Dvaita vs Advaita: points of emphasis

[Guest guest]

This is not to start a running debate, but I was thinking on the objections of Dvaita to Advaita, and I thought it may be useful to present a distinction in some conclusions. I would like Dvaitins to consider this.

 

First a small synopsis of Advaita (not intended to be perfect but rather for the general unacquainted reader): (Please skip if you do not want to read this and go to the next part with "Three parts to distinguish").

 

1. There is Brahman.

2. Brahman is Chaitanya/Consciousness which may also be referred to as Pure Awareness/Identity or Supreme non-dual Being.

3. Brahman may be manifest (Saguna) or unmanifest (Nirguna): when manifest, He is the supreme Individual: Ishvara, and when unmanifest, Ishvara is in total abidance in the Self and all manifested Individuality is withdrawn.

4. The Identity of Brahman/Ishvara which is constant in all states is the Ultimate Reality: it is the non-dual basis of everything.

 

5. Ishvara projects forth the duality of Jiva and Prakrithi. His Consciousness is projected as Prakrithi, His/He that sees through as jivas, and His/He that remains apart as Ishvara. (Excuse me if you think this is abuse:

"Kshetragnyam Chaapi Maam Viddhi...")

6. At the end of the cycle/His Play, the projected manifoldness is entirely withdrawn by Ishvara, and Ishvara Himself enters into His Nirguna State withdrawing from all Saguna manifestation.

7. The Play that Ishvara enacts out of His consciousness has the simple goal for the manifested jivas: "Who can find Him?" (We all are agreed here). Advaita asserts that the true Identity of every Jiva is none other than Ishvara (or rather the Ultimate Identity whose first manifestation is the individuality of Ishvara); as such, the goal is synonymous with "Who can find His Self?"

8. Thus the Jiva can proceed through His Play to attain this final Goal by either praying to Ishvara for His Grace or by seeking within to realize the Self. In either case, it is Ishvara who graces the jiva with spiritual realization of the Ultimate Reality: the truth of non-duality in Identity. "That I am": That Reality of Ishvara is the same as that of Jiva. The small i is dissolved in the one Universal I that is Brahman.

 

Three parts to distinguish.

 

1. Non-eternal manifestation of Individuality of Ishvara.

2. Manifestation of the duality of Prakrithi and Jiva by Ishvara.

3. Jivatman = Paramatman: the non-duality in Identity of Ishvara and Jiva.

 

The first is the strongest assertion and the last is the weakest.

 

If the first is true, then in essence, all Saguna features of Brahman are non-eternal and the Substratum Reality is non-dual. If the manifested Individuality of Ishvara is non-eternal, then definitely those of Prakrithi and Jiva are as well.

 

However, the negation of 1. does not implicate negation of 2. The eternal existence of manifested Individuality of Ishvara or even with eternal (more objective) Gunas does not mean the Gunas called Prakrithi and Jivas are eternal.

 

Finally, the negation of 2 at the level of Prakrithi does not implicate the negation of 3, which deals only with Jiva.

 

The reason I make this separation is because the most cherished point of Advaita is this weakest assertion: the non-difference in Identity of Jivatman and Paramatman. However the arguments of the philosophies often waste themselves at the stronger levels, which perhaps are more indicative of difference in philosophical perspective than truth. The Advaitin certainly holds to all the points but what is relevant to the Jiva is really its final relationship with Ishvara.

 

I tried to bring forth the idea in the above synopsis of Advaita that even this difference in our philosophies need not mean a practical difference in terms of Bhakthi (although of course Advaita gives equal place to Jnana : Jnana and Bhakthi are ultimately one and same in Advaitic sense.).

[Guest guest]

Interesting Subject. It'll be usefull to discuss Visistadvaita also, since it is in-between these two philosophies and what was the original philosophy of the Upanishads that these schools all claim to be based on.

Let's see how long this thread can last for, before being turned into a thumping match.

[Guest guest]

 

Interesting Subject. It'll be usefull to discuss Visistadvaita also, since it is in-between these two philosophies and what was the original philosophy of the Upanishads that these schools all claim to be based on.

Let's see how long this thread can last for, before being turned into a thumping match.

 

I doubt if it will become a thumping match or last long, since for one thing I don't attend here often. I almost got into one with the administrator last week, and I wanted to clarify some points in a more dignified manner. As for the word Dvaita, I use it more or less generally.

 

The point I believe is that each of our philosophies can hold its own ground, if properly understood, and if we want to thump on one another, it will be like the Sikh on the Hindu for Murti worship, i.e. missing the point. Ultimately it is not logic but an ounce of faith that validates our beliefs (at least at the Bhakthi level). I accept Advaita for a variety of reasons, but from the Bhakthi standpoint, I will neither be disappointed nor surprised if the other philosophies are correct. I think they are great as well.