Skip to main content

Ramanuja and Nimbarka

 The primary question for any Vedanta philosophy is what is the relation between Brahman and the world and Brahman and the individual souls. Nimbarka takes this relation to be one of identity and difference. He gives the analogy of a coiled snake and of sun and its rays. Brahman is both immanent and transcendent; the souls and matter are really just the different manifest states of the one Brahman. The concern with such a philosophy is to show that the immanence of Brahman does not compromise its unity and the impurities that accrue to the soul and matter do not thereby affect Brahman.

Ramanuja believes that this is not possible in the Bheda-Abheda system (his criticisms of Bhaskara would with certain modifications apply also to Nimbarka). The reason is identity and difference cannot be affirmed simultaneously of the same object. Identity is an absolute relation or in the logical terminology of Nyaya it is a locus pervading relation. In terms of Modern Logic identity is a reflexive relation. Anything that is; is identical with itself. Not in one part identical with itself and not in another - for identity belongs to a thing fully and completely. So there can be no such thing as a partial identity. And difference is only possible if there is identity for difference exists between two terms and to be a term or a thing is to have an identity. Hence the principle of non-contradiction implies that nothing can be both identical with itself and different from itself. Arguably this is not the way Nimbarka conceived the issue but the burden of proof is on him - he has to make clear in what intelligible sense identity and difference can co-exist and why that would not compromise the unity of Brahman. Instead it seems Nimbarka has merely asserted that this is the case without explaining the grounds for that assertion. He has simply assumed the datum or that which requires explanation or explication.

Secondly, since the identity of Brahman and the the world on one hand and soul on other is asserted there is no reason why the impurities that accrue to the latter shouldn’t accrue to the former too. And since identity is a transitive relation i.e. if A = B, B = C then A = C. Thus since soul and matter are identical with Brahman they should also be identical with each other. How then to account for their difference?

Unlike Nimbarka, Ramanuja does not want to reduce the relation between Brahman and Jiva and Matter to be an a-logical one. To circumvent the second problem he asserts the difference of Jiva and Matter from Brahman. And in order to account for the unity of Brahman he takes both to be inseparable from Brahman in a way that they qualify it or in a way qualities are related to a substance. Think of the body of Brahman as a substance which is subject to modifications that accrue to soul and matter. The body is however inseparably connected with the soul - so that there cannot be one without the other. This is called the concept of Aprithaksiddhi. The difference of the qualification from the qualified does not compromise the unity of the underlying substance because the qualifiers are inseparable from the qualified. The body of Brahman suffers modifications but as its essence or soul Brahman is not subject to those modifications.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Summary of Hegel's Important Works

  History has been unjust to Hegel but in recent times his philosophy is garnering some attention. In my opinion he is perhaps the greatest western philosopher since Plato and Aristotle. He should be counted as a Platonist who has developed the Aristotelian version of Platonism combined with Spinoza’s theory of material causality of God and the demands of critical philosophy. Below is a brief summary of his important works: 1.      Faith and Knowledge: This is work is critical of Kant, Fichte and Jacobi all of whom believed that it is important to make room for faith by limiting the pretensions of reason. Jacobi argues that reason cannot prove its own validity and so we need a salto mortale to justify reason - a faith based or poetical justification of reason. The need for such a justification arises because reason is mediated and incapable of providing immediate knowledge. What is mediate is finite and through the finite or conditioned we cannot grasp the unc...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Logic of Logic

  Logic is a method that allows us to acquire valid knowledge of a target domain by allowing us to discriminate between truth and falsehood. How can logic tell us what is true and false? It does not serve in the capacity of acquisition of information but it allows us to critically assess the information to sort out truth and falsehood. Thus we may see a stick bent in water but reason convinces us that it is an illusion. How do we arrive at such a method? We try to think through cases where we have valid knowledge as opposed where we don’t and then we try to see what is common in those cases and this occasions the philosophical reflection about what is valid knowledge and why are we able to gain such knowledge at all. Obviously the capacity must pre-exist for there to be logic but by turning the torchlight towards this capacity and inquiring about its condition of success we can develop a method which if followed would enhance this capacity to discriminate between truth and falsehoo...
Post a Comment
Read more