tackleberry

Nice try, son. I love these exchanges with you, for your hilarious responses succeed in making me chuckle even when I'm otherwise in a sullen mood. Just grab Ganguli's masterful rendering of the Mahabharata and consult the relevant passages. Everything should become clearly manifest.

I've quoted the Lord's words reg. his apraakrta deha, which subsequently proves your cremation theories wrong. Instead of accepting it, you're referring us to some Ganguli...are you for real? Are we to believe the Lord's words or yours or ganguli's? You're a joker, keep posting, you give us great entertainment with your moronic ideas that Krishna, the Creator and the Lord, was cremated.

Krishna's body did not evaporate in thin air. He was definitely cremated, and shastra says so. Just do your homework properly, tackleboy.

You can cremate a body made of prakrti, but how can anyone cremate Krishna's body which is made of jnaana, ananda, and such kalyaana guna-s? So it's to be concluded that the Lord can never be cremated, for he never takes birth and certainly doesn't die. For those who think otherwise, here's the Gita verse.

Gita 9.11

avajānanti māḿ mūḍhā

mānuṣīḿ tanum āśritam

paraḿ bhāvam ajānanto

mama bhūta-maheśvaram

SYNONYMS

avajānanti — deride; mām — Me; mūḍhāḥ — foolish men; mānuṣīm — in a human form; tanum — a body; āśritam — assuming; param — transcendental; bhāvam — nature; ajānantaḥ — not knowing; mama — My; bhūta — of everything that be; mahā-īśvaram — the supreme proprietor.

TRANSLATION

Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature as the Supreme Lord of all that be.

------

It clearly shows that the Lord is ever 'divya,' regardless of the forms he manifests whilst taking avatar. Only asura-s think otherwise, and allege that the Lord is also subject to prakrti, as other jiiva-s. Such asura-s go so far as to believe that the apraakrta Lord can be cremated. What ignorance!

Not to mention that the body of none other than Krishna Himself was disposed of in the traditional Indian manner, with Rukmini Devi ascending the funeral pyre as the Lord's sati.

Both Krishna and Rukmini have apraakrta deha-s, so your point makes little sense.

Many people are offended by the word 'demigod.' But surely, except Vishnu, no one can be Supreme. There cannot be 'two' supreme entities. So Shiva is NOT supreme, even though the word demigod may not be palatable to some. So a better choice would be 'devata.' Anyway, here is the episode which clearly shows that even Shiva is under Narayana's control.

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 8.12.27tām anvagacchad bhagavān

bhavaḥ pramuṣitendriyaḥ

kāmasya ca vaśaḿ nītaḥ

kareṇum iva yūthapaḥ

SYNONYMS

tām — Her; anvagacchat — followed; bhagavān — Lord Śiva; bhavaḥ — known as Bhava; pramuṣita-indriyaḥ — whose senses were agitated; kāmasya — of lusty desires; ca — and; vaśam — victimized; nītaḥ — having become; kareṇum — a female elephant; iva — just as; yūthapaḥ — a male elephant.

TRANSLATION

His senses being agitated, Lord Śiva, victimized by lusty desires, began to follow Her, just as a lusty elephant follows a she-elephant.

--

All this doesn't mean Shiva isn't worthy of worship. On the contrary, one must worship Shiva to bless us with a pure mind, a mind that can focus on Vishnu with perfect attention. But to worship him as supreme is certainly an offense, at least sheer stupidity, according to Vishnu Himself. Here's the relevant verse:

------

Bhagavad-gītā 7.23

antavat tu phalaḿ teṣāḿ

tad bhavaty alpa-medhasām

devān deva-yajo yānti

mad-bhaktā yānti mām api

SYNONYMS

anta-vat — perishable; tu — but; phalam — fruit; teṣām — their; tat — that; bhavati — becomes; alpa-medhasām — of those of small intelligence; devān — to the demigods; deva-yajaḥ — the worshipers of the demigods; yānti — go; mat — My; bhaktāḥ — devotees; yānti — go; mām — to Me; api — also.

