Posts Tagged ‘Shiv’
Saturday, June 12th, 2010
Shad Darshan – Vedanta philosophies (contd.):
Shuddhadvaita philosophy
Shuddhadvait philosophy of Vallabhacharya:
Pure non-dualism or Suddha Advait (Shuddhadvait) philosophy is given by the 15th century scholar of Hinduism Shri Vallabhacharya (1479-1531). As one may think, the pure non-dualism may mean Advaita or Monism, but it is not. Advaita philosophy of Shankaracharya and Monism of the Western world are different than pure non-dualism. About the relationship between two realities, namely, the world and God, Vallabhacharya believes that God (Brahm) is pure and non-dualistic, but at the same time, unlike Shankaracharya, he strongly believes that the souls and Nature (universe) are not illusion but real. His philosophy is known as Shuddhadvait Brahmvād. This is opposite of Kevala Advait philosophy of Shankaracharya, in which, the world and souls are all considered as one with Brahm. The difference between Advait philosophy of Shankaracharya and the Advait philosophy of Vallabhacharya is that, in Shankaracharya’s philosophy the soul, Nature (universe) and everything else is Brahm but look different because of the illusion created by the ignorance (avidyā) and veil of maya. In Vallabhacharya’s philosophy the soul, Nature (universe) and everything else is real but appears distinct from Brahm until one is totally engrossed in the bhakti of Krishna (God), at that time everything is realized as God, just as Gopis used to see and realized everything as Krishna and nothing but Krishna. Foe example, when they were selling butter they used to see Krishna instead of butter.
Surprisingly, in the non-dualistic philosophy the general belief that God is unparalleled, the one and only is still maintained. Vallabhacharya strongly believed that Brahm means personal God – the Supreme Being and he could not accept the nirgun and nirakar nature of Brahm. He firmly believed that God is in the personal form only so as to accept his devotion and services (seva bhakti). The difference in Vallabhacharya’s tradition and other Vaishnav Acharya’s traditions is in the style of worship or devotion and in the use of specific terminologies. In Vallabhacharya’s tradition, also known as Pushti marg, the initiation to the tradition means “brahmsambandh.” The word “pushti” literary means “the grace of God” and “brahmsambandh,” literary, means the relationship (sambandh) or union of the soul with Brahm (the supreme entity or God). Brahmsambandh is needed to transform the ordinary jiv (soul) to Pushti jiv (pure or graced soul). “Pushti marg” means the path of spiritual nourishment and of the grace of God. The one who is admitted to the Pushti marg gets the kind of purity of one’s soul, which is needed to be eligible to pursue bhakti (meaning, the daily worshiping or services called sevā of the murti (as if it is living deity) which is known as Pushti Swaroop) and relationship with God (Brahm). The pure love for God (Shri Krishna in His child manifestation) is shown through seva (services to God) and smaran (remembering God). In Pushti marg the exclusive rights to grant brahmsambandh are only given to the descendants of Shri Vallabhacharya. In Pushti marg, the enjoyment of God’s bliss and God’s grace are considered as the primary goals of the devotee, seeking the liberation is secondary to it. Achieving the knowledge (gnan) – brahmgnan or atmagnan is not considered as important as the personal services (seva) to God for the liberation.
Vallabhacharya was a contemporary of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Just as Chaitanya’s tradition is known by the Kirtan Bhakti of adult Krishna, Vallabhacharya’s tradition is known by the Seva Bhakti of child Krishna (Lālji). Philosophy wise both traditions – the tradition of Vallabhacharya and the tradition of Chaitanya are almost similar except some minor differences in worshiping. Vallabhacharya’s tradition is known as the path of grace of God or “Pushti Marg.”
According to Vallabhacharya’s philosophy, as with other Vaishnav philosophy, there are also three basic realities: soul, universe, and God. Soul is characteristically not much different than God. However, God or the Supreme Being is believed to be the whole (purna), whereas, individual soul is a part (ansh) of it. Soul, itself, is Brahm with one attribute bliss or happiness (Ānand). It is considered both doer (kartr) and enjoyer (bhoktr). Maya is not regarded as unreal but as real and the power of Ishwar. Ishwar is both the creator and the creation (which includes universe and souls) itself. Brahm desired to become many so He became individual souls and the universe. It is the pure Brahm that is the effect (kārya) and cause (kāran) of this world. According to this philosophy, though the knowledge (gnan) of God is needed, it is the devotion to God or bhakti which is considered as the means of liberation. The philosophy stresses utmost love, devotion (bhakti), activities related to personified God and complete servitude to God rather than aiming the goal for the liberation called “Mukti”. Liberation automatically follows the total surrenderance and devotion. Vallabhacharya’s philosophy considers Brahm as Purushottam (God). Everything that was created from brahm that ultimately ends in the Brahm after dissolution by the time. Souls or living objects are considered as part of Brahm and non-living objects are considered as modifications of Brahm. After death and destruction or dissolution, Soul (jiv) and universe, both mixes with the Brahm. The object of worshiping in this philosophy is Krishna who is considered as Narayan or God himself (Svayam Bhagavan). Krishna is considered as the cause of all avatars including Vishnu. His “Satchitanand” (also called Sachchidananda) form is considered as the Absolute Brahm. His abode is called “Golok” (Goloka) which is consider beyond Vaikunth or Vaikuntha (the abode of Vishnu), Satyalok or Satyaloka (the abode of Brahmā the Creator), and Kailash or Kailas (the abode of Shiv). Thus, God and His abode are considered two separate things. The reason for the creation is considered, according to this philosophy, as no other than the sport (leelā) of Shri Krishna, and is unlike illusion (maya) of Vedanta. The liberation of jiv occurs by God’s grace only, as a result or reward of giving-up of oneself solely with the heart, mind, and body called “Atma-nivedana” and nine kinds of worship called “Navadhā or Nava Vidha Bhakti.”
Tags:Absolute, Advait, Advaita, Ānand, ansh, Atma-nivedana, atmagnan, Avatars, avidyā, bhakti, bhoktr, bliss, Brahm, Brahmā, brahmgnan, brahmsambandh, Brahmvād, cause, chaitanya, Creation, Creator, Darshan, devotee, devotion, dissolution, effect, Gnān, God, Golok, Goloka, Gopis, grace, Hinduism, ignorance, Ishwar, jiv, Kailas, Kailash, kāran, kartr, kārya, Kevala, Kirtan-bhakti, Krishna, Lālji, leelā, liberation, Mahaprabhu, Mārg, maya, Monism, mukti, Narayan, Nature, Nava Vidha, Navadhā, nirākār, nirgun, non-dualism, philosophies, Philosophy, purna, Purushottam, pushti, Pushti marg, Pushti Swaroop, realities, Sachchidananda, sambandh, Satchitanand, Satyalok, Satyaloka, sevā, Seva Bhakti, Shad Darshan, Shankaracharya, Shiv, Shri, Shuddhadvait, Shuddhadvaita, smaran, soul, souls, Suddha, Supreme Being, Svayam Bhagavan, universe, Vaikunth, Vaikuntha, Vaishnav, Vallabhacharya, Vedānta, Vishnu
Posted in Hinduism - Philosophies, Shad Darshan – Vedanta philosophies, Shuddhadvaita philosophy | Comments Closed
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
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 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
Monday, May 3rd, 2010
Shad Darshan – Sankhya and Yoga:
General
Since Hinduism has its base in Vedas and Vedas are considered words of God directly revealed to the great Rishis, Hinduism is not considered as a philosophy. Hinduism is the Vedic way of describing the Absolute Truth. Vedas are considered eternal (without any origin), authorless (apaurusheya – means not the work of mankind or beyond human imagination), and infallible (never wrong). The directly revealed words of God are considered as the form of God. “mada vāni, mada rupam”, meaning, “My words are my form.” It is considered as one of the ways of understanding or claiming the Truth, just like any other religious philosophies. It will be surprising to know that almost all religious philosophies agree to believe that the “Truth” or “Absolute” is one, but it is equally surprising that the claimants or claimers are many! Because, Hinduism is not considered as a philosophy but is considered as the first hand or direct information about the truth, the philosophies developed on the bases of the Vedas – the words of God, are called “Darshans.” Darshans are philosophies – philosophical interpretations about the Truth by the great scholars. Darshans literarily means the views, visions, or philosophies and are also known as “Tattvagnān” (also spelled as “Tattvagyan” or “Tattvajnan”). Hinduism is not the “Darshan” or “Tattvagnān.” “Shad” means six and “Darshan” means philosophy. The six major philosophies of Hinduism developed from Vedas and Upanishads are: Sānkhya, Yoga, Nyāya, Vaisheshika, Purva Mimānsā (Mimamsa), and Uttara Mimānsā (also known as “Vedanta.”) All these philosophies were basically developed before the Common Era except the few major philosophies based on Vedanta.
Sankhya:
“Sankhya” is the oldest classical philosophical system of Hinduism founded by rishi Kapil. According to Sankhya, there are basically two realities: Prakruti and Purush. Prakruti means the Nature which consists of 24 elements (tattvas). Purush means the essence or the controller of Prakruti. It is ontologically and characteristically distinct from Prakruti and is considered as the 25th element that is transcendental to all other elements. The responsibility of exploring or knowing in detail and further describing the Nature or Prakruti has been taken up by the Science, The responsibility of knowing and describing God or Purush has been taken up by the Religion.
The objective of Sankhya is to obtain discriminative knowledge of the manifest (vyakta) nature (prakruti), the unmanifest (avyakta) nature (prakruti), and the knower (purush). “Tadviparitaha shreyān vyakta-avykta-gna-vignānāt ||” (Sāmkhya Kārikā: 2) According to Sankhya, Vyakta prakruti includes Mahattattva, Buddhi, Ahamkar, five Tanmatra, ten Indriya, and five Mahabhut. Avyakta prakruti is Pradhān. The knower (gnaha) is known as Purush.
Sankhya philosophy maintains multiplicity of Purush. “janana-marana-karanānām pratiniyamādugapatpravruteshcha | Purushabahutvam siddhim traigunyaviparyayāshchaiva ||” (Sāmkhya Kārikā: 18) “Everybody does not born at the same time, does not die at the same time, everybody does not do same activity (karma) at the same time, everybody does activities (pravrutti) according to their psychological state of mind (gunas), such as some do virtuous activities (dharma), some do wicked activities (adharma); some do cultivate detachment from the worldly object (vairagya) some not; some gain knowledge (gyān), some not. These diversities themselves show the plurality of purushas.”
Sankhya does not separate jiv or soul from sharir or the body. It considers jiv or soul as a part of 24 elements of Nature (also called Pradhān Prakruti) because jiv is intermingled or blended with them so closely that it cannot be separately identified. The 24 elements along with jiv are considered as the field called “Kshetra” and Purush is considered as the fielder called “Kshetragna.” They have controlee and controller relationships, respectively. This can be compared to the Dualism. But, the dualism of body and its life force (soul, atma or jivatma) or the dualism of cosmos (Prakruti) and its super-soul (Purush) and not the dualism of body and mind (According to Hinduism mind or antahkaran is part of the body – ontologically same element or reality) as against Monism. In Sankhya, the intellect or conscious is called “mahat” (mahattattva). Sankhya describes three kinds of proofs or evidences called “Pramānas,” namely, “Pratyaksha pramana” meaning direct perception, “Anumāna pramana” meaning logical inference, and “Sabda pramana” means verbal testimony.
Sānkhya is the eyes (ānkhya) to visualize the Truth. The message of Sankhya is to utilized this material world for improving one’s understanding about the Truth, at the same time developing the detachment from it, and hence to uplift the soul considering that this material world is not that important, permanent, or giver of the happiness or the bliss. It can just give comfort at the most. It is called the Nature or Prakruti – the jad (lifeless), aparā (non-transcendental) Prakruti which is “nāshvant” meaning destructible. The real essence is its life force, motivating force, its cause, its controller called Purush, Ishwar, or God. One should cultivate the attachment with the Truth. Sankhya generally believes in unrestricted use of nature or the worldly products of the nature and then either to forget it or to rationalize it to remain permanently detached from it so that one always remains in the state of bliss and avoid pain and sufferings.
In Sankhya, the question of salvation remains open. If Purush is God and Prakruti is His creation then salvation of Purush is out of question. If Brahmand is Prakruti (Pradhān) and its chief controller is Purush and if there is only one brahmand then the separation of Purush from its brahmand happens at the dissolution. But it doesn’t explain multiplicity of Purushas. If there are many brahmands, and hence many Pradhāns then it explains existence of many Purushas. But then it does not explain the supremacy of one God. One needs to add or explain the existence of the supreme reality. If Prakruti is body and Purush is its essence, called Jiv or soul, then it explains many bodies and many souls – a separate soul for each living being. But then the soul becomes the 25th element and what about God? What about salvation? Who gets salvation and who gives salvation? If souls get salvation, then who gives them salvation? The above ontological questions or flaws in Sankhya philosophy creates the necessity of at least one more reality, either soul or God, which is explained by the next philosophy.
Yoga:
Yoga was developed by rishi Pātanjali for creation of the spiritual bonding or union of a soul with the God. But now it has taken a 360 degree turn to help built physical health globally. The principals of Yoga are mentioned in his text of “Yoga Sutra.” Patanjali’s yoga system accepts the principles and concepts of Sankhya about the 24 kinds of physical elements. Patanjali’s Yoga texts (Yoga Shāshtras) go one step further. According to yoga, soul or jiv is ontologically different than the 24 kinds of physical, material, or worldly elements. So soul or jiv can be considered as the 25th element and God automatically becomes the 26th element. God is still maintained superior to all that makes up the topmost transcendental element or fundamental entity constituting the creation. God in Yoga is personified, Supreme, and of the nature of soul, that is, purely spiritual. He facilitates the attainment of liberation of the souls of His devotees. He remains non-doer or “akrtā.” Meaning, He doesn’t do anything directly by Himself and remain detached from its creation. He is called “Ishwar.” In Yoga, Ishwar is described as one, “in whom there is the seed (bij) or source of unsurpassed (nirātishayam) quality of all-knowing (omniscience),” “Tatra niratishayam sarvagnatva-bijam” Meaning Ishwar is omniscient or all-knower (sarvagna) (Yoga Sutra: 1.25) and “Sa purveshām-api guruhu kālenānavachchhedāt” (Yoga Sutra: 1.26) Meaning, “who is Guru (mentor or the ideal) of also ancient ones (primary creators, such as Brahmā and others), for, He is unbounded (pierced) by time (for He has no beginning and end, meaning eternal, whereas others have beginning and end).” Ishwar is “Purush-vishesha” (Godhead) untouched, unaffected, and free from the “klesha” (afflictions), “karma” (deeds or actions), “vipāka” (fruits of the deeds or actions), and “āshaya” (intentions or desires). “Klesha karma vipākāshayair aparāmrushtaha purusha-vishesha ishwaraha” (Yoga Sutra: 1.24). Souls are pure, eternal, immutable, and are countless in number. They remain attached to the world and worldly things. Souls assume innumerable embodied forms in the cycle of birth and death. In Yoga, the intellect or conscious is called “chittva” (chitt). Unlike the unrestricted use of nature in the Sankhya system, Yoga believes in the restricted use of the nature or in the well controlled and willing (not the forceful and against one’s will) suppression (nirodh) of the thoughts (vruttis) of the conscious (chitt). To understand the elements let us take only one kind of element, say the “Pruthwi” element. It consists of particulate form of more than 112-118 elements of the periodic table. Yoga also describes perceptions, but only of two kinds: “Savikalpa” meaning relative and “Nirvikalpa” meaning absolute perception.
In Yoga, Ashtang Yoga or meditation (dhyān) is used as the means of communion with the Divinity or God. Divinity or self is the object of meditation. Yoga recommends considering the soul, jiv or atma as the distinct (chaitanya) entity from the physical or worldly (lifeless) objects or entities and to develop “Atmabhāv” or “Atma-realization”; and then to worship Paramatma (God) who has definite form (sākār). If we have a physical form, then God has to have, physical but divine (divya sakar), form otherwise the union cannot be strong and fruitful. This is called “sajātiya” union, meaning the union “of a kind” or “of the same kind,” because, Soul and God both are believed to share ontologically common traits. The message of Yoga, as compared to Sankhya, is not to utilize this material world at all or at the minimum necessary level to keep one’s body, mind, and soul healthy and long-lasting keeping in mind that it is just the vehicle in developing the union with the Truth called God or Narayan and attaining the liberation.
Thus, Yoga emphasizes for spiritually leveling or uplifting the “Atma to God” or “Jiv to Shiv (God)” or “one eternal to another eternal” (shāswat) objects, rather than downgrading oneself with the worldly, material, destructible (nāshvant) objects by thinking or being as a part of a physical elements. If a person thinks him or herself as a part of the material world and worships God then his or her union or bonding with the God does not become complete, strong, and permanent. There always remains a flaw or hanging sward over that union and ultimately it breaks with even a trivial reason.
Yoga philosophy explains three basic or fundamental realities and salvation of souls, but it creates one more issue. If one understands Ishwar from Yoga only, being defined as Purush form, God as a person gets many limitations in understanding. One cannot get it how personified God can be all-knower or omniscient (sarvagna), all-controller, inner-guide of all (sarva antaryāmi), all-pervasive (sarva vyāpak), present everywhere at the same time (omnipresent) and absolutely perfect (paripurna).
Yoga was meant for the union of the atma (self or soul) with Paramatma (God) and the object of meditation was self or God. But in modern period of times, the object of meditation is changed from the divinity to diversity and yoga has just remain one of the means of attaining or maintaining well being of the body only, not even of mind and the soul.
Tags:Absolute, akartā, all-controller, all-knower, all-pervasive, ānkhya, antahkaran, Anumāna, apaurusheya, āshaya, ātmā, Atma-realization, Atmabhāv, bij, body, Brahmā, chaitanya, chitt, chittva, conscious, cosmos, Darshan, Darshan (Philosophy), dhyān, Divinity, divya sakar, Dualism, elements, eternal, God, Godhead, Guru, Hinduism, inner-guide, intellect, jiv, jivatma, Kapil, Karma, klesh, klesha, Kshetra, Kshetragna, lifeless, Mahat, Mahattattva, meditation, Mimamsa, mind, Monism, nāshvant, Nature, nirātishaya, nirātishayam, nirodh, Nirvikalpa, Nyāya, omnipresent, omniscience, omniscient, Paramātmā, paripurna, Pātanjali, Pradhān, Prakruti, Pramānas, Pratyaksha, Pruthwi, Purush, Purush-vishesha, Purva Mimānsā, rishi, Rishis, Sabda, sajātiya, sākār, salvation, Sankhya, sarva antaryāmi, sarva vyāpak, sarvagna, Savikalpa, Shad, Shad Darshan, sharir, Shāshtras, shāswat, Shiv, soul, Tattvagnān, Tattvagyan, Tattvajnan, tattvas, transcendental, Truth, Upanishads, Uttara Mimānsā, Vaisheshika, Vedānta, Vedas, vipāka, vruttis, Yoga, Yoga Sutra
Posted in Hinduism - Philosophies, Shad Darshan – Sankhya and Yoga | Comments Closed
