Fwd: what is wrong with you guys???? - A Message from Advaita Hater!!

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

We want to share this message from Sri Zjammi an

admirer of Madhwacharya (also a hater of Adi Shankara)

addressed to the list moderators. This message clearly

indicates the pitfalls of 'fanaticism' and the author

puts his thoughts without any substance! The dangers

of being an 'ignorant' is also truly established by

the author through his statements!!

 

Warmest regards,

 

--- zjammi <zjammi wrote:

> Mon, 03 Nov 2003 09:44:06 -0000

> "zjammi" <zjammi

> advaitins

> what is wrong with you guys????

>

> you guys think advaita is right is it? when any

> dilletente at

> philosophy can show you its a highly flawed approch

> to reading the

> vedas.... everything Adi shankara has propagated

> about advaitha is

> false... jagadhguru sri madhwacharya has refuted

> all of sankars

> arguments about advaitha.... adwaitha is the bane of

> sanathana

> dharma.... it is the very antithesis of our great

> dharma!!! please

> read about adwaitha before accepting it and

> destroying ur lives.

>

 

 

=====

Advaitin List Moderators

 

Suggestions/comments from members are always welcome.

Please forward them to the email address: advaitins

Webspace: advaitin

Bulletin Board: http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/bb/index.html

 

 

 

Protect your identity with Mail AddressGuard

http://antispam./whatsnewfree

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Among some people there is a belief that the vaishnava

sampradayas more or less "keep together" against advaita vedanta.

In other words, for instance that tattvavadins (followers of

Madhva) and srivaishnavas (followers of Ramanuja) are on the same

side supporting each other against the horrors and dangers of

advaita vedanta! For example, among ISKCON-people this is a

common belief. However, this is not true. I have been told that

many traditional srivaishnava scholars strongly hesitate to

discuss Madhva´s dvaita philosophy in the same context as they

discuss advaita and vishistadvaita. In other words, they feel a

much stronger kinship between Ramanuja and Shankara, than between

Ramanuja and Madhva. I know of a traditional srivaishnava acharya

who advises his disciples not to kill too much time reading

Madvha philosophy. Instead, he encourages them to properly study

and learn the teachings of Ramanuja, and also Shankara.

 

Also in my opinion, the similarities between Shankara and

Ramanuja are much stronger than between Ramanuja and Madhva.

 

Warmest regards

Stig Lundgren

 

 

>

> --- zjammi <zjammi wrote:

> > Mon, 03 Nov 2003 09:44:06 -0000

> > "zjammi" <zjammi

> > advaitins

> > what is wrong with you guys????

> >

> > you guys think advaita is right is it? when any

> > dilletente at

> > philosophy can show you its a highly flawed approch

> > to reading the

> > vedas.... everything Adi shankara has propagated

> > about advaitha is

> > false... jagadhguru sri madhwacharya has refuted

> > all of sankars

> > arguments about advaitha.... adwaitha is the bane of

> > sanathana

> > dharma.... it is the very antithesis of our great

> > dharma!!! please

> > read about adwaitha before accepting it and

> > destroying ur lives.

> >

>

>

> =====

> Advaitin List Moderators

[Guest guest]

As advaitins we should not take such fanaticism seriously.

It is all mAyA. :-)

 

> > you guys think advaita is right is it? when any

> > dilletente at

> > philosophy can show you its a highly flawed approch

> > to reading the

> > vedas.... everything Adi shankara has propagated

> > about advaitha is

> > false... jagadhguru sri madhwacharya has refuted

> > all of sankars

> > arguments about advaitha.... adwaitha is the bane of

> > sanathana

> > dharma.... it is the very antithesis of our great

> > dharma!!! please

> > read about adwaitha before accepting it and

> > destroying ur lives.

> >

>

>

> =====

> Advaitin List Moderators

>

> Suggestions/comments from members are always welcome.

> Please forward them to the email address: advaitins

> Webspace: advaitin

> Bulletin Board: http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/bb/index.html

>

>

>

> Protect your identity with Mail AddressGuard

> http://antispam./whatsnewfree

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Stig:

 

Good to see you back after long lapse of absence. I also agree with

your viewpoint that there is more similarities between philosophies

postulated by Sri Shankara and Sri Ramanuja. In a recent book, "THE

PHILOSOPHY OF THE UPANISADS," Sri S. M. Srinivasa Chari provides a

similar observation. (Publisher: Munshiram

Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., Post Box No. 5715, 54, Rani Jhansi

Road, New Delhi-110055. Rs. 650.) This book is a scholarly work on

the subject of the philosophy of the Upanishads coming from the

distinguished scholar. His study is based on a careful and minute

evaluation of the commentaries of the three important Acharyas —

Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhwa who represent the views of Advaita,

Visishtadvaita and Dwaita.

 

Couple of years back Dr. Chari provided a series of lectures

comparing Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhwa in Washington DC Area

organized by Sri Sadananda with support from Chinmaya Mission. During

his lectures, he also observed similarities between Shankara and

Ramanuja in several aspects.

 

Honestly speaking, intellectually it is impossible for anyone to

prove that only one Bhasyakara is right and to brand others as wrong.

Let me borrow and state the following observation of Sri

Narasimhachari, a Sanskrit Scholar regarding the validity of truth as

postulated by these three acharyas: "If Truth may be compared to a

multi-faceted diamond, then each face of it must be admitted to be

dazzling in its own light and right."

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

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

>

> Also in my opinion, the similarities between Shankara and

> Ramanuja are much stronger than between Ramanuja and Madhva.

>

> Warmest regards

> Stig Lundgren

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Ramaji,

 

Thank you for your kind words, and for the information about the

book! Sri S. M. Srinivasachari is a great scholar, and I am sure

this book is very interesting and informative.

 

For those unfamiliar with Sri S. M. Srinivasachari: He is a

scholar in the Vadagalai Srivaishnava tradition, and a exponent

of the philsophy of Sri Ramanuja and Sri Vedanta Deshikar (the

latter somewhat of a second "founder" of the Srivaishnava

tradition). As far as I know, Sri S. M. Srinivasachari is

connected to Parakala Mutt in Mysore (Karnataka), one of the very

traditional mutts of Srivaishnavism.

 

Warmest regards

Stig Lundgren

 

 

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Namaste Sri Stig:

 

Good to see you back after long lapse of absence. I also agree

with

your viewpoint that there is more similarities between

philosophies

postulated by Sri Shankara and Sri Ramanuja. In a recent book,

"THE

PHILOSOPHY OF THE UPANISADS," Sri S. M. Srinivasa Chari provides

a

similar observation. (Publisher: Munshiram

Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., Post Box No. 5715, 54, Rani

Jhansi

Road, New Delhi-110055. Rs. 650.) This book is a scholarly work

on

the subject of the philosophy of the Upanishads coming from the

distinguished scholar. His study is based on a careful and minute

evaluation of the commentaries of the three important Acharyas -

Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhwa who represent the views of Advaita,

Visishtadvaita and Dwaita.

 

Couple of years back Dr. Chari provided a series of lectures

comparing Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhwa in Washington DC Area

organized by Sri Sadananda with support from Chinmaya Mission.

During

his lectures, he also observed similarities between Shankara and

Ramanuja in several aspects.

 

 

 

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Not to detract from this month's conversation, but someone on my list

posted the following interesting article, which is rather

coincidental considering the brief interlude we just had with the

'Advaita Hater'.

 

Here is a brief description of a somewhat exotic version of Advaita,

which is evidently other than Visithadvaita. It illustrates how the

God-concept gets reflected through different minds, like light in the

crystals of a chandelier.

 

The 'problems' all arise from trying to express the inexpressible.

 

Benjamin

 

 

__________________

 

 

 

THE DVAITA-ADVAITA PHILOSOPHY OF SRI NIMBARKA

 

By Swami Sivananda

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

This is also known by the name Bhedabheda School of Philosophy or

dualistic monism. This system was evolved by Sri Nimbarkacharya.

Nimbarka was a Telugu Brahmin of the Vaishnava faith. He lived some

time after Ramanuja and prior to Madhva, about the eleventh century

A.D. He is regarded as the incarnation of the Sun. He wrote a short

commentary on the Brahma Sutras called Vedanta-Parijata-Saurabha, as

well as Dasasloki. His commentary develops the theory of the

transformation (Parinama) of Brahman. Nimbarka's view was largely

influenced by the teachings of Bhaskara who flourished in the first

half of the ninth century and who interpreted the Vedanta system from

the viewpoint of Dvaitadvaita or dualistic non-dualism. This doctrine

was not a new discovery of Bhaskara. It was upheld by the ancient

teacher Audulomi to which Sri Vyasa himself refers in his Vedanta

Sutras.

 

 

 

GOD, SOUL AND WORLD

 

Identity in Difference

 

Nimbarka holds that the relation of God to the soul and the world is

one of identity in difference. The soul and the world are different

from God, because they are endowed with qualities different from

those of God. At the same time, they are not different from God,

because God is omnipresent and they depend entirely on Him.

Nimbarka's philosophy admits Brahman as the Supreme Reality without a

second. The world and the Jivas are only partial manifestations of

His Power (Sakti). Jiva and Brahman are self-conscious. Jiva is

limited. Brahman is infinite. Brahman is independent Reality. Jiva

and Prakriti are dependent realities. Jiva is the enjoyer (Bhokta).

The world is the enjoyed (Bhogya). Brahman is the Supreme Controller

(Niyanta). God, Jiva and the world are not absolutely distinct. If

the Supreme Being is absolutely distinct from the individual soul and

the world, it cannot be omnipresent. It will be as limited as the

individual soul or the world. It cannot, then, be regarded as their

Governor. Nimbarka says that both difference and non-difference are

real. The soul and the world are different from Brahman, as they are

endowed with natures and qualities different from those of Brahman.

They are not different, as they cannot exist by themselves and as

they depend absolutely on Brahman. Such a relation exists between the

sun and its rays. the fire and its sparks. The souls and matter are

distinct from God, but they are closely connected with Him-as waves

with water, or coils of a rope with the rope itself. They are both

distinct and non-distinct from Brahman.

 

 

The Supreme Being and its Characteristics

 

In this school, Brahman is regarded as both the efficient and the

material cause of the world. Brahman is both Nirguna and Saguna, as

It is not exhausted in the creation but also transcends it.

 

 

The Four Forms of the Ultimate Reality

 

The Ultimate Reality exists in four forms. In Its primary form, It is

the unconditioned, immutable, Supreme Brahman. In Its second form, It

is Isvara, the Lord of the Universe. In the third form, It is called

Jiva or the individual soul. In Its fourth form, It is manifested as

the universe of names and forms. The phenomenal universe is a part of

Brahman. It has no existence separate from, and independent of

Brahman. The relation between the world and Brahman is also one of

Bhedabheda. The universe is not different from Brahman.

 

 

Krishna

 

The Supreme Being The Supreme Being is absolutely free from all

defects. He is full of all auspicious qualities. He has a divine

body. He is full of beauty, love, sweetness and charm. Nimbarka

identifies the Supreme Brahman with Krishna. He is endowed with all

auspicious qualities. He is free from egoism, ignorance, passion and

attachment. He has the four forms (Vyuhas), viz., Vasudeva,

Sankarshana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha. He also manifests Himself as

the Avataras (incarnations). In Nimbarka, Krishna and Radha take the

places of Narayana and Lakshmi. Radha is not simply the chief of the

Gopis, but is the eternal Consort of Lord Krishna.

 

 

How Brahman Is Both the Material and the Efficient Cause of the World

 

Brahman is the material and the efficient cause of the universe. His

powers of Chit and Achit in their subtle forms manifest themselves as

the universe. Hence He is the material cause. He causes the union of

the individual souls with their respective Karmas and their fruits.

He provides them the proper instruments for their experience. Hence

He is the efficient cause. Brahman does not want raw materials in

order to create the universe. Also, He does not need hands or any

other instruments. He is omnipotent. He simply wills and the whole

world comes into being. His Satsankalpa objectifies or materialises

as this universe. Just as a spider spins a cobweb out of itself, so

also Brahman has evolved the universe out of Himself. This is the

declaration of the Upanishads. In thus evolving the universe, Brahman

is both its material and the efficient cause. As Brahman is

all-powerful, it is perfectly within His power to be so evolved, and

at the same time, to remain beyond such evolution. This is supported

by the Upanishads and the Brahma Sutras. Brahman has transformed

Himself into this world, without His noumenal aspect being affected.

This is due to the inscrutable creative power inherent in the nature

of Brahman.

 

 

 

RELATION BETWEEN THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL AND THE SUPREME SOUL

 

Formal Difference and Essential Identity

 

The individual soul is a part of the Supreme Soul. It is also

identical with, or the same as, the Supreme Soul. Just as a wave is

both different from the ocean (being only a part of the ocean), and

identical with it (both being water), so also is the individual soul

both different from (being a part of the Supreme Soul), and identical

with (both being of the nature of Chaitanya or Consciousness), the

Supreme Soul. The relation between the individual soul or Jiva and

the Supreme Soul or Brahman is one of formal difference and essential

identity. There is no difference between Jiva and Brahman in kind.

The difference is only in degree. The Jiva is different from Brahman

with reference to the phenomenal aspect or the body-idea. It is

identical with, or the same as, Brahman with reference to the

noumenal aspect as the indivisible whole. This is what is called

Bhedabheda. A strong wind perturbs the sea and a wave is formed. The

wave is different from the ocean, though it is a part of it. The wind

passes away and the wave subsides. Now it cannot be distinguished

from the sea. Even so, the mind is agitated by desires and cravings.

It runs towards the objects along with the senses and becomes

conscious of a distinctive individuality. The ego or the finite self

beholds the relative world with its phenomena, and gets experiences.

When the mind becomes calm and serene by eradication of desires, it

ceases to function and all the Vrittis or waves subside. The

phenomenal world vanishes and the finite self realises the Infinite

Self or Brahman.

 

 

The Jiva And Its Attributes

 

Souls are infinite in number and are atomic in size. The Jiva is

minute (Anu). It is of the form of knowledge (Jnanasvarupa), though

not in the sense of Sankara. The Jiva is knowledge and it is the

possessor of knowledge also, just as the sun is light and the source

of light also. The relation of the soul to its attribute is like that

of the Dharmin (the qualified) to the Dharma (the attribute). It is

one of difference and non-difference (Bhedabheda). Though the Jiva is

atomic in size, it experiences the pleasures and pains throughout the

body owing to its omnipresent quality of knowledge. It is

everlasting. It continues to exist in deep sleep and the final state

of emancipation. In Pralaya or dissolution, the individual souls and

the world merge in the Lord in subtle form. Births and deaths concern

the body, but not the Self. The individual soul is the agent of

activity (Karta). It has no independent knowledge or activity. The

individual souls and the world are not self-sufficient. They are

guided by the Lord. They are all sustained and governed by God. Each

soul is a ray of Brahman individualised. Ananda or bliss belongs to

the individual soul in all its states.

 

 

Two Classes of Jivas

 

Jivas are of two classes: (i) Jivas who have knowledge of the all-

pervading indwelling spirit and who have realised that the

appearances are non-separate from Brahman. They are called liberated

souls (Mukta). They are free from ignorance. (ii) Jivas who only

behold the appearances, but have no knowledge of the all-pervading

indwelling spirit, the support of these names and forms. They are

called bound souls (Baddha).

 

 

The World-A True Manifestation Of Brahman

 

The world is not an illusion for Nimbarka, as it is a manifestation

(Parinama) of what is contained subtly in God. The world is not

unreal or illusory, but is a true manifestation or Parinama of

Brahman. It may, however, be said to be unreal only in the sense that

the present state of its existence is not self- sufficient and it has

no separate existence from Brahman. The world is identical with as

well as different from Brahman, just as a wave or bubble is the same

as, and at the same time different from, water. There are three

principal Tattvas or principles: (i) Aprakriti, which is not derived

from the primordial Prakriti, which is the stuff of the divine body

of the Lord (which is similar to the Suddha-Sattva of Ramanuja), and

which is the basis of the Nitya-Vibhuti (eternal glory) of Isvara;

(ii) Prakriti with its three Gunas, Sattva, Rajas and Tamas; and

(iii) Kala or time. These three Tattvas or principles are also

eternal like the individual souls. According to Nimbarka, the Sakti

of Brahman is the material cause of the world. The changes of Sakti

do not affect the integrity of Brahman. The `Body of Brahman' of

Ramanuja is the `Sakti' of Nimbarka.

 

 

Salvation

 

Avidya is beginningless. The purity of the individual soul is

obscured by its Karma which is the result of Avidya. This Avidya can

be put an end to by the grace of the Lord.

 

 

True Devotion and Real Knowledge Lead to Release

 

Prapatti or complete surrender to God is the way to release. God

showers His grace on His devotees who make complete self-surrender.

The grace of God lifts up the devotees to have Brahma-Sakshatkara.

The Lord generates devotion in them which results in God-realisation.

Bhakti involves a knowledge of Brahman, of the nature of the Jiva, of

the fruit of the Lord's grace or Mukti, and of the nature of the

impediments to God-realisation such as the wrong identification of

the soul with the body, the senses and the mind. Salvation is

attained by real knowledge (Jnana) and true devotion (Bhakti). Real

knowledge reveals the true nature of the all-pervading Brahman. True

devotion leads to total self-surrender to the Lord. The individual

soul retains its individuality with reference to divine enjoyment

(Bhoga-samyatvam), but its will is subservient to that of Brahman.

The individuality of the soul is not dissolved even in the state of

Moksha or the final emancipation. Even in the state of release, the

individual soul is different from, as well as identical with,

Brahman. This is identity with difference, Bheda-abheda.

 

 

Salvation - A State of Full Awareness of Identity With the Lord

 

Brahman is revealed to the liberated soul in Its pristine glory, but

not in the form of a deity. The soul realises itself now as an

inseparable part of Brahman. It no longer feels that it is a separate

or distinct individual, as it felt in bondage. It is released from

its previous state of bondage. It abides now in the glory of its own

true Self which is Brahman Itself. It is in full awareness or

consciousness of being one with the Lord. It will not return to the

world. It is freed from the round of births and deaths. As it is in

union with Brahman, it attains the same status as that of Brahman,

but it has no power over creation, preservation and dissolution of

the world.

[Guest guest]

Well said! The snake from the rope!

Regards,

Ram

 

narayana_kl_71 wrote:

> As advaitins we should not take such fanaticism seriously.

> It is all mAyA. :-)

>

>

> > > you guys think advaita is right is it? when any

> > > dilletente at

> > > philosophy can show you its a highly flawed approch

> > > to reading the

> > > vedas.... everything Adi shankara has propagated

> > > about advaitha is

> > > false... jagadhguru sri madhwacharya has refuted

> > > all of sankars

> > > arguments about advaitha.... adwaitha is the bane of

> > > sanathana

> > > dharma.... it is the very antithesis of our great

> > > dharma!!! please

> > > read about adwaitha before accepting it and

> > > destroying ur lives.

> > >

> >

> >

> > =====

> > Advaitin List Moderators

> >

> > Suggestions/comments from members are always welcome.

> > Please forward them to the email address: advaitins

> > Webspace: advaitin

> > Bulletin Board: http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/bb/index.html

> >

> >

> >

> > Protect your identity with Mail AddressGuard

> > http://antispam./whatsnewfree

>

>

> 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

[Guest guest]

namaste.

dear sri. lundgren,

the vaishnavites surrender

[sharanaagati] to mahavishnu on the day of their

initiation. thereafter, their GOD is solely

mahavishnu.and then onwards , they are one with HIM.

the vaishnavite saint AANDAAL

merges with the LORD on her being accepted by HIM as

his consort.

You can see that the deliniation

between vaishnavism of ramanuja,and advaitam of

shankara is very slim.

regards.

a.v.krshnan

 

 

 

 

 

 

--- Stig Lundgren <slu wrote: >

Namaste,

>

> Among some people there is a belief that the

> vaishnava

> sampradayas more or less "keep together" against

> advaita vedanta.

> In other words, for instance that tattvavadins

> (followers of

> Madhva) and srivaishnavas (followers of Ramanuja)

> are on the same

> side supporting each other against the horrors and

> dangers of

> advaita vedanta! For example, among ISKCON-people

> this is a

> common belief. However, this is not true. I have

> been told that

> many traditional srivaishnava scholars strongly

> hesitate to

> discuss Madhva´s dvaita philosophy in the same

> context as they

> discuss advaita and vishistadvaita. In other words,

> they feel a

> much stronger kinship between Ramanuja and Shankara,

> than between

> Ramanuja and Madhva. I know of a traditional

> srivaishnava acharya

> who advises his disciples not to kill too much time

> reading

> Madvha philosophy. Instead, he encourages them to

> properly study

> and learn the teachings of Ramanuja, and also

> Shankara.

>

> Also in my opinion, the similarities between

> Shankara and

> Ramanuja are much stronger than between Ramanuja and

> Madhva.

>

> Warmest regards

> Stig Lundgren

>

>

>

> >

> > --- zjammi <zjammi wrote:

> > > Mon, 03 Nov 2003 09:44:06 -0000

> > > "zjammi" <zjammi

> > > advaitins

> > > what is wrong with you guys????

> > >

> > > you guys think advaita is right is it? when any

> > > dilletente at

> > > philosophy can show you its a highly flawed

> approch

> > > to reading the

> > > vedas.... everything Adi shankara has propagated

> > > about advaitha is

> > > false... jagadhguru sri madhwacharya has

> refuted

> > > all of sankars

> > > arguments about advaitha.... adwaitha is the

> bane of

> > > sanathana

> > > dharma.... it is the very antithesis of our

> great

> > > dharma!!! please

> > > read about adwaitha before accepting it and

> > > destroying ur lives.

> > >

> >

> >

> > =====

> > Advaitin List Moderators

>

>

>

>

> ------------------------ Sponsor

>

> 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

>

>

>

 

______________________

Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE

Messenger http://mail.messenger..co.uk

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Ram

 

If I understood right, Ramanuja did not comment on the Upanishads (

at least, not exhaustively on the principals like Shankara,

Madhva ). Is this book more on the general thought of each school or

on the Upanishads specifically ?

 

Thanks and Regards

Guruprasad

> postulated by Sri Shankara and Sri Ramanuja. In a recent

book, "THE

> PHILOSOPHY OF THE UPANISADS," Sri S. M. Srinivasa Chari provides a

> similar observation. (Publisher: Munshiram

> Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., Post Box No. 5715, 54, Rani

Jhansi

> Road, New Delhi-110055. Rs. 650.) This book is a scholarly work on

> the subject of the philosophy of the Upanishads coming from the

> distinguished scholar. His study is based on a careful and minute

> evaluation of the commentaries of the three important Acharyas —

> Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhwa who represent the views of Advaita,

> Visishtadvaita and Dwaita.

>

> Couple of years back Dr. Chari provided a series of lectures

> comparing Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhwa in Washington DC Area

> organized by Sri Sadananda with support from Chinmaya Mission.

During

> his lectures, he also observed similarities between Shankara and

> Ramanuja in several aspects.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Vedantin:

 

Yes, Ramanuja didn't comment directly on the Upanishdads. This is

also pointed out by the reviewer of the book,

Nrasimhachari: "Although Ramanuja did not comment upon the Upanishads

like the other two Acharyas, he has taken up some crucial passages of

Upanishads and explained them in his Vedarthasangraha. He had before

him, the interpretations of some crucial Upanishadic texts given by

Yamunacharya and Nathamuni. Sri Rangaramanuja is the regular

commentator who followed the lead given by Ramanuja."

 

Those interested, please refer to my post with more details of the

review: http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m15364.html

 

The review appeared in "The Hindu" and its reference is:

http://www.thehindu.com/br/2003/01/07/stories/2003010700090300.htm

 

Thanks for bringing this important point to the attention of the list,

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "v_vedanti" <v_vedanti> wrote:

> Namaste Sri Ram

>

> If I understood right, Ramanuja did not comment on the Upanishads (

> at least, not exhaustively on the principals like Shankara,

> Madhva ).

[Guest guest]

Many Pranams to all

A message for us and the hater? from Swami Vivekananda's complete

works:- Volume II

"At the same time, there is another side to the question. We must not

look down with contempt on others. All of us are going towards the

same goal. The difference between weakness and strength is one of

degree; the difference between virtue and vice is one of degree, the

difference between heaven and hell is one of degree, the difference

between life and death is one of degree, all differences in this

world are of degree, and not of kind, because oneness is the secret

of everything. All is One, which manifests Itself, either as thought,

or life, or soul, or body, and the difference is only in degree. As

such, we have no right to look down with contempt upon those who are

not developed exactly in the same degree as we are. Condemn none; if

you can stretch out a helping hand, do so. If you cannot, fold your

hands, bless your brothers, and let them go their own way. Dragging

down and condemning is not the way to work. Never is work

accomplished in that way. We spend our energies in condemning others.

Criticism and condemnation is a vain way of spending our energies,

for in the long run we come to learn that all are seeing the same

thing, are more or less approaching the same ideal, and that most of

our differences are merely differences of expression. "

Many Pranams

sridhar

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <rchandran@c...>

wrote:

> Namaste Sri Stig:

>

> Good to see you back after long lapse of absence. I also agree with

> your viewpoint that there is more similarities between philosophies

> postulated by Sri Shankara and Sri Ramanuja. In a recent book, "THE

> PHILOSOPHY OF THE UPANISADS," Sri S. M. Srinivasa Chari provides a

> similar observation. (Publisher: Munshiram

> Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., Post Box No. 5715, 54, Rani Jhansi

> Road, New Delhi-110055. Rs. 650.) This book is a scholarly work on

> the subject of the philosophy of the Upanishads coming from the

> distinguished scholar. His study is based on a careful and minute

> evaluation of the commentaries of the three important Acharyas —

> Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhwa who represent the views of Advaita,

> Visishtadvaita and Dwaita.

>

> Couple of years back Dr. Chari provided a series of lectures

> comparing Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhwa in Washington DC Area

> organized by Sri Sadananda with support from Chinmaya Mission.

During

> his lectures, he also observed similarities between Shankara and

> Ramanuja in several aspects.

>

> Honestly speaking, intellectually it is impossible for anyone to

> prove that only one Bhasyakara is right and to brand others as

wrong.

> Let me borrow and state the following observation of Sri

> Narasimhachari, a Sanskrit Scholar regarding the validity of truth

as

> postulated by these three acharyas: "If Truth may be compared to a

> multi-faceted diamond, then each face of it must be admitted to be

> dazzling in its own light and right."

>

> Warmest regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

>

>

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

>

> >

> > Also in my opinion, the similarities between Shankara and

> > Ramanuja are much stronger than between Ramanuja and Madhva.

> >

> > Warmest regards

> > Stig Lundgren

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Sridhar:

 

Swami Vivekananda's observation is quite appropriate and falls within

the confinement of human dharma. Two Dharmic rules are stated for

human behavior by Yogi Ramacharaka in the book "Advance Course in

Yogi Philosophy and Oriental Occultism"

 

". . . Now this idea of Dharma - this knowledge that " right " and "

wrong" are relative and changeable, instead of absolute and fixed,

doesnot give anyone an excuse for doing anything "bad" or "wrong"

that he would not have done under the old idea. On the contrary,

Dharma holds one up to his highest conception of "right", and expects

him to do what seems "right" for rights sake, and not because the law

compels him to do so - it expects right-action from him, even though

the law has not as et reached so high a stage. It teaches him that if

he sees a thing to be "wrong," it is wrong for him even though the

law and public opinion have not yet reached so high a standard of

ethics. The advanced man will always be a little ahead of the average

conception -- never behind it...

 

. . . And another rule of Dharma is to refrain from criticizing or

condemning the Dharma of another man less developed than yourself. He

is not looking through your eyes. He may be living nearer to his

spiritual ideal than your are to yours -- how dare you judge him? Are

you so near perfect that you set your standard up as absolute? . . "

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "asridhar19" <asridhar19> wrote:

> Many Pranams to all

> A message for us and the hater? from Swami Vivekananda's complete

> works:- Volume II

> "At the same time, there is another side to the question. We must

not

> look down with contempt on others.

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

By giving so much attention to this Advaita Hater, we are really

living upto his accusations. The amount of mail on his inanity has

far surpassed that on other worthwhile topics. Why are we so very

much on the defensive? Are we not sure of ourselves?

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namasthe Nairji

 

Even Adi Shankaracharyaji went across the country and faced numerous

virulently opposed groups. Such discussions with 'haters' cannot be

treated as unnecessary. In the process of giving an opposing view its

due, we keep our minds open, strenthen our convictions and may be

help the 'opposers' gain through the dialogue.

 

Pranams all

Sridhar

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste.

>

> By giving so much attention to this Advaita Hater, we are really

> living upto his accusations. The amount of mail on his inanity has

> far surpassed that on other worthwhile topics. Why are we so very

> much on the defensive? Are we not sure of ourselves?

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Sridharji,

 

The opposer here is an opossum that hasn't given us any opposing view

for us to refute!

 

Madathil Nair

________________

 

advaitin, "asridhar19" <asridhar19> wrote:

> Namasthe Nairji

>

> Even Adi Shankaracharyaji went across the country and faced

numerous

> virulently opposed groups. Such discussions with 'haters' cannot be

> treated as unnecessary. In the process of giving an opposing view

its

> due, we keep our minds open, strenthen our convictions and may be

> help the 'opposers' gain through the dialogue.

>

> Pranams all

> Sridhar

> advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

> <madathilnair> wrote:

> > Namaste.

> >

> > By giving so much attention to this Advaita Hater, we are really

> > living upto his accusations. The amount of mail on his inanity

has

> > far surpassed that on other worthwhile topics. Why are we so

very

> > much on the defensive? Are we not sure of ourselves?

> >

> > PraNAms.

> >

> > Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

 

Namaste,

 

As it is painful to see a travesty of Sri Madhvacharya's

'refutations' of Advaita, it would be an advaitin's duty to point out

the erroneous interpretations of this self-proclaimed 'advaita-hater'.

 

Maybe we can challenge him to post Sri M.'s commentary on the

Gita verses dealing with 'hate':

 

Chapter 2 verses 57, 64

3 34

5 3

6 9

7 27

9 29

12 13, 17

13 7

14 22

18 10, 23, 51

 

If the 'hater' still maintains the same stand, we can only

pray to Sri Madhva to bless him.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Nair:

 

Vedanta stresses the importance of 'discriminating intellect' and by

answering the poster's accusations, we demonstrate our disagreements

without offending. I do agree with your concern, and we shouldn't

divert our focus and direct our thoughts on this topic. As readers

rightly pointed out, this is an important topic and could be taken

for our monthly discussion during 2004. May I request our members to

stop discussing this topic at this time and develop and store their

thoughts for a month long discussion early next year. We should

appropriately change the title of the topic as -

"The Three Vedantic Schools of Thoughts - Similarities and

Differences." Hopefully, we should focus our discussions with a

positive framework of mind to find the hidden treasures.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste.

>

> By giving so much attention to this Advaita Hater, we are really

> living upto his accusations. The amount of mail on his inanity has

> far surpassed that on other worthwhile topics. Why are we so very

> much on the defensive? Are we not sure of ourselves?

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair