[Advaita-l] Fw: [USBrahmins] Re: Fw: [hc] Reinterpreting Dwaita versus Adwaita by sanjay rao
sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com
Mon Oct 1 13:15:15 CDT 2012
The Davitins and Visistadvaitins cannot realize that till the Videhamukti (ie. till
the parting with the Vyavaharika existence) the Advaitins appreciate the
following of the Vyavaharika norms, as set out in the dharma/neeti-shastras
while at the same time aspiring for the realization of the paramarthika Satya.
From: Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com>
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 8:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Fw: [USBrahmins] Re: Fw: [hc] Reinterpreting Dwaita
versus Adwaita by sanjay rao
If you are saying Ramanuja should not cry because God is in everything
and everything is in God the same can also be for used for Advaitis
also. If Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma is true why Advaitis are complaining
Madhva writing about Rajasvala in Gita Bhashya. Advaita is saying
everything is Brahma only. Good words and bad words all words are
talking about Brahma only. Rajasvala is Brahma only. Why are they
objecting? What is bad if Ramanuja is writing criticism of Advaita?
His words are expressing Brahma only. What is bad if some one is
writing personally bad things regarding Adi Sankara in Mani Manjari?
Everything is Brahma.
We have to take very Broad Minded view to understand. What is bad?
What is good? In Sanskrit poems also they are using Kumbhastani and
Nitambini for describing goddess. Are they using bad language? We are
thinking wrongly like how Britishers taught us. They brain washed all
the Indians. If a man is talking Rajasvala we say it is bad. But if
that man is a doctor and he is talking about Rajasvala it is not bad.
If a man is looking at naked women we are saying it is bad. But if the
man is a Gynecologist he can look with a medical mind to diagnose any
medical problem in the woman. He is not doing anything wrong.
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 11:44 AM, V Subrahmanian
<v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2012/9/29 Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com>
>> My friend said Advaitis also used foul language to explain Kapyasa in
>> Vedanta. Yatha Kapyasam Pundarikam Evam Akshini in Chandogya Upanisad.
>> Adi Sankara is saying eyes like monkey's behind part. Ramanuja heard
>> it from his Advaita Guru and started crying because they were using
>> foul language against God. Tears came from his eyes. They were saying
>> God's eyes are red like monkey's behind. He gives a different meaning
>> to Kapi. Kapi is Sun but not monkey. God's eyes are red like the lotus
>> lighted by Sun rays.
> Reproduced here is an excerpt from an old post of this forum:
> //In the Chandogya mantra 'तस्य यथा कप्यासं पुण्डरीकं एवम् अक्क्ष्णी’
> Ramanija makes a great objection to Shankara's bhashya that was taught to
> him by Yadavaprakasha where Shankara's bhashya says: the Lord's eyes are
> akin to the lotus that is as red as a monkey's ass, despite Shankara
> clarifying there that it is not a case of a हीनोपमा since it is only an
> upama to another upama. If everything is contained in everything is true
> for Ramanuja, why did he not see the truth that the monkey's ass is
> contained in the lotus and the lotus in the monkey's ass and everything is
> contained in the Lord's eyes and the Lord's eyes are contained in
> everything? //
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
To unsubscribe or change your options:
For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list