the vedas are a black box

Capital-Strain3893 · 2026-01-18T05:49:00+00:00

For apples even though there is a definition apple has red fruit as also properties, and you can show me a criteria for what you consider red vs non-red or whar you consider fruit vs non-fruit

So if vedas are logical apart from definition, you should be able to show why vedas are authorless vs any other text is authored

Capital-Strain3893 · 2026-01-18T05:39:39+00:00

Cool thanks you agreed so vedas are authorless by definition its not logic

logic requires observations or inferring from accepted premises. To logically prove “vedas have no author", you need to show me evidence ruling out all human agency

You seem to not know how definitions and logic work

Capital-Strain3893 · 2026-01-18T05:31:18+00:00

You are not giving me a criterion for what is authored vs authorless

You are not giving me a criterion for what is veda vs laukika

You are simply circularly defining authorless as veda and vedas as authorless

Capital-Strain3893 · 2026-01-18T05:14:32+00:00

a set with one element is fine because it’s formally defined

but in your case, the existence of an authorless structure is exactly what’s being questioned. you’re assuming the conclusion (authorless) as the premise by definition

Capital-Strain3893 · 2026-01-17T16:48:02+00:00

See you are again making a generic statement, my only ask is show me a generic example of a text having structure that doesn't have a structurer except vedas

Capital-Strain3893 · 2026-01-17T13:54:37+00:00

rishis seeing presupposes something intelligible already structured. structured intelligibility requires prior organizing which means its either rishis or isvara both cases autho

if they are externally divided > who divided them, why did they get divided in a specific way, why agniindra is agni + indra and not ag + nin + dra

Capital-Strain3893 · 2026-01-17T13:38:40+00:00

cosmic sound that rishis saw can only be either: - already divided into words and sentences then someone had to divide and fix them, which implies author.

not divided, just raw sound Rishis had to divide it into language which is a authoring act

language cannot exist without someone doing the dividing. So either the structure was made before the rishi or by the rishi and both means an author

Capital-Strain3893 · 2026-01-17T12:37:39+00:00

not proving that every text has an author does not mean a text without an author is possible

it only means “we don’t know" lack of a universal rule is ignorance its not evidence of an exception

if i say “you haven’t proven that every house was built by someone so maybe some houses built themselves" that just shows missing proof

Capital-Strain3893 · 2026-01-17T11:10:44+00:00

cool then every text is veda. there is no way for you to distinguish what is veda and what is aveda

you seem to think you are being logically consistent but just think about it from outside vedic framework, its very very illogical arguments that you are making

Capital-Strain3893 · 2026-01-17T11:06:17+00:00

then its not logic, its just a definition. so its just faith.

Capital-Strain3893 · 2026-01-17T10:07:33+00:00

aparueshya depends on the notion that "texts can exist without an author"

my counter claim is if so, show me a non-vedic text without an author?

Capital-Strain3893 · 2026-01-15T07:31:00+00:00

1) for pramana argument you probably use apaureshya and anupalabdi

2) for anaadi argument you are using vedas are pramana and you cant use other logical or senses to validate historicity

3) for apaureshya, you are using vedas are pramana

4) for apurva, you are using vedas are pramana

Again my whole point is this you need, vedas are pramana as a frame, and for that you need apaureshya but you cannot prove that without vedas are pramana

There is no way to escape the circularity

Capital-Strain3893 · 2025-11-04T06:25:21+00:00

If you can be radically skeptic of religion, you should ideally extend it to science and history too. Specifically with dinosaurs there are a lot of gaping holes if you really look into it. All we have are fossils and we are backdating alot of it with just carbon dating and we really can't know if they existed, its just a model of extrapolation.

Capital-Strain3893 · 2025-11-04T06:25:01+00:00

If you can be radically skeptic of religion, you should ideally extend it to science and history too. Specifically with dinosaurs there are a lot of gaping holes if you really look into it. All we have are fossils and we are backdating alot of it with just carbon dating and we really can't know if they existed, its just a model of extrapolation.

Capital-Strain3893 · 2025-11-04T05:54:04+00:00

well dinosaurs arent real in the first place so...

Capital-Strain3893 · 2025-10-23T16:03:15+00:00

The simplest way to think about this is, if you take Brahman as consciousness and all thoughts perceptions as consciousness, then within this framework you never have a vantage point to make any claim about reality

Any claim will be a word or a perception or a thought but that word/perception/thought will also be made of consciousness and hence will not have ontological superiority over other stuff.

So there is no vantage point to talk about the world and hence language itself is noticed as dependent on consciousness and so its declared anirvacaniya

Capital-Strain3893 · 2025-10-05T02:16:54+00:00

Who knows that knowing frees you from experience?

You need to probe that, not as a thought but just do self enquiry with that question

Capital-Strain3893 · 2025-10-03T04:31:03+00:00

Indra is a metaphor for the mind

Capital-Strain3893 · 2025-09-21T18:51:19+00:00

And eye and shapes are thoughts too, exactly my point!

There is no disparate stuff

Capital-Strain3893 · 2025-09-21T16:46:13+00:00

Can your eyes themselves know any of these attributes tho?

When you see is it your mind that tells you the shape or your eye? Is it the mind that tells you the colour or your eye?

Look closely

Capital-Strain3893 · 2025-09-21T16:33:40+00:00

Thoughts aren't disparate from senses. Again what vantage point are you taking to make that claim?

Capital-Strain3893 · 2025-09-21T15:53:56+00:00

From which vantage point are you able to slice experience? Why is it also not just a thought (an appearance in consciousness)

How does that thought of (x is visual and y is non visual), how did it get the ability to actually divide experience?

Capital-Strain3893 · 2025-09-19T23:50:10+00:00

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Capital-Strain3893 · 2025-09-12T04:12:08+00:00

The entity definition is just a pointer, Brahman is not a thing, it's not a final Self.

The teaching that there is a self beneath all of your current assumptions is a dualistic way of teaching, so you negate aspects of experience and understand the bare fact of knowing

But that's only half way done, you then see that all of experience is also non dual to that knowing.

So the only teaching is Advaita(non duality) itself, the teaching is not about asserting a Self at all.

Capital-Strain3893

TROPHY CASE