Uttamaadhikaari QA

Answers by Shri Kesava Rao Tadipatri (KT)

What is the definition of an uttama-adhikAri in dvaita? Is it a person who is qualified to receive the highest knowledge?

KT: UttamAdhikaritva is determined based on the capacity of the jIva. It does not pertain to one particular janma of the jIva. Also, when you say “adhikAri”,it is “adhikAri for what?”. It is “adhikAri” for moxa. That means even “adhamAdhikAri” goes to moxa.

Acharya describes the three adhikAris in Gita tatparya.

AdhamAdhikAriNo martyA muktAvR^ishhyAdikAH samAH |

adhikAryuttamA devAH prANastatrottamottamaH |

In the matter of mukti, adhamAdhikAris are manushyottamas. MadhyamAdhikAris are R^ishi-s, at al. UttamAdhikAris are devatas.

Among them MukhyaprANa is uttamottama.

Gaudiyas base their definition on a few verses from BhAgavatam (11.2.45-47) - http://vedabase.net/sb/11/2/45/en onwards.

KT: Those verses are not speaking about classification of adhikAris, but of bhaktas. There is no mention of adhikari in any of these 3 verses. It pertains to the actual janma. The classifications are very complicated and are of various kinds and has to be seen based on the context. It is possible that an uttamAdhikari may not show these characteristics in a particluar janma for some time.

Also if 11.2-47 describes adhamAdhikAri, then they should also be eligible for moxa!

Also, if some one is as per verse 46 in one janma and as per 47 in another janma, is he madhyamAdhikAri or adhamAdhikAri? What if one is as per 46 and 47in the same janma at different parts of life? What about AjAmila? Is he madhyamAdhikAri or adhamAdhikAri?

In fact the ones in verse 47, Acharya further subdivides into 3 categories (adhamottama, adhamamadhyama and adhmAdhama). Though the adhamottamas initially are on a wrong track, they come into contact with sajjanas and moxa yogyas and eventually go to moxa. The adhama madhyama goes to svarga and takes rebirth among manushyas and repeat the cycle.

AdhamAdhamas eventually start hating the Lord and goes to andhatamas.

According to them, an uttama-adhikAri does not make distinctions between different people – like a madhyama adhikAri does (11.2.46). The lowest is a kaniShTha-adhikAri (11.2.47 ) who thinks God lives only in a temple and who may quarrel with other Vaishnavas.

KT: As mentioned above, the verse are not about adhikaris.

Also, where does the verse mention about quarrelling and that too vaishnavas?

Arjuna is called an uttama-adhikAri, and in Ishavasya Upanishad commentary on mantra 2, humans are considered alpa-adhikAris, and I have heard Bannanje Govindacharya say that humans are adhama-adhikAris.

KT: Yes, that is Dvaita position.

The dvaita classification of uttama, madhyama, adhama seems to be at variance with that of the Gaudiyas and Bhagavatam – uttama, madhyama and kaniShTha/prAkR^ita.

KT: That is because Gaudiyas misinterpreted the Bhagavata verses.

Why is Arjuna an uttama-adhikari - a) Is it because he is Indra-avatAra? b) Is it because he was given aparokSha-j~nAna?

KT: As mentioned in the beginning, it is based upon the jIva svabhAva. It is 19 Brahma-kalpas after aparoxa, that “Indra” got Indra padavi.

I also don't understand how vishvarUpa-darshanam is aparokShaj~nAna

KT: Who said that? Also, what is the definition of aparoxaj~nAna? If VishvarUpa darshana is aparoxa j~nAna, then when Arjuna stopped seeing VishvarUpa, his aparoxa j~nAna went away?

considering that there was also an element of fear in Arjuna's heart upon seeing that form. I thought that aparokSha-j~nAna is incompatible with any feeling of fear.

KT: Why? The fear is a respectful fear (awe). Please note the verse “tadejati tannejati...” in Ishavasya.

Who said that? Also, what is the definition of aparoxa j~nAna?

According to my understanding, AparokSha-j~nAna is God-realisation in the manner described in Gita 4.35.

SK Bhavani calls that description as “prophetic” since it is connects nicely to the VishvarUpa-darshanam.

KT: If you see the verse and the commentary, you should be able to make out that there are two factors – j~nAna and darshana (yajj~nAtvA ... draxyasi...)

So, j~nAna is a prerequisite and darshana is a result. If one says that Arjuna got j~nAna because he saw Krishna, then one is going in reverse. If one says that j~nana itself is darshana, then one is mixing up kArya and kAraNa.

If SK Bhavani says it is prophetic, it only reinforces the above. Arjuna is a j~nAni and so he is eligible to see VishvarUpa. Why should a connection bring in an identity or a reverse flow?

If VishvarUpadarshana is aparoxaj~nAna, then when Arjuna stopped seeing VishvarUpa, his aparoxa j~nAna went away? Why not?

KT: Because the j~nAna cannot just disappear. It may be clouded temporarily (as in Arjuna's case itself).

Doesn't aparokSha-j~nAna last only for some time,

KT: No. Please see tadadhigamAdhikaraNa in Brahmasutras (4^th adhyAya 1^st pAda).

Also Acharya's words in aNubhAshya on this:

prArabdhakarmaNo.anyasya j~nAnAdevaparixayaHanishhTasyobhayasyApi sarvasyAnyasya bhogataH |

At the time of getting aparoxa, the sanchita and AgAmi karmas get burnt (Also see Gita 4-37).

If aparoxaj~nAna goes away, then does Sanchita and AgAmi pop in again? So as aparoxaj~nAna pops in and out Sanchita and AgAmi pop out and in?

after which one comes out of samAdhi?

KT: Bimba sAxAtkAra lasts for only some time. Even that need not be for the entire duration of samAdhi.

Such a thing is also described in BhAgavatam first skandha chapter 6 where Narada describes how (in his past life as the son of a maidservant) he got darshana of the paramAtman, but that lasted only for a short time, and he did not see the Lord again in that life after that.

KT: So be it. Sri Jagannatha dasaru has written one sandhi itself (called aparoxa tAratamya sandhi). In that janma, Narada had the puNya to have Lord's darshana only that much. As mentioned above j~nAna (which is kAraNa) and darshana (which is kArya) are two different things.

considering that there was also an element of fear in Arjuna's heart upon seeing that form. I thought that aparokSha-j~nAna is incompatible with any feeling of fear. Why? The fear is a respectful fear (awe). Please note the verse “tadejati tannejati...” in Ishavasya.

If the fear is only awe, why should Arjuna ask Krishna to remove that vision and again show him his human form?

KT: Because that is what the Lord willed. Awe includes fear. It does not exclude fear. All fears are not the same kind. Fear of water, fear of flying, fear of fire, fear of HiraNyakashipu seeing Narasimha, fear of elders, fear of Arjuna seeing the Lord's VishvarUpa, fear of seeing a horror picture are all different kinds.

Even in mundane things, would any person who is seeing an awe-inspiring scene like Niagara falls or a unique jungle like to keep seeing that for the rest of his life suspending all activities? Here, the Lord all the more knows how much of anything is to be given to anyone.

One must not forget that He is the prachodaka of the buddhi of all the chetanas.

This means that he did not want to remain in that state of vishvarUpa-darshanam ... as per Pratipadartha Chandrika of Satyadhyana Tirtha)

KT: Of course. Otherwise the very purpose of Lord's incarnation gets defeated. Doesn't it?

Such sentiments are again reiterated in verse 11.49 in Krishna's own words.

KT: The verse 11-49 and 11-50 do indicate that the Lord decides how things should be. The Lord is “bhayakR^t” and “bhayanAshana”.

In any case, this kind of bhaya does not have to raise any doubts about his aparoxa j~nAna.

In Nyayadipika on Gita Tatparya introduction, commenting on Madhvacharya's reference to “sudurdarsham idam rUpam dR^iShTavAn asi..” and “darshayAmAsa pArthAya..” (both references to VishvarUpa-darshana), Jayatirtha says:

“sudurdarsham..” iti anena aparokSha-j~nAnitvam avagamyate |

KT: Of course, this is what I have been stressing all along. By the Lord's words “sudurdarsham (it is not easy to have darshana of this Lord's form)”it is indicated that Arjuna is aparoxaj~nAni.

This clearly indicates that since Arjuna is agreat aparoxaj~nAni, he was eligible to see that Form of Lord. Why are you getting mixed up between aparoxaj~nAna and seeing VishvarUpa?

“darshayAmAsa..” iti anena aparokSha-j~nAnitvam (j~nAyate) |

KT: Same as above.

This is a blatant equation of vishvarUpa-darshanam with aparokSha-j~nAna.

KT: Equating them is a blatant error. It is kArya-kAraNabhAva. Please note “avagamana” means “making known” or “proclamation” (as per

Monier Williams and also known to Sanskrit students in general).

Because the Lord showed Vishvarupa to Arjuna, his aparoxaj~nAnitva is made known.

For equating one has to say something like” darshanameva aparoxaj~nAnanM”.

There is no such statement. Even if such a statement is present somewhere, the meaning “darshana itself is aparoxaj~nAna” does not make sense. “Seeing” is an act. J~nAna is not an act.

How can they be equated?

A few further questions/doubts on this section of Nyayadipika come:

KT: I am repeating what was mentioned many a time. The real answers to these can only be obtained after a thorough, in depth and methodical study of Gita with all its sub commentaries and BrahmasuTras and its sub commentaries and also the related texts under proper guru for a prolonged time and doing a lot of manana on that.

I would only attempt to give some kindling to the thinking process below.

Jayatirtha says that the reference to “daivI sampat vimokShAya... daivIm abhijAtaH asi pANDava” shows the “devatvam” of Arjuna. I don't understand how this follows from the verse. Daivi sampat can belong to any sAttvika-jIva. How can it be restricted only to devatAs?

KT: This can be answered in two levels.

1. DaivI sampat does not just mean some wealth of devata-s or some such thing. It is devatA j~nAna and devata qualities, that lead to moxa. Why then use “daivI sampat” and “AsurI sampat” instead of saying devatas go to moxa and asuras go to andhatamas? It is for two reasons

• to make one know that those good qualities make one go to moxa and not just belonging to that category and

• to prevent one look at some cases where a devata may be born in asurayoni like Prahlada and come to a wrong conclusion that they are not devatas. So one who has daivI sampat has to be a devata.

2. Let us grant that daivi sampat refers to just divine qualities, that lead to moxa and any sAttvika can have it.

The crux of the point is that “daivIm abhijAtaH asi” confirms what is deduced in 1 above. For an uninformed person, Arjuna was not born in “devayoni”. Abhi = prati. Thus it is “daivIm prati jAtaH”. This is what confirms that Arjuna is devata.

Note that from this verse, the conclusion is devatvam of Arjuna, but not “Indratvam” (which is mentioned elsewhere based on other sources).

The same doubt comes for the reference to 9.13 (mahAtmAnaH tu mAm pArtha daivIm prakR^itim AshritAH..) which neither (by itself) conveys daivatvam nor aparokSha-j~nAnitvam.

KT: It does. First of all the word mahAtma is not used in some laukika sense. Also please see the entire verse, which (kind of) indicates how mahatmas do the upAsana of the Lord.

That kind of vyAptopAsana is possible only for devatas, who are aparoxa j~nAnis of high category.

This verse is a good example to show that a global knowledge of Brahmasutras, Upanishads and Vedas is needed for such assertions (as what Sri TikAcharya did).

In short, I do not see how the claims of “daivatvam” and some claims of “aparokSha-j~nAnitvam” follow from these verses. Now you seem to be questioning even vishvarUpa-darshana as aparokShaj~nAna, in which case, there is further problem.

KT: In fact, that kind of differentiation between the two resolves many of the problems in your understanding.

Let us put down some of the statements and check their validity.

A. vishvarUpadarshana = aparoxaj~nAnaB. X has daivatva.

C. X has aparoxaj~nAna

D. X has VishvarUpadarshana.

One can reject “A” without a second thought. How can an act be same as a non-act? This has been discussed. Also note that it is possible that some of the aparoxa j~nAnis may not have had vishvarUpa darshana.

The following statements are definitely false.

C = D C = B

The following statements are definitely true.

D = C B = C

My understanding in the following cases need to be taken with caution.

B = D (as per the yogyata of the jIva)

D does not have to = B (as some gandharva yoni or some other yogya jIvas may have gotten vishva rUpa darshana).

From what I understand, Arjuna's being a devatA (and hence an uttama-adhikAri from your defn of what that means) follows from the Mahabharata's description of who incarnated as who. It does not follow from Gita itself. Arjuna's aparokSha-j~nAnitvam follows from the VishvarUpa-adhyAya of Gita itself. It does not follow from the rest of the Mahabharata.

KT: I don't understand the purpose behind this. Gita is part of Mahabharata. Why are you differentiating between what follows from Gita (say G) and the rest of Mahabharata (say R)? If G and R are identical or (alternatively) if all that is said in G isin R and all that is said in R is in G, then one will tend to level an accusation of redundancy to one of the two.

Also, can't a person use what is explicit in G to interpret R or what is explicit in R to interpret G?

Did G and R contradict each other in any aspect? If not, what is the problem?

Also, the interpretation of “devAH api asya rUpasya nitya-darshanakA~NkShiNaH” appears stretched to me.

KT: So can be the accusation of many regarding the interpretation of “Aham brahmAsmi” or “tattvamasi”.

Please remember “OM tattu samanvayAt OM” is in fact universally true. The concepts are deep and subtle. Overall consistency is a must.

It would translate to “Even the devatAs are ever eager to witness this Vishvarupa”. Since they are not witnessing it all the time, and they get to witness it only occasionally, I don't see why this line cannot be translated as it is, instead of clubbing the devatAs with Arjuna.

KT: This verse is not used to club anything. No one need to object to the meaning “Even the devatAs are ever eager to witness this Vishvarupa”. Also the inference ”They are not witnessing it all the time, and they get to witness it only occasionally” is also fine. However, if a wrong understanding pops in that ”Even the devatAs are ever eager to witness this Vishvarupa” implies that devatas did not get to see it (Note that a mere eagerness is not an indication of non-occurrence unless a non-occurrence is explicitly mentioned), that is refuted with this alternate meaning, as the heart of this verse in Gita tatparya.

This is done by associating “api” with dR^ishhTavAn”

“The gods, who are ever eager to witness this vishvarUpa, also have seen this vishvarUpa that you have seen.”

I am repeating what was mentioned many a time. The real answers to these can only be obtained after a thorough, in depth and methodical study of Gita with all its sub commentaries and BrahmasuTras and its subcommentaries and also the related texts under proper guru for a prolonged time and doing a lot of manana on that. I am trying to do a methodical study of Gita Tatparya using Nyayadipika of Jayatirtha, Raghavendra Tirtha's sub commentary on it, and Bannanje Govindacharya's pravachanas.

KT: The effort part is fine and every person has to do what is within one's ability. However that can not be called a methodical study because the loopholes or the doubts therein are not addressed right there and then there has to be a validation from the other sources thru a proper guru.

The doubts that came were all after reading and hearing.

KT: It is natural in such case to get the doubts. The point is that absence of such vigourous and rigorous study will lead to such doubts and

neither pravachanas nor mere reading of the commentaries will help.

It is somewhat discouraging that to understand just the introduction of Gita Tatparya, one is expected to first study Brahmasutras (and related texts, presumably the Upanishads) and its sub commentaries under a proper guru.

KT: I think it is really encouraging in a way, but not discouraging. Why? While one may think that mere reading of Gita tAaparya and Gita Bhashya are enough to understand Gita, some others may think that it is enough to read Gita alone to understand Gita. For a person who likes to read just a simple translation of Gita alone, the idea that Gita Bhashya and Gita tAtparya are needed is very discouraging.

If reading Gita alone is enough, how come the Gita commentaries by many scholars of many schools are wrong? The ones who are wrong have not done proper cross-validation.

Also, the doubts that I asked were from the section that Madhvacharya begins by saying “sarvam cha etat atra eva avagamyate” - All this can be understood from the text of the Gita itself. Jayatirtha comments on this by saying “na pramANAntaram anveShaNIyam” (there is no need to depend on any other pramANa apart from the text of the Gita itself)

KT: That means that whatever is told in (sanxipta) GitatAtparya (”tatra sAxAdindrAvatAra...sarvasya” iti bodhayati bhagavAnnArAyaNaH) finds pramANa in Gita itself and Acharya demonstrated by quoting Gita verses and specifying which aspect is established from the quoted verses.

Thus, if what they have written is true, there is no need to first study Brahmasutras or any other text outside the Bhagavad Gita to understand what Madhvacharya is saying in this section.

KT: No, all that it means is for the prAmANya of (sanxipta) Gita tAtparya, Gita is enough. It does not mean that for the proper understanding of Gita, knowledge of Brahmasutras and other texts are not needed. If Gita itself is sufficient, how come so many made so many errors? The encouraging thing is that this (that a lack of global understanding can lead to such defective interpretations) gives us the answer as to which one of the various interpretations is correct.

Note that one who reads a simple translation does not get doubts (at least a majority). As one goes deeper and deeper, more doubts pop up. Then one needs a proper guide.

Whatever is needed is already there in the text of the Gita.

KT: Then why did so many make such terrible mistakes? Something being there is different from that being understood.

I don't understand the purpose behind this. Gita is part of Mahabharata. Why are you differentiating between what follows from Gita (say G) and the rest of Mahabharata (say R)?

Because Madhvacharya said at the beginning of the section that all major points that he said in the one-line Tatparya can be known from the text of the Bhagavad Gita itself.

KT: It means that one sentence of tAtparya is justifiable from the quoted verses of Gita.

One should not even need to depend on the rest of the Mahabharata outside the Gita.

KT: That is incomplete sentence. “One should not...outside the Gita for justifying that one sentence of Gita tAtparya.”

But my confusion about the difference between aparokSha-j~nAna, vishvarupa darshana and bimba-sAxAtkAra is still there. Even in this very section of the Gita Tatparya, Madhvacharya quotes Krishna: yathA mAm dR^iShTavAn asi (referring to Vishvarupadarshana)... ananyayA bhaktyA eva shakyaH evam vidhaH “j~nAtum” “draShTum” praveShTum cha.

Commenting on this, and on Nyayadipika's “parokSha-aparokSha-j~nAnayoH..” Raghavendra Swami says “j~nAtum draShTum cha ityukta parokSha-aparokShayoH praveShTum..”

KT: We say X is doing shravaNa. We say X is acquiring paroxa j~nAna. Together they don't mean that shravana is paroxaj~nAna. It just means that shravana is sAdhana for paroxa j~nAna. Note that Bhakti is even a greater sAdhana for j~nAna.

Similarly two statements :

1. Knowing about the VishvarUpa of the Lord (A1),seeing the VishvarUpa of the Lord (B1), acquiring sAyujyamukti (C1) are under the Lord's control.

2. Paroxaj~nAna (A2), aparoxaj~nAna (B2) and entering the Lord (C2) are all under the control of the Lord.

These together do not mean “A1 = A2”, “B1 = B2”,”C1 = C2”.

A1 is part of A2. A1 symbolizes A2 and A1 is a tool for A2.

B1 implies B2 is there. All having B2 need not have B1. B1 symbolizes B2.

All enter the Lord anyway. But C1 is a special kind of C2. Here C2 signifies C1.

I don't see any hint of difference between aparokSha-j~nAna and a “vision” of God, and parokSha-j~nAna and “theoretical nishchayAtmikA buddhi” about God. I also don't find any hint of difference between aparokSha-j~nAna and vishvarupa-darshana,

MT: That is why these have to be known from external sources for explicit knowledge. It is not absent here, but is hidden. “iti guhyatamaM shAstraMidamuktaM mayAnagha....”

because the “draShTum” Krishna refers to is in the context of Vishvarupa darshana (”evam vidhaH”), which Raghavendra Swami translates as aparokSha-j~nAna.

MT: Please see the explanation above.

According to my understanding, AparokSha-j~nAna is God-realisation in the manner described in Gita 4.35.

KT: What is described in 4.35 is vishvarUpa darshana whichArjuna is going to *see*.

I think you are getting mixed up with the following:

1. bimba-sAxAtkara

2. VishvarUpa darshana.

3. aparoxa-j~nana

The first and second are seeing but aparoxa-j~nAna is j~nAna that made it possible to *see*. The seeing lasts only for a few seconds depending on the yogyata.

However, the j~nAna lasts for ever – it has to. Due to prArabdha, there may be few laps in some aspect of that j~nAna.

1. Bimba-sAxAtkara: The bimbarUpa is unique to a jIva.

It is present inside the jIva-s hR^idaya. A paroxa j~nAni, when he attains aparoxa j~nAna, gets the darshana of this unique rUpa which is his bimba. Devata-s not only see this inside them but do vyAptopasana of this and other rUpa-s of the Lord depending on their yogyata.

If one cannot see in his own heart his bimba, how can he see the all pervading “universal” form of the Lord outside?

3. VishvarUpa is the form the Lord shows to Arjuna. When Arjuna sees this Samharaka rUpa, he could not take more than what his yogyata permits.

Thus Arjuna who saw SamhararUpa of Bhagavan must have been an aparoxajnAni. He must have seen the Lord inside his own heart first.

If VishvarUpadarshana is aparoxaj~nAna, then when Arjuna stopped seeing VishvarUpa, his aparoxa j~nAna went away?

Why not? Doesn't aparokSha-j~nAna last only for some time, after which one comes out of samAdhi?

MT: See above.

Such a thing is also described in BhAgavatam first skandha chapter 6 where Narada describes how (in his past life as the son of a maidservant) he got darshana of the paramAtman, but that lasted only for a short time, and he did not see the Lord again in that life after that.

MT: See above.

considering that there was also an element of fear in Arjuna's heart upon seeing that form. I thought that aparokSha-j~nAna is incompatible with any feeling of fear.

Why? The fear is a respectful fear (awe). Please note the verse “tadejati tannejati...” in Ishavasya.

If the fear is only awe, why should Arjuna ask Krishna to remove that vision and again show him his human form? This means that he did not want to remain in that state of vishvarUpa-darshanam for a continued time.

MT: What he sees Vishvarupa, he sees samharaka form of the Lord as well. Surely it is awe inspiring fear for Arjuna. Fear is of many kinds and there is difference between the fear of Arjuna and the fear we have. Arjuna, in his avatara form, sees the vishvarUpa with the same intensity as that of his mUlarUpa Indra[GT].

Along with Arjuna, all those above him also see it – with much more clarity and fullness. It doesn't create fear in Brahma and others.

I did feel that I understood the commentary when I read the subcommentary and heard Bannanje's pravachana. My only doubt was on an element of fear being there in Arjuna's mind while getting direct vision of God (which I called as aparokSh\- aj~nAna). In response, you questioned whether vishvarupa-darshana is aparokShaj~nAna or not, and that effectively put a doubt on most of the things I thought I had understood from the subcommentary on this section.

KT: This is a clear indication to the fact that neither absence of doubts nor the presumption that one has the proper understanding can be a

factor that the understanding is right. This can also be easily gauged by the wrong interpretation of many schools, who propounded them

giving assurance to their followers that their understanding “is the correct understanding”. As you are on a different pedestal than those

wrong schools, you are not committing that blunder of that kind of assertion, but still many a time, you are on the verge of asserting that Sri

Jayatirtha's explanation is not appealing, based on some hasty conclusions.

I still feel that if vishvarupa darshana is not aparokSha-j~nAna, then Jayatirtha or Raghavendra Swami would have at least dropped a word about it.

KT: That is not proper expectation. If there is a major school or if there is major scope for such misunderstanding then only a negation is stated.

Otherwise it will be too much of verbiage to say what things are not true.

What pramANa is there to say that vishvarupa darshana is not aparoksha j~nAna?

KT: What pramANa is there to say it is? Also, I have already pointed in many earlier mails, the pitfalls in the interpretation that it is. I am repeating it with a different mode.

vishvarupa darshana is an action and event lasting asmall duration of time. Aparoksha j~nAna is not an event. Acquiring/having aparoksha j~nAna is an event.

The aparoxaj~nAna lasts for ever, once it sets in.

There may be incidents of tirodhAna, but that is not removal, but a temporary cover.

You were so absorbed in identifying the two, that you did not hesitate to think that Arjuna's aparoksha j~nAna ceased with the ceasing of ability to see vishvarupa. That surely is a pitfall.

Also, if Arjuna, who is an incarnation of Indra, has the aparoxa only by the vishvarupa darshana, then that implies that Indra was not an aparoxa j~nani to start with, which means the whole system is broken, since a non-aparoxa j~nAni has been appointed for the post of Indra.

I looked at Gita Bhashya 5.16 that was pointed to by Sri Shrisha Rao, but I didn't find an answer

KT: It hints at distinction between paroxa and aparokshaj~nAna and also between vR^itti j~nAnan and svarUpa j~nAna. This indicates a need for a deeper study.

In my case, I thought I had understood the commentary and subcommentary until you said that aparokshaj~nAna and vishvarupa darshana and “sAxAtkAra” are three different things. While I didn't think that Vishvarupa darshana is the only form of aparoksha, I did think that it is one form or instance of it. So I am not so much feeling “helpless” about it as incredulous that one has to study whole of Brahmasutra to understand this specific issue. The “discouragement” is because of not having a clue where to start looking to find an answer to my doubt. The “disbelief” is because of not being convinced that aparoksha and vishvarupa darshana are two different things, considering that no such thing is indicated in the subcommentaries.

KT: The sub commentaries are not there to indicate what is not true or what things are different. There is no limit to such statements. For ex, just as you misunderstood that aparoxa and vishvarUpa darshana are same, there are quite a few who misunderstood that seeing the Lord (be as avatAra as well) is aparoxa. They asked me “Aren't all those people who saw Lord Rama and Lord Krishna (during their incarnation) aparoxa j~nAnis? They saw the Lord directly.” Your answer to them may be “No. Seeing the Lord's vishvarUpa is aparoxa, but not seeing Lord Rama or Lord Krishna (otherwise Duryodhana will become an aparoxaj~nAni)”. Then they will ask you the same question - “Where is it mentioned that seeing Lord Rama or Lord Krishna is not aparoxa?”

What answer do you have for them?

While they didn't think that seeing Lord Rama or Lord Krishna is the only form of aparoksha, they did think that it is one form or instance of it. With their understanding, they must have also thought that they understood it all correctly, until I negated them.

Which part of the scriptures negate their thinking?

The difference between the two situations is that aparoksha j~nAna is a prerequisite for vishvarUpa darshana, while it is not so for seeing Lord Rama or Lord Krishna (during their incarnation).

One thing that Madhvacharya wishes to establish is that Arjuna is an aparokSha-j~nAni. For this, he quotes from Vishvarupa darshanam. So Vishvarupa darshanam is supposed to indicate Arjuna's aparokShaj~nAnitva from the Gita itself.

KT: Let me give an example. A special scanner is put upat the entrance of a hall, which lets only those, who have a metal screw inserted surgically inside their knee. If X is in the hall, then you conclude that X has metal screw in his knee. Your knowledge of the scanner alone is sufficient for you to conclude that. You don't have to cut open his knee to verify that. If you claim that you can't see the screw, then you have to cut open his knee.

Having the screw in the knee itself is not same as being inside the hall. There are so many others, who have screws in their knees, but who have not come to the hall. You cannot even say “being in the hall” is one form of having the screw in the knee.

If Vishvarupa darshana itself is not aparoksha, but it only implies that Arjuna must have had aparoksha before, then how is Arjuna's aparokShaj~nAnitva established from the Gita itself?

KT: If Vishvarupa darshana itself is aparoksha, where and how is it established from the Gita itself?

It is necessary to differentiate between sAdhana and sAdhya and similarly kAraNa and kArya.

They are not the same as all aparoxaj~nAnis did not have Vishvarupa darshana. However, all those who had Vishvarupa darshana are aparoxaj~nAnis (or else it is ridiculous to think that it can be some lucky dip).

The inference “Vishvarupa-darshana = Aparoksha” is unsubstantiated in the Gita if the two are different.

KT: The inference “Vishvarupa-darshana (V) = Aparoksha (A)”is even more unsubstantiated in the Gita.

Quite contrarily, by logic itself “V is different from A” (as there are many who had the latter and did not have the former).

Then there are following possibilities.

1. V = A

2. A = V

3. They have no connection.

My reasoning power, examples and understanding of Gita helps me to arrive at the conclusion that only 1 is true.

For this, if one has to look at Brahmasutras, then one might as well just say through a single quote that Arjuna is a j~nAni because BhAgavata says that. Why go through quoting something from Gita which in turn requires consultation from Brahmasutras?

KT: You got it wrong. The consultation from Brahmasutras is to confirm that the understanding that resulted from Gita is correct. So, all those who quote them are implying the ”samanvaya bhAva”.

In the above example, the knowledge of the scanner is enough to conclude that those in the hall have screws.

For those, who don't understand that, the need to cut open the knee is there.

On the other hand, if vishvarupa darshana itself is an instance of aparoksha, then the very Gita verse “dR^iShTavAn asi” proves aparoksha,

KT: On what basis are you saying “dR^iShTavAn asi = aparoksha”

In fact, look at your own statement. “A proves B” does not have to imply “A = B”.

“The person is in the hall proves that he has the screw”.

You are getting mixed up between implication and equation and also between two different senses of “seeing”.

For ex, if someone says “I see good in him”, you can't take the physical meaning of “seeing” there. Here it is “I know about the goodness in him”.

When one says “I see this building in front of me”, it is about physical seeing.

I still do not see any pramANas to indicate that this is not the case.

KT: In fact you are self-contradicting by mixing up”A proves B” with “A = B”.

The rest will be answered separately.

Otherwise it will be too much of verbiage to say what things are not true.

At the same time, since there is scope for me to feel that Vishvarupa darshana is an instance of aparokSha-j~nAna after reading these verses from Gita

KT: Gita is not meant to cater for each individual.

What is the difference between them?

KT: We went thru that several times and several ways.

if parokSha, aparokSha j~nAna and mokSha are to be shown as dependent on bhakti, how does Krishna's statements “ananyayA bhaktyA aham evam vidhaH tattvena j~nAtum draShTum praveShTum cha shakyaH” made in the context of vishvarupa-darshana establish that?

KT: Very simple. “tadbhaktitAratamyena tAratamyaM vimuktigaM”.

The more the bhakti, the more the paroxaj~nAna, aparoxaj~nAna and moxa Ananda. Though Aparoxaj~nAna is not same as seeing VishvarUpa, the latter implies presence of the former. Without any external tools, one translates above as “Oh Parantapa, thru ananya bhakti alone, I can this way be known thru tattva, seen and entered.”

What pramANa is there to say it is?

“ananyayA bhaktyA aham evam vidhaH tattvena j~nAtum draShTum praveShTum cha shakyaH”

followed by Nyayadipika and Raghavendra Swami's usage of “parokSha-aparokSha” for “j~nAtum” and “draShTum”.

KT: Then you have contradicted yourself by saying “Arjuna never had ananyabhakti as he treated Krishnaas mere friend and even when he chose Krishna, he chose because Krishna is famous”.

“It is possible to see VishvarUpa thru anayabhaktionly”

“Arjuna saw the vishvarUpa”. These just don't add up.

Otoh, the above means that paroxaj~nAna, aparoxaj~nAna and mukti are all under Lord's control. You don't equate “ananya bhakti” as “being under Lord's control”.

From “ananya bhakti alone”, you conclude that they areall “under Lord's control”. Same way, you don't equate “seeing vishvarUpa” and “aparoxaj~nAna”. From “seeingvishvarUpa” you conclude that “Arjuna had aparoxaj~nAna”.

KT: This understanding is very critical. All this is evident from Gita and it commentaries as well. The external sources are for reinforcing this only.

did not hesitate to think that Arjuna's aparoksha j~nAna ceased with the ceasing of ability to see vishvarupa. That surely is a pitfall. The question here is “what is the pramANa that Arjuna was an aparokSha-j~nAni”; for that, the verses pertaining to vishvarupa-darshana are given (”darshayAmAsa..”, etc) – this is meant to prove the point from within the Gita itself. So regardless of whether or not Arjuna was an aparokSha-j~nAni before the Gita, the vishvarupa-darshana makes him an aparokSha-j~nAni.

KT: Small correction. The vishvarupa-darshana * marks *him as an aparokSha-j~nAni.

If Arjuna was not an aparokSha-j~nAni before and he did not have anayabhakti, but treated Krishna as mere friend and wanted Krishna with him because Krishna was famous, then Krishna must have the flaw of partiality to bestow this special favor to Arjuna for no reason at all!

..it now becomes “since vishvarupa-darshana would have produced aparokSha-j~nAna in Arjuna, regardless of whether he had aparokSha-j~nAna before or not, he was surely an aparokSha-j~nAni after vishvarupa- darshanam. Vishvarupa-darshana is an event that generated aparokSha-j~nAna. This is established from the Gita itself.”

KT: Certainly not, because this leads to many logical flaws.

Why did Krishna show this special favor to Arjuna? A non-aparoxin with no anaynya bhakti being preferred to other aparoxins and those with ananya bhakti?

implies that Indra was not an aparoxaj~nani to start with, which means the whole system is broken, since a non-aparoxaj~nAni has been appointed for the post of Indra.

The fact that a non-aparokShaj~nAni has been appointed as devatA may break the dvaita system, but considering that other schools do not have such a tenet (that only aparokSha-j~nAnis are appointed as devatAs), I do not see how a consequence of “breaking the system” can be used as an argument

KT: How can a “non dvaita” source be used to establish the ”lines of Gita tAtparya”, which is really a dvaita view?

Even if we look at any source, the interpretation of it is going to be dvaita perspective only, because that is a perfectly logical flow. This is universally true.

Let us take two hypothetical situations:

1. Use Dvaita sources and Dvaita interpretation to establish a non-Dvaita school of thought.

2. Use non-Dvaita sources and non-Dvaita interpretation to establish a Dvaita school of thought.

If 1 happens, then it indicates that that dvaita thought is broken.

If 2 happens, then it indicates that that non-dvaita thought is broken.

I do not know what you are trying to achieve, by bringing in gIta tAtparya, but asking not to use dvaita, but go from non-dvaita school point of view? That is like riding two different horses, that too going in opposite direction.

The question of whether or not Arjuna was an aparokSha-j~nAni before vishvarupa-darshana is an irrelevant question, since even if he was not an aparokSha-j~nAni before, how does it matter?

KT: Why not? That is what establishes “adhikAri, anadhikAri” situation. Lok at 11-53 and 54.

It does not impact the validity of the one-line Gita Tatparya.

KT: It does very much. Note “sAxAdindrAvatAram\-uttamAdhikAriNaM..”.

Where did it this uttamAdhikAritva come from?

Then they will ask you the same question - “Where is it mentioned that seeing Lord Rama or Lord Krishna is not aparoxa?”

In the Gita itself, in 4.35 – yena j~nAtvA asheShANi bhUtAni Atmani drakShyasi atha u mayi.

KT: It does not say any thing about avatAras.

Since seeing God in a human form like Rama and Krishna does not satisfy this realisation, seeing Lord Rama and Lord Krishna does not generate aparokSha.

KT: Where is the word aparoxa? Seeing avatAras may not give that realization, but may give another aspect, which can be called different kind of aparoxa.

This kind of vitaNDavAda can go on, which is wrong.

.. as SK Bhavani points out, since these words are prophetic in the light of what Arjuna saw …

KT: Even those words do not equate the two, as you claimed.

it is natural to believe that Vishvarupa generates aparokSha.

KT: One cannot go by belief, but by proper pramANas.

What answer do you have for them? I will point them to Gita itself.

KT: Same thing. To see that the vishva rUpa darshan did not generate aparoxa, I also point to Gita itself.

Let me give an example. A special scanner is put up at the entrance of a hall, which lets only those,

This example is an analogy from your own side to indicate that A = B does not mean A = B.

KT: Same way V = that Arjuna already had A and he was uttamAdhikAri.

If Vishvarupa darshana itself is aparoksha, where and how is it established from the Gita itself?

From the description of aparokSha in 4.35, and from the description of vishvarupa-darshana in 11.13. They match.

KT: Read them again.

“yajj~nAtva...draxyasi...”.

Knowing which,...you will see..”.

So, knowing thru aparoxa precedes seeing. So, they are different.

The following is a quote from SK Bhavani (page 175 of his book on Gita) from his explanation of 4.35:

“The sense in which according to Madhva the whole universe rests on Brahman and is so experienced by a real Jnani, is fully borne out by what is stated in the Vishvarupa adhyAya regarding Arjuna's own experience - (11.13)”

KT: Read the above from the above angle (First knowing and then seeing).

Even if this is true, the fact is that it is not something from within the Gita itself. But what I said about vishvarupa-darshana creating aparokShaj~nAna can be argued from Gita itself, as shown above.

KT: Not at all. From Gita itself, one can see the difference.

Because Krishna also adds “dR^iShTavAn asi mAm yathA, ananyayA bhaktyA aham evam vidhaH tattvena j~nAtum draShTum cha shakyaH.” Please note the word “tattvena”.

KT: Already explained above.

Gita is not meant to cater for each individual.

I didn't understand this reply. Is it not the case that a proper commentary on the Gita should handle all the different doubts that may arise from reading the Gita?

KT: If that were true, since the commentaries are there, no one should ever have the doubts. There is no need for any teacher anywhere. The commentaries alone should suffice. The commentaries are only one of the tools. Grace of the Lord is the main tool, which shows up as individual capacity, opportunities given thru many means, etc. Those are very critical as well.

Is it not the case that Vishvarupa darshana is interpreted in different ways by different schools? Then surely a proper discussion about the nature of vishvarupa darshana is very much expected of a commentary, …

KT: So also there are many interpretations for many vedic statements and “proper discussions” have been taking place for centuries (at least that we can gauge) and how much effect those had on so many people that did not have the special grace of the Lord.

I did not see any pramANa quoted on this issue. While you proposed a change in my understanding of what the definition of aparokSha-j~nAna is, the question remains about why vishvarupa-darshana does not generate aparokSha-j~nAna, given the similarity between the description of aparokSha-j~nAna in 4.35 and vishvarupa darshana in 11.13.

KT: You yourself answered that (extracted from same mail)

If I say that devotion to physics is absolutely essential to become a Physics professor at a Rank 1 university, it does not imply that devotion to physics is absolutely essential to pass high school physics exam. Becoming a physics professor (vishvarupa-darshana) is a very high achievement, and what is required to attain it may not be the same as what is required to attain something that is much inferior in comparison (aparokSha-j~nAna).

KT: No one would say “Becoming a physics professor (vishvarupa-darshana)” generated passing high school physics exam (something that is much inferior in comparison (aparokSha-j~nAna))!

Everyone that passed high school exam does not become a physics professor as much as everyone who had aparokSha-j~nAna would get vishvarupa-darshana.

If it is not an instance of generation of aparokSha-j~nAna, there is a flaw in your inference of saying (S1) “ananya-bhakti is required for vishvarupa-darshana” implies (S2) “ananya-bhakti is required for aparokSha-j~nAna”.

How does S1 = S2 follow from Krishna's words?

KT: Your understanding is flawed. I never said S1 = S2.

Ananya-bhakti is required for vishvarupa-darshana and also ananya-bhakti is required for aparokSha-j~nAna.

In fact, I mentioned that I have heard shAstra-pATha lectures by Bannanje Govindacharya on this section, …

KT: That would not suffice either. If you get a doubt listening to a lecture from a noted scholar, the best way to clear it is to directly ask the scholar a specific question (like in this case “did Arjuna's jIva have aparoxa j~nAna before seeing the VishvarUpa or not?”).

Also, at the very outset, I wish to point out that it is your understanding of the words of Sri Jayatirtha, Rayaru, Dr. Bhavani, and Sri Bannanje that is wrong and there is no indication of what you claim in their words. Any person, who has gone thru methodical study for a couple of years, would never think that Arjuna's jIva did not have aparoxa j~nAna before seeing the VishvarUpa and vishvarUpadarshana is blatantly equal to aparoxaj~nAna.

... from reading the Gita: which are fundamental in nature

KT: That is precisely the point. The fundamental error in thinking that Arjuna's jIva did not have aparoxa j~nAna before seeing the VishvarUpa is what we are trying to correct. You are asking for pramANas like a mother who has a child in the arms is asking for the child. “sAxAdindrAvatArabhUtatva” of Arjuna is enough pramANa.

I did not find any hint that the two are separate from the subcommentaries, and even Bannanje Govindacharya explains the “arjunasya aparokSha-j~nAnitvam” by saying that Arjuna himself saw the parama-aishvarya rUpa of the Lord (darshayAmAsa pArthAya..).

KT: You don't need any sub commentaries for that. What Sri Bannanje meant also is what is indicated in the following:

http://tinyurl.com/2hc68c

..quoted SK Bhavani's statements which were very clear in what they said.

KT: Yes, they are clear and indicate what is in the above url.

On what basis should I doubt this connection then?

KT: You discard 'this connection' using the simple logical connection given in the above url.

... the availability of commentaries and the shAstra-pATha lectures of Bannanje to be one such opportunity.

KT: This is an indication that availability of opportunities does not guarantee correct understanding.

I have understood vishvarupa-darshana to be an example of producing high-quality aparokSha-j~nAna, which you are asking me to reject, and for which I am eagerly waiting to know the basis.

KT: Initially you equated vishvarupa-darshana with aparokSha-j~nAna.

Now you are bringing an additional qualifier “high-quality” and also changing from an equation to “one producing the other”.

I am not sure what your current position is wrt

S1. Arjuna's jIva did not have aparoxa j~nAna before seeing the VishvarUpa.

S2. vishvarUpadarshana is blatantly equal to aparoxaj~nAna.

My statement above was meant to say that if my understanding of the dvaita subcommentaries on this section is wrong, and if Bannanje Govindacharya's way of explaining the aparokSha-j~nAnitvam of Arjuna (or you may call it the way I understood it) is also flawed, then I am really surprised that no one has given any pramANa so far to explain that they are different (including yourself).

KT: The surprise is all ours, since the simple pramANa that Arjuna is sAxAd indrAvatAra and a simple logical thinking as given in the above url is not visible to you.

I am also seeing that SK Bhavani connects . ..

KT: That is again your wrong understanding. No one with basic dvaita understanding will say S1 and S2 are true.

The example I gave was taking your assumptions – IF vishvarupa-darshana is like becoming a physics professor, and IF aparokSha-j~nAna is like passing a high-school physics exam, THEN emphasising that ananya-bhakti is required for vishvarupa-darshana does not establish that ananya-bhakti is required for aparokSha-j~nAna.

KT: Again you are missing the point. It is not the same amount of hard work that is needed for high-school physics exam and physics professor. Same way, it is not the same amount of ananya-bhakti. If there is physics professor, the claim is that he has enough knowledge to pass high-school physics exam. It is ridiculous to conclude that every high-school physics passer is a physics professor.

..the very thing that... Jayatirtha sees as ... being established.. . something wrong with Jayatirtha's claim. .. with the original assumptions.

KT: I don't know what original assumptions are and what you claim as Sri Jayatirtha is claiming, but certainly he never said that S1 and S2 are true.

The assumption that vishvarupa-darshana is like becoming a physics professor, while aparokSha-j~nAna is like passing a high school physics exam itself is flawed,

KT: It seems flawed to you because you are missing the point completely. The analogy is only to the extent of what is conveyed in the above url. You cannot take it to more than that. Every aparoxajnAni is not fortunate to see the VishvarUpa. Every one who sees Vishvarupa must have been an aparoxaj~nAni. How can S1 and S2 be true?

since my position is that vishvarupa-darshana itself is an event that generates high-grade aparokSha-j~nAna.

KT: Let us call the above position of yours (* P1 *).

After starting position of blatant equality, finally you have come to see the point that vishvarupa-darshana is an event. You also came to the point that there is “grading” in aparoxaj~nana. Still you are stuck in [S1, S2] or somewhere there.

The analogy was given w.r.t your position, not my position.

KT: The surprising thing is that even after the analogy, you don't see the problem with your position. Also that is becoming hazy now. Why hazy? See below.

According to my position, the analogy would be something like this:

Vishvarupa-darshana-aparokSha-j~nAna is like realized knowledge of Ph.D physics dawning upon the student by the grace of the teacher,

KT: Nothing dawns upon anyone just like that. One has to work for that. If not the flaw of partiality will be there to the teacher. Also, every one can just wait for a similar miracle to happen. Why work hard? Let it dawn!

Also, your example is flawed, in the sense there are no two things here – one event and the other knowledge.

Let us take your own position P1.

What generated the “realized knowledge of Ph.D physics”?

and non-vishvarupa-aparokSha-j~nAna is like realized knowledge of high school physics dawning.

KT: You already changed your position – blatant equality of vishvarUpa and aparoxa j~nAna. So, now you realized that there can be aparoxa j~nAnis, who have not seen vishvarUpa.

I don't know what your current position is. Do you still believe that S1 and S2 are true?

And by showing that the student was given knowledge of Ph.D physics, it directly follows that he can be called an aparokSha-physicist. Whether or not he previously had another aparokSha-experience where high-school physics knowledge was first given to him is irrelevant.

KT: That is very much relevant.

The very fact that this later realization was such a high-grade realization is sufficient to show that 1. He deserved that knowledge (which is why the qualified teacher gave it to him).

KT: Why and how did he deserve that?

2. He can be called a “realized-physicist” (or aparokSha-physicist).

KT: What generated this “realized knowledge of Ph.D physics”?

My position is that everyone who had lower-grade aparokSha-j~nAna does not get high-grade aparokSha-j~nAna (that Arjuna got by Vishvarupa-darshana).

KT: The above url did say that every aparoxaj~nAni does not get vishvarUpadarshana. To get around you brought in this lower-grade and high-grade. First of all it is vague. Secondly this still does not help you as in the above words, you are saying “Arjuna got high-grade aparokSha-j~nAna” by Vishvarupa-darshana.

Firstly this position is also wrong. Secondly it contradicts your own position (causing apasiddhAnta).

No one says “X gets A by B”, when A and B or blatantly equal.

The right contrast should be between two different “grades of aparokSha-j~nAna” itself, not between aparokSha-j~nAna and vishvarupa-darshana-janita-j~nAna, because the latter j~nAna also is a high-grade aparokSha-j~nAna only.

KT: You already changed your position. Earlier you were equating darshana with j~nAna. Now you are equating “j~nAna” with “j~nAna”. Definitely j~nAna keeps increasing.

With VishvarUpa darshana, the j~nAna atishaya does happen. This does not mean that Arjuna did not have aparoxa j~nAna prior to VishvarUpa darshana.

And because it is high-grade aparokSha-j~nAna only, Arjuna's realization in 11th chapter directly shows that he is an aparokSha-j~nAni.

KT: As the above url says, Arjuna was an aparoxa j~nani prior to vishvarUpa darshana and this darshana gave him atishaya j~nAna and that is what Tikarayaru and Rayaru explained in precise terms.

If it is not an instance of generation of aparokSha-j~nAna, there is a flaw in your inference of saying (S1) “ananya-bhakti is required for vishvarupa-darshana” implies (S2) “ananya-bhakti is required for aparokSha-j~nAna”.

How does S1 = S2 follow from Krishna's words?

Your understanding is flawed. I never said S1 = S2.

Jayatirtha has said that S2 is established from 11.53-54. By separating vishvarupa-darshana-janita- j~nAna from aparokSha-j~nAna,

KT: Again wrong understanding. You were equating VishvarUpadarshana (event) with aparoxaj~nAna. Realizing the flaw partailly, now you are saying “vishvarupa-darshana-janitaj~nAna”. No one is saying that VishvarUpa darshana does not generate any j~nAna. Your very basic understanding that Arjuna was not aparoxaj~nAni before that is wrong.

Your understanding that darshana itself is aparoxa j~nAnais wrong. I separated darshana with j~nAna. I said that aparoxaj~nAna is a prerequisite for darshana; yet every aparoxaj~nAni can't have it. While many aparoxa j~nAnis can't have that darshana, it is ridiculous to say that Arjuna was not an aparoxin and yet he had that darshana.

your position entails that Krishna has established S1.

KT: You got my position itself wrong. Is there any doubt that S1 is true? Is there any doubt that S2 is true? Both S1 and S2 are true. There is no question of either implying the other. Your very approach is not right (Don't even to try to make an effort to say S1 = S2 or S2 = S1. They are both true by their own merits). Only implication is that -

“Arjuna had vishvarUpadarshana = Arjuna was aparoxaj~nAni prior to that and his j~nAna has become atishaya (increased) after that”.

Since S1 = S2 remains unestablished, either you have to compromise on Jayatirtha's claim about S2 being established (which would also make Krishna's words restrictive since ordinary humans can never get to see vishvarupa, so whether or not ananya-bhakti is required for vishvarupa-darshana or not is totally irrelevant for me, as I want aparokSha-j~nAna for mokSha), or your assumptions about S1 and S2 being fundamentally different statements has to be changed.

ananya-bhakti is required for vishvarupa-darshana and also ananya-bhakti is required for aparokSha-j~nAna. Given your position, only the former is based on Gita.

The latter remains unestablished.

KT: Read Gitavivritti – tatvena j~nAtuM ... for verse 11.54.

Also, you wanted an explicit quote for the aparoxaj~nAna of Arjuna. At the same time you are hung up between things like “from Gita itself”, “from mahabharata itself”,”from dvaita commentaries”, “from sources that non-dvaita people can accept”, etc. I am not sure what is acceptable to you and what is not.

I can give a quote from the words of our Acharya, which he quoted from skanda purANa in Bhagavata-tAtparya-nirNaya:

“droNadrauNikR^ipAH pArthA bhIshmo vidurasanjayau |ye chAnye tatra devAmshAH samyak.h tattvAparoxinaH ||”

“DroNa, AshvatthAma, kR^ipAchArya, pANDava-s, Bhishma,Vidura, Sanjaya and all others, who are devAmshas are great tattva-aparoxins.”

In light of this, saying that Tikacharyaru and Rayaru went against the words of our Acharya is unthinkable.

KT: Couple of clarifications. I named the following as S1 and S2,and that notation was also used by Sri Omkar Deshpande to denote some other statements.

S1. Arjuna's jIva did not have aparoxa j~nAna before seeing the VishvarUpa.

S2. VishvarUpadarshana is blatantly equal to aparoxaj~nAna.

KT: Let us call the above as K1 and K2.

K1. Arjuna's jIva did not have aparoxa j~nAna before seeing the VishvarUpa.

K2. vishvarUpadarshana is blatantly equal to aparoxaj~nAna.

This is to avoid confusion from the other pair (S1, S2) used by Sri Omkar to denote some other statements.

No one with basic dvaita understanding will say S1 and S2 are true.

KT: Should read “No one with ...will say K1 and K2 are true.”

I don't know what original assumptions are and what you claim as Sri Jayatirtha is claiming, but certainly he never said that S1 and S2 are true.

KT: Should read “I don't know...never said that K1 and K2 are true.”

Every one who sees Vishvarupa must have been an aparoxaj~nAni. How can S1 and S2 be true?

KT: Should read “Every one... K1 and K2 be true?”

Still you are stuck in [S1, S2] or somewhere there.

KT: Should read “Still...in [K1, K2] or somewhere there.”

I don't know what your current position is. Do you still believe that S1 and S2 are true?

KT: Should read “I don't know...believe that K1 and K2 are true?”

The following came in as what I wrote. The following are from Sri Omkar's mail/statements.

