Sri Ramanujacharya's Seven objections to Advaita Philospohy .

[Guest guest]

Pranams to Bhagavan Sri Krishna and His Bhaktas,

Many teachers of Advaita often ridicule Bhakti as an inferior path . To them, what is important is gaining literary knowledge of Brahman . On the contrary, Vaishnavism is firmly rooted on Dualism( Dvaita) . As instructed by Bhagavan Narayana, Lord Ananta incarnated as Sri Ramanujacharya, to establish the validity of Vaishnavism, beyond doubt . 

Sri Ramanujacharya's  Seven objections to  Advaita Philospohy .

Sri Ramanujacharya  picks out,  seven fundamental flaws in the Advaita philosophy to revise them. He explains :

1)      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 ( Advaita) collapses into dualism (Dvaita) . If it is unreal, we are driven to self-contradiction or infinite regress.

2)      The incomprehensibility of Avidya. Advaitins claim that Avidya is neither real nor unreal but incomprehensible, {anirvachaniya .  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.

3)      The grounds of knowledge of Avidya . No `pramana'( scriptural quote) 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.

Ramanujacharya argues that positive nescience is established neither by

perception, nor by inference, nor by scriptural testimony. On the contrary, Sri Ramanuja argues, all cognition is of the real.

4)      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.

5)      Avidya's obscuration of the nature of Brahman. Advaitins would have us believe that the true nature of Brahman is somehow covered-over or obscured by Avidya. Sri 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.

6)      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 Ramanujacharya 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.

7)      The removal of Avidya. For the Advaitins , the bondage in which we dwell before the attainment of Moksa is caused by Maya and Avidya ; knowledge of reality (Brahma-vidya) releases us. Ramanujacharya, 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 ( Advaita)  collapses into duality (Deveta) ; if it is unreal, then we face an utter absurdity.

Sri  Ramanujacharya  taught his followers to highly respect all Vaishnavas irrespective of caste.

-- With Love,Ganesh Babu+919880962897My Group: Kriyababa_spiritualjourney- (Send a blank email)

[Guest guest]

Its again avidya to say that advaita and dwaita is different. Advaita is an experience, we need to evolve ourself and have to experience that state. It can't be understood by the mind and intellect. Each and everyone have to experience it. Great masters will teach according to the need of each society at a particular time. When the goal is misinterpreted and people are attached to the unreal, then masters have to break that bondage which is a hindrance to the growth of the people. When a master tells to a bhakta he will tell the glory of god and will tell him that everything is god. When the same master explains to an intellectually inclined person he will tell that I am everything/god.

Truth is that both are the same experience conveying to a different mind. People fight for this and waste their time. ----------------------You can think about God, liberation, spirituality, but the thought itself can never be spiritual; it is a psychological process. Mind, body and emotion are different dimensions of life. There is nothing right or wrong about them. It all depends on how you use them - but they cannot be spiritual.--- On Wed, 10/28/09, Kriya Baba <kriyababa2 wrote:Kriya Baba <kriyababa2 >>> Sri Ramanujacharya's Seven objections to Advaita Philospohy . >>>To:

Wednesday, October 28, 2009, 2:09 AM

 

 

Pranams to Bhagavan Sri Krishna and His Bhaktas,

Many teachers of Advaita often ridicule Bhakti as an inferior path . To them, what is important is gaining literary knowledge of Brahman . On the contrary, Vaishnavism is firmly rooted on Dualism( Dvaita) . As instructed by Bhagavan Narayana, Lord Ananta incarnated as Sri Ramanujacharya, to establish the validity of Vaishnavism, beyond doubt .

Sri Ramanujacharya's Seven objections to Advaita Philospohy .

Sri Ramanujacharya picks out, seven fundamental flaws in the Advaita philosophy to revise them. He explains :

1) 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 ( Advaita) collapses into dualism (Dvaita) . If it is unreal, we are driven to self-contradiction or infinite regress.

2) The incomprehensibility of Avidya. Advaitins claim that Avidya is neither real nor unreal but incomprehensible, {anirvachaniya . 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.

3) The grounds of knowledge of Avidya . No `pramana'( scriptural quote) 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.

Ramanujacharya argues that positive nescience is established neither by

perception, nor by inference, nor by scriptural testimony. On the contrary, Sri Ramanuja argues, all cognition is of the real.

4) 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.

5) Avidya's obscuration of the nature of Brahman. Advaitins would have us believe that the true nature of Brahman is somehow covered-over or obscured by Avidya. Sri 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.

6) 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 Ramanujacharya 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.

