Understanding Srimad Bhagavad Gita from the perspectives of Visishtadvaita and Advaita - an exposition

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram all,

Jai Shree Ram

I would like to share a brief article I wrote about the method of understanding Srimad Bhagavad Gita from the perspectives of Visishtadvaita and Advaita. The intent is to demonstrate that Advaita does not stand in conflict with Visishtadvaita teachings and these two spiritual paths are available to seekers purely based on their temperaments.

Kindle requesting the learned members to review and please share your feedback on the directions and accuracy of the thought process: https://archive.org/details/sbg-visishtadvaita-and-advaita/

To provide more context, I am born a SriVaishnava and belong to Visishtadvaita sampradhayam. However philosophically I am aligned with Advaita.  With a deeper understanding of both the perspectives, I believe the teachings of the great acharyas are actually quite aligned (except for the criticisms which are figuratively apples versus oranges). In a local setting, we just started an initiative to discuss Srimad Bhagavad Gita based on both perspectives - Swami Ramanujacharya's bhashya and Swami Sankaracharya's bhashya. It is my strong conviction that without a clear understanding of the fundamentals of both sampradayam, a comparative or relative study will end up creating more confusion than illumining clear directions. This is because of root-level differences regarding the nature of bondage, ignorance, knowledge and liberation. When explained within the right context, there is definite self-consistency and cohesiveness of both philosophies. The attempt of this article is also to provide these minimalistic fundamentals that will enable a clearer understanding of SBG in different perspectives.

Based on your review and feedback I will share this with our group as an introduction.

Thank you!

On a quick side note: a couple of weeks back I had shared another brief write up on my reflections on Avidya (https://archive.org/details/reflections-on-avidya). Earnestly soliciting critical review and feedback on my understanding of this too.

with humble prostrations,
Vikram

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Vikram prabhuji

Hare Krishna

To provide more context, I am born a SriVaishnava and belong to Visishtadvaita sampradhayam. However philosophically I am aligned with Advaita. 

 

 

• Nice to know that, our Sri Sadananda prabhuji, Sri Suresh prabhuji too are Sri vaishNava-s and Sri Suresh prabhuji very often tries to strike a similarity between Advaita and vishishtAdvaita. 

 

With a deeper understanding of both the perspectives, I believe the teachings of the great acharyas are actually quite aligned (except for the criticisms which are figuratively apples versus oranges).

 

• Do you mean to say Sri rAmAnuja’s Sri bhAshya and vedAnta deshikar’s shata dUshAni etc. don’t aware of this alignment, have this clarity and hence taken Advaita as pUrvapaxi for refutation?? 

 

In a local setting, we just started an initiative to discuss Srimad Bhagavad Gita based on both perspectives - Swami Ramanujacharya's bhashya and Swami Sankaracharya's bhashya.

 

• Perhaps it is possible to see some similarity here as geeta is smruti prasthAna and both Acharya-s talk a lot about bhagavad bhakti, sharaNagati, IshwarAnugraha etc.  But when it comes to shruti and nyAya prasthAna I don’t think it is that much easy. 

 

It is my strong conviction that without a clear understanding of the fundamentals of both sampradayam, a comparative or relative study will end up creating more confusion than illumining clear directions. This is because of root-level differences regarding the nature of bondage, ignorance, knowledge and liberation.

 

• Don’t you think above are the basic tenets of any school of thought to decide the very nature of respective siddhAnta?? If there is difference of opinion with regard to knowledge and liberation what to talk about other things!!??

 

When explained within the right context, there is definite self-consistency and cohesiveness of both philosophies. The attempt of this article is also to provide these minimalistic fundamentals that will enable a clearer understanding of SBG in different perspectives.

>  IMO it is better to get the opinion of traditional acharya-s from both schools of thought before trying to find any similarity between the schools.  I reckon Advaita is more flexible and could accommodate different doctrines based on adhikAra bedha and vyAvahArika satya and I really doubt other dualistic school acharya-s would agree to the contention that Advaita vedAnta is the parama siddhAnta of vedAnta. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[V Subrahmanian]

Sri  Vedantadeshika in his Tatparya Chandirka for the Bhagavadgita bhashya of Ramanuja, for the shloka 18.66 (prapatti shloka): https://tinyurl.com/5be2jte7 पिशाच-रन्तिदेव-गुप्त-शङ्कर यादवप्रकाश-भास्कर-नारायणार्य-यज्ञस्वामि-प्रभृतिभि: स्वं स्वं मतमास्थितै: प्रशस्तै: भाष्यकृद्भि: अस्मत् सिद्धान्त तीर्थकरैश्च भगवद्यामुनाचार्य भाष्यकारादिभिरविगीत- परिगृहीतोयमत्र सारार्थ: भगवानेव परं तत्त्वं अनन्यशरणैर्यथाधिकारं तदेकाश्रयणं परमधर्म: इति 

says that all the above named Gita commentators, including Shankara, have agreed unanimously that Bhagavan alone is the Supreme Tattva and surrendering to Him alone is the Supreme Dharma.  

warm regards

subbu

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAM7AOLeDG%2BZGJ1s0O1eXdXUQo0DXp-V6Mg0n%3DJ3mpToGNGn-Rw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Shri Bhaskar ji,

To clarify, my intent is not to strike a common ground between the two schools. The sampradhayams are quite distinct, with distinct goals and paths. One will not do justice to either sampradhayam by diluting them to arrive at a common ground. My intent is to appreciate the sampradhayams as what they are, and then more importantly, demonstrate that the other sampradhayam too is valid in their own right. This is not meant as a research work or for deeper seekers, but just meant to provide enough information to keep the context accurate and clear for discussion amongst common people on the two perspectives.

 

• Do you mean to say Sri rAmAnuja’s Sri bhAshya and vedAnta deshikar’s shata dUshAni etc. don’t aware of this alignment, have this clarity and hence taken Advaita as pUrvapaxi for refutation?? 

A discussion for another day.

 

  

• Don’t you think above are the basic tenets of any school of thought to decide the very nature of respective siddhAnta?? If there is difference of opinion with regard to knowledge and liberation what to talk about other things!!??

 

Indeed. Hence my opinion that prior to any comparative discussion one has to be clear about the fundamentals and context of each school. For instance, Swami Sankaracharya teaches in SBG that jnana alone (without any karma associated) is capable of overcoming ignorance. Swami Ramanujacharya, on the other hand, teaches through SBG that jnana with karma (in the form of upasana or prapatti) is essential for overcoming ignorance. When one reads the SBG shlokas with both bhashyas, it is possible to view that the teachings are at a direct conflict, and consequently conclude with the one explanation that 'seems' more logical and relegate the other. But this is not accurate and appropriate in a comparative study. A brief deeper analysis will point out that the two distinct means (jnana alone or jnana with karma) have been arrived at because of the difference in the fundamental understanding of the nature of ignorance. Once the starting point is understood, the respective directions will be clear. This firm understanding of fundamentals & context is essential for any sampradhayam study, more so for a comparative study. The same is applicable to all scriptures, not just SBG.

Bhaskar ji, on a side note, as part of our earlier discussion, the reason I shared fundamentals points on Advaita and the rope-snake analogy is precisely for this - ensuring that we are clear and aligned on the foundations before venturing deeper into the discussion. Otherwise we are talking apples vs oranges.

 

>  IMO it is better to get the opinion of traditional acharya-s from both schools of thought before trying to find any similarity between the schools. 

True, it is always good to get the direct opinion of traditional acharyas from both schools, but I do not yet have His blessings to seek acharyas' guidance directly.

 

I reckon Advaita is more flexible and could accommodate different doctrines based on adhikAra bedha and vyAvahArika satya and I really doubt other dualistic school acharya-s would agree to the contention that Advaita vedAnta is the parama siddhAnta of vedAnta. 

To re-clarify, the intent is not to strike a common ground or to dilute the sampradhayam standpoints or establish superiority of one over the other. The intent is to clearly state the respective positions, as-is, prior to a comparative study. Having done that, it is not hard to see that Advaita does not actually stand in conflict (avirodha) against Visishtadvaita. One doesn't have to switch schools to see that the other school too is valid. One's nishta to their school (IMHO, based on one's temperament) can still be retained. 

Bhaskar ji, just curious, and not to be mistaken in any other sense, did you read through this article? If so, I would appreciate your feedback on the stated points.

with humble prostrations,

Vikram

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Vikram prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

To clarify, my intent is not to strike a common ground between the two schools. The sampradhayams are quite distinct, with distinct goals and paths. One will not do justice to either sampradhayam by diluting them to arrive at a common ground.

 

• Yes, mata traya samanvaya I think really a futile exercise not at all palatable to the official flag holders of these siddhAnta-s 😊

 

My intent is to appreciate the sampradhayams as what they are, and then more importantly, demonstrate that the other sampradhayam too is valid in their own right.

 

• This is typical catholic approach or RK mission like approach.  But orthodox saMpradAyavAdins argue in such a way that ‘my daddy is strongest’ ofcourse with all sorts of tarka and shAstra justification. 

 

This is not meant as a research work or for deeper seekers, but just meant to provide enough information to keep the context accurate and clear for discussion amongst common people on the two perspectives.

 

Ø     If it is not for a deeper epistemological analysis of some delicate and complicated doctrinal issues  then IMO, instead of finding the alignments between two different schools of thought,  it is better to keep it within the boundaries of shishtAchAra, dhyAna, upAsana aspects as these sAdhana-s and AcharaNa-s are quite common in all three-matastha followers. 

 

 

Indeed. Hence my opinion that prior to any comparative discussion one has to be clear about the fundamentals and context of each school. For instance, Swami Sankaracharya teaches in SBG that jnana alone (without any karma associated) is capable of overcoming ignorance. Swami Ramanujacharya, on the other hand, teaches through SBG that jnana with karma (in the form of upasana or prapatti) is essential for overcoming ignorance. When one reads the SBG shlokas with both bhashyas, it is possible to view that the teachings are at a direct conflict, and consequently conclude with the one explanation that 'seems' more logical and relegate the other. But this is not accurate and appropriate in a comparative study. A brief deeper analysis will point out that the two distinct means (jnana alone or jnana with karma) have been arrived at because of the difference in the fundamental understanding of the nature of ignorance. Once the starting point is understood, the respective directions will be clear. This firm understanding of fundamentals & context is essential for any sampradhayam study, more so for a comparative study. The same is applicable to all scriptures, not just SBG.

 

Ø     I agree but when there is no attempt here to strike the common ground, don’t you think it is better to leave the fundamentals and contexts (as it is) which are essential for the particular traditional study without bringing in the other schools’ perspective and contextual endorsement of some concepts which seem to be similar ??

 

Bhaskar ji, on a side note, as part of our earlier discussion, the reason I shared fundamentals points on Advaita and the rope-snake analogy is precisely for this - ensuring that we are clear and aligned on the foundations before venturing deeper into the discussion. Otherwise we are talking apples vs oranges.

 

Ø     Yes, perhaps the mOksha concept when talked from the perspective of dualists Vs nondualists its like above.  But it is also to be noted Advaita in the form of krama-mukti could accommodate sAlokyAdi mukti but dualists never ever entertain the thoughts like ahaM brahmAsmi or tattvamasi 😊

 

 

To re-clarify, the intent is not to strike a common ground or to dilute the sampradhayam standpoints or establish superiority of one over the other. The intent is to clearly state the respective positions, as-is, prior to a comparative study.

 

• Sorry your intention is not yet clear to me, if your intention is to leave the sampradaya and its doctrine ‘as-is’, just leave it ‘as-is’ why comparison and explanation like agreeable in Advaita in vyavahAra etc. which you have written in your article.  Don’t you think this is an attempt of striking the similarity between two schools!!??

 

Having done that, it is not hard to see that Advaita does not actually stand in conflict (avirodha) against Visishtadvaita.

 

• This has been already clarified, Advaita can embrace everything if it is shrutyukta from different standpoints (paramataM apratishiddham anumataM bhavati says bhAshyakAra).  So, obviously Advaita is not against vishishtAdvaita but the question is how far vishshtAdvaita is in alignment with Advaita?? 

