---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Dvaita and Advaita: A Reconciliation - alt.hindu #2828

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

   * Subject: Re: Dvaita and Advaita: A Reconciliation - alt.hindu #2828
   * From: manish@cadence.com (Manish Tandon)
   * Date: Fri, 9 Jun 1995 16:34:14 GMT
   * Apparently-To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
   * From news@cadence.com Fri Jun 9 12: 26:02 1995
   * Newsgroups: alt.hindu
   * Organization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
   * Sender: news@cadence.com

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

anand hudli <ahudli@silver.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
[...]
|>  At the risk of being criticized by both sides, especially by  Dvaitins
|>  who may find my attempt to bring Dvaita into the Advaitic fold obnoxious,
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is akin to saying, we have what you have and more.
Certainly is not in the spirit of reconciliation.

The correct attitude would be let us bring Dvaita and Advaita together
under Vedanta or some other neutral framework. By opening with "bring
Dvaita into Advaita" you have already set the tone that advaita is
infalliable and where there is a need for compromise, it will be dvaita
that will take the hit and there are several instance of this in your
post as I will point out.

|>  Advaita has a long tradition of reconciliation with other systems,
|>  to the extent they do not violate its own basic tenets. For
|>  example, concepts from Sankhya-Yoga and Nyaya-Vaiseshika are
|>  borrowed with a few changes.

Acintya bheda-abheda and dvaita also have recognized samkhya and nyaya and
share several views with them so advaita is not unique here.

|>  Let us look at the main tenets of Dvaita and consider them one by one.
|>  An often quoted verse capturing the philosophy of Madhva is:
|>
|>   SrIman madhvamate harih paratarah satyam jagat tattvato
|>   bhedah jIvagaNA hareranucarA nIcoccabhAvam gatAh  |
|>   muktir naijasukhAnubhUtir amalA bhaktih tatsAdhanam
|>   hyakshAdi tritayam pramANam akhilAmnAyaikavedyo harih ||
|>
|>  1) harih paratarah| Hari is the Supreme Lord and there is none
|>     superior to Hari. Hari is the One and Only Independent Reality.
|>
|>   There are two possible Advaitic interpretations here. a) Hari is the
|>   Brahman described in Vedanta.

This is the *only* correct interpretation, because sruti says so.

"param caparam ca brahma yad aumkarah" (Pr. 5.1) Aum is verily the higher
and the lower Brahman.

and "harih aum" (Ch. 8.1.1) Hari is Aum.

Also "so'dhvanah param apnoti tad visnoh paramam padam" (Ka. 1.3.9)
he who has the understanding of the driver reaches the supreme abode
of Vishnu. Further it says "purusan na param kincit,  sa kastha, sa
para gatih" (1.3.11).

|>  Brahman is the One and Only Reality.

Not so.

With regard to Brahman, sruti says "satyasya satyam iti" (Br. 2.3.6)
He is The True among the (many) true, i.e. the highest truth, the only
independent truth. It does not say He is the only truth. Jivas are also
true but they are not independent truths.

|>  sarvam khalvidam brahma, says the Chandogya Upanishad. When everything
|>  is Brahman, the question of superior and inferior reality does not
|>  arise. Thus, saying Brahman is the Supreme Lord or the Supreme Reality
|>  does not go against Advaita.

sarvam khalva idam brahman means "this whole world is Brahman" however
sruti also says "satyasya satyam iti" (Br. 2.3.6 - na iti, na iti) with
regards to Brahman, and "nityo nityanam, cetanas cetananam" (Ka. 2.2.13).
So jivas are also satya and nityam but Hari is The Truth among the true,
Eternal among eternals, etc. That is the teaching.

Sruti does *never* say "ekam satyam" or "ekam nityam" or "nityo anityanam".

|>  b) Some Advaitins may say that Hari is the Isvara and not the Nirguna
|>    Brahman. Even in this case, Harih paratarah stands!

No it does not. Using you own quote from later in this article:

        tasmAt kutarkam santyajya mumukShuh SrutimASrayet |
        Srutau tu mAyA jIveSau karotIti pradarSitam      || 8.68

        The aspirant for moksha should give up resorting to faulty
        logic and fix his conviction on Sruti. That the Jiva and
        ISvara are creations of Maya is shown in the Sruti.

"Ishvara is the creation of maya" - this is the filthiest of the advaitan
statements and absolutely no reconciliation is possible with one who
insists on using such lowly views.

That Ishvara is "brahman with the limiting adjunct of maya" itself is
questionable, to say he is "creation of maya" is complete nonsense.

Also, there is no mention of maya creating jiva and Ishvara in any of the
principal Upanisads or Vedanta as you Swami claims.

Rather sruti says, "purnam adah, purnam idam, purnat purnam udacyate"
(Br. 5.2.1),

"atma va idam eka evagra asit, sa aiksata lokan nu sraja iti" (At. 1.1.4)
directly refutes that the creator is Saguna Brahman since the word "atma"
is used which applies to the infinite Nirguna Brahman ("satyam jnanam anantam
brahma" Tr. 2.1.1).

The sutra "gunah cha na atma-sabdat" 1.1.6 unquestionably proves that creator
is Nirguna Brahman (FYI, this is from Baladev's Govinda Bhasya).

|>  And who is Isvara? He is Brahman with the limiting adjunct mAyA.

No sir. Yo will have to violate several srutis for that.

"tatha param brahma param brahantam...isam tam jnatvamrta bhavanti" (Sv 3.10)
Higher than that (that here refers to Rudra/Siva from the previous verse) is
Brahman, the Supreme ... knowing Him, the Lord, literally says "isam" i.e.
Ishvara, men become immortal. Further note the sutra 1.1.6

So Brahman *is* Ishvara.

This "with the limiting adjunct mAyA" is your dogma.

siddhataya ghanta pathatvaat, and this is the royal highway of philosophy.

|>  The standard position of Advaita regarding Isvara is as follows: while it
|>  is possible for each Jiva to become one with Brahman, it is impossible
|>  for a Jiva to become Isvara Himself. He is the controller of mAyA and is
|>   not controlled by it, as Jivas are.

Now there is another big problem. I have already shown that Hari *is*
Nirguna Brahman. Now what is the need for a seperate Ishvara and who is
that Ishvara? Is it hiranyagarbha?

The sruti does speak of lower and higher Brahman, "param caparam ca brahma",
"paramam brahma veda brahmaiva bhavati" (Mu. 3.2.9) etc. So clarification
is needed regarding the lower brahman. In fact so far I haven't found a
good one anywhere but am still looking.

|>     mAyAm tu prakRtim vidyAn mAyinam tu maheSvaram. Furthermore, there
|>  cannot be two or more Isvaras.

There certainly cannot be two (or more) Creators. We haven't setteled on
who is it that you refer to as Ishvara yet or do we even need a seperate one.

|> Thereby it follows that Isvara is the
|>  Supreme Ruler of the World and no Jiva can ever become ISvara.
|>  (Please see point 6 below.)
|>  Thus ISvarah paratarah fits very well with Advaita. Why is it
|>  that Hari is Isvarah? Why not other Gods?

Hari is paramam brahman and is also the creator as per the sutra 1.1.6

|>   agnirvai devAnAmavamo viShNuh paramah | tadantarA sarvA devatAh ||
|>  "Agni is the lowest and Vishnu is the highest among Gods. All other
|>   gods occupy positions that are in between." Thus says the Aitareya
|>   Brahmana. We, Advaitins must therefore accept Vishnu as the Supreme
|>   among Gods.

Thank you. I hope the advaitans here will be pleased to see this, I
have had differences with them on this.

|> 2) satyam jagat| The world is real.

