HinduNet
Forums Chat Annouce Calender DigiCards Recommend Remote Invites
Page 31 of 31 < 1 2 29 30 31
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#70697 - 02/22/08 01:19 PM Re: Common arguments I see against Dvaita in these forums ***** [Re: Abhay Kulkarni]
DurgaDas Offline
initiate
*

Registered: 12/14/05
Posts: 139
Quote:

Atanu,

I just hope you had a bit of logic for debate.. You can never get (or preciesly in this janma?) what DD is making a point.

Abhay.




Abhay-ji,

It is not really a question of logic. Atanu does produce quotations from Mandukya once in a while but his vedanta does not go beyond it. Infact, he cannot think outside of the upanishad.

To be called vedanta, it needs to adhere to vedanta sutras first of all. Advaita vedanta has very little to do with vedanta sutras of badarayana. Infact, all important doctrinal positions of Advaita are knocked over by VS.

Secondly, Sri Krishna in the Gita has hardly taught any advaita, except for bits and pieces quoted out of context.

With both Veda Vyasa and Sri Krishna giving a goodbye to advaita, why should the opinions of mortals like Gaudapada be taken as an authority? Some advaitins say that upanishads have advaita in it, but both vedanta sutras and Gita are for inferior students. With such an attitude, how can any truth be known from veda? Are the modern advaitins better students than Arjuna ( to whom Gita was taught) who was sAxAt indrAvatAra? So even from this angle, advaita vedanta seems to be irrelevant. So to whom should advaita vedanta be taught? To somebody superior to Arjuna - if so, then why is it being taught to the masses? No answer.

Both veda vyasa and Sri Krishna have come to the conclusion that advaita is totally irrelevant to mankind ( even if it be true), therefore there is hardly any gain from following its teachings.

Top
#70698 - 06/01/08 04:07 AM Re: Common arguments I see against Dvaita in these forums [Re: DurgaDas]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
Quote:

Hello Atanu,

Quote:


So, apart from Paramatman and the Jiva, there must be a third knowledge principle which knows both these?





I dont understand your question. What exactly do you mean by this? pAramAtma and jIva are known from vedas, and they are known to be different.






Namaste Durgadas ji,

If Paramtaman and Jiva are known from Vedas, then who is this third knower, different from both paramatama and Jiva?

Moreover, is paramatman a word from Vedas? I do not know.


Quote:

Quote:

Atanu,

I just hope you had a bit of logic for debate.. You can never get (or preciesly in this janma?) what DD is making a point.

Abhay.




Abhay-ji,

It is not really a question of logic. Atanu does produce quotations from Mandukya once in a while but his vedanta does not go beyond it.




So, it must be a question of blind faith? hehe.

The Fourth is thought of as that which is not conscious of the internal world, nor conscious of the external world, nor conscious of both the worlds, nor dense with consciousness, nor simple consciousness, nor unconsciousness, which is unseen, actionless, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable, indescribable, whose proof consists in the identity of the Self (in all states), in which all phenomena come to a cessation, and which is unchanging, auspicious, and non-dual. That is the Self; that is to be known.


That is the Self; that is to be known" (Mandukya).

It is unchanging, it is known as One, all phenomena come to ceasation, it is the Self -- not another one.

Self cannot be another one. It is unchanging, so number of other souls joining it as different entitities is ruled out.

It is Advaita. Number of other souls joining it yet remaining separate entities is ruled out.

It is actionless. So, thoughts of serving it or actual tasks undertaken to serve it are not possible.

It is not conscious of the inner or the outer. So, the consciousness of me and another is impossible.

It not unconsciousness either. So, it is aware of itself without inner or outer perceptions.

It is the Self which is Brahman. So nothing exceeds it.

-----------------------

Why it is so difficult to realise a simple truth that the knowledge of Brahman is not available to individual separate being. And why the simple knowledge of Mandukya Upanishad has to be overlooked?

But if you wish to debate on other scripture, I am open. There is no scripture which does not teach that the highest is samAn and it is the essence of pure knowledge,the illuminator of Pra-gnya, which is the illuminated ghana awareness.


Om

Top
#70699 - 06/04/08 11:59 PM Re: Common arguments I see against Dvaita in these forums [Re: Atanu Banerjee]
winsome Offline
member
**

Registered: 06/06/04
Posts: 213
Loc: USA
Namaste,

Quote:

Namaste Durgadas ji,

If Paramtaman and Jiva are known from Vedas, then who is this third knower, different from both paramatama and Jiva?

Moreover, is paramatman a word from Vedas? I do not know.



ParamAtma is understood by the jIva from the Vedas. Where does the 3rd knower come from?

Quote:

It is unchanging, it is known as One, all phenomena come to ceasation, it is the Self -- not another one.

Self cannot be another one. It is unchanging, so number of other souls joining it as different entitities is ruled out.

It is Advaita. Number of other souls joining it yet remaining separate entities is ruled out.

It is actionless. So, thoughts of serving it or actual tasks undertaken to serve it are not possible.

It is not conscious of the inner or the outer. So, the consciousness of me and another is impossible.

It not unconsciousness either. So, it is aware of itself without inner or outer perceptions.

It is the Self which is Brahman. So nothing exceeds it.





There is no concept of a soul integrating with another soul. The soul is non-different to itself, so no harm in calling it advitiya. Each soul is different from another, each having its identity intact, even in liberation.

If self is Brahman, you are implying Brahman is actionless i.e. incapable of doing anything. We do not worship something that is incapable of action itself. For e.g. a piece of rope is incapable of action by itself. Can you admire it? When the Brahman is bereft of action, it is also incapable of knowing. We cannot even call it the "KNOWER", because the act of knowing itself if prompted by action.

Top
#70700 - 06/12/08 05:39 PM Re: Common arguments I see against Dvaita in these forums [Re: Atanu Banerjee]
DurgaDas Offline
initiate
*

Registered: 12/14/05
Posts: 139

Dear Atanuji,

Quote:


If Paramtaman and Jiva are known from Vedas, then who is this third knower, different from both paramatama and Jiva?





Still dont understand you. Why is a third knower needed? paramAtman knows himself as oaramAtman. jIva knows itself to be sentient jIva from the shruti which is not readily known from pratyaxa where jIva thinks of itself to be the body.

Quote:


Moreover, is paramatman a word from Vedas? I do not know.





Why not? The word Atma almost always stands for paramAtma. It could also mean the manas or the jIva depending on the content. Mundaka upanishad defines the word Atma as the source, supporter and the indweler of all beings which is clearly applicable only to paramAtma.





Quote:


So, it must be a question of blind faith? hehe.

The Fourth is thought of as that which is not conscious of the internal world, nor conscious of the external world, nor conscious of both the worlds, nor dense with consciousness, nor simple consciousness, nor unconsciousness, which is unseen, actionless, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable, indescribable, whose proof consists in the identity of the Self (in all states), in which all phenomena come to a cessation, and which is unchanging, auspicious, and non-dual. That is the Self; that is to be known.





If the fourth is as you describe, ie. actionless, cognitionless etc, it cannot give rise to anything but only rests in itself. How did the world come about Atanu? By chance? Then how is it that you are saying that the fourth you call turIya is not even aware of this world? This is why your translations and beliefs are not based on reason but blind belief. These passages can be interpreted more sensibly as done by Sri Madhvacharya.


Quote:


That is the Self; that is to be known" (Mandukya).





So?? Where did I deny that?

Quote:


It is unchanging, it is known as One, all phenomena come to ceasation, it is the Self -- not another one.





It does not say all the world ceases with the realization of Brahman in which cases advaita vedanta is good only on paper with no teacher or student to teach it as to the true guru there i no world or student or at best the student is a reflection of oneself. The world is said to resolve in Brahman because Brahman destroys in during praLaya.


Quote:


Self cannot be another one. It is unchanging, so number of other souls joining it as different entitities is ruled out.





If Self cannot be another how come you are different from it now Atanu? Who did this? Did Brahman make himself different from itself? Why so? Since you Self is also actionless you cannot explain any phenomena at all, and just hide under the usual mithya, anirvachaniya etc.



Quote:


It is actionless. So, thoughts of serving it or actual tasks undertaken to serve it are not possible.





Then why is Sri Krishna teaching Arjuna to surrender to him? If Self is as you describe who will surrender to whom?

Quote:


It is not conscious of the inner or the outer. So, the consciousness of me and another is impossible.





Very good. So according to you paramAtma whom the vedas call as sarvajna and sarva shaktimAn does not even know about the existance of this world he created!!

Quote:


It not unconsciousness either. So, it is aware of itself without inner or outer perceptions.





That means no internal differences to the extent that Self is not aware of itself as Sri Shankara says.


-----------------------
Quote:



Why it is so difficult to realise a simple truth that the knowledge of Brahman is not available to individual separate being. And why the simple knowledge of Mandukya Upanishad has to be overlooked?





Because if all that existed was only Brahman as you explain then there wont be an Atanu who undergoes countless lives of misery and does sAdhana and gets liberated after millions of births. Advaita cant explain why all these are happening at all. You cannot even say that it is the will of God because your God cant even think and act as it is actionless and has no knowleddge of this world. If Adviata Brahman alone existed then this dukha of samsAra has no cause to exist nor will advaitins like you try to obtain samAdhi and enlightenment. Is brushing all these under the vyavahAra carpet a good explamation at al? Did Sri Krishna ever teach it? Did Sri vyAsa teach it? Then why go against these two greatest teachers and provide an interpretation that goes against them and yet call it vedanta?


Warm Regards,
DD


Top
Page 31 of 31 < 1 2 29 30 31

Moderator:  ashs, bbadmin, satay, Shaivite 
(Views)Popular Topics
VALUE BASED MANAGEMENT 8,363,120
Building A Caring Society 3,694,793
The Dvaita Viewpoint 2,101,476
Instances of Muslim Bigotry 1,779,680
Islamic fanaticism and terror 1,246,314
Need some help with my MBA project 1,152,640
Allegations on Sinha : Who is gunning for whom? 845,173
Christians Converting to Hinduism 786,539
Instances of psuedo-secularism in India 752,664
Death Rituals 533,332




This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2010, Dharma Universe.