Nature of Consciousness
Vaidya_Sundaram at I2.COM
Sat Jul 24 20:30:35 CDT 1999
> Vaidya Sundaram <Vaidya_Sundaram at I2.COM> wrote:
>> Now, however, as much as I hate to say this, the discussion has begun to
>> from the subject. Fundamentally, I am not in any way qualified to make
>> judgements on the correctness of your interpretation of your experiences
>> and the reasons you attribute to them. At the same time, without having a
>> full knowledge of the Vedas, it is impossible for any one else make a
>> statement that the Vedas cannot be the sum of knowledge. I quote below
>> from the Introduction of the vivekachUdAmani:
> All the questions which Robert has raised are quite valid and Bhagavan
> Kumarila Bhatta raises almost all of them as pUrvapaxa in his works.
< --- >
> the veda-s being the sum of knowledge merely referred to the fact
> that *AtmavidyA* is to be had from the veda-s alone. This is because
> AtmavidyA is the best of all knowledge.
Let me see if I can clarify a bit ... I understand the validity of the
questions, and really learn by these questions. i have also read some
refutations of these arguments. However, my point was certainly not at the
questions raised by Robert. This thread he initiated and members like you took
up is certainly illuminating. My post was only to address the possibility that
the primary role of sruti is questioned.
As you have said **Atmavidya IS knowledge and is to be had from the vedaas
alone** This is because Atmavidya is not mediate knowledge. It is so immediate
that it cannot be understood by trying to rationalize or make meaning of mediate
experiences like the sense perceptions of the world or the many concoctions of
the "nervous system". Hence, it was only in this respect that I quoted and said,
Vedanta pertains to the supersensuous and sruti points you to It in statements
like "Thou art That" etc ... hence, trying to learn about consciousness with
*only* the sense perceptions is insufficient.
To elaborate, the reason that the Self cannot be reached through sense
perception is fundamentally because it is the Self that makes the sense organ
tick. However, such a rationale is not against trying to read about IT or learn
about IT through these very senses I discredited from being useful at all. Only
when the meaning of THOU and THAT are grasped through sense perception *and*
subsequent mediation on those, can one become fit for the real IT. The meaning
of the THOU and THAT are given by Sruti.
There is an interesting argument between Narada and Vishnu when Vishnu says
"Narada - why are you looking for me?" (N) "to enjoy your beauty !" (V) - "the
joy in the beauty is false. the sight (or any other such perception) (made
possible by a modification of Me) is perceiving (a modification of Me). *I* am
not to seen" So also here, if you can see it (what ever the it may be), you
cannot see IT! (no points for guessing what IT is!)
In spite of my clarification above, I must admit that, to say - Vedas are
correct only when you talk about AtmavidyA and perhaps not otherwise - does not
go well with me. It is probably because of my belief in the infallibility and
omniscience of Sruit. While it is true that I do not try to learn supply chain
planning from any vedic shakA, I would certainly buy (and read) any book if the
author claims that supply chain planning is elaborated in a shakA :)!! my faith
Sir, is blind!
bhava shankara desikame sharanam.Vaidya.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list