Here I actually am with the advaitans so much so that I look at "jagan
mithya" meaning that this world is not the place for us to be since all
srutis speak of release from this world. So the world is mithya in the
sense that my neighbors house is mithya for me, i.e. is not my home.

|>  statement from BRhadAraNyaka upanishad:
|>  yatra vA asya sarvamAtmaivAbhUt tatkena kam jighret tatkena
|>  kam paSyet |
|>
|>  Where for whom all this has become the AtmA, who smells whom and with
|>  what? Who sees whom and with what?

To this we point out nityo nityanam cetanas cetananam.

And, we know that jiva is atomic in size, "eso 'nur atma" (Mu. 3.1.9), is neiter
female nor male nor neuter "naiva stri na puman esa na" (Sv. 5.10 ) etc. So
certainly there is no question of seeing, smelling, touching etc. after moksha
which is exactly what Yajnavalkya is telling Maitreyi in this passage.

So yatra tv asya sarvam atmaivabhut fits perfectly with dvaita and acintya-
bheda-abheda.

On the contrary, your lofty philosophy of advaita completly chokes on
"nityo nityanam cetanas cetananam".

|>  There cannot be two or more eternal realities as that would lead to
|>  what philosophers call "hopeless dualism."

I already said this is wrong and will expalin it further here.

"nityo nityanam cetanas cetananam eko bahunam yo vidadhati kaman"

Now this clearly speaks of the Lord Hari with regard to mukta jivas
since it says "nityan, cetanam" etc. which are not applied to the samsari
jivas and even more important is that it tells us that the jivas are
eternally dependent upon Hari, even in mukti, otherwise we would have to
assume that jivas simply are never liberated.

So there is certainly more than one eternal realities and Hari fulfills
the desires of the rest of the eternal realities.

So your philosophy here is nothing but "hopeless nihilism"!

|> 4) jIvagaNA hareranucarAh | The jivas are dependent or under the control
|>    of Hari. Right on the dot, according to the Advaitins. All jivas are
|>    under the control of  ISvara or Hari. By jIva, Advaitins mean Brahman
|>   with the limiting adjunct of the individual mAyA or ajnAna or avidyA.
|>   ISvara, however, is Brahman with the limiting adjunct of the collective
|>   mAyA, samaShTi, and there is not even a trace of rajas and tamas in
|>   Him.

I already pointed out that Hari is *not* the Ishvara that you talk about
because later you quoted "Ishvara is a creation of maya" which is ludicruous.

|> 6) muktir naijasukhAnubhUtih | Moksha is the realization of innate
|>    happiness of the self. Here, Dvaitins believe that the individual
|>    soul active enjoys felicity even after it attains moksha. The soul
|>    attains all its desires and enjoys bliss and pleasure. However, the
|>    soul does not have the power of creation which belongs exclusively to
|>    the Lord. Madhva does not hold that attaining Moksha is to be
|>    avoided, unlike some of the other Vaisnava sects.

Let me offer a correction here.

Baladev Vidyabhusana explicitly says that sayujaya is the highest form of
mukti and that bhakti especially when combined with vidya and vairagya
immediately causes release, "krashna-vapti-fala bhaktir-ekantatra-bhidhiyate,
jnana-vairagya-purva sa falam sadhyah prakashate" (Premeya Ratnavali 8.12)
He also cites Narayana Upanisad that says "sayujyam gacchati" which also
says the mukta jiva in sayujya participates in the eternal sport with Hari.

Also, the fact that sruti says "sayujyam gacchati" (Ch. 2.21.2) and "dva
suparna sayuja sakhaya" (Mu. 3.1.3) and the fact that Advaitans also regard
sayujya as the highest form of liberation only goes against the advaitic
interpretation of "yatra tv asya sarvam atmaivabhut" meaning Brahman alone is.

Since sruti says "dva suparna sayujya", two in sayujya, clearly means that
sayujya does not mean it all becomes absolutely one rather it only only means
"intimately connected" or "inseperable" but not one.

I believe, Ramanuja also said liberation is to be sought, so your statement
that "unlike some of the other Vaisnava sects" does not hold atleast not
against any major sect.

