On Vishitadvaita Philosophy...

[s007bala]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

This is why our ancient Rishis said - Shiv oham Shankar oham i.e. I am Shiva and I am Shankar.

The Yajur veda states- Tat tvam asi i.e. You, O human, are Brahman.

The Saama veda states - Pragyaanam Brahman Gyaana Swaroopam Chetanam Jeev Brahman i.e. the true knowledge and consciousness in a human is Brahman.

The Atharva veda states - Ayam aatmaa Brahman i.e. the soul is Brahman or Supreme.

The Rig veda states - Aham Brahma asmi i.e. I am Brahman.

If I am Brahman then I can create anything new. The creator of this universe is Brahman. And because a human can also create another human like himself is he not Brahman ?

This is why the Rishi said - I am the soul. If I am there this world is there. If I am no more than the world shall become useless for me. In other words it is because there is life on earth that the world has any significance. If there was no life there would be no significance.

source-vedas

sb

 

[s007bala]

VishishtAdvaita is a non-dualistic school of Vedanta philosophy. It is non-dualism of the qualified whole, in which Brahman alone exists, but is characterised by multiplicity. It can be described as qualified monism or attributive monism.

Neti Neti -

This is an upanishadic concept which is employed while attempting to know Brahman. The purport of this exercise is understood in many different ways and also influences the understaning of Brahman. In the overall sense, this phrase is accepted to refer to the indescribable nature of Brahman who is beyond all rationalisations. All descriptions of such an entity will necessarily have to be partial or fall short of the actual.


The typical interpretation of Neti-Neti is not this, not this or neither this, nor that. In VisishtAdvaita, the phrase is taken in the sense of not just this, not just this or not just this, not just that. This means that Brahman cannot be restricted to one specific or a few specific descriptions. Consequently, Brahman is understood to possess infinite qualities and each of these qualities are infinite in extent.


source-wikipedia

sb

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

Please answer my question first. then you start to ask ...ok because for the past 2 nights , I'm not getting any direct answer from you for the NON-GOD part. Day before yesterday you were telling the non-god part, yesterday you questioned the same and you didn't answer my posts related to that.

By now you should know what I'm eager to Know. I just want to know if HE prevades all - in which part of WE - HE is not prevaded or if HE is prevaded in WE also , how come WE are not HIM.

because since HE prevades all , in WE also HE prevades what?

Now this is ludicrous... i have been giving you the answer.. you simply ignore it and want me to answer your way...

The way i see it... you would keep on questioning till i answer the way you want it...

There is no point in discussing if such a mentality exists...

You should go through my posts with an honest attempt to understand and know... not as if you are the guru and are trying to make me understand... this mentality simply wont suit...

Just because HE pervades, does not mean the pervaded is HE... got it?

Consider this statement

Premise: All birds fly..

Therefore can it be construed to mean that whatever flies is a bird?

This is logic, inference and conclusion... either you are weak in this, or are simply circumventing the issue...

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

Thoongravana ezhupalaam... aana thoongara madhiri nadikkaravaala ezhupa mudiyadhu...

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

sb, exactly... the idea that brahman is nirguna is rejected in VA... that is why i say that he is the superset...

there need not be a homogeneity in the entities...

A is entirely different from VA... i have posted earlier on this...

Paramporul onnu thaan... aana adhai A vera madhiri solradhu, VA vera madhiri solradhu...

"A" concept enakku illogicalla padradhu... ellame oru thought thaan... unga image logic seriya varale... image ku think panra sakthi kidayadhu...

If it is "A", then how will a rock realize itself??? Where is its consciousness? How can it meditate? Ellame brahman aka consciousness na... rock le enge irukku?

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

According to A, Shri Sankara says that the reason for this creation or manifestation is the "leela" or "sport" of brahman... if brahman is nirguna, then how can a nature exist, whatever be its type?

Hence it is a self defeating explanation... if something is nirguna, it remains nirguna for eternity, assuming no external forces... if it has contemplated, then its stability or "nirgunathvam" has changed.. it remains nirguna no longer.... but again, brahman never changes... so this theory cannot be true...

 

[s007bala]

>>unga image logic seriya varale... image ku think panra sakthi kidayadhu...<<

Appada,correct.Numba thaan image of brahman.Namakku what we think is not thinking.what we think as consciouness is not consciouness.As only brahman exists within us and outside of us.There is one only.That is Brahman.One without a dual.Very abstract and deep.But Vishista-Advaitam contains the knowledge to get to Advaitham.Without going thru Dvaitham,Vishista-Advaitham,one cannot understand Advaitham.Its like the ultimate of ultimate.Infinity to the power of infinity.

sb

 

[s007bala]

Vedanta is based on two simple propositions:

1. Human nature is divine.

2. The aim of human life is to realize that human nature is divine.

3.Sub-schools of Vedanta

* 3.1 Advaita
* 3.2 Vishishtadvaita
* 3.3 Dvaita
* 3.4 Dvaitādvaita
* 3.5 Shuddhadvaita
* 3.6 Achintya Bhedābheda
* 3.7 Purnadvaita or Integral Advaita
* 3.8 Modern Vedanta

source-wikipedia

sb

 

[s007bala]

>>if brahman is nirguna, then how can a nature exist, whatever be its type?<<

Nirgunam - Without traits.Is Brahman.

The classification of Nature in various nomenclature,is due to illusionary power of Maya.Maya stems with body identification.When everything is spiritual in anture.We are not the body but rather the spirit.The atma is spirit soul.Even if body dies,the spirit soul,takes body based on your action-Karma.Karma is further said to be Prarabdha Karma Sanchita Karma...

sb

 

[s007bala]

I went thru the process of seeing god as Lord Narayana with four hands and in each hand having a article depicting its meaning.We have to go thru such a training before going further to next stage of Brahman realisation.Nirguna Brahman has no form nor traits but yet everything is Brahman only.Sarva Sakshi Bhutham of the Pancha Bhutham.

sb

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

Appada,correct.Numba thaan image of brahman.Namakku what we think is not thinking.what we think as consciouness is not consciouness.As only brahman exists within us and outside of us.There is one only.That is Brahman.One without a dual.Very abstract and deep.But Vishista-Advaitam contains the knowledge to get to Advaitham.Without going thru Dvaitham,Vishista-Advaitham,one cannot understand Advaitham.Its like the ultimate of ultimate.Infinity to the power of infinity.

This is self-defeating logic...

If a person is incapable of telling the truth, then whatever he says is a lie.. always...

Similarly, if we hold that we cannot perceive the truth, then all philosophies fail...

So, this way of thinking is a fallacy...

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

My point is if brahman is nirguna, then we would not be here discussing whether he is saguna or nirguna... for there would not have been anything other than nirguna...

if you again say that we are not what we are.. we are not what we think we are... then sorry, i must say that this would go nowhere... it simply means that we cannot make any conclusion... (this includes the rishis of yore)

 

[s007bala]

>>This is self-defeating logic...

If a person is incapable of telling the truth, then whatever he says is a lie.. always...

Similarly, if we hold that we cannot perceive the truth, then all philosophies fail...

So, this way of thinking is a fallacy... >>

Truth is

Ekam Sat Vipraha Bahudha Vadanti

There is but one God, learned scholars call this God by different names.

God is not realised thru logic alone alone.If you have not realised this,i gurantee you,you will realise one day or the other.Then,plz remember me.

Satyam Bruyat Priyam Bruyat Na Bruyat Satyam Apriyam
Priyam Cha Nanrutam Bruyat Esha Dharmah Sanatanah

Only speak the truth that is pleasant to others
Do not speak the truth that might be unpleasant to others
Never speak untruth that is pleasant to others
This is the path of the eternal morality called Sanatana Dharma.

sb

 

[s007bala]

re

My point is if brahman is nirguna, then we would not be here discussing whether he is saguna or nirguna... for there would not have been anything other than nirguna...

if you again say that we are not what we are.. we are not what we think we are... then sorry, i must say that this would go nowhere... it simply means that we cannot make any conclusion... (this includes the rishis of yore)

I think modern quantum physics calls it Singularity.Brahman's Power establishes thru Jagath which needs Maya which with Buddhi in a Jiva,we continue the contemplation....

sb

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

sb, the supreme can have as many hands if he wishes... we mortals are thinking that he has four hands... deivam manushya roopena... idhu namakku concentration ku udhavum.. you have to look beyond the literal depiction...

These forms that we see are as real as we are... indha jagath mithyam (unreal) kadayadhu... it is mithyam in the sense that it is perishable... but certainly not an illusion...

To mango/sb & others,

coming to relative truths.... brahman thaan unmai nu vecchu paartha idhellam mithyam ie., transient (appear real due to maya or the shroud of ignorance)... let us analyse this...

brahman thaan unmai... this is a premise because whatever we see is everchanging and perishing... or else perishable... so we attribute certain characters to brahman ie., non-perishable... so what is non-perishable? the prana shakthi within us is non-perishable... but is that brahman? no it is a latent form of brahman... that is why VA compares the supreme to the sun and the individual athmas as lamp lights... light is the common factor here... but its brilliance is different...

everything is imbued with prana... in the unmanifest form and in the manifest form... that is the oneness... the monism, the Advaitham part...

but the things we see are not brahman... they have a gross which are incapable of perceiving the prana... this is the qualification... this is undeniable...

the gross undergoes transformations... but the pure prana does not...

we, humans, are a mix of gross and prana...

Shri Sankara's adhvaitham is totally different from this... it says that the consciousness is the only truth... this consciousness is untainted or nirguna...

the immediate query is that if such a consciousness is nirguna or untainted, then where did the maya come from?

reflect on these... no need to answer...

as lord krishna says, we all reach the state which we aspire for... that is the ultimate truth...

The Mind believes what it wants to believe... it conceives what it believes

if one wants a nirguna state, then through due practice, it is possible to attain such a state, similarly for saguna or other states...

but, imho, the concept of nirguna is unstable...

the entire forms - together with the subtle and the gross is the brahman...

i see no point in continuing with further discussions in this thread... my points are clearly laid down more than once so much so that it has touched redundancy... more discussions would only lead to futile arguments with each stressing upon his view... it is upon the individual to choose and decide...

Om Namo Narayanaya Namaha...

Om Shantih Shantih Shantih...

Regards

 

[s007bala]

I think Shri Shankara handled himself and established himself as well as important Mutts and became immortal.As in previous post Vedanta has many schools,of which Advaitham is one.People have the freedom to choose whichever school,their mind prompts them to align.I am with Adi Shankara.Paths are many but destination is one and the same.

sb

 

[malgova.mango]

sesh!

B4 YOU USE WORDS , PLEASE DO CONSIDER....

In my day before yesterday post - I specifically asked you to gimme the post number - if you have answered my query - I got nil -reply to that.

Anyway ....

On your all birds...... there are other catagories like insects, bats which do fly ...

when HE prevades the whole of WE , why not WE is equal to HE.? Because HE prevades in each and every cell, every part, every thought of WE what? Logically that makes sense what?

when we talk logic , lets keep the personal criticism apart....for the sake of healthy discussion

 

[malgova.mango]

thoonillum erruppar thurimbillum erruppar - To understand this there is only one path

IMHO

 

[malgova.mango]

SESH!

You don't fully understand what consciousness IS, if you understand that, then you will understand - NIRGUNA.

If you don't, your understanding is never complete.

IMHO

Regards

 

[KRS]

It seems to me the entire conversations above could have been avoided if folks kept the following cardinal rules of our religion:

1. There are many Sambradhayams, and the Acharyals (Gurus) who started such Sambradhayams (different philosophical colours from our Srutis) did so with their knowledge of our traditions.

2. This is the strength of our religion. We envelop all different mental proclivities and find home to each and every enquirer a home according to his/her spiritual need.

3. To argue that one philosophy is 'better' than any other is asinine. Because, 'truth' is not absolute - it is coloured to suit all of His creations, with myriad mental capabilities and proclivities

4. Who are we to decide which is a 'supreme' philosophy? If this contention has been established, there would not have been other philosophies since Advaitha.

5. If someone thinks that they know the 'Truth', our scriptures specifically say that then that person does not know the 'Truth'. 'Truth' can be acheived only through direct experience, not through any philosophical theories.

I am still astonished that how a person thinks that he knows the 'Truth' when very learned Acharyals in our scriptures started their own Sambradhayams! So, this person puts himself above the likes of Sri Ramanuja or Sri Madhva! Perhaps, this person is a modern saint!

KRS

 

[malgova.mango]

argument is not which is "better"

argument is which is "right" and which is "wrong"

 

[malgova.mango]

a saint and a gnani are in different league.

Gnani is more than Saint.

Saint+Gnani is the Best.

 

[ravidesikan]

visishtadwaita

Dear All,

Shri Ramunaja doesn't use the word vishtadwaita in his SriBashya commentary of the Brahma Sutras. Visishtadwaita is a later coinage by Srivaishnavaites to distinguish this from Adwaita of Shri Shankara.

Shri Ramanuja followed the footsteps of his pancha Gurus Periya nambigal,Thirukachci Nambigal,Thirumalai Andaan, Thiruvarangath Araiyar and Thirumalai Nambi(who were all disciples of Shri Alavandar) in as far as the Ubhaya Vedantha tradition goes, which has its origin in Sriman Narayana himself.. His inspiration to write the SriBhashya fructified after he thoroughly examined his predeccessors like Thanka of the vedic age and Bodayana sutras, where Visishtadwaita doctrine itself is supposed to have been existent in some form.

Also Ubhaya Vedantha ( vedantha + dravida vedantha/veda of Alwars) is not in conformism with the purva mimasa of Shri Kumarila who believes that there is no Phala dhaatha and the karma kaanda portion is a means and end in itself. The Visishtadwaitha/Ubhaya vedantha firmly believes in a phalaa Dhata Sriman Narayana who is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and above all - Sathyam-Gyaanam-Anantham - Brahma. It also believes in unconditional sanctity of both the Vedas and the Tamil vedas(Naalayira Divya Prabhandams).

It cannot be argued that for Saguna to exist, there needs to be a state of Nirguna from which the Saguna state emerged. The Lord Sriman Narayana is always Sathyam-Gyanam- Anantham-Brahma and therefore not Nirguna.
The Visishtadwaitist also doesn't believe in Jivan mukthi

-Adiyen daasan Ravi

 

[s007bala]

KRS,

My only take is,in olden era,Vaadam was an accepted norm,based on certain premises,pramanams.There is no higher truth or lower truth or only this is truth.I think this thread initiator also wanted a Vaadam on Vishista-Advaitham,which like other schools exist.What majority people choose,is out of their volition which is an entirely different parameter.Its not nice to cast aspersion on people or term them modern saints and bigger than past saints etc,becoz i don't think that is the original intention of the thread initiator.

sb

 

[KRS]

There is no 'right' or 'wrong' in religion. If this is so, the Lord would not have classified four equally valid paths to Him in Gita. Even those four paths as we can see have myriad sub paths. This is to account for the diversity/variety in the world. 'Better' only reflects the status of someone claiming that only one path is valid.

All these are concepts devised by minds. When Acharyals expound and people follow, then as long as it is within the framework of Sanatana, they all have to be accepted as Truths. The only untruth religions are a couple: One seemingly advocates violence and the other seemingly says that the only path to Him is through it.

Such beliefs will eventually die out, because they are against the nature of men.

KRS