Dvaita and Advaita

[Guest guest]

Om Sri Gurubhyo Namah

 

OM NAMAH SHIVAYA

 

Man aspires to become Brahman. But man is man and Brahman is Brahman

and the twain shall never be the same.

 

No man is Brahman because he is man. And Brahman is Brahman, not man.

One thing is not another. Not in a hundred years, not in a million

years, not in any measure of Eternity.

 

It is impossible for man to cross over to become Brahman. Even if a

camel were to go through the eye of a needle, man will never be able

to cross over to become Brahman. Therefore man shall be left behind.

 

Adi Shankara revealed to us the Law: he who walks the path shall be a

vairagi. He shall have no desire for anything here or hereafter

including the world of Brahma (Brahma-lokha). There is naught else

that remains. Vairagya detaches the man - and the man is left behind

on the Way.

 

Advaita is not for man. Man is a reflection - a pratibimbha - of God.

Man can only be in the likeness of God. There is a similarity between

man and God, but never sameness. For man, Dvaita is the philosophy.

It cannot be otherwise.

 

Many a man in the past aspired to be God. Many a man then began

speaking that he was God. That is the reason why Sri Madhvacharya

came to earth. To show that man can never be God.

 

Sri Madhvacharya is Brahma, the highest among the jivas. He gave to

man the philosophy of Brahman that reveals the highest vision of

Brahman that a man may have.

 

But Sri Shankaracharya is Lord Shiva Himself. He gave to man Death!

 

This is the Leela of Lord Shiva. He gives the Gift of Advaita to man.

But man takes the Gift and returns from the road to Brahman, baffled

and perplexed, beaten back again and again by the eternal barriers on

the way. Rudra does not allow him to pass. He is the eternal barrier

to man. Man shall burn to ashes in the Fire of Rudra before he can

pass.

 

But strange is this Leela of Lord Shiva. He gives Advaita to man even

though man is never able to understand it. Why does Lord Shiva give

Advaita to man?

 

Advaita is the Homa. It is the Great Fire in which man shall immolate

himself. The immolation of man is the Self realising Advaita.

 

The dying man begins to see the sameness of Shiva Seeing through his

Self, and the Shiva who is in all of creation. That man shall die a

death so deep that man shall be dead forever and only the sameness of

Shiva is.

 

The revelation of Advaita is the arising of God in the dying of man.

That dying is no ordinary dying. It is a Celebration!

 

Lord Shiva Celebrates Death! He roams in the cremation grounds and

wears the ashes of the dead on His body! That is His Grace!

 

Om Tat Sat

 

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Sri Chittaranjan Naik wrote:

> OM NAMAH SHIVAYA

>

> Man aspires to become Brahman. But man is man and Brahman is Brahman

> and the twain shall never be the same.

 

Thanks Chittaranjan-ji for the excellent post! We being "men" often

tend to forget that trinity of vedAnta were avatArs of Ishwara Himself

who came to this world at different times (yadA yadA hi dharmasya...)

for different audience. It is the lesser minds that gets stuck to the

differences.

 

I would like to narrate an incident about late Swami Tarananda Giri

who lived most of his life at Kailash Ashram at Rishikesh. An advaitin

to the core, Swamiji did not find any difficulty in appreciating and

praising the viewpoints of other AchAryas as well. In his discourses,

he would often go lyrical in his praise about some strong point of

dvaita or v. advaita-- much to the discomfort of his neophyte advaitin

students. Swamiji however, being a realized saint, was truly above

such dualities and never saw any contradiction in this. He never wrote

any books nor encouraged recording of his talks. Fortunately for us,

his student-- Swami Dayananda has ably carried his baton forward.

 

Another incident of his life -- which is not relevant to this thread--

shows the fickleness of human minds of students in judging their

AchAryas. Swamiji spoke little but in his last days he had almost

stopped speaking. This alarmed his devotees who wanted to shift him to

Delhi. However swamiji refused to leave the lap of mother Ganga.

Doctors were called from AIIMS who diagnosed swamiji for "depression".

This started another debate among his students whether a brahma-jnAnI

can go into depression? No one denies that dEha-dharma continue to

operate even after realization -- but "depression"?!! If brahma-jnAna

cannot remove "depression", what else can? Fortunately, these doubts

were short lived. His symptoms initially looked like "depression" but

actually were caused by his dangerously high sugar level (... which

looking to his fondness of laddus, I could have diagnosed without a

test:-) )

 

praNAm

--

Sanjay Srivastava

[Guest guest]

Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik wrote: Om Sri Gurubhyo

Namah

 

OM NAMAH SHIVAYA

 

Man aspires to become Brahman. But man is man and Brahman is Brahman

and the twain shall never be the same.

 

Dear Sir,

Are you trying to reconcile Advaita and Dvaita in a poetic

manner? No doubt, man can never become God. To my limited understanding of

Advaita-I have not studied the scriptures in a systematic manner as you have

done and are enlightening individuals like me the abstract concepts- there is

no question of one becoming God. That is why, paradoxically, Bhaghavan Ramana

did not encourage traditional meditations like, " Aham Brahmasmi", branding

them as an attempt of the already heavily laden ego to be filled with some more

concepts. Advaita is a state of being where there are no individuals

conceptually.How can an Advaitin have quarrel with a Dvaitin, since in the

vision of the farmer the latter does not exist, or is part of him. Again in so

far as the Dvaitin is concernded, he should be satisfied with the five

different padarthas spoken of by Acharya Madhva, and should not sit in

judgement of Advaita from the platform of Dvaita, since according to even

Dvaitha only the Lord is the informing principle of all existence upholding

all doctrines, diverse, needed for different individuals for their inner

advancement.

May both the Advaitn and the Dvaitin forgive me if what I have uttered is a

meningless twaddle.

Yours Ever in Bhaghavan

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Sankarraman-ji,

 

advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran>

wrote:

> > Man aspires to become Brahman. But man is man and Brahman is

> > Brahman and the twain shall never be the same.

> Are you trying to reconcile Advaita and Dvaita in a poetic

> manner? No doubt, man can never become God. To my limited

> understanding of Advaita-I have not studied the scriptures

> in a systematic manner as you have done and are enlightening

> individuals like me the abstract concepts- there is no question

> of one becoming God.

 

The difference between God and man is not something made of bricks

and stones. It is not a concrete wall that stands in between. The

difference is a 'will of the wisp' that is intangible and elusive -

but it has many forms that Maya presents. Now each form that Maya

presents - whether it be a concrete form or a mere 'will of the wisp'

of imagination - it is a tattva. These tattvas are what are talked

about in the Advaita and Dvaita debates. The Dvaitins call themselves

tattva-vadins.

 

> Advaita is a state of being where there are no individuals

> conceptually.How can an Advaitin have quarrel with a Dvaitin,

> since in the vision of the farmer the latter does not exist,

> or is part of him. Again in so far as the Dvaitin is concerned,

> he should be satisfied with the five different padarthas spoken

> of by Acharya Madhva, and should not sit in judgement of Advaita

> from the platform of Dvaita, since according to even Dvaitha only

> the Lord is the informing principle of all existence upholding

> all doctrines, diverse, needed for different individuals for

> their inner advancement.

 

It is all Leela -- for the Advaitin to go Home and for the Dvaitin to

go Home. :-)

 

Srinivas Kotekal is a good friend of mine. And I have learnt a great

deal from another Dvaita friend, Jayakrishna Nelamangala. We fight

and we appreciate one another.

 

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Srivastavaji,

 

advaitin, Sanjay Srivastava

<sksrivastava68@g...> wrote:

> Thanks Chittaranjan-ji for the excellent post! We being "men"

> often tend to forget that trinity of vedAnta were avatArs of

> Ishwara Himself who came to this world at different times

> (yadA yadA hi dharmasya...) for different audience. It is the

> lesser minds that gets stuck to the differences.

>

> I would like to narrate an incident about late Swami Tarananda

> Giri who lived most of his life at Kailash Ashram at Rishikesh.

> An advaitin to the core, Swamiji did not find any difficulty in

> appreciating and praising the viewpoints of other AchAryas as

> well. In his discourses, he would often go lyrical in his

> praise about some strong point of dvaita or v. advaita--

 

There is no denying the fact that each darshana has its own

greatness. Sri Sureswaracharya says that these darshanas are all

eternal. I have felt, at times, the grandeur of conception in

Vishishtadviata and the richness of description in Dvaita. But in the

end, it is Advaita that goes to my heart.

 

I feel that the Dvaitins are given to more debating than is

necessary. One cannot blame them entirely – it is the dictate of Sri

Madhvacharya that they shall go out and look for purva-pakshas to

debate with. It is part of their sadhana, I suppose. But I think that

the spirit in which Sri Madhvacharya might have said this may be

missing in some of the disciples that practise it today. Sri

Madhvacharya defined what these purva-paksha are – they are those

that do not see a difference between the jiva and God, those that say

the world is an accidental product, and things of that nature (all of

which is defined) – but I think the zeal of the followers sometimes

takes the debating spirit too far.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest srivathsa]

I have a question about madwa philosophy 
1) for madwas there are 5 bedas 
*)jada-jada 
*)jiva -jiva 
*)jiva-iswara 
*)jiswara-jada and jiva-jada 
---------------------------------------... 
BUT TODAYS SCIENCE HAVE PROVED THAT THERE IS NO JADA-JADA BEDA.....i:e according to madhvaacharya ,gold can never become silver....but todays science have proved that by changing electronics configuration we can change gold to silver....WHICH ACCORDING TO MADHVAACHARYA IMPOSSIBLE !!!!!!!....... 
2)jiva-jiva beda: 
accoring to dvaita each jiva is suguna and his prakrutika gunas are his own gunas. 
BUT ACCORDING TO ME PRAKRUTHIKA GUNAS ARE NOT OF ATHMAS AND IS SUPER IMPOSED ON ATHMA,BY READING MY FOLLOWING COMMENTS U PEOPLE COME TO KNOW........ 
1)me myself, i am human i see another human in kama,but if i become dog in next janma,i see dog with kama.....so prakruthika guna kama is not atmans guna 
2) bhudhi: 
now when we are human we have high level of bhudhi,but if i become dog in next janma we have bhudhi of the level of dog,so budhi is not atmas guna 
if u go on thinking like that u will come to know that ,these gunas atman got from MAYA of jagath..and is not atmans guna ....so atman is nirgua and jagath is maya............so madwaacharya's jath is truth and 5 bedas are false....... 
CAN YOU PEOPLE PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTION?

[The Editor]

Even if you convert one element to another, the essential building blocks of the element remained in their individual state, different from each other. Thus jada-jada bheda remains.

 

If you have a bunch of lego blocks you can build many things with them. You can build a car, and then you can take the same legos, rearange them and build a house. The essential building blocks of individual legos remain different form each other, even though you can convert the lego car into a lego house. When we see one item being converted into another, it means we are not seeing the essential building block that makes up that matter. We are only seeing the external manifested product.

[Guest srivathsa]

@administer Sir,

                                then how do you prove jada-jada beda?

according to dvaita the basic properties (Prakruthika gunas) of jada(color,mass .....etc).... will never change......but it changes in reality according to science.....that is what I am saying....if not in convertion from gold to silver....alteast in convetion from matter to light....which happens in sun.....

what you say?

[The Editor]

You will have to cite the original statements of Madhva for people to answer your questions properly. Though I am not an expert on dvaita, there are countless descriptions in shastra of changing bell metal to gold. The concept that one metal canot be changed into another appears to be something only you are arguing, unless you can provide an exact sanskrit quote from Madhva where he says this. Further transformation of matter is not even in question here. All matter transforms. This is a universally accepted truth. Everything we use is a transformation of matter. The food you eat is a transformation of matter. Where are the original ingredients in your dosa? You can no longer see them. The clothes you wear, you can no longer see the cotton plant. The metal items you use, you can no longer see the rough stones that were transformed into iron.

 

Everywhere in life there is transformation of matter form one state to another. Jada Jada Bheda speaks nothing about there being no transformation in the qualities of one material particle to another state. It simply states that one particle of matter is real and distinct from another particle of matter. Just as one atma is distinct from another atma, in the same way one particle of matter is distinct from another particle of matter.

[The Editor]

 

 

according to dvaita the basic properties (Prakruthika gunas) of jada(color,mass .....etc)

 

The color of things change constantly all around us.

 

Even on the elemental level you are looking at a product created by mixing ingredients, like flour is used to make bread. Elements are not the fundamental units of matters existence. You must first break matter down to its smallest unit of existence.