Consciousness in visishtadvaita

[Martin Gansten]

Thanks for the reference. The sutra in question (jno'ta eva) is 2.3.19 in my
edition. Judging by a quick glance, however, R. doesn't develop the theme of
dual consciousness here, but is content to refute the ideas of the self
being 'mere consciousness' (as in Advaita) or inert (as in Vaiseshika).

>van Buitenen's statement that Ramanuja really does not
>mean the svarUpa is based on statements by Ramanuja himself,
>if not in the Vedarthasangraha, in the Sribhashya.

With respect, this still looks to me like forcing the author's hand. We know
Ramanuja says that consciousness is a defining attribute of the self; but
can we be sure that that is *all* he wanted to say -- so sure that we add
explanatory footnotes to those remarks which seem to say something else,
lest the reader be tempted to take the author literally?

I have just reached the paragraph in the Sribhashya (1.1.1) which begins
'caitanyasvabhAvatA hi svayaMprakAzatA'. Ramanuja here makes the exact point
I was looking for (so thanks again to John for pointing the way), using the
simile of the flame and its lustre to illustrate the self and its
consciousness: "Like a single *substance* (dravya) of light exists as lustre
and as possessing lustre" (yathaikam eva tejodravyaM
prabhA-prabhAvad-rUpeNAvatiSThate). It certainly looks to me as though
Ramanuja is saying more than van Buitenen gives him credit for (in this
particular instance).

Best regards,
Martin Gansten