On Vishitadvaita Philosophy...

[KRS]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Sri MM Ji,

Let me try one more time to explain. No philosophy is perfect - they are all created and thought out by exalted human beings, but human beings nevertheless. Both Shankara and Ramanuja base the substantiation of their philosophies by citing the same 10 Upanishads (including the Maha Vakyas and especially 'TatVam Asi') and the Brahma Sutra. While advaitha is a neat proposition, the concept of Maya troubles many. While Visishtadwaitha scores better in terms of understanding the universe we see, hear and feel, it does not go beyond Saguna. This concept troubles others. So, one can not definitively say that either is the correct philosophy.

Of course, you are not questioning any mode of worship. But please understand that the different sambradhayams have different modes of worship based on the underlying philosophy.

I am posting below the differences between the two philosophies for your consideration:

Ramanuja’s Visishtadvaita Vedanta (or philosophy of qualified non-dualism) has some important differences from Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta (or philosophy of non-dualism). For Shankara, undifferentiated Brahman is ultimate realty. For Ramanuja, differentiated Brahman is ultimate reality. For Shankara, undifferentiated Brahman can be known and experienced intuitively. For Ramanuja, Brahman can only be known through its attributes, and since Brahman has attributes which can be known and experienced intuitively, it must be differentiated.

For Shankara, maya is an illusory appearance of reality, occurring when the plurality of the phenomenal world is superimposed on the unity of Brahman. For Ramanuja, however, maya is real and is the plurality of attributes which are manifested by Brahman. Maya is the way in which Brahman is manifested in the phenomenal world.
According to Shankara, there are two kinds of knowledge: lower knowledge (aparavidya) which is knowledge of the empirical world, and higher knowledge (paravidya) which is intuitive knowledge of Brahman. Lower knowledge implies the duality of the knower and the known, while higher knowledge transcends the duality of the knower and the known. According to Ramanuja, however, there can be no knowledge without a knowing subject, and thus knowledge implies that there is always a duality of the knower and the known. The released Self is not dissolved into an undifferentiated unity, but is aware of itself as part of a differentiated unity.
According to Shankara, the individual soul (jiva) or ego is only real insofar as it is an appearance of Atman. The ego-sense (ahamkara) of the individual soul is the same as its I-consciousness (ahambdi). Both the ego-sense and the I-consciousness are different from the pure consciousness of Atman. However, Ramanuja says that the ego-sense is different from the I-consciousness. The ego-sense is the product of prakriti, but the pure I-consciousness is the same as Atman.

According to Shankara, God is Saguna-Brahman (Brahman with attributes) as distinguished from Nirguna-Brahman (Brahman without attributes). According to Ramanuja, however, there is no distinction between God and Brahman. In Ramanuja's view, Brahman is differentiated, and is the same as God.

According to Shankara, the phenomenal world is real only insofar as it is an appearance of Brahman. According to Ramanuja, however, the phenomenal world is as real as Brahman, and constitutes part of the reality of Brahman.
Ramanuja also differs from Shankara in emphasizing bhakti (devotion to God) as more important than jnana (knowledge) in defining the path to spiritual reality. According to Ramanuja, spiritual release is obtained by bhakti yoga (the path of loving devotion). Ramanuja also emphasizes the personal relationship between the individual soul and God.

Regards,
KRS

 

[malgova.mango]

You said ...

"Let me try one more time to explain. No philosophy is perfect - they are all created and thought out by exalted human beings, but human beings nevertheless. Both Shankara and Ramanuja base the substantiation of their philosophies by citing the same 10 Upanishads (including the Maha Vakyas and especially 'TatVam Asi') and the Brahma Sutra. While advaitha is a neat proposition, the concept of Maya troubles many. While Visishtadwaitha scores better in terms of understanding the universe we see, hear and feel, it does not go beyond Saguna. This concept troubles others. So, one can not definitively say that either is the correct philosophy."

You are completely wrong here. Tatwam is not mere intellectual gymnastics played by exalted beings - no you are wrong.

In times of Aadi Shankara BP writing is not developed like today , one has to write in palmscript, which is indeed a very difficult task. HE wrote volumes and volume not to display HIS intellectual mastery... rather ...out of deep compassion His Holiness wrote extensive commentaries to Educate us, to get ourselves rid of our ignorance. "Namami Bhagavat Padancha Shankaram Loka Shankaram..."

I've a book with complete analysis done on "KATO Upanishad" with the Bhasyams from the other 2 comparing and contrasting with BP's Bhasyams by a scholar.

Please tell me how mahavakyams - equated by the other 2 bashyams - simple.

On the blue notes - is it your extract or are you quoting somebody? because the understanding on consciousness is lacking.

 

[happyhindu]

Tatwam is not mere intellectual gymnastics played by exalted beings...
...because the understanding on consciousness is lacking.

1) What is tatwam?
2) What is maya?
3) What is consciousness?

[PS: Am a beginner. Not asking from the point of view of either A, VA or D. Please answer in any manner that is ok with you].

 

[tbs]

1) What is tatwam?
2) What is maya?
3) What is consciousness?

[PS: Am a beginner. Not asking from the point of view of either A, VA or D. Please answer in any manner that is ok with you].

hi MM
1, tatvam means tat tvameva is general description...tat means
brahman or eternal truth is the same as truth in you..means both
are abedham.....bedha rahitam...
2, maya means simple meaning illusion...when we drive in desert
we can feel/see like water as mirage....but when we reach there
there is no water....like rope looklike snake....its called abhasam..
3, conscious is our budhhi/thoughts from manobudhhi........
its based on my simple knowledge......many differs

regards
tbs

 

[malgova.mango]

Consciousness is much more than buddhi...

 

[tbs]

we all can live without understanding the final say of our scripture , that is very much possible ....

but the talk here is in the context of what brahma sutra and vedanta offers as their final say...

the answer is given in vedanta in the form of mahavakyas, brahma sutra and the bhashyams of BP help us to connect to mahavakyas.

so the quest here is not finding the answer, rather finding a mode of communication to the answer which is already given..

one should not arrive at a new answer , totally contradicting mahavakyas ... and go on to say that this is what vedanta is all about. this what finally said etc... that's misleading ......

ofcourse , without knowing all the above also one can pray to god and seek his welfare in anyother mode, that's perfectly possible.

When we are talking , what is Moksha is all about? there is only one definte answer .. not many but only one which is already revealed in mahavakyas..

One should only strive to connect to what is said.

If we don't talk about Moksha, then all sort of life-style with different ideologies are possible.

see the difference....

hi MM sir,
the mahavakyas are .........aham brahmasmi.........tatvamasi..........
ayamatma brahma..........satyam jnanan anantham brahma.........
four mahavakyas from four vedas.........from four famous
upanishads..........

regards
tbs

 

[KRS]

You said ...

"Let me try one more time to explain. No philosophy is perfect - they are all created and thought out by exalted human beings, but human beings nevertheless. Both Shankara and Ramanuja base the substantiation of their philosophies by citing the same 10 Upanishads (including the Maha Vakyas and especially 'TatVam Asi') and the Brahma Sutra. While advaitha is a neat proposition, the concept of Maya troubles many. While Visishtadwaitha scores better in terms of understanding the universe we see, hear and feel, it does not go beyond Saguna. This concept troubles others. So, one can not definitively say that either is the correct philosophy."

You are completely wrong here. Tatwam is not mere intellectual gymnastics played by exalted beings - no you are wrong.
I did not say that the expositions are 'mental gymnastics'. These are your words.

The meaning of 'TatVam' is discussed by these two Acharyals extensively. Please read Sri Ramanuja's thesis on this as I think you already know Sri Shankara's exposition. Srimathi HH Ji asks the relevant questions to you on a post above.

In times of Aadi Shankara BP writing is not developed like today , one has to write in palmscript, which is indeed a very difficult task. HE wrote volumes and volume not to display HIS intellectual mastery... rather ...out of deep compassion His Holiness wrote extensive commentaries to Educate us, to get ourselves rid of our ignorance. "Namami Bhagavat Padancha Shankaram Loka Shankaram..."

Same with Sri Ramanuja. Where did I say that they expounded their theories to display THEIR intellectual mastery? Again, you seem to infer wrongly that I somehow equate them with the traditions of Western Philosophy. I know both these theories were developed using both mind and special 'insights' given to them by Ishwara.

I've a book with complete analysis done on "KATO Upanishad" with the Bhasyams from the other 2 comparing and contrasting with BP's Bhasyams by a scholar.
Okay......, so?
Please tell me how mahavakyams - equated by the other 2 bashyams - simple.
You can read them yourself. They are widely available.
On the blue notes - is it your extract or are you quoting somebody? because the understanding on consciousness is lacking.

I copied it from a thesis of someone. I did not give credit as once I quoted I could not find the thread.

But the main point is that Sri Ramanuja's view on Brahman was different from Sri Shankara's and there are other differences as well.

Regards,
KRS

 

[malgova.mango]

if you want to defend the other 2 siddhantam - please do so by highlighting how the equations, meaning mahavakyams like "aham brahma asmi", "tatvamasi" "pragyanam bramha" also Sarvavyapitvam, Sarvashaktitvam , and also "sarvam shivamayam" as in the Pramana shastrams - are resolved through the other 2 siddhantams.

let's keep it simple.

 

[malgova.mango]

tbs sir!

"Prgyanam Brahma" is the only one from Rigveda

regards

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri MM Ji,

I don't want to 'defend' anything. I do not think I can do justice to the answers to your questions from all three major sambradhayams. I barely can understand them at 50000 foot level. This requires a neutral scholor well versed in all the intricacies of the 3 philosophies to discuss.

I kind of get the notion that you are in the same boat. So, if you need deeper understanding of the other two sambradhayams, then I would urge you to study them deeply.

There are a number of scholors who have compared all three sambradhayams from their own view point and based on their own proclivity, you will find each one agreeing and singing the praise of one particular sambradhayam. This is enough to tell me it is all about one's point of view.

Regards,
KRS

if you want to defend the other 2 siddhantam - please do so by highlighting how the equations, meaning mahavakyams like "aham brahma asmi", "tatvamasi" "pragyanam bramha" also Sarvavyapitvam, Sarvashaktitvam , and also "sarvam shivamayam" as in the Pramana shastrams - are resolved through the other 2 siddhantams.

let's keep it simple.

 

[malgova.mango]

I said the other 2 siddhantams are wrong , because that's not the final say of our veda+anta = vedaanta and so both are misleading a jingasu or a seeker as siddhantam.


i've every freedom to say this, One must tell a wrong as wrong .... so please don't interfere and say i should not tell this and that etc...

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri MM Ji,

You have not proved at all you are right. You only assert what you believe. There is no way to substantiate your claim.

As much as you have the right to say that other Brahminical Sambradhayams are wrong, it is also my right to point out how wrong you are, so people can understand.

I said my piece. Our conversation ends.

Regards,
KRS

I said the other 2 siddhantams are wrong , because that's not the final say of our veda+anta = vedaanta and so both are misleading a jingasu or a seeker as siddhantam.


i've every freedom to say this, One must tell a wrong as wrong .... so please don't interfere and say i should not tell this and that etc...

 

[KRS]

Hey Folks out there,

Do you agree with this stance of Sri MM Ji? Those of you who are from either Visishtadwaitha or Dwaitha, speak up!

Regards,
KRS

 

[happyhindu]

Sri KRS-ji,

As a beginner, am saying this:

The topic of maya as you have rightly said troubles many.

To a physicist all that appears here may look like real. It exists. And it would be difficult for him to write every single thing off as an illusion or reduce it non-existentiality. To him brahman may more likely be saguna.

To a man cutting up a dead body in a mortuary all that appears here may look like surreal. He thinks something more might exist that what is seen. It would be difficult for him to write off stuff as only 'the seen'. To him brahman may more likely be nirguna.

To a yogi looking at both saguna and nirguna within his self, all that appears around him may seem to be the manifestation of nirguna mana in saguna aakara. He might say various siddhis makes one acquire the possibility of taking on any physical form. Can be take on the form of full roopam of Mahavishnu ? Can ? How about the other stuff - can he be the 'Narayana' that floats on water? The Narayanaupanishad says 'nishkalo niranjano nirvikalpo niraakhyatah: (nira-khyata = non-cognitive? beyond congnition?) shudho dev eko narayanah:, na dvitiyosti kaschit (there is no second?). Would this be advaitha or qualified advaitha? I hope sri mmji wud answer this. KRSji, i hope you would answer this too sir. And others too.

