Ramanuja's Summary of the Advaitin's Position - 1

[S. Sriram]

> >  Short Explanation:
> >  The premise that: because there are no such statements, abheda is the
> >  proper interpretation requires that some statements are more valid
> >  than others, ...
>
> Not so. ...
> The question rather is, "for what state is a particular statement valid?"
A
> Sruti statement that specifically applies only to the jyotishToma does not
> apply to the vAjapeya rite. Similarly, abheda vAkyas apply to the state of
> moksha and they always wipe out all bheda *in that state*. The only
>... On the other hand, there
> are no Sruti statements that uphold bheda in the state of moksha. (So long

This circularity returns us back to "apaccheda" v "utsargA-pavAda" with the
"they always wipe out all bheda" statement above.

Another way to put it, is that if at the penultimate stage abheda sruti
prevails over
bheda sruti, this can only be legitimized by apaccheda nyaya.  OR the state
i.e. moksa
in which abheda sruti is true prevails over the "empirical" state in which
bheda sruti
is true, this can only be legitimized by apaccheda nyaya.

In summary, _IF_ there is 'one' final reality(abheda) and if that final
reality is contradicted
by some statements in sruti(bheda) a hierarchy of statements are introduced
in sruti.
 By stating that each statement is true in a given _state_, a hierarchy of
states is introduced
in the same sruti. This hierarchy is legitimized by the latter v former
principle, latter and
former are derived in effect by which sruti contradicts the other, since
bheda does not
"discredit" abheda it is former and abheda latter.

Shifting the validity from statements to states does not shift the inherent
hierarchy.
The substance-attribute body-soul framework of Visistadvaita places all
sruti in the same
hierarchy.

Thanks
Srinivasan Sriram