Mīmāṃsā and Vedānta

Advaita doctrine of jīva and brahman

In Advaita Vedānta, jīva is the individual self, the self as it appears when conditioned by the limiting adjuncts (upādhi) of body, mind and intellect. Its apparent distinctness from Brahman is produced by ignorance (avidyā), and when avidyā is removed the jīva is known to be identical with the universal Brahman. The term therefore names the self in bondage, not the universal Self and not the self already liberated, which is called jīvanmukta or mukta. Śaṅkara's position can be stated in three points. First, ontologically the jīva is not different from Brahman, and its true nature is that same Brahman. Second, empirically, at the level of ordinary experience, the jīva appears distinct from Brahman because of the upādhis of body, mind and senses. Third, Brahman is partless (niṣkala), so the jīva can never be a part of it. Brahman itself has two aspects. The Absolute (parabrahman) is unconditioned (nirupādhi), indeterminate (nirviśeṣa) and without attributes (nirguṇa), and it is not an object of determinate cognition. Brahman viewed through a limiting adjunct such as māyā or avidyā is aparabrahman, which is conditioned (sopādhika), determinate (saviśeṣa) and possessed of attributes (saguṇa). This qualified Brahman, endowed with omniscience and omnipotence, is Īśvara, the personal God. Key terms: jīva — the individual self limited by upādhi; e.g. The jīva, though it appears as a limited knower, is ultimately nothing but Brahman. nirguṇa / saguṇa — without or with attributes; e.g. Īśvara is saguṇa, while the Absolute is nirguṇa. upādhi — a limiting adjunct that makes Brahman appear determinate; e.g. Body and mind act as upādhis that make the self seem individual.

Indian pramāṇa theories

Indian epistemology divides on whether knowledge validates itself. The doctrine of svataḥ-prāmāṇya holds that validity is grasped together with the cognition itself, whereas parataḥ-prāmāṇya holds that validity depends on conditions external to the cognition and must be established by further means. Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika are the classic parataḥ schools, holding that both validity and invalidity are produced and ascertained through external causes and verification. Prābhākara Mīmāṃsā and Advaita Vedānta are generally grouped with the svataḥ position. The schools also differ on how many pramāṇas to admit. Advaita Vedānta admits six: perception (pratyakṣa), inference (anumāna), comparison (upamāna), verbal testimony (śabda or āgama), postulation (arthāpatti) and non-apprehension (anupalabdhi). The Advaitic text Vedāntaparibhāṣā enumerates exactly these six, and doubt (saṃśaya) and memory (smṛti) are not counted as pramāṇas. Compared with this, Nyāya admits four, and the Sāṃkhya count is three. Key terms: svataḥ-prāmāṇya — validity known along with knowledge; e.g. Ordinary perception is taken as valid unless something defeats it. parataḥ-prāmāṇya — validity known only through external verification; e.g. A water-perception is confirmed valid only after it leads to successful action. arthāpatti — postulation, explaining an observed fact by an unseen supposition; e.g. A man who does not eat by day is inferred to eat at night, since he is known to be fat. anupalabdhi — non-apprehension, knowing absence by the non-perception of an object where it could be perceived.

Viśiṣṭādvaita of Rāmānuja

Rāmānuja's Viśiṣṭādvaita, or qualified non-dualism, holds that Brahman is one reality qualified by attributes, and that it is not formless or non-qualified. Individual souls (cit) and the material world (acit) are real, and together they constitute the body (śarīra) of Brahman, of which Brahman is the inner self and controller. The system therefore affirms the conception of qualified Brahman, identified with the personal Lord, and rejects the Advaita view that the world is unreal and that Brahman is purely nirguṇa. Its metaphysical profile can be summarised in three claims: the world is real, Brahman is saguṇa, and jīvanmukti is denied, so that liberation is attained only after death (videha-mukti). Key terms: cit — conscious beings, the individual souls; acit — non-sentient matter, the world; śarīra-śarīrin — the body-soul relation by which cit and acit depend on Brahman; e.g. Just as the soul animates the body, Brahman animates all selves and matter. jīvanmukti — liberation while still embodied, which Rāmānuja does not accept.