Is advaita a genuine vedic tradition?

[Shashi]

Originally posted by ram:

Good points Shvu and Shashi.

 

Shashi - just a clarification. Devotion is not the property of vaishnava sampradAyAs nor is it dependant on acintya bheda abheda tattva. There are great devotees among advaitins. It is important to be a devotee.

 

 

 

Am agreedable that devotion is not property. Discussions on different vadas. Some vadas are better accompaniment for the full devotions.

 

Like you can play the miltary drum kit with the kirtanam or the mirdang.

You are knowing according to your own tastes which is more suitable. That is not meaning drum kit kirtanam is bad. If no mirdang what choice? Providing that drummer has good beat sense better drum kit than no drum at all.

 

 

[sumeet]

Hare krishna

Please accept my humble obesiances unto your lotus feet.

 

Dear Karthik it is very clear that Lord has a transcendental form. No one can deny it. This is an assertion I make based on the Vedic literature and Vaishnavas commentaries that I know of on prashan traya and other vedic literatures.

 

Like the Isopanisad Mantra 15:

 

" O my Lord, sustainer of all that lives, Your real face is covered by Your dazzling effulgence. Kindly remove that covering and exhibit Yourself to Your pure devotee. "

 

This verse actually asks Supreme Lord to remove His effulgence so that a devotee can see Him. The word "mukham" meaning face refers to face of the Supreme Person[brahman]. One should not abandon primary meaning of the word "mukham" without any reason.

 

Lets see what upanisads have to say about having a form or not:

 

Also in mundaka upanisad 3.1.7

" brhac ca tad divyam acintya-rupam "

" He is immense, transcendental and possesses an inconcievable form "

 

And mundaka 2.1.2

"divyo hy amurtah purusah"

"The Supreme Person[Purusa] is formless and divine."

 

These two statements say that there is a Purusa ---

1) Who is formless

2) Whose form is inconcievable.

 

We cannot choose one statement over the other. Neither we can interpret them independent of each other. So we have to give an interpretation that harmonizes both.

 

Logically thinking if Supreme is Formless then there is no point in saying anything about the the form of Supreme. Why ?? ---> Becoz it is something which it doesn't have. So there is no point in describing it. I mean according to first statement Supreme is formless, then there is no need to say it has an inconceivable form [provided by the word formless we take it to mean that literally Supreme has no form i.e. neither material nor immaterial nor form of any other kind]. However if we interpret 2.1.2 in that way we will have trouble with 3.1.7. Becoz 3.1.7 talks about form of Supreme by attributing inconceivability to it. It says Supreme has a form and it is inconceivable.

So how to reconcile ???

---> If we take formless in 2.1.2 to mean lacking any material form then it will be easy to interpret 3.1.7. Becoz 2.1.2 says He is formless meaning has no material form and 3.1.7 says His form is incoceivable meaning cannot be comprehended. And yeah if something lacks a material form then it is impossible for us to comprehend it, the only exception being if we are helped by some immaterial power by its own will. So Lord definately possesses a form, though he is described as formless because of the fact that he lacks any material form or materially conceivable form. In this way we can harmonize the two.

 

Now Holy Gita 8:9

" sarvasya dhataram acintya-rupam aditya-varnam tamasah parastat"

or

"sarvasya--of everything; dhataram--the maintainer; acintya--inconceivable; rupam--form aditya-varnam--illuminated like the sun; tamasah--of the darkness; parastat--transcendental."

 

" He is maintainer of everything, possessing inconceivable form, resplendent like Sun, transcendental to material conception "

 

So here we see that form of brahman is effulgent just like Sun.

 

Also in gita 4.9

"janma karma ca me divyam"

"transcendental nature of My appearance and activities"

For someone to do some action one has to possess a form. There is where Advaitins introduce their concept of Saguna Brahman to explain away Upanisadic statements about Brahman creating world. But Sri Krsna calls his activities divine because He possesses a divine form through which he acts.

 

So it is true that Brahman has divine form and also that it is effulgent. Look at bhagavata 10.2.17

" While carrying the form of Supreme Personality of godhead within the core of His heart, Vasudeva bore the Lord's transcendental illuminating effulgence and thus became as bright as sun."

 

It is also mentioned in Gita that form of Supreme is resplendent like Sun.

 

Also in Mundaka 2.2.9-10

 

" hiranmaye pare kose virajam brahma niskalam

tac chubhram jyotisam jyotis tad yad atma-vido viduh. "

 

"In the Transcendental Golden covering is Supreme Lord who is Absolute Truth, impeccable and indivisible. He is radiant-- lights of light and that very one whom the knowers of soul knows."

 

"na tatra suryo bhati na candra-tarakam

nema vidyuto bhanti kuto 'yam agnih

tam eva bhantam anu bhati sarvam

tasya bhasa sarvam idam vibhati"

 

"There Sun does not shine, nor do the moon and stars; neither do these lighting bolts shine, much less this fire. Everything shines in persuance of His brilliance. This whole world is lit up by His effulgence."

 

Again in this transcendental effulgent brahman is mentioned. Similar verse appears in Gita in 15th chapter. So believe me the form ascribed to Supreme in Vedas is immaterial and effulgent. So if you want to point out that God has no form according to Vedas then you are certainly wrong.

 

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

[sumeet]

Karthik wrote:

" Please note that Sri Aurobindo treats the verse as figurative speech and argues that mukham actually stands for the face of the truth. "

 

The verse is not to be treated as a figurative speech. I have shown you the direct interpretation of the verse based on various texts from upanisad and Gita. Sri Aurbindo is wrong to treat it figuratively when it literally makes complete sense.

