Plausibility versus Truth

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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)

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

 

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.

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

 

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.

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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. .....

>

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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