Introduction to Vedanta-4

[Guest guest]

Introduction to Vedanta-4

 

Problem Definition:

 

We mentioned in the last post that all human pursuits

reduce to 1. longing for inexhaustible happiness, 2.

longing for eternal existence and 3. longing for

knowledge absolute. How a person pursues to achieve

these will depend on ones likes and dislikes, but the

bottom line is the same. In bRihadAranyaka Upanishad,

Yagnavalkya teaches his wife Maitreyii, “a husband

does not love his wife for wife’s sake; what he loves

is only his happy state of mind that she brings, and

he loves her as long as she is the source of that

happiness. Similarly a wife does not love her husband

for husband sake, what she loves is only her happy

state of mind that he brings and she loves him as long

as he is the source of that happiness”. The relation

can become sour when they do gain any more happiness

from each other and the intense love can even become

intense hatred for each other. In fact, no body

loves any object for the object sake but only loves

the happy state of mind that the object brings. Thus

longing for happiness becomes a bottom line for all

desires and desire prompted actions. While these

three fundamental pursuits form the basis for all life

activities as well as inactivites, Vedanta observes

that no one can achieve what they are longing for

through any pursuits. Any pursuit by definition is

finite and the result necessarily will be finite.

Even if the finite results give a glimpse of

happiness, a series of finite results cannot add up to

infinite happiness that we are longing for. If and

when one recognizes this, Vedanta advises him to

approach a competent teacher, with a proper attitude

of learning to gain the knowledge that is required to

solve the problem. A competent teacher is one who

himself was a sincere student who having recognized

this fundamental human problem through the process of

retrospection and analysis, and approached his teacher

who was competent enough to teach. Thus Vedanta is

taught from a teacher to the taught and is perennial

philosophy that is passed on from generation to

generation starting, as Krishna says in Gita, from the

original teacher, himself. Obligation of every

student who learned from his teacher is to pass this

knowledge on the next worthy student, so that the

light of torch is handed over to the next. This

obligation to the teacher is called in Sanskrit as

‘aachaarya RiNa or Rishi RiNa’.

 

‘Why do we need a teacher and why can’t we just study

Vedanta ourselves in the library?’ are the questions

generally people ask. These are valid questions.

When Swami Chinmayanandaji was asked that question, he

answered, “Ask that question to the library”. After

a long pause, he then answered - There as several

reasons why one should study Vedanta under the

guidance of ‘Live’ guru. First reason is Vedanta is

not an objective science, but about the subject, about

‘oneself’. Hence it cannot be objectified or

quantified or described. In principle, words that are

finite fail to describe that which is infinite.

However, ‘words’ become proper tools in the hands of a

competent teacher who can uplift his student’s mind,

which has been properly trained in the contemplative

thinking, to leap forward beyond the words in the

direction indicated by the words. Thus words are only

pointers and pointers are different from that which is

pointed. In order to leap forward (actually it is a

quantum leap into the PRESENT, as we will see this

later), one has to have a proper frame of mind, which

Shankara described as the four-fold qualifications

required to study Vedanta. Most important, as was

outlined earlier, is the shraddhaa or full faith in

the words of Vedanta as interpreted by his teacher.

One should ‘in-tune’ his mind with that of the teacher

for teaching to be fruitful. Second reason is the

study of Vedantic scriptures without a proper guide is

like entering the forest without a proper guide. One

can get lost completely without a way out. The

problem gets compounded, if the teacher himself does

not have clear understanding of the import of the

scriptures. Hence, the emphasis is on the competent

teacher. How does one know a priori ‘Who is a

competent teacher?’ Here is a catch 22-situation.

