Real and the Unreal.(The seven impossible Tenets): Sada-ji's reply .

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Krishna Prasad" <rkrishp99>

wrote:

> Hari OM!

>

> Dear all,

>

> The seven impossible tenets as Ramanuja claims. Hope this will

help

> us to discuss more about Reality............

 

Namaste.

 

Shri Sadananda-ji had written, long ago, on this list an exhaustive

analysis of these 'seven impossible tenets' of Ramanuja. I had

preserved that post of his separately. I am reproducing that post

below. I hope Sada-ji would not mind this reposting!

 

Kuntimaddi Sadananda <k_sadanandaK

Kathirasan ADM NCS <kathirasanNamaste I received a

mail from a friend regarding the arguments of SriRamanujacharya

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

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

regarding the views stated. Could the learned members state

theirviews to make this 7 impossible tenets possible, please? :-)

Regards.Om ShantiKathi-------------Hari Om! I am going to respond to

the degree I know. There is a beautiful book by Shree Grimes

on "seven untenables" as part of his Ph.D. thesis to Madras

University. He addresses these very methodically. I learned a lot

from his book. Unfortunately I don't have a copy here and I cannot

quote from that. If he is in the mailing list he can contribute. I

am addressing one at a time although if one examines carefully all

are essentially based on the same arguments but each with different

emphasis.----------

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:

 

Objection:1. The nature of Avidya. Avidya must be either real or

unreal; there is no otherPossibility. 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.Response:(a) There are several problems in Ramanuja's

criticism. In Advaita Siddhi, Madusuudhana saraswati has addressed

this more extensively. We had discussions in the past in advaitin

list related to this. "Avidya must be either real or unreal and

there is no other possibility" - is an axiomatic statement of

Ramanuja. Real on the basis of absoluteness or paramaarthika level

fulfills the definition of trikaala abhaadhitam – that which remains

unchanged or non-negated is alone real – this follows from Krishna's

statement – naasato vidyate bhaavo na bhaavo vidyate sataH – that

which exists can never cease to exist and that which is non-existent

can never come to existence. This statement is valid for gross as

well as subtle matter. Thus anything that changes cannot be real.

But it cannot be unreal either since it appears to exist in the

present. Unreal is that which never existed in the past and has no

locus in the present. Like vandyaa putraH – son of a barren woman.

The world, Jagat, does not fulfil either of the definitions of the

real and unreal. Since it undergoes continuos change it cannot be

real but it cannot be unreal since it exists right now in the waking

state. Hence a third term is needed to define the world – which is

neither real and unreal. It is mithya that appears to be real but

upon analysis it is not there. But upon analysis every mithya has to

resolve to its substratum, which is real. Scientifically if

something is continuously changing, then there is some thing

fundamental that forms a basis for the continuously changing things.

Hence Ramanuja's claim that we are driven to self-contradiction is

untenable from ones own experience. – Just like sun raise and sun

set – is it real or unreal – It appears to be real since one

experiences it everyday and it is not real since shaastra (science)

says that sun neither raises nor sets. Hence it is mithya. As long

as I have AJNaana or Avidya – I take the sun raise and sun set as

real – but that can be negated once I have a correct knowledge. Thus

Ramanuja is clearly wrong in his criticism that there is a

contradiction in saying the statement `avidya is neither real and

unreal causes self contradiction and infinite regression.(b) Now

coming to avidya itself – it is not a positive quantity to be or not

to be. Its presence is inferred by the absence of knowledge. If I

have no knowledge of chemistry, my ignorance of chemistry is

inferred. Knowledge is positive – either in terms of information or

facts in my memory or logical application of the information in the

memory. When I gained the knowledge of chemistry, I say I have lost

my ignorance of chemistry. If ignorance is real then I can never

loose it. Inquiry into ignorance is itself a useless inquiry, since

it is not a positive quantity to inquire about. When did the

ignorance began? – this question itself is invalid question and

hence it is said that it is anivervachaniiyam – inexplainable . It

is anaadi – beginningless. If it has beginning then before that I

was knowledgeable. Ignorance can be replaced by knowledge but not

vice versa. Hence it is anaadi yet can have an end when the

knowledge dawns on me. For that reason only it is peculiar type does

not belong to the nature of Brahman. For the Jagat, the world, there

is locus, which is Brahman, which is the substratum, or real on

which the changes takes place. For ignorance there is not absolute

locus to say it is centered on this. Hence it is called

anirvacahaniiyam. It appears to be centered on Jeeva who himself is

the product of avidya. But Jeeva has his own locus and that is

Brahman while the ignorance has only apparent locus that is Jeeva,

who takes unreal as real. That is what is the term delusion implies.

Whatever one imagines oneself in delusion is not real but for the

one who is in delusion what he imagines is real. Hence reality is

based on the Reference State – hence it is at the vyaavahaarika or

transactions level, the relative realties are established. From

absolute point only Brahman alone is real. Everything else is

relatively real.

 

II. The incomprehensibility of Avidya. Advaitins claim that Avidya

is neither real nor unreal but incomprehensible, {anirvacaniiyam.}

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.It is the extension

of the same arguments but attacking the anivarchaniiyam aspect.

Ramanuja's statement that all cognitions are either of the real or

unreal is absolutely wrong. In fact it is the other way around. Only

Brahman alone is real, and Brahman cannot be cognized in the true

sense of the word. We have already established that there is

something called mithya, which appears to be real, but upon inquiry

what appears to be real is not real, but only the substratum that

supports the appearance is real. Sun raise and sun set is one

example. Bending of the pencil immersed half way in water appears to

be real, but bending is not real. Scientific investigations aim at

resolving these apparent experiences by appropriate inquiry. Right

type of inquiry leads to discoveries that illumine the truths

underlying each of the experiences. There are truly anirvachaniiyam

that is accepted even by Ramanuja and others – For example- which is

the beginning – chicken or egg. Or what is the cause and what is the

effect. Since ignorance is anaadi which Ramanuja also agrees, who

has the ignorance is the fundamental question that is left to be

answered by both systems of philosophy. (in the case of Ramanuja

ignorance that is anaadi belongs to Jeevaas not knowing their

aadhaaratvam or dependence on the Lord – that is due to delusion

which is also Maya. His explanation is not much different. How and

when the Jeevaas possessed this ignorance – he has to resort to the

same answer too – it is anirvachaniiyam.In Advaita, ignorance which

is the cause for Jiiva to feel that he is Jiiva is locussed on

Jiiva. It is like chicken and egg situation – anyonya ashraya –

Jiiva has avidya and avidya is the cause of Jiiva. This cannot be

resolved by intellectual analysis since intellect itself is the

product of avidya. Hence it is anirvachaniiyam. Only way to resolve

this is to transcend the cause-effect relations ships or transcend

the time where all these concepts take birth. The anirvachaniiyam

aspect in Ramanuja is buried in the disguise of Paramaatma leela.

Why Lord wants to play at Jive's expense is anirvachaniiyam, since

He is the Lord and He cannot be questioned. Unquestionable

surrenderence is only the upaaya or the means for moksha or

liberation.In addition, there are two ways to answer the central

objection of Ramanuja. First, avidya is not positive quantity to be

classified as real or unreal. It can only be inferred by lack of

knowledge, which is positive. Since it does not come under real or

unreal it is anivervachaniiyam. Second, ignorance by definition is

incomprehensible. If it is comprehensible then it is no more

ignorance. In contrast to what Ramanuja claims the

incomprehensibility of avidya "flies in the face of experience, and

accepting it would call into question all cognition and render it

unsafe", itself is baseless. One can only cognize knowledge of the

object or lack of object. I know chemistry or I do not know

chemistry both are facts to be cognized and recognized. In the

cognition of the first, the knowledge of chemistry is cognized and

in the cognition of the second the absence of the knowledge of

chemistry is cognized. Anirvachaniiyam comes only to answer the

why's and how's and when's etc – or inquiry into the nature of

ignorance itself. This part of the problem as discussed above is

common in Advaita and vishishhTaadviata.

 

Objection:III. The grounds of knowledge of Avidya. No pramaaNa 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.Response: PramaaNa is the means of

knowledge. Knowledge is required to eliminate the ignorance. To

establish that ones is ignorant of something one need not have a

pramaaNa. That I don't know chemistry or I do not know gaagaabuubu

is self-evident – in fact what is self-evident is the lack of

knowledge of chemistry or lack of knowledge of gagaabuubu. What

pramaaNa is needed to established to myself that I am ignorant of

chemistry or gaagaabuubu. For others to establish that I am ignorant

of chemistry or gaagaabuubu then pramaaNa or means of testing is

required. But to establish for myself that I am ignorant no pramaaNa

is required.PramaaNa is required to establish the fact which may

contradict my own day to day experience. No one has to teach me that

I am the body, I am the mind or I am the intellect. But pramaaNa is

required to establish that I am not the body, nor the mind and not

the intellect. Avidya is established automatically when the shaastra

contradicts my direct experience and reveals the truth. In the face

of the truth, ignorance that I had, falls off in spite of my day to

day experience. That sun neither raises nor sets is established

through pramaaNa in spite of my day to day experience of sun raise

and sun set. Essentially I don't need shaastra as a pramaaNa to

establish that I am ignorant. What shaastra can do is to illumine

the knowledge which when it dawns on me, the ignorance that I had is

eliminated. What establishes the fact that sun raises in the morning

and sets in the evening – that is direct perception. Hence

experiences are basis for the ignorance too. But I may not perceive

that I am ignorant till the knowledge dawn on me. PramaaNa is

required to establish true knowledge. Ignorance cannot cover Brahman

or much less anything. It is not a positive thing to cover

something. But Advaita provides a rational explanation of the cause

of not-seeing the truth as truth. What covers my knowledge that

there is really no sun raise and no sun set. First, direct

experience of the sun raise and sun set, and second the lack of

proper understanding of that experience. We say ignorance as though

covers the knowledge but truth is that ignorance is not a positive

to cover anything. Ramanuja's criticism of Advaita is therefore

baseless. In fact that there is avidya that is covering the truth

itself is only an explanation for the apparent facts. The truth is,

there is nothing other than Brahman. Everything that is seen or

appears to be there is only mithya including the concepts to explain

that which is not there. Explanation of Maya and avidya applies to

Maya and avidya too.

 

Objection: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 {Jiiva.} 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.Response: This aspect is

already covered in the first. This is the chicken and egg situation.

Locus of avidya is not Brahman but jiiva who is the product of

avidya. Avidya is beginning less from Jiiva's point since beginning

and end are concepts within time and time itself is in the mind of

jiiva. Hence from Jiiva's point, avidya arises before time is

conceptualized and time is conceptualized only after the first two

thoughts. Hence to ask whether it is Jiiva first or avidya first, is

untenable question since before and after and cause and effects are

within the realm of time. Scripture can provide some answers to

this. "Existence-consciousness alone was there in the beginning and

it is one without a second. He saw – and decided to become many" –

Here is the origin of Iswara from the primordial cause. Creation

begins with Iswara who has no ignorance. Ignorance starts with the

identification with the created as I am this and this. How does it

happen is unexplainable since the explanations are within the realm

of intellect.Who is the locus for avidya – When the creation began,

the locus of Maya is Iswara and after the creation has taken place

misunderstanding that the creation is real is due to delusion and

how that happens is anirvacaniiyam. The locus of that ignorance is

jiiva. Ignorance is eliminated form Jiiva when the knowledge dawns

on him. Avidya is not attribute for existence or non-existence.

Besides Brahman is not opposite to avidya. In fact that there is

avidya or ignorance is known as knowledge only by the illumination

of the avidya by consciousness which is Brahman. It is like seeing

the darkness. I cannot see anything in pitch dark. But that it is

pitch dark – that I can see. In what light I can see that it is

pitch dark – that light is not opposite to darkness since it can

illumine darkness without destroying it, as I say that I can see

that it is dark. Can I say darkness is covering the objects and that

is the reason I cannot see. Darkness is not some positive thing to

cover and uncover. Lack of enough light to illumine the objects for

human equipment to see is the problem. But even in pitch darkness, I

know I am there. Since I am self-luminous or self-consciousness

entity. I don't need any pramaaNa to prove that I exist and I am

consciousness. Nothing can cover me.

 

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.Response – I think Ramanuja

haphazardly criticizes the Advaita without correct understanding of

the import of Advaita. Bhagavaan Shankara does not say that Brahman

is covered by avidya. But for Jiiva the Brahman is appeared to be

covered since he does not know the truth. Shankara gives a common

experience to illustrate the point. Just like dark clouds covering

the sun – In principle clouds cannot cover the sun since he is so

large compared to the size of the earth and the size of the clouds.

And clouds exists because of the sun and the clouds that are

covering the sun is seen only because of the sun – without the Sun,

one cannot even see the clouds that are covering the sun. In the

light of consciousness only the ignorance is known. If it is able to

illumine the ignorance, then how can it be covered. Brahman is

ekameva advitiiyam – one without a second and there is nothing that

can cover it. Luminosity or self-luminosity of Brahman is not

compromised any way since it is only in the light of that

consciousness only the ignorance also is known. Obstruction is also

a mithya since it is not real since it can be destroyed. It is

apparent but appears to be real to the one who is deluded by the

appearance. Hence intrinsic nature of luminous Brahman is not

compromised just as clouds cannot cover the intrinsic nature of the

luminous Sun.

 

Objection: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.Response:First, Ramanuja's statement is not a criticism

of Advaita but proposition of his axiomatic statements of the nature

of the reality. His proposition that Brahman is not nirguNa

contradicts not only Advaita but also scriptural statements. He

provides a narrower meaning of nirguNa that He is without any

durguNa. –" nirguNo, nishkRio, nityo, nirvikalpo niranjanaH" says

the shruthi. "Whatever exists should have attributes" is a

declarative statement of Ramanuja. This is applicable to only

objects – and is true since objects have naama, ruupa and guNa. But

objects are jadam they are not swayam prakaashatvam – some thing

else has to illumine the objects- but for self-luminous self,

nirguNa is absolutely valid statement. The reasoning is simple.

Knowledge of the objects occurs by pratyaksha or anumaana etc

through the knowledge of the guNaas only. They are known through the

mind and intellect since the mind and intellect can only grasp that

which have guNaas. To that extent only Ramanuja is right. But that

which is guNaatiita that which is beyond the intellect, it cannot be

comprehended by any thing. It is known only because it is self-

luminous and no pramaaNa is required to establish that.`Liberation

is a matter of divine grace' – that Advaita does not contradict. In

fact liberation occurs through knowledge which is not purusha

tantra – it is by divine grace only "Brahman can be known" –

or "aham Brahmaasmi can be realized. It is not knowing an object –

since when one knows the object, one does not become an object. But

knowing Brahman is becoming Brahman – brahmavit brahaiva bhavati –

is the shruti. Hence it is not objective knowledge but subjective

recognition or realization. As long as I have a notion (ego) that I

am different from Brahman, I can never know Brahman. Only complete

surrenderence of ones ego leads to the true knowledge of oneself.

But even in Ramanuja's teaching, it is the knowledge alone that

brings moksha. It is the knowledge of ones complete dependence on

the Lord which happens when one completely surrenders ones ego.

Other than the fact that the nature of the moksha is different in

the two doctrines, but the means is the same. In both cases bhakti

leeds to Jnaana – but is that Jnaana is different in the two

doctrines. In one it is aham Brahmaasmi is the knowledge in the

other I am eternal servent of the Lord. Both are gained by complete

surrenderence to the Lord which can happen only under bhakti. Hence

Shankara defines bhakti in VivekachuuDaamani as ` moksha kaaraNa

saamaagrayam bhaktireva gariiyasi| atmaanubhava sandhaanam

bhaktirityabhidiiyate'. Of all paths for moksha bhati is the supreme

and ones establishment of oneself in his own self is the said to be

true bhakti.

Objection:VII. The removal of Avidya. For the Advaitin, the bondage

in which wedwell 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.Response:The reality of avidya is already touched

upon in the earlier objections and already shown that avidya does

not come under either real and or unreal. The objection is based on

Ramanuja propositions and based on these propositions he rules out

Advaita. Even in Advaita, knowledge discloses the reality of oneself

and the reality of the world - real is true and that reality is the

dismissal of ones own notions about oneself as I am this and that

which are objects and re-educating oneself that I am the sat-chit-

aananda which is ekameva advitiiyam. All are in me and I am in all

of them, yet I am different from all of them is the knowledge that

Krishna emphasizes. Sarva bhuutastam aatmaanam sarva bhuutaanica

atmani – All are in me and I am in all of them- is the teaching.My

above comments are in no disrespect to Shree Bhagavaan Ramanuja.

Through his criticisms he bought out the essential aspects of

Advaita too for those who are keen in understanding the true import

of Advaita. I strongly recommend everyone to study thoroughly

Bhagavaan Ramanuja's criticism of Advaita in his Shree Bhaasya. One

has to have an open mind to investigate thoroughly the objections

and the responses. Ultimately the truth is beyond intellectual

comprehension and that is agreed upon by both systems of philosophy.

It does not matter what Ramanuja says or Shankara says – it is all

objective knowledge of the nature of the reality. Conclusion before

experimentation is unscientific. Given the intellectual convictions

as a basis, one has to discover the truth by one self in oneself as

oneself. – dhyanena atmani pasyanti kechid atmaanam atmanaa – says

Krishna – by means of meditation on the reality one discovers

oneself in oneself by oneself.My thanks to Shree Kathirasan and

Shree Ram Chandran who in a way propelled me to put down what I

understand.Hari Om!Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Hari OM!

 

Dear Prof VKji,

 

Thank You so much, this article by Sadaji is really enlightening.

 

With Love & OM!

 

Krishna Prasad

 

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk>

wrote:

> advaitin, "Krishna Prasad" <rkrishp99>

> wrote:

> > Hari OM!

> >

> > Dear all,

> >

> > The seven impossible tenets as Ramanuja claims. Hope this will

> help

> > us to discuss more about Reality............

>

> Namaste.

>

> Shri Sadananda-ji had written, long ago, on this list an exhaustive

> analysis of these 'seven impossible tenets' of Ramanuja. I had

> preserved that post of his separately. I am reproducing that post

>

------text removed----for making mail short ones---------------