Pariprashnena — Q&A Archive

No one can attain the Absolute Truth by argument. One may be very expert in logic, and another person may be even more expert in the art of argument. Because there is so much word jugglery in logic, one can never come to the real conclusion about the Absolute Truth by argument. The followers of the Vedic principles understand this. However, it is seen here that 'c7r'e9 Caitanya Mah'e4prabhu defeated the Buddhist philosophy by argument. Those who are preachers in ISKCON will certainly meet many people who believe in intellectual arguments. Most of these people do not believe in the authority of the Vedas. Nevertheless, they accept intellectual speculation and argument. Therefore the preachers of K'e5'f1'eba consciousness should be prepared to defeat others by argument, just as 'c7r'e9 Caitanya Mah'e4prabhu did. In this verse it is clearly said, tarkei kha'eb'f2ila prabhu. Lord 'c7r'e9 Caitanya Mah'e4prabhu put forward such a strong argument that the Buddhists could not counter Him to establish their cult.
Their first principle is that the creation has always existed. But if this were the case, there could be no theory of annihilation. The Buddhists maintain that annihilation, or dissolution, is the highest truth. If the creation eternally exists, there is no question of dissolution or annihilation. This argument is not very strong because by practical experience we see that material things have a beginning, a middle and an end. The ultimate aim of the Buddhist philosophy is to dissolve the body. This is proposed because the body has a beginning. Similarly, the entire cosmic manifestation is a gigantic body, but if we accept that it always exists, there can be no question of annihilation. Therefore the attempt to annihilate everything in order to attain zero is an absurdity. By our own practical experience we have to accept the beginning of creation, and when we accept the beginning, we must accept a creator. Such a creator must possess an all-pervasive body, as pointed out in the Bhagavad-g'e9t'e4 (13.14):
(an example from CC Madhya 9.49 purp)

> Where could I find examples of how the authority of sastra is established via anumana?

SPs general attitude to science was derived from its prominent destructive fruits (BG 16). At the same time he quoted science as a support for sastra. Although this is not philosophically correct (anumana is inferior to sabda) it helps while preaching in the West where people dont accept sastra, being influenced by materialistic science. Therefore he gave examples like the cowdung being pure (confirmed by science), etc. and founded BI to use science in the service of Krsna.
Devamrta Swami in his book Searching for Vedic India uses many examples from ancient cultures to show how close they were to Vedic culture (originally worldwide).
Recent book Natures IQ by two Hungarian devotee scientists gives examples from etology to present a case against Darwins ET.
Did I recommend the book Substance and Shadow by Suhotra Swami? It elaborates on pratyaksa, anumana and sabda from Western and Vedic pov.

> Can we establish, via anumana, that the authority of the Vedas is superior to those of other scriptures - such as the Bible, Book of Mormon?

Yes. Desa-kala-patra principle (SB 1.9.9) applies anumana. Bibles OT was specifically revealed for Jews in ancient Egypt and Israel.
(e.g. it mentions levirate forbidden for Kali yuga.) Animal sacrifices are for people in lower gunas. Etc.
Anumana shows that BoM is derived from KJV Bible.

Thank you.

The basic principle of establishing the authority of sastra seems to be this:

1. Humans are not omniscient.
2. In order to truly know how to act in our best interest, we would need to be omniscient.
3. It therefore behooves us to accept instruction given by an omniscient authority.

4. Since we are not omniscient, we might make mistakes in what we deem "omniscient authority" or we might make mistakes in carrying out instructions given to us.
5. God is magnanimous, our mistakes are not fatal, and we have the ability to learn from our mistakes.
6. We should always strive for the highest instruction and for perfection.

The first three steps are general (sometimes used by Christians as well, for example), but the latter three seem to be more specific to a Vedic outlook (meainstream Christians wouldnt accept them).

Comments?

Making mistakes is not the only insufficiency of the baddha jiva. See the full progression in Tattva sandarbha. http://www.saragrahi.org/Header%20Links/Tattva%20Sandarbha/Tattva%20Sandarbha%20Contents.htm

[quote][cite] VEDA:[/cite]
> Can we establish, via anumana, that the authority of the Vedas is superior to those of other scriptures - such as the Bible, Book of Mormon?[br]

[br]Yes. Desa-kala-patra principle (SB 1.9.9) applies anumana. Bibles OT was specifically revealed for Jews in ancient Egypt and Israel.
(e.g. it mentions levirate forbidden for Kali yuga.) Animal sacrifices are for people in lower gunas. Etc.[br]
[br]Anumana shows that BoM is derived from KJV Bible.[/quote]

But in the end, it does come down to a persons individual choice to accept such anumana conclusions, does it not?[br]

Yes bhaktine baker your only choice is wether you accept sabda brahmanor not!.Wether you accept the particular flavour of vedic wisdom offered by srila Prabhupada and his servants or not.You have been around now for one year according to your own admission so that is sufficent time to appreciate what the devotees are offering....or not.After one year i was initiated and was attempting to follow the older sankirtan devotees.But we were fully surrendered due to the mercy of having met bhavanada das....krishna sent me an empowered soul .....thou he fell down later on he was the necessary ingredient missing in my devotional life which enabled me to be fully surendered.good luck.Actually once you are able to chant 16 rounds regularly.....everything else mental becomes settled by the guru....and when in the female body the husband and family life usually.

> But in the end, it does come down to a persons individual choice to accept such anumana conclusions, does it not?

Sure. But in the absence of sabda, theres a competition of various anumanas.

But this forum is inherently disadvantaged because you need an authority to personally take shelter of and submissively serve.Usually the temple president ,or other senior devotees can personally give instant solutions to your individual problems.Encourage you to chant 16 rounds and perceive your inherent strengths and weaknesses.Eventually when you have faith in that devotee....male or female he can mercifully help you to make strong healthy advancement by pointing out the unwanted things in our hearts.Which though painful allows one to progress .Especially when these material desires are ripped out of the heart.Hence the chanting nourishes your bhakti- lata-bija....seed of devotional service which is formally given at initiation and one happily goes back home....All of this you need local devotees ....or Prabhus.....your masters. to facilitate your increased service through ideally.

[quote][cite] VEDA:[/cite]> But in the end, it does come down to a persons individual choice to accept such anumana conclusions, does it not?

Sure. But in the absence of sabda, theres a competition of various anumanas.[/quote]

I have to admit that I am not comfortable with this outlook that so much should depend on my choice.[br]
[br]I really wish there would be an objective way to settle matters such as "who is the Supreme Personality of Godhead - Krishna or Jehowah", or "is there reincarnation" and so on. A persons views on this should be objective, and not a matter of ones choice, should they not?

[quote][cite] Baker:[/cite]I really wish there would be an objective way to settle matters such as "who is the Supreme Personality of Godhead - Krishna or Jehowah", or "is there reincarnation" and so on. A persons views on this should be objective, and not a matter of ones choice, should they not?[/quote]

These matters CAN be settled in an impartial way once you have a set of criteria that you agree apply to this situation. You have to first set the rules of inquiry. Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu for example sets the rules for comparing the various manifestations of the Divine and applies them to Lord Krishna, Lord Vishnu, Lord Shiva, a perfect human being, etc. In the end Lord Krsna turnes out to be the Supreme. -----------------

Reincarnation is pretty much a proven fact, recognized by all natural religions. You have to try very hard to ignore all the evidence pointing to it.

[quote][cite] Kula-pavana:[/cite][quote][cite] Baker:[/cite]I really wish there would be an objective way to settle matters such as "who is the Supreme Personality of Godhead - Krishna or Jehowah", or "is there reincarnation" and so on. A persons views on this should be objective, and not a matter of ones choice, should they not?[/quote]

These matters CAN be settled in an impartial way once you have a set of criteria that you agree apply to this situation. You have to first set the rules of inquiry. Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu for example sets the rules for comparing the various manifestations of the Divine and applies them to Lord Krishna, Lord Vishnu, Lord Shiva, a perfect human being, etc. In the end Lord Krsna turnes out to be the Supreme. -----------------

Reincarnation is pretty much a proven fact, recognized by all natural religions. You have to try very hard to ignore all the evidence pointing to it.[/quote] Objective? I would say that reading Brihad bhagavatamrita is as objective as you go towards the comparative religion. Seriously recommended reading.

[quote][cite] Kula-pavana:[/cite]
These matters CAN be settled in an impartial way once you have a set of criteria that you agree apply to this situation. You have to first set the rules of inquiry.[/quote]

Sure, but agreeing to apply a particular set of criteria (as opposed to some other), setting the rules of inquiry already is an act of partiality.[br]

[quote][cite] Baker:[/cite][quote][cite] Kula-pavana:[/cite]
These matters CAN be settled in an impartial way once you have a set of criteria that you agree apply to this situation. You have to first set the rules of inquiry.[/quote]

Sure, but agreeing to apply a particular set of criteria (as opposed to some other), setting the rules of inquiry already is an act of partiality.[br][/quote]

Not really. If you are consciously setting the rules so that one party is more likely to win - that is partiality. If you are just trying to impartially decide based on general, broadly applicable principles - that is impartiality. It is really not that complicated.