[Advaita-l] Dvaitha is always supreme

[Daniel Lecomte]

"Dvaitha is always supreme"...
So we can understand such a mistake ;o)
      De : Harsha Bhat via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
 À : A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> 
 Envoyé le : Dimanche 30 août 2015 11h18
 Objet : Re: [Advaita-l] Dvaitha is always supreme
   
PLEASE IGNORE THE ABOVE MESSEGE...

IT CAME TO ADVAITHA LIST BY MISTAKE...



On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Harsha Bhat <harsha9519 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry...
>
>
> 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.
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

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