[Advaita-l] On evidence for and against Yugas of Indian chronology

[GR Vishwanath]

" dream object. You see one temple in a dream. Someone says in
the dream it is 100 years old. Another person in the dream says No, it is
1000 years old. Who is correct and who is wrong? How is it important when
you come out of the dream?"

It might behoove of an acharya to suggest "why as questions, it is all just
transient anyway", but I would this is really contrary to the general
spirit of the tradition: which is to reason carefully, make use of logic to
present one's arguments, and at least come up with provisional truths till
such time that the student's mind is ready.  It makes sense to dismiss
_some_ questions on the basis of "this is just Vyavarahika".  But it does
not make sense to  dismiss _all_ questions on the basis of "this is just
Vyavarahika". People in this group can perhaps add more to this distinction.

Ragahv Kumar Dwivedula ji- Thank you for that very specific quote from
Sankara. I am curious to know if this was also the approach of other
schools and other commentators



On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 8:05 AM, Venkatesh Murthy via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste
>
> For this Advaita forum it does not matter if the Yugas are there or science
> is correct. Because we are only arguing on a Vyavahaarika point. If there
> are Yugas it is Vyavahaarika. If science is saying there are no Yugas also
> it is Vyavahaarika. In reality the world is like a snake seen in a rope. A
> Rajju Sarpa. Therefore it is not important what is the history. It is like
> arguing on a dream object. You see one temple in a dream. Someone says in
> the dream it is 100 years old. Another person in the dream says No, it is
> 1000 years old. Who is correct and who is wrong? How is it important when
> you come out of the dream?
>
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> > Namaste
> > I do not know of specific quotations but the fact that different pramANas
> > have different domains is captured by the idea of anadhigatatvaM of the
> > pramaNas. So when shruti talks of atman and brahman etc., these topics
> > being not the subject matter for pratyaksha and anumAna there is no
> > conflict between shruti/agamas and modern science. Even where there are
> > mentions of anumAna topics in shruti, they are merely anuvAda of what is
> > obtainable through anumAna (incl. arthApatti etc) and in such matters
> > anumAna prevails.
> >
> > Sri Sankara bhagavatpAda says in gita 18.66 bhAShya
> >
> >
> >
> > प्रत्यक्षादिप्रमाणानुपलब्धे हि विषये अग्निहोत्रादिसाध्यसाधनसम्बन्धे
> श्रुतेः
> > प्रामाण्यम् , न प्रत्यक्षादिविषये, अदृष्टदर्शनार्थविषयत्वात्
> प्रामाण्यस्य ।
> > तस्मात् न दृष्टमिथ्याज्ञाननिमित्तस्य अहंप्रत्ययस्य देहादिसङ्घाते गौणत्वं
> > कल्पयितुं शक्यम् । न हि श्रुतिशतमपि‘शीतोऽग्निरप्रकाशो वा’ इति ब्रुवत्
> > प्रामाण्यमुपैति । यदि ब्रूयात् ‘शीतोऽग्निरप्रकाशो वा’ इति, तथापि
> अर्थान्तरं
> > श्रुतेः विवक्षितं कल्प्यम् , प्रामाण्यान्यथानुपपत्तेः, न तु
> > प्रमाणान्तरविरुद्धं स्ववचनविरुद्धं वा
> > My liberal translation of the key parts...
> >
> > Only in matters unavailable for pratyaksha etc., as in the case of
> > agnihotra and its results, shruti has prAmANyam.....even a hundred shruti
> > vakyas saying fire is cold or not luminous do not have any prAmANyam.
> Even
> > if it is said so in shruti, we have to assume some other intended
> meaning,
> > rather than take a (literal) meaning which contradicts other pramANas or
> > shruti itself (in some other place).
> >
> >
> >
> > The well-known  passage is actually a remarkable one since it's also a
> > clear demonstration of why there was never any conflict in Indian history
> > between 'science' and the sanAtana dharma unlike the church and science
> > conflict in the West.  The vaidika scholarly consensus would always
> > determine the meanings of the vedas and it's allied texts in such away as
> > to both protect shruti prAmANyam as well as give the discoveries of
> anumAna
> > etc., their due.
> >
> > Different pramAnas sometimes need reconciliation and there are no easy
> > methods to do so. In some cases it may be simple for example, I see a
> Guru
> > who is a well-wisher hold a yellow rose in his hand and tell the student
> 'I
> > am holding a white rose'. He is an Apta and his words (shabda) have
> > prAmANyam. But it is clashing with another pramANa viz., my eyes.
> >
> > Depending on the situation I may analyze and finally  choose to surrender
> > to my eyes as the pramANa and explain away his words as being an
> > inadvertent mistake.
> >
> > Or in another different situation, maybe we can closely examine the
> > situation and see that the light in the room has a strong yellow hue and
> so
> > although it appears yellow, its actually a white rose, so the Guru is
> > right.
> >
> > While I make up my mind, both the 'prama-s' will be critically examined
> ...
> > But eventually I settle the issue * by suitably explaining *  the wrong
> > perception (bhrama) as either a mistake of the speaker or alternatively
> as
> > a result of yellow light. It depends...
> >
> > therefore wherever modern science gives reasons for the non existence of
> > yuga chronology etc., closer examination is necessary of both the
> > conflicting ideas from itihasa and science is unavoidable. There are no
> > easy ways out.
> >
> > Hope the above helped.
> >
> > Om
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10-Nov-2017 7:23 PM, "GR Vishwanath" <grv144 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > So when Anuman clashes with Shruti/Smriti-- did our Acharayas address
> this
> > explicitly? Is there a specific quote from Sankara or a Purva Mimamsin
> tht
> > directly
> > addresses this question of how to proceed when there is a conflict ?
> > Specific links will be appreciated
> >
> > Vishwanath
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 1:59 AM, Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
> > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Namaste Rajesh ji and Sujal ji
> > > Thank you for your inputs
> > > Rajesh ji,
> > > Its not a question of their system versus our system, rather its about
> > > having the patience to read through the arguments against the yugas
> etc.,
> > > as historical realities and strengthening our dharma. If you notice
> > > bhAShyakara does advance arguments against the Buddhists on logical
> > grounds
> > > alone without merely saying 'our shruti invalidates Buddhist ideas'.
> Just
> > > saying that shruti is supreme is ineffectual.  Different pramANas like
> > > shruti (and it's allies) and anumAna may appear to clash,  in which
> case
> > we
> > > have to put in sone efforts to either show the fallacies in the anumAna
> > or
> > > we reinterpret shruti without losing its key points.
> > >
> > > Moreover when the dominant consensus  amongst large sections of
> thinkers
> > > and scientists is presenting a pUrvapakSha against the itihAsas,
> atleast
> > a
> > > few of the Astikas can try and show the problems with these
> pUrvapakShas.
> > >
> > > Another related issue , (on a diffetent note)
> > > Take the idea of the time period of the yugas. I have not read but been
> > > told that Sri Yukteswar Giri held the kali yuga to be 600 years and the
> > > other yugas being multiples thereof in the usual way. Now this scheme
> was
> > > endorsed by Sri Swami Dayananda Saraswati ji, a  traditional teacher of
> > > Vedanta who said on more than one occasion that the current Yuga is
> > Dwapara
> > > yuga. ( He offered two reasons if I recollect, viz.,  the developments
> in
> > > science and another reason being (this is my recollection) that
> atleast a
> > > small significant section of people are able to worship as per Hindu
> > > traditions and peacefully study vedanta etc., without religious
> > persecution
> > > unlike in the medieval ages. So things are better now than during say
> > > Aurangzeb's time ) The above view represents a debate or discussion
> > within
> > > the tradition regarding the itihasa chronology. I wanted to ask if the
> > > above book of Sri Yukteswar Giri has been read by anyone here.
> > >
> > > Om
> > > Raghav
> > >
> > >
> > > On 09-Nov-2017 7:53 PM, "Rajesh Benjwal" <rbenjwal at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Namaste,
> > > >
> > > > They should think how to defend their fossil dating method as our
> > > > scripture yuga information invalidate it. They should improve their
> > > system.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 10:06 PM, Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via
> Advaita-l <
> > > > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> For many traditionalists the chronology of Yugas having the order of
> > > >> hundreds of thousands of years where there were human beings living
> on
> > > >> this
> > > >> planet earth, is taken for granted.
> > > >>
> > > >> But there is a counter argument that the fossil records don't
> support
> > > such
> > > >> as possibility.  I wanted to know the fallacies in this such a
> fossil
> > > >> record based argument against the possibility of Yugas. This is no
> > > doubt a
> > > >> bit off topic with respect to Advaita Vedanta per se but i am hoping
> > > some
> > > >> learned members would know about ideas to defend the concept of
> Yugas
> > > >> given
> > > >> the so-called evidence from fossil records which is claimed to
> > > invalidate
> > > >> even the possibility of Yugas.
> > > >>
> > > >> thank you
> > > >> Om
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> 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
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > *Rajesh Benjwal*
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards
>
> -Venkatesh
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>