Elaborate

@@AnonymousAlien2099 Philosophy of Sri Ramanuja also make more sense to me .

Yes. Indeed . Srimathe Ramanujaya Namah 🙏🙏

​​@@AnonymousAlien2099 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! 🙏🇮🇳☮️☮️

Yessss was just thinking the same the past few days!!!!!

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!

@Prem Varun Ok prove it

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

Where are you from brother?

How do you say that..? Duality is based on perception through senses, Advaita is going beyond senses to realise Brahman

@@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

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 KZfaq? 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...

Thanks, that's what I'm doing; I wanted to hear some lectures as complement, but almost all that I find is actually about Advaita Vedanta.

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.

As long as it’s not ISKCON, we’re good! 😉

That's ok for people who don't understand the darsanas.

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 .

another iskconite

@@BatMAn-kq3zf Anyone has to believe something right... as you have believed something....? 😅 & One...??????

@@guhamatilal6961 I Pitty for your English you don't understand a thin line difference between Criticizing & Accepting any Acharya.

@@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?

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.

@@tnk3527 Why you want to become god to find bliss,even jeeva can know it,that is what says dvaita. Your intention is to find the bliss or not.

You yourself is god once you realis

Bliss experinces itself

@@atul1024 no

Can u give the verse number

@@radheradhe-re7ge - Chapter 2 - verse 46

@@skynet_cyberdyne_systems You are confusing 2 things, the importance of scripture after and before liberation. After having attained liberation one may disregard any scripture, not only the Vedas. Because there is nothing left to learn after enlightenment, you have fulfilled the purpose of life and realized the truth about our reality. All schools of thoughts, whether it's the 6 orthodox or heterodox darshanas, aim to help the individual person to achieve liberation. They are not meant for enlightened people, because as already mentioned, they reached the goal. They are meant to help people bound in samsara. The 6 orthodox schools base their teachings (on how to break out of samsara and attain liberation) directly from the Vedas. The 6 heterodox schools do not base their teachings (on how to break out of samsara and attain liberation) from the Vedas. Conclusion: The heterodox schools don't recognize the Vedas as any scripture of relevance, while the Orthodox schools are entirely based on the Vedas. Therefore the seperation between Orthodox and Heterodox is valid.

@@Jay-tu9vf - 1.) I disagree here. There are many sciptures apart from Vedas which are standalone enough to attain liberation and vedas are in no way mandatory.Examples of such scriptures, Vigyana Bhairav Tantra, Yoga Vashishtha, Bhagwad Geeta etc. 2.) Infact, you can pick one meditation technique from Vigyana Bhairav Tantra and if you master it you can attain liberation without ever reading any other scripture. 3.) In the Vedas only the Vedanta/Upanishads are more concerned about liberation. The other part of Vedas are more about hyms / rituals for attaining heaven and worldly pleasures like wealth, prosperity, cattles, winning battles, destroying enemies, getting rains etc. 4.) So within Sanatana Dharam itself you can completely ignore Vedas and then also can attain liberation through many other ways. Infact if you read Mahayana Buddhism you will know that Buddhism is 100% Hinduism/Sanatana, just with a different name or external wrapping. 5.) I don't agree that there is some classification like Orthodox/Heterodox in Sanatan Dharam. This professor is just looking at Dharama with western lens and that is why he is arriving at such conclusions.

