You are here: Sri Vaishnava Home Page : Bhakti List : Archives : December 2000

Re: [Shastric evidence asked !!!]

From: M.S.HARI Madabhushi Sarangarajan Hari (
Date: Wed Dec 13 2000 - 09:43:47 PST

Dear Mr. Rembert <> 

Let me reply to your mail briefly. I believe that the list owner will 
not object for the length of this article.

You wrote:
>  Today again in class (I am studying indology), our professor was giving
>  an explanation of 'hinduism' in which he was proclaiming that it was
>  impersonalistic.
>  I know, by reading several books, that a lot of arguments can be found
>  in shastra to prove that the personal aspect of God is the highest, but
>  it would help me enourmously if you could cite some shastra and prove
>  that the highest realization IS Bhagavan realization. It would be very
>  nice to present this to my fellow students, because I feel they get now
>  an un-correct view of the vedic literature.

Your professor's explanation is not fully known to me. Therefore, I cannot 
pass conclusive comments on those explanations. Let me not also refer that 
which you have mentioned as 'hinduism'. I take into account the 
proclamation of your professor on "impersonalistic God as SAstra's 
purport" and refute it as follows:

pramANam is source of knowledge/authority - This is the apowrushEya Veda
which is established in pUrva-mImAmsa and by the Brahma sUtra "SAstra
yOnithvAth"; the pratyaksham and anumAnams are also considered here 
but after the Veda in the order.

pramEyam is object of knowledge - that which is known through pramANam - This
is aSEsha-chit-achit-prakAram-Brahma-EkamEva-thathvam - thathvam 
nArAyaNa: para:
(This itself refutes the impersonalistic proclamation)

pramAtha - he who knows the pramEyam through the pramANam

pramA - the valid rational knowledge, which is practically useful, obtained by
the pramAtha about pramEyam through pramANam.

Now-a-days, I see many talking about pramEyam without proper study or no 
study of the pramANam. Or prejudices play a role here. As a result of 
this, there arises many deviations and contradictions. Not only today we 
find this trend, but also in olden days, such a trend was present very much.
For example, the Adi Sankara's Advaita is an example for
irrational anti-vedic & invalid pramEyam, which has been termed as prachchanna
bowdham. This is not to offend some one but nirviSesha chin 
mAtram vAdam if done by your proffessor is nothing but "nirastha samastha
viSesham prathyagabhinnam chinmAthram"; 
1. nirastha samastha viSesham is a form of Sowgatha bowdha vAdam
2. prathyagabhinnam is a form of chArvAka vAdam
3. chinmAthram is a form of sAnkya vAdam.
All the three are against SAstra and nyAya, therefore, "sAnkya sowgatha
chArvAka sAnkarachchAnkarOdaya:" - the mixture of these three 
Veda-SAstra-virudhda-nyAya-virudhda atheist mathams is Advaita of 
people like GaudapAda, Sankara etc., which is therefore surely a
Veda-SAstra-virudhda-nyAya-virudhda-matham. These are not emmotional points;
but when studied with a calm mind without prejudices, one can understand the
fact - only the VisishtAdvaita pramEyam is the truth.

The quoted so-called proclamation "impersonal God" also seems to be 
the result of lack of scholarly study of the SAstra or no study of SAstra 
or should be a personal opinion. If it was a personal opinion, then
no comments. 

The SArIraka-SAstra consist of 20 chapters;
Frist 12 chapters state that SrIman NArAyaNa: is worshiped by all karmas 
(sUtras attribtued to Sage Jaimini)
Next 4 chapters state that SrIman NArAyaNa: grants the results of all karmas
who is the antharyAmi of all dEvathas (sUtras attributed to Sage kASakrutsna)
Last 4 chapters clearly explain the swarUpa, rUpa, guNa, vibhUthi iswaryams of
SrIman NArAyaNa who is known by the name Brahman in upanishads (sUtras
attributed to Sage Veda vyAsa).

Thus the entire Veda has clearly explained that the one and only God is SrIman
NArAyaNa: who is the Lord of LakshmI; All the sentitent and insentient
entities are his body(form), mode and attributes. Therefore the impersonal
aspect of God in SAstra is shattered to pieces. The God according to the
SAstra is always with
form. This has been ascertained in the SAstra. But please note the following

SrIman NArAyaNa has no form - this means that he has no form like we
jIvAthmans (starting from chaturmuka-brahmA, Siva etc to micro-organisms);
This means that SrIman NArAyaNa has no form because of karma; He has no karma.
Starting from chaturmuka-brahmA, Siva etc to micro-organisms, these jeevAthmas
have impure prAkrutha-form (misra-satvam) as per individual karma. SrIman
NArAyaNa is purushOththama: and therefore, he is not having impure-form.

SrIman NArAyaNa has form (rUpam)- this means that he has divine (sudhda-satva
- this is also a achit-type) pure form as per his wish (sankalpa) which is
celebrated in the SAstra in five modes namely para, vyUha, vibhava, hArda and
archA. SrIman NArAyaNa's s rUpam is therefore called as divya-mangala-vigraham
or divya-rUpam. On the other hand, SrIman NArAyaNa's swarUpam is

The other form of SrIman NArAyaNa is all the chit and achit entities; All the
chit and achit entites are the form/mode/inseparable attribute
(Sareeram/prakAram/apruthak-sidhda-viSEshaNam) of SrIman NArAyaNa because he
supports, controlls and owns all chit and achit entites and has them for his
own purpose by his sankalpam. SrIman NArAyaNa is the antaryAmi
of all chit and achit entities. 

The antharAdhikaraNam (1-1-7 Brahma sUtra) has the sUtra "anthas
thath-dharmOpadESAth"; This ascertains that the SAstra proves the God
ParamAthmA SrIman NArAyaNa is anantha-kalyANa-guNAkara:,
akila-hEya-prathyanIka: who is pundareekAksha: - he who has lotus like divine
beautiful eyes,
having divine divya-mangala-vigraham. Ask your professor to read the upanishad
which has the pramANa 
vAkyams (of which I quote few) as follows:
"sa Esha sarvEshAm LOkAnAmeeSa: sarvEshAm kAmAnAm"
"sa Esha sarvEbhya: pApmabhya uditha:"
"sarvasya vaSee sarvasyESAna:"
"apahatha pApmA vijara:", "sathya kAma:, sathya sankalpa:"
"viSvatha: paramam nithyam viSvam nArAyaNam harim"

Even if these things are not considered, then atleast ask him to read the
"kapyAsam" Sruthi which is more than sufficient to refute his proclamation.
kapyAsam puNdareeka Sruthi means "gambheerAmbha: sambhUtha sumrushta-nAla -
ravi kara vikasitha puNdareeka dala amalAyathEkshaNa:". This single SAstra
vAkyam is more than enough or fully sufficient to refute "impersonalistic"

If he is doing "nirviSesha chin mAtram brahma" vAdam of Advaita and uses
apachchEda nyAyam to negate the saguNa Sruthis, tell him that the nyAyam is
not fit in the context to negate the saguNa Sruthis. I have proved the usage
of apachchEda nyAyam in Advaita in that context as the most irrational aspect
in Adi Sankara matham in an article "Ubhaya-lingAdhikaraNam" which is getting
published in SaraNAgathi eJournal. I have followed SrI BhAshya in that
article. Also SrI Anand K Karalapakkam who is a scholar in ubhaya vEdAntha has
written a wonderful article on the same concept. I suggest that this article
may be read for reference. Also, refer my article series titled "experiencing
Bhagvath Ramanuja yatiraja's divine works" where I have followed Bhagvath
Ramanuja vEdArtha sangraham and outlined the "Sath vidyA"; I have refuted the
"nirviSesha chin mAtram brahma" vAdam of Advaita there following the "Sruthi
virOdha darSanam in Brahma-agnyAna-paksham-advaita". 

For more details, please feel free to write to me. The SAstra has
clearly ascertained the concept of SaviSEsham. 

NirviSEsha vasthu is not possible through any of the pramANams
namely prathyaksham, anumAnam and Sabdam. 

Presumable upakrama-virOdham is avoided by the above statement 
in this article.

Thanks & Regards
M.S.HARI RAmAnuja DAsan (

P.S. Counter arguments will be entertained if and only if they are
well substantiated with pramANa and pramANAnuguNa tarka.

Get free email and a permanent address at

           - SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH -
To Post a message, send it to:
Search archives at