Vedanta - Discussion Forum I (introductory))

01-20-2005, 11:48 AM

Thanks Sunderji.

Here is some more

The VedÃ¢ntÃ¢-SÃ»tras- Ramanuja's Commentary

Regarding Moksha and Mukthi, though i have heard the difference from my Guru, but i am unqualified and intellectually/literally challenged to explain the difference. That is why i wanted to know whether there is a difference literally/from some mahapurusha's commentary. As i infer, that for Sanskrit words especially the ones concerned to edanta, realized meaning is more correct than the literary meaning.

But the least i can say is Moksha (dvaitic end point with Saguna Brahman- at this stage Jiva knows and realizes that it is not the body and is outside the mayic realm and still sees the paramatma has a different entity- very similar to the dvaitin's moksha) is a lesser state than Mukthi (advaitic state completely with the Nirguna Brahman). and not all people who attain Moksha attain Mukthi. I will come to that in the next paragraph.

Again not sure whether i conveyed his explanation. I have made a try. I am just 27 and my real journey just started almost 20 months back after meeting my Guru Before that and (still) I donot profess any knowledge of Sanskrit/and or Vedas except for portions of Paramacharya's Deivathin Kural, plus a few books by Chinmayananda, Dayananda Saraswati and a few of Ramakrisha mission publication. so forgive me if i am way off the mark.

[the following is purely my contemplation]
An observation thought which struck me.

Adi Shankara - being Shiva swarupa - talked about Advaita.
Ramanuja - being Adhiseshan's swarupa - talked about Vishtadvaita
Madhvacharya - being Vayubhagavan's swarupa - talked about dvaita.

If you see the heirarchy (by staying within the mayic domain))

Vayu --> Adhi-Seshan --> Iswara
| | |
Dvaita --> Vishistadvaita --> Advaita

From within a Mayic domain,
Vayu bhagavan (from his level) says that jivatma not = Paratma

Adhiseshan (from his level) Iswara = Narayana (qualified) and jeevatma is different

Iswara( Shankara) says that Iswara= Naryana and even jeeva is not a separate entity from Paramatma.

Gangajal's explanation on Ramakrishna's advaita is closest to what i have heard. Especially when he said that a person may wish to retain the state where he serves God and doesn't want to merge..i.e a person may wishes to be in the state of Moksha and not Mukthi. but as you said, it is *not he* who wishes to be in that state, but it is the lord who wishes. at this point he thinks himself as a different entity from the lord and wishes to remain in the state. Lord enjoys this maya and when he wishes, he lifts from Moksha to Mukthi occurs with Lord's will.

Sarvam Krishnarpanam.

gangajal · 01-21-2005, 05:44 AM

QUOTE(Sunder @ Jan 20 2005, 10:30 AM) I think that even if I get a hold of the Sri Bhashyam, I might look at it as an Advaitin does and will not be able to do justice in conveying it as a Vishishtadvaitin would. Still, it would be a learning experience to see the other side of the discussion and comment on it.

[ 
Sundar ji,
Ramanuja's Sri Bhasya is actually fascinating. There are many places where he sees completely different topic compared to Shankara Bhasya!!

Have you read Ramanuja's Gita Bhasya? It is a very difficult commentary to read because I am so used to think of Gita from the Advaitic point of view and Ramanuja looks at some of these verses from a very odd (from my perspective) angle. I had a lot of problems understanding his commentary on the Gita.

Sunder · 01-21-2005, 12:44 PM

QUOTE(gangajal @ Jan 21 2005, 05:44 AM)Have you read Ramanuja's Gita Bhasya? It is a very difficult commentary to read because I am so used to think of Gita from the Advaitic point of view and Ramanuja looks at some of these verses from a very odd (from my perspective) angle. I had a lot of problems understanding his commentary on the Gita.
Gangajal ji, nice to hear from you after a long time. I have not read the Ramanuja Bhashya of the Shrimadh Bhagavad Geetha, I have the Shankara Bhashyam in Sanskrit (with hindi translation) from Geetha Press Gorakhpur. It's a well thought out translation, and you can read it online at http://www.sankara.iitk.ac.in/gitaindex.htm

About Ramanuja's Bhashya, I found a website that had a 12 page gist of some of Shankaracharya's views and Ramanujacharya's views on different concepts. Honestly, I was thoroughly confused by Ramanujacharya's logic (just because I am not mentally prepared to understand it.)

Here is the link: http://www.bergen.edu/phr/121/RamanujaGC.pdf

QUOTEActs of consciousness reveal metaphysical distinctions

Shankara: [T]he theory of a supreme reality devoid of all distinction and difference is immediately established by one's own consciousness. The various individual objects of consciousness such as jars, pieces of cloth, etc., and the distinctions and differences between them, come and go in our experience (that is, they are impermanent); but the being of such objects (Pure Being, Being-as-Being) persists in all states of consciousness. The one permanent and therefore really fundamental feature of all individual objects of consciousness is Pure Being itself (which is the same as Brahman). Distinctions and differences between things â and the things themselves â are appearances only, not realities.

Ramanuja: This view is refuted by the fact that all consciousness implies difference. All states of consciousness have for their objects things marked by some difference, as appears in the case of judgments like "I saw this" [where the "I" is different from the "this" and vice versa, and where both the "I" and the "this" are different from other things].... Moreover, consciousness has certain attributes that are different from each other such as permanence, oneness, self-luminousness,1 etc. Thus, it cannot be shown that these are only Being in general. Also, we observe that [in philosophy and other fields] there takes place a discussion of different views, and the proponents of non-dualism themselves attempt to prove their theory by means of the differences between other views and their own. It therefore must be admitted that reality is full of distinctions and differences.

Notice that Ramanuja immediately starts with 'the fact that all consciousness implies difference'. Shankara's position never maintains 'all consciousness'. It mentions all objects of consciousness, or all states of consciousness. But never says 'ALL consciousness' in plurality. Taking a petty fact and twisting it around is Jalpa.

Having said this, Sri Ramanujacharya proceeds to mention that "consciousness has certain attributes that are different from each other such as permanence, oneness, self-luminousness,1 etc". which I assume is the difference between Consciousness, and insentient matter - and not to be taken as between two 'conscious beings.' The next sentence is what threw me off balance. Thus, it cannot be shown that these are only Being in general. But the nature of Brahman is SAD (Being), and Chid (Intelligence), and Anantham (Infinity) (Panchadasi III.28)

Permanence is a term dependent on Existance (or BEING), so is Oneness. While each Element (BHOOTHA) has one quality above the predecessor - i.e cosmos conducts vibrations and has sound as it's nature, wind is pressure can be felt and has sound and touch. Heat comes from pressure (wind), and can be seen, felt, heard. Water has taste, and earth has smell. While the Brahma Sutra proclaims thus, it also says that AKASHA actually has TWO attributes, which are SOUND and EXISTANCE, while Brahman has Existance alone as it's nature. Existance is not IT's attribute, but it's Own Nature.

Thus I really find it hard on my part to comprehend the logic without the help of a born-and-bred Vaishnava. I am willing to humbly fall at the feet and listen to a TRUE vaishnava talk about the Glory of the Sri Bhashya than try and counter it on the pithy knowledge of Logic and literature that I have.

Meanwhile here is another link: http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/acharyas/rama...ashya.html

gangajal · 01-22-2005, 02:58 AM

QUOTE(Sunder @ Jan 21 2005, 12:44 PM) Notice that Ramanuja immediately starts with 'the fact that all consciousness implies difference'. Shankara's position never maintains 'all consciousness'. It mentions all objects of consciousness, or all states of consciousness. But never says 'ALL consciousness' in plurality. Taking a petty fact and twisting it around is Jalpa.

Having said this, Sri Ramanujacharya proceeds to mention that "consciousness has certain attributes that are different from each other such as permanence, oneness, self-luminousness,1 etc". which I assume is the difference between Consciousness, and insentient matter - and not to be taken as between two 'conscious beings.' The next sentence is what threw me off balance. Thus, it cannot be shown that these are only Being in general. But the nature of Brahman is SAD (Being), and Chid (Intelligence), and Anantham (Infinity) (Panchadasi III.28)


Sundar ji,

The example you gave illumines in a flash the difference between Ramanuja and Shankara's position.

Ramanuja ALWAYS talks from the point of a conscious being with a I-sense. When he talks of "all consciousness" he means from the point of view of Narayana, or from the point of view of living beings. This is why he distinguishes between various attributes of consciousness. From the point of view of an I there is indeed difference and not similarity. An "I" is indeed ALWAYS different from an "YOU" and also different from "THIS". This is why Ramanuja is saying that "it can not be shown these are Being in general". You can not challenge this position by bringing in Panchadasi definition of Brahman since Ramanuja does not accept such a defintion. His definition as you know quite well is Brahman=Narayan+jiva (with their I senses)+Jagat (inert matter). All consciousness, i.e. Narayana, numerous jiva and jagat, are indeed different.

Shankara, on the other hand, is talking from the point of view of the ego less Absolute state. For him as stated in Panchadasi, Brahman is Sad, Chid and Anantham. From this point of view it would make no sense to say "ALL consciousness is different" since that would mean saying "Brahman is different".

I had a great deal of trouble understanding Ramanuja's Gita Bhasya because Ramanuja interprets the term Brahman in various Gita verses in various ways. Sometimes Brahman can just mean Jagat, sometimes can mean Jiva and sometimes mean Narayana. I was completely baffled when I first read it.

Sunder · (This post was last modified: 01-22-2005, 04:22 AM by Sunder.)

Gangajal ji, I agree with you that there IS a difference in opinion in the viewpoints of the two acharyas. While the viewpoints and interpretations are different, the texts that are being interpreted (Shruthi Prasthana, Smrithi Prasthana, and Brahmasutra) are common and are not prone to change.

Similarly, Brahman which is the subject of discussion (if I can call it that), is also not prone to change and is immutable (as the Shruthi says). So far we can agree.

Now, the question is, what is the BASIS on which Ramanujacharya refutes an Absolute Nirguna Brahman in favour of the Chathur-Vyooha model? (Chathur vyooha is the foundation of Vaishnava Pancharatra school - it proposes the theory that the Jeeva-Parama relationship is the fourfold relationship of Vasudeva(Paramatma; in Thuriya), Sangharshana (Jeeva; in Shushupti), Pradhyumna (Mind; in Swapna) and Aniruddha (ego; in jagruth). While the other three repend on Vasudeva, each sphere is completely different from each other and never merge completely into Vasudeva. This theory is refuted by Badharayana in the Brahmasutras. (I am yet to read Sri Ramanuja's interpretation of the sutra.) http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_2/bs_2-2-08.html

QUOTERamanuja ALWAYS talks from the point of a conscious being with a I-sense. When he talks of "all consciousness" he means from the point of view of Narayana, or from the point of view of living beings.
This is what I fail to understand. Is it because Shruthi says there are many consciousness, or is it because it is more colloquial and reachable to the masses. If it is the former, then Shruthi also says that Consciousness is INDIVISIBLE ("Advaitham" is the word used by Shruthi), and if it is the latter then a mass appeal cannot override the classic definition. It can only complent it.

QUOTEAn "I" is indeed ALWAYS different from an "YOU" and also different from "THIS". This is why Ramanuja is saying that "it can not be shown these are Being in general".

The entity that's saying 'I' and 'YOU' are one and the same. E.g I call myself I, and I call you YOU. But in both cases it is ME who is doing it. Thus the consciousness is the same, but the perceptions OF 'me', 'you', and 'this' are different. If Consciousness can differ, then (a) it becomes mutable, and (b) it becomes divisible.

QUOTEYou can not challenge this position by bringing in Panchadasi definition of Brahman since Ramanuja does not accept such a defintion.

Touche. I agree Panchadasi cannot be brought in as a counter argument. But Shruthi definitely can. Mandukya Upanishad Shloka seven (which I had quoted before), is the essence of this discussion of Non-duality of consciousness. Some of the words used are 'alakshanam' (attributeless), 'achinthyam' (unimabinable), 'shivam', 'ADVAITAM' (non dual) chathurtham manyanthe sa ATMA sa vigneyah:

QUOTEHis definition as you know quite well is Brahman=Narayan+jiva (with their I senses)+Jagat (inert matter). All consciousness, i.e. Narayana, numerous jiva and jagat, are indeed different.
If indeed they are different, then the vishishtadvaitin view point falls from vedanta into (Samkhya or) Yoga point of view. From Vedanta, Brahman is the material and efficient cause of Jagat and hence is not different (or same) as it. Samkhya/Yoga mainain that Inert Prakrithi & Sentient Purusha are eternally different (which is refuted by BrahmaSutra).

QUOTEShankara, on the other hand, is talking from the point of view of the ego less Absolute state.
Sri Shankara maintains that it is not HIS stance, but is the stance of the Shruthi. His argument is convincing and his position is strong. Once this argument is understood, it is hard to be convinced that the Brahman be eternally different from the Jiva or Ishwara. When ever I think of Narayana (as I often do), I KNOW he is the Brahman In Saguna swaroopa. It is hard to comprehend a Narayana as Nirguna and YET separate from 'you' or 'me'.

Sunder · (This post was last modified: 01-24-2005, 12:17 PM by Sunder.)

Gangajal ji, one quick question on Sri Ramanujacharya's comments on Srimadh Bhagavad Geetha. If he indeed maintains the 'all consciousness theory' uniformly, could you tell me how he interprets the 13th chapter of the Gita.

"kshetra-gnyam chaapi maam viddhi sarva-kshetresu bhaarata
kshetra-kshetragnyayor gnyanam yat tath gnyaanam matham mama"

Shri Bhagavaan says, that In all the fields (bodies), know me as the knower. i.e. Even though there is a discontiguous spread of inert matter, the consciousness across them ALL (SARVA Kshetrashu), are one and the same. There cannot be two knowers (Gnyaatha.)

If I prick my little finger on my left hand with a pin. The pain seems to be localized to the finger. It seems as if the finger feels the pain. Even the fingers next to it does not feel the pain as it is localized. But in reality, it is the brain - with the help of the nerves - that is processing this information. If each finger had it's own consciousness, then who will it convey to centrally, and how will this body be able to exist as a cohesive unit ?

Similarly, the world will not be a cohesive unit of collective experiences if there exists multiple (distinct) consciousness. Vedanta definitely talks of Vyashti (individual) and Samashti (collective) in terms of jeevathma, and Ishwara. But denying a Samashti Consciousness in favor of pure Vyashti is what intrigues me.

Cutting short. Could you let me know of the Bhashyam for this shloka according to Vishishtadvaitha.

01-24-2005, 06:48 PM

Sunder ji,

Copy pasting from the Gita Super site, for this sloka,

13.2 The body which is cognised in identity with the experiencing self by co-ordinate predication (Samanadhikaranya) in the propositions, 'I am a god, 'I am a man,' 'I am fat,' 'I am slender' etc., is described by those who know the real nature of the body as only the Field (Ksetra) of experience for the experiencing self, who is distinct from the body. Those who know this, namely, those who know the exact nature of the self, call It the Field-knower (Ksetrajna). That knower who knows the body, as divided into its different members and as their collectivity, can say 'I know it, the body, as an object.' The person with this perception is the one who is called the Ksetrajna or the Field-knower, who must necessarily be different from the Field (Ksetra), which is the object of this knowledge. It is true that at the time of perceiving an object like a pot which is different from one's body, the seer who thinks 'I am a god who sees it' or 'I am a man who sees it' etc., is putting himself as identical with the body through co-ordinate predication. In the same way he experiences the body as an object of knowledge when he says 'I know this body.' Thus if the body is an object of knowledge, it must be different from the knowing self. Therefore, the Field-knower (Ksetrajna). The knower, is other than the body which is an object of knowledge like a jar, etc. But this knowledge which arises by way of co-ordinate predication is justified on the ground that the body is inseparable from oneself; for it constitutes an attribute of the self like 'cow-ness' of the cow etc. The knowing self is however unique in being an eternal and subtle form of knowledge. But this is inaccessible to the ordinary man's organs of vision; it is accessible only to a mind refined by Yoga. The ignorant see the knower only in the form of Prakrti because of close proximity to or union with Prakrti. Sri Krsna thus declares later on: 'When in identiciation with the Gunas he departs or stays or experiences, the deluded perceive him not. They, who have the eye of knowledge, see' (15.10).


In case you havent come across this, the bashya (both Sanskrit and english translation) is available at

Gita Super site- Text options

gangajal · 01-25-2005, 12:12 AM

QUOTE(Sunder @ Jan 22 2005, 04:18 AM) Now, the question is, what is the BASIS on which Ramanujacharya refutes an Absolute Nirguna Brahman in favour of the Chathur-Vyooha model? (Chathur vyooha is the foundation of Vaishnava Pancharatra school - it proposes the theory that the Jee

The entity that's saying 'I' and 'YOU' are one and the same. E.g I call myself I, and I call you YOU. But in both cases i is ME who is doing it. Thus the consciousness is the same, but the perceptions OF 'me', 'you', and 'this' are different. If Consciousness can differ, then (a) it becomes mutable, and (b) it becomes divisible.

. But Shruthi definitely can. Mandukya Upanishad Shloka seven (which I had quoted before), is the essence of this discussion of Non-duality of consciousness. Some of the words used are 'alakshanam' (attributeless), 'achinthyam' (unimabinable), 'shivam', 'ADVAITAM' (non dual) chathurtham manyanthe sa ATMA sa vigneyah:

If indeed they are different, then the vishishtadvaitin view point falls from vedanta into (Samkhya or) Yoga point of view. From Vedanta, Brahman is the material and efficient cause of Jagat and hence is not different (or same) as it. Samkhya/Yoga mainain that Inert Prakrithi & Sentient Purusha are eternally different (which is refuted by BrahmaSutra).

Sri Shankara maintains that it is not HIS stance, but is the stance of the Shruthi. His argument is convincing and his position is strong. Once this argument is understood, it is hard to be convinced that the Brahman be eternally different from the Jiva or Ishwara. When ever I think of Narayana (as I often do), I KNOW he is the Brahman In Saguna swaroopa. It is hard to comprehend a Narayana as Nirguna and YET separate from 'you' or 'me'. 
Sundarji,
1. Ramanujacharya refutes an absolute Nirguna Brahman on the basis of experience. We do not experience anything except qualified objects. Even scripture can not override experience.

2. It is Shankara who claims that Brahma sutra refutes Pancharatra school. Ramanuja claims that Brahma Sutra actually supports Pancharatra school. Other Acharyas like Nimbarka and Baladeva claims that Brahma Sutra is NOT talking about Pancharatra school at all but of Shaktas in that section!
3. Shankara claims that Nirguna Brahman is the True reality while Saguna Brahman is Nirguna Brahmana seen through Maya. Shankara also claims that Bhakti leads to Chittasuddhi and ultimately Jnana is needed for Mukti. I think such a position offended people following Bhakti Marga. Hence Ramanuja inverts Shankara's position. There is NO Nirguna Brahman as Advaitists claim. Nirguna means absence of bad qualities. The meaning of Advaita in Shruti is not non-dual as in the Advaita school. Advaita means that there is NO other source of the world than Brahman. Jnana together with Karma lead to Atma Jnana when a person realizes that he is the Atman. After that Bhakti is needed to realize BrahmaJnana.

4. There is NO such thing as consciousness by itself. Consciousness is only an attribute of beings.

5. Mandukya Upanishad declaring Brahman as Advaitam does not contradict Vishistadvaita since Brahman is the ONLY source of everything.

6. Vishistadvaita does not fall from Vedanta although it disagrees with Advaita school's reading of Vedanta. . It accepts that Brahman is the material and efficient casue of the universe since Brahman = Narayan+jiva + jagat. This entire assemblage is Brahman. Jiva and Jagat periodically changes from manifested state to unmanifested state (causal) state while Narayan remains immutable.

7. A nirguna Narayana according to Vishistadvaita means a Narayana free from any bad qualities. Hence one can think of Narayana as nirguna.

gangajal · 01-25-2005, 12:16 AM

QUOTE(Sunder @ Jan 24 2005, 12:15 PM) Gangajal ji, one quick question on Sri Ramanujacharya's comments on Srimadh Bhagavad Geetha. If he indeed maintains the 'all consciousness theory' uniformly, could you tell me how he interprets the 13th chapter of the Gita.

"kshetra-gnyam chaapi maam viddhi sarva-kshetresu bhaarata
kshetra-kshetragnyayor gnyanam yat tath gnyaanam matham mama"

Shri Bhagavaan says, that In all the fields (bodies), know me as the knower. i.e. Even though there is a discontiguous spread of inert matter, the consciousness across them ALL (SARVA Kshetrashu), are one and the same. There cannot be two knowers (Gnyaatha.)

If I prick my little finger on my left hand with a pin. The pain seems to be localized to the finger. It seems as if the finger feels the pain. Even the fingers next to it does not feel the pain as it is localized. But in reality, it is the brain - with the help of the nerves - that is processing this information. If each finger had it's own consciousness, then who will it convey to centrally, and how will this body be able to exist as a cohesive unit ?

Similarly, the world will not be a cohesive unit of collective experiences if there exists multiple (distinct) consciousness. Vedanta definitely talks of Vyashti (individual) and Samashti (collective) in terms of jeevathma, and Ishwara. But denying a Samashti Consciousness in favor of pure Vyashti is what intrigues me.

Cutting short. Could you let me know of the Bhashyam for this shloka according to Vishishtadvaitha. 
Sundar ji,
Actually this shloka is easy to understand. Ramanujacharya states that Narayana is the common SELF of all the Jivas. Just as we have bodies of which our Atman is the self, similarly we collectively make up the body of Narayana while Narayana is the common SELF of all.

Sunder · (This post was last modified: 01-25-2005, 01:13 AM by Sunder.)

QUOTE1. Ramanujacharya refutes an absolute Nirguna Brahman on the basis of experience. We do not experience anything except qualified objects. Even scripture can not override experience.
Scriptures are the guidelines, but they are definitely Pramaanas. If all experience were true, then dream and delusion should be considered a true experience. But they are not.

Secondly, we do not experience the Brahman because it is the experiencer and not the experienced. By saying that the Brahman cannot be experienced, the opponent agrees with us and is not contradicting our statement. The shruthi too says that Brahman cannot be experienced. In the Smrithi too, the Lord says, "I know everyone, but no one knows ME."

QUOTE2. It is Shankara who claims that Brahma sutra refutes Pancharatra school. Ramanuja claims that Brahma Sutra actually supports Pancharatra school. Other Acharyas like Nimbarka and Baladeva claims that Brahma Sutra is NOT talking about Pancharatra school at all but of Shaktas in that section!
This is a revalation to me. This perhaps is one reason comparitive studies should be undertaken. Thanks Gangajal ji.

QUOTEHence Ramanuja inverts Shankara's position. There is NO Nirguna Brahman as Advaitists claim.
I have always taken the 'nis-thraigunyo-bhava-arjuna'

QUOTE4. There is NO such thing as consciousness by itself. Consciousness is only an attribute of beings.
If so, who is conscious of it? And how ? If it is only an attribute of beings (plural), then how can consciousness be said to be Universal? This would refute the Shruthi Vakhyam of Chid in 'Sad-Chid-Anandam'. If Consciousness was only an attribute, it should have been described in the 24 thanmatras of Sankhya which come from Pradhaana Prakruthi. But Sri Kapila maintains that Prakruthi (Pradhaana) is inert, and needs the help of Purusha, which is Consciousness to aid Her. Your statement above seems to refute a Purusha.

Thus consciousness is not an attribute of beings that is destroyed on their destruction. Au contraire, Consciousness is independent of beings. But it is the Attribute of BEING (Sadh as in Sadchidananda).

QUOTE5. Mandukya Upanishad declaring Brahman as Advaitam does not contradict Vishistadvaita since Brahman is the ONLY source of everything.
The very word "everything" contradicts an advaitham. Brahman is the material and efficient cause. In that sense there is no contradiction. But if the cause and it's products are DIFFERENT and distinct, then you propose that the cause has mutated (according to Vaisheshika.) If there is an existance apart from Narayana, then Narayana is not Omni-present (this takes us back to the basics.)

QUOTEIt accepts that Brahman is the material and efficient casue of the universe since Brahman = Narayan+jiva + jagat. This entire assemblage is Brahman. Jiva and Jagat periodically changes from manifested state to unmanifested state (causal) state while Narayan remains immutable.
This is acceptable, and it does not contradict Advaita Philosophy. It only forms a subset of it. The latent state of the universe (and jeevas) at the end of a Kalpa, and the reemergence at the beginning of the next cycle is not dismissed by Shankara. Here I do not see a bedham (difference.) In the equation Brahman=Narayana(Ishwara) + Jeeva + Jagath, are the jeeva/jagath termed as mithya or as sathyam? That is the only thing that brings the difference.

QUOTE7. A nirguna Narayana according to Vishistadvaita means a Narayana free from any bad qualities. Hence one can think of Narayana as nirguna.
As an Advaitin, I interpret this Narayana without bad qualities is Ishwara. If indeed Nirguna is interpreted as 'without bad qualities', then 'Saguna Narayana' mean a Narayana with bad qualities. Or, if Saguna Narayana is the same as Nirguna Narayana, then there will be a redundancy in definition. The Shruthi could not have used Nirguna instead of Dosha-varjitha as Nirguna has a specific meaning. It means, devoid of qualities.

When I say carbondioxide is colorless, I do not mean it does not have red-color. I mean it is colorless, it has no visible colors, I cannot identify it with a color in the visible-spectrum. Thus, is my objection to the interpretation of Nirguna as devoid of just 'bad qualities' instead of all-qualities.

gangajal · 01-25-2005, 01:12 AM

QUOTE(Sunder @ Jan 25 2005, 12:56 AM) are the jeeva/jagath termed as mithya or as sathyam?

Will Saguna Narayana mean a Narayana with bad qualities then ? 
1. Ramanuja's system is a realistic system. Jeeva and Jagata are all real. Vishistadvaita does not accept the concept of mithya since there can be no grades of reality according to this system.

2. Saguna means good qualities.

Sunder · 01-25-2005, 02:02 AM

Saguna means, 'with attributes'. Nirguna means attributeless. I can understand that in Bhaava Bhakthi the interpretations have no rules and definitions have no meaning. But maintaining that it as REAL is a different thing. Bhakthi is doubtlessly the ONLY way to 'See' God. This is said by the Lord Himself in Chapter eleven. But to maintain that relative realism is the same as Absolute Reality is not Vedanta's position. That is why the Lord teaches Karma, and leads Arjuna into Bhakthi, and culminates in Gnana.

01-25-2005, 02:32 AM

Nice discussion going here!

I have a question for people aquainted with vishiShtadvaita:

As I understand it, Narayana (nara+ayana = one who has its abode in all humans or Jivas), and Jivas are assumed to be simultaneously real in vishiShtadvaita. In advaita, the individual selves of Jivas, are held at a lower level of reality which can be subrated by a higher level of reality of say paramatman or narayana. But in advaita the lower levels of the self are given more and more unreality. Only the nirguna brahman is the truly real. All others are only appearances which may appear real temporarily under certain conditions, but can be shown to be unreal by a higher knowledge. And the 'self' is assumed to be unique, i.e. jivas' don't possess separate selves, the Self is one, jivas merely assume that they have separate selves due to ignorance.

If we take jiva (or nara) and narayana to be simultaneously real in equal measure, then there appears a problem. Who does the self (atma) of the jIva belong to? Does the individual self belong to the jiva or to the narayana? If the former, what is the need for a separate narayana, and if later what is the need for separate jivas? If the self belongs to jivas, then the collection of jivas is more like a bunch of flowers. The flowers provide the essential reality, not the 'bunch'. Using a term like 'bunch' is then a convenience, the 'bunch' doesn't possess individuality independent of the flowers. But if the narayana possesses reality independent of jivas, then narayana would simultaneously contain 'unity' in him as well as 'multiplicity'. Unity because he has an independent individuality, and multiplicity so as to be the self in all the jivas. In this sense narayana seems to contain within him the 'unity' of brahman as well as the 'multiplicity' of the world. Unless this grouping of 'unity' and 'multiplicity' in one being is explained further, term 'narayana' may merely stand for a convenient term to group two disparate concepts together without actually explaining how this comes about. It may then be called as using nomenclature to explain away a problem.

Its fundamentally a philosophical problem of relating 'many' to 'one'. It is not an easy one to solve. In advaita this is solved in a certain way by making the apparent reality of 'many' and 'one' mutually exclusive, depending upon the level of ignorance. In advaita an observer can't simultaneously claim that the 'many' (jivas) and the 'one' (brahman) are affirmed to be real simultaneously. This is ingenious, and works, although not completely satifactorily (It is easy to explain away all the problems by calling them 'unreal' or 'non-existent'. Nihilism or shunyavad does something similar). The superior reality of the 'one' over 'many' is expressed by the process of increasing knowledge (or decreasing ignorance). As the knowledge increases, the separatedness of the 'many' starts appearing unreal. Increasing knowledge gradually undoes the multiplicity, leaving only the unity, which cannot further be negated.

My knowledge of vishistadvaita is very limited, but just for the debate's sake, let me play devil's advocate and try to put the views of advaita and vishishtdvaita on the relationship between 'multiplicity' and 'unity, in a provocative and rather simplistic manner:

1. vishistadvaita 'solves' the problem of relating 'multiplicity' with 'unity' by means of 'nomenclature'. It seems to claim that merely using a term like 'narayana' explains away the fundamental problem.
2. advaita 'solves' the same problem by making 'unity and 'multiplicity' mutually unreal when seen from the perspective of any observer. An observer who sees the multiplicity can't simultaneously observe the unity and vice versa. This seems that a problem is being solved by merely classifying the problematic parts as 'unreal'.

gangajal · 01-25-2005, 02:55 AM

QUOTE(Ashok Kumar @ Jan 25 2005, 02:32 AM)If we take jiva (or nara) and narayana to be simultaneously real in equal measure, then there appears a problem.Â Who does the self (atma) of the jIva belong to?Â Does the individual self belong to the jiva or to the narayana?Â If the former, what is the need for a separate narayana, and if later what is the need for separate jivas?Â If the self belongs to jivas, then the collection of jivas is more like a bunch of flowers.Â The flowers provide the essential reality, not the 'bunch'.Â Using a term like 'bunch' is then a convenience, the 'bunch' doesn't possess individuality independent of the flowers.Â But if the narayana possesses reality independent of jivas, then narayana would simultaneously contain 'unity' in him as well as 'multiplicity'.Â Unity because he has an independent individuality, and multiplicity so as to be the self in all the jivas.Â In this sense narayana seems to contain within him the 'unity' of brahman as well as the 'multiplicity' of the world.Â Unless this grouping of 'unity' and 'multiplicity' in one being is explained further, term 'narayana' may merely stand for a convenient term to group two disparate concepts together without actually explaining how this comes about.Â It may then be called as using nomenclature to explain away a problem.

Ashok Kumar ji,

Brahman is defined as Narayan plus Jeeva plus Jagat. This fact can not be questioned or explained. This is the nature of Brahman. The Atma belongs to Jeeva and the various Atmas are like bodies of Narayana. Your question about the need for Narayana can not be answered by anybody. Narayana just IS. Yes, Narayana and the various Jeevas all have individuality. However, while Narayana is completely
independent, the jeevas are dependent on Narayana.

gangajal · 01-25-2005, 03:03 AM

Sundar ji,

There is a Gita verse 14.27:

Brahmano hi pratisthaham amrtasyavyayasya ca|
sasvatasya ca dharmasya sukhasyaikantikasya ca |

The literal translation is :

Indeed, I am the basic support of Brahman - of the incorruptible state of Moksha, of the Eternal Law and of unending Bliss.

A straightforward interpretation of "I" would be Krishna, i.e., Saguna Brahman. This would imply that Ishwara is the support of Nirguna Brahman. This is how Vaishnava interpretors read this verse.

Shankara, on the other hand, claims that here "I" stands for Nirguna Brahman and
Brahman stands for Saguna Brahman. The Advaita interpretation seems to me quite arbitrary.

I gave this example to show that none of the systems is completely satisfactory and all of the Acharyas have twisted the various texts to "prove" their system to be the correct system.

01-25-2005, 03:07 AM

Let me add the mathematics bit of 'unity' and 'multiplicity'.

Set Theory has become the language of mathematics. A multiplicity of objects can be put together and called a set, a unity. For many puposes a 'set' behaves pretty much like a 'bunch' of flowers. But in many cases it seems to be more than that. For example, the set of real numbers is never given by enumerating all the real numbers as there are uncountably infinite number of them. But there are many ways to define the Real number set without any amibguity. Here one wonders whether the real number set is merely a collection of its elements (which can't all be listed), or there is more to it.

gangajal · 01-25-2005, 03:32 AM

QUOTE(Ashok Kumar @ Jan 25 2005, 03:07 AM) Let me add the mathematics bit of 'unity' and 'multiplicity'.

Here one wonders whether the real number set is merely a collection of its elements (which can't all be listed), or there is more to it. 
It is MORE than a simple collection. I can use a fruit as an analogy. A fruit is a collection of seed, flesh and skin. The Jeevas and Jagat are like the flesh and skin while Narayana is like the seed. There can be no fruit without the seed. Similarly the flesh and skin are all dependent on the seed. The connection between Narayana and Jeeva and Jagat are inextricable. You can not separate them.

01-25-2005, 05:14 AM

Narayana, Narayana! asking Sunderji whether he has read Ramanuja bhashya has brought this thread alive by bringing Gangajal ji out of his yoga nithrai.

AKji, the set is a collection of discrete object and each object can exist independent of the set

Let me add another analogy
a) Ocean and drops of ocean water
Jivatma - water drops
Paramatma - Ocean

advaitic view point- its all water(brahman). its all water whether its a drop or ocean
vishitadvatic view point- a drop does not become a ocean. but water(brahman)makes both.

b)Jewellery and gold
advaitic view point- its all gold. jewellery is perception.once perception (maya)vanishes, it s all gold.
vishitadvatic view point- agreed there is no jewellery without gold(narayana). but there is difference b/w the raw gold and jewellery especially when you are perceiving.

I guess the acharyas talk from their respective standpoints.
--Shankara being a eswara swarupa talks ultimate reality
while ramanujacharya talks about reality within the limits of reality a jiva can visualize.

am i going anywhere?
Sarvam Krishnarpanam.

gangajal · 01-25-2005, 05:43 AM

Sridhar ji,
I think you have made a very good point. There is still a puzzle regarding both Shankara and Ramanuja regarding their attitude towards Brahman. Shankara downgrades Saguna Brahman while Ramanuja does not even want to acknowledge the possibility of Nirguna Brahman at all. I don't understand why both Saguna and Nirguna Brahman can not be of equal value? If Brahman is truly infinite then IT must include both possibilities. I give below a quote from Sri Ramakrishna:

" No one can say with finality that God is only 'this' and nothing else. He
is formless and again He has forms. For the bhakta He assumes forms. But He
is formless for the jnani, that is, for him who looks on the world as a mere
dream. The bhakta feels that he is one entity and the world as another.
Therefore God reveals Himself to him as a Person. But the jnani - the
Vedantist, for instance - always reasons, applying the process of 'Not this,
not this'. Through this discrimination he realizes, by his inner perception,
that the ego and the universe are both illusory, like a dream. Then the jnani
realizes Brahman in his own consciousness. He can not describe what Brahman
is.

Do you know what I mean? Think of Brahman, Existence-Knowledge-Bliss
Absolute, as a shoreless ocean. Through the cooling influence as it were, of
the bhakta's love, the water has frozen at places into blocks of ice. In
other words, God now and then assumes various forms for His lovers and reveals
Himself to them as a Person. But with the rising of the sun of knowledge,
the blocks of ice melt. Then one doesn't feel any more that God is a Person,
nor does one see God's forms. What He is can not be described. Who will
describe Him? He would do so disappears. He cannot find his 'I' anymore.

If one analyzes oneself, one doesn't find any such thing as 'I'. Take an
onion, for instance. First of all peel off the red outer skin; then you find
thick white skins. Peel these off one after the other, and you won't find
anything inside.

In the state a man no longer finds the existence of his ego. And who is there
left to seek it? Who can describe how he feels in that state - in his own Pure
Consciousness - about the real nature of Brahman? There is a sign of Perfect
Knowledge. Man becomes silent when It is attained. Then the 'I', which may be
likened to the salt doll, melts in the ocean of Existence-Knowledge-Bliss
Absolute and becomes one with It. Not the slightest distinction is left."

- Sri Ramakrishna

01-25-2005, 09:54 PM

QUOTELet me add another analogy
a) Ocean and drops of ocean water
Jivatma - water drops
Paramatma - Ocean 
QUOTEDo you know what I mean? Think of Brahman, Existence-Knowledge-Bliss
Absolute, as a shoreless ocean. Through the cooling influence as it were, of
the bhakta's love, the water has frozen at places into blocks of ice. In
other words, God now and then assumes various forms for His lovers and reveals
Himself to them as a Person.

Although Brahman as an ocean has been mentioned several times in Indian scriptures, the advaitic view of brahman is not that of an ocean. The ocean still is made of a multiplicity of water elements/molecules. While the brahman is one without a second, without any divisions or parts whatsoever.

What I am trying to say is that vedanta literature in India is more than the specific advaita and vishishtadvaita philosophies. There is clear mention in Gita of Shri Krishna as the one who is the self in all beings. In that sense he is none other than the narayana (the one who dwells in all beings). God as an all pervading unity is a prevalent theme in hinduism. Brahman is often described as 'all'. The advaitic view of brahman is not this. Brahman is not 'all' that appears. It is the one when the ignorant perception of multiplicity constituting the sense of 'all' is negated by a higher perception of 'unity'.

In this sense there is a real problem. Scriptures have many statements which would suggest the God/Brahman/Narayana exists simultaneously and independently along with the world. Advaita on the other hand clearly states that when one becomes conscious of the brahman, the world can not be real in that state.

Vishistadvaita takes this view that Narayana is present simultaneously with the multitude of jivas. In that sense it is faithful to a large body of scriptural evidence. However as I mentioned earlier, the philosophical problem of connecting 'one' with the 'many' is not tackled satisfactorily by vishistadvaita. It seems that merely giving a name 'narayana' is taken to be sufficient to explain the problem.

I don't think that is satisfactory. Advaita's construct of the 'unity' and 'multiplicity' being in mutually exclusive percieved realities hs more depth philosophically speaking.

Login




Remember me Lost Password?