-->
CHAPTER
7
REFUTATIONAL TREATISES
The contribution of Andhra to Advaita Vedanta is two--fold:
Establishment of AdvaitaVedanta and demolition of systems
antagonistic to Advaita Vedanta in general, and Visistadvaita Vedanta
and Dwaita in particular.
Sankara's Advaita lasted unchallenged for as long a period as two
centuries. Though there arose minor differences in the outlooks of
Vivarana and Bhamati parts of the philosophy, they were
in absolute agreement with the quintessence of the Advaita, i.e.,
the oneness of Jiva and Brahman. However, we find some decline in
the Vedanta's sway from the 11th century onwards, as some Vedantins
like Ramanuja, Srikantha and Madhva, went about interpreting the
Sastras in their own idiosyncratic ways, much at variance with the
pristine state of the Advaita. In this on-going battle of wits, some
ardent followers of the Advaita condemned the critics severely and
gave their perspicacious interpretation of the Vedanta. As part of
this literary battle, some Advaitins, threw the Visistadvaita of
Ramanuja and the Dwaita of Madhva into the defensive. The "modus
operandi" is somewhat like this:
Ramanuja, the propounder of Visistadvaita, studied Vedanta under
Yadavaprakasa who happened to be an Advaitin. Ramanuja was not
satisfied with the interpretations made by his guru. He used to
differ with him frequently. In course of time, the quarrel between
them on some Philosophical issues resulted in Ramanuja being driven
out by Yadavaprakasa. Later, it so happened that he was encountered
by Yamunacharya, his maternal uncle's teacher. Astounded by this
Acharya's scholarship, Ramanuja left for Srirangam to meet him.
Unfortunately for him, by the time Ramanuja reached there,
Yamunacharya had departed from this world. The story goes that
Ramanuja found, to his dismay, three fingers of the dead body in an
unnaturally deformed condition. Ramanuja interpreted the three
deformed fingers as his three unfulfilled desires. These three
desires, he surmised, were :
1) Propagation of Vaishnavism.
2) Preparing a commentary of the Brahmasutras in the light of
Visistadvaita.
3) The measures to bring people into the fold of Vaishnavism.
Eventually, after returning home, Ramanuja wrote a number of
treatises among which Vedanta Deepa, Vedantasara and
Vedarthasangraha are outstanding. His commentary on the
Brahmasutrabhashya is known as Sribhashya, and it
gained immense popularity.
Ramanuja's philosophy is referred to as Visistadvaita because it
combines Advaita [oneness of God] with visesha [attributes]. The
philosophy is monotheistic. In Ramanuja's system of philosophy, the
Lord [Narayana] has two inseparable Prakaras or modes,viz.,the world
and the soul. These are related to Him as the body is related to the
soul. They have no existence apart from Him. They inhere in Him as
attributes in a substance. Matter and soul constitute the body of the
Lord. The Lord is their indweller. He is the controlling reality.
Matter and soul are the subordinate elements. They are termed
Viseshanas, i.e., attributes. God is the Viseshya or that which is
qualified.
The philosophy of Ramanuja picked out seven fundamental flaws in
the Advaitic thought. The system argues:
1) The nature of Avidya. Avidya must be either real or unreal;
there is no other possibility. But neither of these is possible. If
Avidya is real, non-dualism collapses into dualism. If it is unreal,
we are driven to self-contradiction or infinite regress.
2) The incomprehensibility of Avidya. Advaitins claim that Avidya
is neither real nor unreal but incomprehensible [anirvacaniya]. All
cognition is either of the real or the unreal : the Advaitin's claim
flies in the face of experience, and accepting it would call into
question all cogition and render it unsafe.
3) The grounds of knowledge of Avidya. No pramana can establish
Avidya in the sense that the Advaitin requires. Advaita philosophy
presents Avidya not as a mere lack of knowledge, as something purely
negative, but as an obscuring layer which covers Brahman and is
removed by true Brahma vidya. Avidya is positive nescience, not mere
ignorance. Ramanuja agrues that positive nescience is established
neither by perception, nor by inference, nor by scriptural
testimony. On the contrary, Ramanuja argues, all cognition is very
real.
4) The locus of Avidya. Where is the Avidya that gives rise to the
[false] impression of the reality of the perceived world? There are
two possibilities; it could be Brahman's Avidya or the individual
soul's [Jiva.] Neither is possible. Brahman is knowledge; Avidya
cannot co-exist as an attribute with a nature utterly incompatible
with it. Nor can the individual soul be the locus of Avidya : the
existence of the individual soul is due to Avidya; this would lead
to a vicious circle.
5) Avidya's obscuration of the nature of Brahman. Sankara would have
us believe that the true nature of Brahman is somehow covered-over or
obscured by Avidya. Ramanuja regards this as an absurdity; given that
Advaita claims that Brahman is pure self-luminous consciousness,
obscuration must mean either preventing the origination of this
[impossible since Brahman is eternal] or the destruction of
it-equally absurd.
6) The removal of Avidya by Brahma vidya. Advaita claims that
Avidya has no beginning, but it is terminated and removed by Brahma
vidya, the intuition of the reality of Brahman as pure,
undifferentiated consciousness. But Ramanuja denies the existence of
undifferentiated [nirguna] Brahman, arguing that whatever exists has
attributes : Brahman has infinite auspicious attributes. Liberation
is a matter of Divine Grace : no amount of learning or wisdom will
deliver us.
7) The removal of Avidya. For the Advaitin, the bondage in which we
dwell before the attainment of Moksha is caused by Maya and Avidya;
knowledge of reality [Brahma vidya] releases us. Ramanuja, however,
asserts that bondage is real. No kind
of knowledge can remove what is real. On the contrary, knowledge
discloses the real; it does not destroy it. And what exactly is the
saving knowledge that delivers us from bondage to Maya? If it is
real, then non-duality collapses into duality; if it is unreal, then
we face an utter absurdity. [Ramanuja-Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia].
Although, Ramanuja had also a large number of followers, the
chief opponents of Ramanuja were followers of Sankara. They
attempted to retaliate and refute Visistadvaita of Ramanuja both from
the point of view of logical arguments and through that of
interpretation of the Upanishads.
WORKS AGAINST VISISTADVITA :
Umamaheswara [A.D. 1550 -1650] of Vellala family was a disciple of
Akkayyasuri and father of Bhaskaradikshita. These two, father and
son, each in his own way, became bitter critics of Visistadvaita.
Umamaheswara wrote a treatise Tattva Chandrika or
Nirgunabrahmamimamsa wherein he demolished the theories of
Srikantha and Ramanuja wholesale. [ Incidentally, this work is
available in Madras Government oriental Manuscripts Library. [R.
5156]]. Not content with his criticism in this work, he prepared to
write another treatise Virodhavarudhini in which he continued
his tirade against Visistadvaita with still more virulence,
Umamaheswara pointed out as many as one hundred
self-contradictions in the Visistadvaita and allied productions, but,
unfortunately he became ill and could not fulfil his desire : he
had to be content with attacking just 27 contradictions[
H.I.P.-part-2 .p396]. Umamahesrara was credited with the authorship
of other works, including Advaitakamadhenu and Taptamudravidravana
wherein he condemned the theories of Visistadvaita vehemently.
Bhaskaradikshita [A.D.1650-1750], his father's son that he was,was
a protege of
Raghunathanayaka. His monumental work Atmatattvapariksha
consists of eight chapters. This work is unpublished but the
manuscript is available in Madras Oriental Manuscripts Library [No.
R 756.M.G.O.M.L]
Another critic of Visistadvaita was Brahmadeva Pandita
[A.D.1700-1800] of Pinninti family. His cogent criticism against
Visistadvaita is found in his masterpiece
Visistadvaitadushanasarasangraha.
As for 'Tattvamasi' of Advaita, Brahmadevapandita opposed
Ramanuja's Visistadvaita interpretation arguing that it contained a
number of loopholes and thus his interpretation was utterly untenable
and finally praised Sankaras's original Vedanta as indisputably
unsurpasable. According to Advaita, the interpretation of the
Mahavakya i.e..Tattvamasi is as follows : the word Tat conveys the
concept of Brahman as Infinite, Omniscient and Inaccessbile. Tvam
conveys Jiva which is but limited. However since knowledge is the
common factor, albeit quantitatively different, the two are
identified with each other - Tatvamasi.
In sharp contrast, Ramanuja interpreted the concept of Tatvamasi as
a three-fold entity : the Body, the Jiva and the Antaryami (the
inmost factor). Antaryami (Almighty dwelling inside) is none other
than the Almighty and this signifies Tatvamasi but this view was not
accepted by Sankara's followers because it ignores Jiva and
introduces the questionable concept of Antaryami. Their emphasis is
on the oneness of Jiva and Brahman, not Antaryami and Brahman.
The knowledge that we get from Sriti like Tattvamasi is direct and
immediate as well as not rational. To understand the meaning of this
text we have to consider the grammatical co-ordination, the
substantive attribute relation and the implied meaning conveyed by
the terms.
The two words 'tat' [that] and 'tvam' (thou) are in grammatical
co-ordination, and the meanings conveyed by them are not synonymous.
The word 'tat' refers to Brahman as determined infinitude,
omniscience, remoteness, etc. It is absurd to identify 'tvam'
["thou"] with 'tat' [that] in view of the fact that the
determinant of the two terms is mutually incompatible. So by removing
the determinants of each term and by retaining the common element,
viz., consciousness through the process of Jahadajahallakshana also
known as Bhagalakshana, we can
interpret the sriti thus : 'tat twam asi' conveys the sense of
identity, a unitary unrelated content, namely the undifferentiated
consciousness. This is the Advaitic interpretation. Contrary to this
Ramanuja interpreted 'Tattvamasi' in a different way. According to
him there are three steps :-
1. The Body
2. Jiva( Who is identified with the body)
3. Antaryami (dwelling in the jiva)
Here 'tvam' refers to Antaryami who dwells in the midst of all
living and nonliving beings and 'tat' refers to Brahman which is
Omnipotent, Omnipresent and Omniscient. Since Parameswara is
Antaryami, there is no need to go for Bhagalakshana to bring identity
between Jiva and Brahman. But this is not acceptable as the actual
and direct identity of Jiva and Brahman is not stated here.
विशिष्टाद्वैतवादस्य
मानाभावादयुक्तित:
|
स्वरूपाद्वैतवादो
न:
सम्यग्विजयतेतराम्||
We now come to another staunch defender of Advaita-Vedanta
Ayyannadikshita [A.D. 1700-1800]. His work Vyasatatparyanirnaya
was a small book yet highly penetrating in expressions [reminding us
of the modern mantra 'Small is beautiful']. His purpose in writing
this beautiful work was to settle the disputes between the then
burning issues of monism versus dualism.
It is amusing that Ayyannadikshita humorously argued that critics
of Vedanta, whose top-of-the-roof outbursts against the Advaita,
happened to attack the Advaita itself of which they were blissfully
ignorant. The natural inference is that they equated Advaita with
Vedanta unwittingly, and paid unwilling tribute to Advaita.
Another critic of Visistadvaita, Narakanthiravasastry
[A.D 1850-1950], was well versed in many Sastras, and wrote
a commentary on Vyasatatparyanirnaya. Besides publishing the
works of Umamaheswara viz., Tattvachandrika and
Virodhavarudhini, he also broughtforth Mahavakyaratnavali
and Taptachakrankavidhvamsa which bitterly criticized the
Visistadvaita. Still another critic from Andhradesa was Bellamkonda
Ramarayakavi. He excelled all his predecessors in his criticism
against Visistadvaita. There is an interesting anecdote Vis-a-Vis
Ramaraya's philosophical turnaround.
Originally he was a faithful devotee of Visistadvaita. He once
invited a Vaishnava celebate to be his guest. This Vaishnavite, in
his faith's arrogance, declined the invitation. This made Ramaraya
furious and he began cogitating seriously about these contradictory
faiths. Ultimately, he saw sensibility in Advaita and not in
Visistadvaita. Thus his loyalty and belief shifted from Visistadvaita
to Advaita in a curious somersault.
