My reflection on Advaita/Vishishadvaita

[atanu]

I have shown you three different translations of Ramanuja's commentary, all of which illustrate that Ramanuja did not interpret the verse in the manner you are claiming. It is pointless to go on repeating the same falsehoods again and again after they have been disproved. I repeat again, I could'nt care less what you beleive, the fact is that you are deliberately misrepresenting Dvaita/VA teachings and I object to that.

I am deliberately misinterpreting? And there is no chance that you are misunderstanding? :sarcastic You seem to have great superiority complex. Are you here to uselessly argue? This is going to be my last post to you. You are plainly insulting.

If you go through the Chapter 13 translation of Ramanuja (http://srimatham.com/storage/docs/bhagavad-gita.pdf), you will find that the brahman spoken of in 13.13 (that is equated to individual soul in the translation), is translated as atma in the subsequent verses. Kindly read. And that atma is said to have mouths and hands everywhere is also said to be nirgunam in 13.15 (and also in 13.32 for paramatma -- supreme self). And, in 13.13 itself this Brahman (individual according to the translation) is subordinated to Shri Krishna. THis is what I have been telling.

You have no right to insult me by saying that I am deliberately misrepresenting. It is you who seem to have some intention.

Earlier:

1. I have shown (and you have also) that the translation of 13.13 by Shri Ramanuja differs drastically from all other translations. Shri Ramanuja's translation parses anaadimatparambrahma in a way that does not match to the translation by others, who have understood it as Nirgunam, based on the verse that follow in the same chapter and also based on 'na sat' and 'na asat' clauses. Whereas, Ramanuja's translation glosses over the clauses 'na sat' and 'na asat'. So, Shri Ramnuja subordinates the 'na sat' and 'na asat' brahman under Shri Krishna.

2. I also noted that the same compound occurs in Svest. U., where it is attributed to Brahman and not to jiva.

3. It is ridiculous to say that the word Brahman (in Gita 13.13) signifies the individual soul. And if it does so, then advaita is already established, since sruti scripture considers brahman as indivisible and supreme.


4. Further, the verse

10. 20. I am the Self, O Gudakesha, seated in the hearts of all beings! I am the beginning, the middle and also the end of all beings.
​

establishes advaita beyond doubt. One who argues after this does so egged on by ego alone. :yes:

Omkara, this is all I have to say.

Since advaita darsana is an established knowledge and goal for me (Gita verse 10.20 cited above leaves no doubt), I have no intention to spread wrong information about VA or Dvaita and have no interest to split hair over that with you.

Best.

 

[Omkara]

If you go through the Chapter 13 translation of Ramanuja (http://srimatham.com/storage/docs/bhagavad-gita.pdf), you will find that the brahman spoken of in 13.13 (that is equated to individual soul in the translation), is translated as atma in the subsequent verses. Kindly read. And that atma is said to have mouths and hands everywhere is also said to be nirgunam in 13.15 (and also in 13.32 for paramatma -- supreme self). And, in 13.13 itself this Brahman (individual according to the translation) is subordinated to Shri Krishna. THis is what I have been telling.

Please see the three translations of Ramanuja's commentary that I linked to. All of them show that Ramanuja does not interpret the verse that way.

You said that in Dvaita/VA, Nirguna Brahman is subordinate to Krishna. Even the commentary that you linked to only says that the individual soul is subordinate to Krishna. I.e. You are making claims without proof or justification.

 

[Sumit]

The BG I have, this particular verse is translated as
"I shall fully describe the object of knowledge, knowing which one attains mokesh. The beginning less supreme Brahman is sad to be neither sat nor asat."

 

[atanu]

Please see the three translations of Ramanuja's commentary that I linked to. All of them show that Ramanuja does not interpret the verse that way.

I have seen. You have not seen and you are bluffing.

The hayagrivan translation (http://www.srihayagrivan.org/ebooks/059_sbg_v3.pdf) is not Ramanuja's translation. The verse 13.13 (13.12 in the translation) is the same as Shankara's translation. It is not Shri Ramanuja's translation. Some purports are from Shri Ramanuja.

Bhagavad-Gita: Chapter 13, Verse 13 is dvaita site and not VA site. The translation is not from Ramanuja.

In Sri Bhagavad Gita 1898 - Google Books, pages 143 to 581 are not shown in the preview. Where did you see the translation of 13.13?

Evidently you are bluffing without knowing and without reading your own citations. Instead you have blamed my intention again and again.
-------------------------------------

Actual Ramanuja translation of the 13.13 (http://srimatham.com/storage/docs/bhagavad-gita.pdf), is as below:

13.13. I shall declare that which has to be known, knowing which, one attains immortality — It is beginningless Brahman, to which I am superior; it is said to be neither being nor non-being

Author notes the following:


Note of author
The clause anådimatparamabrahma in the second line is split up by Ramanuja into Anådi—beginningless; Mat-param — having Me as the Superior; brahma — Brahman or the individual Self.
Sankaracarya splits it into anadimat — the beginingless, paramabrahma — Supreme Brahman, the Absolute.

You said that in Dvaita/VA, Nirguna Brahman is subordinate to Krishna. Even the commentary that you linked to only says that the individual soul is subordinate to Krishna. I.e. You are making claims without proof or justification.

I have linked the actual transation, man. Are you always this arrogant and know only to blame others? Do you have any intention to acknowledge that you might have been wrong? That you did not know that the 13.13 is translated differently by Shri Ramanuja. You showed me the dvaita site to prove that Ramanuja's translation was not what I claimed it to be. That is funny, you know?



What Shankara translates as 'param Brahman' in 13.13 is translated as 'Brahman under my command' and then interpreted as 'individual soul' by shri Ramanuja.

• Shri Shankara and all others read param brahman in 13.13.
• Shri Ramnuja reads brahman and interpretes Brahman as the individual soul.
• In which other scripture individual soul (jivatma) has been called by the name of Brahman? Since when Brahman is called the the individual soul in any scripture?
• But if the above is correct, then advaita is upheld without any ado.

--------------

Take your time and confirm that indeed translation of the 13.13 of Shri Ramanuja on one hand and translations of Shri Shankara and Shri Abhinava Gupta's (Kashmir Shaivism) are different. Where Shri Shankara and all other see Supreme Brahman in 13.13, Shri Ramanuja sees Brahman/individual soul under command of Krishna. Kindly ask any genuine Sri Vaisnava about the difference in Shankara's and Ramanuja's translations. I am not taking any side but merely recording facts, as I know.

(And I do not like you blaming my intentions. I pray that do not be brash and do not blame me of bad intentions. Does your spiritual teacher teach arrogance?)

 

[atanu]

The BG I have, this particular verse is translated as
"I shall fully describe the object of knowledge, knowing which one attains mokesh. The beginning less supreme Brahman is said to be neither sat nor asat."

Most translations, except the one by Shri Ramanuja and one from Shri Prabhupada read as above. But that is not a problem. Different schools have different needs. But when abrahamic like some one tries to impose and finds fault in others then that creates un-necessary bitterness.

Thanks.

 

[atanu]

English Translation - of Sri Ramanuja's Sanskrit Commentary - Dr. S Sankaranarayan

13.13 I shall declare that nature of the individual self (brahman) which is the object to be known, namely, what is to be gained by means of virtues like modesty etc., by knowing which one attains to the self which is immortal, birthless, free from old age, death and such other material qualities. [The expression is split up as --- Anadi = beginningless; Mat-param = having Me as the Highest.] Anadi means that which is beginningless. Indeed, there is no origination for this individual self (brahman) and for the same reason, It is endless..................

Gita

--------------------------

 

[Omkara]

I have seen. You have not seen and you are bluffing.

The hayagrivan translation (http://www.srihayagrivan.org/ebooks/059_sbg_v3.pdf) is not Ramanuja's translation. The verse 13.13 (13.12 in the translation) is the same as Shankara's translation. It is not Shri Ramanuja's translation. Some purports are from Shri Ramanuja.

Bhagavad-Gita: Chapter 13, Verse 13 is dvaita site and not VA site. The translation is not from Ramanuja.

In Sri Bhagavad Gita 1898 - Google Books, pages 143 to 581 are not shown in the preview. Where did you see the translation of 13.13?

