[Advaita-l] REFERENCES FROM VARIOUS PURANAS, UPANISHADS, SASTRAS WHERE VISHNU, RAMA, KRISHNA DON BHASMA TRIPUNDRA AND VISHNU IS A PARAMA SHIVA BHAKTA

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

> Namaste Srinath ji
>
> The brevity inherent in email may have led you to wrongly conclude that
> there is 'bad-mouthing'.  So let me clarify .  There is no denying that
> Indian-origin dualism ( of Madhva, Ramanuja, Buddha etc.) is closer in
> spirit to Advaita than the non-Indian dualists (Islam etc.).
>
> I was having in mind the verse of gauDapAdAcArya in advaita prakaraNam
> which talks of rAga-dveSha (strong attachments and aversion or hatred) as
> being intrinsic to any dualistic school of philosophy or religion. In the
> commentary, Sri Shankara adds that all dualism is the locus of rAga-dveSha.
>
> स्वसिद्धान्तव्यवस्थासु दृढम् । परस्परं विरुध्यन्ते तैरयं न विरुध्यते ॥ १७
> ॥
>
> The dualists *obstinately cling* to their own conclusions as being the
> truth. So they contradict one another ; whereas the Advaitin finds no
> conflict with them ...because...(As Shankara writes in the commentary -  If
> in the course of physical movements, the hands or feet strike any part of
> the body, the body does not teel irritated as the body knows the limbs to
> be its own integral parts. Similarly the non-dualist, on account of his
> knowledge of identity with all created beings and thoughts, does not feel
> angered at the hostility of his opponents, as he knows his *so-called
> opponents to be his own Self*. )
> On a different note, the positive thing is that there is negligible
> animosity between Indian dualists (both Vedic and non-Vedic) of various
> persuasions since historical times (thanks largely to the dominance of
> Advaitic ideas at the social and cultural level in Indian society?). This
> has not been the case with non-Indian dualists where there has been a lot
> of religiously-motivated violence like jihads and crusades.
>
> Shankara's commentary to the above kArikA mentions *both* types of
> dualists viz., Vedic dualists (like Kapila etc) and non-Vedic dualists (the
> Buddhist and Jain doctrines) in the same breath.
>
> शास्त्रोपपत्तिभ्यामवधारितत्वादद्वयात्मदर्शनं सम्यग्दर्शनम् ,
> तद्बाह्यत्वान्मिथ्यादर्शनमन्यत् ।
>
> (Advaita is in keeping with shAstra and also logical reasoning, so the
> other doctrines contradict them and are incorrect. )
>
>  इतश्च मिथ्यादर्शनं द्वैतिनां रागद्वेषादिदोषास्पदत्वात् । कथम् ?
> स्वसिद्धान्तव्यवस्थासु स्वसिद्धान्तरचनानियमेषु
> कपिलकणादबुद्धार्हतादिदृष्ट्यनुसारिणो द्वैतिनो निश्चिताः, एवमेवैष परमार्थो
> नान्यथेति, तत्र तत्रानुरक्ताः प्रतिपक्षं चात्मनः पश्यन्तस्तं द्विषन्त
> इत्येवं रागद्वेषोपेताः स्वसिद्धान्तदर्शननिमित्तमेव परस्परम् अन्योन्यं
> विरुध्यन्ते । तैरन्योन्यविरोधिभिरस्मदीयोऽयं वैदिकः
> सर्वानन्यत्वादात्मैकत्वदर्शनपक्षो न विरुध्यते, यथा स्वहस्तपादादिभिः । एवं
> रागद्वेषादिदोषानास्पदत्वादात्मैकत्वबुद्धिरेव सम्यग्दर्शनमित्यभिप्रायः
>
> Sankara’s Commentary
>
> The knowledge of the non-dual Self is established by both Scriptures and
> reasoning. Therefore, it is alone the perfect knowledge. Other views, on
> account of their being devoid of the bases of Scriptures and reasoning,
> lead to false systems. The views of the dualists are false on account of
> one additional reason, that they (dualistic views) are the fruitful sources
> of the vices of attachment and hatred, etc. How is this ? The dualists
> following the views of Kapila, Kanada, Buddha and Jina, etc., hold firmly
> to the conclusions as outlined and formulated by their respective
> schools. They think that the view they hold is alone the ultimate
> Reality, whereas other views are not so. (And why does not this same
> criticism not apply to Advaita as well...thats explained further on)
> ...Therefore the dualists become attached to their own views and hate
> others whom they consider to be opposed to them. Thus being overcome with
> attachment and hatred, they contradict one another, the reason being, the
> adherence to their own convictions as the only truth. But our view, viz.,
> the unity of Atman, based upon the *identity of all*, supported by the
> Vedas, does not conflict with others who find contradictions among
> themselves, — as one’s limbs such as hands, feet, etc., do not conflict
> with one another. Hence the purport of the Sruti is the knowledge of the
> Oneness of Atman, as it is free from the blemish of attachment and
> aversion, is the true knowledge. ( i.e., Shruti would never teach something
> that fosters rAga-dveShas).
>
> This Karika proves the rightness of the Advaita knowledge over other views
> as it does not contradict the Scriptural statements regarding creation and
> exercises ( Upasana ), and also because *Advaita does not clash with other
> theories*. Advaita alone harmonises all other doctrines and theories. It
> alone gives the rationale of other
> relative views regarding Truth. ( While the dualists take the relative
> truth to be the ultimate view of Reality. )
>
> (End of Shankara's commentary/notes)
>
>
> If in the course of physical movements, the hands or feet strike any part
> of the body, the body does not teel irritated as the body knows the limbs
> to be its own integral parts. Similarly the non-dualist, on account of his
> knowledge of identity with all created beings and thoughts, does not feel
> angered at the hostility of his opponents, as he knows his so-called
> opponents to be his own self. The Knower of Brahman realises the entire
> world as a projection of the One Self. The thoughts are also identical with
> Brahman as the various dream-objects are identical with the mind.
>
> Therefore the theories of others are not in conflict with non-duality
> because they are also identical with Brahman. (Comp, the Scriptural
> passage, “All this is verily
> Brahman.” )
>
>
> On another note ...
> Most Madhvas are liberal by and large (in my experience) and do not regard
> listening to the gentle songs of an Advaitin like Sri Sadashiva Brahmendra
> as a 'sin' or any such thing. I have been lucky to have never met very
> orthodox or doctrinaire Madhvas who regard singing or listening to a
> composition of a great GYAnI like Sri Sadashiva Brahmendra as a 'sin'.
> (Frankly I feel sad to see such Indian dualistic fanaticism which
> inevitably reminded me of the non-Indian dualism.)
> Or, as you said, the more extreme Madhvas may regard listening to a
> discourse on Advaita by a teacher of the truth of non-duality as a 'sin'.
> (I was happy to see that you don't seem to personally endorse such extreme
> views.)
>
> Om
>
>
> On Mon 21 Jan, 2019, 6:22 AM Srinath Vedagarbha <svedagarbha at gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Namaste Sri.Raghavaji,
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 12:08 AM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And so advaitic members on this list seem to labour this point and assert
>>> that this jagatkAraNam which is a cetana-tattvaM can be invoked in an
>>> altar
>>> in the form of a lingam as much as a shAlagrAmam.  Veda and Agama endorse
>>> worship of jagatkAraNam with bilva leaves too. (Is it just me or do most
>>> people feel  that...it is despairing to see Indian dualists even in the
>>> 21st century (with so much information about other world nations and
>>> traditions known to all), continue to argue with Non-dualists that
>>> worship
>>> of the Creator in a particular way with Ocimum sanctum leaves is right
>>> while worship of jagatkAraNam with Aegle marmelos leaves is a sin.)
>>>
>>>
>> Probably I was not explicit in my earlier posting. Dvaitins are not
>> against worshiping Shiva/Rudra. In fact, dvaitins do worship. There are ton
>> of haridaasa kirthan-s on Mahadeva.
>>
>> I am not against you worshiping Shiva with bilwa patra-s. As per vEdic
>> pramANa, we do accept 'sarva dEva namaskaaraH kEShavaM pratigachchati' . It
>> is a fact that your pUja reaches Keshava with or without you aware of it.
>> There is no prayOjana in being ill-mouth on us and equating duelists with
>> Christians/Muslims.
>>
>> Peace.
>>
>> /sv
>>
>>
>>
>>
>