Guest guest Posted April 27, 2004 Report Share Posted April 27, 2004 Dear Bhagavathas, I thought of sharing my father's email explaining Ubhayalingaadhikaranam, the dual nature of Brahman put in terms for a novice like me to understand. Adiyen Ramanuja dasan Aravindan *********************************** As I told you, I am now translating a particularly important Adhikarana in the second Pada of the third Adhyaya of Brahma Sutras. As you may know, BS is divided into four Adhyayas, each of it is subdivided into four Padas. Each Pada is again divided into a number of Adhikaranas. Each Adhikarana handles a topic , and can contain one or many Sutras . The one I am going to say about is called Ubhayalingaadhikaranam. It talks about the dual nature of Brahmam. The reference taken by the two commentators, Sankara and Ramanuja to explain the Sutras of this Adhikarana is from Brahadharanyaka Upanishad, the longest Upanishad which finds a place in Sukla Yajur Veda’s Brahmana portion.. First I will give a simple translation of the portion of the Upanishad and then give the translation of the main Sutra. I hope it interests you. Incidentally this is the portion that contains the famous Neti, Neti –not this, not this, statement, which is taken by Advaities as Halwa for proving their belief in non dualistic Nirguna Brahmam Brahadaranyaka Upanishad 2-3-1to6. There are two identifications for Brahmam.- Formed and Unformed. (Lingam in Sanskrit means identification mark or distinct characteristic. Formed is what is manifest as the world we see. Unformed means unmanifest or Brahman in the Sukshma state at the time of pralaya.) Changing and Changeless, Moving and Motionless, Existing and True. Formed B-is different from Air and Space. It is Changing and Motionless-the Sun which gives warmth is the basis for It. Air and Space are Formless Brahmam. It is changeless and Moving. The Person who is near the Sun is the basis for It.(the ‘soul’ of Sun is the basis) This Person is in our right eye. He is like Saffron coloured robe, White woollen blanket, Rainbow coloured insect, White lotus, Lightning. He who knows Him becomes famous. The Vedas say-(He is) not this not this ,since there is nothing above Him. Not this, Not this. His designation is Truth of Truth. Prana only is True. He is its Truth. What are given in brackets are mine. Is it very confusing? Now I give the translation of BS 3 2 21.Sankara and Ramanuja differ in finding the meaning to this Sutra which I will try to explain to you . Now the translation. ’What have been rejected as Neti, Neti, are only the forms of Brahmam told in the Vedas earlier. After saying Neti Neti the Vedas are going to tell again about Brahmam’s qualities’ Not this, not this only indicates towards the inexhaustible, infinite Gunas of B, says Ramanuja. It only means to say much more than this, much more than this. Sankara says Neti, Neti indicates Brahmam is neither the formed nor the unformed ones said earlier. What is said earlier should be used as directions to reach B and not as B itself. If on the highway you see a direction board saying Chennai 325 km with an arrow sign, you don’t take the board as Chennai-you take it only as a direction giver, nothing more nothing less. The trouble with this approach is, we end up in a vacuum about B. The whole purpose of our investigation in to Brahmam becomes a pointless exercise. Further in the following Sutras it is said B can be realised through meditation and that a sincere person can realise B Remember BS starts with a statement ‘Let us investigate into B’ So we ask Sankara What is this realisation ,if B is a vacuum! Read the above carefully, you will realise the similarity between Sankara’s philosophy and the Schrodinger’s cat’s status inside the box according to quantum mechanics. Saying that something is in an indeterminate state is the same as telling I don’t know. Sankara gets into this state when he attempts to describe B. >Arvind Rajagopalan <rwind_raj >rajagop_s >Fwd: [ramanuja] Re: dangerous similarity between our sampradaya & abrahamic religion >Sat, 24 Apr 2004 22:23:25 -0700 (PDT) > >Dear Appa, > >Thought this might interest you > >--- Lakshmi Narasimhan <nrusimhann wrote: > > ramanuja > > "Lakshmi Narasimhan" <nrusimhann > > Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:26:40 -0000 > > [ramanuja] Re: dangerous similarity between > > our sampradaya & abrahamic religion > > > > srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha > > srImath vara vara munayE namaha > > srI annan thiruvadigalE saranam > > > > Dear bhAgavathAs, > > kaivalyam is not a bad decision that is being made > > by a jIva. We all > > know that bhagavAn is the show runner and he > > provides the result of > > every act performed by us. Those who ask for swargam > > are given the > > same based on their punyams that they accumulate. > > Same with paapis. > > They are given hell as they deserve the same. In > > case of kaivalyam, > > the TK position is that, the jIva is performing > > upAsanai of itself. > > Well, the point is, jIva is a nithya vasthu. So, if > > the jIva demands > > an eternal self worship (nithya jIva upAsanai), it > > cannot be given a > > place in the lIla vibhuthi. So, bhagavAn gives these > > jIvas a place > > in the eternal abode i.e the nithya vibhuthi. But, > > due to the very > > nature of this worship(self worship), the place > > becomes devoid of > > bhagavadh / bhAgavadha - kadAksham, ArAdhanam etc. > > That is why this > > place is compared to a cemetry (yedu nilam in > > tamil). This cemetry > > exists in the nithy vibhuthi and is worse than the > > hell, for, a jIva > > could recover from hell and could be given a chance > > to attain > > moksham whereas kaivalyarthis never get a chance to > > perform > > bhagavadh ArAdhanam again. The only hope for > > kaivalyarthis would be, > > the sankalpam of bhagavAn, that could bring them out > > of that place. > > > > Reg: Both sampradAyas accept kaivalyam as an > > inferior position to > > the bhagavad-sAyujyam/parama padam > > > > Yes. Kailvalyam is inferior from the perspective of > > both the > > sampradayams, but, per, vedAnta desikar, one could > > recover from that > > place. Also, per vedAnta desikar, there is no > > concept of the various > > types of mokshams sAyujyam(no swapravrutti, > > prapatthi is not an > > upAyam, bhagavadh mukha ullAsame > > purushArtham-defectless), sArupyam > > (no swapravrutti, but the defect is using prapatthi > > as upAyam), > > sAmeepyam(defect is swapravrutti - bhagavadh > > upaasakaas) or sAlokyam > > (kaivalyam) - there is just one and only one > > moksham. > > > > adiyen would like to stand corrected if I had made > > any mistakes. All > > of the above information are based on adiyen's weak > > understandings > > from upanyasams. Kindly pardon my mistakes if any. > > > > Adiyen, > > Ramanuja Dasan > > > > Azhwar Emperumaanaar Jeeyar Thiruvadigale Saranam > > PS: Post has nothing to do with blaming or > > mentioning the the TK or > > the VK sampradayam is wrong. Intent is just to share > > the information > > grasped in upanyasams. Corrections are most welcome. > > > > ramanuja, "Vishnu" > > <vsmvishnu> wrote: > > > Dear Sriman Kasturi Rangan, > > > > > > It may not seem to be dangerous to all! The issue > > of Kaivalya > > mOskha > > > and the ThennAchArya position is likely to be > > addressed in the > > coming > > > updates of our yatirajadasa website. At this > > moment, I do not have > > > much idea. Learend bhAgavatas may answer your > > question. > > > > > > Regards > > > Vishnu > > > > > > ramanuja, "amshuman_k" > > <amshuman_k> > > wrote: > > > > Dear bhAgavatas, > > > > > > > > One of the difference between the two kalais is > > the nature of > > > > kaivalyam. Both sampradAyas accept kaivalyam is > > inferior to > > > bhagavad- > > > > sAyujyam/parama padam. However, the thenkalai > > position is that - > > it > > > > is permanent; (from the explanation of a TK > > Acharya), the jIvan > > > made > > > > a bad decision; it asked for it, aspired for it > > and got it. So, > > it > > > is > > > > stuck with it. > > > > Isn't this dangerously similar to a christian > > claim that "accept > > > > Jesus or you will goto eternal hell?" (You make > > a bad decision > > of > > > not > > > > accepting christ; you asked for it and got it). > > I request > > > > clarifications from learned bhAgavatas. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > KK > > > > > > > Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢ >ph/print_splash Watch LIVE baseball games on your computer with MLB.TV, included with MSN Premium! Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes./careermakeover Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2004 Report Share Posted April 27, 2004 Dear Bhagavathas, I thought of sharing my father's email explaining Ubhayalingaadhikaranam, the dual nature of Brahman put in terms for a novice like me to understand. Adiyen Ramanuja dasan Aravindan >*********************************** >As I told you, I am now translating a particularly >important Adhikarana in the second Pada of the third >Adhyaya of Brahma Sutras. As you may know, BS is >divided into four Adhyayas, each of it is subdivided >into four Padas. Each Pada is again divided into a >number of Adhikaranas. Each Adhikarana handles a topic >, and can contain one or many Sutras . The one I am >going to say about is called Ubhayalingaadhikaranam. >It talks about the dual nature of Brahmam. > >The reference taken by the two commentators, Sankara >and Ramanuja to explain the Sutras of this Adhikarana >is from Brahadharanyaka Upanishad, the longest >Upanishad which finds a place in Sukla Yajur Veda’s >Brahmana portion.. > >First I will give a simple translation of the portion >of the Upanishad and then give the translation of the >main Sutra. I hope it interests you. Incidentally this >is the portion that contains the famous Neti, Neti >–not this, not this, statement, which is taken by >Advaities as Halwa for proving their belief in non >dualistic Nirguna Brahmam > >Brahadaranyaka Upanishad 2-3-1to6. > > There are two identifications for Brahmam.- Formed >and Unformed. > (Lingam in Sanskrit means identification mark or >distinct characteristic. > Formed is what is manifest as the world we see. >Unformed means unmanifest or Brahman in the Sukshma >state at the time of pralaya.) Changing and >Changeless, Moving and Motionless, Existing and True. > Formed B-is different from Air and Space. It is >Changing and Motionless-the Sun which gives warmth is >the basis for It. > Air and Space are Formless Brahmam. It is >changeless and Moving. The Person who is near the Sun >is the basis for It.(the ‘soul’ of Sun is the basis) > This Person is in our right eye. > He is like Saffron coloured robe, White woollen >blanket, Rainbow coloured insect, White lotus, >Lightning. He who knows Him becomes famous. The >Vedas say-(He is) not this not this ,since there is >nothing above Him. Not this, Not this. His designation >is Truth of Truth. Prana only is True. He is its >Truth. > What are given in brackets are mine. Is it very >confusing? Now I give the translation of BS 3 2 >21.Sankara and Ramanuja differ in finding the meaning >to this Sutra which I will try to explain to you . Now >the translation. ’What have been rejected as Neti, >Neti, are only the forms of Brahmam told in the Vedas >earlier. After saying Neti Neti the Vedas are going to >tell again about Brahmam’s qualities’ Not this, not >this only indicates towards the inexhaustible, >infinite Gunas of B, says Ramanuja. It only means to >say much more than this, much more than this. Sankara >says Neti, Neti indicates Brahmam is neither the >formed nor the unformed ones said earlier. What is >said earlier should be used as directions to reach B >and not as B itself. If on the highway you see a >direction board saying Chennai 325 km with an arrow >sign, you don’t take the board as Chennai-you take it >only as a direction giver, nothing more nothing less. >The trouble with this approach is, we end up in a >vacuum about B. The whole purpose of our investigation >in to Brahmam becomes a pointless exercise. Further in >the following Sutras it is said B can be realised >through meditation and that a sincere person can >realise B Remember BS starts with a statement ‘Let us >investigate into B’ So we ask Sankara What is this >realisation ,if B is a vacuum! Read the above >carefully, you will realise the similarity between >Sankara’s philosophy and the Schrodinger’s cat’s >status inside the box according to quantum mechanics. >Saying that something is in an indeterminate state is >the same as telling I don’t know. Sankara gets into >this state when he attempts to describe B. > > > >Arvind Rajagopalan <rwind_raj > >rajagop_s > >Fwd: [ramanuja] Re: dangerous similarity >between our sampradaya & abrahamic religion > >Sat, 24 Apr 2004 22:23:25 -0700 (PDT) > > > >Dear Appa, > > > >Thought this might interest you > > > > >--- Lakshmi Narasimhan <nrusimhann wrote: > > > ramanuja > > > "Lakshmi Narasimhan" <nrusimhann > > > Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:26:40 -0000 > > > [ramanuja] Re: dangerous similarity >between > > > our sampradaya & abrahamic religion > > > > > > srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha > > > srImath vara vara munayE namaha > > > srI annan thiruvadigalE saranam > > > > > > Dear bhAgavathAs, > > > kaivalyam is not a bad decision that is being made > > > > by a jIva. We all > > > know that bhagavAn is the show runner and he > > > provides the result of > > > every act performed by us. Those who ask for >swargam > > > are given the > > > same based on their punyams that they accumulate. > > > Same with paapis. > > > They are given hell as they deserve the same. In > > > case of kaivalyam, > > > the TK position is that, the jIva is performing > > > upAsanai of itself. > > > Well, the point is, jIva is a nithya vasthu. So, >if > > > the jIva demands > > > an eternal self worship (nithya jIva upAsanai), it > > > > cannot be given a > > > place in the lIla vibhuthi. So, bhagavAn gives >these > > > jIvas a place > > > in the eternal abode i.e the nithya vibhuthi. But, > > > > due to the very > > > nature of this worship(self worship), the place > > > becomes devoid of > > > bhagavadh / bhAgavadha - kadAksham, ArAdhanam etc. > > > > That is why this > > > place is compared to a cemetry (yedu nilam in > > > tamil). This cemetry > > > exists in the nithy vibhuthi and is worse than the > > > > hell, for, a jIva > > > could recover from hell and could be given a >chance > > > to attain > > > moksham whereas kaivalyarthis never get a chance >to > > > perform > > > bhagavadh ArAdhanam again. The only hope for > > > kaivalyarthis would be, > > > the sankalpam of bhagavAn, that could bring them >out > > > of that place. > > > > > > Reg: Both sampradAyas accept kaivalyam as an > > > inferior position to > > > the bhagavad-sAyujyam/parama padam > > > > > > Yes. Kailvalyam is inferior from the perspective >of > > > both the > > > sampradayams, but, per, vedAnta desikar, one could > > > > recover from that > > > place. Also, per vedAnta desikar, there is no > > > concept of the various > > > types of mokshams sAyujyam(no swapravrutti, > > > prapatthi is not an > > > upAyam, bhagavadh mukha ullAsame > > > purushArtham-defectless), sArupyam > > > (no swapravrutti, but the defect is using >prapatthi > > > as upAyam), > > > sAmeepyam(defect is swapravrutti - bhagavadh > > > upaasakaas) or sAlokyam > > > (kaivalyam) - there is just one and only one > > > moksham. > > > > > > adiyen would like to stand corrected if I had made > > > > any mistakes. All > > > of the above information are based on adiyen's >weak > > > understandings > > > from upanyasams. Kindly pardon my mistakes if any. > > > > > > > Adiyen, > > > Ramanuja Dasan > > > > > > Azhwar Emperumaanaar Jeeyar Thiruvadigale Saranam > > > PS: Post has nothing to do with blaming or > > > mentioning the the TK or > > > the VK sampradayam is wrong. Intent is just to >share > > > the information > > > grasped in upanyasams. Corrections are most >welcome. > > > > > > ramanuja, "Vishnu" > > > <vsmvishnu> wrote: > > > > Dear Sriman Kasturi Rangan, > > > > > > > > It may not seem to be dangerous to all! The >issue > > > of Kaivalya > > > mOskha > > > > and the ThennAchArya position is likely to be > > > addressed in the > > > coming > > > > updates of our yatirajadasa website. At this > > > moment, I do not have > > > > much idea. Learend bhAgavatas may answer your > > > question. > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > Vishnu > > > > > > > > ramanuja, "amshuman_k" > > > <amshuman_k> > > > wrote: > > > > > Dear bhAgavatas, > > > > > > > > > > One of the difference between the two kalais >is > > > the nature of > > > > > kaivalyam. Both sampradAyas accept kaivalyam >is > > > inferior to > > > > bhagavad- > > > > > sAyujyam/parama padam. However, the thenkalai > > > position is that - > > > it > > > > > is permanent; (from the explanation of a TK > > > Acharya), the jIvan > > > > made > > > > > a bad decision; it asked for it, aspired for >it > > > and got it. So, > > > it > > > > is > > > > > stuck with it. > > > > > Isn't this dangerously similar to a christian > > > claim that "accept > > > > > Jesus or you will goto eternal hell?" (You >make > > > a bad decision > > > of > > > > not > > > > > accepting christ; you asked for it and got >it). > > > I request > > > > > clarifications from learned bhAgavatas. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > KK > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for >25¢ > >ph/print_splash > > > > > Watch LIVE baseball games on your computer with >MLB.TV, included with MSN Premium! > > > > > > > >Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at HotJobs >http://hotjobs.sweepstakes./careermakeover Lose those love handles! MSN Fitness shows you two moves to slim your waist. Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes./careermakeover 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.