Hari OM
'Text-days' are for delving into the words and theory of Advaita Vedanta.
The text now questions paths. It might be considered contentious if one adheres to the 'many paths to the one summit' principle. However, one can only debate this if there is a proper understanding of what the 'other paths' spruik.
kmrzaôe kutae }an< tkeR nEvaiSt iníy>,
Saa'!OyyaegaE iÖxapÚaE zaiBdka zBdtTpra>.27.
Karma-shaastre kuto jnaanam tarke naivaasti nischayaH,
Saankhya-yogau dvidhaapannau shabdikaa shabda-tatparaaH ||27||
Where is the possibility of Knowledge in the scriptures dealing with the rituals (Mimaamsaa)? There is certainly no firm conclusion arrived at by the treatises on logic. Only duality is reached in Saankhya-Yoga and the grammarians are intent only on words.
Rituals play their part in life, no doubt, and can provide discipline and focus. However, those who adhere fully to Mimaamsaa will say that theirs (the path of action) is the only way to Knowledge.
The argument against this might be that actions are designed to achieve results which pertain directly to them. For example, putting on a kettle with water to the fire will result in boiled water. A finite purpose will give finite results. There is nowhere to go beyond that. Adding more and more complex rituals to worship does not bring one any closer to understanding the Higher. Indeed, much of action keeps us separate from results - would we go into the fire ourselves in order to obtain boiled water? We would not. We hand off our connection to the kettle, for fear of being scalded. Further, in setting the kettle to boil, we often remove our focus and move onto another task related to kitchen preparations, for example laying out the teapot and placing the leaves within it. This too is done with less focus as the mind then moves on to whether there will be milk and sugar… a mind busy planning action cannot focus on the water which will bring it all together. If we are so engaged in ritual (when to throw the flowers, when to ring the bell…) where is the focus on the Higher, not to mention a full understanding of It?
Those who adhere to the philosophy of logic (the Nayyaayikaas) will tell you that only dry intellectualism can bring True Knowledge. There is a problem with logic. It can be turned on itself and equally disprove what it seeks to prove. What is more, logic brooks no input from illogical components - it may not, in fact, be always 'right'. The 'illogical' comes from intuition, something very difficult to quantify, which is why many deny it. Vedanta does allow for logic, but only insofar as the intellect requires to be satisfied and to bring it closer to releasing its hold on cold hard facts, moving into that which is beyond reasoning and logic.
In many ways, Saankhya can look like Advaita up to the point where an all-pervading power is recognised; however, it then separates That from this. The Consciousness is given individual status and all human consciousness is seen as separate from it, giving duality of existence. In doing this, Consciousness is given a beginning and an end. It becomes finite and this will not liberate the jiiva. The individual soul cannot join with but only reside with the Greater Soul.
Sanskrit grammar is vast and complex and this is why its study is given its own category. The Vyyaayikaas (here called shabdikaas) work only from the words before them, defining them but not delving into the essence behind them. Cast your minds back to when we studied Bhaja Govindam. Shankaraachaarya cries out, "nahi nahi rakshati dukRnj-karane - grammar rules cannot protect you!" In all religious expressions there are those groups who expound only the word of the scriptures, not permitting any chance of getting 'behind' them - this is the basis of fundamentalism. What is more, words can than be taken out of context or reconstructed and fundamentalism mutates into radicalism.
All of these philosophies have something to offer, but none of them is complete in themselves, is the argument.