 

Also mantra 16 is not figurative. There is a sensible direct explanation for it too from Vaishnava perspective. If you want i can post that too for you.

 

[Guest guest]

Sumeet, the points that you mentioned can be discussed. But I would like to focus on brahmano hi prathitAham before we proceed to other verses. I have given some response to krishnas and would like to know if he agrees with that or not.

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by Shashi:

If eternal Lord is unmanifest, how can be then manifest? At manifest point Lord is still UNmanifest?

Please considering on first principles.

What is eternal statis of Lord? Manifest or Unmanifest? If manifest in middle of unmanifest there is being break in eternal unmanifest, is not so? Same same vice versa.

For Lord being eternal all states of Lord must be eternal. Therefore Lord is being eternally manifest and eternally unmanifest. Otherwise you wiil be having problems with the etrnal state of Lord.

 

 

 

Good points Shashi. But can we defer this until we complete the discussion on brahmano hi prathishtAham verse ? It is not that these points are not answered.

 

The analogy of military drum is interesting. But Sankara's philosophy is not so bad afterall even though people can misuse any thing. Even vaishnava philosophy of yukta vairagya is misused grossly, right ?

 

[karthik_v]

Sumeet prabhu,

 

I will respond to your points after the present point taken up by Ram and Shvu with Krishnas is discussed.

[sumeet]

Hare Krishna

Please accept my humble obesiances unto you lotus feet

 

Ram and Karthik prabhuji I can wait for sure. Let me see if i can contribute on brahmanohi verse.

 

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

 

[Shashi]

Originally posted by ram:

Good points Shashi. But can we defer this until we complete the discussion on brahmano hi prathishtAham verse ?

At BG 14:27 Lord is saying "I am the abode of Brahman". This is meaning that Brahman is within Lord part of Lord.

 

As the mango seed is being found in the fruit so the Brahman is found in Lord. Who would be bother planting such seed if not hankering for beauteous mango?

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Shashi, Sankara says a devotee of Vasudeva becomes an eloquent poet. Your examples of drums and mangoes tell me that he is true - .

 

Anyway poetry cannot substitute for truth. The translation I am basis of brahman is shown to be incorrect in my earlier post. If brahma jyoti is like the seed, could you please explain how it can be the cause of ultimate happiness ?

 

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 07-18-2002).]

[Shashi]

Originally posted by ram:

Shashi, Sankara says a devotee of Vasudeva becomes an eloquent poet. Your examples of drums and mangoes tell me that he is true - .

 

Anyway poetry cannot substitute for truth. The translation I am basis of brahman is shown to be incorrect in my earlier post. If brahma jyoti is like the seed, could you please explain how it can be the cause of ultimate happiness ?

 

 

No no no dear RamJI. By your requesting we are discussing BG 14:27. Gita is the poetry and Lord is speaking. It is Truth. Can you deny this? BhAGAVAD gITA IS dIVINE sONG. Song must have lyreic which is the poetry.

 

So what is Lord Poet say on this topic. Not mango not drums but, "I am the abode of Brahman" which is meaning that Brahman is abiding in Lord. Where are seeing brhamajyoti, Ram JI?

 

"brahmaNO hi pratiSTha 'ham"

please be noting it is not being like brahmajyotihi pratiSTha etc etc but

"brahmaNO hi pratiSTha 'ham".

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Shashi ji, I have explained that brahmano hi pratishtA 'ham means the "The Lord is Self - Situated" if we follow Sankara's commentary. Separating brahman from the Lord not only contradicts the Vedas but even the Gaudiya Vaishnava Vedanta it self.

 

I am posting the relevant portion again :

 

Impersonal Aspect of the brahman is not considered to be the ultimate in happiness as per Gaudiya Vaishnava Vedanta. In the purport to the same verse, SP even writes that impersonal brahman is just the first stage and there is even a risk of falling down. But in this verse, brahman is described as aikhantikasya sukhasya or absolute in happiness. You are commenting about Sankara's commentary being inconsistent with Vedas. But the GVV commentary brahman = impersonal brahman is inconsistent with GVV school of thought itself. It is only in vaishnava commentary duality by creating a artificial distinction between the Lord and His effulgence.

 

It is Sankara who is being fully true to the verse. Grammatically speaking, the subject of the verse is brahman and all the adjectives are given as attributes of brahman. By changing the subject from brahman to aham, you are changing the meaning in English. Instead of translating the verse as brahman(the Lord) is situated in the Self, you are saying I am the basis of brahman. By doing this you are making I = Lord and brahman = some thing else to force duality.

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 07-18-2002).]

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by Shashi:

No no no dear RamJI. By your requesting we are discussing BG 14:27. Gita is the poetry and Lord is speaking. It is Truth. Can you deny this? BhAGAVAD gITA IS dIVINE sONG. Song must have lyreic which is the poetry.

 

So what is Lord Poet say on this topic.

 

 

Shashiji, Lord's poetry is perfect in composition. But not ours. In your poem you are comparing mango pulp to the Lord and the seed to brahmajyoti. The mango pulp covers the seed. But as per GVV, brahma jyoti covers the face of the Lord. Secondly, mango seed is thrown away because it is not eaten. But in this verse, as per GVV the Lord is glorifying brahma jyoti as ultimate in happiness. This I say is inconsistent with GVV apart from poetic flaw.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 07-18-2002).]

