'Understanding the rope-snake thru the Madhva system'

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Subbu-ji,

 

advaitin , V Subrahmanian <subrahmanian_v wrote:

>

> Namaste. Having been in touch with

> some of you off List all these days for one or the other reason, I do not

> feel that I have been away from you all.

 

Hearty welcome to the list! I am very happy to see you back

 

On this topic, my understanding goes exactly as with

Shri Sastri-ji and Shri Sada-ji explained. Here are a couple of minor

points for what they are worth.

 

> The world in Dvaita is not real in itself as wrongly understood by many

> Advaitins.The world in Dvaita is not as real as Brahman either. This is

> easy to appreciate because even though the world is ~I€˜eternal~I€™ it is

> only so from the ignorant jeeva standpoint.

 

A premise of your post seems to be to de-establish the advaitin's notion

that " jagat has a separate ontological existence in dvaita " . (which you

called the paratantra nature of jagat.) But, an advaitin can take up

multiple positions on the same subject, even going on to even negate it (!!!),

which is best shown in their use of the word anirvacaniiya. Hence it seems

that the dvaitin's view is covered by advaitin's view.

 

Also it seems to me that your separation of world into " ignorant jIva-'s

view " and " tattvavit's view " may have the unwanted corollary that dvaitins

have a concept of jIvanmukti! On the other hand, it is the true

understanding of the scriptures that separates both IMO.

 

Also, being advaitins, we can see the beauty of dvaita, but such a view

could be seen by dvaitins as condescending!

 

praNAm-s to all advaitin-s

Ramakrishna

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Ramakrishna Upadrasta " <uramakrishna

wrote:

>

> Namaste Shri Subbu-ji,

>

> advaitin , V Subrahmanian <subrahmanian_v@> wrote:

> >

> > Namaste. Having been in touch with

> > some of you off List all these days for one or the other reason, I do not

> > feel that I have been away from you all.

>

> Hearty welcome to the list! I am very happy to see you back

>

> On this topic, my understanding goes exactly as with

> Shri Sastri-ji and Shri Sada-ji explained. Here are a couple of minor

> points for what they are worth.

>

> > The world in Dvaita is not real in itself as wrongly understood by many

> > Advaitins.The world in Dvaita is not as real as Brahman either. This is

> > easy to appreciate because even though the world is ~I€˜eternal~I€™ it is

> > only so from the ignorant jeeva standpoint.

>

> A premise of your post seems to be to de-establish the advaitin's notion

> that " jagat has a separate ontological existence in dvaita " . (which you

> called the paratantra nature of jagat.) But, an advaitin can take up

> multiple positions on the same subject, even going on to even negate it (!!!),

> which is best shown in their use of the word anirvacaniiya. Hence it seems

> that the dvaitin's view is covered by advaitin's view.

>

> Also it seems to me that your separation of world into " ignorant jIva-'s

> view " and " tattvavit's view " may have the unwanted corollary that dvaitins

> have a concept of jIvanmukti! On the other hand, it is the true

> understanding of the scriptures that separates both IMO.

>

> Also, being advaitins, we can see the beauty of dvaita, but such a view

> could be seen by dvaitins as condescending!

>

> praNAm-s to all advaitin-s

> Ramakrishna

>

 

Dear Ramakrishna ji,

 

Thanks for your comments. I do not see any problem in your first point.

Regarding the second point, it is to be noted that even in Dvaita there is a

need to acquire Tattva jnana and to become an 'Aparoksha jnani'. Such a

person's world view will have to be essentially different from a dvaitin who has

not had that Aparoksha Jnana. If there were to be no difference at all from the

two standpoints, a system of philosophy will have no relevance at all. By

'ignorant jiva's taking the world to be eternal' I mean that such a person will

have no idea of the ephemerality of the world and will do nothing to come out of

samsara. Moksha will not be his goal. As Yama puts it in the Kathopanishad,

such jivas will repeatedly come under Yama's grips. Thus the 'eternal world'

concept in the Veda is in keeping with such jivas. A person working to have

enjoyment in the here or the hereafter will always rest on the 'eternal world'

idea. But the mumukshu knows that this is not the ideal state and works to come

out of the world/samsara. He knows that in the state of Moksha he will not be

in the world. There is a famous song of Purandara Dasa 'allide namma name,

illiruvudu summane' which means: 'My True Abode is There, what is here is only

an appearance' He goes on to caricature the world, body and worldly life in

terms like 'suLLu mane' and 'Kalla mane' meaning all that is here is only a

fake, a make-believe.I have heard songs by Purandara dasa like 'O men, 'see'

Vaikuntha here itself'. That kind of Everything is Vasudeva vision is of the

Aparoksha Jnani. They may not accept jivanmukti but the vision of a dvaita

Aparoksha Jnani is definitely different from the conception of an ajnani.

 

Regards,

subbu

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Sri Sada ji said (Msg.No. 46043)

// I agree with Shree Sastriji that consideration of dvaitic doctrines as

stepping stones for a-dvaitic realization involves recognition of the

illogicality in the differentiation of existence(s) of jiiva-jagat-Iswara at the

absolute level.//

 

Subbu says:

Anyone who has heard Swami Paramarthananda ji's lectures extensively would not

fail to recognize this statement of his:

 

// Advaita is impossible without going through dvaita and dvaita is incomplete

without culminating in advaita. //

 

My point is that the claim or the misunderstanding about the `differentiation of

existence(s) of jiiva-jagat-Iswara at the absolute level.' is to be questioned

and understood properly. This is the purpose of my Article. On the basis of

the Dvaitins' own statements I have concluded what I have elaborated in my

Article. I have concluded that the jiva-jagat-Ishvara triad can't really exist

in the absolute realm. I have taken their own statements and concluded that the

jiva and the world will not be the same in the absolute realm. To me their

statements carefully read and analyzed only show that they are not meaning

anything different from Advaita although they might seem to be saying things

very much opposed to Advaita. When a person does sadhana under a Guru, there

will be no room for confusion between various systems of philosophy. The Guru

will give the Unified View that is what is required for the aspirant.

 

Humble pranams,

subbu

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

In msg.46049 Shri Sastri ji says:

 

As far as I know, no advaita teacher has said that paratantratva, in the sense

in which that word is used by Madhva, and mithyAtva are similar. In such matters

we should go by what the learned teachers have said. Otherwise there will be

utter confusion.

 

Subbu says:

In the Bhagavadgita commentary for the 14th chapter, as introduction Shankara

writes:

// Ishvara-paratantrayoH kShetra-kShetrajnayoH jagat-kAraNatvam...//[...the

kshetra (prakRti) and kShetrajna (purusha/jiva) being dependent on Ishwara

(Brahman) are the cause of the world.]

Shankara has used the term `paratantra' (dependents) in respect of both prakriti

and purusha, even before the Madhva system designated these two as dependents

(paratantra). This implies that Brahman, according to Shankara, is Independent,

Swatantra. And where does Shankara say that the paratantra prakRti is

`vyavaharika'? While commenting on the mantra " satyam cha anRtam cha Satyam

abhavat' (Taittiriya Up. II.6) Sri Shankaracharya says: // satyam =

vyavaharavishayam since this is being mentioned in the context of 'sRishti' of

the world. He adds: this is not paramArthasatyam (absolute reality) since

Brahman alone indeed is paramArtha satyam. This vyavaharavishayam satyam is

only Apekshikam, relative. He explains: when compared to the water in a mirage,

the water (that we actually use for drinking, etc.) is real. This is what is

meant by `vyavaharika satyam'. That which is not thus real is anRtam, unreal.//

And where does Shankara say that this paratantra-vyavaharika world/prakriti is

mithya?

Here is an instance:

While commenting on the Gita 13.34 for the word `bhUta-prakRti-mokSham' Shankara

says:

bhUtAnaam prakRtiH avidyAlakshaNA avyaktAkhyA tasyAH bhUta prakRteH mokShaNam

abhAvagamanam...

[the non-existence of PrakRti, the material cause of beings...]

 

Where does Shankara say that the paratantra jiva (jivatva) is mithya?

 

In the Adhyasa bhashya Shankara has elaborated on the mithyAtva of the jeevatva.

He has said in most clear terms that `there is nothing called a jiva apart from

the Consciousness that is Brahman'.

These are just a sample of the very many instances from no less a Great Teacher

Shankaracharya who has:

1. used the term `paratantra' in the same sense that the Madhva system has used

and yet

2. taught that such `paratantra' realities are mithya.

We do not require any other proof in this regard. Where is there any room for

`utter confusion' in this?

My `Article' contains this key paragraph that sets at rest all misconceptions

regarding the conclusions arrived at in the article:

//While Advaita explicitly calls the vyavaharika a seeming reality, Dvaita stops

short of saying this by just saying that it is paratantra reality. Both terms

culminate in holding the dependent reality a mithya, unreal, entity. For the

goal of both Advaita and Dvaita is definitely not to retain samsara but to show

the means to realize Brahman as free from Vishnu Maya. That this is the

ultimate goal is unambiguously declared in the statement `Brahman can very well

do without prakriti and purusha'.//

When an aspirant has heard this statement: `Brahman can very well do without

prakriti and purusha' of the Madhva school, would he wish to disregard this as a

goal and aspire to retain prakriti (or aprAkRita shareera in Vaikuntha) and

remain a dependent-jiva for ever? Going to Vaikuntha and serving the Lord

there, in my opinion and understanding is only a teaching of a lower level to

someone who cannot appreciate the ultimate teaching of `Brahman can very well do

without prakriti and purusha'. When an aspirant of the Madhwa school comes to

appreciate this goal, of his own sampradaya, he has undoubtedly graduated to

the Advaita Core teaching. He need not change loyalties and `convert' to

Advaita of Shankara. His own Sampradaya, with a truly realized Guru, can guide

him and protect him from any possible `utter confusions'.

Humble pranams,

Subbu

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " subrahmanian_v " <subrahmanian_v wrote:

> Subbu says:

> In the Bhagavadgita commentary for the 14th chapter, as introduction Shankara

writes:

> // Ishvara-paratantrayoH kShetra-kShetrajnayoH jagat-kAraNatvam...//[...the

kshetra (prakRti) and kShetrajna (purusha/jiva) being dependent on Ishwara

(Brahman) are the cause of the world.]

> Shankara has used the term `paratantra' (dependents) in respect of both

prakriti and purusha, even before the Madhva system designated these two as

dependents (paratantra). This implies that Brahman, according to Shankara, is

Independent, Swatantra. And where does Shankara say that the paratantra prakRti

is `vyavaharika'?Humble pranams,

> Subbu

> Om Tat Sat

>

Hari Om Sri Subrahmanianji, Pranaams!

 

The word Ishvara in above commentary refers only to aupAdhika-brahman and

reaffirms the statement made by lord as 'mayA adhyakSheNa prakrtiH'. The

kShetrajna refers to jIvA which is AbhAsa-chaitanya declared as (para)prakrti by

lord.

 

If one imagines it is the puruSha who is referred above, then even prakrti is

referred as (kShara)puruSha in the same text.

 

In Shri Guru Smriti,

Br. Pranipata Chaitanya

[Guest guest]

Namaste Subbuji:

 

First thanks for changing the subject title more appropriate. The ongoing

discussions are scholarly and certainly help me to revisit the schools of

thoughts of advaita, Dwaita and Visitadwaita.

 

I want to get the attention of all scholars to following statement of Bhaskerji

(post # 25980): " I agree prabhuji, but dont you think it is regrettable to note

that even after centuries still we are struggling to understand AchAryOpadEsha??

(anyway, it is immaterial who is right, who is wrong here, but as far as

siddhAnta concerned still it is an open issue among ourselves!!) "

 

Bhaskerj has hit the nail in the head in his assessment of our understanding of

Vedantic theology of Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhava. We the participants during

the list discussions (past and present) are also struggling to understand the

true intentions of the authors of messages. One of the regrettable issues that

we should pay attention is the fact that always want to understand other view

points on own terms! When our ego don't want us to accept the opinions of

others as feasible possibilities, we are most likely to disagree. Honestly the

purpose of Vedanta is not to resolve who is right and who is wrong. One of the

primary goals of these discussions is guide and helps the seeker to recognize

his/her own self!

 

Our agreements and disagreements on " Sankara's Bhashya " on Brahma Sutra or

Bhagavad Gita or the Upanishads depend on our understanding of what he said. Our

understanding of what Sankara said is subject to change with time understanding

also varies from person to person. This is the Myth and the philosophy of

Sankara attempts to resolve this Myth! The resolution of the Myth is subtle and

buried underneath the Truth. None of us can claim to be the authority on

Shankara's advaita philosophy and our statements and assessments is mostly based

on our infinitesimal understanding of Sankara's true intentions. These are the

facts whether we accept them or not! This may partly explain why we seem to

disagree on 'specific statements of others' even though we claim to agree on the

truth of 'nonduality.' We should keep an open mind while investigating

assertions from other fellow scholars before rejecting them outright. Only with

full wisdom we will be able to reconcile the differences between the various

philosophical thoughts.

 

My background in economics helps me to understand how the same " economic

phenomenon " can be explained by using many scholarly developed economic models

(frameworks) with appropriate assumptions and caveats. Most of the scholarly

developed models will not have problems in the conceptual framework and but with

one or more questionable assumptions. In most situations it is impossible to

verify the validity of the assumptions because of our lack of understanding of

the infinitude of actors and their uncertain actions! Vedantic schools of

thoughts are similar to economic schools of thoughts in many respects.

Economists face the difficulty to cope up with the uncertainty and Vedantins

have the difficulty to understand the subtle facts of Myth!

 

The reason for writing this to remind myself to take more time to read and

understand before making judgments and coming to any erroneous conclusions.

 

With my warm regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin , " subrahmanian_v " <subrahmanian_v wrote:

>

> Namaste.

> In msg.46049 Shri Sastri ji says:

>

> As far as I know, no advaita teacher has said that paratantratva, in the sense

in which that word is used by Madhva, and mithyAtva are similar. In such matters

we should go by what the learned teachers have said. Otherwise there will be

utter confusion.

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " pranipatachaitanya " <pranipatachaitanya

wrote:

>

> advaitin , " subrahmanian_v " <subrahmanian_v@> wrote:

> > Subbu says:

> > In the Bhagavadgita commentary for the 14th chapter, as introduction

Shankara writes:

> > // Ishvara-paratantrayoH kShetra-kShetrajnayoH jagat-kAraNatvam...//[...the

kshetra (prakRti) and kShetrajna (purusha/jiva) being dependent on Ishwara

(Brahman) are the cause of the world.]

> > Shankara has used the term `paratantra' (dependents) in respect of both

prakriti and purusha, even before the Madhva system designated these two as

dependents (paratantra). This implies that Brahman, according to Shankara, is

Independent, Swatantra. And where does Shankara say that the paratantra prakRti

is `vyavaharika'?Humble pranams,

> > Subbu

> > Om Tat Sat

> >

> Hari Om Sri Subrahmanianji, Pranaams!

>

> The word Ishvara in above commentary refers only to aupAdhika-brahman and

reaffirms the statement made by lord as 'mayA adhyakSheNa prakrtiH'. The

kShetrajna refers to jIvA which is AbhAsa-chaitanya declared as (para)prakrti by

lord.

>

> If one imagines it is the puruSha who is referred above, then even prakrti is

referred as (kShara)puruSha in the same text.

>

> In Shri Guru Smriti,

> Br. Pranipata Chaitanya

>

 

Namaste,

 

Let me assure you that I have taken the Ishwara as the way you have mentioned.

The kshetrajna there is indeed the jiva as you say, which alone can be said to

be paratantra, dependent on Ishwara.

 

Humble Pranams,

subbu

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Ram Chandran " <ramvchandran wrote:

>

> Namaste Subbuji:

>

>

>

> Bhaskerj has hit the nail in the head in his assessment of our understanding

of Vedantic theology of Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhava. We the participants

during the list discussions (past and present) are also struggling to understand

the true intentions of the authors of messages.

> With my warm regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

 

Dear Ram ji,

 

I agree with the above point you refer to. Here is what a friend asked me

recently:

 

Do you think that at least now, in the 21 st century, we can get the real

picture out of the three systems with no disputes remaining at all?

 

It is with a similar concern that stalwarts and scholars have endeavoured to

'get the real picture' steering clear of the peripheral issues.

 

Warm regards,

subbu

[Guest guest]

Advaita is broad enough to assimilate any system whatsoever, but I don't think

Dvaita has the same capacity. The reason is that while Advaitins give duality an

empirical validity, Dvaita system regards dulaity as ultimate. Here are few

points that are difficult to reconcile:

 

 

1. In Brahma Sutra Bhashya of Madhva, sutra 1.1.1 Madhva gives his

intrepretation of the word 'Brahman' as the person in whom there is fullness of

qualities. Thereafter an objection is raised that acceptance of difference of

souls and Brahman would limit Brahman, Madhva replies that this view is not

sound as the souls are not identical with Brahman nor yet as limiting the

infinitude of Brahman. Tatparya Candrika of Vyasatirtha explains this as souls

are completely different from Brahman they cannot limit Brahman unlike in

Ramanuja's system where they form an organic part of Brahman. Madhva further

says that infinitude of Brahman must be understood as fullness in time, space

and qualities. The difference of jivas is termed as svarupa bheda or difference

as their very nature.

 

2. Jayatirtha in his Anuvyakhyana directs a polemical attack against the theory

of ignorance in Advaita and gives his own explanation as follows: the individual

soul is free in himself in all his works and enjoyments and is dependent only on

God (I am using this word for convenience). Intellect, senses, mind are really

existent in themselves under the control of God; but when through ignorance they

are concieved as part of my self there is error and illusion. The error does not

consist in their not having existence but they are truly existent and sorrow is

one of their characteristics. Then against Sankara's theory of illusion it is

argued: The very fact that the non self is being falsely identified with self

renders it false, then the false identification on the other side with the non

self ought to prove that the self also is false. AS THE SELVES WHICH ARE BOUND

ARE REAL; SO THE SENSE OBJECTS THAT BOUND THEM ARE ALSO REAL.

 

3. Vyasatirtha is his greatest polemical work against Advaita in Nyaya Amrita

raises the following objection against the three levels of reality in Advaita:

You define three orders of reality - pAramArthika, vyAvahArika, and

prAtibhAsika. And you have defined mithyAtva as the counter-positive-ness of the

absolute negation (for all periods of time) in the very substratum where the

thing that is mithyA is cognized. In essence, you would like to categorize the

world as mithyA. Now, what reality do you assign to such a negation of the

world?

1) Is this negation pAramArthika (absolutely real)?

2) Is this negation prAtibhAsika (illusory) ?

3) Or, is this negation vyAvahArika (empirical) ?

Regardless of the type of reality you assign to this negation, you run into

problems.

1) The negation of the world is pAramArthika. In this case, you have a direct

contradiction with the non-dual principle of advaita.

2) The negation of the world is prAtibhAsika, illusory. In this case, you

have siddha-sAdhana-doshha.

3)The negation of the world is vyAvahArika. In this case, what you are saying

is that the negation of the world will itself get sublated upon realization of

Brahman.

I KNOW THAT THIS IS VERY TECHNICAL AND I AM REFRAINING FROM GIVING AN ELABORATE

EXPLANATION OF THE OBJECTION FOR FEAR OF PROLIXITY. BUT THE IDEA IS THAT THE

THREE LEVELS OF REALITY WAS NOT ACCEPTED.

 

4. In his Brahma Sutra Bhashya 1.1.2 Madhva says: It has to be accepted that

unity of Brahman there is some special virtue which represents difference. To

explain this point I am further providing an explanation of theory of visesa

which is unique to Madhva atleast as Dvaitins says so, in which he reconciles

difference and unity in a substance attribute relationship. This is given as an

alternative explanition of the theory of inherence held by the Nyaya school,

convincingly refuted by Sri Sankara in his Bhashya. This is taken from 'Bhakti

Schools of Vedanta' by Swami Tapasyananda, Pg 141 to 144: Madvaites specially

warn against the mistake of taking Visesa of their philosophy with visesa of the

Nyaya School. Madhva's visesa is a self linking potency in the substance to link

itself with any number of attributes....The substance and attributes then form

an inseparable whole. Visesa while it distinguishes, unites too. Taking another

explanatory note from S. Dasgupta 'History of Indian Philosophy Vol 4', Pg 127:

...... so it must be admitted that in cloth there is a special virtue (visesa) by

which it remains one withn itself and yet shows plurality and qualiites with

which it is sure to form a whole. These visesas are infinite in number in

infinite objects. Each of these visesas are different from the others according

to difference of qualities with which they are associated. This passage in turn

is inspired by the explantion given by Jayatirtha in his Nyaya Sudha.

 

5. Vyasatirtha in Tatparya Candrika, his commentary on Madhava's Bhashya,

referring to the Fifth Topic of the Second Section of Ch 1 Of Brahma Sutras,

where Madhva refutes the Advaita doctrine of unity of jiva and Brahman (passages

regarding the antaryamin) comments: The Buddhists make their objection outside

the vedas but the holder of the doctrines of maya do it from within the Vedas

and hence are more dangerous.

