[Shastric evidence asked !!!]

[Guest guest]

Dear Mr. Rembert <rembert.lutjeharms

 

Let me reply to your mail briefly. I believe that the list owner will

not object for the length of this article.

 

You wrote:

> Today again in class (I am studying indology), our professor was giving

> an explanation of 'hinduism' in which he was proclaiming that it was

> impersonalistic.

> I know, by reading several books, that a lot of arguments can be found

> in shastra to prove that the personal aspect of God is the highest, but

> it would help me enourmously if you could cite some shastra and prove

> that the highest realization IS Bhagavan realization. It would be very

> nice to present this to my fellow students, because I feel they get now

> an un-correct view of the vedic literature.

 

Your professor's explanation is not fully known to me. Therefore, I cannot

pass conclusive comments on those explanations. Let me not also refer that

which you have mentioned as 'hinduism'. I take into account the

proclamation of your professor on "impersonalistic God as SAstra's

purport" and refute it as follows:

 

pramANam is source of knowledge/authority - This is the apowrushEya Veda

which is established in pUrva-mImAmsa and by the Brahma sUtra "SAstra

yOnithvAth"; the pratyaksham and anumAnams are also considered here

but after the Veda in the order.

 

pramEyam is object of knowledge - that which is known through pramANam - This

is aSEsha-chit-achit-prakAram-Brahma-EkamEva-thathvam - thathvam

nArAyaNa: para:

(This itself refutes the impersonalistic proclamation)

 

pramAtha - he who knows the pramEyam through the pramANam

 

pramA - the valid rational knowledge, which is practically useful, obtained by

the pramAtha about pramEyam through pramANam.

 

Now-a-days, I see many talking about pramEyam without proper study or no

study of the pramANam. Or prejudices play a role here. As a result of

this, there arises many deviations and contradictions. Not only today we

find this trend, but also in olden days, such a trend was present very much.

For example, the Adi Sankara's Advaita is an example for

irrational anti-vedic & invalid pramEyam, which has been termed as prachchanna

bowdham. This is not to offend some one but nirviSesha chin

mAtram vAdam if done by your proffessor is nothing but "nirastha samastha

viSesham prathyagabhinnam chinmAthram";

1. nirastha samastha viSesham is a form of Sowgatha bowdha vAdam

2. prathyagabhinnam is a form of chArvAka vAdam

3. chinmAthram is a form of sAnkya vAdam.

All the three are against SAstra and nyAya, therefore, "sAnkya sowgatha

chArvAka sAnkarachchAnkarOdaya:" - the mixture of these three

Veda-SAstra-virudhda-nyAya-virudhda atheist mathams is Advaita of

people like GaudapAda, Sankara etc., which is therefore surely a

Veda-SAstra-virudhda-nyAya-virudhda-matham. These are not emmotional points;

but when studied with a calm mind without prejudices, one can understand the

fact - only the VisishtAdvaita pramEyam is the truth.

 

The quoted so-called proclamation "impersonal God" also seems to be

the result of lack of scholarly study of the SAstra or no study of SAstra

or should be a personal opinion. If it was a personal opinion, then

no comments.

 

The SArIraka-SAstra consist of 20 chapters;

Frist 12 chapters state that SrIman NArAyaNa: is worshiped by all karmas

(sUtras attribtued to Sage Jaimini)

Next 4 chapters state that SrIman NArAyaNa: grants the results of all karmas

who is the antharyAmi of all dEvathas (sUtras attributed to Sage kASakrutsna)

Last 4 chapters clearly explain the swarUpa, rUpa, guNa, vibhUthi iswaryams of

SrIman NArAyaNa who is known by the name Brahman in upanishads (sUtras

attributed to Sage Veda vyAsa).

 

Thus the entire Veda has clearly explained that the one and only God is SrIman

NArAyaNa: who is the Lord of LakshmI; All the sentitent and insentient

entities are his body(form), mode and attributes. Therefore the impersonal

aspect of God in SAstra is shattered to pieces. The God according to the

SAstra is always with

form. This has been ascertained in the SAstra. But please note the following

points:

 

SrIman NArAyaNa has no form - this means that he has no form like we

jIvAthmans (starting from chaturmuka-brahmA, Siva etc to micro-organisms);

This means that SrIman NArAyaNa has no form because of karma; He has no karma.

