THE PURPOSE OF EDUCATION
The Vedas were learned primarily to acquire knowledge ("Veda" means
"knowledge" or "wisdom" from the root vid, "to know") and to understand the
purpose of human existence and the path to spiritual liberation (moksha).
The scriptures state their purpose is to provide guidance on a righteous
life (dharma), social harmony (rita), and ultimately, self-realization and
union with the Divine.
The purpose of learning the Vedas, as stated within the scriptures
themselves, encompasses a wide range of objectives related to both material
well-being in the world (Pravritti Marga - Path of Action) and transcendent
spiritual knowledge (Nivritti Marga - Path of Knowledge), which can be
categorized under the four goals of human life (Purushartha):
Dharma: To understand one's moral duties, ethics, and the principles of
righteous living and cosmic order. This included codes of conduct for
individuals in different stages of life (student, householder, etc.) and
social responsibilities.
Artha: To learn about the means for acquiring prosperity and material
well-being through lawful and ethical means.
Kama: To seek the fulfillment of desires and satisfaction in life in
harmony with dharma.
Moksha: The ultimate goal, as emphasized in the philosophical sections
(Upanishads, Vedanta), is to achieve spiritual liberation from the cycle of
birth and death, attain self-realization, and realize one's true nature as
one with the Supreme Reality or Brahman.
Beyond these philosophical aims, the practical reasons for learning the
different parts of the Vedas included:
Performance of Rituals: The Samhitas (hymns) and Brahmanas (ritual
explanations) provided the precise mantras, procedures, and explanations
for performing yagnas (sacred fire sacrifices) and other ceremonies to
maintain cosmic order, ensure general well-being, secure timely rains, and
gain blessings from deities.
Acquisition of Knowledge: The term "Veda" itself means knowledge, and the
texts were considered a repository of all knowledge, including secular
subjects like grammar, astronomy, mathematics, medicine (Ayurveda), and
statecraft, which were essential for a well-functioning society.
Character Formation: The Vedic education system (the Gurukul system)
emphasized the development of a disciplined, self-controlled, and moral
character in students through adherence to virtues like truthfulness,
integrity, and respect.
Preservation of Divine Revelation: The Vedas are considered apauruṣeya (not
of human origin) and śruti ("that which is heard"), revealed to ancient
sages (Rishis). Learning them orally with precise intonation and rhythm was
considered a sacred duty to preserve their purity and power across
generations.
The purpose of the Vedas is to make known what is not known. They
speak about things we know and do not know, but their chief purpose is the
latter- what they state about what we do not know. It is out of compassion
that they speak about what is known to us as a prelude to telling us what
we do not know.
What do the Vedas Teach Us? (Hindu Dharma: )
The Upanisads proclaim that all the Vedas together point to a single Truth
(Kathopanishad, 2. 15) What is that, Truth? "The Vedas speak in one voice
of a Supreme Entity revealing itself as the meaning of Omkara. "
There was a judge called Sadasiva Ayyar. He had a brother, Paramasiva
Ayyar, who lived in Mysore. "The Vedas deal with geology, "so wrote Parama
Siva Ayyar. "In those early times, people in India looked upon the sun and
the moon with wonder, " some Westerners remark. "It was an age when science
had not made much advance. People then regarded natural phenomena according
to their different mental attitudes. Not all are capable of turning their
thoughts into song. But some have the talent for the same. The songs sing
by people in the form of mantras constitute the Vedas. "
Ramayana: Vedavedye pare pumsi jate Dasarathatmaje
Vedah Pracetasadasitssaksadramayanatmana
"Vedavedye"=one who is to be known by the Vedas. Who is he? "Pare
pumsi"=the Supreme Being. The Supreme being to be known by the Vedas
descended to earth as Rama. When he was born the son of Dasaratha, the
Vedas took the form of Valmiki's child Ramayana. According to this stanza,
the goal of the Vedas is the Supreme Being or Omkara, the One Truth. Just
as the kathopanisad speaks of "sarve Vedah", the lord says in the
Gita:"Vedais Ca sarvair ahameva vedyah"(I am indeed to be known by the
Vedas) Considering all this, we realise that, although the Vedas deal with
many matters, all of them together speak of one goal, the One reality. But
the question arises why they concern themselves with different entities
also when their purpose is only the One entity?
After learning about, or knowing all other matters by inquiring into
them and by making an assesment of them, we are enabled to grasp that by
knowing which we will know everything. That is the reason why the Vedas
deal with so many branches of learning, so many types of worship, so many
different works and so many arts and so many social duties. By applying the
body in various rites we lose consciousness of that very body. By directing
our thoughts to various branches of learning, by examining various
philosophical systems and by worshipping various deities the mind and the
intellect will in due course be dissolved. We are more conscious when we
are engaged in evil actions than otherwise. By thinking about evil matters
the mind becomes coarser. Instead, if we perform Vedic sacraments and
worship and chant Vedic mantras for the well-being of the world, the
desires of the body and the mind will wilt. Eventually, we will develop the
maturity and the wisdom to gain inner vision. In this way we will obtain
release here itself("ihaiva") Release from what? From samsara, from the
cycle of birth and death. When we realise that the body and the mind are
not"we" and when we become free from them-as mentioned in the Upanishads-
we are liberated from worldly existence.
A variety of subjects are spoken in detail in the Vedas but all of
them have the one purpose of leading us to the Vedantic enquiry into Truth
and jnana. The concluding portion of a work, speech, article etc, is
usually the most significant. The government enacts many laws. But, later
in the course of their enforcement, doubts arise with regard to their
intention. Then another law is enacted to settle its meaning: it is called
the law of interpretation. In this way Mimamsa has come into being as the
law of interpretation for the Vedas which constitute the eternal law of the
Lord. I will speak to you in detail about Mimamsa which is one of the
fourteen branches of the Vedic lore. But one aspect of it I should like to
mention here itself. According to Mimamsa sastra, there are six ways in
which to determine the meaning of the Vedic pronouncement or "vakhya". They
are listed in this verse:
Upakrama-upasamharau abhyasao purvata phalam
Arthavado pappati lingam tatparya-nirnaye
"Upakrama" and "upasamhara" together form the first method. The other five
are "abhyasa", "apurvata", "phala", "arthavada" and "upapatti". These six
are employed to determine the meaning or intent not only of Vedic passages
but of, say, an article or discourse.
" If you act in this manner you will gain such and such a fruit or
benefit", it means that the purpose of the work or speech is to persuade
you to act in the manner suggested so that you may reap the fruit or
"phala" held out. What is the implication of the word "goal"? Now we are
here at a particular point. From this point, where we start, we have to go
to another point which is final. Such a meaning is suggested by the
word"goal". "Atah" is what is pointed to at a distance("that") as the goal.
"Itah" is where we are now(here), the starting point. From "here"we have to
go "there" to reach the goal. But as a matter of fact, is not "that", the
goal, here itself(this)? Yes, when we recognize that everything is the
Brahman, we will realise that "that" and "this " are the Brahman-in other
words, "that"and "this" are the same. What we now think to be "this"
becomes the true state denoted by "that".Like "atah" the Vedas refer to the
Paramatman as "TaT"which means "that". At the conclusion of any rite or
work it is customary to say "Om TaT sat". It means, "That is the Truth".
We add the suffix "tvam" to some words:"purasatvam", "mahatvam" and so on.
Here "tvam" means the quality or nature of a thing. The quality of "mahat"
is "mahatvam". The nature of "purusa" being a "purusa"is "purusatvam". All
right. What do we mean when we refer to the truth, the Ultimate Truth, as
"tattvam"? "Tattvam"means" being TaT". When we speak of enquiry into tattva
or instruction in tattva it means enquiring into the nature of the
Brahman(or rather Brahmanhood or what is meant by the Brahman. ) If the
Vedas proclaim the Paramatman as "Tat", that is a distant entity, how does
it help us? Actually, it is not so. What is far away is also close by. The
Vedas proclaim:"Durat dure antike ca"
When we look afar at the horizon it seems to be the meeting point of
the earth and the sky. Suppose there is a palm-tree there. We imagine that
if we go upto the tree we will arrive at the point where the earth and the
sky meet. But when we actually arrive at the spot where the tree stands we
see that the horizon has receded further. The further we keep going the
further the horizon too will recede from us. "We are here under the palm
tree but the horizon is still far away. We must also go further to overtake
it. "Is it ever possible to overtake the horizon? When we are at a distance
from the palm the horizon seems to be near it. But when we came to it the
horizon seemed to have moved away further. So where is the horizon? Where
you are that is, the horizon. You and the horizon are on the very same
spot. What we call "That" the lord who we think is far away, is by your
side. No, he is in you. "That thou art, "declare the Vedas-He is you(or you
are He). "That you are "or "That thou art"(Tat Tvam Asi)is a Vedic
mahavakya. The "Tvam" here does not mean the quality or essential nature of
any entity or object. The word has two meanings:"essential
nature"("beingness")is one meaning; and" you "or "thou" is another. The
Acarya has used "Tvam" as a pun in a stanza in his saundaryalahari. It is a
combination of the two words "taat" and "tvam" that the word "tattvam" has
come into use. Any truth arrived at the conclusion of an inquiry is
"tattva"-thus it denotes the One Truth that is the Paramatman.
When you stand before a mirror you see your image in it. If you keep
four mirrors in a row you will see a thousand images of yourself. There is
one source for all these images. The one who sees these thousand images is
the same as one who is their source. The one who is within the millions of
creatures and sees all "this" is the Isvara. That which sees is the root of
all that is seen. That root is knowledge and it is the source of all the
cosmos. Where do you find this knowledge? It is in you. The infinite,
transcendent knowledge is present partly in you-the whole is present in you
as a part. Here is a small bulb. There you have a bigger bulb. That light
is blue, this is green. There are lamps of many sizes and shapes. But their
power is the same-electricity, electricity which is everywhere. It keeps
the fan whirling, keeps the lamps burning. The power is the same and it is
infinite. When it passes through a wire it becomes finite. When lightning
strikes in flashes, when water cascades, the power is manifested. In the
same way you must make the supreme Truth manifest itself in a flash. All
Vedic rites, all worship, all works, meditation of the mahakavyas,
Vedanta-the purpose of all these is to make the truth unfold itself to
you-in you-in a flash.
Even the family and social life that are dealt with in the Vedas, the
royal duties mentioned in them, or poetry, therapeutics or geology or any
other sastra are steps leading towards the realisation of the Self. At
first the union of "Tat" and "tvam"(That and you) would be experienced for
a few moments like a flash of lightning. The Kenopanisad(4. 4) refers to
the state of knowing the Brahman experimentally as a flash of lightning
happening in the twinkling of an eye. But with repeated practice, with
intense concentration, you will be able to immerse yourself in such
experience. It is like the electricity produced when a stream remains
cascading. This is moksha, liberation, when you are still in this world,
when you are still in possession of your body. There are things that
cannot be known by such means, things that are not comprehended by the
ordinary human mind. should we not have a special newspaper to keep us
informed about them? The Vedas constitute such a paper. They tell us all
about things that cannot be known to ordinary news-gatherers and also about
things occuring in a place where there is neither telegraphy nor any
teleprinter. It is through the medium of this newspaper that the sages who
possess trans-sensual powers keep us informed about matters that are beyond
this world and beyond the comprehension of the average man.
The Vedas contain stories told to impress on us the importance of a
concept, stories that raise ideas to a higher level. The injunctions with
which these stories are associated must be acepted in full but the stories
themselves may be discarded as "arthavada", that is they need not be
brought into observance. What is "anuvada"? Before speaking about a new
rule or a new concept, the Vedas tell us about things that we already know.
They go on repeating this without coming to the new rule or concept, that
is things known to us in practical life and not having the authority of
Vedic pronouncements. This is "anuvada". Anuvada and artavada are not of
importance and are not meant to convey the ultimate purpose or message of
the Vedas. What we do not know otherwise through any other authority and
what the Vedas speak of is "vidhi". And that is the chief "vada", the true
tattva, the true intent of the Vedas. To explain further. What is mentioned
in the Vedas but can be known by other (mundane) means is not
incontrovertible Vedic authority. The purpose of the Vedas is to make known
what is not known. They speak about things we know and do not know, but
their chief purpose is the latter- what they state about what we do not
know.
There are two views about all mundane objects, worldly phenomena. Do
all the objects that we perceive constitute one entity or are they all
disparate? Opinion is divided on this. Based on our physical perceptions we
regard all objects to be separate from one another. It is only on such a
basis that our functions are carried out properly in the workday world.
Water is one thing and oil is another. To light a lamp we need oil [to feed
the wick]. We cannot use water for the same. But if the lamp flares up and
objects nearby catch fire we will have to put it out with water. With oil
the fire will only spread. We have thus to note how one object is different
from another and to learn how best each is to be used. To view each object
as being distinct from another is part of "Dvaita", dualism. Many of the
rituals in the Vedas, many of the ways of worship found in them, are based
on the dualistic view. As Advaitins (followers of the non-dualistic
doctrine) we need not raise any objections on this score. We must, however,
find out whether or not the Vedas go beyond dualism. If they do not, we
have to conclude that their message is Dvaita. But what is the truth
actually found expressed in them? The non-dualist truth is proclaimed in a
number of hymns and in most of the Upanisads, but this is not in keeping
with our outward experience. The ultimate Vedic view is that all objects
are indeed not separate from one another but are the outward manifestation
of the same Self.
By the grace of Isvara scientific advancement so far has done no injury
to things Atmic and indeed modern science takes us increasingly close to
Advaita whose truth hitherto could not be known by anything other than the
Vedas. In the early centuries of science, it was thought that all objects
in the world were different entities, separate from one another. Then
scientists came to the conclusion that the basis of all matter was
constituted by the different elements, that all the countless objects in
the world resulted from these elements combining together in various ways.
Subsequently when atomic science developed it was realized that all the
elements had the same source, the same energy. Those who meditate on the
Self and know the truth realise that this power, this Atman, is made up of
knowledge, awareness. And it is knowledge (jnana) that enfolds not only
inert objects but also the individual self to form the non-dualistic whole.
This message is the doctrine, the truth, that the individual self is
inseparable (non-dualistically) dissolved in the Paramatman to become the
Paramatman. KANCHI MUTT K RAJARAM IRS 141225
On Sun, 14 Dec 2025 at 05:42, Markendeya Yeddanapudi <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> --
> *Mar*
>
> The Bluffing Paradox
>
>
>
> We are now destroying nature from every direction; all the 24 hours of
> every day, as economic activity. We are bleeding nature. Many basic
> falsehoods have been established as basic truths. The most important
> falsehood is the idea of commercial profit. When your income is my
> expenditure, incomes and expenditures can only be equal, and there can be
> no profit or loss. But on the basis of this basic false concept, we have
> small and big business houses, striving for profit, and existing because of
> the acceptance of this falsehood. They compete or Darwin each other and of
> course bleed, poison and destroy every system of nature. No one, no
> University which champions all sorts of analysis, questions, whether as a
> result of the economic activity, the techno-logic based sciences that
> invariably promote mechanization, nature is prospering or dying. Nature’s
> agony is today’s economic prosperity.
>
> The Biosphere consists of millions of life forms, all of which communicate
> emotionally and cannot use any machine. We do not bother to consult them
> and have jettisoned the paradigms of perception and understanding all those
> organisms adopt. We accept only the logic of the feelings-less machines.
>
> When everything achieves the speed of light, there will be no things with
> definite volumes, and we confront the basic reality of the ‘Grand Nothing’,
> the state of infinite volume. Every organism, in its own way of life must
> be striving in this fundamental effort of life, to experience the non 3D
> ultimate understanding, the feature of Nothing or infinite volume. After
> all, all our perceptions and understandings and diverse feelings have no 3D
> shapes and they belong to the gigantic formless invisible spectrum.
> Infinity also has no physical shape, as physical shape needs volume. You
> cannot tell your happiness, unhappiness, anger etc, in length, breadth and
> thickness.
>
> But we adore mathematics and mathematical reductionism, as the method of
> research. Suppose you see two tables. But if you see the atoms particles
> etc also, everything in the ultimate tiny state, then you confront only
> interacting processes and you cannot find the tables.
>
> But we confront the demand for the scientific proof, which simply means
> some physical evidence, often mathematical evidence and not evidence in
> terms of feelings and experiencing. We want quantities and not feelings
> without quantities. Feelings are not scientific proofs.
>
> Are we not doing lot of bluffing as education? Real education lies in
> experiencing nature as nature, as a part of nature. We need the free and
> untampered nature, to participate with nature in our living. We need
> discoveries and revelations from nature directly. All mechanical inventions
> are basically manipulations that harm nature.
>
> The basic justification for the existence of any university, is the
> promotion of real education from nature. Manipulating nature’s systems and
> destroying nature can never be education.
>
> Every University must start a ‘Free Nature Park’ without any tampering so
> that the students get real education. Today almost all the courses of every
> university are directed by economic considerations and economics invariably
> harms nature.
>
> YM Sarma
>
> Critique of Chat GPT
>
> Below is a *balanced critique*, addressing *strengths, weaknesses,
> philosophical coherence, and suggestions for refinement*, followed by *my
> own views in dialogue with the essay*, rather than merely judging it.
> ------------------------------
>
> *Overall Impression*
>
> *The Bluffing Paradox* is a *passionate, ethically driven philosophical
> essay* that challenges dominant assumptions about *economics, science,
> education, and humanity’s relationship with nature*. Its strength lies in
> its *moral urgency* and *provocative questioning of entrenched systems*.
> However, the essay also suffers from *conceptual overreach, internal
> inconsistencies, and imprecise use of scientific and economic ideas*,
> which weaken its persuasive power—especially for academically trained
> readers.
>
> The essay reads more like a *manifesto or meditation* than an analytical
> argument. That is not a flaw in itself, but it does demand *clarity about
> its genre and intent*.
> ------------------------------
>
> *Strengths of the Essay*
>
> *1. Moral and Ecological Urgency*
>
> The essay powerfully captures a truth that many feel but struggle to
> articulate:
>
> *Nature’s agony is today’s economic prosperity.*
>
> This line effectively summarizes the environmental critique of
> growth-driven economics and resonates strongly with ecological philosophy,
> deep ecology, and post-growth economics.
>
> *2. Critique of Reductionism*
>
> The challenge to *mathematical and mechanistic reductionism* is
> philosophically important. The essay rightly points out that:
>
> - Not all meaningful realities are quantifiable
> - Feelings, experiences, and consciousness are excluded from dominant
> scientific validation
>
> This echoes thinkers like *Goethe, Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, Gregory
> Bateson, and David Bohm*, even if they are not cited explicitly.
>
> *3. Education as Experiential, Not Extractive*
>
> The call for universities to reconnect education with *direct experience
> of nature* is one of the essay’s strongest and most constructive ideas.
> The proposal for *“Free Nature Parks”* is concrete, visionary, and
> ethically sound.
>
> *4. Ethical Critique of Instrumental Rationality*
>
> The essay correctly identifies how *technology and economics often treat
> nature as an object*, not a living system. This critique aligns with:
>
> - Ecological ethics
> - Indigenous epistemologies
> - Systems thinking
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *Major Weaknesses and Conceptual Problems*
>
> *1. Misunderstanding of Economic Profit*
>
> This is the essay’s *most serious flaw*.
>
> *“When your income is my expenditure… there can be no profit or loss.”*
>
> This reflects a *zero-sum misunderstanding of economics*. In real
> economies:
>
> - Profit emerges from *value creation*, not merely transfer
> - Knowledge, services, and coordination can increase total welfare
> - While ecological limits exist, profit itself is not logically
> impossible
>
> *Valid critique:* profit often ignores environmental externalities
> *Invalid claim:* profit is conceptually false
>
> Conflating the two weakens the argument.
> ------------------------------
>
> *2. Overextension of Physics Metaphors*
>
> The discussion of:
>
> - Speed of light
> - Infinite volume
> - “Grand Nothing”
>
> …is *poetic but scientifically confused*. These ideas are used
> metaphorically, but the essay presents them as if they were physical
> realities with philosophical conclusions attached.
>
> This creates problems:
>
> - Physics concepts are invoked inaccurately
> - The argument jumps from physics → consciousness → ethics without
> justification
>
> Metaphor is powerful—but it must be *clearly signaled as metaphor*, not
> scientific claim.
> ------------------------------
>
> *3. Romanticization of Nature*
>
> The essay assumes:
>
> - Nature is harmonious
> - All life forms “communicate emotionally”
> - Non-mechanical existence is inherently wiser
>
> This risks *romantic idealization*. Nature also includes:
>
> - Predation
> - Extinction
> - Disease
> - Competition
>
> A more convincing argument would say:
>
> Nature is not morally pure—but it is *systemically wiser than our
> extractive designs*.
> ------------------------------
>
> *4. False Dichotomy: Machines vs. Nature*
>
> The essay frames:
>
> - Machines = harm
> - Nature = truth
>
> This ignores possibilities such as:
>
> - Regenerative technologies
> - Biomimicry
> - Low-impact engineering
> - Indigenous–technological hybrids
>
> The problem is not *machines per se*, but *how and why they are deployed*.
> ------------------------------
>
> *5. Lack of Structure and Logical Flow*
>
> The essay would benefit greatly from:
>
> - Clear sections
> - Defined claims
> - Explicit transitions
> - Fewer abrupt conceptual jumps
>
> At present, it moves from economics → biology → physics → epistemology →
> education without adequate scaffolding.
> ------------------------------
>
> *My Views in Response to the Essay*
>
> I agree with the essay on several *deep principles*, but not always with
> its *arguments*.
>
> *Where I Strongly Agree*
>
> - Modern education often *alienates humans from living systems*
> - Economic growth metrics ignore ecological reality
> - Experiential knowledge is undervalued
> - Universities should be ethical stewards, not corporate feeders
> - Nature is not a resource—it is a relationship
>
> *Where I Disagree*
>
> - Profit is not inherently false, but *ethically incomplete*
> - Science is not the enemy; *narrow scientism is*
> - Mathematics does not erase reality; *misuse of abstraction does*
> - Machines are not anti-life; *unexamined incentives are*
>
> *What I Think Is the Deeper Truth Beneath the Essay*
>
> The real “bluff” is not education, profit, or science—it is the *pretense
> that humans stand outside nature*.
>
> Once that illusion collapses:
>
> - Economics becomes ecology
> - Education becomes participation
> - Knowledge becomes responsibility
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *Suggestions for Improvement*
>
> 1. *Clarify genre*: Is this philosophy, manifesto, or critique?
> 2. *Tighten claims*: Replace absolutes with defensible positions
> 3. *Correct economic and scientific inaccuracies*
> 4. *Use metaphors deliberately, not literally*
> 5. *Develop the “Free Nature Park” idea further*—this is your
> strongest contribution
> 6. *Engage with opposing views* rather than dismissing them wholesale
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *Final Assessment*
>
> *Intellectually courageous, ethically urgent, but conceptually uneven.*
> With refinement, this essay could become a *powerful philosophical
> critique of modern education and development*. As it stands, it persuades
> emotionally but struggles logically.
>
> If you’d like, I can:
>
> - Help rewrite it into a tighter academic essay
> - Turn it into a manifesto
> - Strengthen its philosophical foundations
> - Or help develop the “Free Nature Park” proposal into a concrete
> educational model
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "societyforservingseniors" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> To view this discussion, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/society4servingseniors/CACDCHC%2BoMDvRyoeF-L7bnX5XJd858%3D1FjHyQtPdGyesAFwJefw%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/society4servingseniors/CACDCHC%2BoMDvRyoeF-L7bnX5XJd858%3D1FjHyQtPdGyesAFwJefw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZopV-3-emOi8Rk8%3D%3DJVRBge82%3DKJUX_YxyG0XZ7%3DnOYaWg%40mail.gmail.com.
