Search:
Bhakti List Archives

Re: Attribute, Mode of Brahman ?

From the Bhakti List Archives

Mani Varadarajan • April 2, 2002 


Sri P. Srinivasan had asked a question a while back
about what it meant for the jIvAtman to be an attribute,
or a "mode" of Brahman.

> However what adiyen finds difficult to grasp is how the Jivatman is 
> an attribute of Brahman. Generally an attribute is not a substance 
> and a substance is not an attribute. But the Jivatman is a 
> substance. How are we understand Ramanuja's statement that the 
> Jivatman is also an attribute of Brahman?

> Another thing adiyen finds unable to understand is Ramanuja's 
> statement that the Jivatman is a Mode of Brahman. What is meant by 
> Mode? 

Several members hav given learned replies, to which I would like to
add a few words. As Sri Srinivasan pointed out, there are three
paradigms which Sri Ramanuja uses to describe the relationship
between Brahman and the universe:

 a) Body-Soul (SarIra-SarIri-bhAva)
 b) Attribute-Substance (viSeshaNa-viSeshya-bhAva)
 c) Mode-Mode Possessor (prakAra-prakAri-bhAva)

Each of these paradigms are somewhat interchangeable,
and put together, they round out the picture of how the
jIva relates to Brahman. 

The key to all of these is the idea that the object
that is supported (in this case the jIva, but it could
be prakRti as well) is incapable of being realized 
apart from Brahman. This is known as 'apRthak-siddhi'
or the 'pRthak-siddhi-anarhatva' of the object in relation
to Brahman.

This helps us understand what it means for the jIva to be
a mode of Brahman.  The jIva (mode) is absolutely dependent
and incapable of being conceived apart from Brahman (mode-
possessor).  Not only does the jIva ontologically derive its
very existence from Brahman, one can in truth never conceive
of the jIva as a substance divorced from Brahman.

Consider the example of a cow.  The generic essence (jAti)
of a cow, the "cowness", if you will, cannot exist in abstracto,
i.e., apart from the existence of the cow itself.  The cowness
is fundamentally dependent on the cow. The same goes for many
other attributes such as white, horned, etc.  Hence being
white or being horned is a mode of the cow, who is the mode-
possessor.  The cowness, whiteness, or hornedness, while 
different from the cow itself, inhere in the cow, making 
the cow the support for these attributes.

At the next level, take the example of an individual jIva 
animating a body.  The body cannot subsist as the body we
know without a jIva animating it giving it life.  When we
use the phrase "my body", we are actually referring to 
"my body as animated and controlled by my jIva".  The body
as a real entity is totally dependent upon the jIva for its
existence in this state and cannot be conceived as such a 
body apart from the jIva.  Whenever the body is mentioned,
mention is implicitly made of the jIva.  The body is thus
a "mode" of the jIva, which is the substance upon which
the body depends. [*]

  (We are ignoring for purposes of illustration the fact
   that the jIva cannot actually create a body and cannot 
   ultimately control the body's death. This implies that 
   the body is ultimately actually dependent ontologically 
   on Brahman.)

The above ideas present the ontological dependence. There
is also the epistemological dependence, i.e., the idea
that the mode loses its intelligibility or purpose without
the mode-possessor. 

To further understand this, consider the example of an 
earring and its wearer.  The earring, while it has a
physical existence of its own apart from the wearer, 
does not serve any purpose, no reason for existing, apart
from the wearer.  Its earring-ness is dependent on the
wearer.  In the same way, the jIva has fundamental
meaning and intelligibility only in relation to Brahman,
and not apart from Brahman.

To summarize,

   a) the jIva is dependent in its essential nature
      on Brahman (ontological dependence)
   b) the jIva is dependent for its purpose and meaning
      on Brahman (epistemological dependence)
   c) the jIva cannot be realized apart from Brahman because
      of (a) and (b)
   d) ... therefore the jIva is a mode of Brahman

The consequences of these ideas are far-reaching. Not
only are the universe and the jIva physically dependent
on Brahman for their existence, they are rendered meaningless 
and purposeless without Brahman at their core. Brahman 
is their ultimate raison d'etre. 

I hope this clarifies the issue in some measure.

aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,
Mani

P.S. There is a remarkably thorough book which covers
many of these concepts. Please see "The Face of Truth:
A Study of Meaning & Metaphysics in the Vedantic Thelogy
of Ramanuja", by Julius Lipner. It's pretty dense and
requires more than one reading, but I think it is well
worth it.

--------------------------------------------------------------
           - SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH -
To Post a message, send it to:   bhakti-list@yahoogroups.com
Group Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bhakti-list
Archives: http://ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/
 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/