Indian Philosophy v2.c27.s9: XIV Critical Reflections
Indian Philosophy v2.c27.s9
- Language
- English
XIV Critical Reflections
v2.c27.s9.2
The fact of knowledge leads us to an organic conception of the world, but does not justify the division of the world into God, souls and objects externally related to one another. Nor can we understand the relation of the so-called essence or the individual soul to the universal principles operating in it. If God creates, if the beginning of the world-process is the result of the desire of the divine self, we may, no doubt, be able to account for creation. But the difficulty remains that whatever feels a want or has a desire is imperfect and limited. God, on such a view, cannot be regarded as the supreme perfection. The nature of the dependence of the world on God is not clearly brought out. If God were really independent, then there must not be anything to limit him from without. A dualism makes the independence of God impossible. Madhva conceives the infinite in an abstract manner, and is therefore not able to see any unity between it and the finite. If Brahman is co-eternal with the world, what is the relation between the two? If it is also a co-eternal relation, is the supreme spirit bound to objects other than itself? We cannot say that it is the nature of the supreme spirit to stand related to the individual souls, since the former does not contain the reason of the latter’s existence. It is difficult to believe that the essence of God involves a relation to objects whose existence it does not necessitate. It is equally difficult to hold that the relation is a non-essential or accidental one, for an eternal accident, which subjects unborn spirits to itself and binds down the Supreme also, cannot be a mere accident. If the souls and matter depend on the ultimate Brahman, they cannot be regarded as substances. In the highest sense, the term “substance” can be predicated only of a *res completa*, that which is complete in itself, determined by itself and capable of being explained entirely from itself. Madhva recognises that such a reality is possessed only by the supreme spirit. All else is produced from Viṣṇu, the supreme spirit, directly or indirectly. Even his consort Śrī and his son Vāyu are entirely dependent on him. But the admission of Viṣṇu as the supreme reality of the world does not involve the denial of derivative and dependent being to other objects.
v2.c27.s9.3
Again, the theory of election is fraught with great danger to ethical life. The predestinarian scheme of thought puts an excessive strain on the other parts of Madhva’s theology.
v2.c27.s9.4
The moral character of God is much compromised and the qualities of divine justice and divine love are emptied of all meaning and value. Individual effort loses its point, since whether one believes oneself to be the elect or the non-elect, one is bound to lapse into indifferentism and apathy. If we do not know what we are destined for, we may work on to purify ourselves. In the absence of knowledge we may at least have hope. But this theory will overwhelm us in despair and raise the question: Is not God playing a practical joke on us, when he implants in us a desire for heaven while making us unfit for it? Unless we are in a position to believe in the spiritual possibilities of every one who bears the human form divine, we cannot have a really useful ethics. In certain passages Madhva says that the individual soul is of the form of knowledge and bliss, though it is not conscious of this nature, while God is eternally conscious that he is of the nature of knowledge and bliss. The distinction, therefore, between God and man, however great, is not one of kind. The essence of each soul may perhaps represent its degree of obscuration, but it is difficult to prove that there are eternal essences persisting in souls even when they are released. In all this we are simply transferring the distinctions of experience to the kingdom of God.
v2.c27.s9.5
NIMBĀRKA
v2.c27.s9.6
Nimbārka was a Telugu Brahmin of the Vaiṣṇava faith who lived some time after Rāmānuja and prior to Madhva, about the eleventh century A.D. He wrote a short commentary on the Brahma Sūtra called Vedāntapārijātasaurabha, as well as ten verses, Daśaślokī, elucidating his view of the distinctness of Jīva, Īśvara and Jagat. His theory is called dvaitādvaita, or dualistic non-dualism. Keśavakāśmīrin wrote a commentary on the Bhagavadgītā called Tattvaprakāśikā, in defence of Nimbārka’s general view. His commentary on the Brahma Sūtra develops the theory of the transformation (pariṇāma) of Brahman. A distinction is made between the independent reality of puruṣottama and the dependent realities of jīva and prakṛti. While both jīva and Īśvara are self-conscious, the former is limited, while the latter is not. While the jīva is the enjoyer (bhoktṛ), the world is the enjoyed (bhogya), and Īśvara or God is the supreme controller (niyantṛ).
v2.c27.s9.7
According to Nimbārka’s teaching the jīva is of the form of knowledge (jñānasvarūpa), though not in Śaṃkara’s sense. It is knowledge as well as the possessor of knowledge, even as the sun is light as well as the source of light. The relation of soul to its attribute is that of the dharmin (the qualified) to the dharma (the qualification). It is one of difference as well as non-difference. Between the qualification and the qualified there is no absolute identity, but only the non-perception of the difference. Though jīva is atomic in size, on account of its possession of the omnipresent quality of knowledge, it is able to experience the pleasures and the pains throughout the body.¹ The jīva is the agent of activity (kartṛ). The scriptural texts which deny activity are intended to bring out the dependent character of the activity of the jīva. The jīva has no independent (svatantra) knowledge or activity. Ānanda or delight pertains to the jīva in all its states. The jīva continues to exist in dreamless sleep and the state of release. As Īśvara is the governor, the jīva in all its states has the nature of being governed (niyāmyatva). The number of jīvas is infinite, though they are all sustained by the supreme spirit.
v2.c27.s9.8
¹ ii. 3. 25.
v2.c27.s9.9
The inanimate world has three principal categories (tattvas), which are: (1) aprākṛta or what is not derived from the primordial prakṛti, such as the stuff of the divine body akin to Rāmānuja’s śuddhasattva, which is the basis of the nityavibhūti of Īśvara; (2) prakṛti, or what is derived from prakṛti with its three guṇas; and (3) kāla, or time. Prakṛti and kāla are the basic principles of cosmic existence. These three categories are also eternal like the individual souls.
v2.c27.s9.10
The eternal nature of Īśvara is to govern (niyantṛtva). Nimbārka and Keśava refute the predicateless character of Brahman and attribute to the latter good and auspicious qualities.² The supreme spirit is identified by Nimbārka with Kṛṣṇa, and is regarded as possessing all auspicious qualities and exempt from the faults of egoism, ignorance, passion and attachment. He has the four forms (vyūhas), and also manifests himself in the avatāras, or incarnations. He is the material and the efficient cause of the universe. He is the material cause, since creation means the manifestation of his powers (śakti) of cit and acit in their subtle forms. He is the efficient cause of the universe, since he brings about the union of the individual souls with their respective karmas and their results and the proper instruments for experiencing them.
v2.c27.s9.11
² Keśava says: ‘ Nāpi nirdharmakam brahma tasya jñānakriyādīnām svābhāvikaśaktīnām śāstrasiddhatvāt ” (i. 1. 5). Again: “ Ānandamaya-śabdanirdiṣṭa ātmā brahmaiva ” (i. 1. 13).
v2.c27.s9.12
The universe cannot be dismissed as a mere illusion, since it is a manifestation (pariṇāma) of what is contained subtly in the nature of God. Nimbārka criticises the vivarta (illusion) theory of the world, and argues that, if the world were not real, it could not be superimposed on another.
v2.c27.s9.13
The relation of the three principles of jīva, the world and God, is not one of absolute identity or non-distinction, since such a view would contradict numberless passages of the Upaniṣads which insist on difference and will also involve confusion between the natures and attributes of the different principles. Nor can it be said that the three principles are absolutely distinct, since this would be to fly in the face of the monistic evidence of the Upaniṣads. Were the supreme spirit absolutely distinct from the individual soul and the world, it could not be omnipresent. It would be as limited as the individual soul or the world, and could not, therefore, be regarded as their governor. The suggestion that non-difference is the reality while difference is due to upādhis or limitations cannot be accepted, since it would be to subject Brahman to conditions. On such a view, Brahman would cease to be pure and become subject to faults, and would experience pleasure, pain and the like, and all this would be contrary to the accepted nature of Brahman. So Nimbārka concludes that both difference and non-difference are real. The soul and the world are different from Brahman, since they possess natures and attributes different from those of Brahman. They are not different, since they cannot exist by themselves and depend absolutely on Brahman. The difference signifies distinct and dependent existence (paratantrasattābhāvaḥ), and non-difference signifies the impossibility of independent existence (svatantrasattā’bhāvaḥ). In the light of this doctrine of difference-non-difference, the famous text, “ Tat tvam asi,” is interpreted. “Tat” signifies the eternal, omnipresent Brahman; “tvam” refers to the individual soul, whose existence depends on Brahman; and “asi” brings out the relation between the two, which is one of difference compatible with non-difference. Such a relation subsists between the sun and its rays or the fire and its sparks. Though souls and matter are distinct from God, they are yet intimately connected with him, as waves with water or coils of a rope with the rope itself. They are both distinct and non-distinct from Brahman. We need not regard the distincts as mutually exclusive and absolutely cut off from each other. Difference and identity are both equally real, and what is different is also identical.
v2.c27.s9.14
Yet the individual souls and the world are not self-sufficient, but are guided by Īśvara.¹ In pralaya, these two get absorbed into the nature of Īśvara, who contains the subtle forms of jīva and jagat. Between the periods of dissolution and re-creation, all existence, conscious and unconscious, dwells in him in a subtle state. Through Brahman’s śakti, or energy, the world is produced where each separate soul finds fit embodiment.
v2.c27.s9.15
¹ Daśaślokī, 7.
v2.c27.s9.16
Nimbārka does not accept the theory that the conscious and the unconscious worlds form, together with Brahman, a composite personality, which is the material cause of the world, so far as the body of that personality goes. According to him, the śakti of Brahman is the material cause of the world, and the changes of śakti do not touch the integrity of Brahman. What Rāmānuja calls the “body” of Brahman is the śakti of Nimbārka. God does not stand in need of materials to construct the world. He is all-powerful, and by his mere will he is able to create the world.² Brahman is thus both the efficient and the material cause of the world. The world is identical with Brahman, and depends on him for its becoming and its power to act; and yet, in a sense, it is distinct from Brahman. The usual theory which traces the evolution of nature to the three guṇas is accepted.³
v2.c27.s9.17
² i. 1. 19.
v2.c27.s9.18
³ Daśaślokī, 3.
v2.c27.s9.19
The supreme spirit is conceived as free from all defects, a storehouse of all beneficent attributes, possessed of a heavenly body, full of beauty and tenderness, sweetness and charm.¹ Souls are infinite in number and are atomic is size. Each soul is a ray of Brahman individualised.² The theory attempts to avoid the affirmation of an absolute identity, where attributes are confused and distinctions abolished, and, at the same time, tries to escape from mere pluralism, which would impair the omnipresence of Brahman and limit his nature and sovereignty.
v2.c27.s9.20
¹ Daśaślokī, 4.
v2.c27.s9.21
² Commentary on the B.S., ii. 3. 42.
v2.c27.s9.22
The pure nature of the jīva is obscured by its karma, which is the result of avidyā, which is beginningless, yet through the grace of God can be terminated. Prapatti, or complete submission to God, is the way to deliverance. Those who possess this attitude of prapannas are favoured by God, who engenders in them bhakti or devotion, which eventually results in brahmasākṣātkāra or realisation of God. Bhakti involves a knowledge of the supreme reality, the nature of the individual soul, the fruit of divine grace or mokṣa, which is an uninterrupted realisation of the nature and attributes of Brahman, resulting in the absolute destruction of all selfishness and ignorance, and the nature of the hindrances to God-realisation, such as the erroneous identification of the soul with the body, the senses or the mind, dependence on another than God, violation of or indifference to his commandments, and confusion of God with ordinary beings, the sense of freedom and joy born of true devotion. In Nimbārka Kṛṣṇa and Rādhā³ take the place of Nārāyaṇa and his consort. Bhakti is not meditation (upāsana), but love and devotion. The grace of God is ever ready to lift up the helpless and make them see the truth of things. The worship of other gods is forbidden. Ethical rules, prescribed in the śāstras, are insisted on. Karma is said to be the means for the acquisition of brahmajñāna,⁴ carrying with it devotion.⁵
v2.c27.s9.23
³ Daśaślokī, 5 and 8.
v2.c27.s9.24
⁴ i. I. 4.
v2.c27.s9.25
⁵ i. I. 7.
v2.c27.s9.26
While both Rāmānuja and Nimbārka regard difference and non-difference as necessary, and treat animate and inanimate existences as attributes of Brahman, Rāmānuja emphasises more the principle of identity. For Nimbārka the two are equally real and have the same importance. Again, Rāmānuja regards the individual souls (cit) and the world (acit) as the attributes (viśeṣaṇas or prakāras) of Brahman; and his view emphasizes the non-duality of the supreme Lord, qualified by the individual souls and the world.¹ Nimbārka disputes this view on the ground that the presence of a body does not necessarily imply the possession of attributes; for an attribute has for its object the distinction of the thing which possesses it from others which do not possess it. If cit and acit are the attributes of Brahman, then, what is that reality from which Brahman is distinguished by the possession of these marks?
v2.c27.s9.27
¹ Cidacidviśiṣṭaparameśvarādvaita.
v2.c27.s9.28
VALLABHA
v2.c27.s9.29
Vallabha (1401 A.D.) is a Telugu Brahmin of South India, who migrated to the north and developed the views of Viṣṇusvāmin, who belonged to the thirteenth century. He accepts the authority not only of the Upaniṣads, the Bhagavad-gītā and the Brahma Sūtra, but also of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa. In his works, Aṇubhāṣya, Siddhāntarahasya and Bhāgavata-ṭīkāsubodhinī,² he offers a theistic interpretation of the Vedānta, which differs from those of Śaṃkara and Rāmānuja. His view is called Śuddhādvaita, or pure non-dualism,³ and declares that the whole world is real and is subtly Brahman. The individual souls and the inanimate world are in essence one with Brahman. Vallabha admits that jīva, kāla or time, and prakṛti or māyā, are eternal existences; they are referred to the being of Brahman and have no separate existence. Those who accept the force of māyā as the explanation of the world are not pure Advaitins, since they admit a second to Brahman.⁴ While Śaṃkara traces the world to Brahman through the force of māyā, Vallabha holds that Brahman can create the world without any connection with such a principle as māyā. In his view the śāstra is the final authority, and our reason cannot protest against its dictates.⁵ God is saccidānanda, and has qualities; the śruti passages which declare that he has no qualities mean merely that he has not the ordinary qualities.¹ God is personified as Kṛṣṇa, when he is endowed with the qualities of wisdom (jñāna) and action (kriyā). He is the creator of the world, and we need not suppose that he should possess a physical body as worldly agents do, since what applies to us need not apply to the transcendent God. By the mere force of his will he creates the whole world. Not only is he kartā or agent, but also enjoyer or bhoktā.² Though he has no need to assume a body, he appears in various forms to please his devotees.³ The highest, when associated with action only, is yajñarūpa, who can be propitiated by karmas, as stated in the Brāhmaṇas; when associated with wisdom, it is Brahman, and can be approached through jñāna, as stated in the Upaniṣads. Kṛṣṇa the Supreme has to be worshipped according to the principles of the Gītā and the Bhāgavata.
v2.c27.s9.30
² Giridhara's Śuddhādvaitamārtaṇḍa and Bālakṛṣṇa's Prameyaratnārṇava belong to this sect.
v2.c27.s9.31
³ As distinct from Śaṃkara's Kevalādvaita.
v2.c27.s9.32
⁴ i. I. 6.
v2.c27.s9.33
⁵ i. I. 20.
v2.c27.s9.34
¹ See his commentary on B.S., iii. 2. 22.
v2.c27.s9.35
² i. I. I.
v2.c27.s9.36
³ i. I. 20-21.
v2.c27.s9.37
In human and animal souls the quality of ānanda is suppressed, while in matter consciousness is also suppressed. Brahman becomes whatever it wills by the evolution (āvirbhāva) and involution (tirobhāva) of its qualities. The jīva is atomic in size,⁴ is one with Brahman, and constitutes a part of it.⁵ When the ānanda of Brahman is obscured, we have the jīva. Though its production is only a manifestation, it is as real and eternal as Brahman. Three kinds of jīvas are distinguished. The pure (śuddha) jīvas are those whose lordly qualities (aiśvarya) are not obscured by the force of ignorance (avidyā). The mundane (saṃsārin) jīvas are those which are caught in the meshes of avidyā, and experience birth and death by reason of their connection with gross and subtle bodies. The liberated (mukta) jīvas are those which are freed from the bonds of saṃsāra through insight into truth (vidyā). When the soul attains release, it recovers its suppressed qualities and becomes one with God. The inanimate world is also filled with Brahman (brahmātmaka). In it the two qualities of Brahman, knowledge and bliss, are obscured, and what remains is pure sattva or existence. Since it is Brahman that is manifested in the form of the world, the latter is regarded as the effect of Brahman (brahmakārya). Creation and destruction of the world are only the manifestation and non-manifestation of the Supreme who puts on these forms. Brahman becomes a product and is apprehended in the state of creation, while in destruction the world returns to its original form, and ceases to be an object of perception. The world is therefore as eternal and real as Brahman himself, and its creation and destruction are due to the power (śakti) of Brahman. The world cannot be regarded as an illusory appearance; nor is it essentially different from Brahman. The relation of cause and effect is one of absolute identity.¹ The universe in truth is Brahman. Brahman manifests himself of his own will, as the individual souls and the world, without undergoing any change in his essential nature. He is the material as well as the efficient cause of the world.² The charges of partiality and cruelty cannot be urged against Brahman, since the difference of the jīvas from Brahman is admitted by Vallabha. He holds that the jīva, freed from the fetters of māyā, is one with Brahman.
v2.c27.s9.38
⁴ ii. 3. 19.
v2.c27.s9.39
⁵ ii. 3. 43.
v2.c27.s9.40
¹ Prāgabhāva, or prior non-existence, is the causal condition; pradhvaṃsābhāva is but disappearance of the effect.
v2.c27.s9.41
² i. I. 4.
v2.c27.s9.42
Vallabha looks upon God as the whole and the individual as part; but, as the individual is of identical essence with God, there is no real difference between the two. The analogy of sparks to fire is employed to great purpose. The individual soul is not the Supreme clouded by the force of avidyā, but is itself Brahman, with one attribute rendered imperceptible. The soul is both a doer and an enjoyer. It is atomic in size, though pervading the whole body by its quality of intelligence, even as sandal-wood makes its presence felt where it does not exist by its scent. For Rāmānuja, who accepts one ultimate substantive reality, the difference between God and soul is never destroyed. Rāmānuja relates God and the soul as whole and parts, where the parts are really different moments of the whole. His view of sāmānādhikaraṇya or viśeṣaṇaviśeṣyabhāva points to the coinherence of many parts in the same whole. Vallabha, on the other hand, gives us something like Schelling's neutrum, where the differences are abolished, while Rāmānuja's view is more like Hegel's.
v2.c27.s9.43
The world of māyā is not regarded as unreal,¹ since māyā is nothing else than a power which Īśvara of his free will produces. "Brahman is the efficient and the material cause of the universe. He is not only the creator of the universe but is the universe itself."[²] He accepts the Bṛhadāraṇyaka account,³ that Brahman desired to become many, and himself became the multitude of individual souls and the world. A desire for self-expression is innate in Brahman. Māyā, according to Vallabha, is the power of Īśvara, through which he brings about the evolution and the dissolution of the world. Māyā is different from avidyā, which is responsible for the obscuration of the unity of things and the production of the consciousness of difference.⁴ Vallabha does not admit an inert prakṛti which is energised by Brahman. Though Brahman in himself is not known, he is known when he manifests himself through the world.
v2.c27.s9.44
¹ Anubhāṣya on i. 1. 4.
v2.c27.s9.45
² Anubhāṣya, i. 1. 4.
v2.c27.s9.46
³ i. 4. 3.
v2.c27.s9.47
⁴ See Śuddhādvaitamārtaṇḍa.
v2.c27.s9.48
Saṃsāra, however, is unreal. The soul is right in regarding the world as real, but is wrong when it ascribes to it plurality. The world is true, though our experience (pratīti) of it is wrong. We do not realise that the world is but a form of Brahman. The jīva is thus infected with a wrong view of the nature of the world. To those who have attained to the truth, the world appears as Brahman. To those who have learnt the truth from the scriptures, it appears as both Brahman and māyā, *i.e.* something other than Brahman, though they know that the former is real and the latter not. The ignorant make no distinction between the reality of Brahman and the unreality of the plural appearances which set themselves forth as objective and independent. Avidyā is located in the mind of man. Vallabha thus does not accept the view of the unreality of the world as such. If the world is unreal, we cannot even say that it is one with Brahman, since a relation of identity cannot exist between a real entity and an unreal appearance. There is a possibility of deception, though it is not divinely conditioned.
v2.c27.s9.49
The jīva bound by māyā cannot attain salvation except through the grace of God. Bhakti is the chief means of salvation, though jñāna is also useful. All sins are put away if we have true faith in God, a principle that was much exaggerated in practice. Vallabha deprecated all kinds of self-mortification. The body is the temple of God, and there is no meaning in attempting to destroy it. Karmas precede knowledge of the Supreme, and are present even when this knowledge is gained. The liberated perform all karmas.¹ The highest goal is not mukti or liberation, but rather eternal service of Kṛṣṇa and participation in his sports in the celestial Bṛndāvana. Vallabha distinguishes the transcendent consciousness of Brahman from Puruṣottama.² The souls, delivered from the trammels of life, are of different kinds. There are those who have freed themselves from previous subjection, like Sanaka, and those who dwell in the city of God, where they attain freedom through the grace of God. There are others who resort to bhakti and develop perfect love and become the associates of God. Vallabha lays great stress on a life of unqualified love to God.
v2.c27.s9.50
¹ Aṇubhāṣya, i. 1. 1.
v2.c27.s9.51
² Ibid., iv. 3. 27.
v2.c27.s9.52
The relation between Brahman on the one side and the individual souls (jīva) and the inanimate nature (jaḍa) on the other, is one of pure identity, even as the relation of whole (aṃśin) and part (aṃśa) is. While the difference is subordinated by Vallabha, non-difference alone is said to be real. He interprets "Tat tvam asi" ("That art thou") as literally true, while Rāmānuja and Nimbārka take it in a figurative sense. When the soul attains bliss, and the inanimate world both consciousness and bliss, the difference between Brahman and these will lapse—a position which Rāmānuja does not accept.
Cites (3)
- Brahmasūtra — Bādarāyaṇa, Sanskrit
- Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad — Sanskrit
- Daśaślokī (Vedāntakāmadhenu) — Nimbārka, Sanskrit