PDA

View Full Version : Describe Advaita, Vishistadvaita, Dvaita



Lakshmi USA
19 March 2006, 06:38 PM
Though I am an vaishnava my parents never taught me these philosophies. Neither more religious relatives of mine did talk about it.

Will someone be kind enough to give me a short description of all the three.

I just learnt in a nutshell that Dvaita says Krishna is the only one and there is no other.

sarabhanga
19 March 2006, 08:37 PM
Namaste Lakshmi,

Advaita considers that Paramatman alone is eternal.

Vishishtadvaita considers that Jivatman is always a part of Paramatman.

Dvaita considers that Jivatman is always apart from Paramatman.

Sudarshan
20 March 2006, 04:39 AM
Though I am an vaishnava my parents never taught me these philosophies. Neither more religious relatives of mine did talk about it.

Will someone be kind enough to give me a short description of all the three.

I just learnt in a nutshell that Dvaita says Krishna is the only one and there is no other.

There are three terms that are mainly involved:

Isvara or Brahman - God
jeeva - individual soul, which is the locus of "I" within you.
jagat - The world or the universe

The difference between different systems of philosophy are the ways they consider the relationship between these three entities. There differences also spring from their definitions of Isvara, the causalty of jagat etc.


In advaita, both jeeva and jagat, are unreal, and Isvara is the only reality. Some advatins have a different view, but all advatins are uniform in their views that the jeeva and jagat have no eternal existance.(real or unreal).

In advaita, Isvara is superceded by the concept of Nirguna Brahman, which is nivisesha or devoid of all attributes. Advaitins consider Brahman as both material and instrumental cause of the jagat.


In Vishsitadvaita, Isvara and jeeva are different, Isvara and jagat are different, jagat and jeeva are different. Jagat and jeeva are connected to Isvara in the form of attributes. That is to say - both jagat and jeeva form an inseperable part of Isvara eternally. Vishistadvatins consider Brahman as saguna or as a personal diety with an innumerable number of auspicious attributes. They also consider Brahman as the material cause of the world.


In dvaita, Isvara, jeeva and jagat are all different eternally. Dvaita accepts a five fold eternal difference of all these entities. In Dvaita, Isvara is only the instrumental cause of the world. Dvaita concieves of Brahman as similar to Vishsitadvaita, as a personal grace filled diety with infnite wisdom and powers.


There are other philosophies like

bedha-abedha
dvaita-adviata
shuddhadvaita
achintya bedha-abedha

etc, which have philosophical positions somewhere in the middle of what have been explained before.

For eg, suddhadvaita is a form of advaita which accepts the reality of both jeeva and jagat, yet they are considered identical to Isvara. These are advaitins who think that Brahman is both Nirguna and Saguna simultaneously.

dvaita-advaita ,bedha-abedha and achinta bedha-abedha are close to Vishshistadvaita but have their differences from it.

Advaita is unqiue in that, it is the only system of vedanta that denies the reality of jeeva and jagat, unlike any other pantheistic or monistic traditions.

Dvaita is unique in that, it is the only school of vedanta that does not accept Brahman being the material cause of the world. It is also the only school that states that jeeva is completely different from Brahman.


Considering that all these schools base their truth on the same scripture texts, it makes you wonder what the true purport of vedanta is.:)

sarabhanga
21 March 2006, 03:18 AM
Namaste Sudarshan,

Jagat, Jiva, and Ishvara, are all aspects of Saguna Brahma ~ and you have ignored Nirguna Brahma (i.e. Shivadvaita, the Aja Ekapad)!

Jagat is Vishva; Jiva is Taijasa; Ishvara is Prajna; and Shiva is Turiya.

And Ajativada (Advaita) denies that there is any real “cause”.

Sudarshan
22 March 2006, 01:25 PM
Jagat, Jiva, and Ishvara, are all aspects of Saguna Brahma ~ and you have ignored Nirguna Brahma (i.e. Shivadvaita, the Aja Ekapad)!



No, I have mentioned it. I just tried to avoid using the term Brahman here as people not familiar with vedanta may not understand it.(especially the questioned was posed by a person who is just leaning) Hence I used the term Isvara, which is of course slightly different in advaita. Isvara and Brahman are not different for us.

Sudarshan
22 March 2006, 01:43 PM
Jagat is Vishva; Jiva is Taijasa; Ishvara is Prajna; and Shiva is Turiya.


According to me:

Visva is stUla tattva.(jagat)
Taijasa is sUksma tattva.
Prajna is jIva (linga tattva and antaryAmi nArAyaNa)
Turiya is Brahman



And Ajativada (Advaita) denies that there is any real “cause”.

Oh, no, not again.:p

sarabhanga
22 March 2006, 06:26 PM
Namaste Sudarshan,

According to my Guru:
Vishva is Maya, while Jiva and Ishvara and Shiva are all co-eternal and non-different.

The mortal world is Vishvanara, and this is the base state of ordinary waking consciousness.
And the immortal world is Turiya, and this is the ultimate state of perfect divine consciousness.

For those lost in Maya, with their consciousness immersed in the Sthula-tattva, the ultimate Truth is unknown and their Trimurti is:

1. Vishva ~ the grossly manifest world of mortal incarnation (i.e. Tamas guna and “ordinary consciousness”).
2. Taijasa ~ the subtly manifest world of the dreaming state (i.e. Rajas guna and “subconsciousness”).
3. Prajna ~ the subtle realm of deep sleep (Sattva guna and “unconsciousness”).

And Turiya (4) remains unknown and unimaginable.

For those who reject Maya, with their consciousness immersed in Brahman, the ultimate Truth is surely known and their Trimurti is:

1. Vishva and Taijasa ~ the manifest Maya of a veritable dream (i.e. divided Jivatman, and thus pure Tamas).
2. Prajna ~ the subtle reality of Ishvara with the action of Maya subdued (i.e. Jivatman and Paramatman united, and thus pure Rajas).
3. Turiya ~ the ultimate reality of Shiva Advaita, which is entirely without Maya or even the most subtle hint of duality (i.e. perfect Paramatman, and thus pure Sattva).

Vishvanara (including Taijasa) is Nara; Prajna is Narayana; and Turiya is Shiva.

The first stage of Yoga is turning away from the sthula Jagat.
The second stage of Yoga is the equation of the sukshma Jiva (Nara) and Ishvara (Narayana).
The third stage of Yoga is the equation of Ishvara and Shiva.

“One, Two, Three: all world is free!” is a common saying of the Nagas.

The fourth and final stage of Yoga is Advaita alone.

Lakshmi USA
22 March 2006, 06:57 PM
Ok, sankara propounded advaita, ramanuja - vishistadvaita, madhvacharya - dvaita right ?

If this is correct then these philosophies did not exist before ? what were the people following then ?

Sarabanga in one of your posts in hindunet, you said dvaita vaishnavas are bigoted. what makes you say so.

shaivites follow advaita,
vaishnava of ramanuja sampradaya follow vishistadvaita
madhvas follow dvaita

am I right ?

sarabhanga
22 March 2006, 08:44 PM
Namaste Lakshmi,

On HinduNet, Madhu Bharadwaj posted the following comment:

“If I was a Theist like you, I would have closed my ears tight and shouted ‘NO! NO!’, like a kid, rather than listening to what others say and trying to interpret in your own way.”

And I responded:

“Knowledge of God should not imply a closed mind or immature reactions, and ‘Theists like me’ should not be groundlessly accused in such a gross generalization.”

“I was surprised by some of your comments, but in the light of some recent discussions I can understand your dismissal of theism, which becomes irrational in the hands of many “householders”, and especially when interpreted by some Vaishnava Bhaktas, Christians, and Muslims.”

And I clarified:

“I grouped Christians and Muslims and ‘some Vaishnava Bhaktas’ as being particularly fond of the Dvaita perspective.”

And I questioned:

“How can such a comparison be offensive?”

And then I attempted to explain how it might be that some Vaishnava Bhaktas could have been offended by my simple comment about Madhu’s impression of theists (Hindu or otherwise):

“Or perhaps some Vaishnava Bhaktas are offended by the general proximity of Christians or Muslims? In which case, I must apologize to any Christians or Muslims who may have been offended by being associated with such bigoted Vaishnavas.”

Such bigoted Vaishnavas ~ i.e. those Vaishnava Bhaktas who commonly shout “NO! NO! You have to look at it this way, otherwise you are WRONG! And the interpretations of MY Guru are ALWAYS RIGHT!”

So once again I repeat:

“In Duality there can NEVER be Unity.”

And, on HinduNet, I have already explained:

“I know that some Vaishnavas are Dvaitins. And I know that many Vaishnavas prefer to ignore the Vedas completely or at least to interpret them only in the light of selected (often literal) translations or commentaries of selected later texts. And I know that such selective interpretations (especially in the hands of Dvaitins) are bound to result in division and exclusivity (and very much pointless argument and suffering).”

Sudarshan
23 March 2006, 07:24 AM
Such bigoted Vaishnavas ~ i.e. those Vaishnava Bhaktas who commonly shout “NO! NO! You have to look at it this way, otherwise you are WRONG! And the interpretations of MY Guru are ALWAYS RIGHT!”


Blind guru bhakti is very harmful in my opinion. If you have the scholarship and can understand your guru properly, it makes sense to follow the guru to the word.

But most of the Hindus follow theiir gurus because they and born and belong to the tradition, and often dont have any knowledge of what their systems teach, nor know the position of other schools. Yet, they read some capsular versions and start "refuting" other schools.

Honestly, very few people have very advanced knowledge of the complexities of scripture and their interpretations, and only a few people are knowledgeable enough to understand the polemics and particular strains of interpretations. To understand an Acharya fully, you have to be one yourself.

Yet, somebody with a fair amount of knowledge of sanskrit and allied topics can ususally pick apart the correctness of various commentaries from an academic perspective. Sometimes, people change their perspecitves and also can appreciate the values of other commentaries, but very few people change loyalties - that is the world. Have'nt we seen enough of this in CF? You can always convince many Christians about the short comings of their scripture when interpreted their way, but they will never accept their mistakes and repeat the same thing again and again - "Hinduism is Satanic". You cant change jiva svabava.

Namo Narayana
23 March 2006, 10:12 PM
I think Madhwas believe staunchly on Dvaita. I am an Iyengar and I have not read scriptures or vedas or anything like that. My approach to hinduism is prayer and questioning myself frequently. i can understand people sometimes get too emotional of their belief. as a vaishnava i have been judged to worship maha vishnu alone. But I am not one. Atleast my parents and grand parents have not taught me anything like that. my maternal grand mother was my icon , though she was not soft lady to approach but by observing her i developed myself. her husband, my grandpa , was a purohit all his life. so i cannot say she was less religious. being a purohit's wife she would have learnt the best way and strictest form of cleanliness. so she never taught me to diss saiva form of worship. she never hesitated to visit the agastheeswarar temple in my place . but suddenly i encountered few individuals who shocked me about this strange vaishnava tradition.

So whenever such a thought arises in me i just think of my ancestors who never taught me anything like not to worship saiva.

Onething I observed is, more people learn about scriptures more they debate end up in argument and a fight. I think sticking on to a something like dvaita or advaita is good personally but I am the only one is totally wrong. It is just an installation of ego in the speakers mind.

it is sad to find that so called people who seemed to have benefitted following these philosophies end up behaving immature by being staunch. in this context i have to agree with sarabhanga.

Scriptures are good to learn, but for novice or someone who would try to understand literally and who cannot see it in multiple context , i think it would end up harming him rather than improving them.

Knowledge imparts happiness and confidence in a human. But most times it makes them narcissitic and over confidence and inner blindness.

satay
24 March 2006, 12:02 AM
I think Madhwas believe staunchly on Dvaita. I am an Iyengar and I have not read scriptures or vedas or anything like that. My approach to hinduism is prayer and questioning myself frequently. i can understand people sometimes get too emotional of their belief. as a vaishnava i have been judged to worship maha vishnu alone. But I am not one. Atleast my parents and grand parents have not taught me anything like that. my maternal grand mother was my icon , though she was not soft lady to approach but by observing her i developed myself. her husband, my grandpa , was a purohit all his life. so i cannot say she was less religious. being a purohit's wife she would have learnt the best way and strictest form of cleanliness. so she never taught me to diss saiva form of worship. she never hesitated to visit the agastheeswarar temple in my place . but suddenly i encountered few individuals who shocked me about this strange vaishnava tradition.

So whenever such a thought arises in me i just think of my ancestors who never taught me anything like not to worship saiva.

Onething I observed is, more people learn about scriptures more they debate end up in argument and a fight. I think sticking on to a something like dvaita or advaita is good personally but I am the only one is totally wrong. It is just an installation of ego in the speakers mind.

it is sad to find that so called people who seemed to have benefitted following these philosophies end up behaving immature by being staunch. in this context i have to agree with sarabhanga.

Scriptures are good to learn, but for novice or someone who would try to understand literally and who cannot see it in multiple context , i think it would end up harming him rather than improving them.

Knowledge imparts happiness and confidence in a human. But most times it makes them narcissitic and over confidence and inner blindness.

I agree with your post 100%. I am a vaishnava but shiva is my ishta devta. Do I fit in any philosophy? probably not. Does it matter to me? No. :)

satay

Sudarshan
24 March 2006, 03:14 AM
I think Madhwas believe staunchly on Dvaita. I am an Iyengar and I have not read scriptures or vedas or anything like that. My approach to hinduism is prayer and questioning myself frequently. i can understand people sometimes get too emotional of their belief. as a vaishnava i have been judged to worship maha vishnu alone. But I am not one. Atleast my parents and grand parents have not taught me anything like that. my maternal grand mother was my icon , though she was not soft lady to approach but by observing her i developed myself. her husband, my grandpa , was a purohit all his life. so i cannot say she was less religious. being a purohit's wife she would have learnt the best way and strictest form of cleanliness. so she never taught me to diss saiva form of worship. she never hesitated to visit the agastheeswarar temple in my place . but suddenly i encountered few individuals who shocked me about this strange vaishnava tradition.


Hmm, I have not heard many Srivaishnavas being taught to reject non Vaishnavite worship, atleast nowadays. That does not mean a Ramanuja shishya has any right to talk against his teachings and become political. Whatever the teachings of the guru, whether it be Ramanujacharya or others, and if you are born in that tradition or willingly accept it - you are supposed to learn the works of the Acharya, understand it and live the way it has been prescribed.

Srimad Ramanuja has never attacked Shaiva traditions, as such, though Vaishnava theology holds Vishnu to be the highest diety. We find such reference only in Vedanta Desika's works( in Rahasya Thrayasara, he has condemned worshipping any diety other than Vishnu), but Desika also has composed some praises on Shiva elsewhere, so you are left wondering what his true position is. Perhaps he is addressing two classes of Srivaishnavites in different ways? Even from Alwar teachings, it is very clear that Srivaishnavas are not required to "avoid" Shiva.




Scriptures are good to learn, but for novice or someone who would try to understand literally and who cannot see it in multiple context , i think it would end up harming him rather than improving them.

Knowledge imparts happiness and confidence in a human. But most times it makes them narcissitic and over confidence and inner blindness.

As I said much earlier, would it be better to hand over some one a copy of the Gita without any commentaries and let him understand what he can without the prejudiced view of commentrators? What would somebody understand from the Gita, without any guidance or "brainwashing"? His understanding is likely to the "right one" for him.

Ram
24 March 2006, 09:14 AM
Though I am an vaishnava my parents never taught me these philosophies. Neither more religious relatives of mine did talk about it.

Will someone be kind enough to give me a short description of all the three.

I just learnt in a nutshell that Dvaita says Krishna is the only one and there is no other.

Vedanta + Buddhism = Advaita
Vedanta + Pancharatra (Vaishnavism) = Vishistadvaita
Vedanta + Sankya = Dvaita

Just my opinion on how pure vedanta may be derived from the hundreds of different options that are available.:)

sarabhanga
24 March 2006, 10:27 PM
Namaste Ram,

Vedanta + Ajativada = Advaita.
Vedanta + Jativada = Dvaita (or Vishishtadvaita).

Vedanta + Jativada + “Jivatman is a part of Paramatman” = Vishishtadvaita.
Vedanta + Jativada + “Jivatman is apart from Paramatman” = Dvaita.

Vishishtadvaita is NOT exactly equivalent with “Vaishnavism”; and Ajativada is NOT exactly equivalent with “Buddhism” !

I do agree, however, that Dvaita-vada stems directly from the teachings of Samkhya.

Namo Narayana
25 March 2006, 12:03 AM
Hmm, I have not heard many Srivaishnavas being taught to reject non Vaishnavite worship, atleast nowadays. That does not mean a Ramanuja shishya has any right to talk against his teachings and become political. Whatever the teachings of the guru, whether it be Ramanujacharya or others, and if you are born in that tradition or willingly accept it - you are supposed to learn the works of the Acharya, understand it and live the way it has been prescribed.

Srimad Ramanuja has never attacked Shaiva traditions, as such, though Vaishnava theology holds Vishnu to be the highest diety. We find such reference only in Vedanta Desika's works( in Rahasya Thrayasara, he has condemned worshipping any diety other than Vishnu), but Desika also has composed some praises on Shiva elsewhere, so you are left wondering what his true position is. Perhaps he is addressing two classes of Srivaishnavites in different ways? Even from Alwar teachings, it is very clear that Srivaishnavas are not required to "avoid" Shiva.




As I said much earlier, would it be better to hand over some one a copy of the Gita without any commentaries and let him understand what he can without the prejudiced view of commentrators? What would somebody understand from the Gita, without any guidance or "brainwashing"? His understanding is likely to the "right one" for him.

I agree with you. I never believed ramanuja or azhwars tried to project it that way. it is the peoples perception and understanding that stands to be corrected.

I hate to see things literally most times. He would have composed poems while in a deep thought about vishnu. that is all i would assume or he would have felt all are form of vishnu and it doesnt hurt to say HIM as vishnu or Mahesha......... The Vishwaroopam itself a proof that god is in multiple form.

But I do find lot of Iyengars that dont think worshipping shiva or ganesa or muruga is right.

Ram
25 March 2006, 03:00 AM
Namaste.



Namaste Ram,

Vedanta + Ajativada = Advaita.
Vedanta + Jativada = Dvaita (or Vishishtadvaita).

Vedanta + Jativada + “Jivatman is a part of Paramatman” = Vishishtadvaita.
Vedanta + Jativada + “Jivatman is apart from Paramatman” = Dvaita.


Oh, well, I might say:

Advaitins might agree with the comments on Vishistadvaita or Dvaita
Vishsitadvaitins WILL agree with the comments on Advaita and Dvaita
Dvaitins WILL agree with the comment on Advaita.

So it is only a perspective, seen from all sides.

You are apparently an advaitin, and hence naturally decline the comment on advaita, as as expected accept the one on Dvaita...

My point is to say that all the accepted systems of vedanta deviate from the essential teaching of vedanta, which teaches

1. Realism ( declined by advaita due to its influence of Buddhism)
2. Brahman as beyond particular names and forms ( rejected by Vishsitadvaitins due to their influence from Pancharatra)
3. Brahman as material cause ( rejected by Dvaita due to their Shankyan affiliation)

People belong to these particular traditions will decline their own "influences" while gleefully accepting the "influences" of others. Quite Naturally.:)





Vishishtadvaita is NOT exactly equivalent with “Vaishnavism”; and Ajativada is NOT exactly equivalent with “Buddhism” !


Ajativada is just a remodelling of Buddhism, anyway this will be accepted by all non advaitins. The connections between theories of relative and absolute truths is too obvious, and vedanta has never referred to such concepts except through mere inference.:D




I do agree, however, that Dvaita-vada stems directly from the teachings of Samkhya.

Quite naturally, the reasons have been provided earlier.

I draw my conclusions possibly based on what I understand from scripture and also what most of the philosophers arrived at in the past:

1. Most writers on the sutras declined Ajativada and Mayavada, and the sutras and Gita themselves do so.
2. Most commentrators accepted Brahman being the material cause of the world.
3. Most commentators had a Vaishnavite interpretation, which I am inclined to decline because it is based on rejecting certain scriptures as unorthodox, and bypassing selective verses in orthodox scripture etc.
4. Most commentrators accepted the position of dvaita-advaita or a kind of qualified monism, which I am inclined to accept because of the overwhelming support in favour of this model of vedanta.

You would be tempted to conclude that, real vedanta is thus found from an analysis of the majority opinions, and with proper reasoning of them. Obviously, if you belong to one of these traditions and beleive in every bit of it, you will not compromise your position, even a bit.

All Hindus schools have applied "super imposition" on the vedanta in accordance with needs of the times, and based on social and historical needs.

Ram
25 March 2006, 03:45 AM
In addtion to the social and historical needs, different schools sometimes hold on to some positions dogmatically to maintain internal consistancy within teachings. Interal consistancy was very essential for the system to get wide acceptance.

For eg, Advaita itself has very little internal consistancy if Mayavaya is pruned off. Without Mayavada, advaita has no good expalnations for the plurality.

If the doctrine of Vishnu's supremacy is not accepted, dvaita-advaita vada is very hard to hold on, because dvaita-adviata philosophies must be monotheistic in nature for internal consistancy. If there not a particular supreme being, this philosophy can be easily refuted.

Similarly, dvaita vada requires Brahman not to be part of either jiva or jagat, because it creates an internal inconsitancy.

It is even questionable if all philosophers beleived in all their own teachings, or simply based some of their teachings for logical consistancy and from a polemical point of view.

From a philosophical standpoint, certainly vedanta cant be teaching advaita, dvaita-advaita and dvaita simultaneously. Either one of these systems is correct, or all of them are partially correct( and partially incorrect). It is upto to the person to decide for himself.

sarabhanga
25 March 2006, 04:26 AM
Namaste Ram,

Advaita is entirely self-consistent without Maya.

Mayavada explains all plurality as non-eternal, and thus as suffering both creation and final dissolution. And without resort to Mayavada, the original Ajativada independently explains that there is no plurality which is eternal (or unborn).

If the dogma of Vishnu’s supremacy is not accepted, then it is quite simple to accept Brahman (or even Shiva) as the one supreme Truth.

sarabhanga
25 March 2006, 05:06 AM
Ajativada is just a remodelling of Buddhism

According to the Mahabharata, the Aja Brahman creates the Gods, the Saints, the Fathers, and Men.

And according to the Maitrayani Samhita, Aja Ekapad is equivalent with Agni.

Ajativada is derived entirely from the ageless ideal of Aja Brahman or Aja Ekapad, who is the mysterious seat and vehicle of Agni.

And none of this has any relation to the much later concepts of Buddhism!

Sudarshan
25 March 2006, 02:38 PM
Vedanta + Buddhism = Advaita
Vedanta + Pancharatra (Vaishnavism) = Vishistadvaita
Vedanta + Sankya = Dvaita

Just my opinion on how pure vedanta may be derived from the hundreds of different options that are available.:)

:D

Vedanta + Pancharatra = Vishistadvaita is perfect, but Pancharatra itself is vedantic, since it was the supreme being Narayana who promulgated this shastra. Read Mahabaratha, and if you dont have one, read this link.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m12/m12c049.htm

Vaisampayana continued, "I have thus narrated to thee, O monarch, the circumstances connected with the former birth of our revered preceptor, viz., Vyasa of unstained mind, as asked by thee. Listen to me once again. There are diverse kinds of cults, O royal sage, that go by diverse names such as Sankhya, Yoga, the Pancha-ratra, Vedas, and Pasupati. The promulgator of Sankhya cult is said to be the great Rishi Kapila. The primeval Hiranyagarbha, and none else, is the promulgator of the Yoga system. The Rishi Apantaratamas is said to be the preceptor of the Vedas, some call that Rishi by the name of Prachina-garbha. The cult known by the name of Pasupata was promulgated by the Lord of Uma, that master of all creatures, viz., the cheerful Siva, otherwise known by the name of Sreekantha, the son of Brahma. The illustrious Narayana is himself the promulgator of the cult, in its entirety, contained in the Pancharatra scriptures. In all these cults, O foremost of kings, it is seen that the puissant Narayana is the one sole object of exposition. According to the scriptures of these cults and the measure of knowledge they contain, Narayana is the one sole object of worship they inculcate. Those persons whose visions, O king, are blinded by darkness, fail to understand that Narayana is the Supreme Soul pervading the entire universe. Those persons of wisdom who are the authors of the scriptures say that Narayana, who is a Rishi, is the one object of reverent worship in the universe. I say that there is no other being like Him. The Supreme Deity, called by the name of Hari, resides in the hearts of those that have succeeded (with the aid of the scriptures and of inference) in dispelling all doubts. Madhava never resides in the hearts of those that are under the sway of doubts and that would dispute away everything with the aid of false dialectics. They that are conversant with the Pancharatra scriptures, that are duly observant of the duties laid down therein, and that are devoted to Narayana with their whole souls, succeed in entering into Narayana."


So, vedanta + vedanta = Vishistadvaita, the undliuted vedanta.

Sudarshan
25 March 2006, 02:52 PM
According to the Mahabharata, the Aja Brahman creates the Gods, the Saints, the Fathers, and Men.


Brahman created the Gods and others? That automatically disproves Ajati vada.



And according to the Maitrayani Samhita, Aja Ekapad is equivalent with Agni.

Ajativada is derived entirely from the ageless ideal of Aja Brahman or Aja Ekapad, who is the mysterious seat and vehicle of Agni.

And none of this has any relation to the much later concepts of Buddhism!

Agni's birth is clearly mentioned in many scriptures, for example the Brihad Aranyaka Up.

The relationship between Advaita and Buddhism is the almost identical concepts of vyavahArika and paramArtika concepts, where the world is negated, which are not found anywhere in scripture, and therefore must be a borrowed Buddhist concept.

sarabhanga
25 March 2006, 08:16 PM
Namaste Sudarshan,

Ajativada considers that there is no diversity which is eternal (or unborn).

The Aja Brahman creates even the Gods; and so, only the Aja Brahman can be regarded as truly eternal.

Ajati-vada (the science of “the Unborn”) is concerned only with eternity and immortality.

Agni Deva, the God of Fire (and thus the Lord of Light), is certainly created (and thus non-eternal), although Aja Ekapad is the throne, the basis or support, for that divine creation.

Agni and Aja Ekapad are equivalent ~ although, Agni depends on the mysterious background of the Aja Ekapad, which remains eternally unaffected by the shining Lord’s various comings and goings.

Ajativada does not “negate” the world ~ only it understands that all that is created (divided or separated) can NOT be regarded as uncreated, undivided, one and only, or eternal.

Ajativada considers that the ultimate Truth is Aja or eternal.

Bauddha, however, considers that there is NOTHING which is eternal, and that the only “truth” is momentary and constantly changing from one instantaneous moment to the next.

Some things are true for all of eternity, while other things are only true under particular circumstances and for a limited time. And so there are necessarily two kinds of truth.

This logic is ancient, and certainly NOT “borrowed” from Buddhism !

Ram
26 March 2006, 04:23 AM
Advaita is entirely self-consistent without Maya.


No, it is not. Advaita has truly no logical defence without mayavada. Do you know why those who want to disgree with advaita first start examining Mayavada? Because this is the weakest link. Without Mayavada, there is not longer any bifuraction between realities as relative or absolute, which is so critical to advaita. Do you understand why advaita needs so many concepts with no scriptural backing? Why does advaita distinguish between asat and mitya?

