The 3 Pillars Of Hinduism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surya

Rohit, :)

Glad to have u join the Discussion. 8-)

---

Thank you Surya for your 'warm' welcome. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surya

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rohit

In his Vishishtha Advaita, Ramanuja critically and thoroughly analyses the Advaita doctrine and furiously criticises it as an utterly illogical doctrine

---

Can ya post what he said? Any Sources? References etc? :)

The same goes for the Criticism of the Other Great Gurus as well. :)

---

I think, it would be much better if I post what you have requested only after there are enough posts from others with reasonable understanding on each of the three doctrines; and what they have to say about them. I hope, there are many who may have autonomous viewpoints on these three doctrines.

Perhaps, it maybe a very good idea if you yourself do some research and post the details on each of them; and then, let us see where that leads us to.

Nonethless, I shall post what you have requested, not now but later, please bear with me.

Surya, your definition of Vishistha Advaita is still incorrect; try it once more, if still in error, I will post the correct definition.

Hint: Vishistha Advaita describes two distinct characters of the Lord. One, the Super Soul or Self; and the second, the universe and individual souls as Lord's body and parasitic dependents.

:D :) :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rohit

Hello friends :),

---

hi rohit ! Great to see u :)

Quote:

---

precisely designed to knock one another down, leaving Hinduism nothing more than a mere [b]"Castle In Air"[

---

Why do u say that rohit?

Where is hinduism INCOMPLETE?
In defininign the nature of consciousness?
I think I remmeber right, u had mentioned the 0 STATE of SHUNYATA which is left untouched in hinduism?

Is that why u say hinduism is a casle in air?

Dear friends
I will write to look at the holistic view of these three pillars, instead of a fragmented views. Everyone's view is based on their own experience and no one can discover something new independant of other's views. There is no "First man" to conceive anything new. In science or in religion there is no "the man". It is evolution of idea based on collective views. Advaita was not given by Adisankara, not dwaita by madhva or vishit by ramanajua. These three used the earlier ideas and explained them. They make look pulling down each other, while strengthening their views. But if anyone looks holistically then they understand it is at different levels of understanding of the same truth.

I could easily explain these by the views of Quantum mechanics and classical mechanics. It looks each other contradicts the other. But it is at their level of explanation they differ. The same way Advaita , vishit and dwaita are different in that respect only. Only keeping this in mind we understand the reality, otherwise as usual posts in this thread also we would end up in personal criticism instead of understanding the truth.

welcome pradeep :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pradheep

Dear friends
I will write to look at the holistic view of these three pillars, instead of a fragmented views. Everyone's view is based on their own experience and no one can discover something new independant of other's views. There is no "First man" to conceive anything new. In science or in religion there is no "the man". It is evolution of idea based on collective views. Advaita was not given by Adisankara, not dwaita by madhva or vishit by ramanajua. These three used the earlier ideas and explained them. They make look pulling down each other, while strengthening their views. But if anyone looks holistically then they understand it is at different levels of understanding of the same truth.

---

yes I agree :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

I could easily explain these by the views of Quantum mechanics and classical mechanics

---

.

Please! :waiting:

Dear Shakthiprabha,
I dont want to write more about physics and lead the topic to different way. (i might give a link which might be useful to see how contrdictions are there in different views and what we realize as reality. http://open-site.org/Science/Physics...tum_Mechanics/).

I cannot but confess that I attach only a transitory importance to this interpretation. I still believe in the possibility of a model of reality - that is to say, of a theory which represents things themselves and not merely the probability of their occurrence. On the other hand, it seems to me certain that we must give up the idea of complete localization of the particle in a theoretical model. This seems to me the permanent upshot of Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty. (Albert Einstein, 1934))

A quantum scientists puts it well as this "In lab I find that matter is nothing but field of energy" and realize there is "nothing". At the same time when my hand hits on a table , I scream "ouch" and I am in a paradox, what is true? If everything is just protons and electron, and they are nothing but fields in infinite space, then my question is " what hit what and produced an experience? and who realized what?".

So the whole quest of man is for that ultimate reality. Modern scientist are searching it externally and ancient one's internally. Like the modern scientist have different views of the same thing and explain it differently, so does the ancient scientists too. But the irony is that "in between the lines" they have spoken the ultimate truth adn it is to us what we want to infer besed on our experience and understanding.

It is easy to look at "things" fragmented, but the "real challenge" is to look at it holistically. Advaitic, vishit and dvaitic are three views and each differ at the at the level closer to (or is) holisitc view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shakthiprabha

hi rohit ! Great to see u

---

Thank you SP. :)

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rohit

......precisely designed to knock one another down, leaving Hinduism nothing more than a mere "Castle In Air"

---

Why do u say that rohit?

---

Simply because that is what the three doctrines do and are designed to do. There were absolutely no other reasons, none whatsoever, for Ramanuja to take on Advaita and Madhava to take on both.

Like I said, in return, the Advaitins make desperate and futile attempts to cling onto their failing doctrine and counter charge their opponents with various fallacies. And in this age of science, the most commonly used fallacy is the fallacy of False Assurance (FA), whereby scientific explanations are used whenever they suit the believers and reject them whenever they threaten their beliefs. I don't even need to produce any evidence of that here, as such tendencies are self-evident.

Quote:

---

..........is Hinduism INCOMPLETE?

---

I strongly believe so. Where and how it is so, is briefly mentioned in my first post, part of which you have already quoted.

Moreover, irrespective of thousands of years of futile attempts, Hinduism remains without a unified, consistent doctrine; and that is an undeniable fact.

Moreover, it must be clearly born in mind that any analogy with scientific theories is of no use here; as science is constantly evolving, self-correcting, dynamic and universal field and is never based on any religious or supernatural thoughts. True science have had never involved supernatural forces nor will it ever involve religious or supernatural forces to explain the phenomena of the universe and life. True science simply attempts to explain the previously unexplainable phenomena in natural, universal terms and has nothing to do with religions or supernatural forces. And that too is an undeniable fact.

Therefore; I would kindly request all participants again to post their viewpoints based on the original doctrines of as they really are; and express their own autonomous and analytical thoughts on them; rather than resorting to non-sequitur fallacy whereby the conclusion does not follow from the premises; and the premises become irrelevant to the conclusion.

:D :) :thumbsup:

rohit

because you call them facts, they don't become facts. ignorance is bliss and you say ONLY what you know. it is clear you know VERY LITTLE :grin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jabroni

ignorance is bliss..

---

Precisely, ignorance is indeed bliss, the "Absolute Monism", "One Without a Second" :thumbsup:

SP
To make by above post in layman language

A stone

- A classical physicist says it is a solid mass under the laws of gravity etc. He considers the stone is different from a human body.

- A quantum physicist says it is quantum pack of energy. He considers both the stone and body are quantum packs of energy, but still there is slight difference.

- ??????? -

A dvaitic is like the classical physicists who says the paramatman is different from the jiva.

A vishist is like the quantum physicist, who says the paramathan and the jiva are same but slight difference.

A advaitin is one who says there is no difference and the difference is only maya (which means not there but sees only at the gross level and not at the ultimate level).