[Advaita-l] Scholarly Article on Why Vedas are Valid
rajaramvenk at gmail.com
Tue Oct 18 01:02:31 CDT 2011
Dear Shri Vidyasankar,
I did not say that the axiomatic truth concept is well developed but it is
in the right direction because it is well accepted in Mathematics and other
areas of study. I did get it that you mentioned "Vedas are a pramana" is an
axiomatic truth but tried to develop it to see if every one of the
statements can be shown to be. It may not be the right direction to take.
The only constraint on the defence is that there should be no invocation of
faith at the outset as every religion does so. The only faith should be on
our senses and logic because there is no discussion if we discount both as
untrustworthy. We can definitely point out defects or limitation in both and
hence the need for better epistemology.
It should be clearly postulated and logical objections handled logically
because that is how we can discuss constructively.
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <
svidyasankar at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Dear Ramesh, I started this thread to know if there is a scholarly
> > approach to establish Vedas as valid. The best argument I saw was Sri
> > Vidyasankar's that it is axiomatic truth. Sri Ragahv's arguments help
> > in expanding it. Of course, one could take a statement in the Vedas
> > and say it is not true as per pratyaksha or anumana. We may need a
> > case by case defence.
> I would request you to draw up the parameters with some more clarity
> on the kind of defense that you wish to see. At a core philosophical level,
> or at a religious level, asking a traditional scholar for a logical
> of the veda-s as pramANa is as unnecessary as asking a Rabbi to establish
> the Torah logically or an Imam the Koran or the Pope the Christian Bible.
> There are, of course, lots of other issues in the contemporary world, such
> as those you pointed out in another mail on this thread, but I wonder if
> these would not be better served through other approaches.
> Finally, a clarification on my stance about the axiomatic status. I have
> intended that one should take each and every statement in the veda should
> be understood literally as axiomatic truth. Rather, the validity of the
> veda as
> a pramANa is what I describe as being axiomatic, within the two systems of
> mImAMsA. I would hardly expect a naiyyAyika, of the old type or the navya
> type, or the modern formal axiomatic logician, to accept the veda as
> let alone expect anyone else outside the mImAMsA traditions to do so!
> Also, please note that in a number of places in the brahmasUtra commentary,
> pratyaksha refers to the veda (as that which is grasped directly by the
> and anumAna correspondingly refers to the smRti corpus. This is just FYI,
> to be noted as descriptive terms, not as pramANa vAda terminology.
> ps. Your argument in another post about the omnipotence of any God who
> exists and is omniscient establishes omnipotence not as an axiom, but as a
> corollary of existence and omniscience.
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list