Qualified non-dualism?

[Guest guest]

Namaste

 

I received a mail from a friend regarding the arguments of Sri

Ramanujacharya against the fundamental tenets of Advaita. I've quoted the

summary from the mail below. I am very interested to know Advaita's

position regarding the views stated. Could the learned members state their

views to make this 7 impossible tenets possible, please? :-) Regards.

 

Om Shanti

Kathi

 

 

THE SEVEN IMPOSSIBLE TENETS

 

Ramanuja picks out what he sees as seven fundamental flaws in the

Advaita philosophy for special attack: he sees them as so fundamental

to the Advaita position that if he is right in identifying them as

involving doctrinal contradictions, then Shankara's entire system

collapses. He argues:

 

I. The nature of Avidya. Avidya must be either real or unreal; there

is no other possibility. But neither of these is possible. If Avidya

is real, non-dualism collapses into dualism. If it is unreal, we are

driven to self-contradiction or infinite regress.

 

II. The incomprehensibility of Avidya. Advaitins claim that Avidya is

neither real nor unreal but incomprehensible, {anirvacaniya.} All

cognition is either of the real or the unreal: the Advaitin claim

flies in the face of experience, and accepting it would call into

question all cognition and render it unsafe.

 

III. The grounds of knowledge of Avidya. No pramana can establish

Avidya in the sense the Advaitin requires. Advaita philosophy presents

Avidya not as a mere lack of knowledge, as something purely negative,

but as an obscuring layer which covers Brahman and is removed by true

Brahma-vidya. Avidya is positive nescience not mere ignorance.

Ramanuja argues that positive nescience is established neither by

perception, nor by inference, nor by scriptural testimony. On the

contrary, Ramanuja argues, all cognition is of the real.

 

IV. The locus of Avidya. Where is the Avidya that gives rise to the

(false) impression of the reality of the perceived world? There are

two possibilities; it could be Brahman's Avidya or the individual

soul's {jiva.} Neither is possible. Brahman is knowledge; Avidya

cannot co-exist as an attribute with a nature utterly incompatible

with it. Nor can the individual soul be the locus of Avidya: the

existence of the individual soul is due to Avidya; this would lead to

a vicious circle.

 

V. Avidya's obscuration of the nature of Brahman. Shankara would have

us believe that the true nature of Brahman is somehow covered-over or

obscured by Avidya. Ramanuja regards this as an absurdity: given that

Advaita claims that Brahman is pure self-luminous consciousness,

obscuration must mean either preventing the origination of this

(impossible since Brahman is eternal) or the destruction of it -

equally absurd.

 

VI. The removal of Avidya by Brahma-vidya. Advaita claims that Avidya

has no beginning, but it is terminated and removed by Brahma-vidya,

the intuition of the reality of Brahman as pure, undifferentiated

consciousness. But Ramanuja denies the existence of undifferentiated

{nirguna} Brahman, arguing that whatever exists has attributes:

Brahman has infinite auspicious attributes. Liberation is a matter of

Divine Grace: no amount of learning or wisdom will deliver us.

 

VII. The removal of Avidya. For the Advaitin, the bondage in which we

dwell before the attainment of Moksa is caused by Maya and Avidya;

knowledge of reality (Brahma-vidya) releases us. Ramanuja, however,

asserts that bondage is real. No kind of knowledge can remove what is

real. On the contrary, knowledge discloses the real; it does not

destroy it. And what exactly is the saving knowledge that delivers us

from bondage to Maya? If it is real then non-duality collapses into

duality; if it is unreal, then we face an utter absurdity.

[Guest guest]

> K Kathirasan ADM NCS <kathirasan

>

> Namaste

>

> I received a mail from a friend regarding the arguments of Sri

> Ramanujacharya against the fundamental tenets of Advaita. I've quoted the

> summary from the mail below. I am very interested to know Advaita's

> position regarding the views stated. Could the learned members

> state their

> views to make this 7 impossible tenets possible, please? :-) Regards.

>

> Om Shanti

> Kathi

>

>

> THE SEVEN IMPOSSIBLE TENETS

>

> Ramanuja picks out what he sees as seven fundamental flaws in the

> Advaita philosophy for special attack: he sees them as so fundamental

> to the Advaita position that if he is right in identifying them as

> involving doctrinal contradictions, then Shankara's entire system

> collapses. He argues:

>

> I. The nature of Avidya. Avidya must be either real or unreal; there

> is no other possibility. But neither of these is possible. If Avidya

> is real, non-dualism collapses into dualism. If it is unreal, we are

> driven to self-contradiction or infinite regress.

 

Avidya has no nature. Avidya is a conclusion that only exists in the

thinking mind, so it is neither real nor unreal.

