Anand's efforts

[Guest guest]

Dear friends,

Recently there have been several posts that have either questioned the

views of srivaishnava acharyas, or suggested that a certain other philosophy

is better than visistadvaita, or have ascribed certain tenets to visistadvaita

that don't belong in it. Amidst this barrage of posts, Anand has been working

hard in clarifying the visistadvaita position. Mani is not around to moderate,

and the learned people have been silent. So I wish to say something in

support of Anand.

 

He has correctly pointed out the `the distinction between the metaphysical

entity Brahman/God and the other metaphysical entity Suddha Sattva, as

established in ViSishtAdvaita. First of all, the nature of Brahman

has to be understood. Then, one has to understand the appropriate

names that can be designated for that Brahman. The most important

of the names turns out to be nArAyaNa, since it explains a lot

about Brahman and its relationship between all other metaphysical

entities which are sentient and non-sentient. Thus, the word

"nArAyaNa" as used in Upanishads and SrI VaishNava works is not

some "avatAra" of Brahman etc with a particular specific form,

but verily the all pervading Brahman, which is madeup of jn~yAna

and also has jn~yAna. Brahman takes up many forms and there are

specific names assigned to such forms taken by Brahman ie. Brahman

characterized by a specific form is also given a name. For example,

rAma, KrishNa, vAmana are all names of Brahman associated with

a particular form.' And that `when one says that

krishNa is the Supreme Person, it refers to the Brahman only, who

is also called as nArAyaNa. No one is objecting the fact that

KrishNa is svayam BhagavAn ie.KrishNa is indeed the Brahman itself

having taken a particular form.'

 

I wish to supplement this by merely adding that shuddha sattva,

the substance making up the forms of krishna, rama, vamana, and the

four-handed person of the shanka-chakra-gadhaa-dhaari, is insentient or

achetana. Shuddha sattva shares this feature of insentience with

Prakriti. Thus there is a clear distinction between the paramAtma (who is

sentient) and his forms (that are made of an insentient substance).

This distinction between the paramatma and his forms does not

mean that the supreme being is devoid of auspicious qualities.

 

This (modulo errors of mine) is the position of visistadvaita on

this issue. Given this, the recent posts to which Anand has responded would

fall in one of three categories.

 

1. The writer has not understood this aspect of Visistadvaita and has

come to erroneous conclusions based on this misunderstanding. If this

is the case, Anand has suggested some good references where a clear

picture of visistadvaita may be obtained. And I am sure the learned

people on this list will clarify questions in this regard.

 

2. The writer is aware of this aspect of visistadvaita but is attacking it.

The writer feels that this aspect has no scriptural justification. In

this case, this list is not the right place for a debate. (I request the

long-time members to clarify this point.) And moreover,

there is a protocol for debate. One cannot jump in and ask for pramANAs

that deny one's favourite view which has very little to do

with visistadvaita.

 

3. The writer does not care about this aspect of visistadvaita but is only

interested in attacking visistadvaita or saying that some other philosophy

is better. I don't wish to say anything in this regard, because I hope

nobody intended this.

 

 

Finally, I request some knowledgeable people to point out errors if any in

my description of the visistadvaita position, and also correct me if I have

misinterpreted the policies of this list. The last thing I want is to create

more confusion in an effort to restore order.

 

thanks

Kasturi