[Advaita-l] Dvaitha is always supreme

[Harsha Bhat]

Thank you padhmanabha sir....

Completely understood....

>From purana we came to know that dhuryodana is kali's avathara,so he is
tamasa jeevi...

But my question is ,by seeing a person..can we decide weather he is
tamasa,rajasa or sathvika jeevi?


regards,
Harsha Bhat

On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 2:16 PM, nijgal ranganatha rao <nrp_2003 at yahoo.co.in
> wrote:

> Some of the points were left out in the previous e-mail please excuse:
>
> 5. Though first his father objected, finally both mother & father give
> acceptance for his Sanyasa. It is natural even now for any father or mother
> to give acceptance for sanyasa of their son. Naturally people even now have
> great regards, respects for whatever sanyasis say. He has not said anywhere
> that he knows everything by birth.
> 6. Even for Raghavendra Swamiji, the nth disciple’s disciple of great
> Madhvacharya, disciples are there from all castes. Madhva Siddhantha is for
> entire world and not for any particular sect since he says “udaara
> charitaanaantu Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam”.
> 7. He boldly declared during his life time that he was the avatara of Vayu
> and no body challenged him because all were convinced with his knowledge
> and ability to interpret Vedas, Upanishads, Brahmasutras, Puranas,
> Vyakaranas, Tarkas, Mimamsa, Nirukta, etc. He never said that he has super
> shakthi. He only said that he knows because of Prasada of Vyasa.
> 8. As already clearly illustrated above the hierarchy of Gods is the gist
> of entire Sruthi & Smritis including Bhagavadgeetha. He did not say to
> worship all Devatas as dammi (?) Gods but said that they have to be
> worshipped as the family of the God.
> 9. As already told, the Sanathana Dharma is not there because of Sankara.
> 10. Only for principles the fight is there and not humanly. Principle
> differences are welcome even in politics today. Even in Advaitha there are
> so many cults who are fighting like Eka Jeeva Vaada, Bahu Jeeva Vaada, etc.
> It cannot be taken as break of Unity. And Madhva Charya did not advocate
> fight among Brahmins or any cult for that matter to say that because of
> Madhva there is no Unity.
> 11. Again division of Brahmins was not done by Madhva. He simply preached
> the real tatva and some of the Advaitis and Vishistaadwaithis accepted and
> followed him who are called as Madhvas. If all of them accepted then there
> was no question of Division. He did not form separate cult called as
> Madhvas. It is Advaitins or Vishistaadvaithis who agreed and followed his
> principles came to be called as Madhvas.
> PADMANABHA N.R.
>
>
>
> On Sunday, 30 August 2015 1:50 PM, nijgal ranganatha rao <
> nrp_2003 at yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>
>
>  Most of Srivatsa's  utterings are out of half-baked/cooked knowledge and
> by following answers it reveals itself:
> Adi Sankaracharya:
> 1. Christianity & Islam has multifold followers throughout the world.
> Hence, just by number of followers the supremacy of one faith cannot be
> established.  Jains and Buddhists were not defeated by Shankaracharya but
> these faiths have been set to defeat in Second Pada of the second Adhyaya
> of the Brahma Sutras called Samaya (Faith) Pada by Lord Vedvyasa himself.
> He should know that only Charvaka or his likes are called nastikas in
> Shastras and not Jains or Buddhists.  He can be called as Mithya
> Jagadguru.  When Jagat itself is not there then where is Jagarguru?
> 2. He cannot say that advaitha accepted people are superior because there
> is no hierarchy in advaitha.  All are one.  If Srivthsa says Shankaracharya
> is superior to Srivathsa then he is following dwaitha whether he likes or
> not.  What is Sampradaya Vadis?  Is Sampradaya Satya or Mithya?  If Satya
> means advaith gone because there are two Satyas..  If Mithya then he is
> Mithya Sampradaya Vadi.
> 3. Nothing they can blame because all are one.  He gave the Buddhism in
> new bottle that's all.  There is no difference between Buddha's Shoonya &
> Advaith's Brahma because both are nirguna, nirvisesa.  Even Charvakas faith
> has been condemned in Brahma Sutra only as stated above.
> 4. If he has just followed his Guru, then call his Siddhantha as his
> Guru's not of Shankaracharya.
> 5. He has not read Shankara Vijjaya which says Shankara while crossing
> river the Janivara or yagnopaveetha slipped and he assumed sanyasa.
> Whereas it is great Madhvacharya who took the permission of both mother &
> father and got Sanyasa by following all vidhis.
> 6. What do you mean by noble Brahmans?  Are there Brahmans who are not
> noble?  You say Madhvacharya divided Brahmins but you yourself or according
> to you Sankara divided Brahmins.
> 7. He cannot say his is avathara of some one because as per advaith there
> is no body except brahman.
> 8. If there is no hierarchy of Gods, then whenever the Devatas face any
> trouble all Devatas go to Indra and Indra goes along with them to Brahma
> and Brahma goes to Narayana for final solution.  Why?  Entire Mahabharatha
> and Ramayana or Bhagavatha stand as a proof to these hierarchy of Devatas
> and supremacy of Narayana.  We cannot refute it just without any proof.
> 9. The actual Sanathan Dharma was revived by Madhvacharya only.  Many of
> the Dharmas were lost since people were mesmerised as God.  And people
> began thinking if we are God then why should we do Dharma?  And we are not
> Real Beings to do any Dharma which is not also real.  Perofrmance is also
> not real.  Even if we do not perform, non-performance is also not real.  If
> we get any fruit for any dharma that fruit is also not real.  First of all
> Dharma should be real to give us any fruit.  So if we go on extending it is
> endless.  For the sake of brevity I am stopping.
> 10. Unity of Brahmins is a contradiction as already told in noble or
> ignoble division.  Even bouddhas were also Brahmins.  Why did he left out
> them?
> Ramanujacharya:
> 1. This refutation is already answered above.
> 2. He has clearly stated you follow the faith which is closer to me and
> not advaitha.
> 3. He just called but great Madhvacharya demonstrated how Sankara is
> prachhanna Buddha.
> 4. This is true in case of Sankara also.
> 5. You say that he went against his guru yadavapreksha. and now say no
> guru which is a straight contradiction.
> 6. When all or one, why the Advaith is discriminating between Vaishyas,
> baniyas and non-Brahmins. We should appreciate Ramanuja for not observing
> casteic differences.
> 7. Because he follows semi-dwaitha philosophy, the concept of avathara to
> some extent is acceptable.
> 8. Atleast this principle is the plain meaning of one Bhagavata Shloka.
> 9. He knew it was not Sankara who defeated Buddhism but one Sri Kumarila
> Bhatta with his brother Narayana Bhatta who were the first to defeat
> Buddhism.
> 10. There is no need to fight if atleast the sect belonging to Sankara
> think all is one.
> 11. As brought out previously, any philosophy should not be based for a
> particular caste as Brahmins or whatever it be.  It should be for entire
> universe as is madhva siddhantha.
> Madvacharya:
> 1. This view has already been refuted and Madhvacharya is rightly called
> as Saya Jagatguru.
> 2. He never said it is his philosophy.  He only said that this is the
> Philosophy as per the Shruthis and Smritis and obviously it is superior.
> He never called other philosophy as devil.  In Bhagavadgita Lord Krishna
> himself calls that who say Jagat is not Guru that Siddhantha is Asuri and
> they will not reach me but go to eternal hell Mam apprapraiva Kounteya tato
> yaantyadhamam Gathim" this is the quotation of Geetha.
> 3. He has never called Sankara as Manimantha.  He said who propagate the
> philosophy as "I am the God" must naturally be a devil.  And according to
> you Sankara followed his Guru means, his Guru has propagated this
> philosophy and not Sankara.  Then he will be Manimantha   And one should
> know that Guru of Sankara was Goudapaada and not govidha bhagavatpada as
> told by Srivathsa.
> 4. He never went against his Guru.  When the first Advaitha book was
> beginning to be taught to him, he revealed 32 mistakes in the first stanza
> of the book called "ishtasiddhi" and asked his Guru to first clarify these
> mistakes which he was unable to do and so he became angry.  Later on
> Madhvacharya became his most beloved disciple.  And it is always welcome in
> Vedantha to have tatvic differences.
> The above are the answers to objections of Srivathsa.  Now the answer to
> your doubt is as follows:
>
> Duryodhana is avatara of Kali that means even his swaroopa is Tamasa.
> Hence, by whatever means, he cannot be changed.  There is absolute mixture
> of Swaroopa & Prakrutika Guna in his case.
> PADMANABHA N.R.
>
>
>
> On Sunday, 30 August 2015 7:13 AM, Harsha Bhat <harsha9519 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Padmanabha Sir,
>                                           Thank you for your wonderful
>  explanation,Almost completely  understood..
> But one thing you say....
>
> /////Duryodhana from the beginning he was bad and could not be changed
> despite teachings by Dhritarashtra his own father, Vidura his uncle,
> Maitreya-a Rishi, Bhishma, Drona, Ashvatthama, and Lord Krishna himself.
> Is this not the sufficient proof?
>
> Sir,
>             My question is , these are prakruthika gunas of dhuryodana
> right?...as said by you yourself...these gunas changes from janma to
> janma....so we cannot call dhuryodana's soul as tamasa athma...
>
> My question is how can we find out a guna of a jeeva is his swarupa guna
> or prakruthika guna? or in other words...how can we say a jeevi is tamasa
> jeevi,sathvika jeevi or tamasa jeevi???
>
> Accept this point, all other points I have completely understood....And I
> thank you again for that....
>
> And another point...I add here again...
>
> That srivathsa has added another messege in that mayavada khanana
> website...where he compares three acharyas (acharya traya)...
>
> Where he says shankara is better than other two acharyas...
>
> It is bit confusing,,,,I am maadhva...for me itself..It make confusion...
> As I don't know history well...I request you ,Please go through that
> messege and ,put CORRECT  light on this part also...
>
> Once again the URL  for that mayavada khandana website is :
>
> https://srimadhvyasa.wordpress.com/acharya-madhwa/mayavada-khandana/
>
> Please go through this website and give us correct knowledge...
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Harsha Bhat
>
>
>
>
>