Archive for the ‘Shad Darshan – Vedanta philosophies’ Category
Thursday, June 10th, 2010
Shad Darshan – Vedanta philosophies (contd.):
Achintya Bhedabheda philosophy
Achintyabheda-bheda of Chaitanya:
Achintya Abheda-Bheda is translated as “inconceivable or incomprehensible oneness and difference.” The philosophy is given by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (1486-1534). The subtle difference between jiv (atma) and God (Paramatma), according to this philosophy, is that quality wise jiv and God are identical but quantity wise jiv is infinitesimal whereas God is unlimited. This can only be experienced through Bhakti-yoga. In this respect, philosophically, it is almost similar to Nimbarkacharya’s Dvaitadvaita philosophy. Worshiping wise Chaitanya’s philosophy is more near to Madhavacharya’s philosophy. Thus, it can be said that, Chaitanya’s philosophy is the combination of Nimbarkacharya’s and Madhavacharya’s philosophy with the major difference in the way of worshiping. Chaitanya added Kirtan-bhakti and propounded Krishna, instead of Vishnu, as Purushottam (God) and the cause of all avatars.
Chaitanya was initiated in Madhavacharya tradition but after about 250 years he started his own tradition which is known as Gaudiya Vaishnav tradition. Gaudiya means “from the Gauda desh” – the Bang-bhumi or ancient Bengal part of India. Chaitanya accepted two important teachings of Madhavacharya: 1. complete rejection of Mayavadi (Kevala Advait) philosophy. 2. Worship and devotion to Shri Krishna, accepting Him as the personified God. According to this philosophy, God is simultaneously one with His creation and also different, rather distinct, from His creation. In Chaitanya’s philosophy Krishna is considered as the Supreme God who is also known as Ādipurush or Swayam (Svayam) Bhagwan. In Shankaracharya’s philosophy everything is considered Brahm – the whole creation is Brahm (including jivas or souls) and the Creator is Brahm. The object of worship (ishtadev) traditionally was Shiv especially for Brahmins. In Ramanujacharya’s philosophy, jiv and universe were two forms of Brahm, namely, Chit and Achit, and Ishwar (God) was separate entity from them. Meaning, Brahm and Ishwar were partly separated and partly unified. But, their separation or unification (ontological distinction) was not stressed considering it less important than bhakti or worship considering the strong hold of, then prevailing, Shankaracharya’s philosophy. People were skewed from bhakti or worshiping God towards just verbal knowledge of God. So, the devotion or bhakti was strongly proposed by Ramanujacharya. Ramanujacharya placed devotion to God at higher level than even Karma (deed) and Gnan (knowledge). He also added service to devotees. Devotees of God are equally valued. The object of worship was Vishnu as Sriman Narayan. In Nimbarkacharya’s tradition the object of worship was Vishnu as Shri Hari, Madhav, Gopal, or Krishna. He also had started worshiping Krishna with Radha. Madhavacharya also stressed devotion to God rather than any other means to please God. Madhavacharya worshiped Vishnu as Bala-Gopal-Krishna (young Krishna) – the present or the latest form. He worshiped Krishna with Arjun. In Madhavacharya’s philosophy, the object of worship was Krishna, but as an avatar or the form of Vishnu. Krishna was considered as the most recent and most powerful avatar of Bhagwan Vishnu or Vāsudev Himself. After about 250 years of Madhavacharya, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu started his new tradition that had combined features of both Nimbarkacharya’s tradition and Madhavacharya’s tradition. Chaitanya worshiped Krishna with Radha, suggesting Bhagwan should be worshiped by His best devotee (bhakta) like Radha. Still up to Madhavacharya’s period God was mainly worshiped alone. Shiv, Vishnu, Pārvati (Devi), and Lakshmi were worshiped alone or unaccompanied. Madhavacharya worshiped Krishna alone or with Arjun as his bhakta. In Chaitanya tradition that still maintained the dualistic (Dvait) philosophy with little different understanding, pure devotion (bhakti) with pure love to Krishna is given more stress rather than liberation from the cycle of birth and death (Sansar chakra), because the liberation automatically follows the purest love for God.
Tags:Achintya, achit, Ādipurush, Advait, Arjun, ātmā, Avatars, Bala-Gopal-Krishna, Bang-bhumi, Bengal, Bhagwan, bhakta, bhakti, Bhakti-yoga, Bhedabheda, Brahm, Brahmins, chaitanya, chit, Creation, Creator, deed, Desh, Devi, devotees, devotion, Dvait, Dvaitadvaita, Gauda, Gaudiya, Gnān, God, Gopal, Hari, India, ishtadev, Ishwar, jiv, Karma, Kevala, Kirtan-bhakti, knowledge, Krishna, Lakshmi, liberation, Mādhav, Madhavacharya, Mahaprabhu, Mayavadi, Narayan, Nimbarkacharya, ontological, Paramātmā, Pārvati, philosophies, Philosophy, Purushottam, Rādhā, Ramanujacharya, Sansar chakra, Shad Darshan, Shankaracharya, Shiv, Shri, Sriman, Supreme, Svayam, Swayam, Vaishnav, Vāsudev, Vedānta, Vishnu, worship
Posted in Achintya Bhedabheda philosophy, Hinduism - Philosophies, Shad Darshan – Vedanta philosophies | Comments Closed
Wednesday, June 9th, 2010
Shad Darshan – Vedanta philosophies (contd.):
Dvaita philosophy (contd.)
Shuddha Dvait philosophy of Madhavacharya (contd.):
Madhavacharya categorizes unreleased or non-liberated souls into three more or less fixed categories (intrinsic or inherent gradation called “jiva-traividhya”) depending upon their knowledge, power, and bliss. They are: Mukti-yogya (qualified for liberation), Nitya-sansāri (not qualified for the liberation and forever remain in the cycle of rebirth), and Tamo-yogya (condemned to Hell and never get liberated). The idea was to explain plurality of souls and the co-existence of good and evil living entities in the world. Madhavacharya describes the same kinds of intrinsic differences among the liberated souls also, namely, devas (sarva-prakāsh), rishis (antah-prakāsh), and naras (bahir-prakāsh). This kind of ideology (swarup-tāratamya) was unique and not fully supported by the basic Vedic Hindu philosophy of Prasthan Trayi.
