Conflicting statements?

[Guest guest]

One of the two interpretations of BSB 1.i.3 is given (in

Swami Gambhirananda’s translation) as: “(Brahman is not known from

any other source), since the scriptures are the valid means of its knowledge.”

and Shankara comments that this is pointed out since “it might (otherwise)

be suspected that an inference alone has been presented (as the means of knowing

Brahman)”. I.e. Shankara seems to be at pains to point out that logic,

reason, anumAna are unable on their own to ‘prove’ the non-dual

reality and that one has to rely upon shAstra pramANa alone.

 

In commentary upon II.1 of Gaudapada’s kArikA on the

mANDUkya upaniShad (Swami Nikhilananda’s translation), however, Shankara

states that: “It is also equally possible to determine the unreality

(illusoriness) of duality through pure reasoning…”

 

Is there some accepted rationalization of this apparent

contradiction? E.g. is this one of the reasons why the Gaudapada commentary is

thought by some not to have been authored by Shankara?

 

My own view is that scriptures may well be ‘necessary’

to the extent that the very idea of non-duality is counter-intuitive, but that

once the idea is there it can effectively be proven in the sorts of ways that

Gaudapada shows, in the fourth prakaraNa of the kArikA-s, that the ideas of

other philosophies (both Astika and nAstika) cannot be supported.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dennis PRaNAms

 

This is my understanding.

 

First Brahman realization itself is within maayaa. Ignorance is in maayaa and

knowledge is also ontologically in par with it. The same problem in the

discussion of akhaDaakara vRitti definition. The inherent conflicts,

contradictions, oxymorons are all if we trying to bridge the gap between

vyavahaara and paaramaarthika. The same problem in trying to compare different

swami-s statments, done underdifferent contexts or different references.

 

This is fundamental problem that has to be recognized in all the advaita

discussions. Realization has relevance only from vyaavahaarika where there is

jiiva notion. The nature of Brahman being infinite it is described as

'aprameyam' not an object of knowledge by any means - that is it cannot be known

as object. All objective knowledge involves pramaata, pramaya and pramaaNa –

knower-known- means of knowledge. All the negative words used to describe

Brahman are only to point out or take the mind from the finite and objectifiable

entities. Conflicts and contradiction are there only when we try keeping one leg

at vyavahaara and one leg on paaramaarthika. Scripture as pramaaNa are

indicators for Brahman like the pointer to the moon. One has to use the pointer

to look in the direction, leaving the pointer and go beyond to see the moon in

the direction that is pointed. Scripture is pramaaNa for the knowledge - you

are that - there are obviously the

contradictions and conflicts in the statement as one reads - How can I the

subject is that which is an object. One has to unravel the truth of this

statement with full faith in the scriptural statement that I am that - I the

subject that which is infinite absolute truth are the same. This is not logical

and scripture has to reveal and faith in the scripture is essential to realize

that truth.

 

The abosolute truth is self-evident and infinite. It is very simple and straight

forward. Relative truth depends on the reference and from what reference the

truth is being pointed obviously differ. Clear understanding and nidhidhyaasana

involves resolution of all conflicts, contraditions, oxymorons and see the

beauty of the truth that is so evident and glaring to be recognized.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

--- On Wed, 11/12/08, Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

 

Dennis Waite <dwaite

Conflicting statements?

" Advaitin (AT) (DOT) Com " <advaitin >

Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 3:50 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One of the two interpretations of BSB 1.i.3 is given (in Swami Gambhirananda’s

translation) as: “(Brahman is not known from any other source), since the

scriptures are the valid means of its knowledge.†and Shankara comments that

this is pointed out since “it might (otherwise) be suspected that an inference

alone has been presented (as the means of knowing Brahman)â€. I.e. Shankara

seems to be at pains to point out that logic, reason, anumAna are unable on

their own to ‘prove’ the non-dual reality and that one has to rely upon

shAstra pramANa alone.

 

In commentary upon II.1 of Gaudapada’s kArikA on the mANDUkya upaniShad (Swami

Nikhilananda’s translation) , however, Shankara states that: “It is also

equally possible to determine the unreality (illusoriness) of duality through

pure reasoning…â€

 

Is there some accepted rationalization of this apparent contradiction? E.g. is

this one of the reasons why the Gaudapada commentary is thought by some not to

have been authored by Shankara?

 

My own view is that scriptures may well be ‘necessary’ to the extent that

the very idea of non-duality is counter-intuitive, but that once the idea is

there it can effectively be proven in the sorts of ways that Gaudapada shows, in

the fourth prakaraNa of the kArikA-s, that the ideas of other philosophies (both

Astika and nAstika) cannot be supported.  

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennisji,

 

Shastra pramana is for Brahman which is non-dual and not for duality.

In the case of Mithyatva of duality, shastra pramana may not be

helpful because the illusoriness of the world can be inferred by

ourselves. In fact, the Buddhists do this very well without the help

of shastra. To summarise:

 

1. For knowing Brahman, Shastra is needed

2. For knowing the illusoriness of duality, shastra is not needed, but

helpful. Inference is equally helpful.

 

Kathirasan

 

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 4:50 AM, Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

> One of the two interpretations of BSB 1.i.3 is given (in Swami

> Gambhirananda's translation) as: " (Brahman is not known from any other

> source), since the scriptures are the valid means of its knowledge. " and

> Shankara comments that this is pointed out since " it might (otherwise) be

> suspected that an inference alone has been presented (as the means of

> knowing Brahman) " . I.e. Shankara seems to be at pains to point out that

> logic, reason, anumAna are unable on their own to 'prove' the non-dual

> reality and that one has to rely upon shAstra pramANa alone.

>

>

>

> In commentary upon II.1 of Gaudapada's kArikA on the mANDUkya upaniShad

> (Swami Nikhilananda's translation), however, Shankara states that: " It is

> also equally possible to determine the unreality (illusoriness) of duality

> through pure reasoning… "

>

>

>

> Is there some accepted rationalization of this apparent contradiction? E.g.

> is this one of the reasons why the Gaudapada commentary is thought by some

> not to have been authored by Shankara?

>

>

>

> My own view is that scriptures may well be 'necessary' to the extent that

> the very idea of non-duality is counter-intuitive, but that once the idea is

> there it can effectively be proven in the sorts of ways that Gaudapada

> shows, in the fourth prakaraNa of the kArikA-s, that the ideas of other

> philosophies (both Astika and nAstika) cannot be supported.

>

>

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

--

Kathirasan

 

Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sastri-ji (et al),

Thanks for the several replies to this question. As Bhaskar-ji correctly

observed, my intention was specifically to ask about the two apparently

contradictory statements of Shankara and not about the content but I had

clouded the question by my own observation.

Having established that we should carry out an investigation

into Brahman, the second two sutras of the BS point out that, in order to do

this we must first know what Brahman is (definition or lakShaNa) and secondly

have some means by which we can gain the knowledge (pramANa). As I indicated in

the question, that there is such a thing as a non-dual reality is not something

that would immediately occur to most people so that shAstra is clearly needed

to tell us that there is and that it is satyam, j~nAnam, anantam etc. But when

it comes to investigation , it seems that shruti gives conflicting guidance and

that we have to resort to reason to ‘sift the evidence’ that we

gather.

Thus, taking the example that you (Sastri-ji) give, creation: BS

1.2. effectively defines brahman as ‘jagat kAraNa’ (cause of the

universe) and various upaniShad-s give various ‘explanations’ as to

how the universe came into existence. And yet we know from the reasoning given

in mANDUkya U (only incidentally supported by some shAstra statements) that

there has never been any creation at all.

We can use reason to explain the mithyAtva (non-separate

existence) of ring, bangle etc, then of gold, then of molecules and atoms, down

to Consciousness (of the observer) without reference to shruti. But could we do

this without reason, unless we had unquestioning faith in shAstra? (In which

case how would we differentiate between the many conflicting accounts?)

Everything seems to point to the primacy of reason as far as the

actual investigation is concerned.

To return then, to the question of Shankara’s viewpoint, are

you saying that he is accepted as being in agreement with this position? (You

say: “Thus, in short, brahman can be known only from shruti, but the falsity

of the world can be established by reasoning (or inference).”)

Best wishes,

Dennis

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Dear Sastri-ji (et al),

>

> Thanks for the several replies to this question.

 

> Thus, taking the example that you (Sastri-ji) give, creation: BS 1.2.

> effectively defines brahman as 'jagat kAraNa' (cause of the

universe) and

> various upaniShad-s give various 'explanations' as to how the

universe came

> into existence. And yet we know from the reasoning given in mANDUkya

U (only

> incidentally supported by some shAstra statements) that there has

never been

> any creation at all.

>

> We can use reason to explain the mithyAtva (non-separate existence)

of ring,

> bangle etc, then of gold, then of molecules and atoms, down to

Consciousness

> (of the observer) without reference to shruti. But could we do this

without

> reason, unless we had unquestioning faith in shAstra? (In which case how

> would we differentiate between the many conflicting accounts?)

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

 

 

Namaste Dennis,

 

What is your actual question? I cannot seem to grasp what

it is (although I am in no way a scholar).

 

If you are trying to reconcile the two statements which

you originally posted in post #42268

 

1. (Brahman is not known from any other source), since the scriptures

are the valid means of its knowledge. " and Shankara comments that this

is pointed out since " it might (otherwise) be suspected that an

inference alone has been presented (as the means of knowing Brahman) " .

I.e. Shankara seems to be at pains to point out that logic, reason,

anumAna are unable on their own to `prove' the non-dual reality and

that one has to rely upon shAstra pramANa alone.

 

2. It is also equally possible to determine the unreality

(illusoriness) of duality through pure reasoning… "

 

It seems to me that Sastri-ji's post reconciled those

two viewpoints for you.

 

We can see that the world is not as it appears to be

using very simple logic by taking everything apart.

 

The ordinary means of logic which we have available to

us can do just that.

 

What we cannot arrive at through our ordinary means of logic

is that brahman is the substrate reality of all that is,

and for that we need shruti pramana.

 

Shruti pramana itself employs very precise logic.

That's why shruti pramana works, because the logic it

employs is not subject to negation.

 

Initially one may not be able to benefit from that

logic for various reasons, but eventually one will

if various criteria are met.

 

So what is your actual question? Can you write it out

very simply, so a simple person like me can understand

it?

 

Is it that you want to reconcile the two views

that there is a creation of which brahman is the cause,

with the statement of Mundukya that the creation doesn't

exist?

 

Is it that one needs to have shraddha in the shruti in

order for the shruti to work, but the shruti appears

to contain conflicting statements, so which statements

should one have shraddha in?

 

Are you trying to say that because the shruti and Shankara

encourage the use of logic, then we can use our own logic

to accept or reject what the shruti says, based on whether

we find the statements therein logical or not, and that

Shankara supports that view?

 

That then you can go back into shruti, find conflicting

statements, and negate whichever one of them seems

less logical to you?

 

I think that there may be a bottom line question or line

of reasoning here which either you have not clearly articulated,

or which I have not clearly understood. And this

may indeed be a very big question, such that I would not be

qualified to answer it at all.

 

From my own perspective, all I can say is that I am

happy and grateful to have a highly trained teacher who

can use pramana as a means of knowledge, which no amount of

logic can refute, and who can also supply the 'vision' of the

Upanishad, that there is a creation and a creator, and that in

the end there is only satyam.

 

The ability to live with and function within this

seeming paradox, is I feel the great gift which the

Upanishads give us, because it enables us to be reconciled

with our self. If the view seems paradoxical

or not logical, then either we have to do some

more mananam, or reject the shruti as a means of knowledge,

or ideally find a teacher whom we trust to help us. I

do not see any other way to feel comfortable with this

teaching.

 

All the best,

Durga

[Guest guest]

Dear Durga-ji,

My apologies for not being sufficiently direct and clear. This

was partly intentional. It is, as you say, an interesting topic and this is,

after all, a discussion group! I wanted to hear the views of other members

around these two statements.

I attempted to explain my own rationalization of the apparent contradictories

of the two statements as follows:

1) shAstra is needed in order to tell us that brahman exists and

is the only reality. (i.e. shAstra as lakShaNa)

2) Reason is needed in order to investigate the nature of brahman.

This is done partly by enquiring into the nature of the worldly experience

(e.g. questioning the existence of objects separate from the observer) and

partly by questioning the statements of the shruti (i.e. going through the

learning process of the teaching methods of adhyAropa-apavAda). (i.e.

reason as pramANa)

My ‘bottom-line’ question was then: “Is it accepted

that this conclusion (as stated above) was the viewpoint of Shankara, thus

explaining the apparent contradiction?”

I quoted Sastri-ji: “Thus, in short, brahman can be known

only from shruti, but the falsity of the world can be established by reasoning

(or inference).”

And you, too, seem to be saying much the same: “We can see

that the world is not as it appears to be using very simple logic by taking

everything apart. The ordinary means of logic which we have available to us can

do just that. What we cannot arrive at through our ordinary means of logic is

that brahman is the substrate reality of all that is, and for that we need

shruti pramANa.”

These two statements seem to be agreeing with what I have said.

So I was just asking for confirmation that this was indeed so.

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennisji:

 

The entire discussion thread did provide the fact that " The appearance

of Conflicting statements is due to the appearance of presence of

duality " which was actually resolved through reasoning! Gandhiji used

to state that " the scripture is always correct, " but our understanding

of the scriptures was responsible for all the contradictions that

perceive. If we keep full faith on the scriptures (Sankara requires us

to have full conviction on the first statement) then all dualities can

be dispelled by using logical reasoning. Most of the contradictions are

due to lack of fatih in the first statement! Once again, the Sanskrit

term Shraddha is quite useful for resolving this apparant

contradiction. The level of shraddha (can vary from 0 to infinity)

determines the level of contradictions that we perceive. At 0 level of

shraddha, we will see plurality with various names and forms. At an

infinite level of shraddha, we only perceive the Brahman - rather

merges with the Brahman.

 

This is my understanding,

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Dear Durga-ji,

>

> My apologies for not being sufficiently direct and clear. This was

partly

> intentional. It is, as you say, an interesting topic and this is,

after all,

> a discussion group! I wanted to hear the views of other members

around these