The necessity for a revealed Scripture (Apourusheyam).

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends,

 

I am just continuing my discussion with Tim.

 

Jai: from your postings I am not clear what is the means that

you are suggesting to remove ignorance.

 

Tim: I think that the means are many. There are a million paths up the side

of the mountain, and all those paths converge in the same place at the top.

All the yogas, the traditional paths are valid. But there are also

undiscovered paths, paths that nobody has tread yet. "Truth is one, sages

call it by various names."

 

Jai: I think you have missed an important thing here. Suppose I say to see

colours you have to use only the eyes. Then you say 'no no. There are many

ways. You can use a Microscope, a binocular, a periscope etc.'. This is the

way our discussion is going. To know the reality, Veda is the only means of

knowledge. But to prepare yourself to receive this knowledge there are many

ways. To use your analogy There are a million paths up the side of the

mountain, and all those paths converge in the same place at the top.But to

see Bhagavan who is in the sanctun sanctorum there in a temple at the top of

the hill you have to go through only one door and there is a priest there

who is holding the Aarathi there, so that you can see him clearly.

 

The Vedic sentence "Truth is one, sages call it by various names." is used

indiscriminately by all now to say that Veda itself is not a means of

knowledge. The traditional interpretation is that In the Veda the Truth is

called by many names such as Brahman, Bhuma, Sat, Paramatman etc. So it does

not mean that there are many paths to know the truth.

 

_____

Jai : If you dont accept the Vedas as a valid means of knowledge then are

you suggesting any other means of knowledge?

 

Tim : I *do* accept the Vedas as a valid means of knowledge. But I don't

exclude other things as potential valid means of knowledge as well, and I

think that's where we differ. My outlook seems to be more inclusive than

yours. You exclude all but the Vedas. Yet at the same time, you say that

the Vedas are inclusive of everything else. This is an unusual standpoint,

but perhaps we are really saying the same thing, but our minds are looking

at it differently, I don't know (?)

 

 

Jai: If you really accept the Vedas as a valid means of knowledge then do

you understand the implication of that acceptance?. You are then actually

giving the Vedas the status like that you give to your eyes, ears etc. Here

one interesting point is, What is revealed by the eyes cannot be revealed by

the ears, Nose, tongue, etc. Similarly with each of the other valid means of

knowledge. That means a pramana reveals to me a unique field of knowledge.

That revealation can neither be proved nor disproved by any other means of

knowledge. You cant prove that 'a rose is red or yellow' with your ears,

nose, tongue etc. So it means that if the veda is to be a pramana, then

what the Veda reveals should be unique. Now if what it reveals is unique,

then where is the question of other potential means of knowledge revealing

the same thing. If the Veda is only restating what I can know through other

means then it is useless to me. It is only as good as any other book and so

I cant call it a valid means of knowledge.

 

When I say the Vedas are inclusive I am talking about fact that it validates

(not tolerates) all forms of prayers and worships. Also the vedas are the

only scriptures which finally sets you free from all sorts of

identifications ('You are not even a vaidika') and reveals that you are the

limitless. Does'nt the limitless include everything?

 

Now if you feel I am excluding scriptures like Bible etc., then I would say

if the reality is revealed as Advaita in the Bible etc. then I would call

Bible etc. also as a Veda. But the fact is only the one who has studied

vedanta is able to see isolated statements in other scriptures as revealing

the truth as Advaita. Those who think that it is their scripture dont see it

as revealing advaita. So I dont consider other scriptures as a vaild means

of knowledge with respect to self-knowledge.

 

__________________

 

Jai : I just want to point out one thing here. If I remember correctly you

had said that you think that the words of

Vivekananda gave you clarity and you consider him your guru in absentia. Now

the words of Vivekananda wrt to the non-dual reality is nothing but the

words of the Veda. So If you have removed your ignorance using his words

then you have used the words of the Vedas for that purpose without

appreciating the fact that it is a valid means of knowledge.

 

Tim : Again, I am not denigrating the Vedas, please don't understand. I

only can't accept that exclusionist viewpoint that says "my way or the

highway." I can't accept that *only* the knowledge in the Vedas is true

knowledge.The Vedas were written by human beings. Is that the limit to

human experience, some scriptures that were written thousands of years ago?

Does that invalidate the experience of the moment, of the Now? Has human

knowledge ended with the Vedas, and now it is impossible for humanity to

learn anything more, to discover new paths? Could a new Veda be written in

the year 1999?

 

Jai: I have already explained why the knowledge in the Veda alone is true

wrt the Self because those who claim other books as scripture don't say that

the Self is advaita. Now if they really say that the self is advaita, then I

would accept that also as a veda. You have said that the Vedas were written

by human beings. Thats not the way we look at it. If the Vedas were written

by human beings then they cannot be called a valid means of knowledge

because then it will only be a restatement of the their knowledge gained

through perception or inference or it will just be their imagination. In

both cases (restatement or imagination) it cannot be a vaild means of

knowledge. That is why we say it is Apourushayam ( Not from any Purusha or

person's mind). It was revealed by Isvara who is the first Guru and who is

all-knowledge. In Isvara's all-knowledge, the knowledge revealed in the

Vedas are also included so Isvara does not need a Veda. I think those who

have some respect for the Vedas just because they were born in India should

understand this fact very well. The Vedas were not written by the Rishis. It

was revealed to them. The Sanskrit root 'Rsh' has the meaning of 'to see'.

Thats why we translate them as 'Seers'. If they just wrote it then we will

only call them 'Kavis'. So the Veda is revealed Scripture and it was not

written or thought out by the Rishis in their deep meditation etc. And we

need a revealed scripture to know the true nature of the Self.

__________

 

Jai : Finally, I think you have an insight and in your enthusiasism to share

your insight after many years of hardships you are making certain blanket

statements (Which may be true from your standpoint) which may do much harm

to people in general.

 

Tim : People are only the Absolute. How can Brahman be harmed, my friend?

 

Jai: I agree everything is the Absolute. So nothing can harm anybody. So why

dont you stop eating and drinking water. Why should you make so much effort

to swallow food and drink water. Just let the absolute be absolute. Is that

possible? If it is not possible then you have to be careful about what you

say and think about how it might affect others.

 

My friend you are confusing the Vyavahara and the Paramartha again.

I hope you will understand to differentiate the two properly in the course

of time.

 

I think the probable reply from you will be all differentiation is dvaita

and that you only see advaita. Anyway

 

Hari: Om,

 

Jaishankar.