[Advaita-l] 'End' not 'Means'

[Aditya Varun Chadha]

On 4/28/06, Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com> wrote:
> 2.  All societies have more concepts than just the bare essentials.
>
> and I agree that it is _necessary_ that it is so.  Ethical values must be
> wrapped up in myths, rituals, power relations etc. in order to propogate
> through generations.

Ofcourse, but you must by now be anticipating the question: where do
these myths, rituals and power relations come from? Scriptures are a
recording of values learned through evolution. Even going by the
scriptural tradition, one asks, where did brahma get the vedas from?
Scriptures have to be derived from pratyaksha as seen by some saguNa
entity (or entities).

> In any case the point I want to make is that human behavior cannot be
> reduced to simple stimulus-response (fear of punishment etc.)

this may be so for someone who refuses to see how simple
stimulus-response events interact to form complex systems. When
someone refrains for stealing even in the improbability of punishment,
it is because of various pratyakSa reasons. These may vary from "I
would like it if this was done to me", or "forming this habit could
get me into trouble", etc. These ideas ofcourse have been encoded in
scriptures, but they are in the scriptures because someone saw them
pratyakSa. In the scriptures or not, all ethical dogma can be derived
purely from pratyakSa. Since pratyakSa is contingent on individual
perception, dogma may in varying contexts be proven of varying value.
The key point is to inquire where the scriptures came from. Who/what
was the SrotA, and who/what the vaktA

> Oh I'm in favor of more than a hint. But it should be borne in mind that
> all systems of belief (including non-religious ones) boil down to
> assumptions taken on faith.  I personally am skeptical that gender
> neutrality is a viable proposition over time yet people continue to
> believe it.

sure. the scriptures say what they say because someone wrote them down
after placing faith in the senses (the mind, especially). So while it
can be helpful to use the scriptures (based on someone else's faith in
their own senses) as guiding tools, when the mind is in contradiction
with the scriptures, one should recognize what they are (expression of
someone's faith in their senses) and take on a more objective stance
(put trust in one's own senses, even if for a wee little second). Yes,
it is arguable whether this is a more objective stance or not, but for
example even in seeking a guru, one trusts one's own senses first, and
then surrenders to the one whom the senses accept as the "right Guru".

> And what will be your criteria for attainment of mukti?  Where is mukti
> defined?

at the same place from where acceptance of ramaNa maharshi and those
who took the more traditional path as muktas comes from.

> I hope you now see that in fact the experiment is impossible.

Actually I do not see (yet), is a logical and nuanced exposition of
the impossibility of the experiment too much to ask? I am asking you
to show me why the "effect of vedic reading on women" cannot be
studied. If a woman wants to find out whether reading the vedas is
harmful for her, all she has to do is pick up copies and start
reciting.

> No I do not.  Both are statements for which only the Vedas are pramana.

I have to keep disagreeing with you on this point until the above
question of mine is resolved.

--
Aditya Varun Chadha | http://www.adichad.com | +91 9840076411 (M)
Room#1024, Cauvery Hostel | IIT Madras | Chennai - 600036 | India