advaita and visishtadvaita

January 4, 2003

friends,

after shankaras advaita,ramanujar established his philosophy.what was

the need for it.also even before them the vedas and upanishads and

gita had spelt out the methods of worshipping god.can any one tell

the reasons for advocating dwaita and vishistadvaita,and its effects

on common worship of hindus in south.there is a marked difference in

worship of god in kerala and tamilnad.why?

cdr bvn

January 4, 2003

advaitin Shri Vaidyanathan wrote:

>after shankaras advaita,ramanujar established his philosophy.what was

>the need for it.can any one tell the reasons for advocating dwaita and

vishistadvaita -cdr bvn

Hari Om,

As I see it, Adaita is more of a philosphy (Fundamental or pure theory). This

was there even before Shankara.

Shankara's main contribution was in re-establishing the hold of Hinduism and

overthrowing the dominance of both Buddhuism and also rites-based Hinduism. For

this he went to the basics and started from "Pure theory" of Advaita. As an

intellectual argument there could be nothing beyond it in the world.

However practical demands of the society needs "Religion" with day to day

practices in tune with social, technological or economic situations. Whatever

Shankara established (essentially dwaitic day to practices of worshipping 5

Gods) were in course of time hijacked by the priestly class (as before him).

Ramanuja who came about 300 years after him ,was more of a social revolutionary

where he made access to places of worship of god's deities, more universal and

also introduced practices which simulated many day-to-day human activities being

performed to the deity. In one sense he was more "advaitic" than even Shankara

himself in that, he concentrated all prayers and worship on Narayana and his

consort Mahalakshmi only.

He also made access to worship of God easier to several underprivileged

sections of soceity. While his movement unlike Shankara was started only in the

deep part of South India, it was succesfully adopted by the northern Hindu

people also. For this we thank them and appreciate their magnaminity.

Interestingly in none of the north Indian satsangs I attend, there is no

discussion of Shankara Vs Ramanuja. It is more of a South Indian Fad, to

endlessly argue who is the better "Acharya". Both helped Hinduism in a big way

and we are indebted to both.

>common worship of hindus in south.there is a marked difference in

worship of god in kerala and tamilnad.why?-cdr bvn

Even with in the same city in South India, people follow different practices in

worshipping God, because religion by design is like that. It is availability of

local materials and beliefs which often demands a particualr form of worship.

e.g even Camphor burning was introduced less than 100 years ago and now is

accepted as a standard practice.

On a lighter note, we can recall what Swami Vivekananda mentioned as the two

largest mental asalyums in India - To quote him, it was Bengal and------ let me

leave it at that.

Pranams.

P.B.V.Rajan

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from Indiatimes at http://email.indiatimes.com

Buy the best in Movies at http://www.videos.indiatimes.com

Now bid just 7 Days in Advance and get Huge Discounts on Indian Airlines

Flights. So log on to http://indianairlines.indiatimes.com and Bid Now !

January 5, 2003

Namaste:

The question that you originally posed was quite complex and Sri

Rajan's explanation was quite reasonable. Let add me the following

additional points as further clarifications.

First the philosophical thoughts (advaita, visistadvaita and dwaita)

expressed by Sri Sankara, Sri Ramanuja and Sri Madhawa are

interpretations to the Upanishads, Brahma Sutra and Bhagavad Gita

based on their own understanding of those texts. Sri Rajan was quite

correct in his assertions that varied interpretations to the

scriptural texts have been around long-time before. India (and also

the entire universe) was always blessed with the appearance of

charismatic spiritual leaders such as Vyasa, Sankara, Ramanuja,

Madhawa, Ramana, Ramakrishna, Vivekananda and so many others. Lord

Krishna in Bhagavad Gita (chapter 4, verses 7 and 8) says – "To

protect the righteous and destroy the wicked, to establish dharma

firmly, I take birth age after age." Essentially when need arises, we

see prophets emerge to rekindle divinity and drive out the evil from

the hearts of millions.

The philosophical thoughts expressed by Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhawa

are an attempt to answer the key question - What is the true nature

of Brahman?

According to Sankara, Brahman is Nirguna in nature (formless and

nameless) and we are not able to recognize (realize) this Truth due

to our ignorance. Both Ramanuja and Madhwa argued in favor of the

Brahman who is Saguna (the name and form of Narayana) and they ask us

to worship Narayana to get His Grace. The distinctions between these

three philosophical thoughts are quite extensive and have been

discussed in greater length by the list. They are available in the

list archives to the interested readers.

For clearer understanding, Sankara classified the Ultimate reality at

two levels – absolute (paramarthika) level and relative (vyavahara)

level. At the vyavahara level, Brahman becomes the Jivatma with the

full influence of mAyA and experiences the worldly life with the form

and a name. Sankara argued that our ignorance is responsible for the

non-recognition of our true nature – Satchitananda Swarupam. Our true

nature is revealed with spiritual maturity and guidance and highest

peak of spiritual maturity is the recognition that I am the Brahman!

Let us go back to questions such as the following:

What is the justification for the existence of several schools of

thoughts even though they all agree that ultimately Brahman is the

only reality?

One of the easiest ways to answer this question is to recognize that

this question, the schools of thoughts and their justifications are

also part of the PLAY of the Brahman! Nature provides many fruits

such as banana, apple, orange, strawberry, etc., and they are liked

and disliked by different people. Fundamentally, the billions of

human beings in this universe have varied tastes and attitudes. In

this vast diversity, there is also fundamental `unity' and our goal

should be to search for that linkage that unifies our thoughts

coherently. The Lord is the invisible unifying factor and what we

need is a magnifying glass to focus our mind to recognize this truth.

Narayana, Shiva, Rama or Krishna symbolically represents the Lord to

help us to recognize the unity. Narayana helps some, Shiva helps

some, Rama helps some, Krishna helps some, Buddha helps some, Mahavir

helps some, Jesus helps some, and Mohamad helps some. All that we

need to do is to divert our energy to find the unity instead of

looking for the differences.

Warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

advaitin, "vaidyanathiyer

<vaidyanathiyer>" <vaidyanathiyer> wrote:

> sir,

>

> i agree that sri ramanujar made the people closer,but if you see

his

> philosophy of worshipping narayana has taken a different shape.we

see

> the acharyas who followed him made the worship of narayana only

will

> take people to heaven.they refused to accept the worship of shiva

and

> other hindu gods.this is totally against the basic principle of

> advaita.how do you call it better advaita was preached by ramanuja?

January 5, 2003

Shri Vaidyanathan wrote:

>after shankaras advaita,ramanujar established his

>philosophy.what was the need for it.also even before

>them the vedas and upanishads and gita had spelt out

>the methods of worshipping god.can any one tell the

>reasons for advocating dwaita and vishistadvaita,and

>its effects on common worship of hindus in south.

Pranams to all Acharyas!

I believe this forum has seen enough number of

discussions on the three systems of philosophy, i.e.,

Advaita, Visishtadvaita and Dwaita, in the past, and

has convincingly enumerated the doctrinal quest of

Advaita, Brahman being the only permanent thing in

this world of multiplicities. The doctrinal

differences between one or the other of these three

systems have an underlying unity in them that

irrespective of the diversity in their approach and

application they all lead to one final Destination or

Source, both being one and the same, which is the

Vedic Brahman. As the followers of the three

respective systems when we are tied to narrow

conceptions we have one sided outlook and we are not

able to recognize the other side of the picture.

Sankara, the greatest propounder of the Advaitic

thought, knew the difference between the ‘theory’ and

‘practice’, wanted to turn the people off from their

base nature to pursue worldly objects with all the

powers of their body, mind or intellect overlooking

the immanence in everything, and show a practical way

through the Shanmadha which he established for the

sake of uniting the people under a common

‘Bhakti’umbrella!

The other day, I was going through the postings of

Prof. V.K. on verses from nArAyaNIyaM, the great

poetical work of Narayana Bhattatiri, and was

impressed by his elucidation of the ‘advaitic attitude

on Bhakthi’, to quote Prof. V.K. ‘a philosophy of

advaita which is devotional, almost like (in the

devotional aspect) the one which Sankara himself

followed in his own life’.

When we are able to recognize both duality and

non-duality, then only will we be able to realise the

unity. We must attempt to reach unity through duality.

If we want to attain Advaita stage, we have to pass

first through Dwaita state. All the Acharyas,

Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhwacharya, had identity of

thoughts on the ‘Brahman’ aspect. As followers of

advaita we need to accept and assimilate everything

leading to the ultimate Brahman, the Immanence in

everything!

Hari OM!

Kalivaradhan

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

http://mailplus.

January 6, 2003

Namaste

The interesting discussion on advaita and visishtadvaita prompts

me to give the following extract from one of my web pages:

The advaita view says that the modification, if at all, (of

Brahman as the universe) is only apparent, while the

viSishTAdvaita view says that the modification is real!

To use another metaphor from the modern world of technology,

advaita says that the modified appearance of brahman as the

universe is a projection like a movie and therefore

comparatively unreal, while the viSishTadvaita view says that

the modification is an actual play on the stage and therefore

real!

What matters is not how the three Masters differ on the facets

of difference and non-difference among the three entities: God,

Souls and Universe; what matters is the non-difference in their

teaching to humanity in regard to what one has to do in the

daily world. It is interesting to note at this point that to

whatever school a noted saint or devotee belongs his prayers or

compositions always include the thought that whatever birth he

may have to take in the future, whatever number of times he may

have to be born in the future, his only prayer is that he should

not forget the name of God. The unity of Indian culture should

be seen in such common characteristic prayers. Every saint would

say that our needs and desires are endless and so in our prayers

to God we must not seek anything except devotion to Him. In fact

this is why Hindu religion is one in spite of all the

differences in the interpretations of scriptures. Any attempt to

sort out these differences at an intellectual level may become

just an exercise in futility. Well might one echo with Jagadguru

Sankaracharya of Sringeri: 'You cannot see the feet of the Lord,

why do you waste time debating about the nature of His face?'

The full page has the title: 'The Art and Science of Spiritual

Love: Difference and Non-difference' and can be seen at

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/gohitvip/74.html

praNAms to all advaitins

profvk

=====

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

My website on Science and Spirituality is http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and

Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's manuscripts from the site.

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

http://mailplus.

January 6, 2003

Happy new year to all of you!

Dear Sri Kalivaradhan,

> Advaita, Visishtadvaita and Dwaita,

> The doctrinal

> differences between one or the other of these three

> systems have an underlying unity in them that

> irrespective of the diversity in their approach and

> application they all lead to one final Destination or

> Source, both being one and the same, which is the

> Vedic Brahman.

Each of the three acharyas Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhva gave

their own description of the Absolute reality and its

characteristics, and those descriptions differ a lot. Even if

Brahman is the one and the same for all people, it doesn´t mean

that all descriptions of Brahman are the same or that they are

equally true. The three acharyas (and also other acharyas as

Nimbarka, Vallaba and Chaitanya) widely disagreed on the

characteristics of Brahman. Moreover, they disagreed on how to

realize Brahman. Sankara, for instance, argued that we are

liberated by jnana only. This view was much critizied by

Ramanuja, Madhva and others. In other words: They did not agree

on the nature of Brahman, nor how to realize Brahman. And

certainly no one among them would have agreed that "irrespective

of the diversity in their approach and application they all lead

to one final Destination or Source".

> the immanence in everything, and show a practical way

> through the Shanmadha which he established for the

> sake of uniting the people under a common

> 'Bhakti'umbrella!

>

The Shanmatha puja (worship of Ganesha, Shiva, Shakti, Vishnu,

Surya and Subramania) is a development of the Panchayatana puja

performed by many smarthas. Since Advaita Vedanta says that

Brahman has no limitations, no form or attributes, it is wrong to

say that Brahman is identical with one specific God only. The

worship of any God could help us purify our minds and thereby

prepare ourselves for liberation through jnana (Sankara totally

refutes the idea that we can be liberated from samsara through

actions and rituals. However, they are necessary before taking

sannyasa). But the worship of five or six gods in the

Panchayatana and Shanmatha pujas respectively, doesn´t imply that

all vedantic systems lead to the same goal. In fact, the

vishistadvaita and dwaita traditions refute the practice of

placing the different gods on equal terms, as in the Shanmatha

puja. The vishistadvaitins, dwaitins and other Vaishnava sects

claims that Narayana/Krishna is the highest reality, and the

different Shaiva sects claims that Shiva is the highest reality.

And of course, since the followers of the Smartha tradition

claims that Brahman is beyond any limitations or personal

attributes, they differ from the standpoint of the Vaishnavas and

Shaivas. My point is that even if Sankara and his followers

worship different gods and pray to five (or six) gods in their

pujas, their Advaita philosphy still differ a lot from other

vedantic schools such as vishistadvaita or dwaita.

>

> All the Acharyas,

> Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhwacharya, had identity of

> thoughts on the 'Brahman' aspect.

Sankara, in his Brahma Sutra Bhashya and other genuine works of

his pen, puts a lot of attention on the shortcommings and faults

of other schools of thought. He heavily refutes the ritualism of

the Mimasaks, he refutes the view that liberation is attained

through knowledge and action conjoined, he refutes the

Bhedaabheda school and its proponent Bhartriprapanca, he refutes

the Pancharatras, he refutes the tarkas, he refutes the

materialists, he refutes the Samkhyas, he refutes the

Vaishesikas, he refutes the different schools of Buddhism and he

refutes the Jainas. Moreover, he refutes several different types

of Advaita prevalent in his times! Apparently, he did not held

the view that differences are not important, that all acharyas

say the same or that different interpretations of the shastras

lead to the same goal.

Nor did Ramanuja or Madhva. In fact, Ramanuja puts a lot of

energy in refuting the Advaita Vedanta as propagated in his time.

His commentary on Brahma Sutra begins with laghu purva paksa (a

minor objection) and laghu siddhanta (a minor reply) to the

Advaita standpoint. Then comes his seven major objections to the

Advaita views on avidya (ignorance), and thereafter follows the

maha purva paksa and Ramanuja´s conclusions (maha siddhanta). All

this he does in order to show that Advaita is wrong and that he

himself is right. There are no hints of the standpoint that "all

paths lead to the same goal" here!

However, it should be pointed out that Sankara, Ramanuja and

Madhva all hold very similar standpoints in dharmic matters. They

agree on how to live the everyday life as a Hindu, the importance

of living in tune with ones dharma, the importance of devotion,

prayers and things like that. The differences are in their

descriptions of reality and our way to realization of the

Absolute.

Personally I don´t see the point in ignoring the differences

between the different schools of Vedanta. This is of no help to

those who would like to closely study Sankara and his

standpoints. In fact, we can learn a lot about Advaita by

carefully studying Sankara´s arguments against other systems of

thought.

Moreover, we should learn to respect and care about other

acharyas and their followers. Mutual appreciation is, I belive,

the best way of gaining understanding between the different

sects. Or do we really have to belive that there are no

differences in order to gain harmony? I don´t think so. Advaitins

can gain a lot by discussing with vishistadvaitins and dwaitins,

just because of - not in spite of - their different vedantic

outlook. Great saints, scholars and devotees are to be found

within all the traditional vedantic sects.

Jaya Jaya Sankara!

Warm regards

Stig Lundgren

> Hari OM!

>

> Kalivaradhan

>

> Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

> http://mailplus.

>

> 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

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

January 6, 2003

Well said Stigji. Namaste.

best regards,

K Kathirasan

>

> Stig Lundgren [sMTP:slu]

> Tuesday, January 07, 2003 9:42 AM

> advaitin

> Re: Re: advaita and visishtadvaita

>

> Happy new year to all of you!

>

> Dear Sri Kalivaradhan,

>

> > Advaita, Visishtadvaita and Dwaita,

>

> > The doctrinal

> > differences between one or the other of these three

> > systems have an underlying unity in them that

> > irrespective of the diversity in their approach and

> > application they all lead to one final Destination or

> > Source, both being one and the same, which is the

> > Vedic Brahman.

>

> Each of the three acharyas Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhva gave

> their own description of the Absolute reality and its

> characteristics, and those descriptions differ a lot. Even if

> Brahman is the one and the same for all people, it doesn´t mean

> that all descriptions of Brahman are the same or that they are

> equally true. The three acharyas (and also other acharyas as

> Nimbarka, Vallaba and Chaitanya) widely disagreed on the

> characteristics of Brahman. Moreover, they disagreed on how to

> realize Brahman. Sankara, for instance, argued that we are

> liberated by jnana only. This view was much critizied by

> Ramanuja, Madhva and others. In other words: They did not agree

> on the nature of Brahman, nor how to realize Brahman. And

> certainly no one among them would have agreed that "irrespective

> of the diversity in their approach and application they all lead

> to one final Destination or Source".

>

> > the immanence in everything, and show a practical way

> > through the Shanmadha which he established for the

> > sake of uniting the people under a common

> > 'Bhakti'umbrella!

> >

>

> The Shanmatha puja (worship of Ganesha, Shiva, Shakti, Vishnu,

> Surya and Subramania) is a development of the Panchayatana puja

> performed by many smarthas. Since Advaita Vedanta says that

> Brahman has no limitations, no form or attributes, it is wrong to

> say that Brahman is identical with one specific God only. The

> worship of any God could help us purify our minds and thereby

> prepare ourselves for liberation through jnana (Sankara totally

> refutes the idea that we can be liberated from samsara through

> actions and rituals. However, they are necessary before taking

> sannyasa). But the worship of five or six gods in the

> Panchayatana and Shanmatha pujas respectively, doesn´t imply that

> all vedantic systems lead to the same goal. In fact, the

> vishistadvaita and dwaita traditions refute the practice of

> placing the different gods on equal terms, as in the Shanmatha

> puja. The vishistadvaitins, dwaitins and other Vaishnava sects

> claims that Narayana/Krishna is the highest reality, and the

> different Shaiva sects claims that Shiva is the highest reality.

> And of course, since the followers of the Smartha tradition

> claims that Brahman is beyond any limitations or personal

> attributes, they differ from the standpoint of the Vaishnavas and

> Shaivas. My point is that even if Sankara and his followers

> worship different gods and pray to five (or six) gods in their

> pujas, their Advaita philosphy still differ a lot from other

> vedantic schools such as vishistadvaita or dwaita.

>

> >

> > All the Acharyas,

> > Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhwacharya, had identity of

> > thoughts on the 'Brahman' aspect.

>

> Sankara, in his Brahma Sutra Bhashya and other genuine works of

> his pen, puts a lot of attention on the shortcommings and faults

> of other schools of thought. He heavily refutes the ritualism of

> the Mimasaks, he refutes the view that liberation is attained

> through knowledge and action conjoined, he refutes the

> Bhedaabheda school and its proponent Bhartriprapanca, he refutes

> the Pancharatras, he refutes the tarkas, he refutes the

> materialists, he refutes the Samkhyas, he refutes the

> Vaishesikas, he refutes the different schools of Buddhism and he

> refutes the Jainas. Moreover, he refutes several different types

> of Advaita prevalent in his times! Apparently, he did not held

> the view that differences are not important, that all acharyas

> say the same or that different interpretations of the shastras

> lead to the same goal.

> Nor did Ramanuja or Madhva. In fact, Ramanuja puts a lot of

> energy in refuting the Advaita Vedanta as propagated in his time.

> His commentary on Brahma Sutra begins with laghu purva paksa (a

> minor objection) and laghu siddhanta (a minor reply) to the

> Advaita standpoint. Then comes his seven major objections to the

> Advaita views on avidya (ignorance), and thereafter follows the

> maha purva paksa and Ramanuja´s conclusions (maha siddhanta). All

> this he does in order to show that Advaita is wrong and that he

> himself is right. There are no hints of the standpoint that "all

> paths lead to the same goal" here!

> However, it should be pointed out that Sankara, Ramanuja and

> Madhva all hold very similar standpoints in dharmic matters. They

> agree on how to live the everyday life as a Hindu, the importance

> of living in tune with ones dharma, the importance of devotion,

> prayers and things like that. The differences are in their

> descriptions of reality and our way to realization of the

> Absolute.

> Personally I don´t see the point in ignoring the differences

> between the different schools of Vedanta. This is of no help to

> those who would like to closely study Sankara and his

> standpoints. In fact, we can learn a lot about Advaita by

> carefully studying Sankara´s arguments against other systems of

> thought.

> Moreover, we should learn to respect and care about other

> acharyas and their followers. Mutual appreciation is, I belive,

> the best way of gaining understanding between the different

> sects. Or do we really have to belive that there are no

> differences in order to gain harmony? I don´t think so. Advaitins

> can gain a lot by discussing with vishistadvaitins and dwaitins,

> just because of - not in spite of - their different vedantic

> outlook. Great saints, scholars and devotees are to be found

> within all the traditional vedantic sects.

>

> Jaya Jaya Sankara!

>

> Warm regards

> Stig Lundgren

>

> > Hari OM!

> >

> > Kalivaradhan

> >

> > Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

> > http://mailplus.

> >

> > 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

> >

> > Your use of is subject to

>

> >

>

> 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

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

January 6, 2003

--- Stig Lundgren <slu wrote:

> Happy new year to all of you!

>

Happy New year and enjoyed reading your article Stig. As always

meticulously right.

Currently I am spending part of my vacation studying Shree S.M.S.

Chari's book on "Fundamentals of VishishhTa advaita. This is a book

based on Vedanta Deshika's tatva-muktaa-kalaapa. As I studied the book I

started writing my comments on it and I hope to post it soon the first

part when I am done. As I mentioned before, respect for acharya-s is a

sign of culture, but following all acharyaa-s is a sign of confused

mind.

Hari OM!

Sadananda

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

http://mailplus.

January 7, 2003

Namaste Stig-Ji.

What a brilliant summarization! Your post stands out tall like a

lighthouse amidst this turbulent exchange of views.

As advains, let us raise our head out of the muddy waters and look up

at the light that shines the turbulence. When that light is in

sight, the harrowing tumult around pales off and ceases to bother us

any more. May the Lord grant us the vision to sincerely follow your

quote below:

"Personally I don´t see the point in ignoring the differences

between the different schools of Vedanta. This is of no help to

those who would like to closely study Sankara and his

standpoints. In fact, we can learn a lot about Advaita by

carefully studying Sankara´s arguments against other systems of

thought.

Moreover, we should learn to respect and care about other

acharyas and their followers. Mutual appreciation is, I belive,

the best way of gaining understanding between the different

sects. Or do we really have to belive that there are no

differences in order to gain harmony? I don´t think so. Advaitins

can gain a lot by discussing with vishistadvaitins and dwaitins,

just because of - not in spite of - their different vedantic

outlook. Great saints, scholars and devotees."

By the way, we don't see you around these days. It may be due to

your pressing preoccupations. But, I recall there are certain

promises, like the one on panchIkarana, still unkpet. It is sheer

pleasure reading your thoughts. I am sure the Members on this List

would love to have more of you, nevertheless.

Thanks and pranams.

Madathil Nair

January 7, 2003

Namaste Sri Stig:

Thanks for your delightful scholarly analysis distinguishing between

the three Vedantic schools of thought. I do agree with you that

strictly using intellectual norms, scholars can certainly come to a

conclusion that both Ramanujacharya and Madhwacharya do not agree

with Shankara's philosophical interpretation of the characteristics

of the Brahman. For an in depth intellectual analysis, these three

schools of thought are three distinct models with different

assumptions and consequently it is possible any academic scholar to

establish significant differences between them. In particular, those

who subjectively identify themselves with one of these three schools

of thought, the other two will become completely incorrect!

I believe that "Intellectual analysis of religious thoughts can never

bring unity nor it can lead us to Truth." This point has been

beautifully reinforced by the book reviewer (see my previous post

#15585) in the last paragraph of the book review.

Warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

advaitin, "Stig Lundgren" <slu@C...> wrote:

> Happy new year to all of you!

>

> Each of the three acharyas Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhva gave

> their own description of the Absolute reality and its

> characteristics, and those descriptions differ a lot. Even if

> Brahman is the one and the same for all people, it doesn´t mean

> that all descriptions of Brahman are the same or that they are

> equally true. The three acharyas (and also other acharyas as

> Nimbarka, Vallaba and Chaitanya) widely disagreed on the

> characteristics of Brahman. Moreover, they disagreed on how to

> realize Brahman. Sankara, for instance, argued that we are

> liberated by jnana only. This view was much critizied by

> Ramanuja, Madhva and others. In other words: They did not agree

> on the nature of Brahman, nor how to realize Brahman. And

> certainly no one among them would have agreed that "irrespective

> of the diversity in their approach and application they all lead

> to one final Destination or Source".

>

>.....

January 8, 2003

--sir,

i do agree with your views.what you are trying to say is all the

acharyas had different way of looking at the philosophies they

believed is right. no doubt in that.but the interpretations of

certain words,or passages from the upanishads and sutras are the

reasons for the different schools of thought. but can you tell what

actually is the philosophy that is contained in the

upanishads.eventhough all paths lead to the same destination,we get

stuck with minor set backs,ie the teachings by these great

philosophers.dont you think we need work out a way for ourself.your

reply is very vague in that it does not clearely spells out who is

right and wrong.might be you dont want to hurt the feelings of one

group in hindus.the idea is not that.when we have different gods, and

one group says that as per the philosophy of his acharya i will not

go to others temple,then some thing is wrong some where.i can see you

seem to be a learned man can you throw some light on this.we can keep

saying there is unity in diversity.actually it is not there.

regards,

cdr bvn - In advaitin, "Stig Lundgren" <slu@C...>

wrote: