interesting views from Dr. SMS Chari's Sribhasya class

[Guest guest]

I don't want to get into an advaita/viSishTAdvaita debate on this

list, mostly due to reasons of availability of time. But I thought a

few comments in response to Krishna Kalale's recent post were in

order.

 

I don't doubt that the very purpose of the SrIbhAshya is to put

forth a school of vedAnta different from advaita. For that matter,

the purpose of the gauDapAdIya kArikAs and Sankara's bhAshyas is to

establish a system of vedAnta that is different from the bhedAbheda

of bhartr.prapanca and others.

 

Krishna Kalale wrote:

>>>>

This is further confirmed by the next sutra - janmaadyasya yathaha

- from whom this universe is created, protected, in whom all this

gets destroyed, etc. - is bramhan. So the action of creation,

destruction, protection become attributes of this bramhan - they are

tatastha lakshanas - ie.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

incidental attributes not attributes of form of bramhan (they are

>>>>

 

advaita also characterizes this as tatastha lakshaNa, which is not

necessarily the svarUpa lakshaNa of brahman.

>>>>

satyam jnanam anantham). Since action is indicated in creation etc.,

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

then bramhan is definitely not nirvishesha here. Even Sri

Sankaracharya accepts that bramhan here means ishwara - who is

Saguna who is ultimately not real - only relatively real as per

advaita.

>>>>

 

AptakAmasya kA spr.hA? The actions of creation etc. are not

essential to the real nature of brahman, which the brahmasUtra

itself recognizes because it says creation is just sport. This is

all that is meant by saying ISwara is only relatively real. This

says nothing against the Entity that is ISwara, because in the

ultimate analysis, ISwara IS brahman. Rather, the statement that

ISwara is relatively real, is directed against our limited

conception of ISwara as the creator, protector and destroyer. Such a

conception of ISwara presumes creation to be an essential feature

of brahman's svarUpa, which it plainly is not. Speaking purely

logically, if we accept that creation etc. are not essential

features of brahman's svarUpa, there is no reason why we should

insist on the ultimate description of that brahman as being saguNa,

is there? Where there is only One, how does differentiation even

begin?

 

The whole question arises because of the firm statements in Sruti

about the One which appears as Many, the Formless which has taken on

Forms etc. In order to understand such statements on a logical

basis, advaita constantly shifts back and forth between a

vyAvahArika perspective and a pAramArthika perspective. This is

required because of the analysis of various notions of causality.

The same brahman is saguNa in vyAvahArika terms, because we are

looking at the brahman as an object, different from one's Self.

However, the idea that creation is not an essential feature of

brahman opens a window, as it were, to the paramArtha truth of

nirguNa brahman. This might be only an inference, on the part of

advaita, about the Reality of nirguNa brahman, but advaita goes a

step further and says that this can be realized directly by the

seekers, if certain conditions are met (sAdhana catushTaya etc.).

 

Thus, for example, if creation is not an essential feature of

brahman and the jIva is a creation, then what is the nature of the

jIva's reality? To this, advaita says, in one analysis, the jIva's

reality is brahman itself (jIvo brahmaiva nA para:), and in another

analysis, there is no jIva, because individuality is dissolved. Thus

a statement about moksha, "na sa punarAvartate" can be understood

from both perspectives. From the vyAvahArika perspective, the jIva

has "attained" brahman, and so does not return, because brahman is

ever free. From the paramArtha perspective, there is no more

individual jIva, so the question of return cannot even arise.

>>>>

Then where in the sutras is the nirvishesha aspects discussed???

we will come to this in a different sutra and see whether it is

really mentioned there. sribhasya's view is that this issue is never

discussed in bramhasutras. the only sutra which talks close

to identity is the avibhagena drishtatvaat. this aspect will be

examined in another mail.

>>>>

 

That should be interesting, at least for me. I don't know about the

SrIbhAshya. From my understanding of SankarAcArya's bhAshyas, he

does not describe nirguNa brahman much in his brahmasUtra-bhAshya.

Most of advaita's arguments about nirguNa brahman stem from

SankarAcArya's brh.hadAraNyakopanishad-bhAshya and

chAndogyopanishad-bhAshya.

>>>>

NOTE: As per advaita, major importance is not given to Bramha

sutras and Bhagawadgita - since they are both paurusheya - ie. they

are not unauthored like the Vedas or Upanishads. Visisitadvaitins

strongly uphold all the three canons - prasthana traya - ie.

upanishads, bramhasutras, bhagawadgita.

>>>>

 

I think this requires some qualification. Of course, advaita

upholds the superiority of the Sruti prasthAna, because of the

mImAmsA principle that Sruti is the source material for the sUtras

and smr.ti is to be understood in accordance with Sruti. But as far

as vedAntic study is concerned, all three prasthAnas are considered

with equal importance, and the bhAshyas on all three prasthAnas are

studied by students at the advaita maThas.

 

I think we should also differentiate a little between the

theological motive and the purely philosophical motive when

analyzing advaita. From the practical point of view, for the layman,

all of advaita *religion* is consistent with the gItAbhAshya of

Sankara. And every sannyAsI starts out as a layman first. It may not

be very well-known, but Sankara endorses SaraNAgati in the

gItAbhAshya - "nishkAmya karmasya rahasyam ISwara SaraNatA" - the

secret of nishkAmya karma is to take SaraNa with ISwara. Thus,

bhakti, SraddhA and SaraNAgati are highly valued, and that is the

way it has been among smArtas and the advaita maThas since the time

of Sankara. As far as daily religion is concerned, I cannot really

distinguish anything very much different between smArtas and

vaishNavas, except in the object of worship, and variations in

custom. But the attitudes towards worship and other aspects of

religion are very similar. The real differences arise from the fact

that from the advaita analysis of brahman, it follows that all Forms

equally belong to the Formless. That is why advaitins don't say

that brahman's real form is in vaikuNTham alone or in kailAsam alone

or in the SrIcakra bindu alone. This syncretism, if you will,

between different kinds of worship is an important feature of

advaita *religion*.

 

>>>>

The sutras are definitely non-descriptive and hence offer

possibilitiies for different interpretations. Atleast Sri

Ramanuja's and Sri Shankara's commentaries are comparable since they

atleast agree with the vishaya vakyas - upanishadic statement

references. In fact the interesting issue is the striking

similarity between these bhasyas - except the maya issue, and

nirvishesha issues!. It is quite difficult to compare Sri Madhva

bhasya and Sribhasya since their reference vedanta vakyas - are

different and they have

a number of areas of disagreement regarding the very topic of the

sutras.

>>>>

 

That is correct. I have lots of reservations about various aspects

of Madhva's works. But note that in SankarAcArya's bhAshya, mAyA is

described as "devAtma-Sakti". The whole discussion that fine-tunes

mAyA as a philosophical concept is post-Sankaran, and to a certain

extent, this fine-tuning is a consequence of debates among the

various vedAnta traditions.

 

Regards,

 

S. Vidyasankar

[Guest guest]

On Feb 14, 4:57pm, Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote:

> interesting views from Dr. SMS Chari's Sribhasya class

> I don't want to get into an advaita/viSishTAdvaita debate on this

> list, mostly due to reasons of availability of time. But I thought a

> few comments in response to Krishna Kalale's recent post were in

> order.

>

> I don't doubt that the very purpose of the SrIbhAshya is to put

> forth a school of vedAnta different from advaita. For that matter,

> the purpose of the gauDapAdIya kArikAs and Sankara's bhAshyas is to

> establish a system of vedAnta that is different from the bhedAbheda

> of bhartr.prapanca and others.

>

> Krishna Kalale wrote:

>

> >>>>

> This is further confirmed by the next sutra - janmaadyasya yathaha

> - from whom this universe is created, protected, in whom all this

> gets destroyed, etc. - is bramhan. So the action of creation,

> destruction, protection become attributes of this bramhan - they are

> tatastha lakshanas - ie.

> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> incidental attributes not attributes of form of bramhan (they are

> >>>>

>

> advaita also characterizes this as tatastha lakshaNa, which is not

> necessarily the svarUpa lakshaNa of brahman.

>

> >>>>

> satyam jnanam anantham). Since action is indicated in creation etc.,

> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> then bramhan is definitely not nirvishesha here. Even Sri

> Sankaracharya accepts that bramhan here means ishwara - who is

> Saguna who is ultimately not real - only relatively real as per

> advaita.

> >>>>

>

> AptakAmasya kA spr.hA? The actions of creation etc. are not

> essential to the real nature of brahman, which the brahmasUtra

> itself recognizes because it says creation is just sport.

 

In the original state, before creation starts, nothing exists, except for

Vishnu Himself. He has, then always four aspects namely pradhana or the quality

of being the origin and support of all things, purusha or the quality of

becoming a person or persons, also described as the soul or souls, vyukta or

the capacity to evole and kala or undivided time. Tha pancharatra texts

describe this original state as waveless one and that everything begins from

here. However, this can argued that even pancharatra is time bound and is void

of any information before this state of waveless form. Since it is not possible

to understand the reason why creation should begin at all, it is possible to

derive some logic with the help of material intelligence on this act of

Brahman. In the abscence of convincing explanation, it has been described as

the "sport" of the supreme being. This is the traditional explantion and need

not be accepted literally and can more appropriately be regarded as equivalent

to saying that the supreme being exhibits HIS super abundant energy in action.

This experiment is one possibility though and not a only one and final

explanation.

 

 

Nammazhwaar says

 

"viNmeethjiruppaay, malaimElniRpaay, kadRsErpaay

maNmeethuuzhazhvaay, ivaRRuLeNgum maRainthuvaay

enmeethiyenRa puRavaNdaththaay enathaavi

unmeethaadi urukkaattaadhE oLipaayO ?

 

viNmeethiruppaay - Parath thuvam (in parama patham)

malaimEl niRpaay - vibavam (as an avthaaraa as Rama or Krishnaa)

kadal sErpaay - vyookam (in thirup paRkadal divided as 5 vyuukam)

maNmeethu uzhzhvaay - archchai (in those 108 and other divya dEsams as

archaa morrthy)

en meethiyanRa puRavandaay - residing in everyone as antharyaamim

Since as per Sri Vidya sankar, certain logics is introduced into every

advaitin argument, I have a problem here to say that plain truth can stand

alone and no logic is needed to establish it. Since vedaas and upanishads can

be questioned on authorship, the plain truth can be one that which is either

spoken by the Lord HIMself or it is delivered by the Lord's own messangers in

his direct presence and offer it HIM as a pada kaaNikkai.

 

I donot wanna sound like the evangalists of modern religion's to view with

some

material evidances, that talk about "the most documented religion etc". But let

us deal within our own accepted paarampariyam. We are not in Srivaikundam or

thirup paaRkadal to hear HIM say this truth on HIMslef or para Brahmam now.

Neither we are aware of as to what creation we belonged to when the avathaarams

came in here. We are not that holy yet (like Ramaanujaa's mentor) to talk to

the archaa morrthy and hear the truth from HIM. We however have the lord

residing in each of us, but we are no holy to realise it with our own efforts.

So we seek to the messages of the Lord in realising these. The only one such

message that came from the God HIMself is Sri math Bagwath Geethaa. Krishna is

the only one who not only revealed his universal form but also said HE is God.

All the other avathaarams never said they were God. Neither the moderen

religions prophets said so. They said they wer messangers or Son of God etc and

they were absoluetly correct and true in saying so. Their religions are also to

be considered as valid and true. However the only known occassion GOD delivered

truth on HIM by his ownself is the only "COMPREHENSIVE" truth on Brahman and

that is Srimath Bagwath Geetha, as it is told by God Himself in his original

form. There are some part knowledge on this truth (ie truth on Brahman) which

were said before by demigods to devaas. These are not comprehensive truth as

they were preached to devaass and others when they had their anyyaanam on

Brahman and also not by Brahman HImslef in his true form . In Srimath Bagwath

Geetha HE says,

 

"Iam the knower of all ie including MYself. No knowlege is complete untill it

knows me completely".

 

Since HE alone can be the Knower of everything and including HIMself, how come

a messanager like Adisankara can show us the ultimate knowledge on Brahman ?

Any attempt to derive supporting arguments from part truth is a good first step

but rudimantary and not complete. so Let us only believe what Sri Krishna

says if we want to reach HIM finally. No doubt Sri Adisankara's messages are

truth but they are part truth only and stops short of the final destiny. Before

placing my statement let me talk about the second literature that according to

us is the truth. ie. Naalaayira divya prabandam. This was presented to the Lord

HIMSelf in his true form by the three azhwaars. Since HE is the physical

witness and testimony and destiny and also that HE accepted them directly,

these paasurams are considered the truth on HIMself. More to say that he also

exhibited three of his forms including parath thuvam as brahman (according to

Sri Bagwath Geetha this is the form of parath thuvam that can be seen by us),

and antharyaamith thuvam as an inner resident (ie as spiritual light) and also

as the arutperum Jyothi which is one his five vyukaas individually to the three

aazhwaars.

 

While Sri math Bagwath Geetha is considered the absolute truth on HIM, these

three anthaathis are considered the three unique rahasyaas of Srivaishnavaas

which were later explained by as Srimath Rahasya thra saaram. These three

rahsyaas are also the elaboration of our vEdaanthaa which is later coined as

Sri vishishtaadthvaidaa. There cannot be two conflicting truth on anything. But

there can two different versions of the truth that is possible. When I look at

the statue of liberty from an airoplane, I see a miniature toy unreachable in

the bottom of me. When I goto Elis Island to see the statue of Liebrty I see a

symbol of freedom standing there pride and tall. And when I am assuming that I

am myself statue of liberty, I donot see anything and this state of assumption

is also a truth but not the complete truth. The complete truth is that there is

a statue of Liberty standing out there and it has all extarordinary flavour in

it. Samy way if Brahman is looked at from three different places, three

different perceptions are observed.

 

All of them are true. But each of them are to be carefully examined as to

which you would want to realise. As per Advaithin philosophy, the brahman is

realised as absolute and within one's self. But as per Sri Krishna's messages,

HE chose to support us from antharaayamam as a resident and that both HIM and

the other souls (such as arjunaa) never were extinct. meaning they always

co-existed. But this co-existance is essentially facilitated by HIM as an

antharyaamim. Any attempt to realise this antharyaamim is possible. However

antharyaamim is not the final destination of the soul. As this soul attempts to

realise the antharyaamim, the antharyaamim due to its infinite mercy grant this

soul the state of realising it and being (staying) absolute in itself ie the

antharyaamim makes this soul feels that it is abolute and doesnot let the soul

to take birth and death again untill such time the antharyaamim hold itself as

a separate entity in a kalpa. However, the antharyaamim is the creation of

parath thuvam and when the parath thuvam recalls all the other four forms to

itslef, antharyaamim becomes a subordinate to the parath thuvam and merges with

it. This is the return action of the creation action and this "dynamics"

doesnot stop there. When this antharyaamim is released again either in the

sport or in the creation cycle, the souls too are returned with this. It is not

clear whether these souls are again made take to its birth and death cycle with

this antharyaamim due to its inner asscoaition with other unrealised souls

inside the parath thuvam so that these souls are given with yet another chance

to seek the final destiny as parath thuvam or they are sent back to their

granted state of "absoluteness" as supoorted by the antharyaamim. However in

either case these souls are never part of the parath thuvam as they are

separated again and again at the start of each cycle and that it is possible

that they donot realsie this separtion due to the state granted by the

antharyaamim. Only those who surrendered become nitya suris and that they are

not recycled during these cycles of creation and destruction. They however

descend down on two ocaasions one is when they request the Lord to take them

with HIM,ie when he takes an incarnation as in the case of devaas as gopikaas

for Krishnaa. or When the Lord needs to send them as messangers (like our

poorvaachaaryaas, jeers and aandvaans) who look ordinary to us but were never

seperated by HIM and are realised souls for ever.

 

 

> Speaking purely

> logically, if we accept that creation etc. are not essential

> features of brahman's svarUpa, there is no reason why we should

> insist on the ultimate description of that brahman as being saguNa,

> is there? Where there is only One, how does differentiation even

> begin?

 

We donot accept creation etc as a mere logic but as plain Truth told by

HIMSELF

in Krishna avthaaram. A truth doesnot require a logic to establish itself.

Logics is man made and perceived by material intelligence only. Since we

beleive in what namaazhwaar said in naalaayiram the antharyaamith thuvam is by

itself the last in the order of HIS creation and any attempt to seek HIS union

with antharyaamith thuvam alone as absolute is not the final resolve of

Srivaishnavaas. Being in me and supporting me by HIS antharyaamith thuvam HE

makes me write this and also tells me to seek HIM in the final form as para

Brahman who resides in Srivaikundam only and to serve HIM for ever as a nitya

suri.

 

Since Adisankara accepts Sri krishnaa and Srimath Bagawatham it is possible

that he will accept the truth of Sri Krishnaa, (though I am unaware if he ever

referred to muthal aazhwwaars who preceded him), and that it is possible to

understand that his mandate was to explain the part truth only, ie seeking the

a union with antharyaamim (as a Brahman and absoluteness) only and that the

authority to explain the final destination has to be with someone who ever

existed with HIM in HIS parath thuvam ie it has to be explained by someone else

who is sEshaa to HIM (and one who was never separated from HIM) all the time ie

aadisEshaa which is Sri Raamaanuja himself.

 

 

Sri Raamaanujan thiruvadikalE saraNam

Sri Para vaasudEvan manchulla vaLLith thaayaar thriuvadikaLE saraNam

Sri Booma deVi Sri Oppiliappn thiruvadikalE saraNam

Sri Periyapiraati ranganaayakith thaayaar Sri Rangaraajan thiruvadikaLE saraNam

 

Sampath Rengrajan