Digest Number 563 ( Once upon a time... )

[Guest guest]

Jai Sriman Narayana,

 

What Sri Mani told is absolutely right.

 

Sri Mani quoted :

 

"The sole foundational texts for his

> understanding of the

> Sutras are the Upanishads, and secondarily the Gita

> and Vishnu

> Purana "

 

 

In the jijnyAsa adhikaraNam of Sri Bhashyam while

establishing the ViShiStAdvaita and its interpretation

of "athAtO Brahma jijnyAsa", the discussion between

Sri pUrva pakShi ( representing Advaita ) and Sri

Siddhanti ( Sri Ramanuja ) continues thru many

ghattams.

 

Sri Ramanuja correctly interprets all the UpaniShadic

statements , both of those which outwardly appear to

be talking about the nirViShESha Brahman and many many

of those statements which directly talk about the

SaviShESha ( or SaguNa ) Brahman. Most of the SaguNa

statements are ignored by pUrva pakShi.

 

But Salutations to Sri Ramanuja for giving correct

interpretations and bridging the gap between the

statements which outwardly looked like they were

completely at logger heads.

 

The striking point is that always Sri Ramanuja goes by

the context of the statement and not just its literal

meaning. Also He gives the correct meaning of the

vAkyAs.

 

The discussion on the first main sUtra is divided into

the following

 

1) Yukti Ghattam (logic)

 

2) Sruti Ghattam ( correct interpretation of the

upanishad vAkyAs quoted in maha pUrva pakSham ( the

advaitic interpretation ) - like "satyam jnAnam

anantam Brahma", "EkamEvAdvitIyam Brahma", "Brahma

vEda Brahmaiva bhavati etc.

 

3) Smruti Ghattam ( Correct interpretation of Bhagavad

gIta slOkAs ).

 

4) purANa Ghattam ( Correct interpretation of the

ViShNu purANa slokas ).

 

5) sapta vidhAnupapattayah -- avidyA nirasanam ( The

seven inconsistencies arising due to the acceptance of

avidya concept of Sri pUrva pakShi ).

 

Now the main ( or the soul foundational texts per Sri

Mani ) are the ViShNu purANa and the gIta thru which

Sri Ramanuja establishes the correctness of

ViShiStAdvaita.

 

The ViShNu purANa slOkAs and the gIta slOkas which

match the nirviShESha thought are first quoted by Sri

pUrva pakShi who gives the advaitic interpretations to

them. Sri Ramanuja then explains them correctly by the

context and the exact inner meanings. Also at many

places Sri Ramanuja quotes many statements about

saguNa Brahman in both ViShNu purANa and gIta.

 

These two texts are widely discussed in all the

schools of thought and Sri Ramanuja succeeds in

bringing a complete explanation which covers 100

percent of these basic texts.

 

I am not sure about Sri Ramanuja quoting from other

texts ( probably like the ones from padma purANa etc -

Iam not sure )...but the "sole foundational" texts

which form the basis of the main first sUtrArdha and

its discussions remain to be ViShNu purANa and Srimad

Bhagavad gIta.

 

It is pointed out in the purANa ghattam that Sri vyAsa

maharshi ( sutra kAra ) also indicated that in all

para vidyAs, only saguNa Brahma has to be worshipped".

 

'para vidyAsu sarvAsu saguNa mEva BrahmOpAsyam. phalam

caika rUpamEva atO vidyA vikalpaha".

 

I am happy to write this mail, as currently I am

learning Sri BhAshyam from my Father thru his and his

Aacharya's and all my paramAcAryA's blessings.

 

yO nitya macyuta padAmbuja yugma rukma

vyAmOha ta staditarANi truNAya mEnE

asmad gurOr bhagavatOsya dayaika sindhOh

rAmAnujasya caraNau SaraNam prapadyE

 

Jai Sriman Narayana

 

Maruthi Ramanuja Das

 

 

 

 

--- bhakti-list wrote:

> Message: 1

> Sat, 16 Mar 2002 19:54:05 -0600 (CST)

> Sankaran Kartik Jayanarayanan

> <kartik

> Once upon a time...

>

> I chanced to read a posting by Mani Varadarajan in

> the ancient USENET

> newsgroup alt.hindu, and was wondering if Mani's

> challenge still holds:

>

> http://www.hindunet.org/alt_hindu/1994/msg00757.html

>

> --------------------

> Re: superstitions

> Mani Varadarajan <mani

> Wed, 19 Oct 1994 12:11:36 -0700

> Newsgroups: alt.hindu

>

> [..]

>

> Ramanuja, the other major expositor of the Sutras,

> certainly

> cannot be accused of "filtering" the text through

> the Vaishnava

> tantras. The sole foundational texts for his

> understanding of the

> Sutras are the Upanishads, and secondarily the Gita

> and Vishnu

> Purana (texts used by Sankara himself). If you can

> show me where

>

> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> in his Sri Bhashya Ramanuja departs from these

> exegetical principles,

>

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

> I will wear the ashes of an Advaitin forthwith!

> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> --------------------

>

> I'm not sure if the "Sri Bhashya" refers to

> Ramanuja's Brahma Sutra

> Bhashya, but if such is the case, then the

> translation of Ramanuja's BSB

> that I have with me does indeed point out several

> instances where Ramanuja

> quotes from Puranas other than the Vishnu Purana.

>

> -Jayanarayanan

>

[Guest guest]

Per the "evakaara" in the quote below, should we infer that nirguNa-

brahma (=akhila-heya-pratyaniika-brahma) is not to be worshipped?

 

rAmAnuja-dAsa

//Ramkumar

> It is pointed out in the purANa ghattam that Sri vyAsa

> maharshi ( sutra kAra ) also indicated that in all

> para vidyAs, only saguNa Brahma has to be worshipped".

****

> 'para vidyAsu sarvAsu saguNa mEva BrahmOpAsyam. phalam

***

> caika rUpamEva atO vidyA vikalpaha".

[Guest guest]

bhakti-list, "tg_ram" <tg_ram> wrote:

> Per the "evakaara" in the quote below, should we infer that

nirguNa-

> brahma (=akhila-heya-pratyaniika-brahma) is not to be worshipped?

>

> rAmAnuja-dAsa

> //Ramkumar

>

> > It is pointed out in the purANa ghattam that Sri vyAsa

> > maharshi ( sutra kAra ) also indicated that in all

> > para vidyAs, only saguNa Brahma has to be worshipped".

> ****

> > 'para vidyAsu sarvAsu saguNa mEva BrahmOpAsyam. phalam

> ***

> > caika rUpamEva atO vidyA vikalpaha".

 

Dear Ramkumar,

 

Not quite. As the Advaita school and Sri Sankaracharya

explain it, the 'nirvisesha brahman' (theory of the

Absolute as totally bereft of any attributes or qualifications)

is absolutely unworshippable, since at that level there

is no notion of knower, known, and knowing. That is to

say, since the 'nirvisesha brahman' is totally without

any distinctions and is absolute, bare, consciousness,

how can one say that one worships, knows, or experiences?

One cannot, Sri Sankara says. One can only declare it to

be pure consciousness, of the nature of awareness (jnApti-mAtra).

In fact, Sri Sankara's commentary on the famous Yajnavalkya-

Maitreyi dialogue brings out this very point.

 

Certainly Sri Ramanuja rejects this idea as being wholly

discordant with the general tenor of the Veda, Vedanta,

smritis, and itihAsas. The very idea of nirvisesha brahman

is totally without foundation, according to Sri Ramanuja,

so it has no place in philosophy. So the question of

worship of nirvisesha brahman can arise neither in Sri Sankara's

philosophy nor in Sri Ramanuja's philosophy.

 

What the above vAkya means is that only Lord Vishnu, the

Brahman who is inherently 'saguNa', endowed with all manner

of auspicious attributes, is a suitable object of meditation.

