my take on Dvaitam and Advaitam philosophies

to a query on my take on Dvaitam and Advaitam philosophies

There is essentially no difference between the two systems.. in their quest for the Supreme one..

Maybe dvaitham, in its humility gives a superior place to the collective manifestation of the supreme energy over that is manifest in the individual beings..

And advaitam, is not keen to acknowledge that the spirit present in everything is to be given a special treatment when it is treated as a collective one..

Salt or sugar will have the same taste whether it is present in a few crystals or is available in sackfuls..

Maybe we reach advaitam stage travelling through dvaitam.

But quarrel or schism on the basis of these two philosophies or strains of thought is never envisaged.

Further on Dvaitam and Advaitam

Further on Dvaitam and Advaitam

It is a matter of interpretation.. tat twam asi..

That is you..

or

Aham brahma asmi.. meaning I am the same as brahma..

if seen in their Upanishadic context are not dealing with the issue as to whether tat meaning that or twam meaning you is superior or aham me or brahma the Supreme being is superior..

The dichotomy lies there.

Mind you, you are yourself when you sleep, when you have ordinary thoughts and when you have very exalted mind-set too..

You are the same one when you are unclean without a bath.. 

and when you are clean and fresh after bath..

You are the same when you are sick and when you are healthy too..

 If it is presumed that you are better when you are clean and healthy than when you are unclean and sick,

that is your choice..

That is true  in relative terms too..

But if you consider the physical structure or internal organs in biological or anatomical terms you are the same .. one and the same..

That idea is also true..

In fact the two strains arose with reference to different states of perception.. and the masters of both knew that the conflicting view was equally valid..

But like political parties or groups they stuck to their own views as superior and did not mind having even fights on that basis..

For a neutral student that means nothing.

it is only perception.. just like beliefs in religion for some that Vishnu is greater than Shiva or vice versa..

Theories have their limitations..

Of course each is entitled to adhere to his views.. but the variance need not produce conflict..

There can be many truths.. and many untruths too..

After all the object, the viewer, and the instrument that views- with its calibration- decides the impact on the target..

We can never determine a thing switching off all of the three or any of the three and perceive a thing..

And what is the use in perception if it will lead only to conflict?

advaita

In advaitam there is only one being call it jeevatma, paramatma, brahmam or anything.. or nothing.

Some advaita followers believe that Part of That being perhaps deludes itself through its own Maaya and manifests as physical thing which is just Mithya.

That way what we conceive as good or bad in this Maaya created world is insignificant nullity.

Once the veil of illusion gets removed or shattered we realise our oneness with the supreme.

That is perhaps moksham or emancipation.. or just understanding what is real

Of course if you feel there is an inferior Atma (even a wee bit inferior) in you which is not of the same God material of parabrahmam or paramatma you can choose to do so.

Then the ideas of vishista advaitam dwaitam etc comes in.

It is up to you.

Namaskarams,  I think no one here is actually critical of advaitam per se.   In fact the greatest process of thought that has ever emanated from human intellect is undoubtedly the advaita philosophy.  The anxiety expressed by me was about the inaction amongst the Hindus. It is only advaitam that can unite the Hindu, when the philosophy propounds the existence of only one truth, the petty squabbles on account of caste, creed etc.,  have  to vanish.   If the atheist in Nietsche has to say that if you are not having a god you have to create one, we had to start  moving ahead from gothra cults and multitude of gods and demigods .  Ultimately advaita was the final summit of Indian thought and I doubt whether we can proceed further to anything more sublime.  However,  just as Sankara and Sri Narayana Guru both understood, the votaries of  our religion developed unnecessary prejudices and divided themselves into groups where the sense of belonging to that group was more pronounced than the pride of being a part of Hinduism.  At present  the social inequities have  more or less been ironed out.   Why cant we go on to strive for the benefit of the religion as a whole?  It is a very painful truth that we Hindus have never risen above our group identities.  We will not even hesitate to think of various advaitas like Sankaras advaita,  Chinmayas advaita and Narayana's advaita.   If this delusion does not disappear, we will never make any progress.  The ethos of Hinduism are noble.  I dont believe  elitism of being born in a caste, or even in a religion will make any sense or serve any purpose.   When the very roots of the religion are rotting we should never be complacent professing from pulpits about the greatness of philosophy alone.  Poet Bharatiar could see the blackness of Krishna in the wings of a crow, the green colour of that wayward urchin in all trees and he could even feel the euphoria of embracing the eternal lover when he put his hands onto fire. Sarvam Krishnamayam.That is advaita  But the same person roared like a lion.. If a single individual is not having means to get a single meal we will give him  the entire world...he had the foresight to understand that only individual welfare will lead us to collective happiness.  The hungry stomach carries in it the seed of rebellion and mere philosophy will never quench the fire of protest.  When the proletariat French asked for bread, the arrogant queen quipped that" if they have not bread let them eat cakes"..The result?