THE SEVEN IMPOSSIBLE TENETS Ramanuja picks out what he sees as seven

fundamental flaws in the Advaita philosophy for special attack: he sees them as so
fundamental to the Advaita position that if he is right in identifying them as involving
doctrinal contradictions, then Shankara's entire system collapses. He argues:
Objection:
1. The nature of Avidya. Avidya must be either real or unreal; there is no other
Possibility. But neither of these is possible. If Avidya is real, non-dualism collapses into
dualism. If it is unreal, we are driven to self-contradiction or infinite regress.
Response:
(a) There are several problems in Ramanujas criticism. In Advaita Siddhi,
Madusuudhana saraswati has addressed this more extensively. We had discussions in
the past in advaitin list related to this. Avidya must be either real or unreal and there is
no other possibility - is an axiomatic statement of Ramanuja. Real on the basis of
absoluteness or paramaarthika level fulfills the definition of trikaala abhaadhitam that
which remains unchanged or non-negated is alone real this follows from Krishnas
statement naasato vidyate bhaavo na bhaavo vidyate sataH that which exists can
never cease to exist and that which is non-existent can never come to existence. This
statement is valid for gross as well as subtle matter. Thus anything that changes cannot
be real. But it cannot be unreal either since it appears to exist in the present. Unreal is
that which never existed in the past and has no locus in the present. Like vandyaa
putraH son of a barren woman. The world, Jagat, does not fulfill either of the
definitions of the real and unreal. Since it undergoes continuous change it cannot be
real but it cannot be unreal since it exists right now in the waking state. Hence a third
term is needed to define the world which is neither real and unreal. It is mithya that
appears to be real but upon analysis it is not there. But upon analysis every mithya has
to resolve to its substratum, which is real. Scientifically if something is continuously
changing, then there is some thing fundamental that forms a basis for the continuously
changing things. Hence Ramanujas claim that we are driven to self-contradiction is
untenable from ones own experience. Just like sun raise and sun set is it real or
unreal It appears to be real since one experiences it everyday and it is not real since
shaastra (science) says that sun neither raises nor sets. Hence it is mithya. As long as I
have AJNaana or Avidya I take the sun raise and sun set as real but that can be
negated once I have a correct knowledge. Thus Ramanuja is clearly wrong in his
criticism that there is a contradiction in saying the statement avidya is neither real and
unreal causes self contradiction and infinite regression.
(b) Now coming to avidya itself it is not a positive quantity to be or not to be. Its
presence is inferred by the absence of knowledge. If I have no knowledge of chemistry,
my ignorance of chemistry is inferred. Knowledge is positive either in terms of
information or facts in my memory or logical application of the information in the
memory. When I gained the knowledge of chemistry, I say I have lost my ignorance of
chemistry. If ignorance is real then I can never loose it. Inquiry into ignorance is itself a
useless inquiry, since it is not a positive quantity to inquire about. When did the
ignorance began? this question itself is invalid question and hence it is said that it is

anivervachaniiyam unexplainable . It is anaadi beginningless. If it has beginning

then before that I was knowledgeable. Ignorance can be replaced by knowledge but not
vice versa. Hence it is anaadi yet can have an end when the knowledge dawns on me.
For that reason only it is peculiar type does not belong to the nature of Brahman. For
the Jagat, the world, there is locus, which is Brahman, which is the substratum, or real
on which the changes takes place. For ignorance there is not absolute locus to say it is
centered on this. Hence it is called anirvacahaniiyam. It appears to be centered on
Jeeva who himself is theproduct of avidya. But Jeeva has his own locus and that is
Brahman while the ignorance has only apparent locus that is Jeeva, who takes unreal
as real. That is what is the term delusion implies. Whatever one imagines oneself in
delusion is not real but for the one who is in delusion what he imagines is real. Hence
reality is based on the Reference State hence it is at the vyaavahaarika or
transactions level, the relative realties are established. From absolute point only
Brahman alone is real. Everything else is relatively real.
II. The incomprehensibility of Avidya. Advaitins claim that Avidya is neither real nor
unreal but incomprehensible, {anirvacaniiyam.} All cognition is either of the real or the
unreal: the Advaitin claim flies in the face of experience, and accepting it would call into
question all cognition and render it unsafe.
It is the extension of the same arguments but attacking the anivarchaniiyam aspect.
Ramanujas statement that all cognitions are either of the real or unreal is absolutely
wrong. In fact it is the other way around. Only Brahman alone is real, and Brahman
cannot be cognized in the true sense of the word. We have already established that
there is something called mithya, which appears to be real, but upon inquiry what
appears to be real is not real, but only the substratum that supports the appearance is
real. Sun raise and sun set is one example. Bending of the pencil immersed half way in
water appears to be real, but bending is not real. Scientific investigations aim at
resolving these apparent experiences by appropriate inquiry. Right type of inquiry leads
to discoveries that illumine the truths underlying each of the experiences. There are
truly anirvachaniiyam
that is accepted even by Ramanuja and others For example- which is the beginning
chicken or egg. Or what is the cause and what is the effect. Since ignorance is anaadi
which Ramanuja also agrees, who has the ignorance is the fundamental question that
is left to be answered by both systems of philosophy. (in the case of Ramanuja
ignorance that is anaadi belongs to Jeevaas not knowing their aadhaaratvam or
dependence on the Lord that is due to delusion which is also Maya. His explanation is
not much different.
How and when the Jeevaas possessed this ignorance he has to resort to the same
answer too it is anirvachaniiyam. In Advaita, ignorance which is the cause for Jiiva to
feel that he is Jiiva is locused on Jiiva. It is like chicken and egg situation anyonya
ashraya Jiiva has avidya and avidya is the cause of Jiiva. This cannot be resolved by
intellectual analysis since intellect itself is the product of avidya. Hence it is
anirvachaniiyam. Only way to resolve this is to transcend the cause-effect relations
ships or transcend the time where all these concepts take birth. The anirvachaniiyam
aspect in Ramanuja is buried

in the disguise of Paramaatma leela. Why Lord wants to play at Jives expense is
anirvachaniiyam, since He is the Lord and He cannot be questioned. Unquestionable
surrenderance is only the upaaya or the means for moksha or liberation.
In addition, there are two ways to answer the central objection of Ramanuja. First,
avidya is not positive quantity to be classified as real or unreal. It can only be inferred
by lack of knowledge, which is positive. Since it does not come under real or unreal it is
anivervachaniiyam. Second, ignorance by definition is incomprehensible. If it is
comprehensible then it is no more ignorance. In contrast to what Ramanuja claims the
incomprehensibility of avidya flies in the face of experience, and accepting it would call
into question all cognition and render it unsafe, itself is baseless. One can only cognize
knowledge of the object or lack of object. I know chemistry or I do not know chemistry
both are facts to be cognized and recognized. In the cognition of the first, the
knowledge of chemistry is cognized and in the cognition of the second the absence of
the knowledge of chemistry is cognized. Anirvachaniiyam comes only to answer the
why's and how's and when's etc or inquiry into the nature of ignorance itself. This part
of the problem as discussed above is common in Advaita and vishishhTaadvaita.
Objection:
III. The grounds of knowledge of Avidya. No pramaaNa can establish Avidya in the
sense the Advaitin requires. Advaita philosophy presents Avidya not as a mere lack of
knowledge, as something purely negative, but as an obscuring layer which covers
Brahman and is removed by true Brahma-vidya. Avidya is positive nescience not mere
ignorance. Ramanuja argues that positive nescience is established neither by
perception, nor by inference, nor by scriptural testimony. On the contrary, Ramanuja
argues, all cognition is of the real.
Response: PramaaNa is the means of knowledge. Knowledge is required to eliminate
the ignorance. To establish that ones is ignorant of something one need not have a
pramaaNa. That I dont know chemistry or I do not know gaagaabuubu is self-evident
in fact what is self-evident is the lack of knowledge of chemistry or lack of knowledge of
gagaabuubu. What pramaaNa is needed to established to myself that I am ignorant of
chemistry or gaagaabuubu. For others to establish that I am ignorant of chemistry or
gaagaabuubu then pramaaNa or means of testing is required. But to establish for
myself that I am ignorant no pramaaNa is required. PramaaNa is required to establish
the fact which may contradict my own day to day experience. No one has to teach me
that I am the body, I am the mind or I am the intellect. But pramaaNa is required to
establish that I am not the body, nor the mind and not the intellect. Avidya is established
automatically when the shaastra contradicts my direct experience and reveals the truth.
In the face of the truth, ignorance that I had, falls off in spite of my day to day
experience. That sun neither raises nor sets is established through pramaaNa in spite
of my day to day experience of sun raise and sun set. Essentially I dont need shaastra
as a pramaaNa to establish that I am ignorant. What shaastra can do is to illumine the
knowledge which when it dawns on me, the ignorance that I had is eliminated. What
establishes the fact that sun raises in the morning and sets in the evening that is
direct perception. Hence experiences are basis for the ignorance too. But I may not

perceive that I am ignorant till the knowledge dawn on me. PramaaNa is required to
establish true knowledge. Ignorance cannot cover Brahman or much less anything. It is
not a positive thing to cover something. But Advaita provides a rational explanation of
the cause of not-seeing the truth as truth. What covers my knowledge that there is
really no sun raise and no sun set. First, direct experience of the sun raise and sun set,
and second the lack of proper understanding of that experience. We say ignorance as
though covers the knowledge but truth is that ignorance is not a positive to cover
anything. Ramanujas criticism of Advaita is therefore baseless. In fact that there is
avidya that is covering the truth itself is only an explanation for the apparent facts. The
truth is, there is nothing other than Brahman. Everything that is seen or appears to be
there is only mithya including the concepts to explain that which is not there.
Explanation of Maya and avidya applies to Maya and avidya too.
Objection:
IV. The locus of Avidya. Where is the Avidya that gives rise to the(false) impression of
the reality of the perceived world? There are two possibilities; it could be Brahman's
Avidya or the individual soul's {Jiiva.} Neither is possible. Brahman is knowledge;
Avidya cannot co-exist as an attribute with a nature utterly incompatible with it. Nor can
the individual soul be the locus of Avidya: the existence of the individual soul is due to
Avidya; this would lead to a vicious circle.
Response: This aspect is already covered in the first. This is the chicken and egg
situation. Locus of avidya is not Brahman but jiiva who is the product of avidya. Avidya
is beginning less from Jiivas point since beginning and end are concepts within time
and time itself is in the mind of jiiva. Hence from Jiivas point, avidya arises before time
is conceptualized and time is conceptualized only after the first two thoughts. Hence to
ask whether it is Jiiva first or avidya first, is untenable question since before and after
and cause and effects are within the realm of time. Scripture can provide some answers
to this. Existence-consciousness alone was there in the beginning and it is one without
a second. He saw and decided to become many Here is the origin of Iswara from
the primordial cause. Creation begins with Iswara who has no ignorance. Ignorance
starts with the identification with the created as I am this and this. How does it happen
is unexplainable since the explanations are within the realm of intellect. Who is the
locus for avidya When the creation began, the locus of Maya is Iswara and after the
creation has taken place misunderstanding that the creation is real is due to delusion
and how that happens is anirvacaniiyam. The locus of that ignorance is jiiva. Ignorance
is
eliminated form Jiiva when the knowledge dawns on him. Avidya is not attribute for
existence or non-existence. Besides Brahman is not opposite to avidya. In fact that
there is avidya or ignorance is known as knowledge only by the illumination of the
avidya by consciousness which is Brahman. It is like seeing the darkness. I cannot see
anything in pitch dark. But that it is pitch dark that I can see. In what light I can see
that it is pitch dark that light is not opposite to darkness since it can illumine darkness
without destroying it, as I say that I can see that it is dark. Can I say darkness is
covering the objects and that is the reason I cannot see. Darkness is not some positive
thing to cover and uncover. Lack of enough light to illumine the objects for human

equipment to see is the problem. But even in pitch darkness, I know I am there. Since I
am self-luminous or self-consciousness entity. I dont need any pramaaNa to prove that
I exist and I am consciousness. Nothing can cover me.
V. Avidya's obscuration of the nature of Brahman. Shankara would have us believe that
the true nature of Brahman is somehow covered-over or obscured by Avidya. Ramanuja
regards this as an absurdity: given that Advaita claims that Brahman is pure selfluminous consciousness, obscuration must mean either preventing the origination of
this(impossible since Brahman is eternal) or the destruction of it -equally absurd.
Response I think Ramanuja haphazardly criticizes the Advaita without correct
understanding of the import of Advaita. Bhagavaan Shankara does not say that
Brahman is covered by avidya. But for Jiiva the Brahman is appeared to be covered
since he does not know the truth. Shankara gives a common experience to illustrate the
point. Just like dark clouds covering the sun In principle clouds cannot cover the sun
since he is so large compared to the size of the earth and the size of the clouds. And
clouds exists because of the sun and the clouds that are covering the sun is seen only
because of the sun without the Sun, one cannot even see the clouds that are covering
the sun. In the light of consciousness only the ignorance is known. If it is able to illumine
the ignorance, then how can it be covered. Brahman is ekameva advitiiyam one
without a second and there is nothing that can cover it. Luminosity or self-luminosity of
Brahman is not compromised any way since it is only in the light of that consciousness
only the ignorance also is known. Obstruction is also a mithya since it is not real since it
can be destroyed. It is apparent but appears to be real to the one who is deluded by the
appearance. Hence intrinsic nature of luminous Brahman is not compromised just as
clouds cannot cover the intrinsic nature of the luminous Sun.
Objection:
VI. The removal of Avidya by Brahma-vidya. Advaita claims that Avidya has no
beginning, but it is terminated and removed by Brahma-vidya, the intuition of the reality
of Brahman as pure, undifferentiated consciousness. But Ramanuja denies the
existence of undifferentiated{nirguna} Brahman, arguing that whatever exists has
attributes: Brahman has infinite auspicious attributes. Liberation is a matter of Divine
Grace: no amount of learning or wisdom will deliver us.
Response:
The reality of avidya is already touched upon in the earlier objections and already
shown that avidya does not come under either real and or unreal. The objection is
based on Ramanuja propositions and based on these propositions he rules out Advaita.
Even in Advaita, knowledge discloses the reality of oneself and the reality of the world real is true and that reality is the dismissal of ones own notions about oneself as I am
this and that which are objects and re-educating oneself that I am the sat-chit-aananda
which is ekameva advitiiyam. All are in me and I am in all of them, yet I am different
from all of them is the knowledge that Krishna emphasizes. Sarva bhuutastam
aatmaanam sarva bhuutaanica atmani All are in me and I am in all of them- is the
teaching.

First, Ramanujas statement is not a criticism of Advaita but proposition of his axiomatic
statements of the nature of the reality. His proposition that Brahman is not nirguNa
contradicts not only Advaita but also scriptural statements. He provides a narrower
meaning of nirguNa that He is without any durguNa.
nirguNo, nishkRio, nityo, nirvikalpo niranjanaH says the shruthi.
Whatever exists should have attributes is a declarative statement of Ramanuja. This
is applicable to only objects and is true since objects have naama, ruupa and guNa.
But objects are jadam they are not swayam prakaashatvam some thing else has to
illumine the objects- but for self-luminous self, nirguNa is absolutely valid statement.
The reasoning is simple. Knowledge of the objects occurs by pratyaksha or anumaana
etc through the knowledge of the guNaas only. They are known through the mind and
intellect since the mind and intellect can only grasp that which have guNaas. To that
extent only Ramanuja is right. But that which is guNaatiita that which is beyond the
intellect, it cannot be comprehended by any thing. It is known only because it is selfluminous and no pramaaNa is required to establish that.
Liberation is a matter of divine grace that Advaita does not contradict. In fact
liberation occurs through knowledge which is not purusha tantra it is by divine grace
only Brahman can be known or aham Brahmaasmi can be realized. It is not
knowing an object since when one knows the object, one does not become an object.
But knowing Brahman is becoming Brahman brahmavit brahaiva bhavati is the
shruti. Hence it is not objective knowledge but subjective recognition or realization. As
long as I have a notion (ego) that I am different from Brahman, I can never know
Brahman.
Only complete surrenderance of ones ego leads to the true knowledge of oneself. But
even in Ramanujas teaching, it is the knowledge alone that brings moksha. It is the
knowledge of ones complete dependence on the Lord which happens when one
completely surrenders ones ego. Other than the fact that the nature of the moksha is
different in the two doctrines, but the means is the same. In both cases bhakti leads to
Jnaana but is that Jnaana is different in the two doctrines. In one it is aham
Brahmaasmi is the knowledge in the other I am eternal servant of the Lord. Both are
gained by complete surrenderance to the Lord which can happen only under bhakti.
Hence Shankara defines bhakti in VivekachuuDaamani as moksha kaaraNa
saamaagrayam bhaktireva gariiyasi| atmaanubhava sandhaanam bhaktirityabhidiiyate.
Of all paths for moksha bhati is the supreme and ones establishment of oneself in his
own self is the said to be true bhakti.
Objection:
VII. The removal of Avidya. For the Advaitin, the bondage in which we dwell before the
attainment of Moksa is caused by Maya and Avidya; knowledge of reality (Brahmavidya) releases us. Ramanuja, however, asserts that bondage is real. No kind of
knowledge can remove what is real. On the contrary, knowledge discloses the real; it
does not destroy it. And what exactly is the saving knowledge that delivers us from
bondage to Maya? If it is real then non-duality collapses into duality; if it is unreal, then
we face an utter absurdity.