Greatness of Bhagavad RamAnuja Darsanam (GRD 4)

[Guest guest]

Greatness of Bhagavad RamAnuja Darsanam (GRD 4)

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

[Please read the note and request given while introducing the subject. if

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

more graphically and is not meant to hurt anyone's feelings.]

Dasoham

Anbil Ramaswamy

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

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)

 

The Advaitins hold that there is only one Brahman that was real- the

Parabrahmam without qualities, without attributes, without form, without

name, without any thing to denote it. All others simply did not exist

(including the " Apara Brahman " or " Saguna Brahman " ).

 

In other words, the Nirguna Brahman is the nondescript ParamAtman - which is

'Bare existence' (SanmAtra). The " Saguna Brahman " which they identified with

Sri Narayana was only a stepping stone to facilitate the realization of the

" Nirguna Brahman " .

 

Thus, the " Nirguna Brahman " is the seat of 'Avidya' or 'AjnAna' ( i.e.)

Nescience or Ignorance- a negation of all the positive qualities attributed

to the " Saguna Brahman "

 

( i) The Advaitins draw inspiration from the Vedic statement 'Neti, Neti'

which literally means 'Not this, Not this' to conclude that ParamAtma is

indescribable. True, ParamAtma is indeed indescribable in the sense that He

defies description.

 

" The words 'Neti, Neti' only means that you cannot limit his infinite

qualities as 'this or this' either in its nature, quality, time or place or

otherwise quantify them. Any auspicious epithets employed suits it, but

falls far short of the actual qualities and this is dramatically portrayed

in the expression 'Neti, Neti'. Otherwise, the resulting nihilism would only

be a logical incongruity. " (Sri R. Kesava Iyengar)

 

Prof. Narayanachariar clarifies:

" Brahma Sutra III-2-11to 29 comprising the " Ubhayalinga Adhikarana and

AhikuNDala AdhikaraNa treat this topic in one continuous stretch. Sutra

III-2-11 is a grand preamble to the entire Upanishad. It says " SthAnatOspi

parasya ubhayalinga Sarvatra Hi. " Here " SthAna " means position of God

ensouling Jeevas, " Sarvatra " means everywhere and " Hi " means " This is well

known, indeed " . and confirms clearly that -

(i) God possesses all the auspicious qualities . Sarva KAma, Sarva Gandha,

Sarva Rasa, Sarva jna- fulfills all desires, all fragrances, all tastes,

omniscient etc. and that

(ii) God is free from all forms of imperfections- Niranjanah, Nishakalam,

Niravadhyam etc. - free from all taints, free from all black marks, free

from all evils, free from all imperfections etc.Since both aspects are

mentioned by Sruti only, a reconciliation of them is truly binding on anyone

who holds Sruti in respect " .

 

Thibaut observes-

" None of the Sutra decidedly favors the interpretation proposed by

Shankara " ... " I decidedly prefer, for instance, RamAnuja 's interpretation

of Sutra 22 as far as the sense of the entire Sutra is concerned and more

especially with regard to the term " prakriyAtattvam " whose proper form is

brought out by RamAnuja's explanation only " (p.xcvi of his translation of

Sankara Bashya-Vol.1 in the series " Sacred Books of the East " Volume 34)

 

When the Upanishads say that he is without qualities, it only means that he

is without any bad qualities. This has to be viewed in the light of other

Vedic statements which confirm that the ParamAtma is the Lord, the

protector.

 

*If he has no qualities, what would he lord over and whom would he protect?*

 

(ii) The Advaitins claim that the " Nirguna Brahman " is a mere witness to

nescience during the continuance of samsAra. It is self-defeating to say

that Nirguna Brahmam has no 'consciousness attribute' and to hold in the

same breath that it is a 'witness'.

 

*When it has no consciousness at all (in other words, it is unconscious)

how can it 'witness' anything at all and worse still, when there is

objectively 'nothing real' to witness*

 

(iii ) Also, all negatives are the opposites of positives and should have

the characteristics of these opposites which are themselves positives.

Otherwise, there can be no negatives at all.

 

*So, the concept of " Nirguna brahman " itself is Self-contradictory.

The illumination of a 'Negative bare being' is a mere euphemism for blurred

vision*

(Sri R. Kesava Iyengar)

 

(iv) The Upanishads lay down Bhakti (Devotion). This implies two entities

that are real the lower one that offers devotion and the other, a higher one

to which the devotion is directed.

 

*Why would the scriptures prescribe Bhakti at all if there is only one real

and the others are unreal and how can it expect a ‘nonentity’ to take to

devotion as enjoined by the Saastras?*

 

(v) The Vedas describe in elaborate detail the process of Pancheekaranam

while describing the creation of the worlds.

 

*When the " Nirguna Brahman " has no qualities creative or otherwise, no

attributes, nothing to claim to be causative of anything, - how can it

create the worlds as described in the Vedas?*

 

(vi) The Vedas declare Brahman as 'exalted and exalting'. How can a

Nirvisesha Brahman be exalted since exaltation implies two entities of one

that is exalted and the other being much lower than the exalted one (and

perhaps requiring to be exalted).

 

*When nothing else is there, where is the question of its being exalted and

whom or what can it exalt? It is like asking one to stand in a line when one

is alone and none else is there to stand next *

 

As Troy Wilson ORGAN (p.28 in Hinduism - Its historical Development-

Barron's Educational Series Inc. N. Y 1970-74 ) points out :

 

* " Every relationship have at least two relata, two things that partake of

the relationship. If there are no two relata, there cannot be a relation " *

 

Having propounded the Nirvisesha Brahman which practically could thus do

nothing, they had to resort to what is called a 'Saguna Brahman' to create,

sustain, and destroy the world when due, having a divine body with the

capacity to take 'AvatArs'.

 

And, not willing to accept the supreme position of the " Saguna Brahman " they

had to qualify the " Saguna Brahman " as subservient to their favorite

" Nirguna Brahman " which alone they maintained was 'real'.

 

The only real thing was the creation of TWO (Dvaita) in Brahman Himself,

demolishing in the process the ONE (Advaita) Brahman they sought to

establish, for negating the existence of two entities of Paramatma and

JeevAtma!*

 

Nowhere does Sruti hold two kinds of Brahman, like " Suddha Brahman " (the

terminology is foreign to Upanishads) and an " Asuddha Brahman " In this

context, we are left to guess which one of the two viz. " Saguna " or

" Nirguna " is the " Suddham " , the other being " Asuddham " !

 

" NIRAKARA " and " NIRAVAYAVA " BRAHMAN

Prof. NarayanAchArya:

" In Sri Bashyam 2-1-14, Bhagavad RamAnuja clearly explains how the SutrakAra

holds that God *does* have a body, but that is very much unlike the soul's

possessing one due to its earning of ‘karma’ - sin and merit. For that

matter, it is not the very idea of possessing a body that drives even the

Jeeva to happiness or misery as a rule. Only if such body is the result of

sin and merit it becomes a potential source of joy or misery. Otherwise,

bodies taken of will, as in the state of emancipation, are all instruments

of permanent bliss only as Sruti states: He possesses a single body, nay,

three or multiple ones (sa ekadhA bhavathi, tridhA bhavathi- cha Chand.up.

VII-26) "

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

GRD 5: SECTION3© THE CONCEPT OF MAYA OR ILLUSION will follow.

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

 

 

______________________________\

_____

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