Fwd: Veda as means of knowledge

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " bhikkuyogi " <bhikkuyogi>

wrote:

List Moderator's Note to members who have doubts about Sankara's

Advaita Philosophy: The list though respects their disagreements

with Sankara, they are once more reminded that the main focus of

this list is SANKARA'S ADVAITA VEDANTA PHILOSOPHY.

 

 

Dear Dr. Yadu,

 

I donot wish to answer every message on the group, addressed to me.

But since your message misrepresents or misreads the teaching of the

Buddha, I only make an attempt to clarify matters. What you have

mentioned in your email is not exactly the view of the Buddha or

Buddhists around the world.

 

> Why do you think Buddha recommended " buddham saraNam gacchhaami " ?

> Was it meant that one surrenders to gautam buddha or to the

buddha,

> the knowledge?

 

While you have said that it was 'knowledge', I think you donot

understand the term well. 'Buddha' here refers to the bodhi in each

person. That is the true teacher. The bodhi is awakened through

meditative insight. That experience and knowledge gained through

meditative insight is given the highest importance.

 

The historic Buddha divided knowledge (panna) into three categories.

'sutamaya', 'chintanmaya' and 'bhavanamaya'. 'sutamaya' refers to

that

which is heard or read. In other words, it is the scripture. It is

not

bad, but is inferior to the other two. 'chintanmaya' refers to the

understanding and conclusions based on one's analysis and

deliberation. It involves reasoning, logic, discrimination and

faculties of the intellect. 'bhavanamaya panna' however goes beyond

all these and teaches something at a deeper level, where the

personality itself changes. It goes into the subconscious, and

further

deep, where there is no sense of consciousness, although one is not

unconscious. For eg: It can make a habitually angry person

insightful

and mild. This 'bhavanamaya panna' or meditative insight is given

highest importance according to the Buddha. For this reason, the

word

'panna' in the Pali canon often means only 'bhavanamaya panna'.

 

Therefore taking Veda as a means of knowledge, is only inferior for

us. We donot take any scripture, not even the Pali canon as a means

of

knowledge.

 

If a person has never tasted sugar, how would he know what it is? If

you say sweet - the word 'sweet' triggers an analysis in his mind

that

helps him form a sort of impression about sugar. But till he eats

sugar he does not know the real taste of sugar. You may argue that

the

Veda gives direct knowledge, but that is more a matter of beleif and

faith than of meditative insight.

 

> On one had you say that you do not understand Sanskrit and as

> a Buddhist you do not believe in Vead. Essentially declare that

> that you do not care to understand them either !!!

 

Here you must note that while I make an attempt to understand the

Veda

and the Upanishad by reading the English translations, I donot

accept

them as authority. I even read the Pali canon in it's English

translation. (Because of my education in the US, I find English more

comfortable.) It does not matter to me what language I read it in,

as

long as the message is clear to me. However, in my opinion, neither

Veda, nor Upanishad, nor the Pali canon are authorities on knowledge

and nothing contained therin is binding on me.

 

I will use my insight wherever possible and will use reason wherever

not possible. However, where neither work, I make no opinion or

beleif, I wait for the truth to emerge. Reliance on scripture is

only

when one knows no direction at all. And the best that the scripture

can ever do to one is to teach a person to use one's faculty of

reason, logic and discrimination. Meditative insight needs special

training.

 

You might be aware that ancient Indians first learnt logic,

mathematics, etc. and then went on to learn the Veda or Upanishad.

The

message is clear: " Apply your reason and logic while learning the

Veda. " Since that tradition is lost, people think reason and logic

can

be thrown into the dustbin and their ability to chant mantras is

more

important.

 

> All the mantras in Veda did not come from the brain power alone

but

> expose the real core " heart " of the issues. That is why they use

> the phrase R^idaspR^iSha (that has touched the heart). Just a few

> quotations for your benefit.

 

I agree that the Veda has certain parts (angas) called the Vedanta,

which are profound. But I find the other parts mainly ritualistic

and

doctrinistic. I donot complain, for I accept it as it is, but I

donot

agree with anything other the the Vedanta sections. There also, I

have

my own freedom to reject on the basis of reason or meditative

insight.

 

I understand that due to your love for the Veda - especially since

you

were born a Hindu, you want me to accept the Veda as a means of

knowledge. But to me it can never be a valid means of reliable

knowledge, just as the Pali canon or the Bible or Quran can never be

a

reliable means of knowledge. It's validity is not beyond reason and

logic. But reason's validity is inferior to meditative insight. And

this meditative insight is the ultimate means of knowledge,

irrefutable. All other means may be thrown overboard when this is

available. That however does not mean that sutamaya panna is of no

value at all. It's value is limited.

 

-Bhikku Yogi

--- End forwarded message ---