Notes on Brahmasuutra-IIIa

[T Swaminarayan]

Dear Shri Sadananda,

Just as Shankara shows that Brahmasutras are
compatible with the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta,do not
Madhvacharya and Ramanuja show that Brahmasutras are
compatible with their respective doctrines of dwaita
and visishtadwaita?
Now in the course of your study and analyses of
Brahmasutrsas,while essentially following Shankara,do
you propose highlighting the subtle differences(I
could say errors)in their two other interpretations
and discuss why the Dwaitins abd Visishtadwaitins'
interpretations are not LOGICALLY acceptable?

Could you kindly give the word to word meaning of
"Atasmintat BuddhiH" since I could not understand the
exact meaning of the same in the context of your
explanation.

When we consider,Aham Sansari and Aham Brahmasmi,you
said,
"I the immortal,is seen as the mortal-I.
 The all pervading is seen as the limited."
I ask," By whom ? "

If it is the mortal I who says 'I am  a sansari ' is
it not Satya?How can you question the Sat in it?As
long as we are in Vyavahara?

Is it verily the mortal-I that sees and mistakes the
Immortal-I  to be mortal? The all pervading to be
limited? In this statement , could you explain as to
which is Adhyasa and which is Adyaropa?

With warm regards,

Swaminarayan




--- "K. Sadananda" <sada at ANVIL.NRL.NAVY.MIL> wrote:
> >Dear Sir,
>
> >
>
> >1) Thanks for this great series. You have excellent
> talent of
>
> >explaining very well. I am indeed fortunate to
> study this with you.
>
> >
>
> >2) I just went through your article once. I would
> prefer them being
>
> >posted in smaller segments. Otherwise it is
> difficult to read it on
>
> >screen and one has to print. Danger in that is it
> may go to shelf for
>
> >later reading and may not be read at all.
>
> >
>
> >I have some questions and comments in the
> prelimnary part.
>
> >
>
> >--- "K. Sadananda" <<sada at ANVIL.NRL.NAVY.MIL>
> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >  As with all bhaashhyam-s, every bhaashhyakaara or
>
> >> author of
>
> >> bhaashhyam claims that his interpretation is
> close to the meaning
> of
>
> >> what
>
> >> was intended by Shree Baadaraayana.  We should
> recognize at the
>
> >> outset that
>
> >> the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta does not depend
> on the validation
> of
>
> >> its
>
> >> concepts by Brahmasuutra-s.  It rests squarely on
> the
> mahaavaakya-s,
>
> >> the
>
> >> four aphoristic statements, one in each of the
> four Veda-s;
>
> >> praJNaanam
>
> >> brahma (consciousness is Brahman), tat tvam asi
> (that thou art),
> aham
>
> >> brahmaasmi ( I am Brahman)  and ayam aatma brahma
> (this self is
>
> >> Brahman
>
> >
>
> >I was under the impression that shruti has many
> (apparently)
>
> >contradicting statements and brahma suutra
> reconciles those seeming
>
> >contradictions. This gives importance to the work
> and to show that
>
> >brahma suutra-s indeed is in-line with
> advaita-vedanta.
>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times</param>Ravi - greetings and
> thanks for your
> kind words.
>
>
> What you say is right.  But if you read Sribhaashhya
> and
> Anuvyaakhyaana, each bhaashhyakaara claims their
> interpretation is more
> compatible with Brahmasuutra than Shankara's.  There
> are several
> so-called independent evaluators who seem to agree
> with their
> contention, just based on shruti's.
>
>
> There are some suutra-s which they quote are more
> directly endorse
> nimitta kaaraNa being different from upaadana
> kaaraNa, exemplifying the
> personified God, say Shreeman NaarayaNa.  Dwaita and
> VishishhTaadvaita
> give more importance to Brahmasuutra because of this
> fact.
>
>
> It is true some of the apparent contradictions in
> the Vedic statements
> are resolved by Brahmasuutra.  But Suutra-s
> themselves because of its
> brevity led to ambiguity too.
>
>
> In that sense Advaita Vedanta has a stronger base
> than Brahmasuutra
> which is paurushheyam.  It is my intention that one
> day to do
> comparative analysis of the three bhaashyyaas from
> my perspective.  But
> your statement in one of your mails is right; first
> we need to study
> the suutra-s from one perspective.  The rest may be
> more of academic
> interest.
>
>
> >
>
> >> only when the knowledge comes.  In support of
> this we have
>
> >> declarations: 'na
>
> >> anyaH panthaaH ayanaaya vidyate', 'gataasuuana
> gataasuumscha na
>
> >> anusochanti
>
> >> paNDitaaH' - those who have gained the knowledge
> do not grieve for
>
> >> those who
>
> >> have gone and for those in the process of going'.
>
> >
>
> >Can you explain na anyaH panthaH vidyate ayaNaaya
> and the context in
>
> >which it quoted.
>
> >
>
> This occurs in both Purushasuukta and also in Swe.U.
> (I think).
>
>         vedaaha metam purusham maahaantam
>
>         aadityavarNam tamasaH parastaat
>
>         twameva viditva amR^itatvameti
>
>         naanyaH panthaa vidyate~yanaaya
>
>
>  'na' has to go with panthaa rather than vidyate -
> no other path than
> knowledge.
>
>
>
>
>
> >ayaNaaya - for moxa
>
> >na vidyate - I do not know
>
> >anya panthaH - any other path
>
> >
>
> >You quote this later in the text also. Unless you
> give the context of
>
> >this, it does not mean that "no other path other
> than knowledge
> removes
>
> >the samsaara" as you say.
>
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/

--
bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam

Archives : http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l.html
Help     : Email to listmaster at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
Options  : To leave the list send a mail to
           listserv at lists.advaita-vedanta.org with
           SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L in the body.