Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The landscape of Indian philosophy is richly diverse, with Vedanta schools offering profound interpretations of reality. Sankara’s Advaita Vedanta and Ramanuja’s Vishishtadvaita Vedanta represent two of the most influential and contrasting perspectives. Both acknowledge Brahman as the ultimate reality, but diverge significantly in their understanding of the relationship between Brahman, the world (Jagat), and the individual self (Jiva). While Sankara posits the world as an illusion (Maya) superimposed on Brahman, Ramanuja views it as a real, though modified, expression of Brahman. This difference stems from their distinct ontological and epistemological frameworks, impacting their respective paths to liberation (Moksha).
Sankara’s Advaita Vedanta: The World as Maya
Sankara’s Advaita Vedanta, meaning “non-duality,” asserts the absolute oneness of reality. Brahman is the sole reality, without any attributes (Nirguna Brahman). The world, as we perceive it, is considered Maya – an illusion or cosmic ignorance. This Maya is not entirely unreal, but it is not ultimately real either; it’s a superimposition on Brahman, like a mirage appearing as water.
- Brahman: The ultimate, unchanging reality, devoid of attributes.
- World: An appearance, a projection of Maya, lacking independent existence. It’s a phenomenal reality, valid for transactional purposes (Vyavaharika Satya) but not ultimately real (Paramarthika Satya).
- Atman: Identical to Brahman. The individual soul is not separate from the ultimate reality; the sense of separation is due to ignorance (Avidya).
- Liberation: Realization of the identity of Atman and Brahman, dispelling Avidya and ending the cycle of birth and death. This is achieved through Jnana (knowledge).
Ramanuja’s Vishishtadvaita Vedanta: The World as a Real Modification
Ramanuja’s Vishishtadvaita Vedanta, meaning “qualified non-duality,” offers a contrasting view. He rejects the notion of a completely attributeless Brahman (Nirguna Brahman), arguing that Brahman is inherently endowed with auspicious qualities (Saguna Brahman). The world is not an illusion but a real modification (Prakara) of Brahman, existing as the body of Brahman.
- Brahman: The ultimate reality, possessing infinite auspicious qualities. He identifies Brahman with Narayana (Vishnu).
- World: A real, though dependent, entity. It’s not separate from Brahman but is a part of it, like the body is to the soul. The world is composed of cit (consciousness), acit (matter), and jivas (individual souls), all existing as attributes of Brahman.
- Atman: A part of Brahman, a spark of the divine. The individual soul is eternally distinct from Brahman but inseparable from it.
- Liberation: Attainment of union with Brahman through devotion (Bhakti) and surrender. It’s not a merging but a realization of one’s eternal relationship with Brahman.
Comparative Analysis
The core difference lies in their understanding of reality. Sankara emphasizes the absolute oneness and non-duality of Brahman, leading to the dismissal of the world as illusory. Ramanuja, on the other hand, emphasizes the qualified non-duality, acknowledging the reality of the world as a manifestation of Brahman’s power and attributes.
| Feature | Sankara (Advaita) | Ramanuja (Vishishtadvaita) |
|---|---|---|
| Brahman | Nirguna (without attributes) | Saguna (with attributes) |
| World | Maya (illusion) | Real modification of Brahman |
| Atman | Identical to Brahman | Part of Brahman |
| Path to Liberation | Jnana (knowledge) | Bhakti (devotion) |
| Nature of Liberation | Realization of oneness | Eternal union with Brahman |
Sankara’s view is often criticized for its potential to lead to world-negation, while Ramanuja’s is praised for its emphasis on the importance of the world and its ethical implications. However, both schools offer profound insights into the nature of reality and the human condition. Sankara’s emphasis on self-realization and Ramanuja’s emphasis on devotion both provide pathways to spiritual fulfillment.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Sankara and Ramanuja present divergent yet equally compelling interpretations of the status of the world. Sankara’s Advaita posits the world as Maya, an illusion obscuring the ultimate reality of Brahman, while Ramanuja’s Vishishtadvaita affirms the world’s reality as a modification of Brahman. These differences stem from their fundamental ontological commitments and shape their respective paths to liberation. Both schools, however, contribute significantly to the rich tapestry of Indian philosophical thought, offering profound insights into the nature of existence and the human quest for ultimate truth.
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.