Re: mutual exclusion - 2
From the Bhakti List Archives
• July 16, 1999
SrI: SrI Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha SrI Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrIvaN- SatakOpa SrI nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESikAya namaha Dear devotees, namO nArAyaNA. Some more ........ > Sri Ravi wrote : > But in many ways visihtadwaita is close to the doctrine of adwaita.Only > that there is no mayaavada and the nirguna brahmam is replaced with saguna > sriman-narayana. > we are all extensions of Naraayana,just as the hands and legs of our body > are attached to us and are part > of us.so even emperumanaar's doctrine is adwaita only.Only that > sriman-narayana is ever brimming with > all kalyana gunaas. ViSishtAdvaita is certainly a philosophy of "advaita". But this "advaita", has nothing to do with the "advaita" of sankara. ViSishtAdvaita : There is only one Brahman (advaita), who has chit and achit as its inseparable attributes (chit-achit visishta). It is only the "advaita" of this sense that is present in the actual reality (previous posting involved the reference to the fact that jIvAtma and matter are inseparable attributes of Brahman). Brahman/Iswara, chit and achit are distinct from one another, though related ( with chit and achit as inseparable attributes to Brahman). Thus, the concept of sankara's advaita, which denies the existence of Iswara/God, jIvAtma and matter (in the ultimate reality), is very much different from the "advaita" in ViSishtAdvaita. The "advaita" in ViSishtAdvaita is of the nature of "viSishta aikya" (adjectival identity, cit and acit being the inseparable attribute of Brahman) and not that of "svaroopa aikya" (svaroopa aikya => jIvAtma is verily the paramAtman in its nature itslef ). ----------------------------- Quotes from Sri SMS Chari's "Fundamentals of VisishtAdvaita vEdAnta" based on SwAmi dESikan's Tattva muktA kalApa : Introduction : "....................Cit and acit depend on Iswara for their very existence and are organically related to Iswara in the same way as the physical body is related to the soul within (*). The oneness of Reality is to be understood not in the sense of absolute identity, but as organic unity (ViSishtaikya). As VEdAnta dESika says, Brahman alone, as organically related to the entire cit and acit, is the one ultimate Reality (aSEsha-cidacit-prakAram brahmaikamEva tattvam). Though there is absolute difference between Iswara and the other two reals and also among individual souls and matter, the ultimate Reality is considered as one because as an organic unity it is one ( tatra prakAra-prakArinOhO prakArANAm-ca mithO atyanta-bhEdE api viSishtaikyAdi-vivakshayA yEkatva-vyapadEshaha). In this sense, the system of vEdAnta expounded by RAmAnuja is described as ViSishtAdvaita which means oneness of the organic unity (ViSishtasya advaitam). ... " Note (by Sri SMS Chari) : It may be noted that, the term ViSishtAdvaita is not used by RAmAnuja in any of his works. It was adopted at a later period by his followers on the basis of the definition offered by VEdAnta dESikA in nyAya-siddhAn~jana. It is generally rendered into English as "qualified monism" or "pan-organismal monism". Both do not bring out the fuller implications of the term. A better expression which approximates to the concept is "pan-en-theism". Pan-en-theism as understood in the western philosophy, refers to the view that "deity as eternal is distinguishable from and independent of any and all relative items and yet as an actual whole, it includes all relative items". In the first chapter "Fundamental Metaphysical categories" : " ...The central theme of ViSishtAdvaita vEdAnta is that cit ( the individual souls) and acit (the cosmic matter) are organically related to Iswara, in the same way as an essential attribute is related to a substance. The term ViSishtAdvaita thus presupposes that, substance and attribute are distinct but the two are integrally related and, as an integral complex whole, it is one (ViSishtasya advaitam). It also presupposes that cause and effect are the different states of the same substance (viSishtayOh: advaitam). ...." ---------------- (*) : In the sarIra-sarIri bhAva, the three relationships are to hold good ( SarIrisupports(1) and controlls(2) the SarIra and SarIra exists for the pleasure of SarIri (3)). The body-soul relationship between jIvAtma and its body ( with jIvAtma being the supporter, controller of the body and uses body for its purposes) is used as an analogy to explain the Body-soul relationship between Brahman, the sarIri(Atma) and all sentients(chit) and non-sentients (achit), which constitute Brahman's sarIra(body). This Body-Soul relationship doesn't mean that, Brahman has to physically reside inside a jIvAtma, such that "jIvAtma" is "body", and the Brahman present inside it is "Atma". The body-soul relationship does not address this issue at all. The Body-soul relationship alias SarIra-SarIri bhAvam is regarding the acts of supporting, controlling and usage of the body(sarIra) for the pleasure/purpose of the Soul(SarIri). If these three criterions are satisfied, then the sarIra-sarIri bhAvam holds good. It is not a botheration as to whether the sarIri(Atma) is physically present inside a sarIra. The antarvyApti and bahirvyApti of Brahman (ie. Brahman pervading inside and outside of everything) is the thing which discusses the issue of whether Brahman is physically present inside a substance or not. SwAmi dESikan, in His chillarai rahasyam "virOdha parihAram" declares that Brahman is not physically inside a jIvAtma, since there is nothing called as "inside" for a jIvAtma in the first hand (jIvAtma is avavaya ie.shapeless ; only things that have a concrete shape will have something called inside ; eg: a square has inside and outside); Similarly, Brahman is not present outside "kAlam" (time), since there is nothing called "outside" for time, since time is already vibhu ie. all pervading ie. acts everywhere. Brahman pervades "in" and "out" of other things (achit). This is the understanding of antarvyApti (pervading inside) and bahirvyApti (pervading outside). Sometimes, the word "body" is used to denote the "matter/prakruti" with respect to Brahman as its "soul", just because Brahman is present inside it (this should not be confused with the sarIra- sarIra bhAva, which anyway holds good between Brahman and achit ). For example, the body of the demi-god Indra is the body of Brahman also (ie.the all pervading Brahman, pervades inside the body of Indra and thus has the materialistic body of Indra as His "body" ( here, in this sentence, the sarIra-sarIri bhAva ie. body-soul relationship is not told, though sarIra-sarIri bhAva holds good. The intention od that sentence is to convey that Brahman is inside the body of demi-god Indra; Also this materialistic body of Indra is not at all concerned with the "divya mangaLa vigraha" of Brahman, which is actually made up of Suddha-sattvam material; Also, it has to be noted again that Brahma sUtrAs in ubhalingAdhikaraNam as mentioned above states that, though Brahman is all pervading in the midst of achit and chit, it is free from all defects). Thus, one has to understand the meaning conveyed by the term "body"/"sarIra" etc according to the context. For the SarIra-SarIri bhAvam existing between Brahman and (chit + achit), the act of "support" (first functionality) is done by Brahman through itself ie. the all-pervading divyAtma svaroopam acts as the supporter of "cit and acit", which are the sarIrAs (bodies, in the sense of sarIra-sarIri bhAvam) of Brahman. Thus, the all-pervading nature of Brahman is included in the SarIra-SarIri bhAva between Brahman and chit+achit. But, the sarIra-sarIri bhAvam here as a totallity is not merely due to the all pervasive aspect of Brahman. The act of "Controlling chit and achit" (second functionality) is performed by Brahman through its will ie. sankalpam. Ofcourse, chit and achit exists for the pleasure of Brahman (third functionality). The end effect of this SarIra-SarIri bhAvam between Brahman and "chit + achit" is that, "chit + achit" become inseparable attributes of Brahman (appruthak siddham). Thus, the relationship between the substance and its inseparable attributes ( eg: Red rose having the color "red" as an inseparable attribute) holds good for the relationship between Brahman and "chit + achit". ------------------------------------- Note: 1. Bhagavad rAmAnuja only propagated the vEdAnta matam (religion of vEdAnta) alias vaidIka matam (religion of vEdAs/followers of vEdAs). He never started some "new" philosophy and thus, there was no need to coin some new name for the philosophy, when He is verily explaining vEdAnta. But later, for the purpose of identification in the midst of other vEdAntins, the term "ViSishtAdvaita" has been used to represent the crux of vEdAnta as propagated by bhagavad rAmAnuja. vEdAnta and ViSishtAdvaita are synonyms in this sense. 2. "ViSishtayOh: advaitam" => Cause and effect are different states of the same substance. Brahman has "cit + acit" as its inseparable attributes. During praLayA(deluge), the chit and achit are present in their sookshma(subtle) state. During creation, the whole material world is created by Brahman from that subtle primordial matter and thus, achit (non-sentients) attains the sthUla state (manifested). Similarly, baddha jIvAtmAs were in the sookshma state during praLayA (with their dharmabhUta jn~anam shrunk completely). During creation, Brahman gives them the appropriate material bodies according to their karma and thus baddha jIvAtmAs are in their sthUla state. Thus, the process of creation is nothing but transformation of chit+achit from their sookshma state to their sthUla state. But, Brahman (ie.divyAtma svaroopam) is not changing in this process. Thus, "Cause" for creation is Brahman having sookshma chit+achit as its inseparable attributes. The "effect" (of creation) is the presence of Brahman with sthUla chit+achit as its attributes. Thus, the "substance" Brahman in both the cause and effect (chit+achit are Brahman's inseparable attributes). But cause and effect represent two different "states" of Brahman, because of the change in the type of attributes it has. Thus, it is the same Brahman who is the cause and the effect (only there is some change in its inseparable attributes). Thus, Brahman is both the material and instrumental cause of the universe. < It is to be noted that SrI VaikuNTham is not affected in this process of creation >. crude analogy : Assume that on day one, a flower was fully red and on day two, yellow color also was present alongwith the red color in that flower. Now, the "substance" flower is the same ; only its attribute color has changed from "red" to "red + yellow". In both the states, only "one" "substance" exists and the change in color is only a change in its attribute. Thus, this change in color represents the change of state of the "substance" flower, with red color as its "attribute" to the state wherein the "substance" flower has "red + yellow" color as its attribute. --------------------------------- AzhwAr,yemperumAnAr,dESikan, Azhagiyasingar thiruvadigaLE SaraNam adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan ananthapadmanAbha dAsan krishNArpaNam
- Next message: Anand Karalapakkam: "Re: mutual exclusion - 1"
- Previous message: Vijay_Srinivasan_at_praxair.com: "Quiz from Kalale"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]