Meanings of the 66th Sloka - Bhagavad Gita

[Dark Warrior]

The Sloka,

 

Sarvadharman Parityajya Mam Ekam Saranam Vraja |

Aham tva Sarva Papebhyo Mokshayishyami Masuchaha ||

is one of the 3 secret mantras called 'Rahasya Mantras'. The reason why it is called a secret is because it contains many hidden meanings, which reveal exactly what the Lord wants us to do. Sri Ramanujar, Sri Desikar and Sri Lokacharya, the greatest of Sri Vaishnava Acharyas, have delighted in the meanings of this sloka. They have, by their causeless mercy, revealed it to the world by their divine works. Pillai Lokacharya outlines it meticulously in his 18 monumental books called 'Rahasya Grantha'.

 

First of all, notice that the first sentence of the sloka contains six words (Sarvadharman, Parityaja, Mam, Ekam, Saranam, Vraja) and the second sentence contains five words (Ahamtva, Sarvapapebyo, Mokshayishyami, Ma, Suchaha) - both comprise 32 alphabets.

 

Interestingly, there are 32 Brahma Vidyas in the Upanishads. The two parts of this sloka has 32 alphabets each, adding up to 64 alphabets overall. Maybe it illustrates how this sloka is doubly effective than all 32 Brahma Vidyas put together!!

 

Meaning of the word 'Sarva Dharman'

 

The general meaning of the word 'Dharma' is 'the way' or 'means of attaining an object'. The way or means is shown in the Sastras. The word Dharman (in plural number) indicates the varied nature of the ways or means of Dharmas. The word 'sarva' means 'all' which includes the sayings in Sruti, Smruti etc. as follows: Karma Yoga, Jnana Yoga, Bhaktiyoga, Avatararahasyajnanam, Purushottama Vidya, Desavasam, Tirunama Sankeerthanam, Tiruvilakkuerikkai, Tirumalai edukkai etc., are the things to be done intentionally. It is suggestive of the Angas or limbs of Dharmas which are referred to by the word 'all'. But 'Sarva' could also be interpreted to mean the opposite of 'one' i.e., Anga Dharmas. Another meaning of the word 'Dharma' is the absence of qualities like Nitya and Kamya Karmas. The 'Dharma' without these qualities would refer to other Upasanas or meditation with accessories like Dharavidya, Sandilya Vidya etc., for attaining liberation. Thus, according to Visistadvaita - 'Sarva Dharman' refers to Upasanas or certain Vidyas but not the duties pertaining to social life. Pillai Lokacharya also underlines that the word Dharma here refers only to the 'Mokshapha-lasadhana' in a sutra. Commenting on the Sutra, Manavala Mamuni stresses that here Mokshaphala sadhana means that it contains Bhagavatprapti. With a view to change the wavering mind of Arjuna who considered his duty of war as Adharma, the Lord Krishna says it as 'Dharma'.

 

Implications of the word 'Parityajya'

 

The word 'Parityajya' means 'having given up' or ' renunciation' which implies that Saranagati does not require other Sadhanas. This gives rise to the question, how can the aspirant know his ability to renounce all Sadhanas. Desire develops bondage and renunciation is advocated, though it is not easy to adopt or practice perfectly. The syllable 'pari' in Parityajya means extreme dislike or aversion. According to Rahasyatrayasara of Vedanta Desika "Aversion in every form" means being without the improper desire to perform what is impossible for a man with the thought: "Though I cannot adopt the upaya in full perfection, I will do it to the best of my ability; when that also is too difficult to perform, I will adopt, in the place of the prescribed Angas, something less difficult or the upayas which will produce the prescribed Upayas".

 

Ramanuja has said in his Saranagati Gadya thus: "I see no means of crossing samsara in all the eternity of time which lies before me". When one desires to adopt any Sadhana it is preferable to adopt any easy Sadhana rather than difficult ones like Karma, Jnana and Bhakti etc. In such a predicament, "Give up all Dharmas" is an advice to an aspirant who has renounced all other Sadhanas which are unsuitable for practice. In such circumstances alone one can adopt Saranagati. This only goes to prove that Saranagati does not need any other Sadhana along with it.

 

Pillai Lokacharya classifies the word 'Parityajya' under three aspects viz. Tyaga, Laypu and Upasarga. 'Tyaga' means not merely giving up the Dharmas; but it means that one has the constant mind in giving up other upayas also as a mean, like thinking of the brass as silver or thinking of a particular route which is wrong and that one has to go through another route. Manavala Mamuni adds that one has to feel for his ignorance of following other means for Moksha though he is the one who desires that Lord is the means for Bhagavatprapti. The syllable 'Layup' means that it stresses the giving up of other upayas andsurrender unto the Lord who is the only means to attain Moksha just like the Sastras which prescribe that one has to take food only after bath. Likewise one has to practice Saranagati, after giving up all other Sadhanas.

 

In conclusion, it can be summarised thus: Vidhi or imperative presupposes the renunciation of all Dharmas. To put it differently and more simply, the Dharmas that are required for all the other Vidhyas are not necessary for Saranagati. For instance: (i) shaving off one's head (ii) residing in holy places where Bhagawan is residing (iii) wearing the holy thread. In other words, Saranagati does not prescribe the renunciation of any Dharma. Some Acharyas, while attempting to explain what is Charamasloka, first state what need not be done and then state what has to be done. But all Acharyas are in total agreement that Saranagati can be practised only when one is ignorant of all the other Sadhanas and one is fully aware of the relationship betwen Jivatman and Paramatman. The following are the implications of the word 'Sarvadharman Parityajya':

 

1. Inability to perform the duties beyond one's capabilities makes one suitable for adopting the Sadhana of Saranagati.

2. Total ignorance of other Sadhanas becomes a qualification for Saranagati.

3. Giving up all rites or Dharmas becomes an Anga for Saranagati.

4. Non-indulgence in trying to perform what one is not capable of.

5. Being uninterested in doing what one is unable to do.

6. The principle of Brahmastra which states that resorting to use any other accessory or Anga would render the entire attempt a failure.

 

Meaning of the word 'Mam'

 

Pillai Lokacharya lucidly expresses the word 'Mam'. Mam means the Lord Narayana who is all protector, who responds to Bhaktas' prayers disregarding their mistakes and who is the asylum, the constant protector even when Sri as the mediator intercedes to help the jiva for unison. Further, the word 'Mam' dispels the other stages of the Lord i.e., Daivi hyesa gunamayi mamamaya duratyaya |

 

 

Mameva ye prapadyate mayametam tarantite ||

 

"Those who seek Me alone (and no other) as their refuge will overcome the insurmountable Maya". Ahirbudhnya Samhita also says as follows: 'I pray that thou alone shouldst be my upaya'.

 

Meaning of the word 'Saranam'

 

According to Pillai Lokacharya, the word 'Saranam' has several meanings such as Upaya, abode, protector, taking refuge in and total surrender at the lotus feet of the Lord. Here it means 'upaya' only because it has to add with the meaning of 'Sarva...Ekam'. This is being underlined in Ahirbudhnya Samhita. This was the prayer that was taught to Arjuna by Lord Krishna. It is applicable to all and Ramanuja has mentioned it in his Saranagati Gadya thus, "O thou who art the saviour of all beings in the world ignoring the differences that may exist among those that seek thee" and in the utterance of Valmiki, he said, "The great and eminent Rishis say that thou art the refuge and the saviour of those that have sought thy protection". These prove beyond doubt that the Almighty is the only saviour for all Jivas. The most essential requisite while taking refuge in Him is that one should not entertain the idea of any other Lord except Lord Narayana.

 

Meaning of the word 'Vraja'

 

'Vraja' means 'choose' or 'take to'. It is comparable to 'Prapadye' of Dvayamantra because it also enjoys self-surrender. In Prapadye the first person 'I' is used because it is only a meditation of a man who performs Saranagati, whereas in the word 'Vraja' of Charamasloka, the second person 'you' is used because it is addressed to Arjuna by Lord Krishna. It is the mind to choose the right path through mind'. This is called Jnana Visesham. This Jnana Visesham is also attainable by the grace of the Lord as spoken by Nammalvar - 'Aduvum Avanadhu Innarule' in Tiruvoiymozhi.

 

This leads to an intriguing question; whether the aspirant has the option of surrendering or not because the very soul is bestowed with a 'free will'. So, Saranagati is definitely an act of choice, an exercise of free will when it becomes convinced of the Jiva's utter helplessness and feels the necessity of attaining the life's goal i.e. Moksha. Does possession of the free-will lead the Jiva to choose the right path for the attainment of the Ultimate goal? Every Jiva is free to choose the path of liberation. However the right conduct is to seek refuge in Lord because man is helpless. The discerning power must actuate the free will to discriminate between what duties have to be performed and what ought not to be performed.

 

As seen above, the Charama Sloka consists of two parts. In the first part a particular Upaya the Lord is suggested for a particular Adhikari. It also enumerates the ways to be adopted by Adhikari to attain Moksha. Hence in the first sentence of this Sloka the following theme is derived:

 

The negation of all Dharmas intentionally is spoken in 'Sarva Dharman Parityajya' meaning the method of negation, 'Mam' means the Lord as Upaya, 'Ekam' means the negation of other means like Karma, Jnana and Bhakti, Saranam means the nature of upaya. 'Vraja' means the upayasveekaram.

 

Let us discuss the syllable existing in the second part of the Charama Sloka. In the second part Bhagawan is said to be the saviour who eagerly awaits the opportunity to protect and comfort the aspirant. For this, the aspirant must perform Saranagati with wholehearted faith in God. In other words, the second sentence enlightens the doings of Lord Krishna.

 

The meaning of the word 'Aham'

 

'Aham' or 'I' is the only source capable of doing the impossible and relieving the evil effects of one's sins. Pillai Lokacharya vividly describes the attributes of Lord Krishna in the word 'Aham' i.e. the Lord who is all knower (Sarvjna), all Valour (Sarvasakti), (Praptam), chief (seshi). Having given the meaning for 'Aham' by quoting God's attributes Lokacharya further states its usage in the present context as commented by Mamuni. Mamuni states that when the Lord wanted to help the aspirant by eradicating his sins and accomplishing his wishes, He realises Arjuna's earlier stage and further adds what he wants to do with this when the utility of Sarvajnatva and Sarvasaksitva of Lord is known. For the action of His is only for His sake by benefitting by Himself as He is seshi - the relation of Lord. Mamuni includes the attribute of Poorthi (Avaptasamastakamatvam) along with these qualities. Further, Pillai Lokacharya says that Arjuna feels that Lord Krishna distinguished Himself as a charioteer for his sake and to clear his fear, emphasises His attributes in the word 'Aham'. He underlines that Lord's servitude as charioteer is also His supreme.

 

The word 'Tva' (Thou)

 

'Tva' refers to the acquisition of the discerning ability to comprehend the nature of three ultimate Tatvas namely Cit, Acit and Iswara. Pillai Lokacharya says that 'Tva' refers to Arjuna (soul) who does not know what to do; who has no valour to do what he wants to do; and also has no right to do what he wants to safeguard and who approached Him as the means. Elaborating the sutra, Manavala Mamuni says that even one has knowledge to do what he wants and one has valour to act what he thinks, but he has no right to execute it and one who has redeemed all Dharmas and approached Him as the mean. Such is the nature of soul as enlightened in this word.

 

The word 'Sarva Papebhyo' (free from all sins)

 

For eliciting the inner thought, Pillai Lokacharya has given three Sutras for the word 'Sarva Papebhyo'. Manavala Mamuni classified it into three words as follows: Papam, its multitude and Sarvam - all combined 'Sarva Papebhyo'. Here 'Sins' are categorised into two aspects : i) the obstacle for desire (Istavirodhi) and ii) the cause for the evils (Anishtahetu). Here Mamuni means that since this Sloka speaks about Moksha, 'papam' denotes the obstacle for desire (Istavirodhi) i.e. the obstacle for the experience of divinity. It is necessary for the aspirant to renounce all evil deeds that lead to Adharma, Artha and Kama which are sinful and not capable of giving joy or bliss. The sins are as follows: ignorance (Avaidya), past impressions (Karma Vasana), taste (Ruchi) and matter (Prakrti) are the evil deeds that have to be shunned and they are characterised by the word 'Papebhyo'. Manavala Mamuni describes the word 'Sarva' denoting the aspirant who performs duties unknowingly that accumulate sins and who performs daily rituals with fearfulness etc. According to Sruti and Smrti the evil deeds must be avoided if one wishes to attain Moksha. Tiruvoyamozhi also reiterates the same point. It says : "sarntha iruvalvinaikalum janiththu mayap, pattamuththu theernthu thanpal manam vaikka thirutti veedu Tiruththvan" - which means "give up Punya and Papa both of which are of the nature of Karma and hard to give up".

 

It is necessary to assure the anxious Jiva that he would be freed from all sins. Sins could be classified as past, present and future which could be committed either through body or mind or speech. Past sins are sins that were committed before performing Saranagati. Present sins are those that are being committed and future sins refer to those that may be committed after the performance of Saranagati.

 

The word 'Mokshayishyami'

 

Pillai Lokacharya says 'Moksha ishyami' means that the 'Lord will grant liberation from sinful life. Further, he says that in the phrase mokshayishyami, the tense 'Ishyami' means that neither the Lord will try for it, nor the aspirant need pray for eradication of sins; as the aspirant has surrended to God, they will automatically leave him due to fear and not known where they has gone. Vedanta Desika opines that the word 'Mokshayishyami' conveys the meaning "I will grant the liberation or Moksha from this mundane world at the time when you want it". Liberation means release or freedom from the bondage of Samsara. This liberation is possible only if the individual (jiva) adopts Sadhana. Further, Vedanta Desika states that, one thinks that he is doing this for his personal end and becomes sinful. The Lord Krishna shows the way for liberation in the following words:

 

 

 

 

Sarvakarmanyapi sada Kurvano madvyapasrayah |

 

 

matprasadadavapnoti sasvatam padamavyayam ||

which means, the Karma Yogi, however who depends on Me, attains by My grace the eternal, imperishable state, even though performing all actions".

 

The syllable 'Masuchaha'

 

'Masuchaha' means 'do not feel sad' or 'do not despair'. According to Sruti, God will never forsake one who has taken refuge in Him. Once the Sadhana is performed by the individual which in fact is not difficult, is capable of removing all the obstacles and is having the power to grant the desired goal i.e.. Moksha. Hence, truly there is no need to grieve or despair. In the words of Bhagavan Krishna:

 

 

 

 

Daivi sampadvimokshasya nibandhayasurimata|

 

 

 

masucah sampadam daivimabhijatosi pandava ||

 

It means - "If you adopt this Upaya, your welfare is My burden or responsibility and I Myself be interested in looking after it; you are as it were My property or wealth (to look after) and there is no reason why you should despair". Pillai Lokacharya says that 'Masuchaha' means that since Arjuna has not entered to do his work and the Lord has involved Himself in his work, there is no grief for 'Arjuna'.

 

It is said that there are two more Charamaslokas i.e., Varaha Charamasloka and Rama Charamasloka. During Varahavatara, the Varahamurthy preached two slokas (Vakya Dvaya) to Bhu Devi, which speaks the easy way of doing Saranagati when one in a calm state of mind, health and action, prays God and when unable to sustain one's health at the end of life the Lord will think of him and take him away to His abode. In Ramaavatara also, Rama preached Charamasloka to Vibhishana when he wants to surrender before Him, by saying even one who pretends himself as a friend and surrenders Him, He will take him away His abode (Vaikunta).

 

From the above discussion it is obvious that the mantra- Charamasloka is the source of maintenance, nourishment and enjoyment to Jiva and also the cause for Moksha. This Mantra focuses on Saranagati as an easy Sadhana for attaining Moksha. Thus Charamasloka has a significant place in Srivaishnavam.

 

[cbrahma]

Yes these are interesting interpretations, but without authorative references. I believe Vaisnava interpretations of siddhanta require strict reference to other acaryas.

Some teachers consider "Mam" simply to be the Self, the inner divine being.

Dharma is simply a 'way', a path like a marga? I thought it normally meant essential nature or destiny. In this context Prabhupada translates it as religion, which are the practices of achieving 'artha', economic development, as in dharma, artha, kama and moksha.

We should not be concerned with our economic welfare, God will provide. Of course Jesus said the same thing in his famous statement about 'the lilies of the field'.

[stonehearted]

 

Yes these are interesting interpretations, but without authorative references. I believe Vaisnava interpretations of siddhanta require strict reference to other acaryas.

Well, these tikas are given by Vaishnava acharyas, namely Sri Ramanujacharya and Pillai Lokacharya. They are considered authoritative by Sri Vaishnavas, and certainly Ramanuja is considered authoritative by all Vaishnavas. Sri Vaishnavas cite Lokacharya with the same confidence we Gaudiyas cite Sanatana, Rupa, or Jiva Goswami. I'm sure that if we were to read his 18 treatises explaining Ramanujacharya's darshan, we'd find them as replete with citations to previous acharyas and various shastras as we do Santana's or Jiva's works.

[Dark Warrior]

You must understand that Ramanujacharya has a trait that distinguishes him from even other acharyas like Sri Madhvacharya. He NEVER quotes any source that is not accepted by all sampradayas, including advaitins.

 

 

If advaitins use Vishnu Purana, Sri Ramanujar uses the same Purana to destroy advaita. If they use svetasvatara Upanishad, he uses the same text. And so on. Whereas, Sri Madhvacharya certainly did quote from unorthodox texts, and so did some other acharyas.

 

 

If the sloka was only about Artha, Kama and the religions, then why would Krishna say in the next sloka, ‘This is secret and confidential, it should not be revealed to anyone but pure devotees’? And why would it be secret if its artha, considering that Krishna has elaborately described artha.

 

Now, as far as proof is concerned, it is in the Gita itself. Consider the following. What is the Gita really about? Is Sri Krishna telling Arjuna of different paths to reach Him? Or does it have a deeper meaning?

 

The answer – Sri Krishna certainly preached Bhakti, Jnana and Karma Yogas, but NEVER recommended them as paths to be taken in Kali Yuga. Each of these Yogas were expounded by Sri Krishna only when Arjuna asked the appropriate questions such as:

 

 

1) Oh, Govinda, why should I fight? Answer – Karma Yoga.

2) <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comkama</st1:place>, and other dharmas so freely earlier in the Gita?

 

<font face=" /><st1:place w:st="on">Krishna</st1:place>, you say the Self is indestructible, then what is its nature? And who is Brahman? Answer – Jnana Yoga and Sankhya Yoga.

3) Oh, Madhusudhana, the system of Yoga you have prescribed is difficult. Kindly suggest another way. Answer – Bhakti Yoga.

 

 

But in all these points, Sri Krishna never says, this is the best way. Certainly, Bhakti Yoga was mentioned to be the best way, but I will explain.

 

 

Indeed, these yogas are applicable. But only for Jivatmas who wish to reach the Lord by their own efforts. However, if a jivatma tries by himself, there is every chance he will fail. So, the Lord says, give it all up and surrender to me.

 

 

Srila Prabhupada, if I may be excused for daring to say this, has provided a great translation of Gita, but at this one point only, has incorrectly interpreted Bhakti Yoga as simple everyday devotional service. Actually, Bhakti Yoga is unceasing devotional service. The greatest Bhakti Yogis were Prahlada and Dhruva, who never ate, slept or dreamt about anything other than the Lord. We may chant the names of the Lord, but at some point, we will have to stop. But Bhakti Yoga is unceasing in the sense that it is 24/7 rememberance of the Lord.

 

 

A flaw in Bhakti Yoga is this – Since it is the effort of the Jiva, the onus is on the Jiva to remember the Lord at the time of his death, to achieve moksha. For instance, King Bharata was a Bhakti Yogi, but at the time of his death, he did not remember the Lord, but rather dwelt on his pet deer. Thus, he was reborn as a deer.

 

 

In Saranagati, there is no effort by the Jiva. So, the Jiva does not need to remember the Lord during the time of his death, but rather, the Lord comes to him without his effort. Furthermore, due to the jiva’s surrender, the Lord voluntarily gives him Jnana and Bhakti, thus enabling the Jiva to obtain fruits of those yogas as well.

 

 

This is illustrated in Dhruva's life history. Upon seeing the Lord after his bhakti yoga penance, Dhruva cried and expressed his inability to praise Vishnu properly, as he did not know any stotras. Then, the Lord, of His own volition, stroked Dhruva's cheeks with Panchajanya Conch, and Dhruva was suddenly able to sing and lavish praise on the Lord. Thus, even after all penance, Dhruva had to completely express his inability and surrender before he enjoyed its fruits.

 

 

Thus, it can be inferred that the charama sloka advocates complete withdrawal from efforts such as Jnana, Karma and Bhakti Yoga. Indeed, notice that even in the Gita, Sri Krishna has only described these yogas as answers to Arjuna’s questions. But the 66<SUP>th</SUP> sloka was given by the Lord VOLUNTARILY, without Arjuna asking for it. Clearly, this shows that Saranagati is indeed due to the grace of the Lord.

 

And if you want Upanishadic Pramana, here it is: ‘Nyasa (Saranagati) excels all penances. Saranagati is Brahman itself’. (Svet. Up.)

[tackleberry]

Ramanuja's interpretations involve a lot of text torturing. Take 5.16. Ramanuja treats 'param' as an adjective to 'jnanam' when it's clear that 'param' is the object of the transitive verb 'prakaashayati' with jnanam being the subject. Even a sanskrit student knows this. But Ramanuja's translations are absurd, there are many more verses where he changes the meaning of the very word he's interpreting. Madhavacharya's interpretations involve great creativity and ingenuity.

 

Even in the verse under question, Madhvacharya gives a beautiful explanation, unlike Ramanuja and the rest. He doesn't interpret 'sarva dharmaan' in the literal sense, because that would render the core idea of 'nishkaama karma' useless. If all dharmaas are to be given up, then why would Arjuna say, "Karishye vachanam tava,' meaning "I'll do as you say," which means Arjuna was prepared to fight, to do his kshatriya dharma. Obviously, this would contradict 'sarva dharmaan' if taken literally. Hence, 'sarva dharmaan parityajya' means abandoning kaamya karma-s only. Nishkaama karma as a loving service to Lord Krishna, which is devotion in action, so to speak, must never be given up.

 

This explanation is not only creative, but realistic. Or, the previous 17 chapters would be worthless, if we take 'sarva dharmaan' literally, as Ramanuja and others have done. Madhvachaarya's explanations are far superior. And for this, the second verse of Ishavaashya Upanishad is also a valid pramaana. So Ramanuja not quoting pramaana-s from other sources is actually a weakness on this part. Madhvachaarya's habit of quoting from ALL scriptures even whilst commenting on a single text is evidence of his integral approach, his desire to show the devotees that ALL SCRIPTURES, rather than a few of them, speak of Vishnu's glory. This is certainly a better approach, to quote from as many sources as possible, because we'll have that many pramaana-s to substantiate our stand.

[Shakti-Fan]

Tridandisvami Sri Srimad Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja:

 

Saranagati is actually not bhakti. It is the step leading towards bhakti; it is the door through which one must go to enter into the realm of bhakti. In this verse, sarva dharma parityajya, there is no mention of direct service to Sri Krsna. In Sri Brhad-bhagavatamrta Arjuna was speaking with Sri Narada about the time he received the instructions of the Gita, because Narada had glorified him saying “You are a great personality. Krsna directly instructed you in the Bhagavad-gita.” What was Arjuna’s opinion in regards to this? He said, “Actually I am not the true recipient of Krsna’s mercy, because I am His friend. I have a relationship as a friend. But what did He say to me? He told me, ‘You should perform saranagati, because this is the doorway to bhakti. I have already established a relationship with Him as a friend. By giving me that instruction he did not make me the recipient of His mercy. He cheated me. If He had given me a blessing that I could obtain Vraja-bhakti, service to Him in Vraja, that would have been a real blessing. Instead He told me to perform saranagati; so I have been cheated.”

This teaching gives guidance to the people in general. In saranagati there is no conception of svarupa anubandhi – the eternal relationship between the svarupa of the soul and the svarupa of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Krsna says in this verse, “Mah sucah – don’t be afraid.” The surrender in this verse is inspired by fear, not by a loving relationship. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu therefore said [to Sri Ramananda Raya], “Eho bahya, age kaha ara – speak something further.”

[Dark Warrior]

 

Ramanuja's interpretations involve a lot of text torturing. Take 5.16. Ramanuja treats 'param' as an adjective to 'jnanam' when it's clear that 'param' is the object of the transitive verb 'prakaashayati' with jnanam being the subject. Even a sanskrit student knows this. But Ramanuja's translations are absurd, there are many more verses where he changes the meaning of the very word he's interpreting. Madhavacharya's interpretations involve great creativity and ingenuity.

 

Well, advaitins say Sankaracharya's interpretations involve great ingenuity and creativity, and we aren't accepting of those opinions, are we?

 

And Madhvacharya interprets Tat Tvam Asi as Atat Tvam Asi. This is also 'text torturing'/Manipulation.

 

Dvaita can explain the bheda srutis pretty well. However, there is a clear problem with the abheda srutis. I have read clear and conclusive refutations of Sri Madhvacharya's interpretation of 'Aham Brahmasmi' and other such Mahavakyas by Vishishtadvaitins.

 

As far as your argument about sanskrit grammar is concerned, I am sure refutals exist. However, I am no vedantin and hence, will withdraw from this one.

 

Still, in case this helps, there is something called Para jnanam - The knowledge / jnanam or Vision that is granted due to the grace of Sriman Narayana to the devotee is Para Jnanam.

 

 

Even in the verse under question, Madhvacharya gives a beautiful explanation, unlike Ramanuja and the rest. He doesn't interpret 'sarva dharmaan' in the literal sense, because that would render the core idea of 'nishkaama karma' useless. If all dharmaas are to be given up, then why would Arjuna say, "Karishye vachanam tava,' meaning "I'll do as you say," which means Arjuna was prepared to fight, to do his kshatriya dharma. Obviously, this would contradict 'sarva dharmaan' if taken literally. Hence, 'sarva dharmaan parityajya' means abandoning kaamya karma-s only. Nishkaama karma as a loving service to Lord Krishna, which is devotion in action, so to speak, must never be given up.

 

Arjuna says 'I will do as you say' because he had understood the concept of Saranagati - Do what the Lord orders you to do. Nothing should be done by your effort. The Lord indeed advises Arjuna to give up Dharmas. But this does not pertain to social dharmas, but to Karma, Jnana and bhakti Yogas. And since the Lord orders Arjuna to fight, he clearly obeys.

 

In fact notice, that the Lord's discourse does not begin until Arjuna says, 'I surrender to you completely'.

 

Bhakti Yoga is different from bhakti. The former involves intense contemplation, whereas Bhakti is the 'loving devotional service' you mentioned. Therfore, Bhakti Yoga can certainly be given up. Bhakti, however, is easy enough.

 

 

This explanation is not only creative, but realistic. Or, the previous 17 chapters would be worthless, if we take 'sarva dharmaan' literally, as Ramanuja and others have done. Madhvachaarya's explanations are far superior. And for this, the second verse of Ishavaashya Upanishad is also a valid pramaana. So Ramanuja not quoting pramaana-s from other sources is actually a weakness on this part. Madhvachaarya's habit of quoting from ALL scriptures even whilst commenting on a single text is evidence of his integral approach, his desire to show the devotees that ALL SCRIPTURES, rather than a few of them, speak of Vishnu's glory. This is certainly a better approach, to quote from as many sources as possible, because we'll have that many pramaana-s to substantiate our stand.

 

The previous 17 chapters are not worthless, but describe Yogas for different people. Kaivalyartis, Aishwaryartis, Yogis interested in Jnana, etc. But for those aspiring for Saranagati, the Lord clearly calls this as a 'secret'.

 

The point is that one needs the Lord's grace to be put on any of these yogas. One cannot get on these paths just by oneself. Some people are mandated to have one of the above in greater focus than the rest. .

 

The idea of grace is so much that it does not suffice if the jIva loses its bondage from prakriti. The Lord must apply His grace and activate the jIva's innate bliss. So deep is the concept of Grace.

 

I did not say Sri Ramanujar did not quote from all scriptures. He has done so. I said He did not use scriptures in debates that were considered sectarian. ONLY in debates.

 

You have misunderstood. For instance, Sri Ramanujar could very well have used the Bhagavata Purana to establish his points, because that Purana can certainly be used to defeat advaita. But since many advaitins considered it a sectarian text, he refrained from quoting it. Instead, he proceeded to dismantle advaita using Upanishads, Gita and Vishnu Purana alone. This way, no complaints of using sectarian texts will arise. This trait is definitely unique to Ramanujacharya.

 

The fact that you establish that Sri Madhvacharya quotes from all scriptures and threads them together is your opinion alone and reflective of all Dvaitins certainly. Of Course, Sri Madhvacharya's philosophy and methodology is lofty, but the fact that it is 'flawless' can again be debated.

[tackleberry]

 

Well, advaitins say Sankaracharya's interpretations involve great ingenuity and creativity, and we aren't accepting of those opinions, are we?

Claim isn't enough, you need proof. Madhvacharya's unique contributions include savishesha-abedha, sakshi, jiva-trividha, the technique of interpretation (saavakaasa vs niraavakaasa), basis of pramaana, virodha-s, and much more. Hence, his claim to ingenuity has substance.

 

 

And Madhvacharya interprets Tat Tvam Asi as Atat Tvam Asi. This is also 'text torturing'/Manipulation.

Not at all, you're the one doing the twisting. Madhvacharya gives the explanation for both tat tvam asi and atat tvam asi. Second, Madhusudana Saraswati, advaitin scholar, doesn't consider 'atat tvam asi' as grammatically incorrect.

 

 

Dvaita can explain the bheda srutis pretty well. However, there is a clear problem with the abheda srutis. I have read clear and conclusive refutations of Sri Madhvacharya's interpretation of 'Aham Brahmasmi' and other such Mahavakyas by Vishishtadvaitins.

Dvaita doesn't believe in dividing Shruti as bheda and abheda shruti at all, so the q itself is absurd. And if VAs have refuted, you might want to post them here.

 

 

Arjuna says 'I will do as you say' because he had understood the concept of Saranagati - Do what the Lord orders you to do. Nothing should be done by your effort. The Lord indeed advises Arjuna to give up Dharmas. But this does not pertain to social dharmas, but to Karma, Jnana and bhakti Yogas. And since the Lord orders Arjuna to fight, he clearly obeys.

Point being, he did fight in tune with his varna and ashrama, and this was part of his nishkaama karma. So even your explanation of saranagati demands that you accept Madhvacharya's idea.

 

 

The previous 17 chapters are not worthless, but describe Yogas for different people. Kaivalyartis, Aishwaryartis, Yogis interested in Jnana, etc. But for those aspiring for Saranagati, the Lord clearly calls this as a 'secret'.

No evidence that the Lord ever said other thoughts of his were for different classes of devotees, and so on. So your point is not valid.

 

 

Sri Madhvacharya's philosophy and methodology is lofty, but the fact that it is 'flawless' can again be debated.

Many tried, and we all know the result.

[Malati dasi]

Radhe Radhe

 

I will bump this thread up to the top!

 

This is indeed a very interesting discussions. I have actually asked about this verse in the thread about devas and kali temple worship.

 

I'm inclined to agree with Shakti fan's post from Srila Narayan Maharaj's lecture that saranagati is the doorway to bhakti, especially this: This teaching gives guidance to the people in general. In saranagati there is no conception of svarupa anubandhi – the eternal relationship between the svarupa of the soul and the svarupa of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Krsna says in this verse, “Mah sucah – don’t be afraid.” The surrender in this verse is inspired by fear, not by a loving relationship.

 

Sounds classical Gvism to me. But of course my focus is my family's understanding of this topic, so I will have to get my godbrother Advaita das take on this. Unfortunately (or fortunately to some) he doesn't participate in this forum !

 

Kind regards:namaskar:

[Shakti-Fan]

Srila Narayana Maharaj:

 

sarva-dharman parityajya

mam ekam saranam vraja

aham tvam sarva-papebhyo

moksayisyami ma sucah["As stated in scripture [bG. 18.66], ‘After giving up all kinds of religious and occupational duties, if you come to Me, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and take shelter, I will give you protection from all of life's sinful reactions. Do not worry.'" (CC Madhya 8.63)]

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu replied, “This is external. Say something further. Saranagati alone will not suffice.” Saranagati is in reference to being protected by Sri Krsna. It is for taking something from Him. Therefore it not bhakti, but rather the doorway to bhakti. The bhakti that Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu has given is on a post-graduate level. Before Caitanya Mahaprabhu, Lord Ramacandra and others gave gopi-bhava, but not manjari-bhava. He is so generous, kind and merciful – more so than Krsna. The sages of Dandakaranya had performed austerities for hundreds of thousands of years. But now, by chanting "Hare Krsna, Hare Krsna" and "Sri Krsna Caitanya Prabhu Nityananda", that kind of prema can come to a devotee in one, two, or three births. This is Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu’s full mercy.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Claim isn't enough, you need proof. Madhvacharya's unique contributions include savishesha-abedha, sakshi, jiva-trividha, the technique of interpretation (saavakaasa vs niraavakaasa), basis of pramaana, virodha-s, and much more. Hence, his claim to ingenuity has substance.

 

Sri Ramanujar also has certain unique contributions of Jiva as sarira and Narayana as sarira, the three scale differentiation of jivas, differences between Bhakti and Saranagati, etc, all with pramanas to prove it. Hence, this claim of ingenuity has substance as well.

 

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad clearly talks of Brahman in Jivatma.

 

 

 

Not at all, you're the one doing the twisting. Madhvacharya gives the explanation for both tat tvam asi and atat tvam asi. Second, Madhusudana Saraswati, advaitin scholar, doesn't consider 'atat tvam asi' as grammatically incorrect.

 

So, one should believe that Uddhalaka was giving Swetaketu all those brilliant analogies just to say, 'You are not that!!'? Weird.

 

It isn't a question of grammar, but of context. Here, some identity is clearly been mentioned.

 

 

 

Dvaita doesn't believe in dividing Shruti as bheda and abheda shruti at all, so the q itself is absurd. And if VAs have refuted, you might want to post them here.

 

Some parts of shruti talk of the identity of Jiva with Brahman. Other parts talk of Jiva as distinct from Brahman. I guess you can say that Shruti is contradictory on the surface and needs to be resolved.

 

 

This position is adopted by dualists who insist that the world and Brahman are distinct and that the jivatmas are distinct from Brahman and also different from each other even in their essential state. We examine this view using the same line of reasoning applied previously.

 

The statement “Aham Brahmasmi” reads as “I am Brahman”.

This statement is of the type which definitely expresses some identity with between two terms. We hold that it can be either absolute or relational. However as we have already seen the difficulties encountered while trying to establish absolute identity we hold that it is best described as a statement of relational identity between the self and the absolute (Brahman). If it were not so the statement should have read:

“I am related to Brahman”

 

Accepting the dualists’ stance will require us to take that this is what is implied by this statement or Mahavakya. However we find that we are able to reason out both previous standpoints from the same statement without having to modify the statement or its immediate meaning. As the dualistic position demands a reading of the text in a primarily different sense as implying difference and not identity while agreeing upon relation we refute it saying that this position is not derivable from the original mahavakya in its actual form. The immediate and primary meaning of the statement reads only as “I am Brahman”. Therefore any position derived from this must account for this identity which is expressed by the statement. To negate identity but to proclaim relation the statement must be modified or interpreted arbitrarily. As both are not permissible this position is refuted.

In the trigonometric example again we find that there is an essential identity which is brought about by the relation (A=90-B implies that SinA will be numerically equal to CosB). To claim that in this case there is indeed a relation but no identity would be to reject available evidence that there is an essential identity.

 

 

 

Point being, he did fight in tune with his varna and ashrama, and this was part of his nishkaama karma. So even your explanation of saranagati demands that you accept Madhvacharya's idea.

 

So? I never said he needed to give up his varna and ashrama. But here is the important point - If the Lord had asked him to give up his varna as well, he would have definitely done that. You are missing the point.

 

If this viewpoint is similar to Madhvacharya's, well, I am glad. Because we accept that while Advaita is far removed from both VA and Dvaita, the latter two have more in common than differences.

 

 

 

No evidence that the Lord ever said other thoughts of his were for different classes of devotees, and so on. So your point is not valid.

 

The Upanishads describe different types of meditation. Are you capable of doing them all? If not, then the Upanishads must be worthless, right?

 

I have given you sufficient evidence that He was answering Arjuna's questions in the Gita itself.

 

But think about it - Are you capable of doing what Dhruva and Prahlada did? Its so basic, just personal experience. Are you capable of entering samadhi aqnd enjoying the Self? Or immersing yourself in relentless pursuit of Bhakti Yoga?

 

In the Gita, Krishna gives the example of King Janaka as Karma Yogi. This proves Sri Ramanujar's point. Because, here is a story: King Janaka was doing his work (I think sandhya vandanam) when suddenly, his house was set ablaze. Everyone ran out of the house, but the King refused to move until his work was over.

 

This is Karma Yoga. Do you think you can do this? Be this dedicated in the service to the Lord such that you don't even care for your own life? Impossible.

 

And Krishna validates Sri Ramanujar's view by saying, 'Great Persons like Janaka have indeed attained Moksha by performing Karma Yoga'. Which means, Karma Yoga is a path in itself to moksha, and may not even require Bhakti.

 

 

Many tried, and we all know the result.

 

The same goes for Sri Ramanujar. The perfect truth of the Upanishads.

[tackleberry]

 

Sri Ramanujar also has certain unique contributions of Jiva as sarira and Narayana as sarira, the three scale differentiation of jivas, differences between Bhakti and Saranagati, etc, all with pramanas to prove it. Hence, this claim of ingenuity has substance as well.

 

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad clearly talks of Brahman in Jivatma.

 

Brahman in jivatma (note the locative) implies distinction between Brahman and Jiva. No identity here.

 

 

So, one should believe that Uddhalaka was giving Swetaketu all those brilliant analogies just to say, 'You are not that!!'? Weird.

 

So one should believe Uddhalaka was giving all those brilliant analogies to tell Shvetaketu, "You are and you are not that????" Great Sri Vaishnava logic. Hey dark warrior, you're and you're not a six-footer. If it makes sense, you're certainly a sri vaishanava.

 

 

Some parts of shruti talk of the identity of Jiva with Brahman. Other parts talk of Jiva as distinct from Brahman. I guess you can say that Shruti is contradictory on the surface and needs to be resolved.

 

There's only distinction, as proved by Madhvacharya. Ramanuja has an illogical view that the jiva is and is not brahman. This is not only contradicted by shruti, but by common sense as well. Ramanuja's view is as ridiculous as saying you're and you're not a six-footer.

 

 

The Upanishads describe different types of meditation. Are you capable of doing them all? If not, then the Upanishads must be worthless, right?

 

I have given you sufficient evidence that He was answering Arjuna's questions in the Gita itself.

 

But think about it - Are you capable of doing what Dhruva and Prahlada did? Its so basic, just personal experience. Are you capable of entering samadhi aqnd enjoying the Self? Or immersing yourself in relentless pursuit of Bhakti Yoga?

