Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Ramanuja: Madhva :: Aristotle:Newton ? That is an extraordinary equation...

---

It is an understandable simile.

Shankara has not 'upheld' (in the normal sense of that word) anybody's sarvottamatva anywhere. If the context has Vishnu, he will praise Vishnu as sarvottama. If Shiva is there, he will fit Shiva.

Shankara denies the validity of pAshupata mata not because of their idea of Shiva's supremacy but due to the fact of their holding that Ishvara is only the nimittakAraNa. It has nothing to do with the considerations of the Supreme in pAshupata school.

And if you see Shankara's reasoning there, you will find that he just didn't think one step further and explore the possibility of jiivas having an anAdi svabhAva, though the Lord mentions it in his gItA. There is also a bhRgu-bharadvaaja samvAda in the mahAbhArata where it is mentioned that there are three types of jIvas.

Anyway, till you mention Ramanuja's explanation of Vishnu-sarvottamatva, rather his explanation of the word nArAyaNa which establishes the idea beyond doubt, as you claimed earlier, there is no point in my replying to your posts. And as such I suspect that you will escape from it, the way you did from the simple test of Vishishhtaadvaita I gave on the dvaita forum.

Bye,
Krishna

---

Quote:

---

Appayya's efforts in the other direction, i.e., to attempt a thesis that Shiva is the primary referrent of all words including nArAyaNa, were abandoned because the 'Na'kAra and not 'na'kAra poses a problem because the usage of the former indicates a particular person, while the latter can be a common person (which is needed to make the word refer to any person with those qualities). To give an example, a word 'shiva' can refer to any thing or person who is / bestows auspiciousness. Now, apparently if 'NakAra' is used instead of 'nakAra' (where the name possesses such a thing), the referrent of that word is one particular person, which in this case is Lord Narayana.

---

I think you have not read Sri Bhasya of Ramanuja and instead referring his other lesser works, note that Ramanuja wrote three different commentaries for BS. Sri Bhasya is the authoritative. Here he comprehensively proves Narayana can refer only to one patricular person. How can you make the claim that that this was Madhva's logic? I dont have a copy of Sri Bhasya at the moment and will provide the verses as soon as I can procure a copy of it from the library.

Rmanuja's proof is the first and the most authoritiative in establishing the supremacy of Vishnu. I will definitely provide the proof for you, I am not running away anywhere.

You must refer to Desika's works(rahasyathrayasara for eg) where he has openly accused Madhva of decpetion in interpreting many sutras. Desika says Madhva invented new shrutis and fabricated many smritis. I think you dvaitins simply ignore these works. And claim you have refuted V.A.

Who is to judge all this? Dvaitins have never defeated Desika in debate and still you keep claiming you had refuted V.A, I do not understand this at all. If Akshobya defeated Vidhyaranya, why he did not confront Desika? Why are you dvaitins always avoiding this question?

--------------------
Jai Shri Ram. Jai Shri Hanuman.

Post Extras