 

One doesn't have to switch schools to see that the other school too is valid. One's nishta to their school (IMHO, based on one's temperament) can still be retained. 

 

Ø     This broader perspective allowed only in Advaita and I don’t think thoughts like this would be entertained in dualistic schools. 

 

Bhaskar ji, just curious, and not to be mistaken in any other sense, did you read through this article? If so, I would appreciate your feedback on the stated points.

 

Ø     Yes prabhuji, I read it with interest particularly your attempt to explain certain concepts in VA which is also agreeable in Advaita.  But lot of things need to be clarified before saying both schools are saying the same thing and accepted in both schools.  If possible I would like to highlight some of points tomorrow. 

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Shri Bhaskar ji, 

I get your point. But it is highly debatable.

I will just say that the purpose is to discuss & understand SBG from both perspectives. We have members in our small group belonging to either sampradhayam. And my intent is to set the right context (fundamentals, perspectives and alignment) so as to minimize conflicts, thereby criticisms, consequently confusions. While doing so, I wish to remain accurate within both schools and not dilute or relegate either of them. Hence my solicitation for a review by the learned members prior to sharing this with our group as an introduction.

Looking forward to your feedback.

with humble prostrations,

Vikram

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB65819B562DD5CABDA90FA919847B2%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Vikram prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Thanks for the clarification.  Please go ahead in your endeavor.  Yes you are right most of the tri-matastha-s do not have much idea about what their respective acharya said about their siddhAnta and most people would think that visiting the temples, worshipping their acharya-s, praying, serving would enough for the AtmOnnati ( yes it is enough indeed) and hardly they aware of the doctrinal differences which are there and causing ‘antar kalaha’ among these schools.    So your attempt of finding the alignment would definitely work when the audience are mere devotees/saadhaka-s from different schools of thought.  As we have seen lot of smArta advaitins going rAghavendra mutt, worshipping dvaitaachaarya-s, madhva guru-s etc. without knowing how cruelly dvaitaachaarya-s attack Advaita and Advaita Acharya-s😊   likewise dvaitins having shankara bhagavatpaada photos at home without knowing anything about what their own mataacharya-s said on bhagavatpaada and also Iyengars doing the rudraabhishekam without knowing how vishishtAdvaitins treat rudra in typical sriviashNava saMpradaaya😊 All the best in your efforts prabhuji. 

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

This is why a samanvaya view is needed. Reconciliation is the key. 

It is hard to do. Several attempts have been made in this regard.

 

 

• Yes attempts have been made but I am afraid, in vain.  Even today dvaitaachaarya-s openly attacking Advaita & Advaita saMpradAyins and advaitins defending themselves and counter attacking. Some die hard advaitins ( though they hardly no anything about Advaita as siddhAnta) asks smArta-s to throw away Raghavendra swamy photos from the smaarta houses due to his attakcs in parimala tattva vAda granthi-s.  And dvaitins say you bring anything under the name of Advaita we know how to refute it and prove it wrong 😊   In dvaita mutts they will not allow to sing glories of shiva and other devata-s except hari dominated devara naama  and in Sringeri mutt (to my surprise recently I heard this) musicians are not supposed to sing hari daasa sAhitya or devara naama coz. in these devara naama-s, there is not only glorifying tattva vaada but there is a direct attack on Advaita. And during iyengar’s udakashanti paaraayana they will avoid reciting ‘shamchame and aashushshishaano mantra as these mantra-s are form the part of chamaka and rudra related mantra-s 😊  So, the poison of hatred and anyamata dvesha / khandana well spread within the traditional circle and very difficult to erase it. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

Bhaskar

[V Subrahmanian]

One point that can't be reconciled at all is:  The Ramanuja system holds going to Vaikuntha to be the sine qua non for moksha.  The member of that system has the sole goal of being in the company of the Lord, serving him, singing his praise, fanning him, etc. of his life.  This idea is severely criticised by Shankara in his Mundaka bhashyam:

वेदान्तविज्ञानसुनिश्चितार्थाः संन्यासयोगाद्यतयः शुद्धसत्त्वाः ।
ते ब्रह्मलोकेषु परान्तकाले परामृताः परिमुच्यन्ति सर्वे ॥ ६ ॥    3.2.6

  न देशान्तरं गन्तव्यमपेक्षन्ते । ‘शकुनीनामिवाकाशे जले वारिचरस्य वा । पदं यथा न दृश्येत तथा ज्ञानवतां गतिः’ (मो. ध. १८१ । ९) ‘अनध्वगा अध्वसु पारयिष्णवः’ ( ? ) इति श्रुतिस्मृतिभ्याम् ; देशपरिच्छिन्ना हि गतिः संसारविषयैव, परिच्छिन्नसाधनसाध्यत्वात् । ब्रह्म तु समस्तत्वान्न देशपरिच्छेदेन गन्तव्यम् । यदि हि देशपरिच्छिन्नं ब्रह्म स्यात् , मूर्तद्रव्यवदाद्यन्तवदन्याश्रितं सावयवमनित्यं कृतकं च स्यात् । न त्वेवंविधं ब्रह्म भवितुमर्हति । अतस्तत्प्राप्तिश्च नैव देशपरिच्छिन्ना भवितुं युक्ता ॥

The above means:

 

The liberated do not travel to any other place/loka, for any such travel will imply that the jiva is still in samsara. Since Brahman is infinite, the jnani who has realized his identity with Brahman, also being the Infinite Brahman alone, does not go anywhere upon death.  For, Brahman is not a finite place to be reached/attained.  If Brahman were located in a place then Brahman, being no different from any formed object, will have to have a beginning and end, and be dependent on something else, be made of parts, and ephemeral, and a produced one.  Brahman can never be of this nature.  Thus, the ‘attainment’ of Brahman cannot be involving any locating in some other place.

The position of the VA on this matter cannot be compromised. Hence on this crucial issue there can't be a reconciliation between the two systems.

warm regards

subbu

On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 11:24 AM Krishna Kashyap via Advaita-l <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

pranams Bhaskar Ji,

Reconciliation can never occur at the mass level. They are not driven by
the same principles open-minded and deep thinkers are driven by.

