So, appreciation of saintly qualities is one thing. Certainly, Paramacharya deserves our obeisances for the way he lived and spoke. But, when it comes to siddhanta, appreciation does not translate into acceptance from other darshanas that have produced equally bright luminaries.
Loukeeka dharma may be common in many ways across darshanas but the position it plays in connection with Jaiva dharma or the jiva's position vis-a-vis Brahman and Jagat ultimately defines what Dharma is. The tattva-hita-purushartha of various darshanas, and particularly between advaita and the personalistic Vedanta darshanas is clearly at odds. For further discussions, please take up the matter with me via e-mail since youtube is not an effective forum for extensive discussions.
Also, what is dharma ultimately? Krishna says in Gita 15.7, mamaivamsha jiva loka jiva bhuta sanatana - the jivatma is ETERNALLY an amsha of Me. So, how can the Advaitic position be proper dharma when it says finally there is no amsha and that this state is just one of vyavaharika maya? So, one cannot bury fundamental differences in darshana which affect what is ultimately dharma and adharma by having a loosely defined emotive notion of dharma without defining what it is ultimately.
Advaita deems the personal form just a temporary manifestation of vyavaharika maya and that ultimately big means formless. This is not what Krishna is saying. His personality is ultimate and it is difficult to understand the greatness of that seemingly small form without bhakti. The Lord's form constitutes shuddha sattva, not pancha bhootas. Therefore it is said divya roopam. Paramacharya is clearly speaking to the contrary because that is Shankara's advaitic impersonal twist.
Advaita deems the personal form just a temporary manifestation of vyavaharika maya and that ultimately big means formless. This is not what Krishna is saying. His personality is ultimate and it is difficult to understand the greatness of that seemingly small form without bhakti. The Lord's form constitutes shuddha sattva, not pancha bhootas. Therefore it is said divya roopam. Paramacharya is clearly speaking to the contrary because that is Shankara's advaitic impersonal twist.
Further to this, the verse being discussed by Paramacharya itself and the commentaries upon it shows a fundamental difference in what constitutes the dharma of worship. Bhaktya mam abhijanati - the "small form" is not at all small as per Vaishnava darshana but is all encompassing. Where is there a question of small and big? Brahman whether with form or with no form is the greatest and purest with no tinge of pancha bhoota influence.
To entertain the idea that the jiva is entirely identical with Brahman and that it indeed is Brahman covered by Maya is seen by tattvavada and in fact all personalistic theistic Vedanta darshana as blasphemous, offensive and ultimately adharmic. The royal road may be embellished with good intentions but if the destination is a dead end, what is the use?
But, as per the revelation of truth, certain concepts in one darshana or the other, is deemed adharma, i.e. unconstitutional and contrary to the nature of the atma. Clearly, in terms of spiritual dharma, to deny the existence of a personal God in the ultimate issue with form, qualities, etc.
I beg to differ with you. Clearly, advaita and tattvavada have different irreconcilable presentations of the truth. Therefore, the truth while being one, not everything is the truth. So, I do not know in what sense you are saying whether advaita or dvaita, the truth is the same. Neither Shankara nor Madhva have said this. Kindly provide properly contextualised references if they have said it. Yes, in terms of common loukeeka dharmic observances, they help to generate a good atmosphere.
Many others include the many vaishnavas who are dvaitins, visishtadvaitins, Gaudiyas, Vallabhas as well as Saivites and practically everyone who supports the eternal servitorship of the Jiva who is distinct from Brahman for all posterity, both in bondage and in liberation. That is pretty much a majority of theistic religions.
Accepted in terms of his austerity and efforts to preserve dharma and saintly qualities, but not in terms of his advaitic philosophy which many others will not accept.
@rjsimman its not matter others accept it or not.. Is a blind man to accept the existence of sun in the heavens. Whether its Dwaitha or Advaitha the truth is the same. And no one can understand the leela and maya of that parabrahma with his limited senses. But there must be a healthy conduct in life which makes our mind determined to attain salvation and that is Dharma. that's why Krishna mentioned about revival Dharma whenever there is an aberration. Loka Samaastha Sukhino Bhavanthu...
So, appreciation of saintly qualities is one thing. Certainly, Paramacharya deserves our obeisances for the way he lived and spoke. But, when it comes to siddhanta, appreciation does not translate into acceptance from other darshanas that have produced equally bright luminaries.
rjsimman 5 months ago
Loukeeka dharma may be common in many ways across darshanas but the position it plays in connection with Jaiva dharma or the jiva's position vis-a-vis Brahman and Jagat ultimately defines what Dharma is. The tattva-hita-purushartha of various darshanas, and particularly between advaita and the personalistic Vedanta darshanas is clearly at odds. For further discussions, please take up the matter with me via e-mail since youtube is not an effective forum for extensive discussions.
rjsimman 5 months ago
Also, what is dharma ultimately? Krishna says in Gita 15.7, mamaivamsha jiva loka jiva bhuta sanatana - the jivatma is ETERNALLY an amsha of Me. So, how can the Advaitic position be proper dharma when it says finally there is no amsha and that this state is just one of vyavaharika maya? So, one cannot bury fundamental differences in darshana which affect what is ultimately dharma and adharma by having a loosely defined emotive notion of dharma without defining what it is ultimately.
rjsimman 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Advaita deems the personal form just a temporary manifestation of vyavaharika maya and that ultimately big means formless. This is not what Krishna is saying. His personality is ultimate and it is difficult to understand the greatness of that seemingly small form without bhakti. The Lord's form constitutes shuddha sattva, not pancha bhootas. Therefore it is said divya roopam. Paramacharya is clearly speaking to the contrary because that is Shankara's advaitic impersonal twist.
rjsimman 5 months ago
Advaita deems the personal form just a temporary manifestation of vyavaharika maya and that ultimately big means formless. This is not what Krishna is saying. His personality is ultimate and it is difficult to understand the greatness of that seemingly small form without bhakti. The Lord's form constitutes shuddha sattva, not pancha bhootas. Therefore it is said divya roopam. Paramacharya is clearly speaking to the contrary because that is Shankara's advaitic impersonal twist.
rjsimman 5 months ago
Further to this, the verse being discussed by Paramacharya itself and the commentaries upon it shows a fundamental difference in what constitutes the dharma of worship. Bhaktya mam abhijanati - the "small form" is not at all small as per Vaishnava darshana but is all encompassing. Where is there a question of small and big? Brahman whether with form or with no form is the greatest and purest with no tinge of pancha bhoota influence.
rjsimman 5 months ago
To entertain the idea that the jiva is entirely identical with Brahman and that it indeed is Brahman covered by Maya is seen by tattvavada and in fact all personalistic theistic Vedanta darshana as blasphemous, offensive and ultimately adharmic. The royal road may be embellished with good intentions but if the destination is a dead end, what is the use?
rjsimman 5 months ago
But, as per the revelation of truth, certain concepts in one darshana or the other, is deemed adharma, i.e. unconstitutional and contrary to the nature of the atma. Clearly, in terms of spiritual dharma, to deny the existence of a personal God in the ultimate issue with form, qualities, etc.
rjsimman 5 months ago
I beg to differ with you. Clearly, advaita and tattvavada have different irreconcilable presentations of the truth. Therefore, the truth while being one, not everything is the truth. So, I do not know in what sense you are saying whether advaita or dvaita, the truth is the same. Neither Shankara nor Madhva have said this. Kindly provide properly contextualised references if they have said it. Yes, in terms of common loukeeka dharmic observances, they help to generate a good atmosphere.
rjsimman 5 months ago
Many others include the many vaishnavas who are dvaitins, visishtadvaitins, Gaudiyas, Vallabhas as well as Saivites and practically everyone who supports the eternal servitorship of the Jiva who is distinct from Brahman for all posterity, both in bondage and in liberation. That is pretty much a majority of theistic religions.
:-) Not very few by any count.
rjsimman 2 years ago
Accepted in terms of his austerity and efforts to preserve dharma and saintly qualities, but not in terms of his advaitic philosophy which many others will not accept.
rjsimman 2 years ago
@rjsimman its not matter others accept it or not.. Is a blind man to accept the existence of sun in the heavens. Whether its Dwaitha or Advaitha the truth is the same. And no one can understand the leela and maya of that parabrahma with his limited senses. But there must be a healthy conduct in life which makes our mind determined to attain salvation and that is Dharma. that's why Krishna mentioned about revival Dharma whenever there is an aberration. Loka Samaastha Sukhino Bhavanthu...
blackhorn83 5 months ago
very rare video. one of the very few true saints, accepted beyond all religious partitions in this maya.
god bless you.
soulsearch8 2 years ago