Vedanta as explained by Sri Ramanuja

[s1va]

I have great respect for the philosophies and teachings of Sri Ramanuja.  Even when I subscribed completely to Advaitic views, I still held Sri Ramanuja and his vedantic works in highest regard.  He was a leader who led from the front, his life and the way he lived were an example and illustration of his teachings.

 

In this post, I want to share Sri Ramanuja's views on Vedanta, Brahman, Atman and certain Upanishads that I find very interesting.  Not just Ramanuja, there are so many other greats from the Sri Vaishnava tradition that have contributed so much to Vedanta and to Hindu thoughts in general.  So often their thoughts and views get completely neglected or overlooked because of the perception that Advaita is the only explanation to Vedanta in the west.  Interestingly Sri Ramanuja himself studied Advaita Vedanta for several years with the teacher Yadava Prakasa, who was considered the most advanced Vendantin during that period.  Rest assured Ramanuja knew and understood what he was talking about and found as different.

 

Brahma Sutras authored by Veda Vyasa is considered as the foundation and authority of Vedanta by everyone.  Ramanuja's commentaries on Brahma Sutras called Sri Bhashya is considered as one of his major contribution to Vedanta.

 

We can get into how Ramanuja justifies his interpretation of Vedanta as accurate in a little bit.  Let's first take a look at Brahman and Atman as explained by Sri Ramanuja.

 

Quote

iii. Brahman and Ātman

Even if the doctrine of co-ordinate predication is granted, there is yet another hermeneutic hurdle for Rāmānuja to contend with: this is the Upaniṣadic equation of Brahman (the Ultimate) with Ātman (or Self). If the Ultimate and the Self are one, then it would seem that there is no room for the existence of a plurality of individual persons. The problem might be solved by denying that "Ātman" means self, but this would be to stipulate a meaning for the word "Ātman" that it does not have in Sanskrit or Vedic. Rāmānuja's solution to this problem is the cosmological doctrine of śarīra and śarīrī (body and soul), or śeṣa and śeṣin (dependant and dependant upon). According to Rāmānuja, Brahman is the Self of all. However, this is not because our individual personhood is identical with the personhood of Brahman, but because we, along with all individuals, constitute modes or qualities of the body of Brahman. Thus, Brahman stands to all others as the soul or mind stands to its body. The metaphysical model that Rāmānuja thus argues for is at once cosmological in nature, and organic. All individuals are Brahman by virtue of constituting its body, but all individuals retain an identity in contradistinction to other parts of Brahman, particularly the soul of Brahman.

 

In accordance with much of the monism of Upaniṣadic passages, Rāmānuja maintains that there is a way in which the individual self (jīva, or jīvātman) is identical with the Ultimate Self (Ātman or Paramātman). This is in our natures. According to Rāmānuja, each jīva shares with Brahman an essential nature of being a knower. However, due to beginningless past actions (karma) our true nature (as being knowers and dependants upon Brahman) are obscured from us. Moreover, our sharing this nature in no way implies that we have the same relationship to other things (Śrī Bhāṣya, I.i.1. "Great Siddhānta" pp.99-102). In other words, our likeness in one respect with Brahman does not imply that we ourselves are either omnipotent, omniscient or all good.

 

This quoted part above feels like the core difference in Ramanuja's philosophy from that of Advaita teachings.  The Ultimate or universal is not the same as the parts it comprises.  Sounds quite simple and nice.  It is actually as simple as it sounds.  All individual or local jivas constitute modes or are qualities of the universal body of Brahman.  So there is the local body, mind and intellect collectively as 'jiva' which is not exactly the same as the universal collective body, mind and intellect of all, aka 'brahman'.

 

Read further and he states that jiva or local is identical with the ultimate or universal self (paramatman).  Identical does not mean they are essentially the same.  Here lies the major difference in the views.  The word 'self' can be also misleading in this context.  Our likeness with Brahman does not imply we are that entirely.    In Vaishnava tradition, one can become like or in the image of Vishnu, but not exactly as the same one exact Vishnu.

