11-11-2004, 03:04 AM
Guroos,
This is the reason I asked what does it mean when one school refutes the other. One cannot say one is founding a new vedanta which says i-am-immortal because one is not and that is for all to see. So at a very simple level one has to posit something that <b>at the very least cannot be negated.</b> Some go about this saying this is all god's will and he said it in XYZ AD or whatever and it was revealed to XYZ and thats that. Either you believe or you dont. There is no way you can say that is not true. You can choose to believe or you cannot or maybe the third way out is you can say maybe its true and may be its not.
Now indic schools and mahatmas and avataras (the little i know of them) said such-and-such is the case and may be even its true but when somebody comes out and says the exact opposite - advaita (diff versions) and dvaita - does one come out and say that is not true ? The person who proposes dvaita - can we safely say that he has had more experiences & has read more (and hence knows more) then any of us here have ? If he proposes something - is he being false ? Are his experiences not true ? How can we say our experiences are better placed then his experiences to judge that what he proposes is just one step in the direction to advaita ?
In "ekam sat.." does sat mean advaita ? Or does it mean mukti ? How can we reconcile these positions ? If we say sat=mukti then we can say all schools are cool but if we say sat=advaita-proposal we are saying dvaita is false or are we ? I would like to think we are not.. <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Also another possibly unrelated question -> isnt the desire for mukti another desire ?
This is the reason I asked what does it mean when one school refutes the other. One cannot say one is founding a new vedanta which says i-am-immortal because one is not and that is for all to see. So at a very simple level one has to posit something that <b>at the very least cannot be negated.</b> Some go about this saying this is all god's will and he said it in XYZ AD or whatever and it was revealed to XYZ and thats that. Either you believe or you dont. There is no way you can say that is not true. You can choose to believe or you cannot or maybe the third way out is you can say maybe its true and may be its not.
Now indic schools and mahatmas and avataras (the little i know of them) said such-and-such is the case and may be even its true but when somebody comes out and says the exact opposite - advaita (diff versions) and dvaita - does one come out and say that is not true ? The person who proposes dvaita - can we safely say that he has had more experiences & has read more (and hence knows more) then any of us here have ? If he proposes something - is he being false ? Are his experiences not true ? How can we say our experiences are better placed then his experiences to judge that what he proposes is just one step in the direction to advaita ?
In "ekam sat.." does sat mean advaita ? Or does it mean mukti ? How can we reconcile these positions ? If we say sat=mukti then we can say all schools are cool but if we say sat=advaita-proposal we are saying dvaita is false or are we ? I would like to think we are not.. <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->Also another possibly unrelated question -> isnt the desire for mukti another desire ?