Differences Between Dwaita,Visistadwaitha and Adwaita.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisaa

Sri Sadanada ji,

Namasthe.

You have Mentioned in your E-mail That you are Born in

VISISATADWAITA family and also your Father himself was a great

teacher in Visistadwaitha,but by God's grace you were led to ADWAITA

I think there are 3 types of schools of thought namely DWAITHA,

VISISTADWITHA, and ADWAITHA. Of These three which is considered to be

great ? and What are the Differences between These Three schools?

Will you please Enlighten us with these differences at your

Convinient Time and Oblize.

HARI OHM

Sd/sastry E-mail address is " bagawan_aastry @yaho.co.in "

>

>

[Guest guest]

Shree bagavan sastry - PraNAms

 

If I do not believe that Advaita is the supreme, I

would not be a moderator of this list. I do teach

adviata vedanta at the local Chinmaya Missions.

 

I consider the Mandukya Upanishad as the pinacle of

the evlution of the thought. It emphasizes, based on

complete human experience of waking, dream and deep

sleep states, I, the conscious-existence entity, is

the substratum for all the three states from which all

the experiences arise, sustain and go back into. A

scientist in me cannnot accept even vishhisTaadvaita,

where oneness is still accepted as the all-pervading

reality. Shesha-Seshi bhaava, even in moksha, is not

appealing to my intellect - it is like freedom, while

one is being an eternal servent. Moksha has to be

freedome from all limitations and it cannot be gained

or given since anything that can be gained or given is

not yours to start with. That which has a beginning

has to have an end. There are several list serves

catering to the discussions of dvaita and

vishishhTaadvaita where one can learn about those

philosophies. Dwaitins think dwaita is supreme and

vishishhTaadvaitins think vishishhTaadvaita is great,

and of course adviata is supreme as this list serve

emphasizes.

 

There have been several extended discussions in the

past on the comparison of these. But you are always

left with biased opinions.

 

Now the question is what is the real truth? - I think

Bhagavaan - Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva - they have

provides three explanations - it is upto us to

discover what is right. No amout of 'hearsay' would

help, until as a true scientist one discovers the

truth by oneself. This list serve is another vehicle

to creat a frame of mind to explore the underlying

truth of one-self, the world and the Iswara.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

--- bagawan_sastry <bagawan_sastry wrote:

> I think there are 3 types of schools of thought

> namely DWAITHA,

> VISISTADWITHA, and ADWAITHA. Of These three which is

> considered to be

> great ? and What are the Differences between These

> Three schools?

> Will you please Enlighten us with these

> differences at your

> Convinient Time and Oblize.

> HARI OHM

> Sd/sastry E-mail address is " bagawan_aastry

> @yaho.co.in "

> >

> >

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

As Sadaji has pointed out in his reply, the list archive contains an

extended list of posts with detailed explanations to the question.

The differences that one observed in these philosophies are

not 'real' and with deep contemplation it is possible to see the

unity within this diversity of views expressed by the Acharyas. Our

foucs should be (just like the Acharyas) on the ultimate goal which

is liberation from Samsara. They all emphasize the importance of

shraddha and other qualifications which have been discussed for a

seeker. All these three philosophies also emphasize the importance of

Divine Grace which can only be realized by the purification of mind.

The process of purification may be different but its importance is

emphasized in all these three philophies.

 

Here are few links and there are over 600 discussions on topics

directly and implicitly related the subject matter.

 

advaitin/message/3742

 

advaitin/message/56

 

advaitin/message/1287

 

advaitin/message/1262

 

advaitin/message/1513

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> There have been several extended discussions in the

> past on the comparison of these. But you are always

> left with biased opinions.

>

> Now the question is what is the real truth? - I think

> Bhagavaan - Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva - they have

> provides three explanations - it is upto us to

> discover what is right. No amout of 'hearsay' would

> help, until as a true scientist one discovers the

> truth by oneself. This list serve is another vehicle

> to creat a frame of mind to explore the underlying

> truth of one-self, the world and the Iswara.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

>

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

>

> --- bagawan_sastry <bagawan_sastry wrote:

> > I think there are 3 types of schools of thought

> > namely DWAITHA,

> > VISISTADWITHA, and ADWAITHA. Of These three which is

> > considered to be

> > great ? and What are the Differences between These

> > Three schools?

> > Will you please Enlighten us with these

> > differences at your

> > Convinient Time and Oblize.

> > HARI OHM

> > Sd/sastry E-mail address is " bagawan_aastry

> > @yaho.co.in "

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

I am happy to forward this message sent to Sunderji from our dear Sri

Subbu linking advaitam and dwaitam through a sloka due to Swami

Paramarthananda. The insights are quite profound for the subject

under discussion;

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

=========================

V Subrahmanian <subrahmanian_v wrote:

Mon, 4 Jun 2007 03:55:43 -0700 (PDT)

V Subrahmanian <subrahmanian_v

A nice shloka on the unity of dvaitam and advaitam

 

Namaste.

 

The following words (shloka) were heard by me in Sw.Paramarthananda's

talks on the Shivanandalahari:

 

//dvaitam mohaaya bodhAt prAk prApte bodhe manIShayA

pUjArtham kalpitam dvaitam advaitAdapi sundaram //

 

[Prior to Advaitic realization dvaita deludes the person. After the

realization is had thru knowledge, the dvaitam that is deliberately

resorted to for the sake of puja, devotion, it turns out to be more

enchanting than even advaitam.]

 

Just thought of sharing this with you.

 

Pranams,

Om Tat Sat

==========================

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Ram Chandran " <ramvchandran

wrote:

 

 

Sorry to say that Sri.Subrahmanian had thoroughly misunderstood

the " dvaitam " in that slOka with Dvaita school of vEdAnta.

 

" dvaitam " in that slOka is referring to `dvaita' or duality of

devotee-devotion-deity. This duality, as per advaitic notion, is not

paramarthika but exist in vyavaharika only.

 

Where as the school `dvaita' or `tatvavada' is all about ontological

duality of jIva-brahman and this duality is eternal and not

empirical as in advaita.

 

So, where is the question of unity of dvaita (as a school of

Vedanta) and advaita here?

 

Regards,

Srinivas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

> Namaste:

>

> I am happy to forward this message sent to Sunderji from our dear

Sri

> Subbu linking advaitam and dwaitam through a sloka due to Swami

> Paramarthananda. The insights are quite profound for the subject

> under discussion;

>

> With my warmest regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

>

> =========================

> V Subrahmanian <subrahmanian_v wrote:

> Mon, 4 Jun 2007 03:55:43 -0700 (PDT)

> V Subrahmanian <subrahmanian_v

> A nice shloka on the unity of dvaitam and advaitam

>

> Namaste.

>

> The following words (shloka) were heard by me in

Sw.Paramarthananda's

> talks on the Shivanandalahari:

>

> //dvaitam mohaaya bodhAt prAk prApte bodhe manIShayA

> pUjArtham kalpitam dvaitam advaitAdapi sundaram //

>

> [Prior to Advaitic realization dvaita deludes the person. After

the

> realization is had thru knowledge, the dvaitam that is

deliberately

> resorted to for the sake of puja, devotion, it turns out to be

more

> enchanting than even advaitam.]

>

> Just thought of sharing this with you.

>

> Pranams,

> Om Tat Sat

> ==========================

>

[Guest guest]

--- Srinivas Kotekal <kots_p wrote:

 

 

>

> Sorry to say that Sri.Subrahmanian had thoroughly

> misunderstood

> the " dvaitam " in that slOka with Dvaita school of

> vEdAnta.

>

Srinivas - PraNAms

 

I am sorry to say that you have misunderstood the

spirit of Subbu's presentation.

 

Subbu's quotation of swami Paramaarthaanandaji's sloka

does not mention about dvaita doctrine but enjoying

of dvaita with correct advaitic understanding - this

is called aatma rati and aatma kriiDa, where apparent

duality is implied in any kriiDa.

Advaita as the very name indicates negates the duality

that one experiences as real. If dvaita is real we

have real problem. Since it is only apparent one can

enjoy the beauty of the kaleidoscopic projections

without getting lost in it. And there lies the beauty

of correct understanding of dvaita and advaita.

And we are not discussing dvaita doctrine here since

it is advaitin list anyway!

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Srinivas:

 

Whether Sri Subbu has understood or misunderstood the sloka depends

on how we visualize that sloka. Sri Subbu being an advaitin

understood the sloka differently than dwaitans such as you.

Perceptions do change from person to person and they depend on one's

belief and scholastic background. Sri Subbu did not state (nor anyone

else) that advaita philosophy is the same as the dwaita philosophy. I

am hoping that Subbuji after seeing your message, may decide to send

his own reply back to you! If that happens, let me thank you in

advance for motivating Subbuji to join back the list!

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin , " Srinivas Kotekal " <kots_p

wrote:

>

> advaitin , " Ram Chandran " <ramvchandran@>

> wrote:

>

>

> Sorry to say that Sri.Subrahmanian had thoroughly misunderstood

> the " dvaitam " in that slOka with Dvaita school of vEdAnta.

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Ram Chandran " <ramvchandran

wrote:

 

 

> Sri Subbu being an advaitin

> understood the sloka differently than dwaitans such as you.

> Perceptions do change from person to person and they depend on

one's

> belief and scholastic background. Sri Subbu did not state (nor

anyone

> else) that advaita philosophy is the same as the dwaita philosophy.

 

Namaste,

 

Subbuji had also referred (in personal correspondence) to

another quotation from Brihadaranyaka Upan. 5:1:1:

 

http://www.sankara.iitk.ac.in/upnishad.php3?toption=12

 

na cha upadeshaarhaM dvaitaM, jaatamaatrapraaNibuddhigamyatvaat.h |

 

" Nor does duality require to be taught; it is understood by everyone

as soon as he is born. "

 

The bhashya on this mantra alone is worth studying for any

length of time.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri.Ram Chandran,

 

Thanks for your message and clarification.

 

advaitin , " Ram Chandran " <ramvchandran

wrote:

>

> Namaste Sri Srinivas:

>

> Sri Subbu did not state (nor anyone else) that advaita philosophy

is the same as the dwaita philosophy.

>

 

The context of whole thread started by the user " Bhagvan_Shastry " is

all about the schools of vEdanta. Accordingly, it is fair on my part

to read Sri.Subbu's message in the context of this thread. If

Sri.Subbu is not meant that way, I will take back my words. However,

your statement that no one else meant that way is not correct.

 

In your message # 36212, you have been stated that differences one

observes in philosophies advaita, visitadvaita & dvaita are

not 'real'.

 

IMO. at least founder Acharayas of viShiTaadvaita and Dvaita

themselves do not think so.

 

Had the difference between these three school is not real (as you

seems opinion here); later acharayas wouldn't have founded their

school at all.

 

IMO, it is ok for anyone to be politically correct and hold social

or communal unity in these schools, however it is quite insulting

to the intellectual capabilities of these giants in holding the

philosophical unity of their doctrine with the very one they

themselves are opposing.

 

Although I do not wish churn any inter-school debate here, I wish

to make following observation on another point you made in your

above message. This is to purely to know and understand advaitic

stand better.

 

 

> All these three philosophies also emphasize the importance of

> Divine Grace which can only be realized by the purification of

mind.

> The process of purification may be different but its importance is

> emphasized in all these three philophies.

>

 

Divine Grace from Ishvara is highlighted in Advaita vedanta in

several places. In this regard, Sri.Sadanada-ji has also quoted

Sri.Dattatreya's avadhUta gIta 'Iswaraanugraat eva pumsaam advaita

vaasanaa'.

 

According to Sankara (in his BSB 1.2.14), `Ishvara' as such is for

the purpose of meditation of the seeker. " nirguNamapi sadbrahma

naamaruupagataiH guNaiH saguNaM upasanaarthaM tatra tatra

upadishyate... "

 

It seems, Acharya is saying here is that even though Brahman is

nirguNa, yet it is instructed as possessing of qualities of name

and form, ie. saguNa, for the purpose of meditation. Does this

means " Ishvara " as such with all His qualities such as `anugraha'

or `devine grace' etc etc is not real but accepted only for the

purpose meditation?

 

Also it is often said that Ishawara is Brahman with limiting

adjuncts such as " omnipotentence " , " omnipresence " etc.. and such

limiting adjuncts themselves are due to avidya or avidy kalpita from

the point of seeker.

 

Nevertheless, someone from outside of the advaita tradition face a

technical difficulty in understanding how such `imagined grace' will

really rescue and enlighten one to advaita vAsana? Any pointers is

appreciated.

 

Regards,

Srinivas.

 

 

> With my warmest regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Srinivas:

 

What I have stated came from how I perceived and understood. With my

limitations, I am aware that they may not necessarily agree with your

perceptions. I am not surprised that you didn't agree with them

since our believes and backgrounds are different. I want to assure

you that I have no intention (even unknowingly) to challenge

the 'intellect' of the acharyars. If my statements gave you the

impression in contrary forgive me for my lapses. I have no intention

to engage in a debate on other issues raised by you.

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note: Our fundamental problem is to use the " words " to describe a

philosophy and this imperfect media also contributed to

misconceptions and misunderstandings.

 

 

advaitin , " Srinivas Kotekal " <kots_p

wrote:

>

> Namaste Sri.Ram Chandran,

>

> Thanks for your message and clarification.

>

[Guest guest]

Sreenivasa-ji :

 

i am not getting into this controversy of advaita versus dvaita etc

etc for it is a maze with no way out !

 

However , have you heard of heard of sRI Madhusudana Saraswati ?

From childhood this great Saint was a great devotee of Lord

Krishna . In course of time , Madhusudhana Saraswati

attained 'Advaitic' siddhi' but did he abandon his devotion to

Krishna after he attained Advaitic realization ? NO! here is why !

 

He says :

 

" Duality is Bondage before MOKSHA, and after Realization it is

wisdom ! The imaginary duality of BHAKTI is sweeter than even Non-

duality! "

 

a PARAMA JNANI IR A PARAMA BHAKTA IS NEITHER AN ADVAITIN OR DWAITIN -

HE DOES NOT WEAR LABELS ... he /she is just a /woman of expanded

cosciousness !

 

How i miss our beloved subbuji today of all days when we are having

all these discussions on Gurus , different schools of philosophy

etc .... hE WOULD HAVE ENRICHED THE DISCUSSIONS SO MUCH WITH

HIS 'BALANCED' PERSPECTIVES ON EVERY SUBJECT ... subbuji , please

please, you are conspicuous by your absence .

 

love and regards

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin , " Srinivas Kotekal " <kots_p

wrote:

[Guest guest]

namaskAraH,

 

On 04/06/07, Srinivas Kotekal <kots_p wrote:

>

> Nevertheless, someone from outside of the advaita tradition face a

> technical difficulty in understanding how such `imagined grace' will

> really rescue and enlighten one to advaita vAsana? Any pointers is

> appreciated.

 

Interesting question from Srinivas-ji; the answer though is quite simple.

The " imagined grace " only removes the " imagined duality " ! Just as the

grace is imaginary, the rescuing is imaginary too. From the

paramArthika perspective, there is no bondage and no liberation

 

When SrI Sankara was walking through a narrow lane in vArANasI, a mad

elephant charged at him. He stepped aside to avoid being crushed by

the elephant. A vidvAn standing next to him asked, " if duality is only

imagined, why did you have to step aside? The elephant was only

imaginary, after all " , to which the AcArya replied - " my stepping

aside was imaginary too! "

 

dhanyavAdaH

Ramesh

[Guest guest]

namaskarams

 

advaitam or dwaitam,or vishistadwaitam all leads to brahman. what does it

matter to be part of that brhamman or slave- a bhakta or one with him when

everything is him only. i am a an adwaitin but yet i am a krishna bhakta and

even if i have to be a slave of him i would prefer that since once you see him

you are liberated and one with him. each has its own value and it is left to

the discretion of the seeker to choose. which ever system you choose ,whether

you are a grahastha or sanyasi all that is required is one's desire for freedom

from the cycle of birh and death and the turst that there is only one god

krishna or christ or allah.

 

baskaran

 

kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote:

Shree bagavan sastry - PraNAms

 

If I do not believe that Advaita is the supreme, I

would not be a moderator of this list. I do teach

adviata vedanta at the local Chinmaya Missions.

 

I consider the Mandukya Upanishad as the pinacle of

the evlution of the thought. It emphasizes, based on

complete human experience of waking, dream and deep

sleep states, I, the conscious-existence entity, is

the substratum for all the three states from which all

the experiences arise, sustain and go back into. A

scientist in me cannnot accept even vishhisTaadvaita,

where oneness is still accepted as the all-pervading

reality. Shesha-Seshi bhaava, even in moksha, is not

appealing to my intellect - it is like freedom, while

one is being an eternal servent. Moksha has to be

freedome from all limitations and it cannot be gained

or given since anything that can be gained or given is

not yours to start with. That which has a beginning

has to have an end. There are several list serves

catering to the discussions of dvaita and

vishishhTaadvaita where one can learn about those

philosophies. Dwaitins think dwaita is supreme and

vishishhTaadvaitins think vishishhTaadvaita is great,

and of course adviata is supreme as this list serve

emphasizes.

 

There have been several extended discussions in the

past on the comparison of these. But you are always

left with biased opinions.

 

Now the question is what is the real truth? - I think

Bhagavaan - Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva - they have

provides three explanations - it is upto us to

discover what is right. No amout of 'hearsay' would

help, until as a true scientist one discovers the

truth by oneself. This list serve is another vehicle

to creat a frame of mind to explore the underlying

truth of one-self, the world and the Iswara.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

--- bagawan_sastry <bagawan_sastry wrote:

> I think there are 3 types of schools of thought

> namely DWAITHA,

> VISISTADWITHA, and ADWAITHA. Of These three which is

> considered to be

> great ? and What are the Differences between These

> Three schools?

> Will you please Enlighten us with these

> differences at your

> Convinient Time and Oblize.

> HARI OHM

> Sd/sastry E-mail address is " bagawan_aastry

> @yaho.co.in "

> >

> >

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

BASKARAN.C.S

 

 

 

Here’s a new way to find what you're looking for - Answers

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- Respected Sadananda ji,

NAMASTHE

My ideeas about these three are as follows:-

As per Visistadwaita Jiva is different from Brahman.What ever may be

the efforts put forth a jiva can never Merge with Brahman.All its

efforts are usefull to get higher Births only.

As per Dwaita jiva is different from Brahman But after good efforts

(after many births)It can be Merged into Brahman.(Mukthi)

AS per Adwaita There is no duality Both jiva and brahman are one

and the same and there is no question of merging.This entire visible

world as individual jivas is only due to Illusion due to Maya only.

i request you to kindly enlighten me How far i am correct in my

ideas and whether there are any futhur differences among the three.

HARI OHM

Sd/SASTRY > > > >

> > >

> >

> >

>

 

> Here's a new way to find what you're looking for - Answers

>

>

[Guest guest]

Shree bagawan Sastry gaaru, PraNAms.

 

In VishishhTaadvaita, jiiva and jagat are parts of

Brahman only. It is like my hand is different from

me, yet it is part of me - like organs in the body -

there is an organic relation between jiiva-jagat with

Iswara. Iswara is there as all pervading principle

that pervades the whole universe as antaryaamin - it

is the unity with diversity or what is technically

call swagata bhedas in Brahman - like difference

between visheshaNa (attribute) and viseshya

(substantive). Hence it is called vishishhTa advaita.

 

I must say - saadhana involves dvaita - there is

saadhaka (seeker) and saadhya (sought). In the

advaitin doctrine, this difference dissolves into one

in the ultimate realization of oneness - that I am sat

chit ananda - At that paaramaarthika level there are

no divisions - all divisions, if they exist, are only

apparent and not real - like mirage waters. There is

no question of servant and master either since all

distinctions are sublimated since there cannot be any

distinctions or differentiations in sat/chit/ananda.

There is nothing more to surrender. And that is

Advaita.

 

All notions of dvaita causes problems and the root

cause of samsaara. Any speck of difference causes fear

and therefore samsaara, says shruti.

 

Hence freedom from all limitations can only be in

advaitic understanding. Hence Mandukya glorifies the

turiiyam as

'adRishTam, avyahaaryam, agraahyam, achintam,

avyapadeshyam, ekaatma pratyayachaaram,

prapanchopashamam, shaantam, shivam, advaitam,

caturtam manyante sa aatmaa sa vijneyaH'

 

That which cannot be grasped by senses (jnaanedriyas

or karmendriyas) that which is beyond vyavahaara satya

(transactional reality), that which cannot be thought

off, talked about, that which is locus of all

experiences and that which is the substantive for all

worlds (waking and dream), that which is supreme

peace, that which is auspicious, that which is

non-dual (adviata) which people call as the fourth -

that aatmaa has to be known. That is the essence of

advaita doctrine. Glorifies the scriptures.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

--- bagawan_sastry <bagawan_sastry wrote:

 

> --- Respected Sadananda ji,

> NAMASTHE

> My ideeas about these three are as

> follows:-

> As per Visistadwaita Jiva is different from

> Brahman.What ever may be

> the efforts put forth a jiva can never Merge with

> Brahman.All its

> efforts are usefull to get higher Births only.

> As per Dwaita jiva is different from Brahman But

> after good efforts

> (after many births)It can be Merged into

> Brahman.(Mukthi)

> AS per Adwaita There is no duality Both jiva

> and brahman are one

> and the same and there is no question of

> merging.This entire visible

> world as individual jivas is only due to Illusion

> due to Maya only.

> i request you to kindly enlighten me How far i

> am correct in my

> ideas and whether there are any futhur differences

> among the three.

> HARI OHM

> Sd/SASTRY > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Here's a new way to find what you're looking for

> - Answers

> >

> > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

sir,

 

All the three philosophies lead to the same goal. Kanchi Paramacharya

has explained about the Atma with simple examples. If there is nothing

like jivatman and Paramatma, then to know the Paramatma it becomes the

unknown. The knower that is jeeva and the unknown becomes two

different things. This is Dwaita. But Adwaita says the knower and the

unknown are same. For this it quotes the Keno Upanishad. Those who say

I know the Paramatma it is not known to him but to the one who say I

do not know it is revealed. Here what is the meaning of I do not know?

The sun is shining brightly. If we take a hand full of water and

spray it we will see hundreds of sun on those droplets. Since it is

the same sun, which is seen in the droplets, it can't be said they are

different.

There is some logic in the Advaitic concept. It gives further

explanation to the philosophy.

 

cdr bvn

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " B VAIDYANATHAN "

<vaidyanathiyer wrote:

>

> sir,

>

> All the three philosophies lead to the same goal.

 

Namaste all.

 

Every time this question recurs on this list I do not hesitate to

refer questioners to my web page on " Difference and Non-difference " .

I just now read it once more and tried to summarise it for you. But

it is not possible to summarise that page. It seems to be very tight

and precise. Maybe you can also go through it. Still, in order to

provoke some interest let me quote some characteristic (disconnected)

sentences of mine from that page:

 

The distinguishing characteristics of the three schools may be

classified in terms of the three fundamental concepts of the idea of

Difference ( = bheda).

 

Difference within the same category. On this point the three major

schools of vedanta agree.

 

Inter-category Difference.Such an inter-category difference does not

exist with respect to brahman, say both Sankara and Ramanuja. There

is only one category, brahman and everything is brahman, says Sankara.

And Ramanuja says: there is only one category, brahman and everything

else is a part of it.But Madhwa maintains that the category of

individual souls and the category of universe are categories

different from brahman.

 

...........................

 

Difference of the entity within itself.According to Sankara, brahman

does not have even this difference within itself. It is whole,

without parts, bereft of attributes and distinctions. This is

Sankara's reading of the Upanishads. Ramanuja as well as Madhwa

differ from this.

 

..............................

 

But Sankara and Ramanuja both agree that Matter emanated from brahman

as is declared in statements like 'That itself manifested itself' (=

tad AtmAnaM svayaM akuruta -- taittirIya upanishad II - 7). The

universe is only a modification of brahman, in both the advaita and

viSisTAdvaita philosophies; but hold on, there is a crucial

difference between the two viewpoints.

 

The advaita view says that the modification 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.

 

................................

 

Instead of trying to arbitrate among the great Masters, we should

only aim to understand one of them in as much fullness as possible.

This one Master may be chosen, as per one's tradition, taste,

attitudes and upbringing. In saying this we certainly invite the

criticism that Hinduism is too tolerant. But, is there something like

too rich a man or too beautiful a woman?

 

------------------------

 

The webpage referred to is:

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

 

PraNAms to all Vedantins,

profvk

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri.Professor Krishnamurthy,

 

Namaste.

 

advaitin , " V. Krishnamurthy " <profvk

wrote:

 

 

> Difference of the entity within itself.According to Sankara,

brahman

> does not have even this difference within itself. It is whole,

> without parts, bereft of attributes and distinctions. This is

> Sankara's reading of the Upanishads. Ramanuja as well as Madhwa

> differ from this.

 

Sir, I am afraid you have been misinformed on Madhva's position in

this regard.

 

Madhva does not say Brahman has internal difference. Even for that

matter, he out rightly denies any difference between Brahman's

various avatAra rUpas and niyAmaka (controller) rUpas.

 

I just wonder what would be your source in holding otherwise.

 

On the contrary, criticism on Sankara is that although Sankara

holds an explicit position of abhEda within Brahman, the

implication of his positing two concepts about Brahman viz

saguNa/nirguNa (or Ishvara / nirguNa-brahman) in the doctrine leads

to distinctions within the Brahman.

 

Some of the critical question one needs to address in this regard

are ;

 

Ishwara and Brahman, are they two sides of the same coin ? are

they para and apara brahmans ? is one avidyA-krita and another

shuddha ? If saguNa Brahman is mAyA-kalpita Brahman, then is that

mAyA a positive entity or not ?. If it is positive, like one sub-

school thinks, then how is Brahman with mAyA identical with Brahman

without mAyA adjunct? If it is not positive, like some thinks now

a days, then what is mAyA ? If it is non-existent then why are we

talking about it ? Why bring a non-existent mAyA and then say

SaguNa and NirguNa are identical ? so and so forth…

 

 

> The distinguishing characteristics of the three schools may be

> classified in terms of the three fundamental concepts of the idea

of

> Difference ( = bheda).

>

 

`Difference' or `bhEda' as such is undeniable.

 

Difference is pratyksha siddha. Shruti has no power to upset the

difference established by pratyksha. This is because, shruti itself

is depends on pratyaksha (to be grasped by us) and thus it is

upajIvika. If shrut is interpreted in such a way that bhEda is

negated, it would lead to upajIva-virOda fallacy.

 

Even for Advaita vEdAnta, bhEda is necessary and unavoidable. This

jagat is characterized as sat-asat-vilaxaNa, which means this jagat

is vilaxaNa (= different) from sat of Brahman and asat of son-of-

barren-woman. If one wishes to avoid this `difference' within

Advaita, one to hold this jagat as sat-asat-aatmaka (= both sat and

asat) instead of sat-asat-vilaxaNa. But then such position would

attracts fresh fallacies within the context of Advaita and that

would be different matter altogether.

 

Thus the concept of bhEda is irrefutable and necessary.

 

 

> Difference within the same category. On this point the three major

> schools of vedanta agree.

>

> Inter-category Difference.Such an inter-category difference does

not

> exist with respect to brahman, say both Sankara and Ramanuja.

There

> is only one category, brahman and everything is brahman, says

Sankara.

> And Ramanuja says: there is only one category, brahman and

everything

> else is a part of it.But Madhwa maintains that the category of

> individual souls and the category of universe are categories

> different from brahman.

 

`Inter-category difference' is called `svajAtiyabhEda' in shAstra.

Yes, Brahman is only one in His jAti. Madhva has no argument here.

 

`Internal Difference' is called `svagatabhEda'. As shown above,

both Advaita and VA in the final analysis implicated to be holding

the difference within Brahman. Only Madhva's position stand

validated in the final analysis.

 

`Intra-category Difference' also known as `vijAtiyabhEda' is the

difference `between' category themselves. Madhva holds that there is

a difference between Brahma-category and jIva-category. However,

Advaita denies the vijAtiya bhEda itself. The criticism on Advaita

is that the very word `vijAti' implies existence of two jAti-s

and `two' implies the `difference'. Thus, denying vijAtiyabhEda is

contradiction in terms.

 

 

>.But Madhwa maintains that the category of

> individual souls and the category of universe are categories

> different from brahman.

>

 

True, but we should not stop at that and forget that Madhva also

maintains these two categories (of souls and universe) on themselves.

 

He establishes that they are *depend* on Brahman for their very

existence. The existence is called `satta' in shAstras and itself

is characterized by three `sattA-traividhya' - existence having its

own `svaroopa', having its own function `pravritti' and as an object

of knowledge `pramiti'.

 

The dependence of jIva and jagat on Brhamn is attested in many

places by none other than founder Acharaya of vEdAnta Sri.vEda-vyAsa

Himself in many places such as;

 

In bhAgavata purANa dravyakarma ca kalaSca svabhAvo jIva eva ca

yadanugrahatah santi na santi yadupekShaya || (2.10.12)

(Substance, action, time, innate disposition, the jIva, all exist by

the grace of God; if He neglects them they cease to exist.)

 

idam hi viSvam bhagavAnivetaro yato jagatsthAnanirodhasambhavAh |

(1.5.20)

(Bhagavan (God) is the world; yet He is distinct from it. He is

cause of the existence, destruction, and creation of the world.)

 

In gIta 9.4, 9.5, where Krishna affirms that although He pervades

the universe, He is distinct from it.

 

According to BORI edition of Mahabharata (Calcutta edition: 12\318

\56) under shAnti parva [12th parva- moxadharma], chapter 306 and

shloka # 054: " anyascha raajansa parastatthAnyaH pancavimshakaH |

tatsthatvaadanupasyanti eka eva hi saadhava || " rough translation

might be " The supreme being is considered by foolish people to be

same as any other soul, but the real wise see it as unique

and differant [eka eva] "

 

 

> But Sankara and Ramanuja both agree that Matter emanated from

brahman

> as is declared in statements like 'That itself manifested itself'

(=

> tad AtmAnaM svayaM akuruta -- taittirIya upanishad II - 7). The

> universe is only a modification of brahman, in both the advaita

and

> viSisTAdvaita philosophies;

 

This interpretation of taittirya knocks off the very validity

(prAmANya) of vEda itself.

 

How? It is like this,

 

If this jagat is modification of Brahman (irrespective of such

modification is real or apparent), it makes shruti also

another `created' thing. If shruti is an created thing, where is its

prAmANya then? To begin with, all schools including Advaita accepts

that shruti is pramANa regarding Brahman because it is apourushEya.

The notion of `apourushEya' implicates that it has no author. `No

author' further implicates that it is never created as such. Thus,

shruti is uncreated and was always there from eternity.

 

Thus, the rival criticism on the theory of B's modification into

this jagat is that, the theory invalidates the very premise (of

shruti's prAmANya) on which this theory itself was build to begin

with.

 

Also, there are other textual criticisms raised by Madhva on this

theory. Just to sample few;

 

The shruti sets the context in previous verse (II.vi.1) saying that

Brahman desired 'bahu syAM prajAyeya'…

 

Advaita reads it as " Brahman desired to become **ALL** " .

 

Dvaita reads it correctly as " Brahman desired to become **MANY** " .

 

Criticisms on Advaita is that why `bahu' was read as `ALL' instead

of `MANY'?

 

Also, Upanishad's assertion of His 'entering' (…prAvishAt) would be

pointless if there are `other' things apart from Him. It is

meaningless to hold that He is `entering' into Himself by positing

that He is the material cause of that which He is 'entering'.

 

Brahman taking multiple Forms (other than created things) is

explained in next verse as " asadvA idamagra AsIt.h, tato vai

sadajAyata, tadAtmAnaM svayamakuruta,

tasmaattatsukR^itamuchyata . . . '

 

 

> 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.

>

 

True.

 

The difference between three Acharya's teachings does not matter

when it comes to humanity and its socio-spiritual behavior. All

three acharayas teach the saativika behavior, non-violence etc etc.

 

However, I believe you agree with me that the social harmony and

behavior is the not the primary goal (at least per Madhva) of

vEdAnta and mumukshatva in general. There are societies in other

cultures which are peaceful without any vEdAnta. The point I was

making is that, the short sight of social welfare should not stop us

from seeking validity or otherwise of various exponents of vEdanata.

 

> Instead of trying to arbitrate among the great Masters, we should

> only aim to understand one of them in as much fullness as

possible.

> This one Master may be chosen, as per one's tradition, taste,

> attitudes and upbringing. In saying this we certainly invite the

> criticism that Hinduism is too tolerant. But, is there something

like

> too rich a man or too beautiful a woman?

 

Again, vEdAnta itself is not insisting that one should follow as

per their own tradition/taste/attitudes/upbringing etc. It is quite

against vEdic spirit. Founder Acharaya of vEdanata Sri.VedaVyasa

Himself is insisting that we need to jignyAsa on the truth instead

of following our own tradition/taste/attitudes/upbringing. So also,

it is against Acharaya Sanakara's spirit of establishing the truth

objectively. Otherwise why did he argue against sAnkya,yOga and

bOuddhas in establishing Advaita? He would have let them follow

their own path according to their own

tradition/taste/attitudes/upbringing.

 

I guess this sentiment is all started in neo-vEdic period of 19th

century.

 

As always it is my pleasure discussing vEdAnta with you, Sir.

 

Regards,

Srinivas.

[Guest guest]

--- Srinivas Kotekal <kots_p wrote:

 

> On the contrary, criticism on Sankara is that

> although Sankara

> holds an explicit position of abhEda within

> Brahman, the

> implication of his positing two concepts about

> Brahman viz

> saguNa/nirguNa (or Ishvara / nirguNa-brahman) in the

> doctrine leads

> to distinctions within the Brahman.

>

Shreenivas you are criticizing Prof. vk statement

while committing the same mistake that you are

criticizing.

 

There are no distinctions in Brahman in advaita,

implicitly or explicitly.

 

SaguNa and NirguNa are not internal or external

distinctions - there are no sajaati, vijaati or

swagata bhedaas in Brahman, period.

 

vyavahaara satyam where saguNa brahman is described

and paaramaarthika satyam where nirguNa brahman is

indicated do not constitute distinctions in Brahman.

They are two distinct 'visions' of Brahman from two

separate references – one from the ignorance state

while the other from knowledge. This is nothing to do

with Brahman.

 

Prajnaanam Brahman is the shruti – it is the

homogeneous mass of consciousness. That is the

swaruupa laxanam of Brahman. There are dvita's in

that.

 

Whoever implied the statement you indicated as advaitc

position by implication, obviously do not understand

advaita or established in the knowledge of advaita.

The conclusions reached by incorrect implications,

therefore, do not constitute adviatic position.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

> Some of the critical question one needs to address

> in this regard

> are ;

>

> Ishwara and Brahman, are they two sides of the

> same coin ? are

> they para and apara brahmans ? is one

> avidyA-krita and another

> shuddha ? If saguNa Brahman is mAyA-kalpita

> Brahman, then is that

> mAyA a positive entity or not ?. If it is positive,

> like one sub-

> school thinks, then how is Brahman with mAyA

> identical with Brahman

> without mAyA adjunct? If it is not positive, like

> some thinks now

> a days, then what is mAyA ? If it is non-existent

> then why are we

> talking about it ? Why bring a non-existent mAyA and

> then say

> SaguNa and NirguNa are identical ? so and so forth…

>

>

> > The distinguishing characteristics of the three

> schools may be

> > classified in terms of the three fundamental

> concepts of the idea

> of

> > Difference ( = bheda).

> >

>

> `Difference' or `bhEda' as such is undeniable.

>

> Difference is pratyksha siddha. Shruti has no power

> to upset the

> difference established by pratyksha. This is

> because, shruti itself

> is depends on pratyaksha (to be grasped by us) and

> thus it is

> upajIvika. If shrut is interpreted in such a way

> that bhEda is

> negated, it would lead to upajIva-virOda fallacy.

>

> Even for Advaita vEdAnta, bhEda is necessary and

> unavoidable. This

> jagat is characterized as sat-asat-vilaxaNa, which

> means this jagat

> is vilaxaNa (= different) from sat of Brahman and

> asat of son-of-

> barren-woman. If one wishes to avoid this

> `difference' within

> Advaita, one to hold this jagat as sat-asat-aatmaka

> (= both sat and

> asat) instead of sat-asat-vilaxaNa. But then such

> position would

> attracts fresh fallacies within the context of

> Advaita and that

> would be different matter altogether.

>

> Thus the concept of bhEda is irrefutable and

> necessary.

>

>

> > Difference within the same category. On this point

> the three major

> > schools of vedanta agree.

> >

> > Inter-category Difference.Such an inter-category

> difference does

> not

> > exist with respect to brahman, say both Sankara

> and Ramanuja.

> There

> > is only one category, brahman and everything is

> brahman, says

> Sankara.

> > And Ramanuja says: there is only one category,

> brahman and

> everything

> > else is a part of it.But Madhwa maintains that the

> category of

> > individual souls and the category of universe are

> categories

> > different from brahman.

>

> `Inter-category difference' is called

> `svajAtiyabhEda' in shAstra.

> Yes, Brahman is only one in His jAti. Madhva has no

> argument here.

>

> `Internal Difference' is called `svagatabhEda'. As

> shown above,

> both Advaita and VA in the final analysis implicated

> to be holding

> the difference within Brahman. Only Madhva's

> position stand

> validated in the final analysis.

>

> `Intra-category Difference' also known as

> `vijAtiyabhEda' is the

> difference `between' category themselves. Madhva

> holds that there is

> a difference between Brahma-category and

> jIva-category. However,

> Advaita denies the vijAtiya bhEda itself. The

> criticism on Advaita

> is that the very word `vijAti' implies existence of

> two jAti-s

> and `two' implies the `difference'. Thus, denying

> vijAtiyabhEda is

> contradiction in terms.

>

>

> >.But Madhwa maintains that the category of

> > individual souls and the category of universe are

> categories

> > different from brahman.

> >

>

> True, but we should not stop at that and forget that

> Madhva also

> maintains these two categories (of souls and

> universe) on themselves.

>

> He establishes that they are *depend* on Brahman for

> their very

> existence. The existence is called `satta' in

> shAstras and itself

> is characterized by three `sattA-traividhya' -

> existence having its

> own `svaroopa', having its own function `pravritti'

> and as an object

> of knowledge `pramiti'.

>

> The dependence of jIva and jagat on Brhamn is

> attested in many

> places by none other than founder Acharaya of

> vEdAnta Sri.vEda-vyAsa

> Himself in many places such as;

>

> In bhAgavata purANa dravyakarma ca kalaSca svabhAvo

> jIva eva ca

> yadanugrahatah santi na santi yadupekShaya ||

> (2.10.12)

> (Substance, action, time, innate disposition, the

> jIva, all exist by

> the grace of God; if He neglects them they cease to

> exist.)

>

> idam hi viSvam bhagavAnivetaro yato

> jagatsthAnanirodhasambhavAh |

> (1.5.20)

> (Bhagavan (God) is the world; yet He is distinct

> from it. He is

> cause of the existence, destruction, and creation of

> the world.)

>

> In gIta 9.4, 9.5, where Krishna affirms that

> although He pervades

> the universe, He is distinct from it.

>

> According to BORI edition of Mahabharata (Calcutta

> edition: 12\318

> \56) under shAnti parva [12th parva- moxadharma],

> chapter 306 and

> shloka # 054: " anyascha raajansa parastatthAnyaH

> pancavimshakaH |

> tatsthatvaadanupasyanti eka eva hi saadhava || "

> rough translation

> might be " The supreme being is considered by foolish

> people to be

> same as any other soul, but the real wise see it as

> unique

> and differant [eka eva] "

>

>

> > But Sankara and Ramanuja both agree that Matter

> emanated from

> brahman

> > as is declared in statements like 'That itself

> manifested itself'

> (=

> > tad AtmAnaM svayaM akuruta -- taittirIya upanishad

> II - 7). The

> > universe is only a modification of brahman, in

> both the advaita

> and

> > viSisTAdvaita philosophies;

>

> This interpretation of taittirya knocks off the very

> validity

> (prAmANya) of vEda itself.

>

> How? It is like this,

>

> If this jagat is modification of Brahman

> (irrespective of such

> modification is real or apparent), it makes shruti

> also

> another `created' thing. If shruti is an created

> thing, where is its

> prAmANya then? To begin with, all schools including

> Advaita accepts

> that shruti is pramANa regarding Brahman because it

> is apourushEya.

> The notion of `apourushEya' implicates that it has

> no author. `No

> author' further implicates that it is never created

> as such. Thus,

> shruti is uncreated and was always there from

> eternity.

>

> Thus, the rival criticism on the theory of B's

> modification into

> this jagat is that, the theory invalidates the very

> premise (of

> shruti's prAmANya) on which this theory itself was

> build to begin

> with.

>

> Also, there are other textual criticisms raised by

> Madhva on this

> theory. Just to sample few;

>

> The shruti sets the context in previous verse

> (II.vi.1) saying that

> Brahman desired 'bahu syAM prajAyeya'…

>

> Advaita reads it as " Brahman desired to become

> **ALL** " .

>

> Dvaita reads it correctly as " Brahman desired to

> become **MANY** " .

>

> Criticisms on Advaita is that why `bahu' was read as

> `ALL' instead

> of `MANY'?

>

> Also, Upanishad's assertion of His 'entering'

> (…prAvishAt) would be

> pointless if there are `other' things apart from

> Him. It is

> meaningless to hold that He is `entering' into

> Himself by positing

> that He is the material cause of that which He is

> 'entering'.

>

> Brahman taking multiple Forms (other than created

> things) is

> explained in next verse as " asadvA idamagra AsIt.h,

> tato vai

> sadajAyata, tadAtmAnaM svayamakuruta,

> tasmaattatsukR^itamuchyata . . . '

>

>

> > 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.

> >

>

> True.

>

> The difference between three Acharya's teachings

> does not matter

> when it comes to humanity and its socio-spiritual

> behavior. All

> three acharayas teach the saativika behavior,

> non-violence etc etc.

>

> However, I believe you agree with me that the social

> harmony and

> behavior is the not the primary goal (at least per

> Madhva) of

> vEdAnta and mumukshatva in general. There are

> societies in other

> cultures which are peaceful without any vEdAnta.

> The point I was

> making is that, the short sight of social welfare

> should not stop us

> from seeking validity or otherwise of various

> exponents of vEdanata.

>

> > Instead of trying to arbitrate among the great

> Masters, we should

> > only aim to understand one of them in as much

> fullness as

> possible.

> > This one Master may be chosen, as per one's

> tradition, taste,

> > attitudes and upbringing. In saying this we

> certainly invite the

> > criticism that Hinduism is too tolerant. But, is

> there something

> like

> > too rich a man or too beautiful a woman?

>

> Again, vEdAnta itself is not insisting that one

> should follow as

> per their own tradition/taste/attitudes/upbringing

> etc. It is quite

> against vEdic spirit. Founder Acharaya of vEdanata

> Sri.VedaVyasa

> Himself is insisting that we need to jignyAsa on the

> truth instead

> of following our own

> tradition/taste/attitudes/upbringing. So also,

> it is against Acharaya Sanakara's spirit of

> establishing the truth

> objectively. Otherwise why did he argue against

> sAnkya,yOga and

> bOuddhas in establishing Advaita? He would have let

> them follow

> their own path according to their own

> tradition/taste/attitudes/upbringing.

>

> I guess this sentiment is all started in neo-vEdic

> period of 19th

> century.

>

> As always it is my pleasure discussing vEdAnta with

> you, Sir.

>

> Regards,

> Srinivas.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri.Sadaanada gaaru,

 

Thanks for your message.

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

 

> Shreenivas you are criticizing Prof. vk statement

> while committing the same mistake that you are

> criticizing.

>

> There are no distinctions in Brahman in advaita,

> implicitly or explicitly.

>

> SaguNa and NirguNa are not internal or external

> distinctions - there are no sajaati, vijaati or

> swagata bhedaas in Brahman, period.

>

> vyavahaara satyam where saguNa brahman is described

> and paaramaarthika satyam where nirguNa brahman is

> indicated do not constitute distinctions in Brahman.

> They are two distinct 'visions' of Brahman from two

> separate references – one from the ignorance state

> while the other from knowledge. This is nothing to do

> with Brahman.

>

 

That's what I am saying too.

 

`saguNa' and `nirguNa' are `two visions' from `two states' of

vyavahAra and pAramArtha, agreed. But such position itself leads to

positing `two' states to reality as such in the final analysis.

Since in Advaitic framework, Brahman alone `IS' in reality, it

leads to Brahman = Reality. Thus, holding two-ness in state

of `reality' is same as holding two-ness within Brahman and hence

the above criticism sustains.

 

> Prajnaanam Brahman is the shruti – it is the

> homogeneous mass of consciousness. That is the

> swaruupa laxanam of Brahman. There are dvita's in

> that.

>

 

Assertion `Prajnaanam Brahman' is definitely homogeneous mass (?)

of consciousness and no dvaita in that. No one disputes that.

However that itself does not indicate that there are no other prajnA-

s other than Brahma prajna. The same shruti is also telling us that

there are other chEtana-s (prajnA-s) other than Brahma chEtana in

assertions such as `cetanas cetananam'; Brahman supports liberated

selves " amrtasya

setuhu " etc etc.

 

Since we have such bAdaka from other shruti vachanas (btw, this case

is sama-bala pramANa virOdha), it is incorrect to

understand `prajnAnAm brahma' as above. The correct way lies in

reading in such a way that it would not invoke bAdaka from other

sama-bala pramANa.

 

 

> Whoever implied the statement you indicated as advaitc

> position by implication, obviously do not understand

> advaita or established in the knowledge of advaita.

> The conclusions reached by incorrect implications,

> therefore, do not constitute adviatic position.

>

 

This is most commonly laid charge against non-advaitins.

 

Most notable personalities such as T.M.P Mahadevan, K.Narain and of

course our own list member Sri. Dr.John Grimes (in his `The Seven

Great Untenables' book) have vigorously defended Advaita from

rival criticism saying that all such criticism originates from

confusion and mixing up between vyavahArika and pAramArthika levels

of views. On this ground they charge of

misrepresentation/misunderstanding of Advaita on non-advaitic

criticism.

 

However, upon critical analysis such charge does not sustain. The

so called `levels-of-reality' such as vyavahArika- pAramArthika

itself is not established or proven fact from shruti or other

pramANas. The very notion of P-V level is yet another tenet of

Advaita doctrine and it is not uniformly accepted across the board

among the disputants. Given this position of P-V levels of reality,

one can not just press into service such unproven notions to defend

from rival criticisms. It is fallacy of defending a doctorine using

doctorine itself.

 

I am not sure about viShitAdavitic polemics, but in dvaita texts it

is often questioned the vary basis of this tenet of vyavahArika-

pAramArthika levels of reality.

 

Regards,

Srinivas.

[Guest guest]

--- Srinivas Kotekal <kots_p wrote:

 

 

> However, upon critical analysis such charge does not

> sustain. The

> so called `levels-of-reality' such as vyavahArika-

> pAramArthika

> itself is not established or proven fact from shruti

> or other

> pramANas.

 

>

> I am not sure about viShitAdavitic polemics, but in

> dvaita texts it

> is often questioned the vary basis of this tenet of

> vyavahArika-

> pAramArthika levels of reality.

>

> Regards,

> Srinivas.

 

Srinivas - PraNAms

 

I maintain that you have missed the point of my

criticism.

 

I do not have interest to go into the discussion of

dvaitins or vishiSTAdvaitin's criticism and advaitins

counter criticisms here. There have been extensive

discussions in the literature and one can go through

that literature if one is interested.

 

I have only corrected your statement on advaita.

Others interpretation and their conclusions based on

their interpretations of advaita do not form the basis

for advaita.

 

For information:

Shankara has provided an exhaustive analysis of the

mantras in the sad vidya of Chadogya that clearly

establishes swaruupa laxaNa of Brahman from the point

of paaramaarthika satyam. In fact it is one of the

most beautiful bhaashya of Shankara.

 

Vyaavahaarika satyam is established by taTasta

laxaNas. They are plenty in the Upanishads.

 

That others do not agree with these interpretations is

of no consequence here, and conclusions that they

reach about advaita should not be taken as advaitic

interpretations, since their interpretations

themselves are subject to criticism too.

 

And that my friend is what I have objected to - that

conclusions that one has reached by others

implications or interpretations cannot be attributed

to adviata.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Pranams Sri Srinivas

 

Srinivas Kotekal <kots_p wrote: Dear

Sri.Professor Krishnamurthy,

 

Namaste.

 

advaitin , " V. Krishnamurthy " <profvk

wrote:

 

 

 

`Difference' or `bhEda' as such is undeniable.

 

Difference is pratyksha siddha. Shruti has no power to upset the

difference established by pratyksha. This is because, shruti itself

is depends on pratyaksha (to be grasped by us) and thus it is

upajIvika. If shrut is interpreted in such a way that bhEda is

negated, it would lead to upajIva-virOda fallacy.

 

Even for Advaita vEdAnta, bhEda is necessary and unavoidable. This

jagat is characterized as sat-asat-vilaxaNa, which means this jagat

is vilaxaNa (= different) from sat of Brahman and asat of son-of-

barren-woman. If one wishes to avoid this `difference' within

Advaita, one to hold this jagat as sat-asat-aatmaka (= both sat and

asat) instead of sat-asat-vilaxaNa. But then such position would

attracts fresh fallacies within the context of Advaita and that

would be different matter altogether.

 

Thus the concept of bhEda is irrefutable and necessary.

 

 

Regards,

Srinivas.

 

 

You are saying 'difference' is visible and eternal. Now I have a question.

Take the case of an electron and a photon. Now we know that an electron and a

photon have different set of properties , but an electron can emit or absorb a

photon. A photon can be simply and totally gobbled up by an electron. So how can

we say difference is eternal and visible?

 

 

 

Regards

S.Rangarathnam

 

 

_YYou

 

 

 

 

 

oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links.