Search:
Bhakti List Archives

Re: Mani-Vidyasankar debate: Points

From the Bhakti List Archives

Krishna Kalale • June 24, 1994 


sudarshan,  
A LONG POSTING......BEWARE

good explanation. please consider adding couple of other points.

first of all vidya's contention that sareera sareeri bhava is not a upanishadic
statement is total ignorance regarding upanishads. the brihad aranyaka
upanishad- clearly says " yaha  atmani tishtan atmanaam antharo yamayati
yam atma na veda yasya atma sareeram" clearly in the direct words sareeram
the upanishad declares the sareera sareeri bhava for the jeevatma and paramatma.

Note this sareera sareeri bhava relation can answer both bheda relation 
since the attribute is different from substratum; the abheda relation ship
is also explained since we call " this is devadatta" denoting his body.
but we actually mean the devadatta (jeevatma). This type of analysis makes
sareera sareeri bhava a relation ship which has the master key to analyze
all the type of statements from the sruthis


In an earlier post vidya claimed that there is no statement in the
vedas which says vishnu is the highest - that is wrong - in 
Rig veda there is a statement " Agnir devanaam avamo vishnu ruthhamaha"

meaning agni is the lowest among the gods and the vishnu is the highest.


one more aspect of the sentence - sadeva somya idam agra aseeet 
eka meva advitiyam.

For this which means " sat only existed oh, beautiful one, at the beginning
one only without a second".  For this statement, even shankara takes it as
" maaya sabalitam bramha ekameva aseet" - meaning at the beginning bramhan
combined with maya existed in the beginning without a second!!!!!

Why does he need to do that?  see the next sentence of the upanishad

tat aikshata bahusyaam iti .....  meaning he(bramhan) willed to be many.

How can the Nirguna bramhan, with no attributes, powers etc. will?  Shankara
assumes that between the first sentence and the second sentence some how
the bramhan gets mixed up with maya and appears as " ishwara" a personal god
who can will!!!. I am sure this is a torture of the vedas to bring out the
advaitic meanings from it.  Note the same bramhan "tat" which is same as "sat"
wills to be many. so visistadvaitic meaning becomes very appropriate to vedas

this is confirmed in other vedic statements such as " so kaamayata 
bahusyaam prajaayeyeti sa tapo tapyata" of taittirya upanishad. means
"he willed to create many"

Note one other point regarding satyam jnanam anantam bramha -

bramhan is unconditionally existent, is knowledge, and is infinite.

note the three items satyam, jnanam and anantam have to be adjectives of
bramhan. if they are not let us take the the first one only

bramhan is satyam - what does satyam means (existence) ie. bramhan exists.
is existence the adjective of bramhan or bramhan identically equal to
existence?  if the latter,  how can the same be also identically equal to
a different concept called jnanam?.  for this the advaitin answers -

bramhan is different from being asatyam, different from being ajnanam and
different from being antavat( finite thing) .  So bramhan is indescribable
according to advaitins and this statement can be only taken as a 
negative connotation.

dont ever listen silently to an advaitin stating in english "
bramhan is existence, knowledge and infinite... because he does not know
the true advaitic position!!"

This negative connotation also does no good for the attribute substratum
relation ship.  because the visistadvaitin can ask" do you say that
bramhan is characterised by being different from asatyam, ajnaanam and antavat?

then these negative descriptions becomes adjectives of a substratum which
is bramhan!!  ANy object one can think of has to have a characteristic
and a object without characteristics is a non entity - this is the 
argument of the visistadvaitin -  which happens to be very sensible!!

NOw why is advaitin called " prachhana baudhha"  or essentially a buddhist.

if advaitin accepts the existence of bramhan with no attributes, it is as
good as accepting nihilism with a twist. because how can any object exist
without characteristics? even existence is an attribute of an object !!
that is the reason an advaitin cannot confidently state that Bramhan exists.

because he has to say bramhan is different from the non existents! this is
the reason visitadvaitin takes strike at the advaitin stating that he is
is a buddhist in disguise!


do not make this prachhana bauddha isssue a historical issue. this is not
warranted.

finally,  is bramhan is conscious or is he(or she) nirguna?

as vidya claims vishnu to mean nirguna it does not work.  if he
wills to be many and wills to create, sustain and destroy this world

he has to be conscious to will! so bramhan is concscious and not nirguna
the way advaitin means. nirguna has to mean - without negative characteristics
`

and the same sentence in svetasvetara says - nirgunam guna bhotkr cha

meaning bramhan is attributeless and enjoyer of attributes.  since the
second aspect contradicts the first attribute (nirguna) in this sentence
vedas do not mean nirguna to be attribute less but gunas to mean - three
gunas only.

incidentally, if one reads the bhagawadgita, - Sri Krishna says - gunaateethaha
sa uchyate - in 14th chapter. in various chapters the term "guna" is used
only to mean three gunas - ie. satva rajas tamo gunas. so ramanuja's view
point on gunas is no error! but accurate description and answers serious
allegation on vedas that they are inconsistent!

note I need to check vishnu purana to find the exact thing vidya  mentions
in his article. may be someone should post vidyas articles on this
bhakti or prapatti group.  but in GIta there are lots of places
where maya is said to be god's power -- for example "
daivee hyeshaaa gunamayee mama mayaa duratyayaa.  which means
this divine maya (power) of mine (full of gunas--).  note maya does not
need to mean "illusion" as the advaitin takes it to be.

in the sentence in rig veda " Indro mayaabihi pururoopa eeyate" 
which means indra takes different forms by his power - here maya is 
taken to be power even according to sayana - ie. an advaitic vedic 
commentator.