kaisersose

I think you misread him. He did not categorize dualists as less intelligent. He is saying dualism is what is perceived by default and therefore no additional intelligence/effort is necessary in this case. However, in the case of oneness, it is not directly obvious and therefore additional intelligence/effort would be required to understand the concept. It is like the 'you are not the body' concept. By default, I am my body, without which there is no I. No intelligence/thought is necessary to see things this way. But to see myself as something other than my body, a lot of thought and self-convincing has to happen. It is not that people who seen themselves as the body are less intelligent than people who believe they will exist without their bodies. It is just that, the former choose the option that requires lesser imagination. Like I said earlier, the usage of monism and dualism is incorrect in this context as Dvaita/Vaishnava theology is Monist too. As per Advaita, oneness can only be perceived at Mukti. It cannot be perceived before that, and any intelligent or rational view of oneness is still not the real thing, just like any vision of Vishnu for the bonded individual is just imagined and not real. At this point for everyone here, duality is just as real to Advaitins as it is to everyone else. Cheers

The defense is again known only through a Gaudiya source. Outside this tradition, this text has never been known before or after. Hence, it becomes a circular defense - a certain Gaudiya text is stated to be authentic because the Gaudiyas offer a story for its legitimate origin. It is appropriate to quote this text when discussing with other Gaudiya Vaishnavas who will accept its authenticity on faith alone, but it will not work well with outsiders. Every tradition has such a proprietary text. Madhva had his Brahma Tarka (missing now) which no one ever heard of. The Advaitins sometime use Yoga Vashista, which is another similar proprietary text. Authenticity of these texts is purely on basis of faith. Cheers

Yes, they are incapable of seeing Buddhism - which is not God-centric - as a religion. I am saying they are incorrect as it is possible to have religions which do not have Gods, as the dictionary clearly states. I am not saying religion should not have God; I am saying there can be religions which do not have God, like Buddhism. Hope that clarifies. Cheers

I am saying - or rather - the dictionary says that God & soul are not necessary elements of religion which is why Buddhism is also classified as a religion (which was the original topic of this thread). Cheers

Liberation is where the difference comes in. Advaita says on liberation of the soul, there is no more duality. The one consciosuness/Brahman/Super soul is all that exists. Dvaita - or more accurately Tattavada - opposes this position and states on liberation, the soul continues to be an individual entity different from the Supersoul. But like I said earlier, the english word Dualism was not coined with the concept of Dvaita in mind. It was/is for a whole other context. Cheers

<o:p> </o:p> You are depressed that things are not working out for you and want to know why? What makes you think, there has got to be a reason behind all this? There may not be any. <o:p> </o:p> The visa was rejected because the adjudicating officer concluded that the applicant did not meet eligibility requirements. The reason is as simple as that. <o:p> </o:p> But you do not want to accept that. Perhaps you are hoping prayers to certain God/temples or wearing a ring made of a certain stone, etc., can bring you good luck and the third attempt at the visa will be successful. Hence, you want to know why you are having bad luck so you can take steps to avert it. <o:p> </o:p> Would it not be a better idea to spend time analyzing why the visa was rejected twice and taking steps to fix any shortcomings? And if they cannot be fixed, just accept that you are not eligible for a visa and move on in life? <o:p> </o:p> This is just my opinion, of course. But contrary to popular opinion, Ganesha is not in the business of blessing his Indian devotees with wealth, health and visas. If that were true, India would be a very different place today. So let us learn to accept reality which is usually hard at the beginning, but with time, it will turn out to be a better choice than anything else. Either way, good luck with the Visa. <o:p> </o:p> Cheers

DW, That was a long post. Let me clarify what I mean. 1. I am referring to the popular Vaishnava concept of Mukti which is finding a place in Vaikunta at he Lotus feet. Vaikunta, Lotus feet, Lakshmi, the ocean of milk, Adi-Sesha, etc., are not vedic concepts. Unless we looked at the Pancharatra, we would not even know these names. That is my point. 2. The concept of Mukti that I described, is more from a Dvaita perspective. If VD differs in anyway, then I would not know about it. The only point I was contesting was the human form of Vishnu/Brahman and that too purely on logical grounds - not from an Advaita perspective. Cheers

I thought this was common knowledge? 1. Descriptions of Vaikunta and in general stories of Vishnu and Lakshmi resting on Adi Shesha, etc. In all instances, it is understood that he has a human looking form, about average height, Indian style clothes, dark skinned, south Asian look. 2. Krishna came down in his original form - Gaudiya Vaishnavism. The same concept holds true for Shiva too and most other Gods in the Hindu Pantheon. Cheers

No Bart, nothing to do with Monism. Perhaps there is some confusion about Monism and Dualism here. Monism and Dualism do not equate to Advaita and Dvaita respectively. Monism holds that there one ultimate reality. Dualism holds that there are two ultimate realities - most commonly the good and evil. Only a religion that s to the concept of Satan or its equivalent can be categorized under Dualism. Else, it is most likely Monist. Again, I am not making stuff up...these are public dictionary definitions. Cheers

In case you are curious, the Dictionary does not place such a requirement (God & soul) on religion. Here is one specific set of possible meanings of the word from Dictionary_com =========== re·li·gion Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-lij-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. 3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions. 4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion. 5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith. 6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice. ======= There you go! Cheers

I am under time constraints, so I will make this short. Mukti - or its equivalent - in Vaishnava terms is relying more on Pancharatra and Purana concepts and less on Upanishads. The Prashtana Trayi (PT) does not talk about Vaikunta or Lakshmi. But if you take the two out, what is left in the concept of Vaishnava liberation? Almost nothing. The crux of the discussion comes down to this - does Brahman/Narayana have a permanent form or not? If the answer is yes, then there is a foundation for the Vaishnava concept of liberation, if not, then the answer is Advaita. Everything I have read and understood makes it clear (to me) that the ultimate truth cannot have a Homo Sapiens, North Indian, 5 foot, 8 inches dhoti wearing, male form. It makes no sense at all and like I said I have not seen such a concept presented anywhere in the PT. It makes no sense to say Brahman has a permanent form with eyes and nose which he/it does not really need! It would be a stronger argument, in my opinion, to state Brahman's permanent form is an indescribable shape or even a cube or a cone. At least, then the questions of redundant eyes, a redundant nose, etc., are eliminated. This is why the Advaita concept of Mukti is less imaginative than the others and hence, relatively more acceptable. Of course, my skeptical mind see flaws in Advaita Mukti too, but the same flaws are also found in the other competing versions. The most major flaw I see is the concept of permanence or eternity. Anyway, that is a different topic. Cheers

The Advaita tradition has a totally different story. Suffice it to say that, the matter is not as a clear as the Vaishnavas make it out to be. This topic was discussed in the Advaita list in the past. And your reason provided above cannot be correct. Akshobhya was a direct disciple of Madhva and in case you did not know, Madhva read tatvamasi as atatvamasi in order to provide a dvaitic interpretation (just like he had to twist aham brahmasmi into aheyam brahmasmi to align it with his doctrine). Akshobhya (the direct disciple) would have had to work with atatvamasi which is something the Vishishtadvaita moderator would never agree with and hence the whole story goes out of the window. Btw, it was Akshobhya’s disciple Jaya Tirtha who first interpreted tatvamasi in the dvaitic way. And anyway, it is odd that a scholar like the head of a Advaita Matha was unable to provide the Advaitic interpration of a Mahavakya. Did it not strike as odd to you? You must be kidding if this is your basis. Madhva interpets Brahman in the Gita as Lakshmi, sees permanent varnas for souls and eternal hell. No one else sees any of this in the Gita. How is it that Vaishnavas are allowed to interpret the Gita any which way they desire, but Shankara cannot? The point of interpretation is to provide overall consistency in seemingly contradictory statements. And Shankara has addressed it very well. And where did I say that? And note that this holds true for Ramanuja and Madhva too. The bulk of the Vaishnava doctrine is not from the Veda, but from the Pancharatras. So I fail to see why you would use this as an argument against Shankara. For Vaishnavas, take the Vedas completely out of the equation and it would make little or no difference to their theology of Narayana/Hari & Lakshmi. Advaita is heavily criticized because of its success. Anything else you say about how Advaita interprets, Shruti, etc., I can show the same excuses and approach provided by other traditions as well. Without exception, interpretation starts with forming a basic premise and interpreting contradictory texts to show they are in line with the presupposed premise. Clearly then, you need to read history. If there was no question of scriptural debate, then what were Shankara and Mandana debating over for 15 days? And how does the bulk of Shankara’s literature target purva mimamsa when either position (according to you) is not based in scripture? As for Avidya on advaita-vedanta.org, please read the topic here. www_advaita-vedanta_org/avhp/ad-phil_html (Replace underscores with periods). As you can see, there is no need for Sureshvara or anyone to make excuses about not drawing their basic concepts from scripture. There are bogus quotes in Vaishnava Puranas about how Shankara was Shiva who came down to the earth to mislead people. Madhva said Mayavada was introduced to the world by a demon named Manimanta. Madhva quotes heavily from texts like Brahma Tarka, etc., which are not known outside his tradition and are not available today. His "missing sources" has been a research topic by itself. On the other hand, Advaita has never had a need to rely on Upanishads other than the top ten nor on any missing source. Where is the need to create and quote bogus Puranas? If you know of a specific instance where a leading Advaita scholar quoted a bogus Upanishad, then please show it to me. This is your own individual perception and you are certainly welcome to it. As long as you accept, this is not some universal axiom such as 2+2=4. And since you think it is VA only and not Dvaita, then you should modify your statement that Vedas talk of VA only and not Dvaita or Advaita or anything else. Let me be clear on this. I have no problems with people disagreeing with Advaita. But I object to incorrect criticism of Advaita like they claim to be God or are aspiring to be God, etc. Similarly, statements like they created bogus scriptures, or they have been “completely vanquished” or Advaitins make excuses that their basic tenets are not available in scripture, etc., are unfounded and incorrect, there being no objective basis for such accusations. I see this as nothing more than frustration born out of inability to replicate its success. That is my point. And to repeat, I am not out to prove that Advaita is the right way. Cheers <?xml:namespace prefix = o /><o:p></o:p>

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p> This is a partisan view. I can make a similar statement of any religious belief in the Universe. On the point, no Advaitin would make such an excuse for Advaita. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p> I have not read Sureshvara, but this claim is highly suspect. Can you provide a specific reference? If “lack of scriptural proof” was the official position of Shankara, then why did he write so much of literature? What was his basis for entering into debates with others? Mandana would have beaten him down to his socks in less than an hour. This criticism fails the most basic test of logic. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p> Can you define “complete defeat”? I say Advaita defeated Purva Mimamsa because this was Shankara’s prime target (purva Paksha) and history shows they are practically non-existent today. On the other hand a similar basis is wholly missing for Vaishnava groups to claim “complete defeat” of Advaita. Though Advaita was the Purva Paksha and they spent a lot of ink & energy criticizing the doctrine, they accomplished next to nothing in their task of defeating the doctrine. Advaitins are just as prominent today as they would have been if none of these Vaishava schools had existed. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> So you see why I am curious about your concept of defeat. If this alleged defeat exists just in the minds of Vaishnavas, then I agree that is correct. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p> There is no record of defeat. It is a claim made by Vaishnavas and remains unconfirmed. A defeat such as that, would have Vidyaranya’s followers switch over to Vaishnava tradition and the Sringeri Matha would have collapsed. This claim is no better than Chaitanya defeating Dvaita and Vishishtadvaita. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Were there odd instances of defeat of one scholar by another? I am sure there were, but that is more a sign of incompetency of the debating individual than anything else. For instance, Dvaitins claim they have defeated Sri Vaishnavas. Does this mean Sri Vaishnavism was “completely defeated”? <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p> Not clear what you mean by this. Shankara commented on the top 10 Upanishads and proved they were monist. The same Upanishads were commented on by scholars of later doctrines. If they thought these Upanishads were false, then why did they bother to comment on them?<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> If you think Shankara fabricated scripture, then you will have to furnish evidence. <o:p></o:p> Cheers <o:p></o:p>

The Indus valley civilization that precedes Aryan civilization in North West India was worshipping Shiva and the mother Goddess. So these two groups are possibly the oldest religion beliefs in the sub-continent. But this does not mean they are the oldest in the world. The Mesopotamian civlization is older than IVC and they had a different set of beliefs. Cheers

Who says God & soul are necessary for religion? Probably some narrow visioned people who to a religion which has God & soul as its central theme and cannot see beyond these strictures. The definition of religion per standard dictionaries is wide enough to cover Buddhism. So if someone disagrees they have to first change the english language. Cheers

The Usual Suspects Cheers

Here is the situation in hand....A is a Guru who belongs to a classic time-tested tradition and is qualified acording to the requirements of the tradition. B on the other hand, is an unorthodox Guru who became popular through unconventional circumstances (Osho, the Babas, etc). If you were to pick one as your Guru, who would you pick? By the law of parsimony, A would be a smarter choice. However, due to our own subjective preferences, we may ultimately choose B. Advaita recognizes the concept of Jivan-mukthi, that is liberation when the body is still alive. Ramana, Sukha, Shankara, etc., are accepted by the tradition as Jivan-muktas. However, the Dvaita tradition does not recognize the concept of Jivan-Mukti. And since Ramana is not in their sampradaya either, he would have no value in the tradition. If Vishishtadvaita has the same view on Jivan-Mukti, then Raman would have no value in that tradition either. And even if we recognize the concept of Jivan-Mukti, how do we really know the dude is genuine? There really is no way and we just accept or reject him on faith. Cheers

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p> And there is a contradiction right there. If everything is predestined, how can the individual choose between right and wrong?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> You cannot have both…pick one. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Cheers<o:p></o:p>

shvu here...changed my username as a new name is refreshing in many ways. Arya Samaj, etc., - like Purva Mimamsa - interpet the Vedas without using auxillary texts like Pancharatras and Puranas as they are authored texts. This yields a very different interpretation which is devoid of form worship of any kind. There is no place in their interpretaton for Rama, Krishna, Shiva and everyone else. About making fun of other beliefs - that is certainly not unique to Arya Samaj. Cheers