Theistic Vedanta (c. 1017-1137 CE)

A comparative analysis with the CoD

Two castes, one God—Ramanuja's radical equality before the divine, rendered photorealistically, courtesy of Nano Banana.

I. Abstract

Theistic Vedanta, particularly in the Vishishtadvaita (Qualified Non-Dualism) tradition, posits a core ontological claim: a singular, ultimate Reality (Brahman) exists, within which individual conscious souls (chit) and the material universe (achit) are real, dependent, and co-constitutive attributes. The Ontological Model Assessment Framework (OMAF) reveals a fundamental divergence on the criterion of the relationship-between-multiplicity-and-unity, highlighting the CoD's distinctive capacity to ground relationality without positing a prior, substantive unity as the foundational reality. While both models offer a profoundly relational ontology, their starting points and ultimate commitments differ radically. This comparative assessment's contribution is to demonstrate how the CoD model accounts for the phenomena of unity and consciousness without requiring a pre-existing, conscious Absolute, presenting a groundless relationality as a viable alternative to emanationist metaphysics.

II. Overview of Theistic Vedanta

Emerging in the medieval period through the philosophical and devotional work of Ramanuja (c. 1017–1137 CE), Theistic Vedanta offers a critical response to the absolute non-dualism (Advaita) of Shankara. Its core principle is that Brahman—understood as the personal god Vishnu-Narayana—is the only ultimate reality, but this reality is intrinsically complex. Brahman exists in a triadic unity with chit (an infinite plurality of individual conscious souls) and achit (insentient matter). Souls and matter are real, eternal, and distinct from each other, but they find their ultimate identity and existence only as attributes (prakaras) of the substantive whole (prakarin) that is Brahman. The key ontological mechanism is this body-soul (Sharira-Shariri) relationship: the universe of souls and matter is the 'body' of God, inseparable from Him yet not identical to His core essence.

In Theistic Vedanta: a CRUP-OMAF case study, it's ontology is assessed as follows:

• Primacy-of-existence: is granted to a single, conscious, and qualified (saguna) Brahman;
• Manner-of-existence: is relational and dependent for all particulars;
• Relationship-between-multiplicity-and-unity: is thus one of organic, dependent co-arising, where multiplicity is real but finds its coherence and being only within the encompassing unity of the Divine.

III. Overview of the CoD

The CoD model claims that as the 'condition of being', existence is, by extension, the 'process of declaring together of action to be'. The CoD model claims further that this process of declaring together is, in functional terms, a conference of difference, symbolized as $\lbrace\Delta\rbrace$ and defined as a 'condition of bearing together' transforming the 'condition of bearing apart'.^[1] The author has not been able to reduce this expression any further and thus concludes that the conference of difference is the process primitive of existence. For instance, whether we infer the condition of an elementary particle as a discrete corpuscle, a quantum wave packet, or an excitation of a field, each can only realize via the process primitive: the conference of difference. The fundamental implication is that the 'conference of difference' is not a property of any single physical theory, but the universal constant expression of existence itself—one through which every abstracta (construct) is revealed and every existent is transformed. The CoD model asserts that the conference of difference is not only universally observable throughout existence and thus in 1:1 correlation with existence but is the root process of transformation itself and thus cause to all existence.^[2]

IV. Comparison

Criterion 1: Primacy-of-Existence

Statement: The OMAF assessment identifies a fundamental divergence on what is ontologically primary. Theistic Vedanta's Position: For Theistic Vedanta, primacy is unequivocally granted to a singular, conscious, and personal Brahman. All other existents—souls and matter—are eternally dependent attributes. Existence is, at its root, the existence of God and His modes. This is a top-down ontology where the nature of the whole defines the parts.^[3] CoD's Position: The CoD model posits that no single entity or substance is primary. Instead, the relational process itself—the conference of difference—is the foundational, 'unvaryingly foremost' principle (Koan 40.1). What we might call 'God' is a construct for this metaphysical principal of creation, not a conscious entity. The primacy is of the dynamic, constitutive relation, not a relatum. Interpretive Analysis: This difference is foundational. Where Theistic Vedanta requires a pre-existing, substantive unity from which relationality emanates, the CoD inverts this relationship. For the CoD, unity is an emergent product—a stable, sustained conference of difference. The CoD thus offers a bottom-up or groundless ontology, where relationality creates the conditions for what we perceive as unified entities, including a deity.

Criterion 2: Manner-of-Existence

Statement: A significant convergence exists on the relational nature of all beings, though their ultimate status differs. Theistic Vedanta's Position: The manner-of-existence for all dependent realities (chit and achit) is one of complete reliance on Brahman. Their being is participatory and attributive. A soul exists as a mode of God, and its journey is one of realizing this dependent relationship for salvation. CoD's Position: The CoD similarly asserts that no being is 'unbound' (Koan 30.2). Existence is interdependence all the way down, a mutual constitution where every 'action to be' is defined by its conference with others. Binding is the condition of existence (Koan 30.1). Interpretive Analysis: Both models powerfully reject atomistic individualism. However, Theistic Vedanta sees this binding as a tether to a supreme Center. The CoD, by contrast, describes a web without a center—a network of mutual definition where 'God' is the name for the network's creative principle, not a node within it. The CoD's binding is a condition of pure immanence.

Criterion 3: Relationship-Between-Multiplicity-and-Unity

Statement: The most critical divergence emerges in how each model reconciles the one and the many. Theistic Vedanta's Position: Multiplicity (the many souls and material forms) is real but is eternally subsumed within an overarching, prior unity (Brahman). The relationship is one of qualified non-duality: the many are distinct but cannot exist or be understood outside the One. CoD's Position: The CoD posits that multiplicity (difference) and unity (conference) are co-primordial. There is no unity without difference to bear together, and no difference can manifest power outside of a conference (Koan 70.6). The 'one' is the active, ongoing process of conferencing, not a substantive entity. Interpretive Analysis: Theistic Vedanta resolves the ancient problem of the one and the many by making the One metaphysically prior. The CoD dissolves the problem by refusing the priority of either term. It argues that what we call 'the One' is simply the operational, holistic state of the relational field itself. This allows the CoD to account for the emergence of new unities (from atoms to organisms to societies) without invoking a transcendent source, framing them as novel conferences of difference (Koan 100.5).

V. Implications

The confrontation with Theistic Vedanta throws the CoD's radical commitment to groundless relationality into sharp relief. The central insight is that a coherent and comprehensive ontology can be built without a pre-existing, conscious unity as its foundation. Where Theistic Vedanta offers a profoundly beautiful and logically consistent model of divine-centric relationality, the CoD demonstrates that relationality itself can be the sole primitive. This comparison strengthens the case for the CoD by showing its ability to account for the same phenomenological richness—interdependence, consciousness, transformation—through a more parsimonious metaphysical commitment. It solves the problem of explaining unity and coherence without requiring an external unifier, locating the creative principle immanently within the dynamic interplay of existence itself. This sets the stage for comparing the CoD with non-theistic process philosophies, where the concept of a divine ground is also rejected, but the understanding of the ultimate relational process may differ.

The Gospel of Being

by John Mackay

Discover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.

Discover the book