[Advaita-l] 'End' not 'Means'
all_discussions at yahoo.com
Fri Apr 28 11:35:09 CDT 2006
Just to add to it Adityaji not being an active member of this debate any further but just a passive one....with the pointers from scriptures...
As Ramana Maharshi says,"Blessed are those who do not have to undergo such philosophical studies and reach the goal." Needless to say, some have to venture into these philosophical studies also but nonetheless as we all know they are not the necessary condition but only sufficient as we say in maths.... and sometimes insufficient also if they are not lived..
Here is something intereting from Bhagvada Gita. It is a kind of analogy as we always engage in ....as A:B so C:D
Yavanartha udpaane sarvataha samplutodake
taavansarveshu vedeshu brahmanasya vijanataha
partha: jab sab aur jal hi jal ki baadh aayi ho, us samaya ek pokhar ka jitna upyoga hota hai, utna hi upyoga jNAni braahmaNa ke liye sab vedon ka hai
As a pond is to the one when it is all flooded everywhere, so are all the vedas to a jNAni BrAhmaNa....
(Vedas : jNAni as Pond : Flood)
II-45 is also worth reading, for it talks about Adityaji's thoughts about Vedas which is indirectly related to they belonging to the three modes of nature....
in talking about three modes or mind ---yoga vAsishtha is beyond comparison...an amazing scripture beyond comparison....
Rise above these modes pArtha...
P.S. Even a single scripture like BG is sufficient enough to answer and calm all these debates if it be read with true enquiry otherwise it is the source of most of the debates.....
and otherwise (learning: KNOWLEDGE as pretending: BEING) :-( : :-)
Aditya Varun Chadha <adichad at gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/28/06, S Jayanarayanan wrote:
> What do you mean by "negative effects on society as a whole"? This is
> the crux of the issue. Whatever you mean by that term, it does not
> refer to a purely scientifically measurable quantity.
> Your example makes the assumption that:
> 1) All effects on humans are measurable.
At least some are.
> 2) There exists such things as "negative effects" on society that can
> be scientifically determined.
There has to be a pratyakSa basis to find out whether a certain moral
system is a "good one" or not. Most of the non-Muslim world today
calls the danD system as laid down by the Quran and Hadiths "bad".
Manusmriti is controversial because of pratyakSa doubt. Most of the
world does NOT perceive buddhist morality as "bad".
> 3) "First-person negative effects on humans or society" can be
> determined by third-person observations.
repeating my question: how did scriptural exposition on the morality
of the topic come into existence?
Aditya Varun Chadha | http://www.adichad.com | +91 9840076411 (M)
Room#1024, Cauvery Hostel | IIT Madras | Chennai - 600036 | India
To unsubscribe or change your options:
For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list