For that only Vedanta says: one is lead to a proper

teacher when one is ready, or in a more polite way it

can be said that only by the grace of God one is lead

to a proper teacher. In avadhuta gita, Bhagavan

Dattaatreya says that only by the grace of God one

will have an inclination to Advaita Vedanta

(Iswaarnugrahaat eva pumsaam advaita vaasanaa). As

Swami Chinmayanandaji says: ‘one need have to go and

hunt for a teacher. An appropriate teacher will come

when one is ready; just as a flower need not go in

search of a bee - All it has to do is to bloom itself

to its full glory and a bee shall come wherever the

flower is’. The way to bloom is through karma yoga

and with constant company of good so that mind will

slowly bloom to recognize the higher values. Sat

sangh or company of good is emphasized throughout and

by Shankara.

 

Vedanta as pramaaNa:

 

For any knowledge to takes place we need a means to

know, just as to get an academic degree we need to

register and complete its requirements at an

accredited University. The means of knowledge is

called ‘pramaaNa’. For example, I can gain the

knowledge that there is book on the table by seeing it

directly. This is called perceptual knowledge. I

need eyes to see the objects. Hence eyes become

pramaaNa or means of knowledge for seeing objects.

Similarly ears become pramaaNa for recognizing the

sounds. Sometimes I need to touch a flower to know if

it is Japanese or real! Only through the tongue I can

taste. Thus each of the five senses are not only

means of knowledge but are very specific in the sense

that I cannot use ears to see or eyes to hear. All

perceptual knowledge is direct as long as the senses

and the mind behind the senses are in operation. In

fact I cannot but see an object when the eyes are open

and the mind is functioning. What I can not see, I

can infer their existence by means of logic or

anumaana pramaaNa. The classical example is the

knowledge that there is a fire on the distant hill.

Although I cannot see the fire, I can only see the

mountain and smoke on the mountain but I can infer

that the mountain is under fire. The logic based on a

rule established previously that whereever there is

smoke three must be a fire. This rule is based on

previous perceptual knowledge or data. Thus logical

deduction is indirectly based on the rules established

by perceptual knowledge, in the past. The third means

of knowledge is Shabda pramaaNa – words of trust

worthy people. I can learn what is happening in Iraq

by listening to CNN. If a reporter is describing what

is happening in Iraq, the knowledge is not based on

perception or inference but on our trust in the

statements of the reporter. Why should we trust the

reporter’s words? It is simple faith that the

reporter is paid to tell the facts that are happening

there. As long as we have full faith in the

reporter’s words, we can gain the knowledge based on

his reporting, supported by the evidence that he

presents.

 

For spiritual knowledge that we are seeking,

perceptual or inferential knowledge are useless. At

the most they are secondary or supportive but do not

give direct knowledge because ‘the subject I cannot be

objectified’. If it can be objectified then it is no

more a subject. Hence the only means of knowledge to

know about the self is shabda pramaaNa (words of

dependable reporters), which in this case is Veda

pramaaNa or shaastra pramaaNa. Vedas are considered

as the recordings of the great Rishes who gained the

knowledge through their own experiences, revealed to

them in the seat of meditation. They are draShTaas or

seers of the truth who recorded for the benefit of

their disciples. Just as scientist sees the truth or

law of Nature by constant reflection on the

cause-effect relations relevant to the data that he

has collected, RiShiis are the subjective scientists

who by their direct experience and analysis realized

the truth as revealed to them in the seat of

meditation. Thus Vedas are revelations not

inventions, just as Laws of Nature are revelations to

the meditative scientists. Scientists only discover

the laws but not invent them. The truth is

self-existing and eternal and therefore Vedas are also

considered as revelations about absolute, revealed to

the minds that are ‘in-tuned’. Since truth is beyond

perception, no amount of objective investigation would

reveal the truth. Objective investigations rest

squarely on perceptual knowledge. Even the deductive

and inductive inferences ultimately relay on

perceptual knowledge for support or validation. Hence

objective scientific investigations can never reveal

the truth or to put technically they can never be

pramaaNa for ‘subject I’ or consciousness that I am.

 

Vedanta or Upanishads should be studied under a

teacher. What about the other scriptures? Are they

not valid? The answer is yes, they are all valid

means of knowledge as long as they agree with Vedanta.

In fact, we accept all the scriptures that are in

tune with Vedanta and reject that which disagrees with

Vedanta. That means Vedanta becomes ultimate pramaaNa

for knowledge of the ultimate. What about the other

teachers or prophets? The answer is simple. We

accept their words and teachings as long as they agree

with Vedanta. In fact a proper teacher or guru is one

who directs his disciples to Vedanta as authority and

not to themselves. Hence Shankara defines the faith is

the belief that the words of the Vedanta as

interpreted by the teacher are true and absolute. In

that sense we accept all teachers as long as what they

teach is in tune with Vedanta. Therefore what is

pramaaNa has to be clear – it is the means of

knowledge and Vedanta provides that means of knowledge

about absolute. We have already described how the

words of Vedanta describe that which is indescribable

by providing the appropriate pointers, for

contemplative minds. It uses sometimes contradictory

words to take the mind beyond the contradictions – for

example it says ‘it is smaller the smallest, at the

same time bigger than the biggest’ – this is to take

the mind beyond the comprehensions or concepts that

mind otherwise wants to settle down. It is the eye of

the eye, ear of the ear, or mind of the mind. The

meanings some of these profound teachings become valid

means of knowledge only for a prepared student, who

can think deeply to go beyond the concepts or

conceptualizations.

 

Before we go into the teachings, we discuss some of

the miscomprehensions that are circulating in

spiritual arena. These may provide some solace for the

aspirants but not spiritual knowledge that we are

longing for. Besides, perception, inference and

scriptures, there are three more means of knowledge.

They are: comparison (upamaana), presumption

(arthaapatti) and non-apprehension (anupalabdi). For

example, her face looks like a moon – we are comparing

only the beauty and nothing else. We presume that the

train is late, since he has not yet come; this is

arthaapatti. There is no book on the table, since I

cannot see it– this is non-apprehension. Here

non-apprehension is also a positive knowledge. ‘I

was there during the deep sleep state, since I was

aware of the absence of everything’ is another

example. Some philosophers argue that the later three

that we discussed are only the shades of inferential

knowledge or anumaana pramaaNa. Thus at least we have

three major means of knowledge: perception

(pratyaksha), inference (anumaana) and scriptures

(here Vedanta). Knowledge can only takes place by

these three means and there is no other valid means.

 

What about Meditation? Is that not a means of

knowledge? Many think that we have studied enough

Vedanta and this is all intellectual stuff. The truth

is beyond the intellect. We do not want intellectual

gymnastics. What we want to do is Meditate from now

on to gain the self-knowledge. All we need to do is

to sit in the seat of meditation and find out ‘who we

are?’ by asking ‘who am I’ – ‘who am I’. Or we need

to do is upAsana, meditation on Iswara or Lord

Narayana or Lord Shiva’ etc. If Iswara in the form of

Lord Narayana or Lord Shiva does appear to the seeker,

what will he do – since he cannot stay there

permanently? He can only give knowledge of the truth.

In fact Krishna says one who is knowledgeable alone

is his greatest devotee. Hence meditation has to

culminate in knowledge for liberation. Knowledge can

come only through means of knowledge or pramaaNa.

Hence it is the knowledge that we are seeking not Lord

Narayana or Lord Shiva or God in any form. It is the

knowledge behind all forms. Then what is meditation –

Meditation is inquiry by the intellect along the lines

indicated by Vedanta. Hence Vedas declare – for

moksha or liberation one has to learn vedanta at the

feet of a teacher – that is called shravaNam – The

definition of shravaNam is consistent systematic

learning of Vedanta from a competent live teacher for

a prolonged length of a time. The teaching has to be

reflected upon until there are no more doubts left in

the mind, and that is called mananam. I am not going

to touch a wire until I know for sure (100%) it is not

a live wire. Even if there is a slight doubt, I would

hesitate to touch it. Similarly the purpose of

mananam is to insure that the mind is completely doubt

free. Meditation is contemplating on the teachings

until it is assimilated and that is Nidhidhyaasanam.

