Fwd: what is ... Ramanuja, Shankara & Consciousness

[Guest guest]

Hello Stig, and everybody else

 

I'm particularly interested in how both Shankara and Ramanuja define

consciousness's relationship with its object, and the precise reasons

why this is so. As I understand it, Shankara was generally agreed that

consciousness did not require an object in order to exist, but was an

objectless essence, whereas Ramanuja had an almost Buddhist-like

understanding of the object-dependency of consciousness. I can refer

you to where Ramanuja says this in his own Brahmasutra Bhasya.

 

I'm not necessarily interested in which idea is more correct, but in

why a more Bhakti-oriented teacher would emphasize the

object-dependency of consciousness, and how this idea relates to

Bhakti.

 

Also, what are some good translations of Ramanuja's works out there? I

do have access to his Brahma-sutra Bhasya, but I know he also wrote

some general summaries and that certain Vedanta booksellers publish

them.

 

Thanks.

[Guest guest]

I have Ramanuja's BSB too, but very little else associated with him.

 

Regards,

 

--Greg

 

At 05:14 AM 11/10/2003 +0000, concordance909 wrote:

>Hello Stig, and everybody else

>

>I'm particularly interested in how both Shankara and Ramanuja define

>consciousness's relationship with its object, and the precise reasons

>why this is so. As I understand it, Shankara was generally agreed that

>consciousness did not require an object in order to exist, but was an

>objectless essence, whereas Ramanuja had an almost Buddhist-like

>understanding of the object-dependency of consciousness. I can refer

>you to where Ramanuja says this in his own Brahmasutra Bhasya.

>

>I'm not necessarily interested in which idea is more correct, but in

>why a more Bhakti-oriented teacher would emphasize the

>object-dependency of consciousness, and how this idea relates to

>Bhakti.

>

>Also, what are some good translations of Ramanuja's works out there? I

>do have access to his Brahma-sutra Bhasya, but I know he also wrote

>some general summaries and that certain Vedanta booksellers publish

>them.

>

>Thanks.

>

>

>

>

>Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

>Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

>To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

>Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

>

>

>

>Your use of is subject to

[Guest guest]

respected advaitin,

my humblest observation is the

following. i think this is relevant.

shankara renounced the world and

became a sanyaasi at his age seven. this indicates

that he had attained near nirvana in his previous

birth itself. he did not need any dependence like a

guru or a god to progress "further" in his path.

all his actions further to his

sanyaasa were solely for the benefit of the

ignoramuses of this world.

raamanuja attained nirvana thro the

bhakti marga. therefore he stressed bhakti as the path

to salvation.

with utmost regards,

a.v.krshnan

 

 

 

 

 

--- concordance909 <concordance909

wrote: > Hello Stig, and everybody else

>

> I'm particularly interested in how both Shankara and

> Ramanuja define

> consciousness's relationship with its object, and

> the precise reasons

> why this is so. As I understand it, Shankara was

> generally agreed that

> consciousness did not require an object in order to

> exist, but was an

> objectless essence, whereas Ramanuja had an almost

> Buddhist-like

> understanding of the object-dependency of

> consciousness. I can refer

> you to where Ramanuja says this in his own

> Brahmasutra Bhasya.

>

> I'm not necessarily interested in which idea is more

> correct, but in

> why a more Bhakti-oriented teacher would emphasize

> the

> object-dependency of consciousness, and how this

> idea relates to

> Bhakti.

>

> Also, what are some good translations of Ramanuja's

> works out there? I

> do have access to his Brahma-sutra Bhasya, but I

> know he also wrote

> some general summaries and that certain Vedanta

> booksellers publish

> them.

>

> Thanks.

>

>

>

 

______________________

Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE

Messenger http://mail.messenger..co.uk

[Guest guest]

Namaste Krishnanji,

 

SankarAchArya did have a Guru !

 

And he stresses the importance of having a Guru in his bhAshyam on

muNdakOpanishad 1.2.12. (parIksha lOkAn karmachithAn...).

 

Hari Om

 

 

-

"av krshnan" <avkrshnan

> respected advaitin,

> my humblest observation is the

> following. i think this is relevant.

> shankara renounced the world and

> became a sanyaasi at his age seven. this indicates

> that he had attained near nirvana in his previous

> birth itself. he did not need any dependence like a

> guru or a god to progress "further" in his path.

> all his actions further to his

> sanyaasa were solely for the benefit of the

> ignoramuses of this world.

[Guest guest]

respeceted ranjithji,

of course, he had a guru.

he craved for a guru, walked

across the land , and landed at the feet of GOvinda

bhagavatpada.

but that was for clarifications

and deeper delvings into his own understandings, and

for accelerating his own progress.

what i meant by saying that

shankara did not need a guru is that , even by age

seven [he had to wait till 7 because, according to

the traditions of the home into which he was born, his

initiation into formal "seeking" could begin at age

seven only,], he was already very firm in his mind

what he was seeking, and its path and route.

he sought and obtained, nay , blackmailed

his mother, into agreeing for his renounciation at

age 7. at that point of time, that decisive moment, he

had no guru. that is what i meant.

a.v.krshnan.

 

 

-- Ranjeet Sankar <thefinalsearch wrote:

> Namaste Krishnanji,

>

> SankarAchArya did have a Guru !

>

> And he stresses the importance of having a Guru in

> his bhAshyam on

> muNdakOpanishad 1.2.12. (parIksha lOkAn

> karmachithAn...).

>

> Hari Om

>

>

> -

> "av krshnan" <avkrshnan

>

> > respected advaitin,

> > my humblest observation is the

> > following. i think this is relevant.

> > shankara renounced the world

> and

> > became a sanyaasi at his age seven. this

> indicates

> > that he had attained near nirvana in his previous

> > birth itself. he did not need any dependence like

> a

> > guru or a god to progress "further" in his path.

> > all his actions further to his

> > sanyaasa were solely for the benefit of the

> > ignoramuses of this world.

>

>

 

______________________

Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE

Messenger http://mail.messenger..co.uk

[Guest guest]

Namaste all

Infact some say, composing the beautiful hymns of Bhajagovindam,

Shankaracharya was paying a tribute to his guru Govindapada.

Many Pranams

advaitin, "Ranjeet Sankar"

<thefinalsearch> wrote:

> Namaste Krishnanji,

>

> SankarAchArya did have a Guru !

>

> And he stresses the importance of having a Guru in his bhAshyam on

> muNdakOpanishad 1.2.12. (parIksha lOkAn karmachithAn...).

>

> Hari Om

>

>

> -

> "av krshnan" <avkrshnan>

>

> > respected advaitin,

> > my humblest observation is the

> > following. i think this is relevant.

> > shankara renounced the world and

> > became a sanyaasi at his age seven. this indicates

> > that he had attained near nirvana in his previous

> > birth itself. he did not need any dependence like a

> > guru or a god to progress "further" in his path.

> > all his actions further to his

> > sanyaasa were solely for the benefit of the

> > ignoramuses of this world.