Bhedabheda vs. Advaita

[shivsomashekhar]

If you think you are an Advaitin, the odds are you may actually be a Bhedabhedin - without your knowledge.

1. Bhedabheda is the system of Vedanta where the Atman is simultaneously one with Brahman and also different. This allows for the Atman to be one with Brahman, while still having a distinct identity of its own, to be an experiencer and to experience oneness with Brahman. This is not possible in a strictly non-dual system such as Advaita where the concept of time itself would be a logical fallacy. This is where I see that the views of many Advaitins are more Bhedabheda than Advaita.

2. Bhedabheda says the world is real; Advaita says the world is unreal (only an appearance). Bhaskara pointed out that Advaita borrowed this concept of an unreal world from Buddhism. Indeed, Bhaskara says he wrote his commentary for the sole purpose of proving that Advaita was trying to hide the real purport of Vedanta and replace it with Buddhist ideas.

3. Bhedabheda says the relationship of Atman with Brahman is like the wave in the ocean. The wave has a distinct existence, but is yet not different from the ocean.

4. Bhedabheda says that though the clay was shaped into multiple cups, etc., they are still clay. That is, it is both cup and clay at the same time. Advaita says only the clay is real and the cup is unreal.

5. Bhedabheda rejects the concept of Jivanmukti. As long as the body is alive, pain and sorrow in some form are unavoidable.

6. Bhedabheda predates Shankara as it has been criticized in Shankara's Sutra Bhashya.

7. Vishishtadvaita is loosely based on Bhedabheda

8. Several modern scholars (Nakamura, Dasgupta, et al.,) agree that the Brahma-sutras align best with Bhedabheda than with any other doctrine of Vedanta.

 

[Rinchen]

Indeed, I know im not a Hindu or Vedantin, but I would like to say a couple of things.

When we read about Advaita Vedanta and take it as authoritive (Its main texts and commentaries), I can see why it would be so surprising to the reader. Advaita Vedanta is, very much so, the most uncompromising form of substantial non-dualism that I personally know of. It says, "Consciousness is all there is", and the rest is illusion, false. If we look into the philosophy of Ajati-Vada, then both the waking and the dream state are both of the same nature, not one being more conventionally true than the other. I think that this may scare some people into denying certain parts of this philosophy such as the part I just spoke about. Ramana Maharshi, and this is quite an extravagant look into the experiance of non-duality, said, "Illusion itself is an illusion". Not gonna lie, that kinda blew my mind when I read it the first time. Overtime though, people started imposing on the original Advaita Vedanta a concept of a conventionally real world, something that peoples basic incorrect experiance could agree with. However, looking back into the past, the original masters of this lineage (I cant speak for the ones that hold this lineage today), where absolutely relentless on getting you to see the world as an illusion and throwing you into your subjective experiance and seeing the basis of that, consciousness, as the only substance. Dristi-Stristi-Vada is probably one of the best techniques in Advaita Vedanta to reach that state, as it cuts away any confidence we may have in the existence of an external world.

Anyways, Advaita is very interesting, especially the early texts and commentaries on it. Thanks @shivsomashekhar !

Edit: Of course this is not all forms of Advaita, just Advaita Vedanta.

 

[Shantanu]

If you think you are an Advaitin, the odds are you may actually be a Bhedabhedin - without your knowledge.

1. Bhedabheda is the system of Vedanta where the Atman is simultaneously one with Brahman and also different. This allows for the Atman to be one with Brahman, while still having a distinct identity of its own, to be an experiencer and to experience oneness with Brahman. This is not possible in a strictly non-dual system such as Advaita where the concept of time itself would be a logical fallacy. This is where I see that the views of many Advaitins are more Bhedabheda than Advaita.

2. Bhedabheda says the world is real; Advaita says the world is unreal (only an appearance). Bhaskara pointed out that Advaita borrowed this concept of an unreal world from Buddhism. Indeed, Bhaskara says he wrote his commentary for the sole purpose of proving that Advaita was trying to hide the real purport of Vedanta and replace it with Buddhist ideas.

3. Bhedabheda says the relationship of Atman with Brahman is like the wave in the ocean. The wave has a distinct existence, but is yet not different from the ocean.

