[Advaita-l] Antaryami Vishnu & anya devatas.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 11:53 AM, krishna koundinya <cosmonautkk at gmail.com>wrote:

> Pranam to everyone.
>                              Thank you for all your beautiful answers
> on the topic.
>
> Sri Subrahmanian ji,
>  thank you for the information about the book.
> 1) But as a reply we see that a book written by "Sri Raghuvijaya
> Tirtharu" named  "Sri Akshobhya Vijaya Vaibhava", wherein he has
> answered the critics of Sri Akshobhya Tirtharu. This is the Khandana
> grantha for the advaitha grantha which had tried to condemn Akshobhya
> Tirtharu. The book contains 175 pages, with detailed analysis as to
> how the vagvaada took place, and who were all the witness for the
> vagvaada, with facts and figures. Atleast they claim so.
> I did not read either of the books so I am ignorant of the topic..
>

The book I mentioned has taken into account a book titled 'Akshobhya Teertha
Charitre' by Sri Raghuvira Tirtha Swamin. I do not know if the book referred
by you above is the same. The author Sri G.R.Patil says that the above book
could have been published between 1956 and 1959 ( the copy this author got
does not have the cover pages).  He has devoted over 20 pages on the above
book.

>
> 2)  This episode is said to be seen in the book named “Vedantadeshika
> Vaibhava prakashika” written by Doddayyacharya wherein it is claimed
> that this actually took place.
>

The above is also considered in the book by Sri Patil.

>
> 3) Also there is an article in Mysore Archeological Survey Department
> published in 1886 which claims that At Mulbagil in inscription in
> Grantha characters on a boulder was brought to notice which appears to
> record the fact of a refutation of Vidyaranya by Akshobhya Tirtha, in
> some public dsputation. But the inscription has been lately purposely
> destroyed, so that a few letters remain visible. The above account of
> its contents is given by pesons who saw it before it was damaged and
> who had made a copy of it.  Please enlighten me on these topics.


These 'evidences' have been analyzed in very great detail in this book.
Since I heard that the author himself is bringing out an English translation
of the book, I do not wish to spend time in giving large details of the
Kannada book myself; also I have some other things on hand to write about.
It is best to buy a copy and read.

>
>
> 4) quoting from your words
>
> "Atman has no form.  It is nitya, nirvikAri, sarvagataH.  That which is
> infinite, all-pervading cannot have any form.  Any form will limit the
> Atman".
>
> I am a smartha brahmin & I think I understand some of the basic tenets
> of advaita tradition. I am looking for strong vedic pramanas that
> explicitly state these that " Atman has no form or gunas". Are there
> any verses in the Vedas that state this directly ( without depending
> on inferences).??
>

In Advaita, anything that has guNas, attributes, has to be something
created.  That which is not created, Brahman/Atman, cannot have guNas. So
with form.  That Brahman can assume various forms thru the agency of Maya
for specific purposes is acceptable to and not disputed by Advaitins.  Any
'strong' pramana is bound to be disputed by others on grounds they think are
strong(er). So, there will be no end to this debate.  It is better to
refrain from arguing these matters with schools that oppose Advaita.

>
> 5) With my very limited knowledge  I was talking to some Madhva
> followers, they told me that " NIrguna"="Nir" + Guna", which does not
> mean that without attributes or gunas,  but it is something beyond
> comprehension but attributes do stay. It could have been stated as
> "Aguna" instead of nirguna.Now I am not good in sanskrit so I am at a
> loss.
>
> Now  I want to know is there a difference between "nirguna" & "aguna".
> If so what is it?? and does nirguna actually means without attributes.
> or is there anything else? like for eg" Nirvikara or Nirvikalpa etc.
>

Here, as a sample, is given passages from the Madhva school for two words
from the Bhagavad gita:

'बाह्यस्पर्शेष्व*सक्तात्मा*' इत्यस्यार्थः काम*रहित* इति। 5.21
For the word 'asaktAtmA' Sri Jayatirtha comments: kAma-rahitaH (one who is
devoid of desire/infatuation/longing, etc.)

For the words 'nirahankAraH, nirmamaH' of the Gita, Sri Madhva comments:
भक्षयामीत्यहङ्कारममकारवर्जितश्च   2.71

'ahankAra-mamakAra-varjitaH' (who is devoid of ahankara (egoism) and
mamakara (ownership or feeling of 'this is mine')

परमात्मलाभेन निराशीराशा*रहित *इत्युक्तं भवति।  3.30
For the word 'nirAshIH' of the Gita, Sri Jayatirtha comments: AshArahitaH
(devoid of desire/longing, etc)

So, you can see there is not any difference between the prefix 'a' and 'niH'
according to Sri Jayatirtha, in the examples shown above.


> 6) I was also told that as an answer to Sri Madhusudana Saraswati
> swamy's "Advaita Siddhi" , Sripad Ramachandra Tirtha wrote "Tarangini"
> which refuted all the arguments in "Advaita Siddhi". I also heard of
> "advaita tatva sudha" but they maintain that it is not up to the
> standards or it is not a good refutation with some loop holes etc. How
> should we understand this?
>

Even today, Dvaita Mutts and other institutions invite Advaita scholars who
have specialized in Advaita siddhi and hold discussions regularly once or
twice a year.  These scholars are honoured, with titles even. That shows
that they have the feeling that Advaita Siddhi holds a lot of things that
are not clear for them to this day. This, despite stalwarts in their school
having written a lot against Advaita (Siddhi) over the centuries.

>
> 7) I found that Yoga Vashistha is being refuted while it is full of
> advaitic content.
> http://chiraan.wordpress.com/2009/10/12/refutation-of-yoga-vashishtha-sara/
> How should we take this ??
>

If you have the necessary depth of knowledge of Advaita and the time and
inclination, you can refute what he has written.  But the best thing to do
would be to ignore it.  One can see how poor is that blogger's understanding
of Advaita.

Regards,
subrahmanian.v