Conception of the absolute according to Shankara and Ramanuja PDF

Preview

Summary

Conception of the absolute according to Shankara and RamanujaVedantā literally means the end of the Vedas. The word stood for Upanishads and afterwards it came to denote all the interpretations that developed out of the Upanishads. The Upanishads are the last literary product of the Vedic period and...

Description

Conception of the absolute according to Shankara and Ramanuja Vedantā literally means the end of the Vedas. The word stood for Upanishads and afterwards it came to denote all the interpretations that developed out of the Upanishads. The Upanishads are the last literary product of the Vedic period and three kinds of literature of that period are mainly the Vedic hymns or mantras which have been compiled in the different Samhitas, Rig Yajus, Sam and Atharv. The other is the Brahmanas or treatises guiding and encouraging the Vedic rituals and the last are the Upanishads which discuss philosophical problems and all these are treated as revealed text, Shruti and called as Vedas in the wider sense of the term. In respect of study, Upanishad mark the culmination of Vedic study. The term Upanishad actually means what destroys and gets man near the teacher. Further, the Upanishadic doctrine were esoteric in nature and were secretly taught to select students. The Upanishads many in number (112) and developed in different Vedic schools at different times and places. Over a period of time a need was felt that different teachings amongst the Upanishads ought to be systematized and the basic harmony underlying that must be emphasized. It is Badrayana Brahmasutras also known as Vedanta Sutras Uttar-mimamsa. These Brahmasutras in the four chapters discuss the coherence of the Upanishad teaching to their non-contradiction in relation to established theories and logical rules 3, the means of realisation 4, the fruit or falah achieved. His sutras being briefed are liable to different interpretation and various commentaries were written to elaborate the doctrine of Vedanta and the author of each of these commentaries became the founder of particular school of Vedanta. Thus, we have schools of Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhava, Vallabha, Nimbarg and many others. Each of these schools contains not only philosophers but also a large number of monks who tried to mold their lives accordingly. The most common question on which the schools of the Vedanta are divided is what is the nature of the relation between the Self, Jiva and God, Brahman. Interpreting badrayana sutra’s both shankara and ramanuja go on to reject theories which explain the world either as the product of material elements which combine together to form objects, as the transformation of an unconscious nature that spontaneously evolves all objects or as product of two independent reality such as matter and god. Both agree that an unconscious cause cannot produce the world and two independent realities of which one is conscious and other unconscious cannot produce the world. Both shankara and ramanuja take their stand on the upanishadic view that all is brahman (sarva khalu dam brahman) and matter and mind are not independent realities but grounded in this same brahman. Thus, both are monists believers in one absolute which prevails the world of multiple objects and selves. It is necessary to mention here that in the upanishad and later vedant literature the word brahman is used for the highest principle or absolute reality as well as for the creator of the world, object of worship. Another important point of agreement among the vendantians is that knowledge of the existence of god is obtained not by reasoning but from the testimony of the revealed scriptures. Thus, the sutras of badarayana have as subject matter, god. Therefore, they are named as bhraman sutra but as they

are written for man the embodied soul therefore they are called shariri sutra. Thus one finds that man occupies a central place in the vedant and so far as the real nature of man goes the upanishads teach that man has no independent existence from god. Both shankara and ramanuja have accepted this view but their interpretation of the dependence on god is different. Shankara’s conception of the absolute and world Shankara finds it difficult to reconcile the statement in Upanishad regarding creation taking literally and at the same time asserting the denial of the world. Further, the teachings that one has realised Brahman the multiplicity of the world also appears challenging to him. The question that came to his mind was if the world were real how can it disappear and if one can acquire knowledge of reality then it can only do away with the unreal appearing as real and not what is really real. This leads Shankara with an answer to the mystery of the world, what if the world were a mere appearance like an object in dream or illusion, then the present appearance of the world and it's disappearance on the door of knowledge can be explained, there are certain Upanishads which support such theory and Shankara takes recourse to the Upanishadic doctrine to support his theory. He begins by explaining how an ordinary illusion takes place whereby we see a snake in a rope. If we know the rope as a rope there are no illusions but what happens is that the rope not only conceives but is also projected as a snake and as a result we have in our mind an image of a snake or a rope which is due to avidya or ajnãnā. He further gives an example of a magician who produces illusions by producing tricks, the illusions are for the spectator and not for the magician. Taking these examples, Shankara explains how maya, the cause of the world's appearance may also be understood from two standpoints a) For god, it is only his will to create the appearance, it does not affect him. b) For ignorant people like us it is avidya or ajnãnā, as it makes us look at the multiplicity of the object in the world as fear rather than Brahman or God as the only reality. Thus, Shankara called this positive production of illusion as bhav-rupam-ajnana as it is anadi (beginning less). Shankara has referred to maya as the power of God but it is not a permanent character of God rather it is his will which can be given up and to explain how it is indistinguishable from Brahman, he uses the example of the burning power of fire is not distinguishable from thus for Shankara God does undergo from any change or real change. It is only apparent therefore, his theory of creation is known as vibartabada and is distinguished from the Sankhya theory of evolution called parinamavada. Shankara has also accepted, the … which have been put up in Upanishad as to how the five subtle elements namely akasa (either), vayu (air) , agni (fire), water, earth all come out of atman

or Brahman which again mixed with five gross element and form not only men but all objects of the nature but for Shankara this entire process of creation has to be understood with reference to his theory of vivartha or adhyasa. thus he explains of god were to be a creator of the world and created the world out of any other substance like matter then in addition to god another reality admitted and god’s infinity would be lost. Further if matter is conceived in something which is in god and the world is understood a real transformation of that then it would imply either matter is part of god or it is identical with it. If god undergoes changes then he too is subject to destruction like material objects and if god undergoes destruction he ceases to be god. Therefore it is logical to accept the theory of vivarthavada according to which change is only apparent. Conclusion Thus, shankara’s theory of vivartha along with the concept of maya and avidya followed by superimposition by imagination or adhyasa constitute a strong rational foundation of the advait theory. He further endorsed his theory by explaining how effect and the material cause is nothing but a simple process in which where the effect gets manifested because it preexists in the cause and the effect is non different, ananya from the cause. Next shankara also looks at what exactly is reality which appears to us in various forms or what is the substance behind the various objects . to this his response is that is it existence which is one undeniable reality that is not only to determinate objects but also to the mental states. From here shankara goes to pure existence which is he common cause of the entire world which in itself is formless though it appears In various forms it is infinite, indeterminate and he calls it as brahman or absolute...