On Vedantam

[zebra16]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

I hope you appreciate my point that religious wisdom/doctrine stands still.
Cheers!

Sri Nara Sir,

Would you not consider Vishistadvaita and dvaita therories as attempts to make a move forward in religious wisdom?

Regards,

narayan

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Narayan,

In my humble opinion, the vedanta philosophies, viz., advaita, visishtadvaita , dvaita etc., including the subsequent suddhadvaita, kevalaadvaita, etc., are like idli, dosai — the basic raw material is the same மாவு, but by varying the proportion of ingredients, shape of the final product (frisbee-like dosa, ovoid idli, as also varying the cooking method — same old religious wisdom served as different products and different "touchings"! or side dishes to enhance the taste, etc. A bit of skepticism after any of these, like a cup of strong coffee after dosa/idli, will be very satisfying to the intellect, IMO. You will thus discern that advaita, visishtadvaita , dvaita etc., have not really added to religious wisdom nor our understanding of the day-to-day world.

But those who swear by these philosophies insist that one should be an adhikaari (read, sufficiently dumb or brain-washed) to even starting to get to know the marvellous wisdom hidden in these philosophies, that one should approach the study with śraddhā (which these people hold cannot be adequately expressed in English, but is in reality, an attitude of non-questioning belief.).

 

[Nara]

... So, will you kindly elaborate EVR's attitudes and achievements in the women's emancipation front?

Dear Shri Sangom sir, At least in Tamilnadu he was the first to openly ridicule the oppressive notion of kaRpu. He even criticized the doyen of Tamil wisdom, Thiruvalluvar, for the treatment he gives women in Thirukkural. He fought against the devadasi system and child marriage, and for widow remarriage. For more, please see this wiki article.

... we should concede that EVR could have achieved equally well or even better than what SNG could, by being a bit more refined and polished.

Comparison between SNG and EVR will go on for ever. What they achieved and what they could have achieved if they had adopted each others tactic is up for speculation. I have no doubt a persuasive case can be made that EVR was a failure, I can make one myself, after all, many of his socially revolutionary ideas are still only a pipe dream. However, an equally persuasive case can also be made that he was a success. He is the prime mover of the notion of "self-respect" in Tamilnadu.

...., are also mostly forgotten and have to be dug out from out-of-print books or the web archives. Hence IMHO, the above view is facetious.

Yes, they both will be forgotten by masses, but they will be prominent part of our social history and studied, IMO.

regards and cheers!

 

[saidevo]

namaste shrI Sangom.

I hope you or shrI Narayan won't mind me picking up a couple of statements in your post #102, for coneying my impressions on them.

A bit of skepticism after any of these, like a cup of strong coffee after dosa/idli, will be very satisfying to the intellect, IMO. You will thus discern that advaita, visishtadvaita , dvaita etc., have not really added to religious wisdom nor our understanding of the day-to-day world.

• I agree with the bit of skepticism, like the coffee after iddlies with chillie powder, so long as it is directed more at personal inquiry than indifferent criticism.

• I wonder if the three philosophies advaita, vishiShTAdvaita and dvaita, which have become the key Hindu philosphies today, replacing their ShaD-darshana counterparts, had not evolved, where would be the Hindu religious and philosophical wisdom today.


But those who swear by these philosophies insist that one should be an adhikaari (read, sufficiently dumb or brain-washed) to even starting to get to know the marvellous wisdom hidden in these philosophies, that one should approach the study with sraddha (which these people hold cannot be adequately expressed in English, but is in reality, an attitude of non-questioning belief.).

• When you require shraddhA (and sympathy) even to read a work of fiction, both from the author's point of view and the reader's, to dismiss shraddhA in the study of Hindu philosophy seems strange and simplistic.

• To say that those who approach the study with shraddhA are "dumb and brain-washed" is biased. How do you know for sure that people who do it this way, do not look at it with an attitude of inquiry/questioning?

• An attitude of questioning with belief is different from and preferable to, an attitude of questioning with disbelief, if the latter is there, just for the sake of enriching one's skepticism.

People who seek to question existing religious/philosophical/spiritual solutions, if they do not have alternative solutions that are at lest tentative, have no cause to sneer/complain/lament, if their questioning is not taken seriously, specially in a discussion. Perhaps it is for this very reason they start the discussion in the first place: to blindly find fault with existing solutions.

 

[Nara]

Would you not consider Vishistadvaita and dvaita therories as attempts to make a move forward in religious wisdom?

narayan sir, I agree with what Shri Sangom has said. Further, these V and D themselves are roughly 1000 years old. My point was not that these Vedatanic thought represented wisdom, only that it was considered the pinnacle of human wisdom by Brahmins and Braminists then, and they do now as well, and a 1000 years from now they will still do. These religious doctrine/dogma are set in stone, everything to know has already been revealed, the task of every generation is to protect it "சிந்தாமல் சிதறாமல்" and pass it on to the next.

I wanted to draw a contrast between such thinking and rational thinking, one that insists on critically analyzing the social practices and strives to bend the arc of history towards justice and compassion. This is impossible for religions as they are stuck in one place, defined some thousand years ago, and never will move. Some individuals, may be even many, may move towards rationality, justice, and compassion, but to that extent they will have to move away from religious ideals and not admit it. This, of course, is my considered opinion.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

...., i would like ask folks like Nara or Yamaka, if each one's 'anti god' is of different persuasion?

K, as I have already stated I am not anti-god as that would presume the existence of god and that I am anti that god. Here, it is interesting to note that Christopher Hitchens, the famous atheist who wrote the book God is not great, observed that if there was a god like the ones defined in world religions, he would be anti that God as the domain in which such a God is sovereign will be a place like DPRK .

Now, coming to god, whose blessings you so often invoke, for the purpose of my presentation it is useful to think of god in three different ways, (a) a personal god who listens and answers prayers, (b) a creator god with intentions to create and protect, and (c) a non-caring god who just creates and leaves its creation be.

I think god-a, the one who dominates the lives of so many people, is the easiest to dismiss. In fact, to visualize this type of god must be downright insulting to god, if he existed, A god who conditions his help upon being prayed to must be a narcissist and an egotistical megalomaniac. Why can't this god prevent trouble from happening in the first place.

If god was supposed to be testing us, nice way to test by visiting untold misery on millions. If it is our own poorva-janma karma, how come this god can mitigate this karma only if we pray? Why can't he remove it sue-motto.

I know many people feel an indescribable sensation when they visit temple and such, and they impute presence of god as an explanation of this sensation. But this is learned behavior that does not transfer to unfamiliar religious environments.

God-b in many ways is similar to god-a. All the criticisms leveled against god-a are valid in this case as well. One of the arguments religious people advance, which they think is clinching, is as follows -- every effect must have a cause, since we see jagat which is an effect, must have a cause, and that cause is god. But, they simply ignores the fallacy of infinite regress -- who created this creator god? If he always existed without a cause, why can't jagat also exist without a prior cause.

God-c, he does not care about us, why should we care about him?

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

K, I for got to mention, the point being, there is no faith involved to be an atheist in day-to-day life, only rationality is needed.

One more point, any solace that this superstitious faith in god is supposed to provide, can be had without the belief as well, and it comes free of religious bigotry.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

...An attitude of questioning with belief is different from and preferable to, an attitude of questioning with disbelief, if the latter is there, just for the sake of enriching one's skepticism.

Saidevo, the objection is not to shradda itself, but to the notion that not accepting the inerrant nature of Vedas is a mark of lack of shradda. Also, questioning with belief even at the highest level is possible and not just preferable but practiced only for religious dogma. Questioning with a priori skepticism, and an openness to go where evidence leads is the hallmark of rationality, the only way for progress.

People who seek to question existing religious/philosophical/spiritual solutions, if they do not have alternative solutions that are at lest tentative, have no cause to sneer/complain/lament, if their questioning is not taken seriously, specially in a discussion. Perhaps it is for this very reason they start the discussion in the first place: to blindly find fault with existing solutions.

Saidevo, I can see that you are annoyed with me. I have not sneered at or put down anybody. My arguments are only about the issues being discussed.

To analyze the veracity of one set of claims does not required articulation of an alternative view, demanding it is irrational. But, I do have an alternate vision, one that says take it easy, don't bother about god or praying to him, A, VA, and D are all unproven and unprovable religious dogma, so don't fashion your life based on any of that, don't worry about life after death, god, prayers and such, lead your life as true to compassion and justice as possible. This is my alternative view.

Cheers!

 

[tks]

Is debating possible with a person of '(Blind) Faith'?

People who seek to question existing religious/philosophical/spiritual solutions, if they do not have alternative solutions that are at lest tentative, have no cause to sneer/complain/lament, if their questioning is not taken seriously, specially in a discussion. Perhaps it is for this very reason they start the discussion in the first place: to blindly find fault with existing solutions.

Sri Saidevo -

I have great respect for your sincerity and for the amount of reading you seem to have done which is apparent in all your posts.

Allow me to share something I learned a long time ago while attending 'Dale Carnegie' course back in the mid-1970s - not sure how those courses are taught these days . One of the principles they teach is “The only way to get the best of an argument is to avoid it.”

Back those days as a student in USA I was living in an apartment and on Saturday mornings around 7 AM or so I used to get visits from Born Again Christian groups to 'save' me. I used to invite them in and talk & argue but they had one purpose which was to 'save' me , no logic was acceptable. I ended up annoying them by asking questions they pretended not to hear always coming back that I am doomed to go to hell. I learned that you never argue with a person who is too much into faith and who has an agenda. It is better to deal with them as human beings and be kind but not get into debate since it will never lead me anywhere.

Now if someone has a belief system that is fine - we want to 'live and let live'. It is an issue only if they want to convert others or other such agenda that is driven by an internal pressure to change another person to their belief system.

"Atheism" becomes a 'faith' when someone has an agenda, does detailed research into religious practices or theologies of religions, invite 'debates' to assert how irrational and victim the other person following a tradition are, thereby collecting one more 'psychological coupon' validating their own 'belief' system that they are very rational. They superimpose attributes to study of science that is not there, not understand what the practice of science itself is in all its glory because they never studied most of those subjects except they have a belief that if there is an answer it must be blessed by a person of Science. This is no different than a person who believes Koran is a holy book that has all the answers.

Sri Nara and Sri Sangom, who I offer my Namaskaram for their age (since I think they may be older than me ) are Faith people notwithstanding their stated rejection of any 'other' religious theologies except their own 'belief' system.

From this posts and other posts I have understood that Sri Nara thinks that Veda/Vedanta is built on a meaningless and 'un-provable (by science)' base and all the practices that are derived from this have to be rejected and that all those followers of religious traditions are victims of this so called 'handed down' wisdom. This means that poor victims are exploitable by 'men of God' and that he thinks that these victims have to be saved like the Born Again Christians The intentions are honorable indeed.

Sri Sangom has stated that 'Sri Sankara has taken the people for a ride' - I am paraphrasing from another post elsewhere.

There is a humorous saying : "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."

Sri Nara and Sri Sangom practice the religion of Atheism.

Since they both may be living in North American Continent I have a news item to share that a court in Wisconsin after due consideration did declare Atheism as a religion.

This thread was started with an OP that is meaningless. Why is that important?
Because when one starts with defining Brahman as an entity in a trivialized manner they are bound to run into the problem of 'infinite recursion' as to who caused Brahman etc. The OP as stated is absurd, the proof demanded cannot be defined and Sri Nara cannot define what he considers is Reality !
The objective of why he wants to debate as stated by Sri Nara is impossible as established in my earlier posts and unchallenged as 'frivolous' meta-information.

So is serious debate really possible with someone of (blind) faith? My experience in talking with Born Again Christians many years ago showed that it is not

Regards

 

[saidevo]

namaste Nara and others.

vedApauruSheyava

shrI Narayan said in his post #79 that the Vedantin's view of the concept of aparuSheyatvam has not been explained, even briefly, in the discussions in this thread.

In his essay vedApauruSheyava, Prof.D.Prahladachar, throws some new light on the concept. This article can be downloaded at: http://www.dvaita.net/pdf/papers/veda.pdf

Here is a brief paraphrase from the article:

• The theory of apauruSheyatvam of the Vedas is accepted by the mImAMsakAs, vedAntin and the followers of Shankara or Yoga.

• The theory is essentially based on the concept that shabda is of two kinds: dhvani--sound/utterance, and varNa--phoneme;

• Of the two, a shabda that is in the form of dhvani has both origination and destruction.

• However, varNa--phoneme, as the other form of shabda is eternal, and has no origin or destruction. Further, it is all-pervasive in space.

• Although the varNas are eternal and all-pervasive in space, they can be heard only when they are manifested by dhvani.

• Each varNa has a different dhavani that manifests it. When a speaker uses his faculties to produce the particular dhvani, then the corresponding varNa manifests and is grasped by a listener.

• A word or sentence is a group of varNas arranged in a specific order. For example, only when the varNa related to jakAra, akAra, lakAra, akAra and makAra are arranged in a specific order and manifest with dhvani, then the listener can grasp the word jalam.

• Now, the problem the varNa-nityatva-vAdin (vnv) faces is that he cannot arrange the varNas in an arbitrary manner. For, ordering may be of two kinds, spatial and temporal. But then varNas are all-pervasive in space and eternal in time, and so cannot have any kind of order, either in space or time.

• The problem of explaining the order and arrangement of phonemes in speech and writing is not just specific to Vedic sentences, but also occurs in the liguistic usage of everyday life.

• With reference to the sentences in our daily usage, the vnv has an answer: He readily grants that varNas being eternal and all-pervasive, cannot have any sequence. However, the cognition of a listener depends on the manifestation of the varNas with dhvani with an order associated with it.

• This order, as is evident upon reflection, belongs to the cognition and not to the varNas themselves. Thus the words in common usage are pauruSheya--products of some person, for the order of cognition depends on the will and utterance--dhvani of the speaker. The phonemes--varNa that are thus indirectly qualified with such an order are themselves treated as pauruSheya.

• For this reason, the explanation of order with our daily usuage of phonemes, is unsatisfactory in respect of Vedic sentences. If they are (made to be) dependent on the will of a speaker who utters them, then it would be pauruSheya and the concept of apauruSheya will collapse.

• The answer the apauruSheyatva-vAdin (av) has here is that he accepts the notiton of varNas being all-pervasive and eternal, do not have an order of their own.

• The av asserts that the sequence of phonemes in a laukika--worldly, sentence, did not exist prior to its creation by an author by his will.

• But in the case of a Vedic sentence such as agnimIle prohitam, it is not so.

‣ The Vedic seer who realized this sentence with the phonemes in such a sequence, did not will that such should be the sequence.

‣ In other words, he did not have any freedom to create the order of the phonemes or words, unlike, say, the poet KALidAsa.

‣ While realizing the hymn, he just followed the sequence that had existed in previous Creations also. Even in the previous Creation, the seer who had then realized the hymn with the phonemes in the same order, did not then create it-—he too just realized it without making any change in the order of the phonemes. But when he recited the hymn, since the phonemes became manifested by his eforts, to that extent it is his product and is pauruSheya only.

‣ At the same time it is apauruSheya also, in the sense that nobody ever, in the infinite, beginningless sequence of Creations until now, has had the freedom to create the sequence, other than what previously existed.

‣ Even the Brahman whose 'breathing' is described as the Vedas-—nishvasitam etad-—does not change the sequence of the Vedic phonemes. He just follows the sequence of phonemes as they were in the previous Creation, and teaches the same in the next Creation also. This, i.e., the unchanging sequencing of the phonemes of the Vedic sentences is, according to the av, the apauruSheya of the Vedas.

**********

Given this background information, we can have new and better understanding into:

• why the order of shabdas in a veda-vAkya cannot be changed, although the very strength of SaMskRtam lies in the facility that the meaning of a sentence remains unchanged, whatever the order of its words;

• why the different pada-pAThas--recitation methods, were designed for preserving the order of phonemes in the Vedas and how the oral tradition has been successful in doing it over thousands of years;

• the association of our breathing and prANa with words spoken, heard and thought of. KAnchi ParamAchArya explains it thus:

Breath is vital not only to the body but also to the mind. The mind which is the source of thought and the vital (prANik) energy that is the source of breath are the same. Healthy or unhealthy thoughts are to be attributed to different vibrations of the nADis. You may test this for youself. See for yourself how you breathe when you are at peace before the sanctum of a deity or in the presence of a great and wise person and how you breathe when your mind is quickened by desire or anger. The happiness you experience when you take part in something divine, like a bhajan or a temple festival, must be different from the pleasure that sensual gratification gives you: the vibrations of the nADis concerned will also be correspondingly different.

When you experience joy of an elevated kind the passage of breath will be through the right nostril, but when you are enjoying sensual pleasure it will be through the left. When you meditate, with increasing concentration, on the Reality Serene which is the source of all your urges and feelings, the breath will pass through both nostrils slowly, evenly and rhythmically. When you are absorbed in the object of your meditation breathing itself will cease, but there will still be life. The great awareness called jnana will then be in bloom as it were.

The inert body of a man and the awareness that is the vital essence of his life are both dependent on the course of his breathing. They grow or decay according to it. The course of a man's breath keeps his inner vibrations in order.

• how the unmanifest veda varNas is like Brahman's 'breathing'

• how the association of dhvani and varNas in Hindu music gives its soothing and healing effects.

There could be many more such facets to our better understanding...

*****

 

[Nara]

....Sri Nara and Sri Sangom, who I offer my Namaskaram for their age (since I think they may be older than me ) are Faith people notwithstanding their stated rejection of any 'other' religious theologies except their own 'belief' system.

[..]

Sri Nara and Sri Sangom practice the religion of Atheism.

It seems your tactic is not to take the topic head on but dance around the issue with long put downs. If that makes you feel satisfied, go ahead and have your fun. Just because you say Atheism is a religion too, it does not become one. Just because you say Sangom and I are also people of Faith, like the Christian proselytizers you encountered, it does not become true. If these things make you feel as though you have answered the questions raised, you have the right to feel that way and have your self-described smirk as icing as well.

But, let me present a contrast for the rest of the reading public. I value open-minded skepticism and rationality and will never allow religious people to claim they are rational too without challenging them. On the other hand, these people of faith, unable to defend their faith, want to tar us as people of Faith also, as if to say we are no better than they are. Why is that? Don't they have any standards to be considered people of Faith? Anyone, even those who reject faith, is to be perforce brought down to their level? This is like one corrupt politician telling a common man that he is also corrupt.

Once again, tks, if you think this OP is absurd, then go your way, you don't have to grace us with your superior wisdom. Let us the ignoramuses battle it out. Don't waste your time with us. But it looks like you are so enamored by this topic that you are not able keep yourself away, you keep coming back. But all you do is make superfluous meta arguments and long putdowns. That is really sad.

 

[tks]

There are no put-downs!

It seems your tactic is not to take the topic head on but dance around the issue with long put downs. If that makes you feel satisfied, go ahead and have your fun. Just because you say Atheism is a religion too, it does not become one. Just because you say Sangom and I are also people of Faith, like the Christian proselytizers you encountered, it does not become true. If these things make you feel as though you have answered the questions raised, you have the right to feel that way and have your self-described smirk as icing as well.

But, let me present a contrast for the rest of the reading public. I value open-minded skepticism and rationality and will never allow religious people to claim they are rational too without challenging them. On the other hand, these people of faith, unable to defend their faith, want to tar us as people of Faith also, as if to say we are no better than they are. Why is that? Don't they have any standards to be considered people of Faith? Anyone, even those who reject faith, is to be perforce brought down to their level? This is like one corrupt politician telling a common man that he is also corrupt.

Once again, tks, if you think this OP is absurd, then go your way, you don't have to grace us with your superior wisdom. Let us the ignoramuses battle it out. Don't waste your time with us. But it looks like you are so enamored by this topic that you are not able keep yourself away, you keep coming back. But all you do is make superfluous meta arguments and long putdowns. That is really sad.

Sri Nara:

This post again demonstrates a reaction from someone whose faith has been called out by logical analysis.
There was no ‘put down’ from my point of view except call out your generic approach & agenda evident in most of your posts here and elsewhere.
I could not understand how your post on EVR (post #99) fit with the topic ! Then I realized that he is your icon of your faith and you are bringing that leader into discussions just like any person who is proselytizing others do.

You want me to answer the question ‘head on’! How much more ‘head-on’ can one be than simply showing that the OP is flawed *logically*. I do not relish showing logical issues with your positions or put anyone in a spot where they are unable to answer direct logical question but when there is repeated propagation of incorrect information on serious topics I thought it is appropriate to call that out once since there are many readers at this forum. I know you wish ‘I just go away’ and I will for most part.

In post #91 I thought you said the word ‘Faith’ is not a dirty word. By calling out your belief system I am not trying to put down people who advance arguments like you..

 

[sangom]

Sri Sangom has stated that 'Sri Sankara has taken the people for a ride' - I am paraphrasing from another post elsewhere.

There is a humorous saying : "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."

Sri Nara and Sri Sangom practice the religion of Atheism.

Since they both may be living in North American Continent I have a news item to share that a court in Wisconsin after due consideration did declare Atheism as a religion.

Shri tks,

I may clarify that I live in Trivandrum, Kerala and not in US. And, I am not an atheist but probably may be called an agnostic (A person who claims that it is not possible to have true knowledge about the existence of God, but does not deny God's existence.) I became so, from being one of the ordinary, god-believing tabras, because my reading of different books, including our scriptures, gives me the impression that right from the ancient days, the priestly class in Hinduism has been expounding the God concept, not in an unbiased scientific manner but in such a way as to link this God concept to the prevailing religious practices of those priests, so that their own hold over people is reaffirmed by their successive and shifting views on God.

A doubt therefore arose naturally in my mind as to whether our religion is really true and dependable or whether it is also like some other religions which are essentially "Cults" like the "Born Again Christians". I found that the cultic elements are strongly embedded in Hinduism also; the emergence and the highly successful performances of godmen like Satya Sai Baba, of godwomen like Amritanandamayi, etc., are proof from our times to establish the above conclusion IMHO.

So, if one Satyanarayana Raju can become a veritable God on earth within the principles of Hinduism, it clearly shows that Hinduism is no different from other religions which encourage similar cults like Jim Jones'. We do not even have a countercult movement as yet in India. To me all these factors indicate the unreality of the Hindu philosophy and its grandiose claims to being something original and great.

Regarding Adisankara, I think I had written the premises on which my cited remark is based. In some thread here we also had a discussion about "Pottan Theyyam" also which depicts the AdiSankara & Chandaala episode as viewed by the lower castes of ancient Kerala. To me therefore it appears as though much of what is disseminated as "Sankara vijayam" is pure hagiographic inventions whereas the truth has been mostly lost to us. The very fact that Sankara's two immediate disciples maṇḍana miśra and sureśvara, themselves went on differing interpretations of whatever it was that Sankara propounded, and thus gave rise to the bhāmati and the vivaraṇa schools of advaita (which some later advaitin scholars reportedly tried to mediate between) is sufficient evidence to show that whatever Sankara propounded was not clear enough to be understood even by his direct disciples; that means that the Guru failed miserably either in selecting proper Sishyas, or, alternatively, the Guru was able to get away with some ambiguous sort of philosophy. It is relevant to note the following statements in a premier website dedicated to advaita:
It should be clear that the basic problem is still that of reconciling the upanishadic dictum of One changeless brahman with the evidence of the senses, which imply a mani-fold universe full of change. The bhAmatI and the vivaraNa schools are therefore only varying approaches towards the same basic problem. There are some other authors who share both lines of thought.
The Advaita Vedânta Home Page - Bhamati and Vivarana Schools

(emphasis mine)

 

[saidevo]

namaste shrI TKS.

This is with reference to your post #109:

• Nara has made it clear repeatedly that

‣ although he would challenge religious/spiritual/philosophical concepts that are highlighted to be 'rational', his intention is not to 'tease or sneer at';

‣ nevertheless he appears to be skeptical--even cynical--about any sort of replies that have forthcome in support of Vedanta, which is mainly due to his forgone conclusion--and which in itself is a belief--there is no metaphysical reality.

• When debating with such a person who questions a formidable vision of reality such as that of Vedanta, we have a right to ask him for a viable alternative, which I did right in post #2, and which he has finally offered in the last paragraph of his post #108.

‣ Since Nara was a(n orthodox?) religious man himself in his pUrvAshrama (as he fondly refers to it), IMO, it is not fair to hint that he might have an agenda to convert people to his clan of practical atheists.

‣ Just as science can never hope to destroy the religious faith and spiritual/philosophical quest in man, since there will always be something mysterious, atheists IMO, can never be completely successful in converting a faithful into his clan, mainly for the reason there are no definitive texts of atheism that every atheist follows;

‣ and the cushion they have, the world of science, more often than not, is like depending on a sand doll of horse to cross the floods of samsAra.

• Since Nara is unlikely to accept any sort of 'reasonable' line of argument in favour of the Vedanta premises of Brahman and the world, my task is just to highlight what I can, for the benefit of the reading public, about how Vedanta has sould logic behind its assertions.

In a paTTi-manRam, the affected party does not change their views just because the naDuvar's--umpire's decision went in favour of the other party. The paTTi-manRam is only an academic debate, mostly watched for entertainment rather than enlightenment. The watching public knows that the same person in another occasion might debate in favour of a side that he/she opposed now.

Our friend Nara is one such person, who is capable of arguing on both sides. It would be interesting to know how he would argue in favour of Vedanta, for the sake of academic interest.

 

[saidevo]

namaste Nara.

You said in post #108:

But, I do have an alternate vision, one that says take it easy, don't bother about god or praying to him, A, VA, and D are all unproven and unprovable religious dogma, so don't fashion your life based on any of that, don't worry about life after death, god, prayers and such, lead your life as true to compassion and justice as possible. This is my alternative view.

I can understand why and how a practical atheist values compassion and justice in life, but do you think science has anything to do with these values? If not to the desired/adequate extent, why depend on science for answers?

 

[Nara]

tks,

First, I was not the one to bring EVR into this thread, I was just responding to an observation made of EVR.

When you say the OP is absurd, but continue to pay attention to the discussion and then go on to say atheism is also a religion, all this comes across as pronouncements of a "high-priest" (h/t Y). Why don't you give up trying to make rules and state your arguments in a cogent manner? Let me start with two points:

• Brhman can be known only through Shruti (even the great Acharyas have stated this), and
  
• Shruti is inerrant

Instead of saying I am ignorant, or what I state is absurd, or I am trying to convert people like the Christian proseletizers you encountered, or that I also follow a religion called Atheism, why don't you offer your best arguments in defense the above two points. If you think questions like these are absurd, please stay away from making condescending remarks about me.

Thank you...

 

[tks]

Shri tks,

I may clarify that I live in Trivandrum, Kerala and not in US. And, I am not an atheist but probably may be called an agnostic (A person who claims that it is not possible to have true knowledge about the existence of God, but does not deny God's existence.) I became so, from being one of the ordinary, god-believing tabras, because my reading of different books, including our scriptures, gives me the impression that right from the ancient days, the priestly class in Hinduism has been expounding the God concept, not in an unbiased scientific manner but in such a way as to link this God concept to the prevailing religious practices of those priests, so that their own hold over people is reaffirmed by their successive and shifting views on God.

Sri Sangom - Namaskaram.

I understand your point. While growing up in India, I came across many elders who assumed that 'everything there is to learn is in our Shastras' though they could not explain even one item to my satisfaction. Most have equated proficiency in Sanskrit and abilities to recite few verses (almost like 'blah blah') with knowledge. Though I have not had the opportunity to study history or had any interest to study history, I can relate to the idea that 'priestly class' expounding 'God' concepts may have done so to advance self interests and increase their power base.

Having said this, let me also say that there is no need to "throw the baby with the bathwater". We have unique opportunities in our times to examine Upanishads, BG and Brahma Sutra to see if they make sense, if they are applicable & useful to our life and if they are based on a sound logic without contradictions.

A doubt therefore arose naturally in my mind as to whether our religion is really true and dependable or whether it is also like some other religions which are essentially "Cults" like the "Born Again Christians". I found that the cultic elements are strongly embedded in Hinduism also; the emergence and the highly successful performances of godmen like Satya Sai Baba, of godwomen like Amritanandamayi, etc., are proof from our times to establish the above conclusion IMHO.

Amen!
In India almost anyone can start a cult and there will be thousand people joining the cult. I am turned off by anyone with claims of doing things that is against the laws of physics. In fact, to me Iswara in the form of universe as it is revealed to us itself is a wonder. In balance, if Satya Sai Baba and Mata Amritanandamayi have brought peace of mind to millions and have encouraged them to be kind to each other I think they have done great service to human beings.

So, if one Satyanarayana Raju can become a veritable God on earth within the principles of Hinduism, it clearly shows that Hinduism is no different from other religions which encourage similar cults like Jim Jones'. We do not even have a countercult movement as yet in India. To me all these factors indicate the unreality of the Hindu philosophy and its grandiose claims to being something original and great.

Hindu belief systems, though not always supported by Vedic view, include every possible thinking humans can invent! There are people that worship rats, there are temples for 'highway robbers' etc. My take is that I don't care if anyone claims anything (like "Jews are the chosen people" or "Hinduism is the greatest thing since slice of bread') . If any religious person or Atheist person do not harm others and force their views on others I do not pay attention to claims made.

Regarding Adisankara, I think I had written the premises on which my cited remark is based. In some thread here we also had a discussion about "Pottan Theyyam" also which depicts the AdiSankara & Chandaala episode as viewed by the lower castes of ancient Kerala. To me therefore it appears as though much of what is disseminated as "Sankara vijayam" is pure Hagiographa inventions whereas the truth has been mostly lost to us. The very fact that Sankara's two immediate disciples maṇḍana miśra and sureśvara, themselves went on differing interpretations of whatever it was that Sankara propounded, and thus gave rise to the bhāmati and the vivaraṇa schools of advaita (which some later advaitin scholars reportedly tried to mediate between) is sufficient evidence to show that whatever Sankara propounded was not clear enough to be understood even by his direct disciples; that means that the Guru failed miserably either in selecting proper Sishyas, or, alternatively, the Guru was able to get away with some ambiguous sort of philosophy. It is relevant to note the following statements in a premier website dedicated to advaita:
It should be clear that the basic problem is still that of reconciling the upanishadic dictum of One changeless brahman with the evidence of the senses, which imply a mani-fold universe full of change. The bhAmatI and the vivaraNa schools are therefore only varying approaches towards the same basic problem. There are some other authors who share both lines of thought.
The Advaita Vedânta Home Page - Bhamati and Vivarana Schools

(emphasis mine)

I am not much of a history buff! However I would like to examine those views that are available for examination and applicability.
It does not matter if someone thinks 'Chandala' was a Lord coming to teach Sri Sankara - the key is that Sri Sankara in the verses (that is available for understanding) says he accepts the 'Chandala' as his Guru after Sri Sankara realizes his mistake in how he treated the Chandala. This to me is a mark of greatness.

Hinduism has great many stories and epics. Regardless of historical accuracy or whether the stories have been embellished over time they do teach many things. In Shanti Parva of Mahabharatha we find Bhishma give a detailed coaching to Yudhishtra how to move forward in the face of death and destruction after the war. In those 7000 verses or so the same ideas in BG are communicated and yet it is Bhshma who allowed the war to progress. So the characters in Hindu works are not portrayed as infallible (including historical figures like Sri Sankara).

In my quest to study as a student still, as someone that does not want to sacrifice thinking and logic , I find that vision of the Upanishad is compelling. Like theory of relativity which mocks common experience it is not easy to swallow some of the Mahavakyas. I have found the explanations by and large to be very scientific in approach though I tend to disagree with the writings of many of authors who have written books on Vedanta.

Before talking about Moksha and Brahman, I think it is more useful to answer the question first such as - "Why is Dharma a Purushartha", what is the Dharma that is being talked about?

Regards

 

[Nara]

....‣ Since Nara was a(n orthodox?) religious man himself in his pUrvAshrama (as he fondly refers to it), IMO, it is not fair to hint that he might have an agenda to convert people to his clan of practical atheists.

Saidevo, I appreciate this post very much. I never interfere with people's faith. There are members in this forum with whom I am quite friendly, almost all of them are believers. I have not gone out and argued with any of them about faith, it is usually the other way around, they, out of concern I am sure, try to tell me how wrong I am and also make firm predictions that one day soon I will realize the folly of my thinking and return to the fold of the faithful. tks seems stuck on this realm of seeing goblins -- he has an agenda, he wants to convert -- and that is quite unfortunate.

• Since Nara is unlikely to accept any sort of 'reasonable' line of argument in favour of the Vedanta

I am glad you have put the word reasonable within quotes. Any argument that starts out with an unproved or unprovable dogmatic statement like Shruti is inerrant, cannot be considered reasonable.

Our friend Nara is one such person, who is capable of arguing on both sides. It would be interesting to know how he would argue in favour of Vedanta, for the sake of academic interest.

In my poorvashrama I used to argue in favor of SV Vedantam with a lot of fervor. But even then, I was fully aware, and would state it at the outset, that all the arguments are built on the inerrant nature of Shruti which is derived from it being apauresheya. I knew this was based on faith and that did not bother me then.

There is a story in SV tradition that Bhavat Ramanuja, in Sri Rangam, would stand outside during bhogyasanam, and when the தளிகை is taken away he would remove the covers to see any sign that Lord Ranganatha did taste something. Kind of disappointed that he never got any sign, one day he lamented openly? The next day, he saw three lines on one of the dishes and he took that as a sign, but who knows, hearing Ramanuja lament it was probably the Bhattar swami who made the mark. Even great acharyas were troubled by having to accept somethings on unproved/unprovable faith.

In my earlier SV version I was a conflicted person -- on the one hand I abhorred casteism, unequal and discriminatory treatment of women, silly superstitions, etc.. But to be true to SV Brahminism, I accepted and practiced them grudgingly. Now I am free of all that, I am at peace with myself, and very happy. All I need now to make me even happier are some grandchildren .

....I can understand why and how a practical atheist values compassion and justice in life, but do you think science has anything to do with these values? If not to the desired/adequate extent, why depend on science for answers?

The scientific process is the only valid process of finding true answers, that is the only way. Questions for which one can't find answers using science will have to remain beyond our grasp.

Science is value neutral. How the discoveries of science are used is in our hands. We can use it to promote justice and harmony as many do, or it can be used for destructive purposes as many do as well. The desire for compassion and justice comes from our genes, selected by nature over eons.

Cheers!

 

[tks]

tks,

• Brhman can be known only through Shruti (even the great Acharyas have stated this), and

I gave my detailed answer in post #89
Using the definitions in various Upanishads (see my post #33), Brahman cannot be known by the five means of knowledge that encapsulates all that is known in Science and all that can be known in the study of Science. It is incorrect to jump to conclusion that this means all this is faith and there is no reality to any of this and Brahman cannot be understood. That is why I asked you to define Reality and definition of what evidence means - See post # 52 Until then no claims can be made that all these are figments of human imagination.

• Shruti is inerrant

Since I don't subscribe to blind faith of any kind and since I have not learnt all there is to learn from the source I cannot 'support or not support' this claim. To me this statement is not necessary for my learning. I have approached lofty vision of Vedas with high degree of skepticism and I have found that each time I dug deep I found that the vision seem to make complete sense. Therefore my confidence is high in the basic concepts taught. However, I have come across mostly bad teachers who hide behind a lot of jargon, bad books, books making lofty claims etc. One of my earliest exposure to the field was reading the collected works of Sri Vivekananda's lectures. While I was fascinated I came away more confused than ever. Next time I read part of those lectures they made more sense though I am not sure I would recommend that for a serious student of Vedanta. There is so much confusion about the four paths to enlightenment etc that I look to other authors. There are few times I have come across phenomenal translations from original content in Sanskrit and they have satisfied the skeptics side of me. Hence I dont think this point is worth belaboring on. If someone says it is inerrant so be it.

 

[tks]

tks,

First, I was not the one to bring EVR into this thread, I was just responding to an observation made of EVR.