[Guest guest]

Krishnas, you had set the standards that if one does not respond, the opponent should take it that the point is accepted. Do we take it that you accept the flaw in Guadiya Vaishnava interpretation of brahmano hi pratishtAham and accept Sankara's as flawless ?

 

 

[karthik_v]

14:26 and 14:27 must be read together so that there is no loss of continuity. Adi Sankara also agrees that maam in 14:26 refers only to Narayana situated in the hearts of the devotees. And then comments on brahma-bhuyaya as becoming Brahman. This means that Adi Sankara considers the Narayana situated in the hearts of the devotee as the impersonal Brahman. So, if we go by this premise, Ram's post on Adi Sankara's commentary follows logically. This raises a question: Why does Adi Sankara treat that maam in 14:26 as the impersonal Brahman? Why not apply the direct meaning which would mean that Krishna addresses Himself in the first person?

 

Now, Srila Prabhupad treats this maam in 14:26 as the personal Lord Krishna and subsequently comments on brahma-bhuyaya as getting elevated to Brahman consciousness. So, if we go by this premise, then his commentary on 14:27 makes sense as well. This raises a question: Why does Srila Prabhupad seem to suggest that there is a higher personal conception [or that Brahman is only a part of Krishna] after stating that the Brahman state is aikantikasya sukhasya or ultimate happiness?

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Krishnas, you had set the standards that if one does not respond, the opponent should take it that the point is accepted. Do we take it that you accept the flaw in Guadiya Vaishnava interpretation of brahmano hi pratishtAham and accept Sankara's as flawless ?

Or maybe no one replied to the points in his texts so he decided it was pointless to reply further?

 

[krishna_s]

For starters, nowhere in his works does Maadhva acknowledge anyone other than Vishnu himself as his Guru.

 

[A]

 

Is Vyaasa not Vishnu? This is news to me.

 

Again from the Dvaita Home Page (http://www.dvaita.org/madhva/AnandaT_1.html):

 

"Visual evidence, if one may call it that, of Srimad Ananda Tîrtha being Madhva, the avatâra of Vâyu, was obtained by Trivikrama Pandita when the latter had the great fortune to observe the three forms of Vâyu worship simultaneously -- Hanumân worshipping Râma, Bhîmasena worshipping Krishna, and Ananda Tîrtha worshipping Vyâsa..."

 

Every conversation I have ever had with the Dvaita list crowd on this subject indicated that Vyaasa was the guru of Madhva.

 

According to his Sampradaaya, he is Vaayu himself and required no Guru. So for all practical purposes his lineage starts from himself.

 

I have already posted from Shriimadhva Vijaya indicating that Madhva did in fact take instruction from Vyaasa, making the latter his guru by any definition of the term. Here is that evidence again (Sanskrit available upon request).

 

Quoting from shriimadhva-vijaya 8.1-5: (in the translation, this section is entitiled "Vedavyaasa teaches Madhva all the shaastras")

 

 

 

".2. PoornaPrajna had an excellent mind capable of knowing completely all

aspects of the extremely secret tenets, which remain to be known (only by specially

qualified persons like Brahma and Mukhya Prana). VEDAVYASA WAS AN APPROPRIATE GURU FOR HIM as only He could expound fully such tenets to such a disciple. Therefore, the gods honoured Madhva’s approaching VedaVyasa for knowledge in this manner.

 

.3. God in the form of Vyasa filled up fully the mind of Madhva already

having a large capacity for knowledge with knowledge in greater measure. This mind was

God’s residence (he lived constantly in the mind of Madhva) and it was already full of

auspicious knowledge. This was similar to God in the form of Krishna filling up His large city of Dwaraka which was already full of wealth and people with even greater wealth and numbers of people.

 

.4. PoornaPrajna with infinite intelligence listened in a very short time from VedaVyasa, with the name Anantha (signifying infinite knowledge) the most appropriate meanings arising naturally (without any forced interpretation) of the infinite numbers of Vedas, Mahabharatha, Puranas, Brahma Suthras and Pancharathra Agama, which are very dear to the good people.

 

.5. VedaVyasa, who rests on the bed of the serpent Shesha (in his form resident in Vaikunta) had given His great blessings (in the form of auspicious knowledge) to Mukhya Prana (Madhva), who is the greatest of the Rjus, in infinite lives in the past. Thus, though Madhva knows and understands all the Shastras by himself, Vyasa taught all the subjects to him again and thus further sharpened his wisdom by His great

blessings."

 

Shvu, are you saying that the author of Shriimadhva-vijaya, a standard biography on Madhva, was wrong? Or are you saying that Vyaasa having taught Madhva the shaastras and having "further sharpened his wisdom by His great blessings," and also being declared to be the Guru for Madhva, is still not evidence that He was Madhva's guru? Please clarify.

 

I am not contesting the fact that Maadhvas believed that Madhva already knew all the shaastras, since that is also indicated by Shriimadhva Vijaya. But there is more to being a guru than simply imparting knowledge. BNK Sharma summarizes Madhva's views on the guru as follows (_Philosophy of Sri Madhvacarya_, pg 378-380):

 

[C]

 

"In his commentary on BS 3.3.44-46 Madhva discusses the place and importance of the ideal guru and the importance of his grace in the final flowering of the spiritual personality of the aspirant. He emphasizes the point that instruction and guidance of a competent Guru and his grace (prasaada) are absolutely necessary for Shravana and Manana to bear fruit: aachaaryavaan puruSho veda (CU 6,14.2)....Madhva says tha the grace of the Guru is part of the modus operandi (itikartavyataa) of the means of jnaana viz., Shravana, Manana etc.... He further says that of the two viz., individual effort and the grace of the Guru, the latter is to be deemed the more powerful factor and therefore indispensable for one's spiritual realization. The importance of Guru-Bhakti has not been so well brought out as an integral part of the Theism of the Brahma Suutras by any other Bhaashyakaara than Madhva. ... There is, undoubtedly, an element of deep religious mysticism in the special significance which Madhva attaches to the role of Guru and his grace in regard to the subject of Saadhanas and their fulfillment."

 

Now, does this sound like the teaching of someone who would never accept a guru, even if he already knew everything?

 

Given the evidence from Madhva's biography, who is that person who gave Madhva guruprasaada?

 

Where it not for the biography, no one would have ever known of Achyutaprakashacharya, his initial Advaita Guru. Maadhva learnt nothing from him and according to the same biography, Achyutaprakashacharya later on took Diiksha in the Maadhva Samrpadaaya thus converting to Dvaita.

 

These points are well known to everyone. But it does not alter the fact that no one gave diiksha to Madhva other than Achyutaprakaasha. If one defines sampradaaya according to diiksha lines, it then becomes unreasonable to criticize Gaudiiyas for digressing from Madhva, unless one is going to criticize Madhva himself for doing the same. [D]

 

So many times we have heard it said that one cannot come in a paramparaa and inaugurate a new philosophy. No doubt this is a general custom, but on what basis is this being touted as an absolute principle? [E]

 

[F1] Madhva's views on the guru, as described by BNK Sharma, put premium emphasis on receiving the guru's grace (this is pretty surprising for a tradition that usually puts great emphasis on scholarship). It is therefore not hard to understand why Gaudiiyas give credit to the link to Madhva, since it was due their grace that Maadhavendra Purii was initiated into Vaishnavism. Not to list that paramparaa, and instead listing Maadhavendra as the sole founder, would be disrespectful to the extreme. [F2]

 

Shrii Vallabhaachaarya, another exponent on Vedaanta, is well known to have come in the sampradaaya of Aadi Vishnuswaamii. Yet Shrii Vallabha wrote his own commentary on the Vedaanta. What of this? [G]

 

Both Kavi Karnapura and Baladeva Vidyaabhuushana have claimed the paramparaa listing from Madhva (the former in GauranGanodesha Diipika and the latter in Govinda Bhaashya). Now, putting things in Perspective, it should be noted that Baladeva did actually live in the Vedic environment, wrote a Vedaanta-suutra commentary, and is more likely than you are to be familiar with the traditions and customs of sampradaaya, paramparaa, etc. Thus, unless you can bring up specific evidence which defines "paramparaa" as narrowly as you do, I think it is obvious that Baladeva is in a better position to say what is right and wrong regarding the concept of paramparaa. [H]

 

If it is absolute necessity that two aachaaryas sharing the same paramparaa must also share the same philosophy, then why do even prominent Maadhva sannyaasiis accept the Gaudiiyas as being in their sampradaaya?

 

(http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vaisnava_sampradayas_fs.html)

 

Pejavara Swami's letter refers to the two sampradaayas, although that is most likely from the standpoint of philosophy. Shiroor Swami's letter states, "Sri Chaitanya Sampradaya is a branch of Madhwa philosophy. there are historic proofs to substantiate this fact." Sri Vidyavallabha Tiirtha's letter states, "While glancing through the aforesaid historic event, it is evident that there exists a deep relationship between "Chaitanya parampara" and "Madhwa parampara.""

 

Shvu, are the Maadhva sannyaasiis above simply in error (they don't know as much as you), telling falsehoods for the sake of politics, or simply ignorant of the meaning of "paramparaa?" [i1]

 

In BNK Sharma's book _History and Literature of the Dvaita School of Vedanta_, there is an entire appendix discussing the Madhva-Gaudiiya paramparaa. Sharma entertains several doubts about the paramparaa relationship, but nevertheless considers it reasonable, and does not seem bothered at all by the difference of philosophy. Sharma can't be accused of bias, either, as his criticisms of Govinda-bhaashya indicate in the very same book. If even a Maadhva skeptic in the academic world can accept the paramparaa listing through Madhva, then what objection can you give? [i2]

 

Vyaasa has authored a more important work for the Vedaanta schools, the Brahma -Suutras. Maddhva as you know, has written a Bhaashya on the Suutras to show there is nothing other than Bheda in the Suutras. He has also written a Taatparya on the Bhaagavatam and one can guess what the nature of the Taatparya is. In summary, according to Maadhva, there is nothing other Bheda in the Scriptures. Hence there is no question of Maadhva digressing from Vyaasa.

