ਰਹਿਣੀਰਹੈਸੋਈਸਿਖਮੇਰਾ॥ ਓੁਹਸਾਹਿਬਮੈਉਸਕਾਚੇਰਾ॥

Akal Purakh Kee Rachha Hamnai, SarbLoh Dee Racchia Hamanai


    View Post Listing    |    Search    



Madhva's Tattvavada
Posted by: kulbir singh (IP Logged)
Date: October 27, 2007 07:05PM

Chandra Singh,

In a recent post you brought up Madhvacharya's Dvaita philosophy of life. I got the impression that you subscribe to this philosophy to some extent since you brought up the point that Gaudiya Samprada does not follow Madhva's philosophy.

Madhva's as opposed to Shankra's Advaita talks about 5 eternal differences namely Ishvar and Jeev, Ishvar and Jadd (non-living), Jeev and Jeev, Jeev and Jadd, and Jadd and Jadd. When you use the word "eternal difference" you unwittingly also state that jadd is eternal. Could this be true?

Kulbir Singh

 



Re: Madhva's Tattvavada
Posted by: Anonymous User (IP Logged)
Date: October 28, 2007 01:12PM

'When you use the word "eternal difference" you "

Where and when did i use that?. I can't remember, i would like you to remind where did i use that?.

 



Re: Madhva's Tattvavada
Posted by: kulbir singh (IP Logged)
Date: October 28, 2007 07:01PM

I got this word "eternal difference" from the link you had provided when talking about difference between Gaudiya and Madhvacharya's Dvaita.

I did not mean that you used this term but I was talking how Madhvas use this term. Sorry for the misunderstanding that the word "you" caused. Since you invoked Madhva's dvaita, I asked for your thoughts on this subject.

I know for a fact that Gurmat (Guru Nanak's philosophy) is distinct from Shankracharya's Advaita, Ramanuj's Vishist-Advaita, Madhva's Dvaita, and Gaudiya's Bhed-Abheda philosophy. It does not agree 100% with any of these above mentioned life-philosophys. There are similarities and there are differences as well. Some of our Sampradayak Sikh scholars are inclined towards Advaita but others like Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh jee strictly opposed this view.

Kulbir Singh



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/28/2007 07:10PM by admin.

 



Re: Madhva's Tattvavada
Posted by: Khalsaspirit (IP Logged)
Date: October 28, 2007 07:33PM

Waheguru ji ka khalsa
Waheguru ji ki fateh

Bhai Kulbir Singh jio,

What freq. band is that? Our receivers can not catch what's going on.

Guru Mehar Karay

Waheguru ji ka khalsa
Waheguru ji ki fateh

 



Re: Madhva's Tattvavada
Posted by: Anonymous User (IP Logged)
Date: October 29, 2007 08:07AM

"I asked for your thoughts on this subject."

Regarding Dvaita I would admit that i havn't studied it and hence does not much of my opinion. I quoted the link to expose the duplicity of the ISKCON (post Prabhupada).
Regarding my own preference, i am more inclined towards the teachings of Sri Goswami Tulsidas as stated in Sri Ramcharitmanas and Vinay Patrika.Although he was a
Bhakta (Claims Lord Shiva to be his Guru and Sri Rama as his Ishtadeva) but based on his teachings some may call him Advaiti.

 



Re: Madhva's Tattvavada
Posted by: kulbir singh (IP Logged)
Date: October 29, 2007 08:31AM

"Khalsaspirit" jeeo,

I also don't know the freq. band of this subject. When Chandra Singh brought up Madhva's dvaita, I got the urge to ask him about the flaw that I see in Dvaita philosophy. Dayanand Saraswati, the founder of Arya Samaj, in his infamous book Satyarath Parkash states the belief that three entities namely Iswar, Jeev and the material universe are eternal. Madhva indirectly says the same thing.

As per my understanding of Gurmat I do believe that jeev (the atma of Jeev) and Iswar are eternal but the material universe is not. I thought I get clarification from a Hindu person on this subject. I should mention here that Advaita philosophy on the other hand does not believe in eternal material universe but they also don't believe difference between Jeev and Ishwar. We are closer to Bhed-abhed philosophy that believes in one-ness of Jeev and Parmatma and also in bhed (difference) of Jeev and Parmatma. This subject was discussed in great detail with a Gursikh called J. Singh, couple of years ago and should be available in the archives.

Chandra Singh,

Thanks for your response.

Kulbir Singh

 



Re: Madhva's Tattvavada
Posted by: Khalsaspirit (IP Logged)
Date: October 29, 2007 09:09AM

Waheguru ji ka khalsa
Waheguru ji ki fateh

Bhai Kulbir Singh jio,

Thanks for briefing about the subject.

Guru Mehar Karay

Waheguru ji ka khalsa
Waheguru ji ki fateh

 



Re: Madhva's Tattvavada
Posted by: Anonymous User (IP Logged)
Date: October 29, 2007 09:38AM

"As per my understanding of Gurmat I do believe that jeev (the atma of Jeev) and Iswar are eternal but the material universe is not......We are closer to Bhed-abhed philosophy that believes in one-ness of Jeev and Parmatma and also in bhed (difference) of Jeev and Parmatma"

You mean Vishishtadvaita of Sri Ramanujacharya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishishtadvaita)

"I should mention here that Advaita philosophy on the other hand does not believe in eternal material universe but they also don't believe difference between Jeev and Ishwar. "

It should be noted that a concession is made to human weakness by the Sages. The world is unreal from the point of view of the absolute Truth, but it is as good as real so long as ignorance retains its sway over our minds. The Truth as taught by the Sages is paramarthika; the Truth as conceived in ignorance is vyavaharika; of course the latter is untruth. For example, a pot is made of earth; therefore it has no independent existence. Such existence as it seems to have is derived from earth. The pot therefore, says the ancient lore, is only conventionally a pot; but really it is only earth. Before it was made it was only earth, and after it is broken it will be earth; and even now it is only earth, with the name and form of a ‘pot’. Therefore it is earth all the time. As its appearance as pot is transitory, we are told that the pot is unreal as pot, though it may be real as earth; this reality as earth is only relative, not only because earth is divisible and changeable, but also because, being in time and space, it has no continuous existence. In the same way the world, which is an appearance in the Real, is only conventionally the world, having no existence of its own, independently of the Real; therefore it is unreal as world, being nothing but the Real all the time. But the teaching must not be limited by the analogy, because there is this vital difference, that the Reality never suffered a real change.
Difference between one person and another is unreal, and that there is only one real Self. Individuality and the plurality of souls are illusions, the offspring of the ignorance ‘I am the body’. This very ignorance is the sole root of all sense of difference. The notions of above and below seems to be true only because one identifies himself with one body and the others with another; the bodies are above and below, not the Self. The Self transcends all differences. The distinction of inside and outside is no more real than that of above and below. And without it there is no world. It is also this very ignorance that makes us assume that the mind is insignificantly small, located in a corner of the body, the brain. This false belief makes it difficult for us to conceive how this vast universe can be in the mind; we even think it ridiculous it. Scriptures say it is the mind that is vast, not the world. “The knower is ever greater than the known, and the seer than the seen.” That which is known is in the knower, and that which is seen is in the seer; the vast expanse of the sky is in the mind, not outside, because the mind is everywhere and there is no outside to it. The infinite universe, being contained in this seemingly external sky, is also in the mind; even the great Gods whom the devotees adore and their respective heavens are in the mind alone. That divinity which is conceived as different from the devotee is only relatively real; the true Divinity is the Reality, in which worshipper and worshipped are one, the mind that differentiates them having no place there. Thus everything that the mind thinks of, or thinks it sees — the body, the objects of sense, the other bodies supposed to be other persons, heaven, hell and other regions or worlds — is inside and not outside. The root of all these superstitions is the initial error of taking it for granted that one single body is the Self, and all the rest not-Self. And because of this ignorance we do not even think of questioning the correctness of this or any other belief that arises out of this ignorance. Once we awake to the fact that we have been deceiving ourselves as to the truth of the Self — in accepting as true the illusion that the body is the Self — we shall have little difficulty in accepting at least tentatively the teaching that the world is not an objective reality.

Gita ask us to steer a middle course, if it be possible; It tell us to remember that the world is ‘indefinable as true or untrue’ — anirvachaniya — and this is philosophically correct, as it is in accord with the teaching of the Sages. We may put aside the world and cease thinking about it, understanding that the Truth can be realised only by the complete and final extinction of the primary ignorance by the Revelation of the real Self.

 





© 2007-2024 Gurdwara Tapoban Sahib