My reflection on Advaita/Vishishadvaita

[mohinishaktidevi]

imow
the size of the jiva-atma is
1/10,000th the size of a tip of a hair,
enlivening a bodily vessel two yards tall,
traveling on a 6,000 mile diameter spinning orb in space,
grouped with other such orbs in a solar whorl amongst sparely clustered galaxies of such clustered orbs.
The entire tabernacle contained in a brahmanda, whose shell-like crust is ten layers thick, with each successive layer 10 times thicker than the last.
These brahmanda orbs emanate from the air bubbles of mahavishnu's breathe.
The jiva-atma (soul) is a tiny stake of real estate.
Behind every stake of real estate is a regional landlord,
even when the caretaker has no incentive to be attentive to the state of ones own front lawn.

 

[atanu]

Please see-bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-13-07.html
Where does it say any such thing?

The translation is not of Ramnujacharya. But let us see....

1. The translation does not mention the terms used for 'Brahman' or distorts the terms, namely, na sat and na asat. These are translated as 'beyond cause' and 'beyond effect' respectively.

na sat and na asat are more easily 'neither the existing' and 'nor the non-existent'. respectively.

2. And anAdimatparambrahma is parsed to read 'anaadi' and 'matparam'' which mean 'eternal' and under my control'.

The same term 'anAdimatparambrahma' is parsed as anaadimat and parambrahma and translated as 'without beginning Supreme Brajhman' by Kaismir Saivism and sankara and all others, except the Vaisnava school. in case of Svetastara upanishad the same compound is translated as "The Supreme without beginning". Kashmir Saivism and Sankara follow that.

3. And finally Ramanuja commentary goes like this:

Lord Krishna is declaring that which is most worthy to be known is that which is most worthy to strive for and be gained and that is realisation of the atma or immortal soul. ........

Where is the idea of the individual soul coming here? It seems a forcible introduction by the Vaisnava school. The object of the knowledge here is the anadimatparambrahma, the beginningless supreme Brahman. The verse may simply read as:

Jneyam yattat pravakshyaami yajjnaatwaa’mritamashnute;
Anaadimatparam brahma na sattannaasaduchyate.

13. "I will now tell thee what is the object of wisdom, from knowing which a man enjoys immortality; it is that which has no beginning, even the supreme Brahman, and of which it cannot be said that it is either Being or Non-Being.

That this is correct is easily proven from the next verse

Sarvatah paanipaadam tat sarvato’kshishiromukham;
Sarvatah shrutimalloke sarvamaavritya tishthati.
14. With hands and feet everywhere, with eyes, heads and mouths everywhere, with ears everywhere, He exists in the worlds, enveloping all.

The individual soul or jivatman surely does not exist with many hands/legs/mouths -- surely. No?

Or does the individual atma exists with eyes, hands, mouths spread around everywhere? In that case advaita is alreadty proven.
----------------------
Trying to fit Vedanta into an existing devotional idea of a personal God leads to many such contradictions. But it is okay to follow the guru with devotion and total surrender. Why complain about other paths unnecessarily, if that does not concern you. is is not egoistic?

For me, the instruction is to know the advaita atma, about which scripture says ayam atma brahma.

 

[atanu]

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.

I agree that atman is God. That is advaita. :yes:

Do you mean that atman is a God outside of me? And do you mean that advaita term actually means dvaita (dual) and not a-dvaita (non-dual)? Take a stand.

 

[Omkara]

The translation is not of Ramnujacharya. But let us see....

1. The translation does not mention the terms used for 'Brahman' or distorts the terms, namely, na sat and na asat. These are translated as 'beyond cause' and 'beyond effect' respectively.

na sat and na asat are more easily 'neither the existing' and 'nor the non-existent'. respectively.

2. And anAdimatparambrahma is parsed to read 'anaadi' and 'matparam'' which mean 'eternal' and under my control'.

The same term 'anAdimatparambrahma' is parsed as anaadimat and parambrahma and translated as 'without beginning Supreme Brajhman' by Kaismir Saivism and sankara and all others, except the Vaisnava school. in case of Svetastara upanishad the same compound is translated as "The Supreme without beginning". Kashmir Saivism and Sankara follow that.

3. And finally Ramanuja commentary goes like this:



Where is the idea of the individual soul coming here? It seems a forcible introduction by the Vaisnava school. The object of the knowledge here is the anadimatparambrahma, the beginningless supreme Brahman. The verse may simply read as:

Jneyam yattat pravakshyaami yajjnaatwaa’mritamashnute;
Anaadimatparam brahma na sattannaasaduchyate.

13. "I will now tell thee what is the object of wisdom, from knowing which a man enjoys immortality; it is that which has no beginning, even the supreme Brahman, and of which it cannot be said that it is either Being or Non-Being.

That this is correct is easily proven from the next verse

Sarvatah paanipaadam tat sarvato’kshishiromukham;
Sarvatah shrutimalloke sarvamaavritya tishthati.
14. With hands and feet everywhere, with eyes, heads and mouths everywhere, with ears everywhere, He exists in the worlds, enveloping all.

The individual soul or jivatman surely does not exist with many hands/legs/mouths -- surely. No?

Or does the individual atma exists with eyes, hands, mouths spread around everywhere? In that case advaita is alreadty proven.
----------------------
Trying to fit Vedanta into an existing devotional idea of a personal God leads to many such contradictions. But it is okay to follow the guru with devotion and total surrender. Why complain about other paths unnecessarily, if that does not concern you. is is not egoistic?

For me, the instruction is to know the advaita atma, about which scripture says ayam atma brahma.

Ramanuja's commentary is present in translated form on the bottom left of the page.
As regards your opinion on the validity of the translation/commentary, it is irrelevant. You claimed that in the commentary to this verse Ramanuja says that Nirguna Brahman is an emanation of Saguna Brahman. WHERE DOES HE SAY SO?

Your own opinions are irrelevant to me. You are deliberately spreading falsehoods about the beleifs of vishishtadvaita and dvaita.

 

[Omkara]

Do you mean that atman is a God outside of me? And do you mean that advaita term actually means dvaita (dual) and not a-dvaita (non-dual)? Take a stand.

No. Atman means the Lord who dwells within your soul as its antaryamin.
Advaita means "One who is without equal".It is a perfectly grammatical meaning, and it is in this sense that Indian parents name their children Advait. The only reason you object to it is because you have a priori decided it means non-dual.

 

[Omkara]

na sat and na asat are more easily 'neither the existing' and 'nor the non-existent'. respectively.

So it cannot be said that Brahman is either existent or non existent? So now you are doubting the existence of Brahman?

2. And anAdimatparambrahma is parsed to read 'anaadi' and 'matparam'' which mean 'eternal' and under my control'.

And your problem with this is? Other than the fact that advaitins interpret it differently? What grammatical errors do you see in it?

That this is correct is easily proven from the next verse

Sarvatah paanipaadam tat sarvato’kshishiromukham;
Sarvatah shrutimalloke sarvamaavritya tishthati.
14. With hands and feet everywhere, with eyes, heads and mouths everywhere, with ears everywhere, He exists in the worlds, enveloping all.

The individual soul or jivatman surely does not exist with many hands/legs/mouths -- surely. No?

Correct, that refers to the subject of the previous verse i.e. Brahman.

 

[atanu]

Your own opinions are irrelevant to me. You are deliberately spreading falsehoods about the beleifs of vishishtadvaita and dvaita.

Hey. I may be wrong but do you always insult people like this? What will I gain by spreading falsehoods? Kindly do not insult me. You said there were many Brahmans and I am trying to show how ridiculous that would be since all of them will be subject to death. Let us see the origin, if yu so wish.

Huh? Dvaita and VA don't accept the existence of Nirguna Brahman. And the idea of Brahman being an emanation of bhagavan exists only in Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

I answered as below:

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 ..... 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.

.......... What is Vyuha?

So You can see that on both of your points I answered. May be the answers do not suit you but that does not entitle you to say that I am spreading mis-information.

 

[atanu]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ramanuja's commentary is present in translated form on the bottom left of the page.
As regards your opinion on the validity of the translation/commentary, it is irrelevant. You claimed that in the commentary to this verse Ramanuja says that Nirguna Brahman is an emanation of Saguna Brahman. WHERE DOES HE SAY SO?

Omkara, on this issue, either you have forgotten the reasons for my showing the Gita verse 13.13 or you are not truthful. I assuume the former and I will remind you. I opined the following:

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).

You questioned the above bold part as below:

Please see- Bhagavad-Gita: Chapter 13, Verse 13
Where does it say any such thing?

So, I explained how the Gita verse 13.13 is interpreted by VA to obviate the need to explain, 'na sat' and 'na asat' param brahman. And I showed how, anaadimatparambrahman is parsed to read 'under my control'.

I hope you will see what was asked by you and how I have actually shown that.

 

[Omkara]

Your link is not working. I checked http://www.srihayagrivan.org/ebooks/059_sbg_v3.pdf, also the Ramakrishna Mission translation of Ramanuja's commentary which I have plus the link I posted. All three say the same thing. Ramanuja has not interpreted Nirguna Brahman as being an emanation of Saguna Brahman.

