advaitham and dwaitham

[Guest guest]

Vedas mention dwaitham,advaitham and vishistathvadiham.So the three philosphies are vedic.An advaithi accepts dwaitham adn visisthathvaidham and says that they are the stages in ladder to reach god.

 

But a vishistathvaidhi doesnt accept advaitham.But it is given in vedas.So what is advaitham according to visisthathvaidham?Is it a stage in reaching vishisthathvaidham or is it a wrong concept?

 

Advaitham cannot be wrong,since it is in vedas and vedas wont lie.So what is advaitham?How do you justify its existence?

[Guest guest]

with due respect, as a vaishnava i consider it a necessary stage for gross materialists to make a step towards spirituality

 

if i think that all is matter, advaitam say to me that all is spirit.. then it is necessary that someone comes to me saying that also in spirit there's variety, supreme and subordinates, to complete the picture

 

even shankara (shiva himself), having explained all his theory, at the end says that the ultimate goal is to worship govinda

[Guest guest]

Only parts of Vedas are monistic, not all of it. "Advaitham" (absolute monism) is an imcomplete representation of Vedas

[dhaa 0]

 

Vedas mention dwaitham,advaitham and vishistathvadiham.So the three philosphies are vedic

 

 

vedas mention suddha advaita. not kaival advait and its anirvacaniya maya & 'brahma satyam jagan mithya'

Advaitham cannot be wrong,since it is in vedas and vedas wont lie

 

 

vedas cant be wrong, kaival advait is wrong when it disagrees with vedas

[Guest guest]

Shuddh-advaita is father of all sampradayas.

 

On Basis of the Shuddh-advaita only Kaival-advaita, Vishistadvaitha & Dwaitham came.

 

If you closely read Shuddh-advaita, you can see kaival-advaita, vishistadvaitha & dwaitham hidden in it.

 

But Kevala-advaitha have been proved false by "Sri Vishnuaswami, Sri Vallabhacharya & Sri Ramanujacharya".

 

Dwaitham was about to be defeated by mayavadis. at that time "Sri Vallabhacharya" came & proved "Sri Krishna" as supreme & saved dwaitham. At that time, Sri Vyasa thirtha (dwaitha scholar) saluted "Sri Vallabhacharya" and gave him all respects.

 

Sri Ramanuja's "Vishistadvaita" was more clearly supported by Shuddh-advaita rather than other sampradayas.

 

So only "Shuddh-advaita" & "Vishistadvaita" are genuine sampradayas than the other two (kaival-advaitha & dwaitham).

 

i give all salutations to Sri Vishnuswami, Sri Vallabhacharya & Sri Ramanujacharya.

 

/images/graemlins/smile.gif Om Namah Shivaya

/images/graemlins/smile.gif Om Namo Venkatesaya

 

[Guest guest]

please gokul explain shuddadvaita and vishistadvaita tattvas very briefly with your own words... briefly please

[Guest guest]

The Suddhadvaita Philosophy Of Sri Vallabha & Sri Visnuswami

 

Introduction

 

The philosophy of Sri Vishnuswami & Sri Vallabhacharya is Suddha-Advaita or pure monism, because he does not admit Maya like Sankara, and believes that the whole world of matter and souls is real and is only a subtle form of God. Those who bring Maya for the explanation of the world are not pure Advaitins, because they admit a second to Brahman. Sri Vishnuswami & sri Vallabha holds that Brahman can create the world without any connection with such a principle as Maya, but Sankara traces the universe to Brahman through the power of Maya. Hence the philosophy of Sri Vishnuswami & Sri Vallabha is called pure monism or Suddhadvaita. Sri Vallabha expounded that system in the Anu-Bhashya, his commentary on the Brahma Sutras. He called it Suddha-Advaita or pure monism as against Sankara’s Kevala Advaita, Ramanuja’s Visishta-Advaita & Madhvacharya's Dwaitham. Vallabha was a Telugu Brahmin of South India. He migrated to the north and developed the views of Vishnuswamin who belonged to the thirteenth century. His system of thought is known by the name Brahma-Vada.

Vallabha says that the entire universe is real and is subtly Brahman. The individual souls and the world are, in essence, one with Brahman. Jiva, Kala (time) and Prakriti or Maya are eternal existences, but they have no separate existence apart from Brahman.

 

Important Works of Vallabha

 

Vallabha accepts the authority not only of the Upanishads, the Bhagavad-Gita and the Brahma Sutras, but also of the Bhagavata Purana. The important works of Vallabha are Vyasa-Sutra Bhashya (Anu-Bhashya), Jaimini Sutra Bhashya, Bhagavata-Tika Subodhini, Pushti-Pravaha-Maryada and Siddhanta-Rahasya. All these books are in Sanskrit. He has written many books in Braj Bhasha also. The scriptures are the final authority for Vallabha.

 

Stress on Worship and Grace

 

Vallabha’s religion is a religion addressed to the worship of Vishnu in the form of Krishna. It was derived chiefly, like the system of Chaitanya, from the Vaishnava philosophy propounded by Ramanuja. It is centred round the conception of a personal and beneficent God who is Sat-Chit-Ananda. Lord Krishna is the highest Brahman. His body consists of Sat-Chit-Ananda. He is called Purushottama.

Vallabha’s followers worship Bala-Krishna (Krishna as a lad). They have Vatsalya-Bhava (the attitude which regards God as a child). Vallabha lays great stress on Pushti (grace) and Bhakti (devotion). Maha-Pushti is the highest grace or Anugraha which helps the aspirants to attain God-realisation.

 

God-The Only Being

 

According to Vallabha, God is the Absolute or the Purushottama. He is perfect. He is Sat-Chit-Ananda. He is infinite, eternal, omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent. He has all the auspicious qualities also. The Sruti texts which say that He has no attributes, mean only that He has not the ordinary qualities.

God is real. There is no other reality besides Him. He is the only Being. He is the source for this universe and all souls. He is the first cause and the only cause. God is the material as well as the efficient cause of the universe. He creates the world by the mere force of His Will. Brahman manifests Himself, of His own Will, as the universe and the individual souls, but He does not undergo any change in His essential nature. Things come out of the Akshara (Sat-Chit-Ananda), like sparks from fire. Brahman is the Creator of the world. He is also the world itself.

God is personified as Krishna, when He possesses the qualities of wisdom and action. He appears in various forms to please His devotees.

 

The World Of Nature And The World Of False Relations

 

Creation is manifestation of Brahman. The universe is the effect of Brahman. The universe is as eternal and real as Brahman Himself. The inanimate universe is filled with Brahman. The world is not an illusory appearance. It is not different from Brahman in essence.

Jagat is the world of Nature. It is not illusory. It is real. It is God Himself in one form. But, the Samsara or temporal involvement is illusory. This is created by the soul around its ‘I-ness’ and ‘mine-ness’. The separation from God on account of egoism makes the soul forget its original, true, divine nature. Samsara is a product of the soul’s imagination and action which play round its ‘I-ness’ and ‘mine-ness’. On account of its selfishness, it puts itself in wrong relations with other souls and with the objective universe. It creates a web of its own and gets itself entangled in it. This is an illusion, because the web has no reality. This Samsara, the world of false relations created by the soul, is alone Maya. Samsara or Maya rises because the soul, which is not apart from God, tries to set itself up as an independent reality or entity in its own right. The self which is something apart from God is illusory. Its body is illusory and its world also is illusory. All this is Samsara. It is very different from the world of Nature.

 

Jiva And Brahman

 

Analogy of the Spark and the Fire

 

The Jivas are not effects. They are Amsas or parts of God. They issue from Him spontaneously as sparks from fire. Brahman is the whole. The Jiva or the individual soul is part; but, there is no real difference between Brahman and the individual soul, because the individual soul is of identical essence with Brahman.(According to Ramanuja, the parts are really different from the whole.) The soul is one with Brahman. It is as real and eternal as Brahman.

The individual soul is not Brahman screened by the veil of Avidya. It is itself Brahman, with the attribute ‘bliss’ being obscured or suppressed. Ananda or bliss is suppressed or obscured in the individual soul. Ananda and consciousness are suppressed or obscured in matter or the inanimate world. When the soul attains bliss, and the inanimate world attains both consciousness and bliss, the difference between Brahman and these vanishes.

The soul is both a doer and an enjoyer. It is atomic in size, but it pervades the whole body by its quality of intelligence, just as sandalwood pervades even the places where it does not exist by its sweet fragrance and just as a lamp, though confined only to a part of a room, illuminates the whole room.

 

Classification Of Souls

 

There are three kinds of souls: (i) The pure (Suddha) Jivas. The divine qualities (Aisvarya) are not obscured in these souls by ignorance. (ii) The worldly Jivas (Samsarin). These souls are caught in the net or clutches of Avidya or ignorance. They experience births and deaths on account of their connection with gross and subtle bodies. (iii) Mukta Jivas or liberated souls. These souls are freed from the bonds of Samsara through Vidya or Knowledge. When the soul attains the final emancipation, it recovers its suppressed qualities and becomes one with God or Brahman. The world appears as Brahman to one who has realised the Truth or Brahman.

There is another classification of souls, viz., Pushti souls, Maryada souls and Pravahika souls. All these are different from one another in their origin, nature and final end. They all issue from God with their differences.

The Pushti souls are the highest, as they issue from the Ananda-Kaya or the bliss-body of God. These souls are the Amsa (parts) of His body. God is the Amsi (the whole). These are the souls of grace. They have the divine seed in them which bears fruit in the end. They ultimately reach the goal through the grace of the Lord. They have communion and fellowship with Lord Krishna. They develop Bhakti through the grace of the Lord. Bhakti is the means and the end in itself.

The Maryada souls are generated from the Vak or the Word of God. They are governed by law, not by grace. They perform their ritualistic duties, at first with selfish interests. Later on, they develop Nishkama-Bhava (unselfish attitude) and do their ritualistic routine without any self-interest. This purifies their mind. They reach the Akshara, which is a kind of vestibule to the abode of God. Afterwards they attain the supreme abode of God.

The Pravahika souls issue from the mind of God. They are the Samsaric Jivas. They are souls neither of grace nor of law. They are in continuous motion (Pravaha).

These three kinds of souls have further sub-divisions and cross-divisions into Pushti-Pushti, Pushti-Maryada, Pushti-Pravahika, Maryada-Maryada, Maryada-Pushti, Maryada-Pravahika, Pravahika-Pravahika, Pravahika-Pushti and Pravahika-Maryada.

 

Pushti Marga Or The Way Of Grace

 

The way of life and salvation, preached by Vallabha is called Pushti Marga. The soul of man has become weak and lean on account of sin. It is, therefore, in dire need of the grace of God for its upliftment and emancipation. God’s grace gives Pushti (nourishment) and Poshana (strength); and hence the name Pushti Marga or the Way of Grace.

The individual soul can attain the final emancipation only through the grace of God. Bhakti is the chief means of salvation. Jnana is useful. Maha Pushti or the highest grace removes great obstacles and helps in the attainment of God. The Bhakti generated by special grace is known as Pushti Bhakti.

 

The Four Kinds of Bhakti

 

This Pushti-Bhakti is of four kinds: (i) Pravaha Pushti-Bhakti, (ii) Maryada Pushti-Bhakti, (iii) Pushti Pushti-Bhakti and (iv) Suddha Pushti-Bhakti. Pravaha Bhakti is the path of those who while leading the worldly life, perform works which will lead to the attainment of God-realisation. Worldly life is compared to the flow of a river (Pravaha). Maryada Bhakti is the path of those who are rendered fit to attain knowledge which is useful for worship, through the grace of the Lord. They know all about the ways of God. They depend upon their own efforts to obtain knowledge. In Pushti Bhakti, the devotees lead a life of self-restraint. They hear discourses about the Lord. They do Kirtana and sing His Name. They do Japa of Mantra.

 

Suddha Pushti-Bhakti or the Purest Type of Devotion

 

In Suddha Pushti-Bhakti, the devotees do Kirtana and sing the Lord’s Name. They praise God. They develop a strong passion for doing these. This kind of devotion is generated by the Lord Himself. The Lord’s grace descends on the devotees. Then they develop a liking for God. This liking grows into Prema Bhakti (taste for God). The devotees acquire knowledge about God. Then they get attachment to God (Asakti). Then they develop a strong passion for attaining God. This is the ripe condition of love and Asakti. It is called Vyasana. This strong passion, or Vyasana, leads to the attainment of the highest bliss, the summum bonum or the end.

When love for Sri Krishna becomes intense, the devotee sees Lord Krishna everywhere. Hence everything becomes an object of love for him. He identifies himself with everything. The Gopis had this experience. They saw Krishna everywhere. They saw themselves also as Krishna. This is Para Bhakti or supreme devotion which becomes akin to the knowledge or Brahman-Jnana of the Vedantins or Jnanins. The inner and outer world is full of Krishna or Purushottama for such devotees. The fruit of this devotion is admission to the eternal sports or Lilas of Sri Krishna.

The supreme goal is not Mukti or emancipation. The highest goal is eternal service of Lord Krishna and participation in His sports in the celestial Vrindavana. Those who have developed Vyasana, or strong passion for God, reject with scorn the four kinds of Mukti. The Maryada-Bhaktas attain Sayujya Mukti, i.e., they become one with Sri Krishna. The Pushti-Bhaktas reject Mukti and take part in the sports or Lilas of Sri Krishna. They choose with intense delight the eternal service of Sri Krishna. The Bhaktas assume the forms of cows, birds, trees and rivers and enjoy the company of Sri Krishna, which bestows infinite joy. These sports are similar to those which Sri Krishna did in Vraja and Vrindavana. Some of the devotees become Gopas and Gopis and join the sports in the celestial Vrindavana.

 

Different Kinds of Liberated Souls

 

The liberated souls are of different kinds. Some have freed themselves like Sanaka. Some dwell in the city of God and attain salvation through the grace of the Lord. Some others develop perfect love and become the associates of God.

 

------------------

 

Vishistadvaitha by Sri Ramanujacharya

 

The Upanishads are of three types namely bheda sruti, abheda sruti and ghataka sruti.

 

There are many passages in the Vedas, which clearly and categorically state that Brahman or Paramatma is different from Jivatma. These are called bheda sruti, because they show the difference between Paramatma and Jivatma. Bheda in Sanskrit means difference.

 

The following are some of the quotations. 1) 'Two birds with similar qualities and attached to each other, reside in the same tree. One of them (Jivatma) eats the fruit (the results of his karma), whereas the other (Iswara or Brahman) shines, without eating the fruit." 2) "The Jivatma realises that the supreme self or Brahman directs him and he is the object of direction". 3) "He, the Jivatma, is different from Brahman. By winning the grace of Brahman, the Jivatma attains salvation". 4) "The three-fold nature, can be simply put as follows (1) who experiences pleasure and pain; (2) the object of such experiences and (3)He,the Brahman who directs all". 79 5) "He is the lord of Matter and Jivatma and the possessor of qualities". I 6) "Brahman is the ruler whose knowledge has no limits. The Jivatma has his knowledge limited". 7) "The Brahman is different from Matter or Achetana and is greater than the Jivatma." 8) "He is different and He rules over the Jivatma and the Matter." 9) "The knower of Brahman attains the supreme." 10) "He reaches the other side of samsara and reaches the Paramapada of Vishnu". 11) "I belong to the Brahman and I will not leave Him". 12) "All these are born out of Him and because of Him they live and they go back to Him." 13) "The brahmins understand Him, by learning the Vedas, by doing penance, by giving donation and by doing yagas." 14) "The Brahman cannot be attained by reading the scriptures, by intelligence,..." 15) "He is the lord of all. He is the ruler of all". 16) "There are two eternal, permanent things. One is Brahman, knowing everything and all powerful. The other is with limited knowledge and powerless, namely, Jivatma." 17) "The Jivatma enjoys the Paramapada along with Brahman." So, the above are a few examples of bheda sruti. These are some of the passages from the Vedas, which clearly show that the Jivatma is different from Paramatma. There are innumerable such passages in the Vedas.

 

There are also passages in the Vedas, which show,on the face of it, that Paramatma and Jivatma are one and the same.p>

 

The following are some of the passages:- "You are that (Brahman)". "I am Brahman". "Everything here is Brahman". "All the things here are Brahman". "There are no different things". "There is only one".a>

 

The third type of sruti, ghataka sruti, describes the relationship between Brahman and Jivatma and Matter, as that of the soul and. the body (body/soul relationship).

 

The passages from the Antaryami Brahmana of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and Subala Upanishad which explains the body-soul relationship. These are called Ghataka sruti

 

This is called so, because this talks about the Iswara being the soul or antaryami of Jivatma and the matter. 'Antaryami' means "One who controls from inside".>

 

They are so -called, because they join or synthesise the apparently contradictory passages in the Vedas. They give "the proper to abheda srutis, which seem to state there is no difference between Jivatma and Paramatma.

 

By using this body/soul relationship, which has been shown above in the ghataka sruti, one can give proper interpretation to the abheda sruti.

 

When we say Rama, we mean the body of Rama, as well as the soul of Rama. We say Rama has a fair skin. We mean Rama's body has a fair skin. Similarly, the word "Rama" means his soul also. By the extension of the same principle, it also means the soul of Rama's soul, i.e., Iswara or Narayana. We have just seen that the individual soul or Jivatma is also the body of Iswara. In other words, Iswara is the soul of the individual soul, namely Jivatma. So, when we say Rama, this refers grammatically to 1) Rama's body, 2) Rama's soul, 3) Rama's soul's soul, i.e., Brahman or Iswara. With this understanding, if one read's the abheda sruti, the meaning will be quite clear. 2) One passage says "you are that", Now what this means is that your soul's soul is Iswara or Brahman, i.e., Brahman is also your soul's soul. 3) The passage "All this is Brahman" is also correct, because all Matter and Jivatma have Brahman as their soul and Brahman has all of them as His body. Hence naturally all this is Brahman. 4) The passage "I am Brahman" is also correct, because my soul's soul is Brahman. In other words, I am myself Brahman. Thus, by applying the body/soul relationship between Jivatma and Paramatma, all the passages in the Vedas, which appear like saying identity of Jivatma and paramatma, will be properly explained.

 

The basic principle has been established that Brahman or is the soul of Jivatma and I Matter and all its variations. So, the Jivatma and Matter and its variations are all the body of Brahman.As mentioned earlier, this is the fundamental doctrine of Visishtadvaita philosophy.

 

"Advaita" means "Not Two". The advaitins say that Jivatma and paramatma are not two (i.e., different) but they are One, i.e., identical. Hence this system of philosophy is called Advaita. The founder of Advaita philosophy is Adi Sankara./p>

 

"Visishtadvaita" means "Not Two-in a special way" or "Only one - in a special way". We say that Jivatma and paramatma are different and yet not different. They are different, as we have shown from the bheda sruti. Jivatma is the body and paramatma the soul. The soul is different from the body. This way, the paramatma is different from the Jivatma. They are not different because of the body-soul relationship, as explained in ghataka sruti. We call both Rama's body and Rama's soul, as Rama. Rama's body and soul together, are called as "Rama" only. So, Rama is only one. Similarly, Jivatma (the body) and Paramatma (the soul), can be called as only one - in a special way, because of the body/soul relationship. So, Jivatma and Paramatma can be called two-in-one or one-in-two. Hence our system of philosophy is called "Visishtadvait'a". This system was perfected by Ramanuja.

 

"Dvaita" means Two. Dvaitins say that Jivatma and Paramatma are eternally different, i.e. they are two and not one. They do not accept body/soul relationship. Hence this system of philosophy is called "Dvaita". The exponent of Dvaita philosophy is Madhva.

