01-22-2005, 02:58 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Sunder+Jan 21 2005, 12:44 PM-->QUOTE(Sunder @ Jan 21 2005, 12:44 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> 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)
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sundar ji,
The example you gave illumines in a flash the difference between Ramanuja and Shankara's position.
Ramanuja ALWAYS talks from the point of a conscious being with a I-sense. When he talks of "all consciousness" he means from the point of view of Narayana, or from the point of view of living beings. This is why he distinguishes between various attributes of consciousness. From the point of view of an I there is indeed difference and not similarity. An "I" is indeed ALWAYS different from an "YOU" and also different from "THIS". This is why Ramanuja is saying that "it can not be shown these are Being in general". You can not challenge this position by bringing in Panchadasi definition of Brahman since Ramanuja does not accept such a defintion. His definition as you know quite well is Brahman=Narayan+jiva (with their I senses)+Jagat (inert matter). All consciousness, i.e. Narayana, numerous jiva and jagat, are indeed different.
Shankara, on the other hand, is talking from the point of view of the ego less Absolute state. For him as stated in Panchadasi, Brahman is Sad, Chid and Anantham. From this point of view it would make no sense to say "ALL consciousness is different" since that would mean saying "Brahman is different".
I had a great deal of trouble understanding Ramanuja's Gita Bhasya because Ramanuja interprets the term Brahman in various Gita verses in various ways. Sometimes Brahman can just mean Jagat, sometimes can mean Jiva and sometimes mean Narayana. I was completely baffled when I first read it.
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)
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sundar ji,
The example you gave illumines in a flash the difference between Ramanuja and Shankara's position.
Ramanuja ALWAYS talks from the point of a conscious being with a I-sense. When he talks of "all consciousness" he means from the point of view of Narayana, or from the point of view of living beings. This is why he distinguishes between various attributes of consciousness. From the point of view of an I there is indeed difference and not similarity. An "I" is indeed ALWAYS different from an "YOU" and also different from "THIS". This is why Ramanuja is saying that "it can not be shown these are Being in general". You can not challenge this position by bringing in Panchadasi definition of Brahman since Ramanuja does not accept such a defintion. His definition as you know quite well is Brahman=Narayan+jiva (with their I senses)+Jagat (inert matter). All consciousness, i.e. Narayana, numerous jiva and jagat, are indeed different.
Shankara, on the other hand, is talking from the point of view of the ego less Absolute state. For him as stated in Panchadasi, Brahman is Sad, Chid and Anantham. From this point of view it would make no sense to say "ALL consciousness is different" since that would mean saying "Brahman is different".
I had a great deal of trouble understanding Ramanuja's Gita Bhasya because Ramanuja interprets the term Brahman in various Gita verses in various ways. Sometimes Brahman can just mean Jagat, sometimes can mean Jiva and sometimes mean Narayana. I was completely baffled when I first read it.