Gangajal ji, I agree with you that there IS a difference in opinion in the viewpoints of the two acharyas. While the viewpoints and interpretations are different, the texts that are being interpreted (Shruthi Prasthana, Smrithi Prasthana, and Brahmasutra) are common and are not prone to change.
Similarly, Brahman which is the subject of discussion (if I can call it that), is also not prone to change and is immutable (as the Shruthi says). So far we can agree.
Now, the question is, what is the BASIS on which Ramanujacharya refutes an Absolute Nirguna Brahman in favour of the Chathur-Vyooha model? (Chathur vyooha is the foundation of Vaishnava Pancharatra school - it proposes the theory that the Jeeva-Parama relationship is the fourfold relationship of Vasudeva(Paramatma; in Thuriya), Sangharshana (Jeeva; in Shushupti), Pradhyumna (Mind; in Swapna) and Aniruddha (ego; in jagruth). While the other three repend on Vasudeva, each sphere is completely different from each other and never merge completely into Vasudeva. This theory is refuted by Badharayana in the Brahmasutras. (I am yet to read Sri Ramanuja's interpretation of the sutra.) http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_2/bs_2-2-08.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is what I fail to understand. Is it because Shruthi says there are many consciousness, or is it because it is more colloquial and reachable to the masses. If it is the former, then Shruthi also says that Consciousness is INDIVISIBLE ("Advaitham" is the word used by Shruthi), and if it is the latter then a mass appeal cannot override the classic definition. It can only complent it.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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".<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The entity that's saying 'I' and 'YOU' are one and the same. E.g I call myself I, and I call you YOU. But in both cases it is ME who is doing it. Thus the consciousness is the same, but the perceptions OF 'me', 'you', and 'this' are different. If Consciousness can differ, then (a) it becomes mutable, and (b) it becomes divisible.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->You can not challenge this position by bringing in Panchadasi definition of Brahman since Ramanuja does not accept such a defintion.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Touche. I agree Panchadasi cannot be brought in as a counter argument. But Shruthi definitely can. Mandukya Upanishad Shloka seven (which I had quoted before), is the essence of this discussion of Non-duality of consciousness. Some of the words used are 'alakshanam' (attributeless), 'achinthyam' (unimabinable), 'shivam', 'ADVAITAM' (non dual) chathurtham manyanthe sa ATMA sa vigneyah:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If indeed they are different, then the vishishtadvaitin view point falls from vedanta into (Samkhya or) Yoga point of view. From Vedanta, Brahman is the material and efficient cause of Jagat and hence is not different (or same) as it. Samkhya/Yoga mainain that Inert Prakrithi & Sentient Purusha are eternally different (which is refuted by BrahmaSutra).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Shankara, on the other hand, is talking from the point of view of the ego less Absolute state.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sri Shankara maintains that it is not HIS stance, but is the stance of the Shruthi. His argument is convincing and his position is strong. Once this argument is understood, it is hard to be convinced that the Brahman be eternally different from the Jiva or Ishwara. When ever I think of Narayana (as I often do), I KNOW he is the Brahman In Saguna swaroopa. It is hard to comprehend a Narayana as Nirguna and YET separate from 'you' or 'me'.
Similarly, Brahman which is the subject of discussion (if I can call it that), is also not prone to change and is immutable (as the Shruthi says). So far we can agree.
Now, the question is, what is the BASIS on which Ramanujacharya refutes an Absolute Nirguna Brahman in favour of the Chathur-Vyooha model? (Chathur vyooha is the foundation of Vaishnava Pancharatra school - it proposes the theory that the Jeeva-Parama relationship is the fourfold relationship of Vasudeva(Paramatma; in Thuriya), Sangharshana (Jeeva; in Shushupti), Pradhyumna (Mind; in Swapna) and Aniruddha (ego; in jagruth). While the other three repend on Vasudeva, each sphere is completely different from each other and never merge completely into Vasudeva. This theory is refuted by Badharayana in the Brahmasutras. (I am yet to read Sri Ramanuja's interpretation of the sutra.) http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_2/bs_2-2-08.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is what I fail to understand. Is it because Shruthi says there are many consciousness, or is it because it is more colloquial and reachable to the masses. If it is the former, then Shruthi also says that Consciousness is INDIVISIBLE ("Advaitham" is the word used by Shruthi), and if it is the latter then a mass appeal cannot override the classic definition. It can only complent it.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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".<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The entity that's saying 'I' and 'YOU' are one and the same. E.g I call myself I, and I call you YOU. But in both cases it is ME who is doing it. Thus the consciousness is the same, but the perceptions OF 'me', 'you', and 'this' are different. If Consciousness can differ, then (a) it becomes mutable, and (b) it becomes divisible.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->You can not challenge this position by bringing in Panchadasi definition of Brahman since Ramanuja does not accept such a defintion.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Touche. I agree Panchadasi cannot be brought in as a counter argument. But Shruthi definitely can. Mandukya Upanishad Shloka seven (which I had quoted before), is the essence of this discussion of Non-duality of consciousness. Some of the words used are 'alakshanam' (attributeless), 'achinthyam' (unimabinable), 'shivam', 'ADVAITAM' (non dual) chathurtham manyanthe sa ATMA sa vigneyah:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If indeed they are different, then the vishishtadvaitin view point falls from vedanta into (Samkhya or) Yoga point of view. From Vedanta, Brahman is the material and efficient cause of Jagat and hence is not different (or same) as it. Samkhya/Yoga mainain that Inert Prakrithi & Sentient Purusha are eternally different (which is refuted by BrahmaSutra).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Shankara, on the other hand, is talking from the point of view of the ego less Absolute state.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sri Shankara maintains that it is not HIS stance, but is the stance of the Shruthi. His argument is convincing and his position is strong. Once this argument is understood, it is hard to be convinced that the Brahman be eternally different from the Jiva or Ishwara. When ever I think of Narayana (as I often do), I KNOW he is the Brahman In Saguna swaroopa. It is hard to comprehend a Narayana as Nirguna and YET separate from 'you' or 'me'.