Acharya's teachings and Versions

[Guest guest]

--- Stig Lundgren <slu wrote:

>

> Just a remark: Many modern hindus or neo-vedantins do hold the view

> that all

> religions are true, and that all religions can get you liberated.

> However,

> I´m afraid this not at all the attitude of those other religions! For

> instance, christians (catholic, lutheran, orthodox or whatever) don´t

> say

> that hinduism is just as good as christianity, or that hinduism would

> lead

> you to salvation. So, the view that christianity and hinduism lead to

> the

> same goal is in fact a hindu outlook on christianity. This is

> certainly not

> the outlook of the christians themselves. Christians don´t think that

> hinduism and christianity lead to the same goal. So, if all religions

> are

> true, then what to do when those religions condemns other faiths, such

> as

> hinduism? Is that true too?

>

> Warmest regards

> Stig Lundgren

 

Stig - Greetings.

 

On the lighter note - there was question posed by a Chemistry teacher

(about 100 yrs ago) as part of homework - to prove whether 'Hell' is an

exothermic system (system that gives out heat) or endothermic system

(system that absorbs heat) with logical arguments.

 

One student response: According to all religions, (perhaps he was not

aware of the Catholicism of Hinduism) those who believe in their

religion alone go to heaven and the rest are non-believers and hence go

to Hell on the Day of Judgment. From this point, by mutual exclusion,

all souls go to only Hell. In addition, since it is an eternal Hell,

for the most of the religions, no soul comes out of Hell. This implies

that it is a one-way traffic. Since there is continuous increase of

influx of souls into Hell (we are in kali Yuga, it is being continuously

overbooked, since all systems are closed systems or limited systems

(Hell is limited by Heaven and earth), increased density in Hell becomes

hellish and very hot. It has to be an exothermic system. This assumes

that each soul has a finite weight. This assumption is not invalid

since every soul is being over burdened with their sins.

For a Hindu it is only a transient place unless you are Madhva. As I

understand, for them, in there intrinsic gradation in souls and some are

eternally belong there.

----------------------

Stig - your points are well taken and I do not think Prof. VK statements

are truely contradictory. If we go by Mahaavaakya-s the essence of

Advaita Vedanta is obvious. In that understanding all roads lead to the

same advaitic understanding.

Should one pay too much attention to the finer discrepancies in the

interpretations?

Take for example the recent discussions of CNji. Is the world real or

unreal? It is clear as the exquisite writings of CNji that Shankara was

constrained in his interpretation of the B.Sutras of Badarayana.

However, he was more at liberty in his prakaraNa grantha-s - such as

DakshaNa muurthy stotrams as they are based on the mahavakyaa-s.

One feels that world is real until one realizes the advaitic nature of

the reality and recognizes that world is in real as naama and ruupa. As

the recent discussion on Swami Dayananda Saraswati's statements - ring

is gold and do not call it as ring and call it is as gold. Swamiji

obviously talking from the point of goldsmith. Obviously his point is

not to give importance to naama and ruupa but to the essence since we

are all interested in the bottom line and not on the superficial

aspects. He is emphasizing the 'apavaada' aspect of it. Should one

emphasize the adhyaasa part? Yes, if one has questions of how can that

be since I do not recognize the essence? No, if you are able to see the

bottom line; why pay attention to unnecessary details on naama and

ruupa. Rose by any name is Rose. It is not that Swamiji not aware of

adyaasa but for a vedantin, for sadhak is is more important to see the

substantive than superficials. Is it not what adhyaasa bhaashya all

about to be able to see the real from apparent.

 

Most of these has already formulated by Shankara in his adhyaasa

Bhashya?

 

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

=====

What you have is destiny and what you do with what you have is self-effort.

Future destiny is post destiny modified by your present action. You are not only

the prisoner of your past but master of your future. - Swami Chinmayananda

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Stig-ji,

 

There is an interpretation of Shankara Advaita that sees no

contradiction between Shankara's prasthana traya bhashyas and the

other texts attributed to him, just as there is an interpretation

that sees a contradiction between them.

 

The argument, that amongst the texts attributed to Shankara some of

them contradict others, is based on a certain interpretation of

Shankara Advaita. I am here not arguing as to which interpretation is

correct, but I believe it is important that we realise the harm we

may be doing if we don't exercise great caution before seeking to

filter out parts of the received heritage of Shankara's writings.

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "Stig Lundgren" <slu@b...> wrote:

>

> First of all, the reason for criticising the ascribed authorship

> of some books are not to say that those books are worthless, or

> to claim that if they where not penned by Adi Shankara, then

> they are not worth reading. But it is another thing to claim

> that "Shankara says this or that", "Shankara has written" or

> "The standpoint of Shankara is" while referring to books

> professing thoughts contradicting those propagated by Shankara

> in books certainly written by him. There are a lot of writings

> ascribed to Adi Shankara containing standpoints who are obviously

> contradicting what he says in his Brahma Sutra Bhashya, his ten

> bhashyas on the Upanishads, his Gita-bhashya or Upadesha Sahasri.

> And then I really mean CONTRADICTING,

[Guest guest]

Namaste All.

 

Shree Stig Lundgren-Ji stated:-

>So, if all religions are

>true, then what to do when those religions

>condemns other faiths, such as hinduism?

>Is that true too?

 

 

Yes- This is also true and

is part of the overall game plan. Thru it, it will

emerge even stronger.

 

In any case, if we are forced into the situation, here

are some tips.

 

Firstly, one must clearly understand the essentials of

both the religious frameworks so that when someone

says something, we will know exactly why it was said

so.

 

When talking to people from other faiths, one must not

force ideas with which the others may feel

uncomfortable--for example, stating that 'You are God'

or 'I am God' is a sure way to get into hot waters.

Others would find this ridiculous and

we may find them struggling to control their laughter

if those are stated loosely. If really required, same

can be stated in a way they understand for example,

"The Kingdom of God is within you".

 

With God on one's side, all things are possible. From

advaita we know that this is already the case- not in

theory alone but in real life.

Concentrate on those with which both would feel

positive. For example, 'Kindness in thought, words and

deeds' which are abundantly present in every religion.

 

At the end of the day, who will sit at the side of

Jesus, as we know, is determined by the person himself

who lives the Bible on a daily basis and he who merely

reads and repeats it and condemns

others has not learned yet the art of living the

Bible.

 

Love and Kind Regards,

Raghava

 

 

 

______________________

India Matrimony: Find your partner online.

http://.shaadi.com/india-matrimony/

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sreedharji, Stigji, Prof. V.K.ji, Sadaji, CN-ji, and

Raghavaji.

 

Shankara might have taken pains to refute others. The Christians

might not accept Hindus and their secularisim. What the world needs

today is a philosophy of the heart that yet logically bridges the

differing differents - a philosophy that 'encompasses' (a word that

raises eyebrows) everything. I am strongly convinced Advaita is the

only one that fills the bill and sure, Shankara, if he were with us

today, wouldn't have disagreed.

 

Let us not therefore build prison cells, by quoting certain words

from the sea of bhAshyAs, to confine and constrict the one and only

egalitarian thought of the world that truly emancipates. Let us

instead raise rainbows of understanding and make an earnest

beginning by accepting the fact that others could also be right

sometimes at least when we are always right.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

____________________

 

advaitin, "Stig Lundgren" <slu@b...> wrote:

....... Some of them held standpoints

> corresponding to views propagated by later advaitins. Those

standpoints are

> outright refuted by Shankara, so apparently he did not himself

think that

> they where faithful to his own standpoints. So why should we cling

to the

> belief that all advaitins do at heart say the same thing as

Shankara did?

> Why should we ignore obvious discrepances, and even ignore what

Shankara

> himself says? Well, THAT is really the "crisis of intellect" in my

opinion.

>....................

>> Just a remark: Many modern hindus or neo-vedantins do hold the

view that all

> religions are true, and that all religions can get you liberated.

However,

> I´m afraid this not at all the attitude of those other religions!

For

> instance, christians (catholic, lutheran, orthodox or whatever)

don´t say

> that hinduism is just as good as christianity, or that hinduism

would lead

> you to salvation. So, the view that christianity and hinduism lead

to the

> same goal is in fact a hindu outlook on christianity. This is

certainly not

> the outlook of the christians themselves. Christians don´t think

that

> hinduism and christianity lead to the same goal. So, if all

religions are

> true, then what to do when those religions condemns other faiths,

such as

> hinduism? Is that true too?

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Stig,

> And Sureshvara, in his

> vartika on Shankara´s Brih. Bh, also refutates different vedantic

> interpretations prevalent in his time. So there´s no question of

the view

> that "all roads lead to the same goal" in Shankara´s and

Sureshvara´s case

> :-)

>

> Just a remark: Many modern hindus or neo-vedantins do hold the

view that all

> religions are true, and that all religions can get you liberated.

However,

> I´m afraid this not at all the attitude of those other

religions!

For

> instance, christians (catholic, lutheran, orthodox or whatever)

don´t say

> that hinduism is just as good as christianity, or that hinduism

would lead

> you to salvation. So, the view that christianity and hinduism lead

to the

> same goal is in fact a hindu outlook on christianity. This is

certainly not

> the outlook of the christians themselves. Christians don´t think

that

> hinduism and christianity lead to the same goal. So, if all

religions are

> true, then what to do when those religions condemns other faiths,

such as

> hinduism? Is that true too?

>

> Warmest regards

> Stig Lundgren

You have raised some valid questions. In fact Christianity and

Hinduism DO NOT lead to the same goal. While it is true that modern

hindus do hold the view that all religions are true - such a view is

not uppheld by tradionalists - such as Sankara and others.

 

In a brilliant article

 

http://www.sulekha.com/printer.asp?ctid=1000&cid=307498

 

titled

 

"Does Hinduism Teach That All Religions Are The Same?

Dr. Frank Gaetano Morales argues this very point

 

 

 

When we look at the philosophical, literary and historical sources

of the pre-colonial Hindu tradition, we find that the notion of

Radical Universalism is overwhelmingly absent. The idea that 'all

religions are the same' is not found in the sacred literature of

Hinduism, among the utterances of the great philosopher-acharyas of

Hinduism, or in any of Hinduism's six main schools of philosophical

thought (the Shad-darshanas). Throughout the history of the

tradition, such great Hindu philosophers as Vyasa, Shankara,

Ramanuja, Madhva, Vallabha, Vijnana Bhikshu, Swami Narayana

(Sahajananda Swami), and others made very unambiguous and

unapologetic distinctions between the religion of Hinduism and non-

Hindu religions. The sages of pre-modern Hinduism had no difficulty

in boldly asserting what was, and what was not, to be considered

Hindu. And they did so often! This lucid sense of religious

community and philosophical clarity is seen first and foremost in

the very question of what, precisely, constitutes a 'Hindu'. Without

knowing the answer to this most foundational of questions, it is

impossible to fully assess the damaging inadequacies of Radical

Universalist dogma.

 

Dr. Morales goes on to refute the notion :

 

One God/Many Names

 

Proponents of Radical Universalism have frequently attempted to

uphold the dogma that 'all religions are the same' by appealing to

one of the most misunderstood mantras in the history of modern

Hinduism. In the Rig Veda there is a famous verse (I.164.46) that

states: ekam sad vipra bahudha vadanti, "God is one, despite

sages

calling it by various names". For several generations, a variety

of

neo-Hindu leaders and practitioners have misquoted this verse ad

nauseam in an attempt to prop up the dogma of Radical Universalism

with a seeming reference to the Hindu scriptures. Radical

Universalists would maintain that this verse is directly pointing to

the notion that the ultimate aim of all religions is one and the

same, despite the fact that these different religions might call

this one supreme truth by many different denominationally inspired

or linguistically dictated names. "Whether you call it God,

Nirvana,

Allah, Brahman, Goddess, Ancestors, Spirits, Elves, Ghosts or

anything else, you're really only indicating the one supreme

truth"

is the commonly parroted refrain of Radical Universalists. Though on

an initial glance, this verse of Vedic scripture might appear to be

indicating a Radical Universalist viewpoint, when more rigorously

analyzed in its proper philosophical and grammatical context, it is

clearly saying something entirely different from what modern Radical

Universalists contend.

 

 

I strongly suggest followers of this thread to read the aricle in

full detail

 

regards

Sundar Rajan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sundar Rajan-ji.

 

Welcome back!

 

Morales has made a very forceful case and is no doubt convincing.

 

However, I notice that this discussion has dangerously slided from

the domain of Advaita into Hinduism. The latter is still

indefinable in relation to other organized religions of the world.

 

We don't need Morales to remind us that the traditional Hindu, who

called the rest of the world mlechcha, was any universal or

tolerant. But, that can't be applied to advaita, which has

definitely fostered universalism and attracted to its fold thinkers

from all over the world. That it originated in Indian soil, like

Buddhist thought - the other universal attraction, should be a

matter of pride for all of us.

 

The undeniable fact, therefore, is that there indeed was the right

climate in India for universalism to sprout and branch out. Isn't

Morales missing this point in his article? What prepares the Indian

mind for this universalism should, therefore, be first investigated.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

__________________

 

advaitin, "Sundar Rajan" <avsundarrajan>

wrote:....................................

> In a brilliant article

>

> http://www.sulekha.com/printer.asp?ctid=1000&cid=307498

>

> titled

>

> "Does Hinduism Teach That All Religions Are The Same?

> Dr. Frank Gaetano Morales argues this very point

......................>

> I strongly suggest followers of this thread to read the aricle in

> full detail

[Guest guest]

Namaste Professor-ji,

> In the larger

> context it is this crisis of intellect that expresses itself in

> favour of one religion against another. In this larger context we

> all have no reservations and we profess agreement that all Faiths

> (religions) are true – in the spirit of the Master,

Ramakrishna.

>

I have tremendous respect for the Great Paramahansa and keep The

Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna by my bedside and read it often at night.

He is a Maha-Jnani. But I do think people mis-interpret the

tolerance of the Great Saint and extrapolate to suggest that all

religions as lead to the same goal.

 

Quoted below from from http://www.sulekha.com/printer.asp?

ctid=1000&cid=307498

 

In keeping with the Vedic adage that the guest in one's home is to

be treated with as much hospitality as one would treat a visiting

divinity, Hinduism has always been gracious to the followers of non-

Hindu religions, and respectful of the gods, scriptures and customs

of others. The tolerance and openness of Hinduism has been

historically unprecedented among the wider community of world

religions, universally acclaimed, and very well attested.

 

The common mistake that is often made, however, is to mistake the

long-held Hindu tradition of tolerating other religions with the

mistaken notion that Hinduism consequently encourages us to believe

that all religions are exactly the same. We have mistaken Hindu

tolerance with Radical Universalism. The leap from tolerance of

other faiths to a belief that all religions are equal is not a leap

that is grounded in logic. Nor is it grounded in the history,

literature or philosophy of the Hindu tradition itself.

 

 

 

regards

Sundar Rajan

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Stig-ji,

 

 

advaitin, "Stig Lundgren" <slu@b...> wrote:

 

Prof. VK:

> > In this larger context we all have no reservations and we

> > profess agreement that all Faiths (religions) are true -

> > in the spirit of the Master, Ramakrishna.

 

Stig-ji:

> However, I´m afraid this is view is significant for the

> neo-vedantic outlook, and also for some traditional vedantins

> during the last 100 years or so. But this standpoint of Sri

> Ramakrishna is certainly alien to Adi Shankara, for example.

 

CN:

 

No, it is not. Shankara Advaita encompasses all religions. It is the

Ultimate Truth that subsumes all paths.

 

That "all faiths are true" does not mean that all faiths are Advaita.

But they are true as darshanas that show a certain vision of Reality.

For example, it is not untrue that the path of Nyaya-Vaisesika leads

to apavarga. But apavarga is not the Advaitic moksha - it is a stage

prior to the Advaitic moksha.

 

While other faiths may not lead to the ultimate non-dual truth,

Advaita Vedanta accepts them as leading upto a stage on the road to

truth. They have their efficacy at certain stages in the evolution of

the soul's 'ascent' to Truth.

 

 

Stig-ji:

> Why would Shankara have spent so much time and effort

> on the critisism and refutation of other faiths, such as

> buddhism, if he held the view "that all Faiths (religions)

> are true"?

 

CN:

 

Because these other faiths do not profess the Ultimate Truth as

revealed in the Vedas. The ultimate Truth is the overarching Reality

that subsumes all truths and all paths. It is that by knowing which

all that there is to know is known. The vision of Advaita enfolds the

paradox of Maya in the unspeakable silence of Nirguna Brahman. It is

this all-encompassing vision that gives Advaita Vedanta the ability

to be sycretic of all darshanas and all paths.

 

It is true that Shankara refutes the other darshanas as reflecting

the ultimate truth of the Vedas, but he does not say that they have

no use in the spiritual journey of the soul.

 

 

Does not Lord Krishna say in the Gita "Even those who, devoted to

other Gods, worship Them with faith, worship only Myself, O son of

Kunti"? Of course, one must here understand Lord Krishna as

Vasudevatattva - the unattached infinite Being that is the creator,

sustainer and dissolver of the universe.

 

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan