@@soumyabratasahoo679 I have read both fairly or atleast enough to understand the prameyas. Could please substantiate your stance on your statement of it being more logical! I'm all ears
I hope to see more talks on Tatvavada. As this is a Philosophy that hasn't been given its due. Rather, lots of assumptions have been made about what the Philosophy from Advaitis without actually understanding the Tattvavadis point of view. Please also invite Dr AP Pratosh and Dr PR Mukund next. If possible. Wish Padma Shri Bannanje Govindacharya was still alive. He would have been a great guest!
Bhakti is a Bhagavata tradition and Bhagavata Dharma is a shuddha vaidika tradition. The Upanishad vakya itself goes: "यस्य देवे परा भक्तिर्यथा देवे तथा गुरौ। तस्यैते कथिता ह्यर्थाः प्रकाशन्ते महात्मनः" Bhagavata Purana captures the essence of the vedas, brahmasutras, Mahabharata and the Puranas says the garuda purana: अर्थोयं ब्रह्मसूत्राणां भारतार्थविनिर्णयः। गायत्रीभाष्यरूपोसौ वेदार्थ परिबृंहितः। पुराणानां साररूपः साक्षाद्भगवतोदितः। द्वादशस्कन्धसंयुक्तो शतविच्छेदसंयुतः। ग्रन्थोष्टादशसहस्र: श्रीमद्भागवताभिदः।। We can see this in the first verse of the Bhagavata itself: जन्माद्यस्य यतोऽन्वयादितरतश्चार्थेष्वभिज्ञ: स्वराट् तेने ब्रह्म हृदा य आदिकवये मुह्यन्ति यत्सूरय: । तेजोवारिमृदां यथा विनिमयो यत्र त्रिसर्गोऽमृषा धाम्ना स्वेन सदा निरस्तकुहकं सत्यं परं धीमहि || "Janmadyasya yataha" is the sutra , we see the Bhagavatam starting from it. "Tat tu samanvayat" is the sutra , we see its partial form "anvaya" captured in Bhagavatam. "Bhargo Devasya Dhimahi" is in the Gayatri, it is again seen in Bhagavatam as "Satyam Param Dhimahi". From the contents in Bhagavatam it becomes evident that topics dealt in the Mahabharata is specially dealt in Bhagavatam too especially in Canto 10, same is the case with other Puranas. The Bhagavad Gita which has a chapter dedicated to Bhakti yoga was not an upadesha that came 5000 yeras ago. The Gitopadesha was reiterated to Arjuna 5000 years ago. Before that, the upadesha had an eternal and unbroken history. The Gita itself mentions this eternality of the Gitopadesha. It started with Bhagavan himself giving the upadesha to Vivasvan. इमं विवस्वते योगं प्रोक्तवानहमव्ययम् । विवस्वान्मनवे प्राह मनुरिक्ष्वाकवेऽब्रवीत् ॥ Do not try to have this condescending view on bhakti and the Bhagavata tradition. It is an end in itself , it is eternal and perennial. Bhakti had different forms and there was an evolution as time passed but the idea of bhakti was ingrained in all the shastras starting from the apaurusheya ones to the paurusheya ones. Do not view or impose bhakti as seen through the abrahamic and colonial lense which is viewing it as only a social reform movement as forced upon us through colonial education and their textbooks. These fellows from the panel want to portray bhakti as only a stepping stone that is only subservient to jnana and thereby justify vaishnava darshanas like visishtadvaita and Tattvavada as some naive / novice initial stage to the "final culmination" of "actual" vedanta which is advaita! Stop giving this step motherly treatment to Bhakti and vaishnavism! The intellectual rigor behind bhakti is a fine balance between rationality and emotion, dare not sling mud at its origins, applicability and intricacies to further your nefarious agendas of standardising Vedanta and limiting it to a particular darshana on a global scale. The vaishnavas are very well aware of this gimmick as it isn't new, we know how to thump such misadventures just like how the speaker did so unapologetically ! When it comes to dharma all of us irrespective of linga varna ashrama and darshana stand united as Sanatanis. All Acharyas from all darshanas including Vaishnavacharyas are at the forefront wrt dharma Rakshana and dharma prachara by joining hands with fellow Sanatanis from all backgrounds, so spare us the typical virtue signalling of "unity" if at all that's your excuse after reading this message. Would appreciate if Sangam Talks chooses better panelists. Also it would be great if a talk on "Decolonising Bhakti (Moving away from the misconstrued notion of Bhakti as only a social reform movement of later medieval times) " is arranged with an informed and unbiased Vaishnava as a speaker. Sri Dushyant Sridhar and Sri Dr. Prathosh AP are the most suitable people I can think of who can do justice to this topic. They are well versed in literature from multiple darshanas, very good orators and a humble/unbiased human beings. Hope sense prevails atleast from next time. 🚩🙏
One of the reason the question props up among the participants is that our text books already boxed Bhakti ‘Movement’ Let’s not box it as a movement but Bhakti is a continuum and very organic to India. If we talk about the saints/Rishis of ancient times we have many….Narada, Prahlada, sukha, shaunaka, Sanaka, Sananda, Jaya, Vijaya, Garuda, Nandi, tumburu, Shabari, hanuma, jambhavanta, Dhruva, Janamejaya, Pandavas, Kunti, Radha…the list goes on. It is not a movement but a tool to work on our own progress towards unify with parmaatma.
I really request for more people from dvaita vedanta explaining such topics in english.. it is so great to listen to your words sir 🙏🏻 very wonderful discussion 🙏🏻
Summary of dwaita:1.Brahma and jagat both are satya, and different from each other, that is dwaita, 2.brahma has unlimited guna and nirdosha, from karma u get gyana, from gyana u get bhakti which ultimately gives u moksha. 3.Even In moksha the atma remains different from brahma
Correct. To expand on this: Moksha is defined as knowing your complete Self. Self here does not mean Brahman like in Advaita. Self here only refers to Moola Swaroopa of the Jiva or in other words the Jivatma. The Jivatma does not, at any point in time, become Brahman or realize it was Mayic and that everything is Brahman like in Advaita. Madhvacharya explains it thus: Jivatmas are like pots of varying sizes. Some are empty, some are partially filled, some are almost filled. The ones who are completely filled, they attain Moksha as they have realized their "completeness". The pot can never become the potter. Realization is restricted to only its own fullness. Also, Brahman and Jagat are satya yes. But also that Brahman and individual Jiva are satya. The Jiva can never become Brahman and will always be different to Brahman. The 5 eternal differences: 1. Jada-Jada Bheda 2. Jada-Jiva Bheda 3. Jiva-Jiva Bheda 4. Jiva-Paramatma Bheda 5. Jada-Paramatma Bheda No two things are equal and will never be equal. Everything and everyone is unique expression of the Divinity (Brahman) who is nothing but the Pratibimba (in crude words: reflection) of the Bimba (Brahman himself). There is never ever going to be any sort of "merger" with the Brahman at any point in Time. The Brahman is indivisible and always complete and full of infinite auspicious attributes.
@@Shri Hello, nice explanation. I think read somewhere, please correct me, if wrong, that there is eternal hell for some specific individuals who don't have any chance for redemption? Doesn't go against the bhakthi philosophy, where Paramatma in his infinite glory and with his abundant mercy shows the way for the sinner to correct himself, be that maybe in current birth or in future births. Can you please clarify this point?
Also another critical contribution of Acharya Madhva is missed in this presentation. It is that "sarva Shabdha vaachyattva" (Brahman is denoted by ALL words). This is very important because every word, either mundane or vedic, refers to Brahman in its ultra-primary meaning (parama-mukhyArtha). Using this concept of sarva-shabda vaachyatva, He harmonizes and resolves the conflict of vedic glorification of various deities. This concept is so powerful that even negative words such as "dhukhi" (person suffering from sorrow) can be harmonized as referring to Brahman. You may ask how come Brahman can have sorrow. It is in the possessive sense this can be applied, just as person "controls" or "possess" dhana (money) is called "dhani" etc. Similarly Brahman is niyAmaka (controller) of a person with sorrow, He can be called "dhukki" etc. This idea is sarva-shabdha samanvya is quite unique and great contribution of Acharya Madhva.
Let me congratulate the speaker : People tried to put words into his mouth by pushing him to accept Bhakti as a modern concoction or reaction to some Islamic colonialism or as a healing aid to the classic caste conundrum thereby subtly undermining Bhakti as only a slave / means to the superior jnana! The author slaps them all by sticking to Bhakti being an avichinna parampara propounded right from the Shastras including Gita and Bhagavatam! The origin of Bhakti does not lie in the modern era but its usage as a tool changes according to Desha, kaala and sandarbha! If was not an invention, it is eternal, it has found expression in different timescales and different places based on different situations! Second, people are obsessed with differences between schools. Clearly the speaker mentioned that he is going to explore the unexplored section or the less found/known part of Tattvavada. You can find your difference tables on the Internet very easily. The speaker hence did not waste time in a futile exercise of redundancy! Tattvavada is the realistic school of vedanta that uses eternality of Difference as the primary tool to explain its metaphysics, ontology, ethics and soteriology in light of the epistemological validations or pramanas (pratyaksha, Anumana and Agama)!
Hopefully you will have experts from other schools within the vaidika schools of philosophy to come and present their point of views. Like Nyaya, vaisesikha, mimamsa etc. Wikipedia can only go so far. But sessions like this can go much deeper. And also provide users sources of experts who they can pursue further to explore a philosophy that interests them further.
Excellent talk by Sri.Sunil-ji. In my observation he missed a very critical contribution of Acharya Madhva to Vedanta is that of establishing the validity (pramANya) to the Vedic texts from the first principle. All other Acharya-s of astika schools, even though they accepted Veda-s as pramANa. they did not ventured it into establishing validity (rather defending the validity from all possible refutations against it). Please study Acharya Madhva's work "vishNu tatva vinirNaya". In that work you will be amazed to see how one has to accept Veda-s ONLY if one is to talk about extra-sensory concepts (atIndriya vichara) such as morality/immorality or dharma/adharma etc.
The talk clearly highlighted the phrase "Bhakti as an end in itself". In advaita, moksha is via Ajnana nivritti and that is through "jevo-brahmaiva na paraha" abheda jnana and Upasana. Saguna brahma Upasana via Bhakti is treated as just a means leading to this jnana (and inturn Ajnana nivritti) and not as an end in itself
Pranam sir. Thank you for the lecture. Just one clarification. Shankara said that this jagat is a 'mithya' which is not an illusion. But it is infact the concept of good and bad which is not contrast to each other but rather subjective. World is real but it appears different to different people as per their own perspectives. So saying this world is an illusion is a poor tranlsation. And thank you for sharing your knowledge with us. Om guruve namah.
Very good presentation, not sure if VishishtaAdvaita lacked the intellectual depth. If not for Sri Ramanujacharya's revitalization and bringing of central focus on realism, there would not have been any renaissance. After Sri Ramanujacharya, Sri Vedantha Desika too contributed much to the corpus of the philosophy of VishishtaAdvaita. Sri Ramanujacharya was perhaps the greatest teacher who combined the true qualities of a humanist and a devotee. His compassion for people and his love for Narayana/Paramatma are unparalleled. One should read his biography with open minds and will be astonished to see how he broke the shackles of orthodoxy and tried to bring humanism as a base to the society with Bhakthi as the focal point.
Excellent speaker and presentation. What a waste of time in Q&A. Instead of seeking to know more about Madhva's contributions, people tried to trap the speaker in the advaita debate.
He keeps on saying that Madhva was the *only* philosopher in the entire Indian history who substantiated his theology from the whole of Vedic corpus including Vedas. It's too unfortunate that people studying Indian philosophy haven't studied Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati. Dayanand showed the unity across the ancient Vedic literature and all the six schools, the shad darshanas. And he did it in a sophisticated way too. But unfortunately, nobody outside of the Arya Samaj circle knows about his philosophy.
Oxford dictionary meaning for the word Polemics ================================= (also polemics [plural]) the practice or skill of arguing strongly for or against something/somebody Her speech was memorable for its polemic rather than its substance. Oxford Synonyms for the word Polemics: broadsides, diatribes, harangues, tirades castigations, chastisements, criticisms, excoriations, opprobriums, rebukes, reprimands, reproofs aspersions, belittlements, disparagements, revilements, vilifications expletives, swearwords epithets, insults, put-downs, slurs blasphemies, curses, execrations, imprecations, maledictions, profanities blackguardisms abuses, billingsgates, fulminations, invectives, obloquies, scurrilities, vitriols, vituperations ================================================================ This is the definition and an example of the use of the word Polemics. From oxford dictionaries, it is clear that the word Polemics have a negative meaning. From the Oxford dictionaries it is clear that Polemics have no solid logical refutation behind it and it is used in negative sense. Now the guy named "Theology & Rationality" argued that the correct usage of the word "Polemics" without knowing even the usage of this word....pathetic... Sunil and this person cannot be more wrong than using this word for the works of Madhwacharya and his disciples and reducing their positive contributions to mere polemics. I would suggest that Sunil (the person answering in the video) not to use such words as polemics to describe the works that logically refute Advaita as mere polemics. Please understand the English words properly before using it. You are insulting Madhwacharya using words without knowing the meaning of the words or its usage correctly.
Polemic: A thorough written attack on some opinion or policy, usually within a theological or political dispute, sometimes also in philosophy or criticism. - From Oxford Reference The word itself is not negative per se. Khandanas come under Polemical texts as it directly attacks the Philosophy propounded by Advaita. Some examples that come to mind are Upadhi Khandana, Mayavada Khandana, Prapancha Mithyatva-anumana Khandana etc. So in this case, it is not used in a negative sense. It is not just logical refutation (as you rightly said) but it goes further and attacks the very base of the Philosophy itself (in this case Advaita), demolishing many of the wrong concepts propagated by Shankaracharya. Though if there is a better word to Polemic it should be used. I agree with you on that point.
@@Shri I will give the complete definition as per the 4th edition of the book "The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms". CHRIS BALDICK, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS polemic [po-lemm-ik], a thorough written attack on some opinion or policy, usually within a theological or political dispute, sometimes also in philosophy or * CRITICISM. Notable polemicists in English are John Milton, whose Areopagitica (1644) attacks censorship, and H. D. Thoreau, whose 'Slavery in Massachusetts' (1854) berates upholders of the Fugitive Slave Law. Adjective: polemical Notice that there is nothing mentioned about logical refutation anywhere here. Polemic is simply an verbal attack by contrasting two different ideas and playing down upon the opponent's idea. Polemics, especially polemical theology of Abrahamic religions, have nothing to do with logical refutation that is completely absent in Abrahamic theological polemics or disputes. For example, calling "idol worship" or calling others "idol worshipers" is polemics in the bible. There is no logic behind such attacks. In fact, Hebrew bible uses an equivalent word of "p@@p" or "sh!t" for "idols". This is known from western academics. This is an example for polemics. It is mere low level insults. You are going by some google searches on the meaning of the word "polemics", especially "polemical theology". Our Acharya is beyond such cheap tactics. It can appear that he may have used polemics (even here I do not think it is polemics, but Acharya's jnAna about real nature of Jivas) in specific situations with the aid of Puranas about Manimanta. But, Khandana traya cannot come under polemics. It is an insult to our Acharya and all his disciples like Jayatirtha, Vyasa Tirtha and such giants to call their logical works as mere polemics. Polemics is always used in negative sense. Lets see again the definition of polemical theology as per western University, Boston College. =================================== Polemics The term polemics generally denotes the art of controversy and disputation. Polemical discourse is more often than not speech animated by anger and fear. It deploys explosive language that compels the listener to take a stand. Religious polemics are frequently used to combat opposing interpretations of the truth. Polemics serve to demarcate and fortify the boundaries between "insiders" and "outsiders," offering protection from contact with the carriers of "sin and unbelief." This indelicate art of theological self-defense may be an indispensable rhetorical strategy in threatening circumstances, but this verbal habit is loaded with toxic possibilities that can be released over a long period of time. Therefore, Christians need to attend to the polemical practices that were certainly instrumental in the shaping of Christian identity, for these linguistic habits continue to exert a powerful influence. The first function of religious polemic is to vilify "the other." Two examples, among many, are worth highlighting. Matthew 23:1-39 preserves a vitriolic attack on the scribes and Pharisees. The evangelist presents Jesus unleashing a damning series of indictments against his Jewish co-religionists. They are assailed as hypocrites (23:13,15,23, 25, 27, 29), blind guides and fools (23:16, 24), white-washed tombs (23:27), snakes (23:33), and murderers of the prophets (23:31, 34, 37). Their piety as well as their ethical conduct are subjected to a scathing attack. ==================================================== There is nothing about logical refutation in polemical theology. It is an attack on the opponent without any aid of logic to explain one's position or logically refuting the other. So again, Tatvavada scholars must desist from using this word to describe any of our Acharya's works.
@@Shri Elenchus A logical refutation, esp. one that disproves a proposition by proving the direct contrary of its conclusion. May be this word is more appropriate. Please check on this.
The speaker is not addressing some of the questions regarding role of Bhakti and society. The historical timeline of the Bhakti 'movement' started with the Alwars and Nayanmars in Tamil Nadu who predate both Islam and the Dwaita-Haridasa movement. One of the reoccurring themes in the lives of some of these Tamil Bhakti poets is their fierce criticism of Buddhism and Jainism that were dominant religious traditions at the time. Jainism and Buddhism are very dry ascetic traditions. The practice of Bhakti was an effective way of connecting ordinary people to back to Vedic Dharma and thus leading to decline of Jaina-Bauda traditions. Yes Bhakti also addressed issues of social discrimination and later Islam but the key point here is practice of Bhakti is one of the key ways in which Vedic Hinduism made a come back following its decline during Buddhist era.
Bhakti is time immemorial. It is as old as the Vedas themselves. In fact the very beginning of the Vedas is describing rituals to various forms of Brahman which is nothing but Bhakti only. It is ridiculous to box Bhakti as some modern phenomenon.