It was different than the special titles assigned to some souls by Ramanujacharya, and was not accepted by traditional Hindu philosophers. All souls deserve salvation or liberation limited to their knowledge, behavior, and efforts. Another understanding of Dvaita philosophy which did not get wide acceptance in the mainstream Hinduism was ill-defined or poorly understood “Tāratamya” or “devatā-tārātamya”, meaning, hierarchy among subordinate or minor gods (devatās). According to Madhavacharya’s philosophy, as it is in Ramanujacharya’s philosophy, Vishnu is considered as the Supreme God and Laxmi (the female deity) as His eternal consort. Vishnu is considered as the cause of all Avatars or incarnations of God. Thus, Vaishnavism is also continued in Madhavacharya’s philosophy. In Madhavacharya’s philosophy, Vishnu and Laxmi are placed at the higher level than the level of Brahmā, Shiv, and Vayu god but, with that, other demigods, such as, Surya, Chandra, Indra, Varun, etc. were also placed at different hierarchically lower levels. This was also less acceptable for the Hinduism of that period. According to Madhavacharya all souls, although ontologically identical, are different in potential. Demigods or devas are not of God category so they are of jiv category but according to devata-taratamya they are of different hierarchical levels – higher than ordinary souls of all living beings. One important concept introduced by Madhavacharya was, to maintain the supremacy of God and to maintain the hierarchy; Vishnu was paced at the highest level being completely divine having no worldly body. Vishnu as Shri Hari is considered as sarvottama (the Supreme Being). Laxmi was placed at just a little lower level categorizing her as akshar (imperishable) having indestructible (aprākrut) body as against the mundane (prākrut) bodies of other entities like Brahmā, demigods or devas, and jivas that are destructible or kshar (perishable). This was the indirect or unintentional beginning of separation of Akshar, the penultimate element from God, the ultimate element, but no one could realize it at that time.
Basically, except some minor differences, Madhavacharya accepts the basic understanding of Vaishnava philosophy of Ramanujacharya and also stresses more on Bhakti (devotion) or worshiping. The followers of Ramanujacharya worship Vishnu as Narayan, Sriman Narayan, or Shri Lakshmi-Narayan (it is a one word used for Narayan Himself only, with Lakshmi residing in His heart), whereas the followers of Madhavacharya worship Vishnu as Krishna, Bāla-Gopāla (young Krishna), Bāl-Gopāl-Krishna, Venugopala Krishna or Radha-Krishna (it is also a one word used for Krishna Himself only, with Radha residing in His heart). Until Madhavacharya’s period God was worshiped alone. Shiv, Vishnu, Pārvati (Devi), and Lakshmi were worshiped by themselves alone. Madhavacharya started worshiping Krishna alone and later on worshiping Krishna with his choicest bhakta Arjun was started. Initially, during the Madhavacharya’s period conjugal love (premlakshanā bhakti) in worshiping Krishna with Radha was not fully developed, it was added later on and by the time of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu it had reached to a higher level. Thus, Vishnu’s worship as a young innocent Krishna was turned into fully Krishna’s worship with Radha by a devotee showing an utmost love that only spouse can show towards her partner by Chaitanya’s period.
In Madhavacharya’s period Karmis (those who believe more in Karmas), Gnānis (those who just believe more in tattva-gnan or just philosophy), and Māyāvādis (those who believed in impersonal God) were all freely respected along with truly devotees who as well believe in utmost devotion (bhakti). In Hinduism, devotion (bhakti) is always placed higher than the philosophical knowledge only. Knowing philosophy only without having the devotion attached to it has no value. Also merely blind devotion without knowing whom one worships is also of no value. Hinduism believes in both, the philosophical knowledge of the Truth and the utmost devotion (bhakti) to the Supreme God. Madhavacharya’s period also marks the beginning of worshiping Krishna (the latest and greatest form or incarnation of Purushottam – God) as the principal object of worship from worshiping Vishnu (Narayan) as the principal object of worship in Ramanujacharya’s period.
Madhavacharya maintains that Brahm referred to God (Vishnu) by saying “Brahmashabdashcha vaishnaveva”, thus identifying Brahm with God. That period was unifying Brahm with God or unifying Shaivism with Vaishnavism or rather tending towards replacing Brahm with God. One can see that in the story of Lord “Ananteshwara.” Lord Vishnu, during the period of incarnation as Parashurāma, stayed and enshrined in the Shivalinga and being known as Ananteshwara. The place is known as Shivarupya or Shivalli (Udupi). Although Madhavacharya’s philosophy (Dvaita) was strongly against or exactly opposite of Shankaracharya’s philosophy (Advaita), he himself worshiped Shivalinga as Vishnu in the form of Ananteshwara. Also he respected or rather highly regarded Brāhmins irrespective of their worship to Lord Shiva or Lord Vishnu. At the same time, Madhavacharya goes one step further in separating Vishnu from other deities, establishing further the monotheistic nature of Hinduism. According to him Vishnu is the Supreme God and the primary object of worship, whereas, other deities are subordinate to him. Thus, he translates Hinduism from polytheism to monotheism and adds one more distinction between deities (Devas) or so-called demigods and God proper reestablishing or revitalizing the supremacy of God. The important contribution of Dvaita philosophy of Madhavacharya to Hinduism is that Atma and Brahm (also known as Vishnu or God) are eternally and ontologically two different realities, one is subordinate to the supreme other, respectively – a big and daring separation, at that time, from the Advaita philosophy of Shankaracharya and still maintain unity between Shaivism and Vaishnavism. This is the beauty of Hinduism. Brahm and Parabrahm (God) were still considered a one and the same reality in that period. Brahm was tried to be concealed away by promoting Parabrahm (God). In essence, according to Dvaita philosophy of Madhavacharya, there exist three clear-cut fundamental eternal realities, soul, Nature (universe), and God quite distinct from each other and not the part and parcel (ansh-anshi) of each other. The distinction between God and Brahm was still left-off for the future. Both were used synonymously.
Tags:Advaita, akshar, Ananteshwara, ansh-anshi, antah-prakāsh, ātmā, Avatars, bahir-prakāsh, Bāl-Gopāl-Krishna, Bāla-Gopāla, bhakti, body, Brahm, Brahmā, Brahmins, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Chandra, consort, cycle of rebirth, Darshan, deities, deity, demigods, devas, devatā-tārātamya, devatās, Devi, devotion, divine, Dvait, Dvaita, element, eternal, Gnānis, God, Hari, Hell, hierarchy, Hindu, Hinduism, Imperishable, incarnations, Indra, jiva-traividhya, jivas, Karmas, Karmis, Krishna, kshar, Lakshmi, Lakshmi-Narayan, Laxmi, liberation, Madhavacharya, Māyāvādis, Monotheism, Mukti-yogya, naras, Narayan, Nitya-sansāri, Parashurāma, Pārvati, penultimate, perishable, philosophies, Philosophy, polytheism, Prasthan Trayi, premlakshanā bhakti, Rādhā, Radha-Krishna, Ramanujacharya, Rishis, sarva-prakāsh, sarvottama, Shad Darshan, Shaivism, Shankaracharya, Shiv, Shivalinga, Shivalli, Shivarupya, Shri, Shuddha, souls, Sriman Narayan, Supreme God, Surya, swarup-tāratamya, Tamo-yogya, Tāratamya, tattva-gnan, Truth, Udupi, ultimate, Vaishnava, Vaishnavism, Varun, Vāyu, Vedānta, Vedic, Venugopala Krishna, Vishnu, worldly, worshiping
Posted in Dvaita philosophy (contd.), Hinduism - Philosophies, Shad Darshan – Vedanta philosophies | Comments Closed
Tuesday, June 8th, 2010
Shad Darshan – Vedanta philosophies (contd.):
Dvaita philosophy
Shuddha Dvait philosophy of Madhavacharya:
Dvait (also known as Shuddha Dvait or Pure Dualism) philosophy was given by Madhavacharya (Madhvacharya, or Madhva) (1238-1317). Just as Advaita is different than Monism, Dvaita is different than Dualism. Dualism defines about two independent already opposite realities, such as, mind and body, good and evil, physical and spiritual, whereas Dvaita philosophy defines two, characteristically look-alike but ontologically quite distinct, eternal realities, namely, soul and God (also known as the super-soul), maintaining the Supremacy of God. The distinction between soul and God which was not proposed in Advaita and not clearly defined in Vishishtadvait philosophy was explained clearly by Madhavacharya. Madhavacharya removed the paradoxical (vishishta) part of Ramanujacharya’s philosophy of having similarity but difference between the soul and God. Madhavacharya stressed of having a strict ontological (tāttvik) distinction between God, called Vishnu (also known as Krishna or Hari), and the individual souls. Because of this, his philosophy is also known as Shuddha Dvaita Vāda (Pure Dualism). He propounded that, this duality of soul and God is maintained even after the liberation of souls which was not cleared or stressed in the Vishishtadvait philosophy of Ramanujacharya. In the book Mayavada-shata-dusani (Tattva Muktavali), it is said that, the Absolute Truth is the Supreme Personality, full of transcendental attributes and not the attributeless impersonal Brahm. Madhavacharya describes five major differences in realities: 1. Major ontological difference between God and jiv. 2. The ontological difference between God and maya. 3. The ontological difference between maya and jiv. 4. The difference, meaning separation or individuality, between one jiv and another jiv. 5. Individuality between different forms of maya.
According to Dvaita philosophy souls are eternal and are not created by God, yet, like maya or other fundamental realities they are not independent but are dependent on the Supreme God for their existence. Souls are many and uncountable. How come the individual souls which are mingled with Maya (māyān + veshtita = mayanveshtita, meaning, enveloped or completely covered with maya) can be of the same level of the Supreme God which is ever transcendental to maya and also to whom maya even cannot touch. Maya, though revocably but strongly, binds the souls but cannot bind God, it cannot even touch God. Moreover, by having salvation or liberation of one soul all souls do not get liberation. Madhavacharya strongly says to those who believes that they are Brahm (Aham Brahmāsmi), “Yadi nāma paro na bhaveta (bhavetsa) Harihi, kathamasya vashe jagadetadabhutaha | Yadi nāma na tasya vashe sakalam kathameva tu nityasukham na bhavetaha || 5 ||” (Ref: Shrimad Ānandatirtha (Madhavacharya) bhagavatpād āchārya virachitam “Dvādasha Stotra”, Stotra: 3, Shlok: 5) Meaning, “If you feel that there is no God, then how, in what way, and who controls the universe (jagat). If you feel that you are Brahm (God) – the controller of everything, then how come you do not always enjoy the eternal happiness?”
Tags:Absolute Truth, āchārya, Advaita, Ānandatirtha, bhagavatpād, body, Brahm, Darshan, Dualism, Dvādasha, Dvait, Dvaita, eternal, evil, God, good, Hari, jagat, jiv, Krishna, liberation, Madhavacharya, Madhva, Madhvacharya, maya, māyān, mayanveshtita, Mayavada-shata-dusani, mind, Monism, Personality, philosophies, Philosophy, physical, Pure Dualism, Ramanujacharya, realities, salvation, Shad Darshan, Shlok, Shrimad, Shuddha, soul, spiritual, Stotra, super-soul, Supreme, Tattva Muktavali, tāttvik, transcendental, universe, Vāda, Vedānta, veshtita, virachitam, Vishishta, Vishishtadvait, Vishnu
Posted in Dvaita philosophy, Hinduism - Philosophies, Shad Darshan – Vedanta philosophies | Comments Closed
Wednesday, May 26th, 2010
Shad Darshan – Vedanta philosophies (contd.):
Dvaitadvaita philosophy (contd.)
Dvaitadvait philosophy of Nimbarkacharya (contd.):
Nimbarkacharya’s philosophy believes in three categories of souls, namely, baddha (means, bounded by sansār or māyā), baddha mukta (means, liberated from the bondage of sansar or maya), and nitya mukta (means, forever liberated or who never came into this sansar or maya, can be called as anādi mukta). “…muktancha baddham kila baddhamuktam, prabheda bahulya mathapi boddhyam ||” (Vedant Dash-Shloki by Nimbarkacharya: Shlok: 2)
Secondly, according to Nimbarkacharya’s philosophy, everything is done or achieved by the grace of God (Ishwar Krupā).
Nimbarkacharya believes that God and Brahm are not different and maintains worshiping personified God. Like Ramanujacharya who believed in and worshiped Vishnu (Narayan) as Sriman Narayan – the spouse (pati or nāth) of Laxmi (also spelled Lakshmi), as the Godhead of the universe, Nimbarkacharya also believed in Lakshmi-Narayan and worshiped Him as Shri Hari, Gopāl, Mādhav, Krishna etc. specifically with his consort Rādhā, both surrounded by a group of Gopis as their devotees (bhakta) in the divine place called Vrindāvan dham. In Nimbarkacharya’s period Radha was not worshiped as the consort of Shri Krishna (Krishna’s principal wife was Rukmani) just as Lakshmi was the consort of Vishnu, but Radha was worshiped as Krishna’s dearest, topmost, and true devotee or bhakta. Radha is considered the latent power (Shakti) of Krishna (Shaktimān). Both cannot be separated. “Upāsaniyam nitram janayhi sadā, prahannaye agyāna tamo anuvratte | Sanandadhyir munibhisthoktam, shrināradayakhila tatva sakshine ||” (Vedant Dash-Shloki by Nimbarkacharya: Shlok: 6) Meaning, “One should constantly reside in and meditate upon this dual (yugal) form of bhakta and Bhagwan (Parabrahm) – Shri Radha-Krishna. Mere concentrating or contemplating on them removes the basic ignorance. Shri Sanakādik Rishis had bestowed this very same knowledge to Shri Nārada.” “Radhayo sahito devo madhvo vaishavottamaih, archyo bandyashcha dhyeyashcha shrinimbarkapadanugaih ||” (Shri Nimbarka-Sudha) Meaning, “For the followers of Shri Nimbarkacharya, the worshiping form is “Radha sahita Madhava” (uttam bhakta sahita Bhagwan), which should be worshiped, prayed to, and meditated upon.”
Thus, Nimbarkacharya’s philosophy suggests a major change in Hinduism in the way of worshiping God, in two ways. One, worshiping the current or present form of God (Krishna) is valued more in salvation than worshiping the past form of God (Vishnu). Secondly, worshiping God with His dearest, nearest, and truest devotee or bhakta is more important than worshiping God alone. This kind of worshiping of God with His choicest and the best devotee (bhakta) is known as “Yugal Upāsanā”.
Nimbarkacharya writes in the “Dash-Shloki” on the worship of Radha-Krishna:
“Ange tu vāme Vrishabhānujām mudā, virājamānam anuroopsoubhagām | Sakhi sahastraihi pari sevitām sadā, smarema devim sakaleashta kāmadām ||”(Vedant Dash-Shloki by Nimbarkacharya: Shlok: 5) Meaning, “We remember Radha (the daughter of King Vrishabh) – the most beautiful and as glorious as Shri Krishna, who is on the left side (vame) of Him, and who is served or worshiped by thousands of sakhis (bhaktas).”
According to Nimbarkacharya, the devotion means total self-surrenderance or complete submission to God known as prapatti, also known as sharanāgati or nyasa. Prapatti should have five or six constituents or qualities (angas) fulfilled: 1. Anukulasya sankalpa – resolution of total submission to God, to do only things that pleases God, 2. Pratikulasya varjanam – avoidance of all negatives in submission, not to entertain any bad thoughts, not to do anything that displeases God, 3. Maha Vishwas (Rakshisyati iti vishwasa) – faith that only God shall provide protection and grant liberation (moksh), acceptance of only God as the savior, 4. Gopatratva varanam – praying for the protection and granting salvation (moksha), 5. Atmanikshepa – total sacrifice of one’s self to God, to leave everything up to God (ātma nivedanam, ātma samarpan, bhāra samarpan, and phala samarpan), 6. Karpanya – feeling of helplessness or incapability to perform bhakti or devotion and to get salvation by one’s own efforts only and without the grace of God.
In Nimbarkacharya’s philosophy, as a personified God, the Lord of all, the controller of all, the Highest Reality, is known as Hari, Narayan, or Krishna (God). As the sole cause of creation, maintenance, and destruction of the universe, as the basic material cause (upādāna) and the efficient cause (nimitta) it is known as Brahm.
In Nimbarkacharya’s philosophy, Brahm is believed to be the sole cause of the creation. Nimbarkacharya describes two aspects of Brahm. In one aspect Brahm is eternal, transcendental, the greatest, and the creator of all. In another aspect it is abode of all good virtues, qualities, beauty, bliss and charm. Brahm as God have four nirgun forms or “vyuh”, namely, Vāsudev, Sankarshan, Pradyumna, and Aniruddha. Vāsudev Narayan is considered as the original form. (It looks like the word “view” may have origin in the word vyuh (also spelled as vyuha.) In worshiping God, Dvaitadvait philosophy is also a bhakti marg. Later philosophies does not differ much in philosophical (tāttvik) aspect, that is, number, status, or relationships of the three realities, of Hinduism but it mainly differ in the worshiping aspect of Hinduism, that is, the form of worshiping deity (ishtadev) and the way of worshiping.
