You are here: SriPedia - SriRangaSri - Archives - Dec 2003

SriRangaSri List Archive: Message 00033 Dec 2003

 
Dec 2003 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


Advaita, Visishtadvaita and Dvaita
   
The question can be answered with a little bit of background on the 
Upanishads.The Upanishads are of three types namely bheda sruti, abheda sruti 
and ghataka sruti.

   
There are many passages in the Vedas, which clearly and categorically state 
that Brahman or Paramatma is different from Jivatma. These are called bheda 
sruti, because they show the difference between Paramatma and Jivatma. Bheda in 
Sanskrit means difference.

   
The following are some of the quotations. 1) 'Two birds with similar qualities 
and attached to each other, reside in the same tree. One of them (Jivatma) eats 
the fruit (the results of his karma), whereas the other (Iswara or Brahman) 
shines, without eating the fruit." 2) "The Jivatma realises that the supreme 
self or Brahman directs him and he is the object of direction". 3) "He, the 
Jivatma, is different from Brahman. By winning the grace of Brahman, the 
Jivatma attains salvation". 4) "The three-fold nature, can be simply put as 
follows (1) who experiences pleasure and pain; (2) the object of such 
experiences and (3)He,the Brahman who directs all". 79 5) "He is the lord of 
Matter and Jivatma and the possessor of qualities". I 6) "Brahman is the ruler 
whose knowledge has no limits. The Jivatma has his knowledge limited". 7) "The 
Brahman is different from Matter or Achetana and is greater than the Jivatma." 
8) "He is different and He rules over the Jivatma and the Matter." 9) "The
 knower of Brahman attains the supreme." 10) "He reaches the other side of 
samsara and reaches the Paramapada of Vishnu". 11) "I belong to the Brahman and 
I will not leave Him". 12) "All these are born out of Him and because of Him 
they live and they go back to Him." 13) "The brahmins understand Him, by 
learning the Vedas, by doing penance, by giving donation and by doing yagas." 
14) "The Brahman cannot be attained by reading the scriptures, by 
intelligence,..." 15) "He is the lord of all. He is the ruler of all". 16) 
"There are two eternal, permanent things. One is Brahman, knowing everything 
and all powerful. The other is with limited knowledge and powerless, namely, 
Jivatma." 17) "The Jivatma enjoys the Paramapada along with Brahman." So, the 
above are a few examples of bheda sruti. These are some of the passages from 
the Vedas, which clearly show that the Jivatma is different from Paramatma. 
There are innumerable such passages in the Vedas. 

   
There are also passages in the Vedas, which show,on the face of it, that 
Paramatma and Jivatma are one and the same.p> 

   
The following are some of the passages:- "You are that (Brahman)". "I am 
Brahman". "Everything here is Brahman". "All the things here are Brahman". 
"There are no different things". "There is only one".a> 

   
The third type of sruti, ghataka sruti, describes the relationship between 
Brahman and Jivatma and Matter, as that of the soul and. the body (body/soul 
relationship).

   
The passages from the Antaryami Brahmana of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and Subala 
Upanishad which explains the body-soul relationship. These are called Ghataka 
sruti

   
This is called so, because this talks about the Iswara being the soul or 
antaryami of Jivatma and the matter. 'Antaryami' means "One who controls from 
inside".> 

   
They are so -called, because they join or synthesise the apparently 
contradictory passages in the Vedas. They give "the proper to abheda srutis, 
which seem to state there is no difference between Jivatma and Paramatma.

   
By using this body/soul relationship, which has been shown above in the ghataka 
sruti, one can give proper interpretation to the abheda sruti.

   
When we say Rama, we mean the body of Rama, as well as the soul of Rama. We say 
Rama has a fair skin. We mean Rama's body has a fair skin. Similarly, the word 
"Rama" means his soul also. By the extension of the same principle, it also 
means the soul of Rama's soul, i.e., Iswara or Narayana. We have just seen that 
the individual soul or Jivatma is also the body of Iswara. In other words, 
Iswara is the soul of the individual soul, namely Jivatma. So, when we say 
Rama, this refers grammatically to 1) Rama's body, 2) Rama's soul, 3) Rama's 
soul's soul, i.e., Brahman or Iswara. With this understanding, if one read's 
the abheda sruti, the meaning will be quite clear. 2) One passage says "you are 
that", Now what this means is that your soul's soul is Iswara or Brahman, i.e., 
Brahman is also your soul's soul. 3) The passage "All this is Brahman" is also 
correct, because all Matter and Jivatma have Brahman as their soul and Brahman 
has all of them as His body. Hence naturally all this is
 Brahman. 4) The passage "I am Brahman" is also correct, because my soul's soul 
is Brahman. In other words, I am myself Brahman. Thus, by applying the 
body/soul relationship between Jivatma and Paramatma, all the passages in the 
Vedas, which appear like saying identity of Jivatma and paramatma, will be 
properly explained.

   
The basic principle has been established that Brahman or is the soul of Jivatma 
and I Matter and all its variations. So, the Jivatma and Matter and its 
variations are all the body of Brahman.As mentioned earlier, this is the 
fundamental doctrine of Visishtadvaita philosophy.

   
"Advaita" means "Not Two". The advaitins say that Jivatma and paramatma are not 
two (i.e., different) but they are One, i.e., identical. Hence this system of 
philosophy is called Advaita. The founder of Advaita philosophy is Adi 
Sankara./p> 

   
"Visishtadvaita" means "Not Two-in a special way" or "Only one - in a special 
way". We say that Jivatma and paramatma are different and yet not different. 
They are different, as we have shown from the bheda sruti. Jivatma is the body 
and paramatma the soul. The soul is different from the body. This way, the 
paramatma is different from the Jivatma. They are not different because of the 
body-soul relationship, as explained in ghataka sruti. We call both Rama's body 
and Rama's soul, as Rama. Rama's body and soul together, are called as "Rama" 
only. So, Rama is only one. Similarly, Jivatma (the body) and Paramatma (the 
soul), can be called as only one - in a special way, because of the body/soul 
relationship. So, Jivatma and Paramatma can be called two-in-one or one-in-two. 
Hence our system of philosophy is called "Visishtadvait'a". This system was 
perfected by Ramanuja. 

   
"Dvaita" means Two. Dvaitins say that Jivatma and Paramatma are eternally 
different, i.e. they are two and not one. They do not accept body/soul 
relationship. Hence this system of philosophy is called "Dvaita". The exponent 
of Dvaita philosophy is Madhva. 

   
The Advaitins argue that abheda srutis, which say that the Jivatma is identical 
with Paramatma. supersede the bheda srutis. So, they do not accept the validity 
of bheda srutis. In other words, they accept only abheda srutis as authority. 

   
We say that the Vedas as a whole are authority. So, why should the Vedas 
mention the bheda passages, if they are to be superseded. No sensible person 
will make a statement, if it is false and if it is to be superseded. Unless a 
statement is specifically mentioned as opponents point of view, it has to be 
taken as correct. Nowhere in the Vedas, it has been stated that the bheda 
passages represent opponents point of view. Hence the bheda srutis have to be 
taken as correct; and have to be properly synthesised with the other passages 
in the Vedas. Thus, we do not accept the Advaitins' argument.

   
Dvaitins do not accept the abheda srutis as uthority (pramana). Their argument 
is that abheda srutis are very few. They are very much less in number, as 
compared to bheda srutis, Hnce, the small number of abheda srutis must be 
ignored.

   
Vishistadvaitins do not accept this view of Dvaitins. They say that 
all-passages in the Vedas are authority. We have to properly interpret the 
various passages in the Vedas, so that any apparent contradictions are 
resolved. Hence, Vishistadvaitin makes use of ghataka sruti, to resolve the 
apparent differences between bheda srutis and abheda srutis.

   
As mentioned above, the Advaitins are not able to properly explain bheda 
srutis. Dvaitins are not able to properly explain abheda srutis. Visishtadvaita 
is the only system, which is able to explain properly both the Bheda srutis and 
Abheda srutis, with the help of Ghataka srutis.

   
The Advaitins say that everything, other than the Paramatma, is 'maya' or 
illusion. For Advaitins, the world itself is an illusion.

   
For this, the Advaitins have got three types of reality. They say that the 
Brahman is the only real thing or the ultimate reality; and everything else is 
illusion or maya.

   
We see a shell from a distance and we think it is silver. Only when we go near 
and examine, we find that it is really shell. 2) Similarly, from a distance we 
see a rope and mistake it to be a serpent. 3) Again, in a hot summer, on a tar 
road, we see at some distance water on the road, which is not actually so. It 
is only the reflection of the sun onthe tar road So, such illusions, as 
explained in the three cases above, fall into the first category, according to 
the Advaitins. These are called "Apparent Reality" (Pratibhasika Sat). In these 
cases, we are able to realise ourselves, at a later stage, that what we saw 
first was only an illusion. For example, thinking as silver, whereas it was 
only shell; similarly, thinking as serpent, when it was only a rope, is only an 
illusion.

   
The second category of reality is called by Advaitins as "Relative Reality" 
(Vyavaharika Sat). In this category come the world, air, sky, water. and so on. 
All these things are there and still, ultimately, they are only an illusion 
according to Advaitins. But, for all practical purposes, world, air, water and 
other elements are real things. So these things are called "Relative Reality" 
and form the second category.

   
The third category of reality, is the "Absolute reality" (Paramarthika Sat). 
This is Brahman. 

   
The Advaitins classify all things into three types of realities, as follows: 1) 
Apparent reality (Pratibhasika Sat) ? like mistaking shell as silver; mistaking 
rope as serpent. 2) Relative reality (Vyavaharika Sat) - like world, sky, fire, 
water. 3) Absolute reality (Paramarthika Sat) - This is Brahman. So, according 
to them, except for item (3) above, Brahman, everything else is maya (illusion).

   
The theory of Visishtadvaitins is exactly the opposite. We say that everything 
is real. There is no maya or illusion. The world is very much real. The Jivatma 
is very much real. In fact, we also say that, even the objects which we see in 
a dream are also real. Of course, the dream objects are purely temporary and 
are seen only by the person who dreams. 

   
We say that this world is not an illusion. We mistake shell for silver. We 
mistake brass, or bronze for gold. We mistake a rope for a serpent - These are 
actually illusions. The world is not such an illusion. Whatever materials we 
find in this world, we are making use of them. The silver which we see, we make 
vessels out of it. We keep water in the silver vessel. Similarly, the gold 
which we see, we make jewels out of gold, and we wear them. So, the world, the 
materials, the objects which we see in the world, are all real.

   
The Vishistadvaiti's have full support from the Upanishads. Its been explained 
earlier about the process of creation, starting from matter. How from matter 
comes mahat, how from mahat comes ahankara and so on. I have also explained 
about the quintuplication, three-fold division and seven-fold division. The 
Upanishads have thus explained in detail the process of creation. So, the world 
and the objects and materials of the world are all the results of creation. 
When Upanishads take so much pains to explain the process of creation, is it 
correct to say that the whole thing is an illusion? There is no need for the 
Upanishads to describe in great detail the process of creation, if the whole 
thing is an illusion. Further, the Upanishads do not state anywhere that the 
world is an illusion.

   
The Upanishads say that the Lord, Brahman creates the world out of maya. So the 
Advaitins interpret the word maya as illusion. But we interpret the world maya 
as matter (prakriti). The Upanishads themselves say that maya is matter. So, 
apart from' other reasons, we interpret the word 'maya' as matter. From matter, 
the process of creation starts. But taking the meaning of 'maya' as illusion, 
the advaitins say that the whole world is an illusion. 

   
At many places, several Upanishads categorically declare that Brahman creates 
this world. "Brahman creates beings, starting from Brahma, as before". "Brahman 
creates the beings, like sun and moon,as before".Unless the world, sun and 
moon, and other objects are real, there is no need to create them. This clearly 
shows that the created world is real. Of course, the Jivatma and Matter are 
eternal (nitya). At the time of pralaya, Matter and Jivatmas take very subtle 
(sukshma) form and merge with the Lord. Again, the process of creation starts, 
after pralaya. Thus we say that everything is real. 

   
The Bhagavad Gita says: "I, who am the ultimate. cause of this world, join the 
Jivatma with Matter. Thus, all beings come out of this union". There are 
several such passages in Vishnu Purana and other Sastras which go to show that 
the world is indeed real. 

   
They say that many objects in the world are not permanent. For example, there 
is a mud pot now; after some time it gets broken and it is destroyed. Similarly 
there is water in the river now. But in summer, the water gets dried up. Thus 
water is no longer there. Thus, nothing is real, because they are not there 
permanently at all times. This is one of the arguments of the Advaitins. ??? 

   
We agree with them on the facts. But we say that these facts only show that 
objects are nor permanent. It dows not follow that the objects are not real. In 
other workds, even though the objects are not permanent, they are real. We have 
to distinguish between a real thing and a permanent thing. Taking the example 
of the mud pot, the mud is there, which the potter makes into a pot. Again, 
after some time, the pot gets broken, and we come back to the mud. So, mud is 
there although mud pot gets broken Just because something is not permanent, we 
cannot say that it is not real. The mud pot is not permanent. Mud is real and 
also permanent. Similarly jewels are not permanent. We can melt them into gold 
and re- make some other jewel. So the jewels are not permanent, but the raw 
material, gold is permanent. But both gold and jewels, made out of gold, are 
real. We make use of the jewels. We wear the jewels,. So, we cannot say that 
jewls are not real. Mud is real and mudpot is real. Gold is real
 and gold jewel is real. These examples are given in Chandogya Upanishad to 
discuss the relationship between Brahman and the world. So, Brahman is real and 
the world is also real. Thus the argument of Advaitins that just because 
something is not permanent, it is not real, ( but an illusion) is not correct. 

   
We are seeing the world. We make use of the things in the world. We enjoy them. 
So this has to be real. The above examples clearly show that the world which 
has come out, in the above examples are real. If the Vedas wanted to show that 
the world is unreal, they need not have given the above examples. Instead, the 
Vedas could have given the examples of mistaking a rope for a serpent, 
mistaking a shell for silver and so on. But instead of giving such examples, 
which suggest illusion, the Vedas have given examples of reality. From this 
also, it is clear that the world and everything else is real. Further, if the 
world and its beings are only an illusion, where is the question of the Lord 
protecting and destroying the world?.. All these activities of creating the 
world, protecting the world and destroying the world will have no meaning if 
the world is not real. The world is destroyed at the time of Pralaya. So the 
world is not eternal or permanent. It is in this meaning that sometimes it
 is mentioned that the world is not real.

   
The basic axiom that the Vedas as a whole , are the fundamental authority. So , 
there cannot be any inconsistency or difference between the different passages. 
If there is an apparent contradiction or inconsistency between two different 
two different portions of Upanishads, these have to be suitable reconciled or 
synthesized. 2.) The normal logic is that if the majority of the portions mean 
one thing and a small number of portions apparently mean something else, then 
these minority portions will have to be explained in keeping with the majority 
version. 3.) While the world is mentioned as real in innumerable places and the 
process of creation is described in detail, in a few places it is mentioned 
that the world is not eternal or everlasting. The world will be destroyed at 
the time of pralaya. What is meant is that all the chetanas and achetanas merge 
in the Lord, in a very subtle form, at the time of pralaya. 

   
The three reasons to show why the world is real: 1.) The Vedas describe Brahman 
thus: Brahman is that, from whom all these beings are born; by whom all these 
beings live; in whom all these beings rest, after death. From the above 
description, it can be seen that all these beings have to be real. 2.) Brahman 
is the material cause of the world. He therefore evolves into the world. So how 
can the world which has been created by Brahman, be unreal? Thus we say that 
the world and all the beings in it are real. 

   
A. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad clearly says that: " In this dream world, there 
are no chariots. There are no horses to draw the chario. There are no roads on 
which the chariot can go. Then the Brahman creates chariots. He creates horses 
to draw the chariot and He Creates roads. In this dream world, there are no 
joys or delights or raptures. Again, Brahman creates joys , delights and 
raptures. In the dream world, there are no pools, no tanks and no rivers. 
Again, Brahman creates pools, He creates tanks and He creates rivers. Indeed 
Brahman creates all these, in the dream ? world".

   
A. The jivatma is not capable of creating the various objects in the dream. He 
does not have the power of creation because of his natural powers are 
restricted, as long as he is in this world. 2.)We also see many bad things in 
the dream. We are afraid to see such terrible things in our dreams.We often 
wake up with a start whenever we see bad things in the drea. If the Jivatma 
creates these objects, naturally he will create such bad things,such bad 
objects, which give him pain in his dreams. If the Jivatma creates these 
objects, naturally he will only create good and pleasant things in the dream. 
Since the dream consists of bad things also, it is clear that jivatma does not 
create the objects in the dreams. Only Iswara creates objects in the dream. 

   
The reason is simple. The Jivatma does some small good things and some small 
bad things. These are not big enough, or significant enough. As a reward for 
small good things done, God gives him pleasure and good things, in the dream. 
So, he is happy during the duration of the dream , enjoying pleasant things. 
Similarly the Jivatma does small bad thigns, which are not very significant. 
Then a very mild punishment is given by the Lord, for those small bad things. 
This is by making the Jivatma feel the pain, by dreaming bad things or shocking 
news. So he is made to experience pain and sorrow during the duration of the 
dream.

   
There are several passages in the Vedas, which declare that there is only one 
supreme Lord or Brahman. The advaitins also agree that there is only one 
Brahman, the Para Brahman. However for purposes of worship, they accept a lower 
Brahman. This lower Brahman, is , according to them, not real ultimately, but 
is only Vyavaharika sat.

   
They say that 1.)The Para Brahman has no attributes or qualities.(Nirguna) 
2.)It has no form. (Niravayava Brahman) According to them 1.) The lower Brahman 
(Apara Brahman) has good qualities (Saguna Brahman), 2.) It has aform (body). 
The lower Brahman can be worshipped as a Vishnu and so on. They further say as 
follows: "After worshipping the Brahman, in a form with qualities, like Vishnu, 
a person develops sufficient maturity of knowledge and viveka. Then he 
understands the real Brahman, which is without attributes. Then he also 
realizes that he is not different from the real Brahman or Paramatma. In other 
words, he ultimately realizes that the Jivatma and Paramatma are one and the 
same.

   
We do not accept that there are two Brahmans. There is no question of one 
Brahman being higher and another Brahman being lower. There is only one 
Brahman. The Brahman has all the auspicious qualities. That Brahman is free 
from all evil. The Brahman has also got a form ? a beautiful and auspicious 
body, with four arms and sankha and chakra. Further the Brahman has Jivatma and 
matteras His Body.

   
There is no question of Jivatma being identical with Paramatma. But Jivatma has 
Paramatma as its soul; and Jivatma; and Jivatma is the body of the Paramatma. 
Thus both the Jivatma and Paramatma are one in the sense, that they form 
together the body and soul. So, they are 2-in-1. That is why our philosophy is 
called as Vishistadvaita.

   
At several places, the Vedas say that He has many auspicious qualities, 
attributes. In a few places, they say that Brahman is without attributes. We 
have to intepret this, in keeping with the majority portions. So when the 
Upanishad says "without Attributes" we intepret this as "without bad 
attributes" i.e, " with only good qualities" . This intepretation is necessary, 
to resolve the apparent contradiction between the portions saying Brahman has 
many auspicious qualities and the portions saying that Brahman is without 
attributes. If we stick on saying that Brahman is without qualities, then all 
the portions mentioning about the good qualities of Brahman will have no 
meaning.

   
In many places the Upanishads mention that Brahman is the Lord. He is the 
protector, and the world and the Jivatmas are Protected By Him. Again the 
Upanishads talk about Bhakti, about 32 vidyas or methos of doing bhakti to the 
Lord, for getting salvation. If the Lord has no attributes, no qualities, how 
can He protect the world. How can He give Salvation or Moksha to the Jivatma? 
It cannot be said that the Upanishads lay down the methods of Bhakti, for 
attaining salvation, and then deny these things , by saying that the Lord has 
no attributes or qualities. Without qualities how can He grant Salvation?

   
We intepret these in two ways: 1.)" Without Qualities" mean "without bad 
qualities". So, Brahman has all good qualities. 1.) The qualities are three 
sattva, rajas and tamas. So, "without qualities" can mean " without any of 
these three qualities". This will mean "suddha, sattva". Thus, we can say that 
the Brahman has the quality of "Suddha Sattva". 

   
The words "Tattvamasi" means " That you there". Here " That" means Brahman. 
"You" means " Your souls's soul". So the words, "Tattvamasi" mean Brahman is 
your soul's soul. This is exactly the body / soul relationship. Brahman is the 
soul of ones soul. ..viz?Jivatma. So, the word, "Tattvamasi" only says that 
Brahman is the soul of Jivatma. The above is the teaching of the father, to son 
Svetaketu. When we say Svetaketu, it means his body and his soul. It also means 
his soul's soul which is Brahman.

   
No, that is not correct. Brahman is eternal. Jivatmas are eternal, Matter ( 
mula Prakriti) is eternal and the Vedas are also eternal. What it actually 
means is that Brahman has no equal. "He is without a Second" means, " He is 
without an equal", "He is unparalleled". All this means is that Brahman is 
Supreme, without any equals. It does not mean that there is nothing else than 
Brahman; and that everything else is an illusion or unreal. If this vies ( that 
all other are not real) is to be adopted, then let me repeat again that all the 
Upanishads explaining the process of Creation, explaining the Salvation of the 
jivatma, will all become meaningless. When we say that the Chola King was 
unique and there was no second person, what dowe mean? We only mean that, in 
strength and valor, he had no equals. He had no parallels. It does not mean 
there was no other person in this world , at that time. Similarly here also, it 
only means that Brahman has no equals..

   
The Jivatma also, by nature, has all the auspicious qualities and is free from 
evil, just like Brahman. But unfortunately, these good qualities are not fully 
exhibited, so long as he is in this world. During the period he is in this 
world, in this samsara, he is like a diamond, covered with dirt. When he 
attains salvation and reaches Paramapada, all the auspicious qualities shine in 
full in him and he is free from all evil. That is, he becomes like a diamond, 
cleaned from all dirt, and fully shining.

   
Q. They are eight in number: 1. Freedom from evil 2. Freedom from old age 3. 
Freedom from death 4. Freedom from sorrow 5. Freedom from hunger 6. Freedom 
from thirst 7. Desiring the truth (Satya kama) 8. Willing the truth (Satya 
sankalpa) These are apart from the basic nature of the Jivatma, of knowledge, 
bliss or happiness, and purity and so on.

   
According to Advaita, liberation comes finally, when the Jivatma realises that 
he is identical with Brahman or Paramatma. So, it is this knowledge, which 
leads to salvation..

   
Yes. According to Advaita, even in this world itself, it is possible to attain 
salvation. They call it Jivanmukti.

   
No. They do not recognise Paramapada, as the ultimate salvation.

   
The Advaitins say that it is only a partial salvation. They call it Krama 
mukti. They do not recognise Paramapada as the ultimate salvation.

   
Salvation means reaching Paramapada or Sri Vaikunta at the end of this life; 
and enjoying the Lord Sriman Narayana and being of service to Him and Lakshmi.

   
The Advaitins call some passages in the Upanishads as "great sentences" (Maha. 
vakyas). They say that these great sentences show that Jivatma and paramatma 
are one.

   
No.l "That you are". No.2" I am Brahman" No.3 " All the things here are 
Brahman." NO. 4 " There are no several things here".

   
The interpretation is very simple, if we apply the body/soul relationship 1) 
The first sentence is the famous "Tattvamasi". 2) In the same way, the second 
sentence, "I am Brahman" also is correct. My soul is Jivatma. Jivatma's soul is 
Brahman. So, my soul's soul is Brahman. Hence "I am Brahman". 3) The third 
sentence, "All things are Brahman," is also correct. Because, the soul or Atma 
of all things is Brahman, by the body/soul relationship. So, everything is 
Brahman, since everything has Brahman for its soul. Brahman has everything for 
His body. 4) By the same reasoning, the fourth sentence "There are no several 
things here" is also correct. Because all things have Brahman as their soul. 
Hence, all things are identified with Brahman, as their soul. Hence there are 
no several things. All things are Brahman only (as their soul) Thus we 
interpret the great sentences, in accordance with our philosophy.

   
Apart from these "great sentences", we have many portions in the same 
Upanishads, which proclaim clearly that Paramatma is different from the 
Jivatma. So, if "maha vakyas" are interpreted to mean that Jivatma is identical 
with Paramatma, we find these are followed by passages, saying Jivatma is 
different from Paramatma, viz., contra-dicting the identity of Jivatma and 
Paramatma. There is no need for the Vedas to proclaim something, to be 
contradicted immediately afterwards. Indeed in some places, the Upanishads give 
the opponents' view first and then give the correct view. But they clearly say 
that what was mentioned earlier was not the correct view and then explain or 
proclaim the correct view. There is no such specific statement in the Vedas, 
saying that bheda srutis are incorrect; or that abheda srutis only are correct. 
So, we say that all are to be interpreted suitably, to avoid any apparent 
contradiction.

   
We argue that 'Neti, Neti' ('not so\ not so'), in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 
only means that Brahman's attributes cannot be limited to what was explained 
earlier. His attributes are infinite. Therefore, the passage means that the 
Brahman's attributes are not the only ones, which were mentioned earlier, but 
they are countless. Our stand is also vindicated by the following:- Immediately 
after this passage 'not so', 'not so', the Upanishad says that His name is 
Truth of the Truths. The Jivatmas are true, i.e., real and eternal. The 
Paramatma is the truth of the truth, i.e., also real and eternal. So, this 
passage also clearly shows that Brahman has innumerable attributes, i.e., He is 
not nirguna..

   
While criticising the Advaita view point, Ramanuja develops subtle arguments 
and logic, to show that there are several inconsistencies in the Advaita 
standpoint, regarding the Brahman and the Jivatma. In particular, Ramanuja 
lists out 7 inconsistencies in the Advaita arguments, which say that Brahman is 
without attributes, Brahman is without form and the world is unreal..

   
Narayana is accepted as the supreme deity. 

   
He is full of good qualities. The Dvaitins do not accept that Brahman is 
nirguna.

   
According to Dvaitins, Narayana only creates this world, sustains this world 
and destroys this world.

   
They accept that Narayana has a divine body, a beautiful and shining body. 

   
Yes. They accept the avataras like Rama and Krishna as all real. 

   
Lakshmi is accepted as Narayana's consort. But, they give Her a slightly lower 
place than Narayana. She also has a divine and beautiful body, like Narayana. 
However, Lakshmi is considered Jivatma. 

   
They state that Lakshmi is also vibhu, like Narayana.

   
Yes. They accept the reality of the world and all beings

   
They say that the Jivatmas are different from one another. The Jivatmas are 
grouped into two categories, as males and females. The Jivatmas are also atomic 
in nature.

   
They accept the concept of salvation, viz., moksha and Paramapada. They agree 
that moksha means liberation from samsara and attainment of Paramapada.

   
No, they have different categories or gradations in moksha, like salokya, 
sarupya, samipya and sayujya. Depending on their merits (punya), the Jivatmas 
attain salokya or sarupya and so on. 

   
They accept bhakti as the means. 

   
The Dvaitins say that Jivatma and Paramatma are always different from one 
another. They do not accept the concept of body-soul relationship between 
Jivatma and Paramatma.Since according to them, the Jivatma is eternally 
different from Paramatma, they are two. So, this system of philosophy is called 
Dvaita. 





---------------------------------
   BT Yahoo! Broadband - Save £80 when you order online today. Hurry! Offer 
ends 21st December 2003. The way the internet was meant to be. 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/VkWolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Srirangasri-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index ] [Thread Index ] [Author Index ]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia
srirangasri-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to the list