[Prev][Next][Index]
Vedanta Discussions-revised
This is a re-post of the article appared a week ago. Beacause of several
mistakes I am posting a slightly revised version. - Sadananda.
This is in response to the discussions that I have been following in this
news group.
It is said that discussions are of four types: Samvada, Vada, Jalpa and
Vitanda.
Samvada is the discussion between the teacher and the taught. All our
scriptures are written in the form of samvada. Before the teaching starts,
the teacher and the taught invoke the grace of the Lord, .Om
Sahanavavatu... Mavidvishavahai, OM Santi....etc. to make sure there is no
hatred between the two so that teaching can takes place. The student is
allowed to question, and the questioning is not intended to test the
teacher but to clarify student's understanding (or misunderstanding). They
are no commandments that "that thou shall do this or that" but only
declarations of what is required to reach the highest goal. The Bhagawad
Geeta, as it says, is a KrishanArujana Samvada, a dialogue between Lord
Krishna and Arjuna on Brahmavidya.
Vada is the discussion between any two (generally among equals) to
establish the truth. As the English phrase "Let us sit down and discuss",
implies the purpose is to resolve the conflict and to establish what is the
truth. Both parties are open minded, even though they are convinced that
they are right, they are ready to listen and to accept the opponents'
version if they are convinced that other's interpretation is more correct
based on whatever the pramana that they use as the authority. The famous
dialogue that supposed to have lasted for many days between Sankaracharya
and Mandana Mishra is a typical example. The level of honesty of the
discussion was exemplified by the fact that Mandana Mishra's wife
Umabharati who was believed to be the embodiment of goddess of Knowledge,
Saraswati, was chosen as the Judge for the Vada. In the end she declares
that her husband lost the contest. After 18 or so days of discussions,
Mandana Misra was convinced to the validity of Sankaracharya's
interpretation of the scriptures that he became
his disciple. He was the well know Sureswaracharya who became the head of
one of the four Mutts. Learning takes place at the end of even vada since
the
truth is established to the satisfaction of both parties.
Jalpa is the discussion between the two who are also convinced that each
one is right and the opponent is wrong. Unlike in vada, the purpose is
not to discover or establish the truth, but only to convert the other guy.
The outcome of this whole jalpa is lot of noise. Even if it appears that
one has lost an argument, he will not accept it, instead he goes back to
get some more materials or concocts some other arguments only to establish
he is right and other is wrong. Some of the scholarly discussions in the
news group are of this type. But even in Jalpa, the discussions are still
objective, each is strongly convinced (some times bordering to beliefs)
that he is right and the other is wrong.
Jalpa arises in vedanta because of (1) the apparent contradictions (
please note the word apparent) in the scriptures and (2) flexibility of
Sanskrit to split the words in a way that suites the basis of the
argumentation (because the same word in sanskrit can be construed using
several Dhatus or roots) (3) multiple meanings for several important words
and the interpreter's preference to choose a particular meaning over the
other and (4) contextual meaning that changes with phrase, sentence and the
topic. Typical example is the word Dharma - Any good sanskrit dictionary
will give at least 3 to 4 pages of meaning for this two syllable word.
Confusion for example could arise since the word Atma has been interpreted
to denote Jeeva and sometimes the Brahman.
Just to say that Sri Prabhupada's or any one else's is "As it is" and the
rest
are all interpretations or misinterpretations only borders to fanaticism
and does not establish a fact. Everyone can make the same statement about
their interpretation. That obviously cannot be a basis for argument. I
will come back to this topic of what then is the pramana or basis for
discussion.
Jalpa may not be of use to the two who are arguing, in terms of their
learning. But the bystanders who are carefully following the two arguments
can get lot of benefit. It helps to establish their own convictions
provided the arguments are scholarly.
The fourth and the lost (recognized) type of discussion is Vitanda. The
sole purpose is only to defeat the opponent. In contrast to Jalpa, neither
one may have any conviction other than to prove that Mr. X is wrong, why
because he is Mr. X and not Mr. Y. The same statement from Mr. Y would be
right. This type of arguments have been used as valid means to establish
that the opponent is not qualified to discuss the subtleties of the logic.
There is no leaning experience out of this kind of arguments even to the
bystanders other than the learning that either or both of them are not
worth listening to!
Name calling (those that disagree with their notions are idiots
and rascals and the profanity ) that I have seen during the past couple of
weeks in this news net, unfortunately does not fall in any one of these
four established discussion types, because our ancestors never imagined
that our culture will degrade to that.
Let us work together and elevate the quality of these discussions.
I would like to suggest few topics for discussions. I would like everyone
to discuss as thoroughly as possible, presenting his arguments and
presenting where the other arguments are illogical, not just because some
"as it is" book says so. The Vedanta means end of the Vedas. It literally
refers to the Gyanakanda or Upanishads. Veda also means knowledge and
hence Vedanta implies the end of knowledge or ultimate knowledge. Normally
for Hindus Vedanta discussion the sabda pramana involves the Prastanatraya
(prastana means the authority - the three authoritative texts ): Vedas,
Bhagawad Geeta and Brahamasutras. Vedas are considered as the highest
Pramanas. Discussion is not about the Acharyas or any individuals who
interpreted what etc. We are more interested in the interpretations and
their logic and their
validity not on what eat or where he slept or what he drank. It does not
matter for me where or with whom Lord Krishna slept. In spite of thousands
of wives He is still called anAdi brahmachari. That is the glory of his
transcendental state. Does it matter, how many wives I had in my dream,
what I eat or drank in my dream. Once awake, I may still remain as a
bachelor, and does not have to worry about taking care of the many wives I
had in my dream. Hence It does not matter a bit for us whether Sri
Sankaracharya, Sri Ramanuja or Sri Madwa or Sri Prabhupada or Sri
Ramakrishna or Swami Vivekananda or other umpteen Acharyas were right or
wrong. What they eat or drank or where they slept. Did they eat pakodas,
idlies or drank this or that, etc. Who cares? These are mandane things.
It does not help us a bit. We want to grow and discover the truth.
Hence please limit the philosophical discussions to the topic and not on
individuals and keep it as logical as possible and provide the correct and
self consistent explanation. You can criticize the other's interpretations
on logical grounds to show the fallacy of the logic, but be open that your
interpretation of other's interpretation itself could be wrong.
Here are some fundamental topics that I would like the discussion to start.
Others can add to the list.
Who am I? What constitutes the jeeva? ( Is there one jeeva or many) Or
Atma and Jeeva the same or have different connotations. Is there a creator?
- who or what is He? Why did He create? - for what or what is the
purpose? Where is He now and what is His nature. Even if He chose to
create, Why me? Why is He having a sport or Leela at my expense? If
there
is no creation How did I get into this mess? If I am eternal or
consciousness entity, was I liberated to start with and I got into this
mess by my will. If so, what is the guarentee that I won't do this again?
Hence what good is this liberation. What is Avidya and what is Maya that
we hear so much about? What is Moksha or nature of Moksha? What
constitutes Moksha? How does this Moksha differ from each of the schools of
thought and why? What are the three major schools agree upon? What I am
liberating myself from? Servant generally implies that you are at
somebody's beg and call? How can I convince myself I am liberated when I
become an eternal servant. Freedom of an eternal slave! If Moksha is
something I am going to gain what is the guarantee or logic that I am not
going to loose itÊand fall into this mess again? If He is all powerful and
compassionate, why does He not just close the shop and give salvation to
everyone and end the problem. What is the right means for Moksha? - How
do I know I am on the right path? What are the yogas. Are they the valid
means and why? Which one is better for me and why?
If you have through knowledge of the scriptures, discuss each topic and
bring out the pros and cons of each argument. Don't underestimate the
intelligence of the readers. Most of us here are able to use the internet
and
have some analytical minds. If you have a scientific mind, bring out the
logic
that can convince the intellects. If not, like an honest scientist,
provide where the logic ends and faith begins. I recognize that some of
the questions are framed in the form that betrays my bias, but take the
spirit of each question leaving the wording and the language.
Using the scriptural texts that provide as Pramanas, discuss logically why
your interpretation is right and not the others. Obviously the others will
also have a go with it. But the discussion should be directed to the topic
and not to the individuals.
But in the end, at least we the readers are better informed and we can have
better appreciation of our scriptures and everyone can select what appeals
to each one of us for whatever the reason. If you want to convert me to
your school of thinking convince me that your logic is right and others
logic is wrong. Don't say that somebody says so or some book says so.
That is not logic.
I would be happy if scholarly people like Mani and Vidya and any one who is
convinced about the philosophy and knows about it enough to participate to
lead the discussion. At the end of each topic of discussion, be available
to receive criticisms, comments or even questions for further
clarification.
Again as the final note the discussion should be on the topics and not on
individuals. Keep the subjective statements to a minimum and don't make
them as declarations. Be honest to yourself. Let us learn from each
other.
And no more name calling. That reflects our own degradation.
He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is ignorant - leave him.
He who knows not and knows that he knows not is simple - teach him
He who knows and knows not that he knows is asleep - wake him.
He who knows and knows that he knows is wise- listen to him.
My pranams to everyone.
Sadananda (I was surprised to learn there is another one in the net who is
also always happy!)
