chevendrakaushik at gmail.com
Tue Aug 11 00:59:12 EDT 2020
On Mon 10 Aug, 2020, 10:13 PM Srinath Vedagarbha via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 11:42 AM V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 11:56 AM Kaushik Chevendra via Advaita-l <
> > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> > > Did madhawacharya say that people who believe in abedha or bedhaabedha
> > > go to eternal hell?
> > >
> > In the Ishavasyopanishad bhashya for the 3rd mantra Madhvacharya has
> > a verse from a Purana that says 'those who are turned away from Hari will
> > reach horrible hellish worlds.' Expatiating on the Bhashya,
> > Jayatirtha's Teeka says: those who hold the jiva is 'nitya shuddha buddha
> > mukta svabhavah' are those who have the wrong understanding of the jiva
> > hence they are meant in the bhashya as those who reach such regions.
> That's correct.
> In addition, Madhva also quotes Vishnu Purana while commenting on Bhagavat
> Gita # 2.20 to establish bhEdha between two sentients;
> "alpashakti asArvaj~naM pAratantrayaM apUrNatA |
> upajIvakatvaM jIvatvaM IshatvaM tadviparyayaH |
> svAbhAvikaM tayoretannAnyathA syAt.h kathaJNchana |
> vadanti shAshvatAvetAvat.h eva mahAjanAH" iti mahAvishhNupurANe
> Gist: The jIva is extremely limited in his power and knowledge, dependent
> on Ishwara, incomplete, and needs support whereas Ishvara is just the
> These being intrinsic [laxaNa-s], they never ever change. Hence learned
> call it shAshvata.
Isn't this directly contradicted in vishnu purana where Prahalad worships
vishnu as his ownself and says that he himself is that vishnu. It also say
he no longer felt he had an identity.I had already sent this reference in
If what sri madhawacharya is correct then prahalada shouldn't have
attained liberation or considered to be an excellent hari baktha. Here is
the link for the englis translation.
> > Thus, according to him the Atman should not be deemed to be nitya,
> > shuddha (dosha rahita), buddha
> > (sentient/chaitanyatmakam), mukta (liberated). It would be proper indeed
> > only if the jiva is sa-dosha, jaDa and bound by nature.
> One should note that the word "Atman" is not meant as Brahamn, but should
> consider jIvaatman. Readers outside the school get easily confused by
> reading Dvaita texts.
> In Dvaita vedanta, the word "Atma" denotes Brahman only. It is established
> so based on Shruti pramANa.
> Br.U ask this question quite explicitly `katama aatma iti ?' (note the
> suffix 'iti', which indicates Upanishad meant the word 'Atma' here)
> The same Upanishad is answering in the same breath that ;
> `yOayAm vijnAna maya prANEshu hridyAnta jyOtirtiH |
> purushaH sa samAnaH san ubhoU lOkoU anusaMcharati | dhyAtIva |
> lElAyativa | sa hi swapnO bhUtvEmaM lOkamati kramati mrutyO rUpANi ||
> Whoever is pUrNa-jnAna-svarUpa and resides in heart and instigates from
> within, is Atma.
> In another place, same Br. Up (II.5-15) says;
> "sa vA ayamAtmA sarvEshAm bhootAnAm rAjA tadyathA rathanAbhou cha
> cha arAha sarvE samarpitAha EvamEvAtmani sarvANi bhootAni sarvE dEvAha
> sarvE lOkAha sarva Eta AtmAnaha samarpitAha"
> This is how Upanishads define AtmA as Controller and Owner. This is why
> AtmA of the Upanishads is indeed Controller Brahman and not jIva.
> To avoid all confusions for outsiders, Dvaita uses distinct terms --
> 'paramAtma' and 'jivAtma'
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list