I cannot see any contradiction betN Dvaita and Advaita

[smaranam]

Namaste. Pranam. Respectful obeissances to all.

 

For over a year i have been a passive onlooker into these precious forums that root back to the Vedas.

Please forgive me if i say something wrong or offensive, as believe me, it will be unintentional.

 

The old debate on Dvaita/achintya bhed-abhed Vs. Advaita has come up again (in a previous thread)

 

MAY I ASK : What is wrong with me ? 'CAUSE I SEE ABSOLUTELY NO CONTRADICTION between Dvaita and Advaita ?? Yes, where is the contradiction ? ? (By the way, Krshna is my Beloved Lord Who is always with me and there for me.)

 

Merging into Brahma[n] does not mean becoming God by one individual self, it just means what it says - merging into GOD. Krshna IS that Brahman .

I like MahaPrabhu Vallabhacharya's theory there - (SHUDDHA ADVAITA - pure monism) : The world is Krshna , gross, subtle, all, and Brahman is Krishna, PARAM. Devotion in its most PARA stage is constant flow towards Krishna-Brahman.

 

Merging into the ONENESS of Brahman means MARCHING IN STEP WITH BRAHMAN . THOSE WHO MARCH OUT OF STEP (live on their own free wil) FALL OF ON THE SIDE, YET THEY ARE STILL IN BRAHMAN ,THEY DON't REALIZE IT. SO THEY HAVE SAMSARA (material realm). The ones who realize they are one with Brahman do not have Samsara. Whether you call it soul-specs of ParaBrahma , part and parcel of the supreme , river into ocean , water-pot space into Universal space, it all means the same thing doesn't it ?

 

Advaita is not for everyone, at their particular stage in material and spiritual life.

Advaita cannot be thrown at the masses like a frisbee to be caught and absorbed correctly without misinterpretation. It can cause unwanted side effects of arrogance due to misinterpretation of the Truth.

WHEREAS THE HARE KRISHNA MAHAMANTRA CAN BE FREELY DISTRIBUTED. "CHANT AND BE HAPPY" can be for everyone.

 

I can be the gazillionth servant of the trillionth servant of the Lord ONLY when the Lord is holding my hand and i am one with His Divine will and plan. Surrender to Krshna IS THE SAME AS Merging into Brahman.

Aren't Radha's Sakhis (expansions of) Radha ?

Selflessness , service , pure love are all included. Being a selfless servant in the spiritual world is really for us, not Krishna. Its just a matter of perspective. An Advaitin Jeevanmukta is not just zoned out, he/she is a selfless servant, and most definitely a lover of God in the true sense. PARA BHAKTI and Jnana are one.

 

 

The appearant conflict betN Dvaita and Advaita seems like the story of 6 blind men and the elephant.

 

"Its a rope"

"No! ITs a pillar !"

"I am telling you its a wall"

"No , you sillies, its a fan !" ......

 

That elephant is the ABSOLUTE TRUTH, NIRGUN BRAHMAN` , KRISHNA, VISHNU, ALLAH, BHAGWAN, ISHWAR, .........

 

Achintya - inconceivable for sure.

 

Religious sects have disagreements over partial truths, but Advaita has no quarrel with ANY sect. It is all inclusive.

 

That was my perspective , whatever i can fathom by the Lord's mercy.

Jai Sri Krshna

Radhe Radhe !

[kaisersose]

If they are the same, then why did Ananda Thirtha spend so much time and ink pointing out the flaws of the Advaita system?

 

Unlike other founders, he wrote 4 different commentaries on the Sutras, and a good portion of his works are about proving Advaita wrong. It is clear from his writings, that he did not consider them to the same with no contradictions.

 

To simplify things, you can perhaps explain why you think Madhva was wrong and you are right?

 

Cheers

[smaranam]

 

If they are the same, then why did Ananda Thirtha spend so much time and ink pointing out the flaws of the Advaita system?

 

Unlike other founders, he wrote 4 different commentaries on the Sutras, and a good portion of his works are about proving Advaita wrong. It is clear from his writings, that he did not consider them to the same with no contradictions.

 

To simplify things, you can perhaps explain why you think Madhva was wrong and you are right?

 

Cheers

 

Namaste.

 

Madhava , you mean Madhavacharya ?? Oh, who says He is wrong !! Not at all !! His coming to the earthlings with Dvaita was one of the Lord's Leelas thru' him, to give the Dvaita perspective to those whom it suits. Well ?

 

Oh, who am i to say any of those great acharyas , devotees or scholars are wrong ?? I am not trying to debate, just saying "where is the contradiction ?" Its all HIS Leela you know , that Madan Mohan who plays the flute. He has fun with it.

 

Radhe Shyam !

[kaisersose]

 

Namaste.

 

Madhava , you mean Madhavacharya ?? Oh, who says He is wrong !!

 

 

Madhva => Advaita is false, Dvaita is correct, Advaita != Dvaita

You => Advaita is correct, Dvaita is correct, Advaita = Dvaita

 

If you right, then Madhva is wrong and vice-versa. Hence, my question.

 

Cheers

[smaranam]

Well , if he spent all that ink, it was by the Lord's Will, to put Madhavacharya in that state of mind, and to look at it at the ABSOLUTE LEVEL, it was the Lord's way of hiding a part of the truth. As you know, the different schools of thought are sub-truths that sum up to the ABSOLUTE TRUTH - The Supreme Lord, Krshna, or Brahman if you prefer, the elephant in our story.

 

** How about this : THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE **

 

Jai Sri Krshna

[kshama]

 

Namaste. Pranam. Respectful obeissances to all.

 

For over a year i have been a passive onlooker into these precious forums that root back to the Vedas.

Please forgive me if i say something wrong or offensive, as believe me, it will be unintentional.

 

The old debate on Dvaita/achintya bhed-abhed Vs. Advaita has come up again (in a previous thread)

 

MAY I ASK : What is wrong with me ? 'CAUSE I SEE ABSOLUTELY NO CONTRADICTION between Dvaita and Advaita ?? Yes, where is the contradiction ? ? (By the way, Krshna is my Beloved Lord Who is always with me and there for me.)

 

Merging into Brahma[n] does not mean becoming God by one individual self, it just means what it says - merging into GOD. Krshna IS that Brahman .

I like MahaPrabhu Vallabhacharya's theory there - (SHUDDHA ADVAITA - pure monism) : The world is Krshna , gross, subtle, all, and Brahman is Krishna, PARAM. Devotion in its most PARA stage is constant flow towards Krishna-Brahman.

 

Merging into the ONENESS of Brahman means MARCHING IN STEP WITH BRAHMAN . THOSE WHO MARCH OUT OF STEP (live on their own free wil) FALL OF ON THE SIDE, YET THEY ARE STILL IN BRAHMAN ,THEY DON't REALIZE IT. SO THEY HAVE SAMSARA (material realm). The ones who realize they are one with Brahman do not have Samsara. Whether you call it soul-specs of ParaBrahma , part and parcel of the supreme , river into ocean , water-pot space into Universal space, it all means the same thing doesn't it ?

 

Advaita is not for everyone, at their particular stage in material and spiritual life.

Advaita cannot be thrown at the masses like a frisbee to be caught and absorbed correctly without misinterpretation. It can cause unwanted side effects of arrogance due to misinterpretation of the Truth.

WHEREAS THE HARE KRISHNA MAHAMANTRA CAN BE FREELY DISTRIBUTED. "CHANT AND BE HAPPY" can be for everyone.

 

I can be the gazillionth servant of the trillionth servant of the Lord ONLY when the Lord is holding my hand and i am one with His Divine will and plan. Surrender to Krshna IS THE SAME AS Merging into Brahman.

Aren't Radha's Sakhis (expansions of) Radha ?

Selflessness , service , pure love are all included. Being a selfless servant in the spiritual world is really for us, not Krishna. Its just a matter of perspective. An Advaitin Jeevanmukta is not just zoned out, he/she is a selfless servant, and most definitely a lover of God in the true sense. PARA BHAKTI and Jnana are one.

 

 

The appearant conflict betN Dvaita and Advaita seems like the story of 6 blind men and the elephant.

 

"Its a rope"

"No! ITs a pillar !"

"I am telling you its a wall"

"No , you sillies, its a fan !" ......

 

That elephant is the ABSOLUTE TRUTH, NIRGUN BRAHMAN` , KRISHNA, VISHNU, ALLAH, BHAGWAN, ISHWAR, .........

 

Achintya - inconceivable for sure.

 

Religious sects have disagreements over partial truths, but Advaita has no quarrel with ANY sect. It is all inclusive.

 

That was my perspective , whatever i can fathom by the Lord's mercy.

Jai Sri Krshna

Radhe Radhe !

 

Respected Smaranam Ji,

 

Both advait or dwait paths are beautiful. What impresses you, follow it. God is always there, whatever path you choose to reach Him. I am happy to hear you have penchant and devotion to Lord Krishna. May god bless you, namaste.

[raghu]

smaranam,

 

The reason you cannot see any difference between Advaita and Dvaita is because you are unfamiliar with the core texts and beliefs of both traditions.

 

Try reading them some time.

[smaranam]

"The reason you cannot see any difference between Advaita and Dvaita is because you are unfamiliar with the core texts and beliefs of both traditions."

 

Thanks for your input Raghuji. You are right, i have certainly not read everything, but have read quite a bit over the years - which is a lot for me, perhaps a tip of the iceberg for you.

 

Some Upanishads, BramhaSutras, (quick flip thru' Rig,Sam..Vedas)

Advaita teachings, Raman Maharshi, Swami Shivanand,

Bhagwatam

A bit of other puranas

Gaudiya literature,

Srila Prabhupad's books

A peek at Madhava and Ramanuja.

Writings of well read bhaktas (satsang)

several Gitas

 

The point is, i just look at it as perspectives of the Absolute Truth. That is all.

 

I thought of sharing my thoughts seeing all the discussion on Advaita Vs. Dvaita. Ultimately, some are happy to 'realize', some to simply serve, some to simply 'exist or be'. To some , bhakti is like breathing, to some , even lifting a finger may be hard after Samadhi. So the Supreme Lord is happy with all of these, just wants to give them whatever they are inclined to , in both the material and spiritual worlds.

 

Radhe Krshna

[smaranam]

Thank You KshamaJi

[raghu]

 

"The reason you cannot see any difference between Advaita and Dvaita is because you are unfamiliar with the core texts and beliefs of both traditions."

 

Thanks for your input Raghuji. You are right, i have certainly not read everything, but have read quite a bit over the years - which is a lot for me, perhaps a tip of the iceberg for you.

 

Some Upanishads, BramhaSutras, (quick flip thru' Rig,Sam..Vedas)

Advaita teachings, Raman Maharshi, Swami Shivanand,

Bhagwatam

A bit of other puranas

Gaudiya literature,

Srila Prabhupad's books

A peek at Madhava and Ramanuja.

Writings of well read bhaktas (satsang)

several Gitas

 

The point is, i just look at it as perspectives of the Absolute Truth. That is all.

 

I thought of sharing my thoughts seeing all the discussion on Advaita Vs. Dvaita. Ultimately, some are happy to 'realize', some to simply serve, some to simply 'exist or be'. To some , bhakti is like breathing, to some , even lifting a finger may be hard after Samadhi. So the Supreme Lord is happy with all of these, just wants to give them whatever they are inclined to , in both the material and spiritual worlds.

 

Radhe Krshna

 

Smaranam,

 

The bottom line is that you have neither studied Advaita nor Dvaita in any serious sense, as per your own admission. Therefore, to make a sweeping statement to the effect that there is no difference between Dvaita and Advaita is dishonest.

 

You need to take the time do the relevant research before misrepresenting the facts. There are people on forums like this who are impressionable and cannot distinguish between those who know what they are talking about and those who do not. Prior to the internet, this was not a problem since people generally avoided talking about things of which they knew nothing. Unfortunately, with the advent, many indivuals are in the happen of making comments without any knowledge of the relevant facts, as you just did. If I say "there is no difference between Buddhism and Islam," then the statement implies knowledge of Buddhism and Islam, without which such a statement would be meaningless.

 

Please check your facts.

[kaisersose]

 

Well , if he spent all that ink, it was by the Lord's Will, to put Madhavacharya in that state of mind, and to look at it at the ABSOLUTE LEVEL, it was the Lord's way of hiding a part of the truth.

 

What is your source for this theory? Unless Shankara or Madhvacharya made such an admission that they were hiding part of the truth, then it is simply not true. And I am not aware of either gentleman making such an admission.

 

 

As you know, the different schools of thought are sub-truths that sum up to the ABSOLUTE TRUTH -

 

No, I do not know that. Again, such a statement has no value unless it came from either of them. They have always maintained that their teachings are complete in themselves and require no other additional "sub-truths" to become complete.

 

 

** How about this : THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE **

 

Black, white, gray - the color is irrelevant. Back to my question. How do you know the absolute truth or that Dvaita is not the absolute truth - which Madhva himself did not know? What gives you this additional knowledge that Madhva lacked?

 

Cheers

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

It is possible to appreciate truth in some teaching without accepting it as an absolute truth. This appears to be smaranam's positon, that there are relevant truths in all the acharya's writings, but he does not accept them as absolute truth (otherwise they would contradict each other).

 

I also accept that Shankara has taught many valuable spiritual truths, but I don't accept his conclusions as being absolute. The absolute is beyond comprehension. What to speak of the absolute, even insignificant things like computers, nuclear energy, microbiology, etc., are all beyond my comprehension (but of course not beyond some other people's comprehension). Even for the scientists there are plenty of topics beyond comprehension in this mundane world. I, for one, am willing to accept the possibility that the absolute defies the logic of the human brain, making all descriptions of Him to be incomplete. I realize I won't be able to hold the title of "the person who knows the absolute truth perfectly beyond doubt", but I will just have to live with that.

[Kali_Upasaka]

 

Namaste.

 

Madhava , you mean Madhavacharya ?? Oh, who says He is wrong !! Not at all !! His coming to the earthlings with Dvaita was one of the Lord's Leelas thru' him, to give the Dvaita perspective to those whom it suits. Well ?

 

Oh, who am i to say any of those great acharyas , devotees or scholars are wrong ?? I am not trying to debate, just saying "where is the contradiction ?" Its all HIS Leela you know , that Madan Mohan who plays the flute. He has fun with it.

 

Radhe Shyam !

I do not understand. If you are a Bhaktha of Krishna does the difference between Dvaita and advaita matter?

 

As far as I know there are only three Margas to GOD. Bhakthi, Karma and Jnana. If you have chosen Bhakthi why bother about any of these Philosophies?

 

None of the stories of Bhakthas that I have read said anywhere that they were bothered about any Philosophy.

 

Krishna is within us. He should be in our heart and not in our head.

 

I learnt about all these philosophies long after I became a Bhaktha.

[Kali_Upasaka]

Bhakthi is Love. We aspire for selfless Love. Even when you are in Love with a girl, her external appearance etc. matters in the beginning. But once you have fallen in Love nothing matters. You can not attribute your Love to any particular factor. Because Love comes from the heart.

 

Love for GOD is even greater than this. Once you fall in Love with Krishna does it matter whether he is Vedic/Puranic, whether HE is the supreme deity and so on. No. Sir. It matters too hoots. You are in Love with Krishna. Period.

[smaranam]

QUOTE : "Bhakthi is Love. We aspire for selfless Love. Even when you are in Love with a girl, her external appearance etc. matters in the beginning. But once you have fallen in Love nothing matters. You can not attribute your Love to any particular factor. Because Love comes from the heart.

 

Love for GOD is even greater than this. Once you fall in Love with Krishna does it matter whether he is Vedic/Puranic, whether HE is the supreme deity and so on. No. Sir. It matters too hoots. You are in Love with Krishna. Period."

 

Well said ! Precisely what i think, but your words make a difference. Thank You. Oh Krshna !

[smaranam]

This is a reply to 'Kali Upasak'.

 

1. I wrote this because there were heated discussions on the philosophies and their interpretations. So i gave my thoughts.

 

2. Why do i bother with the philosophies ?

 

First of all, Krishna IS in my heart, not head. Ideally i would like to just live with Him in Mana-Vrindavan, Swetadweep or wherever He takes me, as i was innocently, several years ago since i met Him . It was the desire to serve Him correctly and selflessly, and to know more about Him that led me first to His Leelas (not philosophy) in the Bhagvat Purana, beyond what i knew from Amar Chitra Kathas and Mahabharat stories. (I was already quite familiar with the Gita).

 

My search for the Bhagvad led me to books by Swami Prabhupad. Initially i was so excited to find all the treasure. Slowly as i got more and more into the Gaudiya literature i realized how my personal experience of Divine Love driven mystically by KRISHNA (and not a product of my imagination) had no place practically in their teachings. You might say, "why should that bother you ? Wasn't Krshna with you already ?" and you are right , i don't need anything else except my inner world where He resides.

 

But you see, although i just wanted to follow my heart, i am only a human and felt it was my duty to learn to be a good devotee WHO LOVES ALL BEINGS AND KNOWS WHAT THAT MEANS, from my side , although Krshna would always be happy with our innocent love and love us anyways.

 

Acc. to most Vaishnav teachings , Radha does not represent the human soul who loves the Divine Paramatma , Krshna. Instead, She is His Haladini Shakti, a goddess, and cannot be touched by tatastha jivas, as they will always remain jivas. So, a jiva is a servant of servant of servant of servant of servant of ... Krishna. They also cannot directly be His mother, father, wife , lover or friend - like Yashoda or Nanda, Subala or Madhumangala.

 

This model did not fit in considering my already formed relationship with Krshna. Even Meera was considered "not bonafide" by some Vaishnavas.

Later i discovered MahaPrabhu Vallabhacharya - who seems to be one Vaishnav Acharya who "allows" a ONE-ON-ONE relationship with Krshna.

 

My relationship with Him is ONE on ONE , only then can i be the servant of all, and make Him happy. Reading philosophies was partly a way to ensure that my Love is selfless and in the right direction- but at the risk of dampening the sponteinity of that Love, although the kind lord wouldn't let that happen.

 

At the same time , the internal overrules and overrides the external for me.

Krshna is the ultimate guide and Guru, although He has been - quite patiently - watching all my surfing for the right things in scriptures. I don't want to try His patience anymore as i am wiser now than before.

 

Also, did you not learn the philosophies after you were a bhakta already ? I would like to ask what made you go for the philosophies ?

 

Jai Sri Krshna

[raghu]

 

This is a reply to 'Kali Upasak'.

 

1. I wrote this because there were heated discussions on the philosophies and their interpretations. So i gave my thoughts.

 

2. Why do i bother with the philosophies ?

 

First of all, Krishna IS in my heart, not head. Ideally i would like to just live with Him in Mana-Vrindavan, Swetadweep or wherever He takes me, as i was innocently, several years ago since i met Him . It was the desire to serve Him correctly and selflessly, and to know more about Him that led me first to His Leelas (not philosophy) in the Bhagvat Purana, beyond what i knew from Amar Chitra Kathas and Mahabharat stories. (I was already quite familiar with the Gita).

 

My search for the Bhagvad led me to books by Swami Prabhupad. Initially i was so excited to find all the treasure. Slowly as i got more and more into the Gaudiya literature i realized how my personal experience of Divine Love driven mystically by KRISHNA (and not a product of my imagination) had no place practically in their teachings. You might say, "why should that bother you ? Wasn't Krshna with you already ?" and you are right , i don't need anything else except my inner world where He resides.

 

But you see, although i just wanted to follow my heart, i am only a human and felt it was my duty to learn to be a good devotee WHO LOVES ALL BEINGS AND KNOWS WHAT THAT MEANS, from my side , although Krshna would always be happy with our innocent love and love us anyways.

 

Acc. to most Vaishnav teachings , Radha does not represent the human soul who loves the Divine Paramatma , Krshna. Instead, She is His Haladini Shakti, a goddess, and cannot be touched by tatastha jivas, as they will always remain jivas. So, a jiva is a servant of servant of servant of servant of servant of ... Krishna. They also cannot directly be His mother, father, wife , lover or friend - like Yashoda or Nanda, Subala or Madhumangala.

 

This model did not fit in considering my already formed relationship with Krshna. Even Meera was considered "not bonafide" by some Vaishnavas.

Later i discovered MahaPrabhu Vallabhacharya - who seems to be one Vaishnav Acharya who "allows" a ONE-ON-ONE relationship with Krshna.

 

My relationship with Him is ONE on ONE , only then can i be the servant of all, and make Him happy. Reading philosophies was partly a way to ensure that my Love is selfless and in the right direction- but at the risk of dampening the sponteinity of that Love, although the kind lord wouldn't let that happen.

 

At the same time , the internal overrules and overrides the external for me.

Krshna is the ultimate guide and Guru, although He has been - quite patiently - watching all my surfing for the right things in scriptures. I don't want to try His patience anymore as i am wiser now than before.

 

Also, did you not learn the philosophies after you were a bhakta already ? I would like to ask what made you go for the philosophies ?

 

Jai Sri Krshna

 

This is all fine and good, and I wish you the best. But whatever your motivations are, please do not use that as an excuse to misrepresent the facts i.e. by falsely claiming that there is no difference between Dvaita and Advaita.

[smaranam]

 

This is all fine and good, and I wish you the best. But whatever your motivations are, please do not use that as an excuse to misrepresent the facts i.e. by falsely claiming that there is no difference between Dvaita and Advaita.

 

Thank You for the wishes.

 

I never said there is no difference. I said "I cannot see any contradiction".

 

Janhava Nitai Das has accurately understood what i was trying to say. Please read his post.

 

Namaste.

[primate]

 

...

 

I never said there is no difference [between Advaita and Dvaita]. I said "I cannot see any contradiction".

...

 

Of course, there's no contradiction between the concept of oneness (Advaita) and the idea of inconceivable, simultaneous oneness and difference (Achintya Bheda Abheda). But I'm sure, there is a contradiction between unqualified Advaita (monism) and Dvaita (dualism)..

[melvin]

 

Thank You for the wishes.

 

I never said there is no difference. I said "I cannot see any contradiction".

 

Janhavi Nitai Das has accurately understood what i was trying to say. Please read his post.

 

Namaste.

 

 

You can`t see any contradiction between Advaita and Dvaita maybe because LOVE is always present in your heart as your guide. Love rejoices in the truth not evil. Since these teachings are good because they are truthful not bad then you see them as one. Again there`s no contradiction here since you know they are simultaneously different( One is good while the other is better).

[smaranam]

Thank You for your encouraging words, Melvin.

 

Hare Krishna

[raghu]

 

Thank You for the wishes.

 

I never said there is no difference. I said "I cannot see any contradiction".

 

Janhava Nitai Das has accurately understood what i was trying to say. Please read his post.

 

Namaste.

 

Smaranam,

 

Please do not make claims about not being able to see differences between obviously different philosophies such as Tattvavada (aka Dvaita) and Advaita. When these acharyas have gone through such troubles to develop their philosphies, it is very disrespectful of you to simply gloss over them and say that you cannot see any difference.

[smaranam]

OK.

Advaita, Achintya bhed-abheda, Dvaita can all exist parallely.

 

Please believe me, i had no intention to disrespect anyone on this forum, what to speak of the great Acharyas.

 

What school will you send your child to ? Montessori or Traditional ? Public or Private ? Hindi or English medium ? Classical or IB certified ?

Assuming they went to the 'right' school that suited them, they will all graduate with love, compassion, mercy, seeing the Divine in everyone around.

 

I ask everyone to please forgive me if i have offended you unintentionally , being low on intelligence and terrible in communication skills.

 

I shall pray that the kindest acharyas will forgive me. If they will, the Almighty Supreme Lord will , as they are His exhalted devotees.

 

Om Namo Bhagawate Vasudevaya.

[primate]

I forgive you. Tell me, how can Advaita, Achintya bhed-abheda, Dvaita all exist parallely? Is it perhaps because Achintya Bheda Abheda is true?

[IamNotHeeHee]

 

I never said there is no difference. I said "I cannot see any contradiction".

Haribol Prabhuji, so you are so much filled with love that you do not see any contradiction. You see only Krishna and therefore you see the north and the south pole in the same place. How nice

 

Do you see others contradicting your posts? If you don't, I wonder why you keep clarifying and responding to their contradictions. If you do see the objections, wonder where did Krishna dissappear?