Advaita & Visistadvaita (Part II)

For Part I, please see here: Advaita & Visistadvaita (Part I)

The Doctrine of Nirguna Brahman

One issue that has distinguished Advaita Vedanta from many of its rival schools centers around the question of Brahman’s nature: more specifically, the main question for discussion here is whether Brahman is devoid of all attributes and qualifications (nirguna Brahman) or whether it is in fact possessed of a whole host of auspicious qualities (saguna Brahman). The debate is essentially one of an exegetical nature since it focuses primarily on the correct and proper interpretation of the sacred scriptures. We deal first with Sankara’s articulation of the nature of Brahman.

Advaita

Central to the Advaita Vedanta metaphysic is its conception of Brahman as devoid of form, qualities, and qualifications. This unsullied nature of Brahman is revealed through the employment of a complex and sophisticated apophatic theology that attempts to interpret scripture as putting forth the view of Brahman as free from all (auspicious and non-auspicious) characteristics.

Sankara is forced however to admit the existence of a multitude of scriptural statements which describe Brahman as possessing form and qualities. He argues that this is necessary because it is possible to relate to Brahman only from the empirical level. The Absolute is thus spoken of as two according to whether it is from the transcendental level (nirguna) or the relative, worldly (saguna). They are also referred to as para Brahman (higher Brahman) and apara Brahman (lower Brahman), respectively, and correspond to the acosmic and cosmic aspects of the Reality. Saguna Brahman, also known as Isvara, is for all practical purposes important as the cause and controller of the universe, and as God of religion. Form and attributes are essential in worship and meditation.

Visistadvaita

According to Sri Ramanuja, the most influential exponent of Visistadvaita philosophy, Brahman is qualified by cit (souls) and acit (matter) and possessed of an infinite number of auspicious qualities. Those Upanisadic statements that appear to postulate a nirguna Brahman are regarded by Ramanuja (and all major Vaishnava Vedantists following him) as having as their purport the negation of all material qualities (prakritiguna) and/or all inauspicious qualities (amangala guna).

One of the most controversial issues in Vedantic hermeneutics concerns the question of whether any of the scriptural texts can convey an impartite and non-relational sense (akhandartha). The question typically arises in connection with the interpretation of the Upanisadic text, ‘Satyam Jnanam Ananatam Brahman’ which provides the definition of Brahman as ‘Truth, Knowledge and Infinitude’. These three terms, according to Sankara, denote the very svarupa or essence of Brahman and they are not to be taken as its attributes. Accordingly, this Upanisadic text is understood, by Sankara, to mean that Brahman is Truth, Knowledge, and Infinitude and not that it is possessed of these three characteristics. This is technically known as akhandartha or that which conveys an impartite, non-relational sense. On the basis of such a view it is contended that Brahman is devoid of all characteristics.

This interpretation is seriously questioned both by Ramanuja and Madhva. According to them, the three terms stand for the distinguishing attributes of Brahman. In a statement where the terms stand in apposition (samanadhikarana vakya) the terms which connote distinctive qualities denote one entity as qualified by those qualities. This is the explanation offered by the grammarian, which Ramanuja has adopted to interpret the co-ordinate judgments. If this statement is taken as a sentence offering a definition, Brahman is defined in terms of its distinguishing characteristics. It is not, therefore, possible, argues Ramanuja, to assert on the basis of this text that Brahman is nirvisesa or devoid of qualification. [Please note: these notes are taken from S.M. Srinivasa Chari, The Philosophy of the Vedantasutra: A study based on the evaluation of the commentaries of Samkara, Ramanuja and Madhva, 2010]