri Krsna
>
> Namaste All,
>
> I have been a silent spectator on this advaita list now for quite a few years and have gained much via the words of the learned scholars which I am ever indebted for. However for the last few months the tone and replies of many members is baffling and rude to the point of common courtesy being non-existent, but my respect to the moderators for tolerating such behaviour and allowing looping arguments to continue in the wish for a positive out put (though the wish is left in vain :-) ).
>
> Please accept my apologies for this out burst but I had to vent it out. Can't the members stop having a 'pop' at one and rather constructively dialogue whilst respecting each others points of view regardless if it does not fit into your belief framework?
>
> On 26 June 2012 23:15, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <***@lalitaalaalitah.com> wrote:
> *श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <http://www.lalitaalaalitah.com/>
> lalitAlAlitaH <http://dooid.com/lalitaalaalitah>*
>
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 2:09 AM, S L Shivashankar
> <***@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > Apparently my guru thinks
>
> Faith on a person. OK.
> But, how to check that he knows enough about shAstra-s and is pure enough
> to stand steadfast in truth ?
> Just one way, study yourself and check.
>
> With all due respect Sri lalitAlAlitaH, who are you to question his Guru and how much he knows about shastra? Bhagavan Ramana Maharishi knew squat about shastra but wasn't he realised didn't he not know the science of advaita? Does the authenticity of being pure have to be stamped by your pure self before we accept them as authoritive.
>
> According to sha~Nkara and others the injunctions of shAstra-s are left
> away and opposed views are followed only when one is tainted with kAma,
> which expresses itself in many ways.
>
> Shankara entered into a women's body to experience the science of love, he performed the final rites of his mother. Will you class these actioned tainted with kAma? If so your fundamental belief system in advaita is rocked to the core as the very person you rest on is flawed. Even Adi Shankara wasn't stupid to follow the scriptures and law blindly. He used his intelligence and heart to make decisions, though he venerated and followed the vedic texts diligently he was not afraid to divert where he thought necessary and we should learn from that too.
>
> > Do you think that Dayananda would have got such an award if the Jagadguru
> > and the Sringeri Matha thought that Dayananda and his disciples where
> > heavily violating dharma?
>
> It is now a custom to ignore violations of shAstra-s by insiders of
> hinduism, because in a way or other they are helping hindu community,
> either by teaching world about us or by bringing money, etc.
> Checking violators is now a dangerous thing and in many ways impractical.
> It needs enough courage too
>
> I apologise again in advance, but where does this madness end? You are now questioning the actions of an AcArya, what qualifications do you hold to question and disrespect the actions of a present AcArya who himself is the embodiment of Adi saMkara, who I mentioned earlier violated rules in his time.
>
> Anyway, I don't want to hurt your feelings. Please keep going with respect
> for whatever you are doing. Take everything I said as impractical and
> academic.
>
> After a complete blow of the AcArya, establishing everything against your views as funadmentally nAstika, belittling someones guru, you don't want to hurt someones feelings, i frankly find it too late and insincere.
>
> Though I agree Vedic dharma fundamentally has to be intact including that of the advaitic position, we have to move with the times, even we have to admit the Vedic dharmic practices we follow now is not what was practiced during the time saMkara let alone bhagavAna kR^iSNa! We have to move with the times using out heart and mind without the need of disrespecting someone elses belief system.
>
> Once again I am sincerely sorry for this rant but the old members of this list will understand the reason for my post and (I hope) share my thoughts on the tone and direction of the recent posts.
>
> Please show courtesy, respect, humility and prem when posting or replying to posts. It's just a shame that we as people with belief in one true AcArya and his directions of this divine path can't sometimes practice the mere basics.
>
> AcArya devo bhavaH | prema devo bhavaH
>
> --
> Kind regards,
>
> Krunal
>
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
***@adv

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <http://www.lalitaalaalitah.com/>
lalitAlAlitaH <http://dooid.com/lalitaalaalitah>*



On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 4:58 AM, Krunal Makwana <***@googlemail.com>wrote:

>
> With all due respect Sri lalitAlAlitaH, who are you to question his Guru
> and how much he knows about shastra? Bhagavan Ramana Maharishi knew squat
> about shastra but wasn't he realised didn't he not know the science of
> advaita?


So are you going to preach not to learn shAstra-s to have advaita-GYAna ?
Again, what is opposed is conversion and deciding varNa on base of wish.
Nothing more.


> Does the authenticity of being pure have to be stamped by your
> pure self before we accept them as authoritive.
>

Purity is not the single thing which I asked for. It is enough knowledge
of scriptures.
How could a person who doesn't know about a system through scriptures can
decide anything for people's varNa, etc. ?


> > According to sha~Nkara and others the injunctions of shAstra-s are left
> > away and opposed views are followed only when one is tainted with kAma,
> > which expresses itself in many ways.
>
> Shankara entered into a women's body to experience the science of love, he
> performed the final rites of his mother. Will you class these actioned
> tainted with kAma?


So, do you expect all saMnyAsin-s to follow that ? sha~Nkara is no greater
than veda-s and dharma-shAstra-s. What he did was his decision. If his
followers can support that, let them do so according to shAstra-s. If they
can't, why do you expect from me to accept that as a general rule ?


> If so your fundamental belief system in advaita is
> rocked to the core as the very person you rest on is flawed.
>

Read again my posts. I'm not believer of a person, including sha~Nkara. I'm
faithful to scriptures and it's explanations which are without errors.


> Even Adi
> Shankara wasn't stupid to follow the scriptures and law blindly. He used
> his intelligence and heart to make decisions, though he venerated and
> followed the vedic texts diligently he was not afraid to divert where he
> thought necessary and we should learn from that too.
>

Here we differ. We hold that he took decisions according to shAstra-s.
Whatever was not in accordance with shAstra-s is not respected by me. So
say our AchArya-s :

यान्यनवद्यानि कर्माणि । तानि सेवितव्यानि । नो इतराणि । यान्यस्माकं
सुचरितानि । तानि त्वयोपास्यानि ।। नो इतराणि ।



> > It is now a custom to ignore violations of shAstra-s by insiders of
> > hinduism, because in a way or other they are helping hindu community,
> > either by teaching world about us or by bringing money, etc.
> > Checking violators is now a dangerous thing and in many ways impractical.
> > It needs enough courage too
>
> I apologise again in advance, but where does this madness end?


Revealing reality is quite painful for many. But, closing eyes is not a
remedy.


> You are now
> questioning the actions of an AcArya, what qualifications do you hold to
> question and disrespect the actions of a present AcArya who himself is the
> embodiment of Adi saMkara, who I mentioned earlier violated rules in his
> time.
>

Leave talks about my qualifications. Just try to test validity of my
statements.
Because if I start asking for the same in reply, talk will never be able to
run.


> After a complete blow of the AcArya, establishing everything against your
> views as funadmentally nAstika,

belittling someones guru, you don't want to
> hurt someones feelings, i frankly find it too late and insincere.
>

Actually, I didn't invite him to get hurt. I was not talking about specific
person. But, he took my words for himself.

Though I agree Vedic dharma fundamentally has to be intact including that
> of the advaitic position, we have to move with the times,


Get out of your confusion. You say intact and then suggest improvements !!
What is this ?
Either accept as it is or leave the whole ? There is no half egg- half hen.
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

F

[S L Shivashankar]

Dear Lalitalalitah,
Pranams,



>
> > Apparently my guru thinks
> >
>
> Faith on a person. OK.
> But, how to check that he knows enough about shAstra-s and is pure enough
> to stand steadfast in truth ?
> Just one way, study yourself and check.
>



While studying and checking is certainly advisable, what´s wrong following
one´s gurus views on issues like this? After all, the guru is the link
between oneself and the shastras. The shastras are to be studied with the
help of the guru. One has to cultivate shradda towards the shastras and the
guru as the upholder and teacher of shastras.

And how to check whether the guru "knows enough about shAstra-s and is pure
enough to stand steadfast in truth"? I guess this is a problem we all have
to encounter, regardless of sampradaya or background. The inner qualities
mentioned in Bhagavadgita chapter XIII are qualities that should be present
in one´s guru.




> Knowing enough shAstra-s,
> including mImAMsA is the standard with qualities like truthfulness, lack of
> greed, etc.
>


Fine. I completely agree with you here.



> According to sha~Nkara and others the injunctions of shAstra-s are left
> away and opposed views are followed only when one is tainted with kAma,
> which expresses itself in many ways.
>


KAma certainly leads the judgement astray and hence distort the
interpretation of shastras, that´s true. But should we really make claims
that opinions different from our own are due to kAma, while our own
interpretations are free from such defects? There´s always an element of
preconceptions and views coloured by time and context, also when trying to
understand such things as dharma shastras. If not, why do traditional
pandits end up with different interpretations? Who to decide who´s
interpretation is a complete and fully objective reflection of what the
shastras really says? Of course, a kAma-free interpretation (as far as that
is possible) should be strived for.




>
> > Do you think that Dayananda would have got such an award if the Jagadguru
> > and the Sringeri Matha thought that Dayananda and his disciples where
> > heavily violating dharma?
>
>
> It is now a custom to ignore violations of shAstra-s by insiders of
> hinduism, because in a way or other they are helping hindu community,
> either by teaching world about us or by bringing money, etc.
> Checking violators is now a dangerous thing and in many ways impractical.
> It needs enough courage too.
>


Does this imply that you may consider the Sringeri Jagadguru and the
Sringeri Matha such "insiders" who "ignore violations of ShAstra-s"?



>
>
> Anyway, I don't want to hurt your feelings. Please keep going with respect
> for whatever you are doing. Take everything I said as impractical and
> academic.
>



No problems. I don´t feel hurt. Thank you for taking your time responding
to my postings.


Warmest regards
Shivashankar

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

First of all thank you for a balanced reply.
Read further .... below....
*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <http://www.lalitaalaalitah.com/>
lalitAlAlitaH <http://dooid.com/lalitaalaalitah>*



On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 7:19 AM, S L Shivashankar
<***@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> And how to check whether the guru "knows enough about shAstra-s and is pure
> enough to stand steadfast in truth"? I guess this is a problem we all have
> to encounter, regardless of sampradaya or background. The inner qualities
> mentioned in Bhagavadgita chapter XIII are qualities that should be present
> in one´s guru.
>

You have correctly pointed this. That's why, because of this specific
limitation of people, I said that you must follow whatever you are doing
with faith and respect.
While doing this, I also advised to study more to know more to be clear in
future interactions.


> KAma certainly leads the judgement astray and hence distort the
> interpretation of shastras, that´s true. But should we really make claims
> that opinions different from our own are due to kAma, while our own
> interpretations are free from such defects?


That depends on study of scriptures and truthfulness of aspirant. Sticking
to scriptures in maximum extent is advisable to know these things.
On personal level, it all depends on you and your studies, etc.
You have right to put your view while giving chance to traditionals at the
same time. Then start thinking.


> There´s always an element of
> preconceptions and views coloured by time and context, also when trying to
> understand such things as dharma shastras. If not, why do traditional
> pandits end up with different interpretations?


Actually, vaidika-s, i.e. sanAtanI-s, hold that birth determines jAti. And
those who have specific jAti are allowed to get upanayana, gAyatrI and veda
at specific time. So, I don't see anything for outsiders in traditional
view.
In view of reformists, who are mixing their wish, karma determines it. And
in that way you are allowed to take these. These are non-traditionals.
So, traditionals have no difference on these issues.

Who to decide who´s
> interpretation is a complete and fully objective reflection of what the
> shastras really says?


You.
Because it's you life and you will be affected by it.
And we traditionalist decide it for you and us to save you and us from
going away from scriptures.


> Of course, a kAma-free interpretation (as far as that
> is possible) should be strived for.
>

This is not enough. Proper study is needed very much.


> > > Do you think that Dayananda would have got such an award if the
> Jagadguru
> > > and the Sringeri Matha thought that Dayananda and his disciples where
> > > heavily violating dharma?
> >
> >
> > It is now a custom to ignore violations of shAstra-s by insiders of
> > hinduism, because in a way or other they are helping hindu community,
> > either by teaching world about us or by bringing money, etc.
> > Checking violators is now a dangerous thing and in many ways impractical.
> > It needs enough courage too.
> >
>
>
> Does this imply that you may consider the Sringeri Jagadguru and the
> Sringeri Matha such "insiders" who "ignore violations of ShAstra-s"?
>

It means many things.
First, they are not approving every thing of dayAnanda. So, they are not
erring.
Secondly, they are not keeping away from such people. So, they are
supporting wrong people in a way.
Both way it goes.


Once my friend told me that merely refraining from doing bad is not enough.
You must keep away from bad people too. Otherwise, you are supporting bad
people and hence deceiving those who are observing you to follow. Great
People have bigger responsibility.
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For

[Kathirasan K]

Namaste Lalitalalitaji,

While I do not disagree with your distinction between traditionalists and
the reformists, I beg to differ in the choice of words used based on the
characteristics you have mentioned for each of them. I would say that the
traditionalists you are talking are more the 'conservatives' while the
reformists are 'evolutionaries'.

Personally, I wish that these conservatives don't pick and choose what
suits their cause and leave out scriptural injunctions that they themselves
do not follow. This is also hypocrisy in one form. One good example will be
the few 'conservative' sannyasis of today who despite knowing the rules of
sannyasa, don't wish to follow it to the letter. But they would be quick to
point out how everyone else is not following scriptural injunctions.

I personally resonate with the evolutionaries who are endowed with the
'sukshma buddhi' to bring about a change in the social fabric of the
vaidikas or Hindus. I would illustrate the evolution of Hinduism from
allowing a polygamous marriage to a monogamous one as also part of the
evolution I am talking about.

Kathirasan

On 27 June 2012 13:35, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <
***@lalitaalaalitah.com> wrote:

> First of all thank you for a balanced reply.
> Read further .... below....
> *श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <http://www.lalitaalaalitah.com/>
> lalitAlAlitaH <http://dooid.com/lalitaalaalitah>*
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 7:19 AM, S L Shivashankar
> <***@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >
> > And how to check whether the guru "knows enough about shAstra-s and is
> pure
> > enough to stand steadfast in truth"? I guess this is a problem we all
> have
> > to encounter, regardless of sampradaya or background. The inner qualities
> > mentioned in Bhagavadgita chapter XIII are qualities that should be
> present
> > in one´s guru.
> >
>
> You have correctly pointed this. That's why, because of this specific
> limitation of people, I said that you must follow whatever you are doing
> with faith and respect.
> While doing this, I also advised to study more to know more to be clear in
> future interactions.
>
>
> > KAma certainly leads the judgement astray and hence distort the
> > interpretation of shastras, that´s true. But should we really make claims
> > that opinions different from our own are due to kAma, while our own
> > interpretations are free from such defects?
>
>
> That depends on study of scriptures and truthfulness of aspirant. Sticking
> to scriptures in maximum extent is advisable to know these things.
> On personal level, it all depends on you and your studies, etc.
> You have right to put your view while giving chance to traditionals at the
> same time. Then start thinking.
>
>
> > There´s always an element of
> > preconceptions and views coloured by time and context, also when trying
> to
> > understand such things as dharma shastras. If not, why do traditional
> > pandits end up with different interpretations?
>
>
> Actually, vaidika-s, i.e. sanAtanI-s, hold that birth determines jAti. And
> those who have specific jAti are allowed to get upanayana, gAyatrI and veda
> at specific time. So, I don't see anything for outsiders in traditional
> view.
> In view of reformists, who are mixing their wish, karma determines it. And
> in that way you are allowed to take these. These are non-traditionals.
> So, traditionals have no difference on these issues.
>
> Who to decide who´s
> > interpretation is a complete and fully objective reflection of what the
> > shastras really says?
>
>
> You.
> Because it's you life and you will be affected by it.
> And we traditionalist decide it for you and us to save you and us from
> going away from scriptures.
>
>
> > Of course, a kAma-free interpretation (as far as that
> > is possible) should be strived for.
> >
>
> This is not enough. Proper study is needed very much.
>
>
> > > > Do you think that Dayananda would have got such an award if the
> > Jagadguru
> > > > and the Sringeri Matha thought that Dayananda and his disciples where
> > > > heavily violating dharma?
> > >
> > >
> > > It is now a custom to ignore violations of shAstra-s by insiders of
> > > hinduism, because in a way or other they are helping hindu community,
> > > either by teaching world about us or by bringing money, etc.
> > > Checking violators is now a dangerous thing and in many ways
> impractical.
> > > It needs enough courage too.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Does this imply that you may consider the Sringeri Jagadguru and the
> > Sringeri Matha such "insiders" who "ignore violations of ShAstra-s"?
> >
>
> It means many things.
> First, they are not approving every thing of dayAnanda. So, they are not
> erring.
> Secondly, they are not keeping away from such people. So, they are
> supporting wrong people in a way.
> Both way it goes.
>
>
> Once my friend told me that merely refraining from doing bad is not enough.
> You must keep away from bad people too. Otherwise, you are supporting bad
> people and hence deceiving those who are observing you to follow. Great
> People have bigger responsibility.
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> ***@advaita-vedanta.org
>
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

F

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <http://www.lalitaalaalitah.com/>
lalitAlAlitaH <http://dooid.com/lalitaalaalitah>*



On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Kathirasan K <***@gmail.com>wrote:

> Personally, I wish that these conservatives don't pick and choose what
> suits their cause and leave out scriptural injunctions that they themselves
> do not follow. This is also hypocrisy in one form. One good example will be
> the few 'conservative' sannyasis of today who despite knowing the rules of
> sannyasa, don't wish to follow it to the letter. But they would be quick to
> point out how everyone else is not following scriptural injunctions.
>

You are correct in pointing hypocrisy.
But if a person knowing scriptures is allowed only when he fully follows
the read things, then I don't think you can bring anyone in front of me to
tell anything about scriptures as it is very easy to find faults in people.
So, the practical way is that those who have studied enough tell things to
others, irrespective of their own ability to follow the studied things.
This is what you all do. We all do. You don't and can't do everything you
read. That's limitation of ability. But, a person who has limited ability
to follow scriptures may have unlimited capacity of study and decide things
related to scriptures. Both are different things and depend on different
qualities. So, in that case following such person is needed very much.
Another thing, truth is truth even if it is told by a person who is not
behaving according to it. Fire will not leave you unburned if you don't put
faith on words of a man who is not following scriptures in every way.
So, it is for better of all to follow scriptures, irrespective of other
people. Don't depend on other people's behavior to determine truth. You
will suffer more than them most probably.
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
***@adv

[Kathirasan K]

Interestingly your response was one of the most 'non-traditional' responses
I have ever encountered in years. :)

On 27 June 2012 14:26, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <
***@lalitaalaalitah.com> wrote:

