Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

Prophetiszing trends in modern Hindusim

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Sadaji,PranamsI am grateful to you for a wonderful explanation of the adage Ekam Sat.... This has certainly helped me in understanding the nuances among the three systems.The bhedas you mentioned, if applied to the Sat, which is Karana , the result is inconsistent. All the bhedas are applicable to the Karyas, and this is how the inconsistency has appeared. This is what I have understood finally.

Thanks a lot once again.Pranams.DilipOn Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 5:34 PM, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--- On Fri, 4/9/10, Dilip Dhopavkar <dilip.dhopavkar wrote:

 

What you say resonates with Ekam Sat, Viprah Bhahudha Vadanti. Is it that we miss this ?

 

Dilip

 

Dilipji PraNAms

 

Not exactly. Ekam sat is correct. What is that sat is the question. Advaita says it is one without a second without any sajaati, vijaati and swagata bhedaas, while the same sat vishiShTaadvaita says it is without sajaati, vijaati bhedaas alright but it has swagata bhedaas - that is it has internal parts that are different like Body is one but limbs or organs are different - hence what they say is limbs have organic relation with the total body - there is difference between one limb and the other or one cell and the other, etc. Here the statement is illogical since sat which is infinite is being internally differentiated. The justification is the truth is beyond logic on one side and the second is every object in the world has attributes that distinguish the object - so is the sat for them.

 

Advaita stands tall, for me, only because it echoes Vedanta and it is rational too. For a scientific mind that truth is the absolute - not because Shankara said so or bhagavaan Ramana said so. One can describe this indescribable entity in different ways to communicate - that part is what ekam sat - vipraha or the wise people describe different ways (non-contradictory) bahudaa vadanti.

 

Hence contradictory descriptions do not constitute bahudaa vadanti. Self-consistent truth is described or can be pointed in many ways. Hence the statement does not apply in accounting the differences between advaita, dvaita and vishiShTaadvaita.

 

Hope this helps

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...