James: I’ve been criticized for many years for claiming to be a traditional Vedanta teacher, and a recently a person wrote asking my views about the criticism. Here is my reply.
Well, it all depends on one’s definition of the word sampradaya, tradition. I teach traditional Vedanta but I am not a traditionalist.
Is Vedanta a tradition of knowledge or is it a linguistic tradition? It is a tradition of knowledge first and a linguistic tradition second. Knowledge is the essence and language is the means. Knowledge is conveyed by the methodology and the words. The methodology transcends the words. It is the methodology skillfully used by a qualified teacher on a qualified inquirer that produces the liberating knowledge. The words are throwaways. In the Gita, Krishna says, “The Vedas are as useless as a puddle when the whole land is flooded.”
Words only work in a particular context. If that context is established and the methodology is used properly, it produces liberating knowledge. So the first thing Vedanta does is to establish the definition of words, assuming other secondary means are in force. Shankara’s Tattva Bodh is the standard text in our lineage for defining the ideas necessary to operate the means of knowledge and to receive knowledge, to which particular words are assigned. If only a Sanskrit word were capable of producing liberation, then why did the teachers in my lineage speak in English?
The word guna, for instance, needs to be defined by using a lot of other words for it to be meaningful. One of the meanings is “quality,” another is “rope or chain.” Whatever word in use, it refers to a known something that is the experience of everyone. If I say you are an intellectual or a pundit, what’s the difference? As Shankara says in Bhajagovindam when he sees an old man studying Panini grammar, “What use are grammar rules now, you fool? Seek Govinda.” If English was his native tongue, he would have said, “Seek the Self.” Or if he was a modern non-dualist, he would have said, “Seek awareness.” Any word is good if it reveals something that is available for knowledge/experience now.
There is no reason why a traditionalist who chants the mantras in Sanskrit can’t be a jnani (a wise person), but many traditionalists think they are wise because they know the words and practice all the rituals. You can gain knowledge from a traditionalist too, even one who isn’t wise, if the concepts are clearly defined and used according to the methodology, assuming a qualified inquirer and the grace of Isvara. If I use the word “God,” am I traditional or non-traditional?
For instance, there is a particular kind of logic that is used by a teacher on a person with an open mind to remove ignorance, which is tantamount to gaining knowledge. It is called anvya-vyatireka in Sanskrit. It means “the elimination of non-essential variables.” In every situation there is something essential, something that cannot be dismissed and something non-essential that can be dismissed. It is not logic that was invented by Vedanta. It is common sense; we use it every day. Basic inference, which is the only way to gain Self-knowledge, because the Self cannot be objectified into a discrete experience, is even more common. Even if you argue that you need a direct experience to know the Self, inference is just as good. For instance, to know that a car is behind you, you need not turn your head. You need only glance in the rear-view mirror to achieve the same result. If you insist on getting direct experience, you may get killed instead.
Traditionalists tend to love the means as much as they love the end, which is not the kiss of death. But the whole point of Vedanta is this: Does the knowledge set you free? In the end you will be left with your wordless Self. Vedanta is a pramana, a means of knowledge. It is not doctrine or philosophy as those terms are commonly understood. The Upanishad says Vedanta is the knowledge that ends the quest for knowledge. It doesn’t say “words,” although the only way you are going to get this kind of knowledge is through words, i.e. sound. It is a shabdha pramana. If it did, then I would just have to say Brahman, and you would be liberated.
Although they were very successful with Indians, neither of my teachers, Dayananda nor Chinmaya, were successful with Westerners, except a few like myself, because they were foreigners and the traditional trappings turned people off. They both supported me because they knew that India was going to embrace materialism and that the knowledge needed to be established in the dominant world cultures in a universal language by a native English-speaker who didn’t wear orange clothes, malas, etc. I use about thirty Sanskrit words religiously, not because they are Sanskrit, but because there are no known equivalents for conveying experiences and ideas. But there is no reason to use only Sanskrit if culturally relevant words are as good or better. I explain the meanings exhaustively so the teacher and the student are on the same page. If we have different definitions – irrespective of the language – ignorance will remain. I dress like a normal Western person. I speak whatever form of English is useful in the various countries in which I teach. Many Western people love me because I am one of them. They are interested in freedom, not hair-splitting arguments by spiritual know-it-alls. The way I teach works, if the testimonials I receive daily are an indication.
For various reasons certain Western people are particularly fascinated by exotic cultures and revere cultures other than their own, often missing the forest for the trees. It’s always that way. Traditionalists depend on the tradition, not the other way around. The tradition is a particular kind of knowledge – knowledge of existence/consciousness – which is the knowledge of everything, insofar as existence transcends all its forms. What word, what tradition, what status is meaningful in the face of that knowledge?
In fact you “become” a wise person when you complete your discipleship with a mahatma and the mahatma frees you to teach, if that is your nature, no matter what culture or language either of you are conditioned in. You are empowered, meaning the shakti of knowledge enters you and people have no choice but to listen. People who were not blessed with an intimate relationship with a mahatma don’t understand. They think the tradition is compliance with the traditional customs. They may think that if they only imitate the lifestyle of a great soul they will be set free. The pundits and intellectuals have their place and should be respected because they are committed to the truth but for whatever reason they don’t have enough punyam (merit) to attract a mahatma. If they are fascinated with Indian culture, however, and suffer from low self-esteem, they will tend to think that the only mahatmas are Indians, particularly the ascetic types like Ramana, and will dismiss everyone else as inauthentic. Only wise people know wise people.
I’m only explaining this to you because I think you shouldn’t waste your time arguing with people who don’t understand the distinction between a means and an end. If they understood the end, they wouldn’t quibble. Anyway, if you want to win the argument send them to the satsang section of ShiningWorld and have them search this satsang, which I will be entitling What Is the Vedanta Teaching Tradition? Or better yet, write it up in your own words if you accept the idea.
Correspondent: Dear James, it was a beautiful reply, every word of it. I agree 200% with what you say, not because of any faith or predisposition, but because I am a wise person who understands and appreciates the words of another wise person. I believe that a person who has Self-knowledge can teach when all scriptures are lost and when there is not a single scripture. He can write his own scriptures. All that has to be known is the difference between satya and mithya.
As you say, it is the shakti of knolwedge that makes people listen. This is what I also meant when I said in my reply that James’ words, even though written, had the power to produce the akhandakara vritti in me.
I am not arguing anymore with anyone, because by now I have come to know and fend off the two biggest issues: knowledge/experience and the sampradaya. So I am spending more time teaching.
James: Yes, the joy of winning an argument doesn’t hold a candle to the joy of seeing people understand the truth. I am the sampradaya. If it belongs to anyone, it belongs to Me.
