God is the dude in the sky! - Vaishnava Response to Advaita Vedanta

[Monkey-man]

Realization of nondual awareness and ultimate reality as Oneness of impersonal Brahman is only one out of three aspects of Absolute Truth. And its not the main and final aspect but only a first step towards the highest form of spiritual realization which is realization of Bhagavan - forming personal relationship with God - with the Supreme Person/Lord aspect of God. Buddha's realization was of ultimate oneness - of Brahman or of Paramatma, but it wasn't perfect and highest from the perspective of natural spiritual evolution. While Jesus went beyond Buddha, he realized God in its highest form as a supreme person (Lord, God-the-Father). So beyond undifferentiated impersonal oneness of Absolute there is differentiated relationship between human and God as Lord and Servant, Father and Son, Friend and his little human Friend. 'God is the dude in the sky!' is actually end up as the most accurate metaphor of absolute. While infinity, nothingness, consciousness, impersonal Brahman aspects are only half of the story.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/its-all-onenot-vaishnava-response-advaita-vedanta-steven-rosen

“It's All One”—Not! (A Vaishnava Response to Advaita Vedanta)

Quote

Most systems of Indian philosophy endorse the notion that, in some sense, all living beings are one with God. Some would say that spiritual philosophy in general – East and West – is based on the premise of oneness, suggesting an ontological unity for all that is. The reasoning is straightforward: Since everything emanates from God, and since God is absolute, then His emanations partake of His essential nature, even if they exist in temporary forgetfulness.* Thus, ultimate spiritual vision, according to this line of thought, breaks down all barriers and allows us to see the truth of our essential oneness with God.

But how far can one take this truth? Is it “ultimate reality,” or merely an aspect of reality, eclipsed by higher realizations marked by a transcendental form of dualism? This latter perspective is the view of most Vaishnavas, the devotees of God who claim that the dualities of the material world are indeed surpassed by the “oneness” propounded by Advaita Vedanta, as the above philosophical monism is technically called. But Vaishnavas go further, stating that to come full circle, spiritually, one must become aware of transcendental dualism – wherein a practitioner’s enhanced sense of oneness is exceeded by relationship with God. Implicitly, say the Vaishnavas, a relationship requires two, not one. 

Quote

 

The key here is relationship. Logic, religion, and philosophy have no meaning without it. In fact, the things most precious to us – love, compassion, friendship – fall into oblivion if there is no relationship, if all is one. If we are all one, who is relating to whom? Human nature itself thus instigates the urge to understand the relation of substance and attribute, cause and effect, subject and predicate. We naturally want to know God’s relationship to the world, to other individuals. Vaishnava Vedanta supplies satisfying answers to these questions; Advaita Vedanta does not. This is because relationship presupposes two entities that interact – Advaita Vedanta presupposes no “other,” no entity with whom one might enter relationship. In other words, to interact, two entities must be different, even if they are, in some abstract sense, one.

By the same token, however, total otherness also precludes relationship. If we disregard the essential oneness that exists between each of us -- and with God -- we are destined to extreme isolation. Differences are important but should not be over-emphasized. There exists a genetic and spiritual bonding between all living beings as children of God. There is also a fundamental connection between all living beings and the rest of the visible world, which is also an emanation of the Divine. Thus, the concept of “difference,” while revealing truths that are absent in Advaita Vedanta, should not be taken too far either, for it too has limitations.

 

Quote

Unity in Diversity

Clearly, then, spiritual philosophy reaches its most complete form in the acintya-bhedabheda school of Sri Chaitanya (1486–1533), which is considered the cap on the Vaishnava tradition, for here we see both monism and dualism fully actualized as complementary aspects of the same truth. The phrase acintya-bhedabheda means “the inconceivable oneness and difference between God and the living being.” It encompasses both the essential truths of Advaita Vedanta as well as the sense of “difference” found in earlier Vaishnava traditions. 

Here we see the idea of the “unity of opposites” in its most developed form. Mature religious understanding, Sri Caitanya argues, is a constant dialogue between One and Zero, form and formlessness, feasting and fasting, yes and no – seeing harmony in the obvious differences of diametrically opposed phenomena. And yet “harmony” presupposes an interaction of different elements working together. In India, this has been analyzed as the paradox of the One and the Many – a paradox that has been resolved by monists in one way, as we have seen, and by Vaishnavas in quite another.

