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

Re: On the Nature of philosophy

From: Anand Karalapakkam (
Date: Wed Jun 02 1999 - 14:28:59 PDT

SrI Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha
SrI Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrIvaNN-
SatakOpa SrI nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESikAya namaha

 Dear devotees,
 namO nArAyaNA.

  Sri Venkat has already given an excellent  response. Infact,
 Sri Venkat's  series of postings on the nature of realities etc is
 very remarkable. Moreoever, he writes it with his own experience
 too, and not at a mere academic level, just for the sake of  presenting
 some knowledge. The involvement with which he writes is very
 deeply to be appreciated. There are only very few who contemplate
 on the nature of realities with firm philosophical understanding and
 Sri Venkat is very eager to share the wealth of "true" knowledge
 that our most merciful AchAryas have blessed us with. adiyEn is
 very much moved by this high degree of involvement shown by
 Sri Venkat.

 If one systematically analyses vEdAs/Upanishads,
 the underlying Philosophy is the _same_  and it is nothing but
 VisishtAdvaita. Infact, it was the brilliance of Bhagavad rAmAnuja
 in correctly synthesizing the apparently contradictory texts in
 upanishads. Ofcourse, on the surface, one will be confused to
 understand what Upanishads are actually teaching ; this confusion
 was settled by BAdarAyana through the Brahma - sUtrAs, which
 gives the guidelines for proper understanding of the upanishads.

 One has to first of all learn under a SadAchArya and learn by
  questioning various things, inorder to get a clear picture about
  the nature of realities. Its certain that, after going through the
  immortal works of Bhagavad rAmAnuja and SwAmi dESikan,
  further elaborated by other AchAryAs, one will not be in
  confusion and he/she can very well understand the tattva (realities),
  hita ( means to attain the goal) and the purushArtha (goal) with
  ample clarity. Though many schools of thought derive their
  existence from vEdAs, after thorough understanding of
  VisishtAdvaita and comparing it with systems of thought, there
  is not an iota of doubt that VisishtAdvaita  is verily the philosophy
  of vEdAs/Upanishads. ( Books of Sri SMS Chari  brilliantly
  addresses these issues in the medium of English, based on the
 original granthams of our pUrvAchAryAs).

  One should not form preconcieved notions about the nature of reality
  and start forming some opinions, without any firm analysis of the
  vEdAs. After a rigorous study under  the guidance of a AchArya,
 everything needs to be known will be known ; all the doubts will
 be clarified.

  Its very unfortunate, if one is simply fascinated by the abstractness
  of advaita. It is a mere mental exercise and has already been well
  proved that Sankara bAshyam doesn't adhere to the teachings of
  Brahma sUtras and Upanishads. The six main arguments of
  Bhagavad rAmAnuja against advaita, were brilliantly expanded
   by SwAmi Desikan (alias Venkatanatha) into 66 arguments in
   SatadUshani. So far , advaitins couldn't give any satisfactory reply
   to these arguments. In this century, Ananthakrishna Sastri tried to
  do something for advaita and thus wrote SatabUshani and tried
  to defend advaita + tried to find faults with SatadUshani. Most brilliant
  and fitting reply was given by the great mahAn of this century
 "abhinava dESikan" Uttamoor  VeerarAghavAchArya, who  blessed
 us with an  "encyclopedic"  immortal master-piece called "ParamArtha
 bUshanam" , which analyses all the arguments in depth and proves
 beyond any doubt  that advaita, finally  as a philosophy has no
 support from Upanishads.

 If one is rational in his/her approach to understand the actual realities,
 he/she will certainly understand the exactness of VisishtAdvaita
 philosophy in explaining the actual realities.

 The same Brahman, SrIman nArAyaNA has made many a philosophies
  to exist side by side, only to make the jIvAtmas undergo their karmic
  reactions appropriately. Only those jIvas with appropriate karma can
  understand the actual realities correctly. This obviously means that,
 Brahman has to make some arrangement for those who doesn't posses
 that qualification.

  There are many commanalities between various philosophies ; but this
  doesn't mean that all are same ; each one is distinct when viewed as a
 whole. Sri Venkat has very well addressed this issue.

  This to just put the things on the table and to serve some purpose ;
  instead of some diplomatic replies without concentrating on the
  things to be putforth representing the teachings of our

  adiyEn is happy that Sri Venkat is making good efforts to present the
  actual realities and gives others an oppurtunity to look into the
 correct directions shown by our most merciful pUrvAchAryAs.

  adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan
  ananthapadmanAbha dAsan

> Sri Venkat's Response:
> Dear Sri. Srivats, difference is real.  Even a nihilist (buddhist)
> excepts difference to make his or her point.  Two mutually
> exclusive things cannot be the same;  truth is one, not many.
> Although two mutually exclusive axiomatic descriptions of the
> nature of reality can coexist , only one is truth.
> 1. Cycle of creation and dissolution can either be eternal or
> non eternal; it cannot be both.
> 2.  Souls are either created or not; both cannot be true
> 3.  Moskha is either real and defined as perfect and full
> experience of the bliss of brahman or undifferentiated
> consciousness; not both!
> 4.  Happiness is not the same as bliss; one is transitory the
> other is not!

  < cut >