[Advaita-l] Apoureshyatva - Faith or Logic?
rajaramvenk at gmail.com
rajaramvenk at gmail.com
Tue Jun 26 02:02:53 CDT 2012
Dear Sri Ramesh,
I, for one, fail to see the spirit behind your post though oft repeated. What Sri Subrahmanian has pointed out is the traditional position. Our ancients did NOT believe in evolution and Sringer Acharya is true to his tradition. Sri Lalilalalita, Sri Sudhakar and Sri Shyam have restated this in clear terms. The closest to evolution was vaiseshika position but that's nothing like
the modern theory.
Regarding person in Peru, please read Traces of Vedic Civilazation around the world. Peruvian caves have paintings of monkey carrying a mountain etc. In Egypt, goddess of fortune Hathore is believed to incarnate as the cow. They have rath yatra for a blue god. The myth of boat over floods is present across cultures.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
From: Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy at gmail.com>
Sender: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:46:34
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Reply-To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Apoureshyatva - Faith or Logic?
On 26 June 2012 00:04, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:
> The quote I provided from the Sringeri Acharya's conversation does not say
> or imply that the biological evolution is false.
I said nothing about the Sringeri AchArya's views in my post. I have
read the book "Exalting Elucidations" and also its Hindi version
"shishya ke prashna, jagadguru ke uttar". These books are not
treatises by the AchArya on any topic, they are merely collections of
random questions on myriad topics asked by various seekers and the
AchArya's brief replies. There simply isn't enough context in them for
me to form any definitive conclusion about the AchArya's views. As
such, I did not take it into account at all.
<<There is no need or reason for the shastra to imagine other beings
in other lokas who might have karma adhikara. It is addressed to us,
homo sapiens, and wants us to relate to it in the most natural way.>>
It is clear that you are simply not appreciating the spirit of my
post. I am not trying to "imagine" beings in other loka-s. All I am
saying is that the insights of the veda (especially the vedAnta) are
applicable to all beings irrespective of whether we (homo sapiens)
know of the existence of such beings or not.
Please try to appreciate the spirit of the message.
> There is no admissibility to this proposition in the vedic context. Only
> animals and devas are born chiefly for bhoga, in the latter case they can
> try for moksha but the former do not have that faculty.
Let us leave deva-s aside for the time being. What is the difference
between an "animal" and a "human"? The difference is that the latter
is capable of making decisions on the basis of considerations like
ethics etc, rather than on just instinct. Hence the point on
"kartum/akartum/anyathA kartum" which one of my AchArya-s emphasizes
to no end.
Hence, for the shAstra, the relevant characteristic of a manuShya is
this capability for autonomous decision making, which is what makes
him a puruShArthI, in particular a seeker of dharma and mokSha. Just
because the only type of jIva we (homo sapiens) know that is capable
of this is homo sapiens, it does not logically follow that there
cannot be other such beings. So I merely keep an open mind on this. On
the other hand, by making a strict equation of manuShya=homo sapiens,
it is you who are "imagining" things and placing a limit on the Veda.
<< In the case of humans it is his bounden duty to seek and know his
status and act accordingly. That is why there is the upanayana
samskara and the gurukula
thereafter. If he fails, he invites sin.>>
And what about the guy in Peru who lived 800 years ago? I hope you
will not say that I am "imagining" him. If you appreciate the spirit
behind my message, you will have no problem accommodating him too.
Otherwise you will either have to say that he was born for bhoga
alone, or you will end up making him a "sinner".
> Till he gets the ability to seek
> for himself, his parents have that responsibility of grooming him to that,
> in the form of upanayana and sadAchAra shikShaNa. And for this reason the
> Veda has to be there. If it is not made available it is the fault of
Again, so what happens to the the Peruvian guy?
> Ishwara can fault the jiva only when the latter has not made use
> of the teaching provided. That is the idea underlying the reply of the
> Sringeri Acharya.
Great. And this would essentially imply that the essential
teachings/insights of the Veda have to be available in one form or the
other to all beings capable of seeking dharma/mokSha, irrespective of
desha/kAla/loka. Can you now appreciate the spirit behind my post?
> All this can exist as fanciful thinking but the tradition, as I pointed out
> above, will not accept it. They do not see any need or reason for it. If
> they are rejected for not accommodating these ideas, they are not
Again, you simply fail to appreciate the spirit behind my post. The
above is totally tangential and irrelevant to my post. As I have
immense personal respect for you, I will refrain from saying anything
To unsubscribe or change your options:
For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list