coming soon
The Philosophy of Śri Rāmānujā (6)
Happiness, bliss, pleasure or delight is the essence of the self. It is sukharūa. The words, sukha and ānanda are synonymous. The definition of happiness or bliss is given by Śāstrakāras as follows: Happiness is the object of a desire which does not depend upon any other desire.
{phocadocumentation view=navigation|type=mpcn}
THE PHILOSOPHY OF ŚRI RĀMĀNUJĀ - VISIṢTADVAITA
written by Sri V.R. Srisaila Chakravarti
The cit is anandarupa
Happiness, bliss, pleasure or delight is the essence of the self. It is sukharūa. The words, sukha and ānanda are synonymous. The definition of happiness or bliss is given by Śāstrakāras as follows: Happiness is the object of a desire which does not depend upon any other desire. What is experienced as favorable to oneself is happiness or pleasure, as opposed to pain or misery which is experienced as being unpleasant or unfavorable to oneself. Happiness or favorable experience is desired for its own sake and not as a means for another desired end or for the removal of an unpleasant or unfavorable experience.
इतरेच्छान्धीनेच्छाविषयत्वंसुखस्यलक्षणंअनुकूलतयावेदनियंसुखंअनुकूलत्वं
स्वतःइष्टत्वंनतुइष्टानतरहेतुतयाअनिष्टनिव्रुत्तिरूपतयावाइष्टत्वम्
Let me explain this. Take a man who is walking fast in the hot sun. Why does he walk so fast? Is it pleasant for him? No, it is very painful to him. Nevertheless, he desires to walk fast. Why? Because he desires to reach his office in time. Why does he desire to reach his office in time? This desire depends on his desire to please his superior officer. Why should he desire to please his superior? Because he desires to continue in his appointment. The desire to hold the appointment depends on his desire to get his monthly salary. That again depends on his desire to get food-stuffs and other articles of necessity. Why does he desire to eat? Because he desires to satisfy his hunger. Why should he desire to satisfy his hunger? Because he desires to be free from the pain of hunger and to be happy. Why does he desire happiness? He desires happiness not for any other end but for its own sake. The desire to be happy is, therefore, the ultimate desire or motive power which goads him on to action. There is no further question why does he desire to be happy. Happiness, therefore, is the object of a desire which does not depend upon any other desire. In the same way, you call a doctor to get freed from your pain. Freedom from pain is not by itself pleasant or favorable experience. It is only a negative aspect. You want to get rid of pain because it is unfavorable experience. Freedom from pain is, by itself, neither favorably experienced nor unfavorably experienced. It is the state of being in swarūpa in its own nature. Action and other things which are not themselves happiness are not therefore pleasant or favorable experiences. Merely because action, effort or activity is intended for the achievement of happiness, it is not pleasant or favorable; but on the contrary such action is indeed unpleasant or unfavorable . Only because such action is conducive to happiness, it is desired to be undertaken, not otherwise.
The nature and essence of the self or atman is bliss. The self itself will bear testimony to this fact.
स्वात्मास्वस्यानुकूलोहीत्यात्मसाक्षिकएवसः॥
In the embodied state, the ātman cannot appear in his true colors. His nature is concealed by his karma called avidyā. In the state of mukti or release, the self will appear in its true colors. When the screen of karma is removed, the self shines forth in its true nature. No new qualities or attributes are acquired in the state of release. Only the temporary bad attributes acquired as a result of karma, disappear in that state. Omniscience, bliss and other qualities will shine forth in the state of release. Śaunaka says: "When an all shining gem of purest ray is covered all over with dust and dirt, we only remove the dust and dirt; but we do not create or produce any luster in the gem”. In the same way, no new knowledge is produced in the atman, except the disappearance of the bad qualities which enwrapped it before. When we dig a well, we do not create any ether; what is already there only manifests itself. In the same way, knowledge, bliss and other qualities only manifest themselves, but are not created; for those qualities are eternal.
यथानक्रियतेज्योत्स्नामलप्रक्षालनान्मणोः।दोषप्रहाणान्नज्ञानमात्मनःक्रियतेतथा॥
यथोदपानकरणात्क्रियतेनजलाम्बरम्।सदेवनियतेव्याक्तिमसतःसंभवःकुतः॥
तथाहेयुगुणह्वंसादवबोधादयोगुणाः।प्रकाशन्तेनजन्यन्तेनित्याएवात्मनोहिते॥
Vishnupuranam
Even in the embodied state, we can assert, the nature of ātman is happiness. Let us examine our experiences. When we wake up from deep sleep, we say" I slept happily." This is the experience of every one of us. The reason is that in deep sleep we have no experience of objects other than the 'self' i.e. we have no external experience. The self alone is experienced by itself. Therefore, the blissful state referred to by a person awakened from sleep must be the svarūpasukha, or the blissful essence of the ātman itself. The sentence, ‘I slept happily’, cannot mean ‘I slept in such a way that I feel happiness now, in my waking state.' For, our experience is not so. When we say: 'I went slowly', ‘He sang sweetly’, we evidently mean slowness in the very act of going, and sweetness in the very act of singing. We certainly do not mean that there is slowness after the act of going is over, or that there is sweetness after the act of singing is over. Likewise, when we say "I slept happily", we mean that there was happiness in the very act of sleeping.
If really, the self cognizes itself in deep sleep and enjoys happiness, how do you explain one's experience such as, "During these four hours of my sleep, I did not know anything at all."? The answer is, in that statement, the cognition of everything is not denied. The knower, the conscious self, is not denied as it persists throughout. What is really denied is the experience of the objective world. Then, how do you explain our experience and consequent expression of it such as 'During these hours I knew not anything, not even myself."? Is the cognition of the self also denied in that statement? Since the self or knower persists in sleep, the svarūpa of the self, i.e., the entity namely the self, is not denied therein. What is really denied is the group of adjuncts or attributes of the self, cognized in the waking state, namely, caste, creed and other things. We have to scrutinize and analyze the concepts comprised in the judgment: "I knew not myself ". By ‘myself’ is meant the collection of adjuncts of the self, namely, caste, creed, etc., cognized in the waking state. By 'I' is meant the self, known to abide and persist throughout even in deep sleep, but vaguely cognized for want of materials the presence of which would make the cognition vivid in the waking state.
The self persists even after mukti or release and is cognized as 'I', as it is self-luminous. If the self is not favorable or pleasant, we should not love it. The love of self is patent and natural for all beings. Since the ātman or self is wonderfully blissful by nature, Lord Kriṣṇa refers to the nature of ātman to Arjuna: "A certain person sees this (soul) full of wonder; in the same manner, another also speaks of it as full of wonder; again, another hears of it as full of wonder”.
आश्चर्यवत्पश्यतिकश्चिदेनंआश्चर्यवद्ददतितथैवचान्यः।
आश्चर्यवच्चैनमन्यःश्रूणोतिश्रुत्वापयेनंवेदनचैवकश्चित्॥B.G. II 29
The Lord extols the individual soul by declaring that persons competent to comprehend its real nature are but few. Since the soul is not perceivable by any of the means by which ordinary objects around us are perceived and since its characteristics are different from those of worldly objects, and are therefore not conceivable like them, it is full of wonder. Among millions of persons, a rare individual of great merit sees this wonderful self. Such a rare person alone tells others about it. And likewise, a rare person hears it, and a person rarer still, rightly understands it. In the first place, the seer of the self as distinct from the body is rare; and, need we say, a person who sees correctly is rarer still? Among the correct seers, he who truly describes it is rare; and a person who can speak about all the mysteries of the self is rarer. Even if we can find such a speaker, a person who will listen to him is very rare; and a person with all the qualities of a true disciple eager to listen to such teaching is rarer still. The nature of self, thus, is bliss and intelligence. Therefore, the theory of the Vaiśeṣikas, that the ātman is jaḍa or a non-luminous substance, stands condemned.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This article is extracted from the book THE PHILOSOPHY OF ŚRI RĀMĀNUJĀ - VISIṢTADVAITA written by Sri V.R. Srisaila Chakravarti (Coimbatore) and published by V.S.R. Chakravarti, 24, Kasturi Ranga Iyengar Road, Madras - 18. The book is printed at Bharati Vijayam Press, Triplicane, Madras - 600 005 in the year 1974.
{phocadocumentation view=navigation|type=t}
The cit or self is ajaḍa or self-luminous
The self illuminates itself without the medium of consciousness. It is said to be svayamprakāsa as opposed to jaḍa. In thick darkness you are not able to see the books and pencils placed on your table. The books and pencils do not shine forth for you; they do not manifest themselves to you.