Tags:abode, anādi mukta, angas, Aniruddha, Anukulasya sankalpa, ātma nivedanam, ātma samarpan, Atmanikshepa, baddha, baddha mukta, Bhagwan, bhakta, bhakta sahita Bhagwan, bhaktas, bhakti, Bhakti Mārg, bhāra samarpan, Brahm, cause, Creation, Dash-Shloki, deity, destruction, devotees, dham, divine, dual, Dvaitadvait, Dvaitadvaita, forms, God, Godhead, Gopal, Gopatratva varanam, Gopis, grace of God, Hari, Hinduism, ishtadev, Ishwar Krupā, iti, Karpanya, Krishna, Lakshmi, Lakshmi-Narayan, Laxmi, liberation, Lord, Mādhav, Maha Vishwas, maintenance, maya, moksh, moksha, Nārada, Narayan, nāth, Nimbarka-Sudha, Nimbarkacharya, nimitta, nirgun, nitya mukta, nyasa, Parabrahm, pati, personified, phala samarpan, philosophies, Philosophy, Pradyumna, prapatti, Pratikulasya varjanam, Rādhā, Radha sahita Madhava, Radha-Krishna, Rakshisyati, Ramanujacharya, realities, Rishis, Rukmani, sakhis, salvation, Sanakādik, Sankarshan, sansār, Shad Darshan, shakti, Shaktimān, sharanāgati, Shlok, Shri, souls, Sriman Narayan, tāttvik, universe, upādāna, uttam, vāme, Vāsudev, Vedant, Vedānta, Vishnu, vishwasa, Vrindāvan, Vrishabh, Vyuh, vyuha, worshiping, yugal, Yugal Upāsanā
Posted in Dvaitadvaita philosophy (contd.), Hinduism - Philosophies, Shad Darshan – Vedanta philosophies | Comments Closed
Monday, May 24th, 2010
Shad Darshan – Vedanta philosophies (contd.):
Dvaitadvaita philosophy
Dvaitadvait philosophy of Nimbarkacharya:
Dvaitadvait philosophy is given by Nimbarkacharya (exact date not available). The philosophy believes in the existence of both the duality (Dvaita) and non-duality (Advaita) at the same time, also known as the duality in unity or Dualistic Monism. This is because both the advait and davit characteristics of Brahm are described in Vedas and Upanishads. Nimbarkacharya’s philosophy is a unified approach of Shankaracharya’s Advait understanding of Brahm and Ramanujacharya’s Dvait understanding of Parabrahm (God). Just as Ramanujacharya’s philosophy, Nimbarkacharya’s philosophy also believes in three distinct realities, namely, chit (soul), achit (universe), and Ishwar (God or Parabrahm). Chit means chaitanya, life force, or jiv. Achit means jad or non-living things or the Nature (Prakruti). “Aprakritam prakrit roopakancha, kāla tadachetanam matam | Māyā pradhān ādipadapravachyam, shuklabhibhedashcha sameapi tatra ||” (Vedant Dash-Shloki by Nimbarkacharya: Shlok: 3) Meaning, “Aprakrit, is believed as chit (alive, sentient, and unobservable) form, and Prakrit (universe and its work), Kāl (time), etc. are believed as without awareness or achit (not alive, insentient, and observable) form which are manifestations of Maya, Pradhān, etc. because of the difference in the three qualities (Sattvik, Rajas, and Tamas).” Ishwar (Parabrahm) means Godhead of the universe. “Svābhavatoapasto samasta dosham shesha kalyān gunaikarāshim | Vyohanginam brahm param varenyam, dhyāyem krishnam kamalekshanam harim ||” (Vedant Dash-Shloki by Nimbarkacharya: Shlok: 4) Meaning, “The one who is intrinsically or inherently the ocean of good qualities (kalyānkāri gunas), who is not tainted with any flaws of Maya (Prakruti), and who has held or bore the four divine (nirgun) forms (Vyuhas) upon Himself; who is Lotus eyed (means personal or sākār) and who is desirable or worthy of worshiping, that Parabrahm Shri Hari upon whom we meditate.” In Nimbarkacharya’s philosophy the Supreme Godhead Vishnu is worshiped as Narayan, Mādhav, Gopal, or Krishna. Nimbarkacharya worshiped Shaligram (Shaligrama) as the murti (object of worship) of Vishnu. It is known as Sarveshwar Bhagwan. Shankaracharya worshiped Shivling (Shivalinga) as the murti (object of worship) of Shiv or Shankar. It is known as Maheshwar. Thus, Murti Puja (idol or object worshiping) was there in Hinduism since its very early period. In Shankaracharya’s philosophy Brahm is considered nirakar (without mayik or worldly form) whereas in Ramanujacharya’s and others philosophies God is considered sakar (with divine personified form) and personified. Both forms are described in Vedas, Upanishads, and other Hindu scriptures.
According to this philosophy, chit and achit, both, are different (Dvait or Bhed) than Ishwar in capabilities and attributes or characteristics, but are not different or separate, (Advait or Abhed) from Ishwar in existence; meaning, jiv and nature, both are identical (not completely but partially) with Ishwar. Jiv and Prakruti, both, are Brahmātmaka, meaning, Brahm-like or “Brahm-maya.” “Sarvamhi vigyanamyatoyatharthakam, Shruti-Smrutibhyo nikhilasya vastunaha | Brahmātmakatvaditi vedavinmatam, triroopata apishrutisutra sadhita ||” (Vedant Dash-Shloki by Nimbarkacharya: Shlok: 7) Meaning, “Achit-chit everything is the form of Brahm as stated by Shruti and Smruti shastras. Since they have become Brahmatmaka or Brahm is their essence, they are also reality as stated by Vedas. The three forms or the trio of jiv (bhoktā), prakruti or nature (bhogya), and Ishwar or Hari (niyantra) are realities as stated or confirmed by Shruti shastras.”
Chit and Achit, both, cannot be absolutely identical with Ishwar because Prakruti (Nature) and jiv are not perfect (purna) whereas God is perfect (paripurna). They are also not unrelated or totally different and separated from Ishwar otherwise Ishwar cannot be controller of them. They have to be related in any way. Chit and achit both cannot have separate independent existence from Ishwar’s existence. Chit and Achit both are characteristically distinct realities from Ishwar’s reality. Their union with God makes them similar entity though their characteristics make them separate or individual entities. The difference between the chit and achit realities and Ishwar reality is that, Ishwar has independent existence, whereas, chit and achit have, though separate but dependent, existence on Ishwar. They call this unique kind of characteristic “swatantra and partantra sattābhav.” The separate existence of chit and achit shows their “swatantra sattabhav,” at the same time their dependency on Ishwar for their separate existence shows their “partantra sattabhav.” Ishwar or Brahm is the controller (niyantra or niyantā). His capabilities are unlimited, whereas, the capabilities and the characteristics or attributes of the chit and achit things are different and limited. Chit is the enjoyer (bhokta) and achit is the object (bhogya) of enjoyment. The Dvaitadvait understanding is subtle but a little complicated in understanding. This kind of complex understanding is also known as natural difference-indifference or “swābhāvik bhedābhed.” In simple terms, we can say that the two realities, namely, chit and achit, are separate or distinct but dependent on higher independent reality known as Ishwar. This kind of bhedabhed relationship can be analogized to the relationships or the association of a small country and a large country. Analogize that the small country is Achit, its Governor is its Chit, and the President of the large country is Ishwar. The small country shows “swatantra sattabhav” or sovereignty and independence by having its own Government and at the same time shows “partantra sattabhav” or submission and dependence by having its relationship with the Government and the President of the large country which is the controller of both the countries.
Tags:Abhed, achit, Advait, Advaita, alive, Aprakrit, Bhagwan, Bhed, bhedābhed, bhogya, bhoktā, Brahm, Brahm-like, Brahm-maya, Brahmātmaka, chaitanya, chit, Dash-Shloki, davit, duality, duality in unity, Dvaita, Dvaitadvait, Dvaitadvaita, existence, God, Godhead, Gopal, Hari, Hindu, insentient, Ishwar, jad, jiv, Kal, kalyānkāri gunas, Krishna, life force, Mādhav, Maheshwar, maya, mayik, murti, Murti Puja, Narayan, Nature, Nimbarkacharya, nirākār, niyantā, niyantra, non-duality, non-living, not alive, Parabrahm, paripurna, partantra, perfect, personified, philosophies, Philosophy, Pradhān, Prakrit, Prakruti, purna, rajas, Ramanujacharya, realities, sākār, Sarveshwar, sattābhav, Sattvik, Scriptures, sentient, Shad Darshan, Shaligrām, Shaligrama, Shankar, Shankaracharya, shastras, Shiv, Shivalinga, Shivling, Shlok, Shri, Shruti, smruti, soul, subtle, Supreme, swābhāvik, swatantra, tamas, time, universe, Upanishads, Vedant, Vedānta, Vedas, Vishnu
Posted in Dvaitadvaita philosophy, Hinduism - Philosophies, Shad Darshan – Vedanta philosophies | Comments Closed
Friday, May 21st, 2010
Shad Darshan – Vedanta philosophies (contd.):
Vishishtadvaita philosophy
Vishishtadvaita philosophy and almost all of the “Vaishnav” philosophies of Hinduism are based on Panchratra scriptures – one of the four kinds of Vaishnav Agams (Vaishnava Agamas). Agamas are a separate class of authoritative Hindu scriptures than Nigams (Nigamas) or Vedas. Panchratra scriptures are divided into seven groups, namely, Brahma, Shaiva, Kaumara, Vashishtha, Kapila, Gautamiya, and Naradiya. The Naradiya Panchratra is in the Shanti Parva section of the Mahabharat and is considered as the earliest source of Panchratra philosophy. The followers of the Vaishnav tradition regard Panchratra scriptures, especially of Naradiya origin, as the most authoritative, in which Vishnu is mentioned as the Supreme Lord.
Panchratra scriptures:
As against Vedanta understanding of Brahm, there is a major philosophy of Parabrahm Narayan (God) described in the “Panchrātra” shastras (scriptures). Vaishnav Panchratra shastras glorify God as Vishnu. According to Panchratra Shastras, there is one Supreme God (suggesting the monotheistic nature of Hinduism) known as Purushottam Narayan who assumes or reveals Himself in five different ways: 1. Para – the original form in His abode, 2. Vyuh – Chatur Vyuh (four nirgun forms) in brahmand for the worship, 3. Vibhuti Avatar – an incarnation on the earth, 4. Antaryāmi – inner controller or indweller, and 5. Archā (murti or pratimā) – an image or object for the worship. He manifests or emanates in brahmand as four forms (chatur vyuh) of Vāsudev, Sankarshan, Aniruddha, and Pradyumna. Sankarshan, Aniruddha, and Pradyumna forms of Vāsudev are the major controlling forms during the destructive, sustaining, and the creative phases of brahmand (universe), respectively. It is he who assumes, manifests, or reveals himself as an avatar on this earth. Murtis are described of eight kinds. The ninth kind is chal murti generally known a Brahmanized or God-realized Sant in whom God resides fully. According to Panchratra, one, who offers nine kinds of devotion (bhakti) to him, attains the liberation (mukti or moksha).
