Guest guest Posted February 21, 2000 Report Share Posted February 21, 2000 Vinarie i too have been thinking along the similar lines as urs. But i guess as Dr. Shah says it's not that simple may be true too. But ur insight that cause and effect can't exist is quite interesting. > > " vinaire " <vinaire > > > > I do not find any disgreement between the Advaita and Dvaita approach > > to the understanding of WHAT IS. They are just two different way of > looking at the same thing. > > Advaita looks at the source of all to be BRAHMAN in its unmanifested > state. This state is beyond matter, energy, space, and time. Thus, > it cannot be described. Any description would make use of forms > (made up of matter, energy, space, and time). But BRAHMAN in its > > unmanifested state is beyond matter, energy, space, and time, and, > > therefore, beyond all forms. > > Now, in order to create, BRAHMAN must manifest itself as Cause > > (Purusha) and Effect (Prakriti) simultaneously. You cannot have > Cause without Effect, or Effect without Cause. And that is where > > form (guna) comes in, and that is where the viewpoint of Dvaita comes > > in. > > Advaita is looking at BRAHMAN unmanifested. > > Dvaita is looking at BRAHMAN manifested. > > Both are correct. They are simply looking at the same Reality in two > > different ways. > > > > Sincerely, > > Vinaire > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2000 Report Share Posted February 22, 2000 Dear Anurag, You said: " Vinarie i too have been thinking along the similar lines as urs. But i guess as Dr. Shah says it's not that simple may be true too. But ur insight that cause and effect can't exist is quite interesting. " Well, I would like to examine the difficulties that Dr. Shah is hinting at. There should always be the will to overcome such complexities if one wants to move toward the absolute. Vinaire Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2000 Report Share Posted February 22, 2000 Thank you for your explanation. It does, however, bring up more questions. First I would like to share the definitions I have been working with. Real refers to something which has factual existence, though it may or may not be temporary. Thus I would say that my coming to work this morning was a real occurrence, as was my going to lunch, and I expect that my going home tonight will also be a real occurrence. Illusion means that which appears to be, but is actually false. Sometimes I think that I have control over matter, but I understand this to be illusion. What is real in this case is that I (jiva) have a desire, God (paramesvara) sanctions the desire, and material nature (prakriti) carries it out. My question is that if there is creation within Brahman or by Brahman, what is the meaning of nonduality? Would you refer to the tiny jivaatma and the great paramatma as one and the same? (After reading ahead, I see you addressed this question. What then is the jivaatma covered by? Can Brahman be covered by Brahman? If this is so, are there not multiple Brahmans?! Is this a mystery?) If someone (jivatma) is Brahman realized, are they actually cognizant of all the thoughts, sensations, etc., of all beings? If this occurs, how can this be distinguished from the material siddhis? Are they deprived of sensations? -Dharam Dev On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 23:22:15 -0000 " Vinaire Agarwala " <vinaire writes: > " Vinaire Agarwala " <vinaire > > I believe that some of the confusion is due to people using different > definitions for " real " and " illusion. " From a scientific > perspective, we can > apply the term " illusion " to anything that is continually being > created. This is > simply because anything that is being created can also cease to be > created. > > All that exists in this universe of matter, energy, space, and time > is being > created continually. Therefore, it can also cease to exist. Hence, > it qualifies > as an " illusion " per the scientific perspective above. > > Only thing that is not being created is the " potential to create, " > which is > present as BRAHMAN. Therefore, from a scientific perspective this > " potential to > create " within us, is the only thing real that is. > > > > > > Dharam Dev Singh <DharamDev > > > > > > From my limited understanding of the advaita, dvaita, > > visishtaadvaita, dvaitaadvaita, and suddhaadvaita, I believe only > the > > advaita school would say that all the same Reality is reached. If > my > > understanding is correct, the advaita school believes that nothing > is > > achieved by enlightenment, as there is no illusion apart from > Brahman. > > But the other schools believe that illusion is produced by the > Lord, Who > > is Real, and therefore the illusion is Real also, though > temporary. I > > think they also say that there is variegatedness _within_ reality, > and > > different paths produce different results, even after the pure > spiritual > > platform has been reached. > > > > > > > > ------ > What's the coolest new Web resource? It's the AskMe Page, which > allows you > to have your own Q & A platform, interact with peers and earn rewards! > It's > simple, fun & FREE! Get it now! > http://click./1/1459/4/_/411454/_/951216024/ > ------ > > Sri Ramakrishnaye Namah > Vivekananda Centre London > http://www.btinternet.com/~vivekananda/ > ______________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2000 Report Share Posted February 23, 2000 > Real refers to something which has factual existence, though it >may or may not be temporary. Thus I would say that my coming to work >this morning was a real