 

The Advaitins argue that abheda srutis, which say that the Jivatma is identical with Paramatma. supersede the bheda srutis. So, they do not accept the validity of bheda srutis. In other words, they accept only abheda srutis as authority.

 

We say that the Vedas as a whole are authority. So, why should the Vedas mention the bheda passages, if they are to be superseded. No sensible person will make a statement, if it is false and if it is to be superseded. Unless a statement is specifically mentioned as opponents point of view, it has to be taken as correct. Nowhere in the Vedas, it has been stated that the bheda passages represent opponents point of view. Hence the bheda srutis have to be taken as correct; and have to be properly synthesised with the other passages in the Vedas. Thus, we do not accept the Advaitins' argument.

 

Dvaitins do not accept the abheda srutis as uthority (pramana). Their argument is that abheda srutis are very few. They are very much less in number, as compared to bheda srutis, Hnce, the small number of abheda srutis must be ignored.

 

Vishistadvaitins do not accept this view of Dvaitins. They say that all-passages in the Vedas are authority. We have to properly interpret the various passages in the Vedas, so that any apparent contradictions are resolved. Hence, Vishistadvaitin makes use of ghataka sruti, to resolve the apparent differences between bheda srutis and abheda srutis.

 

As mentioned above, the Advaitins are not able to properly explain bheda srutis. Dvaitins are not able to properly explain abheda srutis. Visishtadvaita is the only system, which is able to explain properly both the Bheda srutis and Abheda srutis, with the help of Ghataka srutis.

 

The Advaitins say that everything, other than the Paramatma, is 'maya' or illusion. For Advaitins, the world itself is an illusion.

 

For this, the Advaitins have got three types of reality. They say that the Brahman is the only real thing or the ultimate reality; and everything else is illusion or maya.

 

We see a shell from a distance and we think it is silver. Only when we go near and examine, we find that it is really shell. 2) Similarly, from a distance we see a rope and mistake it to be a serpent. 3) Again, in a hot summer, on a tar road, we see at some distance water on the road, which is not actually so. It is only the reflection of the sun onthe tar road So, such illusions, as explained in the three cases above, fall into the first category, according to the Advaitins. These are called "Apparent Reality" (Pratibhasika Sat). In these cases, we are able to realise ourselves, at a later stage, that what we saw first was only an illusion. For example, thinking as silver, whereas it was only shell; similarly, thinking as serpent, when it was only a rope, is only an illusion.

 

The second category of reality is called by Advaitins as "Relative Reality" (Vyavaharika Sat). In this category come the world, air, sky, water. and so on. All these things are there and still, ultimately, they are only an illusion according to Advaitins. But, for all practical purposes, world, air, water and other elements are real things. So these things are called "Relative Reality" and form the second category.

 

The third category of reality, is the "Absolute reality" (Paramarthika Sat). This is Brahman.

 

The Advaitins classify all things into three types of realities, as follows: 1) Apparent reality (Pratibhasika Sat) – like mistaking shell as silver; mistaking rope as serpent. 2) Relative reality (Vyavaharika Sat) - like world, sky, fire, water. 3) Absolute reality (Paramarthika Sat) - This is Brahman. So, according to them, except for item (3) above, Brahman, everything else is maya (illusion).

 

The theory of Visishtadvaitins is exactly the opposite. We say that everything is real. There is no maya or illusion. The world is very much real. The Jivatma is very much real. In fact, we also say that, even the objects which we see in a dream are also real. Of course, the dream objects are purely temporary and are seen only by the person who dreams.

 

We say that this world is not an illusion. We mistake shell for silver. We mistake brass, or bronze for gold. We mistake a rope for a serpent - These are actually illusions. The world is not such an illusion. Whatever materials we find in this world, we are making use of them. The silver which we see, we make vessels out of it. We keep water in the silver vessel. Similarly, the gold which we see, we make jewels out of gold, and we wear them. So, the world, the materials, the objects which we see in the world, are all real.

 

The Vishistadvaiti's have full support from the Upanishads. Its been explained earlier about the process of creation, starting from matter. How from matter comes mahat, how from mahat comes ahankara and so on. I have also explained about the quintuplication, three-fold division and seven-fold division. The Upanishads have thus explained in detail the process of creation. So, the world and the objects and materials of the world are all the results of creation. When Upanishads take so much pains to explain the process of creation, is it correct to say that the whole thing is an illusion? There is no need for the Upanishads to describe in great detail the process of creation, if the whole thing is an illusion. Further, the Upanishads do not state anywhere that the world is an illusion.

 

The Upanishads say that the Lord, Brahman creates the world out of maya. So the Advaitins interpret the word maya as illusion. But we interpret the world maya as matter (prakriti). The Upanishads themselves say that maya is matter. So, apart from' other reasons, we interpret the word 'maya' as matter. From matter, the process of creation starts. But taking the meaning of 'maya' as illusion, the advaitins say that the whole world is an illusion.

 

At many places, several Upanishads categorically declare that Brahman creates this world. "Brahman creates beings, starting from Brahma, as before". "Brahman creates the beings, like sun and moon,as before".Unless the world, sun and moon, and other objects are real, there is no need to create them. This clearly shows that the created world is real. Of course, the Jivatma and Matter are eternal (nitya). At the time of pralaya, Matter and Jivatmas take very subtle (sukshma) form and merge with the Lord. Again, the process of creation starts, after pralaya. Thus we say that everything is real.

 

The Bhagavad Gita says: "I, who am the ultimate. cause of this world, join the Jivatma with Matter. Thus, all beings come out of this union". There are several such passages in Vishnu Purana and other Sastras which go to show that the world is indeed real.

 

They say that many objects in the world are not permanent. For example, there is a mud pot now; after some time it gets broken and it is destroyed. Similarly there is water in the river now. But in summer, the water gets dried up. Thus water is no longer there. Thus, nothing is real, because they are not there permanently at all times. This is one of the arguments of the Advaitins. ………

 

We agree with them on the facts. But we say that these facts only show that objects are nor permanent. It dows not follow that the objects are not real. In other workds, even though the objects are not permanent, they are real. We have to distinguish between a real thing and a permanent thing. Taking the example of the mud pot, the mud is there, which the potter makes into a pot. Again, after some time, the pot gets broken, and we come back to the mud. So, mud is there although mud pot gets broken Just because something is not permanent, we cannot say that it is not real. The mud pot is not permanent. Mud is real and also permanent. Similarly jewels are not permanent. We can melt them into gold and re- make some other jewel. So the jewels are not permanent, but the raw material, gold is permanent. But both gold and jewels, made out of gold, are real. We make use of the jewels. We wear the jewels,. So, we cannot say that jewls are not real. Mud is real and mudpot is real. Gold is real and gold jewel is real. These examples are given in Chandogya Upanishad to discuss the relationship between Brahman and the world. So, Brahman is real and the world is also real. Thus the argument of Advaitins that just because something is not permanent, it is not real, ( but an illusion) is not correct.

 

We are seeing the world. We make use of the things in the world. We enjoy them. So this has to be real. The above examples clearly show that the world which has come out, in the above examples are real. If the Vedas wanted to show that the world is unreal, they need not have given the above examples. Instead, the Vedas could have given the examples of mistaking a rope for a serpent, mistaking a shell for silver and so on. But instead of giving such examples, which suggest illusion, the Vedas have given examples of reality. From this also, it is clear that the world and everything else is real. Further, if the world and its beings are only an illusion, where is the question of the Lord protecting and destroying the world?.. All these activities of creating the world, protecting the world and destroying the world will have no meaning if the world is not real. The world is destroyed at the time of Pralaya. So the world is not eternal or permanent. It is in this meaning that sometimes it is mentioned that the world is not real.

 

The basic axiom that the Vedas as a whole , are the fundamental authority. So , there cannot be any inconsistency or difference between the different passages. If there is an apparent contradiction or inconsistency between two different two different portions of Upanishads, these have to be suitable reconciled or synthesized. 2.) The normal logic is that if the majority of the portions mean one thing and a small number of portions apparently mean something else, then these minority portions will have to be explained in keeping with the majority version. 3.) While the world is mentioned as real in innumerable places and the process of creation is described in detail, in a few places it is mentioned that the world is not eternal or everlasting. The world will be destroyed at the time of pralaya. What is meant is that all the chetanas and achetanas merge in the Lord, in a very subtle form, at the time of pralaya.

 

The three reasons to show why the world is real: 1.) The Vedas describe Brahman thus: Brahman is that, from whom all these beings are born; by whom all these beings live; in whom all these beings rest, after death. From the above description, it can be seen that all these beings have to be real. 2.) Brahman is the material cause of the world. He therefore evolves into the world. So how can the world which has been created by Brahman, be unreal? Thus we say that the world and all the beings in it are real.

 

A. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad clearly says that: " In this dream world, there are no chariots. There are no horses to draw the chario. There are no roads on which the chariot can go. Then the Brahman creates chariots. He creates horses to draw the chariot and He Creates roads. In this dream world, there are no joys or delights or raptures. Again, Brahman creates joys , delights and raptures. In the dream world, there are no pools, no tanks and no rivers. Again, Brahman creates pools, He creates tanks and He creates rivers. Indeed Brahman creates all these, in the dream – world".

 

A. The jivatma is not capable of creating the various objects in the dream. He does not have the power of creation because of his natural powers are restricted, as long as he is in this world. 2.)We also see many bad things in the dream. We are afraid to see such terrible things in our dreams.We often wake up with a start whenever we see bad things in the drea. If the Jivatma creates these objects, naturally he will create such bad things,such bad objects, which give him pain in his dreams. If the Jivatma creates these objects, naturally he will only create good and pleasant things in the dream. Since the dream consists of bad things also, it is clear that jivatma does not create the objects in the dreams. Only Iswara creates objects in the dream.

 

The reason is simple. The Jivatma does some small good things and some small bad things. These are not big enough, or significant enough. As a reward for small good things done, God gives him pleasure and good things, in the dream. So, he is happy during the duration of the dream , enjoying pleasant things. Similarly the Jivatma does small bad thigns, which are not very significant. Then a very mild punishment is given by the Lord, for those small bad things. This is by making the Jivatma feel the pain, by dreaming bad things or shocking news. So he is made to experience pain and sorrow during the duration of the dream.

 

There are several passages in the Vedas, which declare that there is only one supreme Lord or Brahman. The advaitins also agree that there is only one Brahman, the Para Brahman. However for purposes of worship, they accept a lower Brahman. This lower Brahman, is , according to them, not real ultimately, but is only Vyavaharika sat.

 

They say that 1.)The Para Brahman has no attributes or qualities.(Nirguna) 2.)It has no form. (Niravayava Brahman) According to them 1.) The lower Brahman (Apara Brahman) has good qualities (Saguna Brahman), 2.) It has aform (body). The lower Brahman can be worshipped as a Vishnu and so on. They further say as follows: "After worshipping the Brahman, in a form with qualities, like Vishnu, a person develops sufficient maturity of knowledge and viveka. Then he understands the real Brahman, which is without attributes. Then he also realizes that he is not different from the real Brahman or Paramatma. In other words, he ultimately realizes that the Jivatma and Paramatma are one and the same.

 

We do not accept that there are two Brahmans. There is no question of one Brahman being higher and another Brahman being lower. There is only one Brahman. The Brahman has all the auspicious qualities. That Brahman is free from all evil. The Brahman has also got a form – a beautiful and auspicious body, with four arms and sankha and chakra. Further the Brahman has Jivatma and matteras His Body.

 

There is no question of Jivatma being identical with Paramatma. But Jivatma has Paramatma as its soul; and Jivatma; and Jivatma is the body of the Paramatma. Thus both the Jivatma and Paramatma are one in the sense, that they form together the body and soul. So, they are 2-in-1. That is why our philosophy is called as Vishistadvaita.

 

At several places, the Vedas say that He has many auspicious qualities, attributes. In a few places, they say that Brahman is without attributes. We have to intepret this, in keeping with the majority portions. So when the Upanishad says "without Attributes" we intepret this as "without bad attributes" i.e, " with only good qualities" . This intepretation is necessary, to resolve the apparent contradiction between the portions saying Brahman has many auspicious qualities and the portions saying that Brahman is without attributes. If we stick on saying that Brahman is without qualities, then all the portions mentioning about the good qualities of Brahman will have no meaning.

 

In many places the Upanishads mention that Brahman is the Lord. He is the protector, and the world and the Jivatmas are Protected By Him. Again the Upanishads talk about Bhakti, about 32 vidyas or methos of doing bhakti to the Lord, for getting salvation. If the Lord has no attributes, no qualities, how can He protect the world. How can He give Salvation or Moksha to the Jivatma? It cannot be said that the Upanishads lay down the methods of Bhakti, for attaining salvation, and then deny these things , by saying that the Lord has no attributes or qualities. Without qualities how can He grant Salvation?

 

We intepret these in two ways: 1.)" Without Qualities" mean "without bad qualities". So, Brahman has all good qualities. 1.) The qualities are three sattva, rajas and tamas. So, "without qualities" can mean " without any of these three qualities". This will mean "suddha, sattva". Thus, we can say that the Brahman has the quality of "Suddha Sattva".

 

The words "Tattvamasi" means " That you there". Here " That" means Brahman. "You" means " Your souls's soul". So the words, "Tattvamasi" mean Brahman is your soul's soul. This is exactly the body / soul relationship. Brahman is the soul of ones soul. ..viz…Jivatma. So, the word, "Tattvamasi" only says that Brahman is the soul of Jivatma. The above is the teaching of the father, to son Svetaketu. When we say Svetaketu, it means his body and his soul. It also means his soul's soul which is Brahman.

 

No, that is not correct. Brahman is eternal. Jivatmas are eternal, Matter ( mula Prakriti) is eternal and the Vedas are also eternal. What it actually means is that Brahman has no equal. "He is without a Second" means, " He is without an equal", "He is unparalleled". All this means is that Brahman is Supreme, without any equals. It does not mean that there is nothing else than Brahman; and that everything else is an illusion or unreal. If this vies ( that all other are not real) is to be adopted, then let me repeat again that all the Upanishads explaining the process of Creation, explaining the Salvation of the jivatma, will all become meaningless. When we say that the Chola King was unique and there was no second person, what dowe mean? We only mean that, in strength and valor, he had no equals. He had no parallels. It does not mean there was no other person in this world , at that time. Similarly here also, it only means that Brahman has no equals..

 

The Jivatma also, by nature, has all the auspicious qualities and is free from evil, just like Brahman. But unfortunately, these good qualities are not fully exhibited, so long as he is in this world. During the period he is in this world, in this samsara, he is like a diamond, covered with dirt. When he attains salvation and reaches Paramapada, all the auspicious qualities shine in full in him and he is free from all evil. That is, he becomes like a diamond, cleaned from all dirt, and fully shining.

 

Q. They are eight in number: 1. Freedom from evil 2. Freedom from old age 3. Freedom from death 4. Freedom from sorrow 5. Freedom from hunger 6. Freedom from thirst 7. Desiring the truth (Satya kama) 8. Willing the truth (Satya sankalpa) These are apart from the basic nature of the Jivatma, of knowledge, bliss or happiness, and purity and so on.

 

According to Advaita, liberation comes finally, when the Jivatma realises that he is identical with Brahman or Paramatma. So, it is this knowledge, which leads to salvation..

 

Yes. According to Advaita, even in this world itself, it is possible to attain salvation. They call it Jivanmukti.

 

No. They do not recognise Paramapada, as the ultimate salvation.

 

The Advaitins say that it is only a partial salvation. They call it Krama mukti. They do not recognise Paramapada as the ultimate salvation.

 

Salvation means reaching Paramapada or Sri Vaikunta at the end of this life; and enjoying the Lord Sriman Narayana and being of service to Him and Lakshmi.

 

The Advaitins call some passages in the Upanishads as "great sentences" (Maha. vakyas). They say that these great sentences show that Jivatma and paramatma are one.

 

No.l "That you are". No.2" I am Brahman" No.3 " All the things here are Brahman." NO. 4 " There are no several things here".

 

The interpretation is very simple, if we apply the body/soul relationship 1) The first sentence is the famous "Tattvamasi". 2) In the same way, the second sentence, "I am Brahman" also is correct. My soul is Jivatma. Jivatma's soul is Brahman. So, my soul's soul is Brahman. Hence "I am Brahman". 3) The third sentence, "All things are Brahman," is also correct. Because, the soul or Atma of all things is Brahman, by the body/soul relationship. So, everything is Brahman, since everything has Brahman for its soul. Brahman has everything for His body. 4) By the same reasoning, the fourth sentence "There are no several things here" is also correct. Because all things have Brahman as their soul. Hence, all things are identified with Brahman, as their soul. Hence there are no several things. All things are Brahman only (as their soul) Thus we interpret the great sentences, in accordance with our philosophy.

 

Apart from these "great sentences", we have many portions in the same Upanishads, which proclaim clearly that Paramatma is different from the Jivatma. So, if "maha vakyas" are interpreted to mean that Jivatma is identical with Paramatma, we find these are followed by passages, saying Jivatma is different from Paramatma, viz., contra-dicting the identity of Jivatma and Paramatma. There is no need for the Vedas to proclaim something, to be contradicted immediately afterwards. Indeed in some places, the Upanishads give the opponents' view first and then give the correct view. But they clearly say that what was mentioned earlier was not the correct view and then explain or proclaim the correct view. There is no such specific statement in the Vedas, saying that bheda srutis are incorrect; or that abheda srutis only are correct. So, we say that all are to be interpreted suitably, to avoid any apparent contradiction.

 

We argue that 'Neti, Neti' ('not so\ not so'), in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad only means that Brahman's attributes cannot be limited to what was explained earlier. His attributes are infinite. Therefore, the passage means that the Brahman's attributes are not the only ones, which were mentioned earlier, but they are countless. Our stand is also vindicated by the following:- Immediately after this passage 'not so', 'not so', the Upanishad says that His name is Truth of the Truths. The Jivatmas are true, i.e., real and eternal. The Paramatma is the truth of the truth, i.e., also real and eternal. So, this passage also clearly shows that Brahman has innumerable attributes, i.e., He is not nirguna..

 

While criticising the Advaita view point, Ramanuja develops subtle arguments and logic, to show that there are several inconsistencies in the Advaita standpoint, regarding the Brahman and the Jivatma. In particular, Ramanuja lists out 7 inconsistencies in the Advaita arguments, which say that Brahman is without attributes, Brahman is without form and the world is unreal..

 

Narayana is accepted as the supreme deity.

 

He is full of good qualities. The Dvaitins do not accept that Brahman is nirguna.

 

According to Dvaitins, Narayana only creates this world, sustains this world and destroys this world.

 

They accept that Narayana has a divine body, a beautiful and shining body.

 

Yes. They accept the avataras like Rama and Krishna as all real.

 

Lakshmi is accepted as Narayana's consort. But, they give Her a slightly lower place than Narayana. She also has a divine and beautiful body, like Narayana. However, Lakshmi is considered Jivatma.

 

They state that Lakshmi is also vibhu, like Narayana.

 

Yes. They accept the reality of the world and all beings

 

They say that the Jivatmas are different from one another. The Jivatmas are grouped into two categories, as males and females. The Jivatmas are also atomic in nature.

 

They accept the concept of salvation, viz., moksha and Paramapada. They agree that moksha means liberation from samsara and attainment of Paramapada.

 

No, they have different categories or gradations in moksha, like salokya, sarupya, samipya and sayujya. Depending on their merits (punya), the Jivatmas attain salokya or sarupya and so on.

 

They accept bhakti as the means.

 

The Dvaitins say that Jivatma and Paramatma are always different from one another. They do not accept the concept of body-soul relationship between Jivatma and Paramatma.Since according to them, the Jivatma is eternally different from Paramatma, they are two. So, this system of philosophy is called Dvaita. so dvaitha is oppsoite to both "vishishtadvaitha" & "shuddhadvaita".

 

-------------

 

so from above facts its clear that only shuddhadvaita & vishistadvaita are "genuine" sampradayas. not others.

 

/images/graemlins/smile.gif Om Namah Shivaya

/images/graemlins/smile.gif Om Namo Venkatesaya

 

[Guest guest]

a shorter version?

[Guest guest]

Visishtadvaita :-

"Visishtadvaita" means "Not Two-in a special way" or "Only one - in a special way". We say that Jivatma and paramatma are different and yet not different. They are different, as we have shown from the bheda sruti. Jivatma is the body and paramatma the soul. The soul is different from the body. This way, the paramatma is different from the Jivatma. They are not different because of the body-soul relationship, as explained in ghataka sruti. We call both Rama's body and Rama's soul, as Rama. Rama's body and soul together, are called as "Rama" only. So, Rama is only one. Similarly, Jivatma (the body) and Paramatma (the soul), can be called as only one - in a special way, because of the body/soul relationship. So, Jivatma and Paramatma can be called two-in-one or one-in-two. Hence our system of philosophy is called "Visishtadvait'a". This system was perfected by Sri Ramanujacharya.

 

----------------

Shuddhadvaita :-

 

God-The Only Being

 

According to Vallabha, God is the Absolute or the Purushottama. He is perfect. He is Sat-Chit-Ananda. He is infinite, eternal, omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent. He has all the auspicious qualities also. The Sruti texts which say that He has no attributes, mean only that He has not the ordinary qualities.

God is real. There is no other reality besides Him. He is the only Being. He is the source for this universe and all souls. He is the first cause and the only cause. God is the material as well as the efficient cause of the universe. He creates the world by the mere force of His Will. Brahman manifests Himself, of His own Will, as the universe and the individual souls, but He does not undergo any change in His essential nature. Things come out of the Akshara (Sat-Chit-Ananda), like sparks from fire. Brahman is the Creator of the world. He is also the world itself.

God is personified as Krishna, when He possesses the qualities of wisdom and action. He appears in various forms to please His devotees.

 

The World Of Nature And The World Of False Relations

 

Creation is manifestation of Brahman. The universe is the effect of Brahman. The universe is as eternal and real as Brahman Himself. The inanimate universe is filled with Brahman. The world is not an illusory appearance. It is not different from Brahman in essence.

Jagat is the world of Nature. It is not illusory. It is real. It is God Himself in one form. But, the Samsara or temporal involvement is illusory. This is created by the soul around its ‘I-ness’ and ‘mine-ness’. The separation from God on account of egoism makes the soul forget its original, true, divine nature. Samsara is a product of the soul’s imagination and action which play round its ‘I-ness’ and ‘mine-ness’. On account of its selfishness, it puts itself in wrong relations with other souls and with the objective universe. It creates a web of its own and gets itself entangled in it. This is an illusion, because the web has no reality. This Samsara, the world of false relations created by the soul, is alone Maya. Samsara or Maya rises because the soul, which is not apart from God, tries to set itself up as an independent reality or entity in its own right. The self which is something apart from God is illusory. Its body is illusory and its world also is illusory. All this is Samsara. It is very different from the world of Nature.

 

Jiva And Brahman

 

Analogy of the Spark and the Fire

 

The Jivas are not effects. They are Amsas or parts of God. They issue from Him spontaneously as sparks from fire. Brahman is the whole. The Jiva or the individual soul is part; but, there is no real difference between Brahman and the individual soul, because the individual soul is of identical essence with Brahman.(According to Ramanuja, the parts are really different from the whole.) The soul is one with Brahman. It is as real and eternal as Brahman.

The individual soul is not Brahman screened by the veil of Avidya. It is itself Brahman, with the attribute ‘bliss’ being obscured or suppressed. Ananda or bliss is suppressed or obscured in the individual soul. Ananda and consciousness are suppressed or obscured in matter or the inanimate world. When the soul attains bliss, and the inanimate world attains both consciousness and bliss, the difference between Brahman and these vanishes.

The soul is both a doer and an enjoyer. It is atomic in size, but it pervades the whole body by its quality of intelligence, just as sandalwood pervades even the places where it does not exist by its sweet fragrance and just as a lamp, though confined only to a part of a room, illuminates the whole room.

 

Thus i think from this you can clearly see that only shuddhadvaita & vishistadvaitha is sensible & genuine.

 

/images/graemlins/smile.gif Om Namah Shivaya

/images/graemlins/smile.gif Om Namo Venkatesaya

[dhaa 0]

there are some suddha advaita texts here http://www.pushtimarg.net/English/download/Book.htm

[Guest guest]

dear dhaa ji,

 

thanks for the link. but i have already downloaded the books from the site. i am a already a member in pushtikul.com & pushtimarg.net

 

/images/graemlins/smile.gif Om Namo Venkatesaya

/images/graemlins/smile.gif Jai Shri krishna

[Guest guest]

This is a very good thread thanks for the understanding presented.

Just to state my understanding, all that is discussed here states the same thing but in different ways. Infact the beginning and end are the same but the process employed looks different.

All mean to me the same as the supreme described in any relegion in the world, one without attributes. It is just like the explanation in Astavakra Geetha, anything defined is not it.

Once again thanks guys for such an detailed analysis...

[Guest guest]

{But Kevala-advaitha have been proved false by "Sri Vishnuaswami, Sri Vallabhacharya & Sri Ramanujacharya".}

 

When, how and why is it proven false by the above? Apart from Sri Ramanujacharya, how reputable are the other two acharya's you mentioned?

 

Did Vallabhacharya leave a commentary on the Upanishads, Brahma Sutras and Bhagavad Gita?

 

It's notable that all the other Acharya's apart from Shankaracharya, recommended Bhakti-yoga over Jnana yoga, as well as the worship of Krishna or Vishnu over Shiva. Why is that?

[Guest guest]

You vaishnavites seem to be more mischievious than your lord Krishna.By naming as "suddha advaitha", you mean to portray the real McCoy as not "shuddh".I enjoyed the joke.

 

Maya exists only in dwaidha stage.It disappears when you reach advaitha.In V.Advaitha you differentiate between jeevathma and paramathma.So that too says something exists secondary to lord.And you havnet told what is the status of stone,rock and dust.They are not jeevathma,but also not paramathma.They have paramathma in them,but he is not them.Then what are they?

