Vivekananda

[Guest guest]

Namaskar,

>"Ram Chandran" <chandran

>The three philosophies, Advaita, Visitadwaita and Dwaita are well

> >established philosophical systems with great number of followers who

> >believe in them. These three sages have understood that the ultimate

> >Truth is Brahman but they call in different names.

 

But they don't agree. In fact, Ramanuja (to a lesser extent) and Madhwa have

devoted an ample amount to time trying to prove that Adi Shankara was wrong

and that their interpretation is in fact the correct one.

 

<<<

Srimad Ananda Tiirtha has repeatedly made the claim to being Madhva, the

third avatar of Mukhya PraaNa; some of the shloka-s he has composed tend to

run quite similarly to the one from the Vishnu-tattva-vinirNaya that has

already been quoted. He, who has unequivocally and repeatedly asserted the

total, unconditional, and irremediable superiority of the Supreme over all

others and the complete dependence of all other souls upon Him, and who has

maintained that the apparent inconsistencies in Vedas should not be

explained away by specious theories of mahaavaakya, anuvaada, adhyaaropa,

etc., but must be squarely faced and all integrated into a consistent whole

(eka vaakyataa), can hardly make a claim of his own position in the

hierarchy of souls openly and with crystal clarity, unless this is supported

by valid praamaNa-s -- which, in Vedic schools, rest upon the correct

interpretation of the Vedas and Upanishads, and their adjunct texts.

>>>

 

In fact, Sri Madhwaacharya says:

 

"The difference between the jiiva (soul) and Iishvara (Creator), and the

difference between jaDa (insentient) and Iishvara; and the difference

between various jiivas, and the difference between jaDa and jiiva; and the

difference between various jaDas, these five differences make up the

universe."

 

[From the Paramopanishad a.k.a. Parama-shruti, as quoted by Ananda Tiirtha

in his 'VishNu-tattva-vinirNaya']

 

[The above was taken from the Dvaita website. www.dvaita.org]

 

I may err in quoting the great Sri Madhwaacharya and may not be benefiting

from his true import due to the defects of my own intellect. But at least,

Sri Madhwa sees a *difference* between the Supreme Soul and the individual

souls. He also holds the world to be true - "Satyam Jagat". Even Mukti is

the experiencing of the *individual jiva's* joy, which remain eternally

separate from Hari.

 

I am not sure if I see any congruence between the Moksha of Advaita and the

Mukti of Dvaita.

 

>Let me turn you attention back to Bhagavad Gita and this list >discussed

>the following two important verses which were subject to >different

>interpretations by Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhava.

>

>Bhagavad Gita unifies the currents of flow of the religious and

> >philosophical thoughts of sages and saints of India. Gita has been

> >recognized for centuries as an orthodox scripture of the Hindu >religion

>possessing equal authority with the Upanishads and the >Brahma Sutra.

 

While there are instances of sages having quoted parts of the Bhagawat Gita,

it was Adi Sankara who first separated the 800 or so (?) slokas from the

Mahabharata and set aside the slokas as a separate text worthy of a separate

study. He in fact made it a part of the prasthaantrayi. I am not sure if any

evidence exists of Bhagawat Gita, as we know it, having existed as a

separate scripture before Shankara, as it exists now.

 

When we quote "Ekam Satvipraah...", let us not forget what the rest of the

sloka says:

(Quote based on Sayana's commentary)

 

___begin quote

 

They have styled (him, the Sun), Indra, Mitra, Varun.a, Agni, and he is the

celestial, well-winged Garutmat, for learned priests call one by many names

as they speak of Agni, Yama, Ma_taris'van. [Hi, the Sun: Sun is assumed;

Nirukta assumes the Agni: agni is all the divinities (Aitareya Bra_hman.a

2.3)].

 

___end quote

 

(The entire RgVeda Samhita is available online at

http://sarasvati.simplenet.com/rigveda/rvbook1.htm )

 

I am not certain this entirely supports Advaita or Dvaita. All it says is

all the Gods are One.

 

 

ashish

[Guest guest]

Recent posting seen on the Advaita list which makes a great song and dance

about 'grammar'

<snip>

Let me tell you, if the translator of Bhaja Govindam did not now grammar, he

would have translated 'nahi nahi rakshathi dukrinj karane' as 'govinda does

not save grammar at the time of death'

<snip>

 

This posting has given a lot of importance to use of correct grammar and yet

we can see that the posting has defects - for example it says:-

 

"the word did not now grammar......"

 

"now grammar" ?? Is that good English??

 

Yet we have to go above such trivialities to see what is meant and take it

in it's true sense. (provided we have the goodwill to do so).

 

Same is true with Brahman - no Rishi of any stature has ever said he can

tell you what is Brahman. And yet we have these books called the 'Vedas'

(Material like 'Ekam Sat Vipra Bahudha Vadanti' pops up in these texts).

And then we like to debate: 'Vedas' are 'Apurushay' and are above the

'Rishi' etc.

 

Suppose the language and expressions of one Rishi impresses us - we should

happily use these for our own spiritual progress rather than make comments

about the expressions of another Rishi.

 

Suppose a rocket scientist uses Newton's Laws of gravitation and is able to

make 'do' with these laws for his purposes - nobody objects.

Yet another scientist who is working in cosmology will say he would rather

use Einstein's gravitational laws as expressed in general relativity for his

understanding of the cosmos. Newton's laws will not suffice -- That is

fine too.

 

The same is true in the field of spirituality.

Which Rishi's expressions attract us more will depend on our own

requirements and the state of our own spiritual development.

 

jay