Truth?????It doesnt exist anymore

[Guest guest]

Many of us think that we are in pursuit of truth.We pursue true religion,true culture,true way of life,true god,,so many truths.We also think that others pursue the wrong religion,wrong way of life,wrong god etc.But how many of us have known the definition of truth?Not most of us.Is there any definition of truth?

 

There are many definitions of truth.The correspondence theory of truth by aristotle says "If it corresponds to reality it is truth".THis is the most acceptable definition of truth till date.There is a deflationary theory of truth too "snow is white is true,if snow is white" by Tarski.

 

Hindu vedas too define truth. "Sathyam buthahitham priyam" says hindu vedas.That means "The words which do hitham(good) to buthas(all living beings) is truth".THis is the hindu definition of truth.So if you say anything that does good to the universe it becomes truth.

 

We can see this clearly in mahabharatha.Yudishtra is a man who has never lied in his life.But in the war when krishna asks him to say "aswathama hatha" yudishtra hesitates and says "aswathama hatha kunjara".Immediatly his charriot touches the earth,since he said a lie.Now what lie did yudishtra say?"aswathama hatha kunjara" is a truth.So why did his charriot touch the earth?

 

If we see earlier in vanavasa yudishtra and his brothers go to the palace of vrada to escape from spies of duriyiodana.All of them go in disguise.There yudishtra lies aboput his brothers and wife.He introduces himself as ganga,the person who used to play dice with yudishtra.He intrdouces panjali as a maid of draupathi.All of this is lie.So why did yudishtras charriot still stayed one feet above earth till he said "aswathama hatha kunjara?"

 

If "aswathama hatha kunjara" is the first lie of yudishtra,then what about him saying lies about himself,panjali and his brothers to vrada?was that not a lie?

 

It isnt.The problem lies with our perception.we confuse vedic term sathyam with english term truth.Both are totally different.The equilant word for truth in sanskrit is rutham.Rutham means describing things as you see it honsetly.vedas say rutham isnt important.Only sathyam is important.

 

when yudishtra said untrue things about him and his brothers to vrada he was not telling rutham,but he was telling sathyam,,that is the words he thought would benefit him and the people.By telling it he can save himself and can start the war against adharma later.So it was sathyam.So his chariot stayed above ground even after he said words which werent rutham.

 

But once he said "aswathama hatha kunjara" he intended to harm dharma by his words.Becasue he knew that his side was dharmic,since krishna himself lead his side,but still he said words which harmed dharma,and thus he said asathya words and hence his chariot touched the ground.

 

So sathyam in sanskrit is not equal to truth in english.The equilant word is rutham.Vedas never intended us to speak rutham but sathyam always.

[Guest guest]

Well wait, Priya how does this post defends mayavada against attack of vaishnavas.

 

I am only interested in vaishnaivism v/s advaita.

 

 

[Guest guest]

But once he said "aswathama hatha kunjara" he intended to harm dharma by his words.Becasue he knew that his side was dharmic,since krishna himself lead his side,but still he said words which harmed dharma,and thus he said asathya words and hence his chariot touched the ground.

 

 

so he has choosen to serve the absolute truth instead of the relative truth of the material world... sanatana dharma instead of materialistic dharma

 

so he found the REAL TRUTH...

 

jaya

[Guest guest]

let mayawatha buster say whether he accepts that there is anything called as truth or not.Then we will continue the debate.

 

If he accepts there is truth,it is very easy to defeat him on that single point alone.The argument then shifts on truth.

 

If he accepts that there isnt any truth,then what does he say about ramanujas version of vedas?Are they true or not?

 

If he asks me whether I accept shankaras version of vedas are true or not---I dont.I dont accept anything called as truth.Shankara gave us his description of vedas.He also said that it is not the solitary path to reach god.He claeared to us that all paths are same to reach god.He taught us that there is no inferior or superior ways to reach god.

 

So now only mayawatha buster has to burst this bubble.Is he accepting truth or refusing truth?let him start the debate with this.

 

 

[Guest guest]

I even now say the same thing.But there isnt anything called as absolute truth or relative truth.There isnt anything called as truth at all.

 

vedas ask us to serve sathyam and not rutham(truth).That is the sole point of vedas.

[Guest guest]

Ok tell me what does truth means ?

[maadhav]

"aswathama hatha kunjara"

 

the above quoted words do not exist in mahabharat.

why pretend to know sanskrit more than you know it?

 

[Guest guest]

"I even now say the same thing.But there isnt anything called as absolute truth or relative truth.There isnt anything called as truth at all."

 

you simply have no possibility to object, you're busted

[Guest guest]

Truth also means reality or tattva. Check some english dictionary. And when any vedantin uses it in sentences like pursuit of truth it means pursuit of brahman.

 

The first aphorism of Vedanta Sutra says

 

"Atah atho brahma jignyasa."

"Therefore, now enquire into brahman."

 

Narayana Sukta says -

 

"Narayana parah Brahma Tatvam Narayanah Parah"

"Narayana is Supreme Brahman, Narayana is Supreme Truth/Reality."

 

Hence Brahman is Supreme Truth.

 

Monier Williams English/Sanskrit dictionary says sanskrit word tattva means truth, reality in english. Check it out.

 

Hence playing with words won't help you. Vedas do talk about brahman as being Truth.

 

And yes there are not 1000's irreconcilable ways to brahman.

 

Refer to Sadhana Adhyaya of Vedanta Sutra. i have stated this before.

[Guest guest]

Tell me are you male or female ?

 

and yeah you show the classic/natural trait of mayavadis, WORD JUGGLERY. The first post of this thread is a fitting example of that.

 

Let me get one things straight, no matter whatever way you try any one who will think along mayavadi line will get busted. You and Barney & Co. watch out for it.

[Guest guest]

What do you have against mayavada? Do not they come to Krishna too EVENTUALLY by following mayavada?

[Guest guest]

It doesn't accepts fundamentals Vedic principles. The cherished goal of Mayavada is realization of identity of brahman and Jivaatman. And frankly read upanisads there is nothing like that.

 

Srutis talk about both bheda and abheda. So one should not arbitrarily lean on one side as Sankara has done. He has interpreted all bheda vakyas as corresponding to vyavharika level and abheda vakyas as corresponding to parmarthika level. Unfortunately there is no such division taught in Sruti itself.

 

And what do they want to realize an attributeless substance ? How will you set your meditative consciousness on it when you don't even know what it is ?

 

eventually everyone will reach him. but there are some who have created perverted doctrines and these create confusion in minds of seekers and mislead them into believing things like identity of jiva and brahman based on few abheda texts. the point is such false doctrines need to be eliminated for spiritual good of all.

 

People who spend their valuable life time trying to realize brahman jivaatman identity, waste their time doing this because there is no such thing in reality.

 

Its like saying i am looking for a hare's horn. Well everyone knows hare doesn't have one. So all that time is actually wasted.

[Guest guest]

hi madhav,

 

the words aswathama hatha kunjara do appear in mahabharatha.If not you have to tell me what were the words used by yudishtra then.

 

I searched for the words in net.Here is what i found.

 

http://larryavisbrown.homestead.comxeno.mahabsynop.htm

 

Krishna tells Yudhishthira: “Under such circumstances, falsehood is preferable to truth. By telling a lie to save a life, one is not touched by sin” (CN 157). Yudhishthira speaks a half-lie, “Ashvatthama – (and muttering under his breath) the elephant – is dead.” Before his lie, Yudhishthira's chariot rode four inches off the ground, but now it sinks back to earth. Drona lays down his arms. Drupada's son Dhrishtadyumna cuts off Drona's head, having sworn to avenge his father's humiliation.

 

if u know the exact words enlighten us."pretend to know sanskrit" is a very strong word.avoid it in future.

[Guest guest]

see now you have started to quote your mumbo jumbo in sanskrit.

 

I dont know sanskrit,but I do know some words in them.Your quotes of vedas say

 

"Atah atho brahma jignyasa."

"Therefore, now enquire into brahman."

accepted.

 

"Narayana parah Brahma Tatvam Narayanah Parah"

"Narayana is Supreme Brahman, Narayana is Supreme Truth/Reality."

narayana is one name of parabhramman.what does this sloha mean then?

 

To Rudra [siva], Lord of sacrifice, of hymns

and balmy medicines, we pray for joy and health and strength. He shines in splendor like the sun,

refulgent as bright gold is He, the good, the best among the Gods (Rig Veda 43.45)."

 

or what about this one?Mahabaratha by vyasa rishi calls shiva as parabhramma.Here is the quote.

 

http://sanskrit.safire.com/pdf/SHIVA_TRANS.PDF

 

what now?

[Guest guest]

word jugglery???yes.Are you afraid of it?

 

Dont cosfuse truth with sathyam.Both are entirely different.Truth is rutham.Sathyam is different.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

In case you dispute that shiva stothra as not coming from mahabharatha here is proof.

 

http://sanskrit.bhaarat.com/Dale/Sanskrit.html#stotras

 

There see PDF Shiva Sahasranam (from the Mahabharata) S 123

 

click that link.You will see shiva stothra from mahabharatha.The first sentence itself calls shiva as parabhramman.Now what do you say about it?

[Guest guest]

Yes so many flaws in mayavada. Nonetheless eventually they too reach Krishna. They achieve temporary moksha then fall down. After their fall eventually they realize Mr. Vasudeva. See gita 12.3-4.

 

This mayavada is better than mleccha dharmas wherein cows are murdered and the practitioners will for quite some time be in the narka loks. Though they too eventually reach Mr. Vasudeva as well.

 

Mayavada and mleccha dharmas are spiritual delays. The former less so than the latter.

[Guest guest]

They will probably say...I don't like your proof so I'll use the old excuse...It's not shruti so it's fairy tale. Or if shruti is presented they say: that shruti is latter shruti, not valid...or my favorite, when the shruti calls Shiva as parabrahma it really means Vishnu's name.

 

But you advaithins too use the shruti/fairy tale excuse, how you like your own excuse hm?

[Guest guest]

The names Girisha and Umapati are in Shvetashvatara Up? I don't remember well. But they say these are Vishnu's names. Vishnu ALONE is referred to in this Up. :-D lol

[Ganeshprasad]

Jai Ganesh

Re

 

(The names Girisha and Umapati are in Shvetashvatara Up? I don't remember well. But they say these are Vishnu's names. Vishnu ALONE is referred to in this Up.)

 

Funny you should say this,i was debating on the subject and i was given the same answer. So i asked him if he would chant these names.No straight answer.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[Guest guest]

With a word like buster within the name, this Mayavada Buster seems to be a bigger spiritual terror.

 

 

Did you borrow this name from Rambo?

 

**********The cherished goal of Mayavada is realization of identity of brahman and Jivaatman. And frankly read upanisads there is nothing like that.*******************

 

 

How many citations you require?

 

 

[Guest guest]

People over here have raised a lot of side issues. I mean the topic of this post was "truth" but many topics different from this have been raised.

 

Quoting Vedanta and Narayana Sukta i have explained that Brahman is truth. So when vedantin says pursuit of truth, he means pursuit of brahman.

 

So there is something called truth, its Brahman. This is a rejoinder to PV's original post which makes claims like

 

>>>Many of us think that we are in pursuit of truth.We pursue true religion,true culture,true way of life,true god,,so many truths.We also think that others pursue the wrong religion,wrong way of life,wrong god etc.But how many of us have known the definition of truth?Not most of us.Is there any definition of truth?<<<<

 

I have told her what vedantins means when they say truth. We are not interested in any other usage of this word though they may be appropriate in different contexts.

 

I have told you what vedantins mean when they say we pursue truth. CAN YOU REFUTE IT ? Instead of coming up with ridiculous claims like there is no truth not even absolute truth. Lol Lol.

 

All other issues will be dicussed in seperart threads and Mayavadis and their allies will be refuted with appropriate sastra pramana.

 

Let me conclusively refute PV here and then we will move on to these other topics.

 

I promise i will open up various topics and by quoting from Vedas, Gita, Vedanta Sutra, Mahabharata, Puranas I will refute all counter claims.

[Guest guest]

What do you have against mayavada? Do not they come to Krishna too EVENTUALLY by following mayavada?

 

if you think that krsna is illusion how can you reach krsna? krsna wants us only if we desire him

[Guest guest]

Mayavada and mleccha dharmas are spiritual delays. The former less so than the latter.

 

no... mayavada is worst because it is an offence to the lord

[Guest guest]

Did u answer the mahabaratha verse that call shiva as parabhramman?