advaitin] Are scriptures the only road to self-realization?

[Guest guest]

Hari Om!

 

The enlightening discussions between Sadanandaji and Atmanandaji are

posted here below to the benefit of the members who wants more

clarifications. The topic is quite complex and I suggest that members

can direct their questions to Sadanandaji if you need additional

explanations.

 

I really appreciate the way that Sadanandaji states his doubts to

Swamiji - demonstrates his scholarship with humility and his respect

for Swamiji. Swamiji's reply clearly indicates how much he appreciates

Sadanandaji's sincerity and earnestness.

 

I want to restate the words of Swamiji to the benefit of all list

members:

 

"Your letter is like an ideal which I would wish all list members to

emulate. Let none of us agree to anything without proper understanding,

yet the disagreement should be with due personal respects and in the

spirit of learning. There may be many things which I may learn from

others and many which others may perhaps learn from us, but nothing

should be without proper understanding. May that alone be the purpose of

this forum."

 

Let us take the advice of Swamiji and understand that learning is never

a one way process but indeed a two-way process!

 

Ram Chandran

 

===============================

 

"Kuntimaddi Sadananda" <k_sadananda writes:

 

I may be jumping in the middle of discussions. 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. Perhaps Ram can provide referece to that for those who

would

like review the discussion related to Shruthi pamaNaat.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

========================================

This posting is from vmission moderated by Swami

Atmanandaji, who is the founder of the Vedanta Mission. Shri

Sadanandaji has asked Swamiji the question regarding the relevance of

Shastras to the knowledge of Self.

===========================================

17 Oct 98 18:39:36 MDT

Swami Atmananda <atmananda (AT) xxx (DOT) xxxx

Gyana Ganga

 

Dear Sadananda, Hari om ! Hari om !

 

It was a great joy to have received your reaction to the 'Sureshwara's

intro to his Naishkarmya Siddhi'. Far from being out of bounds you have

presented here not only the right spirit but also the right direction of

discussions to be carried out on such lists. Your letter is like an

ideal which I would wish all list members to emulate. Let none of us

agree to anything without proper understanding, yet the disagreement

should be with due personal respects and in the spirit of learning.

There may be many things which I may learn from others and many which

others may perhaps learn from us, but nothing should be without proper

understanding. May that alone be the purpose of this forum.

 

It is a fact that 'aapta vakyas' are the only pramana for the knowledge

of Self. The reason of using the word 'only' is not merely because the

shastra is justifying itself but because no other pramana has any reach

to that which is the very light behind all senses. Except sabda pramana

all other pramanas require the help of some perceptual basis to directly

or indirectly reveal their respective objects and thus are not the right

means to know the Self. All logic too require the help of some

perceptual evidence to finally prove their point, otherwise logic itself

becomes baseless & thus illogical. Regarding your point that we can as

well come to the same conclusions logically. Well, I humbly differ. One,

your statement is indeed like the one of a person who is saying that the

boat is redundant after crossing the river. And two, if merely by some

logic you can so easily come to the above conclusions then don’t you

wonder why is it that thousands of so very intelligent people in the

world are not coming to such conclusions. Once the facts have been

revealed they do become very obvious but till then you can rarely even

imagine the possibility.

 

I presume many of your questions will be taken care of if we go

slightly deeper into what pramana is all about. A pramana is that

independent means which when aligned with the pramata and the prameya

brings about prama-the knowledge. The 'prama' thus brought about has to

be anadhigatam (not known earlier), asandigdham (free from all doubts)

and abadhitam (non-negatable by any other pramana). All pramanas are

means and therefore there is no problem if they come under the category

of apara vidya. What is important is that they bring about the prama,

which in the case of self is that gyana-vritti which having brought

about the awareness of self drops and it all culminates in bringing

about awakening of that which is eternal, the para vidya.

 

The word 'anadhigatam' implies that the pramana is not even meant to

know that which is already known. The self which is always existing and

revealing doesn’t require any pramana. You have rightly said that even

the knowledge of pramanas come later. The ignorance is only regarding

our Brahma-swaroopata, and therefore the sabda pramana is only meant for

that. 'Asandigdham' implies that the knowledge thus brought about is so

very clear & direct that there are no more any doubts about it. Finally

'abadhitam' implies that the knowledge thus brought about doesn’t

require any validation by any other pramanas. It brings about direct

knowledge, the very realization. Understanding brought about with the

help of logic certainly is merely a possibility but not the knowledge

brought about by using the appropriate pramana properly. So there is no

question of any dependence on logic or experience thereafter. Logic if

used is only to eliminate our previous erroneous presumptions. Sravana,

manana and niddidhyasana together contribute to complete the process of

realisation handling all the three aspects respectively. Real knowledge

however dawns in sravana itself.

 

Just as science, because of the hard work of thousands of scientists,

has attained the status of a definite & tested compendium of knowledge

regarding the objective world, which can be verified & validated by

anyone at any time & place, so also the vedanta shastra from time

immemorial has gained the status of a compendium of truths regarding the

subjective tenets, which are similarly available for verification and

validation by anyone & at any time with the help of logic & our

experience. The aapta vakyas are basically words of men of knowledge and

they could have been anywhere, but it is our privilege that the Vedic

Rishis did that hard work. They are so perfect and infallible that

traditionally we believe that they are the words of the Lord himself.

