[Advaita-l] Re: Clarification on vEdAnta sUtra

[bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com]

praNAms
Hare Krishna

I request my guruji-s  to clarify the following observation by Swamiji.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar

---------------------- 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 file:                                                                                            
 pic17189.pcx)                                                                                       
                                                                                                     
                                                                                                     



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
by
> Swami Krishnananda, The Divine Life Society  Sivananda Ashram, Rishikesh,
> India
>
> 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
humbly
> seek  your opinion/ clarification on the below.
>
> //quote//
>          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
the
> 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
statement
> 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
here
> 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
Anandamaya
> occurs in the texts on Vedanta philosophy, indicating that it is one of
the
> 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
bypass
> 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
Sutra
> 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
> article.)
>
> 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
the
> state of sleep itself, which however is not the case. It is seen that
after
> 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
the
> statement that Anandamaya is Brahman itself. Would a commentator stand
> against the obvious meaning of the Sutra and contradict it by insisting
on
> 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.
>
> //unquote//
>
> Your humble servant
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> bhaskar
>
>

--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
 It's a girl! See the pictures - http://www.braincells.com/shailaja/