<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Scriptures are the guidelines, but they are definitely Pramaanas. If all experience were true, then dream and delusion should be considered a true experience. But they are not.
Secondly, we do not experience the Brahman because it is the experiencer and not the experienced. By saying that the Brahman cannot be experienced, the opponent agrees with us and is not contradicting our statement. The shruthi too says that Brahman cannot be experienced. In the Smrithi too, the Lord says, "I know everyone, but no one knows ME."
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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!<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a revalation to me. This perhaps is one reason comparitive studies should be undertaken. Thanks Gangajal ji.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Hence Ramanuja inverts Shankara's position. There is NO Nirguna Brahman as Advaitists claim.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have always taken the 'nis-thraigunyo-bhava-arjuna'
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->4. There is NO such thing as consciousness by itself. Consciousness is only an attribute of beings.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If so, who is conscious of it? And how ? If it is only an attribute of beings (plural), then how can consciousness be said to be Universal? This would refute the Shruthi Vakhyam of Chid in 'Sad-Chid-Anandam'. If Consciousness was only an attribute, it should have been described in the 24 thanmatras of Sankhya which come from Pradhaana Prakruthi. But Sri Kapila maintains that Prakruthi (Pradhaana) is inert, and needs the help of Purusha, which is Consciousness to aid Her. Your statement above seems to refute a Purusha.
Thus consciousness is not an attribute of beings that is destroyed on their destruction. Au contraire, Consciousness is independent of beings. But it is the Attribute of BEING (Sadh as in Sadchidananda).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->5. Mandukya Upanishad declaring Brahman as Advaitam does not contradict Vishistadvaita since Brahman is the ONLY source of everything.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The very word "everything" contradicts an advaitham. Brahman is the material and efficient cause. In that sense there is no contradiction. But if the cause and it's products are DIFFERENT and distinct, then you propose that the cause has mutated (according to Vaisheshika.) If there is an existance apart from Narayana, then Narayana is not Omni-present (this takes us back to the basics.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is acceptable, and it does not contradict Advaita Philosophy. It only forms a subset of it. The latent state of the universe (and jeevas) at the end of a Kalpa, and the reemergence at the beginning of the next cycle is not dismissed by Shankara. Here I do not see a bedham (difference.) In the equation Brahman=Narayana(Ishwara) + Jeeva + Jagath, are the jeeva/jagath termed as mithya or as sathyam? That is the only thing that brings the difference.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->7. A nirguna Narayana according to Vishistadvaita means a Narayana free from any bad qualities. Hence one can think of Narayana as nirguna.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As an Advaitin, I interpret this Narayana without bad qualities is Ishwara. If indeed Nirguna is interpreted as 'without bad qualities', then 'Saguna Narayana' mean a Narayana with bad qualities. Or, if Saguna Narayana is the same as Nirguna Narayana, then there will be a redundancy in definition. The Shruthi could not have used Nirguna instead of Dosha-varjitha as Nirguna has a specific meaning. It means, devoid of qualities.
When I say carbondioxide is colorless, I do not mean it does not have red-color. I mean it is colorless, it has no visible colors, I cannot identify it with a color in the visible-spectrum. Thus, is my objection to the interpretation of Nirguna as devoid of just 'bad qualities' instead of all-qualities.
Scriptures are the guidelines, but they are definitely Pramaanas. If all experience were true, then dream and delusion should be considered a true experience. But they are not.
Secondly, we do not experience the Brahman because it is the experiencer and not the experienced. By saying that the Brahman cannot be experienced, the opponent agrees with us and is not contradicting our statement. The shruthi too says that Brahman cannot be experienced. In the Smrithi too, the Lord says, "I know everyone, but no one knows ME."
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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!<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a revalation to me. This perhaps is one reason comparitive studies should be undertaken. Thanks Gangajal ji.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Hence Ramanuja inverts Shankara's position. There is NO Nirguna Brahman as Advaitists claim.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have always taken the 'nis-thraigunyo-bhava-arjuna'
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->4. There is NO such thing as consciousness by itself. Consciousness is only an attribute of beings.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If so, who is conscious of it? And how ? If it is only an attribute of beings (plural), then how can consciousness be said to be Universal? This would refute the Shruthi Vakhyam of Chid in 'Sad-Chid-Anandam'. If Consciousness was only an attribute, it should have been described in the 24 thanmatras of Sankhya which come from Pradhaana Prakruthi. But Sri Kapila maintains that Prakruthi (Pradhaana) is inert, and needs the help of Purusha, which is Consciousness to aid Her. Your statement above seems to refute a Purusha.
Thus consciousness is not an attribute of beings that is destroyed on their destruction. Au contraire, Consciousness is independent of beings. But it is the Attribute of BEING (Sadh as in Sadchidananda).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->5. Mandukya Upanishad declaring Brahman as Advaitam does not contradict Vishistadvaita since Brahman is the ONLY source of everything.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The very word "everything" contradicts an advaitham. Brahman is the material and efficient cause. In that sense there is no contradiction. But if the cause and it's products are DIFFERENT and distinct, then you propose that the cause has mutated (according to Vaisheshika.) If there is an existance apart from Narayana, then Narayana is not Omni-present (this takes us back to the basics.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is acceptable, and it does not contradict Advaita Philosophy. It only forms a subset of it. The latent state of the universe (and jeevas) at the end of a Kalpa, and the reemergence at the beginning of the next cycle is not dismissed by Shankara. Here I do not see a bedham (difference.) In the equation Brahman=Narayana(Ishwara) + Jeeva + Jagath, are the jeeva/jagath termed as mithya or as sathyam? That is the only thing that brings the difference.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->7. A nirguna Narayana according to Vishistadvaita means a Narayana free from any bad qualities. Hence one can think of Narayana as nirguna.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As an Advaitin, I interpret this Narayana without bad qualities is Ishwara. If indeed Nirguna is interpreted as 'without bad qualities', then 'Saguna Narayana' mean a Narayana with bad qualities. Or, if Saguna Narayana is the same as Nirguna Narayana, then there will be a redundancy in definition. The Shruthi could not have used Nirguna instead of Dosha-varjitha as Nirguna has a specific meaning. It means, devoid of qualities.
When I say carbondioxide is colorless, I do not mean it does not have red-color. I mean it is colorless, it has no visible colors, I cannot identify it with a color in the visible-spectrum. Thus, is my objection to the interpretation of Nirguna as devoid of just 'bad qualities' instead of all-qualities.