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

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

Namaste Sri.Raghava-ji

On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 4:07 AM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula <
raghavkumar00 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>


Just to let you know that what Shankara dealing with here is Vedic dualists
(like Kapila etc) and not vEdAntic dualists dvaita vEdAntins. All your
analysis on Shankara's stand does not hold water for Dvaitins.



> 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.
>


Tatvavaada/dvaitavAda of Madhva also argues based on shAstra and logical
reasoning.  Shankara's position -- dusalist are false just because they do
not base on shAstra -- is indeed on a wrong premise as for as Madhva's
doctrine is considered. Your quoting such Shanakara's passage is quite
wrong argument.



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.)
>
>
>
As I mentioned in my orginal mail that -- according to Dvaitins own
siddhAnta -- just like nava vaidha bhakti one needs to perform, so also
nava vida pApa-s one must avoid. Please note I am not saying such position
is right or wrong here, but simply saying "as per their own siddhAnta" they
are attempting to avoid such pApa-s (in their view) by not getting their
daughters married to a household which may compromise this pApa. If you
disagree they are not pApa, no problem, you may make that argument and that
is a different topic.

As far as most Madhvas listening to songs of an Advaitin, I cannot say
anything as I do not know them in a sense that whether they are loukiAs or
vaidIkas etc. As I said earlier, I do not mind listening to sthOtra-s
praising MahadEva Shiva. It is only a issue if any sthOtras indicating
critical philosophical points such as jIvEsha abhEda etc.


/sv