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.
