Re: On the Nature of philosophy
From the Bhakti List Archives
• June 2, 1999
SrI: SrI Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha SrI Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrIvaNN- SatakOpa SrI nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESikAya namaha Dear devotees, namO nArAyaNA. Sri Venkat has already given an excellent response. Infact, Sri Venkat's series of postings on the nature of realities etc is very remarkable. Moreoever, he writes it with his own experience too, and not at a mere academic level, just for the sake of presenting some knowledge. The involvement with which he writes is very deeply to be appreciated. There are only very few who contemplate on the nature of realities with firm philosophical understanding and Sri Venkat is very eager to share the wealth of "true" knowledge that our most merciful AchAryas have blessed us with. adiyEn is very much moved by this high degree of involvement shown by Sri Venkat. If one systematically analyses vEdAs/Upanishads, the underlying Philosophy is the _same_ and it is nothing but VisishtAdvaita. Infact, it was the brilliance of Bhagavad rAmAnuja in correctly synthesizing the apparently contradictory texts in upanishads. Ofcourse, on the surface, one will be confused to understand what Upanishads are actually teaching ; this confusion was settled by BAdarAyana through the Brahma - sUtrAs, which gives the guidelines for proper understanding of the upanishads. One has to first of all learn under a SadAchArya and learn by questioning various things, inorder to get a clear picture about the nature of realities. Its certain that, after going through the immortal works of Bhagavad rAmAnuja and SwAmi dESikan, further elaborated by other AchAryAs, one will not be in confusion and he/she can very well understand the tattva (realities), hita ( means to attain the goal) and the purushArtha (goal) with ample clarity. Though many schools of thought derive their existence from vEdAs, after thorough understanding of VisishtAdvaita and comparing it with systems of thought, there is not an iota of doubt that VisishtAdvaita is verily the philosophy of vEdAs/Upanishads. ( Books of Sri SMS Chari brilliantly addresses these issues in the medium of English, based on the original granthams of our pUrvAchAryAs). One should not form preconcieved notions about the nature of reality and start forming some opinions, without any firm analysis of the vEdAs. After a rigorous study under the guidance of a AchArya, everything needs to be known will be known ; all the doubts will be clarified. Its very unfortunate, if one is simply fascinated by the abstractness of advaita. It is a mere mental exercise and has already been well proved that Sankara bAshyam doesn't adhere to the teachings of Brahma sUtras and Upanishads. The six main arguments of Bhagavad rAmAnuja against advaita, were brilliantly expanded by SwAmi Desikan (alias Venkatanatha) into 66 arguments in SatadUshani. So far , advaitins couldn't give any satisfactory reply to these arguments. In this century, Ananthakrishna Sastri tried to do something for advaita and thus wrote SatabUshani and tried to defend advaita + tried to find faults with SatadUshani. Most brilliant and fitting reply was given by the great mahAn of this century "abhinava dESikan" Uttamoor VeerarAghavAchArya, who blessed us with an "encyclopedic" immortal master-piece called "ParamArtha bUshanam" , which analyses all the arguments in depth and proves beyond any doubt that advaita, finally as a philosophy has no support from Upanishads. If one is rational in his/her approach to understand the actual realities, he/she will certainly understand the exactness of VisishtAdvaita philosophy in explaining the actual realities. The same Brahman, SrIman nArAyaNA has made many a philosophies to exist side by side, only to make the jIvAtmas undergo their karmic reactions appropriately. Only those jIvas with appropriate karma can understand the actual realities correctly. This obviously means that, Brahman has to make some arrangement for those who doesn't posses that qualification. There are many commanalities between various philosophies ; but this doesn't mean that all are same ; each one is distinct when viewed as a whole. Sri Venkat has very well addressed this issue. This to just put the things on the table and to serve some purpose ; instead of some diplomatic replies without concentrating on the things to be putforth representing the teachings of our pUrvAchAryAs. adiyEn is happy that Sri Venkat is making good efforts to present the actual realities and gives others an oppurtunity to look into the correct directions shown by our most merciful pUrvAchAryAs. adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan ananthapadmanAbha dAsan krishNArpaNam > Sri Venkat's Response: > > Dear Sri. Srivats, difference is real. Even a nihilist (buddhist) > excepts difference to make his or her point. Two mutually > exclusive things cannot be the same; truth is one, not many. > Although two mutually exclusive axiomatic descriptions of the > nature of reality can coexist , only one is truth. > 1. Cycle of creation and dissolution can either be eternal or > non eternal; it cannot be both. > 2. Souls are either created or not; both cannot be true > 3. Moskha is either real and defined as perfect and full > experience of the bliss of brahman or undifferentiated > consciousness; not both! > 4. Happiness is not the same as bliss; one is transitory the > other is not! < cut > -------------------------------------
- Next message: Anand Karalapakkam: "Re: Digest bhakti.v004.n001"
- Previous message: Mani Varadarajan: "Re: Vedic deities"
- In reply to: Venkat Nagarajan: "Re: On the Nature of philosophy"
- Next in thread: Anand Karalapakkam: "Re: On the Nature of philosophy"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]