Very true words, in my experience!
Dear Sri Sangom
Thank you for your comments.
The OP that Sri PJ kindly shared with us made me think as to why most of today's SV groups focus only on theological aspects of their particular religion (within the umbrella of Hinduism).
After all Sri Ramanuja did write Bhashya on Brahmasutra and B.Gita. It made me dig a bit again into the "seven untenable (objections)" to the prevailing understanding of Sri Sankara's explanations. In the Purvapaksha style, Sri Ramanuja in his Bhashya did state the Advita view points accurately and cogently summarized prevailing objections of his day. Sri Ramanuja's objections were fully answered including why his reasoning is not correct by many other scholars.
In Sri Sankara Bhashya when he explained the prevailing ideas of opposing views, I thought he always presented a compelling description of the other view before refuting them. In case of the Bhashya of Sri Ramanuja where he spends a large portion going over his objection, his statements seemed 'derived' views. When he refuted it seems Sri Ramanuja brought his own assumptions which is why his objections were very easily refuted.
Let me use a metaphor in science to make a point. Newton's world view of Physics is more aligned with our experience. Similarly our experience is that light, magnetism & electricity are very different. A detailed analysis show that they all arise from the same physical reality. Imagine someone who takes derived conclusion that light is an electromagnetic wave and accurately state that and then proceed to refute based on common sense experience. If one were to do that subsequent analysis will reject the objections.
The other thing that strikes me is that to reach a theological viewpoints as explained in the OP one does not need any doctrinal based discussions at all.
It is our world experience that we see our world full of enormous & limitless diversity, and unmeasurable variety in both living beings and nonliving things. To state that they are all different does not require a doctrine.
The 'seven untenable' objections raised comes from either not understanding what was described in extensive detail by Sri Sankara or it may come from a desire to reach a theological conclusion. I think it may be the later.
In any case there are no Sri Bhashya commentaries on Upanishads except an overall summary being presented . (I can be corrected if my 'facts' are wrong since I did not have benefit to directly study from Sri Bhashya). It seems the views proposed will not hold if one were to go in detail within each Upanishad. More importantly they will lead to contradictions even in my limited understanding.
My intent is not to critique any practices but simply understand how things can be so far off in understanding. The only conclusion I can reach is that understanding & knowledge is considered an impediment (understanding by mind alone is actually a valid impediment). It also appears to be an easy way out is to make Saranagathi/surrender a ritual.
What is described by Sri Krishna in Chapter 18 about this requires deep understanding and contemplation. I am talking about the often quoted verse being the only one being important in all of B.Gita
सर्वधर्मान्परित्यज्य मामेकं शरणं व्रज ।
अहं त्वा सर्वपापेभ्यो मोक्षयिष्यामि मा शुचः ॥ १८-६६॥
That is why the verse the verse is in Chapter 18 and not said as the first thing. It needs Bhakthi but not of the kind that feeds the ego with all kinds of ritualistic paraphernalia and delusional imagery.
Sri Krishna as Bhagavan has described in Chapter 2 what a miser is.
दूरेण ह्यवरं कर्म बुद्धियोगाद्धनञ्जय । बुद्धौ शरणमन्विच्छ कृपणाः फलहेतवः ॥ २-४९॥
One is a 'miser' (Kripana) because they do not use the wealth they are somehow blessed with for a want of better description. The only wealth the human birth has provided is our unique ability to be self aware and being endowed with discriminative capacity to analyze and understand. This limitless wealth is squandered away by simply not using this faculty.
The Bhakthi which seem to be a key focus area for SV is not compromised by any means and is fully consistent with the teaching implied in the above verse in Sri sankara's description.
I am surprised by the theological focus of Sri Ramanuja's teaching ignoring all other teaching available in his day.
Having said all this, I also think that a sincere Sadhaka who has 'truly' surrendered to Isvara (without fear or greed or desire to be in Vaikunta) and the person's daily activities are in alignment with "Isvara's will" is not a Kripana since they will be able to get to the true understanding with minimal effort. In that sense SV teaching can eventually lead one to the same realization but they have to realize that understanding cannot happen by rituals only.
The seriously ritualistic people of any faith do not fit the above description regardless of what rituals they may have undertaken to affirm their surrender. This includes most people I know who claim to be the genuine SV.
