Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: Brahma Sutras

  1. #11

    Re: Brahma Sutras: A discussion?

    Quote Originally Posted by sm78 View Post
    I'll urge Madhavan, Yajvan, atanu et.al to proceed with "a sutra-at-a-time" approach of the BS, covering all the major later commentaries in a summary form. Other like me can join when we have a significant point to add. Even if is a conversation between 2-3 persons, it adds value by means of srabana for others.

    My personal view is that philosophies (including Advaita) have been propounded by acharyas for a more political purpose of lokasangraha. They try to "bend" the actual sutra from their own particular philosophical standpoints.
    This is quite true. Without "bending" some sutras, no consistant thesis can be conclusively established. Only Vyasa knows the true purport of his sutras. The sutras seem to support aspects of all major systems.

    Quote Originally Posted by sm78
    PS: I am biased to advaita system as Badarayana is a Preceptor of the lineage Shankaracharya, while in no other known guru parampara (other than those which have originated from Gaudapada), Ved Vyasa himself appears as a teacher. But many arguments stem from his works .
    Sage Vyasa is said to be the direct teacher of Madhva in BadarikAshrama.
    He is the one on whom our hope depends. For if Hanuman survives, all we though dead are yet alive. But if his precious life be lost though living still we are but dead: He is our hope and sure relief -Jambavan (Yuddha Kanda. 74). Impossibility=Hanuman

  2. #12

    Re: Brahma Sutras

    Quote Originally Posted by atanu
    Can we have links to full english translations of commentaries by three acharyas, if available?


    For Shankara's and Ramanuja's comm. see http://www.bharatadesam.com/

    I am not aware of Madhva's comm.( he has written three diff comm on BS) being avail on the internet, and is difficult to get even in book shops. I usually get this in library.

    Quote Originally Posted by atanu View Post
    Ramanuja accepts the fragmentation as real but he accepts the fragmented parts to be of the nature of knowledge (same as Brahman). So, for an observer there is another. For Shankara this is a wrong premise, since Upanishads say the Brahman is the eye of the eye and mind of the mind. Moreover, personally I do not understand what Ramanuja says about the nature of the boundaries? Of what material the boundaries are made of?
    I think you are thinking that pieces of individual consciousness need a physical boundary. According to Ramanuja, God=sacchitAnanda, and soul=sacchitAnanda, though they are essentially distinct. Since, both are essentially jnAna in essence, they do not really need any 'material' boundary as you imagine, because both soul and God are aprakrita.

    It would be needed only if you imagine that jnAna has to be characteristed by parameters such as length L, width W etc, bringing space/time ideas into aprakrtic entities.

    Quote Originally Posted by atanu
    Ramanuja is also criticized by madhava since Upanishad says "any one seeing any difference in Brahman goes from deathg to death". So, as per Madhava, there cannot be partitions in Brahman.
    Yes, but rAmAnujites interpret the kAtha verse differently. They do not interpret it in terms of absolute differences, but rather in terms of equanimity. That is to say, that, they claim that Lord and his qualities( which include the jagat and jivas) must be viewed with the same reverance, and must not be treated differently from the Lord.


    Quote Originally Posted by atanu
    Based on the same grounds, Madhava has separated Jiva and Brahman. As per Madhava, a Jiva can never be Brahman. Brahman is only the efficient cause. But Upanishads definitely say "Like rivers losing their identity on merging with ocean -----". More severe will be the problem to explain the nature of the division between Jiva and Brahman. What is the nature of the material that connects Jiva and Brahman? Or if there is no connection, then how Brahman is known to Jiva and Jiva is known to Brahman?
    The same answer as above, though mAdhva's soul is characterised by many more qualities than jnAna alone. Regarding the "rivers losing their identity on merging with ocean " even the authors of bhAmati( one of the prominent schools of advaita) concede that it does not prove non dualty. Because, when a river drains into an ocean, there is an increase of volume in the ocean, the contribution of the river molecules always add to that of the ocean etc( that is, river molecules never really merge into the ocean, though they appear to merge in the ocean), and no form of analogy can ever be shown for non dualty because it is one of its kind. The examples river/ocean, shell/silver etc can explain certain aspects but no single example can explain all technicalities.

    For, mAdhva there is a concept known as sAxi, which is used to explain how the jIva knows Brahman and vice versa.

    We can start these discussions soon.
    He is the one on whom our hope depends. For if Hanuman survives, all we though dead are yet alive. But if his precious life be lost though living still we are but dead: He is our hope and sure relief -Jambavan (Yuddha Kanda. 74). Impossibility=Hanuman

  3. #13
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: Brahma Sutras

    Quote Originally Posted by Madhavan View Post
    [/b]

    For Shankara's and Ramanuja's comm. see http://www.bharatadesam.com/
    -----
    I think you are thinking that pieces of individual consciousness need a physical boundary. ----
    Namaskar,

    Thank you for the link.

    How can you think that I am thinking of a physical boundary? That is what I have emphasized again and again. The boundary is conditioning -- a settled thought, which is a form of consciousness. Saxi also is that.

    Rest is attempts of grammarians and logicians to fight for supremacy of a name -- a concept.

    However, I agree more with Dvaita that the protruding thoughts, which are the boundaries and names/forms themselves, are not really in Brahman when seen in isolation.


    Om
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

  4. #14

    Re: Brahma Sutras

    Quote Originally Posted by atanu View Post
    How can you think that I am thinking of a physical boundary? That is what I have emphasized again and again. The boundary is conditioning -- a settled thought, which is a form of consciousness. Saxi also is that.
    There is significant difference between sAxi as understood in the advaita tradition and the Dvaita tradition. The sAxi in Advaita is the Atma, while experiences such as pleasure and pain do not belong to Atma, but the antahkaraNa, and all these experiences are illusory.

    In Dvaita. the sAxi is that of the aprakritic jIva, while antahkaraNa is not the seat of pleasure and pain. sAxi is the seat of all experiences. In bondage, sAxi is influenced by antahkaraNa to experience something not in accordance with its true nature.


    Just imagine for a moment. What is the locus of experience of pain in Advaita Atma, which is the home of eternal bliss? AntahkaraNa is actually jaDa and as such cannot be the locus of pain. That is why Advaita concludes that the pain in reality does not exist. AntahkaraNa by definition cannot be the seat of pain, but only a processor, as it is not a sentient.

    From what I observe, a) Advaita gives a greater importance to scriptural statements and uses it to override perception. b) Dvaita is very specific that scripture cannot invalidate sAxi , and hence comes to a different conclusion. These are two divergent methods of exigesis, and which one of them is preferred is possibly somebody's predilections. Because there is no reasonable way for an ajnAni to judge if assumption (a) or assumption (b) is correct.
    He is the one on whom our hope depends. For if Hanuman survives, all we though dead are yet alive. But if his precious life be lost though living still we are but dead: He is our hope and sure relief -Jambavan (Yuddha Kanda. 74). Impossibility=Hanuman

  5. #15
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: Brahma Sutras

    Quote Originally Posted by Madhavan View Post
    There is significant difference between sAxi as understood in the advaita tradition and the Dvaita tradition. The sAxi in Advaita is the Atma, while experiences such as pleasure and pain do not belong to Atma, but the antahkaraNa, and all these experiences are illusory.
    In Dvaita. the sAxi is that of the aprakritic jIva, while antahkaraNa is not the seat of pleasure and pain. sAxi is the seat of all experiences. In bondage, sAxi is influenced by antahkaraNa to experience something not in accordance with its true nature.
    Just imagine for a moment. What is the locus of experience of pain in Advaita Atma, which is the home of eternal bliss? AntahkaraNa is actually jaDa and as such cannot be the locus of pain. That is why Advaita concludes that the pain in reality does not exist. AntahkaraNa by definition cannot be the seat of pain, but only a processor, as it is not a sentient.
    From what I observe, a) Advaita gives a greater importance to scriptural statements and uses it to override perception. b) Dvaita is very specific that scripture cannot invalidate sAxi , and hence comes to a different conclusion. These are two divergent methods of exigesis, and which one of them is preferred is possibly somebody's predilections. Because there is no reasonable way for an ajnAni to judge if assumption (a) or assumption (b) is correct.
    Namaskar Madhavan,

    Emotions such as pain and joy are feelings (thoughts) which arise in some purusha (in some heads of thousand headed ONE PURUSHA) who come to believe that the layer of Ego that lies between Atma and non-Atma is real. Advaita says that the ego is unreal and not that the thoughts are unreal. Thoughts are thoughts. While all this is happening, the Prana and Prana Nath (Atman) are indivisble ONE. Due to play of Prana and Prana Nath, there is apparent diversity in the form of saharsa shirsa Purusha.

    The point is that the negative thoughts have no valid basis. This is what advaita actually says.

    Now, the seer has to be in the so-called 'dvaitic Brahman', the seer has to be in the middle, and the seer has to be in 'dvaitic non-Brahman us'. Also the SEER has to be equiped with the seeing principle, else the Seer will not See. Thus the Saxi (Seer) is everywhere and in every state and it is intelligent. So, it is saxi which is ALL. Sarva khalvidam Brahman. 'Dvaita Brahman', not being the saxi and not being the Jiva does not qualify to be Brahman at all.

    There is every reasonable way to discern the truth of Advaita and non-truth of Dvaita or VA. However, I agree to your statement that different paths are chosen due to pre-dilection.

    The truth is that the seer, the seeing principle, and the seen all come together in shivo Atma-Brahman. Saxi is the first born and from him are born the world soul and the world.

    Regards

    Om
    Last edited by atanu; 06 October 2007 at 12:15 AM.
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

  6. #16

    Re: Brahma Sutras

    Quote Originally Posted by atanu View Post
    There is every reasonable way to discern the truth of Advaita and non-truth of Dvaita or VA. However, I agree to your statement that different paths are chosen due to pre-dilection.
    Can you atleast enumerate the dasha padArthAs of Dvaita? Can you do the same for VishistAdviata? Or even for Advaita?

    Categories or padArthas are the different autonomous units of modes of existence or things, with which this universe presents itself to us. Every item that is known ( including God), must fall into one of the categories. A sound epistemology along with a sound ontology would complete a philosophical system that is robust.

    One should have sound knowledge of all these for every school of thought that they think is right or wrong, before one can come to any certain conclusion which maybe based on predilecton.


    Most people are quite ignorant of what even Dvaita or VA or even advaita have to say, and have never even read about them. But they are able to discern the truth of Advaita and the non truth of VA or Dvaita, or vice versa. This was what I called 'blind belief' in an earlier thread.

    Before passing judgements regarding the validity of other systems, one must atleast fully know what the other systems say, dont you think? Vedanta was never supposed to be taken on faith, but based on systematic analysis. This has been the major difference between vedanta and religions like Christianity and Islam, where no questions are allowed and everything is to be just 'beleived'.
    He is the one on whom our hope depends. For if Hanuman survives, all we though dead are yet alive. But if his precious life be lost though living still we are but dead: He is our hope and sure relief -Jambavan (Yuddha Kanda. 74). Impossibility=Hanuman

  7. #17
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: Brahma Sutras

    Namaste Madhavan

    Quote Originally Posted by Madhavan View Post
    Can you atleast enumerate the dasha padArthAs of Dvaita? Can you do the same for VishistAdviata? Or even for Advaita?
    I can enumerate infinite padArthAs. I have said that what is true in consciousness is true. All these categories are however categories of Prakriti of one Atman. And that Prakriti has three potential categories only -- the black, the red, and the white, which again are conditioning of pure knowledge that Brahman is.

    Niralamba Upanishad

    3. (1) Brahman is the ineffable Spirit. It appears as the Mahat (the Sankhyan Great), the ego, (the elements) earth, water, fire, air and ether – the macrocosm and as actions, knowledge and ends. It is non-dual and free from all adjuncts. It is big with all powers and is without beginning and end. It may be spoken of as pure, good, quiescent, unqualified.
    4. (2) God is the veritable Brahman that, depending on Its power called Prakriti creates the worlds and enters (into them) as the inner Controller of Brahma, etc., (He) is Ishvara, as He controls the intellect and the sense-organs.
    5. (3) The living being (Jiva) is he who, through false superimposition, affirms ‘I am gross’ due to ‘the name and form’ of Brahma, Vishnu, Isana, Indra, etc. (Jiva thinks): Though I am one, due to the differences of the causes that originate the body, the Jivas are many.
    6. (4) Prakriti is but the power of Brahman; it is intellectual in nature and competent to create the variegated and marvellous world from (the matrix) of Brahman.
    7. (5) The supreme Self is Brahman alone being altogether different from body, etc.
    8-9. (6-20) Brahma, Vishnu, Indra, (the god of) Death, the Sun, the Moon, the gods, the demons, men, women, animals, etc.; the immobile the Brahmanas, etc.; are that very Spirit.
    10. (21) Neither skin nor blood nor flesh nor bone has caste; To self is caste ascribed through mere usage.
    ------------------------

    I will again and again repeat a very simple argument. The advaitaatma is to be known. That is all. Atma is not another. Advaita is not another.

    Since, I follow this argument line, adequately supported by teaching of the Guru, why should I pick upon the thousand tattwas? A waste baggage is to be dumped. For me the task is to unravel the advaita atma beneath the many variations of the red/back/white of Prakriti (Pragnya). However, for a person who has to trudge along to decide which tattwa is Supreme and which tattwa to latch onto (for mukti), that kind of search is entirely valid. I have no problem.

    Regards

    Om
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •