Dhyaana sloka -1
Madhvacharya starts the work in the traditional way by offering prostrations to Narasimha as well as explaining the purpose of the work too thus:
Narasimho akhila ajnaana matha dvaantha divaakarah
Jayathi amitha sat jnaana sukha shakthi payonidhih
That Narasimha (Lord Vishnu) who removes the philosophy which says that “everything apart from Chaitanya are creations of Avidya or ignorance only” even as Sun removes darkness and who is real, blissful, has power (which are unlimited like ocean) – let the Lord be happy by our prayers.
As per the Dvaita system, Vishnu is Brahman who is defined in two ways as “devoid of bad qualities” and “full of good qualities”. Vishnu is always different from the jeeva. Vishnu alone is independent and all other entities are dependent on Vishnu. A seeker can get realization only through the grace of Vishnu.
Jaya Teertha says that Purushaartha are of two types – one is Anishta nivritti or removal of that which is not liked (or inauspicious) and second is istha praapthi (attainment of liked). The above sthuthi is to remove the anishta of the theory that “everything apart from Brahman is created out of ignorance and is illusory”. This is anishta as this is wrong theory since everything is real and the jeeva can never be one with Brahman. Moreover the ajnaana which Advaitin speaks about can never be proved (this will be dealt later) and hence such systems are to be removed as they will lead to darkness only.
The above assumption of Jaya Teertha that AJNAANA as well Advaita theory is faulty is completely wrong. We will be seeing it in the coming parts but still we have to remember that it is Jaya Teertha’s as well as Madhva’s interpretation of Sruthi and usage of high-end logic which takes them to this wrong conclusion. Even without entering into Advaitin’s viewpoint, let us analyze on Anistha and Ishta.
Each and every person in the world has different likes and dislikes. What HARIRAM likes might not be what Bharadwaj likes. What Neelakantan likes might be something still different. Isha and Anistha are dependent on the seeker. Even though it can be argued that here ISHTA and ANISHTA are from the perspective of Sruthi, still when there are different interpretations itself for Sruthi & the approach towards Sruthi itself being “Subjective” ISHTA and ANISHTA are Subjective. We cannot just go ahead and conclude by saying that “ISHTA” and “ANISHTA” are so and so. Yes, we can very well come to a conclusion as to what is ISHTA and ANISHTA as per scriptures but when we analyze the scriptures, we will surely come to the conclusion that ISHTA is realization and ANISHTA is bondage. Liberation and bondage are very well defined in Sruthi very clearly as realization of the ultimate reality of Brahman (as one’s own nature) and not realizing one’s nature of Brahman respectively. This is very well proclaimed in the various sruthi statements like “Dviteeyaad vai bhayam bhavathi” (out of duality, fear arises – fear is anishta as nobody wants to have fear – this fear can be removed only by removing duality or dual perception which means realization of the non-dual reality of Brahman), “Brahmavid brahmaiva bhavathi” (one who knows Brahman becomes Brahman – Brahman is one alone as per all systems of Vedanta and hence if a seeker by knowing Brahman becomes Brahman, this means the reality is non-dual only), “Tarathi Shokam Aatma vid” (one who knows the Self overcomes sorrow) etc.
Thus as per sruthi, ISHTA is realization of one’s own very nature of non-dual Brahman & ANISTA is considering the dual world as real and considering oneself as different from the ultimate reality of Brahman.
Even Gita also puts forth the same thing as “Kshetrajnam cha api maam viddhi sarva kshetreshu bhaaratha” (know me to the indwelling Self in all bodies), “Madbhaktha etat vijnaaya madbhaavaaya upapadhyathe” (my devotee after knowing this reality about KSHETRA and KSHETRAJNA or body and Self attains my own very nature), “Mayi eva mana aadhatsva mayi buddhim niveshaya, nivasishyasi mayyeva atha urdhvam na samshayah” (Fix the mind unto me, contemplate through the intellect on Me & thereby you will merge into Me – there is no doubt in this), “Ye bhajanthi tu maam bhaktyaa mayi te teshu cha api aham” (He who is devoted to me, he is in Me and I am in him), “Sarvendriya gunaabhaasam sarvendriya vivarjitham, asaktham sarvabritchaiva nirgunam guna bhoktru cha” (All the indriyas and gunas are dependent on me even though I am devoid of all indriyaas or sense organs, I am unattached to things but still bear them – bearing them but still being unaffected by them is possible only when there is no real association and this is in the case of illusions and the substratum only – I am nirguna but still bear or support gunas as the substratum of illusory gunas) etc.
