As against this, if we are confined to Vedanta Systems, disparity in Vedanta philosophy is due to the difference in understanding & interpreting scriptures. Scriptures describe Jagat, Jiva, Eshvara, their mutual relationship etc. in a verity of ways. Despite of having unanimously accepted decisive work of Brahmasutra by Shri Vedavyasa on divergent Vedant statements, conclusion drawn by commentator Acharyas varies. Therefore, different names like Kevaladvait, Vishishtadvaita etc. are given to identify their theory distinctly from the other theories. Of these theories

Kevaladvaita — Shri Shankaracharya Vishisht-advaita — Shri Ramanujacharya Sahiva Vishishtadvaita — Shri Shrikanthacharya Dvait — Shri Madhvacharya Bhed-abheda — Shri Bhaskaracharya, Dvait-advaita — Shri Nimbarkacharya Avibhagadvaita — Shri Vijnanabhikshu Shuddhadvaita — Shri Vallabhacharya

Names are assigned to the respective theories on the basis of the way relationship between Jagat-Jiva and Brahma they define. Brahma is universally accepted factor by all systems of Vedanta. Now the question remains about the type of origination, existence and relation of Jagat and Jiva etc. with respect to Brahma. Here, exactly, differences appear.

Kevaladvaita of Shri Shankaracharya Upanishad says "Sarvam khalu idam brahma" —this (multifarious universe) all, in fact, is Brahman on one hand, and "Ekameva advitiyam brahma, Neha nanasti kincana" —Brham is one only, it is not two, there is no diversity here. One statement says that the multifarious universe, which we experience, is Brahma. However, we do not experience this multifarious world as Brahma. Another statement says that there is no diversity here and Brham is one only, it is not many. However, our experience does not conform this. Therefore Shri Shankaracharya reached on the conclusion that except Brahma, everything is ultimately unreal and therefore fake-Mithya. So, there remains one and only one Brahma. This is Kevala-advaita.

The Advaita-school is of the view that knowledge of mans true nature is liberation. Bondage arises from ignorance of the true nature of oneself and therefore removal of ignorance is the first step towards root out this bondage. This true nature is his innermost essence, the Atman, which is nothing other than Brahman. He, who knows this, is liberated.

Vishishtadvaita of Shri Ramanujacharya According to this system creation of the world of sentient being and insentient object as an effect of the freely acting causal power of Brahma, under the influence of which Prakriti takes on new qualities. In Vishishtadvaita, effects are real but dependent on Brahma. The world is not illusory or Mayik. Before the emergence of the world in its differentiated state, Brahma exists in its causal-state, Karanavastha. As the world differentiates out, it is in its effect-state Karyavasth. The world is the body of the Lord. Lord alone is truly independent. All else exists depending on Him. Brahma is both instrumental and material cause of the world. In the state of Pralaya, He encompasses Prakriti within Himself in its most subtle form, so that there is no way of differentiating the world from God except conceptually.

Sahiva Vishishtadvaita of Shri Shrikanthacharya Srikanthacharya was also supporter of qualified non-dualism of Ramanujachary. He substituted Shiva in place of Vasudeva of Ramanuja, which embodies the highest conception of Brahman.

Dvaita of Shri Madhavacharya Dvaita system does not accept Brahma as material cause of the world. According to Madhva, there is absolute fivefold distinction. 1. God is distinct from souls 2. God is distinct from Matter 3. Soul is distinct from Matter 4. This soul is distinct from that soul and 5. This matter is distinct from that matter. His philosophy is, therefore, known as Dvaita, dualism. According to him, devotion to the Lord Narayaa alone would entitle one to achieve absolution.

Bhed-abheda of Shri Bhaskaracharya Bhaskaracarya maintains that the relation between Jiva and Brahman, as well as the relation between Jagat and Brahman can be viewed as the relation between Shakti and Shaktiman. The relation between Shakti and Shaktimat is one of Bhed-abheda, i.e. identity-cum-difference. The relation between Brahman and Jiva may be compared with the relation that obtains between a fire and the sparks that emanate from it. The sparks are fiery by nature, but they cannot be totally identified with the fire from which they emanate. The relation between Brahman and Jiva is thus one of identity-cum-difference. So long as the Jiva-s are not liberated, they are different from Brahman, but once they are liberated, they cease to be different from Brahman, since at that stage, there remains no ground for distinguishing them from Brahma. The relation of identity-cum-difference also holds between a material cause and its effect, and consequently, the relation between Brahman and Jagat is also one of Bhed-abheda. The world is a real transformation of Brahman, but Brahman, being omnipotent, nevertheless maintains its intrinsic nature while undergoing this transformation.

Dvait-advaita of Shri Nimbarkacharya Nimbark theory is more or less similar to Ramanuj theory. According to this system Jiva is dependent on Brahma. However, in the state of Mukti also, Jiva remain apart from Brahma. In this respect there is some sort of Advaita and some sort of Dvait, also.