 

Merely referring to the commentary does not make that commentary 100% true and faithful to that which it comments upon. Madhva was no doubt a great scholar for trying to interpret the entire Vedic cannon according to his Dvaita philosophy (which, I might point out, was created by him even before he met Vyaasa). But it is obvious that Madhva's interpretation of some Bhaagavatam shlokas will necessarily be roundabout in order to avoid any hint of abedha. Some examples:

 

etatpada.m tajjagadaatmanaH para.m sakR^idvibhaata.m svaituryathaa prabhaa |

yathaasavo jaagrati suptashaktayo dravyakriyaaj~naanabhidaabhramaatyayaH || bhaa 4.31.16 ||

 

Just as the sunshine is nondifferent from the sun, the cosmic manifestation is also nondifferent from the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The Supreme Personality is therefore all-pervasive within this material creation. When the senses are active, they appear to be part and parcel of the body, but when the body is asleep, their activities are unmanifest. Similarly, the whole cosmic creation appears different and yet nondifferent from the Supreme Person. (bhaagavata puraaNa 4.31.16)

 

tva.m vaa ida.m sadasadiisha bhavaa.mstato'nyo maayaa yadaatmaparabuddhiriya.m hyapaarthaa |

yad yasya janma nidhana.m sthitiriikShaNa.m cha tad vaitadeva vasukaalavadaShTitarvoH || bhaa 7.9.31 ||

 

My dear Lord, O Supreme Personality of Godhead, the entire cosmic creation is caused by You, and the cosmic manifestation is an effect of Your energy. Although the entire cosmos is but You alone, You keep Yourself aloof from it. The conception of "mine and yours," is certainly a type of illusion [maayaa] because everything is an emanation from You and is therefore not different from You. Indeed, the cosmic manifestation is nondifferent from You, and the annihilation is also caused by You. This relationship between Your Lordship and the cosmos is illustrated by the example of the seed and the tree, or the subtle cause and the gross manifestation. (bhaagavata puraaNa 7.9.31)

 

ekastvameva sadasad dvayamadvaya.m cha svarNa.m kR^itaakR^itamiveha na vastubhedaH |

aj~naanatastvayi janairvihito vikalpo yasmaad guNavyatikaronirupaadhikasya || bhaa 8.12.8 ||

 

My dear Lord, Your Lordship alone is the cause and the effect. Therefore, although You appear to be two, You are the absolute one. As there is no difference between the gold of a golden ornament and the gold in a mine, there is no difference between cause and effect; both of them are the same. Only because of ignorance do people concoct differences and dualities. You are free from material contamination, and since the entire cosmos is caused by You and cannot exist without You, it is an effect of Your transcendental qualities. Thus the conception that Brahman is true and the world false cannot be maintained (bhaagavata puraaNa 8.12.8).

 

Please note, shvu, that these are what you would call Srila Prabhupada's "sectarian translations," by which we mean that he translates in a way so as to bring out the actual meaning of the shlokas in the overall scriptural context. If you look at the literal translations divorced from the rest of the Bhaagavata, then it's hard to see them as anything other than abeda in nature. This being the case:

 

[J]

 

1) Does Madhva try to get around these "abeda" shlokas by arguing that they are interpolated? Without proof, he cannot convince an objective audience. In that case, he would be digressing from Vyaasa's writings.

 

2) Does Madhva offer a "beda" interpretation to these "abeda" shlokas? You can't remain objective if you actually find such interpretations ("sectarian translations?") to be convincing. Again, we have evidence of digression from Vyaasa.

 

3) Does Madhva try to dismiss this evidence by arguing that it is smriti, not shruti? Even Vedaanta-suutra is smriti, yet that is acceptable. Even using this line of argument, he would be digressing from Vyaasa, because he cannot explain away all of Shrii Vyaasa's writings.

 

Note that I am not trying to disrespect Madhva. But if you want to get down into the trenches and criticize Gaudiiyas, then we need to apply those standards uniformly.

 

Returning to the actual topic, it is obvious Maadhva did not claim lineage from Vyaasa and then give a new philosophy, unlike the Gaudiyas.

 

Sorry Shvu, but the available evidence indicates that Madhva is in Vyaasa's lineage, that the Gaudiiyas are in Madhva's lineage (substantiated even by present day Maadhvas), and furthermore that Vyaasa's Bhaagavatam is not a purely Dvaita text.

 

For ease of reference, I have numbered my arguments above [A]...[J]. If you plan to respond, please address each of the above points.

 

regards,

 

- K

 

 

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

Achintya Beda Abeda Mailing List

www.achintya.org

 

 

[This message has been edited by krishna_s (edited 07-19-2002).]

[Shashi]

Originally posted by ram:

Shashiji, Lord's poetry is perfect in composition. But not ours. In your poem ------

WRONG number 1. I have not said any the poem! What nonsense you are saying. I gave one comparison.

 

Originally posted by ram:

---- you are comparing mango pulp to the Lord and the seed to --------

 

WRONG number 2. In mine comparison I saying Lord is the mango and Brahman the mango seed within mango. SEed is part of the mango not seprate. Lord is not pulp Lord is the whole mango. Otherwise meanings of BG 14:27 is not applied.

 

Originally posted by ram:

But as per GVV, brahma jyoti covers the face of the Lord.

 

WRONG number 3. Where is mention "brahmajyoti" in BG 14:27?

And where have I mention brhamajyoti regarding Brahman? Where I am say I representation of GVV?

Ding Ding Ding.

 

 

Originally posted by ram:

Secondly, mango seed is thrown away because it is not eaten.

WRONG number 4. Some idiots are throwing away. Others are planting. SEEd is not rubbish. SEed is UNmanifest tree. When manifest no more the seed. BUt still the mango.

 

Originally posted by ram:

the Lord is glorifying brahma jyoti as ultimate in happiness.

WRONG number 5. Where is BG 14:27 mentioning "jyoti"?

 

 

Originally posted by ram:

This I say is inconsistent with GVV apart from poetic flaw.

 

WRONG number 6. Whoever is seeing poetic where none poetic is existing, that one is the flaw.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by jndas:

Or maybe no one replied to the points in his texts so he decided it was pointless to reply further?

Perhaps, he is expecting me to reply to all the points. The core point is Sankara's commentary is false. I guess I countered it.

