Responding to the Neo Vedanta Thesis Part II

I will be giving a rebuttal of Kelamuni’s arguments by taking his texts and replying to them point to point. His text is as follows

“Part Two of this essay will look at the Neo-Vedanta of Swami Vivekananda in greater detail by way of a direct examination of his writings, specifically those contained in the convenient one volume anthology, Selections from Swami Vivekananda. In the first five sections of Part Two, particular attention will be paid to the rhetorical features of Vivekananda's writings. The seven sections that follow (which will be posted at a later date) will look at some of the more original aspects of Vivekananda's Neo-Vedanta. Part Two will then close with a brief look at Vivekananda's Indian addresses with the hope that they will help put into relief those writings by Vivekananda that were intended for Western audiences. Where relevant, Vivekananda's ideas will be related to those of his Neo-Hindu "forerunners," the European philosophy he had been exposed to as a youth, and to the traditional Vedanta and Yoga of classical India.”

So let us see what he has to say,

***

“Several related themes emerge from a critical reading of Vivekananda. Many of these themes reappear in the writings of later scholars of Indian thought, such as T.M.P Mahadevan and Chandradar Sharma, and in the writings of later Neo-Vedantins and perennialists, such as Sarvapella Radhakrishnan, Aurobindo Ghose, Paramahamsa Yogananda, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Swami Rama, Adi-Da (Franklin Jones), Georg Feuerstein, and Ken Wilber.
Some of the more prominent of these themes involve various dichotomies. These dichotomies are used toward particular rhetorical effects by Vivekananda.”

Now he is making his point.

“I. The Guru vs. the Pundit

One of the more interesting dichotomies put to use by Vivekananda is the contrast between the "Guru" and the "Pundit." In his writings, Vivekananda delineates a well marked distinction between the two. He associates the Guru, or "true teacher," with the world renouncers of India -- the samnyasins, parivrajakas, bhikshus, shramanas -- while he identifies the Indian pandita as a kind of substandard, corrupt and even false teacher. Echoing Rammohan Roy, Vivekananda writes:

In our country, the imparting of knowledge has always been through men of renunciation. Later, the Pandits, by monopolising all knowledge and restricting it to the Tols, have only brought the country to the brink of ruin. India had all good prospects as long as Tyagis (men of renunciation) used to impart knowledge.... From "Conversations." Selections, p. 384.”

I have taken a very small section of his point since basically I feel he is simply blabbering more and more. Now according to him Vivekananda is making a distinction between a Pandit and Guru. So does he mean to say that Vivekananda does not encourage the learning of the Shastras ? Let me quote an author below,

“Naren was, however ,a hard taskmaster.For instance , he insisted that monks study Panini's Ashtadhyayi or rules of grammer in order to comprehend the Sanskrit texts more thoroughly.--page 43 "Swami Vivekananda: A Man with a Vision"--By Devika Rangachari”.

Also if one reads the letters of Vivekananda he asks people for copies of this book. Also in the above quote Vivekananda is referring to Pandits who did not bother to share knowledge with others now he wants to change the scenario. Looks like Kelamuni has a very big agenda here.

Let us see what more he has to say,

“II. Book-learning vs. Realization

All these talks, and reasonings, and philosophies, and dualisms, and monisms, and even the Vedas themselves, are but preparations, secondary things.... The Vedas, Grammar, Astronomy, etc., all these are secondary. The supreme knowledge is that which makes us realise the Unchangeable One. From "The Sages of India." Selections, p. 237.

Interestingly, this passage implies that the supreme knowledge is not final realization per se but that which gives final realization, not a "knowledge by acquaintance" but a "knowing how." At other times, however, the disjunction drawn by Vivekananda is more absolute:

You must keep in mind that religion does not consist in talk, or doctrines, or books, but in realisation; it is not learning but being. No amount of doctrines or philosophies or ethical books that you have stuffed into your brain will matter much, only what you are, and what you have realised. From "The Need of Symbols." Selections, p. 64-65.

(Note the same thing is also said in Vivekachudamani a text studied by traditional Vedantins just see how conveniently he is making his point.)

While several Indian traditions refer to a distinction between "higher" and "lower" knowledge there is by no means universal agreement as to what actually counts as "higher" and "lower" knowledge. For his own part, Shankara refers to a number of related distinctions, such as between worldly (lokika) means and ends, and ultimate (paramartha) soteriological concerns; or between teachings that are to be taken at face value and teachings that are "figuratively true" and merely propaedeutic (cf. GK 3.14). Following the Mundaka Up, he also refers to the distinction between higher and lower knowledge. But in Shankara's works, the distinction between higher and lower knowledge is not used to contrast "book learning" with "experience," even though this is a typical interpretation given by modern scholars. Rather, Shankara uses the distinction to distinguish knowledge that concerns ritual action from soteriological knowledge, that is, knowledge that leads to the heaven realms (brahma loka) from knowledge that leads to ultimate release (moksha). He does so primarily to make known his break with the jnana-karma-samucaya Vedanta of his contemporaries.

realization (samyagdrashana). As for the Mundaka's referring to the Rg Veda, Sama Veda, etc. as belonging to the lower knowledge, Shankara takes this as a reference to brahmanic ritualism, which he relegates to the domain of ignorance (avidya).

Vivekananda relates the contrast between "book learning" and "realization" to another of his favourite dichotomies -- that between the "East" and the "West." In the following passage, he associates book-learning with the "Western" attitude:"

Wow he is actually taking it to the next level, ok my question is that is there not a distinction between the “Paroksha Jnana” (Indirect knowledge) and Paroksha Jnana (Direct knowledge) in Shankara’s own system of Vedanta ? Also he must explain who is a Mantra Drashta ? Remember the Rishi’s literally saw the Mantras. So how did the Rishis get to know these Mantras, was it not through experiential knowledge. Vatsyayana also says that every one has a potential to be a Rishi. So I don’t understand what he is trying to prove from this.

III. Talking School vs. Practising School 

“Book learning and exegesis are in turn related to what Vivekananda refers to as "talking." Indeed, at times, "talking" takes the place of "book learning" in juxtaposition with "experience." By "talk" Vivekananda could mean various things -- the practice of sermonizing and expounding upon a teaching, or the practice of philosophical discussion (vada), which is an aspect of deliberation (manana) upon a teaching. The distinction between "talk" and "practice" may also imply the well known distinction between "talk" and "action," in the sense of someone who "talks the talk but does not walk the walk," or someone who does not "practice what they preach," or someone who is "all talk but no action." This latter sense would be in keeping with Vivekananda's notion of a "practical Vedanta."

The next passage relates "talk" to the intellect and at the same time uses the notion of "common sense" as a check on intellectualism:

We may deliver great intellectual speeches, become very good rationalists, and prove the tales of God are all nonsense, but let us come to practical common sense. What is behind this remarkable intellect? Zero, nothing, simply so much froth.... A little more common sense is required. Nothing is so uncommon as common sense, the world is too full of talk. From "The Teacher of Spirituality." Selections, p. 59.

In the following passage, Vivekananda again relates "talking" to intellectual understanding:

What you only grasp intellectually may be overthrown by a new argument, but what you realise is yours for ever. Talking, talking about religion is but little good. From "Inspired Talks."Selections, p. 325.

This passage echoes Shankara's comments at Br Su 2.1.11 where he dismisses traditions, such as Samkhya, that claim to arrive at truth through rational argument on the grounds that arguments used to establish one truth are continually being supplanted by more ingenious arguments claiming to establish another truth. Because of this, suggests Shankara, reason requires the guidance of revealed scripture.

The following passage appears to invoke GK 3.17 and 3.18, which state that the non-dualists conflict with no one (na virudyate):”

At last the Author criticises Vivekananda for writing Raja Yoga, Jnana Yoga and so on. One must understand that a seeker would require some form of guide, hence Vivekananda is giving books for guidance nothing more. He is telling everyone not to get stuck with books. Still it is surprising that this author finds this wrong.

