Exploring Vedanta with Dr. Pratosh | Dvaita Advaita Vishishtadvaita | Indian Knowledge System |

[@Unknown_fellow53636]

With utter respect and regards to your efforts I request you guys to please improve the audio quality 🙏. In the first podcast with Dr Jayanth Vyasankere the audio quality was on par with modern day podcasters So please bring that setup or equipment's back to restore the quality.That would help in taking this beautiful knowledge into our youth

[@tkinter1126]

Right, high quality audio is the most critical thing when watching videos

[@madhavabk]

Really happy to see such things are getting done in our community 🎉

[@preethyivenkatesh3472]

Exactly !

[@MegaKardin]

Thank you Aprameya for your insightful questions. Dr. Pratosh avarige tumbu hrudayada namaskaragalu haagu dhanyavaadagalu. Looking forward to more videos.

[@kidsofindiateamwork]

Thank you to the yuvatma team👍👍

[@khastakachori123]

Very happy to see Dr. Prathosh on your podcast. Please call him more often.

[@vy9076]

Very enlightening discussion. Thank you to the yuvatma team bringing Dr Pratosh here.

[@k.r.tachar3428]

It was wonderful to listen. As Dr. Pradosh rightly says Madhwa philosophy is complete and this was proved since his answers were also complete!! I feel it will be further complete if I listen to it again😊😊

[@bheemeshv6202]

Very nice conversation with Dr Pratosh, with his flavor for both adyathma study and modern day scientific research adds a perfect balance for youngsters to take inspirations from him.....great video

[@preethyivenkatesh3472]

Amazing podcast on all three vedanta and especially useful for those trying to understand Dvaita and most common misunderstood points of it❤❤

[@ware-rey]

I really like Dr. Prathosh. He should write a book about vedanta

[@abhinavkulakarni111]

Please continue the podcast with Pratosh ji... Also request anchor to prepare to take the discourse in one direction instead of asking curious questions randomly.

[@santosh_haridas]

I derived great value from this video. Hope to hear more of Pratoshji ❤️

[@boeingpameesha9550]

जय श्री गुरुदेव, आपका नालायक सेवक गुरुजी।

[@ProfessionalStuff-pg7zb]

Very illuminating interview. Thanks a lot :pray:

[@RameshS-hg6wf]

Thanks

[@arvinddeshpande1954]

Wonderful and simplistic explanation. Namaskars to both the learned gentlemen

[@anandatirhmokhasi4594]

Great explanation and episode to be motivated to go in deeper study of madhwa shastra

[@tattvabodhaka6140]

Fantastic discussion sir, since you're a rigorous researcher as well as a traditional scholar, if request you to kindly consider this proposition. This was something I'd written while I was trying to understand Tattvavada whilst being a Wireless systems design engineer by profession. Requesting your kind perusal and comments on the same. (Unfortunately I had no one to discuss this with) ON THE POSSIBLE CONNECTION BETWEEN TATTVAVADA ONTOLOGY & NON MATHEMATICAL INTUITIONS BEHIND INFORMATION THEORY (A beggining/version zero effort to formalise Tattvavada by giving it a mathematical model) : DECLARATION : [ The relationship between "data" and information, information fundamentally being distinctions and these being represented as "states" via real "difference in voltages" using complex "switching circuits", trans reception of "data" with minimal loss/"redundancy" / effect of "noise" across "channels", ensuring "security" of both info and "network" are seperate subjects deserving individual exploration . Novelty in each process of the "comm system" from "transmission" to "recovery" is an ongoing process and again ,each of these are seperate subjects of research altogether and beyond the scope of this discussion. I do confess that each of the words given in quotes require formal study to comprehend their mathematical definition and implication, hence I do not intend to overtly include them or trivialise them in the following discussion] [I also do not wish to include the mathematical foundations of information theory like entropy / capacity/ ergodicity and so on as their use is mostly towards understanding systems from an "optimisation" PoV (not using the word optimisation casually here, I am aware of the probabilistic models and the statistical rigour that goes into optimisation problems) ] [It is tough to apply Information theory whivh is mainly used incase of non sentient systems to understand Vedanta fundamentals involving sentient beings , however, the attempt aims to draw parallels between few common fundamental intuitions between the two namely Tattvavada and Info theory ] *ARTICLE ACTALLY BEGINS FROM HERE* To understand tattvavada, probably non mathematical intuitions of information theory would help. Information mean distinctions. These distinctions are proven to be conserved(lets just take that automatically for now without the rigorous proof) , they do not dissappear. A system's journey from its initial state to the final state is filled with distinctions and there exists a mapping between the intermediaries to maintain the conservation of distinctions OR if you could trace back every transformation that has happened to the system from the unique final state of the system, you will end up with the initial state unique to that system. (Kind of, not dealing with other nuances so let's just take this as something that is established for now ) The fundamental law of physics dictates that these distinctions never dissappear or get destroyed (we've seen this but repeating it so that it gets ingrained) . Now how do we represent these distinctions (not physically or mathematically but intuitively) ? By using a classifier (I know classifier is not the perfect word as it has its own seperate definition in communication systems / data analytics and so on although the intuition behind it's usage is based on more or less the same idea of classification) like 1 & 0 or X & not X. Anyway, whether we choose to call "not X" as Y or use apophatic descriptions and go with "not X" doesn't seem to matter but this might actually be the crux: Is "not X" (say), actually different from X? Isn't the fundamental descriptor of something that is "not X" dependent on the descriptor of "X"? Well, considerable argument , but does that make the the definition of "not X" non existent all together ? Does dependence imply non existence and hence only independence can be inferred as existence? Do relative definitions strictly imply that existence is only confined to "the one" from which others get their definition and therefore make the others only apparent / mere projections of "the one"? These might be some set of questions worth pondering upon. [Id also humbly request the professor to throw light on how Tattvavada approached these questions] To further the discussion, does existence depend on the description of it? More fundamentally, can distinctions themselves be eliminated in trying to describe an entity? If yes, then how do we now describe this entity (Also, if it cannot be described, does it mean it does not exist and vice versa ?). Anyway, If distinctions cannot be eliminated then does that mean that the very existence of this entity depends on its description? [More clarity from the Professors comments from Tattvavada PoV needed here too]

