For Hindus: Let's discuss our faith! (or lack of it :p )

[AlokaParyetra]

Really, i would like to discuss some differences between the many schools of thought.

First there are the religious schools:
1) Vedanta (based on the Upanishads)
2) Nyaya (belief that pure knowledge was the key to eternal bliss)
3) Vaisesika (atomism, with the belief that each atom is controlled by a higher power)
4) Purva Mimamsa (another knowledge-based school)
And others i don't know of.

Then there are several schools within Vedanta:
1) Advaita (Monist)
2) Dvaita (Dualist)
3) VashistAdvaita (Conditionally Monist)

And finally the atheistic schools:
1) Lokayana

I am an Advaitist (Monist), and I know that Ramanuja had some issues with the subject. He claimed that there were several flaws within the Advaita philosophy.

What were these flaws? I'm not trying to be defensive or anything, i'm just curious, and i want to know whether i am what i am because i actually believe it or not.

So, what were the conditions that Ramanuja used for his conditional advaitism?

[The Fish]

I am an Advaitist (Monist), and I know that Ramanuja had some issues with the subject. He claimed that there were several flaws within the Advaita philosophy.

What were these flaws? I'm not trying to be defensive or anything, i'm just curious, and i want to know whether i am what i am because i actually believe it or not.

So, what were the conditions that Ramanuja used for his conditional advaitism?

Hi Aloka,
Ramanuja saw the fundamental flaws of Advaita as resting mainly with the idea of Avidya (ignorance, or more correctly non-Knowledge). He came up with seven major issues that he felt required revision within the advaita philosophy.

1) The nature of avidya: Ramanuja asserted that the central advaita argument, namely that the perception of qualities within Brahman or the material universe is a result of spiritual ignorance, is a logical contradiction. If avidya represents a reality, then it is a quality of the universe and/or Brahman, and thus non-dualism collapses. If it is not real, then it is a self-contradiction; how can we be ignorant if ignorance does not exist?

2) The advaita response is that avidya is neither real nor unreal, but rather anirvacaniya, or incomprehensible. But Ramanuja rejects this as well, since this contradicts experience; all perception/cognition is either real or not, if we accept a third possibility, then all cognition collapses.

3) In advaita, ignorance is not so much a lack of knowledge as it is an active nescience. It is seen as an obscuring layer, and as such is not simply passive, but is an active obscuring force. Ramanuja rejects this as not jibing with either perception, inference, or scriptural evidence.

4) Who exactly possesses avidya? This, for me, is the most convincing logical argument that Ramanuja makes (perhaps its the one that is easiest for my feeble mind to grasp ). If the universe is manifest due to ignorance, who exactly is ignorant? If it is Brahman, then it not only defies the idea of a Nirguna (attributeless) Brahman, but it also is not compatible with an entity that possesses a perfect nature. If it is the jivatma, then we have a vicious circle; the very existence of the jivatma is false, and predicated on ignorance, so how can something that is false possess ignorance?

5) The concomitant claims within advaita that avidya both actively obscures Brahman, and that Brahman is pure consciousness, were seen by Ramanuja as contradictory. For avidya to obscure Brahman, and given that nothing else exists but Brahman, it would require avidya to precede this conciousness (which is impossible given the eternal nature of Brahman), or to destroy it (which is just as absurd).

6) Ramanuja rejected the entire idea of Nirguana Brahman (and thus the final goal of Bramha-vidya being the realization of an undifferentiated entity). He posited that everything that exists has qualities, and thus Brahman, rather than being devoid of them, is instead the repository of all kalayana gunas (desirable/superlative attributes).

7) In advaita, release from samsara requires the knowledge of Bramha-vidya, which destroys maya and avidya and reveals the truth. Ramanuja again rejects this as contradictory. What exactly is this knowledge that imparts liberation? If it is real then, once again, it represents a real attribute of the universe, in which case non-dualism again collapses into dualism.

In addition to these, Ramanuja disputed a number of Sankara's interpretations of passages from the Upanishads and other sources; while he had nothing but respect for Sankara (indeed, his education was a solidly advaita one), he felt that Sankara did not properly take context into account in interpreting certain passages.

I'm a Vishishtadvaitin, but very, very, very far from a fully-informed one. Please ask questions/make comments, but be aware that my answers (when I have them) may be quite incomplete.

As an aside, can we have this thread merged with the Hinduism thread? Just to keep everything together in one place...

[Pra]

1) Vedanta (based on the Upanishads)
2) Nyaya (belief that pure knowledge was the key to eternal bliss)
3) Vaisesika (atomism, with the belief that each atom is controlled by a higher power)
4) Purva Mimamsa (another knowledge-based school)
And others i don't know of.

I have a question on this. Is thies at all similar to the Yogic Schools of thought? Specifically I know there is a Bhakti Yoga (or I've heard it in passing with various people,) which believes that moksha is achieved through total love and devotion to God. Do you know any thing about this?

[The Fish]

I have a question on this. Is thies at all similar to the Yogic Schools of thought? Specifically I know there is a Bhakti Yoga (or I've heard it in passing with various people,) which believes that moksha is achieved through total love and devotion to God. Do you know any thing about this?

Pra,
It's a bit confusing, because there is a school called Yoga within the 6 major philosophical schools of Hinduism (the others being Vedanta, Purva Mimamsa, Samkhya, Vaisesika, and Nyaya). This school is more correctly known as Raja, or Ashtanga Yoga, and it contains 8 arms, including the physical yoga that is practiced so widely these days. The more general word yoga (meaning "yoke") is applied to specific acts, mainly those enumerated in the Bhagavad Gita. Bhakti yoga, then, is not a philosophical school, but rather a set of actions or mindset that can lead to moksha. Of course, even in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna explains that taking the path of Bhakti yoga is extremely difficult, since constant meditation and devotion is basically impossible. Hence the idea of Saranagati (spiritual surrender) gains credence, and is the basis of probably the most famous Gita line (sarva dharman parityajya/ maam ekam saranam vraja/ aham tvam sarva paapebhyo/ moksha ishyaami maasucha: ).

So to answer your question , no, Bhakti yoga is not (directly) related to the Yoga schools of philosophy.

[Pra]

Oh ok I see. Another question I had was concerning Vedas. My father told me this a while back, but I don't remember it as correctly.

I know that the Vedas were supposed to be passed down by word of mouth from Brahmin to Brahmin. (The Sandya Vandanam is related to this right?)
Do you perhaps know of the different groups of Brahmins that passed down the different parts? I think I'm supposed to know/pass down the Sama Veda, which I believe are supposed to be the hymns related to the Veda. I know there is a group of Brahmins that passes down the Rig Veda, if I'm not mistaken. Could you elaborate on this if you know more?

[The Fish]

Oh ok I see. Another question I had was concerning Vedas. My father told me this a while back, but I don't remember it as correctly.

I know that the Vedas were supposed to be passed down by word of mouth from Brahmin to Brahmin. (The Sandya Vandanam is related to this right?)
Do you perhaps know of the different groups of Brahmins that passed down the different parts? I think I'm supposed to know/pass down the Sama Veda, which I believe are supposed to be the hymns related to the Veda. I know there is a group of Brahmins that passes down the Rig Veda, if I'm not mistaken. Could you elaborate on this if you know more?

Well, first off, regarding Sandhya Vandanam: this is not directly related to the propagation of the Vedas per se, but it instead an essential duty of all Brahmins to perform for the sake of creating the proper, disciplined mindset within which Vedic study/contemplation/teaching can occur. The Gayatri mantra (which is the central mantra of Sandhya) is essentially a prayer for this mindset. Vedic knowledge without Sandhya Vandanam, then, is not only counterproductive, but actually insulting to the most revered sruti texts.
Regarding who passes on what, the story goes that Veda Vyasa, when he first codified the Vedas into their four parts, taught each one to four disciples, and asked them to continue passing on what they had learned. This has continued on down through the millenia, such that today, there are Brahmin families that (ostensibly, anyway) learn certain Vedas. My family is in the Yajur Veda line, my maternal grandfather learned the Sama Veda, my brother-in-law's family is in the Rig Veda line. As far as I know, there isn't any real pattern of which groups of Brahmins learn which Veda, it just has to do with the guru-sishya lines that started hundreds (if not thousands) of years ago. I know, especially among North Indians, the surnames Dwivedi, Trivedi, and Chaturvedi imply that someone in that family, at some time, learned two, three, or four of the Vedas, respectively. I'm not sure exactly how that fits in with other traditions, though.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and regarding the Sama Veda, it's mainly Rig Veda hymns set to a more musical style (the Sama veda is purported to be the progenitor of all Indian classical music styles). It's truly awesome to hear; it's a shame that more people don't know it.