The Absolute
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. |
Three Vedantic Blueprints Of The Absolute
A
Pranav Khullar, Three Vedantic Blueprints Of The Absolute, April 20, 2018: The Times of India
Shankara and Ramanuja represent two fundamental speculative positions of Vedantic thought, and their road maps to the Absolute reflect the dialectic between Being and Becoming in Vedanta. Sankara’s monistic Advaita points to a final, higher Reality, in which the entire material dimension of life is subsumed, the Being aspect of existence which one aspires to experience, whereas Ramanuja’s Vishishtadvaita holds that this sensory-material dimension of that higher Reality is equally valid and serves its purpose through adoration of the Absolute, this existential journey of Becoming to be enjoyed as much as the state of Being.
Madhvacharya represents the third fundamental position of Vedanta, and is in fact diametrically opposite to Shankara and Ramanuja, in contending in his Tattvavada that metaphysical reality is plural; that the world of duality is independently real of the Absolute and not just an illusion. Whereas Shankara and Ramanuja differ only in assigning weightage to the world of plurality, while contending that this materiality is only a projection of the Absolute, Madhvacharya proposed the empirical world as one of two independent entities, along with the Absolute.
All three essentially wrote treatises on the Brahma Sutras of Vyasa – 555 Sutras, aphorisms containing the quintessence of Upanishadic-Vedantic thought. Their deliberations are triggered by the great call of the first Sutra itself: “Athato brahma jignasa” – “now therefore the enquiry into Brahmn”, a call to free enquiry which sets the tone for all speculation. All three based their deliberations on the same text, branching out in different interpretations, Shankara upholding an uncompromising monistic view and Ramanuja posing a theistic-existential formulation of Reality, and Madhvacharya contending the world of plurality in which we live is real and not just an illusion.
Sankara’s appeal lay as much in his erudition and dialectical skill as in his being a child prodigy. From the backwaters of Kalady to the snowy crests of Kedarnath, he took on scholars, sages and savants, in what he believed to be his spiritual mission, engaging them in scholarly debates to establish his viewpoint.
Ramanujacharya, on the contrary, believed it was his lifelong mission to deconstruct the notion of the Absolute as a personal God, which differed fundamentally with the monistic position of Shankara.
Sankara’s theory of Brahmn and Mayavada circumscribed his Advaita position, perceiving the world as essentially nirguna, without attributes, but which manifests itself with personal attributes, saguna – nirguna being ultimately true and saguna, false. The Brahmn-world relation in Shankara is explained in the snake and rope analogy where the illusion is caused by mistaking the rope for a snake. Ramanujacharya’s contention was that saguna and nirguna are intertwined, as in a body-soul analogy, equally valid and true.
All the three acharyas were not only seminal thinkers, they were also great apostles of bhakti, mystical devotion, wherein lay their mass appeal. Sankara’s devotional outpourings, like the ‘Bhaja Govindam’ and ‘Saundaryalahiri’, were meant to inspire and arouse people to their innate divine Self while Ramanuja sought to simplify the Absolute in human endearing terms, where each could visualise that virat cosmic energy in human form, as a friend, a mother, a disciple, and soulmate. Madhvacharya sought to see the Absolute from a Vaishnavite consciousness, seeking liberation and grace in the adoration of Vishnu-Krishna. (Today is the birth anniversary of Adi Shankara).
B
Pranav Khullar, May 8, 2019: The Times of India
The Three Vedantic Blueprints Of Reality
Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhvacharya represent three fundamental speculative positions of Vedantic thought. Their paths to the Absolute reflect the dialectic between being and becoming in Vedanta. Shankara’s monistic Advaita points to a final, single, higher reality, in which the entire material dimension of life is subsumed – the being aspect of existence which one aspires to experience. Ramanuja’s Vishishtadvaita holds that this sensorymaterial dimension of higher reality is equally valid and serves its purpose through adoration of the Absolute, this existential journey of becoming to be enjoyed as much as the state of being.
Madhvacharya represents the third fundamental position of Vedanta. He says in his Tattvavada that metaphysical reality is plural; that the world of duality is independently real of the Absolute and it is real and not just an illusion. Shankara and Ramanuja differ only in assigning weightage to the world of plurality, while contending that this materiality is only a projection of the Absolute. Madhvacharya proposed the empirical world as one of two independent entities along with the Absolute.
All three essentially wrote treatises on the Brahma Sutras of Vyasa – 555 sutras, aphorisms containing the quintessence of Upanishadic-Vedantic thought. Their deliberations are triggered by the great call of the first sutra itself: ‘Athato Brahmn jignasa’ – ‘Now, therefore, the inquiry into Brahmn’, a call to free inquiry which sets the tone for all speculation. All three based their deliberations on the same text, branching out in different interpretations, Shankara upholding an uncompromising monistic view; Ramanuja posing a theistic-existential formulation of reality and Madhvacharya holding that the world of plurality in which we live is real and not just an illusion.
Shankara lived for barely 30 years, yet he set ablaze the intellectual world of his time, redefining and revitalising old Upanishadic concepts not only with great rigour but with humility, too. From the backwaters of Kalady to the snowy crests of Kedarnath, he took on scholars, sages and savants, in what he believed to be his spiritual mission, engaging them in scholarly debates to establish his viewpoint. Ramanujacharya, on the contrary, believed it was his mission to deconstruct the notion of the Absolute as a personal god, which differed fundamentally with the monistic position of Shankara. Ramanuja was deeply rooted in theological traditions, and sought inspiration in Vaishnavite theology as well as in the mystical fervour of the 12 Alvar poet-saints of South India.
Tradition has it that Ramanuja was inspired to write his theistic interpretation on the Brahma Sutras at the time of his guru’s death when his attention was drawn to the three folded fingers of his guru’s right hand. It signified his three unfulfilled desires, one of which was to write an authoritative commentary on the Brahma Sutras. Ramanuja wrote his magnum opus, the Sribashya, in response to his guru’s command.
Shankara’s theory of Brahmn and Mayavada circumscribed his Advaita position, perceiving the world as essentially nirguna, without attributes, but which manifests with saguna, personal attributes, and nirguna being ultimately true, and saguna, false. The Brahmn-world relation of Shankara’s philosophy is explained in the snake and rope analogy where the illusion is caused by mistaking the rope for a snake. Ramanujacharya’s contention was that saguna and nirguna are intertwined, as in the body-soul analogy, which makes the saguna projection of the Absolute, the empirical world of plurality, as equally valid and true. (May 9 is Shankara-Ramanuja Jayanti)
