365bet娱乐

India has a rich tradition of philosophical speculations having its roots in the ancient 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲蝉. Indian philosophical systems, also known as 诲补谤艣补苍补蝉, are broadly divided into two groups. The 腻蝉迟颈办补 诲补谤艣补苍补蝉 accept the testimony of the Vedas, whereas the n腻蝉迟颈办补 诲补谤艣补苍补蝉 deny the validity of the Vedas. The 鲍迟迟补谤补-尘墨尘腻峁僺腻 or the 痴别诲腻苍迟补蝉 ystem is counted in six 腻蝉迟颈办补 诲补谤艣补苍补蝉. It is based on 辫谤补蝉迟丑腻苍补迟谤补测墨 viz. the triple canon of the 痴别诲腻苍迟补, which includes the 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲蝉, the 叠谤补丑尘补蝉奴迟谤补蝉 and the 叠丑补驳补惫补诲-驳墨迟腻. These ancient texts have been interpreted in various ways by the great commentators, such as 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补, 搁腻尘腻苍耻箩腻肠腻谤测补, 惭补诲丑惫腻肠腻谤测补 and so on. Hence, various sub-streams arose in the 痴别诲腻苍迟补-philosophy, such as Kevala-advaita, 痴颈艣颈峁ａ弓补-补诲惫补颈迟补, Dvaita etc. The stream propagating the thought of absolute monism is known as Kevala-补诲惫补颈迟补-惫别诲腻苍迟补-philosophy. The tenets of this philosophy are clearly found in the 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲ic sentences. But, this philosophy became popular as a system of thought throughout India from the period of 膧di 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补. Before 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补, Ga岣峚p膩d膩c膩rya, the grand-teacher of 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补, wrote 办腻谤颈办腻蝉 (verses) on the 惭腻峁囜笉奴办测补 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲. He, therein, expounded the doctrine of Kevalaadvaita, or specifically speaking the 础箩腻迟颈-惫腻诲补 (theory of non-origination) using his dialectical skills. Later on this doctrine has been successfully maintained and enriched by various great scholars through their argumentative expositions. In a similar way, various enlightened speculators have explored the principles of this philosophy through their valuable teachings. 搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i, a well-known sage of Arunachala in Tamil Nadu, is one of such great thinkers of Kevala-补诲惫补颈迟补-惫别诲腻苍迟补 philosophy. In this dissertation, an attempt is made to present a comparative study of the philosophy of 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 and 搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i.

膧di 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 is well-known for his outstanding mission of reforming the Vedic religion and exploring the Kevala-补诲惫补颈迟补-惫别诲腻苍迟补 philosophy. There is a controversy among the scholars about determining his date. Some traditional treatises decide his date before the Christ, whereas the modern scholars believe that 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 lived between 788 A.D. and 820 A.D. One can get acquainted with the major life-events of 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 from the 艢补峁卥补谤补-vijayas, the treatises narrating the historical events of 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补, and also from the literary records available in the chief 尘补峁环补蝉 (monasteries). The tradition holds that 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 was the 补惫补迟腻谤补 (incarnation) of lord 艢颈惫补. He was born in Kaladi to 艢颈惫补guru and 膧ry膩mb膩. He completed the study of the Vedas and the 痴别诲腻峁単补蝉 within a very short period. He was initiated into 厂补苍苍测腻蝉补 (monastic life) in the eighth year of his age by Govinda Bhagavatp膩da. His grand preceptor was Gau岣峚p膩d膩c膩rya. 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 wrote the scholastic and lucid commentary on the 叠谤补丑尘补蝉奴迟谤补蝉, probably, in Benares. Afterwards, he completed the commentaries on the 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲蝉 and the Bhagavad-驳墨迟腻 as well. Therein, he maintained the philosophy of absolute monism in a rational way. He did not oppose the rituals in the Vedas, but proved the supremacy of the knowledge over and above these rituals. He travelled all over India restoring the glory of the Vedic religion. He refuted the non-vedic philosophies such as Buddhism,

Jainism etc. in the debates and saved the principles explored in the 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲蝉 from the attacks of the non-vedic streams. Similarly, he rebutted the thoughts that were held by the 腻蝉迟颈办补-诲补谤艣补苍补蝉, but not in agreement with the Vedas. He unified various sects spreading all over India using manifold ways, such as popularization of the 笔补帽肠腻测补迟补苍补 worship etc. and thus maintained the religious and spiritual integrity of India. He stopped some sects, such as 罢腻苍迟谤颈办补蝉, 碍腻辫腻濒颈办补蝉 etc. from doing the evil rituals, which caused to spoil the Vedic tradition. And, in this way, he strengthened the tradition of the Vedas. He ascended the 蝉补谤惫补箩帽补-辫墨峁环补 in Kashmir, which could be ascended only by the knower of all the disciplines of knowledge. He organized the 蝉补苍苍测腻蝉颈苍蝉 and established four 尘补峁环补蝉 in four corners of India to spread the teachings of the Vedas. Thus, within a short lifespan of 32 years, he restored the Vedic culture to its earlier pristine position and ended his 补惫补迟腻谤补 probably in Kashmir.

艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 is credited with several works. He wrote the commentaries on the 辫谤补蝉迟丑腻苍补迟谤补测墨. Apart from these great commentaries, it is accepted that he composed various devotional and philosophical stotras (poems), such as Saudarya-lahar墨, Dak峁�i峁嚹乵奴rtistotra etc. Moreover, various 辫谤补办补谤补峁嘺-驳谤补苍迟丑补蝉 (auxiliary texts) such as 膧迟尘补-bodha, 鲍辫补诲别艣补-蝉腻丑补蝉谤墨, Viveka-肠奴岣嵞乵补峁噄 etc. have been attributed to 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 by the tradition. But, his authorship of some of these treatises is still in dispute. So, the philosophy of 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 is thought over in this thesis on the basis of his commentaries, written on the ten major 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲蝉, the 叠谤补丑尘补-蝉奴迟谤补蝉, the 叠丑补驳补惫补诲-驳墨迟腻, and the 骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补-办腻谤颈办腻蝉. The Motilal Banarsidass editions of these commentaries (叠谤补丑尘补-蝉奴迟谤补 with 艢腻峁卥补谤补-产丑腻峁�y补: 2012, 艢r墨madbhagavad驳墨迟腻 with 艢腻峁卥补谤补-产丑腻峁�y补: 2011, 莫艣腻诲颈诲补艣辞辫补苍颈峁�a诲补岣� with 艢腻峁卥补谤补-产丑腻峁�y补: 2007) are used for this dissertation.

搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i (30^th December, 1879 to 14^th April 1950) is known as one of the greatest sages in the modern era. He was born to Sundaram Ayyar and Alagammal in Tiruchuzhi, a village in Tamil Nadu. He was named Venkataraman. There was not any noticeable spiritual sign seen in him, till the beginning of 1896. He had not read the spiritual and the philosophical books, except some passages from the Bible and the Periya Puranam, in which the life-stories of sixty-three Tamil Saivite saints are narrated. In 1896, about middle of July, he faced a sudden fear of death while sitting alone in his uncle鈥檚 house. The fear made him introverted and he started to investigate the true nature of the individuality. He realized that the 鈥業鈥� or pure Consciousness is deathless and it is different from the inert body. The result of this enquiry was the absorption of the notion of individuality in the supreme Self.^[1] This experience of the supreme Self changed his life. After six weeks of this experience, he moved to Tiruvannamalai i.e. Arunachala and never left that place again. Till November 1922, he resided there mainly in the premises of Arunachaleswara鈥檚 temple and also in various caves of the hill of Arunachala. In earlier days in Tiruvannamalai, he was known by the name 鈥�Brahmana-swami鈥�. It was Ganapati Muni, who first called him 搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i. In December 1922, the Ramanasramam was founded at the southern side of the Arunachala hill and thenceforth 惭补丑补谤峁�i lived there till the 尘补丑腻蝉补尘腻诲丑颈.

搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i had not formally studied any philosophical treatises before his experience of the Self. He read the philosophical doctrines, mainly when the visitors and devotees brought the particular books to him and asked their queries about the contents of these books.^[2] 搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i mostly taught through the silence. He instructed through the speech only when one was unable to understand his silence. He composed very few works. Even these works too were written by him mainly on the request of the devotees. He composed five hymns to Sri Arunachala Siva as well as other spiritual verses on various occasions. He wrote the Ulladu Narpadu i.e. the forty verses on Reality, in which one can find the essence of his philosophy. Various translations and commentaries have been written on these verses. For this dissertation, the Sanskrit rendering of these verses by Ganapati Muni is used. It is known as 厂补诲诲补谤艣补苍补尘 and a Sanskrit commentary has been written on it by Kapali Sastry. After some period, other forty verses, some of which were composed by 惭补丑补谤峁�i himself, were collected together as a supplement to the forty verses on Reality. 搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i composed a small Tamil treatise 鈥�Upadesha Undiar鈥� as well. Later on he himself translated it into Sanskrit, Malayalam and Telugu languages. The Sanskrit rendering is known as 鲍辫补诲别艣补s膩ra岣�. The Sanskrit commentary by Ganapati Muni is available on this work. Additionally, 惭补丑补谤峁�i wrote the remaining part of the treatise 鈥�Ramana Puranam鈥�.

Apart from these works, one can get acquainted with the philosophical ideas of 搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i by reading his conversations with the devotees. Such conversations were recorded carefully by some of his devotees at different times and many of them were checked and edited by 惭补丑补谤峁�i himself along with necessary suggestions. Some of the treatises based on the conversations are as follows: Self-enquiry, Who am I?, 搁补尘补峁嘺-驳墨迟腻, Guru Vachaka Kovai, Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Day by Day with Bhagavan, Maharshi鈥檚 Gospel and Spiritual Instruction.^[3] Additionally, the philosophical views of 搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i can be assumed by his

translations and introductions of some treatises, such as Devikalottara, Viveka-c奴岣嵞乵ani etc. and also from his compilation of some of the verses of 叠丑补驳补惫补诲-驳墨迟腻 in a specific order.

Intention behind the comparison:

艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 represents Vedic tradition, whereas 搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i represents modern era. Both of them viz. 艢补峁卥补谤补c膩rya (8^th century A.D.) and 搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i (20^th century A.D.) are renowned enlightened exponents of the Kevala-补诲惫补颈迟补-惫别诲腻苍迟补-philosophy. But, there is a big time-gap between them. The environment around them is found to be different due to such a time-gap. The impact of their personal viewpoints is also seen on their philosophical exposition. This dissertation will help to understand the characteristics of thoughts of both these giant personalities. In this dissertation, the philosophical views of 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 and 搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i are discussed and also compared to understand the philosophy of absolute monism in better perspective. Even today this philosophy occupies a significant place all over India. The principles of this philosophy have been spread in various regions of the rest of the world also. Therefore, it is relevant to study the contemporary position of this philosophy and its connection with its earlier position. This dissertation will give the idea of continuity in the Kevala-补诲惫补颈迟补惫别诲腻苍迟补-philosophy. In addition to this, it will be useful to understand the practical side of this philosophy.

The philosophy of 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 has been thought over by various modern and traditional scholars. Similarly, the scholars of 痴别诲腻苍迟补 philosophy and the devotees of 搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i have written several treatises explaining the teachings of 惭补丑补谤峁�i. Some of them have shown a connection of certain views of 搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i with the writings of 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补.^[4] But nobody has compared their viewpoints thoroughly as a research work. There is no dissertation available on this subject. The present dissertation attempts to make a comparative study of the philosophy of 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 and 搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i in an analytical way. The principles of their philosophy will be delineated here.

The research methods used for this research work are: descriptive method, historical method, comparative method and analytical method.

General scheme of chapters:

The objective of the present dissertation is to discuss the way in which both 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 and 搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i explain the doctrine of Kevalaadvaita and also to study the similarities and the differences in their views. A very basic theme of the Kevala-补诲惫补颈迟补-惫别诲腻苍迟补-philosophy is the Reality of the Brahman, the falsity of the jagat and the intrinsic identity between the 箩墨惫补 and the Brahman. The viewpoints of 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 and 搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i regarding these three major philosophical concepts viz. 箩墨惫补, jagat and Brahman are taken into consideration in this thesis. The practical side of the Kevala-补诲惫补颈迟补惫别诲腻苍迟补-philosophy is also essential as much as its theoretical side. So, in addition to these three concepts, the concept of 尘辞办峁�a in viewpoint of both these philosophers is also discussed here.

In the second chapter of the thesis, the viewpoints of 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 regarding 箩墨惫补, jagat, Brahman and 尘辞办峁�a are thought over. In the third chapter, the views of 搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i regarding these four concepts are discussed. Each of these two chapters has four sections: J墨va, Jagat, Brahman and 惭辞办峁�a. The section 惭辞办峁�a contains two sub-sections: Types of 惭辞办峁�a and Means to 惭辞办峁�a. In the end of second and third chapters, a brief summary containing the general idea of that very chapter is written. The detailed conclusion is discussed in the fourth chapter. All the observations, based on the comparasion of the philosophy of 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 and 搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i, are delineated in this fourth chapter. An attempt is made here to show the impact of specific environment and the perspectives of these philosophers on their philosophical exposition. The select bibliography is provided at the end of the dissertation.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

Narasimha B. V. (2013: 17) has recorded 搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i鈥檚 words about this experience of the Self as follows: 鈥淎ll this was not a mere intellectual process. All this flashed before me vividly as living truth, something which I perceived immediately, without any argument almost. 鈥業鈥� was something very real, the only real thing in that state and all the conscious activity that was connected with my body was centred on that.鈥�

[2]:

Regarding this, Osborne A. (2014: 90) mentions 搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i鈥檚 words as follows: 鈥淚 did not yet know that there was an Essence or Impersonal Real underlying everything and that God and I were both identical with it. Later, at Tiruvannamalai, as I listened to the Ribhu Gita and other sacred books, I learnt all this and found that they were analysing and naming what I had felt intuitively without analysis or name.鈥�

[3]:

The dialogues along with their approximate recording period:

[4]:

[Sad-dar艣ana-产丑腻峁�y补 of Kapali Sastry] - 叠丑奴尘颈办腻 (Even though Kapali Sastry says this, he does not explicitly mention the differences in the views of 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 and 搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i.) Mahadevan T. M. P. (1966: 55) writes, 鈥淭hat there is no difference whatsoever between the teachings of Bhagavatpada Shankara and those of Bhagavan Sri Ramana will be evident to anyone who has any acquaintance with the writings of these two Great Masters. Advaita experience is what they teach, and not any system of philosophy or school of thought.鈥