Dvaita Vedanta Nonsense From Sanjay Dadlani

Sanjay Kishore Dadlani
Middlesex University Student Residing In The UK

Sanjay Dadlani recently wrote an article about Sathya Sai Baba and Dvaita Vedanta that said, in part:

“It shouldn’t come as a surprise that Sai Baba also claims to be a poorna avatar. Of course, nothing else would be appropriate enough to describe his great magnificence. :-) Sai Baba’s ‘poorna’ status is supposed to be exemplified via the sensational nature of his “astounding miracles”, welfare works, all-inclusive spiritual teachings, and the like. After all, wouldn’t GOD be perfectly capable of transmitting new holy teachings for the benefit of the world, which explain absolutely everything?

Here comes the crunch: Dvaita Vedanta is one of the three major philosophical schools of Hindu theology, the other two being Vishishtadvaita Vedanta and Advaita Vedanta. Whereas seekers of Eastern spirituality are likely to have heard of or be influenced by Advaita above all, Dvaita (also known as Tattvavada) has an increasing reputation for having formed its conclusions on a strong basis of sound reasoning, admirable rigorousness and textual clarity. In other words, Dvaita followers have extremely good reasons for believing the way they do, and Dvaita holds that there is no such thing as poorna avatars. :-)

The reason for this is rather simple: Since avatars are descents of one deity, Vishnu, it naturally follows that they are all emanations of his and would naturally possess all of his potencies. In theory, it is possible for Matsya and other “minor” avatars to exhibit and fully display all the astounding powers of God displayed by the ‘poornas’ like Rama and Krishna, and the reason for why they didn’t do so is really because there was no call to do so. Otherwise it is regarded that each and every incarnation of Vishnu is possessed of ‘full’ and ‘complete’ power and are thus equal to each other. There is no gradation among the incarnations of Vishnu as they are all him.

Not everyone will agree with this, but there you have it: the viewpoint of Dvaita Vedanta on this subject. This leads us to the natural consequence that Sathya Sai Baba’s claims to ‘poorna’ avatarhood will have no credibility among the followers of Dvaita Vedanta and they are not likely to brook such nonsense either.

At the very least, this is a perfect example of how Sathya Sai Baba’s divine and supposedly all-inclusive teachings are incompatible with Dvaita Vedanta philosophy. :-) One of the Baba’s oft-quoted platitudes urges Hindus to be better Hindus, Christians to be better Christians, Muslims to be better Muslims, and so on. This will not apply for the Dvaita Vedantin, as Sai Baba’s meaningless witterings about ‘poorna’ avatars will hold no weight with such people. After all, how can Sai Baba claim anything “special” about his status when his claim doesn’t even exist in their religious paradigm? :-)”

Well the real “crunch” about Sanjay’s useless and pointless article is that Dvaita Vedanta is not accepted by Christianity, Islam, Agnosticism, Atheism, Buddhism, Chinese traditional religions, Primal indigenous religions, African tradional and diasporic religions, Sikhism, Judaism, Rastafarianism, etc.

Dvaita Vedanta forms an extremely small percentage of religious adherents and their God Concept is rather meaningless in the overall schema of religious beliefs. Turning the tables, Dvaita Vedantin’s God Concept is meaningless and holds no weight to the majority of religious/non-religious adherents that populate the Earth. How can Dvaita Vedantins claim anything special about Vishnu when their claims do not even exist in the majority paradigms that religious/non-religious people happen to believe in? Needless to say, the majority religions would not brook such nonsense either :-)

Furthermore, Gaudiya Vaishnavism (which Sanjay fully professes belief in) fully advocates for the concept of Poorna Avatars and a special emphasis is always placed on Radha-Krishna. Krishna is considered the fullest and Original Personality of Godhead, with whom other avatars simply do not compare. Needless to say, Sanjay’s Gaudiya Vaishnava beliefs in the Supreme Personality of Godhead and that Lord Krishna is the source of Vishnu (and not an incarnation of Him) have no credibility among followers of Dvaita Vedanata (who believe that Vishnu is the Supreme Being and Lord Krishna was an incarnation of Him and not vice versa).

Therefore, Sanjay Dadlani just formed another argument against his own Gaudiya Vaishnava beliefs. The only time Sanjay opens his mouth is to stick his other foot in it. Since Sanjay Dadlani believes that Dvaita Vedanta “forms its conclusions on a strong basis of sound reasoning, admirable rigorousness and textual clarity”, I suggest he approach the Bhaktivedanta Manor in the UK (which he attends and whose marble deities he bows before as God Incarnate) and tell them to replace the statues of RadhaKrishna and Ramachandra with one of Vishnu because Dvaita Vedantins worship Vishnu as the Supreme Being and their beliefs are somehow meritorious and are based on sound reasoning, admirable rigorousness and textual clarity. lol