 

6. Ch 2, 14th topic, sutras 28 and 29 Madhva demonstrates that jiva and Brahman

are different. The thirteenth topic of Ch 2 Madhva takes the soul to be atomic

in size. (sutras 19 to 32). In the seventeenth topic Madhva reconciles the

freedom of actions of jiva and the ultimate agency of Brahman. Ignorance is

taken as a negative substance (against the contention that it is a positive

entity, refer to Siddhanta Bindu of Madhusudana Saraswati) which differs from

individual to individual.

 

7. The snake rope analogy is explained through the theory of Abhinava Anyatha

Khyati. This theory is as follows: Madhva in the first place denies the actual

existence of the illusory object. Then agreeing with the Nyaya school he says

that the senses do not come in actual contact with the silver. The illusion is

the distortion of the locus. The nature of illusion as concieved by Madhva will

be clear when we take into consideration the Badhaka jnana or the sublating

perception. Sublation is possible only with regard to a non existent entity

appearing to be existent. Madhva's definition of a real entity is that it is not

superimposed. The silver in nacre is not so. Thus it cannot be described as

existece and non exitence at the same time. ( This contention is to refute the

definition given by Padmapada in Panchapadika that maya is 'neither the locus of

existence nor of non existence). Next Madhva strongly opposes the the extention

of rope snake analogy to the whole of human experience. Madhva vehemently

rejects the equation of the world with illusory experience. An anirvacaniya

category is fictitious and a dogmatic assumption.

 

8. A few objection raised by Vadiraja against Advaita are given here:

I. Vadiraja showed how Mayavadis have taken the " neti-neti " statement out of

context.

a. They say " not this, not this " means " not jiva, not jada " (Brahman is neither

the individual soul, nor matter - therefore, since only Brahman exists, jiva and

jada must be unreal).

b. But they've derived " neti-neti " from Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad 4.4.22, which

states: " For the desire for sons is the desire for wealth and the desire for

wealth the desire for worlds; both these are, indeed, desires only. This Self is

not this, not this. "

c. This verse is stating that the Self (atman) is not to be had by desiring

wealth or worlds. The direct meaning is sufficient; the " jada-jiva "

interpretation is without foundation.

II. The meaning of " advaita " :

a. Mayavadis take " advaita " (not dual) to mean that Brahman has no difference.

Therefore undifferentiated oneness is the only truth.

b. But the context is found in Chandogya Upanisad 6.2.1-2: " In the beginning, my

dear, this was Being, one only, without a second. "

c. Vadiraja showed that " one without a second " means, according to grammar and

logic, " one Being without a second Being " , or " He has no second " , i.e. there is

only one God. But this does not mean that some thing or things below God can't

be distinguished from Him.

III. Vadiraja points out that Mayavadis say that both practical life and the

scriptures are on the vyavaharika platform - which means both are ultimately

unreal. Yet they honor the scriptures and honor sattvik life as dispellers of

illusion.

THESE CAN BE MULTIPLIED INDEFINTELY.

 

9. Madhavites intrpret Tat Tatvam Asi as the jiva being possessed by Brahman.

They use the analogy of the blue pot to explain this. The Advaitin scholar Sri

Annantakrishna Sastri in his Paribhasa Prakasika refutes this view of the

Dvaitins. They argue that here the adjectival features of each word are

different hence jiva and Brahman are denoted to be different. Rather in all the

Vaisnava traditions the statements like 'Tat Tatvam Asi' etc are subordinated to

'Satyam Brahman' etc which are taken as attributes of Brahman. Refer to Caitanya

Caritamrita Adi Lila Vol.2 published by Iskon.

 

10. The general blue print of the method of sadhana adopted by Dvaitins and by

all Vaishnav schools has been created by Sri Ramanuja in his Bhagavad Gita

Bhashya. This can be seen in two stages: a) Jnana Karma Samuccaya stage. The

description of sthitaprajna refers to this stage. b) The state of Para bhakti.

The condition of jiva here is viewed differently. According to Madhva the jiva

resides in heaven after death, with God eternally.

 

Dvaita can be reconciled from standpoint of Advaita but not the other way round.

 

REGARDS,

VAIBHAV.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin , " subrahmanian_v " <subrahmanian_v wrote:

>

> advaitin , " Ram Chandran " <ramvchandran@> wrote:

> >

> > Namaste Subbuji:

> >

> >

> >

> > Bhaskerj has hit the nail in the head in his assessment of our understanding

of Vedantic theology of Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhava. We the participants

during the list discussions (past and present) are also struggling to understand

the true intentions of the authors of messages.

> > With my warm regards,

> >

> > Ram Chandran

>

> Dear Ram ji,

>

> I agree with the above point you refer to. Here is what a friend asked me

recently:

>

> Do you think that at least now, in the 21 st century, we can get the real

picture out of the three systems with no disputes remaining at all?

>

> It is with a similar concern that stalwarts and scholars have endeavoured to

'get the real picture' steering clear of the peripheral issues.

>

> Warm regards,

> subbu

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste dear Subbuji:

 

I do admire your sincere and earnest efforts to reconcile the disputes between

the three schools of Vedantic thought. You have taken lots of time outlining

your insightful viewpoints.

 

Inspite of all your efforts, I am of the opinion that the disputes will remain

until everyone of us gets the 'real vision.' It seems that we determine to read,

understand and judge other view points with our own yardstick!

 

The stalwarts and scholars with enhanced vision do want us to change our

attitude to pay more attention on the fundamental Truth and ignore the

peripheral issues. For example Kanchi Paramarcharya (also Ramana Maharishi) in

the recent past had the 'vision of the real picture' and they steered clear of

the peripheral issues.

 

With my warm regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin , " subrahmanian_v " <subrahmanian_v wrote:

>

>

> Do you think that at least now, in the 21 st century, we can get the real

picture out of the three systems with no disputes remaining at all?

>

> It is with a similar concern that stalwarts and scholars have endeavoured to

'get the real picture' steering clear of the peripheral issues.

[Guest guest]

Subbuji - PraNAms

 

First from advaitic understanding, the substantive or adhiShTaaNam of

jiiva-jagat-and Iswara is Brahman, arising from abhinna nimitta upaadaana

kaaraNa for all the three. That is what a-dvaita obviously implies. There is no

disagreement in that. Also the very concept of realization involves saadhana

which is in the realm of dvaita only; and advaita is state of understanding that

has to be gained with the realization that all that is seen is mithyaa. Hence

from advaitic perspective the dvaita is clearly understood as real in the real

of vyavahaara only, including even the vyavahaara of realization.

 

The ideas of recognizing swatantra of Iswara and paratantra of jiiva and jagat

are identical to mityatva nischaya of jiiva, jagat and (even Iswara, although

Iswara-hood is not sublimated in the swatantra of Iswara), is the essence of

what is karma and bhakti yoga is from the point of advaita, too. There are

absolutely no arguments in that either.

 

The equation of dvaita philosophy and vishiShTaadvaita philosophies and

ultimately they are in essence identical to advaita is obviously against the

ultimate moksha that is defined by the former two.

