ultimate-saraNagathi

[Guest guest]

Dear friends,

 

I've been following this thread of discussions with interest.

I simply can't resist the temptation of making a small comment from the

sidelines, if you don't mind.

 

Sri.AdiSankara BhagavatpAdAl's Advaitic tradition of "vEdAnta" is said to be

extremely strong on "philosophy".

 

In contrast, the traditions of Bhakti-schools of India are said to be

extremely strong on the "theological" side.

 

The Bhakti-systems of Sri.RamanujAchAryA and others became popular in the

10th-century because it was found that a purely "philosophical" approach to

the ancient "revealed" scriptures, the Upanishads and the "vrutti-s", would

not do just as a solely "theological" one, too, would be inadequate.

>From the stand-point of Western scholars, even today, "vEdAntA" is not

accepted as "pure Philosophy" since it is not so much "philosophical

speculation" as it is "interpretation" of "scriptural revelation" contained

in the "sruti-pramAnAm-s", "bOdhAyana-vrutti", "upanishad-s" etc.

 

That is why the unique "vEdAntic" tradition of India is often referred to by

scholars as "theo-philosophy". Unlike as in the Western traditions, there is

no cleavage between Philosophy and Theology in the "vEdAntic" tradition,

thanks largely to the unifying influence of various Bhakti-systems.

 

In India today, as it has always been through the ages, even ordinary people

like us, deep down in our hearts, know fully that we REALLY NEED "two

crutches" --- one of cold "philosophy" and the other of warm "theology" to

arrive at an intuitive and unitive understanding of eternal questions

agitating us all such as :

 

Who AM I ?

Where do I come from ?

And where am I going ?

 

Even the lowliest Indian, thus, is actually both a "philosopher" and "one of

the Faith" at the same time. He may not be aware of the fact himself, but

that IS, indeed, the wonderful truth. It is the wonder, again, that our

"AchAryA-s", of both Advaitic and other persuasions, have bequeathed to us.

 

Sri.Raja's questions are very valid. He wants to know how to make the "leap"

across the vast "experiential" chasm separating the purely "theological"

dimension of Sriman Narayana and His "philosophical" one, "Form" and

"Reality", the "vyavahArika" and the "paramAtmika" !

 

Sri.Sundaresan seems to be answering it in true Advaitin style i.e. Rarely

can you know the "metaphysical Narayana" without a thorough grounding in the

"theo-philosophical Narayana"!

 

Sri.Sundaresan also said something very important about "AchAryA-s" in his

recent post and has said it exceedingly well.

 

Many ages ago before Sri.Sundaresan, another great Advaitin,

Sri.Madhusoodhana Saraswathi said it all even better :

 

upanashidAmAvartham oorUkalE~niBhaddham !

 

The above statement used to be paraphrased by my "mAanaseega-AchAryan"

Sri.Mukkur Swamy II most wonderfully in Tamil :

 

"entha oru pORuL upanishad uLLey thEdi-alainthu kai~kkUm buddhi~kkum

ettAhda irrukkinrathO,

yasOdai~yin worrel-il katti-vaith~irukkinrathE !"

 

My rough English translation of Mukkur Swamy's statement above is :

 

Behold ! the will-o-the-wisp

That wise Upanishad even

Fails to grasp,

Lies trapped and helpless,

All bound head to foot

To a plain mortar in Yasoda's kitchenette,

 

By sheer, simple and stark Love !!

 

 

adiyEn/dAsan,

sudarshan

[Guest guest]

I just wanted to share with our readers this one, following the thread of

thought by Sri M.K Sudarshan.

 

Sri Ramanuja's system is some times termed as mostly a theology from some.

I dont know whether professor Karman intentionally or unintentionaly named

his book on RAmanuja as "Theology of Ramanuja". This title is not very

indicative of the major efforts of Sri Ramanuja directed to attack or

disagree with Advaita and thus form a set of philosophic works : Sribhasya,

Vedartha samgraha, Vedanta dipa, Vedanta Sara which are all philosophic in

nature and in no way less philosophical than Advaita itself. His

philosophy is both a philosophy and a theology. To leave out the

philosophic component by a noted authority, in fact strengthens the stance

of critics of Visistadvaita.

 

 

Adiyen Krishna Kalale

[Guest guest]

At 04:03 PM 7/24/97 -0700, Sri.Kalale wrote:

>>I just wanted to share with our readers this one, following the thread of

>thought by Sri M.K Sudarshan.

>To leave out the

>philosophic component by a noted authority, in fact strengthens the stance

>of critics of Visistadvaita.

>Adiyen Krishna Kalale

 

 

Dear Sri.Kalale,

I'm very sorry I intruded into a very interesting debate amongst so many

learned scholars of the list on this current thread. I ought to have been

wiser and desisted from treading on a wicket I am unfit to play on.

 

My comment was from the sidelines. It possesses no thrust of argument.

 

I have really no worthwhile opinions on this subject as I confess I am a

complete ignoramus in matters of "cold and hard philosophy". My interests

lie principally in "warm and soft" SriVaishnava religious

"literature"/"poetry"/"drama".

 

I belong to a "literary" breed of SriVaishnava, not the "philosophical"

variety. My cup of tea is Yasoda's clumsy "worrel" (Tamil for

"kitchen-mortar") and not the arcanities of the Upanishad.

 

Please do not mistake my casual comments to be a criticism of VishtAdvaitA-

philosophy about which I know very little.

 

All I was trying to say was that I have PERSONALLY discovered that

"philosophizing" comes so naturally to Advaitins in the same way as

"theologizing" comes naturally to a Bhakti-proponent. This is NOT to say

that I find the "philosophy" of the first and the "theology" of the second

weaker than that of the other.

 

BTW, speaking of "worrel", are you a cricketing enthusiast, Sri.Kalale ?

 

If you are, then, you will easily understand it better if I explain to you

that Sri.Sunil Gavaskar and Sri.G.R.Vishvanath are both "COMPLETE" batsmen.

And yet one would rather watch Gavaskar's full range of delightful "off-side

strokes" than Vishvanath's. Similarly, when it came to "leg-side strokes"

one would much rather pay to watch the elegant Sri.Vishvanath than

Sri.Gavaskar ! One was a natural "off-side" and the other was a natural

"leg-side" player.

 

Now, that does not mean either Sri.Gavaskar or Sri.G.R.Vishvananth was lame

on one leg !!!

 

In the current discussion on this particular thread of discussion,

Sri.Kalale, I prefer to remain in the "sidelines" (or, should I say,

"stadium-stands"?!) and be content with cheer-leading for both Gavaskar AND

Vishvananth !

 

adiyEn/dAsan,

sudarshan