Guest guest Posted August 7, 1999 Report Share Posted August 7, 1999 Philosophical attacks on Vedanta from the point of view of science and the senses can be turned aside because the ideas of Vedanta are so radical that they undermine the very terms of the argument itself. Doing so preserves the plausibility of Vedanta, but of course plausibility is not the same as truth. We say that the final truth can't be had by reasoning, but only by direct personal experience, which leaves no doubt. But does being overpowered, permanently transformed, and totally convinced by an experience necessarily insure truth? There are people who have had near death experiences that have accomplished all these things, removing their fear of death and causing them to dedicate their lives to love and service. And yet we know beyond a reasonable doubt that these experiences can be explained in physiological terms that have nothing at all to do with life after death or the existence of any benevolent all-pervading entity. So the impact of the experience is no guarantee of the veracity of the interpretation that is given to it. Its direct intuitive power must be checked against other considerations, in this case involving events in the brain during temporary oxygen starvation. This precaution of checking our interpretation applies doubly when the experience doesn't just come out of the blue due to some accident or medical condition, but is the result of long term practice and conditioning, as in spiritual work. In that case we build toward an experience that we expect or at least hope to have, and an interpretation for which that has been firmly set in our minds for years in advance, so that we are relieved of the necessity of providing any interpretation for it, even on the spur of the moment as in near death experiences. The interpretation is a foregone conclusion. So reasoning alone can't establish the final truth, and even direct personal experience is no infallible source of an accurate understanding either; the final truth is plausible, but its truth remains shrouded in doubt. The issue largely seems to boil down to a simple decision of whether to grant primacy to the 'inner' - awareness itself, the sense of I-am that is the basis of human consciousness - or the 'outer' - mainly sense perceptions, especially the ones that can be quantified and replicated by other observers. While the dependency of consciousness on the physical organism is grossly obvious, the reverse is far less so. Therefore epistemological conservatism would seem to recommend proceeding slowly and not making any sweeping assumptions, with or without the verification of direct personal experience. Robert. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 1999 Report Share Posted August 7, 1999 Namaste Richard, > > We say that the final truth can't be had by reasoning, but only by > direct personal experience, which leaves no doubt. > I think Sankara said his system could be established by reason alone even if it wasn't supported by sruti which is universally considered the best if not only authority by Vedantins. I used to complain bitterly about this -- who says sruti is authoritative and why should I take anyone's word for anything at all? The problem is becoming obligated to "reinvent the wheel" without having 3 or 4 thousand years to do so. I now accept the role of sruti because I think it's like the "open software" development model of the spirit -- like Linux as opposed to Microsoft. Everyone accepts some kind of scriptural "UNIX" like the Upanishads, Brahma Sutras, Bhagavad Gita in order to save time and make gradual improvements in the light of collective experience and the ongoing refinement of wisdom (or the refinement of its expression or teaching methods at any rate). I don't know if this is a "kosher" view of sruti but it's the one I accept. Besides, it's possible for the independent scholar/meditator to pass right through a profound insight but fail to benefit from it fully because of their own subsequent doubts. For this reason alone (although there are other better reasons) I think a true guru is inevitably necessary for the recognition of truth. Alternatively one can just doubt everything to death but ... " The man who is ignorant, and does not have faith, who is of a doubting nature, is destroyed. Neither this world nor that beyond, nor happiness, is for him who doubts. " - (Bhagavad Gita 4:40) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 1999 Report Share Posted August 7, 1999 Namaste Allan: I am just curious, where did you hear the statement "Sanakara said his system could be established by reason alone even if it wasn't supported by sruti." The authors of Advaita, Visistadwaita and Dwaita (respectively Sankara, Ramanuja and Madwa) have established their system of philosophy without contradicting the 'sruti.' Each of them gave alternate interpretations to Upanishads, Brahmasutra and Bhavad Gita and developed their philosophical system. One of the fundamental rules in Hindu system of philosophy is they have to accept 'sruti' as the TRUTH and there can be no contradictions to the fact stated in the sruti. This is one of the reasons that Jainism and Buddhism were not accepted since they questioned certain Vedic practices. Historically, Sankara's is Advaita philosophy was the first Vedanta philosophy (in a coherent form). Ramanuja and Madhwa came at a later time period. By the way, the later points that you have expressed are quite valid and Sankara's Vivekachudamani discusses the qualifications for seekers (students) and Guru (teachers). You and Robert have brought up several valid points that can help us focus in the right direction. Regards, Ram Chandran a c wrote: > a c <ac > > Namaste Richard, > > > > We say that the final truth can't be had by reasoning, but only by > > direct personal experience, which leaves no doubt. > > > > I think Sankara said his system could be established by reason alone even > if it wasn't supported by sruti which is universally considered the best if > not only authority by Vedantins. I used to complain bitterly about this > -- who says sruti is authoritative and why should I take anyone's word for > anything at all? The problem is becoming obligated to "reinvent the wheel" > without having 3 or 4 thousand years to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 1999 Report Share Posted August 7, 1999 a c <ac advaitin <advaitin > Saturday, August 07, 1999 8:32 PM Re: Plausibility versus Truth >I think Sankara said his system could be established by reason alone even >if it wasn't supported by sruti which is universally considered the best if >not only authority by Vedantins. I used to complain bitterly about this That is definitely news to me. I thought Shankara's view was more that discrimination and reason were only preparatory. By the 'neti, neti' process of elimination we discern the non-Self, but the Self goes beyond all reasoning and concepts, and so can neither be described nor 'proven' logically. If I'm wrong in this impression, then I hope to be corrected. >-- who says sruti is authoritative and why should I take anyone's word for >anything at all? The problem is becoming obligated to "reinvent the wheel" >without having 3 or 4 thousand years to do so. I now accept the role of I don't reject Shruti by any means, but I also can't see my way clear to accepting its sweeping conclusions on the basis of authority alone, since both reasoning and personal experience also have vital roles to play. In the Crest Jewel of Discrimination, Shankara says something to the effect that merely reading words in scripture is empty without the full personal transformation and insight. I can dig out the reference if necessary, but I don't have the book with me at present. >sruti because I think it's like the "open software" development model of >the spirit -- like Linux as opposed to Microsoft. Everyone accepts some >kind of scriptural "UNIX" like the Upanishads, Brahma Sutras, Bhagavad Gita >in order to save time and make gradual improvements in the light of >collective experience and the ongoing refinement of wisdom (or the >refinement of its expression or teaching methods at any rate). I don't >know if this is a "kosher" view of sruti but it's the one I accept. I also accept them as precious, profound insights, unique in the history of mankind. But I will never justify any belief simply on the basis of the authority of any scripture. In other words, I take the middle path; I certainly don't want to discard scriptures, which would be madness, but I also think that scripture is a guide and a pointer, not a shortcut that relieves me of the responsibility for my own picture of myself and the world. I'm getting the uncomfortable feeling that my experience in Advaita-L is about to repeat itself, with questions and doubts being turned aside on the basis of the authority scripture. >Besides, it's possible for the independent scholar/meditator to pass right >through a profound insight but fail to benefit from it fully because of >their own subsequent doubts. For this reason alone (although there are >other better reasons) I think a true guru is inevitably necessary for the >recognition of truth. And how does the guru help one to avoid these doubts? My respect goes out to the guru who says, "Don't take anything that I'm telling you just on faith, but wait until you experience the truth for yourself." Swami Vivekananda often made similar statements in his essays and addresses. >Alternatively one can just doubt everything to death but ... " The man who >is ignorant, and does not have faith, who is of a doubting nature, is >destroyed. Neither this world nor that beyond, nor happiness, is for him >who doubts. " Well, I do have doubts, and I am most definitely of a doubting nature. To me it's the mark of true sincerity. I just don't want something that is respectable and defensible, I actually want to know the truth, as it really is - at least insofar as that is possible. Finding the truth requires patience and caution, which inevitably involve judicious doubt. To stifle reasonable doubt on the basis of orthodoxy is, in my most humble opinion, an evasion of personal responsibility. Robert. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 1999 Report Share Posted August 8, 1999 Dear Robert I think we are back to square one I suppose regarding the question of arriving at truth independently. And my personal opinion one has to definitely need the guidance of a Guru. A guru who can able to turn your mind to yourself. Enable you to Go deep withing yourself and find the truth. A few example is with case of Sri RamaKrishna Parahamsa when he was with deep emotional experience of seeing God,Totapuri arrived at the seen and helped him to see God in the sense guided him properly according to the Vedanta as Totapuri was a pure monist. And it goes without saying that Sri Ramakrishna was able to realize this highest truth(Turiya state) within 3days what it took 10years for Totapuri. And in the same way when Vivekananda was too sceptical about this whole process of God Realization,Sri RamaKrishna gave him 'Sapriksha Diksha' ie, just by touching Vivekananda ,he had has this unique feeling of Advaita Anubhava where He felt God everywhere this experience lasted for 3 months. Anyway my point here is since you are really sincere in seeking the truth,one point of time you have to temporarily leave some doubts as it is and get hold of proper Guru follow the instruction and practise and depending on you sincerity and practise God will defientely bless you with His Vision and there will be no question to be aksed to be answered as there is no one to question or to answer as everything is nothing but one own Self. This I tell you with full conviction as I was also once gone through this very same thing in my life only at early age and also had this unique oppurtunity of meeting some Great Saints.. Because you trying to find about something which goes beyond analysing and reasoning after some point; So surrender yourself to the truth,approach it with a fresh clean mind. As even preconceived ideas can also be a hindarance.. bestwishes Ganesh Deivsikhamani Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 1999 Report Share Posted August 8, 1999 At 10:23 PM 8/7/99 -0500, you wrote: >"Parisi & Watson" <niche > > [a.c.]-- >>I think Sankara said his system could be established by reason alone even >>if it wasn't supported by sruti which is universally considered the best if >>not only authority by Vedantins. > >That is definitely news to me. I thought Shankara's view was more that >discrimination and reason were only preparatory. By the 'neti, neti' process >of elimination we discern the non-Self, but the Self goes beyond all >reasoning and concepts, and so can neither be described nor 'proven' >logically. If I'm wrong in this impression, then I hope to be corrected. > No, no ... the strange reference I can't find is very much a side issue. I think the statement I can't find was merely indicating there is nothing inconsistent about the advaita system -- it hangs together in a rational way although the realization of the truth it points to is certainly outside intellectual fumbling -- as you point out. > >I don't reject Shruti by any means, but I also can't see my way clear to >accepting its sweeping conclusions on the basis of authority alone, since >both reasoning and personal experience also have vital roles to play. In the >Crest Jewel of Discrimination, Shankara says something to the effect that >merely reading words in scripture is empty without the full personal >transformation and insight. I can dig out the reference if necessary, but I >don't have the book with me at present. > oh yes. you're right again -- personal transformation is better than mere book learning by all means. I must have misinterpreted your perspective and assumed you were more locked into the trap of intellectualism than you are. Ramana says simple uneducated people just do japa and succeed and really wise people just directly cognize but it's the bookworms ( like me :-)) who have all the trouble!!! He said "oh well, they'll also get along"... :-)) >I also accept them [sruti] as precious, profound insights, unique >in the history of mankind. But I will never justify any belief simply >on the basis of the authority of any scripture. > Oh yes. I think it's good to use reason and whatever you've got in order to sift everything out to find the gold. I guess I was just imagining the case where people are sifting everything out and inadvertently "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" ! If that's not you, just ignore me!!! :-)) I do however think we have to at least believe there *is* gold here somewhere or we are unlikely to find it. If you don't have a certain faith in its existence it will be hard to continue looking. But maybe you have this certainty or you wouldn't be here talking about it? > > I'm getting the uncomfortable feeling that my experience in Advaita-L >is about to repeat itself, with questions and doubts being turned aside on >the basis of the authority scripture. > No no... feel free to doubt away, just don't give up believing there is something real and ultimately valuable to realize ! That's all I suggest. > >And how does the guru help one to avoid these doubts? > The mere presence of an enlightened being can dispel doubts. It's possible to be literally transformed in body, spirit and mind just by a single glance or touch. It can be much more powerful than psychoactive drugs, for instance (but of course in a totally positive and demonstrably REAL way). > >Well, I do have doubts, and I am most definitely of a doubting nature. To me >it's the mark of true sincerity. I just don't want something that is >respectable and defensible, I actually want to know the truth, as it really >is - at least insofar as that is possible. Finding the truth requires >patience and caution, which inevitably involve judicious doubt. To stifle >reasonable doubt on the basis of orthodoxy is, in my most humble opinion, an >evasion of personal responsibility. > One may or may not know which doubts are judicious -- this is a problem. Orthodoxy, as you call it, may help stem the flooding waste of energy issuing from endless and self-defeating doubt (the kind Krshna said leads to destruction). Good luck to you in your search -- -A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 1999 Report Share Posted August 8, 1999 a c <ac advaitin <advaitin > Sunday, August 08, 1999 4:45 PM Re: Plausibility versus Truth <snip> >oh yes. you're right again -- personal transformation is better than mere >book learning by all means. I must have misinterpreted your perspective >and assumed you were more locked into the trap of intellectualism than you >are. Ramana says simple uneducated people just do japa and succeed and >really wise people just directly cognize but it's the bookworms ( like me >:-)) who have all the trouble!!! He said "oh well, they'll also get >along"... :-)) Like me too. There's a certain academic tendency to 'live in the head' that can be both an asset at times and a curse. >:-)) I do however think we have to at least believe there *is* gold here >somewhere or we are unlikely to find it. If you don't have a certain faith >in its existence it will be hard to continue looking. But maybe you have >this certainty or you wouldn't be here talking about it? I think what I have is in between. It's a tantalyzing intuition that the gold may very well be there, but a simultaneous inability shake off doubts and embrace it fully. In other words, it's being able neither to dismiss nor accept, sort of like an animal caught in a trap. :-) <snip> >The mere presence of an enlightened being can dispel doubts. It's possible >to be literally transformed in body, spirit and mind just by a single >glance or touch. It can be much more powerful than psychoactive drugs, for >instance (but of course in a totally positive and demonstrably REAL way). You may be right, but I have never been so blessed as to be in the presence of such a person or, if I have have been, I was too dense to recognize his/her nature. As I'm sure you know, genuine gurus are not to be found on every street corner. >One may or may not know which doubts are judicious -- this is a problem. >Orthodoxy, as you call it, may help stem the flooding waste of energy >issuing from endless and self-defeating doubt (the kind Krshna said leads >to destruction). I can and do accept the orthodoxy of Advaita Vedanta as a tremendous treasure that has been handed down to us, and I have no doubt that it is by far the most profound and fully carried out philosophy of its kind in the history of mankind. But somehow for me profundity, intellectual brilliance, internal consistency, and plausibility are not enough in and of themselves, since other philosophies share these qualities to varying extents. It makes sense, it's compelling and perennially revolutionary, and it could very well be true, but... But what? But it has to be more than, say, St. Thomas Aquinas' five proofs of the existence of the theistic God. We can be convinced by them or not, but they remain mere reasoning, which is infamously unreliable in the absence of other verification. So personal experience is necessary, but as I said before, we have to be careful even in the face of direct experience not to jump too hastily to conclusions. If, as the rishis have said, the experience of realization is as powerful as waking from a dream (to quote the current thread) and seeing that your reality is totally different than you believed while asleep, then such an experience must remain inconceivable and potentially unconvincing to those of us who are still twitching and writhing in our dreams with our eyes tightly closed. Robert. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 1999 Report Share Posted August 8, 1999 At 05:28 PM 8/8/99 -0500, you wrote: >"Parisi & Watson" <niche > >I think what I have is in between. It's a tantalyzing intuition that the >gold may very well be there, but a simultaneous inability shake off doubts >and embrace it fully. In other words, it's being able neither to dismiss nor >accept, sort of like an animal caught in a trap. :-) > Go with the tantalyzing intuition! :-)) > >I can and do accept the orthodoxy of Advaita Vedanta as a tremendous >treasure that has been handed down to us, and I have no doubt that it is by >far the most profound and fully carried out philosophy of its kind in the >history of mankind. But somehow for me profundity, intellectual brilliance, >internal consistency, and plausibility are not enough in and of themselves, >since other philosophies share these qualities to varying extents. It makes >sense, it's compelling and perennially revolutionary, and it could very well >be true, but... But what? But it has to be more than, say, St. Thomas >Aquinas' five proofs of the existence of the theistic God. We can be >convinced by them or not, but they remain mere reasoning, which is >infamously unreliable in the absence of other verification. So personal >experience is necessary, but as I said before, we have to be careful even in >the face of direct experience not to jump too hastily to conclusions. If, as >the rishis have said, the experience of realization is as powerful as waking >from a dream (to quote the current thread) and seeing that your reality is >totally different than you believed while asleep, then such an experience >must remain inconceivable and potentially unconvincing to those of us who >are still twitching and writhing in our dreams with our eyes tightly closed. > I read a non-Advaitin say the heart (not the intellect) is what we *know* the truth with. I am convinced of the truth but not necessarily of Advaita's description of it. I wouldn't say it their way, but I can see how it could be said that way and with great effect -- so I agree with your feeling the systems don't matter compared to the truth itself. You seem to admire the truth for its own sake. I'd say any sincere admiration or interest in the truth can easily grow into love and real love for the truth can draw us to itself through that very love. Even the author of Advaita-Siddhi (considered the greatest post-Sankara Advaita thinker) apparently considered the bhakti path superior to the jhana path because it leads to the goal more quickly. But we don't love with our intellect and we can't *think* the truth in its completeness -- so there's not much useful work the mind can do apart from realizing its own limitation. Was it Meister Eckhart who said " man's extremities are God's opportunities " ? If we think very clearly, we will find ourselves on that brink!!! I want to say "hallelujah!" and start crying for joy but you might lose respect for me... :-)) -A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 1999 Report Share Posted August 8, 1999 Namaste: You seem to imply that according to Advaita, we know the truth through the intellect. Sankara talks about paravidya (superior knowledge) and aparavidya (inferior knowledge). According to Sankara, (also the Upanishdads) that we can learn the aparavidya (which includes even Vedas) through the intellect. To learn Paravidya (knowing Brahman), we have to go beyond the intellect. Paravidya, knowing Brahman and TRUTH are synonymous. There are potential problems in describing any model and somebody may not be able to understand it. This is a limitation with any model which defines sets of assumptions, interrelationships and expects certain basic knowledge from the student. Advaita is no exception to this problem. Regards, Ram a c wrote: > I read a non-Advaitin say the heart (not the intellect) is what we *know* > the truth with. I am convinced of the truth but not necessarily of > Advaita's description of it. I wouldn't say it their way, but I can see > how it could be said that way and with great effect -- so I agree with > your feeling the systems don't matter compared to the truth itself. ..... > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 1999 Report Share Posted August 8, 1999 Namaste, > >You seem to imply that according to Advaita, >we know the truth through the intellect. > If I seemed to imply this I didn't intend to. I distinguished the fellow talking about the heart as a "non-advaitin" just because he was and I didn't want to attribute something to advaita it might choose to say some other way. That's all. -A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 1999 Report Share Posted August 8, 1999 Parisi & Watson wrote: > > [...] > > So reasoning alone can't establish the final truth, and even > direct personal experience is no infallible source of an accurate > understanding either; the final truth is plausible, but its truth > remains shrouded in doubt. > > [...] > > ...Therefore epistemological conservatism would seem to recommend > proceeding slowly and not making any sweeping assumptions, > with or without the verification of direct personal experience. > there can really be no "accurate understanding." moreover, there is technically no "personal experience" either. these ideas are rooted in the relative world of comparative relationing-- products of the 'self vs not-self' modality of perception. they have nothing to do with the Original Condition, which is [also] here-now. and this points the way: the *immediacy* of NOW. not the *thought* of NOW...for that is the past. (this indicates the significance of transcending thought.) therefore, the *immediacy* of NOW is realized when thoughts are either in the unique interlude of not manifesting (nirvikalpa samadhi) or are permanently not-dictating some *isolated* reality, whether thoughts are manifesting or not (sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi). Ramji's post on philosophical discussion zero's in on the problem of diminishing returns to the intensity of intellectual speculation, as per the need to get an analytical grasp of brahman. in fact, the pursuit of the relative mind's desire to behold the Absolute is a blatant and even humorous contradiction in terms. isn't it? can the cup contain the ocean? oh yes it *can*! it contains an ocean...of atoms! ....which illustrates precisely why the mind has to be taken with an eternal grain of salt. peace in om 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.