continuation of my reply to the questions of Ganapathyraman

[Guest guest]

In continuation of my mail the sapthavidha anupapatthis are the criticism of Ramanuja of the concept of advaita of the nature of avidya. i am giving an excerpt from my writings on sribhshya where it ocurs. Avidhya, nescience, cannot be proved. As stated in Mahapurvapaksha the absolute reality, Brahman is nirvisesha and self -illumined and the world is a superimposition on Brahman due to avidhya according to the theory of advaita philosophy.This avidhya has two fold functions, namely, avaraNa, and vikshepa. The first causes nonapprehension which leads to the second, namely misapprehension. As in the case of rope-snake illusion when the ignorance conceals (AvarANa) the real object,rope, and projects (vikshepa) a different object, snake to the view,the avidhya acts as an AvaraNa to conceal brahman and produces an illusion, vikshepa, of the world of diversities. This avidhya is said to be beginningless.It is described as sadasat anirvachaneeya, cannot be termed as eithersat or asat and hence inexplicable, anirvachaneeya. This avidhya can be removed by the knowledge of certain vedic texts such as 'anrthEna hi

prathyooDaah,'(chan.8-3-2) which means that eventhough they are constantly in contact with Brahman no one understands it because they are covered with untruth. The knowledge of Brahman can also be acquired by comprehending the unity of Brahman and the individual self through the mahAvAkyas like 'thatthvamasi.' Ramanuja proceeds to prove that this theory is untenable on grounds of inapplicability, anupapathi, of seven kinds.1. Asraya anupapatthi- Brahman cannot be the substratum of avidhya .2. TirODHAna anuppatthi- tirODHAna or concealment of Brahman meansits destruction. 3. Svrupa anupapatthi- avidhya cannot be real. 4. Anirvachniya anupapatthi- avidhya is not inexplicable. 5.PramANa anupapatthi- There is no pramANa for avidhya. 6. nivarthaka anupapatthi- Sruthi texts cited as capable of removing avidhya are not so .7.nivrtthyanupapatthi- avidhya cannot be completely removedby mere knowledge. The anupapatthis are dealt with in great detail in sribhashya the bulk of which prevents me from reproducing it in full . You have to log in to my webpage titled sribhashya1 to read it in detail..I could take up the subject and try to explain it in simpler manner but for that you have to wait till I finish my project on sribhashya which is taking all my time because I had to finish it by the end of September. Saroja Ramanujam GANAPATHY RAMAN <agraman62 wrote: Dear Dr.Saroja Ramanujam, It is a great contribution on the visistadvaita philosophy of Ramanuja and it requires very great knowledge to assimilate them first and as I don't hv that much knowledge I just wish to get certain clarifications from you which I hope you will be able to clear.Since you hv confined only with one theory I also confine the requirements of the calrifications within the same parameters. 1.What are the reasons to consider the world,individual soul and Iswara as real ? 2.The examples given in the Chandogya of

mud pot,gold and jewellery,iron and knife justify that the world is real?Some of the upanishads justify the world is our illusion and how can we consider then the reality of this? 3.Can there be any explanation of dreams that are seen in sleep?Can the jivatma create the objects in the dream?What are the reasons for creation of these objects in the dreams which give us pain and pleasure? 4.What abt the identity of jivatman and Brahman and on what basis we say that Brahman has all the auspicious qualities only when everything is consideredas part of the Brahman?Are they supported by any scriptures? 5.What is the concept of salvation? Do the visishtadvaita philosophy supportany 'maha vakhyas' in the vedas?If so in what way these 'maha vakhyas' be intrepreted on the basis of body/soul relationship? 6.What are the seven inconsistencies (anupapatti) according to

visishtadvaita philosophy? Hope you will clarify the above in your own way. With warm regards, agraman. Saroja Ramanujam <sarojram18 > wrote: The Philosophy of Ramanuja 1. The world, The individual soul and Isvara, all the three are real.2. The world and the individual soul, in other words thw world consisting of the insentient(jada) and sentient(chethana) stands in relation of

sarira to its sariri(body and soul) with Isvara.3. Isvara, that is Narayana is transcendent(all pervading) and imminent(antharyaami) and hence everything is in Him and He is in everything.4.Brahman of visishtadvaita is Narayana who is not nirguna(wiyhout attributes ) but possesses infinite auspicious qualities.5. Satyam,truth, jnanam,knowledge and anantham,eternality are His attributes which are inseparable from Him, being His inherent nature,svabhaava.6.Being the Antharyaami He is the inner self of everything.7.So He is the Controller,Niyantha, Master, Seshi and support, Adhaara.8. Bhakthi is the sole means of Liberation.9. Nithya, Naimiththika Karma, the obligatory and occasional actions namely the actions according to varnasrama and rituals for special occasions like sraadhdha etc. are to be done and cannot be renounced , but should be done as offering to Narayana, without attachment and desire.10.'Thathvamasi' and other

scriptural texts that claim unity with Brahman do not imply identity.The merging with Brahman is like when the gross body and subtle body are given up and the individual is identified with the soul.11. There are ample texts substantiating this.12.Avidya/Maya is not beginningless and independent but the power of Narayana. The philosophy of visishtadvaita, expounded by Ramanuja, creates harmony between the absolute idealism of advaita and the theistic pluralism of dvaita. Advaita is based on the scriptural texts that affirm identity between jiva and

abarahman while dvaita quotes the texts that speak of plurality and difference. Ramanuja reconciles the discord between the two by means of the relational texts which he calls ghataka sruti, thus upholding the validity of the scriptural texts as a whole. In his view the texts should be interpreted in such a manner that they do not present a contradiction. His explanation bridges the gap between the abhedha and bhedha texts. Brahman of visishtadvaita is synonymous with Narayana, who is the transcendent and imminent reality. The word Narayana denotes the abode of all beings, naaraanam ayanam, and also that He is in everything,

naaraah ayanam yasya Thus He is not the mere personal God of a particular religion. V aishnavism is only apart of visishtadvaita, serving as a means of attaining the goal. The key concept of visishtadvaita is the sarira- sariri bhaava, the body-soul relationship between the universe and Brahman. There are three reals, thathvathraya, namely, Isvara, the Lord, Jiva the individual soul, and Jagath, the world of insentient beings. They are not separate entities but together they form one organic whole. This is explained by the concept of body and soul

relationship. Ramanuja defines sarira as ‘that substance that a spiritual entity can use and support entirely for his own purpose, and that, in its essence is exclusively subordinate to that entity.’ Being the sarira of the Lord, the universe of sentient and insentient beings stands in an inseparable relation with Him. This relationship, called aprthaksidhdha, is like that of a substance and its attribute, where the latter cannot exist without the former as in the example of fire and heat. Brahman is the material as well as the efficient cause of the universe. Ramnuja cites the sruti text ‘yatho va imana bhoothaani jaayanthe yena jaathaani jeevanthi yasmin abhi samvisanthi thadvijijnaasava thadbrahma’ (Taitreya up.), ‘that from which everything came from, by which everything that is born is sustained and into which everything merges back, know that to be Brahman.’ The causality of Brahman is also ascertained by the text ‘sadheva soumya idhamagra aaseeth ekameva

advitheeyam; thadhaikshatha bahusyaamprajaayeya, which says that there was sat alone in the beginning , one only without a second and it willed to become many. This according to Ramanuja confirms the body-soul relationship between Brahman and the universe. He claims that this is the real purport of the mahavakya thathvamasi and not the absolute identity as professed by advaita. Everything existed in Narayana in subtle form before creation and became manifest in gross form after creation. This concept of sarira-sariri bhava exposes visishtadvaita to the criticism that if the world is the sarira of

Brahman, that is, Narayana, the imperfections of the world will adhere to Brahman. This argument is refuted by Ramanuja , who says that just as the imperfections of the body of an individual do not affect the soul, Brahman who is the Self of all, is not contaminated by the imperfections of the universe. An objection that may arise with respect to the authority of this concept of sarira-sariri bhava is met with by means of the ghataka sruti texts like the one which says ‘He who dwells in this earth and within the earth, whom the earth does not know, whose body the earth is, who rules the earth from within, He is thy self, the ruler within and immortal.’ There are

several texts citing Brahman as the Self of everything naming the elements and the individual soul separately as the sarira of Brahman. Brahman of visishtadvaita is not nirguna, without attributes but possesses innumerable auspicious qualities, ananthakalyanagunavisishta, which are not adventitious but form His svarupa. The scriptural definition of Brahman as Sathyam, Jnanam, Anantham is explained by Ramanuja in accordance with the principle of Samanadhikaranya, coordinate predication, according to which several terms

are applicable to an entity on different grounds. For instance, in the expression shyamo yuva Devadattah, Devadatta is a dark young man, the adjectives shyama and yuva denote the same entity, Devadatta. Similaraly the epithets Sathyam, jnanam, anantham denote the same Brahman, sathyam implying absolutely unconditional existence, jnanam, non-contracted knowledge and anantham implies that Brahman is not limited by space,time and form. Jiva in visishtadvaita is real and so is Jagath. The jnana of jiva

is contracted due to karma, born of ajnana. W hen the ajnana is removed by jnana as a result of bhakthi, jiva regains its original state of liberation when its jnana becomes infinite. Bhakthi is the sole means of liberation in visishtadvaita. Bhakthi and Prapaththi are the two wings with which the jiva ascends to the realm of the Lord to become one with Him. Karmayoga and jnanayoga are the natural outcome of bhakthi and prappaththi, total surrender, as the devotee acquires the knowledge that the Lord is the inner self of whom he himself is the sarira. The devotee realizes his

own state as sesha, dependent on, adheya, being supporteby, and niyaamya, being led by the Lord, who is the Seshi, Master, Adhaara, Support and niyantha, the one who leads him. As a result the jiva leads his life as an instrument of the Lord, acquiring viveka and vairagya, offering all his thought, word, and deed to the feet of the Lord. He sees the Lord in everything and everything in Him. This is the unity in diversity achieved through devotion. The principles of the philosophy of visishtadvaita are expounded in the interpretation of the Brahmasuthra by Ramanuja. His commentary on Brahmasuthra, otherwise known as Vedanta

suthra, is his monumental work, the Sribhaashya. Ramanuja establishes the tenets of visishtadvaita firmly in Sribhaashya while refuting the views of other schools of philosophy effectively. The main tenets of visishtadvaita - 1. The meaning of the term Visishtadvaita The term philosophy is defined as the pursuit of knowledge of Reality. The knowledge of Reality is sought in order to determine the cause of everything because the self realisation requires the knowledge of what is Self and where it came from. All the Indian systems of philosophy have a common aim, namely, liberation, that is freedom from bondage of karma and realising the true Self. But the means of achieving this differs with different systems. Vedantic system of philosophy, as its name suggests, is based on the vedanta, ie. the Upanishads. In vedanta, Brahman , synonymous with Narayana of Visishtadvaita, is the absolute reality and the ultimate cause of the Universe. The non-vedantic schools are those which do not accept the above concepts outlined in the Upanishads, though theu give their own interpretations in accordance to their agamas and hence Ramanuja classes them as vedabahyas, those that are outside the pale of the vedas. These are Sankhya, Nyaya-vaiseshika, Yoga, Buddhism and Jainism classifies them Ramanuja includes Pasupatha also as they cite their own agama as their authority like the Sankhya and Yoga, apart from the Upanishads Buddhism and Jainism are termed as atheistic schools as they deny the authority of the vedas while the others accept the vedas but give their own also as vedbahyas and offers criticism of their views in Sribhashya, his commentary of Brahmasuthras. Sribhashya is based on the Bodhayanavriththi of Brahmasuthra of Badharayana , that is. Vyasa Sribhashya represents the edifice of the philosophy of Visishtadvaita on which Vedantadesika later constructed the invincible tower of dialectics. Thus Sribhashya is the work par-excellence that has stood the test of time The philosophy of Visishtadvaita existed from the time of Nathamunigal and Yamunacharya but the term Visishtadvaita was applied to it only after the time of Desika, and the philosphy advocated by Ramanuja came to be known as Visishtadvaita. It was Sudarsanasuri who first used this term in his commentary on Sribhashya and Vedarthasangraha of Ramanuja. It means that Isvara, Jiva and Jagat, the three reals, tatthvathraya,form one organic whole, 'visishtasya advaitam.' It also means 'visishtayoh advatam,' the oneness of the cause, Brahman, and the effect, the world of sentient and insentient beings,cit and acit. The philosophy of visishtadvaita is one of unity in diversity. There are two different sets of sruti texts, one set, abhedhasruti, affirming unity and the other, bhedhasruti upholding difference between Brahman and the universe of cit and acit. The former are cited by advaitin to prove the identity of jiva and Brahman while the latter are upheld as authoritative by dvaita school which claim that jiva is different from Brahman. Ramanuja avoids the two extremes and resort to the third set of vedic texts which he calls ghatakasruti which expound Brahman as the inner ruler , antharyamin of everything. Brahman , Narayana of visishtadvaita, is the Sariri , Self of sentient and insentient beings which form His Sarira. The bhedha and the abhedha texts highlight only a certain facet of reality and the advocates of these sruti texts expound their respective views based on either one of the texts eclipsing the other facets by dialectical skill

But Ramanuja is of the view that the sruti texts should be interpreted in such a manner as to reconcile the both, and this he achieves by means of the ghataka srutis.Thus the philosophy of Ramanuja can be called a synthetic approach that bridges the two extremities of advaita and dvaita. and hence it is neither dogmatic nor partial, combining intellect and emotion, unique in its harmony practical in its approach. 2. The philosophy of visishtadvaia Ramanuja asserts that the sole source of the

knowledge of Brahman being the scriptural texts, they should be interpreted so as not to be contradictory in their purport. Brahman, that is Narayana, is defined in Sribhashya as the Supreme ruler, possessing innumerable auspicious qualities, anantakalyanaguna visishta, satyakama satyasankalpa, true- willed ,sarvajna, omniscient, sarvasakthiman,omnipotent and full of mercy. Narayana that is, Brahman is the creator, protector and annihilator as per the sruti text 'yatho va imaani bhoothaani jaayanthi yena jaathaani jeevanthi yasmin abhisamvisanthi thadvijijnaasasva thadbrahma,' and contains within Himself all beings from the four-faced Brahma to the blade of

grass. He is the dispenser of the fruits of action.. Ramanuja considers both the texts describing Brahman as nirguna as well as saguna are equally valid. He says that the saguna texts mention the infinitely auspicious qualities of Isvaara while the nirguna texts negate inauspicious qualities in Him. Ramanuja claims that the auspicious qualities being the essence of Brahman there is no possibility in His being nirguna.

Brahman is described as savisesha by Ramanuja in Sribhashya which is different from thr term saguna used by sankara. Savisesha implies the relatinship between the substantive and the attribute, that is, dharmi and dharma. For instance the fire is the dharmi and the heat is the dharma which is inseparable from its dharmi, the fire, without which the svarupa of fire will not exist as such. 3.Brahman is savisesha. Brahman is defined

as 'satyam jnanam anantam' and also aanandham in Taittiria Upanishad. Ramanuja considers the word nirguna describing Brahman only to mean that Brahman is free from all finite qualities or the omperfections of the finite beings. The text 'satyam jnanam anantam brahma' defines Brahman only as visishta, satyam denoting infinite existence as the absolute reality, jnanam, the infinite knowledge or omnscience and anantam refers to the fact that Brahman is not conditioned by time, place or entity, desakalavasthu paricchinnarahitatvam. It means that Brahman is not limited by space being all encompassing, sarvavyapin, not limited by time being everlasting, anaadhyantharahitha and not limited by entity as there is nothing but Brahman everywhere. Similarly Brahman is anandham

,bliss. These are according to Ramanuja, svrupanirupaka dharma, inseparable attributes as in the example 'blue lotus.' Even though the words 'blue' and 'lotus' have different connotations taken separately, in the word 'blue lotus' they mean the same entity. Ramanuja calls this ekaarthavrththi, according to the principle of samanadhikaranya, defined by Patanjali in Mahabhashya on Panini, as 'denotationof the same object through different connotations,' This principle of samanadhikaranya along with that of sadvidya and sarira- sariri bhava form the tripod on which the philosophy of visishtadvaia stands firm. The unity of Brahman with the world is that of visishtaaikya and not svarupaaikya. The Reality is visishta in the sense of being an organic whole where the viseshana, attribute and the viseshya, the substantive exist in inseparable relation to each other. It is not svarupa aikya or absolute identitiy that is meant which necessitates the denial of the world as unreal. Ramanuja in his Sribhashya establishes Brahman as savisesha on the basis of various sruti texts. 4. Sadvidya as interpreted by Ramanuja

The text of the Chandogya Upanishad 'sadheva soumya idham agra aaseeth ekameve adhvitheeyam' and its sequel 'thatvamasi' are considered by the advatins to mean that 'sat', Barhman is the only reality and the world of diversity is not real. Ramnuja does not agree with this view and according to him the chandogya text and sadvidya envisaged in it supports only the visishtadvaita concept of Brahman He says that the text ' sadeva idham agra aaseeth, Sat alone existed in the beginning' does not negate the world as unreal because the subsequent text which says,'

thadhaikshatha bahusyaam prajaayeya, it willed to become many,' disproves this. The essence osf sadvidya is that by knowing 'sat ' , that is, Brahman, the absolute reality, everything else becomes known. 'ekavijnaanena sarvavijnaanam.' The context of the passage in Chandogya is as follows: The son, Svethakethu retuirns from his gurukula and the father Uddhaalaka Aaruni asks him whether he has learnt everything Svethakethu answers in the affirmative

