62

CHAPTER -3

HOW THE ACHARYAS HAVE DEVELOPED THE

VEDANTIC THOUGHT.

3.1 INTRODUCTION:-

Though the philosophy of the Vedas were brought to its culmination

in the Upanishadic age, the phase between post-Upanishadic age

and pre-Buddhistic age had seen great religions and philosophical

upheaval in India which attracted severe criticisms. This was mainly

due to the religious dominations of the Brahmana priests. They

were given more to the externals of worship, relegating the

substance of them. As such rituals and sacrifices were elaborated to

such an extent by the Brahmins, that persons of rationalistic bent of

mind revolted and questioned the very efficacy of the sacrificial

religion. Dr. Radhakrishnan says ‘When attempts are made to

smother the intellectual curiosity of people, the mind of man rebels

against it, and the inevitable reaction shows itself in an impatience

of all formal authority and a wild outbreak of the emotional life long

repressed by the discipline of the ceremonial religion.’ [1]

The tidal wave of rationalism in its extreme form gave rise to such

schools of thought as the Charvakas, which are extremely

materialistic and anti-religious.

The destructive criticism of everything in the old system by the

Charvakas and the other schools of philosophy set the orthodox

section to organize their belief on a more rationalistic basis and

render it immune against all such criticism. This led to the

foundation of the six systems of orthodox Hindu philosophy, viz.,

Nyaya, Vaisesika, Sankhya, Yoga, Purvamimansa, Uttaramimansa.

63

They are called orthodox in the sense that they accepted the

authority of the Vedas, while there were others who did not accept

this authority and therefore were known as heterodox, though

otherwise they too were the outcome of the Upanishadic thought.

The acceptance of the authority of the Vedas by these orthodox

schools, however, does not mean, that they accepted them in toto.

Their allegiance to the Vedas varied widely. While Purva Mimansa

and Vedanta directly accepted their allegiance to the Vedas, the

others indirectly accepted it.

These six orthodox systems of thought developed side by side at

different intellectual centers. However, with the passage of time,

differences cropped up even within each system and things became

so unwieldy that a regular systematization of each became a great

necessity.

This lead to the sutra literature. Sutras means clues which

consisted in short aphorisms. Sutras of different philosophical

schools have cropped up. Brahman Sutra of Badarayana is one such

systematization of the thought contained in the Upanishads.

Besides Badarayana, there were other Sutrakaras even of Vedanta

schools, such as Jaimini, Asmarathya and others mentioned in the

Brahman Sutra itself. However it was Badarayana’s Brahman Sutra

which gained prominence and popularity. Great Acharyas have

commentaries on it. The reason for the advent of so many

commentaries on the Sutras of Badarayana may be ascribed to the

facts like the brevity of the Sutras, the sutras not being arranged

according to the chapters and sections, Badarayana’s silence about

his own decision with regard to the fundamental questions in the

Sutra, etc. However, the oldest of the extant commentaries is by

Shankara.

64

3.2 SHANKARA:-

3.2.1 Life of Shankara:-

Shankara occupies a very prominent position in the domain of

Indian Philosophy. He combined in his personality a formidable

capacity of debating, a rare power of speculative thinking. With this

rare combination of the qualities of head and heart there should not

be any wonder that Shankara gave a new orientation to Indian

philosophy and Hinduism and influenced subsequent thinkers

immensely.

When was this great son of India born? An answer to this question

cannot be given precisely. It has been generally accepted by many

modern Indologists that he lived between 788 and 820 A.D.

Shankara was born at Kaladi in the modern Kerala state, of a

Namboodari Brahmin family. He lost his father quite early. Naturally

therefore the work of looking after him was left to his mother. It is

said that Shankara felt the call of renunciation when he was in his

teens.

Shankara became a disciple of Govindapada. By the age of sixteen,

Shankara completed his studies. He went to Varanasi for the

expounding of his Vedantic mission and there he wrote many of his

famous commentaries. He toured almost the whole of India to

establish the supremacy of his thought and established the four

Shankara Mathas in the four directions of India viz. the Jyotir Matha

(Badrinath) in the North, the Sarda Matha (Puri) in the East, the

Sringeri Matha in the South, and the Govardhana Matha (Dwarka)

in the West.

Among the commentaries can be included Brahman Sutra Bhasya,

also known as Sariraka Bhasya, Gita Bhasya, and the Bhasyas on

the Upanishads –Isa, Kena, Katha, Prasna, Mundaka, Mundaukya,

Taittiriya, Aitareya, Chandogya, Brhadaranyaka, Svetasvatara, and

Nrisimhataapini. Shankara also wrote panegyrics addressed to the

65

various deities. They are Ananda Lahari, Govindastaka,

Daksinamurti-stotram, Dasasloki, Carpata Panjarika, Dvadasa

Panjarika etc.

3.2.2 Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta:-

The philosophy propagated by Adi Shankara is known as ‘Advaita’ or

non-dualism. It is not that he was the first teacher of Advaita, the

other teachers before him being the sages like Yajnavalkya,

Uddalaka, Gaudapada, and many others. But Shankara’s intellectual

treatment made it more logical and systematic. Dr. Radhakrishnan

says ‘His philosophy stands forth complete, needing neither a before

nor an after….It expounds its own presuppositions, is ruled by its

own end, and holds all its elements in a stable, reasoned

equipoise.’[2]

Shankara, follows the monism imbedded in the Upanishads and

declare that Brahman is the only Ontological Reality, everything

else is just name and form. It is attributeless, indeterminate and

without a second. It can be only envisaged as Existence, Knowledge

and Bliss.

The world is only an appearance in the Brahman, like the snake in a

rope, and is not ultimately real.

There is no essential difference between individual soul or Jiva, and

Brahman. Jiva’s separate existence is through ‘Upadhi’ due to Maya

(ignorance or delusion). Once it realizes it’s true nature, it is

released from bondage of ignorance and attains salvation.

The main metaphysical tenets of Shankara’s Advaita are discussed

as under.

3.2.3 Atman:-

Man occupies a central position in Vedanta, for it is for the salvation

of man that Vedanta undertakes philosophical discussions. Even

‘Brahman Sutra’ is called ‘Sariraka Sutra’ because it is written for

66

man. But what is the real nature of man? Is he the body, the

senses, the mind , the intellect? Or is he a bundle of experiences?

It needs rational speculation to answer this question.

In an attempt to answer this question Shankara starts with

experience, for experience of a man cannot be denied. However, for

the next step he asks a more basic question, i.e., what pre-

supposes them all? In the introduction to the commentary on

Vedanta Sutra, he asks whether there is anything in experience

which may be regarded as foundational. The senses may deceive us

and our memory may be an illusion. The past and future may be

abstractions. All objects of knowledge may be matters of belief and

so open to doubt. However, there seems to be still something in

experience transcending it.

No one doubts one’s own existence. Everyone is conscious of his

own existence. The self is prior to stream of consciousness, prior to

truth and falsehood, prior to reality and illusion, good and evil. The

very existence of understanding and its functions presuppose an

intelligence known as the self, or Atman, which is different from

them, and which they subserve.

This Atman is self-established or self-proved, for it cannot be

proved through any proofs concerning the self. It cannot be proved,

since it is the basis of all proof and is established prior to all proof.

On the other hand it is the self that uses the various Pramanas like

perception etc. to prove the objects besides it . It cannot be known

by means of thought, since thought himself is a part of the ever-

changing not-self. It is known to exist on account of its immediate

presentation.

Again, this self is not the empirical ‘me’ or self-consciousness or the

Ahankara. For empirical self is a creature of the natural world,

and there would not be any natural world, if there were not the

presupposition of the principle ‘I’.

67

Each function and faculty, the gross body and the vital breath, the

senses and the internal organ, the empirical ‘me’ appear only on the

basis of and in relation to Atman. They all serve an end beyond

themselves, and depend on some deeper ground of existence.

But, all these negative epithets do not prove self to be a non-entity,

for there is no consciousness or experience possible apart from it.

The Atman cannot be doubted or denied, for it is the essential

nature of him who denies it.

The Sunyavada denies the presence of any permanent Self. This

contradicts Shankara’s main position, that the Atman cannot be

denied, for the act of denying presupposes it.

The natural question that arises now is that What is the nature of

the self?

In Viveka-Cudamami he says:

‘An eternal somewhat, upon which the conviction

relating to the ego rests, exists as itself, being

different from the five sheaths and the witness of

the three conditions.’[3]

Being the presupposition of everything, even the ego, it is eternal

and self-existent. It is different from the five sheaths, viz.,

Annamaya (the physical), Pranamaya (the vital Pranas), Manomaya

(the mental), Vijnanamaya (the intellectual) and Anandamaya (the

blissful) and is covered by them. They are sheaths because, the Self

can very well alienate itself from them. Philosophically the true

criteria of reality is that which persists through all the states.

In ordinary parlance though we use the word ‘I’ which seems to

imply sometimes the body(e.g. ‘I am fat’), sometimes a sense (e.g.

‘I am blind), sometimes motor organ (e.g. ‘I am lame’), sometimes

a mental faculty(e.g. ‘I am dull’),sometimes consciousness (e.g. ‘I

know’). Yet that is the real ‘I’ which persists through all the physical

and mental states. Consequently what persists through the body,

68

senses, mind, etc. is the consciousness which is the essence of the

Self .

If again we compare the three states, namely of waking,

dreaming, and dreamless sleep, the self is that which abides by all

the three states and that is consciousness. In the waking state

there is the consciousness of the outside world, in the dream state

of the dream of the objects. In dreamless state no object

consciousness is there, but consciousness of some sort is still there,

for when we wake up we feel that we had a peaceful sleep. It may

be argued that the subsequent consciousness of a dreamless sleep

is due to the memory of the state before sleep and perception of

the state after the sleep. But we cannot infer a thing which is not

presented.

Shankara denies the Yogachara view that the soul is nothing more

than a series of mental states. For a principle of consciousness is

needed even for the connection of such series of mental

consciousness. If there is no abiding substance behind theses

feeling sensations then one cannot account for either memory or

recognition.

The materialists identify the Self with the body and the senses. But

according to Shankara consciousness and matter represent different

kinds of reality and one cannot be reduced to the other. Nor can we

identify the self with the senses. For there will be as many selves as

the senses.

Thus the Self, whose nature is consciousness is the eternal subject,

which can never be an object. Metaphysically whatever is eternal

and immutable and complete is also self-existent, and the only real

or self-existent being is Brahman. Thus Atman is Brahman. As an

eternal subject it is distinguished from the object which includes not

only the outer world, and the physical body along with the senses,

but also with the organs of understanding.

69

Self is not an agent. The Nyaya school holds that agency is the very

nature of the soul. Shankara , following the Upanishads says that

agency is not the real nature of the Atman, it is super-imposed on

it. The soul is an agent only as long as it is connected with the

Upadhis, like mind, Buddhi etc. Just as a carpenter suffers when he

is busy working with his tools and happy when he leaves off work,

so does the Atman suffer when, through its connection with Buddhi

etc., is active, as in the waking and dream states, and is blissful

when it ceases to be an agent, as in deep sleep.[4]

Question may arise that if Atman is merely a witness and not an

agent itself, then how does it come to be connected with Buddhi

etc. In other words, what causes the body, mind, intellect to work

for the self ?

To this Shankara answers:

‘By reason of its proximity alone the body,

the organs, manas and buddhi apply themselves

to their proper objects as if applied (by someone else).’[5]

3.2.4 Brahman:-

Philosophy neither denies nor questions the worldly experience, but

goes beyond it to explain it. The universe is changeful by nature.

Nothing in it is permanent. On the other hand there is constant

effort on our side to transcend this finitude and transitoriness. This

gives the indication of some reality which transcends the

limitedness and mutations of this world.

Shankara agrees with the Buddhist view that all things change, but

he demands a supersensible reality which is not within the world of

change. Logically, to conceive of change we need the reality of

something which does not need the support or help of anything

else. Even an imagined object cannot float unsupported in mid air, if

there is no such reality.

70

From the Upanishads Shankara takes the concept of Brahman to be

the ultimate reality. But to say that Brahman is real is to imply that

it is different from phenomenal, the spatial, the temporal and the

sensible. The reality of Brahman is not of the same order as the

objects of experience, for the latter have existence in the spatio-

temporal world, but Brahman is real in the sense of being the

foundation of everything. It cannot be sensed as an object of this

world. An object of experience is known by its identity with the

similar objects, by differentiating it with the dissimilar objects. A

tree, for example, has the internal variety of leaves, flowers and

fruits, has the relation of likeness to other trees, and unlikeness to

objects other than trees, like stones etc. But Brahman has nothing

similar to it, nothing different from it, and no internal

differentiation, since all these are empirical distinctions.

Neither can we express its nature in words. For, whenever we

employ a word to denote a thing, we associate it either with some

genus of things, or some act, or quality, or mode of relation.

Brahman has no genus, possesses no qualities, does not act, and is

related to nothing else. Thus it is inexpressible by nature for, when

we say anything of it we make it into a particular thing.

Unable to describe it positively, we are compelled to denote it as

the negative of the positively known objects. We can at best say

what Brahman is not, and not what it is.

But an infinite is not merely the negation of the finite. It only shows

that Brahman is beyond speech or thought. Indescribability of

Brahman in positive terms does not render it to be a non-entity or

Sunya, for without Brahman we cannot Comprehend even this non-

entity.

In Viveka-Cudamani we find some positive epithets as well. It is

said of Brahman that,

‘….the supreme Brahman is the one reality, without a second,

it is pure wisdom , the stainless one, absolute peace

71

without beginning and without end, void of action

and the essence of ceaseless bliss.’[6]

Again, he says:

‘Brahman is the infinite, eternal, all-pervading light,

it can be neither taken hold of, nor abandoned,

inconceivable by the mind and inexpressible by speech,

immeasurable, without beginning, without end.’[7]

When Brahman is described as Nirguna, indeterminate or

attributeless, it only means that it is devoid of any mundane

attribute by which an object is distinguished from another. It cannot

be described as an object, i.e. as a quality of the world. But this

does not mean that it cannot be defined at all. It can be indicated.

If we notice the causal sequence in this world, we find that

particular things are produced from the more general ones. For

example pots are produced from clay and not vice versa. As

Brahman is the mere existence without any distinction, it can only

be the cause, and never the effect. Thus it can be indicated as the

supposed cause of the world. Thus, according to Shankara, the

second verse of Brahma Sutra defines Brahman as the cause of the

world.

“Janmadasya yatah” (1.1.2)

‘that which is the cause of the world is Brahman’ [8]

Such words i.e., ‘Janmadi’(origin etc.) are not related to Brahman

as they are related to the empirical objects. But they can only

indicate Brahman. This kind of definition is termed as ‘Tatastha

laksana’.

Again, though devoid of mundane attributes, in perfect meditation

the nature of Brahman is realized as Pure Existence, Pure

Consciousness (Jnana Svarupa) and Pure Bliss. These are known to

be its essential nature or ‘Jnana lakshana’. However, Shankara

admits that even the definition of Brahman as Existence, Knowledge

and Bliss is imperfect though it expresses the Reality in the best

72

way possible. Atman is Brahman. The purely subjective is also the

purely objective. They have the same characteristics of being,

consciousness, all-pervadingness, and bliss.

In this regard it can be said that Shankara refutes the Sankhya

contention that Prakriti is the cause of the world. Prakriti being

unintelligent cannot account for the harmony and the immanent

teleology of the world. Though the world is material in nature and

Brahman is Pure Consciousness, this difference in nature is not an

impediment on their being cause and effect, for, the essential

condition of being cause and effect is that some qualities of the

cause must be found in the effect too. In this case, the essence of

Brahman, i.e., Existence, Knowledge and Bliss is found in the world

also. Everything in this world exists and is also illumined by

intelligence.[9]

Sometimes names and forms are attributed to Brahman by the

scriptural texts. But Shankara says that these are meant for

Upasana (meditation)

In Taittiriya Upanishad, for example, Vrigu approaches Varuna to

know about Brahman, and the latter defines Brahman as the

following:

“annam pranam caksuh srotram mano vacam-iti” (Taitt. Up. III-i-1)

‘Food, Prana, the eyes, the ears, the mind, and the speech—are

Brahman.’[10]

Shankara says that such a description only aims at Nirguna

Brahman. Thus they are definitions per accidents. Just as , when we

say that which is the snake is the rope, the snake indicates the rope

owing to the illusory connection between the two.[11]

Chandogya Upanishad says:

“This person that is seen in the eye is the self. This is immortal and

fearless; This is Brahman” (Chand. IV-xv-1).

Again, in the same Upanishad It is said:

73

“He is myself within the heart, smaller than a grain of rice, smaller

than a grain of barley” etc.(Chand. III-xiv-3.).

Shankara says that, these words of limitations are imaginary and

not real. They are used only for convenience of contemplation for

otherwise it is difficult to meditate on the all-pervading Brahman.[12]

Shankara excepts the Upanishadic distinction of Para and A-para

Brahman. While the indeterminate Brahman is the higher Brahman,

when it is conditioned by Maya and ascribed a personal aspect, he is

the lower Brahman. The higher Brahman is above the dualism of

name and form, but when the same reality, for the purpose of

worship is distinguished by differences or other, it is the lower

Brahman. In the highest realization where the subject is no longer

separate from the object, A-para Brahman does not fare. But in the

present conditions of knowledge Ishvara or lower Brahman is the

highest object of truth.

3.2.5 Maya:-

Shankara’s conception of Brahman entails the conception of Maya.

If Brahman alone is the sole reality, unchangeable, uncontradictable

and infinite, then whence arises this many which we experience

through the senses. Truth cannot contradict experience. Shankara

has to explain the apparent contradiction between the truth and our

everyday experience. He does it with the concept of Maya.

Shankara says that the world is the creation of Maya. This means

that there is no ultimate reality of the world. It disappears when the

knowledge of the true nature of Brahman is realized.

But the question remains what is this Maya which creates the

world?

In short it can be said that Maya is the name of the dividing

principle or the limiting principle, that attempts to measure the

immeasurable and thus, creates forms in the formless. This

principle cannot be something different from Brahman, for the latter

74

is non-dual. To give Maya an independent status is to accept

dualism. Again to say Maya to be identical with Brahman would be

to miss the essential nature of Brahman, which is Consciousness.

Logically the relation of Brahman and Maya cannot be established.

For if Maya exists. It will constitute a limit to Brahman, if it does not

exist, the appearance of the world cannot be accounted for. It is

neither real as the Brahman nor unreal as the flower of the sky.

This indescribable nature of Maya is emphasized by Shankara, in

his Viveka-Cudamani, the translation of which runs as follows:

‘This Maya is neither noumenal nor phenomenal nor is it

essentially both; it is neither differentiated nor is it undifferentiated

nor is it essentially both; it is neither particled nor is it unparticled

nor is it essentially both; it is of the most wonderful an

indescribable form.’[13]

Maya is neither real nor unreal nor both

(sannapyasannapyubhayatmika no). It is not real, for it has no

existence apart from Brahman and is removed by right knowledge,

it is not unreal for it is true as long as it lasts. It cannot be said to

be both real and unreal for it is a self-contradictory conception. It is

neither identical nor different from Brahman nor both. It is not

identical because it is material and unconscious in nature whereas

Brahman is pure consciousness, again it is not different because it is

coeval and indistinguishable from Him. The relation of Maya and

Brahman is unique and is called Tadatmya

But when we try to conceive Brahman through Maya, He appears to

us as Ishvara, and Maya appears as His power or Sakti to create

this world of the manifold, but by which he Himself remains

unaffected.

Describing Maya, Shankara, in his Viveka-Cudamani says :

‘avyakta namni paramesa saktih anadi-avidya trigunatmika para

Karyanumeya sudhiya-eva maya yaya jagat sarvamidam prasuyate’

75

‘The supreme maya out of which all this universe is born, which is

Paramesasakti (the power of the supreme Lord ) called avyakta

(unmanifested) and which is the beginningless Avidya (ignorance)

having the three Gunas(qualities), is to be inferred through its

effects by our intelligence.’[14]

If we analyze this verse, we will find that Maya is described as

“Paramesha Sakti’ or the power of God to conjure up the world

show. This power is material in nature and is described as

‘Trigunatmika’ or possessed of the three Gunas , i.e., Sattva , rajas,

and Tamas. If Sattva is the power of enlightenment, rajas is the

power of distortion, and Tamas is the power of concealment.

This power is also called ‘Avyakta’. Here ‘Avyakta’ does not mean

the ‘Prakriti’ of Sankhya. It only means ‘out of which this universe is

born’, i.e., the subtle cause, origin or source of Prakriti. However,

though it is power to God, to one who takes this world show to be

the real it is Anadi-avidya or beginningless ignorance.

Beginningless, in the sense no one knows the beginning of this

ignorance.

This implies that Maya, as ignorance (Avidya )or (Ajnana) has two-

fold function, concealment (Avarana) and projection or distortion

(Viksepa) of it. Merely concealment of the real nature of the rope

does not give rise to the illusion, but together with it the positive

distortion or projection of the rope as something else has created

the illusion. Similarly, when Brahman is mistaken for the world, it is

not only the concealment of Brahman but also the projection of the

world act as the illusion. This is known as Adhyas or

superimposition. Superimposition, according to Shankara, is the

apparent presentation to consciousness, by way of remembrance, of

something previously observed in some other thing. It is an

apparent presentation because it is subsequently falsified.[15] As the

world is only a mental modification or superimposition, Brahman is

76

not affected by it, just as a rope is not affected by snake which is

assumed to exist in it.

Confusion may arise regarding the two words ‘Maya’ and ‘Avidya’,

for both of them are used to denote the same thing. But it is said

that Maya and Avidya are one and the same thing just as Brahman

and Atman are one. When we look at it from the objective side, we

speak of Maya, and when from the subjective side, we speak of

Avidya. They are subjective and objective sides of the one

fundamental fact of experience. But it should be kept in mind that

the word subjective does not indicate any individual ignorance. It is

an impersonal force which imparts itself to our individual

consciousnesses, though it transcends them. Avidya is the limitation

of our mind to know objects within the categories of space time and

causation. But this limitation is not of one or two minds It is said to

be ‘subjective’ because it is dissolvable by knowledge.

Maya is objective in the sense that it is co-eternal with God. Though

it is not the essential character of God, yet it is coeval with Him.

The wise who can see through the manifold cannot be deceived by

it. Even God Himself is not affected by this ignorance, He is not

touched by this power just like a magician is not touched by his

magic and the colourless sky is not affected by the dark colour

attributed to it.

Shankara anticipated that this method of explaining the

phenomenal world would raise a protest from the various other

schools of his time. It is for this reason at different places he raises

objections to refute them.

In Shariraka Bhasya Shankar raises the objection that how can

unreal Maya cause the real Brahman to appear as the phenomenal

world and how, again, can false personalities through false means

reach true end?

Shankara’s reply is that a person entangled in mud can get out of it

through the help of mud alone, that a thorn pricked in the body can

77

be taken out with the help of another thorn. Moreover, there are

many instances in this life which show that even unreal things

appear to cause real things, e.g., a reflection in a mirror is unreal

but it can correctly represent the reflected object; the roaring of a

tiger in a dream is unreal but it can make the dreamer tremble.

With fear and may awake him. Again, the objection loses its force

when it is remembered that the manifold world is taken to be real

as long as the essential unity of the Jiva with the Brahman is not

realized. As long as this knowledge does not dawn, all secular and

religious practices are taken to be real.[16]

3.2.6 World:-

From the above context it is now certain that the world is the

product of Maya.

But it does not mean that the world is merely nothing. One thing

should be remembered that when Shankara says that the world is

false, he does not mean that it is absolutely nothing. The world has

a relative existence. It is true for the time being but disappears

when true knowledge dawns. It is just like the illusion of snake in a

rope. The illusion of snake in the rope is due to our ignorance of the

substratum (Adhisthana)i.e., the rope. So long knowledge does not

dawn it is real and serves our purpose. But It is not real from the

absolute stand-point. Thus we can see that Shankara envisages

three levels of existence viz. Pratibhasika, Vyavaharika, and

Paramarthika. He distinguishes an illusory existent thing e.g. an

object of dream from an object of our waking experience, which is

only a temporal reality, and the latter is, again, compared with the

metaphysical or transcendental reality. The dream is proved to be

unreal for it is sublated by our waking up. Similarly, the realization

of Brahman sublates our experience of the waking state. And what

is sublated cannot be real.[17]

78

Thus, Shankara repudiates the Sunyavada doctrine which says that

the world is merely nothing. He also repudiates the

Kshanabhangavada, which says that nothing exists more than a

moment. He even refutes the Buddhist theory of Vijnanavada,

which states that nothing exists except in our minds. The world has

existence in our minds as our ideas. According to Shankara the

existence of the world is not dependent on our mental modes.

Avidya, according to Shankara, is not a mere subjective force, but

has an objective reality. It is the cause of the material world which

is common to all.

If the world, were merely nothing, or if it were absolutely different

from Brahman, then one could not reach Brahman by repudiating it.

If the Atman were absolutely different from the states of waking,

dreaming and sleeping then the repudiation of the three states

could not lead us to the attainment of truth. The illusory snake does

not spring out of nothing, nor does it pass into nothing when the

illusion is corrected. It is the rope which appears as the snake, and

when the illusion is over, the snake returns to the rope. Similarly,

Brahman appears as the world, it is the basis of the world of

appearance, and right knowledge drives away this appearance. Dr.

Radhakrishnan says, ‘If we are able to penetrate to the real through

this world, it is because the world of appearance bears within it

traces of eternal. If the two were opposed, it will be difficult to

regard them even in the relation of the real and the apparent.’[18]

But then it is difficult to explain the relation of Brahman and the

world, for ‘relation’ is a relative term used for the spatial and

temporal objects.

According to Shankara, the question ‘What is the relation between

the real Brahman and the unreal world?’ is not only baffling

question but also an illegitimate one, and so it is impossible of

answer. It is impossible to explain through logical categories the

relation of Brahman and the world. For in the logical sense the real

79

is never known to have any relation with the unreal. They cannot be

said to be related as the whole and the part, just like the clay and

the pot, or the tree and its branches. Brahman is not the sum-total

of things of the world. They cannot be related as the cause and the

effect, since such a relation has meaning only in relation to the

finite modes of being where there is succession. Again, we cannot

apply the analogy of seed manifesting itself as the tree, since

organic growth and development are temporal processes. To apply

temporal categories to the eternal is to reduce it to the level of an

empirical object. Thus the word ‘relation’ is inadmissible in this

case.

The only way to explain Brahman and the world is to say that they

are ‘non-different’. Non-difference does not mean identity, for this is

impossible between the world and Brahman. It only means that the

effect has no existence apart from the cause. Though Brahman and

the world have different orders of reality, the latter have no

existence apart from Brahman. Thus, Shankara believes in

Satkaryavada, i.e., the effect is inherent in the cause, Brahman is

both the material and the efficient cause of the universe. But unlike

the Sankhyas, he says that the effect is not a real creation

(Parinama)of Brahman but only an appearance or illusory

modification (Vivarta) of Brahman. Brahman appears as the world,

even as rope appears as the snake. When we see the rope as it is,

the snake becomes unreal. The appearance of rope as the snake is

due to our defective senses, the snake does not affect the rope as

such. The moon is not duplicated simply because those of defective

vision see two moons. The stars do not actually twinkle, though

they appear to do so. The light they project is quite steady, though

the disturbances in the earth’s atmosphere through which the light

passes so affect our vision as to give them a constantly flickering

appearance. Similarly the mutations of the world is not subject to

Brahman.

80

But if the world is an appearance of Brahman, then how to account

for Upanishadic concept of evolution? It can be said in the line of

Shankara that though there is no real creation, and the world is a

Vivarta or appearance of Brahman, as phenomena it has creation,

transformation, and dissolution.

Creation of this world is for the actions of the individual souls,

realization of their desires and suffering of fruits of their past

karma, on this material world, which is called Ksetra.

Shankara accepts the Upanishadic concept of evolution and also its

order. From Prakriti, i.e., the origin of the material world, first of all

the subtle elements arise, these then get mixed up in specific ways,

known as ‘Panchikaran’ to form the gross elements. The subtle

elements are relatively more permanent than there modifications,

and they are figuratively called immortal, imperishable. The first

product which arises is Akasa, which according to Shankara, is not a

negative entity, as the Buddhists hold, but is an infinite, inert, all-

pervasive element of the same order as the elements of air, fire,

water and earth. From Akasa other subtle elements

(Suksmabhutas) of air, fire water, and earth arise in an ascending

order. Again, it is the properties that give rise to the particular

element. For instance sound being the quality of Akasa, the

Sabdatanmatra, or the sound essence, gives rise to Akasa. Similarly

air has the quality of impact and pressure, light of luminosity and

heat, water of taste and earth of smell. Since all the elements

seem to be contained in the Akasa Tanmatra, the whole world takes

its rise from Akasa or sound.

The gross matter of the world (Mahabhutas) is made up of the

varying combinations of these subtle elements (Suksmabhutas),

and things of these world are the different modifications of these

gross elements. However, it has to be admitted that all these

elements are non-intelligent (Acetana), cannot of themselves bring

81

about their development, change and modifications. For this the

immanence of a Conscious Principle, God, has to be assumed.

The organic realm, which consists of plants, animals, men, etc., is

also composed of these physical elements though they are endued

with a living soul.[19]

Thus Shankara’s position is better explained when it is said that

both Brahman and Maya are the cause of the world, Brahman

through Vivarta, and Maya through Parinama. Though the world is

the Vivarta of Brahman, it is the Parinama of Maya.

According to Shankara the qualities of both are found in the effect

of this world. We can understand this from our cognition of a pot. A

pot can be said to ‘exist’, again it is also ‘inert’. Whereas the

existence of the pot is a quality identical with Brahman, which is

existence itself, as inert it is identical with Maya, which is inert.

Everything in this world has five elements in its make-up, viz., Asti,

Bhati, Priya, Nama, and Rupa, the former three have Brahman for

its material cause corresponding to the three factors, Existence,

Knowledge and Bliss, and the last two consists of Maya and are

unreal.[20] At the time of cosmic absorption or dissolution all the

qualities of the effect that are through Parinama dissolves just as

when a pot is absorbed into the cause, the clay, its name and form

stop to exist. Whereas the factors of existence, knowledge and

bliss, that are through Brahman, is not affected by it.

3.2.7 Ishvara:-

Shankara is the propounder of monism. According to him there is

only one reality, which is indeterminate, and non-dual. He takes the

stand on the Upanishadic view that ‘All is Brahman’ (sarvam khalu

idam Brahman).

But this non-dual Absolute, being indeterminate, indescribable,

beyond speech and mind is beyond the grasp of ordinary mind. Only

by going beyond mind and speech one can realize this

82

indeterminate Brahman. The finite minds can never reach the

heights of it. The moment we try to bring this Brahman within the

categories of intellect, we try to make this ultimate subject an

object of our thought, and thus miss its essential nature. It then no

longer remains the unconditioned, indeterminate Brahman, but

becomes conditioned by space time and causality. Brahman

conditioned by Maya is called Ishvara or God. This is the highest

conception of the Absolute that we, finite men, can have.

Thus to reconcile his absolute monism with the practical standpoint,

Shankara accepts the Upanishadic distinction of Para Brahman and

Apara Brahman. Para Brahman or Higher Brahman is the

unconditioned, indeterminate and attributeless Absolute(Nirguna

Brahman), while Isvara or God is the Apara Brahman or lower

Brahman, which is also called determinate Brahman or Saguna

Brahman. Saguna, because, we ascribe human qualities and

attributes to Him and make him a Personal God for our own

purpose. As Saguna Brahman He is the Concrete Universal. He is

the object of worship and devotion, inspirer of moral life and is the

final heaven of everything. He is the Lord of Maya. While Para

Brahman is knowledge itself, God is a knower, for, he is confronted

with an object to be known. Again, while Brahman is beyond activity

and inactivity Ishvara cannot be changeless and inactive. Being

empirically real, he must be ever acting. He is the Creator,

Sustainer and Destroyer of this universe. God creates the universe

out of Himself, and at dissolution draws the entire universe towards

Himself. He is the controller of both soul and matter. But here it

should be kept in mind that though God goes out as the universe

and return to himself, the alterations belong to his body alone and

not to His essential nature. Ishvara’s oneness is not impaired by self

expression in the many. Thus God is both in the world and beyond it

This way Shankara has explained both the immanence and

transcendence of God mentioned in the Upanishads. As the

83

immanent inner ruler He rules from within, for He is the soul of

souls. Again He also transcends the universe as the creator,

preserver and destroyer of this universe.

But, though, from the practical standpoint Ishvara or God is the

highest point of reverence, the description of God as creator etc.,

rest on our ignorance or Avidya. Thought can never overleap the

distinction of subject and object. Brahman, as indeterminate is

devoid of all kinds of distinctions, external as well as internal

(sajatiya, vijatiya and svagata). When viewed through Maya or

Avidya, Brahman which is essentially a non-dual Reality appears as

Isvara (Personal God), Jiva (the individual soul) and Jagat (the

world).