:sorry1: I checked the links I had posted again, and they do seem to support what you are saying. The google books link is eorking fine for me, check Sri Bhagavad Gita 1898 - Google Books is a direct link to the page in question. In any case it does support what you are saying.

In which other scripture individual soul (jivatma) has been called by the name of Brahman?

Parama upanishad, which I quoted above and which is accepted by Advaitins. But in any case this is irrelevant to the discussion.

But if the above is correct, then advaita is upheld without any ado.

Agreed.


HOWEVER, this is irrevant to the main objection I raised. You claimed that-

Visistaadvaita and also dvaita proponents hold the above niguna brahman as the inferior Brahman, being mere emanation from a big colorful person situated somewhere else.

and cited Ramanuja's commentary on BG 13.13 as proof. However Ramanuja's commentary on this verse says nothing about Nirguna Brahman being an emanation of Krishna.

 

[mohinishaktidevi]

This is correctly explained in the Vedas.

Originally Posted by atanu
Visistaadvaita and also dvaita proponents hold the above niguna brahman as the inferior Brahman, being mere emanation from a big colorful person situated somewhere else.

This is correct. Krishna confirms it in the Bhagavad gita.

Vyasa and his transcribed scriptures are proponents that nirguna brahman is inferior to PARAM Brahman, that nirguna brahman is an emanation from a big colorful person (PARAM Brahman) situated somewhere else (beyond nirguna Brahman).

PARAM Brahman is a Purusha, a person. Param brahman is not an energy field.
PARAM Brahman is Personality.

This is how Krishna confirms it in the Bhagavad gita.

 

[atanu]

:sorry1: I checked the links I had posted again, and they do seem to support what you are saying. The google books link is eorking fine for me, check Sri Bhagavad Gita 1898 - Google Books is a direct link to the page in question. In any case it does support what you are saying.

Okay. Better late than never.

Parama upanishad, which I quoted above and which is accepted by Advaitins. But in any case this is irrelevant to the discussion.

I showed you that many brahmans will mean all of thenm to be mortal, since scripture says "one who sees any difference here goes from death to death"

Agreed.

Better late than never.

--and cited Ramanuja's commentary on BG 13.13 as proof. However Ramanuja's commentary on this verse says nothing about Nirguna Brahman being an emanation of Krishna.

I admit to my poetic disabilty-inabilty to describe Vaikuntha. No argument about that.:yes:

 

[Omkara]

I showed you that many brahmans will mean all of thenm to be mortal, since scripture says "one who sees any difference here goes from death to death"

A text accepted as shruti by your school says that multiple entities can be referrents pf the term Brahman. If you object to that, you should prpvide an alternate interpretation for the verse.

I admit to my poetic disabilty-inabilty to describe Vaikuntha. No argument about that.:yes:

Huh, what is this supposed to mean? I repeat again- You made false claims that Dvaita/VA has Nirguna Brahman subordimate to Krishna. Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?

 

[atanu]

A text accepted as shruti by your school says that multiple entities can be referrents pf the term Brahman. If you object to that, you should prpvide an alternate interpretation for the verse.

Do you know what is brahman of forms and what is brahman of names?

No scripture says that there are many immutable brahman-s. And can you show who among the advaitins accepted multiple immutable Brahman? Sruti says "One who sees any difference here goes from death to death". So, these multiple Brahman-s are all mortal.

Huh, what is this supposed to mean? I repeat again- You made false claims that Dvaita/VA has Nirguna Brahman subordimate to Krishna. Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?

It means what I already said "I admit to my poetic disabilty-inabilty to describe Vaikuntha...". If you cannot follow it then I cannot help.

I feel that you are plain arrogant. It was you who made false claims about the translation of 13.13 as noted above.


Namaste.

 

[atanu]

For those who have been reading and smiling, I am recording a few simple points with regard to the discussion about nirgunam and sagunam that has taken place.

Nirgunam as per all Vedanta schools is beyond gunas, which are qualities of mind. Nirgunam simply means transendental, beyond mind. Saguna is ' one with mind-sense discernible qualities'.

Most non-advaita Vedanta schools appear to take a personal God (Saguna) as the Supreme. And mostly it will be Vishnu or Krishna. This is saguna Lord of a particular flavour. When such a saguna Lord is given the Supreme position, it is natural that the nirgunam aspect is downplayed. For Vishistadvaitins, ultimate salvation is to reach Sri Vaikunta and enjoy being in service to Lord Sriman Narayana and Sri Lakshmi. In Dvaita, in the state of salvation all the souls are eternally under the protection and care of Vishnu and forever free from the worldly miseries. However they do not merge with Vishnu and they retain their individuality.

Can a Saivaite identify with a four armed, discuss throwing Lord? Can an American identify with that easily? Though, in the darsanas such is actually not the theme, but in common Vaisnava (and Hindu) perception Vishnu rules with a chakra etc. So, Saguna Lord, as per common perception, has a cultural connotation, and not universal.

Second. As per VA, the truth is Vishnu, Parabrahman, as the Supreme of an universe made of cit-acit (intelligent-non intelligent) things that make up His body. Advaita does not admit of acit (non-intelligence ) to the immutable highest.

In VA and Dvaita purports and translations of the Gita, Upanishads and Brahma Sutra, usually the saguna aspects have been played up and concepts that point to ineffability etc.have been given some other kind of interpretation and/or down-played. One example is Gita 13.13 explained earlier.

Neti-Neti, sruti of upanishad is another common example that teaches as below.

The life force is the satya - the truth. The ineffable is the satyasa satya, the Truth of the Truth, the all pervading immutable Brahman. Brihadaraynaka upanishad teaches that the Brahman is to be meditated as Not This-Not This. Whatever can be perceived as 'this' is not Brahman. However VA teaches that neti-neti means 'Not just this-Not just this'. That may be very OK. But a teaching such as 'Not just this-'Not just this' is sure invitation to mental images as per cultural background. Whereas, simple 'Not this-Not this' is a teaching to discard notion of any mental form or name, physical or mental.
--------------------------
Finally a simple question will suffice. Suppose, some one is a strong saguna Shiva follower. Will a saguna four armed Vishnu suit that person as his Deity or as a mental image of Param Brahman? And is this the goal of Veda?

May be it is. But that is not for me. I have stated facts as I know.

 

[atanu]

Viraja, since you are reading both VA and advaita, I thought it OK to record an advaitin's perspective also. This is not to discourage you or not to belittle VA. I believe that God only has designed and set out different paths for different people.


I face another problem with Vishistadvaita. It is taught that in case of sruti conficting with pratayksha (evident experience), the sruti is not stronger (approximate paraphrase). This is an odd dictum for a spiritual darsana.

The spirit is not seen. Ishwara is not seen. These are not evident. Do we then, going by the evident experience, discard sruti? VA has some answer for this, that by pratyaksha, VA means true prataksha -- true experience.

I find that subjective. By this dictum, VA holds the differences as real. But Gita says:

Avibhaktam cha bhooteshu vibhaktamiva cha sthitam;
Bhootabhartru cha tajjneyam grasishnu prabhavishnu cha.
17. And undivided, yet He exists as if divided in beings; He is to be known as the supporter of beings; He devours and He generates also.

Samam sarveshu bhooteshu tishthantam parameshwaram;
Vinashyatswavinashyantam yah pashyati sa pashyati.
28. He sees, who sees the Supreme Lord, existing equally in all beings, the unperishing within the perishing.

Samam pashyan hi sarvatra samavasthitameeshwaram;
Na hinastyaatmanaa’tmaanam tato yaati paraam gatim.
29. Because he who sees the same Lord dwelling equally everywhere does not destroy the Self by the self, he goes to the highest goal.

The above three verses from the 13th Chapter decalre that the Param Atman is indivisible and samam (equal everywhere). The divisions are apparent.

 

[Viraja]

Viraja, since you are reading both VA and advaita, I thought it OK to record an advaitin's perspective also. This is not to discourage you or not to belittle VA. I believe that God only has designed and set out different paths for different people.


I face another problem with Vishistadvaita. It is taught that in case of sruti conficting with pratayksha (evident experience), the sruti is not stronger (approximate paraphrase). This is an odd dictum for a spiritual darsana.

The spirit is not seen. Ishwara is not seen. These are not evident. Do we then, going by the evident experience, discard sruti? VA has some answer for this, that by pratyaksha, VA means true prataksha -- true experience.

I find that subjective. By this dictum, VA holds the differences as real. But Gita says:

Avibhaktam cha bhooteshu vibhaktamiva cha sthitam;
Bhootabhartru cha tajjneyam grasishnu prabhavishnu cha.
17. And undivided, yet He exists as if divided in beings; He is to be known as the supporter of beings; He devours and He generates also.

Samam sarveshu bhooteshu tishthantam parameshwaram;
Vinashyatswavinashyantam yah pashyati sa pashyati.
28. He sees, who sees the Supreme Lord, existing equally in all beings, the unperishing within the perishing.

Samam pashyan hi sarvatra samavasthitameeshwaram;
Na hinastyaatmanaa’tmaanam tato yaati paraam gatim.
29. Because he who sees the same Lord dwelling equally everywhere does not destroy the Self by the self, he goes to the highest goal.

The above three verses from the 13th Chapter decalres that the Param Atman is indivisible and samam (equal everywhere). The divisions are apparent.

Thank you for the clarification, Atanuji. For the most part, I couldn't understand the discussions in this thread, me being a mere beginner with the siddhantas. But your clarifications will certainly help once I gain some deeper understanding following repeated reading.

I do agree that since evident darshana is going to be something we cannot get an experience of, the question then arises what then happens to the sruti. Like you quoted, it appears we have to look into some other works - maybe the vedas, Gita for answers... I am far too much a beginner - my first step into understanding the scriptures itself is this new quest to understand VA, so I will have to look up for understanding from learned people as yourself.

I thank you for all your knowledge and insights in this thread. Quite a lot indeed. _/\_

 

[Debater Slayer]

***Mod Post***

This thread has been moved to the Same-Faith Debates forum per staff consensus.
​

 

[Amrut]

Hello All,

I read about effulgence, It is said by Srila Prabhupada while explaining Isopanishad: 15

There references given are BG14:27

Another reference is BG 7:7 and checking commentaries by Sri Abhinava Gupta ji, it says that there is no place for duality.

More references are given from Srimad Bhagavatam in Srila Prabhupada's commentary in Isa Upanishad.

while in BG14:27, Swami Sivananda has given alternate Translation which says Brahman has to be taken as Saguna Brahman. Adi Shankaracharya and Abhinava Gupta ji used the word, I am paramtman's Pratistha. Adi Shankracharya gives ref to some verses from Gita.

Source: Select Text | Gita Supersite 2.0 (Beta)

you will need to select suitable text. It does not contain Srila Prabhupada's Gita Translation.

check

Sri Ramanujacharya's Sanskrit Commentary, English translation by Swami Adidevananda
Adi Shankaracharya's Sanskrit Commentary, English translation by Swami Ghambhirananda and hindi Translation by Goenka ji
Sri Abhinav Gupta ji's Sanskrit commentary, English translation by Dr. Shankaranarayan

I have also referred to Molla Sloka Translation by

Dr. Shankaranarayan, Swami Ghambhirananda, Swami Sivananda (both translation and commentary, commentary which more or less is in tune with Adi Shankara), Hindi commentary by notable Saint Swami Ramsukhdas ji Maharaj.

Sri Goenka ji is the inspiration behind Gita bhavan and Gita Press Gorakhpur and is said to have vision of Lord Rama. Swami Ramsukhsdas ji is an uncontroversial saint, a Rama bhakta, had Sri Rama's Divine vision. His Gita commentary is called Sadhaka Sanjivani, in Hindi, is well appreciated and stayed at Gita Bhavan, near Paramarth Niketan of Swami Chidananda.

Hope this helps to solve effulgence issue, or may be it solves just party.

EDIT: One more link: http://vaniquotes.org/wiki/Brahman_effulgence_(Letters)

Aum
Amrut

 

[mohinishaktidevi]

It seems Atanu has become Vaishnava after all these years.

You go atanu!