[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Dvaita and Advaita: A Reconciliation
I have followed with interest some of the recent Dvaita-
Advaita debate on ARV and I must say that I had to make a very
conscious attempt to desist from jumping in and adding my
own opinions. Sometime last year, a similar heated argument
was carried out on alt.hindu and I got a little carried away
myself. I am on record suggesting something to the effect that
Dvaita is closer to Advaita than many Dvaitins (or for that
matter many Advaitins) would like to believe and an Advaitic
interpretation of the chief tenets of Dvaita is possible.
This is the issue that I want to address in this post, trying
to convince both the Advaitin and the Dvaitin to change their
perspective a little. Historically, Dvaitins and to a lesser
extent Advaitins, never liked to reconcile their philosophical
differences with each other, and thus my task is really
unenviable, to say the least. At the risk of being criticized
by both sides, especially by Dvaitins who may find my attempt
to bring Dvaita into the Advaitic fold obnoxious, I will make
an attempt to show that what the Dvaitins talk about fits nicely
within the framework of Advaita. Of course, criticisms from both
sides are welcome!
Advaita has a long tradition of reconciliation with other systems,
to the extent they do not violate its own basic tenets. For
example, concepts from Sankhya-Yoga and Nyaya-Vaiseshika are
borrowed with a few changes. The rituals of Purva Mimamsa are also
accepted with the understanding that they contribute towards making
the aspirant qualified for the study of Brahmavidya. And of course,
the importance of Bhakti has been emphasized right from the time of
Sankara.
On first examination, it is natural for anyone to think of the two
philosophies, Dvaita and Advaita, as diametrically opposed to each
other. The obvious difference is that Jiva and God are held to be
eternally different by the Dvaitins, while the Advaitins believe
that Jiva is identical with Brahman and the realization of this
identity is the ultimate experience. A second obvious difference
is that the Dvaitins, as do other Vaisnava schools, vehemently deny
the mithyAtva or the illusory nature of the world, and insist that
the world is real.
Let us look at the main tenets of Dvaita and consider them one by one.
An often quoted verse capturing the philosophy of Madhva is:
SrIman madhvamate harih paratarah satyam jagat tattvato
bhedah jIvagaNA hareranucarA nIcoccabhAvam gatAh |
muktir naijasukhAnubhUtir amalA bhaktih tatsAdhanam
hyakshAdi tritayam pramANam akhilAmnAyaikavedyo harih ||
1) harih paratarah| Hari is the Supreme Lord and there is none
superior to Hari. Hari is the One and Only Independent Reality.
There are two possible Advaitic interpretations here. a) Hari is the
Brahman described in Vedanta. Brahman is the One and Only Reality.
sarvam khalvidam brahma, says the Chandogya Upanishad. When everything
is Brahman, the question of superior and inferior reality does not
arise. Thus, saying Brahman is the Supreme Lord or the Supreme Reality
does not go against Advaita.
b) Some Advaitins may say that Hari is the Isvara and not the Nirguna
Brahman. Even in this case, Harih paratarah stands! The standard
position of Advaita regarding Isvara is as follows: while it is
possible for each Jiva to become one with Brahman, it is impossible
for a Jiva to become Isvara Himself. And who is Isvara? He is Brahman
with the limiting adjunct mAyA. He is the controller of mAyA and is
not controlled by it, as Jivas are.
mAyAm tu prakRtim vidyAn mAyinam tu maheSvaram. Furthermore, there
cannot be two or more Isvaras. Thereby it follows that Isvara is the
Supreme Ruler of the World and no Jiva can ever become ISvara.
(Please see point 6 below.)
Thus ISvarah paratarah fits very well with Advaita. Why is it
that Hari is Isvarah? Why not other Gods?
agnirvai devAnAmavamo viShNuh paramah | tadantarA sarvA devatAh ||
"Agni is the lowest and Vishnu is the highest among Gods. All other
gods occupy positions that are in between." Thus says the Aitareya
Brahmana. We, Advaitins must therefore accept Vishnu as the Supreme
among Gods.
2) satyam jagat| The world is real. Before we go further, it is
important to know what the Dvaitins mean by reality. Vyasatirtha,
one of the three luminaries of Dvaita, says in his magnum opus,
the Nyayamrta
trikAlasarvadeSIyaniShedhApratiyogitA sattocyate| meaning
"not being the counter correlate of negation with respect to ALL
three periods of time and space is reality." If something
exists in one of the three periods of time, past, present and
future, then it is regarded as real.
We Advaitins regard the world as vyavahArika satya. What does this
mean? As long as BrahmasAkShAtkAra or Brahman experience does not
take place, the world is real. Once the pAramArthika satya or Brahman
is experienced, the empirical world with all its diversity is seen as
unreal. It is in this sense that we say the world, jagat is mithyA.
Thus what we call vyAvahArika satya
is satya to the Dvaitins. An Advaitin who is yet to experience
Brahman, and a Dvaitin can have no argument about the status of the
world. It is real! Even an Advaitin with Brahman experience must live
in the empirical world so long as his prArabdha karma is not exhausted,
and he may not have any quarrel with the Dvaitin. Further, from
viewpoint of Brahman too, the world is real. It is all Brahman!
For the logical minded Advaitin, who systematically reasons about the
world, of course, it is anirvacanIyA, indescribable, or in other words
confusing! If the Dvaitin argues that the world is eternally real, point
out to him the statement from BRhadAraNyaka upanishad:
yatra vA asya sarvamAtmaivAbhUt tatkena kam jighret tatkena
kam paSyet |
Where for whom all this has become the AtmA, who smells whom and with
what? Who sees whom and with what?
There cannot be two or more eternal realities as that would lead to
what philosophers call "hopeless dualism."
3) tattvatah bhedah | Differences are real.
Once we understand that the world is vyAvahArika satya, we agree that
all the diversity and differences we perceive are real in this
limited sense.
Separateness or difference is real. "nAbhAva upalabdheh" says
the Brahma Sutra (II.2.28). The things in the external world are
not nonexistent because of our perception and consciousness of them.
Since the world is real and we are aware of different things in the
world, differences are necessarily real.
yatra hi dvaitamiva bhavati taditara itaram paSyati,
"Where there is duality (dvaita), there one sees another", says the
BRhadAraNyaka. Thus, while in the state of duality or the empirical
world, perceptual knowledge is real.
This establishes that the world is not a purely imaginary thing
such as the horns of a hare.
4) jIvagaNA hareranucarAh | The jivas are dependent or under the control
of Hari. Right on the dot, according to the Advaitins. All jivas are
under the control of ISvara or Hari. By jIva, Advaitins mean Brahman
with the limiting adjunct of the individual mAyA or ajnAna or avidyA.
ISvara, however, is Brahman with the limiting adjunct of the collective
mAyA, samaShTi, and there is not even a trace of rajas and tamas in
Him. ISvara is One but jivAs are many. But this precisely is what the
Dvaitins hold! bahavah puruShAh puruShapravaro harih, says Madhva.
Individual souls are many ; Hari is the supreme among sentient beings.
5) nIcoccabhAvam gatAh | There is gradation among the jivas. Some are
superior; some are inferior. The law of karma at work. Because of their
past karma, there are differences or gradations, tAratamya among jivas.
Again, no quarrel here.
6) muktir naijasukhAnubhUtih | Moksha is the realization of innate
happiness of the self. Here, Dvaitins believe that the individual
soul active enjoys felicity even after it attains moksha. The soul
attains all its desires and enjoys bliss and pleasure. However, the
soul does not have the power of creation which belongs exclusively to
the Lord. Madhva does not hold that attaining Moksha is to be
avoided, unlike some of the other Vaisnava sects.
In his commentary on Brahma Sutras (Ch. 4 Section 3), Sankara
BhagavatpAda says that the soul of one who knows the Saguna Brahman
or the Conditioned Brahman goes to Brahmaloka. The soul stays there
enjoying bliss and all divine powers except the power of creation
which belongs exclusively to ISvara. Sankara further interprets
Brahma sutra 4.4.8, sankalpAdeva tu tat Sruteh, as saying that the
soul in Brahmaloka fulfills its desires by mere volition (sankalpa).
Sankara opines that the soul may exist with or without a body,
according to its liking (sutras 10-14). Madhva follows Sankara here.
What happens to those who meditate on the Saguna Brahman? Sankara
says, in his commentary on sutras 4.3.7-11, that they enjoy bliss
until the dissolution of the universe and then merge into the
unconditioned (Nirguna) Brahman. Thus even according to Sankara,
meditation on the Saguna Brahman will eventually lead to the highest
state.
7) amalA bhaktih tatsAdhanam | The means of achieving Moksha is
uncontaminated Bhakti.
Krishna clearly states that bhakti and the worship of the
unmanifested (Brahman) both lead to the same goal. Krishna also
adds that the meditation on the unmanifested Brahman is very
difficult and thus recommends the path of Bhakti to Arjuna.
Of all the impediments to spiritual progress, the ego is the most
formidable one. The Acharya describes this ego as the great serpent,
ahankAraghorAhi in his VivekacUDAmaNi. This serpent, which has
three heads representing the three gunas, is very hard to conquer.
Even seemingly lofty ideals like love for one's community, religion,
and nation, are nothing but extensions of the ego and when carried
too far, become stumbling blocks in the path of spiritual development.
When one resorts to Bhakti, this terrible serpent will be subdued
by Krishna just as He subdued the serpent Kaliya. Then the mind will
be purified like the waters of Yamuna and will be conducive to the
development of Hari Bhakti.
When a person is situated in pure Bhakti, that person becomes fit to
acquire the knowledge of Para Brahman, Hari. In fact, the supreme
Purana, Bhagavata brings out this message beautifully:
the skandhas 1-10 develop the practice of Bhakti gradually and the
11th skandha deals with the finest form of advaita. No one can deny
the advaitic nature of the Uddhava Gita in the 11th skandha. So
prominent is the extreme monistic message of this part of the
Bhagavata that Madhva had to tone it down considerably in his
BhAgavata tAtparya. The Bhagavata, thus, establishes that the
practice of Bhakti leads to BrahmajnAna.
The Gopis who are the personification of Bhakti are, in fact, the
best Jnanis, according to the Bhagavata. The Narada Bhakti Sutras
say (1.21-22) that the Gopis were fully aware of the greatness of
Krishna as Brahman. The Bhagavata verses 10.29.31, 32, 36, 41 and
10.31.4 prove this point. The Gopis, who tasted the bliss of Bhakti,
are also AtmArAmAs, or those who delight in the self. Why? Because,
Hari is the Atman of all beings!
For example, we find the following:
kRShNamenamavehi tvamAtmAnamakhilAtmanAm | (Bhag. 10.14.55)
Understand that Krishna is the Soul (Atman) of all Beings.
8) akShAditritayam pramANam | The means of right knowledge are perception,
inference, and scriptural testimony, ie. pratyaksha, aumAna, and Sabda.
Advaita accepts all the three above and also adds upamAna (comparison),
arthApatti (postulation) and anupalabdhi (non-apprehension). Pratyaksha
or perception is an independent means of knowledge that falls within the
range of senses. That is why GangeSa upAdhyAya, the exponent of the
navya nyAya school, defines perception as
jnAnAkAraNakam jnAnam, knowledge to which no other knowledge is
instrumental. Inference or anumAna is dependent on perception; Sabda
pramANa is dependent on both perception and inference as far as
sensory knowledge is concerned. But Sabda is an independent means of
suprasensible knowledge.
The Dvaitins' excessive emphasis on anumAna (inference) and perception,
seems a little childish. Since logical inference is based on perception,
logical arguments can be useful in reasoning about the empirical reality.
Hence, logic will be of limited use in dealing with suprasensous
knowledge. It may only be useful in showing the possibility of
transcendental facts, such as Brahman, Atman, etc., but it is incapable
of conclusively establishing those facts. We need Sruti to reveal truths
that are beyond the range of the senses. Again, when it comes to Sruti,
Dvaitins needlessly use extensive logical machinery to interpret even
direct, unambiguous statements. If they think perceptual knowledge and
logic take precedence over Sruti whenever it is in conflict with them,
let them read the KhanDanakhanDakhAdya of SrIharSha MiSra, where he
systematically routs the logical arguments of the logicians using logic!
In this connection, VidyAraNya SvAmi makes the following remarks
in the PancadaSI, a celebrated classic of Advaita:
vastutvam ghoShayantyasya vedAntAh sakalA api |
saptnarUpam vastvanyanna sahante' tra kincana || 8.66
All the upanishads proclaim the reality of this (Brahman);
at the same time they do not admit the reality of any other
entity.
Srutyartham viSadIkurmo na tarkAdvacmi kincana |
tena tArkikaSankAnAmatra ko'vasaro vada || 8.67
I explain the meaning of Sruti; I do not explain it merely
from a logical standpoint. Tell me, where is the opportunity
to raise doubts about the logic here ?
tasmAt kutarkam santyajya mumukShuh SrutimASrayet |
Srutau tu mAyA jIveSau karotIti pradarSitam || 8.68
The aspirant for moksha should give up resorting to faulty
logic and fix his conviction on Sruti. That the Jiva and
ISvara are creations of Maya is shown in the Sruti.
9) akhilAmnAyaikavedyo harih | Hari, and Hari alone, is to be
known from all the scriptures.
The Brahma sutra 1.1.3, SAstrayonitvAt, says that Brahman, Hari
is to be known from the scriptures. Since Brahman is the only
ultimate Reality, all descriptions in the scriptures, even if
they apparently refer to other deities, really describe Him.
The great teachers of Vedanta have always felt the need to
reconcile differing views with their own. In fact, the first
chapter of Brahma Sutras is called samanvaya adhyAya or the
chapter of reconciliation. Let us follow this example so that
we will be spiritually enriched by different schools of Vedanta.
The sarvottamatva of Sri Hari and the MokShasAdhanatva of Bhakti
are two important points worthy of consideration by the Advaita school.
If these have already been incorporated into its formidable philosophy,
then certainly a greater effort must be made to counter the misconception
of it as a purely Mayavadi school. This will go a long way in reconciling
differences with all the Vaishnava sects.
In closing, I would like to quote the following from the dvAdaSa stotra
of Madhva:
akShayam karma yasmin pare svarpitam
prakShayam yAnti duhkhAni yannAmatah |
akSharo yo'jarah sarvadaivAmRtah
kukShigam yasya viSvam sadAjAdikam |
prINayAmo vAsudevam
devatAmaNDalAkhaNDamaNDanam || (8.11)
By dedicating work to Whom it becomes imperishable, by uttering Whose
names miseries melt away, Who is indestructible, undecaying, the nectar of
divinity, in Whose belly lies the universe beginning with Brahma, and Who
is the integral ornament of the assemblage of all gods, we propitiate that
VAsudeva.
SrI vAsudevArpaNam |
Anand