In the West, we tend to think about the One and the Many by looking at the phrase “E Pluribus Unum,” which was a motto that originally meant “out of many colonies, one nation.” Eventually, the phrase grew to encompass ethnic and European national dimensions: “out of many peoples, one people.” Indic traditions, however, goes further, using the principle to expound on religious pluralism, for it recognizes the great variety of human perceptions in relation to God. All of this is implied by the Rig Vedic verse, “Truth is one, though the wise refer to it by various names.” 

Western mystics have also taken E Pluribus Unum in more metaphysical directions, even to the point of unity among opposites, i.e., among the One and the Many. “The fundamental law of the universe,” it is said, “is the law of the unity of opposites.” 

The idea is usually traced to the Greek philosopher Heraclitus and, later, it is again seen in Plato’s Symposium. Even in logic, the Greek writers tell us, the unity of opposites is a way of understanding something in its entirety. Instead of just taking one aspect or one part of a given phenomenon, seeing something in terms of a unity of opposites is recognizing the complete dialectical composition of that thing. Because everything has its opposite, to fully understand it one must not only understand its present form and its opposite form, but the unity of those two forms, or what they mean in relation to each other.

 

 

Quote

 

All of this is implied in Sri Chaitanya’s idea of acintya-bhedabheda, the inconceivable oneness and difference between God and the living being. The simple yet profound philosophy at its base is explained as follows: Living beings are one with God and yet also different from Him in the same way that a drop of water, chemically analyzed, is one with an ocean but simultaneously different from it. That is to say, a drop of water may be one with an ocean in terms of quality, but it is different in terms of quantity. So, too, is the living being one and different from God in these same ways.

God, by definition, has all auspicious qualities in full: He is a virtual storehouse of strength, beauty, wealth, fame, knowledge, and renunciation. Ordinary living beings might have these qualities as well, but only in minute proportions. Again, quality but not quantity. Thus, India’s Vaishnava sages teach that our oneness with God has certain limitations, and while a fledgling practitioner would do well to realize his or her oneness with all that exists, i.e., with God, it behooves them to reach for the culmination of the spiritual pursuit, wherein they go beyond this sense of spiritual oneness and situate themselves in a loving relationship with the Lord, the reservoir of all transcendental qualities.

 

 

Quote

 

The Teachings of Shankara

The person responsible for popularizing Advaita Vedanta – to the exclusion of Vaishnava Vedanta -- was known as Shankaracarya (ninth century C.E.), whose “non-dual” philosophy had roots in the Upanishads. He taught that absolute monism is the highest truth, and that Brahman, as the Divine was known in the Vedas, is ultimately impersonal, with incarnations and avataras as lesser manifestations. He also taught that the world is an illusion (maya) created by an all-pervasive ignorance (avidya), and that when this ignorance is dispelled, one realizes one’s inherent divinity or identity with the Supreme. Although there has been some heated discussion about what Shankara actually taught, the above is clearly the essence of his teaching.

A famous quote from his very own work, the Vivekacudamani, succinctly summarizes his philosophy: Brahma satyaṃ jagat mithyā, jīvo brahmaiva nāparah —Brahman is the only truth, the world is unreal, and there is ultimately no difference between Brahman and individual self. Noted scholar Georg Feuerstein summarizes the Advaita realization as follows: “The manifold universe is, in truth, a Single Reality. There is only one Great Being, which the sages call Brahman, in which all the countless forms of existence reside. That Great Being is utter Consciousness, and It is the very Essence, or Self (Atman) of all beings.” Impersonal God, complete oneness, all relationship is illusion. Though admittedly simplified, this is a summary of Shankara’s beliefs, making it clear why Vaishnavas came to see his doctrine as anathema. Vaishnavas look not so much for fusion but rather communion with the Divine.

Indeed, Vaishnava schools of thought were formalized as a response to Shankara: Ramanuja’s Visistadvaita (“Qualified Nondualism”), Madhva’s Dvaita (“Dualism”), Vallabha’s Shuddhadvaita (“Pure Nondualism”), among others. These even have the “advaita” nomenclature as part of their official titles, but even the other Vaishnava schools, without such obvious titles, were clearly reactions to Shankara. He had touched a nerve, depersonalizing the cherished God whom Vaishnavas had come to know and love. His clinical, philosophical stance had become offensive to devotional hearts.

To be fair, Shankara acknowledges both personal and impersonal features of the Supreme. In his work, he describes two levels of Brahman: saguna (“with qualities”) and nirguna (“without qualities”). The saguna Absolute is a personal God, with attributes and characteristics, whereas the nirguna Absolute is without qualities and impersonal. Vaishnavas also acknowledge both dimensions of the Supreme. The difference here is that Shankara gives priority to the impersonal aspect, claiming it is the source of God and His manifold incarnations. Vaishnavas debate this claim with scripture and logic.

 

 

Quote

 

Shankara’s position might also be questioned in terms of the three levels of God-realization: Brahman, Paramatma, and Bhagavan. Brahman is considered the rudimentary level, wherein one realizes the truths of Advaita Vedanta and the glory of merging into an impersonal Absolute; it is said to give practitioners a sense of eternality. Paramatma is realization of a more localized aspect of God – evoking a type of panentheism in which God exists within and in between every atom; it affords practitioners a sense of eternality and divine knowledge as well. 

Finally, Bhagavan realization is considered the zenith of spiritual attainment, wherein one develops a loving relationship with God; here one achieves inner awareness of both eternality and knowledge, as in Brahman and Paramatma, and a profound sense of bliss, too. These levels of God-realization are depicted as hierarchical, with progressively greater dimensions of insight accruing for practitioners of each. Additionally, as one graduates from Brahman to Paramatma to Bhagavan, one finds that each level contains or encompasses the prior one, so that the third and final level, Bhagavan realization, is the most comprehensive of the three.

Generally, these three successive platforms of realization correspond to India’s three major paths: Jnana-marga (“The Path of Knowledge”), which brings one to Brahman; Karma-marga (“The Path of Work”), leading to realization of Paramatma; and Bhakti-marga (“The Path of Devotion”), which establishes devotees in loving relationship to the Supreme Person, Bhagavan. In Western philosophy, we might refer to these as cognitive, conative, and affective ways of being, respectively. 

To expand on this correlation, consider the following: There are basically three sets of relations between consciousness and its content – thinking, willing, and feeling (again, cognitive, conative, and affective). “Thinking” is abstract, removed – witness the austere meditator, indifferent to the world around him. “Willing” is the urge to act, to “make manifest,” to use the body in its most appropriate way for the best possible action. But “feeling” surpasses all the rest. The heart envelops our actions and our thoughts, making us whole as human beings. One can utilize one’s ability to think and act, but if done without feeling, aren’t we merely automata? 

 

Krishna in Bhagavat Gita also said that realization of relationship with personal Absolute God is higher than realization of impersonal aspect of Brahman. And forming such obedient relationship can itself lead to spiritual realizations. So monotheism of Judeo-Christian and Islamic traditions based on faith, total submission and obedience to Supreme Being were indeed the highest form and understanding of all spiritual seeking of human history. For any being to live in this reality in its most proper and natural and apparently the most happiest way is to fit himself in the hierarchical order of God and Human - reality simply works in such hierarchical order, adult-child, adult is personal aspect of God and child is human-being. God the adult is the one who does everything and child is one who simply plays while doing what God 'tells' him (God's will = nonpsychological actions not based on mind's stereotypes and desires) without being bothered by all the adult-staff. Truly, reality is simple and genious. God is simple, its not complicated. Reality in its true design is the eternal childhood with God-the-Father watching after his kids while kids obey and trust to the father. Archetypes of lost divine father makes sense now.

Quote

 

The sages of ancient India have thus analyzed these three functions as a detailed science, developing them into spiritual practices known as Jnana-marga, Karma-marga, and Bhakti-marga. Shrivatsa Goswami, a contemporary Vaishnava scholar, puts it like this:

[inset quote]
If one’s point of departure is cognitive or indifferent, the Ultimate Reality of the absolute is undifferentiated consciousness. The cognitive path is recognized by the Advaita Vedanta of Shankara, where we are Ultimate Reality, Brahman. If one’s approach is conative, then the end to be attained subjectively is Paramatma, the supreme innermost being of all beings. . . . But if one’s approach is affective, reality becomes manifest in the fullest form of all, as Bhagavan, the Supreme Godhead.
[end inset]

Thus, Vaishnavas argue that the notion of oneness with God is only preliminary, subservient to Paramatma and Bhagavan realization, and that, ultimately, one must realize the virtue of devotion to the personal Godhead. In the words of Srila Madhvacarya (1118-1238 CE), one of the world’s most renowned Vaishnavas:

[inset]
The Supreme Person is the foundation upon which everything rests. O individual spirit-soul, you are simply a reflection of that Godhead. Only one moon shines in the sky, although innumerable reflections of that moon may appear in the water or in other places. O individual spirit soul, the Supreme Person is like that single, original moon, and the individual spirit souls are like innumerable reflections of Him. Just as the reflections remain always distinct from the moon itself, in the same way the individual spirit souls remain eternally different from their original source, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. O individual spirit soul, this is the eternal distinction between you and the Supreme. [Sri Tattva-muktavali, Text 12]
[end inset]

 

 

Quote

 

Therefore, Vaishnavas live according to the following dictum: “I want to taste sugar; I don't want to be sugar.”

In fact, complete monism, or Advaita Vedanta -- taken to its logical limits -- would be the end of the entire spiritual quest as we know it. For how can one worship oneself? If one is, in the ultimate sense, God, there is no need for submission to a superior spirit. There is no I and Thou, no relationship, no love. Believers in Advaita Vedanta might call this mystical exaltation or a higher sort of divine union, but, looked at objectively, it is simply unabashed egotism, the ultimate illusion – the desire to be God.

End/

*This forgetfulness, of course, is the first philosophical problem in Advaita Vedanta. If Brahman is Ultimate reality, and if it is One without a second, how does one account for illusion (maya) and ignorance (avidya), which suggests duality in Brahman. Advaitins are void of an answer.

 

 

Edited April 5, 2018 by Monkey-man

[Nahm]

@Monkey-man What would the absolute / God use to make anything? Some boards or something? Some “matter”?  ☺️

[Monkey-man]

@Nahm Haha not the matter nor the boards. I meant that there are ego's will and god's will, ego's will is in our mind's desires and god's will is when we let go mind's desires and act spontaneously (not psychologically but 'from the heart') outsourcing 'all the problems' to adult - the supreme being. Apparently, even after enlightenment one still has subtle 'hidden' ego and its desires. Thats why it is important to keep in mind the difference in order to progress further. This nonpsychological actions are I guess the soul's desires = god's will = god's tasks.

Edited April 5, 2018 by Monkey-man

[Nahm]

@Monkey-man I hear you, but these are distinctions made, which only serve to imply separation, which is gas on the fire. In actuality, there is no separation at all. It’s just hard to accept things like Hitler, Buddha, Jesus, Monkey-Man and Nahm are the same. See how those words trigger some emotions? Look into those, and that’s where the enlightenment is found.  (I assume) 

[Monkey-man]

@Nahm there is no separation but yet there is relationships and relativity. The whole article above answers to this paradox. Oneness is half of the story, and its not the most comprehensive aspect of Truth, it is only the first out of three aspects of absolute truth.

Edited April 5, 2018 by Monkey-man

[cirkussmile]

Did Jesus actually say that God was something else than him? 

[Monkey-man]

Just now, cirkussmile said:

Did Jesus actually say that God was something else than him? 

He related to God as to Father, and he also said they are one. So its both: oneness and two. He talked about both nonduality/oneness and personal/relative aspect of God. And when he was dying on the cross, he was confused first but eventually outsourced his 'will' to Father - 'your will be done' (c) he let it be, surrendered and had full trust in father. So Jesus showed again that Bhagavan/personal aspect of God is the most comprehensive one, same as in Vaishnava and Bhagavat Gita.

[Nahm]

@Monkey-man I agree on the three, ultimately the realization not of oneness, but of course, of the One. It’s a great post. It breaks my heart a little when someone ‘reaches’ the oneness, and then is “done”. All is well though. 

[abrakamowse]

29 minutes ago, cirkussmile said:

Did Jesus actually say that God was something else than him? 

But he never said he was God.

[BjarkeT]

@abrakamowse i have heard from people again and again that jesus was both god and god's son at the same time especially from darkmatter2525 (YouTube channel)

Edited April 5, 2018 by BjarkeT

[abrakamowse]

Nice post @Monkey-man I think too there's also a personal God, it's not all impersonal.  But I am always open to be mistaken or deluded.

And I didn't know about those Vaishnavas, I will find out. Very interesting.

Thanks!

[abrakamowse]

11 minutes ago, BjarkeT said:

@abrakamowse i have heard from people again and again that jesus was both god and god's son at the same time especially from darkmatter2525 (YouTube channel)

That's what non-duality is... He is both at the same time. Like you are too.

It's a paradox, but he always had a tendency to be humble and he never said he was God. He said "Me and God are one"... 

The way he says it you can infer that he is God, but you can also infer that he is different than God...

but also one with him at the same time. Confusing, right?

 

A lot of truths has to be answered with paradoxes.

[Leo Gura]

If you still think God is something else than you, you haven't got it yet.

It's best not to talk about God unless you have a direct experience of it.

Quoting scriptures just doesn't cut it.

Indeed, the only one you can worship or pray to is yourself. Whether you want to do so, it up to you.

The ultimate egotism is thinking God is Infinite, but that that infinity somehow excludes you.

[Monkey-man]

@Leo Gura  no Leo I think u didn't read the article properly. God is both you and something other than you that is related to you. To choose only one of this is to adopt rational understanding of god: it's either this or that, either A or B. But oneness is both A and B, it's one and also it has two within it and infinity within it. Article points to that there is no separation but yet there are relationships inside oneness. How do you explain this relativity of oneness? Full circle is to go back to duality but now it's transcendental duality within non-duality, it's no longer a separateness of you vs world but nondual relationship of you and the world or you and the god. It's like early childhood - you don't yet have sense of self, yet you relate to your parents, you relate to the other, you even try to satisfy the other. There is no you but there is other. Stage 2 of spiral dynamics. You are one with everything but yet there is other, the other is you but also you relate to it. Otherwise there is no dynamic aspect of god, only static, and for dynamics you need to have something to relate to another thing.

And you can become aware of it,its third aspect of absolute truth, its not concepts. advaita Vedanta and Buddhism are not the highest forms of spirituality, but very limited because their purpose of achieving moksha is limited itself.

To pray to yourself doesn't work at all, on the other hand praying and submission to supreme god works, and it alone can lead you to enlightenment. In my humble opinion, you neglect the phenomenas of faith, devotion, prayer and worshipping to supreme God as nonsensical, but yet they can extremely speed up your progress. And they are the highest and most natural form of spirituality humanity has ever found, higher than meditation and self inquiry, because you allow god to do it's evolutionary job of enlightening you and harmonising you with the reality while you just submit, surrender to him. Just like he transformed monkeys into humans without monkeys having self-awareness and doing anything particular for that transformation, he continues to transform us. You probably don't like such classical understanding of God and think about it as mere concepts and dogmas but maybe you will understand what I'm trying to say through your own experience later on your path.

Edited April 5, 2018 by Monkey-man

[cirkussmile]

5 hours ago, Monkey-man said:

He related to God as to Father, and he also said they are one. So its both: oneness and two. He talked about both nonduality/oneness and personal/relative aspect of God. And when he was dying on the cross, he was confused first but eventually outsourced his 'will' to Father - 'your will be done' (c) he let it be, surrendered and had full trust in father. So Jesus showed again that Bhagavan/personal aspect of God is the most comprehensive one, same as in Vaishnava and Bhagavat Gita.

When you say Father and God is one, then who is Jesus? 

I like your comment!

[Monkey-man]

@cirkussmile Jesus Is god the son. In Christianity there is trinity, God is trinity of god-the-father, god-the-son and Holy Spirit. It's all one and yet each one relates to another, Jesus related to God-the-father as his Father and his Lord, and also said that they are one. 

[Girzo]

8 hours ago, Monkey-man said:

There is no I and Thou, no relationship, no love.

In my experience that's a non-existent problem. I would say it's quite the opposite. I feel love the most when there's no boundary between me and the loved one, when we feel as one. So feeling as one with the whole Reality would open the gates for love wider than anything else imagined.

Relationship is trying to become one with some obstacles still left. Ideal relationship is no relationship, that means becoming one.

[Haumea]

Monkey-man:

https://biblehub.com/john/10-30.htm

Case closed.

Jesus was an advaitist.

[Maxi]

I know of many people that has realised absolute infinity but then gone beyond it and into the personal god. It's a direct experiance, of seeing the 'personal' god in nothingness.

 

I would say realise absolue infinity,  then dont stop you Journey. Stare at a picture of someone like anandamayi ma, Jesus, krishna or ramana maharshi and connect to them. This will trigger purging, and more will be revealed.

[Akim]

Great post, I discovered a lot more about Hinduism. Just like to point out that Buddha views were more complex than that. My understanding is limited, but as far as I can understand now Buddha focused on giving direct instructions on what to do.

There is an article that explained to me a lot about traditional Theravada Buddhism https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/uncollected/FirstThingsFirst.html  byṬhānissaro Bhikkhu one of the most prolific translator of Pali canon.

Some citations:

Quote

If you were to ask people familiar with Buddhism to identify its two most important wisdom teachings, they’d probably say emptiness and the four noble truths. If you were to ask them further which of the two teachings was more fundamental, they might hesitate, but most of them would probably put emptiness first, on the grounds that the four noble truths deal with a mental problem, while emptiness describes the way things in general are.

It wasn’t always this way. The Buddha himself gave more importance to the four noble truths, and it’s important to understand why.

When he boiled his teaching down to its shortest formulation, he said that he taught just dukkha—suffering and stress—and the cessation of dukkha (MN 22; SN 22:86). The four noble truths expand on this formulation, defining what suffering is—clinging; how it’s caused—craving and ignorance; the fact that it can be brought to an end by abandoning its cause; and the path of practice that leads to that end. Because part of the path of practice contains desire—the desire, in right effort, to act skillfully so as to go beyond suffering—the four noble truths also expand on one of the Buddha’s main observations about the phenomena of experience: that with the exception of nibbāna, they’re all rooted in desire (AN 10:58). People aren’t simply passive recipients of their experience. Starting from their desires, they play an active role in shaping it. The strategy implied by the four noble truths is that desire should be retrained so that, instead of causing suffering, it helps act toward suffering’s end.

As for emptiness, the Buddha mentioned it only rarely, but one of his definitions for emptiness (SN 35:85) closely relates it to another teaching that he mentioned a great deal. That’s the teaching popularly known as the three characteristics, and that the Buddha himself called, not “characteristics,” but “perceptions”: the perception of inconstancy, the perception of suffering/stress, and the perception of not-self. When explaining these perceptions, he taught that if you perceive fabricated things—all things conditioned by acts of intention—as inconstant, you’ll also see that they’re stressful and thus not worthy identifying as you or yours.

Quote

In addition to being always true and relevant, right view is responsible. It gives reliable guidance on what should and shouldn’t be taken as food for the mind. As the Buddha said, any teaching that can’t give trustworthy guidelines for determining what’s skillful and unskillful to do abdicates a teacher’s primary responsibility to his or her students (AN 3:63). The Buddhologist’s answer to the interviewer exemplifies how irresponsible the teaching to abandon fixed views can be. And the look she gave him showed that she wanted nothing of it.

Quote

The view that all fixed views should be abandoned, however, doesn’t contain this dynamic. It provides no grounds for deciding what should and shouldn’t be done. In itself, it can act as an object of craving and clinging, becoming as fixed as any other view. If you decide to drop it, for whatever reason, it delivers you nowhere. It offers no guidance on how to choose anything better, and as a result, you end up clinging to whatever passing view seems attractive. You’re still stuck in the river, grasping at pieces of flotsam and jetsam as the flood carries you away.

This is why it’s always important to remember that, in the practice to gain freedom from suffering, the four noble truths must always come first. They give guidance to the rest of the path, determining the role and function of all the Buddha’s other teachings—including emptiness and the three perceptions—so that, instead of lulling you into being satisfied with an exposed spot on the beach, they can take you all the way to the safety of full release, beyond the reach of any possible wave.