aravind's point on qualification to talk philosophy

[Guest guest]

this is regarding aravind's point on qualification to talk philosophy. his point

is that no one should represent a sampradaya unless he has learnt under a

bonafide teacher of that sampradaya. i agree with him that vedic wisdom depends

on instruction by a self-realized guru. however, what qualifications are

required to represent a sampradaya are not universal. these are sampradaya

specific issues and cannot be used as a technique to ward of opposing views

 

1) in iskcon / gaudiya vaishnavism every one can respresent the gaudiya theology

if they have faith.

 

2) in sri vaishnavism, there are different views on who can preach - it being

generally restricted to those who have been trained through their internal

systems but not all follow it.

 

3) in madhwas again, one has to have taken initiation to preach as far as i

know.

 

4) in sankara sampradaya, an initiate has to have sama, dama, uparati and

titiksha. to represent sankara's opinion one need to only have read him and

accept vedas. to realize one needs to surrender to a self-realized guru.

 

there is the rig vedic statement that truth has to be accepted from all quarters

not considering the source. we have to evaluate what is truth based ultimately

on sruti and reasoning and pratyaksha applied in conjunction with sruti. there

is no need to drive some one away on the basis of whether he is initiated or

not. even among initiated and why the acharyas of the same sampradaya, there are

differences in opinion. so we should make an issue of whether some one is a

bonafide disciple of a bonafide guru as a technique to defeat him. this approach

is fraught with pitfalls though apparently smart.

 

 

 

 

 

Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Enter now.

 

 

[Guest guest]

achintya, Rajaram Venkataramani

<v_raja_ram> wrote:

>

>

> this is regarding aravind's point on qualification to talk

philosophy. his point is that no one should represent a sampradaya

unless he has learnt under a bonafide teacher of that sampradaya.

>

 

Actually, I believe it was my point. However, the point was not about

speaking philosophy, but rather, of being able to teach shruti. On

this point, I believe all schools of Vedaanta are agreed that one

must study the shrutis under a master rather than attempt to

understand them on one's own.

 

> i agree with him that vedic wisdom depends on instruction by a self-

realized guru. however, what qualifications are required to represent

a sampradaya are not universal. these are sampradaya specific issues

and cannot be used as a technique to ward of opposing views

>

 

The point was not to "ward of opposing views" but rather to bring a

sense of perspective to the discussion forum. It is perfectly fine

with me if someone wishes to disagree with Srila Prabhupada, for

example. But when everything he knows about shaastra is due to Srila

Prabhupada, it is certainly begging the question.

 

> 1) in iskcon / gaudiya vaishnavism every one can respresent the

gaudiya theology if they have faith.

>

 

And your evidence for the above is?

 

FYI, having "faith" does not authenticate anything. There

are "Gaudiiya Vaishnavas" who preach that Jesus Christ is the

incarnation of Lord Balaraama, for example.

 

> 2) in sri vaishnavism, there are different views on who can preach -

it being generally restricted to those who have been trained through

their internal systems but not all follow it.

>

 

Again, on what basis are you stating this?

 

> 3) in madhwas again, one has to have taken initiation to preach as

far as i know.

>

 

Again, what is your basis for this?

 

> 4) in sankara sampradaya, an initiate has to have sama, dama,

uparati and titiksha. to represent sankara's opinion one need to only

have read him and accept vedas. to realize one needs to surrender to

a self-realized guru.

>

 

Again, what is your basis for this?

 

I am not personally aware of any literature in any sampradaaya to the

effect that one must have qualifications x,y,z in order

to "represent" that sampradaaya. I think it is implicit in all cases

that one must be convinced of the siddhaanta taught by that

tradition, and that he accept sacred initiation as well, learning the

scriptural truths under the direction of a guru. There is nothing to

stop one who lacks initiation from trying to represent a tradition,

but without the process of initiation (which itself is supposed to

certify the disciple's credentials, in theory), one could potentially

make errors.

 

> there is the rig vedic statement that truth has to be accepted from

all quarters not considering the source. we have to evaluate what is

truth based ultimately on sruti and reasoning and pratyaksha applied

in conjunction with sruti. there is no need to drive some one away on

the basis of whether he is initiated or not.

>

 

The issue here was never one of rejecting truth because of lack of

initiation, but rather of qualification to study shruti which goes

hand in hand with initiation. For example, it goes without saying

that we do not accept the opinions of Max Muller et. al. regarding

the shrutis despite their extensive "scholarship." The fact of the

matter is that they have not learned the shruti in the traditional

way, and thus their nondevotional motivations (to publish, to earn

reputation, to put down the Hindus and spread Christianity, etc) will

always be a concern for those wanting to know if they can trust

these "interpretations."

 

This has nothing to do with rejecting truth simply because the source

is considered unpalatable. Even a blind squirrel can find an acorn

sometimes. Wherever an unqualified scholar has agreed with

siddhaanta, his conclusions are acceptable, not because he published

them, but because they are truth. But in my experience these true

realizations are few and far between for those who remain outside the

Vedic tradition of humble study under a dedicated guru.

 

Hence my word of caution to Sumeet or others who would make an

independent study of shruti just to bring up a contradictory

conclusion - I recommend studying them in the proper fashion if you

do not intend to follow Prabhupada's lead. By all means, feel free to

study them under Sri Vishvesha Tiirtha or a proper Maadhva scholar if

this is where your heart takes you - but just study them under

someone - undergo the requisite process of discipline and austerity

that this involves. Tattvavaada, unlike Gaudiiya Vaishnavism, is a

shruti tradition, and thus it requires this.

[Guest guest]

> > 4) in sankara sampradaya, an initiate has to have sama, dama,

> uparati and titiksha. to represent sankara's opinion one need to

> only have read him and accept vedas. to realize one needs to

> surrender to a self-realized guru.

>

> Again, what is your basis for this?

>

 

viveka chudamani, brahma sutra bhashya and tradition.

 

if one analyses the historicity of paramparas, then one will see

discontinuity, enrichment and degradation. that is why the need to

apply one's own intelligence as well and need to avoid assumption

that one is right because one is following a "bonafide sampradaya"

[Guest guest]

achintya, Rajaram Venkataramani

<v_raja_ram> wrote:

 

> there is the rig vedic statement that truth has to be accepted from

> all quarters not considering the source.

 

are you refering to:

 

"Let noble thoughts come to us from every side,...." RV 1.89.1

 

>we have to evaluate what is truth based ultimately on sruti and

>reasoning and pratyaksha applied in conjunction with sruti. there is

>no need to drive some one away on the basis of whether he is

>initiated or not. even among initiated and why the acharyas of the

>same sampradaya, there are differences in opinion.

 

Example of this will be Vedanta Desikar and Pillai Loka acarya whose

differences caused Ramanuja sampradya to split into two sects which

even exists today.

 

>so we should make

>an issue of whether some one is a bonafide disciple of a bonafide

>guru as a technique to defeat him. this approach is fraught with

>pitfalls though apparently smart.

 

I don't know if this approach is right or not. Because in case of

madhva there was no one to teach him dualistic interpretation of

scriptures. The ancient authority bodhyana followed vishistadvaita

and then there was advaitic sampradya of Gaudapada, who is claimed by

tradition to be a disciple of Sukadeva Goswami. But madhva still came

up with his dualistic bhasya. Amongst sankarites i am not aware if

any one ever charged him with accusation that he didn't follow any

sampradya, who taught him dvaita/tattvada siddhanta and since there

is no guru who would teach him this, so he is wrong[unqualified to

propose a new vedic siddhanta] and therefore there is no need to

further debate with him and criticize his siddhanta. Seems like, this

line of thought finds no favor from vedantins.

 

Vedanta Desikar has covered dualistic school of vedanta in his tattva

mukta kalpa and Madhusudhana while refuting Nyayamrita of Vyastirtha

doesn't says look your founder had no one to teach him, so its all

his own speculation, and hence one need not debate the tenets even

though the adversary has proposed his interpretation based on vedas

and neither harbors any inimical sentiment against vedic scriptures.

 

 

Your Servant Always,

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

> viveka chudamani, brahma sutra bhashya and tradition.

>

> if one analyses the historicity of paramparas, then one will see

> discontinuity, enrichment and degradation. that is why the need to

> apply one's own intelligence as well and need to avoid assumption

> that one is right because one is following a "bonafide sampradaya"

 

No one here, least of all myself, is arguing that one is

automatically "right" because one follows a "bona fide sampradaaya."

My point all along is that one should learn shrutis in the

traditional way before presuming to quote them to establish some

independent thesis. There are enough living-room Vedaantists in the

world; we who know better need not add to their numbers.