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

[Stormcry]

Traditionally 108 Upanishads are considered as authentic no matter what sectarian people believe.

Maha Upanishada was cited by RamAnuja..

 

[Acintya_Ash]

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.

Interesting Matsya ji, i didn't knew about the eternal damnation in 7th hell. But i've read somewhere that in Dvaita philosophy, all souls are not same viz, three types of souls based on three modes of nature. Thus making it almost impossible for tamasic souls to attain liberation. This sounds absurd, doesn't it?

 

[Acintya_Ash]

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.

:yes: hari hari

 

[Acintya_Ash]

Yes, they can be reconciled.

What has confused you from the Advaitins here?

Someone was saying That viewing oneself as a separate entity from God would not lead to liberation. And i'm a beginner who started with bhakti which ofcourse is dualistic in nature...so it was bothering me.

 

[Acintya_Ash]

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.

thanks...that was indeed encouraging. Glories to all three acharyas

hare krishna

 

[Acintya_Ash]

I made some mistake about 3.26.2 .. Wait actually there's another verse in the same discourse of devhuti and kapila...

Dude, my translations are from most authentic source - Gita Press that is non-sectarian.. Vedabase is sectarian and is totally biased according to their own philosophy of CC...

I agree Vedabase is somewhat biased.

 

[Madhuri]

Someone was saying That viewing oneself as a separate entity from God would not lead to liberation. And i'm a beginner who started with bhakti which ofcourse is dualistic in nature...so it was bothering me.

Bhakti isn't intrinsically dualistic, it is just that dualistic schools are often based in Bhakti Yoga. In fact even Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's teachings show us that the soul and God are eternally connected, not separate. He tells is that God is within all of us and that we are part of him. We are taught to see God in all living beings. Part of Bhakti practice is to serve all beings.

 

[Acintya_Ash]

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

The Nine Tenets of Vedanta

thanks i'll check out

 

[Acintya_Ash]

Vidura has asked the same question ... he asks " How can Ishwara(brahman) as a jiva has ignorance and suffering from karma?

यथा जले चन्द्रमसः कम्पादिस्तत्कृतो गुणः ।
दृश्यतेऽसन्नपि द्रष्टुः आत्मनोऽनात्मनो गुणः ॥ ११ ॥

Just as ripples in the water ,without appearing, appears on the image of moon but not on the moon itself which is in the sky, in the same way, seer of Jiva associated with Anatma [false self] acquires [Bondage], not the actual self of Jiva.

Its just a matter of interpretation i think. Since, vaishnavas say that false self/ego is viewing and acting oneself as enjoyer and negating our consitutional position as servant of the Supreme.
Gotta learn Sanskrit soon.

 

[Acintya_Ash]

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

yes i know. But all other theistic philosophies are inclining towards dvaita, aren't they?

 

[Madhuri]

yes i know. But all other theistic philosophies are inclining towards dvaita, aren't they?

I don't think anyone would agree with this. Even Advaitins consider themselves theistic. But it's ...complicated.

I think Dvatins represent a small percentage of Hinduism. AFAIK most Hindus are either Advaita or Dvaitadvaita.

 

[Acintya_Ash]

Namaste HLK!

But unity in a broader sense could also mean being together as distinct persons bonded by love.

Please Comment on this verse

upadraṣṭānumantā ca
bhartā bhoktā maheśvaraḥ
paramātmeti cāpy ukto
dehe ’smin puruṣaḥ paraḥ

Translation of Bhagavad Gita 13.23

Yet in this body there is another, a transcendental enjoyer, who is the Lord, the supreme proprietor, who exists as the overseer and permitter, and who is known as the Supersoul.

Hare Krishna

 

[Acintya_Ash]

Bhakti isn't intrinsically dualistic, it is just that dualistic schools are often based in Bhakti Yoga. In fact even Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's teachings show us that the soul and God are eternally connected, not separate. He tells is that God is within all of us and that we are part of him. We are taught to see God in all living beings. Part of Bhakti practice is to serve all beings.

Namaste Madhuriji

Indeed But Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu never preached the notion of a jiva being ishvara. Jiva is anu(infinitesimal) and paramatma is vibhu (infinite), qualitative oneness and quantitative difference

Hare Krishna

 

[Madhuri]

Namaste Madhuriji

Indeed But Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu never preached the notion of a jiva being ishvara. Jiva is anu(infinitesimal) and paramatma is vibhu (infinite), qualitative oneness and quantitative difference

Hare Krishna

Indeed, but this is not Dvaita.

 

[Stormcry]

Namaste HLK!

But unity in a broader sense could also mean being together as distinct persons bonded by love.

That verse isn't metaphor. The verse states the aim of vedanta and confirms the unity of atma and brahman. Unity is always unity. There's no two in unity. Even the 'advitiya vastu' is mentioned, which means non-dual thing.... Even if you wanna see two-ness in absolute non-dual, then you can as it would not refute your sect.. And do you know what is meant by kaivalya? 'Kaivalya' means absolute unity with paramAtma.

If the real moksha is living in vaikuntha, then suta should have mentioned vaikuntha or love or vishnu or bhakti like words...

Please Comment on this verse

upadraṣṭānumantā ca
bhartā bhoktā maheśvaraḥ
paramātmeti cāpy ukto
dehe ’smin puruṣaḥ paraḥ

Translation of Bhagavad Gita 13.23

Yet in this body there is another, a transcendental enjoyer, who is the Lord, the supreme proprietor, who exists as the overseer and permitter, and who is known as the Supersoul.

Hare Krishna

Again Vedabase and as expected distortion .. 'there's another' and 'transcendental' these two words, which are non-existent in original verse, are cleverly used to distort the actual meaning of the verse.

Here is the original translation:

"The great Lord is the witness, the consenter, sustainer and enjoyer. This Supreme person (Jiva) in the body is also styled as the Supreme Self." (Gita 13.23)


Bhagavan Vishnu, in previous verse, states purusha(Bramhan) who's resided in Prakruti acquires bondage due to attachment her.

Now in this verse, lord confirms that though brahman appears united with prakruti, it's actually beyond prakruti. It's the onlooker and lord of prakruti. He says though that purusha/brahman (Jiva who's been united with prakruti) lives in body, he is actually beyond that(prakruti) and it is also known by another name - Paramatma...

(Bhokta - experiencer of bondage), word indicates that jiva, who is bhokta of prakriti, is supreme self ( paramAtmA) as it's been alternatively called as paramatma.

 

[Jainarayan]

*** Mod Post ***

Thread moved to Same Faith Debates.​

 

[Chakra]

I don't think anyone would agree with this. Even Advaitins consider themselves theistic. But it's ...complicated.

I think Dvatins represent a small percentage of Hinduism. AFAIK most Hindus are either Advaita or Dvaitadvaita.

I think in India Dvaita outnumbers Advaita by a lot, but in the West Advaita is the most popular Vedantic philosophy.

Btw, Dvaitadvaita is the philosophy of Nimbarkacharya. I don't think that most people follow his philosophy although it is similar to the others.

 

[Chakra]

Someone was saying That viewing oneself as a separate entity from God would not lead to liberation. And i'm a beginner who started with bhakti which ofcourse is dualistic in nature...so it was bothering me.

I should clarify. I did not mean to say that the philosophies kevaladvaita and tattvavada can be reconciled. What I meant was that dualism and non-dualism can be reconciled.

 

[Chakra]

Someone was saying That viewing oneself as a separate entity from God would not lead to liberation. And i'm a beginner who started with bhakti which ofcourse is dualistic in nature...so it was bothering me.

Bhakti is not contradictory to Advaita.

In the vyavahara level, we (in illusion) are not equal to Saguna Brahman, Ishvara, otherwise known as Narayana. Shankara says in his BSB that worshiping Narayana as the supreme self is the recommended path for Vedantins like him.

There are many Advaitins who try to place an emphasis on Raja and Jnana Yoga. That is fine, but Bhakti is just as good.

 

[Matsya]

Interesting Matsya ji, i didn't knew about the eternal damnation in 7th hell. But i've read somewhere that in Dvaita philosophy, all souls are not same viz, three types of souls based on three modes of nature. Thus making it almost impossible for tamasic souls to attain liberation. This sounds absurd, doesn't it?

Yes, I've also read about such souls that are bound to the chains of samsara forever. Do I find it absurd? I don't know. The concept, in my opinion, seems more sad than absurd. For those souls the eternal continuation of samsara could be likened to a hellish state.

I do wonder though are these souls that are afflicted in this way, if Madhva is right, predestined to become eternally damned to the cycle or is it determined by their own actions?