Talk:Ramanuja/Archive 1

Who said it?

Against the Advaita contention that perception cannot make known distinctness but only homogeneous being since distinctness cannot be defined, well, sorry, perception makes known generic characters (cowhood and the like) that differentiate things. If what you Advaitins say were true, why should not a person looking for a horse be satisfied with a buffalo? Remembering could not be distinguished from perceiving, because there would be only the one object (being). And no one would be deaf or blind. Furthermore, Brahman would be an object of perception and the other sources (prameya).

---

Just one thing, are these lines said by Ramanuja? If it is not, it should be purged for Wikipedia is not a place of discussion. If it is, there is nothing in the para that signifies it is what he said. If it is based on what he said, the lines should be made more NPOV, especially the question marks and the words "you Advaitins"

Complaint moved from Talk:Main Page

There is an article on Wikipedia which says Sri Ramanuja (1017-1137 AD) was a Visishtadvaita Saint ,philosopher and that he was also known as Yetiraja , Udeyavar etc.,

"YetirAja" should be spelt as Yatiraja "Udeyavar" should be spelt as Udayavar .

Sri Ramanuja authored the nine gems of Visishtadvaita philosophy also known as " Navarathnas" , Viz. Gadyatrayam ( 3 gadyas), Vedanta Saaram ,Vedartha Sangraham,Vedanta Deepam ,Sri Bhashyam ,Gita Bhashyam (The commentary for the "Bhagavad Gita" ) and the Nithya Grantham ,totalling 9 works in all may be appended to the Wikipedia article which mentions about only 7 of Ramanuja's works .

Below is the Wikipedia version of Ramanuja's works

Ramanuja's most famous work is known as the Sri Bhasya. It is a commentary on the Brahma Sutras.

Gadhya Thrayam (three compositions) - Vaikunta, Sriranga and Saranagati Gadhyam are great works in Vaishnava philosophy.

His other works are:

Vedanta Sara (essence of Vedanta) Vedanta Sangraha (a resume of Vedanta) Vedanta Deepa (the light of Vedanta). --The preceeding was originally posted by mistake on Talk:Main Page by User:Krishvasu 06:55, 20 August 2006 UTC --

Comment moved from article

I moved the following from the article:

"History shows that the followers of Sankara are answerless till date to the strong arguments of Ramanuja (in his sri bhashya) and his followers(satadushani of desika,...). In a bid to escape strong objections raised by Ramanuja and his successors, most advaitins take a disguised route of neo vedantism, where they argue that vaishnavism is one another path to realise brahman."

The above observation is baseless and dubious.Sanakara's exposition stands brilliantly against the position taken by Ramanuja.The post enstenien postulates establish that there is interconnectedness and at the end it is only the 'imperishable energy that alone existed and can exist' The analogy that the matter also is related to soul if taken, also has to accept that matter is perishable.What 'perishes'with time cannot be GOD /Brahman or divine.Science establishes that the entire univers itself will perish one day.The most unfoirtunate twist in history that followers of Ramanuja indulged in mindless rebuke of advaitha, engaged in a hate attitude towards any one who conceived God in all forms.The practice of prosyletisation in India is restricted to the semetic approach of non acceptance of other paths by the Ramanuja followers.If Vishnu is omnipresent He is present in all form , say Shiva,Brahma or any forms that one may liketo perceive.Non acceptance of this basic principle of oneness is defied by the followers of Ramanuja.More than love He preached, they became slaves to the vested interests in promoting anti Shiva attitude, which non of our scriptures allow.In Kaivalya Upanisha it is clearly stated

"Mayyeva skalam jatham, Mayi sarvam prathishtitham, Mayi sarvam layam yaathi, thathbrahmadvayamasmyaham" Ramanuja came at a time our practical religeon needed a boost.It has to be lowered from the high point of vedantha to commonman's comprehension of divinity and Bhakthi was the universal emotion which could ignite souls.Infact the best of sthithras praising vishnu has come from Sankara, such as Mohamudgara(Bhaja Govindam),Bhashya for Vishnusahasranama,besides scores of sthuthis.Sankara also advovcated Bhakthi, when he states in his work "Viveka Choodamani" thus: 'Mokshasadhana samagryam bhakthireva gariyasi'

S.Padmanabhan,Chennai e-mail: padyiyer@yahoo.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.144.21.104 (talk • contribs) .

--since it wasn't appropriate for the article space, being a violation of WP:NPOV, but perhaps it was meant for this page. Antandrus (talk) 03:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

POV

I have tried to remove POV from this artilce. sentenses such as : History shows that the followers of Sankara are answerless till date to the strong arguments of Ramanuja (in his sri bhashya) and his followers(satadushani of desika,...). In a bid to escape strong objections raised by Ramanuja and his successors, most advaitins take a disguised route of neo vedantism, where they argue that vaishnavism is one another path to realise brahman. are blatently POV. Someone with more knowledge of the subject needs to rewrite this article from a neutral point of view. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 02:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for working on that. It's been a long-standing problem, though be aware that I'm working on a complete revision of the article (which, as of now, is almost entirely unreferenced), and those entire sections are probably going to be removed shortly—as in, after I finish finals in a few weeks. --Xiaopo (Talk) 20:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I added the Sanskrit template again, because while Ramanuja was undoubtedly Tamil, his name is Sanskrit: it refers to Lakshmana, and it's a translation of his Tamil name. --Xiaopo (Talk) 20:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Devanagari transliteration for all sankrit-based names

• • - I think having Devanagari for all sankrit-based names (both personal & place names) is not a good idea. Should the article on Karunanidhi have this ?

• • - It is better to have the person's mothertongue or/ the language of the land the person mostly lived on - for this purpose.

Iyengar brahmins revere both Sanskrit and Tamil and have a strong tradition in both. All the acharyas were Vedic scholars. Sanskrit is as appropriate as Tamil in this post. Tamil script is not suited for Sanskrit names. Tamil Brahmins used a special script called Grantha for Sanskrit. They have mostly switched over to Devanagari for Sanskrit given official apathy to the Grantham script.

• • - Otherwise we will need to have Devanagari for people like Megawati Sukarnoputri (an Indonesian), Wickramasinghe, Premadasa etc

• • - Same for placenames like Narayanganj in Bangladesh, Anuradhapura in Srilanka or even Singapore.

• • - Ofcourse, Ramanuja was a sanskrit scholor- But not all articles on Latin/Greek scholors have their names written in Greek or Latin. Ex. George L. Hart

• • - Neither all Hinduism related personalities can have Devanagari transliteration. For, ex. Appar, a similar religious figure doesnot/neednot have skt/nagari. Same for Nakkeerar.

• • - His contribution to Sanskrit literature ? - Offlate, a lot of technicians contribute towards Bollywood Hindi films - Should articles on ARRahman, Priyadarshan, Maniratnam have Devanagari names ?

• • - This kind of finding connections - can go on and on without an end. So we need to have a well-defined criteria as to where a person/place/concept belong.

• • - So I feel, the use of devanagari script on wikipedia should be restricted to the following articles:

       1- related to Hindi/Marathi/Nepal linguistic area 
       2- related to Sanskrit literature
       3- related to basic concepts of Dharmic religions.

• • - Shall NOT be used for the following articles:

       1- Just for 'any' personality with Sanskrit-based names.
       2- Just for 'anything' related to Hinduism. 

(Popular hinduism is considered to have multiple origins - other than sanskritic roots)

       3- Just for 'anything' Indian. 

Best case in point is the controversial template for Indian personalities with just English & Hindi (as in Mahatma_Gandhi , P_V_Narasimha_Rao etc)

• • - Would like to hear your thoughts on these points.

thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SIbot (talk • contribs) 06:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Ramanuja is considered to be Adhi Sesha - not an incarnation of Sukracharya

There is an unsubstantiated mention in the article on Sri Ramanuja that says "Several accounts suggest that Ramanuja was possibly an incarnation of asura preceptor sukracharya." It is not cited, nor is it generally considered so among the people who revere Him.

Sri Ramanuja is considered to be "Adhi Sesha". Also it goes that his parent prayed to Lord Parthasarathy of Thiruvallikkeni (Triplicane) for a child and so Sri Ramanuja is considered an incarnation of Lord Parthasarathy Himself.

Rsus (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC) Rsus Dec 08 2008

Is it wax replica or original body, preserved inside the shrine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.16.180.5 (talk) 12:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Ramanujacharya.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ramanujacharya.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 29 August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

"Birth" and "death"

Note: It is considered an offense to treat the great Vaishnava gurus or acharyas as ordinary mortals, and thus assign processes like birth and death to them, as is done to ordinary humans. They are considered to be the messengers and confidential associates of the Supreme Lord (Vishnu or Krishna), and hence they are not considered to be under the control of nature like ordinary human beings, although their "birth" and "death" may be apparently ordinary to the eyes of ordinary mortals. Hence the words "appearance" for birth, and "disappearance" for death are most appropriate. This is supported by all current serious followers of Vaishnavism. -59.95.7.139 (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Tough. This is an encyclopaedia and, unless you have very strong evidence to the contrary, people are born and people die. - Sitush (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Iḷayāḻvār, also called Lakshmana

I have a sneaking suspicion that Iḷayāḻvār is either made up or dramatically misspelled. When one googles "Iḷayāḻvār" all the results seem to quote the same wikipedia article and use the exact phrase "Iḷayāḻvār, also called Lakshmana". In particular, the vocalic 'ḷ' is one of the rarest letters in Sanskrit and the 'ḻ' which I assume is a rendering of the long vocalic 'ḷ' is even rarer to non-existent in any Sanskrit besides the Rig-Veda. Plus if it was a real name, it would have some non-wiki based existence somewhere on the web. Does anyone have a reference to defend this alternate name? Is it Tamil and if so why isn't it marked as Tamil? If there is no source, does anyone object to removing it?Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 05:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Iṣṭa Devatā, Ramanujacharya's works were composed while he was in Tamil Nadu. Please see Vaishnavaite saints, Alvars. The word 'āḻvār' is ISO 15919 transliteration from Tamil. The letter ⟨ḻ⟩ is in Tamil & Malayalam script. (Sanskrit is in Indo-European language family, Tamil & Malayalam are in a different family, Dravidian). In Tamil, ⟨ḻ⟩ is vocalized as [ɻ].(Help:IPA for Tamil). For the Tamil compound word "Iḷaiyāḻvār" (proper transcription, with letter i), "Iḷaiya" is a prefix meaning young (Adjective) and "āḻvār" means immersed in (god). After applying Sandhi rules, it is "Iḷaiyāḻvār". It means young "āḻvār".

Tamil script has ⟨l⟩, ⟨ḷ⟩ and ⟨ḻ⟩. Vocalized as dental [l̪], retroflex lateral approximant [ɭ] and retroflex approximant [ɻ] respectively. Hear the sounds at IPA audio from the website of York University, Toronto, Canada. Also at IPA_pulmonic_consonant_chart_with_audio.

The letter ⟨ḻ⟩ is in the word 'Tamil'. (தமிழ், Tamiḻ; [t̪ɐmɨɻ]; pronunciation^ⓘ). Thanks by user 2know4power (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC).

Two images

@Padmavasantha: Please see MOS:IMAGES. Why should this article have two similar images? Either leave the old one as is, or replace it with the new one if it is better, or please explain your attempts to re-insert a separate new image. 02:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: It is worthwhile introducing a sub heading called Iconography or how usually his idol or icon is cast for worship in temples as well as private homes. I disagree with the fact that both images look similar. You need to improve on your sculptures and mudras knowledge before you edit. Because usually Sri Ramanuja is depicted with Anjali Hastam or folded hands. And since he is the head of Sri Sampradhayam there is a flag in his hand representing his sect. Which is usuallly Thiruman Kappu. There are exceptions to the rule and there are reasons why such exceptions are there - the Sri Rangam image is representation of the Gnana Mudra and that is not his usual temple iconography.

Padmavasantha (talk) 07:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: I will wait until tomorrow or Sunday and change the article as outlined above.

@Padmavasantha: Please see MOS:IMAGES guidelines: Instead of adding too many similar images, consider creating a gallery/category on the Wikimedia Commons instead (we can link it to this article). If you have reliable sources that explain what you claim, a summary from them would be welcome with cites and page numbers. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Ramanuja topic woefully inadequate / Severe POV issues.

The millenial year celebrations (1000th year ) of Sri Ramanuja is to be held on 1st May 2017. In less than 40 days. During that fornight (one week before and after) that will be definitely a major trending topic. If you google Ramanuja this page is the one that comes on top of the search. However this page is woefully inadequate. Discards any sources in sanskrit, or tamil which were written during his life time, written by his disciples, recorded by people who have lived and worked with him. To discard all that and rely on vague resources is not correct. For instance there are so much weightage given to just two vague comparative books in dismissing his main magnum opus the Gadyam Trayam Trilogy. Which he sang personally on Panguni Uthiram day. This is not a hagiography but a work in living used in the worhsip everyday. This is utterly ridiculous. Would you edit a page on Prophet Mohamed based on Salman Rushdie's work or Jesus Christ and Last Supper Mary Magdalene based on Dan vin ci code. Then why do it to Ramanuja alone.

None of his contributions have been effectively recorded. I will be working on this page. And try my best to work within the wiki rules. But Wiki has to be reasonable in expecting sources. Unfortunately English as a language did not exist during Ramanuja's time and so dont expect English sources from those days. And the subsequent English language sources are just secondary or tertiary source written by an European who learned it from an Indian source.

Padmavasantha (talk) 07:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Padmavasantha: It is strange that you call secondary and tertiary peer reviewed scholarly publications cited in this article as "vague resources" and similar to "Salman Rushdie's work on Muhammad". Please see WP:PRIMARY guidelines and respect it. Personal translations are likely to get challenged, so if you wish to improve this article you need to find and provide reliable sources on that have been published. Please do not remove sourced content and sources from this article as you did here. Please do not add unsourced content or add personal opinions/views as you did here, as this article is not a blog. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: First of all I donot want to waste time getting into a personal war with you or any other editor and waste time. It is very strange that with so many English peer reviewed articles on Ramanuja and Sri Vaishnavam his works and writings you choose to include a reference which is discredits him.

Second does Wiki apply the same rule to all historical topics - do you actually use only the English references written in 18th to 21st century for personalities, movements wars, crusades etc.

How can one ignore the works that has been handed down and used as unaltered prayer chantings - mind you this is not my personal blog . The languages are still alive and even a google translator could do a rough translation. To ignore the whole evidence of the liturgical literature and commentary sources that exist in a language other than English sounds ridiculous if your article has to reflect the truth.

Can you please link me a Wiki guidelines on that topic - how to use the liturgical literature and works as a source. The whole idea of sources and references is to make sure that falsehood is not perpetuated by vague newspaper articles or blogs. But to ignore such living works is also very strange if one is committed to truth.

Apart from the above argument there have been plenty of works on Ramanujar in English during the British Historian period of 18th to 20th centuries which documents his contributions.

I need time to pull them but will attempt it.

If I am not convinced by your arguments I also need to know the escalation path to this issue. Kindly let us work amicably to cause of true and faithfuly reporting and recording of articles. Not an extremely skewed one.

BTW are you an expert on the subject matter. IF your expertise is only wiki methodology and english editing kindly explain the process where we involve the subject matter expert on the topic. There is nothing wrong in not knowing something as long as one shows the sincerity to record the truth and learn. Padmavasantha (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Padmavasantha: Reread my comment above, and links there such as WP:PRIMARY. On dispute escalation, please see WP:DR. On how to best identify or use acceptable sources for this or other articles, please see WP:PST and WP:QUESTIONABLE. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Sources for this topic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources

These are the two primary wiki guidelines as I can see that clear commonsense is needed to interpret them.

Primary Sources as far as Ramanuja are concerned are

a) Works attributed to him. (If surviving in a language other than english - an exact text book translation no interpretive personal comments. If it is a poem or a set of verses in sanskrit actual quote of the line number and the exact meaning can be used as a source. For example the poets sign off their works with their name in the last verse which is an accepted in full face value of the authorship.) b) Works composed by his near followers during his life time, their literal meaning without any personal interpretation. c) Works composed by commentators over the centuries as a secondary reliable sources as long as the proof of continuity is there - they are sons and daughters of his associates during his life time, they are leaders of the same school of thought so they have access to his works and thoughts - exact meaning is taken no interpretative meaning.

Secondary Sources

a) Language commentaries and reference of the secondary commentators in language other than english. b) English authors and historians who have read, or heard from such sources and understood them at a tertiary level and offered comments.

Tertiary sources

TBA.

There need to a clear accepted pathway on editing this topic. May be primary works would form separate wiki topics and be linked with their exact meaning. There is a lot of work that needs to be done.

If we can use the talk page to have a smooth working sort out issues, and work within the wiki guidelines and also escalate to more experienced ones and subject matter experts instead of having personal acrimony or animosity that would be lovely.

Padmavasantha (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Secondary Sources

Discuss this and get clarification on all this at wikipedia's help desk and not on this article's talk page. The WP:TEAHOUSE may be helpful to you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

OR and Sharma

@BboyYen: Lets discuss your addition per WP:BRD guidelines. Consider the first two...

Your summary: Ramanuja's philosophy was born out of an attempt to harmonize the personal God of theistic religions (centered on Bhakti, i.e. the Vishnu of the Bhagavata Purana and Vaishnavism) with the nondual Absolute of Shankara's Vedanta.

Source quote = Ramanujacharya attempts a harmonious combination of absolutism with personal theism.

Your summary: In traditional Advaita, there is no pure Ishvara, the only reality is Brahman. A person who realizes Brahman is incapable of seeing any other existent, let alone a personal Lord (of the theistic variety). However the existence of an Ishvara is admitted in an "implied" sense. Brahman reflected in maya is Ishvara, the omniscient, omnipotent God of all theistic religions. Since Brahman is the sole reality, it being nondual, attributeless, and complete in-and-of-itself, the existence of a theistic God with a will and intelligence is merely a hypothesis for a Brahman-realized individual. Yet the existence of such a being can be implied, hence Brahman reflected in maya.

Source quote = Brahman is the only Reality. … This Brahman, reflected in or conditioned by Maya, is called Ishvara or God. Ishvara is the personal aspect of the impersonal Brahman. This is the celebrated distinction between God and the Absolute which Shankara, following the Upanisads, makes. … Some critics have missed the significance of Ishvara. They believe that Ishvara in Advaita is unreal and useless. But they are sadly mistaken. Missing the true significance of Maya is at the root of this mistaken believer. Ishvara becomes ‘unreal’ only for him who has realized his oneness with Brahman by rising above speech and mind. For us Ishvara is all in all.

How does the quotes above mean the same as your summaries? The source is stating something quite different, and please note Sharma's views must follow WP:Primary guidelines. Let us take these two first. We can go others later. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch:

From that same source (pages 348–349): The first two points about God are derived from the interpretation of the Upanisads, while this point which is theistic in character is the result of the Bhagavata influence on Ramanuja. Ramanuja tries to fuse the immanent Upanisadic Absolute with the transcendent God of the Pancharatra or Bhagavata theism. … He has His consort Laksmi, … He is called Narayana or Vasudeva.

This is basically what I'm saying on the page. I cannot cite everything as that would be citation hell. Yet what I'm saying is not novel, and does not contradict the source.

Me: In traditional Advaita, there is no pure Ishvara, the only reality is Brahman. Source: Brahman is the only Reality.

Me: However the existence of an Ishvara is admitted in an "implied" sense. Brahman reflected in maya is Ishvara, the omniscient, omnipotent God of all theistic religions. Source: This Brahman, reflected in or conditioned by Maya, is called Ishvara or God. Ishvara is the personal aspect of the impersonal Brahman. This is the celebrated distinction between God and the Absolute which Shankara, following the Upanisads, makes.

Me: Since Brahman is the sole reality, it being nondual, attributeless, and complete in-and-of-itself, the existence of a theistic God with a will and intelligence is merely a hypothesis for a Brahman-realized individual. Yet the existence of such a being can be implied, hence Brahman reflected in maya. Source: Some critics have missed the significance of Ishvara. They believe that Ishvara in Advaita is unreal and useless. But they are sadly mistaken. Missing the true significance of Maya is at the root of this mistaken belief. Ishvara becomes ‘unreal’ only for him who has realized his oneness with Brahman by rising above speech and mind. For us Ishvara is all in all.

How is the source saying something different from what I'm saying? BboyYen (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@BboyYen: You are adding a lot of OR. For example, the source is stating "Brahman is the only Reality", but you add "there is no pure Ishvara", whatever you mean by "pure Ishvara". For more examples, your "incapable of seeing" and "the existence of a theistic God with a will and intelligence is merely a hypothesis for a Brahman-realized individual" etc language is your personal interpretation and OR. We should state no more and no less than what the source is. On rest, the article already cites and summarizes the Sharma source several times, and some of what you are adding is already in the article (see Comparison with other Vedānta schools section). The other issue is that you are stating Sharma's view as if it is the mainstream consensus. But Sharma already admits others interpret it differently when he writes, "Some critics have missed the significance of Ishvara. (...) But they are sadly mistaken." See more in chapters 15 and 18 of his. Sharma's views are WP:Primary, and we need to be careful how we use WP:Primary. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch This is not original research. Everything I am saying can be understood if you're able to loosen the rigidity. When I say: "there is no pure Ishvara", this simply means that there is nothing but Brahman (this is Shankara Vedanta), however inside maya, Brahman manifests as Ishvara. Ishvara is not primal, it is merely the personal and theistic reflection of Brahman (which itself is featureless). "Incapable of seeing" simply means that a Brahman-realized individual only sees Brahman as the reality, there is no Ishvara, no maya, and no jiva. Again, this is even gone over in the source text. "The existence of a theistic God with a will and intelligence is merely a hypothesis for a Brahman-realized individual" does not deviate from the source text because if we hypothesize that Brahman is the sole reality (which, Shankara Vedanta does), then we cannot "see" anything else. This is why Shankara Vedanta treats Ishvara as a manifestation of Brahman in maya, but ultimately unreal. The distinction "true", only for a Brahman-realized individual.

I wasn't aware that this article already cites that source.

I believe Sharma, who I am personally unfamiliar with outside of this one book, represents the philosophies he talks about, rather fairly and objectively. From reading the book myself, it clarified a lot and I learned a lot. It also harmonized a lot of apparent contradictions between seemingly contradictory philosophies, at least for me. So I have no real reason to doubt that (or believe that) he is somehow twisting concepts.

In regards to his "Some critics" line, I think he's right when he says that. Again, the Ishvara issue relates to Ramanuja. Ramanuja attempted to unite Ishvara and Brahman. For Sharma, there is no real distinction between Ramanuja's view and Shankara's view. Shankara simply views Ishvara as unreal from the "ultimate" perspective, but Ishvara remains real as a practicality. Ramanuja's entire philosophy simply describes only the practicality, whereas Shankara's view describes both the practical and the "ultimate". That's why I cited the page that said that Ramanuja's view is simply an "earlier stage" of Shankara's view.

I hope that clarifies what I'm trying to say. I have a copy of his book right next to me. BboyYen (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@BboyYen: I have a copy too, and many shelves of books on all this. Sharma wrote this book in the 1950s, and it has been reprinted a few times. You may want to read more, a lot more, on Shankara and Ramanuja by others. Relying on a single source can be inappropriate for complicated and disputed subjects, particularly when a lot in it are the primary views of that author. Your request "loosen the rigidity" is unfortunately also an inadvertent license for careless phrasing / misleading OR. For next steps, how about I take another look at chapter 18 of Sharma and your wording, then see how and where we can improve this article while keeping faithfully close to the source and wikipedia content guidelines? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch I said that I had a copy of the book next to me because you told me to read chapters 15 and 18 of the very source I was citing, so I had felt insulted. I am aware that the book was written in the 1950s.

"You may want to read more, a lot more, on Shankara and Ramanuja by others." There's no need to be patronizing.

"Relying on a single source can be inappropriate for complicated and disputed subjects, particularly when a lot in it are the primary views of that author. Your request "loosen the rigidity" is unfortunately also an inadvertent license for careless phrasing / misleading OR." I agree, and I agree.

"For next steps, how about I take another look at chapter 18 of Sharma and your wording, then see how and where we can improve this article while keeping faithfully close to the source and wikipedia content guidelines?" I don't care enough to add my changes back into the article. I said what I said because I have some form of experiential realization, and when I read this book I was able to harmonize seemingly disparate viewpoints throughout the book. This got me excited so I attempted to write a summary of Ramanuja's views in plain English so that people who landed on the page would understand it clearly. The article seems dense, and while it is currently cited well, I feel that one can read it and only glean facts from it, not understanding. I don't have shelves and shelves of books, however I don't think any of this stuff is particularly complicated and I don't think all scholars are necessarily authoritative. I was, personally, shocked to find that many of the philosophical dogmas that Sharma summarizes in the book to be accurate, and not just fluff of opinion. Maybe that's my personal bias towards philosophy talking. That's all I have to say. BboyYen (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)