After Sri Sangom's message I feel very disinclined to participate in further discussions.
But I am not trying to pursue an empty path. I will make my stand clear and express the broad idea of what I would like say.This is only because I dont want the people who have read my arguments feel stranded as it leads to no conclusive stand from me.Please note that I will express further clarification only by PM to anyone and everyone who pings me. This will be the last in public domain.
1. First thing people have to know is that vedic religion in its original form was not misssionary. What this means is that people who believed in the tradition automatically gathered and followed practices. Those who didnt believe said goodbye and called quits. There was no outreach program to claim the lost followers in the distant past. However times changed when there was a significant confusion and distortion within tradition itself, this happened before shankara's times. Buddhism was a metaphysical and not a purely rational philosophy. It was missionary and made organized attempts to demolish the vedic culture, it was then an organized debate culture came from the other side. The purpose of me bringing this to light, is that I want to say , first and foremost, vedic religion is an experience-based philosophy.
That does not mean it has a logical fallacy. But there are grades of truth and the same statement assumes different meaning at each level of advancement. From the point of view of modern science such advancement is unnoticed and unfounded. There lies the main argument boundaries between the believers of vedas and the people who swear by modern science. Infact Sri Nara has been bringing this point again and again to the surface.
2. Sri Sankara , Ramanujacharya and others all hold that the central tenet of vedas is the absolute brahman. The nature of brahman is a matter of dispute but this is clearly distinguished from the matter which can be grasped by the sense.
3. Sri Nara and others inclined to think like him want a logical proof without going into a method of experience whose success is neither clear to them nor to others. From my point I cannot convert experience to mundane logic because unless you know that something is indeed true, you cannot put up a logic of higher truths.In such a case, yourself knowing the truth is not good enough for arguments,because others cant perceive the same.
For instance when you look at a Microscope the information about bacteria is same for all people who can look into it with their eyes. There might be mild variations depending on eyesight. So this allows a body of scientists to be formed , a committee can be formed to look and examine claims. This body being an expert body, can verify the same. Sri Nara expects a response acceptable to that body. Therefore special experiences of a few saints dont count here unless he can show superhuman powers applicable to the mundane world,that can be experimentally validated. If that is not possible he expects a valid logic atleast in place. Many people of his mode of thought would like to ask "If such things cannot happen then surely such things are not possible". From their point surely it is a valid case.
I too would like to say that it is fairly clear that such superhuman feats are not being performed commonly, or they would have been demonstrated. But absence is not proof of its impossibility , it only makes it unreasonable for people like Nara, to accept it on such a basis. There are many people here , who without difficulty recollect personal experiences with spiritual people and their powers.
I am myself witness to my pain in leg within minutes cured by an old lady(who did not do it for any business or for a cost or for a popularity) by her mantra, even when I was a 9 year old kid. So as the story goes, I am already not on the side of the rational questioners .
But the essential thing to be borne in mind is true spiritual people dont show off their talents neither do they hunt for devotees. So while this cannot and should not make people like Sri Nara, abandon their stand, we need rational people who are sceptical of every miracle, in our society , they must also realize that a few genuine spiritual experiences will continue to make human society believe in miracles.
I cannot make sadhus line up in front of the lab, because I am most certain that most if not all, who can perform something, dont really know why and how they can do something, neither can they replicate it at random because it usually is because of the involvement of a divine spirit. Some powers of yoga and meditation have been demonstrated, while I am not sure how authentic these reports are, some of these sadhus have legal cases on them (for sexual conduct etc). So I will not argue for the case of vedas based on the supernatural. In any case Vedas themselves and the rules and regulations that must be adopted by practioners have been loosened significantly, so the proper benefit of vedas cannot be tested properly on this ground.