 

 

[karthik_v]

Krishnas prabhuji,

 

Welcome back. Your knowledgeable contributions are most needed here.

 

Every conversation I have ever had with the Dvaita list crowd on this subject indicated that Vyaasa was the guru of Madhva.

 

I would agree with you. In the famous Sanskrit movie on Madhvacarya also, Vyasa is portrayed as his guru. I don't know if that finds any mention in the writings of that acarya, but the Madhva tradition definitely considers that way.

 

Shvu: According to his Sampradaaya, he is Vaayu himself and required no Guru. So for all practical purposes his lineage starts from himself.

 

Krishnas: I have already posted from Shriimadhva Vijaya indicating that Madhva did in fact take instruction from Vyaasa.

 

Madhva tradition certainly holds him to be an incarnation Vaayu. Yet, just like other great incarnations like Caitanya Mahaprabhu or Adi Sankara [who also took initiation and instructions from a guru, though they were born with all the knowledge], Madhvacarya, despite being Vaayu himself could have still taken instructions.

 

Regarding interpolations, I must admit that I know of no interpolation to SB, while such interpolations abound Mahabharata and Ramayana.

[Guest guest]

Shashiji, calling some one who is considered an opponent nonsense is not polite. If you think I misunderstood your points, you can always point it out.

 

SP considers brahman = brahma jyoti. If you do not represent GVV, then cool. Don't worry about defending it. Based on your writing elsewhere, I thought you were a gaudiya. I wish all the gaudiyas on this forum fight with me to establish gaudiya vaishnavism.

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by karthik_v:

Regarding interpolations, I must admit that I know of no interpolation to SB, while such interpolations abound Mahabharata and Ramayana.

I thought you considered entire SB to be an interpolation in the post Sankara period -

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by karthik_v:

14:26 and 14:27 must be read together so that there is no loss of continuity. Adi Sankara also agrees that maam in 14:26 refers only to Narayana situated in the hearts of the devotees. And then comments on brahma-bhuyaya as becoming Brahman. This means that Adi Sankara considers the Narayana situated in the hearts of the devotee as the impersonal Brahman. So, if we go by this premise, Ram's post on Adi Sankara's commentary follows logically. This raises a question: Why does Adi Sankara treat that maam in 14:26 as the impersonal Brahman? Why not apply the direct meaning which would mean that Krishna addresses Himself in the first person?

Lack of and presence of gunas are both the characteristic of the absolute as per Sankara. Some advaitins, incl. scholars on advaita vedanta list may claim that Personal God is mAyA. But they cannot prove that from Sankara's commentary itself. There are as many flavours of advaitam as there are coffee types in the world. But every thing cannot be attributed to Sankara. In 14.26, Sankara explicitly says mam is nArayanam sarva hrdayAkshpratam, Narayana the God. Unless you say that Krishna and Narayana are different, there is no problem in his purport.

 

Originally posted by karthik_v:

Now, Srila Prabhupad treats this maam in 14:26 as the personal Lord Krishna and subsequently comments on brahma-bhuyaya as getting elevated to Brahman consciousness. So, if we go by this premise, then his commentary on 14:27 makes sense as well. This raises a question: Why does Srila Prabhupad seem to suggest that there is a higher personal conception [or that Brahman is only a part of Krishna] after stating that the Brahman state is aikantikasya sukhasya or ultimate happiness?

That was my point and no one has answered.

[Guest guest]

Shashiji, You may be considered the winner on the poetry discussion, which is not relevant to the main thread. I do not want to change the focus of discussion away from Bhagavad Gita.

 

I have so far shown how Sankara's purport is perfectly in line with the teachings of the Gita in this verse 14.27.If no one disproves that, then calling him a word juggler is not right. Apart from that I have questioned translating brahman as brahma jyoti by Srila Prabhupada on the grounds that

 

"the Lord says that brahman is ultimate in happiness whereas SP says brahman (brahma jyoti) is not the ultimate in happiness. Bhagavan is ultimate in happiness and in fact one realizes only sat feature in brahma jyoti and not ananda. "

 

If you or any one has answer to this point, let us discuss it. Krishnas, if you cannot counter my points I hope that being true to vedic tradition that you represent you would concede. If there is any particular point that you want me to answer, please let me know after closing this point.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 07-20-2002).]

[Guest guest]

I would like to present a conversation with HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj. He also answers my objection to Srila Prabhupada's purport. Instead of treating the words of acharyas as word jugglery, one can see it as an emphasis on different aspects of the absolute.

 

Ram: hare krishna maharaj. please accept my humble obeisances.

bhanu_swami: haribol

Ram: maharaj, in 14.27 why is brahman (tranlated as brahma jyoti) described as ultimate in happiness ?

bhanu_swami: you can translate it as i am the basis or shelter of brahman and also of eternity, ultimate hapiness etc.

 

Ram: Srila Prabhupada attributes ultimate happiness as an adjective to brahman, which he translates as brahma jyoti. But brahmajyoti is not known as ultimate in happiness in GVV. But translating brahman = Lord as Sankara implies, makes the Lord the ultimate in happiness and Self situated.

bhanu_swami: if we take it as impersonal brahma and happiness a as qualifying it then we cannot take it in a n absolute snese.

bhanu_swami: but as a stepping stone forit.

Ram: but the Lord says aikhantikasya

bhanu_swami: it is of ultimate happiness.

bhanu_swami: ramanuja says brahman is jiva

Ram: and madhwa says brahman is lakshmi. but only meaning brahman = Lord satisfies the adjective aikhantikasya sukhasya, right ? raso vai sah

bhanu_swami: i am the basis of laksmi who is ultimate hapiness etc.

Ram: if we accept the different acharyas commentary as different levels of realization, then brahma jyoti, jiva, lakshmi and the Lord are all ultimate in happiness. But brahma jyoti is not considered ultimate in happiness, nor the jiva without the Lord, nor Lakshmi without Narayana.

bhanu_swami: of course, aikanta can have levels of meaning

Ram: depending on who it is applied to ?

bhanu_swami: just as jivas are sometimes addressed as bhagavan

bhanu_swami: visvanath takes it as krsna is the basis or shelter of brahman, of sasvata dharma and aikanta sukha (prema)

Ram: ok. what is the reason for difference in translation by vaishnava acharyas ?

bhanu_swami: ramanuja it appears stresses self realization.

bhanu_swami: madhva interprets manythings in terms of laksmi.

bhanu_swami: hermercy is necessary.

bhanu_swami: visvanatha interprets everything from point of prema

bhanu_swami: madhva rejects ramanuja's because it is not consistent with previous verses.

bhanu_swami: visvanatha's is ok;

Ram: wonderful.

Ram: hare krishna maharaj. please accept my humble obeisances. i take leave.

bhanu_swami: mahdva's is original, but he supports it with other upanisadic statements.

Ram: but madhva's is not in context

bhanu_swami: the previous verses also he attributes as laksmi

Ram: ok.

Ram: does prabhupad explain why he is attributing ultimate happiness to brahma jyoti ?

Ram: but also says in the same purport one can fall down from there

bhanu_swami: as a stepping stone ....

bhanu_swami: towards that

Ram: but how can some thing that the lord says is ultimate be a stepping stone ?

bhanu_swami: brahman isa step towards ultimate happiness

bhanu_swami: of ultimate happiness

Ram: of

Ram: meaning ?

bhanu_swami: leading to

bhanu_swami: delhi road. road leading to delhi

Ram: ok. -

 

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 07-21-2002).]

[shvu]

 

Krishnas,

 

[A]

 

Is Vyaasa not Vishnu? This is news to me.

 

Again from the Dvaita Home Page (http://www.dvaita.org/madhva/AnandaT_1.html):

 

"Visual evidence, if one may call it that, of Srimad Ananda Tîrtha being Madhva, the avatâra of Vâyu, was obtained by Trivikrama Pandita when the latter had the great fortune to observe the three forms of Vâyu worship simultaneously -- Hanumân worshipping Râma, Bhîmasena worshipping Krishna, and Ananda Tîrtha worshipping Vyâsa..."

 

Every conversation I have ever had with the Dvaita list crowd on this subject indicated that Vyaasa was the guru of Madhva.

 

I have no arguments against that. It is not relevant to the topic in hand, anyway. The topic being, are Gaudiyaas justified in claming a paramparaa connection with Maadhva?

 

I have already posted from Shriimadhva Vijaya indicating that Madhva did in fact take instruction from Vyaasa, making the latter his guru by any definition of the term. Here is that evidence again (Sanskrit available upon request).

 

Quoting from shriimadhva-vijaya 8.1-5: (in the translation, this section is entitiled "Vedavyaasa teaches Madhva all the shaastras")

 

Good...We will come back to this later.

 

 

 

Shvu, are you saying that the author of Shriimadhva-vijaya, a standard biography on Madhva, was wrong? Or are you saying that Vyaasa having taught Madhva the shaastras and having "further sharpened his wisdom by His great blessings," and also being declared to be the Guru for Madhva, is still not evidence that He was Madhva's guru? Please clarify.

 

I am saying Maadha himself never acknowledged such a Guru connection with Vyaasa. But since the traditional biography says so, I am willing to go with that. No arguments against point C.

 

These points are well known to everyone. But it does not alter the fact that no one gave diiksha to Madhva other than Achyutaprakaasha. If one defines sampradaaya according to diiksha lines, it then becomes unreasonable to criticize Gaudiiyas for digressing from Madhva, unless one is going to criticize Madhva himself for doing the same. [D]

 

That is wrong. If Maadhva did the same as the Gaudiiyas, he should have debunked Advaita and yet claimed a paramparaa connection with Shankara, by virtue of his Dhiiksha from Achyutaprakaashaa. However, he did no such thing.

 

So many times we have heard it said that one cannot come in a paramparaa and inaugurate a new philosophy. No doubt this is a general custom, but on what basis is this being touted as an absolute principle? [E]

 

Let us for a moment accept your position that it is not an absolute principle. Now, can I take Dhiiksha from an Iskcon Maharaj, and then give a new teaching to the world which is considerably different from iskcon's philosophy and yet claim to be in paramparaa? I am marking this point as A and would like an answer. This will settle the issue in a very neat fashion. No arguments against F1 and F2.

 

Shrii Vallabhaachaarya, another exponent on Vedaanta, is well known to have come in the sampradaaya of Aadi Vishnuswaamii. Yet Shrii Vallabha wrote his own commentary on the Vedaanta. What of this? [G]

 

I have no knowledge of Vallabhaa and cannot comment about him. However, I don't see the relevance here.

