Guest guest Report post Posted October 31, 1999 Dear shrI Mani: 1. One of the Ahobila MaTha publications which was displayed in one of your shrI-VaiShNava meetings (shown by ShrI Bindu Madhavan to shrI Shrisha Rao) I believe said that this Injimettu Swami " defeated " the then reigning Pontiff of the UttarAdi MaTha. If the debate took place somewhere between 1929 and 1942, then the reigning Pontiff of the UttarAdi MaTha had to have been none other than the legendary SatyadhyAna TIrtha who occupied the pITha between 1913 and 1942. Let me tell you something here. The UttarAdi MaTha is one of the most prestigious maThas of our tradition. 90% of the Deshastha MAdhva community are parishoners of it. It is the pontiffs and paNDits of this maTha that have been the principal vanguards and defenders of our faith over the ages (tho' not exclusively so!) HH SatyadhyAna TIrtha was one of its most distinguished pontiffs. He was a lion as a scholar and a legend as a pontiff. When he ascended the pITha, I believe he took a vow to convert at least one Advaitin and one VishishTAdvaitin during his pontificate. That promise he kept. The Advaitin convert was Mr. H. Subba Rao (under whom I had the privilage of learning VAdirAja TIrtha's SvapnavRNdAvanAkhyAna during my sojourn at UDupi). VidvAn Subba Rao lived his last days and died at the ShirUr MaTha of uDupi. The " AyyangAr " vidvAn was V.N.Desikachari who after his conversion was renamed AkShobhyAcArya. Believe me Mr. Mani, if HH SatyadhyAna TIrtha was ever " defeated " in a debate, it would not have been news, it would have been BIG NEWS in our community. So Injimettu Swami may have had a verbal encounter with HH SatyadhyAna TIrtha, but " defeated " ? that streching the truth a little too much! 2. DharmabhUtajn~Ana. This is your old stand-by. Based on some obscure and weird interpretation of the shruti passage " nahi vijn~Atur vijn~Ater viparilopo vidyate " (BRhadAraNyakopaniShad IV:3:30) the alledged existence of this adjunct jn~Ana is established. Both the jIvas and the Lord are supposed to possess it PERMANENTLY. In case of the former, it is a tragedy and in the case of the latter (God) it is an outright blasphemy. By positing this jn~Ana, one is rendering the svarUpajn~Ana (which is of the essence of the jIva) epistemically impotent. Worse is the case when it comes to OUR LORD. God, who by his very svarUpa is omniscient, needs an adjunct device like dharmabhUtajn~Ana to operate? The Sarvatantra SVATANTRA LORD NEEDS dharmabhUtajn~Ana!! Truly sacriligeous. It is almost analogous to requiring eyeglasses despite having eyes. Furthermore, God is ONE without any internal differences as attested to by the shruti: " ekamevAdvitIyam " (ChAndogyopaniShad VI:2:1). Also, look at the confusion. dharmabhUtajn~Ana is classified as a dravya in your ontological scheme but functions like an adravya ( " attributive consciousness " ). What's the point then in primarily dichotomizing Reality into dravya and adravya. Weird to say the least! 3. SMS Chari. He can best be described as someone who is " envious of Advaita and jealous of Dvaita " . He once told me over the phone that really speaking Advaita is best, but because it cannot stand scrutiny, by default, VishiShTAdvaita is then the best. It was truly shocking! As for Dvaita, he has only pejorative expletives of " che " and " thU " even before he begins criticizing it. It is not just my experience, but also that of our mutual friends Mr. & Mrs. G.V. Srinivasan of Corning, NY. SMS even once told me that he had gone to the PUrNaprajn~a VidyApITha in Bangalore and held all the scholars there in awe of him. Some likely story. I checked with some vidyApITha scholars and they said no such " jaw-dropping " incident ever took place. He merely visited the place. So, I am not going to take anything he says too seriously! Don't even bother to mention him. Cite SS Raghavachar if you so please. He was a true scholar and a gentleman. The attitude of you shrI-VaiShNavas in general is really one of jealousy against Dvaita. You want to monopolize VaiShNavism for yourselves, and the existence of us better BhAgavatas with better logic and equipment to deal with Advaita proves to be a pain in the neck to you folks. It is nothing but good old-fashioned jealousy. You are not really VaishNavas. RAmAnuja ignored the greatest gospel of VaiShNavism, the BhAgavata PurANa. Some VaiShNavas! " pUrNaprajn~a tRtIyastu BHAGAVADKAARYA SAADHAKAH " Hari-VAyu smaraNa regards, B.N.Hebbar Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 31, 1999 >1. One of the Ahobila MaTha publications which was displayed >in one of your shrI-VaiShNava meetings (shown by ShrI Bindu >Madhavan to shrI Shrisha Rao) I believe said that this >Injimettu Swami " defeated " the then reigning Pontiff of the [...] >Believe me Mr. Mani, if HH SatyadhyAna TIrtha was ever > " defeated " in a debate, it would not have been news, it would >have been BIG NEWS in our community. So Injimettu Swami may >have had a verbal encounter with HH SatyadhyAna TIrtha, but > " defeated " ? that streching the truth a little too much! I think that isn't likely to convince Mani or his brethren too well; it might amount to saying that since our tradition does not record an instance of Sri Satyadhyana Tiirtha losing, such an event did not occur. However, the flaw in this argument is seen when the Advaitins claim similarly about Vidyaranya. A defeated tradition would presumably purge all records pertaining to the defeat! A better guide would simply be to ask the Sri Vaishnavas to come up with specific claims of Srimad Ananda Tiirtha and refutations of the same by them. It is all well and good to make amorphous and vague claims that `Ananda-tAratamya' was shown to be illogical, or else ungrammatical in interpretation, etc., but if they could come up with concrete instances and examples, and demonstrate that we would truly be tongue-tied, that would be far more impressive. History records, for instance, that the debate between Srimad Acharya and Pundarika Puri is recorded in one of the former's prakaraNa texts. As one is not aware that any Advaitin to date has written a refutation of said text, or else been able to give concrete answers to its arguments, the matter rests on better evidence than the conflicting narratives of various traditions. Regards, Shrisha Rao >B.N.Hebbar Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 31, 1999 >1. One of the Ahobila MaTha publications which was displayed >in one of your shrI-VaiShNava meetings (shown by ShrI Bindu >Madhavan to shrI Shrisha Rao) I believe said that this >Injimettu Swami " defeated " the then reigning Pontiff of the [...] >Believe me Mr. Mani, if HH SatyadhyAna TIrtha was ever > " defeated " in a debate, it would not have been news, it would >have been BIG NEWS in our community. So Injimettu Swami may >have had a verbal encounter with HH SatyadhyAna TIrtha, but > " defeated " ? that streching the truth a little too much! I think that isn't likely to convince Mani or his brethren too well; it might amount to saying that since our tradition does not record an instance of Sri Satyadhyana Tiirtha losing, such an event did not occur. However, the flaw in this argument is seen when the Advaitins claim similarly about Vidyaranya. A defeated tradition would presumably purge all records pertaining to the defeat! A better guide would simply be to ask the Sri Vaishnavas to come up with specific claims of Srimad Ananda Tiirtha and refutations of the same by them. It is all well and good to make amorphous and vague claims that `Ananda-tAratamya' was shown to be illogical, or else ungrammatical in interpretation, etc., but if they could come up with concrete instances and examples, and demonstrate that we would truly be tongue-tied, that would be far more impressive. History records, for instance, that the debate between Srimad Acharya and Pundarika Puri is recorded in one of the former's prakaraNa texts. As one is not aware that any Advaitin to date has written a refutation of said text, or else been able to give concrete answers to its arguments, the matter rests on better evidence than the conflicting narratives of various traditions. Regards, Shrisha Rao >B.N.Hebbar Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 1, 1999 Dear Sri Balaji, I have not even started presenting my reply and you have already started insulting both myself and my acharyas. I ask you, is it really necessary to start making unfounded, personal attacks, instead of purely sticking to the issues at hand? Please note that I have not attacked the personality of a single Dvaitin in my notes so far. I don't want any awards for my behavior, but I always presume that this is the least amount of decorum one should show while conducting a serious intellectual discussion. I had assumed the same courtesy would be shown on your side. Do you intend to promote a serious, thought-provoking discussion by making blustery comments such as " the attitude of you shrI-VaiShNavas in general is really one of jealousy against Dvaita? " What do you intend to gain by questioning the very sincerity and Vaishnavatva of Sri Ramanuja? In our tradition, and I presume yours, bhAgavata-apachAra is taken as the gravest of all possible sins, the only one that the Lord does not forgive. It is ok to disagree with someone intellectually -- this is not apachAra -- but to denigrate a bhAgavata to the point of questioning his allegiance to God is behavior that is unworthy of someone who poses as a scholar, and for someone who is requesting a serious discussion of Vedantic topics. If it is your intention to carry out the discussion in such an inflammatory manner, I hereby refuse to sink to your level. I only wish, Sri Balaji, that you would attempt to abide by 1% of the intellectual and scholarly integrity of a Jaya Tirtha, Vyasa Tirtha, or Vadiraja Tirtha, not to speak of Srimad Ananda Tirtha. bhaktAnghrireNu, Mani Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 2, 1999 Shrisha Rao wrote: > I think that isn't likely to convince Mani or his brethren too well; > it might amount to saying that since our tradition does not record > an instance of Sri Satyadhyana Tiirtha losing, such an event did not > occur. However, the flaw in this argument is seen when the Advaitins > claim similarly about Vidyaranya. A defeated tradition would presumably > purge all records pertaining to the defeat! > I agree with the basic premise, but there are some distinctions between the record keeping and neutral parties recording history (such as newspapers) available 50 years ago compared with 600 years ago during the sri akshobhya theertha and sri vidyaranya debate. If such a " significant defeat " did take place, it should be possible to find in the archives of " The Hindu " or other newspapers some report about this. > > A better guide would simply be to ask the Sri Vaishnavas to come up > with specific claims of Srimad Ananda Tiirtha and refutations of the > same by them. It is all well and good to make amorphous and vague > claims that `Ananda-tAratamya' was shown to be illogical, or else > ungrammatical in interpretation, etc., but if they could come up > with concrete instances and examples, and demonstrate that we would > truly be tongue-tied, that would be far more impressive. History > records, for instance, that the debate between Srimad Acharya and Pundarika > Puri is recorded in one of the former's prakaraNa texts. As one is not > aware that any Advaitin to date has written a refutation of said text, or > else been able to give concrete answers to its arguments, the matter rests > on better evidence than the conflicting narratives of various traditions. > I agree that discussing ideas is better than referring to some event in the past. The ideas in the debate, if they are valid, should stand the test of time and should be valid even now. So, the best way is to bring forth these ideas and they can be discussed in this forum, Dvaita list or various other electronic forums that we have now. I want to emphasise another point in such a debate. When we are discussing such philosophical ideas, the best tradition of bramha jignasa or philosophical inquiry demands that we treat each pUrva paksha with dignity and care. This is because when we are doing the inquiry we should be completely open minded about the outcome and prepared to accept whatever position that results from the inquiry. Since there is a small probability that any given pUrva paksha might be considered appropriate or valid, we should always keep an open mind about any pUrva paksha. Sri JayakrishNa emphasises this aspect in his talks and many members of this list share this view. We find this in the writings of sri Jayathirtha, where each pUrva paksha is carefully considered and surgically eliminated, but the ideas are always treated with dignity and there are no personal references. As followers of sri Jayathirtha, we should do the same and expect the same from the other side. References to the respect sri Jayathirtha and sri vidyAranya had towards each other is also instructive. On a related topic, I came across a discourse by sri Phalimaru swamiji more than 30 years ago, where he has listed a number of inconsistencies and defects in sri rAmAnuja's philosophy. That may be appropriate for a different thread in the future. > > Regards, > > Shrisha Rao > > Regards, Vasu Murthy -- ================================= Vasu Murthy Bell Atlantic Global Networks web page: members.xoom.com/vmurthy vmurthy W:703-247-7314 Fax:703-247-7359 ================================== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 2, 1999 Dear Sri Mani: Look who's acting like Mr. goody-good pecker. The very man who insulted the philosophy of ShrImad Ananda TIrtha BhagavadpAdAcArya as the " cruelest joke on mankind " . You have the audacity to say that you never insulted any Dvaitin. My remarks, Mr. Mani, were no different from yours. IT HURTS DOESN'T IT WHEN THE TRUTH IS POINTED OUT!!! Who is a better bhakta? The one who says his Ananda EQUALS that of the Lord (half-way home to Advaita) OR somebody who says that there is NONE equal to the LORD in ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER! Quit playing games. You still have to give me a list of Dvaita scholars who were/are admirers of AV Gopalacharya. Who is skirting the issue now? Either answer the points or accept defeat. Hari-vAyu smaraNa B.N.Hebbar Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 2, 1999 Dear Sri Balaji, I truly apologize for my comments made five years ago. I only realized late yesterday that Shrisha Rao had reposted what I had written so long ago (I read the VMS postings only on the Web -- I don't receive them as email). Back then, I was immature and I did not give other thinkers the respect they deserve. While I certainly do have some reservations about several of Srimad Ananda Tirtha's philosophical conclusions, I had no right back then to disparage him in public. I make this apology sincerely -- please accept it. Those words were written on Usenet, in newsgroups which have a tendency to have bombastic battles over insignificant topics. Please read Shrisha Rao's own ramblings vociferously attacking Visishtadvaita, Ramanuja, Advaita, and Sankara. In any case, I subsequently have matured, and my admiration of swamis such as Sri Vibudhesha Tirtha is genuine. To show you how I truly have evolved over these years, I am reposting an article on Sri Ananda Tirtha's theory of sAdhana that I wrote in 1996, based on a reasoned article by Sri S.S. Raghavachar. Hopefully, with this email, we can stop the personal attacks on Sri Ramanuja and concentrate on intellectual issues. Thank you, bhaktAnghrireNu, Mani ---- Mani Varadarajan <mani Newsgroups: soc.religion.vaishnava SrI madhva's concept of sAdhana 19 Apr 1996 03:49:36 GMT In recent months, we have read various netters post the Dvaita viewpoints on rather tangential issues -- the preterpersonal origin of the Veda, assertions regarding social egalitarianism, inherent inequality and hierarchy of souls, invalidity of other traditions, etc. All these are largely irrelevant issues compared to the heart of any Vedanta system, which is personal sAdhana. In this article, I seek to outline Sri Madhvacharya's concept of sAdhana, or religious practice. Through his many works, he comes across as one of the most fervent advocates of bhakti-rUpa-panna-jnAna -- knowledge ripened into love of God. As a non-Dvaiti, I respectfully offer this article as a symbol of appreciation that I have for the bhakti embodied in his philosophy. I hope I have done the acharya some justice. --- Sri Madhva declares quite forcefully that knowledge alone is the means to release from samsAra. Accordingly, he describes the highest form of such knowledge: The best knowledge is of the form of direct experience that is in accordance with the import of scripture. [com on Brahma Sutras, 2.1.19] Quite clearly, Madhva conceives of sAdhana as experiential; only experience guided by Sruti and rendered coherent by reason constitutes perfect knowledge. SravaNa ------- While the previous discussion speaks of knowledge in general terms, Madhva describes in further detail the nature of such liberating knowledge and the process by which it is generated. It goes without saying that only knowledge of the Supreme Reality leads to liberation. In other words, knowledge, in an ultimate sense, is knowledge of God. The initial understanding of God's nature is accomplished by ``SravaNa'', hearing about Him from ``sad Agamas'' and through the grace of the guru. Madhva himself enumerates what these sad Agamas or right scriptures are: the Vedas, the Mahabharata, the Pancaratra Samhitas, the Mula Ramayana (these latter two are apparently no longer extant) and other texts conforming to these, such as authoritative smritis. manana ------ However, mere SravaNa is not nearly enough, as bare textual knowledge does not provide conviction nor provide the devotee with an experience of the Divine. Madhva, agreeing with previous Vedanta acharyas in this regard, teaches that manana or careful reflection must follow SravaNa. For, at first glance, Sruti may appear self-contradictory and riddled with confusing statements. The aspirant is therefore required to critically consider the teachings and affirm them through careful reconsideration. While SravaNa seeks to plant the seed of knowledge in a barren mind, manana destroys skepticism that may arise from apparent contradictions and misconcepts. In fact, Madhva contends that we must go on learning the Agamas as long as ignorance persists, and go on reasoning about them as long as there is doubt regarding their reasonableness [com on Brahma Sutras, 4.1.12]. nidhidhyAsana ------------- When SravaNa and manana have begun to bear fruit in the aspirant, he is consequently established in the certitude of this mediate or paroksha knowledge. It is then that the process called nididhyAsana begins. NidhidhyAsana is intense contemplation of the presence of God, and is also denoted as upAsana and dhyAna in the Upanishads. Trivikrama Pandita's tattvadIpikA glowingly describes uparati as one of the characteristics of this contemplation. Uparati is taking delight in the indwelling presence of God [tattvadIpIkA on Brahma Sutras 1.1.1]. The question may arise as to why the aspirant is urged beyond mere mediate knowledge of God. The philosophy of Madhva gives a simple but compelling answer. Judging by the nature of God as learned >from the scriptures, this all-permeating and self- revealing Reality is certainly capable of providing us with more than a mere mediate understanding. Furthermore, Brahman is the exact antithesis of anything limited in time and space, which are the natural boundaries of mediate understanding. Finally, a non-perceptual experience of Brahman is declared in the Vedas to be of the very nature of bliss. It is but natural that the aspirant should strive to move beyond the limitations of mere mediate understanding and proceed to the blissful vision of the Absolute. Intense contemplation is thus the first step prescribed to get beyond mediate understanding. Madhva clearly states that one must practice meditation as long as one's knowledge of God is mediate and indirect. Once again, Trivikrama elucidates: Without continuous contemplation, the obstacles to the vision of the Infinite One cannot be annihilated. [ibid]. Madhva further clarifies the nature of the supreme devotee engaged in continuous contemplation. The wise ones, he says, meditate upon Him as immanent in all. [com on Brahma Sutras 1.1.31]. While many simpler modes of worship are not prohibited, the one that is accorded the highest status is meditation filled with the sense of the all-pervasiveness of God. aparokshajnAna -------------- While the three previous phases of sAdhana are no doubt essential, the liberating knowledge is yet something different and superior to them all. This direct or aparoksha jnAna is a vision of God Himself. Madhva is emphatic about this. Liberation is not accomplished by mere knowledge, but by immediate apprehension. [com on Brahma Sutras, 3.3.49] This knowledge is neither learning, reflection, nor mere meditation, but the culmination of all these, which is the direct vision of the Highest Self. This point is made repeatedly in the works of the acharya and cannot be overemphasized. bhakti ------ As of yet, I have not mentioned the hallmark of Madhva's theory of sAdhana, and that which permeates much of his writing: bhakti, or supreme love of God. Just as Ramanuja was before him, Madhva was a philosopher of bhakti. Bhakti is the essential ingredient in the success of all the aforementioned stages of sAdhana, including the prerequisite karma-yoga, which is performed as service to the Lord and which cleanses the mind. Madhva sets forth the principle in the Vishnu Tattva Vinirnaya that the SAstras yield their secrets only to those who have steadfast love of God. Even mediate knowledge, which relies heavily on the mental processes of hearing and understanding, cannot be complete without love of God. Meditation itself is dhyAna of which bhakti is the most essential part. In fact, Madhva carefully includes bhakti as the vital ingredient to aparoksha jnAna: The principal sources of the wealth of knowledge are SravaNa, manana, dhyAna, and bhakti, and nothing else. [com on BS 1.1.1] In fact, the state of release contains within it the supreme joy of the unalloyed practice of bhakti. So, bhakti is not merely a means, but an end in itself. Madhva fervently records this in anuvyAkhyAna 3.4: From bhakti arises Vedantic knowledge. From that arises further bhakti. From that bhakti arises the vision of God. From the vision of God arises further bhakti. From that bhakti follows release. The bliss of supreme state of release consists of bhakti itself. Bhakti is therefore the universal means at every stage of the pilgrimage of the finite self to God, and also constitutes its very end. It is appropriate here to give an exact definition of bhakti as understood by Madhva. It is not mere emotional love of God, without any component of understanding. Rather, Love that is preceded by a knowledge of the greatness of its object, that is immovable, and that exceeds all other loves, is bhakti. Only through it is liberation attained and by no other way. [com on BS 3.2.19] All conquering, all exceeding, and fully enlightened adoration of God is bhakti. prasAda ------- The final two phases of aparokshajnAna and bhakti constitute a fine intellectual synthesis of the Upanishadic dictum that knowledge alone liberates, and the PaurANika tradition that followed that extolled the devotional spirit. Madhva, as did Ramanuja, demonstrated the basic unity of the Upanishadic philosophy of God-knowledge with the religion of God-love. The final but unmistakably most important phase of the souls ascent to God is prasAda, the grace of the Supreme. Madhva on more than one occasion declares that without this grace, moksha is unattainable. [com on BS 1.1.1.] There is on the surface, an apparent contradiction, for has not aparoksha-jnAna been extolled as the saving knowledge? Madhva, however, leaves no doubt regarding the answer. In all certitude, grace alone is the ultimate means. The Lord is the siddhopAya, eternal and ever ready, activated by human effort. Such grace is not capricious and cast upon all, however. It is granted in accordance with the degree of spiritual maturity of the worshipper. It annihilates all past karmas, but what it brings about is determined by the nature of the seeker himself. This grace is activated by parama-bhakti, which is the outcome of aparoksha jnAna. The final liberating sAdhana, therefore, is known by the phrase aparokshajnAna-parambahakti-prasAda. Man's sAdhana is essential for his emancipation, but such emancipation in the end only the gift of God in gracious response to his knowledge and love. In fact, Madhva goes so far as to say that everything good, no matter how insignificant, is a gift of God's grace. Madhva explains that this is operative even in the state of moksha: In the sAdhaka is still in need of direct knowledge, He grants it to him. If he is a jnAni, He grants him release. If he is released already, He grants him the bliss of liberation. Thus the Lord alone does everything. Thus, Madhva, in the grand Vaishnava tradition, attributes all the gifts to the grace of the Supreme, as engendered by the individual's love for Him. This entire process of sAdhana forms the heart of his Vedantic system, as it is addressed to us as practical philosophy. All other talk is useless unless it furthers this basic spirit of bhakti. I ask net-Dvaitis to further elaborate on this deep doctrine of love of God. thondargaL thiruvadigaLe saraNam emberumaanaar aazhvaar dhesikan jeeyar thiruvadigaLe saraNam namo narayanaya, Mani Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 2, 1999 > My remarks, Mr. Mani, were no different from yours. Dear Sri Balaji, If I stooped to a disgusting level five years back in my immaturity (I was hardly 22 back then), does it behoove a scholar of your eminence to stoop to the same level as the child that I was? You are a professor of philosophy who has reputedly studied all three schools of Vedanta with great vidvAns. I presume that you can rise to a level of maturity which does not involve attacking a great bhAgavata such as Sri Ramanujacharya. I recall Sri Vibudhesha Tirtha Swami's respect for Ramanuja extending to point of even refusing to disagree too vocally with his interpretations of some Upanishadic passage. " After all, he is a Vaishnava too, " graciously said the Swami. Would it be too much to ask for basic intellectual respect, without resorting to name-calling such as the following? > IT HURTS DOESN'T IT WHEN THE TRUTH IS POINTED OUT!!! > > Who is a better bhakta? The entire purpose of the proposed discussion is to get a better idea of the Madhva and Ramanuja systems of philosophy. I understand that it is unlikely that any on VMS will be convinced of the ultimate correctness of Visishtadvaita, just as it is unlikely (though not impossible) that I will be convinced of the ultimate correctness of Dvaita. However, we can greatly benefit from knowing how great thinkers and saints such as Ramanuja and Ananda Tirtha approached these philosophical issues. If you are interested in name-calling and abuse (which you have engaged in from day one), I am not sure this will be a worthwhile effort. If others on the VMS list are interested, however, in a serious discussion aimed at understanding two great systems of philosophy, I will be glad to contribute what I know. I request VMS members other than Sri Balaji to let me know what they wish. bhaktAnghrireNu, Mani Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 2, 1999 Dear Devotees: I for sure, and many others in this list would be interested in both the achArya's approach of vedanta; especially the differences and similarities between Dvaita and VisistAdvaita. Let us talk one particular subject at a time and discuss on that. I am not knowledgeble enough to contribute, but very interested in understanding them. So, let me take the first step and try to moderate: Topic #1: Ananda tAratamya in moksha I first reuest dvaita scholars to come forward with the dvaita's position citing pUrvapaksha, yukthi, pramAna etc. and then I request Sri Mani to respond to it. Sri Mani may choose to invite other SriVaishnava scholars to contribute as well if he wishes. Please keep the posting to the subject content and nothing personal please. Looking forward to a good debate and finally some clear understanding. Thanks Hare Srinivasa GV Srinivasan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 3, 1999 Mani Varadarajan wrote: > Mani Varadarajan <mani > > Dear Sri Balaji, > > I truly apologize for my comments made five years ago. > I only realized late yesterday that Shrisha Rao had > reposted what I had written so long ago (I read the > VMS postings only on the Web -- I don't receive them > as email). Back then, I was immature and I did not > give other thinkers the respect they deserve. While > I certainly do have some reservations about several > of Srimad Ananda Tirtha's philosophical conclusions, > I had no right back then to disparage him in public. > I make this apology sincerely -- please accept it. Dear Sri Varadarajan,, Thanks for the clarifications. I understand how we all change over time and some times regret our actions done during our younger days. I have not gone through your posting in detail, the posting appears to be a good exposition of the mAdhva position on Sadhana. As the list administrator, I suggest that we stop this thread as it deals with the emotional outbursts about individuals and personalities. Such emotional outbursts are not appropriate for a public forum such as this dedicated to learning philosophical and religious values of sri madhvAcharya. If there are substantive discussions on the philosophical issues and differences between the two traditions, they can be discussed freely and continued on this thread. harirEva paro harireva guruH harireva jagat pitR^mAtrR^gatiH.. Regards, Vasu -- ================================= Vasu Murthy vmurthy ================================== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 3, 1999 --- Mani Varadarajan <mani wrote: > > > My remarks, Mr. Mani, were no different from yours. > > Dear Sri Balaji, > [snip] > > If you are interested in name-calling and abuse (which you have > engaged in from day one), I am not sure this will be a worthwhile > effort. If others on the VMS list are interested, however, in a > serious discussion aimed at understanding two great systems of > philosophy, I will be glad to contribute what I know. > > I request VMS members other than Sri Balaji to let me know what > they wish. When are you going to start the *actual* discussion? I am waiting and I think others are too. However, I hope there won't be any hand-wavings in these dicussions. Also, there is no point in wasting time on arguing about who defeated who and when, and which Acharya is great and which Acharya is not. These arguments serve no purpose. Shankaracharya is great for advaitins, and Ramanujacharya is great for Vishishtadvaitins, and Madhwa for Madhwas. We all know that. I am only interested in what aspect of dvaita was refuted and how. After the discussion is over, we all can decide for ourselves, which Acharya is great. However, this can happen ONLY if the discussion is honest. I am stressing on this because we have had many arguments in the past which didn't result in anything because of the popular " hand-waving " technique which is prevalent on many lists. Regards -Nataraj > > bhaktAnghrireNu, > Mani > ===== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 3, 1999 > Mon, 1 Nov 1999 13:45:35 -0800 (PST) > Mani Varadarajan <mani > Re: In Defence of Dvaita > > Dear Sri Balaji, > > I have not even started presenting my reply and you have already > started insulting both myself and my acharyas. I ask you, is it > really necessary to start making unfounded, personal attacks, > instead of purely sticking to the issues at hand? I hate to see a meaningfull discussion die or get side-tracked before it even started. I doubt either side will actually accept the logical outcome of a debate as Sri NAPS Rao wished but atleast we will be able to reach that point! So I rquest Balaji to cool down a little bit so that we can all watch a good debate and hopefully learn something from it. However, I would like to also bring attention to Mani's following statements: > (2) A debate certainly did occur between Sri Injimettu Swami of > Ahobila Matha, and the maThadhIpati of the Uttaradi Matha. > While I am not yet sure of the exact date, it occurred sometime > between 1929 and 1941 at Srirangam, when Sri Injimettu Swami > was the junior sannyAsi of the Ahobila Matha. The debate > centered on the issue of Ananda Taratamya, and excerpts of > the debate in Sanskrit were published in " Vaibhava Sudha " , > in 1953, which chronicles this Swami's life shortly after he > attained the Lord's feet. I will provide more details in a > future email. Many of us remember seeing this claim several months ago, perhaps a year, but it hasn't moved much farther than this. No details have been provided. It is fair to doubt the sincerity of the people who have been making this claim, however I would not drag their whole tradition on it. > (3) I am well acquainted with many of Sri B.N.K. Sharma's works. > Once again, I do not mean to demean him. However, judging from > some of his " pUrva-paksha " arguments in his books, he appears > to have seriously misunderstood some fundamentals of Visishtadvaita > as set forth by Sri Ramanujacharya and Sri Vedanta Desika. In > a future note, I will cite a few obvious examples. this is nothing but a polite way of saying pretty much the same thing that Balaji said. The fundamentals of Visishtadvaita, like dharma-bhUta-jnAna, sharIra-shArIrin, theory etc. are not so difficult to understand, esp. for someone like Sri BNK Sharma. Lets see how long we have to wait before we see some " obvious examples " . regards, Manish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 3, 1999 Dear Vasu: As one of the directors of the VMS appointed by HH Puttige Swamiji, I shall abide by your ruling. I almost regard it as a pontifical mandate. Hence, I will not make any further postings IN REPLY TO Mani Varadarajan. He too wants to exclude me from the debate. Not a problem. I request Shrisha Rao, NAPS Rao, BV Natraj, Manish Tandon, Jay Nelamangala and any others interested in this enterprise to carry on the debate with Mani Varadarajan. I too would like to see the outcome. regards to all, Hari-vAyu smaraNa B.N.Hebbar Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 3, 1999 Dear Sri Mani: You don't have to apologize to me. I am a nobody. As long as the apology is to my hero JAGADGURU SRIMAN MADHVAACHAARYA and to the MAdhva-VaiShNava SampradAya, I am happy. In all fairness to you, I shall accede to your request and not REPLY to any of your future postings. The other Dvaita scholars will take over in defence of the faith. But as the education-coordinator of VMS appointed by HH SuguNendra TIrtha Swamiji of Puttige MaTha, I request you to continue to make your postings on all the points I had brought up with no further interference from me. Please continue to be on our VMS list so that all may learn from this discussion. regards, Hari-vAyu SmaraNa, B.N.Hebbar Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 3, 1999 >I for sure, and many others in this list would be interested in both the achArya's approach of vedanta; >especially the differences and similarities between Dvaita and VisistAdvaita. To this extent I would like to mention here the concept of Mukti in Vishishtaadvaita: The liberated jiva goes finally to Vaikunta, the abode of God, sees Him, admits that it is His mode (Prakaara), obtains His grace, and enjoys the pleasure of His service (kainkarya). Its enjoyment (bhoga) is the same as that of the God. Though it is equal to God in this respect, it does not partake of God's activities in connection with the creation and so on of the world. It becomes independent in its movements according to the desire of God. Jayakrishna Nelamangala ---------- ---------- RJAY Consultants Inc., Tel: (703)430-8090 Fax: (703)904-8496 Email: jay ---------- ---------- Srinivasan, G V <SrinivasGV bhebbar <bhebbar; 'mani' <mani Cc: < > Wednesday, November 03, 1999 5:42 AM RE: Re: In Defence of Dvaita > " Srinivasan, G V " <SrinivasGV > >Dear Devotees: > >I for sure, and many others in this list would be interested in both the achArya's approach of vedanta; especially the differences and similarities between Dvaita and VisistAdvaita. > >Let us talk one particular subject at a time and discuss on that. I am not knowledgeble enough to contribute, but very interested in understanding them. So, let me take the first step and try to moderate: > >Topic #1: Ananda tAratamya in moksha > >I first reuest dvaita scholars to come forward with the dvaita's position citing pUrvapaksha, yukthi, pramAna etc. and then I request Sri Mani to respond to it. Sri Mani may choose to invite other SriVaishnava scholars to contribute as well if he wishes. > >Please keep the posting to the subject content and nothing personal please. > >Looking forward to a good debate and finally some clear understanding. > >Thanks > >Hare Srinivasa > >GV Srinivasan > >>nAham kartA hariH kartA tatpUjA karmachaakhilam.h| >taThaapi matkR^itaa pUja tatprasaadhEna naanyaThaa| >tadbhakti tadphalam.h mahyam.h tatprasaadaat.h punaH punaH | >karmanyaasO harAvevam.h vishNOsthR^iptikaraH sadhA || > > " I am not the doer, shri Hari is the doer, all the actions that I do are His worship. Even then, the worship I do is through His grace and not otherwise. That devotion and the fruits of the actions that come to me are due to His recurring grace " >If one always practices to do actions with a dedicated spirit to Hari, in this way, it pleases Vishnu. > --- Quoted by Sri madhvAchArya in GitA tAtparya Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 3, 1999 Dear respected members of the list, I completely agree with Sri.GVS's view on the above. Please adopt an impersonal attitude and only stick to the technical aspects of the discussion in hand. By personalizing the issue, we are falling into a regress of not being mature, while trying to defend our faith. We give room to anger and accusation, which is one of the most important qualities that is to be conquered ( though by His grace.) For a passive member like me, it will be a very good opportunity to know how Madhvacharyaru has refuted the position of Ramanujacharya while codifying Dwaitha. I look forward to learning from this discussion. Please excuse me if the observations made above seem silly. Daasanu Daasa Sridhar Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 3, 1999 --- Balaji Hebbar <bhebbar wrote: > Dear Vasu: > > As one of the directors of the VMS appointed by HH Puttige > Swamiji, I shall abide by your ruling. I almost regard it as > a pontifical mandate. Hence, I will not make any further > postings IN REPLY TO Mani Varadarajan. He too wants to exclude > me from the debate. Not a problem. I request Shrisha Rao, > NAPS Rao, BV Natraj, Manish Tandon, Jay Nelamangala and any > others interested in this enterprise to carry on the debate > with Mani Varadarajan. I too would like to see the outcome. I don't think Vasu Murthy wanted to exclude you from the discussion. Vasu just requested that we concentrate on the philosophy rather than personal attacks. I really want your participation in this discussion as you are among the most qualified. While I know more about Dvaita than Vishishtadvaita, my understanding comes from reading Kannada books and not original Sanskrit works. And since these discussions involve lot of Sanskrit usage, which I don't know either, I request Sri Balaji Hebbar to continue his participation so that all of us can benefit. Regards -Nataraj > > regards to all, > Hari-vAyu smaraNa > B.N.Hebbar > > ------ > nAham kartA hariH kartA tatpUjA karmachaakhilam.h| > taThaapi matkR^itaa pUja tatprasaadhEna naanyaThaa| > tadbhakti tadphalam.h mahyam.h tatprasaadaat.h punaH punaH | > karmanyaasO harAvevam.h vishNOsthR^iptikaraH sadhA || > > " I am not the doer, shri Hari is the doer, all the actions that I do are His worship. > Even then, the worship I do is through His grace and not otherwise. That devotion and > the fruits of the actions that come to me are due to His recurring grace " > If one always practices to do actions with a dedicated spirit to Hari, in this way, it > pleases Vishnu. > --- Quoted by Sri madhvAchArya in GitA tAtparya > > <HR> <html> > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 3, 1999 Sri Balaji Hebbar wrote > Dear Vasu: > > As one of the directors of the VMS appointed by HH Puttige > Swamiji, I shall abide by your ruling. I almost regard it as > a pontifical mandate. Hence, I will not make any further > postings IN REPLY TO Mani Varadarajan. He too wants to exclude Dear Sri Balaji As already stated by Natraj, I dont think Vasu wanted to exclude you from the discussions. He just wanted to keep it impersonal and at a higher plane. Nor did Sri Mani want to exclude you. I think I speak for most of the VMS group when I say that you should be spearheading these discussions from the dvaita side. Having a debate without your participation is like waging the kurukshetra war without bhImasEna. Sure there are others to keep the flag flying high, but there is no reason why we should we deprived of the knowledge and expertise that you bring to the proceedings. So, please forget what has happened and jump into the fray. with warm regards sripi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 3, 1999 > >--- Balaji Hebbar wrote: >> Dear Vasu: >> >> As one of the directors of the VMS appointed by HH Puttige >> Swamiji, I shall abide by your ruling. I almost regard it as >> a pontifical mandate. Hence, I will not make any further >> postings IN REPLY TO ..... > >I don't think Vasu Murthy wanted to exclude you from the discussion. Vasu just requested >that we concentrate on the philosophy rather than personal attacks. I really want your ..... >Regards >-Nataraj > > Fellow Madhvas, vishistAdwatin, participants-in-future advatins and others, Firstly let me begin by echoing Natraj. I would miss Balaji were he to discontinue participation in this debate. Secondly, why such distaste for so called " personal remarks " ? This is only in the great polemical traditions of almost all fields. All this is showing is that philosphers get upset too :-) I doubt personally if any philosopher can retain his equanimity as he discourses about Brahman, ultimate reality ...etc if one of the audience were suddenly reach over and pull his nose ! May I be permitted to far afield in pUrvapaksha and quote confucius (I think) - " For there is yet a philospher born that hath endured a toothache " . I believe reservations were expressed at young people being exposed to " such low personal attacks " . But surely we dont want them to shielded from the " truth " . I have personally tried long and hard to believe my professors were better men than myself (AchAryadevObhava) but sadly the delusion persists. In any case people tend to cool down and get down to business so please let's continue this thread. Om Shri controversy-bhyo namah shri kanekal ====================================================================== Shri Kanekal phone: (301)286-6517 Code 696 FAX : (301)286-1648 Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt Road Greenbelt, MD 20771 ====================================================================== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 3, 1999 Hi Folks, I agree with Srikanth Kanekal and SriPrasad, Nataraj that respected Balaji Hebbar should contribute. Anybody who has been to