Flaws in Advaita - Real or Perceived?

[suraju06]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear KRS Sir,

I do not know if Sangom sir also became disillusioned along the way like me. But if (just in case) he did, there is nothing wrong with that. So just because he may have "strong opinions about Brahminism, etc" (your words), surely there is no necessity to think that he is "colored by that" (and i wonder what connection does this have with the topic of advaita). Anyways, even if he is "coloured" by such things, so what? Surely the discussion can be on the points, and not on the poster, what he is coloured about, etc.

Dear KRS Sir,
If a person wants to become disillusioned and looks for and avidly laps up all such literature selectively no one can prevent the disillusionment. You are right when you said strong opinions about brahminism ( I am sure you are meaning actually casteism which these disillusioned enthusiasts call brahminism) affects an individual’s perception of other things by colouring his views. The discussion is always about the view points/ideas expressed which are colored views/ideas. I think no one is really bothered about the individual as it is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[Nara]

... But a decent reading of Vishishtadvaita clearly shows the name is a misnormer.

Yes subbudu sir, I agree with you. In fact, Ramanuja did not use the word VA in any of his texts. The very basis of his exposition comes from Nammazhvar's phrase, உடல் மிசை உயிர் எனக் கரந்தெங்கும் பரந்துளன். It is a view that asserts that Brhman is for ever inseparably the Atma of all Jagat (chetana and acetana), and that jagat is an attribute of Brhman. This is the source of the misleading nomenclature, which makes some to erroneously think that VA is a modified version of A. No Vedas based philosophy can be more distant from A than VA.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

....I do not know if Sangom sir also became disillusioned along the way like me. But if (just in case) he did, there is nothing wrong with that. So just because he may have "strong opinions about Brahminism, etc" (your words), surely there is no necessity to think that he is "colored by that" (and i wonder what connection does this have with the topic of advaita). Anyways, even if he is "coloured" by such things, so what? Surely the discussion can be on the points, and not on the poster, what he is coloured about, etc.

Dear Happy, I was watching a news show this morning and today being Malcolm X's birthday there was a short clip of an interview of him from long ago. Malcolm was talking about his childhood and that his house was burned down by KKK in Omaha, Nebraska and in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. At this point the interviewer interjected and told him that these experiences make him unable to have a broader understanding of race issues.

According to this theory, on anything you have personal experiences in, ipso facto, you cannot have unbiased rational view, it must only be a colored one. The fallacy of this logic is so obvious it is a wonder that it is used so often. The tactic is to tarnish the credibility of the individual in the hope that the views of the individual will not be taken seriously. Some people take this tactic to the extreme and smear and destroy the individual and crowd out any reasonable exchange of ideas. In the recent past more of this is happening in this forum.

Cheers!

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri KRS,

Before I start answering the different points contained in your post # 116 (http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/general-discussions/6457-flaws-advaita-real-perceived-12.html#post79554), I may tell you and also the members in general, that my disagreement with you is not at all relating to any of the views – yours, mine, your objections to my views, etc., - relating to Advaita. According to the contents of your aforesaid post themselves, we have the following:

1. First of all per Forum rules, nothing prevents any members, including me, to offer opinions at any time in a thread, especially in threads under General Discussions.
2. I was away from the Forum for a while again and when I came back saw this thread, topic of Advaitha which is a great interest mine, and after discussions on a similar thread which Sri Sangom Ji started, after reading a few comments he made there, I bought a few books and have read many of them, and my thanks to him for that. So, when I asked him sometime back to continue discussion in his thread, he refused and as an author he has every right to decline and I left it at that. But when I read this new thread started by Sri Sravana Ji, my interest was rekindled and especially when I saw that Sri Sravana Ji, discussing with 3 folks with contrary opinions, with excitement, I posted, with a clear intent to communicate that can we go back and discuss some points discussed from the start.

This is why I said 'Let the games begin, with these folks! If they have any integrity, they would not mind starting in the beginning. Especially Sri Sangom Ji, who makes all sorts of assertions, without providing any concrete proofs.'

Now read my first sentence carefully and tell me where I say they do not have any integrity?

Shri KRS, If someone tells “If you have any integrity, …” what does that mean? Let us consider another instance; suppose somebody tells you or writes to you, “If you have any honesty, please tell what exactly happened and why you went there?”. Whatever little English I have learned, tells me that in the latter case the writer expects you to come out with the true circumstances of that trip (there), if you have even a bit of honesty left in you, your personality. In case you keep quiet or give false info., it will prove that there was no honesty left in you anymore. Applying the same grammatical and linguistic rules, the sentence “If they have any integrity…” shows, at least according to my understanding, that if we (Nara, Subbudu and myself) have any integrity, they would not mind… In other words, if any of us record any disagreement, ipso facto the entire forum is at liberty to conclude that that person has no integrity (moral soundness) in his character.

Since this particular point seems to be too difficult for you to grasp, may I say that the closest in Tamizh which comes to my mind immediately is [FONT=&quot]நல்லார் ஒருவர் உளரேல் அவர் பொருட்டு எல்லார்க்கும் பெய்யும் மழை[/FONT], by the famous [FONT=&quot]ஔவையார். [/FONT]Here, there is no accusation, either direct or concealed as in the sentence framed by you; but Ouvaiyar is pronouncing a dictum that even if there is just one good soul (in this world) there will be timely rains for the sake of that soul and all will benefit from the rains. But the underlying linguistic construct is the same; if there is not even one single noble soul alive, rains will fail, and if such a contingency happens, then everyone can safely conclude that there is not even one single noble soul alive. Kindly try to interpret your sentence on the above lines and see what import it has and whether it is civil enough to address members in such a language.

If even this is not sufficient, I may cite the cinema script where one actor challenges a mob, "[FONT=&quot]ஒரு அப்பனுக்கு பிறந்தவன் யாராவது இருந்தால் வாங்கடா[/FONT], ...". Here, the accusation depends on the further action, just like in your sentence, “If they have any integrity, etc.,…” Therefore, anyone who dares to fight this character is supposed to have definite paternity.

I was forced to dwell on this one point so unnecessarily long because you have now chosen to add insult to injury by querying the members, Now read my first sentence carefully and tell me where I say they do not have any integrity? I am sure nobody will dare point out the obvious but will form their own opinions.

This attitude also probably arises from the fact that according to the Forum Rules, as explained by Shri Praveen once again in his pm of yesterday, But in the overall context of things, KRS posts as a moderator are above review and as a moderator what he feels right is what gets posted.I am not sure whether Shri Praveen really intends a difference between KRS’ posts as moderator and KRS’ posts as member, or whether the exemption applies to whatever KRS may post, because Praveen hastens to add the clause that as a moderator what he feels right is what gets posted; this can be also taken to mean simply that “whatever he posts is right”.

