You are here: Sri Vaishnava Home Page : Bhakti List : Archives : July 1999

Re: Sri. Mani's Response to Sankara Response

From: Venkat Nagarajan (
Date: Wed Jul 07 1999 - 16:01:42 PDT

Dear Sri. Mani,
NamO nArAyaNA.

I must say that I must respectfully disagree with you 
on this issue; my disagreement is not based on 

The reasoning is as follows: 

1. If one accepts Vis'istAdvaita Vedanta in its entirety, as the 
"most rational and perfect" detailed exposition on the nature of 
reality described in the vedas (and elaborated on in the vedantic 
texts), then the term origion becomes meaningless.   
For Vis'istAdvaita only elaborates on the beginningless
truth (contained in the vedas.)  Once again I point out that the 
statement that Vedas are beginningless (i.e., without author) 
is a premise and not a dogmatic statement!  Premise is a key 
component of every sound theory.  This premise 
is rational, given Vis'istAdvaita is an unbounded  philosophy 
(i.e., individual souls, matter and the process of creation 
and dissolution are also beginningless.) 

2. The jiva that took the avatar as Sri RamAnujAcharya is a 
nitya-mukta (who is not subject to the delusion from avidya-karma)  
who has and will always be established in bhramajnanam, 
so he need not borrow any ideas.   

If one approaches the issue from this angle, 
terms such as evolution of ideas and origin 
have no meaning, when used in relation to 
description of the nature of reality.

adiyEn ramanuja dasan,

-----Original Message-----
From: Mani Varadarajan <>
To: <>
Date: Wednesday, July 07, 1999 5:19 PM
Subject: Re: Sankara

>> Dear Bhagavatas,
>> NamO nArAyaNA.
>> I would like to highlight and discuss the merits of the phrase
>> "In the history of the evolution of ideas" used by Sri. Sudarshan in
>> reference to Vedenta based philosophies. 
>> Please note the following:
>> 1.These philosophies represent mutually exclusive expositions on the
>> nature of reality.  
>Are you saying that that Visishtadvaita, Advaita, and Dvaita have not
>mutually influenced one another? I don't think there can be any doubt
>that Visishtadvaita has taken ideas from Advaita and vice versa.
>In the old days, followers of these philosophies were not watertight 
>"castes" like they are now.  People speculated, thought, and talked
>amongst themselves.  While I agree that a theory that thought has
>evolved along the lines of Advaita -> Visishtadvaita -> Dvaita (or
>anything similar) can hardly be historically justified, one has
>to admit that ideas have been shared between these traditions, and
>are not entirely "mutually exclusive", despite the protests of the