Criticism of non-vedantic schools of philosophy by Ramanuja

April 27, 2006

harE krShNa! AzhwArgaL thiruvadigaLE sharaNam! jay shrIlA praBhupAdha!

Dear Devotee Sri Saroja Amma,

adiyEn's namaskArams. You have stated the following sentence in the last

para:

"The bhedha and the abhedha texts highlight only a certain facet of

reality."

Now can you state the reality which is not mentioned in bhEdha and abhEdha

(also called as achinthya bhEdha abhEdha) philosophy?

We all know that vishiShtAdhvaitha is complete. But if anyone tells that

vishiShtAdhvaitha is incomplete, then he must be able to tell why it is

incomplete. So I request you to tell in which manner bhEdha and abhEdha

philosophy is incomplete.

Hope you take in spiritual discussions spirit, by keeping in mind, lord

viShNu.

P.S: You may claim that you have not told that bhEdha and abhEdha

philosophy is incomplete. My answer is, when you say bhEdha and abhEdha

philosophy "highlights* only* certain facet", then it is understood that you

are telling that bhEdha and abhEdha is incomplete.

- Balaji - The Servant of Devotees!

<*>

Oppiliappan/

<*>

Oppiliappan

<*> Your

April 28, 2006

Dear Balaji,

The bhedhasruti texts are those which refer to the difference between Brahman and Jiva such as 'dhvaa supanaa sayujaa sakhaayaa' and 'bhoktha bhogyam prerithaaram cha mathva' etc.The abhedha srutis are those thst speak of identity between Brahman and jiva like'thatthvamasi'etc.Dvaitins quote the former to establish that there is difference and advaitins quote the latter to affirm the unity.Each try to explain the other set of texts to suit their own views by resorting to dialectics.

Ramanuja disagrees with this and says that both texts are valid and not contradictory and they speak about different aspects of Brahman and jiva and they should be interpreted in the light of gatakasrutis such as' yah atmani thishtan atmanah antharash yam atma na veda yasya atmasariram' yah atmaanam antharo yamayathi yesha sa atma antharyaamyamrthah' etc. which show the iseparable relation between Brahman and jiva.Thus Ramanuja reconciles the both facets of the absolute reality. that is , Brahman, namely, its difference from and identity with jiva through the sarirasariri bhava. These points will be explained in my subsequent posts but since the question is raised I felt bound to explain.

The bhedaabhedha vadha which you have mentioned holds that the nature of Brahman is of both identity and difference, the advocates of this school being Yadavaprakasa and Bhaskara. They believe that Brahman is one in the causal state but becomes many in the manifested state.But while Bhaskara advocates real modifications, to Yadavprakasa the limitations are not real and in this respect he has leanings towards advaita.A detailed discussion of Bheadhaabhedah is outside the scope of this treatise which pertains only to the philosophy of Ramanuja and his criticism of nonvedantic schools and hence I do not wantt to elaborate on this in my posts.

Balaji A <balajimails > wrote: