TABLE OF CONTENTS:
1.00000 Philosophy of God
1.00010 Contradictory Opinions
1.10000 Arguments about the Existence of God
1.11000 Existence of God as Self Evident
1.12000 Empirical Argument
1.12100 Religious Experience
1.12200 Spiritual Experience
1.13000 Pragmatic Argument
1.13100 Utilitarianism
1.13200 Objections to Atheism
1.14000 Cosmological Argument
1.14100 Causal Argument
1.14110 Objections to Cosmological Argument
1.15000 Teleological Argument
1.15010 Teleological Argument Explained
1.15020 Objections to Teleological Argument
1.16000 Ontological Argument
1.16010 Kant Refutation of Anselm
1.16020 Descartes's Argument
1.16100 Objections to Ontological Argument
1.17000 Moral Argument
1.17010 Kant's Argument
1.17020 Sorley's Argument
1.17030 Distinctions between Kant and Sorley
1.17100 Objections to Kant
1.18000 Concluding Remarks
1.20000 Relation of God to the World
1.20010 Overview
1.21000 Deism
1.21010 God outside the World
1.21020 God as First Cause
1.21100 Objections to Deism
1.21200 Concluding Remarks
1.22000 Pantheism
1.22010 Overview
1.22010 God is Nature
1.22020 God is Immanent
1.22030 God has Personality
1.22040 Pantheism in Gita
1.22100 Objections to Pantheism
1.23000 Panentheism
1.23001 Overview
1.23010 Hegel's Theory
1.23100 Objections to Panentheism
1.24000 Theism
1.24100 History of Theism
1.24110 Objections to Theism
1.24120 Concluding Remarks
1.24200 Theism in Vedanta
1.24210 Iswara
1.24211 Iswara is a Utilitarian Concept
1.24212 Iswara and Brahman
1.24213 Creator of Universe
1.24214 Iswara is Perfect
1.24215 Iswara is to be Adored
1.24220 Effect of Actions and their Results
1.24230 Relation of Jiva and Iswara
1.24240 Brahman is Iswara According to Ramanuja
1.24241 Nature of Brahman or Iswara
1.24242 Five Forms of Iswara
1.24243 Objections to Ramanuja
| 1.00000 | Philosophy of God |
|---|---|
| 1.00010 | Contradictory Opinions Almost from the beginning of time, one might say ever since man found his feet, one of the most discussed issues is the existence of God. Philosophers have tried to prove His existence by various proofs, but other philosophers have refuted their reasoning and established theories, which contradict previous ones. As a matter of common faith, it can be said that God's existence is infinite and hence He cannot be the subject of a limited intelligence or mind but man's intelligence refuses to give up the unequal struggle. God is not the subject of sensory experience and is in a sense extra-sensory, a fact that is forgotten by all who want to have sensory proof of His existence, by all who do not realize that there is a fundamental difference between His existence and the existence of physical objects. Actually, the various arguments and proofs offered for the existence of God vary with the levels. For example, a mental idea cannot be exhibited in the same manner in which a material object can be. Arguments proceeding from feelings do not take the form of object but of activity. Obviously, then, it is not possible to provide evidence of God's existence, evidence of the kind that is given to prove the existence of an object. Return to Index |
| 1.10000 | Arguments about the Existence of God |
| 1.11000 | Existence of God as Self Evident For the religious person, the existence of God poses no problem for it is self-proved. On the other hand, the atheist is little concerned whether God exists or not. Who, then, is keen to have it proved to him that God does, or does not exist? Actually, ills true of man's nature that he likes to have logical confirmation of his beliefs even if the beliefs have a psychological basis. It is this element in man's nature, which has compelled the philosopher to find logical proofs for the existence of a God who provides the base of religious faith. At the same time the philosopher has been at some pains to reject and refute the arguments favoring the existence of God. A belief which can not be supported by arguments is treated as blind faith, Consequently, the philosopher has found it necessary to bolster up his faith in God with logical argument in order to avoid this undermining estimation of his thought As Lotze has put it, All proofs that God exists are pleas put forward in justification of our faith and of the particular way in which we feel that we must apprehend this highest principle. Neither the East nor the West has relaxed its efforts, which began a longtime ago, to prove conclusively the existence of God. Many are the proofs that have been meted out for examination. Return to Index |
| 1.12000 | Empirical Argument |
| 1.12100 | Religious Experience Probably the most common argument put forward to prove the existence of God is the one based on the experiences of religious people. In every part of the world, irrespective of the actual religion preached and followed, there have been individuals who have claimed direct communion with God. All such individuals have been proved to be persons of the highest integrity and character, and no reason could be discovered to doubt their word, not even the simple one of personal benefit accruing to them. Beside, the truly religious person is more apt to shun publicity rather than to attract it; what therefore, does he stand to gain by making such a claim as will not benefit him in the least and probably bother him with much publicity and reverence that he does not want? Again, such claims have not been peculiar to any period or place but have been made at all times and in all places by saints and religious people. Return to Index |
| 1.12200 | Spiritual Experience There need be no reason to doubt that religious people do have some kind o1 spiritual experience. The scientist has no hesitation in agreeing that there is no cause to doubt the word of the saint and holy man but what irritates him is the apparent impossibility of verifying the nature of what they claim to be their experience. Putting it differently, it is difficult to determine the extent to which their experiences are objective. It is not necessary to state that no one has seen God manifested as au object or as a human being, and the most that can be said is that one is aware of His presence. On the basis of this awareness it can be said that we have had sonic kind of experience, an experience, that is not similar to the experience of persons or objects, but nevertheless an experience which does not definitely allow us to assume that we have been in the presence of God. According to the psychologists Freud and Leuba, all such experiences are psychological and not objective, while some psychologists have been willing to concede the objective basis of spiritual experience. Briefly, of the empirical argument it can be said that it proves nothing either in favor of or against the existence of God, that it does no more than suggest the possibility of a God existing. Return to Index |
| 1.13000 | Pragmatic Argument |
| 1.13100 | Utilitarianism In this famous work Varieties of Religious Experience William James treats God as a concept possessing practical value. It is something which has a beneficial effect on our life and for that reason it exists. As Leuba, the psychologist, has put it, God is used rather than believed in. This can be seen from the fact that by believing in God a multitude of poor and destitute people pass through life in a state of contentment and satisfaction, deriving much strength from their faith in God. For such people, therefore, God has the same factual existence that physical objects have for individuals more bountifully endowed with them. Besides this purely practical advantage, the life of a saint impresses the average man since it gives him such ideals as love of mankind and selfless service. In his account of the lives of saints James has managed to signify that the degree of love and selfless service found in them can only be explained as originating in their theistic approach, since it was far above the degree in which it is to be found in the average person. It has been seen that some saints cleaned the wounds of lepers with their tongues confident of being immune to the disease, a confidence derived from an unbounding faith in God. Return to Index |
| 1.13200 | Objections to Atheism A belief in the existence of God can be of much practical use in the average individual's life but this cannot be taken to prove that such a thing as God, does exist. Apart from the atheist's outright rejection of God, many arguments have been put forward to show the fallacy of entertaining any such belief. |
