Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi said that both the path of surrender, and the path of knowledge, are both valued methods to realize God. Both philosophies are just intellectual frameworks of reality. So both are not 100% true.
Maybe both side's are correct in there own way ?
Both Dvaita and Advaita are true.I am currently studying advaita. Though the advaita has loopholes which can be misused , it is one that brings out the best from the Upanishads.Advaita sees oneness within a contradiction,whereas Dvaita sees the difference.For Advaita,Dvaita as an essential step towards the Goal.Moreover the adviatic realization is considered to be negation of both Dvaita and Advaita concepts(because it is state of no-concepts).Many saints like Ramakrishna ,Vivekananda,Ramana Maharishi were advaitins at their core,yet they were very liberal in accepting others.
The great saints Sri Chaitanya and Mirabai talked about being lost in the love of Krishna. It is said that they disappeared in to a Murti of Krishna at the end of their lives.
Advaita sages talk of their ego's being lost in Brahman
.
They were great saints who followed bhakti path.Vedantic Sutras are themselves are open to multiple interpretations so bashing each other's philosophies is great a waste of time (for me).Hinduism is what it means to you,as long it does not harm others and helps in reducing ones "ego",any philosophy is fine.
.
There are two interpretation for this Mahavakya.
1. Unique Identity:
Atman is Brahman; Nothing else is Brahman; Brahman is reality and therefore everything else is illusion
-----I consider this to be true in super conscious turiya state.There is one homogenous consciousness ,with nothing to seperate the atman and brahman
2. Universal Identity:
Atman is Brahman in the same way as everything else is Brahman.
----I think this true in the waking state especially for non-realised people like me.
The most important statement in Advaita(which when misunderstood leads to ego-boasting) is this:
The patient who takes (the proper) diet and medicine is alone seen to recover completely – not through work done by others.
Without causing the objective universe to vanish and without knowing the truth of the Self, how is one to achieve Liberation by the mere utterance of the word Brahman ? -- It would result merely in an effort of speech.
Without killing one’s enemies, and possessing oneself of the splendour of the entire surrounding region, one cannot claim to be an emperor by merely saying, ‘I am an emperor’.
As a treasure hidden underground requires (for its extraction) competent instruction, excavation, the removal of stones and other such things lying above it and (finally) grasping, but never comes out by being (merely) called out by name, so the transparent Truth of the self, which is hidden by Maya and its effects, is to be attained through the instructions of a knower of Brahman, followed by reflection, meditation and so forth, but not through perverted arguments.
--Adi Sankara
Dvaita considers itself to be a breaker of deception.
yo vipralambhaviparItamatiprabhUtAn.h
vAdAnnirastakR^itavAn.h bhuvi tattvavAdam.h |
sarveshvaro haririti pratipAdayantaM
Ana.ndatIrthamunivaryamahaM namAmi ||
That doctrine which quells all positions arising out of ignorance and deceit, is Tattvavâda;
Ananda Tîrtha, the august among saints, who propounded the Supremacy of Hari over all, I salute.
The Dvaita doctrine completely criticizes both
advaita and
Prabupada Hare Krishna philosophy
Is what you believe and how you conceptualize reality more important then your experience of being lost in God ?
Its fine if conceptualization helps in single pointed meditation.But again concepts are concepts.
Among Vaishnava Sect ,Vishist-advaita is nice.It lends itself to a better interpretation of Bhagavat Gita.IMHO,advaita helps to understand other Dharmic religions and esoteric sects of Abrahamic religion better.Moreover,I don't consider myself to be suited towards Bhakti.Hence,my choice.
