Guest guest Posted May 6, 1998 Report Share Posted May 6, 1998 One of my good friends who is a member of the Cyber Madhava Sangha says he has a simple definition which proves that Dvaita is more `down to earth'. He says that there has to be two entities: Bhagawan and the Bhakta or the Seeker and the Sought. If God is within us, how can we seek him, he asks (in the Dvaita mailing list). I was unable to post a proper reply. Can anyone help me out? R. Dinakaran +--+ | R. DINAKARAN | | Chief Sub Editor | | The Hindu Business Line | | Kasturi Buildings | | Anna Salai | | CHENNAI 600 002 | | | | Phones: 8535067 (Ext. 460,452,490) | | 8534574 ( do ) (After office hours) | | 8531328 (News Editor) | | | | Pager : 9622701590 | | 9622702590 | | (Please dial all the numbers) | | | | E-mail: dynes | | | | Residence | | | | Plot No. 2, Flat No. 7 | | Otraivadai Street | | West KK Nagar | | Chennai 600 078 | +--+ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 1998 Report Share Posted May 6, 1998 R. Dinakaran <DYNES >One of my good friends who is a member of the Cyber Madhava Sangha >says he has a simple definition which proves that Dvaita is more >`down to earth'. Hare Krishna! Generally, I'm a little cautious when dealing with people who start off a conversation with the intention of proving that their philosophy is better than mine, especially when they are members of the CMS. While I intend no disrespect to that tradition as a whole, individual members of that forum do often times strike me as being more interested in shooting down other philosophies than in taking to unalloyed devotional service of Lord Krishna. I have heard of devotees refer to this in a less-than-flattering way as j~naana-mishra bhakti, or devotional service tinged with the desire for mental/philosophical speculation. >He says that there has to be two entities: Bhagawan and the Bhakta or >the Seeker and the Sought. If God is within us, how can we seek him, >he asks (in the Dvaita mailing list). That there are two distinct entities (Bhagavaan and the jiiva-s) is not something anyone is going to disagree with (except for advaitists). Certainly different schools of Vaishnavism attribute different levels of difference to them, but I personally am not convinced that this is significant given the goal of performing pure devotional service. The argument that "if God is within us, how can we seek him?" strikes me as rather trite. For one thing, it's not clear to me what he is trying to prove. Is he saying that the Lord does not dwell within the heart of the living entity? This is false as we know from scripture: kShetraj~na.m chaapi maam viddhi sarvakShetreShu bhaarata | kShetrakShetraj~nayorj~naana.m yattajj~naana.m mata.m mama || BG 13.3 || kShetra-j~nam - the knower of the field; cha - also; api - certainly; maam - Me; viddhi - know; sarva - all; kShetreShu - in bodily fields; bhaarata - O son of Bharata; kShetra - the field of activities (the body); kShetra-j~nayoH - and the knower of the field; j~naanam - knowledge of; yat - that which; tat - that; j~naanam - knowledge; matam - opinion; mama - My. O scion of Bharata, you should understand that I am also the knower in all bodies, and to understand this body and its knower is called knowledge. That is My opinion (bhagavad-giitaa 13.3). This is in response to Arjuna's question inquiring into the nature of prakR^iti, puruSha, knowledge, the object of knowledge, the field (kShetra) and the knower of the field (kShetra-j~na). Lord Krishna responds that the material body is the kShetra, and that the kShetra-j~na is the owner of the body. Then in this verse He states that He is also the knower in all bodies, or in otherwords that He is also present in the bodies of all living entities along with the jiiva. Later on this chapter, after describing the activities of the living entity who is bewildered by the modes of material nature (the guNa-s: sattvo-guNa, raajo-guNa, tamo-guNa), the Lord then says: upadraShTaanumantaa cha bartaa bhoktaa maheshvaraH | paramaatmeti chappyukto dehe'smin puruShaH paraH || BG 13.23 || upadraShTaa - overseer; anumantaa - permitter; cha - also; bhartaa - master; bhoktaa - supreme enjoyer; mahaa-iishvaraH - the Supreme Lord; parama-aatmaa - the Supersoul; iti - also; cha - and; api - indeed; uktaH - is said; dehe - in the body; asmin - this; puruShaH - enjoyer; paraH - transcendental. Yet in this body there is another, a transcendental enjoyer, who is the Lord, the supreme proprietor, who exists as the overseer and permitter, and who is known as the Supersoul (bhagavad-giitaa 13.23). This more explicitly states