Ramanuja's Vedarthasangraha

[Guest guest]

Sri Ramanuja wrote nine works [1] in Sanskrit on the philosophy of

Visishtadvaita. Of these, the Vedartha-sangraha occupies a unique

place inasmuch as this work takes the place of a commentary on the

Upanishads, though not in a conventional sense or form. The work

mirrors a total vision of the Upanishads, discussing all the

controversial texts in a relevent, coherent manner. It is in fact an

independent exposition of the philosophy of the Upanishads. Prof. M.

Hiriyanna describes it as " an independent treatise explaining in a

masterly way his philosophic position, and pointing out the basis

for it in the Upanishads " [2]. Sudarsana Suri, the celebrated

commentator on the Sri-bhashya and the Vedartha-sangraha, says that

the work was expounded in the form of a lecture before Lord

Srinivasa at Tirumalai [3]. Thus it is his testament at the feet of

the Lord whom he served throughout his life. Sri Ramanuja refers to

this work more than once in his Sri-bhashya.

 

The Vedartha-sangraha is written in a lucid, vigorous prose without

the usual divisions of chapters, but the structure of the thesis is

developed in a scientific manner. Sri Ramanuja refers in this work

to ancient teachers of theistic tradition, Bodhayana, Tanka,

Dramida, Guhadeva, Kapardin and Bharuci, besides his own teacher,

Sri Yamunacharya [4]. Tanka and Dramida are quoted profusely to

support his interpretation. He takes abundant help from the Brahma-

Sutras, the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, the Vishnu Purana, the Manu

Smrti and other genuine smrtis in the exposition of his philosophy.

 

At the outset Sri Ramanuja states that the Upanishads, which lay

down the welfare of the whole world, move around three fundamental

notions:

 

A seeker must acquire a true knowledge of the individual self and

the Supreme;

he must devote himself to meditation, worship and the adoration of

the Supreme;

this knowledge with discipline leads him to the realization of the

Supreme.

To put it briefly, the first affirms the tattva or the nature of the

Reality, the second declares the hita or the means, and the third

states the purushartha or the ideal of human endeavour.

A chief difficulty in understanding the meaning of the Upanishads

arises in determining the relation of Brahman to the individual self

on the one hand, and to the non-sentient world on the other. There

are some texts which declare that the world is only an appearance in

the ultimate analysis. There are other texts which affirm that the

world is not an appearance, but real and distinct.

 

Bhartrprapanca, who was anterior to Sri Sankara, held that the self

and the universe are identical with and different from Brahman, the

triad constituting a unity in variety. That is to say that the

reality is at once one as Brahman and many as the self and the

world. For example, an ocean consists of water, foam, waves, etc. As

the water is real, so also are the foam, waves, etc. The world,

which is a part and parcel of Brahman, is necessarily real. The

import of all this is that according to this view the Upanishads

teach the eternal difference and identity between Brahman on the one

hand, and the self and the world on the other [5].

 

Sri Sankara rejects the view of Bhatrprapanca, because mutually

contradictory attributes cannot be predicated of one and the same

thing. According to Sri Sankara the passages which affirm

manifoldness and reality of the world do not embody the essential

teaching of the Upanishads. It is a concession made to the empirical

view that demands a real world having causal connection with time-

space. Since variety is but an appearance having no foundation in

the ultimate Reality, the true essential doctrine of the Upanishads,

according to him, is only pure unity. The individual self is nothing

but Brahman itself appearing as finite due to limiting adjuncts

which are superimposed on it.

 

Sri Ramanuja also attempts to systamatize the philosophy of the

Upanishads, taking the cue from the ancient theistic philosophers.

He recognises three lines of thought in the Upanishads concerning

the relation between Brahman, the self and the world:

 

Passages which declare difference of nature between the world, the

self and Brahman. Here the world is the non-sentient matter (acit)

which is the object of experience, the self is the experiencing

conscious subject (cit), and Brahman, the absolute ruling principle

[6]. These may be named analytical texts.

Passages which teach that Brahman is the inner self of all entities

which constitute his body. For instance, " He who dwells in the earth

and within the earth, whom the earth does not know, whose body the

earth is, and who rules the earth within, he is thy Self, the ruler

within, the immortal " etc. (Br. III, vii, 3-23). These are called

ghataka-srutis or mediating texts.

Passages which proclaim the unity of Brahman with the world in its

causal as well as effected aspect. The famous text, 'That thou art,

O Svetaketu' (Cha. VI 2-8) comes under this category. These may be

termed as synthetic passages. Sri Ramanuja lays down that the

interpretation of the various passages must be such that they are

not made to contradict each other, and not a single passage should

be so interpreted as to be divested of its primary significance [7].

The first group of texts distinguishes Brahman from the world and

the individual selves. In a way it emphasizes the transcendent

character of Brahman. The second group of texts declares Brahman to

be the inner self of all entities. Neither the individual self nor

the world can exist by itself. They are inseparably connected with

Brahman as his body, and thus are controlled by him. These texts

teach duality in so far as distinction is made between body and

self, and unity in so far as the self, the substantive element,

predominates over and controls the body, its attribute. The last

group of texts aim at proclaiming the non-dual character of Brahman

who alone constitutes the ultimate Reality. The self and the world,

though distinct from each other and real, have a different value.

They only exist as a mode or attribute of Brahman. They are

comprehended in the reality of Brahman. They exist because Brahman

exists.

 

On this principle of interpretation, Sri Ramanuja recognizes that

the passages declaring distinction between Brahman, the world and

the self, and those affirming Brahman to be the same in the causal

as well as effected aspects, do not in any way contradict the

mediating passages which declare that the individual selves and the

world form the body of Brahman, and they in their causal state do

not admit the distinction of names and forms while in the effected

state they possess distinct character.

 

The notion of unity may be illustrated by the example, " A purple

robe. " Here purpleness is quite different from robe. The latter is a

substance while the former is an attribute. This integral and

essential relation is not found in the case of a man wearing a wrist-

watch. If the former relation is inseparable (aprthaksiddhi), the

latter is separable and external. A word signifying attribute does

not stop after denoting the usual meaning, but extends till it

reaches the substantive. This is the true significance of an

attribute. The individual selves and the world constitute the body

of Brahman who is their inner self. Brahman is the integral

principle without whom neither the self nor the world can exist.

Hence all names finally denote him.

 

The way in which Sri Ramanuja interprets the famous text, 'That thou

art' (tat tvam asi) is unique. This is done by means of co-ordinate

predication (samanadhikaranya). In a co-ordinate predication the

identity of the substantive should not be established through the

rejection of the natural significance of co-ordinate terms. The

identical import of terms taken in their natural signification

should be brought out. The Mahabhashya of Patanjali defines co-

ordinate predication thus: " The signification of an identical entity

by several terms which are applied to that entity on different

grounds is co-ordinate predication. [8] " In such a proposition the

attributes not only should be distinct from each other but also

different from the substance, though inseparable from it. In the

illustration of a " purple robe " , the basic substance is one and the

same, though " purpleness " and " robeness " are different from it as

well as from each other. That is how the unity of a " purple robe " is

established. In the co-ordinate predication asserting identity

between " that " and " thou " , Brahman himself with the self as his

mode, having the self as his body, is pointed out.

 

The term " thou " which usually stands for the self here stands for

Brahman ( " that " ) who is the indweller of the self and of whom the

self is the mode as a constituent of his body. The term " thou " does

not mean the physical body or the individual self. Since Brahman has

interpenetrated all matter and self, " thou " signifies Brahman in the

ultimate analysis. The term " that " signifies Brahman himself as the

ground of the universe and the soul of all individual selves. Hence

in the identity of " that " and " thou " there is no rejection of the

specific connotation of the co-ordinate terms. The upshot of the

dictum is that the individual selves and the world, which are

distinct and real attributes, are comprehended in Brahman. Brahman

as the inner self of the jiva and Brahman as the ground of the

universe are one. The central principle is that whatever exists as

an attribute of a substance, that being inseparable from the

substance is one with that substance.

 

Thus Sri Ramanuja upholds all the three streams of thoughts in the

Upanishads, namely, unity, plurality and both. He himself clinches

the argument:

 

We uphold unity because Brahman alone exists with all other entities

as his modes. We uphold both unity and plurality, as the one Brahman

himself has all the physical and spiritual entities as his modes and

thus exists qualified by a plurality. We uphold plurality as the

three entities -- the individual selves, the world and the supreme

Lord -- are mutually distinct in their substantive nature and

attributes and there is no mutual transposition of their

characteristics [9].

II

The summum bonum is the vision of the supreme Person, known as

Brahman or Sriman-Narayana. The chief obstacle in the path towards

perfection is the accumulation of evil tendencies. These can be

destroyed only by the cultivation of good tendencies. This is

followed by self-surrender which generates an inclination towards

life divine. Then one has to acquire the knowledge of the Reality

from the scriptures aided by the holy teachers. Then the practice of

virtues like the control of mind and sense, austerity, purity, non-

violence, compassion, etc., becomes easy. Nitya and naimittika

duties are to be performed, and prohibited actions are to be

avoided, the whole conduct being conceived as the worship of God.

God, the embodiment of love and compassion, showers his grace on the

aspirant, which puts an end to all his obstacles. Finally bhakti

rises which is an enjoyment of bliss in itself. Bhakti is but

meditation which has assumed the character of the most vivid and

direct perception of the Supreme.

 

Yamunacharya, declares that bhakti succeeds the twofold training of

the mind by karma and jnana [10]. Karma-yoga is performance of

duties of one's station in life [*] with no thought of reaping any

personal benefit in the spirit of the Gita's teachings. Karma that

is performed in this manner cleanses the heart. Jnana-yoga, which

immediately follows the previous discipline, is meditation upon the

individual self as distinct from matter like body, mind, etc., with

which it is associated. It helps the aspirant to determine the true

nature of one's self in relation to the Supreme. He realizes that he

is absolutely subservient to God.

 

The discipline does not stop with the knowledge of one's self alone.

It is incomplete without the knowledge of God.

 

Here the word bhakti does not connote the popular sense in which it

is understood. Bhakti-yoga is loving meditation upon God. When the

meditation attains the form of " firm remembrance " (dhruva-anusmrtih)

characterised by intense love, the vision of the Supreme is

attained. It must be mentioned here that the final release is

attained after the dissolution of the body. One endowed with such

bhakti and self-surrender attains the fitness to earn the grace of

the Lord. This bhakti itself is upasana or vidya mentioned in the

Upanishads. It is same as knowledge spoken of in the srutis: " One

who knows Brahman attains the Supreme, " (Tai. II.1), " He who knows

him becomes immortal here, " (Pu. 20), and " He who knows Brahman

becomes Brahman, " (Mu. 3.2.9). As the vision of the Supreme is not

possible through ordinary means of perception, he can be seen only

through bhakti, which is a unique form of knowledge. This is in

consonance with the Gita declaration, " I am attainable only through

undivided bhakti " (9.54).

 

III

It was already mentioned that the ideal to be realized is the vision

of the Supreme. It is an experience of absolute peace, perfection,

bliss and freedom, untouched by the cosmic limitations of space and

time. Sri Ramanuja is accused of having given a " picturesque

description " of the ideal realm. But a little insight into the

spirit of his writings reveals that the ideal is not such a

fairyland as it is made out to be. The domain, he points out, is of

the nature of pure immutable sattva. It is transcendent without the

taints of the material gunas of sattva, rajas and tamas. Similarly

the individual self also, in the state of moksa, gives up its

material body and assumes a transcendent form. The substance of

suddha sattva is common to God, the self and the realm of the ideal

known as nitya-vibhuti. The first chapter of the Kausitaki Upanishad

gives a figurative account of the pilgrim's progress till he reaches

the feet of God.

 

The individual self is the essence of knowledge. This knowledge in

its attributive aspect (dharma-bhuta-jnana) gets more or less

contracted in samsara, but it expands infinitely in the state of

moksa. It becomes all-knowing and enjoys perfect bliss and love in

divine communion. In short it is an ineffable enjoyment. In this

natural state it yields its spirit to the will, glory and adoration

of God. Ramanuja characterises this state as 'ananya-prayojana',

having no other end except itself. In this ideal place there is no

break in the enjoyment of divine communion.

 

Sri Ramanuja is not unaware of the criticism that there is

subservience to and dependence upon God in his conception of moksa,

The critics say that subordination in any form cannot conduce to the

joy of self. The divine fetters are not less strong to bind. Further

Manu says that servitude is a dog's life. Sri Ramanuja effectively

meets this criticism in his characteristic way. He enunciates a

principle " that what an individual pursues as a desirable end

depends upon what he conceives himself to be [11]. " Different people

pursue different and mutually conflicting values. Hence the notion

that independence is happiness proceeds from the misconception that

one is identical with the body, mind, etc. This attachment to the

body is a sort of dependence itself. Instead of dependence on God,

it is dependence on matter. The metaphysical fact is that he is not

the body, and consequently there must be something else with which

his self is related. There cannot be relation of the principal

entity and the subsidiary (sesin and sesa) between any finite

objects. The only object with which such a relation can exist is

God. Hence dependence on anything other than God is painful

andsubservience to God is joy and freedom. Similarly bondage is

indeed a dog's life when one serves those who are unworthy of

service. The only entity which is worthy of love, adoration and

service is God. Sri Ramanuja clinches the issue by quoting a

text, " He is to be served by all [12]. " The emancipation consists in

service of God, and true bondage is independence of God and service

of body.

 

adiyen ramanuja dasan

Lakshmi Narayanan