[Advaita-l] Apoureshyatva - Faith or Logic?

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

On Wednesday, June 27, 2012, Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 3:59 AM, V Subrahmanian
> <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com <javascript:;>> 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). 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?
>

RV: Sringeri Acharya could have said,"You can have any view regarding
creation of life. It does not contradict Vedantin view". It would have been
a populist stand as we can then have two models of formation of life forms
or ignore complicated questions taking shelter of ajati vada. But he did
not. He stuck to teaching the  traditional belief that life forms were
created. He gave his reason for that based on sastras. Sri Mani Dravid
Sastrigal boldly rejected the theory of biological evolution on the grounds
that it is based on logic. Most traditionalists on this forum also stated
that they reject the biological theory of evolution. In the worst case,
they are all wrong but even then they are true their belief and tradition.
By saying that the theory of biological evolution can fit in to Vedic view
of creation, we are true to neither the tradition nor the scientific
method.

They dont say that veda apaureshyatvam is to be accepted as a given. They
use pratyaksha and anumana to establish that. If I was totally convinced by
it, I would not have posted on the forum. I was not because their model
will be challenged by linguists and evolutionists.

In its own right, their model fails to argue convincingly why Vedas are
 considered apaureshya and not any vakya. Any sentence is a flow of
knowledge (jnanapravagam) and the words in the sentences have connection
with objects, which we can say is eternal as objects and the words exist in
the source. Any further post on this is useful to me only if it answers
this.