nityatvam/paratvam

[Guest guest]

"murali_kadambi" <murali_kadambi wrote:

>This paradox probably is most difficult to resolve in dwaita, and

>probably most easily resolved in advaita. Since we don't want to get

>into polemics (I am not even trained in that anyway), let's see the

>vishishtadwaitic explanation. The solution here also is pretty

>convincing.

 

I agree with this statement, i.e. that the paradox of eternal jeeva

is most easily resolved in advaita, least in dvaita, and with some

explanation in vishistAdvaita. This is because of how the schools

define jeeva-brahman: they are identical in advaita, jeeva is the

dependent and subordinate entity in visistAdvaita, while jeeva is

an independent but inferior entity in dvaita. I am recalling this

from a lecture by Sri SMS Chari. Please correct if mistaken.

 

Truly,

-Srinath C.

--

 

 

 

 

________________

Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience

the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape!

http://shopnow.netscape.com/

 

Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at

http://webmail.netscape.com/

[Guest guest]

bhakti-list, xsrinath@n... wrote:

> I agree with this statement, i.e. that the paradox of eternal jeeva

> is most easily resolved in advaita, least in dvaita, and with some

> explanation in vishistAdvaita. This is because of how the schools

> define jeeva-brahman: ... jeeva is

> an independent but inferior entity in dvaita.

 

To be fair to the Dvaita philosophy, I don't think this

accurately reflects the view of Sri Ananda Tirtha (Madhva).

As in Visishtadvaita, there is no doubt the jIva is

totally dependent on Brahman. The Dvaita philosophy

resolves entities into two categories -- svatantra and

paratantra, independent and dependent. In fact, the Dvaita

author B.N.K. Sharma coined the phrase 'svatantra-advitIya

brahma-vAda' for Sri Ananda Tirtha's philosophy -- the

doctrine where Brahman is One and Independent, and all

else -- matter and jIvas -- are totally dependent. The rub

is the implication that Advaita's Brahman is neither One

nor Independent, since it requires mAyA (a second entity)

to explain anything, and results in self-contradiction.

The Dvaitins (wrongly, in my opinion) argue that

Visishtadvaita's idea of Brahman is similarly not fully Independent

since jIva and prakRti are considered the body (sarIra) of Isvara.

Since Visishtadvaita takes these two classes of entities to

be attributes (viseshaNa) of Brahman, Dvaitins argue that

this Brahman is dependent metaphysically on jIva and prakRti

for its Brahman-ness.

 

[This view is clearly refuted by Visishtadvaita philosophers

as being a total misunderstanding of Sri Ramanuja's philosophy,

and of the idea of 'sarIra'. If some entities are attributes of

Brahman, it indicates only reciprocal relationship (one qualifies the

other; one is qualified by the other), NOT reciprocal dependence. As

explained in my previous email, Brahman sustains the jIva and prakRti

as part of His body through His own eternal will (nitya-icchA); they

do not exist totally in their own right by their own essence.]

 

Dvaita therefore accepts that the jIva is totally dependent

on Brahman. They even accept in some sense that Brahman is the

innermost Self of all. They simply have some problem giving this

idea its full weight, and cannot accept that

Brahman has the jIva and prakRti as attributes, and that

therefore Brahman has everything as Its metaphysical body.

Despite the clear definitions of Sri Ramanuja and Sri Desika,

they somehow fall into the trap of thinking that such a body

imposes a limitation on Brahman's purity. This forces them

to posit the jIva as somehow external, separable entities.

This is at variance with Sri Ramanuja's explanation that

the jIva is in an inherent, attributive relation to Brahman,

one that can be realized meditatively. This idea of Ramanuja's

is known as 'pRthak-siddhi-anarhatva' -- the indelibility of

the relationship between jIva and paramAtman, as long as the

jIva exists (which is eternality). Whenever the

jIva is mentioned or thought of, the paramAtman rightly must

be thought of as well as its inner Self.

 

This line is echoed in Tiruppavai -- 'un tannODu uravEl namakku

ingu ozhikka ozhiyAdu'. The bond simply cannot be broken.

 

In short, Dvaita's idea should be paraphrased as

'the jiva is dependent and inferior but external

to the Brahman'.

 

aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

Mani

[Guest guest]

Dear Mani,

 

Your points are well taken. I agree that Sri Ananda Theertha accepts

the supremacy of Brahman and total subordinacy of jeeva. However, I

guess, the discussion started with the paradox, "If jeeva is eternal

how can paramAtma be supreme, and if paramAtma is supreme how can

jeeva be eternal?"

 

Both schools (D and V) accept that paramAtma and jeevAtma are

different. They also accept that the latter is dependent on the

former. Agreed. Then what does "dependence" mean? In what way is

the jeeva dependent on Brahman? If, as the dwaitins believe, the

jeeva and Brahman are utterly distinct, then how is the jeeva's

eternality not under Brahman's control?

 

V's explanation is simple and straight-forward: The eternality of the

jeeva is also under control of Brahman. In other words, the most

important constituent of the relationship of dependence between the

two entities is that Brahman provides the very substratum (aadharam)

for the existence (and hence the eternality) of jeeva (and all other

entities). Only if the relationship is organic will it explain the

paradox satisfactorily, not if it that of the type Master-Servant, or

Husband-Wife. Yes, these other relationships are undoubtedly true

from an anubhavam point-of-view, but not from a philosophical

standpoint.

 

This is why I said that D might find it difficult to explain the

paradox. But again, my knowledge on the subject is minimal, and D

may also have a way of explaining it that is unknown to me. Mani, if

possible, could you shed some light on this? Please feel free to

correct any errors in my thinking. Thank you.

 

-adiyen, murali kadambi