 

In the Gita, Krishna gives the example of King Janaka as Karma Yogi. This proves Sri Ramanujar's point. Because, here is a story: King Janaka was doing his work (I think sandhya vandanam) when suddenly, his house was set ablaze. Everyone ran out of the house, but the King refused to move until his work was over.

 

This is Karma Yoga. Do you think you can do this? Be this dedicated in the service to the Lord such that you don't even care for your own life? Impossible.

 

And Krishna validates Sri Ramanujar's view by saying, 'Great Persons like Janaka have indeed attained Moksha by performing Karma Yoga'. Which means, Karma Yoga is a path in itself to moksha, and may not even require Bhakti.

 

You're actually proving the dvaita view by saying all this. It considers bhakti as the body, and karma and jnana as the various limbs. So bhakti in the dvaita sense includes karma and jnana as well. It's not mutually exclusive, as held by other schools.

 

 

The same goes for Sri Ramanujar. The perfect truth of the Upanishads.

 

Nyayamrtha has refuted VA completely.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Brahman in jivatma (note the locative) implies distinction between Brahman and Jiva. No identity here.

 

There is identity in the sense that both Jiva and Brahman are eternal and conscious. Both are blissful. Both have jnana. This is verified by the Upanishads. Sarvam Khal Idam Brahma.

 

VA does not refute Dvaita. Dvaita, however, cannot completely reconcile Vedanta. There is difference indeed, but at the same time, a qualitative similarity.

 

 

So one should believe Uddhalaka was giving all those brilliant analogies to tell Shvetaketu, "You are and you are not that????" Great Sri Vaishnava logic. Hey dark warrior, you're and you're not a six-footer. If it makes sense, you're certainly a sri vaishanava.

 

No, He was telling Svetaketu that 'You are That!' Meaning, Self is Brahman in the sense that everything is Brahman. It does not mean the advaitic interpretation that Self alone is Brahman.

 

Try to understand the nuances.

 

 

 

There's only distinction, as proved by Madhvacharya. Ramanuja has an illogical view that the jiva is and is not brahman. This is not only contradicted by shruti, but by common sense as well. Ramanuja's view is as ridiculous as saying you're and you're not a six-footer.

 

Moronic to say this. Sri Ramanujar clearly mentions that the Jiva is real and distinct from Brahman. But there are also clear similarities. To quote Sri krishna, 'Atman is eternal, imperishable and indestructible'. So is Brahman.

 

Ayam Atma Brahma. It follows that Self is Brahman in the sense that everything is Brahman.

 

 

You're actually proving the dvaita view by saying all this. It considers bhakti as the body, and karma and jnana as the various limbs. So bhakti in the dvaita sense includes karma and jnana as well. It's not mutually exclusive, as held by other schools.

 

Nobody said everything is mutually exclusive. Your idiotic vision blinds you from understanding. Bhakti Yoga has Jnana and Karma Yoga as its ancillories. There is again, an interconnectedness in everything.

 

(a) When beginning their spiritual quest, some people

engage in karma-yoga, which is selfless action

performed as worship of God, with an understanding

of the true nature of the individual self. This

action takes the form of active compassion, charity,

austerity, visiting holy places, scriptural study,

yajna, etc.

 

(b) Some others engage in jnAna-yoga, which is contemplative

analysis of the nature of the individual self in relation

to the world and God. JnAna-yoga is essentially attempts

at meditation on the nature of the self consequent to

conquering the senses and bodily impulses.

 

© For both of these, an introductory understanding of

the nature of God are required. God is seen as the supreme

benefactor and the Supreme Self, and is worshipped for

success in yoga, but is not necessarily viewed as the

supreme goal. All this depends on the mindset of the

aspirant.

 

(d) Success in karma-yoga and jnAna-yoga leads to the vision

of the individual self (jIvAtma-sAkshAtkAra). Karma-yoga

can be a gateway to jnAna-yoga, and then subsequently

to jIvAtma-sAkshAtkAra, or it can lead directly to

jIvAtma-sAkshAtkAra because of the element of knowledge

that is fundamental to its practice.

 

(e) Between karma-yoga and jnAna-yoga the Gita counsels

aspirants to pursue karma-yoga because of its relative

ease and greater likelihood of failure.

 

(f) Once the vision of the self is secured, the aspirant

has obviously achieved some measure of success in yoga,

and has perceived the self in its proper place -- i.e.,

that it is truly different from the body, and that it

is 'Sesha' to God. The aspirant then naturally moves

on to loving contemplation of God directly. This contemplation

takes on different colors depending on the ultimate goal

of the aspirant.

 

(g) Some people may already have an abiding love for God

and may not be interested in engaging themselves principally

in karma-yoga or jnAna-yoga (see Gita chapter 12). These

people engage in a form of bhakti-yoga that does not

already have the vision of the self as its basis. Consequently

their meditation may not be as firm; yet, with time, they

too experience the proper nature of the self as an outgrowth

of their bhakti-yoga and are able to ceaselessly envision

the Lord.

 

(h) It is to be noted that for all of the above aspirants

the daily and occasional religious rites (nitya-naimittika

karma) are obligatory and are performed to the best of one's

ability as God's worship.

 

(i) One may worship God through bhakti-yoga for three goals:

(a) The securing of bodily or material prosperity

(aiSvaryArthi, in the Gita 'Arta' and 'arthArthi')

(b) To attain a permanent vision of the nature of the

individual self

(kaivalyArthi or jijnAsu)

© out of love of the ParamAtman alone (jnAni)

Chapters 7 and 8 of the Gita detail these different aspirants

and naturally give the highest place of honor to the jnAni,

who views success and failure purely in relation to union

with God.

 

 

Nyayamrtha has refuted VA completely.

 

Vedanta Desikar has also refuted dvaita. It is impossible for Dvaitins to refute VA simply because it accepts both Dvaita and Advaita as being part of the Upanishads. I have read some of Dvaitins arguments against VA and all of them can be answered back quite easily. To deny Non-Dualism from Upanishads took all the intellect and grammatical trickery from Sri Madhvacharya. There are places where Plurality of Souls is advocated and others where it is denied in Upanishads. No sense in denying one or the other.

[tackleberry]

 

There is identity in the sense that both Jiva and Brahman are eternal and conscious. Both are blissful. Both have jnana

This is NOT identity, but similarity. Maybe, you need some lessons in English and basic logic.

 

 

No, He was telling Svetaketu that 'You are That!' Meaning, Self is Brahman in the sense that everything is Brahman. It does not mean the advaitic interpretation that Self alone is Brahman.

Try to understand the nuances.

Your interpretation is wrong, even according to VA.

 

 

Vedanta Desikar has also refuted dvaita.

 

Nyayamrta was written AFTER vedanta desika's time. No VA has refuted Nyamrta, which means VA has been refuted by dvaita and NOT the other way around.

 

Reg. grammar and all that, Ramanuja apparently didn't know that a transitive verb needs an object;) Like an ignorant schoolboy, he treated the noun as an adjective, even my nephew can offer better interpretations.

[tackleberry]

Reg. scriptures denying plurality of souls....the scriptures are taught by guru to the disciple, that itself establishes plurality of souls. So how can scriptures deny that which is established by pratyaksha, which is a valid pramaana? Therefore, it's concluded that scriptures do NOT deny plurality. It's just a VA misinterpretation.

[Dark Warrior]

 

This is NOT identity, but similarity. Maybe, you need some lessons in English and basic logic.

 

 

Your interpretation is wrong, even according to VA.

 

Certainly, the identity part was wrong. I am magnanimous enough to accept.

 

But here is where you go wrong: The central principle is that whatever exists as an attribute of a substance, that being inseparable from the substance is one with that substance.

 

This is the Non-Dualism part of VA which is validated by Mahavakyas like Ayam Atma Brahma.

 

OK, I used identity, which was wrong. But according to VA, The self and the world, though distinct from each other and real, have a different value. They only exist as a mode or attribute of Brahman. They are comprehended in the reality of Brahman. They exist because Brahman exists.

 

Since Self is a mode of Brahman, it is clear that it is indicative of Non-Dualism.

 

Sri Madhvacharya was unable to explain some mahavakyas. He comes into conflict with many passages. Regarding the text, “ayam atma Brahma” Madhva says that it is either a simple eulogy of the jivatman or it is a subject for meditation. It is also suggested that it is a purvapaksha to be overthrown.

 

VA says: Ishvara (Parabrahman) who is the Cosmic Spirit for the pan-organistic body consisting of the Universe and sentient beings, is also simultaneously the innermost self (Atman) for each individual sentient being (Jīva). All the bodies, the Cosmic and the individual, are held in an adjectival relationship (aprthak-siddhi) in the one Isvara.

 

 

Nyayamrta was written AFTER vedanta desika's time. No VA has refuted Nyamrta, which means VA has been refuted by dvaita and NOT the other way around.

 

Another piece of ignorant nonsense. Do you honestly believe that NO-ONE has addressed your silly refutations? The only way Dvaita can refute VA is by proving that the Non-Dual part of VA doesn't exist in the texts. This has not been done so adequately enough. I have even attended discourses by Velukkudi Krishnan Swami who has addressed Dvaita.

 

You have explained the Dvaita view of similarity. But I have clearly pointed out that Sarvam Khalv Idam Brahma and Ayam Atma Brahma indicate the oneness. For instance, the purple color of a purple robe is distinct from the robe, yet it is an inseparable part of it. So, the Dvaita theory of complete distinction falls flat.

 

 

Reg. grammar and all that, Ramanuja apparently didn't know that a transitive verb needs an object;) Like an ignorant schoolboy, he treated the noun as an adjective, even my nephew can offer better interpretations.

 

Insulting acharyas is quite demonic and unbecoming of a Dvaitin. Regarding that verse, it simply says that the Jnanam which is to be obtained is indeed the highest (ParaJnana) and is in full accord with the intended purport. I find no problems with Sri Ramanujar's translations. You cannot reply to most of my refutations, let alone analyse Sri Ramanujar's bhashya with your tiny mind.

 

 

Reg. scriptures denying plurality of souls....the scriptures are taught by guru to the disciple, that itself establishes plurality of souls. So how can scriptures deny that which is established by pratyaksha, which is a valid pramaana? Therefore, it's concluded that scriptures do NOT deny plurality. It's just a VA misinterpretation.

 

Moronic. It is an organic oneness. Plurality is accepted to exist. The parts where it appears to be denied need to be reconciled.

 

There is absolute difference, but since the underlying organic unity is one, the ultimate reality is one.

[cbrahma]

What is going on with this adwaita vs dwaita? Wouldn't a Gaudiya Vaisnava

realize they they are equally correct? That one implies the other?

How can you have adwaita without dwaita and conversely. Achintya Bheda Abheda tattva?

[Dark Warrior]

Not my fault if the fool cannot even understand the type of identity Sri Ramanujar is talking about. The essential identity is the unity of all beings in a common base. This base is Isvara. Instead, Tackleberry keeps harping about how Dvaita has beaten VA, when it hasn't even addressed all Mahavakyas properly.

[tackleberry]

 

You have explained the Dvaita view of similarity. But I have clearly pointed out that Sarvam Khalv Idam Brahma and Ayam Atma Brahma indicate the oneness. For instance, the purple color of a purple robe is distinct from the robe, yet it is an inseparable part of it. So, the Dvaita theory of complete distinction falls flat.

 

This is explained by dvaita through sa-vivesha-abheda, so dvaita doesn't fall flat. On the contrary, the same q cannot be answered by VA.

 

 

Insulting acharyas is quite demonic and unbecoming of a Dvaitin. Regarding that verse, it simply says that the Jnanam which is to be obtained is indeed the highest (ParaJnana) and is in full accord with the intended purport. I find no problems with Sri Ramanujar's translations. You cannot reply to most of my refutations, let alone analyse Sri Ramanujar's bhashya with your tiny mind.

 

 

It's grammtically incorrect. And every objection of yours has been refuted, and you yourself accepted the stupidity of your arguments reg. identity.

 

 

Moronic. It is an organic oneness. Plurality is accepted to exist. The parts where it appears to be denied need to be reconciled.

 

There is absolute difference, but since the underlying organic unity is one, the ultimate reality is one.

 

Moron, if there's distinction, there's distinction. It cannot be one and distinct, because logical opposites cannot co-exist. Like a moron, you keep talking about mahavaakhyas, when even Sankara hasn't used that word to describe so-called abheda shruti-s. And again and again, you're confusing similarity with identity. You're a conscious entity, and so is your neighbor. That doesn't mean identity at all. Likewise, God and jiva-s are conscious entities, which shows similarity and no identity whatsoever. Unity (the word that you've used) is NOT identity either, because if A and B are united, it means A and B are distinct which is why unity becomes possible. If they're one and there's identity, there's no question of underlying unity, to use your word.

[tackleberry]

 

Not my fault if the fool cannot even understand the type of identity Sri Ramanujar is talking about. The essential identity is the unity of all beings in a common base. This base is Isvara. Instead, Tackleberry keeps harping about how Dvaita has beaten VA, when it hasn't even addressed all Mahavakyas properly.

 

Retard, you (and VAs) accept saadrshya as abheda, when common sense suggests otherwise. The base is Ishwara, which means that which it supports (namely the jagat, jiva-s) MUST BE DISTINCT from Ishvara. Therefore, there's absolute bheda. But VAs are busy aping the advaita line, which is why you're talking of mahavaakhyas, when even Sankara hasn't mentioned such a thing. WHat a joker you're!

[Dark Warrior]

 

Retard, you (and VAs) accept saadrshya as abheda, when common sense suggests otherwise. The base is Ishwara, which means that which it supports (namely the jagat, jiva-s) MUST BE DISTINCT from Ishvara. Therefore, there's absolute bheda. But VAs are busy aping the advaita line, which is why you're talking of mahavaakhyas, when even Sankara hasn't mentioned such a thing. WHat a joker you're!

 

Dullard, you are still unable to comprehend one thing:

 

There is a subtle difference between Isvara and Brahman. Ishvara is the substantive part of Brahman, while jivas and jagat are its modes (also secondary attributes), and kalyanagunas(auspicious attributes) are the primary attributes. The secondary attributes become manifested in the effect state when the world is differentiated by name and form. The kalyana gunas are eternally manifest.

 

Thus, it is quite possible for Jivas and Jagat to be the modes.

 

One more time for your stupid mind to take in:

 

1. sarvam khalv idam brahma

 

Translated literally, this means All this is Brahman. Meaning:

 

1. Ishvara is Para-brahman with infinite superlative qualities, whose substantive nature imparts the existence to the modes.

2. Jivas are chit-brahman or sentient beings (which possess consciousness). They are the modes of Brahman which show consciousness.

3. Jagat is achit-brahman or matter/Universe (which are non-conscious). They are the mode of Brahman which are not conscious.

 

Brahman is the composite whole of the triad consisting of Ishvara along with his modes i.e. Jivas and Jagat. Hence, "all this is Brahman" denotes the triad of entities.

 

2. ayam atma brahma.

 

Translated literally, this means the Self is Brahman. From the earlier statement, it follows that on account of everything being Brahman, the self is not different from Brahman.

[tackleberry]

 

There is a subtle difference between Isvara and Brahman. Ishvara is the substantive part of Brahman, while jivas and jagat are its modes (also secondary attributes), and kalyanagunas(auspicious attributes) are the primary attributes. The secondary attributes become manifested in the effect state when the world is differentiated by name and form. The kalyana gunas are eternally manifest.

No shruti statement supports this nonsense. So it has to be discarded. Give some pramaana before writing fairy tales, you moron.

 

 

2. ayam atma brahma.

It simply refers to the antaryamitva of Brahman. It's not about jiva at all. So there's no q of identity, which your puny brain doesn't comprehend.

 

 

Brahman is the composite whole of the triad consisting of Ishvara along with his modes i.e. Jivas and Jagat. Hence, "all this is Brahman" denotes the triad of entities.

 

Again, no evidence from shruti for this distinction between ishwara and brahman, that even the insentient jagat is considered as a mode of Brahman etc. Your fairy tales.

[Dark Warrior]

 

No shruti statement supports this nonsense. So it has to be discarded. Give some pramaana before writing fairy tales, you moron.

 

Again, it exposes your idiocy. I said there is a subtle difference between Isvara and Brahman. This does not mean Isvara and Brahman are two different things. Isvara is simply Brahman when comprehended with all attributes. And since Brahman is in Jiva and Jiva is in Brahman, this makes even the Jiva an attribute of Brahman.

 

 

It simply refers to the antaryamitva of Brahman. It's not about jiva at all. So there's no q of identity, which your puny brain doesn't comprehend.

 

Moron, here is the explanation:

 

One passage says "you are that", Now what this means is that your soul's soul is Iswara or Brahman, i.e., Brahman is also your soul's soul. The passage "All this is Brahman" is also correct, because all Matter and Jivatma have Brahman as their soul and Brahman has all of them as His body. Hence naturally all this is Brahman. The passage "I am Brahman" is also correct, because my soul's soul is Brahman. In other words, I am myself Brahman. Thus, by applying the body/soul relationship between Jivatma and Paramatma, all the passages in the Vedas, which appear like saying identity of Jivatma and paramatma, will be properly explained.

 

Get it? The sarira/sariri explanation is sufficient enough to establish VA.

 

We say that Jivatma and paramatma are different and yet not different. They are different, as bheda sruti has shown. Jivatma is the body and paramatma the soul. The soul is different from the body. This way, the paramatma is different from the Jivatma. They are not different because of the body-soul relationship, as explained in ghataka sruti. We call both Rama's body and Rama's soul, as Rama. Rama's body and soul together, are called as "Rama" only. So, Rama is only one. Similarly, Jivatma (the body) and Paramatma (the soul), can be called as only one - in a special way, because of the body/soul relationship. So, Jivatma and Paramatma can be called two-in-one or one-in-two.

 

 

Again, no evidence from shruti for this distinction between ishwara and brahman, that even the insentient jagat is considered as a mode of Brahman etc. Your fairy tales.

 

Again, this has clearly been explained. A narrow minded Dvaitin who believes everyone else will get eternal hell can hardly be expected to understand.

 

EDIT: Since your other thread is closed, perhaps you can explain why Sri Madhvacharya thought Ayam Atma Brahma was insignificant. The Dvaitin view is that the abheda srutis are so less in number, they can be ignored.

[tackleberry]

 

Again, it exposes your idiocy. I said there is a subtle difference between Isvara and Brahman. This does not mean Isvara and Brahman are two different things. Isvara is simply Brahman when comprehended with all attributes. And since Brahman is in Jiva and Jiva is in Brahman, this makes even the Jiva an attribute of Brahman.

 

 

 

Moron, here is the explanation:

 

One passage says "you are that", Now what this means is that your soul's soul is Iswara or Brahman, i.e., Brahman is also your soul's soul. 3) The passage "All this is Brahman" is also correct, because all Matter and Jivatma have Brahman as their soul and Brahman has all of them as His body. Hence naturally all this is Brahman. 4) The passage "I am Brahman" is also correct, because my soul's soul is Brahman. In other words, I am myself Brahman. Thus, by applying the body/soul relationship between Jivatma and Paramatma, all the passages in the Vedas, which appear like saying identity of Jivatma and paramatma, will be properly explained.

 

Get it? The sarira/sariri explanation is sufficient enough to establish VA.

 

 

 

 

Again, this has clearly been explained.

Where's the pramaana for these fairy tales? None! So we just have to take your word, and that isn't good enough. And the fact that you're becoming angry indicates that you're not really convinced of the VA position. In one thread itself, you seem to have contradicted yourself a dozen times. First, you talk of identity, then you retract and say you meant something else, spoke of difference between Ishwara and Brahman, then retract and say you meant subtle diff., not real difference....well, well, seems like you're really confused, as confused as R.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Where's the pramaana for these fairy tales? None! So we just have to take your word, and that isn't good enough. And the fact that you're becoming angry indicates that you're not really convinced of the VA position. In one thread itself, you seem to have contradicted yourself a dozen times. First, you talk of identity, then you retract and say you meant something else, spoke of difference between Ishwara and Brahman, then retract and say you meant subtle diff., not real difference....well, well, seems like you're really confused, as confused as R.

 

Oh you bloody moron. You think I am angry? So far you are the one who's been using completely stupid language.

 

I already explained that my initial idea of identity was certainly my error.

 

I spoke of subtle difference. Get it? There is a difference between the words 'Difference' and 'Distinction'. I was never talking about two entities, but you misunderstood Brahman and Isvara to be two things.

 

My pramana is based on the bheda srutis - that which speak of two birds on same tree, and the general differencs between Paramatma and Jivatma. Then there are the abheda srutis such as Ayam Atma Brahma and Aham Brahmasmi which talk of Jivatma and Paramatma to be identical. I have clearly proven how they can be reconciled.

 

Sri Madhvacharya could not explain the abheda srutis properly, so he chose to ignore them, or override them.

 

Good Lord, what a dimwit. Let me explain again,

 

Abheda Pramanas - The following are some of the passages:- "You are that (Brahman)". "I am Brahman". "Everything here is Brahman". "All the things here are Brahman". "There are no different things". "There is only one".

 

Bheda Pramanas - 1) 'Two birds with similar qualities and attached to each other, reside in the same tree. One of them (Jivatma) eats the fruit (the results of his karma), whereas the other (Iswara or Brahman) shines, without eating the fruit." 2) "The Jivatma realises that the supreme self or Brahman directs him and he is the object of direction". 3) "He, the Jivatma, is different from Brahman. By winning the grace of Brahman, the Jivatma attains salvation". 4) "The three-fold nature, can be simply put as follows (1) who experiences pleasure and pain; (2) the object of such experiences and (3)He,the Brahman who directs all". 79 5) "He is the lord of Matter and Jivatma and the possessor of qualities". I 6) "Brahman is the ruler whose knowledge has no limits. The Jivatma has his knowledge limited". 7) "The Brahman is different from Matter or Achetana and is greater than the Jivatma." 8) "He is different and He rules over the Jivatma and the Matter." 9) "The knower of Brahman attains the supreme." 10) "He reaches the other side of samsara and reaches the Paramapada of Vishnu". 11) "I belong to the Brahman and I will not leave Him". 12) "All these are born out of Him and because of Him they live and they go back to Him." 13) "The brahmins understand Him, by learning the Vedas, by doing penance, by giving donation and by doing yagas." 14) "The Brahman cannot be attained by reading the scriptures, by intelligence,..." 15) "He is the lord of all. He is the ruler of all". 16) "There are two eternal, permanent things. One is Brahman, knowing everything and all powerful. The other is with limited knowledge and powerless, namely, Jivatma." 17) "The Jivatma enjoys the Paramapada along with Brahman."

 

Explanation - As provided earlier. Since you are an idiot, let me explain this as well:

 

We say that Jivatma and paramatma are different and yet not different. They are different, as bheda sruti has shown. Jivatma is the body and paramatma the soul. The soul is different from the body. This way, the paramatma is different from the Jivatma. They are not different because of the body-soul relationship, as explained in ghataka sruti. We call both Rama's body and Rama's soul, as Rama. Rama's body and soul together, are called as "Rama" only. So, Rama is only one. Similarly, Jivatma (the body) and Paramatma (the soul), can be called as only one - in a special way, because of the body/soul relationship. So, Jivatma and Paramatma can be called two-in-one or one-in-two.

 

Dvaitins think that just because Bheda Pramana outnumber the Abheda, they can just gloss over some points. But tough luck, the Upanishads need to be explained in full. I simply won't buy Sri Madhvacharya's explanation that 'Ayam Atma Brahma' is just a meditative technique and isn't significant. And his interpretation of 'Aham Brahmasmi' has been refuted earlier.

 

 

 

 

 

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->