Bhagavadpada Ramanuja on Sankara's Advaita Vedanta

[sumeet]

I will briefly quote Ramanuja's full opinion of Advaita as expressed in Maha Siddhanta section of Sri Bhasya of Brahma Sutra of Bhagavan Veda Vyasa,

 

First he gives opponents point of view under [i have only listed sub topic headings]:

 

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe48/sbe48007.htm

 

THE GREAT PÛRVAPAKSHA.

 

1) The only reality is Brahman.

 

2) The appearance of plurality is due to avidyâ

 

3) Avidyâ is put an end to by true Knowledge

 

4) Scripture is of greater force than Perception

 

5) The texts which represent Brahman as devoid of qualities have greater force

 

6) The text Taitt. Up. II, 1 refers to Brahman as devoid of qualities

 

7) Perception reveals to us non-differenced substance only

 

8) Difference--bheda--does not admit of logical definition

 

9) Being and consciousness are one. Consciousness is svayamprakâsa

 

10) Consciousness is eternal and incapable of change

 

11) The apparent difference between Consciousness and the conscious subject is due to the unreal ahamkâra

 

 

Summing up of the pûrvapaksha view:

 

As the outcome of all this, we sum up our view as follows.--Eternal, absolutely non-changing consciousness, whose nature is pure non-differenced intelligence, free from all distinction whatever, owing to error illusorily manifests itself (vivarttate) as broken up into manifold distinctions--knowing subjects, objects of knowledge, acts of knowledge.

 

 

And then the great bhasyakar who started the theistic revolt against tenets of advaita says:

 

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe48/sbe48008.htm

 

THE GREAT SIDDHÂNTA.

 

"This entire theory rests on a fictitious foundation of altogether hollow and vicious arguments, incapable of being stated in definite logical alternatives, and devised by men who are destitute of those particular qualities which cause individuals to be chosen by the Supreme Person revealed in the Upanishads; whose intellects are darkened by the impression of beginningless evil; and who thus have

no insight into the nature of words and sentences, into the real purport conveyed by them, and into the procedure of sound argumentation, with all its methods depending on perception and the other instruments of right knowledge. The theory therefore must needs be rejected by all those who, through texts, perception and the other means of knowledge--assisted by sound reasoning--have an

insight into the true nature of things."

 

For further point by point rebuttal refer to the site.

 

 

 

Your Servant Always,

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

Is Advaita atheistic, non-theistic, theistic or agnostic?

[Guest guest]

I quote from the summary of Vishistaadvaita refutation of Sankara.

 

“The whole matter may be summarily stated as follows. Some texts declare a distinction of nature between non-intelligent matter, intelligent beings, and Brahman, in so far as matter is the object of enjoyment, the souls the enjoying subjects, and Brahman the ruling principle. 'Know Prakriti to be Mâyâ, and the great Lord the ruler of Mâyâ' (10); 'What is perishable is the Pradhâna, the immortal and imperishable is Hara: the one God rules the Perishable and the Self' (Svet Up. I, 10)--In this last passage the clause 'the immortal and imperishable is Hara,' refers to the enjoying individual soul, which is called 'Hara,' ”

 

 

 

So, the critic states (without proof) that Hara is individual soul. And he implies that in the sentence “the immortal and imperishable is Hara: the one God rules the Perishable and the Self' , Hara and the supreme ruler are different.

 

 

 

But same Upanishad as quoted below gives away THE LIES. Only the ones who do not read the full scriptures are deluded.

 

Svet U. Chapter II. 14

 

As gold covered by earth shines bright after it has been purified, so also the yogi, realising the truth of Atman, becomes one with the non—dual Atman, attains the goal and is free from grief

 

Chapter III

1

The non—dual Ensnarer rules by His powers. Remaining one and the same, He rules by His powers all the worlds during their manifestation and continued existence. They who know this become immortal.

2

Rudra is truly one; for the knowers of Brahman do not admit the existence of a second, He alone rules all the worlds by His powers. He dwells as the inner Self of every living being. After having created all the worlds, He, their Protector, takes them back into Himself at the end of time.

 

 

And do not only talk about Svet. U. A few other verses are reproduced below.

 

 

 

'In the beginning, my dear, there was that only which is, one only without a second' (Kh. Up. VI, 2, 1); 'Bliss is Brahman' (Taitt. Up. III, 6, 1); 'All this is that Self' (Bri. Up. IV, 5, 7); 'There is here no diversity whatever' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 19); 'From death to death goes he who sees any difference here' (Ka. Up. II, 4, 10); 'For where there is duality as it were, there one sees the other'; 'but where the Self has become all of him, by what means, and whom, should he see? by what means, and whom, should he know?' (Bri. Up. IV, 5, 15); 'the effect is a name merely which has its origin in speech; the truth is that (the thing made of clay) is clay merely' (Kh. Up. VI, 1, 4); 'for if he makes but the smallest distinction in it there is fear for him' (Taitt. Up. II, 7

 

 

--the following passages are from the Vishnu-purâna: 'In which all difference vanishes, which is pure Being, which is not the object of words, which is known by the Self only--that knowledge is called Brahman' (VI, 7, 53); .--'Of that Self, although it exists in one's own and in other bodies, the knowledge is of one kind, and that is Reality; those who maintain duality hold a false view' (II, 14, 31); 'As owing to the difference of the holes of the flute the air equally passing through them all is called by the names of the different notes of the musical scale; so it is with the universal Self' (II, 14, 32); 'He is I; he is thou; he is all: this Universe is his form. Abandon the error of difference. The king being thus instructed, abandoned the view of difference, having gained an intuition of Reality' (II, 16, 24). 'When that view which gives rise to difference is absolutely destroyed, who then will make the untrue distinction between the individual Self and Brahman?' (VI, 7, 94).

 

 

'He knows Brahman, he becomes Brahman only' (Mu. Up. III, 2, 9); 'Knowing him only a man passes over death; there is no other path to go' (Svet. Up. III, 8).

 

 

I have cited only a few. If you wish, I will fill another page with shruti which state “distinction less Brahman – the Supreme”.

 

 

To ignore such shruti and smriti Ramanuja argues:

 

“In cases of Scripture conflicting with Perception, Scripture is not stronger”.

 

 

I ask “Is what is perceived through the senses the absolute truth?” Then animals know better than us since they have better sense apparatus – they see, hear, and smell better. And then what is the use of scriptures? Is scripture only meant to state what is obvious to the senses?

 

 

Below is cited another anomaly, this time in translation of Gita.

 

8.3 Aksharam brahma paramam swabhaavo’dhyaatmamuchyate;

Bhootabhaavodbhavakaro visargah karmasamjnitah.

8.3. Brahman is the Imperishable, the Supreme; His essential nature is Adhyatman – the Self; the offering (to the gods) which causes existence and manifestation of beings and which also sustains them is called action.

 

And

 

13.13 Jneyam yattat pravakshyaami yajjnaatwaa’mritamashnute;

Anaadimatparam brahma na sattannaasaduchyate.

13.13 I will declare that which has to be known, knowing which one attains to immortality, the beginning less supreme Brahman, called neither being nor non-being.

 

 

13.32 Anaaditwaan nirgunatwaat paramaatmaayam avyayah;

Shareerastho’pi kaunteya na karoti na lipyate.

 

13.32 . Being without beginning and devoid of (any) qualities, the Supreme Self, imperishable, though dwelling in the body, O Arjuna, neither acts nor is tainted!

 

 

Note that Lord in 8.3 describes Brahman as the Self (Adhyatma) and Supreme(Param). Jigyasu has compared six translations and they give same translation as above.

 

In 13.13 and 13.14 Lord again says that the beginning less supreme Brahman is to be known to attain immortality.

 

 

Now one translator, without noticing that Lord has already stated in 8.3 that there is none higher than Brahman, translates 13.13 as below:

 

“I shall now explain the knowable, knowing which you will taste the eternal. Brahman, the spirit, beginningless and subordinate to Me, lies beyond the cause and effect of this material world. (13.13)”

 

 

 

Now these translators introduce a phrase “Brahman is subordinate to me” and forget that they are creating a contradiction to verse 8.3.

 

How long do the falsity hold?

 

But the greatest is someone saying “In cases of Scripture conflicting with Perception, Scripture is not stronger”. So, why rely on Shruti at all. Throw away all shruti and rely on your perception alone.

 

And wish you best with your perceptions.

 

 

Om namoah vasudevayya namah

Om namah sivayya

 

[Guest guest]

"But the greatest is someone saying “In cases of Scripture conflicting with Perception, Scripture is not stronger”. So, why rely on Shruti at all. Throw away all shruti and rely on your perception alone"

_______

 

According to an advaitin, Brahman alone is absolutely real and everything else is illusionary. Pramanas, then are not absolutely real.

 

If the pramana (particularly revealed scriptures) is not real then it cannot be claimed as the ultimate authority in scriptural matters, as it cannot reveal anything about the Absolute Reality.

 

The advaitin answer that, although pramana is illusory it can reveal what is absolutely real (shell - silver, rope -snake).

 

The conclusion of the visistadvaitin is, what is not real can never reveal the real. Even if the object is an upalaksana (per accidens) of the cognition, it is not illusory for visistadvaitin. The object of illusion is not non-real because it exist in some other place and some other time.

 

Vedantins accept the scripture as authoritative on the ground of eternity, begininglessness and free from defects.

 

Such a distinction does not hold good for the advaitin, for him scripture cannot be eternal as its regarded as a product of nescience. If it were eternal, then there would be eternal bondage.

 

Nor can it be claimed to be beginingless as it has its origin in avidya. If it be argued that the supposition is only as beginingless, then on that very ground the Buddhist text too would be beginingless as the Buddhist claim their teachings have come down in succession from stream of beginingless consciousness known as the Omniscient.

 

Nor is it possible for the advaitin to hold that the scripture is free from defects since it is admitted to be a product of nescience. If it were admitted that the scripture does not have a defective origin in nescience then the position would come nearer to the visistadvaitin.

 

The advaitin may contend that scriptures is real from the empirical standpoint and hence is authoritative. The Buddhist also acknowldege an empirical reality in respect to their scriptures.

 

Its not possible for the advaitin to claim that the vedic text are authoritative and the Buddhist text are non authoritative.

 

In cases of conflicts between scripture and perception which is to be regarded as of greater validity ?

 

Advaitins maintain scriptures is stronger than perception as such the former is more authoritative. According to Advaitin non dualism is the purport of scripture (Sankara Bhasya)

 

Perception, on the contrary, apprehends a world of plurality and difference as such there is a conflict between the two. How is this conflict overcome ?

 

If it is to be regarded that impression of difference is defective as its in direct conflict with the imports of the scriptural text, then the argument would involve a vicious circle.

 

The fact that scriptural import is non-difference is established only when it is known that the cognition of difference is a defect.

 

If in some cases cognition of difference be a defect, it does not follow that it is always so in respect to everything. Such a contingency would arise even in respect of non-difference. For the knowledge of the scared text cannot arise except with the knowledge of the difference involved in words, the sentences and their meanings.

 

The knowledge of non-difference too is dependent on upon the cognition of difference like perception and therefore the distinction between the scripture and perception as the sublater and sublated does not hold good.

 

Therefore visistadvaitin conclude, whenever scriptural texts conflict with perception, the former should be interpreted without opposition to the later.

 

Perception is the foundational and basic factor of all experiences. It offers subsistence to inference and scripture, and thus is of greater force than scripture which depends on perception.

 

Srimathe Ramanujaya namaha

 

Yetiraja Ramanuja dasan

 

source: Advaita & Visistadavaita by S M Srinivasa Chari

 

[Guest guest]

*********According to an advaitin,.**********************

 

 

Wait friend. I am not an advaitin, if you mean me. I am in dvaita. But I have the good grace to have received vac and I am now meditating on vac.

 

 

*********According to an advaitin, Brahman alone is absolutely real and everything else is illusionary. Pramanas, then are not absolutely real.**********************

 

 

Vac is of Brahman whereas your perception is of your senses. All different words lead to primal vac Om, which takes one to the transcendental.

 

TB II, 8, 8, 5

 

The Word, imperishable, is the Firstborn

of Truth, mother of the Veda and hub of

immortality. May she come to us in

happiness in the sacrifice! May she,

our protecting Goddess, be easy of

entreaty!

 

 

But Vac is not THAT.

 

'Having known it, let him practise meditation' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 21);

 

So, although Vac is not THAT but the result of meditation as enjoined above, after revelation of the vac is the final goal. Therefore pramanas are the directives to the truth – which is partless.

 

 

And shrutis themselves are not THAT but they are pointers to THAT, like an address is a pointer to a man but not the man himself.

 

 

 

 

*********If the pramana (particularly revealed scriptures) is not real then it cannot be claimed as the ultimate authority in scriptural matters, as it cannot reveal anything about the Absolute Reality.*****************

 

 

Real is THAT and pramanas are pointers to the real.

 

 

Vac issues from HIM – the truth. Knowing vac and meditating on primordial vac – OM, one transcends vac and reaches THAT.

 

 

You may stick to the splendorous variations of vac or you may go to Om and transcend that too. Just to prove your theory, do not bring in the variety in vac. No one disputes variety in vac. It is one’s choice: whether to get stuck with differences in vac and not honour her instructions to meditate on the verses.

 

 

 

 

****************** The conclusion of the visistadvaitin is, --------The object of illusion is not non-real because it exist in some other place and some other time.**********

 

 

This apparently seems to be a bullet proof logic but it is not so. One who has obtained grace (eye of the seer) does not cognize objects but knows Brahman alone --- some other place and some other time are meaningless for the knower of Brahman.

 

 

What is seen by a blind man cannot over rule the truth as seen through sound eyes.

 

 

*************Vedantins accept the scripture as authoritative on the ground of eternity, begininglessness and free from defects.

--------

-------

Perception, on the contrary, apprehends a world of plurality and difference as such there is a conflict between the two. How is this conflict overcome?

 

Therefore visistadvaitin conclude, whenever scriptural texts conflict with perception, the former should be interpreted without opposition to the later ******************** *****

 

 

Wah. So, even though the premise is “scripture as authoritative on the ground of eternity, begininglessness and free from defects”, still scripture is to be interpreted without opposing the perception.

 

So throw away shruti. Why shruti is even needed? Perception alone would do, since by no means perception is to be opposed.

 

 

Throw away the verses cited below.

 

 

From Gita

 

 

18.20 Sarvabhooteshu yenaikam bhaavamavyayameekshate;

Avibhaktam vibhakteshu tajjnaanam viddhi saattwikam.

 

18.20 That by which one sees the one undivided undecaying Reality in all beings, not separate in all the separate beings—know thou that knowledge to be Sattwic (pure).

 

Undivided, yet appears as if divided in beings; He, the object of knowledge, is the creator, sustainer, and destroyer of (all) beings. (13.16)

 

 

18.21 Prithaktwena tu yajjnaanam naanaabhaavaan prithagvidhaan; Vetti sarveshu bhooteshu tajjnaanam viddhi raajasam.

 

18.21 But that knowledge which sees in all beings various entities of distinct kinds as different from one another—know thou that knowledge to be Rajasic (passionate).

 

 

From Shruti

 

 

MAIT U VI, 17

 

vi) In the beginning this was Brahman, One and infinite, ----.

 

----------He alone remains awake when the universe is dissolved, and out of this space he awakens [again] the world consisting of thought. By him alone is all this thought [into being] and in him it dissolves again. -----------

 

The man who knows this, he verily attains the Oneness of the One.

 

 

KATH U IV, 10--11

 

10. Whatever is here, the same is there;

whatever is there, the same is here.

Whoever perceives separateness

passes from death to death without cease.

11. Only by the spirit can this intuition be grasped:

in this world there is nothing whatever separate.

Whoever thinks he perceives separateness

passes from death to death without cease.

 

 

KATH U IV, 14-15

 

14. As water descending on mountain crags

wastes its energies among the gullies,

so he who views things as separate

wastes his energies in their pursuit.

15. But as pure water poured into pure

becomes the selfsame--wholly pure,

so too becomes the self of the silent sage,

of the one, O Gautama, who has understanding.

 

RV VIII, 58, 2

 

iv) Only One is the Fire, enkindled in numerous ways;

only One is the Sun, pervading this whole universe;

only One is the Dawn, illuminating all things.