“IV. Experience as the Essence of Religion and the Basis of Authority

The idea of religions "quarrelling with each other" because they are based on different doctrines is similar to an argument used by Shankara, namely, that the different heterodox darshanas, such a Buddhism, Samkhya, etc., are all mutually contradictory (paraspara-viruddha) because they are based upon heterogenous teachings. Shankara's solution to this problem of the "multivalency of truth" is to insist upon the authority of the authorless Veda. Vivekananda's solution is to replace scripture with "experience." The implication appears to be that if people recognized that all religion is based upon experience, quarrelling among the various religions would disappear. Here, Vivekananda hastily infers the uniformity of religious experience from the premise of its universality. He does not stop to consider the possibility that personal experience too is multiform.”

Now here Kelamuni is completely mistaken, note that he is referring to Shankara’s commentary on the argument with the Sankhya philosophers. In the verse he uses the term “Agama” and not the term “Shruti”. Shruti simply means the Vedas. Whereas “Agama “ refers to the intuition of the Brahman. Hence faith in the Shastra is provisional, since once the truth is known this faith is not required. So the intuition of the truth is “Agama” . Hence this is a big mistake he is making by undermining Vivekananda again. In fact Vivekananda in his lecture “ One existence appearing as many” says the following

 “Before you begin to practice, clear your mind of all doubts. Fight and reason and argue; and when you have established it in your mind that this and this alone can be the truth and nothing else, do not argue any more; close your mouth. Hear not argumentation, neither argue yourself. What is the use of any more arguments? You have satisfied yourself, you have decided the question. What remains? The truth has now to be realised, therefore why waste valuable time in vain arguments? The truth has now to be meditated upon, and every idea that strengthens you must be taken up and every thought that weakens you must be rejected.”

After this point Vivekananda says to hold on to the truth and realisation dawns on the person. This is the same as Shankara’s Advaita. See how conveniently the Kelamuni ignores this part.

"
V. Practice and "Verification"

Here the author takes a shot at Raja Yoga and how Vivekananda introduces it, however as shown above even Shankara regards intuition or experience as the final proof. So this invalidates the author’s claim. So the last paragraph summarises what he says.

“But this "vision" is not like the perception of a given empirical reality passively absorbed through the senses (if such a thing even exists); nor is it something acquired through the application of a neutral open-ended enquiry. Rather, it involves the development of a certain kind of "seeing," an understanding of oneself and the world in accordance with a particular teaching. In this sense, it is more like the active incorporation of a perspective, a change of view that allows the practitioners of these traditions to understand and comfort themselves in a particular, and hopefully more liberating, way.”

Now he is clearly implying that the reasoning done in Vedanta is to comfort one self and is not like the empirical understanding. Well this is where he does not understand how even science works. 

For example no scientist till now has seen a proton. Neutron or electron. So how do we arrive at this model, we arrive at models by 1^st questioning them, then we form a hypothesis. If this hypothesis works it becomes the relevant scientific theory. This is the same with gravity, evolution, big bang and so on. They are hypothesis that work, if a better hypothesis is found then the theory is discarded. 

Now when one looks at the Svetasvatara Upanishad , it starts with a question, then it asks for different hypothesis and then finally arrives at a conclusion. Discovery of something will always imply a change of vision and perspective. The discovery of evolution was a result of discovering something by changing a perspective. Similarly with other theories, I do not understand how it is wrong for Vedanta to change your perspective. Now the argument of offering comfort is not valid, since if you observe “J.Krishnamurti’s philosophy” he tells you to abandon comfort, conclusions and pre-conceived notions then he says you discover something.

Similarly when one studies   Vedanta, the student is only asked for a provisional faith in the teaching nothing more.  If this provisional faith is not there such a person will not take the study of Vedanta. It is like someone telling the doctor that I basically do not believe in the medicine that you give without trying the medicine. At this stage the doctor cannot do anything to prove that his medicine works unless he asks the patient to take the medicine. Similarly Vedanta is helpless if a person simply rejects it by saying he doesn’t believe it without trying it out.