[Advaita-l] Reiterpreting Dwaita vs Advaita.
srikanta.narayanaswami at yahoo.com
Sun Sep 30 23:51:11 CDT 2012
If you are saying Ramanuja should not cry because God is in everything
and everything is in God the same can also be for used for Advaitis
also. If Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma is true why Advaitis are complaining
Madhva writing about Rajasvala in Gita Bhashya. Advaita is saying
everything is Brahma only. Good words and bad words all words are
talking about Brahma only. Rajasvala is Brahma only. Why are they
objecting? What is bad if Ramanuja is writing criticism of Advaita?
His words are expressing Brahma only. What is bad if some one is
writing personally bad things regarding Adi Sankara in Mani Manjari?
Everything is Brahma.
We have to take very Broad Minded view to understand. What is bad?
What is good? In Sanskrit poems also they are using Kumbhastani and
Nitambini for describing goddess. Are they using bad language? We are
thinking wrongly like how Britishers taught us. They brain washed all
the Indians. If a man is talking Rajasvala we say it is bad. But if
that man is a doctor and he is talking about Rajasvala it is not bad.
If a man is looking at naked women we are saying it is bad. But if the
man is a Gynecologist he can look with a medical mind to diagnose any
medical problem in the woman. He is not doing anything wrong.
It is not the statement as such that is bad,but how it is used and its interpretation.In Soundaryalahari and Kalidasa's Devi stuti:Omkara pajarashuki the authors have used words which may be bad to others,but to those who are intoxicated by Bhakthi these may look normal.Brahmhan is" Satyam,Shivam and also Sundaram".the poetics is no man's property.In "Alankara sastra"there is a norm that a poet must indicate not only a high simile,but also a low simile.We have vakrokti,unmattokti,etc.After all,Sanskrit is a vast ad beautiful language which can withstand elastic limits!
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list