[@ravitej4020]

Kindly improve the audio quality unlike the last time this one is not great. Thanks for all the efforts to make this happen. Love ❤❤

[@hardikkamboj3528]

Insightful conversation 🙏🏼

[@shrinidhisinganamalli4623]

Most expected one

[@madhavabk]

Good team

[@vishvasv]

रुचिरम्। किञ्चिद् विशिष्टाद्वैते परिष्कार्यम्। तत्र मुक्तजीवस्य +आनन्द-सर्वज्ञत्वादि न बहिष्टात् प्राप्तम्, अपि त्व् अबाधित-स्वरूप-सिद्धम् एव। एवं हि जीवसाधारणं शेषित्वं न भगवता "दत्तम्", अपि तु स्वरूपतः सिद्धम्, नित्यम्। ततः "कुतः स्वातन्त्र्यं न समं दत्तम्" इति प्रश्नस्यावकाश एव नास्ति।

[@prathoshap5226]

सत्यं विश्वासवर्य | तत्प्रश्नाभिप्राय: अयं - विशेषाभावात् स्वातंत्र्यादीन् विहाय आनंदमात्रसाम्ये विनिगमनाभाव: इति।

[@vishvasv]

@@prathoshap5226 मुक्तावस्थाघटकं सर्वं विशेषं विना स्वरूपघटकम् इति नानैकान्तिकता।

[@prathoshap5226]

स्वरूपघटकं चेत् जीवेषु साधनवैचित्र्यानुपपत्तिः इत्यलं विस्तरेण।

[@vishvasv]

@@prathoshap5226 सर्वशब्देन सार्वज्ञ्यानन्दादिगुणानां जातिगतानाम् एव परिगणना विवक्षिता, न मुक्तिकाल-कर्मेतिहासाद्य् अन्यद् व्यक्तिगतम्।

[@krishkrishna9744]

Small suggestion from my side Please add timestamps for this video

[@satyasankalpa]

There is another matha by vallabhacharya incarnation of Yashoda who gave matha called sudhadhvita

[@srivatsakulkarni1981]

Hari sarvottama vayu jeevothama

[@shilpakatti7755]

❤ 👏🤗

[@Traintraveller3000]

❤

[@raghavendrahg4930]

Sir audio not clear please see

[@pavanvittalmadhusudan4037]

Audio quality is very poor

[@charanbhargav4610]

How can I contact Dr. pratosh? I have deep interest to learn about our indian scriptures. Pls let me know.

[@prathoshap5226]

Search his name in Google. You'll get his email address

[@charanbhargav4610]

@@prathoshap5226 tq sir.

[@satyasankalpa]

There is one more matha by Nibark acharya dvaitadvita ,in shurttanantarsuradruma written by Purushottamprasad devacharya deciple of Nibark acharya were all 3 siddhant khandana is done , including dwaita siddhant .

[@notthatnotthat5859]

There's confusion over the dating of Nimbarka acharya ji. Also, Jayatirtha in his Nyaya Suddha and even BNK Sharma has addressed & showed flaws in Dvaitadvaita kind of Pantheistic philosophy.

[@satyasankalpa]

@@notthatnotthat5859 as far as I have heard the main verodhabhas is in bedha abedha of jeeva ,all other things remain same,our Madwacharya has said the jeeva has bedhabedha relationship with peramatma that is achintyatmaka but Nibark acharya has quantified that relation is what I know.

[@notthatnotthat5859]

@@satyasankalpa No... Madhwacharya doesn't accept Bhedhabhedha.

[@aprameyakatti6314]

​@@notthatnotthat5859 no Acharya Madhwa accepts Bhedaaabeda. But not everywhere.

[@satyasankalpa]

Also one more difference is the that they gave bhagavants stri swaroopa kishori more importance than his krishora swaroopa and they say that Krishna is Anandamaya but Radha is premamayi ,which ultimately says Anand is derived from Prema ,as bhagwan is made of ananda they say bhagawati is made of Prema which is essence of Ananda,

[@venkateshprabhu7027]

Sir Madam Dr Carl Sagan on videos and wickepedia KZbin Dr Richard Dawkins-Sun 🔆🌞 and Earth 🌎🌍 SUNLIGHT IS THE SOURCE OF EVERYTHING