(unknown)

July 2, 2002

SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAH'

APPAN THIRUVADIGALE SARANAM

Dear Baghavathas, Accept my Pranams.

This is the last posting posting dealing with Free will and

Nirhethuka krubai. The subject is tough and difficult one to

explain. Adiyen has tried my best to present it The informations

on this subject is avilable in Srivachana bhooshanam To quote

Sutras and to explain them in english is a difficult task and some

time it will be boring. This is one of the points of difference

between Vadakalai and Thenkalai. Some scholars of Vadakalai

attempt to depecit that there is no difference or the difference

is superficial. Infact,the views are JUST OPPOSITE. That is why

Adiyen have explained the Nirhethuka krubai with reference to

Vadakalai's view. Any mistake or misunderstanding may be pointed

out for correction.

' Free will ': If Sri. Venkataraman has mentioned the

context in which the topic"free will was discussed , it would have

been helpful to elucidate easily. However, the topic is dealt with

in general.

In srivaishnava Philosophy Chethana(Jeevan ) has no free

will( no swatantra) . He is parathantra to Emperuman. If he

exercises free will or free to choose as he likes, it will end in

eternal bondage in samsara. Emperuman alone is absolute, all

powerful and swatantra. He can do things as per his free will and

that will not be questioned.

Acharya Hrudhayam Sutra 106. " PATTATHUKKU URIYA ANAIYUM ARASUM

AVAI AARAYATHU." In olden days it is customary to choose the

successor to the king, if no one legitemately is there, by giving

a garland to the Royal elephant. It can garland any body and that

person will be the future King.

The action of the elephant will not be questioned. Similarly,the

actions of Emperuman who is absolutely "swatantra" are not

questionable.

"Nirhethuka krubai':..While explaining this point another

kind of krubai ..Sahetuka krubai also has to be discussed to

understand the point clearly.

This is one of the points in which differences of opinions

exist between Thenkalai and Vadakalai

The Theory of Nirhethuka KrupA versus Human Effort

***********************************************************

First the definitons for the two terms are as follows :Nirhethuka

KrupA is unconditioned grace or

compassion of the Lord .( Thenkalai)

Sahethuka KrupA is the grace that is in response to some good

deed by the seeker of MokshA .

( Vada kalai)

The " controversy " is over the Lord"s spontaneous grace versus

conscious human effort to secure it .The question is whether the

grace of God should flow freely towards the devotees like the

spontaneous flow of the mother's milk towards the newly born,

helpless infant .

" . Thenkala views that the expectation of the observance of

Sadhana by an afflictedindividual for the purpose of MokshA is

unwarranted , since God , the KaruNAnidhi , is understood as the

one , who removes our sufferings without any selfish-motives .If

God were to grant Moksham only in response to Sadhana , there

would be no need for KrupA " --------- " according to this school

of thought , MokshA is not a goal to be won by effort , but it

should come as a gift of God outof His grace . If the supreme

being Himself is both UpayA (means ) and UpeyA ( goal ) , the idea

of separate sadhana for seeking His grace amounts to self

contradiction " .

The main point of criticism of the vada kalai that " the denial

of human effort as a requisite condition of redemption would

amount to arbitrariness on the part of God ( arbitrariness and

cruely /Vaishamya and NairghaNyA )

..( STRANGE !!!..Emperuman is all powerful, extremely compassionate

and Swatantra. His actions are beyond question. How a

Compassionate one be cruel ?)

Vada kalai holds that God showers His grace only on those ,

who become qualified for it by observing the prescribed sadhana or

other religious acts sanctioned by the sacred texts . They

contend that the grace of God is dependent onhuman endeavour It

does not flow automatically to one , who has been passive . Even

in the illustration of the mother and the infant ,the flow of the

mother's milk may be natural , but nevertheless , the child is

required to suck it , which involves some effort on its part . The

need for human effort to receive God's grace does not negate the

importance of God"s krupA . On the other hand ,it emphasises the

fact that in order to make krupa or compassion operative , a valid

excuse is called for on the part of an individual so that God

escapes the criticism of being partial and cruel . "

( In the example of infant awaiting mother's milk, it is argued

that effort on the part of child is necessary by sucking. STRANGE

!!!. SUPPOSE the child is not able to suck for one reason other

will the mother neglect the child ? Will she not feed the child by

force ? The excuse presented is not valid. Again, there are some

class of people who cannot practise sadhanas. Are these

people to be neglected by the Emperuman ??? )

The Vadakalai school accepts both bhakti and prapatti as the means

for attainment of moksha.

The Tenkalai school does not accept bhakti as a means or upaya.

They state that accepting or adopting bhakti yoga as a means is

against the nature of the dependent soul. The soul is absolutely

dependent on the Lord. So, he should not, by himself, adopt bhakti

yoga.

The Vadakalai school states that prapatti has to be a positive,

specific act of surrender, by the Jivatma to the Lord.

The Tenkalai school does not consider that a positive act of

surrender is necessary. They say that i) knowledge of the

essential nature of the Jivatma, and ii) mental acceptance

(non-rejection) on the part of the Jivatma to Iswara granting him

salvation, are required. So the Jivatma need not specifically

adopt any means for salvation, as a positive act. He may, however,

do good things and service to God, for the pleasure of the Lord.

The Vadakalai school holds that a positive effort is necessary, on

the part of the Jivatma to attain the Lord's grace. The Lord can

be accused of partiality or unkindness, if He gives moksha to some

and not to others. Further, the Lord cannot grant moksha to all

people. So, the Vadakalai school says that the Lord's grace has to

have some reason, like the efforts by the individual soul.

Then kalai sect holds the view that Nirhethuka krubai is the

grace showered on devotees by Emperuman without any condition

Infact, He is the creator of the Leela Vibhuthi consisting of

Jeevas and prakruthi.. HE desires that all jeevas should reach

him in paramapada and enjoy just like Nitya suris. He is waiting

for the consent of jeevas to redeem them from samsara. He waits

patiently and try to create interest among jeevas about him by

various means. He is all merciful, easy to approach to those who

have faith in him. Having created interest in them He slowly

developes it till it becomes mature enough to reach him. Prapathi

is the intense desire on the part of Jeeva to attain Emperuman. We

are all Srivaishnavas and have undergone samarayanam under one

Acharya who will guide us in the Atma yatra. No seperate exercise

is necessary to show our faith.

The authority for Nirhethuka krupa, prapathi and allied matters

are avilable in Srivachana bhooshanam by Sri. Pillai

Lokachariar.

Thiruvaimozhi by Nammazhvar describes the effort of Emperuman

to reddem the jeevas.

It contain the full meaning of Artha Panchakam.

The first verse itself contains immense meaning to be explained

by an Acharya.

Let us take a glimpse of it.

UYARVARA UYAR NALAM UDAYAVAN EVAN AVAN HE ( SRIMAN

NARAYANA) have all Kalyana gunas)

Here Para swroopam is explained.

MAYARVARA MATHI NALAM ARULINAN EVEN AVAN HE gave

unblemished knowledge

To whom He gave ? Did he ask for it ? He gave it to

Azhvar without asking

Nirhethuka krubai He is the upaya .

Swaswaroopam Upaya swaroopm

( Mayarvara...Ignorance is removed .. Virodhi is eliminated

(Virodhi swaroopam)

Ayarvarum amararkal athipathi evan avan He is the supreme

Lord of all devas

ParA SWAROOPAM again,

THUARARU CHUDARADI THOZHUTHU EZHU MANANE. OH!. MIND

pray his Glorious feet

It removes all our woes. It has elevated you.

'Prapyam" / pala swaroopam

Adiyen Ramanuja dasan. T.Parthasarathy

t

On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 venkatramanan krishnan wrote :

>dear sri venkatesh and other Bhagavatas,

>jai sriman Narayan

>

> I need some help in understanding a point in our

>sampradayam.Please excuse my ignorance.Today, I got

>into arguing with an iskcon devotee on

>the matter of "free will"..

> is there any such thing as "free will" in our

>sampradayam? Has it been commented upon by

>poorvacharyas? How does it relate to the Lord's

>Nirhetuka Krupai?

>

>Daasan venkat ramanan

>

> - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup

>http://fifaworldcup.

>

>------------------------ Sponsor

>

>azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam

>

>Your use of is subject to

>

_______

There is always a better job for you at Monsterindia.com.

Go now http://monsterindia.com/rediffin/

September 12, 2002

Dear bhagavatas,

Sanskrit classes are conducted by samskrita bharathi in number of places in

chennai.

For further details contact,

No.5, 7th street

Dr.Radhakrishnan salai,

Mylapore

ph: 2847 2632

Adiyen ramanuja dAsee

Sumithra Varadarajan

-

s.ramachandran

Gopalan Raghavan

Cc: ramanuja ; sadagopaniyengar ;

Tuesday, February 10, 2004 7:24 PM

[ramanuja] Re: (unknown)

One is not very certain,but Madras University and Sanksrit college,

Royepettah do perhaps conduct some sort of classes in Sanskrit.

You can also checkout in CP Ramaswamy Art Center in Eldams road.Some years

back a student from Vivekananda College used to volunteer and teach

Sanskrit on Saturdays.

Also in Alwarpet near the circle, bang opposite Anjanayar Temple there is a

complex fronted by Adayar Bakery. Inside this complex in the basement or

in the mezannine floor there is a NGO or trust involved in Sanskrit

teaching etc.

About Hinduism, why carry coals to Newcastle as the saying goes? when you

have Shri Ram Anbil and Shri Sadagopan Iyengar as your Gurus.....Hindusim

cannot be taught....Blindly follow the august words of these

scholar/moderators and also of other experienced members of these fora.

This is not an idle casual information, but a fact. This writer has learnt

a lot over the past few months from the various postings in these fora.

Om tat sat

Tat tvam asi

Gopalan Raghavan

<shriragh (AT) (DOT)

s.ramachandran,

com> ramanuja

cc:

sadagopaniyengar,

02/10/04 03:11

PM

(unknown)

Dear All,

Can anyone give me information on Hinduism classes and Sanskrit Classes in

Madras.

Regards,

Srimathi Venkatachari Raghavan

s.ramachandran wrote:

This refers to the interactions below:

Sutra I-28 "tad jap tad artha..." of the Patanjali Yoga Sutras make it

amply clear that - and this can be borne out by actually experiencing -

that if one chants and contemplates on the meaning, of OM, then one may get

a glimpse of something beyond.

It is therefore highly essential, nay highly desirable that one just not

mechanically chant. The mantra words, originating from the Shurthi, are

pure and structured with high precision by divinity. When chanted properly

a series of vibrations are set forth and this impacts each of the 'nadis'

or nerve endings deep inside us. These vibrations in turn activate the

parasympathic nervous system in the spinal column and results in a natural

calmness covering the brain cells and brain activities. Specifically with

reference to the Gayathri Chanting, experiments with volunteers over many

days at Kaivalyadhama, Lonavala have clearly established beyond any shred

of doubt mental, psychological, psysiological and hormonal changes at

deeper levels - all for the better of course. So we do have clear

scientific, well documented, researched, statistically proved and

calibarated results available. These srudies are part of a much bigger

project and are ongoing.

In short the contemplation of the meaning of Om is to follow the chant of

Om. When we recite or chant Om, it does not mean that our mind will be

remaining idle. On the contrary, it concentrates itself: it feels the

presence of a harmony with the whole universe. One can do Japa of Om itself

in any of the forms mentioned. One has to extrapolate this the Gayathri

and it will be obvious about the enormous potential which occurs when the

Gayathri alongwith the Om is chanted.

It is therefore, extremely critical and mandatory for the Sandhya to be

performed without fail. It is quite surprising that Shri Vishnu has

questioned the efficacy of Sandhya and perhaps thinks of replacing the

Sandhya with 'namaa' chanting. Come what may, the Sandhya is a nitya karma

ordained by the Vedas and no one is excused. Dilution of Sandhya

requirements are therefore out of question. One may dilute all other

rituals, worship etc. but not the Sandhya.

Om Tat Sat

Tat tvam asi

ramanuja@gr

oups.com To:

ramanuja

cc:

02/09/04 05:49 [ramanuja] Digest

Number 731

PM

Please respond

to ramanuja

---~->

There are 5 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1. Re: Narayana Mantram and Picture

"Vishnu" <vsmvishnu

2. Re: Narayana Mantram and Picture

"Vishnu" <vsmvishnu

3. Thanks!!

"Shankaranarayanan Rajaraman" <jeenchu78

4. AchArya Hrdhyam 151

nsp <aazhwar

5. Re: Nrisimhaashtakam

"Vishnu" <vsmvishnu

______________________

Message: 1

Sun, 08 Feb 2004 13:57:05 -0000

"Vishnu" <vsmvishnu

Re: Narayana Mantram and Picture

ramanuja, "vaidhehi_nc" <nappinnai_nc> wrote:

> Sri:

> Srimathe Ramanujaya nama:

> Dear SriMahaVishnu,

Dear Ms Nappinnai,

I am undoubtedtly the least learned and the most ignorant in this forum.

You are right in saying that chanting ashtAksharI goes agaisnt the

principles of SrIvachana bhUshaNam (also mumukshuppadi). That is why

most of the Thenkalai AchAryas do not prescribe any sort of japam.

However, I did not want to project "not chanting it" as another

ritual. That is why I wrote that one can chant it umpteen times.

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

Vishnu

> I envy your name and your clarity of thought process

> as well :-) With my maNdUka knowledge,I can feel that you have the

> right perspective of TK sampradAyam. I feel that chanting mUla

> manthram umpteen number of times defies TK sampradAyam completely and

> also violates srI vacana bhUShaNam to the core if one gives stress to

> and the benefits of the chanting as a ritual. When I read your

> mails,my thoughts get sharpened and tuned. I miss your personal

> mails. Once in a while,please send mails loaded with bhagavad

> knowledge. Only a bhAgavatha like you can uplift souls like me with

> viparIta j~nAnam.

>

> AzhvAr emperumAnAr jIyar thiruvadigaLE sharaNam

> NC Nappinnai

>

______________________

Message: 2

Sun, 08 Feb 2004 14:12:58 -0000

"Vishnu" <vsmvishnu

Re: Narayana Mantram and Picture

ramanuja, "Lakshmi Narasimhan" <nrusimhan@h...>

wrote:

Dear Sriman Narasimhan,

I agree with what you have said. I think Alwar suggests here thinking

of BhagavAn's guNas and not nAma alone. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Whatever is said on ashtAksharI applies very well to gAyatrI. here

also meaning is important and one can have faith in that meaning if

convinced. adiyEn will try to get the meaning of gAyatrI as given in

rAmAyaNa commentary of gOvindarAja.

I have a doubt. sandhyAvandanam itself is a ritual performed in

limited time and chanting of gAyatrI is a part of it. So one cannot

think of His qualities while repeating gAyatrI. So is it not better to

devote some time to read some pASurams with their meanings or

bhagavadguNa darpaNam (sahasranAma commentary) rather than spending

time in rituals e.g. sandhyAvandanam?

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

Vishnu

> Asmad Gurubhyo Namaha

> Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha

>

> Dear Swami,

> The "formal recitation of the ga:yatri" is itself a mispractice that

> is happening or atleast misunderstood. Gayatri needs to be chanted

> while we contemplate upon the supreme. Azhwar says:

> "peyarinaiye pundhiyal sindhiyaadhu oodhi uruvennum

> andhiyaalaam payanangen?"

> That is, Azhwar claims that, what would be the point of those

> chantings that were done for the sake of count and not for the sake

> of thinking about the bhagavan nama, during the sandhyavandhanam. So,

> Gayathri must be chanted only while thinking/contemplating the

> supreme - reason for the exact count of Gayathri(like 108, 1008 etc)

> is not known to me - learned scholars may throw further light on

> this. Chanting of Thirumanthram in addition to Gayathri as part of

> this ritual, is optional, though not necessarily recommended by all

> acharyas.

>

> I apologize for my mistakes if any.

>

> Adiyen,

> Ramanuja Dasan

>

> ramanuja, Madhuri and Mohan <m_raghavan@e...>

> wrote:

> > Sri Vishnu,

> >

> > From this e-mail, I think that you and I are saying very much the

> same

> > thing, and apologize if I saw it differently in your original

> message.

> > I would concur with you that contemplation upon the meaning of the

> > mantra is most important, and not just its mere mechanical

> recitation.

> > Perhaps this is why most a:cha:ryas would limit prescribing it as a

> > formalized japam.

> >

> > However, I do recall from my own readings and discussion with

> others

> > that part of the sandhya vandanam practice does involve taking a

> few

> > moments to contemplate on the thirumantram after formal recitation

> of

> > the ga:yatri. I think that the reason that no specific number or

> count

> > is specified would seem to indicate that this be a contemplation,

> and

> > not some sort of formalized ritual for ritual's sake.

> >

> > Ramanuja dasan

> > Mohan

______________________

Message: 3

Sat, 07 Feb 2004 04:27:09 -0000

"Shankaranarayanan Rajaraman" <jeenchu78

Thanks!!

Dear members,

Adiyen Shankaranarayanan would like to thank Sri TCA Venkatesan and

the moderator of Shri Ramanuja for introducing and

accepting me in the e-satsangh. I reside at Arlington,Texas and am

a fresh EE graduate.

Regards,

Shankaranarayanan

______________________

Message: 4

Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:50:05 +0530

nsp <aazhwar

AchArya Hrdhyam 151

AchArya Hrdhayam -sUthram 223

The Fifth Ten

The Love for the Lord

"pEAr amar pin ninRu kazhiya migu yAneAyenna vAithu ARRAgillAdhu nErAi

meliya vUdu pukku vaLara..."

Summary: It was seen in the preceding posting that the Lord is the reason

for increasing the increasing yearning for Him, the reason for the Love and

Affection towards Him. The creation of such Love, the emancipation of such

love, the evolution of such love, the impact of the Love on AzhwAr is

further explained.

The great love-pEaramar kAdhal- emerges from the Lord's everlasting

beautiful form. This Love settles down in the mind of AzhwAr and creates

restlessness. Does it stop with that? The friends around AzhwAr comments

on this love. The love manifests itself into thriving oneself by acting

like the Lord- I created this whole world, I am the ultimate in learning, I

am the ultimate in what one sees, I am the pancha-bhUdham, the actions, the

cause-effects, the heaven, hell etc. This reflcts that AzhwAr cannot live

without the Almighty even for a second. Even the physique of AzhwAr melts

on thinking of sweetness of the Lord Almighty. Is this state of affair

intermittent for AzhwAr? No this is an experience day in and day out for

AzhwAr.

The auspicious qualities and deeds of the Lord pierces into the mind of

AzhwAr and melts him time and again. That is the nature of love towards the

lord-great love-pEr amar kAdhal.

.

pAsuram-s:

"pEar amar kAdhal kadal puraiya viLaivitha"--thiru voi mozhi 5-3-4---->

TheGreat Love towards the Lord is created by the Lord Himself.

"pin ninRa kAdhal nOi nenjam peridhu adumAl" --thiru voi mozhi 5-4-6--> The

Love becomes a disease as it pains the mind -makes it restless.

"kazhiya mikkadhOre kAdhgalaL ivaL" -thiru voi mozhi 5-5-10--> The friends

around AzhwAr comment on AzhwAr's Love.

"kadal gnAlam seidhEnum yAnEa ennum"---> thiru voi mozhi 5-6-- all the

elven pAsuram-s of this thiru voi mozhi

reflect AzhwAr's mindset. AzhwAr is able to survive by acting like the

Lord. AzhwAr says that " I created the world.I am the world. I am the cause

effects. I am the Learning. I destroyed. I am the deities , the muni-s and

so on. These pAsuram-s reflect that AzhwAr is not able to sustain himself

by merely thinking about the Lord but need more by acting like the Lord.

"Agilum ini vunnai vittonRum ARRa kiRkinRilEan" --thiru voi mozhi 5-7-1-->

" I am not able to be my self without being with you" is AzhwAr's

predicament.

"ArA amudhEA adiyEAn vudalam nin pAl anbAyEa nErAi alaindhu karaiya "

--thiru voi mozhi 5-8-1--> AzhwAr's physique melts on contemplating the

sweetness of the Lord.

"vaigalum vinayEan meliya"--thiru voi mozhi 5-9-1--> This effect of Love is

day in and day out for AzhwAr and not just intermittent.

"niRandhan vUdu pukku enadhu Aviyai ninRu ninRu vurukki vuNginRa"--thiru

voi mozhi 5-10--> This thiru voi mozhi talks of deeds and qualities of the

Lord Almighty which pierces into the mind of AzhwAr and torments.

Thus, the nature of Love and Affection towards the Lord is elaborated.

(to be continued)

vanamamalai padmanabhan

______________________

Message: 5

Sun, 08 Feb 2004 14:22:44 -0000

"Vishnu" <vsmvishnu

Re: Nrisimhaashtakam

Dear Sriman Kesavan,

Here transliterating it properly is important.

kalanka mean blemish. akaLanka means blemishless. Srimath+akaLanka is

to be read a SrImadakaLanka without break.

The choice of sequence of words here is wonderful:

SrImath = always with pirAtti (so always kind)

akaLanka = blemishless (because of being SrImath)

paripUrNa = complete (because of being blemishless).

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

Vishnu

ramanuja, "kesavants" <kesavants> wrote:

> Dear Bhagavathas,

> Pranams. Is this shloka Nrisimhaashtakam which starts like

> this "srimada kalanka paripoorna sashi koti" composed by Sri Manavala

> Mamuningal? Is this praising the Lord in any particular kshetram or

> divya desam? Please let me know.

> Pranams,

> srinivasa dasan

______________________

azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam

------

Links

------

Links

/

Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online

Links

azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam

Links

ramanuja/

b..

ramanuja

c..

November 17, 2003

Dear Shri Madhavaramanujadasa,

Please find a rejoinder to your email on the Vaiseshika concept in the

Brahmasutra. I am enclosing my father's email that he had sent to a rookie (me)

explaining this specific concept. I found it extremely easy to follow and

thought of forwarding it the group.

Adiyen Ramanuja dasan

Arvindan

Ps: My father alongwith his brother is currently translating the BrahmaSutra in

Kumudam Bakhti mag.

********************************************************************************\

*****

Dear Arvind,

After I returned from Delhi, I was planning to send you my comments on the

thoughts contained in the e mails you sent me. One was on Mannargudi temple and

another on an incident in Sri Parasara Bhattar's life. I have no comments on

them except to say that I enjoyed them. There were two other mails ,which relate

to Sri Ramanuja's Sri Bhashya on Brahma sutra 2.2.12 One says that Gaudiya

sampradaya interpretation is the correct one and Ramanuja's concept of

aprthak-siddi is wrong .The rejoinder mail is very harsh and says Ramanuja's

explanation is the most rational one. I think, if one reads BS and understands

the context of the Sutra, there is no need for this kind of difference of

opinion. I will now try to explain to you the point I am trying to make.

The second Adhyaya of BS is titled Avirodha adhyayam, where the author proves

that some of the axioms and principles of other Indian philosophies are contrary

to what is stated in the Vedas/Upanishads So it implies that those beliefs are

to be rejected. In the second Pada, Vaiseshika beliefs are taken for refutation.

Before you go further to Sutra 12,you should understand a little about

Vaiseshika principles.

They believe that the universe is made of atoms. All the things we see are made

of parts and hence destructible or broken into parts. If we go on breaking into

parts we will reach a stage when further break up is no more possible. This is

the atomic state. They found difficulty in assuming the break up to continue

ad-infinitum, because in the limiting state, there will be nothingness.

Obviously they found it difficult to explain how from nothing something could

come about! 0 multiplied by any thing can only be 0! Further they found it

impossible to explain how big and small things can be formed, if we don't assume

finiteness for the atoms. If you think deeply you will understand this concept.

Greek philosophers, Democritus and Epicurus had similar ideas.

When atoms join ,gross things that we see are formed. For this argument let us

not bring in God as the joiner. Between the atoms (parts) and the gross things

there exists a relationship. This relationship can be either superficial or very

deep. I will try to explain this by an example. Suppose a book is on a table,

they have a superficial relationship. The book can be removed from the table and

the book and table will continue to exist. But the table and its legs have a

deep relationship, because, if we remove the legs, the table is destroyed.

Samyoga Sambhandam and Samavaya Sambhandam ,are the terms used by.Vaiseshikas

for these two relationships. The example often used to explain Samavaya

Sambhndam is the yarn and the cloth. If yarn is removed ,cloth is destroyed.

There is one more point we should remember in Vaiseshika philosophy. If two

things join together to form a third thing ,how many parts are there in the

formed thing? Not two,.t! hey say, but three. That is why they say that,

Samavaya Sambhandam is a thing and not a mere relationship which comes into

being when atoms join to create things This concept is unique to Vaiseshikas.

With this background let us read 2.2.12,and the commentary. The sutra translates

to as under ( in this portion of the second Pada, Vaiseshika view is countered )

If Samavaya is accepted, infinite regression will result.

(so Samavaya Sambhandam of Vaiseshika is wrong is the indication of the Sutra)

The commentary goes like this. If we accept Samavaya Sambhanda, as a necessary

and inherent relationship between parts and the whole, then we have to invent

another relationship to describe and define this Samavaya relationship between

parts and the whole. If we define this "another" relationship, then one more

relationship has to be defined to describe this relationship. Thus there will

be infinite number of relationships which is absurd. So the Vaiseshika concept

of Samavaya is not correct.

Look at the way this simple logical argument is twisted to explain the

relationship between Souls and God. Terms like aprathak-siddi,acintva or

inconceivable relationship do not appear to be relevant at this point in BS.I

think the Absolute is nowhere in the picture here. How each person drags the

BS to make the point that their view of Brahmam and soul is the true one!

********************************************************************

Rajagopalan, Arvind

Friday, September 26, 2003 4:15 PM

'rajagop_s'

[ramanuja] (unknown)

Thought this might interest you

madhavaramanujadasa [madhavaramanujadasa]

Saturday, May 31, 2003 11:22 AM

ramanuja

[ramanuja] (unknown)

FYI,

This article was posted on VNN.ORG by Swami Tripurari, a Gaudiya

preacher. Immediately following it is an article from another

Srivaishnava -group, JETUSA.

"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.

Questions or comments may be submitted at the Q&A Forum

http://www.swami.org/sanga/ or email sangaeditor."

--

THE SRIVAISHNAVA REPLY FROM JETUSA:

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=

-------------------------------

azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam

Your use of is subject to

January 23, 2004

Hi

I saw this title in Amazon.com a month back. Probably

you may get it.

Regards

Renganathan E N

--- prabandh <prabandh wrote:

> Dear All,

> Could anyboby help in locating a copy of this book

> in India.

> The face of Truth-A study of maeaning and

> metaphysics in the Vedantic

> Theology of Ramanuja-By Julius Lipner

>

> Adiyen,

> V.V.PRASAD

>

=====

"A Man is but a product of His Thoughts,

What He wants to be".

-M.K.gandhi

SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!

http://webhosting./ps/sb/

February 10, 2004

One is not very certain,but Madras University and Sanksrit college,

Royepettah do perhaps conduct some sort of classes in Sanskrit.

You can also checkout in CP Ramaswamy Art Center in Eldams road.Some years

back a student from Vivekananda College used to volunteer and teach

Sanskrit on Saturdays.

Also in Alwarpet near the circle, bang opposite Anjanayar Temple there is a

complex fronted by Adayar Bakery. Inside this complex in the basement or

in the mezannine floor there is a NGO or trust involved in Sanskrit

teaching etc.

About Hinduism, why carry coals to Newcastle as the saying goes? when you

have Shri Ram Anbil and Shri Sadagopan Iyengar as your Gurus.....Hindusim

cannot be taught....Blindly follow the august words of these

scholar/moderators and also of other experienced members of these fora.

This is not an idle casual information, but a fact. This writer has learnt

a lot over the past few months from the various postings in these fora.

Om tat sat

Tat tvam asi

Gopalan Raghavan

<shriragh (AT) (DOT)

s.ramachandran,

com> ramanuja

cc:

sadagopaniyengar,

02/10/04 03:11

PM (unknown)