Free-will vs Pre-determination -reply to sri Ram kumar

[Guest guest]

SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA.

 

Sri Ram kumar says:-

>The jIva would reduce to an ontological absurdity

>in viSishTAdvaita, if the brahman were completely

>responsible for the jIva's gyAtRtva, kaRtRtva and

>bhOktRtva.

 

The replies given in blue colour

(note: wherever the small s is used for self , it

denotes the jiva, as also with small b in brahman and

small l in lord .The big letter stands for the Lord,

Brahman)

> What Ramanuja says:- (V.S. ¡V iv-13)

 

¡§ He is at the time of creation possessed of that

characteristic volition which is peculiar to none

other than Himself and is to the effect ¡V¡¥ I will

Myself become manifold in the form of endless

immovable and movable things¡¦, in accordance with His

volition, creation is characterised by a peculiarly

well defined arrangement of endless and wonderful

entities: the differentiation of endless names and

form results from the entrance of the individual self,

which has Brahman Himself for its self, into all non-

intelligent things: and all things other than (the

Brahman) Himself have Himself for their basis, have

Himself for their abode, are capable of activity

through Himself, and are established in Himself¡¨

 

„« Observation:- The above is self revealing, I

suppose.

„« No question of ontological absurdity attributed.

„« The qualities (in jiva) are relevant as they are

with the Brahman.

„« But that they have been masked as how dust

envelopes the gem is being made out in the other

passage quoted below.

 

The brahman by Its Will originally provides the jIva

with

gyAtRtva, kaRtRtva & bhOktRtva.

 

„« The term ¡¥providing¡¦ is not used by Ramanuja.

„« For in his discussion on whether the Brahman, for

becoming ¡¥many¡¦, is split or divided and so on, he

concludes that It permeates every thing.

„« As such Ramanuja finds no distinction between the

jiva and the Brahman.

„« The distinction comes on account of the karmic

limitations on the jiva and the commandment that it

can not initiate creation.

>Therefore the jIva, should *actively* utilize these

abilities

>with the realization that these are provided by the

brahman for brahman.

>ie the jIva learns, acts & experiences in the mood of

sAtvika-tyAga

>in subservience to the brahman (remeber Sesha-Seshi

bhAva)

 

Now what Ramanuja says:-

¡§The Sutrakara speaks of the eternity of the self in

the following aphorism and in others, -¡¥the self is

not (a produced thing, as there are no scriptural

statements to that effect.¡¦ (Ved su, ii, 3.18) in the

aphorism-¡¥For that very reason (the self) is the

knower¡¦ ) (ved su, ii,3.19) ¡V by mentioning the self

to be the knower, he declares that it is natural for

the self to be the seat of intelligence. It has been

stated that there has been nothing wrong in that

(self), which is itself of the nature of intelligence,

being at the same time the seat of intelligence: just

as there is nothing wrong in gems and other similar

objects (although they are made up of the material

element of heat and light), being themselves the seat

of luminosity. We will establish further on that

intelligence, which of itself is unconditioned , is

capable of contraction and expansion.¡¨

„« The contraction and expansion is further explained

in terms of karmic limitations.

„« It is made out that the ability to know, act and

enjoy are all in the nature of the jiva as a

manifestation of Brahman.

„« Upon destroying the limitations, he shines in

luminosity as the Brahman.

„« The limitations as caused by prakriti sambhandam

are extensively discussed by Ramanuja in many places

and this perhaps must provide the answer to Mr

kashyap¡¦s quiz as to how the prakruti becomes the

doer and not the jiva (BG). For jiva in the mould of

the Brahman, is eating the pippala fruit as long as

confined in material body, (due to prakruti

sambhandam) but shines as the bird in splendour

without eating it, upon liberation from limitations

(Ref:Mundaka)

„« Another relevant passage that Ramanuja quotes

is-¡¥To whom who is and has a body, there is no

destruction of the pleasing and the unpleasing: the

pleasing and the unpleasing touch not him who is and

has no body¡¦-(Chand) ¡V the body with prakruthi

sambhandam.

>sAtvika-tyAga = kaRtRtva-tyAga + mamatA-tyAga +

phala-tyAga + phala-sanga-tyAga.

>kaRtRtva-tyAga = the ability to act is accorded by

the brahman.

>therefore I give up (tyAga) the notion that

'I am the independent doer'.

>mamatA-tyAga = give up ownership of the act.

>phala-tyAga = Offer the outcome (whatever it may be),

to the brahman.

>phala-sanga-tyAga = Give up attachment to choosing

*a* particular

outcome out of many.

>'tyAga' in sAtvika-tyAga would be meaningless, if the

jIva were not

originally provided with gyAtRtva, kaRtRtva and

bhOktRtva

by the brahman.

>In other words, the word, "tyAga" indicates that jIva

has to

>*actively* utilize these provided capabilities, but

give up (tyAga)

>notion these faculties were provided for its own

individual

>gratification but rather for utilization in

Sesha-vRtti

(active service) to the brahman.

 

>Otherwise the concept of jIva would reduce to the

passive

>insentient (jaDa) 'achit' tattva like a stone or log

of wood.

 

„« Not said so by Ramanuja and other purvacharyas

too.

„« The said three attributes of the jiva enable the

Brahman to enjoy him.

„« A similar expression (log of wood) is used by

Nampillai to drive home the view that unless the Lord

makes him in his image, how can He enjoy him

(bhokhtruttvam). This bhokhtruttvam is once again not

due to the jiva¡¦s sva-nirbhandam. It is because

¡§Aanandham avan preethai thuLirezhuppa¡¨.- to make

Him enjoy and grow in preethi. Otherwise it will be

like enjoying a log of wood.

„« Another relevant passage from V.S-(iv, 4.21)

¡¥And on account of the characteristic of equality

(between the individual self and the Supreme Self)

being solely confined to (the item of) enjoyment¡¦

>All veda-s, bhagavad-gIta and other sAStra-s are

addressed to

>the sentient (chit) baddha-jIva in order to guide it

to

perform dAsya-vRtti *actively* for the brahman.

>When was last time any of us starved in refusal until

>the brahman personally brought food?

 

„« When was the last time any of us ate food that was

not given by Brahman?

„« If all the intelligent and the non ¡Vintelligent

embodiments and every being that is created owe their

existence to Brahman and have Him as their self, how

can we ever eat something that is not of Brahman or

not brought by Brahman?

„« To quote Ramanuja in agreeing with Bhaskara¡¦s

views of the abheda sruti, ¡¥ the fishermen are

Brahman, the slaves are the Brahman, and the gamblers

are also the Brahman: man and woman are also born out

of the Brahman, women are the Brahman and man also (is

the Brahman)¡¦ (Samhotopanishad)

„« And by an extension of this, Brahman exists in

plants, shrubs, creepers, grass etc - what Ramanuja

calls as material embodiments ( note -Ramanuja does

not negate the That thou art injunction giving rise to

this (above type of) all pervasiveness of Brahman ¡V

he qualifies this by interfacing with ghataka sruti).

„« Therefore all that we eat is Brahman, the maker of

the food (your wife or who?!) is Brahman

„« The Taittriya saama ghanam ¡¥ aham annadam¡¦ ¡VI am

the eater (in this context) of the food that is

Brahman and I am the annam (ref above ¡V

Bhokhtruttvam) for the Lord too is valid. ( this

passage is quoted by Ramanuja and Nampillai in the

course of their discourse)

„« We, as annam and annadam are constantly happening

but without our knowledge (due to karmic limitations)

When we realise us as the annam and annadam and enjoy

that status, we would have perhaps lived through the

real import of gyAtRtva, kaRtRtva and bhOktRtva!

 

Inference: The qualities of gyAtRtva, kaRtRtva and

bhOktRtva as such do not confer freewill, but exist as

an extension of Brahman in us!!

 

 

 

Jayasree sarnathan.

 

PS:-

# The addition of avidya along with the three, as

discussed in the list in this context, can not be

taken as an attribute of the jiva as per the above

explanation.

# Refutation of the advatic avidya apart. Ramanuja

uses the term avidya to mean ignorance arising out of

karmic limitations. This and the reason why and how

evil can be found in created beings when the Brahman

is all pure, austere and auspicious only, constitute a

vast topic which might be taken up for discussion at a

later date and at an appropriate context.

 

JS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs

http://www.hotjobs.com