7) The removal of Avidya. For the Advaitins , the bondage in which we dwell before the attainment of Moksa is caused by Maya and Avidya ; knowledge of reality (Brahma-vidya) releases us. Ramanujacharya, 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 ( Advaita) collapses into duality (Deveta) ; if it is unreal, then we face an utter absurdity.

Sri Ramanujacharya taught his followers to highly respect all Vaishnavas irrespective of caste.

-- With Love,Ganesh Babu+919880962897My Group: Kriyababa_spiritual journey-subscrib e (Send a blank email)

[Sriram257@yahoo.co.in]

Hi,

 

Let me answer these objections

 

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.

 

Ans:The answer to this is the definition of what is reality and what is mithya and what is unreal.

Over here in brief reality is some thing which exists in the past,preset and future, world does not stand that test. Also a counter question may be made "is illusion existent or not", for example the blueness of sky is it existent or not or does the horizon exist, do dreams exist and so on.

 

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.

 

Ans:To this objection all perception must be real or unreal which in this case is existent or non-existent, so a counter question may be asked, "Is the perception of a snake on a rope ?" existent or non-existent. Another question may be raised, "when a mud pot is perceived, do we perceive the pot or the mud ?", it you say pot another question may be asked "Does the pot have existence apart from the mud ?" answer is obviously no, "well then when the pot is broken has it gone into non-existence ? " no, "Then where is the pot there is no pot" Ans is that mud is in the form of the pot, pot is just an attribute superimposed on the mud. So is pot as real as the mud, the answer is no since the pot's existence is not with out mud, but the pot is not non-existent and at the same time not real as the mud, hence both the pot and mud are perceived, where the mud is real and the pot is not in this case, hence real and not real are perceived by us.Not with regards to incomprehensible, reason being that all concepts are within Maya and hence Maya is itself inconceivable and hence anirvachaniya.

 

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.

 

Ans:Here the general argument given by them is that instead of Advaita or Dvaita shruti they use some thing called "Ghataka" shruti, but this is not justifiable mainly due to 2 reason

 

1.The ten upanishads accepted as part of the Prasthanatraya do not talk about a god with qualities, if that was the case such a GOD would not be omnipresent

 

2.The Ramanuja's system only holds Vishnu to be supreme but there are actually enough mantras in the vedas that even describes the supremacy of Indra to all other gods and also there is a mantra which says "ekam sat vipra bahudha vadanti"

 

Now if Tatwamasi is justified by Ramanuja what about Aham Brahmasmi where Vamadeva says that he was the Sun and the moon and the devas ?.Now on one part we describe Brahman to be without qualities and on the other side we see Vamadeva making such statements, hence this automatically justifies Maya, if Brahman changed into the world, then Brahman would be perishable and this is not acceptable hence Maya is the explanation

 

Verse from the Brihadaranyaka

 

manasaiva anudrastavyam

neha nana sti kincana,

mftyoh sa mrtyum apnoti

ya iha naneva pasyati.&quot

 

(Trans.)

It is to be perceived by the mind alone,

there is here no multiplicity whatever ;

who sees here as it were " many "

passes from death to death.

That

note multiplicity appears as it were.

 

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.

 

Ans:Again the question is Avidya is existent or non-existent,it could be argued that when there is no avidya jeeva is absent and when there is avidya jiva is present so avidya's locus could be in jiva as jiva and avidya are beginingless equally, also it may be argued by them that even though jiva absent in deep sleep why do we see avidya still present, the answer would be that the jiva is only suppressed in deep sleep and not completely absent. OK can Brahman be the locus of avidya yes he can be as in the case of the snake and rope snake analogy, the location of the snake is on the rope but the rope is not hurt by it hence the location of Avidya on brahman has no objection.

 

V. Avidya's obscuration of the nature of Brahman. Sankara 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.

 

Ans:My previous ans answers this question, also there are matters for the existence of Avidya or can you call Avidya an existence, when such a question is raised this question it self seems 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.

 

Ans:This is not the case, in a dream we see that the dream world is without a beginning, but lets say we see a lion in the dream we immediately wake up, the Brahma-Vidya is like that lion, the lion of the dream when compared to the dream has a beginning and an end but definitely get us out of the dream. This is the same case with Brahma vidya.

 

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.

 

 

Ans:Take the case of the snake and rope is the snake real ?, so what we get is the knowledge of the rope, with it's knowledge the snake disappears, the same case here the world though it does not have a substantial existence is appearing to us like the snake on the rope once the knowledge of Brahman is known the world also disappears, you may wake up and go back to the same dream that you dreamt but that does not make the dream in any way real just because it continues, similar case with the world, even if it is perceived after samadhi it will not be made real.

 

 

It is funny that the followers of Ramanuja state that these objections have not been answered but if I can myself answer this what about the present Acharyas and scholars, they can answer it even better