Ajativada says that everything is unborn. But it does not explain why there is a person called Ram sitting and typing now. If everything is Brahman, why is there a Ram here who thinks "I am Ram. I am sick. I am happy. I am a man." etc. Why do I not know the Brahman? There is no explanation without Mayavada, which states that "Ram" is just a product of Brahman who imagined himself to be in the mode of avidya, and forgot his true nature. The pot analogy cited in the Gaudapada karika makes too many assumptions which are hardly convincing to me. Too many questions remain unanswered to those who ask the questions...who created the pots? What for? And so on...




If the dogma of Vishnu’s supremacy is not accepted, then it is quite simple to accept Brahman (or even Shiva) as the one supreme Truth.

I have no problems with that. But as I said elsewhere, the supremacy of Vishnu is critical to the polemical part of the dvaita-advaita philosophy, and no Acharya will compromise his position, irrespective of what he actually beleives. If I want to defend Vishistadvaita, I will do the same thing, this is the a primary requirement to establish any Monotheistic faith, the supremacy of one being over others.

Narayana is Aja can be easily proved from scripture. Shiva should possibly be an avatar of Narayana just like Rama and Krishna. But Vaishnavites would never want to even consider such a possibility as such approaches create polemical challenges. So just bypass all such evidences that hint this and directly go hunting after verses that prove Shiva to be a jeevatma. There are many.:)

sarabhanga
26 March 2006, 05:11 AM
Ram:
Advaita has truly no logical defence without Mayavada.

Sharabhanga:
Ajativada is derived entirely from the ageless ideal of Aja Brahman or Aja Ekapad.

Ajativada considers that there is no diversity which is eternal (or unborn).

The Aja Brahman creates even the Gods; and so, only the Aja Brahman can be regarded as truly eternal.

Ajati-vada (the science of “the Unborn”) is concerned only with eternity and immortality.

Ajativada understands that all that is created (divided or separated) can NOT be regarded as uncreated, undivided, one and only, or eternal.

Ajativada considers that the ultimate Truth is Aja or eternal.

Advaita is entirely self-consistent without Maya.


Ram:
If everything is Brahman, why is there a Ram here who thinks “I am Ram, I am sick, I am happy, I am a man”, etc. Why do I not know the Brahman?
The answer can only be Avidya.

Advaita makes the (strangely controversial) claims that only that which is eternal can be considered as eternal, and that all ignorance is due to a lack of proper understanding.

Ram
26 March 2006, 05:31 AM
The answer can only be Avidya.

Advaita makes the (strangely controversial) claims that only that which is eternal can be considered as eternal, and that all ignorance is due to a lack of proper understanding.

The obvious reason this answer is dismissed is because avidya does not have a proper locus - it traces back to Brahman. Do you really beleive that Brahman is really the source and the victim of avidya. If this beleif satisfies you, be happy with it.:)

Who suffers from the ignorance due to lack of proper understanding - the Brahman himself, due to the avidya that he originates.:)

Ram
26 March 2006, 05:51 AM
Every illusion requires three entities - The source, the "illusion" caused from the source, and a viewer who is disillusioned.

What are these three entities, when Ram "decieves" himself to be "Ram" and not the Brahman?

atanu
26 March 2006, 06:19 AM
[1. Most writers on the sutras declined Ajativada and Mayavada, and the sutras and Gita themselves do so.]

I think this is an assumption like many others which you yourself point out. Lord Krishna talks of a yogi to whom the oblation is Brahman, the oblation holder is Brahman etc. What is the meaning of samadrishti and what is the meaning of a yogi seeing Lord in himself and himself in Lord?

Now, some people will interpret and add color.

Gita is a true distillation of Vedas and Upanishads and one can find knowledge suitable to one's requirement. But the knowledge of the EKO being: All in one Lord and one Lord in all, is stated as the object of knowlegde. Anadimatparambrahma, He who is one but appears divided in bodies, must be known to gain immortality.


Regards

atanu
26 March 2006, 07:06 AM
Namaskar

********The obvious reason this answer is dismissed is because avidya does not have a proper locus - it traces back to Brahman. *************

Avidya is Avidya from the locus of Avidya alone. In Vidya there cannot be Avidya. From an avidya state, how can one know vidya? And when in Vidya, how can Avidya remain? It is like this: a person in a dark room claims "there is no chair". When the room is lighted, we see a lot of chairs. But that blind one keeps repeating that the knowledge of the dark room was correct and also the knowledge of the lighted room. What we say is that knowledge of the lighted room is the Satya.


In Svet. Up. it is stated that "Brahma pare both ignorance and knowledge reside, Mahesvara, the controller of Maya is the master of both". This would indicate that there is a controller who enjoys the divide and rule policy and as if the many are true. The same Upanishad however teaches, till a jiva believes himself to be separate, he rotates in samsara. Only by knowing the true nature, the jiva is freed from samsara. Further, the Upanishad says that Rudra is One and there is no dvittiya. It also says that when the light of knowledge rises, only sadashiva remains.

Same in Gita and so in Upanishads and so in Vedas. The finality is the "na dvittiya un-nameble EKO".


The problem arises when Avidya and Vidya are interpreted in the context of mind's experiences as undesirable and desirable respectively or as bad and good respectively. These terms are mental constructs based on what causes pleasantness and what takes away the pleasantness. The point is that there is only one prism or one tree with its roots in the heaven (following Taittriya? and Gita). If senses are withdrawn and the source of the senses is searched (meditation) then one sees one Turiya joyfully enjoying the splendorous view of Himself as many.

Looking out from the fat side of the prism through outward pierced senses, one will see visva as if composed of divided things. Looking in towards the centre of the prism, with pure consciousness, one will see the being who is all and who sees all in himself.

Dvaitins flatly refuse to accept "That art thou". VA proponents also modify this simple A=B equation, to accomodate the sense experience into the equation. Advaita explains the sense experience as apparent and not real without the knowledge of the one substratum. Each Guru has given the respective path, as suitable for different devotees, propelled by God, and not in their individual capacity. That is why Shata Rudriya says: "Prostrations to the Lord of all paths". We, however, in the state of avidya, try to look outwards from the fat side of the prism (using thoughts, which by nature is dispersive) and try to give meaning. In one Upanishad (I do not remember which), Lord Varuna teaches his son Bhrigu (repeatedly) that quiescence of thoughts is Brahman. In the waking state, if even for a moment a thoughtless state (akin to deep sleep state) is attained, one is able to see One Pragnya as the source of all and onself as consciousness only. And when that happens, one also sees, the delight residing in the Pragnya.


Without experiencing Turiya, the Turiya cannot be understood. Without experiencing Eko, the Eko cannot be understood. You have given a fine example of "why i do not know myself as Brahman". How can you? You are looking at yourself from a distance of 1/4 m (through eyes) or 2m (in mirror) and also from 20m (as others describe you). Do you know who you are in the core? Who is questioning "why I do not know myself as Brahman?". Who is creating this sense of distance and sense of time? Search for that questioner/creator/seer.


The main problem is doership. If one thinks that "I am a somebody doing/experiencing/interpreting/understanding" without knowing anything about the underlying single Pragnya and Turiya, then this avidya will remain. This is the truth for most; total ignorance of Pragnya. Some have theoretically come to know that Pragnya and Turiya are at our root but are yet to experience. Turiya remains as Turiya eternally and it has Pragnya as the vehicle. Pragnya remains Pragnya eternally and has the aham bhavana as the vehicle. And this aham goes out and enjoys and also gets tired and deluded (avidya) that there is no single Pragnya and there is no single Turiya. Indra (mind) kills His father at birth. Aham has created objects of enjoyment and imagines the objects as separate from itself and separate from one Pragnya. It tires out and goes to sleep and wow, it looses the sense of separate existence and gets refreshed again. But will it learn so soon? It dreams or wakes up to play with dualities and tires out again. Same in life and death.

Gita teaches again and again that Aham is one and it is Lord Krishna alone. But does doership go so easily? But Parvati will teach Indra.

Avidya is a mere term and its connotation in the ego-mind is negative -- but truly it is neither negative nor positive, it is the simple nature that inheres in Brahman. One Turiya Brahman is the shivoadvaiitam reality -- the Self, the Atma. He houses himself as isvara and controls and enjoys subtle objects (in himself like you do in dream). Through subtle thought objects, as intermediate state, again He creates and enjoys the gross objects.

Some will ask "who then gets deluded?". Definitely not the Turiya Brahman, which is stated to be unchanging and definitely not the Pragnya, which is stated to be full of bliss, that is full of Turiya. Definitely not the one Aham, who is One and has nothing to fear. Then who?


The goal of Advaita is to lead to the knowledge and experience of one underlying unchanging blissful truth beneath the world. Without experience of EKO, the world is avidya and pain. Advaita does not say Jagat Mithya alone. It says: Jagat Mithya, Brahman Jagat, Brahman Satya.


In jagrat, I exists as if separate from other objects. In dream I creates objects within. In shushupti the I is lost. Again when shushupti gives way to jagrat, the first creation is I. Then all the joys, obligations, and sufferings of this I come up. But all through, the being exists unchanged as the being. Who is that unchanging being existing in all states like water remains water even though from time to time it becomes liquid or vapour or ice?



Regards

Om Namah Bhagavate Shri Vasudevayya
Satyamayi, Chaityanyamayi, Anandamayi Mata Durge Sharanam Namah
Om Namah Sivayya

Ram
26 March 2006, 09:14 AM
I think this is an assumption like many others which you yourself point out. Lord Krishna talks of a yogi to whom the oblation is Brahman, the oblation holder is Brahman etc. What is the meaning of samadrishti and what is the meaning of a yogi seeing Lord in himself and himself in Lord?

Now, some people will interpret and add color.


Which is the verse you are referring to here? samadrishti means seeing everything with equanimity. How does that prove advaita in any way?

In which does it refer to the yogi seeing Lord in himself and himself in Lord? At any rate, this would not contradict Vishistadvaita.



Gita is a true distillation of Vedas and Upanishads and one can find knowledge suitable to one's requirement. But the knowledge of the EKO being: All in one Lord and one Lord in all, is stated as the object of knowlegde. Anadimatparambrahma, He who is one but appears divided in bodies, must be known to gain immortality.


Yes, throughout the scripture only immortality(not identity) is highlighted.

atanu
26 March 2006, 09:15 AM
[Every illusion requires three entities - The source, the "illusion" caused from the source, and a viewer who is disillusioned.

What are these three entities, when Ram "decieves" himself to be "Ram" and not the Brahman?]


Why don't you give your answer, my friend? Which other philosophy is able to reconcile "That art Thou" mahavakya with the perception riddled view of "I am Ram". Some similarly will say "I am CEO", and some others "I am a shudra".


Does anyone think "I am a CEO" in shushupti? Of course one may dream so. Does one cease to exist in shushupti? What one is in shushupti?

All three entities are in your mind, which is not the reality but a conglomeration of thoughts only. You may begin by enquiring "Who this Ram is?"

atanu
26 March 2006, 09:32 AM
Namaskar,

[Which is the verse you are referring to here? samadrishti means seeing everything with equanimity. How does that prove advaita in any way?

In which does it refer to the yogi seeing Lord in himself and himself in Lord? At any rate, this would not contradict Vishistadvaita.]


I request you to re-read Gita for both the references. It is not surprising that you think "yogi seeing Lord in himself and himself in Lord" does not contradict VA. But does it contradict Advaita?

How can I see the whole in me and Me in the whole? if there are real boundaries?


[Anadimatparambrahma, He who is one but appears divided in bodies, must be known to gain immortality.

Yes, throughout the scripture only immortality(not identity) is highlighted.]


Again not surprising. The knowledge is "He appears divided though He is One". So, first the apparent divisions have to go before one can know anadimatparambrahma and then become immortal.


And I would request you to please refer to 18th chapter where in two verses the Lord says: The knowledge of separate/discrete beings and objects is Rajasic. Knowlege of One is Satwik. I do not have Gita at hand, else would have cited the verses.

You may also reflect on the verse where Shri Krishna describes a yuktama yogi: to such a yogi the oblation, the oblation holder, and everything else is Brahman alone.


And regarding identity, study the explanation of Turiya in Mandukya Upanishad: The only way to know it, is in identity with it.


Regards

Ram
26 March 2006, 09:47 AM
Avidya is Avidya from the locus of Avidya alone.


Which leads to infinite regression.



In Svet. Up. it is stated that "Brahma pare both ignorance and knowledge reside, Mahesvara, the controller of Maya is the master of both". This would indicate that there is a controller who enjoys the divide and rule policy and as if the many are true. The same Upanishad however teaches, till a jiva believes himself to be separate, he rotates in samsara. Only by knowing the true nature, the jiva is freed from samsara.


Dont you think VA would explain this better than advaita? It is more logical to assume that the controller decided to enjoy the divide and policy on his subjects, and not on himself.



Further, the Upanishad says that Rudra is One and there is no dvittiya.


No one claims there is any second to God either...



The finality is the "na dvittiya un-nameble EKO


No system of vedanta contradicts this.



Looking out from the fat side of the prism through outward pierced senses, one will see visva as if composed of divided things. Looking in towards the centre of the prism, with pure consciousness, one will see the being who is all and who sees all in himself.


Analogies are good, the point is whether they serve the purpose. In this analogy, what is the prism, who is the one who sees Visva as divided and the one who sees it all in himself. Are they the same?



Dvaitins flatly refuse to accept "That art thou". VA proponents also modify this simple A=B equation.


Do you know why VAs choose the modified A=B equation? Because advaita equates A=B with indirect meanings on both sides of the equation.

To equate A and B they need to have common attributes, and identical attributes in every respect. Which are the attributes that can equate Svetaketu and the Brahman? NONE. So, you need to read the advaitin interpretation first, and read its criticism by Vishistadvaita and evaluate it before basing your judgements. Simply shouting that Shvetaketu was Brahman wont help, as everybody knows the direct equation is impossible.



Without experiencing Turiya, the Turiya cannot be understood. Without experiencing Eko, the Eko cannot be understood. You have given a fine example of "why i do not know myself as Brahman". How can you? You are looking at yourself from a distance of 1/4 m (through eyes) or 2m (in mirror) and also from 20m (as others describe you). Do you know who you are in the core? Who is questioning "why I do not know myself as Brahman?". Who is creating this sense of distance and sense of time? Search for that questioner/creator/seer.


But according to you Brahman alone exists, in a perfectly homogenous distribution. In VA, the ignorance is caused in the form of a speck of dust on the surface of the soul. (analogically). The soul realizes its true nature when the dust is removed. The dust was there in the first place by the lila of Bhagavan. But Bhagavan is himself never affected in the process, because he is not identical to the jiva and only the inner controller. In advaita, it is Bhagavan who is under ignorance and suffering - that is the problem with your explanations.

Ram
26 March 2006, 10:13 AM
Why don't you give your answer, my friend? Which other philosophy is able to reconcile "That art Thou" mahavakya with the perception riddled view of "I am Ram". Some similarly will say "I am CEO", and some others "I am a shudra".


"That Thou art", never equates the two sides, please read the advatin commentary, and different advatins have tried to reconcile them in different ways, and all these methods are subject to logical flaws.

I dont need to answer this question, because there is no illusion that I beleive in. Bhagwan is real. Jiva is real. Jagat is real. Jiva is in samsara by the will of Bhagwan, and it is only his sport. Jiva's suffering is not Bhagwan's suffering just like the soul is never affected when the body is hurt. Is Bhagwan enjoying Jiva's suffering? Absolutely not, it is the same as parents playing hide and seek with their children, a fun game. The child may cry if it cannot find the parent, but the parent will show himself up, when the child has searched long enough. Everything is HIS lila, which even the sutras uphold.

Ram
26 March 2006, 10:19 AM
I request you to re-read Gita for both the references. It is not surprising that you think "yogi seeing Lord in himself and himself in Lord" does not contradict VA. But does it contradict Advaita?


Because in advaita the Yogi can neither see the Lord nor himself, as the seer and seen are not different. Infact, the above would be impossible in advaita. The act of seeing is invalid in advaita, because "seeing" itself is Brahman. Makes sense? It does not, to me.

atanu
26 March 2006, 11:26 AM
Namaskar,

He appears divided though He is One". So, first the apparent divisions have to go before one can know anadimatparambrahma and then become immortal.


Advaita believes that VA propnents who see the so-called individual soul as real will never see one anadimatparambrahma.


********Because in advaita the Yogi can neither see the Lord nor himself, as the seer and seen are not different. Infact, the above would be impossible in advaita. The act of seeing is invalid in advaita, because "seeing" itself is Brahman. Makes sense? It does not, to me.***********


Oh. Seeing Lord? It is in Pragnya state and it does not confer immortality. Knowing Lord only does, and only knowledge of it is by identity.





Yes all is real because Pragnya is real. But all these are as real as an image of your face in a mirror. The image is real since the face is there, but it is unreal since it does not exist without the face.

All categories mentioned above are Pragnya alone.


In fact, You need to answer a lot. If Jiva is real and if Brahman is real then how is "That art Thou" true? Two real different entities are never equated. Please explain without introducing the qualifiers such as size etc..

What is the size of Pragnya?


[and it is only his sport. Jiva's suffering is not Bhagwan's suffering just like the soul is never affected when the body is hurt. Is Bhagwan enjoying Jiva's suffering? Absolutely not, it is the same as parents playing hide and seek with their children, a fun game.]


Well, this makes it a bit difficult. You only spoke of Avidya and Vidya. So the rapes, murders, wars, terrorism in the name of religion etc. are all for fun? My dear friend, you will also finally have to attribute these to God, even as per your philosophy. Whereas, it is easy to query "what is aham bhavana and how it differs from so-called individual soul and how the wrong aham bhavana is the criminal".

[B]He appears divided though He is One.



Regards

atanu
26 March 2006, 11:34 AM
[Dont you think VA would explain this better than advaita? It is more logical to assume that the controller decided to enjoy the divide and policy on his subjects, and not on himself.]

You are free with your thoughts. But do you not think that it is like petty humans wishing to control others for whatever reasons. Well, if that is your view then so be it.

atanu
26 March 2006, 11:39 AM
To Administrators,

I do not see the reference to the original post to which a reply is made. For example, If I reply to a particular post of Ram, how would one know that the reply is to Ram's post, until specific quotes in the name of Ram are not included?

I may be wrong?

Regards

atanu
26 March 2006, 11:43 AM
Namaskar Ram Ji,

********The act of seeing is invalid in advaita, because "seeing" itself is Brahman. Makes sense? It does not, to me.**************

It is simple.

At this moment you may touch your skin and enquire who and what gathered the sensation? And if still it does not mean anything, then read Keno Upanishad please.


Regards

satay
26 March 2006, 11:57 AM
To Administrators,

I do not see the reference to the original post to which a reply is made. For example, If I reply to a particular post of Ram, how would one know that the reply is to Ram's post, until specific quotes in the name of Ram are not included?

I may be wrong?

Regards

namaste Atanu,
Welcome to the forums.

The reference to the original post is there but just not shown in the "linear view" of the Threads. Please change the Display mode to "Threaded View" or "Hybrid View" by choosing the appropriate item from the 'Display Modes' drop down on top of the page.

Display Modes is one of the items on the menu just beside the 'Search this thread' and 'Thread Tools'.

You can also make this change globally in your profile by clicking on 'User CP' and then under 'Profiles' screen.

Thanks,
satay

Ram
26 March 2006, 12:04 PM
Well, this makes it a bit difficult. You only spoke of Avidya and Vidya. So the rapes, murders, wars, terrorism in the name of religion etc. are all for fun? My dear friend, you will also finally have to attribute these to God, even as per your philosophy. Whereas, it is easy to query "what is aham bhavana and how it differs from so-called individual soul and how the wrong aham bhavana is the criminal".


Obviously not! That is advaita where the Brahman himself is imagining to experience these evils - man, how real it is.

jiva is the sole cause of evil in the world, not Bhagwan. Bhagwan did not interfere with the freewill of the jiva until jiva is ready to return on his own accord. Remember, Krishna's words in the 16th chap. The world is real and so is the evil -- not to be dismissed as illusions.

Ram
26 March 2006, 12:17 PM
[Dont you think VA would explain this better than advaita? It is more logical to assume that the controller decided to enjoy the divide and policy on his subjects, and not on himself.]

You are free with your thoughts. But do you not think that it is like petty humans wishing to control others for whatever reasons. Well, if that is your view then so be it.

I just used your own words - divide and rule. There is no divide and rule here other than Bhagwan's lila. Lila is supported by scripture anyway, read the sutras.

sarabhanga
27 March 2006, 12:23 AM
“Jiva is the sole cause of evil in the world.”

Paramatman is undivided Atman, whereas Jivatman is divided Atman, and this mistaken division of Atman is surely the root cause of Avidya. :)

atanu
06 April 2006, 10:35 AM
Namaskar,



jiva is the sole cause of evil in the world, not Bhagwan. ----The world is real and so is the evil -- not to be dismissed as illusions.

Who is the cause of so-called Jiva -- Bhagwan surely? Then who is the cause of the so-called real evil? I said, you have to explain a lot.

Today, I read about Graphene -- a molecular sized sheet of graphite where carbon matrix is so thin that it behaves like wave unlike conventional graphite which apparently is particulate. Scientists are using this wave nature of Graphene to make it a infinite conductor of infinite speed.

Isn't it stupendous? Carbon surely has a mind (Hindus believe that everything has consciousness -- active or inactive). Now, suppose carbon was in the form of Diamond, what would it believe? It would say: "I am a shiny hard thing devoid of electrical conductivity". The same carbon as graphene would proclaim: "I am a very flexible tough film. I have infinite conductivity".

What does the mind do? It says "I am Atanu" or "I am Ram". But like carbon it has identified itself as the form and has forgotten the indivisible infinite atma wherefrom the first I thought took birth and spread as many.

And as Sarabhanga Ji says: The thought that there is division in atma is avidya, which is the root of evil. Avidya is in Pragnya and evil is in thoughts (mind). No one can say that in Turiya there is evil, since only Turiya without a second exists.

Evil is percieved in the analysing mind. You should enquire "where is the mind?" and you will surely know wherein the evil lies.


Regards

atanu
06 April 2006, 12:41 PM
namaste Atanu,
Welcome to the forums.

satay


Thanks Satay.

Ram
03 May 2006, 05:39 AM
Who is the cause of so-called Jiva -- Bhagwan surely? Then who is the cause of the so-called real evil? I said, you have to explain a lot.


Jiva is uncaused. Jiva eternally exists on the body of Brahman and will eternally exist. I dont have to explain anything much as it is the leela of God. You have to do a lot of logical explaining as to why the evil is unreal, when it is not even perceived. I remember reading BSB of Shankara in the 2nd adhyaya, where he has to concede that the experience in the waking state is not sublated in any state. ( read Vaidharmyaccha na svapnadivat 2.2.29 ). While it maybe possible for you to bypass such confessions from Shankara(based on blind faith?), the rest of us, who are non advaitins will not bypass his own words(contradicting himself) so easily.



What does the mind do? It says "I am Atanu" or "I am Ram". But like carbon it has identified itself as the form and has forgotten the indivisible infinite atma wherefrom the first I thought took birth and spread as many.

And as Sarabhanga Ji says: The thought that there is division in atma is avidya, which is the root of evil. Avidya is in Pragnya and evil is in thoughts (mind). No one can say that in Turiya there is evil, since only Turiya without a second exists.

Evil is percieved in the analysing mind. You should enquire "where is the mind?" and you will surely know wherein the evil lies.


Regards

Mind has forgotten the indivisible atma? Is Mind Brahman or not? If so, it means Brahman Forgot the indivisible atma. If Mind is not Brahman, there goes the advaintin concept of everything being Brahman.

That is why Vishhsitadviata does not allow the concept of everything being Brahman, and leaves Brahman to be only the indweller. Calling everything as Brahman indiscriminately ultimately makes Brahman both the source and target of all evils. It could be correct, but as a human being with some logical sense, the possibility is illogical.

atanu
10 May 2006, 03:17 PM
Jiva is uncaused. Jiva eternally exists on the body of Brahman and will eternally exist. .

Well that would mean Jiva is either eternally independent or eternally dependent. Both are untenable.




Mind has forgotten the indivisible atma? Is Mind Brahman or not? If so, it means Brahman Forgot the indivisible atma. If Mind is not Brahman, there goes the advaintin concept of everything being Brahman.



I had already said:

Evil is percieved in the analysing mind. You should enquire "where is the mind?" and you will surely know wherein the evil lies.


Evil lies in the Avidya that Brahman is partitioned (this has been discussed in other posts and I do not repeat it here).

Just to give a gist. Men can create artificial boundaries in land and then go to war. There is no limit to the evil of divisive knowledge, which has been described by Lord Krishna as rajasic in Gita.

If Brahman percieves the evil, then let it come and say so.

tatvam
04 September 2006, 01:50 AM
Namaskar

********The obvious reason this answer is dismissed is because avidya does not have a proper locus - it traces back to Brahman. *************

Avidya is Avidya from the locus of Avidya alone. In Vidya there cannot be Avidya. From an avidya state, how can one know vidya? And when in Vidya, how can Avidya remain?





So..Brahman is not the source of Avidya ? then what is advaita?

in which state are you now? vidya or avidya?

tatvam
04 September 2006, 02:00 AM
Namaskar,







And as Sarabhanga Ji says: The thought that there is division in atma is avidya, which is the root of evil.


Regards

So..the knowledge-self Atma got the thought of division(i.e Avidya) ?
why did it happened ? and the solution you provided to become Atma without Avidya will sustain forever? or again after some time..will it get the same thoght of division which is Avidya ?

Let us be clear..

atanu
06 September 2006, 04:21 AM
So..the knowledge-self Atma got the thought of division(i.e Avidya) ?
why did it happened ? and the solution you provided to become Atma without Avidya will sustain forever? or again after some time..will it get the same thoght of division which is Avidya ?

Let us be clear..


Let us ask all these questions to Atma itself. Scritures say that He sits nicely within, so let us ask him.


Om Namah Shivayya

yajvan
24 September 2006, 05:46 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~~~

Namaste Sudarshan,
For those lost in Maya, with their consciousness immersed in the Sthula-tattva, the ultimate Truth is unknown and their Trimurti is:

1. Vishva ~ the grossly manifest world of mortal incarnation (i.e. Tamas guna and “ordinary consciousness”).
2. Taijasa ~ the subtly manifest world of the dreaming state (i.e. Rajas guna and “subconsciousness”).
3. Prajna ~ the subtle realm of deep sleep (Sattva guna and “unconsciousness”).

1. Vishva and Taijasa ~ the manifest Maya of a veritable dream (i.e. divided Jivatman, and thus pure Tamas).
2. Prajna ~ the subtle reality of Ishvara with the action of Maya subdued (i.e. Jivatman and Paramatman united, and thus pure Rajas).
3. Turiya ~ the ultimate reality of Shiva Advaita, which is entirely without Maya or even the most subtle hint of duality (i.e. perfect Paramatman, and thus pure Sattva).

“One, Two, Three: all world is free!” is a common saying of the Nagas. The fourth and final stage of Yoga is Advaita alone.

Namaste
Your explanation is what I have been taught. That is this notion of Saguna (with attributes) Brahman, and Nirguna ( w/o attributes) Brahman which is this pure consciousness that the Upanishads and various muni’s point out.

The conversation gets interesting when we consider all this is Brahman no matter of its divisions we may see. Yet my perception is faulty, I am not established in THAT, Ritam bhara pragya – that [level of consciousness] which only knows the Truth, some say unalloyed Truth.

Till then, we must stand on the shoulders of those that are established in Satyam and consider the wisdom that is offered.