Posted on: 28 Aug 2016
MESSAGE-2: Expression of Individual Opinion Must To Start Debate
I (Karthik) posted another message (Message-2) from Swami, which deals with the importance of logical analysis in arriving at the conclusion of a specific interpretation of a statement from the scripture. User 2 submitted his criticism on the message of Swami and also on the replies given by me. Swami gives replies to the criticism of User 2 on:
A) Swami’s own message and
B) On my replies to his criticism separately.
A) Swami’s reply to criticism from User 2 and User 3 (Shabri): I once again request you to stress on the points and not to use words like ‘ridiculous’, ‘horrible advice’, etc. because such words neither convey any point nor support your points expressed. Both of you told that we should change our wrong conclusions, if such conclusions contradict the scripture (User 2). You also told that we are forming some predetermined conclusions in our mind and then search the places of the scripture to support our points. Shankara also presents the concept first and then quotes from scripture. Do you mean that Shankara also developed predetermined concept in His brain and picked up the quotations from scripture to support His concept? Your point is totally irrelevant because whether the concept is predetermined or determined after studying scripture, it is immaterial for you to criticize the point of concept. You have to fight in the war with your sword, which was sharpened either yesterday or today. In what way this point stands in the way to fight with the opponent with your sword? This is only sidetracking the main issue so that you appear as if you are objecting the opponent on real grounds even though such grounds are false only.
1) To User 2: You tell that we should change our logically derived conclusions, which contradict the scripture. Wonderful suggestion! Yes. I formed a conclusion in My mind after some logical analysis. Now you say that My conclusion contradicts the scripture. My dear friend! My conclusion is not contradicting with the scripture. My conclusion is contradicting with an interpretation given by somebody before Me (obviously, a human being like me). Now, if you say that such interpretation given by a human being like me before me is the real single interpretation of the scripture, hats off to you! Since you and that human being whom you are supporting are declared as Monarchs of the interpretation of the scripture. The same statement is interpreted by several in several ways (Ekam sat vipraah… Veda). In such case, which interpretation is the real sense of the scripture? Several human beings gave several interpretations for the same statement. I am unable to understand which interpretation you have selected as real so that I can change My conclusion according to such specific interpretation selected by you, My Lord! Certainly I will neglect other interpretations and follow that single interpretation selected by you alone, your honour! Respected sir! The solution for this is only to conduct a debate between all such interpretations and select the single interpretation that is proved correct as the real sense of the scripture. As said above, the Veda says that there are several interpretations for the same statement and the same Veda also says that the statement of the Veda should be decided through logical analysis called as Vijnaanamaya kosha, which means intelligence (Vedaanta vijnaana sunishchitaarthaah). Even Lord said in the Gita that Arjuna should not accept whatever He said blindly and should analyze it thoroughly before conclusion and its practice (Vimrushyaitadesheshena). After arriving at the right conclusion of the scripture through such sharp and intensive debate, we can see whether our predetermined conclusion is coinciding with it or not. You said that My conclusion is not gospel. Very good point! The conclusions given by earlier human beings should not be also gospel since they were also human beings like Me. If you say that a human being in the earlier time is correct, it is not accepted because several theories of human beings of elder generations were proved to be wrong. Example, Aryabhatta (old generation) in his sphota theory said that sun moves around earth. Brahmagupta (latter generation) says in his book on astronomy that earth moves around the sun along with its atmosphere while moving around itself. This means that all old is not gold and all the latest is not the best. Logical analysis proves which is correct and which is wrong. Aryabhatta said that if earth moves around itself, the bird leaving the tree upwards cannot reach the same tree while coming down in the same path. Brahmagupta says that this point is not correct since the atmosphere also moves along with the earth. It is concluded that both old and new should be analyzed and whichever correct should be accepted (Puraanamityeva…). Shankara also told that since Kapila is old and should be right, why not the old Kanaada, atheist, also must be right (Kapiloyadi…). In the analysis, I may be right and all the elder human beings may be wrong because today the logical concepts have perfect scientific logic. For example, in the ancient logic, sound is said to be the property of space, which is wrong since today science proves that sound cannot travel in vacuum due to