Dark Warrior

It would be appreciated if you could keep your ignorance to yourself. Thx. Krishna is the Supreme Lord, above all Devas. He is that Brahman, as described by the Vedas. The reason why the Vedas do not describe the Lord's avatars is because the sastras are divided into many sections based on function - The function of the Vedas is to describe who Brahman is (Vishnu-Narayana) and the different Devas, along with propitiatory hymns. The function of Upanishads is to describe Brahman's relation to Atman and creation. The functions of Smriti are to highlight the lilas of the Lord. In any case, the myth that Krishna is not a 'Vedic God' is blown away by the Mahanarayana Upanishad (part of the canonical Upanishads) which says: "Brahmanyo Devaki Putro Brahmanyo Madhusoodhanaha". Krishna avatara takes place every Yuga, in which He is born as the Son of Devaki and the Slayer of Madhu everytime. The reason why Veda befuddle people is because they are unlike man-made scriptures which say, 'There is a God. Worship Him'. Sri Hari deludes some people based on Karma, and He requires people to approach Him by an intelligent perusal of the sastras. And I am not going to address the ridiculous Christianity-Vaishnavism comparsion. Its been done to death.

This is a good thread. I will post a bit on Ramayana here, and I hope others will post their experiences here as well. Yatra yatra raghunatha kirtanam; Tatra tatra kritha masthakanjalim; Bhaspavaari paripurna lochanam; Maarutim namata raakshasanthakam "We bow to Maruti, Sri Hanuman, who stands with his palms folded above his forehead, with a torrent of tears flowing down his eyes wherever the Names of Lord Rama are sung". Srimad Ramayana is the account by Valmiki of Sri Hari's avatar as Ramachandra. The Supreme Being acted as human in respect of His own laws, to kill Ravana. Sri Rama is often referred to as, 'Krishna in disguise', because He chose to hide His divinity, rather than manifest it openly. But Srimad Ramayana is much more than that. It is truly the '5th Veda' in the sense that Lord Rama and His divine associates acted in a way that established the truth of the Vedas. There are many gems in Srimad Ramayana. Let me outline the Kalyana Gunas of Raghava, as gleaned from this text. Devotional Service It is believed that Sri Krishna avatara was alone the most accessible of all. But this isn't entirely true. While Lord Krishna was certainly more playful, Lord Rama chose to highlight His desire to give His devotees a chance to perform service to Him. Sri Hari came as Sri Rama. To serve Him, came His brothers, Lakshmana, Bharata, and Shatrughna. There is a significance to this. Lakshmana was never separated from Sri Rama and always endeavoured to serve Him in closeness. This represents the devotee who never wants to be separated from the Lord, and always serves the Lord. Bharata was separated from the Lord for 14 years. Yet, He rendered faithful service to the Lord, always remembering Him while performing his daily duties. Bharata's position is similar to Jivas like us, who cannot see the Lord as He is, and yet wish to serve Him. Shatrughna is undoubtedly, the greatest of devotees. Because, rather than serving the Supreme Lord, Shatrughna was more intent on serving Bharata, the devotee of the Lord. And this is the lakshana of a Vaishnava - He should always place the Lord's devotees on a pedestal above the Lord Himself. In fact, the devotee of the Lord is far superior to the Lord, and hence, He is to be shown the greatest respect. The fact that Bharata's service is greater than even Lakshmana's is illustrated by the incidents in Ramayana where Bharata is eulogised by Guha, Sugriva, Hanuman, Vashishta and even Ravana!! In one episode, when Ravana is informed of Rama's might, Ravana replies, 'I am aware that Bharata's brother is indeed great'. Rather than saying 'Lakshmana's brother', Ravana says, 'Bharata's brother'. Thus, the greatness of the Lord is amplified only by the fact that He is the brother of Bharata!! Bharata's service also differed from Lakshmana in this sense - Lakshmana made his own decisions often. When Sri Rama said, 'do not accompany me to the forest', Lakshmana did not obey Him. When Sri Rama urged Lakshmana to show restraint to His enemies, Lakshmana did not obey. Thus, Lakshmana did great devotional service to Lord Rama and earned praise by simply NOT obeying Him!! Bharata, on the other hand, obeyed Rama's command to rule Ayodhya in His absence, and did not accompany Rama to the forest. This shows how great devotees can choose different ways to serve the Lord. Ramayana can indeed be called Bharatayana, as Bharata's service is lauded by even the narrator Valmiki Maharishi, and by all the persons who came into contact with Sri Raghava. Lord Hanuman was also an exemplary devotee. He performed a service that was a mixture of both Lakshmana's and Bharata's. In some instances, he would never be separated from Sri Rama, but at the same time, He was willing to serve Him even during separation, like when he went in search of Sita. He earned many accolades by acting as the Lord's messenger, ie, when he discovered Sita being held at Lanka, when he went to inform Bharata of the Lord's return, etc. In fact, the Lord was so enamoured of Sri Anjaneyar's service as a messenger, that He decided to imitate His devotee in Krishna Avatara. That is why Sri Krishna kept acting as a messenger for Pandavas. It is a well known fact that one of the kalyana gunas of the Lord is that He always wants to imitate His devotees. But there is also the point that He never succeeds in that fully either!! Therfore, Sri Krishna, just couldn't measure up to Lord Hanuman as a messenger. It is all part of His lila. Srimad Ramayana contains a lot more than what I have told here. If anyone is interested, I will post some more stuff later on.

So, you are basically admitting that your faith is more similar to the 'unknown' God who is kind and merciful, and personal. Your 'Krsna' is not the same Sri Krishna of Vaishnavas. It appears as though your 'Supreme Personality of Godhead' is simply an extension of the semitic God, mixed with a bit of Vaishnava theology. I have noticed that you keep harping about your 'Krsna', but never have you mentioned any of His kalyana gunas. They are completely hidden from you. Let me assure you of this - The war is factual. The whole purpose of the war was to demonstrate the lila of Sri Krishna. And if you deem the war to be an allegory, then the fact that Sri Krishna has a flute and a peacock feather, is bluish black, etc. is also an allegory to you. You appear to contradict yourself in many ways. This view is similar to the views of many advaitins who assert that everything is metaphorical, and only the spiritual truth is to be gleaned. Let me assure you that the Kurukshetra war actually happened. Because no other religion can profess to know of God the way we do. Ironically, Vivekananda said the same thing, 'It does not matter if Krishna existed, what is more important is the message'. Theist sounds like one of those 'oh so dreadful' mayavadis now. The trouble is, the Upanishads and the Vedas do not talk of an 'absolute truth' that is unknown to all of us. They talk of a God who comes down historically and performs His lilas. The whole basis of our sampradaya is that Sri Hari descends to show Himself to us. You do not profess to be a Vaishnava, that is good. But do not spread your distorted teachings to innocent minds. Atleast, they will have a better chance at realisation then. How clever. You are tacitly denying the historicity of the lilas, but implying on their 'literary' value and their spiritual message. This is rubbish. Tell me where in our scriptures say, 'this lila is literary and not factual'. It is historical. There is no proof to say otherwise. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Indeed, the reason why so many people are unaware of its historicity is because of Vishnu's maya. Your Karma prevents you from enjoying Him fully. Theist, you may chant 'Hare Krishna' all you want, but at best, all you will get is a simple transcendental experience, as you call it. Unless and until Sri Krishna is experienced as the true God, one cannot understand Him completely. If so, then how can you say you believe in Krishna? You simply profess to believe in a God who is personal. This God apparently gives us metaphorical scriptures for 'transcendental pleasure', but ultimately, these are only real in the literary sense. I do not know why I am wasting my time with these confused persons. Note the words 'represent' and 'literal'. Theist has revealed his semitic identity here. Only those religions rely on parables and miracles. When it comes to Vaishnavism, every story is about God's attributes. No attribute of God can be illustrated by parables or metaphors sufficiently. Therfore, it is historical. Theist is an agnostic. Plain and simple. Good lord, it is obvious to me that you haven't even realised ONE attribute of Sri Krishna. This is such a stupid comment that I don't even deign to answer this one. Theist, you are not a believer of Krishna. Just admit it. Why do you then want to bring Vaishnavism into this tacky blend of beliefs? This is no way connected to Sanatana Dharma, and is no way related to Krishna either. Sri Krishna says in Gita, 'Of the thousands of people striving to acheive Me, hardly one knows Me in truth.' It is a pity. By the grace of Krishna, many people come to know of His divine lilas. But their karma prevents them from enjoying it fully, and as a result, they spread dangerous messages to others, influencing them. I think a comment from Sri Manavala Mamunigal, a Sri Vaishnava acharya, is appropriate here: 'Astikas (Believers) are great, and Nastikas (unbelievers) are fine as well. But beware of Astika Nastikas, ie, believers who preach the wrong message. They are the most dangerous.' Atleast, advaitins are open in their declaration that all our scriptures are mythological. They are a thousand times better than people like Theist who masquerade as devotees of Krishna and express agnostic views. Happy Sri Rama Navami to everyone.

No offense, but I have seen some of your posts where you have mentioned that even the Mahabharata War might be an allegory, so I am not really expecting you to place faith in our rishis. No orthodox Vaishnava thinks the way you do. You see, if we were to believe that Krishna and Rama lila are mere allegories and simply illustrate God's accessibility, its not Vaishnava theology. This means, your belief is restricted to the fact that - God exist, he has a personal form, and he loves us. If this God were not Vishnu with 4 hands and many avatars, our acharyas wouldn't have debated with other personal sects like Shaivas. After all, Shiva worship is also personal, then why isn't it transcendental? Every aspect of scripture is the truth. When great jnanis like our acharyas, who explained deep meanings, took this as fact, what prevents you, who does not even know the basics, to deem it as allegory? It means you consider yourself superior to Sukadeva and Pariksheet themselves. That is illogical because we have to be sure that scripture explains the material phenomena perfectly well. It would be stupid to assume that our rishis had the divine vision to see Lord Rama and Lord Krishna's lilas, but could not even find out whether the Earth is flat or round. How are we supposed to take their words on the unseen when they can't even explain the obvious? Actually, I am quite confident that the Bhagavatam 5th canto is logical. Its just that nobody can envision the depths of its knowledge. For instance, it is mentioned that Brahma in another Universe may have a million heads. This is impossible to conceive, but it can be reconciled if we think of multiple dimensions existing beyond our perception. The cosmology simply cannot be wrong because Vedic Scriptures are able to explain God, the Soul and many other supernatural concepts with ease. Therfore, considering that so much of knowledge has been explained so well, it isn't a blind belief to assume that the cosmology can also make sense. The Vedic way is a scientific method, its just a matter of interpretation. The Bhagavatam has presented some things as the truth and as factual events. Therfore, to consider them as allegorical would be to say that the author is a liar. I have read that book by an ISKCON scholar where he gives 4 different explanations for the 5th canto. For instance, the flat disk (Bhu-Mandala) is not the Earth, but the orbital plane...such application of pratyaksha is definitely acceptable.

I quite agree that some Puranic material has indeed been lost or modified. But the point I was making is that, if an acharya has quoted a particular verse, or has written a commentary on a Purana, it should be taken as valid. For instance, I believe Naradeya Purana is classified as sattvik. But since no acharya has quoted it, we cannot be sure if the existing version is authentic. Hence, we should steer clear of it. Bhagavatam, though, has been approved and authenticated by all Vaishnava acharyas.

Debating is not done by Brahmins alone. In order to pursue the path of Bhakti, we must first prove that Bhakti is recommended in scripture. Otherwise, our sampradayas wouldn't have any respect.

1) Bhagavata Purana is completely consistent with the Vedas and Upanishads. The exact version is the one which has been commentated by acharyas. Sri Sudarshana Suri & Sri Viraraghavachariar have produced commentaries for Sri Vaishnava Sampradaya. Sri Madhvacharya has done the same for Sad Vaishnavas. If any verses were added on, it would not have escaped the astute minds of these acharyas. Any additions would contradict something. For instance, there is a bogus 'Kalki Purana'. How do we know its bogus? Because it says Kalki will get His powers from Shiva. This is not vedic, as Vishnu does not need to borrow any powers. This way, we can know if any spurious works exist. 2) It is true that Sri Sankarar and Sri Ramanujar did not quote from this text. But that is because advaitins are not concerned about a devotional text like the bhagavatam for debates. And Sri Ramanujar never used a pramana which was not cited by advaitins. Therfore, the Bhagavatam has remained unnamed during their times. Sri Azhagia Manavala Perumal Nayanar, a Sri Vaishnava acharya, quotes this Purana. the time between him and Sri Ramanujar is very less. Hence, there wasn't enough time for the Bhagavatam to become popular during this gap. 3) Linguistic arguments do not hold any authenticity. The fact is, the older manuscripts may have withered away, so to preserve them, sages rewrote some scriptures like Bhagavata Purana. While doing so, they may have complied with the new laws of sanskrit that may have prevailed in their period. That is why I have little respect for indology as a valid field. All speculation and no proof. Bhagavatam is authentic.

This argument is refuted. If one cannot depend on scripture to detail intricate aspects of the material nature, how are we supposed to believe its authenticity when it comes to matters of the Self? It is stupid to assume that the texts talk about Souls and Karma accurately, but cannot describe material phenomena. The idea that Srimad Bhagavatam is a modification or is a later work is again, a comment without authenticity. I have already given reasons for it. At best, it can be said that the cosmology of the Bhagavatam is not understandable by mundane minds. I am willing to accept Sadaputa Dasa's take on it, though. Evolution has not been proven by scientists conclusively. But what is conclusive is the fact that most people can get to know of the Self, and how it is distinct from the body and the fact that our scripture talks clearly about the Kalyana Gunas of the Lord.

Things are coming to a pretty pass if I am told by a Christian that I don't know Krishna Lila. I am aware that those sites are bogus. But here are the true similarities: 1) The fact that a Star is used to herald the birth of a savior is certainly reminiscent of Janmashtami. 2) The whole shepherds bit is nothing more than the adaptation of a rumor about a cowherd savior that had come to the West. 3) Herod killing all those children is most definitely borrowed from the Kamsa episode. Here are the similarities with Buddha: 1) The 3 wise men thing is taken from the Sage's visit in the story of Lord Buddha's birth. 2) The sage told Buddha's parents, 'your son will be a king or an ascetic'. Apparently, this was morphed into the Jesus story in which Simeon (I believe) called Jesus a 'King'. Enough? If you agree with the Gnostic Gospels, that makes you an advaitin. It would appear then, that Jesus falls into the category of a billion other teachers who read the Upanishads and Vedas, but failed to realise that these scriptures talked about Sri Hari only. In any case, what teachings are 'so similar' to the Vedas and Upanishads? 1) Jesus's morals are close to Buddhist scriptures like Dhammapada. 2) Jesus's ideals of renunciation can be found at a more developed level among Jains. 3) Jesus's teachings of devotion to god can be found among Shaivites, who are not regarded as Vedic by any acharya. So, exactly what is left to make him Vedic? In fact, I can point out some errors in Jesus's teachings. Like, when he said, 'Those who do not hate their parents cannot become my disciple'. Now, this is interpreted to mean that he required his disciples to renounce all attachments. Cool. But here is the problem - Some people are unable to renounce everything. So, are they forsaken by God simply because they are attached to material things? No. Sri Krishna tells in the Gita, 'Those who seek material wealth, those who are distressed, those who are inquisitive, those who are devoted', they all approach Him and He accepts them. So, this kind of 'stipulation' that only renunciates get the favor of God is absurd. I hate people who lack knowledge of the Vedas, but act like critics. Here is your explanation: "The Vedic Scriptures say that the world to be supported upon twelve massive pillars, during the hours of darkness, the Sun passed underneath, somehow managing to thread its way between the pillars without hitting them. According to the Hindus, Earth stood on the back of four elephants, the elephants in turn rested upon the back of a huge tortoise, while the tortoise itself was supported by a serpent floating in a limitless ocean." In fact, after the chaff is removed, the Puranas have a kernel and exhibits what may be termed a reverse symbolism. The twelve pillars that support the world are evidently the twelve months of the year, and they are specifically mentioned in the Vedic hymns. The four elephants on which Earth rests are the Dikarin, the sentinels of the four directions. These in turn rest, in turn, on a tortoise and a serpent. The tortoise is Vishnu's Kurma or tortoise avatar and symbolizes the fact that the Earth is supported in space in its annual orbit around the Sun. Finally, the coiled serpent represents Earth's rotation. Vishnu, or the Sun, himself rests upon a coiled snake - the Ananta, or Adisesha, which represents the rotation of the Sun on its own axis. The Scriptures do not say that the Earth is flat. They only say that the Earth is flat at the poles. These kinds of moronic statements clearly shows that you possess zero knowledge of the Vedas. The fact that you compare the apaurusheya Vedas to a two bit paperback best seller like the Bible shows that you lack even the basic knowledge of Sri Krishna. And you possess what knowledge of the Vedas to talk nonsense like this, may I ask? So, you know 'Krsna' is god. Have you even experienced one tithe of His auspicious attributes? Are you aware of His Swamitvam, Vatsalyam, Sousheelyam or Soulabhyam? I am not claiming that I possess knowledge of Krishna. Because everything that I have, is by His grace only. If He wished, he could cast me into samsara and give you Moksha. But that does not make your path right. These Christian Vaishnavas simply say, 'chant Krsna's name', but ultimately, they do not know Krishna properly, nor do they favor Him...their attention, rather goes to God's 'pure devotee', Jesus. And it is up to Vaishnavas themselves to correct these fools. But again, you have idiots like that Chuckleberry character who, calling himself a Vaishnava, spends his time disrespecting other Vaishnava Sampradayas without a hint of knowledge in his head, which explains why there is no unity among us. Srila Prabhupada told you to chant Sri Krishna's name. Which means, chant His name, relish it, experience Him. Not Jesus.

I'd prefer people to refrain from using the words 'disposed' and 'sati' in the casual manner as this person has done. Only those who are completely unaware of Vishnu's potencies would give such an explanation.

Let me put it this way, Vaidikas should do what Bhagavan does. Sri Rama personally cremated Jatayu and oversaw the cremation of Ravana. So, Vaishnavas should cremate.

I agree. Just like you, like me, like all devas and asuras, and all jivatmas.

Vishnu has two abodes. One is the Ocean of Milk, and it is the place where He reclines on Adi Sesha. All devas have access to this place and it is where they go to seek the Lord's help. Beyond all this, is Vaikuntha. This place is inaccessible even to the Devas. And it is the abode of liberated souls. There was no 'fall'. The jivatma has been in samsara since eternity, and this bondage has no beginning, only an end, when the Jiva attains moksha. It is true that Jaya and Vijaya were cursed and had to come back to samsara. But they weren't in Vaikuntha, but rather, located in Karya Vaikuntha, which is Vishnu Loka. And it has been mentioned that Vishnu Loka is not Vaikuntha, although Vishnu and Narayana are non-different.

He existed, but was fictionalised. Do you not realise how close to the story of Buddha and Krishna this whole Jesus myth is? But the Krishna Story and Buddha Story themselves have no influences, so thus, they cannot be discounted. In the gnostic gospels, Jesus talks about how the spirit, when it loses ignorance, can become wholly divine. This is crude advaita at best. He talks of how the Kingdom of God is everywhere, which sounds similar to the 'Buddha Nature' of Buddhists. In the canonical gospels, he advocates worship and reverance of a God, and at times refers to himself as god, at other times, calling himself a son of god. Hence, going by the gnostic texts and the canonical gospels, his message is garbled and inconclusive. There is ample evidence to suggest that Vedic thought had permeated into Judea by the time of the Old Testament itself. Consider the story when Yahweh tells Moses to refer to him as 'I am'. This reminds me of the opening hymns of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. The OT is a tribal text, utterly devoid of spirituality. Yet, even it has some vedic influences, as evidenced by the above fact. Hence, by the time of the New Testament, there is no doubt that philosophies like Buddhism and Advaita (which existed even prior to the time of Gautama Buddha and Sankaracharya) had reached the west. The original texts, given to us by Vyasa and Valmiki Bhagavan, are the Mahabharata and Ramayana. There are many, many versions of these books, but they can only be considered as genuine if they do not contradict the works of the two rishis mentioned before. Kanya-Kumari Lila and all that stuff is simply a later product of humans. The original story is that Lord Krishna killed Narakasura, and this is affirmed by great sages. Anything that does not confirm to the testimony of the rishis is spurious and is rejected. Similarly, I see a lot of unhealthy comparison going on. For instance, some christians tend to think the Vedas are talking about nonsensical stuff when they say that the world is held up by 7 elephants, etc. But these people do not understand that the Vedas have a profound inner meaning, always. For instance, the Vedas say the sun is a chariot drawn by 7 snakes. This is explained as follows - The 7 snakes pertain to seven colors of light. And mordern science has found that light from sun travels in a curved fashion, hence it has been referred to as 'snakes' in the Vedas.

That is also refuted. I have told you, mordern saivites have distorted Sri Sankaracharya's Vaishnava status. So, they depict him in pictures as wearing the holy ash of Shiva. Actually, the proof suggests he wore a tilak. The Kanchi mutt is also heavily shrouded in controversy. It is believed that Sri Sankara did not establish that mutt. The 4 mutts established by him are - Dwaraka, Puri, Badri and Shringeri. These mutts do not recognise the authenticity of Kanchi Mutt either. Notice, the 4 other mutts are near Vaishnavite shrines. EDIT: I have shown proof of Vaishnavism in Vedas. Here is pramana from smriti: Varaha Purana: Narayana is the supreme deity. From Him was born the 4-faced Brahma and from Brahma arose Rudra. Mahabharata: when the Jivatma and matter have gone into dissolution, i.e., during the deluge (pralaya), there is only one remaining and He is Lord Narayana. Mahabharata: There is no being in the world that is eternal or permanent, except Vasudeva. Harivamsa: Siva's words to Narayana; "Brahma is called Ka and I am called Isa. We two were born from your limbs. Therefore, you are called Kesava." 5) Mahabharata: Brahma's words to Siva: "I was born by His grace and you from His anger, in one of the earlier creations." Mahabharata: Brahma, Rudra and Indra together with all other devas and rishis, worshipped the divine Narayana, the greatest of Gods. Ramayana: Rudra sacrificed all things in a great yaga called Sarvamedha and then sacrificed himself also mentally. Ramayana: They knew Vishnu is greater .(than Siva). Mahabharata: These two, Brahma and Rudra, who are the greatest among the devas, are born out of the Lord's grace and anger. They perform the duties of creation and destruction, as ordered by Him. Mahabharata: The devas are under the protection of Rudra. Rudra is under the protection of Brahma. Brahma is under my protection. I do not need the protection of anyone, I am the refuge of all. Vishnupurana: Brahma, Daksha, Rudra, all these are among the attributes of Bhagavan. 12) Mahabharata: The words of Brahma to Rudra: "He (Narayana) is the inner soul of you, of me and all beings. He sees everything, but cannot be seen by anyone or anywhere." Rudra says in Mantra Raja Pada stotra: All beings are the servants of Paramatma. Therefore, I am also your servant and with this knowledge, I bow to you. Mahabharata: There is no one superior to Narayana, the God of the lotus eyes. There is no God superior to Vishnu. Naradapurana: There is no divine being, higher than Kesava. Mahabharata: He (Vishnu) is the king of all kings. He is the Iswara, He is the father. He is the creator, Mahabharata: Those intelligent people do not worship Brahma or Rudra or any other devas, because the fruit of their worship is limited. Mahabharata: Lord Narayana told the devas: "This Brahma is your father and mother and grandfather. He will give you boons under instructions from me. Rudra, his younger brother, had his origin from my forehead. Rudra will grant boons to beings under instructions from Brahma." Bhagavad Gita: Krishna says: "Those who do sacrifices to other deities, they also do sacrifice only to Me; but not in the proper manner and according to rules." Ramayana: Brahma, the three-eyed Rudra - cannot save a person from being killed in war, by Rama. Mahabharata: Meditating always of the Lord, Brahma, Rudra and others have not yet realised the Lord's nature. Mahabharata: Mahadeva (Rudra) sacrificed -himself in Sarvamedha yaga and became Devadeva. Mahabharata: He, whom Madhusudana sees at the time of birth, becomes Sattvika - If Brahma or Rudra sees him at the time of birth, he is rilled with Rajoguna and Tamoguna (respectively). Mahabharata: Narayana is Parabrahma. Narayana is Paratattva. He is greater than the greatest. There is none greater than Him. Mahabharata: Siva said: I was bora from His (Narayana's) head - He is the one, fit to be worshipped always - By seeing Him, all other devas can also be deemed to be seen. I (Siva) also worship Him (Narayana) always - All of us, devas, reside in His body. Vyasa: This is the Truth, Truth and Truth. There is no greater deity than Kesava. Harivamsa: Siva said:- Only Hari is to be meditated upon, always. He is to be worshipped always. I (Siva) help in the worship of Hari. Vishnu Purana: The world is born out of Vishnu and rests in Him. He is the world - He resides in all; and all beings reside in Him. Hence He is called Vasudeva. He is the Parabrahma. Varaha Purana: Lord Narayana was at the beginning. From Him was born Brahma. Bhagavata: Brahma said:- I, Brahma, create the world, commanded by Narayana. Siva, controlled by Narayana, destroys the world. Bhagavata: The water from (washing) the feet of Vamana, which was borne on the head, with supreme devotion, by Kailasa vasa, Chandra mouli (Siva).... Bhagavata: Brahma to Vishnu: We - Rudra and others - drink with our 11 senses, the honey in your lotus-like feet. 33) Bhagavata: Rudra to Krishna: You are the highest jyotis. The sky is your navel, agni is your mouth - You are the first purusha. You have no equal or superior. Myself (Rudra), the devas and rishis - all seek refuge in you. You are everything to us. You are our atma and ruler. You have no equal or superior; there is nobody else to be approached for protection. I come to you so that my samsara may be ended. 34) Bhagavata: Rudra to Parvati:- You asked me, when I rose from my yoga on whom I meditated. That person is Bhagavan (Narayana), whose maya, you have just witnessed. He is eternal. Bhagavata: Rudra:- One, ... who loves Bhagavan Vasudeva, goes after a hundred births to the world of Brahma; then he comes to my world. He will then reach the eternal world of Vishnu, as myself, Indra and other devas will do, at the expiration of our authority. Bhagavata: Markandeya to Rudra: I will ask for this boon:- "May my love for Bhagavan (Narayana), for those that regard Him as the highest goal, and for you, remain unshaken." Rudra: "You will be a lover of Bhagavan (Narayana)." Parvati asks Siva: "I want to hear from you this: How do the learned people recite the 1000 names of Vishnu easily? Siva replies: "It is enough, if you say Rama. This is equivalent to all 1000 names of Vishnu. I also enjoy saying the name of Rama." I have quoted above, only very few passages. There are innumerable such passages in smrtis, puranas and itihasas stating that Narayana is the supreme deity.

I have already told you that the fact about Sri Sankaracharya and his immediate disciples such as Suresvara being Vaishnavas was revealed by non-sectarian people. The researchers were not vaishnavas; actually, they were not even hindus. In fact, although temple worship is not a must for advaitins, Sri Sankara repeatedly emphasises the glory of archa forms of Vishnu. Sri Sankaracharya writes several times in his Brahma Sutra Bhashya, "yathA sAlagrAme hariH", "sAlagrama iva vishNoH", "yathA sAlagrAme vishNuH sannihitaH, tadvat... In all his bhashyas on Gita, Upanishads and Brahma Sutras, he has only equated Vishnu with Saguna Brahman. In the Gita commentary, he openly denounces worship of all devas, including Shiva. The rituals prescribed by Sankaracharya for his followers also only consist of obeisances to Vishnu and not to Shiva. And I hope noone is hurt by my claims of Shiva being a jivatma. In the Shathapatha Brahmana, Rudra cries and asks Brahma to cleanse him of his sins. Only Jivas can be sinful, therfore, Rudra is a Jiva.

Please show me ONE portion of Vedas that does not tally with Vaishnava views. With due respect, the supremacy of Vishnu is established only by considering all pramanas, and not a few. I assure you, I have no desire to hurt the feelings of shaivas or shaktas. But I know the truth. Did you know that Acharya Sankara himself was a Vaishnavite? He advocated worship, or rather Vishnu only, as the supreme self. Vaishnavism is not only personal. Impersonal realisation of Vishnu is also Vaishnavism. Around the 16th century, some shaivas have manufactured works like Saundarya Lahiri and passed it off as Sri Sankara's works. This has been proven by non-vaishnava scholars who are unbiased in their approach. All the core works of Sri Sankaracharya - the Prasthna Trayam, advocate Vasudeva as the highest Brahman. Considering that in many Shaiva temples, Lord Vishnu and his devotees are portrayed as completely weak and immature, I'd say arrogance and haughtiness exists on both sides of the fence. The difference is, we have pramanas to back it up.

The thread starter is ignorant of etiquette, no doubt. He and I have our little differences (and confrontational mud-slinging). But that does not make Vaishnavism entirely wrong. 1) From the Vedas, it is to be gathered that Narayana is parabrahman. He existed alone, one without a second. No Rudra, No Brahma, etc. 2) It is mentioned clearly that Rudra is a Jivatma. Shathapatha Brahmana talks of how Rudra was born, how he asked Brahma to remove his past sins. 3) The name 'Rudra' was given to this jivatma by Brahma. Rudra means 'howler'. He was given this name because he cried when he was born. 4) Names like Shiva, Maheswara, Shambhu were given to Rudra by Brahma just to appease Rudra's ego. In reality, the name Shiva means 'auspicious'. Maheswara means 'Lord of the World'. Shambhu means 'Blissful'. 5) Therfore, such names like Shiva, etc. can also apply to Narayana. He alone is auspicious, blissful and the Lord of the World. Now, the Vedas, are unified in one fact - Narayana is Brahman. But they also call Siva as Brahman, Indra as Brahman, Vayu as Brahman, Shambhu as Brahman, etc. However, it is clearly and coherently mentioned that Narayana is the highest and none other. In other parts of the Vedas, these deities like Indra and Shiva are shown to be jivatmas. They have defects. So, they couldn't possibly be supreme. Then how do we resolve contradictions? Simply take the common names. Siva is Brahman means 'Brahman is auspicious'. It does not pertain to Mahadeva. Shambhu is Brahman means 'Brahman is blissful'. Indra has all the wealth (aiswarya) of Brahman. But he does not have other traits like intelligence, auspiciousness, etc. So, Narayana is Indra, Brahma, Siva means Narayana has aiswarya, intelligence and auspiciousness. There is also another aspect. In the hymns praising devas, there is always a gentle reminder that the deity is praised only with Vishnu as the indweller. Sri Rudram Chamakam, for instance, praises Rudra as supreme. But it also mentions in the Chamakam part that all prayers to Rudra go to the source of his power, the indwelling Lord Vishnu. Saivites CANNOT get past the fact that Rudra has emphatically been declared to be a jivatma in Vedas. Therfore, they stick to Siva Purana. But Siva Purana is classified as Tamo guna. Hence, Saivites are defeated. It is also shown in the Vedas that Brahma, Shiva, Indra are just posts. Any jivatma can attain this position by penance. Which means, if you or me do such a penance, we could become Rudra or Brahma in another Yuga by Sri Hari's grace. Once the current Brahma's life span ends, either he, along with the devas gets moksha (if Sri Hari is willing) or they will be subject to transmigration in Samsara again. Correction. I cannot stand Tackleberry's disrespect for acharyas of other sampradayas just because they differ philosophically. It is unvaishnavite. I have nothing but respect for Sri Madhvacharya. It is foolish to say that only Vaishnavas fight. The same goes for Saivism. You have Veera Shaivism, Kashmir Shaivism, Kapalika and Kalamukha, each squabbling with one another. The Smarta sect of advaitins also have divisions, each claiming to be the original parampara of Sri Sankaracharya. ---- Coming to the topic of this thread, Rudra is not worshippable as a devotee of Vishnu even. If that was the case, one may also worship Indra, because despite Indra being completely materialistic, he always seeks the lotus feet of Vishnu for even material gains (making him a Vaishnava). Rudra is a Rama bhakta. But there are many instances when he has rebelled against Sri Krishna, and considered himself to be supreme. Of course, he has realised his mistake, but that only makes him a vaishnava. There is a difference between Bhagavata and Vaishnava in the sense that even materialists may worship Vishnu and be called Vaishnavas. But Bhagavatas are people like our acharyas who have never stepped beyond the line of devotion and selfless service. Rudra is not a bhagavata. Srimad Bhagavatam calls Rudra the greatest Vaishnava. True, but this may not pertain to even this yuga's Rudra. It is a well known fact that Puranas often pertain to events occuring in different chatur yugas. That is why there are some discrepancies with chronology. Hence, the Rudra hailed as a Vaishnava in Bhagavatam could have been a Rudra of a previous yuga as well. I respect Rudra and other devas, but I won't worship them. Only Lakshmi Narayana and the acharyas are worshippable.

Jesus has been called Indra, Brahma, Shiva, Siddha and even Vishnu. This is honestly getting out of hand. He has no affliation with Vaishnavism. At best, he was a philosopher and mystic who has been deified. You should listen to some Death/Black Metal bands. Most of these guys are pagans (nature worshippers, a direct result of Vedic Influence) and the main theme of their songs is ripping Christianity to shreds for ruining their culture.

The Gaudiyas claim that they belong to the Madhva parampara. The Dvaitins refute it strongly. But the Gaudiya site apparently has answers to all these refutations, so it is a never ending argument again. I am not really sure about Acintya Bheda Abheda. Baladeva Vidyabhushana's Bhashya seems more like a mixture of Dvaita and VA. The Gaudiya position has always puzzled me a bit. I completely agree that it is a matter of taste, which Sampradaya you follow. The only reason I argued vehemently against Dvaita in the other thread was because that fool tackleberry did not have the integrity to respect other Sampradayas. I myself have many Dvaitin friends and we go on pilgrimages without silly arguments. The Gaudiya/Madhva difference is like the Thenkalai/Vadakalai division with Sri Vaishnavism itself.

Trundleberry will bring up some objections such as sa vivesha abheda for Ayam Atma Brahma and Sarvam Khalv Idam Brahma, but that can be explained away by vishishtadvaita. For instance, take the red brick analogy. The brick exists in whole without the redness, the redness merely depends on Brahman, and also is a characteristic of Brahman. The jiva is like the redness that has an existance purely due to the brick. The redness does not divide the "red brick", it is both non existant outside the brick, but when associated with the brick it is an essential part( but not identical to the brick). Now, it has been established from the Spider Analogy pramana of Mundaka Upanishad that Brahman is the material cause. Therfore, VA agrees with Dvaita in the sense that the Jiva (redness) is distinct from Brahman (Brick). But just like the redness is an attribute that doesn't affect the nature of the brick, similarly the Jiva is an attribute that does not affect Brahman. Pramana, like I said, is there in the fact that Jiva has a sariri/sarira relationship. This is accepted by Dvaitins as well. At this point, I feel compelled to talk about logic pertaining to Atat Tvam Asi and Tat Tvam Asi. Just logically speaking, Uddhalaka took great trouble explaining it to Svetaketu. If he had wanted to say 'You are not that', then the information imparted to Svetaketu would be incomplete. Because, Uddhalaka, going by the Dvaitin interpretation, only establishes that Jiva is not Brahman. But he does not enlighten Svetaketu about the fact that Brahman is dwelling as antaryami within Jiva at all. This makes Svetaketu's education incomplete, as it is to be assumed that Svetaketu is not at all aware of antaryami Brahman as well. Thus, going by sheer logic, the VA argument scores, because Tat Tvam Asi points out not only the nature of Jiva with relation to Brahman, but also informs Svetaketu about the antaryami Brahman. VA sees absolutely no contradictions in Shruti. It takes the abedha shrutis to be pertaining specifically to moksha, and bedha shrutis to jagat, and those that fall in between as representing the reality. Dvaita also makes assumptions that mukti must conform to earthly understanding and nature and examines the scripture in this direction. VA also follows this line, but recognizes passages that indicate the exceptionally superior nature of mukti. It is to be understood that experienced Sri Vaishnava scholars are far superior and more well versed in both VA and Tattvavada than I am. And they have refuted Dvaita, yet reconciled it by giving it a proper position in Vedanta, as Dvaita is definitely present in scripture, unlike Advaita which goes overboard with assumptions and mistakes. Dvaita Scholars have launched minor attacks on Vishishtadvaita, but these have been dealt with completely. If Tinkerberry wants more proof, I will give him sites where he can place his arguments with competent Sri Vaishnavas.

Without understanding the basics, Tackleblurry talks of Sri Ramanujar's so-called text torturing. It is unfortunate that he cannot comprehend the greatness of VA, and the fact that it has no hostility with Dvaita. Sri Vedanta Desikar was able to refute Dvaita, but refrained from going overly public due to the fact that he regarded Dvaita as being only slightly deviant from VA. In fact, he even refereed debates between Dvaitins and others, which shows the companionship enjoyed by both Sampradayas at that time. Dvaita is bang on with many details, but there are discrepancies. For instance, the whole gradation of souls being permanent is nonsensical, and the fact that they believe Brahman is only instrumental and not material cause, when shruti points out the dependency of jiva (which is a natural outcome of Brahman being the material cause). The gradation theory is not refuted by Sri Vaishnavas. Sri Ramanujar classified souls into 3 categories - Baddha (in samsara), Mukta (in Vaikuntha) and nitya suris (Adi Sesha, Lakshmi, etc.). And we certainly accept that the Jivas in Samsara show gradation due to Karma. In Vaikuntha, there is no Karma. So, no gradation of bliss, as there is equal bliss for all. Baddha Jivatmas who acheive Mukta stage experience bliss equal to that of Adi Sesha or Garuda. Certainly. I was not saying those pramanas were invalid. Since Tickleberry questioned the integrity of Sri Ramanujar, I responded by saying that while Sri Ramanujar defeated Advaitins using their own sastra, Sri Ananda Tirtha did not adopt this approach. No issues there. They are INTERPRETED as bheda. No doubt. But the fact is, this interpretation still has a few kinks. For instance, Sri Madhvacharya was unable to explain away Ayam Atma Brahma as a consequence. He simply took it as 'a high meditative technique' or a 'eulogy for the jivatma'. However, certainly, I have no problems with Dvaitin interpretation. And what is noteworthy is that, the VA interpretation is also able to smoothly reconcile problems. So, this debate is out of hand for novices like ticklingberry and myself, but can be resolved by learned acharyas. 3) Atat Tvam Asi is also acceptable, although it throws the whole episode out of context. And the Sri Vaishnava logic for Tat Tvam Asi is also quite logical. Hence, here alone, both Dvaita and VA neutralise themselves. The solution would be to refer to other texts for this. This ha certainly been done, and I am sure Trembleberry wouldn't bother to check Sri Vaishnava sources, instead he will stick to 'Dvaita is TR000 Philosophy!!' The fact is, Tumbleberry is unable to refute the undeniable fact that Karma Yoga is mentioned as a separate path. Bhakti Yoga is considered to be a tough path, and different from bhakti, though there is interlapping. Sufficient pramanas are provided by Sri Vaishnavas. In the end, I can say this - Toggleberry has no understanding of what respect means for all sampradayas. I am quite able to read the Mahabharata and Srimad Bhagavatam commentary by Sri Madhvacharya and appreciate his bhakti. But Thimblehead-berry cannot do so in the case of Sri Ramanujar. Whether it is Sri Sankaracharya, Sri Ramanujacharya, Sri Madhvacharya, Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, they are all bhagavatas. We are not worthy of questioning their intelligence. By doing so, only karma will be obtained. I am afraid Tumbleberry will tumble into this hole unless he resolves himself. Summary I will list out all the points of difference. Tattvavada - Brahman is the instrumental cause. He is not the material cause. VA - Brahman is also the material cause. The Mundaka Upanishad talks about creation akin to web emerging from a spider. Just like spider weaves the web, so does Brahman create the world. The spider uses only itself( its body fluids) to create the world and no extraneous material. Yet, the spider remains unchanged or unaffected by the web. But the web had no extraneous source ( material). I see no problems in calling the web as different and inferior to the spider inpite of its owing its existance only due to the spider. The cause and effect need not be the same. Since the web has not come from any other material, its material cause is the spider, and hence a prakAra. The same principle is extensible to the jIva, making Brahman the material cause of the Jiva. Tattvavada - Jiva is distinct from Brahman. A relation exists, but that's all. Pramanas like 'Atat Tvam Asi' prove this. VA - Jiva is distinct. But just like the bodies of all plants and animals contain carbon as a uniform constituent, the Jiva, World and all extant things are the body of Brahman. Tat Tvam Asi echoes this. And this is corroborated by quotations like 'Sarvam Khalv Idam Brahma' and 'Ayam Atma Brahma'. Sri Krishna also echoes this in Vishnu Purana, 'That Which I am, That Thou Art, and so is this world....' Therfore, Tat Tvam Asi means 'That you are' in the same way that everything else is Brahman. Uddhalaka has taken great pains to show Svetaketu that Tvam simply pertains to the immanent Brahman with the Jiva as subsidiary, and Tat referring to the causal Brahman. Atat Tvam Asi does not explain Sarvam Khalv Idam Brahma, as Dvaita considers matter as distinct from Jiva and Brahman. Even if sa vishesha abheda is evoked, it can be explained away by VAs because the Jiva has been proven to be an attribute of Brahman and that matter as well as Jiva both had the same subtle form initially. So, even if Atat Tvam Asi can be taken to be correct, the whole Dvaitin argument is still nullified. At best, one can say both Dvaita and VA have equally valid points in this case. This is resolved by other pramanas such as Vishnu Purana (Yadambu vaisnavah kayah, tato vipra vasundhara) and by the spider analogy pramana. Tattvavada - Matter is distinct from Jiva and Brahman. VA - Chit and Achit are differentiated only in name and form. But they existed in a subtle form previously. This is proven by the Spider Analogy. Initially, the web of the spider resides in the spider as juice or chemicals, but it acuires differentiation in name and in form when the spider puts out its web. It has been proven that Brahman is the material cause. If Brahman was only the instrumental cause, there can be no dependency. When a potter makes a pot, it is the instrumental cause. The pot is not dependent on the potter once it is made. But since Jiva is dependent on Brahman, it makes Brahman the material cause as well. Tattvavada - Jiva is not attribute of Brahman. VA - Jiva is a mode of Brahman. The attributes of Brahman are two in number - essential and non-essential. This is demonstrated by an analogy. The sun has light and heat as its essential attributes, for which it is dependent on. But the rays of the sun are also attributes of the sun, although these rays are distinct from the sun. The sun also does not depend on the rays. These rays symbolise the Jiva's sarira/sariri relationship to Brahman. Brahman has many essential attributes like satyam, jnanam, anantam, etc. The Jiva, being His sarira as well as sariri, is likened to a non-essential attribute. This is corroborated by the pramana from Vishnu Purana. The red brick has redness as attribute. But if the red color changes to blue, the brick's nature is not changed, but only its color. Without the brick, the redness is also not existent. Thus, there is unity again. Tattvavada - Gradations of Jiva's bliss exist even in Moksha. VA - Gradations exist only as long as the Jiva is bound by karma. Unlike Dvaita, VA does not admit jiva svabhava or any intrinsic limitations on it. So, by the grace of God, it can experience the same joy as God. The only thing a jiva has to understand is being an amsa of Narayana and as depending on him completely for existance, and the Lord gives it as much ability and bliss it wants. The pramanas provided by Dvaitins pertain to either Karya Vaikuntha or Samsara. Which sruti mentions about different types of moksha? There are no references to salokya, samipya etc in any canonical upanishads. VAs consider these as aupacArika mukti, like residing in Karya Vaikuntham. Tattvavada - Aham Brahmasmi is explained as negation of identity and expression of relation. But here is the problem - the dualistic position demands a reading of the text in a primarily different sense as implying difference and not identity while agreeing upon relation we refute it saying that this position is not derivable from the original mahavakya in its actual form. The immediate and primary meaning of the statement reads only as “I am Brahman”. Therefore any position derived from this must account for this identity which is expressed by the statement. To negate identity but to proclaim relation the statement must be modified or interpreted arbitrarily. As both are not permissible this position is refuted. VA - Aham Brahmasmi explains the relational identity of Jiva and Brahman. When the statement I am Brahman is made does it mean something like the identity between all forms of life on the grounds that all contain the element carbon in its organic form? True the life forms differ with respect to external and a host of other characteristics; however this statement is one of relational identity. All life forms are identical in the sense that they are organic and carbonaceous. I am Brahman as I have Brahman for the self and my individual self is of the nature of a real body part to this real self which ensouls the cosmos. All jivathmas are real and relationally identical with each other and with Brahman on these grounds. Conclusion 1) Both Philosophies agree on many points. 2) Dvaita differs from VA in the sense that it tries to evade the underlying organic unity of all matter and jivas with Brahman. It also expresses an earthly form of moksha, in which there is distinction in the bliss experienced by the Jiva. Tickleberry has been refuted.

The VA view is that such bliss is indeed pertaining to the Self in Samsara. But you must understand that while in Samsara, the Self's Dharmabhoota Jnana contracts or expands depending on Karma. So, if X has 50 points Karma and Y has 70 points Karma, there is definitely gradation in the bliss they experience while in Samsara. For instance, I have so less Karma that I am able to appreciate the genius of Madhvacharya and other Vaishnavas. Once these Jivas reach Vaikuntha, their Jnana reaches its full length. So, tell me, if you, with your pea brain, miraculously reach Vaikuntha, and I, also reach Vaikuntha, won't both our Jnana of Sriman Narayana become equal? We will have bliss in full measure. In Vaikuntha, X Jiva - No Karma. Y Jiva - No Karma. Jnana - Full. Sriman Narayana - Appears to both of them in equal splendour. Thus, there is no gradation in Vaikuntha. Again, provide me a pramana that says there is gradation in Vaikuntha. Till then, pig headed Dvaitins can clam up. Your Nyayamurthy or whatever has also been addressed by Sri SMS Chari who has published a book proving that Theistic Monism (VA) is the purport of the upanishads, rather than Sankara or Madhva Philosophy.

Tackleberry, you are certainly a nutty guy, but since you provide good entertainment, I will keep going. Are you aware that by insulting Sri Ramanujar, you are committing a sin? Let me illustrate. When Ravana was battling Sri Rama, the Lord never tried to kill Ravana, but merely stood on Hanuman's shoulders, smiling and deflecting the arrows. But when Ravana directed his arrows at Hanuman, the Lord's face clouded in anger. One arrow was then enough to kill Ravana. Thus, by insulting the Lord's devotees, you are going nowhere. Seeing as you believe in eternal hell, let me assure you that if you keep going this way, even the lotus feet of Sri Madhvacharya will reject you. And to boot, you have zero knowledge of VA or Sri Ramanujar. I myself lack knowledge, or I would have silenced you long ago. But all you can do is zealously cling to your own stupid reasoning. Lot of talk, yet no use in refuting this. You would certainly make a good couple with that Atanu Advaitin guy on the net who keeps spouting nonsense. Do you have a pramana that says there is tAratamya in vaikunta? I dont think so. There are pramanas to show that mukta is omniscient, i.e all knowing. Though the four states of sayujya,saaroopya,sameepya and saalokya appear in the shruti, there is nothing to prove that these states are permanent.This isn't sufficient pramana. Sri Ramanujar has clearly shown that Jiva is a mode of Brahman. If you read his Vedanta Sangraha, you will find pramana from Vishnu Purana proving this. This definition of Sarira, makes every other definition of other schools incomplete, and difficult to apply on certain situations. The BrhadAranyaka passages of the Antaryami Brahman quoted by Sri Yamunacharya at the end of his work "Atmasidhhi" explains this point: "yah prithivyam tishtan.....yasya prthivi sariram" "yasyapah sariram" "yasya Atma Sariram"..... Vishnu Purana says: "Jagat Sarvam Sariram te" "Yadambu vaisnavah kayah, tato vipra vasundhara" This proves that Jiva is a mode of Brahman. If the Dvaita school agrees with this concept, then good. Moron. I am certainly not a vedantin, and yet, I have been able to refute most of your views. Imagine what a true Vishishtadvaitin Scholar would be able to do. You want pramanas to show that different Jivas do not enjoy different levels of moksha in Vaikuntha? That clearly shows your ignorance. It is simple logic that all Jivas, although numerically different, are still qualitatively similar in Vaikuntha. There may be no interconnection, but the bliss enjoyed is the same. I have shown you that there is no pramana for taratamaya in Vaikuntha. Instead, you reply saying, it is far-fetched. The dependency of Jiva does not require Pramana, but rather, Logic and reasoning. If Brahman was not the material cause, there may be no dependency. Thus, your view is fallacious. As far as Atat Tvam Asi is concerned, it may be grammatically correct, but is refuted by Ayam Atma Brahma and Sarvam Khalv Idam Brahma, which cannot be explained otherwise. Since you appear to be blind, read this again: The fourth sentence "Tattvamasi" is the culmination of the knowledge imparted by Uddaalaka to Svetaketu. The term "Tat" is taken to signify the supreme and primordial Sat, which was one without a secondbefore creation. It also signifies all the attributes implied by the fact that it produces the world. "Tat" (that) must bear all this richness of connotation in order to be really meaningful. "Tvam", meaning 'thou' refers (superficially) to Svetaketu. But what is the deeper significance? What is the scope of the reference? It does not mean the body as that cannot be the reciepient of philosophical wisdom. Does it mean the individual self? The discourse, while explaining the entry of Sat into the world of particulars, has made it clear that the finite self cannot exist if the Supreme Self does not reside in it. NO term appicable to the individual self is applicable only to it. It's reference must extend to the indwelling Divine principle too. This applies to the term "tvam" also. The speciality of this term as opposed to "Tat" is that it signifies the Divine self as dwelling within the individual self of Svetaketu,which itself dwelling in the body of Svetaketu. It is this totality that is described as "tvam" and the principal factor is the immanent Divine self and the subsidiary factor is the Jiva of Svetaketu. So "tvam" means the Supreme Spirit as immanent in the individual. The verb "asi" means "art", and effects the identification of the meaning of "tat" and "tvam". The causal Brahman is identified with the Immnanent Brahman in the effect. It is this level of self knowledge that Uddaalaka found wanting in his son, and he accordingly imparts it to him. This version is equally valid. All you can do is cling to Atat Tvam Asi, and keep harping about it. Your version of Atat Tvam Asi leads to some contradictions. The only reason Dvaita has remained unchallenged for awhile is because there was nobody to refute it. Adi Sankara was undeafeted, but advaita has been challenged since. Sri Desikar was unchallenged by Dvaitins. And some Dvaita Acharyas were unchallenged. Propose your ideas to someone like Sri Velukkudi Krishnan Swami on his website and see what happens.

Just because I know he will come back to check this thread, I'd better go one step further to refute his views: He tried to establish that Brahman is distinct from creation, meaning, Brahman is the instrumental cause ONLY. But Sri Ramanujar is crystal clear that Brahman is upadana because brahman is jagat eka karana in both the karya and karana avastha. Prakriti is absolutely dependent on Brahman, and has no independent existance whatsoever. Complete dependency calls for material causalty, and cannot be easily explained by mere instrumental cause. The universe is like Parabrahman's shadow and is as dependent as the shadow. Who will say that Brahman is only the instrumental cause of the shadow? The very existance of shadow is dependent on Brahman. Have you ever seen a pot being dependent on the potter for its existance? Potter makes a pot from some raw materials, but no dependency exists in such cases. Thus, the Dvaitin view is wrong. He then tried to say that all Jivas are distinct and that the essence, despite being Brahman, is not oneness. This is refuted as follows: The sentient and insentients are different from Brahman, but have Brahman as their antaryAmi. Many verses speak of the antaryAmi aspect of Brahman in various beings. It says that there is no difference between the antaryAmi seated in one being and another being. Therefore, all beings must be treated with respect and equanimity. This is to say that all beings have Brahman as their inner essence and this essence is manifest to the same degree in all beings. Those who discriminate between different beings on the basis of prakritic inequalities are to be considered as ignorant in light of this shruti. He tried to say dvaitins have refuted VA. However, here we go: Refutation of Dvaita Madhva's ideas such as tAratamya were new, but it has been refuted by VAs - and such cannot be taken as truth. For one thing, there are no shrutis that talk about jnAnAnda tAratamya in moksha - all pramanas cited by Dvaitins are comparing samsarins only. Do they have a pramana that says there is tAratamya in vaikunta? I dont think so. There are pramanas to show that mukta is omniscient, i.e all knowing. Secondly, tAratamya is logically untenable. Here is why. mukta jIvAtma is nirdosha, i.e does not have any defects that can obscure its vision of paramAtma in anyway. Its vision is direct. For folks like us in samsara, and even for rishis and devatas, there is no direct vision of paramAtma - because we still have an organ named mind that blocks the direct view. Mind acts as a smoky glass that prevents us from percieving the Lord directly, and only a very transparent mind, which is attained only by destruction of all punya papa can actually allow direct God vision. Since no being in samsara is free from punya papa, there is always some impurity in mind that prevents us from having any direct vision of paramAtma. This kind of distorted vision of God due to mind can have gradations depending on the extent of impurities in the mind and there is thus tAratamya in samsara. Regarding moksa. paramAtma does not have any internal parts. He can be either realized whole or be not realized. You cannot have a logical concept of perciveing a few attributes of the Lord or having x% of God knowledge because there are no such parts in the Brahma tattva. In case of objects having parts like a house that may have a window, a door, a wall, roof etc - there can be gradations in knowledge. But Brahman, being infinite and without parts - will not permit fragmented knowledge of him in any respect. Saying that a jiva has 10% of God vision and another jiva has 5% God vision and another 1% is a logical absurdity given that God is infinite, and whatever percent of infinity is always infinite. No finite knowledge can ever be considered as God vision- God is not known as finite. There is no mechanism that will allow partial(distorted) knowlege of God in moksha since there are no limiting adjuncts such as the mind. Thus the concept of tAratamya in knowledge is incorrect. God can be known only in sayujya mukti where there is 100% God knowledge. Jiva's Ananda is dependent on its experience of God, and when there is 100% of God experience, there is equality in Ananda also. Thus, those who claim that different percentages of knowledge of God exist are infact claiming that Lord is having such parts in him that permit him to percived as different parts.