Greatness of Bhagavad RamAnuja Darsanam (GRD 8) (Concluded)

[Guest guest]

Greatness of Bhagavad RamAnuja Darsanam (GRD 8) (Concluded)

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

SECTION 6: CONCLUSION -

(Comparing and Contrasting the 3 streams)

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

[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 not to hurt the feelings of anyone]

 

Hope all the Bhagavatas have gone through all the postings on the subject.I

request all those who have not done this already, to do so now. I request

you to favor me with your valuable comments and constructive criticisms to

enable me to make any corrections needed or otherwise improve the

presentation. Thanks

Dasoham

Anbil Ramaswamy

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

The following are excerpts from the book " Sri RamAnuja on Tattvam Asi and

Neti, Neti " by Prof. K.S.NArAyaNAchArya (Vide Bibliography given in Section

1 for fuller details of the book and the author)

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

REGARDING WORLD PROCESS:

Advaita:

" The world process in NOT there at all, separating the senses of " Tat " and

" Tvam " (vide " Vivartha or AdhyAsa vAda " of Shankara).

Dvaita:

" There is no question of " Tat " and " Tvam " being related to any process;

they are not denotative of the same entity even "

VisishTAdvaita:

" The entire purport of Upanishad describes the evolution of the World out of

God getting into each step as its indweller. God with world *potential* and

the world *actual* with God as its potential at heart (Poornam adah poornam

idam etc) are identical *abstractly* and different *concretely*

" There is, in conclusion, in the world, no doubt identity " but something

more " ; Similarly, there is difference *but also something more*

*The something more is *relations bringing identity into change and change

into identity every moment of our life”

 

The Dvaita position is that in fact, God does not actually come *to live* at

the heart of this world, but only comes *to control* it all by a kind of

" remote control " because " indwelling " would be a kind of " contamination "

again!.(i.e) God is only " nimitta kAraNa " and not " UpAdhAna kAraNa " .

 

But, this would make the world entirely dependent on God, while holding God

not accountable for it in any way! "

 

KaTa Upanishad II - 22, there is a statement -

" asariram sarirEshu sarirEshu anavasthitham " meaning

" God is not possessed of body (as caused by karman), while being the

indweller in them. Among unenduring such bodies, He continues to stay as

enduring "

 

The speaker is Yama instructing NachikEtas about the AntharyAmi - God as the

Universal indweller, on whom one should meditate to attain release from

sorrows.

 

The word " sarira " is used here in the etymological sense of 'something that

can only wear out' (SeeryatE). Such a body cannot belong to God, as He has

no karma. like the individual soul, to subject Him to cycles of birth and

sorrow.

 

But, there is a different other sense of body in which God possesses the

entire world of matters and souls to uplift them, to give them a divine

status and of which He is the Immanent reality. That definition is famous

both in Sri BAshyam (II-1-9) and VedArtha Sangraha)

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

REGARDING THE UTILITY OF PHILOSOPHY IN THE QUEST FOR TRUTH

" What is philosophy except as a guide to truth which we have to seek and

attain in our very life? How does a system vindicate its claim to

universality of judgment, if it condemns the very life as unreal (or less

real or whatever else you call it) and reduces the seeking and the

attainment of that truth to a mere " barren rehearsal of mere realization?

 

None has answered Bhagavad RamAnuja’s objections or Swami Desika's 66

objections, in detail, to this date "

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

Some famous analogies referred to in the Sruti texts and the interpretations

on them offered by the three streams

 

1. ON SLEEP:

A bird tied with a string to a tether, trying in vain to fly in all

directions. After being tired, it seeks rest at the very source of its

bondage and gets it. So also, the individual soul rest in God during sleep.

Advaita:

Deep sleep means removal of selfhood and realization of the Absoluteness

Dvaita:

No relation at all

VisishTAdvaita:

Deep sleep does not entail realization of Absoluteness; Body cannot run away

from its own soul. The context implies not merely a difference but a greater

principle of unity. There is naturalness, a right even, a propriety

unquestionable. The soul naturally belongs to Him, as He to us as home in

the Body-Soul relationship. What the context warrants is a higher unity

between " Tat " and " Tvam " , transcending the difference between the two but

not violating it, making the difference meaningful "

------

2. HONEY BEES COLLECTING HONEY:

Honey bees collect honey from a variety of flowers and deposit them in the

beehive. But, the individual essences do not have the power to discriminate

themselves from others as " I belong to this flower and I to this other

flower "

Advaita:

Individual essences lose their identity.

Dvaita:

Differences are there but not experienced

VisishTAdvaita:

The text does not say that the identity is lost. It merely says

" na vivEkam labhanthE " i.e they cannot discriminate.

------

3. SYMPHONY ANALOGY REFERRED IN BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD:

Advaita:

A merger of all variety into a uniformity, downing them into a grand

*nothingness*

Dvaita:

The individual notes do not integrate but remain with explicit and

irreducible differences.

VisishTAdvaita:

Individual musical effects are absorbed with an effect of symphony in which

these effects find fulfillment without being lost. If each contributing

essence is actually lost, the ultimate 'totality' will only be a zero. They

are there by contributing and subduing themselves into a harmonious whole of

which they are elements. The analogy would rather suggest an Amsa- Amsi

relation (that of an element and an organic whole of which it is an aspect)

------

4. RIVERS JOINING THE SEA:

The rivers lose not only their forms, lengths, colors etc but also their

directions- " Samudra Eva Bhavathi " (i.e.) they become the sea.

But, do the rivers " become the Sea " literally, say by losing their

quantities of water also? Do they evaporate? What exactly happens in this

process?

Advaita:

The rivers do " become the Sea " indistinguishably.

Dvaita:

There is no loss of anything or gaining anything. The Sea remains the same

unaffected by acquiring the contamination of the rivers.

VisishTAdvaita:

The analogy is not for proving whether God is affected or not but only to

describe what happens to the rivers joining the Sea. The point is whether

they lose their identity? What is the sense of " becoming one " warranted

here? Advaita relies on the superficial meaning of the statement.

The rivers are meant to join the Sea even in their origination. Individual

egoism by association with different colored lands etc are not lasting. What

is lost is the false sense of egoism. What is gained is fullness or " vikAsa "

in the attainment of God as the Sea. It could only be a loss of distorted

personality of Jeeva acquired due to Karma. A soul is not a tiger or wolf

forever. It is living in those bodies that induces such wrong

identification. It is only this wrong identity that is lost and a sense of

true identity as inseparable from God living in Him- " Seshathva " that is

suggested "

------

5.SURVIVAL OF TREE CUT:

A grand tree survives death when cut at the root, in its middle or at its

top.

Advaita:

Has no clear comment on this analogy.

Dvaita:

Also has no comment on this analogy.

VisishTAdvaita:

The tree represents the body. It lives even when its limbs are cut off

because the individual soul is not a material entity subject to vivisection

but is an immortal entity. His immortality is rooted in God's being his

indweller. Therefore, it supports the relation between God and the Soul as

" AadhAra " and " AadhEya " . It is a context of relations again "

------

6. SEEDS IN THE FIG TREE:

The case of the fig fruit which UddhAlaka broke and found the seeds

Advaita:

Merely paraphrases this without any philosophical exegesis.

Dvaita:

In the fig tree, God resides as the presiding deity invisibly in the seeds

that embody the tree. The usage of the word " anvaya: " (the plural seeds)

suggests the plurality of the world.

VisishTAdvaita:

The gross world constitutes but the body of that one subtle essence to form

a " unity in diversity " No analogy brings home this truth better than this

one.

 

ABHINAVA DESIKAR UTTAMUR SWAMI:

" athyantha sookshmAth athyantha vichitra sthoolam utpattum arhathi iti "

" How wonderful is this that the most subtle essence brings out the most

gross bodies "

------7.

PINCH OF SALT DISSOLVING IN WATER:

Advaita:

No comments

Dvaita:

Salt only " mixes " with water but does not " become water "

VisishTAdvaita:

When you taste the saline water, you taste its salinity " everywhere " . The

context is that of " All-pervasiveness " of God in His own creation. The cause

is not lost to make for effect but it pervades the effect as *immanent

reality* everywhere, but invisible. The mysterious power of salt is in

losing its physical form and continue to pervade the water invisibly and not

get out of the cup and pervade it from " *without* like an absolute landlord

or a colonizing king ruling by proxy!. The Body- Soul relationship is

inseparable here as the analogy suggests " internal relation " only..

------

8. BLINDFOLDED MAN AND HIS GUIDE:

A GandhAra man blindfolded and abandoned in a jungle. He moves

directionless. Even when the blindfold is removed, he still requires a

guide. The blindfolded man is the ignorant man who has not realized his true

relation to God. The guide is the teacher.

Advaita:

Upholds the absolute identity between the blindfolded man and the guide. No

country to reach; no journey to make; no bound, no release - all these are

at the " lower world of reality "

Dvaita:

The blind man and the guide are eternally different.

VisishTAdvaita:

It is not extreme difference that is taught in the text but only the true

sense of " belonging " - a relational concept - " Thou art ensouled by Brahman " .

The purpose of the analogy is not to prove that they are one or different.

The context is solely meant to teach 'UpAya " - the means.

------

9. DYING MAN SURROUNDED BY HIS RELATIVES:

He recognizes ONLY till speech returns to mind, mind to breath, breath to

fire and fire to the Supreme deity. " parasyAm dEvathAyAm " .

Advaita:

Discriminates between the *ignorant* who return to life in the bodies of

tigers, wolves etc after death and the *GnAnis* (knowers of Brahman) who

*become one with it*. They reject the " MoordhaNya nADi " recognized in the

Upanishad itself.

Dvaita:

Takes it quite textually. The analogy illustrates the hopeless limitations

besetting the individual soul - he cannot even know his own people around

him; how can he know God!

VisishTAdvaita:

When the return is complete and the individual is completely withdrawn,

" external cognition " i.e. " recognition " also ceases. That to which all these

return finally is what has ensouled this all.

Is this the only difference illustrated here? Is it not rather the organic

relation between the two? Life returns to the very source of its emergence

and nowhere else- creation to dissolution means " cause to effect " and

" effect to cause " related in the " ananya " (inseparable) relation as

described by SutrakAra (at II-1-15). The analogy only highlights the *One

Sath* (God) as being the continuous thread through all this process of

actualization and re-absorption, to emphasize the unity and continuity of

the causal process to and fro.

------

10. THIEF CAUGHT RED HANDED:

Thief caught red-handed - meaning the soul that claims to be God is figured

as a thief.

Advaita:

This points to the distinction of the *SamsAri* (who is a thief) from the

*Mumukshu (who is innocent), in other words, the former not realizing, the

latter realizing the absolute identity between himself and the Absolute.

Dvaita:

Strongly objects to this hypothesis. To say- " I am Brahman " is the worst

form of theft. The true form for one is to say " I am not VishNu nor am I a

robber. I am only His humble servant different from Him " Only such knowledge

can liberate, and not that of any identity "

VisishTAdvaita:

The analogy means more than mere difference. The entire context is one of

proper relations. This means both the difference and a unity sustaining each

other "

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

CONCLUSIONS:

Prof. NarayanAchArya' Conclusion:

" The AikakshyAdhikAra " is of great importance to VisishTAdvaita. It allows

for a God with compassionate glance of grace as self-evolution (i.e.) an

evolution of Jeevas treated as His own, in a way. The sense of God's

belonging to the world as much as the world's belonging to Him, now

constitutes the reciprocal aspects of the same relation as unity. Without

granting this, one cannot claim all auspicious qualities for Him in any

metaphysical basis "

 

Sri R. Kesava Iyengar concludes:

" Visishtadvaita as explained by Swami Sri Vedanta Desika is from the first

to last a rational product. That it has stood all these centuries without a

counter dialectic from the mighty minds of other schools is eloquent tribute

to the work of a dialectic masterpiece " ...

 

" That his contemporaries as well as those who came after him were fully

conversant with and were profoundly influenced by his interpretations would

be evident from their own works. Though they clung to their own systems,

they were nevertheless deeply impressed by his rational excellence and held

him in high esteem. They all remained his silent admirers and none attempted

any refutation. Hence, the absence of any counter during all these seven

centuries by masters of the other schools. "

(Kesava Iyengar p.50 ibid)

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

 

______________________________\

_____

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

[Guest guest]

SrI:

SrI Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaH

SrI Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrIvaN SaThakOpa-

SrI nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESikAya namaH

 

namO nArAyaNa!

 

Dear SrI Anbil,

 

Thanks for your excellent series. aDiyEn enjoyed them

a lot. It is a product of great hardwork in collecting

so much information from various sources. Ofcourse, your

presentation skills needs no introduction. Everyone knows

that you are very good in it.

 

What aDiyEn always liked in your postings (not only in this

series; but from the past) is the thorough " reference " you

always provided. It is very easy to copy an idea/text/

explanation from somewhere and boldly label it without

shame as a product of one's own intelligence/genius/depth of

inherent independent knowledge etc. If one is propelled

with a desire to earn " name " / " fame " from others to simply

get salutations for oneself as a " great intellectual " , " great

scholar " etc, he/she as a thief will invariably " steal " the

intellectual property of others and keep producing them

as a product of one's own independent matured knowledge, with

no regards/acknowledgement to the original contributors. The

meaning of " kainkaryam " is totally lost with such an attitude

which lacks even honesty, leave alone sAtvika tyAgam.

 

On the other hand, some may not give appropriate references and

it does not mean that they are writing for fame. It is one's own

mind-set which is the key. Others can't siimply blame the writers

due to this reason. One's own consciousness is the judge.

 

In the spirit of service, you have always set the example

to give due credits to the original contributors. In the

process, it also reveals the depth of harwork you have

put in and the vast knowledge in reading all those references

and presenting them in a co-ordinated manner.

 

Thanks once again.

 

AzhwAr, emperumAnAr, dESikan thiruvaDigaLE SaraNam

 

aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

anantapadmanAbhan.

krushNArpaNam.