Starting from chaturmuka-brahmA, Siva etc to micro-organisms, these jeevAthmas

have impure prAkrutha-form (misra-satvam) as per individual karma. SrIman

NArAyaNa is purushOththama: and therefore, he is not having impure-form.

 

SrIman NArAyaNa has form (rUpam)- this means that he has divine (sudhda-satva

- this is also a achit-type) pure form as per his wish (sankalpa) which is

celebrated in the SAstra in five modes namely para, vyUha, vibhava, hArda and

archA. SrIman NArAyaNa's s rUpam is therefore called as divya-mangala-vigraham

or divya-rUpam. On the other hand, SrIman NArAyaNa's swarUpam is

samasta-chit-achit-vasthu-vilakshaNam-sathyathva-jgnyAnathva-ananthathva-

Aanandathva-amalathva-swarUpa-nirUpaka-dharama-viSishta-dharmi

 

The other form of SrIman NArAyaNa is all the chit and achit entities; All the

chit and achit entites are the form/mode/inseparable attribute

(Sareeram/prakAram/apruthak-sidhda-viSEshaNam) of SrIman NArAyaNa because he

supports, controlls and owns all chit and achit entites and has them for his

own purpose by his sankalpam. SrIman NArAyaNa is the antaryAmi

of all chit and achit entities.

 

The antharAdhikaraNam (1-1-7 Brahma sUtra) has the sUtra "anthas

thath-dharmOpadESAth"; This ascertains that the SAstra proves the God

ParamAthmA SrIman NArAyaNa is anantha-kalyANa-guNAkara:,

akila-hEya-prathyanIka: who is pundareekAksha: - he who has lotus like divine

beautiful eyes,

having divine divya-mangala-vigraham. Ask your professor to read the upanishad

which has the pramANa

vAkyams (of which I quote few) as follows:

"sa Esha sarvEshAm LOkAnAmeeSa: sarvEshAm kAmAnAm"

"sa Esha sarvEbhya: pApmabhya uditha:"

"sarvasya vaSee sarvasyESAna:"

"apahatha pApmA vijara:", "sathya kAma:, sathya sankalpa:"

"viSvatha: paramam nithyam viSvam nArAyaNam harim"

"viSvasyAthmESvaram"

 

Even if these things are not considered, then atleast ask him to read the

"kapyAsam" Sruthi which is more than sufficient to refute his proclamation.

kapyAsam puNdareeka Sruthi means "gambheerAmbha: sambhUtha sumrushta-nAla -

ravi kara vikasitha puNdareeka dala amalAyathEkshaNa:". This single SAstra

vAkyam is more than enough or fully sufficient to refute "impersonalistic"

vAdam.

 

If he is doing "nirviSesha chin mAtram brahma" vAdam of Advaita and uses

apachchEda nyAyam to negate the saguNa Sruthis, tell him that the nyAyam is

not fit in the context to negate the saguNa Sruthis. I have proved the usage

of apachchEda nyAyam in Advaita in that context as the most irrational aspect

in Adi Sankara matham in an article "Ubhaya-lingAdhikaraNam" which is getting

published in SaraNAgathi eJournal. I have followed SrI BhAshya in that

article. Also SrI Anand K Karalapakkam who is a scholar in ubhaya vEdAntha has

written a wonderful article on the same concept. I suggest that this article

may be read for reference. Also, refer my article series titled "experiencing

Bhagvath Ramanuja yatiraja's divine works" where I have followed Bhagvath

Ramanuja vEdArtha sangraham and outlined the "Sath vidyA"; I have refuted the

"nirviSesha chin mAtram brahma" vAdam of Advaita there following the "Sruthi

virOdha darSanam in Brahma-agnyAna-paksham-advaita".

 

For more details, please feel free to write to me. The SAstra has

clearly ascertained the concept of SaviSEsham.

 

NirviSEsha vasthu is not possible through any of the pramANams

namely prathyaksham, anumAnam and Sabdam.

 

Presumable upakrama-virOdham is avoided by the above statement

in this article.

 

Thanks & Regards

M.S.HARI RAmAnuja DAsan (mshari)

 

P.S. Counter arguments will be entertained if and only if they are

well substantiated with pramANa and pramANAnuguNa tarka.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

__________________

Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1