Greatness of Bhagavad Ramanuja Darsanam (GRD 6)

[Guest guest]

Greatness of Bhagavad RamAnuja Darsanam (GRD 6)

(Other Differences)

=========================================-

SECTION 3D: “TRANSITORINESS “

SECTION 3E: " TRUTH EMERGES FROM UNTRUTH "

SECTION 3F: ARE DREAMS REAL ?

SECTION 3G: “LIBERATION THROUGH KNOWLEDGE.” And

SECTION 3H: “JEEVAN MUKTI”

(LIBERATION WHILE LIVING IN THE PHYSICAL BODY)

================================================

[Please read the note and request given while introducing the series. If

anything has been expressed forcefully, it is only to bring home the point

more graphically and is not meant to hurt anybody's feelings]

Dasoham

Anbil Ramaswamy

====================================================

SECTION 3 (D) TRANSITORINESS

====================================================

The Advaitins hold that other than Brahman, all else is

impermanent. Hence, not real. A mud pot when broken is no more

called a mud pot. It WAS, but IS NOT. Hence, its existence cannot be

termed as real. Whatever is inconstant is not real.

Comments:

(i ) This is a much more vulnerable argument than any advanced earlier.

*To be transitory is not to be illusory. Everything in the world is real and

not chimerical; factual and not

fatuous.

 

(ii) By this argument, Nirvisesha Advaita could label even the

Vedas themselves to be illusory since the Vedas are said to

disappear at the time of PraLaya, only to be brought back by

Brahman at the beginning of the next Kalpa.

 

This would be a blatant repudiation of the Vedas whereby even the SAmAnya

Dharmas (ordinary duties) prescribed therein would not have to be observed.

One will have no duties to perform and the non-performance will not result

in any harm.

 

(iii ) When everything is unreal, no teacher could be real and no pupil

either. As both of them are unreal, any instruction supposed to be

transmitted from teacher to pupil would also be unreal.

 

*The AchArya who believes his Sishya to be false cannot impart any knowledge

nor can a Sishya believing his AchArya to be false can imbibe any knowledge.

Where is the link between the teacher and the taught, when neither of them

is real?*

 

(iv) The very proposition that Brahman is shadowed by nescience is wholly

repugnant to the very nature of Brahman - the one destroyer of all

obscurations and shadowing.

*Such a proposition is not conducive to a Sense -illumination but only in

Sense-obscuration and Sense-Vacuation* says Kesava Iyengar

 

( v ) When Chandokya Upanishad says that there is one without a second, it

does not mean the world is unreal.

*ParamAtma and JeevAtma are real.

The world is real.

Vedas are real.

And all of them are ETERNALLY real.*

' He is without equal' means that there is none superior to him. When

someone says 'Arjuna is the real archer' it does not mean other archers are

not real; It only means that they are no match to Arjuna in his skills of

archery.

===================================================

SECTION 3 (E) " TRUTH EMERGES FROM UNTRUTH "

==================================================

The Advaitins talk of truth emerging from untruth - " Asatyaath

Satya Siddhi " . The untrue silver appears as true shell; from the

untrue serpent appears the true rope.

 

COMMENT OF OTHER SCHOOLS:

The answer of other schools is that so long as the silver

generates joy and the serpent produces fear - they should be

considered real .When the Vedas say " There was neither Sat nor

Asat " - it refers to the stage of deluge. By this, it cannot be

concluded that the very Brahman was neither Sat nor Asat.

 

Prof. Narayanachariar:

" As per the Advaitins, If the mumukshu does not know untruth also, it is

necessary to teach him first that untruth and then make him give it up for a

higher truth! "

 

Bhagavad RamAnuja says - 'Sruti is more kind to her followers than a 1000

parents together - " MAthA pithr sahasEbhyOpi vatsalathara: Sruti "

(Gita BAshyam II-44)

 

Why should such Sruti teach falsehood, only to be abandoned and prosecuted

and even mislead innocent novices? "

 

Prof. Narayanachariar-

Now, let us see what " Sathya " means.

Referring to the etymology of the word Satya, Bhagavad RamAnuja says - in

Vedartha Sangraha, quoting Taittriya Upanishad II-6 and BrihadAraNyaka

Upanishad III-9-9

Satya is a compound of Sat + Tyat which means-

*That which is HERE NOW + That which WAS THERE THEN " . In other words, that

truth or reality as (Satyam) is what we comprehend when the 'disembodied'

and 'embodied' forms of God are put together " *

==============================================================

SECTION 3 (F) ARE DREAMS REAL?

==============================================================

*BrihadAranyaka Upanishad categorically declares that dreams are real and

are created by God*

 

( i ) The question arises how can we conclude that they are

created by God? And, why not say that the JeevAtma itself could

create the dreams?

 

The answer is, for one thing- the JeevAtma has no power of

creation. For another, if it had the power, it will not create

unpleasant dreams for itself. We see tigers, fire, flood etc., in

which the dreamer appears as a victim. No body would indulge in

creating even in a dream such self- threatening , self- destructive

and unpleasant experiences to one's self.

 

Prof. Narayanachariar explains the meaning of the word " Swapiti " the state

of dreaming or deep sleep by etymology means " returns to one's self (i.e.)

to God as the Innermost dweller " . Thus, the dreams in the dream state and

the state of deep sleep are in the realm of ParamAtma and not of the

JeevAtma "

 

( ii ) The dreams are real so far as the person who dreams is

concerned and real so long as the duration of the dream. That the

objects in the dream vanish when the person wakes up underlines

the temporariness of the objects and *not that the experience itself was

unreal. The joy, the fear, the thrill, the excitement are all real for the

person dreaming who may even be able to remember and relate them

subsequently.

 

(iii) Why should God create dreams at all is the next question.

The answer is- The JeevAtma does some small good deeds and

some small bad ones. They are not big enough or significant

enough to attract a palpable reward or a palpable punishment. God

gives the JeevAtma a little pleasure through pleasant experiences in

the dreams so that he is happy for the duration of the dream

enjoying pleasant things; Similarly, for the small bad ones that

are not significant enough, a mild punishment is imposed by the

Lord by making the JeevAtma feel the pain by dreaming unpleasant

things and unpleasant experiences for the duration of the dreams.

 

(iv) Another question raised by Sri Chandrasekaran is that because sometimes

dreams follow certain experiences in real life, may be as a consequence and

continuation thereof, can it not be inferred that it is the jeeva through

such experiences, actually creates the dream scenes. The answer is that that

it is God who uses these impressions as raw materials to spin the dreams for

the Jeeva to experience.

 

(v) Another question by Sri Chandrasekaran is that children do not have

dreams. This is not proved by Science or experience. On the other hand, it

used to be said that the Lord shows flowers to make them smile happily and

takes away the show of flowers when they start crying on missing something.

Thus, even babies do experience pleasant and unpleasant moments, may be due

to small good or bad deeds done by them in their earlier lives.

============================================== ======

SECTION 3 (G) LIBERATION THROUGH KNOWLEDGE.

====================================================

The Advaitins hold that once the Jeeva acquires the knowledge of

its identity with the Paramatma, it acquires liberation.

 

Comment of Other Schools:

The other schools do not accept this because mere knowledge is not enough.

· merely knowing that hunger will be abated by food,

· merely knowing that thirst will be quenched by drinking water,

· merely knowing that ailments can be cured by medication

- cannot entail the relevant results unless action is taken to actually

consume the food, drink or medicine respectively.

· a mere knowledge of the route cannot take one to the destination unless

one actually travels towards the destination.

Knowledge is, of course, necessary as a motivating force for performing

appropriate action of say, Karma yoga, Bhakti yoga or Prapatti as the case

may be which would qualify one for liberation

 

Prof. Narayanachariar argues-

" The knowledge of a new city one has " not actually visited " , can be first

gained through a guidebook or a map, for the exact location of a building or

a street and on that basis when we actually visit that city the " experience "

now gained is not cancellatory of the former but confirmatory only.

 

Similarly, the photograph of a living person which we first see and then the

person himself - the two experiences are corroborative and not

contradictory.

 

Thus for Bhagavad RamAnuja, the Paravidyas constitute a direct means to

God-vision as understood by Veda VyAsa and his venerable father ParAsara.

The knowledge per se does NOT lead to mOksha but opens up a means to be

adopted for attaining mOksha "

 

Talking about 'Knowledge', Brahma Sutram starts with the opening sentence

thus:-

" Om atha atah brahma jignasaa " -

" Hereafter, Therefore, the desire to know Brahman " .

 

In this Sutra, we have

FIRST, the Brahman whose knowledge is desired;

SECONDLY, we have the desire to know (Jignasa).

THIDLY, We have the desire to know Brahman as a 'sequence'

(Atha) and as a consequence (Atah) of an antecedent occurrence.

 

All the following quotes are from Sri R. Kesava Iyengar's foreword to

" SathadooshaNi " by Sri Srivatsankachariar Swami.

 

*This opening sentence, according to Sri Vedanta Desika is incompatible with

the system of both Nirvisesha' and 'Advaita'- because the entity desiring

to know is unreal and non-existent as per the Nirvisesha Advaitins*

 

*There is nothing with reference to which there can be sense-signification

for there is no sense to be signified at all*

 

As Swami Desika puts it.

*If the word signifies 'sense' 'Nirvisesha' is gone;

If it does not, 'Brahman' is gone-

like the birth of a grandchild to a barren woman*

 

*First, a Nirvisesha Brahman is incapable of being an object of knowledge

.... *

 

*Secondly, there can be no 'desire to know'. Unless there is something in

Brahman which it is desirable to know. There can be no desire to know a

bare being Brahman in all its emptiness of husk and in all jejuneness of

vacuity.

 

*Unless there is something inherent in and characteristic of Brahman which

can kindle desire in the knower, no desire to know Brahman can at all

originate " ... When the knower is an illusion like a burnt cloth to use a

metaphor of the Advaitins -'dagda paTa'*

 

*There is no knower, and there can be no knowledge.

Without a knower to know and an object to be known, all talk of knowledge

leading to liberation can only be trick of duplicity and not a fact of

experience*

(Kesava Iyengar p.50 ibid)

 

*It is not correct to say that Knowledge of oneness of 'ParamAtma and

JeevAtma is mOksha ' and the knowledge of differentiation between them is

" SamsAra*

 

*The person who has no belief in the liberating knowledge provided by the

Vedas, the knower, the one who bestows knowledge, (i.e.) the Saastras which

is the source of knowledge that dispels ignorance-

*If all these are false, how can one talk about 'desire for knowledge' or

the 'efficacy of instruction' (UpadEsa)?*

 

*Verbal knowledge is per se unfruitful. It has to be experienced by the

hearer. The verbal knowledge that mango is sweet, however valid and

authentic, remains per se unfruitful to the hearer until he tastes it

himself*

 

" When a tiger cub, which lived with a flock of sheep was reminded that it

was indeed a tiger cub and not sheep, by practically demonstrating its

feeding on a bloody carcass.

*To say that he 'knew' he was a tiger would be weak indeed. He now

'was' a tiger "

(Troy Wilson Organ, p.33)

 

Prof. Narayanachariar adds;

* " The 'atha' preceding the AadEsa (the instruction) and the 'atah'

(therefore) further making the transmission of meaning continuous and smooth

and not indicating a contrary message of contrast, in which case, the

connectives would be " Thu " (but or on the contrary). The AadEsa follows as a

'corollary' and not emerges as 'disrupting', 'devastating' conclusion to the

contrary " *

====================================================

SECTION 3 (H) JEEVAN MUKTI

(LIBERATION WHILE LIVING IN THE PHYSICAL BODY)

===================================================

The Advaitins hold that it is possible for the individual soul to

attain liberation while still living in the phenomenal world with

the gross body - if it realizes its unity with Brahman since

realization (or knowledge) is enough to secure liberation. Several

examples are cited to illustrate how the body continues even after

one attains what they call ' Jeevan Mukti'

 

( i ) When once a wheel is turned around, even when we take off

our hand, it continues to revolve due to the momentum gained

while it was turned around.

 

( ii ) When a vehicle moves fast, even when the brake is applied, it

screeches to a halt only after traversing at least a short distance

from the point where the brake is applied.

 

( iii ) In Viveka ChooDAmaNi, Adhi Sankara compares the body of

a Jeevan mukta to the dry leaves clinging to the branches of a tree

during the fall season or a cucumber fruit that had over- ripened

clinging to the branch of the tree before finally falling down.

Advaitins call this 'Cucumber liberation'.

 

COMMENT OF OTHER SCHOOLS:

The other schools do not accept this 'Jeevan Mukti'.

They hold that liberation can be attained only on the fall of the

body. This is called ' Videha Mukti'- 'Out of body liberation'-

which can arise only on death. This is because, as Visishtadvaita

holds, on performance of Prapatti, all sins are extinguished except

that portion of PrArabda karma which the ' Dripta' Prapanna has

agreed to experience till the time comes for the fall of his body in

the normal course.

 

And, the very existence of the body is a result of such karma and is

required for experiencing the results of such karma. Only at the time of

death, there will be a nil balance of Karma thus entitling the Prapanna to

Moksha.

 

Here is an excerpt from Satapata Brahmana of Yajurveda

as translated by <B>Sir Monier Williams and quoted by Gerber(p.3)

which would show that the 'Jeevan Mukti' concept is not valid

and only 'Videha Mukti' is acknowledged in the Vedas.-

 

" The Gods lived constantly in dread of death-

The mighty Ender - So, with toilsome rites

They worshipped and performed religious acts

Till they became immortal ;

Then, the Ender said to the Gods-

" As you have made yourselves

Imperishable, so will men endeavor

To free themselves from me;

What portion then shall I possess in man?'.

The Gods replied-

'Henceforth no being shall become immortal

In his own body; this his mortal frame

Shall thou still seize;

This shall remain thine own -

He who through Knowledge or religious works

Henceforth attains to immortality

Shall first present his body, Death, to thee " '

 

The Advaitins call this ' Krama Mukti' open to those souls that

have not realized their identity with the Paramatma.

====================================================

GRD 7 : SECTION 4: COMMON GROUNDS AS BETWEEN

ADVAITA, DVAITA AND VISISHTADVAITA will follow

====================================================

 

 

______________________________\

_____

Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com