Validity of Scriptures - Please help!

[Guest guest]

Namaste!

 

Dennis' Brahmasutra notes (www.advaita.org.uk/adhyasa.htm),

based on Sadananda's lectures, are a very clear and valuable resource

for all Advaitins. They should be required reading before we engage

in any of these debates. At least then we will have a common

reference and avoid unnecessary confusion.

 

Now those notes raised an issue that has really been

bothering me. I wish someone would please help to enlighten me. I

particularly hope to hear from Dr. Sadananda, as he is one of the

most distinguished scholars of the scriptures on our list, if not the

most distinguished.

 

The problem is this. Anyone who has read my previous posts

knows that I have a great affection for and interest in the

Upanishads, and I consider them a 'primeval' source of spiritual

wisdom. But I have also been inspired by Buddhism, particularly

Mahayana Buddhism. However, my attitude towards the Upanishads is

that they were the record of the experience of sages which can serve

as guidance for me but which I am not forced to accept. Something in

me rebels at the idea of scriptures forced down my throat. I

consider this one of the darker aspects of Christianity and Islam.

And of course, we always hear how tolerant the Hindus are and how we

should discover the truth for ourselves through experience,

meditation, etc.

 

So could one of the venerable scholars please clarify exactly

what it means to be Astika? Am I FORCED to accept these scriptures

if I want to call myself 'Advaitin'? Am I forced to reject

presumably Nastika scriptures such as those of Buddhism? Am I faced

with a harsh binary decision? Are my attempts to find the common

truth in all the enlightened and inspiring scriptures of the world

doomed? Why should I have blind faith in any scriptures?

 

Someone please answer this unambiguously and without 'pulling

any punches' as we say in America. I don't want to be brainwashed

into thinking that Hinduism is not brainwashing, when in fact it

might be. Of course, I say this to be intentionally provocative.

Hopefully, some reassuring but still credible words of wisdom will

relieve my anxiety!

 

Pranams

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Dear Benjamin,

 

 

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

 

 

< snip >

 

The problem is this. Anyone who has read my previous posts

knows that I have a great affection for and interest in the

Upanishads, and I consider them a 'primeval' source of spiritual

wisdom. But I have also been inspired by Buddhism, particularly

Mahayana Buddhism. However, my attitude towards the Upanishads is

that they were the record of the experience of sages which can serve

as guidance for me but which I am not forced to accept. Something in

me rebels at the idea of scriptures forced down my throat. I

consider this one of the darker aspects of Christianity and Islam.

And of course, we always hear how tolerant the Hindus are and how we

should discover the truth for ourselves through experience,

meditation, etc.

 

< snip >

 

 

 

 

 

KKT: As you said that the Upanishads were

the record of the << experience >> of sages,

therefore one can use them to << verify >>

or to << echo >> one's own experience.

 

I don't think one has to << accept >>

them as true without experiencing

the Truth they contain.

 

 

Regards,

 

 

KKT

[Guest guest]

--- Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote:

 

 

Why should I have blind faith in any scriptures?

>

> Someone please answer this unambiguously and without 'pulling

> any punches' as we say in America. I don't want to be brainwashed

> into thinking that Hinduism is not brainwashing, when in fact it

> might be. Of course, I say this to be intentionally provocative.

> Hopefully, some reassuring but still credible words of wisdom will

> relieve my anxiety!

>

> Pranams

> Benjamin

 

 

Benjamin - let me address the issue that you have raised from my

understanding.

 

To appreciate the role of scriptures, any scripture for that matter, one

needs to have a clear understanding of pramaaNa, or means of knowledge.

I have addressed this in Ch. II of the B.Suutra Notes. Any Vedantic

philosopher has to address this epistemological issue before he takes up

his analysis.

 

First on pramaaNa- prama means knowledge and pramaaNa is means of

knowledge. Once we establish that ignorance is the root cause of the

human problem, then it follows that ignorance can only be removed by

knowledge. Questions that immediately follow are what is knowledge and

how do we gain that knowledge.

 

Knowledge is defined as 'yathaatham pramaaNam' that which is truth- here

word pramaaNam is used not only for the means but also for the goal of

the means. As corollary to this definition, knowledge is qualified as

that which is abaadhitam -that, which is not negated, or that which not

contradicted. If I know an object as something and then that knowledge

is contradicted later implies that what I knew before is not the truth

about that object- is it not? Now we bring in another word - bhrama -

that which appears to be true but upon further inquiry is contracted -

like knowing first that the object is a snake but later came to know

that it is only a rope. Hence snake knowledge is bhrama and rope

knowledge is prama – but for every bhrama there has to be prama behind,

yet to be discovered.

 

Means of Knowledge: There are at least three accepted means of knowledge

for any object. (According to Advaita there are six means of knowledge)

The three are: pratyaksh (perception), anumaana (inference) and shabda

(words - here it means shaastra or science - scriptures come under this

category or shaastra - that is shruti based - that what you hear from a

teacher through the use of appropriate words to convey that knowledge.

Perceptual knowledge through senses - eyes to see form and color, ears

to hear - each one is specific in their field - eyes cannot hear and ear

cannot see etc. This brings another property of pramaaNa - each means is

very specific in its field and one cannot apply another means to gain

that knowledge. One perhaps can establish the form by sense of touch -

but one has to be careful about the conclusion otherwise it will be like

six blind men describing what an elephant is. anumaana or inference

comes next - that which cannot be established directly by pratyaksha can

be established by anumaana. Classical example is that there is fire on

that distant hill since I see smoke on that hill. One is not able to see

fire directly. If he can, then anumaana or logic is not necessary or it

is redundant. For inference to be valid, one needs to have a prior

knowledge of the concomitant relation between smoke and fire - where

ever there is smoke there must be fire - and this relation has been

established by pratyaksha pramaaNa - perceptual knowledge.

 

Now let us take an example of heaven or hell - One cannot establish the

existence of heaven or hell by perception or by inference. Only

pramaaNa is the word of the scriptures. I don’t need scriptures to tell

me that there is heaven and hell or life after death or life before

death if I can see directly that is by pratyaksha or logically infer

that is by anumaana. This also means that neither I can validate the

scriptures not invalidate them using pratyaksha or anumnaana, since the

subject of the inquiry does not fall in the realm of these pramaaNa-s.

But why should I accept the scriptures - I need not but that also means

that I have no means to invalidate them either. This is where a faith

comes into picture. Here we use the word aastika one who has faith in

the word of the scriptures and naastika one who has no faith in the

word of the scriptures. (aastika - also means that who has faith that

He (God) asti, exists and opposite is na asti - does not exist -

naastika). I donot know if you noticed I slowly switched the word from

belief to faith.

 

Faith vs. Belief: - I will provide one operative definition here - Faith

is that which is not illogical but not yet established as factual, hence

it is subject to verification later. It is like working hypothesis a

seeker or a scientist makes before he confirms by experimentation

whether that is true or not. All research proposals are based on this

working hypotheses or faith in the proposition and the means of

investigation.

 

Let us take an example - aatma (self - or soul in some scriptures)- Is

there an aatma or soul. Now neither pratyaksha nor anumaana can prove

the existence of a soul. Hence Shada or scriptures alone becomes a valid

means of knowledge for that. One has faith (not belief) in the

existence of a soul since one cannot logically dismiss its existence but

at the same time cannot logically establishe either - The Free-will

comes under this category. Interestingly the same applies to

consciousness - neither pratyaksha nor anumnaana logically establish the

existence of consciousness but at the same time they cannot logically

disprove its existence.

 

As we are hearing the news reporters from Iron, we here their accounts

of what has happened. We have faith in their reports - because we have

faith that they are reporting what they saw and we have faith that they

have no reason to lie and are reporting facts as they saw and

experienced. Now our faith goes down the drain if another reporter whom

we also have faith contradicts this previous reporter. But on the other

hand we accept it as knowledge, if the second and third reporter

confirms the reporter the statements of the first one. In this familiar

example, we do not have direct perceptual knowledge of the facts, nor we

can deduce logically the facts - only source of knowledge is shabda - or

the words of the faithful or words of the authority. Now let us take

the report of the Iron information minister. First he is contradicting

the statements of the other reporters and second we know he has vested

interest in communicating the false information and third his statements

are not confirmed by reporters on whom we have faith. If this is so true

for this simple facts that could be easily established factually, then

the role of scriptures, in establishing the correct means of knowledge

that which is not available for pratyaksha and anumaana, cannot be

intelligently denied.

 

Vedanta as pramaaNa: Of all the scriptures Vedanta (Upanishads) occupy a

unique role – not just because Hindu’s believe that it is not man-made

(apourusheeyam) but because the message it conveys. Besides providing

the knowledge of the truth that cannot be otherwise known by other

pramaaNa-s, it does not contradict other scriptures of the world but

more than that it is not illogical, at the same time what it tells is

beyond logic and of course beyond perception too. These are stated as

mahaavaakya-s, the great statements of the Vedanta. 1. Praj~naanam

brahma – consciousness is infiniteness. 2. Tat tvam asi – you are that

consciousness which is infiniteness and 3. ayam aatma brahman – that you

that we are referring is not body, mind and intellect but the essence of

your self or the self – is that infiniteness and of course is

consciousness. And 4. aham brahma asmi – I am that Brahman – is

confirmation by the seeker by contemplation of the first three

statements come to this conclusion. Now to throw more light on the

subject it follows additional definitions to Brahman – sat chit ananda

is Brahman and satyam j~naanam anantam Brahman – and then equates to

Iswara as well – yatova imaani bhuutani jaayante, yena jaataani jiivanti

yat prayam tyabhisam vishanti – that Brahman is nothing but – that from

which the world rose, by whom it is sustained and into which it goes

back (incidental qualification (taTasta lakshaNa) as cause of the

universe). The Vedanta is reports of the reporters who are reporting (as

though) from Brahman state. The faith comes into picture because

reporter after reporter who went there confirmed the previous reports as

true and added some more to it and these are Upanishads. There is no

beliefs or commandments. Mere facts as they saw. In Brihadaaranyaka, a

sage teaches his wife, "when husband says he loves his wife, he does not

really love his wife but he loves himself – what he loves is the

happiness that wife brings and therefore he really loves happiness which

is himself" – these statements are not illogical and at the same time

tells us something more – since one can love that which brings happiness

only and if one loves oneself that self should be of the nature of

happiness alone – it is unconditional love since for any other love

there is because – but love for oneself is absolute – since it is

limitless or infinite or Brahman!

 

Proof of Vedanta: One swami told an interesting story – a man suddenly

become blind due to some strange disease – he went to one doctor and the

other tried all sorts of medicines and even operated upon yet he

remained as blind. Every means he found so far became invalid in the

final analysis. He was getting frustrated and got vexed with all the

promises of the doctors. At last he was taken to one famous surgeon and

he said I can cure your disease. After much coaxing he agreed for the

operation and after the operation the doctor came to the patient saying

that congratulations – the operation went successful and now I will open

your bandage. He removed all the coverings and asked the patient to

open his eyes. The patient said he will not open his eyes unless the

doctor promises that the operation is really successful and guarantees

that his eyesight has been restored since in the past he was so

disappointed by the promises of so many doctor. Doctor said, all

indications are that the operation is successful about this one we do

not know completely until you open your eyes and see. But the patient

refused to open the eyes unless the Doctor assures that this operation

is also fully successful. – Now doctor cannot provide any further proof

other than telling the stories of how successful other similar patients

were and that there no reason to doubt that this operation is

unsuccessful. Now the success of the operation can only be established

by the patient opening the eyes and testing whether he can see or not.

Proof of Vedanta is exactly like that. It provides a means to know but

knowledge has to be gained by the seeker by his self-effort. Hence it

aks – one has to do mananam, and nidhidhyaasanam after hearing the facts

from the teacher.

 

Great mahaatmaas from time immemorial to the current, only confirmed

what Vedanta says is indeed true. Hence it becomes a valid pramaaNa for

this knowledge, which is beyond perception and logic.

 

Now the word about words of other masters: Take the example of the

report of the Iron information minister – if his reports state the same

thing as the other reporters whom we have faith, then naturally we

accept those reports are true since it is confirmation of the reports of

the others whom we all relay. Now if he contradicts the reports of

those who have greater trust, then naturally we do not accept them as

the true since we cannot independently establish by other pramaaNa-s or

means of knowledge. Hence it is accepted in our tradition, that we

accept all those teachers – whether they are Hindus or not - who

endorse the statements of the scriptures as valid teachers and those

that contradict are not validatable teachers – this is what is called

‘sampradaaya teacher’s who are traditional teacher– in the sense that

their statements do not contradict shaastra-s. It can be complimentary

but not contradictory. Hence Shankara defines – faith or shraddha in

VivekachuuDamani –

 

Shaastrasya guru vaakyasya satya buddhava dhaarana – sa shradhaa – faith

is that the scriptures and the interpretations of these by the teachers

are indeed to true (subject of course self-validation – like working

hypothesis).

 

Scripture alone become pramaaNa or means of knowledge – for me to know

that I am not only sat (existence) and chit (consciousness) but also

limitless/ happiness / infiniteness/= or Brahman. This cannot be

established by any other means .

Hence faith in the scripture become means for self-knowledge. Since

this experience of the truth – about oneself -the subject of the

inquiry, it is not objectifyable and no objective means can be valid

means. We cannot really the subjective experiences of any teacher

(however much he may be telling the truth) since we cannot independently

evaluate by any other means if the statements of that teacher are

statements of facts. I can have belief in him but that becomes

personal. On the other hand if that teacher confirms his experience is

in tune with Vedanta, then the faith in the teacher comes form the faith

in the scriptures – Hence Shankara himself insists on shaastrasya

guruvaakyasya – shaastra comes first for validation. I once suggested

to read the peace pilgrim – where an American lady who walked on foot

continuously preaching peace. She was not religious but when you reed

her talks of what she discovered, you can see how much is in tune with

Vedanta.

 

Now Hindus – there is no really Hinduism unlike others you have quoted.