 

The mahaapuurvapaksha of Shree Ramanuja in his Sreebhaashya, SatadhuushaNii of

Vedantadeshika and NyaayaamRita of Vyaasa thiirtha and their rebuttal in Advaita

Siddhi by Madhusudana Saraswati highlighting the doctrinal divergences of these

Vedic philosophies cannot be overlooked.

 

The sloka by Hanumanji that dvaita, vishiShTaadvaita and advaita depends on the

level of communication is only emphasized by advaitins and consideration of the

other two philosophies are stepping stones in the saadhana advocated by

advaitins only, starting from Swami Vivekanandaji.

 

Subbuji - There is no problem in explaining sarva adhiShTaaNam is IswaraH as the

integrated whole -using the paratantra and swatantra aspects involved for the

embodied. But equating dvaita and vishiShTaadvaita PHILOSOPHIES is essentially

the same requires convincing other philosophers, since advaitins have no problem

as long as the ultimate reality is advaita! VishiShTaadvaita is visheShana saha

as attributive Iswara and not nirvisheSha adhishTaaNa brahman.

 

For the other two philosophers, there are two categories - sat and asat and

there is no third one - mithyaa, even though they have swatantra and paratantra

aspects involved in the nitya satya- as swagata bhedaas.

 

Anyway the objections to the article are not from the point of advaita since

that is the very substantive of jiiva-jagat-Iswara.

 

I have noticed Shree Vaibhaji has exhaustively presented the dvaitic position.

 

Subbuji if you can convince dvaitins in vaadaavali list about your analysis of

their true perspective of the dvaita philosophy, then the mission is

accomplished.

 

The above post is meant for highlighting where the problem is not in the

recognition of adviata in the dvaita.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--- On Sat, 7/25/09, subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v wrote:

 

 

 

 

Subbu says:

 

Anyone who has heard Swami Paramarthananda ji's lectures extensively would not

fail to recognize this statement of his:

 

 

 

// Advaita is impossible without going through dvaita and dvaita is incomplete

without culminating in advaita. //

 

 

 

My point is that the claim or the misunderstanding about the `differentiation of

existence(s) of jiiva-jagat- Iswara at the absolute level.' is to be questioned

and understood properly. This is the purpose of my Article. On the basis of

the Dvaitins' own statements I have concluded what I have elaborated in my

Article. I have concluded that the jiva-jagat-Ishvara triad can't really exist

in the absolute realm. I have taken their own statements and concluded that the

jiva and the world will not be the same in the absolute realm. To me their

statements carefully read and analyzed only show that they are not meaning

anything different from Advaita although they might seem to be saying things

very much opposed to Advaita. When a person does sadhana under a Guru, there

will be no room for confusion between various systems of philosophy. The Guru

will give the Unified View that is what is required for the aspirant.

 

 

 

Humble pranams,

 

subbu

[Guest guest]

Vaibhavji - PraNAms

 

Thanks for the exhaustive analysis presented. Provides the correct perspective.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

--- On Sun, 7/26/09, vaibhav_narula21 <vaibhav_narula21 wrote:

 

 

 

Advaita is broad enough to assimilate any system whatsoever,

but I don't think Dvaita has the same capacity. The reason is that while

Advaitins give duality an empirical validity, Dvaita system regards dulaity as

ultimate. Here are few points that are difficult to reconcile:

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Sri Ram Chandranji wrote:

>

> Inspite of all your efforts, I am of the opinion that the disputes

> will remain until everyone of us gets the 'real vision.' It seems

> that we determine to read, understand and judge other view points

> with our own yardstick!

>

> The stalwarts and scholars with enhanced vision do want us to

> change our attitude to pay more attention on the fundamental Truth

> and ignore the peripheral issues.

 

 

Hari OM!

Thanks Ramji for sharing insightful and wise words. Some of it I

wanted to say, but no way could have said it that well.

 

Editorial of recent issue of TIME magazine begins with saying

there are more books on leadership now than there are leaders.

Similarly, we may have more books/talks/seminars and writings on

realization and understanding than those who have realized and

understood.

 

Same Bible, and different churches. Same Vedas and many theories.

Same Brahman and so many approaches to realize. Even " advaita " word

seems like a compromise. Like Ramakrishna Paramahansa's homely

example of salt-doll stopping all talk about its origin as it enters

itself into ocean.Who needs to tell whom and why take trouble to

tell such is " non-dual " , unless there is recognition of another

entity at, physical/mental or spiritual level, to convey it!

 

Also intellectual dwelling on theories and reconcilation of systems

seem very valuable and useful in any study, except for self sadhana.

Reminds me of Shankara's harsh admonition sung with soft melody:

" sampraaptE sannihitE kaalE nahi nahi rakshati DrukruN karaNE " !

======================

Hari OM!

-Srinivas

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " vaibhav_narula21 " <vaibhav_narula21

wrote:

 

> III. Vadiraja points out that Mayavadis say that both practical life and the

scriptures are on the vyavaharika platform - which means both are ultimately

unreal. Yet they honor the scriptures and honor sattvik life as dispellers of

illusion.

> THESE CAN BE MULTIPLIED INDEFINTELY.

>

 

>

> REGARDS,

> VAIBHAV.

 

 

An Article titled 'The Status and Role of Scripture in Advaita' was sent by me

to the List in March 2009. This article is in reply to the above objection.

 

Subbu

[Guest guest]

Subbuji if you can convince dvaitins in vaadaavali list about your

analysis of their true perspective of the dvaita philosophy, then the

mission is accomplished.

 

Humble praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji & Sri Sadananda prabhuji

Hare Krishna

I would like to echo Sri Sadananda prabhuji's observation here. Yes,

strictly speaking 'this reconciliation' work would not be completed

without appropriate participation from our dvaita bandhu-s. I think Sri

Krishna Kadiri prabhuji, Sri Jay Nelamangala prabhuji and Sri Srinivas

Kotekal prabhuji etc. in vAdAvaLi forum are quite knowledgeable in

tattvavAda philosophy. With their contribution/comments in favour of Sri

Subbu prabhuji's article, I think definitely we can mitigate the long

standing differences between dvaita & advaita...But you know to that to

happen, we should have a 'common' platform for both dvaita & advaita where

both parties can express their view points freely and vAdAvaLi forum

provides that platform...Since there is no scope for dvaitins presentation

in this list which is exclusively dedicated to advaita vedanta as taught

by Shankara & other advaita Acharya-s, I believe this article of Sri subbu

prabhuji would hardly get any attention of dvaitins & their view points in

this particular group.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

PS : Just for the information, I've myself been engaging in discussion

with dvaitins on issues like brahman's upAdAna kAraNatva etc. in vAdALi

list and I find it how difficult it is to satisfy dvaitins if I say

anything in the name of advaita :-)) Sri Sadananda prabhuji also has this

bitter experience with dvaitins & knows the complexity of the job on hand

:-))

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

> So, in my humble opinion, different approaches adopted by different

> Acharya-s are not as smooth & catholic as we are tempting to assume

> here.

 

Hari OM!

Just wanted to correct typo " Understanding " in subject.

 

May be approaches adopted by the Acharya-s are not as smooth as we are

(at)tempting to assume. For they are far from pedantic or scholarly.

May be a whole life time also may not be sufficient to practise and

realize the fruits of any one approach truly.

 

Even for physical exercises, we have many approaches and their fruits

can be experienced not by comparing or analysing but by doing alone.

Every one knows many exercises, but how many of us consistently do!

So too, for an endeavor that demands the highest truth there is, it

is only natural needing most commitment from all levels of (B)ody,

M(ind) and (I)ntellect to practise, evaluate and realise approaches

walked, not just talked, by the masters.

==================

Hari OM!

-Srinivas

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

In keeping with Sri Srinivas N's correction of the spelling in the topic

appearing in the Subject bar, I have now copied this post of Ramakrishna U ji's

post for replying:

 

 

e: 'Unerstanding the rope-snake thru the Madhva system' Message List

Reply | Forward Message #46082 of 46085 < Prev | Next >

Re: 'Unerstanding the rope-snake thru the Madhva system'

 

[same message as earlier, some errors in transliteration corrected,

with apologies to Sanskrit lovers!]

 

Namaste Shri Subbu-ji and others,

 

This is some excerpt from Swami Satprakshananda's " Methods of Knowledge " pages

330. Parts of my message marked with > are from the book. My questions and

comments follow.

 

> According to Madhvacharya, God (paramAtman), the individual selves and the

prakRiti (the potential cause of the physical and the psychical universe), with

their file-fold differeces are, ultimately real. The differences between God

and the individual self, between God and prakRiti, between the individual self

and the prakRiti, between one individual self and another, between one category

of prakRiti and another endure forever [1].

 

What is the nature of this endurance in " endure forever " ? How can it be

reconciled with the two definitions we have of brahman and maya. namely that

 

(i) brahman alone exists in all three periods of time.

(ii) mAya has no existance in any of the three periods of time. As far as I

know, this is Madhusudana's Advaita-Siddhi.

 

Response:

 

In Advaita two types of nityatva are accepted to explain the above. One is the

KUTastha nityatva, the Unchanging Eternal for Brahman and the other is the

'pariNAmi nityatva', the changing eternal for Maya. All differences caused by

Maya, Prakriti, is in the realm of samsara. As long as samsara is there this

changing eternal will continue eternally. It is logically required to sustain

the samsara of the ignorant jivas. However, this changing eternal, Maya, being

an inert principle, cannot be on its own; it requires a supporting Conscious

Base, Brahman, the Unchanging Eternal. Those who get released from samsara

identify themselves with the Unchanging Eternal Brahman. From the standpoint of

these released souls, the changing eternal principle does not exist at all.

For, the realization of the non-existence of this changing eternal is the result

that is coeval with the dawn of the realization of the Substratum Unchanging

Brahman. All the five bhedas are said to 'endure' only in this sense. For

someone who has gone beyond the grip of Maya, the five bhedas cease to be. All

differences are possible only in the field of the five elements brought forth by

Maya. When one goes beyond the realm of elements, pancha bhUta prakriti, there

will be nothing that can bring about any bheda. All bhedas have to sustain on

the basis of sensual inputs like shabda, sparsha, rupa, rasa and gandha. In the

absence of pancha bhUtas these sensory inputs are impossible. In the

transcendental state there will be no prakriti to create these inputs and hence

no differences possible in the state of liberation.

 

> But the sole independent entity is God (paramAtman) [2]. Individual selves

and prakRiti (manifest or unmanifest) have no existence apart from Him

> [3].

 

[2] is obviously the same as advaitin's brahman, assuming it is a nirguNa. What

if it is talking about saguNa brahman?

 

Response:

 

The relationship of 'Dependent-upon and Depended Upon' is possible only with

Brahman with attributes, Saguna. This is in the realm of the first three pAda-s

of the Mandukya Upanishad. The Relationless Nirguna Brahman is the subject

matter of the Fourth Pada, the Turiya.

 

R.Upadrashta:

[3] is obviously the same as *one* definition of mAya, when a positive

nature is given to it. But, this is not the only one, as far as I know.

There are texts which state its abhAva-nature. How can this be reconciled?

 

> Thus Madhva's view is different from the pluralism of nyaaya-vaiSeshhika on

the one hand and from the dualism of sAMkhya-yoga on the other. It is dualism

as opposed to non-dualism of Sankara. Professor Hiriyanna thus differentiates

the dualism of Madhva from the non-dualism of Sankara:

>

> " If the Advaita explains the prevailingly absolutist standpoint of

> Upanishadic teaching by postulating only one reality and explaining the rest

of the universe as its appearance, the dvaita [of Madhva] does the same by

postulating God as the only supreme entity and explaining the rest as altogether

dependent upon him. " [4]

 

[4] Is dependency on brahman enough? Do the svarUpa and taTastha lakshhaNa-s of

brahman have anything to do with the the two point of views here? Can someone

explain?

 

praNAm-s to all advaitin-s

Ramakrishna

 

Response:

 

In Advaita, the taTastha lakshana of Brahman takes care of all dependencies.

This is the Brahman with creatorship, etc. as its attributes. The Svarupa

lakshana of Brahman being its essential nature of Consciousness, etc. is the

transcendental one, free of any dependents on It. This is the Turiya. In my

Article I have quoted from the IndiaDivine Article which says that the Brahman

of the Madhva system 'can do very well without prakriti and purusha'. This

corresponds to the Nirguna Brahman of Advaita which in deed does very well

without those dependents on It.

 

Trust this clarifies. I have left out your questions on Maya for want of more

clarity in your question.

 

Regards,

subbu

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Subbu-ji,

 

Thanks a lot for the response. I read some documents on dvaita including the

following FAQ which you linked earlier in one of your blog-posts.

http://www.dvaita.org/docs/faq.html

 

Obviously, both the schools under the scanner do not differ in the satta of

brahman (of course!), and the arguments would be on the subjects of the

mithyatva of jagat, nature of mukti, as what happens after mukti. I consider

these latter subjects to be contentious even in intra-advaitic schools, and

to be beyond my current level of vedantic knowledge.

 

I commend your efforts for this discussion.

 

Namaste and welcome again.

Ramakrishna

 

PS: I am writing a small post to the vAdAvaLi (of which I recently became a

member), linking them to your blog-posts.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri.Subramanian-ji,

 

Pranams.

 

A friend of mine drew my attention to this ongoing discussion about Madhva

system. Even though I was a member of Advaitin list, I was not following off

lately due to my personal engagements.

 

This forum is not appropriate for me to comment on all your article about

samanvya of dvaitAdvita, nevertheless, I will write this specific point on your

comment on Sri.vAdirAja's refutation of mithyatva of vEda. I have sent you a

invitation to join vAdavaLi, where we all (those who are interested on this

topic) can discuss freely.

 

advaitin , " subrahmanian_v " <subrahmanian_v wrote:

>

> advaitin , " vaibhav_narula21 " <vaibhav_narula21@> wrote:

>

> > III. Vadiraja points out that Mayavadis say that both practical life and the

scriptures are on the vyavaharika platform - which means both are ultimately

unreal. Yet they honor the scriptures and honor sattvik life as dispellers of

illusion.

> > THESE CAN BE MULTIPLIED INDEFINTELY.

> >

>

> >

> > REGARDS,

> > VAIBHAV.

>

>

> An Article titled 'The Status and Role of Scripture in Advaita' was sent by me

to the List in March 2009. This article is in reply to the above objection.

>

> Subbu

>

 

I have read your above article on Sulekha blog. Here is my rejoinder:

 

Your analogy of dream bail/prison comparing to Advaitic treatment of Veda as a

" mithya " is quite invalid.

 

You have compared dream bail to Vedas. It is not correct. The dream bail is not

the means-to-know that there is such thing as " waking state " . In other words,

dream bail is not " pramANa " to know about waking state. You wake up from dream

not " due to " dream bail but due to some other reason other than this bail. Dream

bail is powerless in making you know about waking state let alone making you

awake to it.

 

Where as Vedas on the other side, are said to be means-to-know the existence of

a state called " mOksha " in the first place. Also, Vedas are means to achieve

such mOksha state.

 

Your justification for treatment of Veda as mithya vastu is on quite loose

grounds.

 

The argument from Achrya Madhva in his anuvyAkhyana on this point boils down to

this;

 

Acharya says a mithya vastu has no sattya sAdakatvam (capacity to establish the

truth). If Advaitins disagree for this, let them show some pramANa showing a

mithya vastu can have sAdakatvam. We Dvaitin in turn ask what is the nature of

such pramANa? Is it a sattya or mithya in itself?

 

If sattya, non-duality is lost, for in Advaita Brahman alone is sattya. On the

other hand, if Advaitin contend such pramANa is mithya, then it is not

acceptable to Madhvites, because such answer is " begging the question " . Our

original contention was that a mithya vastu can not have any sAdakatvam. Given

this, a mithya pramANa to establish the theory " mithya vastu can have

sAdakatvam " is invalid for it assumes the same to prove the same!

 

Therefore, advaitic position of " mithya vastu can have ability to act as

pramANa " is without any pramANa in itself. Threfore, Sri.vAdirAja's arguments

still holds on this issue.

 

This has a serious implication of Advaitic treatment of Veda as a " pramANa " on

one hand and its reality status as " mithya " on the other.

 

It seems this fundamental espitemological point has not been addressed by

Advaita vEdAnta at all. If you disagree, I appreciate some pointers in classical

texts where I can learn.

 

Regards,

Srinivas.

[Guest guest]

Dear Subbu-ji,

With ref to your statement that dvaita recognizes two levels of reality, please

see the following extracts from the book `Brahma-sutras' by Swami

Vireswarananda, one of the most learned Swmijis of the Ramakrishna Mission:

Introduction- Page xiii— " Madhva, however, accepts It (brahman) only as the

efficient cause and not as the material cause also " .

Introduction- Page xiv— " Madhva, a thoroughgoing dualist, regards these three

(brahman, the world and the jivas) as quite independent, eternal entities,

though brahman is the ruler of the other two " .

 

Do the ruler and the ruled belong to two levels of reality similar to the three

levels in advaita? Do the ruled become mithya and is the ruler alone real?

I wonder how it can be said that paratantra implies two levels of reality. Manu

smriti says that the woman should be dependent on her husband or her son----

stree na svAtantryam arhati. Does it mean that women are a lower level of

reality than men according to Manu? Christianity and Islam also say that

everything is dependent on God. Does it mean that they also recognize two levels

of reality? In dvaita brahman is identical with God, because they have no

concept of nirguNa brahman.

If, in spite of the above, you still insist that dvaita recognizes two levels of

reality, without quoting any statement from any authoritative work on dvaita or

from Polagam Rama Sastrigal's book in support, I have nothing to say. You seem

to be relying on some internet article. All articles appearing on the internet

cannot be accepted as authentic. I am however content to stay with my own

" misunderstanding " , as you put it, until I get definite proof that I am wrong.

 

As regards the use of the word paratantra by Shri Shankara in the bhAShya on the

gItA, to which you have referred, it does not mean that wherever the word

paratantra is used there are two levels of reality. The concept of different

levels of reality is a consequence of the concept of mithya as I have explained

later on in this note. The concept of mithya certainly does not exist in dvaita.

 

In advaita there is only one reality, and that is brahman. Everything other than

brahman is mithya. Mithya is that which has no existence in all the three

periods of time in the locus in which it appears. So the world has no existence

even now when we are experiencing it. The difference between mithya and tuccha

is that, while both are non-existent, mithya appears in a locus, like the

rope-snake, but tuccha does not appear anywhere at any time. This is all made

very clear in Advaitasiddhi. The term `vyAvahArika reality' is only a concession

to our ignorant minds which cannot accept the notion that what we actually

experience has no existence. It is therefore given a provisional existence. So,

to say that dvaita and advaita are similar because one accepts two levels of

reality and the other three, is a total misreading of the views of both the

systems. dvaita does not have a concept similar to the vyAvaharika of advaita.

 

I have also heard the lecture of Mani Dravid Sastrigal you have referred to.

Madhusudana Sarasvati also says in his work `PrasthAnabheda' that both Ramanuja

and Madhva knew the Truth. But they found advaita difficult for the ordinary man

and so they diluted it. Both of them wanted their systems to be distinguished

from advaita and did not try to reconcile the two. Even now seminars are held

where learned vishiShTAdvaita and advaita scholars criticize advaita and

advaitic scholars answer them and criticize the other systems. Dr. Krishnamurthi

Sastrigal, one of my gurus, is one of the eminent scholars who take part in

these seminars. The discussions are purely academic and in a friendly atmosphere

and every one keeps his cool. Nobody sees any need to reconcile these systems.

 

I am not interested in winning in an argument with any one. I only want that

people should not be misled by wrong theories.

 

I know that you are very knowledgeable in Vedanta. But before putting forward

your own theories it would be advisable if you consult some traditional scholar

in Bangalore like Mani Dravid Sastrigal or R. Krishnamurthi Sastrigal of Chennai

who have studied all the three systems and who regularly take part in seminars

where they have to reply to objections raised against advaita by scholars in

vishiShTAdvaita and dvaita and also point out where the other systems are not in

accordance with shruti. Please excuse me if this sounds presumptuous on my part,

but you will agree that we have a responsibility to ensure that we do not

mislead any one by our writings.

 

I am not well and am unable to strain myself much. This note has been prepared

slowly over a period of three days. I shall therefore not be participating in

this discussion any further. I find that Bhaskar-ji and Ramakrishna-ji are ably

participating in the discussion.

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

Dear Subbu-ji,

With ref to your statement that dvaita recognizes two levels of reality, please

see the following extracts from the book `Brahma-sutras' by Swami

Vireswarananda, one of the most learned Swmijis of the Ramakrishna Mission:

Introduction- Page xiii— " Madhva, however, accepts It (brahman) only as the

efficient cause and not as the material cause also " .

Introduction- Page xiv— " Madhva, a thoroughgoing dualist, regards these three

(brahman, the world and the jivas) as quite independent, eternal entities,

though brahman is the ruler of the other two " .

 

Do the ruler and the ruled belong to two levels of reality similar to the three

levels in advaita? Do the ruled become mithya and is the ruler alone real?

I wonder how it can be said that paratantra implies two levels of reality. Manu

smriti says that the woman should be dependent on her husband or her son----

stree na svAtantryam arhati. Does it mean that women are a lower level of

reality than men according to Manu? Christianity and Islam also say that

everything is dependent on God. Does it mean that they also recognize two levels

of reality? In dvaita brahman is identical with God, because they have no

concept of nirguNa brahman.

If, in spite of the above, you still insist that dvaita recognizes two levels of

reality, without quoting any statement from any authoritative work on dvaita or

from Polagam Rama Sastrigal's book in support, I have nothing to say. You seem

to be relying on some internet article. All articles appearing on the internet

cannot be accepted as authentic. I am however content to stay with my own

" misunderstanding " , as you put it, until I get definite proof that I am wrong.

 

As regards the use of the word paratantra by Shri Shankara in the bhAShya on the

gItA, to which you have referred, it does not mean that wherever the word

paratantra is used there are two levels of reality. The concept of different

levels of reality is a consequence of the concept of mithya as I have explained

later on in this note. The concept of mithya certainly does not exist in dvaita.

 

In advaita there is only one reality, and that is brahman. Everything other than

brahman is mithya. Mithya is that which has no existence in all the three

periods of time in the locus in which it appears. So the world has no existence

even now when we are experiencing it. The difference between mithya and tuccha

is that, while both are non-existent, mithya appears in a locus, like the

rope-snake, but tuccha does not appear anywhere at any time. This is all made

very clear in Advaitasiddhi. The term `vyAvahArika reality' is only a concession

to our ignorant minds which cannot accept the notion that what we actually

experience has no existence. It is therefore given a provisional existence. So,

to say that dvaita and advaita are similar because one accepts two levels of

reality and the other three, is a total misreading of the views of both the

systems. dvaita does not have a concept similar to the vyAvaharika of advaita.

 

I have also heard the lecture of Mani Dravid Sastrigal you have referred to.

Madhusudana Sarasvati also says in his work `PrasthAnabheda' that both Ramanuja

and Madhva knew the Truth. But they found advaita difficult for the ordinary man

and so they diluted it. Both of them wanted their systems to be distinguished

from advaita and did not try to reconcile the two. Even now seminars are held

where learned vishiShTAdvaita and advaita scholars criticize advaita and

advaitic scholars answer them and criticize the other systems. Dr. Krishnamurthi

Sastrigal, one of my gurus, is one of the eminent scholars who take part in

these seminars. The discussions are purely academic and in a friendly atmosphere

and every one keeps his cool. Nobody sees any need to reconcile these systems.

 

I am not interested in winning in an argument with any one. I only want that

people should not be misled by wrong theories.

 

I know that you are very knowledgeable in Vedanta. But before putting forward

your own theories it would be advisable if you consult some traditional scholar

in Bangalore like Mani Dravid Sastrigal or R. Krishnamurthi Sastrigal of Chennai

who have studied all the three systems and who regularly take part in seminars

where they have to reply to objections raised against advaita by scholars in

vishiShTAdvaita and dvaita and also point out where the other systems are not in

accordance with shruti. Please excuse me if this sounds presumptuous on my part,

but you will agree that we have a responsibility to ensure that we do not

mislead any one by our writings.

 

I am not well and am unable to strain myself much. This note has been prepared

slowly over a period of three days. I shall therefore not be participating in

this discussion any further. I find that Bhaskar-ji and Ramakrishna-ji are ably

participating in the discussion.

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

Dear Subbuji,

In my prev post there is a typing mistake. In the sixth paragraph I have said:

Even now seminars are held where learned vishiShTAdvaita and advaita scholars

criticize advaita and advaitic scholars answer them and criticize the other

systems.

 

This should be corrected as:

Even now seminars are held where learned vishiShTAdvaita and dvaita scholars

criticize advaita and advaitic scholars answer them and criticize the other

systems.

Regards,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

sastri ji :

 

When i read your post regarding typo correction,i am reminded of the oral

tradition of passing on the samskaras for generations together,orally.Our

ancients were indeed extremely wise people.

 

suresh.

[Guest guest]

Dear Srinivas-ji,

 

 

 

Pardon the interruption, especially since I am not even really following

this thread, having no interest in dvaita. Also, I am not able to give any

learned answer or scriptural reference. But, in response to your fundamental

point : " This has a serious implication of Advaitic treatment of Veda as a

" pramANa " on one hand and its reality status as " mithyA " on the other " is

not the 'pole vault' metaphor often used? In order to reach the high bar,

you have to use the pole to push yourself up. But you cannot take the pole

with you without knocking off the bar - you have to let it go. Similarly,

you use veda pramANa to point towards the truth but you have to reject it as

mithyA in the ultimate realization.

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of Srinivas Kotekal

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 3:53 AM

advaitin

Re: 'Understanding the rope-snake thru the Madhva

system'

 

 

 

 

Dear Sri.Subramanian-ji,

 

<< >>

Your justification for treatment of Veda as mithya vastu is on quite loose

grounds.

 

The argument from Achrya Madhva in his anuvyAkhyana on this point boils down

to this;

 

Acharya says a mithya vastu has no sattya sAdakatvam (capacity to establish

the truth). If Advaitins disagree for this, let them show some pramANa

showing a mithya vastu can have sAdakatvam. We Dvaitin in turn ask what is

the nature of such pramANa? Is it a sattya or mithya in itself?

<< >>

This has a serious implication of Advaitic treatment of Veda as a " pramANa "

on one hand and its reality status as " mithya " on the other.

 

 

 

 

___

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennis-ji,

 

 

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Dear Srinivas-ji,

>

>

>

> Pardon the interruption, especially since I am not even really following

> this thread, having no interest in dvaita. Also, I am not able to give any

> learned answer or scriptural reference. But, in response to your fundamental

> point : " This has a serious implication of Advaitic treatment of Veda as a

> " pramANa " on one hand and its reality status as " mithyA " on the other " is

> not the 'pole vault' metaphor often used? In order to reach the high bar,

> you have to use the pole to push yourself up. But you cannot take the pole

> with you without knocking off the bar - you have to let it go.

 

That's fine, we are not talking about " utility " of the pole past achieving the

objective. But we are talking about " reality status " of the pole as compared to

the reality status of the goal. Can you jump & cross the real bar using an

imaginary pole? You may categorize your crossing over the bar as either

vyavahArika or prAtibhAsika etc, however the pole used to do so has to be of the

same order of reality, period.

 

Others will have no issue if you say vEda has no " use " after reaching the mukti,

but will complain only when you say such vEda is a mithya vastu.

 

>Similarly,

> you use veda pramANa to point towards the truth but you have to reject it as

> mithyA in the ultimate realization.

>

 

But you haven't given a thought how a non-existing vEda will be pramANa in the

first place.

 

Veda is pramANa because of the very fact that it is unauthored. Unauthordness

implies it is eternal (always existing). This eternality (nityatvam) in turn

implies it has to be satyatvam. If you were to knock off the that eternal

reality itself from the vEda, it fails to be called pramANa. This is as simple

as this and very fundamental.

 

Regards,

Srinivas.