Please compare and contrast the position of [swaminarayan][1] and [vallabhaachraya][2]. do they have same view? if not, what points are unique?
notes: What I know is that swaminayran is off-white, and vallabacharchys is beige. Both appear to be enlightened with a Krishna-murti in mind [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swaminarayan [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vallabha
The teachings of Svāmīnārāyaṇa were compiled in his time and preserved in a written form. This compilation is known as the Vacanāmṛta which would be referred to extensively.
Svāmīnārāyaṇa accepted 5 basic metaphysical entities.
(i) Parabrahman (Puruṣottama) ; (ii) Akṣarabrahman ; (iii) māyā ; (iv) īśvara ; (v) jīva
He explicitly mentions this in his two sermons of the Vacanāmr̥ta Gadādha (Vac. Gadh.)
Puruṣottama Bhagavāna, Akṣarabrahman, māyā, īśvara, māyā and jīva – these 5 entities are eternal (Vac. Gadh. 1.7)
From all the Veda, Purāṇas, itihāsa, smṛti, I have gleaned the principle that jīva, māyā, īśvara, Brahman, Parameśvara are all eternal (Vac. Gadh. 3.10)
In his Vedarasa (177), Svāmīnārāyaṇa writes,
Some claims that jīva and māyā are imaginary (kalpita). But O Paramhansas! The jīva is real, māyā is real, īśvara is real, Brahman is real, Parabrahman is real.
This point is reiterated in Vac. Gadh. 1.39 and 1.42 more explicitly, referring to the claims of Advaitins that 'Brahman alone exists and all else besides – jīva, īśvara, māyā etc – is mithyā '. But Svāmīnārāyaṇa asserts on the contrary that jīva, māyā and īśvara are real too, and not illusory.
This is evidently in strong contrast to most Vedāntic schools who accepts less metaphysical entities, Śaṅkara who asserts only Brahman, Rāmānuja who asserts only (īśvara, cit and acit) and Madhva who asserts (svatantra tattva and asvatantra tattva). Vallabha following Rāmānuja asserts only 3 metaphysical entities (Brahman, cit and acit). But Vallaba being strictly non-dualistic (unlike Svāmīnārāyaṇa) only accepts Brahman (i.e. Kr̥ṣṇa in his case) to be the singular entity existing still.
For Vallabha, the supreme is Kr̥ṣṇa, also known as Brahman. But in the case of Svāmīnārāyaṇa's Vedānta, Svāmīnārayaṇa is considered to be the Parabrahman Puruṣottama, the highest reality, the Bhagavāna himself. (Vac. Gadh. 2.1.3 ; 3.31).
Furthermore, in the words of an eminent Gujarātī scholar, Mr. Bhogīlāla Sāṃdesarā:
“Among all these scriptures [the scriptures of Buddhism, Jainism, Rāmānujācārya, Vallabhācārya, and other Ācāryas] the position of the Vacanāmṛta is unique because the discourses of Bhagavān Svāminārāyaṇa were compiled verbatim. There is a reference to the place and time of the discourses; a note of the year, month and day; a description of Bhagavān Svāminārāyaṇa’s garments and even the names of the people participating in the dialogues are maintained… Thus, there is no room for interpolation.”
The Vacanāmṛta is also an authoritative scripture in as much as it was spoken by God (as in Svāminārāyaṇa) Himself and written down at the same time. In fact, it was even reviewed and approved by Bhagavān Svāminārāyaṇa during its compilation, a fact evident in Vacanāmṛta Loyā-7.
Śuddhadvaita is free from all differences, internal or external. Vallabha accepts three forms of Brahman:
(i) Para-Brahman, Puruṣottama or Kr̥ṣṇa ; (iii) Antar-yāmin ; (iii) Akṣar-Brahman.
In Vallabha's Śuddhādvaita, while Puruṣottama is the highest, Akṣara Brahman is but one expression of it. It is the object of meditation and worship, regarded as the abode of Kr̥ṣṇa. It appears as prakr̥ti and puruṣa and includes innumerable worlds. And both Parabrahman and Akṣara are forms of non-dualistic Brahman.
The strong distinction b/w Akṣara and Puruṣottama is unique to Svāmīnārayaṇa. As per Svāmīnārayaṇa, Akṣara is the highest abode, and Puruṣottama, who is described as the resplendent form of Kr̥ṣṇa, is thought to transcend akṣaradham, and to be the cause of all avatārs. Both are free from the bondage of māyā. But the difference we see is that Akṣara is an expression of Puruṣottama in Śuddhadvaita, while in Svāmīnārāyaṇa's view, we see they are extremely distinct.
Akṣara-Puruṣottama Siddhānta of Svāmīnārāyaṇa (as it is termed now) is considered to be a distinct school among other Vedāntic traditions and is not the same as either Viśiṣṭādvaita of Rāmānuja or Śuddhādvaita of Vallabha. Here, I have only discussed a few (but most glaring) contrary positions of Śuddhādvaita and Akṣara-Puruṣottama Siddhānta.
References & Further Reading