While Appayyadikshita tried to demolish the theories of Dwaita in
order to defend Advaita, Ramaraya did the same against Visistadvaita.
His Sankarasakarabhashyavimarsa meets the criticism of
Ramanuja and Vedantadesika against Sankara and provides a word
- to - word reply to their arguments. He also points out the
contradictions and fallacies in the Visistadvaita. It is in this
field that Ramaraya has excelled all the earlier Advaita writers such
as Umamaheswara, Bhaskaradikshita and Brahmadevapandita. Ramaraya's
outpourings were far superior to those of many scholars. Professor
Dutta, a knowledgeble critic, declares that as against Umamaheswara,
Bhaskaradikshita and Brahmadevapandita - whose works were either
incomplete or incompetent, Ramaraya's works came as a shining example
of striking criticism. While some Advaitins aimed their arrows
against the Visistadvaita of Ramanuja, others challenged Dwaita which
was propounded by Madhvacharya.
Madhvacharya alias Anandatirtha [A.D.1198-1276] was believed to be
an incarnation of Vayu. He was considered to be a born enemy of
Sankara. Though, paradoxically, Madhvacharya studied under
Achyutapreksha, an Advaita teacher, he strongly differed from his
teacher. His hatred towards Advaita drove him to such an extent that
he called Sankara's followers deceitful demons. He was so
intelligent that he not only convinced his teacher of his dualistic
views but even converted him into his path. Madhva wrote about 37
works. He advocated dualism of which the main tenet is the five -
fold differences.
1) Self and God
2) The selves themselves
3) Matter and soul
4) Matter and self
5) Matter and matter
In short, no two items are truly identical, though some pairs
appear to be the same. It is surprising that, even on attaining
Moksha, the fundamental physical difference between the various
categories of living and nonliving beings remains unaffected.
`जीवेशयोर्भिदा
चैव जीवभेद:
परस्परम्
|
जडेशयोर्जडानां
च जडजीवभिदा तथा ||
पंच
भॆदा:
इमा:
नित्या:
सर्वावस्थासु
नित्यश:
|
मुक्तानां
च न हीयन्ते तारतम्यं च सर्वश:
|| (Mahabharatatatparyanirnaya)
According to Madhva, Narayana is the Supreme Lord and Bhakthi is
the means of liberation. Madhva differed not only from Sankara but
also from
Ramanuja. Like Sankara and Ramanuja he had a huge following among
whom Jayatirtha and Vyasatirtha stand out. These disciples became
"more loyal than the king" and attacked the Mayavada of
Sankara almost venemously.
Madhva lived in the 13th century and, at that time, many followers
of Sankara such as Sureswara, Vachaspatimisra, and Prakasatman had
written their treatises against dualistic views. Madhva and his
followers, Jayatirtha and Vyasatirtha, tried their level best to
refute the theories of Sankara. This raging literary battle took a
more or less dramatic turn, with Yajnanarayanadikshita, et al
attacking Vadiraja et al of their dwaita faith who in their turn,
crossed swords with the former(Advaitins) challenging, for example,
the validity of Yajnanarayanadikshita's commentary on
Panchapadikavivarana. These attacks and counter attacks made an
interesting, if unfortunate,saga. However, it was Madhva's dualism
which suffered comparitively innumerable and inclement salvos at the
hands of the Advaitins.
Appayyadikshita's scholarly work, Madhvatantramukamardanam,
made an unfavourable criticism on Madhva's dualism. Many scholars
have attacked Madhva's dualism vehemently as shown below.
Mallanaradhya of Kotisa family [A.D. 1400-1500] wrote
Advaitaratna which is also known Abhedaratna in which he
demolished the theories of Madhva.
Another great scholar Ramakrishna of Datta family composed a work,
Madhvamatachapetika, in which he criticized the views of
Madhvacharya pungently. Still another great scholar Sitaramasastry of
Bommakanti family authored Madhvamatakhandanam in which the
dualism of Madhva was totally torn to pieces.
******
