Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The landscape of Indian philosophical thought is richly diverse, with schools of Vedanta offering distinct interpretations of reality. Both Adi Shankaracharya’s Advaita Vedanta and Ramanujacharya’s Vishishtadvaita Vedanta grapple with the problem of the phenomenal world and its relationship to the ultimate reality, Brahman. A central concept in both systems is *Maya*, often translated as illusion, but possessing nuanced meanings. While Sankara posits Maya as an indescribable power responsible for the appearance of the world as distinct from Brahman, Ramanuja offers a qualified acceptance of Maya, rejecting its absolute illusory nature. This essay will explore Ramanuja’s refutation of Sankara’s Maya and the underlying reasons for its inclusion in both their respective doctrines.
Sankara’s Doctrine of Maya
According to Sankara’s Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is the sole reality, and the world we perceive is *Maya*. Maya is not simply ignorance (Avidya) but a positive power (Shakti) of Brahman, indescribable and beginningless. It is responsible for the superimposition of names and forms onto Brahman, creating the illusion of a diverse and changing world. This illusion is not unreal in the empirical sense – it functions and is experienced – but it is ultimately unreal in the absolute sense, lacking ultimate ontological status. The world is likened to a dream or a mirage; it appears real while experienced, but vanishes upon the realization of Brahman. Liberation (Moksha) is achieved through the discrimination (Viveka) between the real (Brahman) and the unreal (Maya).
Ramanuja’s Refutation of Sankara’s Maya
Ramanuja vehemently refutes Sankara’s concept of Maya as purely illusory. He argues that if the world were entirely unreal, then the very notion of liberation would be meaningless. From whose bondage would one be liberated? If the world and individual souls (Jivas) are merely illusory, then the entire process of spiritual striving becomes futile. Ramanuja proposes *Vishishtadvaita*, meaning “qualified non-dualism.” Here, Brahman is the ultimate reality, but it is not devoid of attributes (Saguna Brahman). The world and Jivas are real, but they are parts (Sesha) of Brahman, existing as its body (Sarira).
Ramanuja’s key objections to Sankara’s Maya are:
- The Problem of Error: If the world is unreal, how can we account for the experience of error? Error arises from mistaking one real thing for another, not from perceiving something that doesn’t exist.
- The Validity of Scripture: Scriptures prescribe duties and offer rewards and punishments. If the world is unreal, these prescriptions lose their meaning.
- The Reality of Suffering: Suffering is a palpable reality. To dismiss it as illusory is insensitive and philosophically untenable.
Ramanuja replaces Sankara’s Maya with the concept of *Cit-Maya*, meaning the power of consciousness. This power is inherent in Brahman and is responsible for the manifestation of the world as a real, though dependent, entity. The world is not an illusion but a real transformation of Brahman, like the light emanating from the sun.
The Necessity of Maya for Both Sankara and Ramanuja
Despite their differing interpretations, both Sankara and Ramanuja require a concept analogous to Maya to explain the phenomenal world and establish their respective doctrines.
For Sankara: Maya is essential to explain the apparent diversity and change in a reality that is, in itself, unchanging and undifferentiated (Brahman). Without Maya, it would be impossible to account for the empirical world and the experience of duality. It bridges the gap between the absolute reality of Brahman and the relative reality of our experience.
For Ramanuja: While rejecting the illusory nature of Maya, Ramanuja still needs a principle to explain the limitations of our perception and the apparent separation between Brahman, Jivas, and the world. Cit-Maya explains why we perceive the world as distinct from Brahman, even though it is ultimately a part of it. It accounts for the causal relationship between Brahman and the world, and the dependence of the world on Brahman. Without Cit-Maya, the relationship between Brahman and the world would be inexplicable.
| Feature | Sankara’s Advaita Vedanta | Ramanuja’s Vishishtadvaita Vedanta |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of Maya | Absolute illusion (Anirvachaniya Maya) | Power of consciousness (Cit-Maya), real transformation |
| Reality of the World | Ultimately unreal (Mithya) | Real, but dependent on Brahman |
| Relationship between Brahman and the World | Brahman is the only reality; the world is a superimposition | Brahman is the body, and the world and Jivas are its parts |
| Purpose of Maya | To conceal the true nature of Brahman and create the illusion of duality | To explain the limitations of perception and the apparent separation |
Conclusion
In conclusion, Ramanuja’s refutation of Sankara’s Maya stems from his commitment to the reality of the phenomenal world and the meaningfulness of spiritual practice. While rejecting the notion of absolute illusion, Ramanuja still acknowledges the necessity of a principle – Cit-Maya – to account for the limitations of our perception and the apparent duality of existence. Both schools, however, demonstrate that the concept of Maya, in its various forms, is crucial for reconciling the ultimate reality of Brahman with the empirical reality of our experience, serving as a bridge between the transcendent and the immanent.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.