Madhva sampradaya vs. Srivaishnava sampradaya

[Viraja]

Namaste,

I wonder if there are any difference between the two. In both, Hanuman, Sri Krishna and Lakshmi Narasimha worship is given a prime focus. Ofcourse, to Sri Vaishnavas Sri Ranganatha worship is the foremost, I believe he is considered the supreme in Sri Vaishnava sampradaya. And I believe, Sri Krishna is considered the supreme in Madhwa sampradaya. But are there really any true differences for the common man? Why Sri Vaishnavas aren't/shouldn't marry Madhwas and vice versa?

Thank you.

[philosoraptor]

Yes, there are strong philosophical differences between the two sampradaayas.

As far as whether people should intermarry between the two, well, if one has to ask, then any answer one could offer would be meaningless.

[Ra K Sankar]

Namaste

Both the Sri Vaishnava (Sri Ramanuja's qualified monism) and Madhva (Tattva Vada or the Supreme Separate Entity Argument) traditions holds Narayana/Vishnu as the Supreme and that Krishna is an incarnation of Narayana/Vishnu. Only that while the Sri Vaishnava tradition holds that the individual is a part of the Supreme, the Madhva tradition holds that the individual and the Supreme are two eternally separate entities.

Hare Krishna movement may hold that Krishna is Supreme and not Narayana/Vishnu.

Regards
Ra K Sankar

[Viraja]

Namaste

Only that while the Sri Vaishnava tradition holds that the individual is a part of the Supreme, the Madhva tradition holds that the individual and the Supreme are two eternally separate entities.

Hare Krishna movement may hold that Krishna is Supreme and not Narayana/Vishnu.

Regards
Ra K Sankar

I thought that according to Vishishtadvaita (of the Srivaishnava sampradaya) that the individual is unique from the brahman - that even after moksha that the individual soul does not become part of brahman as in 'blending with him' - the individual soul is said to maintain its uniqueness, is it not?

[Venudhara]

I thought that according to Vishishtadvaita (of the Srivaishnava sampradaya) that the individual is unique from the brahman - that even after moksha that the individual soul does not become part of brahman as in 'blending with him' - the individual soul is said to maintain its uniqueness, is it not?

Quite right. The individual forms an integral part of Brahman in the much the same way as an essential attribute is inherently and inseparably related to its substance. Note that such a relation usefully accommodates both difference and non-difference. There is difference on account of the substance and attribute being different by their nature. There is non-difference in the sense that the substance as integrally and inseparably related to the attribute is one.

For a useful insight into the Sri Vaishnava perspective on this issue, see Ramanuja's commentary on Brahma Sutra II.3.43 (Amso nanavyapadesat anyatha ca)

[Viraja]

Thank you, Venudhara.

[kettlelogic]

IMO, by the end of the day, both Acharya's would converge to the same opinion. However, given the huge task that is to explain this infinite doctrine that is Vaishnavism, and our limited capacity to grasp, a given portion of this nectar is revealed by those great Acharya's to mankind. But, it is more than enough for salvation.

Sri Madhvacharya, came with his philosphy, an anti-thesis of the monism doctrine. His mission was really to show the difference between the soul and supersoul. During his era, buddhism and monism was on a high, his task was to erase the myth surrounding Brahman and re-instore the proper doctrine.
He also said that, no doctrine is an end in itself, it grows. The growing is due to fact that the whole philosophy cannot be given in its totality at a given point in time. The reason is due to the fact that, we human mind, is really limited. The Acharyas though know the TRUTH in its totality.