I now come to my second major objection to your post # 74. You state therein “[FONT=&quot]What is actually amusing to me is Sri Sangom's assertion that Dwaitha is an allied philosophy of Visishtadwaitha as opposed to Advaitha![/FONT]” When I requested you to substantiate your above statement, you replied that “Visishtadwaitha has more commonality with Advaitha than Dwaitha, in my opinion. Please cite your logic here when you say something else.” This sort of an attitude, i.e., “I believe so(This is my opinion); if you differ, you have to cite your logic”, is the moderator high-handedness, in my view and I just cannot put up with such a rule from anyone, not even any other member.Suppose I were to say, “I believe God is unknowable, Vedas are written or composed by ordinary human beings, religions retard human progress, etc.,” and claim exemption either because I am SM or because these are my “beliefs”or “opinion”, and beliefs/opinions need not have any rationale behind them, but all the same I demand, as a matter of right, that anyone with a different opinion is bound to provide logic to substantiate his/her pov, it is the epitome of forum despotism of the crudest kind. Probably for reasons unknown to me, many members here including veterans like shri Kunjuppu(about whose tenure as moderator I am aware) and members of “doubtful integrity” (as per your clubbing the three of us) like Shri Nara, have been putting up with such despotism, but it is not possible for me to exercise such self-abnegation. Either we can debate on the basis of individual ‘beliefs only’, from either side or on the basis of logical arguments from both sides. But to concede that one member’s beliefs have to be accepted as valid, inerrant and hence unquestionable truth, whereas anyone else has to produce logical arguments for his point of view if he happens to hold a different view, is the height of inequity and ridiculousness.

In the past discussion on “Advaita and its Fallacies” also there were similar occasions of your putting forward your “belief” as inerrant truth and I reproduce from this post. (http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/philosophy-scriptures/4970-advaita-its-fallacies-15.html#post63089)

Shri KRS ji,

Your posts contain some logical statements interspersed with your subjective preference for advaita and aspect related to it. For example, your post ends with the sentence, "Yes, I know that Sankara used the word 'Samadhi' in terms of what we call as 'Nirvakalpa' Samadhi today." But you have not supported either of the points. I would request that instead of just such bald but authoritative-looking statements, you please substantiate the points also.

The following is from here:— (http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/philosophy-scriptures/4970-advaita-its-fallacies-17.html#post63408)
Originally Posted by KRS
Dear Sri Sangom Ji,

With all due respect, it has been established that Maya is real in the relative physical world and is a truth but from the transcendental Brahman's/Atma's realm, it does not exist. We have discussed about the three levels of reality in Advaitha, yet, you don't seem to accept that explanation! Are you denying the explanation that Avidya does not exist in the realm of Atman?

The word you are discussing here is not about the existence of Maya, but why it exists. The reason for it's existence is not knowable like we do not know the reason for creation itself. What is the philosophical conundrum here, if one looks at Shankara's system as empirical? It is not a theist philosophy.

Regards,
KRS

Shri KRS,
If you just make statements without any supporting evidence, it is difficult except to ask for such evidence. What references/ authorities can you cite in support of your "pronouncement", if I may say so, that "it has been established that Maya is real in the relative physical world"?
I have given the continuous debates that have been going on in this topic between people who are definitely scholars.”

It is therefore necessary to lay down some basic rules for oneself in any such discussions and avoid such positions as those shown above so that unequal discussions are not created.

3. Now In terms of my second statement, this is what Sri Sangom Ji has posted in various places:
'Sankara seemed to have learnt all the lessons from Buddhism and used those to counter Buddhism itself; and this includes part of Buddhistic philosophy (śūnyavāda).

While we talk a lot about maayaa and avidyaa, all that Sankara said was "adhyaasa" or "adhyaaropa", appendage to Brahman. Fortunately, Sankara was able to escape with his advaita. I believe that he was able to do so because it was the acme of the Pallava rule, vedic brahmanism was spreading with full vigour in the south and the rulers were favourably disposed towards the revival of anything based on vedas and vedic (brahmanic) ideas.'

This is the type of statement by Sri Sangom Ji that I questioned. The Buddhist link is not proved beyond doubt. Especially, there are citations of Advaitha idea exists in Upanishads that pre date Buddhism. There are questions as to whether Buddhism adopted the concept of Avidya from Hinduism, Buddha was a Hindu, - there are no valid proofs either way. And when Sri Sangom Ji connects Brahminism and Advaitha, he again conveniently skips Adi Shankara's rejection of Purva Mimamsa as a valid path to know Brahma.

(emphasis mine)

Sir, it is true that I have stated my view that Sankara was possibly influenced by Buddhism; I also believe that he might have aimed at making the vedic philosophy look acceptable to the scholars of his time, when Buddhism’s sway was still considerable, (the last mentioned is my belief, and so I consider that it can enjoy the same exemption for the purposes of this forum discussion, just the same way as your beliefs are claimed to be beyond question.) But I have also provided some supporting facts and references for my view (but not for my belief), however unconvincing they may be to you or to others. But once again you have not provided anything in support of your statement that The Buddhist link is not proved beyond doubt. Secondly, even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the linkage between Advaita with Buddhism is not proved beyond doubt (this is your belief once again, as it appears), can it also not mean, simultaneously, that the non-linkage of Advaita to Buddhistic thought is also not proved beyond doubt? In other words, is there any convincing proof which you can provide which will show that Advaita could not have had any Buddhistic influence? If so, please provide the same.

Now, here are some more supporting evidence for my pov that Advaita has clear Buddhistic linkages:—

That mahāyāṉa buddhism had an influence upon the formation of Advaita Vedāṉta philosophy is now indubitable. However, for over a thousand years, this influence has either been virtually ignored, on the one hand, or either hotly contested by Advaita adherents or summarily paid lip service as some sort of crypto-Buddhism, on the other[FONT=&quot]. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](BOOK REVIEWS)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Reference may also be made to the books :[/FONT]

Early Advaita Vedānta and Buddhism: the Mahāyāna context of the Gauḍapādīya karika By Richard King.

Early Advaita Vednta and Buddhism ... - Google Books


The Encyclopedia of Indian philosophies: Advaita Vedānta up to Śaṃkara and His pupils By Karl H. Potter pp.21-22


The Encyclopedia of Indian ... - Google Books

“Advaita-Vedanta has roots in the early Vedas, although its principal Vedic foundation is the Upaniṣads. It was also greatly affected by the other schools of Hinduism as well as Buddhism (Raju 1985:378), with which it has a number of similarities. 40 Indeed, tradition has it that Śaṃkara vas greatly influenced by the views of his teacher's teacher, Gauḍapāda, 41 who taught a version of non-dual Hinduism based on the Upaniṣads but strongly influenced by Buddhist Vijñānavāda and Śūnyavāda teachings.” —Reality and mystical experience By F. Samuel Brainardp.181

Reality and mystical experience - Google Books

Google for “buddhist influences in advaita”, get more than 4000 results in googlebooks.

So, why does he gets upset when I said that he has not provided any proof to back up his infereces (remember I was posting as a member, NOT AS A SM), when he has not. Even the Wikipedia citation he has posted afterwards, at the end says while some researchers conclude that the concept may have come from Buddhism, read the citations last para, which gives the opposite view. Because I know that Sri Sangom Ji has strong opinions about Brahminism, etc., I think his nopinions are colored by that. What is wrong in saying that?

(emphasis mine)

You have not said which of the citations give the opposite view. I find that the last citation (I do not get what you mean by “citations last para”) is Advaita Siddhi and gives the text of “advaita siddhi” of Madhusudana Sarasvati. Naturally, therefore, one will not find any admission of buddhistic linkage here. If you are referring to something else please be little clearer.

I was concerned not because I cannot provide proof to back up my points of view; but to provide proof for my inferences, which the Dictionary defines as “The reasoning involved in drawing a conclusion or making a logical judgment on the basis of circumstantial evidence and prior conclusions rather than on the basis of direct observation”, is rather difficult for anyone just as it seems that you have difficulty in providing proof to back up your belief that VisishTadvaita is more aligned to Advaita and not dwaita philosophy.

Lastly, my 'proof' about Dwaitha and Visishtadwaitha are more related: I do not need any 'proofs' to make this statement - it is based on logic. Advaitha is based on the abedha principle from the Vedas. Visishtadwaith is based on reconciling both abhda and bheda principles from the same Vedas. Dwaitha is entirely based on bheda principle from the same Vedas. Hence my statement.

KRS, I do not know whether to laugh or cry for the fate of this forum. Look at your statement “my 'proof' about Dwaitha and Visishtadwaitha are more related: I do not need any 'proofs' to make this statement”. So, if you do not need any proof for any statement, then there is no question of someone else being provided with any proof either. Going by this logic, if I do not need any ‘proofs’ to make a statement like “earth is flat”, then I will not be called upon – at least in this forum, as long as you rule it as SM – by anyone else to provide proof for backing up my conviction, belief, etc. Do you agree? When you were not sure about buddhistic influence on advaita and called for proof, it is incumbent upon the ordinary member who makes the blunder of engaging in a discussion with you, to provide such proof, even if he did not have any doubt about it himself and did not require any further proof ; but when you are convinced about VA and A being closer, that is it, you do not need any proof and so anyone else calling upon you to substantiate your claim is making a faux pas! This wonderful rule is what I am objecting to with all the force at my command. And this has to be ended.

In my pm to you yesterday I cited one website from which some basic lessons can be had about Constructing a Logical Argument[FONT=&quot] Atheism: Logic & Fallacies[/FONT]

1. I will recommend this to other members/readers also.

Because, in this great Forum the rules of debate/discussion are also as set by the SM, at least it seems so to me, I attach a page from the book Advaita and Viśiṣṭādvaita: a study based on Vedānta Deśikā's Śatadūṣani By S. M. Srinivasa Chari which may convince the readers that Viśiṣṭādvaita was all about opposing Advaita and proving it to be an untenable philosophy, just as Dwaita did, and, when viewed from this perspective of antagonism towards Advaita, VA and D are comrades-in-arms. If A and VA were, in reality, closer to each other, as KRS holds, the sharp division of Hinduism into two opposing camps of Saivites and Vaishnavites and some of the sanguinary sectarian fights might not have happened.

I now observe that Shri Nara has also given his views which support mine.

 

[sangom]

I am extremely sorry that I omiited the attachment to post #129. It is attached to this post please.

 

[subbudu1]

Dear Mr. Subbudu.

A few simple questions from this humble ignoramus. Being a cognoscenti will you please answer them?



These are summary statements. Like if I say my neighbour is a pest. Please give reasons for your conclusions. You are assuming to be a high priest and you are issuing your fatwa. Hindus do not accept such fatwas.



"talks about some unknown god"--God is unknown. Do you know God? If you know please tell me what he is like.
"It miserably fails in giving proper evidence of the attributes of the God"-- What kind of an evidence will be the "proper" one. You have to make it clear first.

"If we go by this philopsophy the best that we can dream of is the place of some guard or a bhakta in Vaikunta or may be the chakra and shanku of God or get somehow embedded in the body of God like a drop in the ocean."--What better than this so called best do you have in mind? A Porche with a chaaffeur or beautiful girls in the 7th heaven?

"There is again no evidence of this kripa or grace of god, who rescues his devotees. This god also has some special preference to people who brand the god's marks on their body."
If this is your understanding of the Visishtadvaita philosophy, (Edtd-KRS)



The sweeping ease with which you pass your judgments is some thing amazing. The mullahs of Dwaita and the gurus of islam running after you would be indeed an interesting visual.

Cheers.

Dear Suraju,

Firstly they are my views. Secondly I have good reasons for my views. Let me give you my reasons. This is just the jist of my views. You can ask me for more explanation.

These are summary statements. Like if I say my neighbour is a pest. Please give reasons for your conclusions. You are assuming to be a high priest and you are issuing your fatwa. Hindus do not accept such fatwas.

This you have said in response to my view on Advaita.
Let me respond.
Advaita - Extraordinary claim require extraordinary proof. Starting from Shankaracharya nobody demonstrated non-duality with brahman practically. So everyone is making a theoritical case. That is fine with me. Advaita says self is brahman. Jagat Mithya Brahmaiva Sathyam. From a practical perspective even learning grammar is discouraged. Remember Bhaja Govindam? Many many intelligent people over the last 1000 years have left home in their teenage. Why? Because world is illusion , go for the brahman. This is a pessimistic philosophy therefore. It is self serving. Why? If you are alone there in the world then why bother about the world. Seriously what is the need to rescue the lot of suffering if you alone exist. You must sort yourself first. Yes you may have some vague assertion that once you become free the entire world can be made free. But do you really become free? There is a goodness in every individual. Inspite of his philosophy, the good man, uses his logic bends the philosophy to serve the people. The man is good his philosophy is self serving.

Vishishtadvaita is a special case of dualism. Dualism means brahman is not the same as jiva. Brahman should not be affected by jiva. This is what I understand as dualism. So vishishtadvaita is indeed a compromise with dualism but wants to somehow make friends with those vedantic statements which are in favor of some unity with brahman.

Let me respond to this-

"talks about some unknown god"--God is unknown. Do you know God? If you know please tell me what he is like.
"It miserably fails in giving proper evidence of the attributes of the God

I dont know sir, but if someone agrees that God is unknown or beyond grasp of the jiva, then that person will never speak of advaita or vishistadvaita but just keep quiet. But no, the philsophers dont want to keep quiet, do they? That means they know God. If they know God they should be able to enlist those attributes of God and prove that God alone can have those qualities.
I have never seen that evidence. We can take up this discussion if you are willing. However if you go on enlisting positive attributes to God and his involvement in good things in life, you will also need to prove that he does not have the exact negative of the attributes listed in his favor. You will also need to prove that he is not accountable for any of the wrong things that happen in life. If we go thus by this type of discrimination, we must have an anti-god. I would like to listen to your reasoning here.

What better than this so called best do you have in mind? A Porche with a chaaffeur or beautiful girls in the 7th heaven?

I am only saying that being a permanant dependant does not appeal to me. I would rather be fully independant yet be incapable of being affected by suffering and be bestowed with all the wisdom as that is required.

This god also has some special preference to people who brand the god's marks on their body

I knew this might be offensive to some. But I find it a big hypocracy. My personal view , do what you want be what you want without much show. It is indeed the belief of many that this symbolism is an absolute must. May be it reminds them of god more. May be the symbol itself is so sacred that god is with that person by marking those symbols. But then words and actions show so much hypocracy that I am forced to speak aloud. Forgive me. Its my POV.

I made a comparison between dvaita and islam because both of them are quite fundamentalistic, though to a different degree. Both represent duality. That was my only point. Yes there are hundreds or may be thousands of differences. But both are quite irrational and I can discuss this as well. I am not surprised that you omitted my reference to Prahlada. One of the great madhva teachers has been made an avatar of prahlada. Madhvas do believe that the best position an individual can get is the place of an eternal devotee. Unfortunately even Prahlada had to go through all the normal human suffering of birth and worldly life. Looks like here there is no freedom. One of the main teachings of Islam is that everybody is ultimately God's slave and be willing to fully submit to him. Do you see the connection?

 

[KRS]

Folks,

I have quite a bit of postings that I need to respond to. As I am unfortunately busy, I I am not in a position to respond immediately.

Please do not post anything more on the 'situation' till I respond. Then, if have anything more, you may. Thanks.

Regards,
Ram

 

[sangom]

How I wish that the "work commitments" had come a couple of days or a week earlier!! If it had, we would have avoided the unpleasantness which ensued.

Regards,

narayan

May be it has to do with some other forum

 

[Nara]

.... Whatever I write will be disheartening to Mr. Professor Honourable Nara jee because he is still nursing a wound. He is working to a plan and you know that.

Raju, I would like to state as plainly as I can, I am not nursing any wound of any kind. I avoid responding to you only because you have shown a tendency to make unnecessarily personal, degrading and insulting remarks.

Even now I have no qualms engaging with you if you foreswear ad hominem attacks and stick to that promise. On the other hand, you may think (i) I am plain ignorant, (ii) talking to me is a waste of time, and (iii) your time is better spent only taking regular pot shots. In this case, is it possible that you are the one nursing some kind of imagined wound?

Once again, I offer peace and dialog if you promise to refrain from insulting personal remarks and keep the promise.

Thank you ...

 

[Nara]

....Advaita and Viśiṣṭādvaita: a study based on Vedānta Deśikā's Śatadūṣani By S. M. Srinivasa Chari which may convince the readers that Viśiṣṭādvaita was all about opposing Advaita and proving it to be an untenable philosophy, just as Dwaita did, and, when viewed from this perspective of antagonism towards Advaita, VA and D are comrades-in-arms.

Dear Shri Sangom sir, I would like to cite a direct quote from Swami Sri Desikan's (SSD) magnum opus, Srimat Rahasya Traiya Saram (RTS). This is not a polemical text as the intended audience is fellow SVs, though he does have some mildly polemical parts in which he respectfully, but firmly, rebuts the views of proto-Thenkalai of Swami Pillai Lokacharyar in the chapters dealing with SiddopAya and sAdyopAyA for moksham.

Chapter 2 titled सारनिष्कर्षाधिकारम्, wherein SSD establishes the principal authority of the Vedas,
he starts out with the declaration, "श्रुति पथ विपरीतं क्ष्वेळकल्पम्" -- what is in contradiction to the Vedas is akin to poison. Here, श्रुति पथ विपरीतं is supposed to refer to Advaitam, I am not saying this, the SV commentators of RTS say this. While Bouddam is nAstikam for all astikas, for SVs, namely VA proponents, Advaitam is kudrishti and therefore, poison. To SVs, Advaitees are nothing but Bouddas in all but the name, hence the derisive epithet, pracchanna boudda.

Even in practice, there is clear antipathy towards acharyas of Advaitam compared to acharyas of D. SV acharays have no problem meeting Madva acharyas, but they are forbidden from coming face-to-face with ekadaNDa sanyasees like Sankaracharyars because they don't wear yagyapvateeam. A few years ago when Srimat Azhagiya Singar of Srimat Ahobila Matam met Kanchi Sankarachariyar in person there was quite a murmur among SV orthodoxy. On the other hand, there is written record of the 42nd Azhagiya Singar, known as Injimedu Azhagiya Singar, debating a Madwa acharya in Sri Rangam face-to-face on the concept of taratamyam in Sri Vaikuntam about 70 years ago. I suspect both sides claimed victory , just kidding, I don't know what the Madwas claim, but the SV side claims their Acharya won!

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Folks,

I will be presenting my case for advaita with references as required by some members soon. I am happy I am able to find time for discussing this subject here which is very close to my heart. I hope there will be a fruitful discussion.

 

[KRS]

Dear Professor Ji,
Let me be brief, because I do not want to keep on harping on this. But let me cite a couple of things:

"I don't remember, but this is something that is not entirely out of character. This is about religion and what it does to otherwise rational people. I condemn religion of all stripes, not the religious, for they are victims IMO."

Is this not a condescending and hurtful statement?

This asserts that a person who is a follower of a religion is a victim! Now implicit in this are two possibilities: 1. They are victims out of ignorance and 2. They are wittingly are victims. So, you are essentially judging these folks' intellect as either incapable of being rational, or you judge them to be rational, but have a 'defect' to follow the conclusions that a rational thought should necessarily lead them (like yourself) to an atheist or agnostic view point. Have you ever asked yourself why the majority of this globe follow a religion? So, in my opinion calling all the people who follow a religion is a personal attack on their being.

Secondly, let me post here a post you have made much after this one:"According to this theory, on anything you have personal experiences in, ipso facto, you cannot have unbiased rational view, it must only be a colored one. The fallacy of this logic is so obvious it is a wonder that it is used so often. The tactic is to tarnish the credibility of the individual in the hope that the views of the individual will not be taken seriously. Some people take this tactic to the extreme and smear and destroy the individual and crowd out any reasonable exchange of ideas. In the recent past more of this is happening in this forum."

I know this is clearly directed against me, but this is okay. You say that 'this is tactics by 'some' to muzzle some others. This is in the context of Srimathi HH Ji, questioning my words.

So, it is alright for you to call the intentions of every one else, while accusing me of saying things that hurt you? Even after I explained in earnest what I meant?

I was sincere when I said that 'Polyannaish' was not used to hurt you, I never have compared you to Pol Pot and Chamberlain at a personal level, only compared them on ideas, you still accuse me.

Where is the civilized behavior? Who defines it?

As you have rightly said, I have the power to throw you out. Please think a bit on this, why I have not done so, when I constantly get PMs from a lot of Forum members here who routinely ask why we are entertaining folks like you, who do not respect our identity as a Brahmin, on the cultural basis?

Regards,
KRS





Yes, you did call folks who follow a religion as 'irrational' and 'superstitious'.

Dear Shri KRS,


Thank you, I hope some action will be forthcoming.

It is not just that, you said people like me do most harm to this world and that my views are offensive to the 9/11 families. These are unnecessarily personal.

Shri KRS, tell me one instance when this word is used as a complement as you claim. It is always used as a put down and you know it. Please go back and read your own post and see whether it sounds innocuous.

It really does not matter to me all that much, I only feel sorry I can't dialog with you if you are going to resort to such tactics.

Even as an ordinary member, one who is supposed to be an unknown quantity, I try to consider how my words will appear to the reader. But you are SM. You have special responsibility that comes with the special powers bestowed upon you. You, as an SM, have a special obligation to set a high standard for civil exchange. But, you wish to write what you want and want me to read your mind and not the words you write. Is that not too much of an ask?

Shri KRS, you are still my brother, and I will take your word for it. I hope in the future, the words you write are more reflective of what is in your mind.

Same comment as above. IMO, equating any ordinary person to some of the worst criminals in human history, is not something that I would do or would consider kosher.

Let me quote from this post:

It is a pity that folks like you who live in a theoretical world, who do most harm to this world with your polyannish attitde, aka, Neville Chamberlain, who confuse pacifism at all costs to civilized behaviour.
​

If this is not a personally degrading and personally offending comment, I guess we have to descend to the standards of Tamilnation.com or Karuthu.com to ascertain what is civil.

I wouldn't expect anything less!

I don't remember, but this is something that is not entirely out of character. This is about religion and what it does to otherwise rational people. I condemn religion of all stripes, not the religious, for they are victims IMO.

Shri KRS, I have a lot of respect for you, I don't have any biological brothers and it would be a blast to have you as a brother. In other words, I don't take any of this personally against you. But, I think you do need to think twice about making personal comments like "people like you". Just imagine if somebody says to you -- I wouldn't -- people like you with conservative ideas are the enemies of all that is wholesome, how would you take it, would you take it as a personal attack or merely a criticism of your ideas?

Whatever the case may be, I do feel it is a personal attack when things such as "people like you" are written.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Definitions pertaining to Advaita

(Note: I will be adding the exact references soon. My main reference would be the commentary on Brahma Sutra by Sankara. The material is available on the web here: Brahmasutra Bhashya Of Shankaracharya - Commentary Of Shankaracharya On Vedanta Sutras - Brahma Sutra Brahma Sutra Sankara Index)

Brahman

The one and only reality that is complete by itself and is eternal. I will call it the higher brahman to differntiate it from the jiva.

Jiva

Higher brahman projecting itself as a transient and an incomplete form. I will call the jiva as the lower brahman. I will also call their own reality and the reality they expereince as a relative or lower reality.

Maya and Avidya

Maya is something which is in the nature of brahman. It is inseparable from brahman and just as brahman is beginningless it is beginningless too. The existence of the jivas as a relative reality is ascribed to this nature of brahman called maya.

Avidya is the effect of maya. It is found in jivas which experience only the lower reality. This is because veiling of truth by maya keeps projecting physical worlds. The veiling denies access by jivas to brahman which is the higher reality. The veil though doesn't deny access the other way. Brahman enjoys the unified experience and is not affected by maya

Note: The obscuring veil of maya affects every jiva and the jiva has to learn its way through to establish connections with brahman

Real and Unreal

The same perception by all who belong to a ceratin stage of spiritual development, say all the jivas which are humans. Something which is not real is unreal. In the case of brahman something not perceived by it is unreal.

The essence of Advaita

( I am copying most of the content from one of my previous
posts on advaita and that is my take on advaita)

There is existence of one and only ultimate reality called brahman. Other existences are said to be only relatively real but are also in essence brahman. The relationship of these to brahman is one of lower realities to a higher reality. From the point of view of brahman there is no plurality in existence as all the lower realities are transient in nature and eventually merge in brahman. Brahman in its pure nature has only the unified experience. From the point of view of the lower realities they are under illusion when they perceive plurality and they ultimately realize that there is only one reality.

What is the importance of the physical world? From the wordly perspective, it is the field where jivas or the lower realities learn and evolve. It can be said to form the substance of brahman. From the point of view of brahman they are the basis of the experience that brahman enjoys.


Responses to objections to Advaita

(Note: Please read the term Avidya as Maya for the following to be consistent with my definitions of the terms)


I. The nature of avidya. Avidya must be either real or unreal; there is no other possibility. But neither of these is possible. If avidya is real, non-dualism collapses into dualism. If it is unreal, we are driven to self-contradiction or infinite regress.

Avidya need not be either real or unreal. Avidya is unreal for brahman. It is real with respect to jivas but this has no consequence on non-dualism.

II. The incomprehensibility of avidya. Advaitins claim that avidya is neither real nor unreal but incomprehensible (anirvacaniya). All cognition is either of the real or the unreal: the Advaitin claim flies in the face of experience, and accepting it would call into question all cognition and render it unsafe.


In the case of the jivas, the physical reality is taken as the only reality. The illusion is not comprehended. In the case of brahman where there is no ignorance, illusion is absent and in a sense incomprehensible. In other words one cannot perceive illusion and therefore something could be incomprehensible.


III. The grounds of knowledge of avidya. No pramana can establish avidya in the sense the Advaitin requires. Advaita philosophy presents avidya not as a mere lack of knowledge, as something purely negative, but as an obscuring layer which covers Brahman and is removed by true Brahma-vidya (knowledge of Brahman). Avidya is positive nescience not mere ignorance. Ramanuja argues that positive nescience is established neither by perception, nor by inference, nor by scriptural testimony. On the contrary, Ramanuja argues, all cognition is of the real.

Avidya as an obscuring layer or as positive nescience should be interpreted as just the "cause" which is responsible for the lack of knowledge

IV. The locus of avidya. Where is the avidya that gives rise to the (false) impression of the reality of the perceived world? There are two possibilities; it could be Brahman's avidya or the individual jiva. Neither is possible. Brahman is knowledge; avidya cannot co-exist as an attribute with a nature utterly incompatible with it. Nor can the individual jiva be the locus of avidya: the existence of the individual jiva is due to avidya; this would lead to a vicious circle.

Avidya could have caused the existence of the individual jiva but the jiva thus caused has been blemished by avidya and carries those effects.

V. Avidya's obscuration of the nature of Brahman. Sankara would have us believe that the true nature of Brahman is somehow covered-over or obscured by avidya. Ramanuja regards this as an absurdity: given that Advaita claims that Brahman is pure self-luminous consciousness, obscuration must mean either preventing the origination of this (impossible since Brahman is eternal) or the destruction of it - equally absurd.


Brahman and the reality through avidya are co-existing realities, the latter being a relative reality. The effect of avidya is only on the relative realty and brahman itself is unaffected.


VI. The removal of avidya by brahma-vidya. Advaita claims that avidya has no beginning, but it is terminated and removed by brahma-vidya, the intuition of the reality of Brahman as pure, undifferentiated consciousness. But Ramanuja denies the existence of undifferentiated (nirguna) Brahman, arguing that whatever exists has attributes: Brahman has infinite auspicious attributes. Liberation is a matter of divine grace: no amount of learning or wisdom will deliver us.

Right knowledge makes your mind balanced. Realizing brahman which is nirguna or one that is balanced seems like a more logical description of how liberation is achieved.

VII. The removal of avidya. For the Advaitin, the bondage in which we dwell before the attainment of moksa is caused by maya and avidya; knowledge of reality (brahma-vidya) releases us. Ramanuja, however, asserts that bondage is real. No kind of knowledge can remove what is real. On the contrary, knowledge discloses the real; it does not destroy it. And what exactly is the saving knowledge that delivers us from bondage to maya? If it is real then non-duality collapses into duality; if it is unreal, then we face an utter absurdity.


There is no question of non-duality collapsing because knowledge that releases us from bondage is the knowledge of brahman or of the ultimate truth.

 

[happyhindu]

I know this is clearly directed against me, but this is okay. You say that 'this is tactics by 'some' to muzzle some others. This is in the context of Srimathi HH Ji, questioning my words.

Dear Shri KRS ji,

Please this is NOT the context in which i made my post above to you. My post above was mainly regarding what i felt was a personal attack on Sangom sir. Please sir i wud prefer to clarify over PM.

Thanks sir.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom sir, I would like to cite a direct quote from Swami Sri Desikan's (SSD) magnum opus, Srimat Rahasya Traiya Saram (RTS). This is not a polemical text as the intended audience is fellow SVs, though he does have some mildly polemical parts in which he respectfully, but firmly, rebuts the views of proto-Thenkalai of Swami Pillai Lokacharyar in the chapters dealing with SiddopAya and sAdyopAyA for moksham.

Chapter 2 titled सारनिष्कर्षाधिकारम्, wherein SSD establishes the principal authority of the Vedas,
he starts out with the declaration, "श्रुति पथ विपरीतं क्ष्वेळकल्पम्" -- what is in contradiction to the Vedas is akin to poison. Here, श्रुति पथ विपरीतं is supposed to refer to Advaitam, I am not saying this, the SV commentators of RTS say this. While Bouddam is nAstikam for all astikas, for SVs, namely VA proponents, Advaitam is kudrishti and therefore, poison. To SVs, Advaitees are nothing but Bouddas in all but the name, hence the derisive epithet, pracchanna boudda.

Even in practice, there is clear antipathy towards acharyas of Advaitam compared to acharyas of D. SV acharays have no problem meeting Madva acharyas, but they are forbidden from coming face-to-face with ekadaNDa sanyasees like Sankaracharyars because they don't wear yagyapvateeam. A few years ago when Srimat Azhagiya Singar of Srimat Ahobila Matam met Kanchi Sankarachariyar in person there was quite a murmur among SV orthodoxy. On the other hand, there is written record of the 42nd Azhagiya Singar, known as Injimedu Azhagiya Singar, debating a Madwa acharya in Sri Rangam face-to-face on the concept of taratamyam in Sri Vaikuntam about 70 years ago. I suspect both sides claimed victory , just kidding, I don't know what the Madwas claim, but the SV side claims their Acharya won!

Cheers!

Dear Shri Nara,

Though your knowledge of SV scriptures and texts cannot be bested even by SVs probably, I, as a run-of-the-mill smarta, have had very little knowledge about SVs, their scriptures and other texts as also their tenets, in my younger days. What little my first lesson was , was the normal extremely friendly and talkative "mangai" ammaami of the opposite house in my street (an "ayyangaachi" for our people) not even speaking a word on some days rarely. In due course we found out that the day next would be the thevasam of her late husband Subsequently one day my younger sister bluntly asked her why she would not talk to us on some days and she, it seems, replied, "தெவசத்துக்கு தலைக்கு நாள் "ஒரிக்கல்" (மலையாளம் - ஒரு வேளை சாப்பாடு, விரதம் என்று அர்த்தம்) அல்லவோ? எங்க ஆசாரப்படி சிலதெல்லாம் செய்யக்கூடாது." Slowly and slowly we came to know that Iyengars do not treat us as equal brahmins and that was an insult for me, then 13 or 14 years old. In revenge, I used to join other children whenever, for any reason, they used to come and shout in front of Mangaimami's house ஆட்டுக்கும் மாட்டுக்கும் ரெண்டு கொம்பு, ஐயங்கார் சாமிக்கு மூணு கொம்பு and used to feel some sort of vicarious satisfaction in it though there were rebukes from my mother each time I indulged in this

I had a very close Iyengar friend in my Honours course and I used to visit the temple in front of his house, almost daily, meet him but never once would he invite me inside his house nor will he ever visit mine. An ignoramus, I used to feel inwardly that perhaps I must have done something so bad as to earn his secret dislike till another friend told me that my first friend was a very staunch Iyengar and so would behave like that only. Thus, in bits and bytes, I got some ideas about Vaishnavas. After getting a job, I used to read a lot of books on religion and related subjects and became more aware about the schisms.

But whatever the facts may be, as you will have seen from the discussion between Shri KRS, in this forum the most important yardstick is different; KRS has to be convinced that Ramanuja set out more as an opponent of Advaitam, and not as an arbiter between bheda and abheda sruthis. Madhwa was more forthright and dared to call a spade a spade, God is God and Jeeva is jeeva, and never the twain shall merge, is it correct? Perhaps Shri Subbudu knows better.

 

[subbudu1]

I had a very close Iyengar friend in my Honours course and I used to visit the temple in front of his house, almost daily, meet him but never once would he invite me inside his house nor will he ever visit mine. An ignoramus, I used to feel inwardly that perhaps I must have done something so bad as to earn his secret dislike till another friend told me that my first friend was a very staunch Iyengar and so would behave like that only. Thus, in bits and bytes, I got some ideas about Vaishnavas. After getting a job, I used to read a lot of books on religion and related subjects and became more aware about the schisms.

It is a common experience. I am surprised how the vaishnavas in TN took a sudden U-turn since the days of Ramanuja. Reading the chronicles of Alwars, where did all that broadmindedness go. What happened to Vaishnavism among NB? Brahmins were gained for Vaishnavism, but NB were lost?

It might be interesting to know what happened to the wife side family of Ramanuja. He left his wife not able to bear her narrow thinking. Probably his wife side family also adopted Sri Vaishnavism and we see the consequence today. Just a loud thinking!

 

[sangom]

Definitions pertaining to Advaita

(Note: I will be adding the exact references soon. My main reference would be the commentary on Brahma Sutra by Sankara. The material is available on the web here: Brahmasutra Bhashya Of Shankaracharya - Commentary Of Shankaracharya On Vedanta Sutras - Brahma Sutra Brahma Sutra Sankara Index)

Shri Sravna,

I list some of the salient points from your post below and indicate some of my doubts below these in italics. Please consider clearing those doubts.


Maya and Avidya

Maya is something which is in the nature of brahman. It is inseparable from brahman and just as brahman is beginningless it is beginningless too. The existence of the jīvas as a relative reality is ascribed to this nature of brahman called maya.

Avidya is the effect of maya. It is found in jīvas which experience only the lower reality. This is because veiling of truth by maya keeps projecting physical worlds. The veiling denies access by jīvas to brahman which is the higher reality. The veil though doesn't deny access the other way. Brahman enjoys the unified experience and is not affected by maya



The same perception by all who belong to a ceratin stage of spiritual development, say all the jīvas which are humans. Something which is not real is unreal. In the case of brahman something not perceived by it is unreal.

1. Avidya need not be either real or unreal. Avidya is unreal for brahman. It is real with respect to jīvas but this has no consequence on non-dualism.

2. In the case of the jīvas, the physical reality is taken as the only reality. The illusion is not comprehended. In the case of brahman where there is no ignorance, illusion is absent and in a sense incomprehensible. In other words one cannot perceive illusion and therefore something could be incomprehensible.

3. Avidya as an obscuring layer or as positive nescience should be interpreted as just the "cause" which is responsible for the lack of knowledge

4. Avidya could have caused the existence of the individual jīva but the jīva thus caused has been blemished by avidya and carries those effects.

5. Brahman and the reality through avidya are co-existing realities, the latter being a relative reality. The effect of avidya is only on the relative realty and brahman itself is unaffected.

Brahman, the only reality and hence omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent entity cannot comprehend the “illusion” caused by Avidyā.
Brahman and Avidyā are both beginningless. Avidyā is the cause of jīvas and it also blemishes the jīva. Brahman is not capable of avoiding these two. It therefore looks that there must be some controller above both Brahman and māyā which has set these inviolable rules for the two.

Brahman is not affected by māyā or avidyā and there is no illusion. Therefore, Brahman cannot perceive the illusion caused by avidyā. (See item 2 above.) How then can Brahman be the only Reality? Avidyā/māyā seems to be more powerful than Brahman because, whereas Brahman is not capable of removing the illusion caused in any jīva by the effects of māyā, māyā’s veil is incomprehensible to Brahman. Also Brahman has no ability to produce any jīva without the intercession of Māyā. So, māyā/avidyā seems to be more empowered than Brahman itself and could be a second reality itself. Advata’s view as to māyā being “anirvacanīya” (indefinable) only makes it more abstruse (to the human intellect) but does not make it unreal.

Maya is something which is in the nature of brahman. It is inseparable from brahman and just as brahman is beginningless it is beginningless too. The existence of the jīvas as a relative reality is ascribed to this nature of brahman called maya.

If Māyā is in the nature of, as well as inseparable from, Brahman then it must be an integral constituent of Brahman itself. Hence the avidyā, effect of Māyā must also be an integral constituent of Brahman, which is, by definition, pure knowledge. Thus the entire basis of advaita becomes shaky.

 

[sravna]

Shri Sravna,

I list some of the salient points from your post below and indicate some of my doubts below these in italics. Please consider clearing those doubts.


Maya and Avidya

Maya is something which is in the nature of brahman. It is inseparable from brahman and just as brahman is beginningless it is beginningless too. The existence of the jīvas as a relative reality is ascribed to this nature of brahman called maya.

Avidya is the effect of maya. It is found in jīvas which experience only the lower reality. This is because veiling of truth by maya keeps projecting physical worlds. The veiling denies access by jīvas to brahman which is the higher reality. The veil though doesn't deny access the other way. Brahman enjoys the unified experience and is not affected by maya



The same perception by all who belong to a ceratin stage of spiritual development, say all the jīvas which are humans. Something which is not real is unreal. In the case of brahman something not perceived by it is unreal.

1. Avidya need not be either real or unreal. Avidya is unreal for brahman. It is real with respect to jīvas but this has no consequence on non-dualism.

2. In the case of the jīvas, the physical reality is taken as the only reality. The illusion is not comprehended. In the case of brahman where there is no ignorance, illusion is absent and in a sense incomprehensible. In other words one cannot perceive illusion and therefore something could be incomprehensible.

3. Avidya as an obscuring layer or as positive nescience should be interpreted as just the "cause" which is responsible for the lack of knowledge

4. Avidya could have caused the existence of the individual jīva but the jīva thus caused has been blemished by avidya and carries those effects.

5. Brahman and the reality through avidya are co-existing realities, the latter being a relative reality. The effect of avidya is only on the relative realty and brahman itself is unaffected.

Brahman, the only reality and hence omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent entity cannot comprehend the “illusion” caused by Avidyā.
Brahman and Avidyā are both beginningless. Avidyā is the cause of jīvas and it also blemishes the jīva. Brahman is not capable of avoiding these two. It therefore looks that there must be some controller above both Brahman and māyā which has set these inviolable rules for the two.

Brahman is not affected by māyā or avidyā and there is no illusion. Therefore, Brahman cannot perceive the illusion caused by avidyā. (See item 2 above.) How then can Brahman be the only Reality? Avidyā/māyā seems to be more powerful than Brahman because, whereas Brahman is not capable of removing the illusion caused in any jīva by the effects of māyā, māyā’s veil is incomprehensible to Brahman. Also Brahman has no ability to produce any jīva without the intercession of Māyā. So, māyā/avidyā seems to be more empowered than Brahman itself and could be a second reality itself. Advata’s view as to māyā being “anirvacanīya” (indefinable) only makes it more abstruse (to the human intellect) but does not make it unreal.

Maya is something which is in the nature of brahman. It is inseparable from brahman and just as brahman is beginningless it is beginningless too. The existence of the jīvas as a relative reality is ascribed to this nature of brahman called maya.

If Māyā is in the nature of, as well as inseparable from, Brahman then it must be an integral constituent of Brahman itself. Hence the avidyā, effect of Māyā must also be an integral constituent of Brahman, which is, by definition, pure knowledge. Thus the entire basis of advaita becomes shaky.

Dear Shri Sangom,

There are certain limitations when one uses language as a means of expression. In the case of brahman I use the word incomprehensible because a perfect being cannot by definition be affected by imperfection. If you say that the higher brahman being omnipotent should be able to do anything including being imperfect, then you are contradicting its nature of perfection.

Higher brahman co-exists with lower brahman the latter being said to exist due to the natural power of the former, called maya. The power of maya is used for the blissful experience of the brahman. Maya and the existence of jivas serves only the objective of brahman which is blissful experience.

Maya is inseparable from the brahman in the sense it is in the nature of brahman. That natural power of brahman is the cause of existence of co-existing realities, the reality attributed to maya not qualifying as an absolute reality but in essence an illusion because of the transient and incomplete nature of entities created forming that reality.

 

[subbudu1]

Brothers I have attached an exposition on Vishnu Tattva Nirnaya from the book - A history of the Dvaita school of Vedānta and its literature:from the earliest beginnings to our own times by B.N.Krishnamurthi Sharma.

A history of the Dvaita school of ... - Google Books

It explains the approach taken by Madhvacharya in refuting advaita

Let me summarize my understanding.
The lines of argument of Madhva are as follows
1. The difference between God and Man is the main goal of shastras and shurtis. The shrutis only proclaim the majesty of God and the dependance of all else on God.
2. Objects to the interpretation of tat-tvam asi. ( It is my understanding that madhva essential says that tat tvam asi simply means that The soul has similar qualities as god.
3. An important argument is his quotation from Brahadaranyaka Upanishad that even at moksha the atman is intact.
4. The arguments on the nature of difference to demolish the view of advaitins that difference cannot really be demonstrated and the very idea is riddled with contradictions. ( An argument here I am impressed is this- The advaitin himself recognizes that the cognition of self is immediate, but its identity with brahman, thought not essentially different from the self, is yet only mediately realizable through the terms jiva and brahman. What applies to Identity should hold good to difference, which is as much a relation as its opposite ). Madhva has offered strong arguments here that if difference were not natural , the one may mistake himself with numerous objects around him. He further objects to special doubts by saying that a particular doubt does not mean that difference in a general way has not been grasped at all. The thrust of his argument is that in a flash the object and its individuality is perceived simultaneously.

5. Madhva's next claim is that Shankara has given no proof of his concept of adhyasa.

6. No scheme of illusions can be demonstrated without the aid of atleast two distinct reals

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom,

There are certain limitations when one uses language as a means of expression. In the case of brahman I use the word incomprehensible because a perfect being cannot by definition be affected by imperfection. If you say that the higher brahman being omnipotent should be able to do anything including being imperfect, then you are contradicting its nature of perfection.

Shri Sravna,

If it your view that Brahman is so perfect that it cannot be omnipotent, kindly explain the logic behind such conclusion.

If "There are certain limitations when one uses language as a means of expression", how is it at all possible to explain advaita using any language? If it is your claim that Advaita cannot be explained using any language, kindly confirm that. Also then justify as to what extent Sankara and other advaitin scholars were right in trying to establish advaitic philosophy by means of debates and texts.

 

[suraju06]

Dear Suraju,
Firstly they are my views. Secondly I have good reasons for my views. Let me give you my reasons. This is just the jist of my views. You can ask me for more explanation.
This you have said in response to my view on Advaita.
Let me respond.
Advaita - Extraordinary claim require extraordinary proof. Starting from Shankaracharya nobody demonstrated non-duality with brahman practically. So everyone is making a theoritical case. That is fine with me. Advaita says self is brahman. Jagat Mithya Brahmaiva Sathyam. From a practical perspective even learning grammar is discouraged. Remember Bhaja Govindam? Many many intelligent people over the last 1000 years have left home in their teenage. Why? Because world is illusion , go for the brahman. This is a pessimistic philosophy therefore. It is self serving. Why? If you are alone there in the world then why bother about the world. Seriously what is the need to rescue the lot of suffering if you alone exist. You must sort yourself first. Yes you may have some vague assertion that once you become free the entire world can be made free. But do you really become free? There is a goodness in every individual. Inspite of his philosophy, the good man, uses his logic bends the philosophy to serve the people. The man is good his philosophy is self serving.
Vishishtadvaita is a special case of dualism. Dualism means brahman is not the same as jiva. Brahman should not be affected by jiva. This is what I understand as dualism. So vishishtadvaita is indeed a compromise with dualism but wants to somehow make friends with those vedantic statements which are in favor of some unity with brahman.
Let me respond to this-
I dont know sir, but if someone agrees that God is unknown or beyond grasp of the jiva, then that person will never speak of advaita or vishistadvaita but just keep quiet. But no, the philsophers dont want to keep quiet, do they? That means they know God. If they know God they should be able to enlist those attributes of God and prove that God alone can have those qualities.
I have never seen that evidence. We can take up this discussion if you are willing. However if you go on enlisting positive attributes to God and his involvement in good things in life, you will also need to prove that he does not have the exact negative of the attributes listed in his favor. You will also need to prove that he is not accountable for any of the wrong things that happen in life. If we go thus by this type of discrimination, we must have an anti-god. I would like to listen to your reasoning here.
I am only saying that being a permanant dependant does not appeal to me. I would rather be fully independant yet be incapable of being affected by suffering and be bestowed with all the wisdom as that is required.
I knew this might be offensive to some. But I find it a big hypocracy. My personal view , do what you want be what you want without much show. It is indeed the belief of many that this symbolism is an absolute must. May be it reminds them of god more. May be the symbol itself is so sacred that god is with that person by marking those symbols. But then words and actions show so much hypocracy that I am forced to speak aloud. Forgive me. Its my POV.
I made a comparison between dvaita and islam because both of them are quite fundamentalistic, though to a different degree. Both represent duality. That was my only point. Yes there are hundreds or may be thousands of differences. But both are quite irrational and I can discuss this as well. I am not surprised that you omitted my reference to Prahlada. One of the great madhva teachers has been made an avatar of prahlada. Madhvas do believe that the best position an individual can get is the place of an eternal devotee. Unfortunately even Prahlada had to go through all the normal human suffering of birth and worldly life. Looks like here there is no freedom. One of the main teachings of Islam is that everybody is ultimately God's slave and be willing to fully submit to him. Do you see the connection?

Dear Sri Subbudu,
You have raised several issues all at once. To answer these or to discuss these the first requirement will be a common standard and definitions. I would suggest this methodology for a discussion which can be fruitful, always moving towards a goal, time saving and mutually beneficial:
You can start with making clear concise statements of your position listing them as 1, 2, 3 .....etc. For each position you take you can briefly tell the reasons which can be based on scriptures(I am not meaning vedas alone here, it can be any thing which is available for the public to read-can be even Kant or Russel ) or your own perception which comes as the culmination of a thought process--so you can give the thought process. Once you complete this you can tell us that you have completed so that others can start debating the points one by one. I will also join that discussion when it takes place. I am a vaishnav by birth and by choice but I am not a bigot. So I can debate even if it is about blasphemy.

As I will be away in the Himalayas for the next 20 days, I will not be accessing internet from 25th May till I come back to Chennai. I will join you when I get back. I hope you would complete your statement of your position by then.

Cheers.

Cheers.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Let me put it this way:

If you say that something omnipotent can make itself NOT omnipotent, what would that mean? You are just playing with semantics here. These sort of statements make no sense in the same way you say that if a perfect being is not be able to make itself imperfect it is lacking in something.

Shri Sravna,

If it your view that Brahman is so perfect that it cannot be omnipotent, kindly explain the logic behind such conclusion.

If "There are certain limitations when one uses language as a means of expression", how is it at all possible to explain advaita using any language? If it is your claim that Advaita cannot be explained using any language, kindly confirm that. Also then justify as to what extent Sankara and other advaitin scholars were right in trying to establish advaitic philosophy by means of debates and texts.

 

[suraju06]

Dear Mr. Subbudu,

It is a common experience. I am surprised how the vaishnavas in TN took a sudden U-turn since the days of Ramanuja. Reading the chronicles of Alwars, where did all that broadmindedness go. What happened to Vaishnavism among NB? Brahmins were gained for Vaishnavism, but NB were lost?

Just as brahmins wanted to show themselves as a distinct group vaishnavites among brahmins also perhaps wanted to do the same thing. These are at best idiosyncracies (not of the individuals but the groups). I wont venture to be judgmental about the reasons. Every minority group has the mortal fear of losing its identity and that may the reason underlying such idiosyncracies. A normal young man who comes across such strange behaviors gets familiar with it as time goes and understands the behavior and takes it in his stride. A young man who is not normal sees red, imagines things and starts nursing a grudge. In the Kottayam area in Kerala I have come across Jacobite Christian old ladies who washe the crockery used by a visiting guest and clean the place where the guest sat. This despite the fact that they knew that the guest was a Nambudhiri. Idiosybcracies are there and they are just that.

It might be interesting to know what happened to the wife side family of Ramanuja. He left his wife not able to bear her narrow thinking. Probably his wife side family also adopted Sri Vaishnavism and we see the consequence today. Just a loud thinking!

About this later as I am pressed for time now.
Cheers.

Dear Mr. Subbudu,

 

[sravna]

One more thought. As for as brahman is concerned cause and effect both are inseparable in it, the effect being the lower realities. The power of maya only projects these cause and effects as separate. So brahman being affected by maya does not arise.

 

[zebra16]

Brothers I have attached an exposition on Vishnu Tattva Nirnaya from the book - A history of the Dvaita school of Vedānta and its literature:from the earliest beginnings to our own times by B.N.Krishnamurthi Sharma.

A history of the Dvaita school of ... - Google Books

It explains the approach taken by Madhvacharya in refuting advaita

Let me summarize my understanding.
The lines of argument of Madhva are as follows
1. The difference between God and Man is the main goal of shastras and shurtis. The shrutis only proclaim the majesty of God and the dependance of all else on God.
2. Objects to the interpretation of tat-tvam asi. ( It is my understanding that madhva essential says that tat tvam asi simply means that The soul has similar qualities as god.
3. An important argument is his quotation from Brahadaranyaka Upanishad that even at moksha the atman is intact.
4. The arguments on the nature of difference to demolish the view of advaitins that difference cannot really be demonstrated and the very idea is riddled with contradictions. ( An argument here I am impressed is this- The advaitin himself recognizes that the cognition of self is immediate, but its identity with brahman, thought not essentially different from the self, is yet only mediately realizable through the terms jiva and brahman. What applies to Identity should hold good to difference, which is as much a relation as its opposite ). Madhva has offered strong arguments here that if difference were not natural , the one may mistake himself with numerous objects around him. He further objects to special doubts by saying that a particular doubt does not mean that difference in a general way has not been grasped at all. The thrust of his argument is that in a flash the object and its individuality is perceived simultaneously.

5. Madhva's next claim is that Shankara has given no proof of his concept of adhyasa.

6. No scheme of illusions can be demonstrated without the aid of atleast two distinct reals

The interested parties may also refer to BUDDHISM, ADVAITA AND DVAITA – 1 « Adbhutam's Blog
for the rebuttals provided by a knowledgeble Advaitin to some of the points raised by Sri BKN

Regards,

narayan