Nature of Consciousness

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

Vaidya Sundaram <Vaidya_Sundaram at I2.COM> wrote:

> > I respect that quality deeply. However I would respect even more
deeply an
> > admission that, while they may contribute greatly to the wisdom of
mankind,
> > the Vedas do not necessarily include all possible wisdom, and
could even
> > contain some errors. You have made it abundantly clear that this
is asking
> > too much.
>
>
> namaskAram.
>
>   I have done my best to follow the discussion on this thread.
Surely several
>       interesting and important points have come out.
>
> Now, however, as much as I hate to say this, the discussion has
begun to digress
>       from the subject. Fundamentally, I am not in any way qualified
to make
>       judgements on the correctness of your interpretation of your
experiences
>       and the reasons you attribute to them. At the same time,
without having a
>       full knowledge of the Vedas, it is impossible for any one else
make a
>       statement that the Vedas cannot be the sum of knowledge.  I
quote below
>       from the Introduction of the vivekachUdAmani:

All the questions which Robert has raised are quite valid and Bhagavan
Kumarila Bhatta raises almost all of them as pUrvapaxa in his works. I
feel that Robert may be thinking that Anands statement meant that
"everything" is contained in the veda-s. I have explained how this is
not so in my previous mail. Anand's statement about the veda-s being
the sum of knowledge merely referred to the fact that *AtmavidyA* is
to be had from the veda-s alone. This is because AtmavidyA is the best
of all knowledge.

Rama