Antaryami Vishnu & anya devatas.

Discussion:

krishna koundinya

2010-11-06 07:14:10 UTC

Pranam to All,
I recently joined the forum and found the
discussions to be full of content. I 21 years old and am a novice in
spiritual matters.I have some questions to ask to which I am sure to
get good answers by the scholars here and I ask some of these from the
dvaitin point of view.

1) It is said that Lord Hari is Sarvottama ( which he is for sure) &
he is the antaryami ( as

saint Annamacharya also eulogizes in his keertanas) and is also the
antaryami for anya

devatas( like brahma, shiva etc). Dvaitins explain that whenever he
prays to other devatas (

as in when Lord Sri Krishna prayed to Lord Shiva by taking Shiva
deeksha from sage upamanyu or

Lord Sri Ram prays to Lord Shiva) he actually prays to ANTARYAMI of
that anya devata which is

the lord himself, so taratamya is not viiolated. Are there any shastra
pramanas for this ( for

or against). please quote from vedas or only the " sattvic Puranas".
I hope you understand

why I insist on " sattvic puranas".

2) I read in some Madhva forums that the Lord keeps the rajasic and
tamasic souls ( I dont

understand how soul has gunas) in delusion, and only sattvic souls are
eligible for moksha.

Are there any shaastra pramanas stating this condition..( Bhagavvam
Ramana Maharishi says that

everyone is eligible for moksha )..Also does the atman has form??

3) In the debate between Sri Vidyaranya swamy & akshobhya muni,
Vidyaranya swamy could not defend the position of the mahavakya" Tat
Twam Asi" and Sri Vedanta Desikar pronounded akshobhya muni as the
winner by saying "Asina tatvamasina parajiva prabhodina Vidyaranya
maharanyam Aksobhyamuni raccinath". Why did this happen and how should
we understand this?

Thank you.
Krishna.

V Subrahmanian

2010-11-06 10:22:22 UTC

Permalink

Welcome Krishna to this forum.

Regarding your last question about the debate between Swami Vidyaranya and
Sri Akshobhya Tirtha, here is a fine resource:

A Kannada book titled 'Akshobhya Vijaya Vibhrama' (The delusion regarding
Akshobhya's victory) authored by Sri G.R.Patil (Retd. Director of Public
Instruction, Dharwad, Karnataka) addresses this 'debate' and after a very
detailed analysis of a number documents and several Madhva books
establishes that such a debtate did not take place at all. I recently
finished reading this very interesting book. It has some 35 chapters and
very well documented. Spanning over 350 pages in good print, the book makes
an incisive analysis of the subject. In the process it brings out many
inconsistencies within the Madhva tradition about the event and the details
thereof. Several noted Madhva scholars are differing over the dates that
are crucial to the determination of the event. The author has documented
Vishistadvaita evidences also in this regard.

Above all, it is a very 'decent' book and does not contain unsavoury remarks
or uprintable language against Madhvas. The author treats every Madhva
Acharya with utmost respect, something that is missing in Madhva's reference
to Shankara (sankara).

The Publisher: Brahma Vidya Prakashana, Shri Shankaracharya Sanskrit
Pathashala, Gandhi Chowk, Dharwad. Year: 2005. Rs. 150. In the title page
is contained this info. about the book:

'Akshobhya Vijaya Vibhrama' A research work negating the so-called
disputation that took place between Akshyobhya Teertha and Vidyaranya in
14th Century. It is an evaluation of the articles of many ancient and moder
writers.

Pranams.
subrahmanian.v

Post by krishna koundinya
Pranam to All,
3) In the debate between Sri Vidyaranya swamy & akshobhya muni,
Vidyaranya swamy could not defend the position of the mahavakya" Tat
Twam Asi" and Sri Vedanta Desikar pronounded akshobhya muni as the
winner by saying "Asina tatvamasina parajiva prabhodina Vidyaranya
maharanyam Aksobhyamuni raccinath". Why did this happen and how should
we understand this?
Thank you.
Krishna.
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

Sunil Bhattacharjya

2010-11-06 16:04:56 UTC

Permalink

Dear friends,

1)
Devakiputra is so pure that he could see that what is in him in everybody. This upanishadic statement means that he could identify himself with everything. In Bhagavad Gita also the Lord conveys this message.. Keeping with the ways of the world he did pray to Lord Shiva though he also realized that he is no different from Lord Shiva. You may be finding this a bit complicated, isn't it?
2)
Please read the Bhagavad Gita. No shorter cut than the Bhagavad gita as any shorter cut may be misunderstood. Through the development of Sattvic guna alone one can see the reality and in the advaitic sense one see through the veil of Maya, ie. one can overcome the delusions.
3)
When one can find that in the Bhagavad Gitopanishad is there any need for a debate. Some people may get confused by reading all the shastras like Arjuna was. Please read the Bhagavad Gita bhashya by Adi sankaracharya or Shridhara swami or both.

Best wishes,

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

--- On Sat, 11/6/10, krishna koundinya <cosmonautkk-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

From: krishna koundinya <cosmonautkk-***@public.gmane.org>
Subject: [Advaita-l] Antaryami Vishnu & anya devatas.
To: advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+***@public.gmane.org
Date: Saturday, November 6, 2010, 12:14 AM

Pranam to All,
I recently joined the forum and found the
discussions to be full of content. I 21 years old and am a novice in
spiritual matters.I have some questions to ask to which I am sure to
get good answers by the scholars here and I ask some of these from the
dvaitin point of view.

1) It is said that Lord Hari is Sarvottama ( which he is for sure) &
he is the antaryami ( as

saint Annamacharya also eulogizes in his keertanas) and is also the
antaryami for anya

devatas( like brahma, shiva etc). Dvaitins explain that whenever he
prays to other devatas (

as in when Lord Sri Krishna prayed to Lord Shiva by taking Shiva
deeksha from sage upamanyu or

Lord Sri Ram prays to Lord Shiva) he actually prays to ANTARYAMI of
that anya devata which is

the lord himself, so taratamya is not viiolated. Are there any shastra
pramanas for this ( for

or against). please quote from vedas or only the " sattvic Puranas".
I hope you understand

why I insist on " sattvic puranas".

2) I read in some Madhva forums that the Lord keeps the rajasic and
tamasic souls ( I dont

understand how soul has gunas) in delusion, and only sattvic souls are
eligible for moksha.

Are there any shaastra pramanas stating this condition..( Bhagavvam
Ramana Maharishi says that

everyone is eligible for moksha )..Also does the atman has form??

3) In the debate between Sri Vidyaranya swamy & akshobhya muni,
Vidyaranya swamy could not defend the position of the mahavakya" Tat
Twam Asi" and Sri Vedanta Desikar pronounded akshobhya muni as the
winner by saying "Asina tatvamasina parajiva prabhodina Vidyaranya
maharanyam Aksobhyamuni raccinath". Why did this happen and how should
we understand this?

Thank you.
Krishna.
_______________________________________________
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-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org

V Subrahmanian

2010-11-07 07:24:17 UTC

Permalink

Post by krishna koundinya
Pranam to All,
I recently joined the forum and found the
discussions to be full of content. I 21 years old and am a novice in
spiritual matters.I have some questions to ask to which I am sure to
get good answers by the scholars here and I ask some of these from the
dvaitin point of view.
1) It is said that Lord Hari is Sarvottama ( which he is for sure) &
he is the antaryami ( as
saint Annamacharya also eulogizes in his keertanas) and is also the
antaryami for anya
devatas( like brahma, shiva etc). Dvaitins explain that whenever he
prays to other devatas (
as in when Lord Sri Krishna prayed to Lord Shiva by taking Shiva
deeksha from sage upamanyu or
Lord Sri Ram prays to Lord Shiva) he actually prays to ANTARYAMI of
that anya devata which is
the lord himself, so taratamya is not viiolated. Are there any shastra
pramanas for this ( for
or against). please quote from vedas or only the " sattvic Puranas".
I hope you understand
why I insist on " sattvic puranas".

Without going into the taratamya, let us look at the issue this way:

One Brahman alone appears as all beings, whether devatAs or jivas. And that
Brahman is the AntaryAmi of all these beings. Whenever a jiva prays to any
devatA, it is this antaryAmi that is in this jiva too that is propitiated.
AkAshAt patitam toyam yathA gacChati sAgaram. Sarvadeva namaskAraH keshavam
pratigacchati. So, when Keshava incarnates as Rama, Krishna, etc. and in
that avatara prays to Shiva, etc. it is this one antaryAmi that is
addressed. The phaladAtaa is this one antaryAmi alone. This is not
unadvaitic. To consider the other devatAs as different from Brahman is the
fundmental mistake. It is one Brahman alone that appears with different
upAdhis as different beings, both devatas and jivas in this mAyA prapancha,
a creation that requires jivas and devata-s for its sustenance. When the
upadhis are disregarded, what we have is one Brahman.

There is no finality regarding what constitute saattvika and what taamasika
purANas. In the skanda purANa there is a mention thus:

dasha shaivapurANAni saattvikAni vidurbudhAH . vaiShNavAni ca chatvAri
tAmasAni munIshvaraaH. [ the ten shaivapurANas are sAttvika. The four
vaiShNava puraaNas are tAmasika. ]

I found this quotation in a book titled 'gunjAgarvabhanjanam' (sanskrit).
This book also says that there is no pramANa for the three types among
jiva-s.

The typeification found in the Gita 14th chapter or 17th chapter is only
based on gunas. GuNas belong to prakRti. They are only upAdhis for Atma.
Atma is nirguNam. To separate the guNas from the Self is called Atma-anAtma
viveka. This is what is called sadhana. The success attained in this
process is called moksha.

Post by krishna koundinya
2) I read in some Madhva forums that the Lord keeps the rajasic and
tamasic souls ( I dont
understand how soul has gunas) in delusion, and only sattvic souls are
eligible for moksha.
Are there any shaastra pramanas stating this condition..( Bhagavvam
Ramana Maharishi says that
everyone is eligible for moksha )..Also does the atman has form??

Any jiva can attain moksha only when the effort is forthcoming from that
jiva for coming out of ignorance. The Kathopanishat says: utthiShThata,
jAgrata, prApya varAn nibodhata. Arise, awake, approach the Knowers of
Truth and get enlightened. So, if this effort is not coming forth from any
jiva, that jiva has to remain in ignorance. The effort to get released is
what is called saattvic. The Lord does not 'keep' anyone in delusion; the
jiva-s themselves choose to remain so. If we want to admit the Lord's
instrumentality in this, it is only to mean thus: Depending upon the way
the jiva conducts himself, the Lord places him in that situation. There is
a shruti: Whomever the Lord wants to bring up, He makes that jiva do good
acts. Whomever He wants to put down, He makes that jiva do evil acts. This
shruti does not mean that the Lord is partial. It only means that the
jiva's karma and tendency decides what he does. The Lord is only an
overseer of all this.

Bhagavan Ramana's saying is subject to the jiva putting for the necessary
effort. He himself has said this also. If the jiva refuses to get released
from bondage, even the Lord cannot do anything.

Atman has no form. It is nitya, nirvikAri, sarvagataH. That which is
infinite, all-pervading cannot have any form. Any form will limit the
Atman. This is against the scriptural teaching.

Om Tat Sat
subrahmanian.v

Sunil Bhattacharjya

2010-11-07 17:19:05 UTC

Permalink

Dear Subrmanianji,

When it is said "Sarvam khalvidam Brahma" nobody, not even the Dvaitins, can say that anybody is left out of the "sarvam". The only thing is that the Dvaitins are imagining to keep themselves out of Brahman, because of their ego, which they want to nourish and do not want to see that abandoned.

Regards,

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

--- On Sun, 11/7/10, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

From: V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian-***@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Antaryami Vishnu & anya devatas.
To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+***@public.gmane.orgta.org>
Date: Sunday, November 7, 2010, 12:24 AM

krishna koundinya

2010-11-08 06:23:17 UTC

Permalink

Pranam to everyone.
Thank you for all your beautiful answers
on the topic.

Sri Subrahmanian ji,
thank you for the information about the book.
1) But as a reply we see that a book written by "Sri Raghuvijaya
Tirtharu" named "Sri Akshobhya Vijaya Vaibhava", wherein he has
answered the critics of Sri Akshobhya Tirtharu. This is the Khandana
grantha for the advaitha grantha which had tried to condemn Akshobhya
Tirtharu. The book contains 175 pages, with detailed analysis as to
how the vagvaada took place, and who were all the witness for the
vagvaada, with facts and figures. Atleast they claim so.
I did not read either of the books so I am ignorant of the topic..

2) This episode is said to be seen in the book named “Vedantadeshika
Vaibhava prakashika” written by Doddayyacharya wherein it is claimed
that this actually took place.

3) Also there is an article in Mysore Archeological Survey Department
published in 1886 which claims that At Mulbagil in inscription in
Grantha characters on a boulder was brought to notice which appears to
record the fact of a refutation of Vidyaranya by Akshobhya Tirtha, in
some public dsputation. But the inscription has been lately purposely
destroyed, so that a few letters remain visible. The above account of
its contents is given by pesons who saw it before it was damaged and
who had made a copy of it.
Please enlighten me on these topics.

4) quoting from your words

"Atman has no form. It is nitya, nirvikAri, sarvagataH. That which is
infinite, all-pervading cannot have any form. Any form will limit the
Atman".

I am a smartha brahmin & I think I understand some of the basic tenets
of advaita tradition. I am looking for strong vedic pramanas that
explicitly state these that " Atman has no form or gunas". Are there
any verses in the Vedas that state this directly ( without depending
on inferences).??

5) With my very limited knowledge I was talking to some Madhva
followers, they told me that " NIrguna"="Nir" + Guna", which does not
mean that without attributes or gunas, but it is something beyond
comprehension but attributes do stay. It could have been stated as
"Aguna" instead of nirguna.Now I am not good in sanskrit so I am at a
loss.

Now I want to know is there a difference between "nirguna" & "aguna".
If so what is it?? and does nirguna actually means without attributes.
or is there anything else? like for eg" Nirvikara or Nirvikalpa etc.

6) I was also told that as an answer to Sri Madhusudana Saraswati
swamy's "Advaita Siddhi" , Sripad Ramachandra Tirtha wrote "Tarangini"
which refuted all the arguments in "Advaita Siddhi". I also heard of
"advaita tatva sudha" but they maintain that it is not up to the
standards or it is not a good refutation with some loop holes etc. How
should we understand this?

7) I found that Yoga Vashistha is being refuted while it is full of
advaitic content.
http://chiraan.wordpress.com/2009/10/12/refutation-of-yoga-vashishtha-sara/
How should we take this ??

Thank you
krishna

Jaldhar H. Vyas

2010-11-08 07:48:06 UTC

Permalink

Post by krishna koundinya
"Atman has no form. It is nitya, nirvikAri, sarvagataH. That which is
infinite, all-pervading cannot have any form. Any form will limit the
Atman".
I am a smartha brahmin & I think I understand some of the basic tenets
of advaita tradition. I am looking for strong vedic pramanas that
explicitly state these that " Atman has no form or gunas". Are there
any verses in the Vedas that state this directly ( without depending
on inferences).??

See brhadaranyakopanishad 3.8.8 for instance:

sa hovAcha etadvai tadakSharaM gArgi brAhmaNA abhivadanti asthUlam
anaNvahrasvamadIrghamalohitamasnehamachchhAyamatamo.avAyvanAkAshamasa~ngam
arasamagandhamachakShuShkamashrotramavAgamano.atejaskamaprANamamukhamamAtram
anantaramabAhyam na tadashnAti kiMchana na tadashnAti kashchana ||

"He[1] said it is this Imperishable[2] oh Gargi the knowers of Brahman is
that[3]. It is not large not small not short not long[4] not red-brown
colored[5], not oily, not shadowy, not dark, not air, not akasha[6], not
attached, without taste, without odor, without eyes, without ears, without
speech, without mind[7], not lustrous[8], without breath, without voice,
without measure, without interior, without exterior. It does not eat
anything and it is not eaten by anything."

[1] Maharshi Yajnavalkya speaking to Gargi Vachaknavi.

[2] Brahman which is akshara or imperishable or unchangable.

[3] Gargi had asked what is that pervades heaven and earth, above heaven
and below earth.

[4] This four-fold negation of dimension shows that brahmana is not a
dravya (substance.)

[5] Lohita. Shankaracharya notes that this is a guna (quality) of fire.
This shows that Brahman is not a quality. dravya and guna are the two
major concepts in vaisheshika darshan and classical Indian science.

[6] Previously Yajnavalkya had told Gargi that the akasha (ether) pervades
the heaven and earth. Brahman pervades even the ether.

[7] from without taste... to here are attributes of the senses so Brahman
is shown to be beyond the comprehension of the senses.

[8] tejas can also mean power or heat.

Post by krishna koundinya
5) With my very limited knowledge I was talking to some Madhva
followers, they told me that " NIrguna"="Nir" + Guna",

To be grammatically correct, nis + guna

Post by krishna koundinya
which does not mean that without attributes or gunas, but it is
something beyond comprehension but attributes do stay. It could have
been stated as "Aguna" instead of nirguna.Now I am not good in sanskrit
so I am at a loss.

If it is beyond comprehension then how do they know the gunas do stay?
Isn't incomprehensibility exactly the argument the author of the blog you
quote makes against Advaita Vedanta?

Post by krishna koundinya
Now I want to know is there a difference between "nirguna" & "aguna".

Not really but they seem to be making the argument that there is a
difference between not knowing the gunas and emphatically stating there
are no gunas.

Post by krishna koundinya
If so what is it?? and does nirguna actually means without attributes.

Yes. See shruti above.

Post by krishna koundinya
6) I was also told that as an answer to Sri Madhusudana Saraswati
swamy's "Advaita Siddhi" , Sripad Ramachandra Tirtha wrote "Tarangini"
which refuted all the arguments in "Advaita Siddhi". I also heard of
"advaita tatva sudha" but they maintain that it is not up to the
standards or it is not a good refutation with some loop holes etc. How
should we understand this?

we should read it ourselves and draw our own conclusions.

Post by krishna koundinya
7) I found that Yoga Vashistha is being refuted while it is full of
advaitic content.
http://chiraan.wordpress.com/2009/10/12/refutation-of-yoga-vashishtha-sara/
How should we take this ??

The author of that blog seems to have a problem with the idea that unreal
causes can have real effects. And he does not understand that jnana in
Advaita Vedanta is not just a greater quantity of knowledge but a shift in
scale of what constitutes knowledge. Understanding these concepts
resolves what seems like paradox at first glance.

--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar-***@public.gmane.org>

Venkatesh Murthy

2010-11-08 12:39:18 UTC

Permalink

One more joke I heard talking to a pious Madhva lady. Vadiraja
defeated Appaiah Deekshita in debate. I smiled but not laugh because
she is my mother's friend.

Joke Prediction - In 2110 Madhvas will show evidence Sri Vidyasankara
Sri V Subrahmanian and Sri Jaldhar Vyas were defeated in debate by
Madhva list members N.A.P.S. Rao and Shrisha Rao. The referee was
Sadagopan. He gave verdict to say Madhvas won.

Regards

-Venkatesh

On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 11:53 AM, krishna koundinya

Post by krishna koundinya
Pranam to everyone.
Thank you for all your beautiful answers
on the topic.
Sri Subrahmanian ji,
thank you for the information about the book.
1) But as a reply we see that a book written by "Sri Raghuvijaya
Tirtharu" named "Sri Akshobhya Vijaya Vaibhava", wherein he has
answered the critics of Sri Akshobhya Tirtharu. This is the Khandana
grantha for the advaitha grantha which had tried to condemn Akshobhya
Tirtharu. The book contains 175 pages, with detailed analysis as to
how the vagvaada took place, and who were all the witness for the
vagvaada, with facts and figures. Atleast they claim so.
I did not read either of the books so I am ignorant of the topic..
2) This episode is said to be seen in the book named “Vedantadeshika
Vaibhava prakashika” written by Doddayyacharya wherein it is claimed
that this actually took place.
3) Also there is an article in Mysore Archeological Survey Department
published in 1886 which claims that At Mulbagil in inscription in
Grantha characters on a boulder was brought to notice which appears to
record the fact of a refutation of Vidyaranya by Akshobhya Tirtha, in
some public dsputation. But the inscription has been lately purposely
destroyed, so that a few letters remain visible. The above account of
its contents is given by pesons who saw it before it was damaged and
who had made a copy of it.
Please enlighten me on these topics.
4) quoting from your words
"Atman has no form. It is nitya, nirvikAri, sarvagataH. That which is
infinite, all-pervading cannot have any form. Any form will limit the
Atman".
I am a smartha brahmin & I think I understand some of the basic tenets
of advaita tradition. I am looking for strong vedic pramanas that
explicitly state these that " Atman has no form or gunas". Are there
any verses in the Vedas that state this directly ( without depending
on inferences).??
5) With my very limited knowledge I was talking to some Madhva
followers, they told me that " NIrguna"="Nir" + Guna", which does not
mean that without attributes or gunas, but it is something beyond
comprehension but attributes do stay. It could have been stated as
"Aguna" instead of nirguna.Now I am not good in sanskrit so I am at a
loss.
Now I want to know is there a difference between "nirguna" & "aguna".
If so what is it?? and does nirguna actually means without attributes.
or is there anything else? like for eg" Nirvikara or Nirvikalpa etc.
6) I was also told that as an answer to Sri Madhusudana Saraswati
swamy's "Advaita Siddhi" , Sripad Ramachandra Tirtha wrote "Tarangini"
which refuted all the arguments in "Advaita Siddhi". I also heard of
"advaita tatva sudha" but they maintain that it is not up to the
standards or it is not a good refutation with some loop holes etc. How
should we understand this?
7) I found that Yoga Vashistha is being refuted while it is full of
advaitic content.
http://chiraan.wordpress.com/2009/10/12/refutation-of-yoga-vashishtha-sara/
How should we take this ??
Thank you
krishna
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

Jaldhar H. Vyas

2010-11-09 02:35:38 UTC

Permalink

Post by Venkatesh Murthy
Joke Prediction - In 2110 Madhvas will show evidence Sri Vidyasankara
Sri V Subrahmanian and Sri Jaldhar Vyas were defeated in debate by
Madhva list members N.A.P.S. Rao and Shrisha Rao. The referee was
Sadagopan. He gave verdict to say Madhvas won.

While I'm sure you meant this humorously, I found your "joke" to be in
very bad taste. Quite a few readers of this list are not Advaitins but
they read out of a genuine desire to learn what Advaita Vedanta teaches.
This kind of thing does nothing to show them the splendor of our
sampradaya and in fact puts it in a bad light even amongst those who
might be sympathetic to it. Is that what you want?

--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar-***@public.gmane.org>

V Subrahmanian

2010-11-08 17:39:41 UTC

Permalink

The book I mentioned has taken into account a book titled 'Akshobhya Teertha
Charitre' by Sri Raghuvira Tirtha Swamin. I do not know if the book referred
by you above is the same. The author Sri G.R.Patil says that the above book
could have been published between 1956 and 1959 ( the copy this author got
does not have the cover pages). He has devoted over 20 pages on the above
book.

Post by krishna koundinya
2) This episode is said to be seen in the book named “Vedantadeshika
Vaibhava prakashika” written by Doddayyacharya wherein it is claimed
that this actually took place.

The above is also considered in the book by Sri Patil.

Post by krishna koundinya
3) Also there is an article in Mysore Archeological Survey Department
published in 1886 which claims that At Mulbagil in inscription in
Grantha characters on a boulder was brought to notice which appears to
record the fact of a refutation of Vidyaranya by Akshobhya Tirtha, in
some public dsputation. But the inscription has been lately purposely
destroyed, so that a few letters remain visible. The above account of
its contents is given by pesons who saw it before it was damaged and
who had made a copy of it. Please enlighten me on these topics.

These 'evidences' have been analyzed in very great detail in this book.
Since I heard that the author himself is bringing out an English translation
of the book, I do not wish to spend time in giving large details of the
Kannada book myself; also I have some other things on hand to write about.
It is best to buy a copy and read.

Post by krishna koundinya
4) quoting from your words
"Atman has no form. It is nitya, nirvikAri, sarvagataH. That which is
infinite, all-pervading cannot have any form. Any form will limit the
Atman".
I am a smartha brahmin & I think I understand some of the basic tenets
of advaita tradition. I am looking for strong vedic pramanas that
explicitly state these that " Atman has no form or gunas". Are there
any verses in the Vedas that state this directly ( without depending
on inferences).??

In Advaita, anything that has guNas, attributes, has to be something
created. That which is not created, Brahman/Atman, cannot have guNas. So
with form. That Brahman can assume various forms thru the agency of Maya
for specific purposes is acceptable to and not disputed by Advaitins. Any
'strong' pramana is bound to be disputed by others on grounds they think are
strong(er). So, there will be no end to this debate. It is better to
refrain from arguing these matters with schools that oppose Advaita.

Post by krishna koundinya
5) With my very limited knowledge I was talking to some Madhva
followers, they told me that " NIrguna"="Nir" + Guna", which does not
mean that without attributes or gunas, but it is something beyond
comprehension but attributes do stay. It could have been stated as
"Aguna" instead of nirguna.Now I am not good in sanskrit so I am at a
loss.
Now I want to know is there a difference between "nirguna" & "aguna".
If so what is it?? and does nirguna actually means without attributes.
or is there anything else? like for eg" Nirvikara or Nirvikalpa etc.

Here, as a sample, is given passages from the Madhva school for two words
from the Bhagavad gita:

'बाह्यस्पर्शेष्व*सक्तात्मा*' इत्यस्यार्थः काम*रहित* इति। 5.21
For the word 'asaktAtmA' Sri Jayatirtha comments: kAma-rahitaH (one who is
devoid of desire/infatuation/longing, etc.)

For the words 'nirahankAraH, nirmamaH' of the Gita, Sri Madhva comments:
भक्षयामीत्यहङ्कारममकारवर्जितश्च 2.71

'ahankAra-mamakAra-varjitaH' (who is devoid of ahankara (egoism) and
mamakara (ownership or feeling of 'this is mine')

परमात्मलाभेन निराशीराशा*रहित *इत्युक्तं भवति। 3.30
For the word 'nirAshIH' of the Gita, Sri Jayatirtha comments: AshArahitaH
(devoid of desire/longing, etc)

So, you can see there is not any difference between the prefix 'a' and 'niH'
according to Sri Jayatirtha, in the examples shown above.

Even today, Dvaita Mutts and other institutions invite Advaita scholars who
have specialized in Advaita siddhi and hold discussions regularly once or
twice a year. These scholars are honoured, with titles even. That shows
that they have the feeling that Advaita Siddhi holds a lot of things that
are not clear for them to this day. This, despite stalwarts in their school
having written a lot against Advaita (Siddhi) over the centuries.

If you have the necessary depth of knowledge of Advaita and the time and
inclination, you can refute what he has written. But the best thing to do
would be to ignore it. One can see how poor is that blogger's understanding
of Advaita.

Regards,
subrahmanian.v
_______________________________________________
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:

Continue reading on narkive:

Search results for 'Antaryami Vishnu & anya devatas.' (Questions and Answers)

replies

Vaishnavites: Why "prapanars" worship Sriman Narayana alone and none else?

started 2011-11-05 21:21:27 UTC

religion & spirituality