TRANSLATION

Men of small intelligence worship the demigods, and their fruits are limited and temporary. Those who worship the demigods go to the planets of the demigods, but My devotees ultimately reach My supreme planet.

--

Hopefully, people can see the light.

Oh yes, I'm sure that it is absolute fact that Indraaa Devaaa had to kill a draaagon so that the raaaiiin could come out of the great fiiirmaaament of the skyyy which "holds the waaatersss" back from the eeeaaarth. We don't have to accept the Vedas at face-value. To make such a claim is laughable at best.

Besides that, Mr. Vedantist, the Rig Veda says, "Truth is one, but is called by many names."

Oh, and thanks for teaching me that Jesus is now a faith! I never knew that before!

You've fallen into my trap, and revealed your filthy christian upbringing. Thank you!

What else would you call faith in a deity other than 'belief'? Faith in the Atman? Faith in any non-physical, non-provable entity?

Veda is apoureshya, so what it says has to be accepted. Other books like bible are not, so their accounts of jeeesus etc. are mere fabrications. Therefore, your comparision with bogus faiths like C or Jeeesus is ridiculous.

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.

you've posted without pramaana, so I'll just give pramaana from Taitiriya Upanishad. SaptamaH AnuvaakaH (in T. Up) shows the gradation of bliss amongst souls, starting from manushyas to devata-s. If foolish VAs reason that this is in samsara, the question will arise as to whether the passages were referring to the bodies of the jiva-s mentioned? If so, VA point goes against vedanta itself, because the body is insentient and incapable of joy. Therefore, VA is forced to admit that it's the soul which experiences joy, and it's the bliss of the soul which is described in varying degrees. And because the soul is considered eternal according to all schools of vedanta, so is the bliss and consequently the gradations that have been described in the upanishad. This clearly proves dvaita view of taaratamya.

Now Darth Vader, come up with your VA fairy tales.

Yes, the correct Gita Press edition of the Bhagavata (Gita also, I may add), the one/s delineating the unquestionable veracity of the Advaitic conclusions thereof.

Gita press edition!:rofl: OMG, are you trying to be funny. Cuz it's working...

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.

No pramaana again, simply your farfetched views. You're not even quoting R's view, which is surprising. But knowing you, this is understandable. But do me a favor and quote R or VD, I want to know their views on ananda taaratamya, NOT yours. You and that rat (aka jeeesus freak) cbrahma make a good couple, though.

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.

Worthless post with personal attacks, and no pramaana to back it up. Reg. atat tvam asi, the word tat is NOT present in the said upanishad, it's 'atmaatat' which is split as atmaa atat, according to rules of sanskrit grammar. Even advaitins have not disputed this to this day. But you keep repeating like a moron that tat has been changed to atat, when tat is NOT even present in the upanishad in isolation, so how can you change something that doesn't even exist? Learn to read properly, before you post fairy tales, moron. And examine not only your head, but R's. You may find nothing inside, but that's another matter.

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. 3) 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. 4) 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.

 

 

 

 

Again, this has clearly been explained.

Where's the pramaana for these fairy tales? None! So we just have to take your word, and that isn't good enough. And the fact that you're becoming angry indicates that you're not really convinced of the VA position. In one thread itself, you seem to have contradicted yourself a dozen times. First, you talk of identity, then you retract and say you meant something else, spoke of difference between Ishwara and Brahman, then retract and say you meant subtle diff., not real difference....well, well, seems like you're really confused, as confused as R.

ISVARA IS IN JIVA AND JIVAS ARE IN ISVARA. Got it?

Then you're accepting the dvaita view, joker. Thank you!

Funny, I have proven properly how Isvara is the indweller and Brahman is the substance. And you say I lack integrity?