absence of medium. The space on earth is not vacuum since it filled with air, which acts as medium for propagation of sound. We do not say that all ancient logic is wrong. The ancient logic said correctly that volume (parimaana) is the property of vacuum. Hence, we should not be foolish to blindly accept whatever elders said must be the truth. In course of time, there is terrible improvement of science and logic based on it. Another horrible example is to think that awareness is God. Science proves that awareness in a human being is only a specific work form of inert energy functioning in a specific system called nervous system. The awareness of God in absence of inert energy and matter (nervous system) is totally different since it is the result of the unimaginable power of omnipotent God. While understanding the Brahma Sutra (Iikshateh…), we should take the awareness of God as not the awareness of individual soul, which is the product of conversion of inert energy in nervous system and conclude wrongly that every soul (awareness) is God. In the light of the present science, this correct conclusion is achieved. Hence, one should not be biased with old and new and only the perfect analysis alone gives right conclusion, which alone is the absolute truth. Without logic (tarka), there is no philosophy (Vedaanta) and this is accepted even in the old tradition. You cannot refuse logic since it is endless because such conclusion is also drawn through logic only (Tarkaapratishtaanaat… Brahma Sutra). This is the open mind mentioned by you, which should not have any prejudice and bias to meaningless things like old, new, etc.
2) To User 3 (Shabri): You said that we formed some wrong conclusions already and pick-up the scripture here and there in support of such wrong conclusions arrived through imperfect and limited analysis of our petty brains. Your comment applies to all the ancient human beings since those human beings also might have done the same. Did you observe all the ancient human beings so that they first studied the scripture and then only formed the conclusions? Shankara gives the concept first and then only quotes the Veda or the Gita as the authority. Shankara also comes into our group only as per your blind comment. Your comment is totally absurd because the entire scripture does not deal with a single point only so that you can comment that I have not quoted the entire scripture for this single point! The scripture contains several points and the relevant portion of the scripture pertaining to a single point can be only quoted in the context of that specific point only. According to you, from tomorrow onwards, every advocate arguing on a specific case should quote the entire constitution from first page to last page! Every doctor also should use all the available medicines to cure a specific disease!
The logic of any human being (including Myself and yourself) can be wrong or even right (equal probability), which can be decided only through debate using sharp analysis to find out the truth so that both of us can be benefited by that final truth, which may be discovered by anyone of us. If I or you lose or establish the argument, it is not our personal defeat or success because no point is registered as the property of any human being. We both enter the debate only to find out the ultimate truth by which both of us will be benefited.
Had you stuck to the point only, I could not have used these extra remarks! You will reap in plenty whatever little you sow! Hence, at least hereafter, present only the points and give the supporting logic and scriptures to any extent. In such case, My reply will be also very polite in the same manner!
There is Tradition in Hinduism To Stress On Any Point As Absolute
B) Swami’s replies to User 2’s criticism to my replies
1) But the fact is, these texts can be modified by anyone who knows Sanskrit. Moreover, concepts in the scriptures are presented with the help of similes and metaphors. These similes, when taken literally, lead to erroneous conclusions. In fact, many of the rituals done today are baseless misinterpretations of the scripture. - (Karthik)
Many texts aren't modified. The fact is this is an academic question and not one that individuals can resolve based on their personal logic. It's wrong to take similes literally but I wasn't arguing for that. It's equally wrong to assume something to be non-literal when it might be. The point is openness and understanding of what the author intended, not trying to make the text fit what one already assumes to be true. What rituals are you talking about? How are they based on misinterpretation?!!?! - (User 2)
Swami: Text is not modified. You are correct. Only the interpretation of the text is modified, if it is proved wrong in the sharp analysis. The point of openness is always appreciable. Fitting the text in your interpretation need not be found false if the interpretation is logically proved correct. You cannot avoid this remark to the old generations also. All these are vague comments since they are not based on a concrete point. Anybody can speak anything in general, which is like standing in air. Some rituals were misinterpreted (like Gayatri, Homa, ego due to caste and gender, etc.) and for details, our website (www.universal-spirituality.org) may be referred.
2) In order to avoid making such erroneous conclusions, it’s very important to analyze each topic with a clear head, devoid of any previous scriptural conclusions. - (Karthik)
Why does a clear head necessitate ignoring previous scriptural conclusions? Why not all conclusions? Should we all start with zero conclusions? - (User 2)
Swami: You have misunderstood the comment given by Karthik. It is because of your fast approach without patience to understand what others say. We never said that all the old conclusions should be refused and start with zero conclusions. We only say that we should examine all the old conclusions once again through sharp analysis based on logic that is present in this state of advanced science. Science is nothing but logic of various phenomena and materials present in this creation and the ancient logic is also exactly the same. If the old concept is correct, it will pass through the checking machine proving itself as a genuine note of currency. Why do you fear for the test of analysis, if the concept is true? No conclusion should contradict experience (Anubhava), which is the last of the authorities. Of course, such experience should also pass through the test of analysis because sometimes experience may be also erroneous like seeing two moons on the sky due to defect in eye. Hence, analysis of the concept to decide whether it is true or false should be a must as said by Shankara (Sadasatvivekah). Dry logic without proof from experience is also not correct as said by Shankara (Dustarkah suviramyataam). Logic, experience and scripture (even a secondary scripture supported by the primary scripture is acceptable) should go hand in hand to arrive at the truth. You must know that every human being on this earth in any generation has a fundamental right to analyze and then only accept any interpretation of the scripture.
3) Once you reach a certain conclusion after intense analysis, only then should you see if your conclusion matches the statements given in the scriptures. - (Karthik)
Intense analysis of what??!?! Also is inference the only means we have to determine truth according to you? How does that work? Why not take one's understanding and the text of the scripture and apply analysis after reading it?
Edit: I see later on you claim perception to be a valid means too. Is there any particular philosopher's ideas of epistemology you subscribe to? - (User 2)
Swami: Again you have misunderstood due to your hasty approach. Intense analysis means not personal analysis done by an individual brain. It only means a strong debate involving all the human beings (whoever is interested in it) in this world and then only conclusions are drawn. But, for this epistemology, one should express his own opinion drawn from the analysis done in his brain. Then only, people will participate in the discussion and the final conclusion is evolved. But, remember that the discussion should be on a concrete point and not on the general epistemology! Shankara wrote commentaries and then roamed the country expressing His views and participated in discussions with several scholars. Unless the view of Shankara is expressed, how can there be a debate on it? You are mistaking that the expression of one’s view itself is taken as the final conclusion of the debate and start criticizing it! It is like calling a human being as dog first and then beating him later on. Whomever you want to beat, you are calling him as dog!
4) As many of these statements are given metaphorically, it’s important to derive a meaning that suits your level of understanding. - (Karthik)
How does one avoid the risk of people being biased, consciously or unconsciously? Gandhi took the Gita and suggested it was about non-violence!!!! - (User 2)
Swami: The final decision of the conclusion is based on the end of debate on any topic. The point of non-violence is stressed in the Gita. All the ethical scriptures say that non-violence is the highest justice (ahimsa paramodharmah). Hence, the main concept of the Gita should be also non-violence. If it is not so, do you mean to say that the Gita opposes all the ethical scriptures in giving the main point? Non-violence means avoiding violence against good and innocent living beings (paritraanaaya…). It does not mean keeping silent against evil living beings (vinaashaayacha…). Even other religions express the hell with liquid fire for punishments of sinners. Gandhiji chose the path of non-violence against British rulers since we cannot fight with them through weapons. He tried to kindle kindness and spiritual thoughts in their minds so that freedom can be obtained without violence from our side, which, of course, is inevitable since we are not equipped with modern weapons. In such circumstances, that way alone is leftover, which is praying God to help the justice through the inevitable non-violence. Of course, Subhash Chandraji tried through method of violence. But, Gandhiji’s method is to be tried first (saama upaaya), which has another benefit that loss of life from our side is totally avoided. The Prophet Mohammed went to the path of violence to control the violent inter-religious fights, which could not be pacified by His preaching of single God called Allah. Jesus also tried through the non-violence to change the hearts of people. But, He also supported the liquid fire of hell in the case of irreparable sinners. Krishna also took the war (Danda upaaya) as the final step only. Buddha preached the preliminary path of non-violence like Jesus. The methods change from context to context. There is also a tradition in Hinduism to stress on any point praising it as total absolute. If you take the name of Ganga river, all your sins are destroyed (Gange gangeti...)! This is only stress on the required point called as artha vaada.