This is word coined by those who want to differentiate themselves. It

is sanaatana dharam – the truth that is immemorial. What Vedanta talks

about universal and just physics is not an ism but science, so is

Vedanta as pramaaNa for that which cannot be established by any other

means. Advaita – non-dualism – that non applies not only to duality but

also to -ism as well – says Shree T.P. Mahadevan.

 

You should not have blind faith in any scripures. Vedanta never insists

on that - but do not reject the statements of Vedanta. Conclusion

without experimentation is unscientific - that is exacly what Vedanta

want you to do. First lister and understand what it says and contemplate

on it to see if that is true or not. The ball is in your court - to

prove vedanta is not correct.

 

Hope I am clear.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more

http://tax.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Sadanandaji.

 

Thank you for your generously long answer to my question about scriptures.

>Faith is that which is not illogical but not yet established

>as factual, hence it is subject to verification later. It is

>like working hypothesis a seeker or a scientist makes before

>he confirms by experimentation whether that is true or not.

 

This is my view. I feel intuitively that the rishis of the Upanishads

are 'onto something' important and I trust them but wish to

eventually verify for myself.

 

>As we are hearing the news reporters from Iron [iraq], we here

>their accounts of what has happened. We have faith in their reports

 

Hmmmm... That's a bit different. We are not talking about

mysterious metaphysical matters but simple facts. Also, I do not

necessarily trust them. They are sometimes prejudiced and biased. I

wait and see what a lot of them say and then form my opinion. (You

basically said this, too.)

 

Incidentally, it is the same for me regarding the Upanishads.

Instead of betting everything on this or that one-time prophet (who

might just be a 'myth' after all), I am putting faith in a great many

rishis who went into the forest and confirmed each others

experiences. In this sense, the Upanishads are NOT like the revealed

scriptures of other faiths, which claim to be a unique and

unverifiable telegram from God. But sometimes Hindus seem to be

treating their scriptures in this way, and I do not think it is

healthy, based on what I have seen this do to other religions in

terms of intolerance.

 

 

>Now let us take the report of the Iron information minister.

 

Once again you said 'Iron' instead of 'Iraq'. I know you are a

physicist specializing in metallurgy, but you might want to make a

mental note! :-)

>Now the word about words of other masters: Take the example

>of the report of the Iron information minister

 

Again! :-)

 

 

>Of all the scriptures Vedanta (Upanishads) occupy a unique

>role - not just because Hindu's believe that it is not man-made

>(apourusheeyam) but because the message it conveys. Besides

>providing the knowledge of the truth that cannot be otherwise

>known by other pramaaNa-s, it does not contradict other scriptures

>of the world but more than that it is not illogical, at the same

>time what it tells is beyond logic and of course beyond perception too.

 

OK, but only if the rishis are *witnesses* of the higher states of

consciousness. What I reject is the 'telegram from God' idea of

Christianity and Islam, which is more like marching orders that we

simply must obey and don't ask any questions you worthless little

fool! Do you see what my worry is? Please don't ever let Hinduism

become like that. Some of the more conservative Hindus seem to tilt

in that direction, but Hinduism as a whole is remarkably

self-correcting, thanks to the lack of a centralized authority, as

well as the natural disputatiousness of the Hindus themselves. (So

this mailing list IS a good idea after all!)

 

 

>These are stated as mahaavaakya-s, the great statements of the

>Vedanta. 1. Praj~naanam brahma - consciousness is infiniteness.

>2. Tat tvam asi - you are that consciousness which is infiniteness

>and 3. ayam aatma brahman - that you that we are referring is not

>body, mind and intellect but the essence of your self or the self -

>is that infiniteness and of course is consciousness. And 4. aham

>brahma asmi - I am that Brahman - is confirmation by the seeker

>by >contemplation of the first three statements come to this

>conclusion.

 

What mighty sayings, these Mahavakyas, echoing down through the

corridors of time and beyond! Now I believe that the more

enlightened Mahayana Buddhists can actually agree with all this, as I

do. The big problem seems to be 'Brahman', which they supposedly

reject. But if Brahman means Consciousness, then they DO believe

this, in my view. Same for 'Self', which Buddhists also supposedly

reject. If Self means Consciousness, then everything is fine and we

all agree. For example, the Zen scriptures are always talking about

Consciousness and the One Mind. Of course, many (such as Gregji)

will disagree and say that I am being too 'syncretic', but I have my

opinions, and at least I have read a lot of the Mahayana texts with

care and feeling... Please grant me this!

 

Anyhow, Swami Dheeranandaji actually told me that the Buddha was

realized! That made me very happy, since I have developed a lot of

affection for him from years of studying Buddhism. (I hope Swamiji

has no reason to regret saying this! He also mentioned something

about the Buddha not having access to the Vedas since he was

Kshatriya. Politics reigns supreme everywhere!)

 

Another minor issue is that I believe that there was at times some

social tension between Hindus and Buddhists in the past in India.

You are still human! Politics reigns supreme everywhere!

 

Also, within Hinduism, the conflict between Advaitins and Dvaitins

etc. is perhaps a bit embarrassing! You cannot just sweep that under

the rug! (I think I know what you are going to say: that Advaita

'swallows' up Dvaita, in some sense, as a 'higher' view. The

Dvaitins may object!)

 

Oh, and I did read Peace Pilgrim. Very inspiring! And there are

MANY examples like that. I have a computer full of them.

 

Yes, you were very clear. Thank you!

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

--- Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote:

> What mighty sayings, these Mahavakyas, echoing down through the

> corridors of time and beyond! Now I believe that the more

> enlightened Mahayana Buddhists can actually agree with all this, as I

> do. The big problem seems to be 'Brahman', which they supposedly

> reject. But if Brahman means Consciousness, then they DO believe

> this, in my view. Same for 'Self', which Buddhists also supposedly

> reject. If Self means Consciousness, then everything is fine and we

> all agree. For example, the Zen scriptures are always talking about

> Consciousness and the One Mind. Of course, many (such as Gregji)

> will disagree and say that I am being too 'syncretic', but I have my

> opinions, and at least I have read a lot of the Mahayana texts with

 

 

Benjamin - it is not that someone agrees or not, it ultimately boils

down to you - does your intellect appreciate that you are sat chit

ananda. once that is done - the next question Vedanta asks is, can

there be more than one sat chit ananda - in the equation you are that -

or aham aatma brahman or aham brahmaasmi - the implication is

consciousness cannot be divided just like space cannot be. Hence the

identity is not illogical. Is it really true - one has to see it

factually - there lies the sadhana.

> Anyhow, Swami Dheeranandaji actually told me that the Buddha was

> realized! That made me very happy, since I have developed a lot of

> affection for him from years of studying Buddhism. (I hope Swamiji

> has no reason to regret saying this! He also mentioned something

> about the Buddha not having access to the Vedas since he was

> Kshatriya. Politics reigns supreme everywhere!)

 

I think Kshatriyas had the knowledge of Veda-s and in Upanishads -

Khatriya-s were teacher too. Nanda has been pushing me to read the

books he has send me on Buddhism . I am sure he wants to have a debate

with me on the subject when we meet next time. But I always end up

closing the book as soon as I open it.

> Another minor issue is that I believe that there was at times some

> social tension between Hindus and Buddhists in the past in India.

ÿ You are still human! Politics reigns supreme everywhere!

 

That is human behavior – is it not. To differentiate and divide is

natural and is part of vyavahaara – to integrate and unite is the

wisdom. – in that union adviata stands out as ultimately real unity

since there are no two for division.

>

> Also, within Hinduism, the conflict between Advaitins and Dvaitins

> etc. is perhaps a bit embarrassing! You cannot just sweep that under

> the rug! (I think I know what you are going to say: that Advaita

> 'swallows' up Dvaita, in some sense, as a 'higher' view. The

> Dvaitins may object!)

 

There nothing to be embarrassed but to be congratulated. Just because

we two do not agree on free will - is that embarrassing! not for me.

We have now topic to fill up the internet! I am amazed how methodical

our philosophers were. Ramanuja's objections to Advaita are something

to reckon with. The problems come mostly from the disciples who do not

put forth effort to analyze the problem but take stand blindly. Swami

Chinmayanandaji used to tells us - do not accept me - longer the beard

greater should be one's suspicion about the teacher - and he used to

pull his beard as long as possible.

 

Please rest assured that Vedanta does not want anyone to accept blindly

but also not to reject it blindly either. All our scriptures are

dialogues between a student and the teacher. You keep questioning until

you found the right answer that you are contended with. Personally I

donot accept Shankara or Ramanuja just becuse they says so. Ramanuja's

questioning about bhaavaruupa j~naana I feel is valid but that does not

mean his explanation to counter that is any better than what Shankara

offered as 'anirvachaniiyam' or inexplicable.

 

Anyway that is taking us to another topic. But the criticisms and

counter criticisms are accepted means of knowledge and I am glad that I

am blessed in the tradition that allows to question everything until one

is convinced.

>

> Oh, and I did read Peace Pilgrim. Very inspiring! And there are

> MANY examples like that. I have a computer full of them.

 

I do not know if you have studied "Saint Francis of Assisi" by a famous

Greek author - hard name to remember - That is a fascinating book to

read and shows glimpse of Vedanta in the midst of bhakti.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

>

> Yes, you were very clear. Thank you!

>

> Om!

> Benjamin

>

 

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more

http://tax.

[Guest guest]

At 10:20 AM 4/8/03 -0700, kuntimaddi sadananda wrote:

 

put forth effort to analyze the problem but take stand blindly. Swami

>Chinmayanandaji used to tells us - do not accept me - longer the beard

>greater should be one's suspicion about the teacher - and he used to

>pull his beard as long as possible.

 

Yes, he seemed to have a very joyful sense of humor, always a twinkle in his

eye!

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Benjamin Root wrote:

>

> So could one of the venerable scholars please clarify exactly

> what it means to be Astika?

 

I am not a scholar but I think it means to believe in God.

> Am I FORCED to accept these scriptures

> if I want to call myself 'Advaitin'?

 

 

Yes, pretty much! Why would you think otherwise?

> Am I forced to reject presumably Nastika scriptures such as those of

> Buddhism?

 

 

Yes! Yes! Double Yes!

> Am I faced with a harsh binary decision?

 

No! You can accept parts of Buddhism.

> Are my attempts to find the common truth in all the enlightened and

> inspiring scriptures of the world

> doomed?

 

Possibly! It depends on how you interpret things.

> Why should I have blind faith in any scriptures?

 

 

Who said you should?

>

>

> Someone please answer this unambiguously and without 'pulling

> any punches' as we say in America.

 

 

Sure!

> I don't want to be brainwashed into thinking that Hinduism is not

> brainwashing, when in fact it

> might be.

 

 

Why do you resist?

> Of course, I say this to be intentionally provocative.

 

 

Me too!

>

> Hopefully, some reassuring but still credible words of wisdom will

> relieve my anxiety!

 

 

Brainwashing can effectively ease anxiety.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Sadananda,

 

 

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

 

 

< snip >

 

First on pramaaNa- prama means knowledge and pramaaNa is means of

knowledge. Once we establish that ignorance is the root cause of the

human problem, then it follows that ignorance can only be removed by

knowledge. Questions that immediately follow are what is knowledge

and how do we gain that knowledge.

 

Knowledge is defined as 'yathaatham pramaaNam' that which is truth-

here word pramaaNam is used not only for the means but also for the

goal of the means. As corollary to this definition, knowledge is

qualified as that which is abaadhitam -that, which is not negated,

or that which not contradicted. If I know an object as something and

then that knowledge is contradicted later implies that what I knew

before is not the truth about that object- is it not? Now we bring

in another word - bhrama - that which appears to be true but upon

further inquiry is contracted - like knowing first that the object

is a snake but later came to know that it is only a rope. Hence

snake knowledge is bhrama and rope knowledge is prama – but for

every bhrama there has to be prama behind, yet to be discovered.

 

Means of Knowledge: There are at least three accepted means of

knowledge for any object. (According to Advaita there are six means

of knowledge) The three are: pratyaksh (perception), anumaana

(inference) and shabda (words - here it means shaastra or science -

scriptures come under this category or shaastra - that is shruti

based - that what you hear from a teacher through the use of

appropriate words to convey that knowledge.

 

< snip >

 

Hope I am clear.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

 

KKT: Thank you very much for

your long and instructive post.

 

I have a question concerning

knowledge.

 

Apart from the six means of

knowledge accepted in Advaita,

does << intuitive knowledge >>

have a place in Advaita?

 

I have this question because

some people without having

<< direct >> experience of Atman

but have some << intuitive >>

perception of its Truth and

thus could find great inspiration

from the Upanishads.

 

 

Peace,

 

 

KKT

[Guest guest]

" He also mentioned something about the Buddha not having access to the

Vedas since he was

> > Kshatriya. Politics reigns supreme everywhere!)

>

> I think Kshatriyas had the knowledge of Veda-s and in Upanishads -

> Khatriya-s were teacher too. "

 

In the Scriptures, we can see various instances of Khatriyas taking

Brahmanas as students and showing them the right path. For eg, the King

Ashvapati taking the 5 great sages of his time as his students...

 

Om

ranjeet

[Guest guest]

Namaste KKT.

 

Please permit me to intrude here.

 

Thanks for asking this question. I am sure Sadaji will reply you

based on scriptures.

 

However, if I am not misunderstood as making a tall claim,

personally, from my own experience, I am convinced that the intuitive

knowledge you mentioned results from contemplation on scriptural

statements. It is a natural corollary to accepting the other

pramAnas and needs not be separately listed or stated. It is an

intuitive quantum jump that all of us can take.

 

PranAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

_____________________

 

advaitin, "phamdluan2000" <phamdluan@a...>

wrote:

>> I have a question concerning

> knowledge.

>

> Apart from the six means of

> knowledge accepted in Advaita,

> does << intuitive knowledge >>

> have a place in Advaita?

>

> I have this question because

> some people without having

> << direct >> experience of Atman

> but have some << intuitive >>

> perception of its Truth and

> thus could find great inspiration

> from the Upanishads.

[Guest guest]

--- Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:

 

 

> Namaste KKT.

I am convinced that the intuitive

> knowledge you mentioned results from contemplation on scriptural

> statements.

>

> Madathil Nair

>

> _____________________

>

> advaitin, "phamdluan2000" <phamdluan@a...>

> wrote:

>

> >> I have a question concerning

> > knowledge.

> >

> > Apart from the six means of

> > knowledge accepted in Advaita,

> > does << intuitive knowledge >>

> > have a place in Advaita?

 

 

Sorry. I missed this question. We use the word intuition and many a

time we do not know what it means. Dr. Chandrashekar once wrote in

Scientific American that all discoveries in science are made by

intuition. This is called in Vedanta j~naana kshakshu or wisdom eye.

Knowledge is not purushu tantra that is one cannot will the knowledge.

It is called vastu tantra. It has to come by itself and it will come

provided the mind is ready to receive it. When one is contemplating on

a given subject - that means both mind and intellect are completely

meditating on that then one develops intuition to see the truth or to

say it another way one develops a proper vision to see the truth - that

is way we say when we discover the truth - ' Oh! Now I see it' - that

seeing is understanding and that is by the wisdom-eye. Lord Shiva has

the third eye - which is essentially wisdom eye since he is the very

embodiment of meditation. When he opens his wisdom eye all the kaama- or

desires get burned leaving his mind free from any agitations. This is

told in a story form in kumara sambavam of Kalidaasa.

 

Intuition is not pramaaNa - when the mind meditates on the pramaaNa

vaakya then intuition develops to the truth as indicated by pramaaNa.

This is what shree Nair also explained.

 

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more

http://tax.

[Guest guest]

Dear Madathil,

 

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

 

 

Namaste KKT.

 

Please permit me to intrude here.

 

Thanks for asking this question. I am sure Sadaji will reply you

based on scriptures.

 

However, if I am not misunderstood as making a tall claim,

personally, from my own experience, I am convinced that the intuitive

knowledge you mentioned results from contemplation on scriptural

statements. It is a natural corollary to accepting the other

pramAnas and needs not be separately listed or stated. It is an

intuitive quantum jump that all of us can take.

 

PranAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

 

 

 

KKT: Thanks for your commentary.

 

The intuitive knowledge

I mentioned has a special

characteristic that it seems

not resulting from whatever else

(for example, from contemplation

on scriptural statements as you said)

It knows directly by its own

without needing even logical reasoning.

 

 

Pranams.

 

 

KKT

 

 

_____________________

 

advaitin, "phamdluan2000" <phamdluan@a...>

wrote:

>> I have a question concerning

> knowledge.

>

> Apart from the six means of

> knowledge accepted in Advaita,

> does << intuitive knowledge >>

> have a place in Advaita?

>

> I have this question because

> some people without having

> << direct >> experience of Atman

> but have some << intuitive >>

> perception of its Truth and

> thus could find great inspiration

> from the Upanishads.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Sadananda-ji,

 

 

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

 

 

--- Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair> wrote:

 

 

> Namaste KKT.

I am convinced that the intuitive

> knowledge you mentioned results from contemplation on scriptural

> statements.

>

> Madathil Nair

>

> _____________________

>

> advaitin, "phamdluan2000" <phamdluan@a...>

> wrote:

>

> >> I have a question concerning

> > knowledge.

> >

> > Apart from the six means of

> > knowledge accepted in Advaita,

> > does << intuitive knowledge >>

> > have a place in Advaita?

 

 

Sorry. I missed this question. We use the word intuition and many a

time we do not know what it means. Dr. Chandrashekar once wrote in

Scientific American that all discoveries in science are made by

intuition. This is called in Vedanta j~naana kshakshu or wisdom eye.

Knowledge is not purushu tantra that is one cannot will the knowledge.

It is called vastu tantra. It has to come by itself

 

 

 

 

KKT: I like to echo this phrase.

 

Yes, << it comes by itself >>

 

In my experience when it comes,

the mind is very still, empty.

-------------

 

and it will come provided the mind is ready to receive it.

When one is contemplating on a given subject - that means both

mind and intellect are completely meditating on that then one

develops intuition to see the truth or to say it another way

one develops a proper vision to see the truth - that is way

we say when we discover the truth - ' Oh! Now I see it' - that

seeing is understanding and that is by the wisdom-eye. Lord Shiva has

the third eye - which is essentially wisdom eye since he is the very

embodiment of meditation. When he opens his wisdom eye all the kaama-

or desires get burned leaving his mind free from any agitations.

 

 

 

 

KKT: Yes, it seems that

<< when it is opened

all the kaama or desires get burned >>

--------------

 

This is

told in a story form in kumara sambavam of Kalidaasa.

 

Intuition is not pramaaNa - when the mind meditates on the pramaaNa

vaakya then intuition develops to the truth as indicated by pramaaNa.

This is what shree Nair also explained.

 

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

KKT: Even it is called

the << wisdom eye >>

it is not counted as pramaana?

 

 

Namaste,

 

 

KKT

[Guest guest]

Dear KKT,

 

I am afraid what you have in mind is something like an 'internal

revelation' (happening to prophets and their likes) and, as such,

beyond my human capabilities to comment on. Let us see what others

have to say.

 

Regards and pranAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

______________________

 

 

advaitin, "phamdluan2000" <phamdluan@a...>

> The intuitive knowledge

> I mentioned has a special

> characteristic that it seems

> not resulting from whatever else

> (for example, from contemplation

> on scriptural statements as you said)

> It knows directly by its own

> without needing even logical reasoning.

[Guest guest]

Namaste KKT,

 

I wouldn't blame you for thinking that intuition or any other subjective

experience is a valid pramana. Many modern Vedantins have given alot of

importance to such experiences as a means to verify what is said in the

shastra. As what Sadanandaji mentioned, intuition is NOT a valid pramana.

 

best regards,

K Kathirasan

>

> Madathil Rajendran Nair [sMTP:madathilnair]

> Friday, April 11, 2003 3:58 PM

> advaitin

> Re: Validity of Scriptures - Please help!

>

> Dear KKT,

>

> I am afraid what you have in mind is something like an 'internal

> revelation' (happening to prophets and their likes) and, as such,

> beyond my human capabilities to comment on. Let us see what others

> have to say.

>

> Regards and pranAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

>

> ______________________

>

>

> advaitin, "phamdluan2000" <phamdluan@a...>

> > The intuitive knowledge

> > I mentioned has a special

> > characteristic that it seems

> > not resulting from whatever else

> > (for example, from contemplation

> > on scriptural statements as you said)

> > It knows directly by its own

> > without needing even logical reasoning.

>

>

>

>

> Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of

> Atman and Brahman.

> Advaitin List Archives available at:

> http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

> To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

> Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

[Guest guest]

--- phamdluan2000 <phamdluan wrote:

>

>

> KKT: Even it is called

> the << wisdom eye >>

> it is not counted as pramaana?

>

>

> Namaste,

>

>

> KKT

 

 

Yes KKT. It is not considered as pramaaNa for the same reason as

meditation is not considered as pramaaNa. Even gaining of the wisdom eye

is not purusha tantra. Intution that develops and is not acquired hence

it is not listed as karaNam or instrument readily available for

knowledge. KrishNa says I am blessing you Arjuna with a special eye

since you are my devotee to see my vishva ruupa or my total form.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more

http://tax.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Sadananda-ji,

 

 

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

 

 

> KKT: Even it is called

> the << wisdom eye >>

> it is not counted as pramaana?

 

 

 

 

Yes KKT. It is not considered as pramaaNa for the same reason as

meditation is not considered as pramaaNa. Even gaining of the wisdom

eye is not purusha tantra. Intution that develops and is not acquired

hence it is not listed as karaNam or instrument readily available for

knowledge. KrishNa says I am blessing you Arjuna with a special eye

since you are my devotee to see my vishva ruupa or my total form.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

KKT: According to Mundaka Upanisad,

there are two kinds of knowledge:

 

__Para vidya (the higher knowledge)

which is the knowledge of the Absolute

(Brahman, Atman). It is reached

not through a progressive movement

but all at once, intuitively,

immediately and is self-certifying.

 

__Apara vidya (the lower knowledge)

which is the knowledge of the world.

The 6 means of knowledge (pramana)

are apara vidya.

 

My question is:

 

Do you think that << intuitive knowledge >>

is in line with para vidya?

 

 

Pranams,

 

 

KKT

[Guest guest]

--- phamdluan2000 <phamdluan wrote:

>

> My question is:

>

> Do you think that << intuitive knowledge >>

> is in line with para vidya?

>

>

> Pranams,

>

>

> KKT

 

Intuition develops when on meditates on any object of knowledge - and it

does not depend on the nature of that knowledge. A scientist when

meditating on a given problem develops intuition and when the solution

strikes, he subsequently has to establish experimental or analytical

proofs to validate what he intuitively feels as the solution. PramaaNa-s

are then required to validate his intuition - I am giving this example

to show that intuition by itself is not a pramaaNa.

 

In all the objective knowledge one is becoming more ignorant only since

it only confirms that the falsehood is real. Hence it is not a real

knowledge. The true knowledge is that which makes one to see the truth

and hence that is para vidya everything else is apara. Intuition comes

in both. You need pramaaNa for both to validate what one intuitively

feels is indeed true. For objective sciences we need pramaaNa-s that

are objective in nature - like experiments or theory etc. For subjective

science only pramaaNa that can validate the intuitive feeling is

Shaastra pramaaNa - hence the role of Vedanta.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more

http://tax.