his basement knows what a library he has built and continues to build, and brings in philosophical acumen from east as well as west. He is one of the few persons I know for whom philosophy is a way of life for both livelihood-in-mundane-world and for the spiritual-world. I hope he reconsiders his decision not to contribute and comes back into the mould again. Jayakrishna ---------- ---------- RJAY Consultants Inc., Tel: (703)430-8090 Fax: (703)904-8496 Email: jay ---------- ---------- KANEKAL <KANEKAL ntj3 <ntj3 Cc: < > Wednesday, November 03, 1999 12:10 PM Re: Re: In Defence of Dvaita >KANEKAL > >> >>--- Balaji Hebbar wrote: >>> Dear Vasu: >>> >>> As one of the directors of the VMS appointed by HH Puttige >>> Swamiji, I shall abide by your ruling. I almost regard it as >>> a pontifical mandate. Hence, I will not make any further >>> postings IN REPLY TO ..... >> >>I don't think Vasu Murthy wanted to exclude you from the discussion. Vasu just requested >>that we concentrate on the philosophy rather than personal attacks. I really want your > ..... >>Regards >>-Nataraj >> >> > Fellow Madhvas, vishistAdwatin, participants-in-future advatins and others, > > Firstly let me begin by echoing Natraj. I would miss Balaji were he to > discontinue participation in this debate. > > Secondly, why such distaste for so called " personal remarks " ? This is only > in the great polemical traditions of almost all fields. All this is showing > is that philosphers get upset too :-) > > I doubt personally if any philosopher can retain his equanimity as he > discourses about Brahman, ultimate reality ...etc if one of the audience were > suddenly reach over and pull his nose ! > > May I be permitted to far afield in pUrvapaksha and quote confucius (I think) > - " For there is yet a philospher born that hath endured a toothache " . > > I believe reservations were expressed at young people being exposed to " such > low personal attacks " . But surely we dont want them to shielded from the > " truth " . > > I have personally tried long and hard to believe my professors were better men > than myself (AchAryadevObhava) but sadly the delusion persists. In any case > people tend to cool down and get down to business so please let's continue > this thread. > > Om Shri controversy-bhyo namah > > shri kanekal > > > > ====================================================================== > Shri Kanekal phone: (301)286-6517 > Code 696 FAX : (301)286-1648 > Goddard Space Flight Center > Greenbelt Road > Greenbelt, MD 20771 > ====================================================================== > >>nAham kartA hariH kartA tatpUjA karmachaakhilam.h| >taThaapi matkR^itaa pUja tatprasaadhEna naanyaThaa| >tadbhakti tadphalam.h mahyam.h tatprasaadaat.h punaH punaH | >karmanyaasO harAvevam.h vishNOsthR^iptikaraH sadhA || > > " I am not the doer, shri Hari is the doer, all the actions that I do are His worship. Even then, the worship I do is through His grace and not otherwise. That devotion and the fruits of the actions that come to me are due to His recurring grace " >If one always practices to do actions with a dedicated spirit to Hari, in this way, it pleases Vishnu. > --- Quoted by Sri madhvAchArya in GitA tAtparya Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 3, 1999 Balaji Hebbar writes: > I request Shrisha Rao, > NAPS Rao, BV Natraj, Manish Tandon, Jay Nelamangala and any > others interested in this enterprise to carry on the debate > with Mani Varadarajan. I too would like to see the outcome. I wish to reiterate that this is *NOT* a debate. It is a presentation of how two different philosophers interpreted the sUtras. In my humble opinion, none of us are qualified to debate these issues to a proper conclusion, and email certainly is not the right forum to do so, for many reasons. Let us study each philosopher with respect and see what they can teach us. bhaktAnghrireNu, Mani Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 3, 1999 Hunsur_Sriprasad wrote: > Hunsur_Sriprasad > > > Dear Sri Balaji > > As already stated by Natraj, I dont think Vasu wanted to exclude you from the > discussions. He just wanted to keep it impersonal and at a higher plane. Nor did > Sri Mani want to exclude you. > > I think I speak for most of the VMS group when I say that you should be > spearheading these discussions from the dvaita side. Having a debate without > your participation is like waging the kurukshetra war without bhImasEna. Sure > there are others to keep the flag flying high, but there is no reason why we > should we deprived of the knowledge and expertise that you bring to the > proceedings. > > So, please forget what has happened and jump into the fray. > > with warm regards > sripi > > Dear Sri Prasad, Nataraj, Sri Balaji and others, Thanks for your clarifications. Sri Balaji Hebbar and everybody else are most welcome to participate in the philosophical discussions. As you have pointed out, he is one the most qualified people in the group to do so. Many of us have benefited from his lectures and expositions on the different philosophical traditions. His commitment and services to VMS, in educating people inside and outside VMS about different philosophical traditions are something we should all emulate. I just want to keep the discussions at a philosophical level and at a higher plane consistent with the objectives of this group. Large number people use this group for spiritual upliftment as sri Mukund pointed out and as means for electronic satsang. We should always be aware of this fact when we make the postings. We should aim to exchange useful spiritual information so that all of us can grow together in our sAdhana. I am open to have the philosophical discussions take place here on this list or on the Dvaita list. I suggest everybody to forget about the previous discussions and start a fresh thread that concentrates on the philosophical aspects of the issues involved. Just to clear the air, I will start posting sri vAdirAja's wonderfully spiritual stotra on lakshmi shrIshaguNa darpaNam from tomorrow. May the blessings of sri Hari and vAyu be showered upon everybody. Regards, Vasu Murthy -- ================================= Vasu Murthy vmurthy ================================== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
