World of Philosophy

Author(s): Christopher Key Chapple, Intaj Malek, Dilip Charan, Sunanda Shastri, Prashant Dave
Publisher: Shanti Prakashan

Page 317

like any other Advaitin, takes recourse to māyā as an explanatory concept. He makes use of rope-snake analogy to show just as locus and content of the illusory snake is rope, the locus and content of māyā is Brahman. Śrī Rāmānuja in his Sri Bhāsya with his dialectical skill critically examines Sankara's interpretation of māyā and avidyā. In the process Śrī Rāmānuja raises seven important objections (seven great untenables) against Advaita metaphysics. These seven objections remain as a great challenge to Advaita metaphysics. An attempt is made in this paper to rationally examine these seven objections.
The Metaphysics of Advaita
Levels of reality
The metaphysics of Advaita is an outcome of the interpretation of the Prasthānatraya. Under this head the following four important issues are covered. They are: 1. The fundamental distinction between absolute (pāramārthika) and relative (vyāvahārika) standpoints. 2. The distinction between transcendental and empirical metaphysics. 3. The interpretation of the scripture. 4. The role of ignorance (avidyā).
The issue concerning the nature of Brahman is discussed threadbare by the Advaitins. In the Brahma-sutra it is mentioned: "Now, therefore, the enquiry into Brahman." This enquiry is not merely an intellectual exercise, but a practical one. The questions that follow this enquiry are; is Brahman cosmic or acosmic? Is it the cause of the world, and if so, are both real? Is it endowed with attributes or attributeless? According to the Upanisads, Brahman is the all inclusive ground of the universe, and the reality of which universe is but an appearance. It is the difference between these two views that led to the divergence interpretations by the schools of Vedanta.
The Advaitic interpretation of the Upanisadic statements results in the distinction between the absolute and (pāramārthika) and relative (vyāvahărika) points of view. This distinction is vital for Advaitic metaphysics, because what is true from one point of view is not true from another. Unless one goes into the deeper levels of reality one does not really understand the significance of this distinction. What is important to notice here is that there are no two different types of reality or truth, but one reality, one truth, as seen from two different perspectives. Sankara in his Brahma-sūtrabhāsya writes as follows:
Brahman is known in two forms as qualified by limiting conditions owing to the distinctions of name and form, and also as the opposite of this, i.e., as what is free from all limiting
268