Goodness (was Re: [Advaita-l] 'End' not 'Means')

Viswanathan N vishy1962 at
Tue May 2 06:48:14 CDT 2006

"advaitin metaphysics is derivABLE without invoking the vedas"
I agree verymuch on this. Upanishads are very much the basis and could be more relevant for this line of thinking rather vedas. I always felt vedas are more about karmas and not very relevent in presentday world.
  So why to bother about what they say and keep arguing. Thats why I said
  End and not means. Here 'End' is the realisation (the Mukthi) and rest all(incl Vedas)  are means. It really doesnt matter whetehr woman/shudra read it or not, as it is how many Bhramins read and can understand? So no point in continuing this arguements further, just drop them and done away with.
Aditya Varun Chadha <adichad at> wrote:
  The point is:

1. This is a list for advaitins and those who seek to know about advaita.
2. advaita is a school of metaphysics, not ethics.
3a. advaitin metaphysics is derivABLE without invoking the vedas
(through purely mental acrobatics)
3b. the infallability/fallability of vedas has no bearing on the
theory called advaita.
4. women and vedas is an issue of AcharaN and therefore has to do with ethics.
5. since vedas are NOT necessary for the upholding of advaita,
advaitins can hold views about an ethical issue that contradicts the
vedic tradition and yet does not contradict advaita (which is pure

the most an advaitin can argue is to say that upanishadic metaphysics
is consistent with advaitin metaphysics. advaita has no jurisdiction
in terms of "women and vedas". Since this is a list for advaitins (the
requirement is not of being a vedic traditionalist), whatever we
discuss about ethics does not NEED to be validated against Sruti

I can say Einstein was wrong on many occasions but still believe in
the theory of relativity. So quit the holier than thou attitude saying
that advaitins have to accept the complete infallability of the vedas.
They don't. And since we don't HAVE to adhere, we can propose
experiments, say that women CAN read the vedas, that vedas are WRONG
about women, etc. etc., because none of this contradicts advaita.
(Again, advaita is a theory of metaphysics, not of ethics).

When I say the Vedas are wrong in some places (like when they say
doing a particular yagya is conducive to rainfall), I don't have to
give you any proof of my statement. Just like the vedic
traditionalists ASSUME the infallibility of the vedas, I assume their
fallability. Just like I cannot disprove their infallability, you
cannot disprove their fallability. Taking either stance has no effect
on advaita (a school of metaphysics).

I believe that the world will be a better place and mukti a more
common phenomenon if women and Sudras read the vedas. You cannot prove
me wrong by saying that the vedas say otherwise. I am an advaitin, not
a vedic traditionalist.

yes, the skepticism is based on my own set of assumptions. but since
these assumptions are not in contradiction with advaita as such, don't
argue with me by saying that "vedas say differently". even if they do,
it has no bearing on what I am saying in a list full of advaitins.

Call me a "new ager" if you feel like. we can all call each other any
names we like, after all none of us are muktas. blah.

Aditya Varun Chadha | | +91 9840076411 (M)
Room#1024, Cauvery Hostel | IIT Madras | Chennai - 600036 | India

To unsubscribe or change your options:

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at

 Yahoo! India Answers: Share what you know. Learn something new. Click here

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list