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

[Spirit_Warrior]

Unfortunately yes. The conclusion of an eternal hell does not follow. There are differences of opinion regarding Madhava's works even within his school. The site which you have received this information from (dvaita.org) is notorious for having views that are not typical or in line with that of Madhava. As a result, this math in particular has been criticized by other traditional Dvaitins constantly. Personalities such as Sri Laksmivara Tirtha Swami and Subhramanya Swami have written letters regarding the content on that site and how it does not wholly represent Madhavacharya's Dwaita.

Hehe, I suspected as much. Your denial and then subsequent apologies are typical of a religious person who cannot come to terms with some of the uncomfortable truths their religious sect teaches. The fact is clear though, you have been presented three different scholarly sources, including a Dvaita one itself, which summarise Madhva's philosophy, and they all say it teaches a doctrine of each soul of being destined for different goals because of their innate eligibility. Two of those sources say that certain souls are eternally damned.

For example, these guys claim that Madhavacharya's Tattvavada is the only way to attain Moksha, while the older more traditional followers who I've read admit that any form of authorized Bhakti to Lord Narayana grants Moksha. For example, I will quote from a speech that HH Pejavara Swami gave when his Sampradaya (Dvaita) and our Sampradaya (Gaudiya) met:

"Devotion is not meant for only a limited number of people or a certain class of people. Bhakti is meant for anyone and everyone. According to Srimad Bhagavatam, the lower classes of people have been considered to be kirata-hunandhra-pulinda-pulkasabhira-sumbha-yavana-khasadayah. These different types of people, human beings, who are considered to be the lower classes. But in the Srimad Bhagavatam, it has been pointed out that these classes of people are also eligible for devotion. Irrespective of one's background, when one accepts devotional service and becomes a devotee of Sri Krsna, he becomes the best of humans. He becomes the highest class person, the best of all."

This is not unique to Dvaita, there are various schisms in the Advaita tradition itself, each which teaches a different tradition of Advaita. I remember when a guru I met in Utterkashi at one of the main Advaita ashrams there expressed frustration at the multiplication of Advaita traditions(varying from Ashram to Ashram) each teaching something a little different. This is why if you study Advaita or Dvaita academically, as academics is a secular field, we look at the original versions of the philosophy and what doctrines were actually taught and also how they were applied. It sounds like the tradition you belong to may hold non-traditional views, or you as an individual member diverge from some of their views. This is perfectly acceptable, even I do not completely adhere to Advaita and have no membership to any current tradition, and I aim to achieve a broader knowledge and understanding that covers other darsana, in addition to modern science. I see no relevance of a scholastic medieval tradition in the 21st century.

Heck eternal hell doesn't really work in any Vedantic philosophy (esp the Vaishnav ones) because heaven and hell are both temporary manifestations. At the end of the day of Brahma, the whole creation including heaven and hell dissolve in mahat tattva and then into the body of Maha Vishnu. Where is there a question of eternal hell here?

The point of contention here is no whether hell and heaven are eternal places, but whether there are certain class of souls which predestined for hell and heaven. It certainly seems to be the case in Madhva's theology(I hesitate to call it philosophy) that there does exist an ontological class of sous which are predestined for hell. I hope you can see if this is true, this makes Madhva's theology abhorrent.

"But yet the question will still persist of how can this maya [consisting of the three modes] be overcome?

To answer this Lord Krishna replies with the words: mam eva ye prapadyante meaning only those who surrender unto Him. Those who renounce all else and take exclusive shelter of Him alone can surmount this maya. Those who humbly serve and devoutly worship the spiritual master in adoration, such worship surely reaches unto the Supreme Lord because they have realised that their holy preceptors greatness is due to the fact that the Supreme Lord has manifested within His heart. The Narada Purana states: The madhya or intermediate humans duly propitiate the holy preceptor due to the Supreme Lord manifesting within him. The uttama or topmost human beings propitiate all beings as they recognise the Supreme Lord in all beings. In the Bhagavat Purana it states: That the Supreme Lord through the form of consciousness which pervades the mind of the spiritual master teaches the humble aspirant true wisdom about Himself."

Again, your commentary does not actually contradict the point of contention that there is a class of souls that would never do this, because they are born eternally condemned. You best quote you have given me for these unfortunate, evil, vile and wicked souls basically said they can "practically never" get liberation because they do not worship Vishnu, and their only hope is if the chosen ones the Vishnu devotees save them by bringing them to Vishnu worship. Hence, we can see here a doctrine of salvation not unlike the one in Christianity, where the chosen ones save the non-chosen ones by bringing them to Jesus worship. Where there is smoke, there is fire. The fact so many scholars suspect an Abrahamic influence, whether that is Christianity or Islam on Madhva is because it sounds so much like an Abrahamic theology. It does not sound like a Dharmic religion, let alone Hinduism .

I suspected you have been cherry picking from Madhva's commentary on the Bhagvad Gita, so I decided to check out his commentary on chapter 16 where Krishna discusses the difference between divine and demonic attributes. If Madhva does indeed believe that the attributes are intrinsic, this would be the place to look. My intuition was correct, look:

18 – 19 – 20 Enveloped by self-conceit, force, pride also lust and anger, these malicious people despise Me dwelling in the bodies of themselves as well as in others. These cruel haters, evil doers of the world, the meanest of men, I repeatedly hurl in unenlightened, degraded wombs.Having acquired unenlightened wombs life after life, these deluded ones do not attain Me, 0 Arjuna, but go to the meanest of the goals

Commentary:

Being conscious of the blissful stages, divinities are said to attain greater happiness than the asuras (the unenlightened). That means the gandharvas (celestial beings), the lowest of the human beings and gods may attain deliverance. Further in, the preposition iva makes it clear that even in deliverance there exists gradation (taratamya).It is but natural that the Jiva is a god, a-sura, or a human being because of their natural attributes and there can never be any change in their inclination. Because of curse some like Prahlad become born as asuras, but this asura attribute is not natural to them. Therefore, they attain their natural attribute of the gods. Like the alum which is clear, appears red with association of red flower, these appear to be asura because of the effect of the curses. But that is not a permanent stain and it cannot change their inherent divine attribute. Therefore the ones with divine attributes becoming eligible for the love of Sri Hari become fit for deliverance. They are not capable of being unhappy
​

I suspect you are now going to play word games with me to say that saying that the jivas attributes are natural and can there can never be a change in their inclination, is not saying that

Again, I think it is time for you to concede this to me.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

This realistic epistemology can only occur in the liberated stage.

You are once again wrong. I will cite from another Dvaita authority this time summarising Madhva's commentary on the Gita:

There are three categories of Jivas viz. sAttvika, rAjasa and tAmasa. These distinctions are found in their nature,behaviour, food, speech activities and even the purpose of their functions. Gita gives these in detail. Gita gives the main features of good and evil tendencies in the form of Asuri sampat and daivi sampat and also sAttvika, rAjasa, tAmasa grouping in all aspects of Life. Jivas are distinct from God not only during samsAra stage but even after liberation. The Jivas are different from each other also both during samsAra and liberation.​

http://www.tatvavada.org/eng/works/pdf/egbgt.pdf​

Again a confirmation that the differences between the Jiva are not conditional but ontological I am not sure you know what it means when something is ontological, it means it is natural attribute not just an accidental attribute. Like if we say that fire is ontologically hot, we are saying it is its natural attribute. Except Dvaita(which really is more like a Calvinst theology) in all other Hindu schools of philosophy and all Dharmic schools of philosophy the soul is naturally pure and good. Hence why the impurities of evil etc, are seen as accidental not natural, like the scent of water is an accidental attribute not a natural attribute.

​

Your conclusion does not follow. Okay I shall put is in the simplest way possible. Madhavacharya has a principle called taratamya in which souls in their original liberated state are in a system of heirachy. Vishnu is the highest, then next is Lakshmi, then Vayu and so on.

Yes, and this is no different to Abrahamic theology, particularly Christian theology which teaches that heaven is a hierarchy. Interesting this conception of a heavenly hierarchy was also developed by medieval theologians.

Christian angelology - Wikipedia

Interesting thing is, that none of these sources quote Madhava directly. I even tried to follow the references back, and I could not find any quote by Madhavacharya himself. This is a problem that I have with so called academic sources that tend to discuss these subject. They discuss from a very superficial way, I believe.

You just don't seem to like any source that proves you wrong. I have posted two academics sources, one Dvaita source and now directly from Madhva's commentary and one summary of Madhva's commentary.

This is quite a resistant reading of the bhasya. Like I have shown before if every jiva and perform Bhakti to Krsna and be liberated, then even tamoyogya jivas fall into that category.

Again, I am sorry I have to explain your own philosophy to you, although you have have probably read it religiously and perused through the Madhva's commentaries, you do not understand the basics of its epistemology, metaphysics and soteriology . So please forgive me if this sounds condescending. Now that I have established that each jiva has natural unchangeable nature which it cannot ever change, its actions are forced by its nature(guna) and it has no agency of itself. In other words it cannot do anything which is outside of its nature e.g. A dog will naturally bark, it cannot ever change its barking to speaking, because it is forced by its nature. In the same way jivas who are tamo-guna are naturally evil, and they cannot ever change to good, because they are forced by their nature. In the same way a rajo-guna person is naturally lustful, they can never change their way, because they are forced by there nature. I will cite again the summary above(op-cit) which confirms this:

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


​

So how is this different from the vast majority and classical views in Hinduism and Dharmic religion. It is different because it is fatalistic, everything is already predestined and by the will of God, there is no free agency. If you want me to illustrate the implications, it means what Hilter did was the work of God and not Hitler, Hitler was just merely an instrument for which God worked. Can you see how problematic such a philosophy is? Criminals, sadists, murderers could all just say whatever they are doing is suppose to be that way because that is the nature God gave them and it is in fact God working through them for some divine plan. If you ask me, an absolutely disgusting view. Even Christianity is not this bad, because humans have been given free will.

In contrast, in Dharmic religions individual agents do have agency and can perform actions good or bad and the rewards and punishments for the actions are governed by the law of karma which rewards and punishes in proportion to the action, and because all actions are limited and temporal, there can never be an eternal reward like heaven or an eternal punishment like hell. No matter how heinous your actions, such as Hitler's, once Hitler has paid of his karmic debt, his debt is back to zero again.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Yes, but this doesn't disprove my point. Like I have mentioned before in my explanation. Atman, can mean two entities, the Jivatama (us the souls) and paramatma (or Brahman). This is certainly how Madhavacharya interprets this. There is no difference between Brahman and Paramanatma, but there is certainly a difference between Jivatma and Paramatma. Reading it like this, the verses make sense.

