Want to support our work? Make a donation here: ko-fi.com/ochs... A talk by Dr Ramesh Pattni of the Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies ochsonline.org/ ochs.org.uk/
@Anonymous alien The possibility of avidya in pure knowledge appears to be low (advaita). The idea of limited beings and the divine having almost no unity also appears to be improbable (considering that God is all that there is and is also the reason behind the existence of the universe). Furthermore, the idea that some souls are eternally damned to suffer due to their inherent flaws seems to be a problematic one (dvaita). Ramanujacharya's philosophy preserves unity whilst also upholding plurality (vishishtadvaita). I believe that all three thinkers and spiritual leaders deserve respect. May people find the good they deserve! 🙏🇮🇳☮️☮️
To directly reach the subject of this talk, go to 36:50 (until 1:14:20). Before that, Mr. Ramesh Pattni recalls what the 6 darshanas are and other basic notions, then tells us various legendary stories about the life of Shankaracharya (in which Mr. Pattni seems to believe). At 1:19:45, a very relevant question.
Thank you Sir for such a succinct, comprehensive presentation on the three systems of thought. It really helped me understand the crux of their teachings and the differences between each school of thought.
The real value will accrue with the Vedanta philosophy if you practise Yoga Meditation ...it activates the higher brain.Humans have the lower brain also like the animals which is instinctive in nature for it's survival only but you have a cerebral cortex which is higher and can be improved by practising morning meditation non stop!
So many of my questions have been answered here. There is so much I dont know, but I venture forth with much needed clarity. My sincerest of thanks! 😊🙏🏻☀️
In Question & Answer section, that old guy doesn't know about anything !!! He said that Sankara Philosophy is correct and said that GyanaYog is only way of liberation then he totally misunderstood the Bhagvad Gita! Karma Yog and Bhakti yoga is bondage for liberation, Lol, he ever read the Bhagvad Gita,??? To liberate yourself through Karma Yoga read Chapter 2 Sloka 47 BG 2.47: You have a right to perform your prescribed duties, but you are not entitled to the fruits of your actions. Never consider yourself to be the cause of the results of your activities, nor be attached to inaction. The higher form of the Yoga in Bhagvad Gita and Scriptures is Bhakti Yoga from Chapter 12 Sloka 1 & 2 Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 12 - Verse 1 Arjuna said: Who is best situated in yoga - those who constantly glorify You or those who are situated in Your impersonal, imperishable aspect? Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 12 - Verse 2 Bhagavan Shri Krishna replied: Those who fix their minds upon Me, who constantly devoted Me and possess great faith - I consider them to be most perfect. But even the higher form yoga is in chapter 18 , 66 as in Visisthadvaita sri Ramanujacharya explained Prapati(Liberation) Yoga BG 18.66: Abandon all varieties of dharmas and simply surrender unto me alone. I shall liberate you from all sinful reactions; do not fear. if you strictly follow Karmayog then and then you can achieve GyanYog and if you strictly follow GyanYog then and then you can achieve Bhaktiyog, But Prapati Yog can easily achieved, So, that's in the last chapter of Bhagvad Gita lord said as I mentioned before , chapter 18 ,66 BG 18.66: Abandon all varieties of dharmas and simply surrender unto me alone. I shall liberate you from all sinful reactions; do not fear. Try to understand Bhagvad Gita, Don't blindly follow anyone, we rarely get human form and we waste it without understand it. The most Powerful knowledge is with in us , its in Bhagvad Gita, Read it understand it and get liberation! Jai Shree Krishna. :)
Luis Solance great explanation brother, you mentioned that by not attaching to your actions gives mukti(liberation). 1. it is correct perhaps,but no human is born with a knowledge of karma yoga and he would have done certain karma for the fruit before he came to know about karma yoga. now because of this action he has done before following the karma path he will get certain results and he might have take another birth to experience the result. thus not leading to moksha. 2. true devotion to God gives liberation,right.but karma does not allow you to get liberation unless you have cleared all your past actions. so in order to get liberation we have to get rid of karma. which is possible only through the gyana. lord Krishna himself has said that self knowledge clears not only our past actions but also our present actions won't bear fruits. but gyana won't acquire easily so we have to perform karma and with devotion,which will later give us the knowledge. Krishna has told in gita that by surrendering to him is the righteous act and takes us to liberation, which we can assume that later the lord might grant self knowledge which turns to moksha. (nahi gyanena sadrusham~nothing is equivalent to knowledge). karma+ devotion=knowledge=liberation krishnarpanamastu🙏
Luis Solance great explanation brother, you mentioned that by not attaching to your actions gives mukti(liberation). 1. it is correct perhaps,but no human is born with a knowledge of karma yoga and he would have done certain karma for the fruit before he came to know about karma yoga. now because of this action he has done before following the karma path he will get certain results and he might have take another birth to experience the result. thus not leading to moksha. 2. true devotion to God gives liberation,right.but karma does not allow you to get liberation unless you have cleared all your past actions. so in order to get liberation we have to get rid of karma. which is possible only through the gyana. lord Krishna himself has said that self knowledge clears not only our past actions but also our present actions won't bear fruits. but gyana won't acquire easily so we have to perform karma and with devotion,which will later give us the knowledge. Krishna has told in gita that by surrendering to him is the righteous act and takes us to liberation, which we can assume that later the lord might grant self knowledge which turns to moksha. (nahi gyanena sadrusham~nothing is equivalent to knowledge). karma+ devotion=knowledge=liberation krishnarpanamastu🙏
Karthikeya You are right brother but , if the devote of lord do bhakti yoga (Not only sentimental , by means of bhakti yoga which is described in chapter 12) ,so it is but obvious he has knowledge (gyan) about Krishna (Supreme Brahman) in other word then and then he is doing bhakti towards supreme! So all three is equivalent for getting liberation, if we have only gyan or knowledge about supreme although we will get liberation but it is worthless for Devotees, because devotees want to enjoy with lord Krishna (supreme Brahman) For Devotees only devoted service is worthy, They don't want liberation they just want service of lord or service of Lord's servant. They think all karma / Gyan / Bhakti are useless if we don't do for lord Krishna/Narayan. Those Who want only liberation for them Gyan Yog is highest or in other word favourite. But Those who want enjoy with lord for them only lord narayan's louts feet is important and do bhakti .. Nothing is important than Lord Krishna even Karma/Gyana, only Lord is highest Goal and his service !!! Jay shree Krishna :)
Yes what I feel is all the three acharyas are right in their own way. And all of them have got divine blessings from God as we can see in their biography.so respect for everyone🙌🙏 May the Lord give us knowledge/ righteous karma/ bhakti
How beautifully Sir U have explained de 3 angles of outlook, purviews. i just luv & accept them all 3..! ❤ ! According 2 de temperament of de seeker she enjoys & her level of maturity & stage of evolution ; All 3 can be true in de infinite scope of Divine Providence, & why Not. . . . As said Krsna in Gita the highest category of a true devotee does not seek de highest or lower levels of de divine entity. The pure joy of Union & de non self experience d thru' complete self Surrender is ecstacy enuf allowing de divine to play & use this soul as it wishes 🎉
@01:10:40, he says in Dvaita Lord is unknowable. That is quite wrong. Dvaita says Lord is jnEya (knowable), but you cannot fully know the Lord Meaning your knowledge cannot fully exhaust Brahaman's mejesty (aishwarya).
Thank you for this beautiful explanation of Advaita Vedanta. It seems the only explanation of our place in all things however I ascribe to the school of no duality. How good fortune shines on us to learn this way of understanding. Thank you all involved in sharing this talk.
Among All 3 Acharya's Only Acharya Madhva who gave the correct Interpretation To Veda, Upanishad's and Geetha. According to Lord Shree Krushna & Acharya Madhva......Karma without Gnaana is of No use and In the Same way Gnana without Karma is also of no use....Gnaana & Karma both should go hand in hand....and Regarding Mukti it's on one's Purva Karma and Sadhana leads to Moksha and its Purely Individual and there is no Gender Biased In this Process also Once Getting Moksha Means To be with Lord Vishnu with Eternal Knowledge & Bliss...it's not that we Become Vishnu in Moksha...Acharya Madhva's Explanation is Very Simple and Straight....and Acharya Madhva Brings us to the Real Experience...Only Acharya Madhva's Siddantha is Apt...
If you like it just follow it . Do not criticise other beliefs . All interpretations represent the respective realisations of the Acharyas . The followers of other Acharyas are no less intelligent to follow them . Do not remember that devotion to God or Paramatman ( whom Ramanujacharya and Maddhavacharya call Vishnu or Narayana etc) is the only object .
@@mahendrarao6256Don't try to hide under a facade that you weren't dissing any philosophy. You did say that Madhwacharya's interpretation is the apt one. How did you know? Have you studied all the three vedanta philosophy in detail?
Wow that was excellent I needed to find somewhere to find a comparison and you did an excellent job. I wish we had time to go into the other three so I could see the differences in iskcon. If anyone knows if he shot a second video with the additional three if you could post that would be great
Appreciate the hard work people like Dr Ramesh Pattni do, and my great wishes to him and others. Just wanted to point out one contradiction, which seems to be taken as norm. When we are talking about Vedas, and on top of that Sutra literature, we miss the elephant in the room - metre. As most of us know that metre is one of the major component of whole Vedic (and other Indian) literature. Surprise is that we simply ignore that when explaining. What is the meeting of the word - Darshanaa? What Yogaa means? Where do you find the work - Vivekaa in Vedic literature? It is important that we let people understand us, but let not the people who cannot pronounce, dictate the terms. and, that which cannot be translated, should not be translated.
@@souvickch meter is called "chandah" in sanskrit, and you can read about it online, some meters include gayatri chandah, anushtubh chandah etc. (most of Bhagavad Gita is in Anushtubh) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_meter
We should respect all Acharya's philosophies. We are not here to judge all that saints for their immense knowledge. You can choose any path you wish. The only goal is God realization.
@@radhikaschwartz3499 Funny.... Comment 😂 Come out of all Biased Opinions on any Religions and Have a Inner Sight to any of the Religion and then Analyze.
@ Murali Krishna Kamath..., Why Should Respect should come in the way...? If anyone don't agree to any one of the Acharya how do you say it's disrespect....? For Example your given 3 Girls to see and Marry will say you will. Marry all the 3 just becoz you don't want to disappoint any of the girls......? 😂🤣.... So be Practical my friend..... Only one can be correct not all 3 can be correct.... don't be Oxymoron and get in to Delusion state of mind.
@@mahendrarao6256 no. Light will behave as particle in one experiment and as wave in Young's double slit experiment. Which one is the actual nature of light? Both. The ultimate reality is perceived differently by different paths.
@@VinodKumar-oh9du No philosophy is real philosophy if it is impractical and contrary to perception, perception is through which you lay foundation for your philosophy. Advait is pure speculative philosophy which is criticised best by Emanuel Kant. Please read and see why it fails.
@@theologyrationality6556 this Isn't entirely true. Philosophy can be whatever it wants. It is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. It can be contrary to perception when it is a philosophy that questions perception. You can't just bog philosophy down to what you consider it to be because you don't understand enough or inspired to think enough about how and why you perceive reality as separate from brahaman
This is very well done. The potential parallels to western philosophy is very interesting. I know the comparisons are not exact, how could they be, but it seems reasonable to compare Shankara to absolute idealism/Hegel/schilling, Ramanuja to a qualified Kantian-idealism, and Madhava to Plato/Aristotle’s realistic-dualism. But these comparisons focus mostly on ontology of monism (pantheism), qualified monism (panentheism), and dualistic-realism (classical theism), they do not fit the differences regarding personality in the divine/archetypes. In the west, the issue of personality in the archetypes takes place in the context of Christian theism which took up or modified the platonic/Aristotelian system. The struggle between an impersonal God with monistic attributes and a personal one is a debate carried on between John Duns Scotus and Thomas Aquinas and others. It exists within Christian theology and philosophy to this day between Aquinas and his adherents, Karl Barth, Richard Swinburne, and Alvin Plantinga, among others. So fascinating.
If we consider ourselves as instrument of God our actions will not bind us in karmic reactions. If there is a conscious eternal existence we can attain enlightenment through pure, disciplined, selfless actions.
He says we do not know when was Vedas were revealed. He is quite wrong in his assessment. Tradition doesn't holds Vedas are unknown origins, but holds they are unauthrored positively. Unknown author is quite different from known to be unauthrored. Tradition holds later position.
The speaker is a trustee of Chinmaya Mission which is popularly known to spread Advaita philosophy. Any such person will never be able to provide an objective & unbiased study or presentation of the topic being presented here in this video. If at all one will clearly see through biases in responses to questions pertaining to the interlock of the three schools of though. Rather what is feasible is to hear about the respective theories from their mother schools and then arrive at your insights!
Hello. Haven't seen the video yet, so don't know if I agree about the speaker not being unbiased, but do you know similar expositions about the different interpretations that I can watch here on RU-vid? As a complement of reading the texts. Thanks.
SidneyBloom Hi, I am not aware of any objective discussions on you tube. Like I mentioned rather than listening to anybody, one should initiate primary study of these philosophies and then arrive at own conclusion. Of course assumption is that the intent of undertaking such study is to answer self than seeking to align with anybody...
Ram rao You are very much true in many sense, they are preoccupied with what they want to convey finally,but in between they explain in such a way that the ordinary listner is bound to follow the agenda. It is not clearly a brief introduction,in books also some historians writes so much about the philosophy in which they believe and for the sake of accomplishing the title of books like "History of indian vedanta"...etc,,they just give 3 to 7 pages introduction to other philosophers,it can be seen by many authors both western historians and indian biased historians.
I see comments saying this Vedantha is correct and this is not?? But the fact is we as individuals even after knowing which is right still does not make us completely understand everything about it.So understanding everything about it or not understanding is same as the fact that we still know nothing... How much ever you come to know about it it's never an end and that is knowledge and that is god...When you keep on getting to know God it's infinite it's still lesser and lesser.
We strive for ultimate and perfect bliss so if we become one with that supreme lord then who experiences that bliss? "I" or a God? because as per adwaita you loses your identity or individuality in Moksha. and Moksha is Chidanand or something so Tha "Ananad" means Bliss should be there in me if I am a Brahman itself. and if after i get the knowledge that he is not different from me and I loses my individuality then who experiences that bliss??
Vadiraj Limaye we know that bramhan is satchidananda .as the word itself states that he is ananda , loosing your identity in him makes you ananda itself. and the soul is always blissful but covered by maya. so it is not able to enjoy bliss.
Great explanation! And the greatest teacher of the reality ,who lived in the modern times was Sri Ramana Maharshi. please read his works "who am I ,Reality in forty verses"
When will people stop speculating and hear from authorities coming down in an authorized disciplic line. Such a waste of time hearing to such concocted understandings. The madhva sampradaya is scientific, experiential and a dynamic process of transformation of the heart. Such a transformation is being experienced everyday by those who sincerely practice it.
@@riffraff8020 Madhvacarya is coming in the authorised discipline line originating from God (Krsna) Himself. There are 4 authorised samoradayas/ institutions which are qualified to speak about God and their students are properly trained in the process of connecting to God which is also given by God. The process and message is not distorted/interpreted/diluted by their followers. They alone are qualified to speak on subject matters of God.
The representation of Dvaita Vedanta is basically erroneous. This speaker failed to say that reality are of 2 kinds. Independent (this much he said) but failed to say second kind of reality which is DEPENDENT on the first kind. That's why it is called duality. So when this speaker says "in Dvaita creation is totally independent", that is diametrically opposite to what Dvaita says. There are many such errors.
