A. Sri Ramanuja wrote nine works in Sanskrit on the philosophy of Visishtadvaita of these the “Vedartha Sangraha” occupies a unique place. This work mirrors a total vision of the Upanishads, discussing all the controvercial texts in a relevant and coherent manner. It is said to be an independent exposition of the philosophy of the Upanishads. This work was expounded in the form of a lecture before Lord Srinivasa at Tirumala. This is the first work of Sri Ramanuja. This is also called summary of the Vedas, as the Vedas themselves aim at conveying the meaning of the Upanishads (Vedanta). This work is titled Vedartha Sangraha meaning the summary of the Vedas.
Vedartha Sangraha has two parts. The first part is called “Mathaautara Khandana and the second part is “Swamatha Vistaara”. In the first part Sri Ramanuja refutes and rejects the advaitha matha of Adi Shankara, the beda – abhedamatha of Bhaskara and that of Yadava Prakasa. In the second part the preceptor in detail explains and establishes Visista dvaita the Sri Vaishnava philosophy and practice.
It is well established in this grantham beyond doubt that the Vedas purport is only is visistadvaita, sri vaishnavam and nothing other than that.
Sri Ramanuja has composed two mangala Slokams in the beginning of this grantha. The first Mangala sloka of Vedartha Sangraha:-
“Asesha Chitachit Vastu Seshine Sesha Saayine!
Nirmalaananta Kalyaana Nidhaye Vishnave Namaha”.
This is the essence of our Visistadvaita SriVaishnava Philosophy and practice. The Tatva Hita Purusharthas are beautifully conveyed by this verse.
The Vedartha Sangraha is written in a lucid, vigorous prose without the usual divisions of chapters, but the structure of the thesis is developed in a scientific manner. Sri Ramanuja refers in this work to ancient teachers of theistic tradition, Bodhayana, Tanaka, Dramida, Guhadeva, Kapardin and Bharuci besides Sri Yamunacharaya. Tanaka and dramida are quoted profusely to support his interpretations. He also refers to or takes abundant help from the Brahma Sutras, The epicks The Ramayana and Mahabaratha, Vishnu Puranas the ManuSmrithi etc. in exposition of his philosophy.
At the outset Sri Ramanuja states that the Upanishads which lay down the welfare of the whole world move around three fundamental notions:
1. A seeker must acquire a true knowledge of the individual self and the Supreme.
2. He must devote himself to meditation worship and the adoration of the Supreme.
3. This knowledge with discipline leads him to the realization of the Supreme.
Thus the first affirms the tattva or the nature of the reality, the second declares the hita or the means and the third states the purushartha or the ideal of human endavour.
The chief difficulty in understanding the meaning of the Upanishad arises in determining the relation of Brahman to the individual self on the one hand and and the non sentient world on the other. There are some texts which declare that the world is only an appearance in the ultimate analysis. There are other texts which affirm that the world is not an appearance but real and distinct.
Bharata Prapanca who was anterior to Sri Sankara held that the self and the universe are identical with and different from Brahman, the triad constituting the unity in variety, that is to say that the reality is at once one as Brahman and many as the self and the world.
For example an ocean consists of water foam waves etc. As water is real so also the foam waves etc. The world which is the part and parcel of Brahman, is necessarily real. The import of all this is that according to this view the Upanishads teach the external difference and identity between Brahman on the one hand and the self and the world on the other.
Sri Sankara rejects the view of bhatraprapanch because mutually contradictory attributes cannot be predicated of one and the same thing. According to Sri Sankara the passages which affirm manifoldness and reality of the world do not embody the essential teachings of the Upanishads, it is a concession made to the empirical view that demands a real world having casual connections with time space. Since variety is but an appearance having no foundation in the ultimate reality. The true essential doctrine of the Upanishads according to him is only pure unity. The individual self is nothing but Brahman itself appearing as finite due to limiting adjuncts which are superimposed on it.
Sri Ramanuja also attempts to systamatise the philosophy of the Upanishads taking the cue from the ancient theistic philosophers. He recognizes three lines of thought in the Upanishads concerning the relation between Brahman, the self and the world:
1. Passages which declare difference of nature between the world,the self and Brahman. Here the World is the non sentient matter (achit) which is the object of experience, the self is the experiencing conscious subject (cit) and Brahman is the absolute rulling principal these may be named analytical texts.
2. Passages which teach that Brahman is the inner self of all entities which constitute his body. For instance “He who dwels in the earth and within the earth, whom the earth does not know, whose body the earth is and who rules the earth within he is thyself. The ruler within the immortal” etc.
These are called Ghataka Srutis or mediating texts.
3. Passages which proclaim the unity of Brahman with the world in its casual as well as effected aspect. These may be termed synthetic passages.
Sri Ramanuja lays down that the interpretations of the various passagesmust be such that they are not made to contradict each other, and not a single passage should be so interpreted as to be divested of its primary significance.
The first group of texts distinguishes Brahman from the world and the individual selves. In a way it emphasizes the transcendent character of the Brahman. The second group of texts declare Brahman to be the innerself of all entities. Neither the individual self nor the world can exist by itself, they are inseparabaly connected with Brahman as his body and thus are controlled by him. These texts teach duality in so far as distinction is made between body and self and unity in so far as the self, the substantive element predominates over and controls the body, its attributes. The last group of texts aim at proclaiming the non dual character of Brahman who alone constitutes the ultimate reality. The self and the world though distinct from each other and real have a different value. They only exist as a mode or attribute of Brahman, they are comprehended in the reality of Brahman. They exist because Brahman exists.
On this principal of interpretation Sri Ramanuja recognizes that the passages declaring distinction between Brahman, the world and the self and those affirming Brahman to be the same as the casual as well as the affected aspects do not in any way contradict the mediating passages which declare the individual selves and the world form the body of the Brahman and thay in their casual states do not admit the distinction of names and forms, while in the effected state they possess distinct characters.
The notion of unity may be illustrated by the example ‘the Purple robe”. Here purpleness is quiet different from robe. The latter is the substance but the former is an attribute. This integral and essential relation is not found in the case of a man wearing a wrist watch. The former relation is inseperable, but the later is seperable and external. A word signifying attribute does not stop after denoting the usual meaning but extends till it reaches the substantive , this is the true significance of an attribute. The individual selves and the world constitute the body of Brahman who is their inner self. Brahman is the integral principal without whom neither the self nor the world can exist. Hence all names finally denote him.
The way in which Sri Ramanuja interprets the famous text “ THAT THOU ART” [ TAT TVAM ASI] is unique. This is done by means of co-ordinate predication or Samanadhikaranya.
The significance of the identical entity by several terms which are applied to that entity on different grounds is co-ordinate predications. In such a proposition the attributes not onlyshould be distinct from each other but also different from the substance, though inseperable from it. In the illustration of a purple robe the basic substance is one and the same, though purpleness and robeness are different from it as well as from each other. That is how the unity of the purple robe is established in the co-ordinate predication asserting identity between “That and Thou” Brahman himself with the self as his mode, having the self as his body is pointed out.
The term Thou which usually stands for the self here stands for Brahman That who is the indweller of the self and of whom the self is the mode as a constituent of his body. The term thou does not mean the physical body or the individual self. Since Brahman has interpreted all matter and self “Thou” signifies Brahman in the ultimate analysis. The term “That” signifies Brahman himself as the ground of the universe and the soul of all individual selves.. Hence in the identity of “THAT” and “THOU” there is no rejection of the specific connotation of the co-ordinate terms. The upshot of the dictum is that the individual selves and the world which are distinct and real attributes are comprehended in Brahman. Brahman as the inner self of the jiva and Brahman is the ground of the universe are one. The central principle is that whatever exists as an attribute of a substance that being inseperable from the substance is one with that substance.
Thus Sri Ramanuja upholds all the three streams of thoughts in the Upanishads namely unity plurality and both thus clinching the argument as.
We uphold unity because Brahman alone exists with all other entities as his modes. We uphold both unity and plurality as the one Brahman himself has all the physical and spiritual entities as his modes and thus exists qualified by a plurality. We uphold plurality as the three entities. The individual selves, The World, and The Supreme Lord are mutually distinct in their substantive nature and attributes and there is no mutual transposition of their characteristics.
The vision of the Supreme person known as Brahman or Sriman Narayana. The chief obstacle in the path towards perfection s the accumulator of evil tendencies. These can be destroyed only by the cultivation of good tendencies. This is followed by self surrender which generates an inclination towards life divine. Then one has to acquire the knowledge of the reality from the scriptures aided by the holy teachers then the practice of virtues like the control of the mind and senses, austerity, purity, nonviolence, compassion etc.becomes easy. Nitya and namitika duties are to be performed. And prohibited actions are to be avoided. The whole conduct being conceived as the worship of the God. God the embodiment of love and compassion, showers his grace on the aspiarant, which puts an end to all his obstacles. Finally bhakti rises which is an enjoyment of bliss in itself. Bhakti is but meditation which has assumed the character of the most vivid and direct perception of the Supreme.
Yamunacharaya declares that bhakti succeeds the two fold training of the mind by karma and janana. Karma yoga is performance of duties of ones station in life with no thought of reaping any personal benefits in the spirit of the Gitas teachings. Karma that is performed in this manner clenses the heart. Janana yoga which immediately follows the previous discipline is meditation upon the individual self as distinct from body like body mind etc. with which it is associated. It helps the aspiarant to determine the true nature of ones self in relation to the supreme. He realizes that he is subservient to the lord.
The discipline does not stop with the knowledge of ones self alone. It is incomplete without the knowledge of god. Here the word Bhakti does not connote the popular sense in which it is understood. Bhakti yoga is loving meditation upon god. When the meditation attains the form of firm rememberence [druva anusmrith] characterized by intense love the vision of the supreme is attained. It must be mentioned here the final release is attained after the dissolution of the body. One endowed with such bhakti and self surrender attains the fitness to earn the grace of the lord. This bhakti is the upasana or knowledge mentioned in the Upanishads. It is the same as the knowledge spoken in the sruthis. One who knows Brahman attains the supreme. He who knows him becomes immortal here. And he who knows Brahman becomes Brahman. As the vision of the supreme is not possible through ordinary means of perception. He can be seen only through bhakti which is a unique form of knowledge. Thus it is in consonance with the gita declaration “ I am attainable only through undivided bhakti.
The ideal to be realized is the vision of the supreme.It is an experience of absolute peace perfection, bliss and freedom untouched by the cosmic limitations of space and time.
Sri Ramanuja is accused of having given a picturesque description of the ideal realm, but a little insight reveals that the ideal is not such a farry land that it is made out to be. The domain he points out is of the nature of pure immutable sattava, it is transedent without the traits of the material gunas of sattava rajas and tamas. Similarly the individual self also in the state of moksha gives up its material body and assumes a trancedent form. The substance of shuddha sattava is common to god. The self and the realm of the ideal known as nitya vibhuti.
The individual self is the essence of knowledge. This knowledge in its attributive aspect gets more or less contracted in samsara. But it expands infinitely in the state of moksha. It becomes all knowing and enjoys perfect bliss and love in divine communion. It is an ineffable enjoyment. In its natural state it yields its spirit to the will glory and adoration of god. Sri Ramanuja characterizes this state as Ananya prayojana having no other end except itself. In this ideal state there is no break in the enjoyment of divine communion.
Sri Ramanuja is not unaware of the criticism that there is sub servience to and dependence upon god in his conception of moksha. The critics say that subordination in any form cannot conduce to the joy of self, the divine fetters are not less strong to bind. Further manu says that servitude is dogs life. Sri Ramanuja effectively meets this criticism in his characteristic way. He enunciates a principle that what an individual persues different and mutually conflicting values. Hence the notion that independence is happiness proceeds from the misconception that one is identical with body mind etc. This attachment to the body is a sort of dependence itself. Instead of dependence on God it is dependence of matter. The mata physical fact is that he is not the body and consequently there must be something else with which his self is related. There cannot be a relation of the principal entity and the subsidiary between any finite objects. The only object with which such a relation can exist is God. Hence dependence on anything other than god is painful, and subservience to god is joy and freedom. Similarly bondage is indeed a dogs life when ones serves those who are unworthy of service. The only entity which is worthy of love adoration and service is GOD.
Sri Ramanuja clinches the issue by quoting a text.
He is to be served by all. The emancipation consists in service of god. And true bondage is independence of god and service to body.
No comments:
Post a Comment