Learning Mayavada Khandanam through flowcharts

नरस िंहोsखिलाज्ञानमतध्ािंतसिवाकरः जयत्यसमत ज्ज्ञान ुिशखिपयोसनस ः ।

Mayavada Khandana aims at establishing two important things
1. That Veda shastras do not advocate the identity and unity of Jeevatma and Brahman.
2. Promulgation of the supremacy of Vishnu is this main goal of all scriptures.
This ultra short work by Sri Madhvacharya is part of the PrakaraNas and particularly the 3 khandanas referred as Khandana traya. In around 17 (18) vakyas/shlokas,
Mayavada khandana achieves the goal it is set out.
The work can be divided into 6 categories for study purposes
1. MangalAcharana and establishing anubandha chatuShTaya (1 shloka)
2. Establishing pratijnA vAkya and handling advaita objections for the pratijnA vAkya (1 vAkya)
3. advaita shAstra anyathA pratipAdakatva through ayathArtha pratipAdakatva (6 vAkyas)
4. advaita shAstra anyathA pratipAdakatva through anubandha chatusTaya rejection (8 vAkyas)
5. Establishing Vishnu's Purushottamatva (7 shlokas + 1 vAkya) through Gita, Katopanishat and Brahmasutra citations
6. Winding down shloka (s) (1 or 2 based on paaTa)
The size of the work is very misleading. The magnanimity of meanings hidden in the work is exposed only through the teeka of Sri Jayateertha. The teeka is quite
terse.
1. Multiple scenarios and advaita objections are handled. Advaiti is cornered on each objection.
2. Multiple dissection of advaita lead to similar dOsha.
3. Counter objections on advaita are raised.
One gets easily lost in the polemic debate and loses sight of the flow and the big picture at the same time.
A unique approach is taken to address these issues in the study of Mayavada Khandana by representing it through flow charts (or a n-ary tree in some cases).
Especially in the context of khandana traya - where the goal of the prakaraNa is to continuously go through series if-then-else and strangle prativAdi in "checkmate"
(end state).
Here are some features of the visual flowchart approach:
1. The flowchart sticks to the Jayateertha teeka completely.
2. However parallel objections are treated in parallel,
3. Branch on decision and merge are used to mimic the debate.
4. The flow of logic from Sri Jayateertha is superimposed with the statements of Acharya and a compact picture is arrived at.
5. In this context, it might appear that few points moved around. But it is in reality whether Acharya has gone depth first or breadth first in tree traversal.
6. Verbosity is kept to minimum. unless needed.
7. Flowchart elements are color coded and Legend is provided
The goal is to be a handy reference and get the big picture as well.
Please take a look.
Fallacy of Advaita Mahavakyas - Prajnanam Brahma
Advaita lists four (pieces of) statements taken out of context from teh entire corpus of Upanishadic literature and projects them as major mahavakyas. Many other
minor mahavakya-like statements are pointed out from the Upanishadic corpus to indicate Advaita is the real purport of Vedanta.
The four major Mahavakyas are:
1. Aham Brahma-asmi
2. Tat-tvam-asi
3. Ayam-aatma Brahma
4. Prajnaanam Brahma
A closer look of the fourth Mahavakya follows.
Advaita treats the word prajnaanam to mean conciousness (or chaitanya). Thus it says that the chaitanya is Brahma. The real "I" is that chaitanya which is Brahma itself. Thus
projecting Jeeva brahma aikya.
But is it really so?
We take a look at both Dvaita and even Advaita interpretation by Shankaracharya himself to show Shankaracharya did not give jeeva brahma aikya interpretation for Prajnaanam
Brahma.
1. The statement "Prajnaanam Brahma: is from Aitareya Upanishad (2nd Aranyaka, 6th Adhyaya).
2.
a. This adhyaya talks about the characteristics and attributes of God that should be considered for upasana.
b. It lists the 23 names (attributes) of God, of which Prajnana is one name. God is called Prajnanam because he grasps himself as-is (jnaana) - which is nothing but the best of
attributes (pra).
c. In this context, the Upanishad provides a laundry list different creatures starting from the very elevated one viz. Chaturmukha Brahma to the most inferior creatures that are
controlled (niyamya) by the God named Prajna (i.e. Prajnanetram) and completely dependent on him (prajnaane pratishitam).
d. Thus Prajnanam is Brahma.
e. One should worship the Brahman as Prajnanam (as having the best of knowledge).
This is as per the Bhashya of Sri Madhvacharya.
As is standard with Acharya's approach, the context (prakaraNa, vakya, abhyasa, upakrama upasamhara) and logic are to be applied to arrive at the holistic meaning.
3. In contrast, Advaita picks isolated statements or pieces of isolated statements of Upanishadic literature that only apparently appears to suit their purpose of jeeva brahma aikya
vaada.
4. But in this case, even that approach fails drastically. For, Shankaracharya himself has interpreted this entire episode almost along the same lines of Madhvacharya. He translates
a. Prajnaanam as Paramatma and
b. Brahma as One with nitya shudha svabhava
Hence it is amply clear that Shankaracharya never really interpreted Prajnaanam Brahma as Jeeva-Brahma aikya para at all. It is definitely a concoction of later era.
5. Modern day advaitis cite an elusive Yajushiya Shuka Rahasyopanishat as quoting the four mahavakyas as-is (atha mahavakyani chatvari yatha......). This upanishat has no
parampara, totally unknown and surprisingly no Advaita Acharya of by gone period has quoted this inspite of reading out-and-out Advaita!! Again another proof that the "4
mahavakyas set" is an idea not having its origin in Shankaracharya.
Fallacy of Advaita Mahavakya (2) - ayamAtmA brahma
1. The mahavakya ayamAtmA brahma is from Manduka Upanishad.
2. The context of this vakya is elaborating on the four forms of Brahma.
3. The upanishad starts with describing Om.
a. Om iti etat axaram sarvam
This God named axara (for being imperishable) is also called sarvam.
Sarvam is also Brahma,
b. This atma is a Brahma (literal meaning of ayamaatmaa Brahma).
c. The word Atma denotes Paramatma in parama mukhya vrutti.
d.This atma has four forms - ishwa Taijasa Prajna Turiya
So goes the upanishat.
4. The advaita argument that AtmA here speaks of jeeva is full of contradictions.
For Shankara himself says in his Brahmasutra Bhashya that Atma word denotes God in mukhya vrutti. (Om dyubhvAdyAtanaM svashabdat 1.3.1). Similar meaning is given by Sri
Madhvacharya to this sutra - of course with the addition that God is Vishnu.
5. However Advaitis argue in this case that he usage of term "ayam" to identify the AtmA implies the entity (lakshya) be pratyaxa siddha. Hence the main meaning of atma as God is
overlooked as God is not pratyaxa siddha and invisible.
6. Sounds like nice argument except that in his own Bhashya for the second sutra Om Janmadyasya yatah Om,
Shankaracharya says the "asya" and "idam" words are not restricted to the creation of pratyaxa worlds like we live, but also the heaven and other worlds invisible to eyes but can be
inferred (anumana) or known through shabda (agama). Hence in his own bhashya, Shankaracharya associates the usage of asya idam etc with any pramana siddha entity that is
conceptualized in mind.
7. The irony is that the ayam AtmA as God is readily conceptualized in mind as God is pramana siddha. Hence there is no obstacle to interpret the word Atma as God in ayam AtmA
brahma. In fact the rule mandates that the term AtmA be interpreted as God when there are no obstacles to accepting such main meaning.
8. Thus the Upanishat describing the God named Om, axara, sarvam with four forms is referred as aatma in the vakya ayamaatmaa brahma. and is not at all propounding the aikya
(unity) of Jeeva and Brahma
Acknowledgements:
1. Upanishat Prasthaana by PPVP
2. Civil Suit (Satyadhyana Teertharu)

Sri Madhvacharya's interpretation of aham brahma asmi

Some monists, out of sheer heartburn for the failure of advaita at the hands of consistency with which Sri Madhvacharya and his followers have
interpreted the Sacred Scripture, which is severely lacking in Shankara's interpretations, have accused Sri Madhvacharya's interpretation
of aham brahma asmi as "an interpretation with some outworldly meanings, never heard of by anyone". I found this reference in one of the blogs.
The first thought that arose in me after reading the above statement is the popular Tamil saying "கழுதைக்கு தைறியுமா கர்பூர வாசதை
" - kazhudhaikku theriyuma karpoora vaasanai - which translates to "Does a donkey know the fragrance of the camphor?". This saying is mostly
used to indicate someone who cannot understand the essence of a thing, despite being said clearly.
What is the use of learning the shashtra when it is not learnt properly, esp. without utilising one's own brains. The very reason God bestowed
brain on us is to engage it in some impartial and critical thinking, the bhakti that culminates on Supreme God. However it looks like some
monists, like that blogger, get carried away blindly with what is taught to them by their guru (who is blind himself) thus rendering their very brains
useless. If brains are not used for inquiring into the truth, then what the world sees is "advaita". If the other blogger had any respect for the Vedic
literature, he would not have used such a language against Sri Madhva's interpretations.

One must accept that it is not in the capability of the advaitin heads, who were taught blindly, to understand Madhva's interpretation which is
the only consistent interpretation available till date on the famous aham brahma asmi mantra both for its inner consistency and from the
semantic and syntactical points of view. We will also juxtapose Shankara's hopeless and head-weighted interpretation too so as to allow the
readers to assess for themselves as to who stands on better ground - Sri Madhva or a perverted Shankara.

To appreciate Sri Madhva's interpretation of the sacred texts, one must know some background of the sacred texts themselves like The
Upanishads. The Upanishads contain the "secret teaching" or rahasyam. They hold the very secret doctrine that cannot be understood if the
Upanishadic mantras were taken on the face value. If they were to be understood on the face value, then they cease to the one containing
Secret Doctrine as such because the meaning and import of the mantras would be very evident then. In fact, there is no need for a Guru to
impart such an evident doctrine as such. But the Vedas clearly expound the need for a Guru and the futility of knowledge received in the absence
of a Guru. Given this, advaita's interpretation of aham brahma asmi, so ham asmi, tat tvam asi etc which were interpreted by Shankara and
upheld by his blind followers are error- prone interpretations and contradict the experiences and is not a scret doctrine and as such are
highly apramana in nature. The advaita interpretation being apramana, it ceases to be of any value, consequently rendering the very advaita
itself as avaidika or unVedic and is worthy only of condemnation and damnation.

Let's, for example, take the famous mantra " ोहम अखि" which is one of the mantras to which the advaitin clings always and is the sheet anchor
of advaita metaphysics. If this mantra is taken in the literal sense, it means "I am He", which is nothing but another side of the coin of "tat tvam
asi". Here advaitin interprets aham as "I", the common parlance which is prevalent today. But if one were to understand certain Vedic words in its
conventional usage, without resorting to etymology, then what we infer is an erroneous message, which is what advaita and its followers preach
today. Hence advaita is erroneous and unVedic philosophy. However, when " ोहम अखि is rendered etymylogically and mystically, it means that
God is अ (the first) and ह (the last) and in between the first and the last is everything woven (including the jivas and the Universe) without which
nothing can have its existence. Thus aham is the name of God, without whom we (sentients and insentients) cannot exist.

Such etymylogical rendering of the meanings of words where each letter or alphabet is assigned a particular value and meaning is called
"Kabbalah" in the Jewish tradition. However it is not something foreign to Indian philosophy. Such a system of arriving at the meanings of words,
esp. Vedic words, is an age old tradition in India. However that system is not in vogue these days. Even during the period of Sri Madhva too, this
system was followed only here and there and was not common. However it is Sri Madhva who revived this tradition and showed the world that
this is the only true way of interpretation of the sacred texts like the Upanishads. Even the tantric writers of ancient India followed this
methodology and had perfected a scheme of cryptography in which their tantric mantras were written.

Again it is Sri Madhvacharya who unearthed the forgotten, old Vedic words by referring to various Niruktas and Nighantus and retrieved the
ancient, secret and efficacious names of God and quite a few other letters and words. It is worthy to read Sri Madhva's works to enjoy the beauty
of his interpretations in which he had utilised hitherto unkown meanings for various letters and words from old niruktas. No one before or after Sri
Madhva has ever given such a epitomised and seminal meaning and a true import of the Upanishads and their message. After reading
Shankara's commentaries in which he reads his own assumptions and theories first (like the infamous and pathetic "adhyasa bhashya") and
them interprets the Sacred Scripture on his own authority, I must say that Shankara is the worst philosopher the world has ever seen who is
incapable of interpreting the scripture and does not fit even to a grain of sand on Sri Madhva's feet, given the internal consistency with
which Sri Madhva finds the correct and consistent import. Shankara is adept only at perversions where he openly declared that a jiva is none
other than that Infinite Lord Himself and that every jiva should realise that he is a God himself to attain mukti - aham brahma asmi. Sri Madhva's
interpretation infuses fresh mysticism hitherto unknown to certain monist bigots including Shankara himself. As I always say, if Shankara were
alive to the interpretations of Sri Madhva, Shankara would have prostrated at the feet of Sri Madhva.

To understand Sri Madhva's interpretation of aham brahma asmi mantra properly, one has to read it in perspective the way Sri Madhva puts it.
This mantra appears in the Brhdaranyka Upanishad i.4.10. One should read what the previous mantra says. It reads thus: When the wise say
"through Brahmavidya they attain fullness of perfection", some people think "Since Brahman is also Perfect, did He also attain His perfection
through Brahmavidya?"

The question posed here is: Did Brahman too acquire it externally through some other source like a Guru? It then means that Brahman was
ignorant and imperfect before and It attained the perfection through Brahmavidya only later. Alternatively, if Brahman attained perfection without
knowing anything, then everybody else too can do away with Brahmavidya thereby rendering the Vedas and Upanishads as useless utilities for
imparting Brahmavidya. This is but a natural poser from the inquirer.

The section following the above does away with the objection over the need for Brahman to attain perfection anew. Unlike in the case of a jiva,
the Supreme Brahman's perfection, self-fulfilment and absolute knowledge of its own perfection is not something earned anew and by any
special effort and that Brahman has Its own experience of Itself as "It existed from time immemorial before creation" which is what is succinctly
expounded by the mantra aham brahma asmi,brahma va dam agre sit, tad atmanam eva avet aham brahma asmi iti.

In the second instance where the mantra aham brahma asmi occurs, the Upanishad is actually expounding the fact that whoever among the
gods, rsis and men comes to know Brahman as "aham asmi" attains fulfilment of his nature (sarvam abhavat).

Let's dive a little more into the words aham and asmi.
Aham means, as the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad itself states, is etymologically divided into, "a - heyam" - something that cannot (a) be discarded
(heyam) or something without which existence is not possible. And aham is the secret name of God. The Upanishad itself says this
- tasyopanishad 'aham' iti - that aham is the secret name (upanishad) of God. In conventional parlance, aham means "I", which is also true
because one cannot discard one's own self or exist without it. The conventional meaning of "I" is what everybody sees in traditional dictionaries
like that of V.S. Apte's and this is what is taught in schools while learning Sanskrit. But, in Vedic parlance, the word aham has a different
meaning altogether. Here aham is meant to show that it refers to God, because discarding (heyam) Whom this world and jivas cannot exist at all.
Since God is the Inner Ruler or antaryami who pervaded every entity in this world, nothing can ever exist without Him and hence He cannot be
discarded at all ever. Primarily aham is God's name only secondarily it refers to the conventional meaning of "I" . This interpretation also shows
that the God (known as aham) is the one on which the whole Universe and jivas depend for their very existence as explained in the Upanishads
and Puranas, which is 100% correct except for some god-damned monist bloggers. This interpretation has remarkable internal consistency
because Brh. Up. i.4.8 says "asmat sarvasmat antaratah" - God is the innermost of all. This is rightly ascertained by the Antaryami Brahmana by
none other than the great sage Yajnavalkya himself. Readers can refer to my Antaryami Brahmana blog for more details where detailed
refutation of Shankara's and the bigot blogger's position is given. Readers can at once see the perverted Shankara's and one of his stooge's
inconsistency being exposed for which there has been no counter response till date.

God has another secret name called "asmi". A lot of Upanishads ascertain this in unequivocal terms. It is all the more surprising to know that
even Zend Avesta says this very clearly when it uses the very words aham and amsi expounding the meanings of aham and asmi in the same
way that our Upanishads eulogise (as rightly explained by none other than Sri Madhvacharya alone).

Here as-mi means "sarvada asti iti meyam meyatve prakarapradarsanaya asti sabdah". Since God is All-Knowing, He is naturally expected to
know Himself and His existence fully. Hence aham brahma asmi would naturally answer the question by the inquirer ("kimu tad brahma avet
yasmat tat sarvam abhavat" - where and how did Brahman Itself attain perfection) that not only does Brahman exist from eternity, but also that It
is fully aware and conscious of its own existence and power with its own eternal immediate perception what is as-mi means in its
etymological sense. One should read Sri Madhvacharya's Brh. Up bhashya to understand how the Upanishad starts the inquiry and how it
culminates glorifying the greatness of Brahman and the eternal dependence of all jivas (including the monist bigot blogger) and this Universe
without Whom nothing would have come into existence.

In a nut shell, the two occurrences of the aham brahma asmi mantra refers to, in the first instance, about the Brahman that existed from eternity
and that it is fully aware and conscious of Its own existence and power. And the second instance of aham brahma asmi refers to the gods, rsis
and men who should know God as aham (the One cannot be discardable) and asmi (All Knowing) will attain fulfilment of his nature (sarvam
abhavat). And it is not to be interpreted as Shankara does that gods and men should realise aham brahma asmi (I am Brahman myself) to
attain mukti.
If the bigot says "the interpretation of the 'Aham Brahma asmi' by Madhva with some outworldly meanings, never heard of by anyone" , then let
me explain the bigot's preceptor Shankara's way of interpreting aham brahma asmi. Shankara, as usual, does not interpret the Upanishad the
way it is to be read and interpreted. Rather he reads his own stupid and pathetic adhyasa bhashya (superimposition theory) first using a good
deal of interpolations and then interprets this mantra on his own bloody authority, for which the stupid bigot too plays second fiddle without using
his own reasonings and without any sort of shame on his part.

Shankara while interpreting aham brahma asmi says "The Self now experiencing itself as embodied was, in fact, the Unconditioned Brahman
itself even before it realising to be so. However, through superimposition, it has come to regard itself, erroneously as "I am not Brahman, I am not
all, and supposes itself to be a doer and a enjoyer and a transmigrating self.". When its eyes are opened by a compassionate Guru, it discovers
itself as the pure subject-objectless consciousness free from all superimpositions and individuality. This, Brahman's coming to know Itself as "I
AM Brahman" consists only in the removal of superimpositions caused by ignorance of truth. It is not at all an act of knowing Itself as the object
of Its own consciousness."

One of the fallacies in the above interpretation of the bigot lies in assuming that Brahman forgot himself to be Brahman somehow due to
superimposition. Shankara takes his own "superimposition theory" as authority and explains even this sruti passage on his own authority while in
reality the superimposition theory is no where mentioned in the Upanishad nor such a theory is supported in the entire Vedic literature (which are
considered by all the three systems of Vedanta as the sole authority of their system). It is pure bigotry on Shankara's part to force the Upanishad
and its mantras to yield to his monist thesis. For such an act, Shankara should be condemned and damned. No wonder why the damned bigot
Shankara died at the age of 32. That monist blogger should be thoroughly ashamed for being a follower of such a filthy Vedantin who disrespects
the sacred Vedic literature by reading his own assumptions first and then interprets the sacred literature on his own filthy authority.

Another fallacy of Shankara lies in the interpretation of the word "agre" occurring in the verse "brahma va idam agre asit". For Shankara, agre is
"prak prabodhat api" which means "even before knowing himself to be identical with Brahman". No where in the Upanishad it is mentioned that
Brahman forgot Itself to be Brahman. Then how is it possible for Shankara to interpret the word agre in the sense of "even before knowing
himself to be Brahman". It is sheer bigotry of Shankara. This interpretation is not only too far fetched interpretation rather it is quiet inconsistent
with the similar meaning and contexts occurring in other texts for which Shankara himself interprets quiet differently. For example, in this very
Brh. Up. i.2.1, a verse occurs "naiveha kincana agra asit" and in Aitareya Upanishad i.1 "atma va idam agre asit" which according to Shankara
means "before creation of the world". But when it comes to this verse, Shankara flip-flops and explains very contrastingly which speaks against
his own interpretation in other places. The Brh. Up.'s and Aitareya Up.'s contexts, words and meaning are the same, which says that agre refers
to a time before creation and that God (Atman or Brahman) existed even before the creation of this world.

Despite all this, the bigot blogger comes out criticising Madhva's interpretations. People living in glass houses should not throw stones at others'
houses and it's time they stop being donkeys that do not know the fragrance (Vedic essence) which Sri Madhva has enunciated. It's time the
bigot blogger feels ashamed of himself and stops hurling stones on Sri Madhva and corrects his preceptor Shankara's flawed credentials and
interpretations first and tries to correct them.