difference between Vishishtadvaita and Shuddhadvaita?

[DanielR]

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!

 

[Sumit]

Both teach Advaitya, both teach unity of jeevatama and Brahman but according to "Advaita" by Shankra "Only jeev is truth and world is illusion and hence jeev is brahm" but according to Vishishtadvaita world is not illusion but a part of Brahm. Hence you can say that Vishishtadvaita do not agree with line "Jagat mithya" from verse Jeev Satyam, jagat mithya...". But rest is same as Advaitya.
However I don't know much about these two. Other members can provide better explanations.

 

[DanielR]

lol thanks sumit what I believe the difference is:

In VA Vishnu is Brahman, he is the body and the souls and matter are his parts, he is the controller.

In Shuddhadvaita Krishna is everything

Krishna is Satcitananda
Souls are Satcit, ananda is obscured
MAtter is Sat only existence with cit and ananda obscured.

Krishna is basically everything, ist that about right?

 

[Sumit]

I am not very much familiar with sects within Hinduism.

 

[DanielR]

okay no problem

 

[Jainarayan]

lol thanks sumit what I believe the difference is:

In VA Vishnu is Brahman, he is the body and the souls and matter are his parts, he is the controller.

Think of Vishishtadvaita as all diversity being parts of one reality. Sparks to a flame; droplets of water to the ocean; sunshine to the sun. There's a difference in quantity, but not quality.

In Shuddhadvaita Krishna is everything

Krishna is Satcitananda
Souls are Satcit, ananda is obscured
MAtter is Sat only existence with cit and ananda obscured.

Krishna is basically everything, ist that about right?

Shuddhadvaita makes the same analogy of the sparks to a flame. Shuddhadvaita is really Krishnaism as far as I can tell. Shuddhadvaita has the same view as Kashmir Shaivism that the soul is Brahman, without maya, and that the world is real. Bhakti is the way to God.

Personally I think the acharyas were simply trying to out-do each other and took each other's philosophies and put their own twists on them. There's not a whole heck of a lot of difference between Shuddhadvaita, Vishishtadvaita and Achintya Bhedābeda when it comes right down to it. I think these were all reactions to Advaita and Dvaita.

For my part, I'm not spending very much time, if any, anymore, on pondering the different philosophies. What will it gain me but a headache? But I'm just a dumb bhakta who is perfectly happy to let God surprise me if and when I reach liberation from samsara. Though I'm not knocking the quest for knowledge, mind you. This is just my view.

Though if you racked me and had pincers ready to pull my fingernails and toenails out, I'd tell you I lean towards Vishishtadvaita, because of the Kashmir Shaivism/Kashmir Vaishnavism view that we, as parts of God, decided to manifest our material world. The world is the embodiment of God, not anything illusory or maya.

 

[DanielR]

I agree, I like Vishnu more than Shiva, I asked on another forum the same question, got an answer from the member Omkara who posts here as well, he told me Shuddhadvaita is similar to KS but only Krishna is worshipped, I like that

Been posting the same question here because I wanted to read more opinions!

Thanks for your input J!

 

[Jainarayan]

You're welcome.

But don't misunderstand, I love Shiva in a different way and for different reasons, and different aspects.

 

[DanielR]

of course, no misunderstanding here

 

[DanielR]

Think of Vishishtadvaita as all diversity being parts of one reality. Sparks to a flame; droplets of water to the ocean; sunshine to the sun. There's a difference in quantity, but not quality.



Shuddhadvaita makes the same analogy of the sparks to a flame. Shuddhadvaita is really Krishnaism as far as I can tell. Shuddhadvaita has the same view as Kashmir Shaivism that the soul is Brahman, without maya, and that the world is real. Bhakti is the way to God.

Personally I think the acharyas were simply trying to out-do each other and took each other's philosophies and put their own twists on them. There's not a whole heck of a lot of difference between Shuddhadvaita, Vishishtadvaita and Achintya Bhedābeda when it comes right down to it. I think these were all reactions to Advaita and Dvaita.

For my part, I'm not spending very much time, if any, anymore, on pondering the different philosophies. What will it gain me but a headache? But I'm just a dumb bhakta who is perfectly happy to let God surprise me if and when I reach liberation from samsara. Though I'm not knocking the quest for knowledge, mind you. This is just my view.

Though if you racked me and had pincers ready to pull my fingernails and toenails out, I'd tell you I lean towards Vishishtadvaita, because of the Kashmir Shaivism/Kashmir Vaishnavism view that we, as parts of God, decided to manifest our material world. The world is the embodiment of God, not anything illusory or maya.

Is it true that in VA Vishnu consists of souls, which are his soul and matter which is his body, and the whole (Vishnu) is Brahman?

