The Mimaasaka perspective

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

On Sun, 28 Sep 1997 un824 at freenet.victoria.bc.ca wrote:

[..]

> If the vedas are maintained to be "the only source by which Atman = Brahman
> is known" (and Eckhardt's realization is "acceptable" in that it does not
> contradict the vedas) then in what way were the vedas the source of
> Eckhardt's realization?

You've pointed to a quite acute problem. In any philosophical system, one
needs to identify valid sources of knowledge, and one needs to have
theories of error. Without these, one will never know how to differentiate
between right and wrong. As far as traditional advaita vedAnta is
concerned, the uniqueness of the vedas stands. Those of us who have never
directly intuited the mystical Oneness can still refer to the scripture,
in order to make logical arguments. This is the only context in which the
vedas are said to be the only source which informs us of the Atman =
brahman equation. Do remember that for advaita, the vedas, along with
perception and the rest, belong in the realm of vyavahAra, i.e.
conventional reality. However, standard advaita thought will not replace
veda with direct mystical awareness, as an authoritative source of
knowledge. There is simply no guarantee of the integrity of the tradition,
if this is done. This is the reason why none of the advaita authors, from
gauDapAda and Sankara to the present day, will refer to their own
experience as a philosophical authority.

To answer your question, one instructive example would be Ramana
Maharishi. Although he was born a brAhmaNa, and had access to vedic
learning, he lived at a time when English/secular education was becoming
more important. To the best of my knowledge, he did not specifically learn
the upanishads and their teachings before he left home. Still, he did have
the mystical awareness, which never left him after the first experience.
And the then heads of advaita monasteries, the upholders of the tradition,
recognized him as a realized being. I don't know how they would view
Meister Eckhardt, but one standard way of viewing it would be to assume
that all the necessary vedic learning had been done in a previous life.

Moreover, within the advaita tradition, while upholding the veda as a
pramANa, there is also a side which values the direct mystical experience
more than standard scriptural learning. A simple resolution to the
questions you raise would be to view vedic scripture and the direct
awareness as complementing each other, and not as one being opposed to the
other.

Vidyasankar