advaita & visishtadvaita

[Guest guest]

Dear friends

I have the following two doubts

 

1)What does visishtadvaita exactly mean and what are some of the basic

differences

between advaita and visishtadvaita .I have read a lot of articles on this regard

form the previous bhakthi

mails but I cannot understand what exactly is meant by the terms "duality" ,

"non-duality" etc.

Can anybody explian them in simpler terms

 

2) I have always felt that there is only one supreme God and it is just that

people of

diffrent religions call him by diffrent names.For examle we call him

Narayna,Muslims call him Allah etc.

I think even according to Hinduism there is only One Supreme Brahman

andNarayana,Siva ,Brahma are only manifestations of that brahman.Then why does

Vaishnavism says that only Naryana is Supreme?.Why are we expected to worship

god only in the form of Naraynanif Narayana is only a name by which we call that

one Supreme being.

 

Doesn't Advaita seem to be logical in saying the there is only one Supreme being

without Name ,form and qualities and Naryana ,siva are merely manifestations of

that Brahman and so the question of who is Supreme never comes into play.please

enlighten me.Pardon my ignorance.

 

I request scholars in the group to help me in understanding our philosophy

and convince me ours is more correct and logical.

 

Badri

 

 

 

 

 

>From homework help to love advice, Experts has your answer.

 

 

[Guest guest]

badri narayanan writes:

>

> 1)What does visishtadvaita exactly mean and what are some of the basic

differences

> between advaita and visishtadvaita .I have read a lot of articles on this

regard form the previous bhakthi

> mails but I cannot understand what exactly is meant by the terms "duality" ,

"non-duality" etc.

> Can anybody explian them in simpler terms

 

Dear Badri,

 

With respect to this first question, please see the following article

by the archives, which broadly discusses the distinctions between the

three main schools of Vedanta:

 

http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/may98/0061.html

 

Mani

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Badri Narayanan,

 

The complexity of your questions makes it rather difficult to try

and summarize everything into one single posting, so it probably

would be best to check the locations referred to by Sri Mani.

However, I would like to try and provide you with a simple

example in an effort to enhance your interest in the subject.

Please note that this is only a rough example, my very crude

attempt to try and describe in 100 words or less what took an

AchAryan several hours to describe. I ask the forgiveness of you

and others for all the errors that are due solely to my own

ignorance.

 

The best analogy offered to me to describe the differences

between advaita and visistadvaita was started by showing me a

mango, and asking "what is this?". The most simple response is

that "this is a mango." Can it be defined as anything else to

be complete? We can sat that it is a fruit, that it is a

tropical fruit and so on, but the all these terms would only look

at aspects of it, and not see it in its totality. Is it complete

to say that this is what it is? Yes. So, in totality what we

have is a mango.

 

Similarly we can say the same thing about Brahman. Look around

and see what it is that is the totality of everything around you,

the consciousness that seems to be at the heart of everything

there is. This is Brahman, and that is all there is. This is

the experience of advaita, Wholeness, Oneness, non-duality.

 

Since we are dealing with totality here, we are not concerned

with who God is, or what we call Him, or what our relationship is

to Him, because looking at it from a wholistic perspective, there

is nothing other than Him. Even what it is that makes each one of

us individuals is irrelevant because all that we are concerned

about from this perspective is the One, the Whole, the All.

 

But, there is something missing in this equation. What have we

overlooked by just saying that this is a mango? What about its

texture, its color, its aroma, its flavor, its size, its shape,

etc.?? Without these things, a mango really is no different than

any other object, what makes it unique is its qualities.

Similarly, the uniqueness of Brahman lies in His myriad of

wonderful qualities that are easily revealed to us in the beauty

of this world, the diversity of living things that fill it, and

the vast ocean of ideas, thoughts, and complex emotions that make

each one of us unique in the universe. Consequently, it is these

uncountable wondrous qualities of God, His ananta kalyAna guNas

that make Him who He is. The qualities cannot exist without Him,

and He cannot be who He is without them. This is Visistadvaita,

a recognition of Wholeness without discounting of the qualities

that make it up.

 

Knowing then, that there is a uniqueness to God, it naturally

follows that God would also have a unique name and a unique form.

According to all Vedas, Upanishads, itihAsas, and purAnas, that

unique name and form is just one, Sriman Narayana. While names

like Allah, Yahweh, Jehovah, and others can also be used to

describe Him, they do not even begin to reveal HIm in His

totality, radiating with all His AnantakalyAna guNas, looking at

each and every sole with utmost Compassion. Consequently, from

the perspective of SriVaishnavam, there is no need for multiple

forms of God, because just the one is defines it all.

 

I hope this helps as a start....

 

Ramanuja Dasan

Mohan