Gita's Perspective of Jiva, Jagat and Liberation from GitaBhasya of Madhwach

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Kuntimaddi Sadananda"

<k_sadananda@h...> wrote:

> Attempting to post this for the second time

 

<snip>

>

 

My dear Sadananda,

 

It is just so amazing, and wonderful to me, that you have posted

this message at this particular time. It is truly grace! For I too

have just spent much of the past week delving into the writings

and analysis of Ramanuja, working from the URL's that were so

kindly given me a week or so ago by you and others here in order

for me to learn more about Dvaita and VishishhTadvaita.

 

Like Nilesh (hello!) , I have been hugely impressed by the logic

and critique of Ramanuja, and have been trying to locate the

complete text of his "magnum opus" critique of Advaita for more

close up and detailed study.

 

But even from this first encounter, I have to say that, truly,

Ramanuja has to be one of the greatest intellects (and great

hearts) in world history. The depth, thoroughness, and

comprehensiveness of his thought is simply remarkable. While

I know I have barely scratched the surface of his thought, even

the synopses of his works are proving quite formidable in the

power of their critique. You obviously have spent much more

time and thought on the subject, but I have yet to find what I can

see as flaws in his logic or critique of Advaita on the issue of

identity and plurality in the One. Would Advaita no longer be

Advaita if it were to incorporate or reflect Ramanuja's critique?

Oddly enough, I don't think Advaita's essential genius would be

lost -- in fact, I think it would be enhanced by what Ramanuja

brings in terms of scientific analysis of the essential data. What

do you think?

 

Whether the One includes the many, whether the divine Mind

includes infiniite individual reflection in infinitude of expression,

seems to me a point beyond debate or scientific analysis, one

way or the other, even though we can bring logic and scientific

scrutiny to our words and mental constructs *about* the

unsayable and humanly incomprehensible. And if that is so,

what can't finally be scientifically "proven" must finally be a matter

of the heart (or spiritual sense, as I would put it), it seems to me.

Ramanuja's logic, finally, speaks to my heart (and rings true to

what I can report back about what I've "seen" or "felt" or "known"

in the Quiet), and so his logic and analysis finally seems more

pesuasive and "right" to me than Sharkara's does alone, without

Ramanuja's critique.

> I found in my studies Bhagavaan Ramanuja does a superb job

in criticizing

> Adviata puurvapaksha in his Shree Bhaashya - through Laghu

puurvapaksha and

> Mahaapuurvapaksha and associated his corresponding

siddhaanta-s. I also

> found Madhva criticism is somewhat more vehement and

subjective but lacks

> throughness that Ramanuja provides.

 

Interestingly, I too found this so, with no offense mean to

Madhva's brilliant critique or his followers.

 

I am

> looking Ramanuja's shree bhaashya more closely now and I

find if we apply

> the sharp tools of scientific logic and current understanding of

jagat,

> Bhagavaan Ramanuja's and Bhagavaan Madva's criticisms of

advaita do not

> stand the rigour of current scientific understanding of the

nature of the

> universe.

 

Could you please amplify? I found this statement odd. I happen

to have been a physics major in college, and as a "hobby" have

kept up with the latest advances in quantum physics since

college. In my view, our "current understanding of the nature of

the universe" (if by this you mean modern-day physics and

mathematics) doesn't lay a finger on Ramanuja or Madva or

Shankara, (or Buddha or Christ, or any other spiritual sage) for

that matter. At best, some of the views in books like "The

Dancing Wu-Li Masters" and "The Tao of Physics" which try to

popularize the "new physics" and seek to find coincidence

between Eastern thought and quantum physics, can only offer

some interesting parallels. But as Ken Wilbur, for one, has so

brilliantly pointed out in his "Quantum Questions" and as the

philosophical writings of Schrodinger and Heisenberg

themselves point out, quantum physics can neither prove or

disprove something like Advaita, or Buddhism, or whatever,

because they simply describe different realms of reality and

thought. So, if you are saying that Ramanuja and Madhva don't

stand up to "current scientific understanding" of *physics* I

would have to heartily disagree. If you are saying that they don't

stand up to advances in modern thought about Hinduism, or the

Gita, or whatever, then that is of course, another matter, and I

would like to understand what "scientific" proof you have to offer

for this assetion, because as I said earlier, I have yet to find

flaws in Ramanuja's critique, even though I don't agree on all

points.

> The most beautiful aspect of adviata that is impressive and

fundamental is

> the oneself - that is non-negatable. Everything else including

the theories

> and even Veda from which adhyatimika data is gathered can

be dismissed but

> what cannot be dismissed is oneself. One's existence is

beyond any pramaaNa

> - prathyaksha, anumaana and shabda. While everyone knows

that they exist

> and consciousness, sat and chit, they donot realize that they

are ananda

> too. That is the basic adyaasa that Shankara discusses -

Since limitless is

> ananda, and limitless is Brahman, aham brahaasmi follows

naturally. If that

> is also what scripture says then that is the fundamental truth

beyond logic,

> beyond any means of knowledge. Hence Shankara

emphasizes the adhyaasa

> bhaashya before he proceeds the discussion of suutra-s.

 

I agree, but I don't see how what you say here at all negates the

critique of Ramanuja. Could you elaborate?

> I have great respect for all achaarya-s - Shankara, Ramanuja

and Madva. They

> are like true scientist analyzing the data and proposing the

theories. One

> should question these thories and accept that is what one is

convinced. By

> studying the criticism of advaita by Ramanuja and Madva one

will have better

> grasp of advaita too, provided one disects these objections to

see if these

> objections are valid or not.

 

I just love your point here, and couldnt' agree more. And I've only

just begun to do this, in all fairness.

>One's conviction follows more firmly by doing

> that and that is part of mananam. But before one approaches

these studies

> one has to be very objective in the interest of the truth and not

in the

> interest of who is right.

 

That is truly and honestly what I have been trying to do, in so far

as I can be aware of my own proclivities and prejudices. Until

last week, I had never heard of Dvaita or VishishhTadvaita, and it

was only through the good graces of you and others that I have

been introduced to these great thought systems and the sages

Mahdva and Ramanuja. Not having any vested interest in a

particular school, I was surpised myself that I was so hugely

impressed by Ramanuja and his critique. Intellectually, he

seems every bit the equal of Shankara (I hope I am not offending

anyone by this statement but that is my impression.) How I

would love to have heard the two of them talk and question one

another! In a way, one can hear a present-day debate, by

reading as opening and honestly as one can the writings of both,

and then letting the True Light inform and discriminate the mind.

 

Ultimately one has to know oneself by oneself

> through contemplation of oneself.

 

Yes, this is the "final frontier." The fact that one as great as

Shankara and one as great as Ramanuja did this, and brought

back reports, so to speak, from the "final frontier" that differ so

fundamentally on some very basic points about the final nature

of the I, makes me feel very humble indeed. While it is good to

argue over and analyze logic and semantics, and utilize the Light

within to see the truth and falsity of all things, this should never

quench the love we should have one to another, whether we

believe this love is of the one Self or whether it is because we

believe we are giving glory and respect to an individual

expression of the infinite One. In either case, as my great

teacher said, "love your neighbor as yourself." Find and enter the

infinitude of what *that* Self/self love means, and in that

all-encompassing Love all debate ends and Love alone reigns

supreme, and is not that bliss and heaven?

 

I always love seeing your posts, dear Sadananda. I look forward

to further sharing, and hope my comments are received in the

love and honest spirit of inquiry with which they were sent.

 

Alleluia!

Steve

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Kuntimaddi Sadananda"

<k_sadananda@h...> wrote:

>

>Steve - Alleluia too and very happy to read your post.

>Yes Ramanuja's criticism of adviata is very objective. >when I

was in India at my home place, my elder >brother who passed

away used to organize my >vedanta lectures. This time his

close friends organized >the talks in his memory. I ended up

taking on >Ramanuja's theories -Although I am still trying to

grasp >the essence of his theory, I found teaching is the best

>way to learn since I have to integrate the thoughts in a

>coherent manner before I can present.

 

I'm sure it would be a great joy to be in one of your classes. Your

openness and intellectual honesty are the hallmark of good

teaching.

>I would like to present his criticism and the some of the

>problems in it. But I would like to do that after I >complete the

Shankara bhaasya or at least most of it.

 

Again, your understandable reticence is the hallmark of

academic and intellectual integrity. I totally understand and

agree.

>Mean while I am solidifying my thoughts to insure I >have

correct import of his theories and implications. >Jiiva

bhinnatvam or intrinsic differences between jiiva >and jiiva - I

am not sure I am clear of what exactly >Ramanuja implies. They

are sat, chit and ananda >swaruupa-s (intrinsic qualities). But

how does one jiiva i>s differentiated from the other - are there

gradations in >jiiva-s and on what basis and on what basis

these >gradations or intrinsic qualities differentiated -

>essentially measurement norms. - to be more specific >how

does one jiiva recognizes another jiiva in moksha. >I have yet to

find a clear description for my >understanding.

 

I also have been thinking about this particular point, i.e., how

does on jiiva recognize another jiiva in moksha. I don't know

enough (and the language/semantical problems are very high

for an English speaking person, even one who has done a lot of

reading in this area) to have a grasp of this yet. At one point,

Ramanuja seems to be saying that its the very nature of

consciousness (and Consciousness) to differentiate -- that

consciousness without differentiation is an absurdity (if I

understand what I read so far.) It seems to me that if one comes

at the problem from the "bottom up" or how does jiiva recognize

jiiva in moksha, the problem becomes insuperable, but "top

down" not so.

 

In other words, might it not be that jiiva recognizes another jiiva in

moksha because "this" or "that" jiiva ultimately reflects the very

Mind or divine Consciousness that knows (dare I say, "creates")

that difference in the first place? Might not Self-recognition

simply be reflection of Mind's own infinite individuality, or infinite

variety of Oneness? If individual jiiva had minds of their own,

instead of being individual reflections of the infinite One, that is,

individualization of that one infinite Mind, then there would be no

Oneness, Mind would not be All, and each jiiva would be locked

within its own self-reifying limited consciousness of itself, with

no sense of "other" or possibility of ever truly knowing another.

 

But to my understanding (and I am not at all saying that any of

this is what Ramanuja taught or explained), it seems logical that

the infinite Mind that knows Itself will also know its own "content"

(so misleading a word, but I can find no other). And the reflection

of this mutual Mind of the All will "know" the great fact that, as we

now humanly might say it, God knows me, and God knows you,

and God knows one and all. That's just what Mind does. It knows

its infinite Self (not many selves, however many in number, but

rather infinite Self-expression.) I couldn't even know you, if Mind

didn't already know you, so to speak. It's not something I do,

even as jiiva in moksha; it's something Mind does, reflected in

jiiva. In this divine sense, identity is not illusion or maya. It

simply reflects the nature of the Self to be One and All.

 

Put poetically, in the fullness of individual being, "we" ("we" isn't

quite right -- it implies a plurality, rather than one, but I have to

use it) are the individual reflection of the divine One -- a

symphony of infinite Love, not just one single nameless eternal

note (or, put another way, we are that One note, in infinite

diversity of expression and variation on an infinite Theme).

Perhaps this is one possible "solution" or path to the "how a jiiva

knows a jiiva in moksha" problem.

 

I have often felt that if we believe that our philosophical words

about such ineffable things can be critiqued, or at least can be

fingers or signs or maps pointing in the right (or wrong) way,

then so can mathematics. And it is in mathematics, that I, as a

student of physics, have seen found some of the most clear

sign-posts to the understanding this most difficult problem of the

One and the Many, the individual and the All. In mathematics

there are infinitesimals as well as integers, the infinite and even

mind-boggling transfinite numbers. (See the great work of G.

Cantor on transfinite sets and transfinite numbers.) Even though

in mathematics one is still working with symbols and symbolic

sets, isn't that is exactly what Shankara and Ramanuja are doing

in their own realm of work when they are trying to present the

right "maps" to us? Might not then mathematics point to truth?

 

History shows that some of the greatest mathematicians (and

physicists) have had moments that are truly pure selfless satori,

(so far as I or they can tell), but filled with content, filled with

"entities" and "universes" that have no limitation of space or time

or matter, entities and universes with no physical form or

limitation or locus, but which have relationship and individuality

of unbelievable beauty and elegance and depth. I, for one,

cannot assume that these "reports" from the frontiers of thought

aren't every bit as informative about the final nature of the divine

Mind as that of a Shankara or Ramanuja. (I hope that doesn't

seem disrespectful.)

 

I would also be willing to make the same argument about the

most sublime music of East and West. The greatest composers

almost all report that in the depth of creativity, all sense of

personal ego disappears. They know they are not the source of

the music. Nonetheless, when music and listener or composer

become one, there is no loss of notes or individuality, just of the

false ego and brain-based self-consciousness that prevent true

communion with the celestial music of the One and All. The

result for us is a taste of heaven or bliss, and it is not delusion or

illusion, even if it "doth not yet appear" what the divine music

might be when not mediated and conditioned and filtered by the

ego.

>I have several other conceptual problems in >understanding

his theories, but since you are >gathering information I would

refrain from raising those >here at this time so that you can

learn without my bias.

 

I greatly respect this and appreciate your care for me.

> I am

>discussing some of these issues with some experts in >the

VishishhTadvaita. There is a separate list - bhakti >list where lot

of posts on VishishhTadvaita takes place >but most of them are

tuned to bhakti aspect rather >than philosophical discussions.

 

Yes, I discovered this too, and found as you said the

discussions to be mostly devotional, rather than intellectual or

philosophical. I simply don't have time to see if other kinds of

posts there would be worthwhile for my special purposes, or

even inappropriate given the bhatki focus that is there. (Many of

the posts are deeply moving; when the words cease, it is the

Love we live and the Divine Romance that matters. <g>)

>Anyway I hope we can learn from each other as we go >along. I

will be putting in writing as understand more >and more of

vishishhTadviata from my perspective.

 

I do hope you will feel free to share your studies if and when this

seems appropriate to you. If you wish to comment on anything I

have additionally said, I truly welcome it. I hope I haven't been too

long-winded.

 

Postscript: Looking back over my words to you, I feel a bit like a

silly man standing at our American Grand Canyon, gesticulating

wildly and trying to describe it with words, when all the while the

Canyon itself sits there in all its glory! It's not that one wouldn't

want, perhaps, to know the geology, what all the strata mean,

how to get to the bottom of the canyon, and all of that. But in

doing so, we should not lose sight of the Canyon itself! I hope I

haven't done that. I fully realize there are certainly much better

and more learned "tour guides" and "geologists" than I to do the

other part. Still, I have in fact (and in metaphor) seen the

"canyon" (I even hiked to the bottom of the real one as a

teenager) and the things I've seen! I would love to walk there

with you and other seekers of Truth and talk of the deep things of

God, or just share the incredible silence of the place. But for

now, our mutual words hopefully touch the heart, and that is

enough!

 

With affection,

Steve

[Guest guest]

>

>

>

>

>In other words, might it not be that jiiva recognizes another jiiva in

>moksha because "this" or "that" jiiva ultimately reflects the very

>Mind or divine Consciousness that knows (dare I say, "creates")

>that difference in the first place? Might not Self-recognition

>simply be reflection of Mind's own infinite individuality, or infinite

>variety of Oneness? If individual jiiva had minds of their own,

>instead of being individual reflections of the infinite One, that is,

>individualization of that one infinite Mind, then there would be no

>Oneness, Mind would not be All, and each jiiva would be locked

>within its own self-reifying limited consciousness of itself, with

no sense of "other" or possibility of ever truly knowing another.

>

>But to my understanding (and I am not at all saying that any of

>this is what Ramanuja taught or explained), it seems logical that

>the infinite Mind that knows Itself will also know its own "content"

>(so misleading a word, but I can find no other). And the reflection

>of this mutual Mind of the All will "know" the great fact that, as we

>now humanly might say it, God knows me, and God knows you,

>and God knows one and all. That's just what Mind does.

 

Steve - thanks and you have raised quite a lot of issues involved. I

am not sure I know enough to dissect all these in a systematic

manner. 'Jiiva-s minds of their own' etc. Mind being an equipment -

subtle body - in this world or leela vibuuti - is dictated by ones

Vasana-s . But in moksha all this are sublimated. Jiiva exists in

his intrinsic nature which is - anu pramaana or very small size and

j~nana swaruupa. If he needs a mind to see others then one goes to

the next question, what dictates the nature of his mind since he has

no more karmaphala as in this jagat to dictate the size and nature of

his mind which is different from his neighbor's. If one's mind is

superior to the other then we are back to tara tama bheda-s or

gradations of jiiva-s based on his equipments and we are back

samsaara stage where one thinks one is superior to the other based on

upaadhi-s. Unfortunately I have not found clear exposition of these

in vishishhtaadvaita books and I do not want to do my speculation

before I get a clear picture of what exactly Ramanuja meant- I am

going to pose this question in the VishishhTadvaita list see what

kind of answer I get.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

>

>

>With affection,

>Steve

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaskarams,

 

This thread on the various interpretations of our scriptures is being

very informative.

>You obviously have spent much more

>time and thought on the subject, but I have yet to find what I can

>see as flaws in his logic or critique of Advaita on the issue of

>identity and plurality in the One. Would Advaita no longer be

>Advaita if it were to incorporate or reflect Ramanuja's critique?

>Oddly enough, I don't think Advaita's essential genius would be

>lost -- in fact, I think it would be enhanced by what Ramanuja

>brings in terms of scientific analysis of the essential data. What

>do you think?

 

Here I would wish to direct your attention to the following message

that has been posted in this group by our learned Sri Sadananda.

 

http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m1505.html

 

In this message Sri Sadananda has clearly shown how Acharya

Ramanuja's critique of Advaita can be easily answered from an Advaita

point of view.

 

As has been mentioned by various members before, each Acharya has

tried to systematize the teachings of the Vedas. In doing so each has

chosen a 'Key Concept' to resolve most of the apparent contradictions

in the various statements in the Vedas. Acharya Shankara uses the

concept of Avidya as his key concept whereas Acharya Ramanuja uses

the body-soul relationship as his key concept. One could always argue

endlessly about how one key is more appropriate than the other. One

could also show how from within one school the concepts used in

another schools appear to be flawed. These however do not 'prove'

or 'disprove' one school or another.

 

Whether a key concept is appropriate or not should be based on it's

ability to lead one to realize the Brahman. Here I would also like

note, for the benifit of the international audience, that each of

these philosophical systems have been accompanied by a tradition that

has enabled an implementation of the teachings of the Acharyas.

Different people find different traditions and different

philosophical systems satisfactory. To me it does not seem necessary

to 'prove' the superiority of one system over another for all people.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, padmashreem wrote:

> Namaskarams,

>

> This thread on the various interpretations of our scriptures is

being

> very informative.

>

> >You obviously have spent much more

> >time and thought on the subject, but I have yet to find what I

can

> >see as flaws in his logic or critique of Advaita on the issue of

> >identity and plurality in the One. Would Advaita no longer be

> >Advaita if it were to incorporate or reflect Ramanuja's critique?

> >Oddly enough, I don't think Advaita's essential genius would

be

> >lost -- in fact, I think it would be enhanced by what Ramanuja

> >brings in terms of scientific analysis of the essential data.

What

> >do you think?

>

> Here I would wish to direct your attention to the following

message

> that has been posted in this group by our learned Sri

Sadananda.

>

> http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m1505.html

>

> In this message Sri Sadananda has clearly shown how

Acharya

> Ramanuja's critique of Advaita can be easily answered from an

Advaita

> point of view.

>

<SNIP>

 

Dear One,

 

Thanks for your response, and especially for the URL in which

Sadananda offers his truly brilliant counter argument.. While I

can often follow the gist of his "song," I simply don't know

enough of the "technical" or semantics of the language in order

to assess the veracity of his lyrics, if you get my gist! <g> Insofar

as I could grasp it, the argument is logically formidable, and I

would love to have heard Ramajuna's reply to it -- as I'm sure

dear Sadananda would too, being so scientific and honest in his

approach to this matter.

 

What I do see happening, both with Ramajuna and with

Sadananda's reply is however logical the thought structure of an

argument, one always get's back to "first meanings" -- what is

Real or not real, what is changing or not changing, what is

illusion and what is God, or Brahman. And this is always a point

beyond logical argument -- it is in fact, a point of "faith" (as we

Christians would say) or of spiritual sense, or spiritual intuition,

or of the ability of one to have knowledge of self -existent or

pre-existent facts. (And Lord knows the arguments that *these*

philosophical proposition has produced in Western philosophy!)

 

For example, at one point Sadananda says: "Ramanuja's

statement that all cognitions are either of the real or unreal is

absolutely wrong. In fact it is the other way around. Only

Brahman alone is real, and Brahman cannot be cognized in the

true sense of the word." In all due respect to my dear colleague,

this is finally simply a statement of belief, not of fact, as no doubt

Ramajuna would reply. Saying that this "first meaning" is

"absolutely wrong" our friend S. then brilliantly deconstructs what

he perceives to be a falsity *on the basis* of the pre-conceived

(or initially propounded) "wrongness" of the others proposition.

Of course, in fairness to Sadananda, he gives some brilliant

*reasons* for his rejection of Ramajuna's initial proposition,

which is powerfully bolstered by his analysis of what goes wrong

*if* you accept Ramajuna's (purportedly) "absolutely wrong"

proposition. I, for one, found S's critique quite convincing, and

made all the more so by the humility and love and spirit of

'"science" with which he offered it.

 

In fairness, Ramajuna does much the same thing with "first

meanings," as S. points out, when he points out: "But Ramanuja

denies the existence of undifferentiated{nirguna} Brahman,

arguing that whatever exists has attributes: Brahman has infinite

auspicious attributes." As Sadananda observes, this is not a

critique of Advaita, but an "axiomatic statement" of Ramajuna. I

would assume, just as with Sadananda's own "axioms," that

Ramajuna felt he had very good reason for holding this "axiom"

but I don't know if in fact he does defend and explicate this "first

meaning" in his critique of Advaita, or elsewhere. I would be

surprised to find that Ramajuna's "axiom" was not scriptural, or

based on scripture, *as he undestood it.* To Sadananda, this

assertion that Brahman has "infinite auspicious attributes" does

not "taste" right, but it may well be beyond all logical argument or

philosophical test of "truth" content as a pure statement.

 

Personally, this particular statement of Ramajuna's "tastes" very

good to me! <g> It accords with my own spiritual encounters

and whatever measure of awakening I now may have. On the

basis of this "good taste" I would probably offer up many

arguments (as I did in my earlier post to Sadananda) that the

One need not at all be contradictory with infinite attributes and

individual divine reflection of the One. Transfinite mathematics

hints at this. So does the divine "music" that is not physical

sensation or the product of mortal thought, however mediated

the "divine symphony" may be to the human mind. Can I "prove"

this? Can I "prove" that Brahman, God, Divine Love, is so? Not

logically, anymore than one can "prove" the Divine is not so.

 

Nonetheless, just because we cannot conceive of how the

Divine could have attributes, since this is the hallmark of

limitation and attachment of the so-called human mind, doesn't

mean that the divine Mind knows this limitation of Itself. Who can

say what the infinite calculus of Mind might be? I say, let's see

what the way of Love and the way of awakening show us. For

me, the attributes of God are very precious; they reveal in one

and All the very nature of God as infinite intelligence, even though

God is always One, reflecting Himself. But that, of course, is

another "unprovable" statement of faith. <g>

 

What is wonderful about this whole discussion is how everyone

finally comes to say, in one way or another, that finally we must

find the One for ourselves, and while we may be edified and

inspired by our commentary and analysis, the signposts and

pointers must finally give way to the Now and Here of the divine

itself. I so appreciate this love and practicality of Love in our

discussions.

 

God bless!

Steve

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 19 May 2001, stevenfair wrote:

> Like Nilesh (hello!) , I have been hugely impressed by the logic

> and critique of Ramanuja, and have been trying to locate the

> complete text of his "magnum opus" critique of Advaita for more

> close up and detailed study.

Hello Steve, Thanks, I am learning a lot from the postings. I donot know

somehow I am scared to make any comment coz. of my limited scope of knowledge in

both advaita & vishitadvaita philosophies. Hope you get it!!

 

Regards

nilesh

 

 

____

123India.com - India's Premier Portal

Get your Free Email Account at http://www.123india.com

[Guest guest]

advaitin, nileshkmehta@1... wrote:

> On Sat, 19 May 2001, stevenfair wrote:

>

> > Like Nilesh (hello!) , I have been hugely impressed by the

logic

> > and critique of Ramanuja, and have been trying to locate the

> > complete text of his "magnum opus" critique of Advaita for

more

> > close up and detailed study.

> Hello Steve, Thanks, I am learning a lot from the postings. I

donot know somehow I am scared to make any comment coz. of

my limited scope of knowledge in both advaita & vishitadvaita

philosophies. Hope you get it!!

>

> Regards

> nilesh

>

 

Nilesh,

Well, as you can see, my relative ignorance has not stopped me

from jumping right in! <g> My spiritual teacher used to say that

there were no wrong questions -- just ask! There is such a

helpful spirit of love and friendship here, I am sure you questions

and comments would be most welcome, and would add to the

light. What's more, spiritual sense is in no way limited to

erudition and learning; it is native to the Spirit within us. I have

often be amazed at the insight the so-called "untutored" may

have.

 

God bless!

Steve

[Guest guest]

>

>

>Dear One,

>

>Thanks for your response, and especially for the URL in which

>Sadananda offers ..

 

I forgot completely about that post. Now I look back and read, I

felt little bad that my arguments could have been less aggressive and

more to the point.

>

>What I do see happening, both with Ramajuna and with

>Sadananda's reply is however logical the thought structure of an

>argument, one always get's back to "first meanings" -- what is

>Real or not real, what is changing or not changing, what is

>illusion and what is God, or Brahman. And this is always a point

>beyond logical argument -- it is in fact, a point of "faith" (as we

>Christians would say) or of spiritual sense, or spiritual intuition,

>or of the ability of one to have knowledge of self -existent or

>pre-existent facts. (And Lord knows the arguments that *these*

>philosophical proposition has produced in Western philosophy!)

 

I would recommend the study the anumaana prakaraNa (Ch II) and

adhyaasa bhaashya (Ch. III of the Brahmasuutra notes) that discusses

validity of the logic in these arguments and also fundamental human

problem in terms of error or adhyaasa.

>

>For example, at one point Sadananda says: "Ramanuja's

>statement that all cognitions are either of the real or unreal is

>absolutely wrong. In fact it is the other way around. Only

>Brahman alone is real, and Brahman cannot be cognized in the

>true sense of the word." In all due respect to my dear colleague,

>this is finally simply a statement of belief, not of fact, as no doubt

>Ramajuna would reply.

 

Steve - as I understand all vedantins - that includes Ramanuja and

Madhva agree that Brahman is real. For them - not only Brahman real,

but jiiva and jagat - the individual soul and the universe also real.

What is real and what is unreal and what is illusion or bhrama has

been exhaustively discussed in the epistemological issues in Vedanta

before they discussed ontological issues. Some of these concepts are

also evolved from Sankhya philosophy that we will be discussing

exhaustively from Sutra 5 on of Brahmasuuutra. From scientific point

- there are three entities that can be defined -(1) That which exist

but never under go any change - (hence we provide a definition for it

as trikaala abhaaditam - that which remain the same in three periods

of time), (2) that which never existed or no locus for their

existence ever - ever implies past, present and future - and typical

example is gagaabuubu or son of a barren woman or my horns (some

people may think that I have them but really I do not have, either in

the past, now or they are not likely to grow in future!) and 3) those

that have locus temporally - like a pot or cloth etc that we perceive

- or the whole world, which is changing continuously. Clearly there

is a distinction between these three entities - those that exist all

the time, those that never existed and those that exist temporally.

The first one is definitely real and the second one is definitely

unreal and only the question of the third one - under what category

we can put them - They are there temporally and hence they exist but

they are not there as such eternally since they are changing like

ring into necklace etc. Sankara puts them under the category of

mithya or neither real nor unreal but in between. They are there

because we perceive them but when we inquire into them they are not

there in essence as such.

 

Since you are a physicist, let us examine what is a cloth? Is cloth

real or not? Yes of course is real since you can wear it or stitch

into something you can wear. But cloth is nothing but bundle of

fibers arranged or assemblage of something different from cloth - if

I pull each fiber apart I will reach a stage there is no more cloth

there - cloth was there but cloth is no more and I am left with

bundle of fibers. Now are these fibers real? If I keep analyzing I

will end up with no fibers but chain of molecules - Are the molecules

real? - they degenerate further to atoms - atoms to electrons,

protons - further down to more and more fundamental particles -and we

do not have the final answer about the truth of the cloth - But if

you go further deep, what remained the same in these analysis is - it

is not the cloth or the fibers or molecules etc it is the observer

who is the conscious entity. without him neither the cloth, fibers

nor molecules nor the fundamental particles can be proved to exist.

Now is the world real or just in the mind of the observer. I am sure

you are aware that in the final analysis we are coming to the stage

in Physics that the observed is not completely independent of the

observer. What remains the same in all the three periods is the

conscious observer and the observed cannot be observed without the

observer present. Also there is a fundamental fact the observer

himself cannot be observed that is the subject can never be an object

of observation. (this is where you get into problem of jiiva-jiiva

bhinnatvam or how does one jiiva know other jiiva? in Ramanuja's

Philosophy). Before we can analyze the reality of the observed we

need therefore look at the reality of the observer first since the

validity of observed rests on the validity of the observer.

 

Let me approach the subject little differently - Let us ask more

fundamental question. Can I ever see any object to say that the

object exists? What I see are the attributes of an object through the

senses - the eyes can see only forms and colors, ears the sound,

tongue the taste, nose the smell and the skin the touch - these are

not the objects but the qualities or attributes of the objects. Now

where is the object and how is it seen? - object being the very

substratum to which these attributes belong - it is the locus of

these attributes but then where is that object - can I ever "see"

that object to say yes that object exists and thus the world which is

an assemblage of objects exists. If one looks at carefully - the

object is segment of the imagination of the observer. There is

inference of a conscious entity is involved and that is since we

"see" the attributes there is an methodical inference brought up from

childhood that there cannot be attributes with out an object present.

The point is - an inference by the mind is involved to establish that

the world "is". Second the mind (since it is an inferential

statement - is involved in this inference)- no mind no inference and

no world to be recognized. Hence in the deep sleep space and time

both are folded and what remains is the conscious entity - Hence the

discussion of "who slept well" -in the past week posts.

 

Hence ontological issues related to reality and unreality and mithya

have been analyzed deeply by the achaarya-s each taking their sides.

But from modern understanding of the truth we have no absolute world

- space and time are relative and ultimately they are subjective as

Vedanta shows that without observer who is independent of space and

time there is not space and time independently or absolutely.

 

You can see why Sankara and Bhagavaan Ramana emphasizes to

investigate the reality of ones own self before we look out to

examine the world and the creator of the world. For spiritual growth

the concept of the God and Love etc are O.K. Ultimately no one loves

any body other than oneself - that is again because there is nothing

other than oneself! - Vidyaranya says in panchadasi - ayam aatma

paraanandaH parama premaspadam yataH|

One self is the source of supreme bliss and hence one loves one self most.

