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 is explicit in holding that theoretical knowledge of Brahman‘s nature will not suffice to procure liberation. The remedy to be employed, according Rāmānuja, is what he calls bhakti yoga, or the discipline of devotion or worship. For Ramanuja, liberation (moksha) is not a negative separation from transmigration, or a series of rebirths, but rather the joy of the contemplating the divine perfection. This joy is attained by a life of exclusive devotion (bhakti) to Brahman, singing his praise, performing adulatory acts in temple and private worship, and constantly dwelling on his perfections. In return, Brahman will offer his grace, which will assist the devotee in gaining release. Criticism of Sankara Ramanuja argued that Shankara's interpretation of the Upanishads had serious errors. His major objections were fourfold: (1) He argued that Brahman was differentiated consciousness and not undifferentiated consciousness; (2) He argued that Shankara's concept of Nirguna Brahman was wrong and untenable; (3) He argued that beginningless karma, and not superimposition, was the cause of avidya; and (4) He rejected Sankara's doctrine of Avidya (Ignorance) and Maya (Illusion) on the basis that it had 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. He asserted, in his Sri Bhāshya, that purvapaksin (previous schools) selectively interpret those Upanishadic passages that support their monistic interpretation, and ignore those passages that support the pluralism interpretation. There is no reason, stated Ramanuja, to prefer one part of a scripture and not other, the whole of the scripture must be considered on par. One cannot, according to Ramanuja, attempt to give interpretations of isolated portions of any scripture. Rather, the scripture must be considered one integrated corpus, expressing a consistent doctrine. The Vedic literature, asserted Ramanuja, mention both plurality and oneness, therefore the truth must incorporate pluralism and monism, or qualified monism. This method of scripture interpretation distinguishes Ramanuja from Ādi Shankara. Shankara's exegetical approach Samanvayat Tatparya Linga with Anvaya-Vyatireka,