{phocadocumentation view=navigation|type=mpcn}
THE PHILOSOPHY OF ŚRI RĀMĀNUJĀ - VISIṢTADVAITA
written by Sri V.R. Srisaila Chakravarti
The cit or self is ajaḍa or self-luminous
The self illuminates itself without the medium of consciousness. It is said to be svayamprakāsa as opposed to jaḍa. In thick darkness you are not able to see the books and pencils placed on your table. The books and pencils do not shine forth for you; they do not manifest themselves to you. If you bring a lamp, its light makes them appear to you. The books and pencils thus depend upon the light for their appearance. They are, therefore, objects depending on other things for our cognizing them. The lamp-light does not require any other light or any other object for our cognizing it. The lamp-light not only makes other objects such as books etc., manifest themselves to us, but, at the same time, it manifests itself to us without any medium. This analogy may, to a certain extent, help us to understand the expression svayaṁprakāsa or self-luminous object. Only 'to a certain extent', for the analogy is not quite apt and is not on all fours, because, the lamp-light or, for that matter, any visible worldly object is not svayaṁprakāsa. Śāstras say that the self, the Supreme Being and the Divine world, aprākṛtaloka, are the only svayaṁprakāsa objects. Strictly speaking, even a lighted lamp does not possess illuminating quality, for its light does not make objects manifest themselves.
In every instance, it is our consciousness, jñāna that makes objects appear to us. In spite of the presence of the lamp-light, the objects will not appear to us in the absence of jñāna or consciousness. Even the senses do not illumine objects. The senses only cause the origination of consciousness. The function of the brilliant light, such as that of an electric lamp, is only to help the senses which originate consciousness, by removing the obstacle for such origination, namely, darkness. In ordinary parlance, we say that a lamp illumines objects having regard to the help rendered to the organ of sight in the production of consciousness. Merely because the light removes the obstacle for the origination of consciousness, it cannot be said to illumine the object. That, which is really conducive to vyavahāra or talk, does illumine objects, and that is, jñāna or consciousness. Therefore, consciousness alone illumines objects. Mere light does not illumine objects. Therefore, light is not, strictly speaking, luminous; and much less, is it self-luminous. We shall deal with the attribute-consciousness at length later on. The self does not require even this attribute consciousness for its illumination. It illumines itself. Therefore, the self is said to be self-luminous. The upaniṣad says: “The puruṣa or self is self-luminous”.
अत्रायंपुरुषःस्वयंज्योतिः । - Br. Up.
We have already seen that the existence of the self is self-evident even in deep sleep.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This article is extracted from the book THE PHILOSOPHY OF ŚRI RĀMĀNUJĀ - VISIṢTADVAITA written by Sri V.R. Srisaila Chakravarti (Coimbatore) and published by V.S.R. Chakravarti, 24, Kasturi Ranga Iyengar Road, Madras - 18. The book is printed at Bharati Vijayam Press, Triplicane, Madras - 600 005 in the year 1974.
{phocadocumentation view=navigation|type=t}
Cit or Ātman
We first deal with cit or ātman. The word ātman is often used to denote the individual soul. The characteristics of the ātman or jīva are as follows: It is distinct from the body, sense organs, the mind, prāṇā or breaths and intellect. It is ajaḍa or self-luminous. It is ānandarūpa or blissful in essence. It is eternal. It is atomic in size. It is ayakta, invisible or imperceptible. It is acintya or inconceivable. It is niravayava or without parts. It is nirvikāra or changeless. It is the abode of jñāna or consciousness; It is in the relation of body to God. i.e. it is controlled, sustained and supported by God and subservient to Him.
{phocadocumentation view=navigation|type=mpcn}
THE PHILOSOPHY OF ŚRI RĀMĀNUJĀ - VISIṢTADVAITA
written by Sri V.R. Srisaila Chakravarti
Cit or Ātman
We first deal with cit or ātman. The word ātman is often used to denote the individual soul. The characteristics of the ātman or jīva are as follows:
- It is distinct from the body, sense organs, the mind, prāṇā or breaths and intellect.
- It is ajaḍa or self-luminous.
- It is ānandarūpa or blissful in essence.
- It is eternal.
- It is atomic in size.
- It is ayakta, invisible or imperceptible.
- It is acintya or inconceivable.
- It is niravayava or without parts.
- It is nirvikāra or changeless.
- It is the abode of jñāna or consciousness; and
- It is in the relation of body to God. i.e. it is controlled, sustained and supported by God and subservient to Him.
What is Ātman or the self?
