Philosophy of Ramanuja

[Guest guest]

Chapter3- cosmology-Nature of Jagat

 

The nature of Brahman, that is Ontology has been explained so far. Now let us examine the Cosmology or the nature of the Universe and its relation to the indidual self and God.

The cosmology of Ramanuja is based on the concept of the three reals, thathvathraya, namely cit (jiva), acit (jagat) and Isvara (Narayana) and the relation ship between them.

 

Isvara is cidacit visishta and the latter exists in the relation of modes to the substance with Isvara. Cit the sentient souls and acit the insentient matter in subtle(unmanifest) state exist in Brahman before creation and in their gross( manifest ) state after creation. Thus the sookshmacidactvisishtabrahna is the cause and sthoolacidacit visishtbrahman is the effect. So the universe exists in the relation of effect and the cause with Brahman.

 

The cause of the universe being Brahman is accepted by all the schools of vedanta and by Nyayavaiseshika, or logicians. Only The school of nirisvara sankhya expounded by Isvarakrishna does not accept Isvara as the cause. The atheistic schools of Buddhism and Jainism who do not accept the Vedas as authoritative are outside the scope of discussion.

 

Now the school of sankhya which does not accept the causality of Brahman professes that the prakrthi, the primordial nature is the cause of the universe while the sentient soul, purusha is eternal. Thus there is no need of Brahman at all. The yoga school accepts Isvara but only as a purushavisesha who should be meditated upon to acquire the right knowledge that the purusha is ever free and wrongly identifies himself with the prakrthi and suffers the samsara and this knowledge secures release.

 

The school of Nyayavaiseshika deems the atoms of the four elements, earth, water, fire and air to be the cause of the universe.

 

According to the Upanishad which declares `sadheva soumya idhamagra aaseeth ekameva adhvu\itheeyam', there was only Brahman existing in the beginning ,one only without a second. So Brahman is both the material (like the mud in making a pot0 as well as the efficient cause ( like the potter) of the universe.

 

Then the text goes on to say "it willed to become many and created fire.' Of course the mention of fire is due to its being the first gross form of creation and hence the other two namely air and akasa are understood to have preceded it. From the fire originated the water and from water the earth came about. This is the order of creation mentioned and in annihilation it takes the reverse order.

 

After creatin the gross universe the Brahman decided to enter into all beings to give them name and form and to be their inner self. ` anena jeevena Atmanaa anupravisya naamaroope vyaakaravaaNi.'

 

So the universe is the effect and Brahman is the cause and the universe is real as much as when the cause is real the effect is also real. But this does not mean that Brahman is transformed into the world in which case the imperfections of the world will adhere to Brahman. It is just that Brahman being the inner self of all , the sentient and the insentient, they form the body of Brahman. As the imperfections of they do not adhere to the self , similarly those of the universe do not affect Brahman. This sarir-sariri relationship of Brahman to the world is the pivot of the realistic philosophy of ramanuja.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Sarojajee,

 

 

Hare Krishna.

 

Thanks for the write up on Chapter 3.

 

I request a clarification from you on the subject of Brahman being the cause of the universe.

 

In Bhagvad Gita, Lord Krishna says that He is the cause of all causes and it is also said in another scripture (Brahma Samhita, I think) - Isvarah Paramam Krishna, Sachidananda Vigraha, Anaadir Aadir Govinda Sarva Karana Karanam. Lord Krishna also says that Brahman is inferior to his Personal form which represents absolute truth. Brahma samhita also says that Brahman is the sat and chit put together and hence is inferior to the personal form of the Lord which is sat, chit and ananda combined.

 

Kindly clarify and clear my confusion.

 

Thanks and Regards,

Sanju

[Guest guest]

Thank you, Saroja ji for your clear thoughts.

 

Actually my confusion was that Brahman (and not Brahma) was the impersonal form (spiritual effulgence) of Krishna and one that is subservient to the personal form (absolute truth).

 

I am a spiritual neophyte and hence have lot of confusing thoughts in my mind and intend to get these cleared from senior devotees like yourself. Please forgive me for asking silly questions. I am trying to follow what is stated in the Gita that one must inquire from spiritually elevated souls in a mode of submission and high respect.

 

 

Thank you once again.

 

Sanju