4. So my arguments are simple, that there is indeed a good reason to explore vedas because there is insufficient logical stand for it to be declared as a baseless scripture.
a) If the origin of consciousness is material in origin, the whole structure or edifice of vedas falls. This is not the case today. Sri Nara would like to imagine it happening in the future. I would put the argument of consistency vs inconsistency
i. All perception of senses is inconsistent because it depends on the structure of nervous system. There is no reason why with a different structure of nervous system the perception cannot be different. Therefore using the means of sense organs for observation and therefore for inference based only on such an observation is always a difficulty because of its very inconsistency. One may argue that there is only sense based perception and we have no way round it. That is a hypothesis, it cannot be given the same importance as a fact. But since all our facts are dependent on this one view, therefore it is not surprising for people to not suspend such a view.
ii. "Aham asmi". I exist is a phenomenon that each person can know for sure among ourselves. This is a case which is fairly consistent elementary it may seem, but it is the root for the necessity or the validity of all arguments. Existence needs no knowledge. But the fact that I know I exist is a knowledge. This is a non sensuous knowledge and scientists would like to argue that it is a sensual knowledge. But since they cannot produce this I with content from what can be perceived by senses, their claims remains baseless. They hope to prove it in the future, this is again a postulation, a stand not a fact.
Who are the people who argue that this essential fact I, root of all other logic , root of all other knowledge is non sensual. It is the people of vedanta. I deliberately introduced this distinction as there are people who would like to distinguish vedas from vedanta. But the difference becomes inconsequential as time and again people who declare vedanta point to the vedas as their base. Aurobindo has eloquently put forward this view.
So what is so special about the people of vedas/vedanta who claim the self to be non sensual and non material? Well for one they have contemplated on the self and scientists do not. I would like to leave this to individual conscience about how frequently they turn their attention to matters external to them. How can then ,an equal claim to contemplation of self, be made?
I think some thought should reveal that there are two options
a) Option on relying on something eternally inconsistent
b) explore the option for following the methodology of those who contemplate on the self- be it vedism or buddhism or just plain deep meditation / yoga and so on
We then come across the concept of shruti and the concept of language. I wont go into details but it is fairly evident that no thought is accompanied without some language , however elementary it may be and I put a case on how they are parcelled into words which need to create a kind of mental force with some characteristics. Try to think without language , try to think with minimum language and judge for yourself. It is the power of the mind that gives expression to audible sounds not the inverse. If we extend this logic to the creator, he indeed likely to possess thoughts, words and language. The means of transmission is sound for convenience. This is indeed again a hypothesis based on observation of thought and language, not necessarily sense dependant, and not fully proven to be sense dependant.
So while Sri Nara and others want to stay where they are , expect some knowledge to present itself before they senses( without being aware that their senses are unreliable), people with some experiences however elementary it may seem, see this as a case of a man from arakonam who refuses to believe in anything about arabia, inspite of having never attempted to be there , and always debunking people who have met arabians or have been to arabia.
The fact that this information comes from people who contemplate on the self should make us look at things with seriousness, and if we are unable to believe it, at this stage, there is indeed a valid case, that such a knowledge is not nonsensical. It does not contradict straight facts of science.It does not contradict any laws of physics which is observed by one and all. Yes it contradicts the scientific theories about origin of universe but theories remain theories built on laws and not proven.
So one cannot make fun of people who seek to pursue
Vedas based on long standing methods available to study them and test them since they have not acknowledged the so called meanings (which seem contradictory to science) and believe that there should be greater awareness of the self to study them. One may choose not to follow such methods and make fun of elementary meanings, but the tradition itself acknowledges that there is a deeper meaning. The vedic practitioners are atleast following the method left by seekers of the self, the only people who are looking into a consistent subject matter.
It may turn out that there is only one verse in the entire vedas which is a shruti. But that cannot be decided arbitrarily without following any serious methods of contemplation on the one consistent truth known to all of us.
Neither can you make fun of concepts like sounds, shruti, revelation non sensual etc. Because the very nature of sensual knowledge is to bring you into a loop, because they remain eternally inconsistent. In fact all the purposes of life pursued by modern scientists can be sufficiently fulfilled by vedic practitioners if not more
1. They have the means to be equally happy as a happiness is a state of mind and what you accept or reject
2. They have opportunity to taste pleasures of life, though there is a moderation. When has an unrestrained pleasure brought good
3. They have an opportunity to test the concepts laid bare by people who have contemplated on the self.
4. They have equal opportunity to make use of other concepts like meditation, bhakti etc
There is thus a serious set of people, who have wisely chosen to test the methods left by yogis/rishis who all contemplated on the self because they have not entirely relied on methods left by a self defeating sensual knowledge which knows no hope even at the very beginning. It does not matter if the path in progress , takes you to buddhism, non ritualistic meditation etc because all these lead you away from focussing too much on the external and more so on your one truth-the self.
