PDA

View Full Version : Can Advaita philosophy and Vaishnava views be "merged"?



Elizabeth108
25 June 2010, 07:08 AM
Can Advaita philosophy and Vaishnava views be "merged"? Is there such a school within vaishnavism that accepts/involves the advaita views? Or are they (Vaishnava and advaita views) two completely, separated views/ ways / teachings?

amith vikram
27 June 2010, 07:04 AM
u hav already asked this question right?
on the outset we can say yes,why not,but if we try to study or understand the vedanta more and more they are different.it's very important to stick to any one view,because the goals of these two schools are different.and also there are many sub groups in vaishnavism.just praying lord narayana is not vaishnavism as many advaitins also do that.the views of advaita is very different from vaishnavism.

Elizabeth108
27 June 2010, 09:27 AM
u hav already asked this question right?
on the outset we can say yes,why not,but if we try to study or understand the vedanta more and more they are different.it's very important to stick to any one view,because the goals of these two schools are different.and also there are many sub groups in vaishnavism.just praying lord narayana is not vaishnavism as many advaitins also do that.the views of advaita is very different from vaishnavism.

Hi,
Thanks for your answer.
Yeah, I asked it earlier - and have got some other useful answers as well.
I tried to delete this thread and leave the other one only, but I am unable to. Maybe one moderatot will remove your answer to the other thread and delete this one...
Thank you for your answer, too.

Elizabeth

Jogesh
27 June 2010, 12:45 PM
The 'merging' or combining of Advaita and Vaishnavism is not only a possibility but was a reality that was seen as the Bhakti movement spread to Northern India during the late medieval period

Jogesh
06 July 2010, 11:50 AM
Sridhar Svamin the famous commentator of Bhagawat Purana was the perfect example of an Advaitin who had strong Vaishnava leanings...

new_earth
11 August 2010, 06:36 PM
I am glad you brought this up because while at least currently I have been called to/attracted to Krishna/Vishnu/Vaishnavism, when I read the differences between Dvaita and Advaita philosophies, Advaita is closer to what I have always believed spiritually. Hmm....

Elizabeth108
13 August 2010, 06:31 PM
I am glad you brought this up because while at least currently I have been called to/attracted to Krishna/Vishnu/Vaishnavism, when I read the differences between Dvaita and Advaita philosophies, Advaita is closer to what I have always believed spiritually. Hmm....

You do speak out of my heart, and what you wrote was the reason why I had posted this thread in fact. I also have more of an Advaitic approach (devas are forms of One God) but with Krsna as my ishta devata. However, I could not know if it was possible to make it all agree because Vaishnava viewes are Dvaita (duality). So after reading studying more, I say I have the Advaitic view and Krsna is my ishta devata (but of course I pray to other forms of God, too).

Ramakrishna
13 August 2010, 10:52 PM
I am glad you brought this up because while at least currently I have been called to/attracted to Krishna/Vishnu/Vaishnavism, when I read the differences between Dvaita and Advaita philosophies, Advaita is closer to what I have always believed spiritually. Hmm....


You do speak out of my heart, and what you wrote was the reason why I had posted this thread in fact. I also have more of an Advaitic approach (devas are forms of One God) but with Krsna as my ishta devata. However, I could not know if it was possible to make it all agree because Vaishnava viewes are Dvaita (duality). So after reading studying more, I say I have the Advaitic view and Krsna is my ishta devata (but of course I pray to other forms of God, too).

Namaste new_earth and Elizabeth,

I tell you the same thing I said in the 'Vaishnava' thread: http://hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=3143

ISKCON takes a Dvaita approach, but that is not representative of all of Vaishnavism. Maybe even the majority of Vaishnavas take a Dvaita approach. Who knows? But you can certainly be a Vaishnava from an Advaita approach. That is what I do. We may or may not be in the minority of Vaishnavas, but who cares? Such is the vastness of Sanatana Dharma.

I wish you both the best of luck on your spiritual journeys.

Jai Sri Krishna

Elizabeth108
14 August 2010, 12:44 AM
Namaste new_earth and Elizabeth,

I tell you the same thing I said in the 'Vaishnava' thread: http://hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=3143

ISKCON takes a Dvaita approach, but that is not representative of all of Vaishnavism. Maybe even the majority of Vaishnavas take a Dvaita approach. Who knows? But you can certainly be a Vaishnava from an Advaita approach. That is what I do. We may or may not be in the minority of Vaishnavas, but who cares? Such is the vastness of Sanatana Dharma.

I wish you both the best of luck on your spiritual journeys.

Jai Sri Krishna

RamaKrishna,

Thank you for sharing your view, opinion. :)

Jai Sri Krsna

atanu
14 August 2010, 08:36 AM
Friends

Guru for Advaitins is Narayana -- both the Godhead and the sage of Rig Veda, who saw Purusha Suktam. Shankaracharya, though not a strict vaisnava, worshipped Vishnu as the highest Lord. A great scholar of Advaita, Shri Madhusudana Sarasvati, was a pure vaisnava.

Shiva, the Supreme Lord, Parameshwara, as Soma is the leader of all Vaisnavas, teaching the worship of Vishnu, the Supreme Lord.



Satapatha Brahmana Part V (SBE44), Julius Eggeling tr. [1900]

THIRD BRÂHMANA.
13:4:3:1. Having set free the horse, he (the Adhvaryu) spreads a cushion wrought of gold (threads) south of the Vedi: thereon the Hotri seats himself. On the right (south) of the Hotri, the Sacrificer on a gold stool ; on the right of him, the Brahman and Udgâtri on cushions wrought of gold; in front of them, with his face to the west, the Adhvaryu on a gold stool, or a slab of gold.

13:4:3:2. When they are seated together, the Adhvaryu calls upon (the Hotri), saying, 'Hotri, recount the beings: raise thou this Sacrificer above the beings !' Thus called upon, the Hotri, being about to tell the Pâriplava Legend, addresses (the Adhvaryu), 'Adhvaryu!'--'Havai hotar!' replies the Adhvaryu.

13:4:3:3. 'King Manu Vaivasvata,' he says;--'his people are Men, and they are staying here ;'-householders, unlearned in the scriptures, have come thither 1 (mhtml:file://C:\Documents and Settings\Anup\My Documents\Home\religion\satpatha\Satapatha Brahmana Part V (SBE44) Thirteenth KâIn-IId-Ia XIII, 4, 3_ Third BrâhmaIn-Ia.mht!x-usc:http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe44/sbe44104.htm#fn_931): it is these he instructs;--'The Rik (verses) are the Veda : this it is;' thus saying, let him go over a hymn of the Rik, as if reciting it . Masters of lute-players have come thither: these he calls upon, 'Masters of -players,' he says, 'sing ye of this Sacrificer along with righteous kings of yore !' and they accordingly sing of him; and in thus singing of him, they make him share the same world with the righteous kings of yore.

13:4:3:4. Having called (on the masters of lute-players), the Adhvaryu performs the Prakrama oblations , either on the southern fire, or on a footprint of the horse, after drawing lines round it--whichever is the practice there; but the former is the established rule.

13:4:3:5. Prior to the (first) offering to Savitri he offers, once only, the (oblations relating to the) Forms in the Âhavanîya fire, whilst going rapidly over (the formulas). And in the evening, whilst the Dhritis (oblations for the safe keeping of the horse) are being offered, a Râganya lute-player, striking up the uttaramandrâ (tune) south (of the vedi), sings three stanzas composed by himself (on topics such as), 'Such war he waged,--Such battle he won:' the meaning of this has been explained.

13:4:3:6 And on the morrow, the second day, after those (three) offerings to Savitri have been performed in the same way, there is that same course of procedure. 'Adhvaryu!' he (the Hotri) says.--'Havai hotar!' replies the Adhvaryu.--'King Yama Vaivasvata ,' he (the Hotri) says, 'his people are the Fathers, and they are staying here;'--old men have come thither: it is these he i nstructs;--'The Yagus-formulas are the Veda: this it is;' thus saying, let him go over a chapter (anuvâka) of the Yagus , as if reciting it. The Adhvaryu calls in the same way (on the masters of lute-players), but does not perform the Prakrama oblations.

13:4:3:7. And on the third day, after those (three) offerings have been performed in the same way, there is that same course of procedure. 'Adhvaryu!' he (the Hotri) says.--'Havai hotar!' replies the Adhvaryu.--'King Varuna Âditya,' he says; 'his people are the Gandharvas, and they are staying here;'--handsome youths have come thither: it is these he instructs;--'The Atharvans are the Veda: this it is;' thus saying, let him go over one section (parvan) of the Atharvan , as if reciting it. The Adhvaryu calls in the same way (on the masters of lute-players), but does not perform the Prakrama oblations.

13:4:3:8. And on the fourth day, after those (three) offerings have been performed in the same way, there is the same course of procedure. 'Adhvaryu!' he (the Hotri) says.--'Havai hotar!' replies the Adhvaryu.--'King Soma Vaishnava ,' he says; 'his people are the Apsaras, and they are staying here;'--handsome maidens have come thither: it is these he instructs ;--'The Aṅgiras are the Veda: this it is;' thus saying, let him go over one section of the Aṅgiras , as if reciting it. The Adhvaryu calls in the same way (on the masters of lute-players), but does not perform the Prakrama oblations.
---
13:4:3:15 [In telling] this revolving (legend), he tells all royalties, all regions, all Vedas, all gods, all beings; and, verily, for whomsoever the Hotri, knowing this, tells this revolving legend, or whosoever even knows this, attains to fellowship and communion with these royalties, gains the sovereign rule and lordship over all people, secures for himself all the Vedas, and, by gratifying the gods, finally establishes himself on all beings. This very same legend revolves again and again for a year; and. inasmuch as it revolves again and again, therefore it is (called) the revolving (legend). For thirty-six ten-days’ periods he tells it,--the Brihatî (metre) consists of thirty-six syllables, and cattle are related to the Brihatî metre: by means of the Brihatî he thus secures cattle for him.



It is not my intention to understand this Pâriplava Legend (Revolving legend) fully. I do not understand it much. However, the following points can be made:

The Revolving Legend is not about Advaita. The Revolving Legend sacrifice continues for ten days, after freeing the horse (which I believe is the mind). The purpose is to raise the sacrificer above the level of being. I have shown only three days above. But 7 more days of sacrifice with 7 other leaders of mankind, snakes, fishes, snakes etc. continue. The seven other kings are; King Arbuda Kâdraveya, King Kubera Vaisravana, King Asita Dhânva, 'King Matsya Sâmmada, King Târkshya Vaipasyata.

The point is that King Soma, who is Shiva with Uma, is Vaisnava. He is the leader of apsaras- divine maidens. I have always known Shri Krishna as Soma - the bliss, the joy of divine maidens. One will see that Angiras is the Veda for Soma Vaisnava led apsaras. One will also note that it was Ghora Angirasa, whe declared the Veda to Shri Krishna during His manifestation as Devaki putra. Further Veda (and Upanishad) calls Rudra by the epithet of Vishnave.

Moreover, the meaning of Vishnu -- the all pervading, can only be comprehended, IMO, in advaita and not in any other mode. Further, as noted in another thread, I see advaita in the following:

BG 10. 20 I, O Gudakesa (Arjuna), am the self seated in the hearts of all creatures.
I am the beginning, the middle and the very end of beings.


When Self is the beginning, the middle, and the end of all beings then what are all these beings?


Om Namah Shivaya

kallol
14 August 2010, 08:39 AM
What is the need to merge ? I see them as different interpretations and understanding towards the same knowledge.

It gives space for different people to suit themselves in.

The space between dvaita to advaita gives the flexibility of fitting oneself in and this is needed as all of us are uniquely placed in terms of our capability to comprehend and absorb.

This gives the Sanatana Dharma the flexibility of accomodating all mental levels.

That all of us are unique is natural and the truth we need to accomodate. That all of us are unique is so beatiful and brings in the creativity, innovation and the power of thinking.
That all of us are unique makes this world so dynamic, absorbing and make the enhances the space for learning.

Love and best wishes

Jogesh
14 August 2010, 11:09 AM
What is the need to merge ? I see them as different interpretations and understanding towards the same knowledge.

It gives space for different people to suit themselves in.

The space between dvaita to advaita gives the flexibility of fitting oneself in and this is needed as all of us are uniquely placed in terms of our capability to comprehend and absorb.

This gives the Sanatana Dharma the flexibility of accomodating all mental levels.

That all of us are unique is natural and the truth we need to accomodate. That all of us are unique is so beatiful and brings in the creativity, innovation and the power of thinking.
That all of us are unique makes this world so dynamic, absorbing and make the enhances the space for learning.

Love and best wishes

yes and that flexibility to accomodate all mental levels should include Advaitins who have Vaishnava, Shaiva or Shakta leanings, meaning they have Bhakti towards a certain ishta devata, while at the same time keeping with the conclusions of Advaita Vedanta. This is there already in Shankara's teachings, followers of Advaita with Bhakti is very common .. as I pointed out earlier Sridhar Svamin is a perfect example of this temperment.

namaskar

kahanam
31 October 2010, 01:44 PM
To start with everyone starts as Dvaita proponent with Bhakthi towards a superior Being, then he realises that he is only a part of the great Whole Being to whom he is praying as a Visishtadvaitin and when Karma,Bhakthi and Gnana fructify, he becomes one with Godhead and realises Moksha or selfrealisation as advaitin.One leads to the ultimate status.Om Tat Sat!

grames
31 October 2010, 10:16 PM
NO offense.... This is age old joke and still considered Humorous..

