Vedanta

Lagura & Rayos

Vedanta
it literally means end of the Vedas
it used to only refer to the Upanisads, but has widened to include
thoughts that developed after the Upanisads.

Upanisads
what destroys ignorance and gets man near to God
what gets man near to the teacher

The Upanisads may be regarded as the end of the Vedas in different

senses:

(a) The Upanisads were the last literary products of the Vedic period
(b) In respect of the study also, the Upanisads come last.
(c) The Upanisads mark the culmination of the Vedic Speculation
Upanisads
It was regarded as the inner or secret meanings (rahayasa) of the
Vedas hence their teachings are sometimes regards to as the
Vedopanisad or the secret of the Vedas.

They were many in number and developed in the many Vedic schools
(sakhas) at different times and places hence the problems and
solutions discussed in the upanisads were different despite having
the same outlook

Badarayana's Brahmasutra
the coherence (samanvaya) of the Upaniṣadic teachings
their non-contradiction (avirodha) in relation to established theories
and logical rules
the means of realisation (sādhana)
the fruit (phala) achieved
 Different Schools of
Vedanta
What divides the different schools of Vedanta is their answer
to the question: What is the nature of the relation between
the self (jiva) and God?

Madhva - the self and God are two different entities;

dualistic in approach (dvaita)
Sankara - the self and God are the same; monistic in
approach (advaita)
Ramanuja - the self and God are related like parts and a
whole; qualified monism in approach (visistadvaita)
 Different Schools of
Vedanta
The different schools of Vedanta developed in three stages:
1. The creative stage - represented by the revealed texts
(srutis) or the Vedic literature, chiefly consisting of the
Upanisads.
2. The systematisation stage - represented by the
Brahmasutras which gather, arrange and justify the ideas of
the previous stage.
3. The elaboration stage - represented by all works beginning
from the chief commentaries downwards in which the ideas
and arguments are cast into the proper philosophical forms.
 How the Vedanta Developed Through
the Vedas and the Upanisads
There are three Vedas: Rg, Yajus, and Sama
Rg - the basic work
Yajus & Sama - containing Rg hymns (mantras)
These mantras consist mostly of praises for different deities
such as Agni, Mitra, Varuna, Indra, etc.
Gives account of the might and noble deeds that these various
deities had done and prays for the favour of said deities.

Polutheistic or Henotheistic

Because prayers and sacrifices are done to multiple gods, the

Vedas could therefore be referred to as polytheistic in nature.
But what is peculiar is that when these many multiple gods are
being praised by the hymns, it would seem to be like they are
referring to these gods as the supreme God.
Max Muller coins the term "henotheism" to signify this belief seeing
calling the Vedas polytheistic would not be appropriate.
 How the Vedanta Developed Through
the Vedas and the Upanisads
There is a development in Vedic thought which many writers believed
it to be that the idea of God gradually developed from polytheism
through henotheism, and ultimately to monotheism.
Henotheism is not merely a transitional phenomenon; Indian
monotheism had always retain the belief that even though God is
one, he can manifest in many different gods and that any of these
manifestations can be worshipped as a form of the Supreme Deity.

Belief in the unity of all gods is only a part of the greater thought which
is about the unity of all existence. The hymn Purusasukta tries to
visualize the organic unity of the whole universe.
The Man had a thousand heads, a thousand eyes, a thousand
feet: he covered the earth on all sides and stretched ten fingers'
length beyond it.
Such was his greatness; and the Man was greater still: this whole
world is a fourth of him, three-fourths of him are immortal in the
sky.
 How the Vedanta Developed Through
the Vedas and the Upanisads
The hymn Nasadiya-sukta, we are introduced to the Vedic
conception of the Impersonal Absolute.
The hymn begins as:
There was then neither what is, nor what is not, there as no
sky; nor the heaven which is beyond.
It concludes:
He From whom this creation arose, whether he made it or
did not make it; the highest seer in the highest heaven, he
forsooth knows, or does even he not know?

The relation between the conception of Ultimate Reality as

Person and the conception of it as an Indeterminate Absolute
is rather indeterminate and as such, both concepts are
conceived to be the sme aspect of the same Reality.
 How the Vedanta Developed Through
the Vedas and the Upanisads
The first attempt at philosophical speculation is found in the
Upanisads wherein questions regarding the self, God, and the
world are clearly raised and discussed.

The problems of the Upanisads

What is the Reality from which all things originate, by which

all live and into which all dissolve when destroyed?
What is that by which knowing which everything can be
known?
What is that by knowing which the unknown becomes
known?
What is that by knowing which one can attain immortality?
What is Brahman?
What is Atman?
The Unanimous Views of the Vedanta
Schools
Both Sankara and Ramanuja reject theories which explain the
world;
(1.) either as the product of material elements which by
themselves combine together to form objects
(2.) or as the transformation of an unconscious nature that
spontaneously evolves all objects,
(3.) or as the product of two kinds of independent reality, such as
matter and God, one of which is the material, the other the
efficient cause
Hence, Sankara and Ramanuja are both Monist.
Refutation of the Sankhya view of
Creation
The Sankhya theory, according to which the three guas (sattva,
rajas, and tamas) that make up unconscious primal matter
(prakti), which is what gives rise to the world without the help
of any conscious agent, is unsatisfactory because the world is
a harmonious system of well-adjusted objects that cannot be
thought of as the accidental result of any unconscious cause.
This world, which consists of physical bodies, sensory organs,
motor organs, and other items, is formed specifically to fit the
many souls who are born into it in accordance with their past
acts, as the Sankhya itself allows.
Without any conscious guidance, the evolution of the ordered
world is not possible.
 Refutation of the Vaisesika View
According to the Vaieika hypothesis, the world is caused by a
because these thoughtless atoms cannot create this lovely
world by adjusted atoms, atoms is also implausible.
This law is also unconscious

how atoms at first begin to move in order to create the world is

not explicable

the regulation of the atoms in the formation of the world, is

admitted by this school.

After the souls are paired with bodies and the organs of
knowledge, which do not exist prior to creation, consciousness
emerges. As a result, even souls cannot provide conscious
guidance to atoms.
 Refutation of the Bauddha View
Bauddhas who hold the view of subjective idealism
(vījñānavāda) and declare that the world, like a dream, is only
an illusory product of the imagination, the following important
objections are pressed by Śaṅ kara following Bādarāyaṇa.
(a) The existence of external objects cannot be denied
because they are perceived to exist by all persons. To deny the
existence of a pot, cloth or pillar while it is being perceived, is
like denying the flavour of the food while it is being eaten: it is a
falsification of immediate experience by sheer force
(b) If immediate experience is disbelieved, then even the reality
of mental states cannot be believed in
(c) To say that ideas of the mind illusorily appear as external
objects is meaningless unless at least something external is
admitted to be real.
(d) Unless different perceived objects like pot and cloth are
admitted, the idea of a pot cannot be distinguished from that
of a cloth, since, as consciousness, they are identical
 Refutation of the Bauddha View
(e) There is a vital difference between dream objects and
perceived objects
External objects perceived during waking experience cannot
be said to be unreal so long as they are not felt to be
contradicted

So subjective idealism, and along with it also nihilism

(śūnyavāda), fail to explain the world satisfactorily

Even a deistic theory (held by the Śaivas, Pāśupatas, Kāpālikas

and Kālāmukhas)22 which holds that God is the efficient cause
and matter is the material cause of the world is not accepted

The chief objection raised is that as such a view is based not on

the Vedas, but on independent reasoning and ordinary human
experience, it should tally with what we observe in life; but it
does not do so.
Deistic theories of creation are not
tenable
this activity is caused by some motive, such as attainment of
pleasure and removal of pain

God is said to be devoid of body as well as passions and

desires. In the light of empirical experience we fail, therefore,
to understand the manner as well as the motive of God's
creation of the world.
The unanimous Vedanta conception of
God
We have seen that God is conceived even as early as the Vedas
in two aspects:
(1.) God pervades the world, but He is not exhausted in the
world, He is also beyond it
(2.) God is both immanent and transcendent

God in Vedānta is not simply immanent, but also transcendent,

we should call the Vedānta theory of God panentheism, rather
than pantheism.
It is necessary to mention here that in the Upaniṣads, and later
Vedānta
literature, the word, Brahman, is used for the Highest Principle
or Absolute Reality, as well as for the creator of the world, the
object of worship.
The unanimous Vedanta conception of
God
It is necessary to mention here that in the Upaniṣads, and later
Vedānta literature, the word, Brahman, is used for the Highest
Principle or Absolute Reality, as well as for the creator of the
world, the object of worship
Another point of agreement among Vedāntins is that all of
them believe that the knowledge of the existence of God is, at
the first instance, obtained not by reasoning but from the
testimony of the revealed scriptures
It is admitted, of course, that on the perfection of religious life
the presence of God can be realised by the devout souls.
This faith, thought starting from a personal feeling of
inadequacy and disquiet and a longing for something higher,
remains a mere blind groping in the dark till it is enlightened by
the teachings of the scriptures that embody the sages' direct
realisation of God.
The unanimous Vedanta conception of
God
Reasoning is necessary for the understanding of the teachings,
for removing doubts and realising their cogency
By itself reasoning is an empty form or method of thinking
which can work only when materials are supplied
The scriptures supply to reason the matter for speculation,
argumentation and meditation. This kind of dependence of
reason on matter supplied from a non-rational source is
nothing peculiar to theology.
Though all Vedāntins primarily depend on the scriptures for
belief in God, they make full use of reasoning in the justification
and elaboration of that belief
The unanimous Vedanta conception of
God
Man, therefore, occupies a central place in the Vedānta. It is for
his enlightenment and his salvation that the Vedānta
undertakes philosophical discussion.
But what is the real nature of man?
The Upaniṣads teach us that man has no existence
independent of God. Both Śaṅ kara and Rāmānuja accept this
view. But they interpret the self's dependence on God in
different ways.
The Monism of
Sankara
(Advaita)
 Sankara's Conception of the World
The Advaita Vedanta school of Hindu philosophy was founded
on Sankara's teachings. According to this school, there is just
one non-dual absolute reality called as Brahman. They
contend that Brahman is the only genuine reality and that
everything else, including the world, is an illusion.
Illusory modification of any substance, as of the rope into the
snake is called vivarta, and real modification, as of milk into
curd, is called pariṇāma.
From our standpoint, illusion is the product of our ignorance,
which prevents us from seeing the real nature of the thing and
which makes us see something else in its place.
Concealment (āvaraṇa) of reality and distortion (vikṣepa) of it
into something else in our mind are then the two functions of
an illusion-producing ignorance (avidyā or ajñāna).
Śaṅ kara's theory of creation, as described above, is, therefore,
known as vivarta-vāda
 Sankara's Conception of the World
In all illusion there is such projection (adhyāsa), the serpent is
projected (adhyasta) by imagination on the rope, and the world
on Brahman
The Upaniṣadic accounts of creation, then, are to be
understood in the sense of the evolution of the world out of
Brahman through its power of māyā.
Māyā as a power of God is indistinguishable from Him, just
as the burning power of fire is from the fire itself. It is by this
that God, the Great Magician, conjures up the world-show
with all its wonderful objects.
For God, māyā is only the will to create the appearance. It
does not affect God, does not deceive Him
 Sankara's Conception of the World
This māyā, Śaṅ kara admits, is described in some scriptures also
as avyakta or even prakṛti having three elements of sattva,
rajas and tamas.
It is a power of God, and absolutely dependent on God.
Vedānta works, like the Upaniṣads, are not always unanimous
regarding the exact process by which, and the order in which,
the world's objects arise out of Brahman through māyā
According to a well-known account, at first there arise out of
Ātman or Brahman the five subtle elements, in the order
ākāśa (ether),
vāyu (air),
agni (fire),
ap (water),
kṣiti (earth).
These five are again mixed up together in five different ways to
give rise to the five gross elements of those names
 Sankara's Conception of the World
Gross ākāśa is produced by the combination of the five subtle
elements in the proportion
1/2 ākāśa +
1/8 air +
1/8 fire +
1/8 water +
1/8 earth.
Śaṅ kara accepts this account of creation; but he understands
the entire process in the light of his theory of vivarta (or
adhyāsa).
In addition to the advantages of consistent interpretation of
scriptures, the theory of vivarta, Śaṅ kara points out, gives also
a more rational explanation of creation.
God's infinity is lost because another reality is to be
admitted.
 Rational foundation of Sankara's
Theory of the World
To give the beginner an idea of this aspect of Advaita
philosophy, we shall briefly mention below how Śaṅ kara tries to
reach his theory of the world by subjecting common
experience to rational criticism and logical construction:
(a) If the relation between any effect and its material cause
is carefully examined it is found that the effect is nothing
more than the cause.
(b) We find then that pure existence which is the common
cause of the entire world is itself formless it is infinite,
though it appears in all finite forms
(c) criterion of consciousness, a mental state is conscious,
because its existence is self-revealing.
(d) We find that awareness prevades all forms of existence
known to
us.
(e)By assessing the claims to existence made by all
changing and particular objects of the world Śaṅ kara
discovers a dual nature in them.
 Sankara's Conception of God
God, according to Śaṅ kara, can be conceived from two
different points of view.
God from the ordinary practical standpoint (vyāvahārika-
dṛṣṭi) from which the world is believed to be real, God may
be regarded as the cause, the Creator, the Sustainer, the
Destroyer of the world and, therefore, also as an
Omnipotent and Omniscient Being.
THE MAGICIAN ANALOGY
Śaṅ kara constantly draws on the analogy of the magician
(māyāvī) as suggested in the Śvetāśvatara. The magician is a
juggler only to those who are deceived by his trick and who
fancy that they perceive the objects conjured up. But to the
discerning few who see through the trick and have no illusion,
the juggler fails to be a juggler.
 Sankara's Conception of God
Śaṅ kara demonstrates by argument that;
(a) pure existence is the ground and material of all particular
and changing forms of existence constituting the world,
(b) that particular objects being open to contradiction cannot
be taken as absolutely real,
(c) that only pure existence is beyond actual and possible
contradiction and, therefore, the only Absolute Reality, and
(d) that pure existence is pure consciousness as well.
The Qualified Monism of
Ramanuja
(Visistadvatta)
Ramanuja

Ramanuja, or
Ramanujacharaya, was an
Indian Hindu philosopher,
guru, and a social reformer
in the 11th century. He is the
main proponent of the
Visistadvatta.
 Ramanuja's Conception of the World
Ramanuja takes the Upanisadic accounts of creation in a literal sense
wherein he holds that God, in all his omnipotence, created the
manifold world out of Himself by a gracious act of will.
Within Brahman, there is both the unconscious matter (acit)
and the finite spirits (cit).

The Prakrti
The praktri is admitted to be an uncreated (aja) eternal reality as like
the Sankhya belief, but ulike the Sankhya, Ramanuja believes that the
praktri is a part of God and is controlled by him like how the human
soul is able to control the human body.
In the state of dissolution (pralaya), the primal unconcious nature of
the praktri remains latent, subtle (suksma), and undifferentiated
(avibhakta).
God then creates the world out of the praktri in accordance to the
deeds of the souls in the world prior to the last dissolution.
 Ramanuja's Conception of the World

The Prakrti
Through the omnipotent will of God, the praktri, which is subtle
and undifferentiated, gradually transforms into three kinds of
subtle elements - fire, water, and earth.
They manifest three kinds of qualities known as: sattva,
rajas, and tamas.
These three subtle elements will eventually mix with each
other and will give rise to all objects that we are able to
perceive in the material world.

In every object in the world, there is a mixture of three

elements and this process of triplication is known as
tribrtkarana.
 Ramanuja's Conception of the World

Ramanuja holds that creation is a fact and that the created world
is as real as Brahman. With regard to the Upanisadic text that
denies the multiplicity of objects and assert the unity of all things,
Ramanuja holds that they do not necessarily deny the reality of the
many objects, but rather they teach that in all of them, there is
Brahman.
What the Upanisads deny is the independence of objects, not
their dependent existence (aprthaksthiti).

Ramanuja admits that God is a wielder of magical power (maya)

which means that the inscrutable power that God has used to
create the world is as wonderful as that of a magician's

Ramanuja denies that creation and the created world are illusory
and he strengthens this idea by holding that all knowledge is true
(yathartham sarva-vijnanam) and that there are no illusory objects
aywhere.
 Ramanuja's Criticism of the Advaita
Theory of Maya
Where does Ignorance (ajnana) exist?
It cannot exist in the individual self (jiva) because
individuality is produced by ignorance.
It cannot also be something that is omniscient.

Brahman as the locus of Ignorance?

Maya in Brahman is Ignorance is like that of the power of

producing ignorance and illusion in individuals.
It conceals the real nature of Brahman in the sense that the
ignorant individual is unable to realize the true nature of
Brahman like that of clouds concealing the sun in a cloudy
day.
 Ramanuja's Criticism of the Advaita
Theory of Maya

What is the nature of Ignorance?

To the Advaitins, the maya is indescribable
(anirvacaniya), it is neither real nor unreal.
Ramanuja replies by saying that maya, along with
ever illusory object, is said to be indescribable owing
to a genuine difficulty.
In so far as it appears to be something, illusionary
objects cannot be said to be unreal. In so far as it
contradicted afterwards by some experience, it
cannot be said to be absolutely real like Atman or
Brahman whose reality is never contradicted.
Saying Maya is indescribable is owed to our
inability to bring it under any ordinary
category.
Ramanuja's Conception of God

According to Ramanuja, God is the Absolute Reality

possessing two integral parts: matter and the finite
spirits.
Brahman is the only reality in the universe.
God contains within Himself material objects as
well as the finite souls
The Absolute One contains the many.

This form of monism that Ramanuja follows in is

referred to as Visistadvaita which means the Unity
(advaita) of Brahman possessed (visista) of real
parts (the concious and the unconcious)
 Ramanuja's Conception of God

The Vedantins distinguish three types of dinstinctions

(bheda)
Vijatiya-bheda - heterogeneous type of dinstinction
Sajatiya-bheda - homogeneous type of disntinction
Svagata-bheda - the distinction of parts in a object

Ramanuja believes that Brahman is devoid of vijatiya

and sajatiya because there is nothing, other than God
Himself, that is similar or dissimilar from Him.
He is possessed of internal distinctions as there are
many different conscious and unconscious
substances
 Ramanuja's Conception of God
God possess an infinite number of infinitely good
qualities such as omnipotence, omniscience,
benevolence, etc., which is why he cannot be said to be
characterless (nirguna) or indeterminate for he is
possessed of qualities (saguna).
When the Upanisads deny Brahman of having
qualities, they mean that God is free from bad
qualities or imperfections.
God creates the world and when is withdrawn from it
and the objects of that world is destroyed, all that
remains in God is the matter that is undifferentiated
and homogeneous as well as the souls for both are
eternal.
Ramanuja's Conception of God

In the state of dissolution, Brahman remains with pure

matter and bodiless souls in an unmanifested form
(avyakta).
This maybe referred to as the causal state of
Brahman (karana-brahma)

When objects are created, God becomes manifested

as the world of objects and of embodied souls.
This second manifested form of God may be called
its effect-state (karya-brahma).
Texts in the Upanisads that deny the existence of
objects and describe God in a negative manner are
really only indicating Him in the unmanisfested state.
Ramanuja's Conception of God

If matter and spirit are parts of God, then does not God
undergo modification with the change in matter?
Ramanuja takes recourse to the analogy of the body
and the soul
God is the soul of which material objects and spirits
compose the body. God controls matter and spirits
like how the soul controls the body from within.
God is thus conceived as the Antaryamin or the
regulator of the universe from within.
Using the analogy of the soul and, Ramanuja explains that
like the soul, which is not affected by the bodily changes
and imperfections, God is not affected by the changes in
the universe.
He is beyond these changes.
Ramanuja's Conception of the Self,
Bondage and Liberation
Ramanuja holds that what is in the Upanisads with regard to the
identity between God and man is not really an unqualified one.
It is unthinkable that man, who is finite, can be identical with
God, who is infinite, in every respect. But at the same time,
man is not different from God in the sense that God
pervades and controls man.
Just as the existence of a part is inseparable from the
whole, such is the relation of man towards God.
Identity cannot be asserted between altogether different terms
and of identical terms. Identity, however, can be asserted
between two forms of the same substance.
The Upanisadic dictum tat tvam asi (that thou art) is to be
understood in that manner.
That stands for God, the omniscient, omnipotent creator of
the universe while Thou stands for God existing in the form of
ma, the embodied soul (acid-visista-jiva-sarirakam)
Ramanuja's Conception of the Self,
Bondage and Liberation
According to Ramanuja, in diferent respects,
there are different kinds of relations between the
self and God.
Insofar as self is finite and subject to
imperfection and God is the opposite in
nature, there is a difference.
Insofar as the self is inseparable from God
who is the inner substance (atma) there is
identity (abheda/ananyatva/tadatmya)
As the self is part of God, both identity and
difference are tenable.
Ramanuja's Conception of the Self,
Bondage and Liberation
Ramanuja criticized the theory of identity-in difference
(bhedabheda) and in his criticism, there are two kinds of
groups of advocates of bhedabheda that he puts in mind:
(a) those who hold that the self is nothing but Brahman
imagined as limited by some extraneous or accidental
adjunct (uphandi)
Ramanuja points out that according to these
people, Brahman is reduced to a finite self, that he
becomes subject to all the imperfections.
(b) those who hold that the self is but a mode of
Brahman who has really assumed a finite form.
Ramanuja's objects is that these people hold that
the self is really Brahman, that the imperfections of
the self would also belong to Brahman
Ramanuja's Conception of the Self,
Bondage and Liberation
Ramanuja states that Brahman never becomes in any
way, a self. Brahman is eternally Brahman.
But if such is the case, how can Brahman be the
cause of Jiva (matter) if Jiva does not arise from
Brahman?
By calling Brahman the cause, Ramanuja does
not mean the immediate unconditional
antecedent, but only the material or the
substance.
The whole does not precede the parts nor
the parts succeed the hole. Brahman
always exists as a whole possessed of parts
and never become parts which means that
the whole does not become subjected to
the imperfections of the parts.
Ramanuja's Conception of the Self,
Bondage and Liberation
Ramanuja states that Brahman never becomes in any
way, a self. Brahman is eternally Brahman.
But if such is the case, how can Brahman be the
cause of Jiva (matter) if Jiva does not arise from
Brahman?
By calling Brahman the cause, Ramanuja does
not mean the immediate unconditional
antecedent, but only the material or the
substance.
The whole does not precede the parts nor
the parts succeed the whole. Brahman
always exists as a whole possessed of parts
and never become parts which means that
the whole does not become subjected to
the imperfections of the parts.
Ramanuja's Conception of the Self,
Bondage and Liberation
According to Ramanuja, man has a real body and a soul
The body is made of matter, which is a part of God, and is
finite
The soul is not made and is eternally existing. It is, however,
also part of God which means it cannot be infinite.
The all-pervasive nature of the soul which the Upanisads
describe cannot be taken in the literal sense.
The real sense of the pervasiveness of the soul is that
the soul is so subtle (suksma) that it can penetrate
into every unconscious material substance.
The denial that the soul is infinitely small (anu) nor finite can
affect the unconscious.
If the soul has neither of the to extreme dimensions, it must
admit to having a medium one which things composed by
the combination of parts which would make the soul liable
to destruction.
 Ramanuja's Conception of the Self,
Bondage and Liberation
The consciousness of the soul is not accidental to it nor is it
dependent on its connection with the body.
It is not the essence, but rather it is an eternal quality of the
soul and remains under all conditions.
The soul is identified by Ramanuja with what we mean by
the word "I" or the "ego" (aham)

Bondage & Liberation

The bondage of the soul to the body is due to its karma.
The soul is associated with the body it deserves as the effect
of its karma.
Being embodied means that the soul is limited by the
conditions of its organs of knowledge and the body it possess.
Though infinitely small, it illumines or renders conscious
every part of the body.
It identifies itself with the body and regards this body as
itself.
 Ramanuja's Conception of the Self,
Bondage and Liberation
Bondage & Liberation
This identification of the soul with the body/ the self with the
not-self is called Egoism (ahankara).
Avidya or ignorance consists in this base propensity.

The attain of liberation must be sought out through both work

and knowledge for these two things pave the way for devotion
Work (karma) refers to the different obligatory rituals
enjoined by the Vedas on persons according to their
respective castes and stations in life (varnasrama).
In order to do these rituals, Ramanuja says that it is
necessary to study Mimamsa; he thinks of it as the precursor
to studying Vedanta.
 Ramanuja's Conception of the Self,
Bondage and Liberation
Bondage & Liberation
The study of Vedanta only produces book-learning and does
not bring about liberation despite the Upanisads saying that
liberation is brought about by knowledge for real knowledge is
not a verbal knowledge of scriptures.
Real knowledge is a steady, constant remembrance of God
(dhruva smrti)
It is described as meditation (dhyana), prayer (upsana),
and devotion (bhakti)
Through this constant practice of the remembrance
of God, it matures into an immediate knowledge of
God and is the final means towards liberation for it
brings about the destruction of all ignorance and
karma that the body has caused.
The soul that realized God is liberated from the
body for ever, without any chance of rebirth.
 Ramanuja's Conception of the Self,
Bondage and Liberation
Bondage & Liberation
Despite all this effort, we must remember that liberation
cannot simply be attained through human efforts
God, who is pleased with the devotion, helps the devotee
to attain perfect knowledge by removing the obstacles.
He lifts the bondage of the man who flings himself at the
mercy of Go and constantly remembers Him as the only
object of love.
This complete self-surrender towards God is called
prapatti
Liberation is not the soul's becoming identical with God,
rather it is simply the unity with God.
 Thank
you
for
listening!