I was perusing my email archives and came upon the below email that Sri BSR had sent me back in November 2021 ….
I loved interacting with BSR sir because he was one person amongst my large circle of online friends with whom an abiding interest in philosophy was common… many of my other friends care least for this dry and dull subject (in their view). But BSR sir was different… the range of his intellectual interests was wide angle and telescopic… he had a deep grasp of philosophic thought.
He and I used to engage in quite a few private email discussions on Vedanta philosophy in which he — like his other very learned and intimate friend in this Group, Sri Srinivasa Parthasarathy — showed extraordinary keenness of interest and curiosity.
BSR could be a formidable debater but then he was also exceptionally open-minded in listening carefully to opposing views and knew when debate must stop and fresh understanding must begin. He was also unstintingly and effusively generous in his praise for a point well made if he was convinced that it had merit . That was the unique quality of his heart which was so very copious.
In the below email exchange I dredged out from November 2021, I was thrilled to see that he had taken the trouble to read in full and had thoroughly digested too the contents of my very long (and to the unphilosophical mind it might even seem tedious) summary of the fundamental differences in the philosophical premise of Advaita and Visishtadvaita regarding the conception of Brahman as posited in the Upanishads and Brahma Sutras.And he started off his email to me by first complimenting me for my effort…. Very few elders I have come across in life have ever been so unrestrained and lavish in their approval of me.
For that kindness alone BSR Sir showed me, I will always remember the old kindred soul who shared with me the same deep urge to delve deep into the mysteries of Indian philosophic thought.
You are gone, and in my circle of friends, dear BSR Sir, not many are left now to talk to seriously about Vedanta … certainly not many with your same level of keen curiosity, deep erudition, patience, quick comprehension and freedom from preconceptions and prejudices . I will miss you Sir!
I bid you adieu , companion soul , on your onward journey …. Wish you God Speed, my gentle friend !
Sudarshan
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
Subject: Re: PART 7 (CONCLUDED) – Brahman as “nirgunan” or “sagunan” ? The respective positions of Visishtadvaita and Advaita Vedanta
After completing the reading of the series (including the postscript) with increasingly absorbed interest, I am speechless with admiration — not just for Madabush Sudarshan’s erudition — but for the great unplumbable depths to which our corpus of religious, philosophical dissertations and polemics could go. Actually, unversed in all these intricacies that Iam, I am sitting dazed. The quintessence of it all, as I understand it, is that there is absolutely no way the nirguna-saguna postulates can be reconciled. “As the East is East and West is West, the two schools likewise, never the twain shall meet.”
But I am left with a totally ignorant layman’s doubt and dilemma:Brahman is acceptably taken as सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं. To me, each of these attributes is overlaid with guna. Satyam is what is NOT asatyam. It is satyam simply because it denies its opposite. The very act of denial implies a guna.
Gnanam means Brahman is watching and absorbing, and forming judgments for regulation and choice. As regards Gnanam, a great philosopher was once asked how to reconcile Free Will and Predestination, and he replied: “While there is freedom to choose, He (we can interpose Brahman here) Who knows all, knows what the choice would be!” Knowledge of anything Past, Present and Future to me is an aspect of Guna.
Anantam means it exists without end — beyond time and space. To me guna is implicit in all these attributes since each is a denial of its opposite. This is how I see it as part of day-to-day logic. It can be ignored as a prattle of an idle mind and we can take the series to have come to an end.
B S Raghavan
On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 9:57 PM sudarshan madabushi <mksudarshan2002@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
DEAR ALL, In this final essay, the very last question remaining to be answered is taken up for examination, viz.:
What is the polemical exchange about between the Advaita and Visisishtaadvaita schools of Vedanta on the issue whether Brahman is without Guna or abounds in glorious, infinitude of Gunas?
The polemics between the two schools of Vedanta forms the main subject of “tarka–vaadaa-s”, the many dialectical disputations in the “satadushani” of Vedanta Desika … viz. Nos. 1, 2, 38, 45, 48, 52, 57, 58, 59, and 66. It is outside the scope of this essay to detail all those vaadaa-s. The purpose of this series of essays is but only to summarize the polemics in a very general sort of way in the larger context of that primary question that was posed right at the outset viz.:
“If Brahman has no attributes (Nirguna brahman), how is the Advaitin’s statement to be reconciled with the “anantha kalyana guna-s” of Brahman posited by the Visishtaadvaitin?”.
The short and simple answer to the above question is, truly speaking, just this: There is no possibility, none, of reconciling the Advaitin and Visishtaadvaitin position about Nirguna Brahman. The reason is because the two philosophers are engaged in polemics based on entirely irreconcilable and incompatible premises and interpretations of the authority of the “sruti” or Upanishad “vaakya-s”.
The whole of the Visishtaadvaitin’s position about this debate is based on the premise of reasonability viz. (1) “sruti ekavaakyatvam”, whereas the whole of the philosophy of Advaita in fact, is resolutely premised on the postulate called (2) “brahma ekatvam”. Thus, as the East is East and West is West, the two schools likewise, never the twain shall meet.
Let us examine the matter below in just a little bit more detail.
****************************
(1) The “ekavaakyatvam”premise has already been explained in an earlier essay above, but it is exactly what the “satadushani” bases all its “vaadaa-s” upon. Vedanta Desikan admits that there are “sruti” texts which declare Brahman to be devoid of qualities e.g.
1. “nishkalam nishkriyam shaantam niravadyam niranjanam…” (Svetasvataara Upanishad VI.19)
2. “yattad-adreseyam agraahyam agotram avarnam achaakshuhu ashrotram tadapaanipaadam..”(Mundakopanishad I.1.6)
3. “apahatapaapmaa vijarah….” (Chandogya Upanishad 8.1.7)
4. “asthoolam ananu….”(Brhadaaranyaka Upanishad 5.8.8)
There are also “sruti vaakyas”that openly declare Brahman to be qualified by numerous attributes:
1. “yas sarvagnyaanah sarvavith satyakaamas-sathya-sankalpah…”(Mundakopanishad 2.2.7)
2. Chandogya Upanishad – 8.1.5
3. Svetasvataara Upanishad – 6.8
4. Taittiriya Upanishad – I.1.2
Now, the Satadushani states that saguna srutis are as valid as the nirguna srutis in as much as both refer to the same Reality. Both texts must be interpreted in such a way that the apparent conflict does not arise at all — thus abiding with the axiom of “ekavaakyatvam”.
But the Advaitin is adamant in contending that it is the nirguna set of texts that have superior validity and it is the saguna texts which must be held to be non-authoritative. Both texts cannot be maintained as equally valid since they what they signify is mutually exclusive and hence one of them, the saguna sruti vaakyas which must be negated as invalid.
· When asked why, the Advaitin replies that it is because the Adi Sankara himself in his commentary on the Vedanta-Sutra has said so:
According to Sankara there is only Nirguna Brahman. There is strictly speaking no Saguna Brahman.
QUOTE: “Brahman is only formless to be sure, for that is the dominant note (of the Upanishadic teaching). Why?
“For that is the dominant teaching”, in as much as it has been established under the aphorism, “But that Brahman is known from the Upanishads, because of their being connected with Brahman as their main import” (I.i.4), that the texts like the following have for their main purport the transcendental Brahman which is the Self, and not any subject matter: “It is neither gross, nor minute, neither short, nor long” (Br. III.viii.8), “Soundless, touchless, colorless, undiminishing” (Katha I.iii.15) …. and so on. Hence in sentences of this kind, the formless Brahman alone, just as it is spoken by the texts themselves, has to be accepted. But the other texts, speaking of Brahman with form, have the injunctions about meditations as their main objectives. So long as they do not lead to contradiction, their apparent meanings should be accepted. But when they involve a contradiction, the principle to be followed for deciding one of the other is that those that have the formless Brahman as their main purport are more authoritative than the others which have not that as their main purport.It is according to this that one is driven to the conclusion that Brahman is formless and not its opposite, though texts having both the purports are in evidence.
(—- “Brahma Sutra Bhasya of Sri Sankaracharya”… III.ii.14 translated by Swami Gambhirananda)
The student of Vedanta asks next of the Advaitin: What is this principle Sankara invokes and is “to be followed for deciding one of the other is that those that have the formless Brahman as their main purport are more authoritative than the others which have not that as their main purport”?
The Advaitin’s answer is this:
“Sruti vaakya-s” which deny all qualities to Brahman appear later in the order of texts than the texts which refer to Brahman as qualified. Denial presupposes that which is to be denied. Negation follows Affirmationand what comes later is of greater force and occupies the position of the “sublater” sublating the earlier. This conclusion is according to the rule of logic and grammar laid down in a scriptural rule of hermeneutics called “apaccheda-nyaaya”.
The Visishtaadvaitin argues that the “appaccheda-nyaaya”does not apply at all in the case here since it holds good only where two texts that are not regularly opposed to each other follow as the earlier and later. In other words, the later cannot arise except as contradicting the earlier. For example, in the two statements “This is silver” and “This is not silver”, the later text in denying the earlier, would be more valid since the later cognition cannot arise except as sublating the earlier and as such what gets sublated cannot be regarded in any case as valid.
However, where there is regular opposition between the two texts coming as earlier and later, it is the earlier text that is to be held predominant. This is as per the principle of “upakramaadhi-karana-nyaaya”. In the present case, saguna and nirguna texts are two mutually and regularly opposed to each other by their very nature and significance. So, the question of later being stronger than the earlier does not arise at all.
The Satadushani proceeds to tell the Advaitin that in deciding the merits of the rules of interpretation in the present case, it is really neither “appaccheda” nor “upakramaadhi” “nyaaya” rules that are most apt rather the principle known as “utsargaa-pavaada-nyaaya”offers a better solution to the problem. According to this principle, the negative text will have to be interpreted in accordance with the affirmative text. If some “sruti” texts affirm that Brahman possesses attributes while others deny the same, the latter should be understood to mean the denial of attributes other than those mentioned or signified by the former. The implication of the “nirguna” texts therefore is that Brahman is devoid of such inauspicious qualities …. and it is not that Brahman is devoid of all qualities. That way the validity of both the “sruti vaakyaas” are maintained. If on the contrary, the principle of later sublating the earlier is adopted, it is not possible to maintain the validity of both texts in accordance with the overarching axiom of Vedantic hermeneutics known as “ekavaakyatvam”.
**********************
(2) Next, during the long-drawn, 100-vaadaa-debatebetween the Advaitin and Visishtaadvaitin, arises the cardinal question of “brahma ekatvam” — or what the former terms it as “brahmaadviteeyam” echoing the “sruti vaakya”: “ekam-eva adviteeyam” — Brahman is One without a second.
According to Advaita philosophy that statement incontrovertibly implies that Brahman is indeed “nirguna” and “nirvisesha” because if that One Reality of Brahman alone exists (sath) and everything else is only illusion of reality (asath conjured by maaya), how can there be anything existent other than the One itself to qualify or characterize it?
The Visishtaadvaitin rejects the Advaitin’s interpretation of “adviteeyam of Brahman” as fallacious and illogical and the Satadushani (vaada 59) cites support for the rejection the famous statement of the grand-guru of Ramanujacharya, Sri Yaamunaachaarya (aka Alavandaar – early 10thcentury CE), who in his seminal work on Vaishnava metaphysics, “Siddhitraya” wrote:
“yathaa cholanrpah samraat adviteeyotra bhutale;
Iti tattulya nrpati nivaarana param vachah;
na tu tad-bhrtya-tatputra kalatraadi nishedhakam”.
“The paramount ruler of the Chola kingdom now reigning is without a second in this world”; this statement is only intended to deny the existence of a ruler equal to him; it does not deny the existence of his servants, sons, consorts, armies, palaces and so on…”
Yamunancharya went on then to explain himself: “Adviteeya” is one who neither has, nor had, nor will have an equal or superior capable of being counted as a second.” In other words, what the sruti intends to convey is that no second similar, equal, or superior entity to Brahman exists (“sadrsha dviteeya nisheda param”). But, in the statement, “There is but a single Sun in the sky and not two”, there the presence of a single sun and no more is not contradicted at all but then does it also mean the sunrays, the heat, the dazzling light, the warmth etc. too must be denied? That would be illogical.
Similarly, when the srutideclares Brahman to be “adviteeya”, without a second, the existence of His attributes or qualities are not denied. All it means is that there is nothing in the universe that can be similar or equated with Brahman.
***********************
Yet another intensely debated question between the Advaitin and Visishtaadvaitin as described in Vedanta Desika’s “satadushani vaadaa-s” is the one recorded in No.38 under the heading “akhandaartham” where the two schools battle it out over a certain rule of interpretation known as “saamaanaadhi-karanya”. it is a very interesting and illuminative debate shedding great light on the meaning of the famous and oft-quoted Upanishad vaakya found in the “Anandavalli” passage in the Taittiriya Upanishad. It isperhaps the tersest and yet most revealing Vedantic definition of Brahman found in all the extant 108 Upanishads of India.
ब्रह्मविदाप्नोति परम् । तदेषाऽभ्युक्ता ।सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म ।
One who knows Brahman, reaches the highest. Satya (reality, truth) is Brahman, Jnana (knowledge) is Brahman, Ananta (infinite) is Brahman.
— Taittiriya Upanishad, 2.1.1
· Sathyam means, according to Ramanuja, thenon-conditioned existence of Brahman. It is eternal, self-existent and self-contained ontological entity without being subjected to any kind of change (vikaara). This distinguishes Brahman from the rest of the universe of beings – cit and acit – which undergo all manner of “vikaara” and continuous modifications caused through both the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth as well as through the operation of the triguna-s.
· Gnyaana, according to Ramanuja, means eternal and fulsome Knowledge or “sarvagnyata” (omniscience) which is never subject to either contraction of expansion utterly unlike the knowledge of finite, sentient beings, or human souls in the universe. The term “sarvagnyata” has a very specific meaning in Visishtaadvaita philosophy derived from the Mundaka Upanishad which says that Brahman knows everything since it has the capacity to comprehend everything in the universe as it is always, by intuition and without the aid of the sense organs (as all sentient and intelligent beings in the universe otherwise do).
· Brahman is also Anantham or infinite because it is omnipresent, it always exists, is never conditioned by time or space or by any other entity and pervades all other entities in the universe.
The main issue with the above Upanishad “vaakya” is that in defining Brahman as “Truth, Knowledge and Infinitude”, is it denoting the very “svarupa” or the nature of Brahman or is it denoting the characteristics/attributes “guna” of Brahman?
According to Visishtaadvaita, Brahman is both “gnyaana-svarupa” and “gnyaana-gunaka” (vide “sruta-prakaasika” I.1.1). Not only the svarupa (nature) of Brahman but also its attributes are infinite (anantham) in the sense that they are countless and unsurpassable in excellence and perfection. The three characteristics are thus unique to Brahman, and they reveal its true nature (svarupa-niroopaka-dharma) but then, if the Visishtaadvaitin were asked what the nature of Brahman is, his answer would be that Brahman is that which is characterized by “satyatva, gnyaanatva and anantatva”.
This interpretation of the Upanishad “vaakya” as given above by the Visishtaadvaitin is not acceptable to the Advaitin for whom these 3 terms denote only the mere “svarupa” or nature of Brahman and in no way do they characterize it. According to him, the Upanishad “vaakya” means only that Brahman is “sathyam, gnyaanam and anantham” per se and it does not mean that it is possessed, ipso facto, of these three as characteristics. Why? Because … the Advaitin firmly avers …. of a certain rather abstruse rule in Vedantic hermeneutics called “ saamaanaadikarana” by which Advaita philosophy solemnly and rigidly swears.
****************************
What is this “ saamaanaadikarana” ? It is a rule of grammar … “vyaakarana” …. which relates to how a statement is made and what it truly signifes.
In the statement, for example, “He is that Devadutta”, the two terms “he” and “devadutta” both stand in “apposition” to each other, they are “impartite” and they are “non-relational”.
“Apposition” meansa grammatical construction of a sentence in which two usually adjacent nouns having the same referent stand in the same syntactical relation to the rest of a sentence.
“Impartite” means not partible: not subject to partition.
“Non-relational” means the two terms are not having any relation to each other as both in significance are one and the same.
“He is devadutta” thus conveys the idea of one entity only since all the constituent terms of the sentence denote one and the same thing.
So, the Advaitin argues that equally, the Upanishad vaakya is understood to mean that Brahman is verily “satyam”, “gnyaanam”, “Anatham” itself and should not be construed as meaning that Brahman is possessed of the three attributes. Brahman is thus one homogenous being devoid of all differentiation (niguna/nirvisesha)
*************************
The Visishtaadvaitin however does not agree. He says that not only is the Advaitin’s definition and understanding of the rule of “saamaanaadikarana” fallacious but the way he even exemplifies and applies it. In the “satadushani”, there are many vaadaa
Terms in a sentence where they stand in “apposition”, do not convey an “impartite” and “non-relational sense”. Though the terms in the statement have different connotations, they can yet denote one and the same thing.
For example, in the sentence “This is blue lotus(“nilotpalam”)”, the term “blue” has a different connotation from that of the term “lotus”. The connotation of “blue” is that quality of “blue-ness” while that of “lotus” is “lotus-ness” and yet the two terms (in apposition) refer to one object viz.; the Lotus.
It is such terms that are said to be “ saamaanaadikarana.
Therefore, contrary to what is understood by the Advaitin, if one applies the “saamaanaadikarana” rule to the Upanishad vaakya of सत्यंज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म, one will have to accept that it denotes one entity, being the svarupa(nature) of Brahman, as qualified by its characteristics (guna) connoted by the other three terms in the sentence viz. Truth, Knowledge, and Infinitude. Such indeed is the true meaning of “saamaanaadikarana” where, in a sentence the terms having different connotations, denote one thing.
****************************
In summary that is substance of the Advaita-Visishtaadvaita polemical exchange on the metaphysical issue of Nirguna Brahman. It is indeed the foundational and most significant philosophical rift between the two Vedanta schools or “darsana-s” … and perhaps because of its definitive nature, one which will never be reconciled and put to rest.
This series of essays now concludes with a brief post-script that follows this one, explaining the purpose and motives for my penning it. ***********************
,Best Regards, Sudarshan MK