Self-Consciousness in Ramanuja's Vedanta

[Guest guest]

The enclosed article is published by: http://www.here-now4u.de

 

here-now4u, online magazine, sponsored by Geerdes midimusic, Berlin,

Germany, and was lectured at World Philosophers Meet'96, First

Parliament of Science, Religion and Philosophy in Pune, India, organised

by the late Professor Barlingay (IPC,FISP) and Maharashtra Academy of

Engineering and Educational Research's (MAEER's) and Maharashtra

Institute of Technology (MIT), Pune, India.

 

You can directly access the article:

 

http://www.here-now4u.de/eng/WPM96/philos/sundarar/wp-sun1.htm

 

Let me thank the magazine editors for their permission for circulation

to the Advaitin List.

 

Self-Consciousness In Ramanuja's Vedanta

Prof. K. R. Sundararajan, Ph.D. St. Bonaventure University

 

Self-consciousness is an important concept in the system of Vedanta,

since it is in the understanding of the nature of self, that the

theistic and non-theistic systems of Vedanta differ from one another.

The ontological status of the self (atman) in the context of its

"relationship" with Brahman distinguishes these two forms of Vedanta. I

will be focusing on one of the forms of theistic Vedanta, Visistadvaita

and its formulations on the nature of the self and of self-consciousness

based on the writings of Ramanuja and post- Ramanuja Vaisnava

theologians, particularly Vedanta Desika.

It is appropriate to say that in Ramanuja's Vedanta there is no concept

of pure consciousness above and beyond self-conscious beings. Such is

the case as the concept of body-self (sarira-sariri relationship central

to the theology of Ramanuja. Not only is this body-self relationship

central to the understanding of the nature of individual self (jiva),

but it is also central to an adequate understanding of the nature of the

Supreme Self. The Supreme Self, Brahman, is also characterized by body-

self relationship. Brahman has as its body, individual selves and

material forms (prakrti). From this point of view the consciousness of

the Supreme Self is also self-consciousness, since self-consciousness'

is a consequence of Its "embodiment." It is such self-conscious,

embodied Supreme Being, who creates; in other words, action is a

consequence of embodiment. 1t is again the self- conscious individual

beings (jivas) who become active participants in the created world. We

could perhaps say that in the case of the Supreme Being action is

optional, where as in the case of individual embodied beings action is

intrinsic to its embodied state, as Krsna points out in the Bhagavad

Gita. It is this state of embodiment of the Supreme Self that is

reflected in the Vaisnava "personalization" of Brahman as Visnu. It is

interesting to see that in the Vaisnava tradition Visnu is not formless

but is characterized by transcendent form, which is stated to be

beautiful (saundarya). Ramanuja refers to the transcendent form of the

Supreme Being in Vedarthasangrahathus:

....inherent and natural is the form of the creator. But it is not

perceptible to the eye. It is only perceptible to the purified mind

equipped with other spiritual means. The Vedic text lays down, "He is

not apprehended through the eye. He is not within the reach of speech.

But he is apprehended through pure mind. (1)

In Ramanuja's Vedanta there are three ontological principles, Brahman,

atman, and prakrti which are affirmed in the scripture. The scripture

also points to an intimate relationship between these three principles.

Here Brahman stands alone as the supreme controlling principle,

"qualified" by atman (individual self/selves) and prakrti (primorial

matter) Ramanuja describes the relationship between Brahman on the one

side, and atman and prakrti on the other, as a relationship between

body-soul (sarira-sariri), ruled-ruler (niyama-niygnta), and servant

(slave)- master (sesa-sesi). All the above three models of

relationships, point to a situation of total dependency of atman and

prakrti on Brahman. Atman and prakrti exist for the sake of Brahman, and

outside of Brahman, they do not have a substantial existence, just as

the body is necessarily to be sustained by the self.

It is important to see that while dependency marks the true state of

existence, samsara is interestingly enough is a situation of "relative

freedom" where the individual self who is "embodied" as the result of

creational process, assumes responsibility for itself, not knowing or

even ignoring its true relationship of dependency on Brahman or Visnu.

It is this relative freedom that also brings the embodied self under the

domain of the law of karma, binding it to a cycle of

birth-death-rebirth. The Ultimate freedom, moksa is, however, is

regaining the sense of dependency, by giving up the relative freedom and

responsibilities of samsaric existence. This also implies the

renunciation of a sense of "individuality" which is based on "egoity."

It is in such a situation where there is a shift from being master of

one's own world and destiny, to becoming totally dependent for one's

sustenance on Brahman/Visnu, that the jiva truly becomes an instrument

in the hands of God acting without "personal ego," a state which may be

appropriately described as the salvational state in Vaisnavism.

We could focus on the doctrine of playful creation (lila) to understand

the situation described above. The doctrine of playful creation in

Ramanuja and the Vaisnava tradition highlights two things: first, in

contrast to the Advaita viewpoint that creation is ultimately illusory

(maya), in the Ramanuja tradition creation is real and it is a

consequence of divine initiative; second, in order to show the total

independence of the creator, creation is described as playful (lila),

meaning that Brahman/ Visnu is not required or constrained to create.

Ramanuja explains the lila concept of creation in his Sri Bhasya, a

commentary on Badaryana's Vedanta Sutra in the following manner:

The motive which prompts Brahman - all whose wishes are fulfilled and

who is perfect in himself - to the creation of the world... is nothing

else but sport. We in ordinary life see how some great king, ruling this

earth with its seven dvipas, and possessing perfect strength, valour,

and so on, has a great game at balls, or the like, from no other motive

than to amuse himself; hence there is no objection to the view that

sport is the only motive prompting Brahman to creation, sustentation and

destruction of the world which is easily fashioned by his mere will. (2)

Creation from the perspective Ramanuja's Vedanta could be stated as a

process of the One becoming many. The primordial matter (prakrti),

through an evolutionary process which is essentially on the lines of

Sankhya philosophy becomes the manifold gross and subtle matter. The

atman, which for Ramanuja consists of community of selves, becomes the

manifold jivas, selves which are "embodied". John Carman comments:

Ramanuja's understanding of causality (karanatva) is affected by his

acceptance of the doctrine of satkaryavadawhich in brief, is the view of

the transformation of the causal substance into a new form, but not into

new and different substance.... Consequently the causal relationship in

the strictest sense is not, as we might expect, between God as the cause

and world as the effect but between Brahman in His causal state as the

cause and Brahman in his effected state as the effect. In both states,

souls and matter form part of Brahman as His body and His modes. (3)

Since creation is the consequence of divine play, it is not directed

towards any goal, as play itself has no goal, and the creator does not

gain anything out of the act of creation. Hence creation is

appropriately stated to be "purposeless purpose" by some of the modern

Vaisnava scholars.

Thus the world is lila, a purposeless purpose, which implies

disinterestedness, joyousness, free will and super abundance of energy

on the part of Brahman, and it must be distinguished from conscious

volitional effort. It is to preserve the supreme perfection of Brahman

that the Sutrakara has given lila as the motive for creation. (4)

Such a playful world is lost when the embodied self (jiva), out of

ignorance (avidya), and out of the "attractiveness" created world (maya

is seen as this attractiveness in the Vaisnava tradition), comes to

appropriate it as a "purposive world" by "privatizing" it with

categories of "mine" and "yours". It is through such appropriations that

the "purposeless" world becomes "purposive" world, the lila world

becoming the samsaric world where the embodied selves are "bound" to the

law of karma and to the cycle of birth-death-rebirth. Ramanuja writes in

Vedarthasangraha:

The heart of the whole sastra is this: The individual selves are

essentially of the nature of pure knowledge devoid of restriction and

limitation. They get covered up by nescience in the shape of karma. The

consequence is that the scope and breadth of their knowledge is

curtailed in accordance with their karma. They get embodied in the

multifarious varieties of bodies from Brahma down to the lowest species.

They are deluded into identification with their bodies. In accordance to

them they become subject to joys and sorrows, which in essence

constitute what is termed the river of transmigratory existence. (5)

On the theme of subjectivity which is the focus of this paper, it should

be pointed out that for Ramanuja "I-ness" (aham) is present also at the

time of playful creation and continues to be present even in the

salvational (moksa) state. Salvational state is not marked by the

absence of "I-ness" (aham) but by the absence of "egoity" (ahamkara).

For Ramanuja, I-ness is different from egoity (ahamkara). Egoity is

attributing consciousness to body which is a form of matter (prakrti)

which is by nature inert. Whereas egoity arises out of ignorance by

attributing consciousness to an inert substance, I-ness or self-

consciousness is intrinsic to the very nature of jiva. Ramanuja writes

in Sri Bhasya:

The inward Self shines forth in the state of final release also an I,

for it appears to itself....Now the "I" constitutes the essential nature

of the Self.... But if the "I" (aham constitutes the essential nature of

the Self, how is it that the Holy one [Krsna] teaches the principle of

egoity to belong to the sphere of objects... the principle ... is called

ahamkara, because it causes the assumption of Egoity on the part of the

body which belongs to the Not-self.... Such consciousness of the "I"

therefore as is not sublated by anything else has the Self [brahman] for

its object; while on the other hand, such consciousness of the ' I' as

has the body for its body for its object is mere Nescience. In agreement

with this Reverend Parasara has said, "Hear from me the essential nature

of Nescience; it is the attribution of Selfhood to that which is not the

Self. (6)

It is in this affirmation of "I-ness," the sense of aham, Ramanuja's

theology differs from that of Sankara. As it is said earlier, there is

no pure consciousness as such from the point of view of Ramanuja, just

as there is no "object-less perception" (nirvikalpaka pratyaksa) in

Ramanuja's epistemology. Unlike the Supreme Self which is always

"Self-conscious", the self-consciousness of atman remains dormant at the

precreational state since at this state there is no embodiment, and

embodiment of the self/selves is a consequence of creation process

itself.

We could relate self-consciousness to the concept of freedom. The

embodied jiva could willingly play its role in the playful world of

God's creation. Or it may choose not to do so. God provides the freedom

to drift away from the role of participants in the divine play, to

constructing our own private separate worlds. It is even suggested that

the created playful world is so attractive, that the individual self is

induced to the task of "privatizing" world, thus getting trapped into

Vedanta Desika describes the situation thus:

The jiva is thus entitled, by his essential nature, to the service of

His Master as his birthright in as higher degree as the eternal Suries

themselves who have endless bliss of serving Him. But sunk in the

beginning less Maya, he has fallen into the wilderness of matter

(prakriti), he has repeated births in quick succession, has lost the

primary aim of existence, has found no comfort or consolation, has lost

the splendor of his real nature owning to evil desires... Well has it

been said, "Trudging along the many thousand pathways of samsara

consisting of the cycles of births and deaths, he has become deluded and

exhausted and is covered with the dust of tendencies left by the

impressions of the mind. (7)

This freedom granted to the jiva is to be seen Ramanuja's Vedanta in the

concept of antaryami, God's presence as the "inner most" being in the

jiva. The antaryami presence is related to embodiment of the self as a

consequence of creation. Even in this embodied state, the jiya continues

to depend on the divine for its sustenance, and the divine in the form

of antaryami thus becomes a "power source" without which no action is

possible on the part of the embodied jiva. Interestingly enough, even in

the samsaric state where the jiva acts with relative freedom

constructing its own separate world, it is the antaryami that provides

the needed energy and sustenance for the jiva to do so, making it

possible to drift away from the playful world of the original creation

and thus get trapped in the cycle of birth-death-rebirth! Ramanuja

writes in Sri Bhasya that "no action is not possible without permission

on the part of the highest self." (8)

It is by the will of the Supreme Person that an individual is either in

the state of bondage or release. But this immanence... in the souls is

not to be construed as to leave no freedom of action on their part. The

souls resting in (Brahman) and furnished by it with bodies and sense

organs as well as powers to use them, apply themselves of their own

accord and in accordance with their wishes, to works either good or

evil. No action is indeed possible without the assent (anumati) of the

inner Soul; but in all volitional actions there is the volitional effort

(prayartana) made by the individual soul; the Supreme Soul, by giving it

assent carries out the action. (9)

However, it is the jiva which is fully responsible for its own decisions

and the consequent actions. Ramanuja explains this situation through an

analogy.

The case is analogue to that of property of which two men are joint

owners. If one of them wish to transfer that property to a third person

he cannot do so without the permission of his partner; but [when]

permission is given, it is after all his own doing, hence the fruit of

action (reward or anything) properly belongs to him only. That in case

of evil actions, allowance of action on the part of one who is able to

stop it does not necessarily prove hardheartedness... (10)

There is certainly an advantage in having the antaryami presence of God.

It is the same inner presence that gives assent (anumati) to a jiva's

creating a samasaric world of its own, that also proceeds to provide

guidance the moment the jivadecides to abandon its samsaric, karmic

world. The antaryami is waiting, so to speak, for the jiva to turn

Godward, so as to help the jiva to break the trap of samsara. As one of

the recent Vaisnava writer says, "Just as a mother rushes to her child

when the child cries out "mother," so also God as antaryami presence

rushes to help us the moment we turn our face in His direction looking

for help." (11)

To conclude, Subjectivity is integral to human existence, whether it is

in lila state or in samsaric state. I like to argue that the state of

salvation is not returning to precreational state where atman is not

embodied, but it is gaining new embodiment, a new body, by which the

individual persons continue to serve the Lord in Vaikuntha, as an ideal

devotee would have done on earth. The notion of kainkarya is integral

part of the concept of devotion for the Vaisnava tradition. By

emphasizing bhakti, devotion, as both the means for gaining salvation as

well as post-salvational state where one performs actions such as

beholding of the Lord and rendering service to the Lord, the Vaisnava

tradition of Ramanuja stresses on continued embodiment of the redeemed

selves in the post-salvational state. In Vaikunthagadya, we find

Ramanuja describing the state of joy experienced by the jiva as it

remains in close proximity to the Supreme Being in Vaikuntha, where

"embodiment" is undoubtedly essential.

....having realized also Bhagavan's being one's eternal master and one's

being His eternal servant just as they really are, one should promote in

oneself the eager longing to serve Bhagavan by saying within oneself,

"When shall I see with my eyes Bhagavan Narayana who is the ruler of my

kind, the deity of my kind, the riches of my kind, the source of my

bliss, my Mother, my Father, and my all.When shall I contact my head

the two lotus-like feet of Bhagavan?When shall I enter His two

lotus-like feet with the desire to serve there dispelling all my craving

for other forms of enjoyment and every manifestation of worldly

disposition?When shall I, having become to serve at Bhagavan's

lotus-like feet and having that service as my sole joy, render service

at His feet. (12)

K.R.Sundararajan, Ph.D.

Professor of Theology

St. Bonaventure University

St. Bonaventure, NY 1477S, USA.