viprataa (was Re: Sadhana)

[Charles Wikner]

On Tue, 12 May 1998, sadananda <sada at ANVIL.NRL.NAVY.MIL> wrote:

> While I endorse your views on Advaita from my own scientific background, I
> am sure you are aware that parallel systems of philosophy were also
> developed in India by great acharyaas using the same Prastanatrayam as the
> reference.

Yes, but it is advaita that resonates (/vip :-) with this vya.s.ti,
whereas dvaita the others inbetween seem flat.

> Frankly I learned more about Advaita by reading the criticism
> of Advaita.  The greatest tradition that our fore-fathers have established,
> while I take pride that I am born in that tradition, is the methodology of
> vedantic discussions that they established.  Before any one ventures to
> propose another explanation, Bhaashya or commentary on the scriptures,  he
> has to present the purva paksha, the prevailing interpretations, stating
> where the problems are in those interpretations (using both shastra and
> anumaana as pramaaNa-s) and then propose a new siddhanta that can address
> the short comings of the previous explanations.  I am amazed at the depth
> of analysis and their scholarship and some times even mind-boggling
> hair-splitting logic. When we read these, we cannot but bow down with
> humility.

Yes, indeed.  I have always read Shankara's commentaries as exposition
of advaita rather than discrediting other views (although that no doubt
played its part historically in re-establishing the tradition).

> But again, study of these help pacify ones questioning mind, but it is not
> necessary nor sufficient for moksha.

The W's always get me into trouble -- Who?  Which?  What?  Where?  When?
Whence?  Whither?  And the all-time favourite: Why?  :-)

> Hence an unqualified respect to Veda Vyasa Bhagavaan whose vision was far
> beyond which helped preserve the system.

I take that as an epithet for Shankara, in which case I must agree.

> >the wisdom of a family-based caste system is obvious.
>
> True.  But system that is well intended or justifiable, is also prone to
> abuses if there are no checks and balances,

I was referring to the ancient causes of the system.  Checks and balances
only become necessary when the underlying wisdom no longer governs.

> But in Vajrasuchi Upanishad the caste system was discussed extensively.
> Clearly the caste classification is scientific and is based on the guna the
> mental qualities rather than janma.

I don't have that one: sounds like it will settle my concerns about the
caste system -- but your posts have already done that quite effectively.

> It is intended for ones own growth and not for judging others.

Ouch!  That's worth remembering!

> Anand's sloka from Munu justifies that.

Yes, that was an eye-opener for me.

> Krishna's declaration in B.G. - chatur varnyaam mayaa sR^ishhTam is often
> used by the orthodox, ignoring the next paada, to justify the prevailing
> caste system.

Thanks for the pointer (4:13).  It was useful to re-read that with
Shankara's commentary pointing to the caste karma (18:42-44).
I confess that the quality that I associate with the vociferously
orthodox is arrogance (darpo vidyaadhanasvajanaadi nimitta utseka.h
is Shankara's commentary to 16:4) -- but that just illustrates that
this mind is unduly influenced by such agitation, and all too easily
misses the underlying gentleness in measured responses such as yours.

> Krishna being a Universal Personality, the teaching has to be universally
> applicable. Hence should be interpreted and understood correctly.

It is indeed a privelege to be on this list and to have my limited
interpretations refined and misunderstandings corrected.  This is
especially so for one working on his own, as I am.

I have thoroughly enjoyed your posts, both in tone and content, which
have illuminated an area that has been dark and troublous for me.
Thank you very much.

Kind regards, Charles.