You are here: SriPedia - Ramanuja - Archives - Apr 2004

Ramanuja List Archive: Message 00072 Apr 2004

 
Apr 2004 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


Dear Bhagavathas,

I thought of sharing my father's email explaining
Ubhayalingaadhikaranam, the dual nature of Brahman put
in terms for a novice like me to understand.

Adiyen Ramanuja dasan

Aravindan
***********************************
As I told you, I am now translating a particularly
important Adhikarana in the second Pada of the third
Adhyaya of Brahma Sutras. As you may know, BS is
divided into four Adhyayas, each of it is subdivided
into four Padas. Each Pada is again divided into a
number of Adhikaranas. Each Adhikarana handles a topic
, and can contain one or many Sutras . The one I am
going to say about is called Ubhayalingaadhikaranam.
It talks about the dual nature of Brahmam. 

The reference taken by the two commentators, Sankara
and Ramanuja to explain the Sutras of this Adhikarana
is from Brahadharanyaka Upanishad, the longest
Upanishad which finds a place in Sukla Yajur Veda?s
Brahmana portion..

First I will give a simple translation of the portion
of the Upanishad and then give the translation of the
main Sutra. I hope it interests you. Incidentally this
is the portion that contains the famous Neti, Neti
?not this, not this, statement, which is taken by
Advaities as Halwa for proving their belief in non
dualistic Nirguna Brahmam 

Brahadaranyaka Upanishad 2-3-1to6.

There are two identifications for Brahmam.- Formed
and Unformed.
(Lingam in Sanskrit means identification mark or 
distinct characteristic.
Formed is what is manifest as the world we see.
Unformed means unmanifest or Brahman in the Sukshma
state at the time of pralaya.) Changing and
Changeless, Moving and Motionless, Existing and True.
Formed B-is different from Air and Space. It is
Changing and Motionless-the Sun which gives warmth is
the basis for It.
Air and Space are Formless Brahmam. It is
changeless and Moving. The Person who is near the Sun
is the basis for It.(the ?soul? of Sun is the basis)
This Person is in our right eye.
He is like Saffron coloured robe, White woollen
blanket, Rainbow coloured insect, White lotus,
Lightning. He who knows Him becomes famous. The
Vedas say-(He is) not this not this ,since there is
nothing above Him. Not this, Not this. His designation
is Truth of Truth. Prana only is True. He is its
Truth.
What are given in brackets are mine. Is it very
confusing? Now I give the translation of BS 3 2
21.Sankara and Ramanuja differ in finding the meaning
to this Sutra which I will try to explain to you . Now
the translation. ?What have been rejected as Neti,
Neti, are only the forms of Brahmam told in the Vedas
earlier. After saying Neti Neti the Vedas are going to
tell again about Brahmam?s qualities? Not this, not
this only indicates towards the inexhaustible,
infinite Gunas of B, says Ramanuja. It only means to
say much more than this, much more than this. Sankara
says Neti, Neti indicates Brahmam is neither the
formed nor the unformed ones said earlier. What is
said earlier should be used as directions to reach B
and not as B itself. If on the highway you see a
direction board saying Chennai 325 km with an arrow
sign, you don?t take the board as Chennai-you take it
only as a direction giver, nothing more nothing less.
The trouble with this approach is, we end up in a
vacuum about B. The whole purpose of our investigation
in to Brahmam becomes a pointless exercise. Further in
the following Sutras it is said B can be realised
through meditation and that a sincere person can
realise B Remember BS starts with a statement ?Let us
investigate into B? So we ask Sankara What is this
realisation ,if B is a vacuum! Read the above
carefully, you will realise the similarity between
Sankara?s philosophy and the Schrodinger?s cat?s
status inside the box according to quantum mechanics.
Saying that something is in an indeterminate state is
the same as telling I don?t know. Sankara gets into
this state when he attempts to describe B.


>From: Arvind Rajagopalan <rwind_raj@xxxx> 
>To: rajagop_s@xxxx 
>Subject: Fwd: [ramanuja] Re: dangerous similarity
between our sampradaya & abrahamic religion 
>Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 22:23:25 -0700 (PDT) 
> 
>Dear Appa, 
> 
>Thought this might interest you 
> 

>--- Lakshmi Narasimhan <nrusimhann@xxxx> wrote: 
> > To: ramanuja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> > From: "Lakshmi Narasimhan" <nrusimhann@xxxx> 
> > Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:26:40 -0000 
> > Subject: [ramanuja] Re: dangerous similarity
between 
> > our sampradaya & abrahamic religion 
> > 
> > srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha 
> > srImath vara vara munayE namaha 
> > srI annan thiruvadigalE saranam 
> > 
> > Dear bhAgavathAs, 
> > kaivalyam is not a bad decision that is being made

> > by a jIva. We all 
> > know that bhagavAn is the show runner and he 
> > provides the result of 
> > every act performed by us. Those who ask for
swargam 
> > are given the 
> > same based on their punyams that they accumulate. 
> > Same with paapis. 
> > They are given hell as they deserve the same. In 
> > case of kaivalyam, 
> > the TK position is that, the jIva is performing 
> > upAsanai of itself. 
> > Well, the point is, jIva is a nithya vasthu. So,
if 
> > the jIva demands 
> > an eternal self worship (nithya jIva upAsanai), it

> > cannot be given a 
> > place in the lIla vibhuthi. So, bhagavAn gives
these 
> > jIvas a place 
> > in the eternal abode i.e the nithya vibhuthi. But,

> > due to the very 
> > nature of this worship(self worship), the place 
> > becomes devoid of 
> > bhagavadh / bhAgavadha - kadAksham, ArAdhanam etc.

> > That is why this 
> > place is compared to a cemetry (yedu nilam in 
> > tamil). This cemetry 
> > exists in the nithy vibhuthi and is worse than the

> > hell, for, a jIva 
> > could recover from hell and could be given a
chance 
> > to attain 
> > moksham whereas kaivalyarthis never get a chance
to 
> > perform 
> > bhagavadh ArAdhanam again. The only hope for 
> > kaivalyarthis would be, 
> > the sankalpam of bhagavAn, that could bring them
out 
> > of that place. 
> > 
> > Reg: Both sampradAyas accept kaivalyam as an 
> > inferior position to 
> > the bhagavad-sAyujyam/parama padam 
> > 
> > Yes. Kailvalyam is inferior from the perspective
of 
> > both the 
> > sampradayams, but, per, vedAnta desikar, one could

> > recover from that 
> > place. Also, per vedAnta desikar, there is no 
> > concept of the various 
> > types of mokshams sAyujyam(no swapravrutti, 
> > prapatthi is not an 
> > upAyam, bhagavadh mukha ullAsame 
> > purushArtham-defectless), sArupyam 
> > (no swapravrutti, but the defect is using
prapatthi 
> > as upAyam), 
> > sAmeepyam(defect is swapravrutti - bhagavadh 
> > upaasakaas) or sAlokyam 
> > (kaivalyam) - there is just one and only one 
> > moksham. 
> > 
> > adiyen would like to stand corrected if I had made

> > any mistakes. All 
> > of the above information are based on adiyen's
weak 
> > understandings 
> > from upanyasams. Kindly pardon my mistakes if any.

> > 
> > Adiyen, 
> > Ramanuja Dasan 
> > 
> > Azhwar Emperumaanaar Jeeyar Thiruvadigale Saranam 
> > PS: Post has nothing to do with blaming or 
> > mentioning the the TK or 
> > the VK sampradayam is wrong. Intent is just to
share 
> > the information 
> > grasped in upanyasams. Corrections are most
welcome. 
> > 
> > --- In ramanuja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Vishnu" 
> > <vsmvishnu@xxxx> wrote: 
> > > Dear Sriman Kasturi Rangan, 
> > > 
> > > It may not seem to be dangerous to all! The
issue 
> > of Kaivalya 
> > mOskha 
> > > and the ThennAchArya position is likely to be 
> > addressed in the 
> > coming 
> > > updates of our yatirajadasa website. At this 
> > moment, I do not have 
> > > much idea. Learend bhAgavatas may answer your 
> > question. 
> > > 
> > > Regards 
> > > Vishnu 
> > > 
> > > --- In ramanuja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "amshuman_k" 
> > <amshuman_k@xxxx> 
> > wrote: 
> > > > Dear bhAgavatas, 
> > > > 
> > > > One of the difference between the two kalais
is 
> > the nature of 
> > > > kaivalyam. Both sampradAyas accept kaivalyam
is 
> > inferior to 
> > > bhagavad- 
> > > > sAyujyam/parama padam. However, the thenkalai 
> > position is that - 
> > it 
> > > > is permanent; (from the explanation of a TK 
> > Acharya), the jIvan 
> > > made 
> > > > a bad decision; it asked for it, aspired for
it 
> > and got it. So, 
> > it 
> > > is 
> > > > stuck with it. 
> > > > Isn't this dangerously similar to a christian 
> > claim that "accept 
> > > > Jesus or you will goto eternal hell?" (You
make 
> > a bad decision 
> > of 
> > > not 
> > > > accepting christ; you asked for it and got
it). 
> > I request 
> > > > clarifications from learned bhAgavatas. 
> > > > 
> > > > Regards, 
> > > > KK 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>__________________________________ 
>Do you Yahoo!? 
>Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for
25¢ 
>http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash 



---------------------------------
Watch LIVE baseball games on your computer with
MLB.TV, included with MSN Premium! 





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs 
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover 




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index ] [Thread Index ] [Author Index ]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to the list