Interpretations of the Mahavakyas by Shri Ramanuja

Shri Ramanuja also interprets ‘advaita ’ to mean not-two (qualified non-dualism). Though Shri Shankara and Shri Madhva attribute the sense of absence, still they differ in interpreting the tatparya (the intention behind the word). Shri Ramanuja construes the text to mean the unity of God-head. He does not preclude the admission of the reality of anatma and individual self. These are related to the Supreme Being who has infinite auspicious attributes. Shri Ramanuja recognizes as ultimate and real the three factors (tattva-traya) of matter (acit), soul (cit) and God (Isvara). Though equally ultimate, the first two are absolutely dependent upon the last, the dependence being conceived as that of the body upon the soul. Whatever that exists, is thus the body of God and he is the soul not only of inorganic nature but also of souls or jivas . (According to Shri Ramanuja inorganic matter is also ensouled). It is in this connection that Shri Ramanuja formulates the relation, so important in his system, of aprthak-siddhi or ‘inseparability’ which obtains between substance and attribute and may be found between one substance and another. It may be described as the pivot on which his whole philosophy turns. The inseparable unity of matter, souls and God—the first two being entirely subject to the restraint of the third in all their forms—is the Brahman or Absolute of Shri Ramanuja. Since Shri Ramanuja identifies the relation here involved with that between the body and the soul, his conception of the Absolute may be described as that of an organic unity in which, as in a living organism, one element predominates over and controls the rest. The subordinate elements are termed visheshanas and the predominant one, visheshya. Because the visheshanas cannot by hypothesis exist by themselves or separately, the complex whole (vi shishta) in which they are included is described as a unity. Hence the name Vishishtadvaita. According to Shri Ramanuja, all things are eventually forms of God. Also, no word ceases to signify after denoting its usual meaning, but extends its function till it reaches the Supreme. In fact, it is only the later that is conceived as the essential significance of the word.^[1] What is meant by describing the doctrine as advaita , is not that the complex of these three elements is a synthesized unity of differences, but only that Brahmanas embodied with the self and matter is one. The latter viz, self and matter are not identical with it nor with one another. We may interpret the term ‘Vishishtadvaita ’ as signifying that there is nothing outside this embodied whole.^[2] It is Brahmanas associated with the individual selves and the cosmic matter in their subtle state (sukshmacit,sukshma acit and Vishista Brahman) that constitutes the efficient and material cause of the universe. The identity of one substance exists in two real forms as cause and effect from the perspective of the eternal—the efficient cause assumes the form of the world as material cause by transforming itself into the sentient and non-sentient forms of existence. Word and its meaning are illustrative of identity-indifference.

Bhedabheda refutation

The question is, whether the analogy of word and its meaning shall be apt? The word is spoken of a material object or any matter. The word and the material spoken of are different. They are not identical. They are not two but not in mutual opposition also. One implies the other and there is a relation between the two. Hence there is both identity and difference at the same time. This contradictory nature of the relation is not tenable obviously. Bhedabheda does not bear the same meaning precisely in all schools. It generally gives a meaning that Bheda or difference and abehda or unity can co-exist or remain in intimate relation with each other just like a substance and its attribute. The relation between a substance and its attribute is known astadatmiya and it is not advaita. If God and man cannot be wholly identical or wholly different, it is not correct to say that He can be both at same time.

From this it is clear that the three preceptors—Shri Shankara, Shri Madhva and Shri Ramanuja—consider the prefix ‘a’ to be a numeral and assign meaning to the word ‘advaita ’, best suited to their theories and to fit in their respective scheme of thought. They modify the word ‘advaita [advaitam]’, with the help of adjuncts like kevala , vishista etc., so their theories are called kevaladvaita, Vishistadvaita and dvaita . Assuming that unity or non-dualism is the only intention of the scripture, ‘ekam ’ is an appropriate word because of its clarity. The term ‘advaita ’ which needs reflective thinking need not be used. According to Shaiva Siddhanta, the idea of unity or only non-dualism does not help in the interpretation of the great expressions (mahavakyas).^[3]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Hiriyanna. M, Outlines of Indian Philosophy , (Delhi, Motilal Banarasidass Private Ltd, 2014), 398-401.

[2]:

Vishishtantar bhava eva eva aikyam.—Shri-bhasya of Ramanuja quoted in Gangadaran, -SSS ,198.

[3]:

Atthuvidham yendra sollane ekamennil ,
Ekamendru suttuvadhu unmaiyil, atthuvidhamendra
Solle anniya natthiyai unarthumayittu .—SB-2, second Adhikarna Vartikam.