SarvAtma-brahmastra: Universal Vedic View

Suresh Srinivasa murthy

5/19/16

Dear Friends,

[I am just consolidating and sharing here some of my thoughts and look forward to your review and feedback.]

It is possible to have as many number of world views as there are eyes or minds. They all can be mutually different or similar also. Conflicts between various differing views for supremacy of one over the other, typically leads to artificial divisions and unrest. In addition doubts may also arise in one's own mind as to which one is correct and which one is not. There is a great need therefore to impartially analyze, reconcile and unify all the many differing views so that there can be lasting peace and harmony. This also enables one to be clear and true to one's own consciousness.

It may be argued that this attempt to reconcile all views is impossible as the world is always diverse. Bringing all the many diverse views under one umbrella makes it more artificial and it may not hold for long. There are right and wrong views and they can never be equated or united. This is very much true if the unification is done externally, materially or superficially. But if the unification is done spiritually it will hold for ever. Right is never wrong. But wrong can always be righted or corrected. Spiritual unification alone can bring lasting peace and harmony in the diverse world of matter.

Generally it is accepted that knowledge can come through pratyaksha (or sense based perception), paroksha (or inference based on pratyaksha) and shabda (or scriptural/verbal testimony). Though the scripture is Veda for the three major vedantic views - Advaita, Dvaita and V.Advaita, there is difference in their world view based on the differences in their interpretation.

Whatever may be the apparent differences in their world views, whether their followers accept or not, they all seem to culminate in the ultimate Vedic view of the identification of the non-dual absolute Brahman, as the inner Self of all. Vedic Brahman cannot be anything other than the Self that abides in all, lest it becomes anAtma or non-Self. This universal Self, which is the source of all existence, consciousness and bliss, is present in all completely.

Vedic scriptures identifying this indubitable, non-dual universal Self as Brahman/Ishwara/paramatma, supporting and sustaining the entire world of name/forms as the body, gains self-validity, as the relationship between the Self and body cannot be denied by anyone. This universal Self is the origin/abode and destination of all kinds of diverse views.

Actually, what is true with the Self is not true with the body. That is the basis for the Advaitic drushyatva anumana. As the body/universe is born/created, undergoes change and finally dies/destroyed, it is not considered as absolutely real in Advaita. That which is real does not change in the three periods of time. The self which remains as a witness of change, cannot change. So this immutable Self that abides in all, qualifies to be called as truth as opposed to body which changes in time. The same individual / immutable self denoted by the word TVAM is identified with Brahman, the universal Self that pervades the entire world denoted by the word TAT. The maha vakyas from the vedanta are shown in support of this view. But still, Advaitin's have to accept the difference and relation between body and the Self and all bodily vyavahara as a reality that is absolutely dependent on the same Self which is paramArtha. Otherwise it results in an artificial split in truth and the teaching that Self/Brahman alone is true and the world is illusion/mithya itself becomes mithya. In other words, there is a need to accept all vyavaharic reality as absolutely dependent on the supreme Self or Brahman which is paramartha. So with this, the identification of the world as absolutely dependent on the indwelling Brahman in Dvaita and the same world as the body depending on Brahman as the inner Self in V.Advaita, becomes compatible with the Advaitic identification of Brahman as the absolute universal Self that abides in all.

While Advaita directly reveals the all pervading truth or Brahman as the Self that is non-relational by negating the world of variety, Dvaita establishes the same non-relational, independent and universal truth as the highest by showing that it is superior and different from every other particular entity and that all other entities are absolutely dependent on Brahman, established as the inner Self of all. V.Advaita also points to the same truth through the body-Self relation between the world and Brahman. So Brahman as the universal Self or paramAtma is common to all.

All kinds of worldly differences and gradations accepted in Dvaita are similar to the differences and gradations that obtains between every single cell, organ, part of the body, mind, intellect and they are all united and integrated by Brahman indwelling as the inner Self of jiva who also indwells in the body. This is very clearly brought out in the vedic statement "atmano antaro yamAtma na veda yasya atma shareeram...". This Brahman who indwells in all jivas is the sarvantaryami or the supreme owner / controller or Ishwara. As the same Brahman in the form of the inner Self or paramAtma is present in all beings, there is equality from the spiritual point of view, even though there is difference from the point of view of material body. As the same Brahman situated as the inner Self is identified through all the many names/forms/bodies, and the world as the body is always serving Brahman through dharma / karma, V.Advaitic view is also satisfied.

Actually cognition of differences and gradations in the world by all, points to the essential equality and also unity in consciousness. Infact any true agreement points to unity in consciousness. All disagreements are superficial and material that arises due to not cognizing the underlying unity in consciousness. According to Swamy Krishnananda - all differences in world views gets reconciled in consciousness. Myself, yourself, itself, all kinds of selves are included and inseparable in the universal Self which is God/Ishwara/Brahman. Does it mean there is no difference at all in the material world also? The answer is No. All kinds of material/worldly (including other worldly) differences can be taken as various manifestations of the same Truth that helps to perform / bring out the glory of dharma. This is another nice way of reconciliation.

Brahman/Ishwara as the indwelling non-dual Self cannot be denied by anyone who is true to Veda/Gita/Sutra. Just like all the many parts of the body and the body as a whole absolutely depends and also serves the Soul/Self, every embodied being is supposed to serve Ishwara or the universal Self having the universe as His body depending on one's quality and capability in the embodied state. Thus the institution of Varnashrama - service to Brahman/God according to one's guna/quality and karma/capability, which is the backbone of Vedic view gets validated. Of course this need not be purely based on birth, but whatever profession one chooses according to one's intrinsic guna it is recommended to perform the same as a service/duty to God indwelling in all beings and in the world, without undue attachment to material returns or fruits of labor. Thus the natural law of Varnashrama gets justified based on the body-Self relation that obtains between the world and the indwelling God/Universal Self.

The general golden rule of Morality to treat or look upon others as oneself also has its basis in the universal Self that commonly exists in all. So it can be said that all other non-vedic - atheistic, abrahamic, buddhistic views also indirectly point to this Vedic universal Self or Brahman alone, as it pervades and present in all beings. Though it appears to be many in all the many bodies, essentially it is actually non-dual due to the existence of interdependence among all the many beings. The existence of vital relation between every living being and the universe as a whole also points to the non-duality and universality of the Self or Brahman.

In relation to the universe/body, the Self is saguna (creator/sustainer/controller/consumer) as it remains as the inner controller and by itself it is nirguna (not made of OR affected by the three gunas). As the indweller in all the many particular entities it is infinite and in relation to the universe as a whole it is all pervading and non-dual. The vital relation that obtains between the body and the universe cannot be attributed to any other entity than the Self. Though Advaitins hold the Self/Brahman to be Nirguna they also accept it as adhishtana or sole support to the body/universe which makes the Self saguna.

The Linga purana quote provided by Sri Shankara in his upanishad bhAshya clearly brings out the saguna and nirguna aspects. He also explicitly mentions about this oneness of saguna and nirguna Brahman, many times in his BSB. He says that which is well known or prasiddha is the jiva (embodied self which is saguna) is verily nirguna Brahman which is not well known or aprasiddha. Though it is said that this identification is through sAmAnAdhikaraNya where all the attributes are rejected, the birth / sustenance / death of the body/world cannot be attributed to anything other entity other than the supreme Self or Brahman. If this oneness is not accepted then it results in an artificial split in reality or truth which is otherwise non-dual. Acceptance of oneness of saguna and nirguna aspects of Brahman paves way for reconciliation.

Generally men are careless, lethargic, non-reactive and less emotional and this points to nirguna nishkriya Brahman. Women on the other hand are more caring, active, reactive and emotional and this points to saguna Brahman. There may be some overlap in characteristics also. But Brahman, as the absolute Self is commonly present in all men and women, the oneness of nirguna and saguna Brahman automatically follows.

So meditation and realization on Brahman / Ishwara, as the universal Self who is both nirguna and saguna, should reconcile all kinds of diverse world views.

Suresh Srinivasa murthy

5/30/16

Here are some objections and explanations to the Universal view:

Objection:

Nirguna and Saguna are opposite characteristics and they cannot co-exist. So the statement that the Self is nirguna and saguna at the same time is self-contradictory. In fact there is nothing in the world that is nirguna.

Explanation:

The fact that everything in the world is saguna indirectly points to the fact that the Self, which is other than the world is nirguna. The same Self as the only ground and the only cause of the body / world of gunas makes it saguna also. It is true that opposite qualities cannot co-exist in any single entity. But it can co-exist in relation to the embodied Self which is never a worldly entity. Worldly dualities like heat and cold, birth and death, left and right and so on are with respect to the Self in the embodied state and the Self by itself is unaffected by these dualities. Bodily relations like Father, mother, son, daughter and so on are also in relation to the universal Self only that indwells in all those different bodies/beings/jivas. But the Self as a witness of the body and its relations always remains unaffected

Dualities like north-south, east-west and so on are in relation to the Sun or the Self of the Sun. This shows that the absolute in the form of the universal Self is everywhere or can be fixed anywhere, inside and outside the body. Advaita sAdhana is nothing but the identification or realization of the oneness of the individual Self that shines in the jiva/body with Brahman as the universal Self, which is everywhere. True selflessness can arise only when the individual consciousness/jiva, expands and attains the selfhood of everything in the universe which is nothing but sarvAtmatva or Vishnutva or Brahmatva where all relative realities gets merged or withdrawn.

Objection:

If there is no duality then it follows that truth and dharma cannot be eternal as truth-untruth and dharma-adharma are also dualities. Even the self/atma and non-self/anAtma are dualities. So ultimately the self also gets extinguished which is self-contradictory. Probably that is why non-duality or Advaita is looked upon as "covered Buddhism".

Explanation:

As the same non-dual, universal Self is the basis for the dualistic body/world there is no contradiction. Based on the Vedic teaching the inner Self / Ishwara / Brahman that shines in the body/jiva/purusha denoted by the word TVAM which is nirguna, is identified with the Self of anAtma/jada/universe who is saguna denoted by the word TAT. The process of identification / realization takes the form of dharma/yagnya where the limited body-self is sacrificed or surrendered in the mode of goodness or sattva, through one’s thoughts, words and deeds as a service to the supreme Self or Ishwara manifesting as the universe.

The Self in the form of anAtma/universe/death/ignorance/jada is the very manifestation of dharma or selfless action, as every entity/element in nature is engaging in its respective dharma / duty by offering itself unconditionally to others, according to its nature. Thus, Ishwara as the inner ruler / indwelling Self of natural elements / devatas, is teaching eternal dharma by example and humans are expected to follow or to be in tune with Him in order to attain perfection and harmony. Those who engage in actions that are not in tune with dharma becomes selfish and this results in karmic reaction from the universal Self that covers/binds them in the form of various bodies, which is a product of ignorance / death. The spiritual oneness between the universe and the embodied jiva actually supports pravrutti and nivrutti dharma where service to the universal Self culminates as a real service to oneself. Though the converse, that is the service to oneself can also be a service to the universal Self/Ishwara within the body, it will not be complete unless it is preceded by service to the universal Self manifesting as nature/devatas, departed souls/pitrus, sub human species, humans / parents, teachers, sadhus and the shAstras. As the absolute Self which is of the nature of existence, consciousness and bliss reveals through the process of dharma/yagnya/selfless actions, dharma as the only path to attain the same gets justified.

Thus Advaita which directly teaches the attainment of the immutable, indubitable, indwelling Self or paramAtma who is all pervading and so Vishnu and is also auspicious and so Shiva, is not covered Buddhism. On the other hand, Buddhism can be said to be covered Advaita, as the teacher or practitioner of Buddhism who remains as a witness to the illusory or changing world is always the immutable, indubitable Self that can never be a product of illusion or mutable either.

Even in the existence of the universal Self which is non-dual, infinite potential existences are possible just like infinite banyan seeds including the trees can potentially exist in one single banyan seed. So it can be said that the Self is individual (and so non-dual and nirguna) and also universal (all pervading/many/infinite and so saguna) at the same time. This is reflected in the vedic statement aNOraNIyAn mahatOmahIyAn. As Brahman is the Self of all, it is rightly said that when THAT is attained/known everything is attained/known.

Final conclusion:

The final truth is that the Self or paramAtma that shines in all beings is the absolute, all pervading vedantic Brahman and it is the origin/abode/destination of all name/forms. All kinds of world views are only approximations to this universal vedic view. The apparent differences among various vedantic schools, depends on how one relates oneself to this universal Self or paramAtma who is everywhere. But they all converge in the identification of Brahman as the indwelling universal inner Self of all.

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

Here are some feedback from the readers:

Venkobarao Prabhakar

5/31/16

Namaste, Shri Suresh. In my humble opinion all these efforts at samanvayam of the three darshanas are futile because it involves too many unrealistic stretchings and circumlocutions (I was tempted to say hyperboles but did not want to offend your efforts). In fact most of the statements sound like Advaita statements and other ideas are bent to be brought into them. Look at your statements like:

<< The fact that everything in the world is saguna indirectly points to the fact that the Self, which is other than the world is nirguna.>>

<< Advaita sAdhana is nothing but the identification or realization of the oneness of the individual Self that shines in the jiva/body with Brahman as the universal Self, which is everywhere. True selflessness can arise only when the individual consciousness/jiva, expands and attains the selfhood of everything in the universe which is nothing but sarvAtmatva or Vishnutva or Brahmatva where all relative realities gets merged or withdrawn. >>

<< Even in the existence of the universal Self which is non-dual, infinite potential existences are possible just like infinite banyan seeds including the trees can potentially exist in one single banyan seed.>>

And so on ........... and so on ...........

In fact the three darshanas are widely different from each other that each one stands distinctly unique. They all agree only on two principles. One, that there is a Brahman. two, the goal of life is mukti. That is all. And then they go in their own different paths in defining the Brahman, the world and the even the way to attain mukti.

Thanks

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

gobind medini

5/31/16

Dears Shri VP,

I came across this extract while browsing the net:

Dr.Anandatirtha Vysampayanacharya Nagasampige, Director, Purnaprajna Samshodhana Mandiram, a Bangalore-based premier Madhva research institution run under the patronage of Sri Vishvesha Tirtha SwamigaLu, the seer of the Pejawar Mutt (whose disciple is the author), declares in his best-seller Kannada book: 'Mata traya sameekshaa':

// ಮೂರು ದರ್ಶನಗಳಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಸಮಾನತೆಗಳು: ಅದ್ವೈತ-ವಿಶಿಷ್ಟಾದ್ವೈತ ಹಾಗೂ ದ್ವೈತ ಸಿದ್ಧಾಂತಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಸ್ಥೂಲವಾಗಿ ಕೆಲವು ಸಮಾನತೆಗಳನ್ನು ನಾವು ಕಾಣಬಹುದಾಗಿದೆ: ವಿಷ್ಣು ಪರದೇವತೆ ಎಂಬ ಸಂಗತಿ ಅಚಾರ್ಯತ್ರಯರಿಗೆ ಸಮ್ಮತವಾಗಿದೆ:

[The similarities/sameness present in the three systems: In Advaita, Vishishtaadvaita and Dvaita, we can see an explicit similarity: - ]

Regards,

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

Venkobarao Prabhakar

5/31/16

Dear Shri G,

Namaste.

Dr.Nagasampige is a very respected Scholar. I would very much love to read and understand the 'explicit similarity' that he sees between the three darshanas. Unfortunately I cannot read Kannada, even though I can understand it when I listen to it and can speak that language. Is there an English Translation of his book that I can buy or download?

When I said ... "In fact the three darshanas are widely different from each other that each one stands distinctly unique" .... it was not out of my personal dogma or personal inherent loyalty to Tattvavada (Dvaita). It was a statement based on my studies into the three darshanas and my understanding of the three. It is quite possible that a Scholar at a much higher level of knowledge than me may have insights of a different kind.

Thanks

VP

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

Bhaskar YR

6/1/16

praNAms Sri Gobind prabhuji

Hare Krishna

// ಮೂರು ದರ್ಶನಗಳಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಸಮಾನತೆಗಳು: ಅದ್ವೈತ-ವಿಶಿಷ್ಟಾದ್ವೈತ ಹಾಗೂ ದ್ವೈತ ಸಿದ್ಧಾಂತಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಸ್ಥೂಲವಾಗಿ ಕೆಲವು ಸಮಾನತೆಗಳನ್ನು ನಾವು ಕಾಣಬಹುದಾಗಿದೆ: ವಿಷ್ಣು ಪರದೇವತೆ ಎಂಬಸಂಗತಿ ಅಚಾರ್ಯತ್ರಯರಿಗೆ ಸಮ್ಮತವಾಗಿದೆ:

Ø But unfortunately the word ‘vishNu’ itself has been interpreted differently in dvaita and Advaita contextually to advodate their respective school of thought J Yes, when it comes to prateekOpAsana, shankara often gives example like sAlagrAme vishNuH but never mentions rudra deva / sAmbaparameshwara in linga, but as you know in Advaita parameshwara is nothing but nirguNa, nirvikAri parabrahman only whether it is vishNu, shiva, devi, gaNapati nAma & rUpa hardly a matter of concern. Yes, Advaita accepts vishNu as paradevata but if someone says vishNu is the ONLY paradevata and rudra and others are upa-devata-s then there you go, never ending debate, problem and quarrel starts in different schools of thoughts J Stalwarts in Advaita like appayya deekshita etc. have taken special trouble to prove the supremacy of shiva in mAhAbhArata and Advaita in vishNu purANa J

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

Bhaskar YR

6/1/16

praNAms Sri Venkobarao prabhuji

Hare Krishna

<< The fact that everything in the world is saguna indirectly points to the fact that the Self, which is other than the world is nirguna.>>

Ø As you have rightly observed the above three statements / observations are more in favor of Advaita sAdhana and related realization obviously do not go in line with other schools of thought. Perhaps this would be the reason, Sri Suresh prabhuji specifically mentioned : In ‘advaita sAdhana” excluding the sAdhana-s and resultant realization in other schools of thought J Just for the records, as an advaitin, I am completely in agreement with Sri Suresh prabhuji’s write up and other way of saying the same thing is dvaitins and vishishtAdvaitins would not agree with it J

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

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

Suresh Srinivasa murthy

6/1/16

Dear Sri VP,

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 4:46 AM, Venkobarao Prabhakar wrote:

I have already raised that objection to samanvayam and have provided my explanation. One cannot have real peace within oneself if there is no proper samanvayam.

<< The fact that everything in the world is saguna indirectly points to the fact that the Self, which is other than the world is nirguna.>>

And so on ........... and so on ...........

SS:

I respect your opinion but philosophically, can you explain what "unrealistic and stretchings and circumlocutions" or even "hyperboles" you see in the above statements?

I have just used the Atma-Shareera nyAya to reconcile Advaita and Dvaita. There are many common points and mainly all the three darshanas accept one single Brahman as the antaryAmi paramAtma or inner Self of all. That is where all of visions meet :)

Suresh Srinivasa murthy

6/1/16

Dear Sri Bhaskar,

As long as all devatas are realized within the being/body of Vishnu, there should be no issue. Problem arises when Vishnu is separated from other devatas. Actually Sri Shankara himself has done this samanvaya of the oneness of NB and SB in his BSB for which I have provided quotes earlier in this forum. That is the compromise even Advaitin's have to make in order to be in peace with SB upAsakas and Vaishnavas :)

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

Suresh Srinivasa murthy

6/1/16

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Suresh Srinivasa murthy wrote:

Dear Sri Bhaskar,

Bhaskar:

To be more specific the oneness of tatastha and svaroopa lakshaNa needs to be accepted. Likewise Vaishnavas need not show other devatas like Shiva in poor light in order to establish the supremacy of Vishnu. If every deity is seen in Vishnu and vice versa there should be no issue.

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

Venkobarao Prabhakar

6/2/16

Dear Shri Suresh,

My responses are below:

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 4:46 AM, Venkobarao Prabhakar <vpaksharamalika@gmail.com> wrote:

I have already raised that objection to samanvayam and have provided my explanation. One cannot have real peace within oneself if there is no proper samanvayam.

VP: Real peace can very well be had in accepting the clear diversities and respecting them. Real peace will lie respecting each school and not belittling any of them. We do not need to find an artificial samanvayam when really it does not exist.

<< The fact that everything in the world is saguna indirectly points to the fact that the Self, which is other than the world is nirguna.>>

VP: Why should everything being saguna point to Paramatma being nirguna? Just the opposite ie., everything being saguna points to Paramatma being saguna (Bimba Pratibimba), can be true, right? Also only advaita things Self is Atman. The other two schools think self is Jivatma and Atman is Antaryami. Here your usage of Self is with the indirect assumption of Brahma-Jiiva aikyam, looks like. So this statement is a bending to fit a new concept.

VP: Alpa Jiiva cannot expand and attain Brahmatvam, in two of the three schools. Here what you have mentioned is one particular school's concept only. If you try to make this work for the other two schools it is wishful bending. For example, why should true selflessness be only in Brahma-Jiiva aikyam (expansion of Jiiva)? Why can't suppression of ego and humility through realisation of one's tinyness be true selflessness?

VP: Here I read this as Jagat satyam & creation, which Advaita may not be comfortable with. Visishtadvaitam might be at home here and Dvaita may be somewhat near this, both reading non-dual as referring to "There is only one Brahman & not two or more Brahmans".

And so on ........... and so on ...........

I respect your opinion but philosophically, can you explain what "unrealistic and stretchings and circumlocutions" or even "hyperboles" you see in the above statements?

I have just used the Atma-Shareera nyAya to reconcile Advaita and Dvaita.

VP: This nyaya will not find acceptance in Advaita or Dvaita. Atma-shareera nyaya is a very specific VA concept.

There are many common points and mainly all the three darshanas accept one single Brahman as the antaryAmi paramAtma or inner Self of all. That is where all of visions meet :)

VP: May not be many common points. But, as I had also mentioned, they all meet in one single Brahman who is Antaryami & in Mukti :-) But, let them not meet in other areas. It is ok. Source & Destination are same. Let us respect as distinctly different paths and respect the followers of each.

Thanks

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

Bhaskar YR

6/3/16

Actually Sri Shankara himself has done this samanvaya of the oneness of NB and SB in his BSB for which I have provided quotes earlier in this forum. That is the compromise even Advaitin's have to make in order to be in peace with SB upAsakas and Vaishnavas :)

praNAms Sri Suresh prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Yes, however, shankara advises us (the advaitins) that as long as savishesha brahman is synchronizing with upanishadic siddhAnta there is no problem in doing the upAsana of sOpAdhika brahman. But when this savishesha (apara) brahman causing any problem to Upanishad main siddhAnta that brahman is nirguNa, nirvishesha, nirvayava, nirvikalpa, then we have to take nirvishesha brahman for the jnEya (realization) superseding sOpAdika brahma para shruti vAkya-s. Shankara comments like this in arUpavadeva pradhAnatvAt sUtra. I don’t think this would go well with the dvaita vAdins since for them brahman is always sakala kalyANa guNa saMpanna.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

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

Dear Sri Bhaskar,

Suresh Srinivasa murthy

6/5/16

Dear Sri Bhaskar ji,

Don't you think savishesha sarvashakta Brahman is capable of granting kaivalya which is nothing but the experience of the jnyAnanandaika svarupma of the atman if that is the aspiration of the sadhaka?

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

Suresh Srinivasa murthy

6/5/16

Dear Sri VP,

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 12:23 AM, Venkobarao Prabhakar wrote:

Dear Shri Suresh,

My responses are below:

SS:

Actually there is no school in vedanta that does not belittle other schools. Hence the need to do samanvayam in order to bridge the gap between all vedantic schools. Samanvayam based on one single Brahman indwelling as the inner Self in all diverse entities/bodies alone can lead to unity in diversity and mutual respect. So real peace can be attained only when all particular views are shown to be pointing to the same Brahman that is indwelling in all as paramAtma or the ultimate Self.

