Meanings of the 66th Sloka - Bhagavad Gita

[cbrahma]

Wow. The hostility and offensiveness with which these 'Vaisnava scholars' debate undermines their credibility. Like Alexander Pope beautifully began his poem ' A little learning is a dangerous thing...'

 

It seems these 'prabhus' have just enough knowledge to be nasty but not enough to persuade into common ground.

[Dark Warrior]

Notice, that no hostility was endorsed by me. Tackleberry is certainly no Vaishnava, considering that he has launched attacks on Sri Ramanujar Himself. No Vaishnava would ever talk so badly about other Vaishnavas.

 

To summarise:

 

Tackleberry is unable to explain why Sri Madhvacharya could not give a reasonable explanation for some abheda Mahavakyas. Instead Tackleberry chooses to ridicule my usage of the word 'Mahavakya'.

 

Tackleberry is also unable to explain why Dvaita requires a massive twisting of a quotation from Tat Tvam Asi into Atat Tvam Asi. This certainly couldn't be done for other abheda vakyas, which leaves gaping holes in Dvaita. Sri Ramanujar was able to prove His point without unnecessary grammatical jugglery. This shows which interpretation is superior, by itself.

 

Tackleberry cannot explain how Sri Krishna has Himself treated Karma Yoga as a distinct path to Moksha in the Gita. The story of King Janaka proves it. This also proves that the 66th Sloka of the Gita is the meaning as conveyed by Sri Vaishnavism.

 

Tackleberry is intent on the bheda portion and insists on distinction between Jiva and Brahman. He accepts that Brahman is in Jiva. Then, only one way to explain Abheda Srutis - By taking them to represent both Brahman and Jiva, thus, resolving all conflicts smoothly.

 

Tackleberry cannot reply to the answer provided by Sri Ramanujar on the reason why ajnana exists, and insists that the pin-prick lights of lamps close to the Sun can be distinguised from the Sun itself. Apparently, Tackleberry has super eyesight indeed, because it is impossible to a common man!!

 

Tackleberry says that if Karma Yoga, Jnana Yoga, etc. are all distinct paths, then Bhagavad Gita is worthless. Well, apparently, he is able to do all the types of upasanas mentioned in the Upanishads then, because you know, Upanishads would be worthless otherwise!!

 

Tackleberry can only insult the great Sri Ramanujar, respected by all Vaishnavas, without proving VA false. By his own admission, VA is close to Dvaita. Which means, the Bheda Srutis are explained perfectly well by VA even according to Dvaitins. But Tackleberry cannot explain the curious lack of proper explanation for Abheda Srutis by Dvaitins.

 

Tackleberry appears to believe Dvaita has refuted VA, when scholars like PBA Swami and Velukkudi Krishnan Swami, have refuted Dvaita as well!! Furthermore, by his own admission, Dvaita is an integral part of VA.

 

In short, Tackleberry is a moron, who simply is fanatical about his own sampradaya. The proper etiquette of a Vaishnava is to give respect to every acharya. As people may have noticed, I have never mentioned Sri Madhvar's name with anything but respect in this thread. Bhagavata Apacharam (offending bhagavatas) is a serious crime that isn't forgiven even by Lord Narayana.

 

Lastly, Tackleberry needs to have his head examined.

[cbrahma]

 

Notice, that no hostility was endorsed by me. Tackleberry is certainly no Vaishnava, considering that he has launched attacks on Sri Ramanujar Himself. No Vaishnava would ever talk so badly about other Vaishnavas.

 

To summarise:

 

Tackleberry is unable to explain why Sri Madhvacharya could not give a reasonable explanation for some abheda Mahavakyas. Instead Tackleberry chooses to ridicule my usage of the word 'Mahavakya'.

 

Tackleberry is also unable to explain why Dvaita requires a massive twisting of a quotation from Tat Tvam Asi into Atat Tvam Asi. This certainly couldn't be done for other abheda vakyas, which leaves gaping holes in Dvaita. Sri Ramanujar was able to prove His point without unnecessary grammatical jugglery. This shows which interpretation is superior, by itself.

 

Tackleberry cannot explain how Sri Krishna has Himself treated Karma Yoga as a distinct path to Moksha in the Gita. The story of King Janaka proves it. This also proves that the 66th Sloka of the Gita is the meaning as conveyed by Sri Vaishnavism.

 

Tackleberry is intent on the bheda portion and insists on distinction between Jiva and Brahman. He accepts that Brahman is in Jiva. Then, only one way to explain Abheda Srutis - By taking them to represent both Brahman and Jiva, thus, resolving all conflicts smoothly.

 

Tackleberry cannot reply to the answer provided by Sri Ramanujar on the reason why ajnana exists, and insists that the pin-prick lights of lamps close to the Sun can be distinguised from the Sun itself. Apparently, Tackleberry has super eyesight indeed, because it is impossible to a common man!!

 

Tackleberry says that if Karma Yoga, Jnana Yoga, etc. are all distinct paths, then Bhagavad Gita is worthless. Well, apparently, he is able to do all the types of upasanas mentioned in the Upanishads then, because you know, Upanishads would be worthless otherwise!!

 

Tackleberry can only insult the great Sri Ramanujar, respected by all Vaishnavas, without proving VA false. By his own admission, VA is close to Dvaita. Which means, the Bheda Srutis are explained perfectly well by VA even according to Dvaitins. But Tackleberry cannot explain the curious lack of proper explanation for Abheda Srutis by Dvaitins.

 

Tackleberry appears to believe Dvaita has refuted VA, when scholars like PBA Swami and Velukkudi Krishnan Swami, have refuted Dvaita as well!! Furthermore, by his own admission, Dvaita is an integral part of VA.

 

In short, Tackleberry is a moron, who simply is fanatical about his own sampradaya. The proper etiquette of a Vaishnava is to give respect to every acharya. As people may have noticed, I have never mentioned Sri Madhvar's name with anything but respect in this thread. Bhagavata Apacharam (offending bhagavatas) is a serious crime that isn't forgiven even by Lord Narayana.

 

Lastly, Tackleberry needs to have his head examined.

Yes as I read the posts it seems you are more offended than offending.

I have crossed paths with this arrogant fellow who is hell-bent on denouncing Jesus and especially dedicated to publicizing himself as a Vaisnava.

All of these symptoms argue strongly against his being so.

[Dark Warrior]

Just because I know he will come back to check this thread, I'd better go one step further to refute his views:

 

He tried to establish that Brahman is distinct from creation, meaning, Brahman is the instrumental cause ONLY.

 

But Sri Ramanujar is crystal clear that Brahman is upadana because brahman is jagat eka karana in both the karya and karana avastha. Prakriti is absolutely dependent on Brahman, and has no independent existance whatsoever. Complete dependency calls for material causalty, and cannot be easily explained by mere instrumental cause.

 

The universe is like Parabrahman's shadow and is as dependent as the shadow. Who will say that Brahman is only the instrumental cause of the shadow? The very existance of shadow is dependent on Brahman. Have you ever seen a pot being dependent on the potter for its existance? Potter makes a pot from some raw materials, but no dependency exists in such cases. Thus, the Dvaitin view is wrong.

 

He then tried to say that all Jivas are distinct and that the essence, despite being Brahman, is not oneness. This is refuted as follows:

 

The sentient and insentients are different from Brahman, but have Brahman as their antaryAmi. Many verses speak of the antaryAmi aspect of Brahman in various beings. It says that there is no difference between the antaryAmi seated in one being and another being. Therefore, all beings must be treated with respect and equanimity. This is to say that all beings have Brahman as their inner essence and this essence is manifest to the same degree in all beings.

 

Those who discriminate between different beings on the basis of prakritic inequalities are to be considered as ignorant in light of this shruti.

 

He tried to say dvaitins have refuted VA. However, here we go:

 

Refutation of Dvaita

 

Madhva's ideas such as tAratamya were new, but it has been refuted by VAs - and such cannot be taken as truth.

 

For one thing, there are no shrutis that talk about jnAnAnda tAratamya in moksha - all pramanas cited by Dvaitins are comparing samsarins only. Do they have a pramana that says there is tAratamya in vaikunta? I dont think so. There are pramanas to show that mukta is omniscient, i.e all knowing.

 

Secondly, tAratamya is logically untenable. Here is why. mukta jIvAtma is nirdosha, i.e does not have any defects that can obscure its vision of paramAtma in anyway. Its vision is direct. For folks like us in samsara, and even for rishis and devatas, there is no direct vision of paramAtma - because we still have an organ named mind that blocks the direct view. Mind acts as a smoky glass that prevents us from percieving the Lord directly, and only a very transparent mind, which is attained only by destruction of all punya papa can actually allow direct God vision. Since no being in samsara is free from punya papa, there is always some impurity in mind that prevents us from having any direct vision of paramAtma. This kind of distorted vision of God due to mind can have gradations depending on the extent of impurities in the mind and there is thus tAratamya in samsara.

 

Regarding moksa. paramAtma does not have any internal parts. He can be either realized whole or be not realized. You cannot have a logical concept of perciveing a few attributes of the Lord or having x% of God knowledge because there are no such parts in the Brahma tattva. In case of objects having parts like a house that may have a window, a door, a wall, roof etc - there can be gradations in knowledge. But Brahman, being infinite and without parts - will not permit fragmented knowledge of him in any respect. Saying that a jiva has 10% of God vision and another jiva has 5% God vision and another 1% is a logical absurdity given that God is infinite, and whatever percent of infinity is always infinite. No finite knowledge can ever be considered as God vision- God is not known as finite. There is no mechanism that will allow partial(distorted) knowlege of God in moksha since there are no limiting adjuncts such as the mind. Thus the concept of tAratamya in knowledge is incorrect. God can be known only in sayujya mukti where there is 100% God knowledge. Jiva's Ananda is dependent on its experience of God, and when there is 100% of God experience, there is equality in Ananda also. Thus, those who claim that different percentages of knowledge of God exist are infact claiming that Lord is having such parts in him that permit him to percived as different parts.

[tackleberry]

 

Notice, that no hostility was endorsed by me. Tackleberry is certainly no Vaishnava, considering that he has launched attacks on Sri Ramanujar Himself. No Vaishnava would ever talk so badly about other Vaishnavas.

 

To summarise:

 

Tackleberry is unable to explain why Sri Madhvacharya could not give a reasonable explanation for some abheda Mahavakyas. Instead Tackleberry chooses to ridicule my usage of the word 'Mahavakya'.

 

Tackleberry is also unable to explain why Dvaita requires a massive twisting of a quotation from Tat Tvam Asi into Atat Tvam Asi. This certainly couldn't be done for other abheda vakyas, which leaves gaping holes in Dvaita. Sri Ramanujar was able to prove His point without unnecessary grammatical jugglery. This shows which interpretation is superior, by itself.

 

Tackleberry cannot explain how Sri Krishna has Himself treated Karma Yoga as a distinct path to Moksha in the Gita. The story of King Janaka proves it. This also proves that the 66th Sloka of the Gita is the meaning as conveyed by Sri Vaishnavism.

 

Tackleberry is intent on the bheda portion and insists on distinction between Jiva and Brahman. He accepts that Brahman is in Jiva. Then, only one way to explain Abheda Srutis - By taking them to represent both Brahman and Jiva, thus, resolving all conflicts smoothly.

 

Tackleberry cannot reply to the answer provided by Sri Ramanujar on the reason why ajnana exists, and insists that the pin-prick lights of lamps close to the Sun can be distinguised from the Sun itself. Apparently, Tackleberry has super eyesight indeed, because it is impossible to a common man!!

 

Tackleberry says that if Karma Yoga, Jnana Yoga, etc. are all distinct paths, then Bhagavad Gita is worthless. Well, apparently, he is able to do all the types of upasanas mentioned in the Upanishads then, because you know, Upanishads would be worthless otherwise!!

 

Tackleberry can only insult the great Sri Ramanujar, respected by all Vaishnavas, without proving VA false. By his own admission, VA is close to Dvaita. Which means, the Bheda Srutis are explained perfectly well by VA even according to Dvaitins. But Tackleberry cannot explain the curious lack of proper explanation for Abheda Srutis by Dvaitins.

 

Tackleberry appears to believe Dvaita has refuted VA, when scholars like PBA Swami and Velukkudi Krishnan Swami, have refuted Dvaita as well!! Furthermore, by his own admission, Dvaita is an integral part of VA.

 

In short, Tackleberry is a moron, who simply is fanatical about his own sampradaya. The proper etiquette of a Vaishnava is to give respect to every acharya. As people may have noticed, I have never mentioned Sri Madhvar's name with anything but respect in this thread. Bhagavata Apacharam (offending bhagavatas) is a serious crime that isn't forgiven even by Lord Narayana.

 

Lastly, Tackleberry needs to have his head examined.

 

Worthless post with personal attacks, and no pramaana to back it up. Reg. atat tvam asi, the word tat is NOT present in the said upanishad, it's 'atmaatat' which is split as atmaa atat, according to rules of sanskrit grammar. Even advaitins have not disputed this to this day. But you keep repeating like a moron that tat has been changed to atat, when tat is NOT even present in the upanishad in isolation, so how can you change something that doesn't even exist? Learn to read properly, before you post fairy tales, moron. And examine not only your head, but R's. You may find nothing inside, but that's another matter.

[tackleberry]

 

Just because I know he will come back to check this thread, I'd better go one step further to refute his views:

 

He tried to establish that Brahman is distinct from creation, meaning, Brahman is the instrumental cause ONLY.

 

But Sri Ramanujar is crystal clear that Brahman is upadana because brahman is jagat eka karana in both the karya and karana avastha. Prakriti is absolutely dependent on Brahman, and has no independent existance whatsoever. Complete dependency calls for material causalty, and cannot be easily explained by mere instrumental cause.

 

The universe is like Parabrahman's shadow and is as dependent as the shadow. Who will say that Brahman is only the instrumental cause of the shadow? The very existance of shadow is dependent on Brahman. Have you ever seen a pot being dependent on the potter for its existance? Potter makes a pot from some raw materials, but no dependency exists in such cases. Thus, the Dvaitin view is wrong.

 

He then tried to say that all Jivas are distinct and that the essence, despite being Brahman, is not oneness. This is refuted as follows:

 

The sentient and insentients are different from Brahman, but have Brahman as their antaryAmi. Many verses speak of the antaryAmi aspect of Brahman in various beings. It says that there is no difference between the antaryAmi seated in one being and another being. Therefore, all beings must be treated with respect and equanimity. This is to say that all beings have Brahman as their inner essence and this essence is manifest to the same degree in all beings.

 

Those who discriminate between different beings on the basis of prakritic inequalities are to be considered as ignorant in light of this shruti.

 

He tried to say dvaitins have refuted VA. However, here we go:

 

Refutation of Dvaita

 

Madhva's ideas such as tAratamya were new, but it has been refuted by VAs - and such cannot be taken as truth.

 

For one thing, there are no shrutis that talk about jnAnAnda tAratamya in moksha - all pramanas cited by Dvaitins are comparing samsarins only. Do they have a pramana that says there is tAratamya in vaikunta? I dont think so. There are pramanas to show that mukta is omniscient, i.e all knowing.

 

Secondly, tAratamya is logically untenable. Here is why. mukta jIvAtma is nirdosha, i.e does not have any defects that can obscure its vision of paramAtma in anyway. Its vision is direct. For folks like us in samsara, and even for rishis and devatas, there is no direct vision of paramAtma - because we still have an organ named mind that blocks the direct view. Mind acts as a smoky glass that prevents us from percieving the Lord directly, and only a very transparent mind, which is attained only by destruction of all punya papa can actually allow direct God vision. Since no being in samsara is free from punya papa, there is always some impurity in mind that prevents us from having any direct vision of paramAtma. This kind of distorted vision of God due to mind can have gradations depending on the extent of impurities in the mind and there is thus tAratamya in samsara.

 

Regarding moksa. paramAtma does not have any internal parts. He can be either realized whole or be not realized. You cannot have a logical concept of perciveing a few attributes of the Lord or having x% of God knowledge because there are no such parts in the Brahma tattva. In case of objects having parts like a house that may have a window, a door, a wall, roof etc - there can be gradations in knowledge. But Brahman, being infinite and without parts - will not permit fragmented knowledge of him in any respect. Saying that a jiva has 10% of God vision and another jiva has 5% God vision and another 1% is a logical absurdity given that God is infinite, and whatever percent of infinity is always infinite. No finite knowledge can ever be considered as God vision- God is not known as finite. There is no mechanism that will allow partial(distorted) knowlege of God in moksha since there are no limiting adjuncts such as the mind. Thus the concept of tAratamya in knowledge is incorrect. God can be known only in sayujya mukti where there is 100% God knowledge. Jiva's Ananda is dependent on its experience of God, and when there is 100% of God experience, there is equality in Ananda also. Thus, those who claim that different percentages of knowledge of God exist are infact claiming that Lord is having such parts in him that permit him to percived as different parts.

 

No pramaana again, simply your farfetched views. You're not even quoting R's view, which is surprising. But knowing you, this is understandable. But do me a favor and quote R or VD, I want to know their views on ananda taaratamya, NOT yours. You and that rat (aka jeeesus freak) cbrahma make a good couple, though.

[cbrahma]

takleberry foams at the mouth again with his deluded ad hominem attacks.

I've hardly proselytized about anything including Jesus. Fanaticism is tackleb.'s bailiwick.

[Dark Warrior]

 

No pramaana again, simply your farfetched views. You're not even quoting R's view, which is surprising. But knowing you, this is understandable. But do me a favor and quote R or VD, I want to know their views on ananda taaratamya, NOT yours. You and that rat (aka jeeesus freak) cbrahma make a good couple, though.

 

Tackleberry, you are certainly a nutty guy, but since you provide good entertainment, I will keep going.

 

Are you aware that by insulting Sri Ramanujar, you are committing a sin? Let me illustrate.

 

When Ravana was battling Sri Rama, the Lord never tried to kill Ravana, but merely stood on Hanuman's shoulders, smiling and deflecting the arrows. But when Ravana directed his arrows at Hanuman, the Lord's face clouded in anger. One arrow was then enough to kill Ravana.

 

Thus, by insulting the Lord's devotees, you are going nowhere. Seeing as you believe in eternal hell, let me assure you that if you keep going this way, even the lotus feet of Sri Madhvacharya will reject you.

 

And to boot, you have zero knowledge of VA or Sri Ramanujar. I myself lack knowledge, or I would have silenced you long ago. But all you can do is zealously cling to your own stupid reasoning.

 

Lot of talk, yet no use in refuting this. You would certainly make a good couple with that Atanu Advaitin guy on the net who keeps spouting nonsense.

 

Do you have a pramana that says there is tAratamya in vaikunta? I dont think so. There are pramanas to show that mukta is omniscient, i.e all knowing.

 

Though the four states of sayujya,saaroopya,sameepya and saalokya appear in the shruti, there is nothing to prove that these states are permanent.This isn't sufficient pramana.

 

Sri Ramanujar has clearly shown that Jiva is a mode of Brahman. If you read his Vedanta Sangraha, you will find pramana from Vishnu Purana proving this.

 

This definition of Sarira, makes every other definition of other

schools incomplete, and difficult to apply on certain situations.

 

The BrhadAranyaka passages of the Antaryami Brahman quoted by Sri

Yamunacharya at the end of his work "Atmasidhhi" explains this point:

 

"yah prithivyam tishtan.....yasya prthivi sariram"

"yasyapah sariram"

"yasya Atma Sariram".....

 

Vishnu Purana says:

 

"Jagat Sarvam Sariram te"

"Yadambu vaisnavah kayah, tato vipra vasundhara"

 

This proves that Jiva is a mode of Brahman. If the Dvaita school agrees with this concept, then good.

 

Moron. I am certainly not a vedantin, and yet, I have been able to refute most of your views. Imagine what a true Vishishtadvaitin Scholar would be able to do.

 

You want pramanas to show that different Jivas do not enjoy different levels of moksha in Vaikuntha? That clearly shows your ignorance. It is simple logic that all Jivas, although numerically different, are still qualitatively similar in Vaikuntha. There may be no interconnection, but the bliss enjoyed is the same.

 

I have shown you that there is no pramana for taratamaya in Vaikuntha. Instead, you reply saying, it is far-fetched.

 

The dependency of Jiva does not require Pramana, but rather, Logic and reasoning. If Brahman was not the material cause, there may be no dependency. Thus, your view is fallacious.

 

As far as Atat Tvam Asi is concerned, it may be grammatically correct, but is refuted by Ayam Atma Brahma and Sarvam Khalv Idam Brahma, which cannot be explained otherwise.

 

Since you appear to be blind, read this again:

 

The fourth sentence "Tattvamasi" is the culmination of the knowledge imparted by Uddaalaka to Svetaketu. The term "Tat" is taken to signify the supreme and primordial Sat, which was one without a secondbefore creation. It also signifies all the attributes implied by the fact that it produces the world. "Tat" (that) must bear all this richness of connotation in order to be really meaningful.

 

"Tvam", meaning 'thou' refers (superficially) to Svetaketu. But what is the deeper significance? What is the scope of the reference? It does not mean the body as that cannot be the reciepient of philosophical wisdom.

 

Does it mean the individual self?

 

The discourse, while explaining the entry of Sat into the world of particulars, has made it clear that the finite self cannot exist if the Supreme Self does not reside in it. NO term appicable to the individual self is applicable only to it. It's reference must extend to the indwelling Divine principle too. This applies to the term "tvam" also. The speciality of this term as opposed to "Tat" is that it signifies the Divine self as dwelling within the individual self of Svetaketu,which itself dwelling in the body of Svetaketu. It is this totality that is described as "tvam" and the principal factor is the immanent Divine self and the subsidiary factor is the Jiva of Svetaketu. So "tvam" means the Supreme Spirit as immanent in the individual.

 

The verb "asi" means "art", and effects the identification of the meaning of "tat" and "tvam". The causal Brahman is identified with the Immnanent Brahman in the effect. It is this level of self knowledge that Uddaalaka found wanting in his son, and he

accordingly imparts it to him.

 

This version is equally valid. All you can do is cling to Atat Tvam Asi, and keep harping about it.

 

Your version of Atat Tvam Asi leads to some contradictions. The only reason Dvaita has remained unchallenged for awhile is because there was nobody to refute it. Adi Sankara was undeafeted, but advaita has been challenged since. Sri Desikar was unchallenged by Dvaitins. And some Dvaita Acharyas were unchallenged. Propose your ideas to someone like Sri Velukkudi Krishnan Swami on his website and see what happens.

[tackleberry]

 

Tackleberry, you are certainly a nutty guy, but since you provide good entertainment, I will keep going.

 

Are you aware that by insulting Sri Ramanujar, you are committing a sin? Let me illustrate.

 

When Ravana was battling Sri Rama, the Lord never tried to kill Ravana, but merely stood on Hanuman's shoulders, smiling and deflecting the arrows. But when Ravana directed his arrows at Hanuman, the Lord's face clouded in anger. One arrow was then enough to kill Ravana.

 

Thus, by insulting the Lord's devotees, you are going nowhere. Seeing as you believe in eternal hell, let me assure you that if you keep going this way, even the lotus feet of Sri Madhvacharya will reject you.

 

And to boot, you have zero knowledge of VA or Sri Ramanujar. I myself lack knowledge, or I would have silenced you long ago. But all you can do is zealously cling to your own stupid reasoning.

 

Lot of talk, yet no use in refuting this. You would certainly make a good couple with that Atanu Advaitin guy on the net who keeps spouting nonsense.

 

Do you have a pramana that says there is tAratamya in vaikunta? I dont think so. There are pramanas to show that mukta is omniscient, i.e all knowing.

 

Though the four states of sayujya,saaroopya,sameepya and saalokya appear in the shruti, there is nothing to prove that these states are permanent.This isn't sufficient pramana.

 

Sri Ramanujar has clearly shown that Jiva is a mode of Brahman. If you read his Vedanta Sangraha, you will find pramana from Vishnu Purana proving this.

 

This definition of Sarira, makes every other definition of other

schools incomplete, and difficult to apply on certain situations.

 

The BrhadAranyaka passages of the Antaryami Brahman quoted by Sri

Yamunacharya at the end of his work "Atmasidhhi" explains this point:

 

"yah prithivyam tishtan.....yasya prthivi sariram"

"yasyapah sariram"

"yasya Atma Sariram".....

 

Vishnu Purana says:

 

"Jagat Sarvam Sariram te"

"Yadambu vaisnavah kayah, tato vipra vasundhara"

 

This proves that Jiva is a mode of Brahman. If the Dvaita school agrees with this concept, then good.

 

Moron. I am certainly not a vedantin, and yet, I have been able to refute most of your views. Imagine what a true Vishishtadvaitin Scholar would be able to do.

 

You want pramanas to show that different Jivas do not enjoy different levels of moksha in Vaikuntha? That clearly shows your ignorance. It is simple logic that all Jivas, although numerically different, are still qualitatively similar in Vaikuntha. There may be no interconnection, but the bliss enjoyed is the same.

 

I have shown you that there is no pramana for taratamaya in Vaikuntha. Instead, you reply saying, it is far-fetched.

 

The dependency of Jiva does not require Pramana, but rather, Logic and reasoning. If Brahman was not the material cause, there may be no dependency. Thus, your view is fallacious.

 

As far as Atat Tvam Asi is concerned, it may be grammatically correct, but is refuted by Ayam Atma Brahma and Sarvam Khalv Idam Brahma, which cannot be explained otherwise.

 

Since you appear to be blind, read this again:

 

The fourth sentence "Tattvamasi" is the culmination of the knowledge imparted by Uddaalaka to Svetaketu. The term "Tat" is taken to signify the supreme and primordial Sat, which was one without a secondbefore creation. It also signifies all the attributes implied by the fact that it produces the world. "Tat" (that) must bear all this richness of connotation in order to be really meaningful.

 

"Tvam", meaning 'thou' refers (superficially) to Svetaketu. But what is the deeper significance? What is the scope of the reference? It does not mean the body as that cannot be the reciepient of philosophical wisdom.

 

Does it mean the individual self?

 

The discourse, while explaining the entry of Sat into the world of particulars, has made it clear that the finite self cannot exist if the Supreme Self does not reside in it. NO term appicable to the individual self is applicable only to it. It's reference must extend to the indwelling Divine principle too. This applies to the term "tvam" also. The speciality of this term as opposed to "Tat" is that it signifies the Divine self as dwelling within the individual self of Svetaketu,which itself dwelling in the body of Svetaketu. It is this totality that is described as "tvam" and the principal factor is the immanent Divine self and the subsidiary factor is the Jiva of Svetaketu. So "tvam" means the Supreme Spirit as immanent in the individual.

 

The verb "asi" means "art", and effects the identification of the meaning of "tat" and "tvam". The causal Brahman is identified with the Immnanent Brahman in the effect. It is this level of self knowledge that Uddaalaka found wanting in his son, and he

accordingly imparts it to him.

 

This version is equally valid. All you can do is cling to Atat Tvam Asi, and keep harping about it.

 

Your version of Atat Tvam Asi leads to some contradictions. The only reason Dvaita has remained unchallenged for awhile is because there was nobody to refute it. Adi Sankara was undeafeted, but advaita has been challenged since. Sri Desikar was unchallenged by Dvaitins. And some Dvaita Acharyas were unchallenged. Propose your ideas to someone like Sri Velukkudi Krishnan Swami on his website and see what happens.

you've posted without pramaana, so I'll just give pramaana from Taitiriya Upanishad. SaptamaH AnuvaakaH (in T. Up) shows the gradation of bliss amongst souls, starting from manushyas to devata-s. If foolish VAs reason that this is in samsara, the question will arise as to whether the passages were referring to the bodies of the jiva-s mentioned? If so, VA point goes against vedanta itself, because the body is insentient and incapable of joy. Therefore, VA is forced to admit that it's the soul which experiences joy, and it's the bliss of the soul which is described in varying degrees. And because the soul is considered eternal according to all schools of vedanta, so is the bliss and consequently the gradations that have been described in the upanishad. This clearly proves dvaita view of taaratamya.

 

Now Darth Vader, come up with your VA fairy tales.

[Dark Warrior]

 

you've posted without pramaana, so I'll just give pramaana from Taitiriya Upanishad. SaptamaH AnuvaakaH (in T. Up) shows the gradation of bliss amongst souls, starting from manushyas to devata-s. If foolish VAs reason that this is in samsara, the question will arise as to whether the passages were referring to the bodies of the jiva-s mentioned?

The VA view is that such bliss is indeed pertaining to the Self in Samsara. But you must understand that while in Samsara, the Self's Dharmabhoota Jnana contracts or expands depending on Karma. So, if X has 50 points Karma and Y has 70 points Karma, there is definitely gradation in the bliss they experience while in Samsara.

 

For instance, I have so less Karma that I am able to appreciate the genius of Madhvacharya and other Vaishnavas.

Once these Jivas reach Vaikuntha, their Jnana reaches its full length. So, tell me, if you, with your pea brain, miraculously reach Vaikuntha, and I, also reach Vaikuntha, won't both our Jnana of Sriman Narayana become equal? We will have bliss in full measure.

 

In Vaikuntha,

 

X Jiva - No Karma.

 

Y Jiva - No Karma.

 

Jnana - Full.

 

Sriman Narayana - Appears to both of them in equal splendour.

 

Thus, there is no gradation in Vaikuntha.

 

Again, provide me a pramana that says there is gradation in Vaikuntha. Till then, pig headed Dvaitins can clam up.

 

Your Nyayamurthy or whatever has also been addressed by Sri SMS Chari who has published a book proving that Theistic Monism (VA) is the purport of the upanishads, rather than Sankara or Madhva Philosophy.

[raghu]

DW and Tackleberry, this discussion seems to have gotten rather hostile overnight for almost no good reason. You both need to put away the daggers. Both Sri Ramanuja and Sri Ananda Tirtha have long and venerable traditions and systems of interpretation behind them and referring to them as "absurd interpretations,text torturing," etc is really uncharitable. By all means disagree, but try to maintain some semblance of culture when you do so. You are both starting to sound like iskcon devotees. :-)

 

And to DW, if I may interject a few basic points, at the risk of getting tied up in this "discussion" -

 

1) Sri Madhva's use of "non-standard" pramanas - you bring up a good point, but as you yourself have noted, this is hardly unique to Madhva, and it is certainly not the case that he uses them exclusively. One point to realize is that despite the polemical nature of his tradition, it has never been the case that any of his contemporaries have challenged the authority of those pramanas. We can infer from this that they were well known during his time.

 

2) There are no "abedha shrutis" as per Tattvavada siddhanta. What are called as "abedha shrutis" by Advaitins are interpreted by Tattvavadis as showing bedha only, for quite logical and consistent reasons. You may not agree with them, and that is your right. I don't think there is any question of Ramanuja and Madhva seeing eye to eye on most or even many points of interpretation. Criticizing one simply because he does not agree with the other seems rather foolish. Both approach the subject matter with different a priori assumptions.

 

3) There is no question of "text torturing" regarding "atat tvam asi/tat tvam asi." It is a simple matter of variant readings of the text arising from ambiguity due to sandhi rules. Both meanings are gramatically correct, but Sri Ananda Tirtha gives excellent rationale for his interpretation based on the context in which it is found. I am sorry that you cannot appreciate the beauty of his logic. I will one day like to read the Sri Vaishnava commentaries on this Upanishad to see where SV's are coming from in their interpretation. I don't expect that they will agree with Tattvavadis (or that I will agree with the SV interpretation) but that should not prevent me from appreciating their approach to the matter.

 

4) Regarding your views on "bhakti-yoga" and your exposure to Gaudiya Vaishnavism, sharanagati, etc. As per my (admittedly limited) understanding of Ramanuja's philosophy, "bhakti-yoga" for a Sri Vaishnava means something very different from what Gaudiyas refer to as "bhakti-yoga." What Gaudiyas refer to as "bhakti-yoga" sounds more akin to what SV's refer to as "sharanagati/prapatti" whereas what SV's refer to as bhakti-yoga is more akin to what Gaudiyas refer to as ashtanga-yoga. Or at least this is what SV friends have explained to me.

[Dark Warrior]

 

DW and Tackleberry, this discussion seems to have gotten rather hostile overnight for almost no good reason. You both need to put away the daggers. Both Sri Ramanuja and Sri Ananda Tirtha have long and venerable traditions and systems of interpretation behind them and referring to them as "absurd interpretations,text torturing," etc is really uncharitable. By all means disagree, but try to maintain some semblance of culture when you do so. You are both starting to sound like iskcon devotees. :-)

 

Without understanding the basics, Tackleblurry talks of Sri Ramanujar's so-called text torturing. It is unfortunate that he cannot comprehend the greatness of VA, and the fact that it has no hostility with Dvaita.

 

Sri Vedanta Desikar was able to refute Dvaita, but refrained from going overly public due to the fact that he regarded Dvaita as being only slightly deviant from VA. In fact, he even refereed debates between Dvaitins and others, which shows the companionship enjoyed by both Sampradayas at that time.

 

Dvaita is bang on with many details, but there are discrepancies. For instance, the whole gradation of souls being permanent is nonsensical, and the fact that they believe Brahman is only instrumental and not material cause, when shruti points out the dependency of jiva (which is a natural outcome of Brahman being the material cause).

 

The gradation theory is not refuted by Sri Vaishnavas. Sri Ramanujar classified souls into 3 categories - Baddha (in samsara), Mukta (in Vaikuntha) and nitya suris (Adi Sesha, Lakshmi, etc.). And we certainly accept that the Jivas in Samsara show gradation due to Karma.

 

In Vaikuntha, there is no Karma. So, no gradation of bliss, as there is equal bliss for all. Baddha Jivatmas who acheive Mukta stage experience bliss equal to that of Adi Sesha or Garuda.

 

 

 

1) Sri Madhva's use of "non-standard" pramanas - you bring up a good point, but as you yourself have noted, this is hardly unique to Madhva, and it is certainly not the case that he uses them exclusively. One point to realize is that despite the polemical nature of his tradition, it has never been the case that any of his contemporaries have challenged the authority of those pramanas. We can infer from this that they were well known during his time.

 

Certainly. I was not saying those pramanas were invalid. Since Tickleberry questioned the integrity of Sri Ramanujar, I responded by saying that while Sri Ramanujar defeated Advaitins using their own sastra, Sri Ananda Tirtha did not adopt this approach.

 

No issues there.

 

 

2) There are no "abedha shrutis" as per Tattvavada siddhanta. What are called as "abedha shrutis" by Advaitins are interpreted by Tattvavadis as showing bedha only, for quite logical and consistent reasons. You may not agree with them, and that is your right.

 

They are INTERPRETED as bheda. No doubt. But the fact is, this interpretation still has a few kinks. For instance, Sri Madhvacharya was unable to explain away Ayam Atma Brahma as a consequence. He simply took it as 'a high meditative technique' or a 'eulogy for the jivatma'.

 

However, certainly, I have no problems with Dvaitin interpretation. And what is noteworthy is that, the VA interpretation is also able to smoothly reconcile problems. So, this debate is out of hand for novices like ticklingberry and myself, but can be resolved by learned acharyas.

 

3)

There is no question of "text torturing" regarding "atat tvam asi/tat tvam asi." It is a simple matter of variant readings of the text arising from ambiguity due to sandhi rules. I will one day like to read the Sri Vaishnava commentaries on this Upanishad to see where SV's are coming from in their interpretation. I don't expect that they will agree with Tattvavadis (or that I will agree with the SV interpretation) but that should not prevent me from appreciating their approach to the matter.

 

Atat Tvam Asi is also acceptable, although it throws the whole episode out of context. And the Sri Vaishnava logic for Tat Tvam Asi is also quite logical. Hence, here alone, both Dvaita and VA neutralise themselves. The solution would be to refer to other texts for this. This ha certainly been done, and I am sure Trembleberry wouldn't bother to check Sri Vaishnava sources, instead he will stick to 'Dvaita is TR000 Philosophy!!'

 

 

4) Regarding your views on "bhakti-yoga" and your exposure to Gaudiya Vaishnavism, sharanagati, etc. As per my (admittedly limited) understanding of Ramanuja's philosophy, "bhakti-yoga" for a Sri Vaishnava means something very different from what Gaudiyas refer to as "bhakti-yoga." What Gaudiyas refer to as "bhakti-yoga" sounds more akin to what SV's refer to as "sharanagati/prapatti" whereas what SV's refer to as bhakti-yoga is more akin to what Gaudiyas refer to as ashtanga-yoga. Or at least this is what SV friends have explained to me.

 

The fact is, Tumbleberry is unable to refute the undeniable fact that Karma Yoga is mentioned as a separate path. Bhakti Yoga is considered to be a tough path, and different from bhakti, though there is interlapping. Sufficient pramanas are provided by Sri Vaishnavas.

 

In the end, I can say this - Toggleberry has no understanding of what respect means for all sampradayas. I am quite able to read the Mahabharata and Srimad Bhagavatam commentary by Sri Madhvacharya and appreciate his bhakti. But Thimblehead-berry cannot do so in the case of Sri Ramanujar.

 

Whether it is Sri Sankaracharya, Sri Ramanujacharya, Sri Madhvacharya, Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, they are all bhagavatas. We are not worthy of questioning their intelligence. By doing so, only karma will be obtained. I am afraid Tumbleberry will tumble into this hole unless he resolves himself.

 

Summary

 

I will list out all the points of difference.

 

Tattvavada - Brahman is the instrumental cause. He is not the material cause.

 

VA - Brahman is also the material cause. The Mundaka Upanishad talks about creation akin to web emerging from a spider. Just like spider weaves the web, so does Brahman create the world. The spider uses only itself( its body fluids) to create the world and no extraneous material. Yet, the spider remains unchanged or unaffected by the web. But the web had no extraneous source ( material). I see no problems in calling the web as different and inferior to the spider inpite of its owing its existance only due to the spider. The cause and effect need not be the same. Since the web has not come from any other material, its material cause is the spider, and hence a prakAra. The same principle is extensible to the jIva, making Brahman the material cause of the Jiva.

 

Tattvavada - Jiva is distinct from Brahman. A relation exists, but that's all. Pramanas like 'Atat Tvam Asi' prove this.

 

VA - Jiva is distinct. But just like the bodies of all plants and animals contain carbon as a uniform constituent, the Jiva, World and all extant things are the body of Brahman. Tat Tvam Asi echoes this. And this is corroborated by quotations like 'Sarvam Khalv Idam Brahma' and 'Ayam Atma Brahma'. Sri Krishna also echoes this in Vishnu Purana, 'That Which I am, That Thou Art, and so is this world....'

 

Therfore, Tat Tvam Asi means 'That you are' in the same way that everything else is Brahman. Uddhalaka has taken great pains to show Svetaketu that Tvam simply pertains to the immanent Brahman with the Jiva as subsidiary, and Tat referring to the causal Brahman.

 

Atat Tvam Asi does not explain Sarvam Khalv Idam Brahma, as Dvaita considers matter as distinct from Jiva and Brahman. Even if sa vishesha abheda is evoked, it can be explained away by VAs because the Jiva has been proven to be an attribute of Brahman and that matter as well as Jiva both had the same subtle form initially.

 

So, even if Atat Tvam Asi can be taken to be correct, the whole Dvaitin argument is still nullified. At best, one can say both Dvaita and VA have equally valid points in this case. This is resolved by other pramanas such as Vishnu Purana (Yadambu vaisnavah kayah, tato vipra vasundhara) and by the spider analogy pramana.

 

Tattvavada - Matter is distinct from Jiva and Brahman.

 

VA - Chit and Achit are differentiated only in name and form. But they existed in a subtle form previously. This is proven by the Spider Analogy. Initially, the web of the spider resides in the spider as juice or chemicals, but it acuires differentiation in name and in form when the spider puts out its web.

 

It has been proven that Brahman is the material cause. If Brahman was only the instrumental cause, there can be no dependency. When a potter makes a pot, it is the instrumental cause. The pot is not dependent on the potter once it is made. But since Jiva is dependent on Brahman, it makes Brahman the material cause as well.

 

Tattvavada - Jiva is not attribute of Brahman.

 

VA - Jiva is a mode of Brahman. The attributes of Brahman are two in number - essential and non-essential. This is demonstrated by an analogy. The sun has light and heat as its essential attributes, for which it is dependent on. But the rays of the sun are also attributes of the sun, although these rays are distinct from the sun. The sun also does not depend on the rays. These rays symbolise the Jiva's sarira/sariri relationship to Brahman.

 

Brahman has many essential attributes like satyam, jnanam, anantam, etc. The Jiva, being His sarira as well as sariri, is likened to a non-essential attribute. This is corroborated by the pramana from Vishnu Purana.

 

The red brick has redness as attribute. But if the red color changes to blue, the brick's nature is not changed, but only its color. Without the brick, the redness is also not existent. Thus, there is unity again.

 

Tattvavada - Gradations of Jiva's bliss exist even in Moksha.

 

VA - Gradations exist only as long as the Jiva is bound by karma. Unlike Dvaita, VA does not admit jiva svabhava or any intrinsic limitations on it. So, by the grace of God, it can experience the same joy as God. The only thing a jiva has to understand is being an amsa of Narayana and as depending on him completely for existance, and the Lord gives it as much ability and bliss it wants.

 

The pramanas provided by Dvaitins pertain to either Karya Vaikuntha or Samsara. Which sruti mentions about different types of moksha? There are no references to salokya, samipya etc in any canonical upanishads. VAs consider these as aupacArika mukti, like residing in Karya Vaikuntham.

 

Tattvavada - Aham Brahmasmi is explained as negation of identity and expression of relation. But here is the problem - 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.

 

 

VA - Aham Brahmasmi explains the relational identity of Jiva and Brahman. When the statement I am Brahman is made does it mean something like the identity between all forms of life on the grounds that all contain the element carbon in its organic form? True the life forms differ with respect to external and a host of other characteristics; however this statement is one of relational identity. All life forms are identical in the sense that they are organic and carbonaceous. I am Brahman as I have Brahman for the self and my individual self is of the nature of a real body part to this real self which ensouls the cosmos. All jivathmas are real and relationally identical with each other and with Brahman on these grounds.

 

Conclusion

 

1) Both Philosophies agree on many points.

 

2) Dvaita differs from VA in the sense that it tries to evade the underlying organic unity of all matter and jivas with Brahman. It also expresses an earthly form of moksha, in which there is distinction in the bliss experienced by the Jiva.

 

 

Tickleberry has been refuted.

[cbrahma]

From th SB Third Canto Chapter 26

 

 

51

 

 

 

tatas tenanuviddhebhyo yuktebhyo 'ndam acetanam utthitam puruso yasmad udatisthad asau virat

</PRE>

tatah-then; tena-by the Lord; anuviddhebhyah-from these seven principles, roused into activity; yuktebhyah- united; ardam- an egg; acetanam-unintelligent; utthitam -arose; purusah-Cosmic Being; yasmat-from which; udatisthat-appeared; asau-that; virat-celebrated.

From these seven principles, roused into activity and united by the presence of the Lord, an unintelligent egg arose, from which appeared the celebrated Cosmic Being. PURPORT: In sex life, the combination of matter from the parents, which involves emulsification and secretion, creates the situation whereby a soul is received within matter. and the combination of matter gradually develops into a complete body. The same principle exists in the universal creation: the ingredients were present, but only when the Lord entered into the material elements was matter actually agitated. That is the cause of creation. We can see this in our ordinary experience. Although we may have clay, water and fire, the elements take the shape of a brick only when we labor to combine them. Without the living energy, there is no possibility that matter can take shape. Similarly, this material world does not develop unless agitated by the Supreme Lord as the virat-purusa. Yasmad udatisthad asau virat: by His agitation, space was created, and the universal form of the Lord also manifested therein.

 

[Dark Warrior]

Trundleberry will bring up some objections such as sa vivesha abheda for Ayam Atma Brahma and Sarvam Khalv Idam Brahma, but that can be explained away by vishishtadvaita.

 

For instance, take the red brick analogy. The brick exists in whole without the redness, the redness merely depends on Brahman, and also is a characteristic of Brahman. The jiva is like the redness that has an existance purely due to the brick. The redness does not divide the "red brick", it is both non existant outside the brick, but when associated with the brick it is an essential part( but not identical to the brick).

 

Now, it has been established from the Spider Analogy pramana of Mundaka Upanishad that Brahman is the material cause. Therfore, VA agrees with Dvaita in the sense that the Jiva (redness) is distinct from Brahman (Brick). But just like the redness is an attribute that doesn't affect the nature of the brick, similarly the Jiva is an attribute that does not affect Brahman.

 

Pramana, like I said, is there in the fact that Jiva has a sariri/sarira relationship. This is accepted by Dvaitins as well.

 

At this point, I feel compelled to talk about logic pertaining to Atat Tvam Asi and Tat Tvam Asi. Just logically speaking, Uddhalaka took great trouble explaining it to Svetaketu. If he had wanted to say 'You are not that', then the information imparted to Svetaketu would be incomplete. Because, Uddhalaka, going by the Dvaitin interpretation, only establishes that Jiva is not Brahman. But he does not enlighten Svetaketu about the fact that Brahman is dwelling as antaryami within Jiva at all. This makes Svetaketu's education incomplete, as it is to be assumed that Svetaketu is not at all aware of antaryami Brahman as well.

 

Thus, going by sheer logic, the VA argument scores, because Tat Tvam Asi points out not only the nature of Jiva with relation to Brahman, but also informs Svetaketu about the antaryami Brahman.

 

VA sees absolutely no contradictions in Shruti. It takes the abedha shrutis to be pertaining specifically to moksha, and bedha shrutis to jagat, and those that fall in between as representing the reality.

 

Dvaita also makes assumptions that mukti must conform to earthly understanding and nature and examines the scripture in this direction. VA also follows this line, but recognizes passages that indicate the exceptionally superior nature of mukti.

 

It is to be understood that experienced Sri Vaishnava scholars are far superior and more well versed in both VA and Tattvavada than I am. And they have refuted Dvaita, yet reconciled it by giving it a proper position in Vedanta, as Dvaita is definitely present in scripture, unlike Advaita which goes overboard with assumptions and mistakes. Dvaita Scholars have launched minor attacks on Vishishtadvaita, but these have been dealt with completely. If Tinkerberry wants more proof, I will give him sites where he can place his arguments with competent Sri Vaishnavas.

[raghu]

DW and TB,

 

The pleasure of reading a Vedantic debate is in watching two learned vidvans disagree with each other, exploring every possible nuance of interpretation, and still remain perfect gentlemen in the end.

 

When you and Tackleberry use confrontational language from the very beginning, it is only fit that escalation and further confrontation follows. I do not find any pleasure in reading this exchange and I doubt that anyone else does either. Whether you like it or not, you will be seen as a representative of your sampradaya, just as Theist or ghari will be seen as representatives of gaudiya sampradaya. Do you and Tackleberry really want to do to your respective sampradayas what they are doing to gaudiya sampradaya due to their immaturity and foolishness?

 

As you yourself have pointed out, we are all novices. With that understanding should come temperance. You are discussing very lofty subjects that have been debated in the past by individuals far more learned than either of you, yet you are both talking as if your respective understandings are obviously correct and any disagreement is purile. Who exactly do you think you are refuting? Do your really think that a Tattvavadi scholar will so casually accept defeat? Tackleberry, do you honestly think that a proper Sri Vaishnava pandit will so easily accept defeat? I am not advocating an "all paths are valid" idea. I am asking that you both show a little respect and recognize your own qualifications (or lack thereof) before you presume to cut someone else's philosophy down with sharp words. Real Vaishnava scholars have no need to resort to such language.

 

As far as your other points on Vedanta (DW), I have no interest in discussing them with you. I obviously do not agree with you, but that is besides the point. The real point is that I do not agree with your methods, and I am certainly not going to enter into a discussion on Vedanta with someone who is so quick to take offense and to offend in return. Perhaps if these discussions were a bit less vitriolic I might be inspired to participate at some later time.

[Kulapavana]

Dark Warrior, this discussion simply shows why the meaning of these mantras is held as confidential among Sri Vaishnavas.

 

Outsiders to the tradition are both unable and unwilling to grasp such topics.