Pariprashnena — Q&A Archive

Common sense is to quote and understand in context.

I think that to appreciate Vedas concise answer, it helps to read up on "common sense", see how the meaning of the term has developed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense

Madhvacarya in his Katha-lakshana categorises quoting out of context, or selective use of qoutes, as the lowest mode within the modes of philosophical debating. In this mode of debating, truth is not the goal; establishing your own supremacy is the goal whether it is supported by truth or not.

One thing Mishra, why have you put scriptual quotes and common sense in opposition? Wouldnt you say that proper assimilation of scripture should naturally endow one with common sense? After all, "Study of the Vedas is not meant for the recreation of armchair speculators, but for the formation of character." (Purp 8.28) To me, proper character would naturally include common sense, no?

I think a related question here is:
"If one comes upon a scriptural passage that one finds awkward, counterintuitive or impossible to accept, what should one do?"

I once asked some questions to a spiritual teacher, and in his reply, he addressed the above question as well (although I didnt ask that one in particular).
He said that in such a case, I should not wonder about the hows and whys, but instead go back to a spiritual principle that I do have faith in, and act on that one.

And more, I think that especially a Westerner is more likely to have epistemological questions and concerns that someone growing up in a traditional (mono)culture would not have.
So one has questions like: "On the grounds of what do I accept the authority of Vedic scriptures? How can I explain this acceptance to myself (and others) without resorting to circular reasoning?"

I think that for the average Westerner (who has grown up in a multi-cultural, multi-religious, multi-worldview, relativistic setting), the dualism "scripture vs. common sense" very much exists, accompanied by a number of philosophical problems.

Actually what we accept is the best possible pramana of nyaya. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pramana#Nyaya (Nyaya is like logic for a westerner) which similar to the best one of sankya. The best for spiritual matters is sabda. Or evidence/witness statements. We accept both Vaidika, knowledge from sources acknowledged as authoritative eg scripture, and Laukika, or words and writings of trustworthy beings. It is a common sense that one needs to trust those who have experience, and that is what we do. We do not accept anything that is not also common sense for those who have experience of the level. If something is beyond your level of understanding now, take it as something you do not understand, but still a valid evidence recorded in the words of the sastra. You may understand it later.

>deena its formulated in opposition probably because my idea is not clear :)
clearer now....So, I can see your point

One can quote pure devotees, Shastra and Sadhus and remain purely in context and still be advancing material agendas. All throughout history people have justified evil actions by referring to the written word of god.

Regarding common sense, in this day and age most Gaudiya Vaisnava topics and conclusions are not common knowledge, it may seem obvious to take a "common sense" approach to something but it doesnt hurt to get a Guru, Sadhu, Shastra understanding on the issue as well. Conversely some issues are a result of the modern times we live in and there is no shastric precedence and may require a common sense approach or verification by a living acharya. Our common sense, common knowledge, common understandings and conditionings usually takes us away from the path of bhakti. No doubt thats why we need association and instruction from a pure devotee.