My reflection on Advaita/Vishishadvaita

[atanu]

Huh? Dvaita and VA don't accept the existence of Nirguna Brahman.

Do you mean to say that VA and dvaita ignore the 'nirgunam' definition of brahman, as in Gita (13.15 and 13.32)? The three Vedanta schools are based on Upanishads, Brahma Sutras, and Gita.

It is not the question of acceptance in the sense as if there were two brahman-s. It is true that the VA and Dvaita do not accept the two fold understanding of Brahman. But it is not true that they do not accept the Nirgunam. Kindly find out how Dvaita and VA translations of Bhagavat Gita 13.13 read. They simply consider the Nirgunam aspect as subordinate to Krishna-Narayana (although Gita calls this Nirgunam aspect as Paramatman, which is not different from Brahman). Where Gita says that the divisions between objects are all apparent, the VA however, considers Brahman as comprised of cit acit parts and at the same time taking support from satyam-jnanam-anantam definition of Brahman given in Taittriya Up. How Brahman, which is jnanam, actualluy gives rise to acit - the unconscious?

And what is sakshi, the witness, principle in dvaita? Because dvaita holds that jiva and brahman are eternally separate, it needs a sakshi principle, at the least, to make communication and knowledge possible. So, what is that sakshi?

As per advaita the highest Brahman is impersonal, Nirguna (without Gunas or attributes), Nirakara (formless), Nirvisesha (without special characteristics), immutable, eternal and Akarta (non-agent).

Both VA and dvaita include these in some components/aspects of Brahman, without naming that 'nirgunam' and also making the nirgunam aspect subordinate to some other brahmic qualities (that appear to me as plain worldly). They also define 'nirgunam' in their own way, claiming that 'nirgunam' does not mean absence of transcendental qualities.

Well. I am not equipped to comment on the transcendental qualities. And I think no one is.

And the idea of Brahman being an emanation of bhagavan exists only in Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

No. I did not use a term Bhagavan. Are you familiar with the concept of Para, Vyuha, Antaryamin, Vibhava, and Arca? Para is transcendental. What is Vyuha?

 

[mohinishaktidevi]

The highlighted part above is insulting to many. Frankly speaking, the one who writes such purport is foolish. The purport is directly against Vedas and Upanishads and also contradicts the Bhagavatam itself.

Bhagavatam is primarily a Vaisnava purana, which is not sruti. Yet, the Bhagavatam, itself has the following:

I have highlighted the important points with red fonts that show that the purport itself is foolish. Girisa, mahadeva is described by the sages, and including Vishnu, as the Supreme Truth. Mahadeva is described as source of brahmA, Visnu, mahesvara. He is the source of the Vedas, the world, the gods, the beings. Exalted persons worship His feet. He being situated transcendentally, the material directors of the universe, namely, brahmA, Vishnu, or Indra, do not know where He is.
------------------------
My intention is not to fuel any argument, since it is immature and fooilish to imagine that the Supreme Truth, in whatever name known, can have a second to it. My intention is that in this western forum, non-indians should not get a distorted view.

Some western translators have naively or maliciously equated importance of vedic names with their number of occurences, entirely ignoring the fact that all worship is directed towards the Inner Being, which is nameless yet is called advaita shiva.

Nameless but called by your name.
Of course I do not adhere to the same arguments as you propound.
I agree with the bhagavata's explaination.

Neither I do not see any such contradiction indicated as you seem to propound.

The verses and the purports are in agreement with all the Vedas and Vedanta.

The traditional approach of "Subject and Predicate" should be identified in the notes I posted.

It is a general rule of composition to establish a subject first and then give its predicate. For example, according to Sanskrit grammar if one says, “This man is learned,” his composition is in order. But if one says, “Learned is this man,” the composition is not in order. Such a flaw is called "the fault of unclean composition". For example, if the subject matter to be known of a verse is the glorification of the Ganges, and therefore the word idam (“this&#8221, or what is known, should have been placed before instead of after the glorification. The subject matter already known should be placed before the unknown so that its meaning will not be misconstrued.

