Sankaracharya Vs. Ramanuj

[Guest guest]

 

But Maya exists, so forms do exist. You can say they cease, but if something is there then gone, you can't deny it was there.

 

 

But you can't deny it's gone either, which is why this state is neither sat nor asat but mithya. You're equating asat with mithya, which is the reason for your confusion.

 

 

And you are the boss, no one else is above you. I can see why it is so popular.

 

Wrong, because as long as you're conditioned, you're bound by the laws of karma and you must follow rules and regs. So you're not the boss, and you can't do as you please.

[Guest guest]

 

That is not the main controversy. It is your complete inability to describe the dreamer that is most unsatifisfactory.

 

 

It's your inability to understand that is most unsatisfactory. The dreamers are the conditioned jivas, whose real identity is Brahman, and that knowledge is covered by avidya. Which means, you can't attribute the flaws of conditioned jivas to Brahman, yet jiva/Brahman identity is never lost.

[theist 1]

Even after several requests you have not been able to directly account for the presence of the jivas existence in the first place so how can you continue to talk of jivas? First establish your foundation then build upon it.

 

Secondly everyone here knows that the jivas are dreaming. Dreaming is going on no dispute. However dreaming itself is an action. Advaita says Brahman is everything and INACTIVE. So how do you account for any action existing anywhere ever?

 

Vaisnava's also say the cause and effects of this material world are the results of the dreams of illusioned jiva's. But who has provided the necessary field for the living out of our dreams? Before Brahma there existed all the necessary ingredients for the jivas to construct their dreams from. The maha-tattva is the result of Vishnu's dreaming in His yoga nidra. The differnce being, Vishnu does not ever falsely identify with the dream He manifests. We do. That is the difference between the jiva and the Supreme Lord.

[Guest guest]

 

Even after several requests you have not been able to directly account for the presence of the jivas existence in the first place

 

Even after several answers, you're not able to understand that there's no cause for a beginningless entity. If there were, it wouldn't be a beginningless entity. This is accepted EVEN BY YOUR GAUDIYA SCHOOL.

 

 

Advaita says Brahman is everything and INACTIVE. So how do you account for any action existing anywhere ever?

 

Advaita doesn't say Brahman is everything. What you call "everything" is mithya, according to advaita. Brahman alone is satya. So your idea that Brahman is everything is flawed.

 

 

So how do you account for any action existing anywhere ever?

 

According to Gaudiya school, Krishna has auspicious qualities and is everthing. How then do you account for any inauspicious things existing anywhere at any time?

 

 

Vaisnava's also say the cause and effects of this material world are the results of the dreams of illusioned jiva's. But who has provided the necessary field for the living out of our dreams?

 

Even according to your gaudiya school, beginningless phenomena do not have a cause, so your questions do not arise for people who understand this. People who don't understand this make up stories as to which being created this, or whether there was an official date when the dream world was launched, and so forth!

[theist 1]

 

Even after several answers, you're not able to understand that there's no cause for a beginningless entity. If there were, it wouldn't be a beginningless entity. This is accepted EVEN BY YOUR GAUDIYA SCHOOL.

Gaudiya School teaches that Krsna is the Cause of all causes. We are beginningless but yet we have a cause. The sun and the sunlight appear simulataneously yet only a fool would ignore the fact the sun globe is the cause of sunlight. acintya bhedabheda tattva.

 

Please stop telling us what our schools think instead of answering the question directly according to Avaita. It is clear you have no answer so why do you keep embararassing yourself with these bluffs.

 

 

 

 

Advaita doesn't say Brahman is everything. What you call "everything" is mithya, according to advaita. Brahman alone is satya. So your idea that Brahman is everything is flawed.

Oh are you saying then that something exists that is not Brahman? Even if you think that only Brahman exists as impersonal spiritual energy then that is everything is it not?

Don't concern yourself with what you think I mean by this and that and just answer according to Advaita. The fact that you don't do this shows me that you don't have faith in Advaita at all.

 

 

 

 

According to Gaudiya school, Krishna has auspicious qualities and is everthing. How then do you account for any inauspicious things existing anywhere at any time?

Because Krsna has gifted jivas with an eternal free will. Free will is the boundary marker between you soul and another. Free will would mean nothing without the ability to choose between committing auspicious acts and inauspicious acts. The material field is here for those jivas that want to commit inauspicious acts, such as claiming that there is no Supreme personality of Godhead for example.

 

Krsna says in the Gita "In one sense I am everything, but yet I am independent." Krsna is never touched by inauspiciousness yet it exists in the field of one of His energies.

 

 

 

 

Even according to your gaudiya school, beginningless phenomena do not have a cause, so your questions do not arise for people who understand this. People who don't understand this make up stories as to which being created this, or whether there was an official date when the dream world was launched, and so forth!

Covered in question one. We say Krsna is the Cause of all causes. Stick to you own philosophy when we want to learn what GV's accept as truth we know from whom to listen.

 

No one here wants to hear your lecture on what we believe. You jumped in to defend Advaita so that is what you should be trying to explain. I suspect you at one time were interested somewhat in GV siddhanta but choose Advaita istead. That is all right as that is your Krsna given right to ignore Him in what ever way you choose.

[brajeshwara das 0]

 

But you can't deny it's gone either, which is why this state is neither sat nor asat but mithya. You're equating asat with mithya, which is the reason for your confusion.

I don't think it is 'gone' like you say, I think it is still here even if by some great mercy I get to Goloka Vrindavan. There are still spirit souls here that need mercy. It wasn't all just a figment of my imagination. They exist independent of my particular illusion.

 

 

Wrong, because as long as you're conditioned, you're bound by the laws of karma and you must follow rules and regs. So you're not the boss, and you can't do as you please.

 

If I'm not the boss than we aren't 'one'. We are one and different. Who makes the rules and regs, me, in my Brahman state that I seem to have forgotten I created?

[brajeshwara das 0]

 

He is Supreme, because He is Brahman. What's the confusion in this?

 

As Brahman, He's ever free of illusion, so why do you have the wrong idea that He is not independent of illusion? Even according to your gaudiya tradition, would you say Krishna is not supreme and has material connection, just because He appears in the material world?

 

Because we're conditioned jivas and He is Brahman, we're not one with Him. But in the unconditioned state, there is jiva/Brahman identity.

 

It's not about holding position, it's about degree of awareness. We're conditioned and He's not, which is why we worship Him as Saguna Brahman.

 

That's on account of your dualistic thinking.

 

This is all nonsense. If there is a we and there is a He there is difference. You can say it is on account of my dualistic thinking all you want, it doesn't make your broken pot hold water.

[Guest guest]

Re: Dvaita and Advaita: A Reconciliation

 

· Re: Dvaita and Advaita: A Reconciliation -

·

anand hudli writes:

[...]

|> At the risk of being criticized by both sides, especially by Dvaitins

|> who may find my attempt to bring Dvaita into the Advaitic fold obnoxious,

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

This is akin to saying, we have what you have and more.

Certainly is not in the spirit of reconciliation.

 

The correct attitude would be let us bring Dvaita and Advaita together

under Vedanta or some other neutral framework. By opening with "bring

Dvaita into Advaita" you have already set the tone that advaita is

infalliable and where there is a need for compromise, it will be dvaita

that will take the hit and there are several instance of this in your

post as I will point out.

 

|> Advaita has a long tradition of reconciliation with other systems,

|> to the extent they do not violate its own basic tenets. For

|> example, concepts from Sankhya-Yoga and Nyaya-Vaiseshika are

|> borrowed with a few changes.

 

Acintya bheda-abheda and dvaita also have recognized samkhya and nyaya and

share several views with them so advaita is not unique here.

 

|> Let us look at the main tenets of Dvaita and consider them one by one.

|> An often quoted verse capturing the philosophy of Madhva is:

|>

|> SrIman madhvamate harih paratarah satyam jagat tattvato

|> bhedah jIvagaNA hareranucarA nIcoccabhAvam gatAh |

|> muktir naijasukhAnubhUtir amalA bhaktih tatsAdhanam

|> hyakshAdi tritayam pramANam akhilAmnAyaikavedyo harih ||

|>

|> 1) harih paratarah| Hari is the Supreme Lord and there is none

|> superior to Hari. Hari is the One and Only Independent Reality.

|>

|> There are two possible Advaitic interpretations here. a) Hari is the

|> Brahman described in Vedanta.

 

This is the *only* correct interpretation, because sruti says so.

 

"param caparam ca brahma yad aumkarah" (Pr. 5.1) Aum is verily the higher

and the lower Brahman.

 

and "harih aum" (Ch. 8.1.1) Hari is Aum.

 

Also "so'dhvanah param apnoti tad visnoh paramam padam" (Ka. 1.3.9)

he who has the understanding of the driver reaches the supreme abode

of Vishnu. Further it says "purusan na param kincit, sa kastha, sa

para gatih" (1.3.11).

 

|> Brahman is the One and Only Reality.

 

Not so.

 

With regard to Brahman, sruti says "satyasya satyam iti" (Br. 2.3.6)

He is The True among the (many) true, i.e. the highest truth, the only

independent truth. It does not say He is the only truth. Jivas are also

true but they are not independent truths.

 

|> sarvam khalvidam brahma, says the Chandogya Upanishad. When everything

|> is Brahman, the question of superior and inferior reality does not

|> arise. Thus, saying Brahman is the Supreme Lord or the Supreme Reality

|> does not go against Advaita.

 

sarvam khalva idam brahman means "this whole world is Brahman" however

sruti also says "satyasya satyam iti" (Br. 2.3.6 - na iti, na iti) with

regards to Brahman, and "nityo nityanam, cetanas cetananam" (Ka. 2.2.13).

So jivas are also satya and nityam but Hari is The Truth among the true,

Eternal among eternals, etc. That is the teaching.

 

Sruti does *never* say "ekam satyam" or "ekam nityam" or "nityo anityanam".

 

|> b) Some Advaitins may say that Hari is the Isvara and not the Nirguna

|> Brahman. Even in this case, Harih paratarah stands!

 

No it does not. Using you own quote from later in this article:

 

tasmAt kutarkam santyajya mumukShuh SrutimASrayet |

Srutau tu mAyA jIveSau karotIti pradarSitam || 8.68

 

The aspirant for moksha should give up resorting to faulty

logic and fix his conviction on Sruti. That the Jiva and

ISvara are creations of Maya is shown in the Sruti.

 

"Ishvara is the creation of maya" - this is the filthiest of the advaitan

statements and absolutely no reconciliation is possible with one who

insists on using such lowly views.

 

That Ishvara is "brahman with the limiting adjunct of maya" itself is

questionable, to say he is "creation of maya" is complete nonsense.

 

Also, there is no mention of maya creating jiva and Ishvara in any of the

principal Upanisads or Vedanta as you Swami claims.

 

Rather sruti says, "purnam adah, purnam idam, purnat purnam udacyate"

(Br. 5.2.1),

 

"atma va idam eka evagra asit, sa aiksata lokan nu sraja iti" (At. 1.1.4)

directly refutes that the creator is Saguna Brahman since the word "atma"

is used which applies to the infinite Nirguna Brahman ("satyam jnanam anantam

brahma" Tr. 2.1.1).

 

The sutra "gunah cha na atma-sabdat" 1.1.6 unquestionably proves that creator

is Nirguna Brahman (FYI, this is from Baladev's Govinda Bhasya).

 

|> And who is Isvara? He is Brahman with the limiting adjunct mAyA.

 

No sir. Yo will have to violate several srutis for that.

 

"tatha param brahma param brahantam...isam tam jnatvamrta bhavanti" (Sv 3.10)

Higher than that (that here refers to Rudra/Siva from the previous verse) is

Brahman, the Supreme ... knowing Him, the Lord, literally says "isam" i.e.

Ishvara, men become immortal. Further note the sutra 1.1.6

 

So Brahman *is* Ishvara.

 

This "with the limiting adjunct mAyA" is your dogma.

 

siddhataya ghanta pathatvaat, and this is the royal highway of philosophy.

 

|> The standard position of Advaita regarding Isvara is as follows: while it

|> is possible for each Jiva to become one with Brahman, it is impossible

|> for a Jiva to become Isvara Himself. He is the controller of mAyA and is

|> not controlled by it, as Jivas are.

 

Now there is another big problem. I have already shown that Hari *is*

Nirguna Brahman. Now what is the need for a seperate Ishvara and who is

that Ishvara? Is it hiranyagarbha?

 

The sruti does speak of lower and higher Brahman, "param caparam ca brahma",

"paramam brahma veda brahmaiva bhavati" (Mu. 3.2.9) etc. So clarification

is needed regarding the lower brahman. In fact so far I haven't found a

good one anywhere but am still looking.

 

|> mAyAm tu prakRtim vidyAn mAyinam tu maheSvaram. Furthermore, there

|> cannot be two or more Isvaras.

 

There certainly cannot be two (or more) Creators. We haven't setteled on

who is it that you refer to as Ishvara yet or do we even need a seperate one.

 

|> Thereby it follows that Isvara is the

|> Supreme Ruler of the World and no Jiva can ever become ISvara.

|> (Please see point 6 below.)

|> Thus ISvarah paratarah fits very well with Advaita. Why is it

|> that Hari is Isvarah? Why not other Gods?

 

Hari is paramam brahman and is also the creator as per the sutra 1.1.6

 

|> agnirvai devAnAmavamo viShNuh paramah | tadantarA sarvA devatAh ||

|> "Agni is the lowest and Vishnu is the highest among Gods. All other

|> gods occupy positions that are in between." Thus says the Aitareya

|> Brahmana. We, Advaitins must therefore accept Vishnu as the Supreme

|> among Gods.

 

Thank you. I hope the advaitans here will be pleased to see this, I

have had differences with them on this.

 

|> 2) satyam jagat| The world is real.

 

Here I actually am with the advaitans so much so that I look at "jagan

mithya" meaning that this world is not the place for us to be since all

srutis speak of release from this world. So the world is mithya in the

sense that my neighbors house is mithya for me, i.e. is not my home.

 

|> statement from BRhadAraNyaka upanishad:

|> yatra vA asya sarvamAtmaivAbhUt tatkena kam jighret tatkena

|> kam paSyet |

|>

|> Where for whom all this has become the AtmA, who smells whom and with

|> what? Who sees whom and with what?

 

To this we point out nityo nityanam cetanas cetananam.

 

And, we know that jiva is atomic in size, "eso 'nur atma" (Mu. 3.1.9), is neiter

female nor male nor neuter "naiva stri na puman esa na" (Sv. 5.10 ) etc. So

certainly there is no question of seeing, smelling, touching etc. after moksha

which is exactly what Yajnavalkya is telling Maitreyi in this passage.

 

So yatra tv asya sarvam atmaivabhut fits perfectly with dvaita and acintya-

bheda-abheda.

 

On the contrary, your lofty philosophy of advaita completly chokes on

"nityo nityanam cetanas cetananam".

 

|> There cannot be two or more eternal realities as that would lead to

|> what philosophers call "hopeless dualism."

 

I already said this is wrong and will expalin it further here.

 

"nityo nityanam cetanas cetananam eko bahunam yo vidadhati kaman"

 

Now this clearly speaks of the Lord Hari with regard to mukta jivas

since it says "nityan, cetanam" etc. which are not applied to the samsari

jivas and even more important is that it tells us that the jivas are

eternally dependent upon Hari, even in mukti, otherwise we would have to

assume that jivas simply are never liberated.

 

So there is certainly more than one eternal realities and Hari fulfills

the desires of the rest of the eternal realities.

 

So your philosophy here is nothing but "hopeless nihilism"!

 

|> 4) jIvagaNA hareranucarAh | The jivas are dependent or under the control

|> of Hari. Right on the dot, according to the Advaitins. All jivas are

|> under the control of ISvara or Hari. By jIva, Advaitins mean Brahman

|> with the limiting adjunct of the individual mAyA or ajnAna or avidyA.

|> ISvara, however, is Brahman with the limiting adjunct of the collective

|> mAyA, samaShTi, and there is not even a trace of rajas and tamas in

|> Him.

 

I already pointed out that Hari is *not* the Ishvara that you talk about

because later you quoted "Ishvara is a creation of maya" which is ludicruous.

 

|> 6) muktir naijasukhAnubhUtih | Moksha is the realization of innate

|> happiness of the self. Here, Dvaitins believe that the individual

|> soul active enjoys felicity even after it attains moksha. The soul

|> attains all its desires and enjoys bliss and pleasure. However, the

|> soul does not have the power of creation which belongs exclusively to

|> the Lord. Madhva does not hold that attaining Moksha is to be

|> avoided, unlike some of the other Vaisnava sects.

 

Let me offer a correction here.

 

Baladev Vidyabhusana explicitly says that sayujaya is the highest form of

mukti and that bhakti especially when combined with vidya and vairagya

immediately causes release, "krashna-vapti-fala bhaktir-ekantatra-bhidhiyate,

jnana-vairagya-purva sa falam sadhyah prakashate" (Premeya Ratnavali 8.12)

He also cites Narayana Upanisad that says "sayujyam gacchati" which also

says the mukta jiva in sayujya participates in the eternal sport with Hari.

 

Also, the fact that sruti says "sayujyam gacchati" (Ch. 2.21.2) and "dva

suparna sayuja sakhaya" (Mu. 3.1.3) and the fact that Advaitans also regard

sayujya as the highest form of liberation only goes against the advaitic

interpretation of "yatra tv asya sarvam atmaivabhut" meaning Brahman alone is.

 

Since sruti says "dva suparna sayujya", two in sayujya, clearly means that

sayujya does not mean it all becomes absolutely one rather it only only means

"intimately connected" or "inseperable" but not one.

 

I believe, Ramanuja also said liberation is to be sought, so your statement

that "unlike some of the other Vaisnava sects" does not hold atleast not

against any major sect.

 

So in the Gaudias, it is only the later asampradayas like Hare Krishnas who

say that sayujya is impersonal liberation talk of avoiding even thinking

about liberation.

 

|> In his commentary on Brahma Sutras (Ch. 4 Section 3), Sankara

|> BhagavatpAda says that the soul of one who knows the Saguna Brahman

|> or the Conditioned Brahman goes to Brahmaloka.

 

This brahma-loka is the abode of Brahma/Hiranyagarbha which is why the

word "parantakale" (at the time of dissolution) is used with it.

 

"te brahma-lokesu parantakale paramrtah parimucyanti sare" (Mu. 3.2.6)

 

The jivas who go their still worship Hari!

 

"ya ete brahma-loke tam va etam deva atamanam upasate" (Ch. 8.12.6)

 

|> The soul stays there

|> enjoying bliss and all divine powers except the power of creation

|> which belongs exclusively to ISvara.

 

Well, they worship the Para Brahman there and thereby enjoy bliss.

Not otherwise.

 

|> What happens to those who meditate on the Saguna Brahman?

 

First clear this whole mess about Saguna and Nirguna Brahman. That Hari is

Saguna Brahman is not acceptable, so any further discussion on this is but

a waste of time.

 

|> 7) amalA bhaktih tatsAdhanam | The means of achieving Moksha is

|> uncontaminated Bhakti.

 

Sruti also says that, "tam he devam atma-buddhi-prakasam mumuksur vai saranam

aham prapadye" (Sv. 6.18), "upasate purusan ye hy akamas te sukram etad

ativartanti dhirah" (Mu. 3.2.1) and several others.

 

|> Krishna clearly states that bhakti and the worship of the

|> unmanifested (Brahman) both lead to the same goal. Krishna also

|> adds that the meditation on the unmanifested Brahman is very

|> difficult and thus recommends the path of Bhakti to Arjuna.

 

Thats your misinterpretation of that section. In sruti we clearly see that

bkakti of the omnipresent and even the unmanifest is prescribed.

 

"divyo hy amurtah purusah" (Mu. 2.1.2), "sarva bhutantaratma" (1.2.3),

"justam yada pasyaty anyam isam" (Mu. 3.1.2) since it is beyond doubt

that Hari is both the manifest and the unmanifest, the higher and the lower

brahman as per sruti.

 

Shankara is at fault here saying that the bhaktas are fools who worship the

Ishvara/Saguna brahman who is a creation of Maya (as per your other Swami)

just as jiva is a creation of maya.

|> Understand that Krishna is the Soul (Atman) of all Beings.

 

Yes and that means He is Nirguna brahman and not Saguna who is a creation

of maya per your dogma.

 

|> 8) akShAditritayam pramANam | The means of right knowledge are perception,

|> inference, and scriptural testimony, ie. pratyaksha, aumAna, and Sabda.

|>

|> Hence, logic will be of limited use in dealing with suprasensous

|> knowledge. It may only be useful in showing the possibility of

|> transcendental facts, such as Brahman, Atman, etc., but it is incapable

|> of conclusively establishing those facts. We need Sruti to reveal truths

|> that are beyond the range of the senses. Again, when it comes to Sruti,

|> Dvaitins needlessly use extensive logical machinery to interpret even

|> direct, unambiguous statements. If they think perceptual knowledge and

|> logic take precedence over Sruti whenever it is in conflict with them,

|> let them read the KhanDanakhanDakhAdya of SrIharSha MiSra, where he

|> systematically routs the logical arguments of the logicians using logic!

 

I don't know a lot about dvaitans but with acintya bheda-abheda, Baladev uses

little logic in his Govinda Bhasya and explains all the sutras *directly*

using sruti vakyas. All that is required is that sruti should be considered

as a whole, in full context.

 

You dogma says there are four "mahavakyas". Why impose hierarchy on sruti?

So here we use logic to establish that you are wrong.

 

|> Srutyartham viSadIkurmo na tarkAdvacmi kincana |

|> tena tArkikaSankAnAmatra ko'vasaro vada || 8.67

|>

|> I explain the meaning of Sruti; I do not explain it merely

|> from a logical standpoint. Tell me, where is the opportunity

|> to raise doubts about the logic here ?

 

Let me offer another correction here. Logic is the scienc of reasoning, it

is not something purely mundane. Advaitans themself use logic, it is only

when cornered that they talk of denouncing logic.

 

But we know if we bring logic in, advaita disappears like a hare's horn, a

fact acknowleged by none other than Madhusudana saraswati himself about

Nyayamrata of Vyasatirtha.

 

|> tasmAt kutarkam santyajya mumukShuh SrutimASrayet |

|> Srutau tu mAyA jIveSau karotIti pradarSitam || 8.68

|>

|> The aspirant for moksha should give up resorting to faulty

|> logic and fix his conviction on Sruti. That the Jiva and

|> ISvara are creations of Maya is shown in the Sruti.

 

That is is completly baseless has already been shown. "balagra-sata-bhagasya

satadha kalpitasya ca; bhago jivah sa vijneyah sa canantyaya kalpate" (Sv. 5.9)

Further it describes thta jiva is neither male nor female, smaller than the

smallest, greater than the greatest (borrowing the qualities of its cause

Para Brahman) etc.

 

Even in Gita, Krishna says "mamaivamso jiva-loke jiva-bhutah sanatanah"!

 

Where did this Swami got the idea that jiva is creation of maya?

 

|> 9) akhilAmnAyaikavedyo harih | Hari, and Hari alone, is to be

|> known from all the scriptures.

|>

|> The Brahma sutra 1.1.3, SAstrayonitvAt, says that Brahman, Hari

|> is to be known from the scriptures. Since Brahman is the only

|> ultimate Reality, all descriptions in the scriptures, even if

|> they apparently refer to other deities, really describe Him.

 

Hari, who is the Nirguna brahman, is to be known thru the scriptures is

indeed correct. "tam tva aupanisadam purusam prcchami" (Br. 3.9.28) "that

is the person taught in the Upanisads about whom I ask you".

 

So advaitans are wrong in saying that Brahman cannot be known but only

inferred from the scriptures, that He is completly indescribeable, etc.

 

|> The great teachers of Vedanta have always felt the need to

|> reconcile differing views with their own. In fact, the first

|> chapter of Brahma Sutras is called samanvaya adhyAya or the

|> chapter of reconciliation. Let us follow this example so that

|> we will be spiritually enriched by different schools of Vedanta.

 

It is indeed a good aim but I have to say that your means are far from fair.

 

|> In closing, I would like to quote the following from the dvAdaSa stotra

|> of Madhva:

|>

|> akShayam karma yasmin pare svarpitam

|> prakShayam yAnti duhkhAni yannAmatah |

|> akSharo yo'jarah sarvadaivAmRtah

|> kukShigam yasya viSvam sadAjAdikam |

|> prINayAmo vAsudevam

|> devatAmaNDalAkhaNDamaNDanam || (8.11)

|>

|> By dedicating work to Whom it becomes imperishable, by uttering Whose

|> names miseries melt away, Who is indestructible, undecaying, the nectar of

|> divinity, in Whose belly lies the universe beginning with Brahma, and Who

|> is the integral ornament of the assemblage of all gods, we propitiate that

|> VAsudeva.

|>

|> SrI vAsudevArpaNam |

 

Anand, I have read your postings in the past but have to say that this one was

rather unfair for most part but then equally futile would be our attempt "to

bring advaita into dvaitic fold". Had you at least named the article correcly,

adopting dvaita into advaita or something of that nature, I'd have completly

ignored it since I have withdrawn from the net discussions for most part.

 

om name bhagvate vasudevaya!

[Guest guest]

 

This is all nonsense.

[brajeshwara das 0]

 

 

And I already explained why.

 

1. Ask questions to the opponent

2. Dismiss the answers as nonsense

3. Repeat the same questions again

4. Dismiss the answers again as nonsense

5. Repeat the same questions again

 

How long are you planning to keep this going?

 

Om

You? There is no 'you' here! Only You. Are you talking to yourself again? Only crazy people do that...

 

I'm just done with the debate. You can't prove exclusive oneness against the evidence there is difference. We are discussing this here now, or do you disagree? Are you just under an illusion that we are discussing it? If so, why continue if you have the realization it is all one? Who is there to convince? Why bother?

 

The truth as far as I'm concerned is acintya bhedabheda. I think I'll lightheartedly let this thread go now.

[theist 1]

 

Re: Dvaita and Advaita: A Reconciliation

 

· Re: Dvaita and Advaita: A Reconciliation -

·

anand hudli writes:

[...]

|> At the risk of being criticized by both sides, especially by Dvaitins

|> who may find my attempt to bring Dvaita into the Advaitic fold obnoxious,

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

This is akin to saying, we have what you have and more.

Certainly is not in the spirit of reconciliation.

 

The correct attitude would be let us bring Dvaita and Advaita together

under Vedanta or some other neutral framework. By opening with "bring

Dvaita into Advaita" you have already set the tone that advaita is

infalliable and where there is a need for compromise, it will be dvaita

that will take the hit and there are several instance of this in your

post as I will point out.

 

I understand the repliers objections to the use of the term "reconciliation" as meaning Dvaita must somehow be dovetailed with Advaita. The thought is preposterous. Vaisnava's will not move as much as the space occupied by one atom away from Krsna's lotus feet in the name of reconciliation or for any other reason. The only reconciliation that we beginner Vaisnavas seek is to reconcile or dovetail our will with Krsna's will.

 

Krsna consciousness as taught by Mahaprabhu and his disciples (simultaneous oneness and difference) is the already reconciled positon that includes purified Avaita in it's proper place. There will be no compromise coming from the Vaisnava sector.

 

From their perspective Vaisnavas are already seen to love and adore the Brahman effulgence of Krsna. They undersand that it is Krsna's aura, His radiance, and therefore it is unspeakably beautiful and glorious.

 

If some individual souls wish to merge into that effulgence and take a rest from their material misery we can surely understand and are sympathic. Those of us who are beginners on the Vaisnava path also desire liberation from samsara. We just see a higher more perfect way of accomplishing that. A way in which liberation itself which looks so big to us now will become insignificant as our attraction to loving service to Krsna dawns and grows. We see no need for seeking an eternal death like state and prefer the path of eternal life instead.

[Guest guest]

 

The truth as far as I'm concerned is acintya bhedabheda. I think I'll lightheartedly let this thread go now.

 

Glad to hear that. Now you are tolerant.

 

Om

[brajeshwara das 0]

 

Glad to hear that. Now you are tolerant.

 

Om

 

Nonsense, I'm as intolerant as you are.