Schools Of Vedanta

Answer : Shankar repeatedly asserts that the Absolute ca be realized through knowledge and knowledge alone, karma and upasana are subsidiary. They may help us in urging us to know reality and they may prepare us for that knowledge by purifying our mind but ultimately it is knowledge alone which by destroying ignorance, the rot cause of this world, can enable us to be one with the Absolute. The opposition of knowledge and action stands firm like a mountain. They are contradicting and are poles apart. Those who talk of combining knowledge with action says Shankar, have perhaps not read the Brhadaranyak nor are they aware of the glaring contradiction repeatedly pointed out by the Shruti and Smiriti. Ramanuja on the other hand is of opinion that it is the bhakti that is the core of the knowledge one needs for liberation. Only God can help liberate a person from the bondage of birth and death. By devotion to God one can have liberation. Thus it is the bakti, love and devotion to God which should be the ultimate aim of a pupil. Thus it is the knowledge of this fact that only God can lead liberation or mukti is the real knowledge. One who understands this is a true devotee and therefore he surrenders himself to the God. This takes him to the liberation. This is the real crux of the knowledge in the real sense of the term.

Answer : Adhyasa is something with the help of which Shankar has tried to make a balance between his philosophies of Advait. It is something logical necessity of the Vedanta philosophy of Shankar. According to shankar Brahman is the only reality. It is absolutely indeterminate and non dual. It is beyond speech and mind. It is indescribable because no description of it can be complete. The best description of it is through the negative formula called neti-neti or nor this, nor that. But phenomenally there is a difference between jiva and Brahmana or Iswara.But Brahmana is the only reality and, the world is ultimately false. The individual soul is not different from Brahmana. Brahmana and atma is synonymous terms. The world is the creation of Maya which creates adhyas. Maya has two functions,. First it superimposes itself on Brahmana and second it projects world which is an appearance itself. It is not real. This phenomenon is called adhyas.From phenomenological point of view this world does exist due to adhyas created by maya. But transcendentally there is no world and only Brahmana exists. But for all the practical purposes this world is true and only the true knowledge of the self or absolute power or Brahamana that this adhyas disappears. Hence Shankar accepts the existence of illusion but at the same time considers it removable by the true knowledge. Thus he manages both the phenomenal and transcendental world and logically. On the other hand he conforms to psychological aspect of the human beings as they act as they perceive be it illusion for the time being. Hence his notion of adhyas is both logical as well as psychological.

Answer : The philosophy of Shankar is called advaita vedanta where as the Ramanuja called his philosophy visistdvaita. Adi Shankara had argued that all qualities or manifestations that can be perceived are unreal and temporary. Ramanuja believed them to be real and permanent and under the control of the Brahman. God can be one despite the existence of attributes, because they cannot exist alone; they are not independent entities. They are Prakaras or the modes, Sesha or the accessories, and Niyama or the controlled aspects, of the one Brahman. In Ramanuja’s system of philosophy, the Lord (Narayana) has two inseparable Prakaras or modes, namely, the world and the souls. 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 souls constitute the body of the Lord. The Lord is their indweller. He is the controlling Reality. Matter and souls are the subordinate elements. They are termed Viseshanas, attributes. God is the Viseshya or that which is qualified. Ramanuja opines, wrong is the position of the Advaitins that understanding the Upanishads without knowing and practicing dharma can result in Brahman knowledge. The knowledge of Brahman that ends spiritual ignorance is meditational, not testimonial or verbal. In contrast to Shankara, Ramanuja holds that there is no knowledge source in support of the claim that there is a distinctionless (homogeneous) Brahman. All knowledge sources reveal objects as distinct from other objects. All experience reveals an object known in some way or other beyond mere existence. Testimony depends on the operation of distinct sentence parts (words with distinct meanings). Thus the claim that testimony makes known that reality is distinctionless is contradicted by the very nature of testimony as a knowledge means. Even the simplest perceptual cognition reveals something (Bessie) as qualified by something else (a broken hoof, “Bessie has a broken hoof,” as known perceptually). Inference depends on perception and makes the same distinct things known as perception. He also holds that the Advaitin argument about prior absences and no prior absence of consciousness is wrong. Similarly the Advaitin understanding of a-vidya (not-Knowledge), which is the absence of spiritual knowledge, is incorrect. If the distinction between spiritual knowledge and spiritual ignorance is unreal, then spiritual ignorance and the self are one.

Answer : Adhyasa refers to throwing over or casting upon; misconception or erroneous attribution, the significance being that the mind casts upon facts, which are misunderstood, certain mistaken notions; hence false or erroneous attribution equivalent to Adhyaropa. Simply put Adhyasa means superimposition or false attribution of properties of one thing on another thing. According to Advaita Vedanta error arises on account of the superimposition of one reality on another. Adi Shankara defines Adhyasa as “the apparent presentation, to consciousness, by way of memory of something previously observed in some other thing”.

Adhyasa is the illusory appearance, in another place, of an object seen earlier elsewhere. It is similar in nature to recollection. For instance on seeing a rope in dim light and not recognizing it as a rope, a person mistakes it for a snake which he has seen elsewhere. The snake is not absolutely unreal, because it is actually experienced, and produces the same effect, such as fear and so on, as a real snake would. At the same time, it is not real, because it is no longer seen when the rope has been recognized. It is therefore described as Anirvachaneeya or what cannot be classified as either real or unreal. Adi Shankara further points out in his Adhyasa bhashya on the Brahma Sutras that, when there is superimposition of one thing on another, the latter (the substratum) is not affected in the least by the good or bad qualities of the former (e.g., nacre does not become more valuable because it is mistaken for silver, nor does a rope get the qualities of the snake which it is mistaken for). The implication of this statement is that the self which is identical with Brahman does not undergo any of the changes, nor does it experience any of the joys and sorrows, of the body, mind and organs which are superimposed on it.

It is, however, only because of this mutual superimposition of the self and the non-self that all action, both secular and religious, including the study of Vedanta, becomes possible. The self, by itself, is neither a doer of actions, nor an enjoyer of the results. It becomes a doer and an enjoyer only because of this superimposition, as a result of which, as Adi Shankara says, the real and the unreal, namely, the self and the non-self, are blended into one, as it were. All action, including the various rites laid down in the Vedas, thus come within the sphere of Avidya or nescience, which is the cause of the superimposition.

Adhyasa is of two kinds. When a rope is mistaken for a snake, the snake alone is seen. The existence of the rope is not known at all. Here the snake is said to be superimposed on the rope. This is known as Svarupa-Adhyasa. The second kind of superimposition is when a crystal appears to be red in the proximity of a red flower. Here both the crystal and the flower are seen as existing, and the redness of the flower is attributed to the crystal also. This is known as Samsarga-Adhyasa. Both these kinds of Adhyasa are present in the mutual superimposition of the self and the non-self.

Answer : Advaita (“non-dualism”) is often called a monistic system of thought. The word “Advaita” essentially refers to the identity of the Self (Atman) and the Whole (Brahman). The key source texts for all schools of Vedânta are the Prasthanatrayi, the canonical texts consisting of the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita and the Brahma Sutras. Adi Shankara was the first in its tradition to consolidate the siddhânta (“doctrine”) of Advaita Vedanta. He wrote commentaries on the Prasthana Trayi. A famous quote summarises his philosophy is:

Brahma satyam jagat mithya, jivo brahmaiva naparah

Brahman is the only truth, the spatio-temporal world is an illusion, and there is ultimately no difference between Brahman and individual self.

Advaita Vedanta is based on úâstra (“scriptures”), yukti (“reason”) and anubhava (“experience”), and aided by karmas (“spiritual practices”). This philosophy provides a clear-cut way of life to be followed. Starting from childhood, when learning has to start, the philosophy has to be realised in practice throughout one’s life even up to death. This is the reason why this philosophy is called an experiential philosophy, the underlying tenet being “That thou art”, meaning that ultimately there is no difference between the experiencer and the experienced (the world) as well as the universal spirit (Brahman). Among the followers of Advaita, as well those of other doctrines, there are believed to have appeared Jivanmuktas, ones liberated while alive. These individuals (commonly called Mahatmas, great souls, among Hindus) are those who realized the oneness of their self and the universal spirit called Brahman. Some of the Translated philosophies of Adi Shankara are Adi Sanakara Philosophy.

Adi Shankara’s opponents accused him of teaching Buddhism in the garb of Hinduism, because his non-dualistic ideals seemed rather radical to contemporary Hindu philosophy. However, it may be noted that while the Later Buddhists arrived at a changeless, deathless, absolute truth after their insightful understanding of the unreality of samsara, historically Vedantins never liked this idea. Although Advaita proposes the theory of Maya, explaining the universe as a “trick of a magician”, Adi Shankara and his followers see this as a consequence of their basic premise that Brahman alone is real. Their idea of Maya emerges from their belief in the reality of Brahman, rather than the other way around. In fact, Advaita acknowledges that everyday experience leads one to infer plurality, but it maintains emphatically that the transcendental experience of Brahman Anubhava is related the ordinary everyday experience that is based on perception through one’s senses.

The tradition holds that it is not correct to make one’s conclusions on issues of metaphysics based only on normal everyday experience. All schools of Vedanta rely on scripture, i.e. the Vedas, as a valid source of knowledge. As Advaita Vedanta is learnt only from the Upanishads, it is not falsified by everyday experience. On the other hand, the knowledge of Brahman’s identity is normal perception. It is also pointed out there would be no need for scripture if one’s conclusions were based only on everyday experience.

Adi Shankara had argued that all qualities or manifestations that can be perceived are unreal and temporary. Ramanuja believed them to be real and permanent and under the control of the Brahman. God can be one despite the existence of attributes, because they cannot exist alone; they are not independent entities. They are Prakaras or the modes, Sesha or the accessories, and Niyama or the controlled aspects, of the one Brahman. In Ramanuja’s system of philosophy, the Lord (Narayana) has two inseparable Prakaras or modes, namely, the world and the souls. 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 souls constitute the body of the Lord. The Lord is their indweller. He is the controlling Reality. Matter and souls are the subordinate elements. They are termed Viseshanas, attributes. God is the Viseshya or that which is qualified.

Ramanuja opines, wrong is the position of the Advaitins that understanding the Upanishads without knowing and practicing dharma can result in Brahman knowledge. The knowledge of Brahman that ends spiritual ignorance is meditation, not testimonial or verbal. In contrast to Shankara, Ramanuja holds that there is no knowledge source in support of the claim that there is a homogeneous Brahman. All knowledge sources reveal objects as distinct from other objects. All experience reveals an object known in some way or other beyond mere existence. Testimony depends on the operation of distinct sentence parts (words with distinct meanings). Thus the claim that testimony makes known that reality is homogenous is contradicted by the very nature of testimony as a knowledge means.

Answer : Brahman is the only reality. It is absolutely indeterminate and non dual. It is beyond speech and mind. It is indescribable because no description of it can be complete. The best description of it is through the negative formula of ‘neti-neti’ or ‘not this not this’, yet Brahman is not an abyss of non entity because it is the supreme Self and stands self revealed as the background of all affirmations and denials. The moments we try to bring his Brahman within the categories of intellect or try to make this ultimate subject an object of our thought we miss its essential nature. There is no more remains unconditioned consciousness, but becomes conditioned as it were. This Brahman, reflected in or conditioned by Maya, is called Ishavara or God. Ishvara is the personal aspect of the impersonal Brahman. This is the celebrated distinction between God and the Asbolute which Shankara, following the Upanisads makes. Ishvara is also known as Apara Brahma or lower Brahman as contrasted with the unconditioned Brahman which is called Para Brahman or Higher Brahman.

The phenomenal character of Ishvara is quite evident. He is the highest appearance which we have. Some critics have missed the significance of Ishvara. They believe that Ishavara in Advaita is unreal and useless. But they are sadly mistaken. Missing the true significance of Maya is at the roof of this mistaken belief. Ishvara becomes ‘unreal’ only for him who has realized his oneness with Brahman by rising above speech and mind. For as Ishvara is all in all. Finite thought can never grasp Brahman. And therefore all talks about Brahman are really talks about Ishvara. Even the world ‘unconditioned Brahman’ refers really to ‘conditioned Ishvara’, for the moment we speak of Brahman. He ceases to be Brahman and becomes Ishvara.

Ishvara or God is the Sat-Chit-Anand, the Existence-consciousness-Bliss. He is the Perfect Personality. He is the lord of the Maya. He is immanent in the whole universe which he controls from within. He is the soul of souls as well as the soul of nature as the immanent inner ruler. He is called Antaryamin. He is also transcendental for it his own nature he transcends the universe. He is the creator, sustainer and destroyer of this universe. He is the source of everything. He is the final haven of everything. He is the concrete universal, the supreme individual, the whole, the identify-in difference. He is the object of devotion. He is the inspirer of moral life. He is all in all from the practical standpoint. Thus the description of Brahman, which Ramanuja gave at a much later date, is essentially an elaboration of Shankara’s Ishvara.

Shankara, like kaul believes that God cannot be proved by our finite thought. All attempts to do so end in failure. They lead to what Kant has called the antinomies. The cosmological proof can give only a finite creator of his finite creation and a finite creator is no creator at all. The technological proof can only point to the fact that a consciousness principle is working at the root of creation. The ontological proof can give only an idea of God and not God as a real object. As Kant falls back on faith so Shankara falls back on shruti. Shankara agrees with Gaudapada’s view of Sajati. There is no real creation. God, therefore, is not a real creator. God alone is real; the creation is only an appearance of God.

Ishvara has been a taxing problem for the followers of Shankara. According to some Ishavara is the reflection of Brahman in Maya, while Jiva is the reflection of Brahman in Avidya. According to others Brahman, limited or conditioned by Maya is Ishvara, while Brahman limited by Avidya or the internal organ (which is a product of Avidya) in jiva. The former view is called Reflection Theory (Pratibimbvada) and the later limitation Theory (Avachchadvada). Some regard Jiva as the Reflection of Ishvara. The defect in the reflection theory is that Brahman and Maya both being formless, how can formless original be reflected in a formless respectable? To avoid this some have suggested the identity of the original and the Reflected Image (bimbpratibimabadavada). But this too cannot be accepted.

The defect in the limitation theory is as to how can Maya or Avidya constitute limitation to Brahman? Those who donot agree with either of these theories have suggested a third, the appearance theory, according to which Ishvara and Jiva are inexplicable appearances of Brahman (abhasavada). The post Shankarites have indulged in needless hair splitting. The problem was not at all taxing to Shankara. He uses the similes of the reflection of the Sun or the Moon in the waves or in the different vessels of water, the simile of the reflection of the red colour of the flower in the crystal, as well as the simile of the limitation of the universal space as the different spaces in the jars. He uses them only as metaphors for their suggestive value. They should not be taken literally and stressed beyond the breaking point. Shankara himself seems to favour appearance theory because for him Ishvara and Jiva are the inexplicable appearances of Brahman. They are due to Maya or Avidya or Adhyasa.

They are only appearance (vivarta). The ‘why’ and the ‘how’ regarding Avidya are illegitimate questions and therefore an insoluble mystery. God is God only to the Jiva who is labouring under Avidya. God himself never feels himself as God; he feels himself essentially one with Brahman, for Avidya in its negative aspect of concealment never operates on him. God is the lord of Maya, while jiva is constantly troubled by Maya. God always enjoys the bliss of Brahman while Jiva is tortured by the pangs of Avidya.

Answer : The words Maya, Avidya, Adhyasa are recklessly used in Vedanta are very nearly synonymous. There are two schools among later Advaitins divided on the question whether Maya and Avidya are identical or different. The general terms of the Advaitins including Shankara himself have been to treat these two terms as synonymous and to distinguish between the two aspects of Maya or Avidya which are called Aavarana and Viksepa, the former being the negative aspect of concealment and the latter thee positive aspect of projection. The advocates of the other school who treat Maya and Avidya as different say that Maya is something positive, though absolutely dependent on and inseparable from Brahman, which provide a medium for the reflection of Brahman and for the projection of this world being an essentially indistinguisable power (Shakti) of Brahman.

While Avidya is entirely negative in character, being pure ignorance or absence of knowledge of Reality. Secondly, Maya, the cosmic power of projection, conditions Ishavara who is not affect by Avidya; while Avidya, the individual ignorance, conditions the Jiva. Brahmana reflected in Maya is the Ishavara and Brahman reflected in Avidya is the Jiva. Hence, though the individual ignorance is dispelled by knowledge, Maya, being the inherent nature of Brahmana, cannot be so dispelled. Thirdly, Maya is made mostly of sattva, while Avidya is made of all the three Sattva, rajas and tamas. But really speaking the two schools are not opposed. Whether Maya is called the cosmic and positive power of projection and Avidya the individual and negative ignorance, or Maya and Avidya are treated as synonymous and as having two aspects of concealment and projection the fundamental position remains the same. Shankar brings out the following characteristics of Maya or Avidya:

Like the Prakriti of Samkhya, it is something material and unconscious (Jada) as opposed to Brahman (Purusa in the case of Samkhya) which is pure consciousness, though unlike Prakrti, it is neither real nor independent.

It is the inherent power of potenecy (Shakti) of Brahman. It is coeval with him. It is absolutely dependent on an inseparable from Brahman. It is not different (ananya) from him. The relation of Maya and Brahman is unique and is called tadatmya; it is neither identity nor both. Maya is energized and acts as a medium of the projection of this world of plurality on the non dual ground of Brahman.

It is beginningless. (anadi)

It is something positive (bhavarupa), though not real. It is called positive in order to emphasize the fact hat it is not merely negative. It has two aspects. In its negative aspect it conceals (avarana) reality and acts as a screen to hide it. In its positive aspect it projects the world of plurality on the Brahman ground. It is non apprehension as well as misapprehension.

It is indescribable and indefinable for it is neither real nor unreal nor both (Sadasadanirvachaniya). It is not real, for it has no existence apart from Brahman; it is not unreal, for it projects the world of appearance. It is not real, for it vanishes at the dawn of knowledge; it is not unreal, for it is true as long as it lasts. It is not real to constitute a limit to Brahman and yet it is real though to give rise to the world of appearance. And it is not both real and unreal for this conception is self contradictory.

It has a phenomenal and relative character. It is an appearance only. It is removable by right knowledge.

Answer : In Shankar’s Vedanta the world is a creation of Maya. The words Maya, Avidya, Adhyas are synonymous in Shankar’s Vedanta. According to Shankaracharya Maya, like Prakrti of Samkhya is material and unconscious. It is inherent power and potency of Brahman, beginning less (anadi), positive, indescribable, phenomenal and adhyasa. It is self evident, says shankara that the subject and the object are absolutely opposed to each other like light and darkness. The subject is pure consciousness; the object is unconsciousness. Yet it is the natural and common practice of people that they wrongly superimpose the object and its attributes upon the subject and vice versa, the subject and its attributes upon the object. This co-mingling of the subject and the object, this mixing up of truth and error, this coupling of the real and the unreal is called superimposition, adhaysa or Maya or error or illusion. This transcendental ignorance is the presupposition of all practices of this phenomenal world.

Maya is not only absence of knowledge; it is also positive wrong knowledge. It is not only non apprehension but also misapprehension. To the objection that how can unreal Maya cause the real Brahman to appear as the phenomenal world and how, again, can false personalities through false means reach the end? Shankarachary’s reply is that a person entangled in mud can get out of it through the help of mud alone, that a person pricked in the body can be taken out with the help of another thorn, and that there are many instances in this life which show that even unreal things appear to cause real things. The opponent says that be fails to understand as to how unreal Maya can cause real Brahman to appear. If the world is unreal, unreal means like the Vedanta texts, cannot lead to real liberation. If the world is real, it cannot be Maya.

Shankara replies that the objection is wrong. It a person imagines himself to have been bitten by a poisonous snake, and if the imagination is very strong, it may result in the heart failure or in some psychological disaster. We have sun that unreal things can cause real things. The opponent hopelessly confuses the two different standpoints the empirical and the absolute. Many critics have failed to understand the real significance of Maya or Avidya and have therefore charged Shankara with explaining the world away. But this charge is based on a shifting of the standpoints. But Shankara has granted some degrees of reality even to dreams illusion and errors. How can he then take away the reality of this world? The world real and unreal is taken by Shankara in their absolute sense. Real means real for all time and Brahman alone can be real in this sense. Unreal means absolutely unreal like the here’s horn. This world is neither real nor unreal; it is relative, phenomenal and finite.

Answer : According to the metaphysical view of Ramanuja three things are quite clear and are opposed to the Advaitic position of Shankara. First, all knowledge involves distinctions and there is no undifferentiated pure consciousness. Pure identity and pure difference are alike unreal. Ramanuja here agrees with legal. Identity is always qualified by difference. Unity is always in and through and because of diversity. Pure being is pure nothing.

Shankara is wrong in saying that Brahman is pure difference less being. Brahmna or Reality cannot be indeterminate, undifferentiated, quality less substance. It is determinate and qualified when the Upanishads speak of Brahman as devoid of qualities, they only mean that Brahman has no bad qualities and not that it has no qualities whatsoever. It is the abode of all good qualities and is the incarnation of all perfection. Hence Shankar’s distinction between Brahman and Ishvara between higher and lower Brahman, is unwarranted and unjustifiable. Brahman is God and he is not a formless identity but an individual a person, who is always qualified by matter and souls which form his body. Secondly, the self is distinct from knowledge. It is undoubtedly an eternal self conscious subject, but it is also a self luminous substance possessing dharma-bhuta-jnana as its essential attribute. Hence the self is not pure consciousness, but only the eternal substratum of consciousness. All the individual souls are real spiritual substances which are pervaded by God and from his body.