Since S1 = S2 remains unestablished, either you have to compromise on Jayatirtha's claim about S2 being established (which would also make Krishna's words restrictive since ordinary humans can never get to see vishvarupa, so whether or not ananya-bhakti is required for vishvarupa-darshana or not is totally irrelevant for me, as I want aparokSha-j~nAna for mokSha), or your assumptions about S1 and S2 being fundamentally different statements has to be changed.

KT: I already mentioned that the above whole approach itself is wrong.

since my position is that vishvarupa-darshana itself is an event that generates high-grade aparokSha-j~nAna.

Let us call the above position of yours (* P1 *).

After starting position of blatant equality, finally you have come to see the point that vishvarupa-darshana is an event.

The gradation of aparoxa-j~nAna as ``high grade'' and ``low grade'' is utterly fallacious and without basis;

KT: Not only that. The very position P1 is also wrong for two reasons. One is the arbitrariness of the grade. Secondly the very basis that it generated aparoxa means that it was not there before, which is against the pramANas.

1 There is no anvaya-vyApti; I.e., there is no rule, ``Wherever the vishvarUpa-darshana is given, there aparoxa-j~nAna occurs.'' Duryodhana and his brothers may be cited as counter-examples.

KT: I don't think that Duryodhana and his brothers had theVishvarUpadarshana. It is said in Mahabharata:

nyamIliyanta netrANi rAjAnastrastachetasaH |R^ite droNam cha bhIshmaM cha viduraM cha mahAmatim.h |

All the ineligible ones closed their eyes.

Also as stated in the earlier mail from you, the following is true :

“The implication here is in one direction only, I.e., that someone is given the vishvarUpa-darshana implies that said someone is an aparoxa-j~nAnI. To have an equation the reverse also needs to be true, I.e., an aparoxa-j~nAnI should always see the vishvarUpa, which is absurd.”

However it is true that there is no anvayavyApti. The reason is “one who gets vishvarUpadarshana should already have been aparoxaj~nAni. So the question of getting aparoxaj~nAna from vishvarUpadarshana does not arise.”

Please note that here, I am taking “sarvam cha etat atra eva avagamyate; na pramANAntaram anveShaNIyam” literally.

KT: The first half indicates that it is possible to understand the points made in sanxipta tAtparya from Gita itself. The second half confirms that for mere understanding of it, there is no need for other pramANas.

It does not mean that other pramANa-s are not needed at all, as is evident from various quotes of Acharya.

The understanding comes from inside and the support can come from outside. You have to know the difference between “avagamyate”(can be understood) and “nirUpyate”(will be proven).

I am taking it literally,

KT: That is perfectly fine. By the same rules, when you can take and wants to take the literal meaning of Acharya, you should also take the literal meaning of the interpretation of Acharya's commentary.

1. Acharya says in sanxipta tAtparya that Arjunais sAxAdindravatAri.

2. In showing where from this understanding can arise he quotes “sudurshamidam...rUpamaishvaram.h” and then “ityAdinA arjunasya uttamAdhikAritvaMaproxaj~nAnitvaM cha”.

3. Acharya says that Arjuna was born with DaivIsampat itself.

Now here you want to take “daivIsampat” as interpreted by other schools, which means you are violating your own set rules of taking the literal meaning of AchArya's statements.

From Acharya's flow of arguments, 3 indicatesthat Arjuna was devata and aparoxaj~nAni prior to VishvarUpadarshana and that is why LordKrishna showed that to Arjuna.

... then you have already stepped outside the boundary of the Gita, and thus violated the above statement.

KT: By giving non-dvaita interpretation for part of Gita as quoted by Acharya, you have violated the rule of taking the literal meaning of Acharya's statements.

1. Stepping outside to use a concept that is non-controversial and accepted across all schools.

2. Stepping aside to use a concept that is controversial and accepted only in dvaita.

KT: There are two possibilities even staying inside Gita itself:

A. Staying within Gita to use a concept that is non-controversial and accepted across all schools.

B. Staying within Gita to use a concept that is controversial and accepted only in dvaita.

Should one go by A or by B?

If we have to go by A, then we have no other choice, but to take some neo vedantic and politically correct path. If we go by B, then we are bound to be a target to a criticism of “narrow outlook”.

Then what choice are we left with? A person, who wants to be in a universally acceptable umbrella has no problem staying inside or outside. A person who wants a “scripturally universal” position also has no problem staying inside or outside Gita.

A person who is neither here nor there by conviction can also be neither inside Gita happily nor outside Gita happily.

Perhaps 1 may be overlooked by advaitins. 2 is even more contentious and non-permissible than 1, because advaitins do not accept Arjuna or Indra as aparokSha-j~nAnis.

KT: Is the goal to convince an Advaitin or a non-Advaitin?Is it to convince one who believes in Acharya or does not believe in Acharya?

The example of an Indra teaching someone in one Upanishad could possibly be some other Indra – what is to say it is the same Indra in the Mahabharata time?

KT: Let it be any Indra. According to Dvaita all the Indras are aparoxaj~nAnis. According to those, who are opposed to it, none of them is.

Not only do they reject Arjuna's status as a j~nAni before vishvarupa-darshana, but they do not even consider vishvarupa-darshana to be anything more than a mystical experience of a saguNa-Ishvara, and Arjuna as not more than a madhyama-adhikAri.

KT: Precisely the point. That being the case, how prudent will it be to make an effort to stay inside Gita and convince a non-dvaitin?

If the entire canon of Dvaita commentaries cannot convince an Advaitin, how can one expect just the literal meaning of Gita alone to convince the Advaitin thru the window of Dvaita ?

By showing that Arjuna saw vishvarupa-darshana, which is an instance of generation of aparokSha itself (4.35 vs 11.13), Madhvacharya effectively establishes the j~nAni status of Arjuna from Gita itself.

KT: That is looking upside down. Madhvacharya effectively established the j~nAni status of Arjuna from Gita itself by many means and one of them is that his eligibility for VishvarUpa darshana. It did not generate aparoxa, but it established that he is an aparoxin.

The moment you say that vishvarupa-darshana is not generating aparokSha-j~nAna, then the fact is that you have no way to show that Arjuna was a j~nAni based on Gita itself.

KT: The moment you say that vishvarupa-darshana generated aparokSha-j~nAna, that was not there at all, then the fact is that you have no

way to show either from Gita or outside of it the reason for the Lord showing this special favor to Arjuna ? Is it from what he did in that birth

or prior births?

You may argue

1. He has “sakhyarasa”.

2. Lord likes sakhyarasa.

3. So He granted aparoxa.

But none of these can be established either from Gita or outside. Arjuna told apologetically that he treated the Lord as friend (if one goes by literal meanings.)

You may argue that

1. Only a few high-class aparokSha-j~nAnis can get vishvarupa-darshana.

2. No non-aparokShin can get vishvarUpa-darshana.

3. Indra (of the Mahabharata) is an aparokSha-j~nAni.

4. When Indra incarnates as an aMsha, the aMsha also always has aparokSha-j~nAna.

but neither of these statements can be established from Gita.

KT: One can perceive those arguments by seeing what Acharya told in tAtparya by quoting “sudurshamidam...

rUpamaishvaram.h”, and the commentaries therein.

In fact, they can't be established even from the current Mahabharata.

KT: They can be understood from Gita itself. They can be established from elsewhere. If it is obvious in Gita itself, the Lord would not have told “iti guhyatamaMshAstramidamuktaM mayAnagha”.

So the fact is that an advaitin will still say that Arjuna's status as a j~nAni remains unproven.

KT: It will always be unproven for an Advaitin. For one who sees it, the proof is all over. For one who does not see, no amount of proof is sufficient.

At least the “sarvam cha etat atra eva avagamyate” would stand invalid, for them.

KT: That is because the very basic word is misunderstood.

This quote isn't from within the “sarvam cha etat atra eva avagamyate” section. There, Jayatirtha says “na pramANAntaram anveShaNIyam”. How do you understand that statement?

KT: Very simple. As mentioned above, for mere understanding of it, other pramANas are not needed. Note the difference between

understanding and establishing.

All those pramANas are from outside the Gita (and disputed by advaitins).

KT: Acharya's quotes are from Gita. The advaitins dispute both inside and outside the Gita. What is the difference?

What then does “sarvam cha etat atra eva avagamyate; na pramANAntaram anveShaNIyam” mean to you? We should settle this first.

KT: That has been explained in detail in the above parts.

At the same time, I thought that there is something called sAmAnya aparokSha, and visheSha aparokSha, wherein a j~nAni having sAmAnya aparokSha can get visheSha aparokSha. What I mean by high-grade aparokSha is visheSha aparokSha, and what I mean by low-grade aparokSha is sAmAnya aparokSha. It is very well possible that again, someone may nitpick my definition of sAmAnya and visheSha,

KT: There is no need to nitpick. However this kind of interpretation does not come either from Gita or from Mahabharata or from any other source.

1. There may be multiple events of aparokSha for a person over time. The basis for this is Narada's own example from BhAgavata where he was told that he would not be able to further see the form of the Lord in that particular life (indicating that there can be multiple events of God-realisation).

KT: No. That is a wrong understanding. To properly understand such statements (and also the statement of Arjuna that he treated Krishna as

mere friend),one must read the commentary of Acharya on the occasion when Vidura says to Maitreya that he does not have j~nAna -

“Atmanastu guNAbhAvaM vadato na tvasastyatA |apR^shhTasya damArthaM cha guNAyaiva bhavatyapi ||

vidyamAnamapi anubhavaM anyathA vadati viduraH |”(quoted from VyasasmR^iti)

The gods say that they lack j~nAna, etc. even if they don't lack. They still don't incur sins, because the purpose behind their such statements is many, like dama or vinaya or a desire to get firmness of knowledge, etc.

2. Later aparokSha events would add something more to a jIva's knowledge than earlier aparokSha events (otherwise there would be no new knowledge generated by the later events, and the distinction between sAmAnya-aparokSha and visheSha-aparokSha would break down).

KT: There is no need for such categorization at all. Until they reach their peak, their knowledge can increase.

That in no way prevents Arjuna having Aparoxa.

3. The fact that a later aparokSha event is described in the Gita is sufficient by itself to prove Arjuna as an aparokSha-j~nAni (which is the main point of contention with rival schools like advaita who do not accept Arjuna as aparokSha-j~nAni).

KT: There is no usage of the word “aparoxa” even in Gita.

One has to resort to commentaries only even for that.

So one may argue – well Arjuna got some more knowledge seeing VishvarUpa, but he did not get aparoxa even after seeing VishvarUpa. This is because it is not mentioned in Gita!

... but if I am going to accept only the Gita, there is no way to show that Arjuna had aparokSha earlier.

KT: And likewise there is no way to show that he had it even after VishvarUpa!

You had pointed out that Arjuna says “smritiH labdhA”.

There can be a debate about what all comes under that “smriti” -

KT: That is strange. At the end of Krishna's teaching Arjuna says these words, what will it point to? If X tells Y a detailed incident and at the end Y says “now I remember and all my doubts are gone”, would any one say that Y is not referring to that incident at all. Please read that entire verse rather than looking at those two words.

To say that it was just his bhakti-bhAva and those words are not to be taken literally is again adding something that is not there in the Gita.

KT: Why would Gita say a sentence and then say “don't take it literally”? It is “shAstrasamanvaya” that teaches such a concept. If not, it will all be a medley of thoughts.

... unless you consider these examples as a relationship of sakhya-rasa between God and His devotees (as is done by Gaudiyas), it is unconvincing to set aside his words in Gita as just a humble outpouring of bhakti-bhAva.

KT: It is even more unconvincing to think that he did not have such outpouring of bhakti. Think of so many other instances, where he showed tremendous devotion.

Literally taken, they indicate that Arjuna never had realised Krishna to be so majestic when he was shown the vishvarupa, and that is why he begged for forgiveness for his previous behavior.

KT: See the verse 11-3. How did Arjuna know that such ”rUpamaishvaraM” is present? Also note the words of Vidura to Maitreya that I mentioned in the other mail, where, the literal meaning of such expressions should not be taken.

All this discussion is taking place from my side based only on Gita, taking “sarvam cha etat gItAyAm eva avagamyate; na pramANAntaram anveShaNIyam” literally.

KT: You did not even take the above literally. It only means that “it can be understood from Gita itself, but not established.” You completely misunderstood those words. So you are carried away by the wrong interpretation of Gita and lack of support from external pramANas also.

If you take a literal approach, and insist on looking for the word “aparokSha” in the context of vishvarupa, then this word does not appear _anywhere_ in the Gita, so one might as well say that the Gita does not talk about aparokSha-j~nAna at all.

So I am putting forth evidence from Agama (Gita).

KT: How can you? As you pointed out, there is no word aparoxa at all!

In fact, since Duryodhana and other anadhikAris did not get to see vishvarUpa, one can argue the converse also – that vishvarupa-darshana does generate aparokSha-j~nAna which is why they didn't see it.

KT: What a logic?

A. Duryodhana and others are anadhikAris.

B. They did not get to see VishvarUpa.

C. Arjuna is an adhikAri

D. He gets to see VishvarUpa.

E. Arjuna gets aparoxa.

While saying A = B, you can only say C= D. You are concluding D leads to E.

That is false logic and totally un established from this alone.

But 4.35 and 11.13 do match. So either vishvarupa has to be considered as generating aparokSha-j~nAna, or 4.35 has to be deemed as not dealing with aparokSha-j~nAna. The latter option is infeasible since there are many similar verses in the Upanishads (”yaH tu sarvANi bhUtAni Atmani eva anupashyati”)

KT: That is going outside Gita!

So even if aparokSha-j~nAna does not imply vishvarUpa-darshana, it is just like “X is a mammal” does not imply “X is a cat”.

KT: That is perfectly fine. All cats are mammals, but all mammals are not cats. All those who had VishvarUpa darshana were aparoxins, but all aparoxins did not have that. However no one would say, “the cathood generated the mammal hood”.

“The cathood confirmed that it is a mammal also”.

Who is the commonly-accepted example where the vishvarUpa-darshana coincided with the onset of aparoxa? Arjuna's own example, as evidenced by a comparison between 4.35 and 11.13.

KT: The example has to be from elsewhere.

I see two problems with your statements above:

1. On one hand, you say that it is possible to understand the points made in the one-line tAtparya from Gita itself. This is what I say also.

KT: No, You did not say that. You were talking all the time about “establishing”. It is not a question of playing with words. “possible to understand” and “can be established” are poles apart.

But then you bring in extraneous concepts into your understanding, namely: a) All Indra-s are aparokSha-j~nAnis.

b) When Indra's aMsha incarnates on earth in the form of Arjuna, the aMsha Arjuna also has aparokSha-j~nAna.

c) Only some very exalted aparokSha-j~nAnis get to see vishvarupa.

d) No non-aparokSha-j~nAni can see vishvarUpa.

KT: The extraneous elements are brought in because you brought in the extraneous things. You were making the wild imaginations that gods are non-aparoxins, etc. Which cannot also be established from Gita.

These 4 assumptions are an inherent part of your understanding of the two verses from Gita quoted by Madhvacharya in the section “sarvam cha etat atra eva avagamyate”.

KT: Not at all. Gita does not have to say that all Indras are devatas. It is ridiculous to conclude that all Indras are not gods because Gita does not say that they are. Arjuna was born with DaivI sampat. So many others did not get to see. If many aparoxaj~nAnis could not see, by kaimutyanyAya non-aparoxaj~nAnis cannot see.

Thus, your understanding is not purely based on Gita, but also based on external pramANas.

KT: So is your understanding. You are making assumptions based on your understanding.

Please note that I am not saying here that those 4 assumptions are therefore wrong. All I am saying is that they are extraneous to the Gita, and no advaitin will accept claims like “sarvam cha etat atra eva avagamyate; na pramANAntaram tatra anveShaNIyam”.

KT: No one is expecting an adviatin to accept that either.

Even if all upanishads and purANas were physically present Gita, will Advaitins accept Dvaita interpretation? Surely not.

2. You also say “For mere understanding of it, there is no need for external pramANas. It doesn't mean that other pramANas are not needed at all.”

What do you mean by “mere” understanding? What more does a student of Gita want out of the verses besides understanding them?

KT: As mentioned above “there is a big gulf between understanding and establishing”. Understanding is for one's own sake, establishing is for convincing others.

And as mentioned in 1, your mere understanding itself of those verses is based on external pramANas.

KT: Possible. Understanding is based on one's knowledge and ability, which is based on many factors. They all act as catalytic agents.

The understanding comes from inside and the support can come from outside. What is the difference between understanding and support? The fact is that what you call as “support” (the 4 assumptions mentioned above) is part of the understanding itself. You are trying to separate the two by calling them different words, that's all.

KT: If you can't get this basic difference, there is no point in continuing this discussion. They are not just different words. They are poles apart.

Part of your understanding comes from Gita, part of your understanding comes from outside Gita (which you give a different name – 'support'). Your understanding is the “union” of both.

KT: By “support”, I mean what you are calling “establishing”.

For this you need nishchayaj~nAna and that needs other sources and also a good teacher.

You have to know the difference between “avagamyate”(can be understood) and “nirUpyate” (will be proven).

While I am highly sceptical of this word-play between 'understanding' and 'proving' (since nowhere does Madhvacharya use the word “nirUpyate”, neither in this section,

KT: That is precisely the point. It is not word-play, but it is very basic. You are creating a phantom and trying to fight your own imagination. I am really shocked at your approach.

