. It is believed to be his preserved mortal remains. Ramanuja's philosophical foundation was qualified
monism, and is called
Vishishtadvaita in the Hindu tradition. The first two sources of knowledge are perception and inference, and they are trustworthy notwithstanding general human subjection to "beginningless ignorance." Knowledge is always of the real, even in dreams, and error is a disordered perception or faulty inference concerning what is really there. The third source of knowledge is the testimony of scripture, or more strictly,
śabda ("eternal sound"), which helps to establish much that is uncertain on the basis of sense perception and inference, notably the existence and nature of the ultimate reality (
brahman). Though unlike some proponents of naïve empiricism, Rāmānuja does not think that it suffices to intermittently have an acquaintance with objects of knowledge. Knowledge (
jñāna) only occurs when there is direct perception of an object. Unlike proper empiricists, Rāmānuja does not restrict knowledge to that which can be gathered from the senses.
Ramanuja’s Ontology Being a realist, Rāmānuja firmly opposed the notion of
māyā (illusion). In his understanding, three distinct realities exist: a vast expanse of material objects, countless conscious souls within material bodies, and the transcendent Brahman. Each of these categories possesses a different degree of awareness, from the non-aware material world to the fully-aware Brahman, but they are all equally real. In Rāmānuja's interpretation of advaita (non-dualism), it is not a form of advaita as proposed by
Shankara. Rāmānuja's conception of bhakti maintains that there must always be a separation between the lover (the soul) and the beloved (Vishnu), for true love cannot exist without distinct identities. His stance suggests a
qualified non-dualism, where both the souls and the material world, though deeply interconnected with Brahman, eternally remain different from Brahman. According to Ramanuja, Brahman encompasses everything but is not uniform in nature. It includes elements of plurality, allowing it to manifest in a diverse world. Ramanuja views Brahman as a personal god who rules over a real world filled with his spirit. He believes Brahman to have the attributes of “omnipotence, omniscience and infinite love”. He writes:"Entities other than
Brahman can be objects of such cognitions of the nature of joy only to a finite extent and for limited duration. But
Brahman is such that cognizing of him is an infinite and abiding joy. It is for this reason that the
śruti [scripture] says, `
Brahman is bliss’ (
Taittirīya Upaniṣad II.6.) Since the form of cognition as joy is determined by its object,
Brahman itself is joy."Rāmānuja clarifies that mere theoretical knowledge of
Brahman‘s nature is insufficient for attaining m
oksha.
Criticism of Sankara Ramanuja argued that
Shankara's interpretation of the
Upanishads had serious errors. He had four major objections: • Brahman was differentiated consciousness and not undifferentiated consciousness. • Shankara's concept of
Nirguna Brahman was wrong and untenable. • Beginningless
karma, and not superimposition, was the cause of
avidya. • Sankara's doctrine of
Avidya (Ignorance) and
Maya (Illusion) has seven major flaws and inconsistencies.
Hermeneutic Criticism Vedas as Doctrinally Unified Corpus Ramanuja accepted that the Vedas are a reliable source of knowledge, then critiqued other schools of Hindu philosophy, including Advaita Vedānta, as having failed in interpreting all of the Vedic texts. This method of scripture interpretation distinguishes Ramanuja from Ādi Shankara. Shankara's exegetical approach
Samanvayat Tatparya Linga with
Anvaya-Vyatireka, states that for proper understanding, all texts must be examined in their entirety, and then their intent established by six characteristics. These include studying what the author states as his goal, what he repeats in his explanation, what he states as his conclusion, and whether it can be
epistemically verified. Not everything in any text, states Shankara, has equal weight and some ideas are the essence of any expert's textual testimony. This philosophical difference in scriptural studies helped Shankara conclude that the
Principal Upanishads primarily teach monism with teachings such as
Tat tvam asi, while helping Ramanuja conclude that qualified monism is at the foundation of Hindu spirituality.
Comparison with other Vedānta schools Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita shares the theistic devotionalism ideas with
Madhvāchārya's Dvaita. Both schools assert that Jīva (souls) and Brahman (as Vishnu) are different, a difference that is never transcended. God Vishnu alone is independent, all other gods and beings are dependent on Him, according to both Madhvāchārya and Ramanuja. However, in contrast to Madhvāchārya's views, Ramanuja asserts "qualified non-dualism", that souls share the same essential nature of Brahman, and that there is a universal sameness in the quality and degree of bliss possible for human souls, and every soul can reach the bliss state of God Himself. In contrast, Ramanuja's theory posits both Brahman and the world of matter are two different absolutes, both metaphysically real, neither should be called false or illusive, and
saguna Brahman with attributes is also real. Ramanuja views Brahman as the inner ruler, all knowing, and the “essence of the soul”. He describes Brahman as the source of intelligence, truth and bliss, and as the controller of the world. God, like man, states Ramanuja, has both soul and body, and all of the world of matter is the glory of God's body. The path to Brahman (Vishnu), asserted Ramanuja, is devotion to godliness and constant remembrance of the beauty and love of personal god (
saguna Brahman, Vishnu). == Influence ==