1

Viidvaita Philosphy for Beginners Introduction

iidvaita is often translated as Qualifiednon-dualism and is the theology/philosophy which has been handed down through a succession of spiritual masters and found its culmination and perfection in the great Teacher Rmnuja-crya who lived in the 12th century. His teachings were later expatiated upon by the three great Spiritual Masters Piai Lokcrya, Maava-mahmui and Vednta Deika. Viidvaita is one of the three classical systems of Vednta philosophy. The other two being Advaita Vednta (Monism) and Dvaita Vednta (Dualism). The term Vednta means 'the end of the Vedas'; it refers specifically to the Upaniads which are texts which are appended to the end of each of the four Vedas. These texts deal with metaphysical matters such as the nature of the Ultimate Reality, the individual Self and the universe around us. Vednta as a methodology is an enquiry into the nature of this Ultimate Reality. A systematic investigation into the nature of Truth is called in Sanskrit a darana. The term darana which means an exposition expresses the fundamental truths found in the ruti (Vedas), and which can be tested with discrimination and logic, as well as the realization of that knowledge by personal experience. The philosophical systems which are based on these revelatory texts are known as the schools of Vednta. Viidvaita is a philosophy and a systematic theology which attempts to reconcile Revelation (the Vedas) with reason and intuition. It is a universal system, and accepts in other systems and sources whatever is coherent with its own perceived cardinal truths. Philosophy means the Love of Knowledge. It's contents fall into three groups of enquiry; 1. What is the Ultimate Reality? (tattva)

2. What is the Supreme Goal of life? (pururtha) 3. What is the means to attain that goal? (hita)

All philosophical systems that attempt to answer these queries must have a sound methodology. Philosophy rests upon the twin pillars of logic and Epistemology. Epistemology is the study of the source, nature and limitations

V

2 of knowledge. In order to begin the study of philosophy one should first of all have a thorough understanding of what knowledge is, what the valid means of knowing are as well as the objects and limitations of that knowledge. Every school of philosophy under the umbrella of Vedanta has to show that the doctrines being taught have the solid support of such methodology. All the schools of Vedanta accept Revelation (Vedas and Upaniads) as the only legitimate source of knowledge concerning the Ultimate Reality. But even Revelation in order to be credible must fulfil five conditions; 1. It must be interpreted according to the rational canons of exegesis (interpretation of scripture) which is contained in the Mimmsa.

2. It must be demonstrated that the scriptural statement does not contradict information obtained from other sources of knowledge. 3. It must be internally consistent. 4. It must teach us something which we cannot learn from other sources 5. It must be able to be applied to the practical interests of life.

Sr Rmnuja's Teachings mnuja was the greatest of the Srvainava preceptors and was the first to codify the doctrines and systematise the philosophy of Viiha-advaita. He himself does not use this term anywhere in his works; simply referring to his system as Vednta. Rmnuja's was the first crya to comprehensively criticise Sakarcrya's non-theistic interpretation of Vednta. The other cryas of the Bhakti (theological) schools like Nimbarka, Madhva and Vallabhacrya all came after Rmnuja and liberaly used his polemics and teachings to establish their own schools with minor restatements to suit their own theological positions. All the schools of theological Vednta share the common purpose of establishing the supremacy of the Personal God, known by the names of Nryaa, Vsudeva, Ka etc., and to prove that He is one and the same as 'Brahman the Abstract Absolute referred to in the Upanishads. They all hold the position that the Supreme Godhead is a Personal Being with attributes (sagua) and reject the concept of an attributeless Absolute (nirgua) as taught by Sakarcarya. Salvation/liberation involves the cultivation of devotion to the Supreme Lord. According to these Bhakti schools of Vedanta, Moka

R

3 (Liberation) does not mean the unification of the individual self (jva) with Brahman, but the attainment of eternal servitude to God. Rmnuja's intellectual genius rivals that of akara. Not only was he a great mystic but was also a master of Vedic learning a great logician and exegete. Rmnuja's works can be divided into two categories; the earlier works of which the greatest is the Sr Bhya which is a commentary on the Vednta Stras of Bdaryana, in which he establishes himself as a formidable Vedic scholar and the later works in which he proves himself to be a deeply enlightened mystic; relying on the devotional Tamil writings of the vr saints. Brahman the Absolute The Upaniads do not provide us with a systematic philosophical or theological exposition but contain many variant doctrines and views. Generally the Absolute Brahman is declared to be a Unity of Being which contains within itself all the diversities of worldly experience and yet remains unaffected and unlimited by them. akara upholds this Unity of Being by reducing all diversity of worldly experience into a mere appearance an illusion or My. He uses the allegory of a snake superimposed on a rope in semi-darkness seeing the coiled rope one imagines it to be a snake and is takes fright but upon closer investigation in the light it is seen as it actually is a harmless rope. According to akara, the cause of the illusory appearance of variety in the world is nescience or ignorance (ajna). Brahman as the undifferentiated Pure Consciousness is unchanged and unaffected by the passing phenomena of the variegated universe. With the dawning of pure wisdom (jna) in the mind, the illusory presentation disappears without leaving any residue the Non-dual Consciousness alone remains in its pristine state unchanged. This position leaves many philosophical/theological problems unsolved and raises many more. Because the Absolute is so transcendent and is fundamentally unknowable and cannot be expressed in language, a philosophical position cannot be absolute in order to be tenable; it must simply solve more problems than it creates. akara suggests that the material world is real only from a practical point of view (vyavahrika satta) but has no ultimate reality. akara accepts no Ultimate Reality other than an unchanging and attributeless Absolute Consciousness. Thus akara teaches a single Reality with two aspects the apparently real and the absolutely real. Rmnuja totally rejects this Advaitic interpretation of the

4 Unity of Brahman. He declares that Unity is not justified by the erasing of all diversity but demonstrating diversity in unity. Both akara and Rmnuja considered themselves only as 'Vedntins' and for both of them, their system was Vednta. The term Viihdvaita which was coined by later scholars to differentiate it from the other systems of Vednta. Scholars disagree about how this term should be translated. Von Buitenin has defined it as

unity of the universe's spiritual and non-spiritual substances with, and in, a God whom they modify as His body. A more compact translation is Pan-organistic non-dualism.. Rmnuja teaches that there are three Ultimate Realities called Tattvas; the universe, the jva and the Godhead a realistic theism in which the Godhead of theology and the Absolute of philosophy are one and the same. This triad is established and defended with the relentless logic of Vedantic methodology, but Rmnuja's understanding and teaching is embellished by the devotional songs and mystical experiences of the vr saints who lived in the Tamil country from the 2nd to the 8th century. While he is a strict Vedntin in his methodology and scriptural exegesis, he identifies the Upaniadic Brahman with Viu-Nryaa, and this is the turning point from philosophy to theology. Devotional Vaiavism is introduced in his early major writing the Sr Bhya, but becomes clearer in his later writings. The Godhead

Rmnuja successfully fused the philosophical investigation of Upaniadic seers into the nature of the being (ontology) and the changing world around us with the vr's ecstatic experience of God hence Viidvaita is also called the Ubhaya Vednta the Dual Vednta, accepting the Sanskrit Vedic revelations of the Rishis as well as the Tamil revelations of the vrs as equally authoritative akara links the provisional Material Reality with the Personal God (Sagua Brahman or vara) who is its cause. This Personal God is distinguished from the Absolute (Nirgua-Brahman), and is as unreal as the pluralistic world that is said to be His creation. When ignorance is overcome by proper wisdom, the enlightened being realises that both the world and the Personal God have no real existence hence his system of Vednta is ultimately non-theistic.

5 Rmnuja launches a scathing attack against the Advaita theory of Ignorance (avidya) and the division of Reality into Paramrtha (ultimate) and Vyavahrika (relative or practical). One of the major flaws he points out in Advaita Vedanta is the problem of the locus of ignorance. In what does ignorance inhere? What is it's location? If it is Brahman, Brahman becomes tainted with negativity and is thus unworthy of being a spiritual goal. If it is the jva (individual self), the same problem persists, as the Jva in its essential state is supposed to be one with Brahman. If it is admitted to be an entirely different category then dualism results. Furthermore, the condition of being a jva is caused by the Updhis (limiting adjuncts) superimposed on Brahman and these Updhis are the products of Ignorance. Thus Ignorance must precede the existence of the Jva and therefore the jva cannot be locus of it. To try to solve the problem by saying that Ignorance is a category that is neither existent nor non-existent nor a combination of both is contrary to logical thinking. Rmnuja directs a polemic against the three doctrines of: Two Brahmans: nirgua devoid of attributes and sagua with attributes. The latter being a concession to ignorance and only a means to attain the former. The theory of avidya Ignorance which is without a definite locus and which cannot be described as existent or non-existent or a combination of both, and The division of Reality into Paramrtha (the ultimately real) and Vyavahrika (the relatively real), which means only that the latter is illusory. The essential nature of God Rmnuja refers to the Supreme Being by such names as Brahman, Nryaa, Ivara, Bhagavn, Puruottama, Viu etc. God for Rmnuja is not a formless, attributeless, indefinite and vague abstract presence unsuited for meditation and adoration, but the Supreme Person with an archetypal form which is free from all limitations. The Supreme Person can take any form and indeed in His essential nature or svarpa, He pervades every thing as indweller and its substratum. The svarpa or essential nature of the Supreme Person consists of the following five characteristics: satyam Truth unconditioned and changeless; jna omniscience which is permanently un-contracted knowledge; being the Supreme Subject that cognises everything else. anantam Infinity or excellences unlimited by categories of time. space etc.; nanda Immeasurable and unobstructed Bliss .

6 amalatva incorruptibility, perfectly immaculate free from the taints of Karma. These five attributes are not to be considered merely as five qualities. Jna (omniscience) is not merely an attribute but the essential nature of Brahman. And herein lies the impossibility of understanding Brahman with our finite minds it is difficult to comprehend how a thing can have an attribute and be an attribute. nanda is only another way of describing the conscious nature of Brahman. So Rmnuja often describes Brahman as jna-nandaika-svarpa or one whose essential nature is solely Consciousness and Bliss. The qualities of Existence (satya), incorruptible purity (amalatva) and Infinity (nantatva) are also integral to Him. All these constitute His essence as also His inherent attributes. There are other attributes that form the svabhva the Personality of God. When we talk of God being a 'Personality' it is these countless auspicious qualities known as kalya-guas which are referred to and not to some humanoid entity. Human personalities are conditioned by parentage, upbringing, social circumstances etc, and conform to a specific type of limited variation, whereas the Personality of the Godhead is unconditioned and unlimited. Svabhva (Personality) consists of the qualities He demonstrates in relation to the world and the jvas, while svarpa is His inherent nature as it is in itself, unrelated to either the world or the jvas. The framework of the unlimited attributes forming the svabhva are the six qualities (Bhagas) described in the Viu-Pura as powers characterising the Bhagavn (God). They are: 1. jna omniscience

2. bala omnipotence 3. aivarya sovereignty 4. akti creative potency 5. vrya immutability 6. tejas splendour

The auspicious qualities are, however, countless, the above-mentioned being the most important. Some of the other most important ones are gambhrya (inestimable profundity), audrya (generosity) and kruya (compassion), vtsalya (parental affection), saulya (amiability) and saulabhya (accessibility). Whenever he alludes to Brahman, Rmnuja is always careful to enumerate one or more of these inherent and auspicious qualities in order to underscore his rejection of the Advaitic concept of a Brahman devoid of all qualities.

7

God, the Jvas and the Universe In Rmnuja's system, God has another kind of attribute apart from the inherent and essential attributes, the jvas (individual selves) and Jagat (changeful and manifold Nature). The field of metaphysics deals with their interconnectedness. For the Godhead to display a Personality (svabhva) necessitates a theory of His relationship with those jvas who are the recipeints of this display and the world in which they live. For example having Sakti (creative power) would indicate the creation of something a world, and being filled with Kruya (compassion) indicates possibility of His doing something about the suffering which is inherent in the world. A doctrine of a perfect and aesthetic God may suffice for simple devotees but as a Vedantic theologian one is expected to formulate a theory showing exactly how the unity of all existence is possible in the face of a constantly changing multiplicity, and also how a morally perfect and blissful Being can be accepted as the creator of a world that is full of moral imperfection and suffering. Rmnuja as a Vedantic metaphysician addresses himself to this task. Apthak-siddhi, arra-arri- relation etc. According to the rules of Debate (Tarka) one first paraphrases the opponent's argument and then refutes it and afterwards establishes one's own position. So first we will deal with akara's thesis. akara establishes the unity of Brahman by the theory of super-imposition or adhysa. He argues that the multiplicity is 'super-imposed' upon the non-dual Brahman due to Ignorance (avidy), also called My. In other words the variety that is experienced in the world and the experiencer are ultimately unreal. Rmnuja defines a arra (body) as: "Any substance (Dravya) that an intelligent being (Cetana) is able completely to control (Niyantum) and support (Dhrayitum) for its own purposes and the essential nature of which is entirely subservient (ea) to that intelligent being, is its body. The implications of this definition can be analysed as follows: (1) The supported entities the jva-jagat, are incapable of separate existence, from God the supporter (pthak-siddhi-anrha)

(2) God is the controller and jva-jagat is that which is controlled, and (3) God is the master and owner and the jva-jagat are subservient to Him and are His disposable property.

8 The body (corporeality) of God is the totality of jvas and Material Nature. In our own experience the body and Self are always organically related. In the case of the jva, when the jva is separated from the body, the body returns to the elements and it can no longer be called a body. In the case of vara, the Cosmic Corporeality of jvas and Nature can never be separated from Him, as their dependence on Him is eternal and innate. This coporeality is subject to changes of condition, but can never be destroyed or separated from Him. The dependence, however, is not reciprocal the coporeality is totally dependent on vara, and not He on it. To elaborate on this doctrine of the arra-arri relationship between Brahman and the Cosmos, Rmnuja uses other expressions like prakra and prakri and dhra and dheya. Prakra means a mode and Prakri the substance to which the mode is related. A mode has no existence independent of the substance. The mode constituted by the jvas and Prakti undergo changes and transformation, but this is only contraction and expansion, which is called Pralaya (dissolution) and Si (projection). In dissolution the jvas and Prakti exist undifferentiated from Brahman but they do not lose their identity in so far as they have the potentiality to re-manifest again at the time of Si or Projection of the universe. dhra means support which is the Brahman and dheya that which is supported the jvas and Prakti. An entity that is a mode and a thing supported, depends entirely on the substance of which it is an expression. In the ordinary material sense a mode may be dissolved into its substantial base, and a dependent object dropped down from that which supports it. But in the case of Brahman and the universe this cannot happen. The dependence is eternal, inherent and irrevocable. Thus the meaning connoted by both these pairs of expressions only underlines the impossibility of a separate existence for the jvas and Nature, as Brahman is their eternal, irrevocable and natural substratum and support. They thus augment the understanding of the body-self (arra-arri) relationship. Body-cell analogy An analogy from the biology of a human body can also be used to further illustrate this relation. The body consists of millions of individual cells. The cells of the heart, of the lungs, the muscles, bones, brain etc. are distinct in function, and every individual cell of these categories has its own individuality and function, but they all form one unified body they are bound together as a unified whole by the will, the life-energy of the body, and they exist and function solely to serve the interest of the whole. Apart from the whole they have

9 no existence, and if separated they will perish and cease to be cells. In the body-self relationship of the jvas and Prakti with God the relationship is indissoluble, though this metaphysical truth may not be understood or actually realised by the Jva in the state of ignorance. This kind of irrevocable and non-reciprocal dependence of an object on its supporting object is what is called Apthak-siddhi. The Scriptural Basis for Sarra-Sarri Doctrine The doctrine of apthak-siddhi is established by Rmnuja not through logical reasoning, but on Scriptural testimony only. His favourite proof text is from the Antarymi Brhmaa of the Bhadarayaka Upaniad (3.7) He who dwells in all beings, who is within them, whom none of the beings knows, whose body is all beings and who controls all beings from within, is the inner controller, your own Self, and immortal.... He is never seen but is the Seer, He is never heard, but is the Hearer.... There is no other Seer than He, there is no other hearer than He, there is no other thinker than He, there is no other knower than He. He is the Inner Controller of our Self and immortal. All else but He is perishable." By establishing the arra-arri relationship between Brahman and the Universe, Rmnuja not only secures the logical bond of inseparable union between them, but also lays the ontological basis for the devotional and ethical doctrines of subservience to, and service of, Srman Nryaa as the raison de etre of the jva's destiny. The arra-arri relationship is further elucidated by the concepts of ea and ei. Literally ea means 'what remains' and ei, 'that which is the whole'. Theologically many other meanings are derived from this some of them being servant (ea) and master (ei), accessory (ea) and principal (ei). The spiritual and ethical significance of this relation is eternal service of God and being the instrument of His Lila. In all forms of Theism, God is the supremely adorable and infinitely good Personal Being who is distinct from the world and the multiplicity of jvas, capable of being adored and responsive to prayer and worship. At the centre of Vedntic ideology, is the theme of the unity of all existence, and thus any system of Vedanta requires the investigation of the concept of an Absolute which resolves the manifold cosmos into a single unity. But an Impersonal Absolute negates the concept of a Personal God. To achieve a balanced theology of the unity of all existence one must posit the thesis that the Personal God and the Absolute are in fact one. While God is one with the many, He should not also be contaminated by the many. This is the theological problem which Rmnuja set out to solve, and this he does by positing the body-Self doctrine, in which unity of existence is established without forfeiting the ultimate reality of the many, as the Adhysa (super-imposition theory) of akara does.

