On Vedantam

[tks]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

namaste Nara and others.

vedApauruSheyava

shrI Narayan said in his post #79 that the Vedantin's view of the concept of aparuSheyatvam has not been explained, even briefly, in the discussions in this thread.

In his essay vedApauruSheyava, Prof.D.Prahladachar, throws some new light on the concept. This article can be downloaded at: http://www.dvaita.net/pdf/papers/veda.pdf

Here is a brief paraphrase from the article:

• The theory of apauruSheyatvam of the Vedas is accepted by the mImAMsakAs, vedAntin and the followers of Shankara or Yoga.

• The theory is essentially based on the concept that shabda is of two kinds: dhvani--sound/utterance, and varNa--phoneme;

• Of the two, a shabda that is in the form of dhvani has both origination and destruction.

• However, varNa--phoneme, as the other form of shabda is eternal, and has no origin or destruction. Further, it is all-pervasive in space.

• Although the varNas are eternal and all-pervasive in space, they can be heard only when they are manifested by dhvani.

• Each varNa has a different dhavani that manifests it. When a speaker uses his faculties to produce the particular dhvani, then the corresponding varNa manifests and is grasped by a listener.

• A word or sentence is a group of varNas arranged in a specific order. For example, only when the varNa related to jakAra, akAra, lakAra, akAra and makAra are arranged in a specific order and manifest with dhvani, then the listener can grasp the word jalam.

• Now, the problem the varNa-nityatva-vAdin (vnv) faces is that he cannot arrange the varNas in an arbitrary manner. For, ordering may be of two kinds, spatial and temporal. But then varNas are all-pervasive in space and eternal in time, and so cannot have any kind of order, either in space or time.

• The problem of explaining the order and arrangement of phonemes in speech and writing is not just specific to Vedic sentences, but also occurs in the liguistic usage of everyday life.

• With reference to the sentences in our daily usage, the vnv has an answer: He readily grants that varNas being eternal and all-pervasive, cannot have any sequence. However, the cognition of a listener depends on the manifestation of the varNas with dhvani with an order associated with it.

• This order, as is evident upon reflection, belongs to the cognition and not to the varNas themselves. Thus the words in common usage are pauruSheya--products of some person, for the order of cognition depends on the will and utterance--dhvani of the speaker. The phonemes--varNa that are thus indirectly qualified with such an order are themselves treated as pauruSheya.

• For this reason, the explanation of order with our daily usuage of phonemes, is unsatisfactory in respect of Vedic sentences. If they are (made to be) dependent on the will of a speaker who utters them, then it would be pauruSheya and the concept of apauruSheya will collapse.

• The answer the apauruSheyatva-vAdin (av) has here is that he accepts the notiton of varNas being all-pervasive and eternal, do not have an order of their own.

• The av asserts that the sequence of phonemes in a laukika--worldly, sentence, did not exist prior to its creation by an author by his will.

• But in the case of a Vedic sentence such as agnimIle prohitam, it is not so.

‣ The Vedic seer who realized this sentence with the phonemes in such a sequence, did not will that such should be the sequence.

‣ In other words, he did not have any freedom to create the order of the phonemes or words, unlike, say, the poet KALidAsa.

‣ While realizing the hymn, he just followed the sequence that had existed in previous Creations also. Even in the previous Creation, the seer who had then realized the hymn with the phonemes in the same order, did not then create it-—he too just realized it without making any change in the order of the phonemes. But when he recited the hymn, since the phonemes became manifested by his eforts, to that extent it is his product and is pauruSheya only.

‣ At the same time it is apauruSheya also, in the sense that nobody ever, in the infinite, beginningless sequence of Creations until now, has had the freedom to create the sequence, other than what previously existed.

‣ Even the Brahman whose 'breathing' is described as the Vedas-—nishvasitam etad-—does not change the sequence of the Vedic phonemes. He just follows the sequence of phonemes as they were in the previous Creation, and teaches the same in the next Creation also. This, i.e., the unchanging sequencing of the phonemes of the Vedic sentences is, according to the av, the apauruSheya of the Vedas.

**********

Given this background information, we can have new and better understanding into:

• why the order of shabdas in a veda-vAkya cannot be changed, although the very strength of SaMskRtam lies in the facility that the meaning of a sentence remains unchanged, whatever the order of its words;

• why the different pada-pAThas--recitation methods, were designed for preserving the order of phonemes in the Vedas and how the oral tradition has been successful in doing it over thousands of years;

• the association of our breathing and prANa with words spoken, heard and thought of. KAnchi ParamAchArya explains it thus:



• how the unmanifest veda varNas is like Brahman's 'breathing'

• how the association of dhvani and varNas in Hindu music gives its soothing and healing effects.

There could be many more such facets to our better understanding...

*****

Sri Saidevo -

The link did not work for me to browse the work of Prof.D.Prahladachar.

In any case I tend to focus away from such work since these are pure claims after introduction of Sanskrit terms for a reader.
Asserting that "The Vedic seer who realized this sentence with the phonemes in such a sequence, did not will that such should be the sequence." is no different than someone saying "this holy book telling us what to do is the work of God". There is no compelling reason to accept any such statements. This reduces the truth of Mahavakyas at the same level as any other claims made by any theology built on logical contradictions.

There are ways to show in a compelling manner why the topic area of Vedas cannot be arrived at by the human mind with five means of knowledge .If one is then able to realize the truth of those Vedic statements it is possible to assert that such truth cannot have authorship.

Also there is an unfounded belief that 'Brahman is an experience' which reduces this to an experiential object in a person's mind. I quickly browsed the work of Ramana Maharishi. There are other Bhaktas that may claim experience and attribute (incorrectly) to a 'Brahman experience' whatever that means. No great Vedantins of our times claim that Brahman is an experience. Such statements tend to make the whole topic suited for mystics.

Knowledge and realization of any knowledge is not an experience.

Regard

 

[saidevo]

namaste shrI TKS.

Although I agree with your intention behind your post #126, I have different thinking on some key points you have made.

Firstly, since it is a pdf document, you might need to download it and browse, from the parent directory: http://www.dvaita.net/pdf/papers/

Asserting that "The Vedic seer who realized this sentence with the phonemes in such a sequence, did not will that such should be the sequence." is no different than someone saying "this holy book telling us what to do is the work of God". There is no compelling reason to accept any such statements. This reduces the truth of Mahavakyas at the same level as any other claims made by any theology built on logical contradictions.

