Guest guest Posted September 21, 1999 Report Share Posted September 21, 1999 Hello Friends These doubts always crop up in my mind, ie , 1. In Vedantha Shankara, Ramanuja amd Madvacharya have developed what totality is on their own interpretations. Any intellectual debate on these commentaries require corroborations from actual personal experience! But this personal experience is based on our aquiring information through senses, and senses are itself faulty. So I feel to aquire information about the spiritual world is to accept an authority. And if I wan't accept an authority then I must be doing it to find the Absolute Truth. Therefore if several people say different things about Absolute Truth then then cannot all be right.. So, to say that it does not matter who is right and who is wrong is to indicate a lack of interest in actually understanding God So for a beginner what is the authority to be taken. 2. And it is no doubt that Shankara, Ramanuja, MadvaCharya, Buddha, Jesus, and many others have realised the Absolute Truth. then how can they say the path fallowed by others is not correct. I feel it is only Ramakrishna and Swamiji have said that all the path leads to Absolute Truth, but it always the fact that Shankara resisted from Buddhism and Dvaithists said with Advaitha we can never realise the Absolute Truth May the learned members of this list clarify my doubt Thanks in Advance Prashanth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 1999 Report Share Posted September 21, 1999 > 1. In Vedantha Shankara, Ramanuja amd Madvacharya have developed what totality > is on their own interpretations. Any intellectual debate on these commentaries > require corroborations from actual personal experience! > > But this personal experience is based on our aquiring information through > senses, and senses are itself faulty. So I feel to aquire information about the > spiritual world is to accept an authority. And if I wan't accept an authority > then I must be doing it to find the Absolute Truth. Therefore if several people > say different things about Absolute Truth then then cannot all be right.. So, > to say that it does not matter who is right and who is wrong is to indicate > a lack of interest in actually understanding God > > So for a beginner what is the authority to be taken. Senses r not faulty rather they have limitations. May be that we r not able to understand the similarities in wat we percept as different. Something which is beyond senses can we explain it completely through limited domain of senses n words. We can only get close to explaining wat Lord can be. > > 2. And it is no doubt that Shankara, Ramanuja, MadvaCharya, Buddha, Jesus, and > many others have realised the Absolute Truth. then how can they say the path > fallowed by others is not correct. > > I feel it is only Ramakrishna and Swamiji have said that all the path leads to > Absolute Truth, but it always the fact that Shankara resisted from Buddhism and > Dvaithists said with Advaitha we can never realise the Absolute Truth > Prasanth some time back an article was posted on one list back here. The article was by " Swami Chinmayananda " . There i read something like that Sankaracharya took such a n oath for the followers of Buddha were distorting his teachings n there was utter chaos. So it was necessary to restablish the truth. That's wat shankara did. I guess Shankaracharya was not against Buddha but some his followers who were preaching ignorance. I think these people did wat the society at there time demanded. I think they cleared wat was faulty at that time. i don't think they have commented that other paths r bad. It seems its the people who take for gauranteed that if this Saint is asking to follow this path then all other paths r wrong. > > Thanks in Advance > Prashanth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 1999 Report Share Posted September 22, 1999 Namaste Prashant-ji > Prashant G <gprasha > > These doubts always crop up in my mind, ie , > > 1. In Vedantha Shankara, Ramanuja amd Madvacharya have developed what > totality > is on their own interpretations. Any intellectual debate on these > commentaries > require corroborations from actual personal experience! > > But this personal experience is based on our aquiring information through > > senses, and senses are itself faulty. So I feel to aquire information > about the > spiritual world is to accept an authority. And if I wan't accept an > authority > then I must be doing it to find the Absolute Truth. Therefore if several > people > say different things about Absolute Truth then then cannot all be right.. > So, > to say that it does not matter who is right and who is wrong is to > indicate > a lack of interest in actually understanding God > > So for a beginner what is the authority to be taken. > Kathi: The proof of truth is confirmed by three things. They are sruti (scriptures), yukti (logic or reasoning) and finally anubhava (experience). Firstly, one has to study the scriptures (sruti) to see what it says. And then to verify its claims thru reasoning (yukti). After completing the first two processes, then the sadhaka should contemplate on the truth to realize it (anubhava). When all the three process lead you to the One, then it is the truth. I shall not not elaborate any further as I will be posting an extract from the Introduction to Atma Bodha by Swami Nikhilananda where he tackles the this 'Proof of Truth'. Expect it soon. > 2. And it is no doubt that Shankara, Ramanuja, MadvaCharya, Buddha, Jesus, > and > many others have realised the Absolute Truth. then how can they say the > path > fallowed by others is not correct. > > I feel it is only Ramakrishna and Swamiji have said that all the path > leads to > Absolute Truth, but it always the fact