10 The objection may be raised that if the jvas and the Nature are Brahman's body, then just as in the case of sentient beings, the sufferings and corruption of the cosmic body of God must surely affect Him and make existence unbearable. The answer given is that in all schools of Indian philosophy except that of the Crvka (materialist hedonists), the Self's unaffectedness by body and its transformation is taken for granted. Besides, it is also maintained that even an enlightenment person is able to achieve a state of complete detachment even while embodied. How much more so must this be applicable to God who is the source of all enlightenment and is of the nature of consciousness absolute (jna-svarpa). So while metaphysically Brahman is one with his Cosmic body constituted of jvas and Jagat, as a substance with attributes, He is unaffected by its corruptions. His Amalatva or freedom from impurities remains intact. In the case of jvas it is the hold of oppressive Karma that generates the spiritual blindness of ignorance and impurity. God is untouched by Karma and is therefore absolutely immaculate. The corruptions of the world cannot corrupt Brahman. Ivara as the Creator Besides describing the Svarpa and Svabhva of Ivara, Rmnuja mentions Brahman's being the cause of everything (sarva-kraatva) in a separate category perhaps to stress the unique importance of this characteristic. As a Vedantic theologian with the unity of all existence as his main thesis, Rmnuja is also bound to demonstrate that Brahman is both the material and efficient cause of the universe. For the Vedantin there is no independent plural existences like the Prakti and the Puruas of the Sankhyans. For Rmnuja they exist, but not as independent entities. They form one organic whole held together by the relation of inseparable dependence as a unity with Brahman (Apthak-siddhi). In the light of such a relationship, Brahman's causality does not mean that He created a non-existing world out of nothing. There is no absolute origination, as jvas and changeful Nature (Jagat) always exist as a part of Brahman as His body or mode. They exist in the two states of latency (Pralaya) and patency (manifestation or Si). Pralaya and Si are eternally alternating states of matter like night and day, the motivating power behind the periodic movement being the will of Ivara expressed in the Veda as 'I am one; may I become many'. For, in the Pralaya' state the jvas and Prakti would be reduced to their primordial condition and would remain latent in Brahman, without any distinction. In the phase of projection or Si, caused by the will of Brahman they gain patency and diversity through a process of metaphysical evolution. This evolutionary process of Prakti taught by Rmnuja is more or less the same as in the Sankhya cosmogony.

11 Prakti, which is the balanced state of the three Gunas of Sattva, Rajas and Tamas evolves by phases into Mahat (cosmic intellect), Ahamkara (Cosmic ego-sense), manas (Cosmic mind), Indriyas (sense centres in the mind), the subtle aspects of the five elements, and finally into their gross aspect. But unlike in the Sankhya system, the automatic diversification of categories is not in itself sufficient to complete the creative process. Brahman has to enter into these categories and cause them to intermingle in such a way as to form the various spheres (realms) and the bodies of living beings. Thus at every stage as the efficient cause Brahman participates in the creative process the jvas which gain their separate identity and various bodies suited for their spiritual evolution according to their previous Karma. Karma is the sum total effect of all the actions of the jvas in previous embodiments. These Karmic seeds remain as latent propensities during the state of Pralaya, and by the Divine will the jvas obtain bodies suited for the reaping of their Karmic rewards in the shape of suffering and/or pleasure. It is to be especially noted that both in the latent (Pralaya) and patent (Si) states, the jva ad Prakti form the body (arra) or mode (prakra) of Brahman. The alternation of states does not in any way affect or alter this eternal integrated relationship of Apthak-siddhi (non-existence in separation). Theory of Creation and Theodicy This theory of creation has a great implication in Rmnuja's uncompromising insistence on the amalatva (immaculate-ness) of Ivara. One of the major problems of the Semitic religions is the problem of the origination of evil (theodicy). If God is taken to be 'the Supreme Cause' of the universe, it would be better to maintain that He created the souls and the world out of 'nothing' (ex nihilo) as Semitic religions do. Such, a doctrine would have the advantage of establishing Gods absolute omnipotence more effectively. But this advantage is gained only through the attribution of all the evils, sufferings etc. in the world to Ivara, and this raises the very relevant question whether God is good or evil. But Rmnuja's theory of creation is not devalued by this serious objection. Creation and dissolution are the twin phases of an eternally recurring cyclic process of Samsara. God is free from the responsibility of starting the process and causing the evils accruing from it. It is Karma, the moral result of the actions of jvas in their series of embodiments, that brings about the good and evil, and the enjoyments and sufferings which are experienced in the world. All sentient beings are the creators of their own destinies, the authors of their own sorrows and joys. God does not create these potentialities as He does not create Nature. Nature and jvas exist as His eternal and inseparable modes. God only wills the Si or projection of Prakti into the categories and their combinations.

12 The shape that these elements take depends on the Karmic potentialities of the jvas involved in the cyclic process of time, Samsara. God only provides the manifesting power. He is not responsible for the evil and sufferings involved in the creative process. By this interpretation of creation and the law of Karma, Rmnuja justifies the doctrine of Brahman's Amalatva or freedom from all impurity as also from partiality and cruelty, as well as fulfilling the Vedantic requirement of His being both the material and efficient cause of the universe. In discussing the aspect of Brahman as the Creator, there arises also the question of the purpose of creation. As God is self-fulfilled (pra-kma), He can have no personal objective to gain through creation. Creation is therefore described as His Lla or sportive manifestation. Si (Projection) and Samhra (withdrawal) of the universe, which is related to Brahman as His own arra (body), is a spontaneous process expressing the rapture of self-enjoyment without any ulterior purpose. But the question will be asked what justification is there for this purposeless play, which involves immense suffering to the jvas involved in it. The answer given is that the creative activity is an expression of His beneficence towards jvas and not of callous cruelty towards them. For the jva owing to the accrual of Karma has almost become one with matter, with its conscious nature completely obscured. The essential consciousness (Dharma-bhta-jna) of the jva is contracted, although its inward awareness (Dharmi-jna or Pratyaktva) remains intact. This state, however, is as good as that of matter as far as awareness is concerned. It is through the impact of the creative process in various forms that the jva gradually experiences an expanding of consciousness. Enjoyment and suffering are the phases of this evolutionary process. If there was nothing to stimulate the jva to strive for enlightenment it would remain in its matter-dominated state for eternity. Creation involving suffering and enjoyment gradually enables the jva to strive for enlightenment and the return to Godhead. To the state of unification with God in the experience of beatitude and absolute consciousness, though in essence the jva, even in Liberation always remains distinct from the Godhead in the arra-arri (body-Self) relation. The difference in the condition of the jva in the two states of bondage and liberation, is that in bondage it is one with matter without its individuality being lost and in liberation it is one with God without its individuality being lost. The process of Creation is the mechanism that facilitates this. Thus creation has a purpose in regard to the salvation of the jvas, though not for God personally. It therefore demonstrates His beneficence and lack of any negativity.

13

The ethical and Spiritual implications of the Sarra-Sarri doctrine It has been already pointed out that according to Rmnuja the essential nature of the arra (jva) is to be under the absolute control and support of the arri (the Lord) and to subserve the purpose of the arri. In terms of personal relationship the arri (vara) becomes the Master or Lord (ei), and the jva and Jagat become the liege or servant (ea). vara, who has absolute control over the jva and Jagat (His body) and who can utilise them as He likes, is certainly their master (ei), as they are objects existing solely for His service or use. (eas). If the jva thinks that it is an independent and self-existent entity free to dispose of itself as it likes, it is under the influence of ignorance which Karma has generated. In Viidvaita. independence of this kind is not the natural state of things. Real Knowledge for the jva consists in its recognition of its being an absolutely dependent entity whose only purpose and true joy is to serve the Lord. Here it may be objected that if the ultimate consummation of life for the jva is dependence and subservience, then it is equal to being consigned to hell. All beings like to be free and not to be subservient to another. Manu says that all dependence on others (Parraya) causes sorrow; all self-dependence is happiness. The answer given to this valid objection to ea-ei-bhva is that this criticism is true only of dependence on, and service of, another who is unworthy of it, and also of service undertaken for personal advantages by the ignorant jva who identifies with the body. All human beings stand in the position of a servitor to another being. Parents to their children. children to their parents, merchants to their customers etc. God, the Supreme ei (Master), is alone worthy of service. The ei (God) rules over the ea (jva) not by virtue of the imposition of power, or in order to manipulate the jva for a selfish end, but because it is in the nature of things. Service to God is therefore pre-eminently fitting. The forgetfulness that one is a natural ea (servitor) of God is due to ignorance born of Karma. When this is removed by enlightenment and the jva realises itself to be the eternal and natural attendant of an all-powerful, all-perfect and all-blissful Being, the jva derives the highest bliss of security and satisfaction, and not the wretchedness of worldly subservience which is characterised by exploitation. The sense of craving for independence and individuality which a person in ignorance feels, is due to attachment. But the sense of spiritual dependence born of the realisation of being a part of the Whole, can only cause the highest bliss and sense of fulfilment to the jvas. It is the self-realisation of being a jva, or an entity distinct from body-mind complex and the consequent sense of eatva (natural dependent status) in relation to vara that generates true devotion (Bhakti) which consists in continuous mindfulness and the absorbing desire to serve Him. This self-realisation and devotion issues forth as a recognition of the inter-dependence of all things as the arra of God, and all things as connected with oneself in that all embodied beings are jvas. This leads to the desire for the

14 welfare of all beings (loka-sagraha) and the working towards such an altruistic aim. Such are the ethical and spiritual implications of the doctrine of arra-arri-bhva and its allied doctrine of ea-ei relationship of the jva with vara. Transcendence and accessibility of God One of the great spiritual implications of arra-arri and ea-ei doctrines is a reconciliation between God's transcendence (Paratva) and His accessibility (Saulabhya). It is evident that there is a paradox between transcendence and accessibility in one and the same being. Transcendence in this context can have three meanings: a) The Deistic conception of God in which God remains absolutely absent and unrelated to the world after the act of creation. This cannot apply here, because God not only projects the categories of creation from within Himself, but also enters into them to activate their combination. So He is the arrin (indweller) of the Cosmos as a whole and of every part of it including the jvas. In its totality and in its particularity the whole cosmos and every part of it are the corporeality (arra) of Brahman. But He is not confined in them as water in a bottle. He is their container as well. He is infinitely beyond their dimension too. 'I remain, permeating this whole universe by a tiny portion of Myself', Ka says in the Gita. b) By pervading the universe, He is not in the least affected by its imperfections, as He is its Self. The imperfections and sufferings of this world are not due to God but due to the Karma of jvas. It is Karma that creates suffering and enjoyment for jvas, but God, being free of the bondage of Karma, is untouched. His will to create is only an act of mercy for effecting the evolution of the jvas under the domination of Karma. In the sense of His unaffectedness too, He transcends the universe. c) Above all God transcends Prakti and the jvas in bondage by means of His supra-mundane (Aprkta) corpus in which He abides eternally in His Divine realm of Vaikuha. It is true that as the Cosmic Indweller (Antarymin), God has a corpus constituted of Nature (Prakti) and all jvas from the creator Brahma down to the lowest blade of grass. But as already pointed out, only a 'fraction' of Him is involved in this aspect, and even in being the Indweller, He is unattached and untouched by the transformations that Nature undergoes. In His intrinsic form (Svarpsa), the supreme Lord Nryaa, has a corpus of uddha-sattva (pure transcendental matter. The attributes of His essential nature (svarpa) are satyam (truth), jnam (Knowledge), anantam (Infinity), nandam (Bliss) and Amalatva (immaculate purity) these form what has been described earlier as His Svarpa and Svabhva. It is what is described in Scripture as avg-mnasa-gocaram beyond the ken of speech and thought. Only the jvas liberated from Samsra can commune with Him.

15 But it is the same Nryaa who, by virtue of His Omnipotence and Omnipotence, pervades the whole Cosmos in its totality and in its multiplicity of jvas and Nature. They constitute His corpus and He is their indwelling Self. In that sense also, Brahman is transcendent (Para) and accessible (Sulabha) at the same time.

Saulabhya or accessibility in a special sense In order to reconcile the paradox between Paratva (transcendence) and Saulabhya (accessibility), the Srvaiava literature uses a very expressive analogy of an elephant and a lame man. The elephant is so high that the lame man cannot climb onto the neck of the elephant by any effort that he may make. But the tall elephant can kneel down, and then the lame man can easily climb up. According to Srvaiava theology, the Supreme Being has four aspects. These are: 1. the Para or Nryaa in His transcendent Status of Vaikuha;

2. the Antarymin or indweller in the universe as a whole and in all its parts; 3. the Vibhava or special manifestation as Avatra (Divine descent or Incarnation); and 4. the Arca or consecrated images in temples.

It is through His appearance as the Incarnation and through images that stand that Nryaa demonstrates His accessibility. Although twenty four or more Divine Incarnations are mentioned in the Puras, Rmnuja focuses chiefly on the two well-known Incarnations as Rma and Ka. In an Incarnation, Nryaa appears as a human being and lives among humans, but He has got all the divine glory and powers of Nryaa, just as the kneeling-elephant retains all the elephantine characteristics even while kneeling. An Incarnation's body is composed of Suddha-sattva or pure transcendental stuff unalloyed by material nature. Though human in appearance, the Lord is not born to reap the fruits of Karma like jvas, and is not the slave but the master of material Nature. The purpose of His descent is often described as the destruction of evil forces and establishment of Dharma. More than that, it is His Compassion, His inability to endure the sufferings which the jvas undergo in Samsara, that prompts Him to 'descend' as the Avatra. Besides redeeming jvas during His earthly manifestation, He leaves behind him the highly evocative episodes of His pastimes (Srmad Bhgavatam) and spiritual teachings (Bhagavad Gita), both of which become a direct means for one to attain salvation. The contemplation of the forms of the Incarnate and His glorious

16 pastimes offer an effective means of salvation. The Incarnation is non-different from Nryaa, contemplation of the Incarnation is equal to contemplation on Nryaa. Incarnations appear only once in an age, and after they leave the human body, what is left for one to contemplate on is only the accounts of their lives and teachings. The elephant's kneeling position is not as yet low enough for the humblest of the humble devotees to get upon. So it kneels still more, and that is the Arca or the consecrated Divine image in great temples like those of Srragam Tirupati etc. By dint of His omnipotence and boundless compassion the Lord takes up residence in the icon with a fraction of His total energy in order to receive the worship of the devotees and to bless them with divine grace. Nryaa, unlike Incarnations, is always present as the Arca for devotees to commune with through the senses of vision and touch and through devoted adoration. It is sometimes pointed out that Rmnuja does not emphasise the idea of Arcvatra in his major work, the Sr Bhya. This must be only because the idea of worship of holy images is not prominent in Vedic religious tradition. It is however a part and parcel of the religious tradition that Rmnuja inherited from the vrs, and he was not prepared to water down any of their devotional ideas to placate the intellectuals. In his own life we find him doing service to the Holy Image at Kcipram and accepting the management of the great Vaiava temple at Srragam. The function of Sr as a factor in the accessibility of God In Srvaiava theology, the function of Mother Lakm has great importance. It is on account of Her role as the Divine Consort, that this system has come to be known as Sr-Vaiavism and God popularly known as Srman-Nryaa, (Nryaa eternally accompanied by Lakm). In Rmnuja's major philosophical writing, the Sr Bhya, he does not make much reference to the Divine Consort, probably because he was writing a work of pure Vedantic philosophy. But in his more devotional writings like the commentary on the Gita, Gdya-traya, Nitya-grantha etc, Lakm is more in evidence. The general idea Rmnuja conveys is that Sr is co-eternal with Viu, that She is anapyini, ever united with Him. Even when He incarnates, She always accompanies Him. But She does not play any particular part in the creative function of the Universe. Lakm is quite unlike Sakti, the female counter-part of Siva, who is the sole active power in creation, Siva being only the inactive Pure Consciousness. In Srvaiavism, Viu Himself is the only Creator and Sr is co-eval with Him. The Tegalais, however, consider Her as the first of the Jivas and therefore the first among eas (servitors).

17 What exactly is the function that Sr fulfils? Rmnuja, according to many authorities, is not very explicit on this, the later cryas of the Sr-Vaiava tradition accorded to Sr the position of the Mother of the universe who extends the Divine accessibility to unworthy Selfs, Nryaa is described as the father who is personified Justice and Sr is the Mother whose compassion extends to even the most undeserving of Selfs. It is the nature of the mother in actual life to have a greater concern for her weaker offspring than for the strong and the talented. This idea is superimposed on the Godhead through the concept of Sr the mother of the universe not in the sense of the active creative energy as in Shaktism but as an important element in the redemption of Selfs. She is the Mediatrix and Intercessor with Nryaa on behalf of all spiritual seekers, and in the Sr-Vaiava rituals and forms of adoration, prayer to Sr or Her grace must take the first precedence. To the question how such a division in the Divine Nature can be justified, the only answer is that Sr is non-different, being but one and coeval with Him. That is why She is described in relation to Nryaa as 'Anapyini' one who never keeps away from Him. Furthermore the concept of Sr extends and illustrates the scope of God's saulabhya (accessibility). In Her, we see the bending elephant lying almost flat on the ground. The Sr-Vaiava scheme of devotional practices has two aspects Bhakti and Prapatti. Bhakti is synonymous with Upsana or continuous mindfulness of the Divine with the knowledge that one is a spiritual monad forming a ea (servant) of His, ending in its final stage in Prapatti or complete self-surrender. But there are other humble folk who have no Vedic training or any philosophic understanding but who are endowed with strong faith. In spite of their shortcomings even they can practice absolute self-surrender (Prapatti) and attain to Nryaa's Divine Realm. Thus the concept of Sr is an essential part of God's Saulabhya (easy accessibility). But this doctrine of Saulabhya should not be taken as making the attainment of God a cheap and easy affair. That potent self-surrender which accomplishes it, is attained only through Divine condescension, which no price can procure.

18

Rmnuja's Metaphysics Dravyas or substance

Metaphysics is defined as that branch of philosophy which is concerned with being (ontology) and knowing (epistemology). There are six Metaphysical Substances (Dravyas) which are accepted by Ramanuja. A substance or Dravya being defined as a substratum of attributes. The six Dravyas are: (1) vara (Supreme Lord); (2) Jiva (individual self), (3) dharma-bhta-jna (attributive consciousness), (4) uddha-sattva (pure non-material stuff), (5) kla (Time) and (6) prakrti (Primordial Matter).

The Dravyas are divided into two groups, the ajaa or the 'sentient' and jaa or the 'insentient'. The negative 'A-jaa', non-insentient, is used for a particular reason which will be stated at the appropriate place. In the Ajaa category are included Brahman, the Jiva, Suddha-sattva and Dharma-bhta-jna. Brahman is of the substance of consciousness and consciousness is also one of His attributes. Substance-consciousness is called Dharmi-jna and the attribute-consciousness is called Dharma-bhta-jna. The former is inward consciousness (Pratyaktva) of self and the latter outward consciousness (Paraktva) of the universe. The former is self-consciousness making one aware of oneself while the latter reveals things outside without being aware of itself as consciousness. The difference between these two form of consciousness can be illustrated partially by the analogy of the lamp. The flame burning at the tip of the wick is a light in itself revealing itself and it also illumines things around the lamp. God is pure consciousness-substance (Jna-svarpa) and His Dharma-bhta-jna comprehends all of existence. His Dharma-bhta-jna has nothing that can obstruct it, because He is unaffected by Karma, which is the cause of the obstruction of knowledge. Thus self-awareness and other-awareness are complete in Him. Like God, the jiva also is A-Jaa (non-insentient). It is of the form of consciousness (Jna-svarpa), but while being only an individualised form of

19 Dharmi-jna (substance-consciousness), its Dharma-bhta-jna is contracted because of the force of ignorance (Avidya), which according to Rmnuja's philosophy is the load of previously accumulated Karma. The Avidya category of akaras philosophy, described as neither existent nor non-existent has no place in this system. With the Dharma-bhta-jna suppressed, the jiva in the extreme, is as good as insentient (Jaa) matter, but the potentiality of developing that external awareness (Dharma-bhta-jna) is natural to it, and the purpose of God's creative activity is to help the Jiva gradually evolve this aspect of consciousness, until it expands to that of God Himself. When the Jiva is liberated, it continues to maintain its individuality, but its Dharma-bhta-jna expands and becomes merged in that of God. It is like a small oil lamp placed in the blazing light of the sun. The light of the lamp continues to have its individuality, but-its radiance becomes merged and indistinguishable from the blazing luminosity of the sun. Characteristics of the Jiva The Jiva shares with God the characteristics of Pratyaktva (self-awareness), cetanatva (ability to think), nanda-svarpatva (blissful nature), tmatva (self-nature) and karttva (agency). The special characteristics differentiating the jiva from God and matter are anutva (atomicism) meaning the smallest possible division of a substance. eatva (being an accessory to Brahman) adheyatva (supportedness), vidheyatva (dependence), partmatva (existing for the sake of another) and paratantratva (subordination). Pratyaktva (self-awareness) means that the jiva is a monad, a self-conscious and self-luminous subject, always related to an object and always conscious of itself also while being conscious of external objects. The individual knows it knows. When the externalised consciousness is withdrawn such as in sleep, one becomes aware of oneself and one's inner world. In Viidvaita metaphysics. there is no "pure" state of consciousness devoid of a subject-object awareness. Such an idea is considered to be a metaphysical fiction. Subject and object are just two ends of a continuum, AB. Without these two poles there is no continuum, so there can be no free floating consciousness without any content. In the state of bondage in Samsara, the attributive consciousness of the Jiva is contracted or very limited in the scope of its functioning to itself and its personal needs. Gradually as one becomes more enlightened this consciousness expands to include others and eventually comprehends the whole of creation. Further, when the Jiva is referred to as Atma, it means that it is a Spiritual Ego or 'I sense' in a body. The Jiva in Samsara identifies itself with the physical

20 body-mind complex (dehtma-abhimna). The real task of the spiritual ego Atma, is to liberate itself from this false identification with the body-mind complex and with the concept that it is unique and independent (Ahamkara). Basically the Jiva is the body of God and exists as His ea '(servant). The 'body-focused ego Ahamkara, is only a pseudo-ego. Liberating the true spiritual ego denoted by tmatva from identification with the pseudo-ego (Ahakra) is the main purpose of spiritual practice. Jiva and moral responsibility Karttva (agency) implies that the Jiva acts with the body-mind complex and accumulates its own karma, but the will of the jiva is subordinate to that of God This doctrine presents an important ethical problem for schools of Hindu theismthe question of the freedom of will which is necessary for moral responsibility versus the omnipotence of God as the Supreme Controller and possessor of the Jiva. All Jivas in Samsara are burdened with their load of Karma, which causes them not only enjoyments and sufferings but also desires and tendencies to act in particular ways. But these 'tendencies can find expression as actions only if they are energised by the will of God who is the Sanctioner (Anumanta) and the over-seer (Upadra). Under these circumstances the moral responsibility accrues only to the Jiva as it acts according to the tendencies and deserts it has acquired by its Karma. God wills not the actions but only their fructification. God in this context may be compared to the light which two people may use. One person may use the light for forging money and another for reading Scriptures. The merit or demerit devolves entirely on the persons concerned and not on the light. The Jiva in ignorance thus acts entirely under the perverted ego-sense which arises from identification with the body-mind. When through spiritual discipline the Jiva has realised that it is only the Sharira (Body) of God and is therefore His ea (servant) it no longer identifies with the false ego, and then all its karmas are burnt in the fire of knowledge. Having renounced the sense of agency the Jiva no longer has any craving for the rewards of its actions. The enlightened Jiva has only awareness of being an instrument of the Divine. All evil tendencies must already have been erased for the Jiva to obtain this state of enlightenment and therefore only virtuous actions in harmony with the Divine dispensation will be performed. The special characteristics of the Jiva Among the characteristics that distinguish the Jivatma from Paramatma atomism (Anutva) comes first. The word Anu does not mean a tiny particle of matter as in chemistry, but a monad or a point of consciousness and bliss whose rays of attributive consciousness spread everywhere. Thus atomism indicates only an

21 indestructible individuality and not a restriction of size which is applicable only to material substances. The departure of the jiva from one body to another at death cannot be explained without accepting its monadic nature (Anutva). Jivas are countless but all are of the same nature of consciousness and bliss. Thus quantitative pluralism does not contradict qualitative homogeneity, The essential implication of this characteristic of the Jivas is that consciousness (caitanya) is not a an impersonal and baseless thing as in Advaita but always associated with a subject having consciousness as its substratum and also as its attribute. All the other special characteristics of the Jiva arise from its being a dependent accessory (ea) and a mode (Prakra) of the Supreme Being. A mode (Prakra) has its existence in its supporting substance (Prakri). In the same way a dependent or accessory (ea) is always subordinate in status (Paratantra) and is subject to a master (Pardhna). Rmnuja's system, unlike most of the other systems of Vaishnavism, accepts the doctrine of Tartamya or gradation in capacity of Jivas only to a very limited extent. According to Viidvaita. Jivas are of three grades: 1. The first and the most unique are the Nityasuris or the Eternally Free Ones, some of the most important of whom are; Adi-ea Garuda, Vishvaksena, Sudarana etc. Adi-ea is the serpent-bed on which Sriman Narayana rests in the transcendental realm of Vaikuha; Garuda is His mount; Vishvaksena is His commander in chief officer, and Sudarana, His principal weapon, the discus of unlimited potency. These Nityasuris form inseparable parts of Divine nature. They have never been in the bondage of Karma and Samsara, and have always been in attendance on Him, being His principal eas. The name of Adi-ea for the serpent-bed indicates this. They accompany Him also when He incarnates. They are included His Nitya-Vibhuti or changeless manifestation.

2. The liberated ones (Muktas) are those who, evolving through all forms of bodies, at last come to the stage of human birth, and eventually attain salvation through spiritual disciplines and ultimately surrender to the Divine. By the grace of God they are liberated from Samsara and raised to the Divine status in Vaikuha, where they obtain the new spiritual body of Suddha-sattva (Pure Transcendental substance). Being liberated from the restrictions of Karma, the Dharma-bhta-jna achieves its maximum expansion and becomes one with that of Sriman Narayana, but the Jivas retain their Atomism (Anutva) which distinguishes them from Infinity (Anantam) that is God. In the transcendent Vaikuha they become His servitors or instruments of service; or remain absorbed in the bliss of Brahman. They become one with God in knowledge and bliss, but not in power, for Sriman Narayana alone is the Great Cause of the universe.

22

3. Bound ones (Baddhas). The Jivas that are not liberated evolve gradually in the cycle of Samsara, experiencing births and deaths, according to their Karma, until they eventually gain salvation at the maturity of evolution. Unlike in some other Vaishnava systems, there are no Nitya-samsris or eternally bound Jivas. Salvation is ultimately the birth-right of all Jivas. Spiritual destiny of the Jiva In Rmnuja's interpretation of the Vedanta there is no Jivanmukti or liberation for the Jiva while the body exists unlike in the system of Advaita. According to Sankara, Ignorance (avidya) is the cause of bondage, and liberation (mukti) is attained when Ignorance is removed, irrespective of whether the body is alive or not. The body will fall only when the Prarbdha or the quantum of Karma that has brought the current body into existence is exhausted. But the removal of Ignorance and consequent attainment of liberation have no necessary connection with the fall of the physical body. But Rmnuja does not accept that an embodied being can be liberated. For, according to him, the cause of embodiment is Karma, and Karma is exhausted only when the body perishes. The knowledge generated by Vedantic study and spiritual pursuit can raise one to the state of a Sthita-praj, one of steady wisdom, described in the second chapter of the Bhagavad Gita. One may also have Bhakti and Jana of the highest order, but one is not yet liberated. When the body of such a devotee dies, the Jiva passes, as stated in the Kauitaki Upanishad, through the subtler regions of the cosmos to Vaikuha. These regions or Lokas are Vyu-loka, Varuna-loka, Aditya-loka, Indra-loka, Prajapati-loka and Brahma-loka. Then the Jiva reaches Vaikuha where it gets a body of Suddha-sattva. With its state of expanded consciousness and full enlightenment it becomes a Satya-sakalpa or one whose wish always becomes true and a Sarvaja or an all-knowing one. It shares the untrammelled bliss of Brahman. It can get engrossed in the service of the Lord or become His object of use (Upakaraa) like bed, footstool, vehicle, umbrella etc. The liberated Jiva is also free to remain in a disembodied state. But ontologically the Jiva is eternally different from vara both in bondage and freedom, and it never naturally obtains the creative power which is a unique characteristic of vara but if vara so will He can bestow this power upon the Jiva .

'Tat tvam asi' or 'Thou art that' doctrine

In all systems of Vedanta the four aphoristic declarations of the unity of Brahman and the Jiva called Mahvkyas have an important place. The declaration "Tat-tvam-asi" 'Thou art That' is one of the well-known Mahvkyas, and Rmnuja as a Vedantic theologian is required to explain how this Mahvkya fits into his systematic theology. How can the little embodied being

23 called the Jiva be identical with the Supreme Creator? In the pure Advaita system of Sri Sankara the difficulty is overcome by recourse to what is technically called Lakaa or indirect meanings. These two meanings are then interpreted as having a common reference ie. they are shown to be in apposition or co-ordinate relation called Samndhikaraya. Take the statement: 'This is that Devadatta' with regard to a person. Here 'that' refers to. a person seen in Madras in an unhealthy condition in a small room. The same person is seen sometime after at Bombay in good health and in a flourishing condition, and one says of him 'This is that Devadatta'. Here the two terms 'this' and 'that' Devadatta refer to the same person under different conditions and are in apposition (Samndhikaraya). In the Mahvkya 'Thou art That', first we have to determine the Lakaa or indirect meaning of the terms 'Thou' and 'That'. In the word 'Thou', which refers to the individual, if the body-mind, which is adventitious, is eliminated, what is left is pure Spirit. The word 'That' refers to vara who is understood as the great creator in the direct sense. The ability to Create is only an Updhi, an adjunct, to Him, as body-mind is to the Jiva. So the word 'That' indicates the pure Spirit, when the Updhi of the Universe is eliminated. We then get Brahman, the pure Spirit underlying both the terms, and thus the unity of the indirect-meanings of both the terms is established. To illustrate it by an example, a soldier has his uniform and sword as his Updhi or adjunct. king has the kingdom as His. If both these adjuncts are eliminated, what is left is only 'man', humanity is common to both. When in this way the indirect meaning of 'Thou' and 'That' are obtained, there is a commonness of reference in Brahman without any attributes. This is the Advaita-interpretation. Rmnuja objects to this way of interpreting the meaning of this Mahvkya on two grounds. When a literal meaning of an expression is coherent, it is an error to seek an indirect implied meaning (Lakaa), as it is done in the Advaita interpretation of the Mahvkya. The statement of the Mahvkya is prima facia clear that 'Thou' and 'That' are different, and what is required is not to interpret it in a way as to deny this difference, which is doing violence to the Text, but to find out wherein their unity lies. Both the terms 'Thou' and 'That' refer to different identities but there is something in common between them bringing them together into a unity, and the correct interpretation of the Mahvkya should discover that unifying principle. Removing all the attributes of difference from both the terms and establishing a bare identity is not true apposition (Samndhikaraya). It is only a tautology - needless repetition.

24 The expression Samndhikaraya implies two or more attributes having an identity of reference. For example there is the expression Blue Lotus. Here 'blue-ness' and 'lotus nature' inhere in a common substratum without losing their individuality. Samndhikaraya indicates such a subsistence of many attributes in a common substratum and not mere apposition as conceived in the Advaitic interpretation. Rmnuja claims that the doctrine of body-Self (arra-arri) relationship between vara and the cosmos as a whole and with every jva in it can alone properly accommodate this doctrine of identity in difference. The Almighty Nryaa and the little jva can never be equated with each other. But that mighty vara, who is the Indweller in the Cosmic Body, is also the lndweller in every jva. Every jva individually is the body of vara, just as the Cosmos as a whole is too. In the great sentence 'Tat Tvam asi', the 'Tat' refers to vara as the Indweller of the Cosmic Body and 'Tvam' refers to the same vara who dwells within the jva and has the jva as His 'body'. Thus all the bodies, the Cosmic and individual, are held together in indissoluble 'adjectival' relationship (apthak-siddhi) within the one vara. 'Tat tvam asi' refers to that oneness of vara. It is an interpretation in which only direct meanings of expressions are accepted, and the condition of Samndhikaraya is fulfilled. Avidya Nescience In Rmnuja's system, Prakti and Karma are both called Avidya (Nescience) and My (Illusion). Both these concepts are linked because Prakti, activated by the Divine will, acts to bring about the fruition of the Karma of jvas. The jvas get material embodiments according to the Karma that they have engendered and they then identify with these material bodies. Although this identification with Prakti, alienates the jva from vara, it is a necessary phase in their evolution. As has already been pointed out, there is no separate category called Avidya or My, which cannot be described as existent or non-existent, in Rmnuja's system. Ignorance (Avidya) is only Karma or Prakti. Among the vehement criticisms of Rmnuja against Sankara's Advaita system, that against the Avidya-My theory is only second to that against attributeless (Nirviea) Brahman. The transmogrification of Prakti from the state of latency (Pralaya) into patency (Si) occurs in stages, and in this sense may be called 'evolution'. These stages are: a) Avibhaktatva when Prakti is latent in the Supreme as salt in water, absolutely homogeneous and without any distinctions or differentiation.

b) Vibhaktatva when differentiation become possible c) Akarvastha when the different categories (Tattvas) begin to emerge. d) Avyakta the state just before the emergence of the twenty four Sakhyan categories, in the Gross Matter is the last to evolve.

25 The categories are again, by the will of God, combined with each other into various dimensions and world systems suitable for the evolving bodies of jvas to inhabit and reap the fruits of their Karma. In the combination of the final categories of elements of earth (pthivi), water (pa), fire (agni), wind (vyu) and ether (ka), each combined particle contains a very small portion of all the other elements. Only in such small quantities that they are of no practical use. For example in the illusory perception of mirage or water in desert, what is seen under particular conditions is the water element contained in the earth. In the perception of the snake in the rope, the snake exists elsewhere and the minute portions of it exists in the rope too. That part seen as snake. What is called illusory perception is not due to the absence of the object, but due to the very partial selective perception of it under certain conditions. Such perceptions have no practical efficiency. The water in the desert cannot be drunk, nor can the snake in the rope be caught. Psychologically the object is present in the same way as it is experienced as a real stimuli is received from the objects. The failures to see the prominent character of the object is due to certain inhibitions of the perceiving mind helped by external situation. As for dreams, Rmnuja holds the theory that it is also a creation of God for the individual, just as the universe is for all. There is therefore no 'illusion' in this system. When an experience of a thing lasts for a short time only and is not of practical use, some wrongly call it illusory in the sense of a non-existent entity. It may be called fleeting, as the whole of Prakti is, but for this reason such experiences cannot be described as illusory ie. perception of a non-existent entity.

Kla or Time

Kla or Time occupies a special position in Viihdvaita. Generally speaking, except for the sentient Cit (ie. Brahman and jva), all categories are supposed to be classified under Prakti which, being insentient, is called Acit. Prakti; as already described, is the substratum of the three Gunas of Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. As the Sattva in Prakti is mixed with Rajas and Tamas, it is also described as Auddha-sattva (impure Sattva). Now outside the bounds of Prakti there is a thing called Sattva-nya (That which is devoid of the three Gunas). This thing is what is called Time or Kla. Being outside of Prakti, Time does not dissolve in the Supreme Being like everything included in Prakti. It resides in Him, and it is through Time that the Supreme Being activates Prakti submerged in Him to evolve into the various categories. Though called insentient, it is a special Vibhti (unique glory) of God, as the whole creative and dissolution process of Prakti is regulated by this category.

26

Suddha-Sattva

Among the three elements of Sattva, Rajas and Tamas which constitute Prakti, Sattva is considered Auddha or impure as there is an admixture of Rajas and Tamas in it. Viihdvaita recognises another category beyond Prakti, designated as Suddha-sattva or Pure Sattva, which has not even the slightest taint of Rajas and Tamas. For this reason it is not included in Prakti. Though the conception of Suddha-sattva is somewhat obscure, it has a very important place in the theology of Rmnuja. It may be called the non-material Spiritual Substance, of which is constituted the body of Nryaa, the realm of Vaikuha and all its denizens who are either jvas eternally free, or have attained liberation from the bondage of Samsara. Prakti or Auddha-sattva (ie. the combination of Sattva, Rajas and Tamas) forms the stuff of which all the world systems and the bodies of their residents are formed. Nryaa and His abode of Vaikuha are outside the limits of Prakti, and so the stuff of which they are constituted is also not within Prakti. The special feature of Suddha-sattva is that it is comprised of consciousness which reveals other things by itself but does not however know itself, unlike the Atman described as Svayam-praka a term which means that it reveals others and reveals itself. To put it in another way, Suddha-sattva seems to be a stuff of consciousness without Self-consciousness. Because it is a conscious substance, it is classified as Ajaa (not Material), though it comes under Acit (insentient). This rather paradoxical concept of Suddha-sattva is not much in evidence in Rmnuja's major work of Sr Bhya, but in the Vedrthasagraha it is clearly mentioned that the abode of Viu is made of Suddha-sattva. In the later developments of Viihdaita theology under his successors it attains greater importance. Its classification as Ajaa (not material) also is justified. It is the only means that helps the jva to know its nature and relationship completely. Its revealing power consists in its being the only medium through which true knowledge emerges in the jva and enables it to attain liberation from this sorrow-ridden world. Until Suddha-sattva dawns in its mind, the jva totally identifies itself with its material bodies owing to the oppressive load of Karma. The light of Suddha-sattva however enables it to realise its spiritual identity. It is because of this important function of Suddha-sattva that it is classified as Ajaa (immaterial). The Divine Name

Rmnuja's theism is far more personal than the so-called monotheistic systems of Semitic origin like Judaism, Islam and Christianity. In these latter religions the Supreme Being is clothed with attributes that are generally found in noble

27 personages and with intelligence and purposiveness. But God has no form in these religions, though He might be denoted by one name. Rmnuja's Personalism is far more radical. As if to rebut the extreme Advaitic position that the Supreme Being is attributeless and beyond all name and form, Rmnuja endows Him with all these in a superlative degree. The scriptural statement that He is beyond thought and speech means only that these can only give a very partial and segmented understanding of Him and that He transcends the capacity of comprehension of the impure mind. In the Gita it is said by the Lord: ''Supporting this mighty universe with but one single fragment of My Self, I remain unchanged and transcendent." In the description of the Supreme Being given earlier in His body-Self (arra-arri) relationship with the jvas and Prakti, the reference is only to this 'fragment' referred to above. His transcendent aspect is supernal and none of the common human means of knowledge like perception and reasoning can comprehend Him. It is only through Scripture, which is supra-human in origin, that we get some idea of His name, form and abode. The Supreme-Being is indicated by countless names, each name revealing some of His attributes or extolling His pastimes in His incarnations. Thus we have the Viu -Sahasra-nma-stotra (Hymn of praise of Viu through a thousand names). But there are four or five names by which Rmnuja most often refers to Viu, these according to their particularisation and personalization are: Sat, Brahman, Purushottama, Bhagavan and Nryaa. Sat, meaning 'Being', is the most generalised name, indicating that He is the Infinite out of whom a variety of finite forms emanate, in whom they subsist, and in whom they periodically dissolve. Brahman is that which has Bhatva or quality of expansiveness and is of matchless excellences. His greatness is that He is the cause and the Lord of all. 'Bhagavan' indicates that He is the most worshipful. It is the most general synonym applicable to Nryaa, the specific name of the Supreme Being. Bhagavan also indicates that He possesses six Bhagas or glorious powers described in Viu -Purana (6.5.72-75). These are: Aisvarya or sovereignty, which consists in unchallenged rule over all; jna or knowledge, which is the power to know bout all beings of all times simultaneously; Bala or strength which is the capacity to support everything by His will and without any fatigue; Virya or valour which indicates the power to retain this immateriality as the Supreme Spirit in spite of being the material cause of mutable creations; Sakti or creative potential, which is the capacity to make the impossible possible; and Tejas or splendour which expresses His Self-sufficiency and the capacity to overpower everything by His spiritual effulgence.

28 Above all the most intimate and personalised name for the Supreme Being is Nryaa synonymous with Viu. Nryaa means He who is the Ayana (dwelling place) ie. the source, support and dissolution of all Naras or Tattvas including inert matter too in other words it means "The Ground of all Being". The name Nryaa as denoting the Supreme Being is established on the basis of the Vedas and universally accepted texts like Viu Purana and the Mahabharata. Maha-nryaopaniad, says: "Indeed then there was only Nryaa, not Brahma or sna (Siva)." There are however in Viu Purana and other texts such passages as 'Janrdana assumes three names Brahma, Viu and Siva to create, sustain and destroy' which seems to contradict this theory, Rmnuja's answer to this is that such passages mean only that He (Viu -Nryaa) is the inner Self of the whole phenomenal world consisting of these deities and other beings. Viu, mentioned as one of the Trinity along with Brahma and Siva, is only a descent of Nryaa into the created world by His own choice. Besides, words like Siva mean, 'pure' and Sambhu 'auspicious'. They can be adjectivally applied to Nryaa. Since Nryaa is the Indweller in Brahma, Siva etc., these terms ultimately refer to Nryaa only. All beings from Brahma down to inanimate objects are subject to Karma and bound to material bodies and are incapable of giving liberation to aspirants. Nryaa only is the worthy object (Subhraya) of meditation and worship for those who want to be liberated from the bondage of Karma, as He alone is not bound by Karma but is its controller.

The Divine Form

Just as God has a special name, though He may have several other subsidiary ones too; He also has a special Divine Form which is not a phenomenal manifestation of a Formless Consciousness or a temporarily assumed one to favour a worshipper, but an ultimate fact. This Divine Form (divya-magala-svarpa) is part of His unique and inherent nature (Svarpa). There is nothing anthropomorphic about it, though its description may convey that idea. To counteract this misapprehension, the excellences of the Divine Form are given in infinite multiples of anything human. That Form is described as follows in Gt Bhya: "His one permanent celestial form is a treasure store of infinite qualities such as radiance, beauty, fragrance, tenderness, charm and youthfulness which are inconceivable, celestial, wondrous, eternal, flawless, supremely excellent and appropriate to Him." According to Vaiava theology, this form of Nryaa is comprised of Suddha-sattva, which has been described as a entirely spiritual substance devoid of Material Nature (Prakti). There is however a view that in Rmnuja's own writings, he appears to take the form on the same level as inherent attributes (Svarpa) described earlier Truth, Knowledge, Bliss, Purity and Infinity which means that His form is of their stuff and not of Suddha-sattva.

29

The Transcendental Abode Srman Nryaa dwells in Vaikuha or Parama-pada which also transcends Prakti. The natural senses and intelligence of a human being, which are tainted by impure matter, cannot experience or comprehend this abode of Paramapada, but to the pure mind of an intensely devoted aspirant, it can be realised. The realm of Vaikuha of divine splendour, and the bodies of all its denizens consisting of Nryaa's constant attendants (Nitya-suris) and liberated jvas are made of Suddha-sattva. Time, to which all entities entrapped in Prakti are subject, has no sway over it. This abode of Nryaa and His form are described as follows in the famous text called Stotra-ratna by Rmnuja's preceptor Yamuncrya in Verses 30 to 46 of that Text. "When shall I see with my eyes the lotus feet of Thine, my dearest treasure, which sportively spanned the world high and low in one stride; and which are waiting eagerly for the moment for destroying the afflictions of those who submit themselves unto Thee. O Trivikrama, when will Thy lotus-feet bearing the marks of conch, discus, the wish fulfilling-tree, banner, lotus, hook and thunderbolt weapon adorn my head? O great Lord, who art beautifully clad in shining yellow raiment, whose pure splendour is equal to that of blooming flax flower, who is endowed with a deep navel, slender waist, high stature and shining Srvatsa nark on the broad chest; who shines with four auspicious arms which reach up to the knees and have the rough scars of the bow-string, and which speak of their contact with the crest-lily, the ear ornament and the loose curls of the braid of Thy Beloved; whose conch-like neck is adorned with curls of hair and ear-rings hanging over the high and broad shoulders, and by the lustrous beauty of whose face the brilliant splendour of the spotless moon and the blooming lotus are put to shame; who has eyes charming like the petals of a fresh and full blown lotus; gracious creeper-like brows, splendid lips, pleasant smile, soft cheeks, prominent nose and curls hanging upon the forehead; who is handsome with a shinning diadem, bracelets, garland of pearls, necklace, the Kausthubha gem, girdle, anklets etc., and discus, conch, sword, mace, the excellent bow Sraga, and a chaplet of beautiful fragrant Tulasi who has made His breast the abode of Sr whose birth place is Thy beloved abode, in whose side-glance the entire universe has taken refuge and for whose sake the ocean was churned and bridged; who art seated with Sr, who by Her beauty, agreeable sports and merciful deeds is a match for Thee and Thee alone, and who creates unprecedented delight for Thee as one separate from Thee, though She is eternally comprehended in Thy cosmic forms; who art seated on the great serpent

30 Ananta (Adiea) who is the sole seat of excellent knowledge and strength, within the Divine Abode of Vaikuha, the inside of which is illumined by the circle of rays emanating from the clustered gems on the hoods of the serpent who is aptly designated by devotees as ea on account of the different forms he has assumed for serving Thee such as residence, conch, seal, sandals, raiment, pillow, and shelter from the sun and rain; who has at hand for service Garutman who is the servant, friend, mount, seat, banner, canopy and fan and whose form is made up of the Three Vedas and who is beautiful with the scars due to contact with Thy feet; who approves with noble glances whatever communication is brought to Thee by Thy beloved chief of hosts; Vivaksena, who partakes of the remnants of Thy food and on whom has been bestowed the charge of Thy sovereignty; who art served by the Eternal ones, suited to Thee on account of their possessing the attributes of omniscience etc., the Eternal Ones who are free from all the impurities of afflictions such as nescience, egoism etc., whose sole delight consists in being spontaneously devoted to Thy service and who constantly wait upon Thee with the respective means of service; who of long arms, exhilarates Thy queen Sr with lovely and skilful sports consisting of diverse new sentiments and emotions and which makes time divided into aeons and so forth a fraction of a moment; who art the nectar-ocean consisting of beauty and of the nature of eternal youth, unthinkably divine and wondrous, the support of Lakm or Sr, the sole subsistence of the devotees, possessor of power, the friend rescuing from distress, and the wish-fulfilling tree to the suppliants. Constantly waiting on Thee alone with all the other desires actualised when shall 1, an eternal servant of Thine and Thine alone, delight Thee. having Thee as the Lord of my if life!" Philosophers often criticise, even ridicule, Rmnuja on the ground that, in spite of being the great intellectual that he shows himself to be in his Sr Bhya, he should be so childish as to dwell so much on what appears to them to be an anthropomorphic form of God and a heaven where He dwells with His consort, ministers, attendants and the like. Such critics look at Rmnuja from the point of view of their arm-chair philosophy. Rmnuja's main interest in philosophy was to link the Vaiava devotionalism of the vrs with the Vednta which seeks to find out the unity behind diversity. His philosopher critics forget this and assume that he should have abandoned his Vaiavism when he took up the role of a philosopher. For Rmnuja rapturous devotion to a personal Deity is far more important than the hair-splitting of philosophy. To subvert the criticism of anthropomorphism, he seeks to enhance the excellences of Nryaa a thousand-fold of what is human. This should not be understood that the Nryaa concept is an exaltation of human form and qualities. On the contrary the human excellences are only a distorted presentation of Nryaa's supernal excellences.

31 Besides being fully enlightened, Rmnuja knew that ordinary people require a very concrete conception of God if they are to focus their attention on the Divinity and gradually attain enlightenment. Concentration on a formless abstract Consciousness endowed with attributes that are seen only in a concrete human personality may be advocated for persons who consider themselves highly civilised, but the practice of it is impossible except for very highly advanced aspirants. In the Semitic religions which uphold the idea of a formless God with human attributes, religion becomes the acceptance of certain dogmas and social practices. Devotion becomes petitions addressed to some vague entity. Gradually social cohesion, and not spiritual experience, become their aim, and religion becomes highly politicised. If the Supreme Being is the source of this whole universe, which is only a conglomeration of a most amazing variety of names and forms (nma-rpa), and if He can be endowed with qualities and excellences that are human-like, then what is the problem in claiming that He has a specific name and an archetypal Form? Which is not in fact a single form but a multiform. So there are Indian theologians who consider it proper to adore the Divine in any form that a particular sect chooses, provided that there is the basic understanding that the Deity is an expression of the Universal Being, the Sat-cit-nanda of the Upaniads. Among such thinkers that preceded Rmnuja is Bhskara the propounder of the Bheda-bheda doctrine and akara the pure Advaitin who accepted the worship of a Personal God at the level of Vyavahara or the practical level. Rmnuja too will not object to worship of various Deities provided it is accepted that Nryaa indwells every Deity and the worship offered to the Deity is really to Nryaa. This is the farthest limit of liberalism that he is prepared to accept. For Nryaa and Nryaa alone is that Archetypal Form, and other Deities can only be His partial manifestations. Nryaa with the Archetypal Form described before is Brahman. He is not an Impersonal Absolute. There is nothing above Him. Now a relevant question in connection with the form of Nryaa is whether the God of Rmnuja's system has two bodies. Being the arri (indweller) of the Cosmos as a whole and in parts, He has a arra (body) constituted of all the jvas and Material Nature. It is also claimed that He has a Divine Body which is in Vaikuha beyond the range of Prakti. How is this to be reconciled? The arra-arri doctrine is the core of Rmnuja's metaphysics. Does this theology of Nryaa in Vaikuha not contradict the Vedntic understanding. The answer is that the transcendence of God is as an important a Vedantic doctrine as is His immanence. Though immanent, His being is not exhausted thereby, nor does He become identified with Nature as in a pantheistic doctrine. His immanent aspect is only an insignificant part of Him. "Permeating the whole universe by a particle of nine, I remain transcending it", says the Gt. The Tripda-vibhuti Mah-

32 Nryaa Upaniad speaks definitely of four Pada's (parts or aspects) of Reality Avidya-pada (Ignorance Aspect), Vidya-pada, (Knowledge Aspect), nanda Pada (Bliss Aspect) and Turiya-pada (Transcendent aspect). Avidya-pada alone is completely distinguished as gross manifestation modified by ignorance (Avidya), while the other three are treated together as a unity of the subtle (Skma), the potential (bija), and the Transcendent (Turiya) aspects of Reality, free from the contamination of ignorance. Unlike in the case of Avidya-pada, there is in the unity of the other three, the Pure Radiance of Consciousness and unalloyed Beatitude. In that Radiance is manifest the eternal Vaikuha, with which Mah-Viu is identified. Apart from this Vaiava Upanishad; it is a well-known fact that the Vedas and the Upaniads often speak of the four Padas (aspects) of the Supreme Being, of which only one is manifest and the rest are transcendent. So to establish the metaphysical relationship of the manifested world with the Supreme Being as His body does not militate against His having a transcendent Body of Suddha-sattva, or as some will put it, of one of His attributes called Svarpa (inherent nature) discussed earlier. His having that archetypal Form of Nryaa does not make Him a mere individual like those endowed with material bodies. He manifests Himself as Avatars of various kind. These are the four Vyhas consisting of Vsudeva, Sakarana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha; they all have bodies of Suddha-sattva. They are not different Deities springing from a causal Deity but hypostatic emanations of the same Deity formed to control and direct the cosmic processes. Next there are three Gua-Avatrs Brahma, Viu and Mahevara for creation, sustentation and dissolution, and there are various Lla-Avatrs known generally as incarnations proper, in Hindu theology. Thus Rmnuja's idea of Nryaa in Vaikuha with a particular Archetypal form does not contradict the arra-arri doctrine according to which Prakti and jvas form the body (arra) and the Supreme Being is the arri (the Indweller). The latter is His Nitya-Vibhti (eternal and intrinsic nature) and the former His Lla-Vibhuti (sportive and changeful-nature).

The doctrine of Bhakti (devotion)

It has been stated in the early sections of this thesis that Rmnuja entered the field of philosophy and theology only to provide the required theoretical support to the heritage of passionate love of God that the vrs had given mankind. His teachings on Bhakti are therefore addressed to both intellectuals who want such a support as also to simple Selfs who have spontaneous and unalloyed faith in God and submission to His will. Bhakti is defined as knowledge of the Supreme Person and the consequent excessive adoration and attachment to Him. It is not a mere feeling, but conviction based on the knowledge of our ultimate relationship with Him that

33 generates love and attachment to Him. Rmnuja therefore equates Bhakti with Dhyna and Upsana. Dhyna means concentration of mind on Him and Upsana continuous mindfulness of Him. How can this state of mind be obtained? For the benefit of such inquirers, Rmnuja divides Bhakti into three stages of development Sdhana Bhakti (practice of devotional means), Par-bhakti (higher devotion), and Parama-bhakti (supreme devotion) The first requisite for an aspirant at the stage of Sdhana Bhakti is a (a) strong faith in God as the highest goal to be achieved and (b) a sense of the utter impermanence of worldly achievements. The aspirant then turns to the Scriptures and teachers who impart the doctrines regarding the Self, Nature, and God. Duties of life have to be done without attachment, and for success in this, one must have an understanding of oneself as the Atman (Atmvalokana). For this, Karma Yoga and Jna Yoga have to be practiced together, as they are mutually related. This, according to Rmnuja, is the import of the whole teaching of the first six chapters of the Gita. By pure contemplation a highly qualified aspirant can try to overcome the identification of the Atman with the body. But this is very difficult, almost impossible for the average aspirant. He has therefore got to work, fulfilling the duties of life without desire for the fruits of actions, which are to be made an offering to God. Work and cultivation of knowledge have therefore to be combined. There is thus no opposition between Karma Yoga and Jna Yoga in Rmnuja's doctrine. They are mutually complementary. The seven disciplines that are to be practiced for developing the Sdhana Bhakti into Prema Bhakti (loving devotion) are as follows: 1. Viveka: Practice of discrimination. While it applies to all things that are taken in through the senses, Rmnuja specially emphasises the need to be discriminate in taking food ie. eat only things that are Sattvika or purity-generating and are prepared and served only by persons and in conditions that are pure. 2. Vimoka: consists in resisting impulses of passions like anger, lust, jealousy etc. 3. Abhysa: is the practice of all disciplines like worship, Japa, collective singing of the Lord's name, visiting holy places etc. which remind one of God as the Indwelling Principle (ea) in oneself and the whole universe. 4. Kriya: consists of the discharging of the five-fold debt of life. These are: are: (a) The debt to the Devas by performing fire-sacrifice like Agnihotra; (b) The debt to the Rsis. The Rsis, the great seers, have propounded the Vedas, Puras, and all holy literature for mankind to study and contemplate. One

34 fails in ones duty to them if one does not devote some time to such studies; (e) The debt to the ancestors consists in the performance of Srddha and daily ceremonial rites to keep up one's link with one's ancestry; (d) Duty towards mankind: This consists in the discharge of all one's social and pr