RE: Veda as means of knowledge

[Guest guest]

--- bhikkuyogi <bhikkuyogi wrote:

 

> However I have a prpblem. How do we know that Veda is capable of

> knowing that which is beyond intellect? How does the Veda state that

> which is beyond the intellect? How can one read the Veda, if it is

> saying something beyond the intellect. Naturally all that is read is

> read through the eyes and by the consciousness of seeing, and through

> the vinnana and finally to the memory. Then how does that beyond the

> intellect get connected.

 

Bhikkuyogi

Pranaams.

 

Your questions pertain to pramaaNas or means of knowledge. Pramaa means

knowledge and bhrama means invalid knowledge.

For valid knowledge, there are mainly three valid means - Pratyaksha or

perception, anumaana or inference and shabda or shaastra or science or

word of mouth.

Perceptual knowledge is based on sense input and therefore limited by

the senses - I can use instruments to enhance the capability of the

senses but since it comes under direct perceptual knowledge. All

experimental data comes under this category.

Inference comes as means of knowledge if Pratyaksha fails. I cannot see

but I can infer from what I see. However, this inference again rests on

Pratyaksha or perceptual knowledge for confirmation.

That which is very subtle that cannot be grasped by Pratyaksha or

inferred by logic, the only means of knowledge is shabda - the word of

mouth. Vedas come under that. To accept this as valid means of

knowledge, I have to have faith in the word. Vedas are recordings of

the experiences of the masters of the yore and confirmed again and again

my generations that followed. Hence, Vedas forms a valid means of

knowledge.

 

They provide the working hypothesis for a seeker to proceed. The

provide the truth using four mahaavaakyaas- the great statements -

'prajnaanam brahman, consciousness is brahman' - 'tat tvam asi, you are

that' - ayam aatma brahman, this self is brahman' - 'aham brahmaasmi, I

am brahman' - and then provide exhaustive analysis why the statements

are true and also confirmation by many sages - yes indeed they are

true.

 

One needs to have a faith weather in Vedas or in the buddhistic monks

who declaring their experiences in meditation. Being subjective

science, one cannot gain this knowledge by any other way.

 

Since it is subjective, I cannot relay the experience of one sage or one

Buddhist monks or one saint. His disciples may believe them - there is

no problem for that. However, for those who do not believe them, they

experience cannot be relied upon. Hence, we need an independent means

of knowledge for pramaaNa. Vedas provide that. Faith in the Vedas is

of course essential. Advaita Vedanta bases its foundation on the Vedic

statements.

 

Vedas provide the working hypothesis to proceed. Ultimately one has to

confirm by ones own experience through contemplation in the direction

pointed by Vedanta. dhyanena aatmani pasyati kaschit aatmaanam atmanaa

' one sees oneself by oneself by contemplation on oneself' - Meditation

on the truth is the basis for knowledge but Vedas indicates the truth as

well as the milestones for that. Without the faith, the subjective

science cannot provide a valid means of knowledge.

 

Hope I am clear.

 

There are many discussions on the epistemological issues one can tap

them from the advaitin archives.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Humble praNAm-s,

 

Let me start by saying that most of your mail, Bhikku-ji has nothing to do

with the subject line you've chosen! (what I mean by this would be fairly

evident only if you get to the last question I pose in this post)

 

Bhikku-ji wrote:

Naturally all that is read is read through the eyes and by the consciousness

of seeing, and through the vinnana and finally to the memory. Then how does

that beyond the intellect get connected.

 

praveen:

Its not so natural, please. Pls contemplate more on that *consciousness*

part that you trivially mention and try finding if thats within the purview

of intellect!

 

 

Bhikku-ji wrote:

I think I need to explain to Vedantists here that Buddhists practice

meditative techniques.

 

praveen:

Not really, Vedantists would know meditative techniques, even so for most,

in passing.

 

 

Bhikku-ji wrote:

In the same way, one can discern very easily the whole process of reading

and understanding any text... A contemplative actually experiences this

whole process, and does not just plainly theorize, or quote from a text.

 

praveen:

How I wish that *experience* was so easy. Would you say that those are your

blind beliefs, as you categorize? Why is reading a *theory* and then

*practising* so difficult to understand/accept?

 

 

Bhikku-ji wrote:

To us Buddhists, this statement seems purely fallacious and based on only

blind beleif. This is affirmed by the statement that it is assumed to be

axiomatic, while there exists nothing so obvious to consider the Veda as

axiomatically correct.

 

praveen:

But does meditation give answers that are obvious? IMHO, if veda-s were so

obvious as you want them to be, all of us would have been liberated already!

Personally, I feel you're wasting your precious time on *this* topic, since

there are very rare chances that someone on this list will tell you veda-s

are what your foregone conclusion about them is.

 

 

Bhikku-ji wrote:

That one finds the teaching flawed because it does not enjoin the Veda does

not appear to be a very reasonable arguement, but just one based on blind

beleif and rejection of all who donot beleive.

 

praveen:

How is that different from an argument that "my meditation results show me

otherwise"?

 

 

Bhikku-ji wrote:

This is different from an axiom like 1 + 1 = 2. There is a well-founded

reason to accept axioms like these. Such an axiom is well accepted

throughout the world and it is a matter of convention to give to the

quantity 'two' which is a sankhara (mental impression) a name '2' through

our sanna (naming center of the mind). However the Veda is neither a matter

of Universal acceptance nor is it a convention.

 

praveen:

I'm sure no one was born with the knowledge of 1+1=2. One rises to a level

to understand this in time, be it short. Similarly one rises to a level to

understand Veda, known to be long.

 

 

Bhikku-ji wrote:

Acceptance of faith in Veda is only a matter of blind beleif as far as I can

see it. It therefore remains a problem to understand Vedanta because of this

impediment. In this view therefore Vedanta does not appear to be scientific

at all. ...I hope my understanding is correct and agrees with your

statements about Vedanta.

 

Bhikku-ji wrote:

May I ask if you know the difference between veda & vedanta or would you pls

care to know that before shooting in the dark?

 

jai bajrangabali,

--praveeN

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhikku Yogi,

 

Does your school of Buddhism to the concept of Karma? Txs.

 

Kathirasan

 

On 8/8/05, bhikkuyogi <bhikkuyogi wrote:

> <<<Pratyaksha (or perceptualknowledge) and anumaana or logic does not

> work in that which is beyond the intellect - Hence Vedas are only

> means of knowledge - veda means knowledge and vedanta is ultimate

> knowledge. To know the truth vedanta provides the only means of

> knowledge.>>>

>

> This is a quote from Mr. Hari OM Sadanada. I thank you for taking your

> valuable time to explain these things to me. It is a great honor.

> However I have a prpblem. How do we know that Veda is capable of

> knowing that which is beyond intellect? How does the Veda state that

> which is beyond the intellect? How can one read the Veda, if it is

> saying something beyond the intellect. Naturally all that is read is

> read through the eyes and by the consciousness of seeing, and through

> the vinnana and finally to the memory. Then how does that beyond the

> intellect get connected.

>

> I think I need to explain to Vedantists here that Buddhists practice

> meditative techniques that allow them to know every single detail of

> what happens in every phenomenon every single moment. For example to a

> normal human looking at something and hearing something can happen

> simultaneously, since he has not developed the sharpness of the mind

> to discern the distinctness of the two. Hearing and seeing donot occur

> simultaneously. In less than a billionth of a second one's

> consciousness shifts from that of seeing to that of hearing. A

> contemplative knows this through experience and not by theory.

>

> In the same way, one can discern very easily the whole process of

> reading and understanding any text. To a contemplative person, reading

> begins with seeing, then through the consciousness of seeing, and then

> to the sanna (naming center of the mind) and vinnana (comprehending

> center of the mind) and finally into smriti (memory containing center

> of the mind) where it remains, following the law of impermanence as

> all objects in the universe. A contemplative actually experiences this

> whole process, and does not just plainly theorize, or quote from a

> text.

>

> From what we experience through our contemplative approach, Veda or

> for that matter any other text only goes to the memory where it is

> referred from time to time. If not referred, the memory undergoes

> decay, like any other object or dharma (phenomenon) and weakens. Thus

> we Arya Dhamma seekers see the reading of scripture as only a

> intellectual process remaning confined to the buddhi - intellect. How

> then does Veda reach that beyond intellect?

>

> To us Buddhists, this statement seems purely fallacious and based on

> only blind beleif. This is affirmed by the statement that it is

> assumed to be axiomatic, while there exists nothing so obvious to

> consider the Veda as axiomatically correct.

>

> I donot know if I can ever understand this, but being a contemplative

> and having discerned that reading the Veda is not different from

> reading any other text, I donot feel the need to beleive in the Veda.

>

> That said, arguements that "Buddhism does not accept Veda and hence is

> wrong" cannot be true. We ourselves donot entirely beleive the words

> of the Buddha - we only test them. That one finds the teaching flawed

> because it does not enjoin the Veda does not appear to be a very

> reasonable arguement, but just one based on blind beleif and rejection

> of all who donot beleive. If however one finds some basic flaw in the

> teaching that does not agree with experience or reason, then one may

> reject it. But Veda is not a ground of reason, as some people here

> have pointed out that where Veda is concerned there can be no room for

> reason or logic (refuting Sri Aurobindo). Then how can the statement

> quoted at the beiginning of this paragraph be true?

>

> It therefore leaves me to understand that whatever one reads from the

> Veda cannot be deliberated through reason and any statement thereof is

> therefore unreasonable. Also blind beleif in such a scripture only

> appears to me to be unreasonable, since one can offer no reasons to

> prove that the Veda is correct.

>

> This is different from an axiom like 1 + 1 = 2. There is a well-

> founded reason to accept axioms like these. Such an axiom is well

> accepted throughout the world and it is a matter of convention to give

> to the quantity 'two' which is a sankhara (mental impression) a name

> '2' through our sanna (naming center of the mind). However the Veda is

> neither a matter of Universal acceptance nor is it a convention.

>

> Acceptance of faith in Veda is only a matter of blind beleif as far as

> I can see it. It therefore remains a problem to understand Vedanta

> because of this impediment. In this view therefore Vedanta does not

> appear to be scientific at all. I however appreciate those that

> clearly admit on the list that Vedanta does not claim to be

> scientific. This atleast leaves us without a bother to try to employ

> our scientific temperment of questioning to try to understand Vedanta

> and can rest assured that Vedanta is purely a matter of beleif.

>

> I hope my understanding is correct and agrees with your statements

> about Vedanta.

>

> -Bhikku Yogi

>

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

>

>

> Links

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Sri Bhikkuyogi wrote:

> This is different from an axiom like 1 + 1 = 2. There is a well-

> founded reason to accept axioms like these. Such an axiom is well

> accepted throughout the world and it is a matter of convention to give

> to the quantity 'two' which is a sankhara (mental impression) a name

> '2' through our sanna (naming center of the mind). However the Veda is

> neither a matter of Universal acceptance nor is it a convention.

 

Not all axioms are bound by universal acceptance or convention.Try

explaining the axioms of non-Euclidian geometry to a high school

teacher and you might receive some strange looks; and these axioms are

definitely more than mere conventions. While many axioms are

intuitive, others such as of non-Euclidian geometry require a leap of

faith. Axioms follow the proof of pudding in the eating and in a case

like non-Euclidian geometry the eating may come after centuries.

 

I suggest "Godel, Escher, and Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid" by

Douglas Hofstadter for an introduction on the nature and properties of

axioms. Suffice it to say that the axioms are by definition

unprovable. You can either accept an axiom or reject it, but you can

never prove its validity or otherwise.

> It therefore leaves me to understand that whatever one reads from the

> Veda cannot be deliberated through reason and any statement thereof is

> therefore unreasonable.

 

Do not be in such a hurry, sir! Vedas do not accept *independent* use

of reason in the realm of dharma and moksha and this by far is the

most reasonable thing to do.The reverse would be a blind belief in the

assumed capabilities of reason. Consider that the human intellect,

though very important for us, is just a tiny tiny fraction of the

creative power of the cosmos. Who am I to demand that all the mystries

of the universe should be restricted within the limits posed by my

"reason"? What reasons do I have to assume that my "reason" alone is

enough to unravel everything including the mystries of the power that

created it?

 

Trying to understand the creation through reason alone is similar to a

character in an artist's painting trying to understand the artist's

mind. It is like a part of the whole trying to understand the whole.

It is nothing but human vanity to assume that man by his "reason and

logic" is well equipped to understand the whole of which he is just a

part. The only "reasonable" thing to believe in this scenario is that

there is no likelihood for me to understand that universal power,

unless that power itself somehow decided to reveal its nature to me.

It is where the concept of "revelation" comes in. "Whether vedas'

claim for "revelation" is correct" is a different question, however it

seems quite reasonable to assume that "reason" alone may not be

sufficient to understand everything esp. the one that created that

"reason" in the first place.

 

Vedanta is not a philosophy of "un-reason". But it sure aims to put

"reasonable" checks on the assumed infinite capabilities of "reason".

> Also blind beleif in such a scripture only

> appears to me to be unreasonable, since one can offer no reasons to

> prove that the Veda is correct.

 

I submit that we put the vedas on test on the same terms that we put

on other higher disciplines of learning viz. acceptance of authority

pending self-test. I may not be equipped to validate all the theories

of modern science in practice. Yet I believe in them because I am told

that people who possess necessary qualifications have validated those

theories in practice and I am assured that provided such necessary

intellectual qualifications and equipments I can also validate them

for myself. In Advaita Vedanta, as authority I have proclamations of

countless advaitin sages from different traditions who have tried to

describe the suchness of reality from times immemorial ; and as

self-test it gives a challenge to all the aspirants to approach it

with sufficient qualifications and realize the truth of its teachings

in this very life.

 

But the crux of what you have said is correct. At the end of the day,

I need nothing less than a leap of faith to make a modest start on the

path of advaita.

 

praNAm

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "bhikkuyogi" <bhikkuyogi>

wrote:

> Acceptance of faith in Veda is only a matter of blind beleif as

far as

> I can see it. It therefore remains a problem to understand Vedanta

> because of this impediment. In this view therefore Vedanta does

not

> appear to be scientific at all. I however appreciate those that

> clearly admit on the list that Vedanta does not claim to be

> scientific.

 

Namaste

 

Vedanta is scientific. But it is not part of 'your' science or

the 'science' that we know in schools and colleges. Science starts

from axioms and proceeds by rules of logic through processes of

reasoning. Vedanta has its own axioms (The four mahavakyas).

 

While science believes only in experiments which are results of

sense perception, Vedanta believes in experiments which result from

not only sense perception but also an intuitive self-perception

which leads him to a holistic macro-perception.

 

While science by its very nature has to be subject to the

rationale, Vedanta, by its very purpose of knowing the Absolute

Truth, rationally comes to the conclusion that the Truth transcends

the rationale.

 

While science unravels the 'what' and 'how' of things, Vedanta

attempts to reveal the 'that' and 'why' of things.

 

While science is a collective obligation, answerable to the peers

in the society, Vedanta is an individual responsibility,

irrespective of the experts in the society.

 

While science constantly pursues a reconciliation between

infinitesimal smallness (the sub-atomic) and infinite immensity (the

super-cosmic), Vedanta repeatedly reveals a reconciliation between

infinitesimal smallness (the individual soul) and infinite immensity

(the transcendental absolute).

 

Even the most revered science, Mathematics, has to deal with

questions of internal consistency and it has been mathematically

proved that the consistency of mathematics cannot be established by

accepted rules of logic within the system. But the ultimate truth of

Vedanta can be confirmed by personal experiuence, independent of the

logic used, and has been so confirmed by towering giants of

spiritual personality from ages immemorial up to the present day.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "bhikkuyogi" <bhikkuyogi>

wrote:

>

> It therefore leaves me to understand that whatever one reads from

the

> Veda cannot be deliberated through reason and any statement

thereof is

> therefore unreasonable. Also blind beleif in such a scripture only

> appears to me to be unreasonable, since one can offer no reasons

to

> prove that the Veda is correct.

>

 

Namaste

 

I would recommend the following analysis by Edmond Holmes in His

Introduction to the Philosophy of the Upanishads. The following is

an extract from

 

http://www.cs.memphis.edu/~ramamurt/holmes_upanisad.html

 

In the words of one of the upaniShads: 'He who is the brahman in man

and who is that in the sun, these are one.'

 

The significance of this conception is more than metaphysical. There

is a practical side to it which its exponents are apt to ignore. The

unity of the all-pervading life, in and through its own essential

spirituality - the unity of the trinity of God and Nature and Man -

is, from man's point of view, an ideal to be realized rather than an

accomplished fact. If this is so, if oneness with the real, the

universal, the divine self, is the ideal end of man's being, it

stands to reason that self-realization, the finding of the real

self, is the highest task which man can set himself. In the

upaniShads themselves the ethical implications of their central

conception were not fully worked out. To do so, to elaborate the

general ideal of self-realization into a comprehensive scheme of

life, was the work of the great teacher whom we call Buddha.

 

This statement may seem to savour of paradox. In the West the idea

is still prevalent that Buddha broke away completely from the

spiritual idealism of the upaniShads, that he denied God, denied the

soul, and held out to his followers the prospect of annihilation as

the final reward of a righteous life. This singular misconception,

which is not entirely confined to the West, is due to Buddha's

agnostic silence having been mistaken for comprehensive denial. It

is time that this mistake was corrected. It is only by affiliating

the ethics of Buddhism to the metaphysics of the upaniShads that we

can pass behind the silence of Buddha and get into touch with the

philosophical ideas which ruled his mind, ideas which were not the

less real or effective because he deliberately held them in reserve.

This has long been my conviction; and now I am confirmed in it by

finding that it is shared by Professor Radhakrishnan, who sets forth

the relation of Buddhism to the philosophy of the upaniShads in the

following words: 'The only metaphysics that can justify Buddha's

ethical discipline is the metaphysics underlying the upaniShads. ...

Buddhism helped to democratize the philosophy of the upaniShads,

which was till then confined to a select few. The process demanded

that the deep philosophical truths which cannot be made clear to the

masses of men should for practical purposes be ignored. It was

Buddha's mission to accept the idealism of the upaniShads at its

best and make it available for the daily needs of mankind.

Historical Buddhism means the spread of the upaniShad doctrines

among the people. It thus helped to create a heritage which is

living to the present day.'

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhikku Bodhi,

 

I just have a few comments related to the current debate underway.

 

I personally believe that Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. all are paths up

the same mountain and have the same goal. If Vedanta doesn't appeal

to you, and you believe strongly in Buddhism, then there isn't really

any reason for you to embrace Vedanta. You say that you want to learn

about Advaita but at the same time seem adamant about your existing

beliefs. Perhaps you are familiar with following Zen story:

 

A Cup of Tea-

 

Nan-In, a Japanese master during the Meiji era, received a university

professor who came to inquire about Zen.

 

Nan-In served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on

pouring.

 

The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain

himself. "It is overfull. No more will go in!"

 

"Like this cup," Nan-In said, "you are full of your own opinions and

speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"

 

Best wishes,

Nathan

[Guest guest]

praNAm Sri. Bhikku Yogi;

 

Although I am not an Advaitin, your question on validity of vEda-s is

equally applicable to my school Dvaita and hence this reply.

 

I am not sure how much the list policy allows me to address your

question from Dvaitic point of view in this forum. I apologize the

moderators if I violate any policies. I assure that the scope of this

mail would be restricted to defend the infallibility of Vedas and in

that process I might utilize some of the strong arguments from

Acharya Madhva against arguments which decry Vedic validity.

 

advaitin, "bhikkuyogi" <bhikkuyogi> wrote:

>

> Acceptance of faith in Veda is only a matter of blind beleif as far

as

> I can see it. It therefore remains a problem to understand Vedanta

> because of this impediment. In this view therefore Vedanta does not

> appear to be scientific at all. I however appreciate those that

> clearly admit on the list that Vedanta does not claim to be

> scientific. This atleast leaves us without a bother to try to

employ

> our scientific temperment of questioning to try to understand

Vedanta

> and can rest assured that Vedanta is purely a matter of beleif.

>

 

Validity (what we call in Sanskrit is `prAmaNya') of vEda is not

based on the `Faith' as you hold.

 

All schools of vEdAnta and certain non-vEdantic schools such as pUrva-

mImAmsa; equally holds that unfailing validity of vEda-s to reveal

knowledge of `atIndriya' (what you termed as `beyond intellect') is

due to the fact that vEda-s are unauthored , what we

call `apowruSheya'.

 

`apauruSheyatva' means unauthoredness. It means, vEda-s are not

authored by anyone, including God. Acceptance of scriptures authored

by God, as some of Semitic religions holds, needs an a priori

assumption about God's existence. Vedanta has no such priori

assumption nor faith.

 

Unauthoredness of vEda is the fact and does not require external

proof such as logic. What, then, is the role of logic? Logic here

merely removes doubt, also known as buddhi-doshha (flaw of the

intellect), and imparts information about the Vedas; when such flaws

are removed, and the buddhi functions as it should, apowrusheyatva is

grasped of itself.

 

AchArya Sri.Madhva, in his `vishNu-tatva-vinirNaya' a prakaNa

grantha, has defended and justified the `apauruSheyatva' of vEda-s

using unassailable logic. He made non-vEdic doctorines, such as your

bouddha (and jaIna-s too) accept validity of vEda-s on your own

grounds. This topic is beyond the scope of this list. However, if you

are further interested, I would point you to vAdAvaLi and

other Dvaita groups, where this topic is discussed at length.

 

This one if for vEdAntins of this group, AchArya also defends vEdic

pramANya on account of its eternality in its order, form, varNa and

nots; using several internal evidences. One of such is a quote from

the Naaradiiya PuraaNa :

 

nityA vedAH samastAshcha shAshvatAH vishNu-buddhigAH |

sarge sarge amunaiveta udgIryante tathaiva cha |

tatkrameNaiva tairvarNaIH taiH svaraireva na chAnyathA |

 

[The Vedas are eternal, in their entirety; are enduring, and

present in the mind of Vishnu; at creation after creation, they are

brought up as

they are; with the same order, same characters, and the same

notes, never otherwise. ]

 

Now, coming to your question how vEda is valid?

 

An apaurusheya text is pramANa (a flawless authority). How so?

 

In vEdAnta, it is shown that flaw is not a self-same property of a

statement (or of a perception or of an inference); if it were, then

every source of knowledge would always be incorrect in everything,

and no correct knowledge would ever be possible.

 

A flaw in a statement of text therefore is a product (kArya), though

not a material one like an earthen pot. However, like an earthen

pot, the

action of its causal factors is needed to create it. In the case of

a pot such factors are well known. In case of flaws in statements,

one can

similarly find causes to be ignorance, deceit, incorrect

understanding, etc., on the part of the person(s) involved to create

such texts.

 

As a consequence of this, it follows that there is a tight

correlation between flaws in a statement and those in the person

creating it.

 

A statement not by a certain dEvadatta is not flawed on account of

dEvadatta's flaws. By universally instantiating this rule, a

statement

that is not created by any person whatsoever has no source of flaw,

and is thus flawless.

 

At this time, you might have further objection(s) on the very concept

of `text with no author' and its allied concepts and implication. All

such objections are aptly met and answered in Madhva tradition. If

you are interested, we can pursue this outside of this list.

 

Regards,

Srinivas Kotekal

[Guest guest]

Namste Bhiku-Ji:

 

Why do you think Buddha recommended "buddham saraNam gacchhaami"?

 

Was it meant that one surrenders to gautam buddha or to the buddha,

the knowledge?

 

If your answer is gautam buddha than there is not point in

discussing. However, if the emphasis was supposed to be on

the "KNOWLEDGE" then you will have to understand what is given the

Vead? On one had you say that you do not understand Sanskrit and as

a Buddhist you do not believe in Vead. Essentially declare that

that you do not care to understand them either !!!

 

What do you think should be the fate of an individual who does not

care for knowledge?

 

It is not the question whether veda is apauruSheya but what is more

important is to understand what given there and why and how does it

apply even today. IMHO, our ancestors documented them in order that

their knowledge may possibly benefit the future generations. Rather

than trying to understand them various smapradaaya keeps on debating

whether they are apauruSheya or not?

 

If a blind man bumps onto a pillar then is it the fault of the

pillar or the blind man?

 

naiSha sthaNoraparaadho yadenamandho na pashyati | puruShaaparaadhaH

sa bhavati || nirukta 1.16 ||

 

What was Buddha's advice to Ananda? Take refuge in truth. Don't

depend on anything outside and go ahead in that light truth. Do not

depend on any one else but you. Don't take refuge in some one else

and do not make others dependent on you either.

 

What a profound message, hope some will have courage and try to

follow it.

 

All the mantras in Veda did not come from the brain power alone but

expose the real core "heart" of the issues. That is why they use

the phrase R^idaspR^iSha (that has touched the heart). Just a few

quotations for your benefit.

 

ayaM te stomo agryo hR^idispR^ig astu shaMtamaH |

athaa somaM sutam piba || R^igveda 1\.16\.7 ||

 

hR^idispR^isho manasaa vacyamaanaa asmabhyaM citraM vR^iShaNaM rayiM

daaH || R^igveda 10\.47\.7 ||

 

Over all general meaning / significance from these mantras is that

vedic mantra get formed / conceived in the heart that is why they

reach and touch heart s of others.

 

etaa arShanti hR^idyaat samudraac Chatavrajaa ripuNaa naavacakShe |

ghR^itasya dhaaraa abhi caakashiimi hiraNyayo vetaso madhya aasaam

|| R^igveda 4\.58\.5 ||

 

Significance of the meaning – Here the sukatakaara says the strearms

out flow from the ocean of their heart.

 

imaani yaani pa~ncendriyaaNi manaHShaShThaani hR^idi brahmaNaa

sa.nshitaani |

yaireva sasR^ije ghoraM taireva shaantirastu naH || atharvaveda 19\.9

\.5 ||

 

Here again the emphasis is place on understanding the over all

significance rather than the literal understanding through the 5

perceptive organs (faculties of gaining knowledge). The 6th being

the mind, the heart

 

Probably that is why in giitaa bhagvan shrikR^iSHNa declares

iishvaraH sarvabhuutaanaaM hR^iddeshe.arjuna tiSHThati || BG 18.61 ||

 

Regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

 

advaitin, "bhikkuyogi" <bhikkuyogi>

wrote:

>

> -Bhikku Yogi

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

IMHO,

 

I will simply put that Veda is the means of knowledge for "Atheendrya Vishayas"

i.e. for objects which cannot be perceived/known through the means of knowledge

we have i.e. the five means of knowledgedge, i.e. five sense organs.

 

Veda does not talk about those things which can be known through our sense

organs.

 

Veda talk about things that are beneficial to the humanity as a whole.

 

Warm regards

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

List Moderator's Note to members who have doubts about Sankara's Advaita

Philosophy: The list though respects their disagreements with Sankara, they are

once more reminded that the main focus of this list is SANKARA'S ADVAITA VEDANTA

PHILOSOPHY.

 

 

Dear Dr. Yadu,

 

I donot wish to answer every message on the group, addressed to me.

But since your message misrepresents or misreads the teaching of the

Buddha, I only make an attempt to clarify matters. What you have

mentioned in your email is not exactly the view of the Buddha or

Buddhists around the world.

> Why do you think Buddha recommended "buddham saraNam gacchhaami"?

> Was it meant that one surrenders to gautam buddha or to the buddha,

> the knowledge?

 

While you have said that it was 'knowledge', I think you donot

understand the term well. 'Buddha' here refers to the bodhi in each

person. That is the true teacher. The bodhi is awakened through

meditative insight. That experience and knowledge gained through

meditative insight is given the highest importance.

 

The historic Buddha divided knowledge (panna) into three categories.

'sutamaya', 'chintanmaya' and 'bhavanamaya'. 'sutamaya' refers to that

which is heard or read. In other words, it is the scripture. It is not

bad, but is inferior to the other two. 'chintanmaya' refers to the

understanding and conclusions based on one's analysis and

deliberation. It involves reasoning, logic, discrimination and

faculties of the intellect. 'bhavanamaya panna' however goes beyond

all these and teaches something at a deeper level, where the

personality itself changes. It goes into the subconscious, and further

deep, where there is no sense of consciousness, although one is not

unconscious. For eg: It can make a habitually angry person insightful

and mild. This 'bhavanamaya panna' or meditative insight is given

highest importance according to the Buddha. For this reason, the word

'panna' in the Pali canon often means only 'bhavanamaya panna'.

 

Therefore taking Veda as a means of knowledge, is only inferior for

us. We donot take any scripture, not even the Pali canon as a means of

knowledge.

 

If a person has never tasted sugar, how would he know what it is? If

you say sweet - the word 'sweet' triggers an analysis in his mind that

helps him form a sort of impression about sugar. But till he eats

sugar he does not know the real taste of sugar. You may argue that the

Veda gives direct knowledge, but that is more a matter of beleif and

faith than of meditative insight.

> On one had you say that you do not understand Sanskrit and as

> a Buddhist you do not believe in Vead. Essentially declare that

> that you do not care to understand them either !!!

 

Here you must note that while I make an attempt to understand the Veda

and the Upanishad by reading the English translations, I donot accept

them as authority. I even read the Pali canon in it's English

translation. (Because of my education in the US, I find English more

comfortable.) It does not matter to me what language I read it in, as

long as the message is clear to me. However, in my opinion, neither

Veda, nor Upanishad, nor the Pali canon are authorities on knowledge

and nothing contained therin is binding on me.

 

I will use my insight wherever possible and will use reason wherever

not possible. However, where neither work, I make no opinion or

beleif, I wait for the truth to emerge. Reliance on scripture is only

when one knows no direction at all. And the best that the scripture

can ever do to one is to teach a person to use one's faculty of

reason, logic and discrimination. Meditative insight needs special

training.

 

You might be aware that ancient Indians first learnt logic,

mathematics, etc. and then went on to learn the Veda or Upanishad. The

message is clear: "Apply your reason and logic while learning the

Veda." Since that tradition is lost, people think reason and logic can

be thrown into the dustbin and their ability to chant mantras is more

important.

> All the mantras in Veda did not come from the brain power alone but

> expose the real core "heart" of the issues. That is why they use

> the phrase R^idaspR^iSha (that has touched the heart). Just a few

> quotations for your benefit.

 

I agree that the Veda has certain parts (angas) called the Vedanta,

which are profound. But I find the other parts mainly ritualistic and

doctrinistic. I donot complain, for I accept it as it is, but I donot

agree with anything other the the Vedanta sections. There also, I have

my own freedom to reject on the basis of reason or meditative insight.

 

I understand that due to your love for the Veda - especially since you

were born a Hindu, you want me to accept the Veda as a means of

knowledge. But to me it can never be a valid means of reliable

knowledge, just as the Pali canon or the Bible or Quran can never be a

reliable means of knowledge. It's validity is not beyond reason and

logic. But reason's validity is inferior to meditative insight. And

this meditative insight is the ultimate means of knowledge,

irrefutable. All other means may be thrown overboard when this is

available. That however does not mean that sutamaya panna is of no

value at all. It's value is limited.

 

-Bhikku Yogi

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhikku-ji. I appreciate your honesty in explaining your

position and respect your stand. However I wanted certain

clarifications:

 

Sri Bhikku Yogi-ji wrote:

> You may argue that the Veda gives direct knowledge, but that is more a

> matter of beleif and faith than of meditative insight.

 

Veda as a source of direct knowledge about Self starts with belief and

faith but is also confirmed later by meditative insight. If however

you wanted a proof before taking the first step, it is definitely not

available.

> You might be aware that ancient Indians first learnt logic,

> mathematics, etc. and then went on to learn the Veda or Upanishad. The

> message is clear: "Apply your reason and logic while learning the

> Veda." Since that tradition is lost, people think reason and logic can

> be thrown into the dustbin and their ability to chant mantras is more

> important.

 

You are again assuming things. Reason and logic are not supposed to be

thrown into dustbin in the study of vedanta. You may sometime visit a

debate among different schools of vedanta to understand what I am

saying.

> There also, I have

> my own freedom to reject on the basis of reason or meditative insight.

 

While I accept your freedom to reject something on your standards, I

am just curious to know the reasons for adopting this standard.

> But to me it can never be a valid means of reliable

> knowledge, just as the Pali canon or the Bible or Quran can never be a

> reliable means of knowledge. It's validity is not beyond reason and

> logic.

 

Here also I am curious to know the reasons for accepting reason and

logic above everything else. What is the reason for belief in the

infalliability of reason?

> But reason's validity is inferior to meditative insight. And

> this meditative insight is the ultimate means of knowledge,

> irrefutable.

 

Yet again. On what basis do you hold that meditative insight is a

better means of knowledge than reason? Note that I am not contending

it otherwise, just want to understand it.

 

praNAm

[Guest guest]

Namste Bhiku-Ji:

 

In response and keeping the objectives of discussion of this list, I

would only like to say that all languages are just delivery vehicles

or cages that deliver the contents. Their purpose ends when such

delivery is complete. Just like when we get to the other side using

a boat, one must get off the boat otherwise there is not chance of

reaching the other shore. All religious texts are such boats so

please do not denigrate any religious texts.

 

Shankaracharya says in VevakachuDhamaNi # 13 -

 

arthasya nishcayo dR^iShTo vicaareNa hitoktitaH |

na snaanena na daanena praaNaayaama shtenavaa ||

 

Meaning - Knowledge of an object is only gained by perception, by

investigation, but not by bathing or giving alms, or by hundred

retentive breaths.

 

Advaita begins with understanding of existing knowledge that is

perceived by the plurality and individuality within dvaita and once

this process is complete then it all again ends in advaita again,

thus completing the circle.

 

That why the famous quotation from R^igveda:

 

aa no bhadraaH kratavo yantu vishvataH

 

Meaning - let knowledge come from all sides

 

With best wishes for all in their own quest of knowledge.

 

 

Regards,

 

Dr. Yadu