• Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

On Vishitadvaita Philosophy...

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

malgova.mango

Guest
What I read in the small book "The Vedas" by Mahaperieva...

The Vishishtadvaita philosophy is there well before Sri Ramanujaacharya...

Sri Alavandar wants Sri Ramanujaacharya to do three things, but before he could meet Sri Ramanuja, Sri Alavandar just passed away bending the three fingers on his hand.

Shri Ramanujaacharaya correctly guessed the three works, when he said one by one the fingers opened as if confirming his guess and the first one is to write a Bhashya to Brahma Sutra exlpaining the Vishistaadvaita.

Regards,
 
Nathamuni is one of the predecessors of Ramanujacharya. Unfortunately none of his writings have survived. It is Yamunacharya (Alavandar) the grand son of Nathamuni who laid the foundation of Vishistadvaita. Later Vedanta Desika played a major role in putting Ramanujacharya's teachings on a very firm foundation.

The most important difference between Advaita and Vishishtadvaita is the role of Nitya Karma. Unlike Adavita which believes in Karma Sannyasa ( no Nitya karma to be done at the Jnana yoga stage) Vishishtadvaita considers it mandatory for Nitya Karma to be done at all stages including Bhakthi yoga. This is similar to the view of Kumarila Bhatta (Purva mimamsa).

The view of the Smarthas is similar to that of Vishishtadvaita. In this they differ from the pure Advaita of Bagavan Ramana Mahirishi and other teachers of Advaita.The emphasis on Nitya Karma is what differentiates them from Advaitins.
 
Vishishtadvaita emphasizes Bhakthi Yoga. But here Bhakthi Yoga is the ultimate stage. First Karma yoga, followed by Gnana yoga and then Bhakthi yoga. An individual has to pass through Karma yoga and Gnana Yoga before he can qualify for Bhakthi Yoga.

It is different from the other Bhakthi movements in which there is no prerequisite qualification.
 
ji .. jus my 2 cents worth .. i do not believe advaita sez not to do nitya karma ...

let us see why it is enjoined on every brahmana to do so many anushtanams thorughut the day .. one brahmana went to a sanyasi and sed " there r so many of these anushtanams , that if i were to do them all , i wont even have time to go to office , let alone read the newspaper or watch tv " ... the sanyasi sed " u have raised a very valid question ... the answer is although there are anushtanams for every sect (devi bhagavatham talks about specific sandhya vandhanam for ksatriya , vaisya and all) there is so much for brahmanas alone for the precise reason that brahmins are not expected to spend time in anything other than brahma vicharam , a brahmana is one who does only "manana" (chinta) of the brahman , if u go to office and lead a western life , it clearly shows that u do not have faith in the credo that if u keep to ur dharma ur dharma will protect u , so u have chosen the MNC executive life 's dharma as urs , hence u feel this way "
taking this back to our discussion , the purport of anushtanams is to keep one's mind occupied till a stage is reached when the mind is no more drawn externally , for such a mind it does not matter wheher u do anushtanams or not , in that way , from the stand point of such a mind the prescription of advaita and visishtadvaita dont matter ,
but the wise do them just to set an example for the novice to develop faith in the process (bhagavad gita) and as acharya sez , it is not abt giving up the karma , it is abt giving up the kamya part of the karma , the sankalpa to do karma after which alone comes nirvikalpa samathi and realisation of what the vedas call as the nirguna brahman , the nameless state of existence , known to the scriptures as "hrinyagarba"

in essence the purpose of doing anushtanam or anyhthing at all with the senses is to constantly rule out that it is not brahman and so giving it up , to ultimately realise that final one ,which remains after ruling out the apparent all else .
 
and coming to think of it , i might be wrong ,
visishtadviata , the term means qualified advaita ... in essence they refute the nirguna brahman and say that saguna brahman known as sriman narayana is the ultimate ...

this assumption by itself negates any advaita in the philosophy .. for if one is to assume the existence of a brahman with qualities of a certain type , then one has to account for acquisition of those qualities (sagunas) which in turn means that there should have been a period devoid of those very gunas , for what can be quantified as a guna , by itself lends to variety and if that were the case then there is no advaita , it only seems to be dvaita but qualified ...

calling a saguna brahman by any name based on any scripture in any part of the world , only explains the limit associated with the saguna brahman and cannot account for anathi or timelessness.
 
ji....



my 2 cents...

tathvam has nothing to do with mind but a lot to do with buddhi.

the role is to "know" not to pretend like this and that.....ofcourse pretension helps to some extent and is a means....you fake and make.....but the point is means and ends are different..

you need a ladder to go up, once you reach, you don't need it anymore.

vishistadvaita, dvaita are only means advaita is the end.

".......yen neti,neti nigama avochu:
tham deva deva maja machuta mahuragriyam"
...........PRATASSMARANAM (BHAGAVAT PADAAL)

HOMAGE TO GODESSES SARASWATI.

Regards
 
interesting discussion.

vv-ji,

i dunno abt the concept of negating of advaitha due to the idea of saguna brahman..instead someone explained that negating saguna brahman is itself both saguna brahman and nirguna brahman - since qualified emptiness gives rise to properties that qualify as both saguna and nirguna (depending on the philospher's leanings; and saguna it seems is negated over every stage by some).

mm-ji,

vishistadvaita, dvaita are only means advaita is the end.

one goes by what one feels. all cannot think alike. not sure if we can say with certainity that only one philosophy is the end and others are only the means. what might feel like the end for one might not feel so for another. such things are personal preferences. all are nice philosophies extolling an end as they see it.
 
SRIMATHI HH!

I appreciate your quest for philosophical analysis... a very rare quality nowadays even to brahmins.

You have to go one step further... not a long way but definetly one step, only one step. May GOD BLESS you.

Regards
 
Dear Srimathi HH Ji,

You hit the nail right on it's head. Unless we Hindus understand that Hiduism is a very wide umbrella housing all different philosophies, and accept this reality, we will never have unity. There are various adherents and beliefs within the 'Hindu' family.

The very satement you have cited, while made in earnest by an adherent of one particular philosophy misses one crucial point. The very empathy to deeply feel what the adherents of other philosophies would feel when their deeply held beliefs are so easily charecterized as only means to achieve the basics of a different tenet they do not follow. This is exactly why Hinduism is fractured. This is also why a unified Hindu raj is a dream. Because I do not think that such views as expressed above are not an exception. They are quite prevalent in our religion and unfortunately our Acharyals have not done enough to make sure that people understand that there is no one valid philosophy. They are different on their own merits and based on one's childhood bringing in each tradition. Unless we understand that a religion os very cultural and social, we will never understand to live with other religions peacefully.

Regards,
KRS

interesting discussion.

mm-ji,

vishistadvaita, dvaita are only means advaita is the end.

one goes by what one feels. all cannot think alike. not sure if we can say with certainity that only one philosophy is the end and others are only the means. what might feel like the end for one might not feel so for another. such things are personal preferences. all are nice philosophies extolling an end as they see it.
 
Last edited:
SRIMATHI HH!

I appreciate your quest for philosophical analysis... a very rare quality nowadays even to brahmins.

You have to go one step further... not a long way but definetly one step, only one step. May GOD BLESS you.

Regards

Thankyou very much MM-ji. Am much indebted for your wonderful blessing and kind words.
 
Dear Srimathi HH Ji,

You hit the nail right on it's head. Unless we Hindus understand that Hiduism is a very wide umbrella housing all different philosophies, and accept this reality, we will never have unity. There are various adherents and beliefs within the 'Hindu' family.

The very satement you have cited, while made in earnest by an adherent of one particular philosophy misses one crucial point. The very empathy to deeply feel what the adherents of other philosophies would feel when their deeply held beliefs are so easily charecterized as only means to achieve the basics of a different tenet they do not follow. This is exactly why Hinduism is fractured. This is also why a unified Hindu raj is a dream. Because I do not think that such views as expressed above are not an exception. They are quite prevalent in our religion and unfortunately our Acharyals have not done enough to make sure that people understand that there is no one valid philosophy. They are different on their own merits and based on one's childhood bringing in each tradition. Unless we understand that a religion os very cultural and social, we will never understand to live with other religions peacefully.

Regards,
KRS

Dear Sri KRS ji,

The number of philosophies hindusim has is just too overwhelming and amazing. I think the 3 most popular ones are popular perhaps because of...destiny? There are other philosophies that have not seen the light of the day because apparently they have not been written about. One does hope that the acharyas in future will imbibe in the adherents of one philosophy that the other ones are also equally valid. Instead of comparisons on where each differs, hope there are comparisons on where each is alike, if at all there needs to be any comparison. Don't we say, Harium Shivanum onnum..

Regards.
 
Dear Srimathi HH Ji,

We all carry our own burdens in this world. Sometimes we are called names.

One of the worst things in this world is to be called a lesser human being, solely on birth. A lesser human being in the four steps of Varna, that some people think is god given. So, sometimes even their well wishing is based on the negation of the human spirit.

I congratulate you on your very heart felt wonderful response. It would put me to shame. God bless.

Regards,
KRS



Thankyou very much MM-ji. Am much indebted for your wonderful blessing and kind words.
 
KRS-ji,

i feel no matter what, a blessing is always most welcome positive energy...see..some way or the other providence had it that i receive a blessing from you..am so happy :happy: :madgrin: :kiss:
 
and coming to think of it , i might be wrong ,
visishtadviata , the term means qualified advaita ... in essence they refute the nirguna brahman and say that saguna brahman known as sriman narayana is the ultimate ...

this assumption by itself negates any advaita in the philosophy .. for if one is to assume the existence of a brahman with qualities of a certain type , then one has to account for acquisition of those qualities (sagunas) which in turn means that there should have been a period devoid of those very gunas , for what can be quantified as a guna , by itself lends to variety and if that were the case then there is no advaita , it only seems to be dvaita but qualified ...

calling a saguna brahman by any name based on any scripture in any part of the world , only explains the limit associated with the saguna brahman and cannot account for anathi or timelessness.


My opinion...

It does not negate advaitam... it just recognizes the independence of the entity... Sriman Narayana is the universal set.... we are all subsets...

Guna is for the human mind... for the supreme, all are the same - pain and pleasure, life and death are all but diversities existing as a part of one system...

So we are all one, but yet different...

What is Nirguna Brahman? A stateless state? That cannot be... for awareness is needed for the merging of the soul itself... and for it to experience the immortality... So, there is a level of awareness in all without which everything is void. And thus advaitam contradicts itself and that is probably what Ramanujacharya sought to rectify...

There is nothing without awareness - it is eternal, which would mean that there is no period of nothingness. That is why Saguna Brahman...
 
Sesh!

You are struck with "merging of the soul ."...
Then you got to define - soul, then merging with what? so you got to define the "what" - you got to define the process "merging"

You will not listen... anyway.........just my aathangam.

What I don't understand is "ALL THE OBJECTIONS ARE ANSWERED " by Bhagavat Padal and as with any study , in philosophy too a structured approach is avaiable - Why people want to speculate................don't want to apply themselves in well-trodden path.. This is a puzzle.

Advaita is not refuted in the bhasyams of Vishistadvaita or Dvaita. The objections are for Lokayutas,Madhayamikas etc...

Regards
 
My opinion...

It does not negate advaitam... it just recognizes the independence of the entity... Sriman Narayana is the universal set.... we are all subsets...

Guna is for the human mind... for the supreme, all are the same - pain and pleasure, life and death are all but diversities existing as a part of one system...

So we are all one, but yet different...

What is Nirguna Brahman? A stateless state? That cannot be... for awareness is needed for the merging of the soul itself... and for it to experience the immortality... So, there is a level of awareness in all without which everything is void. And thus advaitam contradicts itself and that is probably what Ramanujacharya sought to rectify...

There is nothing without awareness - it is eternal, which would mean that there is no period of nothingness. That is why Saguna Brahman...[/quote

hi sesh sir,
Namaskarams, i studied brahma sutra bashyam of sri sankara and
sri bashyam of sri Ramanujacharya. advaitam and vistisadvaitam
are two sides of one coin. but saguna brahman is more important
in visistadvaitha and nirguna brahman more important in advaita.
it is also advaita....but visita part is more....sriman Narayana
is only saguna brahman in visitadvaita.we get a lot of references
in sri bashyam as well as sri vedant desikas works.

Regards
tbs
 
Sri TBS ji!

Pardon me to interrupt SIR. It is not 2 sides of the coin sir. V.A talks Jeevathma is a Part of Paramatma, but there Paramatma is different from Jeevatma whereas Advaita says Atma is Atma - Param or Jeeva -

Jeeva is Mithya and Atma or Brahmam is Sathya.
Ishvara is defined as "Maya Sahitam Brahma" in Advaita , then only the equations can be resolved.


VA says - The Ocean is Paramatma , The Waves are Jeevatma. Jeevatmas are from Paramatma - Like the waves are from the Ocean and VA says the waves arise from the ocean sustained by the ocean and dissolves in the ocean, it continues to says waves are nothing but waves and an Ocean is Ocean. So a Bhakta is always a bhakta and is duty is to surrender to ocean.

This is valid - agreeable but it doesn't solve any equations of Mahavakyas , the enquiry is not thoroughly completed.

And it is completed only by Advaita.

So I refute your statement - that VA and A are 2 sides of the same coin.

In the spirit of discussion , if I'm impertinent , my apologies...

Regards
 
Sri TBS ji!

Pardon me to interrupt SIR. It is not 2 sides of the coin sir. V.A talks Jeevathma is a Part of Paramatma, but there Paramatma is different from Jeevatma whereas Advaita says Atma is Atma - Param or Jeeva -

Jeeva is Mithya and Atma or Brahmam is Sathya.
Ishvara is defined as "Maya Sahitam Brahma" in Advaita , then only the equations can be resolved.


VA says - The Ocean is Paramatma , The Waves are Jeevatma. Jeevatmas are from Paramatma - Like the waves are from the Ocean and VA says the waves arise from the ocean sustained by the ocean and dissolves in the ocean, it continues to says waves are nothing but waves and an Ocean is Ocean. So a Bhakta is always a bhakta and is duty is to surrender to ocean.

This is valid - agreeable but it doesn't solve any equations of Mahavakyas , the enquiry is not thoroughly completed.

And it is completed only by Advaita.

So I refute your statement - that VA and A are 2 sides of the same coin.

In the spirit of discussion , if I'm impertinent , my apologies...

Regards

MM sir,
Namaskarams... i agreed with you.......but BRAHMA SATYAM
JAGAN MITHYA JIVO BRAHMAIVA NA APARAHA.....this is advaita
but in VA jeevatma has lesser value than paramatma...so it is
called visistadvaita.

regards
tbs
 
namaskarams sir.

jeeva is a alpa - parama - is purna, in buddhi,life-span,shakti... it is easily infereable, doesn't need VA .

In the VIDHI VACHANA " JIVO BRAHMAIVA NA APARAHA" - JIVA refered here is pure "Aatma" .

The VA says as the waves are a part of Ocean - So too Jeevas are a part of Param.
here it defers from Dvaita - which didn't acknowledge this partness - Dvaita says wave is a wave and ocean is ocean. This is the difference between Dvaita and Vishitadvaita.

This shows both the philosophies are not complete in their enquires at the same time one cannot completely negate what both of them saying.

QED -In Advaita only you complete the enquires.

The Acharyas who propogated both the other Siddhantas doesn't complete the enquires and not properly understanding the subject matter many division and splits emerged in the society and our society further fractured over the centuries.

So Seekers or Mumukshus do your enquiries until it is complete. Bhagavat Padal warns in his Bhasyam "Aatmavai thavaraga arivathaal, pala anarthangalum, aabhasangalum undagum."



Regards
 
it appears to me that it is totally useless to argue whether advaitha or vishistadvaitha is "better".

each person's mind is not wired in the same way as that of the other or in any one single way.

one person maybe capable of negating his bhava over and over again to be able to seek and be with his own self or jeeva.

another person may not find the above method working for him.

He might instead want to delight in the adbhuta roopa of the divine, which is intended to be more that what the human mind can comprehend - so while he goes on comprehending, delighting, it completely satisfies him and pushes him to go beyond himself towards his own jeeva.

Such a person maybe so awestuck by this entire universe, the galaxy, the milkyway, that he might find it impossible that his one atma can become one with the one that created it all, he might see his jeeva as one step beneath the all-powerful divine.

Perceptions vary, philosphies vary, but the end product appears as the same to several mahatmas. Though they appear as diff as an indian and a caucasian - peel off the skin, everything else is the same. The methodology of approach varies, concepts vary, but i suppose we all end up the same place, or we wudn't be coming back to the same place as well.

It wud be pointless to try to prove that one method or one concept is better than the other.
 
Last edited:
no there is a definete point, as quoted by Bhagavat Padal.

ONE HAS 100% FREEDOM IN BELIEF BUT HE HAS 100% NON-FREEDOM IN ASCERTAINING A FACT.

it is not about any concept , it is about fact. - What now?
 
Philosophy in English - I don't know what it conveys
But
Tthatvam - means dealing with "TRUTH" needs to be known and ascertained with clinical precision
 
A fact is an established entity only when the logic behind it can be proven or when the entity itself is proven to exist. When neither can be established, it cannot be called a fact, based on the writings of a few people alone.

I have not been able to rationalize logic, nor been able to refute error in various cognitive processes. And therefore all such things wud remain 'philosophies' to me until i am able to comprehend the 'truth' myself.

Debating or arguing to "prove" something wud therefore remain unnecessary.

Regards.
 
Sesh!

You are struck with "merging of the soul ."...
Then you got to define - soul, then merging with what? so you got to define the "what" - you got to define the process "merging"

You will not listen... anyway.........just my aathangam.

What I don't understand is "ALL THE OBJECTIONS ARE ANSWERED " by Bhagavat Padal and as with any study , in philosophy too a structured approach is avaiable - Why people want to speculate................don't want to apply themselves in well-trodden path.. This is a puzzle.

Advaita is not refuted in the bhasyams of Vishistadvaita or Dvaita. The objections are for Lokayutas,Madhayamikas etc...

Regards


Malgova, am not stuck anywhere... think you got the wrong end...

I have never said that advaitam is incorrect...

What am trying to say here is that there cannot be a "Nirguna Brahman"... for that line of thinking negates the very premise itself...

My theory:

Fact, logic etc are relative... These are for people who are bound by the relativity of their existence. Also, the concept of timelessness has no meaning... for time has a meaning only when there is a beginning and an end...

So, the Brahman which we are talking about did not evolve - it has been and will always be. For if we say that Brahman was born, and there was a period devoid of Brahman, then he is but an elevated individual... not the ultimate.

Awareness is the only thing which has no beginning or ending - it can exist in different ways in different beings - which is the very purpose of creation.

But what is awareness? It is not like a "Hiranyagarbha" state where every thing is in a sort of suspended trance, rather it is like the new-born baby which reacts to its surroundings... but is unable to express itself. so to express and explore it has to evolve... which is the reason for creation.

Awareness is the prerequisite to creation, awareness + creation = perception, with perception comes discrimination, curiosity and other gunas...

Different beings were created; with each age and period evloving new species... this is just the continuous pattern of awareness itself; there is no reason, no purpose, just to explore, feel and exist.

But awareness is a state, and in this, it is a quality and that is why a Saguna Brahman...

I am somewhat comfortable with Ramanujacharya's theory of Saguna Brahman, but still have doubts as regards the purpose (of attaining that state)... I think we have evolved for Brahman (us) to experience different forms of perception... for that is the only existing truth... Not to go back to that original state...
 
Last edited:
different nomenclature

Shri H H

>>Though they appear as diff as an indian (South Asian ) and a cauc-asian ( Europeans,Americans,Australians,Canadian /white people)- peel off the skin, everything else is the same.<<

When you peel of the skin,the color,of blood is blue which when contact with oxygen,turn into red color for all human beings.But then again,science has differentiated blood groups of various types.We have A, B ,AB,O,Rh factor...positive & negative and so on...now DNA with Haplogroups are even more specific..so difference in physical attributes exist.The nomenclature used by science is different.

That is why i feel,that Lord Krishna gave us a overall overview of human classification as "Personality Traits" which exists in all human beings,regardless wherever they are born as Brahmana,Kshatriya,Vaisya,Shudra....in Bhagavath Gita.

In ancient times,Human anatomy was used to explain.Jyotisham deals with that in a brilliant way.In a human anatomy every part is important.We cannot possibly say only the "brain" is the boss,which forms part of the face/head.All the Navadwaras are equally important,and if imbalanced,diseases occur.So,lets balance our Chakras and become Chakravarthis of our human body..:)

Shri Krishna Sharanam Mama

sb

:)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top