[Fwd: Reply to sadananda's answers.]

[Guest guest]

Dear srI. SadAnandAji,

 

Kindly find the response of a sri vaishnava colleague

of mine to your explanations on the seven critisims

of sri RAmAnujAchAryA on advaita, enclosed herewith

for your next cycle of explanations.

 

I'm sending it to the list for the response of other

members too.

 

Regards,

 

Sudhakar

[Guest guest]

Dr. S.R.Marur wrote:

>

> Dear srI. SadAnandAji,

>

> Kindly find the response of a sri vaishnava colleague

> of mine to your explanations on the seven critisims

> of sri RAmAnujAchAryA on advaita, enclosed herewith

> for your next cycle of explanations.

>

> I'm sending it to the list for the response of other

> members too.

 

note: see post subject:

Re: [Fwd: Reply to sadananda's answers.]

Dated: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 14:50:59

 

****

 

hariH OM! friends,

 

from the advaitin point of view, witnessing

philosophic debates has value insofar as its

affording the opportunity to learn, not from

the ideas, per se, but rather their implication

in the wider context of what drives the mind in

its need to relatively know. of course this

brand of knowing is the polar opposite of the

knowing implied in jnana, which is the noumenal

[viz. beyond the phenomenal].

 

in approaching any of these classic debates:

first we have the matter of semantics with words,

then semantics with ideas, and finally we involve

ourselves with the wild goose chase of philosophical

speculation, with the ulterior mission of securing

a hands-on knowledge of 'what's what.'

 

and this pursuit for a 'hands-on knowledge of

what's what' is precisely where we're making

our biggest mistake. because the answer we

seek is not amenable to reason or relativity.

 

we should never lose sight of the fact that

the goal, not only of advaita but dvaita and

visisthadvaita, is to stop the mind from plaguing

[and thereby reinforcing] the illusion of the

separative-bound jiva. of course this sounds

impossible, simply because it *is* impossible!

nevertheless our charge is to extricate such

hypnotic delusion--which is afterall accomplished

by the simplest means, sooner or later, in the

course of our 'pathless path.'

 

although the three methods differ in their

approach to accomplish this destruction of the

[philosophical] Mind, their goal is the same.

and it merely depends on the temperament of the

individual, as to which method is chosen. the

tyagi who can truly renounce the fruit of his/her

actions, the bhakta who can truly sacrifice his

jiva to isvara, or the jnanayogin who can truly

realize that brahman is the lone reality, *all*

become jivanmuktas in the end, all become One in

parabrahmam.

 

in fact, we are *already* That.

 

OM ramanarpanamastu!

[Guest guest]

Dr. S.R.Marur wrote:

>

> Dear srI. SadAnandAji,

>

> Kindly find the response of a sri vaishnava colleague

> of mine to your explanations on the seven critisims

> of sri RAmAnujAchAryA on advaita, enclosed herewith

> for your next cycle of explanations.

>

> I'm sending it to the list for the response of other

> members too.

 

note: see post subject:

Re: [Fwd: Reply to sadananda's answers.]

Dated: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 14:50:59

 

****

 

hariH OM! friends,

 

from the advaitin point of view, witnessing

philosophic debates has value insofar as its

affording the opportunity to learn, not from

the ideas, per se, but rather their implication

in the wider context of what drives the mind in

its need to relatively know. of course this

brand of knowing is the polar opposite of the

knowing implied in jnana, which is the noumenal

[viz. beyond the phenomenal].

 

in approaching any of these classic debates:

first we have the matter of semantics with words,

then semantics with ideas, and finally we involve

ourselves with the wild goose chase of philosophical

speculation, with the ulterior mission of securing

a hands-on knowledge of 'what's what.'

 

and this pursuit for a 'hands-on knowledge of

what's what' is precisely where we're making

our biggest mistake. because the answer we

seek is not amenable to reason or relativity.