You can very well come to the same conclusions which our scientists have

come to all by yourself, but as of now the right way is to study their

propositions and validate it with your own understanding and

experiences. Similarly, in the subjective field also you may stumble

upon the conclusions which Vedanta has been talking about, but that

amounts to starting with the discovery of wheel all by yourself once

again, and at the end of the day the fact will again have to be revealed

by someone, which may as well be your very intuition. So if we don’t

want others to go around beating about the bush then it should be

clearly stated that Vedanta shastra are the 'only' pramana for the

knowledge of self.

 

Bhagwan Sankaracharya, our other great acharyas right till our present

day teachers could have very well kept aside the shastras and talked

about their own experiences and could have given some great logic too,

but they deliberately made vedanta shastras as the basis of their

teachings. Some people could have been benefited but then we wont be

having such sruti & scriptures, which are available for validation by

yukti and anubhuti at any time and place by anyone. This alone is the

most unique feature and even the hallmark of our tradition & sanatan

dharma. If we already have such a heritage & tradition then why waste

time & energy on any thing else. Rather, giving due credit to those who

have already started this Gyana Ganga we just have to take a plunge in

it, using logic only as a scrubber wherever we deem fit. The anubhuti is

like the final prasad coming to us unasked after the lovely bath in this

Gyana Ganga.

 

Yes, I do wish to take up Naishkarmya Siddhi in this forum, but I have

not kept any time limit. We will go into it slowly, making the text

instrumental to initiate various such discussions and interactions.

 

With love & om,

 

Swami Atmananda

 

=======================

Fri, 16 Oct 1998 10:01:37 -0400

sadananda <sada (AT) xxxxx (DOT) xxx.xxxx.xxx>

Re: Intro of Naishkarmya Siddhi by Sureshvaracharya

>"Swami Atmananda" <atma (AT) xxxx (DOT) xxxx.xxx.xx>

>I send herewith the english translation of the beautiful introduction

of the

>famous Vedantic book called 'Naishkarmya Siddhi' written by Sri

>Sureshwaracharya. The introduction is also written by this famous

desciple

>of Adi Sankara himself. The beauty of the intro is the step by step

>reasoning as to why a person should take up the study of Vedanta and

>therefore the self-enquiry. Ultimately the aim of the masters is to

help

>eliminate all pain and sufferings of mankind. He says :-

 

Pujya Swamiji - My pranaams.

 

I look farward to Swamiji's detailed discussion of the "Naishkarmya

Siddhi'

- on the internet.

> As this

>Self, the object of ignorance, does not fall within the range of

ordinary

>modes of knowledge like sensorary-perception etc. perfect knowledge

should

>be acquired only through the authority of words of Vedantic

scriptures.

 

I enjoyed reading the introduction. Please forgive me if I am out of

bounds in presenting my understanding (or misunderstanding!) here.

 

I do have some concerns in relation to the word 'Only' - that

implicates

as Vedantic scriptures as the only pramaaNa.This statement is also

reflected in the many of the bhaasyaas on the B.S. - "shaastra

yonitvaat" -

in a way shaastra justifying shaastra.

 

Here is my understanding:

 

That I exist and that I am conscious - I do not really need shaastras

to

teach me. Shaastraas are validated because I exist and am conscious

entity. Thus Sat and Chit, I am. Now by analyzing my experiences

logically, I can arrive at the truth that Ananda that I am seeking is

also

me. Happiness is not an object outside or happiness is not in any

object

outside, hence the happiness that I get by acquiring my desired object

is

due to my mind freed (at least temporarily) from the desire -or freed

from

longing-ness - this much I can deduce logically too. Since as

Bhagavaan

Shankara points out that what I am looking for - that ananda - I am

that.

I can also deduce logically that ananda is state free from any

limitations

since any limitations will leave my mind wanting. Realization that I

am

ananda free from any limitations is the knowledge.

 

Thus I am sat, chit and ananda - could (in principle) be arrived at by

 

logical analysis. In spite of my logical understanding, I may still go

 

after objects since that understanding is not as an understanding as a

fact

but only as a thought. The same thing can happen in Vedantic study -

aham

brahmaasmi can be understood from scriptures and from logic - but

realization is a different story.

 

My question pertains ' Are Vedanta Shaastra only pramaaNa' to know

that I

am sat, chit, and ananda and to know that sat chit ananda is one

without a

second. Am I falling into the trap, that since I studied Vedanta,

and now

I can say that I can deduce the conclusions or aphorisms of Vedanta,

logically, therefore I do not think that that is the only way to

arrive at

the answers? Since Vedanta Shaastra also comes under apara vidya, I

am

wondering the justification that that is the only pramaaNa. If I have

not

studied Vedanta Shaastra, it is also possible, I could not have

reached the

above conclusions logically! - But if I want to communicate to others,

 

should I need to use the Vedanta Shaastra to suppot what can be

arrived at

logically or use logic to support what one can learn from Vedanta

Shaastras. I do believe that Vedanta is perfectly logical and the

truth is

beyond logic and beyond Vedanta too since it concerns about para

vidya.

>I invite our readers to send their comments and reactions on the

above

>section written by Sureshwaracharya.

>

>With love & om,

>

>Swami Atmananda

 

Swamiji, I dared to present my reactions with the hope that I will not

be

misunderstood and any of my misunderstanding gets clarified.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda