My Spiritual Quest

[ragam-talam]

Touché, srkris. Brilliantly stated.

Reminds me of the following saying attributed to Ying-An:
"Zen has nothing to grab on to. When people who study Zen don't see it, that is because they approach too eagerly."

[vasanthakokilam]

Advaita cannot be taught since it transcends expression and experience

How is it possible then to even make such a statement if it transcends expression and experience.. the above statement is indeed an expression

On the other hand, one can choose to remain silent because of the above two, but then how did we come to know that it transcends expression and experience.

[arasi]

In a way, like a well which has been dug overnight in a village which had no water, and at dawn, the villagers gaze at it and do not have a clue as to how it came about? Because all they see is water--no clue about who the donor is, theVIP who inagurated it and so on? Transcends experience and one cannot express anything about it--kind of state??

[srkris]

Advaya dharma mukha praveśaḥ : Entering the Dharma-Door of non-duality

The Licchavi vimalakīrti asked those enlightened beings (bodhisattvas), "Good sirs, please explain how the bodhisattvas enter the Dharma-door of non-duality!"

The bodhisattva dharmavikurvaṇa declared, "Noble sir, production and destruction are dual, but what is not produced and does not occur cannot be destroyed. Thus the attainment of the tolerance of the birthlessness of things is the entrance into non-duality."

The bodhisattva śrīgupta declared, " 'I' and 'mine' are dual. If there is no presumption of a self, there will be no possessiveness. Thus, the absence of presumption is the entrance into non-duality."

The bodhisattva śrīkūṭa declared, " 'Defilement' and 'purification' are dual. When there is thorough knowledge of defilement, there will be no conceit about purification. The path leading to the complete conquest of all conceit is the entrance into non-duality."

The bodhisattva bhadrajyoti declared, " 'Distraction' and 'attention' are dual. When there is no distraction, there will be no attention, no mentation, and no mental intensity. Thus, the absence of mental intensity is the entrance into non-duality."

The bodhisattva subāhu declared, " 'Bodhisattva-spirit' and 'disciple-spirit' are dual. When both are seen to resemble an illusory spirit, there is no bodhisattva-spirit, nor any disciple-spirit. Thus, the sameness of natures of spirits is the entrance into non-duality."

The bodhisattva anibhiá¹£a declared, " 'Grasping' and 'non-grasping' are dual. What is not grasped is not perceived, and what is not perceived is neither presumed nor repudiated. Thus, the inaction and noninvolvement of all things is the entrance into non-duality."

The bodhisattva sunetra declared, " 'Uniqueness' and 'character-less-ness' are dual. Not to presume or construct something is neither to establish its uniqueness nor to establish its character-less-ness. To penetrate the equality of these two is to enter non-duality."

The bodhisattva tiá¹£ya declared, " 'Good' and 'evil' are dual. Seeking neither good nor evil, the understanding of the non-duality of the significant and the meaningless is the entrance into non-duality."

The bodhisattva siṁha declared, " 'Sinfulness' and 'sin-less-ness' are dual. By means of the diamond-like wisdom that pierces to the quick, not to be bound or liberated is the entrance into non-duality."

The bodhisattva siṁhamati declared, "To say, 'This is impure' and 'this is immaculate' makes for duality. One who, attaining equanimity, forms no conception of impurity or immaculateness, yet is not utterly without conception, has equanimity without any attainment of equanimity - he enters the absence of conceptual knots.

Thus, he enters into non-duality."

The bodhisattva sukhādhimukta declared, "To say, 'This is happiness' and 'That is misery' is dualism. One who is free of all calculations, through the extreme purity of gnosis - his mind is aloof, like empty space; and thus he enters into non-duality."

The bodhisattva nārāyaṇa declared, "To say, 'This is mundane' and 'that is transcendental' is dualism. This world has the nature of void ness, so there is neither transcendence nor involvement, neither progress nor standstill. Thus, neither to transcend nor to be involved, neither to go nor to stop - this is the entrance into non-duality."

The bodhisattva vinayamati declared, "'Life' and 'liberation' are dualistic. Having seen the nature of life, one neither belongs to it nor is one utterly liberated from it. Such understanding is the entrance into non-duality."

The bodhisattva pratyakṣadarśana declared, "'Destructible' and 'indestructible' are dualistic. What is destroyed is ultimately destroyed. What is ultimately destroyed does not become destroyed; hence, it is called 'indestructible.' What is indestructible is instantaneous, and what is instantaneous is indestructible. The experience of such is called 'the entrance into the principle of non-duality.'"

The bodhisattva samantagupta declared, "'Self' and 'selflessness' are dualistic. Since the existence of self cannot be perceived, what is there to be made 'selfless'? Thus, the non-dualism of the vision of their nature is the entrance into non-duality."

The bodhisattva Vidyuddeva declared, "'Knowledge' and 'ignorance' are dualistic. The natures of ignorance and knowledge are the same, for ignorance is undefined, incalculable, and beyond the sphere of thought. The realization of this is the entrance into non-duality."

The bodhisattva priyadarśana declared, "Matter itself is void. Void ness does not result from the destruction of matter, but the nature of matter is itself void ness. Therefore, to speak of void ness on the one hand, and of matter, or of sensation, or of intellect, or of motivation, or of consciousness on the other - is entirely dualistic.

Consciousness itself is void ness. Void ness does not result from the destruction of consciousness, but the nature of consciousness is itself void ness. Such understanding of the five compulsive aggregates and the knowledge of them as such by means of gnosis is the entrance into non-duality."

The bodhisattva Prabhaketu declared, "To say that the four main elements are one thing and the etheric space-element another is dualistic. The four main elements are themselves the nature of space. The past itself is also the nature of space. The future itself is also the nature of space. Likewise, the present itself is also the nature of space. The gnosis that penetrates the elements in such a way is the entrance into non-duality."

The bodhisattva Pramati declared, "'Eye' and 'form' are dualistic. To understand the eye correctly, and not to have attachment, aversion, or confusion with regard to form - that is called 'peace.' Similarly, 'ear' and 'sound,' 'nose' and 'smell,' 'tongue' and taste,' 'body' and touch,' and 'mind' and 'phenomena' - all are dualistic. But to know the mind, and to be neither attached, averse, nor confused with regard to phenomena - that is called 'peace.' To live in such peace is to enter into non-duality."

The bodhisattva Aksayamati declared, "The dedication of generosity for the sake of attaining omniscience is dualistic. The nature of generosity is itself omniscience, and the nature of omniscience itself is total dedication.

Likewise, it is dualistic to dedicate morality, tolerance, effort, meditation, and wisdom for the sake of omniscience. Omniscience is the nature of wisdom, and total dedication is the nature of omniscience. Thus, the entrance into this principle of uniqueness is the entrance into non-duality."

The bodhisattva Gambhiramati declared, "It is dualistic to say that void-ness is one thing, sign-less-ness another, and wish-less-ness still another. What is void has no sign. What has no sign has no wish. Where there is no wish there is no process of thought, mind, or consciousness. To see the doors of all liberations in the door of one liberation is the entrance into non-duality."

The bodhisattva Santendriya declared, "It is dualistic to say 'Buddha,' 'Dharma,' and 'Sangha.' The Dharma is itself the nature of the Buddha, the Sangha is itself the nature of the Dharma, and all of them are uncompounded. The uncompounded is infinite space, and the processes of all things are equivalent to infinite space. Adjustment to this is the entrance into non-duality."

The bodhisattva Apratihatanetra declared, "It is dualistic to refer to 'aggregates' and to the 'cessation of aggregates.' Aggregates themselves are cessation. Why? The egoistic views of aggregates, being un-produced themselves, do not exist ultimately. Hence such views do not really conceptualize 'These are aggregates' or 'These aggregates cease.' Ultimately, they have no such discriminative constructions and no such conceptualizations. Therefore, such views have themselves the nature of cessation. Nonoccurrence and non-destruction are the entrance into non-duality."

The bodhisattva Suvinita declared, "Physical, verbal, and mental vows do not exist dualistically. Why? These things have the nature of inactivity. The nature of inactivity of the body is the same as the nature of inactivity of speech, whose nature of inactivity is the same as the nature of inactivity of the mind. It is necessary to know and to understand this fact of the ultimate inactivity of all things, for this knowledge is the entrance into non-duality."

The bodhisattva Punyaksetra declared, "It is dualistic to consider actions meritorious, sinful, or neutral. The non-undertaking of meritorious, sinful, and neutral actions is not dualistic. The intrinsic nature of all such actions is void ness, wherein ultimately there is neither merit, nor sin, nor neutrality, nor action itself. The non-accomplishment of such actions is the entrance into non-duality."

The bodhisattva Padmavyuha declared, "Dualism is produced from obsession with self, but true understanding of self does not result in dualism. Who thus abides in non-duality is without ideation, and that absence of ideation is the entrance into non-duality."

The bodhisattva Srigarbha declared, "Duality is constituted by perceptual manifestation. Non-duality is object-less-ness. Therefore, non-grasping and non-rejection is the entrance into non-duality."

The bodhisattva Candrottara declared, "'Darkness' and 'light' are dualistic, but the absence of both darkness and light is non-duality. Why? At the time of absorption in cessation, there is neither darkness nor light, and likewise with the natures of all things. The entrance into this equanimity is the entrance into non-duality."

The bodhisattva Ratnamudrahasta declared, "It is dualistic to detest the world and to rejoice in liberation, and neither detesting the world nor rejoicing in liberation is non-duality. Why? Liberation can be found where there is bondage, but where there is ultimately no bondage where is there need for liberation? The mendicant who is neither bound nor liberated does not experience any like or any dislike and thus he enters non-duality."

The bodhisattva Manikutaraja declared, "It is dualistic to speak of good paths and bad paths. One who is on the path is not concerned with good or bad paths. Living in such unconcern, he entertains no concepts of 'path' or 'non-path.' Understanding the nature of concepts, his mind does not engage in duality. Such is the entrance into non-duality."


The bodhisattva Satyarata declared, "It is dualistic to speak of 'true' and 'false.' When one sees truly, one does not ever see any truth, so how could one see falsehood? Why? One does not see with the physical eye, one sees with the eye of wisdom. And with the wisdom-eye one sees only insofar as there is neither sight nor non-sight.

There, where there is neither sight nor non-sight, is the entrance into non-duality."

When the bodhisattvas had given their explanations, they all addressed the crown prince Manjusri: "Manjusri, what is the bodhisattva's entrance into non-duality?"


Manjusri replied, "Good sirs, you have all spoken well. Nevertheless, all your explanations are themselves dualistic. To know no one teaching, to express nothing, to say nothing, to explain nothing, to announce nothing, to indicate nothing, and to designate nothing - that is the entrance into non-duality."


Then the crown prince Manjusri said to the Licchavi Vimalakirti, "We have all given our own teachings, noble sir. Now, may you elucidate the teaching of the entrance into the principle of non-duality!"

Thereupon, the Licchavi Vimalakirti kept his silence, saying nothing at all.

The crown prince Manjusri applauded the Licchavi Vimalakirti: "Excellent! Excellent, noble sir! This is indeed the entrance into the non-duality of the bodhisattvas. Here there is no use for syllables, sounds, and ideas."

When these teachings had been declared, five thousand bodhisattvas entered the door of the Dharma of non-duality and attained an understanding of the birthlessness of things.

Source : ārya vimalakīrti nirdeśo nāma mahāyāna sūtram : advaya dharma mukha praveśaḥ

[ragam-talam]

A monk asked Chao-chou, "I have just entered the monastery: please give me some guidance."
Chao-chou said, "Have you eaten your rice gruel?"
The monk said,"Yes, I've eaten."
Chao-chou said, "Then go wash your bowl."

[Sangeet Rasik]

The purpose of Life - and indeed the Universe - is Continuous Action, i.e. continuous Yajna. This incorporates all activities that are not inconsistent with Vedic testimony (the Upanishads and even the Brahmanas are correct only in so far as they are validated by the Vedas). Vedic rituals, pursuit of various types of knowledge (including that of Brahman), philanthropic works, business, agriculture, etc, whose practices are developed by admissible methods of inquiry supported by pramanas, all constitute Righteous Action (Yajna).

However, the correct path cannot be indicated by "asceticism", "mysticism", "spiritualism", "meditation", taking "sanyasa", or similar activities - which may actually have a physical/health/psychological benefit that lulls the practitioner into a false sense of security/bliss - which then becomes labeled as "enlightenment","bodha","jnana", etc. The right path is that of Action as we are impelled to do so by the Vedas. Even so-called sanyasis these days engage in productive activity such as education, missionary activities, etc. Similarly, application of the other pramanas minus the Vedic testimony cannot lead to correct knowledge, just as the most wonderful and subtle dish in the world will not taste perfect if there is no salt in it.

The correct path can only be indicated by Vedic testimony (or shabda) which is eternal, non-human, and free of all physical errors and aberrations. Continuous practice of Vedic syllables and words, and action consistent with the meanings of the Vedic words in so far as they are understood by us, constitutes the eternal maintenance of the World-Order and is the duty of anyone who stands by Vedic dharma.

There is of course the danger of misinterpretation of Vedic shabda - resulting for instance in things like tedious and repetitive sacrifices, idolization of gods, or mystic quackery. However, a rickety house built on a firm foundation of the Vedas is still better than a fabulous house with a weak foundation (i.e. not based on the Vedas, such as atheism, communism, nihilism, belief in "messiahs" and "prophets" etc). As the Bhagavad Gita says, "SreyAn svadharmo viguNah paradharmAt svanushThitAt, svadharme nidhanam Sreyah paradharmo bhayAvahah".

My study of the Upanishads and Advaita Vedanta over many years leaves me impressed and awed by the clarity of greats such as Aitareya, Yajnavalkya, Uddalaka, Pippalada, Badarayana, Shankara, etc in understanding Brahman and explaining it. Yes, the ultimate nature of the world is non-dual and originated from Brahman. The Atman is Brahman. The Self is All, and All is the Self.

At the same time, to the person who has (intellectually) understood Vedanta, "athAto brahmajijnyAsA" is redundant. While the intellectual understanding of Brahman, Atman, and Maya is a great achievement and is an important component guiding our Action, it is not the ultimate purpose of Life to know Brahman. One cannot become "nirguna" and yet uphold the World-Order based on continuous Action, even if it is "nishkAma-karma".

The Vedas cannot possibly be concerned with an ultimate objective of explaining things like the nature of Brahman, which can be known by other means such as the Upanishads and Vedanta as correctly stated by Sankara. The Vedas are impersonal and all-encompassing. The Vedas are the Eternal Sentinel of Truth. They are Fixed like an Eye in Heaven ("divi iva cakshurAtatam"). Even Brahman can only "know" the Vedas, not create them. Brahman can be a "vedAntakRt" but only a "vedavit". It is another matter that the sage of the Bhagavad gita went overboard and equates Brahman with the vedas ("veda cA'ham") and claims that all that is to be known in the Vedas is Brahman ("vedais ca sarvaih aham eva vedyo").

This is not to say that spirituality, "bhakti", mysticism etc are bad things. They often create beautiful psychological and physical feelings of beatitude, contentment, detachment, etc and can be practised as a pastime, or for health reasons, or to better prepare oneself for Action (such as the parable of Arjuna and Krishna in the Bhagavad gita); and just as it is possible that Brahman manifests the world as a mere pastime. However, the true purpose of existence is to maintain the World-Order through propagation of Vedic "shabda" (Vedic syllables and words in their fixed order) and Actions that uphold the Vedas. By such continuous Actions, it is possible that the meaning of the Vedas themselves may be revealed in some small measure even if they can never be completely grasped.

Best Wishes,
Sangeet Rasik

[srkris]

How is it possible then to even make such a statement if it transcends expression and experience.. the above statement is indeed an expression
On the other hand, one can choose to remain silent because of the above two, but then how did we come to know that it transcends expression and experience.

VK, my previous post was intended to answer these questions. Although I quoted the translation of a Mahayana (Buddhist) text, it answers your question well. Each of the bodhisattvas give expression to their understanding of advaitam. Then Manjusri gives his explanation that advayam transcends expressions (again this is expressed and is therefore dualistic). Finally when Vimalakirti asks what he understood from the discussion, he remains silent, and therefore is applauded for his right understanding of non-duality.

Note: Manjusri replied, "Good sirs, you have all spoken well. Nevertheless, all your explanations are themselves dualistic. To know no one teaching, to express nothing, to say nothing, to explain nothing, to announce nothing, to indicate nothing, and to designate nothing - that is the entrance into non-duality.

Similarly, when I said it transcends expression and experience, I was of course expressing it. It was an expression. I could have remained silent but you (like Vimalakirti) would have been none the wiser about what I wanted to convey. Finally you said one can choose to remain silent, which is indeed true. I again quote the tamil saying "கண்டவர் விண்டிலர்".

As to how we come to know that it transcends expression and experience, it is discovered by contemplation.

[Pratyaksham Bala]

The oft repeated advice of spiritualits is 'shed your ego'.

But the very essence of spiritualism is 'to shed my ego'. This means that the whole exercise is ego-centric. It is always 'My spiritual quest'!

And without ego you won't exist!

[Sangeet Rasik]

The main achievements of Vedanta (specifically Advaita) are the explanation of the Brahman-Atman-Maya triad, and the development of the doctrine of ajAtivAda (non-birth). These are both truths. They are already present in the Vedas and are not "new" information as such.

In my opinion, the Vedanta insistence on spirituality is misguided and is mostly a result of their struggle with the Buddhists. Although Badarayana is also of the opinion that "spiritualism" is necessary, neither he nor Gaudapada (the "founder" of the advaita school) takes as extreme and detailed a position on this as the later advaitins. What should be an intellectual and practically useful understanding of the underlying unity of matter and energy and the impossibility of creation from "nothing" - or even a sobering knowledge that superficial appearances do not reflect reality - is turned into some sort of justification for withdrawal from the world and becoming an inert object whose behavior is indeterminate.

As far as "vehicles of spirituality" are concerned, I also find the Upanishadic and Vedantic insistence on the syllable "aum" as the "highest syllable" misleading. The Vedas contradict this directly. The underlying theme of the Vedas is the propagation of the World-Order, Rta ("R-ness"). The syllable/vowel "R" is primeval, and cannot be derived historically from anywhere. The Rks of the Veda directly pertain to "R" and are so named in an obvious manner (how could the Vedantists miss this?). "Rta" and the laws of nature associated with it ("vratAni") is repeated literally hundreds of times in the Vedas. If one must meditate (for acquiring calmness of mind, better health, tranquil disposition, etc) then meditate on R as the central message of the eternal and apaurusheya Vedas.

This thread began as an life-affirmative description of one man's quest based on the Upanishads, but has descended into Buddhist mumbo-jumbo and tongue-twisting arguments on the nature of "nothing". Just an observation, not a reflection on any individual poster.

SR

[ragam-talam]

has descended into Buddhist mumbo-jumbo

Here's more mumbo-jumbo!

"The purpose of a fishtrap is to catch fish, and when the fish are caught, the trap is forgotten.
The purpose of a rabbit snare is to catch rabbits. When the rabbits are caught, the snare is forgotten.
The purpose of words is to convey ideas. When the ideas are grasped, the words are forgotten.
Where can I find a man who has forgotten words? He is the one I would like to talk to."
- chuang tsu

[Sangeet Rasik]

Apparently, Chuang Tsu only forgot words, but not things like eating, drinking, sleeping, receiving charity, and living in general (i.e., believing in "nothing" but living on "something"). Let us shut down all learning, pay professors to walk into their classes and just remain silent.

Once we start talking about Buddhist skepticism, it is a bottomless pit of nonsense. According to these folks, everything is to be doubted and no firm knowledge is possible. The result of boundless skepticism is only to be expected: nihilism. In other words, just keep quiet and claim this is true knowledge.

The Universe must have a substratum and a "formula" for its manifestation. It cannot be emptiness. The Vedantist sees Brahman as the substratum and stops there. Even if Brahman is attributeless from our point of view, there is no way names and forms can be manifested time and again without a cosmic formula/mantra describing the laws of nature. The words and sentences of the Rgveda represent the mantras underlying the Universe and remain eternally fixed. They cannot be negated under any circumstances, just like the sentence "I have no parents at all" is meaningless.

By the way, Buddhist nihilism has been refuted once and for all both by Kumarila and by Sankara. It is a dead horse, but it seems to continually fascinate some people - like moths drawn to a fire.

I ask posters to be responsible and not mislead people (esp. younger generation) who might read all this and get drawn into unrighteous and even insane beliefs. In seven pages of posts, I am yet to see hardly any postings (except those of the original poster CML) containing Vedic words, whose correct utterance itself is elevating to the spirit and constitute good action.

Thanks.

SR

[VK RAMAN]

It is a dead horse, but it seems to continually fascinate some people - Budhism a dead horse???

[Sangeet Rasik]

It is a dead horse, but it seems to continually fascinate some people - Budhism a dead horse???

Buddhist nihilism as a philosophy is a dead horse.

As far as the Buddhist faith is concerned, its founder Gotama/Siddhartha was a social reformer of merit, who outlined a way (the "aryashtangamarga") for people to prevent the excesses/corruption of society as he found it. There is nothing wrong with that.

However, later Buddhist "philosophy" descended to the same levels of excess that Gotama wanted to prevent in the first place. Our man Chuang Tsu wants to find and have a conversation with "a man who has forgotten words". Sounds like a one-way conversation, typical of what is found in mental asylums. No wonder Kumarila has explicitly characterized such thinking for what it is: "utterly shameless".

SR

[VK RAMAN]

Is hinduism a philosophy?

[Nick H]

I ask posters to be responsible and not mislead people (esp. younger generation) who might read all this and get drawn into unrighteous and even insane beliefs. In seven pages of posts, I am yet to see hardly any postings (except those of the original poster CML) containing Vedic words, whose correct utterance itself is elevating to the spirit and constitute good action.

All generations should be exposed to ideas without limit, even insane ones. There is no irresponsibility in the exposure. The only irresponsibility would be imposition.

[Sangeet Rasik]

All generations should be exposed to ideas without limit, even insane ones. There is no irresponsibility in the exposure. The only irresponsibility would be imposition.

Exposure to ideas is fine, but with disclaimers and discrimination. Since I didn't see those, I am providing them.

SR

[Sangeet Rasik]

Is hinduism a philosophy?

The word "hinduism" is externally coined. The Vedic religion is Sanatana Dharma (or Eternal Righteousness). Several schools (darshanas) of philosophy have arisen claiming affiliation to the Vedic word, and sharing some similarities. All "worship-sects" based on the Puranas (Shaiva, Vaishnava, Shakta etc) ultimately take their philosophical underpinnings from one (or more) of the darshanas.

SR

[VK RAMAN]

Could nihilism be a school too? Why budhism is very friendly and popular among mangoleans and western europeans/americans?

[srkris]

My thoughts expressed by another man....

"The more superficially one studies Buddhism, the more it seems to differ from the Brahmanism in which it originated; the more profound our study, the more difficult it becomes to distinguish Buddhism from Brahmanism, or to say in what respects, if any, Buddhism is really unorthodox."

What they mean to say is that the Buddha denied the immortal, unborn and Supreme Self of the Upanishads.And that is palpably false. For he frequently speaks of this Self orSpirit, and nowhere more clearly than in the repeated formula ‘na meso atta’, "That is not my Self ", excluding body and the components of empirical consciousness, a statement to which the words of Sankaracharya are peculiarly apposite, "Whenever we deny something unreal, it is with reference to something real" (neti-neti Brahma Sutra III.2.22).

‘Na me so atta’ is no more a denial of the Self than Socrates' “the body is not the man”, is a denial of the Man!

Source: Spreading lies of Nihilism about Buddhism

[Sangeet Rasik]

Gotama/Siddhartha himself did not say anything radical that attacks the Vedas. If one examines his "Eightfold Path" and "Four Noble Truths", there is nothing to deny the validity of the Vedas. Gotama was not even a philosopher, he was more of a social reformer. His interpretation of "suffering" and so on, can easily be fitted in as a "darshana" of Indian philosophy.

But this would pose a problem to Gotama's followers, since there was nothing clearly different from "Hinduism" to justify the propagation of a "new" faith. Therefore, they embarked upon a misguided exercise to "create" a new philosophy based on denial of the Vedas, denial of the eternality of words (with a view to ultimately deny the eternality of the Vedic words), and denial of a real substratum of the Universe (e.g, Brahman).

Let us be very clear on who attacks what:

1) To say that Kumarila, Gaudapada, and Sankara had only made a superficial study of Buddhism (or more correctly the philosophical schools originating from Gotama's disciples) is untenable. They (especially Kumarila) had a strong background in Buddhist philosophy. This can only be seen by actually reading the works of Kumarila.

2) The Vedic and Vedantic philosophers mentioned above have developed their arguments primarily as commentaries (bhashyas and karikas) on the Dharmasutra (of Jaimini), Brahmasutra (of Badarayana), and the Upanishads. In these documents, the primary mode of refuting Buddhist doctrines is in the form of answers to the actual Buddhist objections/criticisms of the Vedas and Vedanta.

3) Specifically, the serious objections taken up for discussion are those of the predominant Mahayana buddhist schools, of which by far the most influential are the Madhyamaka and the Yogacara. These are the folks who deny the Vedas, deny the eternality and meaning of Vedic words, and deny Brahman.

4) Now, Gotama did say that one should not "automatically" accept any "scripture" or "tradition" just because they are claimed to be infallible, but they should be somehow verified. So what ? This cannot be taken as a denial of the validity of Vedas, it is merely a general cautionary statement. Even the Bhagavad gita cautions us to not be deluded by Sruti. That does not mean it denies the Vedas, it simply means that a careful approach should be taken by any intelligent person in order to avoid becoming confused.

5) However, the above cautionary statement of Gotama was later developed into a denial of the Vedas by Buddhist philosophical schools. It became a question of the theory of knowledge (epistemology). Vedic philosophy accepts that a piece of knowledge is ipso facto valid, unless contradicted by a second piece of knowledge. Gotama himself should have found nothing objectionable about this approach, since it is not based on "blind belief" but at the same time allows a substratum of valid knowledge to begin with. On the other hand, the Buddhists stretch Gotama's teaching to a perverse limit by ipso facto doubting a piece of knowledge, and requiring a second piece of knowledge to somehow verify the first. But this obviously creates a regressus ad infinitum, whereby all knowledge is doubtful and requires endless verification. In contrast, Kumarila and others show that so far, nothing has ever emerged that contradicts the Vedas or shows it to be non-eternal, humanly authored, or plain false in statements. The objections themselves are shown to be without merit. What Kumarila showed in 700 CE is still valid today. There is no change.

To say that "lies" are being spread about Buddhism reveals a lack of understanding of what is actually discussed in the works of the Indian philosophers (Vedic and Buddhist). The Buddhist denial of the eternality of the Vedas and the eternal nature of the Vedic words are expressed in a crystal-clear manner; and these exact objections of importance which are refuted by the Vedics. There are no "lies" being spread, only the truth is being told.

I do not know what kind of "profound study" allows the (anonymous) author of the article (posted by srkris) to conclude that Buddhism and "Brahmanism" (the term itself is absurd) are difficult to distinguish! Is there any school of Buddhist philosophy that accepts (or even leaves open the possibility of) the eternality and infallibility of the Vedic words? That is the crux of the matter and the only point of real value.

The comparison of Advaitic "Nirguna Brahman" and Mahayanic "Shunya" may very well be a finessed, "hair-splitting" issue of interest to some people. Such a differentiation is merely an academic exercise, and such knowledge of fine differences between the two is of no practical use. Much ado about nothing. The Vedas are not concerned with empty intellectual "hair-splitting" that can have no bearing on the World-Order and the laws of nature. The right course of life is continuous and ethical Action consistent with the Vedic words. In one's spare time (or as an intellectual curiosity, or even as an idle pastime) one can also appreciate the philosophical achievements of the Upanishads and Vedanta and even other schools of thought wherever in the universe they may be, since at least part of their teachings are consistent with the Vedas and therefore potentially correct.

SR

[Sangeet Rasik]

A brand-new scholarly - but rather engaging - article on the thought and contributions of the mighty Kumarila Bhatta, a Vedic philosopher beyond compare and upholder of the Vedas.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kumaarila/

It summarizes Kumarila's thought very well, for those who do not have access to his bhashyas/varttikas or to the Dharmasutras.

My main criticism of this Western-authored/edited summary is that it sometimes portrays Kumarila's efforts as attempting to "secure" a dominant position for the Vedas due to his brahmanical vested interest. There is always an undercurrent of Western suspicion of Indian philosophers and what they were "up to".

SR

[Sangeet Rasik]

Could nihilism be a school too? Why budhism is very friendly and popular among mangoleans and western europeans/americans?

Nihilism would be the School of Nonsense, outdone in ancient India only by the Charvakas. These fellows have all disappeared from India. The Buddhists have "shifted operations" to southeast/east Asia and the West.

The syllable "R", when subjected to processes of guna and vrddhi, becomes "Ar", which is designated as a mark of righteousness ("Ar-ya"). The Vedas enjoin upon us to bring the entire world to righteousness. Due to the inertia created by non-Vedic beliefs (which preach introversion and pessimism), the opportunity to transform these regions to Vedic dharma was lost. Ground was ceded to atheism and various sorts of "messianic"/"prophetic" beliefs.

As for the popularity of Buddhism among some "new age" type of Westerners, the basic reason is the same as the story of Siddhartha/Gotama. Due to a bad family background lacking in "shiksha", or having descended into the depths of corrupt and excessively materialistic society, there emerges in these people a tendency to view the world in a pessimistic sense and connect it to endless suffering. Buddhist beliefs - which accept (and even feed) borderline insanity or adjustment problems - naturally attract these type of people, and moreover do not enjoin upon them any type of positive obligations as are enjoined by the Vedas.

SR

[Nick H]

Do you really hold Buddhism in contempt generally, or is it just the context of this conversation?

(this is a serious question, and not meant to be aggressive in any way, by the way. If you do, that is your right, although I wouldn't agree.)

[arasi]

srkris,
When so much is said (all impressive stuff,whether I can understand them or not), your refrain: kaNDavar viNDilar, viNDavar kaNDilar (those who have 'seen', don't say, those who say haven't 'seen') seems to be pertinent. To make it even more down to earth (!) kudambaic cittar's song: Anandam pongi aRivODirupppOrkku, gnAnam tAn EdukkaDi? isn't a bad additional line!

Nick,
It means: when filled with Anandam, who needs knowledge?

[Sangeet Rasik]

[quote="Nick H"]Do you really hold Buddhism in contempt generally, or is it just the context of this conversation?

I see no reason to label an entire set of people who identify with Buddhist traditions as "contemptible". I have stated the pertinent question - i.e., whether the eternality and correctness of Vedic words and sentences is accepted or not. Some Buddhists simply revere the teachings of Gotama (which are generally harmless, and harmlessly general) without any/much knowledge of any Buddhist philosophy, others may in fact not believe in the Vedas but without holding any strong opinions about it, while yet others (such as the Indian Buddhist philosophers of the past) may actively attack the Vedas with specious arguments and therefore must be opposed as being misguided.

SR

PS: I hope you enjoyed my composition on Siddhartha Gotama posted a few years ago.

[Sangeet Rasik]

those who have 'seen', don't say, those who say haven't 'seen') seems to be pertinent.

In that case, no kind of education should be possible since those who teach (presumably by means of words and sentences) supposedly haven't "seen", and those who have supposedly "seen" are not able to teach. And I suppose people like Sankara or the Upanishadic sages did not "see" anything since they spoke voluminous numbers of words. Or the Rgveda itself is nonsense since it contains large numbers of words which are chanted by the paathins. And since none of these people have "seen" (by virtue of having spoken), what they said should be rejected anyway and we are all back to square one - just looking at each other and nodding our "unspoken spiritual knowledge".

Without reading/listening, understanding, or deliberating, I guess a "nihilist"/"obscurantist" approach is the natural choice

SR

[ragam-talam]

SR - not sure if you are deliberately misinterpreting, or you genuinely don't understand what's being said.

The basic idea is that you do need to use words, ideas etc as you grow spiritually, but at the final point you drop all words. This is the nirvana, shunyata, etc that's being talked about.

As the Tao Te Ching says, "We shape clay into a pot, but it is the emptiness inside that holds whatever we want."

[Sangeet Rasik]

Sir,

The basic idea is that you do need to use words, ideas etc as you grow spiritually, but at the final point you drop all words. This is the nirvana, shunyata, etc that's being talked about.

As the Tao Te Ching says, "We shape clay into a pot, but it is the emptiness inside that holds whatever we want."

Based on my multiple readings of Dharmasutras, Brahmasutras, Upanishads, and works of Kumarila, Gaudapada, Sankara, and modern advaitins such as Chinmayananda, Vivekananda over 20 years; and for whatever this effort counts; I assure you this is completely impossible.

I already pointed you to Kumarila's work which is also accepted by Vedanta. Words are eternal. There is ipso facto no possibility of a "nirguna" state in which words (and specifically the Vedic words) do not exist. The only way to counter this is the Buddhist proposition that words are transient and evanescent. However, this entire argument collapses completely due to logical defects. Do you not get it ?

I would like you to point me towards any Vedic or Vedantic work that negates the existence of Words at the point of "nirguna". Please note, there are a number of hyberbolic "neti neti" statements made in the Upanishads, which are aimed at trying to show the physically "incomprehensible" nature of Brahman by dimunition of other things (i.e., taking away one thing after the other in order to show how "incomprehensible" Brahman is). What you are saying that Sankara et al completely agree with the eternality of Vedic words (and yes, they most certainly do), yet claim that words disappear in the "nirguna" state. What nonsense!

It is the Buddhists - Chung Tao, Chou Chous, Vimalakirtis etc who don't get it. What amazes me is that people are actually attracted to these ideas and keep discussing them. But I can also see how these ideas can create a feeling of "vichitra" and give a temporary "spiritual buzz" to those who entertain them.

It seems this is more of an idle group-pastime (sort of like "getting high" together) than any genuine attempt at understanding.

SR

[Nick H]

I see no reason to label an entire set of people who identify with Buddhist traditions as "contemptible".

I wasn't suggesting contempt for people.

I find it quite possible to have zero respect for certain teachings in the world (contempt is not the word I'd choose, but others might label it such) whilst having respect for people that espouse or follow them.

I've encountered great wisdom in Buddhists --- but I would not dream of arguing points with you, as I am even less qualified to talk of such things than I am to talk of music.

[ragam-talam]

SR - I am not going to respond to your repeated use of words such as 'nihilist', 'spiritual buzz' etc while referring to buddhist teachings. To me this shows a complete misunderstanding.

I would suggest you meditate on the following words from Seng-T'san: "To set up what you like against what you dislike - this is the disease of the mind."

[Sangeet Rasik]

SR - I am not going to respond to your repeated use of words such as 'nihilist', 'spiritual buzz' etc while referring to buddhist teachings. To me this shows a complete misunderstanding.

I assure you there is absolutely no misunderstanding whatsoever. I have stated what is true and well accepted quite clearly, and these are not my "original" arguments either.

I don't recall asking you to respond to my use of the term "nihilist" (that it is a very true characterization is another matter altogether).

You can of course feel free to respond to my other statements - I have yet to see a cogent reply from you on specific points I have mentioned. Please tell me, are Words eternal or not ? Simple question with a simple answer. Quotations from various Cha Chings and Ding Dongs will not be helpful here, I am afraid.

I am not going to ask you to meditate on anything. I am just going to recommend that some reading on Vedic and Vedantic philosophy be done in advance.

SR

[VK RAMAN]

what are we trying to accomplish in our spiritual quest; critizise other faith and emphasize our faith and philosophy is superior? What is spiritual quest? Is it penchant for peace, self actualization and believe in Omnipotent, Omnisient and Omnipresent?

[arasi]

SR,
I do remember your composition on GautamA (Gotama), now that you have jogged my memory.
My translation of kaNDavar viNDilar, viNDavar kanDilar (which was quoted by srkris earlier on) is a poor one. It loses its full meaning in translation. r-t has added to it. One has to see the quote not in the light of pure logic but in being touched by that awsome feeling that the great ones 'saw' but couldn't begin to describe what they 'saw'.. And those who do say things perhaps aren't aware of all that there is to see.
No, I don't think that learning and exchange of thoughts are superficial either!

[Pratyaksham Bala]

These postings did not exist before they were written.
Upanishads did not exist before they were written.
Vedic poems did not exist before they were composed.
Words did not exist before they were coined.

[arasi]

You mean, 'pratyaksham'Aga illai enbadAl maTTumA?

[Sangeet Rasik]

These postings did not exist before they were written.
Upanishads did not exist before they were written.
Vedic poems did not exist before they were composed.
Words did not exist before they were coined.

No. Words have an eternal existence independent of their manifestation as speech or writing. Posting,speaking, and coining are means of manifestation of the word, not its creation. The creation of words is an impossibility. This is the Vedic theory of language, and it has had a profound influence on linguistics, philosophy, and other fields. It is not only justifiable but also rational and logically correct. It is one of our great contributions. There is little point in attacking what is well and truly established.

One of the first steps to right knowledge is to understand what has been done before. All this is very deep and rigorous subject matter, which has been subjected to over 2500 years of intense debate, examination, investigation, and elaboration by scholars from a variety of perspectives. We are not talking about amateur speculations colored by excessive emotion or an artificial desire to appear "culturally inclusive" and "spiritually benign".

Your last statement is in fact one of the obvious objections raised against the eternality of words. The Dharmasutras 1.1.6-1.1.11 list all the obvious and non-obvious objections. Yours is included (1.1.8: karOti shabdAt). The dharmasutras, and Kumarila's commentary, then refute all these objections (1.1.12-1.1.17) and then go on to show the eternality of ALL words (1.1.18-1.1.23).

Furthermore, of all the eternal words, it is established (1.1.24-1.1.32) that only the Vedic words can be considered to be representative of right knowledge - one important reason being that it is logically and rationally seen to have no authors. Together with the Vedic theory of epistemology, the Vedic defense becomes unassailable and iron-clad (so much so that it is gratefully adopted by the Vedantists verbatim). You should be darn proud of it, instead of attacking it. After researching the 2500 years of very smart opponents making sophisticated philosophical attacks on the Vedas with no success, if you come up with the new "trump card" objection then I will throw away the Vedas and start believing in "shunya" and "nirvana" and "spiritual realizations".

If you want to become aware of your heritage, then read the Dharmasutras and commentaries of Kumarila. If you do not have access to them, then I have already placed a fine article on this subject in front of you:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kumaarila/

The rest is up to you, the reader.

SR

[Nick H]

No. Words have an eternal existence independent of their manifestation as speech or writing. Posting,speaking, and coining are means of manifestation of the word, not its creation. The creation of words is an impossibility. This is the Vedic theory of language, and it has had a profound influence on linguistics, philosophy, and other fields. It is not only justifiable but also rational and logically correct.

Now this really rather strange. Any particular combination of words, such as I am writing now, did not exist before it was formed, and may as well not exist tomorrow, by which time it will have been universally forgotten.

This smacks to me of the bible-follower's argument that their book is the word of god. It is proof by reference to itself. The rationality and logicality of that ends at the borders of your belief.

Even if we follow the train of thought that anything which is done cannot be undone, that anything that is written cannot be unwritten, and that even if no physical copy still exists, then, somewhere in the metaphysical, or non-physical, or super-natural existence and history of our planet it still exists --- then that is as true for my shopping list as it is for my thoughts on philosophy or even your better-informed thoughts on religion, or even for what people have written hundreds of thousands of years ago. It confers no status. It certainly does not say that what was written was right --- or wrong. Or that that which denied it was wrong --- or right.

Is that not rational and logical?

(I have only a passing knowledge of the two great Hindu epics, and I think they are wonderful, and very beneficial to read. I have almost no knowledge of the other great writings of what I consider to be one of the two ancient religions. Thus I do not decry or argue them: I only argue what seems a flaw in your statement)

[Sangeet Rasik]

Now this really rather strange. Any particular combination of words, such as I am writing now, did not exist before it was formed, and may as well not exist tomorrow, by which time it will have been universally forgotten.

Here are the objections of various opponents as stated in the purvamimamsa sutras of Jaimini and the commentaries of Shabara and Kumarila: 1.1.6-1.1.11 as I mentioned in my previous post. I am quoting/paraphrasing from the translation of Ganganath Jha. Your objection is covered in 1.1.6 and 1.1.7.

"It is objected by some that words are not eternal because-"

1.1.6: karmaikE tatra darshanAt
"It is seen that (words) are produced by an effort."

We find that all words are brought into existence
only after some effort of speech/writing etc by a person. What is
brought into existence must have a cause and is non-eternal.

1.1.7: asthAnAt
"Because of impermanance/lack of persistence".

We find that words do not exist when they are not uttered. Therefore they are not eternal.

1.1.8: karOtishabdAt
"Because of the use of the word "karOti" (makes/produces)

We generally say "shabda karoti" which means "he makes or produces the word." If the word is produced, it cannot be eternal.

1.1.9: sattvAntarE yaugapadyAt
"Because it is found in many persons and places."

It is found that the same word is perceived by many persons, and also in many places, at one and the same time. This is possible only if either:

(1) the word is omnipresent and all-pervading, or
(2) if it is limited in extent, but capable of being created at more than
one place at the same time.

Since we know that the word is not all-pervading (*my comment: this is a circular objection*), it must follow that when perceived by different persons at different places, it must be produced in these places. It must be admitted that any given word is not one, but many, and produced in different places.

1.1.10:prakRtivikRityoSca
"And because of the natural and modified [forms]."

Words can become modified by things like sandhi. Since no modification can occur in an eternal entity, words must be non-eternal.

1.1.11: vRddhiSca kartRibhUmnA'sya
"And because many persons uttering the word increase it."

When many persons pronounce the same word, there is always an increase in the magnitude of the sound. This proves that the word is
modifiable, and hence non-eternal.

Now the various objections 1.1.6-1.1.11 are shown to be without merit:

1.1.12: samantu tatra darshanam
"The (momentary) perception (of sounds) is equally (possible)."

When a person speaks a word, he makes manifest the sound of the word, but does not cause the word to come into existence. The word that is already in existence is now perceived. Therefore, instead of claiming "momntary existence" of the word, one can very well explain the objection 1.1.6 as caused by momentary perception of the word.

1.1.13: satah paramadarshanam vishayAn AgamAt
"It is of That of which that there is non-perception at other times, due to lack of operation (of the manifestor).

In reply to 1.1.6-1.1.7, and having shown that momentary perception explains all the observations, the theory of momentary existence is now shown to be false. If the word is claimed to have been created in its first (i.e., historical) utterance, the word should be continued to be perceived for all time after this first utterance. For example, we perceive a jar for all time between its creation and destruction. If the word exists only after its (first) utterance, why is not the word perceived for all time till it is destroyed (if one imagines words to be possibly destroyed at all)? Momentary perception (not momentary existence) alone explains the observations. The word has eternal existence, but is perceived only for the duration of utterance (i.e. for the duration of the sound), or for the duration of existence of the book/internet site/other mediumby which it is perceived. Human utterance of the word is only a "manifesting agent" of the word.

1.1.14: prayogasya param
"It refers to the utterance".

Reply to 1.1.8: it refers to the utterance of the word that is already existing. Nobody actually "makes" words, the only things that are made are sounds (and these sounds can be "new" and always "impermanent", for example a different language, or the same language but slurred speech).

1.1.15: Adityavad yaugapadyam
"The simultaneity (of perception) as like the sun."

Reply to 1.1.9: The sun can be seen at the same time by many persons at different places, yet it is one. It is obviously reasonable that the word should be one and eternal, and yet simultaneously perceived by many people at many places at the same time.

1.1.16: varNAntaram avikArah
"It is a different letter; not a modification."

Reply to 1.1.10: Words modified by sandhi constitute an entirely different
word, and the letters are different from the original ones. The act of sandhi of two words (thereby manifesting a new set of sounds) has a meaning in itself and expresses also a different word. In some cases sandhi is required, and some cases it is explicitly not used. For example in my composition, I may use the words "prAvRD RgmaNDukEna" (with sandhi), which has a different purpose than without sandhi ("prAvRT RgmanDUkEna"). Similarly, in another composition, the word "sArangaRtuh" (without sandhi) is *deliberately different* from the word "sArangartuh" (with sandhi) including having different letters.

1.1.17: nAdavRddhi parA
"The increase belongs to the sound."

Reply to 1.1.11: Obviously, only the volume of the sound is increased in magnitude, not the word itself.

Having established that the objections to the rationally and logically held eternality of words are without merit, ne can then further support the eternality of words (this is done in 1.1.18-1.1.23).

This smacks to me of the bible-follower's argument that their book is the word of god. It is proof by reference to itself. The rationality and logicality of that ends at the borders of your belief.

The rationality and logic of showing the eternality of words is nothing to to do with a claim of "word of god" as given by some prophet. We will be off on wild tangents.

As noted by the author of the article I posted (Prof Dan Arnold, U. of Chicago), there was a tendency among some to previously dismiss Kumarila's work as somehow "fundamentalist", but it is relatively recently - in no small measure due to the efforts of some modern Indian intellectuals such as Ganganath Jha - that these works are realized to be incisive philosophical works which are based on a sound rational and logical foundation. It has become almost a fashion to decry Vedic philosophy (and I say this not from an "emotional standpoint" but from a rational and logical one) as being "irrational" but seeing no problem with entertaining completely absurd beliefs propagated by Mahayana buddhists and their offshoots.

It certainly does not say that what was written was right --- or wrong. Or that that which denied it was wrong --- or right.

Wait a minute! Let us do this one thing at a time. You started out arguing against the eternality of words (whatever they may be) but now you have jumped to right and wrong. There is no hurry, we can establish things one at a time.

(I have only a passing knowledge of the two great Hindu epics, and I think they are wonderful, and very beneficial to read. I have almost no knowledge of the other great writings of what I consider to be one of the two ancient religions. Thus I do not decry or argue them: I only argue what seems a flaw in your statement)

Nothing wrong with that. Remember - as I mentioned in my previous post - that *many*, extremely intelligent, and motivated philosophers have tried to find flaws in the eternality of words. So before you call this theory "strange", show the respect it deserves and - at a minimum - look up the previous works before starting any arguments.

SR

[Nick H]

I find myself thinking too many words

I find myself remembering a childhood game where we would take an every day word and repeat it many, many times: it has the curious mental effect of turning it into a meaningless sound.

I find myself reflecting on "the word" under discussion, and asking, "What word?" No doubt words are not born equal. The bible tells us it all began with a word, which was with god. We do not know if it was Om, or the unpronounceable Hebrew name of god ...or even some word not one of us has ever know.

Then I consider that this is interesting, intellectually, and even touches on the mystical, but, is it spiritual?

So before you call this theory "strange", show the respect it deserves and - at a minimum - look up the previous works before starting any arguments.

With noting, as I have done, and respecting, the depth and breadth of your knowledge and research, I can still find something strange without doing the same.

[Sangeet Rasik]

Nick,

Sorry, I don't understand most of your post in relation to the discussion that I attempted to start. I'll reply to what I understand.

Then I consider that this is interesting, intellectually, and even touches on the mystical, but, is it spiritual?

The objective of the inquiry is to first establish what is Ethical Action before we make a decision to pursue "spirituality" or anything else for that matter. What is "spirituality" ? Is it just a semantic construct that describes a process that is actually much more "mundane" ? There seems to be an assumption that spirituality ipso facto is the "ultimate objective", without any knowledge as to what one would do with it, or whether it is even a good decision in the first place.

There is no point in hankering after "spirituality" if you don't know what to do with it, or what it is in the first place. It seems the sort of "spirituality" I see here is essentially a need to "get high" on absurd beliefs, since they release the person from the ethical obligation of conducting an honest inquiry based on a valid substratum of knowledge. It is the ability to conduct an ethical inquiry that we should be inculcating in future generations if India is to have a strong future, not simply a "troublemaker" approach of asking endless questions and doubts without bothering to see if they have been answered already.

I notice a tendency to randomly adopt absurd doctrines such as "shunyata" and "nirvana" without realizing that these doctrines are developed with the foundational idea that everything is momentary and nothing is real. This idea was just a general comment on the state of society as seen by Gotama, but later developed into an actual theory of the universe (and predictably, demolished left,right, and center by right-thinking philosophers for its absurdity). The people who circulate these beliefs want to have it both ways: they want to be "Hindus" and enjoy all the fruits of its reality-affirming achievements, but at the same time propagate obscurantist beliefs based on invalid foundations, and not only that, also insult the Vedic philosophers who protected the culture that we enjoy today.

Sorry - this is not how it should work, unless what you desire is a nation of selfish and confused individuals who think that some "culturally inclusive" act of everyone "getting high" on "feel-good spirituality" automatically means righteousness and peace on Earth. Nothing of the sort. It is a recipe for disaster.

SR

[srkris]

When SR starts arguing, words do not come to an end, they go on and on eternally. If I am not mistaken, this is what is implied by the eternal word hypothesis. SR can afford to keep his words flowing eternally, but we are "pessimistically" reminded of our own mortality that may materialize before we can realistically claim to have made sense of this "eternal word" theory.

With due apologies to Kumārila and his "genuine" theory of the eternity of sound.

[Sangeet Rasik]

When SR starts arguing, words do not come to an end, they go on and on eternally.

Nice try. And I suppose the 7 pages of "eternal nonsense" peddled by postings on people that "reach-and-preach spiritual bliss by remaining silent" were of course of a different class altogether.

If I am not mistaken, this is what is implied by the eternal word hypothesis. SR can afford to keep his words flowing eternally, but we are "pessimistically" reminded of our own mortality that may materialize before we can realistically claim to have made sense of this "eternal word" theory.

Don't worry, there are plenty of people who made sense of it and accepted it. It is a rationally and logical sound principle, plain and simple. If you don't understand ethical obligation to accept what is borne out by rational inquiry and logic over 2.5 millenia, that is what is referred to as "obscurantism" and "lack of common sense" (i.e., "it is rationally and logically sound, and valid knowledge, and neither do I nor anyone else have a valid objection to it, but I will still reject it since I don't like it and it creates an ethical problem for me to pursue obscurantist beliefs").

Creating a "strawman" diversion of a "we-will-die-before-we-understand-it" mentality is consistent with the above approach.

Ever heard of the principle of "beyond reasonable doubt" in jurisprudence? The law does not wait for an interminable time to make an ethical decision. It is based upon the lack of any reasonable objections. For example, it is assumed that the innocence of an individual is true, unless there is a valid reason/objection to contradict it. The Vedic (purva mimamsa) approach has a great affinity with this principle.

With due apologies to Kumārila and his "genuine" theory of the eternity of sound.

If you are going to apologize, make sure you are apologizing for the right thing. Kumarila never proposed eternity of sound, it is eternity of words and the impermanence of their perception as sounds.

Perhaps your struggle to understand simple English - repeated several times - was something I didn't account for in this discussion. But wait - perhaps that difficulty is something to do with having reached "spiritual bliss" and therefore having forgotten some words in that state.

SR

[srkris]

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

[Nick H]

If you don't understand ethical obligation to accept what is borne out by rational inquiry and logic over 2.5 millenia

Ahhh... the so many people over so long a period can't have been wrong argument?

Oh yes they can!

[Sangeet Rasik]

Nick,

Ahhh... the so many people over so long a period can't have been wrong argument? Oh yes they can!

My last attempt - minus the "ahhhs and ooohs". I said ethical obligation to accept what is borne out by rational inquiry and logic over 2.5 millenia.

Do you have any objection that is new, over and above the previous ones (that have been refuted) ? Or do you see an incompleteness in the refutation of previous objections ? Are you aware of previous objections at all ? It seems you are not willing to devote even a few hours of your time to study this subject, yet you want to continue speculations like "oh yes they can!". I have provided you material and references, yet you want to continue uninformed discussion.

Please note, I am not imposing any restrictions on questions and inquiry. But they have to be based on a valid substratum of assumed knowledge that should only be rejected by contradiction; and also require intellectual honesty by an awareness of previous work. If you are not in favor of either approach, a discussion has no meaning.

My purpose here is not to endlessly argue with people. I am still confident that readers can distinguish "common-sense from nonsense" at the end of the day. I will post if and when I feel a "course-correction" and "balanced perspective" is needed when there is an excess of obscurantist and plain invalid beliefs.

Maybe in the future, the realization will dawn upon you that after a certain point, hairsplitting over what is exactly the "true nature of the universe" produces only useless knowledge, and neither does "spiritualism" offer any way out that is independent of Ethical Action. Vedic philosophy is not about intellectual hair-splitting. It is about Ethical Action for Man in his limited lifetime on Earth, guided by principles of valid knowledge (unless truly contradicted by other knowledge and thereby requiring further analysis until reasonable doubt is cleared and no further contradictions are seen). Furthermore, the use of this approach allows us to establish the eternity and uncontradicted validity of the Vedas, and hence establishes them as a sound framework for Ethical Action. What you do with that knowledge placed before you after much painstaking deliberation, or whether you choose to ignore it in your pursuits, is your problem.

Thank you and good luck.

SR

[Nick H]

I am quite happy to stop arguing. In fact, I wasn't really. Your posts are very interesting, but if I see what I perceive as mistaken method, then my comment may follow. When I see words such as "a valid substratum of assumed knowledge that should only be rejected by contradiction" I see that as translating very simply into "stuff that I believe in". That's just another way of saying that you perceived arguments and accepted their points. It does not mean that they are final, irrefutable, or any such thing. Your "arguments" seemed to be very self-referential. Well, ok: our truth, at any one time, is an amalgam of our own experience, our own thoughts, and the thoughts of those who we have chosen to respect. That's fair enough.

It has dawned on me already, that all this stuff about words, interesting though it may be (and it seems to have kept people interested for a long, long time) is intellectual hair-splitting.

As to what I do, do not, accept or accept not, it is not at all my problem: it is my decision and my freedom. There is absolutely no question of problem.

[Sangeet Rasik]

This is a general post continuing this thread, and is not directed to any specific poster.

A general misconception among the "uninitiated" is that Vedic philosophy is arbitrary and contains essentially "things that they believe in". That is very far from the truth.

Vedic philosophy is a very rationally and logically sound philosophy, and admits six pramanas of valid sources of knowledge: (1) perception, (2) inference, (3) comparison, (4) testimony, (5) postulation, and (6) non-apprehension. None of these is any type of obscurantist or far-out category, and are perfectly sensible.

Additionally, the Vedic theory of knowledge is strongly grounded, and is based on the principle that all cognition is valid, and a second contradictory piece of knowledge is required to falsify it or warrant a further analysis of the apparent contradiction. This is a correct and insightful approach, and we use it in the modern world day in and day out. Other closely related approaches are proposed by the Nyaya philosophers. On the other hand, the Buddhists propose (predictably) the exact opposite - doubt all knowledge initially. They cannot be expected to propose anything else, since otherwise there would be no grounds for significant deviation from Vedic philosophy. The problem with such proposals is clearly that it leads to an infinite regress of endless verification.

The 6 pramanas and the Vedic epistemological theory together make up a valid substratum of knowledge. This substratum is a firm, sensible, rational, and logical foundation on which to pursue dharma, not some fundamentalist "this-is-what-i-believe" mumbo-jumbo. There is nothing to be ashamed of here. One can be proud of it and fearless in it.

Regarding the pramana (4): "testimony", the Vedic philosophy leads to the natural establishment of the eternality of words and furthermore the Vedic words (Vedic testimony). It is not the fault of the Vedic philosopher that the Vedas in fact are seen to have no authors! It is not the fault of a rich man's son that he is born with certain "advantages" (good education, opportunities, connections etc) in comparison to the son of a beggar.

It is to be emphasized again that the Vedic philosophy is not concerned with an ultimate objective of making deductions about the nature of Brahman or other states of being - such a knowledge is only a tiny part of human endeavor and is ultimately useless by itself.

The real usefulness of knowledge (even coming from so-called sanyasis, monks, etc) is in Ethical Action. And in this again, whether it is the Vedantic or Buddhist ethics, nobody has anything significant to add to what the Vedic philosophers say. The difference is that Action based on the Vedas is reliable (since the Vedas are uncontradictably valid, and contain the laws of nature); whereas Action based upon the Upanishads is only reliable insofar as the Upanishadic statements that are validated by the Vedas; and Action based upon Buddhist doctrines is unreliable since these doctrines have been falsified.

It is very important to note that Vedic philosophy does not place any restrictions on the freedom to inquire, think, debate, practise science, art, culture, etc. It only enjoins ethical obligations in these activities that are consistent with the Vedas. Scientific methods are not ipso facto inconsistent with the Vedas, unless they turn up an apparently contradictory result (that has not occurred so far). On matters in which science and other conventional means of inquiry *cannot* shed light due to intrinsic limitations, the Vedas only can provide correct knowledge.

On the other hand, just imagine trying to do science in a laboratory with the nonsensical Buddhist philosophical approach of momentariness of sense perceptions, memories, thoughts, etc...!! Some advance things like Gotama's "Kalama Sutra" to show how "scientific" Buddhism is. But what is conveniently forgotten is that Gotama's teachings in fact reflect the honesty, ethical standards, and thorough/careful approach taken by the Vedic and Upanishadic philosophers who predated him by millennia. He really had nothing new to say, and was merely dispensing free advice (as a social reformer) to the society starved of guidance in those times. What is known as "Buddhist philosophy" later is something quite different. It is highly dishonest to use Gotama's name and teachings and interpret them in a perverse manner to endorse nonsensical beliefs.

The Vedic philosophy has been developed over millennia and is worthy of enormous respect (not just passive admiration but active participation and "kshema" - safeguarding). Action (sacrificial, scientific, business, agricultural, artistic, etc.) based upon its principles will surely lead to positive and life-affirming effects, secure in the knowledge that the world-order (Rta) is being preserved righteously. Such a life-affirming philosophy, based upon strong and effective Action, and supported by the bedrock of the Vedas, is capable of energizing a nation, and indeed the world.

No bombastic claims of "trying to understand the nature of everything" or becoming "spiritually realized" are made, and in fact it is shown that the sole pursuit of such an activity (e.g., by taking "sanyasa" or engaging in "meditation") is useless. The real effects of such activity are only physical, psychological "health-related" effects.

SR

[Nick H]

Continuing to read with interest. I hope you continue to post

It would be interesting to hear fro one of our physicists on your paragraph about philosophies and science (Hello, VKV?).

[srkris]

>>The Vedic philosophy has been developed over millennia...<<

Therefore, they are not found in the Veda, but were later speculations. They should then be called vedic propaganda. Your assertions are not even representative of these propaganda, thus being essentially propaganda of propaganda.

[Pratyaksham Bala]

Words have an eternal existence independent of their manifestation as speech or writing. Posting,speaking, and coining are means of manifestation of the word, not its creation. The creation of words is an impossibility. This is the Vedic theory of language, and it has had a profound influence on linguistics, philosophy, and other fields. It is not only justifiable but also rational and logically correct. It is one of our great contributions. There is little point in attacking what is well and truly established.

One of the first steps to right knowledge is to understand what has been done before.

Let me make it clear: I am not attacking; I am trying to understand!

Do only words of Sanskrit language have an eternal existence, or words of all languages of the world?

When a language 'dies', does it mean that though the words continue to exist, only their manifestation as speech and writing have ceased.

Can we say that even those words 'newly coined' to name new products, inventions, etc. had been in existence waiting to be identified and used?

The theory is interesting. Any particular reference to this theory in the Vedas?

Thanks a lot.