aprthak-siddha and monism

[Guest guest]

This post is a partial reply to Aravind's post on 6/7/03 about Anand's (a Sri

Vaishnava) response to Tripurari Swami's brief critical comments of

Ramanujacarya's philosophy. The original post was called On Bhagavad Ramanuja's

siddhanta wrt Gaudiya Vaishnava siddhanta.

 

Tripurari Swami says that Ramanuja's concept of aprthak siddha involves

"foregoing logic" which Anand finds objectionable. I do not understand the

Swami's insight or views into that. Perhaps he can be asked on his own forum for

details.

 

The term "aprthak siddha" or inseparability is explained as a fundamental

feature of Visista-advaita doctrine:

 

The Visista metaphysics maintains that the substance and attribute are distinct

but they are inherently related (aprthaksiddha)...This is the concept of visista

or substance as intergrally related to its attribute. (SMS Char's Vaishnavism p.

170-171)

 

Among the Vaishnava schools, there are those that stress the abheda or oneness

(Ramanuja and Vallabha) and one that stresses the difference (bheda) which is

Madhva. Then there are those that stress both equally which is Gaudiya and

Nimbarka. Srila Vyasadeva has described the soul as being an "amsa" of the Lord

rather than merely one or different from Him. Therefore, the fundamental

relationship has to be understood as some sort of combination or compromise of

the two concepts.

 

The problem with Shankara and Madhva is that one set of texts (either bheda or

abheda) are given primary importance and the others are either declared

figurative or explained away by intricate logical interpretations. Neither of

these allow Srila Vyasadeva's statements to speak for themselves.

 

Sri Vaishnavas, to their credit, literally accept both bheda and abheda within

their visista-advaita doctrine. However, in practice their theories of visista

and aprthak siddha and sarira-sariri are very monistic, or greatly stress the

oneness over the difference. The Maadhvas have shown that their monistic stress

causes them to run into problems regarding understanding the perfection of the

Lord and how He is distinct from the flaws of the souls. I believe it would be

very valuable to understand some of the Maadhva's critiques of the Ramanuja

school and show how our achintya-bheda-abheda does not run into those problems.

 

The Nimbarka and Gaudiya interpretations are superior because they don't involve

diminishing any of Srila Vyasadeva's statements regarding either bheda or

abheda. One mundane scholar named VS Ghate published a comparative study of the

various commentaries and concluded that Shankara and Madhva were more or less

out in left field in terms of understanding Vedanta sutra and that Ramanuja's

and Vallabha's were better. Interestingly he concluded that Nimbarka's doctrine

of svabhavika-bheda-abheda did the most justice to Vedanta sutra. He did not

examine the Gaudiya school. But the merits of Nimbarka's doctrine could easily

be applied to our achintya-bheda-abheda.

 

The distinction between Nimbarka and Gaudiya viewpoints coincidentally brings us

into another issue that Anand raises in his post. The Gaudiya school (and

Madhvas as well) explain that a substance and its attribute are identical (there

are no internal differences). Thus the Lord is the same as His form, qualities,

activities, etc. Nimbarka and all other Vaishnava schools differentiate between

the Lord's form and the Lord Himself. The Sri Vaishnava author cited above

explains:

 

....satya, jnana, and ananta are ... the essential charactaristics of Brahman.

Each one is a distinctive dharma and it is also distinct from the substrate

(brahmasvarupa) in which it inheres. In epistemological terms the essential

characteristics of an entity are integrally related to the svarupa. The two are

aprthak or inseparable. (Vaisnavaism, SMS Chari p. 170-171)

 

The Madhva and Gaudiya schools have the concept of visesa mentioned in a now

lost scripture called Brahmatarka, which affirms the absolute identity of an

object and its quality. In our Gaudiya scriptures, the discussions of oneness

of Krishna and His name, His form, His limbs as in Brahma samhita, are all

different specific instances of this visesa concept. (As an aside, Advaitins and

Jains also accept that a substance and its qualities are identical.)

 

The Vedanta sutra 2.3.12-21 passage also discusses the oneness of the Lord and

His own form and the lack of an internal differentiation. Unfortunately, this

critical passage is (mis)taken by Ramanuja and Nimbarka to refer to some other

topic (the relation of the Lord with the souls). The Maadhva's logical critique

of their interpretation of that passage can be incorporated into a Gaudiya

critique of them as well.

 

Thus the Gaudiya doctrine of achintya-bheda-abheda could be explained as the

most straightforward and logical interpretation of Vedanta, and as the best

understanding accommodating bheda and abheda texts.

 

ys

Gerald Surya