Hence Meditation is not a substitute to learning

Vedanta; it is assimilating the Vedantic teaching by

inquiry within until the teaching becomes one with the

seeker. Knowledge can only come through intellect.

Hence through intellect alone one can realize the

truth. Yet, it is not an intellectual understanding

as a concept. As in our ‘Jones and the Rat’ story

(see post 1), ‘I am man and not a rat’ is not an

intellectual understanding as a concept. It is an

understanding as a fact that needs to be assimilated

in the intellect. It is internalizing the conceptual

understanding as factual understanding. That is

nidhidhyaasanam or Meditation. For meditation to be

effective the learning has to take place until there

are no more doubts about oneself as declared by

Vedanta. For mananam to be effective one has to

listen, and study, Vedanta under a competent teacher.

The purpose of this advaitin list serve becomes

obvious. It is not a substitute for learning. But it

helps in mananam and nidhidhyaasanam for reflection

and assimilation of the knowledge learned through

listening to the teacher.

 

Experience vs knowledge: Another misconception about

self-knowledge is longing for experience. People say

I have studied Vedanta and now I want to experience.

Is it an experience or is it a knowledge? Let us

understand this difference. It is not ‘knowledge of’

something nor it is an ‘experience’ of something. The

experiences we know are time bound. There is an

experiencer, experienced and experiencing – call triad

or tripuTi in Sanskrit. All experiences have a

beginning and therefore have an end. Anything that

has beginning has to have an end and that is the law.

Now let us a ask question - Is there any time that I

do not experience Brahman? If Brahman is infinite and

eternal, I have to ‘experience’ Brahman all the time

and everywhere. The problem that I have is, although

I experience Brahman all the time, I fail to recognize

it. In fact, Vedanta says every thing that I

experience is nothing but Brahman only, but I take it

as ‘this’ or ‘that’. Not knowing what Brahman is, I

take whatever that I experience is other than Brahman

and therefore I set out to experience Brahman. Do I

have knowledge of Brahman? If I understand Brahman

intellectually by studying Vedanta, ‘I have only

conceptualized Brahman’ whatever that is

conceptualized is not Brahman – that is exactly the

teaching of Vedanta. Forget about Brahman, do I know

myself. Not many will ask that question since

everybody takes for granted he know about himself –

that is evident when he tries to introduce himself to

others. But if one examines carefully, he is not

introducing himself but what he thought about himself.

Vedanta says you are not what you think you are, but

you are sat chit ananda only or

existence-consciousness-bliss only. How can I know I

am sat chit ananda? Vedanta says it is not something

to know but it is something to understand that you

are. Let us give a simple example.

 

Suppose I am sitting in a pitch dark room and I cannot

see anything or do not know existence of any object

there, since it is pitch dark. If some one calls me

from outside and asks me if I am there in that dark

room – what should be my answer? I cannot say ‘I do

not see anything here, it is pitch dark. Therefore I

do not know if I am here or not’. Or should I say ‘I

believe I am here’. Or should I say, ‘I can hear you,

therefore I must be hear somewhere’. How do I know or

what is the means of knowledge (pramaaNa) for me to

know that I am there and I am conscious. Do I have to

see myself (perception) to know myself? Do I have to

experience myself to know myself? Is it a belief that

I am there because scripture says that I am there. No

means of knowledge is required to know that I am there

or that I am a conscious entity. I am self-evident

and self-conscious entity, which Vedanta calls are

‘aprameyam’ – prameyam, a thing to be known, or an

object for a ‘pramaaNa’. ‘aprameyam’ means I am not

an object for any pramaaNa. In fact all pramaaNas,

including Veda pramaaNa are validated by me since I am

there and I am conscious entity to validate them.

Self-existent and self-conscious entity need not be

known or experienced. Or should I say, cannot be

known or experienced either, since whatever that can

be known or experienced is an object or inert entity.

The problem, Vedanta says is it different from

knowledge of or experience of . The problem is I,

the self-existent self-conscious entity that I am,

take myself as something other than myself as myself.

There is an error involved in the operations or

transactions. The error is called ‘adhyaasa’ or

superimposed error – wherein a self-existent

self-conscious entity, I, take myself as inert or

unconscious entity – this, - this being

body-mind-intellect complex. The solution therefore

is to know myself as myself by rejecting all notions

about myself as I am this or that. It is therefore not

a ‘knowledge of’- which corresponds to an objective

knowledge – but knowledge of I am that I am and not I

am this or that – it is a peculiar knowledge where the

knower-known-knowing triad is not there but all

converge to one which we can call as pure knowledge

without any attributes. So it is neither knowledge

nor experience that we are familiar with – it is

self-knowledge or recognition of who we are by

discarding who we are not.

 

In the pitch dark room example there is another

interesting point to note about my true nature. If I

say it is pitch dark and therefore I cannot see

anything there. It means there is no illumination of

light on the objects to reveal the objects that are

there. Hence existence of any object cannot be

ascertained unless it is illumined. The objects may

be there or may not be there – there is an inherent

uncertainty about their existence or non-existence

until they are illuminated and seen. Up to now is

commonsense. Now let us ask another interesting

question. How do I know it is dark out there? – Of

course, I can see that it is dark out there and in

fact it is so dark that I cannot seen anything else.

But what illumines darkness for me to see, when I

cannot see anything else? Suppose I shine a light to

see darkness – would I see darkness then? The outside

that is needed to illumine all objects cannot illumine

darkness. Outside light is opposite to outside

darkness. There is another light that illumines

darkness too, in the light of which I know it is dark

out there. That other light that illumines even

darkness is not opposite to darkness. But there is

nothing other than me that I know of since it is too

dark for me to know anything else. Therefore the

light that illumines the darkness is my own light of

consciousness, which is not opposite to the darkness

outside like the outside light. In fact, I am the

light of all lights that illumines not only the

darkness but even the lights outside too. I can see

any thing or any object including the sun, the moon

and all the lights, etc, as well as the darkness too

in the light of illuminating consciousness that I am.

I am the consciousness because of which I am

conscious of all the objects – nay even all the

thoughts including all my notions that I am this, or I

am that, etc. Everything else shines (gets

illuminated) after me. What light illumines me so

that I can see myself? The fact of the matter is, I

do not need a light to see the light. That is what is

called self-luminous. I am the light of consciousness

that illumines everything else and I do not need

another light to illumine me. That is the reason why

I know I am there and I know I am conscious even in

the pitch dark room, when there is no external light

to illumine me. Hence Vedanta says ‘I am

self-luminous entity’ – swayam jyoti and I am light of

all lights – jyotir jyoti. These are the words that

take us beyond their meaning for a contemplative

student to see myself as myself.

 

What we have done so far is to clarify some of the

misconceptions and in the process introduced some of

the Vedantic assertions too. We will now address some

of the questions we have raised earlier.

----

[Guest guest]

Re: the importance of studying under a competent teacher, and how one

recognizes such a person: is there a formal concept of unbroken lineage

in the Vedanta? In buddhism, one is taught that only a teacher who can

establish that she or he is fully authorized by a guru/lama/roshi/etc.,

who is in turn part of an unbroken lineage of authorized masters that

can trace itself back to the beginning of the teachings is fully

competent to be one's guru. I'm just wondering if there is something

similar, or other objective hallmarks that we may refer to in trying to

determine whether to approach someone for consideration of a formal

teacher-student relationship (rather than simply someone from whom one

may occasionally receive teachings by attending discourses, etc.).

