In Dvaita philosophy, does Brahman include Atman?

[Martin]

Plato has stated that intellectuals are always a minority in any population.

Advaita essentially subscribes to Jnana Yoga ( yoga of intellect) while dvaita and vishistadvaita philosophies subscribes to bhakti yoga ( yoga of emotion).

Those of an intellectual temperament subscribe to jnana yoga while those of an emotional or devotional temperament subscribes to bhakti yoga philosophies.

Some yogis follow both jnana and bhakti as well. Most humans are driven by emotion, and hence they need philosophies that cater to bhakti yoga, and dvaita and dualistic philosophies are useful in this regard.

Just by following the dualistic philosophies, some may have been lead to enlightenment as well, or are more spiritual than the advaitans. Vice versa as well.

An interesting way of looking at it, but does this have a basis in the scriptures?
And is this analysis shared by Dvaitans? Do you think they would agree that they're more emotional, and therefore more suited to bhakti?

 

[ajay0]

An interesting idea, but does it have a basis in the scriptures? And is this analysis shared by Dvaitans?

The upanishads are essential nondualistic. Also enlightened masters like Ramana and Ramakrishna endorsed both bhakti and jnana.

I have not seen pure dvaitans endorsing jnana. However I recently read of an incident where an advaitan and raja yogi was rebuked by a dvaitan bhakta yogi for following inferior paths when they attended a satsang of Anandamayi Ma. The dvaitan was a follower of Anandamayi Ma, and she explained later to the jnana yogi that the path each follow is suited to their temperament and jnana was suited to him.

 

[Martin]

The upanishads are essential nondualistic. Also enlightened masters like Ramana and Ramakrishna endorsed both bhakti and jnana.

I have not seen pure dvaitans endorsing jnana. However I recently read of an incident where an advaitan and raja yogi was rebuked by a dvaitan bhakta yogi for following inferior paths when they attended a satsang of Anandamayi Ma. The dvaitan was a follower of Anandamayi Ma, and she explained later to the jnana yogi that the path each follow is suited to their temperament and jnana was suited to him.

This sounds more like Advaitan rhetoric than objective analysis.
I'd be interested to hear what Dvaitans think of this. Would Dvaitans agree that they're more emotional, and not intellectually capable of jnana yoga? (that seems to be what you're implying).

 

[ajay0]

This sounds more like Advaitan rhetoric than objective analysis.
I'd be interested to hear what Dvaitans think of this. Would Dvaitans agree that they're more emotional, and not intellectually capable of jnana yoga? (that seems to be what you're implying).

You might find this article useful...

Dvaita, Advaita, Vishishtadvaita....simpli- - fied

In the final analysis, the above three philosophies are the different stages of spiritual evolution. No philosophy is inferior to the other. Majority of Hindus follow the Dvaita philosophy. They feel that God is the controller of their life, God is different from them. Advaita philosophy exactly conveys the meaning of the Upanishads, Brahma Sutra and Bhagavad Gita. However, it is still popular among the highly spiritually evolved people. During my 36 years of spiritual broadcasts I have found that many people are not aware of these three philosophies, but they worship God, in the manner they prefer. ~ Gyan Rajhans

 

[Aupmanyav]

What you say is true. Difficult to find fault in one's own system. But, I would be interested if anyone finds faults with my kind of absolute Advaita.

Do you think they would agree that they're more emotional, and therefore more suited to bhakti?

They have grown up in their view and it does not need any radical change like my Advaita does. Denying all things except Brahman. No creation, no Gods or Goddesses, no soul, no saviors when in trouble, no heaven, no hell, no reincarnation, no birth, no death. It turns everything upside down. And whether one follows Advait or Dvaita, whether one is enlightened or not, all have to play their role in Vyavaharika. We can't get out of that.

 

[Martin]

You might find this article useful...

Dvaita, Advaita, Vishishtadvaita....simpli- - fied

I'm familiar with these rhetorical arguments, eg bhakti is really for non-intellectual people, and Advaita is more sophisticated, that kind of thing.
But are they supported by the scriptures, and would Dvaita people agree with them?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I'd be interested to hear what Dvaitans think of this.

Dvaitist will say that the Advaita view is false, the world is the reality not 'maya', there are stark differences everywhere. That is what Sri Madhvacharya said. For Dvaitists we are demons.

But are they supported by the scriptures, and would Dvaita people agree with them?

Scriptures, right from Vedas, support both the ideas. You can find Advaita-inclined explanations in Vedas, Upanishads and Gita. Why would Dvaitists agree with that? They will come up with verses which support Dvaita.

 

[Martin]

Dvaitist will say that the Advaita view is false, the world is the reality not 'maya', there are stark differences everywhere. That is what Sri Madhvacharya said. For Dvaitists we are demons.Scriptures, right from Vedas, support both the ideas. You can find Advaita-inclined explanations in Vedas, Upanishads and Gita. Why would Dvaitists agree with that? They will come up with verses which support Dvaita.

Sounds about right. I find all the sectarian rhetoric quite tiresome

 

[Aupmanyav]

Nothing tiresome about it. Different beliefs. I am happy with mine, they are happy with theirs. I am an atheist. My family and community is theists. There are polythiests, monotheists, all the various shades of theism, Advaita, Dvaita, Vishshtadvaita, Purnadvita, Dvaitadvaita and Acintya Bheda-Abheda Advaita, Shaktas, Smartas, Shaiva Siddhantists in Hinduism. We are very comfortable with each other and exist peacefully with each other. We have interesting and thorough debates about our views without any rancor. That is what is HINDUISM. It is the Linux of religions, install it with or without Slack, with or without Snap.
The base of Hinduism is 'Dharma' (duties and our action wrt them), not Gods or philosophies.

 

[Martin]

Nothing tiresome about it. Different beliefs. I am happy with mine, they are happy with theirs. I am an atheist. My family and community is theists. There are polythiests, monotheists, all the various shades of theism, Advaita, Dvaita, Vishshtadvaita, Purnadvita, Dvaitadvaita and Acintya Bheda-Abheda Advaita, Shaktas, Smartas, Shaiva Siddhantists in Hinduism. We are very comfortable with each other and exist peacefully with each other. We have interesting and thorough debates about our views without any rancor. That is what is HINDUISM. It is the Linux of religions, install it with or without Slack, with or without Snap.
The base of Hinduism is 'Dharma' (duties and our action wrt them), not Gods or philosophies.

I wasn't objecting to the diversity of belief in Hinduism, I was objecting to sectarian rhetoric, which you appeared to acknowledge in your previous post.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

"Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma". All things here are Braman, and as I like to say, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Saddam, Gadafi and Caliph Ibrahim, Osama bin Laden also were none other than Brahman.

That is so true. Everyone and everything in the universe is Brahman including the filthy things. But we advaitins seek Brahman in ITS pure spirit form and not in ITS various material forms or manifestations.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I'm familiar with these rhetorical arguments, eg bhakti is really for non-intellectual people, and Advaita is more sophisticated, that kind of thing.
But are they supported by the scriptures, and would Dvaita people agree with them?

Meerkat, the rhetorical argument is not true, and I would never say something like that. The Dvaitists (i.e.,the majority in all religions) are not all dumb people. They too have brilliant minds. They understand all things but their inclination is different. Some think that belief in God is in the interest of people. Atheists or Advaitists have not disproved the existence of God. Dvatist side with that idea. Talking of scriptures, Dvaita too is supported by most scriptures. So, it is basically peoples' choice. Hinduism does not restrict choices.

 

[Aupmanyav]

That is so true. Everyone and everything in the universe is Brahman including the filthy things. But we advaitins seek Brahman in ITS pure spirit form and not in ITS various material forms or manifestations.

Greg, who and what can sully Brahman, when there is nothing else? All material forms also are 'pure' Brahman, if there is such a thing. The differentiation of pure and impure is not valid in Advaita, that is duality (Dvaita). You yourself said that even the filthy things are Brahman.

 

[Martin]

Greg, who and what can sully Brahman, when there is nothing else? All material forms also are 'pure' Brahman, if there is such a thing. The differentiation of pure and impure is not valid in Advaita, that is duality (Dvaita). You yourself said that even the filthy things are Brahman.

Just curious, where does Maya fit in with your version of Advaita?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Oh 'maya'! It envelops all and everything in the universe. Maya is all what we perceive, in the way we perceive.
We perceive time and dimensions.
Limitations of perception, wrong interpretation by mind.
We perceive a universe where there just are forces/energy.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

The differentiation of pure and impure is not valid in Advaita, that is duality (Dvaita). You yourself said that even the filthy things are Brahman.

By 'pure' I simply meant the original, true state of Brahman, which is spirit or consciousness and not ITS various shapes and forms which are nothing but ITS manifestations. That is why, Shankara in his text 'aparokshanubhuti' advices us to practice "neti neti" ( not this, not this).

 

[Aupmanyav]

I do not subscribe to the view that Brahman is spirit or consciousness and you know it very well. The rest of what you say is OK with me.

 

[ajay0]

That is so true. Everyone and everything in the universe is Brahman including the filthy things. But we advaitins seek Brahman in ITS pure spirit form and not in ITS various material forms or manifestations.

Yes, going beyond tangible names and forms to the actual subtler essence or unmanifest substratum of pure consciousness is what Advaita is all about.

"I am other than name, form and action. My nature is ever free! I am Self, the supreme unconditioned Brahman. I am pure Awareness, always non-dual." ~ Adi Shankaracharya

"Realizing everything to be Brahman itself, the wise man should then dwell in eternal bliss with his mind full of the essence of pure consciousness. " ~ Adi Shankaracharya

 

[Martin]

I do not subscribe to the view that Brahman is spirit or consciousness and you know it very well. The rest of what you say is OK with me.

Basically you seem to have a scientific view of things, which is fine. I'm a little puzzled though as to why you express it using Hindu terminology. It feels incongruous because you are using these terms in a way that was never intended.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Why would it be incongruous if a Hindu derives what he believes from Hinduism (or Buddhism) and uses Hindu terminology for it? Scriptures go as far as they can, and they have said a lot. They denied Gods 3,000 years ago, denied duality, denied going just by perception, long before science woke up to it. But beyond scriptures, science is the way to gain more knowledge. One can't get stuck at one particular point of time. For me, my belief and advances of science are not two separate things.