<< The fact that everything in the world is saguna indirectly points to the fact that the Self, which is other than the world is nirguna.>>

SS:

Nirguna means devoid of the three prAkrithic gunas. The pratibimba always has opposite characteristics of bimba. The absolute Self is jIvAntaryAmi Brahman only which is the source of all existence/consciousness/bliss. That is the location where all jivas meet/unite in deep sleep whatever may be their particular visions.

SS:

Alpa jiva has infinite Brahman as it's antaryAmi. Brahman is therefore smaller than the smallest and bigger than the biggest.Suppression of ego is the same as expansion of one's heart so that you see the entire universe "as your self". Selflessness is basically to transcend the limits of one's own body, mind and intellect and ideally expand it to include everything.

<<SS:

The above example of "infinite banyan seeds/trees in one banyan seed" clearly illustrates the union of NB and SB which I would say as the ubhayalinga of Brahman. >>

And so on ........... and so on ...........

<<SS:

I respect your opinion but philosophically, can you explain what "unrealistic and stretchings and circumlocutions" or even "hyperboles" you see in the above statements?

I have just used the Atma-Shareera nyAya to reconcile Advaita and Dvaita.

VP: This nyaya will not find acceptance in Advaita or Dvaita. Atma-shareera nyaya is a very specific VA concept.

SS:

Not true. AntaryAmi brAhmaNa which clearly states atma-shareera relationship is common for all.

VP:

There are many common points and mainly all the three darshanas accept one single Brahman as the antaryAmi paramAtma or inner Self of all. That is where all of visions meet :)

SS:

You seem to reflect my thought here. Yes, all the many darshanas seems to be different externally but they are all pointing to the same Brahman which is internal to all. According to Sri K.S.Narayanacharya who is a renowned VA scholar, all the many vedantic darshanas are like different snana ghattas for the same ganga of Brahman.

Venkobarao Prabhakar

6/6/16

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

Dear Shri Suresh,

Namaste. My comments:

<< ........... So real peace can be attained only when all particular views are shown to be pointing to the same Brahman that is indwelling in all as paramAtma or the ultimate Self. >>

VP: no issues here. This already exists.

<< ...... Brahman is the connecting link / sutra that unites all kinds of particulars >>

VP: No issues here. This already exists.

SS:

There are many common points and mainly all the three darshanas accept one single Brahman as the antaryAmi paramAtma or inner Self of all. That is where all of visions meet :)

SS:

VP: We agree that the origin and conclusion are the same for all the Vedanta schools. Let us leave it there. We will leave each school to pursue its own path between these two reference points. We do not have to bend over backwards to prove A is same as B or B is same as C etc. In reality they are not.

Having said all these, I have to say that I admire your intention.

Best Regards

Srinivas Kotekal

6/6/16

On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 1:45:41 AM UTC-4, vpaksharamalika wrote:

Dear Shri Suresh,

Namaste. My comments:

<< ........... So real peace can be attained only when all particular views are shown to be pointing to the same Brahman that is indwelling in all as paramAtma or the ultimate Self. >>

VP: no issues here. This already exists.

<< ...... Brahman is the connecting link / sutra that unites all kinds of particulars >>

VP: No issues here. This already exists.

There are many common points and mainly all the three darshanas accept one single Brahman as the antaryAmi paramAtma or inner Self of all. That is where all of visions meet :)

SS:

VP: We agree that the origin and conclusion are the same for all the Vedanta schools. Let us leave it there.

Even here I disagree. Origin is not the same. For example, vEda is satya for Dvaitis and it is mithya and does not even exist in reality for Advaitis.

So also the conclusion. For Dvaitis mOkSha is something to be achieved. Where as for Advaitis, you are already that and nothing to be achieved fresh, but instead you have to remind yourself.

For Sri.Suresh's attempt to harmonize -- I would simply say it is futile and illogical attempt. Why illogical? Because, the very founder Acharyas of VA and Dvaita themselves disagree with Advaita, then who are we to say otherwise? Illogical aspect lies in the fact that it is a kind of upajIva virOdha (in sense of using VA/Dvaita Acharya's siddhAnta itself to make alliance with Advaita).

Venkobarao Prabhakar

6/6/16

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

Dear Shri Srinivas,

Namaste. Let me just clarify the following point:

There are many common points and mainly all the three darshanas accept one single Brahman as the antaryAmi paramAtma or inner Self of all. That is where all of visions meet :)

SS:

VP: We agree that the origin and conclusion are the same for all the Vedanta schools. Let us leave it there.

SK:

Even here I disagree. Origin is not the same. For example, vEda is satya for Dvaitis and it is mithya and does not even exist in reality for Advaitis.

So also the conclusion. For Dvaitis mOkSha is something to be achieved. Where as for Advaitis, you are already that and nothing to be achieved fresh, but instead you have to remind yourself.

VP:

The point I was trying to convey to Shri Suresh was in a broader sense ............ that all the three schools accept that there is one single Brahman (Origin) and that the goal is to attain 'mukti' (Conclusion) .... and that beyond these I do not see commonalities. Of course the very definition and visualising of Brahman and Mukti differ so widely among these schools. No doubt about it.

SS:

Dear Sri Srinivas,

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Srinivas Kotekal wrote:

Even here I disagree. Origin is not the same. For example, vEda is satya for Dvaitis and it is mithya and does not even exist in reality for Advaitis.

SS:

As clarified by Sri VP there is no issue if Brahman is looked upon as the origin of everything. For an Advaitin the world that appears to be external to the Atman/Brahman is mithya. But if the world of name/forms can arise/remain and return back to the same Brahman there should be no issue. Atman/Brahman that is there in all is always uttamapurusha and sarvanAmavAchya. "Naham karta Harih karta" of Dvaita is another way of presenting Advaita Brahman :)

SK:

So also the conclusion. For Dvaitis mOkSha is something to be achieved. Where as for Advaitis, you are already that and nothing to be achieved fresh, but instead you have to remind yourself.

SS:

All disagreements among various schools are only superficial and is needed to remove "incorrect understandings" of each school. In order to correctly understand every view one needs to literally UNDER stand. One needs to give up everything and become very humble and attain sAmAnyatva which is nothing but atmatva and that alone is Brahmatva which can also be one's own brumhatva as understood in Dvaita. That is the abode of true Bhakti and also jnyAna. Ultimately all kinds of views ends in the sarvAntaryAmi Brahman who is established as the inner Self of all. One needs to realize Brahman within oneself only.

On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 1:51:48 AM UTC-4, sureshsmr wrote:

Dear Sri Srinivas,

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Srinivas Kotekal wrote:

Even here I disagree. Origin is not the same. For example, vEda is satya for Dvaitis and it is mithya and does not even exist in reality for Advaitis.

For advaitis, such name/forms does not *really* arise/remain/return back to Brahman at all. All such things are your brahma/adhyAsa only. This is quite different position than VA and Dvaitins.

<<SS:

Atman/Brahman that is there in all is always uttamapurusha and sarvanAmavAchya. "Naham karta Harih karta" of Dvaita is another way of presenting Advaita Brahman :)
>>

Brahman is avAchay in advaita, meaning not a single shabda (either vaidIka or loukIka) denotes Brahman in its primary meaning (mukhyArtha) at all. You are looking from your VA point and that is not enough. Your attempt of samanvya has a flaw where you have not understood other siddhAnta-s you are doing samanvya.

SK:

SS:

All disagreements among various schools are only superficial and is needed to remove "incorrect understandings" of each school.

SK:

Do you mean to say mUlAcharya of VA and Dvaita and their understanding of their philosophy is "superficial' and "incorrect understanding"? You must be kidding!

SS:

In order to correctly understand every view one needs to literally UNDER stand. One needs to give up everything and become very humble and attain sAmAnyatva which is nothing but atmatva and that alone is Brahmatva which can also be one's own brumhatva as understood in Dvaita. That is the abode of true Bhakti and also jnyAna. Ultimately all kinds of views ends in the sarvAntaryAmi Brahman who is established as the inner Self of all. One needs to realize Brahman within oneself only.

SK:

Your hEtu "Brahman is *within* oneself and inner Self of all" you used here itself is not acceptable to Advaitis. Anteryami make sense only if you have dvaita tattva-s such jIva-paramAtma or jada-paramAtma where you can say one is anteryAmi of other. When all you have is NB in advaita, who is it anteryami of?

Again, your attempt of samanvaya is on wrong footing.

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Srinivas Kotekal wrote:

SK:
For advaitis, such name/forms does not *really* arise/remain/return back to Brahman at all. All such things are your brahma/adhyAsa only. This is quite different position than VA and Dvaitins.

SS:

That simply means all name/forms are not external to Atman/Brahman though it appears to be so in pratyaksha. Everything finally merges back into Atman/Brahman in such a way that Atman/Brahman alone is.

Atman/Brahman that is there in all is always uttamapurusha and sarvanAmavAchya. "Naham karta Harih karta" of Dvaita is another way of presenting Advaita Brahman :)

SK:

SS:

True Atman/Brahman can be both sarvanAmavachya and sarvanama avAchya also. The pradhAna pratitantra of body-soul which is available in the veda itself is the connecting link between dvaita and advaita. That is why I see the oneness of SB and NB.

SK:
Do you mean to say mUlAcharya of VA and Dvaita and their understanding of their philosophy is "superficial' and "incorrect understanding"? You must be kidding!

SS:
No. But their particular views are different paths to the same reality of Brahman established as the inner Self of all. (the highlighted epithet is very important). All kinds of refutations are in the realm of name/forms only.

SK:

Again, your attempt of samanvaya is on wrong footing.

SS:

The samanvaya is based on the Brahman as the supreme Self (paramAtma) that is there in you and me and everything in between which can never cease to exist and so can never go wrong.

SK:

For advaitis, such name/forms does not *really* arise/remain/return back to Brahman at all. All such things are your brahma/adhyAsa only. This is quite different position than VA and Dvaitins.

SS:
That simply means all name/forms are not external to Atman/Brahman though it appears to be so in pratyaksha.

SK:

What do you mean by that? When did you see Brahman's various divya rUpa-s in pratyaksha?

SS:

Everything finally merges back into Atman/Brahman in such a way that Atman/Brahman alone is.

SK:

The very advaitic position is that there is no name/form anytime, period. It is not that they were there once and then merge back later. Please understand Advaita first before doing samanvya.

SS:

True Atman/Brahman can be both sarvanAmavachya and sarvanama avAchya also.

SK:

This is classical contradiction and signs of confusion.

The pradhAna pratitantra of body-soul which is available in the veda itself is the connecting link between dvaita and advaita. That is why I am insisting on the oneness of SB and NB.

Think like this -- if that link is already there in Veda, why did Shankara see that? Even if we accept Shankara missed that point, but why did Madhva refuted Ramanuja's concept of body-soul later? Do you think Madhva did not know its existence in Veda?

SS:

SK:

Do you mean to say mUlAcharya of VA and Dvaita and their understanding of their philosophy is "superficial' and "incorrect understanding"? You must be kidding!

SS:

No. But their particular views are different paths to the same reality of Brahman established as the inner Self of all. (the highlighted epithet is very important). All kinds of refutations are in the realm of name/forms only.

SK:

How do you know they are different paths of *same* reality? That itself is at the center of debate between three schools. Just because you say so it does not become truth. You need to provide pramaNa and ready for arguments.

Again, your attempt of samanvaya is on wrong footing.

SS:

The samanvaya is based on the Brahman as the supreme Self (paramAtma) that is there in you and me and everything in between which can never cease to exist and so can never go wrong.

SK:

You missed the point -- that very idea (that He is anteryami in all these things) is not acceptable to advaitins. You need to do samanvya using mutually accepted logic or position. Not on your own way.

SS:
That simply means all name/forms are not external to Atman/Brahman though it appears to be so in pratyaksha.

SK:
What do you mean by that? When did you see Brahman's various divya rUpa-s in pratyaksha?

SS:

Philosophically all names/forms are seen in the light of the Atman only. Atman here means sarvAntaryAmi paramAtma who is the source of existence, consciousness and bliss and pervades the entire universe in his jnyAna roopa.

Everything finally merges back into Atman/Brahman in such a way that Atman/Brahman alone is.

SK:

The very advaitic position is that there is no name/form anytime, period. It is not that they were there once and then merge back later. Please understand Advaita first before doing samanvya.

SS:

This means the Self that is there in all name/forms is One. When you SEE that all name/forms get transcended.

<<SK:

SS:

True Atman/Brahman can be both sarvanAmavachya and sarvanama avAchya also.

SK:

This is classical contradiction and signs of confusion.

SS:

Please tell me how. The Universal Self cannot take any name for itself and at the same time it can be identified through any name/form.

The pradhAna pratitantra of body-soul which is available in the veda itself is the connecting link between dvaita and advaita. That is why I am insisting on the oneness of SB and NB.

SK:

SS:

Sri Shankara and Sri Madhva are both showing the JagadvilakshaNatva and Ekatva of Brahman, While Sri Ramanuja is showing the Jagat Vishishtatva of Brahman.

SK:
Do you mean to say mUlAcharya of VA and Dvaita and their understanding of their philosophy is "superficial' and "incorrect understanding"? You must be kidding!

SS:

SK:

SS:

It is the same reality because they all accept Brahman is everywhere and indwelling in all.

SK:

Again, your attempt of samanvaya is on wrong footing.

SS:

The samanvaya is based on the Brahman as the supreme Self (paramAtma) that is there in you and me and everything in between which can never cease to exist and so can never go wrong.

SK:

SS:

Advaitins cannot deny the fact that Brahman in the form of atman is the antaryAmi of the body or shareera. Sri Shankaracharya actually refers to Brahma sutra as “Shareeraka meemaamsa”. The prasiddha roopa of Brahman is the jiva who is the antaryami of the body. So samanvya is possible based on this mutually or universally acceptable position of shareera-atma bhava.

Namaste

Suresh

SarvAtma-brahmastra

Pages

Pages

Universal Vedic View

1 comment:

Blog Archive