indian philosophy is mulitifaceted with innumerous philosophical schools like nyaya-vaiseshika, vedanta, jaina, bhuddha, loyakatas, mayins, saktas -tantrics, samkyas, yoga...etc. some think atheism is a dogmatic reaction against theism and atheism{charvakas} are one of the oldest surviving schools along with vedanta and others. when people suspect the very existence of Rama avatar, one may feel that majority of people have already become charvakas and are hindus by name only.
guru Chanakya commenting upon the hypocrisy of people during his time , wrote"anthah shatyah bahir shaivo janamaa madye cha vaishanah" meaning unside they worship shakti, by chant they are shaivas but when they step they behave like vaishnavas so as to get prestige.{vaishnavas were once considered the best of brahmins} . today we have to redefine this. we worship God but we dont believe in him. Among us, people like Karunaanidhi are the worst of charuvakas and they feel as if they are so logical.
the basic tenets of charva philosophy are
there is earth
earth is formed by various elements and those elements combine without any external agency.
consciousness is the result of body and is nothing but a sensation.
there is no god or hell , but only sense perception is true.
inference is valid as long as the sense perception validates it.
its better to commit sin to enjoy , for death destroys everything. so far so good .
But , if only sense perception is true then how come perceptions formed by mathematical reasoning that dont tease any sense be real? if earth can form on itself , why doesnt a dead man suddenly not come back to life by himself ? if consciousness is formed by association of certain elements, then that means the elements had consciousness in potent state and not as what they surmise. also if there is no eshwara then the analysis of cause-effect would lead to an infinite regress . despite their weak logical structure this school has survived and are still influencing the minds of people.
these charvakas are lower than animals since even cows have krishna bhakti and legendary animals like gajendra aspired for moksha. even vaanaras served Sri Rama.
Their logic is miraculously flawed and their behaviour hence. so there is no wonder that karunaanidhi like lower organisms display the best level of ignorance. people following him are the blindest of fools . these human like organisms are called NriPashu(animal in human form).
Also we answer the question ..... Rama built the sethu using Nal and Neel who weren't humans in ordinary sense so the formation now appears as a natural formation. due to time, what remains now is but a faint reflection of the original. Also there is no need of engg degree to construct a bridge .... we ask ...is Nature an engineer to construct universe and life? no charvaka can answer this question.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
brahmam as per vedanta
all the systems of vedanta address these issues: tatva, hita, purushartha. they differ in the way they define them. tatva is accepted by all the schools as brahmam. advaitha says brahmam is undifferentiated pure consciousness and it cannot be defined by attributes. it is nir-vishesha. the Shruthi says "neti neti" and sri sankara intreprets it as sublation of all the qualities and reducing it to an undifferentiated consciousness. Ramanuja uses "aparkta siddhi" and says that non differentiated substance cant be inferred or perceived and thus says that brahmam is a unified congloromerate of all the auspicious qualities.
So vishishtadvaitha treats brahmam as an omni-potent eshwara i.e Narayana who has svabhava and svarupa and who is of the substratum of suddha satva . suddha satva is one of the "dravyas" which gives rise to "Dharma bhuta gnayna" or attributive consciousness . this consciousness reveals other objects and through "dharmi gnayna" brahmam realises and revels in its own bliss. Brahmam has its body composed of jeevas and achit and it associates with them in a very complex relationship explained as "samana adikarana" which roughly can be described to a body -soul relationship. dvaitha's brahmam is similar to vishitadvaitha's brahmam but differs in relationship with chit and achit. Desika says in virodha pariha that nature of liberation is such that the attributive consciousness gets merged with that of Narayana but dharmi state remains that gives seshatvam . thus through coordinate predication Ramanuja says brahmam is some thing changeless but exists alone qualified by manifold attributes and subordinates like achit and jeevas.
Madva says that there is complete difference between brahmam and jeevas and no union ir co-existence is possible.
Nimbarka says that both manifoldness and unity co-exist in brahmam."ajayamanah bhaudavi jayathe" of vedas says that the changless -beginningless brahmam grows into manifold .
vallabha opies that brahmam alone is the tatva and jeeva and achit are self modifications done by brahmam on itself as a sport.
but Ramanuja-Desika's system seems best to give a single coherent picture of bheda shuritis and abedha shruthis.
So vishishtadvaitha treats brahmam as an omni-potent eshwara i.e Narayana who has svabhava and svarupa and who is of the substratum of suddha satva . suddha satva is one of the "dravyas" which gives rise to "Dharma bhuta gnayna" or attributive consciousness . this consciousness reveals other objects and through "dharmi gnayna" brahmam realises and revels in its own bliss. Brahmam has its body composed of jeevas and achit and it associates with them in a very complex relationship explained as "samana adikarana" which roughly can be described to a body -soul relationship. dvaitha's brahmam is similar to vishitadvaitha's brahmam but differs in relationship with chit and achit. Desika says in virodha pariha that nature of liberation is such that the attributive consciousness gets merged with that of Narayana but dharmi state remains that gives seshatvam . thus through coordinate predication Ramanuja says brahmam is some thing changeless but exists alone qualified by manifold attributes and subordinates like achit and jeevas.
Madva says that there is complete difference between brahmam and jeevas and no union ir co-existence is possible.
Nimbarka says that both manifoldness and unity co-exist in brahmam."ajayamanah bhaudavi jayathe" of vedas says that the changless -beginningless brahmam grows into manifold .
vallabha opies that brahmam alone is the tatva and jeeva and achit are self modifications done by brahmam on itself as a sport.
but Ramanuja-Desika's system seems best to give a single coherent picture of bheda shuritis and abedha shruthis.
Monday, February 11, 2008
suddadvaitha dharshana
among bhakti schools of vedanta, some schools are more intution based and care less for metaphysics and logic. this darshana of shri Vallabhacharya is a darshana in which the thatva is radha krishna and he is the only reality. " ekam sat viprah bhahudah vadhanti" is quoted by vallabacharya to support that vedas teach of a qualified brahmam called krishna and krishna is seen as many{bhaduhah vadhanti}. krishna leela consists of modifying his body. "satyam gnyanam anantham brahma" this brahmam hides the qualities namely anantham and chith in its body and thus its portion of body that is affected developes localised consciousness called jeevatma that is nothing but brahmam itself . marga is bhakti towards krishna and moksha is in communion with Krishna. the shruthi declares that Brahmam is "paramkamaat" meaning fully satisfied in its own bliss. there are serious questions that are to be answered as to how does the brahmam which is ever perfect suddenly makes its portion of body imperfect? even if it does what is the purpose? to decieve itself that its imperfect? .
this suddhadvaitha is a modified form of advaitha where in ignorance is substituted by volition there by bringing "parinamavadha" . if brahmam cannot be deluded by maya then it should not be deluded by itseif also. this delution seems dangerous as to what if it hides all its qualities and forgets that it is Brahmam? also if brahmam is having a body, then is the body same as that of brahmam or different? if brahmam and its body are same then deluding its body would lead to perdition. if its different then pure monism wont result. this is the problem all the extentions of advaitha face i.e to explain the manifoldness. Ignorance or leela cannot account for a single entity to appear as many. also bhakthi is always meant as pure devotion. and devotion implies difference between experiencer and experienced so on no grounds this metaphysics would stand.
this suddhadvaitha is a modified form of advaitha where in ignorance is substituted by volition there by bringing "parinamavadha" . if brahmam cannot be deluded by maya then it should not be deluded by itseif also. this delution seems dangerous as to what if it hides all its qualities and forgets that it is Brahmam? also if brahmam is having a body, then is the body same as that of brahmam or different? if brahmam and its body are same then deluding its body would lead to perdition. if its different then pure monism wont result. this is the problem all the extentions of advaitha face i.e to explain the manifoldness. Ignorance or leela cannot account for a single entity to appear as many. also bhakthi is always meant as pure devotion. and devotion implies difference between experiencer and experienced so on no grounds this metaphysics would stand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
