[Advaita-l] Apoureshyatva - Faith or Logic?

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 4:39 PM, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <
lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com> wrote:

> *श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <http://www.lalitaalaalitah.com/>
> lalitAlAlitaH <http://dooid.com/lalitaalaalitah>*
>

> >   7. The former Sringeri Acharya, Jagadguru Sri Abhinava Vidyatirtha
> >   SwaminaH in His replies to the (modern-educated scientist) disciple who
> >   asked Him about the admissibility of the modern theory of evolution
> into
> >   the Vedic thinking exactly cited the above BG verse and had said that
> > along
> >   with creation of humans the vedas were made available, along with many
> >   other points in support of His explanation. (see the Book: Exalting
> >   Elucidations (formerly known as 'The Jagadguru Replies' published by
> Sri
> >   Vidyatirtha Foundation, Chennai)
> >
>
> 'Along with' means to say that in the same time. But, was this time a
> second, is the question.
>

This is the excerpt from that book I had referred to in my previous post:

// Disciple: Long ago, through the process of evolution, man gradually
came into being. In the early stages, his brain was much
less developed than the human brain is now. He led a
primitive existence. In due course, his brain improved to
the present level. Thereafter, the Lord could have taught
him the Veda. Is there any flaw in conceiving thus? If we
have it this way, the findings of palaeontologists are not
contradicted and, at the same time, it is admitted that the
Veda was revealed by Ìshvara. What does Acharyal have
to say about this?

AcharyaL:   This is faulty. *Simultaneous* with His creation of man, the
Lord should have taught him the Veda. In the
Bhagavadgita, the Lord says:
_*सह*-*यज्ञाः प्रजाः* सृष्ट्वा पुरोवाच प्रजापतिः । (BG, III.10)
(At the outset, having created mankind along with yajña-s,
the Creator said…)
Yajña-s (scriptural sacrifices) have the Veda-s for their
basis. For a yajña to be performed, the Veda is needed.
Thus, the Lord’s words imply that Ìshvara taught the
Veda when He created the world. If we do not accept this
view, we cannot give logical replies to many queries. If a
primitive man predated the Veda, he could not have known
what is dharma and what is adharma. Since, the norms
of righteousness and unrighteousness were not revealed to
him by God, did God simply treat his actions as virtuous
and reward him or just treat them as sinful and punish
him? If his actions fetched him the rewards of
righteousness, we are forced to conclude, “Before the
Veda came into being, good fruits were obtained for
whatever one did but after Veda came to light, one also
reaps unpleasant fruits for one’s actions.” Is this fair?
Further, can one accept the conclusion that before the
Veda came to light, one did not have to go to hell at all as
one always secured good results, whereas after the
revelation of Veda, the possibility of going to hell arose? If
the view that all actions led to bad consequences
were accepted, then also the implication is queer.
Therefore, when the Lord created the world, He should
have revealed the Veda. That is to say, He should have, at
the outset itself, made known what is dharma and what is
adharma. Thus, it is improper to hold that the Veda came
to light only much after the appearance of man. //

End of the excerpt.

Also, for the scripture, creation is for the sake of jiva-s.  So a creation
of lokas first and jivas only much later is of no use for the scripture.
That is why we see, for example, in the BGB introduction: the Lord created
the world and created marichi, etc. for pravrtti dharma.

There is no reason to imagine  a time gap.  As I pointed out the marIchi,
etc. were created  for pravRtti dharma at the very beginning of creation.
They were made known this dharma (grAhayAmAsa).  The scheme in the puranas
is, I think, reasonable.  The Prajapatis bring forth people and they
continue the lineage.  All this happens with the Vedic jnanam already
available in tact.  If one reads the Vivekachudamani bhashyam for 'jantUnAm
narajanmadurlabham...' the Acharya establishes through logic how even the
first-born BrahmA's knowledge of dharma/adharma was due to the Lord's
anugraha.  So, the vedic knowledge is there even at the time of the
creation of the very first being.  He further creates the world, along with
the beings along with the appropriate persons fit to receive the Veda.

Here is the ShAnkara bhashyam for the BG 3.10 referred above:

सहयज्ञाः यज्ञसहिताः प्रजाः त्रयो वर्णाः ताः सृष्ट्वा उत्पाद्य पुरा
पूर्वं*सर्गादौ
* उवाच उक्तवान् प्रजापतिः प्रजानां स्रष्टा अनेन यज्ञेन प्रसविष्यध्वं प्रसवः
वृद्धिः उत्पत्तिः तं कुरुध्वम्। एष यज्ञः वः युष्माकम् अस्तु भवतु
इष्टकामधुक् इष्टान् अभिप्रेतान् कामान् फलविशेषान् दोग्धीति इष्टकामधुक्।

A reading of the subsequent verses/bhashya will give a clear picture of how
the sRShTi chakra is yajna/veda-based according to Scripture.

>
> Your question and answers are not in harmony.
> You question is related to people who feel that evolution theory is opposed
> to prAmANya, etc. of veda-s and you answer talks about people unaware of
> this problem.
>

Even if they had been aware of the modern evolution theory, it would not
have been a problem for them for they could see, as in the case of the
Sringeri Acharya's replies, that it is not a problem coming in the way of
their pursuing with the faith in the Veda, just as their pUrvAchAryas did,
and attaining the purushartha.  This is because, as one of the reasons, the
Veda itself is not teaching sRiShTi as paaramArthika.  Its purpose is not
to affirm/assert a creation but to talk about the Creator Atman.
paramArthachintakAnAm
sRShTau anAdaraH says Shankara in the G.Karika 1 chapter verse: 7 The
traditional followers of the Veda know this and therefore are not
confronted by the modern theories of creation/evolution.  The knowledge
they possess is enough for dharma anushthana and moksha sadhana.  For
ultimately the Veda itself is to be seen as belonging to the mithya
anAtmA.  ajAti is the final word.  So, any kind of theory about jAti is
taken as just an explanation, to be given up finally.  Those fields/persons
who see it is useful can happily benefit from it.  The Veda is in no way
affected by these.  Just as the advancements in medical science.

subrahmanian.v