The 3 Pillars Of Hinduism.

Dvaitham, Advaitham, Visishta Dvaitham.

Dvaitham - The Belief Of Duality. The Being is Different from the Paramathma or the SUPER SOUL which Governs Everything In the Universe. The Soul of the Being can Never be a part of the Super Soul.

Advaitham - The Jva is not a part of the Paramathma but is the Paramathma. There is no difference between the two. (this is the thought that is believed by Aadhi Shankarachariyar, Rama Krishna Paramahamsar, Swamy Vivekananda.

Visishta Advaitham: Everything, including Atman, is a part of Brahman but is not Brahman itself, just like a grain of sand on the beach or a seed in a jackfruit are part of the beach or the jackfruit, but are not equal to the beach or the jackfruit.

Although it is Advaitham that is most popular, most humans practice Dvaitham in Reality.

Please Use This Thread To Discuss Them. Post more abt them. Correct any discrepancies in my post. etc etcl :D

:clap: :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surya

Dvaitham, Advaitham, Visishta Dvaitham.


Advaitham - The Being is Always and Always will be a Part of the Paramathma. One just has to come to a Realization. (this is the thought that is believed by Aadhi Shankarachariyar, Rama Krishna Paramahamsar, Swamy Vivekananda.


Please Use This Thread To Discuss Them. Post more abt them. Correct any discrepancies in my post. etc etcl :D

---

Just a small correction on the Advaithic thought - The Jva is not a part of the Paramathma but is the Paramathma. There is no difference between the two. Part of is the Vishishtadwaita thought.

Happy discussions.

Badri nna ....

Adwaitam 101 .... naan romba naalaa ungalai kettu kondiruppadhu :-)

ingayaavadhu neenga share pannalaam !

:clap:

Nice thread Surya !

Hope to see some healthy discussions here

I think it is actually called "Vishishta Advaita", not "Vishishta Dvaitham". As Badri ayya pointed out, what you have given as the description of Advaita is closer to Vishishta Advaita.

Advaita: Atman is Brahman. Atman is wholly Brahman. Only Atman is Brahman. Nothing but Atman is Brahman. Everything else is delusion.

Vishishta Advaita: Everything, including Atman, is a part of Brahman but is not Brahman itself, just like a grain of sand on the beach or a seed in a jackfruit are part of the beach or the jackfruit, but are not equal to the beach or the jackfruit.

I am not a philosopher, sorry if I have made a mistake. :oops:

ADVAITA: -
Dr. V S SARMA in his book, Sri Sankara the Poet, speaks about Advaita as follows:-

The Advaita Philosophy taught and propagated by Sankara was there expressly or by implication right from the time of Vedas. However through the commentaries, on Brahmasutra, Uapnishads, and Bhagvadtgita -i.e. the three main schools of Nyaya, Sruti, and Smriti it was Sankara who gave Advaita, religion a permanent place in Indian thought.

That beyond noting exists, that which is smaller than atom bigger than the biggest thing, that which has no beginning and no end, that which cannot be expressed in words, that one and only reality that is Brahman. There are indications in the Upanishads about this Brahman. The Vakyapadeeyam og Bhartrihari who lived before Sankara begins with a reference to his Brhaman. Gaudapada who wrote Mandukya karika and his disciples and Snakra’s mentor Govinda Bhagvatpada were also Advaitins.

The realization of the Brahman is the ultimate goal of life. The desire to know Brahman is the quest for the ultimate reality. In order to achieve this goal one should acquire the knowledge to discriminate between what is transitory and what is permanent. He must renounce the world, one’s children the fruit of one’s labor, sexual enjoyment. He must attain self control, sublimation, concentration and liberation. Then he becomes eligible to acquire the knowledge of Brahman.

Sankara described this as the four types of ascesis. It is through ignorance that we retain our link with this world of change, the Samsara. The nature of the soul is freedom, when ignorance comes to an end, the soul freed from its link with Samsara. We think we are distinct from Brahman because of our ignorance. When we acquire real knowledge we lose the sense of being different. We lose our individuality and identity. Liberation comes through knowledge. Then we realize Brahman.

The eternal and soul and the individual souls are one and the same. We also realize that Brahman is the ultimate reality ultimate truth. At that stage the sense of identity disappears. One realizes one is not different from Brahman. No difference between the real and the unreal. The way to liberation is based realizing that the sense of difference is also an illusion. Life is nothing but Brahman. This is the substance of Advaita wisdom.

In order to reach this point ignorance and illusion must be destroyed. Sankara gives prominence to distinguishing between Brahman with no qualities and Brahman with quality. He also emphasized the fact that world is an illusion. The liberation can be achieved through knowledge. He also gives prominence to the awareness of Brahman without qualities. Reality of the every day is distinguished from the ultimate reality. The world and every day life do not posses ultimate reality. It belongs to the world of relative reality of every day life. Ultimate reality alone is true. Our ideas about God belong to the world of every day reality. To meditate on God is one of the ways to the realization of Brahman. If one attains this knowledge of Brahman then he is liberated from life. For a person who has the knowledge of Brahman will also receive in course of time through devotion and hope in God, immediate release and release in stages. If through knowledge ignorance is removed one attains Brahman. Then the difference between individual soul and Brahman disappears.

Sankara speaks about three types of reality-Phenomenal, reality of every day life, and the ultimate reality. Mistaking a piece of rope in the dark for a snake is phenomenal reality. The reality of every day life is like gold and gold ornaments. Gold can be worked into different forms. But every thing is gold. The gold corresponds to the reality of every day work. The ultimate truth is behind time and space. It has no beginning or end. It has no possibilities of change.


Sankara speaks about six principles of knowing-
1. what is immediately evident
2. what can be inferred
3. inference from an inference
4. conclusion,
5. logical thinking and
6. Absence of a thing.
Actions are of three kinds- those performed in accordance with one’s earlier life; those appearing as emanation from an instinct; and those performed during one’s life.

When a person dies his body decays and his life breaks up into five elements and continue as the subtle body. This continues its journey.

Life is a quest to find out what Brahman is and what is real. As we come across each thing and examine it we say this is not, this is not Brahman. . The liberated person acquires knowledge that what is real is Brahman and the world is an illusion. Though Advaita philosophy is the source of all subsequent philosophies it may be said to have existed even before Sankara. It was he who gave Advaita pre-eminent position in India thought. He also composed several works expounding this philosophy and contributed greatly to its contribution as a great school of thought. DR. S RADHAKRISHANA SAYS “SANKARA’S ADVAITA IS A LINE OF THOUGHT, RESULTING FROM BOLD INTELLECTUAL ACTIVITY AND SUBTLE LOGICAL ARGUMENTATION. It is a model of a great and holy vision of life”

Hello friends :),

Before posting anything in this thread, let me make this clear.

I am going to participate in this thread only to state facts and not to refute any of the stated three doctrines, as I have already done that in other threads.

In other words, I intend to limit my posts

• 1. To discuss the topic within its scope.
  
  2. To request definitions of the terms, concepts and/or words that may become necessary to avoid ambiguous explanations getting through without being challenged.
  
  3. To draw readers' attentions to contradictions, fallacies and blunders as and when they may be committed.
  
  4. To add information and/or facts with an intention to clarify ambiguous statements as and when they may occur.

Therefore, I would kindly request all active participants to discuss this topic from their own autonomous perspectives along with the honesty and analytical depth that is absolutely imperative if the discussion has to serve any useful purpose.

Thank you all in anticipation to your honest and truthful participation.

Let me begin by giving the chronological order in which the stated three doctrines came into existence.

• 1. Advaita or Absolute Monism - GaudaPada/Sankara (Kerala)
  2. Vishishtha Advaita or Qualified Monism - Ramanuja (Tamil Nadu)
  3. Dvaita or Dualism - Madhava (Karnataka)

In fact, Advaita, Vishishtha Advaita and Dvaita do not constitute the three pillars of Hinduism as claimed and stated by Surya, but they are rather the three "Booms", precisely designed to knock one another down, leaving Hinduism nothing more than a mere "Castle In Air".

The reason is obviously simple:

In his Vishishtha Advaita, Ramanuja critically and thoroughly analyses the Advaita doctrine and furiously criticises it as an utterly illogical doctrine; and in the end, Ramanuja categorically rejects Advaita as an absolutely untenable doctrine.

In his Dvaita doctrine, Madhava completely throws both the Advaita and Vishishtha Advaita doctrines in the bin and declares them as utterly foolish doctrines as both contradict experience.

On the other hand, the Advatins while blindly clinging onto their failing doctrine, charge their opponents as possessing of dull intellect for failing to comprehend Advaita.

Thus, the three doctrines, claimed as the three pillars of Hinduism, are in fact contradictory to one another and thoroughly nullify one another, which consequently leaves Hinduism without any unified, consistent doctrinal support.

And that is an undeniable fact.

With that, I wish you all a thorough enjoyment in the forthcoming discussions.

Good luck! :D :) :thumbsup:

:ty: Badri, Podalangai, and Padmanabha. :)

Looks like I had the Definitions Switched. I've fixed it now. :P

Rohit, :)

Glad to have u join the Discussion. 8-)

Quote:

---

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. :) Just makes the Learning Process a WHOLE LOT more Fun. :)

Thank You In Advance. :thumbsup:

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).

Pradeep,

lot of reading and RE-READING to be done, to undersand that link

needs time (as I am running short of it now :oops: :)

would get back.

A question to all who believes SCIENCE is everything ...

I used to watch a show here called MYTHBUSTERS .... there they take up projects which are myths and they try to break the myth ...

Why was myth accepted though it was a myth ?

well, this isnt a digression in this thread :-) as it is related to science and here we talk of GOD and SCIENCE ;-) i wanted the answer here ....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bingleguy

A question to all who believes SCIENCE is everything ...

I used to watch a show here called MYTHBUSTERS .... there they take up projects which are myths and they try to break the myth ...

Why was myth accepted though it was a myth ?

well, this isnt a digression in this thread :-) as it is related to science and here we talk of GOD and SCIENCE ;-) i wanted the answer here ....

---

Hi Bingleguy,

Allow me to answer your query in simple words.

No true scientist will ever claim that science has cure for everything.

In nutshell,

• - Science can help rational, logical thinking but cannot fix those minds that constantly seek bliss from blind beliefs in imaginary, non-existing entities.
  
  - Science can help but cannot eradicate the misery and suffering of human conditions.
  
  - Science can possibly do everything it can but cannot tame the capacity of human minds for delusions, in other words, the phantoms in the brain.
  
  - Science is like a horse rider, the rider can only take the horse to the drinkable water pool but he cannot drink water for the horse; only the horse has to do it for himself if he is really thirsty.

Moreover, neither science nor religion can instil the true sense of morality in evil minds, nor can they make the charlatans to follow moral codes of conduct.

I hope; this goes some way in answering your inquisitive query.

I would kindly request all participants once more to discuss this topic within its scope.

:D :) :thumbsup:

Religion is not science.
Religion requires leap of faith.
Thus trying to disprove religion - any religion - tantamounts to religion bashing.
And such bashing is simply beyond the capacity of the Hub.
So, there you are. :)

Pls allow the discussion to carry on - among the believers. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NOV

Religion is not science.
Religion requires leap of faith..

---

Precisely; and you have just said it, loud and clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NOV

Pls allow the discussion to carry on - among the believers. Thanks.

---

Excatly that is what I am repeatedly asking the participants to discuss the topic within its scope, and there is only one scope, the religious scope based of faith.

Thank you NOV for emphasising this clearly.

:D :) :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NOV

Religion is not science.
Religion requires leap of faith.
Thus trying to disprove religion - any religion - tantamounts to religion bashing.
And such bashing is simply beyond the capacity of the Hub.
So, there you are. :)

Pls allow the discussion to carry on - among the believers. Thanks.

---

:shock: :shaking:

I guess this thread is NOT within my scope :D

:cheers:

I would watch pradeep's statements and rohit;s statements and links carefully to CHECK their LINKS :D

ensoy pps :D :yessir:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pradheep

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).

---

got it !

WONDERFUl example :)

would keep watching ur posts :cheers: :thumbsup:

DEra sakthi prabha
I am glad I was able to express the difference in the three philosophies.

Dvaitic is not only in India, most of the other religions are in this dvaitic mode.

Vishit advaitam is also seen in other religions , example like Sufism.

Advaita is however is core of all religions. For example, christianity is in dvatic mode, but still has advaita in its core. For example the phrase " the kingdom of heaven is in you. This is pure advaita. If God is in heaven, then where is this heaven?. - in you. Then where is God, in You!

It all depends how you look at the level of one's understanding and maturity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pradheep

Dear sakthi prabha
I am glad I was able to express the difference in the three philosophies.

Dvaitic is not only in India, most of the other religions are in this dvaitic mode.

Vishit advaitam is also seen in other religions , example like Sufism.

Advaita is however is core of all religions. For example, christianity is in dvatic mode, but still has advaita in its core. For example the phrase " the kingdom of heaven is in you. This is pure advaita. If God is in heaven, then where is this heaven?. - in you. Then where is God, in You!

It all depends how you look at the level of one's understanding and maturity.

---

hmm.. :?

true!

I also feel

SAME WORDS can be understood IN ENTIRELY different meaning, AS PER EACH ONE's maturity!

:?

Dear SP, BG
Years back i have written in this forum that no one can define anything. The definition is valid (understood) only when the conveyor and listner are in the same plane of experience and knowledge.

Last week I told my collague (German) about the most bitter neem. He wanted to know how bitter is it. He had not tasted anything bitter. he asked me, is it like amla (Indian gooseberry). I said no it is astringent. How can I describe bitterness of Neem. My another Indian colleague tried to define - vain. Both of us could understand because we have experienced it. Finally next day I got neem and had him experience it.
When senory things itself cannot be defined, then how about advaita or "Truth".

I have a very staunch Vishit advaitin friend. We use to argue and debate and our friends used to make fun of us that sankara and Ramanuja are doing sam-vada. He is a Ph.D in vaishnavism, and an ardent devotee of Sri-rangam the pagoda of vaishnavism. When he used to be cornered in the arguement and as usual like many others he will leave the place not wanted to admit defeat.
Years later when he finally understood what I talked about Ego and the means to transcend "Ego" , he experienced advaita. Now he admits that the advaita essence is in Ramanuja and vedanta desikan lines. He tells me (at peace) that Ramanuja and madhva were born in advaitic tradition and hated it because what they were following was the corrputed understanding of the "Truth". So to make people understand at that time point they had to convey it at a simpler level.

My friend used to attack me that one time I say that there is no life and death for atma and at another time I talk about previous birth and future birth.

Now he understands that based on the receiver's understanding I convey the message. To a person who strongly beleives that he is suffering and wants a way out of it, I could explain only through births and death and previous karma.

To a person who understand that everything is only a projection of Ego, there is no need to tell about birth and death. If we believe we are born , then there is death too, and also previous births and moksha. But to one who thinks there is no birth, then there is no death or moksha too.

This is what gaudapada and his disciple Sanakara beautifully explains in Upanishads about who is the one who attains "moksha".

If we understand this clearly then it is very easy to know where advaita, visisht and dvaita stand. These three explains the three levels of our own levels of understanding.

The three levels of body mind and CONSCIOUSNESS are these three levels. The three levels however cannot be understood as supremacy of one over the other. The three are only the ways of evolutionary understanding.

Even the great three propounders Sanakara, ramanuja and Madhva timigs itself shows in Kali yuga our understanding of the "Truth" goes down and down.

When the highest level of Advaita explained by sankara was not understood, then Ramanuja had to come it make it much more to layman language at its lower level.

Still we could not and then came Madhva, still diluting it for the common people to understand.

good post :)

Can't we assume the jivatma as a spark which has come out of a bonfire? Obviously this spark has a limited existence which has to rejoin its place of origin.
Secondly, and paradoxically, people think that infinity is bigger than finity. Actually it is my feeling that infinity is ensconced in finity. With help of sapta svaras infinite number of songs can be composed. It means any song composed or uncomposed exists within the sphere of sapta svaras. That is the reality.

eh ehm..

These are "3 Pillars of Hinduism" or '3 seperate religions mistakenly called Hinduism"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surya

Dvaitham, Advaitham, Visishta Dvaitham.

Dvaitham - The Belief Of Duality. The Being is Different from the Paramathma or the SUPER SOUL which Governs Everything In the Universe. The Soul of the Being can Never be a part of the Super Soul.

Advaitham - The Jva is not a part of the Paramathma but is the Paramathma. There is no difference between the two. (this is the thought that is believed by Aadhi Shankarachariyar, Rama Krishna Paramahamsar, Swamy Vivekananda.

Visishta Advaitham: Everything, including Atman, is a part of Brahman but is not Brahman itself, just like a grain of sand on the beach or a seed in a jackfruit are part of the beach or the jackfruit, but are not equal to the beach or the jackfruit.

Although it is Advaitham that is most popular, most humans practice Dvaitham in Reality.

Please Use This Thread To Discuss Them. Post more abt them. Correct any discrepancies in my post. etc etcl :D

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uthappam

eh ehm..

These are "3 Pillars of Hinduism" or '3 seperate religions mistakenly called Hinduism"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surya

Dvaitham, Advaitham, Visishta Dvaitham.

Dvaitham - The Belief Of Duality. The Being is Different from the Paramathma or the SUPER SOUL which Governs Everything In the Universe. The Soul of the Being can Never be a part of the Super Soul.

Advaitham - The Jva is not a part of the Paramathma but is the Paramathma. There is no difference between the two. (this is the thought that is believed by Aadhi Shankarachariyar, Rama Krishna Paramahamsar, Swamy Vivekananda.

Visishta Advaitham: Everything, including Atman, is a part of Brahman but is not Brahman itself, just like a grain of sand on the beach or a seed in a jackfruit are part of the beach or the jackfruit, but are not equal to the beach or the jackfruit.

Although it is Advaitham that is most popular, most humans practice Dvaitham in Reality.

Please Use This Thread To Discuss Them. Post more abt them. Correct any discrepancies in my post. etc etcl :D

---

---

How does it matter? Our duty is only to practice. The Buddha used to say repeatedly that the finger pointing the moon is not the moon. Truth is to be realized by spiritual practice and not by the logical abilities of the mind.

Love and Light.

.
Dear Friends,

Glad to note the LIVELY DISCUSSIONS going on here... through the various Windows of Human- Wisdom.!

Well.!.. I prefer to confine myself.. to just ENJOY reading the multifareous sorts of Your RICH Thoughts and Knowledge...

..for which HEALTHY purpose... this Forum has been made available.

So, as far as possible... I do not want to INTERFERE... nor contradict with anybody... even I feel it wrong or contrary to its apt sense.

Because I wish you all find out the ultimate Truth... BY YOURSELVES.!

However a few Basic Truths.. I must Clarify.

(1) Goddess Saraswathi Devi has approved all the Three Concepts of Philosophy... named Adhwaitha, Dwaitha and Vishta-Adhwaitha...

..and She had recognised them by titling them as Sankara-Bashya, Madhwa-Bashya and SRI-BASHYA... respectively.

So none of us are qualified to decry.. nor UNDER-RATE... anyone of them.

(2) All the Three Schools of Philosophy are venerable as much as the rspective Author-Acharyas.. Sankara, Madhwa and Ramanuja..

..being the Avathara-Purushas... as incarnations of Lord Siva, Vayu-deva, and Aadhi-Sesha respectively.

Further...

...I request you all to find out the Answer for the following reasonable Question.

Similar to the other Titles... Sankara-Bashya and Madhwa-Bashya... why the Ramanuja's Treatise on the same subject... is not named

..as Ramanuja-Bashya... but as SRI-BASHYA,?

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sudhaama

.


Similar to the other Titles... Sankara-Bashya and Madhwa-Bashya... why the Ramanuja's Treatise on the same subject... is not named

..as Ramanuja-Bashya... but as SRI-BASHYA,?

.

---

Is it because Goddess Saraswati was so much impressed and gave this prefix SRI??

.
.
. Why Saraswathi-devi titled as SRI-BASHYA.?..

..Why Not as RAMANUJA-BASHYA.?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arthi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sudhaama

.
Similar to the other Titles... Sankara-Bashya and Madhwa-Bashya... why the Ramanuja's Treatise on the same subject... is not named

..as Ramanuja-Bashya... but as SRI-BASHYA,?

.

---

Is it because Goddess Saraswati was so much impressed and gave this prefix SRI??

---

Just to make it in brief...

When Sri Adhi Sankaracharya, the Incarnation of Lord Siva... took Awatara...

..the status of Vedic-Religion was extremely poor... and NOT MUCH FAMILIAR.

Because Buddhism was prominently prevalent in most regions of India...

..leaving some pockets for Jainism and Vedic-Religion so called Hinduism.

Buddhism is practically ATHEISM by Soonya-Vaadham..

...although it stipulates high HUMAN-VALUES... by Self-Dscipline.!

God wanted Theistic Values of God-Faith.. by making Mankind truly understand the Super-Human Power... through Vedic concept...

... and get emancipated by God-Realisation... the SELF-ENDEAVOUR...

...complying with the due PURPOSE OF HUMAN BIRTH.

So as a Rudimentary INTRODUCTION TO GOD... a bit TANGENTIAL with Buddhism...

..Adhi Sankaracharya... felt the URGENT DEMAND OF THE TIME.. by only a PART OF THREE VEDIC Concepts.

So Sankaracharya CREATED a New Philosophy named ADHWAITHA ...

..basing on only one section of Three parts of Vedic Concepts as Abedha-Sruthi (Adhwaitha)... Bedha-Sruti (Dwaitha)... and GATAKA-SRUTHI

...according to His Own Unique Interpretation of Vedic Terminologies and Concept.

That level and Degree of God-Realisation was cosidered as ENOUGH for the Time...

...and so Saraswathi-devi approved it as SANKARA-BASHYA...

...Silently meaning the Authorship of Sankara for ADHWAITHA Philosophy...

... newly created by Sankara's own School of perception.

Similarly when Madhwacharya the Incarnation of Vayu-deva, another form of ANTHARYAMI-VISHNU...

..took birth subsequently... He might have felt the necessity to convince another section of the masses who could not perceive the Paramathma in the Adhwaithic Concept.

So he INVENTED another Philosophy named DWAITA... basing on another section named BEDHA-SRUTHIS of the Three Vedic Concepts...

..which also was approved by Saraswathi-devi as relevant to another section of the Human-Society....

..and SHE titled it as MADHWA-BASHYA...

..Silently meaning the Authorship by Madhwa on Dwaitha-philosophy... His own School of perception.

Thus Sankara and Madhwa have dealt with ONLY PARTLY...

... taking up only one another respective parts of Totality... suiting to ones own...

..ignoring the other Two parts amongst the Totality or SAMPOORNA Three Veda-concepts Bedha, Abedha and Gataka Sruthis.

Whereas Ramanujacharya took up WHOLLY all the Three varied and MUTUALLY CONTRADICTORY Concepts of Bedha, Abedha and Gataka Sruthis...

..and rendered the Composite sense of Vedas in TOTALITY...

...so to say... SAMPOORNA-PHILOSOPHY of the Vedic-perception..

....ANALYTICALLY LINKING the True-sense behind all the three CONTRADICTORY Concepts...

..WHICH ALONE could clarify well on the TRUE CHARACTER of Paramaathma... the Supreme Soul...

..CONVINCING enough...to all, from Lay-man upto any highly Intellectual Scholar of any and all Religions.!

So Saraswaithi-devi approved Ramanuja's Bashya as SRI-BASHYA...

..since it was NOT NEWLY CREATED by Him... as MAN-MADE...

...but only the UNRAVELLED TRUE-CONCEPT and sense of Vedic- Philosophy...in Totality...

..which already existed.. but became extinct... during the Interim era... prior to all these Three Acharyas

SRI-BASHYA means Totality of the Vedic-Concept in True Sense.
.