and seeing him conceited at his knowledge the father asks him whether he asked his guru for that teaching by which what is unheard becomes heard, what is unthought becomes thought and what is unknown becomes known, ' yena asrutham srutham bhavathi amatham matham, avijnaatham vijnaatham.' Then the son, knowing not what is meant by the father asked him to teach that by knowing which everything becomes known, ekavijnaanena sarvavijnaanam. Uddhaalaka Aaruni explains that knowledge through three examples Just as all things made of clay are understood

by the knowledge of a single clod of clay, just as by knowing a single ingot of gold all that is made of gold would become known, just as by a single nail parer all that is made of iron would become known because all are only modifications of the causal substance, knowing that which is the cause of everything all become known. That is the teaching . Then the father starts imparting the knowledge to the son. 'Sadheva soumya idhamagra aaseeth ekameva adhvitheeyam.' There was only 'sat ' in the beginning, one only, without a second. Sat , Brahman is the cause and idham the world is the effect. By knowing the cause all the effects become known as illustrated by the examples of

mud,gold and iron. This is the content of the text.quoted, says Ramanuja.The knowledge of the one leading to the knowledge of the many proclaimed in the sadvidya section of the Upanishad means that the knowledge of 'one,' that is, kaarana Brahman leads to the knowledge of 'many',that is, the kaarya Brahman, both being real. The words 'ekameva' and 'adhvitheeyam denote that Brahman is the material and efficient cause. 5.Brahman as the cause of the world Based on the sadvidya section of the

Chandogya, Ramanuja demonstrates the unity of the cause and the effect. ' Sat alone existed' before creation in the sense that this world, differentiated into names and forms, existed as 'one' before creation, devoid of names and forms.Brahman is the material cause as it existed alone without a second. In the creation of a pot , the mud is the material cause and the potter is the efficient cause . But Brahman being omnipotent needed no external aid for creation and there was nothing except Brahman in the beginning. Therefore Brahman is both material and efficient cause of the universe. This is what is meant by 'ekameva adhvitheeyam.' The causal relationship between Brahman and the world is explained by

Ramanuja in Sribhashya based upon common experience. The Chandogya text gives illustrations of mud etc. in order to show that the effect is only a modification of the cause 'vaachaarambhanam vikaarah naamadheyam mrthikethyeva satyam' and hence the knowledge of the 'one' which is the cause leads to the knowledge of the modificatons of nama and rupa, the effects. Ramanuja makes this more explicit by another example. The childhood, youth and old age of the same individual, say, Devadatta are only different modifications in the sarira of Devadatta. Similarly the gross manifestations of the world of cit and acit are only the modifications of the sarira of Brahman, the sariri. Thus the cosmological theory of Ramanuja is based on the sarira-sariri relationship between Brahman and the universe. Thios leads to the concept of sarira-sariri bhava of

visishtadvaita. 6.sarira-sariri bhava Sarira-sariri bhava is the key concept of Visishtadvaita. The vedanta sastra is known as saarirakasastra which indicates the sarira-sariri sambhandha advocated by Visishtadvaita. Ramanuja defines sarira as a substance which a sentient soul completely supports, aadhara-aadheya bhava, and controls,

niyantha-niyaamya bhava for serving its own purpose and which is subordinate to the sentient soul, sesha--seshi bhava.. The world of cit and acit form the sarira of Brahman because they are supported, controlled and used by Brahman. The entry of Brahman into the cit and the acit in order to diversify them into name and form is supported by the sruti 'tadhaikshatha bahusyaam prajaayeya' Hence they exist in an inseparable relation with Brahman similar to the body and soul. Let me explain this. The body has no identity without the soul . So the soul is the supporter, aadhara and the body is the aadheya. Without the soul the body cannot function. Hence the soul is the controller, niyantha. The body exists for the soul and dependent on the soul not vice versa as we imagiine! The last point may not be understood in the worldly sense but in spiritual aspect the soul takes the body to exhaust its karma and as soon as the karma for that particular embodiment is exhausted it leaves that body. So the soul is the seshi and the body is the sesha. Now Brahman being the antaryamin, the real

self of all beings, everything other than Brahman form the sarira of Brahman. This concept is the pradhaanaparithanthra, the most important doctrine of Visishtadvaita. The inseparable relation, aprthaksiddhi, between the body and the soul is similar to that of substance and attribute which are inseparable. in the sense that one cannot exist without the other. So Brahman is the prakari and the world is the prakara, mode of Brahman. Hence all words that describe any sentient or insentient being has its connotation only with Brahman., their real and ultimate self. Ramanuja illusrtrates this by saying that the words cow, horse or man denote not their physical body but the sentient soul within their physical