4. Bhedabheda says that though the clay was shaped into multiple cups, etc., they are still clay. That is, it is both cup and clay at the same time. Advaita says only the clay is real and the cup is unreal.

5. Bhedabheda rejects the concept of Jivanmukti. As long as the body is alive, pain and sorrow in some form are unavoidable.

6. Bhedabheda predates Shankara as it has been criticized in Shankara's Sutra Bhashya.

7. Vishishtadvaita is loosely based on Bhedabheda

8. Several modern scholars (Nakamura, Dasgupta, et al.,) agree that the Brahma-sutras align best with Bhedabheda than with any other doctrine of Vedanta.

There is a way to experience the reality of Acintya Bhedabheda tatwa and see for oneself. It requires patience but it can go on for years and years (in my experience). This is the reality in which the atman (the essence of one's inner self) can make the God overseeing Brahman come alive within one's body and mind to have an interaction with.

 

[Shrew]

If you think you are an Advaitin, the odds are you may actually be a Bhedabhedin - without your knowledge.


2. Bhedabheda says the world is real; Advaita says the world is unreal (only an appearance). Bhaskara pointed out that Advaita borrowed this concept of an unreal world from Buddhism. Indeed, Bhaskara says he wrote his commentary for the sole purpose of proving that Advaita was trying to hide the real purport of Vedanta and replace it with Buddhist ideas.

I do not know much about Indian philosophy systems, but I read a lot about Ramana Maharshi.
According to Him Shankara said that the world as world is unreal but the world as Brahman is real.

Shankara [a ninth century sage and philosopher who was the principal populariser of advaita Vedanta] was criticised for his views on maya without understanding him. He said that (1) Brahman is real, (2) The universe is unreal, and (3) Brahman is the universe. He did not stop at the second, because the third explains the other two. It signifies that the universe is real if perceived as the Self, and unreal if perceived apart from the Self. Hence maya and reality are one and the same. (Guru Ramana, p. 65)

from here

 

[DanielR]

If you think you are an Advaitin, the odds are you may actually be a Bhedabhedin - without your knowledge.

1. Bhedabheda is the system of Vedanta where the Atman is simultaneously one with Brahman and also different. This allows for the Atman to be one with Brahman, while still having a distinct identity of its own, to be an experiencer and to experience oneness with Brahman. This is not possible in a strictly non-dual system such as Advaita where the concept of time itself would be a logical fallacy. This is where I see that the views of many Advaitins are more Bhedabheda than Advaita.

2. Bhedabheda says the world is real; Advaita says the world is unreal (only an appearance). Bhaskara pointed out that Advaita borrowed this concept of an unreal world from Buddhism. Indeed, Bhaskara says he wrote his commentary for the sole purpose of proving that Advaita was trying to hide the real purport of Vedanta and replace it with Buddhist ideas.

3. Bhedabheda says the relationship of Atman with Brahman is like the wave in the ocean. The wave has a distinct existence, but is yet not different from the ocean.

4. Bhedabheda says that though the clay was shaped into multiple cups, etc., they are still clay. That is, it is both cup and clay at the same time. Advaita says only the clay is real and the cup is unreal.

5. Bhedabheda rejects the concept of Jivanmukti. As long as the body is alive, pain and sorrow in some form are unavoidable.

6. Bhedabheda predates Shankara as it has been criticized in Shankara's Sutra Bhashya.

7. Vishishtadvaita is loosely based on Bhedabheda

8. Several modern scholars (Nakamura, Dasgupta, et al.,) agree that the Brahma-sutras align best with Bhedabheda than with any other doctrine of Vedanta.

Hey shiv, glad you are back!

Some questions (some may be stupid)

Was Shankara a strict Advaitin or was he more in line with bhedabheda, I think I remember that you said that Gaudapada was more strict nondualist.

What about reincarnation then? We had this ad nauseum, but to me this means then that there is nothing to reincarnate since all is Brahman and there is only Brahman

Does this mean also that there is only ONE level of reality that is only Paramarthika??

 

[ajay0]

If you think you are an Advaitin, the odds are you may actually be a Bhedabhedin - without your knowledge.

If you 'think' that you are an Advaitin, it means that you are a practicing dualist.

Advaita is a state of consciousness where there is no dualistic structures of 'Advaitin' and 'Dvaitin', Brahmin and untouchable, Hindu and Muslim, chauvinist and feminist, Indian and American, and so on, which are the creations of conceptualized thought, and has no independent basis in existence.

All that stuff belongs to the realm of the dualistic mind, where duality and multiplicity reign with its resultant chaos and conflict. Though this is hard for the dualistic and insecure ego to digest , it is a fact of existence which is painfully hard for many fictitious identities to confront directly and hence they cower and retreat.

So in a way you are right.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Hey shiv, glad you are back!

Thanks DanielR. I see you are still asking questions

Was Shankara a strict Advaitin or was he more in line with bhedabheda, I think I remember that you said that Gaudapada was more strict nondualist.

Yes. Assuming all four chapters of the Mandukya Karika were authored by a single individual (Gaudapada), he is very closely aligned with the Chitta-matra views of the Vijnaanavadins and also with Shunyavada. He tries to tie their views with the concept of an eternal Brahman. On the other hand, Shankara's Advaita is more like Bhedabheda. Hence, my post above. So, in my view, Advaita philosophy leans strongly towards the Buddhist view or else the Bhedabheda view.

What about reincarnation then? We had this ad nauseum, but to me this means then that there is nothing to reincarnate since all is Brahman and there is only Brahman

Reincarnation is logically tenuous and exists only if people choose to place faith in certain religious books. Without memory connecting multiple lives, reincarnation is meaningless. I would speculate that it was invented as an attempt to explain the inequalities found in this world. By positing reincarnation, they could easily explain away otherwise unexplained things as consequences of past Karma.

Does this mean also that there is only ONE level of reality that is only Paramarthika??

There is only Vyavahaarika

That is the only reality. The world is real, your identity (as your body) is real, other people are real. Pain and pleasure are real. The Paramaarthika view is only theory and though correct, it can never become reality. It will always remain theory (an inference). No meditation or mantras or prayers can change this.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Advaita is a state of consciousness where there is no dualistic structures of 'Advaitin' and 'Dvaitin', Brahmin and untouchable, Hindu and Muslim, chauvinist and feminist, Indian and American, and so on, which are the creations of conceptualized thought, and has no independent basis in existence.

I agree with the second half. But without any such structures, this state of consciousness is not possible. For, the question of "who is experiencing this state?" comes up and if you say no one, then such a state does not exist.

 

[ajay0]

I agree with the second half. But without any such structures, this state of consciousness is not possible. For, the question of "who is experiencing this state?" comes up and if you say no one, then such a state does not exist.

Are you sure ? I am pretty fine without any identifications and have not collapsed so far yet or have had a nervous breakdown yet, as per your pov.

In fact, I feel much better off and natural than in the past where I used to identify with such belief structures and artificial identities, thinking that they constituted and defined me.

And I also know of people who became delusional or went nuts due to being obsessed with fictitious identities and conceptualised belief systems taking them for reality.


Check it out for yourself. Get rid of all belief structures and see if the state of consciousness ceases to exist simultaneously as well, or does it get more clearer and perceptive without any conceptual filters to clog its vision.

For, the question of "who is experiencing this state?" comes up and if you say no one, then such a state does not exist.

As Nisargadatta Maharaj stated, " Being is pure awareness free from the subject object nexus."

The Self, the Being is pure awareness or pure consciousness.

The experiencer is merely the result of thought. The 'I', 'me' and 'mine' are thoughts in subject form that result in objects in thought form like 'you', 'it', 'yours'.

(As in 'I hate you', ' It belongs to me' , 'This is mine, that is yours', respectively.)

That which recognizes both the subject and object, unaffected by either, is the Self or pure consciousness.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It says, "Consciousness is all there is", and the rest is illusion, false.
Edit: Of course this is not all forms of Advaita, just Advaita Vedanta.

My advaita does not recognize consciousness. That too is a momentary thing, till the body lasts. So we are left with nothing other than the ill-defined Brahman, which has one apparent property to change routinely as the sub-atomic particles do in Feynman's diagram.
That is Buddha Dhatu, Tathagata Garbha, Damma Kaya. My obeisance to my guru, Lord Buddha.

.. and if you say no one, then such a state does not exist.

Or as I like to put it, 'the illusion has lost its illusion'. That is enlightenment, collapse of all illusions.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Was Shankara a strict Advaitin or was he more in line with bhedabheda, I think I remember that you said that Gaudapada was more strict nondualist.

What about reincarnation then? We had this ad nauseum, but to me this means then that there is nothing to reincarnate since all is Brahman and there is only Brahman

Does this mean also that there is only ONE level of reality that is only Paramarthika??

Sankara was a practical person. He had responsibilities to his religious order and to the general Hindu populace. So, IMHO, even if he was a strict believer in non-duality, he accepted the Ishwara in Vyavaharika and reincarnation (Punarapi janmam, Punarapi maranam, Punarapi garbhashayanam). The same dilemma that Lord Buddha faced and Buddha too accepted devas and rebirth. Before the advent of the Theory of Evolution, Special theory of Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and the related advances in Biology and Chemistry; there was no way to explain to the people the real truth of the working of the universe. Now we understand better.

As individuals, we do not have the same responsibility and limitations, so we can speak of our mind. Yeah, only Brahman is there and as Lord Buddha says there is a rebirth every moment, you cannot step in the same river again. Without our knowing, all atoms of our body are continuously change in (so many days). When this body dies, the atoms through various processes disperse far and wide to form new associations with millions/billions of living beings and non-living things. This is the real rebirth.

Paramarthika is the highest level of reality for which our body has not evolved. It has evolved for Vyavaharika, so that too is a truth. And when we dream or our mind goes bonkers then we have the third reality, the Pratibhasika (Mirror reality). That is how I understand it.

 

[Stormcry]

This is where I see that the views of many Advaitins are more Bhedabheda than Advaita.

There's no bheda or abheda in Advaita Vedanta. There's no such debate in Advaita. Bhedabheda only contradicts with itself, not with Advaita. The thing we see can be either the rope or snake. It can not be both. Better recall the words of Bhagavan Krishna " Whatever exists before the creation and after the annihilation of the universe, that exists in the middle as well. This is my firm conviction" There's no question of claiming Atman and Paramatman are same or Atman and Paramatman are different or Atman and Paramatman are different and one at the same time.

Bhedabheda philosophy is non-vedic and irrational. A bit amusing too.

 

[Stormcry]

Bhedabheda says the relationship of Atman with Brahman is like the wave in the ocean. The wave has a distinct existence, but is yet not different from the ocean

Take the wind/maya out of the picture. Now there are no waves at all. There exists only ocean without waves. Jivas don't exist.

Anyway can you explain in what way Atman is ONE WITH Brahman in Bhedabheda philosophy?

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Are you sure ? I am pretty fine without any identifications and have not collapsed so far yet or have had a nervous breakdown yet, as per your pov.

If your identity is absent, then it is not you; it is something else. That is, whatever is in this state is not you, in which case, you would have no recollection of such a state. But you do have recollection and therefore, you were present all along in your present identity. More on this, below.

As Nisargadatta Maharaj stated, " Being is pure awareness free from the subject object nexus."

Same problem again. For him to be able to make such a statement, he has to be able to remember it as his experience. Which means, he was present all long through this experience as himself. For if there was only pure awareness, without a Nisargadatta, then why is it that only he is able to recall it and not others? The only answer is that N was always there as N, which is why only he is able to recollect such things and not the people around him.

The thing we see can be either the rope or snake. It can not be both.

So long as someone is seeing either the rope or the snake, we have duality (seer and seen) and therefore, it is not Advaita.

Take the wind/maya out of the picture. Now there are no waves at all. There exists only ocean without waves. Jivas don't exist.

If you take Maya out of the picture, there is no ocean either. There is no picture either, but even this is not entirely true as there is no one to make such an observation.

If Jivas do not exist, who is Advaita for?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Take the wind/maya out of the picture. Now there are no waves at all. There exists only ocean without waves. Jivas don't exist.

Why just the jivas, Hinduism♥Krishna, include everything in it - non-living as well. There is but 'One Brahman, no second' (Eko sad, dwitīyo nāsti).

If Jivas do not exist, who is Advaita for?

For the illusion. Once the illusion understands, then as you rightly said, there is neither illusion nor advaita.

 

[DanielR]

If your identity is absent, then it is not you; it is something else. That is, whatever is in this state is not you, in which case, you would have no recollection of such a state. But you do have recollection and therefore, you were present all along in your present identity. More on this, below.


Same problem again. For him to be able to make such a statement, he has to be able to remember it as his experience. Which means, he was present all long through this experience as himself. For if there was only pure awareness, without a Nisargadatta, then why is it that only he is able to recall it and not others? The only answer is that N was always there as N, which is why only he is able to recollect such things and not the people around him.




If Jivas do not exist, who is Advaita for?

Is your conclusion that only Jiva exists? That Jiva is Brahman?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Sankara said "jivo Brahmaiva na parah" (Living being is none other than Brahman).

 

[ajay0]

My advaita does not recognize consciousness.

Brahman or Atman itself is pure consciousness as per the sages, and the Self or pure consciousness or Awareness does not see duality. Dualistic perception is the vice of the egoistic little self as distinguished from the true Self.

Saying Advaita does not recognize consciousness is like saying the sun is devoid of hydrogen, and is just an orange ball in the sky.

As Rama stated , " When you truly understand that the Atman, which is your true Self, is without any attribute or attachment, you would give up your attachment with your body which is inert and impermanent.

Atman is different from the body, senses, mind, intelligence and life. It is pure, self-effulgent, blissful, devoid of emotions and is formless. As long as you do not consider the Atman as different from the body, senses and life, you will be afflicted by the sorrows of this world like disease, death etc. "

 

[Aupmanyav]

Vipra bahudha Vadanti. I do understand 'self' completely and clearly, but it does not have consciousness. Why would it need consciousness? What will it do with consciousness? It is uninvolved and does not act. Conciousness is a property of living beings. Surely my advaita differs from yours.

 

[ajay0]

Vipra bahudha Vadanti. I do understand 'self' completely and clearly, but it does not have consciousness. Why would it need consciousness? What will it do with consciousness? It is uninvolved and does not act. Conciousness is a property of living beings. Surely my advaita differs from yours.

Okay. I feel that you have not properly understood Advaita as it is taught by the wise sages, and may have projected your own conditioned perceptions into it, which is understandable , as Advaita itself warns one of the same thing as the cause of all dualistic or distorted perceptions which creates conflict and problems in its wake.

Here are some sayings by the ancient sages regarding Brahman….


As per the Vedas , 'Prajnanam Brahman – Brahman is pure consciousness. '


As per Rishi Vasistha , Rama's Guru, "Consciousness minus conceptualization is the eternal Brahman the absolute; consciousness plus conceptualization is thought."


As per Ramana Maharshi....


Mind is consciousness which has put on limitations. You are originally unlimited and perfect. Later you take on limitations and become the mind.


When we turn the mind inwards, God manifests as the inner consciousness.


Call it by any name, God, Self, the Heart, or the Seat of Consciousness, it is all the same.


See who is the doubter, who is the thinker. It is the ego. Hold it; the other thoughts will die away - the ego will be left pure. See the source from where the ego arises and abide in it. That is pure consciousness.


As per Adi Shankaracharya...

To be free from bondage the wise person must practise discrimination between One-Self and the ego-self.
By that alone you will become full of joy, recognising Self as Pure Being, Consciousness and Bliss.

Give up identification with this mass of flesh as well as with what thinks it a mass. Both are intellectual imaginations. Recognise your true self as undifferentiated awareness, unaffected by time, past, present or future, and enter Peace.


Thus one should know oneself to be of the nature of Existence-Consciousness-Bliss[Sat-Chit-Ananda].

Surely my advaita differs from yours.

This statement of yours is itself material for instruction.

Advaita means no dvaita or two, just one.

If there is ‘my’ and ‘yours’ in understanding of Advaita, surely that means dualistic perception which is contrary to the spirit of advaita or nonduality.

What is happening is that you are projecting your own conditioned perception of Advaita as ‘ my Advaita’ which is different from the norm. There is only advaita, no 'my advaita' or 'her advaita' or 'this advaita' which are just dualistic conceptualizations contrary to the message of Advaita or nonduality.

If you spend some time with saints or scholars discussing Advaita, you will stand a better chance of understanding advaita.

Even the westerners themselves have mastered Advaita and is skillfully articulating it to others in the west like Jeff Foster or John Wheeler. This shows that you too can properly grasp it , if you apply your mind to it.