 

All others one loves only because one loves one self - Since one

concludes that others that he loves brings happiness that he really

loves! Hence in Br. Up. Yagnavalkya says to his wife Maitreye -

aatmanastu kaamaya sarvam priyam bhavati - All others things becomes

likable things only because they being him happiness that he really

loves. What he loves is happiness and not other things - which

include God too - God is not god sake but for my sake since in the

love of God I love myself which is source of happiness.

 

Hence Bhagavaan Ramana says - analyze the annalist.

 

>

>

>What is wonderful about this whole discussion is how everyone

>finally comes to say, in one way or another, that finally we must

>find the One for ourselves,

 

Ramanja disagrees -according to him the root cause for samsaara is

again avidya or ignorance but that ignorance is not who I am but that

I am very small and depend on the Lord who is all powerful and

without his help I cannot cross this samsaara - Hence emphasis is

knowledge of not oneself but that of the Lord's true nature and

complete surrenderence at His feet.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

> and while we may be edified and

>inspired by our commentary and analysis, the signposts and

>pointers must finally give way to the Now and Here of the divine

>itself. I so appreciate this love and practicality of Love in our

>discussions.

>

>God bless!

>Steve

>

> Sponsor

><> <>

> www.

>

>

>Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of

>nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman.

>Advaitin List Archives available at:

><http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/>http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advait\

in/

>To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

>Messages Archived at:

><advaitin/messages>\

advaitin/messages

>

>

>

>Your use of is subject to the

><>

 

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "K. Sadananda" <sada@a...> wrote:

> >

> >

> >Dear One,

> >

> >Thanks for your response, and especially for the URL in

which

> >Sadananda offers ..

>

> I forgot completely about that post. Now I look back and read, I

> felt little bad that my arguments could have been less

aggressive and

> more to the point.

>

 

<BIG SNIP>

 

My dear Sadananda,

 

Your respone is wonderful and illuminating. It clarify's many

points for me that I didn't grasp before. As a physicists, I will love

to get into the questions your raise about the observer/object

connundrum. In your analysis of the cloth, you did indeed burrow

your way down to the "a prioris" and the imponderables. In

physics, there are a number of schools as to whether or not

there is a "deep reality" beyond the phenomnena we can

measure with our instruments. Sorry to say, it may be a week or

so before I can address this fascinating subject, because of

some time consideration I have right now, and of course, I will be

mindful to not turn this into a discussion of physics, per se, but

try to limit scope to how what you asked about the cloth might

relate to metaphysical issues viz a vis what quantum physics

may show us in relation to Advaita.

 

And of course, the question of how and if something exists

independent of the observer -- that is, is there an "objective"

reality "out there" is something some fairly decent <g> thinkers in

the West -- Hume, Berkeley, Kant, Schopenhauer, Wittgenstein,

etc. -- have given some of the best philosophical analysis

mankind, East or West, has yet to produce.

 

Indeed, whenever I read these discussions here in the forum

(especially that latest one where I asked the question about

"upaasanaa" -- thank you for your quick help on that -- and now

that I understand the term, I believe I totally agree with the

arguments made) , I am, as a Western trained thinker, often

struck by the thought that these very same metaphysical issues,

and semantical issues, have been deeply explored in the West

as well. Maybe this shouldn't surprise, since we are all humans!

 

I laughed out loud at your "horned man" self-reference, by the

way. I loved your dry humor! When I think of you, it's not horns,

but halos! <G> You are an "angel" in terms of helping others

and in terms of bringing the cool light of wisdom to our

discussions. Those that would see you as a "devil" are merely

seeing self-projections -- pun intended!

 

Finally, you wrote:

>Ramanja disagrees -according to him the root cause for

samsaara is

again avidya or ignorance but that ignorance is not who I am but

that

I am very small and depend on the Lord who is all powerful and

without his help I cannot cross this samsaara - Hence

emphasis is

knowledge of not oneself but that of the Lord's true nature and

complete surrenderence at His feet.

 

But that is exactly what I meant by finding out who the One is --

finding out what what the one God, divine Love is. What you say

here certainly is a statement at the very heart of the Christian

tradition. As the Psalmist sang: "I am the Lord, and there is

none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou

hast not known me: That they may know from the rising of the

sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the

Lord, and there is none else." To the Christian, to know the Lord

is all and everything, as Jesus said: " Thou shalt love the Lord

thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy

mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second

is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

 

I hope to have time to get into the details later, when I have time.

 

With affection,

Steve

[Guest guest]

Hari OM! Naryana Smrithis

 

Blessed Self,

 

"RELIGION STARTS WHERE THE SO CALLED HIGHTECH SCIENCE ENDS"

 

With love & OM!

 

Krishna

 

 

--- stevenfair wrote:

> advaitin, "K. Sadananda" <sada@a...> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >Dear One,

> > >

> > >Thanks for your response, and especially for the URL in

> which

> > >Sadananda offers ..

> >

> > I forgot completely about that post. Now I look back and read, I

>

> > felt little bad that my arguments could have been less

> aggressive and

> > more to the point.

> >

>

> <BIG SNIP>

>

> My dear Sadananda,

>

> Your respone is wonderful and illuminating. It clarify's many

> points for me that I didn't grasp before. As a physicists, I will

> love

> to get into the questions your raise about the observer/object

> connundrum. In your analysis of the cloth, you did indeed burrow

> your way down to the "a prioris" and the imponderables. In

> physics, there are a number of schools as to whether or not

> there is a "deep reality" beyond the phenomnena we can

> measure with our instruments. Sorry to say, it may be a week or

> so before I can address this fascinating subject, because of

> some time consideration I have right now, and of course, I will be

> mindful to not turn this into a discussion of physics, per se, but

> try to limit scope to how what you asked about the cloth might

> relate to metaphysical issues viz a vis what quantum physics

> may show us in relation to Advaita.

>

> And of course, the question of how and if something exists

> independent of the observer -- that is, is there an "objective"

> reality "out there" is something some fairly decent <g> thinkers in

>

> the West -- Hume, Berkeley, Kant, Schopenhauer, Wittgenstein,

> etc. -- have given some of the best philosophical analysis

> mankind, East or West, has yet to produce.

>

> Indeed, whenever I read these discussions here in the forum

> (especially that latest one where I asked the question about

> "upaasanaa" -- thank you for your quick help on that -- and now

> that I understand the term, I believe I totally agree with the

> arguments made) , I am, as a Western trained thinker, often

> struck by the thought that these very same metaphysical issues,

> and semantical issues, have been deeply explored in the West

> as well. Maybe this shouldn't surprise, since we are all humans!

>

> I laughed out loud at your "horned man" self-reference, by the

> way. I loved your dry humor! When I think of you, it's not horns,

>

> but halos! <G> You are an "angel" in terms of helping others

> and in terms of bringing the cool light of wisdom to our

> discussions. Those that would see you as a "devil" are merely

> seeing self-projections -- pun intended!

>

> Finally, you wrote:

>

> >Ramanja disagrees -according to him the root cause for

> samsaara is

> again avidya or ignorance but that ignorance is not who I am but

> that

> I am very small and depend on the Lord who is all powerful and

> without his help I cannot cross this samsaara - Hence

> emphasis is

> knowledge of not oneself but that of the Lord's true nature and

> complete surrenderence at His feet.

>

> But that is exactly what I meant by finding out who the One is --

> finding out what what the one God, divine Love is. What you say

> here certainly is a statement at the very heart of the Christian

> tradition. As the Psalmist sang: "I am the Lord, and there is

> none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou

> hast not known me: That they may know from the rising of the

> sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the

> Lord, and there is none else." To the Christian, to know the Lord

> is all and everything, as Jesus said: " Thou shalt love the Lord

> thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy

>

> mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second

> is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

>

> I hope to have time to get into the details later, when I have

> time.

>

> With affection,

> Steve

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices

http://auctions./

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Krishna Prasad <rkrishp99> wrote:

> Hari OM! Naryana Smrithis

>

> Blessed Self,

>

> "RELIGION STARTS WHERE THE SO CALLED HIGHTECH

SCIENCE ENDS"

>

> With love & OM!

>

> Krishna

>

>

 

Greetings, Blessed One!

 

I understand your sentiment -- the limitations of physical

science are indeed "built in" to the very system, which is

ultimately self-referential and self-reifying and limited in

space/time. That is to say, it cannot see beyond its own built in

limitations, as the very best scientists have always admitted,

from Einstein to Heisenberg.

 

Nonetheless, I think in its most fundamental sense, the scientific

method is somehow inherent in all search for and finding of

truth. True religion is true science and true science is true

religion may also point to a truth worth pondering. In my reading

of the many sages of mankind, I have more than a few times

come across this idea of there being a "science" of truth, that is a

knowable and discoverable divine Principle, which we call God

or the Self.

 

When the Truth that is God is understood in this blessed light,

then "religion" (in the highest, non-partisan sense of that work)

doesn't just "start where high tech science ends," it actually

precedes and is *a priori* to even physical science. Indeed, the

great mathematician and physicists will tell you that science

doesn't have a leg to stand on this is, ultimately, metaphysical.

Thus, we need not have the human mind's dualism of science

versus religion, (even thought *scientism* and materialism are

utterly to be rejected) but rather can see the One immanent in all

search for truth.

 

I can tell you that many scientists find their scientific research

and desire to bless mankind with technology (like the internet

and the very computers that we are both using) their way of

praising God and doing Dharma. They would both agree that

"religion" starts up where high-tech science leaves off *and* they

would say that "religion" is the very inspiration and "starting

point" of their scientific work! Such scientists do not confuse the

*method* of science for the *domain* of science, and thus do not

fall into scientism and materialism.

 

Let me end with this excerpt from Albert Einstein, in his

wonderful short essay, "Cosmic Religious Feeling" After

discussing how religious feeling evolves to where "Individual

existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he wants to

experience the universe as a single significant whole," he writes:

 

"The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by

this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God

conceived in man's image;...How can cosmic religious feeling

be communicated from one person to another if it can given no

definite notion of God and no theology? In my view, the most

important function of art and science is to awaken this feeling

and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it. [that is why] I

maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and

noblest motive for scientific research....Those whose

acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its

practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the

mentality of the men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have

show the way to kindred spirits scattered throughout the world

and the centuries. Only who has devoted his life to similar ends

can have a vivid realization of what has inspired these men and

given them the strength to stay true to their purpose in spite of

failures. It is cosmic religious feeling that give a man such

strength."

 

Alleluia!

Steve