01-21-2005, 12:44 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-gangajal+Jan 21 2005, 05:44 AM-->QUOTE(gangajal @ Jan 21 2005, 05:44 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Have you read Ramanuja's Gita Bhasya? It is a very difficult commentary to read because I am so used to think of Gita from the Advaitic point of view and Ramanuja looks at some of these verses from a very odd (from my perspective) angle. I had a lot of problems understanding his commentary on the Gita.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gangajal ji, nice to hear from you after a long time. I have not read the Ramanuja Bhashya of the Shrimadh Bhagavad Geetha, I have the Shankara Bhashyam in Sanskrit (with hindi translation) from Geetha Press Gorakhpur. It's a well thought out translation, and you can read it online at http://www.sankara.iitk.ac.in/gitaindex.htm
About Ramanuja's Bhashya, I found a website that had a 12 page gist of some of Shankaracharya's views and Ramanujacharya's views on different concepts. Honestly, I was thoroughly confused by Ramanujacharya's logic (just because I am not mentally prepared to understand it.)
Here is the link: http://www.bergen.edu/phr/121/RamanujaGC.pdf
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Acts of consciousness reveal metaphysical distinctions</b>
<b>Shankara:</b> [T]he theory of a supreme reality devoid of all distinction and difference is immediately established by one's own consciousness. The various individual objects of consciousness such as jars, pieces of cloth, etc., and the distinctions and differences between them, come and go in our experience (that is, they are impermanent); but the being of such objects (Pure Being, Being-as-Being) persists in all states of consciousness. The one permanent and therefore really fundamental feature of all individual objects of consciousness is Pure Being itself (which is the same as Brahman). Distinctions and differences between things â and the things themselves â are appearances only, not realities.
<b>Ramanuja:</b> This view is refuted by the fact that all consciousness implies difference. All states of consciousness have for their objects things marked by some difference, as appears in the case of judgments like "I saw this" [where the "I" is different from the "this" and vice versa, and where both the "I" and the "this" are different from other things].... Moreover, consciousness has certain attributes that are different from each other such as permanence, oneness, self-luminousness,1 etc. Thus, it cannot be shown that these are only Being in general. Also, we observe that [in philosophy and other fields] there takes place a discussion of different views, and the proponents of non-dualism themselves attempt to prove their theory by means of the differences between other views and their own. It therefore must be admitted that reality is full of distinctions and differences.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Notice that Ramanuja immediately starts with 'the fact that all consciousness implies difference'. Shankara's position never maintains 'all consciousness'. It mentions all <b>objects</b> of consciousness, or all <b>states</b> of consciousness. But never says 'ALL consciousness' in plurality. Taking a petty fact and twisting it around is Jalpa.
Having said this, Sri Ramanujacharya proceeds to mention that <i>"consciousness has certain attributes that are different from each other such as permanence, oneness, self-luminousness,1 etc".</i> which I assume is the difference between Consciousness, and insentient matter - and not to be taken as between two 'conscious beings.' The next sentence is what threw me off balance. <b>Thus, it cannot be shown that these are only Being in general.</b> But the nature of Brahman is SAD (Being), and Chid (Intelligence), and Anantham (Infinity) (Panchadasi III.28)
Permanence is a term dependent on Existance (or BEING), so is Oneness. While each Element (BHOOTHA) has one quality above the predecessor - i.e cosmos conducts vibrations and has sound as it's nature, wind is pressure can be felt and has sound and touch. Heat comes from pressure (wind), and can be seen, felt, heard. Water has taste, and earth has smell. While the Brahma Sutra proclaims thus, it also says that AKASHA actually has TWO attributes, which are SOUND and EXISTANCE, while Brahman has Existance alone as it's nature. Existance is not IT's attribute, but it's Own Nature.
Thus I really find it hard on my part to comprehend the logic without the help of a born-and-bred Vaishnava. I am willing to humbly fall at the feet and listen to a TRUE vaishnava talk about the Glory of the Sri Bhashya than try and counter it on the pithy knowledge of Logic and literature that I have.
Meanwhile here is another link: http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/acharyas/rama...ashya.html
Gangajal ji, nice to hear from you after a long time. I have not read the Ramanuja Bhashya of the Shrimadh Bhagavad Geetha, I have the Shankara Bhashyam in Sanskrit (with hindi translation) from Geetha Press Gorakhpur. It's a well thought out translation, and you can read it online at http://www.sankara.iitk.ac.in/gitaindex.htm
About Ramanuja's Bhashya, I found a website that had a 12 page gist of some of Shankaracharya's views and Ramanujacharya's views on different concepts. Honestly, I was thoroughly confused by Ramanujacharya's logic (just because I am not mentally prepared to understand it.)
Here is the link: http://www.bergen.edu/phr/121/RamanujaGC.pdf
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Acts of consciousness reveal metaphysical distinctions</b>
<b>Shankara:</b> [T]he theory of a supreme reality devoid of all distinction and difference is immediately established by one's own consciousness. The various individual objects of consciousness such as jars, pieces of cloth, etc., and the distinctions and differences between them, come and go in our experience (that is, they are impermanent); but the being of such objects (Pure Being, Being-as-Being) persists in all states of consciousness. The one permanent and therefore really fundamental feature of all individual objects of consciousness is Pure Being itself (which is the same as Brahman). Distinctions and differences between things â and the things themselves â are appearances only, not realities.
<b>Ramanuja:</b> This view is refuted by the fact that all consciousness implies difference. All states of consciousness have for their objects things marked by some difference, as appears in the case of judgments like "I saw this" [where the "I" is different from the "this" and vice versa, and where both the "I" and the "this" are different from other things].... Moreover, consciousness has certain attributes that are different from each other such as permanence, oneness, self-luminousness,1 etc. Thus, it cannot be shown that these are only Being in general. Also, we observe that [in philosophy and other fields] there takes place a discussion of different views, and the proponents of non-dualism themselves attempt to prove their theory by means of the differences between other views and their own. It therefore must be admitted that reality is full of distinctions and differences.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Notice that Ramanuja immediately starts with 'the fact that all consciousness implies difference'. Shankara's position never maintains 'all consciousness'. It mentions all <b>objects</b> of consciousness, or all <b>states</b> of consciousness. But never says 'ALL consciousness' in plurality. Taking a petty fact and twisting it around is Jalpa.
Having said this, Sri Ramanujacharya proceeds to mention that <i>"consciousness has certain attributes that are different from each other such as permanence, oneness, self-luminousness,1 etc".</i> which I assume is the difference between Consciousness, and insentient matter - and not to be taken as between two 'conscious beings.' The next sentence is what threw me off balance. <b>Thus, it cannot be shown that these are only Being in general.</b> But the nature of Brahman is SAD (Being), and Chid (Intelligence), and Anantham (Infinity) (Panchadasi III.28)
Permanence is a term dependent on Existance (or BEING), so is Oneness. While each Element (BHOOTHA) has one quality above the predecessor - i.e cosmos conducts vibrations and has sound as it's nature, wind is pressure can be felt and has sound and touch. Heat comes from pressure (wind), and can be seen, felt, heard. Water has taste, and earth has smell. While the Brahma Sutra proclaims thus, it also says that AKASHA actually has TWO attributes, which are SOUND and EXISTANCE, while Brahman has Existance alone as it's nature. Existance is not IT's attribute, but it's Own Nature.
Thus I really find it hard on my part to comprehend the logic without the help of a born-and-bred Vaishnava. I am willing to humbly fall at the feet and listen to a TRUE vaishnava talk about the Glory of the Sri Bhashya than try and counter it on the pithy knowledge of Logic and literature that I have.
Meanwhile here is another link: http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/acharyas/rama...ashya.html