gauDIya vaiShNava objections to advaita of shrI shankarAchArya - part 2: Oneness

[Guest guest]

Once again, we will continue our discussion of Achintya Bheda Abheda

vs Advaita of shrI shankarAchArya. As always, the purpose is not to

arouse animosity or encourage disrespect. Rather, the issue is to

clarify differences so as to discourage objections based on sentiment

alone. While one can disagree with Advaita on the grounds of common

sense, logic, etc, to know for certain that one is disagreeing with

ShankarAchArya requires knowledge of what ShankarAchArya has actually

written. Again, we will quote directly from shrI shankarAchArya to

establish his point of view.

 

svayaM parichchhedamupetya buddheH stAdAtmyadoSheNa paraM

mR^iShAtmanaH |

sarvAtmakaH sannapi vIkShyate svayaM svataH pR^ithaktvena mR^ido

ghaTAniva || 190 ||

 

This Atman, though the Atman of all, sees itself separate.

Identifying itself with this intellect, it becomes as that which is

cut off from the whole, limited, as a pitcher is cut off from the

earth. (vivekAchUDAmaNi 190)

 

vinivR^ittirbhavettasya samyagj~nAnena nAnyathA |

brahmAtmaikatvavij~nAnaM shrutermatam || 202 ||

 

Real knowledge is the cause of its destruction. Real knowledge is

that: Brahman and Atman are one and the same. This is the sure

decision of the scripture. (vivekAchUDAmaNi 202)

 

The above statements of shrI shankarAchArya make it very clear his

view on the relationship between jIvAtma and paramAtma/brahman.

Although this jIvAtman is in reality the paramAtman, it sees itself

as separate and becomes "cut off from the whole." Knowing that this

jIvAtman is actually the same as Brahman is real knowledge.

 

Please note that unlike gauDIya vaiShNavas, "brahman" in vedAnta

discourse and especially in Advaita means the supreme Brahaman. In

other words, there is nothing higher than brahman even as per

shankarAchArya. Hence, jIvAtman and brahman are same. shrI shankara

writes this himself. By "Atman" he is not referring to paramAtmA,

because this interpretation is not supported by context. Besides,

everyone already knows that paramAtmA is same as Brahman; shrI

shankara would not take the trouble to state this obvious fact.

Advaitins have this view of shAstra that it teaches only that which

is not known. So, no point in shankara saying what is already known.

Hence, he is arguing that jIvAtma is same as Brahman.

 

What does shrIla jIva gosvAmI have to say about this?

 

tatra jIvasya tAdR^ishachidrUpatve 'pi parameshvarato

vailakShaNyaM "tadapAshrayAm" iti "yayA sammohita" iti cha darshayati

|| TS 34 ||

 

Like the Lord, the jIva is purely spiritual, yet still he is

different from the Lord. This truth is indicated by the words tad-

apAshrayam (mAyA is outside Him yet supported by Him), [bhAgavatam

1.7.4] and yayA sammohito (deluded by mAyA) [bhAgavatam 1.7.5] (shrI

tattva sandarbha 34)

 

yarhyeva yadekaM chidrUpaM brahma mAyAshrayatAvalitaM vidyAmayaM

tarhyeva tanmAyAviShayatApannamavidyAparibhUta~nchetyayuktamiti

jIveshvaravibhAgo 'vagataH | tatashcha svarUpasAmarthyavailakShaNyena

taddvitiyaM mitho vilakShaNasvarUpamevetyAgatam || TS 35 ||

 

If it is indeed true that the one undivided Brahman, whose very

nature is pure spirit, is the foundation of mAyA and also embodies

the liberating force of knowledge, then it is illogical to say that

the very same Brahman falls under mAyA's influence and is overcome by

ignorance. Thus we can understand that the jIva and the Supreme Lord

are separate entities. Since both their identities and their

capabilities are different, the jIva and the Lord are essentially

distinct. (shrI tattva sandarbha 35)

 

In other words, Brahman is the support of mAyA and the cause of

liberation. Thus He cannot fall under spell of mAyA. Yet jIvas can.

Therefore Brahman and jIvas are different.

 

One is free to disagree with the logic, but the point is clear. shrI

tattva sandarbha is a canonical gauDIya vaiShNava work. It is very

clear that it objects to the "oneness" doctrine advanced by

shankarAchArya.

 

Still one may argue that shankarAchArya does not claim that brahman

falls under the spell of mAyA. But such a person would be incorrect,

for shankara himself writes:

 

aj~nAnayogAtparamAtmanastava hyanAtmabandhastata eva saMsR^itiH |

tayorvivekoditabodhavahnirj~nAnakAryaM pradahetsamUlam || 47 ||

 

Because you are associated with ignorance, the supreme Atman within

you appears to be in bondage to the non-Atman. This is the sole cause

of the cycle of births and deaths. The flame of illumination, which

is kindled by discrimination between Atman and non-Atman, will burn

away the effects of ignorance, down to their very roots.

(vivekachUDAmaNi 47)

 

The above says it very clearly. This Atman, whose bondage leads to

samSara (cycle of birth and death), is clearly the jIvAtma. Yet,

shankara refers to it as the paramAtma. Thus, he does not

differentiate between jIvAtma and paramAtma ultimately. If he was

referring to jIvAtma only while accepting the difference between it

and paramAtma, then he would not have referred to this Atma as

paramAtma. If he was referring to paramAtma and not jIvAtma, then he

would not have spoken of its bondage as leading to samsAra.

 

Thus, he is clearly stating that it is indeed paramAtma that comes

under ignorance. So, this Atman who is brahman, due to ignorance

(despite being brahman) sees itself as being in bondage to matter,

leading to samsAra and the perception of being a separate jIvAtma.

 

This is the essence of Advaita aka mAyAvAda. And based on shrI jIva

gosvAmI's analysis of shrImad bhAgavtam, we can conclude that gauDIya

vaiShNavas disagree with it as a matter of doctrine.