Kashmiri politician on 370 abrogation::
"Indians in the rest of the country are quiet about this - means they are complicit and agree with the govt's decision...
Kashmiris are quiet - means it is a form of protest...."
Hum karein toh karein kya, bolein toh bole kya
Shankaracharya was born in 788 CE in the Chera Dynasty (a Tamil dynasty, one of the 3 Crowned Tamil Kings) in modern day Kerala near Kochi. He was Malyali.
Ramanujacharya was born in 1017 CE in the Chola Empire (another Tamil dynasty, another one of the 3 Crowned Tamil Kings) near modern day Chennai in Tamil Nadu. He was Tamil.
Madhvacharya was born in 1238 CE in the Hoysala Empire (a Kannadiga empire) in modern day Karnataka. He was a Tulu.
I would like all my Dravidian brothers to read more about unbelievable Dravidian contributions to Sanatana Dharma and Indian Civilization. Follow one of these 3 instead of following the communists or the pseudo-seculars or the Abrahamic Invaders.
I am interested of studying it and was curious to know which ones i should look into.
When many westerners were being introduced to Hindu spirituality and philosophy in the mid-20th century, they were mainly exposed to the non-dualistic variations of Hindu thought through the likes of Alan Watts, Ram Dass and other counter-cultural figures, with Advaita Vedanta taking the center stage. As a result, I equated for a long time Hinduism with the simple hippie formula ''we're all one, man'', and dismissed it.
Now that I have started to dig deeper into Hindu philosophy, I'm surprised to find that not all Hindus think this way and that there are many opposing schools of thought, one of them being Madhvacharya's Dvaita Vedanta.
could some follower of the dualistic/theistic Dvaita tradition explain why they subscribe to this particular philosophy as opposed to any other?
Appreciate it, much love!
The three major Vedantic Schools (Advaitam/Vishishtadvaitam/Dvaitam) are all derived from the same Hindu texts (Shruti: Vedas, Smriti: Bhagavad Gita, : Nyaya: Brahma Sutra). Yet, they provide fundamentally different interpretations. The Dvaitin believes that Paramatma is different than Jivatma. The Vishistadvaitin says the Jivatma is a part(amsa) of Paramatma (like a spark is part of flame). The Advaitin maintains that nature of Jivatma is identical to Paramatma in the Absolute sense.
Shruti has many statements supporting all these viewpoints. Here are three examples:
How can we reconcile these mutually exclusive, contradictory, viewpoints?
In Ramayana, Lord Rama asks Hanuman “How do you perceive me as?”
Hanuman gives this brilliant answer:
Deha Buddhya tu Dasoham Jiva Buddhya Tvadaamsakah |Atma Buddhya Tvamevaham iti me nishchita matih ||
“Oh Lord, while I identify myself with my body, I am your servant. When I consider myself as Individual Jiva, I am part of You. But when I look upon myself as Atma, I am one with You.”
From the standpoint of the body (sthula-sareeram), the Jiva is completely separate and different than Paramatma (Dvaitam). From the standpoint of the mind (sukshma-sareeram), the Jivatma is part of Paramatma (Vishistadvaitam). From the standpoint of Atma, the Jivatma is the same as Paramatma (Advaitam).
This gives us a clear way to reconcile these three views! Confusion arises because the three natures (body, mind, atma) are superposed on each other.
Many thanks to Lord Hanuman for his insight.
Aside from the interpretation of/commentaries on the Bhagavad Gita that you guys recommended last time.
Just found out that my neighbor and good friend is a Madhwa Brahmin (after knowing her for a year, just found out only now) and her parents have excitedly offered to get whatever books I am interested in reading from India, if I give them some kind of list. Has to have English translation, though. :-/
I know, an actual teacher would be nice but I’m not quite there yet.
Any book recommendations?
Thanks in advance.
'Tat tvam asi' is taken to be reflecting the Advaita philosophy more often than not. I happened to read the Wikipedia article, where a section is dedicated to what I'm asking, but no source is mentioned. Could someone throw some light onto this? Did Madhvacharya himself make any comments on this or was it done later by some other Dvaita scholars?
There are several mahavakyas that affirm non-duality, even if you remove Chandogya VI.8.7 on the basis of Madhvacharya's contested parsing of the sentence. For example, verse 2 of the Mandukya upanishad in the Atharvaveda says ayamātmā brahma. Even in the Rigveda there is an upanishad with a vakya affirming non-dualism, the Aitareya upanishad, which contains the following vakya, pragñānam brahma. The upanishad then goes on to explain that pragñānam is an integral part of Atman, but as the original vakya states, pragñānam is Brahman. Therefore, Atman is Brahman.
Dvaitins call their philosophy a vedanta, so where are the upanishads saying Brahman created Atman? I can understand disputing the Advaitins practices for attaining moksha, but the advaita part of Advaita Vedanta seems evident in the Vedas.
Inb4 Gita affirms that Krishna is Brahman: even if it does that doesn't demonstrate Atman-Brahman duality, all of the things Krishna defines himself to be could also be true if Atman is Brahman. I challenge Dvaitins to justify their belief in scripture.
In the sense that Ishvara (God), Jiva (Soul) and Jada(Material creation/insentient creation) are considered as distinct entities?
The translator of both the volumes is S Subba Rau
Volume 1(Skandhas 1-7): https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.232200
Volume 2(Skandhas 8-12): https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.273815
I would think that they are Visisthadvaita (achintya )bheda-abehada , specifically). Is that right?
Wiki descrives achintya )bheda-abehada as "..can be understood as an integration of the strict dualist (dvaita) theology of Madhvacharya and the qualified monism (vishishtadvaita) of Ramanuja,"
So is ISKCON somewhere between D and VA?
Hi! I recently learnt of the Hindu concept of Dvaita and welll... it translates into Dualism and Dvaita sounds a lot like two.
I'm usually a skulker here but thought I'd ask where 'two' comes from and if it comes from the same place Dvaita is from.
In general numbers too because one, two and three etc. appear both in Latin and Germanic languages.
Clearly, it seems we'd want to strive to be Mukti-Yogyas (be a soul that eventually gets Liberation). But if these categories are pre-fixed and if my soul is either Nitya-samsarin (destined to repeating cycle of births and deaths) or Tamo-yogya (destined to eternal damnation), what is the point in doing anything in this world?
Like, I know I have 'sinful' behavior due to addictions and negative thinking. If I found out I'm either Nitya-samsarin or Tamo-yogya, does that meab I have no hope and might as well give up on trying to overcome my bad habits?