Basics of the three schools of Vedanta

[Guest guest]

Dear Members,

 

I am often asked what, briefly, are the differences between the

three principal schools of Vedanta. I wrote the following in

response to this question. This is a broad overview and

obviously there are oversimplifications. For example, I have not

mentioned 'prapatti' in the section on Visishtadvaita because it

is considered an esoteric teaching and because it is not

mentioned by Ramanuja in his doctrinal works.

 

Since I am a Visishtadvaitin I have elaborated a little more

on that school.

 

--

 

Dvaita -- the world, the individual self and supreme Self are

fundamentally real and different from one another and can never

be considered "One" in any sense. The Supreme Self is

independent, and all individual selves are dependent on the

Supreme Self. They are related externally. The Supreme Self is

full of innumerable auspicious qualities. There is a five-fold

difference in reality that must be understood. Different types

of matter are fundamentally different from one another. Matter is

different from the individual selves as well as the Supreme

Self. Each individual self is different from the Supreme Self.

Finally, the individual selves are different from one another

quantitatively and qualitatively. Each self is inherently

superior or inferior to another. There is no question of

equality. Knowledge of this basic multiplicity and hierarchy is

essential. With this in mind, consequent devotion to the Supreme

Self and the subsequent grace bestowed by that Self lead to

liberation from samsara, which consists in the destruction of the

individual's ignorance which is manifested as karmic

bondage. Liberation consists of the blissful experience of one's

own individual self which is fully manifest to the extent

possible, and which is a reflection of God's bliss, but which is

nothing comparable to God's bliss. Each individual's bliss will

differ based on the individual's inherent superiority or

inferiority.

 

Advaita -- the individual self and supreme Self are only

different by convention. This convention is brought about by

beginningless ignorance, which clouds a true awareness of

reality. In actuality, only a single, undifferentiated Self

exists, which is absolutely bereft of all distinctions and

attributes and which is bare consciousness. It is neither subject

nor object. Nothing can be predicated of it. To say it exists is

only to deny its non-existence. To say it is blissful is only to

deny its non-blissfulness. To say it is consciousness is only to

deny that it is unconscious. In reality, the individual self and

Supreme Self are identical. The world and all individuality are

false projections upon the real, indivisible Self. Ultimately,

only true knowledge of this state of reality is liberation, which

is nothing but the realization of absolute, undifferentiated

unity in the Self. Many things can be helpful to achieve this

knowledge -- devotion, good works, etc., but all these must

ultimately transcended as one approaches the knowledge that the

Self *simply* exists. The Self is not an object to be achieved

through any physical or mental act, so, ultimately all action

must be shunned as being antithetical to awareness of reality.

 

Visishtadvaita -- the individual self and supreme Self are

fundamentally different yet the former finds its source in the

latter, and is therefore one with the supreme Self. The

individual is not merely dependent on the latter externally; its

very existence is predicated by the supreme Self's conscious

emanation. The individual is therefore a mode of the supreme

Self. Just as the body and the individual self are different, yet

the individual self is the very basis for the life of the body

and pervades and controls it in all possible ways, the Supreme

Self is the source, substratum, and very essence of the

individual self and pervades and controls it in all possible

ways. Since the Supreme Self consciously chooses to create and

emanate, both the individual self and the world are undoubtedly

real. As the body and soul are united in one whole, the former

being subsidiary to the latter, the individual selves and the

world are subsidiary, totally pervaded, and derive their essence

from the Supreme, and are therefore united in the Supreme. Each

individual self is in essence an eternal, infinitesimal, active

center of bliss and consciousness, and is fundamentally alike,

yet is quantitatively different from another individual self.

The Supreme Self is fundamentally and eternally true, consists of

knowledge, infinite, blissful, and pure. It is also the host of

innumerable perfections and all auspiciousness and grace. The

very nature of the individuals is to turn to this Supreme Self in

loving devotion. This devotion is informed by a proper

understanding of the individual and its relation to the world and

the Supreme. Knowledge of the Supreme consisting of devout,

loving meditation on the Supreme as the auspicious Self of

all. This meditation is enriched by selfless action and service,

as well as common devotional activity, leads to liberation from

samsara and attainment of that Self through the Self's

grace. Samsara is brought about by beginningless ignorance of the

form of karma. Liberation consists of the expansion of the

individual's knowledge to infinity, equal to the Supreme Self in

this respect, and the total experience of the bliss of the

Supreme Self. The experience of this bliss overflows into divine

service of the Supreme.

[Guest guest]

Dear Mani

 

When you say, the Supreme Self "controls" the individual selves, do

you mean that the Supreme Self itself directly influences the

activities and thoughts of the individual selves or do you mean that

Supreme Self merely facilitates or enables but does not directly

choose individual selves' thoughts and activities?

 

 

//Ramkumar

[Guest guest]

bhakti-list, "tg_ramkumar" <tg_ram@e...> wrote:

> Dear Mani

>

> When you say, the Supreme Self "controls" the individual selves, do

> you mean that the Supreme Self itself directly influences the

> activities and thoughts of the individual selves or do you mean

that

> Supreme Self merely facilitates or enables but does not directly

> choose individual selves' thoughts and activities?

 

This issue is discussed in Bhagavad Ramanuja's Vedarthasangraha

as well as in the 'parAyatta-adhikaraNa' of Sribhashya. The view

of Ramanuja is summarized by Vatsya Varadacharya as 'tatra-apekshya,

tataH anumatya'. Broadly put, the Supreme Self, though no doubt

capable of totally being in control, is at first neutral (udAsIna)

regarding the activity at any particular instant of the individual

self. He waits for the individual to choose a course of action,

as it were. Once the individual has decided on a particular course of

action, the Supreme Self "permits" (anumatya) the individual to

proceed and facilitates the course of action to continue.

 

This safeguards the freedom of the individual without violating

the ultimacy of the Supreme Self.

 

There are various complications and nuances that must be

explained when examining this doctrine in detail. The role

of karma, the nature of the Supreme's neutrality, etc., all

are interesting issues. Some of these are discussed in

SrutaprakASikA, Desika's 'adhikaraNa sArAvali', and the

commentaries thereon.

 

Mani

[Guest guest]

--- Mani Varadarajan <mani wrote:

>

> Dear Members,

>

> I am often asked what, briefly, are the differences

> between the

> three principal schools of Vedanta.

>

> Dvaita -- the world, the individual self and supreme

> Self are

> fundamentally real and different from one another

> and can never

> be considered "One" in any sense.

...... Each individual's

> bliss will

> differ based on the individual's inherent

> superiority or

> inferiority.

 

Very true - that includes the jiiva-s that are

eternally in the lowest - with 'anti-bliss'!

> Advaita -- the individual self and supreme Self are

> only

> different by convention. This convention is brought

> about by

> beginningless ignorance, which clouds a true

> awareness of

> reality.

 

Mani - just simple correction from my understanding of

adviata if you do not mind- ignorence does not really

cover awareness. One is aware of ignorence too. It

is 'as though' covers just as we say the clouds are

covering the sun. clouds can never cover the sun -

infact the very coulds that 'apper' to cover the sun

are seen in that light of the sun that is covered by

the clouds.

>The Self is not an object to

> be achieved

> through any physical or mental act, so, ultimately

> all action

> must be shunned as being antithetical to awareness

> of reality.

 

I will be very careful here - even the shunning away

is an action. Hence what is implied is to recognize

that I am never a doer - while doing is being done in

my presence. It is the ownership of the action that

is performed by prakR^iti is disowned by the raise of

true knowledge that I am akarthaa and abhoktaa. -

prakR^iti evaca karmaaani kriya maanaani sarvashhaH

yaH pasyati tad aatmaanam akartaaram saH pasyati.

 

Basic differencea exist in terms of Brahman as

upaadana kaarana or not. From adviata point because

it is a-dvaita, the cause is only one.

 

 

 

 

 

Sign up for SBC Dial - First Month Free

http://sbc.

[Guest guest]

Dear Mani,

 

bhakti-list, Mani Varadarajan <mani@r...> wrote:

> Visishtadvaita -- the individual self and supreme Self are

> Self. Just as the body and the individual self are different, yet

> the individual self is the very basis for the life of the body

> and pervades and controls it in all possible ways, the Supreme

> Self is the source, substratum, and very essence of the

> individual self and pervades and controls it in all possible

 

Can you pls explain this line more: Supreme Self is the very essence of

individual self? The problem in understanding that is that any mapping to the

world we know does not seem to be good. Like, No mango exists separate and

different from mangoness and vice-versa(that's the problem). Even the above

analogy of body vs soul does not convey that.

 

In your reply to tg_ram, you wrote:

>tataH anumatya'. Broadly put, the Supreme Self, though no doubt

>capable of totally being in control, is at first neutral (udAsIna)

>regarding the activity at any particular instant of the individual

>self. He waits for the individual to choose a course of action,

>as it were. Once the individual has decided on a particular course of

>action, the Supreme Self "permits" (anumatya) the individual to

>proceed and facilitates the course of action to continue.

 

Very basic questions:

 

(a) How would you answer this: Isn't the act of 'choosing a course of action'

also another action?

(b) How would you interpret Gita's reference to the Jiva as akartA (in 13.30),

given that there is some space given to the jIva to act on its own here?

© Does the Lord know what the Jiva is going to choose? If no, He is not

omniscient. If yes, why does He 'wait' for the choice to happen?

 

Thanks,

Krishna