DvaithA Critisism of VisistAdhvaithA school

[Guest guest]

SrI:

 

Dear bhAgavadhOthAmAs

 

I came across this werbsite

http://home.earthlink.net/~pushpasri/vedanta/dialect_dv.html

 

>>

Vishishtadvaita is an attempt at reconciliation of bheda (difference)

and abheda (identity) shrutis. VishishtAdvaita posits a

'sharIra-sharIri' (body-soul) kind of relationship between the jIva

and the Lord. The jIvas and the matter are like a body that is

energized and activated by the soul, which in this case, is Narayana.

(This is a different flavour of identity-in/and/cum-difference

relationships; others being 'dvaitAdvaita' of Nimbarka, 'bhedAbheda'

of Bhaskara, Gaudiya achintyabhedAbheda). They are just attributes of

the Lord. The Lord and His attributes are inseparable; just as the

'redness' of a red Lotus is inseparable from the Lotus itself. Thus,

the soul and the Lord are in a way identical to each other, but

different from each other.

 

Analysis

 

Whatever be the flavour of the concept of identity-in-difference used,

it can be easily observed that difference needs to be posited at the

root of this relation. Accordingly, Ramanuja accepts in his

Vedarthasangraha that the Lord and the jIva are mutually distinct in

their nature and attributes and that their attributes cannot be

mutually transposed. If difference were to be considered as

'intrinsic' or natural, positing identity is superfluous. The abheda

(non-difference or identity) statements are interpreted in terms of

the Lord being the energizer, motivator, and controller of the Jiva.

Such being the case, there is no identity to speak of in the first

place, to have identity-cum-difference.

 

The relation between an object and its attributes cannot be explained

in known terms of either absolute identity or difference (which are

the only two possible relations). The entity cannot be absolutely

identical with its attributes, for (among several reasons), the

difference between the attributes themselves cannot be explained.

 

On the other hand, if the attributes, say lotusness, were to be

treated as 'different' from the object, the difficulty would be in

answering this: If the object (X) is said to be different from its

attributes (Y), what exactly constitutes 'the object' X? What exactly

is implied by the term, 'object' (X)? In a Vishishtadvaitin's

conception of the relation of 'aprathaksiddhatva' of object and its

attributes, difference between the same would be accepted at the root

of this relation too. Obviously, there is hardly any sense in

considering identical entities to be 'non-separable'.

 

These arguments are not for empty philosophical speculation, but have

their spiritual concerns. Consider the famous shruti from Taittiriya

Upanishad, 'satyaM jnAnaM anantaM brahma'. Here, it is said that

Brahman is said to possess 'satyaM', 'jnAnaM' and 'anantaM'. The

question encountered, in case it is accepted that object is different

from its attributes, is 'what is the exact nature of Brahman (which is

different from the majestic qualities such as 'satyam','jnAnaM',

'anantaM')?.It can be easily seen that it is nothing but an empty

abstraction,over which there are infinite royal attributes 'imposed'!

Unless, these qualities,though inseparable from the Lord,form the core

of Brahman,what purpose can they serve to the spiritual aspirant? Then

too, one would be forced to think, should the empty abstract form be

worshipped? Or the attributes? Also,what exactly binds these

attributes together? Shouldn't that which binds these different

attributes also be worshipped? Also, one gets to more abstract

questions, 'Is this non-separability also an attribute of the Lord or

not?' It can be easily seen that either option is not palatable to the

Vishishtadvaitin.

 

>>>>>>

 

I request those who have done VedAntha kAlakshebams to clarify such a

doubt /objection raised by Dvaitha sampradhAya followers.

 

regards

venakatarAghava dhAsan