________________
50
PRABUDDH JEEVAN
JUNE 2014
Nim
by senses. This does not mean that there are to be no arguments. Arguments have full scope in respect of phenomenal matters, and in metaphysics, they are a valuable adjunct in construing the texts of the scrip- tures. Rāmānuja differs from Sankara on one impor- tant point. He regards Śrutis and Smrtis authoritative as eternal commands, duties. So they are obligatory so long as life endures, but to Sankara they are obliga- tory only so long as Oneness is realised, otherwise Śrutis and Smrtis are ephemeral.
In the interpretation of the Upanišads Rāmānuja treats all texts denying attributes to the Brahman as meaning that He has no low or inauspicious attributes, e.g., sorrow, change, death etc. Neti, neti-Sankara interprets as implying that God has no attributes, Rāmānuja as showing that no attributes are adequate in knowing God.
In his theory of causation, Rāmānuja like Sankara is a Satkārvavadin. but he believes that the world-creation is real, the world being Parināma. not Vivarta or phenomenal as Sankara explained.
Ramānujā rejects Māyā : Rāmānuja repudiates therefore the doctrine of Māyā or Avidyā. Is Māyā dif- ferent from Brahman? That would undermine Monism. Is it the same? That is absurd. So Sankara's position is, according to Ramanuja, untenable. Sankara avoided these difficulties by saying that Māyā is inde scribable (31fdafire). According to Rāmānuja, when scripture tells that God creates the world, it means God reckons with world and the world cannot be an unreal world, a mirage, or māyā. The reality of world is testified by perception; it cannot be contradicted by Scrip- ture, for the spheres of perception and scripture are different. Similarly, Rāmānuja repudiates also Avidyā. Where does Avidyā reside? Not in Brahman; He is allperfect; not in the Individual, for that according to Sankara is the creation of Avidyä itself. To say that it is indescribable, is to predicate existence and nonexistence of it. If a thing is quite indescribable, it must be non-existent.
Rāmānuja was a Theist, and so he believed that salvation is possible through Bhakti (Devotion) and Prasāda (God's Grace). The metaphysical identification of the Self with Brahman is a cold intellectual experience; it does not appeal like intelligent devotion to a Personal God.
Madhva : Life and Writings : He was born in 1199,
in a village near Udipi in South Canara. He became a sanyasi early in life, and was very proficient in Vedic learning. His preceptor was a Sankarite. But he was an opponent of Monism. He was a Vaisnava and made many converts to his faith. He is known also as Purnaprajna and Anandatirtha. His works were his commentary on the Brahman Sutra, his Anvākhyāna, his commentary on the Bhagvadgita and the Upanişads. He relied for his Philosophy more on Pūranas than on the Prasthūntraya (Brahma Sutra, Upanişads and Bhagvadgita).
His Philosophy : His philosophy is Dvaitavāda or Dualism. He believes there are 3 real entities, God, the Soul and the World, the latter two being dependent on God. In this Madhva comes into conflict with many texts, which he freely ministerprets; Tat twam asi = That art Thou, he interprets, not as giving the identity of God and the soul, but only as saying that the soul is similar to God. There are 5 differences: (1) God and the soul, (2) God and matter, (3) Soul and matter, (4) soul and soul, (5) Matter and matter.
Nimbārka and his Philosophy : He lived about the 11th century A.D. after Ramanuja and before Madhva. His view is known as the Bhedābheda or Dualistic Non-dualism. He says that both difference and non-difference are real. The soul and the world are different from Brahman, for they possess attributes diferent from Brahman. They are not different from Brahman, for they depend abdolutely on Brahman. Such a relation is instanced in that between the sun and rays, or between fire and sparks; distinct, yet intimately connected.
Vallabha: He was born in 1401, A.D. in South India. His chief works are the Anubhāşya, Siddhāntarahasya, and Bhāgavataţikāsubodhini.
His view is Suddhādvaita or Pure Non-dualism. It is also called Brahmanvāda. Suddha means pure, devoid of Māyā-relation. The whole world is real and Brahman. God is the whole and individuals are Parts, and there is no difference between the two. Māyā is not unreal, for it is a power of īśvara. The Jiva bound by māyā canont get salvation. For that Bhakti is essential. The Body is the Temple of God and no meaning attaches in mortifying it. This view is also known as Puşti Mārga, i.e., the Path of Devotion or Service to God.
[To be continued]
