06-13-2005, 09:56 AM
<b>Ashok Kumar</b>,
I fully agree with your presentation of the problem of infinite regression under saguna concepts. Thanks also for the concise encapsulation of Sankhya and later Buddhist identifications of Self with Mind (thereby reducing religious practice to pure psychoanalysis). I had referred to this pre-existing Vedic concept in a previous post. Why, even in the Bhagavad Gita we have a couple of verses that use "atman" in the sense of "mind". Sanskrit is a nuanced language.
But I do not think words are wasted in defining the exact semantics of "guna", saguna and nirguna. As I said, all Vaishnava literature insists on nirguna Vaikuntha. As I pointed out, even in the BG, Krishna points to Vaikuntha AFTER describing brahmajyoti, i.e., He points to this Vaikuntha as being transcendent even to brahman. Even more significantly, He says that while Impersonal Brahman-realization is NOT eternal, atttaining to Vaikuntha is eternal, never to return. So it is worth taking the time to understand how this kind of thing can be possible. How can a world of seeming "qualities" exist transcendental to this saguna, material world? IOW, how can we have a "nirguna Vaikuntha"??
By all accounts, this is a fascinating assertion made in various Vedic texts. This <i>transcendental variegatedness</i> is emphasized, but at the same time it is referred to as guna-rahita, nis-trai-gunya, nirguna. We have to get to the bottom of this. We cannot just brush all these Vedic statements under the carpet, because whether we like it or not, <i>this forms a significant part of Vedic literature</i>.
Now before one starts to delve into Vaishnav literature, certain points have to be made clear. The various darshanas are actually complementary when viewed from a greater height, i.e., apparent differences in two darshanas are reconciled when seen from the vantage point of a third, more sophisticated darshana. Therefore, very early in this thread I had pointed out that jnana, or the method of <i>vichaara</i>, is Noetic, and is compared to a spiral, conical approach, leading to the apex. Or we can think of it as ascending a mountain by a road that spirals round and round. As we go higher, we get a better view of what's below and what's around, and things fall into perspective. The various darshanas in Vedic philosophy are like that. It should be significant that Vedanta is agreed upon as being a higher point than any of the other darshanas. Vedanta is not exclusive of the other darshanas, but it <i>includes and reconciles them</i>. Semantic re-definitions (or more appropriately, elucidations or qualifications) play a key role in this ascent of darshanas. The "comb" or "filter" of our understanding becomes finer and finer as the semantics are better qualified.
Therefore, harking back to Sankhya definitions (by assumption not recognizing any supramundane reality like brahman, and certainly non-theistic) in an argument concerning Vedanta is an <i>incongruous twist</i>. It is anomalous at this height, it is a <i>throwback</i>. I hope you are understanding my point here. <b>The Hindu shad-darshanas are NOT disjointed, mutually competitive schools of philosophy, nor are they different "viewpoints <i>on the same plane</i></b> (as they are unfortunately portrayed in some basic literature). Rather, they represent a <b>gradual ascent </b>on the path of jnana as discussed above, and different people may "get on" the train at a level they feel comfortable (i.e., how easily digestible the assumptions for each system are to them).
<b>But this <i>throwback</i> to Sankhya (and certain Buddhist) and other "lower level" semantics while discussing a "higher altitude" system like Vedanta is characteristic of mayavadi commentaries</b>, and I beg to argue that you may be making a similar error without realizing it. To give a historical presentation of this, which I did before on this thread --
Sankara accomplished the astounding mission of re-establishing the authority of the Vedas in India at a time when the "intelligentsia" was dominated by Veda-hating Buddhists of various denominations. How Sankara could work around this <i>intellectual prejudice</i> of his audience is a tribute to his genius: His mission was to defeat the prevailing philosophy of Voidism, and to do that he only had to persuade and inspire his audience of the existence of a conscious, eternal, blissful Reality. Now in doing this, he presented this <i>one concept</i> from Vedanta, and he did so using a phraseology that was familiar to and appealing to his Voidist audience. That he did so while remaining faithful to this Vedantic concept is itself stunning, but the problem is that this phraseology is double-edged...the consequences of which manifested when Ramanuja burst on the scene later. When Ramanuja, a great lover of Sankara, wanted to bring more of Vedanta into the light of popular undertanding (since the authority of Vedanta was now more accepted), he was obviously treading on the toes of the Advaita "priesthood", who based their ceremonial authority on Sankara. Jealous of their ceremonial power, they first tried to counter by argument, and later resorted to political intrigue to murder and persecute this new acharya and his disciples. Now in the argument phase, they fell back on some of the double-edged phraseology of Sankara, and, in order to try to show Ramanuja as being disloyal to Sankara, they actually fell on the wrong side of that phraseology, i.e., on the Voidist side -- effectively speaking "Sankara" in reverse! IOW, the <i>throwback</i> terminology had now gained institutional currency.
