Manas: Final question before we get into the comparison, if at all any, between the various types of philosophies: aren’t these westernized, these present versions of Vedanta that we are involved in?
Ātmā: The claim is opposed; the discussion is not on the subject of Vedanta.
Manas: What then is this discussion all about?
Ātmā: The whole aim of this discussion is on how to attain a state happiness.
Manas: Why can’t we have this technique described in a paragraph?
Ātmā: There is no short cut or any kinds of technique etc. to wisdom; the only means available is to learn the scriptures.
It is true that, a different method is being employed here in presenting the related subjects.
Manas: What is this method emplyed here?
Ātmā: An opponent is being presented here. This opponent is not really apparent in usual passages on intellectual discussions, but is always kept on the background. And the reader will have to postulate an opponent in between the lines for a better understanding of the subject.
That is ,we dont remain a blind reader of the texts whater it is; yet, believing the author of text at once, and thus saving ourselves from falling into the distater of scpeticism. So, basicaly, this is belief and search at once.
But, here, in this present discussion , for the benefit our fellow readers, an opponent is apparently presented to counter the sepaker.
We see someone else refering to this double-sided method of search for educating people, though the subjectmatter is entirely different there...Read
Manas: What then does the opponent represent?
Ātmā: The present opponent represents a common man of high state-education, who is familiar with everything that is happening related to the present day religion, but has no spiritual-education alongside a guru on the secrets of the Upanishads.
Manas: What then is the intention behind pouring in these westernised philosophical terms in to a discussion that pertains to the realm of the Upanishads, which has an origin on the Indian soil and not in the West?
Ātmā: it is evident that the language of communication chosen here to interact with each other is English.
Manas: Well, it agreed that the language is English but the context belongs to the Vedic dharma.
Ātmā: Well, this discussion is not emphasising on any particular means to happiness; but it rather includes all forms and means to happiness, that all human beings are always familiar with, and finally, having an origin tracing back to the tradition of the Upanishads.
Manas: Isn’t then comfortable using the equivalent Sanskrit terms to replace such words as Cosmological. Psychological, etc., which are foreign to Indians?
Ātmā: A particular Sanskrit word-meaning belongs to a certain philosophic branch might have different idea in the context of another philosophy, and interestingly, both belong to the same Upanishad dharma.
Hence the need for a common language is identified here.
Manas: Would it be, a common language for all, even confusing than the existing verbosity of the present day philosophers?
Ātmā: We think think this method is really convenient. At least in such situations, like simple-minded but rather educative discussions, people would always try to find a common ground to interact with each other rather than going into biased verbosity.
Though this practice may find it quite difficult in the beginning, the apparent difficulty diminishes as it goes.
Bookmarks