[Advaita-l] Scholarly Article on Why Vedas are Valid

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

I already agree that we can treat vedic statements as axiomatic truth
and defend dharma. I also agree with your inference that one cannot
assign authorship to rishis against their own claims. Of course, the
logic of the opponent in assigning authorship has to be logically
refuted, which is fine.

Now, you mentioned that we will re-interpret the sastras in the light
of new data. How is this a genuine intellectual approach? The
knowledge conveyed by Vedas yesterday cannot be different from the
knowledge conveyed today or tomorrow. It is like Christians saying
that Bible talks evolution (intelligent design) only and we
interpreted incorrectly all along.

On 19/10/2011, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <lalitaalaalitah at gmail.com> wrote:
> *श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <http://www.lalitaalaalitah.com>
> lalitAlAlitaH <http://about.me/lalitaalaalitah/bio>*
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 17:31, Rajaram Venkataramani
> <rajaramvenk at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Dear Shri laliAlalitah,
>>
>> The vedic seers might not have claimed authorship but there is no evidence
>> to suggest that they were not the authors.
>
>
> You are saying that there are no claims of authorship of such a great work,
> even then those who are not claiming are authors.
> How ?
> Because they are not claiming and are seers only.
> Great !!!
>
>
>> So, a modern scholar will not
>> accept that a text can be unauthored
>
>
> What do you mean by 'So' ? You have not provided any logic.
>
> You must say that :
> As every word is seen authored, so veda-s are also authored by someone.
>
> Now here we say :
> It is essential for a word to be authored, but as author is not perceivable
> so there is no author of veda-s.
> As a pot if not perceived on table is said to be non-existent there. So,
> author which is not perceived proves unauthoredness of veda-s.
>
> especially when it is known that the
>> texts reflect the contemporary knowledge of history, geography and
>> science.
>>
>
> That's debatable.
> We don't accept that veda-s reveal any history, etc.
> Why ?
> Because what a text conveys is defined by watching it's start-end, etc.
> Text is valid for only that portion which is not perceived by any other
> means.
> Why ?
> Because this is inherent to every means of knowledge. For example eyes are
> valid for rUpa which is not perceived by any other sense.
>
>
>> It would be good if we said that Vedas are inerrant.
>
>
> I said that as long as you are unable to show errors, every knowledge is
> valid. This is the way every pramANa works.
> Show me errors and I'll show refutations.
>
>
>> This is the same line
>> as taking Vedas as axiomatic truths and showing that they cannot be shown
>> to
>> be wrong.
>
>
> You lack basic knowledge of nature of pramANa-s. So, you are talking like
> this.
> We don't create rules for veda-s and our comfort. We watch our behavior,
> etc. and establish them.
> We watched every pramANa and it's nature and deduced that every pramANa is
> taken valid till it's not proved wrong.
> If this is called axiom. Let it be. You and whole world are operating
> according to it. Why are you showing discrimination towards vedea-s ?
>
>
>> The problem with this is that there are statements that will
>> contradict established scientific data.
>
>
> As long as we are able to show errors in Scientific Data, we will accept
> veda-s in whole.
> But, when they are valid and veda-s says against it, we leave that meaning
> of veda-s and find other possible meaning.
> Remember, contradiction of pramANa-s arises when two pramANa-s generate
> contradicting knowledge about same thing. And the subject of veda-s is
> unique to it. So, there are no chances of conflict.
> Where ever you see conflict, you are free to apply logic to reach correct
> result.
>
>
>> Theory of Evolution is as grounded
>> in genetic and fossil data.
>
>
> How ?
> Genes show similarity.
> Fossils tell existence of specific animals.
> They don't tell evolution.
>
>
>> A lot of genetic engineering and medicine
>> depends on this today.
>
>
> They don't depend on evolution.
>
>
>> Now, Vedas propose a Theory of Creation - Purusha
>> Suktam for example leave alone smrti.
>
>
> You are talking as these studies are devoid of errors.
> Present any authentic work on evolution which is not opposed or refuted by
> anyone.
> Search refutations of evolution theory and you will get a lot. This shows
> that it's erroneous too.
>
>
>> How would you account for such
>> "erroneous perception"
>>
>
> First of all tell all people who support evolution theory to reach a common
> agreement and refute every other theory and refutation of evolution theory.
> Once you do this, come to us and call our creation-theory erroneous. Till
> then you can't determine ours as erroneous, but you are free to doubt.
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device