Questions For Advaita or Vishishtadvaita Vedanta

[The Sum of Awe]

Hello, all.

About Advaita or Vishishtadvaita Vedanta:

I just happened to be reading internet pages today to look more into Hinduism and fell stuck comprehending it all. Hope someone here can enlighten me on these questions.

The concept of ParaBrahman: Correct me if I'm wrong but; Brahman is the All, the Absolute, right? If so, what could be beyond Brahman?

And: Is Anatman synonymous with subjective reality (the world as I, you, or they see it compared to the world as it is)? Or maybe with materialistic reality, a world focused on materialistic pleasures and achievements, indulging in the physical? Or something else?

What is the significance of any other God (or entity in general) beyond Brahman if all are Brahman?

For any school (the view you personally relate with or would like to imput):

Which is more significant? Brahma the creator, Vishnu the preserver, or Shiva the destroyer?

Could a Hindu focus on only Brahman and put little to no focus on the triumvirate or even Krishna?

 

[En'me]

Hello, all.

Hello. ^^

About Advaita or Vishishtadvaita Vedanta:

I just happened to be reading internet pages today to look more into Hinduism and fell stuck comprehending it all. Hope someone here can enlighten me on these questions.

The concept of ParaBrahman: Correct me if I'm wrong but; Brahman is the All, the Absolute, right? If so, what could be beyond Brahman?

Para brahman is the absolute brahman, yes. Whether saguNa brahman or nirguNa brahman is the absolute/supreme depends on the school of thought/mata (opinion/religion (as sir Aupmanyav has taught me )).

I believe as per vedAnta nothing is 'beyond' brahman, for there literally cannot be anything 'beyond' it. It is incorrect to construe brahman as a thing or an experience where something can be beyond. However, I am limited in knowledge and believe atanu will be able to provide a much better response to this, therefore, I recommend you wait/invite/PM him.

What is the significance of any other God (or entity in general) beyond Brahman if all are Brahman?

Entity beyond nirguNa brahman? I'm not sure if this is what you mean, so please excuse me if my reply is amiss;

As per vedAnta, it would (quite obviously) be the reverse. For other schools of thought which place saguNa brahman to be para brahman, I'm guessing it would simply mean that being brahman is not as blissfull&peacefull experience as having a relationship with her/him would be. I'm sure other members that subscribe to the saguNa brahman = para brahman mata will give you much better responses on this part however. ^^

For any school (the view you personally relate with or would like to imput):

Which is more significant? Brahma the creator, Vishnu the preserver, or Shiva the destroyer?

Like you've already mentioned, it will vary per school. Considering views changed often even within Vedic times (from early Vedic times to late Vedic times). However, I always like to look to the original source of the devas, the vedas. For the roles and positions of prajApatI (brAhma), viSNu and rudra in veda, I'm sure maitrAvaruNi (मैत्रावरुण&#2367 will be able to provide a quality answer (if you so desire of course).

Other than that, vaiSNavas will loud viSNu, saivas siva and brAhma... err, I have no clue LOL. I doubt many people folllow/worship brAhma today.

Could a Hindu focus on only Brahman and put little to no focus on the triumvirate or even Krishna?

Sure? They would and they do (some).

Hope that was a fun read as it probably didn't bring anything new to the table than the same old, same old.


Aum

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Thanks for contributing! I appreciate it.

What I meant by beyond Brahman was "other than" Brahman, I misworded it. While it might seem contradicting to say other than Brahman to some extent, I'm basically asking about Brahma, Vishnu (Krishna and the other 10 incarnations), and Shiva. What is their significance? Why put focus on them instead of Brahman as a whole? Are they not Brahman or a part of Brahman as well?

And, I can see why Brahma is not as major a focus as the other two.

It was an enjoyable read, and hope I cleared up my mess

When you say "They would and they do", does this imply only some Hindus or all?

 

[Contemplative Cat]

It is very possible to not worship a deity but worship Brahman, but
Often Hinduism is super theistic with its teaching and will call the deity Brahman and call actual Brahman the Parabrahman(the supreme Brahman)

Anatman is a very good Buddhist idea, but it isn't really Hindu.
however the Buddhist not-self is similar to God in Advaita. Its the energy of nondistinction that is other than the self(the body)

In Hindu advaita they say all reality is the Atman, which is the reality
and the true self of all beings.

Ive noticed a lot of parallels between Advaita and Zen.

In Advaita there are three levels of reality.
The Absolute reality- total nondistinction, fullness, and void
It is totally untainted by human perception. It is sat chit Ananda, all energy, infinite awareness, and genuine lasting fulfillment. this is Gods perspective

The relative realm- when the senses interpret the energy in a unique way, a mind perceives one with
infinite parts and form, like in vaishishtadvaita. From this human perspective one makes the distinction of beings with personality, things with no personality, and the flow of change(interpreted as karma or destiny, but it doesn't matter)
This is an important layer of perception because in this level a mind realizes the body is an intrinsic part of nature like a bloodcell, here we "find our place in the world"

From this human perspective one can call on cosmic powers of God like the wind(vayu) sun(surya) the moon(uma) to please move the energies around to bring benefits to all beings.
To a loving person the gods(powers of Brahman) are your friends, they clothe your body in light and protect you from the cold and heat(and many other things)

In the relative realm our thoughts direct energy, how people do miricles and magic is setting up. An illusion your mind can manage. As long as you know its not really real, just effective.
But many would disagree, these are personal.


The ordinary world is an illusion, it isn't one, just infinite independent things that don't effect each other.
It has no reality and is created through the following of words on a conventional level.

 

[Poeticus]

Thanks for contributing! I appreciate it.

What I meant by beyond Brahman was "other than" Brahman, I misworded it.

Other than brahman would be the concept of Rta, the underlying notion of everything, essence of everything, the logic of all that is - to which even the Shri Gods are subjected, barring one or two Devas that are revealed in the Rg-Veda as being Rta-personified, like, for example, Shri Varuna (who now has been demoted, Puranically). In fact, it can be easily argued that brahman is subjected to Rta - but...who in 'da world still abides by the concept of Rta? No one likes the Veda-s these days, .

While it might seem contradicting to say other than Brahman to some extent, I'm basically asking about Brahma, Vishnu (Krishna and the other 10 incarnations), and Shiva. What is their significance? Why put focus on them instead of Brahman as a whole? Are they not Brahman or a part of Brahman as well?

To the mainstream Vaishnava-s, Vishnu is brahman. Same goes for the Iskconites - Krishna is brahman.

Same for the Shaiva with Lord Shri Shiva/Lord Shri Rudra, and for the Shakta with Devi (or, various Devi-s addressed as brahman).

Could a Hindu focus on only Brahman and put little to no focus on the triumvirate or even Krishna?

That would borderline nihilism. And, nihilism, my friend...the Vedas do not tolerate.

 

[Poeticus]

Sum,

A better place to post future, similar topics is this: Vedanta DIR - Religious Education Forum

Vedanta is a very small, minor collection of related schools of the vast Hindu conglomeration.

 

[punkdbass]

That would borderline nihilism [focusing purely on Brahman and not the "triumvarite or Krishna"]. And, nihilism, my friend...the Vedas do not tolerate.

Interesting.. would you be able to expound upon this more? Why exactly is it nihilism if one purely focuses on Brahman but complete ignores the deities? The reason I ask, is because I started a thread in the Buddhism DIR that is indirectly related to this (I cant really describe how it is related) but if you could offer an expanded explanation here, I think it could help me.

And secondly, do Advaita Vedanta Hindus mainly just focus on Brahman and not the deities, or do they focus on them as well?


@The Sum of Awe,

I will offer a few thoughts, taken from Swami Sivananda's All About Hinduism that explains some differences between Sri Sankara's philosophy of Advaita Vedanta, and Sri Ramanuja's philosophy of Visishtadvaita Vedanta:

Visishtadvaita Vedanta explains the oneness/Advaita of God with attributes/visesha - and thus Swami Sivananda labels Visishtadvaita as "qualified monism" as distinct from pure/strict monism (Advaita Vedanta). God alone exists, all else that is seen are his manifestations or attributes. God is a complex organic whole, and one. The attributes are real and permanent, but they are subject to the control of the one Brahman.. God can be one despite the existence of attributes.. these attributes cant exist alone, they are not independent entities. This Visishtadvaita is monism that admits plurality - a non-dual philosophy in which the One does not stand in opposition to the Many, but rather the One wholly embraces the Many within it. Few more notes: whatever is, is Brahman; but Brahman is not of a homogeneous nature, it contains within itself plurality. The world is not an unreal Maya but a real part of Brahman's nature, it is the body of the Lord. Matter is real, nonconscious substance. Matter is eternal but ever dependent. Each person has an individual soul that has sprung from Brahman and is never outside Brahman; but enjoys separate personal existence and will remain a personality forever.

Advaita Vedanta: "Brahman(the absolute) is alone real; this world is unreal; and the Jiva or the individual soul is non-different from Brahman.” Whatever is, is Brahman.. Brahman itself is absolutely homogeneous, all plurality/difference is illusory. Brahman/The Atman is self-evident, it is not established by extraneous proofs. It is not possible to deny the Atman, because it is the very essence of the one who denies it. Brahman is not an object. Hence the Upanishads declare ‘Neti Neti, not this not that.’ Brahman is not a negative concept, or metaphysical abstraction, or non-entity/void. It is all-full, infinite, changeless, self-existent, self-delight, self-knowledge, self-bliss, essence. The essence of the knower, the Seer, transcendent and silent witness. Impersonal(without attributes), formless (w/o special characteristics), immutable... Brahman cant be described because description implies distinction. In Brahman there is no distinction of substance and attribute. Sat-Chit-Ananda constitute the very essence of Brahman. Brahman is impersonal, but becomes a personal God only though its associate with Maya. There appears to be a Higher Brahman from the transcendental viewpoint, and a lower Brahman from the relative viewpoint. The world is not an illusion, it is relatively real while Brahman is absolutely real. The unchanging Brahman appears as the changing world through Maya. Maya is not real, because it vanishes when you attain knowledge of the Eternal. It is not unreal also, because it exists [relatively] til knowledge dawns in you. the jiva/individual soul is only relatively real. Its individuality lasts so long as it is subject to unreal/limiting conditions due to ignorance. In reality it is not different from Brahman or the Absolute. The Upanishads declare – “that thou art.” Moksha is obtained when you merge your individual soul in Brahman and dismiss the erroneous notion that the soul is distinct from Brahman.

^all of these notes are paraphrased from Swami Sivananda's book.

 

[Poeticus]

Interesting.. would you be able to expound upon this more? Why exactly is it nihilism if one purely focuses on Brahman but complete ignores the deities? The reason I ask, is because I started a thread in the Buddhism DIR that is indirectly related to this (I cant really describe how it is related) but if you could offer an expanded explanation here, I think it could help me.

And secondly, do Advaita Vedanta Hindus mainly just focus on Brahman and not the deities, or do they focus on them as well?

Because "brahman" isn't a deity. It's the overarching attribute of the deity chosen by the school of thought as primordial.

The reason for that statement is very simple: I have yet to hear brahman as a stand-alone concept, devoid of praise and worship. As far as I know, even various Upanishads subjugate this concept of "brahman" under a "deity", like Lord Shri Vishnu. Even Adi Shankara repeatedly stressed that "brahman" is none other than Lord Shri Vishnu. In other words, various deities are seen as brahman by various schools of Vedantic thought. Even the nir-guna brahman will be lauded as Vishnu or Shiva, but without the forms.

 

[punkdbass]

Because "brahman" isn't a deity. It's the overarching attribute of the deity chosen by the school of thought as primordial.

The reason for that statement is very simple: I have yet to hear brahman as a stand-alone concept, devoid of praise and worship. As far as I know, even various Upanishads subjugate this concept of "brahman" under a "deity", like Lord Shri Vishnu. Even Adi Shankara repeatedly stressed that "brahman" is none other than Lord Shri Vishnu. In other words, various deities are seen as brahman by various schools of Vedantic thought. Even the nir-guna brahman will be lauded as Vishnu or Shiva, but without the forms.

Interesting, thank you for your help. Would you be able by chance to provide me with any references to where Adi Shankara says Brahman is Lord Vishnu? If you cannot recall where, that is okay, I know I will read Adi Shankara's commentaries sometime in the future, to better understand Advaita Vedanta. But secondly, and this is my final question I swear.. but if you read the above notes in my post, what do you make of the following idea:

Brahman is impersonal, but becomes a personal God only though its association with Maya...Maya is not real, because it vanishes when you attain knowledge of the Eternal (does this not imply that the "personal God/Deities" vanishes as well with true knowledge of the Eternal?). It is not unreal also, because it exists [relatively] til knowledge dawns in you.

Hmm I suppose the last part would say, to answer my question, that the deities are not unreal also, but are very much a real thing to you until you achieve Liberation, and to ignore them without having obtained Liberation, would be akin to Nihilism and would be problematic.. and Advaita Vedantans would not advocate doing this?

 

[Poeticus]

Interesting, thank you for your help. Would you be able by chance to provide me with any references to where Adi Shankara says Brahman is Lord Vishnu? If you cannot recall where, that is okay, I know I will read Adi Shankara's commentaries sometime in the future, to better understand Advaita Vedanta. But secondly, and this is my final question I swear.. but if you read the above notes in my post, what do you make of the following idea:

Brahman is impersonal, but becomes a personal God only though its association with Maya...Maya is not real, because it vanishes when you attain knowledge of the Eternal (does this not imply that the "personal God/Deities" vanishes as well with true knowledge of the Eternal?). It is not unreal also, because it exists [relatively] til knowledge dawns in you.

Hmm I suppose the last part would say, to answer my question, that the deities are not unreal also, but are very much a real thing to you until you achieve Liberation, and to ignore them without having obtained Liberation, would be akin to Nihilism and would be problematic.. and Advaita Vedantans would not advocate doing this?

Crap, bro. You're going all Upanishadic on me. You'll have to personally consult, face-to-face, Guru-s that deal with these questions in order to acquire the precedence/pramāNa they have set forth. Sorry I can't be of that much help.

 

[punkdbass]

Crap, bro. You're going all Upanishadic on me. You'll have to personally consult, face-to-face, Guru-s that deal with these questions in order to acquire the precedence/pramāNa they have set forth. Sorry I can't be of that much help.

No worries, thanks though. And yes, I cannot wait to live in a big city next year and visit Hindu temples and find a guru. Until then I will try to be patient, stop asking so many questions ha, and keep reading the upanishads.

Namaste

 

[Poeticus]

Until then I will try to be patient, stop asking so many questions ha, and keep reading the upanishads.

I disagree; I recommend that you keep asking as many questions as you can, especially questions like these and ones that you have been asking since these past few months.

 

[Sb1995]

I disagree; I recommend that you keep asking as many questions as you can, especially questions like these and ones that you have been asking since these past few months.

Namaste

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

praNAm,

I just happened to be reading internet pages today to look more into Hinduism and fell stuck comprehending it all. Hope someone here can enlighten me on these questions.

Sure....

The concept of ParaBrahman: Correct me if I'm wrong but; Brahman is the All, the Absolute, right? If so, what could be beyond Brahman?

It's depends on how you define "beyond"; see the following verse from the brahmasUtra:
परमतस्सेतून्मानसंबन्धभेदव्यपदेशेभ्यः॥३.२.३०॥

paramatassetUnmAnasaMbandhabhedavyapadeshebhyaH||3.2.30||

param - greater; atas - than this (i.e. brahma); setu - bridge; unmAna -length/quantity; sambandha - association (lit. bound together); bheda - difference; vyapadeshebhyaH - from the statements (plural, pa~ncamI vibhakti form of vyapadesha)

Translation: [There exists] something greater than this from (i.e. on account of) the statements declaring association by a "bridge", difference, and measure/length.

Clearly, it makes sense that if brahma is looked at as the bridge with which to cross the ocean of saMsAra (as is often done in the brahmasUtra-s), then the notion of brahma being strictly "one without a second" collapses if one views brahma alone as supreme (note that this is not the view of the pUrvapakShI, but a statement advocated by the brahmasUtra-s itself). The only way in which "ekameva advitIyam brahma" hinted at in the chhAndogyopaniShad can still be true is if one views "brahma" as a visheSha or lakShaNA of bhagavAn, rather than bhagavAn in entirety. Does that make sense?

And: Is Anatman synonymous with subjective reality (the world as I, you, or they see it compared to the world as it is)? Or maybe with materialistic reality, a world focused on materialistic pleasures and achievements, indulging in the physical? Or something else?

Well, anAtmA/anattA is not a vedAntic concept, it's a nAstika shUnyatAvAdI (cough...bauddha...cough) concept, so why not go to the bauddha forum and ask?

What is the significance of any other God (or entity in general) beyond Brahman if all are Brahman?

What is that supposed to mean exactly? You are also brahma according to the mahAvAkya-s, so does that mean that you don't see any need to worship anything but yourself, lol? One of the goals of vedAnta is to rid oneself from ahaMkAra, hence where bhakti comes in.

Which is more significant? Brahma the creator, Vishnu the preserver, or Shiva the destroyer?

As a vaiShNava, I would say viShNu, because he is nArAyaNa and according to the mahopaniShad, nArAyaNa existed before brahmA, IshAna (shiva), agni, soma, dyAvApR^ithvI, etc., hence the phrase "eko ha vai nArAyaNa AsInna brahmA neshAno nApo nAgnIShomau neme dyAvApR^ithivI..."

Could a Hindu focus on only Brahman and put little to no focus on the triumvirate or even Krishna?

Sure, one could do whatever he/she wants, although trying to escape from saMsAra without the love of bAlamukunda is like being stuck in the middle of an ocean and trying to swim across whilst rejecting help.

For the roles and positions of prajApatI (brAhma), viSNu and rudra in veda, I'm sure maitrAvaruNi (मैत्रावरुण&#2367 will be able to provide a quality answer (if you so desire of course).

To be honest, prajApatI is usually used to refer to the deities born from brahmA (not within the veda-s themselves, but within the shAstra-s as a whole) and can be considered his children, so to speak. In the brAhmaNa-s, it is used to refer to vishvakarmaNaH, although "vishvakarma" itself is often used as an epithet of many, many deities.

 

[punkdbass]

I disagree; I recommend that you keep asking as many questions as you can, especially questions like these and ones that you have been asking since these past few months.

Thanks for the encouraging words, I will.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Interesting, thank you for your help. Would you be able by chance to provide me with any references to where Adi Shankara says Brahman is Lord Vishnu? If you cannot recall where, that is okay, I know I will read Adi Shankara's commentaries sometime in the future, to better understand Advaita Vedanta. But secondly, and this is my final question I swear.. but if you read the above notes in my post, what do you make of the following idea:

Well, he clearly distinguishes between the worshippers of viShNu and the worshippers of the anyadevatAH in his bhAShyam on the yAnti devavratA verse from the bhagavadgItA, wherein he states "yAnti madyAjino madyajanashIlA vaiShNavA mAmeva yAnti samAne'pyAyAse mAmeva na bhajante'j~nAnAt tena te'lpaphalabhAjo bhavantItyarthaH." (see here or here)

 

[punkdbass]

Well, he clearly distinguishes between the worshippers of viShNu and the worshippers of the anyadevatAH in his bhAShyam on the yAnti devavratA verse from the bhagavadgItA, wherein he states "yAnti madyAjino madyajanashIlA vaiShNavA mAmeva yAnti samAne'pyAyAse mAmeva na bhajante'j~nAnAt tena te'lpaphalabhAjo bhavantItyarthaH." (see here or here)

Interesting, so if I'm understanding you correctly.. he dose seem to make a distinction between the Absolute Brahman and the Hindu Deities? Also, would you be able to provide an English translation? Or at least the chapter and verse number to the reference in the Bhagavad Gita? I'd like to check it out, thanks

 

[Poeticus]

Interesting, so if I'm understanding you correctly.. he dose seem to make a distinction between the Absolute Brahman and the Hindu Deities?

He's saying that Shri Vishnu is the Absolute Brahman.

 

[Sb1995]

K man just ignore me then..

 

[Poeticus]

K man just ignore me then..

Ignore you? How so? You wrote, "namaste", and nothing more. So, I got my hands together and gave you pranam-s :namaste, albeit you wouldn't have seen that, obviously. Hehe. How's your spring semester coming along?