Words Maya and nirguNa

[K. Sadananda]

Shrisha Rao

Thanks for your input.

>
>
>>  >    ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
>>  ><ADVAITA-L at ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
>
>I got such an error previously also; my last posting had to be sent twice.

Yes, they are encountering some problems and
<avadvaita-l at brainscells.com> seems to accept the postings.  Pl. try
that.

>
>>  >He also mentions, of course, given the adviatic position that
>>  >Brahman alone is real as sat, one has to bring in Maaya to account
>>  >for the appearance of jada prakR^iti/ jagat. In that case it becomes
>>  >shrutit based anupalabdhi pramaaNa, rather than direct shruti
>>  >pramaaNa.
>
>However, Ramanuja follows Shankara's lead on the question of prakR^iti,
>cf. the prakR^ityadhikaraNa (1.4.2x?) of the shrIbhAshhya; he accepts
>Shankara's lead in saying that the sUtrakAra has rejected the principle of
>prakR^iti.  That being so, Chari's point is rather a chimerical one and
>one fails to see what its merit is.

I think both Bhagavaan Shankara in one sense and Bhagavaan Ramanuja
in another sense, in contrast to Bhagavaan Madhva accept Brahman as
the upaadana kaarana rejecting prakr^iti it self or alone as the
Upadaana cause.   If I understand correctly, in that sense only
Ramanuja follows Shankara's lead.

>If there being just one instance where mAyA and prakR^iti are mentioned
>together is an obstruction the way he's putting it, then what can we make
>of there being only one instance where bhakti is mentioned as being
>similar towards a Guru as towards a Deity (yasya deve parAbhaktiryathA
>deve tathA gurau)?  It would be that devotion to a Guru is unnecessary,
>and that devotion to Deities is also optional at best.  Notice in this
>regard that Ramanuja can find no support for his doctrine's fundamental
>tenets of prapatti and bhakti, in the sUtra-s.
>
>Regards,
>
>Shrisha Rao

While I do not disagree with your statements, I am sure we all agree
in some sense  that bhakti or prapatti or sharanaagati in the sense
Bhagavaan Ramanuja proposes would help as a sadhana and definitely
not an obstruction for liberation.  Whether it is direct means or not
depends on how we associate the meaning for the sharanaagati and the
nature of the goal.  There we all know that all the three achaarya-s
differ.

My interests  in raising the above issue is not for finding fault
with Bhagavaan Ramanuja's theory at this stage but only learning what
extent Shreeman Chari is right in his comments relating to maaya and
nirguNa aspect as presented in the adviatic doctrine. I hope to take
up Ramajuja's laghu and mayaa siddhaanta-s and reexamine it in the
light of the Shankara Bhaashya that I am presenting in the two
advaita lists.

Hari Om!
Sadananda



--
K. Sadananda
Code 6323
Naval Research Laboratory
Washington D.C. 20375
Voice (202)767-2117
Fax:(202)767-2623