Vishishta Advait philosophy of Ramanujacharya:
As against Shankaracharya’s Advait philosophy or non-dualism of Nature (Prakruti) and Brahm or the soul and the Brahm, there is also another major philosophy called Vishishta Advait or qualified non-dualism of Ramanujacharya (c. 1017-1137). It is based on the spiritual and physical experience and realization of God by offering utmost devotion (bhakti) to God, instead of just knowing the nature of self and God (brahmgnan). The same illusory world of Maya of Advait philosophy of Shankaracharya is used for offering the devotion or bhakti towards personified (sakar) God. According to this philosophy, the soul and God are both qualitatively or characteristically similar but ontologically quite distinct entities and not the one and same or part and parcel. This dual or paradoxical understanding of both the realities makes it special or “Vishishta” and separates it from the Shankaracharya’s Advait philosophy. Secondly, it clarifies the distinction between the Creation (Prakruti or Nature) and the Creator (Ishwar or God). Ishwar is transcendental to both jiv (soul) and jagat (Nature). The philosophy still falls short of clarifying the ontological distinction between the jiv (soul) and jagat (Nature) even though characteristically both are opposite of each other. One is chit, chaitanya, essence, sentient, indestructible, indivisible, unchangeable, and non-decayable while the other is achit, achetan, jad, insentient, destructible, divisible, changeable, and decayable. It considers jiv (soul) and jagat (nature) are two modes of one reality called Brahm. According to this philosophy, the soul is “Chit-Brahm” meaning chaitanya or sentient being and the jagat (Prakruti or Nature) is “Achit-Brahm” meaning achetan, jad or insentient being. According to this philosophy, soul and nature, both as Brahm, are the body (sharir) of God (Parabrahm). In this way Brahm (sharir) and Parabrahm (shariri) make the two, respectively, penultimate and the ultimate, dependent and independent, transcendental eternal realities. Thus, according to this philosophy, there are mainly three fundamental realities, called “Tattva”, namely, Chit or Jiv (soul), Achit or Jagat (universe), and Ishwar (God). The triad of jiv, jagat, and jagadishwar (jagat + ishwar = jagadishwar, meaning, ishwar or lord of the jagat) is generally known as Brahm – the one and only. Thus, it does not differ much from the Advait philosophy of Shankaracharya. The apparently minute or subtle (sukshma) but the philosophically major difference between the two philosophies is that, Ishwar is considered different than Brahm in the Vishishtadvaita philosophy, whereas, there is no difference between Ishwar (God) and Brahm in Advait philosophy. Vishishtadvaita philosophy considers Ishwar as an essence or substantive part of Brahm, whereas, jiv and jagat are considered the two modes of Brahm. Ishwar is transcendental to both jiv and jagat. Ishwar (God) has dual characteristics: he resides or is present as a principle, universal spirit, and as an inner controller inside all beings, at the same time, all beings reside within him. Vishishtadvaita philosophy is generally known as the Path of devotion or bhakti (Bhakti Mārg) because it stresses more on devotion to God rather than to Brahmgnan or mere knowledge of Brahm. The devotion to God exceeds simple union of the individual soul with Brahm without any devotion to God. Shankaracharya’s “Gnan Marg” does not involve much of the devotion or worship of God instead it stresses more on the knowledge and the union of the soul with the Brahm – the Supreme authority. Just as the Advaita philosophy of Shankaracharya has become synonymous with Vedanta, the Vishishtadvaita philosophy of Ramanujacharya has become synonymous with Vaishnavism (Vaishnav theology). The word “Vaishnav” has come from worshiping Vishnu as God or the Supreme Being.
If one tries to understand God only by studying Panchratra shastras (scriptures), God is realized as purely human being like us, simply because common people or non-devotees cannot see or find any divinity in His worldly routine activities. Secondly the personal form of God gets all the limitations and becomes localized in one place at one time and not as the forever universal inner controller (sarva-antaryami) form and all-perfect (paripurna) form.
Tags:abode, achetan, achit, Achit-Brahm, Advait, all-perfect, Aniruddha, Antaryāmi, Archā, Avatar, bhakti, Bhakti Mārg, body, Brahm, brahmand, brahmanized, brahmgnan, chaitanya, chal, changeable, Chatur Vyuh, chit, Chit-Brahm, Creation, Creator, Darshan, decayable, destructible, devotion, divisible, essence, eternal, God, God-realized, Gyan Marg, Hinduism, incarnation, indestructible, indivisible, indweller, inner controller, insentient, Ishwar, jad, jagadishwar, jagat, jiv, liberation, maya, moksha, monotheistic, mukti, murti, Narayan, Nature, nirgun, non-decayable, non-dualism, ontologically, Panchratra, Para, Parabrahm, paripurna, Path of devotion, personified, philosophies, Philosophy, Pradyumna, Prakruti, pratimā, Purushottam, Ramanujacharya, realities, sākār, Sankarshan, Sant, sarva antaryāmi, Scriptures, self, sentient, Shad Darshan, Shankaracharya, sharir, shariri, shastras, soul, spiritual, sukshma, Supreme God, Tattva, transcendental, unchangeable, Vaishnav, Vaishnava, Vāsudev, Vedānta, Vibhuti, Vishishta, Vishishtadvaita, Vishnu, Vyuh, worship
Posted in Hinduism - Philosophies, Shad Darshan – Vedanta philosophies, Vishishtadvaita philosophy | Comments Closed
Friday, May 14th, 2010
Shad Darshan – Vedanta philosophies:
Advaita philosophy
Kevala Advaita philosophy of Adi Shankaracharya
Many sub-philosophies have been developed under the heading of Vedanta (Uttara Mimamsa) philosophy – the philosophies based on Prasthan Trayi, since the beginning of the Common Era. Out of them one is the Advait Vedanta philosophy of Shankaracharya.
Advait philosophy of Shankaracharya:
Advait philosophy is given by Adi Shankaracharya (788 CE-821 CE?). “Advait” means “not two” or “non dual”. The word “Advait” doesn’t mean “one”. It is different than Monism, because Monism is defined little differently. As against Sankhya philosophy, the Advaita philosophy believes that Purush (soul) and Prakruti (nature) are one and same as Brahm. It is because of Maya, avidyā, or agnān (ignorance or illusion) that they look different. According to this philosophy, there exists only one reality called Brahm. “Sarvam khalv idam brahm” (Chhāndogya Upanishad: 3.14.1) Meaning, “All that we see in the world is Brahm.” Everything, what we see, feel, observe, and experience is revelation of attributeless “nirgun,” formless “nirakar” Brahm. The real meaning of nirgun, nirakar is “without any worldly trigunatmak form”. This material world is merely an illusion or untrue, meaning, it is destructible, changeable but not the permanent truth. The root cause of all the ignorance, called “Avidyā” or “Maya”, is the belief that this material world is real or the truth. The ultimate liberation comes when one establishes unity of one’s individual soul with the universal soul or Brahm by solidifying one’s knowledge (gyan) that, “Aham Brahmāsmi” (Brahadaranyaka Upanishad: 1.4.10) meaning, “I am Brahm” and “Tat tvam asi” (Chhandogya Upanishad: 6.8.7) meaning, “You are that (Brahm).” It is true that one can identify one’s soul with Brahm, because both are described to be having similar characteristics in the scriptures. When Shankaracharya said everything is Brahm, he meant it. He had a vision to see everything as Brahm or filled with Brahm, just as a scientist sees everything as well organized structures made just of atoms or quarks. Just as everything in the nature is quarks or atoms in the eyes of scientists, everything was Brahm in the eyes of Shankaracharya. If we see this object is mine and that is yours, this object is prettier and that object is ugly, if we have partiality for some and impartiality for others then we haven’t reach that stage. According to the Advait philosophy of Shankaracharya, soul is Brahm, the Nature or Prakruti (the Creation) is Brahm, and the Creator of the Creation is also Brahm. In that way Advait philosophy is a kind of Monism. Advaitists believe that the whole universe is evolved from Brahm or God. For some these changes in Brahm are real, while, for others these changes or differentiations in Brahm are only apparent or superficial and not real. Advaitists believe that individual souls are created by Maya, in reality they are one with the Brahm. The removal of the veil of ignorance (Maya) makes this truth clear – the state being known as “Jivanmukti” (the living freedom). Shankaracharya’s path is generally known as the Path of Knowledge or “Gyān or Gnān Mārg.” In Vedanta philosophy there was no worshiping of Brahm, but still worshiping of God was there. God was considered Brahm. In Shankaracharya’s period, most of his followers were Brahmins and Brahmins were “shaivites” or “shaivas” meaning they worshiped Shiv (Shankar or Mahesh) as the Supreme Being or God. Shankaracharya himself was the devotee and firm believer of Shiv. So he continued that practice. In Rigved, the word Rudra is used for Shiva. Rudra is described as the last son of Brahmā. (Kurma Puran: 1.10.21,22; Linga Puran: 1.41,42,43; Shiva Puran: 7.1.12. 31, 32; Bhagwat Puran: 3.12.6-10; Skanda Puran: 5.1.2. 24-26; Mahabharat: 1.60.1-4) The same Rudra is described to be born of Prajāpati in the previous kalpa (eon or age of universe). Currently, Vedanta and Shankaracharya’s philosophy has mostly become synonymous.
There is also somewhat different philosophy than the Vedanta philosophy of Shankaracharya, which is known as “Shushka (sushka) Vedanta.” Shushka means dry, baseless, or bijless (nirbij, bij means seed or the essence). The followers of Shushka Vedanta or modern Vedantis, unlike followers of Vedanta philosophy of Shankaracharya, do not believe in or worship (bhakti) any God at all nor do they believe in many of His divine forms, and His abode, thinking that after becoming one with the Brahm, one need not worship or bow down to any God. They become so arrogant that they no longer have fear committing any seen. They do not even believe in any scripture-described moral or do’s and don’ts called “Vidhinishedh”. They only believe in nirakar nirgun Brahm, which itself has assumed the form of all mobile and immobile objects. Shushka Vedantis forget the controversy created by their own belief that along with jiv and all mobile and immobile objects of the universe Brahm also has to undergo births and deaths. Their own liberation thus is refuted by their own beliefs. Shushka Vedantis are those who think themselves as Brahm having still harboring lust, anger, greed, infatuation, jealousy, ego, etc and without even having attained the highest status of Brahm. They forget that Shankaracharya had truly attained the highest brahmanized state, he himself had become one with the Brahm, and he was surely and meaningfully seeing the whole creation as one, before saying the same to the others. So, Shankaracharya’s Advait Vedanta theory is widely accepted but the kind of understanding that is seen in Sushka Vedanta is largely condemned by the main stream Hinduism. Just by saying, “I am Brahm” or believing to be Brahm one cannot be like Brahm, by completely knowing about Brahm from the scriptures also one cannot be like Brahm, but by achieving or cultivating all the qualities of Brahm one can be like Brahm. Shankaracharya had truly become one with the Brahm.
If one tries to understand the form of God through Advaita Vedanta philosophy only, then God is realized as formless or abstract (nirākār) because of His description as nirgun (without any worldly mayik qualities or attributes), sarva-vyāpak (all-pervading), and sarva-kāran (cause of all). But not as having the “eternally forever divine form” (sadā divya sākār) as opposed to the any worldly form with which God’s form cannot be compared. Secondly we cannot realize that divine form of God that listens to us, talks to us, watch us, answers to our prayers, forgives us, gives us pleasure and joy, and accepts our services and devotion (navadhā bhakti). How God can talk and listen to us person-to-person, if He is not in person and we are in person and if He is formless and we are having form? If He can take any form in Nature, He sure can take the human form.
Tags:abstract, Advait, Advaita, Advaitists, agnān, Aham Brahmāsmi, avidyā, Bhagwat, bhakti, bij, bijless, Brahadaranyaka, Brahm, Brahmā, brahmanized, Brahmins, Chhandogya, Creation, Creator, Darshan, divine form, formless, Gnān, God, gyan, Hinduism, Jivanmukti, kalpa, Kurma, liberation, Linga, Mahābhārat, Mahesh, Mārg, maya, Mimamsa, Monism, Nature, navadhā bhakti, nirākār, nirbij, nirgun, Path of Knowledge, philosophies, Philosophy, Prajāpati, Prakruti, Puran, Purush, Rigved, Rudra, sadā divya sākār, Sankhya, sarva-kāran, sarva-vyāpak all-pervading, Shad Darshan, shaivas, shaivites, Shankar, Shankaracharya, Shiv, Shiva, Shushka, Skanda, soul, state, Supreme Being, sushka, Tat tvam asi, Truth, universal soul, Upanishad, Uttara, Vedānta, Vedantis, Vidhinishedh, worship
Posted in Advaita Philosophy, Hinduism - Philosophies, Shad Darshan – Vedanta philosophies | Comments Closed
