Contradicting Views In the Same Book

[renuka]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

I wish some members can shed some light here..at times I feel some stanzas in Vivekachudamani contradict each other.


For example there is a verse that goes:

This is the sure decision of Vedanta: Brahman is all ------ the jiva and the world.
To stay in the state constantly is what is called freedom.
And Brahman is One without a second.
The scripture is the testimony(srutyah pramAnam)

Ok this stanza above talks about the Vedas being the Testimony/Authority.


Then there are these 3 stanzas in Vivekachudamani that go:


1st stanza says:

This Atman is ever established in its own glory;that is proof by itself.
To establish it, neither time,place nor purification is necessary.



2nd stanza says:


To know that 'I am Devadatta' does not require any proof;
so,for a knower of Brahman,the knowledge that "I am Brahman" does not require proof.



The 3rd stanza says:

The Vedas,Satra-puranas and all the sacred books and all the teachers of the world have their existence through His existence.How can they manifest Him who is the Knower of all?


My points are:


1)The top most stanza says Vedas is pramAnyam.

2)The other 2 stanzas say "No proof is needed cos Atma is ever established in its own glory".

3)So the other 2 stanzas contradict the earlier stanza that Vedas is the Authority here for Brahman and the 3rd stanza says that even Vedas etc cant manifest Brahman.

4)Adi Shankara spend time debating with Buddhist and finally I feel the other 3 stanzas actually sounds very much like a Buddhistic view where one can reach the state of Buddhahood and Vedas is NOT pramAnyam that is Vedas is not a pre requisite to know the Truth.

5)So at the end of the day it seems like Adi Shankara actually "agreed' with the Buddhist.


6)I guess Lord Buddha was called Atheistic for nothing at all!(even though He would have really meant that the Vedas is not pramAnyam to know Brahman)


7)So it looks as if finally Advaita is very similar to Buddhist school of thought but just threw in some rituals to keep the economic sector going.

 

[tks]

I wish some members can shed some light here..at times I feel some stanzas in Vivekachudamani contradict each other.


For example there is a verse that goes:

This is the sure decision of Vedanta: Brahman is all ------ the jiva and the world.
To stay in the state constantly is what is called freedom.
And Brahman is One without a second.
The scripture is the testimony(srutyah pramAnam)

Ok this stanza above talks about the Vedas being the Testimony/Authority.


Then there are these 3 stanzas in Vivekachudamani that go:


1st stanza says:

This Atman is ever established in its own glory;that is proof by itself.
To establish it, neither time,place nor purification is necessary.



2nd stanza says:


To know that 'I am Devadatta' does not require any proof;
so,for a knower of Brahman,the knowledge that "I am Brahman" does not require proof.



The 3rd stanza says:

The Vedas,Satra-puranas and all the sacred books and all the teachers of the world have their existence through His existence.How can they manifest Him who is the Knower of all?


My points are:


1)The top most stanza says Vedas is pramAnyam.

2)The other 2 stanzas say "No proof is needed cos Atma is ever established in its own glory".

3)So the other 2 stanzas contradict the earlier stanza that Vedas is the Authority here for Brahman and the 3rd stanza says that even Vedas etc cant manifest Brahman.

4)Adi Shankara spend time debating with Buddhist and finally I feel the other 3 stanzas actually sounds very much like a Buddhistic view where one can reach the state of Buddhahood and Vedas is NOT pramAnyam that is Vedas is not a pre requisite to know the Truth.

5)So at the end of the day it seems like Adi Shankara actually "agreed' with the Buddhist.


6)I guess Lord Buddha was called Atheistic for nothing at all!(even though He would have really meant that the Vedas is not pramAnyam to know Brahman)


7)So it looks as if finally Advaita is very similar to Buddhist school of thought but just threw in some rituals to keep the economic sector going.

Dr Renu - Just noticed this post..

While it is not possible to learn anything by reading (inadequate) translations and that too of a work like VivekaChoodamani without proper background, let me provide a brief response to minimally address the contradictions you may be seeing.

Statements 4, 5, 6, 7 are due to incorrect conclusions and your own 'Raga Dvesha' in my view and so there is not much to say here.

Existence of Atma (which is 'I') is known by all of us without needing any proof (your point 2) but its nature cannot be known by any available means of knowledge to us except Vedas (you Point 1).

