In Dvaita philosophy, does Brahman include Atman?

[Martin]

In the Upanishads, Brahman is said to be everything. So does Brahman include Atman in Dvaita philosophy, or is Atman separate from Brahman?

 

[Aupmanyav]

In Dvaita, though all things are created by the deity, after creation, they are distinctly different as per Sri Madhvacharya.

Five fundamental, eternal and real differences are described in Dvaita school:
(Dvaita Vedanta - Wikipedia)

1. Between the individual souls (or jīvātman) and God (paramathma or Vishnu).
2. Between matter (inanimate, insentient) and God.
3. Between individual souls (jīvātman).
4. Between matter and jīvātman.
5. Between various types of matter.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

As per advaita philosophy, terms like 'Atman', 'Parmatma' and 'Brahman' are used interchangeably and they mean the same thing -> the infinite, all-pervading universal spirit or consciousness.
So what is the individual soul then?
As per advaita, the individual soul is the jiva or the causal/subtle body, which transmigrates and reincarnates in different physical bodies.
When videha mukti (liberation upon death) is attained, all the sheaths/bodies (causal, subtle and physical) are destroyed and then the Atman inside the 3 bodies, merges with the Atman outside the 3 bodies. Just like upon breaking the pot, the air inside the pot merges with the air outside the pot, and then what remains? Only air remains.
Similarly, when Atman (upon destruction of all the 3 bodies) merges with the Atman outside, then what remains? ... Only ATMAN, the universal spirit or consciousness remains.

But as per Dvaita philosophy, the Atman is NOT the universal spirit. Rather, Atman (or jivatman as the dvaitins call it), is the transmigrating individual soul. In other words, it is the smaller fragmental portion of the bigger universal spirit.
This so called Atman, as per the dvatins, always remain separate from both saguna brahman (personal God) and nirguna brahman (impersonal universal spirit).
When a person attains liberation after death, his/her Atman or the individual soul doesn't merge with the bigger universal spirit, rather it goes to the realms of God like Vaikuntha or Kailasha where the individual soul spends time with Vishnu or Shiva.

This is what I've learned after studying both dvaita and advaita for the past three years. I hope my explanation was helpful to you.

 

[Martin]

As per advaita philosophy, terms like 'Atman', 'Parmatma' and 'Brahman' are used interchangeably and they mean the same thing -> the infinite, all-pervading universal spirit or consciousness.
So what is the individual soul then?
As per advaita, the individual soul is the jiva or the causal/subtle body, which transmigrates and reincarnates in different physical bodies.
When videha mukti (liberation upon death) is attained, all the sheaths/bodies (causal, subtle and physical) are destroyed and then the Atman inside the 3 bodies, merges with the Atman outside the 3 bodies. Just like upon breaking the pot, the air inside the pot merges with the air outside the pot, and then what remains? Only air remains.
Similarly, when Atman (upon destruction of all the 3 bodies) merges with the Atman outside, then what remains? ... Only ATMAN, the universal spirit or consciousness remains.

But as per Dvaita philosophy, the Atman is NOT the universal spirit. Rather, Atman (or jivatman as the dvaitins call it), is the transmigrating individual soul. In other words, it is the smaller fragmental portion of the bigger universal spirit.
This so called Atman, as per the dvatins, always remain separate from both saguna brahman (personal God) and nirguna brahman (impersonal universal spirit).
When a person attains liberation after death, his/her Atman or the individual soul doesn't merge with the bigger universal spirit, rather it goes to the realms of God like Vaikuntha or Kailasha where the individual soul spends time with Vishnu or Shiva.

This is what I've learned after studying both dvaita and advaita for the past three years. I hope my explanation was helpful to you.

Thanks. I'd been unclear about the Dvaita view of Atman/jivatman for a while.

 

[Martin]

In Dvaita, though all things are created by the deity, after creation, they are distinctly different as per Sri Madhvacharya.

Five fundamental, eternal and real differences are described in Dvaita school:
(Dvaita Vedanta - Wikipedia)

1. Between the individual souls (or jīvātman) and God (paramathma or Vishnu).
2. Between matter (inanimate, insentient) and God.
3. Between individual souls (jīvātman).
4. Between matter and jīvātman.
5. Between various types of matter.

Interesting. It seems like Dvaita is concerned with difference, while Advaita is concerned with sameness.

 

[Aupmanyav]

That is what the names clearly indicate: Dvaita (Two), Advaita (Not two).
*dwo-
Proto-Indo-European root meaning "two."
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit dvau, Avestan dva, Greek duo, Latin duo, Old Welsh dou, Lithuanian dvi, Old Church Slavonic duva, Old English twa, twegen, German zwei, Gothic twai "two;" first element in Hittite ta-ugash "two years old."
*dwo- | Origin and meaning of root *dwo- by Online Etymology Dictionary

Twice-born in Hinduism: Dvija (Dvi, two + ja, born)
Sri Madhvacharya was the direct opposite of Sankaracharya, duality and no maya.
Madhva (1,238-1,317 CE), Udipi Sri Krishna Temple and Matha, Sankara (8th Century),

Also see: Udupi Sri Krishna Matha - Wikipedia, interesting.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

In the Upanishads, Brahman is said to be everything.

That is subject to interpretation.

The Madhva/Dvaita interpretation is Brahman (Vishnu) is the supreme being and controller of everything.

But all sentient beings and insentient objects are eternally different from Brahman/Vishnu.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. and from each other. No two are alike.

 

[Martin]

That is what the names clearly indicate: Dvaita (Two), Advaita (Not two).
*dwo-
Proto-Indo-European root meaning "two."
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit dvau, Avestan dva, Greek duo, Latin duo, Old Welsh dou, Lithuanian dvi, Old Church Slavonic duva, Old English twa, twegen, German zwei, Gothic twai "two;" first element in Hittite ta-ugash "two years old."
*dwo- | Origin and meaning of root *dwo- by Online Etymology Dictionary

Twice-born in Hinduism: Dvija (Dvi, two + ja, born)
Sri Madhvacharya was the direct opposite of Sankaracharya, duality and no maya.
Madhva (1,238-1,317 CE), Udipi Sri Krishna Temple and Matha, Sankara (8th Century),

Also see: Udupi Sri Krishna Matha - Wikipedia, interesting.

I was thinking of it experientially. It seems a lot easier to notice differences than to notice an underlying sameness.

 

[Aupmanyav]

True. That is why Gods. When everthing is the same it is difficult for God to find a place.

 

[Martin]

True. That is why Gods. When everthing is the same it is difficult for God to find a place.

But doesn't the very act of naming form (perception) create distinction? It's how we navigate the sensual world.

 

[Aupmanyav]

That is what Chandogya Upanishad said: "Yatha Soumya, .. vacharambhanam vikarah namadheyam .."
Various translations (not much different from each other): 'All changes are mere words, in name only', 'The difference being only a name, arising from speech,'

"Uddalaka Aruni’s claim is that, an understanding of the material of which any given object is made, yields an understanding of all other objects made of that material. Therefore, every object can be reduced to its constituents; and there is nothing in the object except its constituents."
Chandogya Upanishad – sreenivasarao's blogs

"His eyes are bound with the cloth of delusion, he being tied with many thirsts for various kinds of seen and unseen things like wife, son, friend, animals, kinsmen, etc. Being enmeshed by hundred and thousand snares of misery, he goes on shouting, 'I am his son, these are my friends, I an happy, I am is misery, I am deluded, I am wise, I am virtuous, I have friends, I am born, I am dead, I am emaciated, I am a sinner, my son has dies, my wealth is lost; alas! I am undone, how shall I live what will be my lot, what relief is there for me?' By some chance, when he comes across a kind person--who is a knower of Existence which is Brahman, who is free from bondage, who is the chief among the knowers of Brahman; .. and through his compassion, on being shown the path of knowing the objects of the world as full of defects, becomes dispassionate towards all objects of the world, then he is told: 'You are not a transmigrating soul possessed of such qualities as being the son of such and such a person, etc.' What then? 'You are That which is Existence.'

Owing to the removal of the bondage of ignorance in this way, he becomes freed like the man of Gandhara, and attaining his own real Self which is Existence, he becomes happy and peaceful. This very idea is stated in the sentence, 'Acaryavan purusah veda' (a man having a teacher acquires knowledge).' Tasya, for him, for this one who has such a teacher and become freed from the bondage of ignorance; 'ciram', the delay; is 'tavat eva', for that long only, in the matter of attaining the true nature of his own Self which is Existence. This part of the sentence remains understood."
CHAPTER 6 - SECTION 14

But no harm, for some Dvaita will be the way and for some Advaita will be the way.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

I was thinking of it experientially. It seems a lot easier to notice differences than to notice an underlying sameness.

"Underlying" is the problem because it implies there is difference as well. Some may argue that the difference is superficial. Does it matter, though? Superficial or not, the difference is real and has to be real always.

There is no future point of time when two aspiring Advaitins will become one.

 

[Martin]

"Underlying" is the problem because it implies there is difference as well. Some may argue that the difference is superficial. Does it matter, though? Superficial or not, the difference is real and has to be real always.

There is no future point of time when two aspiring Advaitins will become one.

Sure. My point was that seeing difference is how we navigate the world, and it's what we instinctively do. Looking for sameness seems counter-intuitive.

 

[ajay0]

I was thinking of it experientially. It seems a lot easier to notice differences than to notice an underlying sameness.

Differences are there in the external world. But all perceived diversity is the manifestation of unitary consciousness that pervades all of existence. This is what the enlightened sages perceived from the vantage point of enlightenment.

The unenlightened one perceives differences while the enlightened sage perceives oneness in everything.

“There is One unchanging indivisible Reality which, though unmanifest, reveals Itself in infinite multiplicity and diversity.” ~ Anandamayi Ma


It is through the multiplicity of name and form that one can arrive at the One. It is from this One that this Infinite Variety has manifested. In the end all return to that effulgent One.~ Shivayogini Matha (1923-1981)

 

[Aupmanyav]

There is no future point of time when two aspiring Advaitins will become one.

They are already one along with those who follow Dvaita, and with those who follow neither advaita nor dvaita. They are one with all the animals and vegetation in the world. And they are already one with all non-living substances in the universe. "Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma". All things here are Braman, and as I like to say, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Saddam, Gadafi and Caliph Ibrahim, Osama bin Laden also were none other than Brahman. Because Brahman alone exists, there is no second. ".. Vāchārambanam Vikāro Nāmadheyam, Mrittiketyaiva Satyam." - Different names arise only because of distortion in the manner of speaking, soil is it, that alone is truth (Mrittika iti eva satyam). To see two things a different is a fault in understanding. It is difficult to find fault with Advaita.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Sure. My point was that seeing difference is how we navigate the world, and it's what we instinctively do. Looking for sameness seems counter-intuitive.

Yeah, sure, the Vyavaharika is different from Paramarthika. Each level of truth has its own obligations. When in Vyavaharika, one does what Vyavaharika demands. But that does not falsify Paramarthika. This is not a sole prescribed way for all people. People will have different views, that is given. (Tunde-tunde Matih Bhinna - Different heads, different views).

 

[Martin]

Differences are there in the external world. But all perceived diversity is the manifestation of unitary consciousness that pervades all of existence. This is what the enlightened sages perceived from the vantage point of enlightenment.

The unenlightened one perceives differences while the enlightened sage perceives oneness in everything.

Sure, but that's an Advaita view of things. It presumably isn't shared by Dvaitans.

Here I am more interested in contrasting Dvaita and Advaita, and understanding the different assumptions involved.

 

[Martin]

They are already one along with those who follow Dvaita, and with those who follow neither advaita nor dvaita. They are one with all the animals and vegetation in the world. And they are already one with all non-living substances in the universe. "Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma". All things here are Braman, and as I like to say, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Saddam, Gadafi and Caliph Ibrahim, Osama bin Laden also were none other than Brahman. Because Brahman alone exists, there is no second. ".. Vāchārambanam Vikāro Nāmadheyam, Mrittiketyaiva Satyam." - Different names arise only because of distortion in the manner of speaking, soil is it, that alone is truth (Mrittika iti eva satyam). To see two things a different is a fault in understanding. It is difficult to find fault with Advaita.

It's difficult to find fault with Advaita if you're an Advaitan, sure.
I agree though that "everything is Brahman" (Brahman has no second) is significant.

 

[ajay0]

Sure, but that's an Advaita view of things. It presumably isn't shared by Dvaitans.

Here I am more interested in contrasting Dvaita and Advaita, and understanding the different assumptions involved.

Plato has stated that intellectuals are always a minority in any population.

Advaita essentially subscribes to Jnana Yoga ( yoga of intellect) while dvaita and vishistadvaita philosophies subscribes to bhakti yoga ( yoga of emotion).

Those of an intellectual temperament subscribe to jnana yoga while those of an emotional or devotional temperament subscribes to bhakti yoga philosophies.

Some yogis follow both jnana and bhakti as well. Most humans are driven by emotion, and hence they need philosophies that cater to bhakti yoga, and dvaita and dualistic philosophies are useful in this regard.

Just by following the dualistic philosophies, some may have been lead to enlightenment as well, or are more spiritual than the advaitans. Vice versa as well.