[Advaita-l] Analysis of madhvAcArya’s mAyAvAdakhaNDanam

Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com
Sat Dec 27 14:29:56 CST 2008

Dear makwanaji,
Ramakrishna paramhansa said that all the three ie. the Dvaita, Visishtadvaita and Advaita are correct. These are at different levels of perception. He said that a time is approaching when people will understand Advaita instantly. 
To give a simili we tell a school-boy that "Atom" is the smallest particle but to a higher secondary student of science we say that the "Atom" has a nucleus surrounded by electrons and that nucleus itself has "Proton" and Neutron". We tell the degree level student  about the the spin theory and the "aufbau" principle as to how the electrons are configured in the atom. To still higher students we teach about other subatomic particles such as "Meson" and then about "Quarks" and "Anti-Quarks' etc. and the quantum mechanical representation. Higher students get a deeper idea of the structure of matter and also understands the equivalence of "Matter" and "Energy". Thus we see that the truth is told to all the students at different levels. To make any assessment one should not forget the level for which a certain way of describing things or matter has been adopted. 
Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

--- On Sat, 12/27/08, Krunal Makwana <makwanakb at googlemail.com> wrote:

From: Krunal Makwana <makwanakb at googlemail.com>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Analysis of madhvAcArya’s mAyAvAdakhaNDanam
To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Date: Saturday, December 27, 2008, 7:28 AM

Dear sadanandji,

On Fri 2008/12/27 kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:

*> Since the purpose of your posts is to understand Advaita, I am taking
liberty to separate what **>** AV says vs. what the interpreter thinks or
says what AV says.*

*>** Personally I have no further interest in the analysis of
madhvachaarya's work, but like to point **>** out to be careful in their
interpretation of what AV says vs. what they think AV says and
> refutes **>**t****heir understanding of AV. It is going to be mind
boggling work ( and futile I must
> say) to **>**provide a correct interpretation of AV through their

Thank you Sadanandaji for taking your time to reply to my post. The main
objective of the posts it to analyse the response of advaita to the
criticisms laid down in the mAyAvAdakhaNDanam. I am merely looking through
the eyes of AV to analyse and respond to each statement rather than look at
AV through the eyes of DV.

I may not have made myself clear in my initial posting and would like to
clarify my intentions clearly. I accept the work to be mind boggling and
solely very hard but nevertheless not futile. The posts are to critically
analyse the work and then present the view of AV. The response of AV would
be through the mouth of AV and not the eyes of DV. This is where I would
like the senior scholars such as yourself to help me and others understand
our philosophy better.*

*> **It is better study prakaraNa granthaas of AV to understand AV, if that
is the purpose of these **> **postings.** *

As the posting is to analyse and respond to MV through AV thought, it would
be futile without referencing our AcArya who is our main source of knowledge
and pramANa. I ask the members to 'chip-in' with relevant references of
AcArya where they deem most fit.

*> **To attempt to understand AV through Madhvachaarya's work will be
scratching the head with fire-wood.** *

Which definitely is not my intention J
Jai Sri Krsna

Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/

To unsubscribe or change your options:

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list