 

Both Kavi Karnapura and Baladeva Vidyaabhuushana have claimed the paramparaa listing from Madhva (the former in GauranGanodesha Diipika and the latter in Govinda Bhaashya). Now, putting things in Perspective, it should be noted that Baladeva did actually live in the Vedic environment, wrote a Vedaanta-suutra commentary, and is more likely than you are to be familiar with the traditions and customs of sampradaaya, paramparaa, etc. Thus, unless you can bring up specific evidence which defines "paramparaa" as narrowly as you do, I think it is obvious that Baladeva is in a better position to say what is right and wrong regarding the concept of paramparaa. [H]

 

I wonder what point you are trying to make here.

 

If you think Baladeva claiming so is sufficient to override any criticism, then you would not have provided other arguments in the first place. You could have simply said " Baladeva said so and that is enough". I can similarly say Shankara said "Jivo Brahmaiva naa paraha" and he knew better than anyone else, so no argument against Advaita is valid.

 

If it is absolute necessity that two aachaaryas sharing the same paramparaa must also share the same philosophy, then why do even prominent Maadhva sannyaasiis accept the Gaudiiyas as being in their sampradaaya?

 

(http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vaisnava_sampradayas_fs.html)

 

Pejavara Swami's letter refers to the two sampradaayas, although that is most likely from the standpoint of philosophy. Shiroor Swami's letter states, "Sri Chaitanya Sampradaya is a branch of Madhwa philosophy. there are historic proofs to substantiate this fact." Sri Vidyavallabha Tiirtha's letter states, "While glancing through the aforesaid historic event, it is evident that there exists a deep relationship between "Chaitanya parampara" and "Madhwa parampara.""

 

Shvu, are the Maadhva sannyaasiis above simply in error (they don't know as much as you), telling falsehoods for the sake of politics, or simply ignorant of the meaning of "paramparaa?" [i1]

 

In turn, I suggest reading this page. That says it all. http://www.dvaita.net/pdf/iskcon.pdf

Just like this Swamiji was unaware of such stories being circulated in the Gaudiiya circles, it is most likely the case that he is unaware of the many digressions of the Gaudiiyas from Maadhva. (Point B)

 

In BNK Sharma's book _History and Literature of the Dvaita School of Vedanta_, there is an entire appendix discussing the Madhva-Gaudiiya paramparaa. Sharma entertains several doubts about the paramparaa relationship, but nevertheless considers it reasonable, and does not seem bothered at all by the difference of philosophy. Sharma can't be accused of bias, either, as his criticisms of Govinda-bhaashya indicate in the very same book. If even a Maadhva skeptic in the academic world can accept the paramparaa listing through Madhva, then what objection can you give? [i2]

 

The same gentleman (Dr Sharma) says in his 2000 edition of of the same book,

 

"Is it not high time therefore that the Gaudiya Vaisnavas should take steps to rescind all such baseless, mendacious misrepresentations of the doctrines of M. to be found in some of the biographical accounts of Caitanya, cease purveying them and thus cleanse their stables and set their house in order? Otherwise, the retention of such misrepresentations in the biographies of Caitanya would only expose him to rank ignorance of the original works and doctrines of R[âmânuja] and M[adhva], which would hardly redound to his credit."

 

I got this reference from the Dvaita web pages.

 

Merely referring to the commentary does not make that commentary 100% true and faithful to that which it comments upon. Madhva was no doubt a great scholar for trying to interpret the entire Vedic cannon according to his Dvaita philosophy (which, I might point out, was created by him even before he met Vyaasa). But it is obvious that Madhva's interpretation of some Bhaagavatam shlokas will necessarily be roundabout in order to avoid any hint of abedha. Some examples:

 

[...]

 

Please note, shvu, that these are what you would call Srila Prabhupada's "sectarian translations," by which we mean that he translates in a way so as to bring out the actual meaning of the shlokas in the overall scriptural context. If you look at the literal translations divorced from the rest of the Bhaagavata, then it's hard to see them as anything other than abeda in nature. This being the case:

 

[J]

 

1) Does Madhva try to get around these "abeda" shlokas by arguing that they are interpolated? Without proof, he cannot convince an objective audience. In that case, he would be digressing from Vyaasa's writings.

 

2) Does Madhva offer a "beda" interpretation to these "abeda" shlokas? You can't remain objective if you actually find such interpretations ("sectarian translations?") to be convincing. Again, we have evidence of digression from Vyaasa.

 

3) Does Madhva try to dismiss this evidence by arguing that it is smriti, not shruti? Even Vedaanta-suutra is smriti, yet that is acceptable. Even using this line of argument, he would be digressing from Vyaasa, because he cannot explain away all of Shrii Vyaasa's writings.

 

Note that I am not trying to disrespect Madhva. But if you want to get down into the trenches and criticize Gaudiiyas, then we need to apply those standards uniformly.

 

You are missing the point. We are not discussing the authenticity of Maadhva's interpretation. The question is, can someone digress from x (irrespective of whether he is right or wrong) and still claim a paramparaa line from x? ( In fact, you should not be arguing about Maadhva being wrong, for you quoted "Vedavyaasa teaches Madhva all the shaastras" earlier. Hoever this is not relevant to the discussion.)

 

Sorry Shvu, but the available evidence indicates that Madhva is in Vyaasa's lineage, that the Gaudiiyas are in Madhva's lineage (substantiated even by present day Maadhvas), and furthermore that Vyaasa's Bhaagavatam is not a purely Dvaita text.

 

For ease of reference, I have numbered my arguments above [A]...[J]. If you plan to respond, please address each of the above points.

 

regards,

 

- K

 

Sorry Krishnas, but the point still remains unanswered. For ease of reference, I have marked two points A and B. Please address these two points and we wil take it from there.

 

Cheers