According to Shankara, the essence of Brahman is Existence,

Knowledge and Bliss. These are His essential characteristics, or

Svarupa laksana, whereas description of Him as the Creator,

Preserver and Destroyer, are merely accidental description or

Tatastha laksana. If a shepherd plays the role of a king, then he is

the king so long he remains on the stage. Similarly, the description

of God as the creator of the world is true only from the practical

point of view, so long as the world-appearance is regarded as real.

Creatorship of the world does not touch his essence, just as loss or

gain of a kingdom does not affect the actor who is playing the king

on the stage, or just as a rope is not affected by the illusory

character of the snake.

However, the concept of Saguna Brahman is also necessary for it

has its own importance. It is necessary to explain the changeful

universe. Brahman is immutable. But we come across changes in

the universe. This changing universe cannot be traced to Prakriti,

which is unintelligent. By itself the unintelligent Prakriti cannot

cause anything without the aid of an intelligent Spirit. It is only

through the power of an intelligent subject, God, the object or

Prakriti, develops the whole world. Not only that, to posit Prakriti by

84

the side of Brahman as an ultimate category would be to limit the

nature of Brahman, which is without a second. The only way is to

posit a ‘Saguna Brahman’, an Ishvara who combines within himself

the nature of both being and becoming, the unattached Brahman

and unconscious Prakriti. Ishvara combines the two principles of

Brahman and Prakriti.

In this regard we find that he refutes those arguments which regard

other principles to be the cause of the world. When the Sankhya

system tries to establish the unintelligent Prakriti to be the cause of

the world, Shankara criticizes thus how can immanent teleology of

nature be explained by the unintelligent Prakriti? Intelligent

Brahman associated with its power of Maya can only be the cause

of the world. In our experience we see that stones, bricks, mortars,

etc. cannot fashion themselves into well-designed buildings without

the help of intelligent workmen. Even if we grant activity to

Pradhana, then also it can be said that unintelligent Prakriti can

have no purpose to design this world.[21]

Purva Mimamsa says that the principle of Apurva, and not God,

accounts for the ordered way in which men reap the fruits of their

deeds. Shankara criticizes that Apurva is unspiritual and cannot

operate unless it is moved by something spiritual.

The Nyaya-Vaisesika God is an extra-cosmic God, not the material

cause of the world. This position is untenable because being only

the efficient cause of the world, God, cannot be the ruler of matter

and souls without being connected with them, and their cannot be

no connections. It cannot be conjunction, since God, matter and

souls all are infinite and without parts. It cannot be inherence since

it is difficult to decide which is the abode and which is the abiding

thing.

So God is both the material and efficient cause of the world.

Shankara has anticipated, in this regard, many other arguments

against his position and answered them accordingly.

85

Though Ishvara is said to be both material and efficient cause of the

world, in our experience we do not find the material cause to be

conscious enough to be the efficient cause, it does not posses

knowledge. Shankara says that it is not necessary that it should be

here the same as in experience; for this subject is known by

revelation and not inference. When we rely on scriptural statements

it is not necessary for us to conform to experience.[22]

Again it may be objected that Ishvara cannot be the cause of the

world since there is a difference of nature between cause and effect.

A piece of gold cannot be the cause of a vessel of clay; so Ishvara a

pure and spiritual cannot be the cause of the world, which is impure

and unspiritual. Shankara argues that unconscious objects

frequently take their rise from conscious beings, such us hairs and

nails from men. From inanimate dung, the animate dung beetle

comes forth. If it is argued that in these cases in spite of apparent

diversity, there is fundamental identity, since both of these spring

from the earth Shankara replies that Ishvara and the world have

the common characteristic of being, or Satta.[23]

Whatever it may be, the existence of God cannot be proved by

reason. He has shown the futility of several arguments such as

cosmological, moral, and logical.

In the cosmological arguments an attempt is made to prove the

existence of God by considering Him as the ‘First Cause’ or the

‘Uncaused cause’. But such a cause must be of the same order as

the other as the other causes of the world. It must belong to the

same order as the other empirical objects, since the latter are said

to be connected with it. The causal chain proceeding from the

phenomenal world must end in this phenomenal world. We cannot

admit within this world of phenomena an uncaused cause. But, in

that case, Ishvara would be an empirical phenomena, limited to the

space-time framework, and a finite God is no God.

86

An ontological argument may proceed from the systematic

harmony of the world which is endorsed both by science and

common sense. Existence of a systematic harmony in the world

naturally points to a hypothesis of a divine being which consciously

conducts everything. But such an argument may stand erect if it

can be proved that our human experience can know reality in its

entirety. As a matter of fact, our capability of knowledge is limited,

and there is much in the world which never directly enters our

experience. Dr. Radhakrishnan says sarcastically ‘If the universe is

small enough for little minds to explore, if we can tell whence it

comes and whither it goes, can understand its origin, nature and

destiny, then we are not finite and we do not demand an infinite’.[24]

Moral argument may try to prove God as a benevolent adjudicator

of values. But then, he has to take the responsibilities of both good

and evil of the world. ‘if, to relieve him of the authorship of evil, we

accept something like the mythology of Persia and make Satan

responsible for it, then the oneness of God disappears and we

reinstate a dualism between God and Satan.’[25]

Thus we can see that the existence of God cannot be proved

logically. Such an attempt only belongs to the phenomenal world,

having no connection with Reality as such. But this does not mean

that God does not exist. Sruti is the basis of His existence. We can

be ascertained of the existence of God by the spiritual insights of

the seers as recorded in the scriptures. The proofs only tell us that

God is a possibility. The reality of God transcends our rational

powers. We must accept the statement of the scriptures that

Ishvara is the cause of the world.

3.2.8 Jiva:-

As has been already discussed earlier, ‘Atman’ of Shankara is the

self-proved eternal consciousness as the background of all our

empirical consciousness. But the empirical self which partakes of

87

the worldly activities cannot be denied. Thus Shankara carefully

distinguishes between the self that is implied in all experiences and

the self which is active and the enjoying individual.

While Atman is the pure self, Jiva is the subject-object complex.

While atman is the metaphysical ‘I’ and is purely cognitive, Jiva is

the psychological subject, and is the observed fact of introspection.

Atman is free from all change, while the empirical self is subject to

change. Dr. Radhakrishnan calls it to be a system of memories and

association, desires and dislikes, of preferences and purposes.[26]

The Jiva is said to be in essence one with the Atman. Atman alone

is real, when this Atman is clothed in the Upadhis (limiting

adjuncts) like mind, body, intellect, etc., It appears as the individual

soul (Jiva). The individual soul, thus, consists of the gross organic

body, made up of the gross elements, the life organs (Pranas) and

the subtle body. The subtle body consists of the seventeen

elements, viz., five organs of perception, five of action, five vital

forms, mind and intellect. While the gross body is cast off at death,

the subtle body does not perish even at death but migrates with the

soul to the next gross body. These gross and the subtle body is

called the Upadhis. The Atman clothed in the Upadhis is the Jiva,

which acts and as such enjoys and suffers. The distinctive

characteristic of the individual soul is its connection with Buddhi or

understanding, which endures as long as the state of Samsara is

not terminated by perfect knowledge. Shankara does not assign any

size to this Jiva. It is not of atomic size since in that case it could

not experience the sensations extending over the whole body. If the

scriptures assign any size to Jiva, it is only to emphasize its

subtlety.

However according to Advaita Vedanta this difference of Atman and

jiva is only imaginary and not real. Owing to Ajnana or ignorance

the infinite soul associates itself with body, mind, the senses, the

intellect etc., and thus behaves like a finite. On the removal of this

88

ignorance, when the full import of the text “Thou art that” is

realized, the two becomes identical. The king is the king so long he

posses his kingdom, and the warrior, his arms. When both the

kingdom and the arms are removed, there is neither the king nor

the warrior. Similarly the difference between the Atman and the Jiva

is on account of the Upadhis.[27] What comes and goes, takes birth,

grows and dies is the Upadhi or the adjunct. It is the Upadhi which

acts and thus enjoys the merits and demerits of action. Enjoyment,

sorrowness, wickedness, goodness etc., affect the Upadhi, and not

the Soul, which is pure intelligence, and is untouched by all these.

These Upadhis, or adjuncts, gross and subtle, are not destroyed

even in the state of deep sleep.

It should be mentioned here that, Isvara or God is also the limiting

adjunct of Brahman, but this limiting adjunct is the superior limiting

adjunct, or Maya, which does not conceal his true nature. Whereas

in the case of Jiva the limiting adjunct is the inferior limiting

adjunct, Avidya, which deludes him of his true nature. Maya is the

power dependent on Isvara, and Jiva is ruled by Avidya. Thus while

Ishvara is Omniscient, All-powerful, All-pervading, the Jiva is

ignorant, small and weak.

Similarly, the activities of Ishvara such as creation, preservation,

and destruction do not render Him an agent, for he has no selfish

desire to create this world. The all-pervading nature of Ishvara and

Its connections with all the individual souls does not make it subject

to pleasure and pain. Whereas, Jiva is tinged with the false notions

of ‘I’ and the ‘mine’ and thus considers itself an agent, the doer of

good and bad deeds, and consequently experiences pleasure and

pain. But this agency of Jiva lasts so long as its connection with the

Upadhi lasts. Even as an agent, the agency is ultimately dependent

on the Lord who makes the soul act according to its own past

works.

89

Here it can be asked, if the Atman is eternal freedom and pure

Consciousness, and wants nothing and does nothing, then how can

it be affected by ignorance at all? How does unchanging atman

appears as limited?

This can be answered by the theory of limitation. Atman as such is

not affected by the Upadhis, just as space is not affected by form or

odour. It acts like a screen on which the mental acts play. Space is

one, ubiquitous entity. The limitations caused by the jar and the like

are not real, in the sense that in the destruction of the jar, the

limited space contained in it merges in the Cosmic space. Similarly

when the limitations of space, time and causality are removed, the

Jivas become one with the Absolute Self.

Again, the space enclosed in a jar may be polluted with dust and

smoke, but this will not affect the space outside. Similarly when

one Jiva is affected by pleasure and pain , the others may not be

affected by them.

Here it should be maintained that Jiva limited by Avidya is not one.

For, had it been so, the first case of liberation would have liberated

all the souls, which is not the case. Brahman, limited by the

different inner organs born of Avidya, becomes divided, into many

individual souls.

Another theory explaining the distinction between Atman and Jiva is

the reflection theory, which says that the individual soul is not the

limited intelligence, but the reflected intelligence, which is

inseparably connected with the reflector, i.e., mind. ‘As the

appearance of sun and moon in water is a mere reflection and

nothing real, or the appearance of red colour in a white crystal is a

mere reflection of the red flower and nothing real, since on

removing the water, sun and moon only remain, and on removing

the red flower the whiteness of the crystal remains unchanged,

even so the elements and the individual souls are reflections of the

one reality in Avidya and nothing real. On the abolition of Avidya,

90

the reflections cease to exist and only the real remains. The

Absolute is the original (Bimba) and the world is the reflection

(Pratibimba).’

Several criticisms have arose against this reflection theory. One of

them may be stated thus, a thing devoid of form cannot cast any

reflection, much less in a formless reflector. Pure intelligence and

Avidya are both formless. Not only that, if the individual is a

reflection, then that which is reflected, must lie outside the

reflector, and the reality which is the original must lie beyond the

cosmos or the sum total of created objects. This is opposed to the

‘immanence’ view of the system. Moreover, this reflection theory

will also hamper the non-dualism of Brahman.

Whatever may be the rational outcome, the main purport of

Shankara should be understood, i.e., Jiva is the unchanging

Brahman itself, though ignorant of its true nature.

3.2.9 Liberation and Means of Liberation:-

Shankara believes in unqualified monism, where any distinction is

ultimately unreal. In this light there is no difference between jiva

and Brahman. They are identical.

The question remains that if the Soul is free from all limiting

adjuncts and is infinite, all-blissful, all-knowing, one without a

second, and so on, then how does it come to be bound, and thus

what is the need of liberation.

In his Viveka-Cudamani, Shankara says:

‘…., bondage and liberation, are created by Maya (illusion)

and they do not exist in the atman. How can (anything) be

attributed to supreme truth which, like space, is indivisible,

actionless, calm, blameless, stainless and without a second?’[28]

Again, he says:

‘Bondage and liberation created by Maya (illusion)

do not exist in reality in the atman; just as

91

(the idea of a) serpent and the opposite do not exist in a rope

on knowing it (to be rope and not serpent).[29]

It is clear from the above context that Atman by itself is pure and

absolute happiness which is never shackled in bondage and neither

does it stand in need of liberation. Bondage and liberation, then is

the product of Avidya or ignorance. Owing to ignorance the soul

erroneously associates itself with the body, gross and subtle. This

leads to its bondage. For in this state it forgets its true nature,

which is Absolute Bliss. It behaves like a finite, limited, miserable

being, and runs after transitory worldly objects. The instrument for

the production of bondage of conditioned existence is the ‘Manas’. It

is the Manas which produces attachment of the soul to the body and

all other objects just like an animal is bound by a rope. This gives

rise to the ego. Having clouded over the Atman, which is without

any attachment, it is the Manas, which acquires the notion of ‘I’ and

the ‘mine’, creates the objects of desire, and enjoys the fruits of

action. Thus sometimes it is said that Manas is the cause of

bondage and Manas is the cause of liberation. When the Manas is

stained by passion, it is the cause of bondage, and when through

discrimination and dispassion it attains purity and produces aversion

towards these objects, Manas becomes the cause of liberation. It is

like the wind which collects the cloud and also disperses it. The

removal of the misconception of this limited ‘I’ is what is known as

liberation. Thus, liberation from bondage consists in the realization

of the identity between the self and Brahman .

Moksha or liberation is nothing new that is acquired by the Jiva, it is

a matter of direct realization of something which is existent from

eternity, though it is hidden from our view. When the limitations are

removed, the soul is liberated.

By liberation Shankara does not mean a heaven which is a

different order of experience apart from earth, but which is all the

time here, though we could not see it. ‘It remains where it is, what

92

it is and eternally was,……It is the peace that the world can never

give, nor take away, the supreme and only blessedness.’ [30]

Freedom is not the relinquishment of the body, or any of its

belongings. It is untying of ignorance in the heart. It is not the

abolition of self, but the realization of its infinity. Neither is it the

dissolution of the whole world. Liberation is only the disappearance

of a false outlook. Nothing happens to the world as such. The

unending process of the world will go on through its ups and downs.

Only our views of it alters. The world exists as it is with its plurality,

but when our sense of plurality is over, our attachment to it is over.

Liberation is an insight which changes the face of the world and

makes all things new. It does not consist in merely knowing the

Vedic texts, its incantation and intonation. It consists in the direct

perception of the identity of the individual with the universal self

(Brahmatmaikabodhena moksa).[31]

Maya as concealment has no power of the liberated soul. When the

certainty of the oneness of Brahman and Atman is reached by

Anubhava, the tie which binds us to forms is cut. They may remain

and will remain, so long as the senses are alive and intellect

operates, but they do not bind any more, just as when the

illusoriness of the illusion is discovered, it ceases to be an illusion.

When the illusion of the mirage is dissipated by scientific

knowledge, though the illusory appearance remains, it no longer

deceives us.

Describing such a soul, Shankara says:

‘though doing, he is not the doer; though enjoying

the effects, he is not the enjoyer; though embodied,

he is bodiless; though confined (in the body), he is all

pervading.’[32]

Shankara admits both Jivanmukti and Videhamukti. Realization of

truth in this life is termed as Jivanmukti, which does not necessarily

entail physical death. When a person attains knowledge, all his past

93

sins are destroyed and future sins do not cling to him, for he who

has no idea of agency is not affected, even, by the good deeds, and

thus goes beyond vice and virtue. Such a state is known as

Jivanmukti. However, only the Samcita works are destroyed by

knowledge, but not the Prarabdha, which are destroyed only by

working out. Thus he carries on in this world as the potter’s wheel

continues for a time to revolve even after the vessel has been

completed.

So long as the momentum of these works lasts, the knower of

Brahman has to be in the body. When they are exhausted, the body

falls off and he attains perfection. This is known as Videhamukti.

One must endeavour to free oneself from the bondage of

conditioned existence. Hidden treasures do not come out at the

utterance of the word ‘out’ and a king does not become a king by

the mere words ‘I am a king’. Trustworthy information and digging

is necessary for the revelation of the treasure, and the conquest of

enemies is needed to become a king.

Shankara denies that action can lead to liberation. Liberation is the

result of the advent of true knowledge of the Self. He specifically

mentions this in his Viveka-Cudamani at several places. He says,

‘this bondage is incapable of being severed

by weapons of offence or defence, by wind or by fire

or by tens of millions of acts, but only the

great sword of discriminative knowledge,

sharp and shining, through the favour of Yoga.’[33]

Again, he says,

‘He may study the scriptures, propitiate the gods (by

sacrifices), perform religious ceremonies or offer devotion to

the gods, yet he will not attain salvation even during the

succession of a hundred Brahma-yugas except by the

knowledge of union with the spirit.’ [34]

94

The reason also is given by him. Actions are for the

purification of the heart, not for the attainment of real substance.

Not only that anything attained through any objective condition is

liable to end. The result of action is either creation, modification,

purification or attainment, none of which is applicable to the

knowledge of Brahman, which is the same thing as Liberation. If

Liberation were created or modified, it would not be permanent.

After relinquishing karma one should head for the practice of right

discrimination from a true and great teacher and accept his

teaching with an unshaken soul. It is only the knowledge of the rope

that can remove the fear and sorrow produced from the illusive idea

that it is a serpent. When the recognition of the oneness of

Brahman and Atman arises, it causes to disappear the distinctions

of souls, things and Ishvar in our experience.

Shankara accepts the Upanishadic view that Sravana, Manana,

Nididhyasana leads to the discriminative knowledge of Brahman. He

says,

‘….the wise student (should devote himself) daily without

Intermission to the study of the scriptures, to reflection and

meditation on the truths therein contained; then (finally) having

got rid of ignorance the wise man enjoys the bliss of Nirvana

even while on this earth.’[35]

Meditation on the Saguna Brahman does not lead to immediate

liberation. It can at best lead to gradual liberation (Karma-mukti). It

is the knowledge of the Nirguna Brahman that leads to immediate

liberation.

But for the discriminative knowledge one must be a true Adhikari or

deserver or a true aspirant. For the attainment of an object

principally depends upon the qualification of the aspirant. An

aspirant must have strong intellect, and be unattached to the

worldly objects. In Viveka-Chudamani Shankara has mentioned four

kinds of preparatory training(Sadhana catustaya) which are

95

necessary for an aspirant of true knowledge. These four means are

(1) a tendency of discrimination between the eternal and perishable

things; (Nityanityavastuviveka). (2)Renunciation of the enjoyment

of temporal and heavenly objects (Ihamutraphalabhogaviragah), (3)

six possessions beginning with Sama, (Samadamadisatsampatti )

and (4)finally a desire to obtain liberation (Mumuksatvam).

(Aspiration for emancipation).[36]

Explanation of each of them is also given by Shankara.

Discrimination between the transitory and the eternal consists of

the conclusion that Brahman alone is true, the transitory world is a

delusion. Again renunciation of desire consists in giving up of the

pleasures of sight, hearing, etc. It also means the giving up of all

the pleasures derivable from all the transitory objects of enjoyment

from the physical body up to Brahma, the creator, after repeatedly

pondering over their defects and shortcomings. The six possessions

of the mind are Sama, Dama, Uparati, Titiksa, Sraddha and

Samadhan. Sama is the undisturbed concentration of mind upon the

object of perception. Dama is said to be the confinement of a sense

organ within its own sphere, having turned them back from the

objects of sense. Uparati is not depending on the external world.

Titiksa is said to be the true endurance of all pain and sorrow

without the thought of retaliation, dejection or lamentation.

Sraddha is the fixed meditation upon the teachings of Sastra and

guru with a belief in the same by means of which the object of

thought is realized. Samadhan is the constant fixing of the mind on

the pure Spirit without being deluded by worldly objects.[37] Finally,

Mumuksutva is the aspiration to be liberated from all created bonds,

which even includes one’s own identification with the physical

body.[38]

Though it is true that until one obtain knowledge of

Brahman there can be no Moksha, it is also true that Moksha is not

reached as long as there is knowledge. It is admitted that there is

96

no knowledge in the ultimate state. Scriptures say that to know

Brahman is to become Brahman. The abolition of the highest

knowledge itself is brought out by a number of similes. As a drop of

water thrown on a red-hot iron ball takes away a part of its heat

and itself disappears, as fire after burning a heap of grass is

extinguished of itself, so knowledge of Brahman destroys our

ignorance and is itself destroyed.

According to Shankara who having attained manhood does not

labour for emancipation is destroying himself in trying to attain

illusive objects. [39]

3.2.10 Karma and Rebirth:-

The Upanishadic concept of Karma and Rebirth has been accepted

by Shankara. Law of Karma says that the work we do returns to us.

The kind of world into which we are born is due to the work in our

previous lives. Karma is due to Avidya. Man is impulsive by nature.

Driven by impulses he runs after his own likes and dislikes. This

begets karma. At death the physical body is annihilated, but the

soul, which is independent of the body, accompanied by the subtle

body survives and passes on. Karma is the seed, for the atonement

of which it has to take on other births. The nature of the future life

depends on the moral quality of the past life. Only the knowledge

and character which is gained in the previous life passes on to the

other lives. The moral and the pious rises in the scale, while the

immoral and impious sink. Sometimes, the karma of the previous

birth is not fully atoned in a single birth and thus succeeding future

births are the results. But at the exhaustion of the past karma,

fresh new karmas accumulate. This process goes on for ever. But as

Dr. Radhakrishnan says ‘The history of man is not a puppet show. It

is a creative evolution’[40] Man is more than a bundle of impulses.

He is the infinite Atman. When perfect knowledge is gained, the

seed of karma is consumed, it makes rebirth impossible.

97

3.2.11 Concluding Remark:-

Shankara’s interpretation has added an extra feather on the cap of

Advaita, for he has not only accepted unqualified non-dualism, but

also logically and systematically followed it to describe all the other

aspects of it, like, Jiva, Maya, Mukti, etc. Thus whatever passes,

nowadays, as Advaita Vedanta is the non-dualism of the Shankara

school. Not only that Shankara’s profuse using of reasoning has also

appealed to the common masses. Though it is true that Truth can

be realized only through intuition and revelation, that does not

mean the relegation of ordinary intellect. Shankara establishes the

highest truth with the help of reasoning and philosophizing.

3.3 RAMANUJA:-

3.3.1 Life of Ramanuja:-

The next great Acharya of Vedanta was Ramanuja of 11th century.

While discussing the life of Ramanuja it seems relevant to discuss

the socio-religious background prevalent then in the southern part

of India.

In the middle of the 7th century Buddhism began to decline and the

Bhakti cult which consisted of the Vaisnavaite and the Saivaite

saints started to gain ground in South India. The school of

Vaishnava mystics and saints who used to compose Tamil hymns

full of intense devotional love of Vishnu were known as the Alvars,

whereas, Nayannars constituted the Saiva saints. The pursuits of

both these sects were, mainly, devotional in nature.

In due course of time, the Alvars were succeeded by the Acaryas or

the theologians, whose main objective was to establish a

philosophical basis for the worship of a personal God. Nathamuni,

Yamunacharya, and others belonged to this group. While

98

Nathamuna had arranged the hymns of the Alvars, Yamunacharya

attempted to show that the Vaishnava Agamas have the same

purport as the Vedas. Ramanuja belonged to these group of

Acharyas, and was succeeded by Nathamuni and Yamunacharya.

Ramanuja was born in 1027 A.D. at Sriperumbudur near the

modern city of Madras in India.[41] His father is Asurikesavacarya

and mother Kantimati. After the death of his father he left his native

village for Kanchi.

His spiritual quest seems to have been a checkered one. His first

Guru was Yadava Prakasha of Kanchi. However his spiritual venture

under him was not a pleasant one. At that time Yamunacharya was

a great Vaishnava scholar of Srirangam. Impressed by Ramanuja’s

learning he wanted him to work for the propagation of the

devotional cult. Towards the end of his life he wanted to meet

Ramanuja, but it happened that when Ramanuja actually turned up,

Yamunacarya was no more. The story goes on that the former

found three fingers of the Acarya folded, which his disciples

interpreted as his three unfulfilled wishes. The chief one among

them was to write an easy commentary on Brahma-Sutra.

Later on, he was initiated in the mysteries of Vedanta by

Perianambi .

However he embraced asceticism as a consequence of some family

misunderstandings. His first disciples were Dasarathi and Kuresh –

his sisters sons. Yadavaprakasha too being impressed by his deep

learning and purity of heart became his disciple and was renamed

as Govindadasa. With the help of Kuresh’s wonderful memory he

composed “Sribhasya” on the line of Bodhayanavritti. He also wrote

Vedanta-dipa, Vedanta-Sara, Vedartha Sangraha, Gadya-traya,

Gita-Bhasya etc.

Ramanuja lived more than one hundred years and all through his

life, he struggled hard to establish Vaishnava faith in India on a firm

99

and philosophical ground. Followers of Ramanuja were Sudarsana

Suri, Venkatanatha, Meghanadari, Lokacarya, and so on.

3.3.2 Ramanuja’s Vishistadvaita:-

Both Samkara and Ramanuja are monists, believing in one

Absolute, Independent Reality. But whereas for Shankara, the

Absolute is Nirguna or indeterminate, for Ramanuja it is qualified by

parts. For Shankara the nature of this Reality is Eternal and infinite

consciousness, matter being only an appearance, for Ramanuja

matter and finite spirits are the two Reals as the Absolute itself, but

they form the two integral parts of this Absolute. Though Brahman

is the Supreme spirit, it subsists in the plurality of forms as souls

and matter. The relationship between Cit(soul) and Acit(matter),on

the one hand, and Brahman on the other, is one of body and soul.

They are reals, but are subservient to Brahman.

Thus, monism or non-dualism of Ramanuja is known as

Vishistadvaita, meaning, the Absolute or Advaita as qualified

(Vishista) by real parts (conscious and unconscious).

The concept of Vishistadvaita was present even before Ramanuja,

for he himself tells us that he is carrying on the Vishistadvaita

tradition of the ancient writers like Bodhayana, Tanka, Dramida,

Guhadeva, Kapardi and Bharuchi. However, Ramanuja was the

greatest spokesman of Vishistadvaita, for the piety of the Alvars

and the training of the Acharyas have helped him to develop

elements of the Upanishads and the Brahma Sutra. He systematized

Vaisnavism and wrote a learned and exhaustive commentary on the

Brahamn Sutra called Shri Bhasya, formulating a metaphysical

Visitadvaitam.

3.3.3 Self and Consciousness:-

According to Shankara the one undifferentiated Brahman as Pure

Consciousness is the only reality. The distinction of subject and

100

object is only on the relative plane. Ramanuja refutes this view.

According to him there is nothing like pure consciousness. All

knowledge involves discrimination and it is impossible to know an

undifferentiated object. Even if there is such an undifferentiated

being, our mode of knowing would render it as an object, and thus

involve it in the sphere of the perishable. Knowledge is always in

and through difference. Thus undifferentiated Brahman is an

abstraction like a sky-flower.

Ramanuja agrees with Shankara in maintaining that the self is an

eternal self-conscious subject and that knowledge is its essence.

But he differs from Shankara in refusing to identify the self with

pure consciousness. Consciousness can never subsist by itself. It

always belongs to a subject and points to an object. The self is a

self-luminous substance to which belongs and from which proceeds

consciousness. Self is like the lamp and knowledge or consciousness

is like the light. The light constitutes the essence of the lamp, and

cannot be separated from it. Knowledge is unique adjunct of the self

and is eternally associated with it. The Self, being a substance, is

incapable of contraction and expansion, while knowledge being an

attribute is capable of contraction and expansion due to the

influence of karma.

Even in deep sleep it cannot be said that knowledge existed as pure

consciousness, i.e. without any object. For a person rising from a

deep sleep never says ‘I was pure consciousness’ he says ‘I slept

well’. This shows that ‘I’, the knowing subject or the self, remained

even in the deep sleep, though as self-consciousness along with the

knowledge which was not functioning at the moment. Thus, self is

not self-luminous knowledge, but only the subject of it. We do not

say ‘I am consciousness’ but only ‘I am conscious’. Self is the

eternal substratum of consciousness.

Shankara’s contention that consciousness is never an object is also

refuted by Ramanuja. Our common observation shows that the

101

consciousness of one person becomes the object of the cognition of

another.

Again Consciousness or knowledge is both a substance and an

attribute. It is a substance because it has the qualities of expansion

and contraction. Owing to the influence of karma it becomes

contracted. It is an attribute because it belongs to a self or to God.

Analogy may be drawn of the light which is an attribute in relation

to the lamp, but it is a substance in relation to its rays.

3.3.4 God:-

The Absolute of Ramanuja is identical with God, but this Absolute is

Savishesa or determinate.

With Shankara, Ramanuja agrees in saying that Brahman is eternal

and uncreated, material as well as efficient cause of the world, but

it cannot be attributeless or a bare identity, matter and soul being

its body. Nirguna Brahman contradicts our experience, since all our

experiences are of qualified objects. An object is distinguished from

others by the presence of its invariable characteristic. If the

sources of knowledge are relative, they cannot tell us something

which transcends our experience. If anything cannot be known by

any means of knowledge, i.e., perception, inference or scripture,

then it is a mere abstraction. Moreover, we cannot deny the

existence of the plurality and the finite objects in the universe. In

order to explain their existence and their reciprocal relations, there

must be a common bond of unity inhering in them, and that,

according to Ramanuja, consists in a religious principle. This kind of

religious principle cannot be a bare identity. Thus in the ultimate

reality or God of Ramanuja, determination, limitation, difference,

etc., are dissolved, contained and gathered together in the one.

Srutis say that “He thought ‘I shall be many’”, or ‘By the knowledge

of one everything will be known’. This is possible only when

Brahman is regarded both as the cause and also as the effect.

102

During creation the world becomes manifest, i.e., insentient beings

attain a gross state with names and forms. This is known as the

Karyavastha. Again, during Pralaya the creation is received back by

the Brahman and thus become unmanifest. This is known as the

causal state or Karanavastha. But even in the latter condition the

attributes of souls and matter exist, though subtly. In the causal

state they are so subtle that they cannot be designated otherwise

than as Brahman Itself.

From the above discussion it follows that the real cannot be a bare

identity. Brahman or God is a synthetic whole, with souls and

matter in it. The Absolute is non-Dual in the sense that it is free

from any homogeneous difference (Svajatiya Bheda) and

heterogeneous difference (Vijatiya Bheda) but has internal

difference (Svagata bheda). This view of Ramanuja is known as

Vishistadvaita, which means non-dualism qualified by difference.

Shankara interprets the famous text ‘Tat tvam asi’ as the

metaphysical identity between Brahman and individual soul but

according to Ramanuja the judgment ‘that thou art’ brings out the

complex nature of the ultimate reality, which has individual souls

inhering in it.[42]

Thus there are three reals (Tatva-traya) in Ramanuja’s Philosophy;

God (Ishvar), matter (Achit), and souls(Chit). But what is the

relation between them? Though all are Reals and eternal, Ramanuja

has attributed finitude to matter and souls for they are not external

to God. They form the body of God and thus inseparable and utterly

dependent on God, while the latter is the soul of matter and soul.

The relation also is of whole and parts, God being the whole and

matter and soul constituting its parts. However, according to

Ramanuja body has only derivative being, since the movement of

the body are subject to the will of the soul, and it decays when the

soul departs.

103

Again, the relation of body and soul to God is said to be that of

Prakara and Prakari or attributes and substance. Substance and its

attributes do not exist separately. The relation between a substance

and its attributes is that of inner-inseparability or Aprithakasiddhi

and not inherence, which is an external relation. Again, if souls and

matter are attributes of God, it does not mean that they are not in

themselves substances possessing attributes, with their own distinct

modes, energies and activities. Isvara is not only the possessor of

matter and soul but also the controller(Niyanta), or internal ruler of

them. He alone is uncaused while the rest are caused.

Brahman has for its body the sentient and the insentient beings

both in the causal and the effected states. Here one question may

be asked, if matter and spirits are parts of the God then does not

God undergo modifications with the change of matter?

It is seen that, when a child grows up to be a youth, there is no

change in the person but only in the body.[43] Similarly, during the

Karyavastha it is the body of Brahman, which constitutes matter

and soul, undergoes change, the soul, i.e., Ishvar, being their

unmoved Mover. At creation the insentient part of its body which

was in a fine condition before creation manifests in a gross form

assuming names and forms, and produce objects of enjoyment,

while the souls attain expansion of intelligence as a result of taking

to a gross body, which makes them fit for the enjoyment of these

objects as a result of the fruit of their karma.[44]

Question, again, may arise whether Brahman is polluted by

imperfections due to its having for its body the sentient and the

insentient world. (text 1-10).

But Ramanuja says, Brahman is not sullied in the least by the

imperfections of the sentient and non-sentient beings in which It

abides, for God is not only immanent in the matter and soul, He is

also transcendental. He is the perfect personality. As the sun

reflected in a sheet of water or in a mirror is no way contaminated

104

by the imperfections of the water, so Brahman is not affected by the

imperfections of the various places like earth etc.[45] According to

Ramanuja, Brahman is free from imperfections and possessing all

blessed qualities like, omnipotence, omniscience, benevolence,

immortality, knowledge, power, mercy, love etc. He possesses all

merits and is devoid of all demerits. Brahman is ‘One without a

second’ and is unique without the like of It in possessing excellent

auspicious qualities. Evil qualities like sinfulness, aging, death, grief

etc. do not affect Him. God is the support and Adhara of these

qualities, as well as the attributes of matter and souls.

Moreover, the imperfections of the soul is not due to its having a

body but due to its karma(past work). Brahman is not subject to

karma. He is the Lord of Karma, and as such free from

imperfections.

God of Ramanuja is an embodied being, but the body is not the

stuff of Prakriti.

Ramanuja admits that there are Nirguna texts or texts which deny

all predicates to Brahman, in the scriptures but contends that they

only deny finite and false attributes, and not all attributes

whatsoever. When the scriptural texts delineate Brahman to be

attributeless they only deny the evil qualities in it. When it is said

that we cannot comprehend the nature of Brahman, it only means

that the glory of Brahman is so vast that it eludes the grasp of the

finite mind. There are texts which deny plurality to Brahman, but

this only means that there is no real existence of things apart from

Brahman. The supreme spirit subsists in all forms as the soul of all.

So there is no conflict between the Saguna and the Nirguna Texts

as such.[46]

Sat, Chit, Anand, or Existence , Knowledge, Bliss” according to

Samkara, are not the attributes but constitute the very essence of

the Absolute. They have oneness of meaning and are the very

nature of Brahman. According to Ramanuja if they had the oneness

105

of meaning, then only one term could have sufficed to apprehend

the nature of Brahman. But they denote three attributes in the

same substratum, i.e. is Brahman. So when Brahman is defined as

“Existence, Knowledge, and Infinity” by the scriptures it does not

mean that Brahman as free from all attributes. This only means

that these three are qualities of Brahman which distinguish It from

others. According to Ramanuja, these qualities of Brahman makes

him a perfect personality, and makes him dependent on nothing

external.

Thus Ramanuja’s God is not an absolute who is inert to the feelings

of the common people but who joins us in the experiences of our

life. The Supreme Spirit is identified with Vishnu by Ramanuja, who

lives with His consort in Vaikuntha made of pure Sattva. Though He

is non-dual He manifests Himself in various forms. He is the

Antaryami, He is the transcendent Lord, again He descends on earth

as various incarnations or avatars. He even takes the form of holy

idols in the recognized temples for the devotees to serve Him

physically.

3.3.5 Jiva:-

Both for Samkara and Ramanuja, soul is eternal, beyond creation

and destruction, but while for Shankara, Jiva is essentially identical

with Brahman, the appearance of Jiva being due to its Upadhis,

according to Ramanuja, Jiva or soul is the mode or attribute of

Brahman. It forms the part of the body of the Absolute. Though it is

absolutely real, yet it is not independent, since it is utterly

dependent on God, supported and controlled by Him.

Being the part of Brahman, the soul cannot be infinite. But having

denied infinitude to the soul Ramanuja has to hold that that it is

infinitely small or atomic in nature. For if the soul is neither of these

two then it must be composed of parts which would be liable to

destruction. Moreover, the Sruti texts say such things as soul

106

passing out of the body, going to heaven, returning from there etc.

These can be possible when the soul is atomic in size. As an atomic

point of spiritual light it is imperceptible, eternal and changeless.

The scriptures also declare that the soul has a particular abode in

the body, viz., the heart. Question may arise that if the soul be

atomic in nature and occupy a particular abode in the body, how

does it experience sensations all over the body? Ramanuja says

that as a light is placed in one corner of a room lights the whole

room, so the consciousness of the soul, though atomic and seated

in the heart pervades the whole body and thus experiences pleasure

and pain throughout the body.[47] It can apprehend objects far away

in space and remote in time.

The soul, though a mode of the supreme, is also a substance in

itself, for it has knowledge for its quality. Knowledge or

Dharmabhuta Jnana is not only its quality, but also its very essence.

The characteristic essence of the Jiva is the consciousness of the

self (Ahambuddhi) Even in deep sleep knowledge belongs to the

self, though then it does not function. Knowledge is essentially

infinite and all pervasive, though the self is finite.

Jiva, in its pure state, is eternal, i.e., beyond creation and

destruction, and enjoys infinite knowledge and also bliss. Its

embodied state is due to its karma. The body serves as a vehicle

(Vahana) to the Jiva, even as a horse does to the rider. This

bondage to the body prevents the soul from recognizing its kinship

with God, obstructing the vision of the eternal.

It is because of karma that during creation, the self becomes

embodied and descend to the mundane life to reap the fruits of its

past life. Again during dissolution, it becomes disembodied.

However in the state of dissolution too it may be tinged with

karmas, so that in the next cycle of creation it has to descend to the

mundane life and to become embodied in order to reap the fruits of

its karmas. It is only in the state of liberation that the soul shines in

107

its pristine purity untouched by karma and therefore can never

descend to the mundane existence any more. In liberation, it enjoys

infinite knowledge and everlasting bliss.

The Jiva is the knower(Jnata), the agent (Karta), and the enjoyer

(Bhokta).

The individual soul is essentially a knower, and is neither mere

knowledge nor inert. Scriptures which declare it to be mere

knowledge only show that knowledge is its chief characteristics, by

which its nature is known or defined.[48] Like knowledge, the self

also is self-manifested; and for that reason also it is well designated

as knowledge.[49]

Again, the individual self is an agent for, an intelligent self alone can

have desires and not inert Prakriti, and the scriptural injunctions

can influence only a sentient being to action and not inert

Prakriti.[50]

Again, it is an agent who enjoys the results of his actions. If the

soul be a non-agent, and Prakrti be the agent, than the results of

actions would be enjoyed by Prakrti and not by the soul. So there

will be an inversion of the power of enjoyment.[51] Moreover,

Samadhi would be impossible if prakriti be the agent, for, in

Samadhi the meditating person realizes his difference from Prakrti.

This experience would be impossible for the internal organ,

inasmuch as it is a product of Prakrti. So we have to accept that the

soul is an agent.[52]

Here it may be mentioned that, though the Jiva is the agent his

mere effort is not enough for action. The co-operation of the

supreme spirit is also necessary. The individual soul’s agency is,

ultimately, dependent on the highest Lord. The Lord makes the soul

act by granting it permission. Action is not possible for the soul

without this permission of the Lord. Thus here two positions are

created. One is that the Jiva reaps the fruit of its past actions, and

another one is that co-operation of the Supreme Spirit is necessary

108

for the rendering of his actions. Ramanuja has to reconcile these

two positions. He does this by saying that law of karma expresses

the will of God. The order of karma is set up by God who is the ruler

of karma. Though action is not possible without the permission of

lord, yet the responsibility for the initial volition is of the soul.[53]

Ramanuja, explains it thus, God declares what is good and what is

bad, supplies souls with bodies, gives them power to employ them,

and is also the cause in an ultimate sense of the freedom and

bondage of the souls. But he does not deprive the Jiva of its

autonomy of will. The souls have freedom of choice. Thus

injunctions and prohibitions etc., have a scope. If the world has in it

so much suffering and misery, it is not God that is not responsible

for it, but man who has the power to work for good or evil.

The relation of the soul to God often gives rise to confusion,

because Ramanuja uses a number of epithets to describe it.

Sometimes he calls the soul as a part of God, sometimes the body

of God, sometimes a mode of God, sometimes a an attribute or

qualification of God and sometimes an absolutely dependent on,

and controlled, supported and utilized by God. It should be

understood properly.

Individual soul is a part of Brahman. By part, however, is meant

that which constitutes one aspect (Desa) of a substance. Just as a

distinguishing quality is a part of the substance, like the luster of

the gems, the generic character of a cow in cows, or the body of an

embodied being, so the soul is the part of Brahman. The above

qualities, though they distinguish the substance from others, can be

experienced as different from the substance but cannot exist

without the substance, they are non-different from it. Similarly the

soul, which is the body of Brahman, can be known as different from

Brahman, but cannot exist without Brahman, that is it is non-

different from Brahman.[54]

109

An objection is raised that, if the soul is a part of Brahman, then it

would be affected by the defects of the soul. In answer it may be

said that, just as a distinguishing quality of a substance is a part of

it, yet also is different from it (viz. light of an object), so also

though the soul is a part of Brahman as Its body, still the essential

nature and characteristics of the two are not one. Thus Brahman is

not affected by the pleasure and pain experienced by the soul.[55]

Thus, though as a mode it is different from God, for the soul is

atomic in mode, yet it is organically related to the Absolute. The

soul form the body of God and have no independent existence apart

from Him. This kind of relation has been termed by Ramanuja as

‘Aprithakasiddhi’ which is translated as ‘inseparable dependence’.[56]

Ramanuja advocates innumerable individual souls. They are

essentially alike, like the monads of Leibnitz or the Jivas of the

Jainas, and they differ only in number. Thus he advocates

qualitative monism and quantitative pluralism of souls.

Ramanuja also describes three classes of souls. To the first belong

the ever-free (Nitya mukta) souls which were never bound. They

are ever free from karma and Prakriti and live in Vaikuntha in

constant service of the Lord. To the second belong the Released or

Liberated (Mukta) souls, who were once bound but who obtained

liberation through their action, knowledge and devotion. To the

third belongs the Bound (Baddha) souls who are wandering in

Samsara on account of ignorance and bad karmas. These can be

further divided into four classes: superhuman, human, animal and

immobile.

3.3.6 Matter:-

Ramanuja speaks of three kinds of Reals or Tattva-traya— Chit,

Achit, and Ishvara. Here we shall discuss with Achit or the

unconscious substance.

110

It is of three kinds: Shuddha Sattva or Nitya-Vibhuti, which is pure

matter, Prakriti or Mishrasattva, which is ordinary matter, and Kala

i.e., time, or Sattva-shunya. But curiously enough Ramanuja

assigns an immaterial status to Shuddhasattva and calls it Ajada. It

is a state between matter and soul, while both Prakriti and Kala are

Jada or material.

Suddhasattva or Nityavibhuti is made up of pure Sattva. It is matter

without mutability. It is a fit means to the fulfillment of the divine

experiences.

The ideal world, and the bodies of god and the eternal and

liberated souls are made up of this stuff. Vaikuntha, the city of God

and also the holy idols in sacred places like Shrirangam are said to

be made up of this stuff. Even, Dharmabhutajnana is also made up

of this immaterial stuff.

Mishrasattva or Prakriti is ordinary matter which makes samsara.

The existence of Prakriti is not an object of perception or inference.

It is accepted on the authority of the scriptures. It has three

qualities of Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. These qualities manifest

themselves in the world creation and remains in extremely subtle

condition during Pralaya. At that state it is devoid of any name and

form and is called Tamas. While Suddhasattva is a means of divine

fulfillment, Prakriti is an object of enjoyment (Bhogya) and suffers

change. It is completely dependent on God than souls who have

freedom of will. at the time of creation, the process of world-

evolution starts from Prakriti. Here it should be distinguished from

the Prakriti of Sankhya. The latter is an independent real, but for

Ramanuja Prakriti is absolutely dependent on God and controlled by

Him. However the order of evolution is same as that of Sankhya.

At creation, from the Tamas, Mahat appears; from Mahat,

Ahamkara or Bhutadi. From Sattvika Ahamkara arises the eleven

senses, from the Tamas, the five Tanmatras, or five subtle

elements, and rajas Ahamkara helps both these processes. The

111

subtle elements also follow an order. From the qualities we infer the

substances. From Ahamkara comes the subtle element of sound and

then Akasa; from Akasa comes the subtle element of touch, and

then air and so on for other elements also.

Again, while space is identified with Akasa which is an evolute of

Prakriti, there being no free space independent of Akasa, time or

Kala is given a separate status independent of Prakriti.

All these non-conscious entities work in obedience to the will of

God. They are not in themselves good or bad, but happen to please

or pain the individuals according to their karma. Matter is more

completely dependent on Brahman than the souls, which have

freedom of choice.

3.3.7 Creation:-

Ramanuja believes in Tattva-traya, i.e., three Reals, Chit, Achit, and

Ishwara. Both matter and souls are different from each other and

different from God. Matter and souls are attribute of God and thus

dependent on Him. In order to be real anything need not be

independent. Both of them are neither created nor destroyed. They

are co-eternal with Him.

Then what does creation means? As in Sankhya, creation according

to Ramanuja is explicit manifestation of the effect which was

already implicitly contained in the cause. Thus Ramanuja believes in

Satkaryavada. But, while for Shankara change from cause to effect

is not a real change, but only apparent, according to Ramanuja the

cause really changes into the effect, just as milk changes into curds.

According to Shankara the world is only an appearance on

Brahman, and thus his view of creation is known as Brahma-vivarta

vada. For Ramanuja creation is real, which means that the entire

universe including the material world and the individual souls is a

real modification of Brahman. Thus it is known as Brahman-

Parinamavada. Ramanuja, like Shankara, believes that Brahman

112

and the world, though of different natures, can be related as the

cause and the effect, for it is not necessary that all the qualities of

the cause which distinguish it from others must be in the effect.

Brahman has for its body the sentient and the insentient beings

both in the causal and effected states. Causal state of Brahman

means the souls and matter are in a subtle condition and thus

designated as one with Brahman. Before creation matter and soul

exist in their subtle conditions in the Brahman. They are so subtle

that they cannot be designated otherwise than as Brahman Itself.

This is known as their Karanavastha. Scriptural texts sometimes say

that Brahman alone was existent in the beginning, Chandogya

Upanishad says ‘Sat alone was this at the beginning’ (Cha. VI. ii. 8).

Ramanuja interprets it as the Karanavastha of both matter and

souls. [57]

But at the time of creation both these sentient and insentient

beings attain a gross state with names and forms, and Brahman is

said to be in the effected state. The subtle matter evolves into a

gross elements, which are the objects of enjoyment, and the

immaterialized souls become housed in gross bodies according to

their karmas. The subtle soul attains expansion of intelligence as a

result of their taking to a gross body, which makes them fit for the

enjoyment of the gross objects according to the fruit of their karma.

But it should be remembered that when Brahman undergoes this

change from the causal to the effected state, imperfections and

sufferings are limited to the souls, and change to matter, i.e., it’s

body undergoes a change, while Brahman continues to be the self

and inner Ruler and as such is not affected by the imperfections

etc., even as childhood, youth etc., do not affect a person but are

restricted to his body.

If it is asked why at all creation takes place, it is said that the law of

karma necessitates creation. The process of creation starts in order

to enable the souls to reap the fruits of their past deeds and this

113

process is said to be without a beginning. But Ramanuja also says

that creation and dissolution of the world are due to the sweet will

of God, which is termed as Lila or sport. The world comes into

existence when Brahman in its causal state desires to be many and

thus evolves names and forms. Thus the two positions are

reconciled by maintaining that the will of God is not averse to the

Law of Karma. The latter is the expression of His will itself.

Here, it should be mentioned that Ramanuja vehemently attacks

Shankara’s concept of Maya. He levels seven important charges

(Anupapatti) against the theory of Maya.

In one such charges he questions the locus or seat of Maya. It

cannot exist in Brahman, for then the unqualified monism of

Brahman would break down. Moreover, Brahman is said to be pure

self luminous Consciousness or Knowledge and Avidya means

ignorance. Then how can ignorance exist in knowledge? Again,

Avidya cannot reside in the individual self, for the individuality of

the self is said to be the creation of Avidya. How can the cause

depend on the effect? Hence Avidya cannot exist either in Brahman

or in Jiva. It is a figment of imagination of the Advaitin.

In another charge Ramanuja questions the concealing nature of

Avidya. If Brahman be the self-luminous pure consciousness, then

how come can it be concealed by Avidya.

In yet another, he objects to the nature of Avidya. Is it positive or

negative or both or neither? It cannot be positive since Avidya

means ignorance, which implies absence of knowledge. It cannot be

negative either because a negative entity cannot give rise to the

world-illusion of Brahman. Again to say Avidya is both positive and

negative is to embrace self contradiction.

Again, the Advaitin describes Maya or Avidya as ‘indescribable’ or

‘indefinable’. This means that it cannot be described as either real

or unreal. But this again leads to self-contradiction. A thing must be

114

either real or unreal, there is no third alternative. To accept such a

description is to defy the cannons of logic.

Another charge against Avidya is that it cannot be cognized by any

Pramana or means of valid knowledge. Avidya cannot be perceived,

for perception can give us either an entity or a non-entity. It cannot

be inferred for inference proceeds through a valid mark or middle

term which Avidya lacks. Nor can it be maintained on the authority

of the scriptures for they declare Maya to be a real wonderful power

for creating this wonderful world which really belongs to God.

