Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 51

Thread: Describe Advaita, Vishistadvaita, Dvaita

  1. #11
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    NorthEast, USA
    Age
    49
    Posts
    246
    Rep Power
    0
    I think Madhwas believe staunchly on Dvaita. I am an Iyengar and I have not read scriptures or vedas or anything like that. My approach to hinduism is prayer and questioning myself frequently. i can understand people sometimes get too emotional of their belief. as a vaishnava i have been judged to worship maha vishnu alone. But I am not one. Atleast my parents and grand parents have not taught me anything like that. my maternal grand mother was my icon , though she was not soft lady to approach but by observing her i developed myself. her husband, my grandpa , was a purohit all his life. so i cannot say she was less religious. being a purohit's wife she would have learnt the best way and strictest form of cleanliness. so she never taught me to diss saiva form of worship. she never hesitated to visit the agastheeswarar temple in my place . but suddenly i encountered few individuals who shocked me about this strange vaishnava tradition.

    So whenever such a thought arises in me i just think of my ancestors who never taught me anything like not to worship saiva.

    Onething I observed is, more people learn about scriptures more they debate end up in argument and a fight. I think sticking on to a something like dvaita or advaita is good personally but I am the only one is totally wrong. It is just an installation of ego in the speakers mind.

    it is sad to find that so called people who seemed to have benefitted following these philosophies end up behaving immature by being staunch. in this context i have to agree with sarabhanga.

    Scriptures are good to learn, but for novice or someone who would try to understand literally and who cannot see it in multiple context , i think it would end up harming him rather than improving them.

    Knowledge imparts happiness and confidence in a human. But most times it makes them narcissitic and over confidence and inner blindness.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    mrityuloka
    Age
    52
    Posts
    3,729
    Rep Power
    337
    Quote Originally Posted by Namo Narayana
    I think Madhwas believe staunchly on Dvaita. I am an Iyengar and I have not read scriptures or vedas or anything like that. My approach to hinduism is prayer and questioning myself frequently. i can understand people sometimes get too emotional of their belief. as a vaishnava i have been judged to worship maha vishnu alone. But I am not one. Atleast my parents and grand parents have not taught me anything like that. my maternal grand mother was my icon , though she was not soft lady to approach but by observing her i developed myself. her husband, my grandpa , was a purohit all his life. so i cannot say she was less religious. being a purohit's wife she would have learnt the best way and strictest form of cleanliness. so she never taught me to diss saiva form of worship. she never hesitated to visit the agastheeswarar temple in my place . but suddenly i encountered few individuals who shocked me about this strange vaishnava tradition.

    So whenever such a thought arises in me i just think of my ancestors who never taught me anything like not to worship saiva.

    Onething I observed is, more people learn about scriptures more they debate end up in argument and a fight. I think sticking on to a something like dvaita or advaita is good personally but I am the only one is totally wrong. It is just an installation of ego in the speakers mind.

    it is sad to find that so called people who seemed to have benefitted following these philosophies end up behaving immature by being staunch. in this context i have to agree with sarabhanga.

    Scriptures are good to learn, but for novice or someone who would try to understand literally and who cannot see it in multiple context , i think it would end up harming him rather than improving them.

    Knowledge imparts happiness and confidence in a human. But most times it makes them narcissitic and over confidence and inner blindness.
    I agree with your post 100%. I am a vaishnava but shiva is my ishta devta. Do I fit in any philosophy? probably not. Does it matter to me? No.

    satay

  3. #13
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Govinda Lokam
    Age
    45
    Posts
    738
    Rep Power
    356
    Quote Originally Posted by Namo Narayana
    I think Madhwas believe staunchly on Dvaita. I am an Iyengar and I have not read scriptures or vedas or anything like that. My approach to hinduism is prayer and questioning myself frequently. i can understand people sometimes get too emotional of their belief. as a vaishnava i have been judged to worship maha vishnu alone. But I am not one. Atleast my parents and grand parents have not taught me anything like that. my maternal grand mother was my icon , though she was not soft lady to approach but by observing her i developed myself. her husband, my grandpa , was a purohit all his life. so i cannot say she was less religious. being a purohit's wife she would have learnt the best way and strictest form of cleanliness. so she never taught me to diss saiva form of worship. she never hesitated to visit the agastheeswarar temple in my place . but suddenly i encountered few individuals who shocked me about this strange vaishnava tradition.
    Hmm, I have not heard many Srivaishnavas being taught to reject non Vaishnavite worship, atleast nowadays. That does not mean a Ramanuja shishya has any right to talk against his teachings and become political. Whatever the teachings of the guru, whether it be Ramanujacharya or others, and if you are born in that tradition or willingly accept it - you are supposed to learn the works of the Acharya, understand it and live the way it has been prescribed.

    Srimad Ramanuja has never attacked Shaiva traditions, as such, though Vaishnava theology holds Vishnu to be the highest diety. We find such reference only in Vedanta Desika's works( in Rahasya Thrayasara, he has condemned worshipping any diety other than Vishnu), but Desika also has composed some praises on Shiva elsewhere, so you are left wondering what his true position is. Perhaps he is addressing two classes of Srivaishnavites in different ways? Even from Alwar teachings, it is very clear that Srivaishnavas are not required to "avoid" Shiva.


    Scriptures are good to learn, but for novice or someone who would try to understand literally and who cannot see it in multiple context , i think it would end up harming him rather than improving them.

    Knowledge imparts happiness and confidence in a human. But most times it makes them narcissitic and over confidence and inner blindness.
    As I said much earlier, would it be better to hand over some one a copy of the Gita without any commentaries and let him understand what he can without the prejudiced view of commentrators? What would somebody understand from the Gita, without any guidance or "brainwashing"? His understanding is likely to the "right one" for him.
    Guard your Dharma, Burn the Myth, Promote the Truth, Crush the superstition.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Age
    50
    Posts
    117
    Rep Power
    119
    Quote Originally Posted by Lakshmi USA
    Though I am an vaishnava my parents never taught me these philosophies. Neither more religious relatives of mine did talk about it.

    Will someone be kind enough to give me a short description of all the three.

    I just learnt in a nutshell that Dvaita says Krishna is the only one and there is no other.
    Vedanta + Buddhism = Advaita
    Vedanta + Pancharatra (Vaishnavism) = Vishistadvaita
    Vedanta + Sankya = Dvaita

    Just my opinion on how pure vedanta may be derived from the hundreds of different options that are available.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Sahasrarkadyutirmatha
    Posts
    1,802
    Rep Power
    191

    Post

    Namaste Ram,

    Vedanta + Ajativada = Advaita.
    Vedanta + Jativada = Dvaita (or Vishishtadvaita).

    Vedanta + Jativada + “Jivatman is a part of Paramatman” = Vishishtadvaita.
    Vedanta + Jativada + “Jivatman is apart from Paramatman” = Dvaita.

    Vishishtadvaita is NOT exactly equivalent with “Vaishnavism”; and Ajativada is NOT exactly equivalent with “Buddhism” !

    I do agree, however, that Dvaita-vada stems directly from the teachings of Samkhya.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    NorthEast, USA
    Age
    49
    Posts
    246
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Sudarshan
    Hmm, I have not heard many Srivaishnavas being taught to reject non Vaishnavite worship, atleast nowadays. That does not mean a Ramanuja shishya has any right to talk against his teachings and become political. Whatever the teachings of the guru, whether it be Ramanujacharya or others, and if you are born in that tradition or willingly accept it - you are supposed to learn the works of the Acharya, understand it and live the way it has been prescribed.

    Srimad Ramanuja has never attacked Shaiva traditions, as such, though Vaishnava theology holds Vishnu to be the highest diety. We find such reference only in Vedanta Desika's works( in Rahasya Thrayasara, he has condemned worshipping any diety other than Vishnu), but Desika also has composed some praises on Shiva elsewhere, so you are left wondering what his true position is. Perhaps he is addressing two classes of Srivaishnavites in different ways? Even from Alwar teachings, it is very clear that Srivaishnavas are not required to "avoid" Shiva.




    As I said much earlier, would it be better to hand over some one a copy of the Gita without any commentaries and let him understand what he can without the prejudiced view of commentrators? What would somebody understand from the Gita, without any guidance or "brainwashing"? His understanding is likely to the "right one" for him.
    I agree with you. I never believed ramanuja or azhwars tried to project it that way. it is the peoples perception and understanding that stands to be corrected.

    I hate to see things literally most times. He would have composed poems while in a deep thought about vishnu. that is all i would assume or he would have felt all are form of vishnu and it doesnt hurt to say HIM as vishnu or Mahesha......... The Vishwaroopam itself a proof that god is in multiple form.

    But I do find lot of Iyengars that dont think worshipping shiva or ganesa or muruga is right.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Age
    50
    Posts
    117
    Rep Power
    119
    Namaste.


    Quote Originally Posted by sarabhanga
    Namaste Ram,

    Vedanta + Ajativada = Advaita.
    Vedanta + Jativada = Dvaita (or Vishishtadvaita).

    Vedanta + Jativada + “Jivatman is a part of Paramatman” = Vishishtadvaita.
    Vedanta + Jativada + “Jivatman is apart from Paramatman” = Dvaita.
    Oh, well, I might say:

    Advaitins might agree with the comments on Vishistadvaita or Dvaita
    Vishsitadvaitins WILL agree with the comments on Advaita and Dvaita
    Dvaitins WILL agree with the comment on Advaita.

    So it is only a perspective, seen from all sides.

    You are apparently an advaitin, and hence naturally decline the comment on advaita, as as expected accept the one on Dvaita...

    My point is to say that all the accepted systems of vedanta deviate from the essential teaching of vedanta, which teaches

    1. Realism ( declined by advaita due to its influence of Buddhism)
    2. Brahman as beyond particular names and forms ( rejected by Vishsitadvaitins due to their influence from Pancharatra)
    3. Brahman as material cause ( rejected by Dvaita due to their Shankyan affiliation)

    People belong to these particular traditions will decline their own "influences" while gleefully accepting the "influences" of others. Quite Naturally.



    Quote Originally Posted by sarabhanga
    Vishishtadvaita is NOT exactly equivalent with “Vaishnavism”; and Ajativada is NOT exactly equivalent with “Buddhism” !
    Ajativada is just a remodelling of Buddhism, anyway this will be accepted by all non advaitins. The connections between theories of relative and absolute truths is too obvious, and vedanta has never referred to such concepts except through mere inference.


    Quote Originally Posted by sarabhanga
    I do agree, however, that Dvaita-vada stems directly from the teachings of Samkhya.
    Quite naturally, the reasons have been provided earlier.

    I draw my conclusions possibly based on what I understand from scripture and also what most of the philosophers arrived at in the past:

    1. Most writers on the sutras declined Ajativada and Mayavada, and the sutras and Gita themselves do so.
    2. Most commentrators accepted Brahman being the material cause of the world.
    3. Most commentators had a Vaishnavite interpretation, which I am inclined to decline because it is based on rejecting certain scriptures as unorthodox, and bypassing selective verses in orthodox scripture etc.
    4. Most commentrators accepted the position of dvaita-advaita or a kind of qualified monism, which I am inclined to accept because of the overwhelming support in favour of this model of vedanta.

    You would be tempted to conclude that, real vedanta is thus found from an analysis of the majority opinions, and with proper reasoning of them. Obviously, if you belong to one of these traditions and beleive in every bit of it, you will not compromise your position, even a bit.

    All Hindus schools have applied "super imposition" on the vedanta in accordance with needs of the times, and based on social and historical needs.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Age
    50
    Posts
    117
    Rep Power
    119
    In addtion to the social and historical needs, different schools sometimes hold on to some positions dogmatically to maintain internal consistancy within teachings. Interal consistancy was very essential for the system to get wide acceptance.

    For eg, Advaita itself has very little internal consistancy if Mayavaya is pruned off. Without Mayavada, advaita has no good expalnations for the plurality.

    If the doctrine of Vishnu's supremacy is not accepted, dvaita-advaita vada is very hard to hold on, because dvaita-adviata philosophies must be monotheistic in nature for internal consistancy. If there not a particular supreme being, this philosophy can be easily refuted.

    Similarly, dvaita vada requires Brahman not to be part of either jiva or jagat, because it creates an internal inconsitancy.

    It is even questionable if all philosophers beleived in all their own teachings, or simply based some of their teachings for logical consistancy and from a polemical point of view.

    From a philosophical standpoint, certainly vedanta cant be teaching advaita, dvaita-advaita and dvaita simultaneously. Either one of these systems is correct, or all of them are partially correct( and partially incorrect). It is upto to the person to decide for himself.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Sahasrarkadyutirmatha
    Posts
    1,802
    Rep Power
    191

    Post

    Namaste Ram,

    Advaita is entirely self-consistent without Maya.

    Mayavada explains all plurality as non-eternal, and thus as suffering both creation and final dissolution. And without resort to Mayavada, the original Ajativada independently explains that there is no plurality which is eternal (or unborn).

    If the dogma of Vishnu’s supremacy is not accepted, then it is quite simple to accept Brahman (or even Shiva) as the one supreme Truth.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Sahasrarkadyutirmatha
    Posts
    1,802
    Rep Power
    191

    Post

    Ajativada is just a remodelling of Buddhism
    According to the Mahabharata, the Aja Brahman creates the Gods, the Saints, the Fathers, and Men.

    And according to the Maitrayani Samhita, Aja Ekapad is equivalent with Agni.

    Ajativada is derived entirely from the ageless ideal of Aja Brahman or Aja Ekapad, who is the mysterious seat and vehicle of Agni.

    And none of this has any relation to the much later concepts of Buddhism!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 21 July 2012, 02:05 PM
  2. The Bickerings/Complaints
    By sm78 in forum Feedback
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 08 January 2011, 12:13 PM
  3. Advaita Primer ...
    By yajvan in forum New to Sanatana Dharma
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 22 January 2010, 12:28 PM
  4. Tattvas
    By grames in forum Advaita
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 14 October 2009, 07:55 AM
  5. Shaktaism, Shaivism and Vaishnavism
    By TruthSeeker in forum God in Hindu Dharma
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 14 June 2006, 11:28 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •