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
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
