Guest guest Posted July 3, 2001 Report Share Posted July 3, 2001 Dear friends, i saw a discussion about the upanishadic traditions of Sri Shankara and Ramanuja and Madhva. I wonder what a pity it is that other commentators like Barthru Prapancha, Bhaskaracharya, Dravidacharya and the great Upavarshacharya have all been simply forgotten. the former 2 especially have been defenders of Bhedabedha school - unity cum difference. They too claim to the upanishadic tradition. then why not include them also. I wish to very humbly invite all the friends attention to Brihadaranyaka Bhashya of Sri Shankaracharya at IV - iii - 20. Here the Acharya makes as like other places a very very significant comment - he says that among the Upanishadic followers there is full agreement that upon moksha, the jiva becomes COMPLETELY IDENTICAL with the Absolute. This is a very very significant observation although very unfortunately tossed up aside by the holders of the triad tradition - Shankara, Ramanuja, and madva traditions as Upanishadic. While both Sri Shankaracharya and his direct disciple Sri Suresvaracharya have both in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad Bhashya and Vartika, taken the utmost delicacy to uphold the correct tradition of Upanishads based on the Universal Experience, why may I ask you all, that both of them are conspiciously silent about such schools like Ramanuja and madva who hold that EVEN AFTER MOKSHA, the Jiva is not identical with Brahman. This is a very deep point. Please note that all the contemporaries of Vedanta like the nyaya, budhists, Mimasakas, sankhyas etc. whenever they refer to upanishadic school of thought, refer them as Atmaikya vadins - meaning those who refer to Non-duality of Atman. Had a tradition like that of Ramanuja or Madva existed within VEDANTA fold itself, then why did none of these referred so ? The traditional name of Upanishadic Sidhanta - Atmaikyavada will fall to ground if Ramanuja and Madva are upanisadic schools. A careful pursual will show one that It is Advaita - the tradition. Ramanuja is a great person no doubt, but he has tried to interpret the Vaishnava School as being the essence of the Upanishads just like Madva has done for taking some purana ideas as being the thought of the Upanishads. One can rever all of them as great, but that does not necessarily require that all of them should be considered as Upanishadic Acharyas only. S. Venkata Subramanian Venkat_advaita __ Buy Feng Shui Package for Rs. 151/- only, at http://shopping.rediff.com/shopping/fengshui_mailer.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2001 Report Share Posted July 5, 2001 Dear Venkata ji, You wrote: >>>>>I wish to very humbly invite all the friends attention to Brihadaranyaka Bhashya of Sri Shankaracharya at IV - iii - 20. Here the Acharya makes as like other places a very very significant comment - he says that among the Upanishadic followers there is full agreement that upon moksha, the jiva becomes COMPLETELY IDENTICAL with the Absolute. While going through the text, I couldn't find the statement, could you please make the reference more explicit. It would help me a lot. Thank you, Siddhartha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2001 Report Share Posted July 7, 2001 advaitin, "sidha" <sidha@d...> wrote: > Dear Venkata ji, > You wrote: > > >>>>>I wish to very humbly invite all the friends attention to > Brihadaranyaka Bhashya of Sri Shankaracharya at IV - iii - 20. Here the > Acharya makes as like other places a very very significant comment - he says > that among the Upanishadic followers there is full agreement that upon > moksha, the jiva becomes COMPLETELY IDENTICAL with the Absolute. > > While going through the text, I couldn't find the statement, could you > please make the reference more explicit. It would help me a lot. > Thank you, > Siddhartha Namaste S,IMO. Identical meaning one and the same presumably, there never had been a separation in the first place. In fact there never even was a first place. There never was a jiva....Om Namah Sivaya....Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2001 Report Share Posted July 7, 2001 Shree Venkata Subramanian, Greetings and thanks for your input. Just some comments related to your input. It is just expression of my views on the issues you have raised. >"venkata subramanian" <venkat_advaita >I wonder what a pity it is that other commentators like Barthru Prapancha, >Bhaskaracharya, Dravidacharya and the great Upavarshacharya have all been >simply forgotten. >the former 2 especially have been defenders of Bhedabedha school - unity >cum difference. They too claim to the upanishadic tradition. then why not >include them also. In the commentaries of Ramanuja and also in the analysis of Vedanta Deshika arguments of the Bheda abdheda schools are taken and criticized. It is said that Goudiiya dvaita school and the Hare Krishna shool follow the Bheda abdheda schools. The reason the three schools - adviata, vishishhTadvaita and dvaita took deep roots are because of significant follow-up both in the theological side as well as on the philosophy side. > >While both Sri Shankaracharya and his direct disciple Sri Suresvaracharya >have both in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad Bhashya and Vartika, taken the >utmost delicacy to uphold the correct tradition of Upanishads based on the >Universal Experience, why may I ask you all, that both of them are >conspiciously silent about such schools like Ramanuja and madva who hold >that EVEN AFTER MOKSHA, the Jiva is not identical with Brahman. This is a >very deep point. Historically Ramanuja and madhva came later than shankara. Shankara criticizes vR^ittikaara matam which emphasizes upaasana as the means for moksha just like vishishhTaadvaita and dvaita do. > >Please note that all the contemporaries of Vedanta like the nyaya, >budhists, Mimasakas, sankhyas etc. whenever they refer to upanishadic >school of thought, refer them as Atmaikya vadins - meaning those who refer >to Non-duality of Atman. Had a tradition like that of Ramanuja or Madva >existed within VEDANTA fold itself, then why did none of these referred so >? The traditional name of Upanishadic Sidhanta - Atmaikyavada will fall >to ground if Ramanuja and Madva are upanisadic schools. To answer your question, you should read their commentary and then you will learn how ancient their is - The whole of bhagavatam is centered on prapaatti or sharanaagati. > >A careful pursual will show one that It is Advaita - the tradition. >Ramanuja is a great person no doubt, but he has tried to interpret the >Vaishnava School as being the essence of the Upanishads just like Madva has >done for taking some purana ideas as being the thought of the Upanishads. Not so my friend. You would not get that impression if you really study the Shree Bhaashya of Ramanuja, and Shatadhuushanii of Vedanta Deshika and his exhaustive philosophical and theological works. Ramnuja bases his arguments on the upanishads only and esablishes the reality of saguna Brahma. >One can rever all of them as great, but that does not necessarily require >that all of them should be considered as Upanishadic Acharyas only. I would consider this as a narrow vision. One should study, particularly the works of other achaarya-s and after deep thinking establish in ones owns mind what is the correct approach to the problem. Any way that is how I look the problem. Hari Om! Sadananda > >S. Venkata Subramanian >Venkat_advaita > >__ >Buy Feng Shui Package for Rs. 151/- only, at >http://shopping.rediff.com/shopping/fengshui_mailer.htm > > > _______________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 2001 Report Share Posted July 9, 2001 Namaste, Is there a work available [preferably on the web!] where the different schools are compared and contrasted ONLY on the 4 'mahaa-vaakya'-s ? Thanks. Regards, s. advaitin, "Kuntimaddi Sadananda" <k_sadananda@h...> wrote: > > Shree Venkata Subramanian, > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 2001 Report Share Posted July 9, 2001 >Namaste, > > Is there a work available [preferably on the web!] where the >different schools are compared and contrasted ONLY on the 4 >'mahaa-vaakya'-s ? > >Thanks. > > >Regards, > >s. > To answer your question, I do not think so, at lest I am not aware of it. They are considered as Mahavaakya-s mostly by Adviatins and not by others. In fact for tat tvam asi - they add 'a' to make it negative - atat tvam asi swetaketo! as you are not that! - I will ask Shreeman S.M.Sreenivaasa Chari when he visits here. He will be giving talks on Comparison of the three matams. We are having his lectures from July 21st to 27th. Hari Om! Sadananda -- K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 10, 2001 Report Share Posted July 10, 2001 Namaste, That leads me to the next question: Are there other 'mahaavaakya'-s that the non-advaita schools adopt? Regards, s. advaitin, "K. Sadananda" <sada@a...> wrote: > >Namaste, > > > > Is there a work available [preferably on the web!] where the > >different schools are compared and contrasted ONLY on the 4 > >'mahaa-vaakya'-s ? > > > >Thanks. > > > > > >Regards, > > > >s. > > > > To answer your question, I do not think so, at lest I am not aware of > it. They are considered as Mahavaakya-s mostly by Adviatins and not > by others. In fact for tat tvam asi - they add 'a' to make it > negative - atat tvam asi swetaketo! as you are not that! - > > I will ask Shreeman S.M.Sreenivaasa Chari when he visits here. He > will be giving talks on Comparison of the three matams. We are > having his lectures from July 21st to 27th. > > Hari Om! > Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 10, 2001 Report Share Posted July 10, 2001 Sunder, as I understand only Adviata gives more importance to j~naanam as the moksha saadhakam and hence the emphasis on mahavaakya-s. In the other two, Bhakti involving sharaNaagati with upaasana is emphasized while j~naanam that involves understanding of the organic relation between jiiva and parabrahman is intermediary step that instigates true bhakti as moksha saadhana. I am forwarding your question to Shree Krishna Kashyap who can provide a better answer from vishishhTaadvaita point. Hari Om! Sadananda >Namaste, > > That leads me to the next question: Are there other >'mahaavaakya'-s that the non-advaita schools adopt? > >Regards, > >s. > > >advaitin, "K. Sadananda" <sada@a...> wrote: >> >Namaste, >> > >> > Is there a work available [preferably on the web!] where the >> >different schools are compared and contrasted ONLY on the 4 >> >'mahaa-vaakya'-s ? >> > >> >Thanks. >> > >> > >> >Regards, >> > >> >s. >> > >> >> To answer your question, I do not think so, at lest I am not aware >of >> it. They are considered as Mahavaakya-s mostly by Adviatins and not >> by others. In fact for tat tvam asi - they add 'a' to make it >> negative - atat tvam asi swetaketo! as you are not that! - >> > > I will ask Shreeman S.M.Sreenivasa Chari when he visits here. He > > will be giving talks on Comparison of the three matams. We are >> having his lectures from July 21st to 27th. >> >> Hari Om! > > Sadananda > -- K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.