[Advaita-l] Logic and shastra
solai at ihb.net
solai at ihb.net
Tue Oct 18 03:01:51 CDT 2005
I was busy with my works and I didn't read the old mails then and I just
read my archived mails. Mr.Amuthan's mail given at the bottom was
fantastic. So, I want to add something here. Though the thread had ended
long back, the subject is ever living.
No logic or no science can explain how sweet tastes. We have to
experience it by ourselves. Anuman takes closer to the reality. Suppose,
if a person asks how Gulabjaman tastes, we will tell it is sweaty and we
will quote any similar sweet tasted by that person. But, we cannot
explain logically in anyway to that person, how exactly the Gulabjaman
When we explain something similar to what we had already experienced, it
is somehow easier.
But, what Sruti tries to do is: it tries to explain colours to a blind
person, who knows only sounds. Colours are brahmangyana state, blind
persons are us, sounds are the maya world. Whatever we try to explain to
the blind person he cannot see the colours. That is what happening to us
also. A blind person may discard the explanations for colour based on
his own logics. But, it does not mean that there is no colour exists.
So, unless we remove his blindness and show him the colours he cannot
understand the colours. To remove the blindness is what Mr.Amuthan
suggested Shri Ramanamahrishi's Self enquiry.
We should use science and logics to understand the Sruti in a better
way. As we are blind persons we have to accept whatever Sruti says until
we experience it.
Sruti also is a signboard, it shows the way, if we sit on the signboard,
sign board will not take us to the destination. Our own Self enquiry is
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 23:20:19 +0100 (BST)
From: Amuthan Arunkumar R <aparyap at yahoo.co.in>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] logic and shastra
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Message-ID: <20050615222019.51052.qmail at web8405.mail.in.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
namo nArAyaNAya !
dear SrI mahesh ursekhar and list members,
before expressing my views, just for clarity, i'd like
to sum up the main developments in this thread so far.
the very first post on this thread (logic and shastra)
by SrI jaldhar vyAs succintly addresses the
limitations of science as a pramANa, the
non-redundancy of Sruti as a pramANa and the secondary
role of logic in analysing the Sruti; and to me, the
thread ends there :-)
the confusion that arose due to the ambiguous use of
the word 'consciousness' for 'chit' was addressed
adequately both by SrI sa~njay Srivastava and SrI
vidyASa~nkar sundaresan and need no further
now, to my (rather redundant) views...
( begin quote )
--- Mahesh Ursekar <mahesh.ursekar at gmail.com> wrote:
> It would be better to say that I would consider the
> 5 (pratyaksha, anuman,
> upamana, arthapatti and anupalabdi) more important
> that sruti. Only the
> first 5 can establish or disprove the claims of the
> sixth. And if they show
> the last praman to be invalid, I would not hesitate
> to throw it out of the
( end of quote )
first, a small digression. i'd like to point out the
essence of an axiomatic development of any subject.
Each subject has its own undefined terms (i.e.
undefined terms are terms that cannot be defined based
on something more fundamental than themselves). using
these undefined terms, the axioms of the subject are
stated. then, using methods of logical analysis, the
various conclusions of the subject are deduced from
the axioms. the 'saneness' of the axioms are checked
by testing one or several of the deduced results,
provided they permit such a testing using valid means.
only the axioms can be tested (indirectly). but the
undefined terms, by their very nature, cannot be
understood by this analysis for obvious reasons.
now, applying the above "scientific" method to the
vedAnta, it is enough to note that the undefined terms
here, however greatly we may delude ourselves to the
contrary, are "Atman", "brahman", "chit", "mAyA" etc.
(i have not really attempted a formal axiomatic
construction of vedAnta and hence i don't claim
completeness in the above list. nevertheless, the
terms above which are stated as undefined seem correct
to me.) the axioms of vedAnta are the Sruti vAkya-s.
the logical analysis of the Sruti uses the 5 pramANa-s
that have been mentioned by SrI mahesh ursekar (and
quoted above). given this, the last sentence of the
previous paragraph, the impossiblity of understanding
the undefined terms like "Atman" etc. through such a
method of logical analysis, is clear. this should be
a sufficient response to SrI mahesh's view (quoted
the undefined terms like "Atman" and "brahman" can be
*known* only by direct realization (Atma sAkshAtkAra
or aparokshAnubhUti) and not by any amount of logical gymnastics. (of
course, the above statement is made based on a basic faith in vedAnta.)
even if the very necessity of a belief in the Sruti is questioned, for
sincere and well-intentioned reasons as was done by SrI mahesh, i would
like to point out that logical analysis is not the most efficient way
out. this is because of the following reason : nobody can exist without
some blind belief or the other (like the universal *BLIND FAITH* that
the world exists; this can never be proved on any grounds, from a
strictly logical viewpoint). the use of logic, which is fundamentally
based on such basic beliefs, will thus be of no great help in
*establishing* the ultimate truth.
for all the sceptics (i'm not pointing at anyone; in
any case, i'm one :-) ), the method of least
assumptions, using which the "undefined" terms of
vedAnta, mentioned above, can be directly known, seems
to be self-introspection of the form "nAn yAr?" ("who
am i?" or "ko'ham?") as taught by SrI ramaNa maharshi.
of course, this is a very personal view and opinions
can be widely different.
other than this method, i don't see any other way
other than a strong belief (SraddhA) in the Sruti
vAkya-s. either way, logical reasoning plays only a
to conclude, the best method(-this is again a personal
view) to test the Sruti vAkya-s to check if it can be
"thrown out of the window" is by direct experience
through self-introspection (Atma vichAra) and not the
use of logical analysis alone, though the latter can
be used as a tool to convince (or more precisely, to
delude :-) ) oneself in the process.
hope this clarifies...
thanx for patiently reading.
Amuthan Arunkumar R,
4th year, B.Tech/M.Tech Dual Degree,
Department of Aerospace Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Madras.
No opinion expressed or implied by the sender necessarily constitutes the opinion of International
Hospital of Bahrain. This message does not constitute a guarantee or proof of the facts mentioned
therein. International Hospital of Bahrain accepts no responsibility or liability in respect of
(a) any opinion or guarantee of fact , whether express or implied; or
(b) any action or failure to act as a result of any information contained in this message, unless
such information or opinion has been confirmed in writing by an authorised International Hospital of
Bahrain director or employee.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list