[Advaita-l] Re:clarification on Vedantasutra

[Ramesh Badisa]

Dear respected members,
Namaste.

In my earlier response to sri Bhaskar’s quarries, I have mentioned that the 
liberated souls at Brahma Lok can only have limited powers on the ground 
that they haven’t yet got the absolute salvation. On this basis, it is clear 
that the sutras are not in favor of sri Ramanujam’s philosophy because, the 
souls cannot have infinite powers like divine in the absence of salvation.

But how do we know that the liberated souls at Brahma Lok haven’t yet got 
the salvation? For example, if we see the sequence of sutras, the sutra 
4.3.10 comes before 4.4.17 sutra. Right? It means that as per 4.3.10 sutra, 
pralaya has taken place and those souls have got the salvation. Thus, on 
this basis, it is more reasonable to assume that all sutras coming later are 
concerned about the souls that are in the state of salvation. For example, 
when 4.4.17 sutra says that the souls have limited powers only, it is 
reasonable to assume that this sutra is concerned with the souls that are in 
the state of absolute salvation. Then, it looks that the sutras are in favor 
of sri Ramanujam’s philosophy. The logic seems to be correct if we follow 
the sequence of the sutras, and thus, swami Krishnananda ji said in his “An 
Analysis of Brahma Sutra” text that the sutra is sympathetic with Vaishnava 
theology of sri Ramanuja, and that sri Shankara has practically nothing to 
tell us here in this regard. But in my response to sri Bhaskar quarries, it 
was maintained that the sutra 4.4.17 is still concerned with the souls that 
haven’t yet got the salvation. It means that my response is totally opposite 
than the above position. Is there any basis for my stand in this regard? 
Please see the following explanation.

There is an objection here to say that the sutra is sympathetic with 
Vaishnava theology of sri Ramanuja. The Brahma Sutras appear to be, I repeat 
again, appears to be sympathetic with sri Ramanuja theology only when we 
follow the sequence of the sutras. But this is not correct in absolute sense 
when we see the actual intension of sutras in light of other scriptures like 
Gita.

For example, we see 5/5 sloka of Gita. In this sloka, Lord Krishna says that 
the final result for a gyani and a karma yogi is the same. In a nutshell, 
Lord Krishna is talking about attainment of salvation by two different ways 
(immediate salvation for a gyani and gradual salvation for karma yogi, who 
failed divine experience while living). The same is also found in different 
sruti texts about attainment of salvation by two different ways. Now, let us 
apply this rule to see if, as per the understanding of sri Ramanuja, the 
nature of salvation for either of routes is same or not.

As per the understanding of sri Ramanuaja, the nature of salvation for the 
liberated souls at Brahma Lok cannot be the same as that of a gyani. How?  
Because as per him, the souls (of krama mukti path) would finally reach the 
abode of supreme divine, still maintain individual identities in the state 
of salvation, possess limited powers and enjoy the divine glories at divine 
abode for ever, while the soul of a gyani merged in divine for absolute 
salvation and become divine as per sruti authority. Here, sri Ramanuja 
either did not know this type of (immediate) salvation for gyanis or 
deliberately chosen to ignore it. Therefore, the conclusion is that as per 
sri Ramanuja understanding, the nature of salvation is not same for a krama 
mukti path followed souls and a sadhyo mukti souls of  gyanis. But according 
to Lord Krishna in Gita 5/5, the final result of absolute salvation for a 
gyani (divine experienced person) and a karma yogi (a yogi if died before 
the experience of divine) is the same irrespective of the route they follow. 
This condition is not fulfilled as per the understanding of sri Ramanujam 
because of the reasons just explained above. As the nature of salvation for 
krama mukti path followed souls is not same as that of the soul of a gyani, 
it should, therefore, be understood that by following the sequence of 
sutras, one cannot come to correct conclusion, meaning that the sutras after 
4.3.10 are still concerned about the liberated souls at Brahma Lok, before 
pralaya and before salvation.

But here, the followers of sri Ramanujam may still argue that the soul of a 
gyani also goes to Brahma Lok and, after pralaya, this soul (like other 
qualified souls that are lack of divine experience while on earth but are 
currently at Brahma Lok) would maintain individual identities and possess 
limited powers in the state of salvation. Thus, they may contend that souls 
of a gyani and a karma yogi have the same final result (salvation – that is 
maintaining individual identities of souls and limited powers at Brahma Lok) 
and contend that it is consistent as per Gita 5/5 sloka too. For this, the 
reply is that if this assumption is true, then there is no need for anyone 
to do very hard (Katha Up. 3rd valli, 14) spiritual sadhana as per sruti 
while living on earth in order to get divine experience. Because, if the 
souls ‘with and without’ divine experience have the same treatment right 
from the beginning of devyan marg onwards, then why anybody would have to 
struggle for divine experience while living when the same result (absolute 
salvation) is obtained without divine experience also? More over, if the 
above Ramanuja follower’s explanation is valid, then all the sruti sayings 
(please see Mundaka Up. 3.2.8; Varaho Up 4.5; and Prasna Upanishad 6.5 etc) 
will become meaningless. In Varaho Upanishad 4.5, it is clearly mentioned 
that salvation can be achieved in two ways. If there is only one way of 
attaining salvation, as per sri Ramanujam, then how to explain this sruti 
quote? Also in Gita 5/5, Lord Krishna made a comparison between gyanis and 
karma yogis, and concluded that the final result is same for both. For 
example, if there is no initial distinction between gyanis and karma yogis, 
then why Lord Krishna would make a comparison at all in the first place in 
Gita 5/5? As Lord Krishna is aware of two different ways of salvation, he 
initially compared gyanis and karma yogis, and finally concluded that final 
result of salvation is same. If there is only one route for all qualified 
souls to achieve salvation (as understood by sri Ramanuja), then there is no 
reason to compare in 5/5 Gita in the beginning and then conclude later that 
the final result is same for them. Because, in the event of having only one 
route for salvation, the treatment for both gyanis and karma yogis, right 
from the beginning to the end, is the same, hence no need to make any 
comparison. But, Lord Krishna makes comparison in 5/5 to indicate the 
distinction in the initial stages of gyanis and karma yogis, but concluded 
that the final result is same for both.

Therefore, the conclusion, arrived by following the sequence of sutras, 
cannot have consistent view with other spiritual texts. Thus, in order to 
reconcile the understanding of sutras, it is necessary to say that the 
sutras, coming after 4.3.10, are still concerned with the liberated souls at 
Brahma Lok, before pralaya and before they got the salvation. Thus, it is 
right to say that the sutras are not sympathetic with Vaishnava theology of 
sri Ramanuja when we look the actual intension of the sutras. In the state 
of salvation, all souls will merge in divine and loose individual identities 
and will not have any limitations what so ever.

Namaste

Badisa

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 9 Dial-up Internet Access fights spam and pop-ups – now 3 months FREE! 
http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/