Sri. Mani's Response to Sankara Response

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri. Mani,

NamO nArAyaNA.

 

I must say that I must respectfully disagree with you

on this issue; my disagreement is not based on

dogma.

 

The reasoning is as follows:

 

1. If one accepts Vis'istAdvaita Vedanta in its entirety, as the

"most rational and perfect" detailed exposition on the nature of

reality described in the vedas (and elaborated on in the vedantic

texts), then the term origion becomes meaningless.

For Vis'istAdvaita only elaborates on the beginningless

truth (contained in the vedas.) Once again I point out that the

statement that Vedas are beginningless (i.e., without author)

is a premise and not a dogmatic statement! Premise is a key

component of every sound theory. This premise

is rational, given Vis'istAdvaita is an unbounded philosophy

(i.e., individual souls, matter and the process of creation

and dissolution are also beginningless.)

 

2. The jiva that took the avatar as Sri RamAnujAcharya is a

nitya-mukta (who is not subject to the delusion from avidya-karma)

who has and will always be established in bhramajnanam,

so he need not borrow any ideas.

 

If one approaches the issue from this angle,

terms such as evolution of ideas and origin

have no meaning, when used in relation to

description of the nature of reality.

 

adiyEn ramanuja dasan,

Venkat

krishNArpaNam

 

 

 

Mani Varadarajan <mani

bhakti <bhakti

Wednesday, July 07, 1999 5:19 PM

Re: Sankara

 

>

>> Dear Bhagavatas,

>> NamO nArAyaNA.

>>

>> I would like to highlight and discuss the merits of the phrase

>> "In the history of the evolution of ideas" used by Sri. Sudarshan in

>> reference to Vedenta based philosophies.

>>

>> Please note the following:

>>

>> 1.These philosophies represent mutually exclusive expositions on the

>> nature of reality.

>

>Are you saying that that Visishtadvaita, Advaita, and Dvaita have not

>mutually influenced one another? I don't think there can be any doubt

>that Visishtadvaita has taken ideas from Advaita and vice versa.

>In the old days, followers of these philosophies were not watertight

>"castes" like they are now. People speculated, thought, and talked

>amongst themselves. While I agree that a theory that thought has

>evolved along the lines of Advaita -> Visishtadvaita -> Dvaita (or

>anything similar) can hardly be historically justified, one has

>to admit that ideas have been shared between these traditions, and

>are not entirely "mutually exclusive", despite the protests of the

>"purists".

>

>Mani

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

SrI:

SrI Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha

SrI Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrIvaN-

SatakOpa SrI nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESikAya namaha

 

Dear devotees,

namO nArAyaNA.

>

> 1. If one accepts Vis'istAdvaita Vedanta in its entirety, as the

> "most rational and perfect" detailed exposition on the nature of

> reality described in the vedas (and elaborated on in the vedantic

> texts), then the term origion becomes meaningless.

> For Vis'istAdvaita only elaborates on the beginningless

> truth (contained in the vedas.) Once again I point out that the

> statement that Vedas are beginningless (i.e., without author)

> is a premise and not a dogmatic statement! Premise is a key

> component of every sound theory. This premise

> is rational, given Vis'istAdvaita is an unbounded philosophy

> (i.e., individual souls, matter and the process of creation

> and dissolution are also beginningless.)

>

> 2. The jiva that took the avatar as Sri RamAnujAcharya is a

> nitya-mukta (who is not subject to the delusion from avidya-karma)

> who has and will always be established in bhramajnanam,

> so he need not borrow any ideas.

>

> If one approaches the issue from this angle,

> terms such as evolution of ideas and origin

> have no meaning, when used in relation to

> description of the nature of reality.

 

 

Thanks to Sri Venkat for his excellent reasonings on this

issue. adiyEn would like to add few more points :

 

a. It is well known that Bhagavad RAmAnuja didn't start a new

system of philosophy. Even in the previous yugAs, great

sages like bOdhAyana, Dramida, Tanka and others were

upholding VisishtAdvaita as the actual vEdAnta. Thus,

VisishtAdvaita is not some "evolved" philosophy.

