vedartha sangraha of ramanuja 9. The substance of Advaita

[Guest guest]

9. The Susbstance of Advaita philosophy

 

thasya vaibhavaprathipaadhanaparaaNaam eshaam saamnaaDhikarNyaadheenaam

vivaraNepravrtthaaH kechana

 

Some trying to explain the passages

which extol the glory of Brahman and profess the identity of Brahman and jiva

say thus:

 

Passages which extol the glory of

Brahman referred to here are the bhedhasruti, denoting the difference between

Brahman and the jeeva such as `dhvaa suparNaa sayujaa sakhaayaa,'(Mund.up.-3.1.1)

describing the jeevathma and paramathma as two birds perching on the same tree,

the abhedhasruthis like `thathvamasi,' (Chandhogya up.6) expressing unity of the two and the ghataka sruthis which

reconcile the two such as `yasya aathaam sareeram,' etc. (Brhd.up.5.7), which

establishes Brahman as the Self of all which make His sareera.

 

nirviSeshajnaanamaathram eva brahma; thasya nithya mukthathva

svaprakaaSa svabhaavam api thatthvamasyaadhi saamaanaDhikaraNya avagatha jeevaaikyam

brhamaiva ajnam baDhyathe muchyathe cha;

 

The Brahman is pure undifferentiated consciousness; The

real nature of Brahman as eternal, ever free, self-luminous yet the identity of

it with the individual self is understood from the sruti texts such as `thath

thvam asi etc., Brahman itself through ignorance gets bound and. freed .

 

In the first line of second sloka at the

outset,

 

param brahmaaiva ajnam

bhramparigathamsamsarathi

 

Ramanuja has given the view of Advaita briefly

and here he expands the same.

 

Pure undifferentiated

consciousness means that there is no differentiation such as knower, known and

the knowledge. Brahman is one only without a second and hence the differences

such as above could not exist in Brahman

as the knower is different from the known and the knowledge about what is

known.

 

Brahman is nithya muktha, ever

free, svaprakaaSa, self luminous because there is no other light that illumines

Brahman. But the text such as thath thvam asi speak of the identity of Brahman

with the jeeva which is finite and in bondage. This has to be explained. It would mean that the Brahman ever free , of

the nature of pure consciousness should experience ignorance in order to get

bound as jeeva. To explain this the following statement is advanced.

 

nirviSesha chinmaathra athireka eeSa eSithavyaadhi ananthavikalpasvaroopam

krthsnam jagath miThyaa;

 

 

Apart from the undifferentiated

Brahman the whole universe consisting of infinite differences and the

distinctness of Eesvara, the controller and those controlled by Him is

delusion.

 

The real nature of jeeva being ever free because

of its identity with Brahman the concept

of bondage which crates the idea of the differences between jeevas and between

jeeva and the world are all said to be unreal, being delusion, maya. Hence the

difference between the controller, eesa and the controlled , eeSithavya is also

unreal.

 

kaSchith badDhaH kaSchith mukthaH ithi iyam vyavasThaa na vidhyathe.

ithaH poorvam kechana mukthaaH ithi ayam arThaH api miThyaa;

 

There is no distinction as one

who is bound and one who is free, exists

in reality,. Even to say some are liberated earlier is not true.

 

As such there is no such thing as some one is bound

and some other is free etc. because all are free only in the real sense. The

idea that ithaH poorvam kechanamukthaH , some one was free earlier is also false. This means that the individual

self is always free and there is no meaning in saying that one was free earlier

and got bound or one who is bound now will get freed later through acquiring

knowledge etc.which is also a delusion.

 

ekam eva Sareeram jeevavath nirjeevaani itharaaNi SareeraaNi;thasya

Sareeram kim ithi na vyavasThitham;

 

There is only one body which is

ensouled and all the others are without soul. But it is not known which of the

bodies is ensouled.

 

This refers to the theory known

as ekajivavada, in which it is believed that there is only one soul and the

world is his imagination and when the real knowledge dawns the world exists no

more. But it remains to be told that which is the real soul and which are

imaginary. This theory is criticised strongly by Mahdva, in whose philosophy

there are multitudes of souls and they are real.

 

aachaaryo jnaana vyapadheshtaa miThyaa, pramaathaa miThyaa, Saasthram

cha miThyaa, Saasthrajnayajnaanam cha miThyaa ethath sarvam miThyaabhoothenaiva

saaSthreNa avagatham" ithi varnayanthi.

 

The instruction by the preceptor is

unreal, the one who knows is unreal, the sasthras are unreal, the knowledge

obtained by the sastras is unreal, and all this are understood from the sastra

itself which is unreal." Thus they speak.

 

When the world itself is unreal,

the concept of acharya, sishya and also the instruction by the acharya , all

must be a delusion. So too are the sastras based on which the instruction is

given. Thus the knowledge created

by the study of sastras is also a

delusion.