Though Vedas can point to this truth, it cannot describe it (to be understood by the mind using words) - (your Point 3)

Hope this helps

 

[vignesh2014]

Atman is ever existent,ever blissful and there is no need to gain any knowledge from outside.That's why they have said like this. Brahman alone is real and everything is transitory in nature. Therefore real thing can't be explained by unreal things.
To prove something whether it exists or not, we should have doubts about its existence.At that time veda,upanishad and logic and reasoning (Nyaya, Mimamsa knowledge (i.e., Buddhist way) are needed.That's why viveka chudamani explains in this way to say about its eternal nature.

 

[renuka]

Dr Renu - Just noticed this post..

While it is not possible to learn anything by reading (inadequate) translations and that too of a work like VivekaChoodamani without proper background, let me provide a brief response to minimally address the contradictions you may be seeing.

Statements 4, 5, 6, 7 are due to incorrect conclusions and your own 'Raga Dvesha' in my view and so there is not much to say here.

Existence of Atma (which is 'I') is known by all of us without needing any proof (your point 2) but its nature cannot be known by any available means of knowledge to us except Vedas (you Point 1).

Though Vedas can point to this truth, it cannot describe it (to be understood by the mind using words) - (your Point 3)

Hope this helps

Dear TKS ji,

I am only typing the translations here but I am reading Vivekachoodamani in Sanskrit Text.

In fact I cover any translations and only read the Sanskrit text till I am done.

So the error of anything lost in translation is very minimal here.

I have no idea what you mean as not having a proper background to study these text..so far I have spent many years since the age of 29 reading up stuff..I am not an expert but I think I can fairly analyze enough to decipher what is written.

Nope..you did not answer my query (as usual) besides your usual everyone else is incorrect but you yet fail to give correct answers everytime...so too bad..you havent answered anything as usual!LOL

 

[sravna]

Dear Renuka,

The interpretation would be that the existence of brahman does indeed not require any proof. The jivatman finally becomes the knower of brahman and one with brahman. The vedas attest to that truth and a learner can benefit from it. An authority can teach you but finally it is your effort to reach the understanding of what is said. Remember you not only learn from an authority but also from a number of sources. All your experiences are sources that teach you something.

There is no contradiction.

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,

The interpretation would be that the existence of brahman does indeed not require any proof. The jivatman finally becomes the knower of brahman and one with brahman. The vedas attest to that truth and a learner can benefit from it. An authority can teach you but finally it is your effort to reach the understanding of what is said. Remember you not only learn from an authority but also from a number of sources. All your experiences are sources that teach you something.

There is no contradiction.

Dear Sravna,

Agreed..that in the learner stage one needs the Vedas as Pramanyam but at the knower of Brahman stage no Pramanyam/Proof of any kind is needed.

So I was just wondering if this is what Lord Buddha had in mind when He said Vedas is not Pramanyam..that is not that He denied the Authority of Vedas but at a higher stage of Knowing the Ultimate Reality..no proof is needed and Lord Buddha got misunderstood as being a Nastika.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

Agreed..that in the learner stage one needs the Vedas as Pramanyam but at the knower of Brahman stage no Pramanyam/Proof of any kind is needed.

So I was just wondering if this is what Lord Buddha had in mind when He said Vedas is not Pramanyam..that is not that He denied the Authority of Vedas but at a higher stage of Knowing the Ultimate Reality..no proof is needed and Lord Buddha got misunderstood as being a Nastika.

May be that is what he had in mind

 

[renuka]

May be that is what he had in mind

becos it makes no sense for a realized soul to deny anything for no apparent reason...so its just that He could have been quoted out of context.

In fact He was silent about the concept of God..silence does not mean denial yet He is misunderstood as promoting a Godless concept.

In fact His philosophy is very much like Vedanta..its all about the Ultimate Reality.

 

[sravna]

becos it makes no sense for a realized soul to deny anything for no apparent reason...so its just that He could have been quoted out of context.

In fact He was silent about the concept of God..silence does not mean denial yet He is misunderstood as promoting a Godless concept.

In fact His philosophy is very much like Vedanta..its all about the Ultimate Reality.

Yes Renuka, he was probably misunderstood. In fact I find even Ramanuja and Sankara saying the same thing at one level.