Brahma Sutras

[tks]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

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.

Kind what I would consider an அசட்டு response ... LoL

 

[Nara]

Kind what I would consider an அசட்டு response ... LoL

Precisely, your continued insistence on shradda, etc., is அசட்டுத்தனம் on steroids ..... that is exactly what I tried to point out ... you caught on, good for you!!

 

[sravna]

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.

Dear Shri Vaagmi, thanks for the post. btw, I am not really bothered by taunts because I believe it is resorted to only when you cannot counter with substance. So that shows me something.

 

[sangom]

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.

Dear Shri Sravna,

When you continue to use the word "knowing directly what brahman is", etc., it becomes necessary to get into the area of epistemology. In a lay person's words, it is necessary that you explain "who" will know, "how" he will know, etc.

My post - to which yours was the reply - also contained another important point, viz., the Mimamsa Sutras of Jaimini saying that the Vedas only talk about Vedic Karmas or sacrifices and that if they are seen talking about anything else, such portions are meaningless. Since Ramanuja came later than Sankara and since Ramanuja, after his interpretation of the brahmasutras, took a view very contrary to that of Sankara, I consider that taking the help of Ramanuja to rebut Poorva Mimamsa contentions will not be correct. The Brahmasutra itself has only the Mr. xyz's story kind of justification and that is why I made a reference to it. But it may be opportune for you (and your friends) to put on the "injured innocence" mode now, I can see your predicament. That is why you are sidetracking the objections from Jaimini also, possibly.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sravna,

When you continue to use the word "knowing directly what brahman is", etc., it becomes necessary to get into the area of epistemology. In a lay person's words, it is necessary that you explain "who" will know, "how" he will know, etc.

My post - to which yours was the reply - also contained another important point, viz., the Mimamsa Sutras of Jaimini saying that the Vedas only talk about Vedic Karmas or sacrifices and that if they are seen talking about anything else, such portions are meaningless. Since Ramanuja came later than Sankara and since Ramanuja, after his interpretation of the brahmasutras, took a view very contrary to that of Sankara, I consider that taking the help of Ramanuja to rebut Poorva Mimamsa contentions will not be correct. The Brahmasutra itself has only the Mr. xyz's story kind of justification and that is why I made a reference to it. But it may be opportune for you (and your friends) to put on the "injured innocence" mode now, I can see your predicament. That is why you are sidetracking the objections from Jaimini also, possibly.

Dear Shri Sangom,

I think Shri.Vaagmi will be able to address your post better than I can regarding your point on Ramanuja . So lets wait for his reply.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sravna,

When you continue to use the word "knowing directly what brahman is", etc., it becomes necessary to get into the area of epistemology. In a lay person's words, it is necessary that you explain "who" will know, "how" he will know, etc.

Regarding "how", I think we will come to that. Regarding "who", I think it is clear to the layman and so let us not unnecessarily complicate things in the name of clarifications.

 

[renuka]

Thinking has to come after learning.

Thinking comes along with learning.

 

[Vaagmi]

Dear Shri Sravna,............My post - to which yours was the reply - also contained another important point, viz., the Mimamsa Sutras of Jaimini saying that the Vedas only talk about Vedic Karmas or sacrifices and that if they are seen talking about anything else, such portions are meaningless. Since Ramanuja came later than Sankara and since Ramanuja, after his interpretation of the brahmasutras, took a view very contrary to that of Sankara, I consider that taking the help of Ramanuja to rebut Poorva Mimamsa contentions will not be correct. The Brahmasutra itself has only the Mr. xyz's story kind of justification and that is why I made a reference to it...............

Leaving aside the obnoxious and inappropriate xyz story, let us deal with the substance in the post. Brahma sutras and Jaimini's works came first. Next came Sankara and his bhashya. Next came Sri Ramanuja and his bhashya. This is the chronological order of events. What was said in Brahmasutras by Badarayana and in Jaimini's work by Jaimini was commented upon by Sankara. What was the content of Bdarayana's sutra, Jaimini's sutra and Sankara's bhashya was commented upon by Sri Ramanuja. If there is no scope for Ramanuja to comment on Badarayana or Jaimini or the entire Prabhakara school of Mimaamsa then we have no scope here to comment about any of the Upanishads. I do not understand what is the objection here. When Ramanuja has commented about Mimamsaa what is wrong in bringing it in here for consideration in the argument. Clarification please.

 

[sangom]

Leaving aside the obnoxious and inappropriate xyz story, let us deal with the substance in the post. Brahma sutras and Jaimini's works came first. Next came Sankara and his bhashya. Next came Sri Ramanuja and his bhashya. This is the chronological order of events. What was said in Brahmasutras by Badarayana and in Jaimini's work by Jaimini was commented upon by Sankara. What was the content of Bdarayana's sutra, Jaimini's sutra and Sankara's bhashya was commented upon by Sri Ramanuja. If there is no scope for Ramanuja to comment on Badarayana or Jaimini or the entire Prabhakara school of Mimaamsa then we have no scope here to comment about any of the Upanishads. I do not understand what is the objection here. When Ramanuja has commented about Mimamsaa what is wrong in bringing it in here for consideration in the argument. Clarification please.

This thread was about brahmasutras as per Sankarabhashya (kindly see OP.). If Shri Sravna is trying to give an avial of all the brahmasutra bhashyas (Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhva and anyone else if need arises!) then let Shri Sravna clearly tell so. Of course, then he will also have to state beforehand whether he is deriving A, VA, D or a cocktail of all these!

 

[Vaagmi]

This thread was about brahmasutras as per Sankarabhashya (kindly see OP.). If Shri Sravna is trying to give an avial of all the brahmasutra bhashyas (Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhva and anyone else if need arises!) then let Shri Sravna clearly tell so. Of course, then he will also have to state beforehand whether he is deriving A, VA, D or a cocktail of all these!

This appears to be a special interpretation of the OP. I do not find anything said in the OP which indicates that it is a discussion with exclusive reference to only Sankara bhashya. Nor do I believe that we are living frozen in the past, in Sankara's times, without the benefit of all subsequent interpretations of the scriptures and sutras. Even a book written today on Sankara bhashya will have to necessarily quote Sribhashya of Ramanuja in order to give a complete picture of the thought processes involved. Or am I wrong? Thanks.

 

[sravna]

This thread was about brahmasutras as per Sankarabhashya (kindly see OP.). If Shri Sravna is trying to give an avial of all the brahmasutra bhashyas (Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhva and anyone else if need arises!) then let Shri Sravna clearly tell so. Of course, then he will also have to state beforehand whether he is deriving A, VA, D or a cocktail of all these!

Dear Shri Sangom,

Though I will be giving the interpretation of Sankara, interpretations of Ramanuja and others are most welcome to be discussed, with the purpose of pointing out what may be considered as flaws in Sankara's interpretations. So Shri.Vaagmi is right when we says we need a complete picture and only by discussing the alternate interpretations we can get a complete picture.

 

[sravna]

Sutra 4 (continued from the previous post)

Objection: The scriptures induce or prohibit men from some action. Even though they have brahman as their main purport, they do not end there because they then enjoin man to realize brahman through intuition. Thus they are also concerned with prescribing actions like hearing knowledge about self, thinking about self and meditating upon self with the aim to attaining direct experience of brahman. Thus they have as their purport prescribing certain actions.

Note: The answer below sets forth to explain that knowing brahman is not an act and therefore when the sutra says that knowing brahman is the main purport of the scriptures , it means that asking one to perform acts is not the main purpose of the scriptures. This is said because it is shown that scriptures have a use even without laying down injunctions for men. That use is the knowledge of brahman. Even though it is not an act it is useful and is the main purport of the vedanta texts. And as said before this knowledge can be obtained only from scriptures because other sources of knowledge such as direct perception or inference cannot help one to know brahman.

Answer: To know brahman is to become brahman. But brahman is an already existing entity and so knowing brahman cannot be said to involve an act like a ritualistic act. When ignorance is removed , brahman manifests itself. Just as we see snake in the rope in dark, but when illusion is removed we see the rope. Thus here rope is not a creation of any act but manifests itself after the illusion of snake is removed. The knowledge of brahman does not depend on any human endeavor or acts but only on the removal of ignorance.

Also action involves creation. modification, purification or attainment. None of these is involved in the knowledge of brahman. Knowledge of brahman being the same as liberation cannot be created or modified because every philosopher would agree you cannot change that i.e., liberation from happening. Self is eternally pure and so there is no question of purification. Knowledge of brahman cannot also be "attained" because brahman is our inner self and so it is something that is already there and is not actively sought. So we can say that knowledge of brahman is not achieved through actions.

Knowledge cannot also be the activity of mind. This is because knowledge does not depend upon human notions but on the thing itself whose knowledge is sought. Thus all the so called injunctions given in the texts do nothing but turn the mind inward from the external world. So comprehension of brahman by itself is not an action.

Thus we conclude that all the vedanta texts refer exclusively to brahman without connection to any action. And brahman is the main purport of the vedanta texts.

 

[renuka]

Dear Sravna,

Technically no one can teach us about Brahman isn't it?

So all the info in the religious text is just to guide us how to finally become "Brahman".

It is just our that our path is cleared with religious text so that we can see the light ahead(if it really exists).

Note: I am using the word "If it really exists" not that I deny the existence of God but just being technical here.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

Technically no one can teach us about Brahman isn't it?

So all the info in the religious text is just to guide us how to finally become "Brahman".

It is just our that our path is cleared with religious text so that we can see the light ahead(if it really exists).

Note: I am using the word "If it really exists" not that I deny the existence of God but just being technical here.

Dear Renuka,

You are right in saying that the scriptures can only act as a guide but I would add that the scriptures are also considered the right guide.

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,

You are right in saying that the scriptures can only act as a guide but I would add that the scriptures are also considered the right guide.

Dear Sravna,

I don't know why you added the word 'right' here..ok if there is a right guide that means there is also a wrong guide.

So if scriptures is the right guide..then can you tell me what is the wrong guide??

 

[sravna]

Dear Renuka,

I meant if you follow the scriptures you will achieve the objective of liberation. But I think it is the case that one may also not believe in or may not be able to follow the scriptures faithfully initially. But everyone goes through that initially. But when you reach the right attitude, it is my view, you truly believe in scriptures and try to follow it.

 

[Raghy]

Dear Sri. Sravna,

1. Can an illiterate person understand about Brahman? If the answer is 'yes', how? if the answer is 'no', why not, please?

2. Can a person know 'Brahman' without reading Brahma Sutra?

3. Can a person who does not believe in Brahman , for example a person like me, know Brahman? If 'yes', how? if 'no', why not, please?

Kindly address all the three questions individually, please.

I am posing these questions to other learned members too of this forum. ( I humbly request any member who thinks I am not polite enough to kindly ignore my inquiry, please). Thank you.

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,

I meant if you follow the scriptures you will achieve the objective of liberation. But I think it is the case that one may also not believe in or may not be able to follow the scriptures faithfully initially. But everyone goes through that initially. But when you reach the right attitude, it is my view, you truly believe in scriptures and try to follow it.

Dear Sravna,

Ok let me share with you my personal "experience" with regards to religious scriptures.

The main reason I studied Sanskrit cos I wanted to learn scriptures in depth.

But as I read more and more..the more I feel I am going away from the idea of a personal God even though I still find Lord Shiva hot!LOL

Ok what I mean is the more I read I feel there is no actual need for me to even pray.

Not that I am a realized soul or anything near there but it is just that the so call guide of scriptures actually makes you look within and not without.

After a while you get the feeling "hey what was I doing all this while? Why was I even thinking that there was even a religion or any rule and regulation to start with?"

All these questions crop up in the mind..then there will be a phase where one wants to keep an open mind and concentrate on being a good person first before anything.

The more I read the more I get the feeling that nothing is going to transform me but my own self.

Then one gets the feeling that 'Ok I am getting better.. more balanced in life..seeing God in everyone" but then all this comes crumbling down when just say another driver drives recklessly in front of me and the best of swear words stream from me!LOL

So you see then I am back to square one..I failed to see God in the driver!LOL

So you see Sravna I really wonder how much can we be guided by scriptures..So I still read the 'scriptures' with an open mind..for knowing some info mainly and nothing more.

But there is one great advantage of studying scriptures..one feels that every day is the same and equally important in our life so no need to get over excited about any special day..so that way I can safely say that after reading some religious text I have stopped celebrating any specific religious celebrations be it Shivaratri or Navaratri or even Diwali.

 

[Raghy]

Greetings.

Someone asked " If I declare I am self realised person and start an asram, am I a 'fake'?"

In my opinion, the answer is " No". A self realised person feels realised, feels personally. Others need not even know about it, leave alone acknowledge or accept it. We don't really know the rules and regulations for a self-realised person.

I know amoung Indians, mostly Tamil Brahmins anyone consumes alcohol is looked down upon. I drink like a fish. Also, I help anyone and everyone. I don't even have to know the person. So, I know at least from one angle I can't be really looked down upon.

So, this person who thought is not yet self-realised may very well be self realised already. I see such persons like that only anyway.

What is self realising anyway? It is understanding about self; and accepting it openly without any shame attached to it. I don't think I have add more to this.

Cheers!

 

[C RAVI]

Greetings.

Someone asked " If I declare I am self realised person and start an asram, am I a 'fake'?"

In my opinion, the answer is " No". A self realised person feels realised, feels personally. Others need not even know about it, leave alone acknowledge or accept it. We don't really know the rules and regulations for a self-realised person.

I know amoung Indians, mostly Tamil Brahmins anyone consumes alcohol is looked down upon. I drink like a fish. Also, I help anyone and everyone. I don't even have to know the person. So, I know at least from one angle I can't be really looked down upon.

So, this person who thought is not yet self-realised may very well be self realised already. I see such persons like that only anyway.

What is self realising anyway? It is understanding about self; and accepting it openly without any shame attached to it. I don't think I have add more to this.

Cheers!

When you could disassociate yourself with "I" and "Mine", you are a realized soul.

Being good to others, doing charity without knowing to whom we are doing and without advertising, having personal choices that does not harm others, being righteous etc..etc are just the quality of "I" in you, which you keep striving to refine in order to give value to your "I". These qualities, perceptions, attitude etc..etc does not qualify one to be a realized soul.

The true realization is said to be attained when you could neither associate nor disassociate yourself with the surroundings you are in. That is, when you could realize that you have lost the "I" consciousness and at the same time could realize that you are in fact a whole of the creation without any distinguishing identity.

When a Soul/person attains this state of realization, the person would by default remain cut off from the mundane life and its related senses.

 

[sangom]

Regarding "how", I think we will come to that. Regarding "who", I think it is clear to the layman and so let us not unnecessarily complicate things in the name of clarifications.

I am probably a worse case than even the layman that you intend; so why not deign to give an answer, if at all you have one? If you don't answer, I will consider that you have no clear answer and you are fumbling.

 

[sangom]

This appears to be a special interpretation of the OP. I do not find anything said in the OP which indicates that it is a discussion with exclusive reference to only Sankara bhashya. Nor do I believe that we are living frozen in the past, in Sankara's times, without the benefit of all subsequent interpretations of the scriptures and sutras. Even a book written today on Sankara bhashya will have to necessarily quote Sribhashya of Ramanuja in order to give a complete picture of the thought processes involved. Or am I wrong? Thanks.

The OP says:

"I just bought a book on brahma sutras translated by Swami Vireswarananda. The interpretation of the sutras is according to Sankara. I thought I would post a summary of each chapter in the book and let the members with different views including the atheists comment and debate on it. Since it is based only on logic I think anyone can join the debate. I hope the exercise turns out to be useful."

I understood that this thread therefore is on the basis of that book by Swami Vireswarananda. Only great personalities will understand it differently. Plus, Shri Sravna has been an advocate of Advaita and Sankara and has said so even in this thread.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Though I will be giving the interpretation of Sankara, interpretations of Ramanuja and others are most welcome to be discussed, with the purpose of pointing out what may be considered as flaws in Sankara's interpretations. So Shri.Vaagmi is right when we says we need a complete picture and only by discussing the alternate interpretations we can get a complete picture.

In that case this will be yet another story of Paramaananda Guru and his sishyas I will then take leave of this thread.

 

[C RAVI]

Dear Sri. Sravna,

1. Can an illiterate person understand about Brahman? If the answer is 'yes', how? if the answer is 'no', why not, please?

Literate or illiterate person has to naturally go through the spiritual evolution process and in due course get to know himself/herself as whether he or she can understand about Brahman. Neither himself/herself nor the others can give a definite answer to this question.

Studying Brahman is not empirical and perfect empirical studies by itself can not guarantee understanding about Brahman. As such, even a Literate person can not claim himself/herself of having understood Brahman.

2. Can a person know 'Brahman' without reading Brahma Sutra?

Reading Sutras can only help one to understand human life more better and the purpose of human life. Reading Sutras can also help one to believe in metaphysical part of this existence, having Brahman as the center theme. Brahma Sutras can offer a chance for the soul to get to know the reality, handed down by the great sages.

The spiritual evolution level of the person alone can determine if a person can understand Brahman or not, irrespective of reading or not reading Brahma Sutras.

3. Can a person who does not believe in Brahman , for example a person like me, know Brahman? If 'yes', how? if 'no', why not, please?

As long as a person is holding on his/her personal choice of believing or not believing anything, he/she is under total influence of Maya. In general, all the humans are under such influences.

When even a believer in Brahman who is believing in Brahman as per his/her sense of acceptance, satisfaction etc seem to feel hard to understand Brahman, what to say about a Non-Believer?

Both a Believer and a Non-Believer are in the same position with respect to the understanding of Brahman, while living a mundane life.

I am posing these questions to other learned members too of this forum. ( I humbly request any member who thinks I am not polite enough to kindly ignore my inquiry, please). Thank you.

I am not a learned Scholar. Just expressed my views, having found your post publicly.

 

[Raghy]

When you could disassociate yourself with "I" and "Mine", you are a realized soul.

Being good to others, doing charity without knowing to whom we are doing and without advertising, having personal choices that does not harm others, being righteous etc..etc are just the quality of "I" in you, which you keep striving to refine in order to give value to your "I". These qualities, perceptions, attitude etc..etc does not qualify one to be a realized soul.

The true realization is said to be attained when you could neither associate nor disassociate yourself with the surroundings you are in. That is, when you could realize that you have lost the "I" consciousness and at the same time could realize that you are in fact a whole of the creation without any distinguishing identity.

When a Soul/person attains this state of realization, the person would by default remain cut off from the mundane life and its related senses.

Dear Ravi,

I quite agree with you. It is not anywhere near self-realisation even if I help perons not known to me. Yes, I quite agree it is only 'mamata' or 'madham' even though you have not mentioned it, may be you wanted to be polite. You are quite good when you put that forward quite plainly. Good on you.

I quite agree I should neither associate nor disassociate with my surroundings.

The person does not have to cut off from mundane life though. It can go on as it should be, but "with out attachments".

Dear Ravi, Kindly notice the attachment and the detachment.. it is a fine line. I just love to see your efforts to understand life. Good luck to you young man!.. Watch this....

Sindhooram Peythirangi - Thooval Kottaram (1996) KJ Yesudas,Lekha R Nair,Raveendran - YouTube

He is kind of realised soul with all attachments...

Cheers!