Sadhana Panchakam - Post 36

In the present context of Mananam, the services of the intellect are called for. At its best, the intellect is indispensable as a tool of enquiry. 

However, the play of Nature goes on in it as in all other human instruments. Argumentativeness is its number one drawback.

Our intellect, left to revel in intellectual gymnastics, will want to venture into and savor the thrills of intriguing logic, as we find in Nyaya. At this point in Sadhana, the seeker is being asked to beware of going on an intellectual “high”.

The warning given here is to avoid Dustarka or “wicked concepts”, to recognize them and steer clear of them, however tempting they may be to the intellect. The aspirant should steer clear of all “Intellectual Politics”.

THE POORVAPAKSHIN & THE SIDDHAANTIN

A debate is always between two people, namely, the Poorvapakshin who stands for the Opponent, and the Siddhaantin who stands for the Exponent. These two terms, if looked at etymologically, reveal a side of Vedanta that is not so easily known in the West, and rare to find in the West.

i) Poorvapakshin: literally this means “the earlier viewpoint”, Poorvapakshee.

ii) Siddhaantin: literally this means “the final perfect viewpoint”, Siddhaantee.

The very word meaning indicates the large-heartedness of Vedanta. The words do not really stand for opponent or exponent. 

In Vedanta no view is seen as an opposing view. If it is not fully informed, it is considered only to be an earlier view, a view that is temporarily held in the absence of further knowledge. Once more knowledge is gathered and taken into account, one shifts his viewpoint, until with complete knowledge he arrives at the perfect (siddha), final (antah) viewpoint.

There is no personal claim to any viewpoint. Vedanta never speaks of ‘my’ view and ‘your’ view. The viewpoint does not belong to any person, it belongs to the landscape, the ground we are standing on. Where a person stands in relation to the Truth is the view he sees. He cannot help seeing that view only. 

If he rises a little higher,his view changes to another one. If he gets to the top of the mountain, his view is “final and perfect”.

TYPES OF PHILOSOPHICAL DEBATES

Two people, A & B, can get together with the following three types of intentions in holding a philosophical discussion:

i) VAADA: “Both persons desire to know the truth.” A & B have an open mind which has not formed any fixed opinion on the matter. Both have a Sattvic interest in the Truth.

ii) JALPA: “Both persons intend to destroy the other’s position and establish their own position.” A & B have each decided their standpoint. Each one tries to prove the other one wrong. The aim of the discussion is Rajasic – to gain victory over the other.

iii) VITHANDA: “One person intends only to destroy the other’s position without having a view of his own.” Person A merely aims to disprove B’s position, whatever that may be. The aim is simply to destroy. This is a Tamasic stance, useful to none.

The essence of the step dealt in today's post was incidentally given in the last session on Nirvana Shatakam (NS-6) which is also posted in blog. He said, “Do not judge/do not criticize any one’s path”.

We all have taken up Spiritual Sadhana with one goal- Self Realization.

Self-realization or discovering SELF within happens when Ego (avidya) is uprooted.

So, wherever one faces a situation where, the other person is not talking correctly on Spiritual path/essence, at best, we can put forth the correct aspect (In Vedanta, as it is clarified, there is no “ your” view or “ my view”. There is only one view.) 

If the other person is not receptive, then we, who have taken up this path to eliminate/conquer our ego, should never end up arguing with the other person. Any Argument comes forth from one and only aspect, our ego, which pushes to fight/ argue and establish to the other person that “I AM RIGHT” and “YOU ARE WRONG”.

We face a downfall when we take up such arguments and then we have to restart our sadhana from a lower level all over again.

One who contributes only sound and not the light should be shunned, as impediment on the Path to Perfection. Because such one is fundamentalist without awareness of the fundamentals, accepting interpretations of Brahman than experiencing Brahman.  Those who are enamored by Knowledge lose sight of the Wisdom which is goal. 

Sankara says that one who is intent on Wisdom of Brahman should not be confused or confounded by conditioned Knowledge of the conceited nor by the facile arguments of the perverted people. 

Arguments do not necessarily lead to enlightenment; they exhibit poverty of intelligence rather than promise of Wisdom. 

Arguments often lead one to assert and refuse to consider that every proposition could possible also have different perception. It is said that some are clever only at exposition while others have the ability to practice what they learn; the hand carries food to the mouth but it is only the tongue that tastes it.

Sadhaka’s mind should be broad and vision expansive, without the restraint of traditional dos and don’ts. His mind should be receptive since that is one of the important avenues for enlightenment, says Adi Sankara. 

It is to be observed that even after communicating Wisdom more secret than all secrets, Sri Krishna leaves it to Arjuna to pursue the Path on his own. 

Even the fully manifested Divinity allows individual to choose the Path to be followed, not the orthodox and argumentative one.

 

Love.