QUIZ # 2

August 8, 1999

[Krishna Kalale] Dear friends,

Adiyen knows that the last quiz was not answered by me. That will be done

shortly as appropriately as the limits of adiyen's knowledge permits. I

cannot wait to get this quiz out on the net - just for some philosophic

entertainment! This is not to state that adiyen knows. If adiyen knows

the real truth behind this question, it would not be that amusing for me to

ask this quiz as I am today. Adiyen realizes that there are very learned

scholars on this net. This is not to test anyone and this email does not

mean that I know the answer to this quiz. Long time back, my cousin Murali

Kadambi asked this question to me. I gave him some answer that I felt will

be just enough to make him confused enough not to probe further in to this

( in other words I escaped from the predicament). I am not sure that he

was convinced. However, my answer was somewhat like - if some strange

questions are asked by children, their parents give this universal classic

answer " Just go to bed now, it is too late;You should be very sleepy, that

is why you are asking all these wierd questions " .

Question:

Assume that a person X is chosen to get moksha. In the state of moksha,

that person will be absorbed in the knowledge of the divine blissful

Brahman who is Ananda maya! and will not think of his past bondage at all.

Even according to Visistadvaita, he will be spared from even the memories

of such sorrowful / sapless experiences of bondage. His experience will be

filled with " Brahman " knowledge and he eternally revels in the ultimate

bliss of that communion henceforth. He will not think or even for a moment

ponder about his past. He will not remember his brothers, sisters, home,

parents and all those experiences he experienced when he was in bondage. As

far as this mukta soul is concerned, the past experiences ceased to exist

from the moment, he got moksha.

What is wrong if one states that, since this experience of universe comes

to an end at the time of moksha, it is ok to state that this universe

experience was just like a dream, it is there during bondage and it

vanishes when one attains moksha. Since the universe experience vanishes

at the time of moksha, one can state that, " this universe experience is

unreal or illusory, due to the the rule that - " A thing can be technically

termed as illusion, if it appears to exist currently and later on vanishes

completely ( or sublates itself), never to be found again " .

If this is so, there should not be much controversy or arguments between

ADVAITA and VISISTADVAITA. Finally these two schools are saying the same

thing. They may differ in the fashion in which the textbooks are written.

Any two authors with distinct genuine originalities, separated by a couple

of hundreds of years of time, who write about the same subject, say

" Ramayana " differ from one another slightly; But they are essentially

saying the same thing (Ramayana) in different styles or approaches.

QUIZ : So, is there a fallacy in the above logic? or is it fine to state

so?

*****Note it is adiyen's sincere feeling that this is not to offend anyone.

So bhagavatas, ignore and forgive me if this not to your taste******

Adiyen Krishna Kalale

August 8, 1999

Dear Sriman Kalale:

The answer is PART SPECULATION and partly from

a discussion on dreams with adiYen's father during a

train journey in India. ( illusions were discussed

only tangentially )

The problem is the definition of an illusion?

From the statements in your quiz, it appears that you

equate an illusion to one or both

of the two followings definitions

1. Something that is not permanent.

2. Something that is forgotten.

However, that these experiences of the muktha existed

is permanent. the muktha may not remember this, but

this is not relevant to judge whether the given

experience is an illusion or not.

However, adiyen feels that classifing something as an illusion based

on either of these above two characteristics is flawed.

(PURE SPECULATION)

The correct definition of an illusion would probably be where

the different methods of perception do not agree. For example,

if one sees a mirage a water, and attempts to touch the water

the sense of touch will indicate that there is no water while

the eyes will indicate that there is water. Therefore, that

water is present in the given location is an illusion.

However, the fact that eyes perceived water in the given location

is not an illusion.

At the time of the dream, the experiences appear real to the dreamer

and the physical body reacts to the events in the

dream. ( for example, heart rate changes )

Therefore, a dream was not an illusion in that a dream

did really exist as a dream. The objects within the dream

have no existence outside of the dream, but this does not make

them unreal. they exist for the duration of the dream as

objects, and that they existed as objects in a dream

is permanent and real

therefore,

Answer no 1: Non permanence in a physical sense is not equal

to non

existence.

( that objects in the dream existed as objects in the dream

is permanent and therefore real)

Similarly, that the muktha had these pleasure and pain experiences

in the physical world is permanent and real.

Answer No 2: Loss of memmory about an event does not make it

an illusion.

Hope this helps. adiYen is sure other members will quote some

Acharyas' answer to these questions which should clarify

the issue completely. (adiYen is pretty sure the question would

have been asked and answered somewhere)

adiYen Ramanuja Dasan

Anand Srinivasan

Off: 9-155 Management Education Center

44 West 4th St., New York,

NY 10012

Ph: (212) 998 - 0321

August 9, 1999

> Krishna Kalale [kkalale1]

> Saturday, August 07, 1999 8:55 PM

> QUIZ # 2

>

Assuming the following is valid,

> He will not remember his brothers, sisters, home,

> parents and all those experiences he experienced

> when he was in bondage.

and if the above premise make the following true:

> As far as this mukta soul is concerned, the past

> experiences ceased to exist from the moment,

> he got moksha.

Then, Krishna, please lend me $10,000 and in a

little while adiyEn will forget about it. Then,

we both will agree, since adiyEn has forgotten

about it, that the whole thing never happened,

it is only an illusion existing in your mind.

i.e. is forgetting = never happened, only illusion?

Now, Srimad Azhagiya Singar clearly stated in

one of the tele-upanyaasams, in Sri Vaikuntam we

serve our Lord only through our Acharya. If we

forget all our experiences of prkrthi maNdalam

then, how are we going to identify our Acharya

in Sri Vaikuntam?

Further, in Sri Vaikuntam our dharmabootha jyAnam

will be fully manifested. In such a state why

would our memory be less than perfect.

Surly, adiyEn is missing many more objections to

the stated premise and the actual question.

srimad azhagiya singar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

-- adiyEn ramanuja dasan

August 9, 1999

Parthasarati Dileepan [sMTP:dileepan]

Sunday, August 08, 1999 8:29 PM

Re: QUIZ # 2

> Krishna Kalale [kkalale1]

> Saturday, August 07, 1999 8:55 PM

> QUIZ # 2

>

Assuming the following is valid,

> He will not remember his brothers, sisters, home,

> parents and all those experiences he experienced

> when he was in bondage.

and if the above premise make the following true:

> As far as this mukta soul is concerned, the past

> experiences ceased to exist from the moment,

> he got moksha.

Then, Krishna, please lend me $10,000 and in a

little while adiyEn will forget about it. Then,

we both will agree, since adiyEn has forgotten

about it, that the whole thing never happened,

it is only an illusion existing in your mind.

[Krishna Kalale]

Dear sri dileepan, According to Advaita, it is true that whatever $10000

deal we made or make here is illusory from the absolute perspective. Take

this seriously. If a thing appears to exist and is found never to exist

ever after a certain finite period of time, then Advaitins define that the

object as illusory. Note that moksa is eternal, hence this world experience

will become a finite infinitesimal period when compared to eternity in

moksa. Even when the world experience is there, it is not real since it is

only due to ajnana. This is one of the definitions of " vyavaharika satya "

ie. conventional reality in advaita. Even taking from the point of view of

" moksha " stage, if world experience were never to come back again, we can

take that prior world experience as really just an aberration in perception

than reality. ( I guess I have to take this devil's advocate's role....

this should be pretty natural to me.!. )

i.e. is forgetting = never happened, only illusion?

[Krishna Kalale]

Note this is just not forgetting. Even taking the mirage example, the

world experience can be taken as an aberration of perception rather than

reality. Hence the moksha stage will become truth and all experiences

before it false ie. only apparent not real.

Now, Srimad Azhagiya Singar clearly stated in

one of the tele-upanyaasams, in Sri Vaikuntam we

serve our Lord only through our Acharya. If we

forget all our experiences of prkrthi maNdalam

then, how are we going to identify our Acharya

in Sri Vaikuntam?

[Krishna Kalale] Note this is not the case, since you will not recognise

your acharya by the prakrita body, since in moksa there is no prakrita body

but only a divine body. Hence your perception of your acharya here is of

no use in recognising HIM in vaikuntam. (I guess the devil is doing fine

here!!)

In addition, HH Azhagia singar's words cannot be used as " testimony " in

interscholastic debates, since an advaitin can use the word of his acharya

against this and there is no basis for comparison. One has to stick to

vedic / gita / pramanas. Not even naalayiram can be used as testimony /

pramana.

Further, in Sri Vaikuntam our dharmabootha jyAnam

will be fully manifested. In such a state why

would our memory be less than perfect.

[Krishna Kalale]

Note even if our dharmabutha jnanam is perfect, the object of

dharmabhutajnanam will not be matter and material experiences it will be

clearly filled with brahman knowledge only. Hence the material experiences

can be taken as false from the perspective of moksha ( Ah I love to be a

devil !)

Surly, adiyEn is missing many more objections to

the stated premise and the actual question.

srimad azhagiya singar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

-- adiyEn ramanuja dasan

------

Srimate Sri Laksminrisimha Divya Paduka Sevaka

Srivan Satakopa Sri Narayana Yatindra Mahadesikaya Nama

[Krishna Kalale] adiyen is still waiting for ideas on this subject..

[Krishna Kalale] ---------------------

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

Srimate Sri Laksminrisimha Divya Paduka Sevaka

Srivan Satakopa Sri Narayana Yatindra Mahadesikaya Nama

[Krishna Kalale] srimathe srivanshatagopa sri vedanta desika yatindra

mahadesikaya namah

August 10, 1999

Shree Rama

I hope i can try and shed some light on this subject. If a object exists

today and tomorrow it is gone, it does not mean that it is unreal or fake.

Rather using the concept of energy conservation we can say it exists but in a

different state. That state it existed in before is not fake or unreal but it

is changing and transitory. For example i don't remember any of my memories as

being a year old child does that mean that my experiences did not occur or are

unreal? No, rather it means i don't have any recollection of it and my

understanding of my younger years depends on my parents and what they saw. In

the same way when we recieve moksha we don't remember our selves during bondage

but Sriman Narayana does and it is through him being our antayarami that we

have any recollection of ourselves. But i have read somewhere that in

Visisthadvaita that we believe upon moksha we remember our experiences during

bondage and our rememberance of that is what gives us greater bliss because we

have the knowledge that through Sriman Narayana's infinite mercy, love and

grace we have passed over the bonds of samsara. I hope this helps, thanks.

Shree Rama

-Mukunda Vijaya Raghavan

August 10, 1999

Please accept adiyen's pranamams.

Sri Kalale posted an interesting question, and adiyen is in full agreement with

the views of Sri Anand Srinivasan and Sri. P. Dileepan. The following is adiyens

two cents worth.

Dream is a state of mind (atleast on earth), wherein we selectively think about

something, at a more peaceful setting. Afterall, our dreams are more related to

what was in the back of our minds, prior to sleeping or the entire day. Although

we do burn some calories sleeping, we do not perform work (please ignore the

sleep walking part). Hence, we are not accomplishing anything as we dream. Prior

to moksham, the jiva must have strived to attain all the qualities that are

required for moksham. At every stage of its existence it was working, and in

some stages was striving harder to reach Perumal or the Parabrahman.

adiyen is not familiar with advaita philosophy. But advaitins do praise

Narayana. If this is the case, why would Narayana/Perumal take up several

avatharams, only to save people who are in this dream state of samsara? Why

should there have been a Ramayana or Mahabharatha? Why did Lord Krishna have had

to teach Arjuna the means to salvation? Does this mean that the Vedas,

Upanishads, etc are not Real?

Considering the time concept, our life on earth is insignificant. This is true.

If i am not mistaken, i do remember reading somewhere that 4years in human life

is equivalent to a second in Heaven. It is true that our life span is but a few

seconds with respect to the heavenly bodies. {Here's something that might sound

interesting. If 4years (human life span) is equivalent to 1second, and if say

Perumal were to sleep for 8hours (i guess we do, lets say HE does too), this

would then be equivalent to a soul having to go through atleast a thousand

birth/death/birth cycles (each cycle lasting a hundred years, yes, i am being

generous, and the math is easier this way) if it was unable to attain the path

to moksham}. Sounds phenomenal, because time is relative.

Yes, our life here is extremely insignificant from a time concept. The

existence of this world maybe in the dream mode for Perumal or the Parabrahman,

but we do not become Perumal (irrespective of the suddha satvam that the soul

gets) when we attain moksham, but still stay his servant, actually a very dear

servant. So, its difficult to accept that on attaining moksham, the soul feels

that it was in a state of dream, if anything it should be a nightmare, having

had to struggle through samsara before reaching Perumal or Parabrahman!!!

Just one last thing. If moksham is real, and our existence here is not real (i.e

its a dream), how can u get to a " real " stage, from an " un-real " stage? How can

u get " something " out of " nothing " ? If science is correct in teaching us the

concept of conservation of energy, then how can one derive " something " from

" nothing " ? This aspect cannot be discounted, because we do accept the fact that

Perumal (i.e Parabrahman, sorry i like using the word Perumal) can create the

world and destroy it. Obviously HE is not going to use an illusionary phase to

support zillions of souls that are hoping to attain salvation or moksham.

I must confess that this question is more thought provoking than the

sandhyavandhanam / nithya karma discussions. Thanx to Sri Krishna Kalale for

getting the brain cells working..

adiyen, ramanuja dasan

(srinivasan)

August 10, 1999

Sri:

Sri Lakshmi nrisimha parabrahmaNE nama:

Sri Lakshmi nrisimha divya paduka sevaka

srivan satakopa sri narayana yatindra mahadesikaya nama:

>

> Krishna Kalale [kkalale1]

> Monday, August 09, 1999 4:09 PM

>

>> Then, Krishna, please lend me $10,000 and in a

>> little while adiyEn will forget about it. Then,

>> we both will agree, since adiyEn has forgotten

>> about it, that the whole thing never happened,

>> it is only an illusion existing in your mind.

>

> [Krishna Kalale]

>

> Dear sri dileepan, According to Advaita, it is true that

> whatever $10000 deal we made or make here is illusory from

> the absolute perspective. Take this seriously.

adiyEn is quite serious about it. Hope you

are too. Please arrange for the $10,000 to

be sent to me ASAP, from the person who is

advocating the advaitic POV. The person who

is advocating advaitam has to put up or shut up.

> If a thing appears to exist and is found never to exist

> ever after a certain finite period of time, then Advaitins

> define that the object as illusory.

Are you saying that we are free to define anything

in any way we want. If this is so, anything can be

proved. There is nothing more absurd than this.

From prathyaksham we can very easily see that

an object that exists for a period of time is

said to have existed for that duration of time.

