RE: My two cents on Para and Apara - and my 2 million dollars

[Guest guest]

 

Jaya Jagannatha

Dear Narasimha

Some comments under your mail because I think that there is a difference between our understanding of the discussions.

With best wishes and warm regards,

Sanjay Rath

* * *

Sri Jagannath Center®

15B Gangaram Hospital Road

New Delhi 110060, India

http://srath.com, +91-11-25717162

* * *

 

 

 

 

Narasimha P.V.R. Rao [pvr] Sunday, April 03, 2005 10:57 AMvarahamihira Subject: |Sri Varaha| My two cents on Para and Apara

 

Namaste friends,

 

Saaji sent a mail on varahamihira a while ago. He gave a quote from Mundakopanishat and said that he wanted to believe that astrology was a para vidya but did not find a classical reference to counter a weighty reference such as Mundakopanishat. [sanjay Rath:] Can you show me the mail where Saaji says that he believes that astrology is para vidya

He asked others if they had other references. I am afraid he was grossly misunderstood by others who started attacking him for giving a genuine quote in a very scholarly fashion. But that is not what I want to talk about.[sanjay Rath:] I don't think he did not get the reference. In fact I persoanlly wrote to him to look up Shankaras bhasya. Problem is he never bothered to read it until it was posted in this list. I still wonder if he has as many people are often closed at a young age. His expectation that Sarbani and others will always sit and type out huge portions from the Upanishads and Shankaras commentary is what is wrong. Why did he not read it or comment on it? So much for scholarship. Anyway that is besides the point lets go on. One thing have you read it?

 

I want to address Saaji's quote.

 

The word para vidya means different things to different people. That is where the problem lies.[sanjay Rath:] What does it mean to you Narasimha? Lets have your opinion.

 

The strictest meaning of "para" is "supreme". So para vidya means "supreme knowledge". Knowledge of Brahman alone is supreme. All other knowledge, including the knowledge of Vedas, Vedangas and Upanishats, is inferior to that knowledge. Mundakopanishat obviously uses this strict definition and hence calls Jyotisha an apara vidya (non-supreme knowledge).[sanjay Rath:] So the logic you use here is (1) Paraa means supreme [statement of ideology] and (2) a hypothesis that Brahman is supreme and hence the logical conclusion that knowledge of Brahman is supreme. In this logic you have (1) qualified Brahman as the final object of all knowedge and (2) added an exclusion in the word 'only'. This exclusion makes (2A) all other knowledge as inferior and here you have added another presumption that (2B) Vedas, Vedangas and Upanishad is inferior to tha knowledge implying that Veda is NOT Brahman (again here you qualify Brahman as the ultimate knowledge).

Now see Adi Shankaras argument - let us for a moment assume that statement to be right. Then the first contradiction of the statement is in itself or its authority in that if the Upanishads are hollow or do not contain the knowledge that leads to Paraa Vidya then this statemet also should be hollow or wrong. How can we accept a statement in a book which in itself is not Paraa Vidya.

Now coe to the second argument of Shankara - If the statement is *not wrong* and has a purport behind it, the it is this that the books by themselves canot give you Paraa Vidyaa but these are veriably the *only source* for that perfect knowledge of God. Its like this - all of read Brihat Parasara Hora Shastra and yet there are many who say that Upapada is a *Jaimini Principle*. How many times have we told them to read Parasara for themselves, yet they don't and we have to give quotes, and explanations and case studies and what not all...yet many shall continue to say things like this.

So also the Vedas, Vedanga and Upanishad are *SOURCES* of the Paraa Vidyaa and not Paraa Vidya itself just like Brihat Parasara Hora Shastra is the *SOURCE* for the Hora Shastra or the Vedanga Jyotisha and not Jyotisha Vidya itself.

My Understanding of Shankara is that

" Books and all other medium of learning using the indriyas are the sources of knowledge and not knowledge itself for knowledge is a state of the mind at its five levels and a state of the mind/consciousness cannot find perfect expression in any media'. It is the power to understand and the power to will tha differentiates man from animals and this power to understand is the ability to know and retain impressions as *knowledge*.

 

Some people use a less strict meaning. For them, apara vidya means material knowledge and para vidya means spiritual knowledge. Such people are naturally surprised to find a respected Upanishat saying that Jyotisha is apara vidya.[sanjay Rath:] That is a rough translation as knowledge is really neither material nor spiritual and is simply a state of the consciousness or mana. When we know this then the first differentiation we make is to list all those things including books, experiences etc that give us nowledge for our continued existance in this planet or those that prepare us for afterlife. Again a rough translation of that is *material* and *spiritual*.

 

Just because chemistry and Jyotisha are both apara vidyas (non-supreme knowledge), it does not mean they are both material subjects. Some apara vidya is grossly material, while some apara vidya is spiritual. Even though a vidya may be apara (non-supreme), it can aid one in attaining para vidya (supreme knowledge of self).[sanjay Rath:] Narasimha *grossly* is a qualitative term and I know of people who have tried to reach God through knowledge of Physics. In fact the *exclusion principle* caused by a narrow interpretation of the Manduka Upanishad excludes all other religions and shows them in very poor light which is totally against the tenets of Hinduism.

So long as Jyotisha is used to determine when one is buying a house or getting a promotion, even Jyotisha is Apara Vidya. Whereas when Einstein sees the hand of God in the power behind the tiny atoms then this knowledge or realisation of the power of God in governing the creation is Paraa Vidya in Physics!!!

 

Thus, I see no inconsistency between the common understanding in our tradition that Jyotisha is a spiritual subject unlike material subjects like chemistry and the quote from Mundakopanishat.[sanjay Rath:] I think I have given my understanding.

 

If respected gurus, elders and authorities allow me to make a non-technical suggestion, I will suggest that we should encourage students like Saaji to raise this kind of issues so that we can have an impassionate and scholarly discussion and prepare ourselves better to debate with people outside our tradition. In particular, I found Saaji very sincere, learned and brilliant. He was most misunderstood and lost his balance only at the end.[sanjay Rath:] No need to do this Narasimha. We have all been scolded in school and we remember those teachers with maximum love and affection who used to shout at us - because we now realise that they are the only ones *WHO CARED*. How did it matter to so many Jyotish Gurus if Saaji made any statement. So many Jyotish Gurus are so busy fighting their little battles that they have forgotten the existence of little *Saaji's* who ae desperately looking at them for a little light.

My prayer to one and all is to endeavor day and night to realise that Jyotish is a paraa vidya and to spend at least a quarter of time with clients and others talking about their Ista devata and mantras etc .

 

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,Narasimha-------------------------------Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.netFree Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org

SJC website: http://www.SriJagannath.org-------------------------------|Om Tat Sat|http://www.varahamihira

[Guest guest]

Pranaam Sanjay,

 

[NR] Thanks for your "2 million dollars" and here's 2 more cents from me. :-)

 

> Saaji sent a mail on varahamihira a while ago. He gave a quote from> Mundakopanishat and said that he wanted to believe that astrology was a para> vidya but did not find a classical reference to counter a weighty reference> such as Mundakopanishat. > [sanjay Rath:] Can you show me the mail where Saaji says that he believes> that astrology is para vidya

 

[NR] I did not say he believed so. I only said that he wanted to believe so (my inference) and was looking for references. Saaji said "I quoted this to find any other authority to prove otherwise."

 

See the following post:

 

varahamihira/message/13495

> He asked others if they had other references. I am afraid he was grossly> misunderstood by others who started attacking him for giving a genuine quote> in a very scholarly fashion. But that is not what I want to talk about.> [sanjay Rath:] I don't think he did not get the reference. In fact I> persoanlly wrote to him to look up Shankaras bhasya. Problem is he never> bothered to read it until it was posted in this list. I still wonder if he> has as many people are often closed at a young age. His expectation that> Sarbani and others will always sit and type out huge portions from the> Upanishads and Shankaras commentary is what is wrong. Why did he not read it

 

[NR] I don't think anybody actually gave any real reference or try to engage Saaji in a true debate. Saaji was the only one who gave an unambiguous Scriptural reference on Jyotisha being an apara or para vidya. I did read Sarbani's post on Shankara Bhashyam, but she jumps to conclusions. Ajit Krishnan answered her post very well.

 

All Saaji got was brickbats, condescending remarks and insults that he was not learned enough to be here. Even his guru was attacked. I don't agree that Saaji showed closed-mindedness or had wrong expectations. Instead, it looks to me like others got carried away.

 

Some people don't wear their spirituality and scholarship on their sleeves. They get into arguments only when a positive purpose exists and stick to terse statements instead of writing essays. Such people tend to be misunderstood and their scholarship tends to be misjudged. I am afraid the same thing happened to Saaji. After reading his mails, I am most impressed with Saaji and am hurt (I say it with sincerity and genuineness) that he was unfairly treated and insulted at the organization I belong to.

> or comment on it? So much for scholarship. Anyway that is besides the point

 

He said he read it. But, before he got a chance to comment on it, he was insulted repeatedly and he decided to leave.

 

> lets go on. One thing have you read it?

 

[NR] Of course, I read the entire thread and posts surrounding it, before I stuck my nose into this. I know why you put that smiley. I don't get to read most of my email. But I did read this thread before making comments. After reading the entire thread, I cannot help but feel sorry for Saaji and his guru.

 

> I want to address Saaji's quote.> > The word para vidya means different things to different people. That is> where the problem lies.> [sanjay Rath:] What does it mean to you Narasimha? Lets have your opinion.

 

[NR] Because you specifically asked for my views, I am giving my views.

 

In astrology, bhavas show the intangible absolute Truth and padas (arudha padas) show the tangible manifestation, which is just an illusion. Bhava means "meaning" or "intended idea" and pada means "word/expression/symbol". All knowledge that is merely an assemblage of words (padas) is like padas of astrology. It is tangible. Thus, it can be shared between people. It can be transferred/taught. But it is not the absolute truth. While the words assembled in Upanishats are like padas of astrology, their intended meaning (bhava) is akin to bhavas (houses) of astrology. It is intangible and hence you cannot teach it. It can only be "realized".

 

My view is that Para vidya is the "supreme" knowledge of the imperishable Brahman and it cannot be taught and can only be realized. There is no knowledge or realization above it. Para vidya is not any tangible assemblage of words or thoughts or formulas or concepts. Thus, astrology or other Vedangas as we know them do not qualify as Para vidya. Para vidya is the knowledge of Brahman that can come from an understanding of Upanishats (and not merely by reading the words of Upanishats). My view essentially agrees with the views of Shankara.

 

However, the supreme realization of Brahman does not come easily or in one step. Several other realization can serve as stepping stones. From a practical perspective, it is my view that Vedas and Vedangas aid in the pursuit of the absolute Truth.

 

Recently, when the topic of astrology being a spiritual subject came up on , Sri KN Rao and Finn Wandahl used the same Upanishadic quote to dismiss the view that Jyotisha is a para vidya. So they argued that Jyotisha is not a spiritual subject.

 

In my view, we are walking into a trap if we insist that spiritual knowledge and Para vidya are synonyms and that Jyotisha is a para vidya. That way, we don't have an acceptable argument against Mundakopanishat and we lose the argument.

 

I will argue that Jyotisha and other vedangas are apara vidya, but do not equate para vidya with spiritual knowledge. Para vidya is the supreme realization that is the final goal of all spiritual knowledge.

> The strictest meaning of "para" is "supreme". So para vidya means "supreme> knowledge". Knowledge of Brahman alone is supreme. All other knowledge,> including the knowledge of Vedas, Vedangas and Upanishats, is inferior to> that knowledge. Mundakopanishat obviously uses this strict definition and> hence calls Jyotisha an apara vidya (non-supreme knowledge).> [sanjay Rath:] So the logic you use here is (1) Paraa means supreme> [statement of ideology] and (2) a hypothesis that Brahman is supreme and> hence the logical conclusion that knowledge of Brahman is supreme. In this> logic you have (1) qualified Brahman as the final object of all knowedge and> (2) added an exclusion in the word 'only'. This exclusion makes (2A) all> other knowledge as inferior and here you have added another presumption that> (2B) Vedas, Vedangas and Upanishad is inferior to tha knowledge implying> that Veda is NOT Brahman (again here you qualify Brahman as the ultimate> knowledge).

>

> Now see Adi Shankaras argument - let us for a moment assume that statement

> to be right. Then the first contradiction of the statement is in itself or> its authority in that if the Upanishads are hollow or do not contain the> knowledge that leads to Paraa Vidya then this statemet also should be hollow> or wrong. How can we accept a statement in a book which in itself is not> Paraa Vidya.

 

[NR] Please realize that I am only talking about Jyotisha being an apara vidya and not about Upanishat here. The mundaka quote unabiguously states that Vedas and Vedangas are apara vidya, but leaves out Upanishats!!

 

 

Vedas are all the "bound" knowledge and Vedangas are the limbs of bound knowledge. Vedanta (literally, the end of Veda) is the knowledge beyond the bound knowledge. It is the knowledge with no boundaries. Thus, it is my view that only Vedanta is capable of bringing para vidya.

 

I don't agree with clubbing Upanishat and Vedanga together. It is incorrect to say that Shankara taught that Vedangas impart para vidya. You can make that argument only regarding Upanishat. As Ajit said, this is the view of the keepers of Shankara's tradition.

> Now coe to the second argument of Shankara - If the statement is *not wrong*> and has a purport behind it, the it is this that the books by themselves> canot give you Paraa Vidyaa but these are veriably the *only source* for> that perfect knowledge of God. Its like this - all of read Brihat Parasara> Hora Shastra and yet there are many who say that Upapada is a *Jaimini> Principle*. How many times have we told them to read Parasara for> themselves, yet they don't and we have to give quotes, and explanations and> case studies and what not all...yet many shall continue to say things like> this.

 

[NR] Upanishat do not by themselves constitute the Para vidya, but they are the source of Para vidya. I agree with your argument above if you are referring to Upanishat. If you want to include Jyotisha and other Vedangas, I will have to respectfully disagree. Such a view is not accepted by Shakara's tradition. It is wrong to attribute such a view to Shankara.

> So also the Vedas, Vedanga and Upanishad are *SOURCES* of the Paraa Vidyaa> and not Paraa Vidya itself just like Brihat Parasara Hora Shastra is the> *SOURCE* for the Hora Shastra or the Vedanga Jyotisha and not Jyotisha Vidya> itself. > My Understanding of Shankara is that > " Books and all other medium of learning using the indriyas are the sources> of knowledge and not knowledge itself for knowledge is a state of the mind> at its five levels and a state of the mind/consciousness cannot find perfect> expression in any media'. It is the power to understand and the power to> will tha differentiates man from animals and this power to understand is the> ability to know and retain impressions as *knowledge*.

> > Some people use a less strict meaning. For them, apara vidya means material> knowledge and para vidya means spiritual knowledge. Such people are> naturally surprised to find a respected Upanishat saying that Jyotisha is> apara vidya.> [sanjay Rath:] That is a rough translation as knowledge is really neither> material nor spiritual and is simply a state of the consciousness or mana.> When we know this then the first differentiation we make is to list all> those things including books, experiences etc that give us nowledge for our> continued existance in this planet or those that prepare us for afterlife.> Again a rough translation of that is *material* and *spiritual*. > > Just because chemistry and Jyotisha are both apara vidyas (non-supreme> knowledge), it does not mean they are both material subjects. Some apara> vidya is grossly material, while some apara vidya is spiritual. Even though> a vidya may be apara (non-supreme), it can aid one in attaining para vidya> (supreme knowledge of self).> [sanjay Rath:] Narasimha *grossly* is a qualitative term and I know of> people who have tried to reach God through knowledge of Physics. In fact the> *exclusion principle* caused by a narrow interpretation of the Manduka

 

I see no scope for any interpretation - narrow or broad. Mundaka clearly and unambiguously states that Jyotisha is an apara vidya. Period.

> Upanishad excludes all other religions and shows them in very poor light> which is totally against the tenets of Hinduism.

 

[NR] If I say that Jyotisha or some other subject is an apara vidya, it does not imply some kind of "poor light". If you think it shows Jyotisha in a poor light, I will argue that it is because of your wrong expectations. A lot of subjects do not directly constitute or directly facilitate the realization of the Supreme Imperishable Brahman. It does not mean they are useless or unimportant subjects.

 

The poor light may be coming because of your insistence on equating para vidya with spiritual knowledge. If I accept that Jyotisha is apara vidya as Mundaka clearly teaches and argue that it can still aid in the purusuit of Para vidya, there is no poor light.

> So long as Jyotisha is used to determine when one is buying a house or> getting a promotion, even Jyotisha is Apara Vidya. Whereas when Einstein> sees the hand of God in the power behind the tiny atoms then this knowledge> or realisation of the power of God in governing the creation is Paraa Vidya> in Physics!!!

 

[NR] It may be a step towards Para vidya, but definitely not Para vidya in the sense upheld by upanishat.

> Thus, I see no inconsistency between the common understanding in our> tradition that Jyotisha is a spiritual subject unlike material subjects like> chemistry and the quote from Mundakopanishat.> [sanjay Rath:] I think I have given my understanding. > > If respected gurus, elders and authorities allow me to make a non-technical> suggestion, I will suggest that we should encourage students like Saaji to> raise this kind of issues so that we can have an impassionate and scholarly> discussion and prepare ourselves better to debate with people outside our> tradition. In particular, I found Saaji very sincere, learned and brilliant.> He was most misunderstood and lost his balance only at the end.> [sanjay Rath:] No need to do this Narasimha. We have all been scolded in> school and we remember those teachers with maximum love and affection who> used to shout at us - because we now realise that they are the only ones

> *WHO CARED*. How did it matter to so many Jyotish Gurus if Saaji made any> statement. So many Jyotish Gurus are so busy fighting their little battles> that they have forgotten the existence of little *Saaji's* who ae> desperately looking at them for a little light.> My prayer to one and all is to endeavor day and night to realise that> Jyotish is a paraa vidya and to spend at least a quarter of time with> clients and others talking about their Ista devata and mantras etc .

 

[NR] Well, that is what I am trying to say. Whether Jyotisha is a para vidya or Jyotisha imparts para vidya is a different debate from whether Jyotisha is a spiritual subject and whether we should talk about soul, gods, spirituality, brahma jnaana and moksha in astrology. Some people succeeded in linking these two topics and making us believe that they are one and the same. We should not fall into the trap and insist that these are two different topics. Mix-up between two different issues is what is causing a lot of heart-burn here. I hope my view is clear.

May Jupiter's light shine on us,Narasimha-------------------------------Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.netFree Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org

SJC website: http://www.SriJagannath.org-------------------------------