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.
|
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
srirangasri-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |