Reasoning without Shruti

[Guest guest]

Tarka without Shruti

 

Here is the post that Shri Peter ji wrote (Msg.No.33836):

 

Dear Shyam-ji, Michael-ji and others,

 

On the topic of, philosophy, faith, reasoning, and the assertion

that one

cannot arrive at truth through reasoning without faith...

 

It sounds a little bit like "faith" is here being linked to or

discussed as

'faith-in-Sruti'.

 

However, Sankara points out that the second chapter of Gaudapada's

Karika

has the aim of showing that the unreality of duality (illusion) can

be

ascertained *without* Sruti. Sankara writes that while the first

chapter

showed the unreality of duality based on Sruti (in fact he

writes "merely on

the authority of Sruti"):

 

"It is also equally possible to determine the unreality of duality

through

pure reasoning." (II:i)

 

In the notes to this verse, Swami Nikhilananda also writes:

 

"The scripture, no doubt, convinces those who believe in its

authority. But

the philosophy of Vedanta can hold its ground against those who do

not

believe the authority of the Vedas. . . . It betrays ignorance of

higher

Vedanta to say that the reasoning employed in the Vedanta philosophy

to

arrive at the Ultimate Truth is always subservient to Scriptural

Authority."

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter

 

A RESPONSE

 

ShrIgurubhyo NamaH

 

Namaste Peter ji,

 

The above post and quotes make me think a lot about the Vedantic

position on reasoning. In Vedanta, reasoning is not held as an

independent `means', pramana. It comes only `after' Shruti. In the

very GaudapAdakArika that you have taken up for demonstration, we

have the `Agama prakaraNa', the section on `Scripture' as the First

chapter. The reason-predominant chapter is only placed second. On

a larger basis for this kind of division, we have, in the Vedantic

scheme this well-laid out method: ShravaNa, manana and nididhyasana

as the sequential sadhana to Direct Realization . The first is

scripture-predominant. The second is reason-dominant. The third is

experience-predominant.

 

It would be immensely helpful to see what Shankara Himself has to

say about the need for making reasoning subservient to Scriptural

Authority. In the Brahmasutra II.i.11, He says:

 

//In matters to be known from Scripture mere reasoning is not to be

relied on for the following reason also.// For the full discussion

bringing out various significant points, pl. read the entire

bhashyam here:

 

http://www.bharatadesam.com/spiritual/brahma_sutra/brahma_sutra_sanka

ra_34150.php

 

OR try this link:

 

http://tinyurl.com/ujjsx

 

 

Continuing, those very lines of the commentary of Shankara for the

Karika II.i that you have quoted (translation) would have to be

properly understood in the larger context of the Vedantic/ShAnkaran

position that is elsewhere available. The commentator Anandagiri

hastens to add ( for the Karika verse and for those lines of

Shankara):

 

His words are:

//While establishing Advaita on the basis of predominance of

Scripture, the unreality of its (Advaita's) adversary, dvaita,

duality, was stated (in the earlier chapter) as a matter of a

derivative (by-product). Now, since the unreality of duality can be

established by reason-predominant method also, this second chapter

is commenced, invoking the concurrence/approval of Elders (Seers).

Duality is unreal not merely due to the Scriptural authority, but

even due to reasoning. This is brought out by the word: `internally

situated objects'.

 

Now, starting to comment on Shankara's words, Anandagiri says: The

unreality of duality that was already stated in the earlier chapter,

was based on the Shruti predominantly. It was not established with

the aid of reasoning. (Note: here Anandagiri is talking about the

need for manana, to gain a reinforced understanding born out of

shravana). This second chapter is commenced with a view to teach

that `what was understood from the scripture HAS to be known by

reason-predominant method also.' (Now Anandagiri talks about the

nature of the pramana called `reasoning') Since tarka, reasoning, is

dependent on the main pramaNa (Shruti), since that pramaNa (Shruti)

is of higher dominance, it is quite fitting that this second

chapter, discussing reasoning, is appearing only AFTER the

discussion based on Shruti. That way, there is the appropriate

sequential connection between the first and the second chapters. //

 

Now, with this background, we may take a quick look at some verses

of this Chapter . In the very 3rd verse, the Shruti is invoked to

establish the unreality of dream itself. Now, one might ask: why

the unreality of dream needs any establishing? The reason is: there

are some schools that hold that dreams are real. That apart, the

Brihadaranyaka passage alluded to here is to show that the Shruti

adopts reason to show that the objects seen in dream are not real,

being placed in a contracted space, within one's body.

 

In verse 18, the bhashyam quotes as many as five shruti passages.

The purpose of the Acharya quoting these is this: While the serpent-

error is negated upon the perception of the rope-substratum, the

unitary nature of Atman is established for a seeker/Jnani based on

the realization that arises as a result of the Shruti teaching.

Note here that the Acharya does not give a go-by to the Shruti in

determining the Non-dual Truth. Reason was given as a simile; but

when it comes to the gaining of Atman knowledge, Shruti is

indispensable.

 

In verse 19, Shankara alludes to a smriti, Bhagavadgita. In verse

30, again, to show the right-perception of the unitary nature of

Atma, Shankara quotes a Shruti passage. Again concluding the

analysis, in verse 31, both the Karika and the Bhashyam speak about

Shruti. Here too, while the examples are based on reason, the

conclusion regarding the unreality of the world is established by

quoting a number of shruti and a smriti passage/s. In the verse 32

which is seminal to entire Vedanta shastra, several Shruti

passages are employed in the Bhashyam. The concluding verse 38 too

alludes to several Shruti passages.

 

I mentioned the above instances just to show that even though the

Chapter is reason-dominant, the shruti-basis of the chapter/

reasoning is patently visible. Also, in a chapter that is given to

reason predominantly, it is 'reasonable' to expect no Shruti

passages. But this expectation is belied in actuality.

 

The entire lay-out of the Mandukya karika, chapter-wise, itself is

based on the Vedic teaching-structure of ShravaNa (I chapter),

manana (II Chapter) and nididhyasana (spread over the III and IV

chapters) The last two chapters actually speak about the method of

sadhana, the Asparsha Yoga that is taught for realization of the

Absolute, the nature of the Jnani, etc.

 

In the light of the foregoing, I would humbly state that Swami

Nikhilananda ji's remarks have to be taken with a studied caution.

To my mind those remarks seem to implicate/suggest that Veda Vyasa

and Shankara were ignorant of higher Vedanta. For, did they not

teach/stress the subservient nature of reasoning in the Sutra and

the Bhashya? If the revered Swami had consulted the Anandagiri-gloss

at the time of this great work of translation, such a remark could

have been avoided. It raises one more question: Why need the

scriptures (Shruti) at all? Why not use reasoning alone? There

will be serious problems in this approach. I leave it to the

imagination of thinkers to see what these problems are.

 

The Acharya says in the sAdhana panchakam: dustarkAt suviramyatAm,

shruti-matas-tarko'nu-sandhIyatAm = refrain from improper reasoning;

adhere to that reasoning which is admitted by the Shruti. This shows

that only a person well-versed in the method of the Shruti knows

what is shruti-accepted reasoning and what is not. Based on this

knowledge he can devise his teaching/understanding method.

 

The Vivekachudamani defines shraddhaa as :

 

shAstrasya guruvAkyasya satya-bhuddhyA avadhAraNa

sA shraddhA kathitAh sadbhiH yayA vastu upalabhyate

 

25. Acceptance by firm judgment as true of what the Scriptures and

the Guru instruct, is called by sages Shraddha or faith, by means of

which the Reality is perceived.

 

When shraddhA, a basic requirement for a seeker, in the Scripture

and in the words of the Guru, are absent, where can one expect to

know the Truth? For, the very concept of Truth comes from

Scripture. It can never be deduced through reason. If acceptance of

the authority of Scripture is said to be optional, i am afraid,

there is something amiss.

 

 

I am not contesting individual views on the matter. What i have said

above is the Vedantic view of the subject as it is taught and

understood in the traditional set-up. One is free to have his views.

 

I would like to give the benefit of doubt to those who hold

the 'Reasoning' portions (alone) of the Scripture/Shastra

sacrosanct, for, by virtue of this 'acceptance' itself, they

qualify as shraddha-endowed seekers. For, have they

not 'indirectly' accepted the Scripture? Someone has said: If there

is a ritualistic requirement for a person to touch a cow, it is

enough if he touches the cow's tail; he would have fulfilled the

requirement of cow-touching.

 

With warm regards and pranams to all seekers,

Subbu

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

Dear Subbhu-ji,

 

A very interesting and, may I say, a long winded reply which addresses a

different issue to the one I was commenting upon, namely about 'reasoning

without faith'. As I wrote at the beginning of my post, the passages cited

were in relation to:

 

"the assertion that one cannot arrive at truth through reasoning without

faith...[and] it sounds a little bit like "faith" is here being linked to or

discussed as 'faith-in-Sruti"

 

In the above light Nikhilananda's comments make a lot of sense. Your

proposal that his comments suggest that Sankara and Vyasa were ignorant of

Higher Vedanta are just plain silly, if you will forgive me for being frank.

What Nikhilananda appears to be is saying is that the truths of the Vedanta

do not rely *solely* on faith in the authority of the scriptures. One might

add, if this were not the case, it would be pointless Gaudapada, Sankara &

others trying to reason with 'non believers', would it not? For unless one

*first had faith* in the scriptures no amount of reasoning - either on one's

own, or with another - would help one unveil the truth of Reality. Thus

Vedanta would be confined solely to preaching to the converted.

 

As for the structure of the four chapters of Gaudapada's Karika and

Sankara's commentary, we should really note Sankara's definition of their

structure as found at the beginning of chapters two and four. Namely:

 

Chapter 1: based on the authority of scripture

Chapter 2: based on reasoning alone

Chapter 3: based on the authority of scripture and reasoning

Chapter 4: based on the "method of disagreement".

 

You point out to me that Chapter 2 does in fact have some references to

scripture, as if this contadicts the assertion it is based on reasoning

alone. I imagine both Gaudapada and Sankara were aware of what the chapter

contains, especially Sankara when he states the first chapter "was based

merely on the authority of the Sruti. It is also equally possible to

determine the unreality (illusoriness) of duality through pure reasoning;

and for this purpose the second chapter commences....."

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter

 

 

 

________________________________

 

advaitin [advaitin] On Behalf

Of subrahmanian_v

19 October 2006 11:39

advaitin

Reasoning without Shruti

 

 

 

Tarka without Shruti

 

Here is the post that Shri Peter ji wrote (Msg.No.33836):

 

<snip>

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Peter" <not_2 wrote:

>

> Dear Subbhu-ji,

>

> A very interesting and, may I say, a long winded reply which

addresses a

> different issue to the one I was commenting upon, namely

about 'reasoning

> without faith'. As I wrote at the beginning of my post, the

passages cited

> were in relation to:

>

> "the assertion that one cannot arrive at truth through reasoning

without

> faith...[and] it sounds a little bit like "faith" is here being

linked to or

> discussed as 'faith-in-Sruti"

>

> In the above light Nikhilananda's comments make a lot of sense.

Your

> proposal that his comments suggest that Sankara and Vyasa were

ignorant of

> Higher Vedanta are just plain silly, if you will forgive me for

being frank.> What Nikhilananda appears to be is saying is that the

truths of the Vedanta

> do not rely *solely* on faith in the authority of the scriptures.

One might

> add, if this were not the case, it would be pointless Gaudapada,

Sankara &

> others trying to reason with 'non believers', would it not? For

unless one

> *first had faith* in the scriptures no amount of reasoning -

either on one's

> own, or with another - would help one unveil the truth of

Reality. Thus

> Vedanta would be confined solely to preaching to the converted.

>

 

Namaste.

 

Imho, there *is* a place for shraddha or faith in vedanta. It is

true that the vedatic doctrine can be established by way of

reasoning. But I feel it differs from scientific theories with

regards to the kind of verification.

 

Vedanta tells me that my true nature is sat-chit-ananda based on

logic. But my experience is seriously at odds with this. How do I

accept this solely on reasoning? I must have the anubhava to confirm

this. Otherwise, I am left with some bookish knowledge only and I

can dismiss it as one possible theory, albeit logical.

 

Now, unlike the religious doctrines that offer no means of

verification until after one's death (eg. going to heaven or hell

based on our earthly conduct), vedanta says that I can realize the

truth here and now, in this very life. Most scientific theories can

be demonstrated empirically. But here, I don't think it is possible.

Even if another person tells me that he is realized, he cannot

demonstrate that to me. I have to experience it for myself - that's

the only means of verification since the whole thing is about my own

true nature. Someone else's experiene simply will not do. It must

become aparokhsa jnana to me.

 

It seems to me that here is where shraddha comes in. In order for me

to perform serious sadhana, I need to have the faith that the

conclusion established by reasoning is true because it is affirmed

by shruti and that great sadgurus who have affirmed that have indeed

realized the truth. I can then seek out a sadguru and devote myself

to sadhana.

 

Harih Om.

Neelakantan