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 --------------------------------- Lose those love handles! MSN Fitness shows you two moves to slim your waist. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |