Who would win the debate between Sri Sankara and Sri Madhvacharya? - Hindus Only

[anadi]

ज्ञानं निःश्रेयसार्थाय पुरुषस्यात्मदर्शनम् ।
यदाहुर्वर्णये तत्ते हृदयग्रन्थिभेदनम् ॥ २ ॥

" Only knowledge about Atma is the cause of Moksha and it is said that that alone is the destroyer of his Ahankara. " (Bhagavata 3.26.2)

This translation is quite different..

Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 3 Chapter 26 Verse 2

 

[StarryNightshade]

That's good attitude! but anyway you're free to give your opinion.

I guess Adi Shankra. Even though I'm neither Dvaita or Advaita.

I feel as if his philosophy has been more influential on modern Hinduism and was more in line with what Sanatana Dharma teaches.

 

[Matsya]

In my humble opinion I would say Shankara would take the cake, so to speak. It seems, to me, as though Madhvacharya with his philosophy of hell and its structure (7 dimensions of hell each worst than the first) as well as some of his other teachings lend itself to a somewhat christian world view. Also, some of his stuff on hell is very similar to Dante Alighieri's book 'Dante's inferno'. But then again it's just my opinion and I very well could be wrong.

 

[Vinayaka]

I really wish there was a way of reconciliation.

Oh there is a way, trust me.

 

[Acintya_Ash]

This translation is quite different..

Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 3 Chapter 26 Verse 2

Yes i've seen that in a couple more places, HLK seems to make his own translations and rejects the translation we present, since he knows Sanskrit.

 

[Acintya_Ash]

In my humble opinion I would say Shankara would take the cake, so to speak. It seems, to me, as though Madhvacharya with his philosophy of hell and its structure (7 dimensions of hell each worst than the first) as well as some of his other teachings lend itself to a somewhat christian world view. Also, some of his stuff on hell is very similar to Dante Alighieri's book 'Dante's inferno'. But then again it's just my opinion and I very well could be wrong.

Thanks for your opinion.
Speaking of Madhvacharya's philosophy, it's slightly similar to Christian but its exactly not same. As there's no eternal damnation. The 7 Heavenly and Hellish dimensions are puranic concepts.
I'll check out "Dante's Inferno" soon

 

[Matsya]

Thanks for your opinion.
Speaking of Madhvacharya's philosophy, it's slightly similar to Christian but its exactly not same. As there's no eternal damnation. The 7 Heavenly and Hellish dimensions are puranic concepts.
I'll check out "Dante's Inferno" soon

Well I read that one can escape the first six hellish realms, but the seventh realm is for the truly evil people and one is stuck there eternally, is this true?

Also Dante was alive during the general time frame Madhvacharya was (Madhva was 27 when Dante was born.) so maybe Dante was inspired by Madhvacharya. There are a lot of differences between Madhva and Dante's version of hell, but the concept of different levels is how I found them similar.

 

[Chakra]

No one would win. You can argue between the 2 philosophies, but please do not compare maha-bhagavatas like Sri Madhvacharya and Sri Sankaracharya.

And to anyone who thinks that Sri Madhvacharya was influenced by Abrahamic religions, that is wrong. Many Vaishnava acharyas like Madhva, Chaitanya, etc had contact with other religions but they didn't care for them at all.

 

[Chakra]

Whats your opinion? What do you follow?
As we know, there are many schools of Vedanta but Dvaita and Advaita are the limits. so who is right?

Is there any way of reconciliation?

I was almost convinced about dvaita but after i joined this forums and what i've read from Advaitins im all confused now.

Please clarify the Truth.
Thanks in advance!

Yes, they can be reconciled.

What has confused you from the Advaitins here?

 

[Sb1995]

Sri Sachin would aka me

 

[Ekanta]

Is there any way of reconciliation?

This has settled the debate for me:

“The Vedas are reputed to be "three sectioned", "Kaanda-thrayaathmakam" - the three sections being Jnana, Upasana and Karma. These three are found in the Upanishads too; they provided the basis for the Adwaitha, Visishtadvaitha and the Dwaitha systems of Philosophy also.”
Sathya Sai Baba - Upanishad Vahini - I. Upanishadvaahini

“Purity of the Consciousness is the essential pre-requisite for Upaasana. Single-minded concentration is essential for Knowledge of Brahmam. These can be got by Karma and Upasana; thus is Brahmajnana won. That is the reason why in the Sastras, Karma is first described and Upasana next and Jnanam last.”
Sathya Sai Baba - Upanishad Vahini - IX. Chandogya Upanishad

“… one can say that these three great Acharyas were teaching three different aspects. Sankara was propounding Sayujya or identity with the Lord while Ramanuja was talking in terms of Sameepya or closeness to the Lord and Madhwa was preaching in terms of Salokya or living in the domain of the Lord. In this way these three Acharyas have been telling us about the three paths for the realisation of truth, namely the Jnana Marga, the Bhakti Marga and the Karma Marga. One should not think that these three paths are contradicting one another.”
Sathya Sai Baba - Discourses - Karma Marga, Jnana Marga, Bhakti Marga - All lead to the same Destination, Summer Showers in Brindavan, May/June 1974

Of course that means that advaita is "right" in the end But all are not meant for jnana, so encouraging karma or upasana is equally "right", just remember how Krishna is encouraging different ways in the Gita.

 

[Chakra]

This is a good website for anyone who is interested in Dvaita philosophy. It clears up some misconceptions.

The Nine Tenets of Vedanta

 

[Chakra]

Madhvacharya is not the only non-Advaitic Vedantic acharya, you know.

 

[Chakra]

I'd bet my money on Sankara. There are a number of ideas from Madhvacharya that seems unfounded to me, like the idea of eternal hell, eternal samsara and that Lakshmi is inferior to Vishnu.

If there ever was a Vedantic debate between the two, these things would be irrelevant.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The Nine Tenets of Vedanta

I think the words 'Hari' or 'Narayana' are not mentioned even once in RigVeda.

Mods in their wisdom may transfer this topic to Same Faith debates.

 

[Chakra]

I think the words 'Hari' or 'Narayana' are not mentioned even once in RigVeda.

Mods in their wisdom may transfer this topic to Same Faith debates.

Narayana Upanishad and Mahopanishad? Have you read them?

 

[Chakra]

Whats your opinion? What do you follow?
As we know, there are many schools of Vedanta but Dvaita and Advaita are the limits. so who is right?

Is there any way of reconciliation?

I was almost convinced about dvaita but after i joined this forums and what i've read from Advaitins im all confused now.

Please clarify the Truth.
Thanks in advance!

I suggest you read the Bhasyas of each of the Acharyas and then come to a conclusion rather than asking followers which is the "correct" philosophy.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Narayana Upanishad and Mahopanishad? Have you read them?

These are not even the 'Mukhya' Upanishads.

 

[Chakra]

These are not even the 'Mukhya' Upanishads.

Some mantras in the Mahopanishad have been quoted by ancient Vedantins. Hence, the important mantras are authentic.

Narayana Upanishad is considered authentic indisputably.

 

[Chakra]

Okay.

Why don't you just create a new thread in debate section?

Actually, this whole thread should be in the debate section.

Aupmanyav-ji is right. This thread does not belong in the DIR.