PDA

View Full Version : Unity Among Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva


kisalipa
19-05-2017, 09:49 AM
Shankara says that the soul is God. Ramanuja and Madhva say that the soul is not God. This seems to be a contradiction. But, on careful analysis, we can easily find out that there is no contradiction at all. Krishna played with other boys. In the case of Krishna, His soul is God. In the case of other boys, their souls are not God. Shankara stands for Krishna, where as the other two stand for other boys. The Advaitins should distinguish even Shankara from the other souls. Shankara swallowed molten lead and declared Himself alone as God (Shivah kevaloham). Other students could not swallow it and fell on His feet. The Advaita is true in the case of Krishna and Shankara, who are the human incarnations of God. The Dvaita is true in the case of others. Hence, both the concepts are true, applied in their corresponding cases. Shankara says that the unlimited space (Mahaakaasha) is not different from space limited by a room (Mathaakaasha) or by a pot [Ghataakaasha]. The unlimited space stands for the absolute God, who is beyond the creation. The room-space stands for Lord Narayana [Ishvara] and the pot-space stands for Krishna, the human incarnation and not for every human being. Narayana is energetic body charged by absolute God and

Krishna is human body (or physical body) charged by absolute God. In any case, the charged body is treated as God like the wire charged by current is current itself. Narayana and Krishna are also one and the same, since the media (energy and matter) are essentially one and the same. It is said that God is associated with Maya (Mayinamtu Maheshvaram...). Maya means wonderful, which means unimaginable. Since God is unimaginable, He is indicated by His unimaginable power. The unimaginable power cannot be perceived like the unimaginable God. Moreover, there cannot be two unimaginable items as God and Maya. But, for the sake of convenience of explanation, we have separated God and Maya for easy grasping. Even though we cannot isolate a person and his power, we say that this work indicates the power of the person. It is just for the convenience of explanation, the distinction is assumed. Therefore, we cannot perceive the unimaginable item, be it God or Maya. An imaginable medium is necessary for the expression of unimaginable item. A boy called Krishna lifted a huge mountain with His tender finger. Here, the boy, the mountain, tender finger and work of lifting the mountain are imaginable items (Prakruti) only. But, the work of lifting a huge mountain by a tender boy is unimaginable (Maya). Unless the imaginable Prakruti is there, the unimaginable Maya (or God) cannot be expressed. Here, the unimaginable Maya (or God) charged the imaginable Prakruti for its expression so that we can experience the unimaginable through the imaginable medium. When the unimaginable charges the imaginable, the imaginable can be treated as unimaginable (Mayamtu prakrutim viddhi... Gita) just like the electric wire is treated as electricity. Through the imaginable medium (Prakruti), the unimaginable medium (Maya) is expressed and experienced. Through the experienced unimaginable medium, the unimaginable God is inferred. This inference is called as the Divine knowledge (Vidya). Hence, God is said to be the Lord (Ishvara) through the unimaginable Maya (Mayaavachchinnah, Mayopadhih...).

An ordinary boy lifts a small stone and here such inference of the Lord (Vidya) does not exist. Therefore, the entire medium is called as Avidya, which means the medium that lacks Vidya. The ordinary soul is said to be inferred through such Avidya (Avidyaavachchinnah..., Avidyopadhih...). This difference is made by Shankara Himself. Krishna Himself is an ordinary soul. When Arjuna asked Him to repeat the Gita after war, Krishna expressed His inability to repeat the Gita, saying that He was not in the state of God charging Him (Yogesvarasthiti...). He could say Anu Gita only, which is just the knowledge of a scholar. Hence, Krishna is an ordinary soul originally. But, this Krishna became God while doing miracles and while singing the Gita. In that time, He was charged by God just like a wire is charged by current. An electrified wire is not at all different from the current since the current and wire cannot be isolated. In this state, Krishna as an ordinary soul cannot be distinguished from God and hence, the Advaita of Shankara applies here. Therefore, in this state, Krishna is the absolute God or Parabrahman. God existed always in Krishna, but withdrew Himself from expression so that Krishna will mingle with the other souls as an ordinary soul. If God was expressed in Krishna all the times, devotees will not mix with Him as near and dear due to fear. Whenever there is necessity, God expressed Himself in Krishna. Thus, evenin the same Krishna, the Advaita is applicable while dictating the Gita and Dvaita is applicable while dictating Anu Gita. However, if you treat the non-expression state also as the state of hidden existence, the Advaita is applicable in Krishna all the times. Similarly, an ordinary soul without charged by God will be an example of Dvaita all the times. Sometimes, an ordinary soul also can become an example of Advaita, when God charges him temporarily for a specific purpose as in the case of Parashurama. In any case, Advaita is purely due to the will of God only as said by Shankara (Ishvaraanugrahaadeva...). The deservingness of the devotee for such a divine will is also an equally important parameter. The deservingness comes only when you do not aspire at all for Advaita and dedicate yourself in the service of contemporary human incarnation like Hanuman in the service of Rama. The Advaita philosophers take Advaita as the ancestral property that is already associated with them, which can never be snatched by any force and is brought to their memory by a lawyer! In their view, God is only the lawyer reminding them regarding their forgotten property!

Baile
19-05-2017, 10:37 AM
I see you added the word "Unity" in your thread topic title, to conform with the sub-forum requirements. No, not really. Not at all in fact. That's all just religion and religious belief, and you honestly couldn't type something less appropriate for a non-duality discussion.

Iamit
19-05-2017, 10:53 AM
Shankara says that the soul is God. Ramanuja and Madhva say that the soul is not God. This seems to be a contradiction. But, on careful analysis, we can easily find out that there is no contradiction at all. Krishna played with other boys. In the case of Krishna, His soul is God. In the case of other boys, their souls are not God. Shankara stands for Krishna, where as the other two stand for other boys. The Advaitins should distinguish even Shankara from the other souls. Shankara swallowed molten lead and declared Himself alone as God (Shivah kevaloham). Other students could not swallow it and fell on His feet. The Advaita is true in the case of Krishna and Shankara, who are the human incarnations of God. The Dvaita is true in the case of others. Hence, both the concepts are true, applied in their corresponding cases. Shankara says that the unlimited space (Mahaakaasha) is not different from space limited by a room (Mathaakaasha) or by a pot [Ghataakaasha]. The unlimited space stands for the absolute God, who is beyond the creation. The room-space stands for Lord Narayana [Ishvara] and the pot-space stands for Krishna, the human incarnation and not for every human being. Narayana is energetic body charged by absolute God and

Krishna is human body (or physical body) charged by absolute God. In any case, the charged body is treated as God like the wire charged by current is current itself. Narayana and Krishna are also one and the same, since the media (energy and matter) are essentially one and the same. It is said that God is associated with Maya (Mayinamtu Maheshvaram...). Maya means wonderful, which means unimaginable. Since God is unimaginable, He is indicated by His unimaginable power. The unimaginable power cannot be perceived like the unimaginable God. Moreover, there cannot be two unimaginable items as God and Maya. But, for the sake of convenience of explanation, we have separated God and Maya for easy grasping. Even though we cannot isolate a person and his power, we say that this work indicates the power of the person. It is just for the convenience of explanation, the distinction is assumed. Therefore, we cannot perceive the unimaginable item, be it God or Maya. An imaginable medium is necessary for the expression of unimaginable item. A boy called Krishna lifted a huge mountain with His tender finger. Here, the boy, the mountain, tender finger and work of lifting the mountain are imaginable items (Prakruti) only. But, the work of lifting a huge mountain by a tender boy is unimaginable (Maya). Unless the imaginable Prakruti is there, the unimaginable Maya (or God) cannot be expressed. Here, the unimaginable Maya (or God) charged the imaginable Prakruti for its expression so that we can experience the unimaginable through the imaginable medium. When the unimaginable charges the imaginable, the imaginable can be treated as unimaginable (Mayamtu prakrutim viddhi... Gita) just like the electric wire is treated as electricity. Through the imaginable medium (Prakruti), the unimaginable medium (Maya) is expressed and experienced. Through the experienced unimaginable medium, the unimaginable God is inferred. This inference is called as the Divine knowledge (Vidya). Hence, God is said to be the Lord (Ishvara) through the unimaginable Maya (Mayaavachchinnah, Mayopadhih...).

An ordinary boy lifts a small stone and here such inference of the Lord (Vidya) does not exist. Therefore, the entire medium is called as Avidya, which means the medium that lacks Vidya. The ordinary soul is said to be inferred through such Avidya (Avidyaavachchinnah..., Avidyopadhih...). This difference is made by Shankara Himself. Krishna Himself is an ordinary soul. When Arjuna asked Him to repeat the Gita after war, Krishna expressed His inability to repeat the Gita, saying that He was not in the state of God charging Him (Yogesvarasthiti...). He could say Anu Gita only, which is just the knowledge of a scholar. Hence, Krishna is an ordinary soul originally. But, this Krishna became God while doing miracles and while singing the Gita. In that time, He was charged by God just like a wire is charged by current. An electrified wire is not at all different from the current since the current and wire cannot be isolated. In this state, Krishna as an ordinary soul cannot be distinguished from God and hence, the Advaita of Shankara applies here. Therefore, in this state, Krishna is the absolute God or Parabrahman. God existed always in Krishna, but withdrew Himself from expression so that Krishna will mingle with the other souls as an ordinary soul. If God was expressed in Krishna all the times, devotees will not mix with Him as near and dear due to fear. Whenever there is necessity, God expressed Himself in Krishna. Thus, evenin the same Krishna, the Advaita is applicable while dictating the Gita and Dvaita is applicable while dictating Anu Gita. However, if you treat the non-expression state also as the state of hidden existence, the Advaita is applicable in Krishna all the times. Similarly, an ordinary soul without charged by God will be an example of Dvaita all the times. Sometimes, an ordinary soul also can become an example of Advaita, when God charges him temporarily for a specific purpose as in the case of Parashurama. In any case, Advaita is purely due to the will of God only as said by Shankara (Ishvaraanugrahaadeva...). The deservingness of the devotee for such a divine will is also an equally important parameter. The deservingness comes only when you do not aspire at all for Advaita and dedicate yourself in the service of contemporary human incarnation like Hanuman in the service of Rama. The Advaita philosophers take Advaita as the ancestral property that is already associated with them, which can never be snatched by any force and is brought to their memory by a lawyer! In their view, God is only the lawyer reminding them regarding their forgotten property!

Do you have a main point you could post? Its probably my attention span lacking but could not trace it in the above.

Shivani Devi
28-06-2017, 06:59 PM
Shankara says that the soul is God. Ramanuja and Madhva say that the soul is not God. This seems to be a contradiction. But, on careful analysis, we can easily find out that there is no contradiction at all.
The other day, I wrote about all of this in another thread, and instead of writing a huge essay giving many examples and because I can't be bothered explaining it all again:



This is called Vishistadvaita or qualified Monism. It is also my path and my experience.

To conceive of 'That' or 'Brahman', one must also understand the 'Maya' or that which is not Non-Duality and thus, Non-Duality becomes Duality within itself.

अद्वैतं परमार्थो हि द्वैतं तद्भेद उच्यते ।
तेषाम् उभयथा द्वैतं तेनायं न विरुद्ध्यते ॥ १८ ॥

advaitaṃ paramārtho hi dvaitaṃ tadbheda ucyate |
teṣām ubhayathā dvaitaṃ tenāyaṃ na viruddhyate || 18 ||

As non-duality is the ultimate Reality, therefore duality is said to be its effect (Kārya or Bheda). The dualists perceive duality either way (i.e., both in the Absolute and in the phenomena). Therefore the non-dual position does not conflict with the dualist’s position.

- Mandukya Upanishad 3:18

During my own 'Dark Night of the Soul' in which I tried to reconcile Non-Duality within the whole experience of it, I thought about Adi Shankaracharya - the greatest proponent of Advaita Vedanta (Non-Dualism as the end of all Knowledge) and why was it Adi Shankaracharya could be such a huge Shiva Devotee?...i.e. loving and worshiping a Divine God...in full-on 'Duality mode'...after it was that he expounded the very nature of Non-Duality?...made sense it did NOT!

https://image.slidesharecdn.com/adisankaras-090410062224-phpapp01/95/adi-sankaras-13-728.jpg?cb=1239344596

Yet, I also found myself in exactly the same position. I had realised Non-Duality and yet the whole relation between the non-egoic Self and Brahman was still a Dual one - how come was this? I had agonised over it for years...how could a Supreme Consciousness even exist apart from ourselves when we were also that Supreme Consciousness?

I nearly went totally insane (literally) trying to reconcile the Duality within the Non-Duality, in the false thought - as per Advaita, that Non-Duality cancelled out or negated Duality by being Non-Dual...however, Non-Duality fully incorporates Duality in itself so it can BE Non-Dual!

This led me to a philosophy called Achintya bhedabeda tattva which basically means "the inconceivable difference of indifference". It is how people can 'be IT' and still 'Love IT' simultaneously, without Duality NOR Non-Duality even existing, because it just IS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhedabheda

In Hinduism, the saint Ramanuja proposed the whole idea and related it to Brahman (Non-Duality) in the form of Ishwara (Supreme Consciousness) and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu perpetuated it during the 14th Century and related it to the worship of Lord Krishna as an avatar of Lord Vishnu.

I believe I am the only one who is applying it to the Shaivite philosophy when, you see all Shaivites teaching 'Thou art Shiva (Shivoham)' but still have statues of Shiva in their temples and pray to Shiva as the external entity of 'Mahadeva'.

People may split hairs over this one all they like because whatever they say will just be within the framework of Duality or Maya anyway and only go to illustrate what I am saying by direct example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achintya_Bheda_Abheda

This is at the very heart of the Samkhya Philosophy which incorporates dualism into non-dualism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samkhya

In the Tantraloka, Abhinavagupta states that Shankara's philosophy is not true monism as it implies the eternal existence of two polarities Brahaman and Avidya, which is dualistic. This is called Paradvaita or Abhasavada:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhasavada

Paradvaita describes Brahman as both Prakasha (Supreme Light of Consciousness) and Vimarsha (reflective self-awareness of its own being) - which is is duality.

In the Chāndogya Upaniṣad there is the following mantra: aitad-ātmyam idaṁ sarvam. This mantra indicates without a doubt that the entire world is Brahman. The Absolute Truth has inconceivable energies, as confirmed in the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad: parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate, thus the entire cosmic manifestation is evidence of these different energies of Brahman.

Thus Abhasavada leads on to Pratibimbavada:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratibimbavada

Suffice to say, I could talk about this and argue it back and forward with myself forever. =)

Confused you all enough yet? lol

Joe Mc
29-06-2017, 06:10 AM
Shankara says that the soul is God. Ramanuja and Madhva say that the soul is not God. This seems to be a contradiction. But, on careful analysis, we can easily find out that there is no contradiction at all. Krishna played with other boys. In the case of Krishna, His soul is God. In the case of other boys, their souls are not God. Shankara stands for Krishna, where as the other two stand for other boys. The Advaitins should distinguish even Shankara from the other souls. Shankara swallowed molten lead and declared Himself alone as God (Shivah kevaloham). Other students could not swallow it and fell on His feet. The Advaita is true in the case of Krishna and Shankara, who are the human incarnations of God. The Dvaita is true in the case of others. Hence, both the concepts are true, applied in their corresponding cases. Shankara says that the unlimited space (Mahaakaasha) is not different from space limited by a room (Mathaakaasha) or by a pot [Ghataakaasha]. The unlimited space stands for the absolute God, who is beyond the creation. The room-space stands for Lord Narayana [Ishvara] and the pot-space stands for Krishna, the human incarnation and not for every human being. Narayana is energetic body charged by absolute God and

Krishna is human body (or physical body) charged by absolute God. In any case, the charged body is treated as God like the wire charged by current is current itself. Narayana and Krishna are also one and the same, since the media (energy and matter) are essentially one and the same. It is said that God is associated with Maya (Mayinamtu Maheshvaram...). Maya means wonderful, which means unimaginable. Since God is unimaginable, He is indicated by His unimaginable power. The unimaginable power cannot be perceived like the unimaginable God. Moreover, there cannot be two unimaginable items as God and Maya. But, for the sake of convenience of explanation, we have separated God and Maya for easy grasping. Even though we cannot isolate a person and his power, we say that this work indicates the power of the person. It is just for the convenience of explanation, the distinction is assumed. Therefore, we cannot perceive the unimaginable item, be it God or Maya. An imaginable medium is necessary for the expression of unimaginable item. A boy called Krishna lifted a huge mountain with His tender finger. Here, the boy, the mountain, tender finger and work of lifting the mountain are imaginable items (Prakruti) only. But, the work of lifting a huge mountain by a tender boy is unimaginable (Maya). Unless the imaginable Prakruti is there, the unimaginable Maya (or God) cannot be expressed. Here, the unimaginable Maya (or God) charged the imaginable Prakruti for its expression so that we can experience the unimaginable through the imaginable medium. When the unimaginable charges the imaginable, the imaginable can be treated as unimaginable (Mayamtu prakrutim viddhi... Gita) just like the electric wire is treated as electricity. Through the imaginable medium (Prakruti), the unimaginable medium (Maya) is expressed and experienced. Through the experienced unimaginable medium, the unimaginable God is inferred. This inference is called as the Divine knowledge (Vidya). Hence, God is said to be the Lord (Ishvara) through the unimaginable Maya (Mayaavachchinnah, Mayopadhih...).

An ordinary boy lifts a small stone and here such inference of the Lord (Vidya) does not exist. Therefore, the entire medium is called as Avidya, which means the medium that lacks Vidya. The ordinary soul is said to be inferred through such Avidya (Avidyaavachchinnah..., Avidyopadhih...). This difference is made by Shankara Himself. Krishna Himself is an ordinary soul. When Arjuna asked Him to repeat the Gita after war, Krishna expressed His inability to repeat the Gita, saying that He was not in the state of God charging Him (Yogesvarasthiti...). He could say Anu Gita only, which is just the knowledge of a scholar. Hence, Krishna is an ordinary soul originally. But, this Krishna became God while doing miracles and while singing the Gita. In that time, He was charged by God just like a wire is charged by current. An electrified wire is not at all different from the current since the current and wire cannot be isolated. In this state, Krishna as an ordinary soul cannot be distinguished from God and hence, the Advaita of Shankara applies here. Therefore, in this state, Krishna is the absolute God or Parabrahman. God existed always in Krishna, but withdrew Himself from expression so that Krishna will mingle with the other souls as an ordinary soul. If God was expressed in Krishna all the times, devotees will not mix with Him as near and dear due to fear. Whenever there is necessity, God expressed Himself in Krishna. Thus, evenin the same Krishna, the Advaita is applicable while dictating the Gita and Dvaita is applicable while dictating Anu Gita. However, if you treat the non-expression state also as the state of hidden existence, the Advaita is applicable in Krishna all the times. Similarly, an ordinary soul without charged by God will be an example of Dvaita all the times. Sometimes, an ordinary soul also can become an example of Advaita, when God charges him temporarily for a specific purpose as in the case of Parashurama. In any case, Advaita is purely due to the will of God only as said by Shankara (Ishvaraanugrahaadeva...). The deservingness of the devotee for such a divine will is also an equally important parameter. The deservingness comes only when you do not aspire at all for Advaita and dedicate yourself in the service of contemporary human incarnation like Hanuman in the service of Rama. The Advaita philosophers take Advaita as the ancestral property that is already associated with them, which can never be snatched by any force and is brought to their memory by a lawyer! In their view, God is only the lawyer reminding them regarding their forgotten property!

I don't find anything wrong with this material tbh, why is not suited to a or the non duality forum ? I haven't really read in full and maybe it's a bit long but that is the person's own choice ? Again might be off putting to read because of it's length but what that got to do with anything ? There is definitely a point being made and i think several points too. In the opening sentences it speaks about Shankara and the scenario that he could be awakened and other people who claim to be may not ?? Shankara is the grand daddy of Advaita vedanta or non duality so how is this thread not related to non duality ?

Joe Mc
29-06-2017, 06:10 AM
Do you have a main point you could post? Its probably my attention span lacking but could not trace it in the above.

I don't find anything wrong with this material tbh, why is not suited to a or the non duality forum ? I haven't really read in full and maybe it's a bit long but that is the person's own choice ? Again might be off putting to read because of it's length but what has that got to do with anything necessarily ? There is definitely a point being made and i think several points too. In the opening sentences it speaks about Shankara and the scenario that he could be awakened and other people who claim to be may not ?? Shankara is the grand daddy of Advaita vedanta or non duality so how is this thread not related to non duality ?

Joe Mc
29-06-2017, 06:11 AM
I see you added the word "Unity" in your thread topic title, to conform with the sub-forum requirements. No, not really. Not at all in fact. That's all just religion and religious belief, and you honestly couldn't type something less appropriate for a non-duality discussion.

I don't find anything wrong with this material tbh, why is not suited to a or the non duality forum ? I haven't really read in full and maybe it's a bit long but that is the person's own choice ? Again might be off putting to read because of it's length but what has that got to do with anything necessarily? There is definitely a point being made and i think several points too. In the opening sentences it speaks about Shankara and the scenario that he could be awakened and other people who claim to be may not ?? Shankara is the grand daddy of Advaita vedanta or non duality so how is this thread not related to non duality ?