> II. The incomprehensibility of Avidya. Advaitins claim that Avidya is

> neither real nor unreal but incomprehensible, {anirvacaniya.} All

> cognition is either of the real or the unreal: the Advaitin claim

> flies in the face of experience, and accepting it would call into

> question all cognition and render it unsafe.

 

According to the dictionary: cog·ni·tion

1. The mental process or faculty of knowing, including aspects such as

awareness, perception, reasoning, and judgment.

2. That which comes to be known, as through perception, reasoning, or

intuition; knowledge.

 

This means cognition is a process consisting of different parts. Knowing,

awareness and perception are possible without interpreting (no reasoning or

judging). +Knowing+ Brahman, perceiving a blue sky are the parts of

cognition that are unquestionable. The parts called reasoning and judgment

are questionable as they require manipulating the content of mind and no two

minds are the same in this respect.

> III. The grounds of knowledge of Avidya. No pramana can establish

> Avidya in the sense the Advaitin requires. Advaita philosophy presents

> Avidya not as a mere lack of knowledge, as something purely negative,

> but as an obscuring layer which covers Brahman and is removed by true

> Brahma-vidya. Avidya is positive nescience not mere ignorance.

> Ramanuja argues that positive nescience is established neither by

> perception, nor by inference, nor by scriptural testimony. On the

> contrary, Ramanuja argues, all cognition is of the real.

 

I would argue that cognition is conditioned, because of the content of the

mind of the cognizer.

>

> IV. The locus of Avidya. Where is the Avidya that gives rise to the

> (false) impression of the reality of the perceived world? There are

> two possibilities; it could be Brahman's Avidya or the individual

> soul's {jiva.} Neither is possible. Brahman is knowledge; Avidya

> cannot co-exist as an attribute with a nature utterly incompatible

> with it. Nor can the individual soul be the locus of Avidya: the

> existence of the individual soul is due to Avidya; this would lead to

> a vicious circle.

 

There is a third possibility; that on realization of Brahman, Avidya

vanishes from perception in the same way as a dream vanishes on waking up.

So one can no longer say anything about it as the dream only remains as

content of memory.

> V. Avidya's obscuration of the nature of Brahman. Shankara would have

> us believe that the true nature of Brahman is somehow covered-over or

> obscured by Avidya. Ramanuja regards this as an absurdity: given that

> Advaita claims that Brahman is pure self-luminous consciousness,

> obscuration must mean either preventing the origination of this

> (impossible since Brahman is eternal) or the destruction of it -

> equally absurd.

 

The basis of perception is difference. That without a difference cannot be

perceived - it can only be known as the subject of subject. Coming from a

perspective where the differences were interpreted as real, That without a

difference seems to be covered but coming from That without a difference,

self-luminousness is apparent and the differences appear never to have

existed.

> VI. The removal of Avidya by Brahma-vidya. Advaita claims that Avidya

> has no beginning, but it is terminated and removed by Brahma-vidya,

> the intuition of the reality of Brahman as pure, undifferentiated

> consciousness. But Ramanuja denies the existence of undifferentiated

> {nirguna} Brahman, arguing that whatever exists has attributes:

> Brahman has infinite auspicious attributes. Liberation is a matter of

> Divine Grace: no amount of learning or wisdom will deliver us.

 

Pure, undifferentiated consciousness is what remains in nirvikalpa samadhi.

In moksha / nirvana, all differences erode and pure, undifferentiated

consciousness is seen as the basis of everything. Brahman with attributes is

one way of saying that. Liberation cannot be the result of anything; if so

it would be conditioned. Stating it to be a matter of Divine Grace results

from the insight that Liberation is "attained" despite one's (wrong?) views,

opinions and limitations.

> VII. The removal of Avidya. For the Advaitin, the bondage in which we

> dwell before the attainment of Moksa is caused by Maya and Avidya;

> knowledge of reality (Brahma-vidya) releases us. Ramanuja, however,

> asserts that bondage is real. No kind of knowledge can remove what is

> real. On the contrary, knowledge discloses the real; it does not

> destroy it. And what exactly is the saving knowledge that delivers us

> from bondage to Maya? If it is real then non-duality collapses into

> duality; if it is unreal, then we face an utter absurdity.

 

In reality, nothing releases us as both bondage and liberation only exist in

the mind of the believer. Both gentlemen forget the power of the mind,

interpreting one thing as bondage and another thing as real. Recognition of

what remains when the mind (temporarily) halts interpretation could be

called enlightenment or "seeing what IS", recognition of what remains when

the mind (temporarily) halts interpretation, thinking and perceiving could

be called nirvikalpa samadhi and in moksha / nirvana, the "what remains" has

become self-absorbed consciousness without content so one is no longer

affected by the functioning of mind. Then, the absence of both bondage and

liberation is "real".

 

Jan

[Guest guest]

Hari Om Kathirasan:

 

Shri Sadanandaji is quite familiar with the philosophies of

Ramanujacharya and Shankara and he is most likely to present a thorough

explanation. From Advaitic point of view, these seven tenets are flaws

in only appearance because of Avidya. They are just non-comprehensible

and we can't deny whether they are real, non-real! Only with WISDOM we

can comprehend the 'ultimate reality,' and these seven tenets confirms

the presence of 'AVIDYA' and the absence of 'VIDYA.'

 

It should be pointed out that intellectually the three philosophies

'Advaita,' 'Dvaita,' and 'Visistadvaita' represent three models with

associated assumptions and consequently faith is necessary for

intellectual comprehension. Consequently, using any one of the model

framework (assuming that is the TRUTH due to FAITH) it is possible to

find contradictions which are just perceptions! But TRUTH is beyond

Perception and beyond the intellect. What I am trying is just beating

about the bush and that's all I can do within my intellect! I have to

beyond my intellect to comprehend the TRUTH and until then, I am neither

'real' nor 'unreal!'

 

Note: A brief sketch of Advaita, Dvaita and Visistadvaita is presented

below for interested readers. More information is available at the

indicated Internet Sites.

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

===============================================================

Advaita: According to Sankara, God is infinitely higher than ourselves

and he is also infinitely near to us. He is nearer to us than our hands

and feet. He is the Soul of our souls. He is neither the body, nor the

senses, nor the mind nor the ego nor the intellect. He is the "I" that

is none of these and is ever-present witness to all our experiences. He

is our Atman and "He" is Brahman. He is the one Reality beyond which

there is none. Sankara's contribution to philosophy is his blending of

the doctrines of Karma and Maya, which culminated in a logical

exposition of the idea of non-dualism. The entire universe consisting of

Namarupa, names and forms, is but an appearance; Brahman,infinite

consciousness, is the sole reality. Sankara's philosophy, the essential

identity between Atman and Brahman is called "Advaita."It is a known

fact that Sankara was strongly influenced by Gaudapada, who had great

regard for the Buddhist philosophy. It is obvious that Sankara was

opposed to Buddhist thought in general, but unconsciously influenced by

some of its tenets. There is an updated version of the advaita vedAnta

FAQ at http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/

 

 

Dvaita: Madhvachar's philosophy is "Dvaita". Brahman is Hari or Visnu

definable to an extent by the Vedas. He has a transcendental form,

Vyuhas, Incarnations are His parts and Laksmi is distinct. The qualities

of Brahman are it is fully independent, the cause of all causes, supreme

bliss, devoid of false attributes but possesses all qualities. The soul

is atomic, it pervades the body by intelligence, infinite in number,

Karta and Bhokta. Creation is the actuation of what is in the womb of

matter and soul by the action of Brahman. The cause of bondage is the

divine will of the Supreme and ignorance of the soul (svarupa). The

process of release is through whole hearted devotion, study of the Vedas

and detached karma. The goal is to gain release from samsara and

restoration of one's own individual and gain all powers except creation

and there is no return.The released souls rise to the nature of God and

never to identify with Him.They never lose their individuality, they are

only released from the bondage of samsara. In summary, Visnu is the only

supreme being; and Bhakti is the primary essential for liberation.

Madhvacarya believed that Sankara's philosophy was a disguised variety

of Buddhism and was vehemently objected to Advaita: it seemed to him

presumptuous for the individual soul to claim identity with Brahman.

(See the Dwaita home page using the link under vedanta)

http://www.geocities.com/RodeoDrive/1415/index1.html

 

Visishtadvaita: Ramanuja's philosophy is "Visishtadvaita" and has the

following features: Brahman is not nirguna but saguna, that is, it is

not impersonal but a personality endowed with all the superior qualities

that we know of, like knowledge, power and love. The Upanishads, when

they declare the nirguna nature of Brahman, only deny certain lower

qualities and do not deny its every quality. The universe and

individual souls are also eternal, but they exist as the body of God, as

it were. In other words, God, souls and matter together form an

inseparable unity which is one and has no second. In this sense ultimate

reality is indeed one. But the distinction between God, souls and matter

must ever remain. See the web page:

http://www.geocities.com/RodeoDrive/1415/index1.html

 

K Kathirasan ADM NCS wrote:

>

> K Kathirasan ADM NCS <kathirasan

>

> Namaste

>

> I received a mail from a friend regarding the arguments of Sri

> Ramanujacharya against the fundamental tenets of Advaita. I've quoted the

> summary from the mail below. I am very interested to know Advaita's

> position regarding the views stated. Could the learned members state their

> views to make this 7 impossible tenets possible, please? :-) Regards.

>

> Om Shanti

> Kathi