Shankaracharya vs Ramanuja

[Anonymous No.16144121]

What separates Advaita from Visushtadvaita and why does it matter?

[Anonymous No.16145157]

Nasty sign on forehead. It doesn't.

[Anonymous No.16145568]

I would be careful about reading Advaita Vedanta interpretations such as Shankara's as a commentary to the Upanishads, they are extremely reliant on Buddhist philosophy (Shankara is called a "cryptobuddhist" by most Hindus, and most scholars agree). If you want to read the Upanishads, work through them with editions and commentaries that aren't sectarian, or at least read an interpretation that is closer to the original meaning of the Upanishads, rather than Shankara's 9th century AD quasi-buddhism.

[Anonymous No.16145636]

>>16145568
is there such thing as hindu literalism in the sense of protestant fundamentalism?
like,believing there's a literal guy with blue skin and 4 arms living somewhere in a mountain top?

[Anonymous No.16145710]

>>16145636
i'm not sure but isn't that what most hindus practically believe at the everyday level?

it's more of a revealed religion for most hindus, like how most christians arent interested in philosophical arguments about jesus, they just think he was the best guy ever and god sent him

[Anonymous No.16145740]

>>16145710
i was told by a hindu that the gods and stories are all metaphors
but all the videos of cow worship or ganesha potato worship say otherwise tho

[Anonymous No.16145871]

>>16144121
Advaita
>highly values Jnana-Yoga (path of knowledge)
>monasticism is mandatory for initiation
>Jivas are parts of Brahman only figuratively but in It’s true nature Brahman is partless
>the world and the universe are regarded as only conditionally real, which means that they are not absolutely real like Brahman is
>one can attain liberation before the body dies
>liberation primarily happens through the instruction of the Guru/scriptures and then through the receiving individuals realization/insight
>follows the Vivartavada causation theory (there is never any real actual creation or transformation of Brahman into the world, only the appearance of such in Consciousness)

Vishishtadvaita
>highly values Bhakti-Yoga (path of devotion
>monasticism is not mandatory although it is still seen as a valid path, it’s more common for people to belong to a layperson order
>Jivas are regarded as the parts of Brahman
>It’s denied that the world is unreal in any way
>liberation is held to be impossible until the body dies
>liberation or the attainment of the beatific vision etc is held be ultimately dependent on the grace of God, the individual’s efforts just set them up for this and make them qualified for it etc
>follows the Parinamavada causation theory, where Brahman transforms into the world

They are really just types of non-dualism which appeal to different types of people IMO, both have valuable teachings and are worth studying. A good book contrasting them and their history of debates is ‘The Seven Great Untenables’’ by Grimes

[Anonymous No.16145958]

>>16145871
>everything is nondualism, even this system that says it isn't
>that's ok your system agrees with mine when it says its disagreeing, its all nondualism bro

your cryptobuddhism is offensive and heretical, stay out of india and in california where you belong

[Anonymous No.16146044]

>>16145958

> The term “Viśiṣṭādvaita” is often translated as ‘Qualified Non-Dualism.’ An alternative, and more informative, translation is “Non-duality of the qualified whole,” or perhaps ‘Non-duality with qualifications.” The label attempts to mark out Rāmānuja’s effort to affirm the unity of the many, without giving up on the reality of distinct persons, qualities, universals, or aesthetic and moral values.
https://iep.utm.edu/ramanuja/

Vishishtadvaita still regards itself as a non-dualistic school, just a different type of non-dualism from the Advaita of Shankara

[Anonymous No.16146117]

>>16145740
The multiple armed stuff is symbolism. Their deities, they can take whatever form they wish. A good lesson I learned regarding the whole “that deity looks ridiculous so your religion is wrong” meme is that u can’t reasonably use your experiences on this plane of existence to negotiate the veracity of deities not from this plane. This has played out on smaller scales on hisptry as well. Aztecs never saw a horse or a man riding one, so when they first saw a cavalryman, they thought he was an otherworldly monster. If u would have showed them an image of a knight before this , they would have thought it ridiculou, as their experience was only limited to mesoameroca. And so similarly, we cannot throw out a religion due to its deities looking supposedly ridiculous. Anyway, all deities are aspects of the Supreme Bramhan anyway, the debate is which deity is the Param Bramhan, or if the Param Bramhan even is something we can contemplate

[Anonymous No.16146129]

>>16146117
>their deities
*Theyre deities

[Anonymous No.16146141]

>>16145958
advaita literally means nondualism, what are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.16146148]

>>16145568
The same copypasta and the same idiotic image are posted in any thread where shankaracharya is even mentioned. I’m convinced this is either a bot or a Buddhist schizo

[Anonymous No.16146168]

>>16145636
Refer to >>16146117

[Anonymous No.16146343]

>>16145871
>both have valuable teachings and are worth studying. A good book contrasting them and their history of debates is ‘The Seven Great Untenables’’ by Grimes
This is so fucking misleading and subversive. Stop pretending you're just some objective nonpartial observer to the two schools and then proceed to recommend a book in this context when the book is an Advaita apologetics work aimed at the other school. The author is a devout Advaitin whom goes through Ramanuja's arguments and shows why he's; according to the author, straight up wrong or just didn't get the Advaita position.

[Anonymous No.16146466]

>>16146343
The author provides both the Vishishtadvaita and the Advaita arguments and he includes his personal judgement as a scholar of Hinduism of the veracity of some of the arguments but he still leaves it up to the reader to decide. Just because a scholar doesn’t withhold from including their own judgement of something doesn't mean that their book on a topic is illegitimate.

[Anonymous No.16146527]

>>16144121
Why do they sit on the baby tiger rugs

[Anonymous No.16146554]

>>16146466
>The author provides both the Vishishtadvaita
In order to refute it.
>as a scholar of Hinduism
Here you go again. He is a convinced Advaitin, and he doesn't pretend otherwise.

[Anonymous No.16146935]

Hinduism allows for one to form their own opinion/stance, correct?
Can I take elements from both Advaita and Vishishtadvaita?
There's things I like about both - the Bhakti of Vishishtadvaita and idea of Liberated while living from Advaita

[Anonymous No.16146995]

>>16145568
Jannies please do your job. There's literally a bot that pops up every time somebody mentions Shankaracharya, even if the topic isn't even about him

[Anonymous No.16147009]

>>16146148
It's okay he bumps my posts

[Anonymous No.16147026]

>>16144121
Visusht

[Anonymous No.16147049]

>>16146935
not exactly, Hinduism is by no means a sola scriptura religion, and we are called to subscribe to the extrapolations by acharyas and learned sages, of the extrapolations of sacred texts like the Vedas and Upanishads. In fact what most people end up reading when they read the Vedas is only the samhita, or poetic hymns, even though the accompanying upanishads, brahamanas, and aranyakas are also considered part of the Vedas.

brahmanas are commmentaries on the vedic hymns to explain their purposes
aranyakas are similar to brahmanas
upanishads are philosophical works

rigveda is made up of

samhita of different shakhas
aitareya aranyaka
kaushitakai aranyaka
aitareya brahmana
kausitakai brahmana
Aitareya Upanishad
Kaushitaki Upanishad

[Anonymous No.16147166]

>>16146554
No, that’s wrong, the purpose of bringing up Ramanuja’s arguments is not to refute them but the book is mainly about distinguishing the principles of Vishishtadvaita from Advaita, delineating their main areas of disagreement, and then going over the history of dialectics between them, including Ramanuja’s seven untenables, the Advaitin response to these, and other debates between various other post-Shankara and post-Ramanuja thinkers. The author’s personal opinion and the parts which express these opinions are secondary to the main content of the book, which is historical and educational and which is worth reading even for a Vishishtadvaitain. Regardless, you should stop complaining and just recommend a book that you think contrasts Advaita vs Vishishtadvaita better if you actually even care about that topic instead of just looking for something to whine about. Just because the author is an Advaitin doesn’t mean he is no longer a scholar.

[Anonymous No.16147171]

Shankara seems to have autism and afraid to look into my eyes.
While Ramanuja pierces the depths of my soul through his image.
Seems obvious which one is correct, iconographers are also always inspired.

[Anonymous No.16147250]

>>16147049
Ah, I see, thank you anon. I've read the 16 principle Upanishads but I have yet to read Shankaracharya's commentaries or any other Upanishads. This might be explained in them but, I have a few questions
- Why do some say Liberation only comes after death?
-What do people with this position think about Jivanmuktas like Ramana Maharishi?
-Why did Brahman produce the world? Why would one allow themselves be subject to Maya instead of pure bliss and conciousness?

[Anonymous No.16147288]

>>16146935
> Hinduism allows for one to form their own opinion/stance, correct?
It depends on the school, some are more or less exclusivist, other openly draw from other schools and regard them as lesser spiritual understandings which function as preparation for higher levels.
>Can I take elements from both Advaita and Vishishtadvaita?
>There's things I like about both - the Bhakti of Vishishtadvaita and idea of Liberated while living from Advaita
Something which you can do is study the texts and teachings of other schools which are like a combination of these two schools. For example there is a group of Hindu sects called the ‘Naths’ or the Natha Sampradaya, which traces itself to the 10th century Shaivite Yogi Matsyendranātha, who is also revered by Tantric Buddhists. One of the more prominent writers of the Nath movement is the poet-saint Jnanadeva, also known as Dyaneshwar. He wrote two works, a standalone text Amritanubhava which sums up his teachings as well as the Bhavartha Deepika, which is a voluminous commentary on the Bhagavad-Gita. In his works is elaborated a metaphysics which is somewhere between that of Ramanuja and Shankara, where there is the concept of attainting liberation while living, but at the same time a focus on Bhakti as a means to spiritual awareness.

Another sect whose works you could study are the Lingyatists, also called Veerashaivas. They are a southern non-dualist Shaivite sect which has also been described as being between Advaita and Vishishtadvaita, they also place an emphasis on bhakti, some of their sects main writings which have been translated by Linga Raju include Shunya Sampasade and the Siddhanta Shikhamani

[Anonymous No.16147305]

>>16147166
Whatever, I've read the book and I advice anyone in the thread to read it too if they are interested in Advaita. But lets stop pretending it isn't a book in defense of Advaita. It is literally named after the number of arguments Ramanuja put forward against Advaita and the entire point is to quote them so that he can refute Ramanuja's refutations of Advaita and that they do not stand up.

It isn't some "scholarly" book on the pros and cons of both sides. It is Advaita apologetics.
>Regardless, you should stop complaining and just recommend a book that you think contrasts Advaita vs Vishishtadvaita better if you actually even care about that topic instead of just looking for something to whine about.
Next time just be upfront about what you're doing.

[Anonymous No.16147343]

>>16144121
Is Advaita Vedanta just Gnostic Hinduism

[Anonymous No.16147345]

>>16145871
>>It’s denied that the world is unreal in any way
BULL
SHIT

[Anonymous No.16147356]

>>16147250
>why do some people say liberation comes only after death
From what i can extrapolate, mortal existence serves its own purpose, and while certain texts have showed us that powerful inidivudals are capable of chosing the moment their souls leaves their body, such as Drona, Bhismha, etc. this isnt really possible for 99.99999999% of humans.

>what do people think about Jivanmuktas

from what i recall almost everyone reveres them

>Why did Brahman produce the world? Why would one allow themselves be subject to Maya instead of pure bliss and conciousness?

the exact nature of Maya being simple illusion isnt really accurate, and mortal existence being a simple illusion isnt also really that accurate, tho admittedly im not well read enough to answer the question of why the Bramhan would create the world. I believe the answers to a lot of these questions are within the Upanishads themselves, the story of Nachiketa comes to mind. im quite sure that Shanakracharya answers all these as well.

[Anonymous No.16147481]

>>16147345
source?

[Anonymous No.16147488]

>>16147305
I don't care that you find it so scandalous that the author agrees that the Advaitins are right, it's still a good book for people interested in those debates and I will continue to recommend it

[Anonymous No.16147510]

>>16147343
Considering that by Gnosticism most people refer to the Sethian type where the Demiurge is more malevolent compared to the more 'confused' Demiurge of the Valentinian Gnosticism, than no, because in Advaita the Supreme God and It's lesser emanations/created deities etc who fulfill the equivalent functions of the Demiurge are not malevolent.

[Anonymous No.16147521]

>>16147288
Thank you for such an enlightening response anon, it will shape my future studies on Hinduism greatly. The two sects and commentary on the Gita are of particular interest to me. I suppose I've always been drawn to Bhakti because the notion of experiencing God through pure logic and intellect alone seems - dry to me. I like the romantic notion of understanding God through love. Some say that Hinduism and indeed Eastern religions are life-denying. Is that really true or is it a misunderstanding/over-generalization? Life always seemed as something to teach the spirit rather than something to withdraw from.
>>16147356
I see, I'll read Shankaracharya's commentaries. I doubt I'll get everything but everyone has spoken highly of his skill as a teacher. Sometimes, I forget that Maya is not illusion per se. Many people are often introduced to the concept of Maya as illusion and it sort sticks. Thanks for answering my questions anon, I appreciate your time

[Anonymous No.16147585]

>>16147521
my pleasure anon, good reading!

[Anonymous No.16147937]

>>16147250
>- Why do some say Liberation only comes after death?
because for those who hold this position such as Ramanuja and others, they consider embodiment to be synonymous with bondage and so according to this point of view being liberated in the body would become a contradiction in terms.
>-What do people with this position think about Jivanmuktas like Ramana Maharishi?
Many people think highly of them as the other poster noted, but if you asked a very conservative/orthodox religious authority of Vishishadvaita they might say that he technically wasn't liberated because he was still in a body and that he might be confusing spiritual fulfillment with liberation, as this is basically the position of Ramanuja.
>-Why did Brahman produce the world?
Shankara discusses this the most in his commentary on the Mandukya Karika and also in his commentary on the Brahma Sutras. To express or wield His power of maya is considered to be the inherent self-nature (svabhava) of Brahman just as it is the nature of the sun to continuously emit light. There are various metaphors given regarding this but each have their own limitation and are not to be taken literally. Shankara follows the example of the Brahma Sutras in saying that Brahman causes the universe as disport, like a king who aimlessly disports in his gardens; but Shankara clarifies that this shouldn't be taken literally, as the Upanishads affirm that Brahman is free from desires, and so it's not intentional playing for the purpose of amusement but rather an effortless expression of Brahman's omnipotent power for the reason that it is Brahman's nature to always do so while peacefully remaining completely free and unaffected by it. Shankara also uses the metaphor of breathing, the eternal cycle of universes following from the fact of Brahman's existence, like how an existing cycle of breaths follows from the fact of there being a living animal on land.
>Why would one allow themselves be subject to Maya instead of pure bliss and conciousness?
In Advaita, it's denied that Brahman or the Supreme Self is actually affected by It's own power of maya. The experience of being a transmigrating being inheres in the mind of the Jiva, but the transcendental consciousness which animates and illuminates that Jiva doesn't think or suffer pain, hunger, etc, Shankara discusses this in pic related. Liberation in Advaita from the perspective of the Jiva is in a way an awakening to or a remembrance of your true self that was always liberated to begin with.