To top off all this nonsense, Sanjay Dadlani does not believe in Dvaita Vedanta per se. The Sutras of Vyasa are the basis of Vedanta philosophy. These Sutras have been commented on by various scholars/devotees and various interpretations have given rise to several schools of thought. For example:

1. Kevala Advaita philosophy of Sri Sankaracharya
2. The philosophy of Qualified Monism or Visishtadvaita of Sri Ramanuja
3. Dvaita philosophy of Sri Madhvacharya
4. The Bhedabheda philosophy of Sri Nimbarkacharya
5. The Suddha Advaita philosophy of Sri Vallabhacharya
6. The Achintya Bhedabheda philosophy of Sri Chaitanya
7. The Siddhanta philosophy of Sri Meykandar

Apparently, Sanjay has a lot of time on his hands (since his University put a stop to his boot fetish stalking habits) and decided to bore everyone with his pointless philosophical nonsense.

It worked.

Ahimsa With A Side Of Bacon

Preface: I am not prejudiced against meat eaters. Nor do I care to preach to anyone about what they should or should not eat (just as I would not like to be preached to about what I should or should not eat). This article’s intent is to expose Tony O’Clery’s hypocrisy and double-standards when it comes to “ahimsa” (non-violence) and meat-eating.

Tony O’Clery (an ex-devotee of Sathya Sai Baba) often blathers about “ahimsa” (non-violence) and vegetarianism. As a matter of fact, Tony is so averse to eating meat and causing harm to animals that he has written a great deal about it on his own personal website and on the SSB2 Yahoo Group. For example, Tony cited (copied from another source) the following spiritual texts as authorities on the ills of eating meat and causing suffering to animals:

“Mahabharata” (18.113.8) says: One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self. This, in brief, is the rule of dharma. Yielding to desire and acting differently, one becomes guilty of adharma.Atharva Veda Samhita 6.120.1. VE, 636 You must not use your God-given body for killing God’s creatures, whether they are human, animal or whatever. Yajur Veda Samhita 12.32. FS, 90

Nonviolence is all the offerings. Renunciation is the priestly honorarium. The final purification is death. Thus all the Divinities are established in this body. Krishna Yajur Veda, Prana Upanishad 46-8. VE, 413-14

To the heavens be peace, to the sky and the earth; to the waters be peace, to plants and all trees; to the Gods be peace, to Brahman be peace, to all men be peace, again and again-peace also to me! O earthen vessel, strengthen me. May all beings regard me with friendly eyes! May I look upon all creatures with friendly eyes! With a friend’s eye may we regard each other! Shukla Yajur Veda Samhita 36.17-18. VE, 306; 342

No pain should be caused to any created being or thing. Devikalottara agama, JAV 69-79. RM, 116

The Mahabharata and Bhagavad Gita, Epic History The very name of the cows is aghnya, indicating that they should never be slaughtered. Who, then could slay them? Surely, one who kills a cow or a bull commits the most heinous crime. Mahabharata, Shantiparva 262.47. FS,pg. 94

He who desires to augment his own flesh by eating the flesh of other creatures lives in misery in whatever species he may take his birth. Mahabharata, Anu. 115.47. FS, pg. 90

One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self. This, in brief, is the rule of dharma. Yielding to desire and acting differently, one becomes guilty of adharma. Mahabharata 18.113.8.

Those high-souled persons who desire beauty, faultlessness of limbs, long life, understanding, mental and physical strength and memory should abstain from acts of injury. Mahabharata 18.115.8.

Ahimsa is the highest dharma. Ahimsa is the best tapas. Ahimsa is the greatest gift. Ahimsa is the highest self-control. Ahimsa is the highest sacrifice. Ahimsa is the highest power. Ahimsa is the highest friend. Ahimsa is the highest truth. Ahimsa is the highest teaching. Mahabharata 18.116.37-41.

He who sees that the Lord of all is ever the same in all that is immortal in the field of mortality-he sees the truth. And when a man sees that the God in himself is the same God in all that is, he hurts not himself by hurting others. Then he goes, indeed, to the highest path. Bhagavad Gita 13. 27-28. BgM, pg. 101

Tirumantiram and other Scriptures Many are the lovely flowers of worship offered to the Guru, but none lovelier than non-killing. Respect for life is the highest worship, the bright lamp, the sweet garland and unwavering devotion. Tirumantiram 197

SPIRITUAL MERIT and sin are our own making. The killer of other lives is an outcast. Match your words with your conduct. Steal not, kill not, indulge not in self-praise, condemn not others to their face. Lingayat Vachanas

AHIMSA IS NOT CAUSING pain to any living being at any time through the actions of one’s mind, speech or body. Sandilya UpanishadWhen mindstuff is firmly based in waves of ahimsa, all living beings cease their enmity in the presence of such a person. Yoga Sutras 2.35. YP, pg. 205

Those who are ignorant of real dharma and, though wicked and haughty, account themselves virtuous, kill animals without any feeling of remorse or fear of punishment. Further, in their next lives, such sinful persons will be eaten by the same creatures they have killed in this world. Shrimad Bhagavatam 11.5.4. FS, pg, 90

It is the principle of the pure in heart never to injure others, even when they themselves have been hatefully injured. What is virtuous conduct? It is never destroying life, for killing leads to every other sin. 312; 321, TW

Harming others, even enemies who harmed you unprovoked, assures incessant sorrow. The supreme principle is this: never knowingly harm any one at any time in any way. 313; 317, TW

What is the good way? It is the path that reflects on how it may avoid killing any living creature. Refrain from taking precious life from any living being, even to save your own life. 324; 327, TW

How can he practice true compassion Who eats the flesh of an animal to fatten his own flesh? TK 251, TW

Riches cannot be found in the hands of the thriftless. Nor can compassion be found in the hearts of those who eat meat. TK 252, TW

Goodness is never one with the minds of these two: one who wields a weapon and one who feasts on a creature’s flesh. TK 253, TW

If you ask, “What is kindness and what is unkind?” it is not killing and killing. Thus, eating flesh is never virtuous. TK 254, TW

Life is perpetuated by not eating meat.The clenched jaws of hell hold those who do. TK 255, TW

If the world did not purchase and consume meat, there would be none to slaughter and offer meat for sale. TK 256, TW

When a man realizes that meat is the butchered flesh of another creature, he must abstain from eating it. TK 257, TW

Perceptive souls who have abandoned passion will not feed on flesh abandoned by life. TK 258, TW

Greater than a thousand ghee offerings consumed in sacrificial fires is to not sacrifice and consume any living creature. TK 259,TW

All that lives will press palms together in prayerful adoration of those who refuse to slaughter and savor meat. TK 260, TW

For those of us who are vegetarians (yes, I am vegetarian), this may sound all good and well. But for those who truly believe in non-violence, here is the clincher: Tony’s wife eats meat and he has no problem with her doing so because she is “not on a spiritual path” and allegedly doesn’t eat “red meat” (as if that makes the slaughter of fowl, fish and pigs any less violent)! Tony throws aside the very scriptures he cites to support his views on ahimsa and vegetarianism to defend his wife’s eating of meat. Because Tony O’Clery allows his wife to purchase (with their joint money) the flesh of slaughtered animals and allows her to bring those carcasses into his house, he is committing the offense of himsa (violence) through association (according to the scriptures he cites to support his views). Tony indulges in what I call “conditional ahimsa” (i.e., violence is bad, but if your wife is “not on a spiritual path” then violence doesn’t matter)! According To Tony Bologna O’Clery, Those who are not on the “spiritual path” are apparently perfectly entitled to indulge in violence and meat eating with impunity!

The funny thing about all of this is that O’Clery goes to great efforts to convince others about the ills of eating meat, yet obviously cannot convince those nearest and dearest to him on the ills of eating meat! Tony allows the bloody flesh of slaughtered animals to take shelter in his house, in his fridge and in your wifes body and has the audacity to rant about “ahimsa” and vegetarianism! Tony even posted the following verse on the SSB2 Yahoo Group:

The “meat-eater,” is poignantly described in the following passage from the obscure Mansahara Parihasajalpita Stotram: “Those who eat the flesh of other creatures are nothing less than gristle-grinders, blood-drinkers, muscle-munchers, sinew-chewers, carcass-crunchers, flesh-feeders-those who make their throat a garbage pit and their stomach a graveyard-mean, angry, loathsomely jealous, confused and beset by covetousness, who without restraint would lie, deceive, kill or steal to solve immediate problems. They are flesh-feeders, loathsome to the Gods, but friendly to the asuras, who become their Gods and Goddesses, the blood-sucking monsters who inhabit Naraka and deceptively have it decorated to look like the pitriloka, the world of the fathers. To such beings the deluded meat-eaters pay homage and prostrate while munching the succulent flesh off bones.”

Also, Tony O’Clery said:

“Namaste, I think meat eaters have a mental condition and a defective psyche, combined with cognitive dissonance carnalitas. They may have a nice personality and be loving even, but their levels of awareness have not evolved much beyond australopethicus..They haven’t caught up with the other vegetarian hominids the Gorilla and Oran Utan..Tony.” (Reference)

Those nearest and dearest to Tony O’Clery are “gristle-grinders”, “blood-drinkers”, “muscle-munchers”, “flesh-feeders”, “sinew-chewers”, and “carcass-crunchers” who are afflicted with “mental condition and a defective psyche, combined with cognitive dissonance carnalitas”. With his meat-eating wife and family at his side, O’Clery tries to take a peaceful stand for ahimsa and the ills of eating meat and miserably fails!

O’Clery preaches ahimsa, but is married to himsa.

Reference