Non-Advaita approaches

[Aupmanyav]

Atanu, these are creations of men, of course, very wise men; but none of these were created by any God. There will always be new knowledge.

 

[Martin]

The Vedantic schools that follow prasthanatrayi, have jnana yoga. But as expected, there are differences.

Prasthanatrayi - Wikipedia

But as far as I know, it is agreed in all schools that ‘Jnana’ is not intellect. And that was the point.

Sruti saying ‘The mind and word return from it’, will not be contradicted by any school, as far as I know.

"Intellect" was mentioned by a previous poster.
So is there a broadly consistent definition of jnana across the Hindu schools, and if so, what is it? Or are there significant differences between the schools?
From what I can tell, it means something like experiential knowledge?

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

In the end, it's more likely that there are differences in the way students of the schools understand and expound the term "jnana" than that there are substantive differences in the teachings.

But I personally like where you're going with this. Experience is key. Are there any objections to this statement... the path of jnana yoga is the gaining of experiential knowledge. The fruit of the path is jnana, wisdom.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

"Intellect" was mentioned by a previous poster.
So is there a broadly consistent definition of jnana across the Hindu schools, and if so, what is it? Or are there significant differences between the schools?
From what I can tell, it means something like experiential knowledge?

It is not clear what you are after. If you are looking for consensus across a wide range of Hindu beliefs, you are out of luck. We do have modern age Universalists who believe every belief is correct and point to the same thing, but that is now how/why we have multiple Hindu beliefs.

If you are interested in Vishishtadvaita, read about it from a good translation. You can compare and contrast views, but there is little benefit in looking for commonality.

 

[atanu]

"Intellect" was mentioned by a previous poster.
So is there a broadly consistent definition of jnana across the Hindu schools, and if so, what is it? Or are there significant differences between the schools?
From what I can tell, it means something like experiential knowledge?

You are partially correct. But experiential knowledge may change every day and that is not Jnanam. Jnanam is the experiential knowledge of the ultimate truth called Self or Brahman. Actually, I had replied to this (or nearly a similar question earlier). I will reproduce that answer here.

Brahman is defined as ‘satyam-jnaanam-anantam’ and also ‘praajnanam’.

jnaanam is wide spectrum with a base meaning ‘to know’. It encompasses ‘knowledge in the mode of subject-object division’ (vijnana) or ‘knowledge in absence of subject-object division’ (praajnana).

Furthermore, jnaanam may signify 1) a state of being (jnaptih jnanam ), pointing to awareness-consciousness; 2) an instrument -- by which knowledge is acquired (jnayate anena iti janam), or 3) as a substratum (jnanam asti asminiti), it is that which knows or possesses knowledge. It is the consciousness.

All three usages apply in respect of the truth called brahman.

Furthermore, Jnana Yoga is well known as a mode of enquiry to the ultimate reality by means of Neti-Neti or by means of "Who Am I?"
...​

Every school agrees that Brahman itself is Jnana but schools have different perceptions regarding the ultimate form of Brahman.

 

[Martin]

It is not clear what you are after. If you are looking for consensus across a wide range of Hindu beliefs, you are out of luck. We do have modern age Universalists who believe every belief is correct and point to the same thing, but that is now how/why we have multiple Hindu beliefs.

If you are interested in Vishishtadvaita, read about it from a good translation. You can compare and contrast views, but there is little benefit in looking for commonality.

When you say "good translation" do you mean of the Upanishads?
What's your take on the essential difference between Vi****advaita and Advaita? One metaphor I heard was the difference between: "We are waves on the ocean" and "There are no waves, only ocean".

 

[shivsomashekhar]

When you say "good translation" do you mean of the Upanishads?

No. I meant the Gita. The Gita provides more value as it is simpler and more consistent than the set of Upanishads.

I have a translation by Swami Adidevananda, published by the Ramakrishna Math. As you have spent some time learning Advaita, I would also recommend the book "Advaita and Vishishtadvaita" by SM Srinivasachari (published by MLBD). It is a free style, english rendering of Vedanta Deshika's Shatadushani.

What's your take on the essential difference between Vi****advaita and Advaita? One metaphor I heard was the difference between: "We are waves on the ocean" and "There are no waves, only ocean".

Waves are real. As I have said before, people do not really understand Advaita. It does not help that every neophyte has his/her own conception of Maya, Reality and Oneness - mostly fanciful concoctions. There is also no shortage of Universalist Neo-Vedantins who further distort the picture. Some of them are active on this forum, posing as Advaitins.

On your question, the fundamental differences are -

1. Vishishtadvaita considers the Universe to be real. Jivas are real.
2. There is no Nirguna vs. Saguna Brahman. Brahman has an infinite number of auspicious attributes.
3. All parts of the Veda are *equally* valuable. Unlike Advaita, there is no special status accorded to certain portions (abedha sruti, Jnana khanda, etc.,).
3. The concept of Jivan-mukti (liberation while alive) is specific to Advaita and is unequivocally rejected by all other streams of Vedanta. Jivan-mukti is one of the fantastic tenets of Advaita that makes it attractive to seekers.

The key difference (in my view) is the nature of the soul. Advaita claims the individual soul is unreal as Brahman alone is real (hence, non-dual). But if individual souls are unreal, who gets liberated? The concept of Moksha has no meaning and there is no incentive to strive for it (a non-existent entity strives for liberation from a non-existent reality). On the other hand, Vishishtadvaita holds that there are many individual souls and they are all real. But while distinct, they are fully dependent on Brahman. Hence, the oneness-difference as a wave and ocean. This individuality is real and permanent and hence, the soul can get liberated and continue to exist in a liberated state - which is not possible in a purely non-dual system such as Advaita.

The most beautiful concept with Vishishtadvaita is the idea of Sharanagati (unconditional surrender).

In short, Vishistadvaita logic is simple and straightforward. It needs very little interpretation to align with traditional texts. Advaita requires a lot of interpretation and when you start probing, the logic is very tricky. It aligns very well with Madhyamaka and Vijnanavada Buddhism and not so much with Vedanta - in my many years of examining its intricacies.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Vi****advaita
One metaphor I heard was the difference between: "We are waves on the ocean" and "There are no waves, only ocean".

Oh no, Meercat. Not 'Vi****advaita' but 'Vishishta Advaita'. See there, no asterii.
IMHO, the simile is 100% correct. Waves are real in the lower reality (Vyavaharika, Pragmatic Reality, perceived world)
Wikipedia information is generally good.
If you want a very scholarly translation, then rather than the variously-biased translation of Swamis, I would suggest five part book by Surendranath DasGupta - "A History of Indian Philosophy". That is an absolute beauty on all philosophies of Hinduism. Just download the part in which you are interested in from here: Internet Archive Search: History of Indian philosophy

Surendranath DasGupta (1887 – 1952)

 

[Martin]

No. I meant the Gita. The Gita provides more value as it is simpler and more consistent than the set of Upanishads.

I have a translation by Swami Adidevananda, published by the Ramakrishna Math. As you have spent some time learning Advaita, I would also recommend the book "Advaita and Vishishtadvaita" by SM Srinivasachari (published by MLBD). It is a free style, english rendering of Vedanta Deshika's Shatadushani.



Waves are real. As I have said before, people do not really understand Advaita. It does not help that every neophyte has his/her own conception of Maya, Reality and Oneness - mostly fanciful concoctions. There is also no shortage of Universalist Neo-Vedantins who further distort the picture. Some of them are active on this forum, posing as Advaitins.

On your question, the fundamental differences are -

1. Vishishtadvaita considers the Universe to be real. Jivas are real.
2. There is no Nirguna vs. Saguna Brahman. Brahman has an infinite number of auspicious attributes.
3. All parts of the Veda are *equally* valuable. Unlike Advaita, there is no special status accorded to certain portions (abedha sruti, Jnana khanda, etc.,).
3. The concept of Jivan-mukti (liberation while alive) is specific to Advaita and is unequivocally rejected by all other streams of Vedanta. Jivan-mukti is one of the fantastic tenets of Advaita that makes it attractive to seekers.

The key difference (in my view) is the nature of the soul. Advaita claims the individual soul is unreal as Brahman alone is real (hence, non-dual). But if individual souls are unreal, who gets liberated? The concept of Moksha has no meaning and there is no incentive to strive for it (a non-existent entity strives for liberation from a non-existent reality). On the other hand, Vishishtadvaita holds that there are many individual souls and they are all real. But while distinct, they are fully dependent on Brahman. Hence, the oneness-difference as a wave and ocean. This individuality is real and permanent and hence, the soul can get liberated and continue to exist in a liberated state - which is not possible in a purely non-dual system such as Advaita.

The most beautiful concept with Vishishtadvaita is the idea of Sharanagati (unconditional surrender).

In short, Vishistadvaita logic is simple and straightforward. It needs very little interpretation to align with traditional texts. Advaita requires a lot of interpretation and when you start probing, the logic is very tricky. It aligns very well with Madhyamaka and Vijnanavada Buddhism and not so much with Vedanta - in my many years of examining its intricacies.

Thanks, interesting stuff, and it's illuminating to hear about a non-Advaita perspective. I have copies of both the 'Gita and the Upanishads, and will also do further research.
Could you say something about your approach to yoga?

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

3. The concept of Jivan-mukti (liberation while alive) is specific to Advaita and is unequivocally rejected by all other streams of Vedanta. Jivan-mukti is one of the fantastic tenets of Advaita that makes it attractive to seekers.

When you use the word fantastic here, Shiv'ji, are you implying unbelievable or extremely remarkable? My Guruji often spoke of the possibility of being "freed while living" and translated Sadguru Dattatreya's song, the Jeevan Mukta Gita (that's how he spelled it) for the devotees. There are other translations, of course, but his (uploaded here) is not a difficult read, partly because he wrote it basically for Westerners.

 

[Martin]

When you use the word fantastic here, Shiv'ji, are you implying unbelievable or extremely remarkable? My Guruji often spoke of the possibility of being "freed while living" and translated Sadguru Dattatreya's song, the Jeevan Mukta Gita (that's how he spelled it) for the devotees. There are other translations, of course, but his (uploaded here) is not a difficult read, partly because he wrote it basically for Westerners.

My instinct is that Advaita relies on a lot of smoke and mirrors. Maybe it's just me.

 

[Aupmanyav]

On the contrary. Advaita is hard science, Quantum Mechanics. No smoke or mirrors. Where do you see them in Advaita? Sure, it is not the usual theism, will not go well with theistically inclined people. It asks tough questions.

 

[Martin]

On the contrary. Advaita is hard science, Quantum Mechanics. No smoke or mirrors. Where do you see them in Advaita? Sure, it is not the usual theism, will not go well with theistically inclined people.

Advaita as quantum mechanics? Hmmm. Sounds a bit new-agey to me.

Anyway, this thread is for non-Advaita approaches. Your personal views about Advaita are irrelevant and off-topic here.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

My instinct is that Advaita relies on a lot of smoke and mirrors. Maybe it's just me.

Actually, it's Maya that's a bunch of smoke and mirrors! Deliberately so, an elaborate illusion created by God in order to perpetuate the Grand Idea of the appearance of diversity when in actuality there is none. That's all it is, an idea given relative expression by Maya, but both are created by God along with the bodies, senses and minds of what appear to be individuals in order to enjoy it. Whose enjoyment? God's (and ours if we identify ourselves truly and properly as Atman, that is Brahman confined to an illusory container cavorting on an illusory Stage).

I do not practice the path of Advaita, Meerkat (love your name and avatar, BTW), but when Self-realization happens, this jiva will become an Advaitan automatically because the "final final" revelation for any soul, all souls, is the indisputable truth--proclaimed in all the schools of Hinduism--that there is none other than Brahman. All is Brahman and nothing else. But God in non-Advaitans, which could also be stated as "not fully realized souls," enjoys a transcendental experience of apparent separation. It's as if God deliberately attempts to forget Him/ Her/Itself in order to Play with the same, i.e., Him/ Her/Itself in and amongst illusory universes and worlds He/She/It created.

Do be careful not to castigate Advaita, the concept. It's unadulterated Truth. But the suppositions, expositions and so-called paths to Advaita are certainly fair game! At this point, my Guruji would say to me, "Ask less, Vandana. Meditate more!" But I'm a terrible meditator, don't know how; happy to just gush my gratitude and devotion, serve, love, give as one school says, though not mine. Let alone the "I" itself, if the idea of this "I" doesn't get eradicated while living in this body, "I" will be coming back. (Sorry, Aupji. You, too. )

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

Advaita as quantum mechanics? Hmmm. Sounds a bit new-agey to me.

Anyway, this thread is for non-Advaita approaches. Your personal views about Advaita are irrelevant and off-topic here.

Oh, I just saw this after I posted a response. Be nice, dear. You yourself brought Advaita into this thread and we all know you're working two threads, one on Non-advaita and one on Advaita. Everyone here is trying, in their own way, to help you gain the knowledge you are earnestly and sincerely seeking. Shantihi, shantihi, shantihi.

 

[Martin]

Oh, I just saw this after I posted a response. Be nice, dear. You yourself brought Advaita into this thread and we all know you're working two threads, one on Non-advaita and one on Advaita. Everyone here is trying, in their own way, to help you gain the knowledge you are earnestly and sincerely seeking. Shantihi, shantihi, shantihi.

No, I didn't bring Advaita here - please read the thread properly, rather than dropping in random responses.
I found Advaita unconvincing, and asked about alternatives, hence this thread.

 

[Martin]

One has to remember there are two 'versions' of advaita. I suggest you google neo-Advaita and read some about that. You'll find some debate, or interesting thoughts, I think. Personally, I know nothing.

It seems like there are many versions of Advaita. Random emission of theories, loosely based on texts, sort of.

But could we please stick to the topic, which is non-Advaita approaches.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

No, I didn't bring Advaita here. I found Advaita unconvincing, and asked about alternatives.

Have no desire to argue, for certain. But you said in this thread only 3 hours ago: My instinct is that Advaita relies on a lot of smoke and mirrors. Maybe it's just me.

 

[Martin]

Have no desire to argue, for certain. But you said in this thread only 3 hours ago: My instinct is that Advaita relies on a lot of smoke and mirrors. Maybe it's just me.

Have a look at the post I was responding to, it was in response to an Advaitan who was off-topic here. Anyway, forget Advaita.

Have you anything to say about non-Advaita approaches? What is your approach?

 

[Martin]

Please could we reserve this thread for discussion of non-Advaita schools.
Thanks.