My reflection on Advaita/Vishishadvaita

[atanu]

Originally Posted by Omkara

A text accepted as shruti by your school says that multiple entities can be referrents pf the term Brahman. If you object to that, you should prpvide an alternate interpretation for the verse.

Do you know what is brahman of forms and what is brahman of names?

No scripture says that there are many immutable brahman-s. And can you show who among the advaitins accepted multiple immutable Brahman? Sruti says "One who sees any difference here goes from death to death". So, these multiple Brahman-s are all mortal.

Huh, what is this supposed to mean? I repeat again- You made false claims that Dvaita/VA has Nirguna Brahman subordimate to Krishna. Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?

It means what I already said "I admit to my poetic disabilty-inabilty to describe Vaikuntha...". If you cannot follow it then I cannot help.

I feel that you are plain arrogant. It was you who made false claims about the translation of 13.13 as noted above.


Namaste.

[atanu]

For those who have been reading and smiling, I am recording a few simple points with regard to the discussion about nirgunam and sagunam that has taken place.

Nirgunam as per all Vedanta schools is beyond gunas, which are qualities of mind. Nirgunam simply means transendental, beyond mind. Saguna is ' one with mind-sense discernible qualities'.

Most non-advaita Vedanta schools appear to take a personal God (Saguna) as the Supreme. And mostly it will be Vishnu or Krishna. This is saguna Lord of a particular flavour. When such a saguna Lord is given the Supreme position, it is natural that the nirgunam aspect is downplayed. For Vishistadvaitins, ultimate salvation is to reach Sri Vaikunta and enjoy being in service to Lord Sriman Narayana and Sri Lakshmi. In Dvaita, in the state of salvation all the souls are eternally under the protection and care of Vishnu and forever free from the worldly miseries. However they do not merge with Vishnu and they retain their individuality.

Can a Saivaite identify with a four armed, discuss throwing Lord? Can an American identify with that easily? Though, in the darsanas such is actually not the theme, but in common Vaisnava (and Hindu) perception Vishnu rules with a chakra etc. So, Saguna Lord, as per common perception, has a cultural connotation, and not universal.

Second. As per VA, the truth is Vishnu, Parabrahman, as the Supreme of an universe made of cit-acit (intelligent-non intelligent) things that make up His body. Advaita does not admit of acit (non-intelligence ) to the immutable highest.

In VA and Dvaita purports and translations of the Gita, Upanishads and Brahma Sutra, usually the saguna aspects have been played up and concepts that point to ineffability etc.have been given some other kind of interpretation and/or down-played. One example is Gita 13.13 explained earlier.

Neti-Neti, sruti of upanishad is another common example that teaches as below.

The life force is the satya - the truth. The ineffable is the satyasa satya, the Truth of the Truth, the all pervading immutable Brahman. Brihadaraynaka upanishad teaches that the Brahman is to be meditated as Not This-Not This. Whatever can be perceived as 'this' is not Brahman. However VA teaches that neti-neti means 'Not just this-Not just this'. That may be very OK. But a teaching such as 'Not just this-'Not just this' is sure invitation to mental images as per cultural background. Whereas, simple 'Not this-Not this' is a teaching to discard notion of any mental form or name, physical or mental.
--------------------------
Finally a simple question will suffice. Suppose, some one is a strong saguna Shiva follower. Will a saguna four armed Vishnu suit that person as his Deity or as a mental image of Param Brahman? And is this the goal of Veda?

May be it is. But that is not for me. I have stated facts as I know.

[atanu]

Viraja, since you are reading both VA and advaita, I thought it OK to record an advaitin's perspective also. This is not to discourage you or not to belittle VA. I believe that God only has designed and set out different paths for different people.


I face another problem with Vishistadvaita. It is taught that in case of sruti conficting with pratayksha (evident experience), the sruti is not stronger (approximate paraphrase). This is an odd dictum for a spiritual darsana.

The spirit is not seen. Ishwara is not seen. These are not evident. Do we then, going by the evident experience, discard sruti? VA has some answer for this, that by pratyaksha, VA means true prataksha -- true experience.

I find that subjective. By this dictum, VA holds the differences as real. But Gita says:

Avibhaktam cha bhooteshu vibhaktamiva cha sthitam;
Bhootabhartru cha tajjneyam grasishnu prabhavishnu cha.
17. And undivided, yet He exists as if divided in beings; He is to be known as the supporter of beings; He devours and He generates also.

Samam sarveshu bhooteshu tishthantam parameshwaram;
Vinashyatswavinashyantam yah pashyati sa pashyati.
28. He sees, who sees the Supreme Lord, existing equally in all beings, the unperishing within the perishing.

