Re: Theism Can't Honestly Be Dismissed
Nov 22, 2002 02:08 PM
by rnewman2003
--- In theos-talk@y..., "Steve Stubbs" <stevestubbs@y...> wrote:
>>> The Adwaita Vedanta does not teach that supreme reality is
personal.
Correct. But Adwaita Vedanta is but one interpretation of Vedanta.
If you are interested, I refer you to the philosophy of Ananda Tirtha
Goswami, better known as Madhvacharya or Madhva, who lived and
preached around the 12th century in India. Better I think than
anyone before or after him, he pointed out the logical fallacies in
the Adwaita Vedanta of Shankara and promulgated his own system,
called (somewhat imprecisely) Dwaita Vedanta.
Vedanta itself, i.e., the Brahma Sutras of Badarayana, like the
Upanishads of which they are a synthesis and concordance, contains
statements that can be interpreted such that the supreme reality is
described as either personal or impersonal. Shankara is the most
famous of the impersonal interpreters, while Ramanuja and Madhva are
the best-known in the personal camp.
But this is somewhat beside the point, and perhaps you were aware of
all this already. The ultimate proof of the existence of anything is
direct experience. It boils down to the personal experience of
certain highly advanced souls who have testified that the ultimate
reality is indeed personal. You may point out, correctly, that there
are at least an equal number of highly advanced souls who testify the
opposite. BUT THERE'S THIS DIFFERENCE, AND THERE'S NO REFUTING IT,
UNFORTUNATELY FOR ADHERENTS OF ADWAITA VEDANTA: Those who have
experienced and described the supreme personality invariably have
also experienced and described the impersonal aspect of absolute
reality, and they state from their direct experience of both that the
personality is the ultimate aspect. Those who have only experienced
the impersonal aspect, by definition, are in no position to judge
between them.
It is as if a group of mountain climbers who have scaled Mt. Whitney
claim that it's the highest mountain in the world, while there is a
group that has scaled both Mt. Whitney and Mt. Everest, and know very
well that while Whitney is awfully high, Everest is considerably
higher. In general, when a person offers positive testimony (i.e.,
that such-and-such exists), it logically supersedes the opposite
negative testimony (such-and-such does not exist). Indeed, to say
that something (or someone) does not exist can never be proven either
empirically or logically. Why would anybody believe it, if there is
any credibility at all in the positive viewpoint? Beats me.
Robert
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application