[Advaita-l] logic and shastra

[Mahesh Ursekar]

Pranams:
 >> And why can't a dogma be logical? Why can't a dogma be a valid means of
>> truth?
 Becuase a dogma has no basis to stand on except on blind belief. It can be 
proved wrong by a rational mind. 

>> their primary scriptural emphasis is on the
>> Bhagavata Purana and the Gita not the upanishads, they came from an area
>> of India where Vedic tradition was very week.
 You are right there. Infact, they waver when you mention that Krishna is 
not mentioned in the Upanishads. However, they also accept the dwaitin 
Madhavacharya is part of the lineage of teachers that has been handed down 
the 'true' teachings of the Vedas. So, in some ways they have reconciled in 
their minds that theirs is a complete philosophy based on all the teachings 
of the Vedas. 
 >> Can you give me a reason other than atheism why you would consider the
>> pramana of pratyaksha to be more important than Shruti?
 It would be better to say that I would consider the 5 (pratyaksha, anuman, 
upamana, arthapatti and anupalabdi) more important that sruti. Only the 
first 5 can establish or disprove the claims of the sixth. And if they show 
the last praman to be invalid, I would not hesitate to throw it out of the 
window. 
 Humble pranams, Mahesh


 On 6/15/05, Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com> wrote: 
> 
> some comments on things you have written.
> 
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, Mahesh Ursekar wrote:
> 
> > Shruti is a pramana, I agree. But according to Vedanta, pratyaksha is 
> also a
> > pramana and is on par with Shruti.
> 
> on a par with is not equivalent to the same as. Otherwise having multiple
> pramanas is redundant.
> 
> If you say that Shruti's word is final
> > then that is makes it a dogma and not a pramana!
> 
> And why can't a dogma be logical? Why can't a dogma be a valid means of
> truth?
> 
> > Infact if you think that
> > science is bedevilled by observation, Shruti suffers from interpretative
> > maladies! The same scripture means vastly different things to different
> > schools. I was talking with an ISKCON monk the other day and his belief 
> is
> > that consciousness is a product of the soul and Krishna is supreme 
> reality.
> > For him Brahman of Advaita was insignifcant. And his pramana was the 
> same
> > Shruti you use for your Advaita!
> 
> Well actually no it isn't, The Gaudiya school didn't exist before the
> 15th century. They didn't get around to commenting on the Brahmasutras
> till the 17th century, their primary scriptural emphasis is on the
> Bhagavata Purana and the Gita not the upanishads, they came from an area
> of India where Vedic tradition was very week...the point is the educated
> man suffers much less from interpretative maladies than you might think.
> 
> >
> > So, can you give me a reason, other than faith, why you would consider 
> the
> > pramana of Shruti to be more important than pratyaksha?
> 
> Can you give me a reason other than atheism why you would consider the
> pramana of pratyaksha to be more important than Shruti?
> 
> --
> Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> 
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> 
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>