interesting views from Dr. SMS Chari's Sribhasya class
From the Bhakti List Archives
• February 14, 1996
I don't want to get into an advaita/viSishTAdvaita debate on this list, mostly due to reasons of availability of time. But I thought a few comments in response to Krishna Kalale's recent post were in order. I don't doubt that the very purpose of the SrIbhAshya is to put forth a school of vedAnta different from advaita. For that matter, the purpose of the gauDapAdIya kArikAs and Sankara's bhAshyas is to establish a system of vedAnta that is different from the bhedAbheda of bhartr.prapanca and others. Krishna Kalale wrote: >>>> This is further confirmed by the next sutra - janmaadyasya yathaha - from whom this universe is created, protected, in whom all this gets destroyed, etc. - is bramhan. So the action of creation, destruction, protection become attributes of this bramhan - they are tatastha lakshanas - ie. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ incidental attributes not attributes of form of bramhan (they are >>>> advaita also characterizes this as tatastha lakshaNa, which is not necessarily the svarUpa lakshaNa of brahman. >>>> satyam jnanam anantham). Since action is indicated in creation etc., ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ then bramhan is definitely not nirvishesha here. Even Sri Sankaracharya accepts that bramhan here means ishwara - who is Saguna who is ultimately not real - only relatively real as per advaita. >>>> AptakAmasya kA spr.hA? The actions of creation etc. are not essential to the real nature of brahman, which the brahmasUtra itself recognizes because it says creation is just sport. This is all that is meant by saying ISwara is only relatively real. This says nothing against the Entity that is ISwara, because in the ultimate analysis, ISwara IS brahman. Rather, the statement that ISwara is relatively real, is directed against our limited conception of ISwara as the creator, protector and destroyer. Such a conception of ISwara presumes creation to be an essential feature of brahman's svarUpa, which it plainly is not. Speaking purely logically, if we accept that creation etc. are not essential features of brahman's svarUpa, there is no reason why we should insist on the ultimate description of that brahman as being saguNa, is there? Where there is only One, how does differentiation even begin? The whole question arises because of the firm statements in Sruti about the One which appears as Many, the Formless which has taken on Forms etc. In order to understand such statements on a logical basis, advaita constantly shifts back and forth between a vyAvahArika perspective and a pAramArthika perspective. This is required because of the analysis of various notions of causality. The same brahman is saguNa in vyAvahArika terms, because we are looking at the brahman as an object, different from one's Self. However, the idea that creation is not an essential feature of brahman opens a window, as it were, to the paramArtha truth of nirguNa brahman. This might be only an inference, on the part of advaita, about the Reality of nirguNa brahman, but advaita goes a step further and says that this can be realized directly by the seekers, if certain conditions are met (sAdhana catushTaya etc.). Thus, for example, if creation is not an essential feature of brahman and the jIva is a creation, then what is the nature of the jIva's reality? To this, advaita says, in one analysis, the jIva's reality is brahman itself (jIvo brahmaiva nA para:), and in another analysis, there is no jIva, because individuality is dissolved. Thus a statement about moksha, "na sa punarAvartate" can be understood from both perspectives. From the vyAvahArika perspective, the jIva has "attained" brahman, and so does not return, because brahman is ever free. From the paramArtha perspective, there is no more individual jIva, so the question of return cannot even arise. >>>> Then where in the sutras is the nirvishesha aspects discussed??? we will come to this in a different sutra and see whether it is really mentioned there. sribhasya's view is that this issue is never discussed in bramhasutras. the only sutra which talks close to identity is the avibhagena drishtatvaat. this aspect will be examined in another mail. >>>> That should be interesting, at least for me. I don't know about the SrIbhAshya. From my understanding of SankarAcArya's bhAshyas, he does not describe nirguNa brahman much in his brahmasUtra-bhAshya. Most of advaita's arguments about nirguNa brahman stem from SankarAcArya's brh.hadAraNyakopanishad-bhAshya and chAndogyopanishad-bhAshya. >>>> NOTE: As per advaita, major importance is not given to Bramha sutras and Bhagawadgita - since they are both paurusheya - ie. they are not unauthored like the Vedas or Upanishads. Visisitadvaitins strongly uphold all the three canons - prasthana traya - ie. upanishads, bramhasutras, bhagawadgita. >>>> I think this requires some qualification. Of course, advaita upholds the superiority of the Sruti prasthAna, because of the mImAmsA principle that Sruti is the source material for the sUtras and smr.ti is to be understood in accordance with Sruti. But as far as vedAntic study is concerned, all three prasthAnas are considered with equal importance, and the bhAshyas on all three prasthAnas are studied by students at the advaita maThas. I think we should also differentiate a little between the theological motive and the purely philosophical motive when analyzing advaita. From the practical point of view, for the layman, all of advaita *religion* is consistent with the gItAbhAshya of Sankara. And every sannyAsI starts out as a layman first. It may not be very well-known, but Sankara endorses SaraNAgati in the gItAbhAshya - "nishkAmya karmasya rahasyam ISwara SaraNatA" - the secret of nishkAmya karma is to take SaraNa with ISwara. Thus, bhakti, SraddhA and SaraNAgati are highly valued, and that is the way it has been among smArtas and the advaita maThas since the time of Sankara. As far as daily religion is concerned, I cannot really distinguish anything very much different between smArtas and vaishNavas, except in the object of worship, and variations in custom. But the attitudes towards worship and other aspects of religion are very similar. The real differences arise from the fact that from the advaita analysis of brahman, it follows that all Forms equally belong to the Formless. That is why advaitins don't say that brahman's real form is in vaikuNTham alone or in kailAsam alone or in the SrIcakra bindu alone. This syncretism, if you will, between different kinds of worship is an important feature of advaita *religion*. >>>> The sutras are definitely non-descriptive and hence offer possibilitiies for different interpretations. Atleast Sri Ramanuja's and Sri Shankara's commentaries are comparable since they atleast agree with the vishaya vakyas - upanishadic statement references. In fact the interesting issue is the striking similarity between these bhasyas - except the maya issue, and nirvishesha issues!. It is quite difficult to compare Sri Madhva bhasya and Sribhasya since their reference vedanta vakyas - are different and they have a number of areas of disagreement regarding the very topic of the sutras. >>>> That is correct. I have lots of reservations about various aspects of Madhva's works. But note that in SankarAcArya's bhAshya, mAyA is described as "devAtma-Sakti". The whole discussion that fine-tunes mAyA as a philosophical concept is post-Sankaran, and to a certain extent, this fine-tuning is a consequence of debates among the various vedAnta traditions. Regards, S. Vidyasankar
- Next message: V. Sadagopan: "Re: Ekadashi dates (fwd)Please, help"
- Previous message: Krishna Kalale: "Is Bramhan's form eternal?"
- In reply to: Krishna Kalale: "interesting views from Dr. SMS Chari's Sribhasya class"
- Next in thread: Sampath Rengarajan: "Re: interesting views from Dr. SMS Chari's Sribhasya class"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]