Moksha in Advaita

[kaisersose]

First, both the understandings of Advaita and Dvaita and Vishishtadvaita come from the Scriptures that existed long before Adi Shankaracharya, Madhavacharya and Ramanujacharya. Adi Shankara existed before both the Acahryas and hence Advaita was the first of ANY doctrine to come.

Yes, but I do not know what the point is?

Secondly, their interpretations come from their own perceived experiences of the Supreme and does not necessarily negate each other although superficially they seem to. How can we say this- because there are many "accepted" enlightened Advaitins and Dvaitins in the history.Regards,

No Dvaitin would agree that their differences with Advaita are superficial. How does a doctrine like tattavavada that says

1) the difference between Jiva and Paramatma is real and eternal
2) The world is real and eternal

not negate Advaita which expressly says the opposite?

Like I said earlier, it is not upto us to assign our own views to Advaita and Dvaita. They have already been well defined and any deviations from these definitions are not to carry their names. This "all paths lead to one" is a very new addition to Hindu beliefs and is not supported by any traditional doctrine.

Here is the Dvaita FAQ -> http://www.dvaita.org/faq.shtml
Here is the Advaita FAQ -> http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ad_faq.html

Regards,

 

[Satsangi]

Yes, but I do not know what the point is?



No Dvaitin would agree that their differences with Advaita are superficial. How does a doctrine like tattavavada that says

1) the difference between Jiva and Paramatma is real and eternal
2) The world is real and eternal

not negate Advaita which expressly says the opposite?

Like I said earlier, it is not upto us to assign our own views to Advaita and Dvaita. They have already been well defined and any deviations from these definitions are not to carry their names. This "all paths lead to one" is a very new addition to Hindu beliefs and is not supported by any traditional doctrine.

Regards,

Spirituality is not maths where 1+1=2. Advaitins and Dvaitins would never agree with each other as their views of the same object is at an opposite angle. For example, one is looking at the cow from the front and describing it and the other is looking at its behind and describing it. But, the fact remains that both have SEEN the cow and both are describing TRUELY what they saw.
Hence, both are true.

Regards,

 

[kaisersose]

Spirituality is not maths where 1+1=2. Advaitins and Dvaitins would never agree with each other as their views of the same object is at an opposite angle. For example, one is looking at the cow from the front and describing it and the other is looking at its behind and describing it. But, the fact remains that both have SEEN the cow and both are describing TRUELY what they saw.
Hence, both are true.
Regards,

That is your own viewpoint and it is neither Advaita nor Dvaita. By taking this position that both are correct, you are actually disagreeing with both of them! Do you see the problem?

That is really all I am saying. Let us not attribute to Advaita or Dvaita, ideas/views that are not part of the doctrine. Our ideas are our own - let us not incorrectly club them with prevailing systems.

 

[Satsangi]

That is your own viewpoint and it is neither Advaita nor Dvaita. By taking this position that both are correct, you are actually disagreeing with both of them! Do you see the problem?

That is really all I am saying. Let us not attribute to Advaita or Dvaita, ideas/views that are not part of the doctrine. Our ideas are our own - let us not incorrectly club them with prevailing systems.

May be you are standing facing the trunk of the cow in the above example by me and hence you see both Advaita and Dvaita different (as they are standing opposite the head and the tail of the cow)..... lol. May be I have seen the head as well as the tail of the cow and hence understand both the descriptions, but have not stood opposite its trunk like you..... lol.

Regards,

 

[kaisersose]

May be you are standing facing the trunk of the cow in the above example by me and hence you see both Advaita and Dvaita different (as they are standing opposite the head and the tail of the cow)..... lol. May be I have seen the head as well as the tail of the cow and hence understand both the descriptions, but have not stood opposite its trunk like you..... lol.

Regards,

I am always happy when someone finds something funny, though in this case I do not see what that is.

But to the point, I do not see any knowledge of Advaita or Dvaita in your posts beyond the superficial idea that Advaita = non-dual and Dvaita = dual. Without knowing the Prameyas of either doctrine, it is best to not create a distorted picture for ourselves. Now if your discussion was based on Pancha-beda, Taaratamya, etc., it would be much more meaningful. But the cow example you provided is far from it and as far as I know, your position is not compliant with Vishishtadvaita either.

I don't know if you get my point, so let us just disagree (as usual!).

Regards,

 

[zenzero]

Friends,

To personal understanding each is individual form takes birth with the mind and this mind carries all the past karma and so when the form connects with the *whole* they do so by starting from the point their minds are and so there has been and will be so many views; however what is important is that everyone can discover the connection with the whole and merge/harmonize, as it is the birth right!
Taking cues/pointers from scriptures is beneficial which we understand put into practice and are able to merge otherwise just engaging in mental intercourse is lose of vital energy.
Well, each individual has his own way and it is respected at best the others reflects and in such reflections are hidden pointers; after all finally the source is ONE and not two or more.

Love & rgds

 

[Satsangi]

I am always happy when someone finds something funny, though in this case I do not see what that is.

But to the point, I do not see any knowledge of Advaita or Dvaita in your posts beyond the superficial idea that Advaita = non-dual and Dvaita = dual. Without knowing the Prameyas of either doctrine, it is best to not create a distorted picture for ourselves. Now if your discussion was based on Pancha-beda, Taaratamya, etc., it would be much more meaningful. But the cow example you provided is far from it and as far as I know, your position is not compliant with Vishishtadvaita either.

I don't know if you get my point, so let us just disagree (as usual!).

Regards,

Yes, let us agree to disagree. I get your point; you are seeing at it with an intellectual view point and "classifying" things. I used to read a lot- it is useful only for curiosity and understanding. In practice, this intellectuality does not matter at all. The "distortion" is created the minute "intellect" comes in and tries to draw boundaries. I do not want to give any knowledge of any dvaita in my posts, except try to show a whole picture. Your interpretation of the Scriptures based on drawing boundaries will only create a chaos in interpretation within the same Scripture (for example Shvetashvatara Upanishad or even Bhagvatam).

By the example of cow I meant to show the Sthiti of two realized souls. One is a Nirvikalpa Sthiti who sees Brahman only and the other is a Savikalpa Sthiti of a Jnani who sees Brahman, Maya and Jiva. Hence, unless you read the statements in the Shashtras in referrence to the Sthiti underlying that statement, you cannot reconcile two statements within the same Shashtra and this is the first step in misinterpretation and chaos in the mind.

Regards,

 

[atanu]

Friends,
---Well, each individual has his own way and it is respected at best the others reflects and in such reflections are hidden pointers; after all finally the source is ONE and not two or more.

Love & rgds

Namaste Zen

I agree fully here. Hindu scriptures point that Brahman is without beginning and so are the jivas and the universe --which are interaction of the truth with forms and names.

Thus, the Mind and the Truth are in absolute dvaita without beginning -- Mind returns from there. But Mind itself is the manifestation of Truth. And the Mind contains all visista parts -- you me, God, world etc. But when the dvaita is obliterated, only the Truth remains -- advaita. It depends on ripeness -- which means transparency -- of Mind, as to what is seen of the truth.

Eventually, a totally transparent Mind cannot reflect any tinge of individuality --- though desires and thoughts that comprise the Mind may arise from time to time. But these cannot be then attributed to any individual self.
...