Are the Vedas the only road to self-realization?

[Guest guest]

Dear friends,

 

I will hereafter leave the word 'Scripture' away as it seems to be creating lot

of confusion. What I mean by 'Scripture' and 'Scriptural Study' is really

'Vedanta Shravanam' - Study of Vedanta under the feet of a Guru. So I will

stick with the word 'Vedanta' hereafter.

 

Parvati says " My only difference of perspective with Jaishankar is that at the

literal level "scriptures" are not the eyes, "scriptures" are more like charts

showing the various wave lengths of the colors in the electromagnetic

spectrum. We do not necessarily "see" (experience) the Truth by reading the

"scripture" we experience it by the revelation of the Truth within us, which

may be prompted by the words that we read. The eye in this analogy symbolizes

the Atman. It is the vehicle by which we "see" Truth. Here is where it is

necessary to define "scripture" ....

 

 

.... The scriptures are a great gift, like a road map they can direct us

to this Knowledge and if deeply meditated upon, they can reveal themselves as

verily the Supreme Self. "

 

I would like to say that Parvati is really differing with Gaudapada, Shankara,

PadmaPada, Sureshvara, Kumarila Bhatta and all other traditional acharyas upto

my own Guru. They all have looked upon the Vedas and the Vedanta Vakyas as a

Pramanam i.e means of knowledge, which is even better than the Sense Organs.

Now what a great shame! The Vedas and the Vedantas have been reduced to a mere

road map. Kumarila Bhatta is supposed to have jumped from a Hill to prove to the

Buddhists that the Vedas are a Pramanam. Now we dont need buddhists to say that

the Vedas are not a pramanam. People who claim to be advaitins and supposedly

have great respect for our Vedas themselves say 'Veda is not a Pramanam' but a

mere Guide or a map. This kind of confusion is due to Asampradayavits being

considered as great Gurus (I dont want to name them)

in this century and the reliance upon English Translations (most of which are

wrong) of the Sanskrit originals by the Indians themselves.

The Vedas are called Shabda Pramanam or a means of knowledge in the form of

words. Now the Vedas dont work automatically like the eyes. Because they are in

the form of words, the words spoken by the Guru has to be understood by the

student in the same sense. For that to happen the Guru has to be very careful

with the words he uses and the methdology he uses to teach the truth. This is

where the tradition or Sampradaya is very important. Those who have

studied traditionally under a proper Guru not only know the Truth but they also

know how to communicate this truth. Thats why when the Mundakopanishad talks

about a Guru it says 'Shrotriyam BrahmaNistham' - One who has studied the Vedas

and so knows the Sampradaya and One who leads a life true to the Vision of the

Vedas. Shankara goes one step further and says 'Those who don't know the

Sampradaya should be shunned as though they are fools'.

The implications of reducing the Vedas to a mere road map has to be understood

first. If Vedas are mere roadmaps one has to do something after gaining

knowledge from them to gain Moksha. That means we are trying to gain the

limitless or Brahman by doing karma which is illogical. What is required to

gain Moksha is purely a 'Cognitive Change'. All the Sadhana is only to prepare

oneself so that one can understand clearly what the Vedas say through one's

Guru. What has to be understood is that we can never 'Become' the limitless or

Brahman or Atman. In fact the problem of the human being is a life of 'Becoming'

or Samsara. We are erroneously thinking that we are limited and the only

solution is to know that we are already the 'limitless'. This knowledge can be

gained only by studying Vedanta under a Guru. I am not being

Fanatic here. It is like saying to see colors you have to only use the eyes.

 

Art Gregory Says

" I'm wondering if the issue regarding the use of scripture to arrive at

truth is somewhat one sided in that scriptural study should be only part of

the process, there is also associating with wise old souls in a form of a

community, individual meditation and life experience... when properly

combined one would then arrive at self-realization. "

 

Associating with wise souls, individual meditation etc. are only to prepare

oneself to gain this knowledge. They are not the Sakshat Karanas or direct cause

of Self-Knowledge. The direct cause of Self Knowledge can only be the study of

Vedanta. This has to be clearly understood.

 

Associating with wise souls or Satsangha is given great importance in our

tradition because only from them we can know that other than Dharma (Punya for

better After-life),Artha (Securities) and kama (Pleasure) there is another

pursuit which is Moksha or freedom from all limitations/ problems. One has to

choose Moksha as the only pursuit in one's life first. Then one has to know that

Moksha can be attained only through Knowledge of one's true nature and so

seek Knowledge. And then Vedanta comes into the picture as a valid means of

knowledge for gaining self knowledge. Only when one is a Seeker of Moksha and

hence a seeker of self-knowledge vedanta works properly. Thats why anybody who

does a PHD on the Brahma sutras or Upanishads cannot be called a jnani or

Muktha Purusha. They did not study the Vedas for the sake of gaining Moksha and

they did'nt look upon the Vedas as a pramanam and so they wont gain Moksha. But

that does'nt mean that Veda is not a pramanam. For example when we are deeply

thinking about something we dont notice what is happening in front of us. That

does'nt mean that the eyes are not a pramanam. It only means we did not use it

properly as a Pramanam. Similarly just because scholars who studied the Vedas

without any Purushartha-Viveka (Discrimination born of analysing the different

pursuits in this world ) did'nt gain Moksha does'nt mean that Veda is not a

pramanam or that one need not study it to gain Moksha. In fact they gained

their desired end which might have been a PHD or a livelihood based on the

scholarship. What has to be understood is I am not against Scholarship. I am

infact very much for it. I think everyone should study sanskrit and have the

ability to read our acharyas' works in original sanskrit.

 

Sadananda says " I used to believe that

scirpture are not necessory to establish that Brahman alone is there and I

am that sat chit ananda. I had a very enlightening discussions with Swami

Atmananda in this list serve. Shree swamiji convinced me the need of the

scriptures. "

 

I am very glad that he has understood this important fact. I would like others

who share this traditional view to post atleast one statement of affirmation.

 

with love and prayers,

 

Jaishankar.

[Guest guest]

Hari Om:

 

I was on a long vacation to Florida and I returned back home today. I am sorry

that I couldn't respond to the postings on this topic quickly. This posting is

to inform Shri Jaishankar that I share the traditional view on the importance

and relevance of Scriptures in understanding - 'Brahma Vidya.' When I read the

messages of the fellow members of this list, I didn't see anyone expressed the

view that Shastras are unnecesary. Mathematics beautifully clarifies the

distinction between 'rules' and 'exceptions.' Mathematics correctly allows

exceptions for every rule and states carefully the reasons behind those

exceptions. Also, Mathematics never makes 'exceptions' as 'rules.' Several

members have rightly pointed out that the statement of Ramana Maharishi should

not be interpreted as "rules" and it should be interpreted as an exception.

 

Shri Jaishankar seems to convey that a Ramana Maharishi's message needs very

careful evaluation and interpretation. A careless interpretation can convey a

misleading message to the seeker that Shastras are not important for

'self-realization.' The fact that we read the message of Ramana confirms that

we agree that "established knowledge" can improve our self-awareness. Ramana

Maharishi represents the great tradition of ancient Rishis whose established

knowledge are imprinted in the Shastras!

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

jaishankar_n wrote:

> jaishankar_n

>

> Dear friends,

>

> I will hereafter leave the word 'Scripture' away as it seems to be creating

lot of confusion. What I mean by 'Scripture' and 'Scriptural Study' is really

'Vedanta Shravanam' - Study of Vedanta under the feet of a Guru. So I will

stick with the word 'Vedanta' hereafter.

>

>

>

> Sadananda says " I used to believe that

> scirpture are not necessory to establish that Brahman alone is there and I

> am that sat chit ananda. I had a very enlightening discussions with Swami

> Atmananda in this list serve. Shree swamiji convinced me the need of the

> scriptures. "

>

> I am very glad that he has understood this important fact. I would like others

who share this traditional view to post atleast one statement of affirmation.

>

> with love and prayers,

>

> Jaishankar.