Brahma Sutras

[Raghy]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Folks,

Should I carry on with the rest of the sutras? Is there really enough interest?

Dear Sravna,

I may be interested in this thread. But I am not contributing much to the discussion. So, I can't really say.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Raghy,

Thank you. Personally I have a feeling that a lot can be learnt from the discussion of the brahma sutras. If I still find interest I am inclined to continue the discussion.

 

[Vaagmi]

If the validity of a text such as the Vedantic ones is simply asserted based on some notion of inerrancy, then it is nothing more than a religious text. If resolute faith in the text is a prerequisite to understand it properly, then it is nothing more than a religious text. If to be guided by someone who views the text in this way is a prerequisite for fully understanding it, then it is a religious text. In case a question arises in your mind about something written in the text, and in such instances if you are required to firmly believe that a valid answer exists and the reason you can't find it is your own inadequacy, then it is a religious text. All these are unmistakable marks of a religious text.

Vedanta deserves an open-minded and critical study, nothing more, nothing less. If questions are raised they need to be answered in a satisfactory manner, or the questioned idea must be jettisoned, that is the intellectual way. Simply saying that the questioner is inadequate to understand without knowing anything about him/her is the way of religious totalitarianism.

In vedantic studies there is no scope for empiricism. These are at best abstract thought constructs with their own logic and conclusions. Vedantic studies starts only when some one wonders about the universe and his locus in it and the unwritten script which appears to be playing out all around. Such an individual looks for answers to his queries and comes across the God idea and the No god idea. He considers and accepts one of the two. If he accepts the God idea he naturally becomes interested in knowing more about it. In his search he comes across vedanta and starts looking at it. If he accepts the No God idea he is least bothered about religions, metaphysics or vedanta and lives his atheistic life happily. Vedanta is about the God idea. If you want to call it religious text let it be.

Now about the inerrancy of what is said in Vedanta. For one who is in search of knowledge about God idea there is a need to first understand the nature of knowledge itself and its limits and validity. That is the starting point before dealing with the knowledge proper. Before going to study metaphysics which is all about fundamental nature of reality and being he has to understand his thought processes first. It is here that our ancestors have presented their theory of knowledge in a very clear and concise style. They have dealt with what is knowledge, the source or cause of knowledge etc logically. All these thought constructs (not empirical proof and inferences) have lead them to the conclusion that Scriptures or the Vedanta which is the content of these scriptures are inerrant. After accepting this basic finding of a well thought out and presented argument the student moves to the next step which is ontology and then to the next step which is metaphysics of Vedanta.

The problem with our atheist friend is this that he looks for science like empirical answers to metaphysical questions. The day we will be able to present God in a test tube in the lab we will be able to meet his standard of “If questions are raised they need to be answered in a satisfactory manner, or the questioned idea must be jettisoned, that is the intellectual way”. While empiricism allows you to prove or disprove a theory by physical observable facts, there is no such possibility with metaphysics. There is an alternative available there. Either you prove an idea to a student or the student tries to prove an opposite idea to you. Thus we have different schools of thought in philosophy. The atheist friend can also create a new school of thought and promote a religion on that basis, if he is so unhappy with Vedanta.

When a Vedanta teacher says a certain student is inadequate or not up to the mark to study Vedanta, what he means is that he has not learnt the basic epistemology that is needed to study Vedanta, or that he is completely sold on the no god idea that he is so full of it that there is no space left in him to grasp and hold the God idea. It is more than a Herculean effort for an atheist to become a believer and then move on to study Vedanta accepting the inerrancy of scriptures.

The vedantic teacher may be open-minded and may welcome a critical study but not a destructive study.

Now let us take these words: “If questions are raised they need to be answered in a satisfactory manner, or the questioned idea must be jettisoned, that is the intellectual way. Simply saying that the questioner is inadequate to understand without knowing anything about him/her is the way of religious totalitarianism”.

The vedanta teacher answers questions. But getting satisfaction or not is in the mind of the student and his orientation and grasp of the ideas taught. There is not adequate reason for the world to jettison the Vedanta itself because a student is unable to agree with vedanta. That is certainly not the intellectual way. As there is no scope for any empiricism here, it is for the student to prove that the vedantic ideas are completely wrong or that he has ideas which are far superior to the Vedanta. His basic intellectual freedom of this sort is never curtailed. As for knowing anything about the student, I think all the Vedanta teachers have their own methods of assessing the preparedness of a student to receive vedantic knowledge.

