[Advaita-l] Apoureshyatva - Faith or Logic?

[Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 1:13 PM, V Subrahmanian
<v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:28 PM, Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan <
> rama.balasubramanian at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Unfortunately this quote refers to the true nature of reality or
>> brahman which cannot be settled by tarka and is quite different from
>> the way it is being used here (in the realm of "creation" or rather
>> transformation of one thing into another).
>
>
> Sir, if you see that BSB 2.1.11 it will be clear that it is a discussion on
> the sAnkhya's claim that the pradhAna is the 'jagat kAraNam'.  In other
> words, on the basis of  being the  cause of the world (creation) the
> pradhAna is sought to be presented as the Supreme.  This stand is being
> refuted by the siddhAntin.  Since the sAnkhya's claim is mainly based on
> tarka, for he has not seen how the world originated but based on the
> kArya-kAraNa bhAva seen in the world, extrapolates it to the world-creation
> too. The siddhAntin shows that regarding things such as these, which are
> beyond the ken of the senses and tarka, (only) the Agama is to be relied
> upon.  At the same time the siddhAntin does not jettison tarka; he wants
> tarka to be subservient to Agama:
>
> अत आगमवशेनागमानुसारितर्कवशेन च चेतनं ब्रह्म *जगतः कारणं प्रकृतिश्चेति*स्थितम्
> । । ११  । ।
>

Not really. The question being addressed here is whether pradhAna can
be counted as an entity **independent** of brahman for the creation of
the universe. The sAnkhyA says that the creation is by modification of
pradhAna, which is independent of brahman. Sankaras point is that if a
creation is posited, then the ultimate cause is brahman. But if you
read the bhAShya, he also clearly states that if the sAnkhyA wants to
posit the creation of a world by modification of a supposed pradhAna,
*which is subservient to brahman*, then he has no problem with such a
theory. So, as I said this has nothing to with creation passages, nor
contradictory of evolution theories.

>
>> Ramesh has already referred to the passages on creation and the
>> interpretation by Sankara in the sUtra bhAShya. There seems to be a
>> concerted effort in misinterpreting what Ramesh is saying - all he is
>> saying is that the vedantic view is
>> *not contradicted* by theories of evolution. Whys is this so difficult
>> to understand?
>>
>
> This was not disputed at all.  In fact from the beginning I have been

Then I am not clear what you are addressing by all the stuff below.
Ramesh did not address anything about evolution vs creationism or
whatever.

> emphasizing that the shruti itself does not hold sRiShTi to be
> pAramArthika, based on Shankara's bhashyam.  Yet, it is not for nothing
> that a question such as this was posed to the Sringeri Acharya:
>
> //We learn from science that man evolved from animals.  Thousands of years
> ago,  man was living in caves.  Cooking too was unknown to him.  How cold
> the Veda-s have been there at that time? Further, how could the people then
> have lived as per the dictates of the Veda-s? // [Excerpted from the book:
> Exalting Elucidations, ch.36, p.284]
>
> It is only since people who come to religion/philosophy with modern
> education/training, might, and most probably will, find the
> teachings/explanations found in the scripture not easily agreeable in the
> background of their own education/thinking/training, questions such as the
> above were posed to the Acharya and replies published so that they can form
> a guideline to the modern mind coming to Vedanta.  Some centuries ago such
> questions would not have been thought of but today they are required.  They
> are required to show that the methods of the scripture and the modern
> scientists are different. Another question from there:
>
> //Scientists say that life has evolved from matter.  They also say
> consciousness is produced when the elements of matter evolve into a
> particular form, such as that of a cell or a brain.  Is such an opinion
> wrong?//

Rama