|
|
|
Introduction: All the six schools of orthodox Hindu philosophy hold that the Vedas are divine revelation. While the various schools differ outwardly on their perception of the exact nature of the Vedic revelation, they all accept the authority of the Vedas and hold that the Vedas are the key to salvation of humanity. The six systems also differ in their world view, and the path to salvation.
Vedanta has its own view about the nature of God ('Brahman'), His relation to this Universe and to humanity, the way by which humans can attain salvation, and finally the nature of the state of salvation.
Vedanta states that its principal subject matter viz. Brahman is, in reality, beyond perception and description by any of the senses. Thus, for instance, a famous Upanisadic text reads: "He (Brahman) cannot be grasped with words, from Him speech returns" (Taittiriya Upanisad) and so on. Thus, the scriptures (the Vedas) are the only valid means of comprehending Him, since they have been revealed by Him. In particular, the dominant school of Advaita Vedanta of Sri Samkaracarya held that Brahman is devoid of all attributes and so cannot be described through speech. And yet, Sri Samkaracarya held that argument can be used as the handmaiden towards arriving at the correct import of scripture.
Sri Ramanuja held, in contrast to Advaitins, that Brahman cannot be attributeless. Yet, he postulated that the form and nature of Brahman is unique, something that cannot be described or stated. However, he too held that scriptural statements that are contrary to logic are worthless and that in such cases, the statement should be interpreted so as to bring out its metaphorical sense.
Revelation and the Role of God: The Mimamsa school of Philosophy had developed an elaborate theory regarding the logical interpretation as well as origination of logos. This theory was accepted in toto by Vedantins, but they did not restrict themselves to the arguments stated by the Mimamsakas. Both the schools held that the Vedas were 'Apaurusheya'. This designation implied that the words, their order, their accents, the relationships between the words and their meanings and their mutual relationships were eternal and uncreated. The Mimamsakas stopped at that, for this understanding of the nature of the Vedas was sufficient for their flawless performance of ritual - their primary concern. In fact, some sub-schools of Mimamsa, such as the followers of Bhatta Kumarila, did not admit the possibility of the existence of God, since God was of no relevance to the flawless performance of ritual. Some, like Bhartrmitra went a step farther and declared that those parts of the Vedas that did not concern themselves with rituals were merely eulogistic in nature.
Vedantins of all hues vehemently opposed this attitude of the Mimamsakas and decried the restricted meaning they gave to the term 'Apauruseya' applied to the Vedas. Sri Ramanuja, while accepting the meaning of 'Apauruseya' according to the Mimamsakas also insisted upon the acceptance of the role of Brahman in the process of revelation.
Sri Ramanuja said that the creation periodically undergoes a Grand Dissolution, when all created entities, the demigods like Brahma (Hiranyagarbha), Siva and even the Vedas suffer destruction. Two consecutive Grand Dissolutions are interspersed by several partial dissolutions, during which the Vedas disappear, but entities like Hiranyagarbha survive. This cycle of creation/destruction has been going on for eternity.
At the beginning of each creation, after the Grand Dissolution is over, Brahman creates the Universe afresh, exactly as in the previous cycle. He intuitively remembers the eternal Vedas and reveals them to Hiranyagarbha (Brahma). The latter, in turn reveals them to Rishis (Seers) who preach them in the original word order, accent etc. to several others and thus, the Vedas are promulgated from one generation to another without alteration or destruction. However, at each partial dissolution, the Vedas are lost and thereafter, the Rishis recall them by virtue of their latent mental impressions (samskaras).
In other words, the Vedas are always present with Brahman in their latent form and are made manifest by Him at the beginning of each creation subsequent to a Grand Dissolution. Thereafter, Hiranygarbha takes over the promulgation of Vedas to mankind and from him, the Rishis look after their survival. In this way, the eternity of the Vedas, i.e., their 'Apaurusheyaness' is ensured and so also the role of Brahman in their revelation.
Ramanuja adduces another reason for the eternal nature of the Vedas, one which clearly contrasts the position adopted by the Mimamsakas. The latter preach that all Vedic statements enjoin some action, while Vedantins hold that Brahman is the goal of all Vedic Revelation. Also, Brahman is 'kutastha' and 'satyasya satyam', i.e., eternal and unchangeable. If the subject matter, viz. Brahman, is eternal, the eternity of Vedas is established automatically. To summarize, the eternity of the Vedas lies in the fact that they are rooted in Brahman's essence rather than in His will.
Refutation of Sri Prabhakara's view on the nature of Sruti:
At the time of Sri Ramanuja, there were two main schools of Mimamsa- The school of Sri Kumarila Bhatta and the school of Sri Prabhakara, the pupil of Sri Kumarila. Sri Prabhakara opined that the meaning of a word can be learned from our preceptor or parent when they act it out to us. In other words, all words naturally denote some action to be performed. Hence, all those words and sentences which describe something existent are merely of an auxiliary nature since they have been used for such a purpose - a purpose that is different from their natural one. From this it follows that the concluding portions of Vedas, viz. the Upanisads, also are auxiliary to the former parts viz. the Brahmanas. As a corollary, Brahmavidya (spiritual portions of scriptures) constitutes a 'barren' or a 'laudatory' portion of the Vedas having no independent authority. To summarize, the Vedas are essentially prescriptive rather than fact assertive. They cannot be used as an authoritative source of knowledge for existence and description of some transcendent full blown entity such as Brahman.
Sri Ramanuja refutes this theory of the nature of the 'word' by adopting the technique of reductio ad absurdum and also by showing that Sri Prabhakara's understanding of the theory of language is erroneous. Firstly, he makes the ritualist confess that all action is performed with some fruit that would result from the same. This fruit is some form of pleasure. The result is that Sri Prabhakara's view can be summarized as- 'All the Vedas preach the performance of actions that lead to some happiness and pleasure.' This view is nothing but disguised materialism - as Sri Ramanuja opines, and so is to be discarded.
Another opinion of the Mimansakas was that it is redundant to assume the presence of some Supernatural Entity that bestows the fruits of one's actions. For this purpose, it was sufficient for them to postulate the principle of 'Apurva' which performed the aforesaid functions. Thus, in their opinion, the scriptural passages concerning gods etc. were arthavadas (laudatory) and not vidhi (injunctions).
The Vedantins opposed this opinion tooth and nail. They said that the scriptures dwelt at just as great a length on the nature and activities of gods as of the glorious nature of the ritual itself. Hence, the adhyatmika (spiritual) and adhidaivika (cosmological) portions of the Vedas must also have equal validity with the adhiyajnika (ritualistic) portions. As a corollary, the Upanisads are as valid as the Brahmana and the Mantra portions of the Vedas.
Finally, through razor sharp arguments, Sri Ramanuja proves that scriptural passages must have a referent and it is not preposterous to propose Brahman to serve this purpose. This is because Brahman is the inner abiding soul (anataryamin) of the entire creation and therefore all nouns must ultimately refer to Him.
Sri Ramanuja on the Interpretation of Logos:
The Nyaya school of Hindu Philosophy recognizes four sources of knowledge: Direct Perception (Pratyaksha) , Inference (Anumana) , Valid Testimony/Scripture (Sabda), and Comparison (Upamana). Visistadvaita Vedanta recognizes the first three but admits only the third for gaining an understanding of Brahman. This is because it is held that Brahman is beyond description and comprehension by ordinary means and so it is only Divine revelation that can describe Him. However, all Vedantins distinguish between the a) 'word knowledge' of Brahman derived by a study of scriptures together with their correct understanding and interpretation, which in turn prepares one for b) an intuition of the nature of Brahman.
This leads us to the mutual differences of the various schools amongst Vedanta on the utility of Scripture in understanding the nature of Brahman. The Advaitins postulate a two fold Brahman - a "lower" Saguna Brahman (with attributes) and a "higher" Nirguna (attributeless) Brahman. Sri Samkaracarya holds that Nirguna Brahman is pure consciousness and a perfect non-differentiated entity. Hence It cannot be designated by any word or sentences of scripture.
To suit this line of reasoning, scriptural statements like "Reality, Knowledge and Infinity is Brahman" (Taittiriya Upanisad) are interpreted by Advaitins in a particular way in which the qualifications Reality and Infinity are taken as mere qualifications of the word Knowledge. Also, according to them, these two words merely state that Brahman is not finite and is not something that is subject to change. In other words, these merely denote a Nirguna Brahman rather than positively qualifying Brahman.
Sri Ramanuja criticizes this theory of language of the Advaitins. He says that language is composed of words and sentences. Considering the word first, it is formed by the conjunction of the radical element and the suffix. Through its radical element a particular word keeps its root sense in various verbal forms, but through its different suffixes, it undergoes differentiation as to gender, number and case. Thus, differentiation in words inherently leads to a differentiation in and of objects. Therefore language, inclusive of Sruti, as composed of words and sentences, is intrinsically incapable of making known a pure and a homogeneous entity like the Brahman of the Advaitins. Now, Sri Ramanuja argues, the sole purpose of scripture is to teach a transcendental entity like Brahman. And, if it is incapable of doing even that, as the Advaitins argue, then the scripture becomes totally redundant.
Sri Ramanuja's Theory of Correlative Predication:
As stated above, Advaitins interpret Upanisadic statements in a particular manner to uphold their theory of two-fold Brahman. Let us review Sri Ramanuja's critique of the Advaitin interpretation of two such texts- Taittiriya Upanisad 2.1.1 and Chhandogya Upanisad 6.8.7
Now, Taittiriya Upanisad 2.2.2 reads "Satyam jnanam anantam Brahman" or Reality, Knowledge and Infinity is Brahman. Sri Ramanuja enters into the nuances of Sanskrit grammar and argues that correlative predication is the application to one object of more than one word having different grounds for their occurrence. Since in this text, all the three adjectives have the same ending and are in neuter gender, they qualify Brahman equally and simultaneously. Sri Samkaracarya too agrees to this rule of grammar, but says that these should be ignored in the case of texts treating of the nature of Brahman. Ramanuja decries these text torturing interpretations of the Advaitins and says that by having to resort to oblique meanings in such a large number of cases, by appealing to a foreclosed intention of scripture, and by shifting the onus of correlative predication to the epistemological side, the Advaitin has taken too much liberty with the rules of Sanskrit grammar. He argues that since a non-literal meaning of scriptural statements ought to be preferred to a literal one only when there are sufficient grounds for doing so, and since the Advaitins are resorting to circular reasoning in the interpretation of such texts, such a treatment of the sacred texts is totally unwarranted. In other words, this text does refer to a qualified entity Brahman who has all the qualities as mentioned in the text. Such an interpretation allows Sri Ramanuja to postulate a Brahman that is at once transcendental as well as supreme.
Chhandogya Upanisad 6.8.7 reads: "Tat tvam asi" or 'That thou are'. The Advaitin takes this scriptural statement again as a reaffirmation of his thesis that the Ultimate Reality is a pure, undifferentiated entity. Ramanuja differs and offers and alternate explanation on the basis of his 'sarira-saririn model' as follows: He states that the inanimate universe, as well as the jivas (individual souls), may be considered as constituting the "body" of Brahman. Further, they are His modes ('prakara') and He is the Mode Possessor. Just as when we call someone 'Hari' or 'Rama' , we are referring to the aggregate of the jiva and the body that this jiva (soul) animates, and just as the body cannot exist independent of the soul, so also, the "body" (the world, jagat, and the infinite jivas, or living beings) of Brahman cannot be conceived as being independent of Brahman. Moreover, every word finds its first denotative stopping place in its natural referent and since this referent is Brahman's mode, its final denotative stopping place is Brahman himself, the mode possessor. Consequently, it is in this sense that the statement of Chhandogya Upanisad is made.
To summarize, Sri Ramanuja states that far from propounding an absolute identity of Brahman with animate and inanimate creation, such statements affirm an identity-in-difference relation between Brahman and the world. Sri Ramanuja thus believes that by adopting this principle of theology, he can interpret both the monistic and the dualistic statements of the Upanisads literally, unlike the Advaitins who are constrained to interpret the latter figuratively.
Further, Sri Ramanuja adds that the Advaitin assertion that Brahman is, in essence, a non differentiated entity, is also contradicted by scriptural statements like - "That (Brahman) thought, 'Let Me be many." (Aitreya Upanisad)
With reference to the intrinsic nature of Atman, the Advaitins held that in reality, the Soul is one, undifferentiated entity and is of the nature of pure consciousness. The plurality of souls/finite selves (jivas) is provisional (serves only a practical purpose) and ultimately sublatable.
Being a theist, Sri Ramanuja has little patience with this view of Brahman, since it cuts the very roots of his devotional theology. He refutes the Advaitin contention by comparing the Atman to a flame and consciousness to the light radiated by the flame. Just as the flame is self radiant and does not require any external illumination, so also the soul is a light unto itself and illuminates the body it resides within. Secondly, just as the flame, though finite itself, pervades the room through the light it radiates, so also the soul animates the body it resides in, with consciousness. Thirdly, the light radiated has the flame as its substratum and cannot exist independent of the flame. Similarly, the body cannot exist independent of its animating soul and starts falling apart once the soul departs from it. Finally, the flame, although not identical with the light, is yet often equated to light, so also the soul is often called as consciousness (as in Taittiriya Upanisad 2.1.1).
Sri Ramanuja clarifies that Atman and consciousness cannot be identified without a remainder. Consciousness is the way of the Atman's self expression and so it enjoys a sui-generis relationship with the Atman. As constituting the Atman's essence, it exists substantively; as separate acts of consciousness characterizing and flowing from the Atman, it acts attributively. Therefore, Atman is both of the form of consciousness and has that for its quality.
Sri Ramanuja advances an additional reason to buttress his view that consciousness is different from its substratum, viz. the Atman. And that is the phenomenon of memory. Acts of recognition of something that one has experienced/done in the past establish that the acts of recognition are transient but the object of recognition is permanent.
These two arguments, besides establishing the distinction between the individual knower and its conscious acts, also implicitly establish the plurality of individual selves. These various souls are the same insofar as their nature is concerned, but are different and independent entities with regard to each other.
The Advaitins also subscribe to the theory of dual superimposition. According to them, bondage is caused by Avidya (ignorance), which is neither sat (existent), nor asat (non existent), nor both. The nature of Avidya is beyond description and it is this Avidya that cause the notion of multiplicity of selves. For, Avidya itself is manifold. Although insentient itself, Consciousness gets superimposed on each 'Avidya', which then acts as if it is sentient itself. Moreover, Consciousness itself superimposes Avidya on itself and starts identifying itself with Avidya. Since there are infinite such prakrtic (material) modifications of Avidya, multiplicity arises.
Sri Ramanuja terms this view as absurd and states that while Atman can indeed be superimposed by Avidya, the latter, by virtue of being insentient, can never be the substratum of consciousness.
Reflexive and Transitive Actions:
Another question dealt with by Sri Ramanuja is - "If Atman is the subject of awareness, what is the object of awareness?". Sri Ramanuja defines two types of actions here. A transitive act of awareness is that in which the explicit act of attention is something external to the knowing object. In such acts, the knowing object is aware of himself only to a partial degree - which depends on the level of extrospection. Reflexive acts, on the other hand, are those in which the chief object attended to is the knowing subject itself qua knower. Because the Atman is essentially conscious and therefore self aware, it is impossible for this I-awareness to be sublated, as the Advaitins claim, in a higher or more immediate pure awareness.
Sri Ramanuja's Theory of Error:
According to Sri Ramanuja, error is not a positive distortion of reality or a superimposition of some object, but incomplete comprehension or partial knowledge. The person in error suffers from a false perspective.
The state of Jagrti (Consciousness) and the state of Susupti (Deep Sleep):
According to the Upanisads, the individual self can exist in 4 states - jagrita or awakened, swapna, or the state in which dreams are seen, susupti or deep sleep (in which no dreams are seen) and turiya or the liberated state. Of these, the third is considered a reflection of sorts of the fourth. This is because in the state of susupti, the soul gets detached from all material adjuncts, so to speak, and exists in its own nature, i.e., consciousness. Now, the Advaitins argue that since we have no recollection of self awareness during the state of susupti, it follows naturally that during turiya also, the object of consciousness, viz. the Atman is sublated and what remains is pure consciousness. Thus, Atman is of the nature of consciousness and not a substratum of the same.
Sri Ramanuja decries this interpretation and states that when a person awakes from slumber, he feels refreshed since during sleep, the Atman was detached from the trauma-causing state of samsara (the worldly cycle of birth and death). Hence, susupti does in fact point towards the uninterrupted existence of Atman even during that state. Moreover, the absence of self awareness during this state does not imply that the Atman had been sublated into pure consciousness. What happens during susupti is the disappearance of consciousness of 'I-ness" that is characterized by the association of the soul with the body, i.e., one's caste, age etc. Rather, this state is a state of pure reflexive awareness, in which the Atman is aware only of itself as 'I'.
Jagrti (Consciousness) and the state of Svapna (Dreams):
According to Sri Ramanuja, dreams are caused by God and are a means of expending the fruits of one's actions, since dreams can be either pleasurable or otherwise. The objects of dreams are illusory in so far as they have a provisional standing, lack public verifiability and are banished by waking consciousness; they are real in so far as they are actual objects of experience in the dream state. Thus, dreams are of the same class as the wakeful state in that they are a medium for expending of one's karma and a form of direct samsaric (wordly) experience.
Atman as anu:
The Atman is referred to as being anu, or a monad, in several scriptural statements. This word is used in several shades of meaning at various places. Sri Ramanuja prefers to use this word in the meaning of being existentially limited and imperfect to denote the jiva, as opposed to Brahman, who is great and unlimited. Thus, Brahman is sarvagata (omnipresent) while jiva is anu, or limited.
However, some srutis (Vedic passages) do refer to Brahman as being present in the heart of human beings. How is this possible if Brahman is all pervading. Sri Ramanuja explains that Brahman has chosen to associate Himself with a particular place (heart) or time, for the purpose of encouraging devout meditation on Him. This is consistent with His compassionate and merciful disposition.
There is a third sense in which the scriptures (e.g., Chhandogya Upanisad 8.1.1) use the word anu - that of something which pervades owing to its subtlety, and through the property of its consciousness. The word anu here distinguishes material stuff (the modifications of Prakrti - the material cause of the Universe) which is gross, insentient and is pervaded, from the soul - which is subtle, eternal and pervades.
Atman as Jnantr and Kartr (knower and doer):
The Advaitins, as well as followers of Samkhya, hold that the soul is a non-doer. It is in fact the 'upadhi' which is nothing but a modification of triguna prakrti, which, by virtue of having consciousness superimposed on it, that acts. This upadhi is the ahamkara (I-ness). In a similar manner, it is the ahamkara that is the knower of ephermal and perishable empirical knowledge. This view was a natural derivative of the Hindu darshanic doctirine that the soul is immutable and eternal - so how can it be associated with transient actions? Sri Ramanuja, however, sees no contradiction in the immutable soul being the performer of transient actions. He argues that although knowledge it unrestricted by itself, it is capable of contraction and expansion. Thus, while it is the jiva that is the knower in reality, it undergoes change as a knower only extrinsically. Similarly, being a doer has to do with the flow of knowledge by means of the senses and this is not essential to the soul. In other words, the atman remains essentially unchanging in that being a kartr is an extrinsic change brought about by karma.
What is the role of Brahman in the jivas' actions?
Ramanuja clarifies that He has provided all jivas with all the necessary apparatus that is required for the performance of actions and the enjoyment of the fruit that results. The individual, conditioned by this apparatus of the powers of faculties, acts freely while the Lord, as the individual's existential support, allows this action to be realized, to take being.
Atman as bhoktr (experiencer):
According to Sri Ramanuja, the soul as the doer and the experiencer are coextensive since one's experiences are merely the results of one's actions. So, experience of one's actions does not contradict the immutability of the soul.
Definition of karma according to Sri Ramanuja:
Ramanuja defines karma as action which is of a meritorious or of an unmeritorious nature. Hence, the doer is morally responsible for his actions and so experiences the fruit thereto. But, only actions performed with a motive of its fruit actually bear the intended fruit. Selfless actions performed from the motive of pure love of God do not bear material fruit. The performers of the latter kind of actions are in fact, akartr - or "non-doers". Ramanuja goes a step further and remarks that such non-doers may be regarded as inspired by and under the control of the Lord as in their case, although the devotee has not surrendered an iota of moral freedom, he has acquired a 'holy will.'
The jiva in the state of salvation (Moksa):
Sri Ramanuja admits a plurality of selves even in the state of Moksa and this follows quite naturally from his designating the jiva as being responsible for his actions. According the Advaitins, the I-ness of consciousness is sublated when release results. Both Sri Yamuna, (in his Atmasiddhi) and Sri Ramanuja mock at this notion and state that no one will desire a liberation that leads to one's own extermination. Sri Ramanuja affirms that in release or in bondage, the jivas are qualitatively identical yet numerically distinct. All have consciousness and bliss as their essential characteristic, but are incapable of inter-communicating their experience of personal identity as experience. It is this reflexive experience that is self-distinguishing for each jiva. Sri Ramanuja does not deny false memory experiences producing inauthentic I-recognition, these affect the recognition of one's empirical self identity and not one's basic self identity.
In the state of Moksa, the atman is no longer the subject of extrinsic limiting factors, and its individual consciousness, by participating in the all-knowingness of the Lord, expands to its fullest extent. There, the atman, in the company of the Blessed One, exists in loving and blissful communion with the central focus of that company - the Lord Himself. Moreover, the liberated atman continues as an identifiable person; her identity is not sublated in some homogeneous and amorphous Consciousness as claimed by Advaitins.
As to the extent of the I-awareness of a liberated soul, Sri Ramanuja adds that it is a blank, formal I-awareness and is continuous with the basic I-awareness of the samsaric condition, but purged of every trace of the empirical coloring of that condition. However, as the liberated atman shares the all-knowingness of God, the liberated atman cannot be ignorant of the experiences of which it was really, only if contingently, the subject during its samsaric pilgrimage. The liberated atman is totally blissful, in contrast to its unenlightened samsaric experience as sorrowful; it sees the good and the bad, the triumphs and failures, the joys and sorrows of its past as transmutated and summated in a final healing vision. Thus, while the Advaitins view our worldly activities as experience of some pseudo self engaging in a mundane transaction that never really was, according to Sri Ramanuja, a liberated soul views them as reflected in an enlarged and enriched moksaic identity which gives it a lasting worth.
Copyright (1999) Vishal Agarwal
 |
||
|
||
|
||
