Bimba – pratibimba vAda
The plurality of souls was adhered in all schools of thought such as Jainism, pUrva mimAmsa, nyAya vaishEShika, sAMkhyAyOga, vishiShTAdvaita, schools of nimbAraka, vallabha and chaitanya, even islam and Christianity. It was only shankaracharya who rejected this concept.
ShankarAchArya’s concept of jIvaikyabhAVa brought a big question of who has a~jnAna that which is the cause of bondage. If jIva had a~jnAna it would be like accepting that there are jIvas apart from Brahman and if Brahman had a~jnAna it would be admitting that nirguNa tatva had a guNa called a~jnAna. Again a~jnAna cannot be an attribute to the parabrahman.
RamAnujachArya said that the relationship of the two is based on sharIra-shraIri bhAva (relationship of the body and its indweller) and there is AnandasAmya in mOkSha.
AchArya madhva said that the relationship of the soul and God is like the object and its reflection which in true spirit reflects the concept of asvatantrya of the jIva.
Adherents of EkAtmavAda resort to the theory of upAdhis or “conditioning factors” of embodiment etc to explain the diversity of experience without assuming the individuals themselves to be essentially different and many.
AchArya madhva says it is impossible to experience the joy and sorrows of others in any stage including mOkSha and this jIva bhEda is not merely aupAdhika. It is only possible to be empathetic with other people but never experience their miseries/joys of their minds and body.
Ref: 'Shri Madhva's Teachings in his own words' by BNK Sharma
'matatrayasamIkSha' by Dr. AV Nagasampige
Discourse on madhva vijaya (15 Canto) by Shri Bannanje Govindacharya
ShankarAchArya’s concept of jIvaikyabhAVa brought a big question of who has a~jnAna that which is the cause of bondage. If jIva had a~jnAna it would be like accepting that there are jIvas apart from Brahman and if Brahman had a~jnAna it would be admitting that nirguNa tatva had a guNa called a~jnAna. Again a~jnAna cannot be an attribute to the parabrahman.
RamAnujachArya said that the relationship of the two is based on sharIra-shraIri bhAva (relationship of the body and its indweller) and there is AnandasAmya in mOkSha.
AchArya madhva said that the relationship of the soul and God is like the object and its reflection which in true spirit reflects the concept of asvatantrya of the jIva.
Adherents of EkAtmavAda resort to the theory of upAdhis or “conditioning factors” of embodiment etc to explain the diversity of experience without assuming the individuals themselves to be essentially different and many.
AchArya madhva says it is impossible to experience the joy and sorrows of others in any stage including mOkSha and this jIva bhEda is not merely aupAdhika. It is only possible to be empathetic with other people but never experience their miseries/joys of their minds and body.
Ref: 'Shri Madhva's Teachings in his own words' by BNK Sharma
'matatrayasamIkSha' by Dr. AV Nagasampige
Discourse on madhva vijaya (15 Canto) by Shri Bannanje Govindacharya
Research works on Puranas
mahAbhAratha tAtparya nirNaya is the first ever research work done on rAmAyaNa and mahAbhArata. Another work called bhAgavata tAtparya of AchArya is a research work on the bhAgavata mahApurANa.
There are several contradicting and confusing incidents and aspects in our purANas. Several incidents mentioned in the bhAgavatha don't match with those mentioned in the mahAbhAratha. Different purANas have different versions of the same incident.
Several aspects in the epics throw bad light on gods and are very confusing.
Surprisingly all the purANAs have been authered by the same author bhagavAn vEdavyasa who Himslef says that there are no contradictions in shRutis and smRutis!
Unable to digest these, several hindu philosophers never considered purAnas as pramANas while establishing their schools of thought. Most of them backed only on shRuti pramANas.
However shrImadAchArya beautifully cleared all these inconsistencies in these works. The statement "itihAsapurANAbhyAM vEdaM samupabRuMhayEt" makes sense only when there is clarity in the itihAsa-purANa graMtha-s to begin with.
We should also note that purANas are written in samAdhi, guhya and darshana bhAsha-s. Most of them have inner allegorical meanings. To understand these kinds of complexities achArya's research works come to our rescue.
There are several contradicting and confusing incidents and aspects in our purANas. Several incidents mentioned in the bhAgavatha don't match with those mentioned in the mahAbhAratha. Different purANas have different versions of the same incident.
Several aspects in the epics throw bad light on gods and are very confusing.
Surprisingly all the purANAs have been authered by the same author bhagavAn vEdavyasa who Himslef says that there are no contradictions in shRutis and smRutis!
Unable to digest these, several hindu philosophers never considered purAnas as pramANas while establishing their schools of thought. Most of them backed only on shRuti pramANas.
However shrImadAchArya beautifully cleared all these inconsistencies in these works. The statement "itihAsapurANAbhyAM vEdaM samupabRuMhayEt" makes sense only when there is clarity in the itihAsa-purANa graMtha-s to begin with.
We should also note that purANas are written in samAdhi, guhya and darshana bhAsha-s. Most of them have inner allegorical meanings. To understand these kinds of complexities achArya's research works come to our rescue.
Iconography and architecture
It wouldn’t be wrong if it is said that shrImadAchARya was the only AchArya who contributed not only in the field of philosophy but also in fields of iconography, temple vAstu, art, science, music and poetry.
AchArya madhva in his work called tantrsArasaMgraha gives great details about how icons of worship should look like. He gives dimensions, postures, positions etc of idols covering every minute detail. He also explains about temple vAstu, methods of consecration, procedures of re-installation, etc. This work of AchArya can be definitely used as a reference text for sculptors and architects even today.
AchArya madhva in his work called tantrsArasaMgraha gives great details about how icons of worship should look like. He gives dimensions, postures, positions etc of idols covering every minute detail. He also explains about temple vAstu, methods of consecration, procedures of re-installation, etc. This work of AchArya can be definitely used as a reference text for sculptors and architects even today.
No comments:
Post a Comment