Thus sruthi and smrithi clearly say that ISHTA is realization of the ultimate reality of non-dual Brahman and ANISHTA is forgetting this ultimate reality of Brahman as one’s own very nature.
Thus it is very well proved through scriptures that what Jaya Teertha puts forth as ISHTA and ANISHTA are completely wrong and against sruthi. It can be argued here that sruthi has to be supported or substantiated by yukthi & since yukthi against Advaita are strong therefore sruthi propounding Advaita have to be interpreted properly – but this is wrong as we will very well see later that Advaita is fully logical and it is the other systems which have logical faults in them and go against scriptures in many places.
Jaya Teertha above tells that the statement of Advaita that “everything apart from Brahman is nothing but illusory creations of AJNAANA only” is wrong. This is not wrong at all. The main fault that is pointed out is that AJNAANA itself is invalid and without any proof. We have already seen earlier that the very nature of AVIDYA to be without proof itself shows that it is an illusion and not real as Brahman. The illusory snake seen in rope can never be proved through logic because it is not at all present in the rope. Similarly AJNAANA itself is only an illusion in the reality of Brahman & hence it cannot be proved. That it cannot be proved is why it is termed as ANIRVACHANEEYA or indescribable. But even though AJNAANA is not proved but still it is experienced by the ignorant person. The snake never exists in the rope but still it is experienced – no person in the world can negate the experience of the snake in the rope by a person because it is HIS EXPERIENCE of an ILLUSION. Even though Madhvacharya or Sankaracharya say that it is not snake but rope, still as long as the person who perceives the snake doesn’t remove the ignorance of the rope & realizes that “there is no snake but rope alone”, there will be perception of the illusory snake in the rope. Similar is the case with AJNAANA too. That a seeker has AJNAANA is very well known through his experience of “limited happiness”. The ultimate goal of human life is nothing but eternal bliss only. What Vedanta calls as Brahman is nothing but “bliss”. If Brahman is not blissful, then not even a beggar would want such Brahman. Thus if a person is completely blissful, then he is realized. There is no other particular description for realization. This “eternal bliss” can be rejoiced only through realization of the ultimate reality of Brahman through scriptural truth from the Guru and sadhana. Thus scriptural study is also important even though it is as illusory as the ignorance which is experienced. Scripture is nothing but a mirror which shows or points out one’s own face of Brahman. Even as the dream-lion helps a person to wake up from dream, similarly scriptures help in waking the seeker from illusory ignorance (scriptures themselves are illusory because they also are valid at the empirical level only – this is accepted by sruthi as Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says while explaining the deep sleep state that “vedaah avedaah” vedaas become non-vedas in deep sleep).
Thus realization is nothing but “being blissful” which is achieved or realized through realization of the ultimate reality of Brahman as one’s own very nature. Thus AJNAANA is proof or is valid for one who is ignorant & such a person will not be always happy.
If the Dvaitin says that “I am happy at all times”, then we have nothing against such statement because “happiness unlimited” is the goal of scriptural study or human life itself. But if the dvaitins like B N K Sharma cry out publicly through his books “demanding” various universities and people to give DUE CREDIT to DVAITA, it shows lack of happiness only. There never have been real advaitins who have cried out like this – not even when the Dvaitins and Vishishtadvaitins frequently attacked Advaita through all means. This is because Advaita alone can confer a person eternal bliss. Thus even though Vidyaranya was well equipped with all philosophies as seen from his Sarva Darshana Samgraha (where he deals with 16 systems including Dvaita and Vishistadvaita), he didn’t write even a single work against the rival systems. Instead he propounded the system of Advaita in his most famous works of Panchadashi and Jeevan Mukthi Viveka. If it is argued here that B N K Sharma is not a real dvaitin , then this goes against the awards, nominations and names given for his by various Dvaita Acharyas (he has also got the name of Madhva muni priya).
Dvaita tells that realization is realizing one’s own nature and this is different from Brahman. It also speaks about gradations in realization or the happiness in realization. This is completely absurd. BLISS or complete happiness is possible only when there is no distinction whatsoever. As long as there is something different from me, I will not be happy because I will try to want that particular entity or the happiness of the entity. If the entity is Brahman with eternal bliss, obviously I will “desire” to get the eternal bliss. This is seen very clearly in worldly life itself where a person is not satisfied with the money and position he has but tries to get still higher. Hence, so until a person gets unlimited bliss, he will not be satisfied. MOKSHA in which the seeker doesn’t get eternal, unlimited bliss is no MOKSHA at all.
