5. Philosophical Sketches Of The Founding Acharyas
Wed, 01/30/2008 - 14:03 — admin
TEACHER: Well, Michael, the time has come for us to begin our inquiry into the nature of the Absolute Truth. I think that with yesterday’s discussion of the problem of evil we finished with the major objections of the atheists and skeptics-though for me to say we have dealt with all of their arguments certainly would be an overstatement. We have arrived, it seems, at a conclusion not unlike that of the great Christian theologian Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas felt that although God’s existence could be established through natural theology, we could not have a clear and distinct understanding of Him by this means. That has also been our conclusion.
As the conversation we are presently embarking upon unravels itself, however, I’m afraid I’ll have to take issue with Aquinas since he didn’t allow the possibility of gaining a clear understanding of God by any other process, either. If we felt this were the case, there would be little use in continuing our dialogue, would there?
MICHAEL: Not that I can see. Aquinas’s assertion that we cannot know God during this mortal life seems to place undue restrictions on the Supreme Being. If God is all-powerful, it would certainly seem He would have the power to make Himself known to someone if He wished to.
TEACHER: Precisely. Concerning our inquiry into the nature of the Supreme Being-would you agree with me that the heart of the inquiry will be the question as to whether God is a personal Deity or an impersonal force?
MICHAEL: That would have to be the case.
TEACHER: Since the direction of our conversation is already carved out, let’s begin by examining the opinions of a select group of philosophers who have developed good arguments on the subject. Both the personalist and impersonalist points of view can be found in their most highly-developed form in schools of thought which originated in India.
The foremost proponent of the Mayavada or impersonalist school is Sripad Shankaracharya. The Vaishnava or personalist school is best represented in the teachings of Sri Adi Vishnu Swami, Sri Nimbarka (Nimbaditya), Sri Ramanuja, and Sri Madhva, who established the four Vaishnava communities, and also in Sri Krishna Chaitanya, who appeared in the disciplic line of Madhva.
May I take the time to give a brief historical sketch of these great personalities, mentioning the essential points of their philosophies, before we begin our comparative analysis?
MICHAEL: To do so could only add to the richness of our discussion.
TEACHER: We’ll begin with Sripad Shankaracharya.
Nor is sense gratification considered “bad.” Sense gratification comes and goes as a natural occurrence of the senses. For example, one cannot eat without tasting. The point is that a life that is centered around sense enjoyment, that makes sense enjoyment the goal, is a wasted life. Economic development is necessary for the maintenance of the body; so therefore it cannot be neglected. But to seek economic development simply for the sake of endlessly increasing sensual pleasure is foolish. No amount of sensual pleasure will ever really satisfy a person, so no amount of economic development will ever be considered “enough.” This is why people in modern Western societies are still not satisfied, even though they are so economically advanced and thus have so much facility for sense enjoyment. They always want more.5. Philosophical Sketches Of The Founding Acharyas
Science of Identity Foundation – Chris Butler Speaks
TEACHER: Well, Michael, the time has come for us to begin our inquiry into the nature of the Absolute Truth. I think that with yesterday’s discussion of the problem of evil we finished with the major objections of the atheists and skeptics-though for me to say we have dealt with all of their arguments certainly would be an overstatement. We have arrived, it seems, at a conclusion not unlike that of the great Christian theologian Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas felt that although God’s existence could be established through natural theology, we could not have a clear and distinct understanding of Him by this means. That has also been our conclusion.
As the conversation we are presently embarking upon unravels itself, however, I’m afraid I’ll have to take issue with Aquinas since he didn’t allow the possibility of gaining a clear understanding of God by any other process, either. If we felt this were the case, there would be little use in continuing our dialogue, would there?
MICHAEL: Not that I can see. Aquinas’s assertion that we cannot know God during this mortal life seems to place undue restrictions on the Supreme Being. If God is all-powerful, it would certainly seem He would have the power to make Himself known to someone if He wished to.
TEACHER: Precisely. Concerning our inquiry into the nature of the Supreme Being-would you agree with me that the heart of the inquiry will be the question as to whether God is a personal Deity or an impersonal force?
MICHAEL: That would have to be the case.
TEACHER: Since the direction of our conversation is already carved out, let’s begin by examining the opinions of a select group of philosophers who have developed good arguments on the subject. Both the personalist and impersonalist points of view can be found in their most highly-developed form in schools of thought which originated in India.
The foremost proponent of the Mayavada or impersonalist school is Sripad Shankaracharya. The Vaishnava or personalist school is best represented in the teachings of Sri Adi Vishnu Swami, Sri Nimbarka (Nimbaditya), Sri Ramanuja, and Sri Madhva, who established the four Vaishnava communities, and also in Sri Krishna Chaitanya, who appeared in the disciplic line of Madhva.
May I take the time to give a brief historical sketch of these great personalities, mentioning the essential points of their philosophies, before we begin our comparative analysis?
MICHAEL: To do so could only add to the richness of our discussion.
TEACHER: We’ll begin with Sripad Shankaracharya.