occurrence, as was my going to lunch, and I >expect >that my going home tonight will also be a real occurrence. > Illusion means that which appears to be, but is actually false. >Sometimes I think that I have control over matter, but I understand this >to be illusion. What is real in this case is that I (jiva) have a >desire, God (paramesvara) sanctions the desire, and material nature >(prakriti) carries it out. The exact word for Maya is not illusion. Even Swami Vivekananda has elaborated in some if his speeches on the definition of Maya. Maya is neither real nor unreal. It is not real because it does not exist in the three periods of time (past, present & future). At the same time it is not unreal because it can be seen (perceived). So therefore, it cannot be explained satisfactorily. Pls also study those verses from Vivekacudamani on Maya that I just posted. > My question is that if there is creation within Brahman or by >Brahman, >what is the meaning of nonduality? Would you refer to the tiny jivaatma >and the great paramatma as one and the same? There is no creation within or without Brahman. All there is IS BRAHMAN. Even the Jiva is part of existence. Therefore, it is Brahman too. This conclusion is at the absolute level. Something only a Jeevanmukta would see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2000 Report Share Posted February 25, 2000 This sounds like that Hare Krishna crap... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2000 Report Share Posted February 25, 2000 Please excuse me for sticking my $.02 in here. I've spent about equal time studying advaita and dvaita-advaita philosophies, so I can't help but comment. On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 23:12:46 -0000 " Vinaire Agarwala " <vinaire writes: > " Vinaire Agarwala " <vinaire > > Dear Dr.Shah, > > Since you have been dealing with these subjects much more > extensively than I > have been, could please explain to me briefly where the Dvaita > philosophy > disagrees with the Advaita philosophy. Does that mean that the > Dvaita philosophy > disagrees with Vedas too? > > I somehow feel that if Shankaracharya, Ramanujacharya, and > Madhvacharya were > alive today any and all differences could have been smoothed out > easily. > Caitanya Mahaprabhu, the dual incarnation of Srimati Radharani and Sri Krishna, engaged in His scholarly and devotional pastimes in the line of Madhavacarya (who preached " dvaita " ), though Sri Caitanya actually taught " acintya bheda-abheda tattva " (simultaneous oneness and difference.) The main point is that while everything is Brahman, there is real variagetedness in Brahman. That is, there is a difference between the Lord and His energies. The Lord is the controller of His energies, which are sometimes manifest and sometimes unmanifest. During the inhalation of Maha-Vishnu, the material energies are unmanifest, and during His exhalation they are manifest. Some of Krishna's spiritual energies are manifest during His exhibition of His pastimes on Earth, and some are always unmanifest. However, though His pastimes in Goloka Vrndavana may be unmanifest, they are active pastimes which are very far removed from material nature. Krishna's name, form, pastimes, paraphernalia, and associates are all eternal, fully conscious, and overflowing with bliss. Krishna's devotees recognize the renunciates in the advaita school as transcendentalists, but they consider them very unfortunate because the pleasure derived from impersonal Brahman realization is insignificant compared to that which is derived from serving Sri Krishna and His devotees. There is also some animosity because the advaita-vadis accuse Krishna of being influenced by material nature. They criticise devotees as being illusioned. A devotee who hears such blaspheme is advised to defeat the person in scriptural debate. If he is not capable, than he must leave the place. If that is not possible, he must kill himself rather than pollute his senses with atheistic philosophy. Regarding the Vedas, Vyasadev compiled the Vedanta-sutras as a summary of the topmost teachings of the Vedas, and His commentary on the Vedanta-sutras is Srimad Bhagavatam, which narrates the pastimes of the Supreme Personality of Godhead (Sri Krishna) and His expansions. Shankaracarya, in commenting on Vedanta-sutras, had to resort to stating that Vyasadev was mistaken, and introduces concepts not present in the Vedas. In order to provide reference that can make this into a worthy discussion, I've quoted a small portion (Chapter 5) of the _Vaishnava Siddhanta Mala_, by Bhaktivinoda Thakur. Bhaktivinoda Thakur is one of the acharyas in the line of Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Here he discusses the topic of " bheda. " ---- DIFFERENCE (BHEDA) IS REAL Q. Whenever both Bhagavan and the jivas are spoken of as being conscious (caitanya), then is the difference between the two real or imaginary? A. No. Bhagavan's consciousness is all pervading (vibhu-caitanya), and the jiva's consciousness is infinitesimal (anu-caitanya). This difference between the two is not imaginary, but factual. Bhagavan is the Lord of His own maya-sakti, whereas the jivas are subordinate to maya-sakti. Q. How many types of bheda (difference) are there? A. There are two types of Bheda: vyavaharika (relating to behavior) and tattvika (relating to truth). Q. What is vyahavarika-bheda? A. This is illustrated in the difference between a clay pot and a piece of cloth. They seem to be different things, but they both originated from the same thing — the soil of the earth. In the original condition as soil, there is no difference between the two things (the pot and the cloth). This type of difference is called vyavaharika-bheda . Q. What is tattvika-bheda? A. This is when one thing is different from another thing in its function as well as in its original cause. This type of difference is called tattvika-bheda. Q. Is the difference between the jiva and Bhagavan vyavaharika or tattvika? A. Tattvika. Q. Why is that? A. Because in no condition whatsoever can the jiva become Bhagavan. Q. Then how are we to understand the profound statements (maha-vakya) of the scriptures like tat-tvam-asi (You are that Is)? A. The great sage Svetaketu received the following instructions: " you are spirit soul; you are not born from matter, but from consciousness (caitanya). From this lesson it is never to be understood that you are the supreme all-pervading consciousness (vibhu-caitanya). " Q. Then the scriptural statements regarding the oneness of the jiva with the all-pervading Brahman effulgence do not apply? A. From the jiva's point of view, the difference between the two (bheda) is eternal; and from Brahman's point of view, the non-difference is eternal. Therefore difference and non-difference (bheda and abheda) are both eternal and true. Q. How can we understand this contradictory conclusion? A. By the Lord's inconceivable potency (acintya-sakti), all contradictory truths exist in complete harmony; but the tiny jivas, who possess very limited intelligence, think that such things are impossible. Q. Then why do we always hear condemnation of the philosophy of oneness? A. Because those who propound the philosophy of oneness say that the difference is also eternal, and by proving this, they have correctly ascertained the doubtless truth of acintya-bhedabheda (simultaneous oneness and difference). Those who preach the philosophy of bhedabheda are faultless, whereas those who only propound either bheda or abheda are condemned by their adherence to a one-sided truth. Q. Who has the sole opinion of abheda (non-difference)? A. The nirvisesa-vadis (propounders of non-distinction) only accept the philosophy of abheda, whereas the savisesa-vadis (propounders of eternal distinction) do not accept this philosophy of abheda. Q. Who accepts the savisesa philosophy? A. All the Vaisnava-Sampradayas accept it. Q. How many sampradayas do the Vaisnavas have? A. There are four principal vaisnava doctrines: 1) Dvaita 2) Visista-advaita 3) Dvaita-advaita 4) Suddha-dvaita Q. Are there any ontological disagreements among their views? A. There is no actual disagreement between their doctrines, for they are all savisesa-vadis (believers in eternal distinction). None of them tolerate the philosophy of kevala-abheda (only oneness). All of these four Vaishnava groups have affection for the Lord, and thus they accept the true principles of the Lord's energy (bhagavat-sakti). Those of the dvaita school (dvaita-vadis) say that those of the exclusively advaita school are totally blind. This is because the dvaita-vadis can see the eternality of the dvaita-vada (doctrine of duality). This is the opinion of Sri Madhvacarya. The visista-advaita-vadis say that all things are endowed with attributes, and therefore can never be advaita or non-dual. The dvaita-advaita-vadis are very outspoken in their views, which clearly denounce the impersonal philosophy of advaita. The doctrine of suddha-advaita also condemns the advaita philosophy and establishes its own conclusion by emphasizing the pure form of eternal attributes. By seeing and thoroughly understanding an overview of these four schools of Vaishnava doctrine, it is obvious that there is no disagreement among them. Q. Then why did Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu accept only the doctrine of Sri Madhvacarya? A. The special characteristic of Madhvacarya's doctrine is that it very clearly defeats the faulty mistakes of the advaita philosophy. By maintaining this forceful position, the distress caused by the impersonal philosophy is cast very far away. Therefore, in order to bring about safe and sure benefit for the unfortunate conditioned souls who are weakened from the onslaughts of Kali-Yuga, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu accepted the doctrine of Sri Madhvacarya. But by doing so He did not minimize the importance of the other three vaishnava doctrines whatsoever. Whichever type of savisesa-vada (philosophy of eternal distinction) one accepts is just fine, for it will certainly bring eternal auspiciousness. --------- If you're interested in reading more of this, here is a link: http://www.kingdomofgod.com/garland.htm ______________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2000 Report Share Posted February 26, 2000 On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 19:54:37 EST jaguarxox writes: > jaguarxox > > > This sounds like that Hare Krishna crap... > If you have something intelligent you can say about the Vaishnava siddhanta, I'm sure some of us might be interested in hearing. There was some desire of hearing about the Dvaita perspective, as one can not compare and contrast to philosophies without knowing what beliefs are held in each. I presented some of the Vaishnava teachings, as they appear to have the most developed dvaita philosophy, and Caitanya Mahaprabhu specifically, is the most famous scholar and devotee in the Vaishnava sampradaya. Do you know of some flaw in their teachings, or the teachings of Caitanya Mahaprabhu? Maybe you could elaborate a little more. - Dharam Dev ______________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.