Doubts expressed by Swami Vivekananda

[Guest guest]

Dear Advaitins,

 

Namaste,

 

Here is one letter written by Swami Vivekananda to one

sanskrit socholar Pramadadas Mitra of Varanasi. He

might have received a reply from him regarding these

matters but unfortunately that is not available for

study. Members are requested to shed light if they

have answers for these doubts with the scriptural

quotings. PLEASE NOTE THAT INTENTION OF SWAMIJI OR

MINE BY BRINGING THIS LETTER TO THE FOURUM IS TO NOT

TO HURT THE AURTHODOX SENTIMENTS BUT TO HAVE A

IMPARTIAL STUDY OF THE POINTS RAISED BY SWAMIJI. I

beleive that one has to be impartial and honestly

reason out to come to the truth without attachment to

anything. Please do coment and try to put some light

on these matters. The doubts raised by swamiji are as

under.

 

 

1. Is the Mukti, which the Vedanta - sutras speaks

of, one and the same with the Nirvana of the Avadhuta

- gita and other texts?

 

2. What is really meant by Nirvana if, according to

the aphorism, "Without the function of creating

etc."*1 (ibid., IV.iv.7), none can attain to the

fullest Godhead?

 

3. Chaitanya - deva is said to have told Sarvabhauma

at Puri, "I understand the Sutras (aphorisms) of

Vyasa, they are dualistic; but the commentator makes

them, monistic, which I don't understand." Is this

true? Tradition says, Chaitanya - deva had a dispute

with Prakashananda Sarasvati on the point, and

Chaitanya - deva won. One commentary by Chaitanya -

deva was rumoured to have been existing in

Prakashananda's Math.

 

4. In the Tantra, Acharya Shankara has been called a

crypto - buddhist; views expressed in Prajnaparamita ,

the Buddhist Mahayana book, perfectly tally with the

Vedantic views propounded by the Acharya. The author

of Panchadashi also says, "What we call Brahman is

the same truth as the Shunya of the Buddhist." What

does all this mean?

 

5. Why has no foundation for the authority of the

Vedas been adduced in the Vedanta - sutras ? First, it

has been said

that the Vedas are the authority for the existence of

God, and then it has been argued that the authority

for the Vedas is the text: "It is the breath of God."

Now, is this statement not vitiated by what in Western

logic is called an argument in a circle?

 

6. The Vedanta requires of us faith, for

conclusiveness cannot be reached by mere

argumentation. Then why, has the slightest flaw,

detected in the position of the schools of Sankhya and

Nyaya, been overwhelmed with a fusillade of

dialectics? In whom, moreover, are we to put our

faith? Everybody seems to be mad over establishing his

own view; if, according to Vyasa, even the great Muni

Kapila, "the greatest among perfected souls",*2 is

himself deeply involved in error, then who would say

that Vyasa may not be so involved in a greater

measure? Did Kapila fail to understand the Vedas?

 

7. According to the Nyaya, "Shabda or Veda (the

criterion of truth), is the word of those who have

realised the highest"; so the Rishis as such are

omniscient. Then how are they proved, according to the

Surya - siddhanta , to be ignorant of such simple

astronomical truths? How can we accept their

intelligence as the refuge to ferry us across the

ocean of transmigratory existence, seeing that they

speak of the earth as triangular, of the serpent

Vasuki as the support of the earth and so on?

 

8. If in His acts of creation God is dependent on

good and evil Karmas, then what does it avail us to

worship Him? There is a fine song of Nareshchandra,

where occurs the following: "If what lies in one's

destiny is to happen anyhow, O Mother, then what good

all this invoking by the holy name of Durga?"

 

9. True, it is improper to hold many texts on the

same

 

10. The same God who gives out the Vedas becomes

Buddha again to annul them; which of these

dispensations is to be obeyed? Which of these remains

authoritative, the earlier or the later one?

 

11. The Tantra says, in the Kali - Yuga the Veda -

Mantras are futile. So which behest of God, the Shiva,

is to be followed?*3

 

12. Vyasa makes out in the Vedanta - Sutras that it

is wrong to worship the tetrad of divine

manifestation, Vasudeva, Sankarshana, etc., and again

that very Vyasa expatiates on the great merits of that

worship in the Bhagavata ! Is this Vyasa a madman?

 

I have many doubts besides these, and, hoping to

have them dispelled from my mind through your

kindness, I shall lay them before you in future. Such

questions cannot be all set forth except in a personal

interview; neither can as much satisfaction be

obtained as one expects to. So I have a mind to lay

before you all these facts when presenting myself to

you, which I expect will be very soon, by the grace of

the Guru.

 

I have heard it said that without inner progress in

the

practice of religion, no true conclusion can be

reached concerning these matters, simply by means of

reasoning; but satisfaction, at least to some extent,

seems to be necessary at the outset.

 

Yours etc.,

 

Vivekananda

 

 

* 1"[(Sanskrit)]"--"Having regard to the context

which ascribes the threefold function relating to the

universe only to God, and because the fact of their

conscious mental distinction comes between that

function and their liberated state, we have to

conclude that the state of final liberation or Mukti

in the case of men is devoid of the capacity to

create, preserve, and dissolve the universe." So if

this capacity is reserved only for God, what is meant,

Swamiji asks, by saying that in Nirvana the human

merges completely into the Divine?

 

We must remember that many of the questions here

reflect the intellectual stages through which Swamiji

was reaching out in those days towards that plentitude

of Vedantic wisdom which was his in future years. We

also find a glimpse of those processes through which

his intellect was growing towards a fuller

understanding of our ancient scriptures and customs.

 

 

*2 Kapila is so spoken of in Shvetashvatara

Upanishad, V.2. In his commentary of Vedanta - Sutras,

II. i. 1, Shankara doubts the identity of the Vedic

Kapila with the Sankhyan Kapila.

 

 

*3 Madhuparka was a Vedic ceremony, usually in

honour of guest, in which a respectful offering was

made consisting, among other dainties, of beef. The

text which Swamiji partially quotes forbids such food.

The full text means that in the Kali - yuga the

following five customs are to be forsaken: the horse

sacrifice, cow - killing ceremonies, meat - offerings

in Shraddha, Sannyasa, and maintaining the line of

progeny through the husband's younger brother in case

of failure through the husband.

 

subject to be contradicted by one or two. But why then

are the long - continued customs of Madhuparka* and

the like repealed by one or two such texts as, "The

horse sacrifice, the cow sacrifice, Sannyasa, meat -

offerings in Shraddha", etc.? If the Vedas are

eternal, then what are the meaning and justification

of such specifications as "this rule of Dharma is for

the age of Dvapara,this for the age of Kali", and

so forth?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

br_vinayaka <vinayaka_ns wrote:

From

Sankarraman

May I be permitted to participate in this well-meaning discussion.

First of all, may I ask you whether by chance you are a monk or a celibate of

the Ramakrishna Order, or that you are a devout follower of Vivekananda, as

time and again you refer to Swamiji in your discussions.

1. Is the Mukti, which the Vedanta - sutras speaks

of, one and the same with the Nirvana of the Avadhuta

- gita and other texts?

 

The view of the respondent.

The mukti spoken of by the vedanta is to know the unreality of the

trinity of jiva-iswara-jagat, and the sole reality of the atman, which is not

emprically existent or non-existent. To be true to advaita Vedanta, one should

accept the unpalatable truth that God is only the projection of the mind, and

as long as one is not able to transcend that projection one has to worship it

to attain one-pointedness of mind, which is still avidya, surely admitting of

the possibility of lapse into ignorance, ony mano-nasa or understanding the

unreality of the mind constituting liberation. The gita contains only passing

reference to this final beatitude, the main refrain of the gita being only

surrender to god. The concept of moksa in avadutha gita seems to be the same as

that of the vedanta except that the avaduta gita speaks of the highest wisdom

without dialectics and logic with which the vedanta is very much preoccupied

2. What is really meant by Nirvana if, according to

the aphorism, "Without the function of creating

etc."*1 (ibid., IV.iv.7), none can attain to the

fullest Godhead?

Respondent:

 

The quotation is incomplete. Is the Nirvana referred to germane to the idea

of the emancipated being not having the capacity of god in matters relating to

creation etc. Advaita vedanta says that the creation itself is an illusion. The

concept of proximity to god without the above mentioned capacity, is relatable

to Visishtadvaitha and Saiva Siddhantha schools which consider creation to be

real.

