[Advaita-l] 'End' not 'Means'
vishy1962 at yahoo.com
Wed Apr 12 06:50:28 CDT 2006
Parnams to all memebers
May I request everyone to concentrate more on the " end" rather disucssing about just " means" like this.(women & vedas...etc)
Let us discuss what is ultimate and how to acheive that goal, I feel
one need to quote any authority or scripture as long as they believe in
advaitic philosophy. As some one was mentioning neither " Ramana" or " Ramakrishna" ever attained expertise in scriptures nor discussed them, but even today they are still milestones in this advaitic route and swami Vivekanada is no lesser.
I always felt that the bane of our people is taking the means more serious than the end itself. Though some learned memebers has objected for my suggestion looking into ones innerself (ofcourse after basic understanding of the tatva) for answers, I still feel thats more beneficial than mere theoritical discussions.
After that kind of explorasions ,we can discuss our experiences and seek clarifications/ further guidance from the forum.
See one of the members stated talking about Maundukya upanishad and another one about some verses of Geetha....These are could be really helpful.
Pardon me , if I am wrong.
Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidyasankar at hotmail.com> wrote:
You make quite valid points re: mathematical axioms, scientific hypotheses
and verbal (or in general, all human) cognition. In one sense, this
discussion points out the difficulties in finding appropriate translations.
That is precisely why I keep emphasizing that to truly understand, we need
to engage our tradition on its own terms, without imposing modern
expectations on it, be they scientific/mathematical or
I would also suggest that we take into account the history and etymology of
the English words we choose when translating Sanskrit terms. After all, till
recently in history, when mathematical thinking about formal axiomatic
systems was not highly developed, axioms were assumed to have truth value
I would also argue that hypothesis testing is, to a certain extent, implicit
in mImAMsa-vedAnta epistemology. Of course, there are no explicit
discussions of what makes a hypothesis valid based on its refutability, a la
Popper. On the other hand, if we understand "prAmANya" as corresponding to
truth-value, that any given cognition is svataH-prAmANa and parataH-apramANa
comes close to the modern scientific notion about validating hypotheses.
There is similarity in that vedAnta also has a place for experience, but
that is where the similarity ends. Another difference comes in the fact that
mImAMsa-vedAnta thought applies to Sruti, while modern scientific hypotheses
do not. So, we should not be really concerned about (and in fact, also why
we must resist the temptation for) saying that such and such statement in
Sruti is scientifically valid.
Coming to verbal cognition, science, in this case, biology, would go a step
beyond linguistics and make the point that even recognizing words and
meanings are contingent upon neurons firing in one's brain, stimulated by
the pixels we see on the screen or by the ink in a book, or for a
traditional setting, by the pressure differences that underlie the sounds of
words. However, as for how this relates to fundamental human consciousness,
I would say that the scientific jury is still out on that.
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®
To unsubscribe or change your options:
For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
Jiyo cricket on Yahoo! India cricket
Yahoo! Messenger Mobile Stay in touch with your buddies all the time.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list