Differences between Advaita and Visista-Advaita

[kalyan]

A - Brahman is attribute-less(Nirguna)
V- Brahman has infinite auspicious attributes (Kalyana gunAkara)

A - Maya is a power that creates illusion, world has an empirical reality but not absolute reality, just as in a dream, we feel everything but when we wake up, we realise it is false, that is a small dream, world is a big dream.
V- Maya is a indescribable power that only the supreme brahman knows just like the magician knows the trick but that trick is not known by the others unless they get a hold on magician, ("BG,--Sri Krishna, if you want to get over maya, approach me, you cannot overcome the powerful maya of me, you cannot deconstruct the nest of a weaving bird without damaging, how can you overcome my maya?" )

A- Physical World(Prakriti) and Jivas(souls/atma/jIvatma) are only relatively real and brahman is the only reality. everything has underlying substratum as brahman, when brahman gets reflected in Maya, the sristi or creation happens and the differences like jIva, prakriti(physical insentient world), paramaatma(supreme) starts but the actual reality is jIva is brahman and he can get rid of the karmic bondage by realising the brahman inside everything and through vedic knowledge.
V- Physical World and jivas are as real as brahman and exist along with brahman. They are not one with brahman, everything in the world is composed of 3 entities, for example an insect, it has a jIva inside it, a physical insentient body(prakriti) which jIva controls, and helping jIva to perform tasks lies paramaatma(supreme)...jIva, prakriti and paramaatma are eternal and they exist from time immemorial..

A- Knowledge is the way to salvation or moksham
V-Bhakthi is the way to salvation or moksham

A- Jiva when he gets fully realized through vedic knowledge, he gets merged or one with brahman.
V- jIva when he gets rid of karmic bondage by making each act as service to god, attains mukti and he reaches a place called vaikuntam or paramapadam, there he is given a new divine body which is capable of performing anything and he attains a form equal to that of Maha Vishnu with conch and discus and he remains along with Maha Vishnu enjoying his divine presence and does eternal kainkaryam(service) to god, not to return to this world of sorrows again!

A- Vishnu/nArAyaNa is supreme and is the saguna Brahman
V- Vishnu/nArAyaNa is supreme Brahman with infinite auspicious attributes for helping out the infinite jIvas from this cycles of birth and death.

I will expand on this later..........., this thread is intended to help the beginners like me to understand even better...feel free to post if am missing anything

 

[Ekanta]

This is the easiest way for me:
dvaita (duality): brahman and atman - different substance & separate
visista-advaita (qualified-non-duality): brahman and atman - same substance & separate
advaita (non-duality): brahman and atman - same substance & non-separate

 

[Aupmanyav]

This is the easiest way for me:
dvaita (duality): brahman and atman - different substance & separate
visista-advaita (qualified-non-duality): brahman and atman - same substance & separate
advaita (non-duality): brahman and atman - same substance & non-separate

Nice. The second idea has some sub-divisions (my best effort, corrections acceptable):

Dvaitadvaita (Non-separate but dependent) - Sri Nimbarkacharya
Visistadvaita (Non-separate with conditions) - Sri Ramanujacharya, Sri Vaishnava
Achintya bhedabheda (Indescribable sameness and difference) - Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Hare-Krishnas
Shuddhadvaita (Oneness differentiated by avidya) - Sri Vallabhacharya
Upadhika (One but modified/changed) - Sri Bhaskaracharya (ideology forgotten)

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

Just a clarification:
Tattvavāda (aka dvaita): Jīvas similar to Brahman (both sat-chit-ānanda), but distinct and dependent on (hence not "separate" from) the latter.

[Brahman, ātman, prakṛti, jīva.. etc are all epithets of Nārāyaṇa, applied to other principles accordingly. Brahman is the only self-dependent principle, and jīva(s), prakṛti, etc are fully dependent on Brahman.]

नारायणायेतिसमर्पयामि।

 

[Aupmanyav]

Then, any difference between Sri Madhvacharya and Sri Nimbarkacharya?

 

[Kirran]

Many advaitins would disagree with only jnana yoga being valid (jnana can come through jnana, bhakti, karma or raja yoga), and also with Advaita being Vaisnava. But aside from these quibbles, a nice summary. Thank you kalyan.

 

[kalyan]

I would try to post the arguments.

First argument of Visista-advaita against advaita is 'if one describes Brahman as Nirguna' , then immediately you are attributing nirguNatvam as a quality to brahman and he becomes saguna....when u say or name some object as X, let's say it has X'ly qualities in it...

 

[Aupmanyav]

Perhaps it is not 'nirguna'. Really we do not know its 'gunas'. Science is trying to find them out and what it has found is perplexing -
Distance and speed of light do not matter in 'quantum entanglement'.

 

[Kirran]

Nobody claimed Nirguna Brahman could be named or described. We can mot speak of thatwwhich is beyond description. But we just try to anyway.

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

Then, any difference between Sri Madhvacharya and Sri Nimbarkacharya?

Dvaitādvaita proposes a bhedābheda theory, which is not accepted by Tattvavāda. However, bheda is defined by Śri Nimbārka as 'dependence on brahman' and abheda - identity - 'as lack of independent existence of jīvas', which basically is a rephrasing of Tattvavāda stance. But there are other theological and philosophical differences, which i will omit in the interest of OP, nevertheless influence of Śri Madhva's philosophy and his works on Dvaitādvaita school (as well as later Vaiṣṇava schools who adapted his ideas to varying extents) are undeniable, though not always acknowledged.

नारायणायेतिसमर्पयामि ।

 

[Kirran]

I'd like to request this thread be moved to Same Faith Debates. @StarryNightshade

 

[Aupmanyav]

Nimbarkacharya: Bhandarkar has placed him as a philosopher after Ramanuja and has maintained his demise date as 1162 AD. Some hold that he is dated around 13th Century. However, S.N.Dasgupta dated Nimbarka to around middle of 14th Century. On the other hand, S A A Rizvi assigns the date of Circa 1130–1200 CE. But Jadunath Sinha, has counted him as a 13th-century philosopher, and Tarachand has held him to be a younger contemporary of Ramanuja.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimbarka

Madhvacharya: Born Vasudeva (1238–1317 CE), also known as 'Purna Prajñanananda Tīrtha', was a Hindu philosopher and the chief proponent of the Dvaita school of Vedanta. Madhva himself called his philosophy as "Tattvavada" meaning realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhvacharya

 

[kalyan]

Perhaps it is not 'nirguna'. Really we do not know its 'gunas'. Science is trying to find them out and what it has found is perplexing -
Distance and speed of light do not matter in 'quantum entanglement'.

does not nirguna meaing attribute-less ?

 

[kalyan]

Nobody claimed Nirguna Brahman could be named or described. We can mot speak of thatwwhich is beyond description. But we just try to anyway.

But when Brahman is claimed as nirguna in advaita meaning literally attribute-less, the nirguna becomes an attribute and nirguna brahman turns saguna....

Ramanujaacharya gives in his commentary that nirguna for example in 'Vishnu Sahasranama stotram' that when brahman is said to be nirguna, that it is void of bad attributes and is full of infinite auspicious attributes.....what can be the argument from the advaita side ?

 

[Chakra]

Just a clarification:
Tattvavāda (aka dvaita): Jīvas similar to Brahman (both sat-chit-ānanda), but distinct and dependent on (hence not "separate" from) the latter.

[Brahman, ātman, prakṛti, jīva.. etc are all epithets of Nārāyaṇa, applied to other principles accordingly. Brahman is the only self-dependent principle, and jīva(s), prakṛti, etc are fully dependent on Brahman.]

नारायणायेतिसमर्पयामि।

Yes, I've heard that "distinctiveness" is a better word than "dualism" to describe Sri Madhva's philosophy.

 

[Aupmanyav]

does not nirguna mean attribute-less ?

It does, but terming something that we do not really know as 'nirguna' may not have been correct.

 

[Terese]

I'm pretty sure its human nature to describe the indescribable, because we would have nothing to picture it, or feel it in our minds. we need form, but Brahman does not. It's for our sake to describe Brahman.

 

[Aupmanyav]

And further, if some guna is inherent, natural to the unknown, then the question arises whether it can be termed as something external, a 'guna', or not. For example it may be inherent, natural and eternal for energy to change forms. That is its way, Dao, Ritam, Rhythm.

"The part in black, which is labeled “hard scattering,” is what a theorist would draw. As a test of your Feynman diagram see if you can “read” the following: This diagram represents an electron and positron annihilating into a Z boson, which then decays into a top–anti-top pair. The brown lines also show the subsequent decay of each top into a W and (anti-) bottom quark."
http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2010/12/11/when-feynman-diagrams-fail/

 

[kalyan]

It does, but terming something that we do not really know as 'nirguna' may not have been correct.

Something that we do not know is indescribable or called as anirvachaneeyam...you are confusing 2 terms...brahman Is nirguna as per advaita, this is not about describing brahman but the quality of brahman...am not talking about form of brahman as per advaita but about the attributeless part

 

[Aupmanyav]

Something that we do not know is indescribable or called as anirvachaneeyam .. you are confusing 2 terms...brahman Is nirguna as per advaita, this is not about describing brahman but the quality of brahman ..

Now, as you know I have my own take on 'advaita'. Yes, there are these terms, 'nirguna' (without attributes) and 'anirvachaneeyam' (one that cannot be described by words). Even that which is known could be 'anirvachaneeyam'. These are definitive terms and affirmative. What I am pointing at is 'not fully known' and 'which may be known at a later date'. So, there is a difference. I affirm nothing but I am hopeful that the puzzle will be solved.