 

b. NammAzhwAr has already clearly putforth the teachings of

vEdAnta alias VisishtAdvaita through His TiruvAimozhi ;

NammAzhwAr infact "experienced" / "intuited" the same.

 

c. Sri Vaishnava sat sampradAyam is eternal and SrIman nArAyaNA

is the first AchArya. For kali yuga, NammAzhwAr became the

pravartakar(propagator/initiator) of vEdAnta/Vaidhika matam

(religion). SrIman nAthamunigaL got the upadEsam of NammAzhwAr

and became the next AchArya in the line of Sri Vaishnava

(ie.Ubhaya vEdAnta) Guruparampara. Bhagavad RAmAnuja learnt

vEdAnta through this guruparampara (nAthamunigaL - UyyakkondAr

(pundareekAkshar) - MannakkAL nambi (Sri rAma mishra) -

ALavandAr (yAmunAchArya) - Peria nambi - rAmAnujar ).

 

Bhagavad rAmAnuja gave the correct interpretations to Brahma

sUtras , important passages in Upanishads and bhagavad gIta,

using the valid pramAnAs and rigorous logic. Guruparampara's

role/AchArya katAksham in this is very much to be understood.

This achievement was easily made by bAshyakArar (rAmAnujar)

because of the guruparampara (NammAzhwAr's katAksham etc).

 

It is the genius of Bhagavad rAmAnuja in synthesizing various

things and giving wonderful commentries to brahma sUtras etc.

The rigorous logic used, arguments against other philosophies/

interpretations etc needs the usage of various tools which

were used by other system of philosophies as well. It is in

this area that one can think of some commonalities etc. Some

arguments against a certain view point may be given already

by Sankara. This doesn't mean that bhagavad rAmAnuja is

"evolving" VisishtAdvaita based on such principles of advaita

and other system of philosophies. The core philosophical

part is eternal and was only "re-established" with a sound

footing by bAshyakArar, this being His avatAra rahasyam.

 

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

ananthapadmanAbha dAsan

krishNArpaNam

[Guest guest]

I thank Venkat and Anand for their thoughtful and devout

responses. I tend to approach these issues from a less

dogmatic perspective, so please bear with me.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with Anand's statement that Ramanuja's

commentaries represent the best systemization of Vedanta

philosophy, and can only echo his praise of the bhAshyakAra:

> The core philosophical

> part is eternal and was only "re-established" with a sound

> footing by bAshyakArar [sic],

 

I think the key phrase is that the "core" of Ramanuja's philosophy

is eternal; the various supporting formulations, however, have

evolved over time as an interplay and as outgrowth of debate

between scholars of Advaita, Visishtadvaita, Dvaita, and

non-Vedantic thinkers.

 

It is clear that Ramanuja bases his thoughts on ancient,

pre-Sankaran writers such as Dramida, Tanka, and the venerable

Bodhayana, all of whom probably lived in the first few

centuries A.D. at the latest. However, these great authorities

even influenced Sankara and later Advaitins to some degree, as

some of them are quoted as authorities in Advaitic works.

This was possible because these early writers' works were

incomplete, and it was possible for different thinkers to

selectively extrapolate some concepts. [impartial scholars

generally agree, however, that these early philsophers are

clearly closer to Visishtadvaita than Advaita.]

 

I personally do not attribute the greatness of Ramanuja's philosophy

to his being a "nitya-sUri", a pre-anointed perfect being. I think

of him as someone who carefully and critically studied all the religious

philosophies of his time, finally concluding that only Yamuna's

ideas came close to the original intention of the Vedas.

 

I find Ramanuja very interesting because, like any great thinker,

he *does* borrow ideas, taking what he thinks makes sense and

using others' ideas against them.

 

Clearly Ramanuja was unique -- his life and work spell this out

-- but what was the source of his greatness, one may ask. This is

an unanswerable question, clearly it is in large part to God's

grace, but I think it unnecessary to posit that his authority

or uniqueness stems from his being an "avatAra" of sorts (in fact,

neither Desika, Maamunigal, or even Amudanaar assert this).

 

rAmAnuja dAsan,

Mani

[Guest guest]

SrI:

SrI Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha

SrI Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrIvaN-

SatakOpa SrI nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESikAya namaha

 

Dear SrI Mani,

namO nArAyaNA.

> I thank Venkat and Anand for their thoughtful and devout

> responses. I tend to approach these issues from a less

> dogmatic perspective, so please bear with me.

 

When Sri Vaishnava guruparampara says that Bhagavad

RAmanuja is an incarnation of "AdisEsha" alias ananta,

(even based on some references from purANAs), it is

not at all viewed as a dogmatic statement by Sri Vaishnavas

in general.

> I personally do not attribute the greatness of Ramanuja's philosophy

> to his being a "nitya-sUri", a pre-anointed perfect being. I think

> of him as someone who carefully and critically studied all the religious

> philosophies of his time, finally concluding that only Yamuna's

> ideas came close to the original intention of the Vedas.

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

 

It is not that SrI ALavandAr (ie. SrI yAmunAchArya) was making

some guess work about the intention of vEdAs and was freely

speculating to "come close" to the answer; SrI yAmunAchArya's

each and every word is verily the intention of vEdAs.

 

Bhagavad RAmAnuja did perform all the things as you say.

That is not inconsistent with He being the avatAram of a

nitya sUri. SrIman nArAyaNA also learnt under sAndIpini muni,

viswAmitrar and other sages in His avatArams like KrishNa and

rAmA. This doesn't negate His status as the Supreme Lord.

The avatAra of bhagavad rAmAnuja has its own role to achieve

many things inaccordance with the thiru uLLam of PerumAL.

Its pretty obvious that, during such avatArams they perform

the things as per the role they assume.

> Clearly Ramanuja was unique -- his life and work spell this out

> -- but what was the source of his greatness, one may ask. This is

> an unanswerable question, clearly it is in large part to God's

> grace, but I think it unnecessary to posit that his authority

> or uniqueness stems from his being an "avatAra" of sorts (in fact,

> neither Desika, Maamunigal, or even Amudanaar assert this).

 

adiyEn would like to clarify one thing here. No one

is saying that one has to accept the teachings of Bhagavad

RAmAnuja, just because He is a nitya-sUri. The yard-stick

is certainly the apaurushEya vEdAs and since teachings of Bhagavad

RAmAnuja is in perfect accordance with vEdAs and allied pramAnAs,

His teachings are the actual vEdAnta. So, when one carefully

analyses various philosophies, he/she will certainly land up

in upholding ViSishtAdavita and this process of analysis is

independent of the status of the AchAryas (be it even PerumAL

Himself, or nitya sUris etc). Once this phase is over ie. in

accepting ViSishtAdvaita as the perfect authority, then one

has to accept the sampradAyam which is establishing this

vEdAnta. SrIman nArAyaNA didn't initiate the SrI Vaishnava

sampradAyam for "nAm kE vAstE" (just for name sake). It is only

through this sampradAyam that PerumAL is revealing the actual

import of vEdAs. PerumAL has the role of jagatvyApAram and

He being impartial is giving the results of puNya and pApA

to each jIvAtmA etc. Current Villivalam Azhagiyasingar used

to explain that vEdAs are not like one's class-notes given

by teachers for children, such that there is no apparent

ambiguity or apparent contradictions etc. The works like

Brahma sUtrAs also are not like class notes, completely

explaining everything a..z with ample clarity in many possible

ways. This is because, if it is so clear that anyone who

reads them understands all the actual tattvam, hitam and

purushArtam with ample clarity, then there would be no

way to differentiate the jIvAtmAs with certain karma (ie.

puNya and pApa performed will become useless). Thus, PerumAL

has our eternal Sri Vaishnava SampradAyam for clearly and

correctly explaining the sAstrAs and nitya-sUris actively

take part in this kainkaryam ( this is again not a dogmatic

statement; this can be realized after understanding that

ViSishtAdvaitam explains the vEdAs accurately).

 

Thus, the authority of sampradAyam is very important to

be recognized.For instance, in our sampradAyam, the pAsurams

and biographies of AzhwArs, the rahasya trata mantrams etc are

being passed on from NammAzhwAr, nAthamunigal .....down to

our AchAryas. The biographies of AzhwArs are not in sAstrAs

accepted in general by other schools of thought, though SrI

Suka Brahma maharishi in SrImad Bhagavatham clearly foretells

the advent of AzhwArs and AchAryAs of our sampradAyam in the

famous "kalau kalu bhavishyanti nArAyaNa parAyanAhA...." verse.

The biographies of AzhwArs is a "sampradAya" vishayam (ie.matter).

One has to accept the authority of sampradAyam on issues like

this. Similarly, in sampradAyam, Bhagavad RAmAnuja is regarded

as the incarnation of ananta. Not only that it is a sampradAya

vishayam, references from purANAs are also there.

Sri A. GovindAchArya in his book on Bhagavad RAmAnuja

gives such references from Iswara Samhita (yAdavagiri mAhAtmya

chapter), Harita Smruti, BrahmAnda purANa (chapter on

Badarika MAhAtmya), BhUta puri mAhAtmya, Brahma Vaivarta

purANa to convey that Bhagavad rAmAnuja is indeed an avatAram

of AdisEsha.

 

Regarding the source of greatness of Bhagavad RAmAnuja,

you yourself raised a question and you say that it is

unanswerable. While it is a fact that SrIman nArAyaNA's

mercy is the important factor in this, the execution of

that mercy is through the avatAram of ananta as Bhagavad

RAmAnuja. He being a nitya sUri was the source of His

greatness ; but as said before, no one is making a

dogmatic statement to accept ViSishtAdvaita just because

Bhagavad RAmAnuja is a nitya sUri. This part of Bhagavad

RAmAnuja being a nitya-sUri was mentioned, only to reveal

the source of the greatness of Bhagavad RAmAnuja, in

explaining and propagating vEdAnta to its true sense.

 

Some AchAryAs, while paying tributes to Bhagavad rAmAnuja,

focussed on various aspects of glorification. In any

eulogy / stotra / glorification, we come across things

like this : She is so devoted that she is a gOpi incarnate,

Her face is so serene and she has excellent feminine devotee

qualities that she must a mahALakshmi incarnate etc. In this

sense, Bhagavad rAmAnujar has also been glorified (in amazement

or wonder or anubhavam) as either the avatAram of the

VishwaksEnar or the combined avatAram of the panchAyudams

of PerumAL etc by some AchAryAs, while analysing/glorifying

certain acts/pastimes of Bhagavad rAmAnuja. This does not negate

the fact that Bhagavad rAmAnuja is the avatAram of AdisEsha.

Also, some AchAryas like SrI VenkatAdhvari did say that

yemperumAnAr is the avatAram of AdisEshan. adiyEn has a

vague remembereance that either PrapannAmrutam or Divya sUri

charitram (or both) say that YatirAjar is the avatAram of

AdisEsha. In a side note, Divya sUri charitram of SrI

GarudavAhana Panditar did mention the names of nitya sUris

(kousthubam, Srivatsam etc) who incarnated as a particular

AzhwAr. Also, adiyEn has heard that (didn't verify though)

the 3rd matAdhipati of ParakAla mutt in His work about the

AchAryAs says that yatirAjar is the avatAram of AdisEshan.

Infact, the bhavishyatAchAryar came much before and

pUrvAchAryas knew about the advent of bhagavad rAmAnuja.

There are many other sampradAyam based sources on this issue.

The current day AchAryAs also say that yatirAjar is

the avatAram of AdisEshan.

 

AzhwAr,yemperumAnAr,dESikan,Azhagiyasingar thiruvadigaLE SaraNam

 

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

ananthapadmanAbha dAsan

krishNArpaNam