difference between Vishishtadvaita and Shuddhadvaita?

[DanielR]

That is correct. In Vishishtadvaita (absolutely parallel to Achintya-bheda-abheda and Dvaita-Advaita), the soul retains that individuality and identity, even while having moksha (or liberation). The idea of Vishishtadvaita is, "I am eternally a servant of Lord Vishnu/Krishna." In Shuddha-advaita, espoused by Sri Vallabhacharya, one merges into Krishna, but Krishna is still Supreme Reality.

Btw, I like the merging part but what I don't get still is if Krishna is Satcitananda and through Maya he obscures the ananda part, so we have infinite souls (Satcit), does he obscure again for the existance of matter because matter is said to be only Existence of the Satcitanda?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I cannot find anything on Shuddhadvaita on the Net, not even in my library

 

[Gaura Priya]

Btw, I like the merging part but what I don't get still is if Krishna is Satcitananda and through Maya he obscures the ananda part, so we have infinite souls (Satcit), does he obscure again for the existance of matter because matter is said to be only Existence of the Satcitanda?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I cannot find anything on Shuddhadvaita on the Net, not even in my library

Jai Sri Krishna!

Unfortunately, there is not much information in English about Sri Vallabhacharya's Shuddha-advaita Brahmavada online. Unless you can read Hindi or Gujarati, it is quite difficult.

I would recommend Shyamdas's books; however, since his passing this year, the publishers for his books have not continued his publications, it seems. He is probably the best in accessing Pushtimarg by a native English speaker, as well as a practitioner. His book, "The Path of Grace" is sold out, and would have been the best resource on a preliminary study of the philosophy!

All you're left online for free, would be things in terrible English.

Try these two websites:
shreevallabh.com: Pushtimarg
PhD Thesis on Brahmavad by Shri RaghuNathLalji

Thus, to answer your question in my own elementary understanding:

According to Sri Vallabhacharya, maya in itself as well as the world (prakriti) is not an illusion, but rather another aspect of the Absolute Reality, the Beautiful Absolute, Sri Krishna. However, because God desires to manifest His divine Lila (Pastime, or Play), He manifests all souls (jivas) in three different categories (pushti, maryada, and pravaha), or the souls of grace, the restricted souls, and the moving souls. The first has a tendency towards God, the second has the tendency towards economic growth and liberation, and the third has tendencies toward negativities.

However, all of these souls consist of the Lila of God, and thus ultimately merge with Him. Both God and the souls are Sat, Chit, and Ananda. However, maya is merely a manifestation of God, even if troubling at times.

Just like gold may have one side pure, and the other side with scratches, Vishnu is Supreme Reality, and its temporary manifestations. Unlike Vishishtadvaita, where maya is seen as due to one's ignorance of our divine origin as pure souls, Shuddhadvaitins see maya as a mere aspect of the Divine Absolute's desire (and nature) to manifest His Lila.

If you go to e-Haveli of Shri-Nathji ! and read under Pushti Philosophy, the essays therein may be of help to you, and contain some information about Shuddhadvaita.

I wish I could help you more in detail, but I was taught under a different Vaishnava school. But if there is anything basic that I could assist you in, let me know!

Good luck!

Sri Krishna Sharanam Mama!

 

[mohinishaktidevi]

This is the problem with intellectualisation of Hinduism. It runs in circles. The path to moksha should be fairly linear. Bhaktars aren't particularly intellectual, if at all. So busy discussing it, forget to do it.

Did you mean it in the reverse way?

Bhaktas are so busy doing it, they forget the intellectual. ?

 

[DanielR]

Jai Sri Krishna!

Unfortunately, there is not much information in English about Sri Vallabhacharya's Shuddha-advaita Brahmavada online. Unless you can read Hindi or Gujarati, it is quite difficult.

I would recommend Shyamdas's books; however, since his passing this year, the publishers for his books have not continued his publications, it seems. He is probably the best in accessing Pushtimarg by a native English speaker, as well as a practitioner. His book, "The Path of Grace" is sold out, and would have been the best resource on a preliminary study of the philosophy!

All you're left online for free, would be things in terrible English.

Try these two websites:
shreevallabh.com: Pushtimarg
PhD Thesis on Brahmavad by Shri RaghuNathLalji

Thus, to answer your question in my own elementary understanding:

According to Sri Vallabhacharya, maya in itself as well as the world (prakriti) is not an illusion, but rather another aspect of the Absolute Reality, the Beautiful Absolute, Sri Krishna. However, because God desires to manifest His divine Lila (Pastime, or Play), He manifests all souls (jivas) in three different categories (pushti, maryada, and pravaha), or the souls of grace, the restricted souls, and the moving souls. The first has a tendency towards God, the second has the tendency towards economic growth and liberation, and the third has tendencies toward negativities.

However, all of these souls consist of the Lila of God, and thus ultimately merge with Him. Both God and the souls are Sat, Chit, and Ananda. However, maya is merely a manifestation of God, even if troubling at times.

Just like gold may have one side pure, and the other side with scratches, Vishnu is Supreme Reality, and its temporary manifestations. Unlike Vishishtadvaita, where maya is seen as due to one's ignorance of our divine origin as pure souls, Shuddhadvaitins see maya as a mere aspect of the Divine Absolute's desire (and nature) to manifest His Lila.

If you go to e-Haveli of Shri-Nathji ! and read under Pushti Philosophy, the essays therein may be of help to you, and contain some information about Shuddhadvaita.

I wish I could help you more in detail, but I was taught under a different Vaishnava school. But if there is anything basic that I could assist you in, let me know!

Good luck!

Sri Krishna Sharanam Mama!

Thank you Gaura Priya, this has been very helpful

 

[Vinayaka]

Did you mean it in the reverse way?

Bhaktas are so busy doing it, they forget the intellectual. ?

Yes, that too. But I take the middle path (leaning toward bhakti, I would surmise) ... not totally one or the other. The intellect is a helper, not a be-all. What is jnana, after all? There is a misunderstanding on it for sure. Where does jnana come from?

 

[Jainarayan]

Did you mean it in the reverse way?

Bhaktas are so busy doing it, they forget the intellectual. ?

Yes, that too. But I take the middle path (leaning toward bhakti, I would surmise) ... not totally one or the other. The intellect is a helper, not a be-all. What is jnana, after all? There is a misunderstanding on it for sure. Where does jnana come from?

I agree with Vinayaka... I believe jnana comes from bhakti. What good is all the knowledge in the world about God if one does not practice devotion first? We talk about meditation in order to become close to God(dess); coming close to God(dess) one obtains knowledge of him/her.It is like have a home library full of books that are never read. They are worthless without the practice of reading them. This is just my view.

 

[DreadFish]

I agree with Vinayaka... I believe jnana comes from bhakti. What good is all the knowledge in the world about God if one does not practice devotion first? We talk about meditation in order to become close to God(dess); coming close to God(dess) one obtains knowledge of him/her.It is like have a home library full of books that are never read. They are worthless without the practice of reading them. This is just my view.

I think I agree with you too. I've been big into the intellectual approaches in the past, learning philosophies and all that, but a problem appeared. If I believe this philosophy, I cant believe that one, or, if im this, I can't be that, and so on.

I think Jnana is an intuitive knowledge, almost a substantial knowledge, while intellectual philosophies are just vanity, shadow puppets. Philosophy is a thinking, while intuitive experience is knowing.

I think we have an enlightened instinct of sorts and, with the right dedication to the path, some part of us sorts out the hollow ideas from the ones that point toward the way.

So philosophies are just outlines or frameworks withwhich to approach practice

 

[Jainarayan]

We tend to overthink things, most of us who are not jivanmukti, we can't know. This is why I say I will devote myself to God and let him surprise me after, if, or when I achieve moksha. "Worrying about it will not make a single hair white or gray; sufficient for the day are its own problems." Know who said that?

 

[Vinayaka]

I think Jnana is an intuitive knowledge, almost a substantial knowledge, while intellectual philosophies are just vanity, shadow puppets. Philosophy is a thinking, while intuitive experience is knowing.

Absolutely!

 

[mohinishaktidevi]

karma means watching your Karma.
Jnana means using the intellectual falculty.
Bhakti means to devote actions and Intellect.

Is it good to set the Gita which is only 700 verses long as a goal post milestone?
Since it is crammed with talking points and references to other Hindu topics.
700 verses is a neat quantity of stats and figures and formulas and reference to make notes of.
Have not most expert jnana yogis start with the Gita's outline of subjects?

 

[atanu]

---
Jnana means using the intellectual falculty.
...

But that is not Jnana, I am afraid. Jnana i s knowledge of Atman and that is not equal to the knowledge of the intellectual faculty. Jnana develops through meditation -- in silence of tongue and mind.

 

[atanu]

Hello,

could anybody tell me the difference between those two? Was doing a forum search but couldn't really find anything only difference between Advaita vs. Vishishtadvaita.

Thanks!

THe following from WIKI is a starting point for understanding the differences between advaita and suddhadavaita.

The school of in-essence monism or purified non-dualism of Vallabha sees equality in "essence" of the individual self with God. There is no real difference between the two (like the analogy of sparks to fire). However, unlike Shankara's Advaita, Vallabha does not deny God as the whole and the individual as the part. The individual soul is not the Supreme (Satcitananda) clouded by the force of avidya, but is itself Brahman, with one attribute (ananda) rendered imperceptible.

IN Suddhadvaita (SA) in essence all jiva-s are brahman, but the bliss component of existence-knowledge-bliss is imperceptible in jiva. This hiding is leela (play) of Krishna and is not termed as mAyA (as it is termed in advaita).

In VA, the individual souls are essentially same as brahman, but they comprise brahman's body.

The above are very approximate statements and we can get in more, if required.

 

[DanielR]

Thanks atanu, I think I get it now

 

[mohinishaktidevi]

that is not Jnana.
Jnana i s not equal to the knowledge of the intellectual faculty.
Jnana develops through meditation -- in silence)

This appears wholely incorrect. The very basic definition of jnana is the intellectual falculty.

You are describing a state of consciousness.

I am simply referencing the Gita's catagory of Topics.

I guess you can simply clear up the meaning by quoting scripture please.

 

[Vinayaka]

But that is not Jnana, I am afraid. Jnana i s knowledge of Atman and that is not equal to the knowledge of the intellectual faculty. Jnana develops through meditation -- in silence of tongue and mind.

This is absolutely correct. Thank you. The intellect is the barrier to real jnana and its really too bad that people get their noses so stuck in books that they forget o breathe, or look for inner knowledge. Not than books are bad.

Take Ramana Maharshi, for instance one of the world's renowned jnanis by anyone's standards. Was he a translator? No. Did he speak wisdom he had found inside himself. Yes. Absolutely. I really wonder where all this confusion came from.

 

[Vinayaka]

Have not most expert jnana yogis start with the Gita's outline of subjects?

Indeed not. The Upanishads, maybe.

 

[mohinishaktidevi]

This is absolutely correct. Thank you.

Post 32 quotes Wiki.

So here is what wiki says:
Jñāna or gñāna (/dʒəˈnɑːnə/,[1] Sanskrit; Pali: ñāṇa) is a Sanskrit word that means knowledge.

Jnana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jñāna yoga (Devanāgarī: ज्ञान योग; the pronunciation can be approximated by jnyaana yoga") or "path of knowledge"[1] is one of the types of yoga mentioned in Hindu philosophies. Jñāna in Sanskrit means "knowledge".

Jnana yoga - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I really wonder where all this confusion came from.

Which?

Is Knowledge seperate from Intelligence? Buddhi in sanskrit means Intelligence.

 

[Vinayaka]

Knowledge = knowing "You have to know the Self by yourself." The day that some guy in the Himalayas collects books in his cave ... well? So I believe this misunderstanding is about what knowldege is, and where it comes from. There are basically two kinds ... experiential ... which starts at getting 'hot' from burning yourself, and continues into deeper and deeper topics through meditation and/or bhakti, keen observation, intuition, and other non-intellectual processes, until the ultimate goal of Hinduism is reached, merger with God. It really has nothing to do with the intellect. Bhakti and meditation are not intellectual pursuits.

Yes, indeed we do have a place in Hinduism for scholars. But they are scholars, not saints, not Self-Realised beings who can speak the truth because they know it, but because they've learned how to regurgitate someone else's discoveries, and often actually do it by direct quoting, BTW, further proving the point.

"Let's see. What do the scriptures say?" How many times have you heard that?

From the wiki page .... " It has various nuances of meaning depending on the context, and is used in a number of different Indian religions. The idea of jnana centers around a cognitive event which is recognized when experienced "

But I'm not really here to get into some argument. That's an intellectual thing on it's own. Suffice it to say that within the broad spectrum of what we call Hinduism today, there are two very distinct ideas on what Jnana (knowledge) is, and they don't really meet very well, because the operational base is at a different place. One is in the intellect of the brain, and the other is in the Lotus of the heart.

Aum Namasivaya

 

[mohinishaktidevi]

I have known it this way, there is knowledge and there is Realized knowledge.

Here is the entries I have in my personal sanskrit dictionary.

Jnana-shakti—the power to distribute transcendental knowledge.

Jnana-kanda—the division of the Vedas dealing with empirical speculation in pursuit of truth; also, such speculation itself; the portions of the Vedas containing knowledge of Brahman, or spirit.

Jnana-marga—the cultivation of knowledge.

Jnana-yoga—the process of approaching the Supreme by the cultivation of knowledge; the predominantly empirical process of linking with the Supreme, which is executed when one is still attached to mental speculation.

Jnana—knowledge. Material jnana does not go beyond the material body. Transcendental jnana discriminates between matter and spirit. Perfect jnana is knowledge of the body, the soul and the Supreme Lord.

Jnani—one who is engaged in the cultivation of knowledge (especially by philosophical speculation). Upon attaining perfection, a jnani surrenders to Krishna.

Jnanagamya—a name for the Supreme Personality of Godhead meaning "He who is understood through knowledge of the Vedas.”

In contrast with,

Vi-jnana—the practical realization of spiritual knowledge.

So this can be used as a reference.

There are basically two kinds ... experiential ... which starts at getting 'hot' from burning yourself, and continues into deeper and deeper topics through meditation and/or bhakti, keen observation, intuition, and other non-intellectual processes, until the ultimate goal of Hinduism is reached, merger with God.

I am stuck quoting my teacher who was a reknown sanskrit scholar.

I was referencing the Gita's prescriptions.

The 3 paths.

Here is something I found on the net.

The Bhagavad Gita extols three major margas or paths of Yoga which help the aspirant frame his personal nature with the highest goal, realization and union with Brahman, or the all-knowing and pervasive consciousness that governs the universe.
Although each path is different, the destination is ultimately the same.
One path is not higher than the other; rather the lessons of each contain its own unique wisdom that provides an integrated and balanced view of one’s relationship to oneself and the higher reality.

These three paths are:
1.KarmaYoga: the path of Selfless Action
2. Bhakti Yoga: the path of Devotion
3. Jnana Yoga: the path of Self Transcending Knowledge

found at
The Bhagavad Gita: 3 Paths of Yoga | Moving Inward

 

[atanu]

Jnana means using the intellectual falculty.
?

But that is not Jnana, I am afraid. Jnana i s knowledge of Atman and that is not equal to the knowledge of the intellectual faculty. Jnana develops through meditation -- in silence of tongue and mind.

This appears wholely incorrect. The very basic definition of jnana is the intellectual falculty.

You are describing a state of consciousness.

And you are not defining Jnana. You are attempting to define Janna yoga, but in a faulty manner.

Janna yoga is enquiry into the nature of existence-self. It involves intellect. But it means transcending the intellect. You can find this too in Gita.