God Exists

[Nara]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

.... Yes, sir, finally I have figured it out - you are opposed to it, from the social justice/equity pov. Nothing to do with it's theological validity.

[...]

This explains why the folks like you who brought up the Seven Great Untenables, have not bothered to answer

Sorry to say this. but you have not been playing fair.

Folks,

I have a lot of respect for Bhagavat Ramanuja for the actions attributed to him in the area of social reform. However, I reject his religious ideology without any reservation. Therefore, I am not the right person to defend Ramanuja's criticisms, may be Govinda, Raju or Sarang could do it, and I expected them to do so. That is why I did not take it upon myself to post an answer.

Then I saw the above post. As can be seen it is mainly unwarranted public speculation about what motivates me, nothing to do with the issues I was raising. I wanted to report this to the moderator, i.e. Shri KRS himself, but then, seeing the hopeless conflict of interest I let it be. An ironical twist here is, my post pleading with people to desist personal comments was deleted just before this post was made!!

In this post Shri KRS also makes the charge I am not playing fair, perhaps in a lighter vain. Anyway, let me try to dispell him of this notion.

Bhagavat Ramanuja's seven objections are very serious ones and quite technical. Books have been written expounding on them. However, if you google you will see a lot of people giving answers to these objections. These answers mostly expose a lack of understanding of the arguments on their part. So, defending Ramanuja's objections against these frivolous counters is not necessary. Also, I am no scholar, and I don't want to contribute more to the noise that is already out there.

On the other hand, I am not totally ignorant of the issues. Further, the rebuttals offered by this person presented as a renowned Hindu scholar are as weak as the ones we are apt to find in various blogs. So I think I can provide sufficient answers to them.

Before I start, let me state one more time, I am not here holding a brief for Ramanuja. I have no use for either A or VA. I totally disagree with the theism that is part of VA, and A as well even though it is not clear why theism is a part of A -- a still unanswered question.

In the following I have quoted only small parts from the original post, just for context. The full text is available here.

1. The charge of Ashray-Anupapatti

What is the Ashraya (seat) of Maya (or avidyA)?

Criticism-- avidyA is decidedly not a reality: it is only the negation of vidyA, or the obscuration of it.

Well, the rebuttal is provided by the Hindu Scholar himself, in the same sentence. If it is simply a negation, how can it also be obscuring, which is a positive act? Shankara himself does not define avidya as just a negation or absence of Vidya. Maya is supposed to be an undefinable power that covers the true nature of Brhman. So, this spurious claim that Ramanuja misinterpreted is itself a misinterpretation. Further, the assertion that Maya/avidya is neither real nor unreal is just that, an assertion.

Ramanuja makes an unwarranted differentiation between Brahman and the individual soul.

Why is it unwarranted? The rest of this paragraph is full of contradictions and assertions. For instance look at this sentence, “Brahman becomes the individual soul only by upAdhis,”. This is exactly what Ramanuja is objecting to, where is this upAdhi coming from, is it real, or unreal, where does it reside?

2. The Charge of tirodhAn-Anupapatti

The supposed 'ignorance' cannot, as maintained by its upholders, conceal Brahman, whose essential nature is self-luminosity.

Criticism-- Our 'ignorance' is merely negative. It has no positive existence to be able to conceal anything else in the strict sense

This statement flies in the face of what advaitam itself says, i.e. nescience results in tirodhan (obscuring). When objected to, the answer is “it is not concealing anything”. Pick a position, either it obscures or it does not obscure. Your escape can't be the caveat “in the strict sense”. So, what this writer is saying is, the advaitic position that avidya covers (tirodhan) is not true in the strict sense, i.e. this writers says Ramanuja is right in the strict sense, but wrong in the not so strict sense.

Also, Brhman is supposed to be pure, self-aware, luminescent consciousness, completely free of attributes and qualities. Then, how can this self-aware luminosity be covered and get hidden from itself? In other words, it is like obstructing your own consciousness by simply covering you with a sheet. How can light be obscured from itself, unless you destroy it?

In any case, as I stated above, the advaitic avidya as defined by Shankara is not merely a negation, it is a positive power that obscures.

3. The Charge of svarUp-Anupapatti

What is the essential nature of avidyA?

Criticism--The whole difficulty is purely factitious. Certainly we do not admit the reality of Maya, but at the same time we do not hold that it is unreal from the empirical standpoint as well.

This is so typical of Advaitees, when confronted with a logical conundrum they immediately start talking about empirical reality, ultimate reality, etc., with absolutely nothing to back up such claims. Oh we see this in everyday life, so we can’t say it is unreal, but we know that it is unreal because our Advaitam says so. This type of circular logic is not worth spending any time on.

4. The Charge of AnirvachanIyatv-Anupapatti

Advaitins says that Maya is anirvachanIyA, i.e., incapable of definition, because it is neither an entity (sat) nor a non-entity (asat). To hold such a view is impossible

Criticism-- Maya, we say, is neither sat nor asat, neither an 'entity' nor a 'non-entity.'

This answer is nothing but a simple reassertion of what is being objected to. The objection is, how can you say Maya is neither real nor unreal. The answer is, like a school child, because I say so. This claim of neither real, nor unreal cannot be simply asserted, it must have some basis in pramana, and there is none, not in observation, not in deduction, not in shruti testimony, this is exactly what the next objection is.

5. The charge of pramAn-Anupapatti

Is there any means by which this curious avidyA is brought within the range of our cognition? It can neither be proved by perception nor by inference. Neither can it be established by revelation, as the scriptural passages can be explained otherwise.

Criticism--In the light of what we have said above this objection stands self-condemned…..When we know that we are in reality no other than the Absolute Spirit, and that the Atman is the only reality; and yet we feel that we are different from the Absolute and that the world in which we live, move and have our being, is real, to what shall we attribute this clash between our knowledge and feelings? Is it not a mystery?

And we have to take this renowned Hindu Scholar seriously?? He starts with the grand observation, “this objection stands self-condemned” and proceeds to make an argument that is emblematic of all self-condemning arguments.

He says “When we know that we are in reality no other than the Absolute Spirit”. When we know this, Advaitees say, we would attain the liberation as defined by Advaitam, i.e. when you know this you have attained jeevan mukti. This is not obviously true for anyone who cares to write about these issues. So, how do we know that we are none other than the "Absolute Spirit”? That is nothing but a doctrinal position that must be established by some sort of pramana, not simply asserted. After this untenable assertion, the Hindu Scholar goes on to resolve his difficulty of having to explain maya by simply making another unfounded assertion that it is unexplainable, all so very convenient.

6. The Charge of nivartak-Anupapatti

Consequently, the knowledge which has an attributeless Brahman for its object is impossible and cannot be the complete knowledge of truth; and obviously such an impossible knowledge of the oneness of the attributeless Brahman cannot be the remover of the avidyA postulated by the Advaitins.

Criticism--… To say that there are some scriptural passages bearing out the assertion may equally be met by the counter-proposition that there are also passages countenancing the attributelessness of Brahman. If, then, both these assertions neutralize each other from the scriptural point of view, one may well ask, 'What then is the real trend and purport of the Vaidic thought?' It seems to us that this question could not be better answered than by repeating the doctrine of Sankara when he attempted to synthesize the whole of the Shruti by taking a wide conspectus of its purport.

This kind of very selective synthesis is what the objection is about, especially when an alternative synthesis is available that does not elevate just a few statements as maha vakhyas and throw huge number of other texts that support bhedam out the window as having been superseded. Also, this scholar is simply repeating the original assertion being objected to, this is no answer.

7. The Charge of Nivrtty-anupapatti

… The individual soul's bondage of 'ignorance' is determined by Karma and is a concrete reality. It cannot therefore be removed by any abstract knowledge but only by divine worship and grace.

Criticism--Our struggle with Karma is undoubtedly real so long as our consciousness of the true nature of Brahman has not arisen.

Once again simply repeating what is being objected to, is no answer. The pain a pain doctor feels will be no less than an ordinary person irrespective of his/her knowledge about pain. So Ramanuja's objection that mere knowledge will not provide release stands. Needless to say I don't agree with Ramanuja's theory on god and grace, but that is another story.

Concluding remarks
As the adage goes, there are many people in the web writing blogs who don't know what they don't know, but they never allow that to prevent them from making sweeping statements and grand speculations. Presentations like A is this, A is that, VA is butter, D is bread, etc., can be seen by Googling on this topic. I don't want to get into these kinds of long drawn arguments because, (i) these topics have been discussed often and frequently, (ii) nobody is going to change anybody's mind, and (iii) not many people have the interest, time, and patience to read through long posts. If anybody wishes further discussion please break it up one aspect at a time and make the arguments succinct and direct.

Cheers!

 

[KRS]

Dear bro Nara Ji, you said:

Then I saw the above post. As can be seen it is mainly unwarranted public speculation about what motivates me, nothing to do with the issues I was raising. I wanted to report this to the moderator, i.e. Shri KRS himself, but then, seeing the hopeless conflict of interest I let it be. An ironical twist here is, my post pleading with people to desist personal comments was deleted just before this post was made!!

Do you really think my post is offensive? Dear brother, you made specific charges against Shankara Acharyal, that his philosophy is not Vedic, that he borrowed from Buddhist ideas as well as his ontology is senseless and ties you up in knots, for which you essentially cited the seven untenables. When I post a scholarly article refuting the first two of your claim, there was silence. When Sri Saidevo posted the response to the seven untenables, there was silence. That is why I posted the above words. Where there I am being personal? Yes, I guessed on possible reason for silence, but that is easily refuted by saying that, no it is not true. Case closed. Please think about what I said - every one knows your stand on 'Brahminism' and humanism. There is nothing wrong with holding those ideas. I really thought that was the reason for you not responding. Okay, if it is not so, then I was wrong. I, as you know, will always take back my words, if I thought I spoke wrong. But, I really don't see where the personal attack is? We could have spoken in private also about it.

Regards,
KRS

 

[Nara]

..Do you really think my post is offensive?

Dear bro, no that is not what I said, you are over reacting. I tried to word my comment with care. I have no wish to prolong this, therefore, I request you to go back and reread what I said.

The comments I made about Advaitam and Adi Shankara are not charges, only observations.

I only cited Swami Sri Desikan's satadhoosaNi, not the 7 points of Ramanuja.

About silence, I have already explained my reasons, besides, I have now broken my silence and given my response. So this matter is now moot.

Let me ask you and others a simple question, how come if one is an Iyer he/she is almost always a hard core Advaitee, and if one is an Iyengar, he or she is almost always staunch VA? The exceptions are few and far between. What doctrine one will insist is the universal and unimpeachable truth can be easily predicted, with overwhelming degree of accuracy, by simply asking whether the individual is an Iyer, Iyengar, or Madwa, etc. To me, this tells me that all this over zelous allegiance to these doctrines is borne out of mere tribal affliation -- my forefathers right or wrong, not out of an honest intellectual thought process.

Cheers!

 

[Govinda]

Let me ask you and others a simple question, how come if one is an Iyer he/she is almost always a hard core Advaitee, and if one is an Iyengar, he or she is almost always staunch VA? The exceptions are few and far between. What doctrine one will insist is the universal and unimpeachable truth can be easily predicted, with overwhelming degree of accuracy, by simply asking whether the individual is an Iyer, Iyengar, or Madwa, etc. To me, this tells me that all this over zelous allegiance to these doctrines is borne out of mere tribal affliation -- my forefathers right or wrong, not out of an honest intellectual thought process.

Cheers!

I agree to disagree. Sri Ramanuja's teacher was yAdava prakAshar, an advaitin. But, Ramanuja disagreed with the teacher's vedantic interpretations. The guru later became Ramanuja's disciple. There were many instances of people adopting to new/different philosophies, but until that change (this or many lives), we all stick to our current traditions. The so called 'tribal-affiliation' boils down to the concept of Karma/vasana pertaining to the self. This is where all darshanAs incl. atheism might have to re-evaluate their tribal-affiliation.

 

[prasad1]

Iyer-Iyyangar conlict is limited to some southern states.
Not all Iyers are advatins, there are other philosophy followers. Yes there are no Advaitins in Iyyangars.

There are lot of other people who follow Advaita philosophy. Similarly there are Bhakti margi's who do not follow Advaita philosophy. So there is no tribalism, we are all intelligent people choosing the philosophy we want to follow.

 

[Nara]

I agree to disagree. Sri Ramanuja's teacher was yAdava prakAshar, an advaitin. But, Ramanuja disagreed with the teacher's vedantic interpretations. The guru later became Ramanuja's disciple.

That was 1000 years ago. At that times most of the new SVs were converts anyway. I am talking about the present time.

... atheism might have to re-evaluate their tribal-affiliation.

What is this about? It happens every time, this school yard retort, "you too".

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

1. The charge of Ashray-Anupapatti

Well, the rebuttal is provided by the Hindu Scholar himself, in the same sentence. If it is simply a negation, how can it also be obscuring, which is a positive act? Shankara himself does not define avidya as just a negation or absence of Vidya. Maya is supposed to be an undefinable power that covers the true nature of Brhman. So, this spurious claim that Ramanuja misinterpreted is itself a misinterpretation. Further, the assertion that Maya/avidya is neither real nor unreal is just that, an assertion.


Why is it unwarranted? The rest of this paragraph is full of contradictions and assertions. For instance look at this sentence, “Brahman becomes the individual soul only by upAdhis,”. This is exactly what Ramanuja is objecting to, where is this upAdhi coming from, is it real, or unreal, where does it reside?

Dear Shri Nara,

Let me try to rebut your argument. I take Sankara's view that maya is an undefinable power that covers the true nature of brahman. Brahman itself is unaffected by maya and does not perceive it. Therefore it is unreal. But all the jivatmas are influenced by it and perceive it. Therefore it is real. So you can describe it as only, neither real nor unreal.

Once we are done with this point we will move to others.

 

[Govinda]

Sri Nara,

Regd. post #2322,

One of those six was "What is true, bedham or abedham? The answer he got from Lord Varadaraja, through TKN, was, "bedhamE dharshaNam", i.e. duality is the truth.

If it was duality, I guess, it would have been 'darsanam dvitiyam eva cha'. 'Bhedham' would mean 'difference'. In the Gadyam , Sri Ramanuja begins by saying, 'sva aDheena tri-viDha chethana achethana, svaroopa sThithi pravRuththi bhedham'. Supported by Me, the three kinds of souls and matter, different in the essential nature, secondary nature, and position.

The post #2328 was a nice presentation.

What is this about? It happens every time, this school yard retort, "you too".

Just added some spice.

 

[Nara]

...If it was duality, I guess, it would have been 'darsanam dvitiyam eva cha'. 'Bhedham' would mean 'difference'.

Govinda, I don't understand what your point is. What I quoted is from the 600ppadi Guruparampara prabhavam. If you wish I can type up the exact Tamil text, let me know.

Much of SV text is in Tamil. Sanskrit is not the only Deva Bhasha for them. In fact Swami Sri Desikan declares himself to be not some shaka adyaye, but Tamil maraiyon. He also says the sound of Thiruppallandu reverberates Sri Vaikuntam.

Just added some spice.

Alright, but, the civil way to add spice is to be self-depricating, not at the expense the sensibility of others.

Cheers!

 

[suraju06]

Dear Govinda your post # 2333:

If it was duality, I guess, it would have been 'darsanam dvitiyam eva cha'.

"bedhamE dharshaNam" is in Tamil meaning duality is the truth. You are confusing it with perhaps "bedhameva dharsanam" in Sanskrit. Lord Varadharaja did not say bedhameva . He said bedhame in Tamil.

 

[ozone]

 

[KRS]

Dear bro Nara Ji,

I am posting this not to kick a dead horse but to make a point.

You claim that my previous post was not offensive, yet you claim that you were reluctant to say anything because I may be compromised as a Moderator and a Poster.

I, frankly do not understand this.

