Evolution

Specifically what is it that causes major differences in philosophy about what the end is?

A little bit of history first. Understand that this is what I know, being a mortal with an irresistible need to question, I ponder without accurately checking facts. The way I understand it, Shankaracharya brought about the first major revival of Hindu philosophy in the 8th century AD. He propounded on all the major scriptures and founded what is called 'advaithic thought'. Basically that self in a truly realized person unites with the Lord of Love, the self resides in all of cosmos, and is the only thing that never changes. Subsequent teachers differ in Shankaracharya about this. For example Ramanujacharya, who propounded his version of the scriptures around the 13th century AD, says that the Self in a truly realized person is free from the eternal cycle of life and death, but remains for all eternity in obeisance to the Lord of Love. This is today called ‘Vashishtadvaithic thought’. These philosophies were adopted by their disciples and passed down from family to family. I personally come from a family that believes in Ramanujacharya as the supreme teacher.

Now here come the questions. My understanding of philosophy is that the means are far more relevant than the end. Meaning all of us have to live our lives with self-control, compassion and renunciation. Meditation with teaching from a learned guru will get us closer to escaping the eternal cycles of life. Nobody can really know specifically what happens to the Self when a person attains moksha, because the plane at which the self is realized is indescribable. So WHAT is it that occurred in 13th century India that caused the need for a change in the description of what is essentially indescribable? What would Ramanujacharya have felt changing the entire interpretation of the end when he himself could only hope to attain it on his demise? What the families caught between these philosophies felt, what if they followed the wrong philosophy [ ok they must have thought, the means are the same so that is no issue, but what if the philosophy is a lie, propounded by a pressing need to alter the essential meaning due to going’s on in this samsara]. And of course, how much of Shankaracharya's thought was influenced by going's on around him.

The intent of this dialogue is not to malign but to try and understand what my ancestors thought's were.