 

[atanu]

Huh? Dvaita and VA don't accept the existence of Nirguna Brahman. And the idea of Brahman being an emanation of bhagavan exists only in Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

1. Vuyha is the concept of emanation in Vaisnavism.
2. Ramanuja's translation of Gita 13.13 subordinates the 'na sat' na asat' beginnngless brahman to Shri Krishna, namely Narayana, as shown below from Shri Ramanujacharya's translation.

http://srimatham.com/storage/docs/bhagavad-gita.pdf
Chapter 13
jneyaμ yattat pravakßyåmi yajjñåtvåm®tam açnute |
anådi mat-paraμbrahma na sattannåsad ucyate || 13 ||
13. I shall declare that which has to be known, knowing which, one attains
immortality — It is beginningless Brahman, to which I am superior; it is said to be​

neither being nor non-being

So both the queries are answered. There is no intention of spreading mis-information. I am only sharing what i know.

 

[atanu]

No. Atman means the Lord who dwells within your soul as its antaryamin.
Advaita means "One who is without equal".It is a perfectly grammatical meaning, and it is in this sense that Indian parents name their children Advait. The only reason you object to it is because you have a priori decided it means non-dual.

Omkara your very serious demeanour makes me smile. What does dvaita mean, BTW?

If you pondered a bit you will find that even with your definitions, the advaita darsana stands intact.

 

[atanu]

Your link is not working. I checked http://www.srihayagrivan.org/ebooks/059_sbg_v3.pdf, also the Ramakrishna Mission translation of Ramanuja's commentary which I have plus the link I posted. All three say the same thing. Ramanuja has not interpreted Nirguna Brahman as being an emanation of Saguna Brahman.

I did not say what you are saying. I said that the understanding of the 'nirgunam brahman', as in Gita etc. has been subordinated to Krishna. And I showed an actual translation of Ramanujacharya.

http://srimatham.com/storage/docs/bhagavad-gita.pdf

Chapter 13
jneyaμ yattat pravakßyåmi yajjñåtvåm®tam açnute |
anådi mat-paraμbrahma na sattannåsad ucyate || 13 ||

13. I shall declare that which has to be known, knowing which, one attains
immortality — It is beginningless Brahman, to which I am superior; it is said to be neither being nor non-being

Regarding, emanation, i simply said that VA has the idea of emanation in form of vuyha.

There is no reason to link these two points, unless you wish to complicate the issue. Eating mango is important or discussing about mango is all that is required? Shastra teaches "Know the advaita atma'. Gita teaches know the anaadimatparambrahma. So know it.

 

[Omkara]

I did not say what you are saying. I said that the understanding of the 'nirgunam brahman', as in Gita etc. has been subordinated to Krishna. And I showed an actual translation of Ramanujacharya.

I checked three translations of Ramanuja's commentary and showed you two which are present on the internet-
http://www.srihayagrivan.org/ebooks/059_sbg_v3.pdf
Bhagavad-Gita: Chapter 13, Verse 13
In contrast, the one link you provided does not work.

Ramanuja does not interpret this verse in the way you are claiming. Three different translations of his commentary say so.

 

[Omkara]

You said there were many Brahmans and I am trying to show how ridiculous that would be since all of them will be subject to death. Let us see the origin, if yu so wish.

I quoted a verse verbatim from a text which has been accepted as shruti by prominent advaitins like Madhusudhana Sarasvati. This upanishad clearly says that there are multiple entities which can be referred tp by the name 'Brahman'.If you have a problem with this, please provide an alternative interpretation of the verse.

 

[Omkara]

Sri Bhagavad Gita 1898 - Google Books

Here you go- A fourth translation of Ramanuja's commentary which gives the same interpretation.

The verse is on page 422.

 

[Omkara]

Ok, your link finally opened. Even if what it says is true,it says

Mat-param — having Me as the Superior; brahma — Brahman or the individual
Self.

brahman here is taken to mean the individual soul and not nirguna brahman.

 

[atanu]

Ok, your link finally opened. Even if what it says is true,it says
Mat-param — having Me as the Superior; brahma — Brahman or the individual
Self.
brahman here is taken to mean the individual soul and not nirguna brahman.

Ha. That was my point. 'anaadimatbrahma' may be translated as 'without beginning supreme brahman' (as translated by all translators, except the vaisnav teachers), or 'anaadimatbrahma' can be translated as 'brahman, under my control'. Further, the 'na sat' and 'na asat' clauses are glossed over.

It is upto you. I have nothing more to say, since my intention is not to argue but to follow guru's teachings. For vaisnavas, who have shri Ramanuja or shri Madhava as their gurus, their translations are OK.

For me, however, those translations are misleading, since Krishna teaches:

10.20 Ahamaatmaa gudaakesha sarvabhootaashayasthitah;
Ahamaadishcha madhyam cha bhootaanaamanta eva cha.

10. 20. I am the Self, O Gudakesha, seated in the hearts of all beings! I am the beginning, the middle and also the end of all beings.

 

[atanu]

No. Atman means the Lord who dwells within your soul as its antaryamin.
Advaita means "One who is without equal".It is a perfectly grammatical meaning, and it is in this sense that Indian parents name their children Advait. The only reason you object to it is because you have a priori decided it means non-dual.

This does not make any difference whatsoever to the need for knowing the atma as one indivisible being. Further, your notion of real separate souls are not upheld by smrit or sruti.

10.20 Ahamaatmaa gudaakesha sarvabhootaashayasthitah;
Ahamaadishcha madhyam cha bhootaanaamanta eva cha.

10. 20. I am the Self, O Gudakesha, seated in the hearts of all beings! I am the beginning, the middle and also the end of all beings.


The above alone is sufficient (for me). Other bheda teachings which might be required for different stages of sadhaka's development. But for one who meditates on the above day and night there is no need to imagine a separate soul.

 

[Omkara]

Ha. That was my point. 'anaadimatbrahma' may be translated as 'without beginning supreme brahman' (as translated by all translators, except the vaisnav teachers), or 'anaadimatbrahma' can be translated as 'brahman, under my control'. Further, the 'na sat' and 'na asat' clauses are glossed over.

I have shown you three different translations of Ramanuja's commentary, all of which illustrate that Ramanuja did not interpret the verse in the manner you are claiming. It is pointless to go on repeating the same falsehoods again and again after they have been disproved. I repeat again, I could'nt care less what you beleive, the fact is that you are deliberately misrepresenting Dvaita/VA teachings and I object to that.

 

[AdityaMookerjee]

Namaste everyone,

I am going through Fundamentals of Vishishtadvaita siddhanta (by S.M.S.Chari) where many points are given about Advaita too and thus slowly reflecting on both siddhantas when I am reading about god and other matters pertaining to vedanta.

It is discussed that while some shrutis/smritis claim Narayana to be the supreme, some others consider Shiva to be the supreme. And there are, as one could expect in a book on Vishishtadvaita, support given to the 'Narayana Brahman' view as one could expect 'Shiva Brahman' view in a book on Advaita.

However in Vishishtadvaita siddhanta, when discussing a Jivatman, attributes are discussed. Such as knowledge being an attribute of Jivatman. Similarly all dhravyas are considered being formed of attributes, and god or Brahman is a 'dhraya' or one who is a substrate for attributes.

At this point, I started wondering about Shiva and Narayana. I started wondering, because our scriptures uniformly declare Narayana as being the 'preserver', and Shiva being the 'destroyer', and in many places declaring that 'Narayana is Shiva' or Narayana or Shiva themselves saying 'I am HE'. (I know a story where Shiva says this about Narayana). Then I started wondering why cannot there be a part of the same Brahman that is called Narayana and another part 'Shiva'?

If we look at the picture of Narayana, he lies on serpent bed on an ocean. This to me signifies that Narayana verily forms the 'antaryami' or 'soul' of all created beings and as such, does his duty of preserving them while in bondage (serpent) until they are ready for moksha...

And Shiva who drank poison which resides in his Blue throat has a coiled serpent around his throat which to me signifies as if Shiva saying, "I am incharge, as lord of destruction, to relieve a bonded Jivatman (poison in the throat) when time comes and promote him to mukti (serpent around the neck)". He is also said to give 'Rama nama taraka mantra' to souls who passed away in Kashi - the city that grants mukti and thus to me, it appears he is the grantor of mukti..

I know this may sound as not making sense to some as Sriman Narayana is also known to grant mukti and Shiva is also supposed to be the 'father soul', but based on their declared function and some reflection on what their pictures could signify - this is some attempt at looking beyond the mystery.

Please let me know your thoughts.

I am sorry if my post inadvertently insults anyone, as it is not supposed to.

To moderators - if my post isn't appropriate for any reason, kindly delete it.

To be fair, in Hinduism, the idea might be, that after realisation, a person doesn't know. The phrase, 'He doesn't know who he is', refers to God, in scriptures. But it does seem, that a person has certain definite signs, that he has realised Brahman. People did see Sri Rama, and they lived their lives as before they did.