Responses to some more questions on Visishtadvaita

[Guest guest]

Sri Balaji asks:

> 1. You call A.V. Gopalacharya, a pundit respected by ALL three

> schools of VedAnta. I would like a list of Dvaita paNDits who

> were his admirers!

 

Sri U.Ve. A.V. Gopalacharya regularly conducted a vidvat

sadas, at which he invited scholars from all the schools

of Vedanta -- Advaita, Visishtadvaita, and Dvaita. This

sadas was as well attended by scholars as those conducted

by maThAdhipatis. I can only conclude that there were

Dvaita paNDits who did not take personal offense at an

intellectual and historical opinion rendered by

Sri Gopalacharya Swami. Furthermore, by all accounts,

Sri Gopalacharya was an extremely sAttvika, mild-mannered

man. I don't see why someone would dislike him personally.

 

Let us put this topic to rest, as I see no reason to drag

Sri Gopalacharya through the mud. I also know little more

about him, as he attained parama-padam long before my birth.

 

Now, on to a philosophical question:

 

> Where does it say Brahman=Ishvara+jIva+jaDa? Brahman is God, not

> souls & Matter included!

 

bhoktA bhogyam preritAram ca matvA sarvam proktam

trividham brahma etat

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Having comprehended the experiencer of pleasures and pains,

the objects of his experience, and the directing Supreme,

the whole of the threefold Brahman is described by me.

 

-- Svetasvatara Upanishad 1.25

 

Here the experiencer (bhoktA) is the jIva, as he experiences

pain and pleasure due to karma. The objects of the experience

(bhogya) is the insentient matter (prakRti), connection with

which causes pleasure and pain. The directing Supreme (preritR)

is the Lord.

 

It is important to understand that Brahman is not Isvara + Jiva + Jada

in a mathematical summation. I am pretty sure Sri Balaji understands

this, but the Visishtadvaita idea is being misstated. Brahman is

Isvara, who has the jIva and prakRti (jada) as attributes, and are

therefore comprehended within Isvara's being. This is the body-soul

relationship that is so fundamental to Ramanuja's interpretational

approach. In a manner similar to how each of us has a body, which

we use to express ourselves, Isvara has jIva and prakRti as its

body, in the sense that the jIva and prakRti are completely supported,

controlled, and pervaded by Isvara. Since they are comprehended

in this body-soul analogy, they are One, just as when we conventionally

point to someone, we see them as one, with the body connected to

the soul. Yet, they are internally distinguishable, with Isvara being

the foundation. This is known as Visishtaikya -- unity of the

attributed Isvara.

 

Because the jIva and prakRti are the body of Brahman, they are

sometimes spoken of as Brahman itself, just as when we say

" I am sick " , we mean " My body is dark " , and not " My jIva is

dark " . Yet, the adjective " sick " is still used to describe " I " .

Similarly, because Brahman is the Innermost Self, the jIva

and prakRti, being adjectives or attributes of Brahman, are

also sometimes described as Brahman. This terminology is also

adopted in the Gita.

 

> Brahman is God, not souls & Matter included!

 

Response to Criticism

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

 

We also agree that Brahman is God. But because Brahman is

the all-pervasive essence of the universe as we know it,

souls and matter are included as attributes, and comprehended

within Brahman. That is all.

 

 

I know Sri Ananda Tirtha's followers have objections to Ramanuja's

philosophy -- but terminological squabbles such as the one raised

above, to my knowledge, are not arguments made by the great vidvAns

of Dvaita.

 

bhaktAnghrireNu,

Mani

[Guest guest]

Sorry, I had written one paragraph incorrectly.

Here is the emended text:

 

Mani Varadarajan writes:

> Because the jIva and prakRti are the body of Brahman, they are

> sometimes spoken of as Brahman itself, just as when we say

> " I am dark " , we mean " My body is dark " , and not " My jIva is

> dark " . Yet, the adjective " dark " is still used to describe " I " .