The concept of Svatantra and Visishtadvaitha

[Guest guest]

In continuation of my previous email, to give the context proper, I have

repeated a paragragh from there.

 

The Upanishats trace the world of manifold aspects to a single principle and

call this principle Brahman. So this principle must be conceived in such a

manner as to explain the manifold. In explaining it in this manner, no foreign

element should be introduced into It, for, to introduce such elements into

Brahman is implicitly deny to that extent the self-sufficient nature

svatantratva) of the principle.

 

Both Advaita and Vishishtaadvaita have introduced foreign elements into the

principle. ( More on this in my next email).

 

Advaita holds that Brahman is ONE only and is devoid of all distinctions

external and internal. Vishistaadvaita takes up the

diametrically opposite view that Brahman necessarily consists of distinctions.

Let us study the Vishistaadvaita position and its consequences here, and defer

the discussion on Advaita position for now.

 

According to Vishistaadviata in what is called Brahman there are diverse

elements.

1. The substantive aspect characterized by being (satyatva), the state of

being knowledge ( jnanatva) and the state

of being bliss ( aanandatva) and

 

2. the attributive aspects (i) dharmabhutajnana as the principle of all

divine qualities such as knowledge, power, strength and so on (ii) the things

called non-substance ( adravya) as power (shakti) and relation ( samyoga) to

other substances like time (kaala).

 

In addition to them a mode ( prakaaara) of Brahman is called (archaavataara)

and it is said to be the form of God which is worshipped in particular temples.

When God is in this form He is considered to take some material thing as His

body.

 

What is to be noted here is that God along with the body is taken to be a form

of God and the name Iswara is applied to it.

 

No doubt the substantive element of the several aspects of Brahman is taken to

be the immanent principle of all and therefore It is the principle of the other

elements also. But having seen both the ideas one naturally feels that if the

real significance of the position that the substantive ( prakaari) element of

Brahman is the principle of the other elements is rightly recognised, then

there can be no reason why so many distinct elements should be introduced into

It. After introducing these elements into It, what follows naturally is that

Brahman stands for the aggregation of these diverse elements.

 

Further, if we concentrate only on substantive element and call It Brahman,

then according to Ramaanujaacharya we have removed from Brahman many divine

qualities Power, Its relation to world, knowledge and so on. If these

qualities are attributed to the substantive element itself, then there can be

no justification for introducing the foreign elements into It. Further, even

this substantive element is not left undisturbed. For Brahman with Cit and

Achit in subtle form is taken to be the material cause (upaadana) of the world,

and by material cause is meant that which changes into product. So according

to this idea, Brahman is taken to be capable of change. But immediately the

difficulty of attributing change to Brahman is perceived, because a Sruti says

that Brahman is changeless (Nirvikaara), and to remove this difficulty it is

held that Brahman as the substantive aspect has no change. So one is finally

left in bewilderment amidst these contradictory ideas.

 

So, even as Ramaanujaacharya himself admits, the Upanishadic Brahman is

changeless. If this truth is really admitted, then according to him Brahman

ceases to be self-sufficient since many divine qualities are thereby removed

from It, and he takes those qualities to be necessary to explain the world.

This contradiction seems to be due to his enthusiasm to assert against

Shankaraacharya that Brahman is NOT nirvishesha.

 

Owing to these contradictions, Madhwacharya rejects Ramaaanujaacharya's

position and notes in one sentense - " It is Brahman, for me, that is

changeless " and thereby implies that Brahman is the very presupposition of all

changes and that the changing elements are really foreign to It.

 

As mentioned in the previous email, the Upanishads trace the world of manifold

aspects to a single principle and call this principle Brahman.

So this principle must be conceived in such a manner as to explain the

manifold.

 

In Advaita on the other hand, Brahman is strictly one Being,

devoid of all distinctions. But the Brahman thus conceived should also explain

the world of manifold. Though the oneness of the principle is fully

recognised, there are some implications in Advaita position that can not be

justified from the standpoint that it is after all the principle of the world.

The propertylessness ( nirvisheshatva) of Brahman and the unreality

mithyathva) of the world are the implications of Sankaraacharya's position.

With these, Brahman ceases to be the principle of the world. To be the

principle, in the real sense of the term, it must be sufficiently rich to

explain the world, and if it is the real explanation of the world, then it

cannot presuppose the unreality of the world, in fact it must make the reality

of the world more significant. Thus, while Advaita's insistence on the

oneness of the principle is correct, but the implications drawn from that

principle are wrong. So, these implications must be avoided and the

principle must be interpreted so as to make it explain the thing of which it is

the Princple. This is exactly what Madhwacharya

does in interpreting the principle.

 

He considers that the principle is infinitely rich ( gunapoorna) and he does

not make any distinction between the principle and its richness.

Richness and principle are according to Madhwa, identical and the distinction

in their expression is only due to the peculiarity of the conceptions. This is

exactly the truth we have to understand in his

doctine of Vishesha, according to which, Vishesha is the peculiarity that

makes particular conceptions appear to be different though they are identical.

 

Keshava Rao's and Balaji Hebbar's emails have dealt with concept of Vishesha

very well, so there is no need to duplicate them here.

 

Harihi Om Tatsat,

 

Jayakrishna Nelamangala

 

-

-------

RJAY Consultants Inc.,

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

Email: jay

-

-------