[Advaita-l] Spiritual Clarifications

[jaldhar at braincells.com]

On Thu, 2 Sep 2021, Ravi Rama via Advaita-l wrote:

> I am humbly posing some questions below in front of the esteemed members 
> of this forum, purely to get genuine clarifications, and definitely not 
> to stir any controversy. I would be greatly benefited by your insights.

Just one suggestion.  Instead of asking multiple questions in one email, 
separate them out.  Also use descriptive subject lines.  This will make it 
a little easier for future searchers.

> (1) Do Vaishnavities accept the content of Tatva Bodha? I feel that 90% 
> contents are generic and hence applicable universally, except perhaps 
> Vaishnavites interpretation of Moksham. What is the opinion here?

You would really have to ask them.  There are a wide range of views under
the rubric of Vaishnavism.  But I think if there is one stumbling block 
they have in common, it is the concept of maya in advaita vedanta.

> (2) Some Vaishnavities that i know have problem with Advaita/Sankara 
> mainly on two grounds (a) Adi Sankarar's reference to God's face as 
> being like back of a monkey? This really beats me..

Ramanuja started out as an Advaitin.  His Guru's name was Yadavaprakasha. 
Once he was explaining the bhashya on Chandogyopanishad 1.6.7.  There the 
eyes of the Purusha in the Sun are described as being like the color of a 
lotus which is red like kapyasa.  Some kinds of monkeys such as baboons, 
have very vividly red buttocks.  (search google images if you don't know.) 
Shankaracharya in his bhashya glosses kapyasa as kapi + asa "monkey's seat 
(i.e. buttocks)" But he explains that this is not an inappropriate 
comparison because it is the lotus being compared not Shri Narayana 
Himself.  Here is the text so you can see for yourself.

तस्य एवं सर्वतः सुवर्णवर्णस्याप्यक्ष्णोर्विशेषः । कथम् ? तस्य यथा कपेः मर्कटस्य आसः कप्यासः 
; आसेरुपवेशनार्थस्य करणे घञ् ; कपिपृष्ठान्तः येनोपविशति ; कप्यास इव पुण्डरीकम् अत्यन्ततेजस्वि 
एवम् देवस्य अक्षिणी ; उपमितोपमानत्वात् न हीनोपमा ।


However Ramanuja thought Shri Narayana was being compared and was 
outraged.  After some acrimony, he broke with his guru and founded his own 
philosophy.


> Where as Ramanujar 
> interpreets that as Sun's rays on blooming lotus

This doesn't even make sense.  The lotus comes in several different colors 
and the suns rays do not make them all red.


> (b) They claim that in 
> Advaita, there is no moksha for animals, birds, women or non-brahmins 
> and that Advaita has Moksha only for male, brahmis and sanyasis, where 
> as in their sampradaya any living thing can get moksha.. is this true?
>

The adhikara for brahmajnana is chetana, consciousness.  So while Brahman 
pervades a dog or a bird or even a rock or tree just as much as a pandit, 
if they are not aware, they cannot realize their brahman-nature.  If they 
do have chetana as for example Gajendra did then they certainly can have 
jnana.

Furthermore to get moksha requires qualities such as viveka - the ability 
to discriminate between real and non-real, vairagya or renunciation etc. 
One who has such qualities can by contemplation and understanding of the 
jnanakanda of the Vedas namely the upanishads can become liberated from 
samsara even in this very life.

But non-dvijas do not have adhikara to learn Vedas. (A position that 
Ramanuja and Madhva agree with btw.)  Yet they are obviously capable of 
chetana, viveka, vairagya etc.  So there would seem to be a catch-22.  The 
Smarta answer is that Bhagavan Veda Vyasa out of compassion for such 
people (and those who might be qualified for Vedas but have mandabuddhi 
due to Kaliyuga) put the essence of the Vedas into the Mahabharata (which 
includes Bhagavadgita), 18 puranas etc.  By studying those, they too can 
learn the knowledge that liberates.  Shankaracharya gives the examples of 
Maitreyi and Gargi Vachaknavi as women and Vidura and Dharmavyadha as 
Shudras who were jnanis.

They are right about one thing though; only a sannyasi can get moksha.  A 
grhastha by definition is enmeshed in relationships which are not real. 
This has been discussed on the list at great length.

-- 
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>