[Advaita-l] Questions on Mayavada by Krishna

kuntimaddi sadananda kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com
Tue Oct 12 06:21:19 CDT 2010

PraNAms to all.

I wonder who missed the point! 

I have studied Shree BhaaShya of Bhagavan Ramanuja and also ShataduushaNii of Shreeman Vedanta Deshika. These are nothing to do Vaishnavism as such - most of arguments are dialectic arguments - particularly the later one. I am vaishNavate and Advaitin too. The study of the analysis of Bhagavan Ramanuja in the laghu and mahapuurva paksha and his subsequent siddhaanta helps us to understand Advaita too. To appreciate the fallacy in their arguments one should have clear understanding of advaita.  This becomes more evident if we study Advaita Siddhi of Madhusudana Saraswati as he responds to dialectic arguments presented by dvaitins on advaita.

Respecting all aachaaryaas is our culture. 

Blindly following any aachaarya or all aachaaryaas is a sign of immaturity. Shree Jaldhar’s point is very appropriate. Shree Bhaasya of Ramanuja is not historical document, neither the ShataduushaNii, even though they are points in the history. 

Sri T.P Mahadevan says while translating advaita as non-dualism, the non refers to not only duality but to ism as well. This aspect becomes overwhelmingly clear by studying the criticisms on advaita too. 

Hari Om!

--- On Mon, 10/11/10, Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Sri Jaldhar
> You missed the point.  > 

> On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Jaldhar H. Vyas
> <jaldhar at braincells.com>
> wrote:
> > It is ironic that in the name of showing the
> inferiority of Vaishnavism you
> > stoop to the very same churlish behavior they indulge
> in. 

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list