Advait or Dvait?
Questioner: Shankaracharya proclaimed the Advait (non-dualism) philosophy and Madhavacharya proclaimed Dvait (dualism) philosophy. We cannot say who is correct and who is incorrect. That was their truth. These two are extremely opposite. Which is the exact Truth?
Acharya Prashant: One may put it in words of his personal choice. And it is alright. Finally, one must surrender to a reality beyond the mind. It doesn’t matter whether you talk of Advait or Dvait . Do you finally admit that you cannot proceed any further with words? If your Advait says that I have come to the final truth, then your Advait is bogus. If your Dvait says that this is the ultimate expression, then your Dvait , too, is a fallacy. You may say Advait , you may say Dvait , you may even say Trait , or you may say anything of your choice. You are free to say whatever you want to, but all of that must surrender. All of that must finally say that beyond this we cannot say anymore. That is the only mark of the right exposition.
Does or does it not finally say that we have come to this point, and humbly we want to admit that we cannot proceed any further? Because Truth is at that point where you say that I cannot say any further. So, the philosopher is free to philosophize. He can write a page, a book consisting of five thousand pages. I will be interested only in the last sentence. What is he saying finally? Finally, is he saying that I have spelt out the truth, or is he saying “I cannot say any further.”? The Truth is where the book stops. The Truth is where the philosophy ends. What is he saying finally? I do not bother so much about the entire content of their philosophy. I would be concerned only about whether they are surrendered.
It is not at all a mistake to say a lot of things about the Truth. The Truth is beautiful, it attracts. You feel like saying a lot of things about the Truth. So, you are alright. You have all the right to write poems about the Truth. But the moment you say, “This is the truth,” that is when you are no more tolerable. So, what is Shankar or Madhavacharya saying? As long as they say, “Well, we said a few things about the truth”, it is all right. But let nobody say that this is the Truth. When it comes to the Truth, they must just bow their heads down and say that we cannot say any further. Now, saying anything more will be hearsay. That is the mark of Truth.
Questioner: Sir I mean to ask, is that their truth and do we need to find our truth?
Acharya Prashant: That is their way of describing their personal perception of truth. The truth lies not in what you are saying about the Truth. The truth lies in your silence. When the philosopher ultimately falls silent and words desert him, then there is Truth. Till the time the philosopher is rambling and going on and on with his intellectual stuff, he might be close but he is not there. He will be there when he is overwhelmed with a gripping silence. Now, he is there.
Questioner: So everybody can say what is fundamental, but they cannot talk about the fundamentals.
Acharya Prashant: You can only talk about the fundamentals. Do you know what “aboutness” means? What is “aboutness”?
Questioner Nearby?
Acharya Prashant: Nearby. The periphery. So, talking about the Truth is alright. Rather than talking about this and that, if you feel like talking about Truth in your personal terms, you are welcome. But never be arrogant enough to say that this is the truth.
Questioner: Sir all scriptures should end with “This is the tip of the iceberg.”
Acharya Prashant: They do. Not only do they end there, but they also keep on repeating this even in their bodies. In fact, those are the only worthy scriptures that do not pretend that they have described the truth.