 

Namaste,

 

Neil

 

 

 

 

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> Introduction to Vedanta-4

>

 

>If and

> when one recognizes this, Vedanta advises him to

> approach a competent teacher, with a proper attitude

> of learning to gain the knowledge that is required to

> solve the problem. A competent teacher is one who

> himself was a sincere student who having recognized

> this fundamental human problem through the process of

> retrospection and analysis, and approached his teacher

> who was competent enough to teach. Thus Vedanta is

> taught from a teacher to the taught and is perennial

> philosophy that is passed on from generation to

> generation starting, as Krishna says in Gita, from the

> original teacher, himself.

[Guest guest]

nlg108108 <nlg_108 (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote:

 

Namaste,

 

Neil

 

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> Introduction to Vedanta-4

>

 

>If and

> when one recognizes this, Vedanta advises him to

> approach a competent teacher, with a proper attitude

> of learning to gain the knowledge that is required to

> solve the problem. A competent teacher is one who

> himself was a sincere student who having recognized

> this fundamental human problem through the process of

> retrospection and analysis, and approached his teacher

> who was competent enough to teach. Thus Vedanta is

> taught from a teacher to the taught and is perennial

> philosophy that is passed on from generation to

> generation starting, as Krishna says in Gita, from the

> original teacher, himself.

 

Dear friends,

With reference to the above, are we to understand by the term, 'a competent teacher,' the idea of one being intellectually very well accomplished in the traditional role? Or does this connote the idea of an enlightened Mahapurusha, like Ramana, to quote the name of one? If it is the former, there are many persons ranging from individuals holding chairs in the Universities to many representing many organizations. How could get the true understanding from mere intellectual pandits? At best one could become very proficient in intellectual, verbal, knowledge, being able to outwit others intellectually, which is far removed from spiritual understanding. If one should get the understanding only from an enlightened guru, each one thinks that their own guru is supreme and real. Before coming to any conclusion on this, is it not a valid thing that one should be very non-judgmental in one’s approach. One should also introspect whether one is not merely

interested in acquisition of knowledge, developing a sense of attachment to one’s own conclusions, becoming fanatical. True religion consists not in merely understanding the verbal contents of the scriptures, but in understanding the psychological mechanism of thought, which is the first and last step. Bhaghavan’s who am I enquiry is very valid in this context. One does not have to depend on the mere study of books.The self is the only true teacher and book which one should read.

with regards

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Check out the all-new Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Neil,

 

On 29/01/07, nlg108108 <nlg_108 (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote:

>

> Re: the importance of studying under a competent teacher, and how one

> recognizes such a person: is there a formal concept of unbroken lineage

> in the Vedanta? In buddhism, one is taught that only a teacher who can

> establish that she or he is fully authorized by a guru/lama/roshi/etc.,

 

There is definitely a concept of an unbroken lineage in Vedanta also.

In fact, this is a feature of pretty much all the classical Indian

traditions inlcuding Buddhism. Technically, the word "sampradaya" is

used to describe a guru-shishya (teacher-disciple) lineage. In

practice however, Vedanta is more informal and while there are many

such traditional lineages it is not uncommon for people who were not

formally trained in such lineages to become great teachers.

 

Ramesh

[Guest guest]

to all

 

with ref.to the above post i just wish to post this excerpt from one of thee lectures of swami dayananda saraswathy.

 

"self knowledge is an unveiling process -unfolding- the darshan of the lord like the sculptor chipping away the unwanted pieces- all the time seeing the lord inside -removing all the desires,ahankara etc.to reveal yourself- your atma -the lordalways-already there inside- the darshan of your own true nature-the self."

 

baskaran

__baskaran,_._,___

 

 

BASKARAN.C.S

 

 

Here’s a new way to find what you're looking for - Answers