[Advaita-l] Accepting Possibility of Error in Sastras

[V Subrahmanian]

I had mentioned recently that the details about creation, the world,
loka-s, etc. have no more value than chitta shuddhi and are primarily aimed
at showing a certain entity, Brahman, as the jagat-kAraNam.  The idea is
not to prove the kAryam as absolutely real but rather proving the kAraNam
as the sole reality by negating the kAryam.  The depiction of four
elephants holding the earth in place is aimed at showing that there is an
entity, a Force, a Shakti, that maintains and holds the earth.  For
example, the statement: bhIShAsmAd vAtaH pavate....of the Taittiriya (out
of fear of Him/That vAyu, agni, sUrya, Indra and Yama are ever alert in
carrying out their allotted duties) is, according to Shankaracharya, to
show us that there 'IS' this entity called Brahman: tasmAdasti tad brahma
yadbhayakAraNam.  Otherwise it would be impossible to even create a feeling
of existence of this entity as it is devoid of all attributes. So its
apparent relation to the world is posited only to negate it (the
relationship) later.  Once this aim is achieved the shAstra is no more
interested in pressing this point.  This is the way Advaita looks at all
such Vedic and purANic accounts.  If this is kept in mind, one will have no
problems about reconciling the discoveries of science with the accounts in
the scripture.  This can be even more appreciated in the case of a
scientist by profession believing or accepting or appreciating the
discoveries of science who can also be an Advaitin.  His appreciating
science will never come in the way of his Advaitic
understanding/realization.  For he can very easily place the discoveries of
science in the vyAvahArika realm which is indisputably only an object, a
viShaya, to the Consciousness, the viShayI that is his very Self.  The
unassailable rule 'dRshyam mithyA' will happily be maintained.

regards
subrahmanian.v

On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 8:00 PM, <rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:

> Is your conclusion that as per the tradition shastras are true on all
> matters even if they are proved to be conclusively wrong by science? Some
> of the smrti shastras definitely thought that earth is fixed. This has been
> conclusively shown to be wrong by science. As an advaitin, are you expected
> to still hold the view that earth stands fixed on four elephants? Leave
> alone smrti. Even shruti differs on triplication vs. quintiplication. What
> do you accept as true?
> Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
> Sender: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
> Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 18:57:21
> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta<
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Reply-To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
>         <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Accepting Possibility of Error in Sastras
>
> On the 'traditional position' regarding the shruti with regarding to
> pratyakshAdi is reflected by the Advaitic position that:  the pratyakShAdi
> pramANa that operates/dominates in a person's life *prior" to the advent of
> shruti in its *real and complete* form stands negated by the Veda pramANa.
> This is held on the strength of the pUrvamImAmsA nyAya called 'apaccheda
> nyAya' where it is held that the *later* pramANa negates the *earlier*
> pramANa.
>
> Accordingly everything that pratyakShAdi directs a person, including the
> shruti that is an alluding, anuvAda, stands negated by the *ultimate*
> Vedanta pramANa that holds the duality that the world is including the jiva
> is false/mithyA, not absolutely real.  This aspect is discussed in the
> Advaita siddhi and before that in the Bhamati and before even that in the
> Brahmasiddhi.  Of course, all this has its firm basis in the Vedata itself
> that is so beautifully captured by Shankaracharya in the adhyAsa bhAShyam.
> Gaudapada too brings this idea in the kArikA-s.
>
> When someone asked Ramana Maharshi whether the other worlds admitted in the
> scriptures are real, he is said to have replied: if 'this' world is real,
> then why not the 'other' worlds?
>
>
>
> regards
> subrahmanian.v
>
> On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
> rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I am not suggesting that we blindly reject shastras as untrue. When
> > shastras contradict pratyaksha and anumana, we have to examine and accept
> > whatever is true.  This is not my position but what I think is the
> correct
> > traditional position. Please read my original post with quotes from
> > Gaudapada, Sankara and Madhusudana. Sri Subrahmanian also independently
> > posted on the concept of anuvada, the exact term used by Madhusudana.
> >
> > In fact, I was thinking that shastras should be the authority on unseen
> > matters such as posthumous result of karma, jivEshwara bhEdA in vyavahara
> > realm etc. But according to Madhusudana even that can be a mere
> reflection
> > of human delusion.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 11:57 AM, sriram <srirudra at vsnl.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Dear
> > > Shruthi is shruthi.Its applicability is to spiritual life and not to
> > > physical phenomenal  world outside.May be some examples in the shruthi
> > > appear as erroneous in the light of some scientific discoveries.But as
> > our
> > > understanding is not as deep and our intellect is not as sharp there
> is a
> > > chance of misinterpretation of shruthi vakyas.Even  in the example that
> > > fire is cold if uttered by a shrurhi vakya is to be discarded is just
> an
> > > illistration that logic or prathyaksha pramana is valid and not shruthi
> > > vakya .But you should know that shruthi has not said like that
> > > anywhere.Shruthi and smruthi vakyas are collection of pramanas and
> > > observations in the days of yore.They will be valid if the same
> > environment
> > > continues.As this is not the case you have to take the shruthi vakya to
> > its
> > > abstract/subtle meaning and not to gross/apparent meaning.Shruthi says
> > > Brahman was there alone.You may say what is the proof?But if you think
> > > deeply you will come to understand by deductive reasoning that nothing
> > > comesout of nothing.Brahman is the total intelligence,total material
> and
> > > total consciousness. so to say.It divided itself to become many.You may
> > ask
> > > why it should do like that?Akamayatha says shruthi.It desired.Can you
> say
> > > why it desired?Any conscious intelligent being can desire to do some
> > > thing.It is not illogical.So if you contemplate the shruthi vakyas you
> > will
> > > understand the purport and a logical build up.Of course our brains are
> > not
> > > fully evolved to understand the shruthi.Like a dog will unable to
> > > understand how an electric fan works though it has brain to accept the
> > > command to switch it off.So shruthi and shastras are pramanam for
> > leading a
> > > meaningful life here and here after is my conviction.R.Krishnamoorthy.
> > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rajaram Venkataramani" <
> > > rajaramvenk at gmail.com>
> > >
> > > To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-
> **
> > > vedanta.org <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>>
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 7:52 PM
> > >
> > > 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
> > >> aontinues.
> > >>
> > >> 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://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/>
> > >> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.**culture.religion.advaita<
> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita>
> > >>
> > >> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > >> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.**org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l<
> > 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://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/>
> > > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.**culture.religion.advaita<
> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita>
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.**org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l<
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>