And what do you mean with this exactly?

..because of the Kashmir Shaivism/Kashmir Vaishnavism view that we, as parts of God, decided to manifest our material world.

sorry for asking I'm trying to get something out of the Wiki articles on VA, I don't understand a lot, lol

Thx

 

[Jainarayan]

Is it true that in VA Vishnu consists of souls, which are his soul and matter which is his body, and the whole (Vishnu) is Brahman?

Pretty much my understanding... again, the sun/sunshine, fire/heat analogy. Sunshine cannot exist without the sun, but the sun gives off sunshine because that's what it does. Mind-bender, huh? That's why I'm not thinking about it much anymore.

And what do you mean with this exactly?

This part?:
..because of the Kashmir Shaivism/Kashmir Vaishnavism view that we, as parts of God, decided to manifest our material world.

Creation is God's sport or play, leela, and as God ourselves, we participate in this leela. I think almost all the schools pretty much agree on that point. But I'm no expert... these are things I've gleaned from readings here and there.

 

[DanielR]

Isn't another difference that in Vishishtadvaita souls remain their identity? and in Shuddhadvaita they merge back into Krishna?

 

[DanielR]

Pretty much my understanding... again, the sun/sunshine, fire/heat analogy. Sunshine cannot exist without the sun, but the sun gives off sunshine because that's what it does. Mind-bender, huh? That's why I'm not thinking about it much anymore.



This part?:
..because of the Kashmir Shaivism/Kashmir Vaishnavism view that we, as parts of God, decided to manifest our material world.

Creation is God's sport or play, leela, and as God ourselves, we participate in this leela. I think almost all the schools pretty much agree on that point. But I'm no expert... these are things I've gleaned from readings here and there.

okay thanks

 

[Jainarayan]

Isn't another difference that in Vishishtadvaita souls remain their identity?

I think that's Dvaita. Vishishtadvaita is non-dualism.

 

[DanielR]

that's so weird because in the VA article on wiki it says this

Ethics

Souls and Matter are only the body of God. Creation is a real act of God. It is the expansion of intelligence. Matter is fundamentally real and undergoes real revelation. The Soul is a higher mode than Matter, because it is conscious. It is also eternally real and eternally distinct. Final release, that comes, by the Lord's Grace, after the death of the body is a Communion with God. This philosophy believes in liberation through one's Karmas (actions) in accordance with the Vedas, the Varna (caste or class) system and the four Ashramas (stages of life), along with intense devotion to Vishnu. Individual Souls retain their separate identities even after moksha. They live in Fellowship with God either serving Him or meditating on Him. The philosophy of this school is SriVaishnavism, a branch of Vaishnavism.

Edit: okay that's actually SriVaishnavism, why was this posted in the VA page on wiki

Edit again : Sri Vaishnavism is a sub-denomination of Vaishnavism and a philosophical system of thought culminating in the philosophy of Visishtadvaita espoused by Ramanujacharya.

 

[Vinayaka]

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.

 

[Jainarayan]

You know, I would rather read one-liners from Sri Ramakrishna or Ramana Maharshi, or Paramahansa Yogananda, or whoever, than a tome on Vedanta. I had, operative word "had", a book by Swami Sivananda, called First Lessons in Vedanta. It's now in the Monmouth County Public Library. My eyes glazed over on the second page.

 

[Gaura Priya]

Isn't another difference that in Vishishtadvaita souls remain their identity? and in Shuddhadvaita they merge back into Krishna?

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.

 

[Gaura Priya]

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!

To be honest, most, if not all the Vaishnava philosophies are more or less the same: The idea that there is one God - Vishnu-Krishna-Rama, whichever aspect you are attracted to, and that we are all devotees, bhaktas, or servants of Him.

Vishnu is both saguna, and nirguna (that is, He is full of transcendental qualities, and He is absent in material, or human qualities). However, unlike most of Hinduism, Vaishnavas emphasise His personality, His saguna form, and that worshipping Him alone can bring one absolute bliss in bhakti.

That loving devotion, or prema-bhakti, is the fruit of the Vaishnava, and to be in the Presence of Sri Vishnu in this life and in the next is the greatest aspiration. All of these philosophies merely delineate the finer and subtler points of that intricate love for the Lord, and they only differ because taste and affection differs for every living being.

Om tad vishno paramam padam
sada pashyanti suraya
diviva chakshur atatam

Or as my shiksha guru would translate it as: "The divine feet of our holy Lord are like the sun above our heads. His holy feet are like the vigilant eye of a grand guardian hanging over our heads like the sun, and we are living beneath the glance of that vigilant eye." (Srila Sridhar Maharaj)

Haribol!

 

[DanielR]

Thank you