[Advaita-l] Accepting Possibility of Error in Sastras

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

If every statement of the veda is only an anuvada, then how can it be
apauresheya? Or is it that apauresheyam is also an anuvada?

On unseen matters such as the result of yajna that yields svarga, we dont
have any means of knowledge other than the shastras. But in the case of
seen matters (e.g. structure of solar system), we have pratyaksha and
anumana as an alternate source of knowledge. In such cases, which view
should be accepted - a) one that is supported by observed facts and
reasoned inference (science) or b) one based on shastras?

On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 5:36 AM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>wrote:

> While we would like to see what exactly is said there by Madhusudana
> Saraswati, it is the siddhAnta of Advaita Vedanta that the entire portion
> pertaining to duality in the Veda - the description of creation, karma,
> jiva-s, lokaantara, upAsana, etc. is only an 'anuvAda', a restatement of
> what is naturally available to people due to avidyA based on the nAnAtva of
> jiva-s and finitude, paricchinna bhrAnti, of jiva-s.  The famous
> 'dvA-suparNA' mantra of the Mundakopanishad is one such anuvAda of the
> avidyAprApta dvaita by the Upanishad.  In fact according to Shankara, in
> the adhyAsa bhAshya, even the Upanishadic literature dealing with mokSha
> sAdhana is only a statement based on the avidyA-born notion that one is
> bound.  The Upanishad comes to remove this notion by teaching the means of
> release and thereby enabling the jiva to realize that there was no bondage
> in the first instance.
>
> regards
> subrahmanian.v
>
> On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 7:04 AM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <
> sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear friends,
> >
> > Quote
> > However, we see that Madhusudana says in Siddanthabindu (v 79),
> > "The scriptures may state something that is merely the outcome of
> > delusion".
> > Unquote
> >
> > I shall be thankful if RV or any other member can kindly give the
> Sanskrit
> > texts of v. 78 &79 of Siddhantabindu in Devanagari script (unicode).
> >
> > Regards,
> > Sunil KB
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >  From: Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk at gmail.com>
> > To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <
> > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 6:22 AM
> > Subject: [Advaita-l] Accepting Possibility of Error in Sastras
> >
> > In many religions, the scriptures are considered inerrant. We also
> consider
> > the sastras to be the authroity. There is a lot of logic given to
> establish
> > why sabda is pramana. There are stories such as Kumarila Bhatta's
> > where complete acceptance of the authority of the sastras is
> > reinforced. However, we see that Madhusudana says in Siddanthabindu (v
> 79),
> > "The scriptures may state something that is merely the outcome of
> > delusion". Here he admits that sastras can be erroneous. Though the
> > tradition accepts the vedic model for creation, we see that there is a
> > recognition of a contradictions there that is to be resolved through
> > reason. For example, Gaudapada says (I.23), "In the matter of being
> > created, whether from the already existent or from the non-existent also,
> > the Sruti is equal, that is supporting both views. What is associated
> with
> > or fortified with logical reasoning holds not the other".  The importance
> > of reasoning is also stressed by Madhusudana, "The creation of names and
> > forms by Him who does the triplication in BSB 2.4.20 in only an
> explanatory
> > statement and cannot nullify quintuplication which is established by
> > reasoning".  Sankara himself says, forget where, "Even a thousand sruti
> > statements cannot make fire cold." In his bhashyas, we often see him
> quote
> > sruti and then the opponent makes a logical counter to sruti. Sankara
> does
> > not dismiss off the opponent saying that there cannot be a logical
> > opposition because already the point has been established using sruti. He
> > defends his position using logic.
> >
> > Are there conditions in which sastras can be accepted as erroneous? I am
> > not talking about a presumption of error in sastras without evidence. But
> > when there is concrete evidence based on pratyaksha and anumana that
> shows
> > that the sastras are not correct, what is the valid traditional response?
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>