Sri Ramanujacharya's Seven objections to Advaita Philosophy !

[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.

Your humble servant,

 

SriKrishnadasa Rajeev .