Summary (of "Question", "braHmavid=Krishna?" series of mails)

[Ashish Chandra]

On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 00:13:29 -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas
<jaldhar at BRAINCELLS.COM> wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Roger Floyd wrote:
>
>> The conflict of world-views that I referred to in respect of Kiran's
>> questions arises out of  the refusal of  Science a priori to countenance
>> miracles. Its explanations must, as a matter of principle, exclude the
>> miraculous. By a miracle I mean the intervention  of a divine hand (or
indeed
>> any kind of supernatural hand) in ordering the world.
>
>It seems to me as Advaitins we should not accept 'miracles' either.  The
>concept of a miracle makes sense if there is a creator who is outside the
>system who can manipulate its' parameters.  But we believe that Brahman
>pervades all we know and see.  Brahman is more than the universe but there
>is no part of the universe which is not Brahman.  So already all natural
>events are explained by Brahman and there is no need for a seperate class
>of "miracles."  Or alternatively you can think of it as everything is a
>miracle.

Also, just because it is inexplicable by "science" does not mean it is a
miracle. The system of Yoga elaborately explains Siddhis that are gained as
a part of Sadhana. So just by being born into Sanatan Dharma, we should not
accept miracles.

ashish