Final thoughts on anatta and the Self

[Guest guest]

Collette,

 

Hi! I have had no time to make any posts for over a

week, but I did want to get back to our

conversation, even though the original thread is

long gone to the archives! As you may recall, it

was the discussion about the Buddhist's concept of

anatta (no-self and no-Self) and the Advaitan Self

teaching. There were many terrific posts by the

regulars of the forum, and I am hugely indebted to

all who contributed to the thread and trying to

address the question. Bless you one and all! I've

archived all the responses, and I'm sure I'll come

back to them often when thinking about and

researching this deep subject.

 

Nonetheless, <g> I still contend that Buddhists as a

whole don't see the convergences and parallels that

the Hindu's apparently see between Buddhism and

Advaita. But finally, as was so graciously pointed

out, it's not a matter of intellectual discussion,

but of the living Way and living the Way. I had

heard over the years from many Buddhists their

thoughts on Vedanta and the idea of God, or Brahman,

and I was simply seeking to understand the Vedantan

reply to this Buddhist critique. The responses of

the forum were very informative, and actually made

me appreciate the strengths of both Advaita and

Buddhism more!

 

I don't want to resurrect the discussion, but I did

want to finally get back to some final comments on

things you said, Colette, since you and I seemed to converge

metaphysically on a number of points.

 

So, here goes:

 

> Hi Colette! Always nice to hear from you.

<snip>

> Again, not to say you are wrong; just that this

reasoning would have

> no basis or credibility in Buddhism. They posit

no All or Soul or

> Self or Ego or Brahman from which what we see

around us can be

> "derived" or "reflected" or in any way explained

or justified. All

> such concepts are "void" and "empty." Indeed,

they are dukkha itself.

>>And even I agree with that, yet you see we are here

>>communicating so

>>what is the purpose of Life then in their eyes?

>>Would they agree that

>>Life Is? Seriously.

 

Good questions! Again, I am *very* reluctant to

speak for "the Buddhists," if we could even identify

such a heterogeneous group! I have studied the

philosophy for several decades now and still would

be loathe to say I have grasped the Teachings,

except in an intellectual way, since to "know"

something, you must practice and live it. I'm

simply a practicing Christian, who loves Truth

wherever he finds it, and who is so grateful to

participate in this wonderful group.

 

But giving it a try, I think I could say safely that

"purpose of life" would not be nihilistic, in their

view. Nirvana is not non-being! (Or being!) But,

hugely oversimplified, it would be the simply the

goal of the extinguishment of the Aggregates, the

end of dukkha. The Way of doing this is clear from

the Buddha; what lies at the "end" seems to vary

according to the various schools of Buddhism.

Nirvana? No Self? Yes, but then there is are the

"Clear Light" schools of Buddhism and others who

speak of the "Buddha Mind" and all, which could be

argued as sounding very similar to Brahman, yet

different too.

>>Why would no concepts commune as them?

 

Again, good question. I think the answer to this

would vary from school to school, and even from

Buddhist to Buddhist.

>>You see I like Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche's approach

>>which is that not only

>>is there Mind which is empty, but THERE IS COGNITION

>>too. WE cannot

>>deny that concepts occur & appear to arise from an

>>attributeless

>>Source.

 

Yes, I too appreciate very much this school of

thought, as well as the approach or school of

thought that is outlined in Sogyal Rinpoche's "The

Tibetan Book of Living and Dying." I went back to

read again parts I enjoyed after reading your

comments, and found much that was practically as

well as intellectually helpful in thinking about

your questions, and the relation of Advaita to

Buddhism.

>>Either we tell half the story & wipe out form

>>altogether or we

>>transcend & include it.

 

I agree. If I were Hindu, I would both

temperamentally and intellectually feel most at home

in the school of thought represented by the

teachings of the blessed Ramanuja.

 

A Buddhist philosopher once said to me that we must

finally even empty "Emptiness" and when we do, he

said, we will that everything that seemed to

disappear in the initial "emptying" is in fact

included in the Emptiness! Emptiness empty of

Emptiness is not Empty, but Full! As he said,

everything already is as it is, Empty *and* Full. If

I may extrapolate on his insight, I think we will

finally find that ,likewise, Mind is at once both personal and

impersonal, with divine attributes, and beyond all

attributes, Absolute undifferentiated Brahman and

Narayana, Nirguna Brahman and Saguna Brahman. And

both Sankara and Ramanuja are right! <g>

>>I like the idea that not only is form empty, but

>>emptiness IS FORM. So

>>not only is Brahman (in my opinion) 'no self'

>>(mystery) but It Is also

>>all form & even it's absolute ground ~ Self too!

 

I would tend to agree with you on this. And I would

even add to that insight the divine attributes that

Ramanuja finds "indicated" in the nature of Brahman

as revealed in the sacred texts of Hinduism.

>>I just equate this no self non existence to that no

>>self that is never

>>found which some here especially Frank refer to as

>>'Mystery.' Tulku

>>Urgyen Rinpoche refers to life (as it seems to me)

>>as the reflection

>>or expression of Mind. So Mind is not just empty. It

>>'thinks'. It

>>forms images symbols & concepts. What is this

>>mystery?

 

Again, what you say here mirrors my own particular

faith, and experience, of the divine. A Mind

without thoughts, without Self-reflection, without

attributes, is to me a self-contradiction. Such

belief would seem to me to nullify and contradict

many statements in the Hindu sacred texts, as Ramanuja

points out so forcefully. If, as the Visistadvaita

devotee might say, "I don't want to be the sugar, I want

to taste the sugar," I would say, I don't want to be

Mind, I want to know my Mind, without personal ego

on my part. As I see it, God is indeed the "I" of

my being, but I am not God. God is the I AM, the

only Being. But that Godhead includes its own

infinite manifestation or Self-knowlege-- that which reflects and

knows Him/Her as the Self of One and All. So, yes,

let "me" disappear in the sweet rapture of knowing

God as the only I AM. In that God knowing, I

"taste" my Lord, and O, it is sweet! What are the

infinite thoughts and ideas and concepts of unlimited

Mind? To me, the answer to that is the joy and

sweet taste of Life itself!

 

I love what the Sufi Al Bistami wrote: "For thirty

years God was my mirror, now I am my own mirror.

What I was I no longer am, for "I" and "God" are a

denial of God's unity. Since I no longer am, God is

his own mirror. He speaks with my tongue, and I

have vanished."

 

> > In my humble opinion.

> >

>

> Hey, I know what you mean by feeling humble! One

does not want to

> say, trivially, or egotistically, that someone

like the Buddha got it

> wrong!

>>Were His words actually recorded at the time?

 

Yes, but the initial "recordings" were oral, not

written, as is so often the case with such teachers.

(We modern folks should never assume that oral

histories where somehow less accurate than if they

had been written down — anthropologists have been

astounded at the ability of people in cultures that

depend on oral histories to accurately record and

remember incredibly long and detailed histories and

stories, word for word, from generation to

generation.) In any event, the first rainy season

after the Buddhas parinnirvana, five hundred arhats

met, and it is said that Ananda, the Buddha's

personal attendant, recited all the of master's

sutras (discourses). Others recited rules and

procedures for the conduct of monastic life and the

matrika, lists of terms organized to provide

analytical synopses of the teachings given in the

sutras. These extensive recitations were reviewed

and verified by the assembly, which came to be known

as the First Council. Most scholars believe that for

four centuries after this initial codification, the

Scriptures were not written down, but existed only

in the memory and verbal records of monks. (Like the Brahmins,

the Buddhists had a strong aversion to writing down

religious knowledge.) Of the top of my head, I

can't recall what the oldest written Scriptures are,

but I believe these are Pali texts.

 

<g> How did the Enlightened One miss the

> Self-obvious "I" is one of the greatest of

mysteries -- or else, it

is

> as the Buddhist might reply, there is and was no

"I" (or self, or

> Self) for him to miss! <G>

>>Perhaps both are true. Some traditions focus on one

>>aspect of Truth

>>leaving out others - form in particular. I can see

>>why that is done to

>>help sever attachment to it as most true as it

>>isn't, but after

>>transcending attachment & the play still goes on

>>then what?

>>

>>And what then is this Compassion & Loving kindness

>>they all talk of?

>>Is it real? Is anything worth something? What is the

>>purpose of the

>>Real & the reflection of Truth?

 

This has often been my same questions to Buddhists.

Don't these things qualities of thought and heart —

compassion, loving kindness, etc. etc. -- have *any*

reference or relation to Nirvana itself? If not,

then why the Dharma? Why isn't any action morally

equal to any other action? Why the Eight-fold path,

with all its moral precepts, if this path does not

indeed point to a final Good that somehow defines

Good itself? How can one even speak of "right"

action, for example, unless this action can be

called "right" in reference to some ultimate,

self-revealed Right? Nirvana, or Brahman, may be

beyond all human attributes of good and evil, but

does anyone doubt that the Godhead is not in some

most awesome and fundamental way, Good itself? The

Dharma itself reveals it!

 

I think that this is what Ramanuja was trying to get

at, when he said that God must have divine

attributes of unlimited goodness. This fact of

Self-included attributes need not be in actual

contradiction, in my opinion, to the understanding that

God is still the Unnameable and beyond anything the

human mind can say about it. The thing is, the

divine Mind has something to say about Itself! And

Ramanuja believed he found this Self-revelation, in

the holy Hindu Scriptures, and this revelation was

not illusion! For Ramanuja, so far as I understand

him, this divine Self-reference we find in Hindu

Scripture refers or reveals the very nature or

attributes of God, and is not merely a

misapprehension caused by the jivas entanglement

with avidya. But all of this is yet another thread,

and story. I mention it only in relation to your

own comments about the Ineffable, not so much in

relation to the thread about anatta and the Self.

 

Hope you have been doing well since our last

contact. God has been showing me many wonderful

things about Himself/Herself these past weeks, and I hope

you too have felt this never-ceasing outpouring of

divine Grace from our heavenly Father-Mother.

 

With gratitude for your friendship,

Steve

[Guest guest]

advaitin, stevenfair wrote:

> Collette,

 

Steve! :-))

 

Ain't it fun talking, thinking, being?

 

Ain't life grand in all it's facets?

 

Many petals make the flower of life bloom. And without thought how

could we express the beauty of life?

 

"My heart was split, & a flower

appeared; & grace sprang up;

and it bore fruit for my God ..

Blessed are the men & women

who are planted on your earth, in your garden,

who grow as your trees & flowers grow .."

 

Odes of Solomon

 

I've

> archived all the responses, and I'm sure I'll come

> back to them often when thinking about and

> researching this deep subject.

 

Deep alright.

<snip>

>

> >>Why would no concepts commune as them?

>

> >>Either we tell half the story & wipe out form

> >>altogether or we

> >>transcend & include it.

>

> I agree. If I were Hindu, I would both

> temperamentally and intellectually feel most at home

> in the school of thought represented by the

> teachings of the blessed Ramanuja.

 

Hmm I haven't heard of this teacher. Perhaps you have some quotes?

>

> A Buddhist philosopher once said to me that we must

> finally even empty "Emptiness" and when we do, he

> said, we will that everything that seemed to

> disappear in the initial "emptying" is in fact

> included in the Emptiness!

 

Wow. I love that.

 

 

Emptiness empty of

> Emptiness is not Empty, but Full! As he said,

> everything already is as it is, Empty *and* Full. If

> I may extrapolate on his insight, I think we will

> finally find that ,likewise, Mind is at once both personal and

> impersonal, with divine attributes, and beyond all

> attributes, Absolute undifferentiated Brahman and

> Narayana, Nirguna Brahman and Saguna Brahman. And

> both Sankara and Ramanuja are right! <g>

 

And even human and divine ~ both. I like that you mentioned impersonal

& personal. That brings me to a desire to discuss the psychology of

personification. I don't think this is a forum for that type of

discussion, so if I may invite you to another forum, except I don't

have your email address as I read this at the advaitin archives. Could

you post me your email Steve please?

 

>

> >>I like the idea that not only is form empty, but

> >>emptiness IS FORM. So

> >>not only is Brahman (in my opinion) 'no self'

> >>(mystery) but It Is also

> >>all form & even it's absolute ground ~ Self too!

>

> I would tend to agree with you on this. And I would

> even add to that insight the divine attributes that

> Ramanuja finds "indicated" in the nature of Brahman

> as revealed in the sacred texts of Hinduism.

 

I myself do believe in finding where different traditions agree even

if they may outwardly appear 'not to'. :-)

 

>

> >>I just equate this no self non existence to that no

> >>self that is never

> >>found which some here especially Frank refer to as

> >>'Mystery.' Tulku

> >>Urgyen Rinpoche refers to life (as it seems to me)

> >>as the reflection

> >>or expression of Mind. So Mind is not just empty. It

> >>'thinks'. It

> >>forms images symbols & concepts. What is this

> >>mystery?

>

> Again, what you say here mirrors my own particular

> faith, and experience, of the divine. A Mind

> without thoughts, without Self-reflection, without

> attributes, is to me a self-contradiction.

 

I think I call it awareness.

Yet thoughts flow like clouds across the screen of consciousness, too.

 

 

Such

> belief would seem to me to nullify and contradict

> many statements in the Hindu sacred texts, as Ramanuja

> points out so forcefully. If, as the Visistadvaita

> devotee might say, "I don't want to be the sugar, I want

> to taste the sugar," I would say, I don't want to be

> Mind, I want to know my Mind, without personal ego

> on my part. As I see it, God is indeed the "I" of

> my being, but I am not God. God is the I AM, the

> only Being. But that Godhead includes its own

> infinite manifestation or Self-knowlege-- that which reflects and

> knows Him/Her as the Self of One and All. So, yes,

> let "me" disappear in the sweet rapture of knowing

> God as the only I AM. In that God knowing, I

> "taste" my Lord, and O, it is sweet! What are the

> infinite thoughts and ideas and concepts of unlimited

> Mind? To me, the answer to that is the joy and

> sweet taste of Life itself!

 

Yes to me too.

>

> I love what the Sufi Al Bistami wrote: "For thirty

> years God was my mirror, now I am my own mirror.

> What I was I no longer am, for "I" and "God" are a

> denial of God's unity. Since I no longer am, God is

> his own mirror. He speaks with my tongue, and I

> have vanished."

 

Hmm nice.

 

> <g> How did the Enlightened One miss the

> > Self-obvious "I" is one of the greatest of

> mysteries -- or else, it

> is

> > as the Buddhist might reply, there is and was no

> "I" (or self, or

> > Self) for him to miss! <G>

 

Perhaps he refers to the impersonal? It is usually when there is some

personal that one will say 'I'. And Ramana says II :-) Could both be

true?

> I think that this is what Ramanuja was trying to get

> at, when he said that God must have divine

> attributes of unlimited goodness. This fact of

> Self-included attributes need not be in actual

> contradiction, in my opinion, to the understanding that

> God is still the Unnameable and beyond anything the

> human mind can say about it. The thing is, the

> divine Mind has something to say about Itself! And

> Ramanuja believed he found this Self-revelation, in

> the holy Hindu Scriptures, and this revelation was

> not illusion!

 

Is life illusion? Or is life for living? Tis true that to be fully

lived means to find out who you are first. Oneness is the Quest of

Existence living life in my opinion.

 

 

For Ramanuja, so far as I understand

> him, this divine Self-reference we find in Hindu

> Scripture refers or reveals the very nature or

> attributes of God, and is not merely a

> misapprehension caused by the jivas entanglement

> with avidya. But all of this is yet another thread,

> and story. I mention it only in relation to your

> own comments about the Ineffable, not so much in

> relation to the thread about anatta and the Self.

>

 

It is interesting because I was just mentioning to another recently

that a wonderful Sufi writer named Almaas believes that essence is not

just empty but that it has ontological qualities that represent truly

the good the true & the beautiful .. That would be an interesting

topic to talk about.

> Hope you have been doing well since our last

> contact. God has been showing me many wonderful

> things about Himself/Herself these past weeks, and I hope

> you too have felt this never-ceasing outpouring of

> divine Grace from our heavenly Father-Mother.

 

It would be good to hear about your experiences sometime. Thankyou for

enquiring into my well being :-)

>

> With gratitude for your friendship,

> Steve

 

Much love to you Steve,

 

Colette

[Guest guest]

advaitin, colette@b... wrote:

> advaitin, stevenfair wrote:

> > Collette,

>

> Steve! :-))

>

> Ain't it fun talking, thinking, being?

>

> Ain't life grand in all it's facets?

 

Yes, and this joy is not mere illusion, in disjucture with absolute God, but is

the divine

Voice within bearing witness to the Father-Mother.

> Many petals make the flower of life bloom. And without thought how

> could we express the beauty of life?

>

> "My heart was split, & a flower

> appeared; & grace sprang up;

> and it bore fruit for my God ..

> Blessed are the men & women

> who are planted on your earth, in your garden,

> who grow as your trees & flowers grow .."

>

> Odes of Solomon

>

 

That's very beautiful. Thanks for sharing!

> I've

> > archived all the responses, and I'm sure I'll come

> > back to them often when thinking about and

> > researching this deep subject.

>

> Deep alright.

> <snip>

>

>

> Hmm I haven't heard of this teacher. Perhaps you have some quotes?

 

Ramanuja represents the other great stream of Vedanta and is its greatest

theologian, in my opinion. As Sankara brought critique to Buddhism and its

inroads

into Hinduism, Ramanuja brought critique to Advaita, seeking to address what he

saw as an imbalance in Sankara's views of the holy Scriptures in regards to the

three great problems of philosophy: the world, the individual self and God. As

one

Vedantan scholar puts it, "Ramanuja took it to be the object of his

philosophical

polemic to establish the reality of God, the wold, and man. Ramanuja advocates

, in

other words, the worship of a real God by a real man in the real world." In the

Vedanta of Sankaracharya, Brahman is the only reality and the individual self

and

physical world are false appearances. What I've said here may be an

oversimplification of a tremendously complex subject, but I think this at least

gives a

feel for the problems involved.

> >

> > A Buddhist philosopher once said to me that we must

> > finally even empty "Emptiness" and when we do, he

> > said, we will that everything that seemed to

> > disappear in the initial "emptying" is in fact

> > included in the Emptiness!

>

> Wow. I love that.

>

>

><snip>

>

> And even human and divine ~ both. I like that you mentioned impersonal

> & personal. That brings me to a desire to discuss the psychology of

> personification. I don't think this is a forum for that type of

> discussion, so if I may invite you to another forum, except I don't

> have your email address as I read this at the advaitin archives. Could

> you post me your email Steve please?

 

Sure! slf is my main email....stuff to Stevenfair is

forwarded

to this address...

>

> >

> <snip>

 

Have to make this short...look forward to corresponding though...

 

With affection,

Steve

[Guest guest]

advaitin, stevenfair wrote:

> Ramanuja represents the other great stream of Vedanta and is its

greatest

> theologian, in my opinion. As Sankara brought critique to Buddhism

and its inroads

> into Hinduism, Ramanuja brought critique to Advaita, seeking to

address what he

> saw as an imbalance in Sankara's views of the holy Scriptures in

regards to the

> three great problems of philosophy: the world, the individual self

and God. As one

> Vedantan scholar puts it, "Ramanuja took it to be the object of his

philosophical

> polemic to establish the reality of God, the wold, and man.

Ramanuja advocates , in

> other words, the worship of a real God by a real man in the real

world." In the

> Vedanta of Sankaracharya, Brahman is the only reality and the

individual self and

> physical world are false appearances. What I've said here may be

an

> oversimplification of a tremendously complex subject, but I think

this at least gives a

> feel for the problems involved.

 

Namaste Steve.

 

This clear analysis is beautiful indeed.

A previous post advaitin/message/9902

also sheds some light on the most important problem posed.

 

It says, "The Cosmic Divine is what is concerned with the actual

working out of things under the present circumstances. It

is the Will of that Cosmic Divine which is manisfested in

each circumstance, each movement of this world."

 

and further it adds,

 

"The faith that goes to the Cosmic Divine is limited in the

power of its action by the necessities of the play.

To get entirely free from these limitations one must

reach the Transcendent Divine."

 

As was pointed out to me by a scholar two days ago, "neti, neti"

gives the freedom from limitations and "iti, iti" brings the Divine

into daily life. Both together and simultaneously may be used for

best results.

 

With Love,

Raghava

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

In the brilliant, 222-pages long, introduction to the

Brahmasutra - The Philosophy of Spiritual Life - [1960, publ. George

Allen & Unwin, London], S. Radhakrishnan [d.1975] notes: p. 51 -

"Ramanuja takes into account Shankara's views and develops a theistic

interpretation with great feeling, vast learning and brilliant logic.

Shankara and Ramanuja represent two uninterrupted traditions in Indian

thought. To my mind these traditions are not exclusive of each other

but complementary. For example, commenting on sutra I.3.19 Shankara

explains his view that the individual souls as such cannot claim any

reality except in so far as it is identical with Brahman but adds, '

there are other thinkers and among them some of us who are of the view

that the individual soul as such is real.' Difference on such a vital

point did not incline Shankara to exclude its upho;ders from his own

community of Vedantins. If he had lived to see the later developments

of Vedanta, he would not have rejected them."

 

p. 37 - "While Shankara is an absolute non-dualist in his metaphysics,

he had great faith in bhakti or devotion to a personal God. He prays

to Vishvanath in Kashi:

yaatraa mayaa sarvagataa hataa te

dhyaanena chetaH-parataa hataa te .

stutyaanayaa vaak-parataa hataa te

kshantavyam etat trayam eva shambho ..

 

Forgive me O Shiva! my three great sins. I came on a pilgrimage to

Kashi forgetting that you are omnipresent; in thinking about you, I

forget that you are beyond thought; in praying to you I forget that

you are beyond words."

 

[in a footnote to thisis a quotation from Francis Thompson's: The

Kingdom of God -'In no strange land'-[1913]

"O world invisible, I view thee;

O world intangible, I touch thee;

O world unknowable, I know the;

Inapprehensible, I clutch thee."]

 

He prays to Vishnu:

satyapi bhedaapagame naatha tavaaham na maamakiinastvam.h .

saamudro hi tara~NgaH kvachana samudro na taara~NgaH ..

 

O Lord, even after realising that there is no real difference between

the individual soul and Brahman, I beg to state that I am yours and

not that you are mine. The wave belongs to the ocean and not the ocean

to the wave.

 

Shankara prays to Sharada-devi:

kaTaakshe dayaardraa.n kare j~naanamudraam

kalaabhirvinidraam kalaapaiH subhadraam.h .

purastriim vinidraaM purastu~NgabhadraaM

bhaje shaaradaambaam ajasramadambaam.h ..

 

I constantly worship my mother, the Sharadamba, the goddess of

learning who is soft with compaasion in her looks, who has the

j~naana-mudra in her hand, who is bright with all the arts, who is

blessed with long flowing hair, who is ever watchful, in front of whom

flows the Tungabhadra (river).

 

p. 37 - Shankara is said to have composed a prayer to Buddha:

 

dharaa-baddha padmaasanasthaa~NghriyashhTiH

niyamyaanilam nyasta naasaagra-dR^ishhTiH .

ya aaste kale yoginaa.n chakravartii

sa buddhaH prabuddho.astu machchhittavartii ..

 

Quoting from another work, Gurudev Ranade's Vedanta - The culmination

of Indian Thought - [1970, publ. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan], p. 109-110:

" Brahmaparinama-octrine of Ramanuja. .........Brahmaparinama is real

transformation while vivarta is only unreal

transformation.........moreover this view would make Brahman divisible

and therefore subject to destruction.; for whatever is divisible is

destructible. Thus Ramanuja's Brahmaparinamavada is evidently put out

of court. We notice that this difficulty into which transformism is

entangled is only apparent for Shankara. He says that this

transformation is only an illusion brought about by nescience, Brahman

being unchanged and lifted above the phenomanal world."

 

Though Ramana Maharshi lived with the purest advaita perspective,

commented on and discussed numerous texts tallying with Shankara's

viewpoint, he maintained that 'bhakti is j~naana-maataa'.

 

It is also remarkable that the utterances of mystics from other

cultures, eg Plotinus, Eckhart, etc. bear closer testimony to

Shankara's views. I wonder if there are studies on comparing

Ramanuja's and views of others from different backgrounds.

 

Regards,

 

s.

