Visishtadwaitha explains wonderfully... Bhagavad Ramanuja blessed the Truth....

[Guest guest]

Priya Sriman Mano !

 

The philosophy expounded by Bhagavad Ramanuja is unarguably complete in all

respects. There is a wonderful answer with full authentic support from Vedas

for every possible argument. For those who are thorough with the Sasthra, as

there is no need to explain in detail every time, Bhagavad Ramanuja explained

the concept once very clearly and proceeded. It doesn't mean that it is less

explained or incomprehensively explained. Before learning SriBhashyam, good

Sanskrit knowledge and some introduction into other subjects like Tharkam,

Nyayam etc., along with the theories of what other Vedantha Scholars say is

absolutely needed. The way in which the answer is given with self conclusions

clearly say that the answer given to the question is not from a scholar of that

rank. However, as it is required to clarify the point of their discussion, the

basic explanation is given hereunder for your information.

 

There is no need of any inconceivability (achintya) to explain this simple fact

of simultaneously possessing oneness and difference to the Supreme "Bramha" .

Infact, this inconceivability is an added concept to the actual fact, and it is

unnecessary and confusing in this context. As you have rightly understood,

according to Bhagavad Ramanuja, the Deha-Dehi relationship itself clearly

explains the concept. All Acharyas and scholars after Bhagavad Ramanuja have

accepted the Sesha-Seshi relationship, Deha-Dehi relationship as the basis with

slight variations according to their interpretations.

 

The statement that " Thus through careful examination both scholars and acaryas

of other sampradayas came to conclude that acceptance of Ramanuja's term

aprthak-siddhi really involves forgoing logic." is itself INVALID.

 

Because, there is no foregoing of any logic as the concept is very clear. There

is no other acharya or scholar (who having fully accepted Vedas) after Bhagavad

Ramanuja and who studied so extensively and has mastery over Vedantha, ever

denied Bhagavad Ramanuja's authentic explanation. Infact there are great

scholars and Acharyas who were amazed at the ease and simplicity and

authenticity with which Bhagavad Ramanuja explained the profound facts with nice

logic. Also the later acharyas tried to interpret the Bhagavad Ramanuja's

description in their own way.

 

The statement that " Indeed, according to Ramanuja himself (Sribhasya 2.2.12),

aprthak-> siddhi is not strictly a relation, although his followers such as

Vedanta Desika sometimes speak of it as such." is also wrong.

 

Those who haven't learnt SriBhashya in its original script might have said that.

Bhagavad Ramanuja never said that Aprthaksiddhi is not strictly a relationship.

It is ABSOLUTELY WRONG.

 

It clearly indicates that one who gave the answer is neither an Acharya nor a

scholar. It is just an answer of a naive Vedantist. If one is interested to know

what is said in 2.2.12 of Sribhashyam you may contact any authentic Sribhashyam

scholar or contact us separately. It becomes too big for this mail to

accommodate all the subject and the reasons, so its details are not discussed

herewith.

 

In the first para of the answer it is said that Gaudiya's do not accept the

(swagathabhe:da). Here goes the brief explanation.

Swagathabhe:da means, the qualities of the Bramha and the Bramha who possess the

qualities are different. There cannot be qualities without one who possess them

and evidently both are not the same. This is quite clear which Visishtadwaitha

accepts. Visishtadwaitha says that they are one and the oneness owns with the

qualified subjects.

 

Here Gaudiyas say that the relationship between the Bramha and the object is

inconceivable ( ie.,unthinkable).

 

Dwaithis say that both the qualities and the Bramha are independently different.

 

Adwaithis say that both the qualities and Bramha are the same and there is no

any difference at all.

 

Vishistadwaitha says that both the qualities and the Bramha are one but

different. How??

 

Qualities cannot exist without Bramha (like there cannot be colour without any

object,) and they are inseparable and exist together as one. There cannot be

taste without an object, there cannot be size without an object etc. and taste,

size, colour etc. qualities cannot exist separately without any object. But,

when they exist with object, they exist such that they are inseparable from the

object. Obviously, colour is not the object, size is not the object etc. This

type of relationship is called "aprutthaksiddha" relationship. This is very

natural and quite clear to the logic. Thus exists the relationship between

qualities (or Jivas) and the Supreme Bramha.

 

As qualities are not separable from the object, they are one with the object,

but, as they are not the object, they are different from the object. To state

clearly with the example, colour is not the object but there cannot be colour

without object.We cannot say both colour and object are same. So they are

different. That is, they are different but one as a whole.

 

To explain this which is very clear to the logic, there is no need to intrude

any new concept called inconceivability (achinthya) in explaining the

relationship between Bramha and the Jivas (or Bramha and His qualities).

However, from the Gaudiyas point of view it is almost Ramanuja's explanation (as

they claim), but, with unneeded concept of " inconceivability " in this

context. Inconceivability in proving this relationship is absolutely refuted. It

only adds confusion and blurred abstract to the thought. Beware of becoming God

!! . Be aware of surrendering to GOD as His subjects.

 

The concept of achinthya (unthinkable or inconceivable) is there even in

Ramanuja's explanations, but not in this context. It is there while explaining

the extensive form of God in totality. The COMPLETE ABSOLUTE form of that

Bramha(Supreme) is something that cannot be thought of by a Jiva. It is far far

beyond thoughts. Even Vedas returned, giving up their effort, to explain a

single attribute of that Supreme called "A:nanda". There are thousands of such

auspicious qualities to that Supreme !! How can one experience such a Supreme

IN TOTAL. That form (such an allpervading form) is achinthya ie.,

inconceivable, ie., beyond thought which cannot be explained.

 

De:ha(body)and de:hi (one who has body). This relationship is explained well

with many many proofs from Vedas

"anthah pravishtas sa:stha: jana:na:m sarva:thma: "

"e:shatha a:thma: antharya:myamruthaha "

"yasya:thma: sari:ram"

"yasya prutthivi: sari:ram? yasya:pas sari:ram ? yasya the:jas

sari:ram"

"prutthaga:thma:nam pre:ritha:ram cha mathwa:jushtas thathas

the:na:mruthathwam e:thi"

 

Meanings can be known from the authentic commentaries of Acha:rya:s or by

approaching realised a:charya:s. This has been clearly explained by Bhagavad

Ramanuja in explaining the relationship of Jiva:s with Bramha(Supreme) or the

relationship of qualities of the Bramha with the Bramha itself.

 

 

>From the last but one para of the answer "Indeed, careful study of these other

doctrines of Vedanta reveals that they implicitly acknowledge the acintya-sakti

of the Absolute but are unable to identify it as such " is also ABSOLUTELY

INVALID.

 

Can we know what is that "care" in study?? Can they let us know what are those

other doctrines of Vedanta that speak so and where ?? Who are unable to

identify and where?? It is a sheer biasing. Most of these discussions went on

even during those days as to what and how.

 

It is Bhagavad Ramanuja with absolute scholarship after aggressive

research on the facts revealed by the Vedas, established the Truth over all

other concepts in a most authentic way such that there is NO WAY EVEN TO TOUCH

the statement that he proved. Any modification to his statement is only

diverting enroute. However in the statement said at the beginning of this para

the word "implicitly acknowledge" is something that these so claimed scholars

have imposed on the actual fact. It is a sheer imagination and imposition that

the relationship is "achinthya" or inconceivable. Is there any proof in the

Sasthra any where for this new imposition?? It is a sheer self-conception as a

result of the unsubstantial knowledge of the Sasthras or their sayings.

 

Referring to the third para of the answer "this explanation is an

improvement on the efforts of Ramanuja and others. Ramanuja and others have

struggled to come to grips with the fact that the concepts of either oneness or

difference are inadequate to comprehensively explain the nature of the

Absolute." is an absurd statement made by some biased claimer in the name of

the acharyas.

 

There are a number of realised Acharyas and scholars who accepted Bhagavad

Ramanuja's explanation and None had ever dared to speak of such things like

incomprehensibility or inadequacy in understanding the established facts, having

dwelled into the fathoms of the subject and touched the bottoms of the Divine

experiences. Those with bookish knowledge and little knowledge having learnt

something a little here and a little there, who were unable to understand the

subject inadequately and incomprehensively, with self-biased and

self-interpreted knowledge might have said that. That we need not mind at all.

Even if hundred people say that it is a donkey showing at the cow, it can never

happen !! Cow always gives milk even if you don't accept it as cow !!

 

Realised acharyas have always expressed themselves subject to the

realisation and actualisation of the facts with the support of the Sruthis,

rather than just imagination or surface stirring.

 

However it is not how we interpret about, that matters. Realisation

matters. It is where acceptance of Truth or Not accepting the Truth, plays the

role in glorifying the subject. From the standpoint of their view that might be

right to them. It is left to the choice of the seeker to understand from the

Acharya and experience the Truth "as-it-is" and be blessed by the Divine

knowledge.

 

In the above description of the answer it is no where intended against any

acharya. Any mistakes are mine. Most of these issues rise due to those who

speak their own in the name of the Acharya. May this not happen. Let everyone

know the right concept and be led on the path of absolute Truth.

 

Jai Srimannarayana !

 

srikaryam

=krishna ramanuja dasa=

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

> Message: 2

> Thu, 29 May 2003 06:57:42 -0000

> "Mano" <mano1205

> Is Ramanuja's visistadvaita incoplete ?

>

> From Gaudiya web site - refer to the reply by a Gaudiya master in

> regard to visistadvaita and achintya bhedabheda. Can some one please

> clarify whether the Gaudiya claim is justified ?

>

> Q. Some devotees teach that the visistadvaita (qualified oneness)

> philosophy of Ramanujacharya is the same as the acintya-bhedabheda

> (inconceivable simultaneous oneness and difference) philosophy of Sri

>

> Caitanya Mahaprabhu. My question is if the two philosophies are the

> same in tattva then where is the acintya (inconceivability) to be

> found in Sri Ramanuja's philosophy. That philosophy clearly explains

> the relationship between the object and quality as the dehi and deha,

>

> but Gaudiyas seem to say there must be some inconceivability in this.

>

> Where is this inconceivability?

>

> A. The philosophy of the Gaudiya sampradaya and that of the Ramanuja

> sampradaya are not the same. Ramanuja, for example, attributes

> internal distinction (svagatabheda) to Brahman, whereas the Gaudiyas

> do not. For Ramanuja, Brahman's qualities (as he views them)--the

> jivas, and the world--are not the same as that which they qualify

> (Brahman). However, neither can these qualities exist outside of that

>

> which they qualify. Thus the two are not different from one another

> either. In Ramanuja's view, a special relationship exists between

> Brahman, the jivas, and the world. He calls this relationship

> aprthak-

> siddhi, or inseparability. With this term Ramanuja seeks to logically

>

> explain the identity and difference of Brahman.

>

> It appears that in reality Ramanuja finds it difficult to describe

> the relationship of identity and difference but accepts both of them.

>

> Indeed, according to Ramanuja himself (Sribhasya 2.2.12), aprthak-

> siddhi is not strictly a relation, although his followers such as

> Vedanta Desika sometimes speak of it as such. Thus through careful

> examination both scholars and acaryas of other sampradayas came to

> conclude that acceptance of Ramanuja's term aprthak-siddhi really

> involves forgoing logic. In this regard, the Gaudiya acaryas have

> determined that this logical shortcoming of Sri Ramanuja's metaphysic

>

> is resolved with the concept of acintya, or inconceivability with

> regard to the nature of ultimate reality and its being simultaneously

>

> one and different.

>

> Thus the Gaudiyas feel that the metaphysic of acintya-bhedabheda

> tattva better explains the nature of ultimate reality, and that this

> explanation is an improvement on the efforts of Ramanuja and others.

> Ramanuja and others have struggled to come to grips with the fact

> that the concepts of either oneness or difference are inadequate to

> comprehensively explain the nature of the Absolute.

>

> The Gaudiyas have concluded that Brahman is both one and different

> simultaneously, and that this is possible because the Absolute

> possesses inconceivable power (acintya-sakti). Others have developed

> terms such as anirvacaniya (Sankara), aprthak-siddhi (Ramanuja),

> svabhavika (Nimbarka), visesa (Madhva), and samavaya (Vallabha) to

> bring logic to bear on the oneness and difference of Brahman, when in

>

> reality the simultaneous oneness and difference of the absolute is

> acintya (inconceivable). Indeed, careful study of these other

> doctrines of Vedanta reveals that they implicitly acknowledge the

> acintya-sakti of the Absolute but are unable to identify it as such.

>

> Therefore, the Gaudiyas lay claim to accepting the nature of the

> Absolute (and scripture) "as it is" with regard to its oneness and

> difference. In this way they have sought not to inordinately impose

> the limits of logic on the nature of being, but rather accept it for

> what it is and attribute its nature to the acintya-sakti, or the

> inconceivability of God.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaskaram

 

Thank you for the wonderful and quick response. Your prompt response to defend

the visistadvaita from rival attacks is very pleasing.

 

May Sriman Narayana Bless your service to the sampradayam

 

Adiyen

Manohar