Guest guest Posted July 25, 2004 Report Share Posted July 25, 2004 Hi All, Even though many saints have attained the Nirvikalpa Samadhi, why they have come out with different philosophies. Buddha realized the ultimate truth in Nirvikalpa Samadhi and he come up with a truth that there is no Atman. Sankaracharya with advaitism, Madhvacharya with Dvaitism and Ramanuja with Vishishtadvaitam. If everyone has attained the highest truth, then why didnt they realize that only Atman exists and none else. Please reply this query of mine. And dont neglect this message. regards Srinivas ---------- This e-Mail may contain proprietary and confidential information and is sent for the intended recipient(s) only. If by an addressing or transmission error this mail has been misdirected to you, you are requested to delete this mail immediately. You are also hereby notified that any use, any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, distribution and/or publication of this e-mail message, contents or its attachment other than by its intended recipient/s is strictly prohibited. Visit Us at http://www.polaris.co.in Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 25, 2004 Report Share Posted July 25, 2004 Dear Srinivas, First thing I would like to mention is that any great personality of history who we think has realized did not say " I attained realization " . The words that we speak cannot represent the absolute truth since the word " I " itself is falseity with respect to absolute truth.As far as I have read, I could understand that absolute truth can only be felt and cannot be described.So the words that saints say are for showing a path through which one can feel the absolute truth .My question to you is did buddha say " the absolute truth is that there is no atman? " .I did not read buddhist literature but i think the statement if given would have been an interpretation by someother person who read the buddha literature. regards Srikanth Pulugurta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 25, 2004 Report Share Posted July 25, 2004 Om Namah Sivaya Dear Srinivas, Sri Swami Sivananda provided an excellent answer to your question in one of the book he wrote: All About Hinduism. I hope it will clear your doubt. " Different Conceptions Of Brahman Only Different Approaches To The Reality Nimbarkacharya reconciles all the different views regarding the Lord taken up by Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhva and others, and proves that their views are all true with reference to the particular aspect of Brahman dealt with by them, each in his own way. Sankara has taken Reality in Its transcendental aspect, while Ramanuja has taken It in Its immanent aspect, principally; but, Nimbarka has adjusted different views taken by the different commentators. Sri Sankaracharya, Sri Ramanujacharya, Sri Madhvacharya, Sri Vallabhacharya and Sri Nimbarkacharya—all were great souls. We cannot say that Sri Sankara was greater than Sri Ramanuja, or Sri Vallabha was greater than Nimbarka, etc. All were Avatara Purushas. Each one incarnated himself on this earth to complete a definite mission, to preach and propagate certain doctrines which were necessary to help the growth of a certain type of people, who flourished at a certain period, who were in a certain stage of evolution. All schools of philosophy are necessary. Each philosophy is best suited to a certain type of people. The different conceptions of Brahman are but different approaches to the Reality. It is extremely difficult, rather impossible, for the finite soul to get—all at once—a clear conception of the Illimitable or Infinite Soul, and more so, to express it in adequate terms. All cannot grasp the highest Kevala Advaita philosophy of Sri Sankara all at once. The mind has to be disciplined properly before it is rendered as a fit instrument to grasp the tenets of Sri Sankara’s Advaita Vedanta. Salutations and adorations to all Acharyas! Glory to the Acharyas! May their blessings be upon us all. " Source: http://www.divinelifesociety.org/EBOOKS/swami_sivanandaji/downnload/all_about_hi\ nduism.html#_VPID_93 Selva Sri Ramakrishnaya Namah Vivekananda Centre London http://www.vivekananda.co.uk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 26, 2004 Report Share Posted July 26, 2004 Hi Srinivas, Yours is a very geniune doubt. Yes all of the great seers you have mentioned did pass thru Nirvikalpa. Now it all depends how u concieve the meaning of " Nirvikalpa " , it means " No State " , Nir- means Non , and Vikapla means Thought, thus in this state there is no ego at all. Now the difficulty is in logic !!! Something that has no state, no ego how can that state be described ? To solve a problem u formulate an equation.Use inductive and intutive laws and u come to a solution. But how would u describe a problem that cannot be concieved thru logic ??? For example : If x is a function ; f(x)= x+ 2x, so for all values of x, f(x) will change , ..If we want to measure a change the subject of calculus is great help, thus for a very small(infintemismal) change in x what would be f(x); Newtonian Mthematics would give you the answer. This is rather simple and straightforward, because we r looking for dependencies bet'n x and f(x).However try to concieve a much higher problem related to calculus, What would be the constant factor for which there are infinite possibilities of changes ????All these great people have understood this constant but in a state in which they cannot describe it for that would fail the understanding of the constant. When they came back to normal plane they tried to explain it so far as thier ego could retain that memory of it. Nirvikalpa is an experience not a theoretical proof , Hence their explanations differ little here and there but in essence its the actual truth which remains same. However if you still have doubts (and its very natural), please do read the Upanishads as they are just too direct about this " Ekam Brahman " (one and only one truth), interestingly Shri Ramakrishna understanding that we would not concieve much abt this science, simplified the whole of Upanishdas to a very straight forward parable " As many faiths so many paths " , thus which ever path u take(infinite possibilties) would lead you to the same truth (constant) Hope this answer satisfies you New and Improved Mail - Send 10MB messages! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 26, 2004 Report Share Posted July 26, 2004 Dear Srinivas, Where the realization of Atman is there is nothing else, not even the word. It is like Sri Ramakrishna said, the bazaar from a distance is just noise, but the closer you get the more you can hear the individual voices and see what is what. Love, Bob srinivas.kondareddy [srinivas.kondareddy] Sunday, July 25, 2004 1:38 AM Ramakrishna [sri Ramakrishna] Nirvikapla Samadhi and the Truth. Hi All, Even though many saints have attained the Nirvikalpa Samadhi, why they have come out with different philosophies. Buddha realized the ultimate truth in Nirvikalpa Samadhi and he come up with a truth that there is no Atman. Sankaracharya with advaitism, Madhvacharya with Dvaitism and Ramanuja with Vishishtadvaitam. If everyone has attained the highest truth, then why didnt they realize that only Atman exists and none else. Please reply this query of mine. And dont neglect this message. regards Srinivas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 26, 2004 Report Share Posted July 26, 2004 Hello Srinivas, Sri Ramakrishna said that the ultimate truth is the same but there arise diversities in the expression of the same truth. Hence, all the saints are true and true are their experiences and sayings. Our duty is to accept all but to stick to one ideal. Just as both the ideals - God with form and without form are both true. How amazing! Both are stark contrasts yet true! Swami Vivekananda said the same. May u make much progress at the earliest! May we all! Love, Shyam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 26, 2004 Report Share Posted July 26, 2004 Just as both the ideals - God with form and without form are both true. How amazing! Both are stark contrasts yet true! Swami Vivekananda said the same. May u make much progress at the earliest! May we all! Love, Shyam. Namaste Shyam, Both are equally true, Love, Bob Rose 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.