Mukti in Vishistaadvaita and Madhwa Siddantha

[Guest guest]

Dear fellow students of Shastra,

 

Continuing my earlier note on Vishistaadvaita concept of Mukti.

 

In Vishistaadvaita, the enjoyment of a self in Mukti IS as perfect as that

of God.

 

There are some difficulties with this position.

 

1. The selves as they are given in experience have not the same capacity

and they cannot have the

same discipline. Their realizations cannot be therefore be the same. If

so, there is much less reason

to hold that their enjoyment is as perfect as that of God.

 

2. Supposing that it is the same as that of God there comes the difficulty

of explaining how this

perfection is obscured in the world of bondage. In solving this difficulty

one must hold either that

the world of bondage is unreal ( as in Buddhism) or Mithya ( as in

Advaita) or that each self has

perfection according to its capacity ( Yogyata ) and it is never identical

with the perfection of God ( as in Madhwa Siddantha). Vishisstaadvaita

itself does not accept the first two alternatives and it must

therefore make its position sound by accepting the last alternative which is

the position of Srimad Acharya.

 

According to Madhwa Siddantha, the perfection of each self is, to

start with, in the form of capacity ( yogyata). God, the Independent,

creates an environment for the self to give it a full expression. By making

the full use of this environment the self realises its own perfection.

This conclusion alone is consistent on the one hand with the actual

experience of a self in bondage and on the other with the nature of God, the

Independent, the Principle of perfection.

 

So, with this doctrine of Mukti, Srimad Ananda Theertha has not only given

a meaning to the life of

bondage, the actual course of discipline that a self can have and the

thought of God as the Independent

Principle of all, but has also made bondage ( bandha) and freedom ( moksha)

consistent with each

other. With this consistency, he has given a touch of Mukti to the

so-called bondage. By most of the

previous thinkers, life here is condemned as nothing but misery or evil.

Srimad Acharya points out

that it is misery or evil only in the case of those that have not understood

God as Independent and the world as dependent and have not moulded their

lives consistently with this truth. For one who has

understood this truth and made life consistent with one's understanding the

whole world is sacred

with God as the soul in it and everywhere in the world even in the meanest

and the worst of the things

God's real greatness is realized and enjoyed. With this realization and

enjoyment the whole world

becomes the abode of God instead of being the abode of evil.

 

With this truth and outlook to improve one's self is to help society,

because much is taught by practice(achaara) rather than by mere teaching

without practice. This outlook is open to all without any special

reference to a particular creed or class. With this outlook, man is not

too ambitious, he knows his limit,

tries to improve himself and the world in so far as he can, and makes

himself and the world happy.

Srimad Acharya with his philosophy of the Independent ( svatantra) as the

real source of the dependent

(paratantra) and with the emphasis on the reality and the spirituality of

life here has made life worth

living because ultimately it leads one to freedom.

 

Harihi Om Tatsat.

 

Jayakrishna

----------

----------

RJAY Consultants Inc.,

Tel: (703)430-8090 Fax: (703)904-8496

Email: jay

----------

----------

 

Srinivasan, G V <SrinivasGV

bhebbar <bhebbar; 'mani' <mani

Cc: < >

Wednesday, November 03, 1999 5:42 AM

RE: Re: In Defence of Dvaita

 

 

> " Srinivasan, G V " <SrinivasGV

>

>Dear Devotees:

>

>I for sure, and many others in this list would be interested in both the

achArya's approach of vedanta; especially the differences and similarities

between Dvaita and VisistAdvaita.

>

>Let us talk one particular subject at a time and discuss on that. I am not

knowledgeble enough to contribute, but very interested in understanding

them. So, let me take the first step and try to moderate:

>

>Topic #1: Ananda tAratamya in moksha

>

>I first reuest dvaita scholars to come forward with the dvaita's position

citing pUrvapaksha, yukthi, pramAna etc. and then I request Sri Mani to

respond to it. Sri Mani may choose to invite other SriVaishnava scholars to

contribute as well if he wishes.

>

>Please keep the posting to the subject content and nothing personal please.

>

>Looking forward to a good debate and finally some clear understanding.

>

>Thanks

>

>Hare Srinivasa

>

>GV Srinivasan

>

>>nAham kartA hariH kartA tatpUjA karmachaakhilam.h|

>taThaapi matkR^itaa pUja tatprasaadhEna naanyaThaa|

>tadbhakti tadphalam.h mahyam.h tatprasaadaat.h punaH punaH |

>karmanyaasO harAvevam.h vishNOsthR^iptikaraH sadhA ||

>

> " I am not the doer, shri Hari is the doer, all the actions that I do are

His worship. Even then, the worship I do is through His grace and not

otherwise. That devotion and the fruits of the actions that come to me are

due to His recurring grace "

>If one always practices to do actions with a dedicated spirit to Hari, in

this way, it pleases Vishnu.

> --- Quoted by Sri madhvAchArya in GitA tAtparya

[Guest guest]

To reiterate, all I wish to establish is that based on

the texts Visishtadvaitins consider authoritative (i.e.,

texts that are in common with all other schools of Vedanta),

our explanation is plausible and defensible. One has to

come up with a very complex argument to poke a hole in a

seasoned system of Vedanta such as this.

 

Jay Nelamangala writes:

> The selves as they are given in experience have not the same

> capacity and they cannot have the same discipline. Their

> realizations cannot be therefore be the same. If so, there is

> much less reason to hold that their enjoyment is as perfect as

> that of God.

 

Logical arguments are irrelevant in the face of Sruti vAkyas

when it comes to atIndriya concepts such as the nature of

moksha. I understand Dvaitins use texts which are not considered

authoritative by other schools, so at some point this kind of

argument rests purely on faith in one's tradition.

 

The reason that selves are said to be identical in essential

nature is based on many, many statements from commonly accepted

Sruti and smRti. For example:

 

Gita 14.2 says " mama sAdharmyam Agatah " --

they attain similarity of attributes with me;

 

Mundaka Upanishad says, " vidvAn puNya-pape vidhUya niranjanah

paramam sAmyam upaiti " -- the knower (of God), casting aside

all merit and demerit (i.e., karma), and becoming stainless,

attains the highest similarity.

 

Another Upanishad says " tAdRg eva bhavati " -- they become

just like Brahman.

 

The Gita says in so many places that one sees the same jIva

in so many diverse bodies.

 

Brahma Sutras say, " bhoga-mAtra-sAmyam " -- (the jIva is) equal

only in the experience of Ananda.

 

Now, I understand that Sri Ananda Tirtha has his own interpretations

of all these verses, usually citing different etymologies, etc.

I am not one to say that this is " wrong " ; but they do not seem

" svArasya " , or the most obvious interpretation *to me*. Others

are free to disagree. (This is most often why a debate on many

issues between Visistadvaita and Dvaita is fruitless. Not only

does Dvaita cite and use many, many texts which are not considered

authoritative and simply unknown to other Vedantins, the entire

approach of Dvaita is different -- they use different etymologies

compared to Visishtadvaitins, so the very meaning of words is

different. A debate often is simply not possible. It is like a

Christian debating a Muslim about the validity of the Koran --

it is a matter of belief.)

 

> Supposing that it is the same as that of God there comes the

> difficulty of explaining how this perfection is obscured in the

> world of bondage. In solving this difficulty one must hold

> either that the world of bondage is unreal ( as in Buddhism) or

> Mithya ( as in Advaita) or that each self has perfection

> according to its capacity ( Yogyata ) and it is never identical

> with the perfection of God ( as in Madhwa Siddantha).

 

It has already been explained how this perfection is obscured.

Karma obscures it (contracts jnAna) for jIvas caught in samsAra,

just as dirt clouds a gem. Isvara is eternally free from karma,

so he is eternally free. So none of your alternatives are correct.

Bondage is real, because karma is real. It is not mithya or false.

Each self is in essence completely similar to another, based on

our understanding of countless statements from Sruti and smRti,

so the experience of bliss in moksha is the same for all jIvas.

 

Now, Sri B.V. Nataraj has asked for pramANas and for the " sarvajnatva "

of the jIva in moksha. Let me cite just a couple here.

 

Svet Up 5.9 " vAlAgra-Sata-bhAgasya SatadhA kalpitasya ca; bhAgo

jIvas sa vijneyah "

 

meaning: the self (jIva) is infinitely smaller than the hundredth part

of a point of a hair divided a hundred times yet it is

infinite in range.

 

Chhandogya Up 8.26.2: sarvam ha paSyah paSyati sarvam-Apnoti sarvaSah

 

meaning: when a man rightly sees, he sees all, he wins all, completely

 

These are very clear pramANas, based on straightforward interpretations

of the text at hand.

 

Next, Sri B.V. Nataraj asks:

> The analogy of the lamp with the shade doesn't imply what you are saying

> at all. Just because we remove the shade, we can't expect a 60 watt bulb

> to shine like sun.

 

This is a good point. This is exactly why it is an *analogy*.

It is imperfect and falls apart in many ways. In the Visishtadvaita

idea of the jIva, the attributive jnAna is uncontracted and is infinite

in range in moksha. In other words, nothing occludes it. This is based on

our understanding of the texts above which clearly state that the mukta

" sees all " . Therefore, we are duty bound to abide by the verdict of Sruti.

 

Sri Nelamangala continues:

> With this consistency, he has given a touch of Mukti to the

> so-called bondage. By most of the previous thinkers, life here

> is condemned as nothing but misery or evil. Srimad Acharya

> points out that it is misery or evil only in the case of those

> that have not understood God as Independent and the world as

> dependent and have not moulded their lives consistently with

> this truth.

 

This is indeed an admirable viewpoint. However, it is very similar

to the viewpoint held earlier by Sri Ramanuja. He articulates the

very same philosophy at the conclusion of his " Vedarthasangraha " .

He says that the misidentification of the " I " with the body is

the entire cause of misery. Once someone realizes that he is

actually dependent on the Supreme, and that the " I " refers to

the pure and immutable " jIva " , one pursues ends appropriate with

that goal, viz., bhakti and kainkarya or service of God and God's,

and realizes that in samsAra itself some of God can be perceived.

 

This is also expressed in a different way by Sri Vedanta Desika who

exclaims in his " Varadaraja Panchasat " , " vaikuNTha-vAse'pi na

me'bhilAsaH " -- " I can enjoy and serve Lord Varadaraja of Kanchipuram

here itself, and if this can continue, I have no desire for Vaikuntha

itself... "

 

So there is no need to attribute this idea exclusively to

Sri Ananda Tirtha, though he is to be praised and lauded for

continuing in this line.

 

Mani

[Guest guest]

Please pardon me again, I left out an important line in

the sanskrit original of the following:

 

Svet Up 5.9 " vAlAgra-Sata-bhAgasya SatadhA kalpitasya ca; bhAgo

jIvas sa vijneyah "

 

meaning: the self (jIva) is infinitely smaller than the hundredth part

of a point of a hair divided a hundred times yet it is

infinite in range.

 

At the end of the vAkya is also " sa ca AnanthyAya kalpate " .

 

Mani

[Guest guest]

--- Mani Varadarajan <mani wrote:

 

[snip]

 

>

> Next, Sri B.V. Nataraj asks:

> > The analogy of the lamp with the shade doesn't imply what you are saying

> > at all. Just because we remove the shade, we can't expect a 60 watt bulb

> > to shine like sun.

>

> This is a good point. This is exactly why it is an *analogy*.

> It is imperfect and falls apart in many ways. In the Visishtadvaita

> idea of the jIva, the attributive jnAna is uncontracted and is infinite

> in range in moksha. In other words, nothing occludes it. This is based on

> our understanding of the texts above which clearly state that the mukta

> " sees all " . Therefore, we are duty bound to abide by the verdict of Sruti.

 

Let us accept, for a moment, that jIva indeed has infinite gnana (equal to that

of the

Lord)in mukti. If the jIva were to have that kind of infinite gnana, he should

be able to

have the creative power of the Lord too. You can't say NO because, if the jIva

has

infinite gnana, he should be able to figure out, using his infinite gnana, how

to acquire

the creative power that is reserved exclusively for the Lord.

 

Regards

-Nataraj

 

[snip]

>

> Mani

 

 

=====

[Guest guest]

Mani Varadarajan wrote:

 

> The reason that selves are said to be identical in essential

> nature is based on many, many statements from commonly accepted

> Sruti and smRti. For example:

>

> Gita 14.2 says " mama sAdharmyam Agatah " --

> they attain similarity of attributes with me;

 

No one takes this statement literally, not even Vishistaadvaitans.

In your tradition, the creatorship is denied to jIva due to explicit

sUtra, but there are many more, for example mukta jIva does not

become the husband of Lakshmi, he does not have any control

over other muktas (since they are all equal), he does not have

the power to grant mutki to non-muktas, and so on. So the

Vishistaadvaitans can say we take " mama sAdharmyam Agatah "

to mean that mukta jIva becomes 95% similar to Ishvara while

you Dvaitans only take it to mean that muktas attain a few of the

attributes (like total lack of suffering, uninterrupted bliss according

to one's yogyataa), etc.

 

In other words, it is misleading to say that:

 

" The reason that selves are said to be identical in essential

nature is based on many, many statements from commonly accepted

Sruti and smRti "

 

> Now, I understand that Sri Ananda Tirtha has his own interpretations

> of all these verses, usually citing different etymologies, etc.

> I am not one to say that this is " wrong " ; but they do not seem

> " svArasya " , or the most obvious interpretation *to me*. Others

> are free to disagree.

 

Using you own argument, since we are not very well learned in

vyAkaraNa, niruktam, etc., it is not fair to say that such and such is the

" most obvious interpretation " .

 

Another thing to keep in mind is that Dvaitans put a lot of emphasis

on samanvaya. So the " most obvious interpretation " is rejected if

it is in conflict with another pramANa. This results in some of the

differences in interpretation between Dvaitans and the rest. This is

true even when we are talking exclusively about the commonly

accepted " authoritative texts " . For example, in Gita, Lord krishNa says

 

yaM prApya na nivartante taddhAma paramaM mama |

 

and also

 

dvAvimau purushhau loke xarashchAxara eva cha |

xaraH sarvANi bhUtAni kUTastho.axara uchyate ||

 

uttamaH purushhastvanyaH paramAtmetyudhAhR^itaH |

yo lokatrayamvishya bibhartyavyaya IshvaraH ||

 

both these are in clear conflict with the " most obvious interpretation "

of " mama sAdharmyam Agatah " , so a different interpretation is

adopted for it as opposed to just hand-waving around these

objections.

 

Mani Varadarajan wrote:

> RE: The jIva as as sarvajna, an infinite knower in moksha

 

> Once again, I have stated that atIndriya entities have to be

> known only from Sruti pramANas. That is primary.

 

There is more to it than that. Sruti/smriti is not so clearly demarked

as Section 1-8 deals with " atIndriya entities " and 9-15 deal with

" indriya entities " . Most of the times, the two are mixed and often

times common analogies are used to describe atIndriya entities.

Therefore it is imperative to use the pratyaksha jnAna, logic, common

sense etc. even when looking at the description of atIndriya entities

in shAstras.

 

This is where one has to look at the grand statement of Srimad Acharya,

`na cha anubhavavirodhe Agamasya prAmANyam.h'

 

regards,

Manish

[Guest guest]

Dear Mani,

 

 

>> Supposing that it is the same as that of God there comes the

>> difficulty of explaining how this perfection is obscured in the

>> world of bondage. In solving this difficulty one must hold

>> either that the world of bondage is unreal ( as in Buddhism) or

>> Mithya ( as in Advaita) or that each self has perfection

>> according to its capacity ( Yogyata ) and it is never identical

>> with the perfection of God ( as in Madhwa Siddantha).

>

>It has already been explained how this perfection is obscured.

>Karma obscures it (contracts jnAna) for jIvas caught in samsAra,

>just as dirt clouds a gem. Isvara is eternally free from karma,

>so he is eternally free. So none of your alternatives are correct.

>Bondage is real, because karma is real. It is not mithya or false.

>Each self is in essence completely similar to another, based on

>our understanding of countless statements from Sruti and smRti,

>so the experience of bliss in moksha is the same for all jIvas.

 

Dear Mani,

 

If you say perfection is obscured by Karma in the world of bondage, then what

you are accepting

is that each self has perfection according to its capacity to do Karma ( which

is really the third

alternative as applied to Karma ).

 

To further examine this position let us go to the originials,

 

Remember, the argument is not really between me and you to see who is right or

wrong. The arguments are for and against a position in shastra, and

yathartha comes in only ONE variety and ayathartha always comes in many

different colors and flavours. As students of shastra we are all trying to

get this ONE Yathartha Jnana regarding the point under discussion. So here

we go,

 

Ramanujaacharya in Sri-Bhahsya on Jignaasaadhikarana

says,

" tasmadanaadi-karma-pravaaha-roopajnaana-mulatvaat bandhasya tannibarhanam

ukta-lakshana-jnanaadeva " which translates into

" Therefore as bondage is caused by nescience which is no other than the flow of

beginningless

karma, its removal is only from the knowledge in the sense in which it is

already defined "

 

 

and Vedaanta Deshika in Sruta-Prakaashika a commentary on Ramanuja's SriBhashya

brings out the gist of the

passage in interpreting the first word Tasmat as,

" Evam brahma-vyatirikta-krtsna-mithyaatva-niraakaranena bandhasya

satyatva-siddeh tannivrittih

karma-saapekshopaasanaatmaka jnaanaadeveti karma-vichara-poorva-vrttatvam

yuktamityaaha tasamaaditi "

which translates into

" Thus as the theory, " All that is other than Brahman is mithya " is refuted,

and for this reason it is established

that bondage is real and as for this reason the removal of bondage is effected

only by the knowledge which is the

same as meditation which presupposes karma, (Ramanuja) says that it is

reasonable to hold that enquiry into

karma must be presupposed ( by enquiry into Brahman) as : Therefore etc. "

 

With reference to these passages we may note the following. Knowledge is

supposed by Shankara also to give Moksha

and the importance of Brahman is not recognised. Ramanuja's position makes

knowledge dependent on karma,

and Brahma-Jignaasaa dependent on Karma-Jignaasaa. The place of adhikaara in

the scheme of knowledge

is thus entirely ignored in these philosophies.

 

In this connection another Sruta-Prakaashika passage may be cited here:

 

" athaatassabdaartham nigamayati ( iti karma-vichaaranantaramiti)

brahma-vicharah kartavya ityanena brahma-sabdaarthah

uktah "

" ( Ramanuja) concludes the meaning of Atha and atah as by saying ' thus after

the enquiry into karma' enquiry into Brahman ought to be had the meaning of

Brahma-jignaasaa has been stated "

 

and Ramanuja himself has simply concluded his Bhashya on Jignaasaa as:

 

" Atah kevalaanam karmanaam alpaathira-phalatvaat brahma-jnanasya

anantha-sthira-palatvaat

tannirnaya-phala-brahma-vicharambhah yuktah iti sthitam "

" Therefore for the reason that the result of bare karmas is negligible and

transient and the result of the knowledge

of Brahman is unlimited and enduring, the commencement of enquiry into Brahman

which results in

deciding it ( knowledge) is justified. This is the position established " .

 

In following this Bhashya with a critical eye one fails to understand how

Ramanujacharya could have

missed to study (1) the unmodified importance of Brahman against the knowledge

of Brahman

(2) the possibility of explaining knowledge without making it depend on karma

(3) the difference between the view that knowledge is the result of Vichaara

and that knowledge is

no other than vichaara

(4) the fact of fixing the attention on the concept of Brahman as the real

problem in Shastra.

 

After studying Madhwa, one is bound to see that in the case of Ramanujaacharya

it is the failure

of recognising the indispensibility of adhikara, that is responsible for his

assumptions as well as

serious omissions. Adhikara is the language of no pre-possession. It is the

expression of the

preparedness of mind to receive the teaching of Shruti that results from the

application of SutraNyaya to

Shruti. With vairaagya mind is governed by no wrong theory and with

vishnu-bhakti mind with full

freedom is directed towards apprehending the highest Truth, i.e., Vishnu.

These two are the

contents of Adhikara. But Saadhana-Sampat as upheld by Shankara and Ramanuja

is the language

of predisposition of mind. With this Saadhana the person even before Jignaasaa

is supposed to

have the ideas of Nitya, Anitya, their distinction and so on. This

predisposition governs the thought

of individual thinker who upholds these ideas. With this predisposition

justice to Brahma-Mimamsa

can never be done.

 

 

Harihi Om Tatsat

 

- Jayakrishna

-

-------

RJAY Consultants Inc.,

Tel: (703)430-8090 Fax: (703)904-8496

Email: jay

-

-------

[Guest guest]

----------

Mani Varadarajan [sMTP:mani]

Thursday, November 04, 1999 4:16 PM

Jay Nelamangala

Cc:

Re: Mukti in Vishistaadvaita and Madhwa

Siddantha

 

Mani Varadarajan <mani

 

" The reason that selves are said to be identical in essential

nature is based on many, many statements from commonly accepted

Sruti and smRti. For example:

 

Gita 14.2 says " mama sAdharmyam Agatah " --

they attain similarity of attributes with me;

 

Mundaka Upanishad says, " vidvAn puNya-pape vidhUya niranjanah

paramam sAmyam upaiti " -- the knower (of God), casting aside

all merit and demerit (i.e., karma), and becoming stainless,

attains the highest similarity.

 

Another Upanishad says " tAdRg eva bhavati " -- they become

just like Brahman.

 

The Gita says in so many places that one sees the same jIva

in so many diverse bodies.

 

Brahma Sutras say, " bhoga-mAtra-sAmyam " -- (the jIva is) equal

only in the experience of Ananda. "

 

 

Other than the last prmAna (Brahma Sutra), all the above citations refer to

similarity only. Now, similarity is not equal to. jIvas may have the bliss

similar in nature to Narayana and not necessarily equal to what Narayana has

(pUrnam idam pUrnam adam ....both the pots are full and complete with water, but

differ in quantity, ie., capacity is different). I don't know how Madhwa

interprets the Sutra that was cited.

 

Hare' Srinivasa

 

GV Srinivasan