[Vidyasankar S.: regarding 'sarira-sariri bhava']

[Guest guest]

Hello group,

 

No activity here for a while!

 

A while back, Sudarshan posted a couple of interesting and

detailed notes regarding the Advaitic concept of the self

vis a vis Visistadvaita. He focused primarily on 'tat tvam asi'

and the 'sarira-sariri bhava' (the fundamental Visistadvaita

idea that the Paramatma ensouls and controls the entire universe

and all creatures from within).

 

I forwarded those notes to Vidyasankar Sundaresan, my friend

who is a devoted follower of Sankara. Here is his first response,

which deals with the 'anirvacanIya' (inexplicability) of the

sarira-sariri bhava that he accused Visistadvaita of.

 

His next one, regarding 'tat tvam asi', comes in the next

email.

 

Comments and questions, no matter how fundamental, from any and all

are appreciated.

 

Mani

 

------- start of forwarded message (RFC 934 encapsulation) -------

vidya (Vidyasankar Sundaresan)

mani

Re: another regarding 'sarira-sariri bhava'

Mon, 22 Aug 1994 23:27:43 -0700

 

Very interesting articles. I based my rather peremptory dismissal of

the anirvachaniya charge as frivolous on the account in P. T. Raju's

"The Philosophical Traditions of India". On pg. 192, he recounts the

argument that Sankara's followers ask "If the body is an essential part

of the Brahman, how can one part change without affecting the other part?"

 

Ramanuja's answer is "In ourselves we find that the body undergoes many

changes, but the atman remains the same."

 

When faced with the difficulty with this analogy - namely, if the Atman is

the knower, doer and the enjoyer, then it must be affected by the affections

of the body. This seems to imply that in a similar fashion, the Brahman is

also the active knower, doer and enjoyer, thus implying some change.

 

Raju says the only answer is that Brahman has a mysterious power so that

it remains unchanged by the changes in its body. It was that that I used to

say that Visishtadvaita also has to resort to some mystery at the end.

 

I see a more serious charge against the idea of sarira-saririn as parts

from the point of view of Advaita. Brahman is without parts in the

Upanishad. How then can Visishtadvaita maintain this concept of parts

till the very end? The analogy of sarira-saririn will be acceptable to

Advaitins at the level of Saguna Brahman, but not with Nirguna Brahman.

 

As I understand Advaita from the point of view of the five kosas, each kosa

derives from the more subtle inner kosa till you come to the innermost

reality. Sankara elaborates on this in his pancikarana. That is why I

maintain that the words maya and avidya are highly misunderstood, and

should be taken in a technical sense, not in the popular sense. Throughout

the Panchikarana, Sankara follows the scheme from the Taittiriya Upanishad.

As Sankara himself is said to have belonged to the Taittiriya sakha, this

is understandable. All this, is here treated as if it were real, and not

unreal at all. Still, the words maya and avidya are used, but in a positive

sense.

 

The main reason why Sankara goes through all these complicated explanations,

I think, is to maintain that what was Unmanifest did not change in its

essential nature due to manifestation. Which is why he maintains vivarta,

and not parinama as the relationship between Brahman and this world.

 

vidya

------- end -------

[Guest guest]

Response to Vidya's comments on 'sarira-sariri-bhava'

 

vidya>> vidya (Vidyasankar Sundaresan)

vidya>> mani

vidya>> Re: another regarding 'sarira-sariri bhava'

vidya>> Mon, 22 Aug 1994 23:27:43 -0700

vidya>>

vidya>> Very interesting articles. I based my rather peremptory dismissal of

vidya>> the anirvachaniya charge as frivolous on the account in P. T. Raju's

vidya>> "The Philosophical Traditions of India". On pg. 192, he recounts the

vidya>> argument that Sankara's followers ask "If the body is an essential part

vidya>> of the Brahman, how can one part change without affecting the other

part?"

vidya>>

vidya>> Ramanuja's answer is "In ourselves we find that the body undergoes many

vidya>> changes, but the atman remains the same."

vidya>>

vidya>> When faced with the difficulty with this analogy - namely, if the Atman

is

vidya>> the knower, doer and the enjoyer, then it must be affected by the

affections

vidya>> of the body. This seems to imply that in a similar fashion, the Brahman

is

vidya>> also the active knower, doer and enjoyer, thus implying some change.

 

 

Why does the Atman as Knower, doer, enjoyer get affected by the

affections of the body? Because of it's undeniable karma. Sri Ramanuja's

answer above is only a gist of the detailed analysis that he puts forth

in the Sri Bhashya and the VedaarthaSangraha. What is implied here is

that

there is no change in the "substantive" nature (svarupa-bhuta-jnana) of

the

Atman. But there is a change in it's "attributive" consciousness

(dharma-bhuta-

jnana) which is due to karma. The concepts of these 2 types of natures

or

consciousness is unique to Visistadvaita and is a deeper analysis of the

what constitutes Atman or the finite self. The conclusion reached by

Vidya

that Brahman is also afflicted by change appears only at the prima-facie

level at which Sri PT Raju seems to have quoted Sri Ramanuja. A deeper

analysis of the Epistemological concepts of Visistadvaita is necessary

to

appreciate the significance. Since Brahman is not afflicated by karma he

is

not afflicted by change. The Atman's attributive consciousness is what

undergoes change when in bondage but it's essential substantive

consciousness

remains unchanged. At moksha it's attributive consciousness expands and

it

"perceives" the truth.

 

The doership of the self is subordinate to the supreme in the general

sense.

The karma vAsanA of the self is the particular cause of different

actions for which it's is solely responsible. No such vAsaNa exists for

the Supreme by which it can be tainted. Brahman's doership is not

tied to, or qualified by any vAsaNa but is it's own will as in the case

of

the manifestation of the Universe.

 

 

vidya>> Raju says the only answer is that Brahman has a mysterious power so that

vidya>> it remains unchanged by the changes in its body. It was that that I used

to

vidya>> say that Visishtadvaita also has to resort to some mystery at the end.

 

This is not a correct view of Visistadvaita.

 

 

vidya>> I see a more serious charge against the idea of sarira-saririn as parts

vidya>> from the point of view of Advaita. Brahman is without parts in the

vidya>> Upanishad. How then can Visishtadvaita maintain this concept of parts

vidya>> till the very end? The analogy of sarira-saririn will be acceptable to

vidya>> Advaitins at the level of Saguna Brahman, but not with Nirguna Brahman.

 

If one says that Brahman is a aggregate of finites with no

interlinking or inter-relationship then yes, that is wrong. When

the Upanisads say that Brahman is without parts are they saying parts in

the ordinary sense of the word ? The plurality of selves is a fact

of experience based on distinctions in cognition, volition and

experiences among individuals. It is impossible to conceive a

non-phenomenal

self which does not perform any function like knowing, willing or

experiencing. The individual selves are real and many and continue to

do so even after liberation. How then to interpret the statements of

Unity

in the Upanisads?

In these contexts Unity of Attributes is intended. These

statements indicate that the selves have, by nature, common

charecteristics

and so belong to the same category.

While plurality is real there is no intrinsic inequality

in the individual selves. This is the force of the Upanisadic statements

that talk of Unity or similarity. Empirical inequalities are all due to

the variations of embodiment brought out by karma. Individuation is not

destroyed at the time of moksha as individuation is Not a product of

bondage. The plurality of selves is eternal. The attributes of the

Supreme reality which the selves are, are not dissolved but they attain

"oneness" due to their attributive consciousness being fully expanded

similar to that of Brahman.

So this "part-of-whole" aspect is unlike the parts of wholes

we

normally experience here in this world, but is an organic relationship

(NO organism is implied here) where the "inseperability" aspect renders

the so called "parts" not parts at all! ie. No independent existence.

 

 

 

vidya>> As I understand Advaita from the point of view of the five kosas, each

kosa

vidya>> derives from the more subtle inner kosa till you come to the innermost

vidya>> reality. Sankara elaborates on this in his pancikarana. That is why I

vidya>> maintain that the words maya and avidya are highly misunderstood, and

vidya>> should be taken in a technical sense, not in the popular sense.

Throughout

vidya>> the Panchikarana, Sankara follows the scheme from the Taittiriya

Upanishad.

vidya>> As Sankara himself is said to have belonged to the Taittiriya sakha,

this

vidya>> is understandable. All this, is here treated as if it were real, and not

vidya>> unreal at all. Still, the words maya and avidya are used, but in a

positive

vidya>> sense.

 

 

The doctrine of Panchikarana (quintuplication of elements) is also

upheld

by Sri Ramanuja. The "technical" sense of Maya or Avidya is still not

clear

enough to eradicate the "so-calledmis-understanding" of these terms.

The concept of "sad-asad-vilakshana" is resorted to by Advaitic

epistemology

(see works like Ista-siddhi and Brahma-siddhi) in many arguments to

establish that "mithyatva" of the Universe. ie. That the cosmic

principle

of Avidya is neither sat nor asat but something other than these two.

This

view is refuted by Visistadvaita. This vilakshana is what gives rise to

the Anirvaachaniya concept in Advaita.

"satve na bhrAntibAdhau stam, nAsattve khyAtibAdhane;

sad-asadbhyAm

anirvAcyA" ---- Istasiddhi (advaitic text by Vimuktatmaan)

 

Also the terms "mithya", "mithyatva" etc quoted elsewhere in Advaitic

texts

can only be taken to mean "Illusion", "illusory" etc.

 

 

vidya>> The main reason why Sankara goes through all these complicated

explanations,

vidya>> I think, is to maintain that what was Unmanifest did not change in its

vidya>> essential nature due to manifestation. Which is why he maintains

vivarta,

vidya>> and not parinama as the relationship between Brahman and this world.

vidya>>

vidya>> vidya

 

But if there is an alternative explanation which can bind the

Abheda and Bheda srutis of the Upanisads to present a more coherent

and non-contradictory thesis, than one must atleast examine it

thoroughly.

All this, without resorting to an "inexplicable" phenomena. The best way

to study a vedantic school, be it Advaita or Visistadvaita, is to look at

the purvapaksha or the opponent's view to gauge the level of depth

and exegesis.

 

I am also in the learning process and any clarifications to the views

presented are welcome.

 

with regards,

-sudarshan.