Namaste All 🙂
The debate between Advaita & Dvaita has been going on from ages. But, the sad thing is, it sometimes becomes a very bitter battle, rather than being philosophical questioning of two seemingly different paths to realisation, propounded by two great Acharyas.
I wanted to know, where is the point of convergence between the two, so that we can appreciate both the concepts, with out being particularly averse to the other.
I will be very happy to know your views.
Kind Regards
Isa 🙂
I know very little about this topic although the Practical Philosophy course I've been attending is based around the Advaita and the Upanisads and Baghavad Gita, so I'll be interested to keep an eye on this topic and learn more about Dvaita and what the differences and commonalities are.
Love and Reiki Hugs
I know very little about this topic although the Practical Philosophy course I've been attending is based around the Advaita and the Upanisads and Baghavad Gita, so I'll be interested to keep an eye on this topic and learn more about Dvaita and what the differences and commonalities are.
Love and Reiki Hugs
Thanks for the reply Energylz 🙂
Differences I am sure are many. Knowing in detail about commonalities makes learning more interesting and dynamic.
Regards
Isa 🙂
Namaste All 🙂
The debate between Advaita & Dvaita has been going on from ages. But, the sad thing is, it sometimes becomes a very bitter battle, rather than being philosophical questioning of two seemingly different paths to realisation, propounded by two great Acharyas.
I wanted to know, where is the point of convergence between the two, so that we can appreciate both the concepts, with out being particularly averse to the other.
I will be very happy to know your views.
Kind Regards
Isa 🙂
Hi Isa,
I am very glad, indeed thankful that you have raised this topic here.
I shall try to explore it as fully as I can, over the next few weeks. For it deserves to be explored; and the myths dispelled.
But for now, quite deliberately I shall give the briefest of replies. Perhaps even terse. This is just to stimulate you and make you think.
You have given the key yourself, in just two words of your post:
"seemingly different ..."
That's it. No real difference.
The two paths are virtually identical, but it takes a genius of the order of Shankaracharya or Ramakrishna Paramahansa or Swami Vivekananda to realise that.
Think about it.
As the great Schwarzenegger said:
I shall be back.
jiiva ariita cha.
I know very little about this topic although the Practical Philosophy course I've been attending is based around the Advaita and the Upanisads and Baghavad Gita, so I'll be interested to keep an eye on this topic and learn more about Dvaita and what the differences and commonalities are.
Love and Reiki Hugs
Hi Energylz,
Naturally I am gratified to learn about your interest in Vedanta Philosophy.
Isa has rightly given a most abbreviated account, knowing that I should be able to fill in the blanks. But for posters not familiar with Sanaatana Dharma, it is useful to start off with a clear concept of the main schools of thought.
There were and are actually three,
Advaita, you know about
Bishishta Advaita, or qualified monism, propounded by RAmAnujAcharya and
dvaita , or dualism, propounded by MAdhvAcharya
There has been several notable endeavours to show that differences between the paths are superficial and unreal.
Chaitanya MahAprabhu, achintya vedaabheda
and of course most recently, Ramakrishna Paramahansa.
Rather than provide a series of links, which will take some time to go through, I shall provide just one. [url]IMO, this is a good summary, albeit on the short side.[/url]
I should provide one correction from that site.
The first five schools of thought, Sankhya etc, were comprehensively rebutted in the Brahma Sutra Bhasya by Shankaracharyya.
So what remains is Uttara Mimaansaa, or Vedanta.
Regards.
Prashna
But for now, quite deliberately I shall give the briefest of replies. Perhaps even terse. This is just to stimulate you and make you think.
You have given the key yourself, in just two words of your post:
"seemingly different ..."
That's it. No real difference.
The two paths are virtually identical, but it takes a genius of the order of Shankaracharya or Ramakrishna Paramahansa or Swami Vivekananda to realise that.
Think about it.
As the great Schwarzenegger said:
I shall be back.
jiiva ariita cha.
Hi Prashna 🙂
The concept of Nirguna(Formlessness) includes in its earlier stages Saguna(with attributes) also, IMO it is a natural progression. But, when we fix Saguna as final, Advaita & Dvaita sort of become mutually exclusive.
Like you rightly said, Shankaracharya, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa and Swami Vivekanada never said that following only one path(Advaita or Dvaita) helps in realisation, they were truly noble souls.
Normally, mutual exclusivity is the first thing that springs to mind, whenever, Advaita & dvaita are spoken in the same sentence.
Regards
Isa 🙂
But for posters not familiar with Sanaatana Dharma, it is useful to start off with a clear concept of the main schools of thought.
There were and are actually three,
Advaita, you know about
Bishishta Advaita, or qualified monism, propounded by RAmAnujAcharya and
dvaita , or dualism, propounded by MAdhvAcharyaThere has been several notable endeavours to show that differences between the paths are superficial and unreal.
Chaitanya MahAprabhu, achintya vedaabheda
and of course most recently, Ramakrishna Paramahansa.
I get the feeling it will take me a little while to familiarise myself with all these names. 😮
Rather than provide a series of links, which will take some time to go through, I shall provide just one. [url]IMO, this is a good summary, albeit on the short side.[/url]
Thanks, I'll have to take a look from home as I can't access that from work.
Love and Reiki Hugs