[Advaita-l] Dvaitha is always supreme

Harsha Bhat harsha9519 at gmail.com
Sun Aug 30 04:16:53 CDT 2015


This messege came to advaitha list by mistake...

So please ignore.....

On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Harsha Bhat <harsha9519 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>> 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.
>> 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

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list