the same thing said earlier, that the Lord as Paramaatmaa also dwells in the body as an overseer (upadraShTaa), although He remains transcendental (paraH) in spite of this. This is unlike the jiiva who, because he is in a material body, can be understood to be covered by maayaa. Therefore, if your friend disputes the idea that God accompanies the jiiva within the material body, then he is wrong. He can challenge the authority of Bhagavad-Gita, but then you can ask him why Madhvaachaarya wrote the first extant commentary on the Gita if we are not supposed to consider it a valid pramaaNa. In answer to the question of "how can we seek out God if He is with us," the immediate answer is that due to being covered by maayaa, we cannot perceive the Paramaatmaa within our hearts. So a cleansing process is required. How can one try to perceive the Lord within us? This is also answered by Lord Krishna: dhyaanenaatmani pashyanti kechidaatmaanamaatmanaa | anye saa.nkheyna yogena karmayogena chaapare || BG 13.25 || dhyaanena - by meditation; aatmani - within the self; pashyanti - see; kechit - some; aatmaanam - the Supersoul; aatmanaa - by the mind; anye - others; saa.nkhyena - of philosophical discussion; yogena - by the yoga system; karma-yogena by activities without fruitive desire; cha - also; apare - others. Some perceive the Supersoul within themselves by meditation, others through the cultivation of knowledge, and still others through working without fruitive desires (bhagavad-giitaa 13.25). anye tvevamajaanantaH shrutvaanyebhya upaasate | te'pi chaatitarantyeva mR^ityu.m shrutiparaayaNaaH || BG 13.26 || anye - others; tu - but; evam - thus; ajaanantaH - without spiritual knowledge; shrutvaa - by hearing; anyebhyaH - from others; upaasate - begin to worship; te - they; api - also; cha - and; atitaranti - transcend; eva - certainly; mR^ityum - the path of death; shruti-paraayaNaaH - inclined to the process of hearing. Again there are those who, although not conversant in spiritual knowledge, begin to worship the Supreme Person upon hearing about Him from others. Because of their tendency to hear from authorities, they also transcend the path of birth and death (bhagavad-giitaa 13.26). This verse is especially relevant to the majority of us who have neither the duration of life nor the the strength of sense-control to try to approach the Lord through the various other processes of dhyaana, j~naana, or karma-yoga (all of which just bring one to the point of bhakti-yoga anyway). The process of hearing from authorities is one of the nine methods of devotional service (shravanam kiirtanam viShnoH smaranam...). Performing devotional service is actually superior to the other yoga systems because it is the direct route to attaining Lord Krishna and also because one need not have any previous qualification for performing it. Hopefully this was of some use to you. To be honest I don't know if I have understood your friend's point, which basically sounds rather simplistic to me, but if that's all it was, I don't think there is any problem. yours, -- Krishna Susarla Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 1998 Report Share Posted May 6, 1998 Dear Sri Dinakaran and all bhAgawatas, PraNAmam. Adiyen is by no stretch of imagination a shAstrajna. But here is adiyen's attempt at your question. Nowhere does visishtAdwaita claim that there is only one entity in the sense the question has been posed (bhagawAn vs. bhakta). Infact, RAmanuja accepts not two but six dravyas or perceivable objects: Iswara, jeeva, kAla, prakrti, nithyavibhuti, and dharmabhuta jnana. All of these dravyas are REAL, DISTINCT, and ETERNAL, and there is no doubt that there always is a seeker and the sought (BhagawAn). Let us take the following two dravyas: Iswara and jeeva. Iswara is by nature Satyam, Jnanam, and Anantam. Satyam means nirupAdhika satta yogi -- i.e., He exists without an upAdhi. He is Jnanaswaroopam. He is also Anantam or vibhu -- He is undivided by time, space, and matter. The jeeva on the other hand derives its existence (satyatvam) from the Brahman. In other words, it exists because of that Brahman. It is monadic (aNu), which is the opposite of vibhu. Also it is impenetrable and undestroyable. Only when it comes to the ORGANIC RELATIONSHIP between the various dravyas does RAmanuja say it is visishtasya advaitam. What does this mean? Again, for purposes of our discussion, we will just take Iswara and jeeva into consideration and ignore the other four dravyas. The relationship is that of a sareeri/sareera -- the soul/the ensouled; it is that of an AdhAra/Adheya -- supporter/supported, etc, etc. In other words, the jeeva derives its existence from that primal existence -- Brahman. It is supported by Him and exists for His sole pleasure and purpose. The Brahman alone is the parama Bhokta. Now, with regard to the first question, here is the reply :- Why should the sareeri/sareera relationship conflict with the swAmi/bhrtya relationship or the sought/seeker relationship, or any other relationship? All of these relationships have distinct meanings. Secondly, the statements "God is within us" and "God is controlling us from within" do not mean that God literally exists within the precincts of the jeeva itself. All it means is that the jeeva's very existence is due to that Brahman, and He controls every aspect of its existence as a master, as a supporter, as a soul, etc. So, the words "within" and "inside" should not be taken to mean what they mean in our daily life scenarios. To summarize, the organic relationship of unity (advaita) between Iswara and all the other dravyas does not in any way conflict the sought/seeker relationship. Infact, it strengthens it many fold. Because, if you the seeker come to know that you are linked inseparably with the seeker and exist solely because of Him and for Him, your sought/seeker relationship attains a different level of perception. You now realize that the person you seek is not just some great, knowledgeable, strong person far away in heaven, but rather somebody whose organic relationship with you is inseparable, intimate, and existential, and you have NO OTHER choice but to seek Him. Hope this clarifies. Adiyen hopes that a more knowledgeable person provide a better explanation to the question. || SarvAparAdhAn kshamasva || || Sarvam Sri KrishNArpaNamastu || Daasan Murali Kadambi > ---------- > R. Dinakaran[sMTP:DYNES] > Wednesday, May 06, 1998 5:57 AM > bhakti > Dvaita and Visishtadvaita > > One of my good friends who is a member of the Cyber Madhava Sangha > says he has a simple definition which proves that Dvaita is more > `down to earth'. > He says that there has to be two entities: Bhagawan and the Bhakta or > the Seeker and the Sought. If God is within us, how can we seek him, > he asks (in the Dvaita mailing list). > I was unable to post a proper reply. Can anyone help me out? > > R. Dinakaran > +--+ > | R. DINAKARAN | > | Chief Sub Editor | > | The Hindu Business Line | > | Kasturi Buildings | > | Anna Salai | > | CHENNAI 600 002 | > | | > | Phones: 8535067 (Ext. 460,452,490) | > | 8534574 ( do ) (After office hours) | > | 8531328 (News Editor) | > | | > | Pager : 9622701590 | > | 9622702590 | > | (Please dial all the numbers) | > | | > | E-mail: dynes | > | | > | Residence | > | | > | Plot No. 2, Flat No. 7 | > | Otraivadai Street | > | West KK Nagar | > | Chennai 600 078 | > +--+ > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 1998 Report Share Posted May 6, 1998 Dear Sri Dinakaran : The best person to answer your question would be Dr. S.M.S.Chary , who is visiting this country now/. Sri Krishna Kalale of our group is close to him and can ask him for his comments and post it . Dr.S.M.S.Chary has completed recently a comparitive study of the commentaries of the Brahma SutrAs of the three AchAryAs ( Sankara , MadhvA and RamAnujA ). His comments as a deep scholar of Sri Vaishnavism and other Darsanams would be of help to us all , although number of members may be able to provide inputs. Many of the Thiruvaimozhi paasurams in my opinion just address the point raised by your friend. Instead of going into it now, I would rather wait for Dr.Cahry to give us the benefit of his scholarship . V.Sadagopan At 03:27 PM 5/6/98 +0530, you wrote: >One of my good friends who is a member of the Cyber Madhava Sangha >says he has a simple definition which proves that Dvaita is more >`down to earth'. >He says that there has to be two entities: Bhagawan and the Bhakta or >the Seeker and the Sought. If God is within us, how can we seek him, >he asks (in the Dvaita mailing list). >I was unable to post a proper reply. Can anyone help me out? > >R. Dinakaran >+--+ >| R. DINAKARAN | >| Chief Sub Editor | >| The Hindu Business Line | >| Kasturi Buildings | >| Anna Salai | >| CHENNAI 600 002 | >| | >| Phones: 8535067 (Ext. 460,452,490) | >| 8534574 ( do ) (After office hours) | >| 8531328 (News Editor) | >| | >| Pager : 9622701590 | >| 9622702590 | >| (Please dial all the numbers) | >| | >| E-mail: dynes | >| | >| Residence | >| | >| Plot No. 2, Flat No. 7 | >| Otraivadai Street | >| West KK Nagar | >| Chennai 600 078 | >+--+ > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 1998 Report Share Posted May 7, 1998 Dear BhakthAs : It is so wonderful to have knowledgable members , who can address these difficult questions in the traditional manner formulated by our purvAchAryAs with rigor and logic . Dr.SMS Chari is a great scholar in comparitive religions and especially on Sri Vaishanvism , whom I know of . That is why he was foremost in my thoughts. He has studied under some of the greatst scholars like ThirukkOshtiUr Swami . Sriman Anbil Ramaswami is another such scholar we all are fortunate to have as a member of this group , who has benefitted form rigorous studies under great AchAryAs of Ahobila Mutt , Andavans and is very much in touch with Parkaala Mutt Jeeyar and othe rscholars. When I referred to the fact that Dr.SMS Chari is eminently qualified to address this question , I might have inadvertently jumped over the additional responses from very capable members like Sriman Murli Rajagopalan , Sri Krishna Susrala , Sri Anbil Swami and others .The funny point about this Bhakthi group is that we do not even know fully all the talents that coexist within this special group . Sriman Rajagopalan's and Sri Susrala's answers are clear and concise .Although I admire the devotion of the members of the CMS , their desire to shoot every other philosophy down with zeal as if they can not stand the rigorous examination is unfortunate. It gets very polemical .Sriman Murli Rajagopal's observations on the apaurusheya aspects of the Vedams was a pleasure to read and learn from . My apologies for oversight and thanks Sriman Rajagopalan . V.Sadagopan >Return-Path: bhakti-errors >"Rajagapalan, Murli, NCSIO" <murli >RE: Dvaita and Visishtadvaita >Wed, 6 May 1998 17:54:26 -0400 >BestServHost: lists.best.com >Sender: bhakti-errors >Errors-bhakti-errors >bhakti > >Dear Sri Dinakaran and all bhAgawatas, > >PraNAmam. Adiyen is by no stretch of imagination a shAstrajna. But here is >adiyen's attempt at your question. > >Nowhere does visishtAdwaita claim that there is only one entity in the sense >the question has been posed (bhagawAn vs. bhakta). Infact, RAmanuja accepts >not two but six dravyas or perceivable objects: Iswara, jeeva, kAla, >prakrti, nithyavibhuti, and dharmabhuta jnana. All of these dravyas are >REAL, DISTINCT, and ETERNAL, and there is no doubt that there always is a >seeker and the sought (BhagawAn). > >Let us take the following two dravyas: Iswara and jeeva. Iswara is by >nature Satyam, Jnanam, and Anantam. Satyam means nirupAdhika satta yogi -- >i.e., He exists without an upAdhi. He is Jnanaswaroopam. He is also >Anantam or vibhu -- He is undivided by time, space, and matter. The jeeva >on the other hand derives its existence (satyatvam) from the Brahman. In >other words, it exists because of that Brahman. It is monadic (aNu), which >is the opposite of vibhu. Also it is impenetrable and undestroyable. > >Only when it comes to the ORGANIC RELATIONSHIP between the various dravyas >does RAmanuja say it is visishtasya advaitam. What does this mean? Again, >for purposes of our discussion, we will just take Iswara and jeeva into >consideration and ignore the other four dravyas. The relationship is that >of a sareeri/sareera -- the soul/the ensouled; it is that of an >AdhAra/Adheya -- supporter/supported, etc, etc. In other words, the jeeva >derives its existence from that primal existence -- Brahman. It is >supported by Him and exists for His sole pleasure and purpose. The Brahman >alone is the parama Bhokta. > >Now, with regard to the first question, here is the reply :- Why should the >sareeri/sareera relationship conflict with the swAmi/bhrtya relationship or >the sought/seeker relationship, or any other relationship? All of these >relationships have distinct meanings. Secondly, the statements "God is >within us" and "God is controlling us from within" do not mean that God >literally exists within the precincts of the jeeva itself. All it means is >that the jeeva's very existence is due to that Brahman, and He controls >every aspect of its existence as a master, as a supporter, as a soul, etc. >So, the words "within" and "inside" should not be taken to mean what they >mean in our daily life scenarios. > >To summarize, the organic relationship of unity (advaita) between Iswara and >all the other dravyas does not in any way conflict the sought/seeker >relationship. Infact, it strengthens it many fold. Because, if you the >seeker come to know that you are linked inseparably with the seeker and >exist solely because of Him and for Him, your sought/seeker relationship >attains a different level of perception. You now realize that the person >you seek is not just some great, knowledgeable, strong person far away in >heaven, but rather somebody whose organic relationship with you is >inseparable, intimate, and existential, and you have NO OTHER choice but to >seek Him. > >Hope this clarifies. Adiyen hopes that a more knowledgeable person provide >a better explanation to the question. > >|| SarvAparAdhAn kshamasva || >|| Sarvam Sri KrishNArpaNamastu || > >Daasan Murali Kadambi > > >> ---------- >> R. Dinakaran[sMTP:DYNES] >> Wednesday, May 06, 1998 5:57 AM >> bhakti >> Dvaita and Visishtadvaita >> >> One of my good friends who is a member of the Cyber Madhava Sangha >> says he has a simple definition which proves that Dvaita is more >> `down to earth'. >> He says that there has to be two entities: Bhagawan and the Bhakta or >> the Seeker and the Sought. If God is within us, how can we seek him, >> he asks (in the Dvaita mailing list). >> I was unable to post a proper reply. Can anyone help me out? >> >> R. Dinakaran >> +--+ >> | R. DINAKARAN | >> | Chief Sub Editor | >> | The Hindu Business Line | >> | Kasturi Buildings | >> | Anna Salai | >> | CHENNAI 600 002 | >> | | >> | Phones: 8535067 (Ext. 460,452,490) | >> | 8534574 ( do ) (After office hours) | >> | 8531328 (News Editor) | >> | | >> | Pager : 9622701590 | >> | 9622702590 | >> | (Please dial all the numbers) | >> | | >> | E-mail: dynes | >> | | >> | Residence | >> | | >> | Plot No. 2, Flat No. 7 | >> | Otraivadai Street | >> | West KK Nagar | >> | Chennai 600 078 | >> +--+ >> >> >> > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 1998 Report Share Posted May 7, 1998 Sriman Sadagopan Swami and other esteemed BhAgawathas, I second Swami Sadagopan's opinion that the interested party (which most positively will include me as well) should get in touch with a seasoned scholar in regard to this Dvaita/VisishtAdvaita issue, whether it be Swami S M S Chari or Swami Anbil or any other mahAn who has done Acharya seva to earn the knowledge regarding these most important tattvas. It would be far more illuminating to all of us (especially me) if one such mahAn can shed light on this subject. As regarding me, although I respectfully appreciate the enthusiasm with which Swami Sadagopan and others have received my articles, I have to also regretfully confess that I have not served the feet of an Acharya to get this knowledge. So, whatever little I have learnt by reading books is bound to have errors, and is as good as nothing. The positive corrective force that exists when a student is around an Acharya is missing in my case. So, SrimAns, please do not apologize for anything at all. Actually that would amount to BhAgawatApachAram from my side. Kindly accept my praNAmams. Adiyen, Murali Kadambi. || SarvAparAdhAn Kshamasva || || Sarvam Sri KrishNarpaNamastu || > ---------- > Sadagopan[sMTP:sgopan] > Thursday, May 07, 1998 7:30 AM > bhakti > RE: Dvaita and Visishtadvaita > > Dear BhakthAs : > > It is so wonderful to have knowledgable > members , who can address these difficult questions > in the traditional manner formulated by our > purvAchAryAs with rigor and logic . Dr.SMS Chari > is a great scholar in comparitive religions > and especially on Sri Vaishanvism , whom I know of . > That is why he was foremost in my thoughts. > He has studied under some of the greatst > scholars like ThirukkOshtiUr Swami . > Sriman Anbil Ramaswami is another such scholar we > all are fortunate to have as a member of this group , > who has benefitted form rigorous studies under > great AchAryAs of Ahobila Mutt , Andavans > and is very much in touch with Parkaala Mutt Jeeyar > and othe rscholars. > > When I referred to the fact that Dr.SMS Chari > is eminently qualified to address this question , > I might have inadvertently jumped over the > additional responses from very capable > members like Sriman Murli Rajagopalan , Sri Krishna > Susrala , Sri Anbil Swami and others .The funny point about > this Bhakthi group is that we do not even know fully > all the talents that coexist within this special group . > > Sriman Rajagopalan's and Sri Susrala's answers are > clear and concise .Although I admire the devotion > of the members of the CMS , their desire to shoot every > other philosophy down with zeal as if they can not > stand the rigorous examination is unfortunate. > It gets very polemical .Sriman Murli Rajagopal's > observations on the apaurusheya aspects of the Vedams > was a pleasure to read and learn from . > My apologies for oversight and thanks Sriman Rajagopalan . > V.Sadagopan > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.