PDA

View Full Version : Shastra is Pramana



Sriram257
29 April 2015, 10:12 PM
Fellow Advaitins,

I have been having an interesting thought, we are told that Shastra is the Pramana for Brahma Vidya, it is my own conviction that only Advaitins can answer this question of mine , since they have an understanding of Advaita.

How is Shastra the Pramana for Brahma Vidya ?

In the sense how does Shastra act as a Pramana for Brahma Vidya, I would like Advaitins to share their thoughts on this.

devotee
30 April 2015, 05:04 AM
Namaste Sriram,



I have been having an interesting thought, we are told that Shastra is the Pramana for Brahma Vidya, it is my own conviction that only Advaitins can answer this question of mine , since they have an understanding of Advaita.
How is Shastra the Pramana for Brahma Vidya ?
In the sense how does Shastra act as a Pramana for Brahma Vidya, I would like Advaitins to share their thoughts on this.

Shastra is one of the 6 Pramanas that Advaita VedAnta accepts for understanding the Reality. These are :

a) Pratyaksha Pramana i.e. Direct perception ... It is the ultimate Pramana.
b) Shabda Pramana or the Shastras (Upanishads, Bhagwad Gita and Brahmasutras)
c) Anumana i.e. logical inference by other proven facts
d) Upamana i.e. by comparison and analogy e.g. Comparing Dream with this world, Space in Pot example, Ocean and waves example etc.
e) Arthapatti i.e. Postulation, derivation from circumstances
f) Anupalabdhi i.e. Negative proof

Why Shastras/Sabda are considered a valid Pramana because they are brought to us by seers who had direct perception of the reality. It is like this : I and you have not gone to moon but Neil Armastrong has gone there and seen what it looks like. So, we accept his Sabda i.e. his word. In Sabda Pramana, Advaita VedAnta relies upon Upanishads i.e. VedAnta, Bhagwad Gita and Brahmasutras.

OM

Sriram257
30 April 2015, 09:05 AM
Namaste Devotee,

Finally a friendly discussion, so you are telling the answer from the Yogic perspective of Agama, I am fine with that.

But the next question is that how does the Shastra show me Brahman, my eyes are the pramana for light since they enable me to see light.

But the Shastra enables be to see Brahman if it is a Pramana just as the eyes are a Pramana for light.

However how does the Shastra serve as a Pramana, that is the question.

Amrut
30 April 2015, 09:37 AM
Namaste,

SAstra-s are not just philosophy. They are experience of innumerable saints. They are like a verified or authentic map which can show you direction and guide you. Adi Sankara has accepted SAstra-s as vaild pramANa-s. Since I do not read SAStra-s anymore, I would not be able to quote them.

Hari OM

Sriram257
30 April 2015, 09:42 AM
Namaste Amrut,

I willfully accept that Shastra is the record of the embodied knowledge that was discovered by the Rishis, that is fine, but how does it become a Pramana to know Brahman.

Like how my ears helps me gain the knowledge of sound, and my eyes help me gain the knowledge of light and other forms, how does the Shastra help me gain knowledge of Brahman ? Could you please elaborate.

Amrut
30 April 2015, 10:18 AM
Namaste,

SAstra-s help you to gain clarity and give you proper direction. It is God inside us who will an introvert mind to establish in heart. What is said by Guru and SAstra will one day become personal direct experience. After one gets a glimpse of samAdhi, then a seeker will, by his own experience know the truth. Still one has to stabilize in samAdhi. Since path is known and a seeker can meditate at any time at will, SAstra-s have done their work. It is like walking on a road following a map. Now you are so near that you can see your destination. All you need to do is to keep walking to reach it.

Spiritual path is invisible one. Hence one has to depend upon words of Guru and SAstra-s.

Mind wants to imagine, get a picture of brahman. First hting SAstra-s do is to teach us what we are not. This path is called as neti-neti. Then by meditative approach, one separates oneself from that is not 'I'.

e.g. if SAstra-s say, I am not mind, I am not body, etc. Then question comes Who Am I.

Then the answer comes - I am Brahman or Sivam, pure consciousness. So SAstra-s help us

1. remove our ignorance - the root cause of suffering.
2. recall our true nature that we have forgotten - upanishads say, thou art that Svetaketu, not once, not twice, but nine times indicating that we hav eforgotten our true nature

SAstra-s help us remove veil of ignorance. The Sun is already there but clouds have hidden the Sun. Hence we get the feeling that Sun has lost it's shine, Sun is not present and there is darkness. If by wind, clouds are dispersed, then Sun shines forth spontaneously without any delay in time. One getsa feeling that we 'now see the Sun', but the reality is that Sun was never lost. It was always there in it's place. Our false perception was due to the obstruction of clouds (ignorance), if we rise above clouds, then Sun is always there.

SAstra-s and independent compositions of Gurus help one give logical explanation and give us a way to realize Brahman.

Since mind needs to visualize, for the sake of visualization, when one is confused that I am not body and mind, then SAstra-s say, Atman is like AkAsh, subtle and present everywhere. Atman is like light. Light has nature of giving knowledge. In darkness, one cannot spot a book, but if we stiwch on bulb, we can spot the book. In this way, with the help of logic (yukti) SAstra-s help us remove the false knowledge about our true nature i.e. remove ignorance and give us information about our true nature. LAter it is up to individual to walk the path SAstra-s have shown us.

Hope this helps

Hari OM

hinduism♥krishna
30 April 2015, 10:31 AM
Advaita VedAnta relies upon Upanishads i.e. VedAnta, Bhagwad Gita and Brahmasutras.
And Purana as well :) However I don't see highest aspect of Advaita in Bhagavad Gita, unlike in Hansa or Uddhava Gita. Uddhava Gita explains Advaita at its best. Uddhava Gita must be considered as jewel of Advaita if Bhagavad Gida is.

wundermonk
30 April 2015, 11:05 AM
Greetings,

There are few things that have to be established within the Advaitic framework.

(1)First, Shabda as a pramana has to be shown to be independent of and irreducible to other pramanas (such as pratyaksha, anumana, etc.). That sabda is independent of these are established variously by different astika schools - some key ideas here would be arguments such as the word is eternal, or that the Vedas are apaurusheya, etc.

Assuming that this has been done, the following has to happen next.

(2)The true purport of Sabda has to be shown to be nonduality.

There are many dialectics that hope to achieve exactly this. Assuming this too has been accomplished, the next thing to happen is the following.

(3)If the true purport is that of nonduality between individuating ego consciousness and pure universal consciousness, how does Sabda help establish this? Keep in mind that as per Advaita, the primal nescience is epistemic and not ontological, for Advaita reduces ontological categories to modes of cognition of the epistemic subject. So, Advaita argues that the final liberating cognition that arises from sabda (mahakavyas such as neti neti, tat tvam asi, sarve khalu idam brahman, etc.), even though it is a mental state that is part of the unliberated stage, points to the truth of the liberated state. So, this final cognition is individual self-destroying but expansive at the same time, for the individual self "expands" into the universal consciousness. Sastra and sabda become irrelevant in the liberated state, as do other pramanas for the liberated state/moksha is without the taint of sense organs through which all forms of pramanas function.

Sriram257
30 April 2015, 12:20 PM
Namaste Amrut,

I only found your answer to be most convincing. Now at this juncture one more question, you have clearly stated that the Shastra brings clarity to the understanding of my own self. At this point would you tell me that simply reading the Shastra by ourselves will we get clarity ?

Amrut
30 April 2015, 12:47 PM
Now at this juncture one more question, you have clearly stated that the Shastra brings clarity to the understanding of my own self. At this point would you tell me that simply reading the Shastra by ourselves will we get clarity ?

Namaste Sriram ji,

Shastras talk of things that we are not used you. Spirituality is direct dealing with mind and in practical life, not much is taught on how to keep a check on our ever-demanding mind. So in the beginning, it will be difficult. Technically yes, reading of shastras will help one gain clarity. But shastras are not easy to understand. Again there is a lot of literature to be read. Reading just once is not enough. What I would suggest is that it is better to listen to audio / video discourse of saints who have dedicated many years to the study of prasthantrayi i.e. Bhagavad Gita, Principle Upanishads and Brahma Sutras. One is also expected to read Prakaran Granthas and Adi Shankaracharya ji's commentaries. After reading, understanding and digesting the essence of shastras combined with intense sadhana, if a saint gives a discourse on Gita or even Prakarana granth like Vivek Chudamani, then he will connect the teachings of Vivek Chudamani with Gita and Upanishad. Such a saint will give an essence of shastras. This will be very helpful. One must repeat Discourses many times to get some clarity. If doubts persists, approach a saint following similar tradition and get your doubts cleared. Guru or an acharya is important. We cannot understand everything by ourselves :) Taking help helps :)

Ideally, in advaita, it is a standard practice to first learn basic texts (Prakarana Granthas). First one generally read is Tatva Bodh, then one can read Atma Bodh or aparokshAnubhuti or directly read Vivek Chudamani. VC is very important to learn. It is also worth mentioning that in order to practice the advaita way of life, strong renunciation and moksha as the only goal of life has to be there, but as you have said you can get clarity on what to do atleast by reading shastras. Also note that many saints while explaining shastras give their personal experience and some other stories which has nothing to do with verse under context. Avoid them :)

Hari OM

Sriram257
30 April 2015, 01:01 PM
Namaste Amrutji,

Till now I was satisfied with your answer but I feel you have deviated a little, so let me give the answer if you don't mind,

We ourselves cannot simply approach the Shastra directly, we require the Shastra to be unfolded to us by a Guru. Who is both realised and at the same time knows how to present the subject.

The Shastra will only become a Pramana through the teaching methodology adopted by the Guru. This teaching methodology helps us in bringing clarity about ourselves, that we are the whole.

How is this clarity brought in, it is done by the teaching methodology where Brahman's Svarupa Lakshana of Sat Chit and Ananda is explained, at this point we form an idea of Brahman as Sat Chit Ananda. This idea is called Brahma Kara Vritti. The unfolding of the Brahman is done in a 2 fold way one is Neti Neti, and the other is an investigation into the Svarupa Lakshana of Brahman. Once this is done the Brahman is unfolded to us in a crystal clear way as ourselves. At this point of time the Brahmakara Vritti disappears into the knowledge of Brahman.

The Guru with the help of the Shastra and the traditional teaching methodology imbibes the Brahmakara vritti into the student. This helps the student in realising the Brahman as his self.

For exemplars like Ramana Maharishi, Dattatreya and so on, the Brahmakara vritti is already present to them without any teaching and hence are ready to grasp the knowledge of "I am the whole".

But this Brahmakara Vritti is not easily formed for ordinary mortals hence we definitely require 1stly the Guru who knows both the Brahman as well as the way to present it.

devotee
30 April 2015, 10:54 PM
Namaste Sriram,


However how does the Shastra serve as a Pramana, that is the question.

Is it not sufficient what I gave in my earlier post :

"Why Shastras/Sabda are considered a valid Pramana because they are brought to us by seers who had direct perception of the reality. It is like this : I and you have not gone to moon but Neil Armastrong has gone there and seen what it looks like. So, we accept his Sabda i.e. his word."

OM

Sriram257
01 May 2015, 06:13 AM
Namaste Devotee,

I completely agree with what you say, you have taken the notion of Agama and Agama is what you say about Neil Armstrong going to the moon which we believe based on the words of Neil Armstrong since we ourselves have not gone to the moon, so this is also called Apta Vakya, however till this point I have provisional faith in the Shastra but merely having provisional faith in the Shastra is not going to reveal Brahman to me. The Shastra is talking about Brahman and giving me the idea, but I need to have enough clarity which makes me realise that "I am Brahman" so the intention of the question is that how is this clarity of "I am Brahman" gained through the Shastra.

How does the Shastra provide me that clarity is what was the intention of the question. This itself shows that Advaitins treat even Pramana in a very different way when compared to other schools of thought. Satchitanandendra Saraswati makes the same point in his Vaak Jyoti series, this is where we get the notion of "Apoorvata" which literally means that it is revealing a very unique position by bringing in clarity.

From my own understanding other schools of thought treat the Shastra as a Pramana since it is not of "human origin" or "Apaurusheya", hence devoid of all faults, where as Shankara treats it in a very unique way and says that if there are words in the Shastra that tell you ice is hot , you reject it since it is not within your experience. He also insists that Shastra while talking telling you something must tell you that which is not cognised through any other means. Due to the notion of "Apoorvata" Advaita is completely "Vastu Tantra" means looking at the object as it is.

Now what actually is sad that people want to make objections on Advaita viz in fact about revealing a unique position that one realises as a fact.

I invite the objections to Advaita and ask them to deconstruct it, however till now unfortunately I have seen a very superficial deconstruction of it.

Since Advaita is seen as a mere philosophy, but not as a methodology which reveals a unique position about myself viz "I am the whole". People in general I observe are not willing to go through this methodology and then see it for themselves. Instead they just say you can keep your truth to yourself I don't require it.

No matter how many times I tell people that this is only known post realisation they are not willing to leave there own position and are interested in merely intellectualising and are satisfied. Someone claimed that Advaita is based on certain assumption on which a rational system of thought is built.

The problem is that people do not want to mind their own business, it seems as if there is a lot of hatred towards Advaita Siddhanta from what I observe.

Apologise for digressing.

Good Day.

devotee
01 May 2015, 07:01 AM
Namaste Sriram,

I fully agree with you. In fact, in Advaita Saadhana there is more thrust on experiencing the Reality through Yama, Niyama, Meditation / Kriya etc. and theoretical knowledge which is called Aparoksha Anubhuti which comes through scriptures and teachings of Gurus is only the first step towards Realisation of Truth.

Sabda and other Pramana help you in the beginning but imo, they cannot take you to the ultimate reality. It is only through practice like meditation etc. which stills the mind and underlying Vaasanaas / impressions.

OM

Sriram257
01 May 2015, 07:42 AM
Namaste Devotee,

Not quite, this will mean that the Shabda Pramana is giving me theoretical knowledge and that for practical verification I will have to practice meditation to realise it. Not quite, otherwise there will be no need of the teaching methodology of the Guru, it will become redundant completely. In such a case merely hearing Tatvamasi will be more than enough and after that we must start meditating. All meditation will do is cleanse the mind. But to know the Brahman Shastra becomes a Pramana through the teaching methodology used by the Guru. This teaching methodology gives us enough clarity to understand that we are the whole.

Coming to experience, I take very careful steps while considering the term Brahmic experience since if I had Brahmic experience for half an hour , I was whole for half an hour and that experience I am again limited. This will be the status.

We need to realise that we are the whole. Coming to Anubhava or Brahmic experience, I reconcile it with the ideas present in the Tripura Rahasya, where Janaka suggests stopping the mind you get to know the Atman. Later in this book they discuss the difference between the Yoga Samadhi and the Jnana Samadhi using the example of a mirror. Thus confirming that Yoga Samadhi does not give you any knowledge of Brahman.

Knowledge or understanding is not different from Anubhava. The easier path I see this through the teaching methodology of the Guru, where as stopping the mind is a very tough task, i.e the space between the thoughts, noticing it is very very ardous. But even if done for a second transforms the person.

Omkara
12 May 2015, 04:48 PM
From my own understanding other schools of thought treat the Shastra as a Pramana since it is not of "human origin" or "Apaurusheya", hence devoid of all faults, where as Shankara treats it in a very unique way and says that if there are words in the Shastra that tell you ice is hot , you reject it since it is not within your experience. He also insists that Shastra while talking telling you something must ths not cognised.



Not true. That scripture cannot be inerpreted in a way that would contradict pratyaksha/anumana is the common position across trafitions.

hinduism♥krishna
13 May 2015, 02:03 AM
That scripture cannot be inerpreted in a way that would contradict pratyaksha/anumana is the common position across trafitions.

Paradox ! This statement itself is against Anuman. That will make Jiva's bondage state as his real Swarupa?

Sriram257
14 May 2015, 12:43 PM
Namaste Omkara,

My only point is this, Shastra only comes into play when Pratyaksha and Anumana both fail, that is when we have Shastra. The Shastra's domain is not within Pratyaksha and Anumana but beyond it.

Sriram257
14 May 2015, 12:44 PM
Namaste Hinduism+Krishna,

I like you quote from the Bhagavatha I think the Sanskrit text is "Ahameva Parabrahma Brahmaivaaham paramam matam". The Advaita Mahamantra.

Omkara
14 May 2015, 02:29 PM
Namaste Omkara,

My only point is this, Shastra only comes into play when Pratyaksha and Anumana both fail, that is when we have Shastra. The Shastra's domain is not within Pratyaksha and Anumana but beyond it.

Correct. My point was that this is the position of all sampradayas.

hinduism♥krishna
15 May 2015, 05:10 AM
Namaste Hinduism+Krishna,

I like you quote from the Bhagavatha I think the Sanskrit text is "Ahameva Parabrahma Brahmaivaaham paramam matam". The Advaita Mahamantra.

This is the Sanskrit Verse-

अहं ब्रह्म परं धाम ब्रह्माहं परमं पदम् ।
एवं समीक्ष्य चात्मानं आत्मन्याधाय निष्कले ॥ ११ ॥

This is Atma-Bhakti that is none other than Vishnu Bhakti.

harih
05 June 2015, 02:38 AM
Namaste Sri ramji

Your messages were very illuminating.

Somewhere in Sri Shankara Bhashyas I have read that the Pramanas are like the indriyas in a body - eyes͵ ears etc. Thus͵ Pratyaksha has validity independent of Anumana and Agama͵ also Agama (Sastra) has its own area of control where it exercises independence.



Namaste Omkara,

My only point is this, Shastra only comes into play when Pratyaksha and Anumana both fail, that is when we have Shastra. The Shastra's domain is not within Pratyaksha and Anumana but beyond it.

Sriram257
08 June 2015, 12:09 PM
Namaste Omkara,

I agree that this is the position of all Sampradaya, but on the Apaurasheyatva of the Shastra there is a small disagreement. Why is the Shastra not of human origin, if a ritualist were asked, he would say that since it is given by the "Devas". If you ask an Iskcon member he will tell you, since it came from the mouth of Vishnu. Hence mostly "dogmatic" statements.

But when Shankara was asked why the Shastra is not of human origin he replies "Jnapakam tu Shastram na tu karakam" this means he says the Shastra is there to reveal that which you have forgotten but not to create something.

For if the Shastra was created by human authorship it would be "Purusha Buddhi karakam", in the sense it would be a product of human intellect, hence it would fail to reveal the truth, but since the Shastra reveals the truth viz "Vastu Tantra" it is not a mere product of human intellect. This is the reason we say that the Shastra is "Apaurusheya" or not of human origin.

Believer
08 June 2015, 06:48 PM
Namaste,


...........he says the Shastra is there to reveal that which you have forgotten but not to create something.
The above statement has nothing to do with the origin and everything to do with their purpose. I see a disconnect that I am unable to resolve.

As an aside, if we disagree with a Hindu sampradaye, must we belittle it by branding it "dogmatic"? Austerity of speech - BG 17.15 - requires us to do otherwise!

Pranam.

silence_speaks
09 June 2015, 07:40 AM
Dear SriRam ji,
Namasthe!

Shastras are pramana - when we say this, we do not mean they reveal the Self. Self is "Self Evident" ... Ever Revealed.
Self cannot be revealed by any shastra.

shastras knock off the wrong notions ... Ajnana... and the Self evident Self, shines forth.

So Shastras do not reveal self... they knockoff Ajnana or ignorance [see Shankara commentary on Bhagavad Gita 2.18 -- if i remember correctly, where apaurusheya is mentioned].

The guru / shastras present a vision ... a way of looking so that the "Self Evident" Atma may be not missed. We miss Self because of our preconceived ideas and notions about ourselves. This is what is step by step revealed to be untrue. That process of Revealing our own wrong identifications to be wrong is called "Teaching". The methodology applied may vary.

Love!
Silence

Sriram257
09 June 2015, 02:33 PM
Namaste Believer,

I don't understand how calling certain statements dogmatic is belittling the Sampradaya.Ok in that case let me reconcile the statements with 2 things Literal meaning (Shabdaartha) and Implied meaning (Lakshyartha).So when we merely take Shabdaartha things like Devas giving the Vedas sounds silly but when we look at Devas as nothing but forces within Nature through which divinity is expressed then yes the Devas giving the Vedas makes a lot of sense. Hence on your request I reconcile this with the lakshyaartha but I am sorry I cannot accept merely the Shabdaartha.

Sriram257
09 June 2015, 02:38 PM
Namaste,

I do not disagree with you however you seem to be fixated on reveal. So let me use another word which would be "recognition" the Shastra provides me recognition of the Atman. I think this word should not be a problem.

Believer
09 June 2015, 11:43 PM
Namaste,


I don't understand how calling certain statements dogmatic is belittling the Sampradaya.

dogmatic - adjective - inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true.

Now every sampradaye has principles that are non-negotiable. That is what separates it from other schools of thought. Even you apply 'your logic' to everything and come up with a conclusion on every issue. So, why say that such and such sampradaye is dogmatic? They are no more dogmatic than your "firm" positions. I am also firm on certain issues and would not even allow anyone to try to convince me otherwise. So, I am also dogmatic. The only reason anyone would use this word on me would be to portray in a negative way. That is my line of thinking. Perhaps you have your reasons to use certain words which definitely are not flattering by any stretch of the imagination. BTW, this post is to clarify word usage and to learn if my understanding is flawed; and is not intended to hijack the thread.

Pranam.

silence_speaks
10 June 2015, 01:26 AM
Dear Sriram ji,
Namasthe!

We changed the world "Reveal" to "Recognize" ... how do I recognize and what ?

Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi tells of the story of a person who looked into a well and seeing his reflection in the well thought that his head has fallen into the well.
The teaching is to negate the wrong notion.
Neither to help one recognize the Self nor reveal it.
when the notion that my head has fallen into the well is negated, one need not be told that he head is "here" !
:D

Head here is ... "Self" ... the well is "Mind" !

Love!
Silence

Sriram257
10 June 2015, 05:10 AM
Namaste Silence Speaks,

When you change it to recognition it makes a lot of difference, since you are merely recognizing something which is already cognized by you. Classic examples given here is like a king who forgot his kingship and then later recognized his own kingship which was never lost in the 1st place.Similar case is told here so recognition does make the difference Shankara also acknowledges recognition he calls it Pratyabhijna. A classic example is "Soyam devadattaha" that devadatta is this devadatta.

Also in the example of the head fallen in the well, the person had a prior state of cognition that his head has not Fallen into the well. When his ignorance of his head falling into the well is removed he recognizes his original state. He has regained the knowledge that he had lost viz that his head never fell into the well. Hence recognition.

Of course I agree that the recognition is done by the seeker himself but the Shastra helps the person in this recognition.

Sriram257
10 June 2015, 05:24 AM
Namaste Believer,

Your assumption is wrong that by calling a Sampradaya dogmatic it is being portrayed in a negative light not so , it only means that when stating another Sampradaya as dogmatic we only say that questioning and inquiry into certain domains of that Sampradaya is not encouraged. Does not mean that it is belittling it. It also shows my disagreement with it but not necessarily belittling it. If a statement like "Vedas came from the mouth of Vishnu" is true for a Sampradaya and taken to be the final word for it. Obviously they will not even agree at looking at the statement from a rational perspective or they will say that logic cannot be applied here nor can it be verified. Hence such a statement if taken literally by that Sampradaya it is a dogma of that Sampradaya. Hence I find nothing wrong in calling such statements dogmatic. Dogma or dogmatic is not necessarily a negative connotation, it simply means that it is an uncompromising belief of that Sampradaya for which even if rationally is not acceptable is generally stated to be beyond reason.

However if you still feel that the word "dogma" is something negative then another term I would use is "story like" this will not necessarily be a negative connotation but it will only mean that if statements are made in such a way that both my reason and experience are not able to accept then I categorize it as "story like" the statements may be true but till they come to my experience such statements are just a story or "story like" to me.

silence_speaks
10 June 2015, 11:54 AM
Dear Sriram ji,
Namasthe!

:) you are correct on that. The cognition is there, but misinterpreted to be "something else" ! :)
So shastra only serves to negate that... and even when it says "This is IT", its merely negation of all
that is not "IT" !

Love!
Silence

Believer
10 June 2015, 02:40 PM
Namaste,


........when stating another Sampradaya as dogmatic we only say that questioning and inquiry into certain domains of that Sampradaya is not encouraged.

Obviously they will not even agree at looking at the statement from a rational perspective or they will say that logic cannot be applied here nor can it be verified.

......if statements are made in such a way that both my reason and experience are not able to accept then I categorize it as "story like"

Every sampradaye has a set of non-negotiable tenets at its core. Even you have some non-negotiable parts of your personality which states that everything must pass 'your rational perspective' and must pass the test of 'your reason and experience'. Now are you the present day Bhagwan who is going to validate everything in the scriptures? Should we forget about the teachings of all the scriptures, seers, sages and acharyas and follow you from now on? This debate has gone beyond the point of any sanity. "My rational perspective', 'My reason and experience', is all about My, My, My. Please read what you offer and how you think. It is unbecoming of a Hindu to put his limited intelligence before all else. I do hope you will reflect on all this and find something positive in this discussion. You and I are small potatoes when it comes to understanding and practicing spiritual knowledge. Let us control our egos and not put ourselves ahead of everything else.

Pranam.

Sriram257
10 June 2015, 09:23 PM
Namaste Silence Speaks,

Post removing Ajnana is when you get Pratyabhijna hence recognition.

Sriram257
10 June 2015, 09:59 PM
"Every sampradaye has a set of non-negotiable tenets at its core. Even you have some non-negotiable parts of your personality which states that everything must pass 'your rational perspective' and must pass the test of 'your reason and experience'. Now are you the present day Bhagwan who is going to validate everything in the scriptures? Should we forget about the teachings of all the scriptures, seers, sages and acharyas and follow you from now on? This debate has gone beyond the point of any sanity. "My rational perspective', 'My reason and experience', is all about My, My, My. Please read what you offer and how you think. It is unbecoming of a Hindu to put his limited intelligence before all else. I do hope you will reflect on all this and find something positive in this discussion. You and I are small potatoes when it comes to understanding and practicing spiritual knowledge. Let us control our egos and not put ourselves ahead of everything else."


Now you are taking this from a completely wrong perspective, experience and reason are universal to every person, all I am saying is that even the Shastra should have come within human experience, it is only then that it was heard. If the Rishis did not get the Shastras within human experience they would have not been able to sing it. The Rishis are human beings, similarly all human beings have the Rishi potential, hence it should be possible for all human beings to get the Shastras into their own experience, if not in this life time, may be after many life times. Now your argument is that certain things are beyond the human reasoning and experience, beyond reasoning yes I agree, but beyond human experience definitely not. Otherwise Rishis would not see the Mantras.

The Taitreya Brahmana clearly states that the human being is great due to his own rational faculties. Hence rational faculties must be given priority when a seeker is seeking the ultimate reality. I would also like to add that man does not belong to any Sampradaya, every man from childhood is a seeker to truth. The problem is that education and other things kind of stifle his seeking.

If a Sampradaya or lineage says do not seek and that seeking is a crime then yes I reject such a Sampradaya, I will definitely respect it, but I will not accept it as I disagree with it, having disagreements is absolutely fine. There is nothing wrong in having them. May be that Sampradaya has a different way of embodied knowing, I don't know but it would only show my disagreement with it not my disrespect to it.

For eg: many Buddhists might not agree with Advaita Vedanta, but that does not mean they don't respect people from the Sampradaya. What is required is not mere agreeements but even though there are disagreements, we respect each other. Your whole problem started with the word "dogma" which I have replaced with the term "story like".

If your question is that should Shastras come within human experience then my answer is yes. They should come within human experience otherwise they are just mere beliefs , which I would respect no doubt but definitely not accept.

Sriram257
10 June 2015, 10:06 PM
Namaste Believer,

I also feel you have twisted what I said to suit your own charge against me this is what I clearly said

"However if you still feel that the word "dogma" is something negative then another term I would use is "story like" this will not necessarily be a negative connotation but it will only mean that if statements are made in such a way that both my reason and experience are not able to accept then I categorize it as "story like" the statements may be true but till they come to my experience such statements are just a story or "story like" to me."


With which I find nothing wrong, so please don't unnecessarily twist my statements to justify that I am being egoistic.

In fact it is you who is twisting my statements to suit your ends.

silence_speaks
11 June 2015, 01:32 AM
Dear Sriram ji,
Namasthe! :)

Ajnana Nivritti is itself Realization. There is nothing else like "Recognition". Pratyabijnya , shankara uses with reference to remembrance that "I WAS" in deep sleep ! It just means remembrance and remembrance is of what ? Remembrance is of the fact that limitations do not belong to me !

I quote the following from Gita Bhasya of Sri Adi Shankaracharya... Verse 2.18.



अप्रमेयस्य न प्रमेयस्य प्रत्यक्षादिप्रमाणैः अपरिच्छेद्यस्य इत्यार्थः। ननु आगमेन आत्मा परिच्छिद्यते प्रत्यक्षादिना च पूर्वम्। न आत्मनः स्वतःसिध्दत्वात्। सिद्धे हि आत्मनि प्रमातरि प्रमित्सोः प्रमाणान्वेषणा भवति। न हि पूर्व इत्यँ अहँ इति आत्मानँ अप्रमाय पश्चात् प्रमेयपरिच्छेदाय प्रवर्तते। न हि आत्मा नाम कस्यचित् अप्रसिद्धः भवति। शास्त्रँ तु अन्त्यँ प्रमाणँ अतध्दर्माध्यारोपणामात्रनिवर्तकत्व न प्रामाण्यँ आत्मनः प्रतिपद्यते न तु अज्ञातार्थज्ञापकत्वेन। तथा च श्रुतिः - यत् साक्षादपरोक्षाद् ब्रह्म य आत्मा सर्वान्तरः इति॥

'Of the unknowable' means 'of that which is not knowable by means of right cognition like percepttion and so forth'
objection: (by purvapaksha) : The self is knowable or is determined by aagama [scriptures/revelations] and earlier by perception etc.
Answer: No. For, the Self is Self Evident. Indeed its only when the Self is given that there is a possibility of search for the means of knowledge on the part of a seeker of Self Knowledge. Without knowing the Self earlier as "Such and such I am", None attempts to secure clear knowledge. to note at all is Self altogether unknown. The final means of right cognition, the Sastra or scriptures, acquires validity as regards the Self by negating the superimposed attributes [non-attributes] of self , not by revealing what was altogether unknown. Thus the Sruthi declares "That which is unknowably present is Brahman, the Self in All" [brhadaranyaka 3.4.1)



The point to understand here is ... Even when i call it recognition ... and say "soyam devadatta" ... "this is that devadatta" ... Self cannot be pointed to as "This", an object. Pointing to Self is via negation always. I see a wave and the content is water... for me to see the content, the name and form are negated ... not rejected. When we say "recognition is required" ... its really "Right cognition" ... Cognition being already there and right cognition means cognition as it is, sans the wrong ideas or notions. cognition , not seeing through the lens of name and form . All the time its water alone we see. So, Recognition ... we may use that word ... is really negation of the limiting adjuncts or superimposed wrong notions. "I AM" is there ... on that i superimposed "I am a mortal" ... in the experience of "I am a mortal"... the experience if "I AM" is inherent... but the conditioning called "mortality" gives an inaccurate picture. So when this conditioning is negated ... "I AM" remains ever evident and shining. "I am this" , "I am so and so"...irrespective of what "so and so..." is, is really a superimposition. That "so and so.." is negated. Infact, even when i say "I am sat-cit-ananda", its really saying that I am NOT "Asat", "Jada" or "Limited" ! I am sat-cit-ananda is also a negation, because anything positive we may say ... it becomes dualistic. Self cannot be "described"... Self need not be described. Self cannot be known through mind. Self need not be known through mind, because Self is what gives mind the ability to know ... so Self is Ever Self Evident... Infact its only the Self that is known... though we may say Self cannot be known through mind, it just means it cannot be known as "This" or an object... thats why its said: yatra yatra mano yaati tatra tatra samadhinah ... wherever the mind goes there itself is Samadhi ... coz to the one who is able to recognize the Self ... recognize Self not as "This" ... recognize Self means to "Be" Self ... that is whose ignorance or ajnana is done away with... To get back to the wave ocean example: to be the water even when one sees the wave form ! Infact what else can one be ? So recognize Self is not as "This" ... but by not superimposing any name, form, notion on it ... by Just "BEING" ... when one recognizes Self as Such ... wherever the mind goes ... all the superimpositions ... are merely a play of names and forms ... what was once a restriction has now become a sweet rule of a game. If we want to play football we draw artificial lines for the purpose of the game. Those lines do not create a separation in the ground ... but they allow for some fun ... some game ... likewise ... when i abide as the Self , all the adjuncts are mere toys for playing this game of life ! Wherever I am, what ever i
do ... i am the Self ... i may use "I am awareness" to negate a few limitations now and then or I may choose to just be... for I am what I am irrespective of whether i remind myself of it or not ! Life becomes a joy ride, since I being the Self, there is no where to go, nothing to do ... and yet as a part of the game, i may go anywhere and i may do many things !!


Love!
Silence

Sriram257
11 June 2015, 03:58 AM
Namaste Silence speaks,

So where are we disagreeing on this, notice that you have also used the words recognize, the recognition over here is not something objective but subjective. The problem is that you are too fixated on words, now when we use "soyam devadattaha" this devadatta is that devadatta, it is applied to the self , this is similar to "Ayam Atma Brahma". This atma is Brahman or Sat Chit Ananda. Knowing that this Atma is Sat Chit Ananda is the Pratyabhijna or recognition. It is simply me knowing who I am, knowing who I am is Pratyabhijna or recognition of who I am. So taking out Ajnana and getting Pratyabhijna are not 2 separate processes they occur simultaneously. I had told you before it is like a king who forgot his kingship but then regained the knowledge. It is like the story of the tenth man where prior to ignorance of the tenth man knowledge was present. But now due to ignorance the tenth man is lost as it were but with knowledge the tenth man who was not recognized has been recognized now. Hence Pratyabhijna. Which means I have forgotten myself as it were then I regain knowledge of who I am. This regaining of knowledge is what is called Pratyabhijna or recognition
I simply have to recognize who I am. This what I meant by recognition. Another thing is that I must be there to even affirm Aham Brahasmi. Hence post removal of ignorance I recognize who I am. Hence removal of ignorance and recognition are simultaneous not different
I recognize who I am, since the cognition of who I am (right knowledge about myself) is not some thing new.

silence_speaks
11 June 2015, 07:42 AM
Dear SriRam ji,
Namasthe! We may not be disagreeing. We may be on the same page ... was just not sure from your previous post if we agree to it that "Recognition" is not as "This" ... since "This" is me would make it an object.
since you pointed out that "Ajnana nivriti" and "recognition" are not two steps ... I think we are on the same page.
But when you say "Post removal of ignorance I recognize that I am " ... Removal of ignorance is the recognition. Coz cognition is already there !

:) most probably we are on the same page ... just a difference in language.

Love!
Silence

Sriram257
11 June 2015, 10:36 AM
Namaste Silence Speaks,

Where did I explicitly say that recognition is of an object ? Do you mean to say "Soyam Devadattaha" i.e this devadatta is that devadatta. From the example point of view it may be objective but I also gave a subjective example as well which is the king forgetting his kingship and remembering it again. I also gave an example of the tenth man. In both the examples the recognition is completely subjective. So I don't understand where I said the recognition is objective ?

I think you did not read my posts carefully this is the same problem I have been having with believer as well.


So that you don't get confused again I just wanted to say with removal of ignorance we have simultaneous recognition, there is however one more point I would like to stress, although the self is self evident and we do not need Shastra to tell us that the self is self evident, we definitely need the Shastra to tell us what we are about. Hence a method has to be followed to realise that I am everything, this method is the method of investigation and teaching. Once I disassociate with my body , mind and life I must get the feeling that I am every where. If such a positive experience has been had then it is Pratyabhijna.

Believer
11 June 2015, 02:45 PM
Namaste Sriram257,

I apologize if I sounded like I was charging you with something.


If a Sampradaya or lineage says do not seek and that seeking is a crime then yes I reject such a Sampradaya, I will definitely respect it, but I will not accept it as I disagree with it, having disagreements is absolutely fine.
That is all I was requesting and begging you. Read it, Reject it if it clashes with your thinking/personality, but have respect for it and move on without calling it 'story like' or 'dogmatic'. That gets in the area of belittling another's sacredness. That is all.

Whereas I concur that everything is in the realm of human experience, I beg to differ in that every soul can, after infinite reincarnations, rise to the level of the ancient seers. Personally I don't harbor any illusions about ever becoming like the sages who gave us our original scriptures. So, we will respectfully agree to disagree on that. Feel free to have the last comment on this topic as I am done with all I had to say.

Pranam.

Sriram257
11 June 2015, 11:03 PM
Namaste Believer,

I am sorry if calling the Sampradaya "dogmatic" or "story like" offended you, but please note that my object was not to belittle it, my main objective was merely to show differences in the way Shastra is looked at in different Sampradayas. Not to belittle it.

silence_speaks
12 June 2015, 12:29 AM
Dear Sriram ji,
Namasthe!

Thats ok... Language has its limitations. As long as we understand its fine. Though you did not explicitly mention it, i was not clear whether you are saying that are not ! It could be a problem with my understanding also ... language has its own limitations :)

I think on the whole we are in an agreement :)

Love!
Silence