Namaste,
Here are some excerpts from the Youtube talk in Kannada on Advaita by Sri SatAvadhAni Ganesh followed by some responses. No doubt Sri ShatAvadhAni Ganesh is a very knowledgeable and distinguished scholar. But in this particular talk, not sure what his intention is, with his enthusiasm to defend Advaita, he goes to the extreme of labeling V.Advaitins / Dvaitins / Ishwarawadis - who believe Ishwara or God as real, as nAsthikAs / athiests.
This extreme view which goes against the Vedic as well as popular dictionary meaning of nAstikas / athiest, creates confusion and disintegrates Hindu society/Vedantins, belonging to many different traditions / schools. The acceptance of Ishwara / God merely as a relative reality does more harm than good as it leads to misleading ideas like - "There is no God or any God is fine", "All religions are true/same", "Hinduism is not a religion but a way of life", "Spiritual but not religious" and so on. Non Hindu, Abrahamic religions can easily use these ideas against Hindus to confuse and convert them.
So some responses in support of Vaidhika Asthika SarvEshwarawada which is essentially SanAtana Dharma-wada, is provided here in defense of Hindus who believe in the reality of Ishwara/God/world, which is very much evident in the Veda/Sutra/Gita.
--------------------------------------------------------
S. Ganesh (SG):
Veda is not a must for Advaita jnyAna. Ramana Maharshi was not a Vedic scholar and did not engage in any Vedically prescribed karma/varnAshrama dharma, but still he achieved it.
DhArmika:
The above claim makes Traditional Advaita, avaidhika or adhArmika. Traditional VedAntins / advaitins should reject this as it goes against Sri Shankara's intention to protect Veda/VarNashrama dharma and unbroken guru-shishya parampara also. What is rejected in vedAnta is kAmya karma and not performance of Veda vihita Nitya karma or sva-dharma or yagya or sacrifice for the good of the world, which is the essence of Veda.
The all pervading and indwelling truth of Brahman and the identity of the Atman with Brahman is taught only in the Vedas. No other scripture in the world has this idea of God as Brahman established in all as the ultimate inner Self or paramAtma. It is also not possible to know this all pervading and indwelling God/Brahman based on pratyaksha or parOksha or pure logic. The claim that Veda is not needed for knowing Brahman goes against the Brahma Sutra - shAstrayOnitvAth. Sri Shankara even interprets that Atman/Brahman is the yoni or source of ShAstra/Veda.
No doubt, the Self that abides in all is indubitable and immutable and exists by itself. But identification of the same with Brahman which is everywhere is known only through the ShAstra and attained only by engaging in one'sown sva-dharma followed by service to a living Guru who is an embodiment of shAstra/Ishwara/Brahman.
Identification of Vedic God/Brahman as the indubitable universal Self of all, indirectly points to the world of name/forms as the body that derives its existence and sustenance from the Self. So it follows that Vedic words and the universe of name/forms arise, remain and return back to Ishwara/Brahman in the form of the universal Self.
If Sri Ramana has lived a sAtvik life with values like viveka, vairAgya, ahimsa, sarvabhUta daya bhAva, brahmacharya and so on, he should be considered as conforming to the Vedic life of a sAdhu/sanyasi treading the path of Nivrutti dharma. It is also possible that he would have studied/practiced Veda/dharma formally in his previous life. As long as one is embodied, all human perception and actions like eating food and so on will be in the form of a yagya performed in the fire of consciousness manifesting physically as the vaishwanara agni. JnAnIs are aware of this and ajnAnIs are not.
Also Sri Ramana's apparent life style of not conforming to the vedic traditional sanyasa, is an exception and this cannot be made as a rule for all vedantins/Hindus. But it is also a fact He was an embodiment of renunciation or Sacrifice without a trace of any negativity or adharma.
SG:
Veda is pramAna because it teaches Advaita which is proved in experience. Yes, there is no world in deep sleep. But still, when we wake up there is world right? But this question does not arise in deep sleep. So the world seen in waking state should be a product of ajyAna / Ignorance.
DhArmika:
It makes no sense to reject veda pramANa initially based on Sri Ramana's example and accept it now.
Just because body/world is not cognized in deep sleep, does not mean it does not exist. The body continues to exist in all the three states of waking/dreaming and deep sleep. No experience is possible without the existence of a sound body/mind/intellect attended by consciousness.
It does not matter even if the entire world of plurality/body is made of ajyAna / mAyA, as long as it is in the control of Ishwara/Self/Brahman and has it's origin abode and destination in Him only. Veda is pramANa because it teaches the entire universe as the body of God/Ishwara on whom every being is absolutely dependent for existence. This is very much experiential also.
According to the great epic poet KalidAsa, Godess pArvati symbolizes the word/Om/veda and Parameshwara symbolizes the meaning. If Veda is the word, the Self/God/Brahman is the meaning. They both form one single whole of Brahman. The world/veda as a dependent reality glorifies and reveals the absolute truth of Brahman.
SG:
All non-Advaitic views accept desha/kAla (space/time) as absolute. But Science has proved the relativity or non-absolute nature of space/time. When this is accepted it leads to Advaita. Space/time is born from ajyAna.
DhArmika:
Science does not accept the Self or Brahman as absolute, either. Religion or philosophy is beyond science and is a matter of heart or unconditional love for Truth/God/supreme being who is everywhere.
If everything in space/time is unreal, then the above statement which is made in space/time also becomes unreal. As the absolute Brahman is everywhere it should be in space/time also. So there is a need for anyone professing any world view to accept their own thoughts/words/deeds as real or dependently real. Non-Advaitic views accept space-time entities as dependent or paratantra on Ishwara/Brahman who is independent / Swatantra. They also look upon space/time as verily Brahman. The absolute is everywhere and reveals through the relative and all relations are attributed to the Absolute alone. If there is no relative it becomes impossible to know and attain the absolute which is all pervading. The worldly relations like Father, mother, child, teacher, student and so on is possible because of the presence of the absolute Ishwara/Brahman in all of them.
vEdAs teach that the Self/Brahman is the source of everything including space/time. (AtmanA AkAshah sambhootaha, akAshAd vAyuh, vAyoragnih ...so on.) So that implies that space/time/universe can potentially exist in the Self/Ishwra/Brahman who remains as its source / controller and that makes it saguna/savishesha. Veda or the sacred syllable OM and entire human perception as a yagya is the connecting link between the relative and the absolute.
Even if it is said that space/time comes from ajyAna/mAya, Ishwara/Brahman remains as the source/abode/controller of that ajyAna/mAya which is His achintyAbhuta shakti. Even though ajyAna potentially exists in Brahman/Ishwara, He is not affected by it.
Also, Sri Krishna in the B.Gita identifies himself with Time only. (kAlosmi lokaih kshayakruth pravruttah). The relative world is the expression and glory of the absolute Self. Rejecting the same makes the absolute totally unknowable.
SG:
Jagat is nothing but name/form. There is no substance in it. It is just made of avidya.
Dharmika:
This is a myopic view as it does not SEE the nirupAdhika / unlimited, Ishwara / Brahman indwelling in all the many name/form/body as the antaryAmi / inner controller / paramAtma / ultimate Self. Jagat/mAya is like zero. By itself it has no value. But it gains value when it is with any non-zero number. As mAya is always associated with and in the control of Ishwara/universal Self, it will always be real. It will be manifested during srushti and withdrawn during pralaya per the sankalpa of Ishwara. When it is withdrawn, it exists in Him indistinguishably in a subtle form. When it is expanded, Brahman/Ishwara alone is SEEN through all the many name/forms.
All non-Vedic views identify every name/form with that particular entity only or even deny reality to it as in the Buddhistic view. But in the Vedic view, identification of every name/form identifies that particular entity and culminates in the Ishwara/Brahman indwelling in it. That is why the entire universe is a sacred manifestation of Ishwara/God for vedantins/Hindus.
VedAs also teach Brahman as the source/abode/destination of all name/forms. (Yato vA imAni bhUtAni jAyante...). Though this is taken as tatastha lakshana / superficial attribute in Advaita, it cannot be denied in vyavahAra / transactional world as the BMI/world derives its existence from the indwelling Self/Ishwara.
There is a need to do Brahma drushti as opposed to shunya drushti, with every prateeka/name/form according to Brahma Sutra.
SG:
Jagat is made of space/time which is rooted in avidya. How do you say that jagat is made of avidya? because it is seen only in waking and not in deep sleep. It is not possible to find the root of avidya as it is in the realm of space/time. Kasyeyam avidya? Pricchchakastavaiva says Shankara. Avidya/mAya arises/exists in the mind of the person who is asking. It does not exist in a jnyAni.
Dharmika:
Sri Shankara's teachings should be understood based on the context as Prichchaka is also Brahman!
As long as Advaita jnyAni is conscious of another ajyAni prichchaka / ignorant questioner as a second entity, he cannot be a Advaita / non-dual jnyAni. Avidya/body/jagat will continue to exist even in deep sleep. Ishwara and jyAnis like Shankara perform avatAra, taking a body to establish dharma. This happens due to satya sankalpatva guna or the ability to voluntarily using / controlling ajyAna/mAya as a tool as opposed to ordinary beings like us who are controlled by AjyAna/mAya/ due to baggage of past karma.
Sri Shankara's intention here is to show that ajyAni/prichchaka cannot limit or oppose a jyAni and will always remain subservient to a jnyAni. He also teaches "BrahmAshrayA triguNAtmikA mAyA asti" - mAyA or ajyAna exists as a dependent entity on Brahman". Both the ajyAni pruchchka and Jyani are revealved in jnAna or Brahman only.
Avidya/mAya is the unexplainable energy / shakti and is rooted in Ishwara/Atman/Brahman only. That is why it is impossible to know the same.
SG:
Jagat which is experienced is not denied but accepted as vyAvahArika satya / transactional reality which is ultimately not real.
DhArmika:
This is like having double standards. Accepting Ishwara/Jagat only for name sake. This creates another kind of bheda or split in reality which is always one. So non-traditional Advaitin is torn between two dimensions of satya and mithya. It is impossible to align one's thoughts/words/deeds and engage in any kind of sAdhana including acts like Ishwara / Guru puja / charity / tapasya, with such an understanding. All Vedic/dhArmic acts even though coming under vyavahAra can lead to paramArtha when it is performed as a yagya / an offering to the indwelling Ishwara, as opposed to non-vedic/selfish/adhArmic acts which are just body centered.
B.Gita teaches yagyArthAth karmano anyatra lokoyam karma bandhanah and Sri Shankara explicitly identifies yagya with Vishnu based on the Vedic teaching yagyo vai Vishnu. To support traditional advaitins, it can be said that the Sarvashakta SarvAntaryAmi Ishwara is capable of granting Advaita or kaivalya mOksha by withdrawing everything into himself. But until this is attained there is a need to accept yagya or vyavahAra with Ishwara as satya or real.
SG:
As the world is experienced by everybody there exists an agreement by all that it exists. But there is variety and difference in individual experiences of the world. The same coffee is experienced by all differently. The dream world is different for all. So it is impossible to find one common truth of jagat that is agreeable to all. But there is agreement with everyone that there is no world/experience in deep sleep. So Advaita must be agreeable to all.
DhArmika:
The fact that there is agreement in the existence of difference and variety in individual experience in waking / dreaming state supports Dvaita/tAratamya and It cannot be said that it is a product of mere ajyAna as all the variety is seen in jyAna only. Deep sleep itself is a product of tamas or ajyAna and that is why nothing is known in that sate. It is also a state where all BMI is completely surrendered and the as per Vedanta jivatma is in a state of communion with the all pervading and indwelling paramAtma/Ishwara.
As already mentioned the body/world continues to exist in all the three states. Even though there is variety and difference in individual experience there is also commonality or oneness. The prAna / Air that sustains all is One and there should be no disagreement there. That is why Vedas herald prANa as pratyaksha/visible Brahman. In fact every individual embodied being is absolutely dependent on all the five elements for existence. These elements are the devatas who are more permanent than humans and they are all teaching/practicing sanAtana dharma which simply means parArtha karma / unconditional / selfless service to others according to one's capability. The interdependence that exists between all the entities / beings in the three worlds (deva, manushya and tiryak) cannot be denied. We owe our existence to all the three worlds and so there is a need for dhArmic individuals to return this favor in the form of performance of one's duty or dharma towards the three worlds and keep the wheel of dharma moving. There cannot be any disagreement here among traditional vedantins and honest truth seekers. Truth is always integral as it is always associated with dharma and cannot be compartmentalized into particular views like Advaita/Dvaita/VishishtAdvaita. But all such traditional Vedic views could be rolled into one single whole when the entire universe is looked upon as that Supreme being.
SG:
The intent of VedAnta is not to talk about creation/sustenance/destruction. It simply wants jivas to realize their true Satchidananda Brahma swarupa which appears to be forgotten. Every other religion has the fear of losing their existence and hence they continuously try to put down others for their existence. But Shankara's Advaita does not have that fear as it is based on the immutable Self that cannot be stolen by anyone.
Dharmika:
Shankara's advaita tradition needs to accept the reality of creation/sustenance/destruction of the body/world also in order to claim the unbroken line of Guru-Shishya parampara or Teacher-Student relationship. As per the Veda / Gita / Brahma Sutra , Brahman/Ishwara as the indwelling Self, is the cause for the same.
It is also important to realize that Vedanta is teaching jivas how to live in Samsara and not to escape from the same. The path to attain the Satchidananda Brahman is dharma comprising of pravrutti and nivrutti. Even Sanyasis have to follow the dos and don'ts of Veda as long as they are embodied in order to attain Brahman.
Only non-vedic religions will have the fear of losing their existence as they are not based on Truth and Dharma. Vedic religion Or Dharma is sanatana or eternal as it is dependent on and protected by the sarvAntaryAmi Ishwara who is established as the true inner Self of all. Every embodied jiva will always try to protect it's body and everything that belongs to it. In the same way Ishwara who is the universal Self, always remains as the protector of the world/prakriti which is in the form of the body. He performs avatAra to protect sAdhus, destroy evil and sustain dharma.
Unfortunately Non-traditional Advaitins cannot claim to protect veda/dharma, which is also considered to be sanAtana / eternal.
SG:
Is there experience of bheda in deep sleep? Bheda-wAdins cannot answer this question and they have to accept ikya/Advaita.
Dharmika:
The oneness or aikya with Brahman is not known in deep sleep either. Infact nothing is known in deep sleep as it is a state of ignorance. The body which is different from the Self continues to exist even in the deep sleep state.
As already explained, deep sleep is a state where the BMI of the jiva is completely surrendered onto the Ishwara established as the all pervading/indwelling ultimate Self / paramAtma. Just because someone is in deep does not mean they become one with either the body or the Vishwaroopi Ishwara. Advaitins have to be bheda-wadins as long as they live and act through a body. They also have to accept the difference between the Self and body/world in all the three states.
SG:
That which comes to the grasp of senses is limited by space/time. If God is limited to one name/form he becomes limited. If He is beyond the grasp of senses then He must be nirvishEsha / nirAkAra. Then why is vaidhika Advaita darshana is still called as Astika darshana? It is only oupachArika.
DhArmika:
Vedic Ishwara is Vishwaroopi, SarvAntaryAmi and so SarvanAma vAchya and SarvarUpavEdya. He is not limited to one particular name/form. Yes, He is beyond the grasp of senses but still He is capable of taking divine beautiful form to bless/protect His devotees. He provides divine senses/eyes for the devotee to experience the same. In B.Gita the Lord Sri Krishna, provides divine eyes for arjuna to visualize His universal form.
If God/Brahman is unknowable then he will never be known. If he is known then there is no need to know him. But Veda/Sutra/Gita urges man to know Ishwara/Brahman as the sarvAntaryAmi.
Traditional Advaita darshana is Astika darshana because it accepts Veda/Ishwara/Dharma as a means to attain Brahman. The embodied self or the jiva roopi Brahman who sustains the body/world is the prasiddha Brahman/Ishwara. This prasiddha sarvAntaryami Brahman / Ishwara is the same as aprasiddha or veda prasiddha sarvAntaryAmi Nirguna Brahman. This is how Shankara teaches in the Brahma Sutra bhAshya.
The teacher of Nirguna Brahman will always be SaguNa. The very name Shankara means doer of good, who is obviously saguna and every AchArya coming in the line of Sri Shankara is saguna. Nirvishesha and NirguNa can also mean nirasta sakala vishesha/guna, one who surpasses all qualities / attributes.
As Vaidhika darshana also teaches SarvAntaryAmi Saguna Brahman it is Asthika darshana and it is not aupachArika. It can never be nAstika darshana as Vedic reality Brahman is ever existing.
SG:
All Saguna Ishwara paramArtha vAdhis are based on the idea of "My God". If Aham BrahmAsmi is ahankAra then "my God" is mamakAra which is bigger than ahankAra. This obviously leads to infighting based on my God is superior than yours and so on.
To give a worldly example it will be better if the head of the country has no relatives or attachments as he can render a selfless governance. If the ruler has a large family then it may lead to lot of partiality, nepotism, family hegemony and so on.
DhArmika:
This is a very loose argument. MamakAra is dependent on ahankAra only. They always go together. AhankAra and mamkAra with respect to worldly entities for selfish gains are bad and this can be overcome only when all beings including the King consider themselves as servants of the all pervading indwelling Ishwara. What is needed is non-attachment and a sense of duty or dhArmic relation with the world - not total negation of the world.
Not all unmarried or bachelors are selfless and likewise not all married people are selfish. It all depends on how dhArmic/duty bound the ruler is. Even such unmarried selfless people / rulers don't directly drop from the heavens. They always come from dharmic / duty bound parents/family. Even such unmarried rulers don't rule single handedly. They will still have to delegate work among their ministers and look upon all the people as their family. A true king will always look upon his subjects as his own children and the entire universe as one family, right?
Treating the entire universe as one's own self is real selflessness and not negation of everything. AhankAra and mamakAra with respect to body/prakrithi is dUshana. But the same can be a bhUshaNa when one identifies oneself as a shesha/dAsa/servant of the sarvAntaryAmi Ishwara.
SG:
Sat Chit Ananda are not three different entities. They all point to the same Brahman. Just like the water in all the rivers and the ocean is one and the gold in all the ornaments is one, the chaitanya or consciousness that is shining in all name/forms is One.
DhArmika:
The above actually supports sarvavyApaka sarvanAma vAchya Ishwara also. Vedic view is to SEE the same Ishwara/Brahman in all name/forms. Only then, there can be paraspara bhAvana / mutual respect.
The SatChidAnanda Brahman is revealed through all name/forms and such a Brahman is SarvanAma vAchya (denoted by all names) and so GunapUrna (full of auspicious attributes). Such as Brahman unconditionally supports all name/forms and nirguna also as He is unaffected by the prAkritic gunas/ajyAna.
SG:
Everything in pratyaksha is relative. How about divine words? There are words from Allah, Jihova and also Vedas - If they are true they have to teach the same. But they differ from each other. So Advaitins take only their inner experience as absolutely true and everything else is accepted as relative truth.
DhArmika:
If everything in pratyaksha is relative and so unreal then the above statement also becomes unreal. Vedic words and dhArmic actions that are revealing the true Self/Brahman cannot be relative/unreal. Vedic words and the ideal of dharma as opposed to other scriptures are real/eternal/sanAtana as they are rooted in the absolute real Self and act as a bridge or connecting link between the relative world and the absolute.
All other words that ignores/covers/distorts the indwelling Brahman/Truth are unreal as they are just body based and transitory. By grouping/rejecting apourusheya Veda along with all pourusheya adhArmic scriptures, you are doing devahelana / great disservice to Devas and Dharma.
Vedic God is universal as He pervades and resides in all. This is not the case with non-vedic views. Vedas gain credibility because it identifies the entire universe as the body of God on whom every being whether he believes in the Vedas/Vedic God or not, absolutely depends for existence. This is very much experiential.
SG:
Advaitins do not reject IshwaravAdis. They accept that worshipping Ishwara is necessary. But they also say there is something beyond Ishwara also. When it is realized that Ishwara swaroopa is not different from jiva chaitanya then the name/form of Ishwara does not exist. If someone says we are now convinced that Brahman is everything and so when can they stop doing vaidhika kriyas like sandhyavandana? - then Advaitins will say you continue doing until one day it automatically drops off.
Dharmika:
There is nothing that is beyond Ishwara according to B.Gita (7:7). But still it can be said that unconditional Bhakti / Prema / dharma / jyAna which is the essence of Veda is beyond Ishwara. It is the shakti or glory or divine name of Ishwara that acts as the connecting link between Ishwara and Jiva, without mixing up their swaroopa. Infact Veda is the sound form or energy of Ishwara only.
There is no meaning in just mechanically doing vaidhika kriya and Ishwara puja when it is fully known that Ishwara is not real. It is foolish to continue doing these dhArmic acts knowing fully well that all of that is illusion and still expect it to fall off automatically. This shows that non-traditional advaitins are neither here nor there with regard to performance of vedically prescribed dharma as a yagya or worship of Ishwara.
Every Vedic act precedes with a resolve or sankalpa. Even when traditional advaita sanyasis drop off their yagnyopaveeta there is a sankalpa of surrendering everything to Ishwara/vAsudeva. The trikAla Ishwara puja is not dropped at all and will continue until they live.
Vaidhika nitya karma like sandhyavandana and pancha maha yagya is performed by all traditional vedantins for the universal good. It is not done for any personal gain or to attain moksha. Vedic injunction is to speak the truth and perform dharma - Satyam vada, dharmam chara and there is no question of dropping the same at any point of time. That is the reason why the Lord/JnAnIs like Shankara perform avatArAs to protect dharma that sustains the world.
