Smriti vs Shruti

[iamfact]

No, the sages and rīśīs are illusioned because you say so!

Humans are congenitally ignorant, I don't think I need to justify this position because it is evident as it is. To say the sages are enlightened is to make a claim that is different from the congenital state of human beings.

Surya Dev is asking: Why should I believe that the sages are enlightened? Because the Puranas say so? Isn't that a bit counter-intuitive because it was the sages who wrote the Puranas?

If I understand him correctly, he is not making a claim that the sages are unenlightened. Instead, he is lacking belief that the sages are enlightened because there is no reason for him to believe in such an alleged claim. I think, he (like me) is of the view that one should not believe in conjectures without proof.

So I don't think Surya Dev believes the sages are illusioned, he just lacks belief that the Puranic sages are enlightened. After all, sages are humans, humans are generally ignorant, and there is no evidence to indicate that the Puranic sages were different from general humans.

In the case that what I described is not Surya Dev's view, it is definitely my view :yes:

Vrindavana Das, I think our differences arise because you use śraddhā (faith) to read the scriptures and we use prajña (discernment). I think both are valid in context with our own disciplines. In context with each others' disciplines however, not so much.

I use prajña and not śraddhā because I find śraddhā to be inadequate. To believe in something just because it is written and preached somewhere is not jñana (knowledge); it is blind faith, which is avidyā. And avidyā leads to māyā, which I guess we're trying to escape from.

Of course, I'm not saying śraddhā is useless. I just think jñana (attained by prajña) should be the source of śraddhā and not the other way around.

 

[Riverwolf]

If scholars are saying something like 'scriptures are fallible', this contradicts with spirituality which teaches that scriptures are 'infallible'.

Spirituality is only loosely connected with Scriptures, which are little more than guidebooks, ultimately.

Like any guidebook, there are going to be inaccuracies.

A self-realized soul is not illusioned. They teach us the path of self-realization, after they have walked the path and achieved Supreme Lord. If you say something like Christ was illusioned and Bible is fiction, you are grossly mistaken and incorrect. I have no doubt in my mind.

I've seen nothing to indicate that they are perfect. Every single Sage I've read has demonstrated human faults in their teachings, primarily in the use of logical fallacies.

If you try to learn Physics from a politician, whose fault is it?

The scriptures have told us that we should accept only bonafide disciplines and commentaries. If you still take mundane people as authorities on religion, you will reach conflicting and contradictory conclusions. That is why one must be careful to accept commentaries from scripturally authorized and bonafide spiritual disciplines.

And how would you determine such a thing?

BTW, all people are mundane in regards to matters in which they are not experts.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Humans are congenitally ignorant, I don't think I need to justify this position because it is evident as it is. To say the sages are enlightened is to make a claim that is different from the congenital state of human beings.

Surya Dev is asking: Why should I believe that the sages are enlightened? Because the Puranas say so? Isn't that a bit counter-intuitive because it was the sages who wrote the Puranas?

If I understand him correctly, he is not making a claim that the sages are unenlightened. Instead, he is lacking belief that the sages are enlightened because there is no reason for him to believe in such an alleged claim. I think, he (like me) is of the view that one should not believe in conjectures without proof.

So I don't think Surya Dev believes the sages are illusioned, he just lacks belief that the Puranic sages are enlightened. After all, sages are humans, humans are generally ignorant, and there is no evidence to indicate that the Puranic sages were different from general humans.

In the case that what I described is not Surya Dev's view, it is definitely my view :yes:

To learn chemistry or physics, we accept the authority of the teacher on that subject. This teacher has accepted the authority of his teacher, who in turn has accepted the authority of his teacher. This is the process of acquiring knowledge. We use experimentation, observation, logic, reason and intelligence to verify the knowledge thus gained. However, that happens 'after' we have acquired necessary qualification to verify that knowledge. To see the truth of Einstein's theory of relativity, one must study physics in school, then college, then do his PhD. and then maybe a super-specialization in the particular discipline of physics. Only then can he understand the theory. Not before. Till such time, he is just speculating, based on his intelligence.

Similarly, religion is the spiritual science of self-realization. It comes from the infallible Supreme Lord and in proper bonafide disciplic succession, from teachers who have realized the 'truth' of scriptures. It is perfectly logical, verifiable, scientific and correct.

Asides, if you see my previous posts in this thread, I have mentioned why the scriptures expanded by great sages are infallible.

Here is one: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3051886-post12.html

Vrindavana Das, I think our differences arise because you use śraddhā (faith) to read the scriptures and we use prajña (discernment). I think both are valid in context with our own disciplines. In context with each others' disciplines however, not so much.

I use prajña and not śraddhā because I find śraddhā to be inadequate. To believe in something just because it is written and preached somewhere is not jñana (knowledge); it is blind faith, which is avidyā. And avidyā leads to māyā, which I guess we're trying to escape from.

Of course, I'm not saying śraddhā is useless. I just think jñana (attained by prajña) should be the source of śraddhā and not the other way around.

I agree. Both your discipline and my discipline are valid. However, I differ slightly on one point. Please check out my previous posts, including the one whose link is given above. In the light of that, that I do blind faith, is an 'assumption' you are making. It is not 'fact'.

One should follow a channel - a bonafide discipline to realize the goal of that discipline. It has been walked by previous āchāryās (gurus), who have realized the truth and have taught the same in disciplic succession to others. This is not blind faith. It is knowledge - vīdyā.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Spirituality is only loosely connected with Scriptures, which are little more than guidebooks, ultimately.

Like any guidebook, there are going to be inaccuracies.

That is your personal opinion. It is not supported by any scriptures and so is not a scriptural truth. In fact, it is opposite to what the scriptures teach. Your opinion is determined by your understanding. It can change. That is not religion. Religion is eternal. It is true for all times. Therefore, we can only take the scriptures, which come from infallible Supreme Lord as authority in matters of religion.

I've seen nothing to indicate that they are perfect. Every single Sage I've read has demonstrated human faults in their teachings, primarily in the use of logical fallacies.

Which sages have you read? I think you have just read some unauthorized commentaries from some unauthorized sources, presenting their view/mind as scriptures. Like I said earlier, if you hear religion from a politician, who is to blame?

And how would you determine such a thing?

The scriptures come from infallible God. It is the scriptures that tell us which ones we should accept.

BTW, all people are mundane in regards to matters in which they are not experts.

That is why we should approach the experts. Not anyone and everyone.

 

[Riverwolf]

That is your personal opinion. It is not supported by any scriptures and so is not a scriptural truth. In fact, it is opposite to what the scriptures teach. Your opinion is determined by your understanding. It can change. That is not religion. Religion is eternal. It is true for all times. Therefore, we can only take the scriptures, which come from infallible Supreme Lord as authority in matters of religion.

How can we be sure of its trust?

Which sages have you read? I think you have just read some unauthorized commentaries from some unauthorized sources, presenting their view/mind as scriptures. Like I said earlier, if you hear religion from a politician, who is to blame?

Swami Vivekananda
Sri Ramakrishna
Paramahamsa Yogananda
Sri Prabhupada
Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami
Swami Sivananda
...there's a Gaudiya Vaishnava commentary of the Gita that I have, though not with me, but I can't remember the names of the commentators or translators.

I'm sure there's a few others I'm just forgetting right now.

These are all major authorities, each equally valid.

Hinduism is a religion of many schools, many lineages, and many authorities, not just one.

Which are the Sages you would recommend?

The scriptures come from infallible God. It is the scriptures that tell us which ones we should accept.

Then why do different Puranas give different lists?

First, you need to determine that they come from infallible God. How is this determined? You can't say "because the Scriptures say so", because that would be circular logic. You can't say "because this person said so," because that would be argument from authority, which is also a logical fallacy.

That is why we should approach the experts. Not anyone and everyone.

Yet experts in all fields disagree with each other all the time.

And, again, like I said, I once caught my history teacher in a lie red handed.

Today, with the internet, it's much easier for us to obtain the knowledge necessary to question the authorities.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Scriptures mandate yukti and pramana, even the schools that tend towards ignoring personal experience must acknowledge this. Some schools place anauresheya and antarjnana on equal footing.

 

[iamfact]

To learn chemistry or physics, we accept the authority of the teacher on that subject. This teacher has accepted the authority of his teacher, who in turn has accepted the authority of his teacher. This is the process of acquiring knowledge. We use experimentation, observation, logic, reason and intelligence to verify the knowledge thus gained. However, that happens 'after' we have acquired necessary qualification to verify that knowledge. To see the truth of Einstein's theory of relativity, one must study physics in school, then college, then do his PhD. and then maybe a super-specialization in the particular discipline of physics. Only then can he understand the theory. Not before. Till such time, he is just speculating, based on his intelligence. Similarly, religion is the spiritual science of self-realization. It comes from the infallible Supreme Lord and in proper bonafide disciplic succession, from teachers who have realized the 'truth' of scriptures.

Your premise is based on logical fallacies:

1. Appeal to faith.
(E.g., if you have no faith, you cannot learn) If the arguer relies on faith as the bases of his argument, then you can gain little from further discussion. Faith, by definition, relies on a belief that does not rest on logic or evidence. Faith often produces intransigence.

Appeal to faith is explained pretty well above, here's just an extension: You're basically saying, in order to understand the true meaning of the scriptures, you need to accept the authority of the teachers without evidence. In this practice, the disciple accepts unsubstantiated statements (pratijña) as jñana (knowledge). Pratijña ≠ jñana. Accepting pratijña as jñana is avidyā. Unsubstantiated statements believed through faith alone cannot be considered knowledge.

2. Half truths.
A statement that omits some of the facts necessary for an accurate description.

The half truth in your argument is regarding the analogy where you pretty much say that to understand science, you need to have faith in science teachers. To a very small extent, this is true. But this is a terrible analogy to use when comparing it to religious faith. There are no revelations in science that we are ignorant of, where we supposedly need faith in the scriptures and in the Gurus to properly understand. In your analogy, you fail to mention that science is based on the scientific method, an empirical method that, for 400 years, has worked in establishing theories and refining them. Almost everything that we know today in science about the natural universe, comes from the use of this scientific method. Moreover, the theories established from the scientific method are not only tested by the scientist(s) who developed the theory, but by other neutral and often skeptical scientists as well. Only after vigorous testing and application to the real world is a hypothesis accepted as a theory and is used in teaching. Scientists perpetually analyze existing theories and discard those that are proven to be wrong or insufficient instead of clinging on to them by faith. On the other hand, there is religion where the disciples accept unsubstantiated and unproven statements of their Gurus as knowledge based on faith alone. (The Guru's authority is based only by their faith in texts (śruti/smṛti) and their previous Gurus whom they believe unconditionally.) This renders it so that the only ones capable of testing the teachings of the Guru are the disciples who have complete faith in the teachings. This is similar to allowing a jury of people with unsubstantiated and unconditional beliefs in a man's innocence/guilt, that were conceived prior to the court case, determine the verdict.

It is perfectly logical, verifiable, scientific...

Matters of faith are not verifiable through scientific means ergo they are not scientific. If they were, scientists would be able to verify the answers provided by faith as true or false. However, that is is not the case. Matters of faith are unverifiable scientifically.

... and correct.

One cannot claim that something is correct or incorrect, without bias, when they already have faith that whatever being investigated is true.

Asides, if you see my previous posts in this thread, I have mentioned why the scriptures expanded by great sages are infallible.

Here is one: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3051886-post12.html

In that post, you postulate that the scriptures are infallible based on what it says in the scripture. That is circular reasoning, another logical fallacy. Here is what I mean:

...................................................................................................​

Purānas were authored by Srilā Vyāsedeva about 5,000 years ago, as in Kali-yuga (present iron age), humans have a short span of life, poor memory and low intelligence. Thus, Srīlā Vyāsadeva, who is an accepted 'literary incarnation' of Supreme Lord - Kṛṣṇa, wrote the Vedic knowledge (Śrut&#299 into Purānas (Smrīt&#299. Srīlā Vyāsadeva is an incarnation of Supreme Lord, this is mentioned in the Bhāgavata Purāna. You can learn more here: Srila Vyasadeva

You believe that Vyāsadeva is an incarnation of Kṛṣṇa because the Bhāgavata Purāṇa says so.

Vedic knowledge is infallible because it comes down through the perfect disciplic succession of spiritual masters, beginning with the Lord Himself. Since He spoke the first word of Vedic knowledge, the source of this knowledge is transcendental. The words spoken by the Lord are called apauruṣeya, which indicates that they are not delivered by any mundane person.

This is confirmed in the following way:

bhrama, pramada, vipralipsa, karanapatava
isvarera vakye nahi dosha ei saba

"The material defects of mistakes, illusions, cheating and sensory inefficiency do not exist in the words of the Supreme Personality of Godhead". [C.C. Adi 7.107]

You believe that the scriptures came from the Lord and that the Lord is devoid of the negative qualities because it says so in the scriptures. You have not proven that the scriptures are infallible. Your argument is essentially: the scriptures are infallible because the scriptures say so. That is circular logic which is illogical and does not prove anything.

..........................................................................​

I agree. Both your discipline and my discipline are valid.

Yup. Both our disciplines are valid with regards to our own viewpoints. Your discipline is not valid to me, and my disciple is probably not valid to you. The important thing is to live and let live. I only debate for the sake of learning. I have no aversion to you practicing with faith.

However, I differ slightly on one point. Please check out my previous posts, including the one whose link is given above. In the light of that, that I do blind faith, is an 'assumption' you are making. It is not 'fact'.

I'm not necessarily saying I know that you practice blind faith. I'm saying that I cannot practice the way in which you propose to practice, because to me, that path seems to be composed of having blind faith.

One should follow a channel - a bonafide discipline to realize the goal of that discipline. It has been walked by previous āchāryās (gurus), who have realized the truth and have taught the same in disciplic succession to others. This is not blind faith. It is knowledge - vīdyā.

Again, you're using faith to assume that the previous gurus have realized the truth. Based on what can we believe that? You're believing in unsubstantiated statements for the sake of faith. To me that is blind faith. Accepting unsubstantiated statements (pratijña) as jñana based on faith alone is not vidyā in my eyes, it is avidyā. But I don't know what vidyā means to you..




I'm of the view that if other human beings were supposedly able to become "enlightened", then I have all the tools I need to become enlightened as well. Jñana is the dispeller of ignorance, and in my view, the best way to gain knowledge is through science, meditation, constantly asking questions, and reading scriptures with prajña (i.e. not believing everything written in scriptures based on faith, but looking for inspiration and ideas of those who are claimed to have been enlightened and by testing whatever is claimed for ex. neti, neti). My path is certainly not perfect, but I think it is better than unconditionally believing in the unsubstantiated claims of other people, who I'm not even sure are enlightened.

I'm not saying we should not have Gurus. For many people, it is a good thing to have Gurus -- even I'm considering the possibility of getting a Guru, in the future. Many Gurus even advice their disciples to analyze what is being imparted instead of blindly accepting the teachings. The thing I'm taking issue with what you've proposed is not the acceptance of Gurus or the reverence of Gurus but the act of having complete faith in Gurus and unconditionally believing every explanation they give to be true for the sake of faith, without prajña and bhāvanā in the picture.

Finally, I don't do what I do to seek enlightenment, but to learn about the universe for the sake of learning because I enjoy it. And as I learn, my practices change reflecting what I have learnt. If whatever enlightenment is occurs along the way then great! If it doesn't, then I'll have lead a good life, full of virtues, and learnt a whole lot of things, and hopefully made the lives of others better. After that, whatever happens, happens.

 

[Riverwolf]

Almost everything that we know today in science about the natural universe, comes from the use of this scientific method.

And I feel the need to point out that you don't need to be a professional scientist to use the scientific method.

 

[Surya Deva]

This is not an adhominem against Vrindavana das, but it is pretty clear for me to see here that while everybody here is trying to engage him in a rational discussion on his beliefs/statements, this is not somebody who is rational. He has clearly stated he is a man of faith, so let's just leave it at that.

I would personally put his beliefs under the category of blind faith and religious fundamentalism. Many of his beliefs and statements are simply based on "Because scripture says so" The Puranas were written in 3000BCE by the eternal sage Vedvyasa who is an incarnation of Krishna/Vishnu because "Puranas say so" Despite the fact he has clearly been shown that the Puranas mention temples that were not built until the middle ages, historical personalities and kings that did not live until much later in history, such as queen Victoria(and conveniently does not mention any historical personalities after queen victoria in the last edition of its print in the 19th century ) or the fact that the Puranas contain contradictory genealogies and lists.

Although for any rational person any of the above is enough to falsify the belief that the Puranas were written in 3000BCE by the incarnation of Krishna/Vishnu, it is not enough for somebody who is not rational. We simply need to accept this and move on, for convincing Vrindandas of otherwise is similar to convincing modern flat-earthers of the sphericity of the Earth or extreme Christian creationists that the Earth is billions of years old and not 6000 years old.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

How can we be sure of its trust?

Vedas are accepted as apauruṣeya by the whole of Hinduism. That means, had they not been the words of God, at least a few of the self-realized souls would have pointed to it as being incorrect, there must have been many self-realized souls in the last few thousands of years, to point out the same. If you are still skeptical, then the other alternative is that you 'walk-the-path', to realize it's truth.

Swami Vivekananda
Sri Ramakrishna
Paramahamsa Yogananda
Sri Prabhupada
Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami
Swami Sivananda
...there's a Gaudiya Vaishnava commentary of the Gita that I have, though not with me, but I can't remember the names of the commentators or translators.

I'm sure there's a few others I'm just forgetting right now.

These are all major authorities, each equally valid.

Hinduism is a religion of many schools, many lineages, and many authorities, not just one.

Which are the Sages you would recommend?

There are many unauthorized commentaries on Bhagavad-Gītā. For example, the Lord clearly declares Himself as the ultimate source of the 'impersonal Brahman' and 'all-that-be'. Still, you will find many unscrupulous commentators saying that you should surrender to the 'unborn' and 'eternal' within Kṛṣṇa. Not Kṛṣṇa - the person. If we accept Bhagavad-Gītā, without accepting the authority of the speaker - Lord Kṛṣṇa; then there is no significance of Bhagavad-Gītā. That is why, there arises the need to accept scriptures in bonafide disciplic succession. You should read any such sage's commentary.

Then why do different Puranas give different lists?

What different list are you mentioning here? Please clarify.

First, you need to determine that they come from infallible God. How is this determined? You can't say "because the Scriptures say so", because that would be circular logic. You can't say "because this person said so," because that would be argument from authority, which is also a logical fallacy.

I repeat. Vedas are accepted as apauruṣeya by the whole of Hinduism. That means, had they not been the words of God, at least a few of the self-realized souls would have pointed to it as being incorrect. If you are still skeptical, then the other alternative is that you 'walk-the-path', to realize it's truth.

Yet experts in all fields disagree with each other all the time.

Experts, who come in bonafide disciplic succession, do not disagree with each other. There is a difference in the level of understanding/realization. There is no contradiction. If you know of some, please point out for clarity.

And, again, like I said, I once caught my history teacher in a lie red handed.

A materially conditioned teacher, who is in the material modes of goodness, passion and ignorance, cannot be accepted at the level of a spiritually self-realized teacher, who is situated on the transcendental spiritual platform.

Today, with the internet, it's much easier for us to obtain the knowledge necessary to question the authorities.

Can you do your schooling, graduation and post-graduation on an internet and then question the Einstein's theory of relativity? You first need to acquire the knowledge to question the knowledge. This happens by taking shelter of a bonafide teacher, who is an expert in the subject. Same is true for scriptures.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Your premise is based on logical fallacies:

1. Appeal to faith.
2. Half truths.

In the below statement, please point to the 'Appeal to faith' and 'half-truths', which are true for religion but are false for science.

To learn chemistry or physics, we accept the authority of the teacher on that subject. This teacher has accepted the authority of his teacher, who in turn has accepted the authority of his teacher. This is the process of acquiring knowledge. We use experimentation, observation, logic, reason and intelligence to verify the knowledge thus gained. However, that happens 'after' we have acquired necessary qualification to verify that knowledge. To see the truth of Einstein's theory of relativity, one must study physics in school, then college, then do his PhD. and then maybe a super-specialization in the particular discipline of physics. Only then can he understand the theory. Not before. Till such time, he is just speculating, based on his intelligence. Similarly, religion is the spiritual science of self-realization. It comes from the infallible Supreme Lord and in proper bonafide disciplic succession, from teachers who have realized the 'truth' of scriptures.

Matters of faith are not verifiable through scientific means ergo they are not scientific. If they were, scientists would be able to verify the answers provided by faith as true or false. However, that is is not the case. Matters of faith are unverifiable scientifically.

Religion is a discipline - like chemistry or physics. If you think it is a matter of 'faith' alone and 'not verifiable', then I know you have not gone through the scriptures. Unlike material science, which deals with dead material elements, spirituality is the science of consciousness - of life. You have to walk the path to 'realize' the truth of scriptures.

One cannot claim that something is correct or incorrect, without bias, when they already have faith that whatever being investigated is true.

Consider this simple reaction:

2Na + 2HCl -----> 2NaCl + H2.

Can you ascertain the correctness of this reaction without learning chemistry and acquiring the necessary knowledge associated with the discipline?

In the beginning, till we acquire the necessary knowledge, we accept the teachers as authorities, even for science. If you call this process of 'learning' as blind faith; then everything in science also is blind faith. Is it not?

What is your logical and rational answer?

In that post, you postulate that the scriptures are infallible based on what it says in the scripture. That is circular reasoning, another logical fallacy. Here is what I mean:...

Pramana means proof. They are of three different types: pratyaksha, anumana, and sabda. Pratyaksha means direct evidence by the senses. But since the senses are imperfect, pratyaksha often has to be corrected by higher knowledge. Anumana refers to deductive and inductive logic, which depends on the validity of its premises and reasons, and so cannot prove anything with final certainty. Sabda means receiving knowledge from authoritative sources. Vedic knowledge is sabda-pramana. This is particularly applicable to transcendental subject matter, which cannot be understood by the empirical and theorizing methods. Even in ordinary affairs, there are many things we have to accept on authority. We can learn the identity of our father from our mother, the only foolproof authority. Aside from the mother there is no way to know for sure who our father is. When the source of information is perfect, as in Vedic knowledge, then sabda-pramana, or sabda-brahma, becomes the ultimate proof. As Srila Prabhupada states, "As far as the soul's existence is concerned, no one can establish his existence experimentally beyond the proof of sruti, or Vedic wisdom" What do you say to that - logically and rationally?

I'm not necessarily saying I know that you practice blind faith. I'm saying that I cannot practice the way in which you propose to practice, because to me, that path seems to be composed of having blind faith.

I am not asking you to have blind faith in scriptures. The Vedanta-sutra (1.1.1) states, athato brahma jijnasa: "Now one should inquire about Brahman - The absolute truth, the transcendental, spiritual nature"

Again, you're using faith to assume that the previous gurus have realized the truth. Based on what can we believe that? You're believing in unsubstantiated statements for the sake of faith. To me that is blind faith. Accepting unsubstantiated statements (pratijña) as jñana based on faith alone is not vidyā in my eyes, it is avidyā. But I don't know what vidyā means to you..

You are 'assuming' that I am using faith alone and not logic and rationale.

That asides, you believe in science. I will simply tweak around with your statement.

"You're using faith to assume that the previous scientists have realized the truth. Based on what can we believe that? You're believing in unsubstantiated statements for the sake of faith. To me that is blind faith. Accepting unsubstantiated statements (pratijña) as jñana based on faith alone is not vidyā in my eyes, it is avidyā. But I don't know what vidyā means to you.."

Now please prove that you are not doing 'blind faith' on science. Why should your statement be accepted as 'correct' for scriptures and not for science? Is this a logical and rational approach?

I'm of the view that if other human beings were supposedly able to become "enlightened", then I have all the tools I need to become enlightened as well. Jñana is the dispeller of ignorance, and in my view, the best way to gain knowledge is through science, meditation, constantly asking questions, and reading scriptures with prajña (i.e. not believing everything written in scriptures based on faith, but looking for inspiration and ideas of those who are claimed to have been enlightened and by testing whatever is claimed for ex. neti, neti). My path is certainly not perfect, but I think it is better than unconditionally believing in the unsubstantiated claims of other people, who I'm not even sure are enlightened.

I'm not saying we should not have Gurus. For many people, it is a good thing to have Gurus -- even I'm considering the possibility of getting a Guru, in the future. Many Gurus even advice their disciples to analyze what is being imparted instead of blindly accepting the teachings. The thing I'm taking issue with what you've proposed is not the acceptance of Gurus or the reverence of Gurus but the act of having complete faith in Gurus and unconditionally believing every explanation they give to be true for the sake of faith, without prajña and bhāvanā in the picture.

Like I said earlier, scriptures also support questioning, reasoning and rational understanding. It is good if you are seeking clarifications and questioning. Scriptures support that view. The Gurus teach scriptures, so they encourage questioning spirit and logic. Not blind faith.

Finally, I don't do what I do to seek enlightenment, but to learn about the universe for the sake of learning because I enjoy it. And as I learn, my practices change reflecting what I have learnt. If whatever enlightenment is occurs along the way then great! If it doesn't, then I'll have lead a good life, full of virtues, and learnt a whole lot of things, and hopefully made the lives of others better. After that, whatever happens, happens.

 

[Surya Deva]

In the below statement, please point to the 'Appeal to faith' and 'half-truths', which are true for religion but are false for science.

It is a misconception that science is based on the testimony of scientists and hence is based on faith on what scientists say. In fact the truth is the complete opposite. Even if the most reputable and prestigious scientific group publishes some findings which goes against our current theories, these findings will not be taken seriously by peers until the findings have been replicated enough to be statistically significant to override the null hypothesis(the current accepted theory) Recently for example a group of scientists published findings that stated that particles can travel faster than the speed of light and produces volumes of empirical data from particle accelerators to prove this, these findings were peer-reviewed by scientists all over the world and it was discovered that they had made a mathematical/statistical error and the findings were dismissed.

The point is that no single scientist, no matter how prestigious or how many Nobel prizes they have won is enough to convince the scientific community, before their hypothesis is accepted as theory in science it has to be rigorously tested. This means the scientific community will attempt to disprove it, and will throw everything at it in order to do so. Quantum theory for instance has been rigorously tested over the last century and thousands of attempt has been made to disprove it, but it still stands.

Hence a scientific theory is not based on faith, conjecture or even philosophy, but on empirical testing using the scientific method, which though not perfect, is the best method we ever had in gathering knowledge. Prior to this method we relied solely on either philosophical reasoning or faith and common sense. For example Aristotle philosophically derived physics seemed to make sense to most people, that a heavier object should fall faster than a lighter object and this is what is generally observed at low altitudes. However, it was not until Galileo empirically tested this that we actually discovered it was wrong. Objects dropped from a higher altitude, shows that a lighter mass and a heavier mass will fall at the same rate of acceleration due to gravity at an average of 9.8ms. The factor that may show different speed is due to air resistance.

Faith has not fared better than philosophy. It was accepted on faith in the West that the Earth was made and completed 6000 years ago and made in 7 days in stages, with humans(depending on which story of genisis you look at) were placed in the end. Now, through empirical testing we know that the Earth is billions of years old, life on the planet has evolved from basic chemical reactions, forming more complex molecules like DNA and evolving into self-replicating organisms.

Thus neither faith or philosophy match up to the scientific method. The scientific method is the best means we have of independently arriving at knowledge. It is what in the Indian philosophical tradition we call pramana. Indian philosophical tradition has more in common with the modern scientific method than it does with Western philosophical methods

Religion is a discipline - like chemistry or physics. If you think it is a matter of 'faith' alone and 'not verifiable', then I know you have not gone through the scriptures. Unlike material science, which deals with dead material elements, spirituality is the science of consciousness - of life. You have to walk the path to 'realize' the truth of scriptures.

No, religion is not a discipline, but religious studies/theology is indeed a discipline. Religion is based on faith, science and physics are based on the scientific method. Religion makes statements about the unobservable universe based on claims alone, like for example it says that we die and face judgement by God. Now, science cannot prove or disprove this, because it is not observable yet for science. So a religious person who can neither prove or disprove this, has to accept it on faith. Even a scientist may choose to accept some things purely on faith.

But there are some things which are clearly within our observable universe which religion has made claims about which have been disproven once they have become part of our observable universe. For example until the discovery of the telescope it was still hotly debated what the shape of the Earth was and whether the Earth went around the sun or vis versa. When it made directly observable that the Earth did in fact go around the sun, the debate ended. Likewise, religions made many claims about free will, but now we know that the mind is not really completely free, but driven by many unconscious processes and this has been demonstrated empirically through experiments. In fact many of the areas that religion deals with has become a part of science's observable universe: Life with biology and mind with psychology and history of creation with cosmology. The result is religion has been forced to retract many of its previous claims.

But there are obviously epistemological limits to the scientific method which is an area dealt in philosophy of science. The earliest description was by Kant who made a study of how scientific knowledge was possible at all, and he demonstrated with clear logical argument that the limits of science only extend to the empirical world i.e., the world as our senses represent it. We cannot know the world that is beyond the sensory world, even artificial extensions of senses like microscopes and telescopes. Thus areas that are supersensory are beyond the limits of science. This is pretty much the same consensus reached in Hindu philosophy: Paravidya deals with knowledge of consciousness which is beyond ordinary empirical knowledge like aparavidya. Consciousness is not something which can be studied, because it is never an object of our study. On the other hand everything which is objective to us can be studied: physical things, mental qualia like sensations, thoughts and feelings are all open to study. Interestingly even things which are considered supernatural or religious in Western philosophy like karma, subtle bodies/ghosts, reincarnation, devas, lokas, siddhis are all within the limits of science, and especially in the last century modern science has started to study these areas to, much to the disgust of the mainstream community of scientists.

Overall, there is nothing really much left for religion when literally everything that religion once dealt with is now a part of our scientific observable universe, very little has been left to faith.

Even in ordinary affairs, there are many things we have to accept on authority. We can learn the identity of our father from our mother, the only foolproof authority. Aside from the mother there is no way to know for sure who our father is.

I found this a bit hilarious, for now days many mothers don't even know who the father of their child is and have to ask for DNA tests as actual fool-proof authority.

When the source of information is perfect, as in Vedic knowledge, then sabda-pramana, or sabda-brahma, becomes the ultimate proof. As Srila Prabhupada states, "As far as the soul's existence is concerned, no one can establish his existence experimentally beyond the proof of sruti, or Vedic wisdom" What do you say to that - logically and rationally?

Testimony is not considered valid in any philosophical tradition, in fact one of the defining features of philosophy is departure from tradition and testimony and relying on independent thought. Even in all the Indian philosophical traditions, testimony carried the least most weight. This is because Indian philosophical debates happened in secular territory where Hindus, Buddhists, Charvakas, Jains would debate, that the argument "Because my scripture says so" became pointless, because others do not each others scripture as valid authority. You had to demonstrate your points not through scripture, but through perception and reasoning and logically testing each others premises and conclusions.

Although Vedanta is based on the testimony of Sruti, it too has to validate Sruti though perception and reasoning. Shankara left no stone unturned to logically demonstrate every statement of Sruti. Had Shankara just said "Sruti says so therefore it is true" he would never have won the respect he did and Vedanta would have never took off in India. Prior to Shankara it was believed that Vedanta was pure mysticism and it could not be explained in words, Shankara changed this attitude.

I am not asking you to have blind faith in scriptures. The Vedanta-sutra (1.1.1) states, athato brahma jijnasa: "Now one should inquire about Brahman - The absolute truth, the transcendental, spiritual nature"

Yes, and the Brahma/Vedanta Sutras does not simply end it by saying "Scripture says so" It goes to great lengths to explain the correct interpretation of the verses in the Upanishads, eliminate incorrect interpretations and refute other philosophies.

You are 'assuming' that I am using faith alone and not logic and rationale.

I have only seen faith so far from you. You don't seem to be a man of logic and rationality. You yourself have called yourself a man of faith.

 

[Surya Deva]

That asides, you believe in science. I will simply tweak around with your statement.

Now please prove that you are not doing 'blind faith' on science. Why should your statement be accepted as 'correct' for scriptures and not for science? Is this a logical and rational approach?

Simple, science is not based on faith, it is based on the scientific method. Faith has got nothing to do with it, this is why scientists can be from any faith Christian, Muslim, Hindu or lack of faith Atheist, Humanist. In science there is no room for faith. Scientific theories must be peer-reviewed by scientists, rigorously tested and independently replicated before they are accepted.

Like I said earlier, scriptures also support questioning, reasoning and rational understanding. It is good if you are seeking clarifications and questioning. Scriptures support that view. The Gurus teach scriptures, so they encourage questioning spirit and logic. Not blind faith.

This is still faith, for it depends on accepting the authority of a Guru. You can question the Guru as much as you can question the priest in the biblical studies in Church, the Imam in Islamic studies in Madrasses. Science is not based on knowledge from any single human authority. In fact a lot of scientific knowledge is discovered by accident from unexpected results of experiments, from phenomena not observed before.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Surya Deva,

You have attributed everything I have said to faith. So, I will point to a few things. Kindly use logic and rationality to understand/explain the following:

We all know that Vedas have been in existence in society much before the modern science evolved.

Now, please consider the following points and see if scriptures is blind faith or a greater science:

1. Vedas have given the world Ayurveda - medical science. More and more people are shifting from allopathy to ayurveda these days as it natural, safe and does not have side-effects. How can 'faith' give such a science...I fail to see.

2. Scriptures have given us 'Yoga'. Even science acknowledges the good effects various yogic postures have on our different body parts. Please note that wrong postures have an adverse effect on the various bodily parts. Then, can 'yoga' be called just faith? There is no logic and rationality that you see in this discipline of science?

3. Scriptures have given us the word 'Aum'. Science has today determined that sound vibration of word aum has beneficial effect on pitutary and other hormone secreting glands. Is that a fluke of scriptures!

4. Scriptures tell us that of all animal stool, stool of cow is purifying. In the villages of India, even today water mixed with cow-dung is used to clean the place after having food and for other such purification purposes. Modern science today has proved that cow dung has antiseptic properties. How do you explain this as 'faith'?

5. Scriptures hail river Ganges as a holy river. Even today, if you keep the water of river Ganges stored for many years, the water does not become stale and rot, unlike water from any other source that is stored for such duration. Science has not been able to explain this.

6. Scriptures tell us the structure of the universe. It explains all the phenomenons that science can explain and even the ones it cannot explain, with the present modern-day proposed structure of universe. It has been researched by PhD.s of Cosmophysics, who have verified this truth. That, it seems from your post that you do not know.

....the list is endless. Ignorance may be bliss. It is still no excuse, my friend. You only need to open your eyes to see!

 

[Riverwolf]

Vedas are accepted as apauruṣeya by the whole of Hinduism. That means, had they not been the words of God, at least a few of the self-realized souls would have pointed to it as being incorrect, there must have been many self-realized souls in the last few thousands of years, to point out the same. If you are still skeptical, then the other alternative is that you 'walk-the-path', to realize it's truth.

So... nobody realized it when it turned out that the sun's rising was not dependent on the performance of the Agnihotra yajna, but would rise regardless?

That fact contradicts a passage from the Shatapatha Brahmana:

5. And when he offers in the morning before sunrise, then he produces that (sun-child) and, having become a light, it rises shining. But, assuredly, it would not rise, were he not to make that offering: this is why he performs that offering.

Heck, that entire passage does not accurately describe how the sun works.

So, the actual words of the Vedas clearly come from humans who did not understand the natural processes. It's their spirit which comes from the Divine.

There are many unauthorized commentaries on Bhagavad-Gītā. For example, the Lord clearly declares Himself as the ultimate source of the 'impersonal Brahman' and 'all-that-be'. Still, you will find many unscrupulous commentators saying that you should surrender to the 'unborn' and 'eternal' within Kṛṣṇa. Not Kṛṣṇa - the person. If we accept Bhagavad-Gītā, without accepting the authority of the speaker - Lord Kṛṣṇa; then there is no significance of Bhagavad-Gītā. That is why, there arises the need to accept scriptures in bonafide disciplic succession. You should read any such sage's commentary.

...okay, any names?

What different list are you mentioning here? Please clarify.

Each Purana lists a different set of Puranas.

For example:

The Matsya Purana, Narada Purana, Devi Bhagavata, and Agni Purana include the Vayu Purana as the fourth Mahapurana, while the Bhagavata Purana, Linga Purana, Brahmavaivarta Purana, and Markandeya Purana do not, putting the Siva Purana at that spot. The Kurma Purana has both in a list of nineteen Mahapuranas.

I repeat. Vedas are accepted as apauruṣeya by the whole of Hinduism. That means, had they not been the words of God, at least a few of the self-realized souls would have pointed to it as being incorrect. If you are still skeptical, then the other alternative is that you 'walk-the-path', to realize it's truth.

See above.

Experts, who come in bonafide disciplic succession, do not disagree with each other. There is a difference in the level of understanding/realization. There is no contradiction. If you know of some, please point out for clarity.

Science does not operate under the disciplic system, since it's not a reliable method of information transfer. It's basically the telephone game. All it takes is one disciple who didn't fully understand to mess up the entire message.

Scientists contradict each other all the time on their interpretation of facts. There isn't a fully solidified definition of life, for example. While not as common as they once were, there are still scientists who reject the idea that it was a meteor that ultimately killed the dinosaurs. While on the topic of those animals, scientists don't yet agree whether they were cold-blooded and reptilian, or warm-blooded and of their own type.

A materially conditioned teacher, who is in the material modes of goodness, passion and ignorance, cannot be accepted at the level of a spiritually self-realized teacher, who is situated on the transcendental spiritual platform.

Then how come you used such teachers as an analogy earlier?

Can you do your schooling, graduation and post-graduation on an internet and then question the Einstein's theory of relativity? You first need to acquire the knowledge to question the knowledge. This happens by taking shelter of a bonafide teacher, who is an expert in the subject. Same is true for scriptures.

No, that information is readily available on the internet, for those who know where to look. College professors have lately been posting their lectures on youtube, for non-students to listen to at their leisure. I once listened to a lecture on Assembly Language that was from a major university in Dublin, Ireland, where there's virtually no chance I'll ever go to.

School is no longer the only place to acquire information, and it's possible to have a Ph.D. level of knowledge without ever once sitting in a classroom.

Since you seem so intent on using the questioning of Einstein's theory of relativity, I'll once again remind you that he was a high-school dropout, and while he did attend college, did not graduate with any special notice.

 

[Riverwolf]

1. Vedas have given the world Ayurveda - medical science. More and more people are shifting from allopathy to ayurveda these days as it natural, safe and does not have side-effects. How can 'faith' give such a science...I fail to see.

It didn't.

Ancient hunter-gatherers were extremely knowledgeable on the medicinal properties of the various aspects of nature. In India, this knowledge would finally accumulate into ayurveda.

This same process happened all over the world with different tribes.

2. Scriptures have given us 'Yoga'. Even science acknowledges the good effects various yogic postures have on our different body parts. Please note that wrong postures have an adverse effect on the various bodily parts. Then, can 'yoga' be called just faith? There is no logic and rationality that you see in this discipline of science?

More likely that Yoga predates the Scriptures, and was developed through a trial-and-error process.

It doesn't take much observation to recognize just how important breath is. If you don't breathe, you die. If you hyperventilate, you can't think clearly. Breathe slowly and in a controlled way, you can calm down and refocus. Not much imagination would be required to go the next step and develop special breathing techniques that can bring about a specific purpose.

As for the asanas, humans and many other mammals stretch just on impulse all the time, particularly when we first wake up. For those who would care to investigate, coming up with particular stretches designed for specific purposes would be a simple task. An understanding of anatomy, which the ancients did have, would be all that's necessary for them to realize what's good and what's bad.

3. Scriptures have given us the word 'Aum'. Science has today determined that sound vibration of word aum has beneficial effect on pitutary and other hormone secreting glands. Is that a fluke of scriptures!

No, the Sages of old would have 'heard' the sound, and repeating it would produce noticeable effects. Modern science simply showed why those effects take place.

4. Scriptures tell us that of all animal stool, stool of cow is purifying. In the villages of India, even today water mixed with cow-dung is used to clean the place after having food and for other such purification purposes. Modern science today has proved that cow dung has antiseptic properties. How do you explain this as 'faith'?

Ancients weren't idiots. It's highly likely that the use of cow dung as a purification material extends back to early farming communities, which would far predate the Vedas.

5. Scriptures hail river Ganges as a holy river. Even today, if you keep the water of river Ganges stored for many years, the water does not become stale and rot, unlike water from any other source that is stored for such duration. Science has not been able to explain this.

Then why is the river so polluted these days?

In addition, the Vedas hail the Saraswati as a holy river, yet that river no longer exists.

If science has not explained a phenomenon, it's probably because extensive research has not been done.

6. Scriptures tell us the structure of the universe. It explains all the phenomenons that science can explain and even the ones it cannot explain, with the present modern-day proposed structure of universe. It has been researched by PhD.s of Cosmophysics, who have verified this truth. That, it seems from your post that you do not know.

You need to go into more detail: be specific as to which phenomenon you're referring to, and where they're being referred to in Scripture.

 

[Surya Deva]

Surya Deva,

You have attributed everything I have said to faith. So, I will point to a few things. Kindly use logic and rationality to understand/explain the following

. Vedas have given the world Ayurveda - medical science. More and more people are shifting from allopathy to ayurveda these days as it natural, safe and does not have side-effects. How can 'faith' give such a science...I fail to see.

In fact many people are shifting to alternative medical healing systems in general, like traditional Chinese medicine(TCM) homeopathy and naturopathy and alternative healing practices like faith healing, Reiki healing, EFT, not because any conclusive scientific evidence exists that they work, but because a growing number of people are finding allopathy too expensive, too many side effects, unable to treat and cure many diseases and a growing number of people who prefer natural to artificial.

Anyway how can faith give such a medical system like Ayurveda? Well, the short answer to that is faith didn't. Ayurveda has evolved over thousands of years through trial and error, from its primitive beginnings in the Indus Valley and Atharveda where various diseases were thought to be caused by demons and treated with charms, incantations/mantras and herbs, much like many early tribal cultures, and then in 1000BCE in the urban phase, it was organized and developed into a more scientific system based on Samkhya philosophical theory using a heuristic methodology(trial and error) they discovered through trial and error which herbs and medicines were most effective and devised methods of diagnosis and prognosis based on the central Samkhya system of classification, eventually developing the tridosha model of the body humours(similar systems had been developed by other ancient cultures, but not as sophisticated as the Ayurvedic one) via which they classified thousands of diseases and hundreds of drugs and minerals. Like the evolution of any medical system, Ayurveda developed out of human necessity(necessity is the mother of invention) especially due to war. Early physicians like Sushrutha had to treat many patients who had lost their limbs or their nose was cut off due to state punishment, so he innovated many new surgical techniques. Of course, nobody today would use the surgical techniques or instruments of Sushruta because modern surgical methods are more advanced and safer, and this is why surgery is no longer practiced or taught in Ayurveda. Another important name in Ayurveda is Charaka, who contributed to an early compendium of Ayurveda known as the Agnivesha tantra but innovated many new theories himself of how to classify departments of medicine, diet, genetics and germ theory and germ treatment, and more detailed methods of diagnosis and prognosis.

Ayurveda has been continuously evolving over thousands of years drawing on new advances made in metallurgical and chemical techniques, especially after Nagarjuna and many new developments have been made. Today Ayurveda draws from its own traditional database of knowledge and modern allopathy.

Ayurveda is an incredibly impressive system of medicine, but it was not revealed in any scripture, it was developed over thousands of years of trial and error. In fact Ayurvedic treatises themselves say that Ayurveda is a constantly developing science and that new methods must always be found. It is certainly impressive that Ayurveda had such a sophisticated scientific ethic.

2. Scriptures have given us 'Yoga'. Even science acknowledges the good effects various yogic postures have on our different body parts. Please note that wrong postures have an adverse effect on the various bodily parts. Then, can 'yoga' be called just faith? There is no logic and rationality that you see in this discipline of science?

Yoga history goes back to Indus Valley and Vedic times. The earliest evidence we can see of asanas are depicted in the Indus Valley seals, but such asanas are quite generic to clearly identify as asanas, they could just as easily be a normal seating posture. The other indication of Yogic practices are found in the early Vedic people, who according to Yogascholars like George Freaustein(sp?) practiced some of the proto-yoga techniques like visualization of deities, breathing methods, ritual cleaning of the body and austerities like fasting and ritual use of intoxicants like soma, but for a religious purpose, again not unlike many shamanic cultures in the world. However, it was not until the Vedanta period that the rituals of the Vedic people were internalized and interpreted psychologically as an inner-sacrifice. The practices of sense withdrawal, sense control and meditation and contemplation were developed and the actual usage of the word 'yoga' came into being - but similar developments happened in other parts of the world like China, Greece and Egypt.
In the urban phase the philosophy and technique of Yoga was organized and systematized by Patanjali in approx 200BCE, which scholars know as classical Yoga but Patanjali system was more psychological, than later Yoga in the middle ages which was more physical. In Patanjali's sutras we see reference to early scientific techniques of pranayama and meditation, but no specific techniques are given, but Patanjali provides the basic schematic which later all Yoga systems in India adopted, and over time more and more techniques are developed, the bulk of which comes from the Tantra tradition, whose tantra philosophy that the body can be directly utilized as a means to liberation leads to a new Yogic emphasis on studying the anatomy of the body using phenomenological methods and trial and error, and here we see the chakra model start to develop and the modern Hatha Yoga system form. The modern 7 chakra modern was developed over centuries, with some chakra systems containing 5, 10, 12, 14 chakras.

Yoga is still a developing science and new innovations have been constantly made to it. In modern times Krishnamacharya and BKS Iyengar have contributed new techniques such as vinyasa Modern Yoga draws both from traditional Indian Yoga and modern knowledge of anatomy. A study of modern anatomy is compulsory in all accredited Yoga courses.

 

[Surya Deva]

3. Scriptures have given us the word 'Aum'. Science has today determined that sound vibration of word aum has beneficial effect on pitutary and other hormone secreting glands. Is that a fluke of scriptures!

Scientists have been able to determine in general that certain sounds, especially vowel sounds have beneficial and healing effects on the body. Music therapy or sound therapy is an infant science at the moment, but fast developing. The ancients had an understanding of sound and healing, but it is unlikely they understand the precise science behind it, which even modern science does not fully understand and can measure only the effects of.

The AUM sound is naturally produced if one intonates a humm and closes and opens their mouth slowly. As the ancient people believed in the magical potency of words and sounds, they could have discovered the OM sound and its effects on calming the mind by trial and error. However, they claim they heard the sound in meditation, and there is quite a lot of anecdotal evidence to suggest that this is a natural sound heard in the body. So There is nothing extraordinary about its discovery, it is easily within the limits of ancient people.

The ancient people were not idiots. The ancient humans had similar intelligence and brain capacity to modern 21st century humans. They would be able to think as logically as we do today and they made many advances which surprise modern people today as well. The ancient Mesopotamians seemed to know how to make dry-cell batteries using a clay jar, metal rod and citric acid, the ancient Greeks made the first mechanical computer known as the antikeythra mechanism long before Charles Babbage. Heron of Alexandra made the first steam engine. The Romans built the first automatic machines, such as steam powered doors. The Indus people had the first planned cities and underground sanitation and plumbing.

We continue to surprise ourselves how intelligent and ingenious our ancients were. What the ancients lacked, however, was an industrial culture and organized and standardized scientific method, thus their innovations never actually translated into an industrial revolution. This is simply because the kind of urban development needed to develop industrial culture is significant. The British developed such a culture because of the harsh climate in Britain and the need to produce their own goods, as well as the fact that the English civil war overthrew the feudal system giving rise to a middle class that could organize society independently. This is the main reason why the West beat the East to the industrial revolution.

4. Scriptures tell us that of all animal stool, stool of cow is purifying. In the villages of India, even today water mixed with cow-dung is used to clean the place after having food and for other such purification purposes. Modern science today has proved that cow dung has antiseptic properties. How do you explain this as 'faith'

This is a bit of a no-brainer. The cow was used extensively in Indian agricultural society and the early Vedic people especially considered the cow to be a symbol of wealth and prosperity. Hence we see throughout the Vedic hyms, "Give me thousands of cows" The cow's products like milk, urine and stool were used because the cows were readily available and useful. This is one reason why the cow is such a respected animal in Indian society.

5. Scriptures hail river Ganges as a holy river. Even today, if you keep the water of river Ganges stored for many years, the water does not become stale and rot, unlike water from any other source that is stored for such duration. Science has not been able to explain this.

The water of the Ganges has independently been scientifically analysed by many international scientific organizations and has been labelled as one of the most toxic rivers in the world, full of many disease producing bacteria and viruses. It has been directly linked to many diseases and deaths in villages using the water.

Scriptures tell us the structure of the universe. It explains all the phenomenons that science can explain and even the ones it cannot explain, with the present modern-day proposed structure of universe. It has been researched by PhD.s of Cosmophysics, who have verified this truth. That, it seems from your post that you do not know.

I am not really sure what you are hinting at here and which scripture. You have to provide more clear references. If you mean by structure the notion of 14 lokas consisting of 7 heavens and 7 hells then it is far too vague, ambiguous and controversial to be describing any scientific structure of the universe. The idea of heavens and hell and spiritual realms is common across all cultures, every very primitive cultures. In fact the 14 lokas in the Puranas are not even described as dimensions or planes of reality as modern science fiction and new-age sometimes describes it, but describe them as literally physical locations on the Earth. The 7 hells exist underneath the Earth and the 7 heavens exist above the Earth. This is similar to many ancient cosmological methods which modeled the Earth as a flat disk with a firament(mid region) and heaven above. According to the Puranic cosmology the moon is actually further than the sun and figures given for distances of celestial bodies are well-off.

On the hand, where scripture fails to accurate describe the structure of our universe, the formal sciences of India(shastras) come very close. Aryabhatta was able to make very accurate measurements(especially for the time) using formal mathematical methods like calculus and was able to correctly discern that the Earth spinned on its axis and orbited the sun. However, his theories were not accepted by the mainstream astronomers because it was so counter-intuitive to ordinary perception, for the same reason why Greek heliocentric theories were rejected in the West. It was not until the telescope was invented that the geocentric model was finally put to rest.

Of course modern knowledge of the universe including astronomy and physics is eons ahead of our ancients due to modern methods like space satellites, radiotelescopes and space shuttles, our ancients knew nothing about quasers, black holes, fusion reaction in the sun, anti particles and anti matter. If they did they would have developed space craft and space satellites and launched into space, and we would have clear evidence of their existence all over the world.

The ancients Vaiseshikas did actually come surprisingly close in their ideas about atoms and gravity, they even proved the existence of gravity(gurutva) through logical arguments to explain the reason why objects fall and the parabolic path of a projectile, but because they lacked modern mathematical methods like integral calculus, they could not discover laws of gravitation like Newton did. Even with the Vaiseshika it was not scripture, but perception and reasoning in how they arrived at their knowledge. The Vaiseshika were well in advance of their Greek counterpart Aristotle.

The Samkhya school were also close in their ideas to modern physical and cosmological theories. The Samkhya proved the existence of quantum matter made of guna interactions through logical arguments and the irreducibly of consciousness and matter. They also formulated the first observer paradox. As well the theory of evolution and involution of the universe(now know as the cyclic model theory) and evolution of matter from inorganic to organic(biogenisis). Again very impressive stuff, but none of this was proven though scripture, but though perception and reasoning.

Philosophical reasoning has never produced consensus because philosophical viewpoints are numerous and diverge from one another. The scientific method is the only epistemological method we know that gives us falsifiable and reliable and replicable knowledge that it literally forces people to consensus. Today not only do we know the quantum exists, we have both the mathematical tools and the physical tools to make practical use of it like in computers and lazers. The Samkhya could not make practical use of the quantum, but rather used the quantum for religious and spiritual purposes of liberation.

 

[iamfact]

1. Vedas have give the world Ayurveda - medical science. More and more people are shifting from allopathy to ayurveda...

Unsubstantiated claim

...these days as it natural, safe and does not have side-effects. How can 'faith' give such a science...I fail to see.

Āyurveda may use natural methods, but many treatments and medications that it prescribes are dangerous and have negative side effects. Take a loot at this or this. Āyureveda has many practices and treatments that work but many other treatments that can seriously harm one's health. Āyurveda is found in the vedic scriptures, which are supposedly infallible, but the studies I've linked to clearly evince that Āyurveda is fallible and imperfect. In light of these facts, rational persons should question the infallibility of scriptures considering that the practices prescribed with and derived from them are clearly imperfect.

2. Scriptures have given us 'Yoga'. Even science acknowledges the good effects various yogic postures have on our different body parts. Please note that wrong postures have an adverse effect on the various bodily parts. Then, can 'yoga' be called just faith? There is no logic and rationality that you see in this discipline of science?

Unsubstantiated claims and unwarranted assumptions. You assume that the scriptures have given us yogā. Why? Archeological evidence exists which suggests that proto-yogic practices existed prior to the composition of the Vedās supported by philology and linguistics. If you believe that yogā came from the scriptures, you need to prove it because the burden of proof lies on you. We won't just take your word that yogā came from the scriptures when there is evidence that could be pointing to the contrary.

As a side note, the scriptures do have good teachings and yogā is one of them. (However, it is debatable if the scriptures introduced yogā to the world).

3. Scriptures have given us the word 'Aum'. Science has today determined that sound vibration of word aum has beneficial effect on pitutary and other hormone secreting glands. Is that a fluke of scriptures!

Just because we don't accept every word of the scripture on faith does not mean we reject the scriptures. I'm getting the impression that you're viewing our faith-less approach of the scripture with a black and white view. Just because we don't have faith on the scripture does not mean we do not recognize their many teachings that are logical, and advanced such as this one.

4. Scriptures tell us that of all animal stool, stool of cow is purifying. In the villages of India, even today water mixed with cow-dung is used to clean the place after having food and for other such purification purposes. Modern science today has proved that cow dung has antiseptic properties. How do you explain this as 'faith'?

After you made this bold claim, I searched for scientific studies that show that cow stools are antiseptic. I have only found fundamentalist websites claiming that modern science has proven that cow-dung is antiseptic. Please do give us the link to scientific studies / articles on scientific journals and websites that attest to the claim that cow-dung is antiseptic. Until then, I call this one out as non-sense.

5. Scriptures hail river Ganges as a holy river. Even today, if you keep the water of river Ganges stored for many years, the water does not become stale and rot, unlike water from any other source that is stored for such duration. Science has not been able to explain this.

The Ganges river today is polluted, full of viruses and is full of bacteria left over by carrions, pollution and untreated human sewage. Look at this and this.

Point of fact, water does not stale or rot. Bacterias can enter the water if it is put in an open or dirty container, or toxins can leach from containers into the waters. Check this out. If you believe that scientific studies show that water from the Ganges is superior to water from any other source, you need to link to scientific studies or articles which demonstrate your premise to be true.

6. Scriptures tell us the structure of the universe.

Which scriptures and what verses?

It explains all the phenomenons that science can explain

This is a false statement. If this were the case then people would not have existed who had scripture-based beliefs (such as the sun revolving around the earth, men being descendants of Manu and Shraddha, the universe being 156 trillion years old, the world being a flat disc with a super tall mountain at the centre) that we know to be false today. Furthermore, people never believed that a solar eclipse was caused by Rahu engulfing the sun instead they were always aware of how a solar eclipse occured when the moon got in between the earth and the sun. There are a limitless number of examples that I can use to prove that this sentence is false.

Considering that this sentence is inherently false, I'm wondering if you actually meant something else other than you wrote because accidentally misworded it. In that case, I'm awaiting the new sentence

and even the ones it cannot explain, with the present modern-day proposed structure of universe.

Unsubstantiated claim and unwarranted assumptions. There is no way you can know that science cannot explain certain phenomenons, and that religion can explain them. You can only guess. Here, you are portraying what you guess as a fact but a guess ≠ a fact.

It has been researched by PhD.s of Cosmophysics, who have verified this truth.

Fallacy: argument from authority - look it up.
What's more, the ambiguity of this claim makes it impossible to argue against it. Why? There is insufficient information. You fail to give the name of the PhDs. You fail to give links to the studies by these PhDs. You fail to mention how the works of these PhDs are viewed by other scientists. You fail to mention if this view is an empirically tested and accepted view in the field.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

So... nobody realized it when it turned out that the sun's rising was not dependent on the performance of the Agnihotra yajna, but would rise regardless?

That fact contradicts a passage from the Shatapatha Brahmana:

5. And when he offers in the morning before sunrise, then he produces that (sun-child) and, having become a light, it rises shining. But, assuredly, it would not rise, were he not to make that offering: this is why he performs that offering.

Heck, that entire passage does not accurately describe how the sun works.

So, the actual words of the Vedas clearly come from humans who did not understand the natural processes. It's their spirit which comes from the Divine.

Another unauthorized commentary, another unqualified author...if you learn physics from a politician....

...okay, any names?

There are many authorized disciplic successions. As for Vaiśnava disciplines, there are four that are authorized. Padma Purāna says:

sampradāyavihīnā ye mantrāste niṣphalā matāḥ|
ataḥ kalau bhaviśyanti catvāraḥ sampradāyinaḥ||
Śrī-brahmā-rudra-sanakā vaiṣṇavā kṣitipāvanāḥ|
catvāraste kalau bhāvya hyutkale puruṣottamāt||
rāmānujaṃ śrī svicakre madhvācaryaṃ caturmukhaḥ|
śrīviṣṇusvāminaṃ rudro nimbādityaṃ catuḥsanāḥ||​

All mantras which have been given (to disciples) not in an authorised Sampradāya are fruitless. Therefore, in Kali Yuga, there will be four bona-fide Sampradāyas. Each of them were ignaugurated by Śrī Devī and known as the Śrī Sampradāya, Lord Brahmā and known as the Brahmā Sampradāya,Lord Rudra and known as the Rudra Sampradāya; and the Four Kumāras and known as Sanakādi Sampradāya. Śrī Devī made Rāmānujācārya the head of that lineage. So too Lord Brahmā appointed Madhvācārya, Lord Rudra appointed Viṣṇusvāmī and the four Kumaras chose Nimbāditya (an epithet for Śrī Nimbārkācārya).

You can read the commentary from any of the above schools.

Each Purana lists a different set of Puranas.

For example:

The Matsya Purana, Narada Purana, Devi Bhagavata, and Agni Purana include the Vayu Purana as the fourth Mahapurana, while the Bhagavata Purana, Linga Purana, Brahmavaivarta Purana, and Markandeya Purana do not, putting the Siva Purana at that spot. The Kurma Purana has both in a list of nineteen Mahapuranas.

Srīlā Vedavyāsa gave 18 Purānas. These are enlisted in Padma Purāna:

Vishnu Purana, Bhagavata Purana, Naradeya Purana, Garuda Purana, Padma Purana, Varaha Purana, Brahmanda Purana, Brahma Vaivarta Purana, Markandeya Purana, Bhavishya Purana, Vamana Purana, Brahma Purana, Matsya Purana, Kurma purana, Linga Purana, Shiva Purana, Skanda Purana, Agni Purana.

See above.

Ditto.

Science does not operate under the disciplic system, since it's not a reliable method of information transfer. It's basically the telephone game. All it takes is one disciple who didn't fully understand to mess up the entire message.

Scientists contradict each other all the time on their interpretation of facts. There isn't a fully solidified definition of life, for example. While not as common as they once were, there are still scientists who reject the idea that it was a meteor that ultimately killed the dinosaurs. While on the topic of those animals, scientists don't yet agree whether they were cold-blooded and reptilian, or warm-blooded and of their own type.

Your reply is out-of-context. Please re-read what I said.

Then how come you used such teachers as an analogy earlier?

That is an example to show we need to take trained and bonafide teachers as an authority to learn even mundane material subjects then why do you think spiritual science, which is the science of Supreme Lord and of self-realization, is so cheap that you can read commentary of any Tom, Dick and Harry and become an expert?

No, that information is readily available on the internet, for those who know where to look. College professors have lately been posting their lectures on youtube, for non-students to listen to at their leisure. I once listened to a lecture on Assembly Language that was from a major university in Dublin, Ireland, where there's virtually no chance I'll ever go to.

School is no longer the only place to acquire information, and it's possible to have a Ph.D. level of knowledge without ever once sitting in a classroom.

Since you seem so intent on using the questioning of Einstein's theory of relativity, I'll once again remind you that he was a high-school dropout, and while he did attend college, did not graduate with any special notice.

Even if the information is available on internet, you still need to acquire the knowledge under a bonafide teacher. Will you let me perform a surgery on your body if I have read medical books online, without the expert guidance of a trained and bonafide teacher and practitioner?