________________
398 OUTLINES OF INDIAN PHILOSOPHY Samkara but also from the Mimāmsaka who subordinates (p. 299) the Upanişads to the Brāhmaṇa portions (karmakanda) of the Veda. The exact bearing of this view on the practical discipline prescribed in the Visiştādvaita for the attainment of mokşa, we shall consider later. The second point of difference is that Rāmānuja reckons not only the Veda as revealed but also the Pāñcarātrāgama' regarding the whole of it, unlike Samkara, as eventually going back to a Vedic or some equally untainteda source. The agamas deal, generally speaking, with the worship of idols, particularly in temples, and the Pāñcarātrāgama, as distinguished from the Saivāgama, is devoted to establishing the supremacy of Vişnu.3
Rāmānuja recognizes as ultimate and real the three factors (tattva-traya) of matter (acit), soul (cit) and God (Isvara). Though equally ultimate, the first two are absolutely dependent upon the last, the dependence being conceived as that of the body upon the soul. Whatever is, is thus the body of God and he is the soul not only of inorganic nature but also of souls or jīvas. It is in this connection that Rāmānuja formulates the relation,5 so important in his system, of aprthak-siddhi or 'inseparability' which obtains between
To all appearance, Bădarāyaṇa is against agama. Compare Samkara on VS. II. ii. 42-5. * This is known as the Ekāyana-śākha. See SB. (com.) P. 559 (Madras Edn.). 3 The Vaikhănasāgama, which also upholds the supremacy of Vişnu, seems to exhibit closer kinship with the Veda.
Since according to Ramānuja inorganic matter also is ensouled, God is its self only mediately through the jiva (see VAS. PP. 30-1). Yet he is sometimes spoken of as being so directly. Cf. Rahasya-trayasära, iii. pp. 121-2 (Bangalore Edn.). 5 The Nyāya-Vaiseșika postulates the relation of samavāya between things that are inseparable. The Visiştādvaita discards this relation as superfluous and views inseparability itself, which it regards as the nature (svarūpa) of the two relata, as apsthak-siddhi. Strictly it is not therefore a relation (see SB. II. ii. 12); but it is still sometimes spoken of as a sambandha. (Cf. SAS. P. 590.)
