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

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006, Aditya Varun Chadha wrote:

> the "still small voice" does not have scriptures as a NECESSARY
> prerequisite.
> nAstika societies are no more or less "harmonious" (in
> terms of ethical behaviour) than Astika ones.


1.  All humans organize into societies

I think we agree on that one but

2.  All societies have more concepts than just the bare essentials.

and I agree that it is _necessary_ that it is so.  Ethical values must be
wrapped up in myths, rituals, power relations etc. in order to propogate
through generations.

There are certain themes in civilization(e.g. the "Golden rule" and I
might add role specialization by gender) that pop up all over the place
and yet there is a hell of a difference between the Eskimos in Greenland
or hunters in the jungles of Africa and Vedic Dharma.

In any case the point I want to make is that human behavior cannot be
reduced to simple stimulus-response (fear of punishment etc.)

> scepticism SHOULD be used as a tool for clarification of old
> assumptions and claims, but ofcourse, comes with the possibility of
> falsifying those claims. Without a hint of scepticism are we not being
> blind?
>

Oh I'm in favor of more than a hint.  But it should be borne in mind that
all systems of belief (including non-religious ones) boil down to
assumptions taken on faith.  I personally am skeptical that gender
neutrality is a viable proposition over time yet people continue to
believe it.

> to measure adhikAra by measuring the effect of letting women study the
> vedas and recording the demographics of how many attain mukti.

And what will be your criteria for attainment of mukti?  Where is mukti
defined?

> Actually, the second point is not an assumption. it is a logical
> consequence of the existence of the experiment that you yourself have
> clarified above. So whoever believes that Sruti is not FALSIFIABLE
> (different from "false", mind you) against pratyakSa when dealing with
> issues of Acharan, they are simply wrong. come on man, you yourself
> admit to the existence of the experiment and its conductability.
>

I hope you now see that in fact the experiment is impossible.

> Do you see the qualititative difference between "brahman exists" and
> "women should not read the vedas"?

No I do not.  Both are statements for which only the Vedas are pramana.

-- 
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>