sribhashya-mahasiddhantha-Brahman can be known and is a knower.

[Guest guest]

Brahman can be known and is also a knower.

Brahman is said to be jnAna avishaya, not an object of knowledge by

citing the sruthi text, 'yasya amatham thasya matham yasya na veda

sah;avijnAtham vijnAnathAm vijnAtham avijnAnathAm.'(Kena.2-3) This

means that he understands it(Brahman) who comprehends it not;and he

who who feels that he has comprehended it understands it not because

it is beyond the instruments of cognition, namely indhriyas, manas

and buddhi. Ramanuja objects that this interpretation would

contradict the texts like ' brahmavidhApOthi param,'(Taitt.2-

1)'brahmavedha brahmaiva bhavathi,' (Mund.3-2-9) the knower of

Brahman attains the highest, he who knows Brahman becomes Brahman,

which shows that Brahman is realised as an object of knowledge. All

sruthis mention the apavarga, release, to be the result of

brahmajnAna, the knowledge of brahman.Ramanuja clinches the argument

by saying ' jnAnam cha upAsanAthmakam, upAsyam cha brahma saguNam

ithyuktham,' it is said in the sruthi that brahman with attributes is

the object of meditation in the form of knowledge.

Further Ramanuja points out that the text 'yathO vAchO nivarthanthE '

implies that brahman possessing innumerable auspicious qualities

cannot be fully described by words or thought of by the mind both of

which have their limitations, 'brahmaNah ananthasya aparicchinna

guNasya vAngmansayOh EthAvath ithi paricchedhya ayogyathva sravaNEna

brahma EthAvath ithi brahmaparicchEdha jnAnavathAm brahma avijnAtham

amatham ithyuktham.' So in view of this the Kena text 'yasya

amatham matham' means that Brahman cannot be known by those who try

to limit it as 'this much.'

Desika expresses the same idea in his YadhavAbhyudhayam thus:

Desika portrays the Vedas as the bards trying to sing about His

merits and he says that when they start extolling even one of His

infinite auspicious attributes, they become tired. ‘ Ekaika

gunapraanthe sranthaah nigamavandhinah.’

The text 'na dhrshtEh dhrashtAram pasyeh;na sruthEh srOthAram

srnuyAth; na mathEh manthAram manveeTHAh;na vijnAthEh vijnAthAram

vijaneeyAh,' meaning 'you cannot see the seer of sight, hear the

hearer of hearing,thinker of thought and knower of knowledge,' does

not deny the seer, knower etc says Ramanuja. It only refutes the

view of the vaiseshikas that knowledge is the attribute of the Self

and stresses that knowing and thinking etc. are the essential nature

of the Self. It dismisses the individual self as the knower etc. and

shows the Brahman , the real Self as the knower.

Similarly 'AnandO brahma,' (Tait.brg.) does not denote brahman as

purely bliss but also as the Anandee, possessor of bliss, says

Ramanuja. 'VijnAnam Anandam brahma,' consciousness, bliss is Brahman

(Brhd.3-9-28) shows that the knowledge and bliss is Brahman. Bliss is

the nature of knowledge, that is Brahman, who is knower as

well. 'AnandambrahmanO vidvAn,' the knower of the bliss of brahman

(Tait.2-9) and the text that says that a hundredfold bliss of

prajApathi is a unit measure of Brahman, clearly indicate that

Brahman is not only Ananda but Anandee as well and knowership,

jnAthrthvam is itself blissfulness, Anandithvam.

Ramanuja then proceeds to the denial texts that deny plurality of

the world as being unreal, toshow that they do not actually negate

the manifoldness of the world.They are, 'yathra hi dvaithamiva

bhavathi,'(Brrhd.2-4-14) when there is duality as it were, 'neha

nAnAsthi kimchana; mrthyOhO sa mrthyumApnothi ya iha nAnEva

pasyathi,' here there is no separateness whatever ; he attains

mortality successively who sees separateness. Since the manifoldness

is established by texts such as 'thadhaikshatha bahusyam prajayeya,'

(Brhad.4-4-19) it willed to become many, what is denied is the

separate existence of the world apart from Brahman, who is its real

Self and inner ruler.

The last text taken by Ramanuja to refute the denial of plurality

is 'yadhA hyEvasha Ethasmin udharam antharam kurutheatha thasya

bhayam bhavathi,' (Tait.2-7) there is fear for him who makes the

least differentiation in it, that is, Brahman. This is interpreted as

there would be fear for one who sees diversity in the world which is

nothing but Brahman.Ramanuja says that this interpretation would

contradict the Chandogya text ' sarvam khalu idham brahma thajjalAn

ithi shAntha upAseetha,'(Chan.3-14-1) all this is brahman as it

originates from, sustained by and absorbed in Brahman and thus one

should meditate to attain calmness of mind. The word 'tajjalAn' is

made up of 'thath, ja,la, an.' 'ja stands for janana,

origination, 'la' for laya or annihilation and 'an' means to live,

that is sustenance. So what the Taittiriya text means is that there

is no fear for one who sees Brahman as the Self of all and meditates

on Brahman as such and the fear comes only when he does not. If there

is a break in this steady meditation there is fear which has been

also mentioned by the great rshis.'yanmuhurthamkshaNam vApi vAsudevO

na chinthyathe sA hanih than mahath chidhram sa brAnthih sa cha

vikriya,' In that duration of time or a moment when there is no

thought on Vasudeva there is harm created by a great opening to let

all illusions and wrong actions.

The suthras quoted by advaitin to prove that Brahman is nirvisesha,

namely,'na sthAnathO api parasya ubhayalingam sarvathra hi,'(BS.3-2-

11) and 'mAyAmAthram thu kArthsnyEnaanabhivyaktha svarupahvAth,'(BS.3-

2-3) are in fact prove only the saviseshathva of Brahman ,says,

Ramanuja.The first one is translated as 'not even accrding to place

can Brahman have a twofold characterestic, for everywhere(it is

taught to be without attributes.)' by the advaitin which means that

Brahman cannot be with and without attributes and even when connected

with the body etc. it does not therefore has attributes. But Ramanuja

interprets this differently. He gives the following explanation. Not

even on account of place, being in the body,for instance, can there

be imperfection in Brahman because through out (the scripture it is

described) as having a twofold characterestics, namely, being free

from all imperfections and having auspiciuos qualities.The second

suthra is translated as 'but the dream creation is mere maya because

of its nature of not being a complete manifestation'by the advaitin.

Ramanuja on the other hand explains it thus:but it is mere maya on

account of its true nature not being manifest fully. It is called

maya because the dream world is something wonderful but it is not

illusion. Brahman who is awake in us even in our sleep creates the

experience in the dream and He is pure.So this establishes Brahman

only as savisesha.

Next Ramanuja quotes profusely from the smrithis like Gita and

vishnupurANa to prove that Brahman is not a nondual consciousness

but possesses infinite auspicious attributes. Brahman is savisesha

and the world of sentient and insentient beings is also real and

forms the body of Brahman who is its inner Self.The Ramanuja proceeds

with his criticism of the main tenet of advaita, namely the avidhya-

maya.