that Shankara resisted from > Buddhism and > Dvaithists said with Advaitha we can never realise the Absolute Truth > Kathi: Shankara was against Buddhism not because it didn't lead one to the truth. Swamiji has said that during the time of Shankara, Buddhism had degenerated to its lowest form and lost the original spirit of Lord Buddha's teachings. Another reason for Shankara to be against it, was because Buddhism was a non-vedic religion, in the sense that Buddha rejected the rituals expounded by the Vedas. But thru our own logic and study of the life and works of Thakur and Swamiji we too can experience the truth for ourselves or at least logically see the goals to be the same. The verbal battle between Dvaitins and Advaitins will go on forever. But I personally like the teachings of Sri Ramakrishna because of his famous decalaration that none will fail to realize the lord in our hearts. Dvaita, Vishishta-Advaita and Advaita are all stages in a person's spiritual evolution. Om Shanti Kathi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 1999 Report Share Posted September 22, 1999 I believe it was either Swamiji or Maharaj (Swami Brahmananda) who said something to the effect that if Krishna, Buddha, Christ, Ramakrishna met togeteher, they would be the best of friends and have no arguments -- but their followers fight like cats and dogs.edtipple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 1999 Report Share Posted September 22, 1999 Edith great! On Tue, 21 Sep 1999, EDTipple wrote: > EDTipple <edtipple > > I believe it was either Swamiji or Maharaj (Swami Brahmananda) who said > something to the effect that if Krishna, Buddha, Christ, Ramakrishna met > togeteher, they would be the best of friends and have no arguments -- > but their followers fight like cats and dogs.edtipple > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 1999 Report Share Posted September 22, 1999 Wonderful explanation, Mr. Kathirasan! Kind regards K Kathirasan ADM NCS <kathirasan Ramakrishna <Ramakrishna > Wednesday, September 22, 1999 10:02 AM RE: [ramakrishna] Absolute Truth K Kathirasan ADM NCS <kathirasan Namaste Prashant-ji > Prashant G <gprasha > > These doubts always crop up in my mind, ie , > > 1. In Vedantha Shankara, Ramanuja amd Madvacharya have developed what > totality > is on their own interpretations. Any intellectual debate on these > commentaries > require corroborations from actual personal experience! > > But this personal experience is based on our aquiring information through > > senses, and senses are itself faulty. So I feel to aquire information > about the > spiritual world is to accept an authority. And if I wan't accept an > authority > then I must be doing it to find the Absolute Truth. Therefore if several > people > say different things about Absolute Truth then then cannot all be right.. > So, > to say that it does not matter who is right and who is wrong is to > indicate > a lack of interest in actually understanding God > > So for a beginner what is the authority to be taken. > Kathi: The proof of truth is confirmed by three things. They are sruti (scriptures), yukti (logic or reasoning) and finally anubhava (experience). Firstly, one has to study the scriptures (sruti) to see what it says. And then to verify its claims thru reasoning (yukti). After completing the first two processes, then the sadhaka should contemplate on the truth to realize it (anubhava). When all the three process lead you to the One, then it is the truth. I shall not not elaborate any further as I will be posting an extract from the Introduction to Atma Bodha by Swami Nikhilananda where he tackles the this 'Proof of Truth'. Expect it soon. > 2. And it is no doubt that Shankara, Ramanuja, MadvaCharya, Buddha, Jesus, > and > many others have realised the Absolute Truth. then how can they say the > path > fallowed by others is not correct. > > I feel it is only Ramakrishna and Swamiji have said that all the path > leads to > Absolute Truth, but it always the fact that Shankara resisted from > Buddhism and > Dvaithists said with Advaitha we can never realise the Absolute Truth > Kathi: Shankara was against Buddhism not because it didn't lead one to the truth. Swamiji has said that during the time of Shankara, Buddhism had degenerated to its lowest form and lost the original spirit of Lord Buddha's teachings. Another reason for Shankara to be against it, was because Buddhism was a non-vedic religion, in the sense that Buddha rejected the rituals expounded by the Vedas. But thru our own logic and study of the life and works of Thakur and Swamiji we too can experience the truth for ourselves or at least logically see the goals to be the same. The verbal battle between Dvaitins and Advaitins will go on forever. But I personally like the teachings of Sri Ramakrishna because of his famous decalaration that none will fail to realize the lord in our hearts. Dvaita, Vishishta-Advaita and Advaita are all stages in a person's spiritual evolution. Om Shanti Kathi --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------- ------ Share your special moments with family and friends- send PHOTO Greetings at Zing.com! Use your own photos or choose from a variety of funny, cute, cool and animated cards. <a href= " http://clickme./ad/ zing9 " >Click Here</a> ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------ Sri Ramakrishnaye Namah Vivekananda Centre London http://www.btinternet.com/~viv ekananda/ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------- This email server is running an evaluation copy of the MailShield anti- spam software. Please contact your email administrator if you have any questions about this message. MailShield product info: www.mailshield.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.