Response to Shree Warsick

[Guest guest]

Dear Shree Warwick

 

Thanks for sharing your understanding ( or should I also include your

misunderstanding as well) of the apparent differences between Eastern

and Western approach to spiritual knowledge/experience and attitude

towards scriptures or scriptural authority.

 

You may and may not be aware of exhaustive discussions that went in

the Vedantic literature related to epistemological issues pertinent

to spiritual knowledge/experience in terms of pramaaNa-s or means of

knowledge. I have not known any Vedantic teacher of the past

discussed the ontological issues without first discussing the

epistemological concerns. It is not out of blind faith that they

have come to conclusion that Veda-s are valid means of knowledge or

pramaNa for spiritual knowledge - since of the three available means

(six under some classification) pratyaksha (perceptual) and anumaana

(logic) are not valid means of knowledge of the reality.

 

Practice is not an exclusive property of the West either and it is

emphasized for a Eastern seeker as well in terms of 'sadhana' but

that leads only to Experience. It is recognized very early that

'experience' itself does not necessarily constitute knowledge. On

the other hand knowledge that is emphasized is not 'information

knowledge' which is just j~naana but knowledge confirmed by

experience - anubhava and j~naana which together is what is called

vij~naana. It is not understanding as a 'thought' but understanding

as a 'fact'. This requires not only an experience that you also

emphasize but confirmation of that experience by a valid means of

knowledge - that is precisely where it is recognized that Veda-s

provide that PramaaNa that is required. Otherwise the experience

alone being subjective will not provide a norm based on which

knowledge can be confirmed. Why Veda-s provide a valid means of

pramaaNa - has been discussed many times in the past and I am sure

will be discussed again and again - that is a valid part of the

discussion.

 

My friend, 'straight talking' is not an exclusive property of

Western seekers-either as you seem to take shelter on - that is

exactly what one finds in Vedanta - centuries old. You mention of

'practice driven' teaching of the West versus 'scripture driven

teaching' of the East - a blanket generalization - but if one looks

deep into the epistemological aspects of the ontological issues as

Vedantins did in the past and doing now - one will come out with much

more knowledgeble generalizations than what you have come-up with.

As Shree Ken Knight and Harsha pointed out that it is experience

supported by valid means of knowledge that is what is emphasized in

Vedanta too.

 

I see that your generalization attitude of so called Eastern Pandits

and Scholars can be equally applied to many here - particularly when

you listen to many Sunday preachers and Self-styled Evangalists when

they profusely and sometimes blindly quote their scriptures. Mother

Teresa-s, Mahatma Gandhi-s, Ramana Maharshii-s and St Francis-s

are very rare and they are respected anywhere in the world not just

in the East or the West. Arrogance and stupidity is not an exclusive

property of the East - I find that abundently here too - Talk to any

so-called Southern-Red Necks - you will find them many anywhere - you

will soon learn the shortcomings of your generalizations. Even in

science dominated by the West, you may be surprised to find

resilience and dogmatic approaches as I am experiencing right now in

my field as I am questioning the age-old theories and so called

scriptural statements in the field of my subject.

 

So my friend I would be more careful in falling the trap of

generalizations. I suggest that we should discuss the issues on the

merit of the issues without unnecessary generalizations. The list

serve is aimed at discussion of Advaita Vedanta with the emphasis on

Shankara. We do agree with you that Sankara is not an exclusive

property of the East and a list serve operating in the west with

universal language - English- is a direct testimonial for that. And

Shankara that you also revere has eloberately discussed the valid

means of knowledge or pramaaNa for spiritual knowledge - that is the

basis of his Shankara Bhaashya which rests on Vedanta as the means of

knowledge.

 

We, the seekers who belong to both East and West want to preserve that.

 

We welcome you to continue your active participation and keep raising

questions that are pertinent but along with the right to raise the

questions comes an obligation to listen to the answers as well. That

I am sure you agree is much more difficult for both an Easterner as

well as Westerner.

 

I was requested to respond to your mail as chief-moderator. But I

personally do not see the need for me to put that hat - In

thermodynamics the equilibrium is defined in terms of its stability

against its perturbations - and that is a valid means of testing as

long as it is done with care and concern. You have raised some

important issues and many have addressed and are addressing from

their perspective. Let us learn from these discussions.

 

I do hope that list serve would enhance your capacity to generalize.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

(Incidentally the current Chief-Moderator)

 

 

 

 

>Dear list members,

>

>I guess the difference between us is to some degree cultural.

>In the West there is a practice, especially amongst sincere seekers,

>of "straight talking".

>If you say something about a spiritual teaching it is only so that

>it can be absorbed by the listener in a way that would immediately

>affect his view of things, his understanding and his well-being. In

>the East, I am beginning to think, there is a practice of affirming

>sacred doctrine for its own sake, whether the hearer really

>understands it or not, whether it would affect his well-being or

>not. And there is also a practice in spiritual circles of affirming

>"sacred doctrine" because it is the respectable thing to do, whether

>the one expounding it understands it or not. This is why I made the

>reference to Saint Teresa and St John of the Cross - they told what

>they had seen for themselves, and the Church authorities hated them

>for it.

>.............

>Anyway, I do not think that Shankara is the exclusive property of

>Indians any more than Jesus is the exclusive property of

>Christians, or Rumi is the exclusive property of Muslims."

>

>In truth

>Warwick

>

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623