There is an entire section in Sri Vishnu Purana known as

the 'subhASraya prakaraNa' where a vivid description of

the symbolism of meditating on Lord Vishnu is described.

Since only Vishnu is totally and eternally bereft of any defiling

characteristic, and only Vishnu bears all the 'kalyAna-guNas'

that make one worthy of meditation, Vishnu alone is worthy of

being meditated upon. Sri Ramanuja emphasizes this point several

times in his Vedarthasangraha, Sribhashya, and Gitabhashya.

 

The implication is that no lesser entity is truly worthy of

meditation apart from Vishnu, since they are beings who are

in samsAra and who are affected by the guNas. Even for the

realization of the bliss of the individual self in

quasi-isolation, a state technically known as 'kaivalya',

or blissful aloneness, the Lord must be meditated upon

and the jIvAtma must be meditated upon as being ensouled

by the Lord. In all meditations the Lord must be included,

even if not directed toward the highest goal.

 

I request learned members to correct any errors in my

words,

 

With regards,

aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

Mani

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramkumar,

 

I am sorry -- I think I read your message too fast.

You asked about nirguNa brahman, where nirguNa means

'akhila-hEya-pratyanIka', i.e., free from any limiting

or defiling qualities. I believe you were contrasting

this with 'saguNa' brahman.

 

In Visishtadvaita, Brahman is always saguNa, and said

Brahman is always akhila-hEya-pratyanIka. There is no

distinction made between the two. I am sorry for my

overlong reply earlier.

 

Mani

[Guest guest]

Dear Mani

 

Thanks for the detailed reply. I find it helpful.

 

Yes. I was confused before and was trying to contrast 'nirguNa' (in the

sense of 'akhila-hEya-pratyanIka') with 'saguNa' referred to in the

puraaNic quote below by Sri Maruthi:

 

Maruthi> 'para vidyAsu sarvAsu saguNa mEva BrahmOpAsyam. phalam

Maruthi> caika rUpamEva atO vidyA vikalpaha.'

Maruthi> It is pointed out in the purANa ghattam that Sri

vyAsa

Maruthi> maharshi ( sutra kAra ) also indicated that in all

Maruthi> para vidyAs, only saguNa Brahma has to be

worshipped".

 

Since the Supreme Being is both saguNa and nirguNa simultaneously, one

might ask - why would the puraaNic verse above explictly mention

'saguNa' ?

 

An answer to this question is in the long reply you posted earlier.

 

'saguNa' in the verse above, is probably identifying vishNu and none

else with the Supreme Being, since vishNu is the only One Who is

saguNa (and nirguNa as well), rather than contrast 'saguNa' with

'nirguNa'.

 

raamaanuja-daasa

//Ramkumar

 

 

--- Mani Varadarajan <mani wrote:

>

> Dear Ramkumar,

>

> I am sorry -- I think I read your message too fast.

> You asked about nirguNa brahman, where nirguNa means

> 'akhila-hEya-pratyanIka', i.e., free from any limiting

> or defiling qualities. I believe you were contrasting

> this with 'saguNa' brahman.

>

> In Visishtadvaita, Brahman is always saguNa, and said

> Brahman is always akhila-hEya-pratyanIka. There is no

> distinction made between the two. I am sorry for my

> overlong reply earlier.

>

> Mani

>

 

 

 

 

Sports - live college hoops coverage

http://sports./

[Guest guest]

bhakti-list, Ramkumar Gopalaswamy <tg_ram> wrote:

> Since the Supreme Being is both saguNa and nirguNa

> simultaneously, one might ask - why would the puraaNic verse

> above explictly mention 'saguNa' ?

 

Dear Ramkumar,

 

I believe the vAkya quoted Maruthi was from the Sribhashya

itself and not from Sri Vishnu Purana. Sri Ramanuja is

saying that by definition the Supreme Being always has

qualities (sa-guNa).

 

He is 'saguNa' in that He has all manner of auspicious and

edifying attributes, such as infinite consciousness, infinitude,

His being eternally true, infinitely blissful, etc. He is

also saguNa in that the mass of jIvas and prakRti are in

an adjectival relation to Him. He is 'nirguNa' because He

is unaffected by and absolutely bereft of the three material

guNas in His essence or svarUpa, and in His divine manifestations.

 

A confusion typically arises in the usage of the term 'nirguNa'.

We accept that the Supreme Being is nirguNa in the sense as

described above. The Advaitins including Sri Sankara define

nirguNa as meaning totally devoid of any distinctions or

attributes whatsoever. In Advaita, if someone describes the

nirguNa brahman as being true, infinite, and blissful, it

is only understood as denying falsity or unreality, finitude,

and misery to brahman. To Advaitins it does not mean that

the nirguNa brahman actually has the qualities of truth,

infinitude, and bliss, since by definition It cannot be

said to have *any* qualities.

 

To avoid this confusion, Dr. S.M. Srinivasa Chari mentioned

to me that the great Sribhashya exponent Sri Abhinava Ranganatha

Parakala Swami preferred to describe the Advaita doctrine

as 'nirvisesha brahman' (brahman without any *attributes*

whatsoever) rather than 'nirguNa', since the word 'guNa'

has many meanings, many of which we in the Visishtadvaita

school accept as well. We then can speak freely of the

Visishta Brahman as being truly nirguNa as well.

 

aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

Mani

[Guest guest]

Dear Srii Jayanarayanan,

 

You have raised an interesting question.

>From whatever little introductory Sriibhaashyam I have heard (actually

from a Srii-vaishNava-vaidika scholar but who was 'born' in an advaitin

family), SrI rAmAnuja's interpretation of the Saariiraka-Saastra is

considered consistent & true to the intent of great maharshi-s like

Srii-paraaSara while SrI Sankara's bhaashyam is considered to run

counter to the maharshi-s.

 

Srii raamaanuja himself quotes maharshi-s from smRti-s (like Sriimad

vishNu-puraaNam) that follow some Sruti-vaakyam-s almost verbatim and

then explains how deviant Srii Sankara's explanations are from the

mantra-dRshta-s like Srii-paraaSara & Srii-vyaasa. but I do not

remember specifics now. but if you are really interested in the details

I can hook you up with the scholar I heard it from.

 

Anyway, could you let us know the specifics from the Srii-bhaashyam

book mention below?

 

Please also let us know the author of the BSB book you have.

 

Regards

 

rAmAnuja-dAsa

//Ramkumar

 

 

bhakti-list, Sankaran Kartik Jayanarayanan <kartik@e...>

wrote:

> I chanced to read a posting by Mani Varadarajan in the ancient

USENET

> newsgroup alt.hindu, and was wondering if Mani's challenge still

holds:

>

> http://www.hindunet.org/alt_hindu/1994/msg00757.html

>

> --------------------

> Re: superstitions

> Mani Varadarajan <mani@s...>

> Wed, 19 Oct 1994 12:11:36 -0700

> Newsgroups: alt.hindu

>

> [..]

>

> Ramanuja, the other major expositor of the Sutras, certainly

> cannot be accused of "filtering" the text through the Vaishnava

> tantras. The sole foundational texts for his understanding of the

> Sutras are the Upanishads, and secondarily the Gita and Vishnu

> Purana (texts used by Sankara himself). If you can show me where

> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> in his Sri Bhashya Ramanuja departs from these exegetical

principles,

>

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

> I will wear the ashes of an Advaitin forthwith!

> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> --------------------

>

> I'm not sure if the "Sri Bhashya" refers to Ramanuja's Brahma Sutra

> Bhashya, but if such is the case, then the translation of

Ramanuja's BSB

> that I have with me does indeed point out several instances where

Ramanuja

> quotes from Puranas other than the Vishnu Purana.

>

> -Jayanarayanan

 

 

 

 

 

Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards®

http://movies./