You are here: SriPedia - SriRangaSri - Archives - Jun 2003

SriRangaSri List Archive: Message 00027 Jun 2003

 
Jun 2003 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


SrI:
SrImatE rAmAnujAya namaH
SrImatE nigamAnta mahAdESikAya namaH

namO nArAyaNa!

Dear SrI Manoharan,

Please go through my comments patiently ...

> Namaskaram,
> Adiyen came across the following remarks in a Gaudiya web site. I
> refer to the comment on the "shortcoming of Ramanuja's metaphysic".
> Is the author justified in his comments and can someone please
> clarify. Thank you

He is ofcourse not justified. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
> " It appears that in reality Ramanuja finds it difficult to describe
> the relationship of identity and difference but accepts both of them.
> Indeed, according to Ramanuja himself (Sribhasya 2.2.12), aprthak-
> siddhi is not strictly a relation, although his followers such as
> Vedanta Desika sometimes speak of it as such. 

In the cited VEdAnta SUtra (2.2.12), samavAya sambandha as 
postulated by VaiSEshika school of thought is criticized because 
it will lead to infinite regress. It is not clear as to 
what the author wants to convey by stating the above. 

SamavAya sambandha (Relation called Inherence) is postulated
by VaiSEshikas as the relationship binding the inseperable 
entities [they state that it exists in five cases - dravya 
(substance) and guNa, vyakti and jAti etc]. This relationship 
is introduced by them to explain as to why two entities exist 
always together inseparably. Hence, it is also to be noted that
samavAya sambandha and the relata [entities which are related] 
always exist together. This gives rise to the question - "By the 
above logic, it will be necessary to postulate another (second) 
samavAya sambandha to account for the inseparable existence of 
the entity and the samavAya sambandha postulated atfirst. This 
will lead to the acceptance of third samavAya sambandha and 
so on - ad infinitum. How to resolve this fallacy ? ".

VaiSEshikas resolve this by stating that it is the very nature
of the samavAya sambandha to always be found with the relata, 
and hence there is no need to accept further samavAya 
sambandhas. To this, we VEdAntins reply that there is no need 
to postulate an unseen samavAya sambandha, for it is the very 
nature of the entities to exist inseparably [like Substance 
and its attribute]. Hence, the entities are said to be 
apRuthak-siddha, if they are inseparable, which is by their
very nature. 

Though samavAya sambandha is an internal relation between, 
for example in Substance and the attribute, it is superfluous - 
since the Substance and its attribute by itself accounts for 
their inseparable existence. In this sense, apRuthak-siddha can 
be termed to be of the type "svarUpa sambandha" as held by 
NyAya-VaiSEshika school. This by itself is an internal relation 
sufficiently explaining the inseparable nature of two entities 
like Dravya (Substance) and its guNa (attribute).

Basically, the characteristic of the "relation" is to create 
the empirical usage that the two entities are related. If the 
relata by themselves can provide such usage, there is no need 
to postulate a new relation to account for it. 

For detailed discussions, please refer SwAmi VEdAnta DESika's
Tattva-muktA-kalApa with his own commentary SarvArtha-Siddhi
and further commentaries till SrI "Abhinava DESika" UttamUr 
VIrarAghavAchArya. Since I feel that the author will not be 
able to comprehend the direct texts, he can read the excellent
book by SrI SMS Chari on Fundamentals of ViSishTAdvaita, based
on Tattva-muktA-kalApa.

> Thus through careful
> examination both scholars and acaryas of other sampradayas came to
> conclude that acceptance of Ramanuja's term aprthak-siddhi really
> involves forgoing logic. 

Infact, acceptance of it is only logical. Acceptance of 
samavAya sambandha only does not appeal to logic. This is 
the siddhAnta of Sage VyAsa, the writer of the SUtras as 
well. More to follow ...

> In this regard, the Gaudiya acaryas have
> determined that this logical shortcoming of Sri Ramanuja's metaphysic
> is resolved with the concept of acintya, or inconceivability with
> regard to the nature of ultimate reality and its being simultaneously
> one and different.

This is quite funny. Whatever logically established as in 
SAstras is done away with and an illogical siddhAnta is brought 
in - Is this a way to "resolve" things ? If Bhagavad RAmAnuja
is said to have forgone logic, is the explanation involving
inconceivability (achintya) with logical contradiction of 
simultaneously being one and different any better ? It has to 
be noted that, if at all the term "achintya" may have any 
significance in this context, there has to certainly be a 
logical contradiction. When there is no logical contradiction
in this context, there will be nothing to be given up as 
inconceivable. Since, Bhagavad RAmAnuja has clearly explained 
the issue, there is no achintya in that case. 

> Thus the Gaudiyas feel that the metaphysic of acintya-bhedabheda
> tattva better explains the nature of ultimate reality, and that this
> explanation is an improvement on the efforts of Ramanuja and others.
> Ramanuja and others have struggled to come to grips with the fact
> that the concepts of either oneness or difference are inadequate to
> comprehensively explain the nature of the Absolute.

The author has well displayed his ignorance regarding the 
siddhAnta of Bhagavad RAmAnuja. As questioned above, is it
an improvement ? By the way, it is evident as to who is 
struggling to understand Bramhan and finally giving up to be 
filled with contradictions and safely covering up one's 
inability by explaining Bramhan to be achintya in the above 
sense. This is akin to how advaitins cover-up their siddhAnta 
by attributing inconceivability to their pet "mAyA" - No one 
should question on that - The repeated answer is "mAyA" will be
both true, false etc - anirvachanIya.

> The Gaudiyas have concluded that Brahman is both one and different
> simultaneously, and that this is possible because the Absolute
> possesses inconceivable power (acintya-sakti)".

Now, what is meant by this statement ? With whom is this 
Bramhan different and non-different ? Anyway, lets take the case 
of Bramhan being one and different with it's jn~Ana [knowledge]. 
<<Since Bramhan is all-knower, it has to have jn~Ana>>. Bramhan 
being one and different with Chit (JIvAtman) and achit will also 
be considered next to this. 

In the former case, it will then mean that Bramhan is one and 
different with it's jn~Ana because it has achintya Sakti, as 
stated by the author. If so, how are Bramhan and its achintya-Sakti 
related ? 

Is it that Bramhan and its achintya-Sakti are related through 
samavAya sambandha since they are inseparable ? - This is 
rejected by the Bramha SUtra 2.2.12 itself. 

One may consider that Bramhan and its achintya-Sakti to be 
actually simultaneously non-different and also different. If 
so, it should be due to another achintya Sakti - ad infinitum.
Hence, to be rejected.

Supposing that the achintya-Sakti by itself is capable of 
making itself to be simultaneously one and different with 
Bramhan, there won't be any need to postulate another 
achinta-Sakti. If so, now, Bramhan will simultaneously be
one and different with it's jn~Ana due to its achintya-Sakti
wherein, this achintya-Sakti will also be simultaneously 
one and different with Bramhan. Hence, it can be said that 
Bramhan's jn~Ana is also simultaneously one and different 
with it's achintya-Sakti. What a mess ! Infact, in this 
case, one will actually be embracing Jaina's theory of 
sapta-bha~ngi well criticized by VEdAntins, which makes the 
achintya-ness reach its peak !!

The best way for a GauDiya will be to state that Bramhan and its 
achintya-Sakti are apRuthak-siddha as in ViSishTAdvaita parlance, 
so that Bramhan is simultaneously one and different with it's 
jn~Ana. If so, apRuthak-siddha as in Bhagavad RAmAnuja's siddhAnta 
as logically perfect has to be admitted! There is no forgoing of 
logic by Bhagavad RAmAnuja in accepting it between Bramhan and it's 
attributes which includes chit and achit.

The appropriateness of the siddhAnta that Bramhan is actually one 
and different with it's jn~Ana, divine-form etc need not be 
debated for now. Infact, SrI BaladEva [GauDiya's commentator to 
Bramha SUtras] borrows the concept of ViSEsha, as postulated by 
SrI AanandatIrtha (Madhva) to explain the non-difference of 
Bramhan and its attributes like jn~Ana. This is to come out of 
the mess created by the illogical achintya.

Now, lets move onto the case in which Bramhan is considered to
be simultaneously one and different with chit (JIvAtman) and 
achit, due to its achintya Sakti. Again, Bramhan is then 
understood to be apRuthak-siddha with its achintya-Sakti. The
question now is, why is the one-ness between Bramhan and 
jIvAtman being spoken off simultaneously, when they are 
categorically stated to be different and also that Bramhan 
is the controller of the jIvAtman ? If it is said that the 
one-ness is due to their similarity in the quality of their 
svarUpa like being jn~Ana and aananda, then it is a clear
logical distinction perfectly conceivable. There is no need
for a special "achintya Sakti" to explain the above. 

If it is said that Bramhan and jIvAtman are actually 
non-different in their svarUpa itself [ie. One and the same 
entity], but are also different in their svarUpa [ie. different 
entities], then we need to resort to something like achintya 
Sakti, because there is a direct logical contradiction.

Advaitins also say that Bramhan and jIvAtman are non-different 
in their svarUpa, but everything else other than Bramhan is an 
illusion/effect of illusion. This is not acceptable to GauDiyas.

SrI BhAshkara has propounded a type of "BhEda-abhEda" school 
wherein the svarUpa of Bramhan and jIvAtman are held to be 
non-different. The limiting adjunct (upAdhi) is the avidyA in 
this school, and it is not illusory. Like how aakASa [which 
is all-pervading actually] present in a upAdhi like a pot is 
same in its svarUpa/nature from the aakASa outside the pot, 
the all pervading Bramhan is also said to be limited by 
upAdhis [non-sentient in nature] to give rise to innumerous 
jIvAtmans. Such a transformation of Bramhan into chit and achit 
from the state of PraLaya is attributed to its pariNAma-Sakti 
[Power of transformation]. The main flaw in this school is that
Bramhan being essentially non-different from jIvAtmans, will be
the actual one suffering the samsAric afflictions. This can't
be escaped since everything is accepted to be real. 

If GauDiyas want to stick with their achintya-Sakti theory, 
they have to hold on to non-difference between Bramhan and 
jIvAtmans in svarUpa itself. The above criticism will equally 
hold good for them as well. If it is said that jIvAtmans are 
eternally different from Bramhan and hence they are not 
non-different in their svarUpa, then a precise logical 
explanation based on SAstras needs to be provided for what
is meant by Bramhan being non-different from jIvAtman ie.in 
what sense it is said so, while they are fundamentally 
different. 

ViSishTAdvaitins explain it based on the inseparable nature 
(apRuthaksiddhi) of Bramhan and jIvAtmans - which is explained 
as SarIra-SarIri bhAva. 

Lets consider the usage "nIlO ghaTaH" [nIlaH ghaTaH] ie.Blue Pot.
Here, one-ness between two entities is spoken off. This is an 
example of samAnAdhikaraNa sentence wherein the words denoting 
various entities occur in the same vibhakti ie.cases. This 
usage refers to the Pot which is inseparably qualified by the
blue colour. A very subtle point has to be noted. When the word
Blue is used separately in a sentence, it simply refers to the 
colour Blue. But, when the same word Blue is used in a 
samAnAdhikaraNa sentence, it refers to the entity which is the 
aadhAra/support inseparably qualified by this colour blue. If 
the usage is Blue Pot, the word Blue in this sentence does not
merely give the meaning "Blue" - But it actually refers to the 
substance which is the aadhAra inseparably qualified by this 
colour blue. The actual substance which is the aadhAra is 
obtained from the next word viz. Pot. If the usage is Blue Jar, 
the substance which is inseparably qualified by the blue colour 
is Jar. The usage "Blue Pot" does not mean the direct equation 
of the identity in the svarUpa of Blue and Pot ie. It is not to 
explain the one-ness in the sense of Blue = Pot. It is illogical 
since Blue and Pot are actually different in their svarUpa. 
Hence, the above is the *direct* meaning of such samAnAdhikaraNa 
sentences as explained in Sanskrit grammar.

The abhEda Srutis in Upanishads are similarly so as above in 
advocating the one-ness between the Bramhan and jIvAtman. For 
instance, "aham bramha" does not mean "I, the jIvAtman = Bramhan".
Actually, jIvAtman is suffering in this samsAra and Bramhan
is blemishless. Both of them can't be same in their svarUpa.

Advaitins resort to "secondrary meaning" and *not* the direct 
meaning, while explaining the one-ness between Bramhan and 
JIvAtman through these abhEda Srutis. How it is so is not 
relevant now. The *direct* meaning of this samAnAdhikaraNa 
sentence will be I,the jIvAtman is an inseparable attribute 
of Bramhan - this is the one-ness spoken off here. This is 
the way Upanishads explain the apRuthaksiddha nature of 
Bramhan and jIvAtman and that, jIvAtman does not exist external 
to Bramhan by being not inseparably united ie. Bramhan and 
jIvAtman are actually internally related and form an Organic 
Whole, and it is not that Bramhan and JIvAtman are linked 
through external relation. 

Note that, BRuhadAraNyaka Upanishad by itself claims the 
jIvAtman to be SarIra of Bramhan. The actual meaning of this 
word SarIra is explained well by Bhagavad RAmAnuja to take into 
account all sorts of usages of this word including that of Sruti 
apart from worldly usages. SwAmi VEdAnta DESika finally 
summarizes that any Substance with jn~Ana [ie. Either Bramhan 
Or JIvAtman] if present inseparably united (apRuthak-siddha) 
with a dravya (substance), then the latter will be the former's 
SarIra.

It is the genius of Bhagavad RAmAnuja in explaining
the direct meaning of such abhEda Srutis. There can't be 
any great harmonizer of Upanishads in the true spirit of 
Bramha SUtras, than Bhagavad RAmAnuja. Where is the logic 
forgone ? Where is Bhagavad RAmAnuja "struggling" ? Infact, 
logic finds its place in this system in perfect accordance 
with SAstras, and its the stroke of genius in Bhagavad RAmAnuja 
to be revered for in so easily resolving the most complex issue 
in VEdAnta.

The above analysis holds good for non-difference between
Bramhan and achit as well. Bramhan is jn~Anamaya in svarUpa.
achit is actually jaDa and not jn~Anamaya in svarUpa. Obviously,
these two can't be non-different in their svarUpa. But, 
Upanishads do speak about the non-difference between Bramhan
and achit. For instance by "sarvam khalu idam bramha", one-ness
between idam sarvam [All of this in the Universe = Chit + 
Achit] and Bramhan is stated. The direct meaning is that, 
all of this [chit and achit] are inseparable attributes of 
Bramhan. 

While bhEda Sruti explains that the svarUpa of Bramhan is 
different from that of Chit and achit, abhEda Sruti rejects
the notion that they are externally related and explains that
they are actually internally related as inseparable attributes.
This is made possible by the Srutis which clearly explain the 
nature of chit and achit to be SarIra of Bramhan ie. in being
supported by Bramhan [Bramhan is the ground/aadhAra of chit 
and achit], controlled by Bramhan etc.

If GauDiyas provide some logically conceivable explanation like 
this for the non-difference between Bramhan and Chit + achit 
as stated in abhEda Srutis [whether it is acceptable based on 
SAstras is another issue], then there is nothing inconceivable 
ie.No need to postulate some achintya Sakti to be responsible for 
this nature of relationship between Bramhan and Chit + achit. 
Otherwise, when a logically conceivable explanation based on 
SAstras perfectly harmonizing everything is available in the form 
of ViSishTAdvaita, a philosophy hanging with incoceivability in 
the nature of ultimate reality hardly has any value.

SrI AC BhaktivEdAnta SwAmi who founded ISKCON, has stated in 
many of his books that jIvAtmans are *fragmented* parts and parcel 
of Bramhan. This is unacceptable to even SrI BaladEva. Bramhan
is immutable and one can't cut parts of it to form jIvAtman
so as to think about some one-ness between the two.

One has to atfirst understand as to what is meant by jIvAtmans
are different from each other. There are innumerous jIvAtmans
as distinct entities. Every jIvAtman is jn~Ana-maya since it
shines for itself, giving the notion of "aham" ie. "I". The 
characteristic by which a jIvAtman manifests unto itself [giving 
the notion of I] is called "Pratyaktvam" and hence jIvAtmans are 
also referred as "Pratyak-aatmans". All jIvAtmans invariably 
have this notion and hence are separate individuals distinct 
from one another. Bramhan also being jn~Anamaya in its svarUpa 
has the notion of "I". Hence, Lord KRushNa refers to Himself 
as "aham" / "I". In this sense, Bramhan is different from 
JIvAtmans. If they are same in their svarUpa, the notion of I 
will be same and two distinct entities can't be obtained. 
This does not do justice to the bhEda Srutis which categorically
explain Bramhan and jIvAtmans to be distinct individuals. Once
this logical distinction is accpeted, there will be no room to 
introduce "achintya-Sakti" to account for the abhEda Srutis.


Lets take the philosophy of BhEda-abhEda as explained by 
SrI YAdavaprakASa. The all-pervading Bramhan transforms into 
ISvara, Chit and achit in those parts of it which are with the 
respective Saktis viz. ISvara-Sakti, Chit Sakti and achit Sakti.
It is like the sea-water transforming itself into waves, foam 
and bubbles. In SrI BhAshkara's theory, Bramhan is by nature
non-different from JIvAtman, but becomes different due to 
upAdhi. But, in YAdavaprakASa's theory, Bramhan is by very 
nature both different and non-different from JIvAtman. This 
self-contradiction will amount to the acceptance of Jaina's 
Saptabha~ngi, which is not acceptable actually to 
SrI YAdavaprakASa himself. This theory of Jainas well criticized 
by VEdAntains is as follows [applicable to the difference/
non-difference etc between Substance and attribute] :

* May be, is
* May be, is not
* May be, is and is not
* May be, is inexpressible
* May be, is and is inexpressible
* May be, is not and is inexpressible 
* May be, is, is not, and is inexpressible

This is perhaps a better version of the achintya theory, if 
inconceivability is the objective to be established in the 
nature of Ultimate reality !

Detailed criticism of these systems of BhEda-abhEda can be 
read from SrI Bhagavad RAmAnuja's VEdArtha Sa~ngraha and 
SrI SudarSana SUri's SrutaprakASika - commentary to Bhagavad 
RAmAnuja's SrI BhAshya.

It has to be noted that Bhagavad RAmAnuja didn't introduce 
any new philosophy. He clearly states in VEdArtha Sa~ngraha
that he follows only the siddhAnta held by Sages from distant 
past. 

Some important rishis whose writings were utilized/quoted by 
Bhagavad RAmAnuja are :

a. Sage BOdhAyana : In tattvaTeeka, SwAmi DESikan identifies him 
to be same as Sage Upavarsha. He wrote an extensive VRutti
ie.gloss on Brahma SUtras.

b. Sage TaNka (alias BrahmAnandin, vAkyakAra) : Wrote "vAkyas" -
very short notes on CHAndOgya Upanishad.

c. Sage dramiDa : Followed Sage TaNka's vAkyas and commented
upon CHAndOgya Upanishad, called as "dramiDabhAshya".

d. Sages GuhadEva, KaparDin and BhAruchi.
------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Lets now take up another issue in GauDiya Philosophy. They 
talk about three features of Ultimate Reality as viz.
BhagavAn, ParamAtman and Impersonal Bramhan. They cite the 
following verse from SrImad BhAgavatam to derive their theory.
Lets evaluate the soundness of their theory.

vadanti tat tattva-vidaH tattvam yat jn~Anam advayam |
bramha iti paramAtma iti bhagavAn iti SabdyatE || (1.2.11)

The following is the summary of what has been rightly explained by
the SrI VaishNava AchArya SrI VIrarAghavAchArya :

The previous verse ".....jIvasya tattva-jijn~AsA na arthaH ...."
(1.2.10) states that, the objective of a jIvAtma is
"tattva-jijn~Asa" ie.Knowledge of the "Tattva" / Enquiry into
Tattva. The next verse (1.2.11), states as to which "Tattva" it is.

< Note: Basically it is the Bramhan. The very first sUtra in VEdAnta
SUtras state about the "Bramha jijn~Asa" >.

anvayam in English :

tattva-vidaH : Wise-Men knowledged about this Tattva
vadanti : say
tattvam : tattvam <The jijn~Asa of which is a jIvAtman's
objective>
tat : as that

advayam : <advayam :
jn~Anam a-dvayam = advitIyam => No equal Or Superior ;
a-avayam = No avaya-bhEda => No internal
distinctions through various parts {ie.No
distinctions in its essential nature <svarUpa>
anywhere ; ex:Not like a body which has various
distinctions like ear,nose,hand, etc};>

<jn~Anam :
jn~Ana svarUpa (DivyAtma-SvarUpa) possesing
jn~Ana (dharma-bhUta-jn~Ana)>

advayam jn~Anam => jn~Anam which is advayam

yat : which is
SabdyatE : sounded so
bramha iti : as Bramha <Not the four-headed bramha>
paramAtma iti : as ParamAtman
bhagavAn iti : and as BhagavAn.

anvayam in Sanskrit :

yat advayam jn~Anam bramha iti paramAtma iti bhagavAn iti SabdyatE
tat tattvavidaH tattvam vadanti

This verse simply states that the Tattva- The Supreme Entity,
is the "advayam-jn~Anam", which is denoted by the Sabdas Or words
ParamAtman, Bramhan and BhagavAn. These three words are the SAmAnya
(General) and ViSEsha (Particular) Sabdas for denoting the Supreme 
Reality which is the "advayam jn~Anam". For instance, in Upanishad 
statements like "sat Eva sOmya idam agra aaseet", "bramhavA idam 
agra aaseet", "aatmavA idam agra aaseet" and "ekO ha vai nArAyaNa 
aaseet", which state about the Jagad-KAraNa entity {which existed 
before PraLaya}, the words Sat, Bramha, aatma and nArAyaNa denote 
the same entity which is the Supreme Reality {Note: Bramhan is 
defined in the sUtra "janmAdyasya yataH" -Brahman as that from 
which proceeds the jagat, gets maintained and dissolved}. "sat" 
which means "Existence" can refer God,chit and achit. Hence, it 
is a "sAmAnya" {General} Sabda. The word "Bramhan" can denote any 
of the three entities while primarily it refers to Supreme Entity. 
"Aatma" can refer both jIvAtma and God-the ParamAtma, and also 
manas {mind}. Hence, it is a sAmAnya Sabda. NArAyaNa Sabda is a 
ViSEsha Sabda, since it denotes only the Supreme Reality-God.
Similarly, in this verse, the Sabdas Bramhan,ParamAtman and 
BhagavAn have the sAmAnya-ViSEsha sambandha, with one being more 
specific to the other.

This verse has nothing to do with the existence of three separate
features Bramhan, ParamAtman and BhagavAn as various aspects of
the one supreme-reality, which is defined as the "advayam jn~Anam".
Upanishads refer the Supreme-Reality as "Bramhan" in many places 
and IthihAsa-purANas, pAn~charAtra refer the supreme-reality as
"ParamAtman" and "BhagavAn" too. This fact is used in this verse.
It is clearly stated to be "iti SabdyatE" denoting that the 
same entity [advayam jn~Anam] is referred by three different 
words (Sabdas). 

Now that the Supreme-Reality is "advayam jn~Anam", what is the 
distinction spoken off between BhagavAn, ParamAtman and Impersonal
Bramhan by the GauDiyas ? 

There are many instances wherein SrI AC BhaktivEdAnta SwAmi conveys
that "Impersonal Bramhan" of GVs is the "Attributeless Bramhan"
conceived by advaitins. For instance, kindly look into his purport
to verse 12.5 of SrI Bhagavad GItA, wherein he writes "....There is 
evidence in the Vedic Literature that worship may be saguNa and 
nirguNa - of the Supreme possesing or not possesing attributes. .". 
The purport clearly drives home this point and also look into the 
purport for verse 12.1. If it is so, how can this nirviSEsha 
Bramhan be same as BhagavAn and ParamAtman, as held so 
fundamentally ? How is this nirviSEsha Bramhan related to BhagavAn? 
If it is related, then it ceases to be nirviSEsha / nirguNa !
If it is unrelated, it becomes a distinct entity apart from 
BhagavAn and hence they can't be same. Ultimate reality is 
immutable since it is "jn~Anamaya" - One can't cut it into 
pieces. Even assuming that somehow it is cut to form the Impersonal
Bramhan, it will still be pratyak having the notion of "I" - It 
can't be nirviSEsha. Also, there is nothing called nirviSEsha 
Bramhan in reality - Refer SrI-BhAshya and SrI VEdAnta DESika's
SatadUshaNI.

Sometimes, he also says that Impersonal Bramhan is the effulgence
of BhagavAn. Actually, the light emanating from Lord's divine body 
is a property of the Suddha-Sattva tattva {in being luminous}. But 
that light by itself is not a part of the "Bramha tattva / Supreme 
Tattva". Hence they can't be fundamentally same. Also, what is 
then the relationship between this sort of Impersonal Bramhan
and BhagavAn ? If they are non-different in all aspects, then one 
should not speak of the other as the different feature of BhagavAn. 
Also, Ultimate relaity is actually all-pervading. Effulgence 
is something which "flows" - Basically it contradicts the 
all pervading nature of the Ultimate reality.

Lets see some questions which the GauDiya VaishNavas (GVs)
need to ponder over ....some are in addition to those things 
as explained above.

Do GVs accept that all these three features of Supreme Reality (SR) 
are eternal ?

What is exactly the ParamAmta feature < Is it the all pervading
jn~Ana with all kalyANa guNas Or only the four-handed feature of
SR seated in the body of various species => Not all-pervading ? >.
Does it mean that only after PraLaya the ParamAtma manifestation
comes into play ?

What is the substance BhagavAn ? Is it jn~Ana with various
attributes/Saktis like ParamAtma feature, Impersonal Bramhan 
feature,chit,achit ...Or Is it jn~Ana with all these attributes/
Saktis, but essentially non-different from its Saktis too ?
Does it pre-suppose achintya-Sakti for the BhagavAn to be 
simultaneously be different and non-different from ParamAtman
and Impersonal Bramhan ?

What is the exact definition of Sakti <ex:What is meant by
jIvAtmans are a particular type of Saktis of BhagAvan - If this is
an acceptable statement> ? How are BhagavAn and Sakti related ? Is
Sakti a relation that exists between BhagavAn and other Substances
like JIvAtman ? Or Is it that the very substances like jIvAtman 
etc are themselves the Saktis? - If so how are BhagavAn and these
Saktis related ? Why are they called as Saktis of BhagavAn ?

What is "achintya-bhEda-abhEda"? If bhEda implies the difference
in the essential nature of the substances like Supreme Reality(SR),
chit and achit, What is implied by the "abhEda" aspect ? Is it
because BhagavAn and His Saktis are basically non-different, though
they are treated as different with different essential natures of
thier own ? - If so what is the nature of such treatment ? - Is it
that a jIvAtma conceives only the difference due to its association
with mAyA while there is non-difference too simultaneously between
a substance and its attributes ? Or Is it because of the
non-separable nature of the Substance and its attributes, that the
abhEda statements can be understood using the samAnAdhikaraNa
principle of Sanskrit {Interpretation of ViSishTAdvaitins} ?

Is it that Supreme Reality (SR) in association with a particular
Sakti is cognized as "BhagavAn", and SR with another Sakti is
cognized as "ParamAtman" etc {ie. SR + one of its specific Sakti
is BhagavAn etc}, Or Is it that BhagavAn is one Sakti of SR,
ParamAtman is one another Sakti of SR, Impersonal-Bramhan is one
Sakti of SR, chit is one another Sakti of SR etc Or Is it that
"BhagavAn" by Himself is the SR and BhagavAn's various Saktis are
ParamAtman,Impersonal Bramhan, Chit etc ?

What is meant by devotees in the most advanced stage of ecstacy/
prEma bhakti think that they {ex:Gopis} are non-different from
BhagavAn ? Do they realize their "abhEda" aspect of being
non-different from BhagavAn {ie. Sakti and the Possesor of Sakti
are both different and non-different in their essential nature
=> Now, they realize their non-differenceness, though previously
they experienced the differenceness ?}. If not, what is that
"non-differenceness" experienced ? - The internal relationship
of being a specific Sakti of BhagavAn Or Essentially same as
BhagavAn ?

Since in SrI VaikUNtham/Goloka the maximum jn~Ana and ecstacy is 
obtained, will all the muktas be immersed in the realization of 
being non-different from BhagavAn {as Gopis experienced here 
itself as stated by GVs}? If the basic philosophy is that Both 
Difference and Non-Difference are equally there in the essential 
nature between a Substance and its attribute, {BhagavAn and His 
Sakti jIvAtman}, then one as a mukta <with topmost jn~Ana> should 
be experiencing both these contradicting things simultaneously 
and not only one aspect individually - Is it not ? Does it mean 
that a mukta also has some achintya Sakti to experience illogical 
things ? If so, what is the relationship between mukta and the 
achintya Sakti ?

Lets close here .....

It would be best if the author takes care to read enough of 
Bhagavad RAmAnuja's siddhAnta before airing such views in public.
Probably he can atfirst read atleast those books in English by 
SrI SMS Chari, like VaishNavism, Fundamentals of ViSishTAdvaita,
Philosophy of the VEdAnta SUtras, Philosophy of the Upanishads.

Its upto the dispassionate reader to judge as to which 
Philosophy is incomplete and who is "struggling" to understand 
the purport of SAstras !

aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,
anantapadmanAbhan alias Anand.




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