| 1.13201 | God's existence cannot be proved by the fact of his utility. God's existence is not proved by the simple fact of a faith in the utility of such a belief. There can be numerous other beliefs that may lighten the burden of life for the majority of us, but would that justify us in treating such beliefs as concrete facts? We may believe that the person we love also loves us, and this belief would do much to make us happy, but would the mere belief achieve anything constructive? |
| 1.13202 | Detrimental influence of religion. It has been observed that many religious people possess a high character as well as the feelings of love and service to a great degree, but it has also been observed that many other religious people hold other people in no esteem, particularly those who adhere to another belief. Lovers of one religion actually hate people who express faith in another religion. And, religion has often been used as a stalking horse for numerous acts of bestiality and cruelty that compel any decent person to hang his head in shame. This is so true that some people believe that when the average person enters a place of worship he leaves behind his common decency and humanity, meaning thereby that the religious person is less liberal and human than one who professes no particular faith. In our own country we have witnessed cruel acts of such magnitude and comprehensiveness that we are encouraged to wonder whether religion is itself not the basis of many of the world's evils. The history of religion, to use a hackneyed metaphor, is splattered with the blood of innumerable innocent victims of narrow mindedness. This is one reason why many eminently intelligent and sane individuals feel compelled to advocate atheism. It follows that any effort to prove the existence of God from the high character of a handful of religious individuals is to beg the question. |
| 1.13203 | Belief in a universal moral order is a teleological argument. There is another form in which the practical argument for God's existence is framed. It is argued that man's life improves if one believes that the world possesses a moral order. It is an argument which can be accepted but then it no longer remains an empirical argument but becomes a teleological one. And therefore, the empirical argument fails to establish the existence of God and succeeds only in projecting the possibility of such an existence. Return to Index |
| 1.14000 | Cosmological Argument |
| 1.14100 | Causal Argument One of the oldest arguments advanced to prove the existence of God has been that the law of causality proves the existence of God since God is the first cause of creation. The law of causality states that every effect must have a cause, and if one sets out to discover the primary cause of creation it would become necessary to stop somewhere and accept some first cause. From this first cause starts the chain of creation, and if such a first cause is not accepted then one would become involved in the logical fallacy of infinite regress. For this reason it becomes necessary to believe that the universe had its first cause in God. There is another way in which the causal argument with regard to God's existence can be put. Every limited object is a compound, an effect which must have some cause. Creation is a composite of many entities and objects, and for that reason it, too, must have some cause. If this cause is itself limited, the cause itself must have another cause. We would have to continue in our search till it becomes necessary to postulate an absolute cause which is itself uncaused. God is that uncaused cause. Return to Index |
| 1.14110 | Objections Against Causal Argument |
| 1.14111 | How is God concerned with the causal chain? If God is part of the chain of causality as the first cause of creation, then he must be subject to the law of causality. If follows, therefore, that God too must have a cause. On the other hand, if he is above and beyond the law of causality then it is impossible to establish any relation between God and creation, and to explain the relationship in terms of cause and effect. In either case it is impossible to establish God as the first cause of creation. |
| 1.14112 | Difficulties of Deism. If God is believed to be the first cause of creation it must also be accepted that He is distinct from His effect which He creates at some time according to His convenience. This theory accepts God as the first cause which leaves it open to all the objections that ca n be leveled at deism. |
| 1.14113 | How does the law of causality operate on an infinite creation? We know it on the basis of our own experience that the law of causality operates on objects and persons that are limited. Creation is not subject to any parallel limitation? How can, in that case, creation be accepted as subject to the: law of causality? |
| 1.14114 | Causality and God are not related. The law of causality assumed that no object can exist without being caused. If it is applied to God, it becomes necessary to discover some cause of God in order to satisfy the requirements of this law. On the other hand, if it is inapplicable where God is concerned, it can hardly be used to prove His existence, with any justification. |
| 1.14115 | Cause and effect are both limited. According to Hume, the British empiricist, both cause and effect are limited within the chain of causality. Is God also to be believed to be limited? |
| 1.14116 | Proof of Pluralism. It has been argued that creation should have a cause, as all compounded objects have causes. But most compound objects have a multiplicity of cause, a fact which would seem to prove that the universe also has a multiplicity of causes. On the other hand, one would like to believe that God is the sole cause of the universe. The law of causality when applied to God proves not causal monism but causal pluralism, which in fact disproves the existence of God as He is normally conceived to be. Return to Index |
| 1.5000 | Teleological Argument |
| 1.5010 | Teleological Argument Explained One aspect which has always attracted philosophers is that every object in nature seems to have a definite and well defined God. Aquatic animals, for example, possess scales instead of lungs which enable them to breathe under water. Many animals possess the capacity of changing their external appearance to match their environment in order to camouflage their movements. The leopard has a striped skin and this enables into conceal itself easily in a forest in which the sunlight has to penetrate through amass of leaves and boughs in order to reach the ground, the effect of which is that there is alternate light and shade in which the leopard is not easily spotted. It is not easy to locate a green parrot sitting in a green tree. In cold countries most animals have white furs which serve the dual purpose of hiding the animal and protecting it from the biting cold of the atmosphere. If one is not inclined to go far, one can study the human organism and wonder at the intelligence and imagination of its creator. Even so small a part as the hand is exceptionally complex, the complexity helping it to perform a variety of activities. The weaker animals are fleet of foot which enables them to escape from danger and attack. Religious people often argue in these terms and try to impress upon the more gullible among us the fact that there must be a conscious power functioning behind the scene in order to make the universe go. Return to Index |
| 1.15020 | Objections to Teleological Argument It does not take much imagination and invention to describe as many instances which defy any teleological explanation as those instances which prove the teleological argument. It has-been possible to refute the teleological argument by raising the following objections: |
| 1.5021 | Negative Instances. Nature abounds in instances of purpose and harmony but it also exhibits numerous instances that tend to indicate disharmony. In our own country, for example, the rain is the least dependable, for it rains by fits and starts, years of drought being followed by seasons of floods. One never knows whether it will rain before it is expected or after. Only rarely does one have a season in which a desirable amount of rainfall occurs at the right time to suit the purpose of the farmer who depends upon it. What can be the purpose of God in increasing the suffering of millions by drought, famine, floods and earthquakes? The teleological argument, therefore, fails to prove that God as normally understood to be, does exist. |
| 1.5022 | Natural causes can explain purpose. With every step that science takes into the darkness to illuminate it, God recedes further into the world of belief. Every time. science discovers a new law which governs some natural phenomenon the age-old belief that God was the cause of it also dies. There is a scientific practice that if two alternatives explain a given circumstance, then the simpler of the two should be adopted. There are two alternatives which explain natural phenomena-one is the activity of God, and the other the laws of nature. The later of the two is simpler since it appeals to reason and has claims to universality, it is therefore accepted by all men of science. From the standpoint of science, therefore, all arguments proceeding from teleological basis prove the existence and efficacy of natural laws and natural selection and not the existence of God. |
| 1.5023 | Arguments against Deism.The teleological argument for the existence of God feels compelled to believe that God is the first cause of creation, one who makes the universe out of material substance in the manner of a watchmaker constructing a watch without entering into the watch. If this argument is accepted then God is eliminated from creation itself and becomes limited by it, thereby losing His characteristic of being infinite. |
| 1.5024 | A finite God should have constructed a universe which is finite. Apparently, the teleological theory treats God as some kind of a skilled mechanic. Of our own experience we can say without doubt that all mechanics that we have ever confronted have been finite and qualified by limitations. Objects of nature also appear to be finite. and limited. How can, then, it be argued that the maker of such finite things be himself infinite? And, in fact, if the created and finite objects of the universe are used to point towards their maker, it would become necessary to assume that the maker himself is finite and limited in his range. Return to Index |
| 1.6000 | Ontological Argument |
| 1.6010 | Kant's refutation of Anslem St. Anslem, the medieval philosopher, was the first to propound the ontological argument to prove the existence of God. His argument was taken up and improved upon later by Descartes. Kant has refuted this argument with such effectiveness that his is considered the final word on the subject. The ontological argument proceeds thus: God is generally conceived to be the highest or supreme existent, perfect. If it is presumed that God does not. exist, this will detract from His perfection. Therefore, for God to be perfect, it is necessary that He should possess the quality of existence. Putting it differently, it is argued that God's existence is proved by the fact of His perfection, because if He does not exist then he will become imperfect. Thus the idea of a God without existence is self contradictory. Return to Index |
| 1.6020 | Descartes's Argument Descartes has changed the form of the ontological argument by proceeding from the idea of an infinite existent that we carry about in,our minds. This infinite existent can not. correspond with anything human since any infinitely extensible human being would not have been confined to an organism which is qualified by numerous limitations. God, therefore, must be the cause of this idea of an infinite being, the God whose existence is proved by the existence of this idea. Return to Index |
| 1.6100 | Objections to Ontological Argument |
| 1.6110 | The idea of God does not prove his existence. Refuting the ontological argument Kant has argued that this argument falsely proceeds from ideal to factual existence, a progress which can not be justified since idea proves the existence of an idea, not a fact. Our mind, for example, may conjure up the image that our pocket contains twenty one gold guineas but it would be misleading to presume that the pocket contains real guineas for the idea proves nothing more than the existence of the ideal guineas. On the same lines the idea of a perfect God would, require that the idea of His existence should also be included, but not factual existence. The only thing that ontological argument proves is that the idea of perfection includes the idea of existence. What it does not prove is that the idea of perfect God implies the existence of such a God. |
| 1.6120 | Fallacy of Petitio Principii. Kant has pointed out that the ontological argument includes the fallacy of petitio principii meaning thereby that it takes for granted what it sets out to prove. In the example given, we want to prove the existence of God, but in actual fact the argument states that existence is postulated in the idea of perfection. How can such an argument be adduced to prove the fact or existence? Hegel contradicts Kant by saying that it is justifiable to accept the existence of a finite object on the basis of the idea of it, but the same can not hold true in the case of something infinite. This distinction is necessary since the existence of finite object differs from the existence of objects that are not limited. Such idea is the very basis of our reason, postulated in every root of our knowledge. It is the basis of all knowledge, and each truth is true because it is an element of this infinite. For this resort it is justifiable to treat the idea of infinite existence as synonymous with the actual existence of infinite. Hegel's argument is rejected by the realist but for the idealist it is eminently sane and irrefutable. . |
| 1.6130 | Argument from possibility of error. This particular argument is to be found in the thought of Prof. Josiah Royce. To quote Him, "Either there is no such thing as error, which statement is a flat self-contradiction, or else there is an infinite unity of conscious thought to which is present all possible truth." Error is a norm l part of man's experience, but what is this error? Actually, error is a false judgement that does not correspond with its object. How can we decide that a particular judgement does not concur with its object? One single judgement can not determine the truth or accuracy of the judgement itself; it can be validated or otherwise only when we compare it with a more comprehensive impression. It follows from this that error cannot exist without truth, since we cannot treat any judgement as erroneous without knowing what the correct judgement is. Nothing can be erroneous unless there is some measure or standard of truth. There is an infinite number of possible truths and a corresponding infinity of errors. Therefore, the possibility of error automatically establishes that there must be an infinity of truths. These truths exist within the mind and an infinite number of truths can only exist in an infinite mind. There fore, the error which is normally experienced in daily life proves the existence of an infinite God who is absolute. This argument is open to the following objections: |
| 1.6131 | Every error is not partial truth. Royce proceeds from the assumption that error is an incomplete element of truth, but this can not be proved for every falsity. |
| 1.6132 | There can be error even without contact with a mind. Royce argues that error is somehow concerned with a mind, but other philosophers can not agree with this presumption. According to the neo-realists error can exist, even when it is not the product of a mind. |
| 1.6133 | Some relations are external. Royce has presumed in his argument that there is an organization of truth in which all truths are internally related, but other thinkers are;.. of the opinion that some relations are external in nature. Return to Index |
| 1.7000 | Moral Argument |
| 1.7010 | Kant's Argument Kant is responsible for advancing the moral argument to prove the existence of God, but he had already been anticipated by some other philosophers. The argument postulates that if moral values have objective existence in the world then the world should be morally adjusted, and if such an adjustment does exist then it would be necessary to assume the functioning of an infinite mind whose function it is to guide the universe according to the moral laws which make possible the moral order. In the absence of a God it is impossible to attribute a moral order to the universe. Moral laws could have no objectivity if the moral order did not exist but no system which denies moral value can satisfy, man's thirst for philosophic speculation and satisfaction. Return to Index |
| 1.7020 | Sorley's Argument Prof. Sorley states the moral argument thus: "Of moral values it clearly holds that it is in persons that they are realized, not in mere things, and that they belong to persons in as truly objective a sense as any other characteristic that belongs to them. But something more then this is true. It is not merely the value actually realized in someone's conscious life that must be held to belong to objective reality. In bringing value into existence the individual person is conscious of a standard or ideal which has validity as a guide for his personal endeavor, or an obligation which rests upon him. The attainment of value is recognized as a value only because of its conformity with this standard or law of value, or because of its approximation to this ideal of value. It follows therefore that the value or goodness actually achieved in personal life implies as its ground or condition a standard or ideal of Goodness. Accordingly, we are compiled to form the conception of an ideal good or of a moral order, which , as the condition of actualized goodness must also be regarded as in some sense having objective reality." In this manner, the moral argument, in seeking to prove the ,existence of God, grants objective existence to moral values. Return to Index |
| 1.7030 | Distinctions between Kant and Sorley Kant's own statement of the moral argument differs from Pro. Sorley's view of it. He argues that if moral values have any validity then individuals should be rewarded or punished according to the goodness or evil of their activities, but in the actual world we observe that there is no essential conformity between action and reward. It therefore becomes necessary to presume the existence of God who will restore order in another life after death. The existence of God thereby becomes a moral postulate without which no reality or objectivity can be attributed to moral values. Return to Index |
| 1.7100 | Objections to Kant |
| 1.7110 | Good result of Good actions is not essential. Kant has presumed that the moral individual should be necessarily happy and that his good actions should be rewarded with good results. But in the first place the moral individual does not perform his good acts for the good reward he expects, while in the second place, an inspection of nature proves that there is no necessary correlation between the nature of actions and the nature of their results. Obviously, Kant's argument is based on the assumption that the good man or the moral individual must necessarily be happy, an assumption that is debatable and which Kant makes no effort to establish as being beyond question. |
| 1.7120 | A moral order in the universe is a hypothesis. In the moral argument the hypothesis of God is proved on the basis of a hypothetical moral order presumed to exist in the universe. The first hypothesis that there is a moral order is not proved by argument, and hence, it begs the entire question. There is much that can be said, on either side, for the subject is a debatable one, and in the final count it appears to be nothing more then a figment of imagination. It would not do to base the argument for proving God's existence on such a flimsy basis. Return to Index |
| 1.8000 | Concluding Remarks Each of the many arguments given above to prove the. existence of God contains a grain of truth despite all the objections that have been raised against each. Of all the last that is the moral argument appears to be the most appealing. Even today the philosophers find it least disconcerting to accept the moral argument in favor of God. Values have the highest place in human life, so much so that we would like to achieve the ideals of truth, beauty and goodness in our own finite existence. Philosophy is nothing other than an effort in this direction. Any system of philosophy which denies these values undermines its own existence. It becomes necessary to treat these values as true and objective, which makes it essential to accept the presence of moral order in the universe. Once the existence of a moral order is accepted it is only natural to presume that some agent is responsible for its efficient running. In this manner, the faith in God is a corollary of our acceptance of values. One must accept that values can not be proved to exist as an object can be, but nevertheless the distinction between objective and subjective is also man's creation and from a more refined viewpoint even values have their objectivity. To sum up, the argument from faith in values forms a sufficiently solid basis for believing in God. Return to Index |
| 1.20000 | Relation of God to the world |
| 1.20010 | Overview Yet another problem that has been discussed ever since man found his feet is the problem of the relation between God and the world. This problem possesses the added disadvantage of many difficulties. To accept God as the first or primary cause of the world, for example, makes it necessary to presume that the materials with which the world is made exist outside God. This in turn leads to the difficulty of a duality between God and the materials of the universe, and the necessity of establishing some meaningful relation between the two. If God is believed to be the material cause of the world responsible for creating the world out of his own self, then he becomes subject to the difficulty of assimilating with in himself such elements as the physical nature of the world, lack,of harmony, absence of uniformity etc. The problem of duality will arise again if God is believed to exist outside the world, while the notion of his omnipresence is open to objections having their origin in the world of relation where he must assume the form of a person in order to be able to answer prayer and reward faith and devotion. Philosophers have turned their thought to the various alternatives that can be possible, and have tried to evolve a theory which can finally satisfy all the demands that can be made upon it. The chief theories regarding the relation between God and the universe are the following: |
| 1.21000 | Deism |
| 1.21010 | God our side the World This theory treats God as a kind of deity existing apart from the world. The term itself has origin in the Latin world 'deus' a term which, in the eighteenth century, was applied to a school of thinkers who believed that God was the creator and basis of the universe, but denied the possibility of any relation between God and man. Such a theory explains the relation between God and the world on the analogy of the relation between the watchmaker and his watch. Once the watchmaker has made the watch while remaining outside, nothing is required except to wind the watch at intervals. His relation with the watch comes to an end, it no longer requires his ministrations. In much the same way God creates the universe and provides it with energy and the means whereby it can progress. Once this has been done the universe functions on its own. Natural laws inherent in the creation control its activity with out any interference from God. The only difference between the watch maker and God exists is the fact that the watch maker's materials exist eternally while God created the universe out of nothingness. There is a deviation in this theory, trade by the philosophers who believe that unconscious substance is without any beginning as is God, and that God created the universe out of this substance. |
| 1.20020 | God as first cause Deism holds that God is only the first cause of the world at the time when there was nothing beside himself. God is absolute, unrelated to the universe, creating at will, not suffering, any interference in His creative activity. God is the first cause of the world, the cause that caused natural laws which function as secondary cause of the world. God also performs the functions of protector and caretaker to the world, he himself has no need of the universe, but whenever the circumstances are ripe for his interference he takes active part in the functioning of the world. That is when divine actions take place, of which mention is made in every great religion of the world. It is accepted that whenever some catastrophic condition arises God intervenes to save hi creation. At no stage in the history of philosophy has deism been regarded as a g at philosophy. It has never been part of the Indian tradition in its purest forms. It Western philosophy it has been supported by John Toland, Mathew Tindal and Thomas Chubb during sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Return to Index |
