What is the solution that Anandaji proposes?

I have only skimmed the thread briefly. But from skimming, I can say, it just doesn't look like anything has been resolved. And I am glad to see it so clearly here because it reflects the situation on a macro level too, outside of the Facebook and Medha Journal discussion. And truthfully for me, I just don't find the resolution can even come from debate, or philosophical discussion anyway. Not in this case, among cultured, realized and skilled intellectuals. I also feel that it is possible and perhaps likely that there is still much to be learned from many of the members of the conversation from those who hold a different stance. But I am very clear that it is highly likely that this learning isn't going to come from debate...it has to be a sharing of the heart, and experience and cyber won't do it, but who knows. I would like to continue the discussion but in a different way.
hari om tat sat

An interjection!
1.Pratyaksha: The continuing problem seems to suggest that the words direct/ apprehension by the senses/ manifest /.... do not mean the same to all participants. This difference then contributes to the difference in understanding of the position of Hinduisim’s scriptures, here exemplified by the BG.
2.The quotes from the BG – KKD’s 16.23 and my 02.42, 43,46 – were juxtaposed to point out that there is a seeming anomaly in what Krishanji said to Arjun thereby making a case for Doniger’s ‘dishonest book’ conclusion. Either we agree with Doniger, or we decide that there are some basic ideas not spelt out in the text but which are nonetheless integral to it.

Since both the advaitin and the dvaitin here are equally clear that the BG is NOT a dishonest book, we need to know these basic ideas. Partha pointed out that the anomaly is because Krishanji cautions Arjun (the human being) against using scripture for satisfying man’s material and physical desires. But the explanation doesn’t seem to satisfy discussants.

Gangp, and KKD emphasise the need for both the scriptures and a good teacher/ Guru. Dwai has pointed out there are illiterate ‘saints’ (I use inverted commas to highlight the difference between these people and saints as understood in the English speaking world) and yet would probably agree with Gangp and KKD that scriptures and possibly the teachers are very important. However, as Gangp points out in the modern world getting the right Guru may not be easy – which leaves scriptures as the main/ major guide for most!

Unlike KKD my sense is that all the discussants respect the Prasthan Traayiti especially the BG though it may not be the primary text and therefore, do not buy into Doniger’s statement.

Since most discussants are genuinely interested in the others, perhaps a focussed attempt to understand the seeming anomaly should help to understand matters like pratyaksha, sadhana, Guru, etc and form a better base to get clarity on Dvaita/ Advaita, and the other’s (also one’s own) stand. But it is for those of you more familiar with Sanskrit and the scriptures to decide.

KKDji,

Doubt has no bearing on the actual state of the object in question. For
example, I may doubt the man before me is the president of the United States,
but my doubt has no bearing on whether he is actually the president.

True, doubt does not affect the state of the object in question. Doubt does
affect the doubter. I am in fact talking about the doubter.

[That is a different matter. In order to understand a subject matter which
is cannot be adequately understood through pratyaksh and anumaan, the ONLY way
it can be understood is from an authoritatiave source of knowledge. You cannot
arrive at the right conclusion by experiment. You may doubt shruti, or the
Bible, or the Koran, or whatever scripture you might come to mind, but in
order to understand properly, you have to consult an authority.
For example, if you want to know who your father is, your mother is your
authority. If you do not know who your father is, you cannot go from man to
man on the street to find out. It will not be possible. Only your mother can
tell you who your father is.
In the same way, shastra is the authority for so many matters which we cannot
understand through experiment. Even theoretically, it is not possible to
understand things that are beyond the power of our limited ability to inspect
or infer.
Therefore, if you doubt Shruti, then your access to spiritual topics will be
very limited. In that position, the struggle then is overcoming doubts about
the authorized source.]

Not really. One consults a living Guru for spiritual progress. Knowledge of
Scripture is not necessary for that. Just take the example of Arjuna. Do you
think no scripture was available during Arjuna's days? There was. Still
Arjuna had several doubts. Arjuna consulted a living authority to overcome his
doubt.

Ah, but this doubt was reflected by Arjuna in the beginning of the Gita.
Arjuna resolved his doubt by becoming Lord Krishna's disciple. (sishyas te
'ham sadhi mam tvam prapannam)
First, Arjuna had doubts about his duty, then he surrendered himself to
Krishna and accepted His authority. After Krishna satisfied all of Arjuna's
doubts with logic, reason, and himself also refering to shastra, Arjuna took
up his weapons and fought. Arjuna did not go on doubting.
The prerequisite for Arjuna's clearing his doubts was accepting a higher
authority. Once he accepted Krishna's authority and listened patiently, asking
questions, his doubts were settled in due course.
But one must first accept an authority. That is the standard. For Arjuna, he
was fortunate enough to have Sri Krishna personally present to query. For us,
there is shastra and the authorized representatives of those shastras.

This example confirms what I stated before. Arjuna talked with someone whom
he believed and respected to overcome his doubts. In fact Arjuna was even
shown Vishwarupa. No wonder he believed. He did not depend on scripture. In
fact there are stories of people who knew nothing about scripture, since
they were illiterate, and yet became saints.


day of every week for many years, does he become a great rishi? Of course not.
Therefore in even in the matter of saying what sadhana is and what is not, you
still depend on a priori information (knowledge not derived by experiment) in
order to be able to determine what correct sadhana is and what incorrect
sadhana is. And the determination that any particular form of sadhana is
correct is meaningful only if the answer is authoritative.
So again, we are back to authority. You may doubt the shrutis, but you must
accept some authority. And if you doubt all authority, then you cannot know
anything which lies beyond your limited sensory and mental faculties." title="wikipedia: ["Sadhana" just means "practice" that is all. If one practices cricket every
day of every week for many years, does he become a great rishi? Of course not.
Therefore in even in the matter of saying what sadhana is and what is not, you
still depend on a priori information (knowledge not derived by experiment) in
order to be able to determine what correct sadhana is and what incorrect
sadhana is. And the determination that any particular form of sadhana is
correct is meaningful only if the answer is authoritative.
So again, we are back to authority. You may doubt the shrutis, but you must
accept some authority. And if you doubt all authority, then you cannot know
anything which lies beyond your limited sensory and mental faculties." rel="nofollow" target="wikipedia">["Sadhana" just means "practice" that is all. If one practices cricket every
day of every week for many years, does he become a great rishi? Of course not.
Therefore in even in the matter of saying what sadhana is and what is not, you
still depend on a priori information (knowledge not derived by experiment) in
order to be able to determine what correct sadhana is and what incorrect
sadhana is. And the determination that any particular form of sadhana is
correct is meaningful only if the answer is authoritative.
So again, we are back to authority. You may doubt the shrutis, but you must
accept some authority. And if you doubt all authority, then you cannot know
anything which lies beyond your limited sensory and mental faculties.]

Sadhana is not mere practice. Practice is of course a part of sadhana. One
does sadhana to make spiritual progress. Yes, there is the issue of correct
and incorrect sadhana at least for a beginner. That is why a Guru is
recommended since it is assumed that a Guru knows about correct sadhana. This
raises another question. How can we know a priori whether the Guru himself
is genuine or not? We cannot know that. In fact stories of sexually active
Gurus are fairly common. It is said that for someone who has made progress,
God Himself becomes his Guru and helps. Till that occurs one can not be sure
if one's Guru is all right and whether one's sadhana is progressing in the
right direction. All this makes sadhana extremely difficult. This is the
reason why Katha Upanishad says that sadhana is like walking on a razor's
edge. There is every possibility of hurting oneself without making any
progress.

I have met people with diametrically opposite view of scripture. I know
a person who told me that he has performed sadhana for a long time and failed
to still his mind. He told me that he has concluded that what scriptures like
Gita say about stilling one's mind is merely hallucination. I actually met
this person in Sulekha net. On the other hand I know another person who told
me that he has made sufficient progress that God expresses Her annoyance if he
harbors sexual thought. He says that his sadhana has convinced him that Hindu
scriptures are correct. So I would say that sadhana is not mere practice and
is extraordinarily difficult with lots of people failing. I would also say
that one cannot understand the true meaning of scripture without personal
experience.

[So what is your authority? Why should anyone follow your opinion and not
some other?]

This is very easy to answer. Since no one is following me, I have no
authority. I, however, have the right to doubt. I don't need anyone's
permission to do that.

Gangp

Dear KKDji,

That is a different matter. In order to understand a subject matter which is cannot be adequately understood through pratyaksh and anumaan, the ONLY way it can be understood is from an authoritatiave source of knowledge. You cannot arrive at the right conclusion by experiment. You may doubt shruti, or the Bible, or the Koran, or whatever scripture you might come to mind, but in order to understand properly, you have to consult an authority.

You are wrong. This knowledge can ONLY be known by Pratyaksha. Anumana is good to a certain level but there is scope for doubt and error of interpretation. No amount of listening to the Gita will teach you it's essence. That is why Shankaracharya composed "Bhaja Govindam" -- to tell the Grammarian that no amount of Vyakaran is going to lead him to realization. He has to practice (be it Bhakti or Jnana). Anything less is Blind Faith only and is at odds with Indic spiritual traditions (no matter how anyone may try to spin it).

You mistake sensory cognition with Pratyaksha. Pratyaksha is Direct Perception that transcends and often bypasses sensory apparatuses. Those who know Shruti (ie without memorizing it by rote), know it because of Pratyaksha. That knowledge via Pratyaksha is prajna. That is why One who has realized Atman/Brahman is called a Sthita-prajna.


Best Regards,

Dwai

[ganpji] Doubt remains even when one is told that Shruti is infallible. I would think this to be the normal human condition.

Doubt has no bearing on the actual state of the object in question. For example, I may doubt the man before me is the president of the United States, but my doubt has no bearing on whether he is actually the president.

It is very dangerous to accept Shruti just because we are told to do so.

That is a different matter. In order to understand a subject matter which is cannot be adequately understood through pratyaksh and anumaan, the ONLY way it can be understood is from an authoritatiave source of knowledge. You cannot arrive at the right conclusion by experiment. You may doubt shruti, or the Bible, or the Koran, or whatever scripture you might come to mind, but in order to understand properly, you have to consult an authority.

For example, if you want to know who your father is, your mother is your authority. If you do not know who your father is, you cannot go from man to man on the street to find out. It will not be possible. Only your mother can tell you who your father is.

In the same way, shastra is the authority for so many matters which we cannot understand through experiment. Even theoretically, it is not possible to understand things that are beyond the power of our limited ability to inspect or infer.