They are atomic in nature and in liberation they do not merge in Him, but only become similar to him and serve him realizing themselves as the body of god. Shankara is wrong is saying that the self is identical with Brahman and absolutely merges in it. Thirdly, knowledge not only belongs to a subject, but also points to an object which exists really and outside of it. All objects are real. Even in error, illusion or outside of it. All objects are real. Even in error, illusion or dreams, it is always the real which is presented to consciousness. Shankara is wrong in saying that whatever becomes an object is false on the other hand, the truth is that only the real is given in knowledge. Shankara is also wrong in saying that the pure subject or pure knowledge never becomes an object, because it is not necessary that an object should, by that very fact be a material (Jada) object. Even God, souls and knowledge are presented as object, the first two are spiritual (chetana) and the last is non material (ajada). Shankara’s distinction between the higher and the lower standpoints is also unwarranted and wrong. All objects, spiritual as well as material, are absolutely real. Avidya or Maya as interpreted by Shankara is sheer nonsense.

Ramanuja views are known as Visistadvaita or non dualism qualified by difference. His absolute is an organic unity and identify which is qualified by diversity. It is a concrete whole (Vishista) which consists of the inter-related and inter dependent subordinate elements which are called vishesanas and the immanent and controlling spirit which is called Vishesya. Ramanuja recognizes three things as ultimate and real (tattva traya). These are mater (achit), souls, (chit) and God (Ishvara). Though all are equally real, the first two are absolutely dependent on God. Though they are substances in themselves, yet in relation to God, they become his attributes. They are the body of God who is their soul. God is the soul of nature. God is also the soul of souls. Our souls are souls in relation to our bodies, but in relation to God, they become his body and he is their soul. The relation between the soul and the body is that of inner inseparability. This is also the relation between substances and attributes.

In Ramanuja’s account of God, we may notice three points of importance. First, God is identified with the absolute. He is Brahman and Brahman must be a savishesa or a qualified unity. God stands for the whole universe and matter and souls form his body, he being their soul. As the absolute, the ultimate unity in and through trinity the concrete whole, God may be viewed through two stages as cause and as effect. During the state of dissolution (pralaya), God remains as the cause with subtle matter and un embodied souls forming his body.

The whole universe dies latent in him. During the state of creation the subtle matter becomes gross and the un embodied souls become embodied according to their Karma. In this effect state the universe becomes manifest. Secondly, God is considered as the immanent inner controller, the qualified substance who is in himself changeless and is the unmoved Mover of this world process. In his essence he does not suffer change which is said to fall to the lot of his attributes or modes only.

Thirdly, God is also transcendent. He is the perfect personality. He has a divine body. Ramanuja’s conception of chit or the individual soul, the individual soul is an attribute or mode (prakara) of God and forms parts of his body, yet it is also a spiritual substance in itself and is absolutely real. It is an eternal point of spiritual light. It is beyond creation and destruction. In the state of creation, it is embodied according to its karmas while in the state of creation, it is embodied according to its karmas, while in the state of dissolution and in the state of liberation it remains in itself. In Ramanuja conception achit or unconscious substance, it is of three kinds Prakrti Nitya-Vibhuti and Kala. Of these Prakrti is ordinary matter which makes samsara. It is an object of enjoyment (bhogya) and suffers change.

Answer : Madhva is the champion of unqualified dualism (dvaita) and accuses Shankara of teaching the false doctrines of shunyavadu Buddhism under the cloak of Vedanta. His hatred of Advaita is so great that he calls Advaities deceitfuldemons who play in the darkness of Ignorance and who must run away now that omniscient Lord (the sun of dualism) is coming to destroy their darkness of arguments and false interpretations of the scriptures. Madhva advocates the reality of five fold differences between soul and God between soul and soul, between God and mater, between matter and mater and between soul and matter. His bias for difference is so great that he advocates difference of degrees in the possession of knowledge and in the enjoyment of bliss even in the case of liberated souls a doctrine found in no other system of Indian philosophy. Madhva like Ramanuja, accepts the three sources of knowledge perception, interference and testimony, and like him holds that God who is Hari can be known only by Scriptures.

Madhva like Ramanuja believes in god and souls and mater as the three entities which are eternal absolutely real, though souls and mater are absolutely dependent on God. God alone is independent. He possesses infinitely good qualities. Existence, knowledge and bliss constitute his essence. He is the creator, preserves and destroyer of this universe. He (God, Brahman) has a divine body and is transcendent. But he is also immanent as the inner ruler of all souls. He damns some and redeems others. He is the perfect personality. He is the Lord of Karma. He is pleased only by bhakti. The individ8ual souls (Jiva) are numberless and are atomic in size. The soul is by nature conscious and blissful. It becomes subject to pains and imperfection on account of its connection with the material body, sense organs, mind etc. which connection is due to its past karmas. The souls are eternal and are of three kinds eternally free (nityamukta) freed (mukta) and bond (baddha).

Though God controls the souls from within yet it is a real agent and a real enjoyer and is responsible for its acts. Madhva rejects the relation of inseparability (aprthaksiddhi) and the distinction between substance (drarvya) and non substance (adravya). He advocates both quantitative and quantitative pluralism of souls. Not two souls are alike. Each has besides its individuality, its peculiarity also. Madhya says that God (Brahman) is only the efficient cause of the world and not its material cause which is prakrit. God creates the world out of the stuff of Prakrti, whereas Ramanuja regards God as both the efficient and the material cause of the world.

Answer : The word Adhyasa, Avidya or Maya are very nearly synonymous in Advaita Vedanta. They are very often used as interchangeable terms. Shankaracharya says that Brahman is the only reality; the world is ultimately false; and the individual soul is non different from Brahman. The world is the creation of Maya or the Superimposition of Maya over Brahman. It is self evident says Shankar that the nature of May is superimposition or Adhyasa. It is an error (bhranti) like that of a rope snake or a shell-silver. It is the superimposition upon one thing of the character of another thing. It is wrong cognition or misapprehension. It is removable by Right knowledge (Vijnananirasya). When Vidya dawns Avidya vanishes. When the rope is known the rope snake vanishes. Its locus (ashraya) as well as object Visays is Brahman and yet Brahman is really untouched by it, same as a magician is unaffected by his magic or the colourless Akasha is untouched by the dark colour attributed to it.

In Shankara’s account Adhyasa is indescribable ad indefinable for it is neither real nor unreal nor both. It is not real for it has no existence apart from Brahman; it is not unreal, for it projects the world of appearance. It is not real, for it vanishes at the dawn of knowledge; it is not unreal for it is true as long as it lasts. It is not real to constitute a limit to Brahman and yet it is real enough to give rise to the world of appearance. And it is not both real and unreal for this conception is self contradictory. It has a phenomenal and relative character (Vyavahariksatta). It is an appearance only (Vivarta). It is something positive (bhavarupa), though not real. It is called positive in order to emphasize the fact that it is nor merely negative. It has two aspects. In its negative aspect it conceals (avaran) Reality and acts as a screen to hide it. In its positive aspect it projects the world of plurality on the Brahman ground. It is non apprehension as well as misapprehension.

According to Shankara it is self evident that the subject and the object are absolutely opposed to each other like light and darkness. The subject is pure consciousness; the object is Unconsciousness. The one is the ultimate ‘I’; the other is the ‘non-I’. Neither these two nor their attributes can, therefore, be identified. Yet it is the natural and common practice of people that they wrongly superimpose the object and its attributes upon the subject and vice versa the subject and its attributes upon the object. This co-mingling of the subject and the object, this mixing up of truth and error, this coupling of the real and the unreal is called superimposition (Adhysa) or error (bhrama) or illusion (Maya) or ignorance (Avidya). All definitions of error agree in maintaining that error is the superimposition of one thing on another, e.g. the superimposition of silver on shell or the illusion of the moons on a single moon. This superimposition the learned call ‘ignorance’ and the realization of the true nature of reality of discarding error, they call knowledge. This transcendental ignorance is the presupposition of all practices of this phenomenal world.

Superimposition therefore, is the notion of a thing in something else. This unreal beginning less cycle of superimposition goes on leading to the false notions of the agent and the enjoyer and to all phenomenal practices. The study of the Vedanta texts is undertaken in order to free oneself from this false notion of superimposition and thereby realize the essential unity of the self. This superimposition is not secondary or figuarative (guna); it is false (mithya). It is rally pitiable that even learned people who distinguish between the subject and the object confuse these terms, like ordinary goatherds and shepherds.

We do not admit any antecedent state of this world as its independent cause. We only admit an antecedent state of this world dependent on Ishvara. This state is called Nescience or Ignorance (Avidya). It is the terminal power or causal potentiality (bija shakti). It is unmanifested (avyakta). It depends on Ishvara. It is illusion. It is the universal sleep wherein are slumbering the worldly souls forgetting their own real nature. All difference is due to Ignorance. It is not ultimate. Names and forms are only figments is limited by his own power of Nescience and appears as many phenomenal selves even as space appears as different spaces limited by the adjuncts of jars. The omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence of Ishvara are all due to the adjuncts of ignorance; they are not ultimate where the essential unity of the Atman is realized, they all vanish. Creation, therefore, is due to ignorance. It is not ultimately real.

Answer : Madhva is the champion of unqualified dualism (dvaita) and accuses Shankara of teaching the false doctrine of Shunyavada Buddhism under the cloak of Vedanta. Madhva like Ramanuja believes in God and souls and matter as the entities which are eternal and absolutely real though souls and matter are absolutely dependent on God. God alone is independent. He possesses infinitely good qualities. Even the liberation or Moksha is the work of God. Existence knowledge and bliss constitute his essence. He is the creator, preserver and destroyers of this universe.

According to Madhva Vedanta the individual souls are numberless and are atomic in size. The soul is by nature conscious and blissful. It becomes subject to pains and imperfections on account of connection with the material body, sense organs, mind etc. which connection is due to its past Karmas. The souls are eternal and are of three kinds, eternally free, freed, and bound. Though the God controls the soul from within, yet it is real agent and a real enjoyer and is responsible for its act. So the bondage and liberation (Moksha) is the works of God in Madhva Vedange. Bhakti is the only means of liberation. It is defined as the Eternal Love for God with a full sense of His Greatness. Madhva emphasizes the difference of the liberated soul from God. The soul becomes similar to God in some respects when it is liberated, yet even in these respect it is much inferior to God. It does not enjoy the full bliss of God. The bliss enjoyed by the redeemed souls is fourfold Salokya or residence in the same place with God; Samipya or nearness to God; Sarupya or having the external form like that of God; Sayujya or entering into the body of God and partially sharing this bliss with him.

Thus, though according to Ramanuja the liberated soul enjoys the full bliss of the realization of Brahman which is homogenous ubiquitous and supreme, according to Madhva even the most qualified soul which is entitled to sarupya form of liberation can share only partial bliss of Brahman and cannot become similar to Brahman in the strict sense of the term. Moreover, Madhva says that certain souls like demons, ghosts and some men are eternally doomed and damned. They can never hope to get liberation. Ramanuja rejects this. The doctrine of eternal domination is peculiar to Madhva and Jainism in the whole field of Indian philosophy.