| 1.21100 | Objections to Deism |
| 1.21110 | Lack of philosophic maturity. The deistic theory is no more than a common sense approach to a philosophical theory of the utmost gravity. It is commonly observed that the objects that are made are created by people who themselves remain outside the objects interfering only to correct any fault that may appear in the working of such objects. From this we reason that God creates the world and attends to it from time to time to ensure its smooth functioning. But it is not reasonable to imagine God as creator on the basis of the human being as creator, because the difference between the world and finite object is very vast. Hence the philosophy of deism does not impress one as particularly mature despite its obvious appeal to common sense. |
| 1.21120 | It is impossible to create anything from nothing. Deism presumes that God creates the universe out of nothing, a conception which is logically inconsistent since it is impossible to create anything front nothing. Logically, something which is completely non-existent can not exist, and that which does exist can not become completely non-existent. Hence deism proceeds from a wrong premise. |
| 1.21130 | Difficulty concerning the time and purpose of creation. According to Deism God created the universe at a particular time, a conception which would naturally suggest the query about the nature and time of the moment. Religions provide different theories concerning the fateful moment of creation, none of which is tenable for the simple reason that any such belief would be illogical. If God did create the universe at a particular time then obviously many questions regarding the purpose of selecting that moment would arise. Why did God select that particular moment to create the world? Why did He not create it earlier? If he suddenly became aware of the need of a world it implies -that He is imperfect and that he too has needs. If He did not need a world, then why did He create it? If creation has no other purpose except to satisfy God's whim, it is only natural to inquire whether God has whims and desires. Does he suffer any need? If God does have a need then He is imperfect and if he does not, then why does He feel the need to create a world? Then, the creation of a world requires that God should be active? Was he inactive before He created the World? If this is so, by becoming active He suffers a change in nature and thereby admits to being imperfect. If he was not inactive before creating the world, what was he doing? The only solution deism can suggest to all such problems is to accept the world as being without cause since otherwise it must inevitably be faced with the problem of answering all the questions. |
| 1.21140 | What is the relation between the world and God's power? According to the deists God created the world by his power, which he also utilizes to maintain the world. Now, even if the relation between God and the world is rejected, it becomes necessary to accept that there is a relation between the world and His power. Now, if God's power is related to the world, so must he be related to the world, for He is unquestionably related to his power, Power exists or coheres in that which is powerful. It follows that God's power is within God and that when the power establishes relation with the world He himself can not remain aloof from it. |
| 1.21150 | God cannot be distinct from the world. If God is accepted as being distinct from the world then it would mean accepting that God is limited since He 'is confined by the limits of the world. He therefore becomes imperfect. Hence, the deist position that God is perfect does not coincide with their theory that He is omnipresent. |
| 1.21160 | Omniscient God cannot be self-conscious. There can be self-consciousness only if there is consciousness of the non-self. Self-consciousness occurs only when there are objects in the world. Just as there can not be a knower without the known there can be no self-consciousness without consciousness of objects. If God is accepted as a being distinct from the universe, He cannot remain-self-conscious. And the deist God who existed even before creation certainly can not be a self-conscious God. |
| 1.21170 | Religious difficulties. From the religious standpoint the deist God possesses none of those qualities which a religion would accept Him to have. What is particularly important is that the deist God is indifferent to the fate of the universe that He has created. He does not interfere in its working until some grave danger does not threaten it. How can one pray to such an external and indifferent deity? How can such a God encourage his devotee and establish the relationship or live with him? Such a God certainly can not satisfy the average religious individual. Secondly, the religious individual believes God to be perfect and all powerful and it is on these assumptions that be offers himself to God. The deist God is not perfect, and neither is He all powerful for such a God would have created a faultless universe which would not require His interference. Briefly, the deist position is open to many religious objections as well. Return to Index |
| 1.21200 | Conclusion
It is clear from all the arguments amassed against it that from the philosophic standpoint Deism fails to provide any satisfactory explanation of the relation between God and the world. It possesses no more than historical importance. Return to Index |
| 1.23000 | Pantheism |
| 1.22001 | Overview The pantheistic theory holds that all is God and God is all. The term is derived from two Greek roots, Pan and Those, meaning that God is everything and that everything is God. Pantheism establishes an identity between God and nature, or the world. It refutes the deist position that God is the fundamental or primary cause of the world. Pluralism also does not satisfy the pantheistic theory. It states that all that exists is God and that nothing exists beside God. God is infinite and omnipresent. God and the world are two forms of an identical reality, hence both are indivisible. God comprehends the entire universe and exists in the smallest particle of matter. |
| 1.22010 | God is Nature One ground on which pantheism has been objected to is that it amounts to atheism since it equates nature with God. This conception is confusing because pantheism does not accept nature as God but God as nature. Stated differently, nature is a part of God, the universe a manifestation of God and the world a dependent on God, God is the unity in the world's diversity. He is primary while nature is secondary. He is true but the world is not. In this manner the relation between God and the world is clarified by the theory that the world depends upon God. God abides in the world but is neither limited nor destroyed by it. |
| 1.22020 | God Is Immanent God directs the functioning of the world by immersing himself in it. Creation is God's nature. Put differently, this means that the world was implicit in the nature of God and therefore it is impossible to date creation as having begun at a particular moment. The world, like God, is without beginning, limited neither by time nor by space. |
| 1.22030 | God has Personality Personality can not be foisted upon God. He is infinite and therefore he can not choose between alternatives. Since he is not human he is not subject to desire. |
| 1.22040 | Pantheism In Gita One example of deism is to be found in the Gita. It takes the form of a universal philosophy. In the Western philosophic tradition pantheism is to be found in the thought of Spinoza who believed that God is infinite, ever existent, independent, self-conscious and without personality. Thought and extension are the chief qualities of God. All that into be found in the world is nothing other than a distortion of either thought or extension. Living beings are distortions of thought and their bodies the distortions of extension. All material objects are distortions of extension which is the quality of God. Obviously, the creation of the world can not be determined in terms of tine, neither can it be attributed to God as the effect of a cause. It is the inevitable result of God's nature. Return to Index |
| 1.22100 | Objections Against Pantheism From the philosophic standpoint the pantheistic explanation of the relation between God and the world is faulty. It has been objected to on the following grounds: |
| 1.22101 | Difficulty in explaining the variety of the world. It is part of the common everyday life to realize the variety and difference that exists in the objects that surround us. Pantheism theorized that this variety is false since everything is identical with God. But variety cannot be explained by merely branding it as false, and therefore this theory fails in its explanation of the universe. |
| 1.22102 | Difference between the characteristics of God and world. Another difficulty in accepting the pantheistic position is the difference in the characteristics attributed to the world and those attributed to God. There is one God while there are many worlds the characteristics of which are completely opposed. God is infinite, the world finite. God is permanent, the world essentially temporary. In the face of these contradictory qualities it becomes difficult to accept that the world is only a manifestation of God because even a manifestation must posses some recognizable elements of that which it manifests. |
| 1.22103 | The world's defects are transferred to God. If God is believed to permeate the world then he inherits all the ills and defects the world possesses. The world is finite, many, impermanent and material; and if God is omnipresent in the world he must possess all these qualities. Once this is admitted it would be impossible to accept such a God. |
| 1.22104 | Religious difficulties. Another shortcoming of the pantheistic doctrine is that it fails to satisfy the demands of religion. The pantheistic God does not possess a personality and hence the devotee can not express his love or address his prayer to such a God. Thus, all prayer and humility become meaningless. Besides, the pantheistic doctrine holds that God is omnipresent in every element in the universe and that He makes the universe go, as a motive force compels things to act. This would imply that human beings were not possessed of a free will, in which case how could prayer and representation have any meaning? As Pringle Pattison, a philosopher of the West has said, "It requires two to love and to be loved, two to worship and to be worshipped..." All religious functions become impossible unless some distinction between the worshipper and the worshipped is accepted. Hence the pantheistic god fails to satisfy religious requirements. |
| 1.22105 | Blow to morality. No moral .life is possible if one rejects the idea of free will in man, since only that act can raise the question of morally which is performed of unhindered volition. If we are not free to act, we can not be held morality responsible for acts and their consequences, or for the good or evil accruing from the acts. Pantheism holds that God is the motive force behind all activity in the universe, with man being used as a mere tool. In such a situation freedom of will is out of the question, and so is morality. |
| 1.22106 | Defeatist and dogmatic. Pantheism holds that every thing that is done in the world is done by God. This obviates all possibility of improvement in the future, because when everything is done by God there can be no scope for improvement. This promotes dogmatism. Pantheism denies the individual any change of ever escaping the circumstances in which he finds himself. He must satisfy himself with whatever has fallen to his lot because everything is being done by God. A philosophical theory which creates such a situation and denies man the possibility of progress can not be palatable to the modern progressive spirit. Return to Index |
. | |
| 1.23000 | Panantheism |
| 1.23000 | Overview This theory explains the relation between God and the world by presuming that God is the first as well as the material cause of the world. It states that the world exists in God but it is not identical with God. Put differently, it means that the world is a part of God, having no independent existence of its own, apart from God. God, on the other hand, is not limited either to or by the world since He is much more than the world. Just as a poet creates a number of poems out of his own consciousness but does not exhaust his complete being in doing so God also makes the world out of his own self but remains much more than the world remains beyond and above it. The world does not exhaust the creativity of God. Panentheism believes that God is the highest personality, the creator, supporter and defender of the world. He is the highest personality in spite of his being infinite, without beginning and omnipresent. He permeates the world and yetis above it. He is omnipresent in the world as its material cause and above it in the form of its first cause. Return to Index |
| 1.23010 | Hegel's Theory Hegel's theory is one example of panentheistic theory as part of the Western philosophic tradition. Hegel theorizes that it is in God's nature to ensure such an existence. God is omnipresent in the world, yet at the same time He is absolute, perfect and transcendental. Return to Index |
| 1.23200 | Objections to Panentheism |
| 1.23210 | Difficulties of panentheism. Although panentheism treats God as transcendental, difficulties can be found with its conception of God who also permeates the world. All these difficulties are common to both this. theory and pantheism. To recount but one, or two, such a system denies the possibility of freedom of will and God inherits all the evils of the world. This theory, too, is defeatist and dogmatic. It does not satisfy man's moral conscience. |
| 1.23220 | Religious difficulties. Panentheism also does not invest God with a personality and thereby denies the devotee the reward of his religious labor. Such a God can be the object of devotion and love. Some philosophers who adhere to this theory have tried to argue that the world is false and that God possesses two forms, one devoid of qualities and the other with all the requisite qualities that will satisfy moral and religious requirements. But any such suggestion immediately invites questions regarding the relation between the qualitative and the unqualified, the transcendental and the worldly. Return to Index |
| 1.24000 | Theism |
| 1.24100 | History of Theism Theism is the theory which is most popular with the religious thinkers. Generally speaking, theism comprehends all those theories, which advocate faith in the, existence of God. But here the term theism is used to indicate not the faith in God but a particular theory concerning the relation between God and the world. It is stated in this theory that God is an individual and spiritual personality with which is possible to establish a variety of different relationships. God, for theism, is one. His chief characteristic is that he possesses a personality which enables Him to accept the supplication and prayer of his followers and to help them. He is infinite and yet endowed with all qualities, the creator, protector and sustainer of the world. He permeates the universe, yet is not limited by it since it is the sole absolute entity. It is infinite and omnipresent. He is the primary as well as material cause of the universe. Apparently, theism would seem to resemble panentheism but the two theories differ on the point that theism endows God with a personality which panentheism rejects. The history of Indian philosophical and religious thought is full of religious sects who have contributed to theism. Such religious thinkers as Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya, Vallabbacharya, Nimbarkacharya and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu have contributed to the literature on theistic thinking. Many of the poets who wrote in Hindi have also been theistic in their tendency. Among the Western philosophers theism has been mainly expressed by Descartes, Locke, Berkeley, James Ward and more particularly Pringle Pattison. Pattison's book The idea of God contains a fine exposition of the theistic position as well as balanced criticism of the view of other thinkers. Return to Index |
| 1.24110 | Objections to Theism The chief asset of theism lies in its ability to satisfy our religious inclination, and for this reason it has found supporters in the East and the West among the ranks of religious thinkers. It owes its success to the fact that it attributes a personality to God and thereby makes it possible for him to encourage prayer an supplication and also to answer such prayer. |
| 1.24111 | God with a personality can not be perfect. From the philosophic standpoint God loses his quality of infinity if qualities are attributed to Him since whatever quality is attributed to God implies the destruction of the opposite quality. Hence the conception of God as possessing a personality contradicts the belief that he is also infinite, perfect and unlimited. Supporters of theism try to circumvent this difficulty by suggesting that the law of negation can apply to objects since they are finite but it cannot be applied to God who is infinite. Besides, it is God who has himself originated all laws and it would be absurd to believe that He is subject to His own laws and limited by them. In addition to that it is detrimental to the notion of a perfect God to believe that any qualities are negated by attributing some qualities to him. God is capable of absolutely anything. He may permeate the universe and yet transcend it, may possess a personality and remain infinite despite it. Sri Aurobindo has proved that the arguments applied to finite objects are not applicable incase of infinite objects, and hence it cannot be said of God that when some qualities are attributed to Him, that their opposite qualities can not exist in Him. A similar mode of thinking is evinced in the Gita and the Upanishads. |
| 1.24112 | Objection to the conception of purpose in creation. When God is said to create because it is His nature to do so, it is only natural to question the purpose of such creation. In other words, why does God create? Does he need to create? If He does then He is incomplete, and if He does not then it is difficult to comprehend why he should waste His energy in creating a universe without purpose. Thinkers who support the theistic position point out that it is w wrong to argue that because God wants to create he is therefore imperfect. o pursue such a line of thought is to equate God with man, since it is natural for man to make something only if' he has need of it. As far as God is concerned it is His nature to create. Indian thinkers, among them Sri Aurobindo and Ramanujacharya, have tried to explain God's purpose in creation through the concept of lila. It is the very nature of the sun to provide light, in the same manner it is the nature of God to create. It is not necessary to attribute to God any desire or need or decision to create. |
| 1.24113 | The all-pervading God must pick up the defects of the world. One objection leveled at theism is that since God pervades the entire universe He must of necessity pick up such qualities as material nature, impermanence, etc., from the world. It should be remembered that the theistic philosopher admits freedom of will in the thinking being. The philosophic individual is free to perform good and bad acts. As a consequence of this freedom he must also accept the responsibility for his acts and the result of them in terms of good and bad luck. God, therefore, can not be held responsible for the ills that one experiences in the world. |
| 1.24114 | Freedom originating in God is not real. Some philosophers have objected to theism on the ground that the living being's freedom of will is not real since it is granted by God. This objection seems manifestly misplaced because when it is. said that man's freedom of will is granted by God it is implied that man is free by nature since his nature is determined by God. Therefore, there can be inconsistency in a theism which accepts freedom of will in man. Return to Index |
| 1.24120 | Concluding Remarks Each one of the above theories which attempts to explain the relation between God and the world possesses its own faults and advantages. From the religious standpoint theism is the best but it fails to satisfy the philosopher. In fact, no one theory can satisfy completely such an involved question as this. Each theory finds its own justification according to the standpoint from which it is judged. It would be best to apply the broadminded approach to this problem. Return to Index |
| 1.24200 | Theism in Vedanta |
| 1.24210 | Iswara |
| 1.24211 | Iswara is a Utilitarian concept. In Samkara's philosophy Iswara is only a utilitarian concept. The question of creation is an academic problem and Iswara has been postulated only in order to solve it. Otherwise, there is neither a creator nor is there any creation. In actual fact, Brahman is the sole material as well as efficient cause. The world of names and forms is merely a disfigurement of the absolute Brahman. This illusion is due to ignorance and it is the aim of Vedanta to remove this ignorance. Thus, it is only natural that Iswara be only an empirical or utilitarian concept. |
| 1.24212 | Iswara and Brahman. According to the philosophy of Samkara, absolute Brahman is the only truth. Brahman is pure, transcendental, free, eternal and absolute. Brahman covered by ignorance is Iswara. Iswara is the distorted image of Brahman. It is nothing other than Brahman. Brahman is impersonal, Iswara is the highest or best being or person. He is the creator, sustainer and destroyer of the practical world. He is the link between the universe and Brahman. The world of names and forms' exists in seed form in Brahman. He rewards the living being according to their action. He is the effect of Brahman whereas Brahman is above all actions. Brahman is being whereas Iswara is becoming. The worship of Iswara brings relief from the cycle of life and death whereas the worship of Brahman brings freedom from life itself. Brahman is the object of realization while God or Iswara is the object of worship. Brahman is the transcendental! reality whereas Iswara is only the empirical reality. On the transcendental level there is no difference between Brahman and Iswara because at this level all dualism is resolved. |
| 1.24213 | Creator of Universe. Iswara is the creator of the universe. Creation is the manifestation of the will power of Iswara in the spatio-temporal universe. Before creation the universe of names and forms exists in seed form. At the time of dissolution it settles in or dissolves in Iswara. But as the actions and the resultant past tendencies of the Jivas are not destroyed they have to come into the world again, and for this reason there must be creation. Prakrti exists in Iswara. Creation and dissolution are different states of the beginningless world. Iswara does not stand in need of any efficient cause for creating the world. He creates the world by his power of maya. He also has no purpose in creation because He himself is complete. The world is his play, creation is his nature. |
| 1.24214 | Iswara is perfect. Iswara is above merit (dharma) and demerit (adharma). He is not disfigured by imperfections such as attachment, aversion, pleasure, suffering, sin, etc., which mar his perfection. He is the protector of all and the basis of morality. He is all pervading and omniscient. He is perfect and without an end. He is eternal, one and pure consciousness. |
| 1.24215 | Iswara is to be adored Even though he is all-pervading, Iswara assumes specific forms. And in this way he can be worshipped. He helps his worshippers and assists them in their prayer. He is the perfect person. He also helps in the attainment of liberation. He is the basis of religion |
| 1.24220 | Effect of actions and their results. By postulating creation as without beginning, Samkara avoids the objection as to who was the first, the jiva or the merit and demerit (dharmadharma)? Without the jiva there can be no award of actions in the form of merit or demerit and without there being the result of actions there is no reason why the soul should assume the form of jiva. Hence, the universe is beginningless. Actions also have beginning. As one sows, so he reaps. Thus the pain, suffering, vice and other undesirable elements that one sees in the world are caused by the results of the action of jivas and not by God or Iswara. Hence the moral problem can not be raised against Iswara and neither can He be said to be imperfect because he is the Creator. The gross, unconscious and heterogeneous world loses these qualities when it reassumes its original seed form Hence, it does not affect the purity or perfection of Iswara. In its eternal form the universe in entirely different from Iswara, but in its fundamental form it is the same. Hence, the question as to how did the unconsciousness originate in the conscious Iswara is meaningless. The various forms that the world assumes because of ignorance are comparable to the waking,dreaming and unconscious conditions of human beings. The material nature of the universe and the jivas does not affect Iswara because although Samakara does accept Satkaryavada or the theory of the reality of the effect before its emergence, he is not an atomist. The world is only the distorted image of Iswara, hence its nature does not affect Iswara. Iswara is the one who meats out the rewards, he is the one who controls them. He is omniscient. His knowledge is intuitive, non-perceptual, without the senses and above ignorance. He witnesses the world. He gives bodies to the different jivas according to their actions and creates substances according to their actions. |
| 1.24230 | Relation of Jiva and Iswara. According to Samkara, both Iswara and the jiva have only empirical reality but even among them, Iswara is the director and jiva the directed, Iswara is the benefactor and jiva the benefected. Both are the distortions of Brahman, both are pure consciousness,both are Brahman from the transcendental viewpoint. In this way, on the transcendental level both have the same nature but on the empirical level there is a great difference between the two. Jivas have also been accepted as a part of Iswara although He is said to have actually no parts. The knowledge, power, existence, etc., that the jivas possess are limited. Iswara is all-pervading, all knowing, without end, happiness and perfect. The jivas are influenced by the authority of merit and demerit and are controlled by it, whereas Iswara is above both of them and is their determinant. Jiva makes efforts for attaining liberation and Iswara is his inspiration. The Jiva is bound while Iswara is free. The cause of enjoyment or experience (bhog) is worldliness and Iswara is not worldly. But ultimately this entire dualism is on the empirical level. According to Ramanuja, this distinction is not generated by ignorance but is perpetual. The relation between Iswara and jiva is one of substance and attributes, whole and part controller and controlled. Samakara's philosophy does not satisfy the require ments of religion while in Ramanuja's philosophy there is resolution of mysterious intuition and philosophical intellectuality. |
| 1.24240 | Brahman Is Iswara According to Ramanuia. According to Samkara, Brahman is the transcendental reality and Iswara is only an empirical reality. Thus, Samkara postulates a distinction between Brahman and Iswara. But according to Ramanuja, Brahman and Iswara are one. According to Satnkara Brahman is without qualities, but Ramanuja conceives of this absence of qualities in the sense that Brahman does not possess any impure qualities, originating in prakrti, but does otherwise possess qualities, he is the perfect personality 'purusottama'. He is possessed of perfect and eternal qualities such as truth, knowledge and happiness. He is eternal and unchanging. There is no difference between the Brahman who is possessed of qualities and the Brahman who is not. |
| 1.24241 | Nature of Brahman or Iswara. Brahman is eternal, all-pervading, subtle, all-knowing, without end, all powerful and possessed of innumerable qualities. He is the basis of the entire universe. He is its material as well as its efficient cause. He is the Lord (Iswara).He is the highest good. He is of the nature of unending knowledge and happiness. His qualities are eternal, unlimited, innumerable, without designation, incomparable and completely pure. He is the soul in all. He is the bridge or link leading to immortality. He is eternal, immortal, and unity. He possesses the knowledge and power to create, sustain and destroy the world.. He possesses power, excellence, independence, action and concentration. He gives knowledge to the. ignorant, power to the weak, pity to the suffering, forgiveness to the criminal or guilty, energy to the dimwitted, simplicity to the crooked, goodness to the bad, and rewards to the worshippers. His body is glorified by the six qualities-knowledge, power, excellence, strength (virya), energy and fire (teja). |
| 1.24242 | Five forms of Iswara according to Ramanuja: |
| 1.24242a | Para. This is also called vasudeva-svarupa. This is above the notion of time. This never has any product, and in it there is undisturbed happiness. It is this form which is called sadgunyavigarh. The saints in heaven see it with their eyes and knowledge. |
| 1.24242b | Vyhua. It is the efficient cause of the drama of the universe. It is present in 'sankarsana', 'pradyumna' and aniruddha'. It is for evincing love towards the worshippers and devotees and for protecting the worldly. In this form apparently there are only two qualities. In pradyumna there is excellence while in vyuha and aniruddha there are strength and fire. Sankarsana leads to military preparation and destruction of the world, Pradyumna to religious preaching and Aniruddha to protection, award of metaphysical knowledge, and the sustenance of temporal creation. |
| 1.24242c | Vibhava. It is of two types, even though it has no end, primary and secondary. Mukhya (primary) vidhava is a part of God and conjoined to the body. Devotees worship this form. This is the manifestation of God. Secondary manifestation is the name given to 'svarupavesa' and 'saktyavesa' manifestation. This manifestation of God takes place in order to punish the wicked, to establish religion and to award the meritorious saints. |
| 1.24242d | Antaryami. In this form, God enters into the souls of the jives and controls all their tendencies. It is through the medium of this form that God helps the jives in all situations in places like heaven and hell. |
| 1.24242e | Archavatara. This is the adorable image of God which lives in the idol which concurs with the interest of the worshipper. |
| 1.24243 | Objections to Ramanuja According to Ramanuja, conscious and the unconscious are the bodies of God, but the difference between the, body of God and its soul is not clear. Actually, if conscious and unconscious is the body of God then He should be susceptible to pains, sufferings, imperfections and defeats etc. Ramanuja asserts that God is not influenced by the changes of this world and by-the sufferings or shortcomings of the body in the same manner in which the soul is not affected by the vicissitudes of the body. But in such a state the soul becomes the soul of the universe and not of an individual body, and it cannot therefore be considered to be many. The assertion that the soul of God is unchanging and perfect whileHis body is changing and defective cannot be accepted as logical. Ramanuja has sought to combine the Brahmanvada of the Upanisads with the theism of Patcharatra. But if God is pervading the entire universe then how can He be the soul of the universe at the same time that he is the supreme personality residing in heaven.. Actually, the very task of synthesizing theism with the Vedantic tradition is so difficult that it is inevitable that some difficulties should creep in. Then, Ramanuja has' also employed Vaishnava Purana, Pancharatra and Agama etc., in addition to 'prasthanatrayi'. Not all the theories of the Vaishnava view can be synthesized with the monism of the Upanisads. One of the two must either be destroyed or given a secondary position. Ramanuja tried to synthesize the two while maintaining them intact. It need hardly be pointed out that any other attempting the same would have met with even greater failure. Ramanuja, in his philosophy, tried to fulfill the demands of both religion as well as philosophy. Because of Samkara's Bhasya being existent he was compelled to refute it at every step in order to establish or strengthen his own opinion. In actual fact, the only way of achieving a synthesis between Advaita and Vaisnava views is to accept the former as transcendental truth and the latter as an empirical truth. This does not prove or imply the falsity of the empirical truth. It has only to be accepted as secondary and relative. Return to Index |