 

If shuddha advaitha is correct,then what is the reason for people not seeing narayana in everything?Maya only can be the answer.Maya is told in vedas,geetha and every holy text.But I enjoyed this shudha advaitha joke a lot.I will create a "parisutha vsisisthathvaidha" concept soon.

[bubri 0]

According to this theory Brahman , or the Absolute is qualified by the universe and its living beings. These three - Brahman , the world and living beings - together constitute ONE.

 

an example of explanation is a fruit...with a shell , flesh and seed. a man wanted to know the weight of the fruit. he seperated the shell , the flesh and the seeds. but can one get the weight by only weighing the flesh? he must weigh flesh,shell,and seeds together.

 

At first it appears that the real thing in the fruit is the flesh,and not the seeds or the shell. Then by reasoning you find that the shell,seeds and flesh belong to the fruit.

 

Likewise , in spiritual discrimination one must first reason following the method of neti neti 'not this' ' not this'. God is not the universe ; not the living beings ; Brahman alone is real and all else is unreal. Then one realises , as with the fruit, that the reality from which we derive the notion of the absolute is the very reality that evolves the idea of living beings and the world.

 

the nitya and leela are two aspects of the same reality; therfore according to Ramanuja , the Absolute is qualified by the universe and the living beings. this is vishishta advaita.

 

" hold not hold not the chariot wheels

is it the wheels that make the chariot move?

the Mover of the wheels is Krishna

by whose Will the worlds are moved..."

 

 

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

(I will create a "parisutha vsisisthathvaidha" concept soon.)

 

Funny thing is it will be the same supreme truth dressed as your realization.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[Guest guest]

>>>Dwaitham was about to be defeated by mayavadis. at that time "Sri Vallabhacharya" came & proved "Sri Krishna" as supreme & saved dwaitham. At that time, Sri Vyasa thirtha (dwaitha scholar) saluted "Sri Vallabhacharya" and gave him all respects.<<<

 

And what is your source for the above ?

 

Vyastirtha composed a book called Nyayamrita and it created a shock wave amongst advaitins who has no answer to it. Madhusudhan then had to write up advaitsiddhi in attempting to refute it, but his effort was futile. Tarangni replied all objections raised by AS.

[Guest guest]

Gokul,

 

That was really informative. I have one basic question for you and all the other people in discussion here.

 

1) If the Paramatha is within us, then why do people seek him outside in the form of different idols which are made by his own hands?? One should worship the soul of his soul (Brahmam) who created him and NOT the one (idol) which was created by him???

 

2) If you go back to ages behind to the first few people who came to earth, that time, man only learnt to invent fire, cook the food, etc...at that time since there was no Idols created by man, DOES THAT MEAN GOD was not there???? IS IT that only after the man learnt to make these carvings that GOD came into existence??? SHOULD we NOT pray to the GOD who was there within US (Paramatha) from the we are born???

 

 

 

 

[bubri 0]

"If the Paramatha is within us, then why do people seek him outside in the form of different idols which are made by his own hands?? One should worship the soul of his soul (Brahmam) who created him and NOT the one (idol) which was created by him???"

 

ponder this...even if people do make idols and worship God through it...doesnt HE know that it is only HE that is being invoked (either through ignorance or custom)? HE will be happy and accept that love from them.so when this fact doesnt bother GOD why should we break our heads about it?

 

"If you go back to ages behind to the first few people who came to earth, that time, man only learnt to invent fire, cook the food, etc...at that time since there was no Idols created by man, DOES THAT MEAN GOD was not there???? IS IT that only after the man learnt to make these carvings that GOD came into existence??? SHOULD we NOT pray to the GOD who was there within US (Paramatha) from the we are born??? "

 

what exactly hapnd in the ancient times...how man sought god,where from did images arise is a difficult question for anyone to answer. what i feel is we all seek form...one way or the other. it is unimaginable for us to associate a name we know and not have a form for it. similarly though god existed even before the first idols were made...the primitive man used to worship the powerful nature and associate the energy in it with god...that is how motherhood of god arose in the mindset of ancients.through invokation of the divine form represented by nature seers perceived the truth. the truth perceived gave them understanding and knowledge which we regard as the vedas. time progressed to a state when the ultimate male and female principles of god and the creation were first represented as union of the phallus and womb...the shiv linga. the first idols. then came mythologies and stories of leelas and the avatars.the rest is history.

 

"hold not hold not the chariot wheels...

is it the wheels that make the chariot move?

the Mover of wheels is Krishna...

by Whose Will the worlds are moved...."

[Guest guest]

Real advaithin's come from dwaitha stage only.So they wont call it ridiculous.Since now you are in college will you call school education as useless?

 

as advaitha accepts dwaidha and vishistathvaidha as stages towards advaitha.It even accepts meemamsa as a stage.

[Guest guest]

Keval advaita accepts it's own version of dvaita and vishishtadvaita. It's own version of vedas too. Not Madhva's Suddha Dvaita or Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita. Their systems are not stages at all, rather complete, independent systems.

 

Actually according to the shastras advaita is a stage leading to systems like dvaita and vishishtadvaita.

 

But these are minor issues. Ultimately advaita, dvaita etc all lead to the same thing.

[bubri 0]

i perfectly agree with you.

 

 

[Guest guest]

I just wondered if there is such thing as Vaishnava advaitists? I say this because all the Vaishnava groups I've come across tend to be wither Dvaitist or Vishistadvaitists or some other dualistic variation. I think most Shaivite sects are advaitists.

[Guest guest]

 

Vedas mention dwaitham,advaitham and vishistathvadiham.So the three philosphies are vedic.An advaithi accepts dwaitham adn visisthathvaidham and says that they are the stages in ladder to reach god.

 

But a vishistathvaidhi doesnt accept advaitham.But it is given in vedas.So what is advaitham according to visisthathvaidham?Is it a stage in reaching vishisthathvaidham or is it a wrong concept?

 

Advaitham cannot be wrong,since it is in vedas and vedas wont lie.So what is advaitham?How do you justify its existence?

 

Advaitham means "only one" there is no plural only singular.... This cannot be teached but can be experienced.

 

The clue is that "the god is one who realises all" eg : if you can see an object with your eyes then Call eye as "god" dont stop here.... go again.... now you can understand "eye" with the help of your "mind" now "mind" is termed as god..... go ....go ..... slice every thing..... u will reach there....

 

Regards,

Advaithi...

[Guest guest]

What philosophy do you think the Vedas itself is? A combination of all three philosophies or one philosophy alone? Also by the Vedas are we really referring to the Vedanta/Upanishads? Because the samhitas are mantras and do not go into teaching a philosophy.