 

To continue....

 

Edit:  Forgot to mention that Ramanuja's teacher Yadava Prakasa later changed his views and become one of Ramanuja's disciples accepting his explanation of Vedanta.

[s1va]

The major argument that Ramanuja held on to support his philosophy of Vishishtadvaita was that the entire Vedas should be seen as a single unified corpus.    The non-dual philosophers accept and quote Vedas as the source or their doctrine.  However, if we look at the entire Vedic corpus, about 95% of it is dualistic, about rituals, worship of various deities, etc.   The entire Vedanta would only constitute about 5% (approximately) of the whole Vedas.  With the Advaita or non-dual, how do we explain the 95% that talks and encourages dualistic worship, rituals, etc.?  It cannot be explained.  Therefore such dualistic things are just termed as a (initial) stage in progression or evolution.  In the early stages of evolution, a person sticks with the dualistic views, after a certain point they are ready, only in the final stages the Vedantic truth is revealed.  But as per the non-dual schools only Vedanta is the ultimate truth.  Ironically even Vedanta has portions that emphasize dwaita or dualistic view. 

 

Are we to assume that the 95% of the Vedas does not represent the ultimate truth, it is for people who are still caught up in duality.  Just like a stepping stone, otherwise it has no inherent truth or value in and of itself.  How can this be possible, if the entire Vedas are claimed to be revelations that were heard and shared by the Rishis/'seer'?  If only 5% or the vedanta is ultimately true, then shall the 95% of the Vedas be held false from the standpoint of the ultimate truth?  How can the followers of non-dual doctrine only claim they are followers of the (entire) Vedas?

 

Unless the bheda (dwaita) and abheda (advaita) are both held to be true simultaneously, the Vedas cannot be seen as a unified corpus.  From an entirely dualistic view also there are issues and the non-dual portions of the Vedas cannot be explained or held accountable.  In my opinion, something like the paradvaita proposed by Abhinavagupta that holds both the transcendent and immanent to be true at the same time, can only accept the entire Veda as a unified corpus.  Ramanuja's philosophy, while not exactly the same, takes a similar position and approach towards the dual and non-dual views in Veda. 

 

Quote

i. Vedas as Doctrinally Unified Corpus

According to Rāmānuja, his opponents have failed to arrive at an interpretation of the Vedas based on all Vedic texts. Rather, they emphasize some passages that support a monistic interpretation, and ignore those passages that either presume or emphasize plurality. Rāmānuja notes that his opponents hold to the view that those Vedic texts that come later in the corpus are to be emphasized (the fact that they come later is presumed, on this account, to show that they contain the more advanced and esoteric teachings) (Śrī Bhāṣya, I.i.1. "Great Pūrvapakṣa" p.27). These, more than other portions of the Vedas, emphasize the oneness of reality with Brahman. Rāmānuja argues that even these portions of the Vedas presume and affirm plurality. Even if it were not the case that these portions of the Vedas mentioned plurality, we would have to take all the Vedas on par for Rāmānuja. According to Rāmānuja, one cannot attempt to give interpretations of isolated portions of the Vedas. Rather, one must take the Vedas as one unified corpus, aiming at the expression of a single doctrine (cf. Śrī Bhāṣya pp.92-3, I.i.1. "Great Siddhānta"). Hence, any tenable interpretation of the philosophy of the Vedas must not only affirm the reality of plurality, but also the importance of ritual and moral obligations (dharma), for these are spoken about at length in the earlier portions of the Vedas.

 

[s1va]

The arguments that Ramanuja makes can be classified broadly into two or three categories. One of them is the negatives or discrepancies, in other words the problems that Ramanuja sees with the non-dual advaitic and monistic (he also opposed the bhedabheda views of his time that simply emphasized the non-dual) interpretation of Vedanta.   It is important to point out the negatives (incorrect/inconsistent observations and analysis) of the other systems, when a teacher/master is embarking on teaching a new philosophy or system, in order to differentiate and explain what is different or unique about their system.  Majority of his arguments are positive, in other words explaining the entire Vedas including Vedanta as a single unified corpus that makes sense in its entirety with his system of Vishishtadvaita.  Not to simply allude, the first portion (karma and rituals part or purva paksha of Vedas) is only true for certain people or stages, it is false or not applicable to those that are in advanced/later states.  Once again, if Vedas are revelations or the universal truths that were revealed to the humanity by the 'seers' or Rishis, then it has to make sense in its entirety, every portion of it (dualistic/dvaita and non-dual/advaita) must be equally true for all levels of seekers.  Such view is simply not possible with the Advaita interpretation of Vedanta.  The third variety of Ramanuja's arguments is generally described is about the consistent interpretation of the scriptures.

 

Quote

i. Logical Criticism

Rāmānuja criticizes many of the arguments of the Bhedābheda and Advaita views on logical grounds. These schools employed dialectical arguments that conclude on the basis of logical puzzles that arise in accounting for distinctions and difference in perception that difference (which includes the idea of a distinct quality) is an unintelligible notion. From such considerations, these philosophers would typically conclude that only undifferentiated consciousness is the real (Brahman). Rāmānuja at many points in the Śrī Bhāṣya and the Vedārthasaṅgraha attempts to argue against such views by an argument ad absurdum. Particularly, Rāmānuja argues that the arguments presented by the Bhedābheda and Advaita Vedāntins lead to intolerable contradictions and further conclusions that go against common sense. At one point he suggests that those who would make such arguments are "no better than a man who would claim that his own mother never had any children" (Śrī Bhāṣya, I.i.1. "Great Siddhānta" p.44).

ii. Argument from Epistemology

Rāmānuja argues that the epistemic considerations that his opponents adduce for their positions undercut their own views. The philosophers that Rāmānuja takes aim at argue that all means of cognition involve error. Rāmānuja argues that if this is so, it follows that we could never know that all cognition involves error, for such putative knowledge would itself involve an erroneous cognition, and hence not qualify as genuine knowledge. If Rāmānuja's opponents view is correct, then it follows that some cognitions are not erroneous. But this is exactly what the disputed conclusion rules out (Śrī Bhāṣya, I.i.1. "Great Siddhānta" pp.74-78).

https://www.iep.utm.edu/ramanuja/#SH2b

 

[Boy]

Interesting, albeit not convincing at all. While complaining about the logic of advaitans (and not understand their point of view) he made [...] presuppositions to try to explain his rejection of the Upanishads. [...]

 

A good advaita talk on this particular topic is: 

 

[Video removed.]

 

Edited October 1, 2018 by Boy

[s1va]

18 hours ago, Boy said:

Interesting, albeit not convincing at all.

 

I know it won't convince those who have made up their minds already with some fixed notions.  If you want to post Advaita video lectures, I would suggest that you create a new post and do it there, or do it one of the several posts that promotes advaita here.  While I welcome your comments stating it is not convincing to you, I feel such videos has no place in this topic.

 

This post as you can clearly see is about Vedanta as explained by Ramanuja.  You can agree, disagree or discuss.  But simply adding 1 or 2 hour lecture video that promotes the philosophy you subscribe to, is not welcome and off topic in this thread.  Please remove the video.

[Boy]

Your thread, your rules.

[s1va]

18 hours ago, Boy said:

While complaining about the logic of advaitans (and not understand their point of view) he made silly presuppositions to try to explain his rejection of the Upanishads.

 

Ramanuja is considered one of the greatest contributor to Vedanta by one and all.  Even by the truly great Advaitic masters I know who oppose some of his philosophical views.  To call his philosophy silly and to summarily reject it without any substantiation (except posting some video link) just shows ignorance and sheer arrogance.

 

FYI:  Ramanuja did not reject the Upanishads.  Anyone that makes such claim should get their head checked for sanity and also should try to get some basic education in Vedanta before making posts criticizing others.

[Boy]

Well, well. 1. Appeal to authority won't change my mind. 2. To me, if you reject one (sic.) of the mahavakyas then you're out. This goes for modifications as well. You may find me ignorant, arrogant, uneducated and in pressing need of a psychiatrist, but not even that will change my mind. Have a nice evening and much love!!

[s1va]

1 minute ago, Boy said:

Well, well. 1. Appeal to authority won't change my mind. 2. To me, if you reject one (sic.) of the mahavakyas then you're out. This goes for modifications as well. You may find me ignorant, arrogant, uneducated and in pressing need of a psychiatrist, but not even that will change my mind. Have a nice evening and much love!!

 

I am not trying to change your mind.  Those were my observations.  I wouldn't waste one minute on such efforts to convince someone who is attached to this or that ideology or philosophy.  I hope you are not trying to convince or change other's mind also.  If you do, that's entirely your business.  I am not a diehard defender or believer of either Advaita or Vishishtadvaita.  This post is just a presentation of Ramanuja's views on Vedanta.  If you don't agree, fine, it is duly noted.  No need to get really worked up over this and call someone 'silly', this or that!

 

You have a nice evening too.  More Love

 

[Marblehead]

But I'm still allowed to change my mind because I reserve that right.

 

[s1va]

While I completely disagree with some of the comments made in this post suggesting Ramanuja rejected Vedanta/Upanishads, I would like to address the point that was made about the rejection one of the mahavakyas (Great Sayings) and therefore the rejection of Upanishads.  Did Ramanuja reject any of the mahavakyas or any of the Upanishads, does Vishishtadvaita tradition hold  the Upanishads to be wrong or reject them?  As far as I know, there is completely no basis for such statements.  Not only no basis, many would consider such statements to be gross misrepresentation of the Vishishtadvaita tradition and it's masters who respect the entire Vedas including the Vedanta and all Upanishads, Brahma Sutras etc., and accept the authority of Vedas as the fundamental basis for their philosophy.  They simply have a different interpretation for the Vedanta than the Advaita interpretation.  Ramanuja has clearly explained his position on Upanishads in his work Vedartha-Sangraha.

 

There are commentaries written for almost all major Upanishads by various great masters of this tradition.  Vedanta Desikan's commentary on Isha Upanishad is one popular and exemplary example of this.  The mahavakya that it was implied that Ramanuja rejected was the  ‘That thou art’ (tat tvam asi) from Chandogya Upanishad.  Ramanuja did not reject this anywhere, he just gave a different interpretation for this mahavakya.  If someone claims Ramanuja rejected this or the Upanishads they should back up their statements with substantiation.

 

Before someone summarily rejects the points Ramanuja makes, I think they should at least try to read and understand the Sri Bhashya, Vedartha-Sangraha or some of the other Vedantic works by Ramanuja.  Try to read and see what Vedanta Desikan is trying to say in his works and commentaries on Vedanta.  It is ironic that followers of Advaita think they know or understand everything because they understand this one concept of non-dual.  Anything that proposes something different must be wrong and they know it even before listening to what is stated as different.

 

Ramanuja's full exposition of the mahavakyas and Upanishads is outside the scope of this thread.    But I will quote briefly from two different sources, that explain the definition or meaning Ramanuja gives to 'tat tvam asi'.  It will be very interesting for some to note that Ramanuja accepts the Brahman as  'One' - something unique without a second.  That is why his system is called "qualified non-dual" or Vishishtadvaita.

 

Quote

The way in which Sri Ramanuja interprets the famous text, ‘That thou art’ (tat tvam asi) is unique. This is done by means of co-ordinate predication (sāmānādhikāraṇya). In a co-ordinate predication the identity of the substantive should not be established through the rejection of the natural significance of co-ordinate terms. The identical import of terms taken in their natural signification should be brought out. The Mahabhashya of Patanjali defines co-ordinate predication thus: “The signification of an identical entity by several terms which are applied to that entity on different grounds is co-ordinate predication.” ⁹ In such a proposition the attributes not only should be distinct from each other but also different from the substance, though inseparable from it. In the illustration of a “purple robe”, the basic substance is one and the same, though “purpleness” and “robeness” are different from it as well as from each other. That is how the unity of a “purple robe” is established. In the co-ordinate predication asserting identity between “that” and “thou”, Brahman himself with the self as his mode, having the self as his body, is pointed out.

The term “thou” which usually stands for the self here stands for Brahman (“that”) who is the indweller of the self and of whom the self is the mode as a constituent of his body. The term “thou” does not mean the physical body or the individual self. Since Brahman has interpenetrated all matter and self, “thou” signifies Brahman in the ultimate analysis. The term “that” signifies Brahman himself as the ground of the universe and the soul of all individual selves. Hence in the identity of “that” and “thou” there is no rejection of the specific connotation of the co-ordinate terms. The upshot of the dictum is that the individual selves and the world, which are distinct and real attributes, are comprehended in Brahman. Brahman as the inner self of the jiva and Brahman as the ground of the universe are one. The central principle is that whatever exists as an attribute of a substance, that being inseparable from the substance is one with that substance.

Thus Sri Ramanuja upholds all the three streams of thoughts in the Upanishads, namely, unity, plurality and both. He himself clinches the argument:

 

We uphold unity because Brahman alone exists with all other entities as his modes. We uphold both unity and plurality, as the one Brahman himself has all the physical and spiritual entities as his modes and thus exists qualified by a plurality. We uphold plurality as the three entities — the individual selves, the world and the supreme Lord — are mutually distinct in their substantive nature and attributes and there is no mutual transposition of their characteristics.¹⁰

 

 

Quote

ii. "Tat tvam asi" and Co-ordinate Predication

Even if the Vedic corpus as a whole is taken to present a single doctrine, Rāmānuja is still left with the task of accounting for how the seemingly monistic portions of the Upaniṣads are consistent with the reality of a plurality of distinct individuals. To overcome this hermeneutic hurdle, Rāmānuja introduces the doctrine of sāmānādhikaraṇya , sometimes translated as "co-ordinate predication" or “the principle of grammatical coordination” but literally meaning 'several things in a common substrate.' The etymology of the word suggests an ontological doctrine. However, Rāmānuja means to employ it as a semantic doctrine. According to Rāmānuja, "The experts on such matters define it thus: `The signification of an identical entity by several terms [śabda] which are applied to that entity on different grounds is co-ordinate predication" (Vedārthasaṅgraha§24).

 

In both the Śrī Bhāṣya and the Vedārthasaṅgraha, Rāmānuja draws a distinction between the object denoted by a term, and the quality that it can be identified in connection with. The possibility of using various terms with the same denotation but with different qualitative content is what Rāmānuja calls "co-ordinate predication."

The doctrine that Rāmānuja advances under the heading of co-ordinate predication strikingly anticipates the Fregean distinction between sense and reference. In the writings of Rāmānuja, the doctrine is used to interpret monistic passages of the Vedas in a manner that affirms both the unity of the thing designated, via the coreferentiality of the various terms, while affirming that the various terms bring to the sentence an emphasis on distinct properties of the unitary thing so identified. With respect to the famous formula "that thou art" (tat tvam asi) from the ChandyogaUpaniṣad (which Advaitins quote as support for the absolute identity of the individual's self with Brahman), Rāmānuja understands the indexicals "that" and “thou” as signifying an underlying unity, while containing distinct qualitative content. Hence, "that" in this context, brings to fore the quality of the underlying substantial unity of all individuals in Brahman, while "thou" emphasize that we, as individuals, are qualities or distinctions in this underlying unity (Śrī Bhāṣya, I.i.1. "Great Siddhānta" pp.129-39).

 

[s1va]

16 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

But I'm still allowed to change my mind because I reserve that right.