5) A topic has many levels of depth to it. That’s why each topic should be understood based only upon the seeker’s level of spiritual progress. - (Karthik)
What does spiritual progress have to do with capacity for using logic? Also, are you assuming each text has manifold meanings? Evidence for this? - (User 2)
Swami: Logic is to be used to arrive at correct conclusion in issues of world or spirituality. You are logically discussing the merits and defects of all the schools present in the city before admitting your son or grandson into school. The entire scripture need not have different meanings in every statement. Only important concepts were interpreted in different ways. Example: Shankara told that this entire world is God in the sense that God is absolute truth and world is relative reality. This is the angle of God to say that anything other than God is unreal (means relatively real). Ramanuja said that all this world is under the control of God and this is the angle of soul for which world is equally real. The same statement that all this is God (sarvam khalvidam…) is interpreted in different ways and correlation is to be done taking different angles. If you take only one angle for both interpretations, they contradict each other.
6) For example, a school student will find the finer aspects of quantum physics as unintelligible jargon. The same knowledge for a Ph.D scholar, on the other hand, is relevant and very insightful. - (Karthik)
Can you give a scriptural example instead? It will be easier to understand. - (User 2)
Swami: The deservingness of a devotee (adhikari) for knowledge (jnana yoga) and for action (karma yoga) is the best example given in the Gita and Shankara treated Arjuna to deserve the preaching of action in the context of the war. Hence, context of the receiver and context of time are important.
7) Moreover, a single point in the scripture can often be interpreted in many ways. And most of these interpretations will fall apart under sharp analysis. It’s important to stick to your own unbiased conclusion made under intense scrutiny rather than falling back to scriptural authority, which may or may not be true for all you know. - (Karthik)
If most of these analyses will fall apart, why should each person stick to their own 'unbiased conclusion'? If they were unbiased this problem wouldn't arise! In fact the bias comes from people sticking to their own conclusions. The problem with the approach you're suggesting is people will inevitably take one part of a text that they think they understand perfectly and then subconsciously try to make everything else in the text fit with that. It's important not to rush to conclusions and to read the scripture, try to appreciate what it is saying (even if we agree or disagree) and then try to understand and rationalise. - (User 2)
Swami: ‘Your conclusions of intense analysis’ does not mean the conclusions drawn by the single human brain. It only means the conclusions drawn by sharp analysis done through several debates with several scholars. The intention of Karthik is this sense, which is misunderstood by you as individual conclusion. Hence, your criticism stands correct if the meaning of the word ‘your conclusion’ is taken as the conclusion of an individual human being. Of course, expression of individual opinion also is a must to start the debate.
8) The main point here is that you should never suppress your logical faculty. - (Karthik)
I agree with that but I don't think the approach you suggest is making the best use of the logical faculty. - (User 2)
Swami: Your criticism is continuing on the fundamental misunderstanding that the logical conclusion means an individual conclusion. However, here, the point expressed by Karthik is very clear that the faculty of logic should not be suppressed by the blind misinterpretations given by some older generations. Every note of currency must pass through the testing machine of sharp analysis involved in debates (not individual brain) and such concluded decision is the correct interpretation of the scripture as said by Shankara (shrutimatah tarkonusandhiiyataam).
