Guest guest Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 Satyanji wrote: The need to go beyond the literal meaning arises only if there is an "apparent" contradiction in different pramANas. It is in these cases that the domain of the pramANa comes into question. In case of "heaven as a real place" there is no "apparent" contradiction from pratyaksha etc. |||||||||||||| Namaste Satyanji, I am not welded to the idea of heaven as a state of mind/consciousness in fact I don't reflect much on the precise nature of the afterlife. My suggestion was a general comparitive one. I grant you that the Vedas are a special case. They lawyer proof their utterances by the formula - all words are dubious except these words. One can see that this is a non-rational or supra-rational edict which does not conform to normal logic. Other religions move from the pole of strict literalism about both the perceptual and the non- perceptual to utter dymythologisation and all stations in between. It is possible to have a religion without an afterlife. The Sheol of the ancient Jews was a vague place and the Greek afterlife was insubstantial also. Best Wishes, Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 Namaste Sri Michael: I admire your English language skills and especially your choice of words and phrases. I am of the opinion, most of your reactions about Vedas coming from your understanding of the English Translations of Vedas. For example, your statement, "They lawyer proof their utterances by the formula - all words are dubious except these words. One can see that this is a non-rational or supra-rational edict which does not conform to normal logic." First, the metaphysical assertions of Vedas can never be explained through any language including English even by a scholar by you. The normal logic only has the capacity to absorb rationalize the explnations that fall within the intellectual boundary! The Metaphysical Truth is beyond intellectual comprehension and consequently, you shouldn't be surprised to see that it doesn't confirm to normal logic. All we discuss here in this list and also else where only demonstrate our limitations through our contradictions that we see, imagine and pointout that falls within the intellectual boundary. The correct replacement of your statement is the following: "Everything other the Truth is dubious except the Truth!" This is the subtle message of that statement. Faith and conviction are fundamental when we start any enquiry: Vedas asserts that one should have the Faith in the Vedas and believe that Vedas speak the Truth. If the enquiry continues with that faith, then only it is possible to recognize and realize the Truth! Certainly the above assertion may not appeal to all those who are only comfortable with normal logic, I have no quarell with them and they do have the right to exercise such a choice. Different religions adopt different framework with varied beliefs to recognize the Truth and we the people can make up our mind to choose what suit our frame of mind. It is possible to debate who is right and who is wrong and any such debate will be very likely futile. Warmest regards, Ram Chandran advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...> wrote: > >...... > My suggestion was a general comparitive one. I grant > you that the Vedas are a special case. They lawyer proof their > utterances by the formula - all words are dubious except these words. > One can see that this is a non-rational or supra-rational edict which > does not conform to normal logic. Other religions move from the > pole of strict literalism about both the perceptual and the non- > perceptual to utter dymythologisation and all stations in between. > > It is possible to have a religion without an afterlife. The Sheol of the > ancient Jews was a vague place and the Greek afterlife was > insubstantial also. > > Best Wishes, > Michael > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 Namaste Michael-ji: Sri Michael wrote: > They lawyer proof their > utterances by the formula - all words are dubious except these words. Stand taken by vedic logicians is in fact exactly the opposite. Vedic logic accepts all words as true unless there is a reason to believe that it is not. All faults in words are traceable to some outside source. "prAmANyaM svataH , aprAmANyaM parataH" is a siddhAnta of pUrva-mImAmsa and accepted as basis by all the three vedAnta schools. Simply put it means that if a means of knowledge gives some knowledge, that knowledge is accepted as valid - UNLESS some other knowledge is known to contradict it. praNAm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...> wrote: > > Satyanji wrote: > > > > > Best Wishes, > Michael Namaste, maybe heaven appear at the end of the "evolution".... the motor of "evolution" could be (is): "nobody care for you....except yourSelf" when the Self, at the end, appear as "there is nothing but Self".... "heaven" appear to be "wherever" is Self.....means, "here and now" this are few thoughts only.... excuse me if i'm too much "off the subject"... sorry for mistakes Regards and peace Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 Rabia (Rabi'a Al-'Adawiyya) O my Lord! if I worship you from fear of hell, burn me in hell. If I worship you from hope of Paradise, bar me from its gates. But if I worship you for yourself alone, grant me then the beauty of your Face. ENJOY! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 Namaste Sri Michaelji, advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...> wrote: > I grant you that the Vedas are a special case. They lawyer > proof their utterances by the formula - all words are dubious > except these words. That's not how it goes. All words have meanings. The meaning that is true to the word (name) is not dubious whether the word be a Vedic word or a laukika word. The speciality of the Vedas is that all Vedic words point to Brahman. The words in the section called Upanishads point to the Higher Nature of Brahman and the words in the other sections of the Vedas point to the Lower Nature of Brahman. They form repectively the words of the jnana-khanda and karma-khanda of the Vedas. Warm regards, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.