> *श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <http://www.lalitaalaalitah.com/>
> lalitAlAlitaH <http://dooid.com/lalitaalaalitah>*
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Kathirasan K <***@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Personally, I wish that these conservatives don't pick and choose what
> > suits their cause and leave out scriptural injunctions that they
> themselves
> > do not follow. This is also hypocrisy in one form. One good example will
> be
> > the few 'conservative' sannyasis of today who despite knowing the rules
> of
> > sannyasa, don't wish to follow it to the letter. But they would be quick
> to
> > point out how everyone else is not following scriptural injunctions.
> >
>
> You are correct in pointing hypocrisy.
> But if a person knowing scriptures is allowed only when he fully follows
> the read things, then I don't think you can bring anyone in front of me to
> tell anything about scriptures as it is very easy to find faults in people.
> So, the practical way is that those who have studied enough tell things to
> others, irrespective of their own ability to follow the studied things.
> This is what you all do. We all do. You don't and can't do everything you
> read. That's limitation of ability. But, a person who has limited ability
> to follow scriptures may have unlimited capacity of study and decide things
> related to scriptures. Both are different things and depend on different
> qualities. So, in that case following such person is needed very much.
> Another thing, truth is truth even if it is told by a person who is not
> behaving according to it. Fire will not leave you unburned if you don't put
> faith on words of a man who is not following scriptures in every way.
> So, it is for better of all to follow scriptures, irrespective of other
> people. Don't depend on other people's behavior to determine truth. You
> will suffer more than them most probably.
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> ***@advaita-vedanta.org
>
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, co

[Gopal]

Dear Shri Lalitaalaalitah,

You have my Mother's name and my pranams to you starting from there.

I have benefited much from your blogs, postings in different lists and also
thru personal emails. Thanks.

I do not agree with you on some of the points mentioned in your mail.

>whether the person converting hindu is doing that according to shAstra-s
or not.

I believe the shastras or the interpretation of shastras by the tatkaleen
aachaaryas have not been
so fixed and rigorous as it is thought to be. (my statements below may be
applied here too)


>If not why is he doing that ? Will he be benefited by doing karma and
>upAsanA according to shAstra-s ? Has he faith in shAstras or not ? If yes,
> why isn't he accepting that conversion is not applicable ? If he has no
>faith in shAstra-s, then why is he converting to hindu ? And why is he
>following rules laid by a less-knowing person ? Was the person who made or
>suggested a new system able to view alaukika-things ? If not, why he did
>that ? etc.

If there had not been conversions (inter varna, inter- ethnicity)
officially accepted all along for the last 6000 years or so, there would
not have been any significant genetic differences among the brahmanas of
our Bharath varsha. This situation is very much unlike Ashkanezi Jews
genetics. There has been found no single genetic stock to call as
rishi-clan or brahmana-clan. Maybe among some gothra-s one could expect a
lesser degree of variations arising out of multi-stock lineages. How would
you explain such variations among brahmanas in Indian sub-continent with
out conversions from various sources? One would argue that (for the sake
of argument) since (sarcastically speaking) studying vedas has always
been lucrative and well compensated that (just like the high schoolers
flocking to IT courses in college) batches and batches of people went to a
corner of the village or town, without a Guru who has studied vedas and
shastraas, tied 3 or 6 strings around them and declared themselves to be
"of that class fit for veda adhyayana?" Even IF this is feasible, to
generalize this over 2000 years would border on ridiculousness.

Even 1000 years back, the life of Sri Ramanuja talks about conversions. How
could one explain it without showing even a little disrespect to that yuga
maha purusha?

I am not even going to mention Satyakama Jabala as it has been used for all
the wrong purposes.

I read that Sriramji has some other examples as few others too.

My question is where were your "rules with firm bases" when these changes
were happening in the flow of history? Why these changes were not stopped
by the people who were supposedly upholding the very rules? Has these hurt
our vedopanishats more than other reasons? Is an yavana advaitin less a
jnani than a vadhoola gothra (for example) panditha?

I am also not going to ask the question what makes one eligible learn
shastras? what makes one fit to understand the meaning of shastras (at
least at the level of mukya upanishads, Geeta)? what makes one fit to
understand the meaning of shastras, say upanishads and Geeta, live by the
tenets, attain enlightenment or go on the way towards that and even teach
others?

Please note the questions here: i have deliberately used the words
"eligible" and "fit". If , according to you, both are synonymous, then
the lives of saints ---- like some alwars, many nayanmars, kabir, many
other sanths, a multitude of siddhars, siddhanthin like Ramalinga vallalar,
yogin like Mother, many disciples of Ramakrishna paramahamsa, Sivananda,
para yogins belonging to Shringeri and Kanchi paramparas of 20th century
----- all become a lie.

If you consider the words "eligible" and "fit" are not synonymous, we do
not have anything to discuss. While the "eligibility" people would be
constantly remain sensitive about maintaining the order of things, "fit"
people would still be wanting to learn, to practice and to know whether or
not they are considered to be "eligible".

The underlying question here is: Are the "eligibility" and "fitness"
pre-exist (by birth as some orthodox interepretations of the shaastraas),
acquired in one janma (by self-discipline), recognized by **suitable**
aachaaryas (Guru Mukha as in the case of Sri Shivashankar and other cited
in this thread), self-declared or spontaneously blossoming in the
individuals?

One would find examples in every generation (~20-25 years) for all these
categories.

Thus the spectrum to study and practice Hindu dharma in its most
traditional sense has been much wider, broader than one would argue based
on linear interpretations on shastras.

I bow to the transcendental vision of that Rig vedic rishi who stood
(probably ;-)) on the banks of Saraswathi and wished:
**<http://miliriri.blogspot.com/2008/07/aano-bhadra-krtavo-yantu-vishwatah_30.html>aano
bhadra kratavo yantu vishwata:....... Seems to me that on the way from
Saraswathi to brahmaputra or thames or Colarado rivers we have lost that
hridaya of the rishi to take in good things (and people) from all
directions.
I will stop emailing on this hereafter to avoid adding to the din. My
sincere pranaams to you and your services to our Dharma.

-gopal

[S L Shivashankar]

Dear Ravi,

The reason for me entering this discussion - which is certainly to open
Pandoras box! - was to give an example from my own experience. Of course
there is no such thing in ancient shastras as "How to handle an European
that enters into the hindu-fold?". This was a non-existing question to
people in ancient times for obvious reasons. But today things are
different, and many people all over the world gets interested in and
sometimes even enter religious traditions of other people and cultures. So
how are such things dealt with in practice by acharyas and pandits of
today? Pointing to myself as an example was the whole idea behind my
posting.

The traditional people I have met in real life obviously view this matter
different from what you are doing. There´s nothing strange about that. I
know very well there are people who differs in opinion of those who has
initiated me and instructed me. I have been a member of this list for some
12 years know, so I am very much familiar with all those pro et contra
arguments related to caste issues that appears on this list every now and
then. I am not trying to say that there´s any monolithic standpoint on this
issue shared by every single scholar.

Quoting the dharma shastras in discussions like this is a good thing of
course, but as we have seen countless of times on this list, arguments
regarding the question of adhikara can be found to support more than one
view. If at least some traditional acharyas and pandits let foreigners like
me to enter the hindu fold, giving me upanayanam etc., then perhaps we
should ask ourselves why they are doing so. Are their interpretations of
the shastras necessarily less reliable than interpretations found among
members of this list? Some people on this list would probably reply that
the pandits I have met are not very learned or the like, but I can assure
you that´s not the case.

Warmest regards
Shivashankar



2012/6/26 ravi chandrasekhara <vadhula-/***@public.gmane.org>

> It is wonderful to hear, but per shastras he has no adhikara for Upanayna
> and sandhya-vandana. There is alternative Sandhya method for those who do
> not have adhikara. Dvijas who default on their duties on the other hand
> will hav eto answer/pay for it later.
>
> Ravi Chandrasekhara
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada-/***@public.gmane.org>
> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <
> advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+***@public.gmane.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 9:39 AM
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] mleccha-s not eligible to take Hinduism??
>
>
> PraNAms
>
> I just saw Shivashankar/Lundgren mail. I have a fond memories of meeting
> him in person in Stockholm and almost had daily extensive discussions on
> Advaita Vedanta. He organized my talk at the local Hindu temple and we had
> after scrumptious South Indian dinner.
>
>

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

--- On Tue, 6/26/12, Venkata sriram P <venkatasriramp-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:


>  
> What is the definition of a mlEccha and re all westerners
> mlEcchAs ?  Need to be careful in categorizing. 

Sriram - PraNams

We are trying to develop a website www.becomeahindu where one who wants to become a Hindu has to study some information provided and take a on-line exam and become eligible to become a Hindu. There will be instuctions to do homam at the nearest Hindu Temple and do nama karaNam as per Hindu Tradition, if one wants. An appropriate certificate is rovided once. This is also - to convert to so called HinduWs to become Hindus - exposure to minimum understanding of the tenents of Hinduism along with the respect for our scriptures, The Vedas.

What varna should he belong - we leave it to him to decided based on GuNa and/or Karma.

If anyone interested in helping in the development of the website, he can contact me privately.

Hari Om!
Sadanana

[ravi chandrasekhara]

There is no provision to convert to a varna and nor is it by choice. Taking initiation into a sampradaya is a different matter.

Ravi Chandrasekhara


________________________________
From: kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada-/***@public.gmane.org>
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+9d9q/***@public.gmane.org.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 9:32 AM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] mleccha-s not eligible to take Hinduism??


--- On Tue, 6/26/12, Venkata sriram P <venkatasriramp-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:


>  
> What is the definition of a mlEccha and re all westerners
> mlEcchAs ?  Need to be careful in categorizing. 

Sriram - PraNams

We are trying to develop a website www.becomeahindu where one who wants to become a Hindu has to study some information provided and take a on-line exam and become eligible to become a Hindu. There will be instuctions to do homam at the nearest Hindu Temple and do nama karaNam as per Hindu Tradition, if one wants. An appropriate certificate is rovided once. This is also - to convert to so called HinduWs to become Hindus - exposure to minimum understanding of the tenents of Hinduism along with the respect for our scriptures, The Vedas.

What varna should he belong - we leave it to him to decided based on GuNa and/or Karma.

If anyone interested in helping in the development of the website, he can contact me privately.

Hari Om!
Sadanana
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

On Tuesday, June 26, 2012, kuntimaddi sadananda wrote:
.
>
>
> --- On Tue, 6/26/12, Venkata sriram P <venkatasriramp-***@public.gmane.org<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > What is the definition of a mlEccha and re all westerners
> > mlEcchAs ? Need to be careful in categorizing.
>
> Sriram - PraNams
>
> We are trying to develop a website www.becomeahindu where one who wants to
> become a Hindu has to study some information provided and take a on-line
> exam and become eligible to become a Hindu. There will be instuctions to do
> homam at the nearest Hindu Temple and do nama karaNam as per Hindu
> Tradition, if one wants. An appropriate certificate is rovided once. This
> is also - to convert to so called HinduWs to become Hindus - exposure to
> minimum understanding of the tenents of Hinduism along with the respect for
> our scriptures, The Vedas.
>
> What varna should he belong - we leave it to him to decided based on GuNa
> and/or Karma.
>
> If anyone interested in helping in the development of the website, he can
> contact me privately.
>
> RV: you can also use astrology to decide varna. All people in the world
> have to belong to one of the four Varnas only because that is what the Lord
> created. If one does follow his varna dhama, he becomes a panchama. The
> sishya will belong to the gotra of the guru, I suppose.


Varna dharma is like genetics, highly mathematical. I don't know how to
upload to the site but anyone can work it out. Manu gives 7 generation rule
for anuloma and pratiloma marriages. You can calculate and see why. Let us
say Parent 1 has a proportion of sattva (60), rajas (30) and tamas (10) and
Parent 2 has a different proportion of sattva (10), rajas (40) and tamas
(50), the offspring will have sattva (35), rajas (35) and tamas (30). This
is a new jati and if he marries in to one of his parent's jati member - say
Parent 1 - his offspring will have sattva (47.5), rajas (32.5) and tamas
(40). If his offspring continues to marry in to Parent 1's jati for seven
gnerations, his proportion at the end of the seventh generation will be
sattva (60), rajas (30) and tamas (10)! This works for any starting
proportion.

I think knowing one's varna will help everyone though there I no becoming
Hindu as every one is. Helping with the site is no problem but I want to be
sure my self that I am not violating sastras explicitly.

[amith vikram]

'In kaliyuga the shudras will teach the brahmanas'


I hope my bit on this will not discourage anyone. It is a fact that only a
tiny portion of the vaidik sampradaya is in practise today. Today's
relegion is eating at McDonalds, watching TV, researching on the internet,
aspiring to buy an apartment or a car and so on. Sampradaya and samskara
lies in practise. To that extent, it is hard to find a brahmana who could
practise solely the vaidik sampradaya. As far as shudras are concerned,
they can't become or follow a brahmana. I am not saying this but the
shastras. It is clearly stated in the bhagavad gita - one should do his
karma according to his birth even though it has flaws - never should he
move away from his karma - That said, in the same gita it is also said -
Moksha can be attained even by shudras and women -

I can cite a very good example of an american, franklin merell wolf who
achieved the highest goal any brahmana can achieve without converting,
without chanting any verses, just by shravana, manana and nidhidhyasa. In
contrast I see many white folks dressed in orange robes in some of the
supposed ashrams chanting mantras which sound ridiculous. It's not just the
question of western people, even in india, these days women want to do
everything that men do. I think in talkad, near mysore, there are priests
who are shudras.

Even for a brahmana there are like thousands of injunctions - should only
sit facing certain directions, should get up at certain times, should wear
certain type of clothes, etc. Honouring the words of elders is also a part
of sat-sampradaya. Some people are of the opinion that when a person says -
this should not be done- they are actually discriminating and they are
branded as fundamentalists, arrogants, ignorants. When a father scolds his
child is he being rude or has the best interest of the child? Some people
cite the examples of jabala and valmiki. Let me cite another instance in
history - Rama punished the shudras severely for studying the vedas. And
both jabala and valmiki were actually brahmanas. In future I suppose veda
vyasa will be considered as shudra by scholars.

[Kathirasan K]

Namaste

Manu says:

2.238. He who possesses faith may receive pure learning even from a man of
lower caste, the highest law even from the lowest, and an excellent wife
even from a base family.

2.239. Even from poison nectar may be taken, even from a child good advice,
even from a foe (a lesson in) good conduct, and even from an impure
(substance) gold.

2.240. Excellent wives, learning, (the knowledge of) the law, (the rules
of) purity, good advice, and various arts may be acquired from anybody.

2.241. It is prescribed that in times of distress (a student) may learn
(the Veda) from one who is not a Brahmana; and that he shall walk behind
and serve (such a) teacher, as long as the instruction lasts.


On 27 June 2012 15:12, amith vikram <vikram.amith-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> 'In kaliyuga the shudras will teach the brahmanas'
>
>
> I hope my bit on this will not discourage anyone. It is a fact that only a
> tiny portion of the vaidik sampradaya is in practise today. Today's
> relegion is eating at McDonalds, watching TV, researching on the internet,
> aspiring to buy an apartment or a car and so on. Sampradaya and samskara
> lies in practise. To that extent, it is hard to find a brahmana who could
> practise solely the vaidik sampradaya. As far as shudras are concerned,
> they can't become or follow a brahmana. I am not saying this but the
> shastras. It is clearly stated in the bhagavad gita - one should do his
> karma according to his birth even though it has flaws - never should he
> move away from his karma - That said, in the same gita it is also said -
> Moksha can be attained even by shudras and women -
>
> I can cite a very good example of an american, franklin merell wolf who
> achieved the highest goal any brahmana can achieve without converting,
> without chanting any verses, just by shravana, manana and nidhidhyasa. In
> contrast I see many white folks dressed in orange robes in some of the
> supposed ashrams chanting mantras which sound ridiculous. It's not just the
> question of western people, even in india, these days women want to do
> everything that men do. I think in talkad, near mysore, there are priests
> who are shudras.
>
> Even for a brahmana there are like thousands of injunctions - should only
> sit facing certain directions, should get up at certain times, should wear
> certain type of clothes, etc. Honouring the words of elders is also a part
> of sat-sampradaya. Some people are of the opinion that when a person says -
> this should not be done- they are actually discriminating and they are
> branded as fundamentalists, arrogants, ignorants. When a father scolds his
> child is he being rude or has the best interest of the child? Some people
> cite the examples of jabala and valmiki. Let me cite another instance in
> history - Rama punished the shudras severely for studying the vedas. And
> both jabala and valmiki were actually brahmanas. In future I suppose veda
> vyasa will be considered as shudra by scholars.
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org
>

[Sriram Krishnamurthy]

Namaste,
Mahabharata which is considered as the fifth Veda, in the section
describing who is a Brahmana declares that Brahmanahood is by conduct
alone. Bhagavan has his Kataksha on people who lead a righteous life.
An example of this is Vidura whose house Lord Krishna visited inspite
of invitation from Duryodhana.
As mentioned by Jaldhar ji, we have to become conservative
evolutionist, which I understand is meant to support positive changes
in Hinduism.
Ramana Maharshi who considered Lord Arunachala as his Guru, declared
himself as a Atyashrami. The concept of Atyashrami is explained in the
Suta Samhita clearly.
When HH Sri Bharathi Theertha Swamiji conferred the Sri Adi
Shankaracharya award to Swami Dayanandi Saraswathiji, said that both
Sri Swamiji and Dayananda Ji were Sama Manaskar, it means they concur
mentally. Jocularly he mentioned that they were not Sama Vayaskar
since Dayanandaji was 20 years older to him.

Hari Om Tat Sat,
Sriram

[Bhaskar YR]

2.241. It is prescribed that in times of distress (a student) may learn
(the Veda) from one who is not a Brahmana; and that he shall walk behind
and serve (such a) teacher, as long as the instruction lasts.

praNAms Sri Kathirasan prabhuji
Hare Krishna

Kindly clarify whether words within brackets are translators 'extra'
additions to the original Sanskrit shlOka!!?? IMHO, it should be a aparA
vidye or loukika vidye and not vaidika vidye or vedAdhyayana. I think,
the statement ' in times of distress' shows that a distressed person
should learn through whatever means available to get rid of his
sufferings. Anyway, I welcome your clarification with regard to this.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar

[Kathirasan K]

Namaste Bhaskarji,

Here is the verse:

abraahmaNaad adhyaayanam aapatkaale vidhiiyate |
anuvrajyaa ca zuzruuSaa yaavad adhyaayanaM guroH ||


On 27 June 2012 17:35, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr-zOhu8KlzJ1LQT0dZR+***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> 2.241. It is prescribed that in times of distress (a student) may learn
> (the Veda) from one who is not a Brahmana; and that he shall walk behind
> and serve (such a) teacher, as long as the instruction lasts.
>
> praNAms Sri Kathirasan prabhuji
> Hare Krishna
>
> Kindly clarify whether words within brackets are translators 'extra'
> additions to the original Sanskrit shlOka!!?? IMHO, it should be a aparA
> vidye or loukika vidye and not vaidika vidye or vedAdhyayana. I think,
> the statement ' in times of distress' shows that a distressed person
> should learn through whatever means available to get rid of his
> sufferings. Anyway, I welcome your clarification with regard to this.
>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> bhaskar
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org
>

[Bhaskar YR]

abraahmaNaad adhyaayanam aapatkaale vidhiiyate |
anuvrajyaa ca zuzruuSaa yaavad adhyaayanaM guroH |

praNAms Sri Kathirasan prabhuji
Hare Krishna

Again, IMHO, the above shloka does not talk about the vedAdhyayana in
particular. If it is shishyA-s general approach to non-brAhmin guru for
vedAdhyayana, the particular word 'ApatkAle' not necessary. Moreover, we
cannot stretch the meaning of adhyayanaM to 'vedAdhyayanaM', when the
formalities and adhikAra for the vedAdhyayana are so clear in our smruti
texts. Anyway, it is my opinion. You are welcome to correct me prabhuji.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr-zOhu8KlzJ1LQT0dZR+***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> abraahmaNaad adhyaayanam aapatkaale vidhiiyate |
> anuvrajyaa ca zuzruuSaa yaavad adhyaayanaM guroH |
>

This verse is quoted by Anandagiri in the Br.Up.2.1.15 (ajAtashatru
brAhmaNam) where the brAhmaNa bAlaakI seeks BrahmavidyA from ajAtashatru, a
King (kshatriya). Shankara says: // this is pratiloma here a braahmaNa
being a uttamavarNa and aught to be Acharya, approaching a kShatriya who is
not supposed to be an AchArya and hence this is prohibited. Therefore you
be Acharya alone but I shall certainly impart you that knowledge. // For
this Anandagiri quotes the above verse. The Editor in the footnote says:
Anandagiri has said (elsewhere) that the lower varNa one has to get the
vidya from a higher varNa one by namaskara and service (upasadana) etc.
But when the higher varNa has to get vidya from a lower varna acharya, then
just shraddhA is enough (no namaskara, service, etc.) is the AchAra.

Regards,
subrahmanian.v

>
> praNAms Sri Kathirasan prabhuji
> Hare Krishna
>
> Again, IMHO, the above shloka does not talk about the vedAdhyayana in
> particular. If it is shishyA-s general approach to non-brAhmin guru for
> vedAdhyayana, the particular word 'ApatkAle' not necessary. Moreover, we
> cannot stretch the meaning of adhyayanaM to 'vedAdhyayanaM', when the
> formalities and adhikAra for the vedAdhyayana are so clear in our smruti
> texts. Anyway, it is my opinion. You are welcome to correct me prabhuji.
>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> bhaskar
>

[Omkar Deshpande]

Dear Sri Rajaram,

>RV: But mimamsakas and vedantins tried to provide logical arguments in >favour of apaureshyatva. They did not ask us accept it on faith or as a >given. They tried to reason why Vedas are apaureshya. They don't tell us >why only sruti is apaureshya and not any sentence. Or I don't understand >their logic correctly. But there was definitely an effort to prove it.

I cannot speak for other schools, but your statements do apply to dvaita vedAnta. There is a work written by Sri Madhvacharya called Vishnu Tattva Vinirnaya (the mUla can be accessed from here: http://www.dvaita.net/prerelease.html). There is a significantly large section in it that tries to refute the stand of those who think the Vedas are pauruSheya (this includes the nAstikas as well as Naiyyayikas). The logic is used to refute pauruSheyatva, and it is claimed with the help of the doctrine of svataH-prAmANya that apauruSheyatva is "svataH eva siddham". 

mUla: apauruSheya-vAkya-a~NgIkAre na ki~nchita kalpyam | apauruSheyatvam cha svataH eva siddham |

A snippet from the Tika of Padmanabha Tirtha, one of the direct disciples of Sri Madhva: shashaviShANa-anupalambhena yathA shashasya viShANa-rahitatvam siddham eva, na kalpyam | evam vedasya apauruSheyatvam... siddham eva, na kalpyam ityarthaH | 

I am trying to get permission from the moderators of another forum called Vadavali to allow me to formally post a series on the whole apauruSheyatva-vAda from the Vishnu Tattva Vinirnaya, in the light of the Tikas, especially Sri Jayatirtha's Tika. If you or anyone else is interested, you could follow the series, if I do get permission to post it there. 

I should add a disclaimer here that at this stage, I am personally sceptical that apauruSheyatva can be proven, in the light of modern epistemologies of the sort used by historians or scientists. But it does appear to me that dvaitins believed that earlier, and the ones I know continue to believe today that apauruSheyatva is as much a certain fact as the sun rising in the sky, or hares not having horns, and requires as much (or as little) faith as that. 

Regards,

Omkar

[r***@public.gmane.org]

Dear Sri Omkar,

Thank you. One Madhwa approached me and asked me to join Vadavalli to get this. I have some logistical difficulties in doing but if nothing is I am going to do it. I salute their efforts (though I dislike them for their comments in Mani Manjari). If we can't establish why Vedas are pramana or apaureshya, we can't expect a modern mind to accept and benefit from vaidhika traditions.

My position is it was not a matter of faith and it was also not a matter of modern logic. It was somewhere in between - logical in its own right. In spite of the distracting arguments on this thread, I am optimistic that it can truthfully established that Vedas are a pramana and apaureshya. I know it will be difficult and the frontiers of modern logic may have to be expanded.

I have indisputably argued that there is need for a method to get subjective knowledge. Please see my post on "Are Vedas a Pramana?" I also have no difficulty in arguing that knowledge is eternal though it is a cognitive function. My problem is in creating a special case for Vedic knowledge. I will get there and who were helps me in that journey, I will be indebted to.

Best Regards
Rajaram Venkataramani
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

-----Original Message-----
From: Omkar Deshpande <omkar_deshpande-/***@public.gmane.org>
Sender: advaita-l-bounces-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+***@public.gmane.org
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 07:05:37
To: advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+***@public.gmane.org<advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+***@public.gmane.org>
Reply-To: Omkar Deshpande <omkar_deshpande-/***@public.gmane.org>,
A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
<advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+***@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Apoureshyatva - Faith or Logic?

Dear Sri Rajaram,

>RV: But mimamsakas and vedantins tried to provide logical arguments in >favour of apaureshyatva. They did not ask us accept it on faith or as a >given. They tried to reason why Vedas are apaureshya. They don't tell us >why only sruti is apaureshya and not any sentence. Or I don't understand >their logic correctly. But there was definitely an effort to prove it.

I cannot speak for other schools, but your statements do apply to dvaita vedAnta. There is a work written by Sri Madhvacharya called Vishnu Tattva Vinirnaya (the mUla can be accessed from here: http://www.dvaita.net/prerelease.html). There is a significantly large section in it that tries to refute the stand of those who think the Vedas are pauruSheya (this includes the nAstikas as well as Naiyyayikas). The logic is used to refute pauruSheyatva, and it is claimed with the help of the doctrine of svataH-prAmANya that apauruSheyatva is "svataH eva siddham". 

mUla: apauruSheya-vAkya-a~NgIkAre na ki~nchita kalpyam | apauruSheyatvam cha svataH eva siddham |

A snippet from the Tika of Padmanabha Tirtha, one of the direct disciples of Sri Madhva: shashaviShANa-anupalambhena yathA shashasya viShANa-rahitatvam siddham eva, na kalpyam | evam vedasya apauruSheyatvam... siddham eva, na kalpyam ityarthaH | 

I am trying to get permission from the moderators of another forum called Vadavali to allow me to formally post a series on the whole apauruSheyatva-vAda from the Vishnu Tattva Vinirnaya, in the light of the Tikas, especially Sri Jayatirtha's Tika. If you or anyone else is interested, you could follow the series, if I do get permission to post it there. 

I should add a disclaimer here that at this stage, I am personally sceptical that apauruSheyatva can be proven, in the light of modern epistemologies of the sort used by historians or scientists. But it does appear to me that dvaitins believed that earlier, and the ones I know continue to believe today that apauruSheyatva is as much a certain fact as the sun rising in the sky, or hares not having horns, and requires as much (or as little) faith as that. 

Regards,

Omkar
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

> work written by Sri Madhvacharya called Vishnu Tattva Vinirnaya (the mUla can be accessed from here: http://www.dvaita.net/prerelease.html).
.... ...
>
> mUla: apauruSheya-vAkya-a~NgIkAre na ki~nchita kalpyam | apauruSheyatvam cha svataH eva siddham |

So, this argument is not a positive proof for apaurusheyatva, but rather one
that denies its opposite. It says that paurusheyatva cannot be established,
given the standards of proof and pramANa-s accepted in mImAMsA and/or
vedAnta.


There is a reason that all arguments made about apaurusheyatva, from
the heyday of the pUrva mImAMsakas to that of the dvaita vedAntins, have
been structured in the opposite direction, so as to disprove paurusheyatva. The structure of this argument is exactly the same as the following. It is
easy to prove logically that the proposition "God does not exist" cannot be
established. This is not a positive proof for the opposite proposition, "God
does exist." Now, for standard vedAnta, we can always point to Sruti and
say, "here is the proof that God exists - Sruti says so." In order to make
this argument, we have to accept the prAmANya of Sruti first.

I fail to see why the prAmANya of Sruti needs to be further validated by
appealing to a logical proof that establishes its apaurusheyatva, especially
given the svataH-prAmANya-vAda. One can make an argument about
apaurusheyatva and be self-consistent, but to subordinate the prAmANya
of the veda to a logical proof of its apaurusheyatva is counter productive.
There is more to human life and aspirations (purushArtha-s) than logic
and science. Sruti addresses dharma and moksha, two topics that are
left unaddressed (or addressed very inadequately) by logic and science.

Best regards,
Vidyasankar

[Omkar Deshpande]

Dear Sri Vidyasankar,

<<<There is a reason that all arguments made about apaurusheyatva, from
the heyday of the pUrva mImAMsakas to that of the dvaita vedAntins, have
been structured in the opposite direction, so as to disprove
paurusheyatva.... I fail to see why the prAmANya of Sruti needs to be
further validated by
appealing to a logical proof that establishes its apaurusheyatva, especially
given the svataH-prAmANya-vAda.>>>

If pauruSheyatva is "decisively" disproved, then apauruSheyatva stands
automatically proven. The question is whether pauruSheyatva is
actually disproved decisively (by the arguments given by the
traditionalists), or whether the arguments against pauruSheyatva are
merely raising some uncertainties about the pauruSheyatva claim.

As far as I understand, the disagreement between modern historians and
traditional Dvaitins (possibly other Vedantins as well) boils down to
whether akartR^itva-prasiddhi of the Vedas is sufficient to decisively
remove the doubt that the Vedas could be authored. For historians, no
matter how widespread the belief today that the Vedas have no author,
it is not a sufficient proof that the Vedas actually have no author.
Beliefs held by humans can change or evolve over time, and even if
there is unanimity about the lack of authors at time t, it does not
follow that there was unanimity about it at time (t - 5000) years, or
further back. Ideas that are in a minority at one point can become a
consensus at a later point. Thus, historians will not extrapolate the
claims carried by a tradition indefinitely into the past. They will
require evidence from the indefinite past that those claims have
existed at those points in the distant past. Since we do not find
texts without an author in our experience of the world, and since the
texts being claimed as apauruSheya seem just like other authored texts
(upon reading the contents), historians/scientists will consider it
more economical to believe that the Vedas are originally authored, and
that they have been attributed unauthoredness at a later point in
time. A historian will also point to the composition of "Upanishads"
all the way up to the last few centuries, and those recent Upanishads
are considered spurious by many of the Vedanta traditions themselves.
No one knows who exactly authored the Chaitanya Upanishad for
instance. But that does not prevent even the dvaitin from assuming
that it is an authored text that has acquired the status of an
Upanishad, the historian will say. Why assume that this phenomenon (of
composed texts being given the status of being unauthored) is only
recent in time, the historian will ask. It could very well have
happened with every single text that is claimed as unauthored today.

On the other hand, traditional dvaitins at least, consider the
attribution of an author to the Vedas as an instance of
kalpanA-gaurava and will consider it more economical to believe that
the Vedas have never had an author. After all, historians cannot point
to any particular person or group of persons in history, and provide
evidence that those people were authors of the Vedas. And traditional
dvaitins are confident that they do have an anAdi-paramparA going back
indefinitely in time, which has always maintained that the Vedas have
had no author, and that the burden of proof lies on the historian to
disprove this claim.

So there is a difference of opinion about who bears the burden of
proof -- does the historian bear the burden of proving that the Vedas
are originally authored, or does the tradition bear the burden of
proving that the Vedas have always been considered as apauruSheya (and
were not originally authored). This difference of opinion exists even
though the historians will agree with the tradition that the Vedas
have been considered apauruSheya for a long time (although not by all
Vedic schools - the Nyaya and Vaisheshika schools did not do so). But
the historian will say that it is the tradition that bears the burden
of proof, because apauruSheyatva is an "extraordinary" claim, which
requires extraordinary evidence, to be able to convince a historian or
a scientist.

Regards,

Omkar