On the Nature of philosophy

[Guest guest]

Sri Srivats writes:

 

I conclude by insisting on the necessity to adhere to one philosophy,

atleast till our capabilities to abstract, scales to higher levels.

otherwise, confusion sets in, since we are unable to capture the

underlying oneness in the different philosophies.

 

Response:

 

Dear Sri. Srivats, difference is real. Even a nihilist (buddhist)

excepts difference to make his or her point. Two mutually

exclusive things cannot be the same; truth is one, not many.

Although two mutually exclusive axiomatic descriptions of the

nature of reality can coexist , only one is truth.

1. Cycle of creation and dissolution can either be eternal or

non eternal; it cannot be both.

2. Souls are either created or not; both cannot be true

3. Moskha is either real and defined as perfect and full

experience of the bliss of brahman or undifferentiated

consciousness; not both!

4. Happiness is not the same as bliss; one is transitory the

other is not!

 

I have stated over and over again, that the fundamental axiom

of Vedanta is that which is infinite cannot be explained in

perfection in the finite realm, but most certainly in a most perfect

manner. Saying that all descriptions are the same is being

nihilistic; this, is a common point of the neo-advaitans make use

of.

 

knowledge is an attribute of the Jiva, and BrahmajNAna is the

subset of knowledge that is eternal. This

BrahmajNAna is eternal; thus it is independent of language.

However, while subject to karma, jiva must make use of mundane

knowledge (language being one type) to manifest this

BrahmajNAna; unfortunately that is a limitation we have.

In fact, brahmajnana is never fully manifest, while the jiva is

associated with the body, that is why we cannot confirm the

full truth until we leave the body.

 

In conclusion, Nature of reality is independent of everything and

is immutable (i.e,it does not change over time.) The nature of

reality has been expounded upon by those who are capable of it.

As an ardent (one cannot be an ardent seeker until one

develops a conviction) seeker of the truth about the nature of reality,

the goal in life is to confirm this truth via experience and not to define

or reinterpret the exposition, or even worse go directly to scripture

(doubting the exposition.)

 

Superficial reading and mental processing will not manifest this

knowledge. A true seeker of mokshA will contemplate on the

nature of reality continuously, so that the self manifesting knowledge

can reveal itself. These are things I have been contemplating on

almost daily and continuously; one has to come to the conclusion,

experientially that he is a jiva in bondage and nothing else, not a

scientist, mathematician, or anything else.

 

Please read this thoroughly and contemplate on it.

I do not want to get drawn into a debate on the matter,

since it is fruitless. This knowledge is something

that has to come through experience. I wrote this posting to

make sure those that are operating at the level of a mere faith

are not misled by the nihilistic tone and not for argument sake.

 

Respectfully Yours,

Venkat

[Guest guest]

SrI:

SrI Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha

SrI Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrIvaNN-

SatakOpa SrI nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESikAya namaha

 

Dear devotees,

namO nArAyaNA.

 

Sri Venkat has already given an excellent response. Infact,

Sri Venkat's series of postings on the nature of realities etc is

very remarkable. Moreoever, he writes it with his own experience

too, and not at a mere academic level, just for the sake of presenting

some knowledge. The involvement with which he writes is very

deeply to be appreciated. There are only very few who contemplate

on the nature of realities with firm philosophical understanding and

Sri Venkat is very eager to share the wealth of "true" knowledge

that our most merciful AchAryas have blessed us with. adiyEn is

very much moved by this high degree of involvement shown by

Sri Venkat.

 

If one systematically analyses vEdAs/Upanishads,

the underlying Philosophy is the _same_ and it is nothing but

VisishtAdvaita. Infact, it was the brilliance of Bhagavad rAmAnuja

in correctly synthesizing the apparently contradictory texts in

upanishads. Ofcourse, on the surface, one will be confused to

understand what Upanishads are actually teaching ; this confusion

was settled by BAdarAyana through the Brahma - sUtrAs, which

gives the guidelines for proper understanding of the upanishads.

 

One has to first of all learn under a SadAchArya and learn by

questioning various things, inorder to get a clear picture about

the nature of realities. Its certain that, after going through the

immortal works of Bhagavad rAmAnuja and SwAmi dESikan,

further elaborated by other AchAryAs, one will not be in

confusion and he/she can very well understand the tattva (realities),

hita ( means to attain the goal) and the purushArtha (goal) with

ample clarity. Though many schools of thought derive their

existence from vEdAs, after thorough understanding of

VisishtAdvaita and comparing it with systems of thought, there

is not an iota of doubt that VisishtAdvaita is verily the philosophy

of vEdAs/Upanishads. ( Books of Sri SMS Chari brilliantly

addresses these issues in the medium of English, based on the

original granthams of our pUrvAchAryAs).

 

One should not form preconcieved notions about the nature of reality

and start forming some opinions, without any firm analysis of the

vEdAs. After a rigorous study under the guidance of a AchArya,

everything needs to be known will be known ; all the doubts will

be clarified.

 

Its very unfortunate, if one is simply fascinated by the abstractness

of advaita. It is a mere mental exercise and has already been well

proved that Sankara bAshyam doesn't adhere to the teachings of

Brahma sUtras and Upanishads. The six main arguments of

Bhagavad rAmAnuja against advaita, were brilliantly expanded

by SwAmi Desikan (alias Venkatanatha) into 66 arguments in

SatadUshani. So far , advaitins couldn't give any satisfactory reply

to these arguments. In this century, Ananthakrishna Sastri tried to

do something for advaita and thus wrote SatabUshani and tried

to defend advaita + tried to find faults with SatadUshani. Most brilliant

and fitting reply was given by the great mahAn of this century

"abhinava dESikan" Uttamoor VeerarAghavAchArya, who blessed

us with an "encyclopedic" immortal master-piece called "ParamArtha

bUshanam" , which analyses all the arguments in depth and proves

beyond any doubt that advaita, finally as a philosophy has no

support from Upanishads.

 

If one is rational in his/her approach to understand the actual realities,

he/she will certainly understand the exactness of VisishtAdvaita

philosophy in explaining the actual realities.

 

The same Brahman, SrIman nArAyaNA has made many a philosophies

to exist side by side, only to make the jIvAtmas undergo their karmic

reactions appropriately. Only those jIvas with appropriate karma can

understand the actual realities correctly. This obviously means that,

Brahman has to make some arrangement for those who doesn't posses

that qualification.

 

There are many commanalities between various philosophies ; but this

doesn't mean that all are same ; each one is distinct when viewed as a

whole. Sri Venkat has very well addressed this issue.

 

This to just put the things on the table and to serve some purpose ;

instead of some diplomatic replies without concentrating on the

things to be putforth representing the teachings of our

pUrvAchAryAs.

 

adiyEn is happy that Sri Venkat is making good efforts to present the

actual realities and gives others an oppurtunity to look into the

correct directions shown by our most merciful pUrvAchAryAs.

 

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

ananthapadmanAbha dAsan

krishNArpaNam

> Sri Venkat's Response:

>

> Dear Sri. Srivats, difference is real. Even a nihilist (buddhist)

> excepts difference to make his or her point. Two mutually

> exclusive things cannot be the same; truth is one, not many.

> Although two mutually exclusive axiomatic descriptions of the

> nature of reality can coexist , only one is truth.

> 1. Cycle of creation and dissolution can either be eternal or

> non eternal; it cannot be both.

> 2. Souls are either created or not; both cannot be true

> 3. Moskha is either real and defined as perfect and full

> experience of the bliss of brahman or undifferentiated

> consciousness; not both!

> 4. Happiness is not the same as bliss; one is transitory the

> other is not!

 

< cut >

----

[Guest guest]

> SrI:

> SrI Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha

> SrI Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrIvaNN-

> SatakOpa SrI nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESikAya namaha

>

> Dear devotees,

> namO nArAyaNA.

> Brahma sUtras and Upanishads. The six main arguments of

> Bhagavad rAmAnuja against advaita, were brilliantly expanded

> by SwAmi Desikan (alias Venkatanatha) into 66 arguments in

> SatadUshani.

 

Small correction ......... BashyakArar made "seven" main

arguments and not six. Thanks to Sri Mani for pointing out this

error.

> adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

> ananthapadmanAbha dAsan

> krishNArpaNam