[Advaita-l] Re: The current advaita-dvaita debate

[guru prasad]

Dear members,
    Its intersting to note the discussions that has
been going on the topic. I would like to add a few
words..

--- "Kotekal, Srinivas [Non-Employee/0200]"
<srinivas.kotekal at pharmacia.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Dear Vidyashankar,
> 
> I would like to add my two cents about your
> impression about Dvaita school.
> 
> >Difficulties in dvaita caused the gauDIya
> vaishNava-s to design an "acintya
> 
As far as my awareness goes, no school was started
after Dvaita was established, to refute Dvaita. if
there were any dificulties, its only due to their own
short-comings and not in the Philosophy itself.

> >bhedAbheda" school and the pushTi-mArgI vaishNavas
> of the vallabha 
> >sampradAya to come up with a "SuddhAdvaita" school.
> 
> 
> It is classical misunderstanding about Dvaita
> School. Do you really fail to
> see difference between advent of Dvaita vs. that of
> later schools ?  Dvaita
> is not  **just another** school as you think.
> 
Right, Dvaita was propounded after meticulously
analysis of word to word, I should say letter to
letter extraction from 21 previous SidhanTha's. So in
those days in order to establish an entirely new
system based on its own etimology and ontolgy is not a
easy task, so its not like any backyard schools. 
   Even though various debates were held against
Advaita, one should note that, Advaita not the only
school that dvaita refuts, its a common mistake that
people think that Dvaita was formed only to refute
Advaita, all 21 schools are refuted. On the same
guidelines, other schools have refuted Advaita so the
notion is not uncommon.

> Just having new school is not same as having new
> school and having full
> spectrum of dialectical works to refute earlier
> schools.   Aren't  you aware
> of Dvaita's extensive dialectical works against
> advaita ?  aren't  you
> aware of these works created by founder as well as
> great scholars through
> out it's glorious history ? Don't take my word for
> it, but look at what a
> third party like DasGupta has to say about it. ( I
> know you won't trust BNK)
> 
> 
> Similarly, do you have any case of  "acintya
> bhedAbheda" or "SuddhAdvaita"
> refuting Dvaita's position ? any major works of
> those schools against Dvaita
> ?
> 
> Just because those schools are later to Dvaita, it
> is not necessary to mean
> that they offer something better or opposed to
> Dvaita. 
> 
Right, In addition to that, the other schools formed
after Dvaita have deficiecies to explain and produce
strong SadAgamas like Dvaita quotes. Most of the
neo-Vedantins like Chaintinya etc., were formed to
fulfill the needs of the western world and their
affulence.

> >And numerous difficulties in all these schools
> cause people like me to
> reaffirm advaita. 
> 
> Really ? why do you think so many scholars of
> Advaita realized the problem
> and adopted Dvaita in the past ?
> 
> >If you think that the last word on vedAnta was
> spoken at the advent of 
> >dvaita a few centuries ago, or if you expect any of
> us to believe so, you 
> >are highly mistaken.
> 
 Nobody will ask what you believe is correct or not,
you belief is based on your decision, but that does
not suffice to  conclude that you are correct.
Correctness is based on debates. IF you look back into
your own history, there are records, AppayaDikshit was
defeated on a daily basis, VIdhyaRanya etc., all faced
the challenges and they were all more well-versed, but
finally they bow down to their opponents. So if you as
an individual, thinks Dvaita or anything else  is not
a good fit for you, you are welcome to do so. 

Views here are only constructive and not directed at
individual(s).

Regards,
Guruprasad.

