animesh

Hi Gauracandra ji, I have read Sophie's world. Like you, I also do not like reading fiction. I like reading on different kinds of culture, biographies, history, and of course, science. But "Sophie's world" is quite different from usual kinds of fiction. In this you will not find things like 'murder', 'villain', 'romance', 'hero and heroine' etc. etc. In fact, it is more of a philosophy book than fiction. I really enjoyed reading the book. In this book, philosphies of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes are dealt with. It also talks about Galileo and Newton. Of course, one can not understand completely the works of these philosophers and scientists. But one will surely get a very nice introduction. So, even though I do not like fiction, I liked this book.

Whose thinking was accepted by people more - Plato or Aristotle? As I have read, Aristotle rejected lots of philosophies of Plato. As is written in the book Sophie's world itself, Aristotle said that Plato was just 'doubling up things' by his theory of ideas.

__________ If there is a material form, why there can not be a spiritual form? Why is not present? __________ Yes, it is definitely possible. But, since it is not material form, we can not imagine this and, therefore, can not discuss this. __________ There is by incomprehensible mind(wit) a Supreme unity, But as there is by incomprehensible mind(wit) a form? ___________ Perhaps, you are trying to ask, "If there is a Supreme unity who can not be comprehended by our mind, can there be a form which can not be comprehended by our mind?" Yes, it is possible. But, as you yourself said "it can not be comprehended." ___________ " The Sruti also says that Atman is smaller than the smallest, bigger than the biggest. It is far, yet near, so on and so forth. " Where here proofs of absence of the form? _________ Well, in this there is no proof of absence of form, but it is quite clear that the statement "this atman is atomic in size" should not be taken to mean that atman has got form just like atom. If you imagine any form, it can not be 'smaller than the smallest' and 'bigger than the biggest' at the same time. Similarly, it can not be far and near at the same time. This means that the words 'smaller', 'bigger', 'near, 'far' in this verse do not hold their common meanings. I am trying to understand the meaning of your last question.

quote: _________ If all is unreal, that sentence which says so first becomes unreal. ________ Interesting. If I write the sentence, "All is unreal." Then if the sentence is true, it becomes false. When it becomes false, then everything is not unreal. In that case, the sentence may be true. ??? What exactly do we mean when we use the word 'real' while dealing with scriptures? It seems that we call something that is not everlasting as unreal and borne out of 'illusion'.

quote: ___________ O mine English, the grandmother spoke to me: "Study". If in the material world there are qualities, hence their direct contrast is spiritual qualities? ___________ Kailasa ji, Let me guess your question. Perhaps you are trying to ask, "If there are some good and bad qualities in material world, do the same good and bad qualities exist in spiritual world? Did I understand your question correctly? What language do you speak?

Hi Ramakrishnan ji, There are many examples in which the date found by archaeologists is far recent than that given by scriptures.

From Yajur Veda ________________ Find the eternal object of your quest within your soul. Enough have you wandered during the long period of your quest! Dark and weary must have been the ages of your searching in ignorance and groping in helplessness; At last when you turn your gaze inward, suddenly you realize that the bright light of faith and lasting truth was shining around you. With rapturous joy, you find the soul of the universe, the eternal object of your quest. Your searching mind at last finds the object of the seach within your own heart. Your inner vision is illuminated by this new realization.

________ No situation past, present, or future can possibly exist beyond the scope of the Vedas. ________ What exactly is the meaning of this?

Puranas talk of people being alive for thousands of years. But when we read Vedas, we find that hundred years was considered to be a long life span then. As an example, here is a part of a prayer from Yajurveda: - __________ Whatever defect I have of eye, of heart, of mind, Or whatever excess there is, May Brihaspati remedy it. Gracious to us be the Lord of the Universe! Indra is King over all; May there be grace on the biped, grace on the quadruped. May the wind blow us health, And the sun shine cheer on us, And may the clouds with loud thunder Rain their grace on us. The peace in the sky, the peace in the mid-air, The peace on the earth, the peace in waters, The peace in plants, the peace in forest trees, The peace in All Devas, the peace in Brahman, The peace in all things, The peace in peace- May that peace come to me! Strong One! Make me strong! May all beings look on me with the eye of friend! May I look on all beings with the eye of friend! May we look on one another with the eye of friend! That eye of the sky, divinely placed, rising bright before us- May we see for a hundred autums! And may we live for a hundred autums, And may we hear for a hundred autums, May we hold our heads high for a hundred autums, Yea, even more than a hundred autums. _________ We know that 100 years contain 100 autumns. If being alive for thousands of years was normal at that time, then why should anybody pray for being alive for 100 years. Should we take the stories of puranas as literally?

Puranas talk of people being alive for thousands of years. But when we read Vedas, we find that hundred years was considered to be a long life span then. As an example, here is a part of a prayer from Yajurveda: - __________ Whatever defect I have of eye, of heart, of mind, Or whatever excess there is, May Brihaspati remedy it. Gracious to us be the Lord of the Universe! Indra is King over all; May there be grace on the biped, grace on the quadruped. May the wind blow us health, And the sun shine cheer on us, And may the clouds with loud thunder Rain their grace on us. The peace in the sky, the peace in the mid-air, The peace on the earth, the peace in waters, The peace in plants, the peace in forest trees, The peace in All Devas, the peace in Brahman, The peace in all things, The peace in peace- May that peace come to me! Strong One! Make me strong! May all beings look on me with the eye of friend! May I look on all beings with the eye of friend! May we look on one another with the eye of friend! That eye of the sky, divinely placed, rising bright before us- May we see for a hundred autums! And may we live for a hundred autums, And may we hear for a hundred autums, May we hold our heads high for a hundred autums, Yea, even more than a hundred autums. _________ We know that 100 years contain 100 autumns. If being alive for thousands of years was normal at that time, then why should anybody pray for being alive for 100 years. Should we take the stories of puranas as literally?

Satya ji, Before we proceed further, could you tell the aim of which branch of Buddhism is same as that of Sankara's "mayavada"? Buddhism has many branches now. Most of them appeared after Sankaracarya. If Sankaracarya's teachings are found to be similar to the teachings of the branch of Buddhism that came after him, then it is impossible that Sankaracarya might have been affected by that.

Satya ji, You have written __________ When we state that Buddhism and its branches and Sankara's mayavada are the same, for certain we are not saying that they are equal in all aspects of their misleading words and concocted speculations. __________ I really do not understand why you use the phrase "misleading words and concocted speculations". I am not saying you are wrong. I am not saying you are right. Unless you explain why you used this phrase, I can not decide whether to agree or disagree with you.

In all the branches of Hinduism that I am aware of, including Advaita, there is belief of the existence of soul. It is believed that a soul passes from one body to another. This is how rebirth happens. Buddhists do not believe in the existence of soul. Now the question is "How can there be rebirth without soul? If there is no soul, then what is it that reincarnates?" The answer can be given by taking an analogy. If you take one fruit, then from its seeds a tree can be grown. Hopefully, there will be many fruits in that tree. It is not necessary that if the first fruit was good, then latter fruits must be good. Similarly, it is not true that if the first fruit was bad, then latter fruits must be bad. There are many other factors. But, we can not say that they are completely independent. The quality of latter fruits is very much dependent on (though not necessarily same as) the quality of the first fruit. Buddhists believe in reincarnation in a similar way. As the quality of one fruit may affect the qualities of other fruits, so do the deeds of people at present affect the life of those who are yet to be born. In a way, even though Buddhists also talk of rebirth, they do not mean the same thing by rebirth as Hindus believe. Hindus belive that the same soul reincarnates. But Buddhists do not believe in the existence of a soul. When they say that A was reborn as B, they simply mean that the deeds of A affected the life of B. Do you think this is anyway close to the teachings of Advaita?

Satya ji, One should not try to find the similarities between modern day Buddhism and the teachings of Sankaracarya to show that Sankaracarya's teachings were same as those of Gautam Buddha. This is because after the advent of Sankaracarya, many new branches of Buddhism emerged. Many people talk of Hinayana and Mahayana. But there are many sub divisions in these too. The teachings of a large no. of these can be safely considered to be very very different from those of Gautam Buddha. The only branch of Buddhism that comes close to the actual teachings of Gautam Buddha is Theravada. Gautam Buddha had remained silent about many topics (Brahm etc.) which Sankaracarya had discussed in length. It is true that you will find some similarities between teachings of Gautam Buddha and those of Sankaracarya. But, based on these, it is wrong to assume that Sankaracarya had simply copied Gautam Buddha and gave a new 'brand name' to his philosophy. This is because the teachings of Sankarcarya are closer to most of teachings in Vedas and Upanishads than to the teachings of Gautam Buddha. If the teachings of Gautam Buddha clash with those of Vedas and Upanishads, then you will find that teachings of Sankaracarya are found in Vedas and Upanishads and not in Buddhism. As an example, the followers of Sankaracarya believe that happens. Buddhists also believe in this. But the detailed meanings of the rebirth in the two are very much different. Do you know the difference?

Hi Satya ji, You have written that Lord Siva has himself called His doctrine as pseudo-Buddhism. Does it mean that He made this revelation after Sri Sankaracarya had taught his philosophies? If yes, does it mean that Sri Ved Vyasa compiled this in Padma Puran after that? You may say that Ved Vyasa knew about the future and therefore he could write all these things even though he was present much before not only Sankaracarya but also Gautam Buddha. But please note that you have written the revelations made by Lord Siva in the past tense.

Hi jijaji, I was just joking when I requested you to change your username. In Hindi, jijaji means brother in law. Ha ha. :-)

jijaji, Just one request to you. Could you use some other username? :-)

jijaji, Just one request to you. Could you use some other username? :-)

Again to Satyarajadas ji, You give some similarities between philosophies of Sankaracarya and those of Gautam Buddha to prove that Sankaracarya's philosophy was nothing new. As you have yourself written, "To copy right his doctrine Sankara named it kevaladvaita-vada, pure non-dualism, just to make a new market to the same old wine sold by Gautama Buddha." But at the same time you have also given many similarities between teachings of Sankaracarya and those of many Vaisnava acaryas. But you don't believe that Vaisnava acaryas have just given different names to their philosophies to "make a new market to the same old wine sold by Sankaracarya". Why?

Again to Satyarajadas ji, You give some similarities between philosophies of Sankaracarya and those of Gautam Buddha to prove that Sankaracarya's philosophy was nothing new. As you have yourself written, "To copy right his doctrine Sankara named it kevaladvaita-vada, pure non-dualism, just to make a new market to the same old wine sold by Gautama Buddha." But at the same time you have also given many similarities between teachings of Sankaracarya and those of many Vaisnava acaryas. But you don't believe that Vaisnava acaryas have just given different names to their philosophies to "make a new market to the same old wine sold by Sankaracarya". Why?

<HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=windows-1252"> <META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="Microsoft Word 97"> <TITLE>Hi Satyaraja das ji,</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> Hi Satyaraja das ji,</P> I really do not understand what you are trying to say.</P> You say that Gaudiya-vaisnavas are not against Sri Sankaracarya. </P> You consider that Sankaracarya is none other that Mahadeva-Sankara himself, the highest Vaisnava.</P> You call Sankaracarya as the extraordinarily powerful incarnation of Mahadeva.</P> You accept that Caitanya Mahaprabhu's teachings would be impossible without Sankaracarya's contribution. </P> The above show that you have got great respect for Sri Sankaracarya. </P> -------------------</P> You believe that, to copy right his doctrine, Sankara named it kevaladvaita-vada, pure non-dualism, just to make a new market to the same old wine sold by Gautama Buddha. </P> You believe that Sankaracarya had to end his life by jumping into burning oil because he was defeated by a buddhist monk.</P> These things show that you have utter disregard for Sri Sankaracarya.</P> -------------------</P> That is why I am really not able to understand what you are trying to say.</P> <FONT SIZE=2> </P> </FONT></BODY> </HTML>

<HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=windows-1252"> <META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="Microsoft Word 97"> <TITLE>Hi Satyaraja das ji,</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> Hi Satyaraja das ji,</P> I really do not understand what you are trying to say.</P> You say that Gaudiya-vaisnavas are not against Sri Sankaracarya. </P> You consider that Sankaracarya is none other that Mahadeva-Sankara himself, the highest Vaisnava.</P> You call Sankaracarya as the extraordinarily powerful incarnation of Mahadeva.</P> You accept that Caitanya Mahaprabhu's teachings would be impossible without Sankaracarya's contribution. </P> The above show that you have got great respect for Sri Sankaracarya. </P> -------------------</P> You believe that, to copy right his doctrine, Sankara named it kevaladvaita-vada, pure non-dualism, just to make a new market to the same old wine sold by Gautama Buddha. </P> You believe that Sankaracarya had to end his life by jumping into burning oil because he was defeated by a buddhist monk.</P> These things show that you have utter disregard for Sri Sankaracarya.</P> -------------------</P> That is why I am really not able to understand what you are trying to say.</P> <FONT SIZE=2> </P> </FONT></BODY> </HTML>

In my view, when I have made somebody as my guru, then, irrespective of whatever I want to learn from him (things related to religion or other things), we should be first of all willing to listen to him. Very often it is seen that one person asks another something, but the former has already decided that whatever the later will say will be wrong. Therefore, without listening to the answer given to his question and without pondering over them, he will start making fun of the person giving the answer. But at the same time, it is also not true that whatever the other person has told must be true. There are instances when even great acharyas went against some of the beliefs of their gurus. One such example is Ramanujacharya whose meanings to some verses were different from the meanings given by his guru. So, when I have made somebody as my guru, then I should fisrt have faith that he will answer my doubts. I should listen to him attentively. If something is not clear, then rather than simply dismissing that person as unknowledgeable or deceiver etc. etc., I should humbly ask him for clarification. But, in the process, I should also keep my mind open. After all these still if I find that the answers given are not proper, then only I should dismiss the answers. As I have written above, this is true for gaining any kind of knowledge, not only religious. Many good deeds have been performed by individuals because they believed in their guru and acted according to guru's wishes. But at the same time, many bad things have also been done because of one's faith. I have read news in newspapers in which small children have been killed in some villages by their own relatives because of faith that doing so will appease gods. Also some women have been killed because they were believed to bring bad omen.

In my view, when I have made somebody as my guru, then, irrespective of whatever I want to learn from him (things related to religion or other things), we should be first of all willing to listen to him. Very often it is seen that one person asks another something, but the former has already decided that whatever the later will say will be wrong. Therefore, without listening to the answer given to his question and without pondering over them, he will start making fun of the person giving the answer. But at the same time, it is also not true that whatever the other person has told must be true. There are instances when even great acharyas went against some of the beliefs of their gurus. One such example is Ramanujacharya whose meanings to some verses were different from the meanings given by his guru. So, when I have made somebody as my guru, then I should fisrt have faith that he will answer my doubts. I should listen to him attentively. If something is not clear, then rather than simply dismissing that person as unknowledgeable or deceiver etc. etc., I should humbly ask him for clarification. But, in the process, I should also keep my mind open. After all these still if I find that the answers given are not proper, then only I should dismiss the answers. As I have written above, this is true for gaining any kind of knowledge, not only religious. Many good deeds have been performed by individuals because they believed in their guru and acted according to guru's wishes. But at the same time, many bad things have also been done because of one's faith. I have read news in newspapers in which small children have been killed in some villages by their own relatives because of faith that doing so will appease gods. Also some women have been killed because they were believed to bring bad omen.

Hi Shvu, I also used MS - word. I typed in MS Word, saved the files as HTML. Opened the file in notepad. Copied the complete content of the file in this forum. jndas ji, Those little lines appear because the font is itself like this. There is nothing wrong with your system. In fact, you must be seeing small horizontal lines beneath some letters also. Somebody has told me that these lines have something to do with pronunciation though he is not aware about the details.