So in the Gaudias, it is only the later asampradayas like Hare Krishnas who
say that sayujya is impersonal liberation talk of avoiding even thinking
about liberation.

|>    In his commentary on Brahma Sutras (Ch. 4 Section 3), Sankara
|>    BhagavatpAda says that the soul of one who knows the Saguna Brahman
|>    or the Conditioned Brahman goes to Brahmaloka.

This brahma-loka is the abode of Brahma/Hiranyagarbha which is why the
word "parantakale" (at the time of dissolution) is used with it.

"te brahma-lokesu parantakale paramrtah parimucyanti sare" (Mu. 3.2.6)

The jivas who go their still worship Hari!

"ya ete brahma-loke tam va etam deva atamanam upasate" (Ch. 8.12.6)

|>    The soul stays there
|>    enjoying bliss and all divine powers except the power of creation
|>    which belongs exclusively to ISvara.

Well, they worship the Para Brahman there and thereby enjoy bliss.
Not otherwise.

|>    What happens to those who meditate on the Saguna Brahman?

First clear this whole mess about Saguna and Nirguna Brahman. That Hari is
Saguna Brahman is not acceptable, so any further discussion on this is but
a waste of time.

|>  7) amalA bhaktih tatsAdhanam | The means of achieving Moksha is
|>     uncontaminated Bhakti.

Sruti also says that, "tam he devam atma-buddhi-prakasam mumuksur vai saranam
aham prapadye" (Sv. 6.18), "upasate purusan ye hy akamas te sukram etad
ativartanti dhirah" (Mu. 3.2.1) and several others.

|>      Krishna clearly states that bhakti and the worship of the
|>      unmanifested (Brahman)  both lead to the same goal. Krishna also
|>      adds that the meditation on the unmanifested Brahman is very
|>      difficult and thus recommends the path of Bhakti to Arjuna.

Thats your misinterpretation of that section. In sruti we clearly see that
bkakti of the omnipresent and even the unmanifest is prescribed.

"divyo hy amurtah purusah" (Mu. 2.1.2), "sarva bhutantaratma" (1.2.3),
"justam yada pasyaty anyam isam" (Mu. 3.1.2)  since it is beyond doubt
that Hari is both the manifest and the unmanifest, the higher and the lower
brahman as per sruti.

Shankara is at fault here saying that the bhaktas are fools who worship the
Ishvara/Saguna brahman who is a creation of Maya (as per your other Swami)
just as jiva is a creation of maya.

|>      Understand that Krishna is the Soul (Atman) of all Beings.

Yes and that means He is Nirguna brahman and not Saguna who is a creation
of maya per your dogma.

|>  8) akShAditritayam pramANam | The means of right knowledge are perception,
|>     inference, and scriptural testimony, ie. pratyaksha, aumAna, and Sabda.
|>
|>     Hence, logic will be of limited use in dealing with suprasensous
|>     knowledge. It may only be useful in showing the possibility of
|>     transcendental facts, such as Brahman, Atman, etc., but it is incapable
|>     of conclusively establishing those facts. We need Sruti to reveal truths
|>     that are beyond the range of the senses. Again, when it comes to Sruti,
|>     Dvaitins needlessly use extensive logical machinery to interpret even
|>     direct, unambiguous statements. If they think perceptual knowledge and
|>     logic take precedence over Sruti whenever it is in conflict with them,
|>     let them read the KhanDanakhanDakhAdya of SrIharSha MiSra, where he
|>     systematically routs the logical arguments of the logicians using logic!

I don't know a lot about dvaitans but with acintya bheda-abheda, Baladev uses
little logic in his Govinda Bhasya and explains all the sutras *directly*
using sruti vakyas. All that is required is that sruti should be considered
as a whole, in full context.

You dogma says there are four "mahavakyas". Why impose hierarchy on sruti?
So here we use logic to establish that you are wrong.

|>      Srutyartham viSadIkurmo na tarkAdvacmi kincana |
|>      tena tArkikaSankAnAmatra ko'vasaro vada         || 8.67
|>
|>      I explain the meaning of Sruti; I do not explain it merely
|>      from a logical standpoint. Tell me, where is the opportunity
|>      to raise doubts about the logic here ?

Let me offer another correction here. Logic is the scienc of reasoning, it
is not something purely mundane. Advaitans themself use logic, it is only
when cornered that they talk of denouncing logic.

But we know if we bring logic in, advaita disappears like a hare's horn, a
fact acknowleged by none other than Madhusudana saraswati himself about
Nyayamrata of Vyasatirtha.

|>      tasmAt kutarkam santyajya mumukShuh SrutimASrayet |
|>      Srutau tu mAyA jIveSau karotIti pradarSitam      || 8.68
|>
|>      The aspirant for moksha should give up resorting to faulty
|>      logic and fix his conviction on Sruti. That the Jiva and
|>      ISvara are creations of Maya is shown in the Sruti.

That is is completly baseless has already been shown. "balagra-sata-bhagasya
satadha kalpitasya ca; bhago jivah sa vijneyah sa canantyaya kalpate" (Sv. 5.9)
Further it describes thta jiva is neither male nor female, smaller than the
smallest, greater than the greatest (borrowing the qualities of its cause
Para Brahman) etc.

Even in Gita, Krishna says "mamaivamso jiva-loke  jiva-bhutah sanatanah"!

Where did this Swami got the idea that jiva is creation of maya?

|> 9) akhilAmnAyaikavedyo harih | Hari, and Hari alone,  is to be
|>    known from all the scriptures.
|>
|>    The Brahma sutra 1.1.3, SAstrayonitvAt, says that Brahman, Hari
|>    is to be known from the scriptures. Since Brahman is the only
|>    ultimate Reality, all descriptions in the scriptures, even if
|>    they apparently refer to other deities, really describe Him.

Hari, who is the Nirguna brahman, is to be known thru the scriptures is
indeed correct. "tam tva aupanisadam purusam prcchami" (Br. 3.9.28) "that
is the person taught in the Upanisads about whom I ask you".

So advaitans are wrong in saying that Brahman cannot be known but only
inferred from the scriptures, that He is completly indescribeable, etc.

|>    The great teachers of Vedanta have always felt the need to
|>   reconcile differing views with their own. In fact, the first
|>   chapter of Brahma Sutras is called samanvaya adhyAya or the
|>   chapter of reconciliation. Let us follow this example so that
|>   we will be spiritually enriched by different schools of Vedanta.

It is indeed a good aim but I have to say that your means are far from fair.

|>   In closing, I would like to quote the following from the dvAdaSa stotra
|>   of Madhva:
|>
|>    akShayam karma yasmin pare svarpitam
|>    prakShayam yAnti duhkhAni yannAmatah  |
|>    akSharo yo'jarah sarvadaivAmRtah
|>    kukShigam yasya viSvam sadAjAdikam   |
|>    prINayAmo vAsudevam
|>    devatAmaNDalAkhaNDamaNDanam  || (8.11)
|>
|>   By dedicating work to Whom it becomes imperishable, by uttering Whose
|>   names miseries melt away, Who is indestructible, undecaying, the nectar of
|>   divinity, in Whose belly lies the universe beginning with Brahma, and Who
|>   is the integral ornament of the assemblage of all gods, we propitiate that
|>   VAsudeva.
|>
|>   SrI vAsudevArpaNam |

Anand, I have read your postings in the past but have to say that this one was
rather unfair for most part but then equally futile would be our attempt "to
bring advaita into dvaitic fold". Had you atleast named the article correcly,
adopting dvaita into advaita or something of that nature, I'ld have completly
ignored it since I have withdrawn from the net discussions for most part.

om name bhagvate vasudevaya!

|>  Anand

Manish

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

   * Prev: Re: NEED INFO ABOUT HINDU GODS
   * Next: Charter of Alt.Hindu Now Online
   * Index: GHEN: Alt.Hindu Archives June 1995 : Part 1
   * Thread: Mail Thread Index

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