01-24-2005, 06:42 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Sunder+Jan 22 2005, 04:18 AM-->QUOTE(Sunder @ Jan 22 2005, 04:18 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> 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 Jee
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 i 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.
. 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:
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).
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'. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sundarji,
1. Ramanujacharya refutes an absolute Nirguna Brahman on the basis of experience. We do not experience anything except qualified objects. Even scripture can not override experience.
2. It is Shankara who claims that Brahma sutra refutes Pancharatra school. Ramanuja claims that Brahma Sutra actually supports Pancharatra school. Other Acharyas like Nimbarka and Baladeva claims that Brahma Sutra is NOT talking about Pancharatra school at all but of Shaktas in that section!
3. Shankara claims that Nirguna Brahman is the True reality while Saguna Brahman is Nirguna Brahmana seen through Maya. Shankara also claims that Bhakti leads to Chittasuddhi and ultimately Jnana is needed for Mukti. I think such a position offended people following Bhakti Marga. Hence Ramanuja inverts Shankara's position. There is NO Nirguna Brahman as Advaitists claim. Nirguna means absence of bad qualities. The meaning of Advaita in Shruti is not non-dual as in the Advaita school. Advaita means that there is NO other source of the world than Brahman. Jnana together with Karma lead to Atma Jnana when a person realizes that he is the Atman. After that Bhakti is needed to realize BrahmaJnana.
4. There is NO such thing as consciousness by itself. Consciousness is only an attribute of beings.
5. Mandukya Upanishad declaring Brahman as Advaitam does not contradict Vishistadvaita since Brahman is the ONLY source of everything.
6. Vishistadvaita does not fall from Vedanta although it disagrees with Advaita school's reading of Vedanta. . It accepts that Brahman is the material and efficient casue of the universe since Brahman = Narayan+jiva + jagat. This entire assemblage is Brahman. Jiva and Jagat periodically changes from manifested state to unmanifested state (causal) state while Narayan remains immutable.
7. A nirguna Narayana according to Vishistadvaita means a Narayana free from any bad qualities. Hence one can think of Narayana as nirguna.
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 i 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.
. 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:
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).
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'. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sundarji,
1. Ramanujacharya refutes an absolute Nirguna Brahman on the basis of experience. We do not experience anything except qualified objects. Even scripture can not override experience.
2. It is Shankara who claims that Brahma sutra refutes Pancharatra school. Ramanuja claims that Brahma Sutra actually supports Pancharatra school. Other Acharyas like Nimbarka and Baladeva claims that Brahma Sutra is NOT talking about Pancharatra school at all but of Shaktas in that section!
3. Shankara claims that Nirguna Brahman is the True reality while Saguna Brahman is Nirguna Brahmana seen through Maya. Shankara also claims that Bhakti leads to Chittasuddhi and ultimately Jnana is needed for Mukti. I think such a position offended people following Bhakti Marga. Hence Ramanuja inverts Shankara's position. There is NO Nirguna Brahman as Advaitists claim. Nirguna means absence of bad qualities. The meaning of Advaita in Shruti is not non-dual as in the Advaita school. Advaita means that there is NO other source of the world than Brahman. Jnana together with Karma lead to Atma Jnana when a person realizes that he is the Atman. After that Bhakti is needed to realize BrahmaJnana.
4. There is NO such thing as consciousness by itself. Consciousness is only an attribute of beings.
5. Mandukya Upanishad declaring Brahman as Advaitam does not contradict Vishistadvaita since Brahman is the ONLY source of everything.
6. Vishistadvaita does not fall from Vedanta although it disagrees with Advaita school's reading of Vedanta. . It accepts that Brahman is the material and efficient casue of the universe since Brahman = Narayan+jiva + jagat. This entire assemblage is Brahman. Jiva and Jagat periodically changes from manifested state to unmanifested state (causal) state while Narayan remains immutable.
7. A nirguna Narayana according to Vishistadvaita means a Narayana free from any bad qualities. Hence one can think of Narayana as nirguna.