New member introduction: Shrinivas Gadkari

[Aniruddhan]

namaste,

> I would not concur - while there is no reason to suppose that all of
>science in also present in the vedas, it is also possible there are
>references to day to day (or vyavahaarika) science in it (the Vedas).
>There is I think, as Shrinivas says, a possibility of overlap between
>the two.

That is true, but why do we need to look for science in the vedas, when
that is not the basic purpose of the vedas? I also have a basic question
about this: If the (sounds of the) Vedas are eternal, are we justified in
looking for vyavaharic/historic/scientific references in them? And when
the vedas have references to day to day science, should we take this to
refer to the scientific knowledge of the vedic people?

> It is only the "validity" of the vedic teachings that is questioned in
>vyavahaarika when it apparently contradicts common knowledge. But that
>does not preclude the possibility of vedas being able to confirm common
>scientific knowledge. As I understand it, Shrinivas is trying to
>collect such commonality ...

Yes, but there are many places where the vedas contradict
common/scientific knowledge and when we interpret the vedas metaphorically
in those contexts, why should we try to confirm scientific knowledge using
the vedas in other places? What I mean is, we know that the vedas
contradict common knowledge in some places. That means that they are
unreliable sources of knowledge (at least unless they are interpreted
properly) as far as scientific/common knowledge is concerned. So how can
we "confirm" scientific knowledge using the vedas?

Aniruddhan

Sruti smRti purANAnAm Alayam karuNAlayam
namAmi bhagavatpAdaM Sam.karam lokaSam.karam