 

we should never lose sight of the fact that

the goal, not only of advaita but dvaita and

visisthadvaita, is to stop the mind from plaguing

[and thereby reinforcing] the illusion of the

separative-bound jiva. of course this sounds

impossible, simply because it *is* impossible!

nevertheless our charge is to extricate such

hypnotic delusion--which is afterall accomplished

by the simplest means, sooner or later, in the

course of our 'pathless path.'

 

although the three methods differ in their

approach to accomplish this destruction of the

[philosophical] Mind, their goal is the same.

and it merely depends on the temperament of the

individual, as to which method is chosen. the

tyagi who can truly renounce the fruit of his/her

actions, the bhakta who can truly sacrifice his

jiva to isvara, or the jnanayogin who can truly

realize that brahman is the lone reality, *all*

become jivanmuktas in the end, all become One in

parabrahmam.

 

in fact, we are *already* That.

 

OM ramanarpanamastu!

[Guest guest]

Gentleman

 

 

 

Sri B.N Suresh writes:

 

1. According to your definition,Real means unchanging and unreal means

changing.At the same time you connect the term Existence with real

and the opposite to it to unreal

-------

First I am happy that Shree Sureshji taking time and responding further to

my mail. The response required detailed analysis and I will do that slowly.

But I want to clarify first the misunderstanding of my mail.

 

Sureshji please refer to my response again. First it is not my definition -

Krishnas provided in the quated sloka - naasato vidyate bhaavo na bhaavo

vidyate sataH - that which is not existent can never come to existence and

that which is existent can never cease to exist. Real is truth or satyam or

sat pardartham that which exists.

-satyam JNaanam anantam Brhamham which is same as sat chit ananda is

Brahman. The equation is from Shruthis. Trikaala abhaaditam satyam that

which remains the same in three periods of time alone is the truth. Real is

defined. Please note that I did not say or imply any way that "unreal means

changing" - In fact I gave a clear example for what is unreal - that which

has no locus at any time - ex. vandyaa putraH is typical example. man's horn

is another example. The world - jagat that which undergoes continous

changes is neither real nor unreal - Hence Mithya is the word brought in to

define that chaning things since they exist but there is changing part -

naama and ruupa - The existence part is the real base for it and changing

part is only the mithya part. Once this is clear then the rest of the

arguments are straight forward.

 

This part of the discussion of real and unreal has been exhaustively dealt

with by Madhusuudhana Saraswati - In the archives of Advaitin there are

discussions about that text between Shree Murthy and myself for those who

are interested. Perhaps Sri Ram Chandran can post the adviata siddi text

part since the arguments of Shree Madusuudhana are very precise.

 

I think discussions may not be fruitful unless the operating definitions are

clear.

 

My Pranaams

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

 

>"Dr. S.R.Marur" <smarur

>advaitin

>k_sadananda

>CC: Advaitin List <advaitin >

> [Fwd: Reply to sadananda's answers.]

>Wed, 09 Jun 1999 14:50:59 +0530

>

>Dear srI. SadAnandAji,

>

>Kindly find the response of a sri vaishnava colleague

>of mine to your explanations on the seven critisims

>of sri RAmAnujAchAryA on advaita, enclosed herewith

>for your next cycle of explanations.

>

>I'm sending it to the list for the response of other

>members too.

>

>Regards,

>

>Sudhakar

><< message3.txt >>

 

 

_____________

Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

[Guest guest]

Shree Marur,

 

I went through your mail and started answering the points you have realised.

soon I have realised I have answered all of them correctly in the original

mail itself. It is useless for me to repeat all that again. My sincere

appeal to you to study my answer giving me a benefit of doubt. What I

wrote is not my knoweldge - I was brought up in fact as vishishhTaadvaitin

and I had to filter every argument back and forth to see the logic of

advaita. The questions that you have raised are essentially

what is real, unreal and mithya as per adviata

Jiiva, avidya -anyonya aashraya aspect

I have already brought equality of real and existence and unreal and

non-existence and the nature of the Jagat as per Advaita - brahma satyam

jagan mitya jiivo brahmaiva na aparaH is the doctrin of advaita.

Please note that logically there are no problems in adviata and experience

per se is not logic although logic can be based on experience or pratyaksha.

I have already discussed anirvachaniiya aspect and why it is so - When ever

there is anyonya ashraya - vedantic logicians have accepted the

anirvachaniiyam aspect - the example of chicken and egg - which I discussed.

I have also discussed who is the locus of avidya - Iswara is the locus for

maaya but maaya manifests as avidya at jiiva level. Maaya itself is the

prakriti - maayantu prakritin vidyaat mayinantu maheswaram is the

swetaaswatara Upanishad. Know that maaya is prakriti and maayaavi is the

Iswara. maaya is ya maa saa maayaa - that which appears to be there but is

not there.

I do not want to continue the discussions for three reasons:

one, the arguments I had presented were not thoroughly examined since

questions that were raised were already presented in my arguments

second the discussor is not in the adviatin list - If he is in the list I

felt obligated to discuss further to make my slef clear. I responded

originally since experts of Ramanuja's criticism was posted on the advaitin.

Third the purpose will not be served, since Shree Marur is as much convinced

that he is right as I am about advaita. Therefore nothing will come out of

these discussions. If anyone in the list has questions related my post, I

will be very happy to make myself more clear so that concepts are clear and

one can beyond those without getting bogged down with these intellecutal

arguments.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

>"Dr. S.R.Marur" <smarur

>advaitin

>k_sadananda

>CC: Advaitin List <advaitin >

> [Fwd: Reply to sadananda's answers.]

>Wed, 09 Jun 1999 14:50:59 +0530

>

>Dear srI. SadAnandAji,

>

>Kindly find the response of a sri vaishnava colleague

>of mine to your explanations on the seven critisims

>of sri RAmAnujAchAryA on advaita, enclosed herewith

>for your next cycle of explanations.

>

>I'm sending it to the list for the response of other

>members too.

>

>Regards,

>

>Sudhakar

><< message3.txt >>

 

 

_____________

Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

[Guest guest]

Hari Om Shri Suresh and Shri Maru:

 

First, I want to thank both of you for your honest disagreements relating to

recent discussions regarding the seven questions posed by Ramanujacharya.

Though in appearance, there are seven questions, they

arise due to the well known fundamental philosophical disagreement between the

relationship between advaita and dwaita.

 

According to Shankaracharya, Brahman (God) , Jiva (soul) and world (matter) are

unified together and hence they are inseparable. Shankaracharya argued that the

Ultimate Reality is ONE. The distinction that

appears to exist between Brahman, Jiva and world are caused by Avidya

(ignorance). Essentially in Shankaracharya’s framework, Brahman, Jiva and world

become indistinguishable.

 

Ramanujacharya argued that world is fundamentally real and soul is a higher mode

of Brahman than matter because soul is conscious. Soul is eternally real and

distinct but entirely dependent on Brahman.

Ramanujacharya however admits that soul and matter can’t exist without the

existence of Brahman because Brahman is all pervasive. Essentially in

Ramanujacharya’s framework, God becomes the master of the soul

and matter.

 

Intellect is quite capable to generate 7 or even 700 questions using different

frameworks. The same intellect is also smart enough to support or condemn any

one of those questions. These frameworks serve as

a ladder or pole or a rope or tree branch to a person who wants to get out of a

deep well. The most important thing for such a person is not to analyze the

advantage or disadvantage of these tools but to

choose the one which he (she) is comfortable. After coming out of the well, the

person rightfully discards these tools. The most important thing for us to know

is to understand that both Ramanujacharya and

Shankara understood that the ultimate goal of human life is liberation from

birth and death. They also fully agree that Brahman is the Ultimate Reality!

 

Ram Chandran