> You believe it or not is up to you.  But facts can
> not be pushed under the
> carpet. 
> 
> Regards,
> Srinivas.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jay Nelamangala [mailto:jay at r-c-i.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 2:33 PM
> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Re: The current
> advaita-dvaita debate
> 
> 
> Dear vidyAshankar,
> 
> >Difficulties in dvaita caused the gauDIya
> vaishNava-s to design an "acintya
> >bhedAbheda" school and the pushTi-mArgI vaishNavas
> of the vallabha
> >sampradAya to come up with a "SuddhAdvaita" school.
> And numerous
> >difficulties in all these schools cause people like
> me to reaffirm advaita.
> 
> This sounds more like arguing for the sake of
> arguing.
> 
> Why did you leave NimbArka?
> 
> Sri Vallabha did not start his sampradAya because he
> had difficulties with
> dvaita.
> VallabhAchArya started "shuddhAdvaita"  because he
> found major fault with
> advaita, he says that advaita was made ashuddha
> (impure) by bringing in
> mAyA    The following website has good info on the
> school of Vallabha.
> 
>
http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/hindu/devot/vallab.html
> I would like the readers to take a good look at the
> website,
> and see for themselves if what VidyAshankar claims
> makes sense or not.
> Here is a quote from that website :
> 
> "There is one existent Being only - Shri Krishna
> Parabrahman, called also
> Purushottam ("highest Person", in the Gita),
> Bhagavan ("lord", in the
> Bhagavata Purana), or Brahman (in the Upanishads);
> that only Parabrahman
> exists is uncompromisingly asserted. To Vallabha,
> the way in which Shankara
> and Advaita brought in maya as the explanation for
> the origin of the
> physical universe allowed in a second entity
> alongside Brahman, a
> possibility to be rejected outright."
> 
> As far, "achintya bhEdAbhEda" of  shree Chaitanya, 
> again you are wrong,
> because their "affinity and love" for mAyAvAdins is
> very well known.
> In fact,  some of them claim that they are an
> offshoot from the school of
> Sri Madhwa ( just as some neo-vEdAntins claim they
> teach advaita ).
> 
> In any case,  none of these schools were started
> because they had
> difficulties with dvaita.
> They started their schools, more probably,  because
> of the importance they
> gave to
> BhAgavatha over other  Agama.
> 
> >
> > Before you start interpreting away, ask yourself,
> "is jIva part of sarvaM
> or
> > not?" Your analogy, "Microsoft is all indeed this
> BillGates" fails,
> because
> > unlike brahman vis-a-vis sarvaM, Mr. Bill Gates
> does not pervade
> Microsoft.
> 
> "Microsoft is all indeed this BillGates", simply
> means "BillGates keeps all
> control of Microsoft".
> That is  all the scope of that identity statement. 
> It does not make
> BillGates all-pervasive.
> 
> Every single thing in this world,  including this
> jIva is part of 'sarvam',
> no doubt.
> God is All because He is in All ( sarvam samApnOshi
> tatO asi sarvaha ).
> Only God is sarvAntaryAmee,  neither jeeva nor
> BillGates pervade everything.
> 
> This jeeva is neither  OmkAra-vAchya,  nor this
> jeeva is in all,  nor this
> jeeva is the Controller of all.   So the
> interpretation that
> "ayamAtmA brahma"  means "this jeeva itself is
> Brahman" is totally out of
> context in that upanishat.
> 
> So,  no one can quote "ayamAtmA brahma" of ManUkya
> in support of
> jeeva-brahma-Aikya.
> 
> >
> > No, it does not. Previously, you had said that in
> your siddhAnta, "brahman
> > is jagadeka-kAraNa". Now you want to qualify that
> by saying it is the
> > "aprAkRta jagadeka kAraNa". So in your siddhAnta,
> you also need prAkRta
> > kAraNa-s, i.e. prakRti in one form or the other,
> in addition to the
> aprAkRta
> > brahman, to account for the causation of jagat. So
> there is no longer eka
> > kAraNa in your siddhAnta, only aneka kAraNa-s, of
> which brahman is one.
> And
> 
> Yes, but this aprAkrita JagadEka-kAraNa is the 
> kAraNa for prakrit also.
> 
> THe fact that the source of chit-prakrti is
> Parabrahman is not coming from
> dvaita,   but it is coming from Veda itself.
> 
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com