New member introduction: Steve Wray

[Steve Wray]

> Thank you for an elaborate reply.  I am writing down thoughts
> as they came to me when I read your posting.

Thanks!

I will look up the references you sent me.

> 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.

Vedanta is internaly consistent, as is science.
To say that there may be scientific validation
of Vedanta is not to imply that Vedanta is in need
of such validation, but that Vedanta is not only
internally consistent, but also consistent with science.
Similarly, science is not only internally consistent,
but consistent with Vedanta.
Thus there would be a way to 'translate' from one
paradigm to the other.

Naturally, there are bound to be areas of both which
do not translate well into the other!

Or perhaps 'validation' is the wrong term altogether.

> 5.  A fellow student of Vedanta and friend of mine, is quite
> impressed with Des Cartes work called the "Discourses on the
> Method".  He finds that Des Cartes had worked himself quite
> close to where the Vedantic texts would lead one to, by means
> of his reasoning and the title he has given to his book
> namely "Method" is appropriate as his reasoning is more like
> the various prakriyas (methodologies) of upanishads.

The scientific method, ultimately derived from Des Cartes,
has a very interesting logical structure.

Its interesting, though, that Des Cartes stopped short with
his 'I think therefore I am'. Its ultimate evolution would
surely be more like 'There is thinking'.

I believe that Des Cartes was somewhat limited in what he could
write due to the political pressures of the powerful christian
influence of the day.