:)


To start with everyone starts as Dvaita proponent with Bhakthi towards a superior Being, then he realises that he is only a part of the great Whole Being to whom he is praying as a Visishtadvaitin and when Karma,Bhakthi and Gnana fructify, he becomes one with Godhead and realises Moksha or selfrealisation as advaitin.One leads to the ultimate status.Om Tat Sat!

Sahasranama
01 November 2010, 12:23 AM
In the lowest stage bhakti and jnana are separate. In the highest stage bhakti and jnana are one.

Can vaishnava and advaita be merged is a silly question. It's like asking can the colour yellow and apple be merged. Yes, you can have yellow apples, green apples, red apples etc. Vaishnava doesn't equal dvaita philosophy.


~Captain Obvious

sm78
01 November 2010, 01:23 AM
Can Advaita philosophy and Vaishnava views be "merged"? Is there such a school within vaishnavism that accepts/involves the advaita views? Or are they (Vaishnava and advaita views) two completely, separated views/ ways / teachings?

Before the muslim destruction, the kashmir valley was the hot beg of religious evolutions and breakthroughs. Along with the more publisized buddhism and shaivism, vaishnavism was also very popular in kashmir and was strictly a monist philosophy. This I was reading in the introduction to manthanabhairavatantra. I don't know any kashmiri monist vaishnava text or tradition ever survived - you may want to research a bit. However one must be clear that strict monism of tantras is not same as shankara advaita vedanta.

The agamic vaishnavism which forms the backbone of the practice of most of the orthodox vaishnavas generally preaches dvaita-advaita in line with shaiva agamas from which they are influenced. All the agamas following dvaita-advaita and tantras following para-advaita were developed in kashmir ... though both shaiva and vaishnava agamas now survive as living traditions only in the south.

It is not surprizing that agamas which dealt with practicalities of religious practice would preach dvaita-advaita, where the god is both transient and imminent in creation. Jiva is forever connected to the God, but doesn't become identical with God after moksha (i.e we don't become God after moksha, which would be a very difficult concept to base one's worship on for a devotee). Instead we become essentially his nature - yet not him. "Sameness" instead of "Oneness" as somebody put it.

However hindu societies who practiced agamas also found it necessary to prove their vedic-ness and developed all these darshanas based on vedanta. Brahmins could not think of living outside vedic dictum.

But agamic religion including vaishnava do not need to cling to any of the vedantic theories ... agamas are themselves too rich in philosophical depth and understanding, and discusses matters of consciousness in much more depth & clarity than the vague poetic estacy of vedanta.

Yet the brahmans of this land could not bear to be called avaidik - so they took up both. For me all of vedic, vedantic and agamic religions are precious as testiments of spiritual evolution and also a history of faith in this land. Also vedic and agamic religions are complimentary to a large extent with different focus. But I follow a evolutionary view of religion, for those who can't bear the thought of vedas being anything else than the one and only source of all religion, and one and only proof of god (which it is clearly not), need to subverse others to one. In the process we have cooked up many theories which are far less original and profound and which now stand as neither vedic nor vedantic or agamic...but something we would want each of these to be.

The medieval darshana movement (advaita, vishistadvaita,dvaita,shuddhadvaita,achinta-bheda-abheda, blah blah mumbo jumbo), the bhakti movements are all examples of such efforts.

I have discarded them and decieded to understand religion as a human invension and God as an aspect of humanity, and study the human discoveries made about consciousness in vedas, vedanta and tantra ... without the need to cook up one true religion. But I am ok to be called a stupid fool and a radical.

amith vikram
01 November 2010, 01:52 AM
Jiva is forever connected to the God, but doesn't become identical with God after moksha (i.e we don't become God after moksha, which would be a very difficult concept to base one's worship on for a devotee). Instead we become essentially his nature - yet not him. "Sameness" instead of "Oneness" as somebody put it.


namaste,
but how do you know?


However hindu societies who practiced agamas also found it necessary to prove their vedic-ness and developed all these darshanas based on vedanta. Brahmins could not think of living outside vedic dictum.

Is this your own conclusion?

sm78
02 November 2010, 07:09 AM
namaste,
but how do you know?
It is not me but the philosophy of dvaitAdvaita.


Is this your own conclusion?

If it gives you some comfort, many others have come to the same conclusion, mainly in the academic. If you read the agamas and tantras, it is very clear (unless one has a seriously impaired brain or is dogmatically blind) that they have a very distinct & unique theology and practices which have little if nothing to do with the srauta and the smarta religions.

It does not mean that they are independent, developed independently completely uninfluenced by each other. That would be absurd. But the tenants and practices are unique enough to make these separate religions within the hindu cultural complex.

Unlike the buddha, sikhs and to an extent jains who have opted out to be out of the hindu cultural complex...others have stayed in the same religio-cultural complex.

rku
14 January 2012, 10:05 AM
re:Can Advaita philosophy and Vaishnava views be "merged"?

Definitely Yes. Both are the products of the same Vedanta and interpreted by same Guru Maharshi Ved Vyasa. Dvaita and Advaita are two sides of the same coin. They are never contradictory and always supplement each other. It needs for more understanding than just to understand them separately.

Snake seen in a rope in dim light is never contradictory to the rope. So is the case with this. Thus Dvaita world which includes Modern science also is part of Advaita. I call this 'ultimate principle'. Check it.

http://www.idealworldkrishna.blogspot.com/2010/09/ultimate-truth-secret-of-universe.html

Jainarayan
20 February 2012, 08:04 AM
I was looking for a thread/questions/answers like this. I've been wrestling with the compatibility of Vaishnavism and Advaita. It may be my lack of understanding that is causing the conflict, so here goes (forgive the length of my ramblings, which by now should come as no surprise :o )...

I am a self-proclaimed Vaishnava, and I see the "person" of Krishna/Vishnu/Narayana as a manifestation, to our senses, of Brahman. That's why I can accept that Shaivas see Lord Shiva the same way, Shaktas see Devi, etc... you say toe-may-toe, I say toe-mah-toe sort of thing. For me, I cannot help but believe that B.G. 10.42 "But what need is there, Arjuna, for all this detailed knowledge? With a single fragment of Myself I pervade and support this entire universe." screams Advaita.

From my readings it seems most Vaishnavas lean towards VishishtAdvaita or Achintya BhedAbheda (Gaudiyas, of course). I have a problem with the concept of a Vaikunthaloka or Goloka with fields and grass and flowers, singing and dancing and having a jolly good time, as I think is a common Vaishnava belief. I don't mean to make fun but unless I have misread or misunderstood (quite likely :o), it smacks of the Abrahamic Heaven or Greek Elysian Fields beliefs, which I utterly reject.

I have always felt in my gut, even before adopting Hinduism (I was deist post-Christianity and pre-Hindu), that we are all one with God and the universe, and that we return to that unmanifest oneness upon moksha and merge into it. As water evaporates and separates from the ocean, becomes clouds (we, in material existence separated from God), then rains back down and merges into the ocean where it belongs, the water in the rain clouds is no different than the water in the ocean from whence it came. Or is that VishishtAdvaita, quality but not quantity? In that case VishishtAdvaita doesn't necessarily present a problem for me, though my gut tells me to believe Advaita. Unless the difference is only subtle.

Sahasranama
20 February 2012, 09:20 AM
Before the muslim destruction, the kashmir valley was the hot beg of religious evolutions and breakthroughs. Along with the more publisized buddhism and shaivism, vaishnavism was also very popular in kashmir and was strictly a monist philosophy. This I was reading in the introduction to manthanabhairavatantra. I don't know any kashmiri monist vaishnava text or tradition ever survived - you may want to research a bit. However one must be clear that strict monism of tantras is not same as shankara advaita vedanta.

There is one text I have read about, the Paramarthasara of Adishesha. This was written in the introduction of the Paramarthasara of Abhinavagupta translated by Deba Brata SenSharma:

The Paramarthasara, the Essence of the Supreme Truth,
is a work of 105 verses written in the Arya metre. It is an
adaptation of an earlier Vaisnavite text with the same title by
Adisesa, who is also known as Anantanatha or Adhara. This
earlier text of the Paramarthasara by Adisesa contains 85
verses also in Arya metre. It was published by T. Ganapati
Sastri with the commentary called Vivarana by
Raghavananda, as volume 12 in the Anantashayana Sanskrit
Series in 1911.

This earlier Paramarthasara by Adisesa is considered to be
a Vaisnavite text because the first verse is an adoration to
Visnu and the text teaches a single unified reality which it
calls Vasudeva or Visnu. The final verse declares that the main
purpose of the text is to present the essence of
the Vedanta philosophy of the Upanisads, but in spite of
this declaration of its aim it does not follow Sankaracharya's
monistic philosophy. Instead, it expounds ideas from classical
Sankhya, such as the concepts of purusa and prakrti.
Abhinavagupta has completely transformed this earlier
text into a Shaivite text by retaining some verses unchanged,
making alterations to others, and adding additional
verses. He has enlarged the text from 85 to 105 verses.

