Veda as means of knowledge

[Guest guest]

<<<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