"Know thyself" is a common saying, and it is the fundamental teaching in philosophy. No one doubts his self. No one questions. 'Am I, or Am I not?' Every one of us in the world referring to self says: 'I',' I'. This has been repeatedly said by thinkers of all ages and of all countries. The existence of the self is certain and indubitable. It is usually said: 'I who played and slept as a child in my parents' lap sixty years ago, have now grand-children on my lap'. Is there any persistent and unchanged particle of matter continuing throughout these years in the physical organism? What identity is there between the infantine body and this adult body? None. But the' I ' has not changed. It is the same. We are always enwrapping the' I' in several sheaths: 'I am happy, I am miserable, I am rich, I am poor, I am young, I am old, I am a god in my dreams. I am a man in my waking state'. These accidents and incidents denote the continuity of the' I '. They are passing and varying. But the 'I' remains the same. Conditions change, but they all surround the ‘I’.
When you are questioned by your friend in the dark, "Who is it?", your first answer is: " It is I". The impress of the 'I' is so strong. The manifestation of the 'I' is so common in all beings. The special naming and description, 'I am Rama',' I am Kṛṣṇa’. 'I am so and so ", follows only afterwards. The , ‘I’ is so real that it expects others to recognize it. What is this 'I' or self? Is it the body or different from it? When the body comes out of the mother's womb, it is small. It then grows into a body, develops as youth, adult and old man, and finally decays and dies. Does the 'I' appear to grow, decay and perish? Or is it uniform and changeless and therefore, different from the body? It is patent that the body is a combination of several parts. If the body were the 'I' and if all parts thereof should possess separate consciousness, then there would appear several conscious beings in one and the same body; and there would be perpetual disputes between one part and another. But we see that there is only one conscious subject and that the parts have absolutely no quarrel among themselves. Moreover, in respect of those parts, the notion of self and the corresponding expressions, namely, "mine" my hand, my leg, etc. would, in that case, be inconsistent as they imply a possessor and a limb possessed by him. If you should grant consciousness only to one of such limbs or parts and say that it is the 'I', in the event of any part being deprived, the other parts should not remember the previous experiences relating to that part, and if the' I ' related to the part deprived, it must cease to exist, and the idea and expression 'I' should terminate in consequence. Moreover, the experience of pleasure or pain all over the body, even in the absence of that particular part, would be inexplicable, for there is no 'I' to experience the pleasure or pain. The irresistible conclusion, therefore, is that the body is not the 'I' or the soul.
The external senses cannot be the 'I' or the self, for one agent alone, different from the others, cognizes the objects of these senses. None of these senses can be the 'I'. In common parlance we say, 'I saw' and not the eye saw? The later recognition, namely, I, the person who saw this object some years before, now sees it, should not be experienced. If the sense of sight were the 'I', the person who became blind at a certain period of life should not remember color or colored objects, which had been experienced by him while his vision was full. If the organ of hearing were the 'I', the man who became deaf, should not remember the sounds experienced by him before he became deaf. And, similarly for the other senses, as there is no continuity of existence of the 'I' or self in those cases. Therefore, the sense organs cannot be the 'I'. Nor can ahaṇkāra or the mind be the 'I' the self or the soul. For, the mind is used as an instrument by the agent or kartā for cognition of objects by means of perception, inference, etc. and for recognition or recollection of past experiences. You cannot say that the remembering agent is the mind itself, as there is no instrument for such agent, namely, the mind. Nor, can you say that it is both the agent and the instrument, for it is absurd to say so. If you say that something else is the instrument, what is that something else? If it is any external sense, then a person losing it at a certain time should not remember the past experience relating to it. Therefore, ahaṇkāra or the mind cannot be the 'I'.
The prāṇās or the vital breaths cannot be the 'I', as they are a combination of parts, prāṇā , apāṇa, etc. each functioning in a separate manner. The arguments advanced against the body being the 'I' apply also here. Nor can consciousness, jñāna or buddhi be the 'I'. For, our daily experience is that consciousness is momentary and is the attribute of the 'I'. We say: 'I lost consciousness and regained the same half an hour later.' That the 'I' or self, unlike consciousness, is a permanent and abiding entity will be seen from our experience of recognition, such as : I. the person who saw this ten years ago, do not see the same thing again now.
For the above reasons, the self is different from the body, sense-organs, mind, breaths and consciousness which are cognized as being different from the 'I', as 'mine', my body, my sense-organ, my mind, my breath, my consciousness etc. For, the possessor is different from the object possessed, i.e., 'I’ is different from ‘mine'. Likewise, they are all cognized as parāk, 'this' 'that', unlike the self which is cognized as pratyāk i.e. 'I'. We say this body, this organ etc., as distinguished from 'I' or self. Moreover, the body and other things are cognized sometimes and are not cognized at other times, while the self is cognized at all times. That is to say, in waking state, the body etc., are cognized as if they are identical with the self as when we say 'I have become stout', 'I have become lean'. etc. But they are never cognized in perfectly dreamless sleep called suṣupti. The 'I' or self, on the contrary, is cognized always, even in deep sleep or suṣupti. Waking after sound sleep, we say "I, who cognized all these things before going to sleep, did not know them during sleep, not even my body." The conclusion is, that the 'I' is different from the body. Likewise, the sense-organs of sight, hearing, etc., are not cognized during blindness and deafness. The mind is not cognized during swoon etc.
Similarly, the breaths. And likewise, consciousness which is manifest during cognition of object at one time does not appear at other times. We say: 'My eyes and ears were very powerful before, but now, I have become blind and deaf; my mind was very clear and active before, but now, it is almost a blank.' , I was breathless for some time, and now, I have recovered,' 'I had knowledge before, but now all that has vanished.' From the above experiences of ours, we have to conclude that the body and other things are cognized only sometimes, but are not cognized at other times. But the self, on the other hand, manifests itself at all times. The non-self appears as 'this'. The demonstrative, 'this', is used to denote the objective world and objects around us. 'I' on the other hand, denotes the subject. The cit appears as 'I'. The characteristics of the 'I' and those of 'this' are different. Śankara in the beginning of his Brahmasūtrabhāṣya says: " The 'self' is connoted by asmat, i.e. 'I' and the non-self. by yuṣmat, 'this'. The self is the cognizer and the non-self is the cognized. Both are opposed to each other like light and darkness. Therefore, one cannot be the other. A fortiori, the characteristics of the one cannot be those of the other." What varies not, nor changes, in the midst of things that vary and change is different from them. Thousands of scriptural texts teach us that the self which persists unchanged and as one, through all the diverse changes of the material body and its surroundings, is different from them all.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This article is extracted from the book THE PHILOSOPHY OF ŚRI RĀMĀNUJĀ - VISIṢTADVAITA written by Sri V.R. Srisaila Chakravarti (Coimbatore) and published by V.S.R. Chakravarti, 24, Kasturi Ranga Iyengar Road, Madras - 18. The book is printed at Bharati Vijayam Press, Triplicane, Madras - 600 005 in the year 1974.
What do the āgamās or sastras teach?
The teachings of the whole range of āgamās, Śrutis, Smṛtis. Itihāsas, Purāṇās, Brahmasūtras, Pāñcarātra and sayings of Āḻvārs and saints may be summarised to cover three topics, namely,
- tattva or truths,
- puruṣārtha or the goal to be reached, and
- upāya or means to attain the goal.
{phocadocumentation view=navigation|type=mpcn}
THE PHILOSOPHY OF ŚRI RĀMĀNUJĀ - VISIṢTADVAITA
written by Sri V.R. Srisaila Chakravarti
What do the āgamās or sastras teach?
The teachings of the whole range of āgamās, Śrutis, Smṛtis. Itihāsas, Purāṇās, Brahmasūtras, Pāñcarātra and sayings of Āḻvārs and saints may be summarised to cover three topics, namely,
- tattva or truths,
- puruṣārtha or the goal to be reached, and
- upāya or means to attain the goal.
What is, or rather, what ought to be our goal ?
Our goal is liberation from the bondage of material existence. Maitreyi, wife of sage Yajñavalkya, questioned him when he offered wealth to her at parting: “If all this earth with all its gems and wealth were mine without any dispute, can I become immortal?” And Yajñavalkya answered: "No, you could only live as wealthy persons live, and die as they die. Wealth does not bring immortality.” Maitreyi said: "'What shall I do with that which does not make me immortal? Tell me the means by which I become immortal. i.e. free from births and deaths.” Indra, the king of the gods, found no pleasure in heavenly kingdom, and leaving it, studied adhyātma-vidyā ,the science of self, for one hundred and one years at the feet of Prajāpati.
Narada, who was well-versed in all the Vedas, Itihāsas, Puraṇās, grammar, astronomy, mental and moral science, medicine, music, political science, and all other conceivable branches of learning, except ātma-vidyā or science of the self, in great grief for his ignorance in that branch of learning, approached Sanatkumāra and entreated him to initiate him into the mysteries of the self. Every one of us desires to get freedom from the cycle of births, deaths, rebirths and miseries of life and to get unalloyed bliss. The desire in some is very faint instinctively; in others, it is of varying degrees, according as the self-consciousness is developed with the stage and grade of evolution and intelligence. In a few, it is very acute and marked. He in whom this desire is intense and acute, almost to the exclusion of other desires, is called a mumukṣu. A mumukṣu or a person longing for release from the bondage of samsāra or material existence must necessarily know the three truths. All schools of philosophy recognize this necessity and agree in saying that freedom can be attained only by the knowledge of the truths. A person knowing the three truths,
- the enjoyer (the individual soul),
- the enjoyed (matter) and
- the controller of these two, namely God,
The three truths are:
- cit or individual soul called jiva, pratyagātmā, jivātmā, kṣetrajña, cetana and so on:
- matter, called prādhānā, avyakta, prakṛti, avidyā, māyā, acetana and so on, and
- Iśvara or the universal Soul, called Parabrahman, Paramātmā, Paramapuruṣa, Nārāyaṇa and so on.
By acit is meant the object in which consciousness or jñāa does not and cannot inhere.
By Iśvara is meant the Supreme Being, God who controls these two.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This article is extracted from the book THE PHILOSOPHY OF ŚRI RĀMĀNUJĀ - VISIṢTADVAITA written by Sri V.R. Srisaila Chakravarti (Coimbatore) and published by V.S.R. Chakravarti, 24, Kasturi Ranga Iyengar Road, Madras - 18. The book is printed at Bharati Vijayam Press, Triplicane, Madras - 600 005 in the year 1974.
{phocadocumentation view=navigation|type=t}
Pramāṇa or means of knowledge
The pramātā, knower or a person desirous of knowledge, has to get knowledge of things to be known, prameya, only through the means of knowledge called pramāṇa. The existence of knowable objects is determined by the means of knowledge, called pramāṇa.
{phocadocumentation view=navigation|type=mpcn}
THE PHILOSOPHY OF ŚRI RĀMĀNUJĀ - VISIṢTADVAITA
written by Sri V.R. Srisaila Chakravarti
Pramāṇa or means of knowledge
The pramātā, knower or a person desirous of knowledge, has to get knowledge of things to be known, prameya, only through the means of knowledge called pramāṇa. The existence of knowable objects is determined by the means of knowledge, called pramāṇa.
According to Cāruvākas, a school of atheists, the only means of knowledge is pratyakṣa or sensory perception. The Vaiśeṣikas and the Buddhists recognize anumāna or inference also. The Sāṅkhyas recognize, in addition, a third namely āgama. A sect of Naiyāyikas follow the Sāṅkhyas. But another sect, namely followers of Udayana, add upamāna or anology as the fourth. The Prabhākaras recognize arthāpatti as the fifth pramāṇa. (Devadatta who is stout and healthy does not eat during day. Therefore he eats during nights. This conclusion is arrived at by arthāpatti). The Bhāṭṭas and Māyāvadins add abhāva as the sixth means of knowledge. They say that the particular sense-organ which cognizes the presence of a particular object, also recognizes its absence. The Paurāṇikas recognize two more, namely, sambhava and aitihya, and say that there are eight means of knowledge.
The Vedānta school recognizes only three of the above means of knowledge, namely, pratyakṣa or perception, anumāna or inference and āgama or Śtruti or Smṛuti, etc., and include the other five in one or other of the three means of knowledge. They include upamāna, arthāpatti, and sambhava in inference, abhāva in perception, and aitihya in āgama. By āgamas are meant Śrutis or Vedas, Smṛutis, Itihāsas, Purāṇas, Brahmasūtras, Pāncarātras and the saying of Tamil Āḷvārs and saints.
Of these three means of knowledge, namely, perception, inference and āgama, perception is authoritative only regarding things knowable by the senses; inference is authoritative regarding some unseen objects whose necessary concomitance, or vyāpti with the known object, is ascertained by sensory perception, as in the case of fire and smoke. But, in the case of things beyond the reach of the senses, āgamas or śāstras are the only authority.
The word Śāstra, is derived from the root Śās (anuśiṣṭau) to teach, to inform, to govern, to correct, to advise. Śāstra is that which teaches pravṛitti or action and nivṛutti or inaction. Of all the Śāstras, Śruti or Veda is the foremost authority as it is self-authoritative, and does not depend upon any other thing for its being authoritative, unlike Smŗti, Ithihāsa, Purāņa etc., which depend upon Śrutis for their authority. The Śruti or Veda, unlike other śāstras, is not made by man or by any other being and therefore, it is eternal. That Śruti is eternal, is proclaimed in the Śruti itself. The Vedas are not made by any being as they are eternal. The Vedas are free from any of the four defects – illusion, cheating, inadvertence and disability, to which man-made works are liable. No śāstra is therefore, higher than the Śruti.
Veda Vyāsa says: “No śāstra is superior to Veda”. “This is called Veda because it teaches”. The former part or karma-kānḍa of the Vedas deals with karma or action, which is worship of God and the latter part, or jana-kanda deals with the nature of God. Thus, all the Vedas speak about God. The Lord of the Gita says: “The subject matter of all the Vedas is Myself”. The Vedas cannot be understood by ordinary mortals. Only rishis or seers can understand them. The meaning of the Vedas can be understood only from the upabrahmanās or elucidating supplementary of Vedas, which are called Ithihāsās, Purāṇas and which are the inspired writings of seers called riṣis. Ithihāsas are ancient histories like Rāmāyaṇa and Mahābhārata which relate to events of the long past. Purāṇas deal with the evolution and involution of the cosmos, the several dynasties of kings, manvantaras and so on. The former part of the Vedas is elucidated mostly by Smṛutis and the latter part mostly by Ithihāsās and Purāṇas. The references to God and ātman in the Smṛutis are merely to show that karma is a form of worship of God, and reference to karma in the Ithihāsās and Purāṇas are made merely to show that karma is an aṅga or auxiliary to upāsana.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This article is extracted from the book THE PHILOSOPHY OF ŚRI RĀMĀNUJĀ - VISIṢTADVAITA written by Sri V.R. Srisaila Chakravarti (Coimbatore) and published by V.S.R. Chakravarti, 24, Kasturi Ranga Iyengar Road, Madras - 18. The book is printed at Bharati Vijayam Press, Triplicane, Madras - 600 005 in the year 1974.
{phocadocumentation view=navigation|type=t}
Meaning of Philosophy
The sages of Greece used to be called Sophs (wise men); but Pythagoras thought the word too arrogant and adopted the compound ‘philosophia’ (I Love Wisdom), whence philosopher means ‘one who loves or courts wisdom’. Philosophy thus means ‘the science of wisdom’.
{phocadocumentation view=navigation|type=mpcn}
THE PHILOSOPHY OF ŚRI RĀMĀNUJĀ - VISIṢTADVAITA
written by Sri V.R. Srisaila Chakravarti
Meaning of Philosophy
The sages of Greece used to be called Sophs (wise men); but Pythagoras thought the word too arrogant and adopted the compound ‘philosophia’ (I Love Wisdom), whence philosopher means ‘one who loves or courts wisdom’. Philosophy thus means ‘the science of wisdom’.
What is wisdom or true knowledge? A distinction is drawn by Tennyson between Knowledge and wisdom. The former is earthly, of the mind; but wisdom is heavenly, of the soul. Amarasimha says: “True and supreme knowledge is knowledge of deliverance; the other kinds of knowledge relate to other sciences and arts.” Mokṣha-Sāstra or science of deliverance is alone conducive to wisdom or true knowledge. The latest discoveries in sciences, constructions of air ships and destructive bombs and machines do not certainly constitute wisdom. Parāśarā says: that “knowledge alone by which the spotless Supreme Being is known, seen and attained is true knowledge; and science and knowledge relating to other things is ajñāna or nescience”. “That alone is vidyā or science which leads us to deliverance. The sciences will make anyone only skillful”. Philosophy thus means, Ātma-Vidyā , Brahma-Vidyā or Science of the Divine.
The end and aim of supreme knowledge, according to Hindus, is the alleviation of pain and promotion of happiness. The other kinds of knowledge only sub-serve this end. Even works on grammar, medicine etc., state that they sub-serve the attainment of mukti, or liberation and salvation. Vāgbhaṭa in his treatise on Medicine says in the benedictory stanza: “Salutation unto the oldest and earliest physician, Dhanvantri, an avatā r of Viṣnu, who uproots all kinds of disease of the mind, namely desire, anger and so on, which beget attachment, ignorance, aversion, etc.- diseases which ever persist whichever body is assumed”. Evidently, the author prays to God for the complete annihilation of the ills of samsāra or worldly existence. The central motive which must govern the whole life according to Hindu philosophy, is, how the soul may be freed from pain, how misery may be put and end to and how bliss may be attained and perpetuated infinitely. The chief defect of western philosophy lies in the fact that it is divorced from dharma or religion-law, which, in its perfection and completeness, is the supreme science-knowledge, chiefly directed towards the achievement of the desired happiness, here and here after by means of suitable actions done here. This idea was, in a way, present in mind of Socrates. Socrates was filled with the most intense conviction of the Supreme and overwhelming importance of truth, of the paramount duty of doing the right because it is right, on every occasion, whatever may be the consequence. He gave his first and superlative care to the perfection of his soul and those of others. His whole teaching rested on the doctrine, ‘virtue is knowledge’. And conversely, if virtue is knowledge, vise is ignorance. A man who knows what is right must always do the right. A man who does not know what is right cannot do the right. Knowledge is not a part, it is not even an indispensable condition, of virtue. It is virtue itself.
The Mahābhārata says: “the aim of all knowledge is the formation of character and conduct.” Unfortunately, western philosophy relegates this most important function to Theology or Ethics. But Hindu philosophy treats of metaphysics as pre-eminently goading as to action for reaching the goal. The comprehensive teaching of philosophy, in the Bhagavad Gitā, aims at the attainment of the Supreme Being, Brahman or Nārāyaņā, by means of constant practice of bhakti or upāsanā which can be achieved by karma, jñāna and vairāgya or this attachment, as beautifully summarized by Yāmunācārya in the first stanza of his Gitārthasaṅgraha. In the opening sentence of his Vedārthasaṅgraha, Bhagavān Śri Rāmānuja says: “You can reach God if, with intense love and devotion, you worship Him by mind, word and deed, by meditating on Him, by uttering His holy names, by offering flowers etc., by prostrating at His lotus-feet and so on, along with the performance of duty cast on you according to Varna (caste) and āśrama, with the correct and true knowledge of the relation between the individual soul and the Supreme Soul.” The idea contained in this sentence is developed throughout the whole work.
Unable to bear the sight of the sufferings of millions of souls in this worldly existence, four persons who were the personification of mercy, love and pity, trade for the complete annihilations of the ills of those souls. They are: Sage Parāśara, King Ranti Deva, Saint Nammāḻvār, and Bhagavān Śri Rāmanuja.
-
Parāśara prays at the end of Viṣṇupurāṇa: “Let lord Hari bestow on all souls that plenty and prosperity which is free from birth, old age, death and other ills.”
-
Ranti Deva saw the suffering of people during famine, cried aloud and prayed: “I do not desire to reach the place of the four-headed Brahma with all the yogic powers of animā, mahimā, etc. nor, do I covet that bliss called Mokṣa from where there is no return. But I do long to be inside all the souls and get the transference of all the sufferings and miseries of all the embodied souls unto myself; for, by my experiencing all their miseries, they may be freed from them.”
-
Similarly, Saint Nammaḻvar, in the first stanza of the first of his four works in Tamil, namely, Tiruviruttam, praise to God and appeals to him as follows; “Being unable to bear the sight of suffering millions, this is my petition to you, O, Lord! Let us not get again false knowledge, bad conduct and impure body, let us not get the miseries of births and deaths. This is my appeal to you on behalf of millions of sufferers.”
-
One of Śri Rāmānuja’s preceptors was Tirukkoṭṭiyūr Nambi. The guru tried the disciple 18 times to ascertain if he was a fit recipient of the sacred mantra of 8 letters. At last, the Nambi, in his grace, initiated him into the mysteries of the mantra and, at the same time wrested a promise from Rāmānuja that he would not reveal the import of the mantra to others. Ramanuja pondered over the mantra and its hidden meanings taught by his guru, overnight, and on the next day thought within himself that he could remove all the ills of humanity by openly broadcasting the sacred mantra and its meanings to the suffering humanity. Accordingly, he collected several people on the next day, and in front of the local deity at Tirukkoṭṭiyūr, preached to them the hidden meanings of the mantra. The guru heard of the disobedience of his orders, summoned Rāmānuja and asked him if that report was true. Rāmānuja replied that it was quite true. Then, the guru asked him if he knew the consequence of such a wanton disobedience. The disciples said: “Yes, I know that the worst of the hells awaits me.” “Why, then,” the guru asked him, “did you court the worst of hells?”. The reply given by Rāmānuja is most thrilling and discloses his universal love and mercy. He replied: “I alone shall go to hell as a result of my transgression of your command, while the rest of the suffering humanity, by virtue of their connection with your holy feet, by being virtually your disciples, will certainly reach heaven.” The guru was amazed by the broad mindedness, boundless love and mercy of Rāmānuja which were denied to him (the guru), extolled and pardoned the disciple.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This article is extracted from the book THE PHILOSOPHY OF ŚRI RĀMĀNUJĀ - VISIṢTADVAITA written by Sri V.R. Srisaila Chakravarti (Coimbatore) and published by V.S.R. Chakravarti, 24, Kasturi Ranga Iyengar Road, Madras - 18. The book is printed at Bharati Vijayam Press, Triplicane, Madras - 600 005 in the year 1974.
{phocadocumentation view=navigation|type=t}