Therefore, if you doubt Shruti, then your access to spiritual topics will be very limited. In that position, the struggle then is overcoming doubts about the authorized source.

Even the Gita acknowledges the legitimacy of doubt in Gita 18.63:

Thus have I imparted to you wisdom which is more secret (profound) than all
that is secret (profound). REFLECTING over this whole teaching, do as you
think fit.

Ah, but this doubt was reflected by Arjuna in the beginning of the Gita. Arjuna resolved his doubt by becoming Lord Krishna's disciple. (sishyas te 'ham sadhi mam tvam prapannam)

Now I am confused about my duty and have lost all composure because of miserly weakness. In this condition I am asking You to tell me for certain what is best for me. Now I am Your disciple, and a soul surrendered unto You. Please instruct me.

First, Arjuna had doubts about his duty, then he surrendered himself to Krishna and accepted His authority. After Krishna satisfied all of Arjuna's doubts with logic, reason, and himself also refering to shastra, Arjuna took up his weapons and fought. Arjuna did not go on doubting.

The prerequisite for Arjuna's clearing his doubts was accepting a higher authority. Once he accepted Krishna's authority and listened patiently, asking questions, his doubts were settled in due course.

But one must first accept an authority. That is the standard. For Arjuna, he was fortunate enough to have Sri Krishna personally present to query. For us, there is shastra and the authorized representatives of those shastras.

No Sadhana is not what one feels right from moment to moment. Comparison with scripture is a very useful tool to remove doubt about one's own progress and about Shruti. Without personal experience one should not accept uncritically the claim about the infallibility of scripture.

"Sadhana" just means "practice" that is all. If one practices cricket every day of every week for many years, does he become a great rishi? Of course not. Therefore in even in the matter of saying what sadhana is and what is not, you still depend on a priori information (knowledge not derived by experiment) in order to be able to determine what correct sadhana is and what incorrect sadhana is. And the determination that any particular form of sadhana is correct is meaningful only if the answer is authoritative.

So again, we are back to authority. You may doubt the shrutis, but you must accept some authority. And if you doubt all authority, then you cannot know anything which lies beyond your limited sensory and mental faculties.

And you say,

You may think this is humanism but I think it is not so.

So what is your authority? Why should anyone follow your opinion and not some other?

According to the non-dualists the Self is unattached. Good and bad, virtue and
vice, and the other pairs of opposites, cannot in any way injure the Self,
though they undoubtedly afflict those who have identified themselves with
their bodies. Smoke soils the wall, certainly, but it cannot in any way affect
akasa, space.

--- Sri Ramakrishna

Good and evil are experienced by the ego. The question of good and evil is irrelevant for the Atman or the Self.

Do you notice that your mentality is that your conception is higher and others is lower? You seem to look down at the bhaktas. You seem to be conditioned to think in terms of dual and non-dual. When you get past that, you get past all material conceptions of the absolute. The Vedas teach that the symptom of knowledge is humility, the symptom of information is pride.
The major problem with the philosophy that you are propounding is that we are all God. Hitler was God, Jack the Ripper was God, Osama bin Ladin is God, the malaria mosquito is God, the swine flu virus is God.
1. How do you explain that God is acting against His own teachings taught in every scripture and by every saint?
2. What is that power that makes God forget who He is and acts against His own teachings to cause harm and suffering to His children, and turn planet earth into a toxic waste dump?... Read More
Our explanation is easy, we are not God.
What is your explanation?

This was unanswered. Amidst our discussion it seems we have missed addressing these questions. So what is the role of "Good" and "Evil" in the Advaitin's perspective?

Perhaps I can take a pass at this? The traditional interpretation of Advaita states that Nirguna Brahman does not create this world on her own volition. The phenomenon of Material Universe manifests as a result of superimposition by Jiva (adhyasa). The state of Jiva-hood is a result of Upadhi (or limiting adjunct) wherein there is a mistaken identification of the non-self (Jiva)with the Self (Atman). Wherein, the Self (Atman) is not seen at all, but only the Jiva is seen (Ego awareness). This is what, imho the Rajju-sarpa simile explains. In the moment when the rope is the snake, there is no Rope at all, but only snake. Only when the ignorance of the subject is removed, the rope becomes a rope again.

So what is the role of Good and Evil in this mix? Maya is actuated by and fueled by the mechanism of Karma. First veil of Maya is the mistaken idenfication of the Body/Antahkarana-complex as Atman (which is Pure Consciousness, un-fettered by any limiting adjunct). Just as this machine of Maya gets powered by Karma, Karma itself is fueled by Free-will of the Jiva. The Jiva, using free will, under the misconception that he/she is the True Self, performs actions. As the actions continue, so the world of Maya solidifies. The empirical reality (Vyavaharika Satya), which exists on the legs of Duality thus has to deal with the concept of Good and Evil.

In general, Good and Evil are relative terms. What is Good for one can be Evil for another. For instance, the prolific growth of the Human species is good for us (humans), but is Evil for the rest of Nature (Especially in context of how we have managed to destroy the balance of the world with our actions). In the empirical sense, Good and Evil might even have disproportionate weightage (in that something might be Good for a majority and Bad only for a minority, or might be Bad for a majority but Bad only for a minority), but it is restricted to the categorical framework(s) that are at work.

When the veil of Maya is dissolved and Jiva realizes the Atman (or Absolute Self), the problem of Good or Evil dissolve, because that was valid only in the empirical sense. So to answer the question in the article, Good and Evil are only valid in the vyavaharika sense and not in the paramarthika sense.

You wrote me that: "Your interpretation is a lower truth..."
You are convinced that your understanding is higher and the Vaishnava teaching is lower. You're convinced it is only an interpretation, and not mukhya vritti the direct teaching coming from God.
You see in terms of higher and lower. Vaishnava tradition teaches to see in terms of transcendental and material.
... Read More
Please try to transcend the notion that only you understand the ultimate truth, and embrace the conception that PERHAPS others have already gone past where you are at.

Tat twam asi is the extrapolation. The original is tatwatm asi. By separating the words you get a different meaning. Again, it is gauna vritti. In order to support your position you have to reject mukhya vritti.
That's what Shankaracarya realized! And that's why he recanted his own philosophy and embraced bhakti, written in his own words without later explanation what he really meant by Dwai Lahiri

This person doesn't understand the concept of Vyavaharika and Paramarthika, and therefore makes such statements. Absolute Reality/Truth doesn't have any words to describe it or articulate it. One can only identify that which is NOT it. It can be attained only in deep silence, inner stillness. Not when the Antahkarana is active (or Jiva still exists).

KKDji,

Yes, you did not ask them this question but still they gave the answer

[The standard of shastra (again, particularly the shrutis) is that it is not in error, false. Otherwise, shastra is not authoritative. Your epistemology is then no different from other, Western non-theistic epistemologies. You might dress it up in some different terminology, but on fundamentals there is no disagreement. We can call this Hindu humanism.]

Doubt remains even when one is told that Shruti is infallible. I would think this to be the normal human condition.
It is very dangerous to accept Shruti just because we are told to do so. Even the Gita acknowledges the legitimacy of doubt in Gita 18.63:

Thus have I imparted to you wisdom which is more secret (profound) than all
that is secret (profound). REFLECTING over this whole teaching, do as you
think fit.

"Sadhana" is then what one feels is right from moment to moment. You might feel that something in your heart is true, but you may be mistaken. Shastra will tell you whether or not you are mistaken.

No Sadhana is not what one feels right from moment to moment. Comparison with scripture is a very useful tool to remove doubt about one's own progress and about Shruti. Without personal experience one should not accept uncritically the claim about the infallibility of scripture.

You may think this is humanism but I think it is not so.

Gangp

ganpji wrote: "Deshika, Partha and Rudra have answered your question"

I didn't ask them any question.

"regarding any difference between western humanism and hinduism. There is a profound difference between western humanism and Hinduism. A Hindu practices sadhana and finds out whether Hindu scriptural claims are true or false. Western humanists have no way of checking their claim."

The standard of shastra (again, particularly the shrutis) is that it is not in error, false. Otherwise, shastra is not authoritative. Your epistemology is then no different from other, Western non-theistic epistemologies. You might dress it up in some different terminology, but on fundamentals there is no disagreement. We can call this Hindu humanism.

"Sadhana" is then what one feels is right from moment to moment. You might feel that something in your heart is true, but you may be mistaken. Shastra will tell you whether or not you are mistaken.

Dear KKDji,

Deshika, Partha and Rudra have answered your question regarding any difference between western humanism and hinduism. There is a profound difference between western humanism and Hinduism. A Hindu practices sadhana and finds out whether Hindu scriptural claims are true or false. Western humanists have no way of checking their claim.

Regards

gangp

Namaskar KKDji,

me "At this point, Rudraji, I have to ask you what authority to you ascribe to the prasthana-trayi (Upanishads, Gita, Vedanta Sutra)? If they are just guidelines to you and no better or worse than, say, pratyaksha, then I'm afraid that at this point we will just have to be clear that we don't agree on fundamentals, and leave it at that. The discussion then ends."

rudraji: "Accepting primacy of Shruti does not absolve the seeker from individual effort. By stating that Shruti is guideline does not make it "no better and no worse"...compared to what? Just like the Vedic Rishis realized Shruti in their hearts, similarly it will manifest in the hearts of those who are ready. The important thing is to prepare oneself to be ready for that manifestation."

Well, you avoided the question, but then in your previous posts you've quite clearly indicated that you believe pratyaksha is more important than shabda, and there is nothing I've seen that indicates you've changed your position. Since shastra appears not to be authoritative for you, I don't see why you persist in refering to Shankaracharya, who definitely opposes that conclusion. As I have pointed out before, the relative authority of the shrutis as compared with other pramanas is a major point that both Advaitists (at least the traditional ones) and Vaishnava acharyas agree upon.

That said, I think our differences are fundamental, and I think that it is therefore best to leave our discussion here and move on.

I insist that pratyaksh is more important than Shabda because without pratyaksha shabda has no deep meaning to the seeker. By Seeker I mean the Jiva who is looking for Moksha, since the Ultimate Goal of Sanatana Dharma is to break out of the cycle of Karma and re-birth (or become Jeevana-mukta).

That doesn't mean that Shabda is not important. Let us say that Shabda and Pratyaksha are mututally dependent, because Pratyaksha needs guidance of Shabda and Shabda needs Pratyaksha.

I know you might say that Shabda is relevant on it's own without a seeker because it is Apaurushiya and Nitya. But Brahmajnana is not the same as Brahman. And Jnana is only relevant when there is a Jnata involved.

Best Regards

Deshika's clarifications are very relevant. BG clearly distinguishes between scriptural recipes for fulfilling various material and physical desires of man, about which it talks in Chapter II slokas 42 and 43 and the portions of both shruti and smriti which are honoured by a common reference as Shastra in chapter XVI, sloka 23.
She cautions us too against mixing up western humanism with Hinduism. Vivekananda has clearly explained that any humanism practised by a Vedanti is spiritual in nature, as the Vedanti sees Brahmam in all beings including of course the persons whom he helps.

"He who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own whims attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination." (Gita 16.23)
And yet if we recall He also talks of the undiscerning who rejoice in the letter of the Vedas..... and the relationship of the wise to it. ( BG 02.42, 43, 46).

Juxtaposed like this they shlokas make little sense ( would seem to feed Wendy’s claim that the Gita is a ‘dishonest book’!) but in the light of Shruti as verified by the experience of many earlier and later Rishis, one realises that He is talking of a state wherein much of the wisdom of the Shrutis is revealed to (manifested in) the individual. BUT this ONLY happens after the individual is ‘firmly fixed in purity, not caring for ...... (BG 02.45). Both scriptural injunctions and a good Guru play an major role but without the individual’s effort and Sadhana they are helpless! For at the end of the day one gets the fruits of one’s karmas.

Given this (unless one doesn’t agree with it) I would imagine there are major differences between the Western Humanistic framework and Hinduism but leave it to you all to throw more light on the matter.

A clarification:
Pratyaksha: n. Though usually translated as ‘Ocular evidence’ because that is the best known mode of ‘direct perception’ and helps highlight the difference from ‘sabda’ which is heard and therefore may not be immediate to the hearer, perhaps the better translation here is: ‘apprehension by the senses’ as also: ‘manifest’, ‘direct’, ‘immediate’, ‘actual’, ‘real’.

Once we recognise that this is “direct knowledge”, “manifested ...... Rishis” (I’d suggest ‘heart’ here is a way of locating it) and get the distinction clear we realise that the example of the sun rising above the trees is not perhaps the best. Also that ‘Gut feeling’ is not relevant to the current debate as it is not ‘knowledge’ but a feeling, a hunch which may or may not be correct.

Dear friends,
I found the above discussion on dualism vs advaita to be serious, highly ordered and educative. If it did lead somewhere, to that extent it strengthened my faith in Vedanta Vichara, if at all my faith needed strengthening. If it did not lead elsewhere, it showed the wisdom of the debaters who were not interested in mere compromise but needed a signal from within. This signal would require a solid posture either to remain solid, soften a bit or melt away, and would have the merit of conviction rather than of diplomatic accommodation. Hearty congratulations!

Purely in tangent, I would like to add an analogy, in the hope that analogies, which may sometimes be spurned in scientific discourse, are eagerly listened to in Vedanta Vichara. The interesting situation is that I am seeking limited analogy with scientific research projects for Vedanta Vichara.

Imagine your participation in a given scientific research project, where some one else is the project leader. You are with him because he is aware of your qualifications and experience. He has an agenda, well enabled by his own qualifications and experience and stores of past knowledge of others such as libraries and databases. He knows he can get a part of his agenda implemented by you, based on your capacity for 1) faith in his ability and judgment and access to information 2)using your own ability, judgment and accessing databases yourself and 3) substantial potential for implementing his wish, agreeing with him substantially but intelligently, and disagreeing with him occasionally as needed in details and procedure in the best interests of the implementation.

Along with him, you are able to move towards the objective of the team, in which you can identify your individual objective. The project leader and you are mutually approachable and available to each other. The success of each participant adds to the success of the leader and the project. Occasionally an intelligent and capable individual is obliged to disagree totally with the leader or the team and leave the fold. If he has leadership qualities, he leads another project elsewhere. Some evolve during the project in their path to become leaders themselves.
A combination of a number of non-human factors can make the project succeed or fail but the human content is expected to manage all these factors and emerge victorious, focused on individual objectives wedded to a collective affiliation.This affiliation lasts throughout some careers and may get changed in other cases.

The project leader is luckiest when his team consists of intelligent disciples capable of hard work and discipline, rather than blind apostles who can even go against him when he innovates.

I do not need to explain the analogy, which is not a cent per cent fit, to medhavis.
Warm regards. Partha.

me "At this point, Rudraji, I have to ask you what authority to you ascribe to the prasthana-trayi (Upanishads, Gita, Vedanta Sutra)? If they are just guidelines to you and no better or worse than, say, pratyaksha, then I'm afraid that at this point we will just have to be clear that we don't agree on fundamentals, and leave it at that. The discussion then ends."

rudraji: "Accepting primacy of Shruti does not absolve the seeker from individual effort. By stating that Shruti is guideline does not make it "no better and no worse"...compared to what? Just like the Vedic Rishis realized Shruti in their hearts, similarly it will manifest in the hearts of those who are ready. The important thing is to prepare oneself to be ready for that manifestation."

Well, you avoided the question, but then in your previous posts you've quite clearly indicated that you believe pratyaksha is more important than shabda, and there is nothing I've seen that indicates you've changed your position. Since shastra appears not to be authoritative for you, I don't see why you persist in refering to Shankaracharya, who definitely opposes that conclusion. As I have pointed out before, the relative authority of the shrutis as compared with other pramanas is a major point that both Advaitists (at least the traditional ones) and Vaishnava acharyas agree upon.

That said, I think our differences are fundamental, and I think that it is therefore best to leave our discussion here and move on.

ganpji: "The discussion has now touched the interesting question about the role of scripture.
Is scripture only a guideline or the most authoritative pramana?"

Yep. Or, in other words, as a civilization, does Hinduism (and, hence Hindu civilization) have an objective way of evaluating moral, ethical, and spiritual questions? If so (and even if only theoretically), then defending, preserving, and promoting Hindu civilization is a rational proposition. "God" is then on our side, and it makes sense to get others, Hindu or not, on the "winning team" and keep them there.

If "God" is not on our side, and our normative questions are settled fundamentally within a humanistic ideological framework, then it is difficult to see what, exactly, the significant differences Hindus have with Westerners. If both Hindu civ and Western civ subscribe to what is fundamentally a humanistic system of metaphysics (never mind it has a Western or Hindu spin), and consequently humanistic ethics and politics, then the differences between the members of Western civ and Hindu civ are fundamentally a matter of taste and politics--or what you happen to like on any given day and whether or not you have more power than your competitor. Surely, any civilization that doesn't have a loftier self-conception than this cannot but eventually become something mediocre--definitely not something worth preserving.

Namaskar, Rudraji,

rudra: Prajna is intuitive knowledge, that which arises when seeker is attuned with Brahman."

Rudraji, almost all words have different shades of meaning, and in this case, I'm not using "prajna" incorrectly. It might not be exactly the meaning you find useful, but my usage is not incorrect, either.

rudra: "Shankaracharya's "Rajju-sarpa" simile wasn't to demonstrate the flaw of Prajna, but the drawback of the Antahkarana complex."

Which was also to establish the primacy of shruti over other pramanas. And that's the point I've been making.

If you contend that without individual effort, just by power of Shruti one can become a Jeevana-mukta, then we would have the world over-flowing with Stitha-prajnas. However that is not the case. It is hard to find references to "enlightened" beings, let alone meet one.

Also, the problem of translating Sanskrit and other regional languages into english is that the meaning is lost in translation. Prajna as I understand it is Intuitive Intelligence. It bypasses the mechanism of Antahkarana and therefore is not bound by the limitations of Ego, samskaras etc. What the Jiva chooses to do with insights gleamed from this prajna is a totally different matter and will vary based on the nature of the individual and his/her conditioning.

rudra: "Interpreted knowledge, imho, ie thoughts which are processed in the manas/buddhi complex are subject to erroneous inferences, due to the presence of various vasanas/samskaras/kleshas that exist due to Karma."

Yes.

rudra: "Prajna however is direct knowledge, that bypasses the interpretative mechanism of Antahkarana complex. With Prajna one simply knows, but with interpreted knowledge, one has to infer. We often call a lower version of prajna "Gut instinct"."

OK, fine. But if you're following Shankaracharya on this point, then you will also have to accept his position on the primacy of the shrutis in relation to other pramanas. Shankara's argument depends on the shrutis being a superior source of knowledge.

But the same Shankaracharya says that the reality of something cannot be changed if it is written and repeated by millions of people. The only way to verify the validity of something is by experiential knowledge. No other way can do it. That is why the Sadhaka does Sadhana. Otherwise it would be sufficient to sit at the feet of the Guru or read the scriptures and become Stitha-prajna.

rudra: "Also, a question -- The Apaurashiya shabda (or Shruti), how did it get recorded in the Vedas?"

me: "They are the Vedas."


rudra: "The Vedas are records of the Apaurushiya jnana or Brahma jnana. They are called so (Shruti) because of that...not because the Vedas "ARE" Brahman."

I never said the vedas are brahman. I said they always exist.


rudra: "Brahman cannot be described or articulated."

But you just articulated it. Human beings have the capacity to grasp such things, though they don't have the capacity to speculate about it. For example, in mathematics the concept of infinity is a very useful thing with many real world applications. Without infinity, it wouldn't be possible to do many things in engineering and science that are possible today. This demonstrates that humans have the capacity to understand some things that, on reflection, are a little wonderful--and infinite. Now, no one can see the entire length of an infinite series, yet they can understand some properties about it and utilize them. Same with brahman. The fact that we are talking about it means that it is comprehensible to us to some extent--perhaps not totally, but enough for us to have an intelligent conversation, and dispute, about it. If brahman truly is not comprehensible, then we couldn't even have a disagreement about it.

Brahman is comprehensive but by bypassing the intellectual faculties. The intellect will lead us to the edge and then we have discard it and plunge. We are not talking about Brahman because the real Brahman cannot be described.

First we have the experience. Then we manufacture descriptives. Not the other way round. Is the description the same as the experience? I think not. Just because we have a term infinity, do we really understand it? Is it not simply a description to explain away the experience of what it entails?

rudra: "And what is to say that a lowly seeker cannot attain that perfection?"

No one ever said that a lowly seeker could not. I guarantee you, I'm quite a bit lower than you in this world.

rudra: "Only Sadhana is the key...anyone who stabilizes in Nrivikalpa Samadhi has this shruti accessible to him/her."

Yes, and mercy (kripa), too. Therefore the idea of guru is also important. The bound cannot help the bound, therefore a guru is required.

me "Something that always exists cannot be a result. It is not the product of causality as we see it in the world around us."

rudra: "Then how was it revealed?"

It self-manifested within the hearts of the great rishis.

That is pratyaksha and that is what Prajna means.

me: "Yes. The shrutis are for our emancipation."

rudra: "but only to the point of providing the guidelines, the roadmaps, so to speak, imho."

Well, they are more than guidelines. They take you right to the top.

yah shastra vidhim utrijya vartate kama karata / na sa siddhim avapnoti na sukham na param gatim. "He who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own whims attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination." (Gita 16.23)

At this point, Rudraji, I have to ask you what authority to you ascribe to the prasthana-trayi (Upanishads, Gita, Vedanta Sutra)? If they are just guidelines to you and no better or worse than, say, pratyaksha, then I'm afraid that at this point we will just have to be clear that we don't agree on fundamentals, and leave it at that. The discussion then ends.

Accepting primacy of Shruti does not absolve the seeker from individual effort. By stating that Shruti is guideline does not make it "no better and no worse"...compared to what? Just like the Vedic Rishis realized Shruti in their hearts, similarly it will manifest in the hearts of those who are ready. The important thing is to prepare oneself to be ready for that manifestation.

Best Regards...

The discussion has now touched the interesting question about the role of scripture.
Is scripture only a guideline or the most authoritative pramana? The official position
is that scripture is the most authoritative pramana available to us. Here again Sri Ramakrishna
differs from the official position. He considers scriptures as mere guidelines. I am posting
some of his remarks about scripture.

But seeing is far better than hearing. Then all doubts disappear. It is true
that many things are recorded in the scripture; but all these are useless
without the direct realization of God.

Sri Ramakrishna (to the pundit Shashadhar):"There are many scriptures like
the Vedas. But one cannot realize God without austerity and spiritual
discipline. 'God cannot be found in the six systems, the Vedas and the Tantra'.

"But one should learn the contents of the scripture and then act according to
their injunctions. A man lost a letter. He couldn't remember where he had left
it. He began to search for it with a lamp. After two or three people had
searched, the letter was at last found. The message in the letter was:' Please
send us five seers of sandesh and a piece of wearing cloth.' The man read it
and then threw the letter away. There was no further need of it; now all he
had to do was to buy the five seers of sandesh and the piece of cloth.

"Better than reading is hearing, and better than hearing is seeing. One
understands the scriptures better by hearing them from the lips of the guru or
a holy man......

"But seeing is far better than hearing. Then all doubts disappear. It is true
that many things are recorded in the scriptures; but all these are useless
without the direct realization of Gpd, without devotion to His Lotus Feet,
without purity of heart. The almanac forecasts the rainfall of the year. But
not a drop of water will you get by squeezing the almanac. No, not even one
drop.

"How long should one reason about the texts of the scriptures? So long as one
does not have a direct realization of God. How long does the bee buzz about?
As long as it is not sitting on a flower. No sooner does it light on a flower
and begins to sip honey that it keeps quiet." (p 475-476; June 30, 1884)

Sri Ramakrishna:"You see there is no need to read too much of the scriptures.
If you read too much you will be inclined to reason and argue. Nangta used to
teach me this: What you get by repeating the word Gita ten times is the
essence of the book. In other words, if you repeat 'Gita" ten times it is
reversed in to 'tagi', which indicates renunciation." (p 484; June 30, 1864)

Sri Ramakrishna (To Hazra):"If there is knowledge of one, there is also
knowledge of many. What will you achieve by mere study of the scriptures? The
scriptures contain a mixture of sand and sugar, as it were. It is extremely
difficult to separate the sugar from the sand. Therefore one should learn the
essence of the scriptures from the teacher or from a sadhu. Afterwords what
does one care for books?"

(To the devotees)"One should learn the essence of the scriptures from the guru
and then practise sadhana. If one rightly follows spiritual discipline, then
one directly sees God. The discipline is said to be rightly followed only
when one plunges in. What will a man gain by merely reasoning about the words
of the scriptures? Ah, the fools! They reason themselves to death over
information about the path. They never take the plunge. What a pity!"
(P 543; September 19, 1884)

Sri Ramakrishna:"Can one find God in the sacred books? By reading the
scriptures one may feel at the most that God exists. But God does not reveal
Himself to a man unless he himself dives deep. Only after such a plunge, after
the revelation of God through His grace, is one's doubt destroyed. You may
read scriptures by the thousands and recite thousands of texts; but unless
you plunge into God with yearning of heart, you will not comprehend this. By
mere scholarship you may fool man, but not God.
"Scriptures and books - what can you achieve with these alone? Nothing can
be realized without His grace. Strive with a longing heart for His grace.
Through His grace you will see Him and He will talk to you."
(p 625; October 19, 1884)

Sri Ramakrishna (to Mahimacharan):"How much of the scriptures can you read?
What will you gain by mere reasoning? Try to realize God before anything else.
Have faith in the Guru's words, and work. If you have no guru then pray to God
with a longing heart. He will let you know what He is like.
"What will you learn of God from books? As long as you are at a distance
from the market-place you hear only an indistinct roar. But it is quite
different when you are actually there. Then you hear or see everything
distinctly. You hear people saying:'Here are your potatoes. Take them and
give me the money!'
"From a distance you hear only the rumbling noise of the ocean. Go near it
and you will see many boats sailing about, birds flying, and waves rolling.
"One cannot get true feeling about God from the study of books. This feeling
is something very different from book-learning. Books, scriptures and science
appear as mere dirt and straw after realizing God."
(p 645-646; October 26, 1884)

Sri Ramakrishna:"There reason withers away. God cannot be realized through
scholarship. He is beyond the scriptures - the Vedas, puranas and Tantras. .."
"

You must practice tapasya. Only then can you attain the goal. It will avail
you nothing even if you learn the texts of the scriptures by heart. You cannot
become intoxicated by merely saying 'siddhi' over and over again. You must
swallow some.

--- Sri Ramakrishna

Namaskar, Rudraji,

rudra: Prajna is intuitive knowledge, that which arises when seeker is attuned with Brahman."

Rudraji, almost all words have different shades of meaning, and in this case, I'm not using "prajna" incorrectly. It might not be exactly the meaning you find useful, but my usage is not incorrect, either.

rudra: "Shankaracharya's "Rajju-sarpa" simile wasn't to demonstrate the flaw of Prajna, but the drawback of the Antahkarana complex."

Which was also to establish the primacy of shruti over other pramanas. And that's the point I've been making.

rudra: "Interpreted knowledge, imho, ie thoughts which are processed in the manas/buddhi complex are subject to erroneous inferences, due to the presence of various vasanas/samskaras/kleshas that exist due to Karma."

Yes.

rudra: "Prajna however is direct knowledge, that bypasses the interpretative mechanism of Antahkarana complex. With Prajna one simply knows, but with interpreted knowledge, one has to infer. We often call a lower version of prajna "Gut instinct"."

OK, fine. But if you're following Shankaracharya on this point, then you will also have to accept his position on the primacy of the shrutis in relation to other pramanas. Shankara's argument depends on the shrutis being a superior source of knowledge.


rudra: "Also, a question -- The Apaurashiya shabda (or Shruti), how did it get recorded in the Vedas?"

me: "They are the Vedas."


rudra: "The Vedas are records of the Apaurushiya jnana or Brahma jnana. They are called so (Shruti) because of that...not because the Vedas "ARE" Brahman."

I never said the vedas are brahman. I said they always exist.


rudra: "Brahman cannot be described or articulated."

But you just articulated it. Human beings have the capacity to grasp such things, though they don't have the capacity to speculate about it. For example, in mathematics the concept of infinity is a very useful thing with many real world applications. Without infinity, it wouldn't be possible to do many things in engineering and science that are possible today. This demonstrates that humans have the capacity to understand some things that, on reflection, are a little wonderful--and infinite. Now, no one can see the entire length of an infinite series, yet they can understand some properties about it and utilize them. Same with brahman. The fact that we are talking about it means that it is comprehensible to us to some extent--perhaps not totally, but enough for us to have an intelligent conversation, and dispute, about it. If brahman truly is not comprehensible, then we couldn't even have a disagreement about it.


rudra: "And what is to say that a lowly seeker cannot attain that perfection?"

No one ever said that a lowly seeker could not. I guarantee you, I'm quite a bit lower than you in this world.

rudra: "Only Sadhana is the key...anyone who stabilizes in Nrivikalpa Samadhi has this shruti accessible to him/her."

Yes, and mercy (kripa), too. Therefore the idea of guru is also important. The bound cannot help the bound, therefore a guru is required.

me "Something that always exists cannot be a result. It is not the product of causality as we see it in the world around us."

rudra: "Then how was it revealed?"

It self-manifested within the hearts of the great rishis.

me: "Yes. The shrutis are for our emancipation."

rudra: "but only to the point of providing the guidelines, the roadmaps, so to speak, imho."

Well, they are more than guidelines. They take you right to the top.

yah shastra vidhim utrijya vartate kama karata / na sa siddhim avapnoti na sukham na param gatim. "He who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own whims attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination." (Gita 16.23)

At this point, Rudraji, I have to ask you what authority to you ascribe to the prasthana-trayi (Upanishads, Gita, Vedanta Sutra)? If they are just guidelines to you and no better or worse than, say, pratyaksha, then I'm afraid that at this point we will just have to be clear that we don't agree on fundamentals, and leave it at that. The discussion then ends.

Daso 'smi,

KKdas

Something that always exists cannot be a result. It is not the product of causality as we
see it in the world around us. " title="wikipedia: [That is true, but this Brahmajnana does not originate with a person. It always exists.
"The important thing is Brahmajnana...the Shruti is the result."
Something that always exists cannot be a result. It is not the product of causality as we
see it in the world around us. " rel="nofollow" target="wikipedia">[That is true, but this Brahmajnana does not originate with a person. It always exists.
"The important thing is Brahmajnana...the Shruti is the result."
Something that always exists cannot be a result. It is not the product of causality as we
see it in the world around us.

Brahmajnana is definitely always there but was Shruti always there? Here By Shruti Rudra means
the books. I would think Shruti is the result.

A more interesting question is how man first found out about meditation and its result. It
seems to me that it is Brahman who first provided the information.

Dear Pradipda,

Rudra, I didn't understand this point. How can Shruti lead the jiva to brahmajnana? Isn't spiritual practice necessary for Brahmajnana?

I meant this in the sense that Shruti provides guidelines for jiva to strive towards Brahmanjnana. I think it is very very rare (if not completely impossible) that a jiva, after hearing the shruti becomes a Brahmajnani.

