Double truth etc

[Bhadraiah Mallampalli]

>From: Vidyasankar Sundaresan <vsundaresan at HOTMAIL.COM>

Before I answer these questions, I want to give a parallel. All those who go
to a music concert may not have learnt music but they can enjoy a good
recitation, and they can even locate apasvarams. All those who go to a
football match may not be players but they understand the game. My opinions
are like those of these amateurs.

My assumption is that vedas are an expression of advaita; and they express
nothing other than advaita.

>>... In my opinion, all these are wrong. indra, viSNu etc are merely
>> >>symbols of the subject of "knowing". The fact that the codification
>> >>was lost does not give the right to any one to monopolyze a

>What if this opinion is mistaken? What if indra and vishNu are
>more than symbols?

If they are more than symbols it leads to a situation of "multiple
inheritance" such as in sAGkhya (which needs both puruSa and prakRti). Or it
may mean we are mixing up the contexts like dvaita and advaita.

The words mentioned in veda must necessarily be "mere symbols" with no extra
value attached to them. When Existence twists or turns it is a new symbol.

indra or viSNu may derive independently from Existence, probably because
they have their own eternal checking accounts with Existence Bank Inc. So it
gives us the impression that they are more than symbols; but still from the
highest stand point they are mere symbols.

A parallel: Multiple inheritance in C++ made programmers lazy as they
started using this feature whenever they couldn't resolve a conflict.
Designers of Java probably knew that advaita is the highest reality and
eliminated this feature, and that forced people to think systematically. Now
programmers create "interfaces" when they need multiple inheritance instead
of multiple parent classes. Interfaces directly derive from the highest
class but they can not contain any instance specific data (in our terms data
specific to individual living beings); so they are used as universal
functions like viSNu with no extra instantiation which would otherwise
create multiple inheritance fallacy. Now it is entirely possible to
instantiate an ojbect that has no other functionality other than the
interface itself; that is how viSNu alone may be created.

>What if there was no codification to be lost in the first place?

If no codification is lost we have to conclude that the vedic rituals are
meaningless acts or superstitions to cause rains progeny.

>What if there were multiple codes, with each author speaking in his or >her
>own favorite riddles?

Inspite of each author having his/her own favorite riddles, there is a clear
unity and integrity in all the vedic literature re: usage of symbols viSNu
etc, inspite of the supposed antiquity of some parts such as Rgveda. The
differences if any may be explained as differences in practices of some
schools or some missing literature. (Please let me confess I have my own
riddles and superstitions.)

>>subject one way or other. In the absence of a final proven opinion, >>all
>>possible opinions must be explored until one of them is proven.

>On what independent basis does one "finally" prove any opinion?
>If there is such a basis, I'd be much happier with it and forget
>about the "mere symbolism",

One way is, if questions of all practitioners and scholars can be answered
satisfactorily in their respective languages, it can be taken as a proof for
the time being. A sAGkhya scholar has to answered in the language of
sAGkhya, dvaita scholar has to be answered in dvaita and so on. Ultimately I
have to understand for myself, which will be the final proof for me.

>which moreover has "lost" its codes.

Isn't it a fact that nobody, after a time has been able to produce any new
literature that has prajApati legends etc? If there is no break in tradition
and lost codification we would see a continuity.

Best regards,
Bhadraiah





_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com