Can Advaita and Vishishtadvaita be reconciled?

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Different philosophies that describe reality may start with different premises and reach a conclusion. So the differences in the philosophies is due to the difference in premises and in the inferences made. If you take advaita and visihtadvaita there are such differences. The major deviation of Ramanuja from Sankara in the premise is that he postulates brahman who has infinite auspicious attributes. The other major deviation which I would call as one of inference is that he says that jiva cannot become one with brahman though they are inseparable.

It seems to me that both these and other differences between advaita and visishtadvaita can be reconciled with right interpretation. I think members would be interested in a discussion on this and hope would enlighten the beginners including myself with their insights.

 

[renuka]

Good attempt by you Sravna.I myself often wondered why is it so hard for people to realize that one path is just superimposed on the other and leads to the same destination eventually but still many wish for it to be distinctly separate.

Dont know why? May be to keep some traditions alive..sometimes even truth is denied.

Sometimes when we are too engrossed in wondering how a delicacy is made we actually forget to taste it.

I feel reconciling is not really possible if the mind fails to see.

 

[sravna]

Renuka, Thanks. In my view mind does recognize truths. It depends on to whom it is presented and how forcefully it is presented. Even the most hardcore skeptic of something true can be made to see the truth. The real problem is not that. The problem is people do not want to admit that they see the truth.

 

[Iyyarooraan]

Sorry to interrupt. Both the philosophies can reconcile with each other. It does not matter even if they do not. But the advocates will not reconcile because they are bigger than the seeds

 

[sravna]

Hers's a comparison of Advaita (A) and vishistadvaita(V):

A - Brahman is attributeless
V- Brahman has infinite primary attributes

A - Maya is a power that creates illusion
V- Maya is a power that creates reality

A- Physical World and Jivas are only realtively real and brahman is the only reality. Everything is one with brahman
V- Physical World and jivas are as real as brahman and exist as secondary attributes of brahman. They are not one with brahman.

A- Knowledge is the way to salvation
V-Bhakthi is the way to salvation

The above gives some major differences between the two.

Note: In "V" primary attributes are attributes such as compassion, love etc which are in the nature of brahman. The secondary attributes on the other hand undergo change though their existence is always considered real.

 

[Harini]

What about other ideas like reconciling DMK and AIADMK; Congress and BJP; Tamil language and Hindi Language. Theoretically all are possible for someone said that knowledge creation is about finding similarity between two dissimilar things and identifying the subtle difference between two similar things. But such academic exercises will not bring about any Social Change. Reconciliation of Hindus and Muslims resulted only in emergence of a third thing in Punjab! If you want to create such new things - go ahead. The world will only become more interesting with such things!!

 

[sravna]

Here's my attempt at reconciling the first of the major differences:

A-Brahman is attributeless
V- Brahman has infinite auspicious primary attributes

Advaita's statement that brahman is attributeless in my opinion should be taken to mean that you cannot describe brahman by one attribute or a set of attributes. For example you just cannot say: Brahman is intelligent. This is because it is like saying that brahman is sattvic among the three gunas. But that is not the case because all the gunas including rajas and tamas are in balance in brahman thus bringing out the best of all of them. Thus the inherent goodness of the good qualities along with the good aspects of inherently bad qualities inhere in brahman. Brahman being the highest reality can be thought to possess infinite number of such qualities.

 

[renuka]

Many feel that Advaita is sans Bhakti and too technical but it takes a lots of Bhakti to reach to the level of understanding Advaita.

I can only summarize it like this:

Dvaita is the Plant,Vishisthadvaita is the Flower,Advaita is the Fragrance and Bhakti makes the Flower Bloom.

 

[Harini]

Then what is the Bhakthi? Is it that Insect that goes collecting pollen humming its way? Or is it the pollination happening by other means? What concern will Dvaitha plant will have on the Flower if it can reproduce vegetatively?

 

[renuka]

Then what is the Bhakthi? Is it that Insect that goes collecting pollen humming its way? Or is it the pollination happening by other means? What concern will Dvaitha plant will have on the Flower if it can reproduce vegetatively?

Your words are quite unclear but anyway I was just being poetic.
Your are free to hum any tune you want here.

 

[Brahin]

Then what is the Bhakthi? Is it that Insect that goes collecting pollen humming its way? Or is it the pollination happening by other means? What concern will Dvaitha plant will have on the Flower if it can reproduce vegetatively?

The Insect doesnt go around collecting pollen.It looks for nectar and pollen gets stuck to its body.
Bhakti is not insect..Bhakti does no sting!!!!

 

[sravna]

Many feel that Advaita is sans Bhakti and too technical but it takes a lots of Bhakti to reach to the level of understanding Advaita.

I can only summarize it like this:

Dvaita is the Plant,Vishisthadvaita is the Flower,Advaita is the Fragrance and Bhakti makes the Flower Bloom.

Renuka,

I think you are right. Sankara himself composed many hyms on Vishnu, Shiva and other Gods. I think one can view bhakti as something preparatory and essential in the quest for moksha but moksha is ultimately attained only with the right knowledge.

 

[Brahin]

Dear Harini Ji,

I think I have found a role for your insect analogy.
See its simple..till we find the nectar of immortality we all are insects only moving from flower to flower.

Didnt AdiShankara say this:

Punarapi Jananam Punarapi Maranam,
Punarapi Janani Jatare Sayanam,

 

[renuka]

Renuka,

I think you are right. Sankara himself composed many hyms on Vishnu, Shiva and other Gods. I think one can view bhakti as something preparatory and essential in the quest for moksha but moksha is ultimately attained only with the right knowledge.

Lord Krishna didnt say this for nothing at all:

Shraddhavaan Labhathe Jnaanam

 

[gopaindu]

Dear all,
Shri Sravan has started the thread which I myself wanted to do it but with a slight modification i.e. connecting all the three philosophies. Madam Renu has already connected it.
In my opinion, all the three philosophies are relevant to human beings. Suppose if you say something pertaining to V Class to a student studying first standard, then he will not be able understand. He will understand when he reaches the V standard. Considering the age, it is likely that he would forget. Suppose same thing is told to a student of IV standard, he would remember to have heard and will be happy when he understands in the next year. The advaita philosophy is abstract and it is very very difficult to be understood by one and all. It is likely that nobody would turn their attention towards it barring exceptions of course. Subsequently, Shri Ramanuja Modified it in such a way that it could be understood at least by a few. However, Shri Madvacharya had done a splendid job by making the philosophy which could be understood by one and all. So, consistent practice of Dwaita would lead the person to Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita and in turn consistent practice of Ramanuja's philosophy would ultimately lead to Advaita. Once again consistent practice of Advaita would lead to realise that the person would realise that he himself is brahman. Thus the three philosopies are only steps in a ladder and the ultimate realisation of Myself is Brahman would come when you reach the highest point in the ladder. According to the level a person has attained like in academic levels, one could understand that actually there is no difference between these philosophies but only the capacity to practice distinguishes these philosophies. raja48

 

[Harini]

Brahmin = A + D + V

Bhakthi should mean nectar of immortality. However by simple logic Brahmin cult is about reconciled state of all of Dwaitha, Advaitha and Visishtadwaitha. Isn't it?

Dear Harini Ji,

I think I have found a role for your insect analogy.
See its simple..till we find the nectar of immortality we all are insects only moving from flower to flower.

Didnt AdiShankara say this:

Punarapi Jananam Punarapi Maranam,
Punarapi Janani Jatare Sayanam,

 

[Brahin]

Bhakthi should mean nectar of immortality. However by simple logic Brahmin cult is about reconciled state of all of Dwaitha, Advaitha and Visishtadwaitha. Isn't it?

What logic???

Brahmin=A+D+V??? (sounds like new political party)

If you saying Brahman=A+D+V then some logic is there.

Earlier post you said Bhakti is Insect..Now you are saying Nectar of Immortality..then dont know what you will say next..Bhakti is Insecticide?

 

[renuka]

Renuka,

I think you are right. Sankara himself composed many hyms on Vishnu, Shiva and other Gods. I think one can view bhakti as something preparatory and essential in the quest for moksha but moksha is ultimately attained only with the right knowledge.

Dear Sravna,


I am reading a book today by Swami Vivekananda Karma Yoga Sutra Satakam seems to have interesting debates about KarmaYoga also being a direct means to Moksha.

As I read I will put a few lines here..so that we can discuss it.

Ok..I will put this 1st:

Bhagavan Sri Ramakrishna said: "the impure mind attached to lust and lucre cannot know Paramatman who is pure consciousness.But when this mind cuts asunder the bondage of nescience in the form of lust and lucre,then at once it attains the form of pure consciousness and dissolves in Paramatman.Verily it was thus that all the ancient sages realized Paramatma-tattva".

Point brought up: Since it is thus seen that realization of Paramatman is simultaneous with the absolute purification of the mind,how can Karmayoga which is the cause of purification of the mind,not be treated as a direct means of Moksha?

For support of Karmayoga..the following were quoted in this book:Isavasya sruti,Bhgavad Gita,Vishnu Purana,Kurma Purana,Markandeya Purana,Adhyatma Ramayan.
Also giving example of Karmayogis who attained Moksha by Karma alone: Janaka,Asvapati,Dharmavyadha,Pundalika.

"As regards the statement that Moksha is attained thru Jnana alone,there is nothing in it that is controversial.We also accept that the knowledge of Paramatman manifest itself in that mind which has been rendered absolutely pure thru Karmayoga.But when it is said that Moksha can be attained only thru Jnanayoga,then alone we object"

Ok Sravna,here they seem to draw a fine line of difference between Jnana and Jnanayoga.
I guess they mean Knowledge of the Absolute can be attained by any means eg Karmayoga,Bhaktiyoga,Jnanayoga and Jnana is not rigidly synonym with Jnanayoga .

So just back to your statement now..when you said " I think one can view bhakti as something preparatory and essential in the quest for moksha but moksha is ultimately attained only with the right knowledge"

Did you mean Jnana or Jnanayoga? and whats your POV on the above info I took from Karma Yoga Sutra Satakam?

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,


I am reading a book today by Swami Vivekananda Karma Yoga Sutra Satakam seems to have interesting debates about KarmaYoga also being a direct means to Moksha.

As I read I will put a few lines here..so that we can discuss it.

Ok..I will put this 1st:

Bhagavan Sri Ramakrishna said: "the impure mind attached to lust and lucre cannot know Paramatman who is pure consciousness.But when this mind cuts asunder the bondage of nescience in the form of lust and lucre,then at once it attains the form of pure consciousness and dissolves in Paramatman.Verily it was thus that all the ancient sages realized Paramatma-tattva".

Point brought up: Since it is thus seen that realization of Paramatman is simultaneous with the absolute purification of the mind,how can Karmayoga which is the cause of purification of the mind,not be treated as a direct means of Moksha?

For support of Karmayoga..the following were quoted in this book:Isavasya sruti,Bhgavad Gita,Vishnu Purana,Kurma Purana,Markandeya Purana,Adhyatma Ramayan.
Also giving example of Karmayogis who attained Moksha by Karma alone: Janaka,Asvapati,Dharmavyadha,Pundalika.

"As regards the statement that Moksha is attained thru Jnana alone,there is nothing in it that is controversial.We also accept that the knowledge of Paramatman manifest itself in that mind which has been rendered absolutely pure thru Karmayoga.But when it is said that Moksha can be attained only thru Jnanayoga,then alone we object"

Ok Sravna,here they seem to draw a fine line of difference between Jnana and Jnanayoga.
I guess they mean Knowledge of the Absolute can be attained by any means eg Karmayoga,Bhaktiyoga,Jnanayoga and Jnana is not rigidly synonym with Jnanayoga .

So just back to your statement now..when you said " I think one can view bhakti as something preparatory and essential in the quest for moksha but moksha is ultimately attained only with the right knowledge"

Did you mean Jnana or Jnanayoga? and whats your POV on the above info I took from Karma Yoga Sutra Satakam?

Dear Renuka,

Good points you brought up. I think not everybody can directly go for knowledge in a singleminded manner. You can go to that stage only in steps. Thus jnana yoga means of achieving jnana is a later stage when the mind has already benefitted from practicing bhakti and karma yoga. Though you are gaining jnana all along in all the three methods, it is jnana yoga alone that however leads to the consummation of realizing self

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,

Good points you brought up. I think not everybody can directly go for knowledge in a singleminded manner. You can go to that stage only in steps. Thus jnana yoga means of achieving jnana is a later stage when the mind has already benefitted from practicing bhakti and karma yoga. Though you are gaining jnana all along in all the three methods, it is jnana yoga alone that however leads to the consummation of realizing self

Buts isnt that what Swami was objecting about?

He disagreed that Jnanayoga alone leads to Moksha but he doesnt object to the statement that Moksha is attained through Jnana alone.

All paths can produce Jnana isnt it?
May be most of us are under the impression that Jnana is synonym with Jnanayoga..Swami clearly draws a fine line of difference here.

 

[sravna]

The problem with karma yoga alone being a direct means of moksha is that the pursuit of knowledge is not to the exclusion of everything else. I think for the final realization the mind needs to be focussed enough on the pursuit of knowledge.

 

[renuka]

The problem with karma yoga alone being a direct means of moksha is that the pursuit of knowledge is not to the exclusion of everything else. I think for the final realization the mind needs to be focussed enough on the pursuit of knowledge.

I am just entering the page on Karmayoga..when I get relevant points I will post it here.

 

[sravna]

Renuka,

I think only when you reach a stage that makes you think that you should not be affected by wordly matters, then you can singlemindedly go after knowledge. Karma yoga accomplishes the former but in my view jnana yoga is needed ultimately.

 

[Harini]

I try to learn logic from the posts happening here and pulling strings. To me it sounds Brahman = Brahmin.

Bhakthi as insecticide has worked in eradicating DMK. So what is nectar to one could be insecticide (MKcide!) to the other.

One another strange development I heard today. Though for the hundredth time, the Left is now talking about the merger and reconciliation of difference. Is it an impact from this posting? The Bengal's left and even Trinamool is populated with Brahmins.

What logic???

Earlier post you said Bhakti is Insect..Now you are saying Nectar of Immortality..then dont know what you will say next..Bhakti is Insecticide?

 

[Brahin]

I try to learn logic from the posts happening here and pulling strings. To me it sounds Brahman = Brahmin.

Bhakthi as insecticide has worked in eradicating DMK. So what is nectar to one could be insecticide (MKcide!) to the other.

One another strange development I heard today. Though for the hundredth time, the Left is now talking about the merger and reconciliation of difference. Is it an impact from this posting? The Bengal's left and even Trinamool is populated with Brahmins.

You are really funny.Its Ok also otherwise forum will be too boring also.
So you are a breath of fresh air.