New member introduction: Steve Wray

[Steve Wray]

> > 4.  Traditional view point dismisses any need for
> "validation" of the
> > content of Vedas outside of Vedas i.e, that the contents of
> Vedas are
> > self-validating and no external means can make an
> authoritative statement
> > about the validity of the Vedas.  So scientific enquiry can
> add more means
> > of explaining Vedanta but is not necessary for "validating" Vedanta.
>
> It is not as it the traditional view point "dismisses" the need for
> "validation", or that it is self validated always ... - such
> a view point would indeed make it dogmatic. That is not the
traditional
> view point as I understand it. It is more a question of the realm of

Another point that occurs to me now, in response to the
validation point is that I wasn't referring to any *need*
for validation; just because something *can* be validated
doesn't mean that it *needs* it.

Validation should in this instance at least, be seen as
a relative matter not absolute; within the context and
traditions of the Vedas, there is no need for scientific
validation just as within science there is no need for
Vedantic validation.

However, when we wish to bring together diverse branches
of knowledge and experience there is always need for
common ground to be established, and it is in this context
that I intended the term 'validation'