[Vidyasankar Sundaresan: double pruning and other mysteries]

[Guest guest]

------- start of forwarded message (RFC 934 encapsulation) -------

vidya (Vidyasankar Sundaresan)

mani

Re: double pruning and other mysteries

Mon, 22 Aug 1994 23:46:35 -0700

 

Sankara would take offence with the statement

 

No term applicable to the individual self is applicable only to it.

It must be extended to the Indwelling Divine too.

 

By this reasoning, all the change and imperfections in the individual

jiva would also be thought of as being applicable to Brahman. However

Brahman remains forever in its essential nature, so such change cannot

be really applicable to Brahman at all.

 

Again, the whole problem boils down to whether the world is regarded

as real as Brahman or not. For Sankara, the world is real but not

ultimately real. Thus svatah pramana, paratah apramana. By itself, we

apprehend only the world, and so see only the world as real, but

once Brahman is realized, the world takes on a new meaning. It is not

ultimately real, as it cannot have an existence apart from Brahman,

which is sat itself. His analogy is particularly interesting. He says

"Has the power to burn an existence of its own apart from the existence

of fire?" The existence of the power is the same as the existence of the

fire. We may think of them as separate, but in reality they are one.

 

It is thus that this world is Brahman. Viewed apart from Brahman, which is

vyavaharika satya, man's understanding of the world is faulty. Because, apart

from Brahman, the world can have no existence. Still, man is able to look

at the world as existent, even without knowing Brahman. It is that which is

anirvachaniya. On knowing Brahman, the world is also realized to be nothing

other than Brahman. This point is made very powerfully in the Vivekachudamani.

 

I think even some later Advaitins must have taken the maya term in its

popular connotation. This is probably a hangover from the prakrti idea of

Samkhya. This must have been responsible for the very rejection of the

idea by Ramanuja.

 

vidya

------- end -------

[Guest guest]

Response to Vidya's mail : Re: doubling pruning and other mysteries

(tat-tvam-asi)

 

vidya>> vidya (Vidyasankar Sundaresan)

vidya>> mani

vidya>> Re: double pruning and other mysteries

vidya>> Mon, 22 Aug 1994 23:46:35 -0700

vidya>>

vidya>> Sankara would take offence with the statement

vidya>>

vidya>> No term applicable to the individual self is applicable only to it.

vidya>> It must be extended to the Indwelling Divine too.

vidya>>

vidya>> By this reasoning, all the change and imperfections in the individual

vidya>> jiva would also be thought of as being applicable to Brahman. However

vidya>> Brahman remains forever in its essential nature, so such change cannot

vidya>> be really applicable to Brahman at all.

 

 

No. Not if the fundamental reason for change and imperfections is

understood. The reasons according to Visistadvaita are :

 

1. The soul does not experience pain or pleasure only because it is

associated with the body, but because of Karma. In fact it is due to

karma only that such an association takes place. ie. Karma of the

finite soul is responsible for the imperfections and the change to

it's attributive consciousness (dharma-bhuta-jnana) in the bonded

state.

 

2. Brahman is associated with it's body (finite soul + matter) NOT

because

of Karma or Chance or any external agency. The universe does not

"become" the body of Brahman due to Karma as Brahman is free from

all

imperfections and evil. The universe is "inherently" the body of

Brahman, eternally.

 

3. The finite soul is not inseperably related to matter as it's soul.

The body of the finite soul changes from birth to birth and in the

final stage it's relation with matter is once and for all severed.

But the sentient and non-sentient entities are not related to

Brahman like this. They are inseperably related to Brahman and they

cannot at any instant exist apart from it. Brahman is characterised

with these 2 entities in both the subtle (causal) and the gross

(consequent) stages.

 

4. Hence the reason for change & imperfections is Karma which the

finite soul is subject to but not Brahman. Due to this the

application of the term "thou" in "that thou art" does NOT imply

that :

"all the change and imperfections in the individual

jiva would also be thought of as being applicable to Brahman".

 

 

vidya>> Again, the whole problem boils down to whether the world is regarded

vidya>> as real as Brahman or not. For Sankara, the world is real but not

vidya>> ultimately real. Thus svatah pramana, paratah apramana. By itself, we

vidya>> apprehend only the world, and so see only the world as real, but

vidya>> once Brahman is realized, the world takes on a new meaning. It is not

vidya>> ultimately real, as it cannot have an existence apart from Brahman,

vidya>> which is sat itself. His analogy is particularly interesting. He says

vidya>> "Has the power to burn an existence of its own apart from the existence

vidya>> of fire?" The existence of the power is the same as the existence of the

vidya>> fire. We may think of them as separate, but in reality they are one.

 

Here again are "gradations" of reality which are not warranted by the

Upanisads, explicitly. A better way of saying this would be to say

that the World "is" real but it is not "all" that is real. To say that

"the world is real, but not ultimately real is misleading. It would also

be better to say that the world is real but is NOT independent. The

analogy

presented about "the power to burn" and "fire" only proves this point.

 

ie. The power to burn "is real", as real as the fire (no less real) and

is adjectival or an attribute of the "fire" which is also real. The

"power

to burn" cannot exist independent of the fire. This concept of

"aprathak-siddhi" is at the heart of the Brahman-soul-world relationship

in Visistadvaita.

 

vidya>> It is thus that this world is Brahman. Viewed apart from Brahman, which

is

vidya>> vyavaharika satya, man's understanding of the world is faulty. Because,

apart

vidya>> from Brahman, the world can have no existence. Still, man is able to

look

vidya>> at the world as existent, even without knowing Brahman. It is that which

is

vidya>> anirvachaniya. On knowing Brahman, the world is also realized to be

nothing

vidya>> other than Brahman. This point is made very powerfully in the

Vivekachudamani.

vidya>>

vidya>> I think even some later Advaitins must have taken the maya term in its

vidya>> popular connotation. This is probably a hangover from the prakrti idea

of

vidya>> Samkhya. This must have been responsible for the very rejection of the

vidya>> idea by Ramanuja.

vidya>>

vidya>> vidya

 

 

IMHO, the last paragraph here seems a little unreasonable because :

 

1). How can we assume that there was not even a Single Advaitin after

Sri Sankara who "really" & "correctly" understood what he "really"

meant to say. If there were some who did really understand and write

what he said than those works would have been extant and available

to Sri Ramanuja for further analysis.

 

2). It seems that the Original works of Sri Sankara were available

to Sri Ramanuja at that time for him to analyse and criticise

each and every detail so clearly and thoroughly.

 

I'll respond shortly to the other objections raised by Vidya in a

subsequent email.

 

with regards,

-sudarshan.