07-12-2004, 01:08 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Coming back to the "manuShya-centric" thinking, the karma theory in Hindu philosophy is a case in point. It is amazing how deep-rooted this dogma is in the Hindu mind. I think the whole karma doctrine has serious cracks. Now, one of the fundamentals of Vedanta is there is only Brahman. But, despite the fact that everything in the universe is pervaded by Brahman, the karma theory posits the pashu at a lower rung than man. How can this be so when there is only Brahman? Moreover, Brahman is absolute and impersonal, whereas karma induces a moral edge to things.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sridatta,
You carried yourself well on the topic of evolution. I have also read Gould and others and broadly speaking am in agreement.
But the above quote suggests you don't understand Vedanta well. It is not an easy philosophy to grasp, but for the sake of objectivity it would be better if we reserved strong comments only about things we have spent enough effort understanding.
For a starter, were you aware of the principle of 'adhyaasa' and relative realities posited in Vedanta? Do you understand the concept of 'Atman' in Vedanta? Do you understand why Atman is equated with Brahman?
It would be good to not fall for the attitude that since I spent oh so manys milliseconds pondering over this matter and judged it worthless, all those hindoos of the past were blithering idiots who wasted lifetimes on such trivialities.
May be it is time to have a full scale debate on Vedanta. But it will be fruitless if Vedanta were to be judged as science. It is a system of philosophy and those who are willing to debate it as a system of philosophy are welcome to join in. Also if someone hasn't spent the effort in going through the Vedanta texts and understanding them but still wants to pass judgements on them, then all I can say is that I can find better use for my time on the web.
Sridatta,
You carried yourself well on the topic of evolution. I have also read Gould and others and broadly speaking am in agreement.
But the above quote suggests you don't understand Vedanta well. It is not an easy philosophy to grasp, but for the sake of objectivity it would be better if we reserved strong comments only about things we have spent enough effort understanding.
For a starter, were you aware of the principle of 'adhyaasa' and relative realities posited in Vedanta? Do you understand the concept of 'Atman' in Vedanta? Do you understand why Atman is equated with Brahman?
It would be good to not fall for the attitude that since I spent oh so manys milliseconds pondering over this matter and judged it worthless, all those hindoos of the past were blithering idiots who wasted lifetimes on such trivialities.
May be it is time to have a full scale debate on Vedanta. But it will be fruitless if Vedanta were to be judged as science. It is a system of philosophy and those who are willing to debate it as a system of philosophy are welcome to join in. Also if someone hasn't spent the effort in going through the Vedanta texts and understanding them but still wants to pass judgements on them, then all I can say is that I can find better use for my time on the web.