Dristhti-shristi and Dvaita

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Srinivas Kotekal-ji,

 

I have been told that in Dvaita the following are true:

 

1. Ishvara creates through His mere knowledge.

 

2. A prakritic thing exists because Ishvara is not indifferent to it.

 

Would this mean that in the eyes of Ishvara, drishti-shristi is true?

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri.Chittaranjan-ji,

 

Namaste.

 

 

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

>

> Dear Sri Srinivas Kotekal-ji,

>

> I have been told that in Dvaita the following are true:

>

> 1. Ishvara creates through His mere knowledge.

>

> 2. A prakritic thing exists because Ishvara is not indifferent to

it.

>

> Would this mean that in the eyes of Ishvara, drishti-shristi is

true?

>

> Warm regards,

> Chittaranjan

>

 

Following vEdic pramANa, Dvaita darshana treat this issue as follows ;

 

1. Parabrahman (we do not use Ishvara-nirguNa Brahman terminology)

creates this universe at His mere Will `ichhamAtram prabhO stristi'

(ManUp 8) . The term `ichha' used by Upanishad is noteworthy here and

let's dwell on this a bit;

 

Now what is `Will' ?

 

Will, by definition, is voluntary explicit act (buddhipUrvaka kriya)

on the part of entity doing it .

 

Thus, Upanishadic usage of `Will' explicitly highlights Parabhaman's

ichha-pUraka kriya and thus this creation is very much in His

Awarenesss.

 

This is in contrast to Advaitic concept of creation being illusion

due to Self's avidya (existence of such avidya itslef is not known to

Self unless Self indulge in atmavichAra). In this model, creation

power of Self is involuntary and error due to adhyAsa.

 

Your position regarding the context of drishti-srishti as Brahman and

not the individual self, is not tenable; for the Brahman in Advaita

darshana can not be conceived to be doing any voluntary act

of `sristi through dristi' for being nirguNa, nirAkara and nishkriya.

 

 

2. Sri VedavyAsa has given us Excellent Eight fold Functions of

Parabrhman VishNu in skAndha purANa as "utpatti sthiti samhArA

niyatirjnAnam Avritihi | bandha-mOkshou cha purushAt yasmAt sa Harihi

EkarAt" iti skAndhE – AchArya Madhva while commenting in

janmAdhikaraNa of Brahma-Sutra.

 

Following Sri VedavyAsa, AchArya Madhva has given us the meaning

of "Adi" ("etc") appears in very 2nd sUtra "Om jnmAdi-assya yatha Om"

("janma etc") to be those eight.

 

 

Regarding this topic of Brahman-to-World relation, it is very

educative to know what famous TatvavAda scholor Sri. B.N.K Sharma has

to say ;

 

-----------------------

(Source : B.N.K Sharma's "Phil of Madhva" page 36 & 37) ;

 

 

In his(Sri.Madhva's) view, the world of matter and souls has come out

and exists only as a result of an Act of Will of God, which is its

(world's) nimittakarana. It cannot exist without His sufferance. This

is the meaning of texts like: ichhamAtram prabhO stristi (ManUp 8);

dvayam karma cha kAlaxa (Bhag ii. 10.12). But the existence of matter

and souls is, in the last analysis, immaterial to God:

 

nahi jivaprakritibhyamIksharaservatra (Madhva, BT ii.9.31).

 

It is the world that is bound to God, not He to it. The Universe is

thus dependent on Brahman (brahmasApeksha) neither in the Advaitic

nor in

the Visistadvaitic sense of the term, but as existing and functioning

of God's will. The self existent being of God would in no way have

been affected if the world had never existed at all.

 

The relation in which the world stands to Brahman is, thus, neither

superimpositional as in Advaita, nor physical and intra-- organic

as in Visistadvaita, but a trans-emphirical one, symbolised by the

idea of Bimba-Pratibimbabhava, in which Bimba is defined as that

which determines the satta, pratiti and pravrti of the Pratibimba, as

will be made clear in Chapter XXXVI. The statement that the

world cannot exist without God means that it owes its very power of

existence, functioning, etc., to God and derives them from Him:

tadadIna-satta-pratIti-pravritimath-¯. The entire universe is thus an

expression of the Divine will.

 

It is in His absolute power. He can make and unmake it all at will.

His power over it is absolutely unrestricted. Alone among Indian

philosophers, Madhva would concede that,theoretically, there is

nothing impossible or absurd in agreeing that God can create a world

out of nothing, that He could bring into existence a universe not

unlike the one with which we are now familiar, without the aid of pre-

existent matter or souls. But the fact remains that He has not, in

His infinite wisdom, chosen to do so. And all our philosophy has

necessarily to take note of this and respect it. Similarly, He does

not choose to destroy the eternal existence of matter and souls and

other entities, even though they

are all dependent on Him 'tadadhInasattakamapi tEna nOtsadhatE'

(Madhva's Tattva duyoota p.9)

 

Madhva introduces the symbolism of Bimbapratibimbabhava (Original and

Reflection) in place of Adhisthanaropyabhava, and Sarirasariribhava

of the Advaita and Visistadvaita, to illustrate the true nature of

the dependence of selves on God. It is intended to avoid the defects

of assuming an unreal or a reciprocal dependence and establish in

their stead, a real but unilateral dependence of all finite reality

on the Independent principle, for its existence, knowledge,

knowability and activity (satta, pratiti and pravrtti).

 

--

 

 

Regards,

Srinivas Kotekal

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Srinivas:

 

Thanks for providing your valuable insights on how Dvaita Darshana

treat the issue of Dristhti-shristi. If and when you have to share

Dwaitic point of view of other subject matters that we discuss in the

advaitin list. The list will encourage members posting other viewpoints

without entering into unnecessary intellectual debates on the

superiority-inferiority of different vedantic schools. We have not to

learn before we can really engage in engaging and/or establishing the

validity of one school over the other.

 

We have been recently discussing an interesting topic - "God with and

without name and form." I truly believe that it is possible for all of

us to reconcile our differences without engaging an intellectual debate!

 

Harih Om!

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "Srinivas Kotekal" <kots_p> wrote:

>

>

> Following vEdic pramANa, Dvaita darshana treat this issue as follows ;

>

> 1. Parabrahman (we do not use Ishvara-nirguNa Brahman terminology)

> creates this universe at His mere Will `ichhamAtram prabhO stristi'

> (ManUp 8) . The term `ichha' used by Upanishad is noteworthy here and

> let's dwell on this a bit;

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

I have noticed several typo and let restate it again:

 

First, I sincerely appreciate the insights provided by Sri Srinivas on

a request from Sri Chitta. Sri Chitta deserves special thanks for

motivating Sri Srinivas to post. I request Sri Srinivas to continue to

post the Dwaitic point of view on several interesting subjects

discussed in this list whenever he finds some time.

 

Since none of us can call ourselves as an expert, we should avoid

intellectual debates on subjects for which there are no clear answers

one-way or other. This does not mean that we shouldn't disagree with

another point of view. But at the same we should recognize that

perceptions can vary between the Jivas and they are mostly influenced

by beliefs and other environmental factors of lief. With contemplation

and correct focus, we can indeed reconcile our differences without

engaging in intellectual debates.

 

Thanks again dear Srinivas,

 

Harih Om!

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <ramvchandran>

wrote:

>

> Namaste Sri Srinivas:

>

> Thanks for providing your valuable insights on how Dvaita Darshana

> treat the issue of Dristhti-shristi. If and when you have to share

> Dwaitic point of view of other subject matters that we discuss in the

> advaitin list. The list will encourage members posting other

viewpoints

> without entering into unnecessary intellectual debates on the

> superiority-inferiority of different vedantic schools.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri. Ram Chandran-Ji,

 

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <ramvchandran>

wrote:

>

> Namaste:

>

> I have noticed several typo and let restate it again:

>

> First, I sincerely appreciate the insights provided by Sri Srinivas

on

> a request from Sri Chitta. Sri Chitta deserves special thanks for

> motivating Sri Srinivas to post. I request Sri Srinivas to continue

to

> post the Dwaitic point of view on several interesting subjects

> discussed in this list whenever he finds some time.

>

 

Many thanks for your kind words and the opportunity extended to be

part of this forum. I look forward to learn Advaita from many

knowledgeable members here.

 

My sincere thanks to Sri.Chittaranjan-Ji too for his interest in

knowing Dvaita's view point on this topic.

> Since none of us can call ourselves as an expert, we should avoid

> intellectual debates on subjects for which there are no clear

answers

> one-way or other.

 

Sir, I agree that I am not an expert, however, I am not sure why you

feel there is lack of clear answers one-way or the other. If there

is no clear cut answers, theoretically that reduces to the fact that

there is no clear cut reality and no clear cut goal either. That

would make all our vedAnta pursuit futile.

 

The way in which various darshana-s developed in Indian landscape

would indicate other way. Each previously existing darashana is pUrva

paksha for the proposed one and hence forth. This very process was

based on investigation of reasons used (both epistemological and

ontological) and then accepting or rejecting them as the case might

be. Vedanta was never an belief system unlike its, both Indic and

Western counterparts.

 

>This does not mean that we shouldn't disagree with

> another point of view. But at the same we should recognize that

> perceptions can vary between the Jivas and they are mostly

influenced

> by beliefs and other environmental factors of lief.

 

Yes, I agree. But, in my opinion, the philosophical solution itself

should answer this fundamental issue of why there is such differences

in perception among various jIvas, difference in environmental

factors etc etc. This is core philosophical problem in my opinion.

 

>With contemplation and correct focus, we can indeed reconcile our

differences without

> engaging in intellectual debates.

>

 

May be I am wrong, but I am not clear on how can we reconcile our

philosophical differences without intellectual exercise. The very

contemplation and focusing process necessitates intellectual domain.

 

Thanks again Sri.Ram-ji

 

Regards,

Srinivas.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Srinivas Kotekal-ji,

 

advaitin, "Srinivas Kotekal" <kots_p>

wrote:

> > I have been told that in Dvaita the following are true:

> >

> > 1. Ishvara creates through His mere knowledge.

> >

> > 2. A prakritic thing exists because Ishvara is not

> > indifferent to it.

> >

> > Would this mean that in the eyes of Ishvara, drishti-shristi

> > is true?

 

> 1. Parabrahman (we do not use Ishvara-nirguNa Brahman

> terminology) creates this universe at His mere Will

> 'ichhamAtram prabhO stristi' (ManUp 8) . The term 'ichha'

> used by Upanishad is noteworthy here and let's dwell on

> this a bit;

>

> Now what is 'Will' ?

>

> Will, by definition, is voluntary explicit act

> (buddhipUrvaka kriya) on the part of entity doing it .

>

> Thus, Upanishadic usage of 'Will' explicitly highlights

> Parabhaman's ichha-pUraka kriya and thus this creation

> is very much in His Awarenesss.

>

> This is in contrast to Advaitic concept of creation

> being illusion due to Self's avidya (existence of such

> avidya itslef is not known to Self unless Self indulge

> in atmavichAra). In this model, creation power of Self

> is involuntary and error due to adhyAsa.

 

 

Thank you for your clarification, Srinivas-ji, you have confirmed my

belief that drishti-srishti of Ishvara is not discordant with Dvaita,

your only point for distancing Dvaita from Ishvara's drishti-shristi

being that Ishvara's Will does not seem to appear in dhristi-shristi-

vada. But it does. In Advaita, the world is created by Ishvara's Will

and not by the jiva's avidya. Unlike in Samkhya where prakriti moves

in the mere presence of Purusha, in Advaita, the motive force for the

movement of Prakriti is the intelligence of Purusha. Thus, this world

does not simply appear on the screen of Consciousness, but is

impelled by the Will of Ishvara, who is Consciousness personified,

into movement. The Will of Ishvara however does not entail an action

on His part because it is same as His Omniscience - it is action in

inaction and inaction in action as it were. Shankara says that

Ishvara is the Lord of Maya whereas the jiva is the one ensnared by

Maya. In finding the similarity between Advaita and Dvaita, I would

of course take care to preserve the vast differences between them in

respect of the relationships that abide between ParaBrahman and the

world and Parabrahman and the jivas, but my aim in asking the

question was to find the similarity between the two darshanas rather

than the difference. Your comments were helpful in this respect.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

--- Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik

wrote:

> Namaste Sri Srinivas Kotekal-ji,

>

> advaitin, "Srinivas Kotekal"

> <kots_p>

> wrote:

>

> > > I have been told that in Dvaita the following

> are true:

> > >

> > > 1. Ishvara creates through His mere knowledge.

> > >

> > > 2. A prakritic thing exists because Ishvara is

> not

> > > indifferent to it.

> > >

> > > Would this mean that in the eyes of Ishvara,

> drishti-shristi

> > > is true?

>

>

> > 1. Parabrahman (we do not use Ishvara-nirguNa

> Brahman

> > terminology) creates this universe at His mere

> Will

> > 'ichhamAtram prabhO stristi' (ManUp 8) . The term

> 'ichha'

> > used by Upanishad is noteworthy here and let's

> dwell on

> > this a bit;

> >

> > Now what is 'Will' ?

> >

> > Will, by definition, is voluntary explicit act

> > (buddhipUrvaka kriya) on the part of entity doing

> it .

> >

> > Thus, Upanishadic usage of 'Will' explicitly

> highlights

> > Parabhaman's ichha-pUraka kriya and thus this

> creation

> > is very much in His Awarenesss.

> >

> > This is in contrast to Advaitic concept of

> creation

> > being illusion due to Self's avidya (existence of

> such

> > avidya itslef is not known to Self unless Self

> indulge

> > in atmavichAra).

 

Sankarraman would like to add.

I am not very much familiar with the philosophies of

Dvaitha and Vishistadvaitha, as I have not gone

through the commentary on Vedanta Sutras by Madhva and

Ramanuja. But I understand that in the worldviews of

these two great men the intuitive experience of the

Self, as the essence of both the jiva and the Iswara,

the common substratum being Brahman, is very much

absent. They assert only very much the empirical side

of the truth (Tathaksa lakshana), as against the

transcendental position. (Swarupa lakshana, Brahman

not admitting of any volition, the creation being only

due to the avidya the jiva is implicated in, as

against the Iswara being the Master, all thse

terminologies being not relevant to the Advaithic

sadhana, but only constituting some working

hypothesis). An unbiassed reading of the Upanishadic

texts without even the commentaries of very great

teachers, more so the work Yogavasishta, brings into

clear relief only the Advaitic truth, in which both

the way and the goal are the same. Acharya Ramanuja

seems to hold the view that Cosciousness and Existence

are not one and the same, and that there is no

contentless consciousness, all consiciousness being

mediated only by objects, and further that there is no

question of pure Consciousness existing in sleep

according to Ramanuja ( please correct me if my

understanding is erroneous, as I rememember having

seen this idea appearing in the work of George

Thibaut), this in all amounting to the denial of

undifferentiated consciousness by Ramanuja. The

teachings of these two great Masters do not provide

any sadhana for such of those individuals who cannot,

by the constitution of their being, take to dualistic

sadhanas. Acharya Madhava even talks about certain

wicked souls being subject to eternal damnation, a

Christian dogma. Sankara's world view alone seems to

be highly catholic, this being brought into clear

relief as a practical sadhana, shorn of scriptural

terminologies, by Bhaghavan Ramana who has used very

minimal terminologies, whose teachings can be

contained in a postcard even, as Osho says, but

constituting the highest essence of a liberating

knowledge needed in this century, when we can not

afford to fill our brains with the mind-boggling

terminologies of the scriptures, their excessive

dialectics.

with warm regards

Sankarraman

>

 

 

 

 

 

FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.

http://farechase.

[Guest guest]

namaste Srinivasji:

 

Let me clarify what I said before. I don't mean to say there are no

clear cut goal of pursuit. There are atleast two problems that I

forsee: Our peception of Vedantic Darshana is at the most incomplete

and most importantly, our expression of (language) what we perceive is

imprecise! I have a strong conviction that the Scripture is always

right but our understanding of the scripture changes as we spiritually

grow. This is the cause for disputes and disagreements that in Truth

do not exist!

 

Also, it should be true that one should have the 'faith and conviction'

on Vedanta to understand, appreciate and agree with the Vedantic

Reasoning.

 

Finally, I do respect your view points irrespective of whether I agree

or disagree. I hope that I explained my position.

 

In his reply Sri Chittranjan made a good assessment (as always) that we

should more focus on the 'similarities of the various Darshnanas'

rather than debating on the differences. Few years back, we have

invited Dr. Chari a great Vedantic Shcolar to provide a series of

lectures on the various Darshanas. It was a great learning experience

for those who attended his lectures (in Washington Metropolitan) to

learn about the 95% of similarities and few percentage point of

differences! Forums like ours may not be the ideal venue for debates

and that is my contention.

