FW: contradiction between Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhva

[Guest guest]

This is an interesting analysis that I received earlier today. I would be

curious to know what the advaitin group feels about this.

 

Vikram M Pattarkine, PhD

"Gurukul"

106 Pepper Grass Drive, Columbia, Missouri 65203, USA

Tel: 573-445-4683 (Home), 573-489-2246 (Mobile), 573-886-9734 ext 279 (Work)

Email: Vikram_Pattarkine

 

 

Gayathry <agayathry

agayathry <agayathry

contradiction between Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhva

Wed, 16 Nov 2005 07:30:53 +0000 (GMT)

 

Q) Why is there a contradiction between Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhva?

 

A) The commentaries of the three Acharayas are different, but are not

contradicting each other. Only the disciples of Acharayas are contradicting

each other’s, because they have not taken the correct version of the

commentaries. The disciples misunderstand the commentaries. The correct

version of the commentary can be seen from their practical life of Acharya,

because the acharya definitely knows the correct version of His own

commentary and must have practiced it. If you see the life of Sankara, He

left His mother and moved in the entire India. The entire world became His

family. He could have earned lot of money by visiting any King. This shows

that He has cut all His bonds with the family and money. He did not sit

ideal. He propagated the divine knowledge and worked day and night for

that. He worked for the upliftment of all the people. He swallowed the

molted lead and preached to His disciples that He alone is the Lord in

human form. He may confuse in a theory

class, but He will have the clear concept from the practical class in a

laboratory. Therefore, observe what the Acharya practiced, you will get the

correct version of His commentary. Sankara gave the knowledge of self, which

is pure awareness. This awareness is Brahman. Therefore your self is the

Brahman and not the body. By this you are getting the peace because all the

bonds with the body and the family are removed. This is an intermediate

stage. Sankara preached this stage to all the people. The final stage is

reaching Eswara who is in the human form. Sankara, Himself was the Lord in

the human form. He preached this to a few deserving disciples by swallowing

the molted lead. After Sankara Ramanuja came, who is Sankara Himself. He

showed the final goal that is Eswara as Lord Vishnu who is not before your

eyes. You will not believe Lord Krishna in human form that is before your

eyes due to your jealousy. At last Madhva came and introduced Hanuman who

is the servant

of the Lord in human form (Rama). He claimed Himself as the younger

brother of Hanuman. That means as the younger brother serves the elder

brother, first you must serve the servant of the Lord before you become the

direct servant of the Lord. Thus the three Acharyas came in the correct

sequence of time showing the correct sequence of the steps in the spiritual

path.

 

 

 

His Holiness Shri Datta Swami

 

website address: http://www.universal-spirituality.org

 

e-mail address: swami

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.

[Guest guest]

OM TAT SAT

Honestly, I have not studied the works of any of these Acharyas but have a

basic idea about their philosophies. The simple question that comes to mind is

that if there is only one absolute truth, then why did 3 "realized men" come to

different conclusions about the nature of absolute reality and its relation, if

any to the material world and its creatures ?

 

OM TAT SAT

 

 

 

 

 

Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

 

[Guest guest]

Dr Vikram M Pattarkine <vikram_pattarkine wrote: This is an

interesting analysis that I received earlier today. I would be

curious to know what the advaitin group feels about this.

 

Vikram M Pattarkine, PhD

"Gurukul"

1 Dear Sir,

You have endeavored to reconcile the differences in the

outlook of the three Acharyas. You have not taken into account the painstaking

denial of Ramanuja of Sankara's worldview, in his Sri Bhashya (Ramanuja). In

fact the Vishnavite theologinas have branded Sankara as a Buddha in disguise,

Sankara's theory of Advaita being nothing but Buddhism according to Ramanuja.

We cannot fly from the face of facts in regard to the three Acharyas

definitely holding totally different positions. There are umpteen

interpretations of the Brahmasutras by umpteen Acharyas, the basic position of

these three Acharyas alone being taken into account by scholors. Saiva

Siddhantha holds a totlly different position. As Bhaghavan Ramana beautifully

puts in his, 'reality on forty verses ', the theories one, not-one or two arise

only after the arising of the ego. When an existential philosopher posed the

question, 'whether existence precedes the essence or the other way

about', a scholar proficient in Bhaghavan's teachings replied , 'the ego

precedes both'.

yours Ever in Bhaghavan

Ramana

 

 

 

 

FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

 

 

[Guest guest]

With all due respects to the swamiji,

Nothing more than that his is another interpretation along the ones he

is criticising.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

--- Dr Vikram M Pattarkine <vikram_pattarkine wrote:

> This is an interesting analysis that I received earlier today. I

> would be

> curious to know what the advaitin group feels about this.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran>

wrote:

>

>

>

> Dr Vikram M Pattarkine <vikram_pattarkine@h...> wrote: This is an

interesting analysis that I received earlier today. I would be

> curious to know what the advaitin group feels about this.

>

> Vikram M Pattarkine, PhD

> "Gurukul"

 

 

SWAMI VIVEKANANDA ARTICLE EXTRACT :

THE VEDANTA IN ALL ITS PHASES (Delivered in Calcutta )

 

TO READ ENTIRE ARTICLE:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5208/vedanta/phases.html

 

The sects that are at the present time in India come to be divided in

general into the two great classes of dualists and monists. The little

differences which some of these sects insist upon, and upon the

authority of which want to take new names as pure Advaitists, or

qualified Advaitists, and so forth, do not matter much. As a

classification, either they are dualists or monists, and of the sects

existing at the present time, some of them are very new, and others

seem to be reproductions of very ancient sects. The one class I would

present by the life and philosophy of Ramanuja, and the other by

Shankaracharya.

 

Ramanuja is the leading dualistic philosopher of later India, whom all

the other dualist sects have followed, directly or indirectly, both in

the substance of their teaching and in the organisation of their sects

even down to some of the most minute points of their organisation. You

will be astonished if you compare Ramanuja and his work with the other

dualistic Vaishnava sects in India, to see how much they resemble each

other in organisation, teaching, and method. There is the great

Southern preacher Madhva Muni, and following him, our great Chaitanya

of Bengal who took up the philosophy of the Madhvas and preached it in

Bengal. There are some other sects also in Southern India, as the

qualified dualistic Shaivas. The Shaivas in the most parts of India

are Advaitists, except in some portions of Southern India and in

Ceylon. But they also only substitute Shiva for Vishnu and are

Ramanujists in every sense of the term except in the doctrine of the

soul. The followers of Ramanuja hold that the soul is Anu, like a

particle, very small, and the followers of Shankaracharya hold that it

is Vibhu, omnipresent. There have been several non-dualistic sects. It

seems that there have been sects in ancient times which Shankara's

movement has entirely swallowed up and assimilated. You find sometimes

a fling at Shankara himself in some of the commentaries, especially in

that of Vijnana Bhikshu who, although an Advaitist, attempts to upset

the Mayavada of Shankara. It seems there were schools who did not

believe in this Mayavada, and they went so far as to call Shankara a

crypto-Buddhist, Prachchhanna Bauddha, and they thought this Mayavada

was taken from the Buddhists and brought within the Vedantic fold.

However that may be, in modern times the Advaitists have all ranged

themselves under Shankaracharya; and Shankaracharya and his disciples

have been the great preachers of Advaita both in Southern and in

Northern India. The influence of Shankaracharya did not penetrate much

into our country of Bengal and in Kashmir and the Punjab, but in

Southern India the Smartas are all followers of Shankaracharya, and

with Varanasi as the centre, his influence is simply immense even in

many parts of Northern India.

 

Now both Shankara and Ramanuja laid aside all claim to originality.

Ramanuja expressly tells us he is only following the great commentary

of Bodhayana. "Ancient teachers abridged that extensive commentary on

the Brahma-sutras which was composed by the Bhagavan Bodhayana; in

accordance with their opinion, the words of the Sutra are explained."

That is what Ramanuja says at the beginning of his commentary, the

Shri-Bhasya. He takes it up and makes of it a Samkshepa, and that is

what we have today. I myself never had an opportunity of seeing this

commentary of Bodhayana. The late Swami Dayananda Saraswati wanted to

reject every other commentary of the Vyasa-Sutras except that of

Bodhayana; and although he never lost an opportunity of having a fling

at Ramanuja, he himself could never produce the Bodhayana. I have

sought for it all over India, and never yet have been able to see it.

But Ramanuja is very plain on the point, and he tells us that he is

taking the ideas, and sometimes the very passages out of Bodhayana,

and condensing them into the present Ramanuja Bhashya. It seems that

Shankaracharya was also doing the same. There are a few places in his

Bhashya which mention older commentaries, and when we know that his

Guru and his Guru's Guru had been Vedantists of the same school as he,

sometimes even more thorough-going, bolder even than Shankara himself

on certain points, it seems pretty plain that he also was not

preaching anything very original, and that even in his Bhashya he

himself had been doing the same work that Ramanuja did with Bodhayana,

but from what Bhashya, it cannot be discovered at the present time.

[Guest guest]

List Moderator's Note: List wants to thank the members for their continued

support to list policies and guidelines. Please do not include the previous

posters' messages in the tail end (or in the beginning) of your message while

sending your replies. Both the new members and other members do seem to continue

to repeat doing this. The list appreciates your cooperation in keeping the

message crisp and clear by removing all unnecessary parts of previous messages.

(As it is done in this message!)

 

 

Well, i think Sri Shankara expressly mentions at umpteem number of places that

he is only representing the traditioanal view.

 

Is it correct to hold that the Acharya has generally followed - Bhagawan

Upavarsha; though he has definitely added value at many places - on his own.

 

 

 

devishakti_india <devishaktiindia wrote:

advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran>

wrote:

>