Acharya's teachings and Versions

[Guest guest]

Stigji and C.N. wrote:

 

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.

 

Namaste Chittaranjan,

In the B.S.B. Sankara refuted the

Sankhya on rational grounds as also the various Buddhist

schools. This was the only acceptable way he could have

done it as the Sankhya would have agreed with him on the

nature of the Vedas and the Buddhists would have shrugged

off that avenue of critical attack. In any case the

argument from authority is always the weakest one as all

fundamentalists claim that their scripture is the final

authority of uniquely divine origin surpassing all others.

 

Well you might say 'If their arguments are invalid what is

the point of following that path', to which the response is

'A religion is not a cut in geometry'. I incline more

towards the view of Boccaccio "A theology is nothing more

than a poem on God".

 

Best Wishes, Michael.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Michaelji,

 

advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...> wrote:

> Namaste Chittaranjan,

> In the B.S.B. Sankara refuted the

> Sankhya on rational grounds as also the various Buddhist

> schools. This was the only acceptable way he could have

> done it as the Sankhya would have agreed with him on the

> nature of the Vedas and the Buddhists would have shrugged

> off that avenue of critical attack. In any case the

> argument from authority is always the weakest one as all

> fundamentalists claim that their scripture is the final

> authority of uniquely divine origin surpassing all others.

 

I believe that Shankara takes the stand that only that which is

supported by both Sruti and reason is valid. This is the method he

uses in the section on Samanvaya. In the section on Avirodha, he

often employs purely rational methods to demonstrate that doctrines

contrary to Advaita are inconsistent.

 

I think that Advaita as a rational philosophy can stand in its own

right. It was the purely rational approach that first led me to

Vedanta and the lure of pure reason continues to appeal to me. (But I

also intuit that reason can go only so far as the sheath in which it

has its birth - the vijnanamayakosha.)

> Well you might say 'If their arguments are invalid what is

> the point of following that path', to which the response is

> 'A religion is not a cut in geometry'. I incline more

> towards the view of Boccaccio "A theology is nothing more

> than a poem on God".

 

Yes, there is no better way than poetry to express the Divine

Paradox!

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

"The tolerance and openness of Hinduism has been

historically unprecedented among the wider community of world

religions, universally acclaimed, and very well attested."

 

I am not sure if anyone born as a Sudra will attest to the above. Hinduism

though tolerant for outsiders was at the same time intensely intolerant and

even cruel to some of its own members-- both in theory as well as in

practice. This riddle has always perplexed me and I would like to know the

views of learned members of this forum on this.

 

_______________

Make team work really work! Work together, stay connected!

http://www.microsoft.com/india/office/experience/ With Microsoft Office

System.