Is Advaita Vedanta Theistic or Non-Theistic?

[SalixIncendium]

I found an interesting article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that states that Advaita Vedanta is considered to be non-theistic. It discusses how Advaita posits that all is (Nirguna) Brahman, and that it has no attributes or properties, it cannot be understood as a god.

"Advaita Vedanta's rejection of theism is a consequence of its insistence that “Brahman [ultimate reality] is without parts or attributes…one without a second.” (Shankara [traditional attribution], second half of the 8th century: 101) If the Brahman has no properties, it necessarily lacks the properties of omniscience, perfect goodness, omnipotence, and personhood, and cannot therefore be understood as God."

The article goes on to discuss that Advaita Vedanta does have some theistic elements, specifically the distinguishing of Nirguna Brahman and Saguna Brahman...

"Advaita does contain what might be called “theistic elements.” For example, it distinguishes the nirguna from the saguna Brahman. The former is the Brahman without attributes. The latter is the Brahman with attributes, and is roughly described in the way that theists describe God. The nirguna Brahman is the Brahman as it really is, however, while the saguna Brahman is ultimately illusory."

But since it is understood that there is only Nirguna Brahman (Para Brahman), and that Saguna Brahman is illusory, Advaita Vedanta is considered to be non-theistic.

What are your thoughts? Are Advaitins theists or non-theists? Why?

 

[Vinayaka]

There are varying interpretations on this. The Stanford Encyclopedia states one. Some people call Brahman God. Others say it's not. The various Sankara Peethams around India often support or even run nearby temples. Vedanta Associations will often have shrines in them, but that may not be the central focus.

So personally I don't know. I don't think there are really clear points either way, and I accept everyone's right to claim it one way or another.

 

[ManSinha]

Another view point - the more I delve into Sikhism - there are elements of panentheism and Adwaita - I shall provide some quotes to illustrate my point

@SalixIncendium - I think some of the issues in your question stem from a western / Abrahamic concept of God - when you change the paradigm to "everything is contained in the divine" - God does not have to be a separate entity - for illustration purposes I would present the incident of Lord Krishna showing his Vishwaroop to Arjuna - "everything is contained in me"

Now in the first example - the word "heart" is a translation - it could also be construed as "every mote" (referring to the word ghat to rhyme with shut)

Guru Gobind Singh - composed several poems / hymns talking about the divine - the nature and essence thereof - one example

As you can see - in his words - (and this is what I personally have some difficulty with) the Guru is pretty eloquent in stating that the divine is outside of the understanding of the human sense and sensibilities - so much so that our friends @Subduction Zone and @It Aint Necessarily So and @blü 2 and @A Vestigial Mote may say, and with some grounding - "Why should I bother to worship something like that?" - I really do not have a good answer - like I said once before - it personally gives me comfort during my stressful times and it is something / someone to whom I am grateful for the good things in life.

Finally - here is one of the lines I have often used in a situation like this - it sums up my feelings in the matter perfectly

[EDIT 2]

Another view - Nirguna and Sarguna are two sides of the same coin

 

[SalixIncendium]

Some people call Brahman God.

@SalixIncendium - I think some of the issues in your question stem from a western / Abrahamic concept of God - when you change the paradigm to "everything is contained in the divine" - God does not have to be a separate entity - for illustration purposes I would present the incident of Lord Krishna showing his Vishwaroop to Arjuna - "everything is contained in me"

Yes, some call Brahman 'God,' especially Saguna Brahman. I've gone as far as to call Nirguna Brahman 'God,' and from a pantheistic point of view, this fits, in my opinion. But I've found that using the term 'God,' especially among Westerners conditioned to the Abrahamic paradigm, just muddies the waters. Even when I refer to Nirguna Brahman as my 'god concept,' people tend to anthropomorphize it, so I've essentially stopped using the term altogether.

 

[Vinayaka]

Yes, some call Brahman 'God,' especially Saguna Brahman. I've gone as far as to call Nirguna Brahman 'God,' and from a pantheistic point of view, this fits, in my opinion. But I've found that using the term 'God,' especially among Westerners conditioned to the Abrahamic paradigm, just muddies the waters. Even when I refer to Nirguna Brahman as my 'god concept,' people tend to anthropomorphize it, so I've essentially stopped using the term altogether.

That makes sense. The Abrahamics like the Reverend Pope and other translators had no word for it and a lot of other eastern concepts that are outside their paradigm. So they used what they could given they couldn't go to where the mind needed to go to get any accuracy at all. Rajiv Malhotra has a list of 100 some untranslatable words. Translators and scholars from the Abrahamic mindset are still mangling it, as they have no words yet, other than to use the original Sanskrit. But then when you try to explain the Sanskrit, you're still stuck with English.

When I hear the word 'God' it's the Abrahamic version that comes up, and it's always with the 'hmm, I'm not familiar with that' accompanying thought. I personally say God Siva, or just Siva. That helps some.

But really it's not that big of an issue for me. But I think I may begin avoiding the term when speaking to westerners as well, although its really rare in real life that I do speak to westerners regarding religion. Maybe some when I'm hosting some westerner at the temple. But usually the first concept out about it is that God permeates everything.

 

[Howard Is]

But I've found that using the term 'God,' especially among Westerners conditioned to the Abrahamic paradigm, just muddies the waters. Even when I refer to Nirguna Brahman as my 'god concept,' people tend to anthropomorphize it, so I've essentially stopped using the term altogether.

100% agree.

I made a decision a long time back to express my view in simple secular English.
If it can’t be said that way, it’s probably crap.
Also, using those terms makes one lazy. Better to use your own intelligence and your own words.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Advaita is mostly theistic. Sankara accepted Ishwara in Vyavaharika, then came Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Vallabha, Chaitanya and Madhva. Vallabha calls his theory as 'Shuddha Advaita', but it is hardly 'Shuddha' (Pure). They all considered Krishna as Brahman. Sure, Krishna is Brahman, but so too am I. 'So'ham', 'Aham Brahmasmi', 'Ayamatma Brahman'.

I find it hard to call these teachers 'advaitists'. My views are closer to Gaudapadacharya.

"Gaudapada opens this chapter by criticizing devotional worship of any form, and states that this assumes that the Brahman-Atman is born. He states that the nondual Brahman-Atman (Self) can give rise to apparent duality (Jivas, individual souls), while remaining unaffected in the process. To this end he gives the analogy of space and jars. Self is like space and the Jivas are like space in jars. Just as space is enclosed in a jar, so is the Self manifested as Jivas. When the jar is destroyed the space in the jar merges into space so likewise, are the Jivas one of the Self.

Gaudapada states that the Upanishads such as the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad teach this, that one's own Atman (self) is identical to the Atman in other beings, and all Atman are identical with the Brahman. While some Upanishads, acknowledges Gaudapada, imply a difference between individual soul and the Brahman, those texts are discussing the apparent distinction (duality) when one believes in apparent creation. In reality, states Gaudapada, there is no creation of souls from Brahman as they are identical. We must not confuse passages meant for spiritual instruction. According to Karikas 3.17-18, Gaudapada admits that dualists disagree with this view, but the ancient texts admit duality in the context of appearances, while "nonduality is indeed the highest reality"

"Duties of worship arise only for those who think something is born and who are thus miserable. I shall therefore speak of the nonmiserable state in which (...)".
Gaudapada - Wikipedia

 

[Aupmanyav]

@ManSinha , wrt I will cite Saint Kabir's verse (perhaps you can read Hindi):

"जल में कुम्‍भ, कुम्‍भ में जल है, बाहर भीतर पानी l फूटा कुम्‍भ, जल जलहीं समाना, यह तथ कथौ गियानी ll"

Jal mein kumbha, kumbha mein jal hai, bahar bhitar pani l
phoota kumbha, jal jalahi samana, yah tath kathou giyani ll

The pitcher is in water, and there is water in the pitcher, water outside and inside;
the pitcher broke, the water merged in water, the wise described this fact.

 

[ManSinha]

@ManSinha , wrt I will cite Saint Kabir's verse (perhaps you can read Hindi):

"जल में कुम्‍भ, कुम्‍भ में जल है, बाहर भीतर पानी l फूटा कुम्‍भ, जल जलहीं समाना, यह तथ कथौ गियानी ll"

Jal mein kumbha, kumbha mein jal hai, bahar bhitar pani l
phoota kumbha, jal jalahi samana, yah tath kathou giyani ll

The pitcher is in water, and there is water in the pitcher, water outside and inside;
the pitcher broke, the water merged in water, the wise described this fact.

I can read Hindi just fine - was brought up in Bombay - when it was still Bombay

Thanks @Aupmanyav - that actually goes along with the space-in-jar analogy that you mentioned above as well as the following

and from Guru Tegh Bahadur in the Salok Mahalla 9 - a very good down to earth piece of advice IMO

My friend - who has beliefs along similar lines like yourself - states basically that Sikhism is Adwaita for the masses without being couched as such. I am not sure I entirely agree with him given the worship but to each their own.

So going back to the OP @SalixIncendium - I suppose you have at least parts of the answer to your query -

I shall finish with a quote from Kabir to complement @Aupmanyav - IMO again - this is a lean and a nod towards Adwaita

 

[Aupmanyav]

I too think like your friend, and no problem if you do not agree fully. That is not a must for Indian religions.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

The Western concept of theism/atheism does not have an exact equivalent in Indian religion.

The close Sanskrit terms astika/nastika are generally applied to mean 'believer in the Veda' vs. non-believer. This is the basis of the classification of Buddhism, Jainism and other so-called heterodox systems as Nastika darsanas. By this definition, Advaita is clearly an astika Darsana. Jains, though having their own pantheon of Gods, temples, etc., are Nastikas.

Does Advaita clearly meet the definition of the Western concept of theism? The answer is neither Yes nor No. The Advaitin acknowledges the reality of Vishnu/Krishna in the real world, but its peculiar definition of Maya leads to complex logic. In other schools, Maya is the potency of Vishnu and therefore, Vishnu is beyond Maya - which is easy to grasp. In contrast, Advaita sees Maya as something that is neither real nor unreal and the concept of Vishnu too, is Maya. Consequently, there is no clear answer.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Why, Shiva? Why just Vishnu / Krishna? Shiva and Mother Goddess Durga / Adi Shakti are Brahman for those who take it that way.

 

[George-ananda]

What are your thoughts? Are Advaitins theists or non-theists?

Pantheists.

Why?

Pantheism - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism
Pantheism is the belief that reality is identical with divinity

In Advaita thought 'Brahman Alone is Real'

 

[Aupmanyav]

But is Brahman - God (of any kind)?
My answer is - No. Sure, Brahman alone is 'The Reality'.
I would object to my being called a 'pantheist'.
I do not see God anywhere.
Edited: and Brahman everywhere.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Pantheists.

Pantheism - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism
Pantheism is the belief that reality is identical with divinity

In Advaita thought 'Brahman Alone is Real'

I would agree that Advaita Vedanta incorporates pantheism if we were to use that definition.

However, there are other definitions that incorporate the term 'god(s),' and you'd be hard pressed to find a definition of 'theism' that doesn't incorporate creator gods or deities. As I see it, Brahman is not a god and is certainly not a deity. Brahman is the highest principle...absolute reality.

 

[George-ananda]

I would agree that Advaita Vedanta incorporates pantheism if we were to use that definition.

However, there are other definitions that incorporate the term 'god(s),' and you'd be hard pressed to find a definition of 'theism' that doesn't incorporate creator gods or deities. As I see it, Brahman is not a god and is certainly not a deity. Brahman is the highest principle...absolute reality.

So maybe what you are saying is that terms like theist, non-theist, pantheist, etc. are English words and Advaita Vedanta is a Indian created philosophy where we have to wrestle imperfectly to translate into English words.

So, I wonder if the OP question 'Is Advaita Vedanta Theistic or Non-Theistic?' has no perfectly correct answer.

Perhaps for those of us inclined towards theological discussions the term 'Advaita' should be used as a stand-alone 'ism'. Although I will still argue 'pantheism' is the closest English word.

 

[Aupmanyav]

That is true, George. For most Hindus, Advaita is Pantheism.

 

[ajay0]

I found an interesting article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that states that Advaita Vedanta is considered to be non-theistic. It discusses how Advaita posits that all is (Nirguna) Brahman, and that it has no attributes or properties, it cannot be understood as a god.

"Advaita Vedanta's rejection of theism is a consequence of its insistence that “Brahman [ultimate reality] is without parts or attributes…one without a second.” (Shankara [traditional attribution], second half of the 8th century: 101) If the Brahman has no properties, it necessarily lacks the properties of omniscience, perfect goodness, omnipotence, and personhood, and cannot therefore be understood as God."

The article goes on to discuss that Advaita Vedanta does have some theistic elements, specifically the distinguishing of Nirguna Brahman and Saguna Brahman...

"Advaita does contain what might be called “theistic elements.” For example, it distinguishes the nirguna from the saguna Brahman. The former is the Brahman without attributes. The latter is the Brahman with attributes, and is roughly described in the way that theists describe God. The nirguna Brahman is the Brahman as it really is, however, while the saguna Brahman is ultimately illusory."

But since it is understood that there is only Nirguna Brahman (Para Brahman), and that Saguna Brahman is illusory, Advaita Vedanta is considered to be non-theistic.

What are your thoughts? Are Advaitins theists or non-theists? Why?

Theism implies separation between the creator and the creation, worshipper and the worshipped.

One worships God to gain grace and auspiciousness for material and spiritual prosperity in life.


Nirguna Brahman is impersonal, and does not confer grace or auspiciousness upon the worshipper. There are no temples in India worshipping Nirguna Brahman due to this reason.

Saguna Brahman is Brahman with personal attributes, and confers grace upon the worshipper.

The Shivalingam is considered to be the greatest manifestation of Saguna Brahman which was worshipped by the Avatars Parashurama, Rama and Krishna.

The monotheistic Prajapita Brahmakumaris consider the Shivalingam to represent an incorporeal point of light, referred to as Jehovah, Allah, Ahura Mazda, Waheguru in other monotheistic religions.

The Avatars and enlightened masters who have realized Brahman, and the deities are also considered to be Saguna Brahman (Brahman with personal attributes) and sources of auspiciousness and grace too, and this is why they are also worshipped.