-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Schools of Vedanta
- Thread starter atanu
- Start date
Why I am an Advaitin?
I am an advaitin on logical considerations, although on account of emotional needs I can be a pure dvaitin.
Advaita says that when stripped of their respective attributes, Ishwara and Jiva are both Brahman, which only appears as the Ishwara, the Jiva, and the Jagat (universe). Nature of Brahman is pure knowledge - awareness, existence and bliss. The appearance of difference between Jiva and Ishwara and/or Brahman is on account of ignorance or mAyA, which is eternal, but which can be overcome.
Visistaadvaita agrees that nature of Jiva and Brahman/Ishwara are same but holds that jiva-s are parts of Brahman and are never the same as Brahman. Also, visistadvaita holds that karma is eternal just as advaita that ignorance is eternal.
Dvaita does not agree with advaita and holds that the differences between Brahman and jiva-s are eternal. Dvaita also does not agree with the view of visistaadvaita that jiva-s constitute parts of Brahman, since Brahman is partless -- as per sruti.
When I examine visistadvaita in the light of sruti and Gita, I find two basic problems. Gita says that paramatman (same as parambrahman) appears to be divided in bodies but is one. Second, Gita also says that liberation is knowing that one is not a doer and that atman (soul ) is ever untainted by works. Thus, I cannot agree to the tenets of visistadvaita.
Dvaita tenet is robust and does not appear to contradict many srutis, except the ones that directly say that atman was without a second. But Dvaita interpret it the 'without a second' just as most muslims interpret Allah -- as a seprate entity that is without a second and without any comparison.
But Dvaita Guru has interpreted Mandukya upanishad (it can be read in Dvaita.com). Shri Madhava categorically points out that Turya, which is transcendental Brahman, is distinct from the states of waking, dreaming, and sleeping. He thus proves that Turya and the beings in the states are eternally separate.
But Mandukya upanishad exhorts us to know the Turya. On examination of definition of Turya given in Mandukya upanishad itself, I find that Turya is Atman -- one's own Self, is divisionless, exists without any sense of interior and exterior, and is devoid of works. So, if one has to know the Turya, one cannot be a second to Turya. If one comes to know Turya as separate from oneself and/or as another, the Turya definition is broken and one comes to know something that is not Turya.
Gita also has a similar prescription: that a seeker must know the indivisible paramatman. It is also teaches that the truth is known only in samadhi.
So, logically I follow advaita.
That however should not mean that logic has to be the only reason. If one is more comfortable with dvaita or visistadvaita, logic may be kept aside. But me, I, see no contradiction in following advaita and at the same time to be a theist. Till I am in body or in mind, it iis proper to worship that which is higher than these.
I am an advaitin on logical considerations, although on account of emotional needs I can be a pure dvaitin.
Advaita says that when stripped of their respective attributes, Ishwara and Jiva are both Brahman, which only appears as the Ishwara, the Jiva, and the Jagat (universe). Nature of Brahman is pure knowledge - awareness, existence and bliss. The appearance of difference between Jiva and Ishwara and/or Brahman is on account of ignorance or mAyA, which is eternal, but which can be overcome.
Visistaadvaita agrees that nature of Jiva and Brahman/Ishwara are same but holds that jiva-s are parts of Brahman and are never the same as Brahman. Also, visistadvaita holds that karma is eternal just as advaita that ignorance is eternal.
Dvaita does not agree with advaita and holds that the differences between Brahman and jiva-s are eternal. Dvaita also does not agree with the view of visistaadvaita that jiva-s constitute parts of Brahman, since Brahman is partless -- as per sruti.
When I examine visistadvaita in the light of sruti and Gita, I find two basic problems. Gita says that paramatman (same as parambrahman) appears to be divided in bodies but is one. Second, Gita also says that liberation is knowing that one is not a doer and that atman (soul ) is ever untainted by works. Thus, I cannot agree to the tenets of visistadvaita.
Dvaita tenet is robust and does not appear to contradict many srutis, except the ones that directly say that atman was without a second. But Dvaita interpret it the 'without a second' just as most muslims interpret Allah -- as a seprate entity that is without a second and without any comparison.
But Dvaita Guru has interpreted Mandukya upanishad (it can be read in Dvaita.com). Shri Madhava categorically points out that Turya, which is transcendental Brahman, is distinct from the states of waking, dreaming, and sleeping. He thus proves that Turya and the beings in the states are eternally separate.
But Mandukya upanishad exhorts us to know the Turya. On examination of definition of Turya given in Mandukya upanishad itself, I find that Turya is Atman -- one's own Self, is divisionless, exists without any sense of interior and exterior, and is devoid of works. So, if one has to know the Turya, one cannot be a second to Turya. If one comes to know Turya as separate from oneself and/or as another, the Turya definition is broken and one comes to know something that is not Turya.
Gita also has a similar prescription: that a seeker must know the indivisible paramatman. It is also teaches that the truth is known only in samadhi.
So, logically I follow advaita.
That however should not mean that logic has to be the only reason. If one is more comfortable with dvaita or visistadvaita, logic may be kept aside. But me, I, see no contradiction in following advaita and at the same time to be a theist. Till I am in body or in mind, it iis proper to worship that which is higher than these.
Last edited:
Yes. Surely Madhuri.:flirt:
That's a good question! :yes:
That is all in mind. Stop conceptualising and SEE (how else is Turya known?)
I am prepared to settle for a conceptualised answer
Hey. Previous reply appeared to you an advice? No. It is the answer.
My friend,Hey. Previous reply appeared to you an advice? No. It is the answer.
The answer comes across as Deus ex machina, I had hoped it might be simpler, it isn't my intention to make life hard. Why is turiya required for this answer but not others?
I cannot understand this question now. Which others you arae talking about?
Yes. But I am happy to let this topic slip
My understanding is that Maya exists in Kashmir Saivism also, as Shakti and hence divine and real. In Advaita Maya is not Shakti or a deity but rather a process or power of Brahman (Ishvara or Krishna in Bhagavad Gita). Because Advaita is Vedanta and Samkhya philosophy, whereas Kashmir Shaivism is based on Agamas (and Vedanta).
I can try to provide some scriptural quotes later if useful.
Not really. Shakti is purna, which means indivisible. The divided view of shati is mAyA.
However, advaita, as the name indicates does not teach that shakti is any second entity. The homogeneous moola prakriti (the primeval nature), the causal ground of rise of Universe (hiranyagarbha) is the nature of Being and is not a second being. The understanding of moola prakriti (shakti) as a second being separate from the Being is an illusion. Further, there is a confusion that the many souls and many discrete objects are parts of the Brahman. It is not agreed by advaita or dvaita. Param Brahman is indivisible and remains untainted. The concept that we (and the universe) are parts of Brahman is not accepted by either dvaita or advaita. Similarly, for the concept of spanda.
The effect of mAya or of spanda is in nature - in mind, and not in reality. When the mind is transcended in samadhi or in any other way (which are likely to be temporary), the ever present spanda free ground of Brahman is revealed as actionless. And possibly that is why Sruti and Gita teach that the indivisible paramatman that is the Self must be known. The divison free Self, IMO, is not possible to be known as another and as divided.
Last edited:
For western people it may be more clear if i say that advaita is Panentheism (dvaita) first and then advaita, in contrast to Pantheism of visistaadvaita. Many people mistake advaita as Pantheism.
First the distinct difference between the immutable Being and its Mind (nature) must be grasped by discriminative process of Neti-Neti or Who Am I. Once the immutable is known there is no more any other second, as per experience of sages and as per sruti. The divisions that exist in mind does nothing to divide the reality. Reality remains untouched and as one. To know the reality is to first discard the conceptualisations of mind that superimpose on the reality to give an appearance of spanda and division.
Svetasvatara 4.18
When there is no darkness of ignorance, there is no day or night, neither being nor nonbeing; the pure Brahman alone exists. That immutable Reality is the meaning of "That"; It is adored by the Sun. From It has proceeded the ancient wisdom.
When there is no darkness, then there is no day or night, no being or non-being, only the kind one alone.That is the imperishable, the splendor of Savitri; from that came primal wisdom.
First the distinct difference between the immutable Being and its Mind (nature) must be grasped by discriminative process of Neti-Neti or Who Am I. Once the immutable is known there is no more any other second, as per experience of sages and as per sruti. The divisions that exist in mind does nothing to divide the reality. Reality remains untouched and as one. To know the reality is to first discard the conceptualisations of mind that superimpose on the reality to give an appearance of spanda and division.
Svetasvatara 4.18
When there is no darkness of ignorance, there is no day or night, neither being nor nonbeing; the pure Brahman alone exists. That immutable Reality is the meaning of "That"; It is adored by the Sun. From It has proceeded the ancient wisdom.
When there is no darkness, then there is no day or night, no being or non-being, only the kind one alone.That is the imperishable, the splendor of Savitri; from that came primal wisdom.
Last edited: