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

[Aupmanyav]

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

Narayana Upanishad is considered authentic indisputably.

Authentic would mean occurring in the first edition. That does not give it the respect that is given to 'Mukhya Upanishads'. For those who subscribe to them, it is OK. The 'Mukhya' Upanishads belong to pre-Buddha Vedic age. The later ones included indigenous philosophy where Shiva, Shakti, Rama and Krishna were supreme. The age of sects.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. viewing oneself as a separate entity from God would not lead to liberation.

Don't worry. Both 'Advita' and 'Dvaita' can lead to liberation. Liberation is achieved by following 'dharma'. Nobody gets liberated without that.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Also, I did not know that Kerala was a "Vaishnava" state. In the south the most common Hindu sects are non-Vaishnava.

Not correct Vaishnavism is hugely popular in South. Thirupathi, Padmanabhaswami, SriRangam, to mention a few. Divya Desams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Aupmanyav]

And very prominent figures in their culture are Mahabali and Parasurama, both who I think are largely associated with Vaishnavism ..

He (Parasurama) received an axe after undertaking terrible penance to please Shiva, who taught him the martial arts - Wikipedia. How can a Hindu separate Vishnu and Shiva? Parasurama could have been a Gujarati. He was a Bhargava, descendent of Sage Bhrigu. In Gujarat you have Bhrigukachha (Bay of Cambay, as the English termed it) and the city Bharuch (Bhrigu Teertha).

 

[Vinayaka]

Not correct Vaishnavism is hugely popular in South. Thirupathi, Padmanabhaswami, SriRangam, to mention a few. Divya Desams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In TN there are Vaishnava temples, but the majority of the large and busy ones are Saiva, and a lot of those are Murugan kovils.

 

[Chakra]

Authentic would mean occurring in the first edition. That does not give it the respect that is given to 'Mukhya Upanishads'. For those who subscribe to them, it is OK. The 'Mukhya' Upanishads belong to pre-Buddha Vedic age. The later ones included indigenous philosophy where Shiva, Shakti, Rama and Krishna were supreme. The age of sects.

The Mukhya Upanishads were used more during debate because they contained the philosophical verses and concepts. While the interpretations of the Mukhya Upanishads are different between the different Vedantic views, the Narayana Upanishad really only has one interpretation.

I mean all respect when I say this, but we are talking about Vedanta. Hence, it is important to use Vedantic views and not atheistic ones. Adi Shankara would not agree with you when you say that the Vedas were added on over the years. For Vedantins, Vedas are infallible and divine, not created by human imagination. And while there are some Upanishads that are really not authentic and were just written to promote a particular sect, Narayana Upanishad is not one of them.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Adi Shankara would not agree with you when you say that the Vedas were added on over the years. For Vedantins, Vedas are infallible and divine, not created by human imagination.

Sankara was not fortunate to have read Andronovo culture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and did not know about Proto-Indo-European language and mythology. Times, not his fault; otherwise he might have agreed. With time, our knowledge increases.

 

[Chakra]

Sankara was not fortunate to have read Andronovo culture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and did not know about Proto-Indo-European language and mythology. Times, not his fault; otherwise he might have agreed. With time, our knowledge increases.

It is weird to see an Advaitin insult Adi Shankaracharya as being wrong. If you trust him enough with his philosophy of what the world is and how it works, can't you at least trust him with his idea of the Vedas being infallible? A requirement of being a Vedantin is to have the belief that the Vedas are timeless.

Anyway, the Shvetashvatara Upanishad is not part of the Mukhya Upanishads. Is it any less than the Mukhya Upanishads? Fact is that Narayana Upanishad has been commented on by countless Vedantins and therefore is surely authentic.

 

[Aupmanyav]

No, Sankara got the basics right even in 8th Century. Vedas are very valuable. It is about the history, religion and society of a people.
Who wrote the Vedas? The advaita Brahman is atributeless, uninvolved, it would not write a book. That would mean it had a desire. That would make Brahman changeable. At one moment writing a book, at other times not. That will be a 'vikara'.

"Various schools of Hinduism recognize the first 10, 11, 12 or 13 Upanishads as "principal" or Mukhya Upanishads." No problem about Shvetashvatara. Upanishads - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Mukhya Upanishads - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

YajurVeda, Recension: Krishna YajurVeda, Shakha: Taittiriya.

 

[Chakra]

Aup-ji,

No, Sankara got the basics right even in 8th Century. Vedas are very valuable. It is about the history, religion and society of a people.

You understand that if the Vedas were written they way that you say they were written, then they are simply like any other religious book- fallible and written by humans who have a limited understanding of the universe.
And like I said before, all Vedantins believe in the apAurushEyatva of the Vedas.

Who wrote the Vedas? The advaita Brahman is atributeless, uninvolved, it would not write a book.

Of course. Everyone knows that Vedavyasa wrote the Vedas and Upanishad, not a "nirguna" Brahman. And btw, it is definitely possible for Brahman to write the Vedas. That is why the Saguna Brahman is there.

That would mean it had a desire. That would make Brahman changeable. At one moment writing a book, at other times not. That will be a 'vikara'.

Such a Brahman will not come about until the Paramarthika level. Vedas and Upanishad say that Brahman created Surya and Indra and humiliated Vayu and Agni. This clearly speaks of the Saguna Brahman in Advaita.

"Various schools of Hinduism recognize the first 10, 11, 12 or 13 Upanishads as "principal" or Mukhya Upanishads." No problem about Shvetashvatara. Upanishads - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Mukhya Upanishads - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am not going to argue anymore. I have already stated that Advaitins have in commented on all the verses of the Maha-narayana Upanishad and therefore showing that it was authentic. Note that after the time of Shankara till the 16 century, debate was really brutal. If a person quoted from an inauthentic Upanishad, his rivals would crush him. Therefore, the amount of Advaitin, Dvaitin, and Visishadvaitin scholars who have commented on it were not quoting an inauthentic Upanishad or else someone would have challenged them. No one did successfully.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You understand that if the Vedas were written they way that you say they were written, then they are simply like any other religious book - fallible and written by humans who have a limited understanding of the universe. And like I said before, all Vedantins believe in the apAurushEyatva of the Vedas.

The question of falliable or unfalliable does not arise, because the poets were describing things/beliefs in their time. Apaurusheya, divine, like the poetry of Kalidasa. It is a way of saying.

Of course. Everyone knows that Vedavyasa wrote the Vedas and Upanishad, not a "nirguna" Brahman. And btw, it is definitely possible for Brahman to write the Vedas. That is why the Saguna Brahman is there.

The Vedas existed before Vedavyasa. He taught the Vedas to four of his pupils: RigVeda to Paila, YajurVeda to Vaisampayana, SamaVeda to Jaimini and AtharvaVeda to Sumanthu. This is because none of them could master all the four. That is from where we get them.

Such a Brahman will not come about until the Paramarthika level. Vedas and Upanishad say that Brahman created Surya and Indra and humiliated Vayu and Agni. This clearly speaks of the Saguna Brahman in Advaita.

You see, the problem is that I always remain in 'paramarthika'. That is my natural abode.

I am not going to argue anymore.

I too, am not interested in a debate. I have my views and you have yours. And Axlyz, I am telling you with all honesty and humility that I respect your views. As a Hindu it is incumbent upon me to do so, differences notwithstanding.

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

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!

Dear Acintya_Ash,

Few clarifications before i answer more specifically. Sri Madhvacharya's system is referred to as तत्त्ववाद (Tattvavada) and dvaita is a term which was never used by Sri Madhvacharya or any other acharyas in his parampara for that matter.

1. Who is right?

While Sri Shankara's Mayavada is very popular owing to, and perhaps rightly so, the fact that Sri Shankara almost single-handedly and intellectually overpowered the Buddhist who during his time were keen on destroying the vedic culture; yet, there are certain shortcomings that the system of Sri Shankara's Mayavada presents which are not fully adherent to the Vedas. For instance, Sri Shankara claims that shruti vakya, i.e., veda vakyas are of two types - पारमार्थिक (pAramArthika) and व्यावहारिक (vyAvahArika) and all those shruti vakyas that do not support non-difference between jiva and ishvara are vyAvahArika, however, such distinction b/w veda vakyas find no support within the Vedas anywhere and therefore not tenable because this would compromise the authority of the vedas due to internal inconsistency thus making any shruti vakya invalid as pramana. Secondly, if one were to accept जगत्मिथ्यत्व jagat-mithyatva, then it is impossible to attain moksha because if there is no बन्ध (bandha) because of its being unreal, then from what are you to become mukta? Thirdly, accepting mithyatva makes all actions superstitious and therefore the actor a mithyAchAri, for the vedas proclaim यदेव विद्यया करोति श्रद्धयोपनिषदा तदेव वीर्यवत्तरं भवति only those actions done with knowledge and shraddha shall be emancipatory or shall lead to moksha, when assuming the world itself as mithya, one's actions grounded in such a world will also be mithya.

2. Reconciliation?

There are almost 21 interpretations of the vedanta, some with marginal differences and some poles apart. Sri Veda Vyasa himself reconciled the apparent incongruities in the Vedas in the samanvayAdhyAya of the brahmasutras, while also answering and refuting other already existing schools like nyaya, vishesha, sankhya, yoga, purva-mimamsa. Continuing this and refuting other schools that emerged after Sri Vyasa's brahmasutra, Sri Madhvacharya established that Vedas unequivocally proclaim the supremeness of Narayana and also established that Vedas are devoid of internal inconsistencies by writing Rg Bhashya on what was considered Karma Kanda and expounding how even these shruti vakyas can lead to moksha.

I first studied Sri Shankara's philosophy and put it in practice only then was i able to realize and fully appreciate Sri Madhvacharya's tattvavada.

3. Your confusion

Well your confusion is in part due to ignorance of both Sri Shankara's and Sri Madhvacharya's philosophy and their implications in practice. Because without resorting to yukti of assuming one veda vakya is better than the other, there is no way you can ignore द्वा सुपर्ण सयुजा सखाया समानं वृक्षं परिषस्वजाते । तयोरन्यः पिप्पलः स्वाद्वत्त्यनश्ननन्यो अभिचाकषीति । which establishes beyond doubt that within the heart dwell two, one eats and suffers the other doesn't and is every blissful. Also Bhagavan Krishna in the Gita C16-V14 states that asuras are bewildered into thinking ईश्वरोऽहं and also C16-V19 clarifies that these asuri / tamasic beings are cast again and again into similar AsurI births - what else is this if not eternal damnation? It would be improper to claim even Bhagavan Krishna was influenced by christianity.

 

[Acintya_Ash]

Dear Acintya_Ash,

Few clarifications before i answer more specifically. Sri Madhvacharya's system is referred to as तत्त्ववाद (Tattvavada) and dvaita is a term which was never used by Sri Madhvacharya or any other acharyas in his parampara for that matter.

Namaste!
I presume Since Brahman is Bhagavan, reaching Vaikuntha would be moksha but there are also other types of moksha (total 5 as i remember)
What does Tattvavad say about that moksha in which soul merges with Brahman?

Pardon my ignorance, if you could offer me some informative links where i can brush up my basics of tattvavada i'd be obliged

Hare Krishna

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

Namaste Acintya_Ash,

सालोक्य-सार्ष्टि-सामीप्य-सारूप्य-एकत्वं-अप्युत । दीयमानं न गृह्णन्ति विना मत्सेवनं जनाः ।। श्रीमद्भागवते ३-३०-१३