Yes that is the Adwaita intepretation. As you realize the Vaishnav schools differ.

In fact it does disprove your point. The Upanishads use four words interchangeably "Brahman" "Atman" Purusha" and "Isha" which translated means God, Self, Person and Lord. Thus, it is implied there is no difference between the four, because if they were different you wouldn't use the words interchangeably. When we use words that are similar to denote the same object, we use them because each word conveys a certain sense e.g. If I say hit, struck, smacked and battered, although I am denoting the same action, each one carries a different sense. Similarly, Brahman is God when we want to convey the sense of the primal cause(pradhana) and the substratum of existence(first sutra of Brahma Sutras) and Self when we want to refer to to Brahman as being our consciousness or the true self, and Person when we want to refer to Brahman as being divine and Lord when we want to refer to Brahman as the most worshipper and beloved.

The reason the Dvaita interpretation you offered of this referring to Jivatman and [/i]Paramatman[/i] is not valid, because the words 'jiva' and 'paramatma' are NOT present in the original Upanishad. If I say to you "hit me on my hand" and then later you add "I hit me on my hand and my face" it is not a valid interpretation of what I said, because you added that yourself. This is why Dvaita's interpretation is not valid.

Why is the Advaita interpretation valid then? It simply interprets what the Upanishad is actually saying. The fact the Upanishads make no distinction between Brahman, Atman, Purusha and and Isha means they are teaching a doctrine of identity. The fact that they explicit make it clear they are teaching a doctrine of identity is expressed in the mahavakyas like "Aham Brahmasi" -- I am Brahman. The fact that the Upanishads teach a philosophy for why we do not apprehend ourselves as Brahman, because of name and form(upadhis) sans which we become Brahman further makes this explicit.

The first 3 verses describe that Jivatma (the bird eating the fruit) and Paramatma (the bird watching) are different entities. Then the next 4 verses describe that when he (the Jivatma, i.e the subject) realizes the Self (Paramatma who dwells within all of us) and takes delight the worship of that Brahman (because Paramatma and Brahman are the same) becomes liberated. In verse 9, the process of realizing that Paramatma (Atman) is given the process of controlling and purifying one's thoughts.

If you are going to argue that jivatma and paramatma are the same, then the first 3 verses become meaningless. I also presented another argument my previous response of why we (the Jivatma) cannot be Paramatma (who is all pervasive and all knowing).

Hence, why I accuse of you of cherry picking, you do not see the entire context of the discussion. If you read further in the same Manduka Upanishad in the next Khanda it says:

8. As the flowing rivers disappear in the sea 5, losing their name and their form, thus a wise man, freed from name and form, goes to the divine Person, who is greater than the great 6.​

9. He who knows that highest Brahman, becomes even Brahman. In his race no one is born ignorant of Brahman. He overcomes grief, he overcomes evil; free from the fetters of the heart, he becomes immortal.​

This is yet another mahavakya found in the Upanishads, "The knower of Brahman becomes Brahman" Here it it explicitly says that when the upadhis are negated, the divine purusha is revealed, and in the next verse it calls that Brahman, and then one becomes that Brahman. It is little different to what it says in Yoga Sutras in 1.2-4:

When the vrittis or modifications of the mind are ceased, then that witnessing consciousness is established in its svarupa(original form sans modification) At other time, it is is identified with the vrittis.​

The fact that in classical times this was the prevailing interpretation in Samkhya, Yoga and Vedanta and we find even pre-Shankara Advaita like Ashtarvarka Samhita reinforcing the same interpretation shows that this is how classically it was understood as well. It is only when we come to the middle ages to medieval period that we see during the rise of the Bhakti cults that we see theologians trying to appropriate the previous philosophies in order to justify their worship of their deity. This is more pronounced in Vaishnavism as it was the most dominant sect, forcing its theologians to come up with new interpretations to support their sect. In much the same way middle age Christian theologians had to come up with a new interpretation of Christianity to support the new organised and reformed religion.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

'

It seems like this debate is sort of hinging of unproductiveness so I will leave a few final comments. It is pretty evidence that you lean towards the Adwaita side of interpreting Vedanta, but you have to understand that there is a whole school of thought (headed by Ramanujacharya and Madhavacharya) who do not accept the claims of Adwaita.

Indeed, I do understand that there are other schools of Vedanta and there are sub-schools of those schools too. I understand interpreting the Upanishads especially is difficult, because they are pre systematic philosophy, couched in symbolism, mythology and metaphor and often appear to say contradictory things, hence we can see even early attempts like by Badrayana's Brahma Sutras to create a consistent interpretation of them, although the sutras themselves are cryptic. However, at the same time in some parts of the Upanishads the Advaitaic interpretation is too explicit, that I think it would be disingenuous to say otherwise.

Shankara was unlike Ramunja and Madhva, because he was not a theologian working on the behalf of some Bhakti sect. He had no partiality to either Vishnu, Shiva or Devi, hence why he composed Bhakti texts on all three, respectively Bhaja Govindam, Aatma Satakam, Soundariya Lahari. It did not matter to Shankara which deity you worshipped, because he saw it as just a means towards chittasuddhi as a prerequisite to the higher understanding of Self as Brahman. In the beginning stages he had a place for worship of Brahman as God, as the divine personality that is the creator, sustain er and destroyer of this universe -- only to transcend that understanding to realise that there was no creation(ajati vada) in the first place. Thus, he was a philosopher par excellence and he backed up every point he made with solid reason.

On the other hand, the Bhakti Vedantists like Ramunjna, Madhva were more theologians than philosophers. They could not back up their points with solid reason. They relied on scriptures, even Puranas and faith to back up their claims e.g. How could you possibly support with reason the existence of a heaven called Vaikunth, with gardens, pleasure places and an elaborate hierarchy of gods Lakshmi, Vayu, Siddhas etc. Shankara never commented on what happens after liberation, because he could not offer any valid pramana for it, so he remained silent. On the other hand Madhva is commenting on what happens after liberation and he is so cocksure that is exactly what happens. That is theology not philosophy. They also spent a lot of time justifying the supremacy of Lord Vishnu and how Vishnu is the only true God. Again theology, not philosophy.

In both of the lives of this great teachers, they have written various challenges and refutations to the Adwaita and have written huge commentaries of scripture to support their understanding.

Indeed they have, but the nature of which is polemical and religious in tone. Madhva's hatred for Advaitins was such that even in his commentaries on the Gita he portrays them as demons that Krishna hates:

Those who think that „I am the Supreme Lord‟ or who considers this world to have been established as nothing but as an illusion and (further) since the world is an illusion there is no Lord to organize it, or no one has created it, or who despises if informed that both ourselves and others are controlled by the Supreme Lord, all these, verily, are demonic and will attain the world of darkness. The unworthy Jivas, who assume no difference between them and the Supreme Lord, who do not surrender their selves to Him showing undue desire or poverty of intellect and hatred towards worthy souls, for them the world of darkness is not impossible. Contradicting direct perception and authority of the Vedas, those who speak this world to be illusion are assuredly a-suras. The men of wisdom, who knowing Sri Vishnu as the Supreme Lord and being men of wisdom propitiate no other divine beings, such ones become eligible for deliverance, thus in Brahma Vaivartaka Purana​

In Hinduism, especially in academics, people seem to label Adwaita as the golden standard and hence label any philosophy which does not subscribe to it as being either wrong, or twisting of scripture and that Adwaita is the only way to read the Upanishads. As someone who has studied these philosophy, frankly I find this attitude quite condescending (I'm not accusing you, but this is the general feeling I get from some Adwaitins I know). Adwaita has always had a very scholarly basis, because its sannayasis thought that the sole object goal of a sannayasi was to read and study scripture. The Vaishnavs on the other hand were more content to chill and worship Lord Visnu and only really wrote huge scriptural works when they were challenged.

I think one of the reasons why Advaita enjoys so much respect academically, because it is a philosophy as opposed to a theology which can be divorced from its religious context. Advaita is known as what we call hermeneutics it is a philosophy that has been derived from the interpretation of an a text. Like Heidegger came up with a hermenutics of Greek literature, finding in them ideas like 'alethea' and interpreting them to create new philosophical understandings. Whether they were present in the original is unimportant to academics, the philosophy stands alone by itself. Similary, Advaita does not require reading any of the scriptures it has been derived from and this is why Advaita philosophy has become export-worthy, where as Vaishnava theology hasn't.

My point is, I feel like you have a very very rudimentary understanding of the Vaishnav philosophies (and I do not mean this in an offensive way, so I apologize if it come out like this). The whole western academia that exists towards Hinduism is heavily biased towards Adwaita. Most of the translations of Upanishads are usually Adwaitic in nature. In the universities in India, usually Adwaita is offered as a major while other schools are not. As a Vaishnav it is a sad thing, but I have made an attempt to explain some of these aspects and hopefully you did learn a few things.

I do agree with you that I have not read very intensively on Vaishnava "philosophy" and I have not studied it formally as I have Advaita. I have not read any of it(Vaishnava) primary texts and I ask you to recommend any prakarana granthas that I can read to get some basic. However, I have some read some introductory primers on the Bhakti Vedanta tradition(one published by Ramakrishna Math) and read some articles, and do know some basic ideas about it --- like panchabheda. Understanding is not a function though of how much you have read and long you have read for, some people can read just a bit for a short time, and understand more than somebody who has been reading tons for all their life. Understanding is based on cognitive ability. I am not sure how to say this without sounding offensive. Although I have read very little of Madhva's Dvaita, I already feel I understand it better than you do and am in a position to clarify the basics for you. The fact that I have had to explain its epistemology, metaphysics and sotreiology to you in the preceding posts lends to that.

You certainly have a very good knowledge of the principles of Adwaita and the other Darshanas (forgive me if my knowledge of the other darshana was lacking as I have not studying them like I have studied Vedanta). But Hinduism is really an umbrella of religions. There is not such thing as traditional Hindu thought because Hinduism itself consists of usually contradicting schools. I mean there are a few concepts that all Hindu will generally agree one (Karma perhaps?), but even that is very small if you actually look at it.

[/quote]

Thank you, my good knowledge of Advaita is simply because I have formally studied it. However, I cut short my study of it, because I did not want to be an Advaita pundit. I saw no relevance behind scholastic study of Advaita, when Advaita is actually moksha-sadhana, a means towards moksha, not scholastic study. Therefore, I have no allegiance to Advaita, to Shankara or any samapradaya. The other darsanas I have studied informally by reading books and articles on them and so my knowledge is very general on them.

I disagree with you that there is no such thing as traditional Hindu thought, because we can divide Hindu thought into stages like Vedic Hinduism, classical Hinduism, Medieval Hinduism and modern Hinduism and we can ascertain the characteristics of Hinduism in that age. e.g. Vedic Hinduism was sacrificial and ritual based, and it reflects an agrarian and pastoral people and their interaction with a natural environment, hence there is a lot of emphasis on nature, seasons, rains, food, cattle etc. It is motivated a belief in 'Rta' the forerunner to dharma as some metaphysical principle that regulates nature. Classical Hinduism is philosophical Hinduism based on the primacy of knowledge over ritual, which leads to completely different doctrines like karma, tattva, samsara, Brahman, Atman, ahimsa and yoga. Medieval Hinduism is scholastic, a return to justifying theological and devotional traditions by reinterpreting old scriptures and creating new scriptures(like Yoga Vasishta) Modern Hinduism is the attempt to reconcile Hinduism with modern science, secularism and rationality.

This is what makes Hinduism the most fascinating religion in the world, you can see in Hinduism the history of the development of religion from the prehistoric to the modern and the evolution of human ideas on religion. This is why many comparative scholars of religion use Hinduism as some meta framework by which other religions can be understood.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Vareity, Spirit_Warrior, variety. What is Hinduism if not variety, and we do not despise variety. We consider it valid. Madhva's views. Perhaps not your's or mine. IMHO, Madhva was a reaction to the free-wheeling Sankara, wanted to rein in Advaita.

 

[निताइ dasa]

I can see here that any further discussion is futile as you are set in your believe that your are right and I am wrong. Rather then trying to understand Madhava's position you are misinterpreting this idea of Panca Bheda to mean that the differences between the conditioned souls it eternal. So this will be my last post regarding this.

Hehe, I suspected as much. Your denial and then subsequent apologies are typical of a religious person who cannot come to terms with some of the uncomfortable truths their religious sect teaches. The fact is clear though, you have been presented three different scholarly sources, including a Dvaita one itself, which summarise Madhva's philosophy, and they all say it teaches a doctrine of each soul of being destined for different goals because of their innate eligibility. Two of those sources say that certain souls are eternally damned.

See this is what I mean. I have shown you why your interpretation of the sources are incorrect. The first sources you gave me, are not academic in any sense. They do no quote Madhavacharya directly but con. The last source you gave me only confirms the concept of permanent and intrinstic differences between liberated souls. It does not confirm the concept of eternal hell. As the the source of Dvaita, I have explained why the interpretation of these guys is not the wholesome interpretation of Madhavacharya. There are many traditional follows of Madhav that do not hold the concept of an eternal hell. You can call me a typical religious person fine, but please do no presume to teach me about a philosophy which I have studied my whole life. Not only is it insulting my study, but it shows a huge unwilling to understanding opposing ideas.

The point of contention here is no whether hell and heaven are eternal places, but whether there are certain class of souls which predestined for hell and heaven. It certainly seems to be the case in Madhva's theology(I hesitate to call it philosophy) that there does exist an ontological class of sous which are predestined for hell. I hope you can see if this is true, this makes Madhva's theology abhorrent.

No, your point was that there is such thing as eternal damnation (i.e the Abrahamic idea that certain souls will head towards and live in hell forever). I have shown you that the traividihi categorizations are classes and not intrinsic properties of the jiva. This is because the 3 gunas are function of Maya and since Maya can be overcome with Bhakti to Lord Krsna so can these classes.

Again, your commentary does not actually contradict the point of contention that there is a class of souls that would never do this, because they are born eternally condemned. You best quote you have given me for these unfortunate, evil, vile and wicked souls basically said they can "practically never" get liberation because they do not worship Vishnu, and their only hope is if the chosen ones the Vishnu devotees save them by bringing them to Vishnu worship. Hence, we can see here a doctrine of salvation not unlike the one in Christianity, where the chosen ones save the non-chosen ones by bringing them to Jesus worship. Where there is smoke, there is fire. The fact so many scholars suspect an Abrahamic influence, whether that is Christianity or Islam on Madhva is because it sounds so much like an Abrahamic theology. It does not sound like a Dharmic religion, let alone Hinduism .

It certainly does. The worship and His devotees is thew way by which all classes of souls get Moksha. The commentary disproves your claim. Now, in order to sidetrack the discussion, you bring the idea of Salvation in an attempt to further compare Madhavacharya to Abhrahamic religions and hence delegitimize him. To this I say again, just because there is a similarity between Hindu and Abhrahamic concept does not make a school non-Hindu. Your view of Hinduism is a very narrow unfortunately.

Again, I am sorry I have to explain your own philosophy to you, although you have have probably read it religiously and perused through the Madhva's commentaries, you do not understand the basics of its epistemology, metaphysics and soteriology . So please forgive me if this sounds condescending. Now that I have established that each jiva has natural unchangeable nature which it cannot ever change, its actions are forced by its nature(guna) and it has no agency of itself. In other words it cannot do anything which is outside of its nature e.g. A dog will naturally bark, it cannot ever change its barking to speaking, because it is forced by its nature. In the same way jivas who are tamo-guna are naturally evil, and they cannot ever change to good, because they are forced by their nature. In the same way a rajo-guna person is naturally lustful, they can never change their way, because they are forced by there nature. I will cite again the summary above(op-cit) which confirms this:

The nature of a Jiva is not the nature of its 3 gunas. See, nature here refers to the spiritual characteristics of a liberated Jiva. Those Jiva who eternally are Narayana dasyas (in a liberated stage) will ultimately be impelled towards Narayana.

Being conscious of the blissful stages, divinities are said to attain greater happiness than the asuras (the unenlightened). That means the gandharvas (celestial beings), the lowest of the human beings and gods may attain deliverance. Further in, the preposition iva makes it clear that even in deliverance there exists gradation (taratamya).It is but natural that the Jiva is a god, a-sura, or a human being because of their natural attributes and there can never be any change in their inclination. Because of curse some like Prahlad become born as asuras, but this asura attribute is not natural to them. Therefore, they attain their natural attribute of the gods. Like the alum which is clear, appears red with association of red flower, these appear to be asura because of the effect of the curses. But that is not a permanent stain and it cannot change their inherent divine attribute. Therefore the ones with divine attributes becoming eligible for the love of Sri Hari become fit for deliverance. They are not capable of being unhappy

sigh, okay let me explain this, because it seems to me you are cherry picking. The very previous commentary to this one, says the following:

The unworthy Jivas, who assume no difference between them and the Supreme Lord, who do not surrender their selves to Him showing undue desire or poverty of intellect and hatred towards worthy souls, for them the world of darkness is not impossible. Contradicting direct perception and authority of the Vedas, those who speak this world to be illusion are assuredly a-suras. The men of wisdom, who knowing Sri Vishnu as the Supreme Lord and being men of wisdom propitiate no other divine beings, such ones become eligible for deliverance, thus in Brahma Vaivartaka Purana

Do you see here, it is knowledge that Lord Vishnu is the supreme Lord that Grants one eligibility for deliverance. Those who are in Tamoguna are naturally impelled into darkeness (because they are covered in Tamo, note here, that Jiva itself is not tamo, but rather it is covered in Tamo). This is what is meant by natural. For a jiva covered in Tamo Guna, it is natural to descend.), but still by chance if whose Jivas get knowledge that Lord Vishnu is Sumpreme, they becoem eligible for Mukti.

There are three categories of Jivas viz. sAttvika, rAjasa and tAmasa. These distinctions are found in their nature,behaviour, food, speech activities and even the purpose of their functions. Gita gives these in detail. Gita gives the main features of good and evil tendencies in the form of Asuri sampat and daivi sampat and also sAttvika, rAjasa, tAmasa grouping in all aspects of Life. Jivas are distinct from God not only during samsAra stage but even after liberation. The Jivas are different from each other also both during samsAra and liberation.

Okay does this really disprove my point? My claim was, that in the samsara stage, the classifications are not permanent but merely covering of Maya, while in the liberated stage they are permanent. This source says nothing to disprove that. I accept that the Jivas are different from each other in both stages. But liberation is possible for all Jivas. Some Jivas may not be impelled towards it, correct, but it is achievable for all (because if there is an eternal distinction of all Jivas in the liberated stage, then all Jivas are able to be liberated, because they have a liberated nature)

Yes, and this is no different to Abrahamic theology, particularly Christian theology which teaches that heaven is a hierarchy. Interesting this conception of a heavenly hierarchy was also developed by medieval theologians.

Perhaps. See my above point that similiar features to Abhrahamics does not make it non-Hindu.

Now that I have established that each jiva has natural unchangeable nature which it cannot ever change, its actions are forced by its nature(guna) and it has no agency of itself. In other words it cannot do anything which is outside of its nature

Inclination does not mean that will happen surely. In-fact, Madhavacharya says, that while these inclinations are hard to change (according to the commentary on verse I quoted, Maya is difficult to overcome) they can be changed by the mercy of the Vaishnavs and Lord Vishnu. I may be inclined towards a certain action, does not mean that the performance of that action will occur. We can choose to act or not act upon our inclinations very easily (and that is function of our self agency) as we have will. Guna, is not a permanent nature, and therefore can be changed by devotion to Lord Hari.

 

[निताइ dasa]

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

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 prakriit)>

So how is this different from the vast majority and classical views in Hinduism and Dharmic religion. It is different because it is fatalistic, everything is already predestined and by the will of God, there is no free agency. If you want me to illustrate the implications, it means what Hilter did was the work of God and not Hitler, Hitler was just merely an instrument for which God worked. Can you see how problematic such a philosophy is? Criminals, sadists, murderers could all just say whatever they are doing is suppose to be that way because that is the nature God gave them and it is in fact God working through them for some divine plan. If you ask me, an absolutely disgusting view. Even Christianity is not this bad, because humans have been given free will.

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.

In contrast, in Dharmic religions individual agents do have agency and can perform actions good or bad and the rewards and punishments for the actions are governed by the law of karma which rewards and punishes in proportion to the action, and because all actions are limited and temporal, there can never be an eternal reward like heaven or an eternal punishment like hell. No matter how heinous your actions, such as Hitler's, once Hitler has paid of his karmic debt, his debt is back to zero again.

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

 

[निताइ dasa]

In fact it does disprove your point. The Upanishads use four words interchangeably "Brahman" "Atman" Purusha" and "Isha" which translated means God, Self, Person and Lord. Thus, it is implied there is no difference between the four, because if they were different you wouldn't use the words interchangeably. When we use words that are similar to denote the same object, we use them because each word conveys a certain sense e.g. If I say hit, struck, smacked and battered, although I am denoting the same action, each one carries a different sense. Similarly, Brahman is God when we want to convey the sense of the primal cause(pradhana) and the substratum of existence(first sutra of Brahma Sutras) and Self when we want to refer to to Brahman as being our consciousness or the true self, and Person when we want to refer to Brahman as being divine and Lord when we want to refer to Brahman as the most worshipper and beloved.

Atma does not always means subjective self. Atma can mean the Supreme Self (Paramatma) or the subjective self (Jiva Atma).

The reason the Dvaita interpretation you offered of this referring to Jivatman and [/i]Paramatman[/i] is not valid, because the words 'jiva' and 'paramatma' are NOT present in the original Upanishad. If I say to you "hit me on my hand" and then later you add "I hit me on my hand and my face" it is not a valid interpretation of what I said, because you added that yourself. This is why Dvaita's interpretation is not valid.

Why is the Advaita interpretation valid then? It simply interprets what the Upanishad is actually saying. The fact the Upanishads make no distinction between Brahman, Atman, Purusha and and Isha means they are teaching a doctrine of identity. The fact that they explicit make it clear they are teaching a doctrine of identity is expressed in the mahavakyas like "Aham Brahmasi" -- I am Brahman. The fact that the Upanishads teach a philosophy for why we do not apprehend ourselves as Brahman, because of name and form(upadhis) sans which we become Brahman further makes this explicit.

The distinction is offered in the analogy of the two birds. The two birds example is evidence that there is a distinction between Ishwara (aka Paramatma, aka Brahma) and the subjective being (aka the Jivatma). You an also find numerous examples of this distinction the Upanishads. For example in Svetasvatara Upanishad

gunanvayo yah phala-karma-karta
krtasya tasyaiva sa copabhokta
sa visva-rupas tri-gunas tri-vartma
pranadhipah sancarati sva-karmabhih


Bewildered by the modes of nature, he [conditioned soul] performs fruitive acts and then experiences their results. Bewildered by the modes, he accepts different forms, by his karma traveling here and there on the paths of sin, piety, and transcendental knowledge.

angustha-matro ravi-tulya-rupah
sankalpahankara-samanvito yah
buddher gunenatma-gunena caiva
aragra-matro hy aparo 'pi drstah



The conditioned soul is small as a thumb, splendid as the sun, and filled with false-ego and material desire. HIs form is very small, and it is seen here that he is different [from Paramatman].

In fact the term aparo pi drstah appears twice in this chapter (suggesting the different between this atma or jivatma and Brahman, or Paramatma).

Hence, why I accuse of you of cherry picking, you do not see the entire context of the discussion. If you read further in the same Manduka Upanishad in the next Khanda it says:


8. As the flowing rivers disappear in the sea 5, losing their name and their form, thus a wise man, freed from name and form, goes to the divine Person, who is greater than the great 6.
9. He who knows that highest Brahman, becomes even Brahman. In his race no one is born ignorant of Brahman. He overcomes grief, he overcomes evil; free from the fetters of the heart, he becomes immortal.

This is yet another mahavakya found in the Upanishads, "The knower of Brahman becomes Brahman" Here it it explicitly says that when the upadhis are negated, the divine purusha is revealed, and in the next verse it calls that Brahman, and then one becomes that Brahman. It is little different to what it says in Yoga Sutras in 1.2-4:

8-9 can be interpreted as follows. One (a jivatma) who knows Brahman, becomes even with Brahman (i.e attains the same Sat-Cid-Ananda of Brahman), not that he becomes Brahman. The sanskrit is very important here. The translation you have posted is a typical Adwaita translation. The word reads brahmaiva bhavati, can be read is becomes like Brahman. In-fact in the previous verse 4th vers it is described ātmā viśate brahmadhāma, that the Jivatma (conditioned soul) will enter into the abode of Brahman (Brahmadhama). If Jiva is Brahman then why the question of Brahmandhama (abode of Brahman?)

If read like this, the meaning is easy to understand. One who knows Brahman attains a spiritual nature similiar to Him and this enters into His holy Abode to always be with Him.

This is again a problem. You are reading hugely Adwaitic translations of these verses, therefore your very interpretation from the beginning is biases to Adwaita.

As for Mahavakhyas, there is not such term found in the Upanishads or any primary literature. Sankara such took 4 (or 6) statements that supports his philosophy and names them Mahavakhyas without any support from scripture itself. Only Adwaitins even have this concept.

Shankara was unlike Ramunja and Madhva, because he was not a theologian working on the behalf of some Bhakti sect. In the beginning stages he had a place for worship of Brahman as God, as the divine personality that is the creator, sustain er and destroyer of this universe -- only to transcend that understanding to realise that there was no creation(ajati vada) in the first place. Thus, he was a philosopher par excellence and he backed up every point he made with solid reason.
That is theology not philosophy. They also spent a lot of time justifying the supremacy of Lord Vishnu and how Vishnu is the only true God. Again theology, not philosophy.

Again typical Adwaitic statement. 'Only Sankara is backed with reason, not Ramanujacjarya and Madhava'. The problem with this, is that Ramanujacharya and Madhavacharya give alot of Shastric and reason support to their claims. I could very easily reason the existence of Vaikuntha if I wanted (something on the lines of, everything is this world is a reflection of the spiritual world. The variety in this world means variety in the spiritual world, therefore the spiritual world exists with variety). They may be theologians, but they are also philosophers, just not the type you want them to be. Ramanujacharya for example, uses alot of Pancaratra texts as well the Sruti to support his claim. Madhavacharya uses Puranas like this too.

They also spent a lot of time justifying the supremacy of Lord Vishnu and how Vishnu is the only true God. Again theology, not philosophy.

You do realize, in a general sense theology is a type of philosophy. If the epistemology of any system is reasoned well, then we can argue that such a system is philosophy.

Indeed they have, but the nature of which is polemical and religious in tone. Madhva's hatred for Advaitins was such that even in his commentaries on the Gita he portrays them as demons that Krishna hates

This is quite a onesided claim I might add. Adwaitins and Dviaitns and hated and insulted each other for centuaries lol. Sankara's followers wrote many books with similiar statements towards Dvaitins. I think Appaya Diksita wrote a book called "smashing the face of Madhavacharya". It was all in the spirit of academic discourse though ahaha. Vedanta Desika (a Sri Vaishnav) and Appaya DIksita (a adwaitin) hated each other's philosophy, but they were good friends in real life.

Also, the classification of Demon makes sense. A demonic person is a person who is in ignorance (that is who it is defined in Gita). According to Madhavacharya, a worldview that establishes that the world is an illusion is in ignorance, and therefore demonic. You are trying to superimpose the Abhrahamic meaning of the world demonic (which has certain overtones) with the Vedic one.

I think one of the reasons why Advaita enjoys so much respect academically, because it is a philosophy as opposed to a theology which can be divorced from its religious context. Advaita is known as what we call hermeneutics it is a philosophy that has been derived from the interpretation of an a text. Like Heidegger came up with a hermenutics of Greek literature, finding in them ideas like 'alethea' and interpreting them to create new philosophical understandings. Whether they were present in the original is unimportant to academics, the philosophy stands alone by itself. Similary, Advaita does not require reading any of the scriptures it has been derived from and this is why Advaita philosophy has become export-worthy, where as Vaishnava theology hasn't.

I disagree with your distinction that Adwaita is a philosophy while Vaishanav traditions is a theology. The Vedas are religious in nature and cannot disconnect them from their religious contexts.. It is the consideration of texts that matter. I would argue that Vaishnav traditions are hermenutics because they are an interpretation of Vedic texts. Nor do I agree that Adwaita does not require the scriptures that it is derived from. The distinction to me seems arbitrary

I do agree with you that I have not read very intensively on Vaishnava "philosophy" and I have not studied it formally as I have Advaita. I have not read any of it(Vaishnava) primary texts and I ask you to recommend any prakarana granthas that I can read to get some basic. However, I have some read some introductory primers on the Bhakti Vedanta tradition(one published by Ramakrishna Math) and read some articles, and do know some basic ideas about it --- like panchabheda. Understanding is not a function though of how much you have read and long you have read for, some people can read just a bit for a short time, and understand more than somebody who has been reading tons for all their life. Understanding is based on cognitive ability. I am not sure how to say this without sounding offensive. Although I have read very little of Madhva's Dvaita, I already feel I understand it better than you do and am in a position to clarify the basics for you. The fact that I have had to explain its epistemology, metaphysics and sotreiology to you in the preceding posts lends to that.

Ramakrishna Math has its roots in Adwaita. It is not a Vaishnav tradition at all. I would recommend studying the commentaries of the Brahma Sutras of Acharyas like Ramanujacarya, Madhavacharya and Baladeva Vidyabhusana (my school). Furthermore, I am of the firm opinion that you do not not understand Dwaita, but only an Adwaitic interpretation of it.That is why the conclusions you are making are quite ridiculous in my mind. You only read a basic summary of the philosophy and then presume to understand it wholly. This is something I cannot agree with, Im sorry.


Anyway this has been an interesting debate. I won't reply any further (because I have this tedency to drag a debate on and on) so unless you have any questions, I take my leave. Hopefully you got something out of it. Jaya Nitaai!

 

[निताइ dasa]

I hope you'll forgive me for my harsh tone throughout this debate. I did not mean to offend you and your study. I think our understandings of this great tradition of Hinduism are very very different, but the great thing is we can respect each other's views and coexist at the the same time. Dvaita is not even my school, but since Gaudiya Vaishnavism descends in the parampara line from Madhavacharya and uses his 10 fundamental basis of Vedanta, we are aware of his works and contributions. Our teachers have also written commentaries of Madhavacharyas principles and worshiped him as a great Vaishnav. As a Gaudiya Vaishnav reading Madhava, I can see meaning and interpretations which don't seem to be taken up by other Dvaitins. There are some parts of Dvaita I disagree with (like we believe the jivatma is a fragmented portion of paramatma). Perhaps I am wrong, but I would very easily provide a scriptural defense of my claims if need be. Just ask anyone here, I love scripture and can defend my viewpoint with it.

 

[Kirran]

Interesting discussion, y'all! Kudos for ducking out, Nitai-Das. A note on something mentioned early on, which I don't think anybody's addressed: Neo-Advaita doesn't refer to the teachings of Swami Vivekananda and his ilk, it refers to practice-less simplifications of Advaitic teachings promulgated primarily in the West, by people like Andrew Cohen and Eckhart Tolle, often claiming to be in the lineage of either Ramana Maharshi or Nisargadatta Maharaj. Swami Vivekananda, on the other hand, is often referred to as being a teacher of Neo-Vedanta, although personally I think such labels are of little use.

As you were

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Vareity, Spirit_Warrior, variety. What is Hinduism if not variety, and we do not despise variety. We consider it valid. Madhva's views. Perhaps not your's or mine. IMHO, Madhva was a reaction to the free-wheeling Sankara, wanted to rein in Advaita.

Actually I have not said otherwise, I welcome all different interpretations and traditions in Hinduism, however this does not mean I think they are all valid and consistent.

I reply later to the posts as I am currently occupied

 

[Terese]

I hope you'll forgive me for my harsh tone throughout this debate. I did not mean to offend you and your study. I think our understandings of this great tradition of Hinduism are very very different, but the great thing is we can respect each other's views and coexist at the the same time. Dvaita is not even my school, but since Gaudiya Vaishnavism descends in the parampara line from Madhavacharya and uses his 10 fundamental basis of Vedanta, we are aware of his works and contributions. Our teachers have also written commentaries of Madhavacharyas principles and worshiped him as a great Vaishnav. As a Gaudiya Vaishnav reading Madhava, I can see meaning and interpretations which don't seem to be taken up by other Dvaitins. There are some parts of Dvaita I disagree with (like we believe the jivatma is a fragmented portion of paramatma). Perhaps I am wrong, but I would very easily provide a scriptural defense of my claims if need be. Just ask anyone here, I love scripture and can defend my viewpoint with it.

Wonderful job with all your posts Nitai-Das! Always eager to read them

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Hari Om,

Before I reply to the quotes of Dasa, I would like to first summarise my thoughts and the position so far on this debate. I emphasise that this is a debate, and not a discussion, this means I have a position(Advaita) and Dasa has a position(Dvaita) and we are both convinced about our positions. In debate, we do not aim to gain more knowledge(that is a discussion) but the aim is to prove each other wrong. Historically, as Dasa pointed out, Dvaitists and Advaitists have fought vicious debates with each other, called each other names, so at least in comparison myself and Dasa's debate is more polite and civilised. Although he did effectively just imply I was a demon in his latest posts: See here:

Also, the classification of Demon makes sense. A demonic person is a person who is in ignorance (that is who it is defined in Gita). According to Madhavacharya, a worldview that establishes that the world is an illusion is in ignorance, and therefore demonic. You are trying to superimpose the Abhrahamic meaning of the world demonic (which has certain overtones) with the Vedic one.

In other words as I am an Advaitin who believes the world is an illusion and that there is no separation between soul and God, then I am a demon. Now, in contrast, because Dasa believes that this world is real and there is no an absolute separation between soul and God, I do not think he is a demon. In fact I can see why this interpretation and philosophy has some validity, and there are tons of people who believe either or both, and I certainly do not think they are demons. This reveals the extremist religious sentiment that Dvatists like Dasa, Prahupada down to their founder Madhva hold. It is not uncommon for the members belonging to these traditions to be dogmatic, fundamentalist, hold medieval attitudes -- recall that "Bhagvad Gita, as it is" faced a call to be banned because of the extremist views of Prabhupada.

I would not call Dasa a demon nor ignorant, in fact to be honest I am agnostic about whether ultimate reality of Brahman is advatist, bhedabedha, viseshadvaita, suddha advaita, dvaita or even shunyata -- the true pramana for this is to first attain liberation. If somebody accepts this world as real and soul and God to be different, I do not fault them, because if we use a realist epistemology, there do seem to be fundamental differences, which are well articulated in Madhva's doctrine of panchabheda 1)Matter and matter 2)Soul and soul 3) 4)Soul and matter and 5) Soul and God. It is a natural conclusion of a realist epistemology.

I do not buy the Advaita answers either that Brahman came under his own Maya and then forgot that that he was Brahman and the bizarre explanations that Maya is beginingless. When Shankara was asked then how did Brahman initially become ignorant, he replied this question cannot be answered, because we are ignorant. It is a bit of a cop out. However, the fault of not being able to give a complete flawless account is not peculiar to Advaita, every system of philosophy suffers from the same curse of incompleteness. All we can do is work with reality as fat as the limits of reason can take us and remain silent about that which is beyond reason. To a large extent Shankara adheres to this attitude, he does not speculate further on what happens after one attains videhamukti(bodiless liberation) Unlike Madhva, who goes on postulate about what happens after liberation, the further stages thereafter and the hierarchies in heaven. This is where it ceases being philosophy, and becomes theology. Shankara is a philosopher and Madhva is a theologian.

Madhva's theology is not unlike the theology of medieval Christian theologians, especially Calvin. I would even go as far to say Madhva's Dvaita Vedanta is the Indian version of Calvinism. Very few people respect Calvinism today because of the major ethical problem it produces, and I think we should have similar problems with Madhva. I will outline what I think the problems are with Madhva's theology

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.

The only thing I will accuse Dasa of is intellectual dishonesty(hey, he called me a demon, I am allowed this much) Initially, I thought it was just ignorance that he did not understand his own philosophy he is defending(although now he admits he is not in total allegiance to it, but his loyalty to it has more religious fervour than mine to Advaita) He does not understand the 5 differences re are REAL(one of the 10 prameyas) He already accepts one of those differences are real re: Soul and God, but does not understand the same applies to the difference between soul and soul. The souls are divided into three classes Sattva-guna souls, Rajo Guna souls and Tamo guna souls. Vayu as the son of Vishnu is the highest sattva guna soul and has the highest position in heaven(Madhva thought of himself as Vayu, the son of God) and then follows many grades of Sattva with '"dasas" lower down on the scale but still in Sattva zone. Hence allowed entry into heaven(Vaikunta). Then Rajo souls are those pursuing wordly objects in samsara and the highest at this level is a chankravarti king and then follows many grades of Rajas with ordinary people earning livelihood lower down on the scale. Then Tamo souls are those condemned to hell who are wicked, evil and demonic. The highest class of Tamo is probably Yama(lord of death) and then follows many grades below of asuras.

Actually, this hierarchy of souls is not unlike what classical Hindu thought and Advaita tells us. We also see in the Upanishads descriptions of the lokas bhu, bhava, swavha, tapa, maha etc and the class of beings yaksas, gandharvas, devas, asuras etc. It is also repeat in Samkhya shastra that the lokas range from tamo guna to sattva guna. The higher celestial reside in the sattva regions. But there is MASSIVE difference ---

The positions are NOT fixed. You move up and down the lokas based on the karma you earn on Earth in this karmabhumi. This is the view in all other Dharmic religions too. However, in Madva's Dvaita, which is almost like a cosmic version of the caste system, you CANNOT move up and down. Dasa already admits that this is true in heaven(sattva zone) you can only rise to a certain rank and not beyond(interesting how Madhva assigns himself the highest rank ) but he fails to acknowledge that this applies at the level of samsara too(rajas zone) and down to the lowest(tamas zone) This is where the difference between soul and soul applies.

What is intellectually dishonest is that despite showing him 5 different sources confirming the above, he has not conceded on this point. First source I showed him was the New Encyclopedia. He responded by saying simply "The site is wrong" Second source I showed him was Dvaita.org, and a commentary on the 10 fundamentals(prameyas) by a recognised Dvaita authority and he replies "That Dvaita site is full of wrong things" Third source I showed him was Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy which confirmed the fixed hierarchy of souls and how karma is a function of just fulfilling your own destiny. He then demanded he would only accept Madhva's gospel as evidence. So that is what I just did, I cited directly from Madhva's commentary on chapter 16 of the Gita where Madhva explicitly refers to the classes of souls says that the souls cannot change their own nature.

He has just been constantly just denying, shifting the goal posts and playing word games on this point that Madhva does indeed accept eternal damnation for one category of souls. How is a debate possible when you can't even faithfully reproduce your own position.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I can see here that any further discussion is futile as you are set in your believe that your are right and I am wrong. Rather then trying to understand Madhava's position you are misinterpreting this idea of Panca Bheda to mean that the differences between the conditioned souls it eternal. So this will be my last post regarding this.

Well that is what a debate is. I am convinced I am right, you are convinced you are right. However, I still think you should be faithful in representing your actual position, it has become clear that you are not representing Madhva's position at all. As you do not understand, the differences are real Actually you sort of do, because you understand the difference between soul and God is real, but because you understand the ethical implications of applying the same to soul and soul, you are failing to admit that the difference here is real too. Each soul has a nature some are sattvic, some rajasic and some tamasic and they can only every achieve what is in their nature.

See this is what I mean. I have shown you why your interpretation of the sources are incorrect. The first sources you gave me, are not academic in any sense. They do no quote Madhavacharya directly but con.

And even when I did quote directly from Madvacharya you denied it lol

You can call me a typical religious person fine, but please do no presume to teach me about a philosophy which I have studied my whole life. Not only is it insulting my study, but it shows a huge unwilling to understanding opposing ideas.

I call you a religious person because you cannot deal with the uncomfortable truths that your particular religious sect teaches, even though it clearly does, so what you have done is either denied that those truths are present at or rationalised it. In your case it is straight denial. If you want to prove to me that a soul's position is not fixed you need to actually show me more evidence that Madhva says they can change their position. The very best you have provided me literally said "practically never, with a some caveat unless they are saved by a devotee" This debate reminds me of a debate on the caste system

The difference in out attitude is, which is why I am not religious, if you showed me something that proved Shankara to be false, for e.g. you showed me earlier how he translates a word in the secondary sense to suit his philosophy, I conceded the point to you. That is because I am honest, I accept when I am wrong; conversely I never budge when I think I am right.

No, your point was that there is such thing as eternal damnation (i.e the Abrahamic idea that certain souls will head towards and live in hell forever). I have shown you that the traividihi categorizations are classes and not intrinsic properties of the jiva. This is because the 3 gunas are function of Maya and since Maya can be overcome with Bhakti to Lord Krsna so can these classes.

Then show me evidence. I will be honest I don't trust what you say now, because its been contradicting what I have found out with my own independent research and now that I read actual authorities on Dvaita and even Madhva's own commentaries, I know you what you are telling me is false. So show me evidence that these categorisations are souls are just conditional classes and can be overcome.

It certainly does. The worship and His devotees is thew way by which all classes of souls get Moksha. The commentary disproves your claim. Now, in order to sidetrack the discussion, you bring the idea of Salvation in an attempt to further compare Madhavacharya to Abhrahamic religions and hence delegitimize him. To this I say again, just because there is a similarity between Hindu and Abhrahamic concept does not make a school non-Hindu. Your view of Hinduism is a very narrow unfortunately.

Your commentary does not disprove the claim that the souls have fixed natures that cannot be changed at all. In fact it says "practically never" they can change, and then sort of adds a condition only if they were fortunate enough to be brought to Vishnu bhakti by a bhakta could that happen. However, it does not actually say it is possible for this to happen, because if their nature cannot change, they will never turn to bhakti to Visnu and Madhva again confirms it in the verse I cited.

The nature of a Jiva is not the nature of its 3 gunas. See, nature here refers to the spiritual characteristics of a liberated Jiva. Those Jiva who eternally are Narayana dasyas (in a liberated stage) will ultimately be impelled towards Narayana.

You are contradicted by the sections from Madhva's commentaries I have already cited:

It is but natural that the Jiva is a god, a-sura, or a human being because of their natural attributes and there can never be any change in their inclination.​

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[/QUOTE]​

Jivas are distinct from God not only during samsAra stage but even after liberation. The Jivas are different from each other also both during samsAra and liberation.​

This is saying, rather explicitly, this is why I can only explain your denial of it is psychological, you are uncomfortable in accepting that each jiva has a fixed nature in Madhva's theology.

sigh, okay let me explain this, because it seems to me you are cherry picking. The very previous commentary to this one, says the following:

Nah dude, it is you who are cherry picking. I have cited Madhva's commentary from the section of the Gita chapter 16 where Krishna talks about the distinction between the divine and demonic. This would be the section to here from the horses mouth itself so to speak, about what they think. And this is what is found.

It is but natural that the Jiva is a god, a-sura, or a human being because of their natural attributes and there can NEVER be any change in their inclination.
​

My friend how much more explicit do you want me to make it? Shall I emblazon it and fix it up in flashing neon letters? Madhva here is saying the soul's nature can NEVER change. It is fixed. Evils souls will think, say and do evil things and good souls will think, say, and do good things.

Now, it is your burden of proof to show me several more quotes from his commentary where he does admit that souls can change there nature. I have already shown you 5 sources that their nature is fixed. It is obvious to any impartial judge the weight of evidence is stronger on my side. If you can show me something in addition to the one sole "practically never" you have produced already, I will concede to you. I am honest, I concede when I have been proven wrong.

Do you see here, it is knowledge that Lord Vishnu is the supreme Lord that Grants one eligibility for deliverance. Those who are in Tamoguna are naturally impelled into darkeness (because they are covered in Tamo, note here, that Jiva itself is not tamo, but rather it is covered in Tamo). This is what is meant by natural. For a jiva covered in Tamo Guna, it is natural to descend.), but still by chance if whose Jivas get knowledge that Lord Vishnu is Sumpreme, they becoem eligible for Mukti.

I feel for these untouchables of Madhva's cosmic caste system, but you are saying these untouchables can be saved, so I await more quotes from Madhva allowing this grace.

Okay does this really disprove my point? My claim was, that in the samsara stage, the classifications are not permanent but merely covering of Maya, while in the liberated stage they are permanent. This source says nothing to disprove that. I accept that the Jivas are different from each other in both stages. But liberation is possible for all Jivas. Some Jivas may not be impelled towards it, correct, but it is achievable for all (because if there is an eternal distinction of all Jivas in the liberated stage, then all Jivas are able to be liberated, because they have a liberated nature)

It does disprove your point. You are shifting the goal post. You told me the differences only are real in the liberated stage, and the summary of Madhva's commentary says the differences are also in the samsara stages. The differences here means different grades of soul.

Perhaps. See my above point that similiar features to Abhrahamics does not make it non-Hindu.

Sure, I accept that, but we can still say it is totally divergent from from vast majority of Hindu and dharmic thought.

Inclination does not mean that will happen surely. In-fact, Madhavacharya says, that while these inclinations are hard to change (according to the commentary on verse I quoted, Maya is difficult to overcome) they can be changed by the mercy of the Vaishnavs and Lord Vishnu. I may be inclined towards a certain action, does not mean that the performance of that action will occur. We can choose to act or not act upon our inclinations very easily (and that is function of our self agency) as we have will. Guna, is not a permanent nature, and therefore can be changed by devotion to Lord Hari.

So it is your burden of proof now to prove this emboldened part. It would actually make me respect Madhva more, who is already in my bad books for calling me a demon lol

 

[निताइ dasa]

If you truly believe I am wrong, and that there is no reason to trust what I say, then this debate is over. I promised the previous post was point to be my last (I had said all I wanted to say), but I feel compelled to write this. My purpose of entering this debate was to perhaps enlighten you on some of the principles of Dvaita Vaishnavism as per my knowledge, not to engage in this pointless back and forth. But since by reading the commentaries of Dvaita you have become a great Dvaita expert there is not much that I can say can I? If only our Dvaita expert Tattvaprahara was here. I will leave you with a final verse and its commentary by Madhavacharya. Jaya Nitaai.

daivi hy esa guna-mayi
mama maya duratyaya
mam eva ye prapadyante
mayam etam taranti te

The Lord spoke: "This divine Maya of mine, consisting of the three modes (Sattva, Raja and Tamo) are difficult to cross. But those who take shelter of me, can easily cross beyond it.

Commentary by Sripad Madhavacharya"

"Shri, Bhu and Durga are the distinct three forms of the Great Illusion, of Sri Lakshmi. She does not partake the endless energies of the Lord, since she has taken refuge in Him. Because of such protection, Rudra, Brahma and other Gods do not possess even a small part of her manifestation. Without the grace of Sri Vishnu even they cannot overcome her power. To the question how can maya [consisting of these three modes] be surmounted?, Sri Krishna replies saying taking refuge in Me. The one who renounces all else, taking refuge in supreme Lord alone, his adoration to the Teacher etc. reaches him alone or he perceives that (the Teacher) has become great because supreme Lord is abiding in him. The intermediate human beings because of My being near him, propitiate the Teacher. The superior ones propitiate all the creatures, they being manifested in Me, thus in Narada Purana. Through your form of consciousness, which is in Mind of the Teacher, You yourself teach the wisdom about Yourself.

Why do all people not surrender to Him? This is explained in this verse. The are deprived of intelligence, because of their evil deeds. Same is the case with the mean ones among men, robbed of their Wisdom, they become bewildered in their intelligence. Therefore, they take shelter in demonic inclination. Here the word maayayaa|p)ta means robbed or concealed, stolen by the illusory energy. Awareness is the natural tendency of the one born ; by illusion it becomes concealed. The one who is intent in satisfying the senses is Asaur (unenlightened), thus in Vyasa Yoga. Among the Gods there is predominance of Awaremess among Asuras enjoyment of senses is predominant, thus in Naarada Puraana." [basically the purport of this is awareness is the natural tendency of all Jivas that are born. But, by maya's illusion this awareness becomes conceleaded and gives rise to avidya, which is what makes a jiva tamayogya. It is not an eternal classification]

- The unmanifest (Sri Lakshmi), verily, is what causes Illusion. People who are under the influence of Sri Lakshmi are essentially deluded by Sri Vishnu Himself. Those who propitiate Sri Vishnu, only they will surely cross over the Illusion. Gross Illusion and its presiding deity Sri Lakshmi 125 both are subservient to Sri Vishnu. Therefore, everyone should surrender [note how he says everyone, including those Jivas in Tamo] to Sri Vishnu with uncompromising devotion. The form of fullness of devotion is not possible to arise anywhere else. Uncompromising devotion should be known as that in which one is attuned to Sri Vishnu in all entirety. The devotion to Sri Lakshmi, Brahma, Rudra and others should be considered as devotion to Sri Vishnu, because they are all subservient to Him. Knowing thus, one reaches Him but not through any other means. The Complete One is Vasudeva alone, no one else. The ones who knows thus are very rare in the world, while all are, verily, the mixed aspirants.

Even after knowing Sri Vishnu as the Supreme One, those who propitiate Ramaa, Brahma, Hara and others as the superior ones, though such worship, they enter the dark world of tamas (obscurity), offering the eternal misery, to those born in the family of those who have no awareness (here Madhavacharya clearly states that one enters into tama Guna. If Guna is innate nature, then one cannot enter into it.). Whereas Sri Vishnu alone is fully to be propitiated because without knowing this principles of propitiating Sri Vishnu other propitiation becomes disparate. Knowledge comes to be used only for the satisfaction of the body. If by discrimination one becomes aware of the truth, then other gods should be worshipped knowing them to be the members of His family. The worship done unknowingly and later given up, does not bring any demerits. In the subsequent life the Lord Himself grants quick recollection making some one the instrument of the proper mode of worship.

Elsewhere in the commentary to verse 14-19, he states the following:

"Maha-Lakshmi is supreme spouse of Sriman Narayana. She is known as Prakriti, because she creates by her luminosity. In her, therefore, are the three forms, satva, raja and tama. At the time 206 of creation, because of her being Luminous Sri is called sat and because of her illumination as tva. Because as Bhu, the earth, in the process of creation she is creative (enterprise), she is called raja. Since she manifests as this earth she is called BaUmaI. Because she obscures the minds of the Jivas, she is known as Durga or tama. The un-liberated human beings are thus being controlled by these three attributes. Even though the entire three bind all, especially Sri Devi binds the gods, Bhu Devi binds the human beings and Durga Devi binds the asuras. But knowing Sri Vishnu as superior to these three attributes, they are liberated. [again by the knowledge that Sri Vishnu is Supreme, all the previous (the three categories) can be liberated]. So long as human beings accept them as extremely powerful, till then they will remain like animals in the shape of human beings. Therefore Sri Vishnu should always be considered as possessing the increased"

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Hari Om,

I am not sure if this debate is over or not, I have been occupied lately, so I have not had time to respond to the latest posts. So either you can respond to the new points I am making, or just don't respond to them and we can call it a day. I still feel I need to make my points

On interpretation of Upanishads

Atma does not always means subjective self. Atma can mean the Supreme Self (Paramatma) or the subjective self (Jiva Atma).




The distinction is offered in the analogy of the two birds. The two birds example is evidence that there is a distinction between Ishwara (aka Paramatma, aka Brahma) and the subjective being (aka the Jivatma).

The two birds are described to be in an inseparable relationship, one is described as tasting the fruits and the other as just looking on without eating it. Thus, if we look at this one sentence itself in isolation, either an advaitist and viseshadvaitist interpretation is possible, not a dvatist which talks about absolute separation.

However, I think you are taking the metaphor too literally, you are taking two birds to mean two literal entities(in this case two different souls) when it is clear to any wise person this is only a metaphor. To understand further you need to look at the entire Upanishad to get the context of why the metaphor is being used and what is it trying to teach. As I pointed out later it uses the word Self and then Brahman interchangebly. Thus to take Self and Brahman to be equivalent(Brahman = Atman) is a valid interpretation.

However, you are adding words that are not there like Jiva and Paramtma. This is why it is not a valid interpretation. If I stated "Bring me the ball" and you bring me the ball and the bat, then it is not a valid interpretation because you added a word to it and changed the meaning. Similary, I cannot accept your interpretation as valid.

You an also find numerous examples of this distinction the Upanishads. For example in Svetasvatara Upanishad

gunanvayo yah phala-karma-karta
krtasya tasyaiva sa copabhokta
sa visva-rupas tri-gunas tri-vartma
pranadhipah sancarati sva-karmabhih


Bewildered by the modes of nature, he [conditioned soul] performs fruitive acts and then experiences their results. Bewildered by the modes, he accepts different forms, by his karma traveling here and there on the paths of sin, piety, and transcendental knowledge.

angustha-matro ravi-tulya-rupah
sankalpahankara-samanvito yah
buddher gunenatma-gunena caiva
aragra-matro hy aparo 'pi drstah



The conditioned soul is small as a thumb, splendid as the sun, and filled with false-ego and material desire. HIs form is very small, and it is seen here that he is different [from Paramatman].

In fact the term aparo pi drstah appears twice in this chapter (suggesting the different between this atma or jivatma and Brahman, or Paramatma).

In fact here you are revealing what is wrong with using only testimony which I indicated in the other thread. You need to interpret meanings in every statement, and interpretations can be numerous. You can argue about interpretations until the cows come home, as this is what has happened in virtually every religion that is scripture based. Hence, why the only pramana that can fully establish a truth is next inference and then perception. At one time people were arguing about the shape of the Earth, based on just testimony it was flat, like an egg, and even spherical. Then some wise people using inferences were able to work out the Earth was spherical, but even then it did not completely convince, it only convinced people who accepted inference as valid means of knowledge, in the end it was wasn't until we actually got out there in space to actually see our planet that the matter was finally decided it was spherical. Nobody, but an idiot now disputes this. Similarly, I argue it is rather pointless discussing ultimate reality, whether Brahman is impersonal or impersonal, whether Brahman is one or many --- experience Brahman first and you will know the answers to this yourself.

This is why I actually prefer Samkhya-Yoga to Advaita, and though you are accusing me of partiality to Advaita, you don't know that I was considered a heretic of Advaita in my Ashram because I challenged it(like I called it incomplete) and I was seen as Samkhya-Yoga vadin. I will tell you why. It is seen in Advaita shastra itself that the Yoga of Patanjali is the best way to purify the mind. It says the Self shines forth in a pure mind, purified by samadhi and then one can have a direct experience of Self. However, it contradicts itself when it just calls Yoga a prerequisite, a just a secondary means, and Advaita a primary means. Hence the suggestion is first you use Yoga to attain Samadhi and experience the Self. Then you need Advaita to understand that the Self you experienced was Brahman. This made no sense to me, because of you have already experienced nirvikilpa samadhi and the Self, then you don't need to study anymore scripture or shastra to understand it, the understanding is in the experience itself. It is like you don't need to read a description of the taste of sugar, if you have already tasted it. This dogma in Advaita of studying scripture all the time is really to preserve a scholastic tradition, because Advaita is not power-neutral, there are great positions of power in the Advaita community equivalent to clergy in the Church. I did not like this, so another reason why I did not want to be a part of it.

Now, all that said, there is such a thing as a valid interpretation. If I say "I want a banana" and you give me an orange, then we can say that your interpretation of what I said is NOT valid. Interpretations are judged by consistency of words and it is through consensus that we know what the real meaning of a sentence should mean. If I say "Her heart froze at the sight of him" The consensual meaning would not be that her heart literally turned into ice, but that this is an obvious metaphor indicating an emotional state. Similarly, the Upanishads are full of metaphors, like the ones already mentioned the two birds or the size of a thumb.

Please forgive me for saying this, but if you are literally interpreting the two birds perched on a tree as actually two separate entities and the soul being a size of a thumb as actually being the size of a thumb, then it would be similar to interpreting "her heart froze" as her heart literally turning into ice, and people would not think of you as to be very wise. This means we must accept both as metaphors and indicating something. What it is indicating can be gleaned from the context of the discussion. In the case of "two birds" it very hard too deny that this is an Advaitist teaching, because it uses Self and Brahman interchangeably. Now, let us see if the SU can also be interpreted in an Advaitist or Dvatist way.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

The SU Upanishad, a later Upanishad is far more difficult to interpret as an Advaita Upanishad, it is a more of a Samkhya-Yoga Upanishad, and it shows evidence of a new branch of philosophy emerging from the usual Advaita one. It is also true the SU can support a Dvaita interpretation, because most of it is referring to the Self as Lord, the creator, the God of all gods, the power behind the whole universe, the one worthy to be worshipped. It is also for the first time introduces the idea of the small self(living self) as opposed to the great self(mahatma) However, even in reading this Upanishad it becomes clear that the Self it is referring to is indeed our own Self

By making his body the under-wood, and the syllable Om the upper-wood, man, after repeating the drill of meditation, will perceive the bright god, like the spark hidden in the wood 1.

15. As oil in seeds, as butter in cream, as water in (dry) river-beds 2, as fire in wood, so is the Self seized within the self, if man looks for him by truthfulness and penance 3;

16. (If he looks) for the Self that pervades everything, as butter is contained in milk, and the roots whereof are self-knowledge and penance. That is the Brahman taught by the Upanishad.​

All the metaphors used here refer to something hidden, the fire in the wood, the oil in the seeds, the butter in the cream, and finally it relates this to the Self within the Self and then asserts this is Brahman. In the preceding three metaphors it only through a process of churning that the hidden essence is extracted, likewise it suggests that the Self is Brahman is to be extracted by churning our own self through self-knowledge and tapasya. This is what in Advaita we call Jnana-abhyasa to constantly remind ourselves that our true essence is Brahman through the thought of "I am Brahman"(Brahma-vritti) Once again I diverge from this interpretation, because I felt asserting identity with Brahman lead to my peers becoming arrogant jerks, one merely has to churn the cream to reveal the butter, you don't have to know a priori there is better for the churning process to work. Similarly, one does not have to assert "I am Brahman" to reveal the Self as Brahman, it is through Yoga itself that Brahman will be revealed.

8-9 can be interpreted as follows. One (a jivatma) who knows Brahman, becomes even with Brahman (i.e attains the same Sat-Cid-Ananda of Brahman), not that he becomes Brahman. The sanskrit is very important here. The translation you have posted is a typical Adwaita translation. The word reads brahmaiva bhavati, can be read is becomes like Brahman. In-fact in the previous verse 4th vers it is described ātmā viśate brahmadhāma, that the Jivatma (conditioned soul) will enter into the abode of Brahman (Brahmadhama). If Jiva is Brahman then why the question of Brahmandhama (abode of Brahman?)

If read like this, the meaning is easy to understand. One who knows Brahman attains a spiritual nature similiar to Him and this enters into His holy Abode to always be with Him.

Ok, I can accept this interpretation, however it can be countered balanced by saying that the soul becomes like Brahman, meaning the souls attains the same qualities of Brahman. If we say x has become like y, we are saying that x has inherited the properties of y. To say "abode of Brahman" can be interpreted to mean sphere or zone of Brahman. There is even a Jain way of interpreting this, in Jainism the soul can attain to a state of existence of pure knowledge, awareness, happiness and power and then the souls inherits all those properties and becomes a God itself. This does not mean that state itself is God, and this is why Jains do not believe there is some one God. There is justification for this from the SU, see:

1.11. When that god is known, all fetters fall off, sufferings are destroyed, and birth and death cease. From meditating on him there arises, on the dissolution of the body, the third state, that of universal lordship 2; but he only who is alone, is satisfied 3.​

1.12. This, which rests eternally within the self, should be known; and beyond this not anything has to be known. By knowing the enjoyer 4, the enjoyed, and the ruler, everything has been declared to be threefold, and this is Brahman​

Here can see that the soul literally inherits the quality of universal lordship, or becomes like a God itself on attaining self-realisation. The SU also keeps on saying "becomes immortal" is freed from birth and death, attains infinite happiness etc --- this is all consistent with an interpretation that Brahman is an ultimate state of existence, the very background of existence which underlies everything and each soul(jivatman) can realise this ultimate state which is satchitananda.

This is again a problem. You are reading hugely Adwaitic translations of these verses, therefore your very interpretation from the beginning is biases to Adwaita.

Your problem is this: If the Upanishads were really preaching Dvaita, an absolute separation between Self and God, then why don't they just say it? There is no ambiguity in the bible or the Quran that God is all mighty, absolute, all powerful and we are just his children or his servants. It is made very clear God is our creator and a separate person . The Upanishads instead use the word "Self" and they use the word Self, God, Lord interchangeably. They constantly use phrases like "The Self hidden inside the cave of the heart" and constantly enjoin us to meditate an discover this true Self underlying our own Self, and it constantly tells us to find the nature of our Self:

14. As a metal disk (mirror), tarnished by dust, shines bright again after it has been cleaned, so is the one incarnate person satisfied and free from grief, after he has seen the real nature of the Self 4.​

15. And when by means of the real nature of his self he sees, as by a lamp, the real nature of Brahman, then having known the unborn, eternal god, who is beyond all natures 1, he is freed from all fetters.​

Here the metaphor is clear, a dirty mirror when covered by dust has to be wiped clean, so that it restored to its original pristine state so it can reflect things clearly. This metaphor is used to illustrate that when we clean our Self and restore to its original self, it reveals Brahman. The fact that the SU interchangably calls this pure Self and Brahman the same, indicates there are not two things being spoken about here the living self(jivatman) and a supreme self(paramatma) Rather it is speaking about one thing, the living self as being an unclean supreme self, which when cleaned, is restored to the supreme self and thereby it attains all the qualities of the supreme Self.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

As for Mahavakhyas, there is not such term found in the Upanishads or any primary literature. Sankara such took 4 (or 6) statements that supports his philosophy and names them Mahavakhyas without any support from scripture itself. Only Adwaitins even have this concept.

Indeed, the the statements are not called 'mahavakyas' in the Upanishads, but these are oft repeated or powerful statements found in the Upanishad which is why Shankara has dubbed them "Great statements of the Upanishad" The fact is some of these statements are very explicit, that how can you not interpret them from an Advaita point of view:

Tat Tvam Asi: Thou Art that
Ayam Atma Brahma: My Self is Brahman
Aham Brahasmi: I am Brahman

Now see the last one in the context of discussion

8. This, which is nearer to us than anything, this Self, is dearer than a son, dearer than wealth, dearer than all else.

And if one were to say to one who declares another than the Self dear, that he will lose what is dear to him, very likely it would be so. Let him worship the Self alone as dear. He who worships the Self alone as dear, the object of his love will never perish 1.

9. Here they say: 'If men think that by knowledge of Brahman they will become everything, what then did that Brahman know, from whence all this sprang?'

10. Verily in the beginning this was Brahman, that Brahman knew (its) Self only, saying, 'I am Brahman.' From it all this sprang. Thus, whatever Deva was awakened (so as to know Brahman), he indeed became that (Brahman); and the same with Rishis and men. The Rishi Vâmadeva saw and understood it, singing, 'I was Manu (moon), I was the sun.' Therefore now also he who thus knows that he is Brahman, becomes all this, and even the Devas cannot prevent it, for he himself is their Self.

Now if a man worships another deity, thinking the deity is one and he another, he does not know. He is like a beast for the Devas. For verily, as many beasts nourish a man, thus does every man nourish the Devas. If only one beast is taken away, it is not pleasant; how much more when many are taken! Therefore it is not pleasant to the Devas that men should know this.

(Brihadaranyaka 1.4)

​

How can you not interpret this in an Advaita way? It first begins by saying the Self is the most beloved and most worshippable and nothing else should be worshipped. It then equates Brahman with the Self, by saying that even when Brahman as the first cause the the source of existence said "I am Brahman" and it says that the gods, the rishis and men who know the same truth "I am Brahman" become just that. Next, it actually warns against a Dvatist interpretation, if you think of Brahman as being separate from the Self, then you are a beast for the gods, or meaning the gods thrive on your ignorance that you don't know this truth, because knowing this truth will make you a god too.

Indeed, that is the attitude of a Dvatist, they see themselves as servants of some God, whether that be Vishnu, Shiva, Hanuman, Devi, or in the case of Abrahamics Jehova, Jesus or Allah and they serve them. However, nowhere in the Upanishads does it teach this doctrine of servitude. It actually teaches a doctrine of knowing that ultimate Self that you also become that. This is why I see Dvaita Vedanta as weakening the soul rather than empowering it. Being an eternal servant is not an empowering thought.

Again typical Adwaitic statement. 'Only Sankara is backed with reason, not Ramanujacjarya and Madhava'. The problem with this, is that Ramanujacharya and Madhavacharya give alot of Shastric and reason support to their claims. I could very easily reason the existence of Vaikuntha if I wanted (something on the lines of, everything is this world is a reflection of the spiritual world. The variety in this world means variety in the spiritual world, therefore the spiritual world exists with variety). They may be theologians, but they are also philosophers, just not the type you want them to be. Ramanujacharya for example, uses alot of Pancaratra texts as well the Sruti to support his claim. Madhavacharya uses Puranas like this too.

No, because your reasoning is based on unproven premises. Your premises must begin from empirical facts, because those are the premises I can test. Then your inferences must be supported by actual observed relationships in the world, because I can test that too e.g. I infer that there is a force of magnetism between the magnet and the iron filings, because when I move the magnet towards them, it either attracts them or repels them, and because nothing moves or changes direction without application of force, I am forced to the inference that there is an invisible magnetic force. Similarly, Shankara uses logical arguments to create the philosophy of Advaita.
The fact that it has come from the Upanishads is irrelevant, it could have come from space aliens even, what is important is can the philosophy stand alone without the scripture, and it can.

On the other hand, as you admit yourself, Ramunjna and Madhva(especially Madhva) cannot stand apart from scriptures -- this is why it is theology and not philosophy.

You do realize, in a general sense theology is a type of philosophy. If the epistemology of any system is reasoned well, then we can argue that such a system is philosophy.

There is you using terms broadly and loosely again. Like you were saying in another thread science is a faith. If theology and philosophy were both same things, why we would have different words designating them as separate branches of study? If I study theology I have to read scriptures, and then I have to interpret scriptures. If I study philosophy, I don't have to read any scriptures, I follow logical arguments. It is true theologians have come up with arguments that we can follow, which we call "philosophy of religion" but all these attempts have so far failed. Like natural theology which tried to justify God's existence using reason.

This is quite a onesided claim I might add. Adwaitins and Dviaitns and hated and insulted each other for centuaries lol. Sankara's followers wrote many books with similiar statements towards Dvaitins. I think Appaya Diksita wrote a book called "smashing the face of Madhavacharya". It was all in the spirit of academic discourse though ahaha. Vedanta Desika (a Sri Vaishnav) and Appaya DIksita (a adwaitin) hated each other's philosophy, but they were good friends in real life.

All I can say to this is, you(Dvatins) started it. Dvaita was a reaction to Advaita, not vis versa. If you read Shankara's commentaries he does not anywhere call Dvaitists demons, he does not twist scripture like Madhva does with chapter 16 to force his own personal views and vendetta on the text. This is why, to answer your question, Advaita is considered philosophy and Dvaita theology. This is why Advaita is the gold standard and why it is considered the cream of Vedanta philosophy, whereas Dvaita is Vaishnavism.

I disagree with your distinction that Adwaita is a philosophy while Vaishanav traditions is a theology. The Vedas are religious in nature and cannot disconnect them from their religious contexts.. It is the consideration of texts that matter. I would argue that Vaishnav traditions are hermenutics because they are an interpretation of Vedic texts. Nor do I agree that Adwaita does not require the scriptures that it is derived from. The distinction to me seems arbitrary

Okay so even if I grant you that Vaishnava tradition are a hermenutics of Vedic texts, they cannot stand apart from them. Meanwhile, Advaita can, because every point in Advaita philosophy is based on argument, and if you follow the argument, you are forced to its conclusion. You may not have read a single Vedic scripture, but you can still look at the arguments Advaita makes. Many modern Advaitists don't even know of the Prasthanatrayi.

Ramakrishna Math has its roots in Adwaita. It is not a Vaishnav tradition at all. I would recommend studying the commentaries of the Brahma Sutras of Acharyas like Ramanujacarya, Madhavacharya and Baladeva Vidyabhusana (my school). Furthermore, I am of the firm opinion that you do not not understand Dwaita, but only an Adwaitic interpretation of it.That is why the conclusions you are making are quite ridiculous in my mind. You only read a basic summary of the philosophy and then presume to understand it wholly. This is something I cannot agree with, Im sorry.

Ramakrishna Math has no conspiracy theory to portray Dvaita Vedanta in a bad light or misrepresent their doctrines. In fact Ramakrishna Math are reliable and trustworthy publishers of generally Hindu literature and they produce faithful translations and commentaries from the perspective of the actual philosophy. The book I have is a faithful description of the Bhakt Vedantra traditions and it speaking of them reverentially. In any case it seems like no source on Dvaita Vedanta is reliable for you anyway. Anything that disagrees with your own current beliefs about its teachings is simply wrong. Forgive me for expressing strong doubts on your understanding of your own philosophy, because everything I looked at so far does not support what you are saying.

Anyway this has been an interesting debate. I won't reply any further (because I have this tedency to drag a debate on and on) so unless you have any questions, I take my leave. Hopefully you got something out of it. Jaya Nitaai!

As long as we are producing new and fresh points the debate carries on, otherwise yo forfeit the debate by default. Just because ranting "Uff, ill let you know you are right" is a cop out. It is like saying "I will pray for you" If one enters a debate, they should have the perseverance to see it though. When nothing new is coming out of it that is when we can mutually agree to end it.

 

[Kirran]

We have a similar issue with Tattva as with you, Nitai-Das - we can't tag them!

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

If you truly believe I am wrong, and that there is no reason to trust what I say, then this debate is over. I promised the previous post was point to be my last (I had said all I wanted to say), but I feel compelled to write this. My purpose of entering this debate was to perhaps enlighten you on some of the principles of Dvaita Vaishnavism as per my knowledge, not to engage in this pointless back and forth. But since by reading the commentaries of Dvaita you have become a great Dvaita expert there is not much that I can say can I? If only our Dvaita expert Tattvaprahara was here. I will leave you with a final verse and its commentary by Madhavacharya. Jaya Nitaai.

That is not the point of a debate. Of course I think I am right, that is why I am defending my position. If you don't think you are right, or your position is weak, you will not defend it. I have never claimed that I am a Dvaita expert, I have cited now 5 sources that are Dvaita experts though and they all have contradicted what you have said. I thus have strong reason to doubt what you are saying. It just seems to me you are not accepting Madhva does teach a doctrine of fixed positions of the soul, akin to cosmic a caste system, because you are uncomfortable with this.

I can very briefly now reply to the commentary you are producing to show Madhva does show it is possible for souls to change their positions:
Why do all people not surrender to Him? This is explained in this verse. The are deprived of intelligence, because of their evil deeds. Same is the case with the mean ones among men, robbed of their Wisdom, they become bewildered in their intelligence. Therefore, they take shelter in demonic inclination. Here the word maayayaa|p)ta means robbed or concealed, stolen by the illusory energy. Awareness is the natural tendency of the one born ; by illusion it becomes concealed. The one who is intent in satisfying the senses is Asaur (unenlightened), thus in Vyasa Yoga. Among the Gods there is predominance of Awaremess among Asuras enjoyment of senses is predominant, thus in Naarada Puraana."

[basically the purport of this is awareness is the natural tendency of all Jivas that are born. But, by maya's illusion this awareness becomes conceleaded and gives rise to avidya, which is what makes a jiva tamayogya. It is not an eternal classification]

Can you separate your purport from the actual commentary, so I know which part is his commentary and which is your purport more clearly. I don't find the wording in this passage clear. If awareness is the natural attribute with which one is born, and illusion conceals it, then does illusion conceal it more for some and can those who are subject to it, all reverse it? This is not clear here, but it does imply the 'gods' are less affected by it than the asuras.

Elsewhere in the commentary to verse 14-19, he states the following:

"Maha-Lakshmi is supreme spouse of Sriman Narayana. She is known as Prakriti, because she creates by her luminosity. In her, therefore, are the three forms, satva, raja and tama. At the time 206 of creation, because of her being Luminous Sri is called sat and because of her illumination as tva. Because as Bhu, the earth, in the process of creation she is creative (enterprise), she is called raja. Since she manifests as this earth she is called BaUmaI. Because she obscures the minds of the Jivas, she is known as Durga or tama. The un-liberated human beings are thus being controlled by these three attributes. Even though the entire three bind all, especially Sri Devi binds the gods, Bhu Devi binds the human beings and Durga Devi binds the asuras. But knowing Sri Vishnu as superior to these three attributes, they are liberated. [again by the knowledge that Sri Vishnu is Supreme, all the previous (the three categories) can be liberated]. So long as human beings accept them as extremely powerful, till then they will remain like animals in the shape of human beings. Therefore Sri Vishnu should always be considered as possessing the increased"

All this quote reveals is that the means to liberation(moksha sadhana) is worship of Vishnu. If anybody does that then they will be liberated. But does not say that this is possible for all class of beings.

The only explicit quote where Madhva cites his opinion on whether they can change is the one I cited from chapter 16, where it says explicitly NEVER can they change their inclination. You need to produce more quotes that show they can change their inclination. Could somebody born once of the class of Asura ever enter Vaikunth?