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, raghavakaluri wrote:

> advaitin, stevenfair wrote:

> > Ramanuja represents the other great stream of Vedanta and is its

> greatest

> > theologian, in my opinion. As Sankara brought critique to

Buddhism

> and its inroads

> > into Hinduism, Ramanuja brought critique to Advaita, seeking to

> address what he

> > saw as an imbalance in Sankara's views of the holy Scriptures in

> regards to the

> > three great problems of philosophy: the world, the individual

self

> and God.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, sunderh wrote:

> Namaste,

>

 

<snip>

>

> It is also remarkable that the utterances of

mystics from other

> cultures, eg Plotinus, Eckhart, etc. bear closer

testimony to

> Shankara's views. I wonder if there are studies on

comparing

> Ramanuja's and views of others from different

backgrounds.

>

> Regards,

>

> s.

>

 

Greetings, my friend!

 

May I recommend, to this last point of yours, the

book "Ramanuja and Hegel" by Rama Prasad? It has a

remarkably insightful discussion and analysis of the

parallels (and significant differences) between

Hegel and Ramanuja and, among other things, points

to a similar relationship of Hegel to Kant in

Western thought and Ramanuja to Sankara in Eastern

thought.

 

Be warned that Prasad's standpoint is polemical, in

the best sense and highest sense of that word --

that is, it amplifies and furthers the arguments and

critique that Ramanuja brings to Advaita. I found

the critique highly convincing, but am ready to

admit that that was at least in part because it

confirmed my own a prior i conclusions! <G> Still,

viewed with some objectivity, Prasad does not fall

into falsification or misrepresentation of Sankara,

or worse, reduce the lofty views of Sankara to a

"nothing but" reductionism which would deny the very

important points you make in the part I "snipped" to

save space in replying.

 

Finally, I agree that in a certain sense, that the

views of Sankara and Ramanuja are indeed

complimentary. They are, after all, finally, both

Vedantan! But cannot agree that, as one of the

scholars you quote seems to imply, that Ramanuja's

teaching has a logical error wherein Advaita finally

supersedes Theism, when bhatki has done it's

"supplementary" work (my words, not his). The

action of divine Love in bhakti does not preserve

and uplift individuality until the very end, and

then, opps! do away with that individuality in final

transcendence. Ramanuja interprets scripture as

showing individuality not only preserved to the end,

but as *included* in the One, as the "body" of the

One, which is also the Many. Sankara does not. On

this point, there is no coinciding of views, it seems

to me, without making the logical error of "the excluded

middle" as well as making the very words of Sankara and

Ramanuja meaningless of content.

 

Nonetheless, since the insights into Scriptures of

both of these marvelous men, Sankara and Ramanuja,

continue to bless and help people on the Way, the

human mind must bow before this sheer practicality

of this grace, and not become dogmatic and

imperious, even while recognizing the differing,

even irreconcilable viewpoints. If what Sankara or

Ramanuja says rings true in one's heart and life and

practice, then one must surely follow this Light

within as the ultimate and final authority. It is

this wonder spirit that shines in your words, my

friend, and in this forum, even while we enjoy our

analyses and critiques of differing interpretations.

 

With Love,

Steve

[Guest guest]

advaitin, raghavakaluri wrote:

<snip>

>

> Namaste Steve.

>

> This clear analysis is beautiful indeed.

> A previous post

advaitin/message/9902

> also sheds some light on the most important

problem posed.

>

 

Thanks for the URL -- I will seek it out later and

read all of it.

> It says, "The Cosmic Divine is what is concerned

with the actual

> working out of things under the present

circumstances. It

> is the Will of that Cosmic Divine which is

manifested in

> each circumstance, each movement of this world."

>

 

There is a tremendously clear and helpful

philosophical discussion of this very point of the

divine Will in the book "Hegel and Ramanuja" by Rama

Prasad. Among other things, it points out how

meaningless it is, according to Ramanuja, to speak

of consciousness without will and intentional

volition, whether human consciousness, or the divine

consciousness.

> and further it adds,

>

> "The faith that goes to the Cosmic Divine is

limited in the

> power of its action by the necessities of the

play.

> To get entirely free from these limitations one

must

> reach the Transcendent Divine."

>

 

And this only, through Grace!

> As was pointed out to me by a scholar two days

ago, "neti, neti"

> gives the freedom from limitations and "iti, iti"

brings the Divine

> into daily life. Both together and simultaneously

may be used for

> best results.

 

Wow, that's really profound! Thank you for sharing

it. I had not heard the positive aspect that way

before. I have certainly found in my own spiritual

journey that both are needed -- both denial of the

false, and affirmation of the true. It seems to me

that God does indeed reveal Herself/Himself as the

divine "Yes!" And that divine affirmation is not

only of Itself, but of all the infinite

individuality that the One includes in and as

Itself.

> With Love,

> Raghava

 

Yes, with Love, all of us, and thanks for sharing,

Steve

[Guest guest]

Namaste Steven,

 

This is an important point you make, often underestimated! The writings of

these great Vedantins are for pragmatic purposes - to relieve suffering to

allow one to see/know the Truth.

 

Om!

 

--Greg

 

At 04:24 PM 6/27/01 -0000, stevenfair wrote:

If what Sankara or

Ramanuja says rings true in one's heart and life and

practice, then one must surely follow this Light

within as the ultimate and final authority. It is

this wonder spirit that shines in your words, my

friend, and in this forum, even while we enjoy our

analyses and critiques of differing interpretations.

 

With Love,

Steve

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Thank you Steve for the reference.

 

Your reference to Hegel is interesting! It is amusing to read

the verdict of Bertrand Russell [History of Western Philosophy, p.715

1965, publ. George Allen & Unwin]:

 

"....Hegel thought that, if enough was known about a thing to

distinguish it from all other things, then all its properties could be

inferred by logic. This was a mistake, and from this mistake arose the

whole imposing edifice of his system. This illustrates an important

truth, namely, that the worse your logic, the more interesting the

consequences to which it gives rise."(!!!)

 

In regard to the statement of Ranade, he may appear to be

siding with Shankara; but in the context of the overall book in which

he compares and analyses the interpretations of the Brahmasutras by

Shankara and Ramanuja, this is not the case. On p. 172 of the same

book previously referred to, he takes up the sutra IV.4.22, and

describes Ramanuja's viewpoint as exoteric and Shankara's as esoteric,

with reference to 'mukti' or liberation.

 

I concur wholly with your last statement, as also emphasised by

Greg-ji in his response.

 

Regards,

 

s.

 

 

 

advaitin, stevenfair wrote:

I wonder if there are studies on

> comparing

> > Ramanuja's and views of others from different

> backgrounds.

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> > s.

> >

>

> Greetings, my friend!

>

> May I recommend, to this last point of yours, the

> book "Ramanuja and Hegel" by Rama Prasad? It has a

> remarkably insightful discussion and analysis of the

> parallels (and significant differences) between

> Hegel and Ramanuja and, among other things, points

> to a similar relationship of Hegel to Kant in

> Western thought and Ramanuja to Sankara in Eastern

> thought.

> But cannot agree that, as one of the

> scholars you quote seems to imply, that Ramanuja's

> teaching has a logical error wherein Advaita finally

> supersedes Theism, when bhatki has done it's

> "supplementary" work (my words, not his). The

> action of divine Love in bhakti does not preserve

> and uplift individuality until the very end, and

> then, opps! do away with that individuality in final

> transcendence. Ramanuja interprets scripture as

> showing individuality not only preserved to the end,

> but as *included* in the One, as the "body" of the

> One, which is also the Many. Sankara does not. On

> this point, there is no coinciding of views, it seems

> to me, without making the logical error of "the excluded

> middle" as well as making the very words of Sankara and

> Ramanuja meaningless of content.

 

 

.. If what Sankara or

> Ramanuja says rings true in one's heart and life and

> practice, then one must surely follow this Light

> within as the ultimate and final authority. It is

> this wonder spirit that shines in your words, my

> friend, and in this forum, even while we enjoy our

> analyses and critiques of differing interpretations.

>

> With Love,

> Steve

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

Yet once again eventually, we prove to ourselves

that while we are not 'realised' yet, we go by

Faith, a faith that is most natural for an

individual, like Vedanta, Judaism,

Christianity, etc.

 

I personally find it challenging to find the

unity in the apparent diversity of the three

great philosophies. We have enough confusion

with just two. Some day we will get there.

 

I ask myself questions: Do I know why the Acharya

said this ? Do I see what the Acharya saw ?

While the answers to all the above come in the

negative all the time, I reconcile that Faith

will guide.

 

With Love,

Raghava