I don't think on these lines for the following reasons:

• A compelling reason to accept the natural/divine sequence of the varNas--phonemes, in the Vedas, is the oral tradition that has survived over millenniums to this day, through different pada-pAThas--recitation methods, to preserve that sequence.

‣ While the very strength of SaMskRtam lies in the facility that the meaning of a sentence remains unchanged, whatever the order of its words, why was it decided and enforced that the sequence in the Vedas need to be preserved scientifically? It cannot be a blind belief in the aparuSheyatvam of the veda-varNas, IMO.

‣ If anyone thinks that it was blind faith that drove the oral preservation of the Vedas instead of written publications, the fact that this oral tradition was scientifically evolved and has immaculately succeeded over thousands of years is enough proof against such a faith.

• That leads to the question 'why were the Veda mantras need to be preserved in sequence?'

‣ That we do not know the answer or are skeptical about this 'why', cannot be a reason to dismiss it as blind faith.

‣ Scores of enlightened sages who succeeded the Vedic RShis, were of different propensities and arrived at different conclusions about Brahman as the absolute reality, but none of them questioned the aparuSheyatvam of the Vedic sequences. Are we prepared to say that they too took it all on blind faith?

‣ The answer for the 'why' probably lies in the hinted assertion (about which many of us are skeptical again) that the Vedas are the laws of dharma, which like the laws of Nature, pre-existed their discovery and were only discovered--not coded--by man.

KAnchi ParamAchArya says, "the Vedas constitute Ishvara's laws" implemented by his officials like Indra, VAyu, VaruNa, Agni, Yama and so on. "The rules according to which the Vedas are to be interpreted are contained in the mImAMsA shastras. If the Vedas are the law, mImAMsA is the law of interpretation."

‣ Since the Vedic sequences have been interpreted, explicated and illustrated with stories into the contents of the mImAMsA, ShaD-dharshana, dharma sUtras, and itihAsa-purANas, it makes sense to preserve the form of the original sequences.

*****

• To take the statement, 'the seer did not (have the freedom to) will the sequence' of the text in the Vedic mantras, it seems to me that the varNas--phonemes, in their unmanifest stage, might exist as primordially potent units of shabda all through space and time.

‣ These phonemes are independent of languages; the way they are manifested by articulation for definite meaning, differs across the language-habits of the people who first discovered and scripted them. In other words, although words might be found to be cognates across languages, the varNas of the original world languages (SaMskRtam, Greek, Latin and so on), it seems to me, were discovered intuitively by their first articulators and coded by the grammarians.

‣ Is it possible that a set of phonemes might exist in a defined, unalterable sequence in AkAsha--space? I think it is possible.

‣ For example, the three phonemes A,U,M whose combination as the praNava mantra is has been discovered in the same sequence among Indian religions, and have its counterparts in the western religions:

‣ in Bible, it is called the 'word'; their 'amen' is also probably related to AUM.

‣ and in Islam, their sacred number 786 was probably obtained by a mirror image of the three phonmes in Sanskrit letters:
http://commonworldinheritage.blogspot.com/2011/01/aum-786-cross-star-of-david-wake-up.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_TVfPM_hoM

• A skeptic might ask, "What about a line of text such as 'Mary had a little lamb'? The sequence of words and letters/syllables in this line too should be preserved in their original order, or else the meaning is distorted? This line too should be aparuSheya technically? In what way is it different from a line of Vedic text?"

I shall wait for what other members have to say, in support and opposition of this, before posting (my opinion of) what could be an answer to this issue.

*****

There are ways to show in a compelling manner why the topic area of Vedas cannot be arrived at by the human mind with five means of knowledge .If one is then able to realize the truth of those Vedic statements it is possible to assert that such truth cannot have authorship.

Please give us an idea about these ways, specially as it relates to preservation of the sequence of shabda in the Vedas.

Also there is an unfounded belief that 'Brahman is an experience' which reduces this to an experiential object in a person's mind. I quickly browsed the work of Ramana Maharishi. There are other Bhaktas that may claim experience and attribute (incorrectly) to a 'Brahman experience' whatever that means. No great Vedantins of our times claim that Brahman is an experience. Such statements tend to make the whole topic suited for mystics.

• While I agree that mind is the field of experience, not all experiences have an object for their source. The experience of mental peace, for example, is subjective on many occasions. The experience of Ananda--bliss, is often subjective.

‣ KAnchi ParamAchArya quotes taittirIya upaniShad (2.8.1) and bRhadAraNyaka upaniShad (4.3.33) and explains how the experience of bliss--Ananda is graded among humans and devas and says that even the devas cannot experience the brahmAnanda--the Ananda of Brahman, which is the highest form of bliss, whereas humans are gifted with it.

‣ Hindu sages agree on the sat-chit-Ananda nature of Brahman. Ordinary humans do have the experience of sat in the I-consciousness, in their existential states of waking and dreaming. They have the experience of Ananda in the form of peace in deep sleep. The only absence is experiencing of these experiences in the field of chit--universal consciousness, which comes only by Atma-sAdhana.

*****

Knowledge and realization of any knowledge is not an experience.

‣ Knowledge per se is not an experience, but it is the essential requisite of any experience--objective or subjective. And the subjective experiences of the sat-chit-Ananda certainly depend on the level of knowledge acquired.

‣ Of course, such knowledge cannot just be intellectual and should be followed up by practices like chitta shuddhi and nivRtti sAdhana, but to know that there are such practices is in itself is knowledge.

‣ That knowledge, chit, is what gives the realization of the nature of our sat; with that realization, knowledge brings in the experience of Ananda. This is perhaps the reason that chit is placed in the middle and the upaniShad says, prajnAnam brahma--consciousness/knowledge, is Brahman.

 

[tks]

namaste shrI TKS.

.
.

Asserting that "The Vedic seer who realized this sentence with the phonemes in such a sequence, did not will that such should be the sequence." is no different than someone saying "this holy book telling us what to do is the work of God". There is no compelling reason to accept any such statements. This reduces the truth of Mahavakyas at the same level as any other claims made by any theology built on logical contradictions.

I don't think on these lines for the following reasons:

• A compelling reason to accept the natural/divine sequence of the varNas--phonemes, in the Vedas, is the oral tradition that has survived over millenniums to this day, through different pada-pAThas--recitation methods, to preserve that sequence.

‣ While the very strength of SaMskRtam lies in the facility that the meaning of a sentence remains unchanged, whatever the order of its words, why was it decided and enforced that the sequence in the Vedas need to be preserved scientifically? It cannot be a blind belief in the aparuSheyatvam of the veda-varNas, IMO.

‣ If anyone thinks that it was blind faith that drove the oral preservation of the Vedas instead of written publications, the fact that this oral tradition was scientifically evolved and has immaculately succeeded over thousands of years is enough proof against such a faith.

• That leads to the question 'why were the Veda mantras need to be preserved in sequence?'

‣ That we do not know the answer or are skeptical about this 'why', cannot be a reason to dismiss it as blind faith.

‣ Scores of enlightened sages who succeeded the Vedic RShis, were of different propensities and arrived at different conclusions about Brahman as the absolute reality, but none of them questioned the aparuSheyatvam of the Vedic sequences. Are we prepared to say that they too took it all on blind faith?

Sri Saidevo, Namaskaram!

When most people approach any language they accept the rules of grammar as stated. In addition if the rules of studying a scripture states that the sequence of phonemes should not be altered that would be fine for me and for most people. I am not questioning or suggesting that they change. The reasons presented are not compelling though they can be accepted as Shraddha - for example we do not know for sure how much of the information passed via the oral tradition has been preserved to date. My point is that when generic points are made that can apply to any 'holy book' with some adaptations it is unnecessary and potentially undermines the true value of the work. I tend to emphasize examining what is here now and its value for me.

[

‣ The answer for the 'why' probably lies in the hinted assertion (about which many of us are skeptical again) that the Vedas are the laws of dharma, which like the laws of Nature, pre-existed their discovery and were only discovered--not coded--by man.

.
.

*****

My interpretation and understanding is different. Vedas are NOT the laws of Dharma though the Dharma/Karma model is available.
Do you know why we do not have 'Ten commandments' or anything like that in Vedas? The closest 'commandment like statement' in day to day usage is अहिंसा परमो धर्मः Unlike biblical religion we do not require someone to be born as Hindu, be exposed to Vedas and learn Dharma in order to lead a life of Dharma and pursue Dharma as a Purushartha.

By saying Vedas are the laws of Dharma we risk reducing Vedas to the same level as any of the 'blind faith' based biblical religion.

.
.

*****

There are ways to show in a compelling manner why the topic area of Vedas cannot be arrived at by the human mind with five means of knowledge .If one is then able to realize the truth of those Vedic statements it is possible to assert that such truth cannot have authorship.

Please give us an idea about these ways, specially as it relates to preservation of the sequence of shabda in the Vedas.

I am not debating against preservation of sequence of Shabda is Vedas - I would not to make this mystical because it reduces the profundity of its content, IMHO - it is just an opinion..

Also there is an unfounded belief that 'Brahman is an experience' which reduces this to an experiential object in a person's mind. I quickly browsed the work of Ramana Maharishi. There are other Bhaktas that may claim experience and attribute (incorrectly) to a 'Brahman experience' whatever that means. No great Vedantins of our times claim that Brahman is an experience. Such statements tend to make the whole topic suited for mystics.

• While I agree that mind is the field of experience, not all experiences have an object for their source. The experience of mental peace, for example, is subjective on many occasions. The experience of Ananda--bliss, is often subjective.

‣ KAnchi ParamAchArya quotes taittirIya upaniShad (2.8.1) and bRhadAraNyaka upaniShad (4.3.33) and explains how the experience of bliss--Ananda is graded among humans and devas and says that even the devas cannot experience the brahmAnanda--the Ananda of Brahman, which is the highest form of bliss, whereas humans are gifted with it.

‣ Hindu sages agree on the sat-chit-Ananda nature of Brahman. Ordinary humans do have the experience of sat in the I-consciousness, in their existential states of waking and dreaming. They have the experience of Ananda in the form of peace in deep sleep. The only absence is experiencing of these experiences in the field of chit--universal consciousness, which comes only by Atma-sAdhana.

*****

The Mahavakya - Tat Tvam Asi
is unconditional. (True nature of) You are Brahman. There is no talk about becoming, or about an experience.

The one who experiences is always the subject. However we cannot reduce Realization of the truth of the above to an experience, which is objectified by the subject (Brahman). Translating Ananda as Bliss is part of the problem in my view and there are many who within the context of mysticism is looking for an experience of enlightenment. I think I have all 7 volumes of தெய்வத்தின் குரல்.
Kindly tell me where Paramacharya has described realization as an experience.

Knowledge and realization of any knowledge is not an experience.

‣ Knowledge per se is not an experience, but it is the essential requisite of any experience--objective or subjective. And the subjective experiences of the sat-chit-Ananda certainly depend on the level of knowledge acquired.

‣ Of course, such knowledge cannot just be intellectual and should be followed up by practices like chitta shuddhi and nivRtti sAdhana, but to know that there are such practices is in itself is knowledge.

‣ That knowledge, chit, is what gives the realization of the nature of our sat; with that realization, knowledge brings in the experience of Ananda. This is perhaps the reason that chit is placed in the middle and the upaniShad says, prajnAnam brahma--consciousness/knowledge, is Brahman.

If there is person who is considered a Jeevan Mukta who has described this as an experience I would like to know what they have written. Enlightenment is not an experience like a Eureka moment. It would not make logical sense to me. During deep sleep, though there is ignorance, the subject-object differentiation cease to exist. There is no subjective and objective experience here. If a person is able to resolve subject-object differentiation due to enlightenment (and not due to sleep) the 'experience' is likely to be no different. In any case, this point can only be resolved when we have reached this state (if we are able to )

 

[saidevo]

namaste shrI TKS.

You said in post #128:
f the rules of studying a scripture states that the sequence of phonemes should not be altered that would be fine for me and for most people. I am not questioning or suggesting that they change. The reasons presented are not compelling though they can be accepted as Shraddha - for example we do not know for sure how much of the information passed via the oral tradition has been preserved to date.

• I believe it is more than shraddhA, that is involved in the reason for preservation of the Veda text sequences, but I am not able to indicate it for lack of even basic familiarity with the Veda texts.

• As for the lack of information that might have been lost in the oral tradition, I would say that the system of pada-pATha, shikShA and prAtishAkhya and the saMskRta bhAShA itself are perfect enough to guard against human idiosyncracies. Here is an article explicating the unique features of the SaMskRta language:
(30) The six unmatched features of the Sanskrit language.

• If it is only belief to say that the oral tradition is immaculate, it is only assumption to say that we are not sure of what might have been lost. The reason that the Vedas were divided into shakhAs and were made to devolve down family traditions was to facilitate immaculate preservation of the text by oral tradition.

*****

My point is that when generic points are made that can apply to any 'holy book' with some adaptations it is unnecessary and potentially undermines the true value of the work. I tend to emphasize examining what is here now and its value for me.

• Not necessarily, IMO. For example, the Bible talks about the 'Word' as being with God and was used in creation, but the Gospels were never recited orally, without referring to a written text: they were written down right from the date of their authorship.

‣ On the other hand, the Vedas were not written down until perhaps the advent of kaliyuga. In fact, pANINIya shikShA denounces recitation of the Vedas from a written text (http://sanskrit.safire.com/pdf/PSHIKSHA.PDF).

‣ The Tamizh proverb from the pazhamozhi nAnURu (verse 5) reiterates the oral tradition when it says, katRaliR kETTalE nanRu--listening is better than learning by reading.

‣ Today, science has facilitated us to preserve the oral tradition electronically. And yet, all that many of us do is to be skeptical about the very necessity and practicability of our veda rakShaNa dharma.

By saying Vedas are the laws of Dharma we risk reducing Vedas to the same level as any of the 'blind faith' based biblical religion.

I agree with you that my statement that the Vedas are the laws of dharma, does not give a big picture, which is why I quoted from KAnchi ParamAchArya. Although some might think it an overstatement, we can say that Vedas contain all knowledge--worldly, philosophical, ritual and spiritual, that is essential to find and unite with our essence.

*****

The Mahavakya - Tat Tvam Asi
is unconditional. (True nature of) You are Brahman. There is no talk about becoming, or about an experience.

The one who experiences is always the subject. However we cannot reduce Realization of the truth of the above to an experience, which is objectified by the subject (Brahman). Translating Ananda as Bliss is part of the problem in my view and there are many who within the context of mysticism is looking for an experience of enlightenment.

Shankara, says as follows, in his bhAShya to brahma-sUtra 1.1.2, which says janmAdyasya yataH--That (is Brahman) from which (are derived) the birth etc. of this (universe):

So far as the deliberation on Brahman is concerned, the direct texts, indicatory marks, etc. are not the sole means of the valid knowledge of Brahman, as they are when religious duties are deliberated on. But in the former case the Vedic texts, personal experience,*47 etc. are the valid means as far as possible; for the knowledgd of Brahman culminates in experience*48, and it relates to an existing entity.

SvAmi GambhIrAnanda, in his English translation of Shankara's brahma-sUtra bhAShya, published by the Advaita Ashrama, Calcutta, explains it further with the following notes:

47. The means of a particular passage has to be determined with the help of direct assertion, indicatory mark, syntactical connection, context, position and designation. The above six means, as also reasoning, etc. determine the meanings of Vedic passages about Brahman, and through the individual competence of each text, they give rise to a particular mental state that is of the nature of the knowledge of Brahman. That state again destroys ignorance and culminates in the revelation of Brahman.

48. The mental modification having the form "I am Brahman", culminates in the revelation of the real nature of Brahman.

In the explanation of the earlier sUtra, SvAmiji gives the note:
31. An unanalysable mental modification that expresses itself as a direct awareness of the form, "I am Brahman".

That the mind has a major role to play and serves as the field of experience of Brahman is clear from the above explanation.

 

[tks]

Sri Saidevo -

Thanks for the reference link provided regarding features of Sanskrit language. During my primary through high school years in India, I did learn Sanskrit to reach the proficiency of being able to write 10 page essays with ease on all kinds of topics. I have lost most of my Sanskrit skills though I admire the unique 'architecture' of Sanskrit. In one of my posts, I did mention how simple translation of any verses in Upanishads (like the Shanti Mantra) into English yields silly information and in reality that one Mantra has the essence of all of Vedantam. I did not do a follow up post due to disruptive behavior of some (which under 'freedom to abuse' happens often ). I have been exposed to specific verses of Upanishads in detail. I have no debate regarding the greatness of the language.

I also think that there is no way for any of us to validate the greatness of any historical information with precision since people of our land never gave importance to keeping historical records like it was done in other civilization. If the oral tradition has preserved the great teachings  that is wonderful. However *my opinion* is that the only way to judge a value of teaching is to examine what is available here and now and see if it is applicable to enriching our life with knowledge.

When looking at other major religions in my mind I have respect for the leaders of those religions. However the theologies on which they are built is available for inspection. We cannot really say - because these theologies were passed down by written means and ours was passed down by oral traditions - hence we have the correct knowledge. The only way to see if a theology is useful is to examine first if it is useful and if it is not self contradictory or contradictory to what we know by the five means of knowledge.

namaste shrI TKS.

.
.<br>

<font color="#000080">By saying Vedas are the laws of Dharma we risk reducing Vedas to the same level as any of the 'blind faith' based biblical religion.</font>


I agree with you that my statement that the Vedas are the laws of dharma, does not give a big picture, which is why I quoted from KAnchi ParamAchArya. Although some might think it an overstatement, we can say that Vedas contain all knowledge--worldly, philosophical, ritual and spiritual, that is essential to find and unite with our essence.<br>
<br>
*****

Saidevoji - It would be an overstatement IMHO but NOT with your qualification "that is essential to discover our true nature" (using my words interpreting your phrases) !

Vedas *only* addresses those areas that are not available for learning by other means. It does not prescribe how to lead a life of Dharma (a major topic, perhaps a future thread). We do have great epics like Ramayana to teach us that.

I have known people who make hyperbolic statements that Vedas have everything that one needs to know. Such lofty claims undermine the whole text in my view.

<font color="#000080">The Mahavakya - Tat Tvam Asi

is unconditional. (True nature of) You are Brahman. There is no talk about becoming, or about an experience.<br>


The one who experiences is always the subject. However we cannot reduce Realization of the truth of the above to an experience, which is objectified by the subject (Brahman). Translating Ananda as Bliss is part of the problem in my view and there are many who within the context of mysticism is looking for an experience of enlightenment.</font><br>


Shankara, says as follows, in his <strong>bhAShya</strong> to <strong>brahma-sUtra</strong> 1.1.2, which says <strong>janmAdyasya yataH</strong>--That (is Brahman) from which (are derived) the birth etc. of this (universe):<br>
<br>
<font color="#000080">So far as the deliberation on Brahman is concerned, the direct texts, indicatory marks, etc. are not the sole means of the valid knowledge of Brahman, as they are when religious duties are deliberated on. But in the former case <strong>the Vedic texts, personal experience,*47 etc.</strong> are the valid means as far as possible; for <strong>the knowledgd of Brahman culminates in experience</strong>*48, and it relates to an existing entity.</font><br>
<br>
SvAmi GambhIrAnanda, in his English translation of Shankara's <strong>brahma-sUtra bhAShya</strong>, published by the Advaita Ashrama, Calcutta, explains it further with the following notes:<br>
<br>
47. The means of a particular passage has to be determined with the help of direct assertion, indicatory mark, syntactical connection, context, position and designation. The above six means, as also reasoning, etc. determine the meanings of Vedic passages about Brahman, and through the individual competence of each text, they give rise to a particular mental state that is of the nature of the knowledge of Brahman. That state again destroys ignorance and culminates in the revelation of Brahman.<br>
<br>
48. The mental modification having the form "I am Brahman", culminates in the revelation of the real nature of Brahman.<br>
<br>
In the explanation of the earlier <strong>sUtra</strong>, SvAmiji gives the note:<br>
31. An unanalysable mental modification that expresses itself as a direct awareness of the form, "I am Brahman".<br>
<br>
That the mind has a major role to play and serves as the field of experience of Brahman is clear from the above explanation.

Knowledge can be through experience as well. Mind is the ultimate instrument for learning that we have and it is only here we can discover Isvara here and now. However, there are many authors who have written books, often superimposing attributes to Vedic texts that is not there. Also the language employed has led to much confusion these days.

Brahman is not something remote that is a hidden and is not accessible to understanding. By using words like Substratum, use of 'Self and self' to name a few words and phrases, many authors and teachers have provided confused mental picture for most of us, IMO.

Some people even make the whole thing mystical. There are unfortunate interpretation that Bhakti means just (blindly) believe a story (e.g., Purana) and by just falling in love with those Characters one can 'realize Brahman'. Then there are others who think that if they do 'free work' for a non-profit organization, it means Karma Yoga and that one can 'realize Brahman' by doing that a lot. There are people who think by doing "Raja Yoga and meditation" they can attain the Paramtman etc.

In my view, the above belief system comes in the way of true knowledge. By studying Upanishads one's world view of Bhakti and Karma evolves and becomes a more mature.

Unlike other religious traditions like Islam (Taqiyya) or Christianity (Proselytism, an ultimate form of violence), in our tradition 'end does not justify means'. That is why I am also turned off by any claims by Bhaktas of anyone performing 'miracles' which defy laws of physics unless some new laws have not been discovered yet which allowed for the so called 'miracle' to happen.

I tend to think teachers who employ such 'magic' may do so to get the attention of the followers and help them to ultimately realize their true nature. If that were true, employing 'end justifies the means' is contrary to Dharma. In any case all laws as we observe them are manifestations of Isvra and in that sense the Isvara is never too far away from us in our day today experience.

But confusing interpretations by authors, 'magical' interpretations, theory of 'vibrations' of Mantras, and 'performance of 'miracles' all weaken the subject matter of Brahman and Atma making the study look like another 'faith-driven cult'. Many of the points of Sri Nara that I understood from this thread are from such interpretation (I think), often justified due to the abundance of books touting mystical view of the Vedas.

There are unfortunate translations like 'soul' which has a specific theological significance in other religions and is not to be found described that way in Vedas. Atma is not Soul! Sukshma Sharira could be translated that way perhaps.

Some people have this unjustified mental notion that we have a body, which houses a mind , and which houses a self luminous soul ! They think Brahman is a soul of the whole universe again an unreachable,unverifiable, and remote 'thing'.

Even if people do not think that way, I was exposed such ideas and the way I initially understood all this made me want to reject the whole doctrine. However I discovered Vedas do not say such things at all.

In one of your summary post I know you highlighted my point about the need for right preparation to undertake this study. That is correct but I would emphasize one other major point before one embarks on the right preparation. That is to define 'why one wants to study' this subject matter. If this subject matter is taken as another theology it will be inaccessible. So getting the 'problem statement' correct is the first point. The book you have brought to us in another thread ' Science of Peace' alludes to this problem statement well, IMO.

If there is clarity of problem statement ('why') and correct understanding of what this subject is about as to how it addresses the problem statement then with right preparation the concept of Brahman and Atma may not appear so remote IMHO.

Regards

 

[saidevo]

namaste shrI TKS.

You said in post #128:

When looking at other major religions in my mind I have respect for the leaders of those religions. However the theologies on which they are built is available for inspection. We cannot really say - because these theologies were passed down by written means and ours was passed down by oral traditions - hence we have the correct knowledge. The only way to see if a theology is useful is to examine first if it is useful and if it is not self contradictory or contradictory to what we know by the five means of knowledge.

• I notice that you have mentioned 'five means of knowledge', which means you are leaving out AptavAkya--trustworthy affirmation, as in the Vedas. It's alright with me, although I would include it for the knowledge obtained through Vedanta.

• The main drawback of the theologies of the Western religions, as everyone knows, is the only-my-God-is-true-all-other-gods-false attitude. Apart from this, their concept of God is a personal god. In Christianity, some people still believe that women have no souls! (Women Probably Don't Have Souls)

‣ In their philosophy, there is no detailed discussion about manas and the other parts of the antaH-karaNa, and how they can be used to realize the absolute in us, which would be found to be identical to the universal absolute, in the advaita tradition.

‣ The religion and philosophy of Hinduism, is certainly far deeper in its spirituality, philosophy, rituals and dharma. If these constitute the 'correct knowledge' then I would not hesitate to say that SanAtana Dharma is the only way towards attainment of the correct knowledge. Anyhow, comparing religions is not an issue in this thread.

• As to the issue if the oral tradition is a better system of preservation of mantra texts like the Vedas, than any written system, I would say it definitely has been so and would remain so, so long as Vedas are recited.

‣ Writing is inferior to speech, which is why the common saying, "put it down in writing" or "reduce to writing". The absence of the dhvani makes it subjective and error-prone. As an example, consider the pronunciation of foreign names: Hindu names by the westerners and their names by us!

‣ Preservation by recitation in an oral tradition, improves the memory power, whereas once something is written down, it is as good as forgotten!

*****

As for your speaking as inferior (even avoidable?), the means of karma yoga, bhakti yoga, in their various modes, including the devotees of godmen, their miracles, and other means of spiritual practices in Hinduism, I don't think they are as deplorable as the Christian evangelism or Islamic religious violence. I would like to reconcile every fibre of different color within the fabric of Hindu Dharma, which shines by its kaleidoscopic variety.

• IMHO, people who come to tears of devotion and joy when they sing or listen to bhajans, at that moment have darshan of their Self, although it is fleeting.

‣ As KAnchi ParamAchArya says, karma and bhakti are part of the pravRtti mArga, which is preliminary and essential to obtaining chitta-shuddhi, without which a sAdhaka cannot take up the nivRtti mArga of renunciation.

‣ He says that the karma-kANDa of the Vedas teach pravRtti and the jnAna-kANDa, nivRtti mArga.

‣ I am also reminded of RAjAji's famous introductory words to the song bhaja-govindam sung by smt.MS SubbulakShmi. Let me quote them here:

Adi ShankarAchArya wrote a number of vedantic works, for imparting knowledge of the self and the universal spirit. He also composed a number of hymns to foster bhakti in the hearts of men. One of these hymns is the famous bhaja govindaM. The way of devotion, is not different from the way of knowledge or GYAna.

When intelligence matures and lodges securely in the mind, it becomes wisdom. When wisdom is integrated with life and issues out in action, it becomes bhakti. Knowledge, when it becomes fully mature is bhakti.

If it does not get transformed into bhakti, such knowledge is useless tinsel. To believe that GYAna and bhakti, knowledge and devotion, are different from each other, is ignorance.

If Sri Adi Shankara himself who drank the ocean of GYAna as easily as one sips water from the palm of one's hand, sang in his later years, hymns to develop devotion, it is enough to show that GYAna and bhakti are one and the same. Sri Shankara has packed into the bhaja govindaM song, the substance of all vedanta, and set the oneness of GYAna and bhakti to melodious music.

 

[tks]

namaste shrI TKS.

You said in post #128:

When looking at other major religions in my mind I have respect for the leaders of those religions. However the theologies on which they are built is available for inspection. We cannot really say - because these theologies were passed down by written means and ours was passed down by oral traditions - hence we have the correct knowledge. The only way to see if a theology is useful is to examine first if it is useful and if it is not self contradictory or contradictory to what we know by the five means of knowledge.

• I notice that you have mentioned 'five means of knowledge', which means you are leaving out AptavAkya--trustworthy affirmation, as in the Vedas. It's alright with me, although I would include it for the knowledge obtained through Vedanta.

Sri Saidevo - Namaskaram!

Yes, you are right - There is this 6th 'means of knowledge' needed for knowledge obtained through Upanishads. However, for most people they have to recognize the 'problem statement' first, understand a need to address that, recognize that a means of knowledge is needed that is not addressed by other five and then it is possible to have discussions as to why this 6th means of knowledge is not just blind faith. So I normally do not include this unless the context is satisfied and it is applicable.

• The main drawback of the theologies of the Western religions, as everyone knows, is the only-my-God-is-true-all-other-gods-false attitude. Apart from this, their concept of God is a personal god. In Christianity, some people still believe that women have no souls! (Women Probably Don't Have Souls)

‣ In their philosophy, there is no detailed discussion about manas and the other parts of the antaH-karaNa, and how they can be used to realize the absolute in us, which would be found to be identical to the universal absolute, in the advaita tradition.

‣ The religion and philosophy of Hinduism, is certainly far deeper in its spirituality, philosophy, rituals and dharma. If these constitute the 'correct knowledge' then I would not hesitate to say that SanAtana Dharma is the only way towards attainment of the correct knowledge. Anyhow, comparing religions is not an issue in this thread.

• As to the issue if the oral tradition is a better system of preservation of mantra texts like the Vedas, than any written system, I would say it definitely has been so and would remain so, so long as Vedas are recited.

‣ Writing is inferior to speech, which is why the common saying, "put it down in writing" or "reduce to writing". The absence of the dhvani makes it subjective and error-prone. As an example, consider the pronunciation of foreign names: Hindu names by the westerners and their names by us!

‣ Preservation by recitation in an oral tradition, improves the memory power, whereas once something is written down, it is as good as forgotten!

*****

The issues, in my view with some of the theologies is that there are concepts that are self contradictory. An entity (soul or whatever it is called) that is bound by space-time becomes part of system of 'eternal Heaven or Hell' which means it is time-invariant. Or that a small action causes eternal reaction (heaven or hell) etc. A formless 'God' in place called heaven with male organs!

I respect someone's need to have a 'relationship' with a personal God - it is a common practice in most religious traditions that help someone achieve mental peace. My issue is with the theologies resting on apparent 'miracles' , self contradictory ideas and harmful practices ('conversion'). Hence, anytime someone tries interpret Vedas and time honored traditions we have with ideas of 'miracles' I tend to not focus on such 'teachers'.

As for your speaking as inferior (even avoidable?), the means of karma yoga, bhakti yoga, in their various modes, including the devotees of godmen, their miracles, and other means of spiritual practices in Hinduism, I don't think they are as deplorable as the Christian evangelism or Islamic religious violence. I would like to reconcile every fibre of different color within the fabric of Hindu Dharma, which shines by its kaleidoscopic variety.

Sri Saidevo - I never mentioned any of these as *inferior*. Kindly re-read my post. I said they are misunderstood with immature interpretations.
In fact right preparation is absolute necessity. Karma Yoga is an attitude, not act of doing 'free work' for a charitable organization. That attitude is essential prerequisite for knowledge for example. It is not possible to develop 'Bhakti' without knowledge (GYAna) of Isvara. In that sense all these 'Yogas' are unified in the practice of an aspirant.

• IMHO, people who come to tears of devotion and joy when they sing or listen to bhajans, at that moment have darshan of their Self, although it is fleeting.

I have respect for Bhaktas, but interpreting an experience during a state of emotion as 'darshan of Self' is incorrect, IMO.
Self is You! The mind (as a tool), the emotions and thoughts are revealed by the Self. The Self is *not* 'housed' in the mind ; in fact it is the other way around - Mind apparently exists (revealed) in the Self.

தெய்வ ஆவேசம் and other such experiences cannot be equated to 'Darshan of Self' since there is no basis for this assertion and logically it would not make sense. Having said this, let me reiterated that I do have respect for people that are completely involved in a Bhajan or any Satsang activities.

‣ As KAnchi ParamAchArya says, karma and bhakti are part of the pravRtti mArga, which is preliminary and essential to obtaining chitta-shuddhi, without which a sAdhaka cannot take up the nivRtti mArga of renunciation.

‣ He says that the karma-kANDa of the Vedas teach pravRtti and the jnAna-kANDa, nivRtti mArga.

‣ I am also reminded of RAjAji's famous introductory words to the song bhaja-govindam sung by smt.MS SubbulakShmi. Let me quote them here:

Adi ShankarAchArya wrote a number of vedantic works, for imparting knowledge of the self and the universal spirit. He also composed a number of hymns to foster bhakti in the hearts of men. One of these hymns is the famous bhaja govindaM. The way of devotion, is not different from the way of knowledge or GYAna.

When intelligence matures and lodges securely in the mind, it becomes wisdom. When wisdom is integrated with life and issues out in action, it becomes bhakti. Knowledge, when it becomes fully mature is bhakti.

If it does not get transformed into bhakti, such knowledge is useless tinsel. To believe that GYAna and bhakti, knowledge and devotion, are different from each other, is ignorance.

If Sri Adi Shankara himself who drank the ocean of GYAna as easily as one sips water from the palm of one's hand, sang in his later years, hymns to develop devotion, it is enough to show that GYAna and bhakti are one and the same. Sri Shankara has packed into the bhaja govindaM song, the substance of all vedanta, and set the oneness of GYAna and bhakti to melodious music.

I appreciate the above words very much. What I have written is not in contradiction to anything stated above.

In support of your statements let me also state that Sri Bhavani Ashtakam by Adi Shankaracharya is very moving and one I relate to very much. You may want to click the link, hear the rendering of this sloka while reading the meaning given below.

The meaning (that someone sent to me and is available online) is profound in my mind- I dont have the reference to the link for this translation.
Here is the greatest Advita Vedantin of our times and he creates a very moving poem evoking Bhakti to Goddess Bhavani!
I am reproducing the meaning here without credit to source (since I dont have that here) only to make the point that Bhakti is not independent of Knowledge. But it is a mature form of Bhakti in my understanding.

Na thatho, na matha, na bandur na datha,
Na puthro, na puthri , na bruthyo , na bartha,
Na jayaa na Vidhya, na Vruthir mamaiva,
Gathisthwam, Gathisthwam Thwam ekaa Bhavani.

Neither the mother nor the father,
Neither the relation nor the friend,
Neither the son nor the daughter,
Neither the servant nor the husband,
Neither the wife nor the knowledge,
And neither my sole occupation,
Are my refuges that I can depend, Oh, Bhavani,
So you are my refuge and my only refuge, Bhavani.

Bhavabdhava pare , Maha dhukha Bheeru,
Papaatha prakami , pralobhi pramatha,
Kam samsara pasa prabadha sadaham,
Gathisthwam, Gathisthwam thwam ekaa Bhavani.

I am in this ocean of birth and death,
I am a coward, who dare not face sorrow,
I am filled with lust and sin,
I am filled with greed and desire,
And tied I am, by the this useless life that I lead,
So you are my refuge and my only refuge, Bhavani.

Na Janaami Dhanam, Na cha dhyana yogam,
Na janami thathram, na cha sthothra manthram,
Na janami poojam, na cha nyasa yogam,
Gathisthwam, Gathisthwam thwam ekaa Bhavani

Neither do I know how to give,
Nor do I know how to meditate,
Neither do I know Thanthra*,
Nor do I know stanzas of prayer,
Neither do I know how to worship,
Nor do I know the art of yoga,
So you are my refuge and my only refuge, Bhavani

Na janami Punyam, Na janami theertham,
Na janami mukthim, layam vaa kadachit,
Na janami bhakthim, vrutham vaapi maatha,
Gathisthwam, Gathisthwam, thwam ekaa Bhavani.

Know I not how to be righteous,
Know I not the way to the places sacred,
Know I not methods of salvation,
Know I not how to merge my mind with God,
Know I not the art of devotion,
Know I not how to practice austerities, Oh, mother,
So you are my refuge and my only refuge, Bhavani

Kukarmi, kusangi, kubudhi, kudhasa,
Kul11111111111111 heena, kadh11111111111111 leena,
Kudrushti, kuvakya prabandha, sadaham,
Gathisthwam, Gathisthwam, thwam ekaa Bhavani.

Perform I bad actions,
Keep I company of bad ones,
Think I bad and sinful thoughts,
Serve I Bad masters,
Belong I to a bad family,
Immersed I am in sinful acts,
See I with bad intentions,
Write I collection of bad words,
Always and always,
So you are my refuge and my only refuge, Bhavani.

Prajesam, Ramesam, Mahesam, Suresam,
Dhinesam, Nisidheswaram vaa kadachit,
Na janami chanyath sadaham saranye,
Gathisthwam, Gathisthwam thwam ekaa Bhavani

Neither Do I know the creator,
Nor the Lord of Lakshmi,
Neither do I know the lord of all,
Nor do I know the lord of devas,
Neither do I know the God who makes the day,
Nor the God who rules at night,
Neither do I know any other Gods,
Oh, Goddess to whom I bow always,
So you are my refuge and my only refuge, Bhavani

Vivadhe, Vishadhe, pramadhe, pravase,
Jale cha anale parvathe shatru madhye,
Aranye, saranye sada maam prapahi,
Gathisthwam, Gathisthwam, thwam ekaa Bhavani.

While I am in a heated argument,
While I am immersed in sorrow,
While I am suffering an accident,
While I am travelling far off,
While I am in water or fire,
While I am on the top of a mountain,
While I am surrounded by enemies,
And while I am in a deep forest,
Oh Goddess, I always bow before thee,
So you are my refuge and my only refuge, Bhavani

Anadho, dharidro, jara roga yuktho,
Maha Ksheena dheena, sada jaadya vakthra,
Vipathou pravishta, pranshata sadhaham,
Gathisthwam, Gathisthwam, thwam ekaa Bhavani.

While being an orphan,
While being extremely poor,
While affected by disease of old age,
While I am terribly tired,
While I am in a pitiable state,
While I am being swallowed by problems,
And While I suffer serious dangers,
I always bow before thee,
So you are my refuge and only refuge, Bhavani

Regards

 

[saidevo]

namaste shrI TKS.

You said in post #128:
I never mentioned any of these as *inferior*. Kindly re-read my post. I said they are misunderstood with immature interpretations.
In fact right preparation is absolute necessity. Karma Yoga is an attitude, not act of doing 'free work' for a charitable organization. That attitude is essential prerequisite for knowledge for example. It is not possible to develop 'Bhakti' without knowledge (GYAna) of Isvara. In that sense all these 'Yogas' are unified in the practice of an aspirant.

