The 3 Pillars Of Hinduism.

The Hub : Indian History & Culture

Hello Guest, Login to post.

Topic started by Surya on Wed Mar 14 21:01:16 2007. [Full View]

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 Very Happy

| RSS Feed | Email me when a reply is posted

Responses:

Full Thread
From: Shakthiprabha. on Sun Mar 18 10:41:19 2007. [Full View]

hmm..

true!

I also feel

SAME WORDS can be understood IN ENTIRELY different meaning, AS PER EACH ONE's maturity!
From: pradheep on Sun Mar 18 22:11:00 2007. [Full View]

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".
From: pradheep on Sun Mar 18 22:38:54 2007. [Full View]

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.
From: Shakthiprabha. on Tue Mar 20 0:06:20 2007. [Full View]

good post
From: vnb on Tue Nov 25 23:15:14 2008. [Full View]

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.

From: Uthappam on Sun Dec 14 14:17:17 2008.

[Full View]

eh ehm..

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

Surya wrote:

From: anbu_kathir on Mon Dec 15 1:01:50 2008.

[Full View]

Uthappam wrote:

eh ehm..

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

Surya wrote:

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.

From: Sudhaama on Mon Dec 22 13:03:35 2008. [Full View]

.
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,?

.

From: Arthi on Wed Jan 14 7:23:20 2009.

[Full View]

Sudhaama wrote:

.

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??

From: Sudhaama on Wed Jan 14 14:15:40 2009.

[Full View]

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

..Why Not as RAMANUJA-BASHYA.?

Arthi wrote:

Sudhaama wrote:

.
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.
.

| RSS Feed | Email me when a reply is posted

Want to post a response?

(Hello Guest, you need to Login to post a response. Are you a New User? Register first.)

Back to Indian History & Culture forum