Describe Advaita, Vishistadvaita, Dvaita

[Sudarshan]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[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]

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]

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.