There is difference between ishwara and brahman Ishwara is real if seen from the perspective from the world. In my dream if we both are present having a debate... With respect to me you are real and the debate room is real. But with respect to waking state it is false
👉SMOT के खुलासे अनुसार👉सच को जान कर हैरान मत होना👉अपने बारे में असली ज्ञान को हासिल करना 👉सभी मानवों की जाति सिर्फ एक ही है 👉 संस्कृत भाषा में सिंधू जाति ही हैं और फारसी भाषा में हिंदू जाति ही हैं और ग्रीक भाषा में Indus जाति ही है 👉 और सनातन ही संसार में एक मात्र ईश्वरीय धर्म है 👉 सनातन ही एक मात्र प्राकृतिक धर्म है🤔 बाकी सब तो मानवकृत व्यक्तिगत स्वार्थपुर्ति हेतु बनाई Non Religious भ्रामक विचारधाराएं ही हैं 🤔 🚩महा🇮🇳भारत🚩 के अनुसार 👉 फारसी शब्द हिंदू कुछ नहीं बल्कि 👉2000 साल पहले रेगिस्तान में भूखे प्यासे बैठे गले वाले के मुंह से समरिद्ध सिंधुओं के लिए संस्कृत में कृत सिंधु शब्द की बजाए बिगाड़ कर निकाला हुआ शब्द हिंदू ही हैं👈 महाभारत के युद्ध के बाद और द्वापर युग की समाप्ति के बाद 👉सारी मानव जाति तितर बितर हो गई 👉 ज्ञान से कट गई 👉 जंगली बन गई 👉 जीवनयापन के लिए अन्य जीव जंतुओं की तरह प्रयास करने लगी 👉 हजारों साल जारी रहने वाली इस क्रिया के कारण समय और स्थीति के अनुसार ईश्वर प्रदत्त SMOT यानी Self Motile Organic Technology ने मानव शरीरों में पूंछ बाल सींग इत्यादि उगा कर जानवर रूप दे दिया 👉 कालांतर में इन में से बंदर types को छोड़ कर बाकी की सब Converted मानव शरीर समाप्त हो गए Dinasoures के साथ साथ 👉बचे हुए बंदर बन चुके मानव अपने जीवन यापन के लिए समस्त संसार से चलते चलते 👉 मां सिंधू दरिया के किनारे पहुंच गए और जीवित बच गए👉 क्योंकि समूची पृथ्वी पर सिर्फ यहां का वातावरण ही अनुकूल था जीने के लिए 👉 तो यहां मां सिंधू दरिया के आसपास ही सब बचे हुए बंदर मानवों ने मिलजुलकर जीना आरंभ किया 👉धीमे धीमे इनका बौद्धिक विकास हुआ 👉 तदुपरांत प्राकृति को समझा 👉सही ग़लत नफे नुकसान की समझ आई👉जीना सीखा और जीने के उपाय सीखे मिलजुल कर👉 सभ्यता संस्कृति का आरंभ हुआ और👉 जनसंख्या में वृद्धि होने के कारण यह मानव बंदर जीवनयापन के लिए अलग दिशाओं की तरफ रूख करने लगे👉 ज्ञातव्य रहे की द्वापर युग की समाप्ति के बाद से मानव का बंदर बनना और फिर दुबारा मानव बनना 👉 ईश्वर कीSMOT यानी Self Motile Organic Technology का ही कमाल है और चूंकि ये Automatically चलती है और चलती रहेगी अनवरत अनंत काल तक 👉तो अब से आपको जो कुछ भी बनना है खुद को जो कुछ भी समझना है समझते रहिए👉SMOT को कोई फर्क नहीं पड़ता लेकिन 👉आपकी Calculated SMOT Limited जिंदगी पर जरूर पढ़ता है 👉In Terms Of शांति और सुख 👉तो जाति के तौर पर👉 All Human Beings Are Sindhu In संस्कृत Language और Hindu In फारसी Language 👉अब बात धर्म की करें तो असली प्राकृतिक धर्म सिर्फ एक ही है 👈Here Is Only One Godly Natural Religion 👉 सनातन धर्म जिसको सिंधुओं ने Nature के साथ जुड़ कर आपसी तालमेल बनाकर विकसित किया 👉 बाकी सब तथाकथित धर्म तो व्यक्तिगत स्वार्थसिद्धि हेतु मानवकृत विचारधाराएं हैं 👈 ताकि 👉कामुकता क्रोध लोभ मोह अहंकार सरीखी व्याधियों की पूर्ति की जा सके चंद चंट चालाक मानवों द्वारा 👉 अब से ज्ञात रहे और बोध रहे कि समस्त मानवों की एक ही जाति है👉 फारसी भाषा में हिंदू और संस्कृत भाषा में सिंधू 👉और एक ही मानव धर्म है सनातन धर्म 👉 बाकी सब तो चंद लोगों द्वारा कृत व्यक्तिगत स्वार्थसिद्धि हेतु अन्य मानवों को अटकाने और भटकाने के कुत्सित विचार और प्रयास मात्र0ही है 🤔तो सनातन धर्म को समझना बहुत ही आसान है 👉Love Respect Care Protect Develop👉 यानी जिनसे भी कुछ मिलता है या मिलने की संभावना है उनकी इज्जत करो प्यार करो देख भाल करो रक्षा करो विकास करो👉बाकी सब जो समझ में ना आ रहे हों उनको ईश्वर की अनुकंपा पर छोड़ दो👉 ईश्वर की बनाई हर चीज़ को सिर्फ इस्तेमाल करने का ही हक है नष्ट करने या बरबाद करने का नहीं 👉और जो ऐसा कुकृत्य करें उसको फौरन जीवन मुक्त करो फौरन मानव योनि से मुक्त करो👉 ताकि उसे Suitable योनि प्राप्त हो👉बस इतना कर लो तो तुम पक्के सनातनी हो👉 बाकी गुज़रे हुए युगों यानी सतयुग, त्रेतायुग, द्वापरयुग की दास्तानों, कथाओं,कहानियों , ग्रंथों इत्यादि को पढ़ कर और भी अधिक नैतिक मूल्यों का ज्ञान और तर्क ज्ञान प्राप्त कर सकते हो👉ताकि कलयुग में भी मनोरंजन के साथ शांति और सुख सहित जीवन यापन हो🤔Share And Forward करें😃 🚩जयभारती🇮🇳जयभारत🇮🇳जयमहाभारत🚩
wow, tat tvam asi mean you are not that, what a reason by madhvacharya, he took the limitations of examples literally, how is he any different from the logic of dependence of Thomas equinos, how is his doctorine any different from the doctorine of Original sin, Karma as a fear tactic, wow man, only logicians which takes examples literally can justify that man and god will always remain eternally different, man can never dissolve in god, what an eternal slavery, what kind of liberation is this, salvation of the slaves?, moksha of bondage?, this philosophy is not giving you dualism, it is giving triasim, nobody is even yoday able the identify the realness of any difference, John Wheeler once said 'where is the boundary of the boundary' nobody was able to prove 2 entity, he is giving you three real entity, wow man
What is so hard in accepting there are 3 real entities? Rather, I should be asking with what proof are you claiming that this Creation is unreal. The onus is on you to prove that the Creation is Maya. Creation is unreal does not satisfy one of the 6 main Pramanas: Pratyaksha Pramana.
@@Shri who said pratyaksha is a pramana, dreams are also pratyaksha , are they real?,and why 3 entities why not 3000, is there any classification, any real boundary? tell me what happens at kaivalya? merging with one entity, what remains is other entity, why is onus on me to prove maya, prove me physicalism, what is matter, who made it, what energy, where does it come from, why is matter entangled?, what is consciousness, what makes it emergent? why is there non locality, Is there is any God then is he superdeterministic or is he playing a baisian game? if mind is real where does it reside?
@@Iyago0RoaDBoXeR Yes Dreams are Real. Period. Now think why. Research why. And you will end up studying Tattvavada after that to understand why Dreams are real. Advaita, like Abrahamics, defines Dreams as illusion. You just accepted it blindly.
@@Iyago0RoaDBoXeR If you consider Dream as unreal/illusion, and the Real World as unreal/illusion then what follows is an infinite regression. You are "experiencing" two things: the dream state and waking state. Both are unreal according to Advaita. That means you DO NOT KNOW what is real. Even Advaita defines "Nirgunatva" as attributeless and you cannot associate any attribute from the unreal Creation on to Nirguna Brahman - basically Nirguna Brahman is indescribable from a Vyvaharika Point of View (similar to Islam which says Allah cannot be described by words that we know, things we see, hear, experience etc.). So basically, if you want to realize Nirgunatva none of what you are experiencing in the "unreal" Creation (that includes Dreams as well as the Waking World) is to be considered as that would not be Nirgunatva. So you have no proper definition of what Nirgunatva actually is. And even if you reach this hypothetical level of consciousness, there is no guarantee you will know it is "real" and not an "illusion". Because you haven't yet experienced what is "Real" to be able to define it. Just defining it as "Sat, Chit, Ananda" won't cut it because there is no way to define that experience in this "Unreal" Creation. And the worst part is, when you reach that hypothetical State of Consciousness, the end goal is you realizing you don't even exist. That you yourself are an illusion. This is basically Kaivalya Moksha of Advaita where you discard the material Prakriti as the "unreal" and only the Purusha exists in a State of "Aloneness". When do you know you have reached this State and even when you do, how do you know this State is "real" and not "unreal"?
how can you interpret 'tat tu samanvayat' as purifying texts, it's idiocracy just like Bhandarkar School of Baroda & Bibek Debroy Fandom of Abriged text, This is pure colonization dear, it's just like Islamists & Christians, next step is burning texts just like what happened with syrian Christians & Yemenese Muslims. Shankaracharya Said 'Tat Tu Samavayat' is separation Arthavada which is meant for eulogy and sometimes for mudh-chitta, he never said reject anything, he always said read between the lines to understand deeper truth, Buddha & Shankara were the Deepest Thinkers, vindicated even in today's Consciousness Studies, they presented aspect of absolute emptiness naive realism and clearly said to introspect the clear light of the void, Newton Also understood the same thing, for him gravity was God's love, he took it all as pure mathematics, for him thr sutradhaar, the continuous background nirguna were the Fluxions
Naive Listeners are being misguided here, the explanation that nirguna means devoid of 3 gunas of prakriti is foolish, rean mandukya karika, parabrahaman is not even nirguna, it is No Thing, devoid of objectivity & subjectivity. why is this Tattvavada so adamant on experience, experience is mental only, Tattvavada is trying to limit us into our minds, this is foolish
With that view there will neither be vishaya nor prayojana nor sambandha nor adhikara to study advaita itself boss. This bubble was burst long back by Acharya himself in Dushana Trayas
very naive logic from the start, dwaita is not ready to accept that it is for weak hearted non intellectual common masses, it is good for them, logically it is just apologetic for a supreme God, just like Christianity & Islam, common man you are justifying asatkaryavada, creation from nothing by a Super Entity, even Stephen Hawkings retraced his thoughts of Creation from nothing in his last days, you say that perception of physical realism is absolutely true because it is witnessed by parabrahaman who is emmanent, just listen to the example given by Donald Hoffman of the beatle misunderstanding beer bottle as female beatle, is parabrahaman a stupid yet super giy who is confused between a female beatle and a beer bottle, so logically lame, that's why it was shattered so easily like Kashmir Shaivism, they were also adamant on Parabrahaman being a bhokta, so lame to superimpose humanistic weakness on pure consciousness, why do common masses want so desperately to anthormorphise absolute reality of sat chit anand?, why can't they hobble up that emotions are an emergent phenomenon, why it is so hard to accept abstract ANAND
Dvaita existed way before Madhvacharya dude. It has nothing to do with Christianity or Islam. All schools of Vedanta are Dualist except for Advaita. Samkhya, Nyaya, Mimamsa etc. All of them are Dualist. You are a frog in a well to think Dvaita started with advent of Christianity and Islam. 😂 Tattvavada actually takes Dualistic thought even deeper. It is not the inventor of Dualism in Sanatan Dharma. Can't believe people are so ignorant.
> that's why it was shattered so easily like Kashmir Shaivism Where is Kashmir Shaivism? 😂 Wherever Advaita went, the people there converted to Islam or Christianity. Most of Pakistan and Bangladesh today were Advaitic strongholds. Kerala, the birthplace of Shankaracharya, is now a Communist + Islamist stronghold. Tamil Nadu which had major influence of Advaita and Vishishtadvaita are now in the hands of Communists + Christian strongholds. Andhra and Telenagana, which was stronghold of Vishishtadvaita, is now the conversion factory of Indian Christianity. Bengal, which is stronghold of Shakta form of Advaita is now in the hands of Communists + Islamists. Far flung Northeastern state of Mizoram was Advaitic stronghold. Today the State is 100% Christian. The only State in South India resisting any conversions is Karnataka, which is the stronghold of Tattvavada. With Udupi Shri Krishna as the base. Fighting burqas to love jihad and everything in between. Everywhere Monism went (be it in pure form of Advaita or qualified form of Vishishtadvaita) disaster ensued where people converted en masse. The reason is simple. Both the philosophies are highly illogical. If the philosophies were so strong, there would be no conversions of anyone to inferior foreign religions. If the philosophies were so strong, top Advaitic and Vishishtadvaitic scholars wouldn't have lost in debates to Madhvacharya and all subsequent Tattvavada Gurus in the Guru Parampara. A debate was issued as recently as 1980s by one of our Gurus. No Advaita Guru from any Matha took up the challenge. As they were all scared to get demolished again.
> why it is so hard to accept abstract ANAND There is nothing called "abstract ANAND". Just some random hocus pocus invented by Shankara and followed by his followers. Where is this "abstract ANAND" mentioned anywhere in our Srutis? This is precisely the sort of rubbish interpretations of our scriptures that caused many to convert from Advaita to inferior religions like Islam and Christianity.
Who the hell told you Dvaita subscribes to asatkaryavada bruh? Don't spread lies without reading Anuvyakhyana! Both kevala satkaryavada and kevala asatkaryavada are criticised. A new and novel explanation to creation was brought about by Acharya of course with substantial proof from the pramanas, Tattvavada theory of causation or Karyavada is hence distinct and beyond the understanding of the naive Parabrahman is bhokta? That's just a blank statement you're making! The bliss is clearly established as transcendental and not material! The sutra na prayojanamatvat itself rejects any misadventure to ascribe humanistic material enjoyment / aspects to bhagavan! Who is using anthropomorphism, the entire siddhanta lies on Nityatva or eternality of pancha bhedas. The crux of the siddhanta as told in Tattva sankhya is based on two eternally distinct tattvas : Swatantra and Aswatantra? Purvapakshin is the one that is badly trying to build a fancy bridge between the two eternally distinct entities by taking recourse to a dastardly kind of utopia with Marxist styled equality of outcomes that rejects and negates the theory of karma and therefore individuality, diversity, plurality and difference! Dvaita is certainly not for the weak hearted who'd rather go for made up utopian fantasies that has no record of experience by any rather than face the reality who's cognition and experience both are evident and prima facie! Who the hell told you to associate that typical Berkeley styled subjective Idealism to Dvaita? The one where he tries to prove reality of the world by only saying that God is the ultimate observer!? Realistic schools in Indian philosophy (which is basically entire Indian philosophy except advaita and avaidikas lol) prove Jagat Satyatva using all the pramanas and their sub parts repeatedly! Acharya Madhva is again novel with his concept of sakshi, sakshi is not to be treated as mere evidence by taking its hindi translation! Acharya has beautifully expounded sakshi, it's role in metaphysics, its epistemological validation, its ontological significance, ethical relevance and sotsriological intent! Don't come to dvaita with lame ass accusations and present them as some valid refutation by covering it with some useless mental gymnastics and word play, it's futile! The purvacharyas have been masters of all kinds of diversion tactics too to unwrap and expose the inconsistencies of the purvapakshins. Acharya Madhva in the Anuvyakhyana says "Sawanyaye sadhanam karyam, PARA NYAYAISTU DUSHANAM"! We are more than capable of giving it back to people in their own language using their own style to put forth the blatant inconsistencies that lie buried in purvapakshins
![Dvaita Vs Advaita; Dualism And Non-Dualism [The 2 Schools of Vedanta]](/img/n.gif)
Dwaitha is so precious that it is so underrated among the unknown masses.
Shri Gurubhyo Namaha Harih Om
Proud to be a follower of TattvaVada🙏🏽♥️
i've been looking for a long time for some dvaita experts to come and discuss it in such detail and more. Thank you for doing this.
VERY VERY TRUE. HAT'S OFF TO YOU HARISARVOTTAMA VAYUJEEVOTTAMA
HARE SRINIVASA
JAGADGURU SRI MADHVACHARYA GURUBHYONAMAHA 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
oh my god is this for real? Finally madhva vedanta getting the exposure it deserves ! Amazing 😍😍😍😍
These days Advaita is so fashionable even in the western world...everyone spouts Gyan so casually
@Sid Patankar Don't cry, Advaita is way more logical if you read Shankaracarya bhasyas and Advaita properly.
@Sid Patankar I respect others, But Dvaita doesn't support this same respecting others.
@Sid Patankar Most of the Advaitins are well coming.
Advaitins regard Tulsidas, Surdas, Sant Namdev and many Vaishnavas as great
@@soumyabratasahoo679 I have read both fairly or atleast enough to understand the prameyas. Could please substantiate your stance on your statement of it being more logical! I'm all ears
I hope to see more talks on Tatvavada. As this is a Philosophy that hasn't been given its due. Rather, lots of assumptions have been made about what the Philosophy from Advaitis without actually understanding the Tattvavadis point of view. Please also invite Dr AP Pratosh and Dr PR Mukund next. If possible. Wish Padma Shri Bannanje Govindacharya was still alive. He would have been a great guest!
Bhakti is a Bhagavata tradition and Bhagavata Dharma is a shuddha vaidika tradition.
The Upanishad vakya itself goes:
"यस्य देवे परा भक्तिर्यथा देवे तथा गुरौ।
तस्यैते कथिता ह्यर्थाः प्रकाशन्ते महात्मनः"
Bhagavata Purana captures the essence of the vedas, brahmasutras, Mahabharata and the Puranas says the garuda purana:
अर्थोयं ब्रह्मसूत्राणां भारतार्थविनिर्णयः।
गायत्रीभाष्यरूपोसौ वेदार्थ परिबृंहितः।
पुराणानां साररूपः साक्षाद्भगवतोदितः।
द्वादशस्कन्धसंयुक्तो शतविच्छेदसंयुतः।
ग्रन्थोष्टादशसहस्र: श्रीमद्भागवताभिदः।।
We can see this in the first verse of the Bhagavata itself:
जन्माद्यस्य यतोऽन्वयादितरतश्चार्थेष्वभिज्ञ: स्वराट्
तेने ब्रह्म हृदा य आदिकवये मुह्यन्ति यत्सूरय: ।
तेजोवारिमृदां यथा विनिमयो यत्र त्रिसर्गोऽमृषा
धाम्ना स्वेन सदा निरस्तकुहकं सत्यं परं धीमहि ||
"Janmadyasya yataha" is the sutra , we see the Bhagavatam starting from it.
"Tat tu samanvayat" is the sutra , we see its partial form "anvaya" captured in Bhagavatam.
"Bhargo Devasya Dhimahi" is in the Gayatri, it is again seen in Bhagavatam as "Satyam Param Dhimahi".
From the contents in Bhagavatam it becomes evident that topics dealt in the Mahabharata is specially dealt in Bhagavatam too especially in Canto 10, same is the case with other Puranas.
The Bhagavad Gita which has a chapter dedicated to Bhakti yoga was not an upadesha that came 5000 yeras ago. The Gitopadesha was reiterated to Arjuna 5000 years ago. Before that, the upadesha had an eternal and unbroken history. The Gita itself mentions this eternality of the Gitopadesha. It started with Bhagavan himself giving the upadesha to Vivasvan.
इमं विवस्वते योगं प्रोक्तवानहमव्ययम् ।
विवस्वान्मनवे प्राह मनुरिक्ष्वाकवेऽब्रवीत् ॥
Do not try to have this condescending view on bhakti and the Bhagavata tradition. It is an end in itself , it is eternal and perennial. Bhakti had different forms and there was an evolution as time passed but the idea of bhakti was ingrained in all the shastras starting from the apaurusheya ones to the paurusheya ones.
Do not view or impose bhakti as seen through the abrahamic and colonial lense which is viewing it as only a social reform movement as forced upon us through colonial education and their textbooks.
These fellows from the panel want to portray bhakti as only a stepping stone that is only subservient to jnana and thereby justify vaishnava darshanas like visishtadvaita and Tattvavada as some naive / novice initial stage to the "final culmination" of "actual" vedanta which is advaita! Stop giving this step motherly treatment to Bhakti and vaishnavism!
The intellectual rigor behind bhakti is a fine balance between rationality and emotion, dare not sling mud at its origins, applicability and intricacies to further your nefarious agendas of standardising Vedanta and limiting it to a particular darshana on a global scale.
The vaishnavas are very well aware of this gimmick as it isn't new, we know how to thump such misadventures just like how the speaker did so unapologetically !
When it comes to dharma all of us irrespective of linga varna ashrama and darshana stand united as Sanatanis. All Acharyas from all darshanas including Vaishnavacharyas are at the forefront wrt dharma Rakshana and dharma prachara by joining hands with fellow Sanatanis from all backgrounds, so spare us the typical virtue signalling of "unity" if at all that's your excuse after reading this message.
Would appreciate if Sangam Talks chooses better panelists. Also it would be great if a talk on "Decolonising Bhakti (Moving away from the misconstrued notion of Bhakti as only a social reform movement of later medieval times) " is arranged with an informed and unbiased Vaishnava as a speaker. Sri Dushyant Sridhar and Sri Dr. Prathosh AP are the most suitable people I can think of who can do justice to this topic. They are well versed in literature from multiple darshanas, very good orators and a humble/unbiased human beings.
Hope sense prevails atleast from next time. 🚩🙏
One of the reason the question props up among the participants is that our text books already boxed Bhakti ‘Movement’ Let’s not box it as a movement but Bhakti is a continuum and very organic to India. If we talk about the saints/Rishis of ancient times we have many….Narada, Prahlada, sukha, shaunaka, Sanaka, Sananda, Jaya, Vijaya, Garuda, Nandi, tumburu, Shabari, hanuma, jambhavanta, Dhruva, Janamejaya, Pandavas, Kunti, Radha…the list goes on. It is not a movement but a tool to work on our own progress towards unify with parmaatma.
Exactly. The questioner wanted to put words in the mouth of the speaker.
8
Great explanation of the Indian Philosophy. Thank you.
My Naman to Mr. Sunil vasisiht. Your explanation was crystal clear. I felt immence joy hearing you.
🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻. So much knowledge I gained today by hearing a guru like you
I really request for more people from dvaita vedanta explaining such topics in english.. it is so great to listen to your words sir 🙏🏻 very wonderful discussion 🙏🏻
Summary of dwaita:1.Brahma and jagat both are satya, and different from each other, that is dwaita, 2.brahma has unlimited guna and nirdosha, from karma u get gyana, from gyana u get bhakti which ultimately gives u moksha.
3.Even In moksha the atma remains different from brahma
Correct. To expand on this:
Moksha is defined as knowing your complete Self. Self here does not mean Brahman like in Advaita. Self here only refers to Moola Swaroopa of the Jiva or in other words the Jivatma. The Jivatma does not, at any point in time, become Brahman or realize it was Mayic and that everything is Brahman like in Advaita.
Madhvacharya explains it thus: Jivatmas are like pots of varying sizes. Some are empty, some are partially filled, some are almost filled. The ones who are completely filled, they attain Moksha as they have realized their "completeness". The pot can never become the potter. Realization is restricted to only its own fullness.
Also, Brahman and Jagat are satya yes. But also that Brahman and individual Jiva are satya. The Jiva can never become Brahman and will always be different to Brahman.
The 5 eternal differences:
1. Jada-Jada Bheda
2. Jada-Jiva Bheda
3. Jiva-Jiva Bheda
4. Jiva-Paramatma Bheda
5. Jada-Paramatma Bheda
No two things are equal and will never be equal. Everything and everyone is unique expression of the Divinity (Brahman) who is nothing but the Pratibimba (in crude words: reflection) of the Bimba (Brahman himself).
There is never ever going to be any sort of "merger" with the Brahman at any point in Time. The Brahman is indivisible and always complete and full of infinite auspicious attributes.
@@Shri Hello, nice explanation. I think read somewhere, please correct me, if wrong, that there is eternal hell for some specific individuals who don't have any chance for redemption? Doesn't go against the bhakthi philosophy, where Paramatma in his infinite glory and with his abundant mercy shows the way for the sinner to correct himself, be that maybe in current birth or in future births. Can you please clarify this point?
@@critical_analysis possibly there's. Four fold clasdification narak. Vaikuntha and two other swrga. Also vaikuntha means anxiety less.
This is the best analysis, I have heard so far.I enjoyed listening and it made my understanding of 'Tatvavada' a little deeper.Thank you!
Very good talk. Appreciate 🙏🙏
Also another critical contribution of Acharya Madhva is missed in this presentation. It is that "sarva Shabdha vaachyattva" (Brahman is denoted by ALL words). This is very important because every word, either mundane or vedic, refers to Brahman in its ultra-primary meaning (parama-mukhyArtha). Using this concept of sarva-shabda vaachyatva, He harmonizes and resolves the conflict of vedic glorification of various deities. This concept is so powerful that even negative words such as "dhukhi" (person suffering from sorrow) can be harmonized as referring to Brahman. You may ask how come Brahman can have sorrow. It is in the possessive sense this can be applied, just as person "controls" or "possess" dhana (money) is called "dhani" etc. Similarly Brahman is niyAmaka (controller) of a person with sorrow, He can be called "dhukki" etc. This idea is sarva-shabdha samanvya is quite unique and great contribution of Acharya Madhva.
Let me congratulate the speaker :
People tried to put words into his mouth by pushing him to accept Bhakti as a modern concoction or reaction to some Islamic colonialism or as a healing aid to the classic caste conundrum thereby subtly undermining Bhakti as only a slave / means to the superior jnana!
The author slaps them all by sticking to Bhakti being an avichinna parampara propounded right from the Shastras including Gita and Bhagavatam!
The origin of Bhakti does not lie in the modern era but its usage as a tool changes according to Desha, kaala and sandarbha! If was not an invention, it is eternal, it has found expression in different timescales and different places based on different situations!
Second, people are obsessed with differences between schools. Clearly the speaker mentioned that he is going to explore the unexplored section or the less found/known part of Tattvavada. You can find your difference tables on the Internet very easily. The speaker hence did not waste time in a futile exercise of redundancy!
Tattvavada is the realistic school of vedanta that uses eternality of Difference as the primary tool to explain its metaphysics, ontology, ethics and soteriology in light of the epistemological validations or pramanas (pratyaksha, Anumana and Agama)!
Bhai, remember me😇
Remember? I was waiting for your comment 😅🙏
@@tattvabodhaka6140 What are your thoughts on Sri Ramanujacarya
@@soumyabratasahoo679A Great Vaishnava Acharya who launched the first attack on irrational philosophies prevalent during his time
@@tattvabodhaka6140 but I have seen Madhvas criticising Ramanujacarya
Awesome sir .Thank you
Excellent!!!!!
Hari Sarvottama! Vayu Jeevottama!
Thanks to Sangam talks for arranging these gems 🙏🙏
Great talk with balance on other schools of thought. 👏
ಹರಿ ಸರ್ವೋತ್ತಮ ವಾಯು ಜೀವೊತ್ತಮ
Hari sarvottama vaayu jeevottama
Hopefully you will have experts from other schools within the vaidika schools of philosophy to come and present their point of views. Like Nyaya, vaisesikha, mimamsa etc. Wikipedia can only go so far. But sessions like this can go much deeper. And also provide users sources of experts who they can pursue further to explore a philosophy that interests them further.
Wikipedia is the bane of Vedic culture.
Excellent talk by Sri.Sunil-ji. In my observation he missed a very critical contribution of Acharya Madhva to Vedanta is that of establishing the validity (pramANya) to the Vedic texts from the first principle. All other Acharya-s of astika schools, even though they accepted Veda-s as pramANa. they did not ventured it into establishing validity (rather defending the validity from all possible refutations against it). Please study Acharya Madhva's work "vishNu tatva vinirNaya". In that work you will be amazed to see how one has to accept Veda-s ONLY if one is to talk about extra-sensory concepts (atIndriya vichara) such as morality/immorality or dharma/adharma etc.
I really always understood Advaita also for all intents and purposes is in agreement with the Sadhana Triad.
The talk clearly highlighted the phrase "Bhakti as an end in itself". In advaita, moksha is via Ajnana nivritti and that is through "jevo-brahmaiva na paraha" abheda jnana and Upasana. Saguna brahma Upasana via Bhakti is treated as just a means leading to this jnana (and inturn Ajnana nivritti) and not as an end in itself
Hari Sarvottama, Vayu Jeevottama 🙏🙏.
Pranam sir. Thank you for the lecture. Just one clarification. Shankara said that this jagat is a 'mithya' which is not an illusion. But it is infact the concept of good and bad which is not contrast to each other but rather subjective. World is real but it appears different to different people as per their own perspectives. So saying this world is an illusion is a poor tranlsation. And thank you for sharing your knowledge with us. Om guruve namah.
Wow thanks for doing this! Finally!
Explain why the need for Bhaja Govindam?
Hari sarvottama, Vayu jivottama
Very good presentation, not sure if VishishtaAdvaita lacked the intellectual depth. If not for Sri Ramanujacharya's revitalization and bringing of central focus on realism, there would not have been any renaissance. After Sri Ramanujacharya, Sri Vedantha Desika too contributed much to the corpus of the philosophy of VishishtaAdvaita.
Sri Ramanujacharya was perhaps the greatest teacher who combined the true qualities of a humanist and a devotee. His compassion for people and his love for Narayana/Paramatma are unparalleled. One should read his biography with open minds and will be astonished to see how he broke the shackles of orthodoxy and tried to bring humanism as a base to the society with Bhakthi as the focal point.
True Sir... But the critical thinking and debating mindset came to a standstill after Sri Vedanta Desikacharyar... while in Tattwavada it's not case
@@siddharthmdavse1271Not true. As recent as 20th century there was Uttamur Viraraghavacharya.
Excellent speaker and presentation. What a waste of time in Q&A. Instead of seeking to know more about Madhva's contributions, people tried to trap the speaker in the advaita debate.
AUM NAMAH SHIVAYA 🚩🙏🏻
Who are these Neos asking stupid questions, don't they understand simple vedanta lingo. Perils of understanding vedanta through English 😑🙏
New people will ask stupid question.
What's the big deal in this?
If you know something, it doesn't mean that you can make fun of others.
He keeps on saying that Madhva was the *only* philosopher in the entire Indian history who substantiated his theology from the whole of Vedic corpus including Vedas. It's too unfortunate that people studying Indian philosophy haven't studied Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati. Dayanand showed the unity across the ancient Vedic literature and all the six schools, the shad darshanas. And he did it in a sophisticated way too. But unfortunately, nobody outside of the Arya Samaj circle knows about his philosophy.
support
Oxford dictionary meaning for the word Polemics
=================================
(also polemics [plural])
the practice or skill of arguing strongly for or against something/somebody
Her speech was memorable for its polemic rather than its substance.
Oxford Synonyms for the word Polemics:
broadsides, diatribes, harangues, tirades
castigations, chastisements, criticisms, excoriations, opprobriums, rebukes, reprimands, reproofs
aspersions, belittlements, disparagements, revilements, vilifications
expletives, swearwords
epithets, insults, put-downs, slurs
blasphemies, curses, execrations, imprecations, maledictions, profanities
blackguardisms
abuses, billingsgates, fulminations, invectives, obloquies, scurrilities, vitriols, vituperations
================================================================
This is the definition and an example of the use of the word Polemics. From oxford dictionaries, it is clear that the word Polemics have a negative meaning.
From the Oxford dictionaries it is clear that Polemics have no solid logical refutation behind it and it is used in negative sense.
Now the guy named "Theology & Rationality" argued that the correct usage of the word "Polemics" without knowing even the usage of this word....pathetic... Sunil and this person cannot be more wrong than using this word for the works of Madhwacharya and his disciples and reducing their positive contributions to mere polemics.
I would suggest that Sunil (the person answering in the video) not to use such words as polemics to describe the works that logically refute Advaita as mere polemics. Please understand the English words properly before using it. You are insulting Madhwacharya using words without knowing the meaning of the words or its usage correctly.
Polemic: A thorough written attack on some opinion or policy, usually within a theological or political dispute, sometimes also in philosophy or criticism.
- From Oxford Reference
The word itself is not negative per se. Khandanas come under Polemical texts as it directly attacks the Philosophy propounded by Advaita. Some examples that come to mind are Upadhi Khandana, Mayavada Khandana, Prapancha Mithyatva-anumana Khandana etc.
So in this case, it is not used in a negative sense. It is not just logical refutation (as you rightly said) but it goes further and attacks the very base of the Philosophy itself (in this case Advaita), demolishing many of the wrong concepts propagated by Shankaracharya.
Though if there is a better word to Polemic it should be used. I agree with you on that point.
@@Shri I will give the complete definition as per the 4th edition of the book "The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms". CHRIS BALDICK, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
polemic [po-lemm-ik], a thorough written attack on some opinion or policy, usually within a theological or political dispute, sometimes also
in philosophy or * CRITICISM. Notable polemicists in English are John Milton, whose Areopagitica (1644) attacks censorship, and H. D. Thoreau, whose 'Slavery in Massachusetts' (1854) berates upholders of the Fugitive Slave Law. Adjective: polemical
Notice that there is nothing mentioned about logical refutation anywhere here. Polemic is simply an verbal attack by contrasting two different ideas and playing down upon the opponent's idea. Polemics, especially polemical theology of Abrahamic religions, have nothing to do with logical refutation that is completely absent in Abrahamic theological polemics or disputes.
For example, calling "idol worship" or calling others "idol worshipers" is polemics in the bible. There is no logic behind such attacks. In fact, Hebrew bible uses an equivalent word of "p@@p" or "sh!t" for "idols". This is known from western academics. This is an example for polemics. It is mere low level insults.
You are going by some google searches on the meaning of the word "polemics", especially "polemical theology".
Our Acharya is beyond such cheap tactics. It can appear that he may have used polemics (even here I do not think it is polemics, but Acharya's jnAna about real nature of Jivas) in specific situations with the aid of Puranas about Manimanta. But, Khandana traya cannot come under polemics. It is an insult to our Acharya and all his disciples like Jayatirtha, Vyasa Tirtha and such giants to call their logical works as mere polemics. Polemics is always used in negative sense.
Lets see again the definition of polemical theology as per western University, Boston College.
===================================
Polemics
The term polemics generally denotes the art of controversy and disputation. Polemical discourse is more often than not speech animated by anger and fear. It deploys explosive language that compels the listener to take a stand. Religious polemics are frequently used to combat opposing interpretations of the truth. Polemics serve to demarcate and fortify the boundaries between "insiders" and "outsiders," offering protection from contact with the carriers of "sin and unbelief." This indelicate art of theological self-defense may be an indispensable rhetorical strategy in threatening circumstances, but this verbal habit is loaded with toxic possibilities that can be released over a long period of time. Therefore, Christians need to attend to the polemical practices that were certainly instrumental in the shaping of Christian identity, for these linguistic habits continue to exert a powerful influence.
The first function of religious polemic is to vilify "the other." Two examples, among many, are worth highlighting. Matthew 23:1-39 preserves a vitriolic attack on the scribes and Pharisees. The evangelist presents Jesus unleashing a damning series of indictments against his Jewish co-religionists. They are assailed as hypocrites (23:13,15,23, 25, 27, 29), blind guides and fools (23:16, 24), white-washed tombs (23:27), snakes (23:33), and murderers of the prophets (23:31, 34, 37). Their piety as well as their ethical conduct are subjected to a scathing attack.
====================================================
There is nothing about logical refutation in polemical theology. It is an attack on the opponent without any aid of logic to explain one's position or logically refuting the other.
So again, Tatvavada scholars must desist from using this word to describe any of our Acharya's works.
@@contnuum1607 I agree to your points and I change my stance. What is a better word one can use for Khandana texts in your opinion?
@@Shri Elenchus
A logical refutation, esp. one that disproves a proposition by proving the direct contrary of its conclusion.
May be this word is more appropriate. Please check on this.
The speaker is not addressing some of the questions regarding role of Bhakti and society. The historical timeline of the Bhakti 'movement' started with the Alwars and Nayanmars in Tamil Nadu who predate both Islam and the Dwaita-Haridasa movement. One of the reoccurring themes in the lives of some of these Tamil Bhakti poets is their fierce criticism of Buddhism and Jainism that were dominant religious traditions at the time. Jainism and Buddhism are very dry ascetic traditions. The practice of Bhakti was an effective way of connecting ordinary people to back to Vedic Dharma and thus leading to decline of Jaina-Bauda traditions. Yes Bhakti also addressed issues of social discrimination and later Islam but the key point here is practice of Bhakti is one of the key ways in which Vedic Hinduism made a come back following its decline during Buddhist era.
Bhakti is time immemorial. It is as old as the Vedas themselves. In fact the very beginning of the Vedas is describing rituals to various forms of Brahman which is nothing but Bhakti only. It is ridiculous to box Bhakti as some modern phenomenon.
There is difference between ishwara and brahman
Ishwara is real if seen from the perspective from the world.
In my dream if we both are present having a debate... With respect to me you are real and the debate room is real. But with respect to waking state it is false
I think shankara philosophy is best philosophy in my opinion.
Why do you think that? Can you explain?
What do you think as more appealing Vedic philosophy for you? @@businessempirereview1912
👉SMOT के खुलासे अनुसार👉सच को जान कर हैरान मत होना👉अपने बारे में असली ज्ञान को हासिल करना 👉सभी मानवों की जाति सिर्फ एक ही है 👉 संस्कृत भाषा में सिंधू जाति ही हैं और फारसी भाषा में हिंदू जाति ही हैं और ग्रीक भाषा में Indus जाति ही है 👉 और सनातन ही संसार में एक मात्र ईश्वरीय धर्म है 👉 सनातन ही एक मात्र प्राकृतिक धर्म है🤔 बाकी सब तो मानवकृत व्यक्तिगत स्वार्थपुर्ति हेतु बनाई Non Religious भ्रामक विचारधाराएं ही हैं 🤔
🚩महा🇮🇳भारत🚩 के अनुसार 👉 फारसी शब्द हिंदू कुछ नहीं बल्कि 👉2000 साल पहले रेगिस्तान में भूखे प्यासे बैठे गले वाले के मुंह से समरिद्ध सिंधुओं के लिए संस्कृत में कृत सिंधु शब्द की बजाए बिगाड़ कर निकाला हुआ शब्द हिंदू ही हैं👈 महाभारत के युद्ध के बाद और द्वापर युग की समाप्ति के बाद 👉सारी मानव जाति तितर बितर हो गई 👉 ज्ञान से कट गई 👉 जंगली बन गई 👉 जीवनयापन के लिए अन्य जीव जंतुओं की तरह प्रयास करने लगी 👉 हजारों साल जारी रहने वाली इस क्रिया के कारण समय और स्थीति के अनुसार ईश्वर प्रदत्त SMOT यानी Self Motile Organic Technology ने मानव शरीरों में पूंछ बाल सींग इत्यादि उगा कर जानवर रूप दे दिया 👉 कालांतर में इन में से बंदर types को छोड़ कर बाकी की सब Converted मानव शरीर समाप्त हो गए Dinasoures के साथ साथ 👉बचे हुए बंदर बन चुके मानव अपने जीवन यापन के लिए समस्त संसार से चलते चलते 👉 मां सिंधू दरिया के किनारे पहुंच गए और जीवित बच गए👉 क्योंकि समूची पृथ्वी पर सिर्फ यहां का वातावरण ही अनुकूल था जीने के लिए 👉 तो यहां मां सिंधू दरिया के आसपास ही सब बचे हुए बंदर मानवों ने मिलजुलकर जीना आरंभ किया 👉धीमे धीमे इनका बौद्धिक विकास हुआ 👉 तदुपरांत प्राकृति को समझा 👉सही ग़लत नफे नुकसान की समझ आई👉जीना सीखा और जीने के उपाय सीखे मिलजुल कर👉 सभ्यता संस्कृति का आरंभ हुआ और👉 जनसंख्या में वृद्धि होने के कारण यह मानव बंदर जीवनयापन के लिए अलग दिशाओं की तरफ रूख करने लगे👉 ज्ञातव्य रहे की द्वापर युग की समाप्ति के बाद से मानव का बंदर बनना और फिर दुबारा मानव बनना 👉 ईश्वर कीSMOT यानी Self Motile Organic Technology का ही कमाल है और चूंकि ये Automatically चलती है और चलती रहेगी अनवरत अनंत काल तक 👉तो अब से आपको जो कुछ भी बनना है खुद को जो कुछ भी समझना है समझते रहिए👉SMOT को कोई फर्क नहीं पड़ता लेकिन 👉आपकी Calculated SMOT Limited जिंदगी पर जरूर पढ़ता है 👉In Terms Of शांति और सुख 👉तो जाति के तौर पर👉 All Human Beings Are Sindhu In संस्कृत Language और Hindu In फारसी Language 👉अब बात धर्म की करें तो असली प्राकृतिक धर्म सिर्फ एक ही है 👈Here Is Only One Godly Natural Religion 👉 सनातन धर्म जिसको सिंधुओं ने Nature के साथ जुड़ कर आपसी तालमेल बनाकर विकसित किया 👉 बाकी सब तथाकथित धर्म तो व्यक्तिगत स्वार्थसिद्धि हेतु मानवकृत विचारधाराएं हैं 👈 ताकि 👉कामुकता क्रोध लोभ मोह अहंकार सरीखी व्याधियों की पूर्ति की जा सके चंद चंट चालाक मानवों द्वारा 👉 अब से ज्ञात रहे और बोध रहे कि समस्त मानवों की एक ही जाति है👉 फारसी भाषा में हिंदू और संस्कृत भाषा में सिंधू 👉और एक ही मानव धर्म है सनातन धर्म 👉 बाकी सब तो चंद लोगों द्वारा कृत व्यक्तिगत स्वार्थसिद्धि हेतु अन्य मानवों को अटकाने और भटकाने के कुत्सित विचार और प्रयास मात्र0ही है 🤔तो सनातन धर्म को समझना बहुत ही आसान है 👉Love Respect Care Protect Develop👉 यानी जिनसे भी कुछ मिलता है या मिलने की संभावना है उनकी इज्जत करो प्यार करो देख भाल करो रक्षा करो विकास करो👉बाकी सब जो समझ में ना आ रहे हों उनको ईश्वर की अनुकंपा पर छोड़ दो👉 ईश्वर की बनाई हर चीज़ को सिर्फ इस्तेमाल करने का ही हक है नष्ट करने या बरबाद करने का नहीं 👉और जो ऐसा कुकृत्य करें उसको फौरन जीवन मुक्त करो फौरन मानव योनि से मुक्त करो👉 ताकि उसे Suitable योनि प्राप्त हो👉बस इतना कर लो तो तुम पक्के सनातनी हो👉 बाकी गुज़रे हुए युगों यानी सतयुग, त्रेतायुग, द्वापरयुग की दास्तानों, कथाओं,कहानियों , ग्रंथों इत्यादि को पढ़ कर और भी अधिक नैतिक मूल्यों का ज्ञान और तर्क ज्ञान प्राप्त कर सकते हो👉ताकि कलयुग में भी मनोरंजन के साथ शांति और सुख सहित जीवन यापन हो🤔Share And Forward करें😃
🚩जयभारती🇮🇳जयभारत🇮🇳जयमहाभारत🚩
wow, tat tvam asi mean you are not that, what a reason by madhvacharya, he took the limitations of examples literally, how is he any different from the logic of dependence of Thomas equinos, how is his doctorine any different from the doctorine of Original sin, Karma as a fear tactic, wow man, only logicians which takes examples literally can justify that man and god will always remain eternally different, man can never dissolve in god, what an eternal slavery, what kind of liberation is this, salvation of the slaves?, moksha of bondage?, this philosophy is not giving you dualism, it is giving triasim, nobody is even yoday able the identify the realness of any difference, John Wheeler once said 'where is the boundary of the boundary' nobody was able to prove 2 entity, he is giving you three real entity, wow man
What is so hard in accepting there are 3 real entities? Rather, I should be asking with what proof are you claiming that this Creation is unreal. The onus is on you to prove that the Creation is Maya. Creation is unreal does not satisfy one of the 6 main Pramanas: Pratyaksha Pramana.
@@Shri who said pratyaksha is a pramana, dreams are also pratyaksha , are they real?,and why 3 entities why not 3000, is there any classification, any real boundary? tell me what happens at kaivalya? merging with one entity, what remains is other entity, why is onus on me to prove maya, prove me physicalism, what is matter, who made it, what energy, where does it come from, why is matter entangled?, what is consciousness, what makes it emergent? why is there non locality, Is there is any God then is he superdeterministic or is he playing a baisian game? if mind is real where does it reside?
Expected rhetorics from the vilakshana camp, answers can be found here : th-cam.com/video/Q9x2BYDX7DU/w-d-xo.html
@@Iyago0RoaDBoXeR Yes Dreams are Real. Period.
Now think why. Research why. And you will end up studying Tattvavada after that to understand why Dreams are real.
Advaita, like Abrahamics, defines Dreams as illusion. You just accepted it blindly.
@@Iyago0RoaDBoXeR If you consider Dream as unreal/illusion, and the Real World as unreal/illusion then what follows is an infinite regression. You are "experiencing" two things: the dream state and waking state. Both are unreal according to Advaita. That means you DO NOT KNOW what is real. Even Advaita defines "Nirgunatva" as attributeless and you cannot associate any attribute from the unreal Creation on to Nirguna Brahman - basically Nirguna Brahman is indescribable from a Vyvaharika Point of View (similar to Islam which says Allah cannot be described by words that we know, things we see, hear, experience etc.). So basically, if you want to realize Nirgunatva none of what you are experiencing in the "unreal" Creation (that includes Dreams as well as the Waking World) is to be considered as that would not be Nirgunatva. So you have no proper definition of what Nirgunatva actually is. And even if you reach this hypothetical level of consciousness, there is no guarantee you will know it is "real" and not an "illusion". Because you haven't yet experienced what is "Real" to be able to define it. Just defining it as "Sat, Chit, Ananda" won't cut it because there is no way to define that experience in this "Unreal" Creation. And the worst part is, when you reach that hypothetical State of Consciousness, the end goal is you realizing you don't even exist. That you yourself are an illusion. This is basically Kaivalya Moksha of Advaita where you discard the material Prakriti as the "unreal" and only the Purusha exists in a State of "Aloneness". When do you know you have reached this State and even when you do, how do you know this State is "real" and not "unreal"?
how can you interpret 'tat tu samanvayat' as purifying texts, it's idiocracy just like Bhandarkar School of Baroda & Bibek Debroy Fandom of Abriged text, This is pure colonization dear, it's just like Islamists & Christians, next step is burning texts just like what happened with syrian Christians & Yemenese Muslims. Shankaracharya Said 'Tat Tu Samavayat' is separation Arthavada which is meant for eulogy and sometimes for mudh-chitta, he never said reject anything, he always said read between the lines to understand deeper truth, Buddha & Shankara were the Deepest Thinkers, vindicated even in today's Consciousness Studies, they presented aspect of absolute emptiness naive realism and clearly said to introspect the clear light of the void, Newton Also understood the same thing, for him gravity was God's love, he took it all as pure mathematics, for him thr sutradhaar, the continuous background nirguna were the Fluxions
Just goes to show you are still a novice. Stop trying to interpret Tattvavada with the lens of Advaita. Advaita is not Dharmic in way, shape or form.
Naive Listeners are being misguided here, the explanation that nirguna means devoid of 3 gunas of prakriti is foolish, rean mandukya karika, parabrahaman is not even nirguna, it is No Thing, devoid of objectivity & subjectivity. why is this Tattvavada so adamant on experience, experience is mental only, Tattvavada is trying to limit us into our minds, this is foolish
"parabrahaman is not even nirguna, it is No Thing, devoid of objectivity & subjectivity"
Have you created your own Philosophy now? 😂😂😂
With that view there will neither be vishaya nor prayojana nor sambandha nor adhikara to study advaita itself boss. This bubble was burst long back by Acharya himself in Dushana Trayas
@@tattvabodhaka6140 bro I have to say you have a great knowledge of Shastras.
How you could develop patience to write so long descriptive statement.
very naive logic from the start, dwaita is not ready to accept that it is for weak hearted non intellectual common masses, it is good for them, logically it is just apologetic for a supreme God, just like Christianity & Islam, common man you are justifying asatkaryavada, creation from nothing by a Super Entity, even Stephen Hawkings retraced his thoughts of Creation from nothing in his last days, you say that perception of physical realism is absolutely true because it is witnessed by parabrahaman who is emmanent, just listen to the example given by Donald Hoffman of the beatle misunderstanding beer bottle as female beatle, is parabrahaman a stupid yet super giy who is confused between a female beatle and a beer bottle, so logically lame, that's why it was shattered so easily like Kashmir Shaivism, they were also adamant on Parabrahaman being a bhokta, so lame to superimpose humanistic weakness on pure consciousness, why do common masses want so desperately to anthormorphise absolute reality of sat chit anand?, why can't they hobble up that emotions are an emergent phenomenon, why it is so hard to accept abstract ANAND
Dvaita existed way before Madhvacharya dude. It has nothing to do with Christianity or Islam. All schools of Vedanta are Dualist except for Advaita. Samkhya, Nyaya, Mimamsa etc. All of them are Dualist. You are a frog in a well to think Dvaita started with advent of Christianity and Islam. 😂
Tattvavada actually takes Dualistic thought even deeper. It is not the inventor of Dualism in Sanatan Dharma.
Can't believe people are so ignorant.
> that's why it was shattered so easily like Kashmir Shaivism
Where is Kashmir Shaivism? 😂
Wherever Advaita went, the people there converted to Islam or Christianity. Most of Pakistan and Bangladesh today were Advaitic strongholds. Kerala, the birthplace of Shankaracharya, is now a Communist + Islamist stronghold. Tamil Nadu which had major influence of Advaita and Vishishtadvaita are now in the hands of Communists + Christian strongholds. Andhra and Telenagana, which was stronghold of Vishishtadvaita, is now the conversion factory of Indian Christianity. Bengal, which is stronghold of Shakta form of Advaita is now in the hands of Communists + Islamists. Far flung Northeastern state of Mizoram was Advaitic stronghold. Today the State is 100% Christian.
The only State in South India resisting any conversions is Karnataka, which is the stronghold of Tattvavada. With Udupi Shri Krishna as the base. Fighting burqas to love jihad and everything in between.
Everywhere Monism went (be it in pure form of Advaita or qualified form of Vishishtadvaita) disaster ensued where people converted en masse. The reason is simple. Both the philosophies are highly illogical.
If the philosophies were so strong, there would be no conversions of anyone to inferior foreign religions. If the philosophies were so strong, top Advaitic and Vishishtadvaitic scholars wouldn't have lost in debates to Madhvacharya and all subsequent Tattvavada Gurus in the Guru Parampara.
A debate was issued as recently as 1980s by one of our Gurus. No Advaita Guru from any Matha took up the challenge. As they were all scared to get demolished again.
> why it is so hard to accept abstract ANAND
There is nothing called "abstract ANAND". Just some random hocus pocus invented by Shankara and followed by his followers. Where is this "abstract ANAND" mentioned anywhere in our Srutis? This is precisely the sort of rubbish interpretations of our scriptures that caused many to convert from Advaita to inferior religions like Islam and Christianity.
Who the hell told you Dvaita subscribes to asatkaryavada bruh? Don't spread lies without reading Anuvyakhyana! Both kevala satkaryavada and kevala asatkaryavada are criticised. A new and novel explanation to creation was brought about by Acharya of course with substantial proof from the pramanas, Tattvavada theory of causation or Karyavada is hence distinct and beyond the understanding of the naive
Parabrahman is bhokta? That's just a blank statement you're making! The bliss is clearly established as transcendental and not material! The sutra na prayojanamatvat itself rejects any misadventure to ascribe humanistic material enjoyment / aspects to bhagavan!
Who is using anthropomorphism, the entire siddhanta lies on Nityatva or eternality of pancha bhedas. The crux of the siddhanta as told in Tattva sankhya is based on two eternally distinct tattvas : Swatantra and Aswatantra?
Purvapakshin is the one that is badly trying to build a fancy bridge between the two eternally distinct entities by taking recourse to a dastardly kind of utopia with Marxist styled equality of outcomes that rejects and negates the theory of karma and therefore individuality, diversity, plurality and difference!
Dvaita is certainly not for the weak hearted who'd rather go for made up utopian fantasies that has no record of experience by any rather than face the reality who's cognition and experience both are evident and prima facie!
Who the hell told you to associate that typical Berkeley styled subjective Idealism to Dvaita? The one where he tries to prove reality of the world by only saying that God is the ultimate observer!?
Realistic schools in Indian philosophy (which is basically entire Indian philosophy except advaita and avaidikas lol) prove Jagat Satyatva using all the pramanas and their sub parts repeatedly! Acharya Madhva is again novel with his concept of sakshi, sakshi is not to be treated as mere evidence by taking its hindi translation! Acharya has beautifully expounded sakshi, it's role in metaphysics, its epistemological validation, its ontological significance, ethical relevance and sotsriological intent!
Don't come to dvaita with lame ass accusations and present them as some valid refutation by covering it with some useless mental gymnastics and word play, it's futile! The purvacharyas have been masters of all kinds of diversion tactics too to unwrap and expose the inconsistencies of the purvapakshins. Acharya Madhva in the Anuvyakhyana says "Sawanyaye sadhanam karyam, PARA NYAYAISTU DUSHANAM"! We are more than capable of giving it back to people in their own language using their own style to put forth the blatant inconsistencies that lie buried in purvapakshins
Hari sarvottama, Vayu jivottama