V'advaita reply

[Guest guest]

Dear VishwamAdhvas:

 

I would like to introduce my good friend Mr. Krishna Prasad

Kalale, a staunch RAmAnujite and well-versed in his school of

thought. I know him for the past 16 years personally and

though we both differ in our allegiences and ideologies, he is

one of the most wonderful and decent human beings I have ever

known. He will be posting replies to my criticisms on

VishiShTAdvaita on the VMS list.

 

Below is his reply to my latest posting, i.e. issue#3.

 

regards,

Hayavadana-PavamAna smaraNa

B.N.Hebbar

 

 

SHRII K.P.KALALE'S REBUTTAL:

 

I think the dravya definitions are very clear in visistadvaita. Let me

clarify that issue. These issues are not as puzzling as you have

indicated.

 

 

tattvas, fall under two categories, dravya (substance) and adravya(

non-substance). dravya is that which serves as the substratum for

modifications (avasthavat). What is other than dravya is adravya. It is

defined as that which cannot be substratum of anything else (anupadana)

but

is necessarily dependent upon dravya. On the basis of this definition,

there are six dravyas : prakrti, kala, isvara, jiva, jnana, nitya

vibhuti

(spiritual matter). dravya are two kinds jada (material) and ajada (non

material)

 

prakrti and kala are jada dravyas (material)

 

jiva, jnana, isvara, nityavibhuti are spiritual substances (ajada

dravyas).

 

jiva and isvara are pratyak (ie. self revealed) ie. they can know

themselves by themselves without any other entity

 

jnana and nitya vibhuti are parak ( are revealed to other conscious

entities ie. jivas and iswara).

 

adravyas are further classified to 10. they are satva rajas, tamas,

sabda,

sparsa, rupa rasa gandha, samavaya, sakti etc. I will not go over these

for now.

 

jnana is an attribute of jiva. this jnana is same as dharmabuta jnana

(dbj) or attributive knowledge. this is distinct from jiva the knowing

subject which is also of the nature of jnana (jnana svarupa). dbj is

understood as that which reveals an object (artha prakasah). dbj

reveals

objects whereas a material object cannot do so. hence dbj is a spiritual

substance. knowledge reveals an object to the knower (self). self knows

what is revealed to it by knowledge, whereas knowledge only shows but

does

not know it. jiva is a pratyak principle; ie. it knows but does not

reveal

objects other than itself. this is same as svasmai bhasamanatva. it

knows

itself without need of anything. that which only reveals to self and

does

not know what it reveals is the parak principle or parasmai

bhasamanatva.

dbj is parak. dbj is like luminosity of a bulb, ie. it only shows. jiva

or

self cannot reveal objects but knows what is revealed by dbj to it. dbj

is

an essential attribute of jiva. dharmi jnana is same as jiva ie. it is

the

very essence of jiva.

 

There is a logical justification for maintaining dharma butha jnana as

distinct from svarupa jnana. jiva is eternal and immutable and cannot

undergo any modification. whereas, knowledge (dbj) is subject to

constant

modification, as is warranted by our experience. knowledge manifests

itself

when it comes into contact with objects through mind and sense organs

and

it ceases to function whenever it is not incontact with any object. If

svarupa jnana alone is accepted, then the modifications that take place

in

respect of knowledge will have to be credited to the jivasvarupa and

this

would contradict srutis which hold jiva as immutable or (nirvikari).

Upanisads do talk about jiva as boddha - in prasna - esa hi drasta, ...

boddha..... Further, valagra sata bhagasya satada kalpitasya cha jivo

bhagassa vijneyah sa cha anantyaya kalpate - indicates that

infinitesimal

jiva becomes all pervading (ananthya) ie. since the svarupa is

immutable,

the dbj becomes infinite in moksa.

 

dbj and jiva svarupa are attribute and substance which are distinct and

inseparable. dbj itself is a dravya, since it has phases or avastas

(phases of knowledge ie. expansion and contraction based on satva rajo

tamo

gunas of individuals or when object knowledge shrinks or expands). dbj

is

an inseparable attribute of jiva and also is distinct from jiva. there

is

nothing wrong in such an explanation. In the case of red rose, redness

is

attribute and rose is the substratum. redness, which is an attribute of

rose, does not exist by iteself but only in relation to the substance

(rose). However, here redness does not have avastha or phases hence it

is

only an attribute and not a substance. In the case of dbj, it is an

attribute as well as a separate substance since it has phases or

avastas.

dbj is an attribute since it cannot be found by itself and is found only

in

relation to the jivasvarupa which possesses it. Even here the substance

attribute is well defined. substance attribute relationship is very

fundamental to visistadvaita; Hence it is clearly defined.

 

Even isvara is a dravya since iswara has phases, ie. association with

unmanifest universe in state of pralaya and association with this

manifest

prakrti ie. manifest universe.

 

dbj as a spiritual substance is well explained. In fact is is

intuitively

a neat concept that can explain knowledge accumulation and process of

knowing of a soul clearly. It is not in a no man's land.

 

Further, no other system can explain the nirvikaratva of jiva and

attainment of knowledge of jiva, without the help of dharmabuta jnana or

a

substitute to it. This is a distinct feature of Visistadvaita.

 

 

 

 

In the Dvaita

case, the primary division of Reality into Independent

(svatantra) and dependent (paratantra) is the never confused.

God ALONE & FOREVER is Independent and the rest is FOREVER

dependent on Him. This is true Theism. AcArya Madhva has

carefully examined all the schemes of Reality (including that

of AcArya RAmAnuja) and has rejected them as being

unsatisfactory. Therefore, AcArya Madhva's philosophy is the

best.

[Krishna Kalale]

 

I really like to know (by quotes from Sri Madhvacharya's works to know

that

visistadvaita was taken as a purva paksha. I am just asking this

because I

do not know if such a purvapaksa was taken at all in Sri Madhvacharya's

works, like taking advaita as purvapaksa.

 

K.P.Kalale