Mr. Varadarajan's reply to me

[Guest guest]

Dear VishwamAdhvas:

 

In order to be fair to the other party and at the express

request of Mr. Varadarajan himself, I am posting here Dr. Mani

Varadarajan's reply to me, since he is NOT on the VMS list.

All other Dvaita savants are welcome to post their replies as

well.

 

Dear Srimaan Balaji,

 

I will research your questions and answer accordingly after

some time. I am not interested in " fighting it out " -- we can

all learn about each other's philosophical systems, however,

if we carefully approach the writings of each of these scholars

and understand why they wrote what they did in a particular

context. I hope to understand more about Sri Ananda Tirtha's

siddhAnta in this process.

 

Please let me submit a few preliminary remarks to your

vidvad-goshTi:

 

(1) Sri Anbil V. Gopalacharya was a remarkable scholar,

learned in all three schools of Vedanta. This is generally

accepted by all students of philosophy, and I would be

surprised if serious Dvaita scholars did not agree with

this assessment, despite Sri Gopalacharya's opinion about

the Mulubagil debate. The latter, after all, has nothing

to do with philosophical learning. I hope we do not need

to demean such a scholar in the process of this discussion.

 

(2) A debate certainly did occur between Sri Injimettu Swami of

Ahobila Matha, and the maThadhIpati of the Uttaradi Matha.

While I am not yet sure of the exact date, it occurred sometime

between 1929 and 1941 at Srirangam, when Sri Injimettu Swami

was the junior sannyAsi of the Ahobila Matha. The debate

centered on the issue of Ananda Taratamya, and excerpts of

the debate in Sanskrit were published in " Vaibhava Sudha " ,

in 1953, which chronicles this Swami's life shortly after he

attained

the Lord's feet. I will provide more details in a future email.

 

(3) I am well acquainted with many of Sri B.N.K. Sharma's works.

Once again, I do not mean to demean him. However, judging from

some of his " pUrva-paksha " arguments in his books, he appears

to have seriously misunderstood some fundamentals of Visishtadvaita

as set forth by Sri Ramanujacharya and Sri Vedanta Desika. In

a future note, I will cite a few obvious examples.

 

[ I am well-aware of Sri Sharma's friendship with Sri S.S.

Raghavachar,

who himself was well-known to me, and who was also a great scholar

of all three schools of Vedanta. This, however, does not mean that

Sri Sharma was not wrong from time to time. ]

 

(4) Before we discuss some of your objections to Visishtadvaita,

please make sure you have properly read and digested the following

ideas, which are present in Sri Ramanuja's Vedarthasangraha,

Sribhashya, and Sri Desika's Tattva Mukta Kalaapa:

 

(a) dharma-bhUta-jnAna, the jIva's attributive consciousness, as

opposed

to svarUpa-bhUta-jnAna, the consciousness which is the essence

of

the jIva. This is also discussed in detail in several papers in

English published recently under the title " Consciousness:

Proceedings

of a Seminar " , and so is available even to people who have a

poor

knowledge of Sanskrit.

 

(b) Ramanuja's detailed explanation in the Vedarthasangraha of

the idea of visishtaikya and the SarIra-SarIri-bhAva, which

is the central principle in his exposition of the idea of

" Brahman " . Once again, this is available in English.

 

© The viSaya-vAkyas and ideas behind Ramanuja's approach to the

Sutras. Sri S.M. Srinivasa Chari's recent book in English on

the Brahma-Sutras and their commentaries explains this topic

in remarkable detail.

 

I hope to have the pleasure and privilege of meeting Sri Sri Sugunendra

Tirtha

Swami when he comes to the Bay Area. I have heard a great deal of good

things

about him. One of my fondest memories in my study of Vedanta is the

evening

I spent at the feet of the Admar Matha swami (Sri Vibudhesa Tirtha?) in

the Bay Area several years ago. I will always remember the remarkable

ease,

eagerness, and " sauSIlya " with which he conveyed ideas about Vedanta and

the

Dvaita Siddhanta to me.

 

With regards,

Mani

[Guest guest]

Friends,

I have been very favourably impressed by the tone of Sri

Varadarajan's reply to Sri Hebbar. I am glad that the debate,

when it takes place will be based on factual information,

precise understanding of each other's position and of course,

acceptance of logical consequences flowing out of such debate.

It is a fact that most of us have but a sketchy knowledge of the

compositions of other schools being dependent on the most part

on the statements made by one's own school in their critique of

the others.

Having said this, I must also say that the position of

Thathvavada scholars in this regard - in the opinion which I

have formed after a brief ( 8 years) acquaintance of the subject

- specially of great saints like Sri Jayatirtha and Vyasatirtha

is impeccable. Even reputed scholars from Advaitha have

complimented the latter on the absolute fairness, correctness of

understanding and precision with which the Purvapaksha cases

have been presented. Thus, I feel we have a right to ask the

same standard of integrity in philosopphical speculation from

others when they claim to have " defeated " some Thathvavada

scholar in debate. The references given do not seem to be either

adequate or convincing - the whole thing being actuated in

record decades after the event is supposed to have taken place.

I will watch the future presentations on this subject with

great interest and anticipation of a lively but fair debate.

NAPSRao

[Guest guest]

>Friends,

>I have been very favourably impressed by the tone of Sri

>Varadarajan's reply to Sri Hebbar.

 

A fair assessment on its own strength, but I would invite all of you to look

at what Mani said on a previous occasion, almost five years ago in fact:

``Madhvacharya's philosophy is one of the cruelest jokes

ever perpetrated in the name of Vedanta.'' See

 

http://hindunet.org/alt_hindu/1994/msg00870.html

 

Mani clearly has changed his tone with reference to what impression he

gathered about our doctrine from the Admar Swamiji, than when the matter was

still fresh in his mind. As such, those of us who have had previous

interaction with him are perhaps more inclined to doubt that his recent

attitude is at least in part just good PR.

 

Regards,

 

Shrisha Rao

 

>NAPSRao

[Guest guest]

>Thanks for researching and publishing this info to let us know where Mr.

>Mani stands now and where

>he stood before.

 

You're welcome, but it hardly took research; the matter was always well

known to me, and in fact Mani and some others were indirectly

instrumental in my breaking out into the open in defense of the honor

of Srimad Ananda Tiirtha. I seem to recall that:

 

http://hindunet.org/alt_hindu/1994/msg00941.html

 

-- was one of the first (or perhaps even the very first) full-length

posting I ever made anywhere.

 

Regards,

 

Shrisha Rao

 

>Jayakrishna

[Guest guest]

Dear fellow students of Shastra,

 

I agree with NAPS Rao that Varadarajan's reply to Sri Hebbar has been very

impressive.

 

Since some techincal terms like Dharma-Bhuta-Jnana have been used in the email,

I thought may be a

little bit of explanation as to what it means in Vishistaadvaita may help

others in deciphering

future discussions on this subject. This is my understanding of this

terminology, and I request Varadaraajan

and other Vishistaadvaita scholars to post their comments/clarifications

regarding this matter.

 

The world of Cit and Acit consists of two items : substance ( dravya) and

non-substance ( adravya).

A substance is the material cause ( upaadaana) or it is the substratum of

change ( avasthaa). There are

six substances : Iswara, Jiva, Dharmabhutajnana, Shuddasatva or Nityavibhuti,

Prakriti, and Kaala.

The first two i.e., Iswara and Jiva are cit and the last four are acit.

Further the first four are conscious ( ajada)

and last two are unconscious ( jada).

 

Dharma-bhuta-Jnana

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

 

Like jivas Iswara also is a variety of cit. They are all self conscious. They

have also the knowledge that is only

a property of them. This knowledge in each is different from that in the

others. This knowledge is in every instance

self-conscious ( svayam-prakaasha). But it is not of the nature of cit,

because it is not conscious for its own

sake. Though both itself and cit are self-conscious entities their

distinction consists in this, that while the latter

is conscious for its own sake the former is so for the sake of the latter. Cit

is svasmaiPrakaashamaaNA

while dharma-bhuta-jnana is Parasmai-PrakaashamaaNA. This knowledge is eternal

in every case. It is always

full in Iswara. It is not so in Jiva. While Jiva is in bondage it is

obscured. When the Jiva is liberated it shines

in its fullness. In the case of Jivas, though it is always there, it unfolds

itself under favourable conditions.

Under unfavourable conditions it is not explicit. When it is explicit it is

commonly taken to be just produced,

and when it ceases to be so, it is taken to be destroyed. In the case of

perception it is actually in contact with

its object. When a sense organ is in contact with an object it goes out

through the organ to the object and reveals it.

By its very nature it is valid, i.e., it comprehends its object as it is. But

it does not require itself to be revealed,

because it is self-evident. Though it is a property of Jiva, it is in itself a

substance, because it is subject to

ever so many changes. To indicate the idea that it is a property of Jiva

though it is a substance, it is called

Dharma-Bhuta-Jnana.

 

The internal states such as pleasure, pain, desire, hatred, effort are only

different manifestations of the same

dharma-bhuta-jnana, because the assumption that they are different from it is

not supported by any pramana.

All types of knowledge and the good dispositions such as devotion ( Bhakti) of

an individual self together with

the undesirable dispositions are all various states of its Dharma-Bhuta-Jnana.

Similar is the idea with regard

to the knowledge of Iswara. All HIS auspicious qualities are different

expressions of HIS Dharma-Bhuta-Jnana.

 

To summarize,

 

The principle of knowledge which is an attribute of the self is

Dharma-bhuta-Jnana. As an attribute it is

inseperable from the self. It is a substance and what we normally call

knowledge is its expression. Its full

expression is omniscience itself. All psychic activities are its various

manifestations. As a principle of

knowledge it corresponds to AntahKarana of Advaita and Manas of Dvaita.

Knowledge as its expression

corresponds to the VrittiJnana of Advaita and Dvaita. The difference between

them is this. According to

Advaita and Dvaita Antahkarana or Manas ceases to be in Mukti, but according

to Vishistaadvaita it is an

inseperable accompaniment of the self. Each self has its own DharmabhutaJnana.

Even God has His own

dharmabhutaJnana.

 

Harihi Om Tat Sat,

 

Jayakrishna Nelamangala

-

-------

RJAY Consultants Inc.,

Tel: (703)430-8090 Fax: (703)904-8496

Email: jay

-

-------