The gathered notes I pasted indicate Krishna's Brother as Sankarsana.
The expansions of plenary expansions is the subject.
The rest of the details can be read directly.

The entire source of these notes are from A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami who po ssesses all the authoritative status of a Bonefide Hindu Swami & Sanskrit Scholar, therefore, I am simply repeating his instructions as he explained it.

I short I have stated my opinions which differ from others.

 

[atanu]

Purport
......
The materialists and the foolish human beings worship Brahma and Siva respectively. ---

Churning of the Ocean
19. O King, when that uncontrollable poison was forcefully spreading up and down in all directions, all the demigods, along with the Lord Himself, approached Lord Siva [Sadasiva]. Feeling unsheltered and very much afraid, they sought shelter of him....
22. ....Those who are advanced in spiritual consciousness surrender unto you, and therefore you are the cause of mitigating their distresses, and you are also the cause of their liberation. We therefore worship Your Lordship......
24. You are the cause of all causes, the self-effulgent, inconceivable, Supreme Brahman. ....
29. .... You are directly situated as the supreme truth, known as Paramatma.......
33. Exalted, self-satisfied persons who preach to the entire world think of your lotus feet constantly within their hearts. ...

Nameless but called by your name.
Of course I do not adhere to the same arguments as you propound.
I agree with the bhagavata's explaination.

So, Vishnu and other devas lied when they were praying to Shiva to consume the poison? They lied when they called Girisa as Paramatman and Supreme Brahman? And do you think that those who worship paramatman are fools, as your original purport shows?

I repeat the purport below:

Purport
......
The materialists and the foolish human beings worship Brahma and Siva respectively. ---

Is this purport correct in the light of citations that I have shown? Do you really mean that all Hindus who worship Shiva are foolish human beings?

 

[mohinishaktidevi]

So, Vishnu and other devas lied? They lied? Those who worship paramatman are fools?

I repeat the purport below:

Is this purport correct in the light of citations that I have shown? Do you really mean that all Hindus who worship Shiva are foolish human beings?

I cannot comment on your hypothesis.

From your writtings I take it that you do not recognize the authority of smriti.
So why continue to examine it if there is no regard for its authority.

Krishna explains the Brahman, paramatma & bhagavan thoroughly.

The Vedic cannon can be used to build a house by using the ingredients that the Vedic cannon possess. The contructive building of such an edifice can be done with those building blocks. There is no contradiction just opposing architects.

 

[Viraja]

Mohini Shakti Devi ji,

You had given a lengthy message earlier. Thank you very much for the same. I have yet to go through the same. I will and thereafter let you know for any questions. I appreciate your reply.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

So, Vishnu and other devas lied when they were praying to Shiva to consume the poison? They lied when they called Girisa as Paramatman and Supreme Brahman? And do you think that those who worship paramatman are fools, as your original purport shows?

I repeat the purport below:


Is this purport correct in the light of citations that I have shown? Do you really mean that all Hindus who worship Shiva are foolish human beings?

Well put together argument Fubals.

 

[Omkara]

Do you mean to say that VA and dvaita ignore the 'nirgunam' definition of brahman, as in Gita (13.15 and 13.32)?

Dvaita and VA interpret Nirguna as beyond the three gunas- sattva, rajas and tamas.This is in accordance with upakrama nyaya and utsargapavada nyaya. Therse tatparyalingas are accepted by advaita also but advaita misinterprets them in this case. Basically, the rule is that if there is affirmation as well as negation of the same thing in scripture, the affirmation overrules the negation and the negation is to be interpreted in accordance with the affirmation.

And what is sakshi, the witness, principle in dvaita? Because dvaita holds that jiva and brahman are eternally separate, it needs a sakshi principle, at the least, to make communication and knowledge possible. So, what is that sakshi?

Sakshi is one of the most important concepts in dvaita and is central to dvaita philosphy. The concept is significantly different from the advaita version. Anyways that is out of the scope of this discussion. Consult the works of BNK Sharma if you want to know more. This is impossible to explain in a few posts.

No. I did not use a term Bhagavan. Are you familiar with the concept of Para, Vyuha, Antaryamin, Vibhava, and Arca? Para is transcendental. What is Vyuha?

Yes I am familiar with these. They are the five manifestaions if Vishnu in Vaishnavism. The vyuhas are Vasudeva,Sankarshana, Aniruddha,Pradyumna. They are hypostases of the Supreme being.

 

[atanu]

I cannot comment on your hypothesis.
From your writtings I take it that you do not recognize the authority of smriti.
---

Ha? I cite Bhagavatam to show that Vishnu together with sages pray to Shiva as Paramatma and as Supreme Brahman. I cited Yajur Veda to show that Rudra is Eko and Vishnave.

You however cling to the notion of a foolish purport that only fools worship shiva.

Don't you see that you are placing your faith only on the purport, neglecting sruti, smriti, and purana?

I do not consider that there are many Supreme beings, btw. And before the Word , the Vak, the Being was ever in existence. So, it is immaterial as to what name we give to the Supreme Purusha. Yet, since you ascribe worship of Shiva to foolishness, so I intervened. I have no animosity.

 

[atanu]

Dvaita and VA interpret Nirguna as beyond the three gunas- sattva, rajas and tamas.---

Sakshi is one of the most important concepts in dvaita and is central to dvaita philosphy. The concept is significantly different from the advaita version. Anyways that is out of the scope of this discussion. Consult the works of BNK Sharma if you want to know more. This is impossible to explain in a few posts.

How do you think advaita darsana understands the Nirguna? As tasteless? And is the sakshi understood in dvaita is not all pervading?

And I do not think that I will read BNK Sharma or any other Dvaita or VA author to clear away any doubt about soundness of advaita teaching. I have, I hope, no need to re-enter into word play and polemics to show that sruti does not teach 'one without a second'.

I however agree to you that on the surface both dvaita and VA deny the two foldness of Brahman. Yet you will also have to agree that in order to accomodate various sruti, the Dvaita has to disagree to VA that Brahman-the taintless, is made up of cit and acit. To do that Dvaita totally disowns the one-ness sruti-s of vedanta. OTOH, VA contradicts 'no internl differences in Brahman' dictum of sruti.

Advaita says that the differences that apparently partition brahman are at phenomenal level. At this level, the saguna brahman, ishwara is meaningful. But the nirguna and the saguna are not two different beings. This is the confusion many hold. I do not know about you.

Yes I am familiar with these. They are the five manifestaions if Vishnu in Vaishnavism. The vyuhas are Vasudeva,Sankarshana, Aniruddha,Pradyumna. They are hypostases of the Supreme being.

So, how is vyuha not the expansion/emanation?

Do you see that VA/Dvaita consider emanation and the para as of different significance? Does that not mean that the nirgunam is included at a lower level than the saguna, just as Abrahamic religions do?
------------------------

A saguna Brahman with real limited jiva-s as the body is Pantheism and is contradictory to sruti 'One who sees any difference here goes from death to death'. So, dvaita comes in and separates the Lord/Brahman and Jiva-s eternally (connected by sakshi of course). Madhava agrees that the Turiya, the Transcendental as expounded in Mandukya Upanishad, is the real Prabhu. The Turiya, being the fourth and being distinct from the three states of existence namely: Sleep, dream, waking, is truly in dvaita position. So, Panentheism is now upheld by the dvaita darsana.

However, the same Mandukya Upanishad teaches "the turiya advaita atma must be known". So, how does noe know the advaita? Can one know the advaita in a dvaita mode? How can one know the atma? Can the atma be known as another? So, as per my understanding, the knowing of the advaita atman means being the advaita atman. Although that is the rarest of rare, it is futile to brush this away. Upanishads do teach "Knower of Brahman becomes Brahman". Are there then many Brahman-s?

I have understood this much and practise accordingly.

 

[Omkara]

Your whole post is full of mischaracterizations of dvaita and vishishtadvaita. Whether advaita is correct or not is irrelevant. Please do not make false claims about what dvaita and VA beleive.

 

[atanu]

Your whole post is full of mischaracterizations of dvaita and vishishtadvaita. --.

Kindly explain instead of just asserting.

1. It has been shown that your idea about expansion/emanation being not a concept in VA is wrong. The vyuha is expansion. Do you agree or not? Why it is so difficult to agree.

2. Your idea that 'VA/Dvaita' rejects nirgunam brahman is correct in a sense that VA/Dvaita consider brahman to be ultimately saguna. But it is incorrect in the sense that the 'nirgunam' aspect has been totally rejected. Gita Chapter 13 teaches about the Nirgunam, termed as 'neither a being nor a non being' that must be known. Dvaita and VA texts interpret the Gita verse 13.13 as saying that this Brahman is under the control of Shri Krishna-Narayana.

Did you check that? If you check, you will find not a denial of the 'neither a being nor a non being', but placing that under Shri Krishna in hierarchy.

I may be wrong no doubt. But I repeat. Kindly explain where I am wrong, instead of just asserting that.

 

[atanu]

Your whole post is full of mischaracterizations of dvaita and vishishtadvaita. Whether advaita is correct or not is irrelevant. Please do not make false claims about what dvaita and VA beleive.

You may be fully correct. Yet. I have come to believe that un-necessary arguments are not needed. I know that the Turiya described as the advaita atman in upanishads and the Paramatman (same as Supreme Brahman) described as ' knowable neither a being nor a non being' in Gita in Chapter 13, must be known. So that alone is important for me. You are welcome to explain VA and Dvaita to all of us, instead of merely finding mischaracterizations.

 

[Omkara]

How do you think advaita darsana understands the Nirguna? As tasteless?

Advaita darshana understands nirguna as attributeless. However Dvaita and VA say that all objects have attributes and that Brahman has infinite auspicious atrributes.

And is the sakshi understood in dvaita is not all pervading?

Sakshi is not all pervading in dvaita.

So, how is vyuha not the expansion/emanation?

Do you see that VA/Dvaita consider emanation and the para as of different significance? Does that not mean that the nirgunam is included at a lower level than the saguna, just as Abrahamic religions do?

You said that Dvaita/Va understand the attributeless Brahman as an emanation of the lord.The vyuhas are not attributeless nor are they emanations. They are described as such in the pancharatra canon and the brahma sutras rightly refute thus as impossible. Vaishnavas interpret the same brahma sutra verses as supporting the pancaratra and spend a consideranpe amount of time trying to reinterpret the vyuhas as not being emanations. So no, vyuhas are not emanations according to Vaishnavas and to characterize them as such is deliberate misrepresebtation.

A saguna Brahman with real limited jiva-s as the body is Pantheism and is contradictory to sruti 'One who sees any difference here goes
from death to death'.

No, it is panentheism. The shruti ypu quoted has been interpreted by VA as - He who sees any separation (between Brahman and Jivas/Prakriti) here goes from death to death and by Dvaita as- He who sees any difference between the forms of Brahman goes from death to death, both of which are perfectly grammatical interpretations.

So, dvaita comes in and separates the Lord/Brahman and Jiva-s eternally (connected by sakshi of course).

No, that is a misunderstanding of the dvaita concept of Sakshi.

Madhava agrees that the Turiya, the Transcendental as expounded in Mandukya Upanishad, is the real Prabhu. The Turiya, being the fourth and being distinct from the three states of existence namely: Sleep, dream, waking, is truly in dvaita position. So, Panentheism is now upheld by the dvaita darsana.

According to dvaita/Va, visva, taijasa,prajna, turiya are PERSONS. See Brihadaranyaka upanishad where turiya is described as 'handsome'. For Vaishnavas, Turiya- Vasudeva, Prajna- Sankarshana, Taijasa- Aniruddha, Visva- Pradyumna.

However, the same Mandukya Upanishad teaches "the turiya advaita atma must be known". So, how does noe know the advaita? Can one know the advaita in a dvaita mode? How can one know the atma? Can the atma be known as another? So, as per my understanding, the knowing of the advaita atman means being the advaita atman.

Advaita does not necessarily mean nondual and the primary referrent of the Word Atman is the Lord, not the soul. The word Advaita in dvaita/VA interpretation simply means that he is peerless.

Upanishads do teach "Knower of Brahman becomes Brahman". Are there then many Brahman-s?

Yes there are. See the parama upanishad.This text has been accepted as valid by past Advaitins : the `sarva-darshana-sangraha' of Sayana quotes from it in the `pUrNpraj~na- darshanaM' chapter; Sridhara Swami quotes from it on his own in his Bhagavata commentary; and in response to the nyAyAmR^ita's quote of a verse from the parama-shruti, Madhusudana Saraswati accepts it in toto and attempts to offer an alternative explanation for the same.
So you cannot complain about its authenticity. The parama upanishad says-

brahmANi jIvAH sarve.api parabrahmANi muktigAH * | prakR^itiH paramaM brahma paramaM mahadachyutaH * | tasmAnna muktA na cha sA na kvachidvishhNuvaibhavam.h * | prApnuvanti sa evaikaH svatantraH pUrNashhaDguNaH" || iti paramashrutiH * ||
'All the jivas are Brahmans; the jivas that attain release superior Brahmans; prakrti(Lakshmi) is a still higher Brahman. Lord Acyuta is the the splendour of Visnu anywhere, He alone is independent and has the six attribute perfection'.

 

[Omkara]

Just so there is no misconception, I am NOT a Vaishnava.

 

[atanu]

Advaita darshana understands nirguna as attributeless. However Dvaita and VA say that all objects have attributes and that Brahman has infinite auspicious atrributes.

What are attributes of advaita? What are transendental infinite attributes of VA? Is this not just word play.

Sakshi is not all pervading in dvaita.

Show the citation.

You said that Dvaita/Va understand the attributeless Brahman as an emanation of the lord.The vyuhas are not attributeless nor are they emanations. They are described as such in the pancharatra canon and the brahma sutras rightly refute thus as impossible. Vaishnavas interpret the same brahma sutra verses as supporting the pancaratra and spend a consideranpe amount of time trying to reinterpret the vyuhas as not being emanations. So no, vyuhas are not emanations according to Vaishnavas and to characterize them as such is deliberate misrepresebtation.

I did not say that. This point came up because you bluntly asserted that only Gaudiyas teach Brahman as emanation of Bhagavan. Although, I had not mentioned bhagavan in my earlier post.

I said that, while interpreting the 'neither a being nor a non being' Brahman of Gita (13.13) the Ramanuja translation puts this Brahman under the control of Narayna Krishna (also called as bhagavan by others).

No, it is panentheism. The shruti ypu quoted has been interpreted by VA as - He who sees any separation (between Brahman and Jivas/Prakriti) here goes from death to death and by Dvaita as- He who sees any difference between the forms of Brahman goes from death to death, both of which are perfectly grammatical interpretations.

You are correct. But why did dvaita object to Ramnuja's interpretation?

Interpretation notwithstanding, the taintable jiva-s as part of jnanam brahman is contradictory to sruti and is not panentheism. Since the taints of jiva-s will necessarily be tainting Brahman also, unless we agree Dvaita interpretation that Brahman and the Jiva-s are separate actually.

No, that is a misunderstanding of the dvaita concept of Sakshi.

Again. A mere assertion.

According to dvaita/Va, visva, taijasa,prajna, turiya are PERSONS. See Brihadaranyaka upanishad where turiya is described as 'handsome'. For Vaishnavas, Turiya- Vasudeva, Prajna- Sankarshana, Taijasa- Aniruddha, Visva- Pradyumna.

So?

Advaita does not necessarily mean nondual and the primary referrent of the Word Atman is the Lord, not the soul. The word Advaita in dvaita/VA interpretation simply means that he is peerless.

I am not into this word play. ayam atman brahma is sufficient.

Yes there are. See the parama upanishad.This text has been accepted as valid by past Advaitins : the `sarva-darshana-sangraha' of Sayana quotes from it in the `pUrNpraj~na- darshanaM' chapter; Sridhara Swami quotes from it on his own in his Bhagavata commentary; and in response to the nyAyAmR^ita's quote of a verse from the parama-shruti, Madhusudana Saraswati accepts it in toto and attempts to offer an alternative explanation for the same.....
So you cannot complain about its authenticity. The parama upanishad says-

brahmANi jIvAH sarve.api parabrahmANi muktigAH * | prakR^itiH paramaM brahma paramaM mahadachyutaH * | tasmAnna muktA na cha sA na kvachidvishhNuvaibhavam.h * | prApnuvanti sa evaikaH svatantraH pUrNashhaDguNaH" || iti paramashrutiH * ||
'All the jivas are Brahmans; the jivas that attain release superior Brahmans; prakrti(Lakshmi) is a still higher Brahman. Lord Acyuta is the the splendour of Visnu anywhere, He alone is independent and has the six attribute perfection'.

I have really no need to go into this.

If there are many brahmans then the sruti "one who sees any difference here goes from death to death" comes into play.

 

[Omkara]

What are attributes of advaita? What are transendental infinite attributes of VA? Is this not just word play.

What?

Show the citation.

Book- Philosophy of Madhvacharya by BNK Sharma Chapter-The concept of Sakshi.

If there are many brahmans then the sruti "one who sees any difference here goes from death to death" comes into play.

Then how do you explain this quote?

 

[atanu]

Advaita does not necessarily mean nondual and the primary referrent of the Word Atman is the Lord, not the soul. The word Advaita in dvaita/VA interpretation simply means that he is peerless..

Can any one debate such assertions? Is there any point in discussing?

Advaita does not necessarily mean nondual. Advaita actually means dual, you know?

And Atma is not the inner Being. atman is the outer Being, you know?

I am not interested in discussing any further. I will just re-iterate the following.

Even if I agree that advaita does not mean non-dual and atman actually means another being, even then the 'advaita atman' has to be known.

I cannot bypass the knower/seer within me that also is within all. And that remains the Supreme transcendental advaita without change.

And that simply is advaita darsana.

 

[atanu]

That the advaita atman has to be known is the dictum of the upanishads. Knowing advaita atman cannot happen in a dualistic mode. That is impossible.

Even if I am forced to agree that the advaita actually does not mean non-dual (howsoever ridiculous that may be) and atman actually means another being (another ridiculous proposition), even then the 'advaita atman' remains to be known.

For that I cannot bypass the knower/seer that is within me (and also within all). And that Seer/Knower remains the Supreme transcendental advaita without change. And there remains no higher and lower and no second.

And that is all.

Thank you Omkara for the discussion. I really do not need to re-enter into dialectical argument with you. Through dialectical argument I have attained the above understanding that is at the same time a refutation of the dvaita stand that the Turiya Prabhu is ever distinct. No.

Thanks again. You have helped to improve my understanding.

 

[Omkara]

I did not say that. This point came up because you bluntly asserted that only Gaudiyas teach Brahman as emanation of Bhagavan. Although, I had not mentioned bhagavan in my earlier post.

I said that, while interpreting the 'neither a being nor a non being' Brahman of Gita (13.13) the Ramanuja translation puts this Brahman under the control of Narayna Krishna (also called as bhagavan by others).

Please see- Bhagavad-Gita: Chapter 13, Verse 13

Where does it say any such thing?

 

[Omkara]

Even if I am forced to agree that the advaita actually does not mean non-dual (howsoever ridiculous that may be) and atman actually means another being (another ridiculous proposition), even then the 'advaita atman' remains to be known.

Your personal beleifs are irrelevant. You stated that VA/ Dvaita holds certain beleifs, which I pointed out that they do not hold. I merely pointed out the dvaita/VA viewpoint on those subjects. Whether you agree with it or not is no concern of mine. Fact is, you are making incorrect statements about Dvaita/VA beleifs.

Also, God is the primary referrent of the word Atman. The soul is only a secondary meaning of the word. Saying otherwise simply betrays an ignorance of Sanskrit grammar. It is the advaitin intetpretation which is oblique and unnecessarily choises a secondary meaning over a primary meaning.

As for the term Advaita, scripture very clearly describes other things than Brahman existing. Interpreting Advaita as non dual is a negation which is weaker than the affirmation of things other than Brahman existing which is described in other verses.