In very truth, the One has become the whole world!

 

 

RV X, 114, 5AB

 

v) By their words the inspired sages impart

manifold forms to that Bird which is the One.

 

 

AV XIII, 4, 12-21

 

vii) 12. Power entered within him.

He is the One, the Onefold, the only One.

----------------

20. Power entered within him.

He is the One, the Onefold, the only One.

21. In him all the Gods become unified.

 

 

TA III, 11, 1

 

ix) He who lives in us as our guide, who is one, and yet appears in many forms, in whom the hundred lights of heaven are one, in whom the Vedas are one, in whom the priests are one--he is the spiritual atman within the person.

 

 

 

MAIT U VI, 17

 

vi) ----------

 

He who dwells in the fire, he who dwells in the heart, he who dwells in the sun, he is One.

 

The man who knows this, he verily attains the Oneness of the One.

 

KAIV U 23

 

vii) For me there is no earth, no water, and no fire.

For me there is neither wind nor ether.

The one who has discovered the supreme atman

dwelling in the heart, without parts, without a second,

the universal witness, neither being nor nonbeing,

attains the pure form of the supreme atman.

 

 

 

 

Advaitins simply state that the Universe is partless Brahman – the source of bliss. The perception of difference will not allow fearless ness and liberation.

 

 

Taittreya U.

 

II-vii-1: In the beginning all this was the Unmanifested Brahman. From that emerged the manifested. That Brahman created Itself by Itself. Therefore It is called the self-creator.

 

That which is known as the self-creator is verily the source of joy; for one becomes happy by coming in contact with that source of joy. Who, indeed, will inhale, and who will exhale, if this Bliss be not there in the supreme space (within the heart). This one, indeed, enlivens (people). For whenever an aspirant gets fearlessly established in this un-perceivable, bodiless, inexpressible, and un-supporting Brahman, he reaches the state of fearlessness. For, whenever the aspirant creates the slightest difference in It, he is smitten with fear. Nevertheless, that very Brahman is a terror to the (so-called) learned man who lacks the unitive outlook.

 

 

Miscellaneous

 

'In the beginning, my dear, there was that only which is, one only without a second' (Kh. Up. VI, 2, 1); 'Bliss is Brahman' (Taitt. Up. III, 6, 1); 'All this is that Self' (Bri. Up. IV, 5, 7); 'There is here no diversity whatever' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 19); 'From death to death goes he who sees any difference here' (Ka. Up. II, 4, 10); 'For where there is duality as it were, there one sees the other'; 'but where the Self has become all of him, by what means, and whom, should he see? by what means, and whom, should he know?' (Bri. Up. IV, 5, 15); 'the effect is a name merely which has its origin in speech; the truth is that (the thing made of clay) is clay merely' (Kh. Up. VI, 1, 4); 'for if he makes but the smallest distinction in it there is fear for him' (Taitt. Up. II, 7

 

 

 

Friend, It is your choice – to ignore or to take cognizance of these shruti passages. They were not written just to re-state the obvious as seen through eyes and as heard through ears.

 

[Guest guest]

{But I have the good grace to have received vac and I am now meditating on vac.}

 

What is Vac? can you explain?

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

it means that he's cheating, he is preaching something that he's not experiencing, theory

[Guest guest]

Dear Jigyasu

 

Namaskaram

 

"Wait friend. I am not an advaitin, if you mean me. I am in dvaita. But I have the good grace to have received vac and I am now meditating on vac"

________

 

The response was to clarify the visistadvaitin position to the advaitin criticism "In cases of Scripture conflicting with Perception, Scripture is not stronger".

 

From a philosophical stand, an appeal to scripture as the final authority is not of great value, though scriptures are considered important by orthodox Vedantins.

 

This is specially so, when rival schools appeal to the same scriptural text as authority to support their theories. Scriptural statement often being vague and equivocal in termililogy could be interpreted to serve the polemic purpose in the hands of disputants with their own predilection. The rules of interpretation of Purva-mimamsa are adopted to suit their own doctrinal stand.

 

An appeal to perception as a pramana has greater value as it is the foundation of our experience.

 

This is also the position of the dvaitins

 

" Madhva’s emphasis on the validity of experience as a means of knowledge is intended to refute the nondualist position that the differences we experience in daily life are ultimately a shared illusion with the ambiguous ontological status of being neither real nor unreal "

 

" In Madhva’s view, Advaita’s denial of the innate validity of knowledge acquired through sense perception completely undermines our ability to know anything since we must always question the content of our knowledge "

 

source : http://www.iep.utm.edu/m/madhva.htm

 

"Wah. So, even though the premise is “scripture as authoritative on the ground of eternity, begininglessness and free from defects”, still scripture is to be interpreted without opposing the perception.

 

So throw away shruti. Why shruti is even needed? Perception alone would do, since by no means perception is to be opposed"

_________

 

Precisely, perception apprehends things which are material, the objective of scriptures is to instruct us on things that are impeceptible. In order for the scriptural text to be considered authoritative, it :

 

a) must be logical and reasonable

b) must not contradict any other two means of knowledge such as perception and inference

c) contents of the text must be internally consistent

d) knowldge presented in the text must have practical application.

 

Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha

 

Yetiraja Ramanuja dasan

[Guest guest]

Dear Yetiraja,

 

Your answers are good and deep. I maintain that logic can reach a certain level and not THAT. Mental speculations and theorising differ based on experience level.

 

For example, in my opinion, in text below there is a fundamental problem.

 

***********Precisely, perception apprehends things which are material, the objective of scriptures is to instruct us on things that are impeceptible. In order for the scriptural text to be considered authoritative, it :

 

a) must be logical and reasonable

b) must not contradict any other two means of knowledge such as perception and inference **********************

 

 

When one sees material one cannot see the spirit. These 2 things are mutually exclusive.

 

 

********From a philosophical stand, an appeal to scripture as the final authority is not of great value, though scriptures are considered important by orthodox Vedantins.********

 

This I discussed with Mike in another thread. I feel shruti and philosophy have difference. Philosophy is of mind whereas shruti is of a mind less state -- intuition and direct input from Lord.

 

 

*******An appeal to perception as a pramana has greater value as it is the foundation of our experience*******

 

This is a majority belief and that's why many cannot accept GOD also, since senses cannot reach HIM. The whole world goes by this maxim -- trying to know more and more about less and less.

 

But a few disagree. Few want to know the whole first. Knowledge gained while one is in Maya cannot over rule the knowledge gained and expounded by sages.

 

 

From Gita

 

18.20 Sarvabhooteshu yenaikam bhaavamavyayameekshate;

Avibhaktam vibhakteshu tajjnaanam viddhi saattwikam.

 

18.20 That by which one sees the one undivided undecaying Reality in all beings, not separate in all the separate beings—know thou that knowledge to be Sattwic (pure).

 

Undivided, yet appears as if divided in beings; He, the object of knowledge, is the creator, sustainer, and destroyer of (all) beings. (13.16)

 

 

18.21 Prithaktwena tu yajjnaanam naanaabhaavaan prithagvidhaan; Vetti sarveshu bhooteshu tajjnaanam viddhi raajasam.

 

18.21 But that knowledge which sees in all beings various entities of distinct kinds as different from one another—know thou that knowledge to be Rajasic (passionate).

 

Anyway, inexperienced people should not argue, since all are striving for the same goal. I agree with the "guest" that an inexperienced preacher is a cheater. But Brahma Jigyasa is not cheating it is auspicious. It is good to know the whole perspective.

 

Gita says that sticking to one perspective is tamasic.

 

 

Best wishes.

 

[Guest guest]

I did not start preaching.

 

I agree, on the basis of Shruti that one who is not Self Realised should not preach Self Realisation.

 

But by weight of shruti, I also know that Brahma Jigyasa is auspicious if one engages in it with real intention of knowing Brahman and if one is tolerant of other views.

[Guest guest]

The Firstborn of Truth

 

TB II, 8, 8, 5

 

The Word, imperishable, is the Firstborn

of Truth, mother of the Veda and hub of

immortality. May she come to us in

happiness in the sacrifice! May she,

our protecting Goddess, be easy of

entreaty!