[Advaita-l] Apoureshyatva - Faith or Logic?

[Ramesh Krishnamurthy]

On 27 June 2012 03:24, Shyam <shyam_md at yahoo.com> wrote:

<<Given your views on extraterrestrials and nonhumans in other planets
obtaining vedic knowledge of a different variety I do not find this in
the least surprising and consider it a blessing that my views are far
removed from yours.>>

Feel free to be consider yourself blessed. Regarding extraterrestrials
and non-humans, I have repeatedly stated that I was not advancing any
"views". I was only using them as devices to get people out of a
certain rut. There can be many ways of explaining these issues and
there is really no need to get stuck up with this or that view.

Repeatedly criticizing me for my supposed "views" or "imagination"
regarding extra-terrestrials etc is a really bad case of missing the
point.

<<That would be difficult to do even if I wished to for the simple
fact that your own "position" is extremely muddled, as is evident when
you state two contradictory things:>>

There is absolutely nothing contradictory about non-overlapping
jurisdictions at the level of pramANa on the one hand and mature
philosophies such as the various mImAMsA sysems being able to
accommodate different cause-effect models on the other. A philosophy
is based on multiple pramANa-s and indeed one of the signal
contributions of the pUrva-mImAMsaka-s has been the enunciation of a
mature pramANa-shAstra.

To be even clearer, let me state that it is the mImAMsA systems which
lay out what the pramANa-s are and what are their areas of
applicability.

<<The fact that Vedic dictums are orthogonal to scientific theories-
both fact-based and fantasy based - means that there is no question of
accomodation. The very question of accomodation comes in only if there
are overlapping domains. Please be clear in your own mind wheter you
consider the two orthogonal or overlapping.>>

Again, the orthogonality is at the level of pramANa-s. The ability to
accommodate different cause-effect models is at the level of a mature
philosophy which uses the pramANa-s in a certain way and responds
appropriately to environmental changes. The mImAMsA systems can do
this because of the robustness of their pramANa-shAstra and also the
robustness of the constructs they use for fashioning their system. An
example of such a construct was provided earlier in this thread by
Vidyasankar, which I had quoted in my previous post.


<<Why this specification - the entire Veda deals with dharma and moksha alone.>>

If you understood this properly, you wouldn't say that my views are
self-contradictory.

<<It is one thing to say Srshti is mithya, it is quite another to
dismiss Srshti as being false.>>

I am quite familiar with how the bhAShya-s address the issue of
sR^iShTi. The simple point is that the basic upaniShadic frameworks of
cause-effect, even though used as adhyAropa-s only by the advaitin-s,
are robust enough to permit a wide variety of models.


<< Please note that the scope of dharma is all inclusive in that it
influences and talks about every facet of human life - its origin,
existence, and the afterlife, as well, including various aspects
related to the cosmos. When dharma talks about the shuklagati and
krishnagati, and svargaloka, pitrloka, it is all very much in the
realm of dharma alone. Just because your proclivity is to advaita does
not confer on you the right to be dismissive about all that Shruti
asserts and endorses.>>

At no point did I dismiss the shruti. Regarding dharma/karma, only the
atIndriya aspects are completely inaccessible to laukika pramANa-s. I
don't need the shruti to tell me that I should not steal someone
else's property. However, only the shruti tells me that if I steal, it
will lead to pApa which may fructify even in a later life. Likewise,
many aspects of the cosmos and living organisms are well within the
domain of laukika pramANa-s, and a properly educated mImAMsaka can
comfortably make use of laukika pramANa-s in addressing these aspects.

<<Please do not feel compelled to respond. It suffices if you gain
clarity regarding the source of your own confusion.>>

As the Hindi saying goes: "ulTA chor kotvAl ko dA.NTe", somewhat like
"pot calling the kettle black" :-))