Originally Posted by
saidevo
namaste Devotee.
Prof.Nara's main issues are:
• The One Reality, satyam, is only a theoretical possibility, as against the changing reality of the world which is readily and for ever perceptible. So we can't dismiss the reality of the world as mithyA--illusion/unreal.
• How did pure jnAna fall into ajnAna? If the teacher is free of ajnAna, and the people is only an illusion, why teach him at all? So many questions, but the answers hardly make sense. (post #20)
• Advaita is completely confusing, but Ramanuja darshan has some consistency.
Is there any consonance in the bheda, abheda, and ghaTaka shruti statements found in Vedas? As against this the everyday everyman's reality of the world is in more consonance to everyone. (post #26)
• Terms such as 'absolute sat, absolute asat, vyAvahArika satyaM, prAtibhAsika satyaM, mithyA' do not make any sense in practical perspective. He asks, "But, even from the religious perspective, what evidence is there from the shruthi or other commonly accepted shashthras for these assertions?" (post #48)
• The only reality in Advaita is the nirguNa brahman, since it is not easily reachable, concepts like the vyAvahArika satyaM are brought in, which have no support in the Vedas or other commonly accepted scriptures. (post #53)
• When Advaita claims to have shruti basis, then there should be scriptural support for the statement that the jagat is mithyA. Is there any? (post #85)
• His main agnostic contention is that there is not a shred of evidence for the existence of Brahman, "So, 'brahman satyam, jagath mityam' is based on completely made up entity called brahman and a self-serving definition of the word 'non-existent'." (post #90)
• At some point of time, we need to grow out of our security blanket and face the reality. Just as Science constantly revalidates its knowledge, the recorded knowledge of the Rishis too must be scrutinized and revalidated, and this would not mean any disrespect to them, just as the scientific world still respects Newton, Darwin, and Einstein although their theories have undergone changes. (post #95)
"Leaving these differences between a theist like yourself and an atheist like myself aside, please cite evidence from the vedas that you hold as supreme for the notions like:
jagath is unreal
-- there is a sagnuna brahman who in reality does not exist, and,
-- only nirguna brahman is reality, and everything else is unreal."
• He says it is difficult to find Vedic pramANa for our key concepts
-- jagath is unreal
-- there is a sagnuna brahman who in reality does not exist, and,
-- only nirguna brahman is reality, and everything else is unreal
Shankara's concepts were not agreed to by RAmAnuja, and Madhva rejected them both. And then there are Jainas and Buddhas who dismiss even the Vedas as pramANa. Christianity and Islam reject rebirth. "With so much contradiction how can anyone claim even a modicum of authenticity to their version in the one revealed by God?"
"Finally, forbidding intellect from any validation is a very low bar. Anything can be claimed to be verifiable only through personal experience."
"Leaving that aside for the moment, faith is belief in something for which there is no evidence. But, within the context of the given faith, should there not be some logic, some consistency? If one says Vedas are perfect, inerrant, revealed by God, immutable, etc., etc., then please take on my questions at the top of this post. Irrespective of personal outlook on life, consistency within one's own predefined axiomatic parameters is not a luxury, but basic."
And then comes his last post quoted in full by Atanu.
**********
Although he is not accommodative to any other view than his own agnostic and materialistic views, he made my wonder: "About using what pramANas in the Vedas and UpaniShads did Shankara deduce his concepts, chiefly the most popular one, 'brahma satyam jagat mithyA'"?
Since I have not read Shankara's Brahma-sUtra bhAShya, or much of the Vedas and UpaniShads, I have started this thread for our own discussion, especially with regard to the points of contention that Prof.Nara has raised.
I am personally convinced as to Shankara's statement, whether there is shruti/prasthanatraya pramANa or not, but then I feel that there must be some missing link between the concepts of Shankara and those of the shruti/prasthanatraya. Since Shankara could have deduced his concepts only from the shruti/prasthanatraya, I feel we need to find out precisely how he derived them.
Bookmarks