When you say the OP is absurd, but continue to pay attention to the discussion and then go on to say atheism is also a religion, all this comes across as pronouncements of a "high-priest" (h/t Y). Why don't you give up trying to make rules and state your arguments in a cogent manner? Let me start with two points:

• Brhman can be known only through Shruti (even the great Acharyas have stated this), and
  
• Shruti is inerrant

Instead of saying I am ignorant, or what I state is absurd, or I am trying to convert people like the Christian proseletizers you encountered, or that I also follow a religion called Atheism, why don't you offer your best arguments in defense the above two points. If you think questions like these are absurd, please stay away from making condescending remarks about me.

Thank you...

This response is not to the questions but other superfluous statements made.
Nara - There is a pattern to your responses one of which is to 'play victim' by re-interpreting a critique of your logic and ideas as criticism of you. This is unnecessary as well as all the rants (e.g., post #111) at a personal level. Also, please stop making comments that all those that follow faith of any kind (by the way I do not consider myself one of those) are essentially victims. That is condescending attitude in my book. I have no idea what you are talking about 'high priest'. Let us reset, and start all over!

 

[Nara]

.... Brahman cannot be known by the five means of knowledge that encapsulates all that is known in Science and all that can be known in the study of Science. It is incorrect to jump to conclusion that this means all this is faith and there is no reality to any of this and Brahman cannot be understood.

tks, this is more or less what I have been saying, that even great Acharyas have stated Brhman cannot be known except through Shruti.

The second sentence above (emphasis mine) is a strawman fallacy, I did not say that. My position on that is not complete denial, but one of strong agnosticism, i.e., it is not possible to make definitive statements, very much like I cannot definitely prove there is no celestial teapot orbiting the sun. To make definitive statements, like the ones Vedantins make, blind faith in Shruti, the only source to "know" Brhman, is an essential prerequisite.

That is why I asked you to define Reality and definition of what evidence means - See post # 52 Until then no claims can be made that all these are figments of human imagination.

Go ahead and make your case, you define "reality" and give evidence to backup your claim.

There are few times I have come across phenomenal translations from original content in Sanskrit and they have satisfied the skeptics side of me. Hence I dont think this point is worth belaboring on. If someone says it is inerrant so be it.

Your satisfaction is not in dispute here. In as much as you concede that Brhman cannot be known via perception, blind faith in the inerrant nature of Shruti is a must for Vedantins, otherwise, there is no way of being sure that what you think as satisfactory to your skeptic side, is valid or not.

Cheers!

 

[tks]

tks, this is more or less what I have been saying, that even great Acharyas have stated Brhman cannot be known except through Shruti.

The second sentence above (emphasis mine) is a strawman fallacy, I did not say that. My position on that is not complete denial, but one of strong agnosticism, i.e., it is not possible to make definitive statements, very much like I cannot definitely prove there is no celestial teapot orbiting the sun. To make definitive statements, like the ones Vedantins make, blind faith in Shruti, the only source to "know" Brhman, is an essential prerequisite.

Nara - this is the central point of disagreement that I have had with you. You seem to equate Brahman defined in the Vedas with the same understanding of a term 'Gobblygook' if I say "Gobblygook is defined in Abracadabra". Then one can say Gobblygook can never be fully denied and it is not possible to make definitive statements. In order to make a definitive statements about Gobblygook which can only be understood by blind faith in Abracadabra. You can demand proof which will require axioms (that are undefined by you). Such a reasoning will lead to saying that any tradition built on Abracadabra with Gobblygook as main assertion is all based on blind faith. Also if I say, you need to expend enormous energy to understand Abracadabra in order to know Gobblygook, a natural question is 'why should I spend that much time', 'what the heck this subject is anyway'.

The problem with this analysis along the above lines is that Brahman has a very specific and detailed meaning and understanding - it is not made up of simple statements like "it is an entity by which everything is caused" though it is a start. The effort required to understand is huge in order to overcome this strong agnosticism. There is a difference between the idea that one does not have what it takes (time, capacity, infrastructure, motivation etc) and the fact that this cannot be understood at all by definition. If it is the latter, then 'strong agnosticism' is a valid point in my view. Otherwise I would say, you have not put the effort to understand this. Then the natural response is "why should I spend such an effort, I just want to have a pleasant discussion without homework".
That is why I asked you to define 'why' do you want to study and 'what' this subject is about. If these 'fundas' are not clearer then it will be impossible to make any progress IMHO in which case the convenient resolution is a 'strong agnosticism'.

Go ahead and make your case, you define "reality" and give evidence to backup your claim.

Nara - I have no case to make since it is not my personal point of view. As I said before I do not have questions. "Reality" is Brahman. That is all.
I asked you to define Reality - a more 'meaninful' English word than Brahman which you have strong agnosticism about. My asking this question was another way to state what Saidevo has been asking which is 'state your alternate point of view'. Here I am asking your definition of a word Reality and what constitute proof. I have no claim beyond what is stated in the Vedas.

Your satisfaction is not in dispute here. In as much as you concede that Brhman cannot be known via perception, blind faith in the inerrant nature of Shruti is a must for Vedantins, otherwise, there is no way of being sure that what you think as satisfactory to your skeptic side, is valid or not.

Cheers!

I have not conceded anything. I have stated the specific definitions of Brahman within reason that is possible in a forum like this.
Again you are using loose language and have refused to provide definition of what 'being sure' is, what 'reality' is . Any amount of repetition of flawed logic without putting another point of view and definitions does not make this any more true. It is not possible to debate further if you keep repeating the same statements over and over again without taking into account anything that is said earlier.

The only reason for me to come and provide this point of view is that there are many more viewers who visit here that might get a 'Gobblygook' view of Brahman by reading some of your posts. My point is that there is much more to this than meets the eye and that people are encouraged to take up the study to understand why the material presented in Vedas is 'scientific' in approach though it addresses subject area not covered by Science

Peace,

 

[Nara]

The only reason for me to come and provide this point of view is that there are many more viewers who visit here that might get a 'Gobblygook' view of Brahman by reading some of your posts. My point is that there is much more to this than meets the eye and that people are encouraged to take up the study to understand why the material presented in Vedas is 'scientific' in approach though it addresses subject area not covered by Science..

tks, I am also directing my comments to the readers to think critically.

Nobody has come forward with a straight forward answer to the questions I raised in my OP. Instead there has been derision and diversionary tactics used. The vedas assert a whole lot of gobblygook and abracadabra dressed up as logic. The shradda needed to accept these assertions has to come laced with a large helping of just plain blind faith in Shruti and the dogmatic notion that it is inerrant. The Brhman claimed is nothing more than an invisible pink unicorn -- can't be seen but is pink in color, can't be understood but has an unicorn.

Cheers!

 

[saidevo]

namaste shrI TKS, Nara and others.

Let me try to sum up what our friend Nara believes in;
(Nara, correct me where I am wrong):

01. Only an ultimate physical reality exists for the jagat--universe.
02. Only the human brain is the finality of individual consciousness--self.
03. Genes determine and propagate down the hereditary line, the personal and emotional features of a person. (post #118)

As against this:

04. Brahman, if it is asserted to exist in a metaphysical reality, cannot be known empirically, so belief in such assertion, as in the shruti, is blind faith; It is blind faith because shurti is not inerrant.

05. When there is no immanent god like Brahman, there is no question of any other formful god who is personal, creative, or indifferent (post #106).

06. Nevertheless, any logical reasoning and proof the contravenes the above five beliefs is acceptable.

*****

How far have we, as followers of Vedanta, addressed these issues until now? Where is the--if there could be any--meeting point between these two sets of issues?

01. Since our discussions have focussed only on Brahman as the ultimate conscious reality, this first issue about the nature of jagat is yet to be addressed.

02. The brain issue IMO has been adequately dealt with and has resulted in a tie: Nara believes that no circular logic is involved in the brain investigating the self, but we (at least I) don't accept it.

03. Nara has introduced the genes issue only now, and since it has probably nothing to do with Brahman, this issue can wait.

04. I think we have discussed the Brahman and scriptural inerrancy issue at different levels:

• Nara has been reiterating that the three great AchAryas concur in their assertion that that since Brahman as the absolute realilty is beyond the knower, known and knowledge, it is not an object to be known by proof, so it has to be taken on the authority of the Vedas.

‣ The three AchAryas did not say so because they had themselves only blind faith in scriptural inerrancy. They verified it in experiential realization, and since such realization is not possible for normal people, they have asked us to presume the truth of Brahman, with faith in the shruti.

‣ As to why the three AchAryas arrived at three different--even mutually contradicting--realities about Brahman, my view is that their task was to address people with these three different propensities of religions/spiritual approach, and they obliged.

‣ Just as the six kaliyuga RShis of the ancient past have given us the ShaD-darshana--six philosophical systems, the three kaliyuga AchAryas have given us three different streams of Vedanta. Ultimately, everything fits within the hierarchy of ekam sat.

• Since common people cannot realize the truth of Brahman intellectually, TKS has insisted repeatedly, on the qualification of a student of Vedanta. He has also stated that demanding empirical/logic proof, treating Brahman as an entity is wrong because Brahman is not an entity/object.

• The three AchAryas have also concurred in their assertion about the inerrancy of the shruti, which Nara has NOT accepted. I am willing to discuss further the logic of apauruSheya that I have briefed from a scholar in post #110.

It seems rather strange to me that Nara accepts only what is convenient to him in the AchAryas two key assertions, when he dismisses anything beyond the physical--Brahman, god, soul--everything metaphysical.

05. Nara's rejection in his post #106 of the reality of different kinds of personal/formful god, is the very reason for the Vedantin's premise of Brahman, an immanent universal consciousness that only stays a witness to and does not interfere in man's actions.

06. The main flaw in Nara's beliefs I have summed up above is that they are based on the inerrancy of science (what science cannot prove, nothing can).

When belief in the shruti's assertion of Brahman is blind faith to him, we are equally justified in saying that his belief in a godless physical reality, based on the inerrancy of science is equally blind faith.

If Nara insists on empirical proof for the Vedantin's faith of Brahman, the Vedantin in turn insists on the same empirical proof as the final proof for the ultimate physical reality of the world and consciousness.

If what has been verified by our sages experientially is blind faith because it cannot be proved empirically, then belief in what is yet to be proved or may never be proved empirically is also blind faith.

The very existential experience of 'I'--which is empirical as well--is a pointer to the metaphysical reality beyond the physical, although the inquiry into the Self is only the starting point for the inquiry into Brahman. Unless at least this is conceded, I am afraid that there is no meeting ground.

 

[tks]

tks, I am also directing my comments to the readers to think critically.

Nobody has come forward with a straight forward answer to the questions I raised in my OP. Instead there has been derision and diversionary tactics used. The vedas assert a whole lot of gobblygook and abracadabra dressed up as logic. The shradda needed to accept these assertions has to come laced with a large helping of just plain blind faith in Shruti and the dogmatic notion that it is inerrant. The Brhman claimed is nothing more than an invisible pink unicorn -- can't be seen but is pink in color, can't be understood but has an unicorn.

Cheers!

Nara,

1. There is no such thing as a 'straight forward' answer which in any case is subjective & gobblygook to begin with
2. There is no reason to assume answers to questions have to be 'simple' and easily understood without proper background. We will not place such a requirement on any branch of studies like science, so why apply this here?
3. Just asserting criticism repeatedly without showing contradictions in the concept as stated amounts to a form of faith in the criticism.
4. There has been definitions of Brahman given at various levels of details in this thread: Here is a repeat of what I stated in one of the posts with some extensions- it is a start.
- World you see IS Brahman (no cause or effect, the connecting relationship to the world is the word IS)
- You are Brahman
- The monitor you are staring at as you read this is Brahman.
- There cannot be simpler description to understand.

5.What requires deep understanding is that while point 4 is true the following is also true
- Brahman IS NOT the world

6. Even with five means of knowledge (I do not mean just 5 sense organs) which encompasses all scientific reasons we have items that are not real and are like your IPU: definitions of imaginary numbers (square root of -1), Objects defined in Abstract Algebra, Hilbert Space of Infinite Dimensions, multi-verses in another realm of time & space etc. Even the 'financial products' based on derivatives (rate of change) and Integral and differential equations are un-real and yet all these have had profound effects on us.

6. I know your assertion will be the same, you cannot offer any alternate view of "Reality" (I mean Sathyam which is a description of Brahman and simpler to grasp in English) and I am convinced no posts will change your assertions.

Therefore you can have the last word!