Describe Advaita, Vishistadvaita, Dvaita

[Lakshmi USA]

Though I am an vaishnava my parents never taught me these philosophies. Neither more religious relatives of mine did talk about it.

Will someone be kind enough to give me a short description of all the three.

I just learnt in a nutshell that Dvaita says Krishna is the only one and there is no other.

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Lakshmi,

Advaita considers that Paramatman alone is eternal.

Vishishtadvaita considers that Jivatman is always a part of Paramatman.

Dvaita considers that Jivatman is always apart from Paramatman.

[Sudarshan]

Originally Posted by Lakshmi USA

Though I am an vaishnava my parents never taught me these philosophies. Neither more religious relatives of mine did talk about it.

Will someone be kind enough to give me a short description of all the three.

I just learnt in a nutshell that Dvaita says Krishna is the only one and there is no other.

There are three terms that are mainly involved:

Isvara or Brahman - God
jeeva - individual soul, which is the locus of "I" within you.
jagat - The world or the universe

The difference between different systems of philosophy are the ways they consider the relationship between these three entities. There differences also spring from their definitions of Isvara, the causalty of jagat etc.


In advaita, both jeeva and jagat, are unreal, and Isvara is the only reality. Some advatins have a different view, but all advatins are uniform in their views that the jeeva and jagat have no eternal existance.(real or unreal).

In advaita, Isvara is superceded by the concept of Nirguna Brahman, which is nivisesha or devoid of all attributes. Advaitins consider Brahman as both material and instrumental cause of the jagat.


In Vishsitadvaita, Isvara and jeeva are different, Isvara and jagat are different, jagat and jeeva are different. Jagat and jeeva are connected to Isvara in the form of attributes. That is to say - both jagat and jeeva form an inseperable part of Isvara eternally. Vishistadvatins consider Brahman as saguna or as a personal diety with an innumerable number of auspicious attributes. They also consider Brahman as the material cause of the world.


In dvaita, Isvara, jeeva and jagat are all different eternally. Dvaita accepts a five fold eternal difference of all these entities. In Dvaita, Isvara is only the instrumental cause of the world. Dvaita concieves of Brahman as similar to Vishsitadvaita, as a personal grace filled diety with infnite wisdom and powers.


There are other philosophies like

bedha-abedha
dvaita-adviata
shuddhadvaita
achintya bedha-abedha

etc, which have philosophical positions somewhere in the middle of what have been explained before.

For eg, suddhadvaita is a form of advaita which accepts the reality of both jeeva and jagat, yet they are considered identical to Isvara. These are advaitins who think that Brahman is both Nirguna and Saguna simultaneously.

dvaita-advaita ,bedha-abedha and achinta bedha-abedha are close to Vishshistadvaita but have their differences from it.

Advaita is unqiue in that, it is the only system of vedanta that denies the reality of jeeva and jagat, unlike any other pantheistic or monistic traditions.

Dvaita is unique in that, it is the only school of vedanta that does not accept Brahman being the material cause of the world. It is also the only school that states that jeeva is completely different from Brahman.


Considering that all these schools base their truth on the same scripture texts, it makes you wonder what the true purport of vedanta is.

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Sudarshan,

Jagat, Jiva, and Ishvara, are all aspects of Saguna Brahma ~ and you have ignored Nirguna Brahma (i.e. Shivadvaita, the Aja Ekapad)!

Jagat is Vishva; Jiva is Taijasa; Ishvara is Prajna; and Shiva is Turiya.

And Ajativada (Advaita) denies that there is any real “cause”.

[Sudarshan]

Originally Posted by sarabhanga

Jagat, Jiva, and Ishvara, are all aspects of Saguna Brahma ~ and you have ignored Nirguna Brahma (i.e. Shivadvaita, the Aja Ekapad)!

No, I have mentioned it. I just tried to avoid using the term Brahman here as people not familiar with vedanta may not understand it.(especially the questioned was posed by a person who is just leaning) Hence I used the term Isvara, which is of course slightly different in advaita. Isvara and Brahman are not different for us.

[Sudarshan]

Originally Posted by sarabhanga

Jagat is Vishva; Jiva is Taijasa; Ishvara is Prajna; and Shiva is Turiya.

According to me:

Visva is stUla tattva.(jagat)
Taijasa is sUksma tattva.
Prajna is jIva (linga tattva and antaryAmi nArAyaNa)
Turiya is Brahman

Originally Posted by sarabhanga

And Ajativada (Advaita) denies that there is any real “cause”.

Oh, no, not again.

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Sudarshan,

According to my Guru:
Vishva is Maya, while Jiva and Ishvara and Shiva are all co-eternal and non-different.

The mortal world is Vishvanara, and this is the base state of ordinary waking consciousness.
And the immortal world is Turiya, and this is the ultimate state of perfect divine consciousness.

For those lost in Maya, with their consciousness immersed in the Sthula-tattva, the ultimate Truth is unknown and their Trimurti is:

1. Vishva ~ the grossly manifest world of mortal incarnation (i.e. Tamas guna and “ordinary consciousness”).
2. Taijasa ~ the subtly manifest world of the dreaming state (i.e. Rajas guna and “subconsciousness”).
3. Prajna ~ the subtle realm of deep sleep (Sattva guna and “unconsciousness”).

And Turiya (4) remains unknown and unimaginable.

For those who reject Maya, with their consciousness immersed in Brahman, the ultimate Truth is surely known and their Trimurti is:

1. Vishva and Taijasa ~ the manifest Maya of a veritable dream (i.e. divided Jivatman, and thus pure Tamas).
2. Prajna ~ the subtle reality of Ishvara with the action of Maya subdued (i.e. Jivatman and Paramatman united, and thus pure Rajas).
3. Turiya ~ the ultimate reality of Shiva Advaita, which is entirely without Maya or even the most subtle hint of duality (i.e. perfect Paramatman, and thus pure Sattva).

Vishvanara (including Taijasa) is Nara; Prajna is Narayana; and Turiya is Shiva.

The first stage of Yoga is turning away from the sthula Jagat.
The second stage of Yoga is the equation of the sukshma Jiva (Nara) and Ishvara (Narayana).
The third stage of Yoga is the equation of Ishvara and Shiva.

“One, Two, Three: all world is free!” is a common saying of the Nagas.

The fourth and final stage of Yoga is Advaita alone.

[Lakshmi USA]

Ok, sankara propounded advaita, ramanuja - vishistadvaita, madhvacharya - dvaita right ?

If this is correct then these philosophies did not exist before ? what were the people following then ?

Sarabanga in one of your posts in hindunet, you said dvaita vaishnavas are bigoted. what makes you say so.

shaivites follow advaita,
vaishnava of ramanuja sampradaya follow vishistadvaita
madhvas follow dvaita

am I right ?

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Lakshmi,

On HinduNet, Madhu Bharadwaj posted the following comment:

“If I was a Theist like you, I would have closed my ears tight and shouted ‘NO! NO!’, like a kid, rather than listening to what others say and trying to interpret in your own way.”

And I responded:

“Knowledge of God should not imply a closed mind or immature reactions, and ‘Theists like me’ should not be groundlessly accused in such a gross generalization.”

“I was surprised by some of your comments, but in the light of some recent discussions I can understand your dismissal of theism, which becomes irrational in the hands of many “householders”, and especially when interpreted by some Vaishnava Bhaktas, Christians, and Muslims.”

And I clarified:

“I grouped Christians and Muslims and ‘some Vaishnava Bhaktas’ as being particularly fond of the Dvaita perspective.”

And I questioned:

“How can such a comparison be offensive?”

And then I attempted to explain how it might be that some Vaishnava Bhaktas could have been offended by my simple comment about Madhu’s impression of theists (Hindu or otherwise):

“Or perhaps some Vaishnava Bhaktas are offended by the general proximity of Christians or Muslims? In which case, I must apologize to any Christians or Muslims who may have been offended by being associated with such bigoted Vaishnavas.”

Such bigoted Vaishnavas ~ i.e. those Vaishnava Bhaktas who commonly shout “NO! NO! You have to look at it this way, otherwise you are WRONG! And the interpretations of MY Guru are ALWAYS RIGHT!”

So once again I repeat:

“In Duality there can NEVER be Unity.”

And, on HinduNet, I have already explained:

“I know that some Vaishnavas are Dvaitins. And I know that many Vaishnavas prefer to ignore the Vedas completely or at least to interpret them only in the light of selected (often literal) translations or commentaries of selected later texts. And I know that such selective interpretations (especially in the hands of Dvaitins) are bound to result in division and exclusivity (and very much pointless argument and suffering).”

[Sudarshan]

Originally Posted by sarabhanga

Such bigoted Vaishnavas ~ i.e. those Vaishnava Bhaktas who commonly shout “NO! NO! You have to look at it this way, otherwise you are WRONG! And the interpretations of MY Guru are ALWAYS RIGHT!”

Blind guru bhakti is very harmful in my opinion. If you have the scholarship and can understand your guru properly, it makes sense to follow the guru to the word.

But most of the Hindus follow theiir gurus because they and born and belong to the tradition, and often dont have any knowledge of what their systems teach, nor know the position of other schools. Yet, they read some capsular versions and start "refuting" other schools.

Honestly, very few people have very advanced knowledge of the complexities of scripture and their interpretations, and only a few people are knowledgeable enough to understand the polemics and particular strains of interpretations. To understand an Acharya fully, you have to be one yourself.

Yet, somebody with a fair amount of knowledge of sanskrit and allied topics can ususally pick apart the correctness of various commentaries from an academic perspective. Sometimes, people change their perspecitves and also can appreciate the values of other commentaries, but very few people change loyalties - that is the world. Have'nt we seen enough of this in CF? You can always convince many Christians about the short comings of their scripture when interpreted their way, but they will never accept their mistakes and repeat the same thing again and again - "Hinduism is Satanic". You cant change jiva svabava.