No one can help this situation with the masses unless strong leaders can
make this happen over years or centuries.

*Best Regards,*

*Krishna Kashyap*

[Kuntimaddi Sadananda]

Bhaskarji - PraNAms

Just one correction.  Most of the Vaishnavates that I know use Tulasi maala and not Rudrasha maala that you mentioned. Trust me, Tulasi maala is simpler to use than Rudrasha maala. 

My 2C.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

On Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 10:47:15 AM GMT+5:30, Krishna Kashyap via Advaita-l <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

funny! and well said!
*Best Regards,*

*Krishna Kashyap*

> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listm...@advaita-vedanta.org

>
_______________________________________________
Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/

To unsubscribe or change your options:
https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listm...@advaita-vedanta.org

[Kuntimaddi Sadananda]

Subbuji - PraNAms.

Even in Vishisthataadvaita, Brahman is infinite. Jeevas and Jagat form the part of Brahman as it was pointed out that Brahman has no sajaati, vijaati bhedas but has swagata bhedas. Brahman pervades everything as discussed in the Purusha suuktam. 

In the Mahapurvapaksha in his Shree Bhashya on Brahmasutras,  Bhagavan Ramanuja provides seven objections against avidya aspect in Advaita sidhanta. 

Late, Shreeman S.M.S. Chari Maama has written many books on Advaita and Vishishtaadvaita. He stayed with me and taught me the Shree Bhashya - Shree Krishna Kasyap knew him too. He has also translated the Shatadhushani of Shree Vedanta Deshika - actually they are not a hundred but around 66 or so objections mostly using navya nyaaya arguments. 

Shree Ramanuja explains the tat tvam asi statement a little bit differently contrasting the Advaitic explanation. 

Yes, Jeeva has to realize that he is an eternal servant of the Lord, yet enjoying infinite bliss with Him. The moksha is only after leaving this body and one gets a divine body. 

Just for info. Shree Bellam Konda Ramaraya Kavi (called abhinava Shakara) was born into Vishishtaadvaita family and after deep thinking switched to Advaita. Has written many books on Advaita.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Sada prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Just for the clarification, I have not said anything about using or wearing the Tulasi maala or rudraaksha maala 😊  Just I was talking about prohibition of chanting mantra-s related to rudra / shiva in SrivaishNava sampradaya ( during udaka shaanti paaraayaNa etc.) and how some typicial srivaishNava saMpradAyavAdins take immediate bath and change their yajnopaveeta if even inadvertently having the darshana of ‘smashaaNa vAsi shiva or shiva temple.  And one of my Sri VaishNava friend said some hard core Srivaishavite even avoid the shadow of shiva temple or gopuram and  they avoid crossing that road itself 😊

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

Just one correction.  Most of the Vaishnavates that I know use Tulasi maala and not Rudrasha maala that you mentioned. Trust me, Tulasi maala is simpler to use than Rudrasha maala. 

 

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Even in Vishisthataadvaita, Brahman is infinite. Jeevas and Jagat form the part of Brahman as it was pointed out that Brahman has no sajaati, vijaati bhedas but has swagata bhedas.

 

Ø     Brahman has Swagata bheda ?? Do we advaitins agree to this??  Yes as per Sri Vikram prabhuji and here Sri Sada also seems to agree like in advaita even in vishishtAdvaita there is svagata bheda in brahman !!??  Here is Sri Vikram’s observation in his alignment article :

 

//quote //

 

VA: In Brahman there is no sajatiya bheda and there is no vijatiya bheda; however, there is svagata bheda or internal distinctions in the form of distinctions between Brahman, Jiva and Jagat 11 14.

 

A: Brahman being the one and only efficient & material cause of the manifested universe implies there is no sajatiya or vijatiya bheda in Brahman. But the manifestation of distinct names and forms, by maya, implies the existence of internal differences or svagata bheda in the form of distinct parts.

 

//unquote//

 

• Leaving it to other prabhuji-s to comment.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Bhaskar-ji,

Not following the discussion in advaita-l, but the decision of Sringeri Matha seems quite sensible (if those namas are attacking advaita) and not in the same category as the dvaitins who are expressing directed animosity against advaitins.

thollmelukaalkizhu

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB658148F502422A29CA3B568A847A2%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

The above is not admitted in Advaita: 

The Advaita siddhi cites a verse (from Swami Vidyaranya's Panchadashi ch.2.20,21) says:  

तदुक्तम्-‘वृक्षस्य स्वगतो भेदः पत्रपुष्पफलादिभिः । वृक्षान्तरात्सजातीयो विजातीयः शिलादितः ॥ 

तथा सद्वस्तुनो भेदत्रयं प्राप्तं निवार्यते । एकावधारणद्वैतप्रतिषेधैस्त्रिभिः क्रमात् ॥” इति । 

In a tree there are many parts like leaves, flowers, fruits (trunk, root, etc.) This is an example for svagata bheda. Another tree renders this tree sa-jaateeya (same species). A stone, being of a totally different category, brings vijateeya bheda to the tree. Unlike this the Sat, Brahman, does not have any of the three bhedas based on the Chandogya shruti.

 

Ratnaprabha says:   सजातीयविजातीयस्वगतभेदनिरासार्थं ‘एकमेवाद्वितीयम्’ इति पदत्रयम् ।  

The three words in the Chandogya vakya: ekam eva advaitiyam negate the three types of bhedas. ekam = for svagata bheda, eva = sajatiya bheda and advitiyam for vijatiya bheda.  A slightly diff arrangement is also given by some Acharyas. 

[Kuntimaddi Sadananda]

PraNAms

I was not stating any Advaita position. I know that as per Advaita there are no swagata bhedaas too - ekam eva adviteeyam - the three words used in the Chadogya sat vidya - is explained to negate all bhedas. 

Just a note. The scientist in me could not accept Vishishtadvaitic position of Moksha - since infinity cannot have parts. 

In my book, Journey Beyond in one of the volumes, I have answered Shree Ramanujas seven objections on avidya - just for info. 

I am not arguing for Vishishtadvaitic position only stated its position as I understood.

With this, I stop.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te0X5bqRxuNE8gbFYnQH5idp2bvDFr2DQhumhRThzWPNbA%40mail.gmail.com

.

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram all,

Acharya Shri Sadananda ji,

In my book, Journey Beyond in one of the volumes, I have answered Shree Ramanujas seven objections on avidya - just for info. 

Alongside your book, Dr. John Grimes's excellent book 'The Seven Great Untenables' and the recent seminar published as "Vedanta without Maya", I have also briefly covered all seven anupapattis in my article "Reflections on Avidya" (https://archive.org/details/reflections-on-avidya) that I have been soliciting review and guidance from you.

 

---- 

Shri Bhaskar ji,

 Ø     Brahman has Swagata bheda ?? Do we advaitins agree to this??  Yes as per Sri Vikram prabhuji and here Sri Sada also seems to agree like in advaita even in vishishtAdvaita there is svagata bheda in brahman !!??  Here is Sri Vikram’s observation in his alignment article : 

//quote //

VA: In Brahman there is no sajatiya bheda and there is no vijatiya bheda; however, there is svagata bheda or internal distinctions in the form of distinctions between Brahman, Jiva and Jagat 11 14.

A: Brahman being the one and only efficient & material cause of the manifested universe implies there is no sajatiya or vijatiya bheda in Brahman. But the manifestation of distinct names and forms, by maya, implies the existence of internal differences or svagata bheda in the form of distinct parts.

//unquote//

May I dare say that you are mistaken and have misunderstood the context? The answer to your question is in the very same quote itself. With maya as the viseshana, there is svagata bheda in Brahman (Isvara). This much is in alignment with VA philosophy. I am fully aware that in absolute reality there is no bheda (sajatiya, vijatiya, svagata) whatsoever in Brahman / Chaitanya.

----

Shri Subbu ji,

One point that can't be reconciled at all is:  The Ramanuja system holds going to Vaikuntha to be the sine qua non for moksha.  The member of that system has the sole goal of being in the company of the Lord, serving him, singing his praise, fanning him, etc. of his life.  This idea is severely criticised by Shankara in his Mundaka bhashyam:

...

The position of the VA on this matter cannot be compromised. Hence on this crucial issue there can't be a reconciliation between the two systems.

Yes, agreed that true liberation cannot imply 'going' somewhere. However, this VA point can be reconciled by the Krama Mukti marga of Advaita. This is in points 51 and 52 in my article, and is reproduced below:

51. VA: The nitya-atmans and mukta-atmans reside in Brahman’s very own eternal abode called SriVaikunta or nitya-vibhuti, which is transcendental to the created material universe of samsara or leela-vibhuti wherein badha-atmans reside
52. A: In Advaita, per krama-mukti, this liberated world is called as the saguna Brahman loka. Depending on the characteristics of the saguna Brahman, as cognized by the jiva, to be such as Vishnu or Shiva, the world could be called as SriVaikunta or SriKailasa. Though this world is still within the realm of distinctions, this can be considered as liberated world since the inhabitants are all guided through the full jnana of Brahman-Atman ekatvam prior to pralaya. There is also the other perspective of certain references to Brahman’s abode, even as SriVaikunta or SriKailasa, referring to the eternal state of Brahman (nirguna) realization itself. In this perspective, reaching Brahman’s eternal abode is same as attaining Brahman which is same as realizing the true nature of Brahman / Atman / Self. Therefore, from both the perspectives all scriptural statements as well as the Visishtadvaita perspectives are reconciled within Advaita.

The same is explained by Bhagavan Swami Sankaracharya in BSBh-4.3.10.

----

Shri Raghav ji,

In other words, there are two attitudes of bhakti which are mutually
irreconcilable
1. Bhakti and upAsanA of Srimannarayana as taught by the Advaita acharyas - this is not exclusivist and shows equal empathy towards worship of Shiva or
Devi etc. The idea of ishTa devatA validates and brings under the ambit of the Advaita sAmpradAya *all* devotion to Srimannarayana which is not
exclusivist or theologically sectarian. This type of devotion to Narayana is part of the Advaita tradition.

2. Bhakti and upAsanA of Srimannarayana as explained by Sri Ramanuja which insists on the superiority of devotion to Srimannarayana over devotion to
Shiva or Devi. (As per my understanding).

I agree with you on the two attitudes. The alignment is only on the (do not know the appropriate technical term) 'positive' / 'acceptance' tenets of VA philosophy. Those tenets that 'restricts' or 'limits' may not be reconcilable within Advaita. For another instance, Lord Sriman Narayana having the highest power to grant moksha is indeed acceptable within Advaita's purview of Saguna Brahman or Isvara. However, VA's claim that Lord Sriman Narayana 'alone' can grant moksha and someone like Bhagavan Shiva (who is considered as a jiva in VA) doesn't have that power is not acceptable within Advaita. This claim is irreconcilable. To avoid conflicts and criticisms in a comparative study one has to focus on the 'positives' rather than the 'restricts'.

----

Shri Sudhanshu ji,

Thank you for sharing the highly nuanced feedback and it requires a separate response email. Will respond soon.

with humble prostrations,

Vikram

[V Subrahmanian]

Dear Vikram ji,

The krama mukti of Advaita involves getting the Advaita aham brahmasmi jnanam in that Brahma loka and remaining there till maha pralaya when that loka also will perish upon which the jivas there who are Jnanis, will become videha muktas as per advaita.  The position of VA is that in that ultimate scenario the muktas will be in Vaikuntha, with individual identities. This is because jiva-jiva and jiva-Ishwara bheda is absolutely real in VA. 

warm regards

subbu    

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Shri Subbu ji,

Agreeing on the difference. I will defer to Shri Krishna Kashyap ji for sharing more details on SriVaikunta at maha-pralaya. I have heard some conflicting theories and would rather withhold my opinion due to lack of clarity & understanding. 

However, the point I am trying to communicate is that the Advaita concept of krama-mukti is aligned with VA at least until the maha-pralaya state and therefore there should not be any reason for Visishtadvaitins for a conflict or criticism on this point of moksha marga against Advaita. In other words, from VA’s perspective, Advaita does not stand against VA at least until maha-pralaya. Of course Advaita goes a step further in the form of sadyo-mukti, but this should ideally not be a valid topic of criticism either since VA doesn’t believe in this concept or its logic to begin with.

with humble prostrations,

Vikram

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te3tw0cyDoOcdz%3Df3O35ss45_wOQinBaRMUnFMXq7786%3DA%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 12:27 PM Vikram Jagannathan <vikky...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaskaram Shri Subbu ji,

Agreeing on the difference. I will defer to Shri Krishna Kashyap ji for sharing more details on SriVaikunta at maha-pralaya. I have heard some conflicting theories and would rather withhold my opinion due to lack of clarity & understanding. 

Yes, long ago I had arrived at this conclusion:  How does advaita view the other two schools? The answer is: The sadhana involving strong vairagyam towards the world and pure devotion to Bhagavan alone that is seen in the other two schools will mean to the Advaitin that they will go to Brahma loka.  The idea that they will get Advaita jnanam there will not be accepted by them but the Advaitin would place the Smarta sagunopasaka in line with the sadhakas of the other two schools. The sagunopasaka of Advaita also reaches Brahma loka.  Up till this the sadhakas of the other schools can be accommodated in Advaita's krama mukti path. 

In Advaitasiddhi there is a section where the forms and lokas of Bhagavan have been considered and finally concluded that these are not absolutely real and eternal.  There the commentary Laghuchandrika says that 'there is no pramana for the existence of an uncreated a-bautika (non-elemental) vaikuntha.'  

warm regards

subbu

     

However, the point I am trying to communicate is that the Advaita concept of krama-mukti is aligned with VA at least until the maha-pralaya state and therefore there should not be any reason for Visishtadvaitins for a conflict or criticism on this point of moksha marga against Advaita. In other words, from VA’s perspective, Advaita does not stand against VA at least until maha-pralaya. Of course Advaita goes a step further in the form of sadyo-mukti, but this should ideally not be a valid topic of criticism either since VA doesn’t believe in this concept or its logic to begin with.

with humble prostrations,

Vikram

On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 12:12 AM V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Vikram ji,

The krama mukti of Advaita involves getting the Advaita aham brahmasmi jnanam in that Brahma loka and remaining there till maha pralaya when that loka also will perish upon which the jivas there who are Jnanis, will become videha muktas as per advaita.  The position of VA is that in that ultimate scenario the muktas will be in Vaikuntha, with individual identities. This is because jiva-jiva and jiva-Ishwara bheda is absolutely real in VA. 

warm regards

subbu    

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te3tw0cyDoOcdz%3Df3O35ss45_wOQinBaRMUnFMXq7786%3DA%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAM7AOLdSX8qtTHhy9jycwkV03V4sfvPfwyLqJViAzyEG-g6qMg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Thank you, Subbu ji, for the deeper insights & reference. I will read up more in AdvaitaSiddhi on this topic.

with humble prostrations,

Vikram

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te08_duqR7KANzuPR8X40-t7Fsu9xUXwBLCUsVWrm3i0rQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kalyan]

Dear Sri Vikramji, Namaskaaram

Since the topic is about the Bhagavad Gita, I want to share some thoughts on this and my understanding.

In the second chapter, sAMkhya yoga, I think Sri Ramanuja explains the slokas starting from 2.11 अशोच्यानन्वशोचस्त्वं... as referring to jivA(s). (Please correct me if I am wrong here.)

Here, I think the VA (Visishta-advaita) explanation faces a few tricky slokas -

अविनाशि तु तद्विद्धि येन सर्वमिदं ततम्।
विनाशमव्ययस्यास्य न कश्चित् कर्तुमर्हति।।2.17।।

अच्छेद्योऽयमदाह्योऽयमक्लेद्योऽशोष्य एव च।
नित्यः सर्वगतः स्थाणुरचलोऽयं सनातनः।।2.24।।

One common theme in both the above verses is that the Atman is all-pervading. This is very easy for advaita to explain, since jIvAtman = paramAtman in advaita. But I found the VA explanation for these slokas to be not so convincing because Sri Ramanaja seems to refer to jIvAs here and the natural question is how can jIvAs be all pervading in VA?

There are several other verses in the Gita, which, in my humble opinion, are not so easy for non-advaitins to explain. 

Best Regards

[suresh srinivasamurthy]

Namaste Sri Subbu-ji,

<

The liberated do not travel to any other place/loka, for any such travel will imply that the jiva is still in samsara. Since Brahman is infinite, the jnani who has realized his identity with Brahman, also being the Infinite Brahman alone, does not go anywhere upon death.  For, Brahman is not a finite place to be reached/attained.  If Brahman were located in a place then Brahman, being no different from any formed object, will have to have a beginning and end, and be dependent on something else, be made of parts, and ephemeral, and a produced one.  Brahman can never be of this nature.  Thus, the ‘attainment’ of Brahman cannot be involving any locating in some other place.

The position of the VA on this matter cannot be compromised. Hence on this crucial issue there can't be a reconciliation between the two systems.

>

Personally, I agree with Vikram-ji and think that reconciliation is possible and infact it is already there though it is not openly accepted by staunch followers :) 

This is because Brahman is accepted as the Self in VA also which is all pervading and so not limited to any particular place. Vishnu is accepted as jnAnamaya and antaryAmi Atma (Self) and oneness among all the infinite forms of Vishnu is accepted in Dvaita also. In all traditions, Brahman is always the indwelling sarvAtma / paramAtma (universal Self) and is never anAtma. Existence of jagat as Brahma shareera is acceptable to Sri Shankara as per the Prashnopanishad 6-8 bhashya and Jagatshareeratva of Brahman does not limit the infinite nature of Brahman and helps to establish sanatanatva of dharma and guru-shishya parampara which is common across all sampradaya. Sri Ramanuja also accepts validity of moksha in the form of kaivalya. 

Though "going to Vaikunta" loka and serving the Lord is widely accepted in VA, there is another level of realization where the Lord alone is seen and nothing else. Vaikunta is also the name of the Lord and so the "travel" of mukta jiva to attain the Lord is not physical but an inward "spiritual journey" which could be interpreted as constant experience/darshan of the Lord in such a way that nothing else is seen. Sri TiruppAnAlvar describes this in his AmalanAdipiran prabandham as "Yennamudinai kanda kangal mattondrun kAnAve". ( Having seen my beloved Lord my eyes are not seeing anything ). Though this is not the same as Advaitic realization it is still very close.  

Brahman is accepted as the paramAtma / SarvAtma in all sampradAya and shareerAtma bheda between jagat and Brahman/Self is also very experiential. So, I would consider that as a common ground that essentially reconciles all traditional views. IMHO all different traditions compliment each other and helps to experience Truth/Brahman in different ways. All differences are only superficial.

Namaste,
Suresh

---

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2024 7:55 AM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] Understanding Srimad Bhagavad Gita from the perspectives of Visishtadvaita and Advaita - an exposition

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te08_duqR7KANzuPR8X40-t7Fsu9xUXwBLCUsVWrm3i0rQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

Dear Suresh ji,

Thanks for your nice words. The Vaishnava concept of jiva being of aNu size is what comes in the way of a desired reconciliation. 

Yes, if esoteric meaning is preferred to literal one, then there can be a lot of reconciliation. But the question is how many are ready to do that. 

Warm regards

subbu

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/TY0PR0101MB45163BF0B1092C93E0B48DCEA9782%40TY0PR0101MB4516.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com.

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Shri Suresh ji,

My response is tangential to your email. Notwithstanding your comments, I would like to once more clarify my intent with this article.

My intent here is not to find a common ground between Advaita & Visishtadvaita or identify ways how the two systems can be brought closer by approximating certain concepts. I do not wish to dilute either sampradhayam even by an iota. My intent is to demonstrate that “Advaita does not stand in conflict against Visishtadvaita''. In other words, the criticisms against Advaita are actually misplaced. This does not mean that there is a bi-directional 1:1 mapping between the two systems. In fact, there simply doesn’t exist one such mapping.  

Certain fundamental concepts of Advaita - such as the one immutable homogenous Brahman, from the perspective of ignorance, appears as the trio of Isvara, Jiva, Jagat. On transcending this ignorance, there is then the realization of distinctionless attributeless true nature of one’s own Self / Atman / Brahman - is just not acceptable to other sampradhayams. Any reconciliation will have to dilute this principle. This is Shri Subbu ji’s point too when he said that certain concepts of Advaita are simply not reconcilable with other systems. I am 100% in agreement with his view and I am just trying the other directional alignment (stating that non-restrictive VA concepts have an alignment within Advaita and not that the Advaita concepts all have an alignment with VA).

In the article, by stating Advaita perspective, which stands different from VA perspective, the context is set to understand SBG unambiguously in a comparative study. However, the next logical question is that if it is said the Advaita perspective is correct, and since it is different from VA perspective, does it mean the VA perspective is incorrect? The answer is that it is not so. From a certain perspective, it is seen that VA concepts are actually aligned with Advaita teachings as well. This corresponds to the second part of the article on alignment. Therefore one isn’t necessarily wrong by just following either sampradhayam. Adhikari bheda (which I loosely termed as one’s temperament) comes into play in following the appropriate system.

I am sharing more details of my intent, only to avoid any misunderstandings or confusions as to the purpose of the article itself. With the intention clarified, I am hoping to receive positive guidance, and feedback for any corrections, from learned members. It is also for my self-reflection on some of the deeper nuances of Advaita.

Dhanyosmi!

with humble prostrations,
Vikram

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te04ALm_JjSsVrw788Q-QF7JuY_zmB%2BC84VGcuAQW3DyJg%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

One very beautiful  correspondence between Shankara and Ramanuja in this Gita verse:

बहूनां जन्मनामन्ते ज्ञानवान्मां प्रपद्यते।

वासुदेवः सर्वमिति स महात्मा सुदुर्लभः।।7.19।।

Shankara: For that Jnani/devotee: Vasudeva is All, everything. Ramanuja:  'My everything / for me everything is Vasudeva.'

regards

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAM7AOLcG%2BQzszeFT23PHxh8qk5303OVHt5_tMT_97s4X5SPfdw%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Subbu-ji,

Shankara: For that Jnani/devotee: Vasudeva is All, everything. Ramanuja:  'My everything / for me everything is Vasudeva.'

Bit confusing how to distinguish, if we are to see philosophical difference in these two statements. Perhaps it elaborates as

Shankara: Vasudeva appears as if everything.

Ramanuja: everything is a part of and has identity in Vasudeva.

thollmelukaalkizhu

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te0J1iLakv97fW1J67P3wzEhBK-_PdJL7b_aVjLGuMcprQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sun, Jan 28, 2024 at 2:22 PM putran M <putr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaskaram Subbu-ji,

Shankara: For that Jnani/devotee: Vasudeva is All, everything. Ramanuja:  'My everything / for me everything is Vasudeva.'

Bit confusing how to distinguish, if we are to see philosophical difference in these two statements. Perhaps it elaborates as

Shankara: Vasudeva appears as if everything.

Ramanuja: everything is a part of and has identity in Vasudeva.

Dear Putran ji,

I had no intention to bring out the distinction, rather the very close correspondence.  For Shankara, Vasudeva, Nirguna Brahman, is everything, as you say.  And for Ramanuja that Vasudeva is his everything. By saying that Ramanuja does not want to restrict anything. In Ramanuja philosophy, in mukti the mukta jiva has the same Ananda as that of Brahman.  

warm regards

subbu  

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-p3qkyAhnaLQ2ukEtDfb4cCZtYZkN41ySSxuzL%3DcsY75g%40mail.gmail.com.

[suresh srinivasamurthy]

Namaste Subbu-ji

<

Thanks for your nice words. The Vaishnava concept of jiva being of aNu size is what comes in the way of a desired reconciliation. 

Yes, if esoteric meaning is preferred to literal one, then there can be a lot of reconciliation. But the question is how many are ready to do that. 

>

My desire is that today's younger generation from all traditions should take the initiative and open up to embrace each other. Elders should help to achieve that. There is no need to dilute individual traditions or practices. What is needed is Brahma drushti. There is a need to realize that Ishwara/Brahman is completely present in all irrespective of whatever tradition one belongs to. This alone can lead to paraspara bhAvana and samatva which is very much missing unfortunately.

IMHO, looking upon the entire universe as that ONE supreme being/Ishwara having sun/moon/agni as His three eyes, is another way of reconciliation. It could be looked upon as Shiva or Vishnu/Narasimha or even as Devi. This goes well with Purusha suktam, Sri Rudram, VSN dhyana slokam, B.Gita 11^th Ch, and many other pramAnams. VarnAsram dharma also gets justified in this view as svadharma (or service to the universe according to the nature one's BMI) culminates in the service of Ishwara.

At least I have reconciled within myself in this way and so I can happily be a friend of all with no need to refute anyone. 

Namaste

Suresh 

---

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com>

Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2024 9:52 AM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com>

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te2vBwM_sYnCjXrQbTd2pWVbC%2Bm1%2B3uoEdBf9Xc8%3Dp8t2A%40mail.gmail.com.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear friends,

Adi Shankara got merged in Mother Kamakshi Devi,who is the male form of Lord Krishna. So he went beyond the cycle of "Birth and Death". The non avaitins remain within the cycle of birth and death, in one of  the three other forms of Mukti. Ravana had the "Salokya Mukti", the highest oamong the three forms of Mukti. Yet he had to take birth, due to his indiscretion at one time. This, in brief, shows the basic difference among the different forms of Mukti.

Lord Ram had given the final message on the  different forms of Mukti, in the last of the 108 upanishads.

My 2 cents.

Sunil K. Bhattachatjya

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/TY0PR0101MB4516BAF6FA45B55A695483B4A97F2%40TY0PR0101MB4516.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear friends,

"

Sorry for the typo.  Please read "male form" as "female form".

Warmly,

Sunil KB

[Bhaskar YR]

Ravana had the "Salokya Mukti", the highest oamong the three forms of Mukti. Yet he had to take birth, due to his indiscretion at one time. This, in brief, shows the basic difference among the different forms of Mukti.

 

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

sAlOkya is the first type in krama mukti  ( the upAsaka would first attain the abode of his upAsya devata) and sAyujya ( in the final stage he would become one with it) is the highest one is it not!!?? ( sAlOkya, sArUpya, sAmeepya and sAyujya)

[suresh srinivasamurthy]

Namaste

< Adi Shankara got merged in Mother Kamakshi Devi, who is the female form of Lord Krishna. >

Should we not consider Sri Shankara as "nitya mukta" Brahman himself and His birth as an avatAra similar to that of Lord Sri Krishna?

In that case there will be no such thing as "merging into fe/male form and so on". 

Regards,
Suresh

---

From: 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2024 5:45 AM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] Understanding Srimad Bhagavad Gita from the perspectives of Visishtadvaita and Advaita - an exposition

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB658103AB9149DF177C843A41847E2%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear friends,

Sayujya mukti is for the advaitins. All the other three types of Mukti does not mean going beyond the cycle of birth and death. Ravana was the door man of Vishnuloka, and that surely means he had access to Vishnuloka, and hence he had salokya mukti. He was surely near to the Lord and had simultaneously the samipya mukti.

May be Bhashkarji will like to give examples of samipya and sarupya Mukti.

Jai Shri Krishna

Sunil KB

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB658103AB9149DF177C843A41847E2%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Ram Chandran]

The Understanding of Bhagavad Gita

It is up to each of us to decide how we want to understand and adopt to the teachings of Bhagavad Gita as per our understanding.  Bhagavad Gita can never be understood completely without paying attention to all the verses in all chapters and also in between the verses.  One needs reading the linked verses in the entire book to understand the essence of Wisdom contained in Bhagavad Gita. Bhagavad Gita gives the road map to live in peace through the life journey..

Mahatma Gandhi in his book, “Message of Gita” relied on Bhagavad Gita most of the time and states: “I run to my Mother Gita whenever I find myself in difficulties, and up to now she has never failed to comfort me. It is possible that those who are getting comfort from the Gita may get greater help, and see something altogether new, if they come to know the way in which I understand it from day to day.” He further states: “My life has been full of external tragedies and, if they have not left any visible effect on me, I owe it to the teaching of the Bhagavadgita.  (From an address to Christian Missionaries, Young India, 6-8-1925)” Aldous Huxley, the English writer found Gita "the most systematic statement of spiritual evolution of endowing value to mankind.", He also felt, Gita is "one of the most clear and comprehensive summaries of perennial philosophy ever revealed; hence its enduring value is subject not only to India but to the entire humanity. Albert Einstein, Oppeheimer (the father of Nuclear Bomb) were also influenced by the teachings of Bhagavad Gita.  There are thousands of books on Bhagavad Gita in almost all world languages which showed the entire humanity wanted to understand and they all come with different background and mindset!

It may be true that the understanding of Gita will likely depend on the framework of thought that our mind is tuned to follow. As a consequence, the literal understanding and life path will likely vary between those who follow Shankaracharya’s Advaita and Ramanujacharya’s Visishtadvaitaand. The beauty of Bhagavad Gita is that it does not require for anyone to adopt to a specific philosophical mindset and teachings of Gita are useful for the entire humanity! The academic analysis is useful and the ultimate truth that comes out of this analysis is that “it does not affect the truth of Gita.”

With my warm regards,

Ram Chandran

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Sureshji,

Probably yes, as Adi Shankara  was believed to be an amshik-avatara of Lord Shiva. However, Adi Shankara has himself shown to the Advaitins that praying to the Devi is the best way, if one wants to achieve Mukti in the present birth itself. Of the Panchayatana worship, Lord Krishna also advised us to worship Mother Durga.  Mother Kamakshi is one of the dasha-maha-vidyas of Mother Durga. There is the shloka on the ten Mahavidyas and it runs as follows: "(i) Kali, (ii) Tara, Mahavividya, (iii) Shodashi (or Kamakshi), (iv) Bhuvaneshwari ......)

My 2 cents

Sunil KB

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/TY0PR0101MB4516E971A831465EE5F692C6A97E2%40TY0PR0101MB4516.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com.