Is Madhva's Dvaita Vedanta consistent with classical Hindu thought, and is it valid?

[Spirit_Warrior]

This is not deterministic. In Dvaita, God as Paramatma is the doer. He is a being who gives the Jiva energy to perform Karma (hence the line "Further, one has to realize that all activities are sponsored by the God). But still the efficient cause of such an action is the Karta or the jiva. Hari is the instrumental cause. That is why the 5 factors are listed. Still, the Jiva is the one who performs this actions because Lord Hari remains forever detached. to them. The Jiva hold responsibility for such an action. For example, when I move my hand. The root of such a desire, rests in my Jivatma (it is me who chooses to do this), but Lord Hari at the Paramatma gives me the power to do this. Without Him, I would not be able to force even this matter to act (because it is He who controls the prakriiti

Why do your replies always sound like apologies? I mean rationalisations. The idea that it is Ishvara(as the great mahat tattva) that is instrumental cause or provides the energy for us to perform our actions or fulfils our desires for us based on our own ichaa shakti is an Advaita one, not a Dvaita one. Like I said I no longer trust what you are saying, because everything sounds like your own individual interpretation, like you were insisting earlier, I want you to actually cite Madhva for me. I want to know Madhva's views, not your views. I will cite Madhva views again, and this time break it up for you

Most men are under the wrong impression that it is only karta or the agent who solely responsible for the activity undertaken by him.

But there are five factors underlying each activity. These are: 1. Adhisthana i.e., the place, the ground, or the object with reference to which an activity is initiated. 2. Karta i.e., agent, the Jiva who is only a dependent agent. 3. Karana i.e., the instruments i.e. Indriyas etc. 4. Vividha chesta i.e. the various actions of these that are necessary for the production of results. 5. Daiva i.e. the supreme God who is behind all these as director and regulator.

My purport: It says God is the director and regulator of all of them, including the agent. If I regulate something, I just control what has already been put into action, and if I direct something, I am the one who is putting in the actions. Like If I direct the shots, I am the one giving the command. If I direct a puppet show I am the one directing every movement of the puppet.


One who knows this will easily realize his limited role and will be able to undertake niskamakarma.

My purport: Knowing that you are just a puppet in God's cosmic drama, you realise none of your actions are free, that really every action is being directed by God. Then undertaking nishkarma karma to basically give up your feeling of agency to God --- God made me do it.

[Philosophical meanings of karma, akarma and vikarma: The expressions karma, akarma and vikarma apart from meaning action, inaction, and wrong action have deeper philosophical meanings also. This philosophical meaning is brought out in the verse ‘Karmani akrma yah pasyet’ etc. When one undertakes an activity, one has to realize that it is not he who is doing but God is behind it. This is what is meant by ‘Karmani akarma’. Similarly, when one is not doing anything, say in the dream, one has to realize that God is active even then, this is ‘akarmani karma’. Thus one has to realize that all his activities are prompted by God and even when one is not active God is active. This is the philosophical meaning of ‘Karmani akarma’ etc. The expressions karma and akarma also mean Jiva and God respectively. Karma ie. Jiva is akarma inactive in the sense that he cannot undertake any activity independently. Similarly akarma i.e., God is karma always active independently. The realization of these philosophical meanings gives correct perspective in respect of one’s ability. This will check our kartrtvabhimana and enable us to subdue our raga, dvesa etc.

My purport: It is now making it explicit it that every action I am doing is in fact not really me, but being done by God and directed by God. It even says that every activity I undertake is also prompted/commanded by God.
In other words it is saying quite blatantly I have no agency. I am just a puppet in God's divine puppet show.

Further, one has to realize that all activities are sponsored by the God, designated as Prakrti, according to the nature of the jiva concerned and given affect to through his body, antahkarana etc. He has also to realize that it is all the play of the attributes of prakrti i.e., satva, rajas etc. directed and regulated by the supreme God. Such a realization will pave the way for nivrttakarmanusthana. The word Prakrti has both meanings viz. God, and Jadaprakrti

My purport: Here it again very explicitly saying the innate natural attributes of each jiva, are directed and regulated by God, and they manifest through their body, mind etc. Elsewhere, I produced a quote that shows how do you know what is the attribute of the soul, you know their actions, speech and thoughts. The implication here is if you have evil(tamo guna( attributes, your actions, speech and thought evil, but in actual fact these are directed and regulated by God anyway. It is God that is really commanding everything I am doing via the attributes I was born with. I have no agency.​

Another fallacious conclusion I'm afraid. Of course there is agency, it is not deterministic. It is not completely free,(as our previous karma influences it) but the choice is there. Without getting too bogged up in discussion of free will, in Dvaita it is God, as Paramatma who is the ultimate doer of actions. What this means is that He gives us the energy to perform our actions. What Hitler did, has has its roots in Hitlers actions (i.e it was Hitler as the Jiva who chose to act in such a way), but it was God who allowed Hitler to do such things (God gave Hitler the power to perform actions and get the fruit of these actions). And as Hitler performed such actions, the Karma of his actions will reach him. I see here what you are trying to do. From the beginning you have been convinced that Dvaita=Christianity and now you are twisting its principle to equate the too.

According to the above Hitlers actions were not just regulated or facilitated by God, they were directed, prompted and commanded by God too. Hitler had no agency, Hitler merely expressed the nature that God gave him, in much the same way a snake that bites you, is only expressing the nature that God gave it.

Do you realize that Dvaita believe in Karma too you know? This is a ridiculous distinction to make. See my above paragraph.

But you don't believe in the same theory of Karma. In Dvaita Vedanta karma is merely a function through which God takes a soul through its destiny. It is confirmed here:

Madhva's belief in the innate difference of one soul from another led to some interesting doctrines in his system. He believed in a hierarchy of jivas, based upon their innate configurations of virtues (gunas) and faults (dosas). For example, Visnu is supreme because He possesses all qualities in their most fulfilled and perfect form. Furthermore, because Madhva believed that souls possess innate characteristics and capacities, he also maintained that they were predestined to achieve certain ends. This perspective put Madhva at odds with traditional Hindu views of the karma theory wherein differences in social and religious status are explained via past moral or immoral acts. For Madhva, each individual being possesses an innate moral propensity and karma is merely the mechanism by which a given soul is propelled towards his or her destiny.

Madhva | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy​

Madhva's theory of karma or action is a theory of predestination, that every action that happens was already predestined or suppose to happen, it was directed and regulated by God from the beginning, and thus there are no agents at all and the notion of agency itself is ignorance. We are are all just doing what nature God gave us and God being the controller of that nature, is controlling everyone of our actions.

In contrast, in traditional Hindu thought there are three types of karma 1)Prarabdha karma 2)Sanchita karma and 3) kriyamana karma. 1) Prarabdha karma are the fruits of your past actions, which you must simply just bear. 2) Sanchita karma is your entire storehouse of karmas in seed form, some which manifest as prarabdha and others which can be destroyed before they manifest, like burning a seed. 3) Kriyamana karmas are actions you are currently doing using your iccha, kriya and jnana shakti and these karmas are free. It is not God who directed these karmas, they totally are your own doing. You maybe using the instruments God gave you(body, m ind, intellect) in order to perform bad actions, but God is not responsible for those bad actions, anymore than I am responsible if I give you a pen and you used the pen to stab somebody with.

 

[Raj]

Namaste,
In my view the following verses from Bhagagad Gita mean that asuric jivas will not be able to attain God

Chapter 16, Verse 19: Those who are envious and mischievous, who are the lowest among men, are cast by Me into the ocean of material existence, into various demoniac species of life.
Chapter 16, Verse 20: Attaining repeated birth amongst the species of demoniac life, such persons can never approach Me. Gradually they sink down to the most abominable type of existence.

Can someone clarify?

Thanks,

Raj

 

[Terese]

Namaste,
In my view the following verses from Bhagagad Gita mean that asuric jivas will not be able to attain God

Chapter 16, Verse 19: Those who are envious and mischievous, who are the lowest among men, are cast by Me into the ocean of material existence, into various demoniac species of life.
Chapter 16, Verse 20: Attaining repeated birth amongst the species of demoniac life, such persons can never approach Me. Gradually they sink down to the most abominable type of existence.

Can someone clarify?

Thanks,

Raj

Pranam, Raj. Not necessarily, and this does not limit the Supreme's mercy. It is known that whoever the Lord kills immediately attains moksha. This happened to beings such as Kamsa and Ravana, both committed to sinful deeds, yet were purified by being defeated by the Supreme Lord. And even more fortunately, through the association of Vaishnava devotees, this demonic cycle can be reversed, and eventually attain the Supreme Lord. Here is Sri Ramanujacharya's commentary of those two verses:

"Those envious, cruel, evil, lowered of mankind; verily i hurl perpetually into the cycle of birth and death into the wombs of the demonic."

Wherever the demoniac may chance to take birth, these vile, evil, degraded living entities who blaspheme and spite the Supreme Lord are kept revolving in samsara or the perpetual cycle of birth and death and flung into lower and more degraded forms of life. Since the demoniac adamantly desire to be irreversibly opposed to the Supreme Lords Krishna's divine will, He permits them to pursue their wishes and they are hurled into demoniac wombs birth after birth in order that their aversion to Him will be increased. Impelled by the Supreme Lord's sanction their desires are satisfied and they receive the opportunity in a suitable demoniac environment to exercise their free will and voraciously vent their vile, evil and degraded nature.

"O Arjuna entering demonaic wombs birth after birth, these fools receive and even more abominable destination unable to achieve me."

The words asurim yonim means demoniac wombs and refers to birth of those jivas or embodied beings and even subtle existences that are diametrically opposed to the divine will of the Supreme Lord Krishna. Those of a demoniac nature never have an affinity or even tolerance for the path of righteousness and so they spawn and are hurled into wombs of lower and lower degraded demoniac forms as their reward to increase their venomous delusion. As such the words aprapya eva (unable to achieve) means that the demoniac can never attain the Supreme Lord and denotes that they are never imbued with the intelligence to have the consciousness to seek the association of the Vaisnavas or exclusive devotees of Lord Krishna and learn the ultimate truth submissively from them. Where after by receiving the mercy of the Vaisnavas devotees they would gradually become sanctified and after many births eventually achieve the qualifications necessary to be accepted as a disciple of a Vaisnava devotee who guides them on the path to the Supreme Lord. Otherwise without this eternal process it is impossible for the demoniac to ever receive the opportunity to attain Lord Krishna and thus they slip deeper and deeper into the darkness of ignorance birth after birth after birth after birth.

 

[Raj]

Pranam, Raj. Not necessarily, and this does not limit the Supreme's mercy. It is known that whoever the Lord kills immediately attains moksha. This happened to beings such as Kamsa and Ravana, both committed to sinful deeds, yet were purified by being defeated by the Supreme Lord. And even more fortunately, through the association of Vaishnava devotees, this demonic cycle can be reversed, and eventually attain the Supreme Lord. Here is Sri Ramanujacharya's commentary of those two verses:

>> Pranam Terese,
I believe you are of the opinion that all souls have same characteristics and so they are salvable. This begs the next question: If all souls are eligible for moksha then at certain time in future the material cosmos should be devoid of souls since none is left here due to liberation. Will this be possible? What are the references from agamas wrt this?

Thank you,

Raj

 

[Terese]

Pranam Raj. From what i know, there is no scriptual evidence in shruti or smrti that suggests that unliberated jivas at a point in time will cease to exist. There is an infinite amount of jivas, an inconceivably infinite amount, which theoretically would never end. For the Supreme Lord's transcendental lilas to continue, as well as enjoy his grand plays and acting, there will never be a time where unliberated jivas would cease to exist. So no, it is not possible.

 

[Shreesha]

Hi.
The OP has put a valid question. I am not read enough to give a valid answer but I want to note certain observations and comments regarding the original question and the debates that followed between Spirit_Warrior and निताइ Dasa.

Spirit_Warrior:

I do not think Dvaita Vedanta is consistent with classical Hindu thought or in general Dharmic thought

Me:

Even I have this doubt but I think there is a possibility for both yes and no, but I will favor the yes part.

• No because the original spirit of the vedic sentences seems to convey Advaita when we look at it superficially/literally - like Ganesha Atharwa Sheersha bluntly saying "Tvam Indrastvam Rudrastvam...".
• Yes because our classical Hindu texts Ramayana and Mahabharata seems to clearly convey three important concepts of Dvaita viz., Hari sarvottama (Vishnu is the hero in both of these), Vayu jeevottama (Hanuman is the most favorite and most capable servant, the second hero to be precise) and the Lord-Servant relationship between Hari and others. In Mahabharata, Arjuna gets the spotlight mostly but then Bhima is the silent hero who always tamed the chief villain Duryodhana.
  Another favorable point is that all rituals starts with Achamana (names of Hari) and then comes Pranayama (Mukhya Prana's area). So it is not something totally out of nowhere that Hari and Vayu comes into the picture but instead something fundamental in Hinduism.

निताइ Dasa:

This website is incorrect. The Tamo yogyas (literally meaning the ignorant yogis, showing here that ignorance is the cause of suffering), are subject to non-eternal hell, not eternal damnation. What it means, that those jivas in tamo or ignorance will forever live in hell and never reach mukti as long as they are in this state of tamo. This is because he nature of tamo is suffering. It does not suggest eternal damnation

Me:

I think Dasa is not defending the original Dvaita but defending Gaudiya Vaishnava interpretation of Dvaita.
From whatever I have read Madhvacharya clearly proposes eternal damnation concept, there is no question about it. In bulk of the post he is trying to prove that there is no eternal damnation but Spirit_Warrior is clear winner there. AndhanTamas is a place of no return just like Vaikuntha but they are opposite to each other in nature. Souls eligible for AndhanTamas like Kali will always choose the dark path because their inherent nature doesn't allow otherwise.

Spirit_Warrior:

1) It is not egalitarian -- Madhva divides souls by natural attributes into hierarchies, with those at the top, some in middle, and some right at the bottom. This doctrine can be used to justify caste oppression, and it has. It creates a privileged class of souls, in this case the Vaishnavas, who are God's chosen ones and can intercede on his behalf.
2) It is fatalistic --- Madhva does not admit of any free agency or will, according to him everything that happens is due to the natural attributes which God has created us with and every action is ultimately performed by God and it is our ignorance to think of ourselves as the doers. Hence, 'karma yoga' by his interpretation is just to surrender to the will of God.
3) It justifies orthodoxy --- Madhva considers "karma Yoga" as simply dispensing your caste duties, because that is their nature. He, and other Dvaits hold similar views about women, women are to obey their husband, because that is their nature.
4) It lacks compassion --- Madhva holds very hateful views about athiests, materialists, Advaitins and non-Vaishnavas in general, and condemns them to eternal damnation.
5) It is faith based --- This is not necessarily a flaw if you are a member of an Abrahamic religion, but it is in Dharmic religion, where every Dharmic religion has built up its doctrines based on reason and inference.
6) It is fundamentally dishonest --- One of my biggest gripes with it is that it is not a valid hermenutics of the Upanishads. It adds words that are not there like jiva, paratma, not(in Tat tvam asi) to create completely opposite meanings to the original. This is tantamount to trickery and sophistry.

Me:

I disagree on point 2 here. God did not create the natural attributes of the soul. He just gives all souls a platform to express their nature (svabhava prakaTeekarana) and choose and work on their paths accordingly. That is why Madhva hails God as "Nirdosha (defectless)". God helps the soul in every aspect that makes it reach its destination.
All other concerns in point 1 to 6 I agree with you. That is something to be discussed. I think the real repercussions and final experience will make sense in the end if we look at souls on case by case basis. It looks harsh and merciless but when put in the right context it might be convincing. For example, if a common man murders for selfish/egoistic motives it is crime and unethical, but if the Supreme court decides to give capital punishment for a social threat like a terrorist or a rapist it is ethical. It is the context which makes actions right or wrong, not the actions themselves.
Also for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, for every matter there is an equal and opposite antimatter. Similary for every virtuous soul there is a blissful destination which it enjoys and for every evil soul there is an painful destination which probably the evil sadist soul enjoys, who knows?

 

[Terese]

Hi.
The OP has put a valid question. I am not read enough to give a valid answer but I want to note certain observations and comments regarding the original question and the debates that followed between Spirit_Warrior and निताइ Dasa.

Spirit_Warrior:


Me:

Even I have this doubt but I think there is a possibility for both yes and no, but I will favor the yes part.

• No because the original spirit of the vedic sentences seems to convey Advaita when we look at it superficially/literally - like Ganesha Atharwa Sheersha bluntly saying "Tvam Indrastvam Rudrastvam...".
• Yes because our classical Hindu texts Ramayana and Mahabharata seems to clearly convey three important concepts of Dvaita viz., Hari sarvottama (Vishnu is the hero in both of these), Vayu jeevottama (Hanuman is the most favorite and most capable servant, the second hero to be precise) and the Lord-Servant relationship between Hari and others. In Mahabharata, Arjuna gets the spotlight mostly but then Bhima is the silent hero who always tamed the chief villain Duryodhana.
  Another favorable point is that all rituals starts with Achamana (names of Hari) and then comes Pranayama (Mukhya Prana's area). So it is not something totally out of nowhere that Hari and Vayu comes into the picture but instead something fundamental in Hinduism.

निताइ Dasa:



Me:

I think Dasa is not defending the original Dvaita but defending Gaudiya Vaishnava interpretation of Dvaita.
From whatever I have read Madhvacharya clearly proposes eternal damnation concept, there is no question about it. In bulk of the post he is trying to prove that there is no eternal damnation but Spirit_Warrior is clear winner there. AndhanTamas is a place of no return just like Vaikuntha but they are opposite to each other in nature. Souls eligible for AndhanTamas like Kali will always choose the dark path because their inherent nature doesn't allow otherwise.

Spirit_Warrior:



Me:

I disagree on point 2 here. God did not create the natural attributes of the soul. He just gives all souls a platform to express their nature (svabhava prakaTeekarana) and choose and work on their paths accordingly. That is why Madhva hails God as "Nirdosha (defectless)". God helps the soul in every aspect that makes it reach its destination.
All other concerns in point 1 to 6 I agree with you. That is something to be discussed. I think the real repercussions and final experience will make sense in the end if we look at souls on case by case basis. It looks harsh and merciless but when put in the right context it might be convincing. For example, if a common man murders for selfish/egoistic motives it is crime and unethical, but if the Supreme court decides to give capital punishment for a social threat like a terrorist or a rapist it is ethical. It is the context which makes actions right or wrong, not the actions themselves.
Also for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, for every matter there is an equal and opposite antimatter. Similary for every virtuous soul there is a blissful destination which it enjoys and for every evil soul there is an painful destination which probably the evil sadist soul enjoys, who knows?

Namaskaram Shreesha-ji! It is always lovely to see a new Hindu appear on the forum! We have another Vaishnava who is quite learned in Madhva's Dvaita Vedanta, his profile is here if you are interested in his postings:

https://www.religiousforums.com/members/तत्त्वप्रह्व.55730/

As a Sri Vaishnava, one who accepts Sri Ramanujacharya's Visistadvaita, i do not believe in an eternal damnation-like hell. I am interested having a discussion about Andhantamas and it being a supposed place of no return. Yes Vaikuntha is a place of no return outside of the material universe and is the abode of Para-Vasudeva. It is eternal and will never cease. Is this Andhantamas a place outside of the material universe? Because all things in our universe are born and then die in an infinite cycle. Even Swarga is annihilated after the dissolution of the universe. So if Andhantamas is a place of no return and is eternal, it must be outside of our universe. If not, i do not see the logic in it.

 

[Shreesha]

Thank you for the welcoming gesture Terese ji. Your question is really interesting for me and I'm glad you asked it since I did not know the answer. However, thanks to you, I did some net surfing and I bumped into the illustrious seer in Madhva lineage Shrimad Vadiraja Teertha's phenomenal work called Bhugola Varnanam which I always wanted to study. Below is the link.

Full text of "Bhugola Varnanam of Sri Vadiraja Tirtha"

Relevant excerpts from the link:

The pit of darkness known as

'Andhantamas' is situated below the earth
level, sunk in Ghanodaka. This region

surrounds the LokSloka parvata and is termed
as Wdhogati ' or the downward path. Because
'Andnantamas' is below the level of
Ghanodaka, it is possible for sinners to go
down into it to some extent and to come up
again. That they go down and come up has
been stated by Sri Vyasa maharshi, the author
of Brahma Sutras.

[The pit of darkness is very very deep. Sinners,
who deserve greater punishment than what they may
suffer in the ordinary hells, are made to go down into
the pit of darkness to some extent and they come up.
But those, who are thrown down into the lower parts
known as "Tamas*, 'Maha Tamas* and 'Andhantamas*,
never come up.

just even like Vaikunta
loka, this hell remains in its place without
undergoing extinction by the consuming fire
of 'Pralaya' and the like.

May be the deepest part of AndhanTamas is diagonally opposite to Vaikuntha but I couldn't get if it is inside or outside the shell of Brahmanda since I haven't read the full book. Most likely its outside or at the outer surface of the shell.

 

[Terese]

Thank you for the welcoming gesture Terese ji. Your question is really interesting for me and I'm glad you asked it since I did not know the answer. However, thanks to you, I did some net surfing and I bumped into the illustrious seer in Madhva lineage Shrimad Vadiraja Teertha's phenomenal work called Bhugola Varnanam which I always wanted to study. Below is the link.

Full text of "Bhugola Varnanam of Sri Vadiraja Tirtha"

Relevant excerpts from the link:





May be the deepest part of AndhanTamas is diagonally opposite to Vaikuntha but I couldn't get if it is inside or outside the shell of Brahmanda since I haven't read the full book. Most likely its outside or at the outer surface of the shell.

Thank you for the answer! And i am glad this conversation allowed you to find more knowledge of your sampradaya! Has Sri Madhvacharya and/or other Dvaita acharyas written down anyone who has left to this deepest part of andhantamas?

Also, will you read the entire text? Do not feel pressured if you have no inclination. I have no interest in reading about hell, though i skimmed it and found that it praises Sriman Narayana so beautifully

 

[Shreesha]

According to Madhvacharya only Kali is eligible for the andhantamas since he does nava vidha dwesha non stop.

And yes, I plan to read full text soon though I too am not specifically interested in hell

 

[Terese]

According to Madhvacharya only Kali is eligible for the andhantamas since he does nava vidha dwesha non stop.

And yes, I plan to read full text soon though I too am not specifically interested in hell

Thanks for telling me

If you find anything interesting in the text in regards to this thread, feel free to post them

 

[Truth1.Seeker1]

I hope I framed the question properly. I would like to first present my position of Dvaita Vedanta. I do not think Dvaita Vedanta is consistent with classical Hindu thought or in general Dharmic thought. I also think his interpretation of Upanishads is not justified, because Madhva's adds words to the original statements in the Upanishads which are not there, e.g. "Tat Tvam Asi" he parses as "Atat tvam asi" to suit his philosophy, turning "Thou art that" to "Thou are NOT that" However, this can be easily refuted by looking at the original statement in the context of its discussion, where the Upanishads repeatedly assert the identity between Atman and Brahman(Soul and God) and explain all differences as being only due to name and form(upadhi) Such as the difference between pot-space, room-space and cup space, is only owing to the limiting adjunct or condition which is associated with space, but which in fact does not belong to space. If the limiting adjuncts are removed only space alone remains. Similarly, the Upanishads argue that the distinction between Atman and Brahman is only due to the body, mind and ego, each which is conditioned due to its circumstances, but when removed only Atman/Brahman remain.

As this debate started in another thread where it is off-topic, I am continuing the debate here where we can debate it more comfortably.

You seem to lack Sanskrit knowledge, scriptural knowledge and common sense as well. The question is a very mischievous one. Some one who does not like Shankaracharya can frame a similar question – Is Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta consistent with classical Hindu thought, and is it valid and then go the way one wants. It is irrelevant as to what you think, but the world has accepted that there are three major schools of Vedanta.

Secondly, there have been debates for a long time among these schools. Now let us look at your arguments. “Tat tvam asi” is phrased as “Atat tvam asi” to suit his philosophy. It is not Madhva who is adding a letter, it iis you people, who is removing the letter. “mahAmAtya” is “mahA + amAtya” and it is not “mahA + mAtya”. It is savarNadIrgha sandhi. Secondly, if there is a sentence “John likes Peter to be hanged”, you drop part of the setence and keep quoting “John likes Peter”, you have a big issue. The full sentence is “sa AtmAtattvamasi shvetaketo”. Just like mahA amAtya, this is also AtmA atattvamasi. Why? Common sense and Sanskrit grammar.

AtmA is masculine gender. “saH” in “sa AtmA” is masculine”. “tat” is neuter gender. If your interpretation is needed, it should have been “sa tvamasi” rather than “tat tvamasi”. As samAsa, “atat” can be used to indicate “na saH”. Further, it is also simple common sense. What is the context? Shvetaketu had 12 years of education and returns with arrogance that he knows it all. Then what should his father Uddhalaka do? Remove his arrogance. So if UddhAlaka says “that thou art”, then he is not removing arrogance, but reinforcing the arrogance. Etymologically the word Atma can mean “owner, infinite, All-pervading, most worthy of knowing”. So, in all it means “He is the owner, infinite, All-pervading, most worthy of knowing. Oh Shvetaketu, thou art not Him”.

Acharya Madhva is such a genius that he takes the popular pATha and makes it grammatically correct with a master stroke. For ex “rAmaH dasharatha-putraH. tatputrau lavakushau”. Here tatputrau means “tasya putrau”. tat is used as part of samAsa. tattvamasi means tadIyam tvamasi. You belong to Him. He owns you. Even more beautiful is there is a grammar rule “saptasu prathamA”. That means nominative case is used to indicate any or some of all seven cases. tattvamasi means

1. taM tvam asi – you go unto Him

2. tena tvam asi – you exist because of him. He is instrumental for your existence.

3. tasmai tvam asi – You exist for Him

4. tasmAt tvam asi – You come from Him

5. tasya tvam asi – You are of Him – you belong to him.

6. tasmin tvam asi – You exist in Him – He supports you. You can not exist without His support.

Even when you see apparently equating statements, you must understand that they are meant to say that you are like His reflection.

In mirror, you see your reflection and say “It is me”, but it is only your reflection. Just as you equate your reflection to yourselfm, but you are not your reflection, same way you are not Brahman, but mere reflection of His.

You have material body, mind and ego. Brahman does not have material body, mind and ego. For you to get rid of these, you need Brahman. So, do not try to steal His identity. Upanishads certainly do not do that. Do not rub your understanding on the Upanishads.

 

[Truth1.Seeker1]

Spirit Warrior, you seem to lack Sanskrit knowledge, scriptural knowledge and common sense as well. The question is a very mischievous one. Some one who does not like Shankaracharya can frame a similar question – Is Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta consistent with classical Hindu thought, and is it valid and then go on the way one wants. It is irrelevant as to what you think, but the world has accepted that there are three major schools of Vedanta.

Secondly, there have been debates for a long time among these schools. Now let us look at your arguments. “Tat tvam asi” is phrased as “Atat tvam asi” to suit his philosophy. It is not Madhva who is adding a letter, it is you people, who are removing the letter. “mahAmAtya” is “mahA + amAtya” and it is not “mahA + mAtya”. It is savarNadIrgha sandhi. Secondly, if there is a sentence “John likes Peter to be hanged”, you drop part of the setence and keep quoting “John likes Peter”, you have a big issue. The full sentence is “sa AtmAtattvamasi shvetaketo”. Just like mahA amAtya, this is also AtmA atattvamasi. Why? Common sense and Sanskrit grammar.

AtmA is masculine gender. “saH” in “sa AtmA” is masculine”. “tat” is neuter gender. If your interpretation is needed, it should have been “sa tvamasi” rather than “tat tvamasi”. As samAsa, “atat” can be used to indicate “na saH”. Further, it is also simple common sense. What is the context? Shvetaketu had 12 years of education and returns with arrogance that he knows it all. Then what should his father Uddhalaka do? Remove his arrogance. So if UddhAlaka says “that thou art”, then he is not removing arrogance, but reinforcing the arrogance. Etymologically the word Atma can mean “owner, infinite, All-pervading, most worthy of knowing”. So, in all it means “He is the owner, infinite, All-pervading, most worthy of knowing. Oh Shvetaketu, thou art not Him”.

Acharya Madhva is such a genius that he takes the popular pATha and makes it grammatically correct with a master stroke. For ex “rAmaH dasharatha-putraH. tatputrau lavakushau”. Here tatputrau means “tasya putrau”. tat is used as part of samAsa. tattvamasi means tadIyam tvamasi. You belong to Him. He owns you. Even more beautiful is there is a grammar rule “saptasu prathamA”. That means nominative case is used to indicate any or some of all seven cases. tattvamasi means
1. taM tvam asi – you go unto Him
2. tena tvam asi – you exist because of him. He is instrumental for your existence.
3. tasmai tvam asi – You exist for Him
4. tasmAt tvam asi – You come from Him
5. tasya tvam asi – You are of Him – you belong to him.
6. tasmin tvam asi – You exist in Him – He supports you. You can not exist without His support.

Even when you see apparently equating statements, you must understand that they are meant to say that you are like His reflection.

In mirror, you see your reflection and say “It is me”, but it is only your reflection. Just as you equate your reflection to yourself, but you are not your reflection, same way you are not Brahman, but mere reflection of His.

You have material body, mind and ego. Brahman does not have material body, mind and ego. For you to get rid of these, you need Brahman. So, do not try to steal His identity. Upanishads certainly do not do that. Do not rub your misunderstanding on the Upanishads.

 

[RabbiO]

@Truth1.Seeker1 -

You have responded to a post from a member who has not signed onto the forum in over 7 years. I wouldn’t count on your response even being seen by the poster.