Dark Warrior

Notice, that no hostility was endorsed by me. Tackleberry is certainly no Vaishnava, considering that he has launched attacks on Sri Ramanujar Himself. No Vaishnava would ever talk so badly about other Vaishnavas. To summarise: Tackleberry is unable to explain why Sri Madhvacharya could not give a reasonable explanation for some abheda Mahavakyas. Instead Tackleberry chooses to ridicule my usage of the word 'Mahavakya'. Tackleberry is also unable to explain why Dvaita requires a massive twisting of a quotation from Tat Tvam Asi into Atat Tvam Asi. This certainly couldn't be done for other abheda vakyas, which leaves gaping holes in Dvaita. Sri Ramanujar was able to prove His point without unnecessary grammatical jugglery. This shows which interpretation is superior, by itself. Tackleberry cannot explain how Sri Krishna has Himself treated Karma Yoga as a distinct path to Moksha in the Gita. The story of King Janaka proves it. This also proves that the 66th Sloka of the Gita is the meaning as conveyed by Sri Vaishnavism. Tackleberry is intent on the bheda portion and insists on distinction between Jiva and Brahman. He accepts that Brahman is in Jiva. Then, only one way to explain Abheda Srutis - By taking them to represent both Brahman and Jiva, thus, resolving all conflicts smoothly. Tackleberry cannot reply to the answer provided by Sri Ramanujar on the reason why ajnana exists, and insists that the pin-prick lights of lamps close to the Sun can be distinguised from the Sun itself. Apparently, Tackleberry has super eyesight indeed, because it is impossible to a common man!! Tackleberry says that if Karma Yoga, Jnana Yoga, etc. are all distinct paths, then Bhagavad Gita is worthless. Well, apparently, he is able to do all the types of upasanas mentioned in the Upanishads then, because you know, Upanishads would be worthless otherwise!! Tackleberry can only insult the great Sri Ramanujar, respected by all Vaishnavas, without proving VA false. By his own admission, VA is close to Dvaita. Which means, the Bheda Srutis are explained perfectly well by VA even according to Dvaitins. But Tackleberry cannot explain the curious lack of proper explanation for Abheda Srutis by Dvaitins. Tackleberry appears to believe Dvaita has refuted VA, when scholars like PBA Swami and Velukkudi Krishnan Swami, have refuted Dvaita as well!! Furthermore, by his own admission, Dvaita is an integral part of VA. In short, Tackleberry is a moron, who simply is fanatical about his own sampradaya. The proper etiquette of a Vaishnava is to give respect to every acharya. As people may have noticed, I have never mentioned Sri Madhvar's name with anything but respect in this thread. Bhagavata Apacharam (offending bhagavatas) is a serious crime that isn't forgiven even by Lord Narayana. Lastly, Tackleberry needs to have his head examined.

Oh you bloody moron. You think I am angry? So far you are the one who's been using completely stupid language. I already explained that my initial idea of identity was certainly my error. I spoke of subtle difference. Get it? There is a difference between the words 'Difference' and 'Distinction'. I was never talking about two entities, but you misunderstood Brahman and Isvara to be two things. My pramana is based on the bheda srutis - that which speak of two birds on same tree, and the general differencs between Paramatma and Jivatma. Then there are the abheda srutis such as Ayam Atma Brahma and Aham Brahmasmi which talk of Jivatma and Paramatma to be identical. I have clearly proven how they can be reconciled. Sri Madhvacharya could not explain the abheda srutis properly, so he chose to ignore them, or override them. Good Lord, what a dimwit. Let me explain again, Abheda Pramanas - The following are some of the passages:- "You are that (Brahman)". "I am Brahman". "Everything here is Brahman". "All the things here are Brahman". "There are no different things". "There is only one". Bheda Pramanas - 1) 'Two birds with similar qualities and attached to each other, reside in the same tree. One of them (Jivatma) eats the fruit (the results of his karma), whereas the other (Iswara or Brahman) shines, without eating the fruit." 2) "The Jivatma realises that the supreme self or Brahman directs him and he is the object of direction". 3) "He, the Jivatma, is different from Brahman. By winning the grace of Brahman, the Jivatma attains salvation". 4) "The three-fold nature, can be simply put as follows (1) who experiences pleasure and pain; (2) the object of such experiences and (3)He,the Brahman who directs all". 79 5) "He is the lord of Matter and Jivatma and the possessor of qualities". I 6) "Brahman is the ruler whose knowledge has no limits. The Jivatma has his knowledge limited". 7) "The Brahman is different from Matter or Achetana and is greater than the Jivatma." 8) "He is different and He rules over the Jivatma and the Matter." 9) "The knower of Brahman attains the supreme." 10) "He reaches the other side of samsara and reaches the Paramapada of Vishnu". 11) "I belong to the Brahman and I will not leave Him". 12) "All these are born out of Him and because of Him they live and they go back to Him." 13) "The brahmins understand Him, by learning the Vedas, by doing penance, by giving donation and by doing yagas." 14) "The Brahman cannot be attained by reading the scriptures, by intelligence,..." 15) "He is the lord of all. He is the ruler of all". 16) "There are two eternal, permanent things. One is Brahman, knowing everything and all powerful. The other is with limited knowledge and powerless, namely, Jivatma." 17) "The Jivatma enjoys the Paramapada along with Brahman." Explanation - As provided earlier. Since you are an idiot, let me explain this as well: We say that Jivatma and paramatma are different and yet not different. They are different, as bheda sruti has shown. Jivatma is the body and paramatma the soul. The soul is different from the body. This way, the paramatma is different from the Jivatma. They are not different because of the body-soul relationship, as explained in ghataka sruti. We call both Rama's body and Rama's soul, as Rama. Rama's body and soul together, are called as "Rama" only. So, Rama is only one. Similarly, Jivatma (the body) and Paramatma (the soul), can be called as only one - in a special way, because of the body/soul relationship. So, Jivatma and Paramatma can be called two-in-one or one-in-two. Dvaitins think that just because Bheda Pramana outnumber the Abheda, they can just gloss over some points. But tough luck, the Upanishads need to be explained in full. I simply won't buy Sri Madhvacharya's explanation that 'Ayam Atma Brahma' is just a meditative technique and isn't significant. And his interpretation of 'Aham Brahmasmi' has been refuted earlier. <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

Again, it exposes your idiocy. I said there is a subtle difference between Isvara and Brahman. This does not mean Isvara and Brahman are two different things. Isvara is simply Brahman when comprehended with all attributes. And since Brahman is in Jiva and Jiva is in Brahman, this makes even the Jiva an attribute of Brahman. Moron, here is the explanation: One passage says "you are that", Now what this means is that your soul's soul is Iswara or Brahman, i.e., Brahman is also your soul's soul. The passage "All this is Brahman" is also correct, because all Matter and Jivatma have Brahman as their soul and Brahman has all of them as His body. Hence naturally all this is Brahman. The passage "I am Brahman" is also correct, because my soul's soul is Brahman. In other words, I am myself Brahman. Thus, by applying the body/soul relationship between Jivatma and Paramatma, all the passages in the Vedas, which appear like saying identity of Jivatma and paramatma, will be properly explained. Get it? The sarira/sariri explanation is sufficient enough to establish VA. We say that Jivatma and paramatma are different and yet not different. They are different, as bheda sruti has shown. Jivatma is the body and paramatma the soul. The soul is different from the body. This way, the paramatma is different from the Jivatma. They are not different because of the body-soul relationship, as explained in ghataka sruti. We call both Rama's body and Rama's soul, as Rama. Rama's body and soul together, are called as "Rama" only. So, Rama is only one. Similarly, Jivatma (the body) and Paramatma (the soul), can be called as only one - in a special way, because of the body/soul relationship. So, Jivatma and Paramatma can be called two-in-one or one-in-two. Again, this has clearly been explained. A narrow minded Dvaitin who believes everyone else will get eternal hell can hardly be expected to understand. EDIT: Since your other thread is closed, perhaps you can explain why Sri Madhvacharya thought Ayam Atma Brahma was insignificant. The Dvaitin view is that the abheda srutis are so less in number, they can be ignored.

good Lord, what a moron. ISVARA IS IN JIVA AND JIVAS ARE IN ISVARA. Got it? Brahman is the triad of Chit, Achit and Isvara. Sri Ramanujar has explained the reason for ajnana as follows: In the beginning, there was no distinction. Matter was present in a subtle form. Then, differentiation of name and form occured. Since, everything is the body of the Supreme Soul, the Svaroopa (nature) of the Supreme Soul remains unaffected by ajnana. The differences are not indicative of inherent nature. The subtle nature remains the same. Thus, is Dvaita refuted. Funny, I have proven properly how Isvara is the indweller and Brahman is the substance. And you say I lack integrity? But the differentiation does NOT affect the subtle or causal form. It is only name and form which changes. Therfore, the Chit and Achit differences remain solidly established. It is Dvaita that looks ridiculous by denying this. I confuse nothing. This proves your inability to comprehend anything properly. When I have clearly established the reason for the differences and the original subtle form they existed in, even a third grader should have understood it. Dvaita is incomplete.

Dullard, you are still unable to comprehend one thing: There is a subtle difference between Isvara and Brahman. Ishvara is the substantive part of Brahman, while jivas and jagat are its modes (also secondary attributes), and kalyanagunas(auspicious attributes) are the primary attributes. The secondary attributes become manifested in the effect state when the world is differentiated by name and form. The kalyana gunas are eternally manifest. Thus, it is quite possible for Jivas and Jagat to be the modes. One more time for your stupid mind to take in: 1. sarvam khalv idam brahma Translated literally, this means All this is Brahman. Meaning: 1. Ishvara is Para-brahman with infinite superlative qualities, whose substantive nature imparts the existence to the modes. 2. Jivas are chit-brahman or sentient beings (which possess consciousness). They are the modes of Brahman which show consciousness. 3. Jagat is achit-brahman or matter/Universe (which are non-conscious). They are the mode of Brahman which are not conscious. Brahman is the composite whole of the triad consisting of Ishvara along with his modes i.e. Jivas and Jagat. Hence, "all this is Brahman" denotes the triad of entities. 2. ayam atma brahma. Translated literally, this means the Self is Brahman. From the earlier statement, it follows that on account of everything being Brahman, the self is not different from Brahman.

Why not? You are forgetting that only is the Jiva the sarira of Brahman, but Brahman also supports the Universe as His body. This clearly points out how everything is an attribute of Brahman. Unless you understand the difference between Isvara and Brahman, this argument is wasted with you. Again, nobody is denying similarity. But the substance is Brahman, and hence, there is oneness. You think I am not aware of the fact that Mahavakya isn't a legit term? I'd suppose, on an online forum, the best way is to be concise. It wastes time writing 'these quotations'. The fact is, certainly, chair and table are distinct. But the essential substance connecting them is Wood. And your idiocy is unwilling to let you see this unity. I do not talk of identity, but unity. Already, I have clarified that the usage of the term 'identity' is indeed wrong. The sameness rises from the fact that the underlying substance is the same. The changes are in the description of the entity. This is validated by the fact that initially, everything was in a subtle form, with no distinction. However, as Brahman decided to create, everything underwent transformation and differentiation into forms and names. BUT, it is to be understood that they are essentially of the same substance. So, is this right? According to Dvaita, Chair and Table are different. Fine. Then, Dvaita says, the woodness of chair is similar to the woodness of the table. Ridiculous. Here, only the word 'same' or 'identical' even, is applicable. Melt that chair and table into raw wood. What distinction can you see now? There is distinction. Then you must say, 'there is similarity between the bliss of Jiva and Brahman'? Again, idiotic. The underlying sameness is clearly brought out. You cannot distinguish the lamplight from sunlight. Period. EDIT: To summarise: Brahman is a triad of Chit, Achit, Isvara. Isvara is the indweller. Chit (Jivas) and Achit (Matter) are modes of Brahman. Tackleberry needs to unclog his brain.

Not my fault if the fool cannot even understand the type of identity Sri Ramanujar is talking about. The essential identity is the unity of all beings in a common base. This base is Isvara. Instead, Tackleberry keeps harping about how Dvaita has beaten VA, when it hasn't even addressed all Mahavakyas properly.

Which makes Jiva a mode, or an attribute of Brahman. Hence, there is unity. So you are saying the purpleness of a robe, or the blueness of a lotus, is easily distinguished from the robe or lotus? Yet, both are inseparable. There is oneness. The Jiva is in samsara because its Jnana is limited by contact with material nature. Read VA philosophy for more answers. There are two forms of Jnana - Dharmabhoota Jnana and Svaroopa Jnana. Dvaita foolishly overrides many mahavakyas which are contrary to its philosophy. And your foolishness is in not understanding that VA does not say you are and you are not. The essential substance is the same. Which has been refuted as before. Take for instance, Moksha, where the Jiva enjoys all the qualities of Brahman, but for the acts of creation, preservation and destruction. The Jiva also attains equality of status with Brahman and experiences the same bliss as Brahman. Even in this state, the Jiva is dependent on Brahman due to Brahman being the cause and reason why the Jiva exists and possesses the qualities and abilities that it does. There is the sun, and many lamps. The light of the sun and the lamps are different sources. Yet, the light coming from them is indistinguishable as well.

Oh, so now, the World is similar to Krishna? Interesting. You have correctly pointed out my mistake in calling it identity. To which I have replied, based on Mahavakyas, that inseparability is oneness. To say it is completely distinct is stupid. The Purple robe analogy illustrates that the purpleness and robe are distinct, but being inseparable, they are of the same substance. This is Tat Tvam Asi. If He had wanted to say 'similar', He wouldn't include Jagat. yuShmaddattavaro baaNo jiivataameSha shankara | tvadavaakyagauravaadetanmayaa chakra.m nivattitam || vp 5.33.46 || tvayaa yadbhaya.m datta.m taddattamakhila.m mayaa | matto 'vibhinnamaatmaana.m drShtumarhasi shankara || vp 5.33.47 || yo 'ha.m sa tva.m jagachcheda.m sadevaasuramaanuSham | avidhyaamohitaatmaanaH puruShaa bhinnadarshinaH || vp 5.33.48 || Since you, Shankara, have given a boon unto Baana, let him live, from respect to your promises, my discus is arrested: the assurance of safety granted by you is granted also by me. You are fit to apprehend that you are not distinct from me. That which I am, thou art; and that also is this world, with its gods, demons, and mankind. Men contemplate distinctions, because thy are stupified by ignorance. Read the highlighted words properly. No way to juggle grammar here.

Certainly, the identity part was wrong. I am magnanimous enough to accept. But here is where you go wrong: The central principle is that whatever exists as an attribute of a substance, that being inseparable from the substance is one with that substance. This is the Non-Dualism part of VA which is validated by Mahavakyas like Ayam Atma Brahma. OK, I used identity, which was wrong. But according to VA, The self and the world, though distinct from each other and real, have a different value. They only exist as a mode or attribute of Brahman. They are comprehended in the reality of Brahman. They exist because Brahman exists. Since Self is a mode of Brahman, it is clear that it is indicative of Non-Dualism. Sri Madhvacharya was unable to explain some mahavakyas. He comes into conflict with many passages. Regarding the text, “ayam atma Brahma” Madhva says that it is either a simple eulogy of the jivatman or it is a subject for meditation. It is also suggested that it is a purvapaksha to be overthrown. VA says: Ishvara (Parabrahman) who is the Cosmic Spirit for the pan-organistic body consisting of the Universe and sentient beings, is also simultaneously the innermost self (Atman) for each individual sentient being (Jīva). All the bodies, the Cosmic and the individual, are held in an adjectival relationship (aprthak-siddhi) in the one Isvara. Another piece of ignorant nonsense. Do you honestly believe that NO-ONE has addressed your silly refutations? The only way Dvaita can refute VA is by proving that the Non-Dual part of VA doesn't exist in the texts. This has not been done so adequately enough. I have even attended discourses by Velukkudi Krishnan Swami who has addressed Dvaita. You have explained the Dvaita view of similarity. But I have clearly pointed out that Sarvam Khalv Idam Brahma and Ayam Atma Brahma indicate the oneness. For instance, the purple color of a purple robe is distinct from the robe, yet it is an inseparable part of it. So, the Dvaita theory of complete distinction falls flat. Insulting acharyas is quite demonic and unbecoming of a Dvaitin. Regarding that verse, it simply says that the Jnanam which is to be obtained is indeed the highest (ParaJnana) and is in full accord with the intended purport. I find no problems with Sri Ramanujar's translations. You cannot reply to most of my refutations, let alone analyse Sri Ramanujar's bhashya with your tiny mind. Moronic. It is an organic oneness. Plurality is accepted to exist. The parts where it appears to be denied need to be reconciled. There is absolute difference, but since the underlying organic unity is one, the ultimate reality is one.

Foolish debate. The Upanishads have already mentioned Sarvam Khalv Idam Brahma. (All this, verily is Brahman). So Uddhalaka clearly tells Svetaketu, 'You are That' in the sense that 'Self is Brahman'. Judging by the fact that everything is Brahman, Self is also Brahman. "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 Soul as immanent in the individual. EDIT: In case you are wondering, the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad mentions that Brahman is within Jivatma. So, to summarise Tat Tvam Asi: 1) Advaita posits complete identity. But Brahman is within Jiva, hence, a distinction should be maintained. 2) Dvaita takes it as Atat Tvam Asi. But this denial also denies the Brahman within Jivatma. And even if it can be argued that it only denies the Jivatma, this again poses another problem in the sense that Jiva DOES have qualities that are identical with Brahman in full measure - Eternal nature, Jnana and Consciousness. Therfore, logically speaking, VA is the best solution. The problem with Upanishads is that they say one thing somewhere and then expect the philosopher to correlate it with another quotation far away from the original saying. This has led to many philosophical debates. DOUBLE EDIT: In order to shut Tackleberry's trap once and for all, let me give you proof from Vishnu Purana: This Purana recounts how Sri Krishna defeated Shiva during the Banasura episode (I am sure all vaishnavas are aware of it). After subduing the enemies, Sri Krishna tells Rudra this: "Because of your promise to Bana, my discus is arrested. But know this, O Rudra, that you need not fight me. That which I am, that you are, and so is this world, with all the Devas, Asuras and Humans." Vishnu Purana clearly echoes the Tat Tvam Asi of the Upanishad here. After defeating Rudra, Sri Krishna declares Qualified Non-Dualism in no unambiguous terms. This fully validates Sri Ramanujar's philosophy, as Sri Krishna has also drawn a distinction between Himself and Rudra by fighting the latter (thus refuting Advaitic views of complete identiy). Therfore, while Atat Tvam Asi is clever grammatical jugglery, it is proven that Tat Tvam Asi is the real purport. Unless Tackleberry wishes to say that Vishnu Purana is interpolated or that it cannot be accepted (feeble excuses), there is no argument here.

There is identity in the sense that both Jiva and Brahman are eternal and conscious. Both are blissful. Both have jnana. This is verified by the Upanishads. Sarvam Khal Idam Brahma. VA does not refute Dvaita. Dvaita, however, cannot completely reconcile Vedanta. There is difference indeed, but at the same time, a qualitative similarity. No, He was telling Svetaketu that 'You are That!' Meaning, Self is Brahman in the sense that everything is Brahman. It does not mean the advaitic interpretation that Self alone is Brahman. Try to understand the nuances. Moronic to say this. Sri Ramanujar clearly mentions that the Jiva is real and distinct from Brahman. But there are also clear similarities. To quote Sri krishna, 'Atman is eternal, imperishable and indestructible'. So is Brahman. Ayam Atma Brahma. It follows that Self is Brahman in the sense that everything is Brahman. Nobody said everything is mutually exclusive. Your idiotic vision blinds you from understanding. Bhakti Yoga has Jnana and Karma Yoga as its ancillories. There is again, an interconnectedness in everything. (a) When beginning their spiritual quest, some people engage in karma-yoga, which is selfless action performed as worship of God, with an understanding of the true nature of the individual self. This action takes the form of active compassion, charity, austerity, visiting holy places, scriptural study, yajna, etc. (b) Some others engage in jnAna-yoga, which is contemplative analysis of the nature of the individual self in relation to the world and God. JnAna-yoga is essentially attempts at meditation on the nature of the self consequent to conquering the senses and bodily impulses. © For both of these, an introductory understanding of the nature of God are required. God is seen as the supreme benefactor and the Supreme Self, and is worshipped for success in yoga, but is not necessarily viewed as the supreme goal. All this depends on the mindset of the aspirant. (d) Success in karma-yoga and jnAna-yoga leads to the vision of the individual self (jIvAtma-sAkshAtkAra). Karma-yoga can be a gateway to jnAna-yoga, and then subsequently to jIvAtma-sAkshAtkAra, or it can lead directly to jIvAtma-sAkshAtkAra because of the element of knowledge that is fundamental to its practice. (e) Between karma-yoga and jnAna-yoga the Gita counsels aspirants to pursue karma-yoga because of its relative ease and greater likelihood of failure. (f) Once the vision of the self is secured, the aspirant has obviously achieved some measure of success in yoga, and has perceived the self in its proper place -- i.e., that it is truly different from the body, and that it is 'Sesha' to God. The aspirant then naturally moves on to loving contemplation of God directly. This contemplation takes on different colors depending on the ultimate goal of the aspirant. (g) Some people may already have an abiding love for God and may not be interested in engaging themselves principally in karma-yoga or jnAna-yoga (see Gita chapter 12). These people engage in a form of bhakti-yoga that does not already have the vision of the self as its basis. Consequently their meditation may not be as firm; yet, with time, they too experience the proper nature of the self as an outgrowth of their bhakti-yoga and are able to ceaselessly envision the Lord. (h) It is to be noted that for all of the above aspirants the daily and occasional religious rites (nitya-naimittika karma) are obligatory and are performed to the best of one's ability as God's worship. (i) One may worship God through bhakti-yoga for three goals: (a) The securing of bodily or material prosperity (aiSvaryArthi, in the Gita 'Arta' and 'arthArthi') (b) To attain a permanent vision of the nature of the individual self (kaivalyArthi or jijnAsu) © out of love of the ParamAtman alone (jnAni) Chapters 7 and 8 of the Gita detail these different aspirants and naturally give the highest place of honor to the jnAni, who views success and failure purely in relation to union with God. Vedanta Desikar has also refuted dvaita. It is impossible for Dvaitins to refute VA simply because it accepts both Dvaita and Advaita as being part of the Upanishads. I have read some of Dvaitins arguments against VA and all of them can be answered back quite easily. To deny Non-Dualism from Upanishads took all the intellect and grammatical trickery from Sri Madhvacharya. There are places where Plurality of Souls is advocated and others where it is denied in Upanishads. No sense in denying one or the other.

So now, anyone who isn't a dvaitin is a retard? I doubt a great Vaishnava like Sri Madhvacharya would endorse such language. Nobody is looking at the Grammar. Look at this point, 1) Advaita - Tat Tvam Asi indicates that Jiva is Brahman. This means that Uddhalaka was advising the arrogant Swetaketu by calling him Brahman. So, Swetaketu's ego would be stoked even more to hear that he is Brahman. Illogical. 2) VA - General Oneness of Brahman and Jiva. Brahman resides in Jiva. There is identity, but the two are also distinct. Quite logical. 3) Dvaita - Uddhalaka painstakingly gives many, many analogies just to tell Swetaketu, 'You are not that, my son'. Ridiculous. He could have just told him so without taking up a sizeable portion of the Upanishad. I am not denying that Sri Madhvacharya is grammatically correct. The problem is that often Sri Madhva's arguments rely on nuances and ingenious usage of grammar, often lending unusual meanings to very familiar and straightforward words. Sometimes, the context is not considered. Before taking up arguments, realise that neither Sri Ramanujar nor Sri Madhvar defeated their opponents by calling them 'retards'. Mutual respect was given to even advaitins, and no Vaishnava acharya has ever launched a personal attack on Adi Sankara himself. So, try to argue without acting like a 6 year old.

Sri Ramanujar also has certain unique contributions of Jiva as sarira and Narayana as sarira, the three scale differentiation of jivas, differences between Bhakti and Saranagati, etc, all with pramanas to prove it. Hence, this claim of ingenuity has substance as well. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad clearly talks of Brahman in Jivatma. So, one should believe that Uddhalaka was giving Swetaketu all those brilliant analogies just to say, 'You are not that!!'? Weird. It isn't a question of grammar, but of context. Here, some identity is clearly been mentioned. Some parts of shruti talk of the identity of Jiva with Brahman. Other parts talk of Jiva as distinct from Brahman. I guess you can say that Shruti is contradictory on the surface and needs to be resolved. So? I never said he needed to give up his varna and ashrama. But here is the important point - If the Lord had asked him to give up his varna as well, he would have definitely done that. You are missing the point. If this viewpoint is similar to Madhvacharya's, well, I am glad. Because we accept that while Advaita is far removed from both VA and Dvaita, the latter two have more in common than differences. The Upanishads describe different types of meditation. Are you capable of doing them all? If not, then the Upanishads must be worthless, right? I have given you sufficient evidence that He was answering Arjuna's questions in the Gita itself. But think about it - Are you capable of doing what Dhruva and Prahlada did? Its so basic, just personal experience. Are you capable of entering samadhi aqnd enjoying the Self? Or immersing yourself in relentless pursuit of Bhakti Yoga? In the Gita, Krishna gives the example of King Janaka as Karma Yogi. This proves Sri Ramanujar's point. Because, here is a story: King Janaka was doing his work (I think sandhya vandanam) when suddenly, his house was set ablaze. Everyone ran out of the house, but the King refused to move until his work was over. This is Karma Yoga. Do you think you can do this? Be this dedicated in the service to the Lord such that you don't even care for your own life? Impossible. And Krishna validates Sri Ramanujar's view by saying, 'Great Persons like Janaka have indeed attained Moksha by performing Karma Yoga'. Which means, Karma Yoga is a path in itself to moksha, and may not even require Bhakti. The same goes for Sri Ramanujar. The perfect truth of the Upanishads.

Well, advaitins say Sankaracharya's interpretations involve great ingenuity and creativity, and we aren't accepting of those opinions, are we? And Madhvacharya interprets Tat Tvam Asi as Atat Tvam Asi. This is also 'text torturing'/Manipulation. Dvaita can explain the bheda srutis pretty well. However, there is a clear problem with the abheda srutis. I have read clear and conclusive refutations of Sri Madhvacharya's interpretation of 'Aham Brahmasmi' and other such Mahavakyas by Vishishtadvaitins. As far as your argument about sanskrit grammar is concerned, I am sure refutals exist. However, I am no vedantin and hence, will withdraw from this one. Still, in case this helps, there is something called Para jnanam - The knowledge / jnanam or Vision that is granted due to the grace of Sriman Narayana to the devotee is Para Jnanam. Arjuna says 'I will do as you say' because he had understood the concept of Saranagati - Do what the Lord orders you to do. Nothing should be done by your effort. The Lord indeed advises Arjuna to give up Dharmas. But this does not pertain to social dharmas, but to Karma, Jnana and bhakti Yogas. And since the Lord orders Arjuna to fight, he clearly obeys. In fact notice, that the Lord's discourse does not begin until Arjuna says, 'I surrender to you completely'. Bhakti Yoga is different from bhakti. The former involves intense contemplation, whereas Bhakti is the 'loving devotional service' you mentioned. Therfore, Bhakti Yoga can certainly be given up. Bhakti, however, is easy enough. The previous 17 chapters are not worthless, but describe Yogas for different people. Kaivalyartis, Aishwaryartis, Yogis interested in Jnana, etc. But for those aspiring for Saranagati, the Lord clearly calls this as a 'secret'. The point is that one needs the Lord's grace to be put on any of these yogas. One cannot get on these paths just by oneself. Some people are mandated to have one of the above in greater focus than the rest. . The idea of grace is so much that it does not suffice if the jIva loses its bondage from prakriti. The Lord must apply His grace and activate the jIva's innate bliss. So deep is the concept of Grace. I did not say Sri Ramanujar did not quote from all scriptures. He has done so. I said He did not use scriptures in debates that were considered sectarian. ONLY in debates. You have misunderstood. For instance, Sri Ramanujar could very well have used the Bhagavata Purana to establish his points, because that Purana can certainly be used to defeat advaita. But since many advaitins considered it a sectarian text, he refrained from quoting it. Instead, he proceeded to dismantle advaita using Upanishads, Gita and Vishnu Purana alone. This way, no complaints of using sectarian texts will arise. This trait is definitely unique to Ramanujacharya. The fact that you establish that Sri Madhvacharya quotes from all scriptures and threads them together is your opinion alone and reflective of all Dvaitins certainly. Of Course, Sri Madhvacharya's philosophy and methodology is lofty, but the fact that it is 'flawless' can again be debated.

My dear friend, by the grace of the Lord, I am born in a family that distantly traces its lineage to Sri Yajnamurthy Himself, the great disciple of Sri Ramanujar. He was a great advaitin who lost to Sri Ramanujar in a debate that lasted for 17 days, upon which He became a renowned disciple at the lotus feet of Lakshmana Muni. Our family also carries the title 'Prativadi Bhayankarar' meaning, 'great arguer'. It was bestowed on one of our ancestors' spiritual master by Sri Vedanta Desikar Himself, when this spiritual master defeated advaitins in a debate. Much to my shame, I led a completely materialistic life for 20 years, utterly devoid of any spirituality, until I attended an ISKCON bhajan. After getting taught the basics and reading Srila Prabhupada's divine works, my life thankfully took a turn for the better. That is the reason I, despite being a Sri Vaishnava, have so much interest and gratitude to ISKCON and Gaudiya Vaishnavism (and Srila Prabhupada). I don't have anything against Jesus. He was a swell chap. The problem I have is people going the wrong way by calling him a vaishnava acharya when atheists like Mahavira had more knowledge of Karma, Samsara and Ahimsa than he did. It can be countered as follows: 1) Krishna and Rama have exhibited all attributes of Brahman. Krishna alone was a child, a lover, a parent, husband, father, philosopher and one who gave moksha to many people. So, it is OK to believe in their historicity. I do not see one godly attribute that Jesus presented. 2) Having learned of all the attributes, we decipher their actions. Sri Rama chose to hide His divinity. If it was a mythological story, why would Valmiki Bhagavan try to hide the glory of his main character? Any story teller would like to highlight the hero. But in Rama's case, His divinity can only be noticed by meticulous study of sastras. 3) Every step and action of the Lord has proven to have a deep meaning. Sri Periyavacchan Pillai has shown how Srimad Ramayana is saranagati sastra itself, and how the Lord acts in such a way that He exhibits uncountable auspicious attributes in every sloka of the Ramayana. 4) Ours is the only religion that is able to describe God so perfectly. 5) Proof is there to show Jesus's miraculous birth is false. For one thing, the three sages stuff is taken from Buddha's story. The dark night, shepherds, etc. is taken from Krishna's story. The star of David most likely is the result of a vague rumor about a God who was born under a star (Rohini) that came to the West at that time. No such influence on our ithihasas. I am not saying Jesus never existed. I am saying he was just a leader of a cult who idolised him so much that he became God to them. And he appeared to be quite a philosopher. The gnostic texts show that he was either a cryptic Buddhist or an Advaitin. EDIT: To Raghu - You had mentioned that Sri Hari can act independently of the sastras. That is true, certainly, as He is capable of anything. But the Sri Vaishnava view is that, in order to instill utmost faith in the jivas, He voluntarily refrains from doing anything that isn't in sastras. This is proven by the fact that in His avatars as Rama and Narasimha, He refrained from violating Brahma's boons to Ravana and Hiranyakasipu, when He had no need to. And even as Krishna, He worships Shiva just because He had given His word to the latter that He would do so. In the Santi Parva, He explains to Arjuna the reason why He kept His promise and worshipped Shiva - So that His devotees would have full faith in His word.

You must understand that Ramanujacharya has a trait that distinguishes him from even other acharyas like Sri Madhvacharya. He NEVER quotes any source that is not accepted by all sampradayas, including advaitins. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> If advaitins use Vishnu Purana, Sri Ramanujar uses the same Purana to destroy advaita. If they use svetasvatara Upanishad, he uses the same text. And so on. Whereas, Sri Madhvacharya certainly did quote from unorthodox texts, and so did some other acharyas. <o:p></o:p> If the sloka was only about Artha, Kama and the religions, then why would Krishna say in the next sloka, ‘This is secret and confidential, it should not be revealed to anyone but pure devotees’? And why would it be secret if its artha, considering that Krishna has elaborately described artha. Now, as far as proof is concerned, it is in the Gita itself. Consider the following. What is the Gita really about? Is Sri Krishna telling Arjuna of different paths to reach Him? Or does it have a deeper meaning? <o:p></o:p> The answer – Sri Krishna certainly preached Bhakti, Jnana and Karma Yogas, but NEVER recommended them as paths to be taken in Kali Yuga. Each of these Yogas were expounded by Sri Krishna only when Arjuna asked the appropriate questions such as: <o:p></o:p> 1) Oh, Govinda, why should I fight? Answer – Karma Yoga. <o:p></o:p> 2) <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comkama</st1:place>, and other dharmas so freely earlier in the Gita? <o:p></o:p> <font face=" /><st1:place w:st="on">Krishna</st1:place>, you say the Self is indestructible, then what is its nature? And who is Brahman? Answer – Jnana Yoga and Sankhya Yoga. <o:p></o:p> 3) Oh, Madhusudhana, the system of Yoga you have prescribed is difficult. Kindly suggest another way. Answer – Bhakti Yoga. <o:p></o:p> But in all these points, Sri Krishna never says, this is the best way. Certainly, Bhakti Yoga was mentioned to be the best way, but I will explain. <o:p></o:p> Indeed, these yogas are applicable. But only for Jivatmas who wish to reach the Lord by their own efforts. However, if a jivatma tries by himself, there is every chance he will fail. So, the Lord says, give it all up and surrender to me. <o:p></o:p> Srila Prabhupada, if I may be excused for daring to say this, has provided a great translation of Gita, but at this one point only, has incorrectly interpreted Bhakti Yoga as simple everyday devotional service. Actually, Bhakti Yoga is unceasing devotional service. The greatest Bhakti Yogis were Prahlada and Dhruva, who never ate, slept or dreamt about anything other than the Lord. We may chant the names of the Lord, but at some point, we will have to stop. But Bhakti Yoga is unceasing in the sense that it is 24/7 rememberance of the Lord. <o:p></o:p> A flaw in Bhakti Yoga is this – Since it is the effort of the Jiva, the onus is on the Jiva to remember the Lord at the time of his death, to achieve moksha. For instance, King Bharata was a Bhakti Yogi, but at the time of his death, he did not remember the Lord, but rather dwelt on his pet deer. Thus, he was reborn as a deer. <o:p></o:p> In Saranagati, there is no effort by the Jiva. So, the Jiva does not need to remember the Lord during the time of his death, but rather, the Lord comes to him without his effort. Furthermore, due to the jiva’s surrender, the Lord voluntarily gives him Jnana and Bhakti, thus enabling the Jiva to obtain fruits of those yogas as well. This is illustrated in Dhruva's life history. Upon seeing the Lord after his bhakti yoga penance, Dhruva cried and expressed his inability to praise Vishnu properly, as he did not know any stotras. Then, the Lord, of His own volition, stroked Dhruva's cheeks with Panchajanya Conch, and Dhruva was suddenly able to sing and lavish praise on the Lord. Thus, even after all penance, Dhruva had to completely express his inability and surrender before he enjoyed its fruits. <o:p></o:p> Thus, it can be inferred that the charama sloka advocates complete withdrawal from efforts such as Jnana, Karma and Bhakti Yoga. Indeed, notice that even in the Gita, Sri Krishna has only described these yogas as answers to Arjuna’s questions. But the 66<SUP>th</SUP> sloka was given by the Lord VOLUNTARILY, without Arjuna asking for it. Clearly, this shows that Saranagati is indeed due to the grace of the Lord. <o:p></o:p> And if you want Upanishadic Pramana, here it is: ‘Nyasa (Saranagati) excels all penances. Saranagati is Brahman itself’. (Svet. Up.)

The Sloka, Sarvadharman Parityajya Mam Ekam Saranam Vraja | Aham tva Sarva Papebhyo Mokshayishyami Masuchaha || is one of the 3 secret mantras called 'Rahasya Mantras'. The reason why it is called a secret is because it contains many hidden meanings, which reveal exactly what the Lord wants us to do. Sri Ramanujar, Sri Desikar and Sri Lokacharya, the greatest of Sri Vaishnava Acharyas, have delighted in the meanings of this sloka. They have, by their causeless mercy, revealed it to the world by their divine works. Pillai Lokacharya outlines it meticulously in his 18 monumental books called 'Rahasya Grantha'. First of all, notice that the first sentence of the sloka contains six words (Sarvadharman, Parityaja, Mam, Ekam, Saranam, Vraja) and the second sentence contains five words (Ahamtva, Sarvapapebyo, Mokshayishyami, Ma, Suchaha) - both comprise 32 alphabets. Interestingly, there are 32 Brahma Vidyas in the Upanishads. The two parts of this sloka has 32 alphabets each, adding up to 64 alphabets overall. Maybe it illustrates how this sloka is doubly effective than all 32 Brahma Vidyas put together!! Meaning of the word 'Sarva Dharman' The general meaning of the word 'Dharma' is 'the way' or 'means of attaining an object'. The way or means is shown in the Sastras. The word Dharman (in plural number) indicates the varied nature of the ways or means of Dharmas. The word 'sarva' means 'all' which includes the sayings in Sruti, Smruti etc. as follows: Karma Yoga, Jnana Yoga, Bhaktiyoga, Avatararahasyajnanam, Purushottama Vidya, Desavasam, Tirunama Sankeerthanam, Tiruvilakkuerikkai, Tirumalai edukkai etc., are the things to be done intentionally. It is suggestive of the Angas or limbs of Dharmas which are referred to by the word 'all'. But 'Sarva' could also be interpreted to mean the opposite of 'one' i.e., Anga Dharmas. Another meaning of the word 'Dharma' is the absence of qualities like Nitya and Kamya Karmas. The 'Dharma' without these qualities would refer to other Upasanas or meditation with accessories like Dharavidya, Sandilya Vidya etc., for attaining liberation. Thus, according to Visistadvaita - 'Sarva Dharman' refers to Upasanas or certain Vidyas but not the duties pertaining to social life. Pillai Lokacharya also underlines that the word Dharma here refers only to the 'Mokshapha-lasadhana' in a sutra. Commenting on the Sutra, Manavala Mamuni stresses that here Mokshaphala sadhana means that it contains Bhagavatprapti. With a view to change the wavering mind of Arjuna who considered his duty of war as Adharma, the Lord Krishna says it as 'Dharma'. Implications of the word 'Parityajya' The word 'Parityajya' means 'having given up' or ' renunciation' which implies that Saranagati does not require other Sadhanas. This gives rise to the question, how can the aspirant know his ability to renounce all Sadhanas. Desire develops bondage and renunciation is advocated, though it is not easy to adopt or practice perfectly. The syllable 'pari' in Parityajya means extreme dislike or aversion. According to Rahasyatrayasara of Vedanta Desika "Aversion in every form" means being without the improper desire to perform what is impossible for a man with the thought: "Though I cannot adopt the upaya in full perfection, I will do it to the best of my ability; when that also is too difficult to perform, I will adopt, in the place of the prescribed Angas, something less difficult or the upayas which will produce the prescribed Upayas". Ramanuja has said in his Saranagati Gadya thus: "I see no means of crossing samsara in all the eternity of time which lies before me". When one desires to adopt any Sadhana it is preferable to adopt any easy Sadhana rather than difficult ones like Karma, Jnana and Bhakti etc. In such a predicament, "Give up all Dharmas" is an advice to an aspirant who has renounced all other Sadhanas which are unsuitable for practice. In such circumstances alone one can adopt Saranagati. This only goes to prove that Saranagati does not need any other Sadhana along with it. Pillai Lokacharya classifies the word 'Parityajya' under three aspects viz. Tyaga, Laypu and Upasarga. 'Tyaga' means not merely giving up the Dharmas; but it means that one has the constant mind in giving up other upayas also as a mean, like thinking of the brass as silver or thinking of a particular route which is wrong and that one has to go through another route. Manavala Mamuni adds that one has to feel for his ignorance of following other means for Moksha though he is the one who desires that Lord is the means for Bhagavatprapti. The syllable 'Layup' means that it stresses the giving up of other upayas andsurrender unto the Lord who is the only means to attain Moksha just like the Sastras which prescribe that one has to take food only after bath. Likewise one has to practice Saranagati, after giving up all other Sadhanas. In conclusion, it can be summarised thus: Vidhi or imperative presupposes the renunciation of all Dharmas. To put it differently and more simply, the Dharmas that are required for all the other Vidhyas are not necessary for Saranagati. For instance: (i) shaving off one's head (ii) residing in holy places where Bhagawan is residing (iii) wearing the holy thread. In other words, Saranagati does not prescribe the renunciation of any Dharma. Some Acharyas, while attempting to explain what is Charamasloka, first state what need not be done and then state what has to be done. But all Acharyas are in total agreement that Saranagati can be practised only when one is ignorant of all the other Sadhanas and one is fully aware of the relationship betwen Jivatman and Paramatman. The following are the implications of the word 'Sarvadharman Parityajya': 1. Inability to perform the duties beyond one's capabilities makes one suitable for adopting the Sadhana of Saranagati. 2. Total ignorance of other Sadhanas becomes a qualification for Saranagati. 3. Giving up all rites or Dharmas becomes an Anga for Saranagati. 4. Non-indulgence in trying to perform what one is not capable of. 5. Being uninterested in doing what one is unable to do. 6. The principle of Brahmastra which states that resorting to use any other accessory or Anga would render the entire attempt a failure. Meaning of the word 'Mam' Pillai Lokacharya lucidly expresses the word 'Mam'. Mam means the Lord Narayana who is all protector, who responds to Bhaktas' prayers disregarding their mistakes and who is the asylum, the constant protector even when Sri as the mediator intercedes to help the jiva for unison. Further, the word 'Mam' dispels the other stages of the Lord i.e., Daivi hyesa gunamayi mamamaya duratyaya | Mameva ye prapadyate mayametam tarantite || "Those who seek Me alone (and no other) as their refuge will overcome the insurmountable Maya". Ahirbudhnya Samhita also says as follows: 'I pray that thou alone shouldst be my upaya'. Meaning of the word 'Saranam' According to Pillai Lokacharya, the word 'Saranam' has several meanings such as Upaya, abode, protector, taking refuge in and total surrender at the lotus feet of the Lord. Here it means 'upaya' only because it has to add with the meaning of 'Sarva...Ekam'. This is being underlined in Ahirbudhnya Samhita. This was the prayer that was taught to Arjuna by Lord Krishna. It is applicable to all and Ramanuja has mentioned it in his Saranagati Gadya thus, "O thou who art the saviour of all beings in the world ignoring the differences that may exist among those that seek thee" and in the utterance of Valmiki, he said, "The great and eminent Rishis say that thou art the refuge and the saviour of those that have sought thy protection". These prove beyond doubt that the Almighty is the only saviour for all Jivas. The most essential requisite while taking refuge in Him is that one should not entertain the idea of any other Lord except Lord Narayana. Meaning of the word 'Vraja' 'Vraja' means 'choose' or 'take to'. It is comparable to 'Prapadye' of Dvayamantra because it also enjoys self-surrender. In Prapadye the first person 'I' is used because it is only a meditation of a man who performs Saranagati, whereas in the word 'Vraja' of Charamasloka, the second person 'you' is used because it is addressed to Arjuna by Lord Krishna. It is the mind to choose the right path through mind'. This is called Jnana Visesham. This Jnana Visesham is also attainable by the grace of the Lord as spoken by Nammalvar - 'Aduvum Avanadhu Innarule' in Tiruvoiymozhi. This leads to an intriguing question; whether the aspirant has the option of surrendering or not because the very soul is bestowed with a 'free will'. So, Saranagati is definitely an act of choice, an exercise of free will when it becomes convinced of the Jiva's utter helplessness and feels the necessity of attaining the life's goal i.e. Moksha. Does possession of the free-will lead the Jiva to choose the right path for the attainment of the Ultimate goal? Every Jiva is free to choose the path of liberation. However the right conduct is to seek refuge in Lord because man is helpless. The discerning power must actuate the free will to discriminate between what duties have to be performed and what ought not to be performed. As seen above, the Charama Sloka consists of two parts. In the first part a particular Upaya the Lord is suggested for a particular Adhikari. It also enumerates the ways to be adopted by Adhikari to attain Moksha. Hence in the first sentence of this Sloka the following theme is derived: The negation of all Dharmas intentionally is spoken in 'Sarva Dharman Parityajya' meaning the method of negation, 'Mam' means the Lord as Upaya, 'Ekam' means the negation of other means like Karma, Jnana and Bhakti, Saranam means the nature of upaya. 'Vraja' means the upayasveekaram. Let us discuss the syllable existing in the second part of the Charama Sloka. In the second part Bhagawan is said to be the saviour who eagerly awaits the opportunity to protect and comfort the aspirant. For this, the aspirant must perform Saranagati with wholehearted faith in God. In other words, the second sentence enlightens the doings of Lord Krishna. The meaning of the word 'Aham' 'Aham' or 'I' is the only source capable of doing the impossible and relieving the evil effects of one's sins. Pillai Lokacharya vividly describes the attributes of Lord Krishna in the word 'Aham' i.e. the Lord who is all knower (Sarvjna), all Valour (Sarvasakti), (Praptam), chief (seshi). Having given the meaning for 'Aham' by quoting God's attributes Lokacharya further states its usage in the present context as commented by Mamuni. Mamuni states that when the Lord wanted to help the aspirant by eradicating his sins and accomplishing his wishes, He realises Arjuna's earlier stage and further adds what he wants to do with this when the utility of Sarvajnatva and Sarvasaksitva of Lord is known. For the action of His is only for His sake by benefitting by Himself as He is seshi - the relation of Lord. Mamuni includes the attribute of Poorthi (Avaptasamastakamatvam) along with these qualities. Further, Pillai Lokacharya says that Arjuna feels that Lord Krishna distinguished Himself as a charioteer for his sake and to clear his fear, emphasises His attributes in the word 'Aham'. He underlines that Lord's servitude as charioteer is also His supreme. The word 'Tva' (Thou) 'Tva' refers to the acquisition of the discerning ability to comprehend the nature of three ultimate Tatvas namely Cit, Acit and Iswara. Pillai Lokacharya says that 'Tva' refers to Arjuna (soul) who does not know what to do; who has no valour to do what he wants to do; and also has no right to do what he wants to safeguard and who approached Him as the means. Elaborating the sutra, Manavala Mamuni says that even one has knowledge to do what he wants and one has valour to act what he thinks, but he has no right to execute it and one who has redeemed all Dharmas and approached Him as the mean. Such is the nature of soul as enlightened in this word. The word 'Sarva Papebhyo' (free from all sins) For eliciting the inner thought, Pillai Lokacharya has given three Sutras for the word 'Sarva Papebhyo'. Manavala Mamuni classified it into three words as follows: Papam, its multitude and Sarvam - all combined 'Sarva Papebhyo'. Here 'Sins' are categorised into two aspects : i) the obstacle for desire (Istavirodhi) and ii) the cause for the evils (Anishtahetu). Here Mamuni means that since this Sloka speaks about Moksha, 'papam' denotes the obstacle for desire (Istavirodhi) i.e. the obstacle for the experience of divinity. It is necessary for the aspirant to renounce all evil deeds that lead to Adharma, Artha and Kama which are sinful and not capable of giving joy or bliss. The sins are as follows: ignorance (Avaidya), past impressions (Karma Vasana), taste (Ruchi) and matter (Prakrti) are the evil deeds that have to be shunned and they are characterised by the word 'Papebhyo'. Manavala Mamuni describes the word 'Sarva' denoting the aspirant who performs duties unknowingly that accumulate sins and who performs daily rituals with fearfulness etc. According to Sruti and Smrti the evil deeds must be avoided if one wishes to attain Moksha. Tiruvoyamozhi also reiterates the same point. It says : "sarntha iruvalvinaikalum janiththu mayap, pattamuththu theernthu thanpal manam vaikka thirutti veedu Tiruththvan" - which means "give up Punya and Papa both of which are of the nature of Karma and hard to give up". It is necessary to assure the anxious Jiva that he would be freed from all sins. Sins could be classified as past, present and future which could be committed either through body or mind or speech. Past sins are sins that were committed before performing Saranagati. Present sins are those that are being committed and future sins refer to those that may be committed after the performance of Saranagati. The word 'Mokshayishyami' Pillai Lokacharya says 'Moksha ishyami' means that the 'Lord will grant liberation from sinful life. Further, he says that in the phrase mokshayishyami, the tense 'Ishyami' means that neither the Lord will try for it, nor the aspirant need pray for eradication of sins; as the aspirant has surrended to God, they will automatically leave him due to fear and not known where they has gone. Vedanta Desika opines that the word 'Mokshayishyami' conveys the meaning "I will grant the liberation or Moksha from this mundane world at the time when you want it". Liberation means release or freedom from the bondage of Samsara. This liberation is possible only if the individual (jiva) adopts Sadhana. Further, Vedanta Desika states that, one thinks that he is doing this for his personal end and becomes sinful. The Lord Krishna shows the way for liberation in the following words: Sarvakarmanyapi sada Kurvano madvyapasrayah | matprasadadavapnoti sasvatam padamavyayam || which means, the Karma Yogi, however who depends on Me, attains by My grace the eternal, imperishable state, even though performing all actions". The syllable 'Masuchaha' 'Masuchaha' means 'do not feel sad' or 'do not despair'. According to Sruti, God will never forsake one who has taken refuge in Him. Once the Sadhana is performed by the individual which in fact is not difficult, is capable of removing all the obstacles and is having the power to grant the desired goal i.e.. Moksha. Hence, truly there is no need to grieve or despair. In the words of Bhagavan Krishna: Daivi sampadvimokshasya nibandhayasurimata| masucah sampadam daivimabhijatosi pandava || It means - "If you adopt this Upaya, your welfare is My burden or responsibility and I Myself be interested in looking after it; you are as it were My property or wealth (to look after) and there is no reason why you should despair". Pillai Lokacharya says that 'Masuchaha' means that since Arjuna has not entered to do his work and the Lord has involved Himself in his work, there is no grief for 'Arjuna'. It is said that there are two more Charamaslokas i.e., Varaha Charamasloka and Rama Charamasloka. During Varahavatara, the Varahamurthy preached two slokas (Vakya Dvaya) to Bhu Devi, which speaks the easy way of doing Saranagati when one in a calm state of mind, health and action, prays God and when unable to sustain one's health at the end of life the Lord will think of him and take him away to His abode. In Ramaavatara also, Rama preached Charamasloka to Vibhishana when he wants to surrender before Him, by saying even one who pretends himself as a friend and surrenders Him, He will take him away His abode (Vaikunta). From the above discussion it is obvious that the mantra- Charamasloka is the source of maintenance, nourishment and enjoyment to Jiva and also the cause for Moksha. This Mantra focuses on Saranagati as an easy Sadhana for attaining Moksha. Thus Charamasloka has a significant place in Srivaishnavam.

I wonder why 'Lord Jesus' enjoys so much attention among Vaishnavas, considering that he is about as far from Vaishnavism as possible. 1) Even great devotees of Siva who plucked their eyes out in devotion are not considered Vaishnavas. What to speak of Jesus, who didn't even teach the basic knowledge of the Vedas. 2) Jesus talked of a loving and kind god, which may be Yahweh, Allah, Ganesha, Siva or Brahma, etc. This god is way too boring to be Krishna. 3) The basic principles of ahimsa, rejecting materialism are found in Buddhism and Jainism as well. Yet, none of these religions are valid. 4) Jesus may have shown ahimsa, but it is nothing compared to Mahavira, for instance, who even refused to wear clothes in case he hurt the germs on his body. Yet, Mahavira is a nastika, and not a Vaishnava. So how is Jesus a Vaishnava? 5) Sri Hari does not do anything that isn't in the sastras. Therfore, he did not 'send' Jesus or Mohammed. The greatest of Christian Mystics and even Jesus could not think of God except reverentially. Yet, I myself, a jivatma caught in samsara, can think of Krishna as the mischievous child. This shows that even I am better realised than Jesus or St. Francis or St. John of the Cross ever were. I will accept that ultimately, the prayers of muslims and christians do indeed go to Krishna. But that isn't because of Jesus's mediatorship or Mohammed's work. Its because there is no-one who can accept and fulfill prayers except Krishna. Coming to the Sloka, Sarva Dharman Parityajya Mam Ekam Saranam Vraja, Aham Tva Sarva Papebhyo Mokshayisyami Masuchaha. There are many meanings hidden in this sloka, and it is called a 'Rahasya Mantra' (Secret Mantra) by Sri Vaishnavas due to its hidden meanings. Strictly speaking, I am not supposed to reveal it in public (against the sastras), but since we are all Vaishnavas here, I guess there is no harm. I will post the meanings in another thread. It is too big to post here.

Vishnu has never been thought of as 'awe inspiring' or 'majestic' by Sri or Madhva Vaishnavas. We even refer to Him as a 'lovable rascal'. For instance, how He created Brahma and then left him to blindly search the lotus stem for eons. So typical of the Lord's wicked sense of humor. I have provided you examples of how the 4 handed form of Vishnu is conceived by Vaishnavas. The Lord of Melkote, and the Lord of the alvars was as personal and accessible as Krishna. 2 or 4 Hands do not make a difference. Sri Rupa Goswami, who outlined some aspects of Krishna, is certainly a great acharya and devotee. But Vaishnavism is based on anubhavam or personal experience. To the Gaudiya Vaishnava Acharyas, Krishna appears the most alluring. So, naturally, they do not find other forms attractive. To some alvars, their own antaryami (indwelling Lord) was more appealing than Rama or Krishna!! Sri Parasara Bhattar was more in love with Lord Ranganatha of Srirangam. So much so, He refused to go to Vaikuntha unless He had darshan of the Lord of Srirangam there also!! In fact, Perialvar sang lullabys to Trivikrama, 'Oh, my dear baby, how you rose and conquered the word, my sweet Trivikrama...'. Imagine the height of devotion, considering the awesome and majestic Trivikrama as a baby and singing Him to sleep. In Vaikuntha, you get what you want. Sri Vaishnavas love 6 different forms of the Lord: Hayagriva, Rama, Krishna, Varaha, Narasimha and Trivikrama. All of them are personal and when you reach paramapada, you will get a darshan of even the archa form of the Lord if you want. EDIT: Actually, make it 7 different forms of the Lord, adored by Vaishnavas. Besides Rama, Krishna, Hayagriva, Trivikrama, Varaha and Narasimha, we also love Vishnu in His original form (Ranganatha, Padmanabha, Srinivasa, etc.)

You do not need to read Bhagavatam in 7 days. It is true that those who do so will get moksha, as the Lord said. But the whole meaning of 'Sarva Dharman Parityajya' means that YOU do not need to make any effort if you surrender to Him. Bhakti Yoga is the effort of the Jiva. But Saranagati is superior than Bhakti Yoga in the sense that the Jiva accepts the Lord's Guidance and does not attempt anything on his own. I believe even Srila Prabhupada voiced this philosophy in his Gita commentary when he said, ' A pure devotee does not need to worry about the time of his passing. Whether He passes away in light or darkness, rest assured that the Lord will personally escort him to the Supreme Abode. There need be no effort on the part of the devotee to remember the Lord at the time of his death'.

This is again a misconception. In Melkote, South India, there is a temple in which Lord Vishnu is known as 'Pinbazhagia Perumal', which is tamil for 'Lord with the beautiful backside'. He acquired this strange name because every day, the temple preists take off His dhoti and expose His beautiful backside to the devotees. The preists then tell us, 'Look, our beautiful Lord has such a beautiful backside. Admire it and fall in love with Him'. I am sure that even Gaudiya Vaishnavas are not aware of this much love exhibited by simple Vaishnavas. And the Lord with the Beautiful Backside is indeed Vishnu. Thus, Vishnu is as much personal as Krishna. Lord Vishnu, with 4 hands, is as accessible and as delightful as Krishna. For instance, Thirumangai alvar, one of the 12 great alvars, had darshan of Vishnu with 8 hands. In the prabandha, he tells us how Vishnu hugged Him with all 8 hands and pinched his ribs as though alvar was a gopi!! And there is more: Alvar recounts how he was reluctant to let the Lord near him, because he was cross with Vishnu for not appearing before itself. Then, he starts to feel sorry for the Lord (whose face clouds with sorrow when the alvar refuses him entry into his house) and calls Him in. Alvar then asks Vishnu, 'What do you want'. And the Supreme Lord, who has the entire universe as His body, and everyone as His eternal servants, replies, 'I want to reside on your lotus feet as a toenail for ever!!'. And the Lord became the alvar's devotee!! This charitram, with so much of love and closeness, is with Vishnu, not Krishna. And it is equal with the rasa lila in every respect, for even Krishna never said He wanted to become the feet of the Gopis!! But Vishnu, who is considered to be less personal form of the Lord than Krishna, so proud and yet so humble, full of love for His devotee, wanted to be His own servant's toenail. Vishnu is Krishna who is Narayana. There is no difference between the type of Rasa you experience, or the powers the manifest, or the source.

So God is extremely haughty and conceited in the sense that He won't even show Himself to His poor created beings? Sounds like the God of Christianity to me. Boring, Sappy Sweet and Sickening to a point. Sriman Narayana takes great pleasure in showing off His beauty to His devotees. In case they are too 'finite' to grasp His loveliness, He gives them Divya Dhrishti. No problems at all.

Well, that's the Gaudiya viewpoint. This viewpoint is based on the Srimad Bhagavatam pramana which says 'Krishnas tu Bhagavan Svayam'. But Sri Vaishnavas take a different approach. It simply means, 'Krishna is verily Bhagavan Himself'. The Vedas say that Narayana/Vishnu is highest. So, it means, 'Krishna is verily that Narayana/Vishnu Himself' and not 'Krishna is superior to Narayana'. Krishna is an avatar, but He is nondifferent from Narayana. According to Sri Vaishnava tradition, all avatars proceed from Aniruddha, the avatar of Vishnu who induces Brahma to create. In the case of Krishna and Rama though, Narayana from Vaikuntha Himself descended, rather than Aniruddha. Note that Vishnu, although nondifferent from Narayana of Vaikuntha Loka, is also a functional avatar of Narayana. The Karana Ocean is not Vaikuntha, which Gaudiyas fail to notice. Vaikuntha and Goloka are both the same place. Srila Prabhupada wanted to see Radha and Krishna with the gopis in Goloka, and He probably got that in Vaikuntha. If you want to see Rama, you will see Him in vaikuntha. If you want to see Narayana with 4 hands, you will get that. No such thing as Goloka being higher than Vaikuntha. So, Sri vaishnavas and Gaudiya Vaishnavas really have no argument here. We both accept that Krishna is highest and that Vishnu is the avatar of Krishna, ie, Sriman Narayana. What some people do not understand is that Vishnu is the avatar of Narayana, and both are 4 handed. Narayana descended as Krishna and simply hid two of His hands. That's all. And I am sure no Gaudiya Vaishnava Acharya ever said that Vishnu is inferior to Narayana.

Raghu, you must understand one thing. Sri Vedanta Desikar, a Sri Vaishnava Acharya, has refuted Dvaita philosophy of Sri Madhvacharya. Does that make either Sri Desikar or Sri Madhva as unvaishnavite? Similarly, Dvaitins do not recommend VA. Does that mean either VA or Dvaita are invalid? Both are apparently accepted by all Vaishnavas as being legitimate. Its just a difference in philosophy. For instance, dvaita and vishishtadvaita are also followed by many Shaivites. Yet, when you think of Dvaita, or VA, the term 'Vaishnava' comes to mind, rather than Siva Dvaita or Siva VA. It is all due to conditioning. Similarly, there are Advaitin Vaishnavas and Shaivas. BUT, the difference here is that the whole philosophy wasa espoused by a Vaishnava Acharya only, and that acharya was Sri Sankara. Advaita was more strongly refuted simply because it denies the one thing that our acharyas of all bhagavata sampradayas cherished the most - the beauty of Sriman Narayana. Otherwise, they had no debates regarding the supremacy of Narayana with advaitins. It was a recognised fact in those days. No, you are missing the point here. 1) All advaitins may not be Vaishnavas. But the advaitins who follow Sankaracharya WERE MEANT TO BE Vaishnavas because Sankara Himself was a Vaishnava. His image has been corrupted of late by pseudo scholars like Appaya Dikshita and Vivekananda. I gave the example of sandhya vandanam to illustrate how Adi Sankara established only Vaishnava rituals for his followers. He never advocated worship of Siva as Saguna Brahman. Some people born in a family of Gaudiya Vaishnavas or Sri Vaishnavas, may in their ignorance, worship other gods as well. That makes them unvaishnavite, but that does not dismiss their entire ancestry as being Unvaishnavite. Similarly, the mistakes of mordern neo-vedantins should not be taken as a representation of Sankaracharya's interpretations. 2) The whole claim of being a Vedantin is to know the meaning of Vedas. Sri Annangrachariar of the 20th century, a stalwart Vaishnava, has said that in order to be eligible for debate, the scholar should first accept that Sriman Narayana is Brahman and none else. That is why even Sankaracharya himself condemned Shaivism and Shaktism as unvedic. Notice, Sri Madhvar and Sri Ramanujar condemned Advaita, but they never called that philosophy as unvedic. Because despite Sankaracharya's philosophy being less than accurate, he was a vedantin in the sense that his brahmin followers knew that Sriman Narayana is the ultimate, as prescribed by the Vedas. Wrong. Siva worshippers accept that they are servants of god and that love is the highest form of worship. But their 'love' is directed towards Siva. Would you call them Vaishnavas? Not really. His core works reveal his Vaishnavite stance. He didn't accept the agamas simply because they were against his conception of Narayana (ie, Narayana is impersonal to Sankaracharya). Works like Saundarya Lahiri and Sivananda Lahiri attributed to Sankaracharya are authored by Saivas like Appaya Dikshitar, who passed it off as Sankara's. Which leaves us, after weeding out false works, with compositions like hymns to Ranganatha of Srirangam, Bhaja Govindam, etc...pure Vaishnava works. I told you, Smarthas are no longer Vaishnavas. I am saying, advaitins used to be Vaishnavas before. Now, they are following a distortion of Sankaracharya's works. I am merely saying that true followers of Sankaracharya ARE Vaishnavas. The Sankara Sampradaya of today is different from what it used to be. Please read 'Sankara and Vaishnavism' by Sri Krishnamachari. Even the bogus Paramacharya of Kanchi Mutt is yet to reply to the great Sri Vaishnava's refutations of mordern day advaitins. Speaking of Mutts, did you notice that most of the mutts established by Sankaracharya are near Vaishnava Temples? Puri, Badri, Dwaraka, etc. Sri Velukkudi Krishnan Swami is like the Srila Prabhupada of Sri Vaishnavism. I have attended many of his discourses, and he has clearly stated that Smarthas *Should* be Vaishnavas. It is true that they are no longer so, and unfortunately, advaita vedanta has itself been branded as unvaishnavite. It is not my opinion. It is a fact. Vaishnavism has two sects: The Bhagavata and the Mayavada Sampradaya. Now, Mayavada is no longer part of Vaishnavism, but it used to be. Theist, although I am deeply indebted to the Hare Krishna Movement and Gaudiya Vaishnavism (a great Sampradaya with illustrious acharyas), I am not going to take Gaudiya views on some matters. My opinion is based on factual truth, not sentiment. Please stop endorsing Christianity and Islam as Vaishnavism. Vedic Advaita is nearer to Narayana than personal Christianity. Your definition of Vaishnava apparently applies to even Jesus, yet it excludes a legitimate Brahmin Community who were Vaishnavas originally. Bhakti is the true marga, but Narayana is not like the Christian God in the sense that He condemns everything else as Heresy. Adi Sankara was a devotee of Lakshmi Narasimha. Gaudiya Vaishnavas are great Bhaktas. So, some acharyas, in their bhakti, are extremely put off by the semitheism of Advaitins and so indulge in excesses at times. It is not a fault of course, only due to their immense devotion to Krishna. But factually speaking, Smarta Sampradaya was intended to be a Vaishnavite one. I have no gains in claiming Advaita to be bonafide, because I am not an advaitin, nor do I endorse that Philosophy. But Adi Sankara's greatness should not be undermined because of a few faulty advaita followers who paint the wrong picture. As far as Srila Bhaktisiddantha and Srila Prabhupada are concerned, I merely respect them for their bhakti and high standing in the eyes of Lord Krishna. I regard Srila Prabhupada as empowered by Narayana Himself. Yet, it does not mean I accept Acintya Bheda Abheda as THE philosophy, or *all* the opinions put forward by Gaudiyas. I rely on fact.