What is the point - Part 4

[Guest guest]

Dennis Waite wrote:

>

> [...] I know Wayne says many

> times that contradictions, even from one teacher, are natural. Nisargaddata

> says the same thing too. Why should I complain? I suppose it's the thing

> about pramaana. How can it be claimed so ardently that the sruti is (are?)

> incontrovertibly true, when a sage can (and does) say things which are

> contradictory?

 

contradiction in fact can be embraced as a

positive method to release ourselves from

the chains of logic and reason. for example,

the statement that maya is real yet unreal is

clearly a self-contained contradiction.

and one of my favorite contradictions is the

zen koan: "A equals A, therefore A is not

equal to A." why is such a contradiction

being so clearly stated?

 

the thing is, what it is we're striving for is

not a state of philosophy, but a state of Being.

and the advantage in the method of embracing

contradiction is to short-circuit the Mind's

obsessive attachment to reason and its desire

to formulate some systemic philosophy that can

readily answer its myriad questions. in fact,

there are really no end to the questions it

can conjur--one answered, invariably leads us

to another and another, ad infinitum. so the

whole pursuit in/of the Mind is an existential

detour and simultaneous dead-end.

>

> I think perhaps you reach the nub of the issue when you say that the

> problems are realities only within vyaavahaara and that when this is

> transcended all the concepts become equally meaningless. When the sage or

> the sruti talks about paths and freedom of will to choose paths and move

> towards enlightenment, or when a sage says something quite the opposite, all

> are talking about the unreality of vyaavahaara. You could say that, since

> the topic of discussion is unreal, then nothing that can be said is true so

> that contradiction is ok. Fine! But then it does make a bit of a nonsense to

> cite the sruti as an ultimate authority, doesn't it?

>

 

sruti isn't either beyond vyavahara or without

contradiction. upanishads speak throughout the

contradiction that there is a jiva that needs

to apply its will in the various yogas to earn

moksha on one hand and on the other say there

is no jiva in existence apart from the One-

without-a-Second [in brahman].

 

it depends on how we want to look at what's

being said in a given context [in *any* of

the sanctioned spiritual documents in *any*

tradition]. if we grew up and were indoctrinated

in one tradition--as i myself was trained in

roman catholicism and even attended a catholic

school, yet i learned incredibly valuable lessons

from this rigid orthodox approach, that preached

such immaculate exclusivity [where everyone else

in the world, *including* the protestant christians

were all going to hell], became such an obvious

blunder to me, that i was questioning it in 3rd

grade and the nuns had no answers to my observations

that is there were an All Merciful God, how could

He allow so many souls to *eternally* suffer in

hell because they were never given the opportunity

to hear the teachings of Jesus [let alone the

Roman Catholic interpretation!]....

 

therefore we have to soberly and onjectively

consider that there are myriad possible paths

and myriad possible teachers from any tradition

or no tradition at all that can deliver one to

one's source in the Self. it depends on one's

proclivities and developed intellect. no-one

has not only the right but neither the capacity

to judge which path or teacher is the correct

one for a given person. moreover, if the path

or teacher appears 'wrong' either from a specific

or general or even a universal *relative*

perspective, then that 'wrong' journey itself had

important lessons for the individual to learn.

 

this, in turn, raises further philosophical

questions. as we can see, they run in ever wider

and wider circles...ultimately taking us nowhere.

 

thus we are immersed in an unfathomable Mystery.

in the course of our traversing it, the revelation

dawns [via moksha--for this is the release from

the intellect's dire need to have everything in

Life clarified and categorized] that there's no

possibility in ever conquering it! moreover,

*we do not WANT to conquer it!* for the Mystery

is the essence of the wonder and beauty of Being.

 

namaste

[Guest guest]

Hi!

So much has been written under this title. Some are questioning or

enquiring and others are answering or responding. Is not the basic point

the following?

The Upanishads and Vedas can be taken as axioms which are

unquestionable. Then it is interpreting our questions and answers to

avoid contradictions with these axioms. This interpreting comes from our

variously developed minds, all of which are limited. However, if reading

any of these great scriptures triggers something within us spontaneously

that is the direction in which the truth is found for us. This

spontaneous something and its trigger are not analyzable with our minds

totally logically (although we can pretend to do that!). Is not this the

real point?

-- Vis

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends,

 

"Dennis Waite" <dwaite wrote

 

"I don't really want to open up another discussion of pramaaNa - I

expect someone can refer me to some earlier archive on this - but my

understanding is clearly deficient in this area. I was aware of the

authority of the vedas referred to by Sadananda but I thought that

agaama encompassed also the words of the sage. After all, despite all

cries of objection from the fundamentalists, it seems obvious that

words translated and commented on by all and sundry will lead to

ambiguity if not occasional misrepresentation.

The sage on the other hand is here now to answer questions and explain

further until the point is fully understood. I am bound to say that,

when it comes to the words of a realised sage or the words of one's

favourite translation of the Upanishads or Brahmasutra (which is

extremely difficult to understand anyway), I know which one I would go

for! (I do acknowledge the objection that the sage in question just

might not be enlightened.)

He can speak to this body-mind, aware of its precise needs and

limitations; the scriptures, set in stone, can never do this.

 

I accept the point about not taking the words of a sage out of context.

Although I did this in the post, the words did come from a complete

dialogue so I don't think I have misunderstood what he was saying.

Similar points are continually made in other discussions so that any

opportunity for misunderstanding gets much reduced when one has read

many. Surely, anyway the same argument must apply to the sruti? You

cannot use the argument in only the one case. I can certainly agree

that there is a danger of misunderstanding either the words (translated

from Marathi or whatever) of Nisargadatta or the words (translated from

Sanskrit) of ABC Upanishad. There is also a danger of misunderstanding

the words of a living sage speaking to one disrectly. The big

difference in the last case is that, by further discussion, he can

correct that misunderstanding."

 

Jai: The important thing which has been missed here is whether the sage

being discussed here is a sampradaayavit(The one who knows the

tradition and hence knows the methodology of teaching) or not. Because

even if a person has been accepted as a sage he/she may not be a proper

teacher if he/she does'nt know how to teach. That is the reason why

Shankara goes to the extent of saying "asampradayavit moorkhavat

apekshaneeyaha" - "The one who does'nt know the traditional methodology

of teaching should be shunned as though that person is a fool." But

nowadays most Gurus are self appointed and they have not studied under

any traditional Guru and so they make contradictory statements and

manage to confuse others also.

 

If somebody makes a statement which is clearly contradictory to what

the sruti says then we have to discard that person's teaching. Names

don't matter when we are enquiring into the truth of oneself. Vyasa and

Shankara dismiss the teachings of great acharyas like Kapila, Kanada,

Gautama, Patanjali etc. when they contradict the sruti, by showing the

fallacies in their thinking.

 

Also some people suggested that you study the books of certain Gurus by

yourself. I dont think it is a very good idea. In the tradition we

always say that one should not do the enquiry into the self by oneself,

even though one might be a great sanskrit pandita. This is because even

to understand a particular sentence of the Veda one needs to have the

complete vision of the vedas and know what is said before and after.

Otherwise it will look contradictory and confusing. Also the Vedas will

act as a Pramana only if it is handled by a Guru who knows the

tradition(sampradayavit). Otherwise they will become just another book

of speculations.

 

In Modern Vedanta the vedas are not given the status of a pramana and

the role of the traditional teacher is being questioned. This has

created confusion and most seekers are waiting for some special

atma-bliss-experience to dawn on them when every experience is nothing

but atma. Atma is the invariable in all experience and we dont need any

special experience. What we need is the proper understanding of the

nature of all experiences. That will be gained by listening to a

traditional teacher as a committed student.

 

with love and prayers,

 

Jaishankar

 

 

 

 

Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere!

/