 

:

3. Chaitanya - deva is said to have told Sarvabhauma

at Puri, "I understand the Sutras (aphorisms) of

Vyasa, they are dualistic; but the commentator makes

them, monistic, which I don't understand." Is this

true? Tradition says, Chaitanya - deva had a dispute

with Prakashananda Sarasvati on the point, and

Chaitanya - deva won. One commentary by Chaitanya -

deva was rumoured to have been existing in

Prakashananda's Math.

Respondent:

 

This seems to be true as per the views of George Thibaut who has commented on

the Brahmasutras as interpreted by both Sankara and Ramanuja. George Thibaut

says that Sankara introduces advaita in Vyasa's commentary, whereas Vyasa's

version is more relatable to the personal aspect of Iswara.

 

4. In the Tantra, Acharya Shankara has been called a

crypto - buddhist; views expressed in Prajnaparamita ,

the Buddhist Mahayana book, perfectly tally with the

Vedantic views propounded by the Acharya. The author

of Panchadashi also says, "What we call Brahman is

the same truth as the Shunya of the Buddhist." What

does all this mean?

Respondent:

Not only the Tantras but also the Vaishnava schools call Sankara as a

Buddhist in disguise. Sri V.Subramanya Iyer who was the teacher of the senior

monks of Ramakrishna Order, such as Nikhilananda and intellectual philosophers

like Dr S.Radhakrishnan, said that Sankara was a tactician, having been a Roman

in Rome. Sri Iyer, who was the discipe of Sringeri Acharya, learnt advaita at

the behest of the then pontiff, the Acharya having recognized the merit of Sri

Iyer in expounding the Advaita Vedanta. Sri Iyer says that Sankara was of the

opinion that common people would not understand the lofty wisdom of Emptiness

and hence Sankara modified his language. Sri Iyer is of the view that the

emptiness of the Buddha and the Atman of Sankara are one and the same. Sri Iyer

is also doubtful of the authorship of Sankara of the Bakthi literature

attributed to him. I have got a big file containing the writings of Sri Iyer.

Sri Iyer is a rationalist down to the earth in his

articulations holding the view that one should go beyond bakthi, yoga and even

mysticism which are only half-way towards the truth. Pancadasi does not accept

the idea of Buddhism, but very much decries both the vignanavadins and the

sunyavadins, whereas one is able to see very much the affinity to the

Buddhistic views in the Mandukya Karika.

 

5. Why has no foundation for the authority of the

Vedas been adduced in the Vedanta - sutras ? First, it

has been said

that the Vedas are the authority for the existence of

God, and then it has been argued that the authority

for the Vedas is the text: "It is the breath of God."

Now, is this statement not vitiated by what in Western

logic is called an argument in a circle?

Respondent:

This is really a contradiction and definitely arguing in a circle. But the

Vedantins through dialectics try to circumvent this problem.

6. The Vedanta requires of us faith, for

conclusiveness cannot be reached by mere

argumentation. Then why, has the slightest flaw,

detected in the position of the schools of Sankhya and

Nyaya, been overwhelmed with a fusillade of

dialectics? In whom, moreover, are we to put our

faith? Everybody seems to be mad over establishing his

own view; if, according to Vyasa, even the great Muni

Kapila, "the greatest among perfected souls",*2 is

himself deeply involved in error, then who would say

that Vyasa may not be so involved in a greater

measure? Did Kapila fail to understand the Vedas?

 

Respondent:

In so far as establishing the supremacy of Advata, the Vedantins

employ very much logic in denying the Mimamsa and Samkhya schools in relation

to cause and effect. Further, the Advaitins use the logic of the Buddhists in

denying the dualists, the Madhyamica and Yogachara theories of Buddhism being

unsettled with the logic of these dualistic schools. In one argument the waking

state is equated with the dream state and in another logic the vice-versa. The

criticsm of Kapila Muni by Vyasa is unfair. Kapila Muni is lauded as an

incarnation in Bhagavatha, authored by the very same Vyasa. Why does Vyasa hold

two diametrically different views? Or is the Vyasa who wrote the Bhagavatha

different from the other? Interestingly, there is commentary to the Yogasutras

of Patanjali purporting to have been written by Vyasa? Why should Vyasa, who

decries the yoga system in the Vedanta Sutras, have written a commentary to the

sutras of Patanjali? Again the question arises

whether there are several individuals answering to the name Vyasa. Again,

there is a commentary to the yogasutras reported to have been written by

Sankara. Why should an uncompromising advaita teacher like Sankara have written

a commentary on an apparently inferior philosophy? Are there, again, two

Sankaras?

7. According to the Nyaya, "Shabda or Veda (the

criterion of truth), is the word of those who have

realised the highest"; so the Rishis as such are

omniscient. Then how are they proved, according to the

Surya - siddhanta , to be ignorant of such simple

astronomical truths? How can we accept their

intelligence as the refuge to ferry us across the

ocean of transmigratory existence, seeing that they

speak of the earth as triangular, of the serpent

Vasuki as the support of the earth and so on?

Respondent:

 

 

At the time of these Rishis the scientific development was at

a low ebb. We can accept the knowledge of the Rishis only as regards the

transcendental matters, and not the changing, illusory, empirical, realities.

Further, all Rishis might not have been realized. If you go through the

Puranas, there is not a single Rishi who can be compared with great modern

teachers like Bhaghavan Ramana.

 

 

8. If in His acts of creation God is dependent on

good and evil Karmas, then what does it avail us to

worship Him? There is a fine song of Nareshchandra,

where occurs the following: "If what lies in one's

destiny is to happen anyhow, O Mother, then what good

all this invoking by the holy name of Durga?"

Respondent:

 

Even in the gita there is a sloka to the effect that the Lord is

not concerned with the good and the bad; knowledge is covered by ignorance and

all jives are caught in this net. This affirmation of the gita clarifies the

above query.

 

9. True, it is improper to hold many texts on the

same.

Respondent:

 

Many texts have been written to cater to many needs. All the

texts need not speak of the lofty truth of Advaita.

 

10. The same God who gives out the Vedas becomes

Buddha again to annul them; which of these

dispensations is to be obeyed? Which of these remains

authoritative, the earlier or the later one?

Respondent:

 

 

The above statement is reported to be contained in

Bhagavatha purana as well as Siva Purana. In the Siva Purana there is a

definite statement to the effect that certain heretical doctrines such as

Mayavada will be preached in the Kaliyuga. It is not clear whether this refers

to Sankara or the Buddha.

11. The Tantra says, in the Kali - Yuga the Veda -

Mantras are futile. So which behest of God, the Shiva,

is to be followed?*3

Respondent:

 

 

This seems to be the advent of the Bakthi

schools of the alwars and the nayanmars who indulged in a crusade against

Buddhism, Jainism, Mayavada, and the Tantra, the last one having degenerated

very much into some vile vulgar things in the name of religion.

 

 

12. Vyasa makes out in the Vedanta - Sutras that it

is wrong to worship the tetrad of divine

manifestation, Vasudeva, Sankarshana, etc., and again

that very Vyasa expatiates on the great merits of that

worship in the Bhagavata ! Is this Vyasa a madman?

 

I have many doubts besides these, and, hoping to

have them dispelled from my mind through your

kindness, I shall lay them before you in future. Such

questions cannot be all set forth except in a personal

interview; neither can as much satisfaction be

obtained as one expects to. So I have a mind to lay

before you all these facts when presenting myself to

you, which I expect will be very soon, by the grace of

the Guru.

 

I have heard it said that without inner progress in

the

practice of religion, no true conclusion can be

reached concerning these matters, simply by means of

reasoning; but satisfaction, at least to some extent,

seems to be necessary at the outset.

 

Yours etc.,

 

Vivekananda

Respondent:

Perhaps Swamiji being a mixture of modern study and ancient Hindu

thought, got disgusted with the contradictory statements of Vyasa. Apropos the

statement of Vivekananda: “Sutras that it

is wrong to worship the tetrad of divine

manifestation, Vasudeva, Sankarshana, etc., and again

that very Vyasa expatiates on the great merits of that

worship in the Bhagavata ! Is this Vyasa a madman”, it is to be stated that

the Bhaghavatha philosophy is refuted in the last portions of Brahmasutras

after heavily coming down upon other systems.

Vivekananda seems to have come to the right view that these

matters cannot be settled through ratiocinative intellect, but only through the

liberating knowledge.

 

 

1. * 1"[(Sanskrit)]"--"Having regard to the context

which ascribes the threefold function relating to the

universe only to God, and because the fact of their

conscious mental distinction comes between that

function and their liberated state, we have to

conclude that the state of final liberation or Mukti

in the case of men is devoid of the capacity to

create, preserve, and dissolve the universe." So if

this capacity is reserved only for God, what is meant,

Swamiji asks, by saying that in Nirvana the human

merges completely into the Divine?

Respondent:

Liberating knowledge is different from Iswarahood, Iswara

Himself being a product of Maya. The final state of liberation cannot

definitely be one of Iswarahood being responsible for creation preservation

etc. Even the realization of the Saguna Brahman does not confer on the jives

these attributes as per the Vedanta Sutras.

 

2. We must remember that many of the questions here

reflect the intellectual stages through which Swamiji

was reaching out in those days towards that plentitude

of Vedantic wisdom which was his in future years. We

also find a glimpse of those processes through which

his intellect was growing towards a fuller

understanding of our ancient scriptures and customs.

 

 

*2 Kapila is so spoken of in Shvetashvatara

Upanishad, V.2. In his commentary of Vedanta - Sutras,

II. i. 1, Shankara doubts the identity of the Vedic

Kapila with the Sankhyan Kapila.

 

 

*3 Madhuparka was a Vedic ceremony, usually in

honour of guest, in which a respectful offering was

made consisting, among other dainties, of beef. The

text which Swamiji partially quotes forbids such food.

The full text means that in the Kali - yuga the

following five customs are to be forsaken: the horse

sacrifice, cow - killing ceremonies, meat - offerings

in Shraddha, Sannyasa, and maintaining the line of

progeny through the husband's younger brother in case

of failure through the husband.

 

subject to be contradicted by one or two. But why then

are the long - continued customs of Madhuparka* and

the like repealed by one or two such texts as, "The

horse sacrifice, the cow sacrifice, Sannyasa, meat -

offerings in Shraddha", etc.? If the Vedas are

eternal, then what are the meaning and justification

of such specifications as "this rule of Dharma is for

the age of Dvapara,this for the age of Kali", and

so forth?

Respondent:

Swamy Vivekananda seems to have been definitely in the

formative periods of spiritual quest when these questions raged in his heart.

There is very much authenticity and passion in the queries articulated by

Swamiji which should be welcomed by any unbiased thinker who does not want to

belong to any cult who will question anything if it does not stand to reason,

in spite of the authorization by the scriptures.

 

It may be stated that too much sastra vasanas, dehavasans and

lokavasanas bias our mind making us attach ourselves to a particular

conclusion, which truth is not obviously. Since these things distract and

digress an individual from the sovereign path of truth, Bhaghavan Ramana does

not encourage them, but pushes them into the booby-trap of self-enquiry. May I

be pardoned if I have been presumptious and ignorant in my writings. I feel

that Swamiji's articulations are genuine.

 

Yours truthfully,

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Vinayakaji,

>

> Here is one letter written by Swami Vivekananda to one

> sanskrit socholar Pramadadas Mitra of Varanasi.

 

George M. Williams in his book "The Quest for meaning of Swami

Vivekananda" has done some research about these questions raised by

Swamiji. In addition to the questions listed in your post, Swamiji also

questions why Shudras cannot study the Upanishads. I have this book

with me and If you like can scan the relevent chapter and email it to

you.

 

Pranam

Hersh

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "hersh_b" <hershbhasin@g...> wrote:

>

> Namaste Vinayakaji,

> >

> > Here is one letter written by Swami Vivekananda to one

> > sanskrit socholar Pramadadas Mitra of Varanasi.

 

Namaste,

 

It should be clarified that this correspondence occurred in the

period 1888-1890.

 

The answers can be found only by a careful and thorough study of

his Complete Works (9 vol.), spanning the years 1893-1901. These are

available online as well as on a CD.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

--- hersh_b <hershbhasin wrote:

 

 

In addition to the questions listed in your

> post, Swamiji also

> questions why Shudras cannot study the Upanishads. I

> have this book

> with me and If you like can scan the relevent

> chapter and email it to

> you.

>

> Pranam

> Hersh

 

 

Dear Hersh Ji,

 

I would be greatful to you if you can send me an

e-mail of the scanned matter. You can do at leisure if

not urgently. Plese also send the details of the

publisher of the books so that if it is available i

can have a look.

 

HARI OM TAT SAT

 

Yours in the lord,

 

 

Br. Vinayaka.

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

for Good - Make a difference this year.

http://brand./cybergivingweek2005/