The concept of visistAdvaita

The opinion of Sri Ramanujacharya is that Brahman is the ever existing reality that
is always endowed with attributes (savisEsa). visEsa refers to fundamentally guna
(attributes like satyam jnanam anantam etc.), vigraha (form which can be adored
by devotees) and vibhUti (lila vibhuti: all the universes into which Brahman
descends for divine play and nitya vibhUti (vaikunta or Brahman’s divine abode)).
Brahman is also formless and beyond description or the grasp of our mind.

Brahman is to be understood according to the different phases or avathas, ie. In the

phase of dissolution or unmanifest state or pralayAvastha or in the state of mokSa
(final release), there is only one entity Brahman. In this state there is abhEda (non-
difference or unity); and in the phase of creation (sriSti), there is difference (bhEda
or plurality) between souls, matter and Isvara, the Lord. Note that non-difference
(abhEda) and difference (bhEda) phases are not simultaneous and do not refer to
the same state. In the state of pralaya, the term sUksma cit acit visista Brahma is
used in Sribhasya of Sri Ramanujacharya (his commentary on Brahmasutras). This
means that Brahman in this state of pralaya, is endowed with attributes: jiva (souls)
and matter (acit) which are in the subtle state (sUkshma dasA). Here Sri
Ramanujacharya defines sUksmatva as impossibility of differentiation in terms of
names or forms (or nAma rUpa vibhAga anarhatva). In fact Sri Ramanujacharya
states in Sribhasya, that in the state of pralaya, even Brahman himself cannot
differentiate between himself and his body (souls or matter)[13]. This means that
in the state of pralaya, Sri Ramanujacharya does indicate that there can be no
difference between souls, matter or Isvara. This state is beyond the grasp of
intellect. Here we should remember the verses of kEna Upanishad: . One who
thinks that he knows Brahman definitely, does not know. One who thinks that he
does not know brahman clearly, knows 1. Further it states: “Brahman is different
from what is known and different from what is unknown!” 2

Questions regarding Visistadvaita:

1
Kena Upanishad: 3rd mantra “yasyAmatam tasya matam. matam yasya na vEda sa:”
2
Kena Upanishad: 4th mantra “anyadEva tad viditAt atha tad viditAt adhi”
We see very controversial statements in Vedartha Samgraha by Sri
Ramanujacharya such as “Does it mean that Brahman and the universe are one and
the same? Or is there difference between them? Or is there both difference and
non-difference between them? What exactly is really the essence of vEdas? Since
all these positions are mentioned in the vEdas, all these options are valid”! This
seems to be a strange sentence.

The actual text is: “evam sati abhedO vA bhedO va dvayAtmakatA vA

vedAntavEdyah kOyam arthah samarthitO bhavati? sarvasyApi vEda vedyatvaAt
sarvam samarthitam bhavati” - Bhagawad Ramanujacharya’s Vedartha samgraha.
Further, in the same work, we find this statement: “sarva sarIratayA
sarvaprakAram brahmaiva avasthitam iti, abhEdah samarthithah”: Which means:
“Since, universe is the body of Brahman, Brahman himself exists in all modes.
Hence, non-difference between Brahman and universe is confirmed in the vEdas”.
As we know by certain statements in Bhagavadgita 3 and also by common
experience, that the body and soul seem to be different from each other. How is
identity confirmed, if there is difference between Brahman and his body, namely
this universe?

In this context it is interesting to remember the conflicting view from the

hagiological account of Tirukkacci nambi, one of the preceptors of Sri
Ramanujacharya. According to Visistadvaita tradition, it seems Tirukkacci Nambi,
used to directly talk to God in the form of Sri Devaraja Perumal of Kanchipuram.
Upon request by Sri Ramanujacharya, he got clarification from the Lord himself
that Bheda or difference is the correct philosophical position. This is paraphrased
in the famous quote: “darsanam bhEda Eva ca”. After having obtained this answer,
is it not ironic that Sri Ramanujacharya, wrote in his very first book, Vedartha
samgraha, an exactly opposite view that identity is upheld (abhEdah
samarthithah)?! Sri Ramanujacharya could have written “bhEdah samarthitah” or
“difference is upheld” and this in fact, seems to be the popular position of many
people who belong to the Visistadvaita tradition today. Then, why did Sri
Ramanujacharya did not write “bhEdah samarthitah” there?

3
Bhagavadgita 2-20, 2-22, 2-30
 Further, in the first statement, it is stated as “kOyam arthah samartitah” - which
means, “what is the real essence here”? Hence, it is not mere justification of the
usage of words or phrases that indicate a) identity or b)difference or c) difference
and identity, that is questioned here, but it is the justification of the “meaning”.
Hence the essence of vEdas is that Brahman and the Universe are one and the
same as stated in “sarva sarIratayA...abhedah samarthitah”. Then, if it is so, what
exactly is this (sarIra) -“body soul relationship”? This relationship will be further
elucidated later in this paper.

However, if at all one can state that nirvisEsa-advaita can be upheld in all sruti
statements, it is only in the sense of denial of all those sruti statements which
indicate duality! Only in the system of “savisEsa advaita”, it is possible to
reconcile all the sruti statements. Hence, Bhagawad Ramanujacharya states that in
addition to the relationship of body and soul, there is this causal relation between
them: Brahman is the material cause (upAdAna kAranA) of this universe. The
material cause relationship is acceptable to advaitins and visistAdvaitins.

The real meaning of what was stated above is not easy to understand. Since the
subject at hand is very subtle, the answer can be found only by deep contemplation
or tapas. Lot more details are presented in this book: sarvankasA, written by K.S
Varadachar, and only some main ideas are given here in this short introductory
essay. In essence only in SavisEsAdvaita, reconciliation of all sruti statements is
possible. Hence that is the truth established in vedanta.

Bhagavad Ramanujacharya’s views have to be understood roughly in this sense:

“Unity is upheld in the causal state before creation, where there is only one entity,
namely Brahman, and no differentiation is possible in Brahman into names and
forms even though Brahman is always savisesa or endowed with attributes. In the
effect state, after creation, Brahman exists in the form of entities that experience
(bhoktA), and those that are experienced (bhogyam) and the Lord who controls
these two types of entities (isvara). There is difference between these three entities
souls, matter and Isvara, in this phase of creation. This concept cannot be fully
grasped with by intellect, since there is no equivalent to Brahman in this
perceivable universe. Hence, Brahman is basically a singularity and is beyond the
reach of our intellect. Only an analogy can be given as how a seed grows up to
become a tree with flowers, fruits and leaves, so does Brahman being the seed of
this entire creation, becomes souls, matter and Isvara. Seeds similar to the original
seed are produced from this tree, creating a cycle. This is just an analogy and
details of this analogy, such as, how can one seed hold the information to produce
unlimited number of trees and seeds similar to itself? - are so difficult to
comprehend, even though we observe this phenomenon often. That being the case,
how can our limited intellect grasp the complexity regarding the all powerful
universal cause with inexplicable powers?. Then the question remains: how can
this one Brahman, being non-differentiable before creation, become matter, souls
and Isvara, which are mutually separate and different from each other after
creation?; and in this process, how can it be true that there is no transformation of
the form (svarUpa) of Brahman? There has to be some kind of transformation of
form (svarUpa) of an entity, which is one, before creation, into many after creation.
Brahman is both the efficient and material cause of this universe. Hence why not
just accept that there has to be some form of “svarUpa vikAra”?. The term vikAra
is not necessarily negative. It is true that svarUpa vikara of Brahma is not accepted
by Visistadvaita tradition based on certain statements4. However, this issue has to
be investigated further. Instead of stating negatively in terms of svarUpa vikAra,
we can state it as svarUpa vikAsa, or the blooming of the very form of Brahman!.
One should not forget, that Sage Vedavyasa himself has used the term parinAma
(transformation) in the sutra “AtmakritEh parinAmat”5 which states that “Brahman
transforms himself into this universe of souls, matter and Isvara”.

Again this subject here is beyond intellect and no explanation can be fully
satisfactory. It is true that the fundamental divide between words, object denoted
and experience of the object, causes confusion in understanding statements. One
thing has to be kept in mind here. Brahman transforms himself into this universe of
matter and souls. This process of transformation is not like a lump of clay which
transforms into a pot; however, it is a different kind of transformation which does
not cause any blemish to Brahman. When a lump of clay is made into a pot, the
clay does not remain as clay anymore; it is transformed into the pot completely.
However, unlike the lump of clay, Brahman still remains there as cause and is

4
See Tattva muktA kalApa of Sri Vedanta Desika – nayaka sara – verse 30
5
Brahman sutra- 1-4-26
complete in all respects, as explained in the krtsna-prasakti-adhikarana of Brahma-
sutras. The rules such as “anything that transforms is certainly perishable” etc.
does not apply to Brahman. Brahman is complete (pUrna) and blemishless before
creation and after creation, here in this universe. Brahman knows how to handle
any kind of change! Blemish may exist in the mind of the observer and not in
Brahman. It is appropriate to quote Sri Ramanujacharya's statements from
Sribhasya - “tad Etad Aha- satyam ca anrtam ca satyam abhavat6. vicitra rUpena
vikriyamAnam api brahma satyam Eva abhavat nirasta nikhila dOsagandham
aparicchinna-jnAnAndam-EkarUpam-Eva abhavat ityarthah”7. The meaning of this
sentence is “This is said in the Taittiriya Upanisad- 'It became real and not-real'.
Although undergoing change into the wondrous multiplicity of actual sentient and
non-sentient things, Brahman at the same time was Real - that which is free from
all shadow of imperfection, consisting of nothing but pure knowledge and bliss8. It
should be noted that Sri Ramanujacharya uses the term “vikriyamAnam (is being
transformed)” to Brahman!. Hence, Brahman, though subject to change of some
kind, has un-conditional existence and completeness (pUrnatva). However,
Brahman is generally held as un-changing or “nirvikAra”, since, from the human
perspective, we assign something as good or bad based on human selfish
perspective. We see a tree sprouting from a seed; a fruit growing from the tree and
we feel that it is some what positive or it is a sign of some kind of progress;
however, when the fruit becomes over-ripe and decomposes into manure, it is
taken negatively, since that fruit is no longer palatable. Though all these stages are
natural, we assign good or bad labels to it based on selfish perspective. As long as
one associates good (upAdeya) or bad (hEya) labels, that means that the person is
not completely mature! Brahman is beyond all assignments of good or bad from
the human perspective. Brahman is clearly beyond intellect. However, Brahma is
knowable; but not completely. We can know only little about brahman, like how
Kena Upanishad puts it: “dabhram Eva vEttha tvam brahmaNo rUpam”.

6
Taittiriya Upanisat - 2-6
7
Sribhasyam –parinAmAt ( I-4-27)
8
Sacred books of the east edited by Max mueller – Vedanta Sutras with Ramanuja's Commentary part III-
George Thibaut – page 406
The concept : body-soul relationship and material causality of Brahman are
difficult to understand

Material causality of Brahman means, Brahman is the source and he is the material
cause of everything in this universe, including the sentient and insentient entities.
Body soul relationship means that Brahman and this universe of sentient and
insentient entities are related like body and soul. This means Universe of souls and
matter is like the body of Brahman, according to sarIrA-sarIri bhava relationship
(or body soul relationship). According to Visistadvaita both these relationships
body-soul relationship and material causality are true between the Universe and
God.
Since there seems to be room for different commentaries, this issue of relationship
of Brahman and the universe, cannot be solved by just commentaries and sub-
commentaries. Hence, Bhagavad ramAnujAcarya proposed ‘savisesAdvaita”,
which is consistent with adhyAtma-vidyA or knowledge of the ultimate Atman or
final cause and source of everything. vEdas are not mere words or sounds, but it is
the knowledge of the science of creation. In different statements of vEdas, different
aspects of material causality (upAdana upAdeya bhava) and body-soul relationship
(sarIrA-sarIri bhAva) are explained. The secret of spiritual knowledge (adhyAtma
vidyA) is hidden in these concepts, which can be understood only by meditation.
These srutis are named “ghataka srutis” since they bring about reconciliation. The
concept indicated by these ghataka srutis is known as savisesAdvaita. Once this
spiritual yogic knowledge is understood, there is no room for contradiction
between different commentaries. Words are mere expressions of truth. Once truth
is directly perceived, where can there be any room for different interpretations?

savisEsAdvaita / visistAdvaita view of many sampradayic scholars is slightly

wrong:

The usages such as: “he is a man”, “this is an animal” and so on are used to denote
the soul only. Even though there is difference between body and soul, one
experiences one's body as one's self. Hence the term to denote the soul is
interchangeably used to denote the body also. However, many people from the
Visistadvaita tradition, who focus only on the words, think that even though body
and soul are absolutely different, the words that denote the body are used to refer
to the soul, only due to the fact that soul is not visible and is the inner controller
(antaryami) and one needs a concrete reference, namely the body to refer to the
soul. This is not true that the body is very different from the soul, since the body-
soul (or sarIra sarIri) relationship is not simple, but a very profound and complex
concept. The meaning of “yathA vrikshO vanaspatiH tathaiva purusO’mrsA”
(BrhadAranyaka 5-9-28) should be contemplated deeply. The meaning of this
verse is: “ We know that when a branch of a tree is cut, it sprouts back and a new
branch grows. Similarly how the spirit pervades the body and is related to the body
is a mystery”. Hence there is an organic relation between Brahman and the
Universe.

Only when this mystery regarding body-soul is understood, the words of Bhagavad
Ramanujacharya in vedArthasamgraha : “non-duality is justified” (“Abhedah
samarthitah”) can be understood. Abhedah or non-duality between Brahman and
this universe, indicated in this sentence of Vedarthasamgraha is not “unintended”,
but actual. Note that it was not stated as “by justifying body soul relationship, the
statements that indicate non-duality are justified. If that was the intent, a sentence
like: sarIra-sarIri bhAva samarthanEna- abheda vAkyani samarthitani, should have
been used, which means “By expounding body soul relationship, the sentences that
indicate non difference can be established”. The sentence used in
Vedarthasamgraha is “Abhedah Samarthithah”, which means the intention of Sri
Ramanujacharya is that there is some kind of actual identity between Brahman and
the Universe. However, this is a major topic which is discussed in detail in this
book: SarvankasA, a commentary on TatvamuktA-kalApa (written by K.S
Varadachar).