There is a very famous Zen story that we all might have heard:
Once upon a time, there was a wise Zen master. People traveled from far away to seek his help. In return, he would teach them and show them the way to enlightenment. One day a young man came to him on a horseback. He looked tired from a long Journey.
Welcome son! How can I help you? asked the master.
The lad replied, I have come to Learn Zen from you. I have already learnt a lot of scriptures and can debate about most of them in the council of scholars. Zen is something that I want to learn about now" he said.
Well.. certainly, the master replied with a smile. I see you are very tired from travel. Let me pour you some tea first he said.
He took a cup and started pouring hot tea from the flask. The cup was filled, yet he kept pouring until the cup overflowed onto the table, onto the floor, and finally onto the scholar’s robes. The young man cried “Stop! The cup is full already. Can’t you see?”
“Exactly,” the Zen master replied with a smile.
“You are like this cup — so full of ideas that nothing more will fit in. Come back to me with an empty cup.”
This attitude of emptying the cup is good at times when we are so blinded by our preconceived notions that we do not even consider any new knowledge at all. But even then I think there may be a better approach to acquiring new wisdom. The ones our Indian perennial scriptures like Upanishads excelled at.
The Upanishadic way to adopt the new learning
Upanishads are always created as a dialog between a teacher and student. It is not any dialogue but a dialogue characterized by the following:
A Purva Paksha- existing or current view point. This is the current understanding of the student.
A Skeptic - who is typically a student who is not clear or confused or misunderstood one or more tenets of Poorva Paksha
A Guru- who is a siddha - realized soul who takes up vaada or dialog to clarify the poorva paksha
The Uttara Paksha - This is the revalued understanding that the Guru and the Sishya - the student reaches after discussing on the poorva paksha.
As you see, the Indian tradition starkly contrasts with the Zen approach where the student is asked to give up his existing knowledge. Here in our Upanishad tradition though, as Rajeev Malhotra states in his book Being Different (2011), "The purva paksha tradition required any debater first to argue from the perspective of his opponent to test the validity of his understanding of the opposing position, and from there to realize his own shortcomings. Only after perfecting his understanding of opposing views would he be qualified to refute them. Such debates encourage individuals to maintain flexibility of perspective and honesty rather than seek victory egotistically".
His full excerpts
It is a dialectical approach, taking a thesis by an opponent ('purva pakshin') and then providing its rebuttal ('khandana') so as to establish the protagonist's views ('siddhanta'). The purva paksha tradition required any debater first to argue from the perspective of his opponent to test the validity of his understanding of the opposing position, and from there to realize his own shortcomings. Only after perfecting his understanding of opposing views would he be qualified to refute them. Such debates encourage individuals to maintain flexibility of perspective and honesty rather than seek victory egotistically. In this way, the dialectical process ensures a genuine and far-reaching shift in the individual.[4]: 48
This begs another question. Haven't we know debates are useful? we have debate clubs and parliament and senates are run by debates? well.. but there is one critical aspect.
Vivaad and SamVaad
A debate is called "Vaad" (वाद). Sastras say its of two types. A vi-vaad (विवाद) meaning to establish one's view as the right view, while belittling other's view or a sam-vaad (संवाद) where the two sides look at a current view and try to arrive at a revalued view. its not my way or the highway approach but lets explore both views to see if we can arrive at a better understanding attitude. This is the hallmark of Vedic dialog.
An example
Now that we have discussed in detail about the Bharathiya (Indian) way of approaching wisdom, let me give a quick example to clarify this. we do not have to look any further than Bhagavad Gita, the Celestial song of God. In this Arjuna is the Skeptic and Krishna is the Guru. In this
seminal work, Krishna and Arjuna goes in to a dialog in which they revalue the understanding on various spiritual/religious' concepts prevalent in India.
Let's take one important aspect "Renunciation" or "sannyasa" as its called in Sanskrit.
The Skeptic Arjuna, puts forth the "Purva Paksha" - the prevalent understanding as follows in Chapter 2, Verse 5,
It would be better to live in this world by begging, than to enjoy life by killing these noble elders, who are my teachers. If we kill them, the wealth and pleasures we enjoy will be tainted with blood. - Bhagavad Gita- Ch2, verse -5
This understanding stems from the prevalent social belief at that period, that its better not to kill even on a rightful battle and also renouncing means living in alms.
But once Krishna revalues the wisdom based on true spirit of scriptures, Arjuna realizes his misunderstanding. True to the spirit of sam-vaada, he probes Krishna as below in verse 1 of chapter 18.
Arjun said: O mighty-armed Krishna, I wish to understand the nature of sanyās (renunciation of actions) and tyāg (renunciation of desire for the fruits of actions). O Hrishikesh, I also wish to know the distinction between the two, O Keshinisudan. - Bhagavad Gita- Ch18, verse -1
Then Krishna provides the revalued definition of true Renunciation from verse 2 to 12 of Chapter 18.
Bhagavad Gita Chapter 18(source: https://www.holy-bhagavad-gita.org/chapter/18)
verse- 2. The Supreme Divine Personality said: Giving up of actions motivated by desire is what the learned understand as sanyās. Relinquishing the fruits of all actions is what the wise declare to be tyāg.
verse-3: Some learned people declare that all kinds of actions should be given up as evil, while others maintain that acts of sacrifice, charity, and penance should never be abandoned.
verse-4:Now hear My conclusion on the subject of renunciation, O tiger amongst men, for renunciation has been declared to be of three kinds.
verse-5:Actions based upon sacrifice, charity, and penance should never be abandoned; they must certainly be performed. Indeed, acts of sacrifice, charity, and penance are purifying even for those who are wise.
verse-6:These activities must be performed without attachment and expectation for rewards. This is My definite and supreme verdict, O Arjun.
verse-7:Prescribed duties should never be renounced. Such deluded renunciation is said to be in the mode of ignorance.
verse-8:To give up prescribed duties because they are troublesome or cause bodily discomfort is renunciation in the mode of passion. Such renunciation is never beneficial or elevating.
verse-9:When actions are undertaken in response to duty, and one relinquishes attachment to any reward, O Arjun, it is considered renunciation in the nature of goodness.
verse-10: Those who neither avoid disagreeable work nor seek work because it is agreeable are persons of true renunciation. They are endowed with the quality of the mode of goodness and have no doubts (about the nature of work).
verse-11: For the embodied being, it is impossible to give up activities entirely. But those who relinquish the fruits of their actions are said to be truly renounced.
verse-12:The three-fold fruits of actions—pleasant, unpleasant, and mixed—accrue even after death to those who are attached to personal reward. But, for those who renounce the fruits of their actions, there are no such results in the here or hereafter.
So, Verse 11 and 12 sums up the revalued concept of Purva paksha - the Uttara paksha.
Hope this post is useful to you. Please share your thoughts in comments below.
Always Keep Rocking.
With Love
Good writing Vignesh!!