If advaita stands, all other systems(including dvaita) fall

[M Suresh]

On Thu, 9 Jan 1997, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:

> On Thu, 9 Jan 1997, M Suresh wrote:
>
> > In that case the realization  of Brahman by persons like Ramakrishna
> > Paramahamsa, Ramana Maharishi, Mirabai etc., will have to be denied.
> >
>
> So what if it does?  That they are not knowers of Brahman doesn't imply
> they were bad or irrelevant people.

I know  that according to  you these  people are not  Brahma Jnani's
because they were not experts in shastras.

The question of  "who is a jnani"  came up in this  mailing list and
the conclusion seemed to  be that there is no hard  and fast rule to
prove someone to be or not to be a jnani.

But I hope that shastric knowledge is not a necessary and sufficient
condition for jnana  according to you.  In that case we will have to
have  examinations   in  shastras   followed  by  handing   over  of
certificates to successful people saying that they are jnani's :-).

> > Also access to Brahma vidya will have to be restricted to persons of
> > a geographical region.  Persons like Jesus christ will be out.
> >
>
> Again so what?  From the Vedic viewpoint it matters not a bit what Jesus
> did or didn't do.

My point  in giving these  examples was  that however  great the
vedic philosophy may be the ultimate truth  cannot be locked up with
shastras  as  the only  key.  It  must  be something  universal  and
accesible and applicable to all.  Otherwise it does not make sense.

> Devotion, meditation etc. are all goal oriented.  You cannot achieve a
> goal unless you _know_ what it is.  This is where the shastras come in.

The goal  is one's essential  nature.  Hence it is not be  learnt as
something new to be acquired.  All practice and study of shastras is
only to remove the bonds of mAya due to ignorance and reveal what one
already is.

> > I was not talking about the equivalence of the whole of Buddhism and
> > advaita.  I was only saying  that the highest teachings  of buddhism
> > and advaita, namely emptiness and Brahman are equivalent.
> >
>
> Even there the onus is on you to prove a one to one equivalence between
> the two and as they are opposites, you cannot do this.

I gave the reasons  as to why I think so.  I do not have anything to
add to that.

> --
> Jaldhar H. Vyas [jaldhar at braincells.com]   And the men .-_|\ who hold

-Suresh.