It can be argued that SRUTHI explains it that way and hence Moksha is not realizing eternal bliss but one’s own bliss. But still it is wrong because SRUTHI should always be supported by YUKTHI and Sruthi when interpreted properly will surely be proved by yukthi and anubhava too. Yukthi very clearly shows that bliss or Moksha can never be limited but is unlimited alone as that alone can make a person perfect and complete. If sruthi speaks about limited bliss as Moksha, then sruthi also becomes faulty which can never be. Hence if Sruthi is accepted as true and yukthi has to be understood and accepted, then unlimited bliss alone is MOKSHA. Thus MOKSHA is not realization of one’s own bliss as different from Brahman but it is realization of one’s own very nature of non-dual Brahman. This is also supported by the experience in deep sleep state where the seeker gets eternal bliss and there is neither Ishwara nor the world in that state. If it is argued that the world is negated or is not there in deep sleep is against Sankara’s theory as explained by him in sutra bhashya, it is not so – this has very well been answered in the shoonyavaada series. Sankara only says that the world we currently perceive is not negated as such in any of the states because it continues from waking to waking (through deep sleep where it temporarily merges into the Self). That which temporarily merges has to be impermanent – the world is thus accepted in the three states as existent but it is negated in the fourth state of TURIYA which is not a state at all. Also this explanation that the world is present in all states is only stated in the waking state where there is ignorance. This is not accepted or experienced in deep sleep. It is only taken through assumptions that since after deep sleep & before deep sleep, world was there – therefore world is existent even in deep sleep state --- this assumption also is made in the waking state & never in the deep sleep where there is nothing but non-dual Brahman alone as the world of names and forms merges into the reality of Brahman in deep sleep & this merged world comes back due to ignorance in the waking state. Thus there is no fault whatsoever in the explanations or analysis of deep sleep as per Gaudapada acharya and Sankaracharya.
Thus it is very well proved that MOKSHA is not realization of one’s own nature as different from Brahman but it is realization of one’s own very nature of Brahman itself. This is the real ISHTA and not what the Dvaitin claims as ISHTA. The ANISHTA of considering everything apart from Brahman as unreal is also not at all ANISHTA because it is the reality. Reality never can become ANISHTA as everybody wants to know the reality & hence reality is ISHTA alone.
That Brahman alone exists is very well proved through the logic of anvaya vyatireka. Anvaya says that “if Brahman exists, then the world exists”. Vyatireka says that “if Brahman doesn’t exist, then the world doesn’t exist”. This clearly shows that Brahman is independent whereas the world is dependent. Any dependent entity is unreal and an illusion in the independent entity as a variable is nothing but an illusion in the constant (there is nothing called variable as there is only constant at any point of time). The world is just names and forms of the reality. Names and forms are mere illusions. World is also an illusion because it was not there in the beginning (before creation) and it will not be there in the end (after destruction) – that which Is not present in the beginning and end, never exists in the middle too. Thus the world is only an illusion in the ultimate reality of non-dual Brahman like the dream world. The duality perceived is only an illusion caused due to ignorance or ajnaana of the ultimate reality of Brahman. This ajnaana itself is not real but only an illusion. This ajnaana causes a person to think that the duality perceived is real. There is no cause for ajnaana as it is nothing but only an illusion. This illusion of ajnaana has the substratum of Brahman. When a person through the vritti jnaana (thought-knowledge) that “I am Brahman” contemplates on the reality, then ajnaana vanishes & the ever-existing Consciousness exists without any veiling of ignorance or maya. This is realization. It is futile to enquire about ajnaana as nobody wants to know “why I am ignorant” but want to get knowledge --- ajnaana as it is an illusion cannot have any cause but only a substratum. Thus it is very well proved that there is only non-dual Brahman and it is AJNAANA which causes duality – thus this is a fact. FACT or reality is never ANISHTA but ISHTA alone…… Thus what Jaya Teertha says is completely wrong. Moreover it has already been proved that the dvaitin’s ISHTA of Saguna, Savishesha Brahman (with many gunaas) is ANISHTA as it is unreal and not correct at all as per Sruthi, Yukthi and Anubhava.
Narasimho akhila ajnaana matha dvaantha divaakarah
Jayathi amitha sat jnaana sukha shakthi payonidhih
That Narasimha (Lord Vishnu) who removes the philosophy which says that “everything apart from Chaitanya are creations of Avidya or ignorance only” even as Sun removes darkness and who is real, blissful, has power (which are unlimited like ocean) – let the Lord be happy by our prayers.
As per the Dvaita system, Vishnu is Brahman who is defined in two ways as “devoid of bad qualities” and “full of good qualities”. Vishnu is always different from the jeeva. Vishnu alone is independent and all other entities are dependent on Vishnu. A seeker can get realization only through the grace of Vishnu.
Jaya Teertha says that Purushaartha are of two types – one is Anishta nivritti or removal of that which is not liked (or inauspicious) and second is istha praapthi (attainment of liked). The above sthuthi is to remove the anishta of the theory that “everything apart from Brahman is created out of ignorance and is illusory”. This is anishta as this is wrong theory since everything is real and the jeeva can never be one with Brahman. Moreover the ajnaana which Advaitin speaks about can never be proved (this will be dealt later) and hence such systems are to be removed as they will lead to darkness only.
The above assumption of Jaya Teertha that AJNAANA as well Advaita theory is faulty is completely wrong. We will be seeing it in the coming parts but still we have to remember that it is Jaya Teertha’s as well as Madhva’s interpretation of Sruthi and usage of high-end logic which takes them to this wrong conclusion. Even without entering into Advaitin’s viewpoint, let us analyze on Anistha and Ishta.
Each and every person in the world has different likes and dislikes. What HARIRAM likes might not be what Bharadwaj likes. What Neelakantan likes might be something still different. Isha and Anistha are dependent on the seeker. Even though it can be argued that here ISHTA and ANISHTA are from the perspective of Sruthi, still when there are different interpretations itself for Sruthi & the approach towards Sruthi itself being “Subjective” ISHTA and ANISHTA are Subjective. We cannot just go ahead and conclude by saying that “ISHTA” and “ANISHTA” are so and so. Yes, we can very well come to a conclusion as to what is ISHTA and ANISHTA as per scriptures but when we analyze the scriptures, we will surely come to the conclusion that ISHTA is realization and ANISHTA is bondage. Liberation and bondage are very well defined in Sruthi very clearly as realization of the ultimate reality of Brahman (as one’s own nature) and not realizing one’s nature of Brahman respectively. This is very well proclaimed in the various sruthi statements like “Dviteeyaad vai bhayam bhavathi” (out of duality, fear arises – fear is anishta as nobody wants to have fear – this fear can be removed only by removing duality or dual perception which means realization of the non-dual reality of Brahman), “Brahmavid brahmaiva bhavathi” (one who knows Brahman becomes Brahman – Brahman is one alone as per all systems of Vedanta and hence if a seeker by knowing Brahman becomes Brahman, this means the reality is non-dual only), “Tarathi Shokam Aatma vid” (one who knows the Self overcomes sorrow) etc.
Thus as per sruthi, ISHTA is realization of one’s own very nature of non-dual Brahman & ANISTA is considering the dual world as real and considering oneself as different from the ultimate reality of Brahman.
Even Gita also puts forth the same thing as “Kshetrajnam cha api maam viddhi sarva kshetreshu bhaaratha” (know me to the indwelling Self in all bodies), “Madbhaktha etat vijnaaya madbhaavaaya upapadhyathe” (my devotee after knowing this reality about KSHETRA and KSHETRAJNA or body and Self attains my own very nature), “Mayi eva mana aadhatsva mayi buddhim niveshaya, nivasishyasi mayyeva atha urdhvam na samshayah” (Fix the mind unto me, contemplate through the intellect on Me & thereby you will merge into Me – there is no doubt in this), “Ye bhajanthi tu maam bhaktyaa mayi te teshu cha api aham” (He who is devoted to me, he is in Me and I am in him), “Sarvendriya gunaabhaasam sarvendriya vivarjitham, asaktham sarvabritchaiva nirgunam guna bhoktru cha” (All the indriyas and gunas are dependent on me even though I am devoid of all indriyaas or sense organs, I am unattached to things but still bear them – bearing them but still being unaffected by them is possible only when there is no real association and this is in the case of illusions and the substratum only – I am nirguna but still bear or support gunas as the substratum of illusory gunas) etc.
Thus sruthi and smrithi clearly say that ISHTA is realization of the ultimate reality of non-dual Brahman and ANISHTA is forgetting this ultimate reality of Brahman as one’s own very nature.
Thus it is very well proved through scriptures that what Jaya Teertha puts forth as ISHTA and ANISHTA are completely wrong and against sruthi. It can be argued here that sruthi has to be supported or substantiated by yukthi & since yukthi against Advaita are strong therefore sruthi propounding Advaita have to be interpreted properly – but this is wrong as we will very well see later that Advaita is fully logical and it is the other systems which have logical faults in them and go against scriptures in many places.
Jaya Teertha above tells that the statement of Advaita that “everything apart from Brahman is nothing but illusory creations of AJNAANA only” is wrong. This is not wrong at all. The main fault that is pointed out is that AJNAANA itself is invalid and without any proof. We have already seen earlier that the very nature of AVIDYA to be without proof itself shows that it is an illusion and not real as Brahman. The illusory snake seen in rope can never be proved through logic because it is not at all present in the rope. Similarly AJNAANA itself is only an illusion in the reality of Brahman & hence it cannot be proved. That it cannot be proved is why it is termed as ANIRVACHANEEYA or indescribable. But even though AJNAANA is not proved but still it is experienced by the ignorant person. The snake never exists in the rope but still it is experienced – no person in the world can negate the experience of the snake in the rope by a person because it is HIS EXPERIENCE of an ILLUSION. Even though Madhvacharya or Sankaracharya say that it is not snake but rope, still as long as the person who perceives the snake doesn’t remove the ignorance of the rope & realizes that “there is no snake but rope alone”, there will be perception of the illusory snake in the rope. Similar is the case with AJNAANA too. That a seeker has AJNAANA is very well known through his experience of “limited happiness”. The ultimate goal of human life is nothing but eternal bliss only. What Vedanta calls as Brahman is nothing but “bliss”. If Brahman is not blissful, then not even a beggar would want such Brahman. Thus if a person is completely blissful, then he is realized. There is no other particular description for realization. This “eternal bliss” can be rejoiced only through realization of the ultimate reality of Brahman through scriptural truth from the Guru and sadhana. Thus scriptural study is also important even though it is as illusory as the ignorance which is experienced. Scripture is nothing but a mirror which shows or points out one’s own face of Brahman. Even as the dream-lion helps a person to wake up from dream, similarly scriptures help in waking the seeker from illusory ignorance (scriptures themselves are illusory because they also are valid at the empirical level only – this is accepted by sruthi as Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says while explaining the deep sleep state that “vedaah avedaah” vedaas become non-vedas in deep sleep).
Thus realization is nothing but “being blissful” which is achieved or realized through realization of the ultimate reality of Brahman as one’s own very nature. Thus AJNAANA is proof or is valid for one who is ignorant & such a person will not be always happy.
If the Dvaitin says that “I am happy at all times”, then we have nothing against such statement because “happiness unlimited” is the goal of scriptural study or human life itself. But if the dvaitins like B N K Sharma cry out publicly through his books “demanding” various universities and people to give DUE CREDIT to DVAITA, it shows lack of happiness only. There never have been real advaitins who have cried out like this – not even when the Dvaitins and Vishishtadvaitins frequently attacked Advaita through all means. This is because Advaita alone can confer a person eternal bliss. Thus even though Vidyaranya was well equipped with all philosophies as seen from his Sarva Darshana Samgraha (where he deals with 16 systems including Dvaita and Vishistadvaita), he didn’t write even a single work against the rival systems. Instead he propounded the system of Advaita in his most famous works of Panchadashi and Jeevan Mukthi Viveka. If it is argued here that B N K Sharma is not a real dvaitin , then this goes against the awards, nominations and names given for his by various Dvaita Acharyas (he has also got the name of Madhva muni priya).
Dvaita tells that realization is realizing one’s own nature and this is different from Brahman. It also speaks about gradations in realization or the happiness in realization. This is completely absurd. BLISS or complete happiness is possible only when there is no distinction whatsoever. As long as there is something different from me, I will not be happy because I will try to want that particular entity or the happiness of the entity. If the entity is Brahman with eternal bliss, obviously I will “desire” to get the eternal bliss. This is seen very clearly in worldly life itself where a person is not satisfied with the money and position he has but tries to get still higher. Hence, so until a person gets unlimited bliss, he will not be satisfied. MOKSHA in which the seeker doesn’t get eternal, unlimited bliss is no MOKSHA at all.
It can be argued that SRUTHI explains it that way and hence Moksha is not realizing eternal bliss but one’s own bliss. But still it is wrong because SRUTHI should always be supported by YUKTHI and Sruthi when interpreted properly will surely be proved by yukthi and anubhava too. Yukthi very clearly shows that bliss or Moksha can never be limited but is unlimited alone as that alone can make a person perfect and complete. If sruthi speaks about limited bliss as Moksha, then sruthi also becomes faulty which can never be. Hence if Sruthi is accepted as true and yukthi has to be understood and accepted, then unlimited bliss alone is MOKSHA. Thus MOKSHA is not realization of one’s own bliss as different from Brahman but it is realization of one’s own very nature of non-dual Brahman. This is also supported by the experience in deep sleep state where the seeker gets eternal bliss and there is neither Ishwara nor the world in that state. If it is argued that the world is negated or is not there in deep sleep is against Sankara’s theory as explained by him in sutra bhashya, it is not so – this has very well been answered in the shoonyavaada series. Sankara only says that the world we currently perceive is not negated as such in any of the states because it continues from waking to waking (through deep sleep where it temporarily merges into the Self). That which temporarily merges has to be impermanent – the world is thus accepted in the three states as existent but it is negated in the fourth state of TURIYA which is not a state at all. Also this explanation that the world is present in all states is only stated in the waking state where there is ignorance. This is not accepted or experienced in deep sleep. It is only taken through assumptions that since after deep sleep & before deep sleep, world was there – therefore world is existent even in deep sleep state --- this assumption also is made in the waking state & never in the deep sleep where there is nothing but non-dual Brahman alone as the world of names and forms merges into the reality of Brahman in deep sleep & this merged world comes back due to ignorance in the waking state. Thus there is no fault whatsoever in the explanations or analysis of deep sleep as per Gaudapada acharya and Sankaracharya.
Thus it is very well proved that MOKSHA is not realization of one’s own nature as different from Brahman but it is realization of one’s own very nature of Brahman itself. This is the real ISHTA and not what the Dvaitin claims as ISHTA. The ANISHTA of considering everything apart from Brahman as unreal is also not at all ANISHTA because it is the reality. Reality never can become ANISHTA as everybody wants to know the reality & hence reality is ISHTA alone.
That Brahman alone exists is very well proved through the logic of anvaya vyatireka. Anvaya says that “if Brahman exists, then the world exists”. Vyatireka says that “if Brahman doesn’t exist, then the world doesn’t exist”. This clearly shows that Brahman is independent whereas the world is dependent. Any dependent entity is unreal and an illusion in the independent entity as a variable is nothing but an illusion in the constant (there is nothing called variable as there is only constant at any point of time). The world is just names and forms of the reality. Names and forms are mere illusions. World is also an illusion because it was not there in the beginning (before creation) and it will not be there in the end (after destruction) – that which Is not present in the beginning and end, never exists in the middle too. Thus the world is only an illusion in the ultimate reality of non-dual Brahman like the dream world. The duality perceived is only an illusion caused due to ignorance or ajnaana of the ultimate reality of Brahman. This ajnaana itself is not real but only an illusion. This ajnaana causes a person to think that the duality perceived is real. There is no cause for ajnaana as it is nothing but only an illusion. This illusion of ajnaana has the substratum of Brahman. When a person through the vritti jnaana (thought-knowledge) that “I am Brahman” contemplates on the reality, then ajnaana vanishes & the ever-existing Consciousness exists without any veiling of ignorance or maya. This is realization. It is futile to enquire about ajnaana as nobody wants to know “why I am ignorant” but want to get knowledge --- ajnaana as it is an illusion cannot have any cause but only a substratum. Thus it is very well proved that there is only non-dual Brahman and it is AJNAANA which causes duality – thus this is a fact. FACT or reality is never ANISHTA but ISHTA alone…… Thus what Jaya Teertha says is completely wrong. Moreover it has already been proved that the dvaitin’s ISHTA of Saguna, Savishesha Brahman (with many gunaas) is ANISHTA as it is unreal and not correct at all as per Sruthi, Yukthi and Anubhava.
posted by vedanta at
7:40 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home