 

 

I consider that smart and as a positive asset to retain the right to change your mind.  At least you are open and willing to listen to other ideas.  You can listen and reject them afterwards 

 

If you are already convinced you know what is the only truth and why it is the only truth, then there is no need to reserve the right to change your mind, right?

[Marblehead]

Exactly.  Mostly I just wanted to let the two of you know that I am reading the thread.  I'm not interested in the details but I am of the philosophy.

 

 

[3bob]

relative  truths are found in the mind (somewhere) while the Truth is not -just as it is implied that the Great Mystery/Tao is not found there either per the saying of,  "the Tao that can be named is not..."

[Jonesboy]

17 minutes ago, 3bob said:

relative  truths are found in the mind (somewhere) while the Truth is not -just as it is implied that the Great Mystery/Tao is not found there either per the saying of,  "the Tao that can be named is not..."

 

Are you sure that is what the Tao is? A truth beyond local mind? So move beyond the local mind and you know the Truth but you can't name it?

[3bob]

5 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

Are you sure that is what the Tao is? A truth beyond local mind? So move beyond the local mind and you know the Truth but you can't name it?

 

does not really matter to you (except perhaps academically) if I"m sure, what really matters to you is if you are sure...or not.   Which I see as  applicable to all of us along such lines

Edited October 1, 2018 by 3bob

[Jonesboy]

7 minutes ago, 3bob said:

 

does not really matter to you (except perhaps academically) if I"m sure, what really matters to you is if you are sure...or not.   Which I see as  applicable to all of us along such lines

 

Not sure what you are saying.

 

But the TTC would be more like the Dao begot the One. One being Universal mind which is beyond local mind. I think you are confusing various traditions where some believe the Dao=One.

 

As you know this is very complicated stuff and throwing in other traditions can just add confusion to an already complicated and rich tradition. Especially if you start to mix up meanings and terms that don't mean the same thing. This is the Hindu section after all.

[3bob]

9 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

Not sure what you are saying.

 

But the TTC would be more like the Dao begot the One. One being Universal mind which is beyond local mind. I think you are confusing various traditions where some believe the Dao=One.

 

As you know this is very complicated stuff and throwing in other traditions can just add confusion to an already complicated and rich tradition. Especially if you start to mix up meanings and terms that don't mean the same thing. This is the Hindu section after all.

umm, a Zen guy I listened to used the term "big mind", which sounds like your universal mind...so are you adding Buddhism to mix also?

[3bob]

btw, I'd say it does not get any simpler than the  Self, so simple that It is not found in any form or state of mind local, universal, big or otherwise.

Edited October 1, 2018 by 3bob

[Jonesboy]

10 minutes ago, 3bob said:

btw, it does not get any simpler than the  Self, so simple that It is not found in any form or state of mind local, universal, big or otherwise.

 

Seems like there is a lot of debate even in the Hindu section as to what the Self is. Universal seems to be what the Self is most often revered to. Now what is the Self or what is that Universal mind is another question. Is it silence, no thought, stillness, is it more than that?

 

I am glad it is so simple for you beyond academically of course.

[3bob]

not so much debate in and per the Upanishads as revealed scripture from great Rishis, but in other ways yes...and we could get into with and without categories... or tattvas  

[Jonesboy]

2 hours ago, 3bob said:

not so much debate in and per the Upanishads as revealed scripture from great Rishis, but in other ways yes...and we could get into with and without categories... or tattvas  

 

You may have missed it but there is a thread already about AV compared to KS. No reason to derail this one.

[Fa Xin]

I do believe Dao is kind of the primordial soup that “begets the one”, yet I am guilty of comparing the Dao with the One too. I get very tongue tied when trying to explain any of this stuff! I also find myself becoming more and more quiet as the days progress 😊 

 

Edited October 2, 2018 by Fa Xin

[3bob]

9 hours ago, Jonesboy said:

 

You may have missed it but there is a thread already about AV compared to KS. No reason to derail this one.

 

the reference to the Upanishads can not derail any discourse about any of the schools of "Hinduism",