Vikram Swami,

Adiyen’s humble opinion…

If we split ‘Sruti’ into ‘Karma Khandam” and ‘Brahma Khandam’, I do not think any ‘vaidikas’ have abhipraaya bhedam in ‘Karma Khandam’, but for some neo-Hindu groups.

Karma cannot have interpretation because it is an act but the intention with which the karma is (or should be) done can have several interpretations.

Abhipraaya bhedam exists and would exist in ‘Brahma Khandam’ because it is to do with ‘aatmanubhavam’ and just cannot be conditioned by parents or the society we live. I think this is where our ‘praarabhdam’ has its influence.

We are talking about scholarly society that lived thousands of years back wherein this kind of freedom of choice existed. However we all belong to a generation, where there is niether ‘paandityam’ nor ‘shraddhai’.

So we can, at best, tell our children only about what we know, understood, completely convinced ourselves, and keep it open-ended, but can never force them. It would simply not work. And then we should leave them to the refuge of bhagawan.

So adiyen’s viewpoint is that uniform civil code is against individuals’ spiritual inquiry. I think this is the beauty of ‘sanatana dharmam’ and must not become an imposition at all just like some of the ‘avaidika’ religions.

Kshamikka praarthikkiren…

-Adiyen

Vikram Swami,

Adiyen has read in a few places that Madhwa sampradayam views certain aspects of ‘Karma Khandam’ from a different perspective.

Otherwise, adiyen always thought both ‘Advaitam’ and our own Udayavar sampradayam had consensus in the karma khandam of vedam.

Anyways, adiyen completely agrees with devareer that this doesn’t fit in a discussion in an online forum. 

Nandri!

My thoughts:

The Lord is infinite. So as such, the Lord cannot be expressed adequately/fully in the absolute sense, in all of the scriptures on the planet combined. All we can know about him is, but a drop in an ocean, only the very fundamental realities and THE Spiritual Truths in the form of Vedanta, can one know and realize. And the right understanding and realization is that ONE CANNOT KNOW GOD, in the absolute sense. All we can know about him is but a drop in an ocean. And the people are also not of the same degree of spiritual evolution. Each and every one of us differ in the spiritual temperament, aspects and elevation. What we can know and realize in one’s life is based on his capacity and time spent in the Sravana and scriptural studies and contemplation. And the scriptures have to teach for every category of people, in terms of spiritual inclinations and Gunas and aspirations etc. So, though the Shastras are one, Vedanta for example, depending on one’s capacity and the experiences, the interpretations may vary. But with persistent efforts and contemplation and devotion, one would reach a certain level of comprehension and realization, beyond which the Lord would guide him and lead the seekers to the higher realizations and experience. So One would take to the path and philosophy that suits him the best depending on his capacity. But persistent devotion and efforts would lead him to the ultimate reality. In my opinion, the interpretation of Vedanta as propounded and re-established by Sri Ramanuja (Vishishtadvaita) is flawless. Happy to try and respond if one finds any contradiction on the philosophy of Sri Ramanuja. Jai Sri Ram!! 

Some contemplations:

If one (Jivatma) doesnt even know that he is God, then how can he (Jivatma) be/become God? Also Vedanta declares that GOD CANNOT BE KNOWN (in the absolute sense). So if God CANNOT Even be known (in the absolute sense), how can one (Jivatma) be/become God?

So Vishishtadvaita!! (Sri Ramanujacharya)!!

Jai Sri Ram!!

Bhaja Govindam!! Bhaja Govindam!! Govindam Bhaja!! – Sri Sankaracharya!!

Well said, Suren Kanthan swamy!

Well explained. Thanks a lot