Shaivism vs. Vaishnavism

That which is not part of God- does not exist, that which is 'not' God does not exist and God is everything.

 

how could God exist except if a part of God didn't exist? the non-existence of God makes the existence of God possible... how could God know itself as God lest there be a part of God that was not God? and so our circuitous journey as that part of God choosing to know itself as not a part of God so God could know itself as God

 

The upanishads leave very little room for such thinking. The mahavakya is very very clear - ayamatma brahma - this atma, the self in me, is brahman. And the puranas further this statement in saying that brahman, greater self, and god are all the same thing - brahmeti paramatmeti bhagavan iti uchyate.

This is what a lot of gaudiyas claim is taught, but if you examine carefully thr writings of their own masters, you will certainly find that my earlier explanation of the lila of difference is what is expressed therein.

 

Advaita, Dvaita, Christianity

These claims of absolute scriptural proof for Advaita philosophy remind me of Christians arguing absolute Biblical proof for the fall of man and original sin...both may be "in scripture", but don't work in a theoretical, process-oriented analysis.

As a broad concept, Dvaita philosophy is the only one of the three that offers reasonably-understandable answers to the question of why we are in this world of suffering from repeated birth, disease, old age, and death.

What impelled the breakaway theologians Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya?

Why did Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and disciples have such an outstanding success in their own time, that continues to this day?

Why do the varieties of Dvaita philosophy persist and flourish into the present, deeply established even in the western world, if it's essentially a man-made deviation from scriptural truth?

 

Trouble is here that what we've got is the usual story that a particular person has their own view, and sresses that, whilst saying that other perspectives are incorrect.. This is, as I say, the usual story.


But actually, I wonder of someone reading through this thread might not arrive at the conclusion that Vedantic philosophy is very over-constructed.
It is suppoosed that these various philosophies come out of a particular spiritual experience - none of them is the experience in itself, or necessarily gives others access to that experience - so the intellect with it's narrow rationality takes over and what you get is just mental philosophy, dry and pretty sterile. An excess of 'super-structure'.

This is probably why Sri Aurobindo spoke of a supra-mental level - ie a level beyond ordinary mind, where it can be seen that intellectual constructs which say entirely opposed things can all be simultaneously 'true' although none indicates the whole truth, or should be mistaken for truth. They are just mental trascripts of higher experience, and none of them, should be regarded as final or set in stone.

 

That's right, Bill...without actual realizations ourselves, we're speculating, even if this speculation is of a high order, based of the conclusions of scripture and important theologians and saints.

It's like the old saying about licking the outside of the honey jar but leaving the cap screwed on.

Makes for interesting conversation, though, as long as we keep our egos in check. No one here disagrees on the absolute basics of sanatana-dharma.

 

@ Bill and Bhaskar what a superb and exciting discussion!

There is so many ways and points of view. Sure, sometimes that can be fairly confusing, but to me it just shows the versatility of hinduism !

 

i've always thought this to be a faulty anology. where i live and everyone else's house i've ever visited, the sides of the honey jar are always sticky with honey that has spilled over the sides due to serving it and so indeed, one can taste the honey by licking the outside of the jar... which i feel is supportive of the non-localized aspect of brahman whose sweetness is all-pervasive

which would be? aham brahmasmi?

 

Yeah, you're right there...somewhat faulty, because it's not a black/white issue...I was more referring to the absolute sense.

That's the most basic one, yes. I'm sure you know the rest; no need to enumerate.

 

Perhaps you got lost in my double negatives, I said that which is not part of God, does not exist.

Okay, but I think in this universe if something is non existent, that means it does not exist. "Non existence" is a state of nature where that something that we are discussing about is missing. Okay? - hence the non existence... so if God was "non existent" and by definition God is everything, then you are saying that everything just does not exist, which ofcourse is not true.

God is all knowing, he knows everything and everyone, he knows himself. Therefore, your question is not valid.

"Word man"... anyway, part of God cannot know itself as God because it is a part of God and will remain as such a thing even when it dissolves into the whole and becomes non existent as a semi seperate entity. For instance, if you dissolve your being into God, then God alone exists and you do not, but that does not make "you" God, because then "you" do not exist.

You want to know yourself? first give up the notion that you are something you are not, and surrender to Him, that is the only way because ultimately , whether one is a jnani, bhakta , yogi etc. in the end surrenders to God in one form or another. You don't agree? - look at what jnani's do- they surrender to knowledge, which is God, bhaktas surrender to their beloved God, yogis surrender their senses to various disciplines and the ultimate controller of the senses is God.

 

But in the Gita for example, Krishna says he is both being and non-being.
What applies to the manifest universe doesn't necessarily apply to what is beyond and behind it.
The universe in it's diverse manifestation is only 'god' in a sense - clearly, there are many un-divine things which exist.

There are many flaws it seems in human logic, which is based on abstraction drawn from sense data. Everything is either black or white, yes or no. existent or non-existent. Also the terms are often ill defined - terms like 'existence'.
We can look at a stone and say it exists. We can't apply the same to God. Some would say God is like a field of being (and not-being) in which the stone and everything else exists. But as Thomas Aquinas said 'God is not a body' - ie God is not another item we can treat of in the way we do material objects, or physical energies and forces.
Hence we can say that in terms of cosmic structures God does not exist, whilst at the same time he does exist.
In the end, God is a mystery. God can only be known if we can transcend ordinary mind with it's division and limitation.

 

Even here there is disagreement. It can mean 'I am Brahman' in the sense of 'I am God', or in the sense of 'I am Spirit'.
Elsewhere Brahman is spoken of as the total material substance.

 

In the Vaisnava sense, the phrase aham brahmasmi means "I am Spirit", or "I am an essentially spiritual being", not "I am God".

 

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Aham_Brahmasmi/id/58380

Aham Brahmasmi: Hindu - Hinduism Dictionary on Aham Brahmasmi


Aham Brahmasmi: (Sanskrit) "I am God." Famous phrase often repeated in the Upanishads. In this ecstatic statement of enlightenment, "I" does not refer to the individuality or outer nature, but to the essence of the soul which is ever identical to God Siva (or Brahman, the Supreme Being) as Satchidananda and Parasiva. One of four Upanishadic "great sayings," mahavakya.

 

Mahavakya:

Four Upanishadic proclamations: Prajanam Brahma ("Pure consciousness is God" - Aitareya U.), Aham Brahmasmi ("I am God" - Brihadaranyaka U.), Tat tvam asi ("Thou art That" - Chandogya U.) and Ayam atma Brahma ("The soul is God" - Mandukya U.).

 

that would be a vaisnava spin but not its inherent meaning

 

Not to mention that it contradicts the bhagavatam itself, which says that brahman, bhagavan and paramatma are just different names for the same entity (brahmeti paramatmeti bhagavan iti shabdyate).

This is backed up by the very definition of brahman - satyam jnanan anantam brahma (brahman is existence, consciousness and bliss, taittiryopanishad) - which correspnds to the definition of Krishna - satchidanandaroopa (of the form of existence, consciousness and bliss).

Further the upanishads say sarvam khalvidam brahma - everything is verily brahman alone. And the bhagavad gita it is said vaasudevaha sarvam iti - Krishna is everything. This once again clearly shows that Krishna and brahman are one and the same and on the absolute standpoint, jiva brahmaiva naaparaha - the jiva is brahman and not different.

 

If you turn to scripture as an authority in spiritual matters, which might be a good idea, then you must accept what it says. And if you think it does not work you have not made a complete and objective study of the upanishads, which give exhaustive explanations that are quite satisfactory in ll these matters.

It works FOR YOU. Just as advaita works FOR ME. The thing is that the twin do not contradict. Read on.

They did not breakaway from anything. What they taught was from a different standpoint, that is all. Madhava taught from the body standpoint, Ramanuja taught from the jiva standpoint, while Shankara taught from the paramatma standpoint. This is quite deeply examined by Swami Krishnananda, a leading teacher in the Divine Life Society during the lectures on their website.

This is a silly argument, since there are equally as many, if not more advaitin sampradayas that stemmed from Shankara.
I never said dvaita was a man-made deviation, it is only the same teaching from a different standpoint. To try and twist advaitin teachings of the upanishads to suit that is not advisable.

 

Personally, I'll stick with the Vaisnava spin...but, back to the original point: aham brahmasmi means I am Spirit, whether from the advaitin or dvaitin perspective. We can split hairs about scriptural translations all day, but that's the essential meaning and spirit of the phrase.

If you want to define Spirit as God, fine, if that's what works for you.

 

What if different scriptues say different things?
And also, for people born in the west who don't read sanskrit, it is a question of reliance on traslations and commentaries - these often contradict each other.
Thus Vaishnavas are dismissive of Advaitins and vica versa.
Even the Archarayas don't agree on the meaning of scriptures.

I wonder actually if scriptues can be the last word - or final authority. Myself I think a person's own direct spiritual experience is more important than a lot of words printed in a book, no matter how venerable they might be.

This argument over scripture is one of the biggest stumbling blocks for humankind seeking to live peacfully on this planet. For example Christians insist the Bible is correct in saying Jesus is the son of god, whilst the Koran says he is not and god has no son.
That is an extreme example, but the same thing apparently goes on within hinduism.
It is quite useless to insist guru x is correct when guru y says the opposite.
Of course, followers of guru x will say y is a villan, or at best, not realized.

And so it goes on.............