Re : Attribute, Mode of Brahman

[Guest guest]

Dear Srinivasan,

You asked :-

*******************************************************

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?

*******************************************************

The answer folows :-

 

True,the jiva atman is a dravya or substance in itself

but as it is related eternally to Brahman(known as

aprathik siddhi)who is also a substance,in the

following ways :-

 

Brahman Jiva and prakriti

1. Controller controlled

2. Supporter supported

3. Whole part

 

it is clear from this that the jiva exists for Brahman

and from the point of view of totality of reality one

cannot be missed for the other i.e definition of jiva

is incomplete without reference to Brahman of which it

is a part and definition of Brahman is incomplete

without reference to jiva and prakriti which are part

of it.

Now,among the three entities as Brahman is the

"main entity" to which jiva and prakriti belong with

the various aspects of relationship mentioned above,

Brahman becomes the essence or the main substance to

which the other two classes of realities become the

attributes though they are substances.This is why

acharya Ramanuja says that all terms connote Brahman

as

terms referring to attributes ultimatley point to the

substance inherring them in reality.

*******************************************************

 

 

 

Another thing adiyen finds unable to understand is

Ramanuja's

statement that the Jivatman is a Mode of Brahman. What

is meant by

Mode?

 

*******************************************************

 

The answer follows :-

 

A mode in this context is a "means" that Brahman uses

for his purpose.In the Upanishad it is said,Brahman

prior to creation desired to become many through names

and form.But as Brahman himself is the material cause

as antaryamin of jiva and prakriti,he used the later

two to achieve his purpose of becoming many,like he

entered various bodies reffered by the terms as

animal,man,gandharva etc "as the jiva".So,in this way

prakriti and jiva become a mode in which Brahman

expresses himself.

 

*******************************************************

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

*******************************************************

I hope my reply answers your questions.Any errors

above are mine.Feel free to write to me.

 

Sri Krishnaarpanamasthu

Suresh B.N.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Try FREE Mail - the world's greatest free email!

/

[Guest guest]

Dear Respected Vaishnavas,

 

Although this question was addressed quite lucidly, I also wanted to offer a

possible explanation. My deficiency lies in the fact that I do not have much

recourse to traditional references. But I thought I would exercise my buddhi

in this discourse.

 

I am not sure what sanskrit term is translated as attribute (is it

lakshan?), nor am I sure if these terms had been introduced during

Ramanuja's time--anu cetana [chaitanya} and vibhu cetan. But I tried to

considered in which way a jiva was an attribute--how could a conscious

entity be an attribute to a larger Supreme being. I am sure an ornament of

Bhagavan can be conscious, like padukas or kausthuba gem, but an attribute

is a characteristic or quality.

 

So, by extension jiva as dravya is a quantitative consideration. Jiva as

attribute is a qualitative concept. So how my intellect played with it is

that the quality of atomic individual awareness (jiva) is an attribute of

the infinite awareness of the Supreme (vibhu), capable of holding all

possibilities of experience/consciousness/awareness within it.

 

Perhaps these terms aren't part of the schema, but I hope you enjoyed my go

at it. I felt I wanted to join the discussion.

 

Ys,

Jagadish das

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhagavat Bhaktas!

 

Hari Om. Again without the benefit of any knowledge of

the authoritative scriptures, but with my intellect, i

submit:

 

we can probably think of Brhman as the network of

individual Jeevatmas, just like a computer network or

even as a group of people. each individual of the

group has a sense of individual identity, but the

group identity is not just a sum of the individuals

but something more.

 

another analogy. each letter has a separate identity

but a group of letters is a word, with a separate

meaning.

 

in such a situtation, the individual becomes a subset

or an element of the whole, and can be considered as a

dravya. and if we see the 'modern' atomic theory,

matter is just a condensed state of energy and both

are interchangeable.

 

I do hope more authentic discussion will enlighten us.

In the meantime, i hope the group bears with such

'children' like this writer.

 

hari om tatsat.

 

swamy swarna

[Guest guest]

bhakti-list, swamy swarna <swamyswarna> wrote:

> we can probably think of Brhman as the network of

> individual Jeevatmas, just like a computer network or

> even as a group of people. each individual of the

> group has a sense of individual identity, but the

> group identity is not just a sum of the individuals

> but something more.

>

 

Dear Swarna,

 

This is an interesting analogy, and I thank you for this

anubhavam. Though it is pictureseque, I feel it falls slightly

short of Vedantic conception of the jIva-brahma relationship

which Sri Ramanuja elaborates in one way. There is the perhaps

unintended implication that the individual jIvas help to "add up"

to be Brahman (God), or that Brahman is somehow missing something

without the jIva. This is not quite the case.

 

The jIva is no doubt indivisibly related to Brahman, but

the essential nature of Brahman remains unaffected by

having the jIva as Its attribute or mode. In that sense,

Brahman is not made up of a combination of the jIvas; it

is not an additive summation. It is more of a qualitative

concept that presents us with the idea that the jIva is

totally and inherently ensouled and controlled by Brahman,

which is the very basis of its existence. In contrast,

Brahman is in no way dependent on the jIva for its existence.

 

With regards,

aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

Mani

[Guest guest]

Hari bol all,

I agree with Mani's understanding. It was a very interesting analogy offered by

Swarna, the one about the letters and the word and made me think about this

more. I think we can also understand the analogy in this way.

The 'word' is always present and so also the individual 'letters'. But, when the

letters (jivas) come together in certain permutations depending on their

inherent desires to serve the Lord as a group or e-group(!!), the word (the

Supreme) becomes revealed to them. Also, just as there are some letters which

are vowels and the majority consonants, there are some special representatives

of the Lord, the Vaishnava acharyas who can guide the individual jivas to their

ultimate goal of eternal service. And as we know, without the vowels the other

letters by themselves have no real meaning just as the bewildered jivas in

whatever combination they stand together have no chance of understanding the

Supreme (or Him revealing Himself) without the mercy of the vaishnava acharyas.

I just tried to use my intellect to fit this analogy to reality and I'm sure

it's not a complete one-one correlation and but I guess it offers us some help

in understanding our true position as Mani stated. Please forgive for any

offences.

in your service,

Aravind.

[Guest guest]

hari om. thanks to Aravind for extending teh analogy

with real insight. In telugu, the vowels are called

'achhulu' and the consonants 'hallulu'. I feel

'achhulu' is a corrupt form of 'aksharalu' and akshar

means 'one which is not destroyed' (pl. correct me if

any error is there). As Aravind puts it, vowels are

the one which hold together the consonants and give

meaning! But if we look at it from another angle, the

vowels also 'need' consonants! so light is all the

more enjoyable when a shadow is there to contrast.

 

analogies are never meant to be identities. they help

us to understand a concept better, till we actually

experience it.

 

hari om.

 

swamy swarna

[Guest guest]

hari om. thanks for clarifying. an analogy, however

beautiful can never be equal to the actual concept.

Sri Ramanuja certainly had a perfect understanding of

these concepts, but to my limited perception, it is

difficult to understand. jnana is anubhavaikavedyam.

 

hari om.

 

swamy swarna