Shankara Acharyal is a Guru to a long list of us in this Forum who are Advaitins. You, along with others made statements about him as well as his metaphysical theory, not in positive terms.

I know you cited Sri VD's polemical works recently, but if I remember you are the one who brought up the seven untenables almost a year ago.

Bro, as an Advaitin, I was mortified by your claims, along with others - the same feeling you got when you said that an Atheist needs not prove that God exists, and the burden of the proof is on the other side.

You also constantly vilify any theism as illogical and irrational, saying so without any much regard of a human quality, that is human emotion, which, when you analyze is irrational or illogical.

I still do not understand your response above. As you know, I am open to all ideas that help our community.

But. while I appreciate your response above on the Seven Untenables, let,me ask you first. Do you still think that Shankara Acharyal's thesis is against Vedas (and Upanishads) and if so. what is your specific response to the scholastic study I posted that shows otherwise?

Regards,
KRS

Dear bro, no that is not what I said, you are over reacting. I tried to word my comment with care. I have no wish to prolong this, therefore, I request you to go back and reread what I said.

The comments I made about Advaitam and Adi Shankara are not charges, only observations.

I only cited Swami Sri Desikan's satadhoosaNi, not the 7 points of Ramanuja.

About silence, I have already explained my reasons, besides, I have now broken my silence and given my response. So this matter is now moot.

Let me ask you and others a simple question, how come if one is an Iyer he/she is almost always a hard core Advaitee, and if one is an Iyengar, he or she is almost always staunch VA? The exceptions are few and far between. What doctrine one will insist is the universal and unimpeachable truth can be easily predicted, with overwhelming degree of accuracy, by simply asking whether the individual is an Iyer, Iyengar, or Madwa, etc. To me, this tells me that all this over zelous allegiance to these doctrines is borne out of mere tribal affliation -- my forefathers right or wrong, not out of an honest intellectual thought process.

Cheers!

 

[nannilam_balasubramanian]

Can we have Sri Ramanujam's theory of Seven Great Untenables as mentioned in his
Sri Bhasya reproduced again as a matter of information for the late joiners, like me, if
not inconvenient.

Balasubramanian
Ambatter

 

[Nara]

Dear KRS brother:

...I am posting this not to kick a dead horse but to make a point.

Alright, fair enough, I shall answer your question.

You claim that my previous post was not offensive, yet you claim that you were reluctant to say anything

The post in question had unwarranted speculation about what motivates me, to me that is not offensive but certainly not needed, uncalled for personal comment. In other words, I didn't find it insulting like so many other posts that are made against me, if it was it would have been offensive. Since there was no insult, it was not offensive, but still the speculation part was unnecessary and to be avoided, IMO. Hope this clarifies.

Shankara Acharyal is a Guru to a long list of us in this Forum who are Advaitins. You, along with others made statements about him as well as his metaphysical theory, not in positive terms.

I totally disagree with the phrase, "not in positive terms". I have never made any statement about Adi Shankara the person that can be even remotely construed as "not positive". Ideas are fair game for criticism, and such criticisms by nature will not be positive. Besides, lot of people have criticized Advaitam in the past in a much more cutting and severe way -- for instance the SVs say Advaitins are pracchanna bouddas!!

I know you cited Sri VD's polemical works recently, but if I remember you are the one who brought up the seven untenables almost a year ago.

I don't remember this. Even so, what is the reason to dig up something from so far back and insist I respond? Anyway, as I said, this is moot now, I have responded.

Bro, as an Advaitin, I was mortified by your claims, along with others - the same feeling you got when you said that an Atheist needs not prove that God exists, and the burden of the proof is on the other side.

Well, when people say atheists need to disprove god I certainly don't get mortified, I try to tell them what a silly notion that is, i.e. demanding proof for a negative. So, valid criticisms of ideas such as what we make must be answered, not viewed as hurting sensibilities. If hurting sensibilities is our bar then the forum will have to be a mutual admiration society.

You also constantly vilify any theism as illogical and irrational, saying so without any much regard of a human quality, that is human emotion, which, when you analyze is irrational or illogical.

Same answer as above, as they say stay out of the kitchen if the heat is too much to bear. Further, I have given my reasons time and time again why I consider theism illogical and irrational. This I have done only in response to claims made by others, not on my own accord. There are so many posters making so many posts about how great and valid theism is and how egotistical and bull headed atheism is, and they all come up with wild and frankly derisive speculations about what makes some people become atheists, but I never interfere. I am very selective in which posts I respond to. So I don't accept your characterization that I "constantly" "vilify".

Do you still think that Shankara Acharyal's thesis is against Vedas (and Upanishads) and if so. what is your specific response to the scholastic study I posted that shows otherwise?

I think the word "against" may be misunderstood, I am not saying it is against the vedas in the sense it rejects the Vedas like so many other relgions, it obviously does not. The criticism is that Advaitam is inconsistent with the teachings of Vedas and it is not I alone who is making this charge, many others from the time of Bhagavat Ramanuja have been making this charge.

I do think Adviatam is not supported by the Vedas. The reason I say so and all the others have said so, is because Advaitam fails to take the entirety of the Vedas consisting of both bheda and abheda shruti. It elevates just a few abheda shruti to the so called Mahavakhya status and relegates the plethora of bheda shruti as having been superseded. This is what makes Advaitam inconsistent with the Vedas. VA offers an alternative exposition that reconciles the bheda and abheda shrutis without rejecting either.

About the "scholastic study" you say you posted, I don't think it is fair on your part to just cite a study and ask me to respond. If you want, make your case and cite the study as a reference. Then we can have a discussion. Besides, as I have said earlier, I am not a proponent of A or VA, I reject both. My criticism of both is based on my rejection of Vedas themselves. Therefore, I don't see it as my responsibility to answer every study out there, scholastic or not.

Cheers!

 

[suraju06]

Dear Mr. KRS,

You said in post #2309:

Of course it is a debate. You do not think that the folks here arguing against the Advaita are not trying to diminish it's validity as an accepted meta physical system? Sorry, but I disagree.

I think the people arguing here are not questioning or diminishing advaitam as a metaphysical school of thought. They are only questioning certain aspects and thought processes propounded by Sankara which are fundamental to the understanding of the subject. In the process if you get an impression that the school of thought itself is undermined it cannot be helped.

Visishtadvaita's ontology includes part of Advaita, which existed before the exposition of the former by Sri Ramanuja Acharyal. So, it does not matter whether this is accepted or not. This is a historical fact.

This has been answered already by another member here. Sankara interpreted what is said in Brahma Sutra/Upanishads/Vedas. Ramanuja interpreted the same Sutra/Upanishads/Vedas in a different way. We can say only this much. Since Sankara lived and died before Ramanuja was born, Ramanuja had the benefit of knowing Sankara’s views on the Sutra. As another member has said here, Ramanuja’s interpretation is radically different from that of Sankara and so we can not say one was a forerunner to the other. If any thing, Ramanuja’s views are an antithesis of Sankara’s views on the subject. This is the historical fact too.

Dear Tbs,
You have said in# 2314:

its well known historical fact.....even though VA is part of A.....but A more emphasis more Nirguna than saguna....VA adds more
saguna than nirguna......may be father or predecessor....but VA come out of A.

VA is not part of A just as India is not part of New York. VA did not come out of A. It came out of Vedas/Upanishads/sutras. Period.


Dear Mr.Nara. You have said in #2326

……. Therefore, I am not the right person to defend Ramanuja's criticisms, may be Govinda, Raju or Sarang could do it, and I expected them to do so. That is why I did not take it upon myself to post an answer………

I want to state my position here because you expected that I would join issue and defend Ramanuja. I believe Sankara as well as Ramanuja are brilliant minds. They have made excellent and everlasting contribution to metaphysics and epistemology. While I prefer to accept Ramanuja’s line of thought I am not interested in rubbishing Sankara’s line of thought. I have studied both and I found them both useful in my understanding of the subject. As a soul in search of knowledge and truth I keep studying various philosophies and I value each of them. As I said elsewhere it all boils down to this in the debate on Advaitam and Visishtadvaitam: If some one wants to find God and chooses the path of first becoming an Atma vedi, let it be. Some one else may consider it as a waste of time and effort and may believe in a much more practical sure shot Saranagati. The later is not stupid to choose that path either. As far the tharkam (debate) I consider it as a waste of time. Nirguna brahmam and saguna brahmam are all meaningless hairsplitting if we remember that the Veda itself has said this about God - “YadO vAchO nivartanthE” . What veda could not achieve we are trying to achieve with all our limitations.

….there are many people in the web writing blogs who don't know what they don't know, but they never allow that to prevent them from making sweeping statements and grand speculations. Presentations like A is this, A is that, VA is butter, D is bread, etc., can be seen by Googling on this topic. I don't want to get into these kinds of long drawn arguments because, (i) these topics have been discussed often and frequently, (ii) nobody is going to change anybody's mind, and (iii) not many people have the interest, time, and patience to read through long posts.

I agree with you.

in#2328 To me, this tells me that all this over zealous allegiance to these doctrines is borne out of mere tribal affiliation -- my forefathers right or wrong, not out of an honest intellectual thought process.

My view is some what different. Many of us subscribe to a certain system of belief though we have not made any effort to know any thing about it just because we are born in a particular family. But that is not the only reason-tribal affiliation as you call it- for our allegiance to that particular belief system. We respect the wisdom of our ancestors who at some point of time in the distant past made a deliberate choice to follow a particular system of belief. At this stage we are just Iyers or Iyengars. When we get time and equip ourselves with adequate knowledge about the subject to look deeply into our belief system we evaluate it. In this effort too the first preference is to look for validations than to look for flaws. Thus we become advaitins, vishistadvaitins etc. arguing endlessly. But to say that it is a pure tribal affiliation is nothing but ignorance of the complexities.

 

[Govinda]

Dear Govinda your post # 2333:

"bedhamE dharshaNam" is in Tamil meaning duality is the truth. You are confusing it with perhaps "bedhameva dharsanam" in Sanskrit. Lord Varadharaja did not say bedhameva . He said bedhame in Tamil.

When did bhEdha and darshana become tamil? Those words of sanskrit have been given a 'im' sound at the end, and made tamil.

how is 'bhedhame' is different from 'bhedham eva'? 'me' in tamil means 'only', so does 'eva' in sanskrit. If it had to be pure tamil, 'bhEdamE darshanam' should have been 'vEttrumaiyE kolgai' or something like that.

Though bhedham can be loosely translated to 'duality', but Gita/Ramanuja's understanding is that 'Difference' is the 'obvious perception' (darshanam), which again emphasizes the 'plurality of creation/entities, and the individuality(difference) will be retained forever [even in mukthi]', and such difference requires the individual to make an effort to realize the Supreme Person.

Had it been 'duality', the Madhwar's 'dvaita' would become the truth. Here 'Duality' is kind of 'dual reality', God and jiva can never be the same, so does other entities. But for Sri Ramanuja, it is one single Reality, but the entities (god, jiva, matter) still remain different. Thus, translating 'bhEdham' to 'difference', would make it politically correct!

 

[Govinda]

yawn.jpg

Ozone.

Did you mean dizzy ?

 

[Nara]

...Had it been 'duality', the Madhwar's 'dvaita' would become the truth.

Govinda, do you know what is the vital difference between Madwachariyar's Dwaitam and Ramanuja's VA? Pardon me, from your continued argument I get a feeling you are unfamiliar with this.

Anyway, let me cite the exact text from 6000ppadi Guruparampara Prabhavam:

"பரதத்வம் நாமே, பேதமே தர்சனம், உபாயமும் ப்ரபத்தியே, அந்திம ஸ்ம்ருதியும் வேண்டா, சரீராவஸாநத்திலே மோக்ஷம், பெரிய நம்பி திருவடிகளிலே ஆச்ரியிப்பது"


​

The original text is in manipravala lipi. Here பேதமே தர்சனம் simply means Chetana and Ishwara are separate, not non-different, which is what Madwahcariyar's Dwaitam also says. In this respect there is no difference between VA and D. However, VA and D differ in many other respects, not the least of which is the concept of "taratamyam" i.e. difference among the essential nature of jeevas and the bliss experienced by different jeevas and jeevas and Ishwara.

There was a debate between the 42nd Jeeyas of Sri Ahobila Matam and the head of Madhwa Matam at that time, about 60 or 70 years ago. The debate took place in Sri Rangam. The entire debate was published in Sri Nrusimha Priya. Some 5 or so years ago I typed up the whole thing up and posted in the internet, unfortunately I can't find it now. Check with the publishers of Sri Nrusimha Priya if you are interested.

Govinda, I am still not sure what you are getting at, I think you are hung up on the word "bhEdamE" and I think it is because you are misunderstanding this word. If you object to this, that simply means you are objecting to the earliest written account of this episode as reported by early SV acharyas.

Cheers!

 

[sarang]

दर्शनंभेदमेवच

What Sri Ramanuja understood from this answer of Lord Varadaraja is to be explained from his later works - vedarta sangraha and sri bhashya.

Dear Govinda your post # 2333:



"bedhamE dharshaNam" is in Tamil meaning duality is the truth. You are confusing it with perhaps "bedhameva dharsanam" in Sanskrit. Lord Varadharaja did not say bedhameva . He said bedhame in Tamil.

 

[ozone]

Ozone.

Did you mean dizzy ?

I meant

to

to

 

[renuka]

Long article and interview but worth a read.


Scientific Proof of the Existence of God : Amit Goswami, Ph.D.



Just some info on Amit Goswami,

Amit Goswami, Ph. D. is a retired professor from the theoretical physics department of the University of Oregon in Eugene, where he had served since 1968. He is a pioneer of the new paradigm of science called “science within consciousness”.Goswami is the author of the highly successful textbook Quantum Mechanicsthat is used in Universities throughout the world. His two volume textbook for nonscientists, The Physicist’s View of Nature traces the decline and rediscovery of the concept of God within science.Goswami has also written many popular books based on his research on quantum physics and consciousness. In his seminal book, The Self-Aware Universe, he solved the quantum measurement problem elucidating the famous observer effect while paving the path to a new paradigm of science based on the primacy of consciousness.Subsequently, in The Visionary Window, Goswami demonstrated how science and spirituality could be integrated. In Physics of the Soul he developed a theory of survival after death and reincarnation. His book Quantum Creativity is a tour de force instruction about how to engage in both outer and inner creativity. The Quantum Doctor integrates conventional and alternative medicine.In his latest book, God is Not Dead we explore what quantum physics tell us about our origins and how we should live.In his private life, Goswami is a practitioner of spirituality and transformation. He calls himself a quantum activist. He appeared in the film“What the Bleep Do We Know“, “The Dalai Lama Renaissance“, and the award winning documentary “The Quantum Activist“.​

 

[nannilam_balasubramanian]

We can read from our ancient histories that a number of our Great Rishis and others
have enjoyed the appearance of God's presence. The great literatures and epics
teach us that we should frame our mind in such a way that we have a control over it
and try to earnestly restrict our other feeling except God, HIS Manifestation. We should
not have a change in our moods often quickly between extremes of depression and
cheerfulness. That does not mean we need to have a madness or an abnormal behaviour
of a particular type. These days, Penance is not truly possible because of the Bandham
everyone has. We need only to manipulate our mind to have a thinking and feeling of God
whenever, it is possible. Our sole consolation and desire must be in God to enable us to
have a faith in us that God or the Supreme Power exists and HE loves everyone always
and nothing takes place in this world without HIS presence.

Balasubramanian
Ambattur

 

[tbs]

hi,
just go through....no comments...

The future of God and science

The future of God and science T O I

 

[renuka]

hi,
just go through....no comments...

The future of God and science

The future of God and science

Hi TBS,

You always say no comments in almost all your posts..why Garu?
any comment?

 

[tbs]

Hi TBS,

You always say no comments in almost all your posts..why Garu?
any comment?

hi renu,
generally my personal comments different from others lah.....but here comments are self explanatory....so no comments