Bhakti List Archives

RE: Krishna/Vishnu in Bhagavatam

From the Bhakti List Archives

Krishna Kalale • Sat Apr 29 2000 - 10:26:56 PDT 


  Sri Rajeev wrote:

               Recently I had the oppurtunity to read Dr.B.N.K Sharma's book
( a
			Dvaitin ) The philosophy of Madhvacharya... there he clearly says that
			Krishna's form is eternal...  So, I am not very sure how that
			"ontologically prior " is to be understood here!!!  I believe this is to
			be understood as:  Krishna's form was eternally present and it was made
			visible by Him only during Dvapara yuga .  Krishna is considered "
			Purnavathara " in Madhva Philosophy.

			rajiv
********

  Regarding this issue, I just wanted to give an authentic Madhva View from
Professor Balaji Hebbar who is a good friend of mine.  Please do remember
that his tone in his writings are very pro-madhva.  HOwever, a reader should
rather focus on  getting a clear understanding of the issue from Madhva
point of view rather than the style of presentation.

***********

 Dear KP:

Here  is  the  cadence  of  the  3  main  schools  of  VedAnta  on  the
mUlarUpa-avatArarUpa  issue:


1.  Shankarite  view:

mUlarUpa:  Real  &  Eternal  (nirguNa  Brahman)
avatArarUpa:  Unreal  &  non-eternal  (saguNa  Brahman)


2.  RAmAnujite  view:

mUlarUpa:  Real  &  Eternal
avatArarUpa:  Real  &  non-eternal


3.  Madhvite  view:

mUlarUpa:  Real  &  Eternal
avatArarUpa:  Real  &  Eternal


regards

Dear  KP:

Such  things  do  not  arise  in  the  case  of  the  MAdhvas.  Jaya
TIrtha  makes  it  a  sin  to  differentiate  between  the  mUlarUpa
and  the  avatArarUpas  of  ViShNu.  The  "distinction"  between  them
is  purely  one  of  reference  and  NOT  one  of  essence.  The
distinction  is  explained  thru  "visheSha".  Therefore  it  is
"savisheShAbheda"  (visheSha-laden  non-difference).

In  fact,  the  ShrI-VaiShaNava  notions  of  amshAvatAra  and
pUrNAvatAra  are  also  abhorrent  to  the  MAdhvas.  Also,  the
RAmAnujite  conception  of  calling  shrI  RanganAtha  as
Periya-PerumAL  ("BIG  GOD")  is  equally  unsavory  to  them.

As  far  as  the  MAdhvas  are  concerned,  the  LORD  is  ONE
(ekamevAdvitIyam,  neha  nAnA'sti  kincana  etc.)  and  any  sort  of
differentiating  between  the  mUlarUpa  and  the  avatArarUpas,
outside  of  visheSha,  (either  of  the  RAmAnujite  kind  or  the
Caitanyite  kind)  would  be,  according  to  the  MAdhvas,  both
scripturally  unwarranted  and  spiritually  blasphemous.

regards,
Balaji

KP:

Here  is  the  cadence  of  the  3  main  schools  of  VedAnta  on  the
mUlarUpa-avatArarUpa  issue:


1.  Shankarite  view:

mUlarUpa:  Real  &  Eternal  (nirguNa  Brahman)
avatArarUpa:  Unreal  &  non-eternal  (saguNa  Brahman)


2.  RAmAnujite  view:

mUlarUpa:  Real  &  Eternal
avatArarUpa:  Real  &  non-eternal


3.  Madhvite  view:

mUlarUpa:  Real  &  Eternal
avatArarUpa:  Real  &  Eternal


regards,
Balaji,

******

adiyen Krishna Kalale


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get paid for the stuff you know!
Get answers for the stuff you don’t. And get $10 to spend on the site!
http://click.egroups.com/1/2200/2/_/716111/_/957204051/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------
           - SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH -
To Post a message, send it to:   bhakti-list@eGroups.com
Visit http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/ for more information