New Member: P.Srinivasan

[Guest guest]

Dear bhagavatas:

 

My name is P.Srinivasan. I work in Singapore. I hail from a

srivaishnava family with roots in Srirangam and Trichy.

 

In my earlier days, I was attracted and influenced by the Advaita

philosophy, especially its ability to accommodate all philosophies,

religions and systems of thought (albeit at a lower level). But

later on, I found the Brahman of Advaita not too satisfying to the

heart. I also found that the Brahman of the Upanishads is not too

correctly portrayed in the Brahman of Advaita. I found the Brahman

of the Upanishads a lively, dynamic yet changeless, substratum of

all existence, the self of all that exists, far too close to

everyone that anything else. But the Brahman of Advaita was (atleast

in the overall depiction of That in the advaitic texts) causally

unconnected to the universe, attributeless and in fact "worldless",

despite being the self of all. Advaita also distinguishes 2

Brahmans, a higher nirguna and a lower saguna (which is the God of

religions) making a distinction between God and Absolute. When

advaita talks of God, it talks of God mostly as sakara (formful)

being alone, without discussing the "Being" (or substantive nature)

of God, for any such discussion on the substantive nature of Brahman

is usually done in the context of nirguna brahman only. I was

looking for the truth on the substantive nature of Brahman and its

relation to the universe. I could not find, in advaita, a

satisfactory explanation of Brahman and its relation to the universe

and particularly to us - selves.

 

I then turned to visishtadvaita partly because of my srivaishnava

upbringing and partly because I always felt Ramanuja (and also

Sankara for that matter) was a great thinker after Truth and had a

good balance of Truth-seeking and God-loving. (Personally I consider

this balance important because otherwise we find this phenomenon of

more God-loving and less Truth-seeking causing some philosophers to

make too very exclusive statements (and even claims) on Truth.) I

should admit I was amply rewarded by a study of Ramanuja's works.

Here in visishtadvaita, I get a Brahman who is the ultimate

efficient and material cause of the universe, who is the abode of

infinite auspicious qualities of unsurpassed excellence, who is the

one non-dual existence besides whom nothing exists, who is causally

connected to the universe as its self and lord, who pervades all

existence in and out and above all, a Brahman who is the very Self

of all that exists.

 

I should admit that I don't agree with all of visishtadvaita. But

the central issue of visishtadvaita (or any vedanta for that matter)

is Brahman and that is well described in visishtadvaita. I am glad I

had this association with the bhasyakara. I only pray that all this

leads to the direct and everlasting experience of Brahman.

 

I hope to enjoy this experience of being and sharing with like-

minded pilgrims tredging along the way to Bhagavan.

 

adiyen,

P.Srinivasan