There is no fundamental or basic difference in the philosophy, between the two schools, Vadakalai and Tenkalai. There is only difference of opinion on some issues. These are not significant.

We cannot say for sure. There were differences of opinion, on some minor issues. In due course, these developed into two separate schools of thought, called Vadakalai and Tenkalai.

The differences are more academic in nature. Each school stresses importance on some aspects. The minor differences of opinion arose, because of the degree of emphasis laid on some points, by each school. These minor differences need not be given importance.

The first one is about, the position and nature of Lakshmi. The principle of Vadakalais is as follows:

1) Goddess Lakshmi has three characteristics.

i) The first one is her recommending and pleading role to Lord Narayana on behalf of the Jivatma. (Purushakara).

ii) The second one is that she is herself the means for attaining salvation, just as Narayana is the means for attaining salvation (upaya).

iii) The third characteristic is that, she is also the object of attainment (upeya). In Sri Vaikunta, she and Narayana are served by the chetanas or Jivatmas after attaining moksha.

2) Lakshmi is Paramatma (along with Narayana); and is not Jivatma.

3) Lakshmi is also infinite in nature (vibhu), like Narayana.

The Tenkalais accept Lakshmi’s role as a mediator, i.e. her recommendatory nature. They also accept that she, along with Narayana, is the object of attainment, in Paramapada.

But they do not accept the principle that she is also the means of attaining salvation; i.e., that she is also an upaya.

2) They say Lakshmi is a Jivatma.

3) Lakshmi is atomic in nature.

Yes,Another point of difference is about the status of the Jivatma who attains Kaivalya. Those who have performed Jnana Yoga perceive and enjoy their own souls. This is called Kaivalya.

4) Vadakalai school holds that Kaivalya is inferior to Paramapada or Moksha. It is not eternal; and the soul finally reaches Paramapada. So Kaivalya, according to the Vadakalai school, is situated outside Sri Vaikunta.

The Tenkalai school also accepts that Kaivalya is inferior. But they state that these souls enjoy Kaivalya eternally in the Paramapada or Sri Vaikunta only, in the outer most parts.

5) The Vadakalai school accepts both bhakti and prapatti as the means for attainment of moksha.

The Tenkalai school does not accept bhakti as a means or upaya. They state that accepting or adopting bhakti yoga as a means is against the nature of the dependent soul. The soul is absolutely dependent on the Lord. So, he should not, by himself, adopt bhakti yoga.

6) The Vadakalai school states that prapatti has to be a positive, specific act of surrender, by the Jivatma to the Lord.

The Tenkalai school does not consider that a positive act of surrender is necessary. They say that i) knowledge of the essential nature of the Jivatma, and ii) mental acceptance (non-rejection) on the part of the Jivatma to Iswara granting him salvation, are required. So the Jivatma need not specifically adopt any means for salvation, as a positive act. He may, however, do good things and service to God, for the pleasure of the Lord.

7) The Vadakalai school holds that a positive effort is necessary, on the part of the Jivatma to attain the Lord’s grace.

The Lord can be accused of partiality or unkindness, if He gives moksha to some and not to others. Further, the Lord cannot grant moksha to all people.

So, the Vadakalai school says that the Lord’s grace has to have some reason, like the efforts by the individual soul.

The Tenkalai school says that the Lord’s grace (kripa) is spontaneous. He grants moksha to those whom He likes.

The Vadakalai philosophy is compared with the practice of the monkey (markata nyaya). In the case of a monkey, the child must cling or attach itself to the mother. Similarly, the Jivatma has to make some efforts to gain Lord’s grace.

The Tenkalai school is compared to the cat system. In the case of a cat, the mother cat holds the child cat, in its mouth and moves about (marjara nyaya). Similarly, Tenkalai school states that it is the Lord, who grants favours to those, whom He likes.

The next difference is the Lord’s attitude towards the sinners.

8) The Tenkalai school states that the sins of a devotee are pleasing to the Lord; just like the dirt in the wife’s body is pleasing to the husband; or the dirt in the calfs body is pleasing to the mother cow.

The Vadakalais say: The Lord ignores or does not see the sins of the devotee.

In the examples given, the husband or the mother cow does not hate the wife or the calf, respectively, because of the dirt. The dirt however is in due course cleaned. Similarly, the sins of a devotee are not seen by the Lord.

Yes, another point of difference is about performance of compulsory duties, like Sandhyavandana and others.

9) The Tenkalai school holds that for an exalted person, who is ready to receive the Lord’s grace,it is not an offence to give up the performance of these compulsory duties.But they do these compulsory duties, so as to set an example to ordinary persons; because, following the example of such great personalities others also should not give up their performance of compulsory duties.

The Vadakalai schools holds that the performance of compulsory duties has been laid down by the sastras. So, these have to be done as laid down, by all persons. Non-performance of these is a sin, which will attract God’s punishment.

10) The Tenkalai school holds that in the first part in the charama sloka, “giving up all the dharmas” means that, all dharmas must be given up first, before seeking refuge in the Lord.

The Vadakalai school states that these dharmas actually refer to the different vidyas, in the bhakti yoga. These vidyas have already been given up by the Jivatma, due to his inability; and that this is a statement of fact.

11) The Tenkalai school states that the Lord also grieves when a person is suffering.

They quote the authority from Ramayana, where it is said that Rama becomes grief-stricken at the sorrow of human beings.

The Vadakalai school says: A person has to feel sorry, for somebody’s grief, only if he is not able to remove the grief of the other person. When a person has the capacity to remove another man’s grief, there is no need for him to feel sorry. He will remove the other man’s grief.

Similarly, the Lord has got the powers to remove a person’s grief. So, there is no need for Him to feel sorry. He will remove the grief of the humanbeing.

It is stated in Ramayana, that Rama was feeling sorrow at the people’s sorrow for two reasons:

1) Good people who see that in the avataras, like Rama or Krishna, He also feels sorry, develop further affection towards Rama or Krishna and thus do good deeds.

2) Bad, or wicked people, seeing the Lord also grieving, think that He is also a human being like themselves; and thus, do wicked things and suffer.

The Vedas say that the Lord is smaller than the smallest; and is bigger than the biggest. The Lord is present everywhere.

12) The Vadakalai school states that the Lord’s being inside an atom means that the Lord is present even in an atom. Similarly, when it is stated that the Lord is bigger than the biggest, or, infinite; this means that the. Lord is also there, wherever such infinite things like Time are.

I have already explained these aspects earlier,as antar vyapti and bahir vyapti.

The Tenkalai school states that the Lord is also inside the atom and similarly He also envelops the infinite things, like Time, because of His special powers.

Actually, there are 18 points of difference, but these are the more important.

I have only very broadly dealt with the points of difference, without going into details. As I already stated, the differences are more academic in nature and minor. They are not significant. Each school lays emphasis on certain aspects.

Sri Desika has also mentioned as follows: Among Sri Bhashyakara’s (Ramanuja’s) disciples, there are no differences on essential points. There are only differences in interpretation.

The question can be answered with a little bit of background on the Upanishads.The Upanishads are of three types namely bheda sruti, abheda sruti and ghataka sruti.

There are many passages in the Vedas, which clearly and categorically state that Brahman or Paramatma is different from Jivatma. These are called bheda sruti, because they show the difference between Paramatma and Jivatma.

Bheda in Sanskrit means difference.

The following are some of the quotations.

1) ‘Two birds with similar qualities and attached to each other, reside in the same tree. One of them (Jivatma) eats the fruit (the results of his karma), whereas the other (Iswara or Brahman) shines, without eating the fruit.”

2) “The Jivatma realises that the supreme self or Brahman directs him and he is the object of direction”.

3) “He, the Jivatma, is different from Brahman. By winning the grace of Brahman, the Jivatma attains salvation”.

4) “The three-fold nature, can be simply put as follows (1) who experiences pleasure and pain; (2) the object of such experiences and (3)He,the Brahman who directs all”. 79

5) “He is the lord of Matter and Jivatma and the possessor of qualities”.

6) “Brahman is the ruler whose knowledge has no limits. The Jivatma has his knowledge limited”.

7) “The Brahman is different from Matter or Achetana and is greater than the Jivatma.”

8) “He is different and He rules over the Jivatma and the Matter.”

9) “The knower of Brahman attains the supreme.”

10) “He reaches the other side of samsara and reaches the Paramapada of Vishnu”.

11) “I belong to the Brahman and I will not leave Him”.

12) “All these are born out of Him and because of Him they live and they go back to Him.”

13) “The brahmins understand Him, by learning the Vedas, by doing penance, by giving donation and by doing yagas.”

14) “The Brahman cannot be attained by reading the scriptures, by intelligence,…”

15) “He is the lord of all. He is the ruler of all”.

16) “There are two eternal, permanent things. One is Brahman, knowing everything and all powerful. The other is with limited knowledge and powerless, namely, Jivatma.”

17) “The Jivatma enjoys the Paramapada along with Brahman.”

So, the above are a few examples of bheda sruti. These are some of the passages from the Vedas, which clearly show that the Jivatma is different from Paramatma.

There are innumerable such passages in the Vedas.

There are also passages in the Vedas, which show,on the face of it, that Paramatma and Jivatma are one and the same.

The following are some of the passages:-

“You are that (Brahman)”.

“I am Brahman”.

“Everything here is Brahman”.

“All the things here are Brahman”.

“There are no different things”.

“There is only one”.

The third type of sruti, ghataka sruti, describes the relationship between Brahman and Jivatma and Matter, as that of the soul and. the body (body/soul relationship).

The passages from the Antaryami Brahmana of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and Subala Upanishad which explains the body-soul relationship. These are called Ghataka sruti.

This is called so, because this talks about the Iswara being the soul or antaryami of Jivatma and the matter. ‘Antaryami’ means “One who controls from inside”.

They are so -called, because they join or synthesise the apparently contradictory passages in the Vedas. They give “the proper to abheda srutis, which seem to state there is no difference between Jivatma and Paramatma.

By using this body/soul relationship, which has been shown above in the ghataka sruti, one can give proper interpretation to the abheda sruti.

When we say Rama, we mean the body of Rama, as well as the soul of Rama. We say Rama has a fair skin. We mean Rama’s body has a fair skin. Similarly, the word “Rama” means his soul also.

By the extension of the same principle, it also means the soul of Rama’s soul, i.e., Iswara or Narayana. We have just seen that the individual soul or Jivatma is also the body of Iswara. In other words, Iswara is the soul of the individual soul, namely Jivatma.

So, when we say Rama, this refers grammatically to 1) Rama’s body, 2) Rama’s soul, 3) Rama’s soul’s soul, i.e., Brahman or Iswara.

With this understanding, if one read’s the abheda sruti, the meaning will be quite clear.

1) One passage says “you are that”, Now what this means is that your soul’s soul is Iswara or Brahman, i.e., Brahman is also your soul’s soul.

2) The passage “All this is Brahman” is also correct, because all Matter and Jivatma have Brahman as their soul and Brahman has all of them as His body. Hence naturally all this is Brahman.

3) The passage “I am Brahman” is also correct, because my soul’s soul is Brahman. In other words, I am myself Brahman.

Thus, by applying the body/soul relationship between Jivatma and Paramatma, all the passages in the Vedas, which appear like saying identity of Jivatma and paramatma, will be properly explained.

The basic principle has been established that Brahman or is the soul of Jivatma and I Matter and all its variations.

So, the Jivatma and Matter and its variations are all the body of Brahman.

As mentioned earlier, this is the fundamental doctrine of Visishtadvaita philosophy.

“Advaita” means “Not Two”. The advaitins say that Jivatma and paramatma are not two (i.e., different) but they are One, i.e., identical. Hence this system of philosophy is called Advaita.

The founder of Advaita philosophy is Adi Sankara.

“Visishtadvaita” means “Not Two-in a special way” or “Only one – in a special way”. We say that Jivatma and paramatma are different and yet not different.

They are different, as we have shown from the bheda sruti. Jivatma is the body and paramatma the soul. The soul is different from the body. This way, the paramatma is different from the Jivatma.

They are not different because of the body-soul relationship, as explained in ghataka sruti. We call both Rama’s body and Rama’s soul, as Rama. Rama’s body and soul together, are called as “Rama” only. So, Rama is only one.

Similarly, Jivatma (the body) and Paramatma (the soul), can be called as only one – in a special way, because of the body/soul relationship.

So, Jivatma and Paramatma can be called two-in-one or one-in-two. Hence our system of philosophy is called “Visishtadvait’a”.

This system was perfected by Ramanuja.

“Dvaita” means Two. Dvaitins say that Jivatma and Paramatma are eternally different, i.e. they are two and not one. They do not accept body/soul relationship. Hence this system of philosophy is called “Dvaita”.

The exponent of Dvaita philosophy is Madhva.

The Advaitins argue that abheda srutis, which say that the Jivatma is identical with Paramatma. supersede the bheda srutis. So, they do not accept the validity of bheda srutis. In other words, they accept only abheda srutis as authority.

We say that the Vedas as a whole are authority. So, why should the Vedas mention the bheda passages, if they are to be superseded.

No sensible person will make a statement, if it is false and if it is to be superseded. Unless a statement is specifically mentioned as opponents point of view, it has to be taken as correct.

Nowhere in the Vedas, it has been stated that the bheda passages represent opponents point of view. Hence the bheda srutis have to be taken as correct; and have to be properly synthesised with the other passages in the Vedas.

Thus, we do not accept the Advaitins’ argument.

Dvaitins do not accept the abheda srutis as authority (pramana). Their argument is that abheda srutis are very few. They are very much less in number, as compared to bheda srutis, Hnce, the small number of abheda srutis must be ignored.

Vishistadvaitins do not accept this view of Dvaitins. They say that all-passages in the Vedas are authority. We have to properly interpret the various passages in the Vedas, so that any apparent contradictions are resolved. Hence, Vishistadvaitin makes use of ghataka sruti, to resolve the apparent differences between bheda srutis and abheda srutis.

As mentioned above, the Advaitins are not able to properly explain bheda srutis.

Dvaitins are not able to properly explain abheda srutis.

Visishtadvaita is the only system, which is able to explain properly both the Bheda srutis and Abheda srutis, with the help of Ghataka srutis.

The Advaitins say that everything, other than the Paramatma, is ‘maya’ or illusion. For Advaitins, the world itself is an illusion.

For this, the Advaitins have got three types of reality. They say that the Brahman is the only real thing or the ultimate reality; and everything else is illusion or maya.

1) We see a shell from a distance and we think it is silver. Only when we go near and examine, we find that it is really shell.

2) Similarly, from a distance we see a rope and mistake it to be a serpent.

3) Again, in a hot summer, on a tar road, we see at some distance water on the road, which is not actually so. It is only the reflection of the sun onthe tar road

So, such illusions, as explained in the three cases above, fall into the first category, according to the Advaitins. These are called “Apparent Reality” (Pratibhasika Sat).

In these cases, we are able to realise ourselves, at a later stage, that what we saw first was only an illusion. For example, thinking as silver, whereas it was only shell; similarly, thinking as serpent, when it was only a rope, is only an illusion.

The second category of reality is called by Advaitins as “Relative Reality” (Vyavaharika Sat). In this category come the world, air, sky, water. and so on. All these things are there and still, ultimately, they are only an illusion according to Advaitins. But, for all practical purposes, world, air, water and other elements are real things. So these things are called “Relative Reality” and form the second category.

The third category of reality, is the “Absolute reality” (Paramarthika Sat). This is Brahman.

The Advaitins classify all things into three types of realities, as follows:

1) Apparent reality (Pratibhasika Sat)  – like mistaking shell as silver; mistaking rope as serpent.

2) Relative reality (Vyavaharika Sat) – like world, sky, fire, water.

3) Absolute reality (Paramarthika Sat) – This is Brahman.

So, according to them, except for item (3) above, Brahman, everything else is maya (illusion).

The theory of Visishtadvaitins is exactly the opposite. We say that everything is real. There is no maya or illusion. The world is very much real. The Jivatma is very much real.

In fact, we also say that, even the objects which we see in a dream are also real. Of course, the dream objects are purely temporary and are seen only by the person who dreams.

We say that this world is not an illusion. We mistake shell for silver. We mistake brass, or bronze for gold. We mistake a rope for a serpent – These are actually illusions.

The world is not such an illusion. Whatever materials we find in this world, we are making use of them. The silver which we see, we make vessels out of it. We keep water in the silver vessel.

Similarly, the gold which we see, we make jewels out of gold, and we wear them.

So, the world, the materials, the objects which we see in the world, are all real.

The Vishistadvaiti’s have full support from the Upanishads. Its been explained earlier about the process of creation, starting from matter.

How from matter comes mahat, how from mahat comes ahankara and so on. I have also explained about the quintuplication, three-fold division and seven-fold division.

The Upanishads have thus explained in detail the process of creation. So, the world and the objects and materials of the world are all the results of creation.

When Upanishads take so much pains to explain the process of creation, is it correct to say that the whole thing is an illusion? There is no need for the Upanishads to describe in great detail the process of creation, if the whole thing is an illusion.

Further, the Upanishads do not state anywhere that the world is an illusion.

The Upanishads say that the Lord, Brahman creates the world out of maya. So the Advaitins interpret the word maya as illusion. But we interpret the world maya as matter (prakriti). The Upanishads themselves say that maya is matter. So, apart from’ other reasons, we interpret the word ‘maya’ as matter. From matter, the process of creation starts.

But taking the meaning of ‘maya’ as illusion, the advaitins say that the whole world is an illusion.

At many places, several Upanishads categorically declare that Brahman creates this world. “Brahman creates beings, starting from Brahma, as before”.

“Brahman creates the beings, like sun and moon, as before”.

Unless the world, sun and moon, and other objects are real, there is no need to create them. This clearly shows that the created world is real.

Of course, the Jivatma and Matter are eternal (nitya). At the time of pralaya, Matter and Jivatmas take very subtle (sukshma) form and merge with the Lord. Again, the process of creation starts, after pralaya. Thus we say that everything is real.

The Bhagavad Gita says: “I, who am the ultimate. cause of this world, join the Jivatma with Matter. Thus, all beings come out of this union”.

There are several such passages in Vishnu Purana and other Sastras which go to show that the world is indeed real.

They say that many objects in the world are not permanent. For example, there is a mud pot now; after some time it gets broken and it is destroyed. Similarly there is water in the river now. But in summer, the water gets dried up.

Thus water is no longer there. Thus, nothing is real, because they are not there permanently at all times. This is one of the arguments of the Advaitins. ………

We agree with them on the facts. But we say that these facts only show that objects are nor permanent. It dows not follow that the objects are not real. In other workds, even though the objects are not permanent, they are real.

We have to distinguish between a real thing and a permanent thing. Taking the example of the mud pot, the mud is there, which the potter makes into a pot. Again, after some time, the pot gets broken, and we come back to the mud. So, mud is there although mud pot gets broken.

Just because something is not permanent, we cannot say that it is not real. The mud pot is not permanent because it gets broken; but it’s real. We make use of the mud pot.

Similarly jewels are not permanent. We can melt them into gold and re- make some other jewel.

So the jewels are not permanent, but the raw material, gold is permanent. But both gold and jewels, made out of gold, are real. We make use of the jewels. We wear the jewels,. So, we cannot say that jewls are not real. Mud is real and mudpot is real. Gold is real and gold jewel is real. These examples are given in Chandogya Upanishad to discuss the relationship between Brahman and the world. So, Brahman is real and the world is also real.

Thus the argument of Advaitins that just because something is not permanent, it is not real, ( but an illusion) is not correct.

We are seeing the world. We make use of the things in the world. We enjoy them. So this has to be real. The above examples clearly show that the world which has come out, in the above examples are real.

If the Vedas wanted to show that the world is unreal, they need not have given the above examples. Instead, the Vedas could have given the examples of mistaking a rope for a serpent, mistaking a shell for silver and so on.

But instead of giving such examples, which suggest illusion, the Vedas have given examples of reality. From this also, it is clear that the world and everything else is real.

It’s correct. In many places the Upanishads say that Brahman creates the world, protects the world, and destroys the world. So, there is clear evidence as to what the Brahman does to the world.

All these activities of creating the world, protecting the world and destroying the world will have no meaning if the world is not real.

The world is destroyed at the time of Pralaya. So the world is not eternal or permanent. It is in this meaning that sometimes it is mentioned that the world is not real.

1) The Upanishads talk in great detail about the process of creation of the world. If the world is a illusion, there is no question of creation and there is no question of detailed process of creation.

2) The basic axiom that the Vedas as a whole , are the fundamental authority. So , there cannot be any inconsistency or difference between the different passages. If there is an apparent contradiction or inconsistency between two different two different portions of Upanishads, these have to be suitable reconciled or synthesized.

3) The normal logic is that if the majority of the portions mean one thing and a small number of portions apparently mean something else, then these minority portions will have to be explained in keeping with the majority version.

4) While the world is mentioned as real in innumerable places and the process of creation is described in detail, in a few places it is mentioned that the world is not eternal or everlasting. The world will be destroyed at the time of pralaya.

What is meant is that all the chetanas and achetanas merge in the Lord, in a very subtle form, at the time of pralaya.

The three reasons to show why the world is real:

1) The Vedas describe Brahman thus: Brahman is that, from whom all these beings are born; by whom all these beings live; in whom all these beings rest, after death. From the above description, it can be seen that all these beings have to be real.

2) Brahman is the material cause of the world. He therefore evolves into the world. So how can the world which has been created by Brahman, be unreal?

3) Brahman is also the instrumental cause of this world. He creates this world. So, how can a thing, which has been created by Brahman, be unreal?

Thus we say that the world and all the beings in it are real.

The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad clearly says that:

” In this dream world, there are no chariots. There are no horses to draw the chario. There are no roads on which the chariot can go. Then the Brahman creates chariots. He creates horses to draw the chariot and He Creates roads.

In this dream world, there are no joys or delights or raptures. Again, Brahman creates joys , delights and raptures.

In the dream world, there are no pools, no tanks and no rivers. Again, Brahman creates pools, He creates tanks and He creates rivers. Indeed Brahman creates all these, in the dream world”.

There are two reasons why the jivatma can not create the objects in the dream:

1) The jivatma is not capable of creating the various objects in the dream. He does not have the power of creation because of his natural powers are restricted, as long as he is in this world.

2) We also see many bad things in the dream. We are afraid to see such terrible things in our dreams.We often wake up with a start whenever we see bad things in the drea. If the Jivatma creates these objects, naturally he will create such bad things,such bad objects, which give him pain in his dreams. If the Jivatma creates these objects, naturally he will only create good and pleasant things in the dream. Since the dream consists of bad things also, it is clear that jivatma does not create the objects in the dreams. Only Iswara creates objects in the dream.

This is exactly what has been quoted in Brahadaranyaka Upanishad.

Well they are real, so far as the person who dreams is concerned. They are only for the duration of the dream.

They are not real in the sense that, immediately after the dream, the objects vanish. Further they can not be seen by others, but only by the person, who dreams.

The reason is simple. The Jivatma does some small good things and some small bad things. These are not big enough, or significant enough. As a reward for small good things done, God gives him pleasure and good things, in the dream. So, he is happy during the duration of the dream , enjoying pleasant things.

Similarly the Jivatma does small bad thigns, which are not very significant. Then a very mild punishment is given by the Lord, for those small bad things. This is by making the Jivatma feel the pain, by dreaming bad things or shocking news. So he is made to experience pain and sorrow during the duration of the dream.

Such is the reason for certain of good and bad things during our dream.

I have cogently explained above the philosophy behind our dreams. I have also quoted extensively from the Brahadaranyaka Upanishad to show that Brahman creates the objects in our dream.

I have also explained the reasons for our seeing or experiencing good and bad things in our dream.

The creation of things in the dream world by Brahman is real 1) for the duration of the dream and 2) for the person who dreams.

There are several passages in the Vedas, which declare that there is only one supreme Lord or Brahman.

The advaitins also agree that there is only one Brahman, the Para Brahman. However for purposes of worship, they accept a lower Brahman. This lower Brahman, is , according to them, not real ultimately, but is only Vyavaharika sat.

They say that 1.) The Para Brahman has no attributes or qualities.(Nirguna) 2.) It has no form. (Niravayava Brahman)

According to them 1) The lower Brahman (Apara Brahman) has good qualities (Saguna Brahman), 2) It has aform (body). The lower Brahman can be worshipped as a Vishnu and so on.

They further say as follows: “After worshipping the Brahman, in a form with qualities, like Vishnu, a person develops sufficient maturity of knowledge and viveka. Then he understands the real Brahman, which is without attributes.

Then he also realizes that he is not different from the real Brahman or Paramatma. In other words, he ultimately realizes that the Jivatma and Paramatma are one and the same.

We do not accept that there are two Brahmans. There is no question of one Brahman being higher and another Brahman being lower. There is only one Brahman.

The Brahman has all the auspicious qualities. That Brahman is free from all evil. The Brahman has also got a form – a beautiful and auspicious body, with four arms and sankha and chakra.

Further the Brahman has Jivatma and matteras His Body.

You’re right. Brahman has a divine and auspicious body, with four arms, sankha and chakra. He has also another body; the entire world, Jivatmas and Matter, as His body.

There is no question of Jivatma being identical with Paramatma. But Jivatma has Paramatma as its soul; and Jivatma; and Jivatma is the body of the Paramatma.

Thus both the Jivatma and Paramatma are one in the sense, that they form together the body and soul. So, they are 2-in-1. That is why our philosophy is called as Vishistadvaita.

You have to apply logic. At several places, the Vedas say that He has many auspicious qualities, attributes. In a few places, they say that Brahman is without attributes. We have to intepret this, in keeping with the majority portions.

So when the Upanishad says “without Attributes” we intepret this as “without bad attributes” i.e, ” with only good qualities” . This intepretation is necessary, to resolve the apparent contradiction between the portions saying Brahman has many auspicious qualities and the portions saying that Brahman is without attributes.

If we stick on saying that Brahman is without qualities, then all the portions mentioning about the good qualities of Brahman will have no meaning.

In many places the Upanishads mention that Brahman is the Lord. He is the protector, and the world and the Jivatmas are Protected By Him.

Again the Upanishads talk about Bhakti, about 32 vidyas or methos of doing bhakti to the Lord, for getting salvation. If the Lord has no attributes, no qualities, how can He protect the world. How can He give Salvation or Moksha to the Jivatma?

It cannot be said that the Upanishads lay down the methods of Bhakti, for attaining salvation, and then deny these things , by saying that the Lord has no attributes or qualities. Without qualities how can He grant Salvation?

We intepret these in two ways:

1) ” Without Qualities” mean “without bad qualities”. So, Brahman has all good qualities.

2) The qualities are three sattva, rajas and tamas. So, “without qualities” can mean ” without any of these three qualities”. This will mean “suddha, sattva”. Thus, we can say that the Brahman has the quality of “Suddha Sattva”.

The words “Tattvamasi” means ” That you there”. Here ” That” means Brahman. “You” means ” Your souls’s soul”.

So the words, “Tattvamasi” mean Brahman is your soul’s soul. This is exactly the body / soul relationship. Brahman is the soul of ones soul. ..viz…Jivatma. So, the word, “Tattvamasi” only says that Brahman is the soul of Jivatma. The above is the teaching of the father, to son Svetaketu. When we say Svetaketu, it means his body and his soul. It also means his soul’s soul which is Brahman.

The above is the teaching of the father, to son Svetaketu. When we say Svetaketu, it means his body and his soul. It also means his soul’s soul which is Brahman. Please refer to Chapter 3 where I have discussed the body/soul relationship.

You are right.

No, that is not correct. Brahman is eternal. Jivatmas are eternal, Matter ( mula Prakriti) is eternal and the Vedas are also eternal. These are all eternal and Vedas are also eternal as specifically mentioned in in so many Upanishads.

So, when Upanishads say Brahman is only one, without a second, it does not mean that everything else is not real. What it actually means is that Brahman has no equal. “He is without a Second” means, ” He is without an equal”, “He is unparalleled”.

All this means is that Brahman is Supreme, without any equals. It does not mean that there is nothing else than Brahman; and that everything else is an illusion or unreal.

If this view ( that all other are not real) is to be adopted, then let me repeat again that all the Upanishads explaining the process of Creation, explaining the Salvation of the jivatma, will all become meaningless.

When we say that the Chola King was unique and there was no second person, what dowe mean? We only mean that, in strength and valor, he had no equals. He had no parallels. It does not mean there was no other person in this world , at that time. Similarly here also, it only means that Brahman has no equals..

The Jivatma also, by nature, has all the auspicious qualities and is free from evil, just like Brahman. But unfortunately, these good qualities are not fully exhibited, so long as he is in this world.

During the period he is in this world, in this samsara, he is like a diamond, covered with dirt. When he attains salvation and reaches Paramapada, all the auspicious qualities shine in full in him and he is free from all evil. That is, he becomes like a diamond, cleaned from all dirt, and fully shining.

They are eight in number:

1. Freedom from evil

2. Freedom from old age

3. Freedom from death

4. Freedom from sorrow

5. Freedom from hunger

6. Freedom from thirst

7. Desiring the truth (Satya kama)

8. Willing the truth (Satya sankalpa)

These are apart from the basic nature of the Jivatma, of knowledge, bliss or happiness, and purity and so on.

According to Advaita, liberation comes finally, when the Jivatma realises that he is identical with Brahman or Paramatma. So, it is this knowledge, which leads to salvation..

Yes. According to Advaita, even in this world itself, it is possible to attain salvation. They call it Jivanmukti.

No. They do not recognise Paramapada, as the ultimate salvation.

The Advaitins say that it is only a partial salvation. They call it Krama mukti. They do not recognise Paramapada as the ultimate salvation.

Salvation means reaching Paramapada or Sri Vaikunta at the end of this life; and enjoying the Lord Sriman Narayana and being of service to Him and Lakshmi.

The Advaitins call some passages in the Upanishads as “great sentences” (Maha. vakyas). They say that these great sentences show that Jivatma and paramatma are one.

No.l “That you are”.

No.2″ I am Brahman”

No.3 ” All the things here are Brahman.”

No. 4 ” There are no several things here”.

The interpretation is very simple, if we apply the body/soul relationship

1) The first sentence is the famous “Tattvamasi”.

2) In the same way, the second sentence, “I am Brahman” also is correct. My soul is Jivatma. Jivatma’s soul is Brahman. So, my soul’s soul is Brahman. Hence “I am Brahman”.

3) The third sentence, “All things are Brahman,” is also correct. Because, the soul or Atma of all things is Brahman, by the body/soul relationship. So, everything is Brahman, since everything has Brahman for its soul. Brahman has everything for His body.

4) By the same reasoning, the fourth sentence “There are no several things here” is also correct. Because all things have Brahman as their soul. Hence, all things are identified with Brahman, as their soul. Hence there are no several things. All things are Brahman only (as their soul)

Thus we interpret the great sentences, in accordance with our philosophy.

Apart from these “great sentences”, we have many portions in the same Upanishads, which proclaim clearly that Paramatma is different from the Jivatma. So, if “maha vakyas” are interpreted to mean that Jivatma is identical with Paramatma, we find these are followed by passages, saying Jivatma is different from Paramatma, viz., contra-dicting the identity of Jivatma and Paramatma.

There is no need for the Vedas to proclaim something, to be contradicted immediately afterwards. Indeed in some places, the Upanishads give the opponents’ view first and then give the correct view. But they clearly say that what was mentioned earlier was not the correct view and then explain or proclaim the correct view.

There is no such specific statement in the Vedas, saying that bheda srutis are incorrect; or that abheda srutis only are correct. So, we say that all are to be interpreted suitably, to avoid any apparent contradiction.

We argue that ‘Neti, Neti’ (‘not so\ not so’), in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad only means that Brahman’s attributes cannot be limited to what was explained earlier. His attributes are infinite. Therefore, the passage means that the Brahman’s attributes are not the only ones, which were mentioned earlier, but they are countless.

Our stand is also vindicated by the following:-

Immediately after this passage ‘not so’, ‘not so’, the Upanishad says that His name is Truth of the Truths. The Jivatmas are true, i.e., real and eternal. The Paramatma is the truth of the truth, i.e., also real and eternal.

So, this passage also clearly shows that Brahman has innumerable attributes, i.e., He is not nirguna..

While criticising the Advaita view point, Ramanuja develops subtle arguments and logic, to show that there are several inconsistencies in the Advaita standpoint, regarding the Brahman and the Jivatma. In particular, Ramanuja lists out 7 inconsistencies in the Advaita arguments, which say that Brahman is without attributes, Brahman is without form and the world is unreal..

I think we will not discuss them now. They require advanced logic philosophy, and knowledge of Sanskrit grammer. So, we shall pass over now for an advanced study at a later stage.

Narayana is accepted as the supreme deity.

He is full of good qualities. The Dvaitins do not accept that Brahman is nirguna.

According to Dvaitins, Narayana only creates this world, sustains this world and destroys this world.

They accept that Narayana has a divine body, a beautiful and shining body.

Yes. They accept the avataras like Rama and Krishna as all real.

Lakshmi is accepted as Narayana’s consort. But, they give Her a slightly lower place than Narayana. She also has a divine and beautiful body, like Narayana. However, Lakshmi is considered Jivatma.

They state that Lakshmi is also vibhu, like Narayana.

Yes. They accept the reality of the world and all beings

They say that the Jivatmas are different from one another. The Jivatmas are grouped into two categories, as males and females. The Jivatmas are also atomic in nature.

They accept the concept of salvation, viz., moksha and Paramapada. They agree that moksha means liberation from samsara and attainment of Paramapada.

No, they have different categories or gradations in moksha, like salokya, sarupya, samipya and sayujya. Depending on their merits (punya), the Jivatmas attain salokya or sarupya and so on.

They accept bhakti as the means.

The Dvaitins say that Jivatma and Paramatma are always different from one another. They do not accept the concept of body-soul relationship between Jivatma and Paramatma.

Since according to them, the Jivatma is eternally different from Paramatma, they are two. So, this system of philosophy is called Dvaita.

An authority is something from which we learn truths. We consider the Vedas, as the basic authority We also use logic and arguments to arrive at the truths, in addition to learning from the Vedas.

Such things from which we learn the truths or arrive at the truths, are called authority (pramana).

These are three in number, and are as follows:-

1. What we understand directly by our senses, like what we see with our eyes or what we hear with our ears. This is called Pratyaksha.

2. Inference or logic (Anumana) – That is, by seeing or understanding a thing, we logically infer something else, although it is not actually seen by us. For example, if we see smoke coming, we infer there is fire. So this is called one of the sources of knowledge (anumana).

3. Sabda (or sound). We accept the Vedas, Smritis, Itihasas, Puranas as authority (So long as they do not contradict the Vedas).

It is from these that generally the various systems of philosophy are developed by logical deductions and arguments.

A detailed description or discussion of these will be difficult to understand. I will only briefly indicate the nature of each of these.

Talking of the first source, i.e. perception by senses, we have to be careful that our perception is correct and it is not wrong. For example, seeing is correct and it is not wrong. For example, seeing a rope from a distance, we may mistake it for a serpent. This is wrong perception. Similarly, in hot summer, on a tar road, seeing from a distance, you may think that there is water. This again is wrong perception. We have to guard against such wrong perceptions.

The senses or Indriyas are of two kinds: the senses of knowledge (Jnana Indriyas) and the senses of Action (Karma Indriyas).

Theses are five in number: 1.Eye 2.Ear 3.Nose 4.Mouth and 5.Skin (on the body)

These are called the five senses of action or Karma (Karma Indriyas)

These are: 1. Tongue 2. Hand 3. Leg 4. Anus and 5. The Organ reproduction.

So, we have to be careful that what is understood through the senses of knowledge is correct.

We should also remember at a later time what we had seen or heard earlier. This is also accepted as an authority, since it is only remembering of an authority, which was understood through our senses earlier.

We see a rope and wrongly think it is a serpent. We see a shell and wrongly think it is silver. This is called illusion.

As you know, Sabda means sound. Sound evolves or develops into words, and then sentences. The Vedas are accpted as the basic authority. Along with this, we also accept the Brahma Sutra And Bhagavad Gita as authorities.

We also accept the Itihasas (Ramayana and Mahabharata), the Purana, the Smritis and the Vaishnava Agamas as authorities.

However, there is one improtant condition and that is, that anything in these works, which are Not in tune with the Vedas or which are conrtradictory to Vedas, are not accepted as authority.

The iltimate aim or objective of the human being is to attain salvation or moksha.

We human beings are repeatedly born, come into this world and then die. Thus, there is a cycle of births and deaths. In this life, we commit so many sins, we undergo so many hardships. We do not follow the code of conduct prescibed by Sastras and we go on committing sins.

Salvation means, release from this cycle of births and deaths and attainment of moksha or mukti

We have to learn five things (Arth Panchaka ) and these are as follows:

1. The object of attainment is Sriman Narayana, who is permanently associated with Lakshmi.So,The nature of God.

2. The nature of our Soul or Jivatma

3. The means or the methods to be adopted by us, for attaining Moksha at the end of this life.

4. The exact nature of Moksha or Parmapada.

5. The hindrances that arise in attaining our goal of Moksha at the end of this life; and how to get over these hindrances or difficulties.

“Tattva” means that which is real.

There are three tattvas or reals. These are:

1. Jivatma. It is also called as Chit, Soul, Self, Atma and Chetana. It is sentient i.e., has Knowledge.

2. Achetana or matter or achit. It is non-sentient. i.e., dose not have knowledge.

3.Iswara or the Supreme Lord.

A. The most important principle (pradhana pratitantra) is the body/soul relationship (sarirasariri Bhava or sarira – atma bhava) between sentient (Chetana), non-sentient (achetana); and Iswara.

The Brahman or Iswara is the soul and the other two reals (tattvas), chetana and achetana, form His body.

You can say that the body has legs and hands. The body of a serpent does not have any hands. Similarly, the shape and size of one body are different from that of another. A tree has a different body. An animal has a different body from that of a bird. The body of an elephant is different from the body of a mosquito. So, you cannot give physical characteristics to define a body.

There are three characteristics which decide what the body is

The first one is that the body is supported by the soul. The body exists from the time of the soul entering into it, in the mother’s womb. The body continues and perishes or dies, only when the soul leaves the body. In other words, the body is supported by the soul. As long as the soul remains in the body, the soul supports the body. This is the first characteristic of the body. Even in a state of dreamless sleep, the body continues to exist. So, the soul fully supports the body.

The second characteristic is that the Soul also controls or rules over the body. When the body is awake, the body is controlled by the will of the soul. The soul thus rules or controls the body. The body acts as per the will of the soul.

The third one is that the body exists only for the fulfilment of the desire of the soul. The soul, through the mind, desires something and then the body acts accordingly. So, the body exists only for the purpose of the soul.

These three govern the relationship between the body and the soul.

The soul performs the following three functions,over the body:

(1) Supporting (adharatva)

(2) Controlling (niyantrutva)

(3) Mastership (Seshitva).

So, the soul is, in relation to the body, as follows:

(1) Supporter (adhara)

(2) Controller (niyanta)

(3) Master (Seshi).

So, the body is

(1) being supported by the soul; (adheyatva)

(2) being controlled by the soul; (niyamyatva)

(3) existing for the pleasure of the soul (seshatva).

Yes.

You take all the three factors, which has have mentioned above and apply the principle to Brahman versus the chetana and achetana:

(1) All these chetana and achetana are supported by Brahman.

(2) Secondly, in their waking state, they are controlled or ruled by Iswara.

(3) Thirdly, all these exist only for His pleasure.

Thus, all the three characteristics or factors which determine the relationship between the soul and the body, are present in the case of Brahman or Iswara versus the entire chetana and achetana. Hence the fundamental doctrine of our philosophy is that Iswara is the soul of all chetanas or Jivatmas. Iswara is also the soul of all achetana i.e.the fundamental Matter and its evolutions. In other words, all the Jivatmas are the body of Iswara. Similarly, Matter and its evolutions also are the body of Iswara. This is the basic doctrine of our religion and philosophy.

We have a full section called “Antaryami Brahmana” in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and also similar passages in the Subala Upanishad. These specifically and clearly say that Iswara is the soul and the Jivatma and Matter are His body. The following are some of the passages:- “He is dwelling in the earth, is within the earth.”

“His body is the earth”,

“His body is the water”,

“His body is the fire”

“His body is the air”

“His body is the sun”

“His body is the moon and the stars”

“His body is ether”

“His body is the light”

“His body is speech”

“His body is the eye”

“His body is the ear”

“His body is the mind”

“His body is the skin”

“His body is the soul or Jivatma”

“His body is the intellect”

“His body is matter”

“His body is death”

“He is the internal soul of all beings”

“He is the divine Lord Narayana. He is the soul of all”.

Yes, We have established body/soul relationship between the Paramatma and Jivatma/achetana in two ways:

(1) By logic and argument, we have said that Brahman supports and controls the Jivatma/achetana and it is for His purpose that the; Jivatma/achetana is there. So, the Jivatma/achetana is the body and Brahman is the soul.

(2) Secondly, we have also quoted several passages from the Vedas, which clearly and explicitly state that Brahman is the soul; and the Jivatma, the matter and other evolutions are all His body.

Yes. There were earlier acharyas like Bodhayana, Dramida and Tanka. But unfortunately their works have been lost and are not available now.

Nammalwar has explicitly mentioned this. He says that the Lord is present everywhere, as the soul in the body.

To understand the proper meaning of Sastras is very difficult. We have to properly interpret some of the texts, which seem to be conflicting with each other. There are also inner meanings and secret meanings of the various mantras and slokas.

So, all these things can be properly understood, only by learning under a Guru or Acharya. So, the Acharya is most important, for properly understanding our religion and philosophy.

Lord Narayana is our first Guru. He taught Vedas to Brahma and Brahma in turn taught the Vedas to others. Hence at the head of our line of Gurus is Lord Narayan

Next in the line of Gurus is naturally our Goddess Mahalakshmi and then comes Vishvaksena or Senai Mudaliyar. This is aterm of respect , traditionally used for denoting Vishwaksena). He is the controller of Vaikunta or Paramapada.

Vishwaksena taught Nammalwar or Satakopa the philosophy of Vishistadvaitam.

Nammalwar or Satakopa comes next.

There are ten Alwars. Some people include Andal and Madhurakavi and say there are twelve Alwars.

‘Alwar’ in Tamil means ‘one who is immersed’. Since these saints were always immersed in the Lord and His qualities, they were called Alwars.

We say that they were in this world before and near the beginning of Kaliyuga. That is more than 5,000 years ago. The modern research scholars say that the Alwars were between the sixth and ninth century A.D.

The first three Alwars are called Poigai Alwars, Bhutattalwar and Peyalwar. All the three together are called the first alwars, because theses three were the first in the line of Alwars and they lived during the same period.

Poigai Alwar was born in the month of Aippasi in the Star Sravanam. Bhutattalwar was born in the month of Aippasi in the star Avittam and the Peyalwar in the same month, in the Star Sathaya on three successive days!

Poigai Alwar was born at Kanchipuram. Tradition has it that he was born in a tank and hence is called Poigai Alwar. (Poigai = Tank).

Bhutattalwar was born in Mahabalipuram and Peyalwar in Mylapore, Madras.

The next Alwar was Tirumazhisai Alwar. He was born in Tirumazhisai near Madras, in the month of Thai in the star Makha.

Then came Nammalwar or Satakopa. He was born at Alwartirunagari in the month of Vaikasi and star Visakha. Nammalwar is considered the chief of the Alwars. He expounded the system of Visishtadvaita Philosophy in clear terms in his works. Hence he is given the greatest importance among all the Alwars.

Madhurakavi was his disciple. Madhurakavi was born in Thirukkolur in the month of Chittirai, star Chittirai also.

Next came Kulasekhara Alwar. He was born in the month of Masi and star Punarvasu. His birth place is Vanjikkalam. It is not clearly known as to where exactly this place is. Some people say that it is Karur and some others say that it is in Kerala.

Next was Perialwar, who was born in Srivilliputtur in the month of Ani and star Swati. Andal was found among the Tulasi plants in Srivilliputtur in the month of Adi in the star Puram and was brought up by Perialwar.

Thondaradippodi Alwar was born in Tirumandangudi near Kumbakonam in the month of Margazhi and the star Kettai. Tiruppanalwar was born in Woriur, near Tiruchi, in the month of Karthikai and the star Rohini.

The last among the Alwars was Tirumangai Alwar, who was born in the month of Karthikai and star Karthikai in Kuraiyalur or Tirunagari near Sirkazhi.

Nammalwar was the author of four Prabandhas which form part of the sacred 4000 verses, called Divya Prabhandha. The Prabhandhas of Nammalwar are: Tiruvaomozhi, Tiruviruttam, Tiruvasiriam, Peria Tiruvandai

The four works are equated to the four Vedas. Tiruvaimozhi, in particular, is called the essence of the Sama Veda.

Poigai Alwar is the author of Mudal Tiruvandadi. Bhutattalwar of Second Tiruvandadi and the Peyalawar of Third Tiruvandadi – each comprising 100 verses. Tirumazhisai Alwar authored Tiruchanda Viruttam and Nanmukhan Tiruvandadi. Madhurakavi authored Kanninun Siruthambu. Kulasekhara Alwar authored Perumal Tirumozhi and also Mukunda Mala in Sanskrit. (His authorship of Mukundamala is disputed by some people.)

Perialwar authored Perialwar Tirumozhi. Andal gave to the world Tiruppavai and Nachiar Tirumozhi. Thondaradippodi Alwar – Tirumalai and Tiruppalli ezhucchi. Tiruppanalwar – Amalanadipiran.

The last in the list of Alwars is Tirumangai Alwar who wrote six Prabandhas and these are equated to the six angas of the four Vedas of Nammalwar. The six Prabandhas of Tirumangai Alwar are: Peria Tirumozhi, Tirukkurunthandakam, Tirunedunthandakam, Tiruvezhukutrirukkai, Siriya Tirumadal, Peria Tirumadal

After Nammalwar come Nathamuni, who was born in Kattumannar Koil near Chidambaram, in the month of Ani and star Anusham.

His disciple was Uyyakkondar who was born in the month of Chittirai and star Karthikai, in Tiruvellari.

His disciple was Manakkal Nambi who was born in the village Manakal, near Lalgudi in the month of Masi and star Makham.

The next in the line of Acharyas is the great Alavandar of Yamunacharya. He was the grandson of Nathamuni and was the disciple of Manakkal Nambi. Alavandar was born in the month of Adi and star Uttaradam, in Kattumannarkoil

Alavandar’s disciple was Peria Nambi who was born in Srirangam in the month of Margazhi and star Kettai.

Then comes the great Ramanuja.

Afterwards, there are two lines. There is one line of Acharyas of whom Vedanta Desika was the most prominent. There is another line of Acharyas which goes on to Manavala Mamunigal.

Ramanuja (1017-1137 A.D.) was born in Sriperumpudur in the month of Chitrai and star Tiruvadirai.

Vedanta Desika (1268-1369 A.D) was born in Thoopul near Kanchi in the month of Purattasi and star Sravanam.

Manavala Mamunigal (1370-1443 A.D.) was born at Sikkil Kidaram, in the month of Aippasi and star Mulam. It is also said that he was born in Alwartirunagari.

Yes. 1. Peria Nambi was the chief or principal acharya. Then Ramanuja learnt meanings of secrets (rahasyas) form

2. Tirukkottiur Nambi. He studied Tiruvaimozhi under.

3.Tirumalai Andan. He learnt stotras, under

4. Alavandar Alwar and studied Ramayana under 5. Tirumalai Nambi, Thus he had five acharyas.

Ramanuja is also called Bhashyakara, Yatiraja, Udayavar, Emberumanar and Yatiswara

Nathamuni gave us two works – Yoga Rahasya and Nyayatattva. Alavandar gave to this world 8 works. These are: Agama Pramanya, Purusha Nirnaya.

Three Siddhis called Siddhi Trayam, namely, Atma Siddhi, Iswara Siddhi and Samvit siddhi. Then Gitartha Sangraha, Stotra Ratna and chatus Sloki. The next great Acharya Ramanuja gave us nine works or nine gems. These are: Sri Bhashya, Vedanta Dipa, Vedanta Sara, Vedartha Sangraha, Gita Bhashya, the three Gadyas, namely Saranagati Gadya, Sriranga Gadya and Vaikunta Gadya and then Nitya.

The works of Vedanta Desika are more than 100 in number.

They cover different fields like devotional stotras, kavya, drama, works on philosophy, and commentaries on great works.

It is a wonder how a person could write so many works within a life span. It is difficult for us even to read and understand all his works in a life time.

All works are equally important. I will give you the name of some of the works.

Rahasyatrayasara is a book which gives in detail the inner meaning of the three secrets or rahasyas. In the process, it expounds our Vaishnavite philosophy. It also dwells at length on the prapatti or saranagait as the means of attaining salvation.

We have Taparya Chandrika. This is a lucid commentary on the commentary of Bhagavad Gita that was written by Ramanuja. Paduka Sahasra describes the greatness and beauty of the paduka of Sri Ranganatha in 1000 verses. Yadavabhyudaya gives the story of Sri Krishna. The slokas of Yadavabhyudaya are full of something supreme. It is because of the greatness of this work that it has been commented upon by Appayya Dikshitar, the great Advaita scholar.

We have Sankalpa Suryodaya. This is an allegorical drama, again explaining the Visishtadvaita philosophy.

We have the work Sata Dushani. This contains arguments against Advaita philosophy. As the name indicates, perhaps, it was intended to have 100 arguments. However, we now have only 66 arguments left, all against Advaita Philosophy.

We then have the devotional verses or stotras. Some of these are : Hayagriva stotra, Dasavatara stotra, Bhagavad Dhyana Sopana, Gopala Vimsati. Daya Sataka on Sri Venkateswara of Tirupati, Sri Stuti and Garuda Panchasat.

Nyayaparisuddhi, Nyaya Siddhanjana, Adhikarana Saravali and Tattvamuktakalapa are works on our philosophy.

He wrote beautiful commentaries on Perialwar Tirumozhi and Ramanuja Nutrandadi; on Mumukshuppadi, Tattvatraya and Sri Vachana Bhushana of Pillai Lokacharya; on Acharya Hridayam of Alagiamanavalapperumal Nayanar; and on Jnanasaram and Prameyasaram of Arulalapperumal emberumanar.

He also wrote Upadesaratnamala, Arthi prabandha, Yatiraja Vimsati and Tiruvaimozhi Nutrandadi, besides other works.

There are number of other Acharyas who have contributed significantly to Vaishnavism. I will mention some of the Acharyas now. You can refer to other books for fuller details. Kurattalwan wrote Panchastavas: Sri Vaikunta Stava, Atimanusha Stava, Sundarabahu Stava, Varadaraja Stava, Sri Stava

Tirukkurukaippiran pillan wrote commentary (6000 padi) on Tiruvaimozhi.

Kidambi Achan; Embar;

Engalazhvan wrote commentary on Vishnu Purana.

Parasara Bhattar wrote commentary on Vishnu Sahasra Nama (Bhagavadgunadarpanam), Sri Rangaraja Stava and Srigunaratna Kosa, besides others.

Nanjiyar wrote commentary on Tiruvaimozhi (9000 padi); and Sri Sukta Bhashya. (This is disputed by some people.)

Vatsya Varadacharya (Nadadur Ammal) wrote Tattva Sara, Prapanna Parijata among others.

Sudarsana Bhattar wrote Sruta Prakasika and Sruta Pradipika, bothe commentaries on Sri Bhashya.

Appullar wrote Nyayakulisa.

Nampillai;

Periavachan Pillai wrote beautiful commentaries on Divya Prabandha, besides many other works.

Vadakku Thiruveethi Pillai wrote Edu Commentary on Tiruvaimozhi (36000 padi).

Pillai Lokacharya wrote 18 Rahasyas – the more important being Mamukshuppadi, Tattvatraya and Sri Vachana Bhushana.

Alagiamanavalapperumal Nayanar wrote Acharya Hridayam, besides commentary on Tiruppavai and other works.

(Pillai is a term of respect, and not to be confused with the present day use of this word.)

The Vedas are the basic, fundamental authority.

Veda, in Sanskrit means that which gives knowledge.

Veda is also called Sruti.

Sruti means that which is heard (through you ears). The Vedas were originally taught by Lord Narayana to Brahma orally. From thereon the Vedas came down from the Guru to the students orally only.The Guru teaches the Vedas to the students. Thus the student hears the Veda from the teacher.

They are also called Nigama and Amnaya.

Nigama means a settled text or work, which is handed down from the Guru to the student from time immemorial. Amnaya means what is learnt by the student, by frequent repetition of the text; and also by frequently thinking over the same.

The Vedas have not been composed by anybody, not even by God Himself. The Vedas are eternally existent. Even God did not create or make the Vedas. Narayana has only taught the Vedas to Brahma and then down the line. Hence Vedas are called Apaurusheya – not authored or made by anyone, including God.

There are four Vedas. They are called: Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Sama Veda and Atharva Veda.

They are actually the breath of God. That is, after each deluge (pralaya), when the world is created, God Narayana remembers the Vedas and teaches then to Brahma and then it comes down the line. That is why, we say they are not made by anybody including God, but are self-existent.

Vyasa edited the Vedas and divided them.

The Vedas were divided into four, to suit the Vedic rituals or karmas. There are four persons (Ritviks) who are prominent in the performance of rituals.

1.The person, whose function is to recite praises of God and prayer to Him, sitting in one place, is called Hota. The Hota’s function and Mantras are given in Rig Veda.

2.The person, who is engaged in the actual performance of the ritual, from the beginning to the end, is called Adhvaryu. The necessary mantras and the functions of the Adhvaryu are given in Yajur Veda.

3.The person who sings Samans (musical notes), sitting in another place, is called Udgata. The Udgata’s functions and the Sama Ganas are given in Sama Veda.

4.The general supervisor of the rituals is called Brahman. The Bhrama’s functions and the Mantras are given in Atharva Veda. The vedas are also broadly divided as Mantras and Brahmanas.

The Mantras are in praise of God and prayers to God. The Yajur Mantras give detailed formulas for the rituals. The sama Mantras are only Rik Mantras, set to music.

The Rik Mantras are in poetry form. Yajur Mantras are in prose form. Sama Mantras are Riks, set to musical tones. The Atharva Veda contains both verses (poetry) and prose. This much idea is enough for the present regarding Mantras.

The Brahmanas are in prose form. Their main aim is to prescribe the rituals in details and also praise the glory of the Devas

Brahmanas are again divided into two parts: Vidhi and Arthavada.

Vidhi portions give command to do a thing, to perform rituals. Arthavada generally praises the rituals, the glory of Devas and also points out their weaknesses. They also contain stories to illustrate the points.

Portions connected with rituals are called Karmakanda. Generally, they teach how rituals like various yagas are to be done. They are also called Purvakanda. Portions dealing with philosophy and knowledge of Brahman are called Jnanakandra or Brahma kanda. So, Mantras and Brahmanas come under Karmakanda. Upanishads are called Jnanakanda. But, knowledge of Brahman and Philosophy are also discussed in Mantras and Brahmanas.

Sastra in Sanskrit means that which gives teaching, instruction or command.

The Vedas are the most important sastras. There is no sastra higher than the Veda. Then we have Smiriti, Itihasa, Purana and Agama, about which we will discuss later.

Modern thinkers divide Vedas into four portions, as follows: Samhita Brahmana Aranyaka, and Upanishads. Samhita denotes collection of Mantras. Brahmanas have already been described earllier. Aranyakas are texts, which were recited in hermitages in forests. Upanishads contain philosophical thoughts, in the form of discussions and explanations.

They talk about realisation of God, how to attain salvation. Since they speak about realising Brahman or the ultimate reality the Upanishads are called Brahma Kanda. Since they give us Knowledge about attaining salvation, they are also called Jnana Kanda. The Upanishads are also called Veda Siras, i.e., the head of the Veda. When we say the head, we mean the most important part of the Veda.

No. Brahma is the four-faced one, who came from the lotus, out of the navel of Lord Narayana. Brahman means one who is great and hence denotes the Supreme Being or the Ultimate Reality.

People say that there are more than a hundred Upanishads, but only some of the Upanishads are accepted authoritatively by all sections of the Hindus. The important ones are called Dasopanishad, i.e., the ten Upanishads. These ten Upanishads are accepted as authority and quoted by ancient philosophers like Sankara, Ramanuja, and Madhva.

The ten Upanishads are: Isavaya Upanishad, Kena Upanishad, Kata Upanishad, Prasna Upanishad, Mundaka Upanishad, Mandukya Upanishad, Taittiriya Upanishad, Aitareya Upanishad, Chandogya Upanishad, Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.

We have Svetasvatara Upanishad, Kaushitaki Upanishad, Subala Upanishad, and Maha Narayana Upanishad forms part of Taittiriya Upanishad, Aitareya Upanishad, Chandogya Upanishad, Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.

Aitareya Upanishad is in Rig Veda Isavasya Upanishads, Kata Upanishads, Taittiriya Upanishad Bridhadaranyaka Upanishad are in Yajur Veda. Kena Upanishad and Chandogya Upanishad are from Sama Veda. Prasna Upanishad, Mundaka Upanishad and Mandukya Upanishad are all in Atharva Veda.

There are six such Angas (part or limbs) of Vedas. These are 1)Siksha 2) Vyakarana 3) Chandas 4) Jyotisha 5) Nirukta and 6) Kalpa.

1)Siksha explains the proper pronunciations of the Vedas.

2)Vyakarana explains the grammar of the Vedic words.

3)Chandas explains the metres of the various Riks.

4)Jyotisha helps in deciding the proper time for the performance of the various rituals.

5)Nirukta gives the meanings of difficult words in the Vedas.

6)Kalpa describes the proper method of performing the various ritual mentioned in the Vedas. These six angas of the Vedas help in a proper understanding of the Vedas. They also help in the performance of the various rituals or the yagas (yagnas), prescribed by the Vedas.

They can be divided into two groups: 1) Those which are connected with the text of the Vedas: Siksha, Vyakarana, Chandas. 2)Those which are connected with the meaning of Vedas: Jyotisha, Nirukta, Kalpa.

Next comes Smriti. Smriti helps us in understanding the various injunctions and truths propounded in the Vedas.

The Smritis are many in number and even an exact definition of Smriti is perhaps not available. Many of the Smritis are also not available now and are lost to humanity. The more important Smritis are : Manu Smriti, Parasarra Smriti, Yagnavalkya Smriti, Harita Smriti ans Sandilya Smriti. Some say there are 20 Smritis and some others say that there are 57 Smritis.

The Smritis describe the codes of conduct for mankind in day-to-day life; how they should conduct themselves; and for any wrong doings, what are the punishments or atonements (prayaschitta) to be undergone. The Smritis can be considered as elaborating or explaining the Karma Kanda of the Vedas.

Ramayana and Mahabharata are called Itihasas.

They are considered as sacred as the Vedas themselves. The Mahabharata is called the Fifth Veda.

There are 18 Puranas. These are sub-divided into three sets or groups. The first set of six Puranas are authoritative, sacred. These are called Sattvika Puranas. The second set of six Puranas are of medium quality, i.e. the whole thing cannot be accepted as true. These are called Rajasa Puranas. The third set of six puranas cannot be taken as perfectly valid. Only some portions of them, which are not opposed to Vedas, can be taken as authoritative. These are called Tamasa Puranas.

1.The first set of six Puranas which are most sacred (Sattvika Puranas) are as follows: Vishnu Purana Bhagavatam Narada Purana Padma Purana Varaha Purana Garuda Purana

2.The second set of six Puranas, which are not wholly authoritative, (Rajasa Puranas) are: Vamana Purana Brahma Purana Markandeya Purana Bhaavishya Purana Brahmanda Purana Brahma Vaivarta Purana

3.The last set of six Puranas, which are not very authoritative (Tamasa Puranas) are: Matsya Purana Kurma Purana Agni Purana Linga Purana Siva Purana Skanda Purana.

The basic rule is that the Vedas are the Ultimate authority or Pramana. So, in the Puranas, whichever does not conflict or contradict the Veda, can be taken as authority,

The Agamas accept the authority of Vedas. The Agamas prescribe idol worship in the place of rituals like Yagas, mentioned in the Vedas. They prescribed the methods of idol worship.

The Agamas are predominantly divided into Saiva, Sakta and Vaishnava Agamas. Agamas mainly talk about construction of temples; the rules for installation and consecration of the deities in the temples; and the methods of performing pujas in the temples. The Vaishnava Agamas identify Brahman as Vasudeva. We will discuss this further later.

The Vaishnava Agamas are : Pancharatra Agama and Vaikhanasa Agama

Some temples follow Pancharatra Agama and some temples follow Vaikhanasa Agama. This is only by tradition and custom.

It is so called, because it was first taught by Vikhanas rishi to a group of disciples. Sage Vikhanas is stated to have been created by Lord Narayana Himself. It is also stated that he was created by Brahma.

Lord Narayana taught this Agama for five nights to five rishis. Hence, it is called Pancharatra Agama (Pancharatra means five nights)

These are divided into Samhitas.

There are more than 100 Samhitas. Sattvata Samhita, Paushkara Samhita, Jayakhya Samhita. These three are considered more important and are called three gems (Ratna traya). We have also Ahirbudhnya Samhita, Padma Samhita, Parameswara Samhita and Lakshmitantra.

The Mimamsa consists of two parts. The first part is called Purva Mimamsa or Karma Mimamsa. The second part is called Uttara Mimamsa or Brahma Mimamsa.

Karma Mimamsa is dealt with by Jaimini in 16 chapters or Adhyayas. They contain short statements or aphorisms. They clarify doubts regarding rituals mentioned in the Vedas and also clarify doubts about the general conduct. They interpret the Vedic texts in Karma Kanda.

Brahma Mimamsa is dealt with in Brahma Sutras. This is propounded by Sage Badarayana or Vyasa. This contains short statements or aphorisms, clarifying doubts in the Vedic text. Brahma Mimamsa interperts the Vedic text of Jnana Kanda or Brahma Kanda.

Brahma Sutra is considered very sacred and important. It helps in clarifying and explaining difficult passages in the Upanishads.

This being one of the most important texts, many philosophers have written detailed commentaries. We have the commentaries by Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, besides many others like Nimbarka and Vallabha.

We have four chapters or Adhyayas in the Brahma Sutra. Each of the four chapters consists of four parts or padas. There are 545 Sutras or aphorisms.

The first chapter shows that Brahman is the sole cause of

1) creation of this world.

2) sustenance of this world and also

3) destruction of this world. The second chapter discusses some of the objections in this regard put forth by other schools and proves that Brahman is both the material cause and the instrumental cause of this world. (We will discuss this in detail later) The third chapter talks of salvation: what is meant by salvation and the glory of salvation.

There are three texts or books which explain the Vedanta philosophy and so they are called Prasthana Traya. They are:

1.Upanishads. 2.Brahma Sutra 3.Bhagavad Gita

These are the most sacred texts. All philosophers have written commentaries on these, trying to prove that these three books support their therory.

The Purusha Sukta is the most important.

Manu Smriti is considered the most important.

The Vishnu Purana is considered most sacred and important of the Puranas. It is called Puranaratna

Bhagavad Gita is the most important.

The systems of philosophy in India can be broadly divided into Nastika Schools and Astika Schools.

The Nastika School does not accept the authority of Vedas. They only adopt logic and reasoning.

The Astika school accepts the authority of Vedas primarily and also uses reasoning and logic.

These are Charvaka system, Buddhism and Jainism.

We have Sankhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaiseshika, Mimamsa, besides the Vedanta system.

There is no specific single system of philosophy called the Vedantic system. Advaita, Vishshtadvaitha, and Dvaita are the most well- known of the Vedantic systems.

These are: 1. Charvaka system 2. Jainism 3. Buddhism 4. Sankhya system 5. Yoga system 6. Nyaya system 7. Vaiseshika system 8. Mimamsa system

Buddhism was propounded by Gautama Buddha and Jainism by Mahavir Jain. The Vaiseshika system was propounded by Kanada and the Yoga system by Brahma. However, modern belief is that the yoga system was founded by Patanjali. The Sankhya System was propounded by Kapila: the Nyaya system by Gautama or Akshapada. The Mimamsa system was advocated by Jaimini.