I am sorry; now I understand your perspective and agree with it.

I have respect for Bhaktas, but interpreting an experience during a state of emotion as 'darshan of Self' is incorrect, IMO.
Self is You! The mind (as a tool), the emotions and thoughts are revealed by the Self. The Self is *not* 'housed' in the mind ; in fact it is the other way around - Mind apparently exists (revealed) in the Self.

• If yoga means union with the bhUma--fullness, of Brahman and samAdhi is an experience of it in time, then in bhakti yoga, tears of devotion and joy that merge the devotee momentarily with the personal god, is an equivalent of samAdhi, IMO.

• Although this experience is fleeting, it can be sustained as illustrated by sages like Chaitanya, and other VaiShNava/Shaiva saints. As you are aware, this has given rise to the new tradition of bhakti vedanta.

deiva Avesham and other such experiences cannot be equated to 'Darshan of Self' since there is no basis for this assertion and logically it would not make sense. Having said this, let me reiterated that I do have respect for people that are completely involved in a Bhajan or any Satsang activities.

• I would not dismiss deiva Avesham as having no basis and illogical, for the simple reason I have not experienced it. There might be fakers, but it does not diminish the sweep of a genuine experience.

• If yoga is the union of the jIvAtman with the paramAtman, deiva Avesham is its opposite: here the paramAtman seeks unity with the jIvAtman, taking possession of its body, for a specific purpose.

One question arises when we seek to classify such and such as a Brahman-experience and such others are not: is it logical on our part to do it, when we have no such experiences?

Thank you for the BhavAnI aShTakam translation, which is a moving song of devotion. I have posted an mp3 file at my post here:
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/transl...learn-read-recite-stotram-02-a.html#post62495

Since we understand each other's view by some give and take now, let us get back to the topic of the OP. Assuming that the seeker has the required qualifications, and has genuine intentions of inquiry, please give a brief in your other posts to follow, about how knowledge and experience of Brahman can be obtained through the 'five sources of knowledge'.

 

[tks]

namaste shrI TKS.

.
.
.

I have respect for Bhaktas, but interpreting an experience during a state of emotion as 'darshan of Self' is incorrect, IMO.
Self is You! The mind (as a tool), the emotions and thoughts are revealed by the Self. The Self is *not* 'housed' in the mind ; in fact it is the other way around - Mind apparently exists (revealed) in the Self.

• If yoga means union with the bhUma--fullness, of Brahman and samAdhi is an experience of it in time, then in bhakti yoga, tears of devotion and joy that merge the devotee momentarily with the personal god, is an equivalent of samAdhi, IMO.

• Although this experience is fleeting, it can be sustained as illustrated by sages like Chaitanya, and other VaiShNava/Shaiva saints. As you are aware, this has given rise to the new tradition of bhakti vedanta.

Samadhi is not in time but Time is in Samadhi! In deep sleep, there is complete resolution of Object and Subject and Space-Time awareness does not exist. A state of Samadhi due to enlightenment means resolving this subject-object differentiation while being aware and there is genuine end to ignorance.
One can claim any emotionally moving experience as Samadhi and since it is all subjective it is not possible to argue by negating that experience.

However logically we can understand that such a experience based Samadhi is not possible. The experience is a mental event and it is the Self that shines light on the whole experience. In other words the person who is undergoing that experience is aware of going through that experience. Atma or Self is that awareful witness who reveals that experience. While the right attitude is a pre-requisite knowledge alone can reveal the truth of our nature. Hence that knowledge is not an experience.

I know there are many schools of thought about Bhakti - If it makes someone feel peaceful I have nothing to say. Brahman or Knowledge of Self is not an experience.

deiva Avesham and other such experiences cannot be equated to 'Darshan of Self' since there is no basis for this assertion and logically it would not make sense. Having said this, let me reiterated that I do have respect for people that are completely involved in a Bhajan or any Satsang activities.

• I would not dismiss deiva Avesham as having no basis and illogical, for the simple reason I have not experienced it. There might be fakers, but it does not diminish the sweep of a genuine experience.

I did not say Deiva Avesham is illogical. I have seen people have this experience (at Pazhani when I was very young). That was not fake experience to the best I was able to witness. All I am saying is that such experience does not mean 'experiencing Brahman' the very term of which is illogical. We experience Brahman as Jagat, Time, Space and Nature *all the time* which includes our Mind-Body-Sense complex.

• If yoga is the union of the jIvAtman with the paramAtman, deiva Avesham is its opposite: here the paramAtman seeks unity with the jIvAtman, taking possession of its body, for a specific purpose.

One question arises when we seek to classify such and such as a Brahman-experience and such others are not: is it logical on our part to do it, when we have no such experiences?

First of all we are never separate from Iswara at any time - this is for all beings. It is only a matter of recognition and knowledge.
Apparent experience of Jivatvam and Isvaratvam are both Mithya.

I personally do not like books that use Jivatma, Paramatma, who seeks what and why, self with small 's', Self with capital 'S' since they tend to confuse people more than they help. There is no reason why Paramatman must seek unity! When everything is Brahman it is an illusion that we are separate and having individual experience. So by incorrect usage of terms a complex picture is painted which makes the whole knowledge mystical.

So again let me repeat - There is no such thing as Brahman experience. There are experiences of Bhakti that we can witness in ourselves or others. There is knowledge about our true nature but that is not experience. There could be experience that can teach and prepare us for knowledge. Atma is the awareful witness of all the experience including the experience of mind and mental events and Atma is not tucked away in the mind . Mind functions as a tool for us to recognize the truth.

Thank you for the BhavAnI aShTakam translation, which is a moving song of devotion. I have posted an mp3 file at my post here:
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/transl...learn-read-recite-stotram-02-a.html#post62495

Since we understand each other's view by some give and take now, let us get back to the topic of the OP. Assuming that the seeker has the required qualifications, and has genuine intentions of inquiry, please give a brief in your other posts to follow, about how knowledge and experience of Brahman can be obtained through the 'five sources of knowledge'.

Sri Saidevo - I have answered this before to the best extent one can make sense out of this OP as stated.

Brahman (Jagat, our body, mind, sense complex) is self evident. There is no proof needed.
To know the *nature of Brahman* (which is also Atma) is not an experience and cannot be accomplished by the five means of knowledge because it is Atma that reveals the five sense organs, mind and all the five means of knowledge.
Upanishads are the only means of knowledge for this but intense preparation including clarity of why one wants to know is most significant.

Regards