[Advaita-l] Re: Clarification on vEdAnta sUtra
bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com
bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com
Thu May 6 23:35:11 CDT 2004
I request my guruji-s to clarify the following observation by Swamiji.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
---------------------- Forwarded by Bhaskar YR/BAN/INABB/ABB on 05/07/2004
09:57 AM ---------------------------
(Embedded "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar at braincells.com>
image moved 05/07/2004 09:51 AM
To: bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com
cc: vsundaresan at hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Clarification on vEdAnta sUtra
Security Level:? Internal
As these are questions which could be of interest to many people, can you
post this to advaita-l. I'd be happy to answer there tomorrow.
On Fri, 7 May 2004 bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com wrote:
> Humble praNAms to my Masters
> Hare Krishna
> I was reading the internet posting on "An Analysis of the Brahma Sutra
> Swami Krishnananda, The Divine Life Society Sivananda Ashram, Rishikesh,
> It is a simple presentation of the analysis keeping all 3 schools of
> thought in mind. But I noticed a strange observation in the last chapter
> which have been highlighted for your kind clarification. Since it is
> first time i am seeing that our Acharya shakara's views are tested I
> seek your opinion/ clarification on the below.
> CONSIDERATION ON SOME ISSUES ARISING IN THE BRAHMA SUTRA
> 1. There is another difficulty which suddenly erupts in the Sutra
> when it speaks of the liberation of the soul. The Sutra makes out that
> liberated soul is free only in so far as it can enjoy the bliss of
> perfection equally as Brahman, but it cannot have the power of creation,
> preservation, destruction etc. of the universe. This categorical
> would mean that even in the state of liberation the soul is not fully
> liberated. Here the Sutra seems to be landing itself on the qualified
> monism of Acharya Ramanuja, according to whom the soul is an organic part
> of Brahman but not identical with Brahman. If we persuade ourselves to
> believe that the Sutra is sympathetic with the Vaishnava theology of
> Ramanuja, we can easily understand why the soul in liberation cannot have
> the power of God Himself. Acharya Sankara here has practically nothing to
> tell us except to interate that if the soul is given the power of c!
> reation, etc., there would be a clash of purposes among the liberated
> souls. Here again arises the question: are there many liberated souls in
> the state of Brahman? Acharya Ramanuja would not disagree with this
> proposition, but Acharya Sankara would find here a hard nut to crack.
> question to My masters : could u kindly clarify , why author claiming
> it is hard nut for shankara to crack.
> 2 A very pertinent issue arising in the Brahma Sutra is when it defines
> Anandamaya Brahman, stating that Anandamaya is Brahman. The word
> occurs in the texts on Vedanta philosophy, indicating that it is one of
> sheaths covering the soul, there being five sheaths, the other four being
> the physical, the vital, the mental and the intellectual. Inspite of the
> fact that the covering of the soul cannot be the soul, the Sutra seems to
> emphasise that Anandamaya is itself Brahman. Commentators generally
> this issue and would not like to enter into any controversy for fear of
> contradicting the obvious intention of the text and the reasoned
> conclusions spontaneously coming out of the issue.
> It was Acharya Sankara alone who had the courage to disagree with the
> and declare that the Anandamaya cannot be Brahman.
> (question to My masters : how can shakara disagree and give his own
> interpreation of the shruti / is it the opinoin of the author of this
> The reason is that the Anandamaya sheath is the one into which the
> individual enters in the state of deep sleep. But if Anandamaya which
> causes sleep is itself Brahman, the individual will merge in Brahman in
> state of sleep itself, which however is not the case. It is seen that
> sleep, the individual wakes up to ordinary waking experience and involves
> itself in world consciousness. Now, what doctrine is the Brahma Sutra
> preaching, since Ramanuja would certainly be happy to fully agree with
> statement that Anandamaya is Brahman itself. Would a commentator stand
> against the obvious meaning of the Sutra and contradict it by insisting
> a non-dualistic interpretation? Here again comes in the quandary that
> liberation cannot be complete unless the soul enters into the unqualified
> Brahman and not the one with relative characteristics of any kind.
> Your humble servant
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
It's a girl! See the pictures - http://www.braincells.com/shailaja/
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list