Dharmic Religions Only: Evolutionary Science and Hindu/Buddhist worldviews.

[Spirit_Warrior]

I am agreeing on a much deeper level. Have you hear of solipsism? Essentially even international standards are meaningless. The primary input of information to our mind is through the senses. Even if the instruments are calibrated (with some arbitrary universally agreed upon standard), there is faith required on a greater metaphysical level that what your senses are seeing are in fact reality. In a dream we can perceive too, but the dream is false. How can we be sure that this world is not a dream (without some sort of assumption of belief that it is). Scientism (which is the philosophy of science) makes several assumptions which it needs to operate property. These assumptions (such as consistency of laws, accurate interaction of senses with matter, a naturalistic explanation of phenomena etc) rest on belief/faith.

Yes, I have heard of solipsism, it is not considered a respectable philosophy, in fact it is considered a reason to attack a philosophy. If you really believe this reality is a dream and that I am figment of your imagination and all objects is just a figment of your imagination, then why don't you jump of a building? It's just a dream after all. See how this philosophy is self-defeating. In Nyaya it describes the types of doubts we can have, we can have empirical doubts about the the features of things, or we can have metaphysical or ontological doubts about the nature of things. The former is the field of science and the latter of philosophy. This is again a classical view in Dharmic philosophy, every Dharmic religion subscribes to a two-view reality, an empirical view and an absolute view, or phenomena and Noumea. We live in the phenomenal world, so we have to deal with phenomenal objects like things and people and as far as we dealing with them we can have ontic knowledge or knowledge of things.

I think I will charge you here for creating a false equivalence fallacy between science and faith because using a very broad and loose definition of faith to somehow show science is as faith based as religion is. Science is not based on faith, but on empirical knowledge as we observe the world. Also your claim about consistency of laws is itself challenged by quantum physics, because again based on empirical knowledge we know that atoms do not behave deterministic laws(uncertainty principle) but in fact they have to be described as having a probability of existence. It was not always believed this was true, we once believed in a deterministic, mechanistic clockwork like Newtonian universe. We stopped believing that because new empirical evidence falsified that paradigm. On the other hand, faith cannot be falsified, because is not testable.

Okay, I agree, but this doesn't refute my original point. My original point was, The truth of any worldview (whether it is scientific or religious or whatever) is not dependent on its consequences. Yes we may argue that one is superior than another on the basis of consequence, but not of truthfulness. I agree with you analysis, but it is not a good basis for assessing validity of the said sources of evidence.

All I am showing you is one of the fundamental defects in faith. As it cannot be tested and falsified, you can literally declare anything based on faith. This can be good things like "God will be happy if you give to charity" but also bad things "God will be happy if you kill the non believers" This is a fatal defect.

Shankara also talks about the defects of faith which I mentioned earlier, which is why he comes up with gold standard for testimony too. Testimony has to be based on a repeated body of testimonial evidence from aptas(experts) from past, present and future e.g. If you had not been to the Taj Mahal in 1900CE, how would you know the Taj Mahal really exists? If one person said it existed they could be lying, deluded, unreliable etc If hundreds of people say they have been there and describe the same thing, then the testimony is reliable. Today, we use similar standards in NDE and OBE research, although scientists do not agree on the nature of what an OBE and NDE is, they do agree they happen. Similarly in William James, "Varieties of religious experience" an attempt has been made to document what types of religious experience are commonly reported by experience.

However, revisit what I said about epistemic value, as reliable as testimony is it still has less value than inference and lesser value than perception.

It only becomes a problem when the faith becomes blind (that I will believe in something contrary to my experience or pratyuksha.) That is why I said, all the pramanas should agree, or one of them must be false.

They should all agree for it become indubitable knowledge e.g. I hear somebody should "FIRE" I look in the distance smoke billowing out of the window and when I get there I see the fire. All pramanas converge on the same knowledge. If suppose somebody says "FIRE" and I look and see no smoke, then that creates doubt and I do not have indubitable knowledge.

Yes I agree, but my original point was that knowledge of Brahman can only be established through Sravanam and not reflection of testing alone. Sabda is primary then the other pramanas come second and allow us to test that sabda.

In fact if you follow it back the primary pramana for sharvanam was perception too. It is based on the Rishis perception of Brahman, that he was able to testify it. So perception still remains the foundation of all knowledge.

And I agree with you 100%! Sadhana must yield some result otherwise whats the point right?

And here again it is only when you perceive that your sadhana has born fruit that you know the sadhana has worked. Hence perception becomes the true test of testimony/shabda.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Dharmic theory of Evolution and why it makes total logical sense

I mentioned in the thread I created "5 amazing scientific facts about Hinduism" Evolution is a doctrine taught in Hinduism and in other Dharmic religions. So it is surprising that we would debating the ToE in a Dharmic debate thread and there would be people criticising it. However, this is not exactly the same theory of evolution as ToE, the Dharmic theory of evolution is far wider in its scope, it looks at the entire evolution of the cosmos. In Hindu thought the the cosmos itself is seen as an organism(Viraat-Purusha) that was born from a cosmic egg(hiryanagarbh) and like all organisms this organism has a cosmic mind(Ishvara) This organism also has a life span like any other organism and that lifespan is 311.08 trillion years and after that it will die and be reborn again in the next cycle. Within this cosmic organism, are smaller organisms ranging from a galaxy to an atom, which also take birth, have a life span and then die.

So you find that the Dharmic theory of evolution is goal-directed, evolution is not some blind process, it is actually leading up to a goal. Each organism is working to a goal. The same goes for living organisms from "A blade grass to Lord Brahma" totally 84 lakhs(8.4 million) living organisms, broken down into:

There are nine hundred thousand (9 lakh) types of acquatics, two million (20 lakh) types of trees, 1.1 million types of insects, a million types of birds, three million types of animal bodies and four hundred thousand types of human bodies. These aggregate to 8.4 million.​

The first organism being the protoplasm then evolves over billions of years through these millions of intermediate organisms, but its evolution is goal directed, it is not blind, it is moving the organism up the stages of species from one sensed to 5 senses, from lower mind to higher mind. There is thus an underlying blueprint that evolution is following. Scientists today are observing the same called 'the anthropic principle' It means that the universe is set up in such a way that humans can arise. If it was set up in any other way humans could not arise --- in a way science is confirming what Dharmic theory of evolution says.

Now if you think about it evolution is a very logical belief. We observe that all things go through six modifications they become existent(asti), they are born(jayate), the grow(vardhate), they change and age(viparinamte), they decay(apaskshiyate) they die(vinasati) and the cycle repeats. The universe too was existent(initial fire ball it took birth(big bang) it grew(expanded) it changed(e.g. speed of light slowed down) it will eventually decay and die. The sun too was existent(the initial cloud nebula) it is born(protostar) it grows(main sequence star) it will change and age(red giant) it will decay(white dwarf) and it will die(black dwarf)

Take note of something. There is not just one of a kind of suns and planets formed, but many kinds of stars and planets and possibly many kinds of universes too. They are coming into existence and out of existence constantly at different times.

Now just use your logic and apply it to 'origin of species' and you will see evolution of species happens in exactly the same way the universe, stars and planets form --- life becomes existent(first molecules of water) it takes birth(first protoplasm) it grows and changes(protoplasm to insects to fish, to amphibians, reptiles, mammals, apes, humans) Again note, one kind of species is produced of each species, but many kinds. It hence makes total logical sense that humans would be last in the evolution chain of animals.

Never seen one species change into another? Actually, wrong, we have seen speciation occur in plants and some insects. Speciation is when one species of some organism changes into another species such that it can no longer reproduce with the former species it has come from.

Next I will talk about how we can reconcile the billions of years of Puranic cosmology with ToE

 

[निताइ dasa]

This is what is circular reasoning.

Like I said, this is not circular reasoning but an assumption. Circular reasoning would be me saying something like the scriptures must be true because the scripture say they are true. I have never argued this, but from the very start argued from the assumption that the scriptures are apaurasheya.

Your approach of using only one pramana as sufficient in itself, in this case testimony/shabd is not the classical view of Dharmic philosophy, nor of Vedanta which insist on the triple system of proof sharvanam, mananam and nidhidhyasanam and nor of all the darsanas.

This is incorrect I think. I am not sure of the other darsanas, because I have not studied them in that much depth, but in Vedanta Classical view is that knowledge of Brahman must be established through Sabda, because the other Pramanas are incapable of establishing it. Sankara actually in his first verse of Vivekchudamani says the following:

"I bow to Govinda, whose nature is Bliss Supreme, who is the Sadguru, who can be known only from the import of all Vedanta, and who is beyond the reach of speech and mind." (Vivekchudamani 1)


Other pranamas must be used here to support, but one must have faith in the words of the Guru and Scripture. This is my firm belief, and it is not simply my own. Sankaracharya himself writes (and I think he is a good authority to speak on Vedanta):

gurucharaNaambuja nirbhara bhakataH
saMsaaraadachiraadbhava muktaH .
sendriyamaanasa niyamaadevaM
drakshyasi nija hR^idayasthaM devam. .. (31 Bhaja Govindam)

"Oh you Bhakta (devotee) of the lotus feet of the Guru ! May thou be soon free from Samsara. Through disciplined senses and controlled mind, thou shalt come to experience the Indwelling Lord of your heart !"

I also posted that shloka from Katha Upanishad to support this view (Yatha deva para bhaktir...).

Note I could also quote from Srila Ramanujacharya or SrilaMadhacharya to support this.

The general understanding in Hinduism is the Vedas are the writings of Rishis, who are human. As far as I know only in Mimamsa the doctrine of the Vedas being non-human is taught.

But you see this is the problem. You are talking about general understanding in Hinduism where there isn't any. Limiting our scope to Vedanta, the followers of Vedanta hold the Vedas (sruti at least) to be eternal, emerging from Brahman in the beginning. They were scribed into text form by Vyasa (who according to Vedanta was not human but God), but the Vedas themselves. There is support in the Vedas for this (in the verses I quoted) but I could very easily find Sankaracharya, Ramanujacharya or Madhavacharya saying the same thing.

This is why I do not form my opinions about Hinduism based on the interpretations of some modern sect, but by reading the original primary scriptures myself.

Sure, and that is your prerogative, but in my understanding, reading the scriptures yourself without a Guru leads to misunderstanding or contradiction of scriptures. In the traditional Hindu view, one is supposed to approach a Guru or school and learn fully the ways of that school and then perform Sadhana by that knowledge. Mixing and matching different schools of knowledge is make one a pashandi (heretic). (the word means literally one who mixes the darshanas and incurs sin)

However, Srila goes beyond that, he actually translates and adds words that are not even there, and then claims that his translation is "As it is" the true version of the Bhagvad Gita. Shankara et al did not do that, they just offered commentaries not translations .

Again I'm not sure this is the case. Prabhupada in this Gita uses the older commentary of Vishwanatha Cakravarti Thakur and Sridhara Swami who were renowned scholars in their own regards. As for "adding words not there" I would call it "explanatory words" and every school does this. Sankaracharya also does this. His commentary consists of translating each word, and this way he translates them is in accordance with his adwaita philosophy. Sometimes he even takes the secondary meaning of a word to support this. I'll give you an example. Isoupanishad, there is a line,

ishavasyam idam sarvam

Now, the primary meaning of ishavasyam in sanskrit is isha (God or controller) vasyati (resides or pervades). So the meaning of the line is that "God resides/pervades everywhere". Sankaracharya however takes the secondary meaning of vasyam to mean covered, and so the meaning he makes is "God [Brahman] covers everything". This is consistent with his adwaita philosophy that Brahman only exists. Prabhupada also does this in his word to word translations and then gives a brief commentary to explain. Every claim Prabhupada makes, he tries to give either a Smriti or Sruti quotation to support.

On the other hand Prabhuapda's commentaries are rarely ever justified, most of 'As it is' version is pages and pages of him sharing his intolerant and personal views. See: Self Realization: Bhagadvad Gita-As it is or As it is NOT..

Most of the criticisms of Prabhupada come from an ignorant understanding of where he is coming from and also ignorance of the Gaudiya movement as a whole. Let me such reply to a fewpoints brought up in that page.

The first two paragraphs try to argue that because his Gita translation was banned in some countries (or even nearly banned) the text must be extremist. To this I reply, this is no way to argue. Obviously christians etc would want to ban the book because of the general Christian attitude towards Blasphemy and how their path is the only way.

Now lets look at some supposed quotes of Prabhupada:

"Prakriti is female, and she is controlled by the Lord just as the activities of a wife are controlled by the husband."

There is nothing wrong with this. It may appear odd to us in our liberal leaning society, but here Prabhupada is discussing the essential nature of Varnashrama Dharma. In Varnashrama Dharma (this is pretty traditional) the women who are married generally obeyed their husbands, because that was nAri dharma. Just like children obeyed their parents. For example, in Valmiki's Ramayan (which is a traditional text, dating back to the Mahabharata), Sita Maa says:


"yady apy eSha bhaved bhartaa mama aarye vR^itta varjitaH |
advaidham upavartavyaH tathaa apy eSha mayaa bhavet" || 2-118-3

"O, venerable woman! Even if my husband be without fortune, he should unhesitatingly be obeyed by me."

[ aarye = O; venerable woman!; yadyapi = even if; eSaH = this; mama bhartaa = my husband; bhavet = be; vR^itta arjitaH = without fortune; eSaH = he; tathaapi = even the; advaidham = should unhesitatingly; upachartavyaH = be obeyed; mayaa = by me.]



Whether it may apply today is another question, but in Hinduism there is a complex system of morality that is proposed. In society there are certain etiquette that must be followed. A child must care for their parents. A wife must serve her husband. A husband must care for and serve his wife. They must together help each other in spirituality. The author of the article criticizes Prabhupada for quoting Chanakya Pandit, when Chanakya Pandit himself was a contemporary of Sankara. He wrote the Niti Shastras which set forward ways of etiquette in society.

In fact Prabhupada's treatment of women was very liberal compared to the traditional Vedic standard. He made it possible to give women Gayatri Diksha (which traditionally was reserved only for men) and said that they should be allowed to serve in the temples. In the past only male teachers could study scripture and speak on it, but in ISKCON temples women are freely able to do this and sit on the Vyasasana and speak to others. The traditional acharyas like Sankaracharya believed (see vivekchudamani 5) that you needed a male body in order to even get Moksha. But the Gaudiya Sampradaya is more liberal in that its Bhakti processes are available to all classes and genders of society (for example, traditionally your Varna was determined by your birth, but the Gaudiya Acharyas implemented a reform that allowed even those in other births to perform activities of a Brahman.). Infact it was only due to Prabhupada that so many westerns are now following so sincerly the principles of Vedic Dharma.

Let move on to another quote

"at Krishna is the supreme authority is accepted by the whole world, not only at present but from time immemorial, and the demons alone reject Him.
(text 3.5) a nondevotee or a demon cannot understand this transcendental nature. Consequently these descriptions in the Gita cannot be understood by demonic brains."


You do realize that this is taken directly from the Gita? I'm not sure the author is giving Srila Prabhupada a fair go here but is rather trying to find any controversial statement in order to attack him. In Gita Krsna himself defines demons as follows:

pravrttim ca nivrttim ca
jana na vidur asurah
na saucam napi cacaro
na satyam tesu vidyate

"Those who are demoniac do not know what is to be done and what is not to be done. Neither cleanliness nor proper behavior nor truth is found in them."

Those who are demonic are those who to not know that which is Truth, therefore they cannot understand the truth in the Gita. That is what Prabhupada is trying to say, that a demon cannot understand Krsna. Krsna himself says:

avajānanti māḿ mūḍhā
mānuṣīḿ tanum āśritam
paraḿ bhāvam ajānanto
mama bhūta-maheśvaram

Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature as the Supreme Lord of all that be.

You can consult the traditional commentaries if you want to understand this verse further.

Lets move on

" his interpretation of Gita verses in Prabhupad’s purports is the real problem. He propagates his own views and ideas in the name of Gita very aggressively (the same thing for which he blamed others)."

Again this interpretation is not of Srila Prabhupada but that of the Gaudiya School. If you read the other commentaries you will get very similiar and often esoteric states. Gita is a text which has had a myriad of interpretations (perhaps because it is a central text to Vedanta). Acharyas have reached almost opposite conclusions with the verses of the Gita (Sankara uses the Gita verses to claim that the jivatma is not different from Brahman, while Madhavacharya uses those very same verses to claim that the jivaatma and Brahman are eternally different).

Look, I feel like your view of the Gaudiya Sampradaya and also ISKCON has been slightly skewed. I myself am a Gaudiya Vaishnnv and most of Prabhupada's commentary made logical sense (compared to any of the other translations I've read) and that is why I became a Gaudiya Vaishnav a few years ago. I am very happy to answer any queries or doubts you have in the name of mutual understanding.

 

[निताइ dasa]

Yes, I have heard of solipsism, it is not considered a respectable philosophy, in fact it is considered a reason to attack a philosophy. If you really believe this reality is a dream and that I am figment of your imagination and all objects is just a figment of your imagination, then why don't you jump of a building? It's just a dream after all. See how this philosophy is self-defeating

Perhaps I want so maintain this illusion for longer? You do realize that Adwaita is a very refined form of solipcism? All this is only a dream, and false, only Brahman exists. I'm sure Sankara has given very convincing reasons to support this.

This is again a classical view in Dharmic philosophy, every Dharmic religion subscribes to a two-view reality, an empirical view and an absolute view, or phenomena and Noumea.

I also think this is incorrect. The idea of vyavarika (absolute) and pramarthika (empirical) view is an Adwaita concept and not shared by all Dharmic traditions (Dvaita for example doesn't share this).

Science is not based on faith, but on empirical knowledge as we observe the world.

But it is based upon a certain kind of faith (trust) that the emperical data we see is actually accurate. There is a famous thought experiment in philosophy that is given in this regard (by Berkeley I think). It is called the veil of perception. Imagine that you are outside a room looking in. Now when you look in, you look through the keyhole and you see something. From you point of view you see an object (perhaps a hand or a nose or something). But a keyhole blocks your view such that you cannot see the whole room. Now would it be rational to say that I can tell you everything about the room simply from what I see through the keyhole? No obviously right? In-fact to make any conclusion about what is in the room me must first assume (i.e place faith/trust) that the data that we have obtained is sufficient to give us meaningful conclusions of truth regarding the room. Berkeley then uses this to attack the basis of empericalism. Our senses are the keyholes by which we see the world. We cannot be every sure that the data we see is sufficient to give us meaningful conclusions of Truth of the reality. It is possible there is exists a whole another dimension that is unapproachable by our senses. Perhaps our current understanding of the dimensions is so skewed that we are all under mass delusion (think Matrix here). Basically, Berkeley concluded that science assumes many things (on the basis of what I would call faith), to be true in order to operate. Assumptions like the senses (and even human instruments) is able to interact meaningfully with matter and yield true infomation. That we have enough true information to make true claims and conclusions based upon this. Science is based upon a few primary assumptions which cannot be proved of disproved by itself.

On the other hand, faith cannot be falsified, because is not testable.

Faith cannot be tested by emperical means, but it can be tested by other means. Let us say scripture says that there exists an Atma. Now you cannot prove the Atma by any emperical method. However through the process of Sadhana you may come to perceive of realize the Atma. Many times, when the Vedas give a claim, they give a means to test that claim for one's self.

As it cannot be tested and falsified, you can literally declare anything based on faith.

Sure, but that was never my definition of faith. My definition of faith or belief is that it is that which allows us to hold certain otherwise impossible to prove assumptions as true. Faith in sources give rise to evidence which give rise to truth claims.

n fact if you follow it back the primary pramana for sharvanam was perception too. It is based on the Rishis perception of Brahman, that he was able to testify it. So perception still remains the foundation of all knowledge.

Yes I generally agree. Although I am of the opinion that Sruti is not rooted in perception. Following the Vedanta line we hold Sruti to be eternal. Nor would I call perception the foundation of all knowledge. You are interpreting perception in a very general way. In Hindu schools, the word pratyuksha is used for perception and means "direct sensory perception". What we directly experience with the senses is called pratyuksha or perception:

" Pratyaksa, or direct perception: What we directly perceive with our senses may be valid or invalid knowledge; however, only valid knowledge is to be considered as pramana. Sense perception is the principal means of acquiring knowledge in this material world. Both theistic and atheistic philosophers generally accept pratyaksa pramana as one of the means to valid knowledge. Direct perception is of two types--external and internal. An external perception is when knowledge is acquired through our senses. An internal perception is when the knowledge is acquired by our mind. In Bhagavad-gita (15.7) Lord Krsna lists the mind as the sixth sense (manah-sasthani-indriyani). Through the mind we perceive emotions such as pain, pleasure, love, hate, and so forth."



Also it is interesting about the Rishis. Our school holds that the Rishis did not even original perceive Brahman. They also received the knowledge through Sabda from the Supreme Lord Himself. Of course perception followed later, the foundation of their knowledge was Shabda. In Gita, Krsna says:

sri-bhagavan uvaca
imam vivasvate yogam
proktavan aham avyayam
vivasvan manave praha
manur iksvakave 'bravit

The Blessed Lord said: I instructed this imperishable science of yoga to the sun-god, Vivasvān, and Vivasvān instructed it to Manu, the father of mankind, and Manu in turn instructed it to Ikṣvāku.


In the Puranas, the Vedic knowledge of Brahman was first taught by the Lord to Brahmadeva who taught this to his sons (the Rishis and Munis). He entrusted the four vedas to his four sons as well as the associate commentaries. This is known as Parampara. The vedic knowledge is passed through vani (speech) from guru to student and it can be traced all the way back to the Supreme Lord Himself. Bhagavatam confirms this: tene brahma hrida ya adi-kavaye, (it was He (Krsna) that transmitted this knowledge to the heart Brahmadeva, the first poet.)

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Like I said, this is not circular reasoning but an assumption. Circular reasoning would be me saying something like the scriptures must be true because the scripture say they are true. I have never argued this, but from the very start argued from the assumption that the scriptures are apaurasheya.

I agree with what you are saying. I am saying it is only circular if you use it in an argument, as you sort of did originally:

Good reply. A comment though. The defects I mentioned are not defects of science in any sense. Rather they are defects of the first two Pramanas on a fundamental level because the first two are human based, while Shastric Sabda is not..

In order for your argument to be true that the defects do not apply to scripture because they are not human based, I would have to accept that they are not human based. So if I ask you to justify that shastra is human based, you would have to find a verse in shastra itself to show that it is not human based. This is what is circular.

I think the main point here is to accept that shastra cannot be used in a debate, unless both parties agree with shastra and agree exactly with the same interpretation too.

This is incorrect I think. I am not sure of the other darsanas, because I have not studied them in that much depth, but in Vedanta Classical view is that knowledge of Brahman must be established through Sabda, because the other Pramanas are incapable of establishing it. Sankara actually in his first verse of Vivekchudamani says the following:

Okay, I could concede your point about Dvaita Vedanta, but that is just a subset of Indian philosophy and it is also one of the least common even in the Vedanta set. Most of the Indian darsanas do maintain a view that there is an ultimate reality(reality-as-it-is) and an empirical reality(reality as we perceive it) e.g. Buddhists maintain there is no self and no constant forms, but perception of self and forms is because of quick succession of moments, like the perception of a moving picture is because of succession of quick moments. The Samkhya maintain that the self is pure consciousness and unattached, but the perception that the Self is not pure and attached is due to ignorance and misidentification of purusha with prakriti. In Jainism they maintain there is absolute transcendent reality which is pure knowledge, awareness and bliss but which we cannot perceive, because we only ever perceive reality from a limited aspect/perspective or vantage point. Finally, in Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is the only reality and everything is illusory, but still accepts a provisional duality of absolute and empirical/practical reality.

Now, as you can see, the two-view perspective of reality is common view in classical Indian philosophy. Now, you give an example of medieval Dvaita philosophy which does not have two views of reality. Sure I concede this, I have reason to believe Madhva was influenced by Abrahamic religions, because he came up with interpretations that were not heard of in Hinduism before e.g. He came up with the idea of eternal damnation for especially sinful souls and he came up with idea of hierarchy of souls in heaven, such that it would never be possible for you to ever go beyond your rank, like in Christianity you can never rise to the rank of an angel. So perhaps, I am wrong and you are right, Dvaita interpretations of Vedanta were Abrahamised long before the rise of Neo-Hinduism.

Reading Madhva does make me think like I am reading a medieval Christian theologian. However, I would like to give him a chance, any recommendations of works by him I should read.

"I bow to Govinda, whose nature is Bliss Supreme, who is the Sadguru, who can be known only from the import of all Vedanta, and who is beyond the reach of speech and mind." (Vivekchudamani 1)


Other pranamas must be used here to support, but one must have faith in the words of the Guru and Scripture. This is my firm belief, and it is not simply my own. Sankaracharya himself writes (and I think he is a good authority to speak on Vedanta):

gurucharaNaambuja nirbhara bhakataH
saMsaaraadachiraadbhava muktaH .
sendriyamaanasa niyamaadevaM
drakshyasi nija hR^idayasthaM devam. .. (31 Bhaja Govindam)

"Oh you Bhakta (devotee) of the lotus feet of the Guru ! May thou be soon free from Samsara. Through disciplined senses and controlled mind, thou shalt come to experience the Indwelling Lord of your heart !"

I also posted that shloka from Katha Upanishad to support this view (Yatha deva para bhaktir...).

Note I could also quote from Srila Ramanujacharya or SrilaMadhacharya to support this.

Sure I agree with you, and I agreed with you before as Brahman is not an object of perception, it is not an objection of inference either. However, Shankara does adduce another type of reasoning known as the method of negation 'neti neti' and affirmation 'I am that' Now if Brahman really was beyond all limits of reasoning, then it would not be possible to use any kind of reasoning to arrive at the truth of Brahman. Therefore, it is not true Brahman is not within the limits of reason. Perhaps it is better to say that normally one who is ignorant of Brahman does not even know there is such a thing as Brahman, and therefore they must be told there is Brahman and further told not only is there Brahman, but that is what they really are. Then, to make them realise the truth of Brahman using methods taught by Shankara.

If I tried to prove Brahman to a Christian, Muslim or an atheist, and I used scripture to prove it to them, it would have no power to persuade them, because as I said scripture has the least epistemic value. The first best way to convince them is to using methods of reasoning to show them Brahman exists and that their Self is Brahman, which has more epistemic value. The very best way to convince them is for them to have an experience of Brahman.

But you see this is the problem. You are talking about general understanding in Hinduism where there isn't any. Limiting our scope to Vedanta, the followers of Vedanta hold the Vedas (sruti at least) to be eternal, emerging from Brahman in the beginning. They were scribed into text form by Vyasa (who according to Vedanta was not human but God), but the Vedas themselves. There is support in the Vedas for this (in the verses I quoted) but I could very easily find Sankaracharya, Ramanujacharya or Madhavacharya saying the same thing.

I have already answered this point. The statements "Vedas etc emerged from Brahman in the beginning" is open to interpretation. I told you earlier that this exposes a defect in using shabd as the primary pramana, that is because word meanings have to be inferred and this involves analysing sentences, breaking it down into its constituent parts(pada-path) and also understanding the meaning intended by the author. If this was not true, Dasa, then why would the same triple canon(prashana trayi) produce completely different meanings for Shankara, Ramunja and Madhva.

It is not only in Hinduism this problem is faced, in every religion on the planet which is scripture based dozens of schools of interpretation have arisen and then each school fights with the other school to prove them wrong. This reveals there is serious defect in testimony and which is why testimony cannot be used as a stand alone pramana. It must be supported by both reasoning and finally by perception as the gold standard.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Sure, and that is your prerogative, but in my understanding, reading the scriptures yourself without a Guru leads to misunderstanding or contradiction of scriptures. In the traditional Hindu view, one is supposed to approach a Guru or school and learn fully the ways of that school and then perform Sadhana by that knowledge. Mixing and matching different schools of knowledge is make one a pashandi (heretic). (the word means literally one who mixes the darshanas and incurs sin)

I also have the prerogative to disagree. If I just blindly follow a Guru in how he wants me to interpret the scriptures then I cease being able to think independently and freely. And that is what happened with my Guru in the ashram, I will be perfectly honest, this was a man of very limited understanding and realisation. He was no better than a learned parrot. I did not respect this man, his knowledge or his realisation. I felt I knew the scriptures better than he did. Is this arrogance? Perhaps, or perhaps not. If you knew how easy it to become a guru in India you would also express doubts. In modern culture, becoming a guru is as easy as joining some ashram, getting into the good books of the ashram hierarchy(usually through sycophancy) and competing with the other disciples for positions.

Shankara also gives a list of qualifications for a guru, as does Krishna when he explains to Arjuna the qualities of a 'muni'. It is very rare to find anybody in this world today that has these qualities. However, the true marker of one who is realised is 'Siddhi' and such a person is called a 'Siddha' meaning they are established or accomplished already. You can tell they are a siddha from the mark of siddhi. Thus again a guru is ascertained not by faith but by perception and reasoning. I am simply not going to accept some person wearing a saffron robe and holding the Veda in one hand as my "guru" I have to test the guru, just as they will test me. It is a reciprocal relationship.

Again I'm not sure this is the case. Prabhupada in this Gita uses the older commentary of Vishwanatha Cakravarti Thakur and Sridhara Swami who were renowned scholars in their own regards. As for "adding words not there" I would call it "explanatory words" and every school does this. Sankaracharya also does this. His commentary consists of translating each word, and this way he translates them is in accordance with his adwaita philosophy. Sometimes he even takes the secondary meaning of a word to support this. I'll give you an example. Isoupanishad, there is a line,

ishavasyam idam sarvam

Now, the primary meaning of ishavasyam in sanskrit is isha (God or controller) vasyati (resides or pervades). So the meaning of the line is that "God resides/pervades everywhere". Sankaracharya however takes the secondary meaning of vasyam to mean covered, and so the meaning he makes is "God [Brahman] covers everything". This is consistent with his adwaita philosophy that Brahman only exists. Prabhupada also does this in his word to word translations and then gives a brief commentary to explain. Every claim Prabhupada makes, he tries to give either a Smriti or Sruti quotation to support.

This is a fair point. If Shankara can do it, than Prabhupada should be allowed to do it. You can't have double standards. I just want to feed this back to my point then that shabd suffers from this defect of being such to interpretation and hence is never sufficient in itself.

Most of the criticisms of Prabhupada come from an ignorant understanding of where he is coming from and also ignorance of the Gaudiya movement as a whole. Let me such reply to a fewpoints brought up in that page.

[snip]

Look, I feel like your view of the Gaudiya Sampradaya and also ISKCON has been slightly skewed. I myself am a Gaudiya Vaishnnv and most of Prabhupada's commentary made logical sense (compared to any of the other translations I've read) and that is why I became a Gaudiya Vaishnav a few years ago. I am very happy to answer any queries or doubts you have in the name of mutual understanding.

I am sorry to cut short your quote here. I think this is probably not the correct thread to discuss whether Prabhupada is a valid guru or whether his interpretation is consistent with traditional Hinduism. I think in some sense you have already shown that you can trace his views as far back as Madhva. To this I would say then that this is a medieval view and not a classical Hindu view or in general a classical Dharmic view.

I do not enjoy reading Prabhupada's commentaries and his translations of the Bhagvad Gita. I have read several translations and commentaries and personally(I do not want to offend) have found his commentaries to be the most unenlightened. In addition to his insistence on conspiracy theories of moon landing, Illuminati and on geocentric Earth theories etc(when in fact even before Madhva was born, India had already progressed to the Surya Siddhantra tradition of astronomy. I do not find this man to be that smart either. I would not accept him as my guru. However, this is only as much I am going to say on him, as this thread is not about him and I apologise for bringing him up. I am willing to accept that your Vaisihnava views are in fact consistent with medieval Dvaita theologians.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Sorry I ended up mixing the replies to your quotes

The reply to this:

This is incorrect I think. I am not sure of the other darsanas, because I have not studied them in that much depth, but in Vedanta Classical view is that knowledge of Brahman must be established through Sabda, because the other Pramanas are incapable of establishing it. Sankara actually in his first verse of Vivekchudamani says the following:

should have been to this:

I also think this is incorrect. The idea of vyavarika (absolute) and pramarthika (empirical) view is an Adwaita concept and not shared by all Dharmic traditions (Dvaita for example doesn't share this).

In have already covered to some extent the reply to the former quote. All darsanas accept perception, including Charvaka. Every other darsana other than Charvaka accepts both perception and inference. Most darsanas except Vaiseshika accept perception, inference and testimony. As not all agree on scriptural testimony, perception and inference are used by all as the standard method of ascertaining proof. Again, I repeat, including by Vedanta. That is because you cannot say 'scripture says' in a debate between opponents. If I was debating a Muslim, I would not care about what their scripture says and they could not use what their scripture says in a debate.

 

[निताइ dasa]

I think this discussion has sorta reached the climax of productivity, but a few brief comments before I throw in the towel. I think my main disagreement with you points is that you are defining classical Hinduism as something which is it is not. For example, I would argue Madhavacharya is a classical teacher. Usually in the study of Vedanta, three schools are concidered traditional, Dvaita of Madhavacharya, Adwaita of Sankaracharya and Vashista Adwaita of Ramanujacharya. All three of these teachers accept the following points 1) Vedas apaurasheya (i.e not of human origin), 2) Brahman can only be established through Sabda 3) The necessity of a Guru and School (though not blind faith). I agree with you, that perception and reason must follow alongside, but in the matters of the absolute reality, all three of these schools agree that only Sabda can allow us to establish that reality, while the other Pramanas cannot touch that plane. It seems we disagree here, so let us leave it at that.

In order for your argument to be true that the defects do not apply to scripture because they are not human based, I would have to accept that they are not human based. So if I ask you to justify that shastra is human based, you would have to find a verse in shastra itself to show that it is not human based. This is what is circular.

Yes yes, it wasn't an argument towards everyone. Rather, I was operating under the assumption (the common Hindu assumption) that the Vedas are eternal.

Okay, I could concede your point about Dvaita Vedanta, but that is just a subset of Indian philosophy and it is also one of the least common even in the Vedanta set. Most of the Indian darsanas do maintain a view that there is an ultimate reality(reality-as-it-is) and an empirical reality(reality as we perceive it) e.g. Buddhists maintain there is no self and no constant forms, but perception of self and forms is because of quick succession of moments, like the perception of a moving picture is because of succession of quick moments. The Samkhya maintain that the self is pure consciousness and unattached, but the perception that the Self is not pure and attached is due to ignorance and misidentification of purusha with prakriti. In Jainism they maintain there is absolute transcendent reality which is pure knowledge, awareness and bliss but which we cannot perceive, because we only ever perceive reality from a limited aspect/perspective or vantage point. Finally, in Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is the only reality and everything is illusory, but still accepts a provisional duality of absolute and empirical/practical reality.

AHh okay, I again maintain that it is only Adwaita in the Hindu Dharmas that has such a concept. We could call Buddhism and Jainism branches of the Dharmic faiths, but I would not call them Hindu at all. Sankaracharya infact criticizes them for rejecting the tradition which made a school a Hindu one. I would

Now, as you can see, the two-view perspective of reality is common view in classical Indian philosophy. Now, you give an example of medieval Dvaita philosophy which does not have two views of reality. Sure I concede this, I have reason to believe Madhva was influenced by Abrahamic religions, because he came up with interpretations that were not heard of in Hinduism before e.g. He came up with the idea of eternal damnation for especially sinful souls and he came up with idea of hierarchy of souls in heaven, such that it would never be possible for you to ever go beyond your rank, like in Christianity you can never rise to the rank of an angel. So perhaps, I am wrong and you are right, Dvaita interpretations of Vedanta were Abrahamised long before the rise of Neo-Hinduism.

Again correlation with Abrahamic faiths not does disqualify something to be Hindu. Madhavacharya could not have been influenced by Abrahamic religions, especially at the time he existed. He followed greatly from another acharya, called Ramananuja, who had similiar concepts to him.. I would argue that classical Hinduism, is Hindu school that can trace its lineage and philosophy back to the time of Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhava/

As for the idea of "eternal damnation", that is false. Heaven and Hell are temporary not eternal. They are there for the duration of our Karma. As for the heirarchy of souls in heaven, Madhavacharya believed in the concept of panca bheda or 5 differences. Unlike Adwaita, which believes in total monism, Madhacharya interpreted that the world consisted of 5 different tattvas (or subjects). And even in the perfected stage, there are different levels of souls who serve God in different ways. Madhavacharya also gave alot of support from Sruti and Smrti to back this up, so there is not reason to disqualify him from classical Hinduism. Even the very ancient commentators of the darshanas had similiar claims.

However, Shankara does adduce another type of reasoning known as the method of negation 'neti neti' and affirmation 'I am that' Now if Brahman really was beyond all limits of reasoning, then it would not be possible to use any kind of reasoning to arrive at the truth of Brahman. Therefore, it is not true Brahman is not within the limits of reason.

Again, neti neti, is a concept found in scripture. The reasoning which sabda or scripture uses (i.e our source of such a reasoning is in scripture) is used to provide support for Brahman. And it isn't must of a logical proof, then a scriptural one. Shankara inteprets that neti neti statement to mean that Brahman is

If this was not true, Dasa, then why would the same triple canon(prashana trayi) produce completely different meanings for Shankara, Ramunja and Madhva.

This is not a defect within Sabda itself but rather the processes surrounding it. If I write in a book that "The sun is spherical", and give it to some society which does not know this, and they start arguing about the interpretation of my words and come to opposite conclusions, is that a problem with the Truth of my statement or their interpretation. Although I will admit, the Vedas can often be quite vague, and that is why Vedanta encourages us to approach someone who is realized in these matters (see below for my discussion).

Shankara also gives a list of qualifications for a guru, as does Krishna when he explains to Arjuna the qualities of a 'muni'. It is very rare to find anybody in this world today that has these qualities. However, the true marker of one who is realised is 'Siddhi' and such a person is called a 'Siddha' meaning they are established or accomplished already. You can tell they are a siddha from the mark of siddhi. Thus again a guru is ascertained not by faith but by perception and reasoning. I am simply not going to accept some person wearing a saffron robe and holding the Veda in one hand as my "guru" I have to test the guru, just as they will test me. It is a reciprocal relationship.

Yes, this I agree. Both the Student and Guru must test each other out. You must use scripture (sabda) in order to understand and discriminate between who is Guru or not (because scripture gives the symptoms of a siddha or perfected personality).

To this I would say then that this is a medieval view and not a classical Hindu view or in general a classical Dharmic view.

I do not enjoy reading Prabhupada's commentaries and his translations of the Bhagvad Gita. I have read several translations and commentaries and personally(I do not want to offend) have found his commentaries to be the most unenlightened. In addition to his insistence on conspiracy theories of moon landing, Illuminati and on geocentric Earth theories etc(when in fact even before Madhva was born, India had already progressed to the Surya Siddhantra tradition of astronomy. I do not find this man to be that smart either. I would not accept him as my guru. However, this is only as much I am going to say on him, as this thread is not about him and I apologise for bringing him up. I am willing to accept that your Vaisihnava views are in fact consistent with medieval Dvaita theologians.

Sure, and I would humbly disagree with you. I am of the opinion that they are classical Hinduism.

Srila Prabhupada's statements must be taken in context and understood in that context. For example, the so called conspiracy on moon landings is plain silly. In Srimad Bhagavatam, the moon is described as being very very far away (actually much further then the moon which we understand to be closer to us). So, it was Prabhupada's understanding that the moon of the Bhagavatam, could not have been the moon that humans landed on (rather they were two different planets all together). When people misunderstand this context, they misunderstand what Prabhupada meant. Furthermore, the geocentric theories of earth are based upon the conclusions of Bhagavatam. Prabhupada's Guru. Bhaktisiddhanta (who wrote a commetenary on Surya Siddhanta) and Prabhupada were of the opinion that the planet structure in Bhagavatam is not literal, but rather symbolic. The so called "flat earth" does not refer to earth at all, rather it refers to a plane of planets, in Jambhudwipa. Again, this is a problem of understanding the information without proper context. Prabhupada would have personally studied surya siddhanta, under his Guru, and that is why I find such accusations unconvincing. Whatever the matter, the thread is not about him.

In have already covered to some extent the reply to the former quote. All darsanas accept perception, including Charvaka. Every other darsana other than Charvaka accepts both perception and inference. Most darsanas except Vaiseshika accept perception, inference and testimony. As not all agree on scriptural testimony, perception and inference are used by all as the standard method of ascertaining proof. Again, I repeat, including by Vedanta. That is because you cannot say 'scripture says' in a debate between opponents. If I was debating a Muslim, I would not care about what their scripture says and they could not use what their scripture says in a debate.

Debate and establishing Brahman are two different things. I agree with you here though.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Perhaps I want so maintain this illusion for longer? You do realize that Adwaita is a very refined form of solipcism? All this is only a dream, and false, only Brahman exists. I'm sure Sankara has given very convincing reasons to support this.

Why though, why do you want to maintain this illusion longer? All your problems in the world and all the goals you are trying to achieve have no value if they are not real. In a dream, once you realise the exam is not real, do you still fear the result of the exam? No, all fears vanish when you realise it is a dream. If you know the oasis you see in the distance is a mirage would you travel all the way across the desert to it to quench your thirst? Of of course not. Otherwise people would say you are a fool. So when a person who is a solipcisist takes their life too seriously they become a living contradiction to their philosophy. Their philosophy ceases to have any value when the person who believes it does not take it seriously either. Hence, it is a fatal charge against the philosophy.

As for Advaita being solipcist. Indeed it has been accused of that, but in fact it isn't. Advaita does not say that reality, people and objects are a figment of your imagination. It is not your imagination, the individual ego that produces this world of objects and people, but Brahman's power(maya) of projection(viksepa shakti) that has not only produced the whole world of objects and people, but your own individual ego and body. In a sense this is similar to Berkeley's idealism, it is not yours, but God's imagination that has produced this world. As long as you continue to persist in this empirical world, the world, people and God as being separate from you is true, but once you have achieved Brahman or God-realisation the separations cease and you realise all of existence as Brahman only.

Shankara wanted to steer away Advaita from the radical idealism of Gaudapada, by making room in his philosophy for provisional reality, the empirical reality in which we make transactions. As long as we are this reality everything is true. Your pain is real, your problems are real, you are real. In order to get out of this reality(samsara) we must attain self-realisation and for this we must do sadhana, and part of sadhana also includes fulfilling your debts(rin) by contributing back to the world through the five yagyas, contributing to welfare of people and animals, of nature, of contributing to progress and science.. Therefore Shankara's Advaita is not solipicism and it is not world denying. In fact if you truly practice Advaita, you would be an asset to this world.

To this I want to say those people who are living in Ashrams, temples and monasteries reading scriptures all the time, following outdated rituals and traditions are no good to the world. Another reason why I left my Ashram.

But it is based upon a certain kind of faith (trust) that the emperical data we see is actually accurate. There is a famous thought experiment in philosophy that is given in this regard (by Berkeley I think). It is called the veil of perception.

(snip)

Assumptions like the senses (and even human instruments) is able to interact meaningfully with matter and yield true infomation. That we have enough true information to make true claims and conclusions based upon this. Science is based upon a few primary assumptions which cannot be proved of disproved by itself.

I do get your point that science is limited and it can only give us a limited view of reality, like looking through the keyhole we can only get limited information inside the room. However, what you do not understand, that science itself accepts it is limited, and certainly since Karl Popper and even before, scientists have accepted that new observations can and do change their understanding. It is better to say this:

"What I know is based on the current evidence that is available to me, and I will am willing to revise or change what I know when new evidence becomes available that forces me to do that"

This is why science is NOT based on faith. It is what they call in the trade "epistemological dynamic" meaning it is working knowledge so far based on what we know and it offers inferences to the best explanation, which are basically explanations we are forced to because of the evidence we have seen so far. This is why a Christian, Muslim, a Hindu and an atheist alike can all work as scientists and agree with the same explanations and still maintain their respective faiths.

Faith cannot be tested by emperical means, but it can be tested by other means. Let us say scripture says that there exists an Atma. Now you cannot prove the Atma by any emperical method. However through the process of Sadhana you may come to perceive of realize the Atma. Many times, when the Vedas give a claim, they give a means to test that claim for one's self.

But to do the sadhana itself requires faith right? If somebody says to me go and meditate in a cave for 5 years by chanting x mantra, then I will be able to levitate. I would need first faith that this is possible first, before I go and do it. Doing it means investing my time, money and energy. I am not a fool that I am going to go meditate in a cave for 5 years without reason. See how reason is stronger than testimony? I would need to first understand how it could be even possible that chanting x mantra will cause levitation. I would need to investigate the science behind sound vibrations and gravity and why a certain combinations of sounds would cause those effects. If I am convinced that it is scientific, then perhaps I will spend 5 years in a cave chanting the mantra. However, it will only become real to me the day I actually see myself levitating. Therefore perception is the gold standard.

Sure, but that was never my definition of faith. My definition of faith or belief is that it is that which allows us to hold certain otherwise impossible to prove assumptions as true. Faith in sources give rise to evidence which give rise to truth claims.

To this I will respond that to do first take up the Yogic sadhana I will first need to understand the science behind the Yoga for which it works. This will bring me to the Samkhya shastra. I read its arguments for prakriti exists, for purusha exists, and why prakriti and purusha are different. I will need to understand such categories as gross body, subtle body and causal body and theories of gunas and lokas etc etc After I have conviction that this is actually all checks out by my test of reasoning, it is only then I will take up Yoga. However, even here, as I said nothing is left to chance in the Dharmic religions, there is Yoga shastra to guide me along the journey of sadhana, to delineate the entire journey from start to end, to map out and signpost the stages, to gives tips and techniques to overcome obstacles. I will confirm to myself through my own experiences everything the Yoga shastra is saying, which will further strengthen my conviction that I am in fact on the right path.

In short, testimony is just a starting point, not an end point.

Yes I generally agree. Although I am of the opinion that Sruti is not rooted in perception. Following the Vedanta line we hold Sruti to be eternal. Nor would I call perception the foundation of all knowledge. You are interpreting perception in a very general way. In Hindu schools, the word pratyuksha is used for perception and means "direct sensory perception". What we directly experience with the senses is called pratyuksha or perception:

Actually no. I already described earlier perception is accepted to be of three kinds: Sensory perception, mental perception and Yogic perception.

Also it is interesting about the Rishis. Our school holds that the Rishis did not even original perceive Brahman. They also received the knowledge through Sabda from the Supreme Lord Himself. Of course perception followed later, the foundation of their knowledge was Shabda. In Gita, Krsna says:

sri-bhagavan uvaca
imam vivasvate yogam
proktavan aham avyayam
vivasvan manave praha
manur iksvakave 'bravit

The Blessed Lord said: I instructed this imperishable science of yoga to the sun-god, Vivasvān, and Vivasvān instructed it to Manu, the father of mankind, and Manu in turn instructed it to Ikṣvāku.

Sure, but when Krishna instructs it to Arjuna when does he say, he says "Find a comfortable seat, not to high, not to low, regulate your breath and focus on the tip of your nose(or third eye according to other translations" In other words they are teaching only a method by which you too can become self-realised. The mere telling of it is not enough. You need to follow through by using a method. Similarly, the Rishis in the Yogic Upanishads teach Yogic methods to realise the truth of Brahman/Atman.. First they teach you there is a Brahman, then they reveal methods by which you can realise Brahman/Atman. Until Brahman/Atman does not become your own experience, it just remains a concept in your head.

In the Puranas, the Vedic knowledge of Brahman was first taught by the Lord to Brahmadeva who taught this to his sons (the Rishis and Munis). He entrusted the four vedas to his four sons as well as the associate commentaries. This is known as Parampara. The vedic knowledge is passed through vani (speech) from guru to student and it can be traced all the way back to the Supreme Lord Himself. Bhagavatam confirms this: tene brahma hrida ya adi-kavaye, (it was He (Krsna) that transmitted this knowledge to the heart Brahmadeva, the first poet.)

I agree with you this is a supreme science(paravidya) and I believe personally it has come from an advanced scientific civilisation. However, I will hasten to add, that this kind of science would naturally arise in any advanced scientific culture which has started investigating the truths of mind, consciousness and the relationships with matter. That is we would end up rediscovering the supreme science even without anybody telling us it. This is what is happening today in fields like parapsychology, using scientific research methods, we are rediscovering a lot of truths that were already known to the Rishis etc If suppose we prove reincarnation is true tomorrow, then future science will be teaching reincarnation in the same matter of fact way that it is taught in Dharmic religions. This would fuel further investigations into tracking the subtle body, knowing which gross body it has taken up next etc. In other words science itself can reveal spiritual truths even without the help of testimony.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I think we do not completely disagree nor agree either. I think we just give different value or privilege to the pramanas. I accept testimony as only a starting point but inference and perception, or we could just say science as the true standard for knowledge. Henceforth, if testimony ever contradicts science, it is testimony that needs to be brought into question and not science. If you say, perhaps testimony is indicating a more advanced science that our current science does not yet know, like for example telling Newton about the existence of gravity waves, an advanced science would still need to account for the less advanced science e.g. Newton's theories are a special case of relativity Thus science does not grow by contradiction, but rather as Newton said, by "standing on the shoulders of giants" it a progressive human enterprise based on knowledge gathered over centuries, and only tells us what we know thus far

The reason we give it so much importance today is because it has been proven to be the most reliable epistemology.

 

[निताइ dasa]

hy though, why do you want to maintain this illusion longer, if its not an illusion. All your problems in the world and all the goals you are trying to achieve have no value if they are not real. In a dream, once you realise the exam is not real, do you still fear the result of the exam? No, all fears vanish when you realise it is a dream. If you know the oasis you see in the distance is a mirage would you travel all the way across the desert to it to quench your thirst? Of of course not. Otherwise people would say you are a fool. So when a person who is a solipcisist takes their life too seriously they become a living contradiction to their philosophy. Their philosophy ceases to have any value when the person who believes it does not take it seriously either. Hence, it is a fatal charge against the philosophy.

Even if something may not have absolute value, it may have relative value. For example, nietzsche a very famous philsopher claimed there was no meaning in life, no value, no meaning nothing absolute (that we can be sure of). Still he argued that life is worth living living (for various reasons). Even though the world may be false, or a dream, I am attached to this dream and illusion, and therefore I suffer as a result of this attachment. That is why I fear, or why I act at all.

As for Advaita being solipcist. Indeed it has been accused of that, but in fact it isn't. Advaita does not say that reality, people and objects are a figment of your imagination. It is not your imagination, the individual ego that produces this world of objects and people, but Brahman's power(maya) of projection(viksepa shakti) that has not only produced the whole world of objects and people, but your own individual ego and body. In a sense this is similar to Berkeley's idealism, it is not yours, but God's imagination that has produced this world. As long as you continue to persist in this empirical world, the world, people and God as being separate from you is true, but once you have achieved Brahman or God-realisation the separations cease and you realise all of existence as Brahman only.

Remember Brahman is the self. God is you in Adwaita. I'm sorry I see very little different between Solopcism and Adwaita on the fundamental level. And this is coming from someone who has studied Adwaita. While Adwaita does argue for a vyavharika (emperical) view, I agree, and all its implications in the ultimate level, this world is a dream, it is false. There are certain solicists who argue like this Sankara has written, Brahman satyam jagan mithya, Only Brahman is True, this world is false. Berkeley at least admits separation and variety even in existence, but Adwaita does not. In fact Dhrishti Srshti Vada of Prakashananda (an offbranch of Adwaita) gets awfully close to this idea.

But to do the sadhana itself requires faith right? If somebody says to me go and meditate in a cave for 5 years by chanting x mantra, then I will be able to levitate. I would need first faith that this is possible first, before I go and do it. Doing it means investing my time, money and energy. I am not a fool that I am going to go meditate in a cave for 5 years without reason. See how reason is stronger than testimony? I would need to first understand how it could be even possible that chanting x mantra will cause levitation. I would need to investigate the science behind sound vibrations and gravity and why a certain combinations of sounds would cause those effects. If I am convinced that it is scientific, then perhaps I will spend 5 years in a cave chanting the mantra. However, it will only become real to me the day I actually see myself levitating. Therefore perception is the gold standard.

Everything require faith. You need to believe that an action will yield results if you are even going to do that action. I am defining faith as a very fundamental level without assuming any bias of hierarchy of pramana. I think I sort of understanding your definition of faith now. You seem to be saying that faith is a belief held without reason. I don't see faith like that. Faith is that which impels us towards actions. We humans are reasonable creatures. We tend towards order and logical progression rather than that which is arbritary, so if a claim can be reasoned with us, we are more likley to follow of believe (faith in my terminology) said claim. I certainly agree, you must be able to reconcile scripture with reason. Otherwise it is not faith, but blind faith. That is the different. I actually agree with you 100% that a claim that is reasoned is much superior to a claim that is not. My point has always been that reason alone cannot show Brahman. If I left a person alone, and derived him of scripture, then that would never, in a million years be able to realize Brahman.

Sure, but when Krishna instructs it to Arjuna when does he say, he says "Find a comfortable seat, not to high, not to low, regulate your breath and focus on the tip of your nose(or third eye according to other translations" In other words they are teaching only a method by which you too can become self-realised. The mere telling of it is not enough. You need to follow through by using a method. Similarly, the Rishis in the Yogic Upanishads teach Yogic methods to realise the truth of Brahman/Atman.. First they teach you there is a Brahman, then they reveal methods by which you can realise Brahman/Atman. Until Brahman/Atman does not become your own experience, it just remains a concept in your head.

I agree there must be a method. WHen setting forth any sort of siddanta, there must be three sections discusses. 1) Sambandha, i.e the relationships of everything with everything else (i.e the theoretical stuff). 2) Abhideya or the process by which we can reach ultimate good (i.e Sadhana must be described). 3) Prajana, the ultimate goal, or final attainment must be described. It only becomes a consistent philosophy if you have these three ideas.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

On reconciling Puranic chronology with ToE

I just want to show there is a way we can reconcile Puranic chronology with ToE. Although I have shown that ToE is very logical as a theory for how species arise and develop, it does not necessarily mean ToE happened on this planet in the same way. There are other theories like panspermia which suggest that life can be planted on the planet, it could come hitchhiking on a meteorite or it could have been implanted here by aliens or perhaps we ourselves evolved on another planet and migrated to this planet as fully developed humans. In this way ToE and Puranic chronology do not necessarily have to contradict each other -- evolution happened but just not on this planet. If you think this is extremely "out there" it has actually an accepted explanation in at least one major modern Hindu tradition, the Shaiva Siddhanta Chuch, its founder Sivaya Subramuniya swami, has claim to channelled ancient Lemurian documents known as 'Lemuria' scrolls, which tell the journey of the current humans from the Pleiades constellation billions of years ago.

Of course nobody is suggesting you accept such an outrageous theory without any evidence, but just consider it as a possibility. In that manner both ToE and the idea that humans have been on this planet for billions of years in fact co-exist.

Why should we actually give serious thought to the Puranic-Itithas(PI) chronology? Here are some reasons

1) It checks out. The cycles described in the PI chronology correspond to actual cycles described by modern scientists. The fact that one day and night of Brahma is exactly 8.64 billion years after which one bramanda is destroyed corresponds more or less exactly to the life span of the sun. Somebody tried to refute this in my thread '"Historical origins vs mythological origins" by saying by the law of averages something could be right if you say many things and one of them just happens to be right. The time cycles are described more or less exactly the same in all the 18 Puranas, in the Mahabharata and in the Manusmriti. To asset with confidence 2 decimal places extremely accurate time cycles that correspond to actual scientific time cycles is not to be taken lightly. We must ask how did they know?
2) If describes the 'vanaras' as ape like humans co-existing with modern humans 18 million years ago, which is somewhat an acknowledgement to ToE, the fossil records do show us ape-like humans fossils and modern like human fossils co-exiting at the same time in the hundreds of thousands and the millions timeframe.(I have read some of the illustrated evidence in Cremo's book, and I have cross-referenced it some, and they do indeed check out, although all of his claims do)
3) The Drake equation. One of the assumptions behind Darwin's ToE is the loneliness of humans, which then assumes humans evolving on the planet without any outside interference. If, however as the Drake equation predicts, there are hundreds of thousands of planets in our planet on which intelligent life could exist at and intelligent life arose at different periods of time, then it is entirely possible that evolution on this planet could have had had outside interference. Just as we, having reached the space age, are now planning interstellar missions, it is entirely feasible that those living on other planets in our galaxy have and are doing the same. It is interesting to note the Puranas do state that there are 400,000 species of humans living on other planets. The idea of extraterrestrials is thus not alien to Dharmic thought.
4) The history as far as current recorded history checks out. The Kaliyuga date of 3012BCE is real, as evidenced by the naked eye observation of planets at their respective positions in the sky recorded in Hindu almanacs, which check out against modern calculations. Astronomers have already stated it is impossible that these positions were back-calculated. The descriptions of urban cities going back as far as 7000BCE and the discovery of Dwaraka is evident in the IVC.
5) The description of advanced technology. Even the fiction produced in a certain timeframe is limited by the scientific understanding of the time. The PI describe flying vehicles(vimanas) they describe missiles that can destroy entire cities, that release fire, release poisonous gas, they describe robots, they describe human cloning, they describe metal cities. To put this into perspective even as late as the 18th century fiction could only conceive of flying bicycles.
6) It is describes as history. PI does not purport to be mythology but history.

Is it possible that just as everything goes around in cycles on this planet, that even scientific civilisations rise and fall on this planet? Could the Puranas be corrupted and mythologised records of a previous scientific civilisation on this planet? Call it an outrageous theory, but I say hold it as a possibility. If so, if we take it as a possibility, what kind of evidence should we expect to find if there were such civilisation/s on the planet? Can we be really sure before the 10,000 year mark, or before the 100,000 year mark, or the 1 million year mark, or 100 million year mark advanced human civilisations were not on this planet?

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

If you don't mind Dasa, I would like to start a separate thread to debate Madvacharya and Dvaita interpretations of Vedanta, as I feel we are hijacking sayak's thread, which is more about evolution and the conflict between science and testimony.

 

[MonkeyFire]

I believe is singular eternity, and flux capacitation. There are only so many shapes, colors, and things creating a capacity to life and death.

 

[Mlecch]

In Hinduism, the creationist description of the origin of life (Rig Veda 10.90.10-12; Yajur Veda Maitrayani Samhita 1.8.1,2; Atharva Veda 19.6.6; Shatapatha Brahmana 7.5.2.6; Vishnu Purana 1.5.27-65, 1.6.1- 11). The description of the origin of life according to Buddhism is not creationist, but also contradicts the mainstream theory of evolution (Aganya Sutta; Vepullapabbatta Sutta).