Vishistadvaita Vedanta

[axlyz]

Hello everyone,

 

I was just wondering, but is anyone familiar with Vishistadvaita? What are your opinions on it? It's part of Vedanta which also includes Advaita.

 

 

Regards,

axlyz

[Orbit]

Hi ax - how is it different from Advaita?

[Deidre]

I don't know much about this, axl...I look forward to learning about it through your thread here.

Welcome to the site!

[axlyz]

Hello Orbit,

 

There are many similarities and differences between Advaita and Vishistadvaita. Let's start with the similarities first.

 

Advaita and Vishistadvaita have been intellectual rivals throughout medieval Indian history. Starting from Yamunacharya's critique of Mayavada, the debate between the two has been going on even till today. Both are Vedantic systems, so here are the similarities:

 

1) Both are Vaishnava philosophy (they accept Vishnu as God)

2) Both reject materialism

3) Both accept Brahman as the goal of human existence

4) Both have commentaries on Brahma Sutras (making them Vedantic)

5) Both take Puranas/Itihasa literally

6) Both accept that jiva must reach Brahman

7) Both are monistic or non-dualistic

8) Both accept authority of scripture

 

Okay, I could go on and on, but the differences are what really matter.

 

1) I mentioned before that both systems are monistic. There is a difference in their monism however. Advaita believes that Brahman and Atman are identical. VA says that Brahman and Atma are similar, but not identical. The jivatma is an inseparable attribute of Brahman. So, there is oneness, but there is not identity. 

 

2) VA believes in Sarira-Atma Bhava, while Advaita believes in the identical nature of everything. Sarira-Atma Bhava is one of the key and fundamental basics of VA. Basically, it says that the relationship between Brahman and Jivatma is similar to the relationship between a body and soul. So that means that everything in the universe is the body of Brahman. This is based on a crucial Upanishad verse and is used to interpret other verses. (There is also some metaphysical applications of this but that's beyond the scope of the topic at this point.)

 

3) AFAIK, Advaita states the reason why Jivas have different preferences, likes and dislikes etc is because of maya. VA has a different explanation for this, involving Dharma Bhuta Jnana (DBJ). This DBJ is a inseparable quality of all sentient beings (including God) and basically means that all of them have jnana (knowledge) as an attribute. The DBJ of a jiva can contract or expand, depending on karma, and this results in differences of consciousness. A criminal may have a contracted DBJ, while a sage will have an expanded DBJ. The higher your DBJ, the more conscious and self-realized you are. When you get salvation, the DBJ is expanded to infinity, and thus the Jivatma becomes omniscient (and can thus realize God). Interestingly, expanded DBJ also lets you control others and gives you powers (sort of). If you have an expanded enough DBJ, you can control multiple bodies at once. A story regarding this is in the Bhagavata Purana where a guy had 50 different bodies to enjoy with his 50 wives!

 

4) Both traditions have a fundamental difference in their understanding of Brahman. In Advaita, the ultimate Brahman (so to speak), the so called "Nirguna Brahman", is eternal, formless, attribute-less, etc. There really isn't much to it. In VA, Brahman is Vishnu. Brahman has innumerable auspicious attributes, has everything as his bodies, and his essence is made of knowledge itself. Like I said before, Brahman has a dharma bhuta jnana and each of his attributes (such as eternity, lordliness over all, the source of complete happiness, omniscience, omnipotence, etc) is a transformation of the DBJ. Brahman is also different from his body, and he can take whatever form he wants. He has eternally had a form, but he is separate from his body.

 

5) One last major difference is how both traditions explain the theory of error. The theory of error is an explanation of why people make errors. To start of, Advaita follows anirvachaniya khyati vada while VA follows akhyati samvalita yathartha khyati vada. Here's an example to understand how each works. Let's take the case of a guy mistaking a shell to be silver, but then realizes that the shell was not silver. Why did he think that the shell was silver?

 

Let's see what Advaita says. In a nutshell, Advaita says that the perception of an unreal thing (silver) was neither real nor unreal. 

Here's what I got from an Advaitin site (even I don't understand it)

 

"This silver is not different from the real alone, not different from the unreal alone, and not different from both the real and the unreal alone. One cannot definitely describe the nature of the silver perceived in nacre. It is not real, for it is sublated. It is not unreal, for it is perceived. It is not both real and unreal, for this is self-contradictory. Hence the silver in nacre is Anirvachaniya, indeterminable."

 

Now, here's what VA says, and it's quite nice. Since the Upanishads talk about similarity between everything, it also says that a little bit of everything is present in each element. So basically, the shell had the luster of silver, or maybe the gray color of silver, and that's why there was a mistake. Another explanation is that a quality that was found both in silver and the shell, and that is why someone mistook the shell to be silver.

 

That's Vedanta for you.  

 

There are some more small differences, but these are among some of the most major differences.

 

 

Regards,

axlyz

[axlyz]

I don't know much about this, axl...I look forward to learning about it through your thread here.

Welcome to the site!

If a lot people don't know at all what Vishistadvaita is, and its key principles, I can dedicate a post to that as well.

 

Thanks for the kind welcome.

 

Regards,

axlyz

[Orbit]

Sure, though I'm interested in the philosophy rather than the religion.

[Guest Furball]

Just remember that the ego wants to attach itself to certainties. Don't make a religion out of a signpost towards enlightenment. In other words, don't mistake a sign pointing to the truth as truth itself. -Cat

[axlyz]

Sure, though I'm interested in the philosophy rather than the religion.

Vishistadvaita is the Vedantic philosophy, while Sri Vaishnavism is the theology/religion associated. Still interested?

[Joshpantera]

Relationship with other forms of Vedanta[edit]

 

The exposition and spread of Advaita by Sankara spurred debate with the two main theistic schools of Vedanta philosophy that were formalised later: Vishishtadvaita (qualifiednondualism), and Dvaita (dualism).

Vishishtadvaita[edit]

Main article: Vishishtadvaita

 

Yamunacharya, a 10th-century AD proponent of the Vishishtadvaita philosophy that opposed Shankara's Advaita, compared Advaita to Buddhism and remarked in his Siddhitraya that for both the Buddhists and the Advaitins, the distinctions of knower, known and knowledge are unreal. The Advaita traces them to Maya, while Buddhist subjectivism traces them to buddhi.^[201] Ramanujacharya, another prominent Vishishtadvaita philosopher, accused Shankara of being a Prachanna Bauddha, that is, a hidden Buddhist^[202]

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta}

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I thought that Shankara is credited with running the Buddhists out of India. However if Vishishtadvaita is in fact a theistic philosophy then I can see why the Advaitins would appear as "hidden Buddhist's" to a theist. So you're presenting us with a theistic philosophy or have I missed the point of this?  

 

http://www.manblunder.com/2011/04/types-of-vedanta-philosphy.html

 

TYPES OF VEDANTA PHILOSPHY

 

Vedānta series - 2

 

There are three types of Vedānata philosophy.  They are Dvaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita and Advaita.

 

Dvaita, the dualistic philosophy propagated by Mādhvācārya says that the Brahman and individual soul are different.

 

Viśiṣṭādvaita is qualified non-dualism and propagated by Śrī Rāmānuja. According to him, Brahman and soul are different, yet the individual soul is dependent on the Brahman and has to ultimately become one with the Brahman.

 

The third one is Advaita propagated by Śrī Śaṃkarācārya. According to advaita philosophy, individual soul is nothing but the Brahman.  All that exists in the world is only the Brahman, thereby asserting the omnipresent nature of the Brahman.

 

It is said that advaita philosophy is the supreme among the three.  There is also another school of thought which says that one should begin his spiritual pursuit from dvaita philosophy, progress to viśiṣṭādvaita and end at advaita. Advaita beautifully answers the question ‘who am I’?  Advaita says ‘I am That’, where, That refers to the Brahman.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I guess I'm a little confused because you seem to be suggesting that people who are already exposed to AD take a step back wards to VA which is a digressive move once you've understood AD. I only say this because you've let on as if VA and AD are on a level playing field rather than AD basically representing the logical outcome and conclusion of VA. 

 

1) Entry level - D

2) Intermediate - VA

3) Master - AD

 

If you don't see VA as a mid level comprehension I'd like to understand how you argue against this analysis. 

[axlyz]

Both Advaita and Vishistadvaita are theistic...could you please clarify?

 

Adi Shankaracharya was definitely a major reason on why the Buddhism became a less influential religion, but there were already other people who had started the "Hindu revolution" in India, such as Kumarila Bhatt.

 

Regarding the name-calling, that is a part of Vedantic debates.

For example, both Ramanuja and Madhva call Advaita a Tamasic cult.

Madhusudhana Sarasvati condemns Dvaitins as Dogs...

Advaitins have called Dvaitins "disguised logicians" in reply to their nickname of being hidden Buddhists.

 

Regards,

axlyz 

[Joshpantera]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheistic_religions

 

The Bhagavad Gita, contains passages that bear a monistic reading and others that bear a theistic reading.^[33] Generally, the book as a whole has been interpreted by some who see it as containing a primarily nontheistic message,^[34] and by others who stress its theistic message.^[35] These broadly either follow after either Sankara or Ramanuja^[36] An example of a nontheistic passage might be "The supreme Brahman is without any beginning. That is called neither being nor non-being," which Sankara interpreted to mean that Brahman can only be talked of in terms of negation of all attributes—'Neti neti'.^[37]

The Advaita Vedanta of Gaudapada and Sankara rejects theism as a consequence of its insistence that Brahman is "Without attributes, indivisible, subtle, inconceivable, and without blemish, Brahman is one and without a second. There is nothing other than He."^[38] This means that it lacks properties usually associated with God such as omniscience, perfect goodness, omnipotence, and additionally is identical with the whole of reality, rather than being a causal agent or ruler of it.^[39]

^{------------------------------------------------------------------------------}

I follow along with an AV inspired philosophy introduced to western audiences through comparative mythologist, Joseph Campbell. He was the president of the New York AV society at one point. "Neti Neti" is something that was lectured on over and over again, as well as "tat tvam asi." As a non-theist this AV philosophy sort of brought me from not spiritual at all, to philosophical non-theistic pantheism. The reason I took to this is because I understand that God is a metaphor for the absolutely unknown and unknowable and at the same time represents the whole of existence - All is God, the mystery is everything. 

 

Vishnu, for instance, as well as Brahman, are concepts. They are names. And yet concerning ultimate reality, "the tongue has never soiled it with a name." Ultimate reality, in my view, is beyond theism which is held in a conceptual state of mind. Ultimate reality is beyond traits, beyond conceptualization - "not that, not that." I wouldn't, for instance, believe that Vishnu is a real deity with a fixed existence aside from a religious literary creation. 

 

So in other words, I'm thinking that VA is a second level way of thinking in terms of it's use of God belief and the conceptualization that goes along with it. Going into the third level you're still spiritual about nature and existence and yet you can understand that the God metaphors point to beyond any concrete theistic thinking. It can be viewed as non-theistic. 

 

Have I read into this wrong? 

 

Is VA actually advanced to the point of not relying on theistic belief in the same way that AV is - advanced beyond any literal belief in the existence of Vishnu for instance? 

[axlyz]

Hey Joshpantera, nice question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheistic_religions

 

The Bhagavad Gita, contains passages that bear a monistic reading and others that bear a theistic reading.^[33] Generally, the book as a whole has been interpreted by some who see it as containing a primarily nontheistic message,^[34] and by others who stress its theistic message.^[35] These broadly either follow after either Sankara or Ramanuja^[36] An example of a nontheistic passage might be "The supreme Brahman is without any beginning. That is called neither being nor non-being," which Sankara interpreted to mean that Brahman can only be talked of in terms of negation of all attributes—'Neti neti'.^[37]

The Advaita Vedanta of Gaudapada and Sankara rejects theism as a consequence of its insistence that Brahman is "Without attributes, indivisible, subtle, inconceivable, and without blemish, Brahman is one and without a second. There is nothing other than He."^[38] This means that it lacks properties usually associated with God such as omniscience, perfect goodness, omnipotence, and additionally is identical with the whole of reality, rather than being a causal agent or ruler of it.^[39]

^{------------------------------------------------------------------------------}

I follow along with an AD inspired philosophy introduced to western audiences through comparative mythologist, Joseph Campbell. He was the president of the New York AD society at one point. "Neti Neti" is something that was lectured on over and over again, as well as "tat tvam asi." As a non-theist this AD philosophy sort of brought me from not spiritual at all, to philosophical non-theistic pantheism. The reason I took to this is because I understand that God is a metaphor for the absolutely unknown and unknowable and at the same time represents the whole of existence - All is God, the mystery is everything. 

 

Vishnu, for instance, as well as Brahman, are concepts. They are names. And yet concerning ultimate reality, "the tongue has never soiled it with a name." Ultimate reality, in my view, is beyond theism which is held in a conceptual state of mind. Ultimate reality is beyond traits, beyond conceptualization - "not that, not that." I wouldn't, for instance, believe that Vishnu is a real deity with a fixed existence aside from a religious literary creation. 

 

So in other words, I'm thinking that VA is a second level way of thinking in terms of it's use of God belief and the conceptualization that goes along with it. Going into the third level you're still spiritual about nature and existence and yet you can understand that the God metaphors point to beyond any concrete theistic thinking. It can be viewed as non-theistic. 

 

Have I read into this wrong? 

 

Is VA actually advanced to the point of not relying on theistic belief in the same way that AD is - advanced beyond any literal belief in the existence of Vishnu for instance? 

 

First of all, before I make my full reply, what is AD? Also are you a follower of Advaita Vedanta (or at least very familiar with it)?

 

Regards,

axlyz

[axlyz]

Relationship with other forms of Vedanta[edit]

 

The exposition and spread of Advaita by Sankara spurred debate with the two main theistic schools of Vedanta philosophy that were formalised later: Vishishtadvaita (qualifiednondualism), and Dvaita (dualism).

Vishishtadvaita[edit]

Main article: Vishishtadvaita

 

Yamunacharya, a 10th-century AD proponent of the Vishishtadvaita philosophy that opposed Shankara's Advaita, compared Advaita to Buddhism and remarked in his Siddhitraya that for both the Buddhists and the Advaitins, the distinctions of knower, known and knowledge are unreal. The Advaita traces them to Maya, while Buddhist subjectivism traces them to buddhi.^[201] Ramanujacharya, another prominent Vishishtadvaita philosopher, accused Shankara of being a Prachanna Bauddha, that is, a hidden Buddhist^[202]

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta}

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I thought that Shankara is credited with running the Buddhists out of India. However if Vishishtadvaita is in fact a theistic philosophy then I can see why the Advaitins would appear as "hidden Buddhist's" to a theist. So you're presenting us with a theistic philosophy or have I missed the point of this?  

 

http://www.manblunder.com/2011/04/types-of-vedanta-philosphy.html

 

TYPES OF VEDANTA PHILOSPHY

 

Vedānta series - 2

 

There are three types of Vedānata philosophy.  They are Dvaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita and Advaita.

 

Dvaita, the dualistic philosophy propagated by Mādhvācārya says that the Brahman and individual soul are different.

 

Viśiṣṭādvaita is qualified non-dualism and propagated by Śrī Rāmānuja. According to him, Brahman and soul are different, yet the individual soul is dependent on the Brahman and has to ultimately become one with the Brahman.

 

The third one is Advaita propagated by Śrī Śaṃkarācārya. According to advaita philosophy, individual soul is nothing but the Brahman.  All that exists in the world is only the Brahman, thereby asserting the omnipresent nature of the Brahman.

 

It is said that advaita philosophy is the supreme among the three.  There is also another school of thought which says that one should begin his spiritual pursuit from dvaita philosophy, progress to viśiṣṭādvaita and end at advaita. Advaita beautifully answers the question ‘who am I’?  Advaita says ‘I am That’, where, That refers to the Brahman.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I guess I'm a little confused because you seem to be suggesting that people who are already exposed to AD take a step back wards to VA which is a digressive move once you've understood AD. I only say this because you've let on as if VA and AD are on a level playing field rather than AD basically representing the logical outcome and conclusion of VA. 

 

1) Entry level - D

2) Intermediate - VA

3) Master - AD

 

If you don't see VA as a mid level comprehension I'd like to understand how you argue against this analysis. 

 

There is a claim circling around Hindu and Advaita forums, that "Advaita is the mother of Vishistadvaita and Dvaita". If that was the case, then VA and Dvaita would probably be foster children! There is this notion that Advaita and nondualistic systems are complex while dualistic systems are childish. It's just that that notion is wrong.

 

Vishistadvaita and Dvaita are independent as they do not accept that the world is unreal. Of course since there is no debating allowed here, I am not going to attempt to refute Advaita. 

 

VA and Dvaita can also answer the same questions that Advaita answers, and by critical analysis of all three philosophies can one realize whether Advaita is supreme or not.

 

Regards,

axlyz

[Joshpantera]

I screwed that up, I meant AV and wrote AD instead. The first big error. lol

[axlyz]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheistic_religions

 

The Bhagavad Gita, contains passages that bear a monistic reading and others that bear a theistic reading.^[33] Generally, the book as a whole has been interpreted by some who see it as containing a primarily nontheistic message,^[34] and by others who stress its theistic message.^[35] These broadly either follow after either Sankara or Ramanuja^[36] An example of a nontheistic passage might be "The supreme Brahman is without any beginning. That is called neither being nor non-being," which Sankara interpreted to mean that Brahman can only be talked of in terms of negation of all attributes—'Neti neti'.^[37]

The Advaita Vedanta of Gaudapada and Sankara rejects theism as a consequence of its insistence that Brahman is "Without attributes, indivisible, subtle, inconceivable, and without blemish, Brahman is one and without a second. There is nothing other than He."^[38] This means that it lacks properties usually associated with God such as omniscience, perfect goodness, omnipotence, and additionally is identical with the whole of reality, rather than being a causal agent or ruler of it.^[39]

^{------------------------------------------------------------------------------}

I follow along with an AV inspired philosophy introduced to western audiences through comparative mythologist, Joseph Campbell. He was the president of the New York AV society at one point. "Neti Neti" is something that was lectured on over and over again, as well as "tat tvam asi." As a non-theist this AV philosophy sort of brought me from not spiritual at all, to philosophical non-theistic pantheism. The reason I took to this is because I understand that God is a metaphor for the absolutely unknown and unknowable and at the same time represents the whole of existence - All is God, the mystery is everything. 

 

Vishnu, for instance, as well as Brahman, are concepts. They are names. And yet concerning ultimate reality, "the tongue has never soiled it with a name." Ultimate reality, in my view, is beyond theism which is held in a conceptual state of mind. Ultimate reality is beyond traits, beyond conceptualization - "not that, not that." I wouldn't, for instance, believe that Vishnu is a real deity with a fixed existence aside from a religious literary creation. 

 

So in other words, I'm thinking that VA is a second level way of thinking in terms of it's use of God belief and the conceptualization that goes along with it. Going into the third level you're still spiritual about nature and existence and yet you can understand that the God metaphors point to beyond any concrete theistic thinking. It can be viewed as non-theistic. 

 

Have I read into this wrong? 

 

Is VA actually advanced to the point of not relying on theistic belief in the same way that AV is - advanced beyond any literal belief in the existence of Vishnu for instance? 

 

I agree. Advaita eventually transcends all types of -isms, since the destination of Advaita is basically everything.

 

Now here is the thing. As you know, Advaita has 2 types of levels, the vyavaharika and parmarthika. A lot of people think that you go straight to Parmarthika. That's false. You must first actually attain krama mukti before you attain parmarthika. This is not known by many, but that is indeed Shankara's position (as well as other Advaitin acharyas). This is the theistic aspect that I was talking about. One must first attain the abode of the Saguna Brahman (Vishnu) before one attains Parmarthika, because if not, the idea of Nirguna and Saguna Brahman would be irrelevant. Btw, if you want quotations, I can provide.

 

Regards,

axlyz

[Joshpantera]

I suppose that makes sense for a Hindu adherent. You go through the levels of initiation into the mysteries or something to that affect. And start with a ground level understanding and then proceed.

 

My experience of God with traits was through Christianity. Once that was outgrown and I went atheist and then eventually looked into eastern philosophy, I realized that the childish conceptualization of God as a literal being with traits is something that has been outgrown in certain philosophical settings, whereas in Christianity the loss of traits steam rolls the entire religion into insignificance. The traits must be preserved in order to maintain a certain social control over people, via the conceptualized God. Whereas in eastern religion you can basically take the traits or leave them. 

 

So pardon me if I seem a little bit harsh on the traits conceptualization of God. It's representative of adolescence in my experience...

[axlyz]

Yes we have a lot of differences with the Christian God. We look down upon it, in actuality. Just because our god is personal doesn't mean that he cannot be like the Advaitic Brahman. Remember, he is different from his attributes or traits, but they are intertwined with his nature.

 

I will answer the rest of your queries later, when I have some time to think.

 

Regards,

axlyz

[Orbit]

 

Sure, though I'm interested in the philosophy rather than the religion.

Vishistadvaita is the Vedantic philosophy, while Sri Vaishnavism is the theology/religion associated. Still interested?

 

Yep!