@@skynet_cyberdyne_systems 1. i never said enlightenment is only possible through the teachings of the Vedas, i said the teachings of the 6 Orthodox schools are based on them. Their foundation are the Vedas, more specifically the Upanishads, the Brahamsutra (commentary on the Vedas) and the Bhagvad Geeta (Teachings of the Upanishads described practically). 2.) As mentioned above, i never said enlightenment through other paths isn't possible, it may very well be but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand, being the classification between "orthodox" and "heterodox" schools of hinduism. The labels " Orthodox" and "heterodox" themselves are not very important here, important is that there is a clear distinction when it comes to scriptual authority in these two groups. 3. Yes that is true, However while the ritualistic part isn't of much importance, it still is recognized and accepted by all 6 schools as valid (as far as i know). That's why i decided talk about the authority of the Vedas as a whole, not only of the Upanishads. 4. This is similar to point 1 and 2, yes it may be possible, but that wasn't what my comment was about. Also many buddhists will not accept being included in "Sanatan Dharma", although i get where you are coming from. That's why i use terms like "indic religions/philosophies , or indian schools of thought/philosophies etc. 5. The classification makes definetly sense and doesn't come from the west, in fact i heard something very similar from the Vedanta Society of the Ramakrishna Order, and they are a very well renowned Order of India, and trace their origins back to the Puri lineage of shankaracharya. I think they used another term instead of "heterodox" but i don't remember which. You could argue about the terms "orthodox" and "heteodox" but the classification (based on scriptural authority) is valid and accepted, even within traditional orders. But that doesn't mean they are completly different, it just means they base their teachings on different scriptures. A scripture can't have a monopoly on truth, as truth is universal. There can be many scriptures teachings the truth. Personally i also believe several ways can lead to moksha, i don't really disagree with most of what you said, we were just talking about different subjects.

advaita vedanta

@@marshallmathers4738 They followed Vedanta

@@sontu5288 vyasa's vedanta is closest to shankaracharya's

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.

No he didn't. He is using the proper Sanskrit pronunciation. He emphasizes the Dha in Madhva.

@@jagannatharaojonnalagadda1928 Your arguments are stupid ! Sankara himself disagrees with Gaudapada ..so shut your mouth and kero chanting Aham Brahmaassmi

madhavacharyas view is no different than the most orthodox evangelical christianity.

@@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.

@@radhikaschwartz3499 Agree...

@@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.

Soul has no birth or death , it is the body that dies

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

what is metre ?

@@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

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.

😂

agreed!

correct me if anyone disagree with me

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.

Then there will millions of supreme beings! Which is absurd!

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).

WHAT MAKES U THINK MADHWACHARYA'S SAMPRADAYA IS CORRECT?

@@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.

yeah the chronology is opposite.

What do you think?🤔

It is not. It advaitic interpretation of Ashtavaraka geeta making you think like that

Advaita was already the juice of vedanta , Shankarachya just told it to the people who had forgotten it

@@ratipati2007 it is very much advaita... ashtavakra says na kartasi na bhoktasi mukt evasi sarvada..this much is enough to prove its advaita

@@sattwikmohanty3272 there is famous verse in Vedanta if u think u know brhman that means u don't know him so advait is not final.

Why do you think Dwait is better than Adwait

May be you have already achieved😂😂

If Advaita is truth, then you are not The Guy. When you die, people will mourn/celebrate the fact that you no longer even appear to exist. IF Advaita Vedanta is truth.

@@davidjohnzenocollins advaita based on shankaracharya...he didnt tell to laugh or cry when one is dead....this is maya he people naturally emotional becs of maya once emotions drained chittha suthi is attained.........this is alswo path to moksha

@@acknowledgeme9890 OK. That's terrific! Adi Shankara says the path to liberation is to realize you are not you! The only way ceasing to exist would seem like a good idea is if you seriously believe the sukshma sharira of an unenlightened person will be reincarnated over and over again without end. If you don't believe in reincarnation, then advaita sounds like a nightmarish philosophy.

@@davidjohnzenocollins ONLY GOD WILL GIVE MOKSHA.....MY DUTY IS TO TRY ONLY .......MAYA IS POWERFUL THING......IF ,MY EXAM TO MOKSHA NOT RECOGNISED BY teacher the god the n i will reincarnate .......

It was non of them with authorized asking it was governor intentions cause of stolen checks and burglary Bad checks

Brahm satya Jagat mitya was not invented by Adi Shankara for which many vaishnav call them mayavadi. He quoted it from Niralamba Upnishad.

ISCKON DOG SPOTTED

👍

Without those "mythological stories" Shankara has nothing to ground his ideas on.