[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: Vedanta discussions
In article <3ev76r$l7p@ucunix.san.uc.edu>,
Manish Tandon <manish@cadence.com> wrote:
>To answer you earlier point on why Vyasa did not tell people to just read that
>and since he did not, they must be somehow lower in value, I would say, if a
>fourth grade kid asks me what does the theory of relativity says, I may just
>give a simple example whereas to say a freshman, I might give the actual def.
>Now, both the example (if it it correct) and the definition are correct and tell
>basically the same thing except that they may be meant for different audience.
>I don't see any reason to condemn one or the other. btw, one can also cite
>the example to a more advanced student also.
In fact, you'd probably _still_ cite the example or application to the
advanced student first to justify further study on the theoretical
aspect. Then the advanced student could always keep the example/application
in mind while working on the theoretical portion, and then be satisfied
by the results when seeing how the theory does indeed lead to the
application. At least that's the way it's supposed to work in most
disciplines.
So, how does that analogy relate to the relation between Bhagavata
and Brahma-sutra? Well, if one just hears the heavy words "janmady asya
yatah" in Brahma-sutra as a neophyte (without enough knowledge), one will
become perplexed and not know what that Truth is from which creation,etc.
takes place. These words are in the introductory passages of both Bhagavata
and Brahma-sutra. When one reads the Bhagavata, one sees the first line
"om namo bhagavate vasudevaya" and then reads "janmady asya yatah". So,
that explains that this Truth from which creation,etc. takes place
is the Supreme Lord Vasudeva!
Then if one reads Brahma-sutra after Bhagavata, one will automatically
remember that "janmady asya yatah" was referring to the Truth known as
Vasudeva, and that Vasudeva is the answer to the "brahma-jijnasa".
As has been pointed out, it is not enough to just theoretically know
"aham brahmasmi" -- I am spirit soul; one must have the activities
of brahma-bhuta, and Bhagavatam explains how this is possible.
>I think your misunderstanding is based upon either some foolish gaudia follower
>telling you that who didn't knew what is what or some advaitan/dvaitan telling
>you his/her understanding of Gaudia's which was based upon the same mistake.
This may be my fault. I have a lot of respect for dvaita and
Sripada Madhvacarya, so I may at times have made it seem like
I personally thought dvaita was the best. Of course I prefer
acintya-bheda-abheda-tattva, but I will argue (ad nauseam) that
the 2 are fundamentally compatible, and many Madhvas feel the same
way. They are infinitely closer to each other than either is to
advaita, and there is not much point in nitpicking the details between
the two, unless you happen to be an advaitin and are trying to cause
division among the Vaisnava ranks. Anyway, this I have posted under
another subject heading.
>Manish
-- Vijay