Because, moron, no shruti supports distinction between Ishwara and Brahman. Therefore, your other points on identity have no substance at all. And funny while defending VA, you're coming closer and closer to dvaita.

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.

No shruti statement supports this nonsense. So it has to be discarded. Give some pramaana before writing fairy tales, you moron.

2. ayam atma brahma.

It simply refers to the antaryamitva of Brahman. It's not about jiva at all. So there's no q of identity, which your puny brain doesn't comprehend.

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.

Again, no evidence from shruti for this distinction between ishwara and brahman, that even the insentient jagat is considered as a mode of Brahman etc. Your fairy tales.

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.

An object and its attributes are one. So if jiva were an attribute of Brahman, you'll have to ascribe dukha, ajnana to Brahman. This is what VA position leads to. Therefore, jiva cannot be considered an attribute of Brahman.

Again, nobody is denying similarity. But the substance is Brahman, and hence, there is oneness.

There's no evidence that same substance implies 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'.

It proves your lack of integrity.

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.

If we consider the woodenness of the table and the woodenness of the chair as one, as VA does, one should be destroyed when the other is. This is how ridiculous the VA position is.

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.

That's because you're confusing sadrshya with abheda.

You cannot distinguish the lamplight from sunlight. Period.

You've already distinguished them by referring to them, treating them differently, and also admitting that when one isn't there, the other is. All this proves distinction.

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.

Retard, you (and VAs) accept saadrshya as abheda, when common sense suggests otherwise. The base is Ishwara, which means that which it supports (namely the jagat, jiva-s) MUST BE DISTINCT from Ishvara. Therefore, there's absolute bheda. But VAs are busy aping the advaita line, which is why you're talking of mahavaakhyas, when even Sankara hasn't mentioned such a thing. WHat a joker you're!

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.

This is explained by dvaita through sa-vivesha-abheda, so dvaita doesn't fall flat. On the contrary, the same q cannot be answered by VA.

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.

 

It's grammtically incorrect. And every objection of yours has been refuted, and you yourself accepted the stupidity of your arguments reg. identity.

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.

Moron, if there's distinction, there's distinction. It cannot be one and distinct, because logical opposites cannot co-exist. Like a moron, you keep talking about mahavaakhyas, when even Sankara hasn't used that word to describe so-called abheda shruti-s. And again and again, you're confusing similarity with identity. You're a conscious entity, and so is your neighbor. That doesn't mean identity at all. Likewise, God and jiva-s are conscious entities, which shows similarity and no identity whatsoever. Unity (the word that you've used) is NOT identity either, because if A and B are united, it means A and B are distinct which is why unity becomes possible. If they're one and there's identity, there's no question of underlying unity, to use your word.

Which makes Jiva a mode, or an attribute of Brahman. Hence, there is unity.

Unless A and B are distinct objects, one cannot be located in the other. So your idea that one can be an attribute of another defies logic.

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.

 

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.

Similarity is NOT identity, there's no way around it, period.

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.

Funny you use the word 'mahavakya.' Even Sankara hasn't used that term to describe so-called abheda struti-s. The essential substance of a wooden chair and wooden table is wood, but that doesn't mean they're one and the same. They're different objects. Likewise, though both jiva-s and Brahman are conscious entities (due to bimba-pratibimba-vada), this only shows similarity and NOT identity. Which your thick head isn't perceiving.

Reg. scriptures denying plurality of souls....the scriptures are taught by guru to the disciple, that itself establishes plurality of souls. So how can scriptures deny that which is established by pratyaksha, which is a valid pramaana? Therefore, it's concluded that scriptures do NOT deny plurality. It's just a VA misinterpretation.

There is identity in the sense that both Jiva and Brahman are eternal and conscious. Both are blissful. Both have jnana

This is NOT identity, but similarity. Maybe, you need some lessons in English and basic logic.

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.

Your interpretation is wrong, even according to VA.

Vedanta Desikar has also refuted dvaita.

Nyayamrta was written AFTER vedanta desika's time. No VA has refuted Nyamrta, which means VA has been refuted by dvaita and NOT the other way around.

Reg. grammar and all that, Ramanuja apparently didn't know that a transitive verb needs an object;) Like an ignorant schoolboy, he treated the noun as an adjective, even my nephew can offer better interpretations.

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."

 

He speaks of similarity, NOT identity. Since Krishna being the bimba is made of jnana, ananda etc., the jiva-s being pratibimba-s are similar, nothing more. There's no statement of identity at all, only similarity.

2) Dvaita takes it as Atat Tvam Asi. But this denial also denies the Brahman within Jivatma.

 

Brahman within jiva, you say. So how can Brahman be within jiva, if Brahman and jiva are one. So your statement itself proves dvaita, namely that Brahman and jiva are distinct, which is why Brahman is within jiva.

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.

 

Dvaita believes in bima-pratibimba-vada, which explains why there are similarities between jiva and Brahman. And similarity is NOT oneness, it implies distinction. Second, if jiva did have all these qualities like jnana in full measure, it wouldn't be in samsara at all. So the VA view is silly.

Therfore, logically speaking, VA is the best solution.

VA is illogical, because it's tantamount to saying you're and you're not a six-footer. Two logical opposites cannot co-exist, which is what VA foolishly advocates.

So "tvam" means the Supreme Soul as immanent in the individual.

Again, you're proving the dvaita view. If the supreme soul is immanent in the individual, it only implies that the two are distinct. If they're one, it's tantamount to saying A is immanent in A, which is absurd.

Madhvacharya's opinion matters as much to me as the posterior of a rodent, hence whatever he may hold as valid gets no traction with me.

And you're a lover of bhagavata??

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.

Brahman in jivatma (note the locative) implies distinction between Brahman and Jiva. No identity here.

So, one should believe that Uddhalaka was giving Swetaketu all those brilliant analogies just to say, 'You are not that!!'? Weird.

So one should believe Uddhalaka was giving all those brilliant analogies to tell Shvetaketu, "You are and you are not that????" Great Sri Vaishnava logic. Hey dark warrior, you're and you're not a six-footer. If it makes sense, you're certainly a sri vaishanava.

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.

There's only distinction, as proved by Madhvacharya. Ramanuja has an illogical view that the jiva is and is not brahman. This is not only contradicted by shruti, but by common sense as well. Ramanuja's view is as ridiculous as saying you're and you're not a six-footer.

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.

You're actually proving the dvaita view by saying all this. It considers bhakti as the body, and karma and jnana as the various limbs. So bhakti in the dvaita sense includes karma and jnana as well. It's not mutually exclusive, as held by other schools.

The same goes for Sri Ramanujar. The perfect truth of the Upanishads.

Nyayamrtha has refuted VA completely.

 

2) VA - General Oneness of Brahman and Jiva. Brahman resides in Jiva. There is identity, but the two are also distinct. Quite logical.

 

 

Illogical, in fact, totally ludicrous. Uddhalaka painstakingly gives many, many analogies just to tell Swetaketu, 'You are not that, my son, and you're also that, my son.' So according to Ramanuja and co., Uddalaka wasted an entire upanishad to tell his son that he IS and he IS NOT brahman. Wow, great sri vaishnava logic.

Well, there's also no physical evidence of the existence of Sri Rama or Kanya Kumari, or any other avatar within Hinduism (excepting a few recent ones). There's hardly any evidence for Buddha. There's virtually no evidence for Lao Tzu or Confucius either. All religion is based on faith. To believe in Maheshwara or Sri Meenakshi Devi is based solely on faith, nothing else. So, what I was trying to say with the statement you quoted was: Why is it okay for one to have faith in Rama, but not to have faith in Jesus?

If you claim to be vaishnava, belief in Vishnu will suffice. You don't have to believe in jesus, mickey mouse, popeye and the rest.