Samam pashyan hi sarvatra samavasthitameeshwaram;
Na hinastyaatmanaa’tmaanam tato yaati paraam gatim.
29. Because he who sees the same Lord dwelling equally everywhere does not destroy the Self by the self, he goes to the highest goal.

The above three verses from the 13th Chapter decalre that the Param Atman is indivisible and samam (equal everywhere). The divisions are apparent.

[Viraja]

Originally Posted by atanu

Viraja, since you are reading both VA and advaita, I thought it OK to record an advaitin's perspective also. This is not to discourage you or not to belittle VA. I believe that God only has designed and set out different paths for different people.


I face another problem with Vishistadvaita. It is taught that in case of sruti conficting with pratayksha (evident experience), the sruti is not stronger (approximate paraphrase). This is an odd dictum for a spiritual darsana.

The spirit is not seen. Ishwara is not seen. These are not evident. Do we then, going by the evident experience, discard sruti? VA has some answer for this, that by pratyaksha, VA means true prataksha -- true experience.

I find that subjective. By this dictum, VA holds the differences as real. But Gita says:

Avibhaktam cha bhooteshu vibhaktamiva cha sthitam;
Bhootabhartru cha tajjneyam grasishnu prabhavishnu cha.
17. And undivided, yet He exists as if divided in beings; He is to be known as the supporter of beings; He devours and He generates also.

Samam sarveshu bhooteshu tishthantam parameshwaram;
Vinashyatswavinashyantam yah pashyati sa pashyati.
28. He sees, who sees the Supreme Lord, existing equally in all beings, the unperishing within the perishing.

Samam pashyan hi sarvatra samavasthitameeshwaram;
Na hinastyaatmanaa’tmaanam tato yaati paraam gatim.
29. Because he who sees the same Lord dwelling equally everywhere does not destroy the Self by the self, he goes to the highest goal.

The above three verses from the 13th Chapter decalres that the Param Atman is indivisible and samam (equal everywhere). The divisions are apparent.

Thank you for the clarification, Atanuji. For the most part, I couldn't understand the discussions in this thread, me being a mere beginner with the siddhantas. But your clarifications will certainly help once I gain some deeper understanding following repeated reading.

I do agree that since evident darshana is going to be something we cannot get an experience of, the question then arises what then happens to the sruti. Like you quoted, it appears we have to look into some other works - maybe the vedas, Gita for answers... I am far too much a beginner - my first step into understanding the scriptures itself is this new quest to understand VA, so I will have to look up for understanding from learned people as yourself.

I thank you for all your knowledge and insights in this thread. Quite a lot indeed. _/\_

[Debater Slayer]

***Mod Post***

This thread has been moved to the Same-Faith Debates forum per staff consensus.

[Indiaspirituality Amrut]

Hello All,

I read about effulgence, It is said by Srila Prabhupada while explaining Isopanishad: 15

There references given are BG14:27

Another reference is BG 7:7 and checking commentaries by Sri Abhinava Gupta ji, it says that there is no place for duality.

More references are given from Srimad Bhagavatam in Srila Prabhupada's commentary in Isa Upanishad.

while in BG14:27, Swami Sivananda has given alternate Translation which says Brahman has to be taken as Saguna Brahman. Adi Shankaracharya and Abhinava Gupta ji used the word, I am paramtman's Pratistha. Adi Shankracharya gives ref to some verses from Gita.

Source: Select Text | Gita Supersite 2.0 (Beta)

you will need to select suitable text. It does not contain Srila Prabhupada's Gita Translation.

check

Sri Ramanujacharya's Sanskrit Commentary, English translation by Swami Adidevananda
Adi Shankaracharya's Sanskrit Commentary, English translation by Swami Ghambhirananda and hindi Translation by Goenka ji
Sri Abhinav Gupta ji's Sanskrit commentary, English translation by Dr. Shankaranarayan

I have also referred to Molla Sloka Translation by

Dr. Shankaranarayan, Swami Ghambhirananda, Swami Sivananda (both translation and commentary, commentary which more or less is in tune with Adi Shankara), Hindi commentary by notable Saint Swami Ramsukhdas ji Maharaj.

Sri Goenka ji is the inspiration behind Gita bhavan and Gita Press Gorakhpur and is said to have vision of Lord Rama. Swami Ramsukhsdas ji is an uncontroversial saint, a Rama bhakta, had Sri Rama's Divine vision. His Gita commentary is called Sadhaka Sanjivani, in Hindi, is well appreciated and stayed at Gita Bhavan, near Paramarth Niketan of Swami Chidananda.

Hope this helps to solve effulgence issue, or may be it solves just party.

EDIT: One more link: http://vaniquotes.org/wiki/Brahman_effulgence_(Letters)

Aum
Amrut

[mohinishaktidevi]

It seems Atanu has become Vaishnava after all these years.

You go atanu!