mutual exclusion - 2

[Guest guest]

SrI:

SrI Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha

SrI Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrIvaN-

SatakOpa SrI nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESikAya namaha

 

Dear devotees,

namO nArAyaNA.

 

Some more ........

> Sri Ravi wrote :

> But in many ways visihtadwaita is close to the doctrine of

adwaita.Only

> that there is no mayaavada and the nirguna brahmam is replaced with

saguna

> sriman-narayana.

> we are all extensions of Naraayana,just as the hands and legs of our

body

> are attached to us and are part

> of us.so even emperumanaar's doctrine is adwaita only.Only that

> sriman-narayana is ever brimming with

> all kalyana gunaas.

 

ViSishtAdvaita is certainly a philosophy of "advaita". But

this "advaita", has nothing to do with the "advaita" of

sankara.

 

ViSishtAdvaita : There is only one Brahman (advaita), who has

chit and achit as its inseparable attributes (chit-achit

visishta). It is only the "advaita" of this sense that is

present in the actual reality (previous posting involved the

reference to the fact that jIvAtma and matter are inseparable

attributes of Brahman). Brahman/Iswara, chit and achit are

distinct from one another, though related ( with chit and achit

as inseparable attributes to Brahman). Thus, the concept of

sankara's advaita, which denies the existence of Iswara/God,

jIvAtma and matter (in the ultimate reality), is very much

different from the "advaita" in ViSishtAdvaita. The "advaita"

in ViSishtAdvaita is of the nature of "viSishta aikya"

(adjectival identity, cit and acit being the inseparable

attribute of Brahman) and not that of "svaroopa aikya"

(svaroopa aikya => jIvAtma is verily the paramAtman in its

nature itslef ).

 

-----------------------------

Quotes from Sri SMS Chari's

"Fundamentals of VisishtAdvaita vEdAnta" based on

SwAmi dESikan's Tattva muktA kalApa :

 

Introduction : "....................Cit and acit depend on

Iswara for their very existence and are organically related to

Iswara in the same way as the physical body is related to the

soul within (*). The oneness of Reality is to be understood

not in the sense of absolute identity, but as organic unity

(ViSishtaikya). As VEdAnta dESika says, Brahman alone, as

organically related to the entire cit and acit, is the one

ultimate Reality (aSEsha-cidacit-prakAram brahmaikamEva tattvam).

Though there is absolute difference between Iswara and the

other two reals and also among individual souls and matter,

the ultimate Reality is considered as one because as an organic

unity it is one ( tatra prakAra-prakArinOhO prakArANAm-ca mithO

atyanta-bhEdE api viSishtaikyAdi-vivakshayA yEkatva-vyapadEshaha).

In this sense, the system of vEdAnta expounded by RAmAnuja is

described as ViSishtAdvaita which means oneness of the

organic unity (ViSishtasya advaitam). ... "

 

Note (by Sri SMS Chari) : It may be noted that, the term

ViSishtAdvaita is not used by RAmAnuja in any of his works. It

was adopted at a later period by his followers on the basis

of the definition offered by VEdAnta dESikA in nyAya-siddhAn~jana.

It is generally rendered into English as "qualified monism" or

"pan-organismal monism". Both do not bring out the fuller

implications of the term. A better expression which approximates

to the concept is "pan-en-theism". Pan-en-theism as understood

in the western philosophy, refers to the view that "deity as

eternal is distinguishable from and independent of any and all

relative items and yet as an actual whole, it includes all

relative items".

 

In the first chapter "Fundamental Metaphysical categories" :

 

" ...The central theme of ViSishtAdvaita vEdAnta is that cit

( the individual souls) and acit (the cosmic matter) are

organically related to Iswara, in the same way as an essential

attribute is related to a substance. The term ViSishtAdvaita

thus presupposes that, substance and attribute are distinct

but the two are integrally related and, as an integral complex

whole, it is one (ViSishtasya advaitam). It also presupposes

that cause and effect are the different states of the same

substance (viSishtayOh: advaitam). ...."

----------------

 

(*) : In the sarIra-sarIri bhAva, the three relationships

are to hold good ( SarIri<Atma> supports(1) and

controlls(2) the SarIra <body> and SarIra exists for

the pleasure of SarIri (3)).

The body-soul relationship between jIvAtma and its body

( with jIvAtma being the supporter, controller of the body

and uses body for its purposes) is used as an analogy to

explain the Body-soul relationship between Brahman, the

sarIri(Atma) and all sentients(chit) and non-sentients

(achit), which constitute Brahman's sarIra(body). This

Body-Soul relationship doesn't mean that, Brahman has to

physically reside inside a jIvAtma, such that "jIvAtma"

is "body", and the Brahman present inside it is "Atma".

The body-soul relationship does not address this issue

at all. The Body-soul relationship alias SarIra-SarIri

bhAvam is regarding the acts of supporting, controlling

and usage of the body(sarIra) for the pleasure/purpose

of the Soul(SarIri). If these three criterions are

satisfied, then the sarIra-sarIri bhAvam holds good.

 

It is not a botheration as to whether the sarIri(Atma)

is physically present inside a sarIra. The antarvyApti

and bahirvyApti of Brahman (ie. Brahman pervading

inside and outside of everything) is the thing which

discusses the issue of whether Brahman is physically

present inside a substance or not. SwAmi dESikan, in

His chillarai rahasyam "virOdha parihAram" declares

that Brahman is not physically inside a jIvAtma, since

there is nothing called as "inside" for a jIvAtma

in the first hand (jIvAtma is avavaya ie.shapeless ;

only things that have a concrete shape will have

something called inside ; eg: a square has inside and

outside); Similarly, Brahman is not present outside

"kAlam" (time), since there is nothing called "outside"

for time, since time is already vibhu ie. all pervading

ie. acts everywhere. Brahman pervades "in" and "out" of

other things (achit). This is the understanding of

antarvyApti (pervading inside) and bahirvyApti

(pervading outside). Sometimes, the word "body" is

used to denote the "matter/prakruti" with respect to

Brahman as its "soul", just because Brahman is present

inside it (this should not be confused with the sarIra-

sarIra bhAva, which anyway holds good between Brahman

and achit ). For example, the body of the demi-god Indra

is the body of Brahman also (ie.the all pervading

Brahman, pervades inside the body of Indra and thus has

the materialistic body of Indra as His "body" ( here, in

this sentence, the sarIra-sarIri bhAva ie. body-soul

relationship is not told, though sarIra-sarIri bhAva

holds good. The intention od that sentence is to convey

that Brahman is inside the body of demi-god Indra; Also

this materialistic body of Indra is not at all concerned

with the "divya mangaLa vigraha" of Brahman, which is

actually made up of Suddha-sattvam material; Also, it has

to be noted again that Brahma sUtrAs in ubhalingAdhikaraNam

as mentioned above states that, though Brahman is all

pervading in the midst of achit and chit, it is free from

all defects). Thus, one has to understand the meaning

conveyed by the term "body"/"sarIra" etc according to the

context.

 

For the SarIra-SarIri bhAvam existing between Brahman and

(chit + achit), the act of "support" (first functionality)

is done by Brahman through itself ie. the all-pervading

divyAtma svaroopam acts as the supporter of "cit and acit",

which are the sarIrAs (bodies, in the sense of sarIra-sarIri

bhAvam) of Brahman. Thus, the all-pervading nature of

Brahman is included in the SarIra-SarIri bhAva between

Brahman and chit+achit. But, the sarIra-sarIri bhAvam here

as a totallity is not merely due to the all pervasive

aspect of Brahman. The act of "Controlling chit and achit"

(second functionality) is performed by Brahman through

its will ie. sankalpam. Ofcourse, chit and achit exists

for the pleasure of Brahman (third functionality).

 

The end effect of this SarIra-SarIri bhAvam between

Brahman and "chit + achit" is that, "chit + achit" become

inseparable attributes of Brahman (appruthak siddham).

Thus, the relationship between the substance and its

inseparable attributes ( eg: Red rose having the color

"red" as an inseparable attribute) holds good for the

relationship between Brahman and "chit + achit".

----

 

Note:

 

1. Bhagavad rAmAnuja only propagated the vEdAnta matam

(religion of vEdAnta) alias vaidIka matam (religion

of vEdAs/followers of vEdAs). He never started some

"new" philosophy and thus, there was no need to coin

some new name for the philosophy, when He is verily

explaining vEdAnta. But later, for the purpose of

identification in the midst of other vEdAntins, the

term "ViSishtAdvaita" has been used to represent the

crux of vEdAnta as propagated by bhagavad rAmAnuja.

vEdAnta and ViSishtAdvaita are synonyms in this sense.

 

2. "ViSishtayOh: advaitam" => Cause and effect are different

states of the same substance. Brahman has "cit + acit" as

its inseparable attributes. During praLayA(deluge), the

chit and achit are present in their sookshma(subtle) state.

During creation, the whole material world is created by

Brahman from that subtle primordial matter and thus, achit

(non-sentients) attains the sthUla state (manifested).

Similarly, baddha jIvAtmAs were in the sookshma state

during praLayA (with their dharmabhUta jn~anam shrunk

completely). During creation, Brahman gives them the

appropriate material bodies according to their karma and

thus baddha jIvAtmAs are in their sthUla state. Thus,

the process of creation is nothing but transformation

of chit+achit from their sookshma state to their sthUla

state. But, Brahman (ie.divyAtma svaroopam) is not

changing in this process. Thus, "Cause" for creation is

Brahman having sookshma chit+achit as its inseparable

attributes. The "effect" (of creation) is the presence

of Brahman with sthUla chit+achit as its attributes.

Thus, the "substance" Brahman in both the cause

and effect (chit+achit are Brahman's inseparable

attributes). But cause and effect represent two different

"states" of Brahman, because of the change in the type of

attributes it has. Thus, it is the same Brahman who is

the cause and the effect (only there is some change in

its inseparable attributes). Thus, Brahman is both the

material and instrumental cause of the universe.

 

< It is to be noted that SrI VaikuNTham is not affected in

this process of creation >.

 

crude analogy : Assume that on day one, a flower was fully

red and on day two, yellow color also was present alongwith

the red color in that flower. Now, the "substance" flower

is the same ; only its attribute color has changed from

"red" to "red + yellow". In both the states, only "one"

"substance" exists and the change in color is only a change

in its attribute. Thus, this change in color represents the

change of state of the "substance" flower, with red color

as its "attribute" to the state wherein the "substance"

flower has "red + yellow" color as its attribute.

 

AzhwAr,yemperumAnAr,dESikan, Azhagiyasingar thiruvadigaLE SaraNam

 

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

ananthapadmanAbha dAsan

krishNArpaNam