One Absolute Truth Does Not Make Contradictory Ideas Equally True.
I often hear the statement, “Truth is one.” With that I agree. But sometimes another conclusion is quietly added to it… which is the speculation that because truth is one, all religions, philosophies and spiritual teachers must therefore be teaching the same truth and must eventually lead to the same destination. Similar to all roads lead to Rome.
That second conclusion does not logically follow from the first.
The expression commonly rendered as ‘Truth is one’ comes originally from Rig Veda 1.164.46. It teaches that the ultimate reality is one, although the wise speak of it in different ways. It does not literally say that everything is indiscriminately one. That interpretation belongs to later philosophical developments 1000s of years later.
The verse itself is much older than Advaita Vedanta or Sankaracarya, whose philosophy teaches the ultimate nonduality of Brahman rather than the original eternal personal distinction taken from the original texts by the Vaisnava acaryas.
Using the traditional Bhāgavatam chronology, Śrīmad Bhāgavatam predates Śaṅkarācārya by roughly 3,500 to 4,000 years. Whilst the Rig Veda predates Śaṅkarācārya, who is commonly dated around 700 to 800 CE, by roughly 2,000 years.
This proves that teachings which claim to be Vedic but which don’t agree with the original Vedic scriptures are speculative and only represent the opinions of their various authors.
In contrast Hare Krishna Vaisnavas (Vaisnava means devotee of Lord Kṛṣṇa) do not regard their philosophy as a later invention or a new interpretation of the Vedas. They represent the ancient Vedic teachings as they have been received through the Brahma Madhva Gaudiya Vaisnava sampradaya, a disciplic succession of spiritual masters tracing its origin back through Lord Brahma to the Supreme Lord Himself. According to the Vedic tradition, Brahma did not create Vedic knowledge. The Supreme Lord revealed transcendental knowledge to Brahma, who then transmitted it through disciplic succession. Thus the Vaisnava understanding of the Absolute Truth existed long before the 1000s of years later appearance of Sankaracarya and the development of Advaita Vedanta.
The Vaishnava understanding of what this one Absolute Truth means, is explained very clearly in Srimad Bhagavatam 1.2.11. This one Absolute Truth is realized as Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan.
Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada my Spiritual Master, who introduced Krishna Consciousness to every town and villages all over the World, explains that the Brahman is the spiritual effulgence of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, The Paramatma is His localized expansion present within the hearts of all living beings as the original witness, and Bhagavan Sri Krishna is the complete personal realization of the Absolute Truth.
So the Absolute Truth is one, but our realization of that one truth may be partial or complete.
This is very different from saying that every contradictory spiritual teaching is equally correct.
Before saying that all paths lead to the same destination, we first have to ask a very simple question. Are they actually describing the same destination?
If one teaching says that the Supreme Reality is eternally a person, while another says that personality is ultimately an illusion, those teachings are not saying the same thing. If one says that I eternally remain an individual soul, while another says that ultimately there is no eternal individual distinction between myself and the Absolute, both conclusions cannot be completely true in the same sense.
This is where the original unedited Vedic understanding of the one Absolute Truth becomes very important.
The very ancient Srimad Bhagavatam 1.2.11 states…
“Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual substance Brahman, Paramatma or Bhagavan.”
This does not describe three competing Gods. It describes three realizations of the one Absolute Truth.
Srila Prabhupada is my spiritual master, whose teachings have guided my life since 1973, and who carried the message of Sri Krishna and the Bhagavad gita throughout the entire world, explains the same verse very clearly, He explained that…
“The same substance is realized as impersonal Brahman by the students of the Upanisads, as localized Paramatma by the Hiranyagarbhas or the yogis, and as Bhagavan by the devotees.”
He continues, “In other words, Bhagavan, or the Personality of Godhead, is the last word of the Absolute Truth. Paramatma is the partial representation of the Personality of Godhead, and impersonal Brahman is the glowing effulgence of the Personality of Godhead, as the sun rays are to the sun god.”
Srila Prabhupada, wrote in His purport to the Srimad Bhagavatam 1.2.11.
“So when I say that the Absolute Truth is one, this is what I understand. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the original personal source. His spiritual effulgence is experienced as Brahman. His expansion situated within the hearts of all living beings is Paramatma, the Supersoul and eternal witness. These are not three unrelated truths. They are three aspects of the one Absolute Truth, whose complete personal realization is Bhagavan.”…Bhagavan Sri Krishna
Srila Prabhupada gave a very simple comparison.
” There is the sunshine, the sun globe and the person presiding within the sun. They are connected with the same sun, but seeing the sunshine from a distance is not the same degree of realization as understanding the complete source. Similarly, Brahman realization, Paramatma realization and Bhagavan realization concern the same Absolute Truth, but they are not equally complete realizations.”
This immediately helps us understand why “truth is one” cannot logically mean that every spiritual philosophy is therefore equally correct. Advaita Vedanta, Mayavada, neo Advaita and many other modern nondual teachings all of which came 1000s of years later, include atheistic elements and therefore all those interpretations arrived at conclusions very different from Gaudiya Vaishnavism concerning the original teachings of Vedānta about the eternal individuality of the soul and the ultimate personality of God.
Krishnamurti rejected much traditional any spiritual authority and religious organization.
Osho developed yet another approach. Sad guru thinks Krishna was a rich and famous man, but admitted that he never read the Bhagavad Gita As It Is and that he is an uneducated guru. These teachings cannot simply be placed together and declared identical just because they all discuss spirituality.
I can respect the people who follow them while still asking whether their conclusions are true.
There is also no need for me to claim that Hare Krishnas are personally infallible. I can make mistakes. Other devotees can make mistakes. The truth of Krishna consciousness does not depend upon my personal perfection. The real question is whether its philosophical conclusions correspond with reality and with revealed scripture.
And saying that another philosophy contains an incomplete understanding does not mean that everything within it must be false. Someone may understand that consciousness is different from matter. Someone may understand that material enjoyment cannot permanently satisfy us. Someone may recognize a spiritual reality beyond the temporary body. These can all be genuine insights. The question is whether we stop with a partial incomplete realization, or want to continue towards the complete understanding of the Absolute Truth.
This is also why different spiritual or religional paths do not automatically produce the same destination. A person seeking material prosperity is seeking one result. Someone seeking heavenly enjoyment is seeking another. Someone seeking impersonal liberation has another goal. A yogi seeking realization of Paramatma has another. And the devotee who desires an eternal loving relationship with Sri Krishna seeks something different again. In general people imagine different views of the ultimate goal according to their desires.
The destinations cannot all be identical when the goals themselves are different.
Gaudiya Vaishnavism therefore presents a very precise understanding. I am not this temporary material body. I am an eternal individual spiritual soul. My individuality is real and eternal. Krishna is not a formless impersonal energy produced by something higher or a normal rich person. Like I said these are speculations which claim to be Vedic but which diverted wildly from the original teachings in the Bhagavatam, the Bhagavad Gita and other original Vedic texts.
Krishna is the eternal Supreme Personality of Godhead. Brahman is His spiritual effulgence, and Paramatma is His expansion accompanying every living being within the heart.
Therefore I do not understand “truth is one” to mean that all contradictory statements somehow become true simply because they are spiritual statements.
I understand it to mean something far more coherent.
Reality itself is one.
Our descriptions of reality may be accurate, inaccurate, partial or complete.
And once we recognize that distinction, the intelligent question is no longer, “Why can we not simply say that everybody is right?”
The intelligent question becomes, “Which understanding reveals the one Absolute Truth most completely?”
Gaudiya Vaishnavism answers that the highest and complete realization of that one Absolute Truth is not an impersonal void or an undifferentiated consciousness.
The ultimate Absolute Truth is the eternal Supreme Person, Sri Krishna.
Hare Krishna
Sincerily
Devarsiratha das
Vanaprastha
Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada 1973
Home
https://harekrishnasociety.com
Subscribe
Sanskrit Glossary
https://harekrishnasociety.com/sanskrit-glossary/
Posted in 
