Attribute, Mode of Brahman ?

[Guest guest]

Dear Vaishnava Vedantins:

 

This is a question that I am repeating with some elaboration but I

think it is relevant, especially after the restructuring of the

List. The background of the doubt is:

 

I came across 3 terms that Sri Ramanuja uses to accurately describe

the exact relationship between the Jivatman and Brahman (Narayana) -

a) body-soul

b) substance-attribute

c) substance-mode

 

It is somewhat easier to grasp that the Jivatman is the body of

Brahman, or putting it the other way, Brahman is the Self of the

Jivatman. I understand it like this - just as we (the Jivatman) are

the Self of our physical body (temporarily, of course), Brahman is

the Self of our Self (eternally) - hence the Atman is the body of

Brahman.

 

However what adiyen finds difficult to grasp is how the Jivatman is

an attribute of Brahman. Generally an attribute is not a substance

and a substance is not an attribute. But the Jivatman is a

substance. How are we understand Ramanuja's statement that the

Jivatman is also an attribute of Brahman?

 

Another thing adiyen finds unable to understand is Ramanuja's

statement that the Jivatman is a Mode of Brahman. What is meant by

Mode?

 

Can some learned Ramanuja-dasa kindly clarify my doubts along with

numerous examples so that adiyen can grasp and contemplate upon this

True and Eternal Relationship between us and Brahman-Narayana?

 

Many thanks in advance.

 

dasan,

P.Srinivasan

[Guest guest]

I am very happy to see a refocussing on the teachings of Ramanuja on this

list. Regarding Sri Srinivasan's question on the meaning of 'attribute'

(vishesha) and 'mode' (prakaara) in Ramanuja's theology, here is my

understanding:

 

In Vedarthasangraha (§17), Ramanuja states: 'The individual self has

Brahman for its self, for it is a mode (prakaara) of Brahman because it

constitutes His body, as appears from another shruti: "whose body is the

self", etc.' Then, in §22, he says: 'The demonstration that all is an

effect (kaarya) of Brahman furnishes proof that that all has reality of

itself in so far as it has Brahman for its self and not otherwise. Hence it

is declared: tat satyam "that is real", just as in the illustrative example

every transmutation of clay is real because it remains essentially clay.'

 

It therefore seems clear that 'mode' to Ramanuja implies the state of being

the 'body' or form of Brahman, which expression in turn implies a material

causality. In the example of clay and its products, pots etc. are modes of

clay because they are the forms or 'bodies' taken by the clay. Put the

other way around, clay is the 'self' or substance of pots, etc. Hence we

might say that the pot (or rather, its pot-ness) is an attribute of the

substance clay. These various designations are just different ways of

trying to express a single reality.

 

The VAS quotations above are based on van Buitenen's translation (1956),

slightly amended.

 

Ramanuja Dasa,

Martin Gansten

[Guest guest]

Sri P. Srinivasan had asked a question a while back

about what it meant for the jIvAtman to be an attribute,

or a "mode" of Brahman.

> However what adiyen finds difficult to grasp is how the Jivatman is

> an attribute of Brahman. Generally an attribute is not a substance

> and a substance is not an attribute. But the Jivatman is a

> substance. How are we understand Ramanuja's statement that the

> Jivatman is also an attribute of Brahman?

> Another thing adiyen finds unable to understand is Ramanuja's

> statement that the Jivatman is a Mode of Brahman. What is meant by

> Mode?

 

Several members hav given learned replies, to which I would like to

add a few words. As Sri Srinivasan pointed out, there are three

paradigms which Sri Ramanuja uses to describe the relationship

between Brahman and the universe:

 

a) Body-Soul (SarIra-SarIri-bhAva)

b) Attribute-Substance (viSeshaNa-viSeshya-bhAva)

c) Mode-Mode Possessor (prakAra-prakAri-bhAva)

 

Each of these paradigms are somewhat interchangeable,

and put together, they round out the picture of how the

jIva relates to Brahman.

 

The key to all of these is the idea that the object

that is supported (in this case the jIva, but it could

be prakRti as well) is incapable of being realized

apart from Brahman. This is known as 'apRthak-siddhi'

or the 'pRthak-siddhi-anarhatva' of the object in relation

to Brahman.

 

This helps us understand what it means for the jIva to be

a mode of Brahman. The jIva (mode) is absolutely dependent

and incapable of being conceived apart from Brahman (mode-

possessor). Not only does the jIva ontologically derive its

very existence from Brahman, one can in truth never conceive

of the jIva as a substance divorced from Brahman.

 

Consider the example of a cow. The generic essence (jAti)

of a cow, the "cowness", if you will, cannot exist in abstracto,

i.e., apart from the existence of the cow itself. The cowness

is fundamentally dependent on the cow. The same goes for many

other attributes such as white, horned, etc. Hence being

white or being horned is a mode of the cow, who is the mode-

possessor. The cowness, whiteness, or hornedness, while

different from the cow itself, inhere in the cow, making

the cow the support for these attributes.

 

At the next level, take the example of an individual jIva

animating a body. The body cannot subsist as the body we

know without a jIva animating it giving it life. When we

use the phrase "my body", we are actually referring to

"my body as animated and controlled by my jIva". The body

as a real entity is totally dependent upon the jIva for its

existence in this state and cannot be conceived as such a

body apart from the jIva. Whenever the body is mentioned,

mention is implicitly made of the jIva. The body is thus

a "mode" of the jIva, which is the substance upon which

the body depends. [*]

 

(We are ignoring for purposes of illustration the fact

that the jIva cannot actually create a body and cannot

ultimately control the body's death. This implies that

the body is ultimately actually dependent ontologically

on Brahman.)

 

The above ideas present the ontological dependence. There

is also the epistemological dependence, i.e., the idea

that the mode loses its intelligibility or purpose without

the mode-possessor.

 

To further understand this, consider the example of an

earring and its wearer. The earring, while it has a

physical existence of its own apart from the wearer,

does not serve any purpose, no reason for existing, apart

from the wearer. Its earring-ness is dependent on the

wearer. In the same way, the jIva has fundamental

meaning and intelligibility only in relation to Brahman,

and not apart from Brahman.

 

To summarize,

 

a) the jIva is dependent in its essential nature

on Brahman (ontological dependence)

b) the jIva is dependent for its purpose and meaning

on Brahman (epistemological dependence)

c) the jIva cannot be realized apart from Brahman because

of (a) and (b)

d) ... therefore the jIva is a mode of Brahman

 

The consequences of these ideas are far-reaching. Not

only are the universe and the jIva physically dependent

on Brahman for their existence, they are rendered meaningless

and purposeless without Brahman at their core. Brahman

is their ultimate raison d'etre.

 

I hope this clarifies the issue in some measure.

 

aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

Mani

 

P.S. There is a remarkably thorough book which covers

many of these concepts. Please see "The Face of Truth:

A Study of Meaning & Metaphysics in the Vedantic Thelogy

of Ramanuja", by Julius Lipner. It's pretty dense and

requires more than one reading, but I think it is well

worth it.