Dear KKDasji,

Prajna means to know, or to be able to discern. That faculty can also be covered under anumaan. If you think about it, pratyaksha alone won't tell us much about the world around us. We depend heavily on both anumaan and verbal testimony (which I use here as a very loose equivalent to shabda, or someone's "word"). For example, if we see some reflection in a mirror, we could think we're seeing the real thing, but it is not real. That was the point of Shankaracharya's simile of the seeing a rope in a dark room and mistaking it for a snake. Pratyaksha is liable to produce defective knowledge. Hence, as a pramana it must occupy a subordinate position.

Prajna is intuitive knowledge, that which arises when seeker is attuned with Brahman. Prajna is the essence of Brahmajnana and it gets stronger and more accurate with the advancement of the Sadhaka. Shankaracharya's "Rajju-sarpa" simile wasn't to demonstrate the flaw of Prajna, but the drawback of the Antahkarana complex. Interpreted knowledge, imho, ie thoughts which are processed in the manas/buddhi complex are subject to erroneous inferences, due to the presence of various vasanas/samskaras/kleshas that exist due to Karma.

Prajna however is direct knowledge, that bypasses the interpretative mechanism of Antahkarana complex. With Prajna one simply knows, but with interpreted knowledge, one has to infer. We often call a lower version of prajna "Gut instinct".

rudra: "Also, a question -- The Apaurashiya shabda (or Shruti), how did it get recorded in the Vedas?"

They are the Vedas.

The Vedas are records of the Apaurushiya jnana or Brahma jnana. They are called so (Shruti) because of that...not because the Vedas "ARE" Brahman. Brahman cannot be described or articulated.

"Someone had to have had Pratyaksha knowledge."

That insight is not pratyaksh. Some call it yogika pratyaksh or samyak darshana (true or perfect perception). The concept of darshana is essential to Vedantic thought (and hence Hinduism), because it is via great seers who have achieved perfection that we receive the shrutis. Vedavyasa, the compiler of the Vedas is consider to be such a perfect seer. This perfection can only be attained through the practice of yoga. It is by the mercy of such seers (rishis, munis, etc.) that we have these teachings. Hence, the six philosophical systems which are consider ashtik are called "darshanas." They are revealed wisdom.

And what is to say that a lowly seeker cannot attain that perfection? Only Sadhana is the key...anyone who stabilizes in Nrivikalpa Samadhi has this shruti accessible to him/her.

rudra: "That which is called Shruti is simply Brahmajnana, taking the form of words."

That is true, but this Brahmajnana does not originate with a person. It always exists.

"The important thing is Brahmajnana...the Shruti is the result."

Something that always exists cannot be a result. It is not the product of causality as we see it in the world around us.

Then how was it revealed?

rudra: "However, Shruti will also lead the jiva to brahmajnana (this is my opinion only, I understand the "official" stand)."

Yes. The shrutis are for our emancipation.

but only to the point of providing the guidelines, the roadmaps, so to speak, imho.

rudraji wrote: "A friend pointed offline that Pratyaksha is inferior because it relies on sensory apparatus. I disagree...Pratyaksha comes from Prajna, which transcends sensory apparatus."

Prajna means to know, or to be able to discern. That faculty can also be covered under anumaan. If you think about it, pratyaksha alone won't tell us much about the world around us. We depend heavily on both anumaan and verbal testimony (which I use here as a very loose equivalent to shabda, or someone's "word"). For example, if we see some reflection in a mirror, we could think we're seeing the real thing, but it is not real. That was the point of Shankaracharya's simile of the seeing a rope in a dark room and mistaking it for a snake. Pratyaksha is liable to produce defective knowledge. Hence, as a pramana it must occupy a subordinate position.

rudra: "Also, a question -- The Apaurashiya shabda (or Shruti), how did it get recorded in the Vedas?"

They are the Vedas.

"Someone had to have had Pratyaksha knowledge."

That insight is not pratyaksh. Some call it yogika pratyaksh or samyak darshana (true or perfect perception). The concept of darshana is essential to Vedantic thought (and hence Hinduism), because it is via great seers who have achieved perfection that we receive the shrutis. Vedavyasa, the compiler of the Vedas is consider to be such a perfect seer. This perfection can only be attained through the practice of yoga. It is by the mercy of such seers (rishis, munis, etc.) that we have these teachings. Hence, the six philosophical systems which are consider ashtik are called "darshanas." They are revealed wisdom.

rudra: "That which is called Shruti is simply Brahmajnana, taking the form of words."

That is true, but this Brahmajnana does not originate with a person. It always exists.

"The important thing is Brahmajnana...the Shruti is the result."

Something that always exists cannot be a result. It is not the product of causality as we see it in the world around us.

rudra: "However, Shruti will also lead the jiva to brahmajnana (this is my opinion only, I understand the "official" stand)."

Yes. The shrutis are for our emancipation.

[The Apaurashiya shabda (or Shruti), how did it get recorded in the Vedas? Someone had to have had Pratyaksha knowledge. That which is called Shruti is simply Brahmajnana, taking the form of words.]

This is a very sharp observation Yes, first pratyaksha and only then shruti unless Brahman has arranged it the other way, first Shruti and only then Pratyaksha!


[The important thing is Brahmajnana...the Shruti is the result. However, Shruti will also lead the jiva to brahmajnana (this is my opinion only, I understand the "official" stand).

Rudra, I didn't understand this point. How can Shruti lead the jiva to brahmajnana? Isn't spiritual practice necessary for Brahmajnana?

No. More formally, shabda is used in reference to the shrutis, which are called apaurusheya. That means they are not created, or originally uttered, by any material being. They exist eternally. Every historic Vedantic school accepts that the Vedas are apaurusheya, hence they have the highest authority. And no Vedantic school will place pratyaksha as a pramana that is either equivalent to or superior to shabda.

I will also note that this is a fundamental point about the shrutis that Advaitists and Vaishnavas agree on.

Dear KKDas-ji,

A friend pointed offline that Pratyaksha is inferior because it relies on sensory apparatus. I disagree...Pratyaksha comes from Prajna, which transcends sensory apparatus.

Also, a question -- The Apaurashiya shabda (or Shruti), how did it get recorded in the Vedas? Someone had to have had Pratyaksha knowledge. That which is called Shruti is simply Brahmajnana, taking the form of words. The important thing is Brahmajnana...the Shruti is the result. However, Shruti will also lead the jiva to brahmajnana (this is my opinion only, I understand the "official" stand).

Best

rudraji wrote: "Pratyaskha is superior to Shabda since Shabda came from Pratyaskha (of someone), or it becomes the case of chicken and egg... "

No. More formally, shabda is used in reference to the shrutis, which are called apaurusheya. That means they are not created, or originally uttered, by any material being. They exist eternally. Every historic Vedantic school accepts that the Vedas are apaurusheya, hence they have the highest authority. And no Vedantic school will place pratyaksha as a pramana that is either equivalent to or superior to shabda.

I will also note that this is a fundamental point about the shrutis that Advaitists and Vaishnavas agree on.

- KKdas

Scientists are not able to explain how an electron can be both wave-like and particle-like.
The implication is that it is impossible to use logic even in our finite non-classical regime.
So how can one know for sure about Brahman which is infinite and which transcends both the
classical and the non-classical realm? Yes, one way would be to hear from the wise.
Unfortunately even the wise have different opinions on the subject! The only thing one
can say is that the Hindu scripture talks about 2 Brahmans and talks about a variety of ways
to realize Brahman. Beyond that what we have is only various opinions of the wise.

So all I can say is Ramakrishna's opinion about the Jiva-Paramatma relationship. Ramakrishna
agrees with the dvaita school that the Jiva is not Paramatma as long as Jiva's I-sense remains.
What the Jiva is when his I-sense dissolves can not be explained in words. Without an I-sense
who is there to say anything?

Here is small excerpt from Vivekananda's Complete Works on this point:

'Who is Ishvara? Janmadyasya yatah - "From whom is the birth, continuation,
and dissolution of the universe," - He is Ishvara - "the Eternal, the Pure,
the Ever-Free, the Almighty, the All-Knowing, the All-Merciful, the Teacher
of all teachers"; and above all, Sa Ishvarah anirvachaniya-premasvarupah -
"He the Lord is, of His own nature, inexpressible Love." These certainly are
the definitions of a Personal God. Are there then two Gods - the "Not this,
not this," the Sat-chit-ananda, the Existence-knowledge-Bliss of the
philosopher, and this God of love of the Bhakta? No it is the same Sat-chit-
ananda who is also the God of Love, the impersonal and personal in one. It has
always to be understood that the Personal God worshipped by the Bhakta is not
separate or different from Brahman. All is Brahman, the One without a second;
only the Brahman, as unity or absolute, is too much of an abstraction to be
loved and worshipped; so the Bhakta chooses the relative aspect of Brahman,
that is Ishvara, the Supreme Ruler. To use a simile:Brahman is as the clay or
substance out of which an infinite variety of articles are fashioned. As clay,
they are all one; but form or manifestation differentiates them. Before
everyone of them was made, they all existed potentially in the clay, and, of
course, they are identical substantially; but when formed, and so long as the
form remains, they are separate and different; the clay-mouse can never
become a clay-elephant, because, as manifestations, form alone makes them
what they are, though as unformed clay they are all one. Ishvara is the
highest manifestation of the Absolute Reality, or in other words, the highest
possible reading of the Absolute by the human mind. Creation is eternal and
so also is Ishvara........Those who attain to that state where there is
neither knower, nor knowable, nor knowledge, where there is neither I, nor
thou, nor he, where there is neither subject, nor object, nor relation,
"there, who is seen by whom?" - such persons have gone beyond everything to
"where words cannot go nor mind", gone to where the Shrutis declare as "Not
this, not this"; but for those who cannot, or will not reach this state, there
will inevitably remain the triune vision of the one undifferentiated Brahman
as nature, soul and the interpenetrating sustainer of both - Ishvara. .....
Bhakti, then, can be directed towards Brahman, only in His personal aspect.'

Pratyaskha is superior to Shabda since Shabda came from Pratyaskha (of someone), or it becomes the case of chicken and egg...

Just as you can take the horse to the water, the shabda is the map that directs you to the water of Brahmajnana. The Horse then has to drink the water...Pratyaksha.

Mantra No. 6: That which is imperceptible, ungraspable, without lineage, colourless, eyeless and earless, handless and footless, eternal and all-pervading, existing in the heart of all, very subtle, imperishable and the source of all beings, is beheld by men of wisdom. This indestructible being does not come within the purview of the powers and the functions of the body, the vital energy, the senses of knowledge and action, the mind, the subconscious, the intellect, and the ego, whatever be the form into which their functions are modified. The relative values and the ideas of connections or relations that are seen in the world of experience hold good only when there is cognition and perception of the external. Attributes do not inhere in this Ultimate Substance, and they are neither identical with It nor different from It. If they are different, they have no connection with It; if they are identical, they do not exist at all. Hence, all attributes are denied in the transcendental Being. The negation of the functions of hearing and seeing imply the non-existence of name and form which are connected with these two functions. Name and form do not mean the ordinary name and form which are understood by the mind. Name means the potentiality of form and form is the materialisation of name. Name is the subtle power which is the factor working as the principle or constitution of individuality which expresses itself as a form situated in space. Thus name stands for that individualistic principle which does not change until the attainment of the highest knowledge. But the form changes itself at the time of death and at the beginning of birth. Hence, Nama and Rupa are not valid in the Absolute. Further, the senses and the other organs are necessary only when there is the need for the knowledge of anything or for doing anything. Absoluteness does not stand in the need of either knowing anything or doing anything, because of its secondlessness. It is able to know more and do more without any functional organ, as these organs are not helps but real obstructions to the consciousness of the perfection of spirit. This Spirit does not suffer diminution either in the form of decay of organs or loss of possessions or change of attributes, because it has neither organs, nor properties, nor qualities which are subject to change; nor is it affected by increase as in it everything is included. The Spirit is experienced as existent everywhere, without distinctions, by those who have risen to the level of spiritual consciousness. This is the object of higher knowledge, or Para Vidya.

Mantra No. 7: As a spider projects forth and absorbs back (the threads), as plants grow on earth, as hairs grow on the body, the universe emerges from the Imperishable Being. The first example shows that even the material cause of the universe is the Divine Being Itself, i.e., the Universe is non-different in nature from its cause. The second illustration shows that what is manifested is only an appearance of the form of the original cause. The third example shows that even apparently inanimate beings also find their origin in the conscious cause. In short, whatever is, similar or dissimilar—everything is essentially the highest causeless Cause, viz., the Divine Principle.

Mantra No. 8: Brahman distends through austerity; then the primordial matter is produced; from that the Prana, the mind, truth, the regions and the effects of actions.
The austerity of Brahman consists in Knowledge. It is not a means to purification as in the case of the individual, but it is the metaphorical explanation of the nature of the Primal Wish which is considered to exist as the background of the appearance of the universe. The cause of the world is described here as the general potentiality which dilates in order to give rise to appearances. This cause accounts for the existence of the original essence of matter which is in the state fit for manifestation. This matter is called here as Anna or food, because it is the object of experience by the spirit internally as well as externally. The co-existence of matter and spirit makes possible the appearance of the cosmic life, or Hiranyagarbha. Prana, objectively and enlivened by consciousness, is the same as the Creator, Hiranyagarbha, but, subjectively, the energy that vibrates the body and influences the mind. This Hiranyagarbha is the peculiar combination of all- knowledge and all-power. He is all-knowledge because he is based on the Absolute and he is all-power because he is the cause of the world. The mind, which is of the nature of the thought and doubt together with the intellect with a capacity to discriminate and determine, is produced as an effect from this primordial matter itself. From this the mind comes out. Satyam, or truth, is the continuity or existence of the different forms of experience. Truth means the truth of experience. The experiences of the mind are considered as true, because the mind gives rise to the expression of its own forms. These forms, though they are not continuous or truly existent, appear to be continuous and true because the mind reflects through itself the consciousness which is continuous and true. The creation of the mind implies also the projection of the external fields or regions which provide the necessary atmosphere for the experiences of the mind. The moment the mind is ejected, the impulse to action, which is the nature of the mind, is also produced. The impulse to action results in the performance of action. As every action has got its own reaction or result, the fruits of action always exist as inseparable from their causes. The fruit of action is called here as Amrita, or indestructible, because these fruits of actions can never be destroyed until the attainment of Self-Knowledge.

Mantra No. 9: Who is Omniscient and all-Knowing, whose penance consists in knowledge, from Him do proceed Hiranyagarbha, name, form and matter. Omniscience stands for the knowledge of the general essence of everything. All-knowingness is the knowledge of everything in particular also. His power consists in knowledge. Wherever there is knowledge, there is power also. Power is the form taken by knowledge. True power cannot be had as long as one’s knowledge is imperfect. The greater the knowledge, the greater is the power. Hence, Omniscience is Omnipotence also. Power is not actually the idea of superiority and control over another, but the result of becoming the Self of another. One cannot have power over another as long as one is different from another, because the relation between two things is always artificial. Genuine relationship is identity of nature, which is the same as true power. Real power is not the effect of effort or toil, but a spontaneous experience of Self-perfection which does not depend upon anything external. This Supreme Perfection, whose power is knowledge, manifests as the Cosmic Creator, who becomes the cause of the names and the forms of the universe and also the matter of names and forms.

ganp-ji wrote: "Surely, pratyaksha is also a valid mode of evidence? Why rely on testimony only? The complement to what you wrote is in this. Pratyaksha is a valid mode of pramana. So Pratyaksha should be used by the seeker to verify the words of the Guru."

Of course pratyaksha is valid, but it has its limitations and is subordinate to shabda. If one can prove something with shabda--especially by refering to the shrutis--then that is the strongest evidence.

The role pratyaksha plays is it helps direct one to a proper understanding. For example, if the Sun rises, and I say "the Sun is in the tree", the sun really isn't in the tree--even though according to pratyaksha the Sun is in the tree. As per anumaan, inferrence, we could know better that the sun cannot be in the tree because of the Sun's peculiar properties and a tree's peculiar properties. The tree would burn instantly if the Sun really were in the tree, and for that matter we would also perish instantly for being so close to the sun. But even anumaan has its limitations. But shabda is free from the human defects that taint pratyaksha and anumaan.

Rudra-ji wrote: "The theological/philosophical position vis-a-vis God (ie Saguna Brahman) is potentially "threatened" by the possibility of Nirguna Brahman. This threatens the Bhakta with cognitive dissonance. To apply my arm-chair psychology on top of my arm-chair philosophy, that fear of cognitive dissonance is what causes Bhakta to reject the Advaitin's position unequivocally."

It's not the cognitive dissonance, but that if you equate jivatma with paramatma then bhakti becomes impossible. Bhakti presupposes a servant and a servitor. And the Vaishnava schools do accept that there is nirguna brahman, it's just that it is considered subordinate to saguna brahman.

In the isa upanishad, it is said, hiranmayena patrena satyasipihitam mukham, tat tvam pushan apavrenu satya dharmaya drishtaye: "Oh my Lord, your real face is covered by your dazzling effulgence [hiran maya], please remove that covering and reveal yourself."

Behind the nirguna brahman is the saguna brahman, which is above and superior to nirguna brahman.

Dear KKD-ji, let us juxtapose this:

Since it is not possible to always correctly guess about so many things within our finite experience (like trying to guess the stock market), it is not possible to correctly ascertain infinite subjects without some sort of extrinsic means of ascertaining them. Therefore to know conclusively about infinite subjects, it is necessary to hear from an authoritative source. Hence, evam parampara praptam... Transcendental knowledge is received through qualified people (gurus) who come in an authorized disciplic succession. It is possible to know correctly and definitely something about infinite subjects, provided one hears properly from an authorized source.

against this:

pratyaksha anumaangamah pramanAni

Surely, pratyaksha is also a valid mode of evidence? Why rely on testimony only? The complement to what you wrote is in this. Pratyaksha is a valid mode of pramana. So Pratyaksha should be used by the seeker to verify the words of the Guru.

gangp-ji wrote: "This is a very good argument that should hold provided we are discussing a finite thing. All bets are off when we tread the realm of the infinite which by definition must exhaust all possibilities. Otherwise this realm would not be infinite."

Except that the incompatible differences do involve notions of the infinite. At the heart of differences over the relationsip of the jiva with paramatma is whether the jiva is actually paramatma or not. It's "all about the infinity."

What is out there in the real world (the "infinite real", or agents with infinite attributes, like omniscience and omnipotence, does not necessarily conform to one's own limited imagination. For example, one who knows what gold is and who knows what a mountain is can imagine that there is somewhere a mountain made out of gold. But it doesn't actually exist. Same can be said of "square circles." They don't exist.

Since it is not possible to always correctly guess about so many things within our finite experience (like trying to guess the stock market), it is not possible to correctly ascertain infinite subjects without some sort of extrinsic means of ascertaining them. Therefore to know conclusively about infinite subjects, it is necessary to hear from an authoritative source. Hence, evam parampara praptam... Transcendental knowledge is received through qualified people (gurus) who come in an authorized disciplic succession. It is possible to know correctly and definitely something about infinite subjects, provided one hears properly from an authorized source.

The theological/philosophical position vis-a-vis God (ie Saguna Brahman) is potentially "threatened" by the possibility of Nirguna Brahman. This threatens the Bhakta with cognitive dissonance. To apply my arm-chair psychology on top of my arm-chair philosophy, that fear of cognitive dissonance is what causes Bhakta to reject the Advaitin's position unequivocally.

But those who deal with Sat and Asat on a daily basis, don't have this fear, since Sat and Asat are only two sides of the coin of Duality. The Yang and Yin respectively. Sat is with Form and Asat is Formless. Sat is Real, Asat is Non-real (and so on and so forth, all duality, each representing an opposing pole)

However, my understanding of Nirguna Brahman is that it is beyond Sat and Asat...

dvandvateetam gaganasadrsham

Dr. Puligandla deals with this subject in great detail in his book titled "Jnana Yoga -- The Way of Wisdom". He calls the entire metaphysic used by/in a said theological discipline a Categorical Framework. The Categorical framework defines the epistemology, which in turn affects the ontological aspect of what the framework interacts with (or as I understand it, the tale of the 5 blind men and the elephant, becomes a enormous reality in this case).

So knowledge-claims or truth-claims can never transcend the framework, because the framework is what defines the knowledge/truth/reality. He then proceeds to explain why these categorical frameworks are essentially empty/void, as is the knowledge/truth-claim they posit. Since the truth/reality is dependent on the framework and the framework is dependent on the one applying it, in essence, the "truth", framework and the one applying it are all sva-bhava shunya and are dependent on one another (ie neither can stand on it's own without the other).

The same cannot be said about Advaita, because Advaita starts with the premise that "Absolute/Ultimate" reality cannot be described. So first exercise identified is that categorical frameworks are relative and useless in the inquiry into ultimate Advaitic state. Then begins the process of the actual inquiry (via meditation, yoga, Neti Neti process). That doesn't mean categorical frameworks are not valuable in the initial phase of inquiry. But to the advaitin it is clear that categorical framework is only a means to an end and not the end itself.

[Actually, because the two have such fundamentally different conceptions of what is sat and asat, there is no chance of reconciling them. You cannot accept both the Advaitist and Vaishnava position as simultaneously valid--particularly on doctrines such as the relationship of the jiva with paramatma. Both positions cannot be true at the same time.]

This is a very good argument that should hold provided we are discussing a finite thing. All bets are off when we tread the realm of the infinite which by definition must exhaust all possibilities. Otherwise this realm would not be infinite.

Sri Ramakrishna on the relationship between Dvaita and Advaita:

"No one can say with finality that God is only 'this' and nothing else. He
is formless and again He has forms. For the bhakta He assumes forms. But He
is formless for the jnani, that is, for him who looks on the world as a mere
dream. The bhakta feels that he is one entity and the world as another.
Therefore God reveals Himself to him as a Person. But the jnani - the
Vedantist, for instance - always reasons, applying the process of 'Not this,
not this'. Through this discrimination he realizes, by his inner perception,
that the ego and the universe are both illusory, like a dream. Then the jnani
realizes Brahman in his own consciousness. He can not describe what Brahman
is.

Do you know what I mean? Think of Brahman, Existence-Knowledge-Bliss
Absolute, as a shoreless ocean. Through the cooling influence as it were, of
the bhakta's love, the water has frozen at places into blocks of ice. In
other words, God now and then assumes various forms for His lovers and reveals
Himself to them as a Person. But with the rising of the sun of knowledge,
the blocks of ice melt. Then one doesn't feel any more that God is a Person,
nor does one see God's forms. What He is can not be described. Who will
describe Him? He who would do so disappears."

Now, this is the kind of discussion I like to see. Theology is necessary because in order to understand what is right and wrong, and what is good and not good, one must first be able to distinguish sat from asat. And this is what the ancient, ongoing debate between Advaitists and Vaishnavas has been about.

Actually, because the two have such fundamentally different conceptions of what is sat and asat, there is no chance of reconciling them. You cannot accept both the Advaitist and Vaishnava position as simultaneously valid--particularly on doctrines such as the relationship of the jiva with paramatma. Both positions cannot be true at the same time.

At the same time, both nevertheless closely resemble each other because both schools are Vedantic. For them, the authority of the prasthana-trayi (Upanishads, Bhagavad-gita, and Vedanta Sutra) is unquestionable. And it is this allegiance to Vedanta and (with it allied literature Mahabharata, Ramayana, Puranas, etc.) that over the centuries has won out over other systems such as nyaya, mimamsa, etc., even though the Vedantists have borrowed from those other systems. So, it is Vedanta--its ideas and precepts--that are at the heart of Hindu culture and civilization.

I would like to give an example of Dvaita aggressiveness. A conversation between Prabhupad and others are given in the following web site: prabhupadabooks.com/?g=161562.

There Prabhupada says the following: "And in India the Mayavada poison has overflooded."
He compares Advaita with poison. I have also seen Dvaitas calling mayavadis rascals. I don't see this kind of attitude in The Ramakrishna order.

I asked a RK Swami some years ago about Dvaita. He told me that the Dvaitas attain a high state. According to the Swami a dvaita sadhak will feel strong attraction to the Deity. The Dvaita sadhak will be able to have the Advaita experience if he continues on that path. However, the Dvaita sadhak will stop there since he is not interested in the Advaita experience.

Karigar,

[And the followers of Advaita are a little too ...er.......fluid...smilies/smiley.gif

Who's to say either extreme is good on it's own in this world ?? ]

I did not pass any value judgement about anyone. I just stated a fact that it is my experience that the followers of Dvaita are more aggressive than the followers of Advaita. It is for these followers to decide whether their position is good or bad.

As a follower of Ramakrishna, I accept all three Advaita, Vishistadvaita and dvaita as legitimate paths to truth.

Dear Partha
Welcome back ! The dimension you bring to the discussion completes the picture -Yes, the Sadguru who is Sakshath Paramatma looks for us well before we even begin to think of him.
Yes, for most householders, bhakthi may be the path.
Surrender is a great way to eventual ego loss-but surrender is easier said than done .
The paths are many and it is delightful to have so many choices-one chooses where, how and in what pace one wants to walk .
I was reading Chadwick's memoirs of Sri Ramana Maharshi and he talks about how the Guru who taught inquiry at times melted in Bhakthi.
Manickavasakar himself melted the first time he saw Dakshina Murthy-that was bhakthi at its zenith.
He then goes on to say " Ekan Anekhan , antha Iraivan adi vazhga!"
" The one , the many, glory to the feet of the Lord!"
As for us, we can dive in to the nectar of Nayanmar or Alwars [ softens the heart and prepares/primes us for eventual ego surrender] or follow the " Who am I path" [vichara ]or Raja Yoga path or take any timetested path-we are sure to reach there.Appropriate guides will be surely waiting at appropriate places.
Regards
ns

Dear Karigar,
It is difficult, but not impossible to be tolerant towards the other person's extreme rigidity.
It is difficult, but not impossible to get sense out of very fluid concepts, whether in modern physics or in Vedanta.
Pragmatism in our individual path to liberation would consist in individual assessment of own capabilities, focus on the objective, getting the help of proper sadgurus who seek us even as we seek them, and be individually sincere in following relevant processes to enable fulfilment of the objective.
Warm regards. Partha

I have found that the followers of the Dvaita tradition are usually much more rigid than the followers of the Advaita tradition.

And the followers of Advaita are a little too ...er.......fluid...

Who's to say either extreme is good on it's own in this world ??

Dear Dwai,
I have found that the followers of the Dvaita tradition are usually much more rigid than the followers of the Advaita tradition.

Regards

Pradipda

Dear Partha,

[Is it not simpler to postulate that advaita exists only in the realized soul, for instance in a sadguru approximating to Dakshinamurti? All other souls need help from the parama soul to drop their individual identity, and processes such as bhakti and sharanagati which need to focus on some defined identity of the parama soul become necessary.]

This is a brilliant summary!

Regards

Pradip

Dear Partha,

You bring a profound point into focus here. The "rift" is between followers of the two schools of thoughts.

Philosophically, ontologically Dvaita and Advaita might seem more different than they are in actuality. The commentary on this rift was meant to be a commentary on the followers' mentality as opposed to comparison of the two traditions.

Welcome back after a long hiatus...hope everything is alright.

Warm Regards,

Dwai

Please go through the contents of Pradip's recent comment, comment number 16. Then please read mine, namely number 19.
Have we not said substantially the same thing?
Partha.

Dear friends,
There cannot be comparison between or contrasting of two entities such as dualistic Vaishnavism and Advaita. If you want you compare and contrast dualistic Vaishnavism and monistic Vaishnavism! dvaita and advaita; dvaitic brahmatattva and advaitic brahmatattva.
When you define Brahman as Narayana (or if you like as a divinity with some name other than just man) are you not deviating already from Advaita? Why do you think most Vedantis make Narayana or any of his acknowledged avatars as the preferred object of devotional surrender for liberation when the example of a sublime Dakshinamurti, radiating pure Jnana is always available but appears unattainable?
Is it not simpler to postulate that advaita exists only in the realized soul, for instance in a sadguru approximating to Dakshinamurti? All other souls need help from the parama soul to drop their individual identity, and processes such as bhakti and sharanagati which need to focus on some defined identity of the parama soul become necessary.
If modern physics can exist with postulated uncertainties and multiverses, why should its superior cousin Vedanta fight shy of dualistic processes for advaitic objectives? If you examine its history, you will find no rift, only innovative search and effort.
Warm regards. Partha

I am reminded of the nursery rhyme which told us that the kingdom was lost all because of one lost (missing) horse-shoe nail (though there were many stages in between). Anger, natural when people talk past each other, occasionally points to underlying misconceptions which can perhaps be cleared.
Sanskrit literature was first translated into English by the ‘White man’ whose concept of the ‘spirtitual’ and God/God-like was as something ‘higher’ – outside and apart. Thus the word ‘Para’ (knowedge) was translated (and continues to be used) as ‘Higher’ and ‘Apara’ its antonym, as ‘Lower’. This seemingly fits with Ramakrishna’s Ladder concept (which admittedly I have often used to explain ideas) and leaves Hindus fighting with each other.

If we translate ‘Para’ as ‘Beyond’ we start moving in the right direction. Not only does this better fit with the Hindu/ Sanatana/ Vedic concept of the ‘Almighty’/ ‘God’/ ‘Ultimate Reality’; it also helps understand why Hindus hold ie, that there is no ‘better’ and ‘worse’, just ‘different’.

Depending on the path on which one starts off the route is somewhat different, but if one keeps going ‘Beyond’ one gets to realise that in fact the Bhaktas and Jnanis are both right as are the hath yogis and karma yogis and, followers of the Tantra route and.... It all depends on how far ‘Beyond’ one goes. At some stage along an individual path the ‘seeker’ will incorporate/ experience that which is thought of (? understood these days) as essentially a different path.

To get back to your issue and AdiShankaracharya’s Bhaj Govindam: I’d guess that A.S probably started off as essentially a jnani and then ‘as he matured’ he realised that God(s) play an extremely important role. Had he been a bhakta who went into the ‘ Beyond’ he would have had that yearning for ‘God’ first. Most Bhaktas are content to stop at this point – the yearning being fulfilled and ‘God’ found, s/he has reached the goal. And because s/he has stopped, ‘God’ in whatever form S/He is realised, remains the eternally separate entity.

Which came first – the chicken or the egg? Depends on whether you are the chicken or the hen!

Dear Dwai,

Of course there is the matter of yogyata. There is this Gita verse:

The obstacles facing those devoted to the Impersonal Absolute are far greater;
for the way of an unclear ideal is difficult for an embodied being to understand
and follow.
(Gita 12.5)

Jnana marga is the most difficult path. That is why most people are asked to go by Bhakti or Karma marga.

I avoid getting into arguments with the dogmatic type. Arguing with them is like hammering a nail into a steel wall. The wall is unaffected by the hammering and the only thing that happens is waste of energy.

Dogmatism is always a bad thing and has given religion a bad name.

Warm Regards

Pradipda

Dear ns,

I am not competent enough to give a definitive opinion about the level of experience of people like Isabel.It could be vishistadvaita experience.

Regards

Pradipda

Dear Pradipda,

Thanks for sharing The Ladder theory...I knew about it, but didn't know it was called the Ladder theory.

In Trika texts they talk about the three levels of qualification (or yogyata) for the seeker. And that's why the same school might have three different (sometimes seemingly polar opposite) positions on the same subject.

Take for example Brother Vaiyasaki's confusion about Shankara who said "Brahma satyam jagan mithya" and then went on to say "Bhaja Govindam" and wrote many Bhakti compositions such as Bhavani ashtakam etc. That was because the target audience was different.

For his more serious disciples, I would suspect Shankara would state certain things. For the common people who did not have either a philosophical/intellectual nor practical (ie Yoga/meditation) experience with Advaita he prescribed Bhakti.

I think that is what has happened with Vaishnavism (especially the brand I'm seeing with the Hare Krishna types I've interacted with so far). Their teachers perhaps taught per the yogyata of the students...but then the students never progressed enough for them to realize the underlying truth.

And they have concocted this entire narrative to try and validate their stories.

I felt bad about my outburst at the author yesterday...the state of the seeker is based on his karmic tendencies and accounts...it cannot be helped.

However I still think that this kind of "Accidental Hinduism" is in the long run harmful.

Warm Regards,

Dwai

Dear Pradipda
Thankyou for the detailed explanation.
Hope this question isnt taking the discussion on a tangent.
I am intrigued by what you say on the highest Advaita experience by ordinary people.
What about those who have what they call a cosmic experience?
Can we say it is a visishtadvaitic experience?
A European Bhaktha talks about a Theresa of Avila like experience here complete with the mention of a spear and says she felt she was the tree and the river and everything around her.
http://murugan.org/bhaktas/cuetara.htm
Fritjof capra talks about the " Dance of Shiva" experience in the introduction of his Tao of Physics.
What level are these experiences on?
Am I right in thinking that they are pretty advanced, may be the highest a Bhaktha can reach before the ultimate level?

Btw, regarding the differences different schools of spiritual thought had in ancient India, may be this amount of Dwesham we see in modern thinkers wasnt there I guess.
People attacked ideas and not other people or tried to show /distort their ideas.
The last one or two millenia, it seems like spiritual minded Indians spent in establishing their schools of thought which as per Sri Ramakrishna were all true but are just different levels .
Sri Chandra Sekarendra Sarasvathi seems to have lectured a lot on these diffreneces and he says the same too.
He says Advaita differs from the other two schools of thought in the way it accepts both of them [ Dvaita, and V.Dvaita] at one level but goes beyond them to the highest level.
Yes, as Dwai says what's the point in trying to establish one 's way is the way-the time can be constructively spent in learning more or experiencing more.
Regards
ns

Dear Dwai,

But to claim that one is greater than the other is either foolish or dishonest or both.

Didn't Swami Vivekananda say "Just as all rivers flow to the sea, all spiritual systems lead to God-realization?"

Yes, all Indic spiritual traditions lead to God-realization. There is no doubt about that but not all God-realizations are of the same level.

You will have to understand Vivekananda's ladder theory of spiritual realization. According to Vivekananda (he merely systematized Ramakrishna's teachings) the lowest important level of spiritual realization is the dvaita experience. At this level you feel strongly that you are a jiva and God is completely different from you. This experience is captured by Madhvacharya's Atat Twam Asi.In this picture there are three eternals, God, jivas and the material world. Thus here God is eternally different from jiva and jagat.

The next serious higher level is the vishistadvaita experience elaborated by Ramanuja.
At this level you will still find yourself different from God but you will see that God is present everywhere so that you are inextricably linked with God. Thus in this picture the mahavakya is Tat Twam Asi and it means you are God's own and that God+jivas+jagat is One. The analogy given is that of a fruit. Just as a fruit is made up of seeds, flesh and skin similarly the whole is made up of Narayana, jiva and jagat. You can't separate Narayana from jiva and jagat and get the picture of the fruit right although Narayana is not jiva or jagat.

Finally the highest experience is the Advaita experience. This experience can not be expressed in words. In Sri Ramakrishna's words:

"In the state a man no longer finds the existence of his ego. And who is there
left to seek it? Who can describe how he feels in that state - in his own Pure
Consciousness - about the real nature of Brahman? There is a sign of Perfect
Knowledge. Man becomes silent when It is attained. Then the 'I', which may be
likened to the salt doll, melts in the ocean of Existence-Knowledge-Bliss
Absolute and becomes one with It. Not the slightest distinction is left."


Sri Ramakrishna also says that if an ordinary jiva reaches the highest Advaita level then he will die in 21 days. This highest experience is only for teachers. Sri Ramakrishna says that it takes a huge effort on the aprt of God to keep such a person alive.

What do Vaishnavas say about this theory? The most aggressive denunciation of the ladder theory is by the Dvaitists. They say that Vivekananda got the ladder upside down. They say that at first the God-experience is vague and nebulous. This is the Advaita experience. Then the Person of Sri Krishna becomes clear. This is the dvaita experience.
So in their view the dvaita experience is the highest experience and poor Advaitist stop before they have reached the goal.

What do other Advaitists say about Ramakrishna's position? Sri Ramana agrees that the Advaita experience is the highest experience but expresses doubts about the 21-day death. The 16th century Advaita master Sri Madhusudhan Saraswati says in his Gita commentary, "Gudartha Dipika", that a jiva will not be able to come back to earthly life if he has the highest Advaita experience and this agrees with Sri Ramakrishna's position.

Regards

Pradipda

Dear Dwai,

he draws the extrapolation/conclusion that only Vaishnavas can claim being the "authentic" Sanatana Dharma and every other tradition (and Hinduism in general) simply "borrows" concepts and terms from Vaishnava literature.

What that person is saying is the standard Vaishnava position in India. ISKCON web site also says that ISKCON is not a Hindu organization but a Vedic organization. So you can not blame that famous writer for saying these things.

I remember discussing about Vaishnava teaching with a Vaishnava in India. He is now a Professor of Engineering in a college in Silchar, Assam. I found that he also has the same attitude.

There are Vaishnava teachers who say that Kali is a Devi of materialism.

So there is no getting away from fanaticism.

Regards

Dear Dwai,

Yes, What you have written is the aim of Advaita Vedanta. An Advaitist gets rid of his ego in order to find out his own nature which turns out to be Nirguna Brahman. This discovery of his own nature is called moksha.

Vaishnavas are not trying for moksha. They are not interested in their own nature. They consider it blasphemous to even suggest that jiva's nature is same as Brahman. They want to live permanently with Krishna in a state of mutual love. Thus they don't have to give up their ego although they have to purify it.

So you might ask which is the higher state. Sri Ramakrishna says that the Advaita experience is the higher state but that state is not wanted by Bhaktas. Thus bhaktas do not attain that higher state.If a bhakta wants to attain the Advaita state then he can attain it.

The path of Bhakti is actually easier to traverse. The path of Bhakti can also lead to the Advaita state.

"Brahman alone is real and the world is illusory - that is reasoning. And
everything but Brahman is like a dream. But this is an extremely difficult
path. To one who follows it even the divine play in the world becomes like
a dream and appears unreal; his 'I' also vanishes. The followers of this path
do not accept the Divine Incarnation. It is a very difficult path.

That is why God incarnates Himself as a man and teaches people the path of
devotion. He exhorts people to cultivate self-surrender to God. Following the
path of devotion, one realizes everything through His grace - both knowledge
and Supreme Wisdom."

- Sri Ramakrishna

Ultimately the difference is between the monotheistic attitude of the Vaishnavas and the non-theistic attitude of the Advaitists.

Dear Pradipda, NS,

I was reading Ramana Maharishi's teachings recently...and here's what I understand about his position on this matter:


As long as there is identification with this body, ego, mind (ie Jiva), there is no realization of Brahman. So the claims of Vaishnavas (or any group that retains identification with the egoic self, cannot be referring to the Absolute Brahman.

Even if such people have visions of the Lord and/or interact with the Lord in meditation, they are simply interacting with the vrittis of their mind...

To be able to realize Brahman, it is very important to lose the false identification with the Egoic Self and identify the True Self. Or Reach the state of absolute dissolution of the mind.

Dear ns,

Tat Twam asi is a statement. Atat twam asi as a counter statement which could have only come as a reaction to the statement may be?.
So the idea tat twam asi must have existed all along.
The classic difference between the two concepts would always be there-as long as each one finds out on his/her own may be?

Yes, there is no doubt that Madhvacharya's interpretation is a reaction. However, he states that Atat twam asi reading represents the correct Sanskrit grammar. He is alone in doing so since even Ramanujacharya says that the mahavakya is Tat twam asi.

Regards

Pradip da

Dear Dwai,

[I find it interesting and slightly sad that Converts (almost all of those involved in the debate except myself were converts of the Iskon-type) try and overcompensate for their neophyte status with extra zeal.]

All Vaishnavas take the ISKON position. Their position reflects the attitude of the Vaishnava Acharyas towards what they call the mayavada of Shankara. Also one can't just blame the Vaishnavas to taking such a narrow position. I recall Shankara stating that only dull people do not agree with him. I am fairly certain that such statements riled up the the Vaishnava Acharyas.

Warm Regards

Pradipda

Dear Dwai,Pradipda
Tat Twam asi is a statement. Atat twam asi as a counter statement which could have only come as a reaction to the statement may be?.
So the idea tat twam asi must have existed all along.
The classic difference between the two concepts would always be there-as long as each one finds out on his/her own may be?
Yes, cultural diversity is a great foundation many of us stand on. It is always amazing to hear unlettered folks say all paths lead to ONE -in a colloquial way.May be thanks to their less cluttered minds they are far advanced in their personal quest.
Regards
ns

The debate about the meaning of Tat Twam Asi is endless. Madhvacharya
even rejects Tat Twam Asi and says the correct term is Atat Twam Asi
(Thou art not that)!

So who is correct? Sri Ramakrishna says that while the Advaita experience
is the end of the road, i.e., the highest experience, it is not needed for
a Bhakta.

Mahima:"I have a question to ask sir. A lover of God needs Nirvana (total
annihilation of ego -- the ideal of the jnani) some time or other, doesn't
he?

Sri Ramakrishna:"It can't be said that bhaktas need Nirvana. According to some
schools there is an eternal Krishna and there are His eternal devotees.
Krishna is spirit embodied, and His abode is also spirit embodied. Krishna is
eternal and His devotees are also eternal."