So this is just one of the basic errors on the part of mayavada, and many of us trying to get a grip on Hindu philosophy make this mistake. Therefore, semantics are at the heart of any philosophy, especially when the Masters are trying to do their best to describe a Reality that is ultimately "anirvachaniya" -- indescribable in words. The sages are using words as precisely and as best they can to give us a basic idea -- before we can start practicing yoga to actually realize it. So we really ought to pay more attention to how they define words, qualifying and expanding the definitions of previously defined terms as we approach the summit. This is not a waste of time.
In fact, the reason the Teachers take the trouble to explain and precisely define certain concepts is not for mere intellectual stimulation. This fundamental Knowledge is a pre-requisite for actual practice (yoga). As you know, each darshana is paired with a system of practice. Therefore, the philosophy is the sambandha-jnana for the corresponding yoga. On one hand we have the map, on the other we have the technique, the vehicle to traverse it. As we ascend the darshanas, the map gets more detailed, the terrain is better explained. That is the difference.
I also want to mention that, in referring to Vaishnava philosophy, I recommend you study Chaitanya, who encapsulated and further elucidated all the previous acharyas, and brought things full-circle. Don't just stop with Vishisht-advaita or Madhva's Dwaita. They are self-admittedly incomplete (especially in the case of Madhvacharya). <b>Their point was only to establish and point out, in isolation, some aspect of Vedanta that the previous theories didn't account for.</b> Prefixes of "kevala" (as in kevala-advaita) were later additions by dogmatic followers.
Now that we have a better understanding of how Hindu philosophy is an <i>integrated whole</i>, we can re-arrange our "mental map" in a better way, rather than just supporting an acccumulation of facts and assertions. It requires a great teacher to help us put the various parts of the jigsaw together, and that is where the confused types (mayavadis) fail. They are forced to discard or shrug at various pieces that just don't seem to fit in.
Now when the Vaishnava acharyas insist on drawing a distinction between "<b>material</b> qualities" and "<b>spiritual</b> variegatedness", then it is worth some thought, and they have provided enough assistance to understand this. After all, this goes to the heart of the difference b/w "material" and "spiritual", a distinction the Vedas are constantly making. In a previous post you used the word "illusion" rather loosely, but could you now define it -- especially in the light of the good comments you made about "observer-object-observation"? The comments you made about cow-vision versus humann vision are really apt. This definition of "illusion" is important to understanding what the Vedas mean by "material" and "spiritual". So if we could crystallize your definition of "illusion", and the SOURCE of illusion, etc, then great progress can be made.
Also, even though I didn't want to get into details, I did mention in my last post, that this so-called Vaikuntha is described as being transcendental to not only the gunas, but Time also. Now that should certainly have caught your attention, because it simply flips this "object-observer-observation" problem around. It is no longer sensible to talk in this way in a Realm where Time is "subservient" to Lila. A "succession of events" in linear fashion cannot be taken for granted. This is a point worth contemplating. Lots of windows fly open.
Just in case you think all this Vedic stuff is too "far out", I would like to draw your attention to the latest theories in Physics, viz. superstring theory, which I mentioned in a previous post. They are already saying that Time is actually capable of being an "Independent Actor", participating at will in, well, Reality...and that "parallel and intersecting(!) universes" exist in which Time behaves differently. I recommend you read "The Elegant Universe" by Nobel laureate Brian Greene, or at least watch the documentary on PBS. Modern scientific validation of certain <i>ideas</i> may make this Vedic Vaishnava stuff more digestible to our conditioned minds. It certain helped dampen my skepticism!
Also, from the point of view of PRACTICE (yoga), which involves a lot of understanding one's own mind, you will observe that the same effects of consciousness are produced by concentrating one's mind on eternity, and by concentrating one's mind intensely on the present moment. This may help give us greater insight into the meaning of Time -- and <b>the relationship between Mind and Time</b>. After all, manas, or mind, is compared to the screen-receptor of sensory observation, and is made of vayu-tanmatra.
In this way and many other ways, through wholistic contemplation and practice, we can expand our understanding. I can only provide some leads here. the books by bona fide acharyas are there for you to read. My point on this forum is to highlight that (a) great misrepresentation has been perpetrated by certain parties (either out of incompetence, or unscrupulousness), and (b) some of us may need to revise our "mental maps" and our "semantics" before we can approach Vaishnavism, which is unequivocally the summit of Vedic Knowledge. I hope in this post I have illustrated the anomalous "throwback" re-definitions that some use while discussing Vedanta-sutra.
And one last point bears re-iteration here: As we noted, every darshana has an attached system of practice. For Vaishnavism, it is raja-bhakti. Now one of the fundamental pre-requisites of raja-bhakti is to cure oneself of the most prominent features of false-ego. Some of the features are well-known, such as material attachment, etc. But also mentioned very explicitly is the notion of Impersonalism. <i>It is worth meditating on why Impersonalism and the absence of rasa and relationship is a preference directly related with False Ego.</i> In fact, it is referred to as a "triumph of ahamkara". Now my point here is that it is funny and perplexing how the mayavadis prescribe "bhakti" even while beginning and ending every leccture with Impersonalist conclusions (i.e. the Ultimate Reality is Impersonal). Now all shastras, and even Sankara, have said that Bhakti is the BEST process, and in fact the only way in this particular Age. Therefore, the mayavadis cannot get around Bhakti. So what do they do? They re-define bhakti as some preliminary process (although the Bhakti shastras say just the opposite). To the mayavadi, bhakti-yoga is a <i>timeserving pretense</i>. But according to the Bhakti-sutras, this sort of practice is totally useless. Even IF Bhakti were a preliminary process (not so), it makes no psychological sense for the Impersonalist teacher to tell the disciple from the very beginning itself that the actual Truth is Impersonal (not so)! So even by their own re-definitions, the mayavadis are contradicting themselves, which is not unusual.
I fully agree with your presentation of the problem of infinite regression under saguna concepts. Thanks also for the concise encapsulation of Sankhya and later Buddhist identifications of Self with Mind (thereby reducing religious practice to pure psychoanalysis). I had referred to this pre-existing Vedic concept in a previous post. Why, even in the Bhagavad Gita we have a couple of verses that use "atman" in the sense of "mind". Sanskrit is a nuanced language.
But I do not think words are wasted in defining the exact semantics of "guna", saguna and nirguna. As I said, all Vaishnava literature insists on nirguna Vaikuntha. As I pointed out, even in the BG, Krishna points to Vaikuntha AFTER describing brahmajyoti, i.e., He points to this Vaikuntha as being transcendent even to brahman. Even more significantly, He says that while Impersonal Brahman-realization is NOT eternal, atttaining to Vaikuntha is eternal, never to return. So it is worth taking the time to understand how this kind of thing can be possible. How can a world of seeming "qualities" exist transcendental to this saguna, material world? IOW, how can we have a "nirguna Vaikuntha"??
By all accounts, this is a fascinating assertion made in various Vedic texts. This <i>transcendental variegatedness</i> is emphasized, but at the same time it is referred to as guna-rahita, nis-trai-gunya, nirguna. We have to get to the bottom of this. We cannot just brush all these Vedic statements under the carpet, because whether we like it or not, <i>this forms a significant part of Vedic literature</i>.
Now before one starts to delve into Vaishnav literature, certain points have to be made clear. The various darshanas are actually complementary when viewed from a greater height, i.e., apparent differences in two darshanas are reconciled when seen from the vantage point of a third, more sophisticated darshana. Therefore, very early in this thread I had pointed out that jnana, or the method of <i>vichaara</i>, is Noetic, and is compared to a spiral, conical approach, leading to the apex. Or we can think of it as ascending a mountain by a road that spirals round and round. As we go higher, we get a better view of what's below and what's around, and things fall into perspective. The various darshanas in Vedic philosophy are like that. It should be significant that Vedanta is agreed upon as being a higher point than any of the other darshanas. Vedanta is not exclusive of the other darshanas, but it <i>includes and reconciles them</i>. Semantic re-definitions (or more appropriately, elucidations or qualifications) play a key role in this ascent of darshanas. The "comb" or "filter" of our understanding becomes finer and finer as the semantics are better qualified.
Therefore, harking back to Sankhya definitions (by assumption not recognizing any supramundane reality like brahman, and certainly non-theistic) in an argument concerning Vedanta is an <i>incongruous twist</i>. It is anomalous at this height, it is a <i>throwback</i>. I hope you are understanding my point here. <b>The Hindu shad-darshanas are NOT disjointed, mutually competitive schools of philosophy, nor are they different "viewpoints <i>on the same plane</i></b> (as they are unfortunately portrayed in some basic literature). Rather, they represent a <b>gradual ascent </b>on the path of jnana as discussed above, and different people may "get on" the train at a level they feel comfortable (i.e., how easily digestible the assumptions for each system are to them).
<b>But this <i>throwback</i> to Sankhya (and certain Buddhist) and other "lower level" semantics while discussing a "higher altitude" system like Vedanta is characteristic of mayavadi commentaries</b>, and I beg to argue that you may be making a similar error without realizing it. To give a historical presentation of this, which I did before on this thread --
Sankara accomplished the astounding mission of re-establishing the authority of the Vedas in India at a time when the "intelligentsia" was dominated by Veda-hating Buddhists of various denominations. How Sankara could work around this <i>intellectual prejudice</i> of his audience is a tribute to his genius: His mission was to defeat the prevailing philosophy of Voidism, and to do that he only had to persuade and inspire his audience of the existence of a conscious, eternal, blissful Reality. Now in doing this, he presented this <i>one concept</i> from Vedanta, and he did so using a phraseology that was familiar to and appealing to his Voidist audience. That he did so while remaining faithful to this Vedantic concept is itself stunning, but the problem is that this phraseology is double-edged...the consequences of which manifested when Ramanuja burst on the scene later. When Ramanuja, a great lover of Sankara, wanted to bring more of Vedanta into the light of popular undertanding (since the authority of Vedanta was now more accepted), he was obviously treading on the toes of the Advaita "priesthood", who based their ceremonial authority on Sankara. Jealous of their ceremonial power, they first tried to counter by argument, and later resorted to political intrigue to murder and persecute this new acharya and his disciples. Now in the argument phase, they fell back on some of the double-edged phraseology of Sankara, and, in order to try to show Ramanuja as being disloyal to Sankara, they actually fell on the wrong side of that phraseology, i.e., on the Voidist side -- effectively speaking "Sankara" in reverse! IOW, the <i>throwback</i> terminology had now gained institutional currency.
So this is just one of the basic errors on the part of mayavada, and many of us trying to get a grip on Hindu philosophy make this mistake. Therefore, semantics are at the heart of any philosophy, especially when the Masters are trying to do their best to describe a Reality that is ultimately "anirvachaniya" -- indescribable in words. The sages are using words as precisely and as best they can to give us a basic idea -- before we can start practicing yoga to actually realize it. So we really ought to pay more attention to how they define words, qualifying and expanding the definitions of previously defined terms as we approach the summit. This is not a waste of time.
In fact, the reason the Teachers take the trouble to explain and precisely define certain concepts is not for mere intellectual stimulation. This fundamental Knowledge is a pre-requisite for actual practice (yoga). As you know, each darshana is paired with a system of practice. Therefore, the philosophy is the sambandha-jnana for the corresponding yoga. On one hand we have the map, on the other we have the technique, the vehicle to traverse it. As we ascend the darshanas, the map gets more detailed, the terrain is better explained. That is the difference.
I also want to mention that, in referring to Vaishnava philosophy, I recommend you study Chaitanya, who encapsulated and further elucidated all the previous acharyas, and brought things full-circle. Don't just stop with Vishisht-advaita or Madhva's Dwaita. They are self-admittedly incomplete (especially in the case of Madhvacharya). <b>Their point was only to establish and point out, in isolation, some aspect of Vedanta that the previous theories didn't account for.</b> Prefixes of "kevala" (as in kevala-advaita) were later additions by dogmatic followers.
Now that we have a better understanding of how Hindu philosophy is an <i>integrated whole</i>, we can re-arrange our "mental map" in a better way, rather than just supporting an acccumulation of facts and assertions. It requires a great teacher to help us put the various parts of the jigsaw together, and that is where the confused types (mayavadis) fail. They are forced to discard or shrug at various pieces that just don't seem to fit in.
Now when the Vaishnava acharyas insist on drawing a distinction between "<b>material</b> qualities" and "<b>spiritual</b> variegatedness", then it is worth some thought, and they have provided enough assistance to understand this. After all, this goes to the heart of the difference b/w "material" and "spiritual", a distinction the Vedas are constantly making. In a previous post you used the word "illusion" rather loosely, but could you now define it -- especially in the light of the good comments you made about "observer-object-observation"? The comments you made about cow-vision versus humann vision are really apt. This definition of "illusion" is important to understanding what the Vedas mean by "material" and "spiritual". So if we could crystallize your definition of "illusion", and the SOURCE of illusion, etc, then great progress can be made.
Also, even though I didn't want to get into details, I did mention in my last post, that this so-called Vaikuntha is described as being transcendental to not only the gunas, but Time also. Now that should certainly have caught your attention, because it simply flips this "object-observer-observation" problem around. It is no longer sensible to talk in this way in a Realm where Time is "subservient" to Lila. A "succession of events" in linear fashion cannot be taken for granted. This is a point worth contemplating. Lots of windows fly open.
Just in case you think all this Vedic stuff is too "far out", I would like to draw your attention to the latest theories in Physics, viz. superstring theory, which I mentioned in a previous post. They are already saying that Time is actually capable of being an "Independent Actor", participating at will in, well, Reality...and that "parallel and intersecting(!) universes" exist in which Time behaves differently. I recommend you read "The Elegant Universe" by Nobel laureate Brian Greene, or at least watch the documentary on PBS. Modern scientific validation of certain <i>ideas</i> may make this Vedic Vaishnava stuff more digestible to our conditioned minds. It certain helped dampen my skepticism!
Also, from the point of view of PRACTICE (yoga), which involves a lot of understanding one's own mind, you will observe that the same effects of consciousness are produced by concentrating one's mind on eternity, and by concentrating one's mind intensely on the present moment. This may help give us greater insight into the meaning of Time -- and <b>the relationship between Mind and Time</b>. After all, manas, or mind, is compared to the screen-receptor of sensory observation, and is made of vayu-tanmatra.
In this way and many other ways, through wholistic contemplation and practice, we can expand our understanding. I can only provide some leads here. the books by bona fide acharyas are there for you to read. My point on this forum is to highlight that (a) great misrepresentation has been perpetrated by certain parties (either out of incompetence, or unscrupulousness), and (b) some of us may need to revise our "mental maps" and our "semantics" before we can approach Vaishnavism, which is unequivocally the summit of Vedic Knowledge. I hope in this post I have illustrated the anomalous "throwback" re-definitions that some use while discussing Vedanta-sutra.
And one last point bears re-iteration here: As we noted, every darshana has an attached system of practice. For Vaishnavism, it is raja-bhakti. Now one of the fundamental pre-requisites of raja-bhakti is to cure oneself of the most prominent features of false-ego. Some of the features are well-known, such as material attachment, etc. But also mentioned very explicitly is the notion of Impersonalism. <i>It is worth meditating on why Impersonalism and the absence of rasa and relationship is a preference directly related with False Ego.</i> In fact, it is referred to as a "triumph of ahamkara". Now my point here is that it is funny and perplexing how the mayavadis prescribe "bhakti" even while beginning and ending every leccture with Impersonalist conclusions (i.e. the Ultimate Reality is Impersonal). Now all shastras, and even Sankara, have said that Bhakti is the BEST process, and in fact the only way in this particular Age. Therefore, the mayavadis cannot get around Bhakti. So what do they do? They re-define bhakti as some preliminary process (although the Bhakti shastras say just the opposite). To the mayavadi, bhakti-yoga is a <i>timeserving pretense</i>. But according to the Bhakti-sutras, this sort of practice is totally useless. Even IF Bhakti were a preliminary process (not so), it makes no psychological sense for the Impersonalist teacher to tell the disciple from the very beginning itself that the actual Truth is Impersonal (not so)! So even by their own re-definitions, the mayavadis are contradicting themselves, which is not unusual.