SG:
If IshwaravAdis want to continue to hold that Ishwara is a separate reality it is because of their abhimAna or desire. Advaitins have no objection to it. But they should not expect advaitins to accept the same.
Dharmika:
Iswarawadis have the right to defend as non-traditional advaitins are rejecting Veda/dharma and on top of that, labeling them as nAstikAs. Instead of finding fault in each other one needs to properly reconcile based on the shAstra.
The claim of IshwaravAdis is that bheda and sambandha between Ishwara and jagat in the form of Atma-shareera or swatantra-paratantra is taught in the Veda. Even Advaitins cannot deny this as it is explicitly taught in the antaryAmi brAhmaNa (PrithivyAm antaro yam prithivi na veda yasya prithivi shareeram, Atmano antaro yamAtma na veda yasya Atma shareeram and so on). The difference and oneness that obtains between the Self and body is experiential also. Advaitins also have to accept the bheda and sambandha that obtains between parmArtha/Self and the body at least in vyavahAra. Existence of bheda and tAratamya between every name/form also in relation to the Self cannot be denied by anyone. Advaita when unfolded yields Dvaita and they point to each other. Advaita can also mean "dharma dvaita" (dvaita for the sake of dharma) similar to Ahimsa which also means "dharma himsa" (himsa for the sake of dharma).
SG:
Sri Shankara in his concluding comments to the Brahma Sutra "anAvrutti ShabdAt anAvrutti ShabdAt" - says even Ishwarawadis who don't have eligibility to realize Nirguna Brahman, will also attain moksha.
Dharmika:
The above proves that Sri Shankara accepts Saguna Brahman / Ishwara and Ishwarawada as real. There is no choice also as Brahma sutra does not support Jiva Ishwara ikya as it clearly says a mukta cannot engage in Jagad vyApAra and attains only AnandasAmya or the same / similar level of bliss as Ishwara/Brahman. Brahma sUtra is also known as ShAreeraka MImAmsa which supports the Vedic view that the world is dependent on Brahman as it's body.
According to B.Gita complete surrender to Ishwara is a must for all, Advaitins included, in order to conquer mAya / kAma / Krodha. Sri Krishna also calls all humans as mUdAh / ignorant, who do not identify Him as sarvabhUta maheshwara / supreme God.
SG:
Ishwarawada has caused more damage to the society as there has been so many wars and fights over supremacy of one god over another. So Ishwarawada should give way for Brahmawada.
Vaidhika:
Yes, fight on the supremacy of one god over another happens as long as Ishwara is restricted to one particular name/form. But when Ishwara is SEEN in everything in jagat and vice versa, which is essentially the Vedic view, there cannot be any chance for infighting. Infact Ishwara/Brahman in the form of prANA is the connecting link that unites and sustains all name/forms/beings. The entire Universe is Him only and everything is established in Him. This should put an end to all sectarian conflicts. Seeing the same Ishwara in all leads to paraspara bhAvana and samatva also which is real Brahmatva. So sarvAntaryAmi Ishwarawada and Brahmawada are one and the same.
SG:
Advaita is not monism. It is not One or even Oneness. It means not-two. In deep sleep this not-two ness is experienced.
DhArmika:
Actually denying ONE and claiming 'Not-two' points to inseparable oneness. In the deep sleep state the BMI still exists even though they are not cognized. Body and Soul are neither one nor two but inseparably one. Every experience including waking/dreaming proves the inseparable oneness or Not-two-ness that obtains between the subject and the object. When Brahman is realized as the sarvAtman or the universal Self supporting the entire universe as body, it leads to V.Advaitic or Dvaitic Monotheism which cannot be denied by Advaitins, at least in vyavahAra. That sarvashakta Ishwara is capable of granting Advaitic kaivalya moksha if the sAdhaka desires the same.
SG:
Believers in God are kind of nAstikas - because they accept reality of Brahman as well as the world. That means the world is competing with God for existence. If it is said that the world is in the control of God then to that extent it is half-truth or apUrNa satya and this alone is called as mithya in Advaita.
If there is world then there is no Brahman and vice versa. They both cannot co-exist just like Snake and Rope cannot Co-exist. So accepting the reality of the world/snake amounts to denying the reality of Brahman, which is nothing but nAsthikatva or atheism.
DhArmika:
Non-traditional advaitins are better off just presenting their view or remaining silent, instead of debunking vaidhika vedantins / Ishwarawadis / BhAgavatas. If they do then they will contradict themselves as the non-dual Self is nirguna (attributeless) and nishkriya (actionless) and so can never engage in any kind of act like debating or even teaching. Nondual attribute-less entity ever remains unknowable also.
Vaidhikas consider those who do not accept veda/Ishwara as nAstikas. Even non-traditional advaita falls into that category as veda/dharma is not a pramANa for them in vyavahAra itself. Traditional Advaitins are Asthikas as they accept Veda/Ishwara/VarNAshrama dharma as real until the paramArtha is attained. Traditional advaita Sanyasis engage in trikAla Ishwara puja and accept Bhiksha from traditional vaidhkas only.
Snake and rope cannot co-exist but body and soul can co-exist and this is very much experiential. There are many vedic pramANAs that identifies the world as the body of Ishwara/Brahman who pervades and indwells in it. So the idea that the world and God/Brahman cannot co-exist is not correct.
The body/world is sustained by Brahman who is indwelling in it as the inner self or antaryAmi. That which sustains is Dharma. So Dharma is sanAtana or eternal because Brahman/Ishwara as the sustainer of the world is sanAtana eternal.
Every jiva/self is like a little Ishwara as normally he is the cause / owner / controller of his BMI. That is why every jiva is considered as an amsha / pratimba or reflection of Ishwara who is the cause / owner / controller of the entire universe. So denying the existence of sarvAntaryAmi Ishwara amounts to denying the existence of oneself as the controller of BMI which goes against experience.
SG:
In all non-advaitic view moksha is a kalpana based on the current embodied nature. But Advaita jIvanmukti is based on one's own true nature and so not a product of space/time. In Ishwarawada - Moksha is going to paraloka. Here there is a chance for partiality. It is all based on Raga dwesha only. There is kAma and krodha in vaikunta also as jaya and vijaya are cursed by Sanaka sanandana. If the abrahamic god is identified as a jealous God, we see the similar conflicts even among many gods like Shiva and Vishnu and so on.
Among those who are liberated, some say there is tAratamya or hierarchy and some say there is equality. Some say all liberated jivas get merged in Ishwara. Is this similar to bacteria entering the body and remaining/merging there? So there is no one pointed view. Also all enjoyments in moksha is rarified form of earthly pleasure only. These problems are not there in Advaita.
Dharmika:
Moksha in Ishwarawada is not just a kalpana or imagination but based on the jiva swaroopa as a shesha/dAsa to Ishwara/Brahman who is the owner/swAmi, as per Veda/Gita/Sutra.
Presence of kAma and Krodha in VaikunTa is due to Ishwara's leela or divine play that paves way for the avatArAs of the Lord which always has the purpose of upholding the principle of dharma. The stories of conflicts between various gods in the scriptures is also a divine play to bring out certain truths and finally it ends in perfect harmony in upholding the value of dharma. All the 33 gods are present in the body of Vishwaroopi Brahman and they all work in unison to bring out the value of dharma. This cannot be compared to the jealousy of abrahamic God who is not rooted in Dharma and so has no end or purpose other than self glorification.
As the experience in moksha cannot be explained based on just pratyaksha/anumAna, there is no choice but to depend on scriptures. These differences in moksha kalpana are due to differences in the interpretation of various scriptural statements. The Brahma sutra clearly says that the liberated soul cannot engage in jagadvyApAra and enjoy Ananda similar to Ishwara/Brahman. So there is no Jeeveshwara ikya and that is the main point. Enjoyment in Moksha is due to selfless loving service or kainkarya rendered as per the Ishwara sankalpa. So it is not a rarified form of earthly pleasure.
In the Advaita Jivanmukti also, the jivatva / kartrutva / doership and Ishwaratva / enjoyer-ship must die in order to attain muktAtma swaroopa. There is also a need to conquer kAma and Krodha and to remain in absolute brahmacharya. This is impossible without surrendering oneself completely to Ishwara who is of the nature of yagya. So atleast until the attainment of paramArtha, non-traditional advaitins should consider engaging in dharma for their own good without rejecting it as mithya / illusion.
SG:
Whether there is body or not does not matter for a jnAni. Just like a dried coconut inside remains unattached to the shell and remains intact when the shell is broken, in the same way a jnAni whether there is body or not is unaffected and ever liberated from the shackles of the body. This is Jivanmukti of Advaita which is more logical and real.
Dharmika:
Attainment of atma jyAna which is the result of realization of the self as different from non-self/body is common for all including Ishwarawadis. But the destruction of karma and attainment of atma swaroopa happens due to Ishwara anugraha or grace obtained through performance of sva-dharma and service to a Guru. Upon liberation, Ishwarawadis would like to engage in the service of Ishwara according to His sankalpa. But advaitin's would like to attain kaivalya or aloneness.
It is fine if Advaitins want to hold that their concept of moksha is logical and real. But are they confident that they can liberate themselves from mAya or kAma and krodha without the grace of Ishwara?
SG:
The main advantage of Advaitic jIvanmukti is to eliminate bhaya, shoka, moha. These can exist when there is a second entity. But when it is realized that what exists is just one, there cannot be any bhaya/shoka/moha.
Anishta prApti is bhaya, Ishta aprApti is shoka and Ishta parirakshana is moha.
Dharmika:
It may be true that there is no bhaya, shoka, moha when there is no second entity. But it is highly doubtful to have Ananda has true Ananda/enjoyment can be there only when it is shared with others.
SamsAra due to ajyAna is Anishta and Attainment of Atmatva/Brahmatva is Ishta. Advaitins have the difficulty of attaining the same through their own self-effort which is humanly impossible.
When Ishwara is identified as Ishta then bhaya/shoka/moha will transform into positive qualities.
As per the Vishnu SahasranAma, Vishnu/Ishwara is also bhayakruth / bhayanAshanah - giver/remover of bhaya. Depending on Ishwara for removal of bhaya/shoka/moha due to mAya is more practicable as He is the controller of mAya.
SG:
Cause and effect is bound by space/time. AjyAna is the cause for dvaita prapancha. So it cannot be explained in the dimension of space/time. But it disappears in jnyAna which is Advaita.
DhArmika:
That antaryAmi Ishwara who indwells in all is non-dual and is of the nature of jnyAna only. AjyAna/mAya is a tool that is in the control of Ishwara. As He is the cause of all causes, He remains as the cause for AjyAna also. The entire jagat made of mAya/ajyAna potentially exists in Him. Ishwara and jnAnIs can create their bodies as per their will to perform avatAras.
Mattah smrthih jyAnam apOhanancha - remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness arise from me, says Sri Krishna in the B.Gita.
SG:
Advaitins can still explain dvaita prapancha as a drama or leela. Self imposed bheda is more enjoyable even though it is not real.
Dharmika: The above makes the Self saguna as it has the ability to create or manifest dvaita prapancha from itself. This is not possible if the Self/Brahman is nirguna/nishkriya. (attributeless / actionless).
SG:
Shankara's Advaita reconciles everything. It does not hate anyone as it identifies with everything.
Dharmika:
Then why point finger at IshwarawAdis labeling them as nAstikAs? Ishwarawadis also don't hate anyone including advaitins as they SEE the same antaryAmi Ishwara in all.
Reconciliation is possible only when the same Brahman is seen in every name/form which makes Brahman Saguna. Sri Shankara asserts the oneness of Nirguna and Saguna Brahman in his Brahma sutra bhAshya. Paraspara bhAvana is possible only when Advaitins and Dvaitins SEE the same Brahman in each other.
Sri Shankara also makes it clear that the Nirguna Brahman is capable of taking any form to please and protect the sAdhaka. Only then Truth and dharma can go hand in hand.
Conclusion:
Whatever may be the difference in the world view, all vedAntic darshanas have to accept Brahman as the non-dual Self that indwells and shines in all and as a corollary the world with name/forms ends up as the body/dependent reality. The entire universe must be looked upon as the body of Ishwara/God/Brahman who remains as the indwelling universal Self / VishwAtma / sarvAtma.
The supreme reality Brahman is unlimited and therefore exists in space/time also. So the oneness of Vishwa/Taijasa/prAjnya/TurIya must be realized to attain complete perfection and harmony. The unbroken chain of guru-shishya parampara can be explained only when Brahma Shareeratva or SaguNatva or Ishwaratva is accepted as real. The same sarvashakta Ishwara is capable of granting kaivalya mOksha also. There is support for this in Sri Shankara Brahma sutra bhAshya.
As Atma and anAtma are opposed to and reflections of each other, advaita and dvaita prapancha will continue to oppose and deny each other. Reconciliation is possible only when the same Brahman is cognized in each other and in everything and everywhere in between.
The entire universe is THAT as every name/form ultimately points to THAT. It is Brahma, Shiva, Indra, Shakti or everything. That is the meaning of nArAyaNa who is second-less deity heralded by all AchAryas including Sri ShankarAchArya.
Namaste
Suresh
No comments:
Post a Comment