[Am adding this note for MMji:
There are times when i make the most stupidest of all comments - to bring out info from the other person. There are also certian times when i say things the other person wants to hear - to appease or understand the other person better. In either case, its coz there is nothing personal to hold on to. We are here today, gone tomorrow. Nothing lasts. I say this to let you know that I may be making difficult comments on this thread in future that may not be pleasing to hear. Kindly bear with me coz the idea is merely to understand, not to establish anything]

 

[malgova.mango]

My replies..

Dear Sri MM Ji,

You have not proved at all you are right. You only assert what you believe. There is no way to substantiate your claim.

I didn't establish anything contradictory to Pramana Shastram to prove it. Advaitha Siddhantam is already established in harmony with Pramana Shastram. I'm not talking any personal beliefs here.. tap tap tap , you must be thoughtless person...

Those which contradicts only needs to substantite their say.

As much as you have the right to say that other Brahminical Sambradhayams are wrong,

the talk is on Siddha _ antam and not about Sampradhayam , i emphatically said this many times.

it is also my right to point out how wrong you are, so people can understand.

you are not doing that, you said you are unqualified to talk on this subject as you are thousands of feet away from the subject matter..

I said my piece. Our conversation ends.

i'm really pleased.

Regards,
KRS

 

[malgova.mango]

hh!

you are in wrong manvantra, you need to wait till the right manvantra to seek answer to your queries...

for according to you in this manvantra , the brahmins are not up to the mark compared to previous manvantra.. so i see your queries have to wait for better manvantra.. my HO.

Good Luck.

 

[happyhindu]

hh!

you are in wrong manvantra, you need to wait till the right manvantra to seek answer to your queries...

for according to you in this manvantra , the brahmins are not up to the mark compared to previous manvantra.. so i see your queries have to wait for better manvantra.. my HO.

Good Luck.

I said that those that were brahmin in the previous manvantara may not be brahmins now and those that are now may not be in the next era.

Where did i say that in this manvantra, brahmins are not up to the mark compared to previous manvantara? Please let me know where i said that so that i may clarify.

 

[KRS]

Dear Srimathi HH Ji.

I am not esoteric. I am a very ordinary man. I was born in to a family that followed Advaitha with MahaPeriaval as our family Guru I have met both HH MahaPeraival and HH Periya Periyaval abour 48 years ago at my home in India.

Since then God has ordained that I travel the world, interact with other cultures and learn from it. I married outside of my faith and had a very productive and happy 28 years of blissful Grihastha life. Since then I lost my beloved and is now married to a lady from my own community.

I am saying all these personal things to make a point. The one common thread that runs across ALL the human beings is the values. It is NOT religion. Humanity makes a brahmin out of a Muslim, a Kshatria out of a Buddhist and what not. I have traveled all over the globe and experienced everything under the sun. My experience then tells me that the common thread that binds us all is what I call as 'humanity'.

Humanity is empathetic. My late wife was Jewish. But I have never met a Brahmin that was more than her. My friend in Paris is an Iranian Muslim. But I have never met an advaithin (by the way he was very close to Maha Periaval), than him. I have friends who follow every religion on earth.

This is why, I am naturally a 'Catholic'. And I think that I belong to the greatest of all spiritual and philosophical traditions in the enitire universe called 'Sanathana Dharma'.

This is why unfortunately, with my ego, I have very little patience with those who express hatred against others on the basis of religious or cultural or philosophical differences. They try to diminish my religion. People who have not ventured outside of their small shell are passing judgements on others. This is our curse.

Namaskarams,
KRS

Sri KRS-ji,

As a beginner, am saying this:

The topic of maya as you have rightly said troubles many.

To a physicist all that appears here may look like real. It exists. And it would be difficult for him to write every single thing off as an illusion or reduce it non-existentiality. To him brahman may more likely be saguna.

To a man cutting up a dead body in a mortuary all that appears here may look like surreal. He thinks something more might exist that what is seen. It would be difficult for him to write off stuff as only 'the seen'. To him brahman may more likely be nirguna.

To a yogi looking at both saguna and nirguna within his self, all that appears around him may seem to be the manifestation of nirguna mana in saguna aakara. He might say various siddhis makes one acquire the possibility of taking on any physical form. Can be take on the form of full roopam of Mahavishnu ? Can ? How about the other stuff - can he be the 'Narayana' that floats on water? The Narayanaupanishad says 'nishkalo niranjano nirvikalpo niraakhyatah: (nira-khyata = non-cognitive? beyond congnition?) shudho dev eko narayanah:, na dvitiyosti kaschit (there is no second?). Would this be advaitha or qualified advaitha? I hope sri mmji wud answer this. KRSji, i hope you would answer this too sir. And others too.

[Am adding this note for MMji:
There are times when i make the most stupidest of all comments - to bring out info from the other person. There are also certian times when i say things the other person wants to hear - to appease or understand the other person better. In either case, its coz there is nothing personal to hold on to. We are here today, gone tomorrow. Nothing lasts. I say this to let you know that I may be making difficult comments on this thread in future that may not be pleasing to hear. Kindly bear with me coz the idea is merely to understand, not to establish anything]

 

[happyhindu]

Am wondering how wud it be if mm-ji were to meet some tamil saiva siddhanta scholars (includes non-brahmins) who according to their peers / others are exceedingly knowledgable about it (since i wudn't know any of that due to poor tamil ability, i only gawk. however, due to their minimal english usage for dummies like me, atleast i can somewhat understand that part of the stuff put forth by mm-ji is not right). Where goes the manisha panchakam for an avowed advaitin?

 

[malgova.mango]

krs !

you better watch what you say .

I've no hatred or ill will against anyone , nor did i spread that- these are very serious allegation without any basis.

if one say a wrong as wrong - it is not out of hatred , it could be also out of love... my dear.

Cool..

 

[happyhindu]

The intent of being delibeately rude to those that express views contradictory to one's own may perhaps be construed as a form of hatered.

 

[s007bala]

re

The intent of being delibeately rude to those that express views contradictory to one's own may perhaps be construed as a form of hatered.

What one construes out of these writings in the forum,is only a reflection of ones comprehension.There is absolutely no grounds,to come to conclusion,about the real personality nor the real nature,of a human being via these writings,imho.If he/she loves or hates,a person,and gets personal,then they need to mature up or wisen up.

sb

 

[happyhindu]

What one construes out of these writings in the forum,is only a reflection of ones comprehension.There is absolutely no grounds,to come to conclusion,about the real personality nor the real nature,of a human being via these writings,imho.If he/she loves or hates,a person,and gets personal,then they need to mature up or wisen up.
sb

There is absolutely no necessity to get personal in any manner on any matter with anyone. We are mere players of words here. It is said words cannot capture any truth in the world of the unmanifest sound (hence the saying by yogis that anyone who proclaims to know the truth does not know it. For the world of the unmanifest sound, as we know as brahman, is inexpressable within the limited faculty called language. And whatever is that 'ultimate truth' supposedly remains unspoken of, by design of nature).

But that apart, on a forum, expression if deliberately rude by a poster, to those whose expression comes across as contradictory to one's views may be seen by others as a sign of emotional immaturity. This may esp be so if the poster has offended not just one forum member, but more than one. And on an open forum such as this, it may well be pointed out by an other as regards any possible reason why a certain intent "may perhaps be" construed so.

It is more than well understood by everyone who hangs out on a public forum that no one can know anyone by their mere writings alone.

 

[s007bala]

H H

You got the point.Good for you.

sb

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri MM Ji,

This is the definition of 'hatred' I found in Wikipedia:
"Hatred or hate is a word that describes intense feelings of dislike. It can be used in a wide variety of contexts, from hatred of inanimate objects to hatred of other people."

This is what you said above in one of your postings:
I said the other 2 siddhantams are wrong , because that's not the final say of our veda+anta = vedaanta and so both are misleading a jingasu or a seeker as siddhantam.

So, by extension where you say that these other Acharyals essentially are mis-leading their followers in comparison to your Acharyal, creates this 'feeling of dislike'. This is why you want to tell them the 'truth'. In your parlance that is borne out of 'love'.

Muslims, Christans, the British etc., etc., had the same kind of 'love' towards 'others'. Some of them even today try to convert others on what they believe to be the 'truth'. Such a kind of 'love' is no love, because it completely dismisses the other person's way of life and inner beliefs and dignity. This kind of 'love' looks down upon them, pities them and makes them somehow lesser.

But if you have some other notion, then I am sorry. I apologize and withdraw my statement.

Regards,
KRS

krs !

you better watch what you say .

I've no hatred or ill will against anyone , nor did i spread that- these are very serious allegation without any basis.

if one say a wrong as wrong - it is not out of hatred , it could be also out of love... my dear.

Cool..