Yogaraja, commenting on the final verse, observes that:
Abhinavagupta, the great follower of the supreme Lord,
Paramasiva, reproduced the description of the supreme truth,
given in the past by Lord Sesa, by enlarging and
refashioning the text to conform with the monistic
spiritual experiences of the Agamic teachings.

A comparative study of the two texts shows striking and
numerous similarities and exact correspondences, confirming
that the present text of the Paramarthasara of Abhinavagupta is
an adaptation of the older text by Adiéesa.

It is available at this online store with the description:

http://www.wisdom-books.com/ProductDetail.asp?PID=11461

The Paramarthasara, or Epitome of the Highest Truth, is perhaps the earliest work on Advaita Vedanta in existence. Attributed to Adi Sesa, the primeval serpent, or at least to his incarnation Patanjali, it gives in a mere 85 verses, employing ancient Samkhya terminology, a succinct statement of the highest truths taught in non-dual Vedanta. Its teachings have many parallels to those found in Gaudapada's famous Mandukya-karika. This edition includes the original Sanskrit text.

Added to this edition is the later Kashmir Saiva work of the same name, written by Abhinavagupta, which is based on Adi Sesa's earlier work.

Kismet
20 February 2012, 01:44 PM
From my readings it seems most Vaishnavas lean towards VishishtAdvaita or Achintya BhedAbheda (Gaudiyas, of course). I have a problem with the concept of a Vaikunthaloka or Goloka with fields and grass and flowers, singing and dancing and having a jolly good time, as I think is a common Vaishnava belief. I don't mean to make fun but unless I have misread or misunderstood (quite likely :o), it smacks of the Abrahamic Heaven or Greek Elysian Fields beliefs, which I utterly reject.[/COLOR]


I have pondered this much myself. Isn't it a very stereotypical view to "Heaven" after all?

What if it is in fact an archetypal representation of spiritual life, and not in the literal sense it is so portrayed in - with physical grass, fields, flowers, and so on? What if there are analogical correlates which mirror this rusticity to an infinite degree - in terms and geometries we can hardly conceive? This is my best rationale; that such pastimes are not to be taken as simple bare facts but as indicative of a higher reality, that sees "normal life" with all its simplicity, as the base-line and where the truest happiness can ever be experienced. I think we all have intimations of this sense, especially as children. Simultaneously, we can't only remain children. We must grow up and yet retain that simplicity, that in-born intelligence.

Once again it is good to keep in mind that the Final Truth is indeed beyond description.

brahman
21 February 2012, 04:33 AM
As water evaporates and separates from the ocean, becomes clouds (we, in material existence separated from God), then rains back down and merges into the ocean where it belongs, the water in the rain clouds is no different than the water in the ocean from whence it came.[/COLOR]







Dear Tbt Lord,

IMHO: In this beautiful passage the source content has to be understood as water not the ocean. The source water must exist in some evanescent form like that of vapour spewing out of a tea pot, the liquid that stays as ocean, snow that dresses up the Himalayas and the cloud that covers the sky.

Likewise the Cit assumes the form of the entire universe in all its diversities as seen as this, from the subtlest mind to the grossest matter.

Without the existence of the substance water none of these forms of water has validity, in the same sense, without the core substance Cit, no world can exist; without these manifested forms, the Substance Cit, cannot exist either.

The Eternal Substance and its fleeting apparent forms, the World, are thus inseparable; this has to be intuitively perceived by every careful seeker student.

------------------------
The method employed here is called Yoga-Buddhi in Srimad. Bhagavad Gita, in which, an enlightened master, when communicating what is ineffable, points out two of its opposite expressible aspects, such as substance and attribute or self and non-self, leaving it to the seeker perceive it by his own, as the understanding of the Absolute is not possible by the usual didactic methods of learning and teaching which mostly based on pragmatic, empirical or common logical approach of theological order.

Good luck and Love:)

Jainarayan
21 February 2012, 08:41 AM
Namaste brahman, thank you. :)










Dear Tbt Lord,


IMHO: In this beautiful passage the source content has to be understood as water not the ocean. The source water must exist in some evanescent form like that of vapour spewing out of a tea pot, the liquid that stays as ocean, snow that dresses up the Himalayas and the cloud that covers the sky.
Good luck and Love:)

Yes, I should have really referred to water as a whole not just the ocean. But you get the idea. ;) So then, in my mind Vaishnavism and Advaita, or even VishishtAdvaita are not incompatible. I could say "meh, who cares? I will strive for moksha and see what happens then". But without being able to reconcile what one believes or "feels", advancement is difficult.

anirvan
22 February 2012, 04:10 AM
There is no generalized vaishnava view exist as such.If one considers different vaishnava philosophy as ascending steps of a ladder and take Achintya-bhedabheda as highest and pinnacle of vaishnava goal, then YES...at this point only ADVITA AND VAISHNAB VIEWS MERGE.

But that highest point where advita and achintya-bhedabheda merge at single point can be realized,but its difficult to explain.That"s why its mostly vaishnabas who are inexperienced always argue against advita.

For those believing Chaitanya as incarnation of Combined Radha-Krishna, he is himself the perfect example of Achntya-bheda-bheda and advita merged at same time.

Chaitanya is Krishna inside wrapped with Radha bhava(also same as swaroop). What does it implies?One Advita Brahman takes different swaroop(bhava roop- chinmaya emotional bodies).

The purpose= LEELA. he enjoys himself by becoming different emotional bodies in his eternal abode.Its again should be understood in spiritual realm,not somewhere physical abode.CIT IS BRAHMAN.ANANDA IS HIS SWAROOP.Chit becomes krishna Ananda becomes Radha/Gopis.The material to form different bodies is CHINMAYA(ANTARANGA SHAKTI) which is different from the material used in this physical realm--which is maya.(APARA PRAKRITI/BAHIRANGA SHAKTI)

Its like scratching left hand with right hand to enjoy the process.:)

the difference between this higher spiritual realm from our inferior physical realm is that its mortal and ever changing.Hence filled with sorrow,pain,loss.

But the highest spiritual realm is eternal,CIT is ever manifest,without ignorance,hence eternal bliss and peace.A sadhaka vaishnab can"t understand this transcendental CHIT swaroop as GOD which is different from his self.

grames
22 February 2012, 06:06 AM
Dear Anirvan.,



That"s why its mostly vaishnabas who are inexperienced always argue against advita.


This is just your opinion and the great seers who argued and dismissed Advaita are not 'inexperienced' and if at all you want to give yourself a chance, please purchase "Nyaya Sudha' or at least the comparision of "Nyaya Amruta VS Advaita Siddhi" by BNK Sharma and understand that Advaita is not tenable with the available Pramana and Shakshi's (Proof and witness) and considering such very detailed analysis, experience and evidences based arguments shouldn't be dismissed are 'inexperienced'.

It is a strong misunderstanding by new comers in Advaita that Shri Chaitanya's achintya BedAbedha is in sync with "Advaita" but the authority of this Achintya BedAbeda school Himself dismisses the Advaita and advices that everything will be doomed if you even hear the words of Advaitins. ( So, we should take this advice seriously)

"Mayavada bhasya sunile haya sarva nasa"

So, instead of trying a not so necessary unification of all philosophy as one, why can't it be independent thoughts and experiences? Why all food be sweet, all colors be red and all ice cream be vanilla?

Also good to remember

bahu-sastre bahu vakye cite bhrama haya
sadhya sadhana srestha na haya niscaya

"If one reads too many books and accepts the opinions of too many people, doubt will arise in the heart. One will not be able to ascertain what the supreme goal of life is."

devotee
24 February 2012, 09:54 AM
Namaste all,

If Vedanta is to be believed then all paths must merge to Advaita. Vedanta tells us that Advaita is the final destination of all paths. If we look at some smritis who are revered by the Vaishnavas like Uttar Gita, then also one would have no difficulty in understanding that Advaita is the final destination and if that is not attained, the journey is not yet over.

There some friends here who will assert otherwise but they won't stand even for a while if we discuss purely on Vedanta and not based on someone's own views expressed in XYZ book. Just by writing something in a book, an opinion doesn't become Truth.

All the Vedantic schools accept VedAnta as its authority. So, let us go directly to the source ... why accept anything lesser than that ? Moreover, There are a number of Vaishnava schools and many of them accept Advaita except some like ISKCON who have distorted the words of Chaitanya MahAprabhu for the reasons best known to them.

Sometime back I met a God-realised saint (as appeared to me and as claimed by the devotees) here in Varanasi. While having a light discussion with him, I asked him one question :

"Baba, some people say that Atman is one whereas there are some who say that Atman are many. What do you say ? Is Atman one or many ? Accordingly, are your Atman and my Atman one or are they two ?"

Baba replied in broken Hindi (he speaks Avadhi and is not much literate) :

"Atman is one alone. It is not many. Your and my Atman appear to be different but they are not in reality. It is like space in various jars. The space is one but due to the forms/limitations of jars, it appears as many".

I was shell-shocked to hear his reply. How can you expect a semi-literate Bhakti-path saint to talk on non-duality with so much confidence ?

Who will you believe ? The VedAnta, the God-realised saints or the glib-talking people who claim to know things they have never read from the source ?

OM

Jainarayan
24 February 2012, 10:46 AM
Namaste devotee (and others, of course ;)).


"Atman is one alone. It is not many. Your and my Atman appear to be different but they are not in reality. It is like space in various jars. The space is one but due to the forms/limitations of jars, it appears as many".

And I believe (don't quote me ;)) it was yajvanji who made that analogy a while back, going further and saying that the jar is in air but air is in the jar. I now see that the jars are different shapes, sizes, textures, colors, materials, etc. but they are all filled with air and yet in the air. That's what I felt that day I said I had "The Experience"!

NayaSurya
24 February 2012, 12:54 PM
Who will you believe ? The VedAnta, the God-realised saints or the glib-talking people who claim to know things they have never read from the source ?


In due time every Portion here will witness for themself the Truth of our location, constitution and destination here. Belief is stronger when you see if for yourself. If one comes along to tell you anything...it is always quantified by the fact it was not your own vision which determined this Truth...but anothers. I would say all three of those choices you gave are not enough for this fool.

Sure, maybe any one of those would help, but in the end. Self realization comes from inside...our Self.

I like the jar story, but air is a problem for me. Air...can not do justice to our being, fully.

This realm, from what I have witnessed...our relationship with Beloved.

Is as a wonderful Perfect Library(Beloved) each of us has a location, a name to our story...within that Library.

My book is known as Lanie...and I have a place I belong within that Library...

But, take me out of that wonderful wholy perfect Place(Beloved) and I am just the story of a fool...known as Lanie.

All the books, are called Library(Beloved) when they are together. But each on their own...has a name, identity...and story to tell. You would never look at a book and say...hmm this is a Library! But you could also turn it over and clearly see that the Library known as Shiva is upon the front cover in the "Belongs To" space.:p

You can go back...and access these stories yourself...and see the Truth of this if you wish. I have seen it, as has my Beloved Husband. Beyond this vessel we have a name and an identity. We are the Trillion Voices.

I tell you this, although you can accept or decline it.

I hope you decline and seek it for yourself...with all my heart.

But, you can merge any beliefs in this realm together, if you have witnessed them as Truth...with your own heart and soul.

Things you know to be True, from your own experience are worth more than a billion Portions coming and saying "yes that's right".

I know this fact, for from this place which I dwell...all of them say jesus is the only way to salvation...billions of them...some very wise...some very ignorant....and all of them very wrong.

So use whatever helps you to move forward. There is no one philosophy within SD which has a strangle hold on the Truth more than another. All of them are a WellSpring of Truth.

It's all how you use them.

devotee
24 February 2012, 09:58 PM
Namaste NS,


I would say all three of those choices you gave are not enough for this fool.

Your post made my eyes filled with tears. May God grant me the same resolve towards Self-realisation ! May everyone of us stick to just one passion ... direct realisation of the Ultimate Truth and ... nothing less than that should be acceptable. No Vedas, no saint's preaching ... nothing is acceptable to me but the Direct Perception ... where there would be no doubts ... no words of arguments .... just the Truth shining in its own glory ... that is the resolve which is required. ... and then only this VedavAkya would hold true :

"Tatra Vedah Avedah bhavanyti"

===> There the Vedas become Avedah (not-Vedas) i.e. they lose their value.

I envy your resolve. EM too talks in same language. I never find him arguing on scriptures. You people are blessed souls. :)

OM

devotee
24 February 2012, 10:05 PM
Namaste TBTL,


That's what I felt that day I said I had "The Experience"!

Yes, I too have a glimpse of such an experience. But it is not enough ... the blissful feeling /experience of My Undivided Infinite expanse should stay with me.

Till then, we have to keep moving, my eternal friend ! :)

OM

Jainarayan
25 February 2012, 04:21 PM
Namaste devotee.


Till then, we have to keep moving, my eternal friend ! :)

OM

Indeed, it's a marathon not a sprint. ;)

And I know how loooong a marathon can be (finished the 1998 US Marine Corps Marathon). It's said there are two races: the first 20 miles and the last 6.2 miles. And let me tell you, the first 20 are the hardest. The last 6.2 are a piece of cake! :D