Thanks.

 

[ozone]

sigh, plain English apparently is a little too much for some people to properly comprehend.

Here is what I said in post #77:

"sravna, what am I fit enough for? Let me not be presumptuous enough to think I am fit for anything at all. But, if everything outside of Nirguna Brahman is maya, in what logical way can you claim Shankara's teachings are outside maya? If it is indeed outside maya, then advaitam is a fraud."
​

For you convenience Mr. ozone, I have highlighted the critical words that you have so obviously didn't take into account. Just to clear the confusion due to careless reading, all I was trying to do was to point out a logical error that could end up meaning advaitam is a fraud. Even if my argument is flawed, one thing is clear enough, I did not say advaitam is a fraud.

My interest was only to point out the apparent contrast between what you expect and how you live up to that standard in the forum. I suppose the opening statement here in itself is rich in humility.
I have nothing more on this with you.
thanks

 

[tks]

If the validity of a text such as the Vedantic ones is simply asserted based on some notion of inerrancy, then it is nothing more than a religious text. If resolute faith in the text is a prerequisite to understand it properly, then it is nothing more than a religious text. If to be guided by someone who views the text in this way is a prerequisite for fully understanding it, then it is a religious text. In case a question arises in your mind about something written in the text, and in such instances if you are required to firmly believe that a valid answer exists and the reason you can't find it is your own inadequacy, then it is a religious text. All these are unmistakable marks of a religious text.

Vedanta deserves an open-minded and critical study, nothing more, nothing less. If questions are raised they need to be answered in a satisfactory manner, or the questioned idea must be jettisoned, that is the intellectual way. Simply saying that the questioner is inadequate to understand without knowing anything about him/her is the way of religious totalitarianism.

Post #203 ny Sri Vaagmi indeed is well written, scholarly in my view and represents one perspective.

Not sure if the quoted message has anything to with my post #171 ....where my assertion is that Vedanta is not a religious text.


The issue raised by Sri Nara a few times in the past (and answered in the past but seemingly did not hit home) is this:


"If the validity of a text such as the Vedantic ones is simply asserted based on some notion of inerrancy, then it is nothing more than a religious text. If resolute faith in the text is a prerequisite to understand it properly, then it is nothing more than a religious text."


I hope that the questioner Sri Nara is sincere while repeating the "issue" and is indeed committed to searching for truth instead of reiterating own brand of beliefs (which may seem like truth to some due to sheer repetition).


With that benefit of doubt of sincerity let me share my understanding. My intent is not to change anyone's beliefs.


Challenging any teaching is actually welcome in my world provided there is sincerity of purpose.


Inerrancy need not be a starting point or pre-requisite though some Acharyas may have advocated that very strongly. It is indeed a sage advice for some people as they embark on learning a very involved text. They are likely to give up if they do not think they are studying something worthwhile.


Unfortunately many religious texts employ this approach (that their religious text is the first and last word) thereby weakening the 'prerequisite' notion of inerrancy advocated while studying Vedanta.

My own suggestion for what it is worth is that it is best to drop this pre-requisite if the student is sincere in learning and wanting to find the truth.


In my world view inerrancy has to be discovered by a student and is subject to analysis whenever need arises.


All our 'vedantic teaching' are always described as conversation and Q&A. This is indeed unique to Hindu tradition since questioning is very much encouraged. In fact without questioning there can be no learning possible.


In the study of objects there is a law that says energy can never be created or destroyed. This can never be proved everywhere except in controlled experiments. Also there is a question as to how the original energy of the universe got created if this law is true all the time. There are no satisfactory answers though inerrancy of this law is assumed though it is open to challenge all the time


Vedanta does not address the topic of science though its approach is 'scientific'. It is not the study of object but about the subject and hence objective studies are meaningless. However if deductions are understood subjectively to be correct in carefully controlled situations, then it is possible to realize that this inerrancy can be tested and understood to be true as new situations arise.


I do not like the term God since it conjures up images from Puranas or biblical studies. Anyone who has a scientific mind will not accept the notion of God doing miracles challenging the laws of physics. I can make better case for atheism which is about non existence of such a God.


Study of Vedanta does not advocate such a God but teaches (not preaches and there is a huge difference) a notion of God (I use the term Isvara) that is compellingly obvious and very different .


In order for something to be conclusive one has to start with a set of axioms that are 'self evident' and impossible to argue further.


For example I do not need a proof for myself that I am typing this post. It is self evident and if someone reiterates that I am typing by talking to me and says that description of me typing at this point in time is inerrant I would have to agree with this obvious characterization.


Since this study has to be understood subjectively there is no short cut.


By the study one can discover that the teaching applies to all beings - not just human beings.


We are confronted with a world where we see inanimate and living beings existing in pockets of space and time. We find that living things always die (an inerrant law seemingly) and hence conclude that the inanimate body of living things must enclose some kind of life force. Some even think that this life force holds some abstract idea called atma shining like a star. There are other notions like God that made all this possible.


Careful examination and inquiry based on reasons will show that the above model is incorrect.


When one becomes curious and wants to know what this is all about, willing to spend the time to learn, willing to spend time to prepare the mind to focus, and is able to find the right teacher they can begin to make progress.


The word Atheist is not a correct translation of Nasthika .. One can be an atheist and still be subscribed to learning Vedanta due to the ability to reason including the ability to logically conclude about items that are beyond reasoning of the mind.

 

[Nara]

It is interesting that there is so much reluctance to admit Vedantic texts are religious texts. What is wrong if it is a religious text? Why are these people ashamed of religion? If Vedanta is not religion then what is it? It is Metaphysics is probably the answer we are likely to get. But metaphysical questions have been the foundation upon which all religions are built. The Christians have their metaphysics, the Muslims have theirs, the Zoroastrians have theirs, etc. So, just saying it is metaphysics does not make it a non-religious text.

My two illustrious interlocutors have invoked God/Iswara. They say Vedanta is the knowledge about this entity. It is also further claimed that their ancestors have presented their theory of knowledge in a very clear and concise style. These claims raise many questions:

• So, this is about God/Iswara, and yet the claim is these are not religious texts, well, well!!
• If these texts present this knowledge in a very clear way, why then there is there so much quarrel about what it really means? These people have been squabbling among themselves for centuries and there is no sign of this abating, and the view they subscribe to is always that of their parents, with very few exceptions. Sounds like religion!!
• Many of these ancestors themselves did not agree with each other about this metaphysics. There were several ஆஸ்திக மதம் as well as நாஸ்திக மதம். Whom among these an aspiring student full of intent, dedication, obedience, and all the wonderful prerequisites must turn to for true knowledge, an Advaitin, VA, Sankhya perhaps, or Charvaka?

It is claimed that Vedanta does not preach but teaches. This is the claim of all religious people. Bible is supposed to teach, Kuran is the best teacher there is. Also, how can one claim Vedanta does not preach? It makes so many demonstrably irrational and absurd claims that one can believe in them only on blind faith and that makes these claims nothing but preachings.

What about axioms, there are some self-evident axioms, they say. Alright, list them, list these axioms and let us see whether there is agreement. Even within the Vedanta tradition there is no agreement as to what these "self-evident" axioms are.

Another argument is, inerrancy of the Vedas can be tested and seen to be true. Of course this is the claim of all religionists. Adi Shankara and Ramanuja also made this claim. For Christians, every last word of the Bible is literally true and inerrant, and so is the case for Muslims with respect to Kuran. How do you establish this fact is always left quite nebulous and self-serving. Further, this claim of inerrancy is not only demonstrably false it is so obviously inane and silly, and it is the unmistakable mark of a religious text.

And then they protest, but these are subjective matters, there is no possibility for empirical proof in metaphysics. Well, then, the only rational position to take is an agnostic one. In the absence of empirical proof hold your horses, don't let is race away with a multitude of assertions equal in certainty as 2 + 3 is 5. If you do, like the Vedic texts do, then it is religion we are talking about.

There are only three sources of true knowledge, (i) direct observation, (ii) rational argument free of fallacies, and (iii) accumulated verified knowledge. Metaphysics must also operate within the confines of this epistemological limits. Anything that is based on what you guys have argued is by definition outside these limits and therefore, Vedantam is religion and nothing other than religion.

 

[tks]

It is interesting that there is so much reluctance to admit Vedantic texts are religious texts. What is wrong if it is a religious text? Why are these people ashamed of religion? If Vedanta is not religion then what is it? It is Metaphysics is probably the answer we are likely to get. But metaphysical questions have been the foundation upon which all religions are built. The Christians have their metaphysics, the Muslims have theirs, the Zoroastrians have theirs, etc. So, just saying it is metaphysics does not make it a non-religious text.

My two illustrious interlocutors have invoked God/Iswara. They say Vedanta is the knowledge about this entity. It is also further claimed that their ancestors have presented their theory of knowledge in a very clear and concise style. These claims raise many questions:

• So, this is about God/Iswara, and yet the claim is these are not religious texts, well, well!!
• If these texts present this knowledge in a very clear way, why then there is there so much quarrel about what it really means? These people have been squabbling among themselves for centuries and there is no sign of this abating, and the view they subscribe to is always that of their parents, with very few exceptions. Sounds like religion!!
• Many of these ancestors themselves did not agree with each other about this metaphysics. There were several ஆஸ்திக மதம் as well as நாஸ்திக மதம். Whom among these an aspiring student full of intent, dedication, obedience, and all the wonderful prerequisites must turn to for true knowledge, an Advaitin, VA, Sankhya perhaps, or Charvaka?

It is claimed that Vedanta does not preach but teaches. This is the claim of all religious people. Bible is supposed to teach, Kuran is the best teacher there is. Also, how can one claim Vedanta does not preach? It makes so many demonstrably irrational and absurd claims that one can believe in them only on blind faith and that makes these claims nothing but preachings.

What about axioms, there are some self-evident axioms, they say. Alright, list them, list these axioms and let us see whether there is agreement. Even within the Vedanta tradition there is no agreement as to what these "self-evident" axioms are.

Another argument is, inerrancy of the Vedas can be tested and seen to be true. Of course this is the claim of all religionists. Adi Shankara and Ramanuja also made this claim. For Christians, every last word of the Bible is literally true and inerrant, and so is the case for Muslims with respect to Kuran. How do you establish this fact is always left quite nebulous and self-serving. Further, this claim of inerrancy is not only demonstrably false it is so obviously inane and silly, and it is the unmistakable mark of a religious text.

And then they protest, but these are subjective matters, there is no possibility for empirical proof in metaphysics. Well, then, the only rational position to take is an agnostic one. In the absence of empirical proof hold your horses, don't let is race away with a multitude of assertions equal in certainty as 2 + 3 is 5. If you do, like the Vedic texts do, then it is religion we are talking about.

There are only three sources of true knowledge, (i) direct observation, (ii) rational argument free of fallacies, and (iii) accumulated verified knowledge. Metaphysics must also operate within the confines of this epistemological limits. Anything that is based on what you guys have argued is by definition outside these limits and therefore, Vedantam is religion and nothing other than religion.

Have it your way

 

[Nara]

Have it your way

That was quick!!

It is not about having one's way. We all state our views and that is all we can do, nothing more.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Nara,

Does vedanta require us to accept what it presents to us as truths based only on faith? Even if it asks us so, is what we accept on faith reliable?

Sources of knowledge are many. The sources which you listed are not the only sources of true knowledge and in fact not very reliable sources of true knowledge. Knowledge acquired by direct observation can be falsified as we see all the time in science. Knowledge acquired by reason or inference depends on how sound the premises are. Two people can start with two different set of premises and assumptions and come to equally valid different conclusions. Accumulated verified knowledge is also not the ultimate knowledge as it may require modification by new observations.

Knowledge acquired by intuition is the most reliable source of knowledge in my view though the reliability depends on the strength of the intellect of the person acquiring it. The knowledge revealed by scriptures is to be taken as the ultimate authority because they are acquired by direct intuition and in such a knowledge there is an inbuilt consistency and so the truth of all that is acquired. We know how formidable is the intellect of the people who developed the vedanta philosophies and so cannot dismiss their intuition lightly.

In addition to intuition as the major means of acquiring knowledge advaita for example accepts other sources of knowledge that you have mentioned but mainly for substantiation. It is right in doing so. But intuition is important. For example if one restricts the source of knowledge to direct observation and inference, does not one not imply that there can be nothing real other than what is observed or inferred based on that observation? Is that not a myopic approach to knowledge? Why can't one consider direct intuition as a source of knowledge and if it is consistent with the acquired body of knowledge why not accept it? After all aren't there axioms in science that need to be accpted for all the theories that have been developed?

So accepting something on faith by itself is ok if what is accepted comes from venerable people. It is also true that vedanta does not ask us to accept what it says only on faith.

 

[Nara]

...Does vedanta requires us to accept what it present to us as truths based only on faith? Even if it asks us so, is what we accept on faith reliable?

Dear sravna, yes faith is at the foundation level of Vedanta -- no faith, no Vedanta, and, no what you accept on faith is not reliable.

Sources of knowledge are many. The sources which you listed are not the only sources of true knowledge and in fact not very reliable sources of true knowledge.

I am afraid you are wrong dear brother sravna, even Vedantic/Brahminical acharyas say there are only three sources of knowledge, namely, ப்ரத்யக்ஷம், அனுமானம், சப்தம். I agree with the first two, albeit I qualify அனுமானம் as one that is rational and free of fallacies. The third is, one they associate with the Vedas, and they do so because they were convinced it is the store of all knowledge. But we know better, not because we are smarter than they were, but because we stand on the shoulders of centuries worth of great thinkers. So, for anyone who is really interested in the pursuit of truth, the third source of knowledge can't be Vedas, but the accumulated verified scientific knowledge. Intuition can at best serve as a guide only. You have to put that intuition to the rigors of scientific inquiry before it can be accepted into the cache of accumulated verified knowledge. To simply go unquestioningly with your intuition is a folly.

best ....

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Nara,

Now it is your own intuition or may be the intuition of centuries worth of great thinkers that you blindly trust in coming to the conclusion that intuition is not that important. Don't you find that ironical?

 

[Nara]

Now it is your own intuition or may be the intuition of centuries worth of great thinkers that you blindly trust in coming to the conclusion that intuition is not that important. Don't you find that ironical?

Is it what your intuition is telling you? sravna, believe what you want, but there is no call for speculating what I trust or not. Let us keep it rational, please!!!!

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Nara,

There is no speculation here. It is a fact that you believe in I am stating. Are there two opinions about it?

 

[Nara]

There is no speculation here. It is a fact that you believe in I am stating. Are there two opinions about it?

No two opinions, you are so sure of yourself. Is it a fact that I believe in what you are saying??? Really, that is the best you can do???? Adios amegos.....

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Nara,

It is what you say that you believe in that I am saying. Why do you want to not accept that now?!

 

[tbs]

Dear Shri Nara,

It is what you say that you believe in that I am saying. Why do you want to not accept that now?!

hi

noolu engeyo poguthuuuuuuuuuuuuuu....thread goes somewhere...there are some genuine JINGNASU abt brahma sutras in this

forum...... so that every body can learn something...

 

[sravna]

hi

noolu engeyo poguthuuuuuuuuuuuuuu....thread goes somewhere...there are some genuine JINGNASU abt brahma sutras in this

forum...... so that every body can learn something...

Dear Shri TBS,

What is JINGNASU?

 

[sravna]

Shri TBS,

Did you mean jignasu i.,e spiritual seeker?

 

[tbs]

Shri TBS,

Did you mean jignasu i.,e spiritual seeker?

hi sravana,

jignasu means spiritual seeker....jnaathum icchha....jignaasa....yaha saha....jignasu........many like to know comparative philosophy

of sankara/raamanuja/maadhva.....so better learn the sutras with their simple meanings....

 

[sravna]

I think with about 500 sutras, 2 or 3 sutras can be discussed everyday. So it seems that if things go according to this plan, this thread is going to run for several months.

So far 2 sutras have been presented though no view expressed on them so far. I will now continue with the next two sutras.

 

[renuka]

Knowledge acquired by intuition is the most reliable source of knowledge in my view though the reliability depends on the strength of the intellect of the person acquiring it. The knowledge revealed by scriptures is to be taken as the ultimate authority because they are acquired by direct intuition and in such a knowledge there is an inbuilt consistency and so the truth of all that is acquired. We know how formidable is the intellect of the people who developed the vedanta philosophies and so cannot dismiss their intuition lightly.

Dear Sravna,

I beg to differ here.

How do we gauge the strength of someone's intellect and how do we know his/her intuition is the Truth?

Sometimes being delusional might produce intuitions too.

Sravna..if we read some scriptures..many a times the word Mama Mata is used..meaning my opinion.

Everyone was giving their opinion about the Truth as how they see it..the usage of the term Mama Mata is actually a disclaimer..that is some guy is telling us "hey dudes this is my opinion"..so when someone states his opinion he is not 100% certain of what he had said..not that he is ignorant but just that he keeps his options open to inputs or revelations he might not have tapped into yet.

Now coming to taking anything as Authority..this is where I feel most Hindus close their minds!

Check out Geeta yaar..it is in Q and A format..Lord Krishna does not tell Arjuna.."hey listen to me ..do not question me"

But in fact Lord Krishna explains to Arjuna and gives options too when it comes to choosing any path of worship..saying "if you can't follow this..at least try to do this etc"

See..the Avatar Himself gives us options..Krishna himself did say "rise above the flowery words of the Vedas etc"..no where Lord Krishna was anything is Pramanyam(Authority).


So Sravna..keep options open for anything..if everything is the truth and whole truth and nothing but the truth and we are supposed to believe it 100% in that case all we need to do is not even think and just say Yes Sir Yes Sir 3 bags full like some Ba Ba Black Sheep.

 

[tks]

Dear Sravna,

I beg to differ here.

How does we gauge the strength of someone's intellect and how do we know his/her intuition is the Truth?

Sometimes being delusional might produce intuitions too.

Sravna..if we read some scriptures..many a times the word Mama Mata is used..meaning my opinion.

Everyone was giving their opinion about the Truth as how they see it..the usage of the term Mama Mata is actually a disclaimer..that is some guy is telling us "hey dudes this is my opinion"..so when someone states his opinion he is not 100% certain of what he had said..not that he is ignorant but just that he keeps his options open to inputs or revelations he might not have tapped into yet.

Now coming to taking anything as Authority..this is where I feel most Hindus close their minds!

Check out Geeta yaar..it is in Q and A format..Lord Krishna does not tell Arjuna.."hey listen to me ..do not question me"

But in fact Lord Krishna explains to Arjuna and gives options too when it comes to choosing any path of worship..saying "if you can't follow this..at least try to do this etc"

See..the Avatar Himself gives us options..Krishna himself did say "rise above the flowery words of the Vedas etc"..no where Lord Krishna was anything is Pramanyam(Authority).


So Sravna..keep options open for anything..if everything is the truth and whole truth and nothing but the truth and we are supposed to believe it 100% in that case all we need to do is not even think and just say Yes Sir Yes Sir 3 bags full like some Ba Ba Black Sheep.

Happy you found a less blunt way to make the point!

 

[sravna]

Dear Renuka,

The strength of the intellect can be gauged from how successful it is in convincing other people and can win them over by arguments. That is the reason Sankara is so venerated. In my opinion only a truly great intellect can understand profound truths correctly. In that regard I would like to follow that great intellect and not any of the million or even billion other opinions which dissent against it.

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,

The strength of the intellect can be gauged from how successful it is in convincing other people and can win them over by arguments. That is the reason Sankara is so venerated. In my opinion only a truly great intellect can understand profound truths correctly. In that regard I would like to follow that great intellect and not any of the million or even billion other opinions which dissent against it.

Dear Sravna,

I am not saying that Adi Shankara is not great..He is one the greatest persons to walk this earth no doubt.

But I have a feeling that even Shankara would want anyone to use His teachings as a vessel to sail across the ocean of samsara and finally get out of that vessel and get across.

The problem is these days everyone wants to hold on tight to any school of thought and think that getting into the vessel is all that matters..no one wants to get out of the vessel cos they have fear that once they reach the other side ..there is no perceived difference at all..not many can accept this.

For example: a person who thinks that only his school of thought gets him to a higher Loka might get disappointed to find out that even those who did not follow that school of thought were entitled to that Loka.

So what I feel is we should just read everything with an open mind without attaching too much importance to any one school of thought..keep options open..for all we know no one actually knows the Truth!

 

[sravna]

Dear Renuka,

Definitely open mind to other views but not something which you cannot seriously accept . How did I get that blind faith in Sankara? Because to me whatever of his work I read appeared compelling. His theory was so consistent that I understood the man was a terrific genius. It is my view if you can probe so accurately that much depth as he does, you cannot be wrong on anything else. Of course I do not subscribe to the type of blind faith that has no basis. I do understand for whatever reasons some may not accept Sankara's theory. But I am saying why I do. I do not have any problem accepting any one school of thought if it seems to me closest to describing reality.