Why

[nirotu]

Pranam

Why is there so much antagonism between Vaishnav and Sheiva?

Interesting topic!
It is difficult from Vedanta of Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhwa charya and Vallabha to ascertain what the true nature and purport of the original scripture is. Within the Upanishads we can see difficulties. It is not very clear what Upanishads purport. It speaks in volumes but with a double voice in describing the nature of reality. On one hand, the Upanishad regards the absolute as pure being and makes the world an accidental appearance (Vivatra) of it (Shankara), and on the other hand, looks at the absolute as a concrete person and the world as his necessary expression (Ramanuja). There is a duality of standpoints stemming from interpretations from Shankara and Ramanuja. It is difficult to decide which the final teaching of the parent Gospel is.

I think that divisions you see today are based strictly on doctrines. This is true in Hinduism or in Christianity. If you are a follower of Vishnu then you are not in this camp or if you are a Shiva follower then you are not in that camp or vice-versa. Such exclusivities stem from the doctrinal differences and possibly from a narrow interpretation and may not represent the truth of the entire Gospel. Thus, when we dispute over dogmas, we are divided.

On the other hand, when we consider Upanishads by including all schools of thoughts, while Advaita is the beginning and the ultimate destination but, in the context of creation, Dvaita has come into play that cannot simply be ignored or wished away. While it may be justifiable to assume that man’s highest spiritual aspiration is to recognize his identity in someway and to some degree with the Absolute, his ethical conduct in the empirical world cannot be bypassed at all. While man is essentially spiritual he is also a creature of this world as well.

Therefore, I do believe, a man with a perfectly balanced view that recognizes the need of both Dvaita and Advaita is clearly ahead in his pursuit, who will undoubtedly progress faster towards that goal. A person without such a balance is like a bird flying with one wing. A bird with one wing will fly but only in circles. Oh, yes, there is movement in that bird but there is no forward progress. Such a circular movement is what we come to know as “Sansara” (endless wheel of ignorance and suffering) with no end or liberation in sight, neither now in this life nor in many returns!

Blessings,

P.S. I know we have re-entered the classic debate between Advaita and Dvaita, but I guess this will go on recurring because it is at the very heart of all religious and spiritual topics of discussions and debates.

[atanu]

Interesting topic!
It is difficult from Vedanta of Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhwa charya and Vallabha to ascertain what the true nature and purport of the original scripture is. Within the Upanishads we can see difficulties. It is not very clear what Upanishads purport. It speaks in volumes but with a double voice in describing the nature of reality. On one hand, the Upanishad regards the absolute as pure being and makes the world an accidental appearance (Vivatra) of it (Shankara), and on the other hand, looks at the absolute as a concrete person and the world as his necessary expression (Ramanuja). There is a duality of standpoints stemming from interpretations from Shankara and Ramanuja. It is difficult to decide which the final teaching of the parent Gospel is.

I think that divisions you see today are based strictly on doctrines. This is true in Hinduism or in Christianity. If you are a follower of Vishnu then you are not in this camp or if you are a Shiva follower then you are not in that camp or vice-versa. Such exclusivities stem from the doctrinal differences and possibly from a narrow interpretation and may not represent the truth of the entire Gospel. Thus, when we dispute over dogmas, we are divided.

On the other hand, when we consider Upanishads by including all schools of thoughts, while Advaita is the beginning and the ultimate destination but, in the context of creation, Dvaita has come into play that cannot simply be ignored or wished away. While it may be justifiable to assume that man’s highest spiritual aspiration is to recognize his identity in someway and to some degree with the Absolute, his ethical conduct in the empirical world cannot be bypassed at all. While man is essentially spiritual he is also a creature of this world as well.

Therefore, I do believe, a man with a perfectly balanced view that recognizes the need of both Dvaita and Advaita is clearly ahead in his pursuit, who will undoubtedly progress faster towards that goal. A person without such a balance is like a bird flying with one wing. A bird with one wing will fly but only in circles. Oh, yes, there is movement in that bird but there is no forward progress. Such a circular movement is what we come to know as “Sansara” (endless wheel of ignorance and suffering) with no end or liberation in sight, neither now in this life nor in many returns!

Blessings,

P.S. I know we have re-entered the classic debate between Advaita and Dvaita, but I guess this will go on recurring because it is at the very heart of all religious and spiritual topics of discussions and debates.

Namaste Nirotu,

Yes, we better avoid the intellectualism and try with utmost sincereity to find for self what the Self is. Otherwise it is all never ending speculation.

In the meanwhile we can ponder on your statement: "in the context of creation, Dvaita has come into play that cannot simply be ignored or wished away" and try to find out whether in the context of creation, the original advaita Self (which you agree to) has got broken into pieces or not?

Several times it has been repeated that advaita vada does not throw away dvaita vada, since most practices of advaita teachers are rooted in dvaita. The point is that your own thinking/perceiving/seeing apparatus is based on and is in constant touch with the Advaita Self, which is uncuttable and never fragmented.


Om

PS:
The difference between Vishnu and Shiva lovers is nothing compared to murderous differences that exist in christianity and islam. Moreover, Vishnu and Shiva unite in OM, which is one word of Sanatana dharma.

Om

[saidevo]

Namaste Nirotu.

Welcome back! If it is a post from Nirotu, it elicits, even provokes a reply: this time it elicits; and I am glad to see you present your view with such responsibility, nicety and knowledge, although I can see some of your own, usual 'subtleties' behind it.

Atanu has presented in his own inimitable style, the crux of Advaita: that it appreciates and then swallows up dvaita. His postscript is an important observation and truth.

For my part, I would like to share my observations on some of the points raised by you.

It is not very clear what Upanishads purport. It speaks in volumes but with a double voice in describing the nature of reality.

Is the 'purport' of the Upanishads unclear? Is there a 'double voice' in the sayings of the Upanishads about the Absolute Truth and its nature? Or is it really a 'double choice' offered to the people with different propensities, 'in the context of creation'?

Let us take, for instance, one of the most quoted statements of the Rig Veda:

ekam sad viprA bahudhA vadanti -- RV i.164.46

What is the 'purport' of this statement? Is it Ontological, as it outlines the nature of the Absolute ('ekam sad')? Or is it Epistemological, because it also says that the One Truth can be known through many names? Or is it Soteriological, in that it hints that there are many paths to liberation, and that the ultimate goal of all those paths is the One Truth?

Do you think, Nirotu, that Rig Veda talks in 'double voice' here, or does it offer a 'double choice'? If someone talks in a 'double voice', it means that his is a 'double talk' which is ambiguous, deceptive, and deliberately confusing. Is it so here in this statement of Rig Veda?

Dr.Frank Morales, a popular Western Sanatana Dharmic Guru, in his essay 'Does Hinduism Teach That All Religions Are The Same? A Philosophical Critique of Radical Universalism' has given a detailed analysis of this statement. He takes the view that the statement is absolutely--not just predominantly--ontological in its purport: it talks only about the Unity of the Abosolute Truth and not about the multiplicity of Its names; and that its other and more popular--epistemological and soteriological--interpretations are incorrect and can only be speculative.

Thus the actual meaning and purport of the statement, according to Dr.Morales is this:

"Truth/God (sad) [is] One (ekam), [despite] seers (vipra) call (vadanti) [it] variously (bahudha)."

The implied condition 'despite' makes this statement purely ontological; whereas in the popular interpretations, the condition is taken to be 'but then' which gives rise to the speculations.

Rig Veda could have just stated 'ekam sat' without the qualification, but this would be understood only by the highest spiritual souls like the seers of the Vedas. Therefore, Rig Veda 'contrasts' this statement with the addition 'viprA bahudhA vadanti'. Truth shines by contrast!

In the same way, many of the mahAvAkhyas (grest statements) of the Upanishads appear prima facie dualistic, but always have an unequivocal pointer to the Advaitic Truth. As examples,

tat tvaM asi
"That thou art"
-- Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.7, of Sama Veda, Kaivalya Upanishad

This statement talks about Advaita if you take 'tat' as its subject; about Dvaita if you take 'tvaM' as the subject.

aham brahmAsmi
"I am Brahman"
-- Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10, of Yajur Veda, Mahanarayana Upanishad

ayam Atma brahma
"This Self is Brahman."
-- Mandukya Upanishad 1.2, of Atharva Veda

sarvaM khalvidaM brahma
"All of this is brahman."
-- Chandogya Upanishad 3.14.1 of the Sama Veda

All such statements combine two views: idealism and pantheism. Idealism maintains that Atman alone is real and nothing else exists besides it. Pantheism holds that the world does exist and yet it does not affect the principle of the sole reality of the Atman; since it itself is nothing different from the Atman; both are identical, one with the other. The sole Reality of Brahman is always maintained.

The seeming duality of the statements is

• because creation has come into being and therefore the empirical minds have to be satisfied;

• with creation, vAch-speech comes into play as the primary means of thought, talk and action. And speech corrupts the Truth.

It is therefore, the Upanishads exhort the persistent seeker towards Advaita with such statements as

prajnanam brahma
"Consciousness is Brahman."
-- Aitareya Upanishad 3.3, of Rig Veda

"Knowing him alone let the wise Brahmana form his 'prajnA' (understanding), let him not meditate on many words, for that is simply the fatigue of 'vAc' (speech)." -- Brhad-AraNyaka Upanishad iv.4.21.

The prima facie duality of the above and other such statements of Vedas and Upanishads answer your other points that

• "Advaita is the beginning and the ultimate destination."

• "in the context of creation, Dvaita has come into play that cannot simply be ignored or wished away." (The statements do not 'wish away' the Dvaita of the world!)

• "a perfectly balanced view that recognizes the need of both Dvaita and Advaita..."

Thus the Advaita that 'lurks' behind the mahAvAkhyas of the Upanishads does not provide just 'one wing' for the bird that is the soul to fly in circles; it actually provides 'two wings', but exhorts the 'bird' to use 'its consciousness' rather than its senses in seeking the Truth.

For further reading:
1. Does Hinduism Teach That All Religions Are The Same?
A Philosophical Critique of Radical Universalism
http://www.dharmacentral.com/universalism.htm

2. The Doctrine of Maya' by Prabhu Dutt Shastri: A Compilation
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=2261

[atanu]

Interesting topic!
---- while Advaita is the beginning and the ultimate destination but, in the context of creation, Dvaita has come into play that cannot simply be ignored or wished away. -

Namaste Nirotu,

I wanted to remind that what is in the beginning and what is in the end, is in the middle also.

Do you, by any chance, imply that the Advaita is absent or broken in the middle? Advaita vada as opposed to Advaita Self, is there since we all are confused in the middle. Only exception being Ishwara, the Supreme Being, whom all worship as Supreme Being in Dvaita mode.

No Advaitin will wish to ignore away the middle. OTOH, it takes very persistent effort to experience the singular "I am" (OM) in the midst of settled perception of "I am this" and "Those are others in the world".

There are two valid approaches.

Satapatha Brahmana

11:2:6:13. As to this they ask, 'Who is the better one, the self-offerer, or the god-offerer?' Let him say, 'The self-offerer;' for a self-offerer, doubtless, is he who knows, 'This my (new) body is formed by that (body of Yagña, the sacrifice), this my (new) body is procured thereby.' And even as a snake frees itself from its skin, so does he free himself from his mortal body, from sin; and made up of the Rik, the Yagus, the Sâman, and of offerings, does he pass on to the heavenly world.

11:2:6:14. And a god-offerer, doubtless, is he who knows, 'I am now offering sacrifice to the gods, I am serving the gods,'--such a one is like an inferior who brings tribute to his superior, or like a man of the people who brings tribute to the king: verily, he does not win such a place as the other.
--------------------

When God (Ishwara) and Self (Shivo Advaita Atman) are known as the same, both approaches mean the same. Yet we must recognise the differences. Dvaita worship keeps God separate from the self whereas Advaita method graduates to seeking Self as God within the self. One cannot deny that God is the innermost self, the true Seer, of every being.

Some consider Advaita goal to be a dumb goal, as it amounts to giving up the individuality, which is dearest to everyone. But a simple perusal of above two verses will indicate that following 'the path of seeking the Self (God as one's own Self)' opposed to 'worship of God as another' is a bit more difficult. It is difficult, since, it means assuming full responsibilty for one's environment (knowing that the environment is product of one's consciousness -- modified for good or for bad by one's own karma). It is not easy to accept that one's environment is one's own karma (here one is not ONE but here one is 'I am this one').

Similarly, there are also some complaints that discussing Advaita is a boring and useless past time, since it ought to be very personal. OTOH, they also tend to berate Advaita discussions on the ground that such discussions will not solve world problems, such as Christian mission-neering or Muslim fanatism. This view, in fact, makes light of the knowledge of Sataptha 'This my (new) body is formed by that (body of Yagña, the sacrifice), this my (new) body is procured thereby.'

Chitta Suddhi (purification of mind) can not come without selfless karma, constant remembrance of Advaita OM, meditation, satsang, and love of Self (which incidentally includes all categories of this apparently vicious world). Citta Suddhi certainly will not happen through categorization of 'us and them', since 'us and them' is nothing but the Yagna-Vishnu.

During this state of Chitta Suddhi, constant remembrance of God is essential. Your worship and my worship modes are not different, since Guru Ramana teaches "Do not apply Advaita to Guru". Yet, He teaches further. "I am This" begins to worship God/Guru. Yet 'I am this' must dissolve in 'I am' (OM).


To me, discussion of Advaita, howsoever boring, is a valid alternative aid to help me remember the ever present OM.

Om

[nirotu]

Dear Saidevo:

First of all, thank you for your kind introductory remarks. When it comes to respect and admiration, our feelings are mutual.

the 'purport' of the Upanishads unclear? Is there a 'double voice' in the sayings of the Upanishads about the Absolute Truth and its nature? Or is it really a 'double choice' offered to the people with different propensities, 'in the context of creation'?

Well, while you may be correct in your assessment but the fact remains that there is a great theological divide between Shankara and Ramanuja, Madhwa. If Shankara was correct all along, do you think there would have been any dispute among Ramanuja, Madhwa, Chaitanya and people of generations after? Would Ramanuja and Madhwa go to an extent to dispute and negate some of Shankara’s thinking? The fundamental difference lies in how the relationship of atman with the Param-atman is defined.

If the clarity was there in Upanishads, then why such a varied interpretation? On one side, VA elaborates the element of self-surrender immensely and to the point of making it a means independent of Bhakti itself and whereas, Shankara negates the Bhakti and brings out Jnana. The Advaita considers the prime source of “Sansara” is beginning less ignorance (avidya), but Dvaita considers it as real. For sage Ramanuja, the world and the Shakti, which produces it, are both real whereas, Shankara makes clear distinction between that which is real and that, which is illusion caused by ignorance. While according to Sage Shankara, the knowledge means an intuitive experience of identity of the soul with all existence requiring rigorous self-control, the observance of all Niyamas and at the same time, keeping mental detachment from all objects of experience, Ramanuja believes such knowledge is insufficient for attaining liberation (moksha). Given such a great divide, how can we come to conclusion as to who is right or whose interpretation to go by?

you think, Nirotu, that Rig Veda talks in 'double voice' here, or does it offer a 'double choice'? If someone talks in a 'double voice', it means that his is a 'double talk' which is ambiguous, deceptive, and deliberately confusing. Is it so here in this statement of Rig Veda?

In a way, for the sake of argument, I would say yes! There is some degree of ambiguity as to what Vedas purport. For example, the first half of Veda emphasizes “Karmakanda”, the appeasement by rituals only, whereas the latter half dwells completely on “Jnanakanda”. In Vedanta (jnanakanda), we learn that the Lord teaches us in the Gita and in it he lashes out against the karmakanda. At one place in the Gita he says to Arjuna :"The Vedas are associated with the three qualities of sattva, rajas and tamas. You must transcend these three qualities. Full of desire, they (the practitioners of Vedic rituals) long for paradise and keep thinking of pleasures and material prosperity. They are born again and again and their minds are never fixed in samadhi, these men clinging to Vedic rituals”. Both “Karmakanda” and “jnanakanda” belong to the same Veda, yet you see Jnanakanda negating and lashing out karmakanda. I do have difficulty here, or perhaps, may be in my understanding.

the Advaita that 'lurks' behind the mahAvAkhyas of the Upanishads does not provide just 'one wing' for the bird that is the soul to fly in circles; it actually provides 'two wings', but exhorts the 'bird' to use 'its consciousness' rather than its senses in seeking the Truth.

Absolutely! I agree with you on this. In many truly realized souls, we do you find such a potent combination of both realities existing as singular awareness. A good example I find is in Jesus Christ; While Jesus knew Himself to be of the same nature as Brahman (Advaita), yet, He was aware of the Father (Brahman), and therefore, aware of Himself as the Son (atman), purely Dvaita. This is an outstanding example to mankind that in the manifest creation, the singular awareness of both the unity (Advaita) and the duality (Dvaita) co-exist and is needed. Because, Advaita has sprung up Dvaita in the manifest creation and, therefore, it is implicit that now Dvaita needs recognition of the Adviata to complete the journey. Therefore, Advaita and Dvaita co-exist which is what Jesus portrayed and also demonstrated through His life on earth.

Coming back to OP, “why is there antagonism between followers of Advaita and Dvaita? ”, I view that, any attempt to restrict Brahman to any particular attribute or quality will not only fail to give us the real Brahman but will also falsify and negate it. If sages like Shankara and Ramanuja, Madhwacharya have expounded the philosophy of Upanishads for the benefit of humanity, how can one ignore either one for the other? Would you agree that within Sanatana Dharma, a soul that realizes both realities will not fight to demonstrate the supremacy of his/her taste!!

Blessings,

[nirotu]

Dear Atanu:

Thank you! I appreciate your input.

you, by any chance, imply that the Advaita is absent or broken in the middle?

What exactly do you mean by “broken”? I do not see it that way and I hope neither do you as well. When you see the presence of a wave in the ocean, does it imply ocean was broken to form many waves? While Ocean and waves have the same nature, do we not refer to them by two different names? When we see a “spark” of a fire and the “fire”, are we not using two different names in spite of their identical nature? Obviously, the “two ness” is required to perceive and experience.

Similarly, when we refer to “atma” and “param-atma” as two entities, does it mean “param-atma” is broken into multiple atamans? I believe, something has happened in creation that has caused dual entities “atma” and “param-atma” to co-exist. Thus, duality underpins every thing that exists in nature through the process of creation.

One needs to stop looking into “either” “or” logic that is: either the pure one-ness of Adviata or that of oneness being broken or shattered in creation. Somewhere between these two extremes lies the reality in which the “one-ness” is transformed. I would not say Advaita has vanished in creation. Please refer to my previous posts where I have clearly said, “Advaita has sprung up its own seed called Dvaita”. It is the desire of the tree that the seed grow and become like its own. It is also the goal of that seed to become like the tree it came from. Therefore, both of these co-exist for our journey to be fruitful.

The way I understand is that Sri Ramana Maharishi in his ultimate state when he uttered, “I am that”, it could possibly have been said in reference to “Dvaita”. If everything is one or united already into one, there would not be any need for him to utter “I (Jivatma)” and “that (Paramatma)” as separate from each other.

Brahman is uncreated. Thus, if creation has to have any meaning at all, the creator has to stand apart from His creation. Secondly, for Him to pervade His creation, He must co-exist with His own creation. I believe, it is for this reason why Ramanuja and others alike never equated themselves to the Brahman. They knew that the power behind the creative movements of this universe belonged exclusively to the Brahman and nobody else. At the same time, they all realized the need for recognizing their true nature in relation to Brahman, which they considered as nothing short of Advaita. If one realizes this, in the context of creation, there won’t be any problem in understanding the role of Advaita as the destination while our existence in this creation that is purely dualistic.

Let me reiterate that I have never negated “Advaita” itself. I have only tried to place it in proper perspective. As for me, while Advaita finds in the mystery of Christ its fullest realization, the Advaita experience also helps to discover new depths in the same mystery. It is in this sense that Swami Abhishiktananda could truly say that the reading of the Upanishads helps us to penetrate more deeply into the mystery of the Lord as revealed in St. John’s Gospel. [“Abhishiktananda Seminar, Shantivanam Ashram, in southern India in 1977”]

Finally,

Moreover, Vishnu and Shiva unite in OM, which is one word of Sanatana dharma.”

If it were so, the OP by Ganeshprasad would not have raised the age-old question” Why is there so much antagonism between Vaishnav and Sheiva?“ Perhaps, you may want to take it up with him. This discussion is centered purely on that OP. Historically, there has been antagonism between the “Shaiva” and “Vaishnava” followers and it still goes on. Those familiar with Vaisnava thought will instantly understand that the claim to be God is as serious an offense to many Vaisnavas as it would be to many in the Abrahamic traditions. There exists a great theological divide which for centuries has separated those seeking to love, and those seeking to become, the Absolute Truth.

You may have been the one who recognizes both realities and I do respect that immensely, but I do believe that Advaita followers, in general, claim somehow that the experience they have is very “objective”, whereas, the experiences related by others as very “subjective” and prone to error. This happens when one places God in a theological box of personal liking. I am of the view that the origin of reality is both “subjective” and “objective” beginning with God. The wise ones, like yourself and those alike, who realize this, are truly happy leading a life knowing just that.

Blessings,

[atanu]

Dear Saidevo:

-- Both “Karmakanda” and “jnanakanda” belong to the same Veda, yet you see Jnanakanda negating and lashing out karmakanda. I do have difficulty here, or perhaps, may be in my understanding.

Namaste Nirotu,

You have all the answers there. First, Shri Krishna does not lash out against Vedic Rituals but points out that meditation is better than mere rituals performed with some goal. You must read Gita where Lord says that Vedas must be followed/practiced.

Well, while you may be correct in your assessment but the fact remains that there is a great theological divide between Shankara and Ramanuja, Madhwa. If Shankara was correct all along, do you think there would have been any dispute among Ramanuja, Madhwa, Chaitanya and people of generations after?

Your statement "I do have difficulty here, or perhaps, may be in my understanding." answers all questions. It is true of all minds, not yours alone. Difficulties are of the questioning mind alone and to minds of varying ripeness, different doctrines appeal and apply.

There is no doubt whatsoever that Brahman is ONE and also ALL (without ever leaving the ONE status).

OM

[atanu]

Dear Atanu:
What exactly do you mean by “broken”? I do not see it that way and I hope neither do you as well. When you see the presence of a wave in the ocean, does it imply ocean was broken to form many waves? While Ocean and waves have the same nature, do we not refer to them by two different names? When we see a “spark” of a fire and the “fire”, are we not using two different names in spite of their identical nature? Obviously, the “two ness” is required to perceive and experience.

Similarly, when we refer to “atma” and “param-atma” as two entities, does it mean “param-atma” is broken into multiple atamans? -

Namaste Nirotu,

A wave did not create itself. A wave has no independent existence. A wave will go next moment. A wave is nothing but swelling ocean and not a separate entity. The problem is identifying a wave as something comparable to the ocean, similar to identifying Ego as Atma. Param Atma never was broken. And there are not two entities of same denomination. Shruti says Atma was alone.

In isolation to the intelligent Seer, Ego is not Atma. Will is not Atma. Intellect is not Atma. Mind is not Atma. The Body is not Atma. Without knowing the ever awake Seer, we identify one of these things as Atma and say that there are two beings or that there are infinite beings.

Advaita recognizes (as taught in the Veda) that The SEER is EKO who is Rudra also.

Om

[atanu]

Dear Nirotu,

I have pointed out several times that believing and following Advaita Vada is not an emotional decision. On every earlier occassion, the discussions degraded (and a lady poster aptly enumerated the reasons in an earlier post). I simply attribute the differences to emotional reasons (adhering to one faith without opening up).

Advaita Vada directly stems from the necessity of knowing the Advaita Self. It is a logical necessity as below (repeated for the nth time):

The Fourth is thought of as that which is not conscious of the internal world, nor conscious of the external world, nor conscious of both the worlds, nor dense with consciousness, nor simple consciousness, nor unconsciousness, which is unseen, actionless, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable, indescribable, whose proof consists in the identity of the Self (in all states), in which all phenomena come to a cessation, and which is unchanging, auspicious, and non-dual. That is the Self; that is to be known.

• That is the Self; that is to be known" (Mandukya).
• It is unchanging, it is known as One, all phenomena come to cessation, it is the Self -- not another one.
• Self cannot be another one. It is unchanging, so number of other souls joining it as different entities is ruled out.
• It is Advaita. Number of other souls joining it yet remaining separate entities is ruled out.
• It is actionless. So, thoughts of serving it or actual tasks undertaken to serve it are not possible.
• It is not conscious of the inner or the outer. So, the consciousness of me and another is impossible.
• It is not unconsciousness either. So, it is aware of itself without inner or outer perceptions.
• It is the Self which is Brahman. So nothing exceeds it.

Om

PS: That does not invalidate the necessity of the mind and ego to bow down in pure Dvaita mode to God/Brahman/Advaita Atman. We simply do not call the ego, or the mind or the body as another Atma, who is the sole knower/seer and who has the sole will.

Om

[TatTvamAsi]

Namaste,

The answer to the original question of why there is so much antagonism between Advaitins & Dvaitins is this:

There isn't "so much antagonism" between the two.

The Dvaitins constant need to emphasize the superiority of Vishnu is, IMHO, the start of all the 'trouble' between the two sects.

The fact is that the message of the Scriptures is only as good as the vessel that receives it. Therefore, for varying (evolutionary) levels of beings, different messages are perceived through the study of the Vedas.

Having said that, those who have had a spontaneous experience of unity consciousness usually always talk about the unity of all things; animate & inanimate; validating Advaita.

People like Ramana Maharishi who have experienced the Self are strict Advaitins. The issues only arise when 'scholars' interpret the Scriptures. When the mind (manas) steps in and plays an active role (study of Scriptures), it does not and cannot perceive the Truth. Ultimately the mind, and all that is 'learned' through study as Ramana Maharishi stated, has to be transcended!

Those who have broken through the barrier and realized the Self constantly talk about the ineffable, immanent, yet transcendant nature of Brahman; confirming what the Vedas/Upanishads say.

Furthermore, Truth cannot be subjective as that would make it untruthful! So there is no such thing as "highest" or "lowest" Truth. If Truth is experienced, it has to be uniform among all.

Also, Dvaita seems to be a method where Bhakti is stressed as the supremacy of Vishnu is repeated. For jIvAs that are at a 'later/higher' evolutionary state, methods other than Bhakti such as Raja & Jnana Yoga are recommended.

Subham.