 |
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|
It is good to see that this newsgroup is visited by people familiar
with the dvaita (dualist) tradition of Sri Madhvaachaarya, because I am not
very familiar with it. I'll say what I have understood of this system and
I'll appreciate if the knowledgeable can correct me.
------------------
Vedanta (dvaita, advaita, etc.) posits that Brahman is the instrumental as
well as the material cause of creation. It also posits that an individual
is not merely the sum of his thoughts, feelings, memory etc. but the basis
that makes thoughts and memory possible. This basis is the Self (aatman),
which, by definition, is beyond thoughts and description as it is what
makes thoughts and verbal description possible. The primary schools of
Vedanta differ on the relationship between this aatman (jiva) and brahman.
Dvaita says that jiva is a limited manifestation of Brahman. The jiva is
the perceiver only of its body (physical and subtle) whereas the Brahman
(Ishwara, or Vishnu, if you prefer) is the perceiver of all creation. Jiva
being limited, and Brahman being unlimited, they are eternally distinct.
The differences between two jivas, any two objects in the creation and
between jiva and any object are real (as also the differences between
Brahman and jiva/object). The bondage (samsara) as well as moksha are real.
There is no nirguna brahman, and saguna brahman, in the form of Vishnu, is
the highest. Worship of any other deity is essentially worship of Vishnu.
--------------------
I also have many questions about the above.
1. What exactly is moksha in dvaita? Is it what is called saamiipya
(closeness) i.e. the notion that a sufficiently perfect jiva can get
close to Brahman in the form of Vishnu? Or, is it saayujya (merger) i.e.
the liberated jiva merges with Brahman? Latter sounds vishishtaadvaitic
but I'd like a clarification, anyway. If saayujya, how does it square
with the eternal distinction between aatman and brahman?
2. I have read that the dvaita reading of the mahaavaakya "tat tvam asi"
is the opposite statement "atat tvam asi" (Thou art not That)! Is that
true? If so, how is it justified? How about other mahaavaakyas such as
"aham brahmaasmi"?
Yes, this could be a lengthy topic; so, if there is a pointer to some
Web page discussing this, that would do.
3. There are many statements in the Bhagavad Gita which are prima facie
nondualistic. For example, "bahavo jnaana tapasaa pootaah madbhaavam
aagataah" (Many, purified by the fore of knowledge, have attained My
state of being). And also, "jnaani tu aatmaiva mE matam" (An enlightened
person is indeed Myself). How would a dvaitin interpret these?
I apologize if these are FAQ.
Have a good day.
Sundar.
-- ------------+----------------Disclaimer: These are my opinions only. N. S. Sundar! I am ardently against all awkward, affected, GTA,CIS,OSU.! arbitrary and aimless alliteration. INTJ ! WWW: http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/~sundar/
|
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|