1. Acharya said that “This (sanxipta tAtparya concept)can be understood from Gita itself.”

2. You imagined that Acharya said that “it can be established from Gita itself”. I gave example like “nirUpyate”. You take whatever you want (like upapadyate or pratipadyate or sAdhyate or what ever).

3. When Acharya never used any of those words, why do you keep saying that “Acharya said that it can be established from Gita itself”?

4. Added to that, you don't see the difference between establishing and understanding.

5. Then you fight your own phantom saying that Acharya is wrong because it cannot be established from Gita itself.

6. Then you imagine that I also imagined that phantom and keep searching for the word “nirUpyate”, which is like trying to arrest the phantom.

7. Since Acharya never said that all of this can be established from Gita itself, searching for any of “establish” type of word in this context is futile.

Since vishvarUpa-darshana has nothing to do with aparokSha-j~nAna (as per your position),

KT: That is not at all my position. You got it totally wrong. VishvarUpadarshana proves that he had aparoxaj~nAna.

the only role that those quotes have is to establish Arjuna's devatva. But this is flawed, because look at the way Jayatirtha argues for Arjuna's aparokSha-j~nAnitva:

“sudurdarsham” iti anena aparokSha-j~nAnitvam avagamyate | devaiH saha paThitatvena devatvam cha |

The crucial observation here is: *** “aparokSha-j~nAnitva” and “devatva” are both established in this verse. The darshana part establishes the aparokSha-j~nAnitva (which is mentioned first) and the clubbing of Arjuna with the devatAs establishes the devatva part (mentioned next, with a “cha”).

KT: Read it again. You missed the flow completely.

It is “sudurdarsham”(very difficult to see) [and yet he saw] and from this one can understand his aparokSha-j~nAnitva. “Along with devas, he saw” and from this one can understand his devatva also.

yaduktamarjuno bhagavato.atipriyo.aparoxaj~nAnyuttama\-adhikArI devashcha iti tatkenaavagamyata ityata Aha|

“What is told about Arjuna – Lord's very dear aparoxaj~nAni, uttamAdhikAri and also god – where from can this be understood – for this it is said -'sudurdarshamidamiti'.

This means that the reasoning “devatva = uttama-adhikAritva = aparokSha-j~nAnitva” is dropped here.

KT: No, it is not dropped. It is all there. You don't see it. How did he see a form that is “sudurdarsham”? Because he is an aparoxaj~nAni (must be a special eligible aparoxa j~nAni). Is he just a great aparoxaj~nAni? No, he is also a devata (devaiH saha). This is just based on Gita. Simple. Got it?

Exactly the same thing is true for the other references:

“daivI-sampat” iti devatvam |

If Jayatirtha wanted to follow the reasoning drawn from outside the Gita, he would have used it and said:

“daivI-sampat” iti devatvam aparokSha-j~nAnitvam cha |

KT: What do you mean? After that set of verses Acharyahimself said “ityAdinArjunasyottamAdhikAritvam\- aparoxaj~nAnitvaM cha”

But no, he does not talk about aparokSha-j~nAnitva at all.

KT: Sri Jayatirtha does say “devatvenaivottamAdhikAritvaMchAvagataM” and also “mahAtmana ityananyamanaskatayA bhagavantaM bhajatAM devatvamaparoxaj~nAnitvaM chaavagamyate”... G1

How come you missed such important thing?

Likewise, another statement:

“darshayAmAsa” iti aparokSha-j~nAnitvam |

This too should have been (if what you say is true):

“darshayAmAsa” iti devatvam aparokSha-j~nAnitvam cha |

KT: This is like saying “Mr X has two eyes” does not imply that “Mr X has two legs”. “darshayAmAsa” implies aparokSha-j~nAnitvam does not mean that “darshayAmAsa” does not imply devatvaM. Read the sentence right next to it -

“bhagavadatipriyatvaM devatvaM cheti saMyojyaM”

*** “Very dearness to the Lord and devatva also have to be taken” ***

Thus your above objection gets blown.

If your false understanding that darshan led to aparoxa, then the sentence “mahAtmana...” (G1) becomes meaningless.

“Only the mahatmAs...- by this the devatva and aparoxaj~nAnitva of those who worship the Lord with unswerving mind is understood.”

The devatva and aparoxaj~nAnitva of Arjuna, who worships the Lord with unswerving mind remains uncontested. All this from Gita itself. The other points that you made are direction less and self-contradicting.

There is yet one more thing which goes against your position. The way Jayatirtha transforms the “sAxAt-indra-avatAram” to “devatvam” at the beginning of this section by saying:

“arjunaH devaH” ityAdi etat cha sarvam gItAyAm eva avagamyate | na pramANAntaram tatra anveShaNIyam |

sAxAt-indra-avatAraH, atra devatvam eva vaktavyam |

would have no justification from your position, according to which the quotes from Gita are only meant for “mere” understanding, and not proof.

KT: You are way off. “No need to search for outside pramana-s for understanding”. Where do you see that it is proof.

Please don't tell me that you don't see the difference between understanding and proof and that it is play of words. If you can't see that, I am wasting my time and others' time too.

... to ensure not to step outside the boundary of the Gita, Jayatirtha has to make this transformation.

KT: That is all your imagination. He did not make any transformation. Read below.

If what you said was true, Jayatirtha would have said “sAxAt-indra-avatAratvam avagamyate” and not “devatvam avagamyate” by making special effort to change sAxAt-indra-avatAratva to devatva.

KT: You quote partially and read partially and understand partially.

“sAxAdindraH purandaraH | sAxAdavatAro nAveshamAtramiti vA |

atra devatvameva vaktavyaM |indrAvatAramiti svarUpakathanaM |”

“Arjuna is sAxat Indra, Purandara. He is avatAra itself, but not a mere Avesha. Here it would have sufficed to speak of devatva. Saying IndravatArais for revealing his svarUpa.”

All of the above was chucked out by you as purely dvaitic interpretation.

You completely misunderstood Acharya and Sri Jayatirtha. I did not bring any extraneous elements.

They never said any of what you are claiming. Your position is based on wrong translation and wrong logic.

As shown above, this understanding comes from the fact that Arjuna is mentioned as a devatA and is given a live stream of aparokSha-j~nAna through vishvarUpa-darshana.

KT: In that case the quote “mahAtmana...” becomes futile and wrong.

He will not start questioning Madhvacharya's words themselves. That would be like cutting his own foot.

He is in fact trying to understand the true meaning of those words. He will only question X's interpretation of Madhvacharya's words.

Once I understand the true meaning of Madhvacharya's words, then only can I question them. Right now, we are debating whose is the right interpretation of the dvaita sub commentaries. How can I question Madhvacharya himself here?

KT: If you want to evaluate which interpretation of Sri Madhvacharya is right, then we have to see entire canon of Acharya's works as the reasonable assumption is that Acharya would not contradict his own words stated elsewhere. To test the validity and correctness, why should “within Gita” restriction be there? That is the only way to break the deadlock.

Is the goal to convince an Advaitin or a non-Advaitin?

The goal is to convince everyone regardless of which school they are in by asking them to forget extraneous texts and prior assumptions (dvaita or non-dvaita) and just look at the Gita verses.

KT: That is impossible. Taking only Gita and Acharya's interpretation, how can you convince everyone? Further, even your position will not convince everyone.

Is it to convince one who believes in Acharya or does not believe in Acharya?

Both.

KT: That is as much impossible.

Even the person who believes in AchArya should do so by objectively seeing whether his claims like “sarvam cha etat atra eva avagamyate” are based on Gita itself, or do they depend on extraneous pramANas.

KT: The problem is that you are missing the key points and hence you think that it is play of words.

Indra's aparokSha-j~nAnitva is completely irrelevant to this section, not being based directly on Gita, which is why Jayatirtha rubs off the name Indra, and rewrites it as “deva” when beginning the section.

KT: You are terribly wrong. Nothing is rubbed off. You missed preceding and succeeding sentences.

It will be very much prudent if your interpretation is the literal one, and the non-dvaitin's interpretation is the non-literal one.

KT: Non-dvaitin also claims with equal vehemence that his is as much literal.

Madhvacharya's interpretation is literal.

KT: But not yours. You are taking partial quotes and dropping the sentences.

So it pays off to stay inside the Gita.

KT: Not to evaluate which interpretation is right.

If a validation is needed, one has to see entire text and cross-check with any great scholars in person.

The point is that if you are taking the literal meaning, there is no “window of Dvaita” at all!

KT: If wishes were to become horses, the beggars would ride.

Who does not claim that his is the literal meaning? If there is no consensus in interpreting the text from the same school, what to speak of interpreting different texts from different schools?

..is precisely why I am saying that Madhvacharya does not want to use that window at all here. He wants to just make his audience focus on the Gita verses themselves. That is why he says “sarvam cha etat atra eva avagamyate”.

KT: If what you say were true, there would have been no non-dvaitin at all. The proof of the pudding is in its eating.

You are bringing in a Dvaita window with your assumptions of

a) Indra's aparokSha-j~nAnitva b) Arjuna's aparokSha-j~nAnitva following from his being an aMsha of Indra.

c) The disqualification of non-aparokShins from seeing vishvarUpa.

d) The specific qualification of only a few aparokShins out of the many aparokShins in seeing the vishvarUpa.

KT: They are not my assumptions. They are * that * of Acharya and Sri Jayatirtha. You are missing it all.

I think you repeated the same arguments and so I rest my case here.

I will answer the other mail and until anything new comes, I will just refrain in this thread.

So one may argue – well Arjuna got some more knowledge seeing VishvarUpa, but he did not get aparoxa even after seeing VishvarUpa. This is because it is not mentioned in Gita! This is not my position, nor do I think it makes sense given 4.34-37 and 11.13.

KT: Same way your interpretation does not make sense.

Whether you like to go outside Gita or not, Acharya does not contradict his “outside-Gita-statements” with his “inside-Gita-statements”.

And likewise there is no way to show that he had it even after VishvarUpa! Again, this is all word-play.

KT: This is to indicate the pitfalls in your interpretation, where you take partial quotes and take wrong interpretation.

That is strange. At the end of Krishna's teaching Arjuna says these words, what will it point to?

It will point to his state before he got bewildered - “senayoH ubhayoH madhye ratham sthApaya me achyuta..

kaiH mayA saha yoddhavyam asmin raNa-samudyame..

avekShe aham dhArtasrAShTrasya durbuddheH yuddhe priya-chikIrShavaH..”.

KT: So, it is late reaction of Arjuna. It carries non-proximity error. After listening to 18^th chapter, he said “now I remember my 1^st chapter stuff”!

'Remember' means he is now reinstated in the state he was prior to the battle, where he had no doubts about what his svadharma was. From “dharma-sammUDhaH”, he is now “naShTa mohaH, smR^itiH labdhA”. It is not referring to a state prior to battle where Arjuna was gazing at Vishvarupa. In fact, Arjuna was shown Vishvarupa (at least in his birth as Arjuna) for the first time in the Gita.

KT: I never said that Arjuna saw it in the same life earlier.

You are having problem because you are identifying j~nAna with darshana. So you are not able to grasp that he remembered the “tirobhUta j~nAna”. If your interpretation (that darshana itself is aparoxa) is right, then he should have said “smR^itirlabdhvA..”right after darshana (in 11^th chapter) and not in 18^th chapter!

The whole verse neither supports nor rejects a position which says that Arjuna already had aparokSha-j~nAna. So that verse is not a clinch holder for either position (”Arjuna had aparokSha before”/”Arjuna did not have aparokSha before”).

KT: It is. If your position is right, then he should have said that right in 11^th chapter. But no! In my position, there is no problem. It is by special God's grace that he saw His vishvarUpa in 11^th chapter.

Even after that “tirobhUta j~nAna” has not come back. Only in 18^th chapter, by Lord's grace, he got it back.

clinch holder verses are verses like “Forgive me for treating you like an ordinary friend and making fun of you. I did not know this mahimA of yours then (ajAnatA tava idam mahimAnam...).” which make no sense if he already had aparokSha before in that janma.

KT: Nobody said that he had it before in that janma. You are making phantom assumption and fighting it yourself!

It makes perfect sense in my interpretation in many ways. One way is that he had tirodhAna and so he can act like that. In fact the better way is like what Vidura's words meant – humbleness and deep devotion (not satisfied with the devotion shown).

Even from Gita itself, it is obvious that Krishna wanted it that way. He said “ishhTo.asi me dR^iDhaM”. Remember the episode of Yashoda. Lord gives such joy to His devotees. Do you think that Arjuna did not treat Krishna as a dear friend after VishvarUpa?

What ever you are calling your interpretation as ”literal”, it is not. You are missing critical words and critical sentences and thinking that it is play of words. Sanskrit language is not like any other language. It is very sensitive and translating it wrongly is a very dangerous play of words. You are calling my interpretation as play of words, but the only whetstone for testing the correctness is to see Acharya's words globally.

By shutting the doors, you fail to understand the terrible errors that you make, as you even tend to forget that Acharya does not contradict his own words.

You would necessarily have to reject the literal interpretation of “ajAnatA tava idam mahimAnam pramAdAt...”.

KT: Not at all. See above.

whether Arjuna had aparokSha before or not is irrelevant for Madhvacharya there in that section.

KT: That is purely your assumption.

Since Madhvacharya has said in the present context “sarvam cha etat atra eva avagamyate; na pramANAntaram anveShaNIyam”, shAstra-samanvaya is not something he has in mind in that section.

KT: That is a very dangerous approach. That must always be there for BhashyakAras and Tikakaras. How wise is it to say “I don't contradict myself in this work, but I have no qualms in contradicting my other works, as I don't have shAstrasamanvaya in mind now”?

Thus, it is best to keep out extraneous thoughts,

KT: A wise decision, but need to be implemented.

because the literal interpretations of his verses are enough in that section.

KT: That is missing very badly in your interpretation.

I never denied he had tremendous devotion.

KT: What happened to your literal translation of”ajAnatA tava idam ...”? How can one have tremendous devotion and also treat like ordinary friend?

His reply to Krishna wherein he says he chose Krishna (although he was fully capable of defeating the enemy alone) because of a desire for fame is consistent with “tava idam mahimAnam ajAnatA..”.

KT: That is totally different topic and outside Gita.

That is another example for the serious pit fall of literal translation of scriptures.

..I am saying that the argument Sri Shrisha Rao made cuts both ways. It does not prove what he claimed it proves.

He argued that vishvarUpa cannot cause aparokSha-j~nAna to arise since even Duryodhana saw it (and Duryodhana is not an adhikAri for aparokSha-j~nAna).

KT: I already answered to that point, which probably you did not see.

My position is based on Agama, not on logic.

KT: Not really. It is based on your translation of Agama.

My position stands on the authority of 4.34-37 and 11.13, and is supported by the Nyayadipika as well, as I have shown in the other mail.

KT: No, your position is based on your translation of those, which has serious drawbacks.

Arjuna's own example, as evidenced by a comparison between 4.35 and 11.13.

The example has to be from elsewhere.

Why should it be from elsewhere? We are not stepping outside the Gita here,

KT: For giving an example, it has to be different only.

Otherwise you don't call it an example.

(It can be outside or inside or anywhere.)

It does not make sense to say “the king is fighting like himself”.

If one says “the king is fighting like a lion”, no one will object saying “why are you saying lion, we are talking of only humans”.

...there are two different questions I raised, which I specifically requested you to keep separate, and which you are again mixing up:

KT: You did not realize what I did in my prior mail.

I answered everything based on Gita only. When you conglomerated the two in the earlier mails, I had to bring them both. When you separated, I had separate them too.

1. The question of whether vishvarUpa-darshana generates aparokSha-j~nAna.

Based on Madhvacharya and Jayatirtha's words in the section delimited by “sarvam cha etat atra eva avagamyate”, which I accept, I claimed that your position is not the one they have put forward.

KT: It is and also I showed how your position leads to ridiculous conclusions and I did that based on Gita only and Acharya's and TikAcharya's commentaries.

I asked you to confine yourself to Gita for your arguments because that is what Madhvacharya and Jayatirtha do and say in that section.

KT: That is exactly what I did. Please go back and read again my prior mail.

2. The question of whether Arjuna had aparokSha-j~nAna prior to vishvarUpa-darshana in that janma.

Here, I am NOT referring to something within the “sarvam cha etat atra eva avagamyate” section, because this issue is not discussed there at all, nor is it meant to be discussed there.

KT: That is your wrong understanding. Even that was proved in my prior mail using only the commentaries.

I am not limiting myself or yourself to restrict to the Gita to address this question.

KT: It is far more evident for anyone to see that when one goes outside, as mentioned in the mails earlier than prior two.

I hope you can separate the two questions now.

KT: I did separate with ease at your request, but you failed to realize that. In my prior two mails, I did not go outside Gita. Please go back and read them again. If you still think that I went outside, please point out where I did that in my prior two mails.

Again, this shows that you are mixing 1 and 2. My understanding of 1 is not based on external pramANas.

KT: I addressed both when you mixed up both and I separated them when you did.

No one is expecting an adviatin to accept that either. Even if all upanishads and purANas were physically present Gita, will Advaitins accept Dvaita interpretation? Surely not. Then you are missing the point that Madhvacharya is addressing advaitins also.

KT: You have two problems.

1. I did not say Madhvacharya is not addressing advaitins.

I said that they (which advaitins, I mean – see below)will not accept as is evident from history. Acharya did khanDana of 21 pUrvapaxas and the main one in that is Advaita. There are several places in Gita, where Acharya has refuted Advaitin concepts.

2. Also, you are talking the language of Christians and Muslims, who do not accept rebirths. Why and how? I will explain later as you brought up same point again.

If Madhvacharya was addressing only dvaitins, there would be no need to get into polemics here.

KT: This is another Phantom Opera. How many more Phantoms are going to come in?

Further, to say that advaitins will never accept dvaita interpretation is a flawed statement. There were advaitins like Trivikrama Panditacharya who must have gone through such arguments to get finally convinced about dvaita.

KT: Now the second pitfall of yours that I referred above.

There are broadly three kinds of people:

A. Those who do not believe in rebirths or do not use the concept of rebirths.

B. Those who believe in rebirths, but do not believe in jIva traividhya.

C. Those who believe in rebirths, and also in jIva traividhya.

Dvaitins come under C. Christians and muslims come under A. Your statement belongs to either A or B.

I was not talking about open-minded Advaitins.

The sAdhana goes over many janmas. Those in C believe that Duryodhana heads for Andhatamas.

Those in B can question “where is the guarantee that he will be bad in next janma also. He may be born as a good person”. Those in C must be careful not to make judgments on jIva svabhAva.

Such statements come either from scriptures or aparoxaj~nAnis.

Those who are adavitic in svabhAva itself may show temporary aberration as non-Advaiti, just as those who are non-advaitic in svabhAva can show temporary aberration (due to prArabdha) like Sri Trivikrama PanditAcharya. He was born as Advaitin, but that is not in his svabhAva, which becomes evident from his composition of Vayustuti and also his glorious commentary tattvapradIpa. Another good example of temporary aberration is Ajamila.

So my comment is about svAbhAvic Advaitins (whoneed not be born as Advaitins) and closed mind Advaitins.

By insisting that extraneous texts have to be brought in to understand that section, your position makes the argument made by Madhvacharya weak, which even I would not be convinced by, what to speak of advaitins.

KT: If you cannot understand emails written in plain English, what to speak of the Sanskrit commentaries.

In my prior two mails, I never brought extraneous texts. Yet you claim that I insist.

All your further comments are weird and way off.

If Madhvacharya was addressing only dvaitins, there would be no need to get into polemics here. This is another Phantom Opera. How many more Phantoms are going to come in? I don't know what you mean.

KT: I mean that you created the phantom that “I said that MadhvAchArya was addressing only Dvaitins” and then refuting your own imagination. First of all there was no mention of any addressing. Read my original sentence. What I mentioned was the effect on those who cannot be convinced.

Do you or do you not accept that Madhvacharya is addressing honest, unbiased people here who are not already wearing dvaita or non-dvaita spectacles?

A work is not a lecture and there is no question of addressing. It is available to all and people receive as per their yogyata.

All your further comments are weird and way off.

Was quoting Raghavendra Swami for the correct meaning of “sudurdarsham” weird and way off?

KT: No Dvaitin will say quoting Sri Raghavendra Swami is weird and way off. Giving a perverted meaning and wrong translation is weird and way off. I am reproducing that here since you persisted.

No, Raghavendra Swami says that sudurdarsham means “kesha~nchit sukhena darshanIyam | keshA~nchit sukhena duHkhena cha darshanIyam |” (some see it with only sukha, some see it with sukha mixed with some duHkha) From this, one can understand his aparokSha-j~nAnitva.

How? By the very fact that he “saw” it. This is the literal interpretation.

KT: Perhaps it is because you are so trained up in Gaudiya for such a long time that it is difficult for you to easily see that the literal translation some times can be very wrong.

What has “seeing with only sukha or with sukha mixed with duHkha” to do with aparokSha-j~nAnitva? Then you slip back saying “saw” it. If you just need “saw”, then why did you go into this trouble of bringing in “sukha and duHkha” to prove the baseless point you are making?

Further, why would one get sadness for seeing the Lord'sVishvarUpa. If you refer to “vyatha of Arjuna due to the fear” expressed in verse 45, as Rayaru says ”pravyathitaM prachalitaM”. He was perturbed with fear.

Definitely one will not have duHkha or sadness. In Sanskrit duHkhena means with difficulty (durlabha).

Due to their Atishaya j~nAna some see happily and easily. Some others see happily and with difficulty.

Then you slipped back to my own interpretation regarding “aparoxaj~nAnitva”.

'one can understand his aparokSha-j~nAnitva How? -By the very fact that he “saw” it.'

That is exactly what I said all along.

So, you contradicted your own position of “seeing” is aparokSha-j~nAnitva.

Your quote from Nyayadipika delimited by three stars (***) for emphasis was also incorrect in its application.

KT: Even your inclusion of “ityAdinA” only indicates that it includes all the quotes of Acharya and the concluded points are given. That still supports my position. It does not support your claim that he did not have aparoxa earlier or seeing VishvarUpa itself is aparoxa.

If you consider me an open-minded person,

KT: Not really. You have formed a rigid opinion. In a zeal to think that Acharya does not make “Dvaita assumptions”, you have gone to the extent to say that the entire lineage stated points that are against Dvaita position and making an effort to take refuge under the umbrella of “Gita alone”, forgetting the fact that even by using Gita alone, the Acharya lineage will not indulge in self-contradicting statements (across the canon).

A work is not a lecture and there is no question of addressing. It is available to all and people receive as per their yogyata.

This is a vague reply.

KT: No. This is precise reply. It is for those who have yogyata.

You are not acknowledging the simple fact that whenever an author writes something, he writes it with a particular audience in mind.

KT: The particular audience is the deserving ones.

The section “sarvam cha etat atra eva avagamyate” is written for an audience who wishes to see the overall tAtparya of Gita from Gita itself.

KT: That is perfectly fine. Suppose a school kid is taught Physics from one book and is told that it is self-contained. If there is a mathematical problem in there, it is answered in that book itself and there is no need to go outside (refer another math book). If a kid (K1) understands the math problem assaying 2 + 2 = 5 and keeps arguing that it is what is told in Physics book, that is ridiculous. Another kid (K2) says2 + 2 = 4 and the argument can go till eternity as both claim that they are right. Going outside is not because it is not self-contained in Physics book, but because the Physics book was interpreted differently. The kid K1 can keep arguing ”don't spoil my Physics book show”, but the show is wrong.

When K2 says that the show is wrong, K1 asks “do you mean to say that the authors of the book are wrong?”

“Other pramaNa-s are not needed” does not mean “this can go against other pramaNa-s”. The common sense tells that if you come up with an interpretation that goes against other valid pramaNa-s, then your interpretation is seriously flawed.

In Gita Bhashya upodghAtaH, the quotes he gives from Mahabharata are meant for those who accept Mahabharata but do not accept PancharAtras and the Puranic quotes he gives prior to that section. This is also stated by Jayatirtha in Prameya Dipika: bhArata-prAmANyam a~NgIkR^itya itarat ana~NgIkurvANam prati idam uktam |

KT: You reserve the liberty to do exactly the same thing namely come up with an interpretation that goes against Pancharatra-s and that too quoted by Acharya in other works. If anyone brings that in and points to Panchratra saying that your interpretation is seriously flawed, then you will have the same response “Don't spoil my show. Is it not mentioned clearly that this is for those who do not accept panchratras?”. Again here the common sense is that those points are conveyed in Mahabharata itself and no need to go to Pancharatras. It does not mean that Mahabharata says something against Pancharatras.

Nobody is asking you to go to Brahmasutras or Pancharatras.

The commonsense is that Gita will not say something against Brahmasutras or Pancharatras. If you come up with an interpretation that goes against them, then your interpretation is seriously flawed. You put up any show you want after proper reconciliation. Yes, everything is self-contained wrt the points under discussion. But the problem is with your interpretation.

You should have realized that yourself.

Similarly, in Nyayadipika, by saying “na pramANAntaram anveShaNIyam”, Madhvacharya/Jayatirtha say that the section is written using only Gita as pramANa, nothing else. This doesn't mean nothing else is a pramANa for Madhvacharya, it just means nothing else is being used by him as pramANa in this section, so better not bring in anything else as extraneous assumptions.

KT: Again a zillionth time, the commonsense is that Gita does not go against other valid pramaNa-s. If you bring in your interpretation, the litmus test for its validity is needed.

The extraneous things are not assumptions, but are pramaNa-s.

They are not brought in to spoil your show of Acharya's statements, but to spoil the show of your wrong interpretation.

Again common sense! Think – why people tend to bring in from elsewhere – to point out that you have a serious problem – it is not that Acharya's statements need those “extraneous things”.

Let the overall purport stand on its own merit using just the Gita verses.

KT: Sure, but have the commonsense that Gita does not violate other valid pramANa-s and if your interpretation does that, revisit your interpretation. You can dump my interpretation and dump yours too and start afresh and come up with one purely based on Gita itself, but that does not go against any other valid pramANas.

A person who does not accept the Pancharatras but accepts the Mahabharata will return disappointed if he approaches you, because you will start imposing references from PancharAtras onto him

KT: This is what I will do -

I will come up with an interpretation strictly in accordance with Pancharatras, but never refer to any thing outside Mahabharata. The person will go perfectly satisfied.

This is what you will do -

You will come up with an interpretation that opposes Pancharatra-s and give solace to the person that you have given him an interpretation against Pancharatras. He will be happy because it is against Pancharatras!

You presume that you have satisfied that person. What it means is that you have made a thorough error.

(judging from the way you have argued on this thread), and emphasise why PancharAtra must be accepted by him as authority, instead of addressing him at his level by dropping quotations from PancharAtra.

KT: You can never understand a proper teacher-student relation, as your argument flow itself is seriously flawed. In spite of repeating ad nauseum, that other pramaNa-s are needed to validated your interpretation, but not to justify, you never understood this elementary school level thing.

If he does not accept PancharAtras, can you engage in vAda with him by bringing in tenets found in PancharAtra references?

KT: You need help in many ways and you have ignored the fact that I have used only Gita and its commentaries in the last few postings. For a person, who comes up like that, I said what I will do and also from your kind of arguments I also said what you will do. You will not have any vAda, but both of you will be rejoicing that you have opposed Pancharatra-s. Even I will not have any vAda as I have satisfied the need of not quoting any Pancharatra, but still giving an interpretation that is consistent.

Is that a fair approach?

KT: Your approach of interpreting Gita against BrahmasUtras and Pancharatra-s is fair for you and my approach of doing that in accordance is fair for me.

Likewise, a person who does not wish to already assume extraneous tenets and approaches you to understand purport of Gita from Gita itself will return disappointed because you will impose those extraneous tenets instead of addressing him at the level at he is, and sticking to Gita only.

KT: I have taught Gita by not quoting anything outside Gita itself, but yet in accordance with other acceptable texts. It is better to quote them within one's mind before teaching others.

If you like to teach Gita by making it go against Brahmasutra-s and Pancharatra-s, be my guest.

The common sense again is to note the difference between ”not quoting other valid texts” and “not being consistent with other valid texts”. There are four possibilities.

1. Not quoting other valid texts and being consistent with other valid texts.

2. Quoting other valid texts and being consistent with other valid texts.

3. Not quoting other valid texts and not being consistent with other valid texts.

4. Quoting other valid texts and not being consistent with other valid texts.

When Acharya said that there is no need for other pramaNas-s, that is to suggest 1. You are going by 3.

The literal translation is to be accepted as the right one, and especially when it makes sense and the non-literal translation makes no sense.

KT: How do you decide which one makes sense? Either you go in person to a great scholar, whom you can blindly adhere to or take refuge in “other valid pramANa-s”, not because extraneous things are needed, but to compensate your deficiencies and provide a litmus test for you.

The “seeing” has to do with aparokSha-j~nAnitva.

AparokSha-j~nAna results from a direct vision of God, which is what Arjuna got in vishvarUpa-darshana.

KT: That is your svakapolakalpita interpretation. Nowhere it is mentioned that AparokSha-j~nAna resulted there.

If you refer to “vyatha of Arjuna due to the fear” expressed in verse 45, as Rayaru says “pravyathitaM prachalitaM”. He was perturbed with fear. You are going back on what you yourself said when I asked that question. You said that the fear is awe, not material fear.

KT: Not at all. He got perturbed because it is awe (respectful fear), but not material fear. If it is material fear, it would have led to sadness also.

Then you slipped back to my own interpretation regarding “aparoxaj~nAnitva”.

'one can understand his aparokSha-j~nAnitva How? - By the very fact that he “saw” it.'

That is exactly what I said all along.You said it through a chain of reasoning extraneous to Gita, not by a direct correspondence like I said it.

KT: I never used any chain. I deduced everything from Gita itself.

The implications were given in the following URL, for your cross-checking only.

http://tinyurl.com/28ldpx

Your first position “Seeing VishvarUpa itself is aparoxaj~nAna”and your second position “Seeing VishvarUpa resulted in aparoxaj~nAna” are both different from your third position' one can understand his aparokSha-j~nAnitva How? - By the very fact that he “saw” it' which you were opposing all thru the thread.

Does this mean that you have forsaken your first two positions? Where do you stand now?

Forget about various approaches. You are not even sure where you stand. You are confusing yourself and others too.

So, you contradicted your own position of “seeing” is aparokSha-j~nAnitva, Where is the contradiction?

KT: All the above three positions are not the same. That is where it is.

It does not support your claim that he did not have aparoxa earlier or seeing VishvarUpa itself is aparoxa.

I would like to keep the two issues separate to avoid again being told that I am not being clear. The latter issue is what I am discussing here. That is clearly established from Nyayadipika, and your stand on it based on an extraneous chain of reasoning is dropped.

KT: I have no extraneous chain at all. You are committing the same blunder many commit. From you own statement

darshayAmAsa.. = aparokSha-j~nAnitvam

KT: Then you are replacing “=” with “=”.

He saw implies that he had aparoxaj~nAna (without which hewould not have seen).

Why are you replacing implication with equality?

In a zeal to think that Acharya does not make “Dvaita assumptions”, you have gone to the extent to say that the entire lineage stated points that ara against Dvaita position.This is your own “phantom opera” here. I have never said such a thing.

KT: The proof of the pudding is in its eating. For outsiders, you don't have to bring any external pramANa-s. For knowing whether this is a phantom and for making a litmus test, look at external pramANa-s for Dvaita position. If you have contradicted those external pramAna-s, you are indirectly implying, by putting your words in the mouth of Acharya, TikAcharya and Rayaru, that they are against Dvaita position.

and making an effort to take refuge under the umbrella of “Gita alone”, forgetting the fact that even by using Gita alone, the Acharya lineage will not indulge in self-contradicting statements (across the canon). Another “phantom opera” - I didn't say this either.

KT: Another proof of the pudding is in its eating. For outsiders, you don't have to bring any external pramANa-s. For knowing whether this is a phantom and for making a litmus test, look at what Acharya lineage said elsewhere. If you have contradicted what they said elsewhere, you are indirectly implying, by putting your words in the mouth of Acharya, TikAcharya and Rayaru, that they are contradicting what they said elsewhere.

Fair enough ?

Is there not a difference between “using only Gita as pramANa” and “rejecting everything outside Gita as pramANa”?

Your confounding one for the other makes you conclude that I am saying Madhvacharya contradicts himself.

KT: No, I have been very clear about that. Your confounding one for the other is making you come up with a wrong interpretation, because if you can see that difference, you should also be able to see the difference between “quoting outside texts for others” and “using outside texts to validate one's own position and interpretation”. You don't have to do the former, but you have to do the latter.

The fact is that I have never said that.

KT: Not explicitly. I have shown above how you said that indirectly.

The particular audience is the deserving ones.But the deserving ones can come from different schools and different pUrvapakShas accepting different texts.

How can you club them all together?

KT: Why not? Your entire reply for this point is also defective. Remember, all those born as dvaitins are not deserving ones as much as all those born as non-dvaitins are not undeserving ones. Those who understand them correctly must be the deserving ones. That must be universally true. All the kinds that you specified from Acharya's and Tikacharya's statements also contain the subcategory of deserving ones. It is that simple.

If you do that, every person who belongs to a non-dvaita school, and who has learnt the commentaries of that non-dvaita school will leave unconvinced by your arguments.

KT: But the proof of the pudding is in its eating. There were many non-dvaitins who liked my arguments as much as there were some dvaitins, who didn't like my arguments.

You will be left thinking that they were undeserving (ayogya),

KT: I will never think like that. I will say that if he is deserving, God will send the help to his doors like the case of Parixit, where Sri Shuka came to him without his sending for him, or send him to the right person. I see God's hand working behind everything. One incident will not and need not decide the yogyata. It is the eventual ripening of the soul.

but the fact will be that you were not able to properly convince them.

KT: You must realize that the “convincing” does not happen all the time.

It is unfair to call them as undeserving. It is the easiest way to dismiss those who do not get convinced by oneself.

KT: That is another great mistake of yours. I clearly gave you a suggestion to go to any scholar and ask your specific question. I already saw the effect of my clarification in a few in this issue.

...They don't just treat the category of deserving people like a box of 100 identical balls to be handled in exactly the same way.

KT: Nope, but they treat them as millions of varying balls with varying capabilities, but going in the right direction. Those outside that box are the ones who keep going in the wrong direction.

You did not show where my interpretation is contradicting Madhvacharya.

KT: Since you do not remember, I repeat what I quoted from Acharya:

Quote (from http://tinyurl.com/ysc5k3 ):

I can give a quote from the words of our Acharya, which he quoted from skanda purANa in Bhagavata-tAtparya-nirNaya:

“droNadrauNikR^ipAH pArthA bhIshmo vidurasanjayau |ye chAnye tatra devAmshAH samyak.h tattvAparoxinaH ||”

“DroNa, AshvatthAma, kR^ipAchArya, pANDava-s, Bhishma,Vidura, Sanjaya and all others, who are devAmshas are great tattva-aparoxins.”

Unquote:

I have shown where yours does in the previous mail I sent.

KT: All your points were answered.

Again a zillionth time, the commonsense is that Gita does not go against other valid pramaNa-s.

My (zillionth) reply is that my interpretation of Madhvacharya and Gita did not go against other pramANas.

KT: Read above with quote.

Yours did, and I showed it in my previous mail, using a scientific approach.

KT: Yet a fallacious one (like the one below).

[ Given a = b

a^2 = ab

a^2 – b^2 = ab – b^2

(a + b)(a – b) = b(a – b)

a + b = b

2b = b

and so 2 = 1]

A simple rule is that it is fine, to have Gita in simple terms. But one must not sacrifice accuracy for simplicity. While checking in Gita, why chuck out commonsense?

The extraneous things are not assumptions, but are pramaNa-s.

I did not say that the extraneous assumptions are apramANa. From where did you conclude that?

KT: I concluded that from your saying that VishvarUpa-darshana generated aparoxaj~nAna, while Acharya has quoted that all the devamshas including Arjuna are aparoxaj~nAnis as I mentioned in the above url.

I am repeating again and again that they are “pramANAntara”, and it is in that sense that they are extraneous assumptions.

KT: Even then you have no authority to contradict them and in this case you did.

I have heard that Satyadhyana Tirtha debated with Anantakrishna Shastri using only Gita as pramANa for the debate and not quoting other pramANAntara scriptures.

KT: Absolutely, but he never contradicted anything that Acharya said elsewhere. Non-quoting does not offer you license to contradict them.

Does this mean Satyadhyana Tirtha was rejecting other scriptures? No. But do you think it would have been fair if Satyadhyana Tirtha had suddenly thrown in a quote from Pancharatras? No.

KT: So, just because he did not throw a quote from PancharAtras, do you think he would have contradicted PancharAtras ? Gita is the essence of Pacharatras.

There is no way a correct understanding of Gita will go against Pacharatras.

When the rule is that you agreed to stick to Gita, you stick to Gita, and if you couldn't extract your position fully from Gita, and needed other texts for support, you should never have agreed to debate based only on Gita.

KT: And the bigger rule is that when you stick to Gita, you don't contradict other valid pramaNas, just because you don't quote them.

sarvam cha etat atra eva avagamyate.

KT: This does not mean what you understood is correct.

This means “It can be understood from here itself”.

That statement does not accommodate your lack of knowledge in the language and grammar of Sanskrit.

This is what I will do -

I will come up with an interpretation strictly in accordance with Pancharatras, but never refer to any thing outside Mahabharata. The person will go perfectly satisfied. But here you have not done that. You brought in vishvarUpa-darshana = devatva = aparokSha-j~nAnitva from outside, and thus did not live up to your standard.

KT: You have repeated this quite a few times. Pls Go back to archives and show me where I said that. In fact, quite contrarily, in the url that I gave in my last mail :

http://tinyurl.com/28ldpx

Quote:

A. vishvarUpadarshana = aparoxaj~nAnaB. X has daivatva.

C. X has aparoxaj~nAna

D. X has VishvarUpadarshana

D does not have to = B (as some gandharva yoni or some other yogya jIvas may have gotten vishvarUpadarshana).

Unquote:

In other words vishvarUpa-darshana does not have to = devatva.

This is what you will do -

You will come up with an interpretation that opposes Pancharatra-s and give solace to the person that you have given him an interpretation against Pancharatras. He will be happy because it is against Pancharatras! Where have I come up with an interpretation that opposes PancharAtras (or the Gita, in the present context)?

KT: Note I said “what you will do”, based on your line of argument. Why? By not quoting BrahmasutrabhAshya or BhagavatatAtparya, you

seem to indicate that it is fine to contradict them. You did not say that, but your interpretation did contradict them.

... is based on non-Gita pramANAntara tenets like: vishvarUpa = devatva = aparokShaj~nAnitva.

KT: As mentioned above, I said vishvarUpa-darshana does not have to = devatva.

My position is very simple. Arjuna was already anaparoxaj~nAni and vishvarUpa-darshana did not generate aparoxaj~nAna, but indicates that he had it.

The obvious thing that would happen if you did not bring in this extraneous tenet is that you would need to conclude that vishvarUpa generates aparokSha-j~nAna, as the dvaita commentaries do.

KT: Dvaita commentaries do not conclude that. Your lack of Sanskrit knowledge does. Do you find any expression “aparxaj~nAnajanakaM” or the like in them? Also, there is only tR^itIyavibhakti”, but not “panchami vibhakti”.

If your meaning is needed then, something like :

“vishvarUpadarshanAt aparoxaj~nAnaM”

There is no such expression.If Devadatta won a wrestling match, one may say: mallayuddhajayena bAhushaktimattvaM

From his victory in wrestling, we conclude that he has great strength in his arms. Hypothetically, if one wants to say that from that victory, he got strength, a few examples are:

KT: “mallayuddhajayat.h bAhushaktiH””bAhushaktijanakaM mallayuddhajayaM” “mallayuddhajayaja bAhushaktiH”, etc.

It is better to strengthen linguistic and grammatical skills before venturing into translating the great commentaries.

Your approach of interpreting Gita against BrahmasUtras and Pancharatra-s is fair for you and my approach of doing that

in accordance is fair for me. You have not justified how my interpretation of Gita (or more accurately, that section of Gita Tatparya) is against Brahmasutras and PancharAtras.

KT: Please see various postings from mine and Meera

“Those bound by ignorance, fancying themselves to be intelligent and learned, while being of twisted thinking, lead other fools astray, as would the blind leading the blind.” I am disappointed at this.

KT: No need. Disappointment is all mine, because, with all this effort, you don't see the difference between not quoting and not contradicting. Secondly, you are resorting to wrong translation, without regard to proper grammar.

It is fine that all your disciples can be blind to the position of PancharAtras, BrahmasUtras, Bhagavata tAtparyanirNaya and various works of Acharya. You haveto make an effort not to be blind to them. If someone points to those, it is not with an “intent to bring extraneous assumptions”, but to give a hint that there is terribly wrong with your translation. If you correct your Sanskrit, then you will correct your statements and then only you will stop saying that Acharya,Tikacharya and Rayaru also meant what you wrongly translated.

... I would never have such thoughts about you.

KT: I would never say “don't quote a valid text”. I clearly perceive the difference between not quoting for others and quoting for verifying my own position.

I did not know that such quotations would be used in a debate where both sides are supposed to grant that the other side is interested in the truth.

KT: If you are interested in truth, we have to decide whether your translation is right or mine. For this there are two means:

1. To point out grammatically and by other linguistic means the flaw in the translation

2. Allow bringing any external valid pramANas freely (This is not for others, but to highlight that the translation is wrong.)

If you cannot grant me this benefit of doubt, please feel free to discontinue this thread.

KT: I can surely grant that. But it must go in a fruitful fashion as mentioned above, rather than a deadlock that each keeps claiming that he is right.

I will try to ask someone else who can give me that benefit of doubt.

KT: Even if your doubt gets resolved here, I still encourage you to ask someone else, as I may be wrong even if I succeed in convincing you.

The search for knowledge never ceases. The need for nishchayAtmaka j~nAna (firmly rooted correct knowledge) is always there.

Your first position “Seeing VishvarUpa itself is aparoxaj~nAna” and your second position “Seeing VishvarUpa resulted in aparoxaj~nAna” are both different from your third position 'one can understand his aparokSha-j~nAnitva How? - By the very fact that he “saw” it' which you were opposing all thru the thread. My position is still “seeing vishvarUpa generates aparokSha-j~nAna”. Position 2 and 3 are the same, though you may nitpick on the choice of words.

KT: In my example earlier on “One can understand the great strength in Devadatta's arms. How? - By the very fact that he 'won the wrestling match'”. Certainly, winning the wrestling match did not result in the strength in his arms. So, how can position 2 and 3 be the same.

darshayAmAsa.. = aparokSha-j~nAnitvam

Then you are replacing “=” with “=”.

The verse “darshyAmAsa..” establishes that Arjuna is getting aparokSha-j~nAna from that darshana. This is how I understand Jayatirtha.

KT: That is precisely where you are making an error.

Pls note that there are no expressions like ”aparoxaj~nAnaprApti” or “jananaM”, etc. It is

• aparoxaj~nAnitvaM * that is implied. It does not say “darshanAt.h aparoxaj~nAnaM” either. There is no word for “getting” or “generating” in any of the commentaries in this context. If tR^itIya vibhakti is to be used, then it will be like ”darshanena aparoxaj~nAnaM abahavat.h” or the like. No such usage at all.

He saw implies that he had aparoxaj~nAna (without which he would not have seen). Why are you replacing implication with equality? I mean what I wrote above. I may not be good at use of symbols. I use them as shorthand to save typing long sentences, not in the sense they are used in formal logic.

KT: That is fine, but the thought and grammar are important.

I have not contradicted those external pramANas by my understanding of Gita Tatparya and Nyayadipika. So your conclusion is incorrect.

KT: I have shown above and in prior mails (and others have shown too) that you have contradicted BrahmsUtras and Bhagavata tAtparya nirNaya.

... to see the difference between “quoting outside texts for others” and “using outside texts to validate one's own position and interpretation”.

You don't have to do the former, but you have to do the latter.

I never denied that. The point is that Madhvacharya does that all through his Gita Tatparya. The place where he wants to refrain from using and quoting non-Gita tenets is the section under debate. There is a place for “using outside texts to validate one's own position and interpretation” and a place for “using only Gita to validate one's own position”.

KT: In case of Acharya, there is no fear that he may have translated something wrong or the like. Also I believe that with his encyclopedic knowledge, he would not contradict himself and he would not contradict any valid pramANas. However people like us run the risk of wrong translation and incorrect understanding. So, one of the big checks for us is to cross-check with other pramANas to make sure that our interpretation is correct.

Even then we run the risk of being wrong. These cond big check is to get it validated from big scholars. When you cross check your position by posting in Dvaita list, what is wrong in cross- checking your position with other pramANa-s.

Remember this is only to cross-check your translation and understanding, but not to quote to your disciples. Just as Acharya does not quote non-Gita tenets in this section, you also do not quote to your disciples. How do you know that your translation and understanding is correct?

The whole of Gita Tatparya is doing the former, except for the one section where Madhvacharya wants to do the latter.

They are both different strategies directed at different kinds of “deserving souls” and not contradicting one another.

KT: Those approaches are not contradicting to highly knowledgeable ones. As you can see, they ended up contradicting to you.

If you cannot appreciate the latter approach, please at least acknowledge that there are others (like advaitins) for whom the latter has much more importance than the former.

KT: So, do these advaitins have Sanskrit knowledge or not? If they have Sanskrit knowledge, they would have objected to your Sanskrit translation.

If they don't, then what is your situation and their situation? What if you have committed similar errors elsewhere?

When you can make your point using only one text, it is good to do it, because your audience finds it easier to evaluate and grasp your position based on one text, rather than finding themselves confused by quotations from an unending supply of texts.

KT: That is absolutely fine as long as you don't sacrifice accuracy for simplicity. Here you lost accuracy. You made grammatical error.

Once such advaitins and others are convinced based on Gita itself, they will develop some faith on Madhvacharya, and then those extraneous assumptions can be brought in to expand their knowledge.

KT: Then they start losing faith in Sri Madhvacharya saying “Hey, your Acharya said in GitatAtparya that Arjuna was not aparoxi before VishvarUpadarshana and elsewhere he said that he was. Did he forget?”

Imagine this thought experiment. You are debating an advaitin who is versed only in Shankara's Gita Bhashya. You decide to debate with him on Gita. You start from within the Gita, but then you start quoting from all over the place – Pancharatras, Ishavasya, Kena, etc etc.

KT: I can only feel sorry for you. You still did not get.

You don't quote anything for him. You first check your own Sanskrit and grammar first. You please keep him blind only. But you open your eyes and guide him with only Gita *. If not...you know what.

That poor guy will have no idea whether your quotations are correct, whether your interpretations of your quoted verses are correct, what is the context of the verse you quoted in the other text, whether advaitins accept all the texts you quoted from, and what Shankara Bhashyas on those texts say.

KT: And what will happen to that poor guy, when your grammar and translation are wrong and some time after he develops faith in Sri Madhvacharya, he starts seeing contradictions all over?

Unless he verses himself with all those things, he will find it impossible to even know how to even judge you are correct.

KT: But if he is proficient in Sanskrit, then he does not even have to wait that long and can see the problem now itself.

But if you stick to only Gita, nothing else, he will be able to think about all the above factors easily, and will quickly come to realize you are right (if you are right that is).

KT: Yes, IF YOU ARE RIGHT?

Sticking only to Gita does not grant permission to do wrong translation. Bringing other things is to validate your translation, but not to validate the text.

This should convey to you the importance of Madhvacharya's not using extraneous assumptions in that section.

KT: Neither Madhvacharya used, nor all the great ones in the parampara used outside texts for validation in this section. There was no need for me to use outside texts, when I taught this section. There would have been no need for you if you had done correct translation. This should convey to you what the real issue is.

If he does so, the audience will have no way to evaluate his conclusion before studying all those texts he uses for support, which will recursively lead to still other texts and so forth. The end result will be no result.

KT: The root cause of your problem is the shift of problem locus. There is no need to quote anything at all in this section, if you had done correct translation.

I did not say or imply that “AchArya said in GitA-tAtparya that Arjuna was NOT aparokShI before VishvarUpa-darshana...”. Again and again, you are misstating my position.

Then you need help not only in Sanskrit language, but you need help in English language also.

The definition of the word “generate” in Merriam Webster's Dictionary is “to cause to be : bring into existence; especially : PROCREATE” “to originate (something material) by a physical or chemical process : PRODUCE”

If Acharya said “VishvarUpadarshana generate daparoxaj~nAna”, it automatically implies that he did not have it before that.

I did not say or imply that “AchArya said in GitA-tAtparya that Arjuna was NOT aparokShI before VishvarUpa-darshana...”. Again and again, you are misstating my position. Then you need help not only in Sanskrit language, but you need help in English language also. With such nitpicking of word definitions,

KT: Is it? How can something that decides whether Arjuna had aparoxa earlier or not be a nitpicking?

Note how 1-10 in Gita is analyzed. “tasya saNjanayanharshhaM kuruvR^iddhaH pitAmahaH”.

If Bhishhma generated cheerfulness in Duryodhana, that implies that he did not have it before that.

you might as well also find flaw with Krishna's telling Arjuna - “yat j~nAtvA sarvANi bhUtAni asheSheNa drakShyasi Atmani” (4.35). The word drakShyasi is used in future tense. It means Arjuna “will see everything resting on the paramAtman”. It means he was NOT seeing this fact right then. So Krishna is contradicting Madhvacharya there, and needs help with Sanskrit?

KT: That is a flimsy argument. As you yourself mentioned, Acharya reconciles this very easily.

In fact, this further throws out your argument. It says ”j~nAtvA ... draxyasi”. It does not say “dR^ishhTvA …

jAnAsi”. This should tell you which precedes what.

Madhvacharya reconciles it by saying that the dawn of knowledge being referred to is j~nAna-tirobhAva-nivR^itti.

tirobhAva means disappearance. Arjuna's j~nAna has disappeared.

KT: Which means “passed from view”. Here it does not mean ”ceased to be”. Note the difference between “tirobhAva” and “abhAva”. They are critical and not nitpicking.

I am glad that at least you made a 150 degree turn by changing the position of “Arjuna not being aparoxaj~nAni before that event” to “his having aparoxa, but its disappearing before the event and reappearing after the event”.

What is going to generate it again? VishvarUpa-darshana.

That is the event which caused j~nAna-tirobhAva-nivR^itti.

KT: Note the term “tirobhAva-nivR^itti”. What is passed from view is brought back into view. It is not j~nAnaprApti or j~nAnajananaM.

That is the event which causes Arjuna's “disappeared” aparokSha-j~nAna to (re)appear. What is the harm in using the word “generate” for it?

KT: We use expressions like “God disappeared and reappeared”.

Note the importance of specificity. Even in case of an object, “pot disappeared and reappeared” means, it is the same pot. If a pot is destroyed and a new pot is made (generated), then it is a new pot, but not the same pot. “Generate” indicates a new/different entity.

The definition of the word “generate” in Merriam Webster's Dictionary is “to cause to be : bring into existence; especially : PROCREATE” “to originate (something material) by a physical or chemical process : PRODUCE”

If Acharya said “VishvarUpadarshana generated aparoxaj~nAna”, it automatically implies that he did not have it before that. But that is still consistent with his having it before, and then its getting disappeared!

KT: Meaning getting out of view or getting concealed.

When I use the word “generate”, it indicates an absence prior to vishvarUpa, and indicates an appearance at the time of VishvarUpa-darshana.

KT: There was no indication of absence (abhAva) prior to vishvarUpa, but only tirobhAva (temporary cover).

This is consistent with both his never ever having it, and his having it farther back but having lost it temporarily.

KT: The faulty understanding is due to inability in differentiating between “abhAva” and “tirobhAva”.

If he never had it, then it is newly created/generated.

If he had it and lost completely (ceased to exist),then also a new one is created/generated.

If he had it and lost it temporarily, then the same is restored. The term “lost it temporarily” can be used only if “it” can be restored. Then “it” is not generated.

Thus, it is not contradicting Madhvacharya. It is perfectly consistent.

KT: You have to turn another 30 degrees. If you claim ”He never had it / He had it but lost completely”, then there is need to use “generate” and then the ”tirobhAva” does not fit in and you will have lot of inconsistencies.

Otoh, if you take my position that he had it, but there was tirobhAva and so the same thing was restored, then only it is perfectly consistent.

Also, note that it is the combination of upadesha and vishvarUpa darshana that made the restoration. If just the latter is sufficient, there was no need for Lord Krishna to go thru the entire upadesha. He could have just shown His VishvarUpa and be done with it. Also note that the upadesha continued even after VishvarUpa.

I think you are getting mixed up with the following:

1. bimba-sAxAtkara

2. VishvarUpa darshana.

3. aparoxa-j~nana

You can also add parokSha-j~nAna to the list, since I never thought aparokSha-j~nAna is different from bimba-sAxAtkAra.

MT: With the “birth” of aparoxaj~nAna one SEES directly his bimbarUpi paramatma. Thus aparoxa-j~nAna and bimba-sAxAtkAra are related. Aparoxa jnAna is mano-vrutti j~nAna and lasts for ever while sAxAtkAra lasts only for a few seconds. How can they be same?

How is parokSha-j~nAna different from aparokSha-j~nAna? I thought that parokSha-j~nAna is theoretical nishchayAtmikA buddhi about God, and aparokSha-j~nAna is God-realization.

MT: I don't know what you mean by “God realization”.

A paroxin is not only “theoretical” but has anusandana and all that is mentioned in chan. BhAshhya 2.2.24

Acharya in the aihika adhikarana quotes Bruhat-samhita which says as long as there is prArabdha karma obstructing the “birth” of aparoxaj~nAna, aparoxaj~nAna is delayed.

It may take one more birth or so to get aparoxajnAna.

1. Bimba-sAxAtkara: The bimbarUpa is unique to a jIva.

It is present inside the jIva-s hR^idaya. A paroxa j~nAni, when he attains aparoxa j~nAna, gets the darshana

of this unique rUpa which is his bimba.

What do you mean “when he attains aparokSha-j~nAna?” Is attainment of aparokShaj~nAna a step that precedes bimba-sAxAtkAra? If so, how is aparokShaj~nAna different from parokShaj~nAna?

MT: There are at least seven major avarana-s which prevent bimba-sAxAtkara. One of the mAya-shakti-s – a dushTa-prakruti aka sagunachadika avarana is still there with paroxa jn~nAna.

The birth of aparoxa renders this mAyashakti powerless. When the 'avarana' is pushed aside, he sees the bimbarUpi paramatma in his hR^idaya.

Do you mean to say that when one sees in one's own heart the bimba, one does not see that bimba as an entity on whom the whole existence of the world outside depends?

MT: I don't know how the bimbarUpi looks or what one sees.

Based on the yogyata, one sees the rUpa, kriya, andguna-s in that split second.

What then is the meaning of “brAhmaNe gavi hastini ... paNDitAH samadarshinaH”?

MT: The verse is not talking about “seeing”. The sAdhana for aparoxa is stated here. The meaning of this verse as given by Rayaru will also answer your question ”what is the difference between paroxa and aparoxa”.

The “sAmyadarshana” of the Lord is a tool to the paroxaj~nAnis for the aparoxaj~nAna. Note that it is “seeing equality in the forms of the Lord”. It is not talking about seeing the forms of the Lord.

what about the “sarvANi bhUtAni Atmani eva anupashyati, sarvabhUteShu cha AtmAnam..” in Ishavasya Upanishad? What is that referring to? Vishvarupam? BimbasAxAtkAra? Anything else?

MT: The above verse “brAhmaNe gavi hastini...” answers this also. One who sees the Lord as supporting form holding all and also the antaryAmi rUpa for all, will not see any difference between those forms.

The above verse is similar to “yo mAm pashyati sarvatra sarvaM cha mayi pashyati...” You are confounded by the word “pashyati [seeing]”.

When expressions like “seeing equality” or “seeing no difference” are used, they indicate knowledge only. There is no function for physical eyes.

Also, Raghavendra Tirtha interprets anu-pashyati as niHsandeham + jAnAti, so pashyati = jAnAti. I am more confused now with your separating out seeing from knowing.

MT: Contexually one has to see the meaning.

It is inconceivable for me that a person with bimba-sAxAtkAra could treat Krishna like a friend,

MT: Haven't you read the episode of Yashoda treating Krishna like a child?

Just like Yashoda, Indra must have done great tapas to have friendship with the Lord, and God grants this ishTa punya and joy to His uttama bhakta-s.

“gopyaH kAmAd.h bhayAt.h kaMso dveshhAchchaidyAdayo nR^ipAH sambandhAd.h vR^ishhNayaH snehAd.h yUyaM bhaktyA vayaM vibho”

unless that bimbasAxAtkAra did not include the realization of non-difference between Krishna and the bimbarUpi-paramAtman.

MT: Acharya has explained this at length by quoting Brahmatarka in the very FIRST skandha of Bhagavata. The sub-comm runs into few pages.

For example, when Krishna asks Arjuna why Arjuna chose Him instead of his army, Arjuna replies that Krishna has fame, and though he (Arjuna) is capable of tackling the Kauravas on his own, he also wants fame, or some such thing which sounded utterly mundane to me when I read it.

MT: It all depends on how one studies a work. There are rules as to how to translate a grantha.

You can refer directly to the Mahabharata text to see what he says

MT: I have not read this, and do not independently read or translate such texts given my ignorance re Manvadi, uparicharadi etc.

At the same time, since there is scope for me to feel that Vishvarupa darshana is an instance of aparokSha-j~nAna after reading these verses from Gita and the dvaita commentators, at least there should be a pramANa which clearly separates out the two.

MT: Note that several janma-s of sAdhana is needed for aparoxa.

cf. BahunAm janmanaamante j~naanavaan 7.19.

If what Arjuna got was aparoxa during VishvarUpa, when did he do the needed sAdhana? Did he have any earlier janma-s to get this?

Being an aMsha of Indra, Arjuna is “born” with aparoxaj~nAna.

Amsha by definition doesn't have any earlier birth, his *own*past karma, or separate aparoxa sAdhana.

An Amsha is “eka” with his Amshi. Though he has some 'bodily' limitations as aMshAMsha, he is non-different from its aMshi with re to the aparoxaj~nAna. See, BSB ekadikaranam “ekaHatmanaH sharire...”

cf. the case with Vali, Sugriva, Bharata, Laxmana, Balarama etc., -- their “getting” aparoxaj~nAna or doing their sAdhana has never been mentioned anywhere, and would anyone who knows shAstra conclude that they are not aparoxins?

The mUlarUpa, has already aparoxa. cf. Anuvyakhyana 4.1 [re sutra “lingAchcha”]. Acharya quotes the amount of sAdhana the mUlarUpa-s have done in the past brahmakalpa-s to obtain the present padavi at the dawn of this kalpa.

With re to “Indra”, in the past brahmakalpa a jIva called Sunanda did 10 manvantara shravana plus 4 manvantara manana under his niyataguru, Garutman [the present Garuda], to become Indra.

I did not have a doubt about vishvarupa-darshana generating aparokSha-j~nAna until you questioned it. I did not find any hint that the two are separate from the sub commentaries

MT: Before reading any comm. A knowledge of “Amshi” and its laxana is needed.

Commenting on “sAxAdindravatara”, Sri Jayatirtha says:

“sAxAt.h” iti sAxAdindraH purandaraH | sAxAdavataro na aveshamAtram iti vA |

If one knows what is meant by “sAxAdindravatara” the question of Arjuna having aparoxa before Vishvarupa doesn't even arise.

and if Bannanje Govindacharya's way of explaining the aparokSha-j~nAnitvam of Arjuna (or you may call it the way I understood it) is also flawed,

MT: The way you understood is wrong.

then I am really surprised that no one has given any pramANa so far

MT: Ample pramanas have been given – how one understands them is important.

KT: Since my position was grossly misrepresented, I want to correct this. Also, I shall make an effort to correct the logical flaws in the “Review” mail as well. The notation is cumbersome and painful for readers to follow.

When I refute KR-H, it means that I am stating that Sri Omkar is misstating my position (KR-H). The readers must not get confused that I am refuting myself. To ease a little, I will indicate KR-H with “”

OD-H :

1. In this section, Madhvacharya wants to establish his overall tAtparya of Gita based only on Gita verses, without the use of extraneous assumptions or extraneous pramANas.

KT: With all the limitations of the English language, precise statement of position is the sine qua non for a good discussion. I objected to this position saying that Shri MadhvAcharya never said that he wants “to establish” his overall tAtparya based on only Gita.

It is critical to note the precise meaning of the word “atra eva avagamyate”.

It was brushed aside saying “what is the difference between understood and established.” There is a big difference.

For “understanding”, we are using the commentaries of only Acharya and his parampare. The other schools have difficulty accepting that itself! For establishing a common set of PramANa-s is needed.

2. VishvarUpa-darshana, being a direct vision of God, is nothing but a generator of aparokSha-j~nAna.

KT: This is completely refuted in the earlier mails.

KR-H :

1. In this section, Madhvacharya is not dropping all outside pramANas, but is in fact implicitly using the chain of reasoning:

vishvarUpa-darshana = devatva = aparokSha-j~nAnitva based on Brahma Sutras and other such non-Gita texts.

KT: This statement is also baseless. I never got a reply for my strong objection as to where I said

“vishvarUpa-darshana = devatva”

I even gave evidence to my exact position in

http://tinyurl.com/28ldpx

and then referred to it again in http://tinyurl.com/yrorqc

He never meant to ask his readers to forget outside texts when reading this section.

KT: We cannot conjecture on what is not said.

It is immaterial whether the readers forget or remember.

Even if they forget outside, their interpretation of this section must not contradict outside.

When Madhvacharya points to Arjuna getting vishvarUpa- darshana, he is showing Arjuna's aparokSha-j~nAnitva employing the above chain of reasoning implicitly.

KT: That is again a baseless presumption. The circular reasoning was never stated and never used, either implicitly or explicitly.

2. VishvarUpa-darshana does not generate aparokSha-j~nAna.

KT: Because, generation implies a new entity. It is quite evident that a combination of Upadesha and VishvarUpa darshana restored the already existing Ap-j.

D1. Madhvacharya: sarvam cha etat atra eva avagamyate

Note the first point of OD-H. It is nothing but a faithful literal understanding of D1.

KT: The flaw in the faithful literal understanding of D1is clearly shown above in OD-H 1.

On the other hand, note the first point of KR-H.

KT: Since KR-H 1 is a misstatement, no need for any further discussion on KR-H 1.

D2. (The introduction by Jayatirtha to the crucial set of 5 verses)...

D2 is consistent with both OD-H and KR-H.

KT: It does not make much point to talk about consistency between the incorrectly stated OD-H and misstated KR-H.

D3. (The conclusion by Madhvacharya and Jayatirtha

According to KR-H, because the chain of reasoning “vishvarUpa-darshana = devatva = aparokSha-j~nAnitva” …

KT: The misstated statement has been adhered to endlessly.

D4. These are the specific points that Jayatirtha says are established by the 5 verses:

1) [11.52] “sudurdarsham ... dR^iShTavAn asi” == aparokShaj~nAnitvam

KT: This means – Because Arjuna is seeing this hard-to-see form, he must be an aparoxaj~nAni.

Of course. That is what I said, all along.

“devAH api..” = devatvam

KT: He must be a devata. Of course.

2) [18.64]

“iShTaH asi..” = bhagavad-priyatvam

KT: He is dear to the Lord. Of course.

3) [16.5]

“daivI..” = devatvam

KT: Of course.

4) [9.13]

daivIm prakR^itim AshritAH = devatvam

KT: Of course.

j~nAtvA... = aparokSha-j~nAnitvam

KT: Where is this mentioned ?

Also, why “j~nAtvA” is taken as aparokSha-j~nAnitvamhere, but as “paroxaj~nAnaM” in 4-35?

Even granting this varied interpretation, how does it help OD-H at all?

5) [11.9] darshayAmAsa.. = aparokSha-j~nAnitvam

KT: Of course.

This data matches the predictions of only OD-H,

KT: Not at all. This contradicts OD-H completely.

negates the predictions of KR-H.

KT: Let us not even talk of misstated KR-H, which can be just dropped. All the above points support what I said all along.

So there is a direct, literal relationship between vishvarUpa-darshana (darshayAmAsa) and aparokSha-j~nAnitva, as postulated in OD-H.

KT: Of course it is. But it should not go in reverse gear.

Vis-dar implies Ap-j; meaning because Arjuna got vis-dar, we can conclude that he has Ap-j (though other way around need not be true). It is also indicated that he is devata and uttamAdhikAri.

To say that vis-dar generated Ap-j for Arjuna is going in reverse gear.

Another illogical position is:

“vishvarUpa-darshana itself generates aparokSha-j~nAna.

This is true even if Arjuna already was an aparokSha-j~nAni before seeing vishvarUpa”

The above two are self-contradicting positions.

D5. The establishment of the tenet (from within the Gita) that bhakti is the most important sAdhanam for parokSha-j~nAna, aparokSha-j~nAna, and mokSha.

Madhvacharya and Jayatirtha do it by pointing to Bhagavad Gita 11.53-54, where in the context of VishvarUpa-darshana, Krishna says: ananya-bhaktyA tu aham evam vidhaH tattvena j~nAtum draShTum praveShTum cha shakyaH [It is by ananya-bhakti that I can be truly known, seen and entered in this manner].

Raghavendra Swami says “j~nAtum draShTum cha ityukta parokSha-aparokShayoH..” [j~nAtum and draShTum refer to parokSha and aparokSha-j~nAna].

KT: Read again. “drashhTuM” refers to aparoxaj~nAna – this has been discussed at length and referred manny times.

Because Arjuna saw the vishvarUpa, it implies apaproxa.

For the aparoxa also, ananya bhakti is needed. Where does it say that Vis-dar generated aparoxa?

KR-H has to again bring in the same extraneous chain

KT: Where are you imagining this from?

D6. Jayatirtha's transformation of “sAxAt-indra-avatAratva” to “devatva” while entering the section.

Before entering the section, Madhvacharya said that Arjuna is a direct incarnation of Indra. According to KR-H, since inside that section, Madhvacharya did not mean to shut off external pramANas for “support”, there should be no problem in letting sAxAt-indra-avatAra remain as it is even inside that section.

But according to OD-H, because Madhvacharya does not wish to use external pramANas at all in that section, and because he cannot establish sAxAt-indra-avatAratva of Arjuna by using only the Gita, he could not mean that he will prove sAxAt-indra-avatAratva from Gita itself. This prediction is also upheld, because Jayatirtha changes sAxAt-indra-avatAratva to devatva while entering the section [nanu arjunasya devatvAdi kutaH?] Jayatirtha does not say – nanu arjunasya sAxAt-indra-avatAratvAdi kutaH? This is because the Gita only talks about Arjuna's devatva. It does not specifically identify which devatA Arjuna is. KR-H has no answers to why Jayatirtha should have done this, whereas it is a natural prediction out of OD-H.

KT: This approach means that Shri Madhvacharya committed a blunder by stating that Arjuna is IndrAvatAra, which he cannot establish using Gita alone. To save the face, Shri JayatIrtha had taken the immediate corrective step by changing sAxAt-indra-avatAratva to devatva.

Infact, the position of OD-H is to shut off everything outside Gita in this section, but note what Tikacharya did here -

“arjunasya bhagavatpriyatvameva kutaH? Aparoxaj~nAnitvAt.h'j~nAnI priyatamo.ato me' iti smR^iteriti chettadeva...”

He quoted from MahAbhArata “j~nAnI priyatamo.ato me” That is really going outside Gita!

Thus a partial, incorrect and out-of-context translations and interpretations do land one in difficulties.

My position has been twisted. I never said that there is a need for external pramANas nor did I say that Arjuna's IndrAvatAra is established from Gita.

The position is very simple. If Shri Jayatirtha just wanted to correct the position, he would have said only that much, but note the whole set of words there:

“sAxAdindraH purandaraH | sAxAdavatAro nAveshamAtramitivA | atra devatvameva vaktavyaM | indrAvatAramiti svarUpakathanam.h |”

“[Arjuna is] Indra incarnate himself meaning he is Purandara. Indra incarnate himself means that he is not just Avesha of Indra. It was enough to speak of devatva. [If a question is raised as to why Indravatara is mentioned, it is answered - ] by saying IndrAvatAra, his svarUpa is revealed.”

The quint essence of the argument is that for the present discussion devatva is enough, but an extra piece of info is given. As this is an extra piece of info, there is no need to establish that.

[This is like saying “By the way, For Your Information” kind of thing.]

Conclusion:

There is a need to reject OD-H. There is an equal need to reject “misstated KR-H”.