You are here: SriPedia - Ramanuja - Archives - Nov 2003

Ramanuja List Archive: Message 00065 Nov 2003

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


Dear Shri Madhavaramanujadasa,

Please find a rejoinder to your email on the Vaiseshika concept in the 
Brahmasutra. I am enclosing my father's email that he had sent to a rookie 
(me)explaining this specific concept. I found it extremely easy to follow and 
thought of forwarding it the group.

Adiyen Ramanuja dasan

Arvindan

Ps: My father alongwith his brother is currently translating the BrahmaSutra in 
Kumudam Bakhti mag.

*************************************************************************************

Dear Arvind,

After I returned from Delhi, I was planning to send you my comments on the 
thoughts contained in the e mails you sent me. One was on Mannargudi templeand 
another on an incident in Sri Parasara Bhattar's life. I have no comments on 
them except to say that I enjoyed them. There were two other mails ,which 
relate to Sri Ramanuja's Sri Bhashya on Brahma sutra 2.2.12 One says that 
Gaudiya sampradaya interpretation is the correct one and Ramanuja's concept of 
aprthak-siddi is wrong .The rejoinder mail is very harsh and says Ramanuja's 
explanation is the most rational one. I think, if one reads BS and understands 
the context of the Sutra, there is no need for this kind of difference of 
opinion. I will now try to explain to you the point I am trying to make.

 

The second Adhyaya of BS is titled Avirodha adhyayam, where the author proves 
that some of the axioms and principles of other Indian philosophies are 
contrary to what is stated in the Vedas/Upanishads So it implies that 
thosebeliefs are to be rejected. In the second Pada, Vaiseshika beliefs are 
taken for refutation. Before you go further to Sutra 12,you should understand a 
little about Vaiseshika principles.

 

They believe that the universe is made of atoms. All the things we see are made 
of parts and hence destructible or broken into parts. If we go on breaking into 
parts we will reach a stage when further break up is no more possible. This is 
the atomic state. They found difficulty in assuming the breakup to continue 
ad-infinitum, because in the limiting state, there will be nothingness. 
Obviously they found it difficult to explain how from nothing something could 
come about! 0 multiplied by any thing can only be 0! Further they found it 
impossible to explain how big and small things can be formed, if we don't 
assume finiteness for the atoms. If you think deeply you will understand this 
concept. Greek philosophers, Democritus and Epicurus had similar ideas.

 

When atoms join ,gross things that we see are formed. For this argument letus 
not bring in God as the joiner. Between the atoms (parts) and the grossthings 
there exists a relationship. This relationship can be either superficial or 
very deep. I will try to explain this by an example. Suppose a book is on a 
table, they have a superficial relationship. The book can be removed from the 
table and the book and table will continue to exist. But the table and its legs 
have a deep relationship, because, if we remove the legs,the table is 
destroyed. Samyoga Sambhandam and Samavaya Sambhandam ,are the terms used 
by.Vaiseshikas for these two relationships. The example often used to explain 
Samavaya Sambhndam is the yarn and the cloth. If yarn is removed ,cloth is 
destroyed. There is one more point we should remember in Vaiseshika philosophy. 
If two things join together to form a third thing ,howmany parts are there in 
the formed thing? Not two,.t! hey say, but three.That is why they say that, 
Samavaya Sambhandam is a thing and not a mere relationship which comes into 
being when atoms join to create things This concept is unique to Vaiseshikas.

 

With this background let us read 2.2.12,and the commentary. The sutra 
translates to as under ( in this portion of the second Pada, Vaiseshika view is 
countered )

If Samavaya is accepted, infinite regression will result.

(so Samavaya Sambhandam of Vaiseshika is wrong is the indication of the Sutra)

 

The commentary goes like this. If we accept Samavaya Sambhanda, as a necessary 
and inherent relationship between parts and the whole, then we have to invent 
another relationship to describe and define this Samavaya relationship between 
parts and the whole. If we define this "another" relationship, then one more 
relationship has to be defined to describe this relationship. Thus there will 
be infinite number of relationships which is absurd. So the Vaiseshika concept 
of Samavaya is not correct.

 

Look at the way this simple logical argument is twisted to explain the 
relationship between Souls and God. Terms like aprathak-siddi,acintva or 
inconceivable relationship do not appear to be relevant at this point in BS.I 
think the Absolute is nowhere in the picture here. How each person drags theBS 
to make the point that their view of Brahmam and soul is the true one!

********************************************************************


-----Original Message-----
From: Rajagopalan, Arvind 
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 4:15 PM
To: 'rajagop_s@xxxx'
Subject: [ramanuja] (unknown)


Thought this might interest you


-----Original Message-----
From: madhavaramanujadasa [mailto:madhavaramanujadasa@xxxx]
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 11:22 AM
To: ramanuja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ramanuja] (unknown)


FYI,

This article was posted on VNN.ORG by Swami Tripurari, a Gaudiya 
preacher. Immediately following it is an article from another 
Srivaishnava yahoo-group, JETUSA. 

"Q. Some devotees teach that the visistadvaita (qualified oneness) 
philosophy of Ramanujacharya is the same as the acintya-bhedabheda 
(inconceivable simultaneous oneness and difference) philosophy of Sri 
Caitanya Mahaprabhu. My question is if the two philosophies are the 
same in tattva then where is the acintya (inconceivability) to be 
found in Sri Ramanuja's philosophy. That philosophy clearly explains 
the relationship between the object and quality as the dehi and deha, 
but Gaudiyas seem to say there must be some inconceivability in this. 
Where is this inconceivability?

A. The philosophy of the Gaudiya sampradaya and that of the Ramanuja 
sampradaya are not the same. Ramanuja, for example, attributes 
internal distinction (svagatabheda) to Brahman, whereas the Gaudiyas 
do not. For Ramanuja, Brahman's qualities (as he views them)--the 
jivas, and the world--are not the same as that which they qualify 
(Brahman). However, neither can these qualities exist outside of that 
which they qualify. Thus the two are not different from one another 
either. In Ramanuja's view, a special relationship exists between 
Brahman, the jivas, and the world. He calls this relationship aprthak-
siddhi, or inseparability. With this term Ramanuja seeks to logically 
explain the identity and difference of Brahman.

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. 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. 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.

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 Gaudiyas have concluded that Brahman is both one and different 
simultaneously, and that this is possible because the Absolute 
possesses inconceivable power (acintya-sakti). Others have developed 
terms such as anirvacaniya (Sankara), aprthak-siddhi (Ramanuja), 
svabhavika (Nimbarka), visesa (Madhva), and samavaya (Vallabha) to 
bring logic to bear on the oneness and difference of Brahman, when in 
reality the simultaneous oneness and difference of the absolute is 
acintya (inconceivable). Indeed, careful study of these other 
doctrines of Vedanta reveals that they implicitly acknowledge the 
acintya-sakti of the Absolute but are unable to identify it as such.

Therefore, the Gaudiyas lay claim to accepting the nature of the 
Absolute (and scripture) "as it is" with regard to its oneness and 
difference. In this way they have sought not to inordinately impose 
the limits of logic on the nature of being, but rather accept it for 
what it is and attribute its nature to the acintya-sakti, or the 
inconceivability of God.

Questions or comments may be submitted at the Q&A Forum
http://www.swami.org/sanga/ or email sangaeditor@xxxxx"


--------------------------------------------------------------------


THE SRIVAISHNAVA REPLY FROM JETUSA:


Priya Sriman Mano !

The philosophy expounded by Bhagavad Ramanuja is unarguably complete 
in
all respects. There is a wonderful answer with full authentic support 
from
Vedas for every possible argument. For those who are thorough with 
the Sasthra,
as there is no need to explain in detail every time, Bhagavad Ramanuja
explained the concept once very clearly and proceeded. It doesn't 
mean that it
is less explained or incomprehensively explained. Before learning 
SriBhashyam,
good Sanskrit knowledge and some introduction into other subjects 
like Tharkam,
Nyayam etc., along with the theories of what other Vedantha Scholars 
say is
absolutely needed. The way in which the answer is given with self 
conclusions
clearly say that the answer given to the question is not from a 
scholar of that
rank. However, as it is required to clarify the point of their 
discussion, the
basic explanation is given hereunder for your information.

There is no need of any inconceivability (achintya) to explain this 
simple fact
of simultaneously possessing oneness and difference to the 
Supreme "Bramha" . 
Infact, this inconceivability is an added concept to the actual fact, 
and it is
unnecessary and confusing in this context. As you have rightly 
understood,
according to Bhagavad Ramanuja, the Deha-Dehi relationship itself 
clearly
explains the concept. All Acharyas and scholars after Bhagavad 
Ramanuja have
accepted the Sesha-Seshi relationship, Deha-Dehi relationship as the 
basis with
slight variations according to their interpretations.

The statement that " 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." is itself INVALID. 

Because, there is no foregoing of any logic as the concept is very 
clear. 
There is no other acharya or scholar (who having fully accepted 
Vedas) after
Bhagavad Ramanuja and who studied so extensively and has mastery over
Vedantha, ever denied Bhagavad Ramanuja's authentic explanation. 
Infact there
are great scholars and Acharyas who were amazed at the ease and 
simplicity and
authenticity with which Bhagavad Ramanuja explained the profound 
facts with
nice logic. Also the later acharyas tried to interpret the Bhagavad 
Ramanuja's
description in their own way. 

The statement that " 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." is also wrong. 

Those who haven't learnt SriBhashya in its original script might have 
said
that. Bhagavad Ramanuja never said that Aprthaksiddhi is not strictly 
a
relationship. It is ABSOLUTELY WRONG. 

It clearly indicates that one who gave the answer is neither an 
Acharya nor a 
scholar. It is just an answer of a naive Vedantist. If one is 
interested to
know what is said in 2.2.12 of Sribhashyam you may contact any 
authentic
Sribhashyam scholar or contact us separately. It becomes too big for 
this mail
to accommodate all the subject and the reasons, so its details are not
discussed herewith. 

In the first para of the answer it is said that Gaudiya's do not 
accept the
(swagathabhe:da). Here goes the brief explanation.
Swagathabhe:da means, the qualities of the Bramha and the Bramha who 
possess
the qualities are different. There cannot be qualities without one 
who possess
them and evidently both are not the same. This is quite clear which
Visishtadwaitha accepts. Visishtadwaitha says that they are one and 
the oneness
owns with the qualified subjects. 

Here Gaudiyas say that the relationship between the Bramha and the 
object is
inconceivable ( ie.,unthinkable). 

Dwaithis say that both the qualities and the Bramha are independently 
different.

Adwaithis say that both the qualities and Bramha are the same and 
there is no
any difference at all.

Vishistadwaitha says that both the qualities and the Bramha are one 
but
different. How?? 

Qualities cannot exist without Bramha (like there cannot be colour 
without any
object,) and they are inseparable and exist together as one. There 
cannot be
taste without an object, there cannot be size without an object etc. 
and taste,
size, colour etc. qualities cannot exist separately without any 
object. But,
when they exist with object, they exist such that they are 
inseparable from the
object. Obviously, colour is not the object, size is not the object 
etc. This
type of relationship is called "aprutthaksiddha" relationship. This 
is very
natural and quite clear to the logic. Thus exists the relationship 
between
qualities (or Jivas) and the Supreme Bramha. 

As qualities are not separable from the object, they are one with the 
object,
but, as they are not the object, they are different from the object. 
To state
clearly with the example, colour is not the object but there cannot 
be colour
without object.We cannot say both colour and object are same. So they 
are
different. That is, they are different but one as a whole. 

To explain this which is very clear to the logic, there is no need to 
intrude
any new concept called inconceivability (achinthya) in explaining the
relationship between Bramha and the Jivas (or Bramha and His 
qualities). 
However, from the Gaudiyas point of view it is almost Ramanuja's 
explanation
(as they claim), but, with unneeded concept of " inconceivability " 
in this
context. Inconceivability in proving this relationship is absolutely 
refuted.
It only adds confusion and blurred abstract to the thought. Beware of 
becoming
God !! . Be aware of surrendering to GOD as His subjects. 

The concept of achinthya (unthinkable or inconceivable) is there even 
in
Ramanuja's explanations, but not in this context. It is there while 
explaining
the extensive form of God in totality. The COMPLETE ABSOLUTE form of 
that
Bramha(Supreme) is something that cannot be thought of by a Jiva. It 
is far far
beyond thoughts. Even Vedas returned, giving up their effort, to 
explain a
single attribute of that Supreme called "A:nanda". There are 
thousands of such
auspicious qualities to that Supreme !! How can one experience such a 
Supreme
IN TOTAL. That form (such an allpervading form) is achinthya ie.,
inconceivable, ie., beyond thought which cannot be explained. 

De:ha(body)and de:hi (one who has body). This relationship is 
explained well
with many many proofs from Vedas 
"anthah pravishtas sa:stha: jana:na:m sarva:thma: "
"e:shatha a:thma: antharya:myamruthaha "
"yasya:thma: sari:ram"
"yasya prutthivi: sari:ram? yasya:pas sari:ram ? yasya the:jas
sari:ram"
"prutthaga:thma:nam pre:ritha:ram cha mathwa:jushtas thathas
the:na:mruthathwam e:thi"

Meanings can be known from the authentic commentaries of Acha:rya:s 
or by
approaching realised a:charya:s. This has been clearly explained by 
Bhagavad
Ramanuja in explaining the relationship of Jiva:s with Bramha
(Supreme) or the
relationship of qualities of the Bramha with the Bramha itself.


>From the last but one para of the answer "Indeed, careful study of 
these other
doctrines of Vedanta reveals that they implicitly acknowledge the 
acintya-sakti
of the Absolute but are unable to identify it as such " is also 
ABSOLUTELY
INVALID. 

Can we know what is that "care" in study?? Can they let us know what 
are those
other doctrines of Vedanta that speak so and where ?? Who are unable 
to
identify and where?? It is a sheer biasing. Most of these discussions 
went on
even during those days as to what and how. 

It is Bhagavad Ramanuja with absolute scholarship after aggressive
research on the facts revealed by the Vedas, established the Truth 
over all
other concepts in a most authentic way such that there is NO WAY EVEN 
TO TOUCH
the statement that he proved. Any modification to his statement is 
only
diverting enroute. However in the statement said at the beginning of 
this
para the word "implicitly acknowledge" is something that these so 
claimed
scholars have imposed on the actual fact. It is a sheer imagination 
and
imposition that the relationship is "achinthya" or inconceivable. Is 
there any
proof in the Sasthra any where for this new imposition?? It is a sheer
self-conception as a result of the unsubstantial knowledge of the 
Sasthras or
their sayings.

Referring to the third para of the answer "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." is an absurd statement made by some biased claimer in the 
name of
the acharyas.

There are a number of realised Acharyas and scholars who accepted
Bhagavad Ramanuja's explanation and None had ever dared to speak of 
such
things like incomprehensibility or inadequacy in understanding the 
established
facts, having dwelled into the fathoms of the subject and touched the 
bottoms
of the Divine experiences. Those with bookish knowledge and little 
knowledge
having learnt something a little here and a little there, who were 
unable to
understand the subject inadequately and incomprehensively, with self-
biased and
self-interpreted knowledge might have said that. That we need not 
mind at all.
Even if hundred people say that it is a donkey showing at the cow, it 
can
never happen !! Cow always gives milk even if you don't accept it as 
cow !!

Realised acharyas have always expressed themselves subject to the
realisation and actualisation of the facts with the support of the 
Sruthis,
rather than just imagination or surface stirring. 

However it is not how we interpret about, that matters. Realisation
matters. It is where acceptance of Truth or Not accepting the Truth, 
plays
the role in glorifying the subject. From the standpoint of their view 
that
might be right to them. It is left to the choice of the seeker to 
understand
from the Acharya and experience the Truth "as-it-is" and be blessed 
by the
Divine knowledge.

In the above description of the answer it is no where intended against
any acharya. Any mistakes are mine. Most of these issues rise due to 
those who
speak their own in the name of the Acharya. May this not happen. Let 
everyone
know the right concept and be led on the path of absolute Truth. 

Jai Srimannarayana !

srikaryam
=krishna ramanuja dasa=

----------------------------------------------------------------







azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam
 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 






[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