The presenter doesn't seem to know the correct name of the founder of the third phylosophy, the so called 'Dwaitha'. Correct name is Madhvacharya, and NOT 'Madhavacharya'. The name in the Presenter's pronunciation and even in Slides is spelt wrong. Request him correct this in future.
whether he pronounced the name of the third and third ranked philosopher as Madhavacharya or should have pronounced as Madhvacharya, this Madhvacharya's philosophy is that of an Yadhvacharya. He should have been expelled by his own school of thought before his foolish sapling became a big tree to distribute poisonous fruits as he himself argued with the Guru which is an highly derogatory act and when he taught the act of rebelling against the Guru, does it not go to say that future course would take his path and the disciples, instead of following the discourses and paths of Gurus, start to wage war first against their own Gurus and begin to start their philosophies and of-course, the present day politicians must have been the offspring of this man as they are perfectly following his philosophy and like CBN who challenged his own master NTR, and today, RRR who has been continuously challenging his feeder, the next generation politicians/unwanted philosophers shall follow these courses and lead the entire nature source and cause of philosophy to shambles if not dogs. And that could be reason why the earnest, humble, noble and approachable and practicable and practicable philosophy of Sankara Bhagavathpad has been living and would live and flourish till the last leaf does not dry on this pious earth planet.
@@jagannatharaojonnalagadda1928 Your arguments are stupid ! Sankara himself disagrees with Gaudapada ..so shut your mouth and kero chanting Aham Brahmaassmi
The only goal of mumukshu is the liberation. and many have attained the liberation in all these 3 tatva sidhanta... Hence all 3 are apt for those who follow. Hence who want liberation can following anyone among these 3 tatva siddnata. Hence all 3 are apt for those who follow.
So sir, before adi sankaracharya, what was the original school of thought of vedanta. What school of thought did rishi vyasa, visvamitra, vasistha follow, just to name a few?
Thanks sir for presenting faces of Vedanta with such clarity.I am around the :47 min point in the lecture where the postulation of advaita is presented - phenomenal world being superimposed on the ultimate reality citing the faces and the plant / flowers /birds .Now birds are real so we can use them to make an analogy but why is the world considered unreal when it is used to aid the logic of advaita?
Thank you sir for lucidly explaining the tri-Darshanas . Wish madvacharya was born first, Ramanujacharya succeeding him and Shankaracharya being the last, because then it would have been a natural progression . Shankara ‘s reasonings look the ultimate.
Shri Madwacharya Siddanta is final no other siddanta has come after him and it full aggrement with Veda upanishad & Bhagavt geeta if you say all are corret then it will be Sapta Bangi nyaya of Jainism
OMG, this speaker doesn't even know correct name of founder of Dvaita vedanta. @21:00 in the first slide showing three founders, he misspelled name of Davita founder as "Madhava" . It should be "Madhva". The scholarship of this speaker is much to be deserved!
Every thing came from VEDAS. The first one is RIG VEDA. Go to each line from start to end, you can see in it all the Science and history etc that we studies in any University. In it you can see the structure of atom, method of manufacture of rocket, Structure of Universe etc etc EVERY THING. All of the Nobel prizes given were for those subjects that is in Vedas. Even Sancharacharya failed to reveal such a science subject from Veda. Veda as such is difficult for common man to understand. So they wrote it in story forms in Puranas. The science terms in VEDAS become character in Purana stories. We are now following those stories as such. First understand the fact that these are stories for common man. Not for thinkers to take it as such. That is why such characters are not in VEDAS except a few. I wrote 12 books name Kaliyugapurana which explains Veda Puranopanished mostly on the basis of modern science. It is not possible for a single man to reveal such things to the public. REMEMBER, We are behind the characters of Purana stories. NO ONE IS USING A SINGLE LINE FROM RIG VEDA. YOU are going behind SMRITHIS, and thinks that they are SMRITHIS. It is a fact that SNRITHIS are now far far away from SMRITHIS. Example 1.Yajurved 26/2. All including Sudra and any one below it should Study and teach Veda.[Against SMRITHI} 2.RIG VED 10-18/8,9 Instructs WIDOW to take the sword from her husbend's dead body and go to the society to protect her family. [Against smrithi...SATHI] 3.Yajur veda 11/61 women should study and become brave. Smriti against women education] 4. Jambala darshanopanished, ESWAR is in our body. Illiterate try to sees ESWAR in stones, YAGNA, THEERTHA[ sacred places] etc. 5. Sanyasopanished. those who discards family, sacred thread, worldly life etc are sanyasis. Throw dress in water and go to north as naked. [ like son of Vyas] Handful of food only from one or two houses. Not tell name, Gotra, Vedic knowledge, etc to others. No charity work, no talk with others etc etc... only lonely life. It is sanayasi. What he talks about self realization etc can be seen in VEDAS only in a few lines . Less than 1%.
@14:20 or so, this speaker says all Darshanas "assume" the transcadental reality. This is true only Advaita ( they divide this reality into two). But Dvaita philosophy does divide the reality into two, nor assumes. It is established from validity of Agama pramana. By saying "they assume" this speaker exhibits his stupidity and ignorance about the schools.
The best is the Advaita Philosophy Spiritual practice, (Sadhna) Firstly taught by a sage to king Janaka and after a long course of time it was kept it as a secret teaching then it was taught to Adi Shankaracharya and with a secretly it is taught to only some deciples by seeing their potential to take this knowledge. Which now is taught by Shivanand Baba in Shiv yog. Other Schools of thought are nice too but they differ from each other this all happens at 1000 years and more from now so there is no point to debate on that. Law of nature every thing changes. Change happens as per the situation of that particular time previously Vedas were taught then upanishad then Ramayana and Mahabharata Purnas. Now it's is The Bhagavad Gita which is very popular in the world Law of Karma is universally accepted. Although it is a very ancient Scripture but have Modern knowledge as well. Nicely explained by them the 3 prominent School of thoughts of that time 😁😁
I have one question: Do you think the atman get the full 100% consciousness & power like supreme brahman after moksha ? and the other question is do every one including sinners & offenders will get moksha if they meditate & follow the path of attaining moksha ? every individual accepts that world is real.Because due to cause & effect relationship.If someone has taken examination, he cannot wait any longer to get the consciousness to get the results. The result is obtained in reality always.so, world is always real.Do you accept this ? people do not accept something which happens out of their control which cannot be easily accepted. How do all the people get the full consciousness when they take the path of moksha since I believe only the pure mind and good souls can only reach this attained state based on different karma they are doing? Why doesn't this difference between individual souls will not retain the same picture when attains liberation according to advaita since different souls follow different deeds & states? I believe two things always exist you & supernatural power which looks after you and the world is real....This cannot be changed by anybody since human man cannot take the step of being supernatural power which is unattainable...
atman is no different from brahman, shankara says like a tide of the sea and the sea. to expand this analogy for you question I would say that as the taste of the sea is salty, that same saltiness is in each drop, each tide, hence the jiva or the anatman is also atman or brahman. the quality of everything is the same as that of brahman. there is no need to do anything about it, one who sees that there is nothing to do at all in the world, nothing to become, then the tide falls back completely and becomes one with the sea itself forever conscious, existing with bliss. there are no sinners or sages in deep sleep, that which wakes up must be inquired and the inquiry leads to the above analogy of the atman and brahman.
anonymous ok bhagavadpadacharya(Shankaracharya) has said that"bramha Satya jagat mithya" . he has said the meaning of word Satya as " the one which remains constant without perishing or everlasting" and this is considered as real. meanwhile anything which is not everlasting is called mithya(anything stays for certain age and dies later,not constant) . in this meaning bhagavadpadacharya has stated as unreal not that it does not have real physical existence.
pav_k2007 do you differentiate yourself from your head,heart,hands,legs,eyes, mouth, blood,cells? you are present everywhere in your body, each cell of your body is you. these parts of your body makes your conciousness. does it mean that there are millions of conciousness living in different organs? same way one and only one parabramha is present in the universe and he emerges within himself in different forms (humans, animals,trees,birds......) he is Sachidananda (one who is present in living and non living things in the form of Ananda or happiness).
Hmmm it’s Madhvaacharya..not Maadhavacharya. I am still in the first few mins in to this talk. I am waiting to see how this turns out considering he does not even get their names right!
To get away from the dogma around the origin of Indian spiritual thought, I invite everyone to take an interest in the precious work of Johannes Bronkhorst.
This resembles like all are human beings having equal goals,strengths , intuition,intelligence , food consumption, capacities, status,power etc IT LOOKS LIKE after liberation all will be equal since all are taking same oxygen...Though everyone is consuming oxygen characteristics would be different right? How do you relate a normal-soul ( which has birth & death,no knowledge,no individual capacities ) with brahman ( Supernatural power )?These two are always different I believe. When some one is teacher...the person listening to him has to be student ( sorry for giving analogy)or you mean to say saturn will become sun by gaining sun's luminous capacity since both are planets..? How is this possible ...?
In advaita vedanta Brahman is attributeless. This maya is inherent in Brahman. Is this maya same as Brahman or attribute of Brahman? If you accept either as Brahman, there is logical fallacy. If you don't either accept as Brahman it will result is duality and unaccountability.
It’s not Madhavacharya but Madhwacharya sir. It is his pen name. His commentary has only references of many texts to Show the authenticity. Other acharya commentaries shows their opinions as more compared to references.
The first person in the Q&A argues karma in other schools (other than Advaita) does not takes to liberation. That is not correct. His argument is based on wrong idea of Karma. Isn't it accuiring knowledge in itself a karma? His disntction between karma and jnyAna is artificial and flawed. In Dvaita vedanta three aspects bhakti, jnyAna and vairagya have given equal importance.
Hello Raaga, What is the Channel called - I searched for Great Mile but nothing of this name comes up. Would like to hear more about this, thank you :) Greetings
'pRatibodha viditam matam' of the Kena Upanishad says it all. Simply put, posting this is and reading this and the post itself is 'brahman'. If someone wants add the word 'experience' and lo there is the 'brahman experience' . Gita verse 4.24 - ' bramaRpaNam...' - is the proof from the 'smRiti'. In short drop the search for Brahman. 'Tat twam asi'. It's the 'you' only. Since 'anAdi' we are associated with the 'anaatma', the body-mind contraption, as oneself. The paradigm shift from that to the 'chaitanya amsa' in us is the whole vedantic teaching is all about.
Many points are wrong. This talk is Advaita centric talk. For example, speaker says all three schools differentiates between transcendental and phenomenal reality. Such division of reality is in Advaita school only and it has been refuted by Dvaita scholars. Dvaita School does not have such artificial division in reality. The speaker's scholarship is quite hollow in this subject and need lot of improvement.
@AnonymousAlien2099 it doesn't violate any laws of logic whereas Advaita violate laws of Non-contradiction and excluded middle by falsely believing that this world is sad-asad-vilakshana ( both real and unreal). ESCAPIST AND ILLOGICAL!! The locus of Maya is a big problem for Advaita. Advaitains themselves are divided over. Within Advaita you don't have a uniform view...whereas Dvaita never had sub schools, they have maintained logical consistency. Read what Great Indian historian on Indian philosophy S Dasgupta has to say about Dvaita dialecticians : "In my opinion Jaya-tīrtha and Vyāsa-tīrtha present the highest dialectical skill in Indian thought......The logical skill and depth of acute dialectical thinking shown by Vyāsa-tīrtha stands almost unrivalled in the whole field of Indian thought. "
@AnonymousAlien2099 I wrote long answer. But it's not showing.... maybe admin deleted it. Not writing it again....refer to BNK Sharma Philosophy of Madhvacharya book. You can find pdf online. Learn about it
How does an advaitin reach the conclusion that I and the snake rope are the same thing? Obviously in that analogy, doesn't explain how we know that the rope and the viewer are the same... I want to know how the assumption has been made how do we come to the conclusion that my atman Bhraman... Anyone more knowledgeable please explain...
Orange Flame Advaita does not say I and snake, rope are the same. It says that one sees a rope and imagine it to be a snake. Rope is different from observer. In fact philosophy says there is viewer, that which is viewed and the action of viewing. All these are all different but are essential to reach a conclusion. Assumption is starting point based on which the advaita philosophy is developed. For example in Euclid a point and a line are assumptions and not conclusions. Numerals are assumptions, not conclusions. Similarly atma & Brahma are the same is the assumption & basis for developing advaita philosophy. Hope I am clear.
Waves of ocean are nothing but ocean...this is Tatva jyana is deep probably cannot be explained in short sentence. Check out lectures online by various gurus, it will take time to understand this concept - took me 6 months.
@40:25 while exploring Advaita he says as per advaita Brahman is sat-chit-ananda and further says these are attributes. He is quite wrong in his understanding of Advita. They do not say Brahman is sat positively but rather says sat means not asat. Advaita is Illafford to say positivly anything about Brahhman. Because it negetes nirgunattava (attributelessness) of their idea of Brahman.
Such superficial explanations plagued with lot of incorrect understanding.. especially on dvaita.. if one is being called up on as an expert- plz care to at least use the right names.. it’s Madhvacharya not Madhavacharya..
Those who want to follow the right path for development of spirituality hear the lectures of Swami Sarbapriyananda of RK Vedanta school. Lectures from such persons will not be fruitful for taking of right path for an individual. Such persons are knowledgeable professors but not followers. Hear lectures from the persons who are the followers of any one path.
charvak budha or jain is also from veda they all negating veda hence their negation is not orginal or adi they do not agree with veda but their ideas are due to veda all hindu literature is question ( by seeker ) and answer is from the guru ( enlightened one ) where knower and known distinguish is lost
Advaita has never ever said this gross jagat is mithya, an illusion. The jagat which an individual thinks to be independent of Supreme Brahman, bcos of not knowing Supreme Brahman, is "Mithya Jagat." Not the one we are living.
The story of Sri Sankara's entering into the body of the dead king is very funny. Learned people say that Sankaracharya is a Jnani, who knows everything, and in the same breath they say that he does not know the relation between man and woman. It is just like saying that God is all-powerful, but God cannot do a particular thing like taking an Avatara. Funny story tellers! The speaker was referring to this story (30th minute) and hence this remark.
Little knowledge is dangerous thing...please go deeper and then you will see there is no contradiction don't sit in kindergarten and say all concepts being taught in PHD are wrong. Sri Sankara was a Jnani in Brahma vidya, that is what he taught.
●PERFECT INNER SILENCE IS THE KEY TO GOD OR SELF REALIZATION . ●THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY VIBRATIONS IN OUR PURIFIED AWARENESS . ●THAT IS PERFECT BALANCING IN OUR WORLDLY LIFE BINDING SAMSKARAS OR WLB -- KARMAS. ●A HUMAN BEING CANNOT BALANCE HIS /HER , KARMAS BY THEMSELVES . ● WE NEED THE GRACE & HELP OF THE SUPREME SELF OR SUPREME SOUL , TO ATTAIN THAT PERFECT BALANCING OF GOOD & BAD KARMAS . ● ONLY A LIVING PERFECT MASTER OR LIVING SADHGURU OR THE AVATAR ,, THE SUPREME SOUL IN HUMAN FORM , ie THE AVATAR CAN DO THIS PERFECT BALANCING FOR A REAL LOVER OF GOD . ● SHIRIDI SAI BABA ,, R K PARAMAHAMSA ETC WERE PAST SADGURUS . THERE ARE ALWAYS 5 LIVING SADHGURUS ON THE EARTH AT ANY TIME . ●THE AVATAR DESCENDS ON EARTH IN CYCLES OF EITHER 700 YEARS OR 1400 YEARS . ●NO ONE CAN ATTAIN SELF REALIZATION BY UNDERSTANDING SPIRITUAL LITERATURE . ●WE HAVE TO SPIRITUALLY LOVE THE SUPREME SOUL , WHO EXISTS IN EVERY LIVING BEING ,, AS INNER PARAMATHMA / ANTHARYAMI . ●THE SUPREME SOUL IS THE HIGHEST OF THE HIGH . WE WILL NOT BECOME THE PARAMATHMA AFTER OUR SELF REALIZATION. ●HENCE SHRI RAMANUJACHARYA'S PHILOSOPHY IS THE PERFECT COMPLETION OF ALL METAPHYSICS. ●ALL LIVING BEINGS FINALLY ATTAIN HUMAN FORM IN THE COURSE OF EVOLUTION . ●SELF RALIZATION IS POSSIBLE ONLY IN A HUMAN LIFE . JAI AVATAR MEHER BABA