 

Harih Om!

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

 

advaitin, "Srinivas Kotekal" <kots_p> wrote:

>...

>I agree that I am not an expert, however, I am not sure why you

> feel there is lack of clear answers one-way or the other. If there

> is no clear cut answers, theoretically that reduces to the fact that

> there is no clear cut reality and no clear cut goal either. That

> would make all our vedAnta pursuit futile.

>

[Guest guest]

In Advaita, the world is created by Ishvara's Will

and not by the jiva's avidya.

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Due to severe time constraints, I am not following any of the threads in

the list, kindly pardon me if my intervention is an intrusion ...just saw

this mail today from our Sri Chittaranjan prabhuji & would like to share

some additional/alternative thoughts in advaita :-)) Hope Sri chitta

prabhuji you wont mind.

 

Yes, as Sri CN prabhuji said, in advaita, at some places, world/maya is

considered as Ishwara shakthi (the potence of the Lord) ...for exp.

shankara bhAshya on gIta verse * prakrutiM purushaM chaiva, viddhyanAdI

ubhAvapi.....viddhi prakrutisaMbhavAn..( sorry dont recall the chapter &

verse no.) and shruti also says so in shvetAshvatara *mayAntu prakrutiM

vidyAM mAyinantu mahEshvaraM* etc. ( world is to be known as mAya and the

supreme Lord to be the mAyin)..but in the strict sense of advaita (ofcourse

alternative view point of advaita by some of us :-)) is that this is only

from adhyArOpa drushti..when mAya is *seen* by avidyA in non-dual

parabrahman, from that standpoint this non-dual parabrahman described as

Ishvara or mayAvi or magician etc. But it is a fact that there is no

lordhood (ishitavya) in avikAri, nirguNa brahman because to say he is

srushtikarta or Ishwara it requires the distinction between the ruler &

ruled!! So, what would be another/alternative appropriate definition of

mAya/prakruti/world that which does not affect the supreme non-dual nature

of brahman?? simply put, mAya is nothing but false appearance that which

appears as it it is really there due to ignorance of the truth. It is just

like, due to ignorance about the real nature of rope one misconceive it as

snake/ garland/water flow. This false appearance of snake etc. is *due to

ignorance* of rope...Here this *ignorance* is called *avidyA* and resultant

false appearance of snake etc. as *mAya*....ignorance (of rope) gives the

existence for the false appearance (snake)...that is the reason why

shankara described mAya as *avidyAkalpita* / *avidyApratyupasthApita* /

avidyAkArya etc. etc. In the sUtra bhAshya shankara explicitly mention

these words while explaining mAya.

 

So, IMHO, there is an alternative view point in advaita which says mayA is

just there because of avidyA...and mAya is nothing but avidyAkrita (cooked

up by avidyA)....

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Bhaskar Prabhuji,

 

Greetings.... it is nice to see you after such a long time. I hope

you don't mind if I give some semblance of completion to the

alternate view that I was presenting.

 

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

> So, IMHO, there is an alternative view point in advaita which

> says mayA is just there because of avidyA...and mAya is nothing

> but avidyAkrita (cooked up by avidyA)....

 

The cook can't be insentient. The cook has to be sentient. What is

the attribute that must be assigned to the cooking of the cook of

this world? Now this is how I read Sri Shankaracharya:

 

No one desires to eat food cooked by a cook with avidya. The cooking

is then liable to result in inedible and undesirable things truning

up in the crucible. But this world is not undesirable. We desire this

world. What we desire is food for the senses. It is desirable because

it is cooked nicely. That is why Sri Shankaracharya says in the

Brahma Sutra Bhashya:

 

"Brahman is the yoni (i.e., the material and efficient cause) of

great scriptures like the Rg-Veda etc. which are supplemented by

other scriptures that are themselves sources of knowledge, which

reveal all things like a lamp, and which are almost omniscient. For

scriptures like the Rg-Veda, possessed of all good qualities as they

are, cannot possibly emerge from any source other than an all-knowing

One. For it is a well recognised fact in the world that the person

from whom the scriptures dealing with multifarious subjects emerge is

more well informed than the scriptures themselves; for instance

grammar etc., emanating from Panini and others, represent merely a

part of the subject known to them. It goes without saying that, that

great Being has absolute omniscience and omnipotence, since from Him

emerge the Rg-Veda etc. – divided into many branches and constituting

the source of classification into gods, animals, men, castes, stages

of life, etc., and the source of all kinds of knowledge – and since

the emergence of these Vedas from that Being occurs as though in

sport and without any effort like the breath of a man, as is stated

in the Vedic text, 'Those that are called the Rg-Veda, are but the

exhalation of this great Being'."

 

 

If we are to say that there is no creation, such a locution shall

find acceptance in my heart. But creation, in so far as we are

compelled to speak of creation, has to be seen in the following

manner according to my reading of Advaita. When we speak of the

duality of Brahman and the world, then we should logically be

speaking of Ishvara's omniscience as one pole of the duality and the

jiva's avidya as the other pole of the duality. As I said in another

post recently, the concave and the convex are not really two but are

two obverse sides of the One that we see as duality. When the duality

is not seen, there is no creation, but when the duality is seen each

pole of the duality must be articulated with attributes that are

commensurate with each. One may perhaps say here that duality itself

is avidya and I would in turn say that if there were no capacity in

Reality to show up an illusion, even the illusion would not be shown.

Not even in Maya can the son of a barren woman be born, says

Gaudapadacharya. The shower of the illusion must be seen as a

magician perhaps and not as a victim of the magic. But let these

matters rest here, we can live with both alternative views. I respect

that you have an alternate view.

 

Om Shanti.

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

>

>

> In Advaita, the world is created by Ishvara's Will

> and not by the jiva's avidya.

>

> praNAms

> Hare Krishna

>

> these words while explaining mAya.

>

> So, IMHO, there is an alternative view point in advaita which says

mayA is

> just there because of avidyA...and mAya is nothing but avidyAkrita

(cooked

> up by avidyA)....

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

 

Namaste B et al,

 

25-27. D.: Where does this smriti speak of Isvara, jiva

and jagat?

M.: In its statement Sohamidam, i.e., He-I-this, 'He' means

the unseen Isvara; 'I' means the jiva parading as the ego, the

doer etc.; 'this' means all the objective Universe. From scriptures,

reasoning and experience (sruti yukti anubhava) it is clear that

the jiva, Isvara and jagat are only mental projections.

 

28-29. D.: How do reasoning and experience support

this view?

M.: With the rise of mind in waking and dream, the

latencies come into play, and the jiva, Isvara and jagat appear.

With the subsidence of the latencies in deep sleep, swoon etc.,

they all disappear. This is within the experience of everyone.

Again when all the latencies are rooted out by knowledge,

the jivas, Isvara and the jagat disappear once for all. This is

within the experience of perfectly clear-sighted great sages

established in the non-dual Reality, beyond the jivas, Isvara and

jagat. Therefore we say that these are all projections of the mind.

Thus is explained the effect of Maya.

....Advaita Bhoda Deepika.

 

So really the end result is Ajatavada and it didn't happen at

all..............ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri Chittaranjan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Out of more than 500 unread mails first I picked your mail of y'day's

date...it is coz. I am a fan of your style of writing & your proficiency in

foreign language!! My heartfelt adorations to you prabhuji. Now, coming

back to our discussion.

 

CN prabhuji:

 

The cook can't be insentient. The cook has to be sentient. What is

the attribute that must be assigned to the cooking of the cook of

this world?

 

bhaskar :

 

Yes, as you said The cook cannot be an insentient...shankara too says so in

sUtra bhAshya while refuting sAnkhyA-s *pradhAna kAraNa vAda* in srushti

prakriya... The attributes assigned to this *cook* here is omnipresence

(sarvavyApakatva), omniscience (sarvajnatva), omnipotence

(sarvashaktitva)..it is clear that the secondless brahman is equated with

Ishvara who shankara calls omniscient & omnipotent..but how come??

shankara a strong propagator of featureless brahman can say this brahman

possesses the attributes of omniscience and omnipotence?? Ishvara

derivatively meant as *ruler* then how shankara an absolutist and who

advocates one brahman without a second...reconcile this and admits the

distinction of an omniscient ruler and the ruled into his school of

non-duality?? shankara in one simple sentence clarified this doubt in

sUtra bhAshya. He asserts The brahman conditioned by name and form set up

by avidyA becomes *Ishvara*!! and it is only vyAvahArika satya where this

Ishwara rules over the souls conditioned by individual consciousness

(vijnAnamAtnaH) called jIva-s. Thus from the absolute standpoint, the

lordship of Ishwara his omniscience and omnipotence are only *relative* to

the *limitation* caused by the conditioning of adjuncts of the nature of

*avidyA*. Lord says in gIta it is sarvEndriya vivarjita & sarvaguNAtIta.

 

Hence, in Atman or in absolute state, there cannot be any room to stretch

our imagination and give room for conceptions like the ruler and the thing

being ruled, omniscience, omnipotence etc. Thus, declares shruti when all

has become the Atman alone then what could one possibly see and with

what??. So prabhuji, the attributes assigned to the cook & *enjoyment* of

his cooking (which you said below is *most desired one*) is avidyAkruta

from the ultimate view point. Based on this background kindly allow me to

share some thoughts on your below observations.

 

CN prabhuji:

 

No one desires to eat food cooked by a cook with avidya. The cooking

is then liable to result in inedible and undesirable things truning

up in the crucible.

 

bhaskar :

 

yes...nobody wants any stale food cooked by avidyA :-))...nevertheless it

is nothing but natural human tendency (svabhAvika) to *enjoy* this cooked

food & identify oneself with it!!...shankara says in his preamble to sUtra

bhAshya (adhyAsa bhAshya).

 

CN prabhuji:

 

But this world is not undesirable. We desire this

world. What we desire is food for the senses. It is desirable because

it is cooked nicely.

 

bhaskar :

 

bhUlOkam dukhAlayaM, ashAshvathaM asserts smruti texts...yes it appears

this beautiful world, our spouse, kids, kith & kin all are cooked nicely &

will be there eternally to serve & appease our sense, feelings &

attachments... but once you realize this is temporary & very shortly become

stale foods...then automatically it leads us to contemplate on the futility

& temporal nature of these most *desired foods* :-)) In vairAgya shatka

there is a beautiful verse which says the above....(not coming to my

mind)...

 

Anyway, still plenty to discuss from different view points of the same

school...but as you said let us not stretch this any farther...let us live

in our *own* world of advaita:-))

 

Hope to dont see you with another reply & asking me to stop the

discussion:-))) I am not proactive but never failed to be reactive :-))

 

Humble praNAms prabhuji

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

--- Tony OClery <aoclery wrote:

> -->

>

>

> So really the end result is Ajatavada and it didn't

> happen at

> all..............ONS...Tony.

>

> Sankarraman wants to say.

No doubt this is the final position, the eka-jiva

vada being a stepping stone to ajata.

Sankarraman

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

Start your day with - Make it your home page!

http://www./r/hs

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri. Sankarraman,

 

Namaste.

> Sankarraman would like to add.

> I am not very much familiar with the philosophies of

> Dvaitha and Vishistadvaitha, as I have not gone

> through the commentary on Vedanta Sutras by Madhva and

> Ramanuja. But I understand that in the worldviews of

> these two great men the intuitive experience of the

> Self, as the essence of both the jiva and the Iswara,

> the common substratum being Brahman, is very much

> absent.

 

Why should it be present? There are strong reasons with vEdic

pramANas which made them differ from your position. To quote some of

them which reveals other way, that Aatman (Parabrahman) is not

substratum of jIva and Ishwara, but instead indwells in jIvas and

controls them from within.

 

Br. Up explains Atman (in II.5-15) as ;

 

"sa vA ayamAtmA sarvEshAm bhootAnAm rAjA tadyathA rathanAbhou cha

rathanEbhou cha arAha sarvE samarpitAha EvamEvAtmani sarvANi bhootAni

sarvE dEvAha sarvE lOkAha sarva Eta AtmAnaha samarpitAha "

 

Parabrahman and all beings, are compared to a King and all his

subjects - This is why AtmA of the Upanishats is indeed Controller

only and not a substratum as you would hold it.

 

Co eternality and distinctiveness of Brahman from jIvas even after

this samsAra and in mOksha can be seen from gIta , Ma.U , Vishnu

sahasranAma etc ..

 

na tvevAhaM jAtu nAsaM na tvaM neme janAdhipAH |

na chaiva na bhavishhyAmaH sarve vayamataH param.h || 12 ||

 

(But certainly (it is) not (a fact) that I did not exist at any time;

nor you, nor these rulers of men. And surely it is not that we all

shall cease to exist after this.) (Swami Gambhirananda's translation).

 

AtharvaNa U. (MU 2.2.5) describing Brahman as `amR^itasyaishha setuH'

(the support of the released); the vishhNu-sahasra-nAma describing

Vishnu likewise as

`muktAnAM paramA gatiH'; the Taittiriya U. (2.1) the Taittiriya U.

(2.1) saying the released experiences all joys "in the company of

Brahma" (so.ashnute sarvAn.h

kAmAn.h saha brahmaNA vipashchitA); the CU (8.12.3) saying the

released sports, plays, &c. (sa tatra paryeti jaxan.h krIDan.h...),

etc.

 

>They assert only very much the empirical side

> of the truth (Tathaksa lakshana), as against the

> transcendental position. (Swarupa lakshana, Brahman

> not admitting of any volition, the creation being only

> due to the avidya the jiva is implicated in, as

> against the Iswara being the Master, all thse

> terminologies being not relevant to the Advaithic

> sadhana, but only constituting some working

> hypothesis).

 

In fact it is other way. Madhva assigns jagat janmAdi asta kArya of

Brahman as His swarUpa laxanNa only. Where as it has treated as

tathAsTa laxaNa by others.

 

 

An unbiassed reading of the Upanishadic

> texts without even the commentaries of very great

> teachers, more so the work Yogavasishta, brings into

> clear relief only the Advaitic truth, in which both

> the way and the goal are the same.

 

Without commentaries from great Acharyas, it would be next to

impossible to make out anything from Upanishads.

 

Acharya Ramanuja

> seems to hold the view that Cosciousness and Existence

> are not one and the same, and that there is no

> contentless consciousness, all consiciousness being

> mediated only by objects, and further that there is no

> question of pure Consciousness existing in sleep

> according to Ramanuja ( please correct me if my

> understanding is erroneous, as I rememember having

> seen this idea appearing in the work of George

> Thibaut), this in all amounting to the denial of

> undifferentiated consciousness by Ramanuja.

 

Instead of concerning about such denial (of undifferentiated

consciousness), it is fair on your part to produce any pramAnas for

existence of such consciousness in the first place.

Episetemologically speaking, denial (of some assertion) does not need

pramANa, rather proposal would need one.

>The teachings of these two great Masters do not provide

> any sadhana for such of those individuals who cannot,

> by the constitution of their being, take to dualistic

> sadhanas.

 

It would have been if everyone starts out their sAdhna with some kind

of common zero line.

 

On the contrary, in gIta SriKirshNa starts out with

saying "traiguNya vishhayA vedA nistraiguNyo bhavArjuna | nirdvandvo

nityasattvastho niryogaxema AtmavAn.h" .

 

The very term `sattvasthA' used is the proof that such tri-guNa is

not transitory but rather self same nature (swabhAva) of those who

are doing sAdhana.

 

Acharya Madhva says "mokshashcha vishhNu-prasAdena-vinA na labhyate "

(mOksha and other purushArthas are not obtained without Vishnu's

grace)

 

This position is based on countless pramANas from prastAna-trya .

 

yasya prasAdAtparamArtirUpAdasmAtsaMsArAnmuchyate nApareNa |

nArAyaNo.asau paramo vichi.ntyo mumuxubhiH karmapAshAdamushhmAt.h

|| -- nArAyaNashrutiH

(By whose grace alone, the greatly suffering are rid of the world,

and not otherwise; He is NârâyaNa, the Supreme, and the one fit to be

contemplated upon by those who seek to be liberated from the binds of

karma.)

 

teshhAmahaM samuddhartA mR^ityusaMsArasAgarAt.h |

bhavAMi na chirAtpArtha mayyAveshitachetasAm.h || -- bhagavadgItA

(Those who, having surrendered all actions unto me, without fail,

perform (bhakti)-yoga, meditate upon and worship me; For them, who

have imbued Me into their consciousness completely, I am the Swift

Deliverer from the ocean of death and material existence. )

 

aj~nAnAM j~nAnado vishhNoH j~nAninAM moxadashcha saH |

Ana.ndadashcha muktAnAM sa evaiko janArdanaH -- skAnda-purANa

 

(To the un-knowing, Vishnu gives knowledge; to the knowing, He gives

moksha; To the liberated, He gives joy, and He alone is fit for all

to worship.)

 

Also, read the skanda purANa, where Shiva tells Markandeya " ahaM

bhogaprado vatsA, mokShadastu janArdanaH " -- "O dear child,

I am only a giver of prosperity and worldly bhoga, but the giver of

mokSha is Janardana."

 

Why? Because the Br.U says " ato anyad ArtaM " because everybody

else is subject to misery.

 

Thus, mOksha is not achievable purely by ones sAdhana alone.

>Acharya Madhava even talks about certain

> wicked souls being subject to eternal damnation, a

> Christian dogma.

 

Well, it is a very superficial coincidence indeed. However, on

critical examination, this charge is very meager and intangible.

 

Following vEda, gIta and sUtra; mAdhva system holds tri-fold

classification of jIvas. Where as Christianity does not hold such

view.

 

AitarEya Upanishad starts out describing the many different "types"

of jIvAtmans, that are of a permanent nature. Varieties in both mukti-

yOgya and mukti-ayOgya jeevAtmans;

 

"prajA ha tisrO atyAyameeyur' iti yA vai tA imAha prajAh tisrO

atyAyamAmstAni imAni vayAmsi vangAvagadhas cha IrapAdAha | - AitarEya

 

SriKrishna in gIta (16th chap.) declares that some jIvas will never

attain Him ;

 

tAnahaM dvishhataH krUrAn.h saMsAreshhu narAdhamAn.h | xipAmi

ajasraM ashubhAn.h AsurIshhveva yonishhu || 19 ||

 

AsurIM yonimApannA mUDhA janmani-janmani | mAmaprApyaiva kaunteya

tato yAntyadhamAM gatim.h || 20 ||

 

(Those who are hateful towards me, are cruel and the worst humans in

the world; them I forever hurl only into demonaic species. Having

reached evil species in birth after birth, the fools; completely

failing to reach me, only, they then go to the lowest state

(yAntyadhamAM gatim.h ) )

 

Eternal hell (andhatamaH) is also talked about in

Isha.U "a.ndhantamaH pravishanti ye.avidyAmupAsate" (Unto a

blinding darkness (eternal hell) enter those who worship falsely."

 

Last but not least, if Acharya Madhva said to be borrowed or

influenced by the concept of eternal hell from Christianity, why

didn't he borrow their view that salvation is open to all ?

 

Regards,

Srinivas.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri. Chittaranjan-Ji,

>

> Thank you for your clarification, Srinivas-ji, you have confirmed

my

> belief that drishti-srishti of Ishvara is not discordant with

Dvaita,

> your only point for distancing Dvaita from Ishvara's drishti-

shristi

> being that Ishvara's Will does not seem to appear in dhristi-

shristi-

> vada. But it does. In Advaita, the world is created by Ishvara's

Will

> and not by the jiva's avidya.

 

World is created by Ishvara's Will, no doubt, but "Ishvara" as such

is created by jIva (due to jIva's avidya and limiting adjunct) in

your system.

 

The very distinction (of Ishvara from jIva) has not been preserved

in the final conclusion of your model. Do you? It should not be

overlooked much celebrated phrase characterizing final truth

as ". . . jIvO brahmaiva na aparah"

 

Where as in Dvaita system, the distinction is maintained eternally

and unconditionally. More over, creation is of "iccha-srishti" rather

than "drishti-srishti'. What is the difference one might ask. The

difference exist in swatantryatva of Brahman.

 

Let me make myself a bit clear here; I am not saying not preserving

jIva-Ishvara distinction is wrong as such. But, rather, holding

similarity between Dvaita and Advaita regarding drishti-srishti vAda

on the grounds of similarly seeming Ishvara-jIva is quite

unphilosophical one.

>Unlike in Samkhya where prakriti moves

> in the mere presence of Purusha, in Advaita, the motive force for

the

> movement of Prakriti is the intelligence of Purusha. Thus, this

world

> does not simply appear on the screen of Consciousness, but is

> impelled by the Will of Ishvara, who is Consciousness personified,

> into movement. The Will of Ishvara however does not entail an

action

> on His part because it is same as His Omniscience - it is action in

> inaction and inaction in action as it were. Shankara says that

> Ishvara is the Lord of Maya whereas the jiva is the one ensnared by

> Maya. In finding the similarity between Advaita and Dvaita, I would

> of course take care to preserve the vast differences between them

in

> respect of the relationships that abide between ParaBrahman and the

> world and Parabrahman and the jivas, but my aim in asking the

> question was to find the similarity between the two darshanas

rather

> than the difference. Your comments were helpful in this respect.

 

Sorry, but I am yet to understand the true significance of

establishing similarity between two darashanas. Perhaps, it might

bring some social harmony (just as Vivekananda attempted for) no

doubt, but that is not the final agenda of either of darashanas

either. In my opinion, the very smoothing off of doctrinal

differences is in itself hindrance to pursuit of truth.

 

Thanks for all your informative mails.

 

Regards,

Srinivas.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Srinivas Kotekal-ji,

 

 

advaitin, "Srinivas Kotekal" <kots_p>

wrote:

 

> World is created by Ishvara's Will, no doubt, but "Ishvara" as such

> is created by jIva (due to jIva's avidya and limiting adjunct) in

> your system.

 

No, wrong. You may debate this with others on the list who may be

saying it. As far as I am concerned, it is a derailment of Advaita.

The efficient cause of the universe is Brahman and not something that

is not fit to bear the name of vidya.

 

> The very distinction (of Ishvara from jIva) has not been

> preserved in the final conclusion of your model. Do you?

 

Yes, Advaita does. Does this sound strange? Read Section IV or Part

IV of Shankara's Brahman Sutra Bhashya relating to the nature of

freedom, the inseparability of the soul from Brahman and also the

distinction of the soul and Brahman in the context of Divine Powers.

This creation is only one quadrant and there is more. Shankara

clearly says that the jiva never gets the power of creation though it

may identify itself with the tattva of Brahma or Ishvara. That which

identifies and the tattva with which it is identified are not the

same, but this is a very large topic that has seldom been touched

upon even by Advaitins, and hence we shall not discuss it here.

 

> More over, creation is of "iccha-srishti" rather than

> "drishti-srishti'.

 

In Advaita, iccha, jnana and kriya are all in the omniscience of

Ishvara. The drishti in drishti-shristi is Ishvara-drishti. Ishvara-

drishti is not like the drishti of an individual who is the limited

knower in the tripudi of knower, known and knowledge.

 

> What is the difference one might ask. The

> difference exist in swatantryatva of Brahman.

 

In Advaita, His omnipotence is His omniscience. His Will is His

omniscience alone.

 

> Let me make myself a bit clear here; I am not saying not

> preserving jIva-Ishvara distinction is wrong as such.

 

Advaita goes along the nature of sameness while Dvaita goes along the

nature of difference. This is another large topic.

 

> But, rather, holding similarity between Dvaita and Advaita

> regarding drishti-srishti vAda on the grounds of similarly

> seeming Ishvara-jIva is quite unphilosophical one.

 

But if you read my earlier posts on this subject, you will see that I

am saying exactly the opposite of what are saying I am saying. I am

affirming drishti-shristi of Ishvara on the grounds of the difference

between Ishvara and jiva -- and not on their sameness or similarity.

 

> Sorry, but I am yet to understand the true significance of

> establishing similarity between two darashanas.

 

There are two reasons:

 

1. By understanding the similarity between two darshanas one

understands exactly the tattvas whereby the differences between them

arise. (Difference is parasatic upon sameness i.e., the sameness of a

thing with itself. In other words, difference is given by virtue of

the sameness of a thing with itself whereby it is different than all

other things each of which is same with itself. A rose is therefore

always a rose and is never a tiger.) By understanding the purvapaksha

better one understands one's own doubts as well as the answers to

these doubts in a more perspicuous manner and such understanding

helps the sadhaka in the path of jnana-marga.

 

2. Seeing the sameness of darshanas is conducive to expansion of

heart. It brings people together through Love whereas seeing only the

differences between darshanas causes Strife. Vada and tarka are

externalised forms of manana and while they are important to sadhana

it is equally important that we preserve Love and not create Strife.

 

> In my opinion, the very smoothing off of doctrinal

> differences is in itself hindrance to pursuit of truth.

 

Doctrinal differences cannot be smoothed out. A tattva is eternal and

it cannot be obliterated through the operation of 'smoothing out'.

Sameness is also a tattva and it too cannot be smoothed out by

difference just as difference cannot be smoothed out by sameness.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri.Chittaranji,

 

 

 

Sorry for the late reply. It is been hard now a days to find time to

be part of these discussions.

 

> > World is created by Ishvara's Will, no doubt, but "Ishvara" as

such

> > is created by jIva (due to jIva's avidya and limiting adjunct) in

> > your system.

>

> No, wrong. You may debate this with others on the list who may be

> saying it. As far as I am concerned, it is a derailment of Advaita.

 

 

 

No, it is not derailment of Advaita, but official position as

supported by words of mUlAcharya;

 

Acharaya Sri.Shankara holds that casuality as such (eithter effieint

or material) of Brahman is a false phenomenon. Please see his take

on the vAchArambhaNa shruti:

 

vAgAlambanamAtraM nAmaiva kevalaM, __ na vikAro nAma vastvasti __ ,

paramArthato 'mR^ittikA ityeva' mR^ittikeva tu

satyaM vastvasti |

 

Bhamati (on S. sUtra bhAshya 1.4.27)also argues in the same line,

this transformation (i.e transformation of Brahman into jagat and

jIva) is not real but illusory (vivarta) like rope is to snake. It

says, by knowing the rope (One) the truth about snake (many) is

known. `rajvAm j~jAtAtyAm bhujanga tattvam j~jAtam bhavati, sA hi

tasya tattvam'

 

Also, in one of your other mail you mentioned creation is by vAk of

Ishvara. According to your view, since Ishvara is real, his vAk is

real and hence this creation is real. As a tatvavAdin I do not have

disagreement with you, but my disagreement is on your representation

of Advaita, for there exist a explicit assertion of vEdas as avidya.

 

Acharya Shankara in his gItA bhaashya 18.20;

 

navedAnayajnAnatIrthambruvanti | avidyAvadvishhayANyeva ---

shAstrANicha |

 

("There is no Veda, no yajna, nor tIrtha-s. shAstrA-s are for

ignorant people who believe that they are true.")

 

 

> The efficient cause of the universe is Brahman and not something

that

> is not fit to bear the name of vidya.

 

 

That would be correct if the effect is real. But as quoted above,

(per Achraya's bhAshya and bhAmati) the effect is not real.

 

 

Efficasy of vidya is to reveal the truth, and here the truth

according to Advaita is no causality (and no effect) what so ever.

Thus the real meaning of 'vidya' is preserved.

 

 

>

>

> > The very distinction (of Ishvara from jIva) has not been

> > preserved in the final conclusion of your model. Do you?

>

> Yes, Advaita does. Does this sound strange? Read Section IV or Part

> IV of Shankara's Brahman Sutra Bhashya relating to the nature of

> freedom, the inseparability of the soul from Brahman and also the

> distinction of the soul and Brahman in the context of Divine

Powers.

> This creation is only one quadrant and there is more. Shankara

> clearly says that the jiva never gets the power of creation though

it

> may identify itself with the tattva of Brahma or Ishvara. That

which

> identifies and the tattva with which it is identified are not the

> same, but this is a very large topic that has seldom been touched

> upon even by Advaitins, and hence we shall not discuss it here.

>

 

 

 

Of course, Acharaya says what you are saying in earlier part of

Section IV. But, continuing in later parts of the same section (on

sutras 4.3.7-11) he holds the view that such libarated jIvas enjoy

bliss *** until *** the dissolution of the universe and then merge

into the unconditioned (Nirguna) Brahman.

 

I rest my case on words of Achraya in support of my position in

holding that in the highest state of mOksha, the distinction between

jIva and Ishvara is not preserved, for Ishavara and jIva are nothing

but Brahman.

 

 

The distinction is preserved only in the state (i.e in the creation)

prior to mOksha. Later, the state itself is not there along with the

distinction.

 

 

Also, while commenting on Br.U, Acharya hold the view that 'jIva' as

such will destroy after the realization.

 

 

 

"na punaH

paramArthachandraadityasvarUpaanaashavadasamsaaribrahmasvarUpasya

vijJnaanaghanasya naashaH "

 

 

 

(crude translation would be -- The supreme goal, who has the form of

the moon, sun, etc., who is indestructible, not bound by samsAra, his

form--the jIva is destroyed)

 

 

 

"paramArthatah bhUtanaashanna vinaashivinaashi tvavidyaakrtaH

khilyabhaavaH"

 

 

 

Else where (in Ish.U 17) he also says that jIvahood will be lost and

becomes Brahman ;

 

 

 

kiJNchAhaM na tu tvAM bhR^ityavadyAche, `yo.asAvAditye' maNDalastho

vyAhR^ityavayavaH `purushhaH' purushhakAratvAt.h pUrNaM vA.anena

prANabuddhyAtmanA jagatsamastamiti purushhaH `puri shayanAd.h' vA

`purushhaH', `so.ahamasmi', bhavAmi |

 

 

 

Here, the point of interest is the keyword 'bhavAmi', which is

transformative.

 

 

>

>

> > Let me make myself a bit clear here; I am not saying not

> > preserving jIva-Ishvara distinction is wrong as such.

>

> Advaita goes along the nature of sameness while Dvaita goes along

the

> nature of difference. This is another large topic.

>

 

 

 

No, Advaita goes along with the nature of 'identity' (abhEda) while

Dvaita goes along with the nature of 'sameness' (sAdrshya).

 

 

 

Sameness or similarity presupposes metaphysically two distinct

entities. Doctrine of non-duality can not accommodate it.

 

 

 

On this point, may I draw your attention on the same vAchArambhaNa

shruti once again?

 

 

 

Sri.Shankara is of the position that products made from the clay clod

is nothing but clay itself (a case of identity), while Sri. Madhva is

of the position that there exist a similarity (sAdrshya) between them.

 

 

Achraya Sri.Madhva comments on the above shruti as ;

 

`yathA mRutpiMDa vij~jAnAt sAdRushyAdEva mRuNmayAH | vij~jAyaMtE

tathA viShNOH sAdRushyAt jagadEva cha|'.

 

 

(Just like, when a clay clod is known all other clay objects are

known, on the grounds of similarity between them; When Brahmn is

Known as sat, this jagat, which is also sat by pramANa, is known.)

 

 

What is that similarity between Brahman and this jagat ?

 

Here one can not ignore similarities such as satyatvam etc, as sited

by shruti `satyasya satyam' and `satya Aatmaa, satyo jiivaha, satyam

bhidaa satyam bhidaa satyam bhidaa' etc.

 

 

Also per other shruti pramANa such as `tvamEvam vidwAn amRutam iha

bhavati nAnyaH paMthA ayanAya vidyatE', (by knowing That One, many

are known)

 

>

> > But, rather, holding similarity between Dvaita and Advaita

> > regarding drishti-srishti vAda on the grounds of similarly

> > seeming Ishvara-jIva is quite unphilosophical one.

>

> But if you read my earlier posts on this subject, you will see that

I

> am saying exactly the opposite of what are saying I am saying. I am

> affirming drishti-shristi of Ishvara on the grounds of the

difference

> between Ishvara and jiva -- and not on their sameness or similarity.

>

 

 

 

I think you misunderstood my point.

 

 

 

What I meant was, equating Advaita's dristi-srishti vAda to Dvaita's

Iccha-srishti on the grounds that they (the propositions) look

similar, is not correct.

 

 

>

> Doctrinal differences cannot be smoothed out. A tattva is eternal

and

> it cannot be obliterated through the operation of 'smoothing out'.

> Sameness is also a tattva and it too cannot be smoothed out by

> difference just as difference cannot be smoothed out by sameness.

>

 

 

 

As I said above, Advaita darshana is not about 'sameness' but

rather 'identity'. The universal 'sameness' presupposes two

particulars with some common features which can be termed

as 'sameness'. To preserve meaning of 'two' in the phrase 'two

particulars', difference between those particulars must be accepted.

Thus, the 'difference' is implied and unavoidable in the notion

of 'sameness'.

 

 

 

With warm regards,

 

Srinivas.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Srinivas Kotekal-ji,

 

advaitin, "Srinivas Kotekal" <kots_p> wrote:

> No, it is not derailment of Advaita, but official position

> as supported by words of mUlAcharya;

> Acharaya Sri.Shankara holds that casuality as such (eithter

> effieint or material) of Brahman is a false phenomenon.

> Please see his take on the vAchArambhaNa shruti:

> Bhamati (on S. sUtra bhAshya 1.4.27)also argues in the same line,

> this transformation (i.e transformation of Brahman into jagat and

> jIva) is not real but illusory (vivarta) like rope is to snake.

 

 

By taking a few statements here and there in a disjointed manner, you

are trying to give me an interpretation of Advaita that says Brahman is

neither the material cause not the efficient cause of the universe. You

wont be able to sell it to me. Also, I do not know of any 'official'

position of Advaita, neither am I interested in upholding

any 'official' position. All I am trying to abide by is the bhashya of

Adi Shankara.

 

I am aware that the interpretation of Advaita you provide is

the 'official' one that is recorded in Dvaita text books. I am also

aware that it is a position that is somewhat easy to refute.

 

The understanding of Advaita that I get from Sri Shankaracharya's

bhashya is not so easy to refute as the one given in the Dvaita text

books. It is a darshana revealed by Adi Shankara that remains untouched

by that polemical work of Dvaita called 'Drishyatva Anumana of

Advaita'. It completely dissolves the allegation of Dvaitins that Sri

Shankarachraya's preamble to the Brahman Sutra Bhashya is a premise

that is artefacted to infuse a spurious meaning into the Brahma Sutras.

It vaporises the naive idea that Dvaitins have of anirvacaniya that it

is an ontological statement when it is in actuality a derivative of an

epistemological conundrum. As far as Vivarana and Bhamati schools are

concerned, I've said it before and I repeat it here, I am not

interested in upholding the positions given in them.

 

My apologies if this post comes across as being a bit strong.

Notwithstanding anything I've said here, let me tell you that I have

great regards for Dvaitins and Dvaita philosophy.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Chittaranjan:

 

Your observations on Sri Srinivas's recent posting are quite precise.

Vedantic assertions can't refuted by using the 'Newspaper reporter's

approach' by quoting few sentences without using a coherent logic of

understanding. Sri S. M. S. Chari, a great Vedantic scholar (also a

Ph.D in Philosophy from Madras University) during his US visit during

2001 has provided a series of lectures comparing the three schools of

Vedanta. Sri Sadananda and I actually organized these weeklong

lectures in the Washington Metropolitan, requesting him to provide a

systematic analysis of the three Vedantic Schools. Being a

Visitadvaitin by conviction, he focused mostly to point out the

logical flaws of Dwaita and Advaita. Interestingly, he forcefully

argued on the logical fallacy of dwaita philosophy and he was less

critical with respect to Advaita.

 

Several of our Dwaitan friends in the Washington Metropolitan in

spite of our special invitation to them did not attend Chari's

lectures. Most of the attendees of these lectures were advaitins

(lectures were sponsored by Chinmaya Mission) with a few

Visistadvaitins. The bottom line is that as advaitins, we truly want

to understand the viewpoints of other schools of thoughts. We have

great respects for all the Acharyas for their services to the larger

society in the promotion of Sanatana Dharma. It hardly matters

whether we need to agree with every word spoken or written by these

great saints. The only thing that matters is that all the three

Acharyas wanted to preserve and protect the Hindu Dharma and the

Truth spelled out in the Hindu Scriptures. Each of them has

understood the essence of the Vedanta using their own style with

dedication, devotion and conviction. One of the most important

lessons that we all need to learn from these three giants of Vedanta

is that `SraddhA – faith and conviction' is the essential part of

learning and understanding. Sri Ramanuja's or Madhwa's disagreements

with Sankara only establishes their strong faith and conviction in

what they believe. I fully respect and admires these Acharyas for

educating their followers on the importance of faith and enquiry. Sri

Srinivas's posts only confirms his faith and conviction toward

dwaitam and I appreciate and admire that. At the same time,

hopefully, he will understand why we disagree with what he tries to

establish!

 

Finally, as I have said before, any debate using interpretations of

Advaita based on few statements here and there will never resolve the

issue of who is right and who is wrong!

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

>

> Namaste Sri Srinivas Kotekal-ji,

>

> .....

> By taking a few statements here and there in a disjointed manner,

you

> are trying to give me an interpretation of Advaita that says

Brahman is

> neither the material cause not the efficient cause of the universe.

You

> wont be able to sell it to me. Also, I do not know of

any 'official'

> position of Advaita, neither am I interested in upholding

> any 'official' position. All I am trying to abide by is the bhashya

of

> Adi Shankara.

[Guest guest]

Sri Ram Chandran wrote:

> Sri Sadananda and I actually organized these weeklong

> lectures in the Washington Metropolitan, requesting him to provide a

> systematic analysis of the three Vedantic Schools. Being a

> Visitadvaitin by conviction, he focused mostly to point out the

> logical flaws of Dwaita and Advaita. Interestingly, he forcefully

> argued on the logical fallacy of dwaita philosophy and he was less

> critical with respect to Advaita.

 

Issues among dvaita, advaita and vishishTAdvaita have been debated to

death over the centuries. Neither the objections nor their rebuttals

are new any more. Therefore what any scholar has to say about their

relative strengths is more of his personal conviction. Sri Chari might

have found less fallacies in advaita than dvaita based on his

subjective assesment. The point is that bhagvAn madhva has not left

anything to chance and as a system his philosophy is watertight and

almost unassailable.

 

I had the good fortune of spending some time with late Swami Tarananda

Giri of Kailash Ashram at Rishikesh. Swamiji was a staunch advaitin

but a great scholar of other two schools of vedAnta as well. In his

lectures he would often point out that dvaita is the most logically

robust system of all the three. ( And would then add humoursly that

"therefore if your goal in life is to win debate -- you should go to

dvaita".)

 

praNAm

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Srivastav-ji,

 

advaitin, Sanjay Srivastava

<sksrivastava68@g...> wrote:

> The point is that bhagvAn madhva has not left anything to

> chance and as a system his philosophy is watertight and

> almost unassailable.

 

It is not so. The duality of independent existence and dependent

existence as postulated by Dvaita cannot be logically sustained.

Logical articulation can only take the form of 'independence and

dependence of Existence' and not 'independent existence' and 'dependent

existence'. Dvaita maintains the coherency of duality through the

tattva of sadrishya (similarity), but sadrishya does not negate the

sameness of samanya. Again in Dvaita words have a dual connotation

whereby the word 'space' points to two different spaces, one created

and one uncreated. In Advaita, this special 'word power' takes the form

of vivarta - of the non-difference of object in para-vak as well as

apara-vak (pashyanti, madhyama and vaikhari). The dual connotation

cannot be upheld logically. In Advaita, the single connotation

preserves the non-difference of the material cause and the effect

whereas in Dvaita the duality of material cause and effect is preserved

only by the dual connotation of words. This is the classic problem of

difference in which the position of Advaita cannot be defeated. The

darshana revealed by Sri Shankaracharya is unassailable.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjan-ji

 

Sri Chittaranjan Naik wrote:

> It is not so. The duality of independent existence and dependent

> existence as postulated by Dvaita cannot be logically sustained.

> Logical articulation can only take the form of 'independence and

> dependence of Existence' and not 'independent existence' and 'dependent

> existence'. Dvaita maintains the coherency of duality through the

> tattva of sadrishya (similarity), but sadrishya does not negate the

> sameness of samanya. Again in Dvaita words have a dual connotation

> whereby the word 'space' points to two different spaces, one created

> and one uncreated. In Advaita, this special 'word power' takes the form

> of vivarta - of the non-difference of object in para-vak as well as

> apara-vak (pashyanti, madhyama and vaikhari). The dual connotation

> cannot be upheld logically. In Advaita, the single connotation

> preserves the non-difference of the material cause and the effect

> whereas in Dvaita the duality of material cause and effect is preserved

> only by the dual connotation of words. This is the classic problem of

> difference in which the position of Advaita cannot be defeated. The

> darshana revealed by Sri Shankaracharya is unassailable.

 

May be so. However what I am truly concerned at my level of evolution

is that having understood all these things, how do go about my life?

How do I act in my day-to-day life? Are there are any significant

differences in the lifestyle of a householder as it emerges in

different schools? Do the guiding principles of action in day-to-day

life viz. prasAda-buddhi and IshvarArpaNa-buddhi change across them?

Since very few fortunate among us are likely to go beyond prav^ritti

mArga, how relevant are their differences at my stage?

 

praNAm

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Srivastav-ji,

 

advaitin, Sanjay Srivastava

<sksrivastava68@g...> wrote:

> However what I am truly concerned at my level of evolution

> is that having understood all these things, how do go about

> my life? How do I act in my day-to-day life? Are there are

> any significant differences in the lifestyle of a householder

> as it emerges in different schools? Do the guiding principles

> of action in day-to-day life viz. prasAda-buddhi and

> IshvarArpaNa-buddhi change across them? Since very few

> fortunate among us are likely to go beyond prav^ritti

> mArga, how relevant are their differences at my stage?

 

These questions are already answered in the Bhagavad Gita.

 

But there is one question I would like to comment on. You ask whether

the guiding principles of action in day-to-day life - prasada-buddhi

and Ishvararpana-buddhi - change across the different schools. I say

that they don't change, but there are many Advaitins who say: What

Ishvara? If one believes that Ishvara is a product of avidya, how can

one sincerely believe in any prasada or Ishvararpana?

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri.Chittaranjan-ji,

 

> > The point is that bhagvAn madhva has not left anything to

> > chance and as a system his philosophy is watertight and

> > almost unassailable.

>

> It is not so. The duality of independent existence and dependent

> existence as postulated by Dvaita cannot be logically sustained.

> Logical articulation can only take the form of 'independence and

> dependence of Existence' and not 'independent existence'

and 'dependent

> existence'.

 

Here, your tautological argument of taking the 'Existence' as an

universal is itself flawed one.

 

Firstly, Dvaita rejects concept of sAmAnya (universals). I believe

you must be aware of nominalist's refutation of realist position

regarding universals. Acharya Madhva has surprisingly anticipated

many of the arguments against the Nominalist view advanced by modern

proponent of universals and had thoroughly refuted such views in his

epistemological works. We can take up this in detail in another mail.

 

Secondly, if 'Existence' itself is Brahman, then existence of jada

vastu should also be Brahman. But, vEda declares Brahman not only

as 'sat' but 'chit' and 'Ananda' too. Your position reduce Brahman to

jada.

 

Thirdly, if existence is Brahman, what about non-existent things?

 

It is therefore, unfair to thrust your position on us and declare it

is illogical.

 

For now, here are some points for you;

 

Bare existence is meaningless. Can just 'existence' be spoken of

without the entity who's existence is being talked about? In other

words, it is your position making the separation between a thing and

its existence, which is logically not sustainable. Existence is self

same nature of a thing (dharmI-svarUpa). Language can accommodate

predicate of in the form 'existence of ....' because of 'vishEsha'.

This is exactly Dvaita's position.

 

Thus, form 'Dependent Existence' is equivalent to 'dependent

existence of jIva' or 'dependent jIva' (since jIva = its existence in

this example).

 

Dvaita is talking about particular 'existence' (i.e Existence of

Brahman, existence of jIva, existence of jagat etc). When we say

there is sAdrishya between Brahman and jIva on the grounds

of 'satyatva', what do you understand by 'sat' in 'satyatva'?

This 'sat' is nothing but 'existence'.

 

The implication of your position is that, since in your theory the

universal 'Existence' is nothing but Brahman; your claimed

form 'independence and dependence of Existence' would bring the

distinction (of dependence and independence) in otherwise

undifferentiated Existence, which shruti univocally asserts 'nEha

nanAsti kimchna'. If there is no difference between those terms in

reality, then it is futile to bring in the concept.

 

Also, from the logical point of view, for the form 'independence

and dependence of Existence' to be valid, concept of 'independence'

and 'dependence' must exist to begin with. Then what type of

existence is that? that lead to infinite regress.

 

Dvaita is sound in the sense that , do not violate logic on one hand

and preserving 'nEha nanAsti kimchna' of Brahman on the other.

 

>Dvaita maintains the coherency of duality through the

> tattva of sadrishya (similarity), but sadrishya does not negate the

> sameness of samanya.

 

But that sAmAnya 'sameness' alone meaningless in the your final non-

dual position,. What do you mean by sAmAnya 'sameness' is Brahman?

That sAmAnya to be meaningful, only if sameness appears in two or

more particulars. But non-duality is lost in that case.

>Again in Dvaita words have a dual connotation

> whereby the word 'space' points to two different spaces, one

created

> and one uncreated.

 

For this we need to draw attention to some of Shruti and sUtra vAkyas.

 

In sUtra 'Om| AkAshastalliMgAt | Om ' (AkAshdhikaraNa of Section-1),

AkAsha should be understood to be Brahman only. This is because,

there is a statement in Cha.U which states Akasha is Ananda maya

('kO hyEvAnyAth kaH praNyEth yadEsha AkAsha AnandO na syAth'). If you

mean AkAsha as bhUtAkAsa only, then you lost Ch.U on the spot.

The concept of Space as 'Avyakrtakasa' and 'bhUtAkAsha' in Madhva's

philosophy must be recognised to be a remarkable advance in Vedantic

thought, if we consider Thibaut's comment in Vol.II, p.3, fn.1 of

this translation of Sankara's BSB that "the Vedantins do not clearly

distinguish between empty space and an exceedingly fine matter

filling all space, which, however attenuated is yet one of the

elements and as such belongs to the same category as air, fire, water

and earth" (SBE Vol. XXXVIII, p.3).

 

Acharya Madhva shows himself fully aware of this necessary

distinction and its scientific significance.

>The dual connotation

> cannot be upheld logically.

>In Advaita, the single connotation

> preserves the non-difference of the material cause and the effect

> whereas in Dvaita the duality of material cause and effect is

preserved

> only by the dual connotation of words. This is the classic problem

of

> difference in which the position of Advaita cannot be defeated.

 

Dual connotation is not Dvaitic idea. According to various vEdic and

pourUshEya agama pramANa-s (too numerous to quote here), primary

meaning (mukhyArtha) of all words refer Brahman only. In their

secondary meaning refer to respective entities. If time permits, I'll

write detail essay on this topic.

 

To give an example, as long as the essence of a coconut (the white

edible part) is with the skin, shell and its water; they are all

primarily called by the name 'coconut' only. Devoid o the essence,

they are not called by that name any more. Similarly, the

name 'sUrya' is Brahman in primary sense because of His presence in

it and in the secondary sense to the deity of sUrya.

 

The darshana revealed by Sri Madhva is unassailable.

 

 

With warm regards,

Srinivas Kotekal

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Srinivas Kotekal-ji,

 

advaitin, "Srinivas Kotekal" <kots_p>

wrote:

 

> Firstly, Dvaita rejects concept of sAmAnya (universals). I

> believe you must be aware of nominalist's refutation of

> realist position regarding universals. Acharya Madhva has

> surprisingly anticipated many of the arguments against the

> Nominalist view advanced by modern proponent of universals

> and had thoroughly refuted such views in his epistemological

> works. We can take up this in detail in another mail.

 

There is no need to take it up in another mail. The samanya of

Advaita is not like the universal of Western Philosophy which is

conceived as something existing by itself. It is this notion of a

universal that has caused the two-thousand-year war of nominalism-vs-

realism, a war that has still not reached an end. But the samanya of

Advaita does not exist by itself. It is the meaning in Brahman and is

the basis of sakshi-pramana.

 

> Thus, form 'Dependent Existence' is equivalent to 'dependent

> existence of jIva' or 'dependent jIva' (since jIva = its

> existence in this example).

>

> Dvaita is talking about particular 'existence' (i.e Existence of

> Brahman, existence of jIva, existence of jagat etc). When we say

> there is sAdrishya between Brahman and jIva on the grounds

> of 'satyatva', what do you understand by 'sat' in 'satyatva'?

> This 'sat' is nothing but 'existence'.

>

> The implication of your position is that, since in your theory

> the universal 'Existence' is nothing but Brahman; your claimed

> form 'independence and dependence of Existence' would bring

> the distinction (of dependence and independence) in otherwise

> undifferentiated Existence, which shruti univocally asserts

> 'nEha nanAsti kimchna'. If there is no difference between

> those terms in reality, then it is futile to bring in the

> concept.

>

> Also, from the logical point of view, for the form 'independence

> and dependence of Existence' to be valid, concept of

> 'independence' and 'dependence' must exist to begin with. Then

> what type of existence is that? that lead to infinite regress.

>

> Dvaita is sound in the sense that, do not violate logic on one

> hand and preserving 'nEha nanAsti kimchna' of Brahman on the

> other.

 

 

We have discussed this topic at leghth in Vadavalli. You say Brahman

is one kind of existence and prakriti is another kind of existence.

Fine. A rose is one kind of flower and a lotus is another kind of

flower. What is more primary here, the flower or its instances such

as rose and lotus?

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan