Topic started by Karthik (@ c998718-a.bvrtn1.or.home.com) on Sun Sep 24 22:13:44 .
All times in EST +10:30 for IST.

Why did these three streams of philosophy came about and what are the essential differences in them ? Can somebody elucidate ?

Responses:

• Old responses
  
• From: Karimaaran (@ cs6625192-211.austin.rr.com) on: Mon Oct 7 04:42:22
  
  Anirvachaniiya does not mean inexplicability. Using your logic, none would interpret the vedanta correctly. This logic is untenable and ridiculous.
  
  Anirvacahniiya means the coherency of the interpretation follows the flow of thought expressed in the shruti which should resemble the flow of explanation in the respective bhasyas.
  
  Using this logic, Ramanuja has stayed consistent throughout. Shankara devitates from Bheda Shruthi and Madhava from Abhedha Shruti. Ramanuja therefore stands foremost in his explanations.
  
  
• From: pradheep (@ 207.177.73.98) on: Mon Oct 7 09:32:31
  
  Karimaran
  lets first start with "meaning of Bakthi" from the other thread. We will use bakthi to discuss advaita and vishist.
  
  
• From: Srini (@ 203.197.239.1) on: Tue Oct 8 00:22:17
  
  Karimaran:
  I am a Visishtadvaitin myself, and derive extreme solace from the both the philosophy and even more so from the exponent Ramanujar. I still think you are making some sweeping statements. If you are aware of the above URLs, and if time permits, you can copy paste some very good questions put forth by Mr.Vidyashankar Sundaresan in defence of Advaita and post your rejoinders. To my mind, Advaita may nor may not have placed equal emphasis on Bheda or Abheda shrutis, but the fact that is is robustly built on Vedanta (including Upanishads) will more than suffice. What I do not agree with, however, is the Advaitin's condescending views on other Indian philosophies.
  
  It's just that we are living in a world where establishment of 'oneness' takes precedence in intellectual plane, as a panacea for all ills. If we were to be living in lesser complicated times, diversity even without a comprehensive oneness could have appealed as much to a human mind. The fact that by the very act of all Indian schools of thought (owing allegiance to Vedanta) have by itself drawn a line of Indianness around them does not dawn on a Advaitin. The moment a philosophy revolves around a scripture or the other it is by itself a confinement. And to use a gradation among confined products is shear intellectual arrogance. And, I personally don't believe in any gradation among products within the same pot. This post is to come out with my views, not essentially to counter yours/ Pradheep's knowledge.
  
  
• From: Karimaaran (@ cs6625192-211.austin.rr.com) on: Tue Oct 8 02:36:30
  
  Srini, at the outset, I wish to clarify that I have not made any personal statements. In Vedanta discussions, there are norms established for debate which is intellectual in nature.
  
  I am hardpressed for time now.I usually write in the Bhakti list. I will be presenting a series on Avidya and analysing the basis of Advaita Vedanta there.
  
  
• From: Ashok (@ nat-33.laurelnetworks.com) on: Tue Oct 8 10:41:45
  
  welcome back srini,
  I hope you come back "full time" now ;)
  
  
• From: Paamaran (@ 216.52.49.5) on: Fri Oct 11 09:32:14
  
  All this discussion is a bit over my head, but I could not help noticing that all three major philosophies come from South India. Why nothing from the North? Any comments?
  
  
• From: pradheep (@ 207.177.73.98) on: Thu Oct 24 10:54:37
  
  >>>Let us assume Creation of world is one BIG EVENT>>>
  
  This is true for a dviaitn and for a advaitin. For adviaitin there is no "real creation", so there is not time, no super time. Everything is apparent and not absolute. Only Brahman is absolute.
  
  >>> You say GOD is immortal. If you want GOD to be immortal then he must have Created NOTHING.>>>
  
  Immortal means never subjected to birth and death.
  
  Where is the creation? Find out who is asking the question. Then you will no there is no creation, but it doesnt mean everythign is soonya, brahman is there. Like sleep , in dreaming you create a world and you dissolve it. In dream you are there as one character or an observer. But when you wake up, find out where was the wrold that you created in the dream. Dream is unreal but not you. This is advaita.
  
  >>>Paradox and pluralism pervades in this universe in everything>>>.
  yes, for this one dont need to discuss in FH. To know whether there is no paradom and pluralism one can discuss in FH.
  
  >> So bringing Advaita as the ultimate thing is not a good thing. >>
  
  If your knwoledge on adviata or any thing is not half baked you wont say this.
  
  >>> If NOTHING was created, then nothing exists>>>
  
  First half is right but second half is wrong, because you exist.
  
  >>>We exist, we can feel it. So, Are we real? Is this existence real? No one knows. >>>
  
  You make stupid (sorry) questions. Isnt it funny you ask, we exist, we feel it and then ask the question are we real. See how contradictroy you are. How can you say you dont know whether you are real. You doubt your own existance, this is illusion. Can you get it. Poor senthil, doesnt know whether he exist or not. How can such a poor senthil call "higher consciouss sheep crowd"?.
  
  
  
  
• From: pradheep (@ 207.177.73.98) on: Mon Oct 28 11:59:06
  
  Dear senthil
  why no counter arguments from you, accpeted what i wrote?
  
  
• From: Ravi varsha (@ dsl-kk-003.192.95.61.touchtelindia.net) on: Sat Oct 23 06:30:55
  
  It is truly an unacceptble theory of Advaita. When there's no bonafide statement on our very existence how are we will be able to take a post.
  Or when considered only as ourself truth, how can a GURU teach his SHISHYA? Or if the entire thought is illusion, how can one gain knowledge in illusion and attain salvation?
  sankara philosophy (as many think) does never get an assuring correspondences from VEDAS, UPANISHADS, OR ANY OF THE OTHER VYDIKA SAHITYAS.
  
  

Want to post a response?