Shaivism vs. Vaishnavism

Yep, but Ramanuja preached vishistadvaita... which is not really dualism that Madhva preached... I think.

 

I think that the connection is more because both taught devotion to a personal God as the way to liberation. Both were Bhaktas, as opposed to the Shankara non-dualist line which seems to be more to do with Jnana.

One of the best short summaries I've come across of the teachings of the major Archarayas is in 'Great Thinkers of the Eastern World' edited by Ian P. McGreal.(Harper Collins 1995) Reading through the sections on these two, it seems the philosophical distinctions are very fine. Basically, Madhva seems to have been more of a 'strict' dualist than Ramanuja -
Here anyway are the major ideas of each as listed in this work:

Ramanuja.

Brahman is the same as the God of theism.
The world rooted in Brahman is as real as Brahman.
Both Matter and Selves are eternal.
Souls are many in number.
Souls are essentially alike.
Ignorance is the root cause of our bondage.
Freedom from ignorance is possible through devotion.

Madhva.

The scriptural texts that teach difference convey the real teaching of the Upanishads.
God is the only independent reality.
Matter and souls, although as real as God, are dependent on God.
Souls are many in number.
Ignorance about the true nature of Brahman is the cause of the soul's bondage.
Devotion leads to Moksha.
Grace is not a gift from God; it must be earned.

Also, uniquely among major spiritual teachers of India, Madhva believed in eternal damnation.

 

Just out of interest, and because I think this is a fairly useful book, here's what it lists as the principle ideas of Shankara:


Reality or Brahman is non-dual (advaita).
The world is false.
The world is the product of a creative appearance (maya).
The self is not different from Brahman.
It is possible for empirical individual beings to realize Brahman.
In order to realize Brahman one must follow the path of knowledge (jnana yoga).
Realization of Brahman is the ultimate goal of life.
Moksha is realization of one's true nature.

 

But what about all the pain and suffering, how can reality be Brahman since the world is not perfect?

 

I like this in general. If the world is false, does that mean mankind is false, too? If so, my approach that God cannot be a person seems to be correct. Then again, does "the self" mean the soul (Atman)? If so, it looks like Brahman and Atman are the same and that again, does not seem correct to me. :&

 

But the world is false. The world is not Brahman, but reality is!

Edit: Rather Brahman is the only reality - that´s how I understand it

 

The difference between brahman and atman, is that atman is liberated soul-jiva, while brahman is atman experienced in terms of its threefold nature of rishi,devata, and chandas. That is to say that atman is silent clarity of the observer, but brahman is deeper knowledge of atman in that one can observe within atman the workings of creation itself. Thus the two are one, but to merely say, 'all is brahman' while true is stupid if one has not been able to cognize the threefold nature of the Absolute.

An idiot can go about saying 'Sarvam kulvidam bramaha' their whole life and be none the wiser. Therefore there is a path with neccesity for strict adherence to follow to promote the exploration of atman necessary to reveal brahman.

You might say then, is one who knows brahman a rishi? Yes, a bramavidyana is a rishi or seer. They are able to cognize the veda. You might say, that means that only certain gotras can therefore undrestand brahman. Not so. The gotras are the definitive cognizers of brahman, but they are not the only persons who can cognize it. All can cognize brahman. But simply saying all is brahman and trying no methods of refinement of perception is the danger that tantra has for the uninitiated. Like saying, race cars are fast. therefore persons who drive normal cars think race cars are a matter of degree of driving whereas at such high speeds there are entirely more rules to follow, which necessitates more awareness, or one will crash and burn. The average driver may feel quite fulfilled to think they are race car drivers, but they aren't. Also, the philosopher might feel very well aquainted with brahmavidyas, but they are still just creeping along. Brahman belongs to those who know it. And they are fewer than trees in the desert.

 

Let me explain - I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with Shankara, any more than I'm endorsing the positions taken by Ramanuja or Madhva in posting this info. I did so only for the sake of clarity, and because this issue of the different schools of vedantic philosophy is one which has arisen here on several threads.

However if we hypothesize that Brahman = reality = perfection, in Shankara's view there is no difficulty in accounting for suffering in the world because the world is not real, it is only an illusory appearance.
That would seem to be the general trend of thought.

 

In advaita Atman and Brahman are one in all respects.
The falsity of the world does also extend to the human race - there is in reality only One Self - the idea of separate individuals is part of the cosmic illusion.
'Self' as used by Shankara means Brahman/Atman. The One Self or One reality.

I personally don't accept this position.

 

I think Shankara is very exciting and I will have to persue and study his theory. However, I also find the idea of Brahman and Atman being one, somewhat difficult to agree on.

 

Ha - well you're not the first! This is really one of the main differences between the advaita and the other vedantic schools - dualists see God and the Soul as different, and eternally different.
Abhedabheda - sometimes refered to as qualified non-dualism, says that God and the soul are one in a qualititive sense, but different quantitively. The analogy sometimes used is that of small sparks of an original big fire.

 

"acintya bheda abheda tattva"

 

silly me.

 

vaisnavas focus on the "abheda" or that we have a distint identity different from god and ignore the "bheda" or that we are indistinct from god.

 

Molly, abheda means indistinct and bheda means distinct.

 

sorry about not being clear in my indistinctness

 

But BBB, what about Bhajagovindam from Shankaracharya? I am sure i can find quotes from Shankaracharya that also stress the importance of devotion that leads to moksha.

 

no, a true Vaishnava doesn't ignore, he knows that in reality although one may find that he himself is a part of God, he should not fool himself to think that he is God.

 

Jedi, for our benefit, could you please reproduce the Bhajagovindam quote? I've heard it many times but don't remember where to look for it.

 

Maybe, but it is the nature of Moksha which is disputed.
I 've come across the idea in this connection that devotion is on a lower level and only a preparation for jnana.
Either way, it is inconsistent really with a pure advaita to worship anything - if there is only One Reality or One Self, what is there outside one's own being to worship?
It could only be consistent if we were to say that all forms of the divine are actually part of maya, or like the Buddhists, that they are projections from one's own consciousness.
The main point is though that it is really impossible to reconcile a strict non-dualism with any form of worship, as that would imply a sparation between the worshiped and the worshiper.

So far as it goes, I don't really accept any of these philosophical positions as absolute. Mind itself is incapable of concieving what is above mind. All philosophers are doing is to set up mental formulations, which are more or less limited, but the truth itself is above the intellect, beyond the merely rational.