[Advaita-l] Adwaita and Modern science.

kuntimaddi sadananda kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com
Tue Jun 21 17:23:56 CDT 2011

Yaduji - PraNAms 
I have interjected my comments.

--- On Tue, 6/21/11, Dr. Yadu Moharir <ymoharir at yahoo.com> wrote:

 Hence we have shabda pramANa - Vedas - to point out the truth that cannot be established by pratyaksha and anumaana. 
If this is so, then why do think Acharya makes the bold statement says, "caanta saiddhaH svaanubhuti pramaaNam" ?

There are many places that I have been able to explore to uncover the validity of Veda as "pratyaksha". You have a copy of my book on Shrii Suukta, where I have explored this to some extent, from the application (viniyoga) point of view.
Yaduji - in the epistemological analysis, shabda pramANa comes separate from pratyaksha which is perceptual process and anumaana which is inferencial processes based on what one sees - as in seeing smoke and then deducing there is fire - using a vyaapti jnaanam which again is established.  by pratyaksha pramANa only.
Shabda pramANa is valid only when the truth cannot be established by pratyaksha and anumaana. These come as part of pramANa definition - see for example my analysis of Vedanta paribhASha stored in advaitaform website. 
Analogy is sometime provided that knowing myself is like seeing the fruit in my hand - that is pratyaksha pramANa only to indicate it is direct and immediate unlike anumaana where I have think to deduce and is called mediate not immediate. The analogy ends with that since seeing myself is not objectification but understanding that I am that I am without any  means or pramANa needed. 
Yes pratyaksha is experienced; and Goudapaada and Shankara say that any thing that is experienced is mithyaa - dRisyatvaat - where as self is not experiencd but understood that I am the experiencer in all the experiences. 
athaatho brahma jignaasa involves not only understanding the nature of I am but the nature of the world and Iswara the creator of the world too. That is complete analysis that involves not only tvam padaartha vichaara but tat padaartha vichaara and establishing the identity of the two. For that only I need scriptures - that starts with - sat eva soumya idam agra asiit etc. 

There are several places that specifically mention use of specific herbs are "samidhaa's".  Ayurveda have proven the effectiveness of some of them (if not all) and currently in use.  Here the objective is "pratyaksha" that can be experienced.  Just academic chanting with excess importance of "udaatta" anudaatta, plupta and svarita" has no meaning if one has no desire to find out the truth experimentally.  That is what I call "athato brhmajij~nasaa"
KS - addressed above. It is not experience but the substantive of experiencer-experienced duality-...advaitam chaturtham manyante sa aatmaa sa vijneyaH.  


Vedas also are apara vidya too and the absolute truth is aprameyam - that is no pramANa can be valid or in fact is required to know the truth. 
How can calling Veda as aparaavidyaa be correct?
KS: it is apara vidya not apara avidya.
Yaduji - this is not my statment - it is upanishadic statement where para and apara vidyas are classfied and Vedas also decleared as apara vidya. 

I have difficulty is accepting the ter use of term "vidyaa" in the above term because vidyaa is the process and destination it arrives at is the "Knowledge" - Veda.
Yaduji - the process is required for any pramANa to operate. As there was discussion in the list - this knowledge eliminates the ignorance about one self - in that sense it is a pracess and pramANa is required for that. Shankara says just as wind is required to move away the clouds that are apparently coving the sun. Wind does not reveal the Sun. They only eliminate the obstructing coulds which appear to cover the sun. Clouds really cannot cover the sun, but the one who is clouded cannot see the sun even though he see the very coulds in the light of the sun that he cannot see. Vedanta operates in removing avidya. Epistemologically according to vedanta, knowledge is self revealing when one operates appropriate pramANa to remove the ignorance that is apparently covering that knowledge. 
Vedas only help in removing the ignorance of oneself and in the processes the truth that is self-evident and self-existing becomes- as though- known. 
Veda does not remove the ignorance.  It is the process and desire to understand the knowledge (the truth) removes ignorance.
Yaduji - knowledge is not purusha tantra it is vastu tantra. I cannot will the knowledge. The process of listening with the desire to listen is purusha tantra but understanding is not. I have to understand using Vedas as pramANa the truth about myself and the world - Brahma satyam, jagat mithyaa, jiivo brahma eva - all three aspects come from vedic knowledge via a sampradaaya teacher. 
In my view, Veda dose not have to agree with anything it us , who have to evaluate whether what has been state there-in is true or not? 
KS: Not sure I understand the above statement. Vedas as a science proclaim the truth which cannot be establised by any other means- yato vaacho nivartante apraapya manasaa saH. Whether we understand Vedas correctly or not depends on our mental preparation- Is this not true for any science too?
IMO - Vedanta comes closest to science as an expedition of determining truth.
KS: Yaduji Vedanta is science about the absolute reality. Like any science it shows how one can discover that truth, provided one has the pre-requisies for that science - That is the essence of Shankara bhaasya for the first sutra you have quoted. 
 I have no comments on the rest, since I am not qualified. 
Hari Om!

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list