Brahma Sutras

[renuka]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Renuka,

What you say is not fair. Everyone has his or her notion about anything. The notion probably is based on logic. So one may not accept the view of the other. That doesn't mean the other is not logical.

Exactly!

Yes you are right...in fact I clicked Like for your answer!

I was waiting for this answer from you and hence I wrote that.

You see each person is entitled to his opinion..hence we have all the various schools of thoughts and should be treated as a guide and NOT an authority.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

Dont you feel anyone can claim they are spiritually advanced and start preaching?

Just say tomorrow I suddenly get bored with my medical practice and claim to be a realized soul and start an ashram!LOL

How would you know if I am telling the truth or lying?

What are the test we can conduct on a person to know if they are spiritually realized or not?

There are two possibilities:

1. You should be spiritually advanced and nothing else needs to be done. Everything happens naturally
2. You are a fake and you would be found out in due course of time.

 

[sravna]

Exactly!

Yes you are right...in fact I cliked Like for your answer!

I was waiting for this answer from you and hence I wrote that.

You see each person is entitled to his opinion..hence we have all the various schools of thoughts and should be treated as a guide and NOT an authority.

Dear Renuka,

No, No Renuka I am not saying that there should not be various schools of thought or that people are not entitled to different views. That what exactly I wrote on various schools of thoughts. They are for a particular reason from divine perspective. The reason I talked about authority was because you can trust only people who are highly regarded and not someone who cannot think rationally.

 

[renuka]

There are two possibilities:

1. You should be spiritually advanced and nothing else needs to be done. Everything happens naturally
2. You are a fake and you would be found out in due course of time.

Ok just say I am a fake but a "good fake" in the sense that I am only delusional that I am a realized soul but otherwise my activities are within normal limits and no money making scams.

I might teach Sanskrit and also give lectures on religion etc..rope in some friends to help out in giving free medical treatment to the poor.

Outwardly I am doing no wrong but inwardly I am delusional that I am a realized soul..so how will I be found out to be a fake eventually?

 

[renuka]

The reason I talked about authority was because you can trust only people who are highly regarded and not someone who cannot think rationally.

Then would you trust Carvaka? His philosophy is still a valid philosophy..what say you?

 

[sravna]

Ok just say I am a fake but a "good fake" in the sense that I am only delusional that I am a realized soul but otherwise my activities are within normal limits and no money making scams.

I might teach Sanskrit and also give lectures on religion etc..rope in some friends to help out in giving free medical treatment to the poor.

Outwardly I am doing no wrong but inwardly I am delusional that I am a realized soul..so how will I be found out to be a fake eventually?

Dear Renuka,

Spiritual things happen in a natural way. If you are delusional you will be rid of the delusion. Nature has prescriptions for that.

 

[sravna]

Then would you trust Carvaka? His philosophy is still a valid philosophy..what say you?

I may not trust but there are others who might. If something is good it will stand the test of time.

 

[Raghy]

Dear Sri. Sravna,

You assume that intuition has to be empirically verified to be accepted as knowledge. Need not be. If you accept direct perception something that your senses see as a proof why not something which a mind sees as a proof. Since ultimately it is what the mind sees, what it sees in my view is superior and to be accepted as the authority even if it cannot be empirically verified. This when it comes from a reputable source.

I am not just assuming, but know any intuition has to be empirically verified to be accepted as knowledge. Yes,we make some educated deductions based on over experience about the possibility of a storm or rain etc. Even when we meet strangers, sometimes we do get intuition about that person which may turn out to be correct. In such narrow window of situations, intuitions may be accepted as educated deductions, still not as authoritative knowledge.

Mind may see so many things due to hallucinations and schizo affect situations. Often times such images are the projections from our own mind. There may be isolated instances of para-normal activities. But they can't be accepted as truth. If it can't be empirically verified, what mind sees is just an hallucination only.

Again you assume all three are equally valid. They really may be mainly because they are the same in essence in my view but differ on non substantive points. Even if they are not equally valid , it doesn't reduce the stature of any one of them as all are a display of formidable reasoning and hence the authors deserve the credit and the following that they have.

I agree the said authors deserve the credit for following what they followed. But they analysed the same source to conclude different philosophies. That was because each author expressed their point of views. Their point of views possibly were diametrically in opposite directions. There was no 'right answer' or 'wrong answer' when it comes to philosophy. So, both opposing philosophies have followings.

Sri. Sravna, at the end of the day it is for every individual to know his/her position in the world.

Cheers!

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,

Nature has prescriptions for that.

And which is the pharmacy??

 

[renuka]

I may not trust but there are others who might. If something is good it will stand the test of time.

So this only shows that it is finally a personal choice.

So in that way anyone can reject or accept anything ranging from Carvaka to Advaita.

 

[sravna]

And which is the pharmacy??

Renuka, they are your life experiences.

 

[sravna]

So this only shows that it is finally a personal choice.

So in that way anyone can reject or accept anything ranging from Carvaka to Advaita.

Definitely you have personal choice. I did not deny personal choice , did I? Just as there may be more than one who is considered highly, so there may be followers for each. That is why some find carvaka appealing.

 

[renuka]

Definitely you have personal choice. I did not deny personal choice , did I? Just as there may be more than one who is considered highly, so there may be followers for each. That is why some find carvaka appealing.

So if there is a personal choice and preference that only goes to show there is no Authority.

 

[sravna]

So if there is a personal choice and preference that only goes to show there is no Authority.

Renuka,

I said authority only in the sense of the person who believes in it. There cannot no one absolute authority in this world? That is obvious right? Even God is not considered the ultimate authority by everyone

To elaborate to me Sankara makes the most sense and to me he is the authority. To someone else Ramanuja makes the most sense. So Ramanuja is his authority. But what I said should happen is that we need to trust only people whom we can trust probably revealed by their achievements.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sri. Sravna,


Sri. Sravna, at the end of the day it is for every individual to know his/her position in the world.

Cheers!

Yes Shri Raghy, agree.

 

[Nara]

I think religions are not, in general, built upon metaphysical questions, i.e., questions regarding the fundamental nature of "being" and of this world/universe.

[snip]

Human intellectual development as time passed and rational, independent thinking seems to have been ever present, and even yāska's nirukta (believed to be at least 2500 years old) talks about one Kautsa who reportedly declared boldly that the vedic mantras conveyed no sense.

Dear sangom, I see what you are saying, however, I think you will agree that my objection to the claim that vedanta is not a religion even though it is claimed to be metaphysis still stands...

 

[sravna]

Sutra 4: But that brahman is to be known only from the scriptures and not by any other means because it is the main purport of all vedanta texts.

The objections this might raise are answered.

Objection: Brahman can be known through other sources. Vedanta texts provide knowledge only about objects that cannot be known through other sources. Also brahman which is our own self can neither be desired or shunned and so cannot be the objects of human effort. Therefore if the texts talk about an existing object that can be known through other sources and one that cannot be desired or shunned that would make the vedanta texts purposeless.

The scriptures have a meaning only when they are related to certain actions and also the necessary supplementary information. Therefore the individual soul refers to the agent and brahman refers to the deities and passages related to creation refers to spiritual practices. The vedanta texts thus cannot be taken to refer to brahman only and so brahman is not the main purport of the vedanta texts.

Answer: The purport of a text is indicated from the following:

1. Beginning and Conclusion
2. Repetition
3. Uniqueness of subject matter
4. Fruit or result
5. Praise
6. Reasoning

The beginning and the conclusion of the texts is about brahman
Brahman is frequently repeated in the texts
The uniqueness of brahman is also mentioned in the text describing brahman as one which can neither be directly perceived nor inferred as it has no form or characteristics respectively.
The result or fruit is also mentioned, that being, by the knowledge of brahman everything is known
Brahman is also praised in the scriptures when the description of the origin of the universe and of subsequent sustenance by and reabsorption in it is said to happen
Finally reasoning is also employed in the scriptures to help one know brahman

So all the characteristics show that the main purport of the vedanta texts is brahman.

(Sutra 4 to be continued)

 

[tks]

Dear sangom, I see what you are saying, however, I think you will agree that my objection to the claim that vedanta is not a religion even though it is claimed to be metaphysis still stands...[/FONT]

Sri Nara

A few people can get together and say 2 plus 2 is 3 .. And I am not going to debate that



When I said Vedanta is not a religion it is because there is no suspension of ability to reason when one learns properly and the topic does not have anything to do with blind faith.

In fact Vedanta is not religion or philosophy... One has to first understand what problem it addresses before one can understand what it is about.

The translation of Sutras and assertion such as Veda as source of knowledge need to be developed with enormous amount of infrastructure using reasons and axioms (self evident aspects). Without that it appears like any other religious text.

Multiple view points by many different acharyas are not really an issue in the big picture (though there are differences in practices) and the various view points are very well unified.

Normally I would debate spending my quadrant 4 time for the fun of it - if all this were my point of view. However I do not like to argue if someone says 2+2 is 3 emphatically .. All I can say is you have to do lot of unlearning to do before embarking on a quest to learn..Which I am sure you have no interest in pursuing because you think the analogy to 2+2 being equal to 3 is not applicable.


There are few possible reactions to this post here. One is to think I am just making statements without merit, or think that perhaps there may be something here.

I think your reaction is going to be the former.

For other readers the reaction may be the later in which case a small few may be motivated to put effort to study the subject properly.

Regardless I do not intend to post more about this ...


Regards

 

[sravna]

Dear Members,

As Shri.TKS says, the sutras by themselves may not make sense to many. The sutras to be fully understood requires some prior knowledge. So there are bound to be many aspects which need clarifications and elucidations. I think one of the main purpose of this thread is for members to raise the need for clarifications so that other knowledgeable members may provide their responses and elucidate what is not evident. So whatever knowledge is required to understand a sutra is obtained.

In this regard I would urge people who are knowledgeable in the scriptures to volunteer as experts. So we have only those experts answering the queries and unnecessary confusion is avoided.

 

[sravna]

Dear folks,

I am trying to present the sutras in simple words and so if because of that any errors creep in, kindly let me know. In addition of course you can share any views regarding the content

btw, I made some corrections to the explanation of sutra 4. Kindly refer back to post #267 for the corrections made.

 

[sangom]

Sutra 4: But that brahman is to be known only from the scriptures and not by any other means because it is the main purport of all vedanta texts.

The objections this might raise are answered.

Objection: Brahman can be known through other sources. Vedanta texts provide knowledge only about objects that cannot be known through other sources. Also brahman which is our own self can neither be desired or shunned and so cannot be the objects of human effort. Therefore if the texts talk about an existing object that can be known through other sources and one that cannot be desired or shunned that would make the vedanta texts purposeless.

The scriptures have a meaning only when they are related to certain actions and also the necessary supplementary information. Therefore the individual soul refers to the agent and brahman refers to the deities and passages related to creation refers to spiritual practices. The vedanta texts thus cannot be taken to refer to brahman only and so brahman is not the main purport of the vedanta texts.

Answer: The purport of a text is indicated from the following:

1. Beginning and Conclusion
2. Repetition
3. Uniqueness of subject matter
4. Fruit or result
5. Praise
6. Reasoning

The beginning and the conclusion of the texts is about brahman
Brahman is frequently repeated in the texts
The uniqueness of brahman is also mentioned in the text describing brahman as one which can neither be directly perceived nor inferred as it has no form or characteristics respectively.
The result or fruit is also mentioned, that being, by the knowledge of brahman everything is known
Brahman is also praised in the scriptures when the description of the origin of the universe and of subsequent sustenance by and reabsorption in it is said to happen
Finally reasoning is also employed in the scriptures to help one know brahman

So all the characteristics show that the main purport of the vedanta texts is brahman.

(Sutra 4 to be continued)

Some years back there was one e-mail circulating in the cyberworld. I have forgotten the minor details but the main point was something like the following:

Mr. xyz says he will reward $1million to anyone who kisses his arse. "How can we be sure?", asks one doubting person and the reply comes, "Because Mr. xyz has said so, and Mr. xyz says that he does not speak untruth!".

I feel the arguments here closely resemble the above (joke).

Brahman can be known (what is meant by "knowing" brahman has not been made clear; is it similar to "knowing" Java programming language?) only from the scriptures (not from any other source, which means that no other source talks about this.) And "the main purport of all vedanta texts" is brahman.

In reality, Jaimini's Meemamsa sutra states that Veda is always related to (vedic) Karmas and that anything in the vedas which is not so related (to Vedic Karmas) becomes meaningless. This sutra does not seem to satisfactorily/conclusively prove Jaimini's assertion as wrong, but simply sidetracks it by saying तत् तु समन्वयात् (tat tu samanvayāt = That is so because the Vedantic pronouncements sync with the idea of brahman - அதாகட்டும் சேர்ச்சை (ஸமன்வயம்) இருப்பதனால் !)

Let the ordinary readers think for themselves

 

[sarang]

Let ordinary readers learn with reverence from teachers, acharyas and proponents of brahmasutras. Thinking has to come after learning.

Let the ordinary readers think for themselves

 

[sravna]

Some years back there was one e-mail circulating in the cyberworld. I have forgotten the minor details but the main point was something like the following:

Mr. xyz says he will reward $1million to anyone who kisses his arse. "How can we be sure?", asks one doubting person and the reply comes, "Because Mr. xyz has said so, and Mr. xyz says that he does not speak untruth!".

I feel the arguments here closely resemble the above (joke).

Brahman can be known (what is meant by "knowing" brahman has not been made clear; is it similar to "knowing" Java programming language?) only from the scriptures (not from any other source, which means that no other source talks about this.) And "the main purport of all vedanta texts" is brahman.

In reality, Jaimini's Meemamsa sutra states that Veda is always related to (vedic) Karmas and that anything in the vedas which is not so related (to Vedic Karmas) becomes meaningless. This sutra does not seem to satisfactorily/conclusively prove Jaimini's assertion as wrong, but simply sidetracks it by saying तत् तु समन्वयात् (tat tu samanvayāt = That is so because the Vedantic pronouncements sync with the idea of brahman - அதாகட்டும் சேர்ச்சை (ஸமன்வயம்) இருப்பதனால் !)

Let the ordinary readers think for themselves

Dear Shri Sangom,

Your query, what does one mean by saying "brahman can be known"? is the only part in your post that deserves a reply. So I will respond to that based on my knowledge.

By knowing brahman in my view would be knowing directly what brahman is. Somebody can give you a lecture to make you understand worldly truths and you can understood how to make sense of empirical information from that lecture. In the case of the spiritual knowledge, scriptures show you the way and help you make sense of your life experiences and help you understand brahman yourself. But it happens through a number of births. Ultimately you have to see it yourself though it is only the scriptures that can show you the way.

 

[Nara]

Some years back there was one e-mail circulating in the cyberworld. I have forgotten the minor details but the main point was something like the following:

Mr. xyz says he will reward $1million to anyone who kisses his arse. "How can we be sure?", asks one doubting person and the reply comes, "Because Mr. xyz has said so, and Mr. xyz says that he does not speak untruth!".

I feel the arguments here closely resemble the above (joke).

To actually realize the rewards one must have shradda, the right attitude, ability, all those nice things.....Also, Mr. xyz's ass is non-Abrahamic.

 

[Vaagmi]

Dear Sravna,

Please refer #273 and #271:

I appreciate your patience in the face of taunts from people here. I write this only to supplement what you have said. This may be an answer to what two members here have said in tandem.

Connected with the problem of the role of the scripture (Vedas) as a source of knowledge there is a long standing controversy arising from certain doctrines of Meemamsa. If the Vedas are taken as source of positive knowledge about reality conflict with similar sources of knowledge like perception and inference is possible. Hence a certain school of Mimamsa seems to have thought of the Vedas as a source of knowledge about ‘what ought to be done’ and not about ‘what is’. Vedic imperative inculcating what should be done is held fundamental and it is claimed that the rest of the Vedas in general and particularly the Upanishadic assertions about ultimate reality are not to be taken seriously.

This is summarized by learned acharyas as follows:

Vedas teach what is ‘karya’ or something to be done or accomplished. This karya is not action but duty or obligation commanding performance. Hence the Upanishads purporting to throw light on the Brahman, the supreme reality, are not of any significance. In a way this can further be put simply as an attempt to save Vedas and abandon Brahman, the supreme principle.

This has been discussed by Sri Ramanuja in his Sribhashya (for the Brahma Sutras) and Vedartha Samgraha. There he has analyzed the psychology of language, and its existential import. He has further analyzed the notion of karya thoroughly. I recommend these two texts to our friends here who appear to be carried away by the Mimamsaka’s arguments.

Since “intellectual love of God” is the animating principle of his style, Ramanuja expounded and brought to light the Vedarthasangraha before the Deity Srinivasa of Tirupati. It is Ramanuja’s devotional offering at the feet of his Lord. From the standpoint of pious tradition, it embodies both philosophical knowledge and an act of worship.That knowledge developing into bhakti is the ultimate value, the consummation of all spiritual endeavour and philosophical exploration is the central affirmation of the work vedarthasangraha. It is about the philosophy of the Upanishads (not a commentary). It is worth an involved read. I recommend it strongly to our friends.