[Advaita-l] 'End' not 'Means'

Viswanathan N vishy1962 at yahoo.com
Wed Apr 12 06:50:28 CDT 2006

Parnams to all memebers
  May I request everyone  to concentrate more on the " end" rather disucssing about just " means" like this.(women & vedas...etc)
  Let us discuss what is ultimate and how to acheive that goal, I feel 
   one need to quote any authority or scripture as long as they believe in
  advaitic philosophy. As some one was mentioning neither " Ramana" or " Ramakrishna" ever attained expertise in scriptures nor discussed them, but even today they are still milestones in this advaitic route and swami Vivekanada is no lesser.
  I always felt that the bane of our people is taking the means more serious than the end itself. Though some learned memebers has objected for my suggestion looking into ones innerself (ofcourse after basic understanding of the tatva) for answers, I still feel thats more beneficial than mere theoritical discussions.
  After that kind of explorasions ,we can discuss our experiences and seek clarifications/ further guidance from the forum.
  See one of the members stated talking about Maundukya upanishad and another one about some verses of Geetha....These are  could be really helpful.
  Pardon me , if I am wrong.

Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidyasankar at hotmail.com> wrote:

You make quite valid points re: mathematical axioms, scientific hypotheses 
and verbal (or in general, all human) cognition. In one sense, this 
discussion points out the difficulties in finding appropriate translations. 
That is precisely why I keep emphasizing that to truly understand, we need 
to engage our tradition on its own terms, without imposing modern 
expectations on it, be they scientific/mathematical or 

I would also suggest that we take into account the history and etymology of 
the English words we choose when translating Sanskrit terms. After all, till 
recently in history, when mathematical thinking about formal axiomatic 
systems was not highly developed, axioms were assumed to have truth value 
and meaning!

I would also argue that hypothesis testing is, to a certain extent, implicit 
in mImAMsa-vedAnta epistemology. Of course, there are no explicit 
discussions of what makes a hypothesis valid based on its refutability, a la 
Popper. On the other hand, if we understand "prAmANya" as corresponding to 
truth-value, that any given cognition is svataH-prAmANa and parataH-apramANa 
comes close to the modern scientific notion about validating hypotheses. 
There is similarity in that vedAnta also has a place for experience, but 
that is where the similarity ends. Another difference comes in the fact that 
mImAMsa-vedAnta thought applies to Sruti, while modern scientific hypotheses 
do not. So, we should not be really concerned about (and in fact, also why 
we must resist the temptation for) saying that such and such statement in 
Sruti is scientifically valid.

Coming to verbal cognition, science, in this case, biology, would go a step 
beyond linguistics and make the point that even recognizing words and 
meanings are contingent upon neurons firing in one's brain, stimulated by 
the pixels we see on the screen or by the ink in a book, or for a 
traditional setting, by the pressure differences that underlie the sounds of 
words. However, as for how this relates to fundamental human consciousness, 
I would say that the scientific jury is still out on that.


Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® 
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/

To unsubscribe or change your options:

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org

 Jiyo cricket on Yahoo! India cricket
Yahoo! Messenger Mobile Stay in touch with your buddies all the time.

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list