Greatness of Bhagavad RamAnuja Darsanam (GRD 3)

[Guest guest]

Greatness of Bhagavad RamAnuja Darsanam (GRD 3)

================================================

SECTION 3: ADVAITA VIS - A - VIS OTHER SCHOOLS.

[NOTE : Attention is invited to the Note and request given while beginning

the Series.

If anything has been expressed forcefully, it is only to bring home the

point more graphically based on the authorities cited in the Introduction]

Dasoham

Anbil Ramaswamy

======================================================================

The main points of differences between Advaita and the other two

systems are summarized in this and following postings and critically

examined.

======================================================================

(A) NON- DUALITY

'DVA' means 'Two'. The negative 'A ' when prefixed means 'Not

two'. (i.e.) Only One and none else. Advaitins assert that Abheda

Srutis supercede the Bheda Srutis. They do not explain how, even

though the Bheda Srutis occur much more numerously and in much

too frequent contexts in the Vedas.

 

At the other extreme, the Dvaitins argue that as Bheda Srutis are so

preponderant, the less frequent Abheda statements have to be ignored. But,

beyond saying this, they also do not explain why.

 

It is Visishtadvaita school that reconciles both by means of normal logic

with the help of Ghataka Srutis. thus:-

 

(i) Since we accept the Vedas as authoritative, unless they specifically

point out any particular statement as the viewpoint of the opponents (Poorva

paksham), all the statements made by the Vedas should be deemed to have

equal validity. Nowhere in the Vedas have any of these statements been

described as the viewpoint of the opponents.

 

(ii) If a statement were to be made only to be refuted subsequently, by the

Vedas themselves, they would not mention it in the first place. The

Upanishads do not begin by building castles in the air only to blow out the

air later. In that case, Vedas would not have taken pains to make the

erection at all.

 

(iii) The Vedas do not say anywhere that Bheda Srutis are incorrect or that

only Abheda Srutis are correct or vice versa. Then, how to reconcile the two

apparently conflicting views?

 

The answer is provided by the Sareera- Sareeri BhAva (

Body-Soul-relationship) which forms the sheet anchor of Visishtadvaita which

aims to discern 'Unity in diversity.'

 

This can be explained as follows:

When we call a mechanism, say, a clock, every part of it -- like the hands,

the dial, the motive force that makes it work are all taken together and the

entire unit is called the Clock. Thus, though the parts of the clock are all

different, when taken together and functioning, we call it a “Clock”- . a

case of' 'Two-in-One' or 'One-in -Two'.

 

Similarly, when we refer to any living being, the reference is not only to

the physical body but also to the soul which has a dual role to play: one as

the soul with reference to the body and second, as the body with reference

to Brahman who is the soul's soul. Thus, when we call a person, say, Rama,

We mean his body + his soul (JeevAtma) + his soul's soul (ParamAtma). Thus,

though the body, the individual soul and the Universal soul in the case of

Rama are different, when taken together and living, we call the triple

entity as Rama only. Hence, it is a case of 'Three- in- One " or " One- in-

Three "

 

The word 'Atma' is derived from 'Apnoti iti Atma'. (i.e.) 'That which

controls in immanence'. The jeevAtma controls the physical body; ParamAtma

controls the JeevAtma and through him his body.

 

This Body-Soul relationship has been categorically emphasized in Taittriya

Upanishad- Anandavalli, Brihadaranyaka Upanishad -AntaryAmi BrAhmaNa,

ChAndokya Upanishad, SubalOpanishad and by such great sages like Manu,

ParAsara and others clearly.

 

(e. g) The word 'Viswarupa' means 'the Universe is His form (body.) This

concept can be employed to reconcile the apparent contradictions in the

various ' MahAvAkhyas' (Great sayings) in the Vedas on which both the

antagonists base their arguments.

 

Let us now examine the 4 great MahavAkhyas relied on by Advaitins

in the light of this:

(1) TAT TVAM ASI- That thou Art.: This means your soul's soul is Brahman.

Conversely, Brahman is your soul's soul and your soul is the body of

Brahman. Taken together, in this sense, it can be said that you are yourself

the Brahman.

 

Sri Anand Karalapakkam draws attention to Sri Uttamur Swami’s commentary and

translation on the excellent arguments on this issue by Sri NaDAdur AmmAl in

his :Tattva SAram”

 

According to Bhagavad RamAnuja, when the father says " Tath Tvam asi " ,

it means both " You belong to Him as His body and He belongs to you as your

innermost soul "

 

Prof. NarayanAchArya observes-

" Bhagavad RamAnuja says that Brahman in the " kAraNa avastha " becomes Brahman

in " kArya avastha " . That He is Brahman still in both cases. Otherwise, the

equation would not be possible " (p.61) and concludes - " This unity does not

sublate variety but only invests it with a meaning and purpose "

 

(2) AHAM BRAHMASMI- I am the Brahman- This means that my soul is JeevAtma;

JeevAtma’s soul is ParamAtma. My JeevAtma constitutes the body of ParamAtma

even as it is the soul of my physical body. In this sense, taken together,

it can be said that " I am myself the Brahman "

 

Prof. NarayanAchArya asks-

" If SvEtakEtu is Brahman in reality, how is it he does not know it? Is it

Brahman who has lost omniscience and acquired ignorance and if so, who can

restore Brahmanhood to Brahman, if this is lost to it?

(pp.53-54)

 

(3) SARVAM KHALU IDAM BRAHMA – “All things are Brahman”: This means that the

soul or Atma of all things is Brahman for whom they constitute his body by

the Body-Soul relationship. So, everything is verily Brahman; Everything has

Brahman as their soul and Brahman has everything for his body. Hence, it can

be said that “All things are Brahman.”

 

Aurobindo observes-

" The affirmation of divine life upon earth and an immortal sense in mortal

existence, can have no base unless we recognize not only the eternal spirit

as the inhabitant of this bodily mansion, the wearer of this mutable robe,

but also accept matter of which it is mode, as a fit and noble material out

of which He weaves constantly His garbs, builds recurrently the unending

series of His mansion " -

" Life Divine " Chapter II p. 7)

 

(4) EKAM ADVITEEYAM- “There are no several things; there is only one”. This

means all things have Brahman as their soul to whom they are his body. Taken

together, in this sense, all things are identified with Brahman as their

soul. Hence, there are no several things. All things belong to the Only

Brahman who is their soul.

 

Says Prof. NarayanAchArya-

" The word " Advitheeyam " is unique; it prohibits only an " equal " or

" superior " and *not* the " multiplicity " or " differentiation " of the plural

world, *latent in Him* in a subtle form. There is no one worth counting as a

second, now or in the past or in the future”.

 

As per YamunAcharya's famous clarification- " As when we say that this Chola

king is without a second, we mean only that there is no equal to him and not

take it to mean as negating the existence of the queen, the prince or his

servants. So also, " Advitheeyam " denies only an equal or superior and NOT

the subservient many-ness of His dependents " (pp.43-44)

 

(iv) If as the Advaitins say, there is only one and nothing else, How can we

establish the unity of a Non-existent individual soul with the Universal

soul mentioned in the MahavAkhyas?

 

Here is a translation of Sant TukAram as an answer to the Unitarian concept

of the Advaitins (Poem translated by John S Huyland in -

" An Indian Peasant mystic " - London, Allenson & Co.)

" I want to taste sugar; I don't want to be sugar.

 

- Can water quaff itself?

- Can trees taste of the fruit they bear?

 

He who worships God must stand distinct from Him

- so only shall he know the joyful love of God for –

- who says that he and God are one,

that joy, that love shall vanish instantly away.

Pray no more for utter oneness with God.

Where were the beauty ,

- if the jewel and the setting were one?

- The heat and the shade are two,

If not, where were the comfort of the shade?

 

- Mother and child are two,

If not, where were love?

When after long been sundered, they meet

- What joy do they feel, the mother and the child!

Where were the joy, if the two were one?

Pray then, no more for the utter oneness with God "

 

RAM PRASAD SEN, a 18c poet echoes -

" Ultimate reality would remain separate. What is the worth of salvation, if

it means absorption, the mixing of water with water; Enjoyment is in tasting

sugar, not becoming sugar "

(Note: When two waters mix, SAmyam (likeness) occurs, but neither loses its

individuality)

 

(v) If Brahman were all alone and loved its self, it would be an exercise

in a monotonous narcissism, without anything delectable about it.

====================================================================

GRD 4: SECTION 3 (B)

NIR GUNA, NIR AAKARA, NIR AVAYAVA, NIR VISESHA BRAHMAN

(Brahman who has no attributes, no parts, no qualities, no form, no name)

will follow

====================================================================

 

 

 

 

______________________________\

_____

Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com