Even if we are convinced of such an Avidya, then also the problem

remains because it cannot be removed. The Advaitins are of the

views that knowledge of unqualified attributeless Brahman can

remove such Avidya. But according to Ramanuja such a knowledge

is not possible. Knowledge is always of the differentiated. Brahman

as Nirguna cannot be known. As such Avidya cannot be removed.

Moreover, Avidya is said to be positive in nature. How can a positive

thing be removed?

Thus, through all these arguments Ramanuja purports to establish

that Maya or Avidya cannot be proved. It may be said that some of

the Upanishads mention God as a wielder of Maya. The

Svetaswetara Upanishad says ‘The Lord, the Mayin, creates through

Maya this world and the souls are bound in it by this Maya’ (Sve.IV-

9). However, Ramanuja says that here the word ‘Maya’ refers to

Prakriti which is the cause of this wonderful creation. The Lord is

called ‘Mayi’ because He possesses the power and not because of

Nescience on His part. Again, when Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says

‘The Lord becomes many by His Maya’, it means God’s power of

creating manifold objects. When Gita says ‘My Maya is hard to

cross’ [58] here ‘Maya’ is referred to Prakriti consisting of three

Gunas. Thus neither Sruti, nor Smriti, nor even the Puranas teach

Maya to be nescience.[59]

115

3.3.8 Liberation and Means of Liberation:-

The essential nature of Jiva or individual soul is intelligence and

bliss. But this nature is obscured by Avidya and karma. Thus the

bondage of the souls is due to their ignorance and karma. Due to its

karmas, the soul becomes associated with particular body, senses,

mind and life. The question ‘how or why does the pure soul come to

be at all tinged with karma ?’ is answered by Ramanuja in the same

fashion as the Jainas, i.e., the relation is beginningless.

What, then, is liberation ? if bondage of self is due to the dross of

Avidya or ignorance, then the state of its release is purging of

ignorance which facilitates its unhindered manifestation of

intelligence and bliss. It becomes omniscient and intuitive of God,

and being free of karma, cherishes no desire to return to this

Samsara.

Yet it can be said that the liberated souls do not become identical

with Brahman but only similar to Brahman, i.e., attain the nature of

God. In the released condition the souls have all the perfections of

the Supreme spirit except in two points. First of all the soul is

atomic in size, i.e., it is finite, whereas God is all pervading and

infinite. Again, the soul has no power over the creative movements

of the world, which belong exclusively to Brahman.

Liberation, according to Ramanuja, is not the merging of the

individual soul into the Absolute, but only the direct intuitive

realization by the individual soul of its own essential nature as a

mode of God.

The attainment of liberation must be sought through work and

knowledge. Ramanuja advocates the harmonious combination of

action and knowledge (Jnanakarmasamuchya) as the purificatory

means of the dross and dust of karma, that has surrounded it. By

work he means the different obligatory rituals enjoined in the

Vedas. Disinterested performance of such duties destroys the

accumulated effects of the past deeds. Thus the study of the

116

Purvamimansha is a necessary pre-requisite to the study of

Vedanta. For, by the study of the Purvamimansha and the

performance of the duties in its light, one comes to realize that the

sacrificial rites cannot lead to any permanent good and cannot help

man to attain salvation. This persuades him to study Vedanta. But

the real knowledge of Vedanta is not the verbal knowledge of the

scriptures. Real knowledge is the steady constant remembrance of

God, or meditation (Upasana). Only this real knowledge which is

equal to the highest Bhakti or devotion, is the immediate cause of

liberation, which is immediate knowledge of God.

Ramanuja speaks of three words ‘Prapatti’, ‘Upasana’ and ‘Bhakti’.

‘Prapatti’ means complete surrender on the absolute mercy of God,

and ‘Upasana’ means constant contemplation of God. Enjoined

actions and ordinary knowledge are means to realize this Prapatti

and Upasana. But above all what is needed is God’s grace. It is only

by the grace of God that the complete surrender and constant

meditation matures into the real Bhakti or Jnana. Here it should be

noted that Ramanuja distinguishes between Prapatti and Bhakti.

While Prapatti is only the emotional love and passion for God Bhakti

is unmixed with emotion. It is the highest knowledge, i.e., intuitive

knowledge of God.

Such a liberation cannot be attained while being in the physical

state. One can attain fellowship with God after exhausting all karma

and throwing off the physical body. so long as the karmas persist

the soul cannot acquire its innate purity. Thus Ramanuja does not

believe in Jivanmukti.

According to Ramanuja in the state of release the souls are all of

the same type, i.e., there are no distinctions of gods, men, animals,

and plants. Yet, again, he distinguishes between two classes of

released: one class consists of those who are intent on service to

God here and in heaven. Heaven is the sphere where all the

redeemed souls dwell, and is an extension of the earthly

117

experience, only with greater perfection, more comfort, ease and

beauty. The other class consists of those who have realized their

souls by constantly meditating on God.

But there are yet others known as mystics who not only want to lay

off their bodies but also their individualities, and intent to merge

into the Supreme. Ramanuja’s philosophy finds no place for them.

Thus Dr. Radhakrishnan says ‘Ramanuja does not do justice to the

mystics, who thus hunger for becoming one with the supreme

reality.’[60]

3.3.9 Concluding Remark:-

If a system of thought cannot satisfy the fundamental human

instincts, it is not accepted by the people at large. Shankara’s

Nirguna Brahman, though intellectually the most gracious blossom

of the Upanishads, was not efficacious to this effect. It could not

solace the stress and sufferings of the people, neither could it

satisfy the instinct of love and devotion. Personal values did not

have any meaning to this bloodless Absolute. People needed a

personal god to whom to appeal to, who would stand by their side

to overcome the period of crisis.

Besides Shankara’s Advaita, the ritualism of the Mimansakas led to

the same end. Even Buddhism and Jainism lost their popularity

because they preached no Gods.

Ramanuja has tried to strike a compromise between the intellectual

attainment of Advaita Vedanta and the philosophical outpourings of

the Alvars. His chief aim was to proclaim the doctrine of salvation

through Bhakti, and show it to be the chief teachings of the

Upanishads.

118

3.4 MADHVA:-

3.4.1 Life of Madhva:-

After Ramanuja, Sri Madhvacarya flourished in the 12th century

A.D. and propounded a school called Dvaitam, meaning dualism,

which is one of the three principal schools of Vedanta.

The 12th century, which saw the birth of Madhva, was a period of

grave cultural unrest and political turmoil in Indian history. The

Hindu Kingdoms and the people were passing through a

catastrophic period. Disunity was rampant among the Hindu

kingdoms. They were torn by internecine wars. Destruction of

temples and monasteries and forcible conversions to an invading

faith were going on. Mayavada could not give the people the

dynamic urge to unite to resist external aggression. A-cosmism and

indulgence in hair-splitting logic of Anirvacaniyata was not the need

of the time. The Hindu community had to be roused to a sense of

reality of the world and the stability of Dharma, which were at

stake. The people had to be awakened against the world-negating

philosophy which in one form or other was devitalizing the society.

At this juncture of philosophical unrest, Madhva emerged as a

champion of dualism. He was born in 1199 A.D. in a village near

Udipi, of the South Canara district and lived for seventy nine years.

He became very proficient in Vedic learning and spent several years

in study and discussion, prayer and meditation. While yet in his

teens, the call of the spirit took him to Acyutapreksha, who was an

adherent of Shankara’s school. He received initiation from him as a

Sannyasi. However, he did not feel satisfied with their interpretation

of Indian Philosophy with particular reference to its basic texts and

traditions and wanted to propound a new system of his own.

He toured all over India several times and visited Badrikasrama,

Bengal, Bihar and Benaras in the north and many centers of

119

learning on the Godavari and important places like Goa, Srirangam

and Kanyakumari, in the south.

Madhva appeared on the Indian philosophical scene after the

systems of Shankara and Ramanuja had been well established. In

spite of the Theistic revolt against Shankara led by Ramanuja,

Madhva could not agree with him on many points of Theistic

doctrine. So he called upon to give a new lead in thought, to his

countrymen.

Madhva has left thirty seven works in all. They include Dasa-

Prakaranas, where he discussed many philosophical and other

themes; commentaries on the ten Upanishads; commentary on the

Gita and the Brahmansutras; miscellaneous works comprising

Stotras, poems, and works, on worship and ritual. His epitome of

the Mahabharata called Bharatatparyanirnya and gloss on

Bhagavata Purana help to elucidate his philosophy. He also wrote a

commentary on the first forty hymns of the Rig-Veda. His greatest

work is the Anu-Vyakhyan, a critical exposition of the philosophy of

the Bramhasutras.

3.4.2 Madhva’s Dvaita:-

Madhva’s dualistic philosophy is a reaction against Shankara’s non-

dualism. While Shankara stands for unqualified monism, Madhva

stands for unqualified dualism. Madhva accuses Shankara of

teaching the doctrines of Shunyavada Buddhism under the cloak of

Vedanta. ‘Bheda’ or difference is the central point for his system. He

advocates the reality of five fold differences. They are between (1)

God and soul, (2) soul and soul, (3) soul and matter, (4) God and

matter, (5) matter and matter. Even after the state of liberation the

released souls posses different degrees of knowledge and bliss.

Thus his philosophy can also be called as realistic pluralism, since it

believes in the reality of the external world and also admits the

reality of plurals in it.

120

There was the tradition of dualism even prior to Madhva, but the

need of the situation, his own hatred towards Advaita, and his

works in favour of dualism makes him the prominent spokesman of

Dvaita Vedanta of his age.

3.4.3 Reality:-

Madhva defines reality as ‘what is unsuperimposed’ (anaropitam).

This means that appearance is not reality. According to Madhva

existence is the test of reality. Again, existence does not

necessarily mean existence for all time and throughout space.

Actual existence at some time and space is sufficient to distinguish

the real from the unreal, which cannot be said to really exist at the

time and place of its appearance save in our distorted imagination.

The unreal has no actual existence in time or space though it may

appear to have it. Such an appearance is indeed the characteristic

mark of unreality. Even the critical philosopher like Kant, seems to

have recognized objective experience as a reality when he holds

that the thing-in-itself cannot be objectively known.[61]

The second test of reality, recognized by Madhva is practical

efficiency. One cannot make vessels out of illusory silver in the

nacre.

Madhva’s conception of reality is thus the midway between the

extreme momentariness (Ksanikavada) of the Buddhists and the

eternalism of the Advaitins.

According to Madhvacharya “There are two orders of reality—the

independent and the dependent”. ‘Svatantramasvatantram ca

prameyam dvividham matam’, (tattvaviveka 1)[62] and the aim of

philosophy, is to realize the distinction between the ‘independent

reality’ and the ‘dependent realities’.

The richness and diversity of the universe is a fact of experience.

We are confronted with the diversity in the world around us. The

presence of other selves like us is also borne in upon us. We

121

apprehend reality not as ‘one’ but as ‘many’. So far as our

convictions, tests and reasoning go, they remain as real as

ourselves. But the Reals constituting this universe are not in a

chaotic mess. There is order, regulation, mutual adjustment and

harmony in life. This shows that there is no unrestricted

independence to all to act as they please. But the very principle of

dependence presupposes an Independent central principle which

explains, controls and interrelates the dependents into a universe.

This is sufficient reason, says Madhva, for recognizing the existence

of a ‘Svatantra-tattva’, called God or Brahman, for want of a better

name, in religion and philosophy. His dichotomization of reality is

logical. The dependent Reals, by their very nature, can have no

absolute and unlimited sway or jurisdiction over one another. If

they should have such sway, it would lead to their trying to overrule

one another and that would lead to unending strife and disorder in

the world. It is thus, very necessary, in the interest of the rational

philosophy, to dichotomize reality as a whole, into ‘Svatantra’ and

‘Paratantra’. There is a great difference between Jiva, Jagat and

Brahman. Though Vishnu, the Jivatma or the individual soul and

Prakrti are considered eternal, Prakrti and Atman are not considered

equal to Vishnu (God)J

In Madhvas ontological scheme Brahman is the only independent

real. Dependent reality consists of Chetana and Achetana. The

subdivisions of the Chetanavarga, are, to some extent, theological

in character. A special place is given to the Sritattva which ranks

next to the Supreme Being as the Paratantra and has a cosmic sway

over the destinies of the souls and the modifications of matter. The

rest of the Chetana-varga, is subject to the bondage of Prakriti and

is further divided into released and unreleased. Here, too, there is a

gradation. Among the released Hiranyagarbha occupies a

priviledged position as Jivottama, Devas are the Sarvaprakasha or

fit to realize god as pervasive, the sages are Antahprakasha and the

122

rest Bahihprakasa. Among the non-released there are salvable

(Muktiyogya), ever-transmigrating (Nityasamsarin) and damnable

(Tamoyogya). The Achetana section falls into two groups of positive

(bhava)and negative (Abhava). Three kinds of negation are

accepted, antecedent negation (Pragabhava), subsequent negation

(Pradhvamsabhava), and absolute negation (Atyantabhava). In the

domain of the positive Reals, there are both eternal and the non-

eternal. Space, time, the Vedas, the subtle aspects of the elements,

senses, Ahamkarika prana, Mahat, Ahamkara and the qualities of

the Sattva, Rajas and Tamas are deemed eternal. The grosser

developments of these are non-eternal.

3.4.4 Ishvara:-

Madhva’s philosophy can be better understood when it is compared

to that of Shankara. Whereas for Shankara only one reality exists,

that is Brahman, according to Madhva there are three Reals existing

from eternity. They are God, Soul, and matter, God being the only

independent reality among them. When the Srutis say ‘Ekam

evadvityiam Brahman’ or ‘Brahman is one without a second’ it only

means that Brahman is unsurpassed in excellence and without an

equal.

As to the relation between Cit, Acit and God, in the line of Madhva,

it can be said that, though all the three are real and eternal, the

former two are subordinate to God and thus dependent on him. Cit

and Acit are dependent on God since they are of limited powers and

not all-knowing. God is the One who controls the Cit and Acit

(sentient and insentient Reals) which are of a different nature from

Him. Ishvara is the supreme being and is the creator and sustainer

of this universe. Madhvacharya defines God as follows:

‘the Supreme Being should be accepted as the Creator, sustainer

etc. of this vast universe of stupendous organization.’[63] It is god

who enters into Prakrti to energize and transform it in many ways.

123

God enters into matter to render possible its modification at every

stage.

Similarly, the souls, being dependent, cannot obviously control one

another without one ultimate and independent principle connecting

all of them. There would be an endless regress if one finite self

(real) were accepted as endowed with an intrinsic right to control

another. For, that again would be similarly liable to control by

another finite being and so on. So long as both are finite, such

control would be inconceivable. The difficulty can only be overcome

by positing an Ishvara to regulate the inter-relations of the Jivas.

He is the controller of the many Purushas and superior to them in

so many ways. Thus Prakrti, Purusas, Kaala, etc. is dependent on

one independent principle, viz God or Brahman.

This position is akin to that of Ramanuja. But whereas for Ramanuja

God is both the material and efficient cause of the universe, matter

and soul being the body of god, for Madhva God is the efficient

cause but not the material cause of the universe. God rules the

souls and matter, though he does not create them from nothing, or

reduce them to nothing.

Regarding the nature of this Independent Being or God, Madhva

says that His nature is not indefinable. When the Supreme is said to

be indefinable, all that is meant is that a complete knowledge of

Him is difficult to acquire.

He is infinite in His attributes, for, an independent being cannot

possibly be finite and limited in any case. He is possessed of all

adequate and unrestricted powers and is all-knowing.

The cosmic powers of the Supreme are eight in number: creation,

preservation, dissolution, control, enlightenment, obscuration,

bondage, and release.[64]

Madhva’s conception of God emphasizes two aspects of Divinity—

the perfection of being (sarvagunapuratvam) and freedom from all

limitations (sarvadosagandhavidhuratvam). These two aspects

124

cover and exhaust all that is great and good. This perfection of the

divine means unlimited pervasion in time, space and fullness of

attributes.

God cannot be attributeless. So long we have philosophical enquiry

in our minds, god must posses attributes, for no enquiry can lie

about anything that is essentially Nirvishesa. Thus as a necessary

precondition of philosophical inquiry, It must be agreed that god or

Brahman is Savishesa. Even the distinction from all empirical

attributes (Neti-neti) is also a form of characterization.

Not only that, the Srutis themselves speak of many attributes which

characterize Brahman. ‘He who knows all, who is free from wants,

whose effort is the essence of wisdom. From Him this four faced

Brahma, name, form and anna proceed.’ etc. versions of the Srutis

also endorse that god is Savisesa. According to Madhva their cannot

possibly be anything that is utterly attributeless.[65]

However the attributes and actions of Brahman are the same as

itself. They are not different.

Brahman is Formless, in the sense it has no empirical form.

Whatever forms we conceive is either Prakritic or Bhautika.

Brahman is above the influence of Prakrti, because It transcends

Prakrti and others and controls them all. But when we say ‘formless’

it signifies that its form is trans-empirical. When the Srutis speak of

the forms of Brahaman, they speak of the trans-empirical form of

Brahman as the very essence of bliss, reality, knowledge etc. we

use common parlance to have a faint and inadequate idea of the

trans-empirical forms, for there is no other way in which we can

form any conception of the infinite.

God’s form is nothing more than that of reality, consciousness and

bliss unlimited.

Reason cannot prove the existence of God though it can help

us to form idea of God in our minds. We can conceive of an

ascending order of power, goodness, knowledge, beauty, etc. and

125

the being in which highest perfection is realized is god. We can

know his nature through the study of the Vedas.

Madhva identifies Brahman with Vishnu who manifests himself in

various forms, in various incarnations, and also present in the

various sacred images. Lakshmi is the personification of his creative

energy.

3.4.5 Jiva:-

The universe is a vast expansion of animated nature with every

atom of space filled up with Jivas.

According to Shankara Brahman and Jiva are in essence identical in

nature. But for Madhva the distinction between Brahman and Jiva is

real, since two different things cannot at the same time become

non-different and different from each other. Jiva is atomic in size,

where is Brahman is all-pervading.

In this regard Madhva comes in conflict with many scriptural

passages. The great text ‘tat tvam asi’(that thou art), according to

Madhva does not declare any identity between God and soul. It only

states that the soul has for its essence qualities similar to those of

God. Regarding the text ‘ayam atma brahma’ he says that atman is

said to be Brahman, since it grows or since it penetrates everything.

Even at release the Jiva is not non-different from Brahman. Here

again Shankara’s position is contradicted who says that at the time

of liberation there is no difference between Brahman and Jiva.

Jiva is a permanent entity and is by nature blissful, though it is

subject to pain and suffering on account of its connection with

material bodies with regard to its past karma. The qualities like bliss

become manifest at the time of release.

Thus Madhvacarya defines Jiva in his Vishnu Tattva Nirnaya, the

translation of which is as follows:

126

‘he who enjoys the happiness and suffers the ills of life, who is

eligible for bondage and release, is the Jiva. He is indeed in

apposition to know himself, in all his states as I am.’[66]

Jiva is an agent and has responsibilities to bear. However it is not

an absolute agent, for its limited power. He is circumscribed by

factors like the physical body, the sensory apparatus etc. which are

the gifts of God. It depends on the guidance of God for its actions.

God, according to their previous conduct impels him to action.

Though the Jiva pursues of his free will a course of action that is

determined mostly by his own deep-rooted nature inclinations and

past karma, yet even this is possible because God has given him

the power to do things in conformity with his own innate goodness

or its reverse. As if he works with his own hands and tools; but

looks up to the architect for direction. God dose not interfere with

the Jiva’s decision in any way. He sustains but never constrains.

Unlike the Advaita view of Shankara, Madhvacarya says that

there is not one but many souls in the world. One of the reasons for

the acceptance of Jiva-bahutva-vada can be the uniqueness of each

individual experience. This experience of an individual is

incommunicable. We cannot have others experiences as our own.

We may describe our experiences to another, in speech or writing,

but we cannot transmit to or share the identical experience with

another. Even with regard to the ultimate state of deliverance there

is no unanimity with regard to the mystics.

The difference among Jivas cannot even be said to be conditioned

or ‘Aupadhika’. For if the difference is merely due to Upadhi or

conditioning factors, i.e. if there were no real difference, then all the

Jivas would have identical experiences. ‘But while it might be

possible for us to sympathize with others’ sorrows and feel happy in

their happiness, it is impossible for any of us, yogis and Mystics not

excepting, to enter into intimate personal relation into them as our

own immediate experiences’ [67]

127

Again, the plurality of selves cannot be based on the accidents of

psychophysical embodiment or differences of karma. Karma itself is

the result of the distinctive nature of each soul. The present merit of

a Jiva can be the result of an unseen merit of the past life, but that

again must presuppose a similar merit in the still previous life. The

series would lead to infinite regress. If it breaks down in any

particular instance then the principle of unseen merit should be

dispensed with. If it holds good in all cases then it should be

admitted that unseen merit is ingrained in the nature of individuals.

Thus, the theory of karma will be powerless to explain the cause of

such inequalities without recourse to the hypothesis of an intrinsic

peculiarity that is uncaused (Anadivisesa).

Similarly, moral worth, knowledge, works, experience, heredity,

opportunities, culture, -- none of these can account for the diversity

of the Jivas. The final solution could only be found in the inherent

nature of beings. The basis of the doctrine of plurality of selves is in

the intrinsic diversity of their essences.

Madhvacharya even extends this to the souls in the released state.

According to him plurality of souls in the released state is also not

illogical, for there is disparity of Sadhnas practiced by different

orders of beings.

Madhva’s doctrine of the soul insists not only upon the

distinctiveness of each soul but also upon an intrinsic gradation

among them based on varying degrees of knowledge, power and

bliss. As it is mentioned above, the souls are of three kinds. 1.

those who are eternally free(Nityamukta) like Lakshmi, 2. those

who have attained freedom from Samsara, like Devas, sages, and

fathers, 3. the bound (Baddha). The last category is again divided

into three types.

They are (1) Muktiyogya (salvable or eligible for release.) (2) Nitya-

Samsarin (ever-transmigrating, those who are bound to the circuit

of Samsara ) and (3) Tamoyoyogya (damnable, those who are

128

intended for hell). This is known as tripartite classification of souls.

Madhva’s love of difference is so great that he goes on to find

difference even in the released souls regarding their possession of

knowledge and enjoyment of bliss.

3.4.6 World:-

The world is real not illusory. The material universe, according to

Madhva, is neither the Parinama of Brahman nor the Vivarta of

Brahman but an actualization of what is in the womb of matter and

souls by the action of Brahman. Madhva’s theory of constitution of

matter and the evolution of the world is based on the Sankhya

metaphysics, the Epics and Puranas. He accepts a primordial stuff

called Prakriti which undergoes various modifications and develops

by a process of evolution and involution of parts. The existence of

Prakriti is not logically established by Madhva. Prakriti is an

insentient, dependent, material cause of the world. It is the direct

material cause of the development of time and the three qualities of

Sattva, Rajas and Tamas and indirectly of Mahat, Ahamkara, etc.

The twenty four principles which are evolved from Prakriti are

Mahat, Ahamkara, Buddhi, Manas, ten sensory organs, five sense

objects and five great elements. These twenty four evolutes of

Prakriti are the constituents of the microcosm and the macrocosm

of the entire Brahmanda.

The reality of the world follows from the doctrine of self-validity of

knowledge. The knowledge produced by the senses is normally valid

and true, under requisite conditions of knowledge and proper types

of contacts of the sensory apparatus and this knowledge is

ordinarily contradicted . It is accepted in all schools of Vedanta that

knowledge carries with it its own validity which is intrinsic to it.

Thus validity implies the factual reality of the object of knowledge

with reference to a given spatio-temporal setting.[68]

129

The material world is the field or environment provided for the

spiritual evolution, of souls. God cannot possibly have given us an

illusory environment to develop in. Madhva has given us some

reasons in favour of this. Some of them are as under.

First of all, according to Madhva there is enough evidence in the

scriptures that God perceives us and the world in which we live as

factual realities. His position is not like a magician. A magician does

not perceive his own magical creation. God perceives the world

always. What is thus perceived by a cosmic mind cannot be illusory.

Secondly, Not only that, if this universe is to be regarded, as a

delusion (as the illusory snake in the rope), it require the

acceptance of a real universe (as the prototype of the imagined

one) and a real substratum (i.e. to say two Reals). No theory of

illusions can be demonstrated without at least two Reals: a

substratum (Adhisthana) of the illusion and a prototype (Pradhana)

of the superimposed object (Aaropya). In the absence of such a

prototype world existing and having been experienced, no illusion

could arise.

Thirdly, if the world-appearance were due to the transformation of

the nescience (Ajnana) that conceals the true nature of the atman,

(the world) would not be perceived as different from the atman. No

one sees the substratum and the superimposed object separately,

in an illusion. We do not perceive ourselves as the world of objects.

On the contrary, we perceive the world as something other than

and outside of us. This shows that there is no truth in the

contention that the self is superimposed on the not-self and vice-

versa.

The world is a system of five-fold distinction and is designated as

Prapanca. The fivefold difference is the difference that exists as

between Jivas, Jadas, and Brahman on the one hand and mutually

among the Jivas and the Jadas on the other.

130

3.4.7 Maya:-

According to Madhva it is not necessary to repudiate the reality of

the many in order to maintain the oneness of Brahman. The reality

of the many is no way incompatible with the reality of the one. The

ultimate object of philosophy is to be able to realize the true status

of the metaphysical dependence of all finite reality comprising the

Cetana and Acetana world upon the One Infinite Independent

Reality known as God.

Madhva is not in favour of adopting the method of Shankara viz., of

maintaining the reality of the One at the expense of the many—i.e.,

by dismissing the finite, in the last philosophical analysis, as

‘Mithya’ or unreal. There is no need to explain away the finite reality

as an appearance. For, the theory of appearances is able to cut both

ways. It might reduce everything including ourselves, to an

appearance—landing us in a blank nihilism. An appearance at least

presupposes a perceiver, otherwise it will be beyond the logic of

experience.

Not only that an appearance presupposes or requires, besides a

perceiving self, a substratum on which appearances could be

superimposed, and a prototype of the thing so superimposed.

Without these three prerequisites no sound theory of appearances

should be demonstrated. There is no point in summoning to aid a

series of endless superimpositions stretching back to eternity to

account for the theory of appearance. Thus it is better to abandon

the theory of appearance and accept the reality of the external

world.

According to Madhva the Upanishadic Brahman should not be

interpreted as one in the numerical sense, but should have a deeper

meaning. It should be interpreted as the source of the multiplicity of

the finite reality and the sustaining principle behind it. In Madhvas

philosophy the finites are not banished in the realm of illusory. It

131

lives moves and has its being in the infinite. The relation between

the Svatantra and Paratantra is a real and a true relation.

3.4.8 Bondage:-

The nature of a soul is unalloyed bliss and pure intelligence. It is

essentially free from any kind of misery and pain. Madhva contends

that even though the Jiva is self-luminous being, still, it is not

inconceivable that he should be subject to ignorance of its own true

nature and of the nature of God, and of his true relation to Him, as

he is a dependent and finite being.

Bondage is due to ignorance. Though the atman’s nature is one of

knowledge (Jnanasvabhava), this ignorance is able to obscure a

portion of that knowledge. But this ignorance is not essential to the

nature of Jiva. It is somehow extrinsic or foreign to the core of its

being, like the rust on copper. The question arises if ignorance is

external to the nature of Jiva how does it come to obscure his

Svarupa. Madhva, here, introduces the will of god or his instructable

power. According to Madhva, Prakriti is the principle of obscuration,

but it is god who actuates the latent power of Prakriti which is

known as Maya or Avidya in the scriptures. Prakriti and its powers

are insentient (Jada) and therefore incapable of independent

movement (Asvatantra). So the intervention of god is necessary for

its functioning as a principle of obscuration. Again, obscuration

cannot be due to the Kama, Karma etc. for they themselves are

dependent principles and are the effects of the earlier causes. Thus

bondage is explained by the will of god.

Though the bondage and impurities of souls are extrinsic yet they

are real and not imaginary and termination of this bondage is

possible through proper means.

132

3.4.9 Mukti:-

Mukti is merely the shaking off of what is extrinsic to one’s nature

and reposing in one’s own intrinsic nature and direct perception of

God (Aparoksadarsana). This knowledge of god is not a mere

intellectual realization of the deity. It is more a feeling of deep

attraction and attachment arising from the knowledge of Bimba-

pratibimba bhava between God and soul and sustained by a sense

of spontaneous affection flowing from it. In the act of meditation

the soul can by divine grace arrive at the direct intuitive realization

of God. when the soul has a steady vision of God, his fetters fall off.

This alone is the proximate cause of release from Samsara. Mukti

consists in the realization that all finite reality is essentially

dependent on the supreme. Finite realities, again, can be both

eternal and non-eternal. It is not to be supposed that only non-

eternals are dependent on the Supreme Being. Dependence is a

metaphysical relation which is applicable to both eternal and non-

eternal substances among the finite. In Indian philosophical

tradition, certain substances are accepted as eternal. Among these

may be mentioned time, space, matter, and souls. These are

viewed as uncreated, as it is difficult to conceive of their creation.

Madhva brings these eternal and uncreated substances also under

the power of supreme being.

But over and above the pure knowledge it is God’s grace that plays

the most decisive role in the deliverance of the souls. Since the

souls bondage is, in the last analysis, to be referred to the divine

will, its removal also is ascribed to the divine will. Even the power of

knowledge is futile without the grace of god.

‘Release from Samsara is possible only through gods grace. It is

bestowed on those who have had a direct vision of God. Such vision

is vouchsafed to those who have constantly meditated on Him in

loving devotion, after going through the discipline of sincere study

of Shastras and cogitation, termed “Jijnasa”, which sets one’s

133

doubts at rest, and clears the ground for meditation.’[69] Thus, it is

clear from the above context that God’s choice is not arbitrary,

unconditioned and groundless. The grace of God is proportioned to

the faith and intensity of our devotion. Bhakti, the highest form of

devotion moves god to shower his grace on the individuals.

Moksha is attainable only after death. According to Madhva absolute

liberation and embodied life are not compatible. The soul may

continue with the bodily existence so long as its Prarabdha karma is

operative, but when it departs from the body, it is freed absolutely.

But it should not be thought that natural death is itself the

termination of bondage, for in ordinary death there is no complete

severance of the self from the elements. However, he lays great

stress on the survival of every individual personality, as such, in

release. This is the corollary of his belief in the distinctiveness of the

Svarupa of each Jiva.

However, Moksha is not a purely negative state. It is essentially a

state of positive blissfulness of self-hood which at the same time

incommunicable to others. Sankhyas, Naiyayikas and others

maintain that Moksha is devoid of any blissful experience as such

and that it is only a purely negative state of cessation of all misery.

According to Madhva, however, cessation of all misery is not an

adequate motive to attain Moksha. It is marked by a complete

absence of all traces of pain, evil and suffering, coupled with a

positive enjoyment of inherent spiritual bliss. Even the Srutis also

endorse the same view. We cannot judge the state of Moksha from

our own limited range and conclude that no kind of bliss is possible

to the Muktas.

However, the released souls are not independent of god and cannot

carry on the cosmic functions of the Supreme Being, such as

creation, preservation etc.

There is also gradations in the nature, range, quality, intensity etc.

of the innate bliss enjoyed by the released souls according to their

134

capacities and intrinsic fitness (Svarupayogyata). Each released

souls rests fully satisfied in the enjoyment of his own Svarupananda

but the fullness of bliss attained through Sadhnas is to be

understood with the reference to their varying capacities. Just as

vessels of different sizes, the rivers and the ocean are all full of

water according to their respective capacities. In the same way the

bliss of the Jivas, from the ordinary human beings to

Brahmandeva are different. This theory of Ananda-tartamya in

Moksha is a logical deduction from the theory of Svarupa-bheda

and Taratamya (gradation among souls) accepted by Madhva.

3.4.10 Sadhana Vichara:-

The first question which arises in our mind is that is there a

necessity of Sadhana-vichara?

the Jiva, according to Madhva is a real doer (Karta). It is man

himself and not God that is responsible for the evil and suffering in

the world. In the Advaita school of Shankara the self is not really an

agent. All activity is due to the play of Avidya or ignorance and is

essentially the result of a superimposition on the Atma. Since

Moksha, in this school, is understood in terms of identity with

Brahman, it is not something to be achieved afresh. But is the

essence of the atman himself, though seemingly obscured and

hidden. Madhva is unable to accept such a position which reduces

all activity on the part of the self, be it spiritual, hedonistic, secular,

ethical, etc. to be mere pretence. For him it is necessary to ascribe

real activity to the self. Madhva, in his Brahma-sutra-bhasya writes

‘The jiva indeed must be a real doer otherwise the sastra which is

addressed to those who want to achieve certain objectives by

certain specified means and to avoid certain undesirable

contingencies by not doing certain undesirable contingencies by not

doing certain things, would have no scope.’[70]

135

The means of realization of Brahman such as Sravana, Manana,

Nididhyasana, Samadhi etc. recommended in the Sastras clearly

imply that they are to be carried out by a real agent.

Not only is he a real doer, his bondage to this Samsara is also real.

It is a real bondage which has been continuing from the time

immemorial. It should not be thought that natural death is itself the

termination of bondage. For, in (ordinary) death there is no

complete severance of the self from the elements. So there is need

for Sadhanas. The eternal and intimate relation in which individual

souls stand to the Paramatma is conceived by Madhva as a peculiar

metaphysical relation of constant dependence of Jivas on Brahman.

It is difficult to express it in terms of any other relation within our

empirical grasp. The term ‘Bimbapratibimbabhava’ (original and

reflection) which has been suggested for it by Madhva is the nearest

parallel to it in our experience. Though the Jivas resemble to god as

his Pratibimba and his essential nature of consciousness, bliss, etc,

are all intrinsic to him, they are not fully manifested. It becomes

manifested only in release. Bondage of the Samsara is itself due to

its relation being missed by the Jiva and becoming obscured by a

false sense of independence. So Sadhana is needed. Madhva gives

a unique place to Aparoksha-jnana or direct vision of God.

3.4.10(a) Vairagya:-

Among the Sadhanas, Vairagya or non-attachment to the body and

bodily pleasures and cravings has always been recognized as the

first step in Sadhana. This comes by realizing the utter dependence

of every thing on god. the different births of a Jiva is to create

aversion in the mind towards the earthly pleasure.

3.4.10(b) Karma:-

However, according to Madhva karma alone is not sufficient for

Moksha. But for that reason he does not accept

Jnanakarmasamucaya either to be the Sadhana for Moksha. The

Srutis clearly say that there is no other way to attain Moksha than

136

by Jnana. Madhva makes a vigorous plea for enlightened spiritual

activity which cannot be binding in its consequences. There can be

no true wisdom without such activity, and true karma without

enlightenment and devotion to god.

‘it should not be supposed that karma alone is a sufficient means of

Moksha. For the Srutis clearly say that there is no other (final) way

to attain Moksha than by jnana’[71]

Karma should be performed with Bhakti, Jnana, and Vairagya.

Madhva speaks of two different types of Adhikaris or orders of

beings in the world. Some are Jnananisthah who pursue the path of

knowledge to the exclusion of all karma, and the others, though

highly enlightened, have been commissioned by the divine will to

follow the path of active karma. But this karma is not to be viewed

in the hedonistic and ritualistic sense of the Mimansakas. Rather it

is the active performance in a spirit of devotion and dispassion.

However, even this karma is to be pursued for acquiring the

necessary mental purification, and thus is nothing more than an

accessory to spiritual realization. Disinterested activity performed in

a spirit of devotion to god is a pathway to knowledge, which alone is

the highest means to release.[72]

3.4.10(c) Bhakti :-

In ‘Mahabharata tatparya Nirnaya’ Madhvacarya defines bhakti as

follows:

“ that firm and unshakable love of God, which rises above all other

ties of love and affection based upon an adequate knowledge and

conviction of His great majesty, is called ‘Bhakti’. That alone is the

means of moksha”.[73]

The exposition of this definition has been given by Madhva’s

commentator Jayatirtha as follows:

‘Devotion to the Lord is that ceaseless flow of love of God,

unimpeded by a thousand obstacles, exceeding beyond measure the

love and attachment which one usually cherishes for ones own self

137

for one’s earthly belongings and fortified by a deep knowledge and

conviction of the Lord being the abode of infinite and illimitable

auspicious attributes of a spotless nature.’[74] Dr. B. N. K. Sharma

has defined bhakti as follows:

“Bhakti is, thus, the study and continuous flow of deep attachment

to God, impregnable by any amount of impediments and transcend

in the love of our own selves, our kith and kin, cherished belongings

etc. and fortified by a firm conviction of the transcendent majesty

and greatness of God as the abode of all perfections and free from

all blemish and by an unshakable conviction of the complete

metaphysical dependence of everything else upon Him.”[75]

Bhakti is, thus, the steady and continuous flow of deep attachment

to God (nirantarapremavaahah). Such a Bhakti always precedes

and follows the attainment of knowledge which is nothing other

than vivid perception of the supreme Reality as Sat-Chit-Ananda.

In Madhva’s philosophy Bhakti is not only a means to an end but

also an end in itself. The light of Bhakti not only persists before a

person attains Moksha, but also after he attains Moksha. The

relation between the individual and the Supreme Being is not

something that is destroyed by release.

3.4.10(d) Upasana :-

Another means of the realization of God is Upasana. Upasana is a

mental process of absorbed thought in unbroken continuity and with

deep attachment to the subject. When turned towards the God it

becomes a potent Sadhana for Aparoksha or direct vision

(Saksatkara).[76] Among the various forms of Upasana, the

meditation on the Bimba-aspect of the lord has been said by

Madhva as an essential condition.

Inasmuch as God is essentially incomprehensible (Avyakta) in the

fullness of His majesty, He cannot be visualized save by His favour.

Again, the grace of god, which is the ultimate means of realizing

Him, can only be obtained by prolonged contemplation

138

(Nididhyasana) of his perfections, with steadiness and devotion, to

the best of one’s capacity. Such contemplation of the Divine

presupposes a preliminary study of the scriptures(Sravana). Which

has then to be supplemented by deep thinking or reflection

(Manana), in order to clear the mind of all uncertainty and

misconceptions that may be lurking their from time immemorial.[77]

The combination of Sravana, Manana and Nididhyasana is termed

Jijnasa or a systematic philosophical inquiry and logical

ascertainment of truth.

Thus it can be seen that Madhva has assigned a special place of

honour to the scriptural studies, of course as interpreted by him, as

a means to realization. Sometimes he says it to be the preparatory

stage for Dhyana. The term Dhyana here stands for and includes all

the other stages of self discipline leading to Samadhi.

Madhva , however, has mentioned three orders of Upasana:

internal, outward, and all-pervasive. These different Upasanas are

in accordance with the different (intrinsic) capacities of

individuals.[78] Those who worship through rituals and images

worship god outwardly. The Rishis meditate upon Him as the

Antaryamin in the heart, and still higher Adhikaries, as the all

pervasive one. Accordingly the nature of realization also differs.

Madhva, however, condemns Pratikopasana, for such meditation

may enhance the status of the Pratika but it would lower the status

of Brahman. In meditating on Brahman, the devotee may

concentrate on one or more attributes of divinity according to his

spiritual fitness and capacity.

3.4.11 Concluding Remark:-

As a concluding remark, we can speak of some differences in

Madhva and Ramanuja’s philosophy. Madhva, being an out and out

dualist, did not believe in qualified absolutism. He does not regard

139

the universe of matter and souls as the body of God. They are

different from each other and also from God.

Ramanuja advocates qualitative monism and quantitative pluralism

of souls. But Madhva advocates both quantitative and qualitative

pluralism of souls.

Again, according to Shankara, a liberated soul is identical with

Brahman. The knower of Brahman becomes Brahman itself.

Ramanuja says a liberated soul is similar to God, though is differed

in certain respects, for he does not posses the power of creation,

preservation, and dissolution of this world, and the power of being

the inner ruler of the universe. According to Madhva, there is

difference of liberated soul from God. It does not enjoy the full bliss

of God.

140

REFERENCES :

1. ‘Indian Philosophy’ Vol-1., by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, Second Edition, P 224.

2. ‘Indian Philosophy’ Vol-II., by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, Second Edition, P 414.

3. Viveka-Cudamani 127. Viveka-Cudamani or Crest Jewel of Wisdom of Sri

Samkaracarya. Translated by Mohini M.Chatterjee. 3rd edition. P 52.

4. Brahma-Sutras. With text, translation, English rendering, comments

according to the commentary of Sri Samkara, and index. By Swami

Vireswarananda. Introduction. P 236.

5. Viveka-Cudamani 131. Viveka-Cudamani or Crest Jewel of Wisdom of Sri

Samkaracarya. Translated by Mohini M.Chatterjee. 3rd edition. P 53.

6. Viveka-Cudamani 239. Viveka-Cudamani or Crest Jewel of Wisdom of Sri

Samkaracarya. Translated by Mohini M.Chatterjee. 3rd edition. P 93.

7. Viveka-Cudamani 242. Viveka-Cudamani or Crest Jewel of Wisdom of Sri

Samkaracarya. Translated by Mohini M.Chatterjee. 3rd edition. P 94.

8. Brahma-Sutras. With text, translation, English rendering, comments

according to the commentary of Sri Samkara, and index. By Swami

Vireswarananda. Pp 20-21.

9. A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy. By Chandradhar Sharma. P 254.

10. ‘Discourses On Taittireya Upanishad’ by Swami Chinmayananda, P 210.

11. Brahma-Sutras. Sri Bhasya. With text, English rendering,comments

According to Sri Bhasya of Ramanuja, and index. By Swami Vireswarananda

and swami Adidevananda. P Intro.XXXiii.

12. Brahma-Sutras. With text, translation, English rendering, comments

according to the commentary of Sri Samkara, and index. By Swami

Vireswarananda. P 69.

13. Viveka-Cudamani 111. Viveka-Cudamani or Crest Jewel of Wisdom of Sri

Samkaracarya. Translated by Mohini M.Chatterjee. 3rd edition. P 46.

14. Viveka-Cudamani 110. Viveka-Cudamani or Crest Jewel of Wisdom of Sri

Samkaracarya. Translated by Mohini M.Chatterjee. 3rd edition. P 45.

15. Brahma-Sutras. With text, translation, English rendering,comments

according to the commentary of Sri Samkara, and index. By Swami

Vireswarananda. P 7.

16. A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy. By Chandradhar Sharma. P 278.

17. The Bhagavata Bhakti cult and three Advaita Acaryas: Sankara,

Ramanuja and Vallabha. By Ramnaraya Vyas. P 80.

18. ‘Indian Philosophy’ Vol.-II, by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, Second Edition, P 544.

141

19. ‘Indian Philosophy’ Vol.-II, by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, Second Edition, PP 553-

554.

20. Brahma-Sutras. With text, translation, English rendering, comments

according to the commentary of Sri Samkara, and index. By Swami

Vireswarananda. Introduction. P xxiv.

21. A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy. By Chandradhar Sharma. P 254.

22. ‘Indian Philosophy’ Vol.-II, by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, Second Edition, P 510.

23. ‘Indian Philosophy’ Vol.-II, by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, Second Edition, P 510.

24. ‘Indian Philosophy’ Vol.-II, by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, Second Edition, P 506.

25. ‘Indian Philosophy’ Vol.-II, by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, Second Edition, PP 506-

507.

26. ‘Indian Philosophy’ Vol-II, by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, Second Edition, P 554.

27. Viveka-Cudamani 246. Viveka-Cudamani or Crest Jewel of Wisdom of Sri

Samkaracarya. Translated by Mohini M. Chatterjee. 3rd edition.P 95.

28. Viveka-Cudamani 574. Viveka-Cudamani or Crest Jewel of Wisdom of Sri

Samkaracarya. Translated by Mohini M.Chatterjee. 3rd edition. P 211.

29. Viveka-Cudamani 570. Viveka-Cudamani or Crest Jewel of Wisdom of Sri

Samkaracarya. Translated by Mohini M.Chatterjee. 3rd edition. Pp 209-210.

30. ‘Indian Philosophy’ Vol.-II, by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, Second Edition, P 593.

31. Viveka-Cudamani 58. Viveka-Cudamani or Crest Jewel of Wisdom of Sri

Samkaracarya. Translated by Mohini M.Chatterjee. 3rd edition. P 26.

32. Viveka-Cudamani 545. Viveka-Cudamani or Crest Jewel of Wisdom of Sri

Samkaracarya. Translated by Mohini M. Chatterjee. 3rd edition. P 201.

33. Viveka-Cudamani 149. Viveka-Cudamani or Crest Jewel of Wisdom of Sri

Samkaracarya. Translated by Mohini M.Chatterjee. 3rd edition. P 61.

34. Viveka-Cudamani 6. Viveka-Cudamani or Crest Jewel of Wisdom of Sri

Samkaracarya. Translated by Mohini M.Chatterjee. 3rd edition. P 10.

35. Viveka-Cudamani 72. Viveka-Cudamani or Crest Jewel of Wisdom of Sri

Samkaracarya. Translated by Mohini M.Chatterjee. 3rd edition. Pp 31-32.

36. Viveka-Cudamani 19-20. Viveka-Cudamani or Crest Jewel of Wisdom of Sri

Samkaracarya. Translated by Mohini M.Chatterjee. 3rd edition. Pp 14-15.

37. Viveka-Cudamani 21-27. Viveka-Cudamani or Crest Jewel of Wisdom of Sri

Samkaracarya. Translated by Mohini M.Chatterjee. 3rd edition. Pp 15-16.

38. Viveka-Cudamani 28. Viveka-Cudamani or Crest Jewel of Wisdom of Sri

Samkaracarya. Translated by Mohini M.Chatterjee. 3rd edition. P 16.

39. Viveka-Chudamani-4.

40. ‘Indian Philosophy’ Vol.-II, by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, Second Edition, P 593.

41. ‘Indian Philosophy’ Vol.-II, by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, Second Edition, P 622.

142

42. ‘Indian Philosophy’ Vol-II, by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, Second Edition, P 643.

43. Brahma-Sutras. Sri Bhasya. With text, English rendering,comments

according to Sri Bhasya of Ramanuja, and index. By Swami Vireswarananda

and swami Adidevananda. P 204.

44. Ibid. pp 282-283.

45. Ibid. pp 341-343.

46. Ibid. P 52.

47. Ibid. P 287.

48. Ibid. P 247.

49. Ibid. P 289.

50. Ibid. P 292.

51. Ibid. P 293.

52. Ibid. P 294.

53. Ibid. P 295.

54. Ibid. P 298.

55. Ibid. P 299.

56. A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy. By Chandradhar Sharma. P 354.

57. Brahma-Sutras. Sri Bhasya. With text, English rendering,comments

According to Sri Bhasya of Ramanuja, and index. By Swami Vireswarananda

and swami Adidevananda. P 283.

58. Bhagavad Gita VII . 14.

59. Brahma-Sutras. Sri Bhasya. With text, English rendering,comments according

to Sri Bhasya of Ramanuja, and index. By Swami Vireswarananda and swami

Adidevananda. P 73.

60. ‘Indian Philosophy’ Vol.-II, by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, Second Edition, P 665.

61. Philosophy of Sri Madhvacarya. By Dr. B.N.K. Sharma. P 33.

62. TAttvaviveka 1, Sri Madhva’s Teachings in his own words. By B.N.K. Sharma.

P 27.

63. Dvadasa Stotra iv 3, Sri Madhva’s Teachings in his own words. By B.N.K.

Sharma. P 29.

64. Philosophy of Sri Madhvacarya. By Dr. B.N.K. Sharma. P 253.

65. Sri Madhva’s Teachings in his own words. By B.N.K. Sharma. P 104.

66. Sri Madhva’s Teachings in his own words. By B.N.K. Sharma. P 76.

67. Sri Madhva’s Teachings in his own words. By B.N.K. Sharma. P 81.

68. Philosophy of Sri Madhvacarya. By Dr. B.N.K. Sharma. P 187.

69. Sri Madhva’s Teachings in his own words. By B.N.K. Sharma. Pp 89-90.

70. Brahma-sutra-bhasya II-iii-3 Sri Madhva’s Teachings in his own words. By

B.N.K. Sharma. P 117.

143

71. Sri Madhva’s Teachings in his own words. By B.N.K. Sharma. P 122.

72. Philosophy of Sri Madhvacarya. By Dr. B.N.K. Sharma. P 286.

73. Mahabharata Tatparya Nirnaya I-86, Sri Madhva’s Teachings in his own

words. By B.N.K. Sharma. P 91.

74. Sri Madhva’s Teachings in his own words. By B.N.K. Sharma. P 92.

75. Philosophy of Sri Madhvacarya. By Dr. B.N.K. Sharma. P 287.

76. Sri Madhva’s Teachings in his own words. By B.N.K. Sharma. P 125.

77. Philosophy of Sri Madhvacarya. By Dr. B.N.K. Sharma. P 299 .

78. Sri Madhva’s Teachings in his own words. By B.N.K. Sharma. P 127.

=============

CHAPTER- 4 SRI RAMAKRISHNA PARAMAHANSA

-HIS LIFE AND TEACHINGS.

Chapter Scheme.

4.1 Introduction.

4.2 Life Of Sri Ramakrishna.

4.3 Teachings Of Sri Ramakrishna.

4.3.1 Reality Is One.

4.3.2 God And The World.

4.3.3 Maya.

4.3.4 Jiva

4.3.5 Problem Of Evil.

4.3.6 Free Will.

4.3.7 Bondage Is Due To Ignorance.

4.3.8 Doctrine of Karma and Rebirth.

4.3.9 Liberation.

4.3.10 Means of liberation.

4.3.10 (a) Karmayoga.

4.3.10 (b) Jnanayoga.

4.3.10 (c) Tantrika Sadhana.

4.3.10 (d) Bhaktiyoga.

4.3.11 For The Householders.

4.4 Concluding Remark.