Ramanuja's philosophy and Gaudiya Siddhanta: Swami Tripurari's Reply to Anand,

[Guest guest]

Here is the reply that I received from Swami Tripurari in response to Anand's comments.

***********

Dear Aravind,

Here is the reply to the question you sent to Swami Tripurari via Sanga.

Thank you for your question and your support of Sanga.

Best wishes, Sanga Editor

acintyah khalu ye bhava na tams tarkena yojayet

prakrtibhyah param yac ca tad acintyasya laksanam

(Mahabharata Bhisma parva 5.22)

"That which is transcendental to material nature is certainly inconceivable and

thus not understandable through argumentation. Since argumentation cannot

touch transcendental subject matters, one should not try to understand

transcendental subjects through it."

The article you have asked me to reply to borders on insult and involves

flagrant disrespect for Gaudiya Vedanta. In this sense it demonstrates little

if any actual realization of Vedanta, and in this sense it is hardly

representative of Sripada Ramanujacarya. It also betrays, if not admits to,

little understanding of the Gaudiya doctrine coined acintya bhedabheda by our

tattva acarya Sri Jiva Goswami in his Sarva-samvadini.

The author would like to debate acintya bhedabheda vs visistadvaita, and he

himself is a follower of visitadvaita. His principle point is that Sripada

Ramanujacarya has perfectly and logically explained with scriptural support the

relationship between Brahman's identity and difference leaving no room for doubt

or second opinion as to exactly how Brahman is both one and different. Thus he

concludes that there is no need for any other explanation of this reality,

especially not the Gaudiya explanation. Never mind that other Vedantists

disagree with the logic of the faithful visitadvaitins. They are simply wrong,

illogical, etc. How so? Just study Sripada Ramanuja and it will be clear. If

one says that Ramanuja's theory of inseparability does not fully bring the

identity and difference of the Absolute under logical category, the author

merely replies, "In fact it is only logical. . . this is the siddhanta of sage

Vyasa, the author of the sutras . . . ." This is not a good

argument, although the author does imply that he has a better one to offer. I

sincerely hope that he does, for he may need this kind of argument to support

his faith. However there is no need to share it with me.

I have merely stated the fact that both scholars and acaryas of other

sampradayas have concluded that Ramanuja's term aprthak-siddhi, while

attempting to logically explain the oneness and difference of Brahman, does not

do so to the satisfaction of all concerned. I have also stated that Gaudiya

Vedantins feel that their concept of acintya sakti better addresses the

identity and difference of Brahman than the term aprthak-siddhi of Sri Ramanuja

does. It is not very useful for the followers of Ramanuja to insist that our

acaryas see the logic in this term, when our tattva acarya, Sri Jiva Goswami,

was well acquainted with it and the entire system of Ramanuja's Vedanta, yet he

saw the need to postulate the doctrine of acintya bhedabheda based on Srimad

Bhagavatam, even while respecting deeply the insight and devotion of Ramanuja.

Ours is not a criticism of Ramanuja, but rather another angle of vision equally

supported by logic and scripture.

Careful study of Sri Jiva Goswami's Sat-sandarbha reveals that he was fully

aware of the arguments of both Sankara and Ramanuja but not entirely satisfied

with their explanations as to why consciousness is real/undeniable (in the case

of Sankara), and why the objective world and jiva souls are also real (in the

case of Ramanuja), even while accepting both of their insights. Sri Jiva

Goswami sensed that there was something essential in consciousness that had not

been addressed by these acaryas that further accounted for their own

realizations as to the reality of consciousness itself, the objective world,

and the individual souls. After all, the reasoning cited by Sankara and

Ramanuja in support of their position on these points does not tell us much

about the nature of consciousness in terms of positive content. In the course

of pursuing his own investigation into the nature of being, Sri Jiva found

himself pressed to find out exactly what the essence of

consciousness is. For an answer that corroborated and clarified his insight he

turned to Svetasvatara Upanisad 6.8-parasya saktir vividhaiva sruyate. In a

word it is "sakti," and it is upon this one word that his entire world view

hangs.

Consciousness is fundamental to reality because it is a unity of will (iccha) to

do, to know, and to enjoy. Thus it is possessed of three principle saktis:

primary (antaranga), intermediate (tatastha), and secondary (bahiranga) that

account for itself, the jivas and the world. The essence such a unity is love

(prema). In other words, Sri Jiva realized that the consciousness of

consciousness is love.

Brahman is neither absolutely one with nor absolutely different from its saktis.

Were Brahman absolutely one with the world and the jivas, their faults would be

those of Brahman. Were Brahman absolutely different form the jivas and the

world, this would constitute dualism contradicting the scriptural account of

Brahman's nonduality. As Sri Jiva explains with logic and scriptural support

the fact of the simultaneous identity and difference of Brahman and its saktis,

he stresses that knowing that both identity and difference coexist in the same

object does not tell us how they do so. Logical thinking precludes their

simultaneous presence in the same object. The inconceivability of the relation

between the bheda and abheda of Brahman is evident from the contradiction it

involves. Furthermore, the relationship between Brahman and its sakti cannot be

adequately described by comparing it to that a substance and its attribute, for

in this case the sakti and Brahman the two

interpenetrate one another to form an undivided whole. So how does identity and

difference abide simultaneously in Brahman? Sri Krsna says in Gitopanisad

"pasya me yogam aisvaryam"-this is actinya sakti.

Let the interested reader study Sat-sandarbha and reach his own conclusion as to

the worthiness of Jiva Goswami's pursuit. His work reveals the importance of

Srimad Bhagavatam to the extent that it brings into question the need for the

many Brahma-sutra commentaries that came after this Maha Purana. Citing Garuda

Purana Sri Jiva establishes the Bhagavata Purana as the most perfect commentary

on the Brahma-sutras-artho yam brahma sutranam-one written by the author of the

sutras. In this text that is central to the Gaudiya doctrine and embraced more

heartily by the Gaudiyas than any other lineage we find ample evidence for the

doctrine of acintya bhedabheda. Indeed, Vyasa himself tells us in the text of

his own samadhi that gave rise to acintya bhedabheda and Srimad Bhagavatam. Do

we really need someone else to tell us what Vyasa is saying in his sutras,

especially when such an explanation ignores Srimad Bhagavatam altogether?

Perhaps we do not, yet still the Gaudiya

Vedantins respect those who have offered their own explanations. However, those

who claim to represent such acaryas yet disrespect Gaudiya Vedanta do not in my

estimation represent their acaryas well. True Gaudiyas are not party to the

centuries of fighting between the different sects of Vaisnava Vedanta, nor do

the Gaudiyas take as harsh of a position as they do towards Sripada

Sankaracarya. Indeed, our acarya Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura

established the murtis of all of the principle Vaisnava acaryas in Sri Dhama

Mayapura.

In my original answer to the question regarding why the Gaudiyas see the need to

posit the acintya sakti of Brahman to explain its simultaneous identity and

difference I showed no disrespect for Sri Ramanujacarya or his doctrine.

Indeed, all Gaudiyas and especially the particular branch of Gaudiya Vedanta

that I am affiliated with, hold Sri Ramanuja in the highest regard. We do,

however, feel that his immense contribution is not beyond improving upon or

that it is alone the only possible valid way of explaining the nature of being.

Still, this is not the place to debate the two doctrines in detail. Moreover

time spent in debating with one who is not well acquainted with one of the

doctrines nor respectful of that doctrine and its acaryas is not well spent.

Furthermore both of these doctrines are now well established schools of Vedanta

and it is unlikely in the least that followers of either school will ever

agree, or that there will be any conversion resulting from discussion. Each

school has produced genuine saints, and this is the most compelling evidence

for their spiritual validity, regardless of their different explanations of

that experience. For that matter no explanation of ultimate reality can be

complete and perfect in all respects without diminishing the very nature of

that reality. It is best to honor the spirituality of both sects and differ as

one likes with regard to whose explanation is better. Thus the fact that the

Gaudiyas feel their explanation is best need not be taken as an affront to

Sripada Ramanuja and his community of devotees. We live in times that are

religiously plural.

Attached are two articles written by the late Gaudiya scholar Dr. O.B.L. Kapoor,

one explaining the gist of acintya bhedabheda and another explaining the the

gist of visistadvaita along with well known criticisms of this doctrine.

Included in this second article is a more detailed explanation of my original

points as to why the Gaudiyas feel that Ramanujacarya is not entirely

successful in his effort to bring the identity and difference of Brahman that

he acknowledges under logical category and why this perceived shortcoming

leads, in the minds of the Gaudiyas, to the necessity for their doctrine of

acintya bhedabheda.

Again in closing, as the author has suggested that I read (in English) works

that exhaustively explain the doctrine of Sri Ramanuja, I suggest that he read

(in Sanskrit) the first four essays of Sri Jiva Goswami's sixfold treatise on

Srimad Bhagavatam: Sat-sandarbha:Tattva-sandarbha, Bhagavata-sandarbha,

Paramatma-sandarbha. There he will find answers to all of the questions he

feels the Gaudiyas need to address. /Swami B.V. Tripurari

 

SBC DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!