[Advaita-l] ***SPAM*** Vijayendra tirthas reply to appaya
Raghav Kumar Dwivedula
raghavkumar00 at gmail.com
Fri Oct 2 12:00:40 EDT 2020
Namaste Venkatesh Murthy ji
On Thu, 1 Oct, 2020, 9:01 PM Venkatesh Murthy via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> I have tried to argue with them (dvaitins) but they are not following any
> rules of
> debate and are very cunning in twisting the texts of Upanishads, Vedas, and
> Brahma Sutras to mean whatever they want.
It's sad to see that they distort shruti to such an extent. I appreciate
your sincerity in engaging with them.
It is useless to argue against
> them. My suggestion is Dont waste time with them but study Advaita only.
You genuine suggestion to focus purely on Advaita is logical.
I understand that Sri Kaushik feels hurt by the derogatory/ condescending
references by dvaitins to Parameshwara Shiva. That is why he wishes to know
if the dvaita objections have been dismissed or are they still standing.
I am reminded of a related point about what a "Bhakta" is, in psychological
terms, from what Swami Dayananda Saraswati Ji would teach. He would explain
that the connection between a Bhakta and Bhagavan is deeper than any other
role a human may play in his life. That bhakta is the basic or core person
who plays various changing roles like husband, wife, father, son, brother,
mother, sister, employee etc. These roles played in life change but the
basic conscious being who plays these impermanent roles, is the bhakta, who
is intrinsically and always, related to Ishvara like even a tree is
intrinsically connected to the forest.
Now, when someone attacks or abuses that role, the basic person, the
bhakta, or demeans his Ishvara, then the innermost aspect of the person is
affected - it is violence of a very damaging kind. That is why Christian
proselytizing for 'converting' Hindus, is a blatantly *violent act* which
hurts Hindus at a very deep level.
Until Advaita is well-appreciated, a similar hurt is sustained by many
bhaktas when the dvaitins abuse the Gurus like Shankara bhagavatpAda or
speak condescendingly of Bhagavan Shiva. The wound sustained by a Shiva
bhakta or Guru bhakts is likely to be quite deep. The bhakta is vulnerable,
till advaita understanding is reached.
After Advaita appreciation is clear, the dvaita arguments will seem crazy
and incredible. The advaitin may still amuse himself with trying to frame
some counter arguments. Or he may ignore them, since they don't make any
impression on him.
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 12:10 PM Kaushik Chevendra via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> > Refuting Appayya Dikshita’s claim that the Upanishad hails Shiva as
> > Parabrahman, Vijayendra Tirtha first explains that the preceding mantra
> > refers to nArAyaNa in the cave of the heart:
> > hR^itpuNDarIkaM virajaM vishuddhaM vichintya madhye vishadaM vishokam.h
> > achintyamavyaktamanantarUpaM shivaM prashAntamamR^itaM brahmayonim.h
> > Meaning (According to ShrI Vijayendra): The Lord described in the
> > Upanishads, in the heart (hRit punDarIkaM), devoid of rajas (virAja),
> > removed from tamas (vishuddhaM), to be thought of (vichintya) as prior
> > meditation on the object of contemplation and after saluting the guru,
> > hence the middle (madhyE), clear to the devotees (vishadaM), free from
> > grief due to rajas and tamas (vishokaM), the inconceivable (achintyaM),
> > unmanifest to the ignorant (avyaktaM), unlimited form (anantarUpaM), most
> > auspicious (shivaM), bestowing grace and anger depending on the action
> > (prashAntaM), whose form is the Supreme Goal of Attainment (amRtaM), the
> > Cause of the four-faced Brahma (brahmayOniM).
> > ShrI VijayEndra says that this is a description of nArAyaNa owing to the
> > adjectives of supremacy.
> > Then, the guru explains that the following portion of the subsequent
> > actually does talk about Shiva, the husband of pArvati, who should be
> > meditated upon to attain nArAyaNa described earlier:
> > tathAdimadhyAntavihInamekaM vibhuM chidAnandamarUpamadbhutam.h
> > umAsahAyaM parameshvaraM prabhuM trilochanaM nIlakaNThaM prashAntam.h .
> > Meaning: Therefore on account of not existing prior to creation (tathA),
> > meditating on the One (Rudra) who is absent in beginning, middle and end,
> > ie, one who is other than nArAyaNa (AdimadhyAntavihInaM), having a form
> > that is opposite (arUpaM) to that form (of nArAyaNa) which is bliss and
> > consciousness without limit (vibhuM chidAnandaM), the wonderful
> > who is accompanied by Umadevi, who is known as “paramEshvara”, the
> > (prabhuM), the three-eyed (trilOchana), the blue-necked (nIlakaNtha, the
> > peaceful (praShAntaM),
> > Then, he avers that it talks about nArAyaNa again by the words –
> > dhyAtvA munirgachChati bhUtayoniM samastasAkShiM tamasaH parastAt.h
> > Meaning: The munis reach him (nArAyaNa) who is the Cause of all Beings
> > (bhUtayOnIm), the Omniscient (samastasAkshiM), who is free of contact
> > matter (tamasaH parastAt)
> > So, according to shrI vijayEndra, this Upanishad is instructing upAsakas
> > meditate on Rudra in order to gain parOkSha jnAna of nArAyaNa and attain
> > moksha. Simply put, he says that meditation on Rudra leads to parOkSha
> > jnAna of nArAyaNa.
> > shrI vijayEndra ingeniously interprets “tathAdimadhyAntavihInaM” as an
> > adjective of Rudra as follows –
> > It is known from the shruti that Rudra is created by nArAyaNa -
> > rudrO jAyatE” – Thus, the deity accompanied by Uma was not present in the
> > beginning of the creation. This is indicated by “tathA” – As he was not
> > present during creation, he can be understood to be without beginning,
> > middle and end.
> > The term “hIna” refers to “absence”. Rather than taking
> > “AdimadhyAntavihInaM”
> > as “having no beginning, middle and end”, it should be understood as
> > “absent
> > in beginning, middle and end”.
> > By saying “absent in beginning, middle and end”, it is meant that it
> > to a condition in which there is absence of being more or less –
> > a state of being devoid or uncreated. So, it indicates a Being (Rudra)
> > was not “more” or “less”, ie, he was devoid, or did not exist in the
> > beginning of creation. In other words, the “absence of more or less”
> > indicates a being other than nArAyaNa, the creator of brahma, who did not
> > exist prior to creation and thus refers to Rudra.
> > Thus, the term “AdimadhyAntavihInaM” denotes that Rudra is a being
> > different from nArAyaNa, who did not exist prior to creation. “tathA”
> > according to shrI vijayEndra tIrtha implies – therefore (as Rudra did not
> > exist prior to creation), he is understood as being absent in the
> > beginning, middle and end.
> > He interprets “vibhuM chidAnandamarUpaM” by taking “arUpaM” as a form
> > opposite to that of the form of the Lord (nArAyaNa) that is unlimited
> > consciousness and bliss, implying Rudra is limited. This grammatical
> > rendering allows him to reinterpret the mantra as referring to Rudra.
> > ShrI vijayEndra tIrtha further adds that this differentiates Rudra from
> > entity previously referred to as the supreme by adjectives of “hR^it
> > punDarIkaM…vichintyaM”, etc.
> > He finally says that if all the adjectives are taken as denoting Rudra,
> > then the terms “vichintya”, “dhyAtva”, “madhya”, “tathA” and
> > “AdimadhyAntavihInaM” become useless.
> > Sir this is a reply of vijayendra to appaya. Is there a counter for this?
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> 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