Guest guest Posted June 28, 2001 Report Share Posted June 28, 2001 Hari Om, As per our beliefs, the upanishads are said to be propogating one truth .But the three acharyas Shankara(Advaitha), Madhwa(Dwaitha) and Ramanuja(Visistadvaitha) found three different truths from the upanishads.So how could these three people interpret the same truth in three different ways?Is this a problem with the sanskrit language? Also can any one of the scholars tell me why shankara is considered one step ahead of all others? If you find my post stupid, please ignore... Thanks Ram Prasad Senior Software Engineer Processware Tech. Http://www.ptpl.comGet more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 28, 2001 Report Share Posted June 28, 2001 >Hari Om, > >As per our beliefs, the upanishads are said to be propogating one >truth .But the three acharyas Shankara(Advaitha), Madhwa(Dwaitha) >and Ramanuja(Visistadvaitha) found three different truths from the >upanishads.So how could these three people interpret the same truth >in three different ways?Is this a problem with the sanskrit language? > >Also can any one of the scholars tell me why shankara is considered >one step ahead of all others? > >If you find my post stupid, please ignore... > >Thanks >Ram Prasad >Senior Software Engineer >Processware Tech. ><Http://www.ptpl.comGet>Http://www.ptpl.comGet more from the Web. >FREE MSN Explorer download : ><http://explorer.msn.com>http://explorer.msn.com > Shree Ramaprasad Greetings. In the Upanishads we find statements that support the identity of Brahman and aatma or self i.e. advaitic statements and also statements that support dvaita. We assume that upanishads always tell the truth and the truth is revealed by upanishadic teachers to their students - the teaching depends on the students- depending on the maturity of the students. Shankara, Ramanuja, Madva as well as others, are providing interpretation of the scriptures, developed a self-consistent models based on upanishadic declaration. Shankara takes the adviatic statements as primary and dwaitic statments or secondary or vyavahaaric or intended for the students who are still evolving. Ramanuja takes - unified approach - certifying both advaitic and dvaitic statements as the nature of the reality - hence it is vishishhTa adviata. dviata from one aspect and adviata from another aspect. Madhva takes opposite view of shankara - dwaitic statements are primary and advaitic statements are secondary. Now it is upto you to decide who is right! Why Sankara is way ahead - Fundamentally what is the absolute truth is yourself - and that does not depend even on Upanishads. Your existence is absolute and everything rests on that. If Upanishads statements can be interpreted that does not negate your absoluteness then that is the best. Hence adviata is considered not even an -ism but the ultimate truth. Hope I have answered your questions. Hari Om! Sadananda -- K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 28, 2001 Report Share Posted June 28, 2001 Dear Ram Prasad ji, I want to make it clear to you that neither Ramanuja, nor Madhva has written a commentary on the Upanishads. They have quoted the Upanishad Mantras in their Bhashya's on Gita and Brahmasutra, but have not written any throughout commentary on the Upanishads, like Shankaracharya did. I had the opportunity to study Shankara's commentary on Upanishads, Gita and Brahmasutra, and now studying Rig-veda, though I was born to a very traditional and orthodox Nimbarka (Shukadeva; dvaitaadvaita) Sampradaya, now I can declare impartially that it is only Shankara's philosophy that is in fact impartial in its true significance. However, I hate hearing things like Shankara's advaita, no, advaita is not a composition of Shankara, it exists so clearly in the Upanishads, that it is even not so clear in Gita and BrahmaSutra. Therefore, no one of the other teachers have ever tried to comment on the Upanishads. However, for your information this philosophy of non-dualism (advaita) is the basic philosophy of Rig-veda. I can provide further elucidation of the fact, that Rig-veda is full with advaitic contents, if it interests anybody in here. Thus, Advaita is the philosophy of the Vedas and of the Upanishads. Shankaracharya has highly rationalized that which was experienced by the Great Seers of the Vedas. Advaita is an esoteric doctrine, and a further examination of the philosophy of the esoteric sects of every religion, like the essenes of Judaism, Gnosticism of Christianity and Sufism of Islam, and many Buddhisitc Traditions (for reference one may consult a seventh century book by Huang-po on zen meditation, which is full of advaitic thoughts), as well as Chinese ancient traditions; leads us to a fact that only Upanishads's (as interpreted by Shankara, as it is the true interpretation) Universal philosophy is able to create an interconnection between all these philosophies, and one may find a very great similarity among all these traditions and the Upanishads. However, I'm of the personal opinion that once upon a time Vedism was prevalent all over the word, not only in Asia or Europe, but even in the Americas, and indeed I have come to this conclusion after a concise comparative study of the different religions, which indeed needs a further elucidation of the fact, to convince the scholars. But, if this is taken to be a fact, every esoteric system of Religious Philosophy has and must have its bases in the Vedas, thus the similarity, which can be seen very clear, becomes evident. Loving Regards, Siddhartha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 28, 2001 Report Share Posted June 28, 2001 >"sidha" <sidha > >Dear Ram Prasad ji, >I want to make it clear to you that neither Ramanuja, nor Madhva has >written >a commentary on the Upanishads. They have quoted the Upanishad Mantras in >their Bhashya's on Gita and Brahmasutra, but have not written any >throughout >commentary on the Upanishads, like Shankaracharya did. Siddharthaji, Pranaaams. What you said about the Ramanuja and Madhva is right. But in writing Shree Bhashya on Vedanta suutra, Ramanuja provides very exhaustive analysis, taking advita as puurvapaksha. In formulating his laghu and mahaa siddhaanta in relation to the first four suutra-s, he discussed many of the upanishad satements. It is commented that because of the exhaustiveness of shree Bhaashya on the suutras, he felt the need for separate bhaashya-s were not needed. They consider Bhagavad Giita as the ultimate in the sense that Lord himself came down to teach. Hence the importance to Giita and the charama sloka, as the sharaNaagati for ultimate means for solvation. Tamil Divya prabhanda-s of alvars are considered are important for the prapatti that Ramanuja emphasizes. Madhva has written four commentaries on Brahmasuutra-s taking advaita as puurvapaksha. Tikachaarya, shree Jayathiirtha, has provided an exhastive analysis of Madhva's works in his Nyaayasudha which contains analysis of upanishadic statements as per dviatic interpretation. It appears Sage Badarayana considered as Vyaasa Bhagavan through suutra-s emphasize saguNa brahma apsect and hence more importance given to the suutra-s by both. Madhva also quotes in support of his theory puraNa-s and muularamayana that are not available for scholars to check. Hari Om! Sadananda _______________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 29, 2001 Report Share Posted June 29, 2001 sri siddharthaji, Thanks for your answers to my question. i know very well that advaita is not something shankara invented.But my question was how could different people interpret the unique upanishads in different ways? Was it due to the problem in the sanskrit language. As far as my knowledge goes i have seen commentaries on Bhagavadgita and Brahmasootras and also upanishads by the other acharyas also. Kind regards Ram prasad - sidha Friday, June 29, 2001 1:32 AM advaitin Cc: ram_cnr Re: Some info about the three acharyas... Dear Ram Prasad ji, I want to make it clear to you that neither Ramanuja, nor Madhva has written a commentary on the Upanishads. They have quoted the Upanishad Mantras in their Bhashya's on Gita and Brahmasutra, but have not written any throughout commentary on the Upanishads, like Shankaracharya did. I had the opportunity to study Shankara's commentary on Upanishads, Gita and Brahmasutra, and now studying Rig-veda, though I was born to a very traditional and orthodox Nimbarka (Shukadeva; dvaitaadvaita) Sampradaya, now I can declare impartially that it is only Shankara's philosophy that is in fact impartial in its true significance. However, I hate hearing things like Shankara's advaita, no, advaita is not a composition of Shankara, it exists so clearly in the Upanishads, that it is even not so clear in Gita and BrahmaSutra. Therefore, no one of the other teachers have ever tried to comment on the Upanishads. However, for your information this philosophy of non-dualism (advaita) is the basic philosophy of Rig-veda. I can provide further elucidation of the fact, that Rig-veda is full with advaitic contents, if it interests anybody in here. Thus, Advaita is the philosophy of the Vedas and of the Upanishads. Shankaracharya has highly rationalized that which was experienced by the Great Seers of the Vedas. Advaita is an esoteric doctrine, and a further examination of the philosophy of the esoteric sects of every religion, like the essenes of Judaism, Gnosticism of Christianity and Sufism of Islam, and many Buddhisitc Traditions (for reference one may consult a seventh century book by Huang-po on zen meditation, which is full of advaitic thoughts), as well as Chinese ancient traditions; leads us to a fact that only Upanishads's (as interpreted by Shankara, as it is the true interpretation) Universal philosophy is able to create an interconnection between all these philosophies, and one may find a very great similarity among all these traditions and the Upanishads. However, I'm of the personal opinion that once upon a time Vedism was prevalent all over the word, not only in Asia or Europe, but even in the Americas, and indeed I have come to this conclusion after a concise comparative study of the different religions, which indeed needs a further elucidation of the fact, to convince the scholars. But, if this is taken to be a fact, every esoteric system of Religious Philosophy has and must have its bases in the Vedas, thus the similarity, which can be seen very clear, becomes evident. Loving Regards, Siddhartha Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ To Post a message send an email to : advaitin Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 29, 2001 Report Share Posted June 29, 2001 advaitin, "Ram Prasad" <ram_cnr@h...> wrote: > sri siddharthaji, > > Thanks for your answers to my question. > > i know very well that advaita is not something shankara invented.But my question was how could different people interpret the unique upanishads in different ways? Was it due to the problem in the sanskrit language. > Greetings! If there are only three great, major schools of Vedanta, this may well say something about how unified the message of the Upanishads actually are! Consider my own tradition, Christianity. We too have our sacred texts, the Koran, the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, and most Christians feel these are also divinely inspired, if not the very Word of God. And yet look at the diversity of interpretations and views! And yet there was only one Jesus Christ to whom all these diverse sects and interpretations refer. To many Christians, this is a scandal. And many a Christian has asked the very same sort of question that you have -- how can there be so many interpretations, from one holy source? Surely the answer lies mainly in the fact that all human views and interpretations are in fact, finally, just that. The divine is truly Beyond Words, and even the highest interpretation is not That. As a Christian, although I do not always agree with them, I would not do without the inspired writings of a St. Thomas Aquinus, or a St. Augustine, or Luther, or any number of other great interpreters and visionaries of Christianity throughout our history. Nonetheless, I go to the original texts, and direct communion with God, for my final answers. Surely, this must be so with any devout Hindu. That great stream that is Hinduism flows from the one great Source, and in Vedanta, we find the great fountainhead in the exalted understanding of Brahman as the Absolute. All three of your great Vedantan schools agree on this. I am right now reading the Gita Bhasya of Sri Ramanuja for the very first time, (a very good English translation) (I've only read commentaries up to now) and although I have stressed in recent posts the important critique that Sri Ramanuja brings to Advaita, I am far more struck by the huge areas of agreement and harmony between Sri Shankara and Ramanuja. Vedanta cannot do without the great love and heart of Ramanuja nor can it do without the great insight and logical rigor of your Shankara. I don't think you have the full picture of Vedanta without them both. ( A friend of mine who's pretty well read in both Hinduism and Christianity, said that "Shankara is Hinduism's St. Thomas Aquinus" and this is complimentary analogy has more than a little truth to it, if you understand the important of Aquinus to Christian thought.) Whether, in final transcendence, the individual sublates into the Absolute All, or whether individuality partakes of the very nature of the All in a divine love affair forever, what we do know is that we have a mighty work before us to come to know the divine as the very I of our Being. Shankara seems to me to have "fallen in love" with Brahman with his mind, Ramanuja with his heart, but both had great mind and heart, and brought both to bear on the great problem of being insights that bless everyone who opens their hearts to their message. So, my friend, I would not be too troubled by the varied interpretations you find in your great Scriptures. Truth illuminates Scripture, but also transcends it, and thus finally is beyond all words and human interpretations, even though in God, all great insights find their final home and fulfillment. I hope it does not seem presumptuous of me to speak this way, not being a Hindu myself, but my heart went out to you, because I too have wrestled with such questions in my own tradition. With Love, Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.