Comments on BSB I-i-1-1F

[Guest guest]

The following is a paragraph from the latest notes: -

 

“The question can be raised as to why one should add Vedanta vichaara -

Vyasaachaarya suutra imply just vichaara - he did not specify Vedanta

vichaara. Why cannot I make 'self-inquiry' without worrying about Vedanta? -

How do you do if asked, they respond that the 'self-inquiry' - it is very

simple and is a straight path ' All I have to do is to close my eyes and ask

myself- who am I? and thus find out who I am. There are some who claim that

'who am I inquiry?' is different from Vedantic inquiry. And people claim

that 'who am I inquiry?' can be done sitting in a corner without having a

guru or study of Vedanta - it is a straight path or direct path. All I have

to do is dwell deep into my heart and ask the question - who am I, who am I

.... etc., and one day I will realize. Since we don't know who we are other

than what we know of ourselves as ' I am sa.nsaarii, I am limited, I am

duHkhii, I am ignorant, etc. etc. These are the only answers that will come

out in the 'who am I inquiry since we do not know any better of who we are.

Hence 'self-inquiry' does not mean one self doing the inquiry -it is the

inquiry of 'the self' with help of Guru and shaastra or Vedanta. Self

inquiry does not mean oneself inquiry or independent inquiry - it is

shhashhThii tatpurushha - it is the inquiry of the self with the help of

guru and shaashtra. Because Vedanta alone is the pramaaNam for brahman.

Hence brahma vichaara or aatma vichaara is through Vedanta vichaara.”

 

In so far as knowledge can ever be gained about brahman (and clearly it can’

t), it must be true that Vedanta is the principal pramaaNam. But surely, the

testimony of sages, especially living sages is also a valid source? Also, do

not most people accept that some modern sages have used the technique of

self-enquiry (successfully) without Vedanta? The ultimate, unquestionable

source of knowledge must be one’s own direct realisation of the truth,

howsoever this is arrived at. It seems unjustifiable (at this stage) to

claim that ‘Vedanta alone is the pramaaNam for brahman’ and I do not think

this has been proven. I will await with interest the notes on Topic 3 to see

whether these carry any more convincing evidence!

 

It does seem that the view of direct path methods is a bit hard. As I

understood it, the sort of answers quoted (‘I am sa.nsaarii, I am limited, I

am duHkhii, I am ignorant, etc. etc.’) would all be rejected as

unsatisfactory and untrue and the ‘search’ continued until exhausted with

the understanding that the searcher was also the sought.

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

K. Sadananda wrote:

>

> [bhagavan Ramana]..

> ...had studied the life history of many saivate sages and knew what

> vidvat sanyaasa means, which he took when he approached Lord

> Arunaachala Shiva

 

hariH OM! sadaji-

 

yes, he did study the history of the saivite sages...however,

the implication here is misleading. his knowledge of vedanta

was almost non-existent from a scholastic viewpoint. his study

and knowledge in spiritual philosophy was limited to the bible

and his reading of PERIAPURANAM (the history of 63 saivite saints).

this latter is really a poetic work and not at all practical.

 

whether he knew what the sanyas ritual actually meant, he had no

faith in performing it upon approaching sri arunachala. rather

it was divinely implemented!: from the 'happenstance' of a barber

who was observing his behavior and asked if he wanted his head

shaved, to the prescribed bath he had no intention of taking but

came anyway in the form of a downpour, to the throwing away of his

last rupees and belongings into the nearby tank as a result of his

own instinctive attitude..

 

(the above will serve to illustrate the point below.)

 

>....a proper teacher is one who directs his disciples

> not to him as the ultimate authority but to the scriptures.

>

> [...] ..

>

> The question that boils down to - how will I know that the intense

> blissful experience that I have is the final or not - For that

> scriptures is the only valid and independent pramaaNa -

 

the maharshi always stressed this approach:

although scriptures and/or the words of sages are [or can be vital]

pointers on the path there, the only final authority/pramana is the

paramatman [already] dwelling in the Heart.

 

the esoteric teachings in *all* the world religions--honing in on

the ways and means of defusing the singular obstacle on the way to

the Heart--proclaim universally that it's only the *philosophical*

Mind that needs to be effectively disabled [representing the master

magician faithfully distorting and mutilating the otherwise primal

essence of our natural state].

 

namaskaar,

frank

[Guest guest]

>Dennis wrote:

 

 

>

>In so far as knowledge can ever be gained about brahman (and clearly it can’

>t), it must be true that Vedanta is the principal pramaaNam. But surely, the

>testimony of sages, especially living sages is also a valid source? Also, do

>not most people accept that some modern sages have used the technique of

>self-enquiry (successfully) without Vedanta? The ultimate, unquestionable

>source of knowledge must be one’s own direct realisation of the truth,

>howsoever this is arrived at. It seems unjustifiable (at this stage) to

>claim that ‘Vedanta alone is the pramaaNam for brahman’ and I do not think

>this has been proven. I will await with interest the notes on Topic 3 to see

>whether these carry any more convincing evidence!

>

>It does seem that the view of direct path methods is a bit hard. As I

>understood it, the sort of answers quoted (‘I am sa.nsaarii, I am limited, I

>am duHkhii, I am ignorant, etc. etc.’) would all be rejected as

>unsatisfactory and untrue and the ‘search’ continued until exhausted with

>the understanding that the searcher was also the sought.

>

>Dennis

>

 

Dennis - what you say, in principle, is O.K.

 

At one stage in my life I used to argue that way too.

 

I began to realize one thing which is very important - for that I

have to thank Shree Vidya, Shree Anand and Swami Atmanandaji who

provided input for me to think more and realize the fallacy in my

arguments.

 

By inquiring oneself - who am I- one can arrive to a stage that I am

not this, not this.

By negating everything - I may reach a conclusion that I am none of

this but yet what I am - I would not know. This in fact might have

led to Nagarjuna's sunyavaada - I am nothing from I am no thing.

 

In the process I have to arrive at a stage - I am not nothing - but

something which is -existent and conscious - sat and chit. aspect.

Where do I get that knowledge from? -directly or indirectly from

Vedanta. Some may gain the knowledge from other scriptures that 'I

am flickering consciousness' or I am null or suunya etc - These

darshana-s are again pramaaNa-S for them.

 

More important aspect is not only I am sat and chit - I am ananda or

I am brahman or the totality - or the infinite consciousness -

The self in me is the self in all. How do I gain that knowledge. I

may have an experience of bliss - But that Bliss that I experience is

the the very fulfillment of life itself - That is knowledge - not

just experience - it is anubhava janya prama based on pramaaNa - for

that Vedanta is the only dependable source. - tat twam asi - ayam

aatma brahma - praj~naanam brahma - and ultimately aham brahmaasmi.

- A confirmation of the experience as the knowledge through pramaaNa.

 

I can go by hearsay - teachers words or some other Tom or Dick's

words - But that depends on how much faith I have on the words of the

particular teacher or sage in question. There is always a doubting

Thomas - what if he is wrong? How can I confirm? etc. But

ultimately the unquestionable source is the Veda pramaaNa for those

who are astika-s. It may be little circular argument - but that is

the only eternally reliable source we have that is independent of

temporal moods or fragmental knowledge of individuals whose

knowledge is always limited.

 

In that sense - a true teacher is also is the one who has confirmed

his inward experience as the ultimate truth through a proper pramaaNa

- otherwise he himself is not sure what that experience is

 

Extending further - a proper teacher is one who directs his disciples

not to him as the ultimate authority but to the scriptures.

If any teacher claims that he is the ultimate authority and not the

scriptures- one has to watch out - I think no authentic teacher would

do that.

 

There is a sloka in Kaivalya Upanishad (I think - I do not have the

reference here). The wording is such that it gives two meanings -

until one realizes the scriptures protect him or provide him the

guidance, and after he realizes they get protected by the realized

person as the source for the others. - hence Sankara defines shraddha

in VivekachuuDamani as - shaastrasya guru vaakyasya satya

budhyaavadhaaraNa - that the words of scriptures and (scriptures

through) the teachers are indeed true.

 

Even if you examine the life histroy of Bhagavaan Ramana, in the very

beginning stages itself he has realized that the state of nirvikalpa

that he is experienced intensely in the seat of meditation is the

state the sages and saints experienced during their intense tapas.

He had studied the life history of many saivate sages and knew what

vidvat sanyaasa means, which he took when he approached Lord

Arunaachala Shiva - In his case the experience was confirmed as the

ultimate through the knowledge of shaastra. People used to read

scriptures to him when he was observing silence in the caves of

Arunaachala hills. His texts - Upadesha saara, Sat Darshana,

Arunaachala Shiva - are essence of Vedanta packed in simple looking

slokas. In fact he was very fond of VivekacuuDaamani. Nisargadatta

maharaj was taught that - he is that - by this teacher who obviously

familiar with the scriptures. He had the full faith in his teacher

that he is telling the truth - the truth that is confirmed by the

scriptures. In his book "I am that" Nisargadatta maharaj talks about

the tradition that he comes from - a guru parampara.

 

The question that boils down to - how will I know that the intense

blissful experience that I have is the final or not - For that

scriptures is the only valid and independent pramaaNa - Hence

Vedanta as the valid means for vichaara.

 

Comments from others are welcome.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

Thank you Frank for the input.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

In the words of the Gita:

 

16:23

yaH shaastra-vidhim utsR^ijya vartate kaamakaarataH .

na sa siddhim avaapnoti na sukha.n na paraa.n gatim.h ..

16:24

tasmaat shaastraM pramaaNa.n te kaarya-akaarya-vyavasthitau .

j~naatvaa shaastra-vidhaana-ukta.n karma kartum iha arhasi ..

 

One who, neglecting the scriptural ordinance, acts under the impulse

of desire, attains not perfection, nor happiness, nor the Supreme

Goal.

Therefore, the scripture is thy authority in deciding as to what

ought to be done and what ought not to be done. Now, thou oughtest to

know and perform thy duty laid down in the scripture-law.

 

9:2

raja-vidyaa raaja-guhyaM pavitram idam uttamam.h .

pratyaksha-savagama.n dharmya.n susukha.n kartum avyayam.h ..

 

The Sovereign Science, the Sovereign Secret, the Supreme Purifier is

this; immediately comprehensible, unopposed to Dharma, very easy to

perform, imperishable.

 

4:40

aj~naH cha ashraddadhaanaH cha sa.nshaya-aatmaa vinashyati .

na aya.n lokaH asti na paraH na sukha.n sa.nshaya-aatmanaH ..

 

The ignorant, the faithless, and one of doubting self, is ruined.

There is neither this world, nor the other, nor happiness, for one of

doubting self.

 

[tr. Allady Mahadeva Shastry.

 

Regards,

 

s.

 

 

 

advaitin , "K. Sadananda" <sada@a...> wrote:

 

>

> The question that boils down to - how will I know that the intense

> blissful experience that I have is the final or not - For that

> scriptures is the only valid and independent pramaaNa - Hence

> Vedanta as the valid means for vichaara.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

--

> K. Sadananda

> Code 6323

> Naval Research Laboratory

> Washington D.C. 20375

> Voice (202)767-2117

> Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennis,

In order for the searcher to come to the understanding

(ie.,realization) that the searcher was also the

sought he has to take the cue for this intution from a

'shabda pramana'only as any other inquiry will be

rejected by him as unsatisfactory! This shabda pramana

has to come from a 'Brahmanishthi' who will be the

right Guru for his emancipation.

The above is from the perspective of a vedantin or an

Asthika,who believes in Vedanta.

 

The other alternative is for a one who is a Nastika

who does not believe in Vedanta.Such a person also

will come to the same cross roads in his inquiry and

may not come to the conclusion that the searacher

indeed was the sought but may have a totally different

explanation for his enlightenment and become a BUDHA

of some KIND.!

 

An advaitin will have no grouse against such a Budha.

 

Hari Om !

 

Swaminarayan

 

--- Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

>

>

> It does seem that the view of direct path methods is

> a bit hard. As I

> understood it, the sort of answers quoted (‘I am

> sa.nsaarii, I am limited, I

> am duHkhii, I am ignorant, etc. etc.’) would all be

> rejected as

> unsatisfactory and untrue and the ‘search’ continued

> until exhausted with

> the understanding that the searcher was also the

> sought.

>

> Dennis

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.

/