9) Of course, there’s always a possibility of you making a mistake in your analysis. If you feel unsure of your analysis even after making hectic efforts, you should discuss the given topic with scholars of a greater calibre than you and only then should you come to a conclusion. - (Karthik)
Nice save! Why not see what scholars say in the first place? - (User 2)
Swami: Analysis of any topic will not rise in any human brain by itself without observing the tradition and the root interpretation of such tradition given by the elder human beings. Hence, your suggestion is a must. When you feel some traditional practice as wrong, you will enquire the scriptural authority of such tradition and analyze the interpretations given by the older human beings. Then, you will express your interpretation with your logic to correct it, if you feel it as wrong. Then, debate shall take place without any prejudice of personal success and personal defeat. Once all this process is over, you must stick to such conclusion till it is really contradicted by somebody in the future. You should not take the interpretation of older human beings as correct and suppress the well-concluded concepts through sharp analysis of debates. Even God in human form (Krishna) said that His gospel should be analyzed by Arjuna before accepting and practicing it. Please remove your misunderstanding of the concept because what you said is exactly the opinion of Karthik also.
10) Lastly, the conclusion that you’ve made should match your experience in this world, which is the final authority. - (Karthik)
Why is it the final authority? If that were the final authority I daresay most of us wouldn't believe in God. Deferring to divine/realised people doesn't help here since that will just come down to individual biases and preferences. - (User 2)
Swami: Logic against experience cannot be valid. At the same time, experience without logical analysis cannot be also valid. Both go hand in hand like lame and blind. Both are equally important. What Karthik said pertains to the first part of the concept, which is that logic contradicting the experience (established by logic) cannot be the authority. By this, he means that blind acceptance of interpretations of older people should not be done without sharp analysis. Therefore, the final conclusion is that the experience of scholars should be taken as standard because such experience satisfies the authority of experience and at the same time satisfies the logical analysis also since the experiencing people are scholars. There is only one moon on the sky. A defective person in eyes finds two moons. Many scholars find two moons. Hence, I shall not be misled by the single experience of the eye patient. At the same time, there may be several eye patients telling that there are two moons in the sky. Hence, I cannot go on the concept of minority or majority. Sometimes, majority may also be wrong (like the association of eye patients). Sometimes, minority may be correct (like a single person without defect in eye). Hence, logical analysis and experience should be valid together to derive at right conclusion.
11) If your conclusion doesn’t support your experience or the experience of divine, realized scholars, then it’s definitely wrong, even if it’s backed by statements of the scripture (which become erroneous in this case). - (Karthik)
What? This is a big claim to make based on just personal preference! I agree scripture shouldn't contradict real world truths but most of us have no access to the things scripture describes! You can't just throw it out without trying to appreciate what it's claiming! - (User 2)
Swami: Experience is based on perception as well as inference. But inference is also based on the perception at its basic level. Fire gives smoke. This is observed in kitchen. Based on this experience of perception, you are concluding that there is fire on the hill (even though fire is not seen) from the seen smoke. Hence, the experience based on perception stands as the fundamental basis of any authority.
Scripture says that God exists. You may ask about the fundamental perceptional experience of this concept. God is unimaginable being beyond space (being the creator of space). Now, you cannot ask for the perceptional experience for the existence of unimaginable nature at all. The existence of unimaginable nature is proved by the existence of unimaginable events called as miracles performed by God in human form. Hence, we have to agree that the source of unimaginable events, unimaginable by nature, must exist based on the inference. Hence, God becomes perceptional as said in the Veda (pratyagaatmaana maikshat, aparokshaat Brahma). The Veda never insists you to believe anything including God avoiding the logical analysis for which the fundamental perceptional authority exists as the base. This is the meaning of Lord Krishna saying that Arjuna should believe anything after logical analysis only based on authorities like perception and inference (based on perception).