Answer : Ramanuja’s view is that absolute is an organic unity, an identity which is qualified by diversity. It is a concrete whole (Vishista) which consists of the inter related and interdependent subordinate elements which are called ‘vishesanas’ and the immanent and controlling spirit which is called ‘Vishesya’. Unity means realization of being a vital member of this organic whole. God or the absolute is this whole. He is the immanent inter controller, the supreme real who holds together in unity the dependent matter and individual souls as his body. That is why it is known as visistadvait or non dualism qualified by difference.

Ramanuja recognizes three things as ultimate and real (tatta-traya). These are matter (achit), souls (chit) and God (Ishvara). Though all are equally real, the first two are absolutely dependent on God. Though they are substances in themselves, yet in relation to god, they become his attributes. They are the body of God who is their soul. God is the soul of nature. God is also the soul of souls. Our souls are souls in relation to our bodies, but in relation to God, they become his body and he is their soul. The relation between the soul and the body is hat of inner inseparability (aprthavisiddhi). This is also the relation between substances and attributes. The Nyaya inherence (Samaraya) is an external relation which is rejected by Ramanuja because it involves which is rejected by Ramanuja because it involves infinite regress.

Aprithak Siddhi is the relation between the body and the soul, between a substance and its attributes, between parts and whole, and may be between one substance and another. It is an inner, inseparable vital and organic relation. God is qualified by matter and souls. They form his body and are inseparable from the utterly dependent on him. Ramanuja defines a body as that which is controlled, supported and utilized for its purposes by a soul. Matter and souls are called attributes (prakara) of God; they are the controlled (niyama), the supported (dharya), the parts (amsha) and the accessory means (Shesa), while God is their substance (prakari), controller (niyanta), support (adhera) the whole (amshi) and the principal and (Shesi). They are eternal with God, but are not external to him. God is free from all external differences homogenous (Sajatiya) as well as heterogenous (Vijatiya), since there is nothing either similar or dissimilar which is external to or other than him. But he possesses internal differences (sragara sheda) as his organic body is made of real and diverse elements like mater and souls. His relation with them is natural (Svabhavika) and eternal (sanatana). God is both the material and the instrumental cause of the world. He is the immanent as well as the transcendent ground of the world. He is immanent in the whole world as its inner controller (antaryami) and in the whole world as its inner controller (antaryami) and yet in his essence he transcends the world. His is a perfect personality. He is full of all good qualities existence, knowledge and Bliss; Truth, Goodness and Beauty; luster, love and power.

Ramanuja finds justification for his doctrine of the absolute as a Tri Unity in such following Upanisadic passages. The Shvetashvatara says: there are three ultimate existences the eternal and all knowing and all powerful God, the eternal powerless soul and the eternal matter and these three constitute the absolute. The same Upanishad further tells as: This alone need be known and there is nothing else to be known that there are three entities, the enjoyer (bhokta), the enjoyed (bhogya) and the mover (prerita), which constitutes the absolute. If a man knows these three he knows Brahman. The same Upanisad goes on: The one God who runs through all beings, who is all pervasive and who is the immanent inner controller of all beings is the supreme reality.

There is nothing greater than the, there is nothing external to him. He fills the whole universe. The Tattiriya tells as that all beings arise from and live in and return to this Brahman. God is the soul of nature and also soul of souls. He is immanent and yet he is transcendent also. The Brahdarnayak describes him as the running thread (Sutra) which binds together all the worlds and all the sols. He is the immanent inner controller (antaryami) of all. He is present in matter and yet he is different from matter; matter does not know him; matter forms his body; He controls matter from within; He is the supreme soul, the Antaryami, the Immortal Just as he spokes are bound together within the wheel, so also all the elements and all the souls are bound together within this Atman. They are true; he is their truth. Hence He is called the truest of the true.

Answer : Ramanuja strongly attacks the Shankarite doctrine of Maya or Avidya. By the term Maya he understands the real power of God by which he creates this wonderful world. By Avidya he means the ignorance of the Jiva by which he identifies himself wrongly with the material objects like the body, he senses, the mind etc. which are evolutes of Prakrti. He too, like Shankara, admits that ignorance is the cause of bondage and that the immediate intuitive knowledge of God is the cause of liberation. But the explanation of ignorance given by Ramanuja is different from that of Shankara. Ramanuja levels seven important charges (anupapatti) against theory of Maya.

• Ashrayanupatti: What is the locus or support of Maya? Where does Avidya reside? If there is any such thing as Maya or Avidya, we are justified in asking for its seat or abode. Verily, it cannot exist in Brahman, for then the unqualified monism of Brahman would break down. Moreover, Brahman is said to be pure self luminous consciousness or knowledge and Avidya means Ignorance. Then how can Ignorance exist in knowledge. Again Avidya cannot reside in the individual self for the individuality of the self is said to be the creation of Avidya. How can the cause depend on its effect? Hence Avidya cannot exist either in Brahman or in Jiva. It is an illusory concept, a figment of the Advaitin’s imagination. It resides anywhere; it resides only in the mind of the Advaitin who has imagined this wonderful pseudo concept, this logical myth.
• Tirodhananupapatti: How can Avidya conceal Brahman? If it does then Brahman is into self consciousness and self luminous subject. If Brahman is of the nature of self luminosity and self proved pure knowledge, Ignorance cannot cover or veil its essence. It is as absurd as to say that darkness can hide light or that night can act as a veil on day.
• Svaupanapapatti: What is the nature of Avidya. Is it positive or negative or both or neither. To say that Avidya is both positive and negative is to embrace self contradiction. And to say that it is neither positive nor negative is to give up all logic.
• Anirvachaniyanupapatti: Avidya is defined by the Advaitin as indefinable; it is described as Indescribable. This is a clear self contradiction. To avoid this the Advaitin says that Avidya is not absolutely indescribable, that to call it ‘indescribable’ means that it cannot be described either as real or as unreal. But this is absurd. This shows that the Advaitin is giving up all logic. How can a thing be neither real nor unreal this is merely verbal jugglery? Reality and unreality are both exhaustive and exclusive.
• Pramananupapai: By what pramana or means of valid cognition is Avidya?Is Avidya recognized? Avidya cannot be perceived, for perception can give us either an entity or a non entity. It cannot be inferred for inference proceeds through a valid mark or middle term which Avidya lacks. Nor can it be maintained on the authority of the scriptures for they declare Maya to be a real wonderful power of creating this wonderful world which really belongs to God.
• Nivartakanupapatti: This is not remover of Avidya. The Advaitin believes that knowledge of the unqualified attribute less Brahman removes Avidya. But such knowledge is impossible. Discrimination and determination are absolutely essential to knowledge. Pure identity is a mere abstraction.
• Nivartkanupapatti: This point tells that there is removal of Avidya. Avidya is said to be positive by the Advaitin. How, then can a positive thing be removed? A thing which positively exists cannot be removed from existence by knowledge. The bondage of the soul is due to Karma which is a concrete reality and cannot be removed by abstract knowledge. It can be removed by Karma, Jnana, Bhakti and Prasada. The ignorance of the soul is destroyed when the Karmas are destroyed and when the soul flings itself on the absolute merel of the Lord who pleased by the soul’s constant devotion, extends his grace to it. But all the charges of Ramanuja against Avidya, Maya are based on the misunderstanding of the meaning of this term.

Answer : In Shankar’s account phenomenally there is a difference between Jiva and Ishavara. The former is the agent and the enjoyer, acquires merit and demerit experience pleasure and pain, while the later is not at all touched by all this. But ultimately there is no difference at all between Jiva and Brahman. Only so long as the Jiva does not discard Nescience leading to duality and does not realize its own true nature, he remains the individual self. Slumbering in ignorance, when he is awakened by the shruti, he realizes that he is not the body, senses or mind but in the non dual universal self tat tvam asi (that thou art) realizing his own true nature takes him to liberasation or moksha.

Shankar asserts the absolute can be realized through knowledge and knowledge alone, karma and upansana are subsidiary. They may help us in urging as to know reality and they may prepare us for that knowledge by purifying our mind but ultimately it is knowledge alone which, by destroying, ignorance the root cause of this world, can enable us to be one with the absolute. The opposition of knowledge and action stands firm like a mountain. They are contradictory and are poles apart. Those who talk of combining knowledge with action say Shankara have perhaps not read the Brahadaranyak nor are they aware of the glaring contradictions repeatedly pointed out by the Shruti and Smirti. Knowledge and action are opposed like light and darkness. Actions are prescribed for those who are still in ignorance and not for those who are enlightened. Knowledge only removes ignorance and then reality shines forth by itself. A liberated sage, however, performs actions without any attachment and works for the uplift of humanity.

As per Shankaracharya, reality can neither be arrested nor denied by knowledge. Knowledge does nothing else except removing ignorance. Shastra only generates right knowledge. It does nothing else. Knowledge of Brahman which leads to eternal bliss does not depend on the performance of any act, for Brahman is already an accomplished fact. Religious acts which lead to prosperity depend on human performance. Religious texts enjoin inunctions or prohibitions. Knowledge merely instructs. Knowledge of Brahman culminates in immediate experience and is already an accomplished fact. Action whether secular or Vedic, can be done, mis done or left undone.

Injunctions prohibitions, option rules and exceptions depend on our thinking. But knowledge leaves no point to us for it being this or that or for it existence or non existence. It is not in our hands to make unmake or change knowledge. Our thinking cannot make a pillar a man. Knowledge of Brahman, therefore depends or Brahman itself. It is always of the same nature because it depends on the existent thing. True knowledge is produced by Pramanas and conforms to its objects. It can neither be produced by hundreds of injunctions nor can it be destroyed by hundreds of prohibitions. Knowledge is not mental activity, because it depends not on mind but on the existent fact. There is also no succession in knowledge. Once it dawns, it dawns for ever and at once removes all ignorance and consequently all bondage. Liberation therefore means removal of ignorance by knowledge. That blessed person who has realized reality is liberated here and now. The Shruti says: Just as a slough cast off by a shake lies on an anti hill, similarly does this body lie. This is Jivanmukti. Final release (Viedhmukti) is obtained after the death of the body. The Shruti says: ‘the only delay for him is the death of the body’. Just as a potter’s wheel goes on revolving for some time even after the push is withdrawn.

Similarly the body may continue to exist even after knowledge has dawned, though all attachment with the body is cut off. Like an arrow shot from the bow the body continues to reap the fruits until it expire but no new actions are accumulated. Ramanuja also admits that knowledge is the immediate cause of liberation, but this knowledge is real knowledge and not the ordinary verbal knowledge. Otherwise all those who studied Veda would obtain liberation. The real knowledge is identified by Ramanuja with the highest Bhakti or devotion which is obtained by Prapatti or self surrender devotion which is obtained by Prapatti or self surrender and by constant remembrance of God as the only object of devotion which remembrance is also called pure meditation or dhynha or concentration contemplation. Thus where Shankar considers knowledge as the real means of liberation, Ramanuja emphasizes that bhakti is the only means of liberation. Liberation according to Ramanuja is not the merging of the individual soul into the absolute but only the direct infinitive realization by the individual soul of its own essential nature as a mode of God. This realization presupposes two things; firstly, the utter destruction of the Karmas by which the soul acquires its innate parity, and secondary the dawning of the Divine Grace which transforms constant meditation into the immediate intuition of God.

Hence unlike Shankar, for Ramanuja there is no Jivanmukti for as long as the soul remains associated with the body, the karmas persist and as long as the Karmas persist the soul cannot acquire its innate purity. And these is no liberation without God’s grace for unless the divine grace dawns, the constant meditation cannot mature into real bhakti or Jhana which means the immediate infinitive knowledge of God and unless the real knowledge dawns, liberation cannot take place. Again, according to Shankar the liberated soul becomes identical with Brahman but in Ramanuja account the liberated soul becomes only similar to Brahman. It realizes itself as the body of Brahman and ever dwells in direct communion with God, enjoying like god, infinite consciousness and infinite bliss.

Answer : There is a famous saying of Advaita Vedanta ‘Brahman is the only reality; the world is ultimately false: and the individual soul is non difference from Brahman.’ The Jiva or the individual soul on account of their inherent Avidya imagine themselves as different from Brahman and mistake Brahman as this world of plurality, even as we mistake a rope as a snake. Avidya vanishes at the dawn of knowledge the supra relational direct and intuitive knowledge of the non dual self which means liberation.

In Shankar’s Vedanta qualified Brahman is Ishvara. Phenomenally there is a difference between Jiva and Ishvara. The former is the agent and the enjoyer, acquires merit and demerit, experiences pleasure and pain, while the latter is not at all touched by all this. The Mundaka Upnishad declares that one bird eats the sweet fruit, while the other (Ishvara) merely looks on. Jiva enjoys while Ishvara makes him enjoy. One is the enjoyer, the other is the ruler. The Katha only figuratively says that both of these enjoy. But ultimately there is no difference at all between Jiva and Brahman.

Only so long as the Jiva does not discard Nescience lending to duality and does not realize its own true nature, he remains the individual self. Slumbering in Ignorance, when he is awakened by the Shruti, he realizes that he is not the body, senses, or mind, but is the non dual universal self tat tvam asi (that thou art). Realizing his own true nature he ever dwells in himself shining forth in his own true nature. Jiva through ignorance is regarded as tinged with the false notions of the ‘I’ and the ‘fire’ which arise which mind through senses comes into contact with the fleeting sensations or ideas. It is viewed as something different from the eternal and self luminous consciousness which is its immanent inner controller as the reflection of that consciousness, as identical with mind and its states as associated with the seed of ignorance, as the possessor of momentary ideas etc.

As long as these false notions about the self persist the result is the empirical self and the objective world; and when these notions are destroyed by right knowledge, the result is liberation, though ultimately both bondage and liberation are phenomenal, because Jiva is really non-different from Brahman. Even the view that he becomes Brahman is only a verbal statement (upacharamatra), for he is always Brahman. Just as a pure transparent white crystal is wrongly imagined to be red on account of a red flower placed near it or just as the colourless sky is wrongly imagined to be sullied with dirt by the ignorant or Justas a rope is wrongly taken to be a snake in the twilight, or just as a shell is mistaken wrongly imagined to be the empirical self. Just as the such or the moon appears many on account of the reflection in the different waves on vessels of water or just as the same space appears on account of the adjuncts of jars are so many phenomenal selves on account of Nescience.

Shankara says that he who wants to explain the Scripture as teaching that Jiva is not really Brahman, and who they want to preserve the ultimate reality of bondage and liberation, is indeed lowest among the learned (panditapadesa). To refuse such and other vain speculations which hinder the realization of the effectual unity of the self and to shown that there is only one real self, eternal and unchanging which is the Luminous Body of Pure consciousness, and which through its own power, manifests itself as many, and that except this there is no other reality, no other pure consciousness, is the aim of the Shankaracharya.

Answer : In Shankar’s Vedanta Ataman is same as Brahman. It is pure consciousness. It is the individual self which is self luminous and which transcends the subject object duality and the trinity of knower, known and knowledge and all the categories of the intellect. It is the unqualified absolute. Qualified Brahman is Ishvara. Phenomenally there is a difference between Jiva and Ishvara. The former is the agent and the enjoyer, acquires merit and demerit experience pleasure and pain, while the latter is not at all touched by all this. The Mundaka declares that one bird (Jiva) eats the sweet fruit, while the other (Ishvara) merely looks on. Jiva enjoys (pivati) while Ishvara makes him enjoy (Payayati). One is the enjoyer, the other is the ruler. The Katha Upanishad only figuratively says that both of these enjoy. But ultimately there is no diffrence between Jiva and Brahman. Only so long as the Jiva does not discard Nescience leading to duality and does not realize its own the nature, he remains the individual self. Slumbering in ignorance when he is awakened by the shruti, he realizes that he is not the body, senses or mind, but is the non dual universal self.- tat tvam asi (that thou art).

Realizing his own true nature, he ever dwells in himself shinning forth in his own true nature. Jiva through ignorance is regarded as tinged with the false notions of the ‘I’ and the ‘Mine’ which arises when mind through senses comes into contest with the heating sensations or ideas. It is viewed as something different from the eternal and self luminous consciousness which is its immanent inner controller as the reflection of that consciousness as identical with mind and its stages, as associated with the seed of ignorance, as the possessor of momentary ideas etc. As long as these false notions about the self persists, the result is the empirical self and the objective world; and when these notions are destroyed by right knowledge, the result is liberation, though ultimately both bondage and liberation are phenomenal, thought ultimately both bondage and liberation are phenomenal because Jiva is really non different from Brahman. Even the view that he becomes Brahman is only a verbal statement, for he is always Brahman.

Just as a pure transparent while crystal is wrongly imagined to be red on account of a red flower placed near it or just as the colourless sky is wrongly imagined to be skilled with dirt by the ignorant or just as a rope is wrongly taken to be a snake in the twilight or just as a shell is mistaken for silver, similarly the non dual Atman or Brahman is wrongly imagined to be the empirical self. Just as the Sun or Moon appears many on account of the reflection in the different waves or vessels of water or just as the same space appears an account of the adjuncts of Jars etc. as different spaces, similarly the same self appears as so many phenomenal selves on account of Nescience.

Answer : Many passages in the Upanisads which emphatically assert the unity of the Absolute and strongly condemn multiplicity in unambiguous terms are simply explained away by Ramanuja by pointing out that these passages deny only the independent existence of the world of plurality outside Brahman and not its reality. Ramanuja strongly attacks the Shankarite docrine of Maya or Avidya. By the term Maya, he understands the real power of God by which he creates this wonderful world. By Avidya he means the ignorance of the jiva by which he identifies himself wrongly with the material objects like the body, the senses, the mind etc. which are evolutes of Prakrti. He too, like Shankara, intuitive knowledge of God is the cause of liberation. But the explanations of ignorance and knowledge and of bondage and liberation that he gives are radically different from those given by Shankara.

Ramanuja levels seven important charges (anupapatt) against the theory of Maya:

• Ashrayanupapatti: What is the locus or support of Maya? Where does Avidya reside? If there is any such thing as Maya or Avidya, we are justified in asking for its seat or abode. Verily, it cannot exist in Brahman, for then the unqualified monism of Brahman would break down. Moreover, Brahman is said to be pure self luminous Consciousness or knowledge and Avidya means Ignorance. Then how can Ignorance exist in Knowledge? Again, Avidva cannot reside in the individual self, for the individuality of the self is said to be the creation of Avidya. How can the cause depend on its effect? Hence Avidya cannot exist either in Brahman or in Jiva. It is an illusory concept, a figment of the Advaitin’s imagination. If is resides anywhere, it resides only in the mind of the Advaitin who has imagined this wonderful pseudo-concept, this logical myth.
• Tirodhananupapatti: How can Avidya conceal Brahman? If it does, then Brahman is not self conscious and self luminous subject. If Brahman is of the nature of self luminosity and self proved pure knowledge, Ignorance cannot cover or veil its essence. It is as absurd as to say that darkness can hide light or that night can act as veil on day.
• Svarupanupapatti: What is the nature of Avidya? Is it positive or negative or both or neither? If it is positive then how can it be Avidya? Avidya means Ignorance and Ignorance means absence of knowledge. To regard Ignorance as positive is to accept self contradiction. Moreover, if Ignorance is positive how can it be ever destroyed? No positive entity can be destroyed. As the Advaitin admits that Ignorance is removed by knowledge, Ignorance can never be positive. And if Avidya is negative, then how can it project this world illusion on Brahman? To say that Avidya is both positive and negative is to embrace self contradiction. And to say that it is neither positive nor negative is to give up all logic.
• Anirvachaniyatanupapatti: Avidya is defined by the Advaitin as Indefinable; it is described as Indescribable. This is a clear self-contradiction. To avoid this the Advatin says that Avidya is not absolutely indescribable, that to call it ‘indescribable’ means that it cannot be ‘described either as real or as unreal’. Indescribability is equated with being neither real nor unreal. But this is absurd. This shows that the Advaitin is giving up all logic. How can a thing be neither real nor unreal? His is merely verbal jugglery. Reality and unreality are both exhaustive and exclusive. They are contradictories not contraries. Between themselves they exhaust all possibilities of predication. A thing must be either real or unreal. There is no third alternative. All our cognitions relate to either entities or non entities. To refute this is to refuse to think. To maintain a third alternative is to reject the well established canons of logic – the Law of Contradiction and the Law of Excluded Middle.
• Pramananupaptti: By what pramana or means of valid cognition is Avidya cognized? Avidya cannot be perceived, for perception can give us either an entity or a non entity. It cannot be inferred for inference proceeds through a valid mark or middle term which Avidya lacks. Nor can it be maintained on the authority of the scriptures for they declare Maya to be a real wonderful power of creating this wonderful world which really belongs to God.
• Nivartakanupapatti: There is no remover of Avidya. The Advaitin believes that knowledge of the unqualified attributeless Brahman removes Avidya. But such knowledge is impossible. Discrimination and determination are absolutely essential to knowledge. Pure identify is a mere abstractions. Identity is always qualified by difference and distinction. Hence there can be no knowledge of an undifferentiated attribute less thing. And in the absence of such knowledge nothing can remove Avidya.
• Nivrtyanupapati: In the last point we were told that there is no remover of Avidya. This point tells us that there is no removal of Avidya. Avidya is said to be positive (bhavarupa) by the Advaitin. How, then, can a positive thing be removed? A thing which positively exists cannot be removed from existence by knowledge. The bondage of the soul is due to Karma which is a concrete reality and cannot be removed by abstract knowledge. It can be removed by Karma, Jnana, Bhakti and Prasada. The ignorance of the soul is destroyed when the Karmas are destroyed and when the soul flings itself on the absolute mercy of the Lord Who, pleased by the soul’s constant devotion, extends his grace to it.

All this charges of Ramanuja against Avidya or Maya are based on he misunderstanding of the meaning of this term. It is called ‘indescribable either as real or as unreal’ due to the genuine difficulty of our finite intellect to reach Reality. It is a self contradictory notion. Ramanuja takes it in the sense of something ‘real’ and demands a seat and a pramana for it. However, we may say that Brahman is the seat of Avidya. Avidya being not real, the monism of Brahman is not destroyed. Brahman is not really affected by it. The rope is not really affected if it is mistaken as a snake. The shell does not become silver if it is mistaken as that. Mirage cannot make the sandy desert muddy.

The power of the magician does not affect his knowledge. And we may also say with Vachaspati Mishra tha the individual self and Avidya go on determining each other in a beginning less cycle. Ramanuja himself, when he fails to explain the cause of bondage of the pure soul, falls back upon the notion that the relation of Karma and ignorance with the soul is beginning less. Again, Avidya does not really conceal Brahman even as a cloud does not really conceal the sun. Again, Avidya is called positive only to emphasize the fact that it is not merely negative. In fact, it is neither positive nor negative. There is no point in saying that indescribability of Avidya is a self contradictory notion when the Advaitin himself admits it. But its self contradictory nature is realized only when one rises above it and not before. As long as error or dream or illusion lasts it is quite real. Real means ‘absolutely real’ and unreal means absolutely unreal and Avidya is neither.

These was terms are not contradictories and hence the law of Contradiction is fully maintained since all that which can be contradicted is said to be false. The Law of Excluded Middle is not overthrown since ‘absolutely real’ and ‘absolutely unreal’ are not exhaustive. Again, since Avidya is not ‘real’ but only a superimposition, it vanishes when the ground reality is known. The rope snake vanishes when the rope is known. It is only the direct and intuitive knowledge of Reality which is the cause of liberation. Even Ramanuja admits it though he calls it highest bhakti which dawns by the grace of God.

Answer : Madhva’s philosophy is known as unqualified dualism (dvaits). He accuses shankara of teaching the false doctrines of Shunyavada Buddhism under the cloak of Vedanta. His hatred of Advaita is so great that he calls Advaitins deceitful demons that play in the darkness of Ignorance. Opposed o Shankar’s Advait Madhva advocates the reality of five fold differences between soul and god, between soul and soul, between soul and matter, between god and matter and between mater and matter. His bias for difference is so great that he advocates difference of degrees in the possession of knowledge and in the enjoyment of bliss even in the case of liberated souls a doctrine found in no other system of Indian philosophy.

Madhva, like Ramanuja, accepts the three sources of knowledge perception, inference and testimony, and like him holds that god who is Hari, Vishnu, Narayan or Vasundeva can be known only by the scriptures. Like Ramanuja, Madhva also regards the Purva and the Uttara Mimamsa as forming a single science. Like the Mimamsaka, Madhva upholds the authorless ness of the Veda. Madhva, unlike Nyaya which regards God as the author of the Veda, regards God as the great teacher (mahopadhyaya) of the Veda. Like the Mimamsaka, Madhva believes that knowledge reveals the knower and the known as independently real and upholds the intrinsic validity of knowledge. The world is real and so are the differences what constitute if. Difference is the very nature of things. To perceive things is to perceive their uniqueness which constitutes difference. Distinctions of things account for the distinctions of ideas.

Madhva, like Ramanuja believes in God and souls and matter as the three entities which are eternal and absolutely real, though souls and matter are absolutely dependent on God. God alone is independent. He possesses infinitely good qualities. Existence knowledge and bliss constitute His essence. He is the creator, preserver and destroyer of this universe. He has a divine body and is transcendent. But he is also immanent as the inner ruler of all souls. He damns some and redeems others. His is a perfect personality. He is the Lord of Karma. He is pleased only of bhakti. He manifests himself in the various Vyuhas and in incarnations and is present in scared images. Laksmi is His consort. She is all pervading and eternal like him.

In Madhva dualism the soul is by nature consciousness and blissful. It becomes subject to pairs and imperfections on account of its connection with the material body, sense organs, mind etc. which connection is due to its past Karmas. The souls are eternal and are of three kind’s eternally free (nityamukta), free (mukta) and bound (badhda). Though God controls the soul from within, yet it is great agent and a real employer and is responsible for its acts. In Madhva’s account Prakrti is primal matter. Under the influence of God when he wants to create the world, it evolves itself into the various material products which return to it again at the time of dissolution. Creation means manifestation of subtle matter as gross and the embodiment of the souls in order to reap the fruits of their acts. So far Madhva agrees with Ramanuja whose philosophy and religious approach have exercised a very great influence on Madhva. But there are certain important points of difference between them which may be noted: Madhva is a rank dualist and does not believe in qualified absolutism. According to Ramanuja differences have no separate existence and belong to identify which they qualify. Identity therefore is the last world. But for Madhva differences have separate existence and constitute the unique nature of things.

They are not mere qualifications of identity. Secondly, Madhva rejects the relation of inseparability and the distinction between substance (dravya) and non substance (adrvaya). He explains the relation of identity and differences by means of unique particular (Vishesa) in the attributes of a substance. The attributes are also absolutely real. Hence, Madhva does not regard the universe of matter and souls as the body of God. Matter and souls are different from each other and from God. They do not qualify God because they have substantive existence themselves. Though God is the immanent ruler of the souls and though the souls as well as matter depend on God. Yet they are absolutely difference from God and cannot form his body. Thirdly, Ramanuja advocates qualitative monism and quantitative pluralism of the souls, believing as he says that all souls are essentially alike. But Madhva advocates both quantitative and qualitative pluralism of souls. No two souls are alike. Each has besides its individuality it peculiarity also. Fourthly, Madhva disagrees regarding their possession of knowledge and enjoyment of bliss. Ramanuja rejects this. Fifthly, Madhva unlike Ramanuja does not make any distinction between the body and soul of God. Hence he regards God as only the efficient cause of this world.

Answer : Shankar’s conception of moksa is different from that of other schools of thought in Indian philosophy. In Shankar’s Vedanta Atman is the same as the Brahman. Thus the realization of self is called liberation or moksha in Shankar’s account. Atman is pure consciousness. It is the self which is self luminous and which transcends the subject object duality and the trinity of knower known and knowledge, and all the categories of the intellect. It is the unqualified absolute. It is the only reality. Brahman is everything and everything is Brahman.

There is no duality no diversity at all. This self can never be denied, for the very idea of denial presupposes it. It cannot be doubted, for all doubts rust on it. All assertions, all doubts, all denials presuppose it. It is not adventitious or derived (agantuka). It is self proved or original (Svayamsiddha). All means of cognition (pramanas) are founded on it. To refuse this self is impossible for he who tries to refuse it is the self. The knower knows no change, for eternal existence is his very nature. Never is the sight of the seer destroyed, says the Brahadaranyak. He who knows Brahman becomes Brahman. He who is the knower is the self for he is omnipresent. Everything else is relative and therefore ultimately unreal. The self alone is not relative. It is therefore, self proved. The tragedy of human intellect is that it tries to know everything as an object. But whatever can be presented as an object is necessarily relative and for that very reason unreal. The knower can never be known as an object.

Ultimately there is no distinction between the true knower and pure knowledge. ‘How, o dear, can the knower be known? Says and Brahdaranyaka. Hence all those who rely on the intellect are deluded because they can never truly describe the self either as existent or as non existent. It is essentially indescribable for all descriptions and all categories fail to grasp it fully. It is the end and Brahmavidya or the knowledge of the non difference of the Jivatman and the Paramatman is the means (upaya) to realize this end.

Shankar repeatedly asserts that the absolute can be realized through knowledge and knowledge alone, karma and upasana are subsidiary. They help us in urging us to know reality and they may prepare us for that knowledge by purifying our mind (Sattvasuddhi) but ultimately it is knowledge alone which by destroying ignorance, the root cause of this world, can enable us to be one with the absolute. The opposition of knowledge and action stands firm like a mountain. They are contradictory (Viparite) and are poles apart mountain. They are contradictory (Viparite) and are poles apart (Duarmete). Those who talk of combining knowledge with action say Shankara, have perhaps not read the Brahadaranyak nor are they aware of the glaring contradictions repeatedly pointed out by the Shruti and the Smirti. Knowledge and action are opposed like light and darkness. Actions are prescribed for those who are still in ignorance and not for those who are enlightened. Knowledge only removes ignorance and then reality shines forth by itself. A liberated sage, however, performs actions without any attachment and works for the uplift of humanity. Shankar’s own life bears ample witness to this fact.

According to Shankaracharay ultimate reality (paramarthika vastu) can neither be asserted nor denied by knowledge. Knowledge does nothing else except removing ignorance. Shastra only generates right knowledge. It does nothing else. Knowledge of Brahman which leads to eternal bliss does not depend on the performance of any act, for Brahman is already an accomplished fact. Religious acts which lead to prosperity depend on human performance. Religions texts enjoin injunctions or prohibitions. Knowledge merely instructs. Knowledge of Brahman culminates in immediate experience and is already an accomplished fact. Action, whether secular or Vedic can be done miss-done or left undone. Injunctions, prohibitions, options rules and exceptions depend on our thinking. But knowledge leaves no option to us for its being this or that or for its existence or non existence. It is not in our hands to make, unmake or change knowledge. Our thinking cannot make a pillar a man. Knowledge of Brahman therefore, depends on Brahman itself. It is always of the same nature on Brahman itself. It is always of the same nature because it depends on the existent thing.

True knowledge is produced by Pramanas and conforms to its objects. It can neither be produced by hundreds of injunctions nor can it be destroyed by hundred of prohibitions. Knowledge is not mental activity because it depends not on mind but on the existent fact. There is also no succession in knowledge. Once it dawns, it dawns for ever and at once removes all ignorance and consequently all bondage. Liberation, therefore, means removal of ignorance by knowledge. That blessed person who has realized Reality is liberated here and how. The Shruti says ‘just as a slough cuts off by a snake lies on the ant-hill, similarly does this body lie’. This is Jivanmukti. Final realse (videhmukti) is obtained after the death of the body. Just as a potter’s wheel goes on revolving for some time even after knowledge has dawned, though all attachment with the body is cut off. Like an arrow shot from the bow, the body continues to reap the fruits until it expires; but no new actions are accumulated.

Shankar asserts that discursive intellect cannot grasp reality. Brahman cannot become the object of perception as it has no form, and it does not lend itself to inference and other means as it has no characteristic mark. Further, Shankar remarks that reasoning because it depends on individuals has no solid foundations. Arguments held valid by some, may be proved fallacious by others more ingenious. Svanubhuti or Savhusbhava or immediate experience or direct self realization is the same as pure consciousness. The ultimate criterion of truth in Shankara Vedanta is immediate spiritual realization in this true sense.

Answer : In Shankar Vedanta qualified Brahman is Ishavara. Phenomenally there is a difference between Jiva and Ishvara. The former is the agent and the enjoyer, acquires merit and demerit, experiences pleasure and pain, while the later is not at all touched by all this. The Mundaka Upanisheds declares that one bird eats the sweet fruit while the other merely looks on. Jiva enjoys, while Ishvara makes him enjoy. One is the employer, the other is the ruler. The Katha Upanishad only figuratively says that both of these enjoy. But ultimately there is no difference at all between Jiva and Brahmen. Only so long as the Jiva does not discard Nescience leading to duality and does not realize its own true nature, he remains the individual self.

Slumbering in ignorance, when he awakened by the Shruti, he realizes that he is not the body, senses, or mind, but is the non dual universal self tat tram asi (that that thou art). Realizing his own true nature, he ever dwells in himself shining forth in his own true nature. Jiva through Ignorance is regarded as tinged with the false notions of the ‘I’ and the ‘Mine’ which arrive when mind through senses come into contact with the fleeting sensations or ideas. It is viewed as something different from the eternal and self luminous consciousness which is its immanent inner controller as the reflection of that consciousness, as identical with mind and its stages as associated with the seed of ignorance, as the possessor of momentary ideas etc.

As long as these false notions about the self persists, the results is the empirical self and the objective world; and when these notions are destroyed by right knowledge, the result is liberation, though ultimately both bondage and liberation are phenomenal, because jiva is really non different from Brahman. Given the view that he becomes Brahman is only a verbal statement (Upacharmatra), for he is always Brahman. Just as a pure transparent while crystal is wrongly imagined to be red on account of a red flower placed near it, or just as the colourless sky is wrongly imagined to be sullied with dirt by the ignorant or just as a rope is wrongly taken to be a snake in the twilight or just as a shell is mistaken for silver, similarly the own dual atman or Brahman is wrongly imagined to be empirical self. A liberated human being or sage, however, performs actions without any attachment and works for the uplift of humanity. Shankara’s own life bears ample witness to this fact.

Answer : Ramanuja’s view is called vishistdvaita. It is non-dualism qualified by difference. The absolute is an organic unity an identity which is qualified by diversity. It is a concrete whole (Vishista) which consists of the inter-related and inter-dependent subordinate elements which are called vishesans and the immanent and controlling spirit which is called vishesya. Unity means realization of being a vital member of this organic whole. God or the Absolute is this whole. He is the immanent inner controller, the Supreme Real who holds together in Unity the dependent matter and individual souls as his body. Ramanuja recognized three things as ultimate and real (tattva traya).

These are matter (achit) souls (chit) and God (Ishavara). Though all are equally real, the first two are absolutely dependent on God. Though they are substances in themselves, yet in relation to god, they become his attributes. They are the body of God who is their soul. God is the soul of nature. God is also the sol of souls. Our souls are souls in relation to our bodies, but in relation to God, they become his body and He is their soul. The relation between the soul and the body is that of inner inseparability. This is also the relation between substance and attribute. The Nyaya inherence (samvaya) is an external relation which is rejected by Eamanuja. Aprithaksiddhi is the relation between the body and the soul, between a substance and its attributes, between parts and whole, and may be between one substance and another. It is an inner, inseparable, vital and organic relation. God is qualified by matter and souls. They form His body and are inseparable from and utterly dependent on Him. Ramanuja defines a body as that which is controlled, supported and utilized for its purposes of a soul. Matter and souls are called attributes (prakara) of God; they are the controlled (niyamya) the supported (dharya), the whole (amsha) and the principl end (Shesi).

They are eternal with God but are not external to him. God is their substance (prakari), controller (niyanta), support (adhara), the whole (amshi) and the principal and (shesi). God is free from an external differences homogenous (Sajatiya) as well as heterogeneous (Vijatiya), since there is nothing either similar or dissimilar which is external to or other than him but possesses internal difference (svagat sheda) as His organic body is made of real and diverse elements like matter and souls. His relation with them is natural (Svabhavika) and eternal (Sanatana). God is both the material and the instrumental cause of the world. He is the immanent as well as the transcendent ground of the world. He is immanent in the whole world as its inner controller (antaryami) and yet in his essence he transcends the world. His is a perfect personality. He is full of all good qualities existence, knowledge and bliss; truth, Goodness and Beauty; Lustre, Love and power.

Ramanuja finds justification for his doctrine of the absolute as a tri unity in such following Upanisadic passages the Svetashvatara says; there are three ultimate existences the eternal and all knowing and all powerful God, the eternal powerless and the eternal matter, and these three constitute the absolute. The same Upanishad further tells us: This alone need be known and there is nothing else to be known that there are three entities, the enjoyer (bhokta), the enjoyed (bhogya) and the mover (presita), which constitute the absolute. If a man knows these three he knows Brahman. The same Upanishad goes on: The one God who runs through all beings, who is all pervasive and who is the immanent inner controller of all being is the Supreme Reality. There is nothing greater than He, there is nothing external to him, and He fills the whole universe. The Taittiriya tells us that all beings arise from, live in and return to this Brahman. God is the soul of nature and also the soul of souls. He is immanent and yet he is transcendent also. The Brahadaranyak describes him as the running thread (Sutra) which binds together the entire world and all the souls. He is the immanent inner controller (antaryansi) of all. He is present in matter and yet he is different from matter; matter does not known him.

Matter forms his body; he controls from within; he is the Supreme Soul, the Antaryami the Immortal. Just as the spokes are bound together within the wheel, so also all the elements and all the souls are bound together within this atman. He is like fire; they are like sparks. They are real; He is their reality. They are true; He is their truth. Hence he is called the truest of the true.

Actually Ramanuja was much influenced by the Alvars and the Acharyas and by the bhedabhedavadins who preceded him. Indeed his main task was to combine the Pancharatra this with the Uapnishadic absolutism. He wanted to find philosophical justification for the vaishnava theism in the Prasthana traiya of the Vedanta and thus tried to harmonize the demands of religious feeling with logical thinking. But he confined himself to justify Pancharatra theism by means of Uapanisadic Absoulutism. It is one thing to combine philosophy with region, but quite another thing to combine one particular philosophical doctrine with a particular religious creed. Shankara has attempted the former, while Ramanuja has attempted the latter.

There are some doctrines of the vaishnava theism which can be harmonized with the Vedantic absolutism, but not all. And if therefore, Ramanuja failed his failure is due not to his personal incapacity but dare to the very nature of the difficult task he undertook to perform. It must be admitted without any reservation and in all fairness to Ramanuja that no one else could have done it better. He has given us the best type of monotheism pregnant with immenentism. He has emphasized the religious side but not at the cost of the philosophical. His intense religious fervor and his bold logic undoubtedly made him one of the immortals in Indian philosophy.

Answer : Mahavakyas of Upanishads such as Ayatman Brahman, Aham Brahmsmi are meant to show that Atman and Brahman are one and the same. Shankaracharya has successfully and beautifully explained the true meanings of these Mahavakyas. Accordingly Atman is the same as Brahman. It is pure consciousness. It is the self which is self luminous and which transcends the subject object duality and the trinity of knower, known and knowledge, and all the categories of the intellect. It is the unqualified absolute. It is the only reality.

Brahman is everything and everything is Brahman. This is not duality, no diversity at all. This self can never be denied, for the very idea of denial presupposes it. It cannot be doubted, for all doubts rest on it. All assertions, all doubts, all denials presuppose it. It is not adventitious or derived (Agantuka). It is self proved or original (Savyamsiddha). All means of cognition (pramanas) are founded on it. To refuse this self is impossible, for eternal existence is his very nature. Never is the sight of the seer destroyed, says the Brahadaranyak Upanishad. He who knows Brahman becomes Brahman. He who is the knower is the self, for he is omnipresent. Everything else is relative and therefore ultimately unreal. The self alone is not relative. It is, therefore, self proved. The tragedy of human intellect is that it tries to know everything as an object. But whatever can be presented as an object is necessarily relative and for that very reason unreal. The knowledge can never be known as an object.

Ultimately there is no distinction between the true knower and pure knowledge. The normal dualism which people usually take for granted on account of transcendental ignorance, the shastra teaches that though dualism is a practical necessity, yet it is not ultimately real. Brahman is the only reality. It is the End (Upeya); and Brahmanvidya or the knowledge of the non difference of the Jivatman and the Paramatman, is the means (Upaya) to realize this end. When the end is realized the Shastra itself is transcended. It is non dual consciousness where all distinctions, all plurality and all concepts are transcended.

Answer : The words Maya, Avidya, Adhyasa are recklessly used in Vedanta are very nearly synonymous. There are two schools among later Advaitins divided on the question whether Maya and Avidya are identical or different. The general terms of the Advaitins including Shankara himself have been to treat these two terms as synonymous and to distinguish between the two aspects of Maya or Avidya which are called Aavarana and Viksepa, the former being the negative aspect of concealment and the latter thee positive aspect of projection. The advocates of the other school who treat Maya and Avidya as different say that Maya is something positive, though absolutely dependent on and inseparable from Brahman, which provide a medium for the reflection of Brahman and for the projection of this world being an essentially indistinguisable power (Shakti) of Brahman.

While Avidya is entirely negative in character, being pure ignorance or absence of knowledge of Reality. Secondly, Maya, the cosmic power of projection, conditions Ishavara who is not affect by Avidya; while Avidya, the individual ignorance, conditions the Jiva. Brahmana reflected in Maya is the Ishavara and Brahman reflected in Avidya is the Jiva. Hence, though the individual ignorance is dispelled by knowledge, Maya, being the inherent nature of Brahmana, cannot be so dispelled. Thirdly, Maya is made mostly of sattva, while Avidya is made of all the three Sattva, rajas and tamas. But really speaking the two schools are not opposed. Whether Maya is called the cosmic and positive power of projection and Avidya the individual and negative ignorance, or Maya and Avidya are treated as synonymous and as having two aspects of concealment and projection the fundamental position remains the same. Shankar brings out the following characteristics of Maya or Avidya:

• Like the Prakriti of Samkhya, it is something material and unconscious (Jada) as opposed to Brahman (Purusa in the case of Samkhya) which is pure consciousness, though unlike Prakrti, it is neither real nor independent.
• It is the inherent power of potenecy (Shakti) of Brahman. It is coeval with him. It is absolutely dependent on an inseparable from Brahman. It is not different (ananya) from him. The relation of Maya and Brahman is unique and is called tadatmya; it is neither identity nor both. Maya is energized and acts as a medium of the projection of this world of plurality on the non dual ground of Brahman.
• It is beginningless. (anadi)
• It is something positive (bhavarupa), though not real. It is called positive in order to emphasize the fact hat it is not merely negative. It has two aspects. In its negative aspect it conceals (avarana) reality and acts as a screen to hide it. In its positive aspect it projects the world of plurality on the Brahman ground. It is non apprehension as well as misapprehension.
• It is indescribable and indefinable for it is neither real nor unreal nor both (Sadasadanirvachaniya). It is not real, for it has no existence apart from Brahman; it is not unreal, for it projects the world of appearance. It is not real, for it vanishes at the dawn of knowledge; it is not unreal, for it is true as long as it lasts. It is not real to constitute a limit to Brahman and yet it is real though to give rise to the world of appearance. And it is not both real and unreal for this conception is self contradictory.
• It has a phenomenal and relative character. It is an appearance only. It is removable by right knowledge.

Answer : Ramanuja’s view is Visistadvaita or non dualism qualified by difference. The absolute (Brahman) is an organic unity, an identity which is qualified by diversity. It is a concrete whole (vishista) which consists of the inter-related and inter dependent subordinate elements which are called Vishesanas and the immanent and controlling spirit which is called Vishesya. Unity means realizations of being a vital member of this organic whole. Brahman or God, the Absolute is this whole.

In Ramanuja’s account of God, these are three points of importance; first God is identified with the absolute. He is Brahman and Brahman must be a savishesa or a qualified unity. God stands for the whole universe and matter and souls from His body, he being their soul. As the absolute, the ultimate unity in-and-through-trinity, the concrete whole, God may be viewed through two stages as cause and as effect. During the state of discussion (pralaya) God remains as the cause with subtle matter and unembodied souls forming his body. The whole universe lies latent in him. During the stage of creation (Sristi) the subtle matter becomes gross and the underbodies souls (except the nitya and mukta souls) become embodied according to their karmas. In this effect state the universe becomes manifest. The former state is called the state (karanavastha) of Brahman, while the later state is the effect state (karyavastha) of Brahman.

Secondly, God is considered as the immanent inner controller (antaryami) the qualified substance (Vishesya or Prakari) who is in himself changeless and is the unmoved mover of this world process. In his essence he does not suffer change which is said to fall to the lot of his attributes or modes only. Ramanuja makes no distinction between an attribute and a mode. Matter and souls may be called either attributes or modes (Prakara). They are absolutely dependent on God and are inseparable from him. They are his body and he is their soul. Just as in the case of an ordinary individual only the body undergoes change while the soul is changeless, similarly it is only the body of God, i.e., the mater and the individual souls, that undergo changes and not god himself who is their soul. Hence God is the unchanging controller of all change and the limitations of matter as well as the miseries and the imperfections of the finite souls do not affect the essence of God. Thirdly, God is also transcendant. He is the perfect personality. He has a Divine Body; embodiment is not the cause of bondage. It is Karma which is the cause of bondage. Hence God, though embodied, is not bound, for he is the Lord of Karma.

The first two points about god are derived from the interpretation of the Upnishads, result of the Bhagavada Gita influence on Ramanauja. Ramanuja tries to the fuse the immanent Uapnisadic absolute with the transcendent God of the Bhagvada theism. God, as the perfect personality, is devoid of all demerits and possess all merits. He has infinite knowledge and bliss. He has a Divine body and is the creator preserver and destroyer of this universe. So far as the comparison between the perceptions of Shankar and Ramanuja regarding the nature of Brahman is concerned, some points of differences may be noticed easily. Shankar’s Brahman is impersonal and abstract whereas Ramanuja’s Brahman is personal and concrete-universal. The Brahman in Shankar’s Vedanta is both qualified and non-qualified. But in Ramanuja account Brahman must be a savishesa or qualified unity. Shankar’s Brahman is qualified from the empirical point of view and non-qualified from the transcendental point of view. But Ramanuja is of view that Brahman cannot be non-qualified.

The nature of Brahman can only be qualified, savishesa. According to Shankar the Brahman is a concrete whole, a complete unity without any diversity. But according to Ramanuja the absolute is an organic unity, an identity which is qualified by diversity. It is a concrete whole with inter-related elements. For Shankar Brahman and God (Ishvara) are not the same. Ishvara is qualified form of Brahman. Ishvara is savishes Brahman. But for Ramanuja both the Brahman and the Ishvara are one and same. In Shankar’s Vedanta Satta, Chita, and Ananada are the nature of Brahman. But Satta, Chitta, and Ananada are the (guna) qualities of Brahman. In addition to it Ramanuja rejects the doctrine of Mayavada of Shankar. By the term Maya he understands the real power of God by which He creates this wonder for world. By Avidya he means the ignorance of the Jiva by which he identifies for himself wrongly with the material world. He too like Shankara admits that ignorance is the cause of bondage and that the immediate infinitive knowledge of God is the cause of liberation. But the charges of Ramanuja against Avidya or Maya are based on the misunderstanding of meaning of this term. It is called indescribable either as real or as unreal due to the genuine difficulty of our finite intellect to reach reality. It is a self contradictory notion. Ramanuja takes it in the sense of something real and demands a seat and a pramana for it. But for Shankara Brahman is the seat of Avidya. Avidya being not real, the monism of Brahmsan is not destroyed. Brahman is not really affected by it. The rope is not really affected if it is mistaken as a snake.

Answer : Swarupa Jnana and Vritti Jnana are related to Shankar vedarta. According to Shankaracharya Brahman is the only reality and the knowledge of Brahman is the Swarup Jnana. It is absolutely indeterminate and non-dual. It is beyond speech and mind. It is indescribable because no description of it can be complete. The best-description of it is through the negative formula of neti neti or ‘not this, not this’. Yet Brahman is not an abyss of non-entity because it is the supreme self and stands self-revealed as the background of all affirmations and denials.

The moments we try to bring this Brahman within the categories of intellect or try to make this ultimate subject an object of our thought we miss its essential nature. Then it no more remains Unconditioned Consciousness, but becomes conditioned as it were. This Brahman, reflected in or conditioned by Maya, is called Ishvara or God. The knowledge of Ishvara is called Vritti Jnana which is possible due to Maya. Ishvara is the personal aspect of the impersonal Brahman. This is the celebrated distinction between God and the absolute which Shankara, following the Upanishads makes. Ishvara is also known as Apara Brahma or Lower Brahma as contrasted with the unconditioned Brahman which is called Para Brahman or Higher Brahman.

Ishvara or God is Sat Chit Ananda, the Existence consciousness- Bliss. He is the perfect personality; He is the Lord of Maya. He is immanent in the whole universe which he controls from within. He is the soul of souls as well as the soul of nature. As the immanent inner ruler, He is called Anteryamin. He is also transcendental for in his won nature He is the Creator, Sustainer and Destroyer of this universe. He is the Source of everything. He is the final of everything. He is the concrete Universal, The supreme Individual, the whole, the Identity in difference. Thus the description of Brahman which Ramajura gave at much later date is essentially an elaboration of Shankara’s Ishvara.

Answer : The exposition of Shunyavada does make it clear that it is very much similar to Vedanta. In Shunyavada shunya does not mean a mere negation nor does Shunyavada mean nihilism. Shunya is used in a double sense. It means Maya as well as Brahman. Empirically it means that all Dharmas or world- experiences, subjective as well as objective, are svabhva shunya or devoid of ultimate reality. They are Pratiyasamutpara or merely relative.

They are ultimately unreal because they can be called neither existent not non-existent not both. They are indescribable or Maya. But the mere fact that they are appearances implies that there must be a reality of which they are mere appearances. It is indescribable or Chatuskotivinirmukta because all categories of the intellect fail to grasp it fully. Samvrti and Paramartha correspond to Vyavahara and Paramartha of Vedanta. Chandrakirti divides Samvrrt into Mithyasamvrti and Tathya samute to match Parikalpita and paratantara of vijhanavada. Mithya. Samvrti and Paramartha correspond to Pratibhasa, Vyavatara and Paramartha of Vedanta. Thus we have noticed the enormous similarities between Shunyavada and Shankara Vedanta. Their dialectical arguments are essentially similar. Their method is also essentially the same. Intellect or logic has got only negative value for them. It has to be transformed into immediate experience so that it may embrace the absolute.

They are interested in pointing out to their opponents that even according to the canons f the logic of the opponents the arguments of the opponents can be proved to be false. Ultimate Reality is silence. It has to be realized directly. It can not be discussed. If the opponents accept it, he is accepting their position. If, on the other hand he challenges it, he is challenging the validity of his own logic. Intellect is essentiality discursive or relational. It must work with its concepts and categories. So it gives only the relative world which must be taken to be empirically real. Ultimately it is false because it is neither existent not non-existent not both. Rejection of all views is itself not a view; it is an attempt to rise above thought.

Gaudapuda frankly approves of the No-origination theory preached by Shunyavada. His Karikas bear striking resemblances with Karikas of Nagarjuna. Shankar knows very well that Shunyavada can not be criticized and so he simply dismisses it by taking the world Shunya in its popular sense of negation and dubbing Shunyavada or a self condemned nihilism. Shankara says that Shunyavada has no right to condemn this world as unless it takes recourse to some higher reality. But Shunyavada does not take recourse to higher reality. Nagarjuna uses the word ‘tattva’ and defines it as that which is to be directly realized which is calm and blissful, where all plurality is merged, where all cries of intellect are satisfied, and which is non dual Absolute.

The Post Shankarites following Shankar either condmn Shunyavada as nihilism or say that if Shunya means the indescribable Maya, as it really does mean they have no quarrel with shunyavada. Sriharsa frankly admits that shunyavada cannot be criticized become it is similar to Vedanta. The only difference which he points out between shunyavada and Vedanta is that while shunyavada declares even consciousness to be unreal, Vedanta makes an exception in its favour. Sriharsa quotes a verse from Lankavatara- “All things which can be known by the intellect have no reality of their own. These are therefore said to be indescribable and unreal”. But we know that the Lankavatara itself repeatedly makes an exception in favour of consciousness.

Shunyavada condemns only to pure consciousness. Nagarjuna himself in his Ratnavali identifies reality with pure consciousness or Bodhi or Jana. Aryadeva also identifies Reality with the pure self or the chitta. Shantideva in much inspired verses praises the only reality the Bodhi chitta or the true self which is pure consciousness. If the Bodhi of Nagarjuna, the chitta of Aryadeva, and the Bodhi Chitta of Shantideva are not the self- luminous self which is pure consciousness, what else on earth can these be? The only difference between Shunyavada and Vedanta therefore is the difference of emphasis only. This difference is of a double nature.

Firstly, while Shunyavada is more keen to emphasize the ultimate unreality of all phenomena, Shankara and his followers are more keen to emphasize the empirical reality of all phenomena; and secondly while shunyavada is less keen to develop the empirical reality of all phenomena; and secondly while shunyavada is less keen to develop the conception of ultimate Reality, Vedanta is more keen to develop this conception almost to perfection. And this is not unnatural if we remember that shunyavada represents the earlier stage while Vedanta represents the later stage of the development of the same thought Thus in many ways Buddhism and Vedanta should not be viewed as two opposed systems but only as different stages in the development of the same central thought which starts with the Upanishads, finds its indirect support in Buddha, its elaboration in Mahayana Buddhism, its open revival Gaudapada, which reaches its zenith in Shankara culminates in the Post-Shankarites. So far as the similarities between Buddhism and Vedanta are concerned, they are so many and so strong that by no stretch of imagination can they be denied or explained otherwise.