If someone claims that an object is illusory

if it existed only for a short period, then

it is up to that person to proved that. If

he says that he is defining reality and illusion

in that fashion, then all we can do is laugh

and ignore him.

> Note that moksa is eternal, hence this world

> experience will become a finite infinitesimal

> period when compared to eternity in moksa.

Compared to the life time of a human being

an insect lives only an infinitesimal period.

Therefore, an insect's life is unreal, but

the human's life is real. What an absurdity?!

> Even when the world experience is there, it is

> not real since it is only due to ajnana. This is one of

> the definitions of " vyavaharika satya " ie. conventional

> reality in advaita.

Another definition!!!

Can you provide any pramANAs for this

" vyavaharika " mumbo jumbo?

> Even taking from the point of view of

> " moksha " stage, if world experience were never to come

> back again, we can take that prior world experience as

> really just an aberration in perception

> than reality.

This is complete nonsense. Even in Sri Vaikuntam

we have permanent reality (nithyam) and temporary

reality (anithyam). Please review adiyEn's post

on the subject " Regarding Time " . Just because

something is not eternal does not mean it is

unreal. This is contrary to " prathyaksham " and

has no basis in the Vedas, as far as adiyEn has

heard from you yourself, among others.

>> i.e. is forgetting = never happened, only illusion?

> [Krishna Kalale]

> Note this is just not forgetting.

Please read your original question again:

" He will not remember his brothers, sisters, home,

parents and all those experiences he experienced

when he was in bondage. As far as this mukta soul

is concerned, the past experiences ceased to exist

from the moment, he got moksha. "

Why do you now say it not just forgetting?

> Even taking the mirage example, the world experience

> can be taken as an aberration of perception rather than

> reality. Hence the moksha stage will become truth and

> all experiences before it false ie. only apparent not real.

Aberration means abnormal, not unreal. You see,

sometimes an aberration is just an aberration :-).

All your conclusions follow from premises that

are just defined or simply made up. Unless

these premises are first proved with proper

pramANAs there is no need to take any of the

conclusions seriously.

>

>> Now, Srimad Azhagiya Singar clearly stated in

>> one of the tele-upanyaasams, in Sri Vaikuntam we

>> serve our Lord only through our Acharya. If we

>> forget all our experiences of prkrthi maNdalam

>> then, how are we going to identify our Acharya

>> in Sri Vaikuntam?

> [Krishna Kalale] Note this is not the case,

> since you will not recognize your acharya by

> the prakrita body, since in moksa there is no

> prakrita body but only a divine body. Hence

> your perception of your acharya here is of

> no use in recognising HIM in vaikuntam.

> (I guess the devil is doing fine here!!)

Not so fast!!

If adiyEn has no knowledge of any of my

experiences in this prkrithi maNdalam then

adiyEn will have no recollection of even

having had an Acharya. Then why would

adiyEn even look for an Acharaya in Sri

Vaikuntam, whether in prkrita body or

divine body.

It is well known that when we cross Viraja

nathi we will relinquish the remaining

vestiges of prkrithi and adorn a divine

body. Thus, our Acharyas in Sri Vaikuntam

will of course be in divine bodies. But

from the srI sukthIs of our Acharyas we

know that we will serve our Lord only

through them. Thus, one way or another

we are going to be able to identify them

when we go there. For this to happen

we have to have recollection of our

connection with them in this prkrithi

maNdalam. This was the purport of

adiyEn's original point.

>

> In addition, HH Azhagia singar's words cannot

> be used as " testimony " in interscholastic debates,

> since an advaitin can use the word of his acharya

> against this and there is no basis for comparison.

adiyEn is least bit interested, and also least

qualified to engage in inter-scholastic debates.

However, from your first post adiyEn is under

the impression that this whole discussion is

about a question asked by another Sri Vaishnava.

Then what is the problem in accepting our Acharya?

>

>> Further, in Sri Vaikuntam our dharmabootha jyAnam

>> will be fully manifested. In such a state why

>> would our memory be less than perfect.

> [Krishna Kalale]

> Note even if our dharmabutha jnanam is perfect,

> the object of dharmabhutajnanam will not be

> matter and material experiences it will be

> clearly filled with brahman knowledge only.

> Hence the material experiences can be taken

> as false from the perspective of moksha.

[You are using terms that are not clear to me.

Let me go ahead and assume that by material

experience you are meaning experiences

in this material universe.]

Why would we be filled only with " brahman

knowledge " ? Since our knowledge is going

to be infinite there is no need to place

the kinds of limits you are suggesting.

As we enjoy brahman 100% why can't we be

fully aware of all our experiences. In

that state of perfect and permanent bliss

knowledge of earlier suffering can only be

amusing and add to the pleasure.

Your advocacy of the devil's POV contains

a lot of mumbo jumbo, but not much in terms

of pramANAs. As you are well aware, there

are ample pramANAs for the points adiyEn

quoted in the last post. They come from

our sampradayam, the sampradayam which

has " Sadadhooshani " on its side. In as

much as Sadadhooshani remains un-refuted

for 700 years we can be sure that the

advaitic position, which is referred to

as " poison " by our Acharays, remains

poisonous. Since adiyEn's knowledge is

between nil and zero adiyEn cannot quote

references from vEdas. But it is clear

that our Acharays can stand their ground

against the best of the advaithees.

srimad azhagiya singar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

-- adiyEn ramanuja dasan

August 10, 1999

Before I go further, let me clarify my position. I want to continue with

this quiz stuff just to get everyone's brain cells popping. I would like

people here on the net to get less emotional and be more objective in

facing advaitic views. Hence I have decided to act devil's advocate

seriously. The reason I am doing is that if our own friends, colleagues or

relatives (or even closer relatives like children) pose these questions,

We should have an objective answer to them and not an emotional one. I am

sure most of you know the answer to these questions but not all of them on

the net may have a very objective perspective. I like the way Sri Dileepan

is arguing and I will still hold my position of devil's advocate just to

drive our debates to the direction shown by our divine acharyas like Sri

vedantadesika, Sri Ramanuja etc. In war everything is fair and that too for

a devil any quotation or method is fine. Note that anyone in your

environment can potentially turn into a devil. I want you to be

prepared!...

[Krishna Kalale] dileepan wrote

From prathyaksham we can very easily see that

an object that exists for a period of time is

said to have existed for that duration of time.

If someone claims that an object is illusory

if it existed only for a short period, then

it is up to that person to proved that. If

he says that he is defining reality and illusion

in that fashion, then all we can do is laugh

and ignore him.

[Krishna Kalale]

Not so easy my friend. As per advaita whatever is presented to as

prathyaksham is false. The very fact that something appears to us through

our senses etc. they are all false. This whole creation is not at all

there. It is a fiction of our ignorant mind. Even our individualities are

just fictitious. In fact, a Harvard Professor has written a book called

the " bicameral mind " which explains how the right and left portions of our

brains talk to each other over neural highways and create the illusion

called the " I " . The whole concept of I is fictitious self created by this

complex called the " body, mind and the intellect " all of which is within

the realm of illusion. EVen the vedas which are presented to us through

our senses is ultimately false though it may contain some hints regarding

the divine ever present ever released pure ATMAN.

> Note that moksa is eternal, hence this world

> experience will become a finite infinitesimal

> period when compared to eternity in moksa.

dileepan: Compared to the life time of a human being

an insect lives only an infinitesimal period.

Therefore, an insect's life is unreal, but

the human's life is real. What an absurdity?!

[Krishna Kalale] the comparison here is a finite period t to infinity.

Not a period t and large time T, of course the ratio of which is T / t

which is still finite and not infinite. An advaitin would state that as

long as you are caught in the cycle of the illusory experiential world all

this logic is going to dissuade you. If you take our ADVAITIN's words and

just believe in the pure ATMAN and that you are that imperishable atman and

there is nothing else, all these confusions disappear like darkness driven

out by light.

> Even when the world experience is there, it is

> not real since it is only due to ajnana. This is one of

> the definitions of " vyavaharika satya " ie. conventional

> reality in advaita.

[Krishna Kalale] dileepan: Another definition!!!

Can you provide any pramANAs for this

" vyavaharika " mumbo jumbo?

[Krishna Kalale]

yes sir, Advaitic acharyas have identified this " sad eve somya idam agra

asit ekam eva advitiyam " . which means ' All this here existed as sat which

is one only without a second " . This means only one undifferentiated

quantity is truth and naturally it follows that this multiplicity is false.

The conventional vyavharika world has this multiplicity which is due to

false perception.

> Even taking from the point of view of

> " moksha " stage, if world experience were never to come

> back again, we can take that prior world experience as

> really just an aberration in perception

> than reality.

This is complete nonsense. Even in Sri Vaikuntam

we have permanent reality (nithyam) and temporary

reality (anithyam). Please review adiyEn's post

on the subject " Regarding Time " . Just because

something is not eternal does not mean it is

unreal. This is contrary to " prathyaksham " and

has no basis in the Vedas, as far as adiyEn has

heard from you yourself, among others.

[Krishna Kalale] Sri Dileepan, dont take this seriously. I dont have your

article on time. This is a QUIZ. The whole point is people should think

about this seriously. the answers will be given later (of course as much

or as little as adiyen knows). Again dont worry about prathyaksham . It

is the basis for all illusion. dont believe in prathyaksham !!

>> i.e. is forgetting = never happened, only illusion?

> [Krishna Kalale]

> Note this is just not forgetting.

Please read your original question again:

" He will not remember his brothers, sisters, home,

parents and all those experiences he experienced

when he was in bondage. As far as this mukta soul

is concerned, the past experiences ceased to exist

from the moment, he got moksha. "

Why do you now say it not just forgetting?

[Krishna Kalale] The words " He will not remember " is an erroneous

sentence. I admit it. I meant it differently. I should have used " He

will realize that all else in the past is totally false and the false

experience will be completely lost in moksha without a trace - including

the remembrance of it. There will be no knower since in moksha, known

knower and knowing will all fuse in to one big amorphous blob!! (like how

my friend vish vishwananth puts it) "

> Even taking the mirage example, the world experience

> can be taken as an aberration of perception rather than

> reality. Hence the moksha stage will become truth and

> all experiences before it false ie. only apparent not real.

Aberration means abnormal, not unreal. You see,

sometimes an aberration is just an aberration :-).

All your conclusions follow from premises that

are just defined or simply made up. Unless

these premises are first proved with proper

pramANAs there is no need to take any of the

conclusions seriously.

[Krishna Kalale]

Aberration could be confusing terminology. What I mean here is the world

experience is due to some trick of " ignorance " like how our eyes are

tricked to believe that there is water in a mirage.

>

>> Now, Srimad Azhagiya Singar clearly stated in

>> one of the tele-upanyaasams, in Sri Vaikuntam we

>> serve our Lord only through our Acharya. If we

>> forget all our experiences of prkrthi maNdalam

>> then, how are we going to identify our Acharya

>> in Sri Vaikuntam?

> [Krishna Kalale] Note this is not the case,

> since you will not recognize your acharya by

> the prakrita body, since in moksa there is no

> prakrita body but only a divine body. Hence

> your perception of your acharya here is of

> no use in recognising HIM in vaikuntam.

> (I guess the devil is doing fine here!!)

Not so fast!!

If adiyEn has no knowledge of any of my

experiences in this prkrithi maNdalam then

adiyEn will have no recollection of even

having had an Acharya. Then why would

adiyEn even look for an Acharaya in Sri

Vaikuntam, whether in prkrita body or

divine body.

It is well known that when we cross Viraja

nathi we will relinquish the remaining

vestiges of prkrithi and adorn a divine

body. Thus, our Acharyas in Sri Vaikuntam

will of course be in divine bodies. But

from the srI sukthIs of our Acharyas we

know that we will serve our Lord only

through them. Thus, one way or another

we are going to be able to identify them

when we go there. For this to happen

we have to have recollection of our

connection with them in this prkrithi

maNdalam. This was the purport of

adiyEn's original point.

[Krishna Kalale] Dear sri dileepan, I am not worried about post moksha

stage as much. Many folks can say different things about post moksha. In

fact the issues of kainkaryam etc. cannot be supported " un mistakably " even

using sruthis.

>

> In addition, HH Azhagia singar's words cannot

> be used as " testimony " in interscholastic debates,

> since an advaitin can use the word of his acharya

> against this and there is no basis for comparison.

adiyEn is least bit interested, and also least

qualified to engage in inter-scholastic debates.

However, from your first post adiyEn is under

the impression that this whole discussion is

about a question asked by another Sri Vaishnava.

Then what is the problem in accepting our Acharya?

[Krishna Kalale] let us use only scriptural evidence to make arguments

fair.

>

>> Further, in Sri Vaikuntam our dharmabootha jyAnam

>> will be fully manifested. In such a state why

>> would our memory be less than perfect.

> [Krishna Kalale]

> Note even if our dharmabutha jnanam is perfect,

> the object of dharmabhutajnanam will not be

> matter and material experiences it will be

> clearly filled with brahman knowledge only.

> Hence the material experiences can be taken

> as false from the perspective of moksha.

[You are using terms that are not clear to me.

Let me go ahead and assume that by material

experience you are meaning experiences

in this material universe.]

Why would we be filled only with " brahman

knowledge " ? Since our knowledge is going

to be infinite there is no need to place

the kinds of limits you are suggesting.

As we enjoy brahman 100% why can't we be

fully aware of all our experiences. In

that state of perfect and permanent bliss

knowledge of earlier suffering can only be

amusing and add to the pleasure.

Your advocacy of the devil's POV contains

a lot of mumbo jumbo, but not much in terms

of pramANAs. As you are well aware, there

are ample pramANAs for the points adiyEn

quoted in the last post. They come from

our sampradayam, the sampradayam which

has " Sadadhooshani " on its side. In as

much as Sadadhooshani remains un-refuted

for 700 years we can be sure that the

advaitic position, which is referred to

as " poison " by our Acharays, remains

poisonous. Since adiyEn's knowledge is

between nil and zero adiyEn cannot quote

references from vEdas. But it is clear

that our Acharays can stand their ground

against the best of the advaithees.

[Krishna Kalale]

No offence meant regarding our acharyas. I would like people to think hard

on these issues understand our position. that's all.

srimad azhagiya singar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

-- adiyEn ramanuja dasan

------

Srimate Sri Laksminrisimha Divya Paduka Sevaka

Srivan Satakopa Sri Narayana Yatindra Mahadesikaya Nama

[Krishna Kalale] Dear friend, the whole point is to highlight the strength

of our position. Not many people delve deeply into sathadushani. To make

it easier, Dr. Chari has written " shatadushani " in english in the book

" Advaita and Visistadvaita " . How many folks have read it.? (Yes it is out

of print. we will get them soon. but still the numbers dont change unless

we do something about it). It will be too late to look into " shatadushani "

when for example our own children get convinced by advaita or even

christianity due to external influence. Adiyen is just reminding folks to

brush up on these issues. My main point is that we should get convinced by

our acharyas not because our elders told us so, not because it is our

tradition, and not because of any kind of blind faith. However, we should

seriously appreciate the brilliance of our acharyas by conviction about

their sri suktis. It is not enough to cook " shakkara pongal, akkara

vadisal, bisi bele huli, payasam " and " recite pasurams and stotras " on days

such as emberumanar thirunakshatrams or nammalwars tirunakshatrams etc. (Oh

no what am I saying. I really enjoy that fatty food!); In addition, we

have to understand what they have taught and transmit to our children so

that our next generation agrees with our tradition by intellectual

conviction rather than pure belief or fear.

August 11, 1999

Sri:

Sri Lakshmi nrisimha parabrahmaNE nama:

Sri Lakshmi nrisimha divya paduka sevaka

srivan satakopa sri narayana yatindra mahadesikaya nama:

Dear Krishna:

In the course of this discussion you have

roped in too many subjects. You started

with a question from a Sri Vaishnava who

wondered whether Sankara and Sri Ramanuja

were really saying the same thing. Then

you took the role of an advaitic devil

and wanted to defend advaitam. In the

latest mail you want to protect our kids

from falling into advaitam.

All adiyEn wanted to do was to answer the

first question. But, since adiyEn is already

deep into this let me try to provide some

answers to the best of adiyEn's limited

knowledge gained only through the grace of

AchAryas such as Srimad Azhagiya Singar and

Sri SrivatsAngAchar.

#1 Question from a Sri Vaishnava

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

Krishna Kalale wrote:

" ..... If this is so, there should not

be much controversy or arguments between

ADVAITA and VISISTADVAITA. Finally these

two schools are saying the same thing. "

The fallacy of the above was proved beyond

any doubt in the first response using

our Acharyas words. Since this was a

question from a Sri Vaishnava there cannot

be any problem accepting our Acharya as

pramANAm. (adiyEn is till waiting for

the $10,000 :-).)

#2: Advaitic devil's position

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

As noted in the second mail adiyEn has

no interest in arguing with an advaitin,

devil or no devil. This will not affect

the future of our kids as will be explained

below. In any case, let me just make a

few observations.

adiyEn wanted you to quote pramANAs for

the many definitions and conclusions that

the devil so freely made. The only pramANA

quoted was:

" sad eve somya idam agra asit ekam

eva advitiyam " .

You translated it as:

" which means 'All this here existed

as sat which is one only without a

second " .

and further explained thus:

" This means only one undifferentiated

quantity is truth and naturally it

follows that this multiplicity is false. "

True to the devil's advocate role, you have

distorted the meaning of the statement.

How did you get " multiplicity is false "

from " sad eve somya idam agra asit ekam

eva advitiyam " ? Your own translation says

" all this here existed as sat " . This

only says all this existed as sat. It

does not say that for all eternity it

remained as one and only one, i.e. " advitiyum " .

Here adiyEn would like to present a translation

of the quoted upanishadic statement from an

advaitin. Please refer to the publication

by Sri Ramakrishna Matam, " UpanishadsAram by

ANNA, page 70. Sri ANNA translates the verse

6.2.2 of ChAndhOgyam into Tamil thus,

In Tamil:

" idhu sattAgavE thAn srushtikku mun

irundhathu "

In English (translated by adiyEn):

" It remained as " sat " at a time

before srushti, as one, not two. "

Note the phrase, " srushttikku mun " (at a

time before shrushti). Only a devil can

extrapolate this to mean for eternity

there is only one, no two :-).

Now, a more appropriate explanation for

Ch 6.2.2 is as follows.

At a time before shrushti, all achEtanam

and chEtanam in subtle form remained

merged in brahman as one. At that time

there was only one, no two.

It follows then, that at the time of shrushti,

the Lord created all we see by giving the subtle

matter form and name, etc., etc. Everything

we see is as real as reality can get. This

conclusion is in no way contrary to Ch 6.2.2.

Further, the Vedas are filled with duality

statements. How would the advaitins handle

them? Here, a small story is instructive.

There was a middle aged man who married

a young girl as his second wife. The first

wife was weary of the man's proclivities

and did not like him to look young. So she

started plucking his black hair one by one.

But the second wife being young herself did

not want her husband to look old. So she

started plucking the man's gray hair. Soon

the man was left with no hair at all.

Caught between the two wives the man ended

up with no hair at all. Similarly, caught

between the advaitins and the dvaitIs the

vEdAs will end up with no truth at all.

On the contrary, VisistAdvaitam accepts

the entire vEdas to be completely true

and interprets all the statements with

equal and complete validity.

(note: adiyEn heard this story from

Sri SrivatsangAchar)

Now, here is some more of what you said,

Krishna Kalale as devil's advocate said:

" The conventional vyavharika world

has this multiplicity which is due to

false perception. "

Why don't you provide some pramANAs for

this. Please explain from where in vEdas

do you get " vyavaharika " world? While

you answer this, please let us also know,

[1] if only brahman existed, how come

it fell into the so called " vyavaharika "

world and started having false

perceptions?

[2] since brahman is complete knowledge

surely it knew there is nothing other

than itself. Where did this " vyavaharika "

world come from?

[3] if you say this is due to maya, then

are you saying there was brahman and

maya? Then what happened to your ekamEva

advatIyam?

[4] is the brahman dumb enough to fall

into the spell of maya?

[5] If advaitam is true, and since brahman

is complete knowledge, surely it knew

that Arjuna and the battle field were

unreal. What did the brahman think

when it started teaching Srimad BG?

Did it think that the unreal Arjuna

needs to be saved? Saved from what,

from the unreal doubts the unreal

Arjuna was having?

If a complete zero such as adiyEn can come up

with these questions about advaitam just imagine

what a well read scholar can do to it.

#3 Protecting young kids

Our kids are more in danger of the onslaught

of TV, materialism, and atheism, than advaitam.

It is adiyEn's considered opinion that the

life style we choose for ourselves and them

is more important for protecting them than a

clear understanding of why advaitam is false.

What we need is a strict Sri Vaishnava home

and utmost loyalty to our Acharya. Teaching

kids about Sri Vaishnavam, its practices, the

greatness of Azhavars and Acharyas, etc. are

infinitely more important than these polemics.

We must do our best to link our kids to the

great sampradayam by taking them to our

Acharays and get samasrayanam and baranyasam

done. We need to recite our Acharya taniyan

at the top of our voice daily in our homes

so that our kids will grow up listening

to them. We need to wear thirumaN kaappu

every day and make the kids wear it as often

as possible. These are the activities that

will protect them.

srimad azhagiya singar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

-- adiyEn ramanuja dasan

August 12, 1999

Parthasarati Dileepan [sMTP:dileepan]

Tuesday, August 10, 1999 7:04 PM

Re: QUIZ # 2

Sri:

Sri Lakshmi nrisimha parabrahmaNE nama:

Sri Lakshmi nrisimha divya paduka sevaka

srivan satakopa sri narayana yatindra mahadesikaya nama:

Dear Krishna:

In the course of this discussion you have

roped in too many subjects. You started

with a question from a Sri Vaishnava who

wondered whether Sankara and Sri Ramanuja

were really saying the same thing. Then

you took the role of an advaitic devil

and wanted to defend advaitam. In the

latest mail you want to protect our kids

from falling into advaitam.

[Krishna Kalale] I guess these issues are related to each other. Hence I

assume there is nothing wrong in clubbing these together.

All adiyEn wanted to do was to answer the

first question. But, since adiyEn is already

deep into this let me try to provide some

answers to the best of adiyEn's limited

knowledge gained only through the grace of

AchAryas such as Srimad Azhagiya Singar and

Sri SrivatsAngAchar.

[Krishna Kalale]

Thanks for summarizing some of the visistadvaitic views here. My

definition of being objective is : to find out whether " Reality " as

defined in advaita and in visistadvaita is exactly identical? Will advaita

be acceptable if one accepts their definition of reality (which may not be

the definition we are used to)?. My quiz's purpose is not really to find

out " advaita visistadvaita polemics " but more towards evoking the reader's

attention towards finding out what the actual differences are between the

two systems. This is meant evoke more academic interest rather than

emotional outburst.

[Krishna Kalale]

#3 Protecting young kids

Our kids are more in danger of the onslaught

of TV, materialism, and atheism, than advaitam.

It is adiyEn's considered opinion that the

life style we choose for ourselves and them

is more important for protecting them than a

clear understanding of why advaitam is false.

What we need is a strict Sri Vaishnava home

and utmost loyalty to our Acharya. Teaching

kids about Sri Vaishnavam, its practices, the

greatness of Azhavars and Acharyas, etc. are

infinitely more important than these polemics.

We must do our best to link our kids to the

great sampradayam by taking them to our

Acharays and get samasrayanam and baranyasam

done. We need to recite our Acharya taniyan

at the top of our voice daily in our homes

so that our kids will grow up listening

to them. We need to wear thirumaN kaappu

every day and make the kids wear it as often

as possible. These are the activities that

will protect them.

[Krishna Kalale]

In my previous email this is exactly what I wrote :

Dear friend, the whole point is to highlight the strength of our position.

Not many people delve deeply into sathadushani. To make it easier, Dr.

Chari has written " shatadushani " in english in the book " Advaita and

Visistadvaita " . How many folks have read it.? (Yes it is out of print. we

will get them soon. but still the numbers dont change unless we do

something about it). It will be too late to look into " shatadushani " when

for example our own children get convinced by advaita or even christianity

due to external influence. Adiyen is just reminding folks to brush up on

these issues. My main point is that we should get convinced by our

acharyas not because our elders told us so, not because it is our