Attaining the 1) abode, 2) opulence, 3) constant closeness, 4) divine form 5) also called सायुज्य all of the previous without specifically asking for any. Hence the last is referred to as ekatvam where the mukta has no specific desires of his own. Sri Madhvacharya based on various pramanas establishes that moksha is the realization and attainment of that form (bimba-roopa) of Bhagavan unique to every jiva and hence there are technically as many kinds of moksha as there are jivas - infinite. Therefore, every jiva attains moksha according to innate yogyata which also directs individual sadhana. Mokshaarthi is indeed better than dharma-artha-kaamaarthi but Sri Madhvacharya emphasizes that jivas of highest yogyata engage in भक्ति for the sake of अहैतुकी - अव्यवहिता - भक्ति and perform their duties always absorbed in ekatva (नाहं कर्ता हरिः कर्ता)। So “merging” does not mean annihilation of jivas’ individuality for the jivas are eternal and moreover, अन्तर्बहिश्चतत्सर्वं व्याप्य नारायण स्थितः He already and always envelopes the entire creation and that which is beyond this creation within and without.

As far as I’m aware, there aren’t any comprehensive online references available in english as most resources are in samskritam. You may find some good resources on archive.org (search for keywords madhvacharya OR madhwacharya).
Currently, only authentic resources available on veda, darshana, purana, itihasa are well-researched books or their copies online. Most other websites, wikipedias, are filled with so much garbage that they only add to confusion.
श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[Aupmanyav]

Krishna is not mentioned in the RigVeda. He belongs to another family of Gods and Goddesses, the indigenous.

 

[Chakra]

Krishna is not mentioned in the RigVeda. He belongs to another family of Gods and Goddesses, the indigenous.

Just a question. Why did you post this, when the recent conversation was about Dvaita?

Either way, Krishna's form as Vishnu is mentioned in RigVeda, so yes, he is mentioned there. Even then, he is in almost every single Purana and Itihasa in one form or another.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Hinduism is not just Vedas, but then Vedas have their own importance. When people reject Vedas or make it the sole source of Hinduism, I have problems with both the stances. Why can't people find a middle way?

RigVedic Gods and Goddess: Indra 289, Agni 218, Soma 123 (most of them in Book IX), Vishvadevas 70, the Asvins 56, Varuna 46, Maruts 38, Mitra 28, Ushas 21.

 

[Acintya_Ash]

Namaste Acintya_Ash,

As far as I’m aware, there aren’t any comprehensive online references available in english as most resources are in samskritam. You may find some good resources on archive.org (search for keywords madhvacharya OR madhwacharya).
Currently, only authentic resources available on veda, darshana, purana, itihasa are well-researched books or their copies online. Most other websites, wikipedias, are filled with so much garbage that they only add to confusion.
श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

Thank you ..Hare Krishna

 

[Chakra]

Hinduism is not just Vedas, but then Vedas have their own importance. When people reject Vedas or make it the sole source of Hinduism, I have problems with both the stances. Why can't people find a middle way?

RigVedic Gods and Goddess: Indra 289, Agni 218, Soma 123 (most of them in Book IX), Vishvadevas 70, the Asvins 56, Varuna 46, Maruts 38, Mitra 28, Ushas 21.

There already is a middle way. All Smriti that is non-contradictory to the Shruti is held as authoritative. That's how Vedanta worked.

The second part of your post is based of a superficial reading of the Vedas. I will just say that all those names primarily refer to Brahman, not the Devas. Sometimes that is not the case, but when a name is given a power or attribute that only a Supreme power can possess, that refers to Brahman. That's how Vedantins understood it anyway.

 

[Red_Drag0n]

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.

Hello Onkarmantra, i'm glad i came across this post of yours as i was looking for an alternate explanation of this particular verse and you explained it quite beautifully. I hope you're still active in the forums since you posted this quite a few years back. If you are, then great.

Now, could you please be kind enough and tell me from which English translation of Gita you've quoted this verse? by which author or translator? ... Currently i own the Prabhupada's Gita and i believe it's not the best translated edition. So i was hoping to buy another Gita (from an advaita point of view) which would have word to word translations in both Sanskrit and English. So far i've only found Chidbha-nanda's Gita to have word to word translations. But the English used by him is a bit too hard for a guy like me who's new to these topics. So may i know which Gita you used to explain that verse? Thanks