form. Since Brahman is the real self of all beings all words connote only Brahman by saamaanaadhikaranya. The concept of aprthaksiddhi emphasises both unity and difference between Brahman and jiva. The universe of finite and imperfect beings and the Brahman , infinite, truth and knowledge, form one organic whole. The entities which exist in relation of aprthaksiddhi with each other are always cognised together as in the statement 'I am a human being.' The unity here is not absolute but visishtaaikya. Sadvidya of the Chandogya is thus interpreted in terms of the sarira- sariri bhava by Ramanuja. Sadvidya states the cause of everything to be Brahman, by knowing which everythig else becomes known and this leads to the satkaaryavada, according to which both the cause and the effect are real.. Sat, Brahman, the only existence willed to become many and created the world of cit and acit, out of itself and entered into them to be their innerself and got differentiated into the world of names and forms. Brahman the case is real its effect the world is also real because it arises from and ensouled by the

infinite. Thus the sadvidya section of the Upanishd , the prormissory statement,'ekavijnaanena sarvavijnaanam' and the illustrations of mud , gold etc. therein imply only Brahman to be the cause of the universe. Ramanuja sums up the cosmological and ontological nature of Brahman in the Sribhashya thus: the terms satyam, jnanam, anantham define the svarupa of Brahman as being distinct from everything else and the Brahman has already been shown as the cause of creation, sustenanace and annihilation by the causal statements of the sruti, yatho vaa imaani bhoothaani jaayanthe yene

jaathaani jeevanthi yasmin abhisamvisanthi thadvijinjaasava thadbrahma' Then Ramanuja proceeds to define Brahman and to show that Brahman is synonymous with Narayana 7.Lord Narayana-Brahman of Visishtadvaita. The theory of causality depends on the theory of Reality. The Reality, that is Brahaman of Visishtadvaita is Lord Narayana. Ramanuja proves this by quoting various passages such as those in Mahopanishad and Subalopanishad

which declare that Narayana alone existed in the beginning and everything is the sarira of Him, the indweller of all. Ramanuja in his Sribhashya, claims that Narayana is the Paramakaarana, the ultimate cause and says that the words 'sat', 'Brahman' and 'Aathman,' used in various contexts in the Upanishads denote Narayana only. Narayana is savisesha, not saguna, as the words satyam jnanam anantham refer to His svarupa and therefore inseparable from Him. Besides He is ananthakalyanagunavisishta, possessing innumerable auspicious qualities Ramanuja proceeds to define Brahman and examines the terms satyam,

jnanam and anantham which constitute the definition of Brahaman. The term satyam differentiates Brahman from cit and acit which are, though real , conditoned by adjuncts like time, place, entity etc while Brahman has the nirupaadhika satthaa, unconditioned existence.. In contrast to the cit and acit which change their names and forms and thus have conditioned existence, the word Satyam is used with reference to Brahman to denote that it is immutable. In Visishtadvaita there are three reals, Isvara, jiva and jagat. The world is real because it originated from Brahman and is

sustained by Brahman as its eternal self. Ramanuja calls Brahman ' satyasya satyam,' whcih means that Brahman is the reality behind all the reals. The scriptural authority for this happens to be none other than the text in Brhadhaaranyaka Upanishad which is quoted by the non-dualists to negate the world as unreal. The text goes loke this.'nethi nethi nahyethasmaath ithi nethyanyathparam asthi;atha naamadheyam satyasyasatyam ithi.' It negates everything as being non-brahman, which is the suprme truth and hence Brahman is called 'satyasya satyam.' According to Ramanuja what is negated by the declaration 'nethi netni' is not all specifications or qualities in

Brahman but only the parimithathva or limitedness of qualities. The term 'satyasya satyam' to define Brhman indicates that Brahman is the real essence of everything and does not mean that everything except Brahman is unreal. Brahman is the absolute reality, from which the world of cit and acit derives its existence and which, is the indwelling Self of everything. Brahadhaaranyaka text enumerates everything from earth to the sentient self and declares that Brahman is the athman of all.

Berahman defined as jnanam, saya Ramanuja, indicates its nature as that of unlimited and eternal knowledge. Brahman is not pureconsciousness as in advaita but only svsrupanirupakadharma like satya. Brahman is jnaasraya and jnansvarupa and this jnana is self luminous as per the texts of Upanishads 'jyothishaam jyothih, light of the lights,' and 'thameva bhaanthm anubhaathi sarvam thasya bhaasaa sarvamidham vibhaathi, only through light of Brahman everything else shines, or becomes known,'ekavijnanena sarvavijnanam.' This luminosity of Brahmanis is the infinite jnana.Brahman and jnana are inseparable like the lamp and its luminosity. While Brahman recals everythng through its jnana no other jnana is required to reveal Brahman as otherwise it becomes an object of knowledge and the omniscience would be lost. Jnana is not only the essential attribute of Brahman but also eternal for the very reason that Brahman is eternal. Jnana in Visishtadvaita is not identical with Brahman as claimed by advaita nor it is a guna of the self, as professed by Nyaya-vaiseshika, but an essential attribute inseparable from Brahman,being its svarupanirupakadharma. The term anantha is also a svarupanirupaka dharma of Brahman which diffefentiates Brahman from cit and acit . The latter are finite , desakalaparicchinna, limited by place,

time and entity but Brahman is anantha, infinite, desa kalaparicchinnarahitha. A pot for instance is desa paricchinna when we say that it is here and not there. Similarly it is kalaparicchinna since it was not here yesterday but prescent only today. Vasthu paricchinnathva , limitation by entity means being limited by the form as when we say that the pot is not the cloth. Brahman is free from all the three conditioning, being ever existent, all pervading and advithiya, without a second. 8.Nature of soul according to Visishtadvaita 1. Jiva is eternal and jnana is the dharma of jiva and also its nature. The essential nature as jnana is called the dharmibhoothajnana while the knowledge as the essential attribute of jiva is the dharamabhoothajnana. the attributive knowledge. Dharmabhoothajnana is a special concept of Visishtadvaita philosophy. It is attributive in the sense that it stands in relation of an essential attribute to its substantive , the jiva. It is always eternal and all- pervasive in Isvara and the liberated beings but in the case of jivas bound by their karma it is sankuchitha, contracted and regains its full form only

when the become free of bondage. 2.Jiva as the kartha,bhoktha and jnatha Besides having the attributive knowledge which makes jiva the jnatha,knower, jiva is also defined as having the attributes of agency, karthrthva and enjoyership bokthrthva. Ramnuja quotes the Brahmasutra 'karthaa saasthraarthavatvaath,' to show that the scriptural texts enjoin sacrifices to attain heaven or upasana to attain moksha the results of which is enjoyed by the doer. The idea

expressed in the Gita 'gunaa guneshu varthantha' only explains that the gunas pertain to the body, mind and intellect, due to which jiva is caugth in the transmigration. But eventhough jiva is the doer the actions of the jiva is controlled by Isvara, the indwelling Self. This does not mean that the jiva has no freedom of action. Isvara makes the jiva act according to the efforts made by the jiva only. The initial action is taken only by the jiva according to his own will.Isvara is the approver, gives permission to proceed, being the antharyamin. This is illustrated by Ramanuja in Sribhashya thus. A man who owns a property jointly with another seeks his permission to sell

or remodel it and the latter gives permission. But the result of the action, loss or gain belongs to the doer only while the other is the silent witness. So the real kartha is jiva only and the Lord is the permitting witness. This may perhaps raise a doubt in the mind that whether Isvara permits even the evil actions? Being the indweller and controller why does He prevent the jiva from doing wrong? This can be explained as follows. A mother is concerned about the welfare of her children equally and impartially. When a child wishes to do something through which he may come to harm the mother tries to stop him. A good child listens to her but an obstinate child refuses to obey. Then the mother lets him go and do it and

when he comes back crying, hurt through his action she attends on him. Similarly the Lord does caution us before we do somrething wrong. This is what we commonly call our conscience. All sinners will hear the voice of his conscience at the outset but a confirmed sinner ignores it and proceeds to do what his desire propells him to do due to his past karma. This is the force of the gunas. So the Lord remains a silent witness till he repents his action and comes back to Him when He takes him into his fold. This is the meaning of the statement that His retribution is for redemption. 3.Jiva is of anuparimaana The concept of the jiva as anu, atomic. is a distinctive feature of the Visishtadvaita philosophy. The authority for this is found in Svetasvathara upanishad which describes the soul being infinitely smaller than a hundredth part of hair which has been already divided into handred part The upanishad also says that the real nature of the soul is infinite.. 'vaalaagrasatabhaagasya sathadhaa kalpithasya cha bhaage jivah sa vijneyah sa chaananthyaaya kalpathe.' Elsewhere also the jiva is mentioned as all-pervasive and eternal. This seemingly incongrous statements that jiva is anu and vibhu, atomic and all pervasive is explained by Vedantadesika that the all-pervasiveness of the jiva is to be understood with reference to its spiritual nature This

is brought out by Ramanuja in his commentary on the Brahmasutra ' gnaadvaa aalokavat.' wherein he cites the examples of gem,the Sun etc and says that even though the source of light exists in one place its light encompasses all. 'yathaa manidhyumaniprabhrtheenaam ekadesavarthinaamaalokahanekadesavyapeedhrsyathe thadvath hrdhaysthasya aathmanah jnanam sakaladheham vyapya varthathe.' 4.The difference between jiva and Brahman is real. According to the Brahmasuthra 'adhikam thu brahmanirdesaath,' the difference between Brahman and the jiva is real because Brahman is something more than the jiva. Also the suthra 'amso nanaavyapadesaath----' mentions that the soul is the amsa of the Lord. The term amsa is defined by Ramanuja as that which forms an integral part of a whole entity and therefore is an essential attribute of that entity.Thus the interpretation of both unity as well as difference between jiva and Isvara is justified and hence there is no inconsistency between the bhedha and abhedha srutis.

From the causal point of view Brahman is the aadhaara, being the material cause and the jiva is the aadheya. Brahman is also the inne rcontroller , niyanthaa on account of being the indwelling self of jiva , the niyaamya. Jiva is also the sesha who subserves Isvara, the seshin. This is the essence of the sarira-sariri relationship between the two. As the amsa of Brahman jiva is inseparable from Brahman but as the prakara, the mode, it is also distinct from Brahman. 9.The nature of jagat, the world. The sarira-sariri bhava applies also to the relationship between jagat and Isvara. because the prakrthi, acit also constitutes the sarira of Brahman. The evolution of prakrthi is effected by Brahman, its material cause as affirmed by the sruti text 'sadheve soumya idham agra aaseeth ekameva advitiyam ,' the term' idham' includes cit and acit. Prakrithi is supported by Isvara, its aadhaara, controlled by Him,its niyantha, and serves His purpose, which is the salvation of jiva. Hence it is the sesha of Isvara. 10.The universal philosophy. The philosophy of Ramanuja can be called Universal as it interprets the Brahmasuthras in such a manner as to show the Saarirkasastra as the Brahmasuthra is called, as an integral whole.Universe according to Ramanuja is not bhramamaya, illusory but Brahmamaya, as there is no other reality

than Brahman, the inner self of everything. The universal or all embracing character of the Visishtadvaita philosophy arises out of the assimilation therin of all cardinal principles of all systems. Only their theory of reality and subsequently their theory of causation is opposed by Ramanuja . The sarira-sariri bhava accomodates all the commendable aspects of others since everything constitutes the sarira of Brahman. Brahmaathmakathva, Brahman as the indwelling Self of all, implies unity and harmony . The basic principles of even the heterodox schools like Buddhism and Jainism like ahimsa find a place in Visishtadvaita.Likewise the

thathvas, the evolutes of prakrthi of Sankhya,.the discipline of Yoga and dialectics of Nyaya-viseshika have a place in Visishtadvaita. Ramanuja is opposed only to the theory of causation of these schools. That is why in Sribhashya the criticism of Ramanuja of the non-vedantic schools of Philosophy is levelled against their theory of causation, based on their theory of reality. Visishtadvaita concept of Reality is based on Satkaaryavaadha according to which the one real becomes many which are also real. The

sat without a second willed to become many and hence thereis no new creation but only self-differentiation of the One without a second. Brahman with cit and acit non-differentiated in its subtle state is the cause and the same Brahman with cit and acit in manifested state oF differentiation is the effect. Thus, cit, acit and Isvara are the three reals. Isvara, Brahman and Narayana are all synonyms in Visishtadvaita and denote Brahman the Self of cit and acit which form His sarira the relation between Brahman and the world of sentient and insentient beings therefore is that of aprtaksiddhi, insepararable relation as that of body and soul. This is the Visishtadvaita philosophy in a nut shell. May god bless you, Dr. Saroja Ramanujam, M.A.,

Ph.D, Siromani in sanskrit. Everyone is raving about the all-new Mail Beta. Here's a new way to find what you're looking for - Answers Send FREE SMS to your friend's mobile from Messenger Version 8. Get it NOW May god bless you, Dr. Saroja Ramanujam, M.A., Ph.D, Siromani in sanskrit.

Stay in the know. Pulse on the new .com. Check it out.