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

SCHOOLS OF INDIAN THOUGHT – PART 1 – RAMANUJA’S VISHISTHADVAITA VEDANTA

  SCHOOLS OF INDIAN THOUGHT – PART 1 – RAMANUJA’S VISHISTHADVAITA VEDANTA APRITHAKSIDDHI : The central concept of VisishtAdvaita Philosophy is that Brahman alone is organically related to the soul (chit) and matter (achit) and is the ultimate reality. Chit and Achit are absolutely different and yet inseparable from Brahman. Though these two entities draw their very existence from Brahman. Brahman is independent of them just as the soul is independent from the body but remains the inner controller of both chit and achit. This relationship of inseparability is called Aprithaksiddhi. Empirically we find that a substance and an attribute though different yet are related to each other inseparably. Take for example a blue jar. The jar is different from the colour blue but both are referred to in the judgment, “This is a blue jar”. Perception reveals them to be identical but yet they cannot be identical, for jar is certainly different from the blue colour and not all jars are blue nor...
Post a Comment
Read more

Tattva in Indian Philosophy

  Reality or Tattva is an abstract noun formed by adding the inflection –ness to the demonstrative ‘that’ which we use to point out to something. So that-ness means something that is capable of being referred to as a that or in other words something that has a certain character or svabhava. Nagarjuna believes that svabhava is really a prajnapti sat or merely a conventional existent like say a chariot, the chariot is neither in the parts nor a whole apart from the parts nor a configuration of the parts, it is merely a name. Depending on certain factors or collocations something is conferred with a name and mind takes it to be an independent existing reality. So there are then two ways to refer to reality, one from an ordinary standpoint where the name has a practical significance in worldly transactions. The sage does not upset conventional truths. Another standpoint is the transcendental standpoint where reality is referred to as essentially ni-svabhava, taking it to have a svabhav...
Post a Comment
Read more