Embedded Files
TADIPATRI GURUKULA
Answers by Shri Kesava Rao Tadipatri (KT) & Shri Prasanna Tadipatri (PT)
Q: Is dvaita philosophy dying?
KT: If reduction in practice is deemed as death of that philosophy, then all philosophies die out in Mahapralaya. But that is not the case at all. Philosophy is a mode of thinking. This depends on jIva svabhAva and that is eternal. No matter how modern the world gets, jIva-traividhya can always be seen, even if the percentages keep changing. Good or bad philosophies, which may lie dormant for some time, do resurrect at some part of the time based on the will of God. Madhvacharya revived Dvaita philosophy and not really started it.
Q: It seems to me that dvaita is simply out of place in a modern, progressive world, with its insistence upon God with forms (including animal forms), far-fetched myths like Ramayan, and concepts like permanent hell, intrinsic nature, and such.
KT: Why so? Did any scientific experiment prove that God does not exist? In fact many great scientists believed in God. Many were of the opinion that a little knowledge in science leads to disbelief, but a deeper knowledge leads to belief in God. They tend to have a more rational approach to God than the blind believers.
For a person, who does not believe in science, the moon-landing is a far-fetched myth. If a person gets constrained by the thoughts imbibed by the movies, TV shows, and ironical renderings of tale-tellers, there is a long journey in acquiring the ability to see things in a proper perspective. If someone thinks that God is like a super-man, still comprising of Nature's elements, then there is little hope of realizing the true "antaryAmitva" of "impersonal or aprAkritik God". Isn't 'burning' the intrinsic nature of fire? Isn't 'cooling' the intrinsic nature of ice? Why would science oppose intrinsic nature?
Also the realms of science and philosophy are different. Though some perceive potential clash between the two, by the mere realization that their goals itself are quite different, the phantoms of clash do fade away. As for the God taking the animal forms, it is to thrill his devotees that the limitations of shapes and forms have no effect on Him. Instead of seeing in that angle, unfortunately people see in exact opposite angle that He is forced to take such forms. Many tend to become the prisoners of their own minds. If science speaks of intrinsic nature of matter, Dvaita speaks of intrinsic nature of souls, which is beyond the reach of science, because science is material in nature.
The evolving of souls reach their limits, when all external influences are rendered dysfunctional. The results of limit function in maths can be 1 or 1000 or 1 million or -1 or -1000 or - 1 million or any values that we can conceive of. Thus the eternal hell or eternal heaven is the state that is reached not at the end of one or two lifetimes, but a huge number, not known to us. When the picture looks so gloomy, our Acharya held a bright beacon to guide people like us. It may be good to have the questioning phase as a starting point. But that should not remain as an end point.
Q: Also dvaitins set impossible 'satya yuga standards' even for the kali yuga! Even the gods cannot fulfill such requirements (fasting, rituals, and such) but they expect ordinary souls to
.KT: That is a thorough misconception deep-rooted in the minds of many. How many of those who raise such objection have made an attempt to go to the forest and do several years of severe penance, without food and exposed to the elements of nature? How many have made an attempt to do Ashvamedha or Rajasuya yAga ?
It is said in Bhagavata 11th skandha, what the prime modes of worship are in the 4 yugas.
in kR^ita yuga -
manushhyAstu tadA shAntA nirvairAH suhR^idaH samAH | yajanti tapasA devaM shamena cha damena cha || 11-5-22||
in treta yuga -
taM tadA manujA devaM sarvadevamayaM harim.h | yajanti vidyayA trayyA dharmishhThA brahmavAdinaH || 11-5-25||
in dvApara yuga -
taM tadA purushhaM martyA mahArAjopalakshhaNam.h | yajanti vedatantrAbhyAM paraM jij~nAsavo nR^ipa || 11-5-28||
in kali yuga -
kR^ishhNavarNaM kalau kR^ishhNaM sAN^gopAN^gaM sapArshhadam.h | yaj~naiH saN^kIrtanaprAyairyajanti hi sumedhasaH || 11-5-32||
So, in Kali yuga the main concentration is on NamasankIrtana. (In Kruta yuga, it is Tapas. In treta yuga, it is yAga, yajnas. In Dvapara, vedic means of Worship) Also, for many it gives a joy to follow the prescriptions and proscriptions (vidhi, niShedhas), even in Kaliyuga.
A ritual is like a container. The devotion and knowledge behind are the real contents. A ritual without these is like an empty container. You can't hold the contents without the container. So, the container is also needed.
Q: Impossible standards = recipe for failure.
KT: People work hard to reach MIT or IIT, Oxford or Harvard. They work hard even after reaching them. For those who witness from a distance, the standards to reach them will seem impossible. Just because it has become impossible for some, did they become recipe for failure for others?
For those who have accomplished that, the whole journey is enjoyable.
So, is the case with spiritual journey also. For those who have fallen into the groove, the whole journey is enjoyable. Some eat food every 4 hours, some 8 hours and some 12.
For first kind, the second kind is impossible. For second kind, third is impossible.
Thus the fasting is not every other day, but just one day in every 15 days. Even that for those, who have issues, fruits, etc (small amounts) are allowed.
Our philosophy is not a cruel task-master, but a very considerate training-master. It guarantees the result to the extent one has done the sAdhana.
"nehAbhikramanAsho.asti pratyavAyo na vidyate ..." Gita (Even the strong desire to do sAdhana yields some result. That does not mean that one stops at that stage.)
Q: Are Madhva maths 'rethinking' these matters to come up with something a little more applicable to the common man and to the modern world?
KT: There is no need for any rethinking and as such they are very applicable. This is like asking "We all want to go to MIT or IIT or Harvard or Oxford, but the standards are very high. So, are the education institutes 'rethinking' these matters to come up with something a little more applicable to the common man and to the ordinary world?'
Q: No matter how modern the world gets, jIva-traividhya can always be seen, even if the percentages keep changing. This sounds a little irrational. Man is a product of circumstances, so where is the question of jiva swabhava? This three-fold distinction seems to be pretty arbitrary and perhaps even harmful.
KT: You are thoroughly mistaken. Even though circumstances have influence on man, the circumstances alone do not determine the behavior. You see many a time different brothers of the same household have different patterns of behavior.
In the same society different people have different behavior. In pre-independence India, everyone was under British rule, but the behavior patterns were different. The capabilities vary dramatically as well. Hitler reacted to his circumstances one way and for the same circumstances someone else reacted in a different way.
Q: Why so? Did any scientific experiment prove that God does not exist? Why should they? The burden of proof lies upon the person who makes such claims. I cannot prove that Mickey Mouse isn't the (disguised) avatar of Vishnu. Catch my drift?
KT: No, you are mistaken here as well. I did not make a claim that there is a purely logical proof for the existence of God. You made a claim that there is clash between science and philosophy that believes in God. So the burden of proof lies on you to show that there is clash in there about existence of God.
As it is said "naiSha tarkena matirApaneyA" With dry logic, any one can prove any which way one can. That is why "a rational faith" and the consequential reasoning is addressed.
Q:In fact many great scientists believed in God. And many didn't. So?
KT: Again you missed the point completely. This is not for proving the existence of God. This is to flush your claim that there is a clash between science and existence of God. Even if there is one scientist, who believes in God and all the rest of the scientists do not believe in God, your claim that there is a clash between the two is out of the window.
Q: For a person, who does not believe in science, the moon-landing is a far-fetched myth. If a person gets constrained by the thoughts imbibed by the movies, TV shows, and ironical renderings of tale-tellers, there is a long journey in acquiring the ability to see things in a proper perspective.
There is a difference between things which are scientifically possible (and even believable), and things which are nothing short of fantasy. Talking squirrels or ten-headed kings belong to the latter, and moon-landing to the former.
KT: Again you are missing the point. You are starting on the wrong footing. First try to digest the philosophy before embarking on the supporting stories. First as a starter, you can try to rationalize allegorically. The philosophy is not just those stories.
Q: If someone thinks that God is like a super-man, still comprising of Nature's elements, then there is little hope of realizing the true "antaryAmitva" of "impersonal or aprAkritik God". I am not sure what you mean. Are you saying God is distinct from nature? Whatever happens to omnipresence, then?
KT: That is why I said that there is a need for some basic understanding. You have to note the difference between the two statements "God Himself is everything." and "God is in everything". Omnipresence is the latter. In case of former, nothing else exists and where is the question of "omnipresence"?
God is distinct from nature. This does not mean that the nature is independent. Again source of confusion - distinct == independent that need not be true always. God is distinct and independent. Nature is distinct and dependent. There cannot be two independent entities and there cannot be zero independent entities.
Q: As for the God taking the animal forms, it is to thrill his devotees that the limitations of shapes and forms have no effect on Him. Instead of seeing in that angle, unfortunately people see in exact opposite angle that He is forced to take such forms. Many tend to become the prisoners of their own minds. God can just be God and still 'thrill' his devotees.
Taking bizarre forms, like half man and half lion, doesn't make sense. Also some people may say God has no form even if he has attributes. Form limits ... whereas God is limitless. So the very idea of form could appear illogical to most people. Also Vishnu's (and all Hindu gods, for that matter) activities both in his original and avatar forms have no relevance to spirituality. Searching for one's wife or killing corrupt kings isn't all that spiritual.
KT: If a jeweler brings a huge display unit, in which the jewel is placed in a tiny spot, one person may see just the big unit and another person may concentrate on the jewel. It is a physical object and so the effort involved is much less. In case of spiritual things, the effort is much higher. The ability to see beyond those cannot be acquired in a day.
Q: If science speaks of intrinsic nature of matter, Dvaita speaks of intrinsic nature of souls, which is beyond the reach of science, because science is material in nature. The evolving of souls reaches their limits, when all external influences are rendered dysfunctional.
The results of limit function in maths can be 1 or 1000 or 1 million or -1 or -1000 or - 1 million or any values that we can conceive of. Man is constantly changing, so a fixed nature is hard to imagine. Also the very idea of good or bad soul (satvik and tamasic) may sound a little odd to the modern mind, since these are relative concepts.
KT: You haven't digested the concept of soul and body itself. So, it is hard to explain. What you see, as constantly changing, is the body. To make the concept clearer, an analogy of "dress" is given to the body. Just as the "body" changes dresses, the soul changes "bodies".
Q: Furthermore, man is a child of social conditions, so his behavior is going to be determined by them.
KT: As mentioned above even in the same circumstances, one can perceive different behaviors.
Q: Intrinsic nature sounds more like the Christian concept of man's fallen nature.
KT: Not at all. The concept of intrinsic nature is totally absent there and they equally criticize that concept.
Q: Thus the eternal hell or eternal heaven is the state that is reached not at the end of one or two lifetimes, but a huge number, not known to us. This also sounds Christian, and perhaps Madhva got this idea from the Jesuit priests in Karnataka at that time.
KT: You seem to lack the very basics of Christianity itself. They do not believe in re-incarnation itself. Where is the question of large number of life-times? It is just one life-time - make it or mar it.
Q: Andha Tamas isn't really a Hindu concept.
KT: You are mistaken here as well. The word "Hindu" itself is absent in any ancient literature. Andha Tamas is descibed in various puranas that emerged long before the advent of Christianity. In vedas the term can be seen as "vavra" (in addition to Andha tamas). In IshavAsyopanishad, it is said - "AndhaM tamaH pravishanti ye avidyAmupAsate..."
Q: That is a thorough misconception deep-rooted in the minds of many. How many of those who raise such objection have made an attempt to go to the forest and do several years of severe penance, without food and exposed to the elements of nature? How many have made an attempt to do Ashvamedha or Rajasuya yAga ? I am talking about rituals like sacred thread ceremony, marriage etc.
KT: There are many, who enjoy those rituals itself even as rituals (even though there is total absence of knowledge of its significance). So, how can you claim that it is a burdensome torture for all? If it is not tortuous even for one, that disproves your point that is a tortuous experience.
Q: Also the ekadashi fasting has rules like when to stop eating and when to start (the exact time, which is impossible to follow), and also the dates are different for different schools.
KT: Again here, the primary goal is missed and insignificant things are stressed. People can choose a set of rules and dates that go with a school that they are comfortable with. a dancer can keep complaining that the drummer is making some mistakes and so I don't want to dance or can enjoy the dancing ignoring the mistakes of the drummer.
Q: A modern man has no time to find out what's right amid all this confusion.
KT: Always the priorities vary and people do what they want and in order of their preference.
Q: Plus, there are many more injunctions based upon caste, prohibition of meat-eating and drinking, and so many arbitrary rules regarding where to live, occupation etc.
KT: Even without knowing any spiritual set of rules, there are many, who have given up meat-eating and drinking. It is a blessing that there are injunctions against them, branding them as evil. Those who have these injunctions do not have to go thru the path and eventually find out that they are bad, as the former ones have found out.
As far as caste is concerned, how does it affect outside people? That is followed within a system for some process. No one objects if there is rule that only some selected number of people are permitted into the Pentagon building or the like.
Q: It is virtually impossible to follow these things in a 21st century world.
KT: Is it? Then what about thousands of people who are following and enjoying that as well?
Q: So, in Kali yuga the main concentration is on NamasankIrtana. (In Kruta yuga, it is Tapas. In treta yuga, it is yAga, yajnas. In Dvapara, vedic means of Worship)
Yes, the Hare Krishnas follow this correctly (although they too have their quirks), but dvaitins focus too much on externals.
I am especially annoyed by their insistence on caste purity; this is totally inappropriate now. Not many dvaitins are interested in nama sankirtan, as you can see. They are more interested in external purity, which is an affront to any progressive mind.
KT: So, you are going in a reverse gear. Instead of judging the people from the perspective of the system, you are judging the system from the behavior of the people? You have obviously two choices -
A1. Learn about the system ignoring the behavior of the people
A2. Ignore the system itself, i.e. Remove the system itself.
If there is thorn in the leg, one has two choices
B1. Remove the thorn
B2. Remove the leg itself.
A1 corresponds to B1 and A2 to B2.
Q: In my experience, I've found dvaitins to be extremely insensitive and cold and devoid of sympathy. All this doesn't seem like they're following the kali yuga dharma of sankirtan. Why is that so? Because they're more interested in following rules like ekadashi fasting and such. Too many rules have made them mechanical and insensitive.
KT: You are getting confused and mixed up. Is your objection for following the Ekadashi or for being insensitive? They are two different things.
Just because many who follow Ekadashi, are insensitive, you are concluding that they will always co-exist. This is like this.
Suppose the police catch 10 criminals and all of them are wearing blue shirts. Then come to the conclusion that all those who wear blue shirts will commit crimes and so stop wearing blue shirts!
Q: There is no need for any rethinking and as such they are very applicable. This is like asking "We all want to go to MIT or IIT or Harvard or Oxford, but the standards are very high. So, are the education institutes 'rethinking' these matters to come up with something a little more applicable to the common man and to the ordinary world?' The two are entirely different. In the material world, there are tangible results which can be measured. No such guarantee exists in the spiritual world.
KT: Agreed, that there is no guarantee, as it is faith-based. You are forgetting the simple point that those who follow the spiritual path are not giving up their materialistic life itself. They are doing that in addition to normal life. Let us take a simple case.
1. X lives only materialistic life
2. Y has his materialistic things and also follows spiritual things.
Now there are 2 possibilities -
A. There is no reward for spiritual following
B. There is reward. If A is true, then both X and Y are losers If B is true, then X is loser and Y is a winner. No matter what, X is always a loser. There is some chance for Y to be a winner (statistically 50%).
Q: You seem to lack the very basics of Christianity itself. They do not believe in re-incarnation itself. Where is the question of large number of life-times? It is just one life-time - make it or mar it. Mr .Suresh did not state that Christians believe in reincarnation. Secondly, even if it is a single lifetime the fact remains that they do believe in the concept of eternal hell!
KT: You seem to be having a very flawed understanding.
I wrote: Thus the eternal hell or eternal heaven is the state that is reached not at the end of one or two lifetimes, but a huge number, not known to us.
For that his response was :
This also sounds Christian, and perhaps Madhva got this idea from the Jesuit priests in Karnataka at that time.
If he writes that "Reaching eternal hell or heaven after a huge number of lifetimes" is Christian, and you claim that he did not state that Christians believe in reincarnation, your argument is completely flawed.
Secondly they do not have the concept of two kinds of hell (eternal hell). They do not even stress anything. There is one life time for all. There is one Judgement day and so the logical conclusion is the hell that they refer mus be eternal hell. What happens after judgement day? Big question mark! Thirdly, the Christianity came long after the vedic and Puranic literature and so the very concept of chronology is lacking in the argument of both of you.
Q: You are getting confused and mixed up. Is your objection for following the Ekadashi or for being insensitive? They are two different things. Just because many who follow Ekadashi, are insensitive, you are concluding that they will always co-exist.
This is like this. suppose the police catch 10 criminals and all of them are wearing blue shirts. Then come to the conclusion that all those who wear blue shirts will commit crimes and so stop wearing blue shirts! No need for such a convoluted explanation.
KT: If it is convoluted, what about the convoluted and misplaced explanation that you are giving?
Q: Merely following rituals whether blindly or out of full knowledge doesn't make a person a good person.
KT: Blindly opposing them will not make one a good person either.
Q: In most cases rituals are performed out of selfish motives not for 'Loka Kalyan'
KT: That is your personal opinion and blind opposition of them is not for 'Loka Kalyan" either.
Q: Is it? Then what about thousands of people who are following and enjoying that as well? Performing what? Empty rituals performed by equally selfish priests who may lack knowledge of these rituals altogether? This is just a Rajasic exercise in todays world.
KT: That is purely your personal opinion springing from ignorance and carries no weight. What kind of self-less acts are performed by anti-ritual and anti-priest folks?
Q: Another thing about dvaita is that there are no extraordinary personalities in contemporary times.
KT: There are three major problems here.
1. Your definition of "extra ordinary" seems to be popularity. The more one is popular, the more extra-ordinary he or she is. That approach itself is wrong.
2. Granting that your approach in 1 is correct, you want to judge a system based on persons and their being extra-ordinary, rather than judging the people from the system.
3. Granting that your approach in 1 and 2 is right, you need to end up in a thorough state of confusion in this aspect also in addition to so many other confused thoughts that you are having.
Since Ramana Maharshi is extra-ordinary, you need to follow his flavor of Advaita
Since Vivekananda is extra-ordinary, you need to follow his neo-vedantic approach.
Since Dalai Lama is extra-ordinary, you need to follow Buddhism.
Since Jesus Christ is extra-ordinary, you need to follow Christianity.
Since Prophet Mohammed is extra-ordinary, you need to follow Islam. and so on and so forth. Also you seem to be fully charged with high hatred for Dvaita and great love for non-Dvaita.
Q: For instance, is there a dvaitin equaivalent of Raman Maharishi or Vivekananda?
KT: You seem to be thoroughly self-contradicting as well. When you hate the rituals especially dvaitin ones, why even look for "a dvaitin equivalent"? If there were such a one, would that have wiped off your aversion for rituals? What difference will that make?
Q: Most dvaitin saints do what any worldly person could do - recite mantras, perform pujas, and so forth.
KT: Another self-contradiction. On one side, you wrote that these activities are impossible in Kaliyuga. Now, you are claiming that dvaitin saints do what any worldly person can do. You are a worldly person. So, can you do what these dvaitin saints do? On one side, even the basics are hard to practice and on the other side, a completely spiritually dedicated life can be done by any worldly person!!
Q: Contrast this with what Raman Maharishi accomplished - total absorption in the blissful self, so much so that he didn't even leave the cave his whole life.
KT: How did that help you or others? What message did that give you? There may be an animal that lives in the cave and never leaves that. Is that an important criterion?
Q: This sort of inspiration is missing in dvaita.
KT: What inspiration did you get from that? What lesson did you learn from that?
Q: In sharp contrast, the Raghavendra math was in trouble a couple of years ago owing to floods. The irony here is that Raghavendra is supposed to protect devotees - and yet it was the Indian Army which had to protect the Raghavendra math! Many devotees lost their faith in dvaita, as a result.
KT: No, the real irony is this. In real life, Jesus Christ was crucified by anti-christ people and he was totally helpless, but you find Jesus as very inspiring. In Real life, Sri Raghavendra swamy has transformed the anti-Hindu Muslim ruler and was not affected by any anti people. Where is the comparison? You feel Sri Raghavendra swamy is helpless.
Why?
The floods covered the walls and the building of that MaTha with mud and disrupted the lives of those living over there. You do not even want to think about or know about any church building being affected by natural forces on the Earth. This is a clear indication of your totally misplaced arguments and preconceived notions.
As in all other cases, you are totally misinformed in thinking that many devotees lost their faith in Dvaita. It is just the opposite. The faith of current devotees increased and it kindled the faith of many new ones. Why? Despite the floods, the brundavana was not affected at all and the normalcy came back very fast. The recent Aradhana was performed with grandeur and it was hard to get into Mantralaya even. There was a live video coverage and devotees flooded the place, that was recently river-flooded. Mysterious are the ways of God!!
Q: I hope you could be a little more gentle while responding.
KT: Gentleness cannot be one-way traffic. As you sow so, you reap. Gentleness begets gentleness and harshness begets harshness. Irony begets irony and scornfulness begets scornfulness.
Q: There are three major problems here.
1. Your definition of "extra ordinary" seems to be popularity. The more one is popular, the more extra-ordinary he or she is. That approach itself is wrong. Like it or not, this is how a majority of people approach these issues. I am not saying it's right but this is the truth.
KT: Like it or not, the opinion of the majority need not be the truth. A few centuries ago, the majority believed that the Earth is flat and you must realize that it is not the truth. And further your oxymoron "I am not saying its right but this is the truth" is even more stunning!
Q: If dvaitins claim that dvaita is right, the immediate response from the average guy would be: if that's true, why didn't they ever produce someone like Vivekananda or Ramana Maharishi? A tree is known by its fruit, they'll argue.
KT: You never answered my point that for such a ridiculous argument, which is right - Vivekananda's theory or Raman Maharshi's theory or Dalai Lama's theory or Mother Teresa's theory or Osama Bin Laden's theory (He is popular among Muslims, whose population exceeds several fold that of Ramana maharshi's following)? You will never be able to answer that and bound to dodge it.
Q: People won't accept ideas, however logical, unless those ideas produce remarkable personalities.
KT: Truth is vastu sthiti(or real state of affair) and it is not dependent on any personalities. "The truth" will laugh at a person who believes that the truth will change depending on the personality.
Q: Ahimsa produced a giant like Mahatma Gandhi and, for that reason alone, ahimsa has value.
KT: So, if Gandhi was not born Ahimsa would not have the value? You seem to have lost the very basic concept of "paurvAparya" (Precedent and succedent).
Q: Without Gandhi, ahimsa would have remained a glorious ideal and nothing more. That's how people see things:
KT: That shows the ignorance of some people. People forget history and the King Ashoka's place in there.
Q: if an idea doesn't produce great men or at least great results in the real world, they tend to think that the idea has no practical value. And since dvaita has produced neither, it isn't surprising that most people should reject it.
KT: The truth itself is never dependent on the faulty perception of some and no one is stopping you from its rejection in your mind, which is obviously an accomplished task.
Q: You seem to be thoroughly self-contradicting as well. When you hate the rituals especially dvaitin ones, why even look for "a dvaitin equivalent"?
If there were such a one, would that have wiped off your aversion for rituals?
What difference will that make?
Let me rephrase: advaita can always boast of people like Raman Maharishi, Christianity of Mother Teresa. Does dvaita have someone of that caliber in recent times?
KT: Let me rephrase: Since the truth is as per the "availability of people worthy of boasting in recent times", which is the truth - Ramana Maharshi's Advaita, or Vivekananda's neo-vedanta or Mother Teresa's Christianity or Dalai Lama's Buddhism or Osama Bin Laden's Islam?
What is worse - Whatever was "recent times" ten thousand years ago is not "recent times" 9 thousand years ago, and whatever was "recent times" 9 thousand years ago was not so 8 thousand years ago and so on. Since different popular figures come at different times, according to your ridiculous argument, truth will keep changing.
Q: Another self-contradiction. On one side, you wrote that these activities are impossible in Kaliyuga. Now, you are claiming that dvaitin saints do what any worldly person can do. You are a worldly person. So, can you do what these dvaitin saints do?
On one side, even the basics are hard to practice and on the other side, a completely spiritually dedicated life can be done by any worldly person!! You can train anybody, even the most worldly person, to recite mantras and perform pujas.
In fact, many priests do that for a livelihood. One can even fake devotion in this manner.
KT: Then how come you find it an impossible task to train yourself for doing one day fasting once in 15 days ?
Easier said than done. You never understood the difference between persons and the system.
Q: But meditating in solitude for decades ... that has a certain authenticity around it.
KT: How are you sure that it is not fake either?
Q: How did that help you or others? What message did that give you?
There may be an animal that lives in the cave and never leaves that. Is that an important criterion? What inspiration did you get from that?
What lesson did you learn from that?
It is inspiring because a normal human being cannot be silent even for a minute. To remain in that peaceful, blissful state for a lifetime is simply extraordinary. At least, it gives us an idea of what absorption (in the Self) can give the world.
KT: Have you seen watchmen or security personnel? Most of them observe much longer silence than that person.
Q: No, the real irony is this. In real life, Jesus Christ was crucified by anti-christ people and he was totally helpless, but you find Jesus as very inspiring. His purpose was to sacrifice himself for all humanity. So if he had saved himself that would have contradicted his purpose, right? And because he voluntarily gave up his life (when there was no need to), that makes it all the more inspiring.
KT: So, if someone jumps off voluntarily from George Washington Bridge, he is doing the same kind of sacrifice as Jesus Christ is doing? Is that what you claim? Also, it was not voluntary. He was tortured and there was none to help him. he had no choice. But he was son of God. Right? Why did God not save him?
Q: At least, that's how the world sees it.
KT: The Christian world and people like you. Ask any staunch muslim if he sees that way.
Q: Normally, we love those who sacrifice their lives for us.
KT: You have never answered my question "How is his helpless surrendering to the torture help others?" And you will never be able to answer that.
Q: Since Ram/Krishna did no such thing (in fact, others had to sacrifice for their sake!), people may wonder why dvaita insists upon their worship. Of course, I agree that advaita and many other schools are also guilty of this. But only in dvaita, there is this 'Vishnu Sarvottama' concept.
KT: You have exhibited enough ignorance, and yet never even bothered to read the mail of Sri Vijay Krishna Upadya.
Q: In Real life, Sri Raghavendra swamy has transformed the anti-Hindu Muslim ruler and was not affected by any anti people. Where is the comparison? See above.
KT: Surely, the above got you into a deeper trouble.
Q: People may argue that Christ's sacrifice was spiritual, whereas Raghavendra merely came up with a diplomatic solution to what was essentially a political problem.
KT: Can you elaborate what the diplomatic solution to a political problem is? This will lead you to a deeper quagmire.
Q: You feel Sri Raghavendra swamy is helpless. Why ? The floods covered the walls and the building of that MaTha with mud and disrupted the lives of those living over there. You do not even want to think about or know about any church building being affected by natural forces on the Earth.
This is a clear indication of your totally misplaced arguments and preconceived notions. People go to Raghavendra, believing that he could protect them. In this context, doesn't it strike you as a little odd that Raghavendra himself needed protection? Wouldn't people now wonder: if Raghavendra is so powerful, why didn't he prevent the floods from happening in the first place?
KT: Your puerile argument lacks even very basic understanding of calamities. Even a cursory look at some sites will give some basics like :
You haven't even learnt how to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. You are mixing apples and oranges. Let me make it clearer for you.
Can you make a claim that in the past several centuries, no church was ever affected by any natural disaster?
Surely not. People go to church thinking that Jesus could protect them. In this context, doesn't it strike you as a little odd that Jesus himself needed protection?
Wouldn't people now wonder: if Jesus is so powerful, why didn't he prevent the floods and earthquakes from happening in the first place?
Otoh, you are fighting tooth and nail that the actual state of helplessness in the real life of Jesus was infact a sign of sacrifice. That is purely self-deception. Regards, Kesava Tadipatri
Q: It appears as if you misunderstood what I stated earlier.
KT: Not at all.
Q: I am an ardent follower of Tattvavada as can be seen from my various posts over the last three years or so.
KT: An action is to be judged by itself, even though prior tracking can help a little. The contents and flow of your present discussion stand on their own merits.
Q: I have delved into the basics of Christianity, Islam and Buddhism. I have also studied Advaita to some extent.
KT: In both, the effort is seriously lacking the minimum standard.
Q: a)If he writes that "Reaching eternal hell or heaven after a huge number of lifetimes" is Christian, and you claim that he did not state that Christians believe in reincarnation, your argument is completely flawed. We all know that Christians believe only in one birth. I am afraid you have misunderstood our position here
KT: Your position is decided from your words and not your mind. Please go back and read the prior mails again. Read my words, his words and your justifying his words. It is simply obvious, which was easily summarised above. It’s a wasteful effort to repeat that all, but if you so desire a good number of people in this list may be able to do that for you.
Q: b) Thirdly, the Christianity came long after the vedic and Puranic literature and so the very concept of chronology is lacking in the argument of both of you. Misunderstood yet again.We know the chronology of events very well.
KT: If so, you would not justify his statement - "This also sounds Christian, and perhaps Madhva got this idea from the Jesuit priests in Karnataka at that time. Andha Tamas isn't really a Hindu concept."
Q: c) Blindly opposing them will not make one a good person either. So people opposed to rituals are all bad. Please do not generalize here.
KT: Coal calling the kettle black? In fact it was meant to give you the taste of your own medicine. Is your own medicine so bitter for you ? Or is it a double standard - it is ok if you generalize, but others should not?
You have given four such statements and you can't stand their counter-parts? Now let me quote your four statements of generalization –
1. "Merely following rituals whether blindly or out of full knowledge doesn't make a person a good person."
2. "In most cases rituals are performed out of selfish motives not for 'Loka Kalyan'"
3. "Performing what? Empty rituals performed by equally selfish priests who may lack knowledge of these rituals altogether?"
4. "This is just a Rajasic exercise in today’s world." This must be a good lesson for you. Look before you leap.
Q: Moreover, we are only saying that rituals have no meaning in todays society as people lack proper knowledge. We are not against rituals at all!!
KT: Again wrong approach. Instead of acquiring right knowledge, you want to forsake the rituals itself? Rituals are a form of expression. In fact every religion in the world has rituals - they just vary. Can you name a religion, which does not have rituals?
Q: d) That is your personal opinion and blind opposition of them is not for 'Loka Kalyan" either. Please refer to my earlier statement.
KT: Same.
Q: e) That is purely your personal opinion springing from ignorance and carries no weight. What kinds of self-less acts are performed by anti-ritual and anti-priest folks? This is again a specious argument. I can do a lot of good to society even without resorting to priests and rituals
KT: Same as above. Let me make it easier for you.
Rituals and doing social good are two disjoint things. You two have committed a serious blunder of mixing them up.
A. Does rituals and also does social good
B. Does not do rituals and does social good
C. Does rituals and does not do social good
D. Does not do rituals and does not do social good C and D - you like to reject and we don't object either.
We are saying that the right thing is A, but with the consideration that people do to the best of their ability (with no shakti vanchana) You seem to think that B is also fine. So, according to you, one need not even do Sandhyavandana. We strongly object to that.
Q: Seems like some people have mastered the art of nitpicking.
KT: Surely, I am guilty of responding to your mails, even though your objections lack any depth of thought. The main goal is to prevent any confusion for some, who may be somewhere in the middle grounds. I was left with two choices in this case.
1. Declare that your objections are frivolous and never respond, saying that they are not worth any response. Then you would "see this as an arrogant, condescending attitude."
2. Respond to every point of yours in detail. Then you accuse that as nitpicking, forgetting that it instantly boomerangs on you. If the points are minor or trivial or insignificant, you must feel guilty of being their originator. Anyhow, I continue my guilt of responding to you.
Q: If so, you would not justify his statement - "This also sounds Christian, and perhaps Madhva got this idea from the Jesuit priests in Karnataka at that time. Andha Tamas isn't really a Hindu concept." Point is, no acharya prior to Madhva (Sankara, Ramanuja, Bhatta and hundreds of them) has spoken about andha tamas, so we're forced to consider two possibilities here:
One, even if the concept is present in Hindu scriptures, it can only be taken as poetic exaggeration. Why? Because it is hard to believe that hundreds of qualified teachers missed it and only Madhva 'rediscovered' it. Also our scriptures are well-known for their poetry; most of our rishis were poets and spoke only in imagery and analogies.
KT: This shows another shallow thinking process. Why? This is self-destructive as well. By this count the poetic works of Shankaracharya will be deemed as imagery and worthy of discard. Why indeed Bhagavadgita is in the form of poetry and so must be in imagery of the great "Rishi Vedavyasa".
Why did he take the pain of writing any commentary for that? Strange indeed that many schools have taken the trouble of writing commentary on that. No wonder, you have discarded all our scriptures like Ramayana, Bhagavata and Mahabharata. Since you were fooled by the silence of Ramana maharshi, you may not even have any clue as to what he thought about those scriptures.
Since for you "it is hard to believe that hundreds of qualified teachers missed it and only Madhva 'rediscovered' it", you become a target of laughable position. Why? With this approach, there can never be a new thought or new discovery? Even in case of science where, Pratyaksha rules, if a scientist discovers a new thing, you will have to discard that saying "hey it is hard to believe that hundreds of qualified scientists missed it and only that scientist discovered it".
Why indeed Shankara's followers themselves would not claim that Shankara did not revive any thought and all he told were fully present in the form that he preached. Another important point for dumping "your hard to believe approach" is this.
When it is strikingly evident in the Upanishads that Vayu Devaru is greatest among gods and hence is devottama and consequently jivottama (due to his steadfast devotion) in meditating upon the Supreme Lord being unaffected by demons, your "hundreds of qualified teachers" missed that as well.
Also, you are trying to play a double mischief game here that our scriptures never contained "andham tamas" and even if they contained, it was a poetic imagery. So play a dumb game of feigning ignorance or a downright rejection if any contra-evidence is shown!
What a mischief! With this dirty game, in fact, with one stroke, you can reject the entire collection of Hindu schools, since they are based on the "poetic imagery of our great Rishis".
Q: This, naturally, leads to the second possibility: Madhva's contact with Jesuit priests. Put two and two together and you'll see where I am going with this. Is it therefore all that unreasonable to conclude that Madhva was inspired by the Christian idea of hell - and interpreted andha tamas from that standpoint (instead of merely brushing it aside as a poetic exaggeration, as others have done)?
KT: Nothing can be more perverted than this. Why? When that point is present in our scriptures, which you discarded as "poetic imagery", but which was highest truth for our teachers, why should they discard that from our scriptures adopting your attitude and then go and knock on the doors of Jesuit priests, whom they have discarded as not even worthy of consideration? When the western philosophy did not even open its infant eyes, the spiritual pinnacle of Hindu thoughts was in the skies.
If you can't even fathom the historic facts, what help can you hope for from anyone? You must be day-dreaming in thinking that you can cause hurt by this kind of childish remarks. This can only reveal the level of ignorance, that you can boast of and simply a joke for many.
Even setting aside your complete unawareness about the subject and contents, have you ever even given a thought to the kind of social structure in those days and any possibility of any interaction between Christian priest world and the Hindu Monk world?
You remind me of an Indologist, who has taken the same kind of approach. You must have borrowed this from him, forgetting the kind of quagmire you are likely to end up in.
Q: Put simply, no acharya had spoken of andha tamas for thousands of years, and suddenly there was Madhva speaking about it after his contact with Jesuit priests. Would it not be wise to make a connection here?
KT: Put simply, no acharya had spoken of "Vayu jIvottama" either for thousands of years, and suddenly there was Madhva speaking about it. Was this also an important tenet borrowed from Jesuit priests? Did you ever give a thought about the interaction between the two diametrically opposite kinds of society?
Even in this modern day, how many times have you seen the heads of the four Shankara maThas or heads of Mdhva Mathas of today holding discussion with Jesuit priests? Even if the strength of reasoning is thrown to winds, we tend to expect a minimum understanding of practicality from those who raise these objections! Otherwise, they will turn out to be baseless, which is the case here.
KT: I would dare say, based on the email, that even the basics of Dvaita philosophy were never understood. Even the verity of the statement -
Q: "I have had my share of education (from a guru, yes) in dvaita. And i have gone through most if not all of the lectures in vyasamadhwa, and kannadaaudio.
KT: I am curious to know, who that guru is. Of course for a reasonable success of instruction, both the guru and shishya have to be reasonably good. If the guru is one of the present day stalwarts, that may tell something.
Q: So, whenever I refer to 'us' or 'dvaita;, I'll be referring to all belief systems in general.
KT: That is not possible because, there are some common objections and some specific. For ex, Veda Apaurusheyatva concept cannot be attributed to Bible or Khoran.
Pls, don't worry about chest thumping. Even a non-believer can be equally guilty of that and atheism is also a belief and that is belief in non-existence of God. You can believe in being an agnostic and yet that is also a belief. Now to believe in any non-belief is a kind of self-contradiction and your own surmise -
Q: 'The ease with which I reject countless other faiths as blind beliefs makes me terribly uneasy about mine.'
KT: will leave you groundless and in limbo.
Q: First question. We see hundreds of belief systems around us. What makes us think that we are right and everybody else is wrong? ...
KT: Is your belief system meant to make both ends meet or some other short-term benefit or a lot more? Is it rational or irrational? Are you prepared to scrutinize and if so how? As a starter you don't have to worry about veda apaurusheyatva and 'among many kinds of interpretations, which one is right', 'every one claims their scripture as greatest', etc. Just think of this - Which scripture along with its interpretation has following characteristics –
1. Being devoid of self contradictions
2. Being devoid of contradicting pratyaksha
Also, before you refute something, you have to know what you are refuting. Can you tell me from what point of time 2 + 2 = 4 ? Is that eternally true?
Does that statement claim "I am eternally true" ? The interpretation of 2 and 4 is also important in understanding the above. The above is a trivial example, but drives the point. The ancient Indian thought is not "not to question".
Just because you grew among those, who asked you not to question, why are you assuming that all are like that? Also, when you are able to see –
purANamityEva na saadhu sarvam you should note the whole thing –
"na chaapi sarvaM navamityavadyaM santaH
parIkShyAnyataradbhajanti mUDhaH parapratayanEyabuddhiH"
It is not what Bible and Khoran claim? Have you asked and gotten an answer about one life time for all, no rebirth and what happens after the judgment day, etc?
Q: Even for a moment if we assume scriptures to be the ultimate, as far as the dvaita being the right interpretation, again, anybody can(and probably will) claim that. Replace 'dvaita' with 'advaita' or 'vishistadvaita' and the sentence would still make sense semantically.
You might say that luminaries in the dvaita lineage have 'won' against other philosophies convincingly, and the concept of 'I am God'(which is infact a gross oversimplification of advaita) might seem utterly ridiculous, but that’s because we are thinking as madhwas and not smarthas, and have been brought up to think that way.
There is a huge difference between saying this being brought up as a madhwa, and saying this being brought up as a smartha.
KT: This shows your scant knowledge about polemics. There were great stalwarts of Advaita like Sri Trivikrama Pandita, who were convinced and who changed to Dvaita system. Even if you claim that they were not great scholars, their writings stand as testimony of their scholarship. The charge of oversimplification is ridiculous considering the gigantic works like Nyayamrita.
Even if you take refuge in the counterparts like "Advaitasiddhi", the further works like kantakoddhAra, Tarangini, Nyayamrita Amoda, etc and similarly the Advaita commentaries clearly indicate that over simplification never happened.
Why was Advaita not silenced? Sri Trivikrama Pandita himself answers that - "chakre bhUchakramEtya krakachamiva satAM chetasaH kaShTashAstraM dustrakaM..." He himself being there knows what it is. Thus the question is not just what you can prove to others. It is rather what you can prove to yourself.
Q: Argument from revelation/ miracles - 'Luminaries and saints, and even some general ppl in dvaita...
KT: Again, thorough confusion on your part,as to what precedes what. It is not just because there are miracles, one must develop faith (even if that happens in some cases). It is other way round. People have faith due to what ever reason and they may (be it rare), have a miracle.
The true system will not expect you to be dependent on miracle. Human brain is not funny. It is complex.
Your further analysis on plane crash or cancer miracles went in the same wrong direction. Your argument of hit/miss ratio is also pointless.
In addition to the system being clear-cut about its stance on miracles, you must also note that even though every faith-instance does not lead to a miracle, every miracle has a faith instance-associated with it.
A concept "do your duty, leave the fruit to God" is not only sensible, but practical as well. Also one in a million chance is still better than zero to million and further a system, which does not even stress on that is even better.
Q: Argument from condescension - You cant understand dvaita unless it has been 'revealed' to you , or you are not destined/ fit enough to know it' 'This is revealed only to satvik people, and tamasic ppl never get it...
KT: This is also practically useless,as it does not bother those like you, who have discarded that any way. People who strongly believe in that do not need it any way. Thus the above is either effectless or needless. So, why are you worried about that and waste your efforts? Thus all the million schools are in the same boat wrt the above.
Q: Response 5: Argument from evasion - 'I recommend that you go through dvaita first from a guru before superficially commenting upon the philosophy. Then you can decide if its the truth or not' 'I have seen dvaita working and the world makes perfect sense after i was exposed to dvaita' Counter Response - Trust me that I have had my share of education(from a guru, yes) in dvaita. And i have gone through most if not all of the lectures in vyasamadhwa, and kannadaaudio. I was a staunch follower and until recently, i have no doubt that my older self would have been arguing from your side.
KT: This reminds me of a Tamil Brahmin woman, MBBS who has studied our scriptures and Gita with the help of teachers (gurus) and relatives/family and got frustrated that Hinduism teaches "I am God" and so converted to Islam - http://tinyurl.com/2vrqgtz I saw a similar video from her couple of years ago, where she was not even aware of the term of Advaita (despite studying Gita and other things under gurus) and presumed that the entire Hinduism teaches only that (I am God). proof of the pudding is always in its eating.
Q: Again, as i said, i have seen and can point you to christian missionaries who say the exact same things about bible, and mullahs about koran.There are countless other philosophies which claim the same thing.
KT: Please do not compare yourself to them. At Least they are able to convince others, who are in their fold. You are not able to convince yourself. Where is the question of your convincing others?
Q: Which one of them should I read? Dvaita. Why? Only because i happen to be born in it?
KT: That is why Sri Bannanje said "Odi MadhvanAgu. MadhvanAgi Oda bEDa" (Read and then become Madhva. Don't become Madhva and read). He meant people like you, but you want to build faith in non-faith, a self-contradiction. Your responses 6 and 7 are similar - a blind adherence. While that is bad, dishonest and real shutting of the mind, what good will it do to shut off the mind with another blind faith against faiths? I have seen such arguments again and again, put forth by many, who surmise hastily that there is no scope for rational faith at all and in equal haste end up in an irrational absence of faith.
At the very outset, I would like to suggest that it would be better if straw man arguments are not made. What good is it to refute the mental picture of straw man, built in one's own mind ?
Q: I don’t think who my guru is, is relevant in any way to the discussion.
KT: It is quite relevant. Why? Any one can claim to have learnt with the help of gurus. The claim can make as much sense as that of the MBBS lady, whose info was given in earlier mail. If it is a capable and honest guru, he can at least specify if any of his students, with whom he had years of contact, understood the subject, but was not convinced or never understood the subject at all. Thus -
Q: I represent myself in this argument. I am to be seen as strong or as weak as my arguments.
KT: - the purpose is not to pass the burden onto the guru and attribute your deficiencies or efficiencies to him, but to get an answer to our own surprise that a person is prepared to argue against all schools by learning with the help of some guru.
Q: Pls, don't worry about chest thumping. Even a non-believer can be equally guilty... I presume you know how it is to be a non-believer in countless other Gods - God of the bible, allah, Zeus, Thor without it seeming preposterous. Yet, it just happens that non-belief in one more God, the deity that we have been brought up in, we find that ridiculous and preposterous.
KT: This is another immature statement and a clear indication that either your guru did not give the basics or you did not grasp it. It is like two religious bigots arguing "my God is superior to your God" and like in Ten Commandments movie, the pharaoh king Ramses saying about Moses "His God is God". Since when are people owning God? It is God who owns everything. What is questioned is not God of the bible. What is questioned is the concept of God in Bible or Khoran, not the broad concepts (All agree that God is all powerful, all Supreme, etc.).
His way of functioning, etc. should match their broad concepts. Is your non-belief in the concept or in God himself? If it is concept, what concept do you have? If it is God Himself, how do you know either way?
Q: Atheism does not imply the absolute non-belief that God doesn't exist, just that the evidence available does not seem to indicate the necessary existence of a supreme being.
KT: Even here your basics are quite questionable. Merriam Webster's International dictionary defines "atheism" as 1 a : disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity b : the doctrine that there is neither God nor any other deity There are some, who hastily conclude that this is nitpicking. It is not at all and is very important.
There is a gulf of difference between atheism and agnosticism, especially in this kind of discussion. Atheism is bent on refuting the existence of God. Agnosticism does not involve in any argument and simply claims that it is doubtful and not willing to take any stand and keeps off. I think your position is all-confusion with a bit of everything and immediately refusing everything as well.
Q: its a multi way tussle between non-belief and belief in countless gods.
KT: There are no countless Supreme gods. There is only one Supreme Being. There are countless understandings - a beautiful thought given in Gita (even if you don't believe in that) vyavasAyAtmikA buddhirekeha kurunandana bahushAkhA hyanantAshcha buddhayo.avyavasAyinAM - 2-41
Q: will leave you groundless and in limbo. I don't see uncertainty being such a bad thing at all.
KT: Of course, you don't. If you do, you would not have gone there.
Q:...on to the first philosophy that comes around, which usually happens to be the one that we are born in.
KT: You must also be unaware of thousands of religious conversions taking place in the world every day. In fact negligible amount of them happen out of conviction. Majority are due to temptation, frustration, coercion, or ignorance.
Q: 1. Being devoid of self contradictions Are you referring to discrepancies within different parts book when you mean self-contradictions? Its actually not that hard to form a non self-contradicting piece of work. 'Person A is floating at a distance of 2 light years from Star X of a distant galaxy. Person B is floating at a distance of 2 light years from Star X of a distant galaxy. A and B are equidistant from X' . This piece is not self contradictory but doesn't have to be real.
KT: There are two things -
1. Avoiding self-contradiction is not as easy as you think
2. The non self-contradicting statements should have a purpose as well. We are not talking of avoiding self-contradiction in two consecutive sentences.
Q: "The universe is an unimaginably huge place in which our sun being an insignificant star, and the earth being an insignificant planet. Doesn't it seem odd that in this extravagance, we claim that a bunch of ppl living/ having their origins in India, especially as a very small percentage in south india claim to have all the right answers? Seems oddly convenient."
KT: and the most of your belaboring that all philosophies are wrong - why ?
Q: "I don't claim to be well conversant or an expert in dvaita, though i may have had my decent share of it, i am not a person who is adept to write khanDanas for any dvaita/ advaita/ vishistadvaita/etc. I made it very clear in my first post that i am talking about all philosophies in general"
KT: A few million people, headed by hundreds of scholars (over past 7 centuries or so) claiming to have right answers is conveniently odd, but one person, who is not adept to write any khandanas can question all philosophies and their verity and still pass a judgment ? -
Q: "It is easy to build up multiple internally consistent but wrong philosophical models of anything based on ontological wordplays, without any of them having an iota of evidence."
KT: How oddly convenient!
Q: Again i request you to provide simple explanation of what 'vedas were revealed' mean in simple, physical terms.
KT: What your guru could not do being face-to-face with you for "?" years, you expect people here to do over a bunch of emails? That indeed is very odd! Quite a mischievous thought as well!
Q: And till now, i have seen nobody who can explain that in simple terms without saying
KT: I will prove how you failed to follow simple terms as well later in this mail.
Q: (It has already been established/ Go learn it from a guru/ You are not fit/ It cant be revealed for ineligibles/ go read them etc etc).
KT: You keep repeating statements like a parrot, which I never stated here. I even mentioned that they are either effect less or needless.
Q: Being devoid of contradicting pratyaksha The problem i see with this argument is the correlation between the pramANas (unless someone explains it clearly to me). You are validating aagaMa here by saying that it does not contradict pratyaksha (some use it for anumana), which would mean they are correlated, and then on the other hand, claim that pratyaksha and anumaana are not the ultimate / independent pramANas. Using A to justify B, which can only be verified by A.
KT: Again wrong understanding. let us say that P1, P2, P3, P4 and P5 are brought as scriptural pramanas (includes interpretation). Out of these P3, P4 and P5 contradict "parIkshita pratyaksha", then right away P3, P4 and P5 are rejected.
If you have some set theory concept, then the Scripture and ParikShita pratyaksha is not a null set. The focus of Scripture is beyond parIkshita pratyaksha. In the physical things, pratyaksha is ultimate pramana. Who claimed that it is not? You cannot verify existence of God thru pratyakSha.
Q: Can you tell me from what point of time 2 + 2 = 4 ?
Is that eternally true? Does that statement claim "I am eternally true" ?
The interpretation of 2 and 4 is also important in understanding the above. If anybody here can claim that they understand/ explain the verity scriptures even remotely at the level of confidence that they see the verity 2+2 = 4, i will be their student. ( and obviously bug them till they can explain that in simple terms)
KT: The relationship of true teacher and friend is not that easy to achieve. A thousand email-exchange cannot achieve what a two hour face-to-face discussion can achieve.
Q: This shows your scant knowledge about polemics. There were great stalwarts of Advaita like Sri Trivikrama Pandita, who were convinced and who changed to Dvaita system. Even if you claim that they were not great scholars, their writings stand as testimony of their scholarship. Again, the use of words 'great' and 'stalwarts' have been used in hindsight.
Can you point me to one 'great stalwart 'of dvaita who has converted to advaita? Obviously not, because once somebody converts to a different faith, the good adjectives go away by default. Similarly, can you point me to one advaitin who would say that the 'great stalwart Trivikramacharya' converted to dvaita? Doesn't anyone here feel this to be conveniently coincidental?
KT: This is a testimony to show how you failed to understand "simple layman terms". My argument above was not to show "There were great stalwarts...to Dvaita system. So, Dvaita system must be the right system". Please see the context of the discussion and the conclusion of my argument. Your objection -
Q: You might say that luminaries in the dvaita lineage have 'won' against other philosophies convincingly, and the concept of 'I am God'(which is infact a gross oversimplification of advaita) might seem utterly ridiculous,
KT: and my conclusion "The charge of oversimplification is ridiculous considering the gigantic works like Nyayamrita. Even if you take refuge in the counterparts like "Advaitasiddhi", the further works like kantakoddhAra, Tarangini, Nyayamrita Amoda, etc and similarly the Advaita commentaries clearly indicate that over simplification never happened." You chopped off my conclusion and mentioned only the beginning! Either you didn't read that or read but didn't understand or intentionally wanted to misguide?
This being the fate of "simple layman terms", where is the hope of making you understand the complicated structure of philosophy thru a bunch of emails in 'simple layman terms', when your guru has failed to convince you despite being in contact with you, God knows, for how long?
Q: On similar lines, the reference to the Tamil Brahmin woman you talked about later in your post clearly doesn’t have any adjectives, as expected.
KT: What adjectives do you need and why?
Q: From the perspective of a muslim, she would be a 'very knowledgeable' woman who converted to Islam. Ideological dispositions, not polemics are the root of such arguments.
KT: Again a BIG MISS - The purpose of it is not to show her knowledgeability or lack there of, but to point out that she made exactly your kind of claims ("I too learnt thru gurus, family and relatives"). But she does not even know that Hinduism does not consist of only Advaita, a basic concept, which many kids know. And you want for her the same adjectives - "great" and "stalwart"? That indeed is "simple layman terms" for you!
Q: If somebody happens to convert to your ideology, they happen to be great stalwarts, if they go away from it, they are ignorant lesser mortals.
KT: That shows your prejudicial attitude and lack of information and slack in reading the emails. I foresaw this and wrote in my prior mail - "proof of the pudding is always in its eating." Of course, needless to say that you had no clue why I wrote that.
It is not what you or I claim. It is what they proved to the world - not by converting any system X to system Y, but by scholarly works - He wrote an ornate kAvya "UshaharaNa" in nine cantos, Hari Vayu stuti, rich in meaning and language, an extensive commentary 'TattvapradIpa' in 5000 granthas, on the BrahmasutrabhAshya of Acharya Madhva, which you will find hard even to grasp, due to high dialectic ability shown and exuberantly ornate style that is characteristic of the author! And yet you place a challenge that the MBBS lady be placed in par with him with the same adjectives as him!
Q: I have seen such arguments again and again, put forth by many, who surmise hastily that there is no scope for rational faith at all and in equal haste end up in an irrational absence of faith. As it happens, I have seen such arguments from the other side again and again as well. Ultimately and unfortunately it ends up in chest pumping and mudslinging without any questions being answered satisfactorily.
KT: What a double standard. If others make such arguments, it is chest pumping and mudslinging, but if you make, that is a genuine thing. If you had sought answers to these from your guru, there would have been no need for either chest pumping or mudslinging. What happened?
Q: 1) Your view (and the 'right' dvaitin view) towards Vedic scriptures is that the belief in these is not 'just by faith' but because of a 'rational faith'. Is this right? Or are there any caveats? What is the most basic premise on which the whole system of reasoning is built? I will give some brief explanation, but like to mention that it is a long topic, which took several months of pAtha in person, in our satsanga. Firstly it is difficult to explain in emails and secondly, I do not have such luxury of time. Please see below.
2) About the statement 2+2 =4 .This statement came to be understood as 'truth' after the concepts of numbers, numerals, addition, equality and symbols for addition and equality were defined and understood. The concept of numbers, addition, equality, etc is also eternal. People may have used some symbolization, but what is important here is concept. The humans may have started using it at some point of time, but the concept had always been there. If total annihilation happens, still the concept will continue to be there.
...talk about the 'self-evident' nature of the Vedas. With regard to Vedas, what are the concepts/ideas that have to be assumed to understand that they are self-evident?
KT: At the very outset, we must note that it is not possible to prove logically that there is God and also it is not possible to prove logically that there is no God. The most reasonable approach is that there is an independent, all powerful and all-knowing entity is there, ehich is creating and running this universe, or else it is impossible to go by the path of "randomness, chance, property, etc", as the immediate question is why should anything obey any property at all?
We notice that in this creation, everything has a cause, whether we recognize or not. All the causes point to a root-cause and we call that primary root cause as God (or if you like call X). Since by definition, that is the root cause, there is no point in asking "what is the cause of that?". This efficient cause must have the knowledge to accomplish all this.
This knowledge is the cause of that God and since by definition, God is primary, this knowledge can only be non-different from God. Also if we say that the knowledge came at some point of time, the consequent conclusion is that the God was without knowledge prior to that point.
Since He is the cause of everything and so must be the cause of the knowledge also? How can he create the knowledge, when He Himself does not have it? Why? The universal knowledge is such an entity, whose creation needs extra-ordinary knowledge only. Thus it is reasonable to understand that there is a Universal Being with Universal knowledge.
Can there be a knowledge-base, which acknowledges and describes this Universal knowledge (Being)? It has to be since description of knowledge is also knowledge. In fact this can become a tool in understanding that Universal knowledge.
Every knowledge has to find a means of expression, as knowledge cannot be a free floating entity. The God, being all-independent, may choose how this should be. Even granting that, why should that be Veda only. Given that Veda, Bible, Khoran and others exist, there are broadly 3 possibilities P
1. "One of the others" is the expression of that knowledge P
2. Veda is the expression of that knowledge P
3. Something else (which is not present on Earth and which is not known to man) is that.
Whatever it is, it has to be flawless. It is our common experience that the meaning can change with the tone. The same set of words can have "kAku svara" (questioning tone) and give totally different meaning.
Similarly, with tone, one can bring irony or challenging, etc with tone. Thus a perfect unambiguity must have a tone or pronunciation associated with it. Also, if this expression of knowledge is eternal, it must be authorless too. But it is our common experience that all that we see in this world is authored. However, as far as our records go, no author was attributed for Vedas.
The objector would raise the objection "Just because, there is no record, how can one claim that there is no author?". Not only there is no record, from time immemorial, it is also claimed to be authorless too. How can mere claim give that status? Sure, it does not.
It has to pass other litmus tests. It must have self-validity. How?
1. It must not have self-contradiction. Some claim that it is easy to have this quality. Believe me, it is extremely difficult or even impossible normally.
2. It must have cross-verification. If X says that he heard this (from some inner voice) and Y says the same and these two have some extra-ordinary qualities (There are 32 gunas described and only special beings have 20 or more. Thus they cannot be just hallucinations) and they happen to be same and convey great meaning, then it is acceptable. This is a cross-verification.
3. Must have Logical consistency (different from 1 in the sense that there may be one point, which by itself may not make sense). It must have scope for correct interpretation. If it results in self-contradiction or contradiction to common verified experience, it is capable of re-interpretation. This also addresses the point to a great extent, why certain interpretations are rejected and some are taken.
Other than Vedas, don't have this quality and so P1 is to be rejected. If Vedas also did not have this, then P2 also would have been rejected and we may have been forced to take P3, But Vedas do have these qualities and so we go with P2.
Seeing the power of authorlessness, the believers of Bible and Koran, who initially stated that prophets wrote and then changed that God wrote and then God revealed. However, they lack above 1, 2 and 3.
As mentioned in prior mails, absence of rebirth, judgment day, resurrection, end of time, etc are logically inconsistent. The absence of pronunciation (attached to them) is another point. An interesting point to note that, Lord Krishna, when teaching Gita to Arjuna, shows VishvarUpa and also says many things like He is independent and all others are dependent and He did every thing. But He says –
sarvasya chAhaM hR^idi sanniviShTo
mattaH smR^itirj~nAnamapohanaM cha |
vedaishcha sarvairahameva vedyo
vedAntakR^idvedavideva chAham.h || 15-15||
Note that He says "I am known by Vedas, I am the composer of Brahmasutras (VedarthanirNayaka) and I am the knower of vedas". He did not say that I am the composer of Vedas. This meant as a reconfirmation of what has been derived.
Q: your expectation that there should be experiments conducted 1000 years ago in order to talk about what was true that time. Without projection of the natural laws into the future and into the past, there cannot be any enterprise called science. One can't even say then that the car/train I will sit in tomorrow will run according to Newton's laws like today, or that friction would have brought a moving cart to a halt 1000 years ago, because no one has documented 'experiments' for what will be true tomorrow or what was true 1000 years ago.
KT: Since this forum is for Dvaita philosophical discussions, all the readers have to get an idea about what have dinosaurs, fossils and carbon dating to do with any philosophy in general and Dvaita in particular. The claim is that millions of years ago, dinosaurs existed, humans did not exist and so the claim from all Hindu scriptures that there were humans in Kritayuga is a false one. By kaimutya nyAya, the presence of humans in prior Mahayugas is "dUrato.apAsta" (not even remotely possible). Even a few thousand years ago, the humans were only in Africa and came to India after a long time.
So, furthermore, In India, there were no humans a few thousand years (the number keeps swelling probably from 10 thousand to now 100 thousand, not sure, where it stands now). In fact, the Evolution affects other religious scriptures like Bible and so they oppose Evolution.
It is unfair and unscientific to mix up different roles of science.
1. Scientific observation: This is realistic, real-time and instantly verifiable. Newton's Laws of motion, gravitational force, Kepler's laws for planetary movement are such cases.
2. Scientific assessment: Based on today's data, either make calculations making a scientific guess of the past or make predictions of the future. This can span over short period or long period. If it is short period, it can become verifiable. For ex, weather forecast - earlier it used to be one or 2 days and now they go to 10 days or even more, using "better models".
By the same projection and extrapolation theory, if a scientist claims that after 10 thousand years, on a particular day, it is going to rain from this time to this time this much and be sunny from this time to this time, we do take that with a bucket of salt.
One may claim that the carbon dating is much more accurate. Even granting that their methodology is accurate, what prevents some kind of warping effect to happen, which makes the fossil give the same result as a 600 million old fossil? Or let us grant that the dinosaurs existed then. How do they claim that the humans didn't exist? Because no fossils were found (absence of evidence is evidence of absence)?
Again here the defective example of "tossing a coin" is given. If nature tosses the coin and it is Head always and if you never saw a coin that has both head and Tail, how do you even know the existence of Tail? There is enough evidence present and so it is not really absence of evidence, but presence of evidence only. abhAvapramANa is also anupramANa only - like entering the room and seeing that there is no pot and so concluding that there is no pot.
Projecting natural laws into the past and future is not same as assessing something else. What you are projecting is same as what you are observing now. For ex, no one raises an objection - if fire burns today, where is the guarantee that fire burnt million years ago and it will burn million years from now. No one will object that the fire will always burn. So also, no one will object that the planetary laws will be there as long as the planets are there.
Comparing that with assessment is very objectionable thing. The scientific guesses are multifarious - for ex, how did dinosaurs become extinct - may be volcanoes, may be asteroid impact, may be radio-heat, may be something else? Did they become extinct suddenly or gradually? Science makes guesses. So, should they also be taken as laws of motion? The absence of human fossils leading to absence of humans is also defective.
There were many discussions in the past. There were billions of dinosaurs over millions of years. How come, they are finding only hundreds of fossils only.
Of course the standard reply is all are not fossilized. If so, why come up with the conclusion that we must find some human fossil at least? If the nature did not have the natural corrosion effect, the continuance of the other beings on the Earth would have been impossible.
It is not questioning the science, but questioning the claims of absence of limitations of science.
It is not questioning the calculations, but questioning the underlying assumptions. The introduction of strange arguments of "celestial teapot revolving around the sun" is an unwanted and useless diversion and is clear indication of missing the salient points as given above.
Statistical sampling is also science and it has error percentages associated and eventually can become verifiable. Equating burning fire or laws of motion, which are readily verifiable with carbon dating methods, which have their own limitations is unjustified.
For ex. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
"Radiocarbon dating, or carbon dating, is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring radioisotope carbon-14 (14C) to estimate the age of carbonaceous materials up to about 58,000 to 62,000 years." If so, how proper is it in assessing that a particular fossil is 500 million or 700 million year old and then claiming that it is accurate (or come up with some small percentage of error), etc, when this is totally unverifiable?
Even if there is absolutely no clash between Dvaita and Evolution, by virtue of the logical inconsistency, I do not accept Evolution - the word sounds great, but not the conclusion. Truly we all evolve in our life time and there it ends. It is meaningless to say that the genetic impressions are carried forward and that they progress only in one direction.
In other words, if evolution were true, then the "devolution must be equally tenable" meaning the genetic change can also happen in reverse direction and an apelike being can come from humans over millions of years.
Though, we don't have to take the religious bent of mind in assessing science, the followin comic representation from some bible-related site is funny and interesting - http://www.bible.ca/tracks/bible-creation.htm
This topic seems to be heading off in so many directions. In a way, perhaps it is good, because there's a lot of food for thought, but trying to bring in the spiritual relevance of Vishnu's avatars, evolution, contrasting Christian and Hindu spirituality, the meaning behind the flooding of Rayaru Brindavana, whether there was Christian influence on Madhva philosophy, etc, etc. it's a bit hard to continue in one particular direction.
In any case, here are a few comments
1)The idea that there is Christian influence on Madhva philosophy is beyond absurd. Sri Madhvacharya gives scriptural references in "Hindu" texts (Puranas, Itihasas, Brahma Sutra, Vedas,etc.) for all the works that he has written.
First of all, why would he even bother with Christian texts when there is a wealth of information in Indian scriptures itself? It would be like a jewelry shop owner searching through pebbles on the roadside for precious stones.
Second of all, those tenets which people claim sound "Christian" actually make sense if one looks at the Gita, Puranas, etc. carefully. Take the Andhatamas concept - Sri Krishna has said
"urdhvam gacchanti sattvastha,
madhye tishtanti raajasaH,
jaghanya guNavrittistha tatoyaantyadhamaam gatim"
Sattvic souls go upward, rajasic stay in the middle, and tamasic with hateable qualities go to the lowest depths. Should this be reinterpreted to mean that no matter how evil/wicked someone is, if they continue on a downward path, they will eventually change?
If someone continues on that downward path, logically there must be some end that they reach, and this is what Krishna has described when he said "maam apraapyaiva kaunteya...". Also, as pointed out earlier, andhatamas is mentioned in Ishavasyopanishad. So again this is not foreign to Indian philosophy.
The salvation through Vayu deva cannot be compared to salvation through Christ. Whereas Christians, without a concept of reincarnation would be forced to say that people born before Christ must end up in Hell (likewise, the desire to baptize children as soon after they are born, because unbaptized children cannot go to heaven).
The status of Vayu deva is much more sophisticated. There have been kalpas since time immemorial, and in each one it is the Vayu deva in that kalpa who destroys the linga sharIra and sends the soul to attain moksha, but not independently, because Sri Hari residing within Vayu Deva is the one making all this happen.
Madhvas (or for that matter Advaitins or Visishtadvaitins) do not make a claim that people who do not accept Madhvacharya/Ramanuja/Shankaracharya as their Guru/savior go to Hell. This primitive one life concept followed by eternal Hell/Heaven is found in Western faiths, but not Indian ones. 2)
Q: Contrast this with Ram or Krishna ... Ram lost his wife and waged a war for her. Krishna lived a life of luxury, enjoyed his time with wine and women, and finally participated in a war that killed countless people.
KT: Anyone who talks about Krishna going after wine and women has clearly not even bothered to read Sri Vadirajaru's Shobhane Haadu.
You claim that there is no spiritual significance behind this, but don't even know how to correctly interpret it. Wine and women?
Vadirajaru refutes this in so many different ways. First of all, he reminds us that this Krishna is one and the same as that Vishnu at the time of pralaya. There was no fire, no way of making food at the time of pralaya, so clearly Vishnu has no need of food. Then using the
"ekatra nirNIta shaastraartha paratraapi", it follows that even in Krishna avatar he has no need of it. As for women, before you start passing judgment on Krishna's character, see if you can first digest the meaning of verses in the Shobhane Haadu like
"aneya maanadalli aDagisidavaruNTe | anEka kOTi ajaaNDava | aNu rOma kUpadali ALda shrIhariya | janani jaTharavu oLagombude | adarinda kRiShNanige janmavembudu salla | madananivana kumaaranu | kadanadi kaNegaLa ivanedegesevane | sudaterigivanu silukuvane"
How can someone who holds the entire Brahmanda within him ever be "born"? How can such a being be affected by Kama, when he himself has given birth to Kama? And later on, it's described how Rishis who have conquered the 6 enemies like lust, anger, etc. worship Krishna. Why would they worship someone who is tempted by wine and women?
Krishna does this to give joy to his devotees who understand that it is all just leela, and to delude the undeserving, who find yet another reason to mock him. I've been posting a translation of the Shobhane Haadu on the Rayaru list where Vadirajaru has used his sharp intellect to systematically refute such objections to Krishna's character.
I've been posting it for about a year now, and it will probably be another year to complete. Before you pass such hasty judgments on Krishna's character, at least realize that there are knowledgeable saints who show us how to make sense of this in light of Krishna's divinity.
3) Perhaps I'm opening a can of worms here, but those comments on evolution can't go unanswered.
Q: Coming to evolution, the same kind of question can be asked. If such a great diversity of vegetables like cabbage, cauliflower, broccoli, kale, kohlrabi, brussel sprouts and others have been created by humans by artificial selection over just a few centuries (the same can be said about dog breeds, pigeon varieties, etc), and we now know the underlying mechanisms by which such changes happen, what could happen if such a process was to continue in nature (by natural selection) over millions of years? What (in principle) can prevent wider and wider varieties from evolving over that deep time?
PT: There is microevolution and macroevolution. Let me define what the distinction is. Evolution has several different meanings to it - creatures changing over time (which no one disputes), the theory (theory meaning an idea that can't really be tested) that all creatures on this planet are descended from a single common ancestor, and finally evolution can mean the theory that life came about on this planet through unintelligent natural processes (natural selection, random mutations), as opposed to purposeful intelligent design.
By mixing up "evolution" meaning the slight variations within a population over time, and "evolution" meaning the idea that all life on this planet evolved from one common ancestor, you're making precisely the same mistake Advaitins make. They give an example of "rajju-sarpa bhranti" - showing how in the dark, a rope is mistaken for a snake, but then later we realize that it is just an illusion. Ok, fine, but from this, does it really make sense to jump to the conclusion that this whole universe itself is an illusion?
The question of what is and what is not mithya has been the subject of much Dvaita-Advaita debate, but the point I'm trying to make here is that one cannot simply point out "see, the rope is an illusion. Why can't we consider more and more things to be an illusion until we consider the universe itself to be an illusion?" Science cannot be based on hypothetical guesswork - "since creatures change over time, why couldn't they all have been due to slight successive changes from a single common ancestor?"
This is not a testable claim but a hypothetical question, and it is precisely this lack of testability that makes evolution unscientific. The Advaitin gives rajju-sarpa bhranti to point out vishva mithyatva. You're showing slight variations among cabbage, variation in dog breeds to point out that each and every creature on this planet evolved from 1 common ancestor (a bacteria). This suffers from the "asangati" dosha. Just because a rope is mistaken for a snake, doesn't mean everything we see is an illusion. Just because some creatures share a common ancestor doesn't mean every creature on this planet shares a common ancestor.
What does the actual fossil evidence show? We see the most diverse creatures "popping up" in the fossil record. The Cambrian explosion, for example refers to members of the various animal phyla all appearing at roughly the same time. Where's the evolution there? Can the term "evolution" be used to describe the sudden appearance of creatures (meaning without precursors) in the fossil record?
To drive home the point of why evolution is inadequate, take the fossil evidence of horse evolution (how horses change over time), or bat evolution (how bats change over time), or primate evolution (how primates change over time). Can we take these changes to explain how horses, bats, and primates evolved from a common ancestor? No, because the same basic distinctions between modern day bats, horses, primates exist among the earliest representatives of those evolutionary trees.
In other words they don't converge on a common ancestor. Or put in simpler terms, I can't give you evidence that tortoises evolve into tortoises, alligators evolve into alligators, snakes evolve into snakes, lizards evolve into lizards, and then say that this shows that all reptiles (snakes, turtles, alligators, lizards) evolved from a common ancestor.
Separate creation (not necessarily the creation of all creatures at the same time) explains the origin of creatures in the fossil record without trying to force fit the evidence into some preconceived theory (the idea that all creatures descended from 1 single ancestor). I think I have opened a can of worms in trying to continue this evolution topic. Maybe we should get back to the spiritual significance of Vishnu's avatars.
Q: We can stop the discussion, however, the discussion between Vedanta and science will continue regardless of our participation. This is a general comment about science-religion conflict.
Is not Vayu all-knowing? If so, would it be fair to conclude that he'd know more about science than all the scientists put together? And since he 'incarnated' in the 13th century as Madhva, surely he could've given us some hints about 18th century or 20th century science, thereby convincing us that: he really is all-knowing * religion (dvaita in this case) is not in conflict with science
KT: Talking about discussion between Vedanta and science can be called general comment. Harsh comments about the hard rules of Dvaita, incapability of Sri Raghavendra swamy to protect himself and his devotees, absence of world famous Dvaita personalities in the recent times in the backdrop of high glorification of Ramana Maharshi's "silence theory", Jesus Christ's helping others by letting himself to be crucified (a helpless situation portrayed as a great sacrifice), followed now by a mischievous question of why Sri Madhvacharya, Vayu's incarnation did not give hints of 18th century or 20th century science, cannot be classified as general comments.
When the specific target and specific motives are highlighted, the accusation of nitpicking is levelled and the mode of gentleness is reminded.
Q: Of course, people are going to argue that Madhva (or any other religious figure) did not come to teach science but religion. I understand that. I am only saying that a lot of skepticism toward religion could have been avoided this way.
Imagine if Madhva had spoken about computers or airplanes, for instance - reading about that, even skeptics would be forced to acknowledge that Madhva must have been a genuine person. And his dvaita a genuine religion ... with no conflict whatsoever with science.
KT: Why not the same kind of questions are raised when Ramana Maharshi "became Bhagavan"? Why not the same kind of questions are raised, when Shankara said his interpretation of "aham BrahmAsmi"?
Why not the same kind of questions were raised when Jesus claimed that he is son of God and his followers claim that he knows it all as well?
One has to be a mayavadi to claim that everything is "maya" or illusion and so science is also an illusion or one has to be a political speaker to evade the point with socio-political sweetness! These founders have never given reasons for their behaving with absence of scientific knowledge beyond their times in their writings.
Infact quite contrarily, Acharya Madhva has given the reasons for such in his teachings. That is what sets him apart from the rest of the preachers and thus the mischievous questions from the followers of other schools, indirectly help Dvaita and backfire on them. Further several misapprehensions on the part of this poster can be noted. All those preachers have never stated where their stand is even if they did not give any scientific facts.
Acharya Madhva gave highest prAbalya (priority or strength) to parIkShita pratyakSha and science is part of it. Even without his speaking about computers and airplanes, there are people who could see the genuine knowledge present in his teachings. Even if he has spoken about the computers or airplanes, the mischief of this kind of people will never end. Just as this gentleman poses a mischievous question "why did Acharya Madhva not speak about 18th or 20th century science", another gentleman, in future 27th/28th century will pose a mischievous question "why did Acharya Madhva not speak about 27th/28th century science".
To satisfy this class of insatiable mischief mongers, Acharya has to put aside what he intends to say and concentrate on this worthless cause of satisfying the insatiable, who are incapable of poking hole in the philosophy, and so resort to this kind of misguided, wrong outward things. Now coming to the main point, why not show such special "out-of-time" abilities?
Acharya Madhva says in Mahabharata tAtparya nirNaya
prajAyate hi yatkule yathA yugaM yathA vayaH |
tathA pravartanaM bhaved.h divaukasAM samudbhave | 13-9
Even the gods, when they take the avatAra, they act according to the clan, time, and age. In TaittirIyopanishadbhAshya - mAnuSham mAnuSho dharmo deva api hi mAnuShe | manuShyavatpravartante naivaishvaryaprakAshinaH |
When gods take human form, they follow those rules and act like humans only. They won't exhibit their mUlarUpa abilities. This makes lot of sense. Otherwise imagine the infant Madhva flying around to prove that he is Vayu incarnation!
For those, who are driven by disbelief, no amount of proof is sufficient. For those, who are driven by reason, no proof is necessary for obvious things. The former break the boundaries of reasonable and unreasonable. The latter realize and respect those boundaries.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse