Dvaita-Advaita QA

Answered by Shri Kesava Rao Tadipatri (KT), and Shri Prasanna Tadipatri (PT)

Q: A friend of mine, who is advaitin by conviction, said: *"Dvaitins believe in swaruupa-yOgyata that cannot be altered, which in effect means:

#1 Everything is predetermined, there's no scope for change.

KT: S1 : Everything is predetermined.

Is S1 true or not? Before we analyze this, let us ask ourselves a question. Is there an Omniscient God or not? If Advaita believes that there is no Omniscient God, then Advaita crumbles down to an atheistic stand or degenerates into believing in a less efficient God. If He is Omniscient, He must also be knowing what is yet to come. If it is not predetermined, how would He know what is yet to come?

The key is this. Everything is predetermined from His point of view, but not from yours or mine or the like.

S2 : There's no scope for change.

Change of what? If it is change of swarupa-yOgyata, then why do you call that swaruupa-yOgyata? If it is just change of situation, there is always scope. If you take a 10 liter bucket and if you keep pouring water in it, the level is always changing (until it becomes full). Once it is full, you can't fill it any more. Can you?

Q: #2 Prayatna is of no use, because it depends on the Lord who is sarva-prEraka.

KT: Prayatna is always of use and it must always be done. Note that if your swarupa-yOgyata compels you to do prayatna, you will be compelled to do so. Isn't it? The sarva preraka Lord will do preraNa as per one's swarupa-yOgyata and engages one to do prayatna.

In fact, Prayatna is of no use in case of Advaita -where jIva is God and so where is the need for Prayatna? If Advaita claims that Prayatna is to make the jIva realize that he is God, then it is biting its own tail. If jIva is omniscient God, then he must know that even without any prayatna. If not, he is no omniscient God.

Q: #3 There's no way of knowing one's swaruupa, so the jiiva could become confused about its saadhana.

KT: Firstly, what is the correlation between "knowing one's swaruupa" and "the jiiva could become confused about its saadhana"?

Secondly, there is a way of knowing one's swarUpa. That is what is aparoxa j~nAna. One must strive for that. There is atleast some evidence for that and it is not hard to conceive that. What is impossible and what does not have evidence is "an ordinary soul becoming into God". Even Sankaracharya has not achieved this even as per Advaitis.

The amount of confusion of a jIva is dependent on the yogyata of jIva.

In case of Advaita, there's no way of knowing one's swaruupa. In Advaita, knowing one's swarUpa is realizing that one is God. This is most ridiculous because this entails that "there are so many Gods floating around, who did not realize that they are God."

God always knew that He is God and specific to our context, when He incarnated on earth, He knew that He is God. No ordinary jIva, no matter what he does, can ever become God. So, Advaita is an untenable position.

Q: #4 No incentive for action, because swaruupa determines the outcome, so if you're saatvik, you're going to be liberated, so why break your head over this?

KT: Because that is your swaruupa. Can you go against your swaruupa? If you think you can, then that is not your swaruupa. If it is your swaruupa, then you can't go against it.

Otoh, in case of Advaita, there is no incentive for action. If you are God, nothing can change the outcome, so why break your head over this? If you are not God, then you are no Advaitin. What is worse is that in case of Advaita, even the most despicable jIva is non-different from God.

Q: #5 Nishkaama karma, according to dvaita, involves giving up all desires except the desire for jnaana, bhakti. But then, yOgyata determines jnaana, bhakti of every jiiva, so what's the point in desiring them? Which means, no desire is possible, not even desire for jnaana. So the jiva will lose motivation, because it's forced to do karma without expecting even spiritual rewards.

KT: God determines j~nAna, bhakti of every jiiva and He does so based on the yogyata of jIva, because He is impartial. If not imagine what a chaos it will be. If He does that randomly, then there is no motivation. Since He does as per yogyata of jIva that gives motivation. Who says "no desire is possible". If that were so, why would Krishna say "karmaNyevAdhikAraste.". Also, it is our daily experience that desire is quite possible.

Also, it is our daily experience that things don't happen always as per our desires. That is why it makes lot of sense to give up desires. Note that giving up desires is not giving up motivation. Is it not wonderful to do karma without expecting any rewards and yet God grants the appropriate rewards? There is lot of mishmash between desires, j~nAna, yogyata, karma, motivation, expectation and spiritual rewards.

In fact, in Advaita, there is no motivation, since what spiritual reward is needed for one who is God? If it is claimed that the realization of God is the spiritual reward, how come one who is God has to realize that he is God?

Q: #6 Nor can the reward for vaikuntha (mukti) be a motivating factor, because that also happens after a long, hard struggle, according to dvaita. And only immediate results motivate the jiva, as is normally observed."****

KT: Does Advaita assure "immediate Godhood"? There is no purAnic or any other kind of evidence for that, whereas there is mention of "muktabrahmas" and so mukti is still a motivating factor.

As you sow, so you reap. It is ridiculous to expect eternal joy with just a little effort.

Q: I am not sure how to reason it out, because I am confused about it myself, especially #2 and #5.

KT: Some philosophies do believe in the principle of survival thru confusion.

Q: Friend also reasons that only Advaitins can be great Vishnu Bhaktas, because they consider the world mithya, and hence are not drowned in this world and its pleasures.

KT: How can Advaitins be any bhakta-s? If they are God, they cannot be bhaktas, unless each claims to be his own bhakta!

If an ordinary citizen goes to a king and claims that he is the king, the king puts him behind the bars, for he is deemed as either an impersonator or an usurper. Further is it not ridiculous if that person claims that he is a great bhakta of the king?

If that were the case, how can an ordinary mortal claim that he is all supreme God! What punishment awaits such a claimant!

How ridiculous it is to claim that the superb and unique creation of the Lord, this fantastic universe is mithya! In fact one who makes such a claim is a hater of Vishnu as that person is only ridiculing the creator as a cheat who created only a mithya!

In fact one who claims to be Vishnu is either impersonating Vishnu or is intending to usurp Vishnu. As Vishnu is also known as Achyuta, neither of these is going to be fruitful. Is there no lesson to be learnt from the episodes of Paundraka Vasudeva and Vena?

How can "considering the world mithya" entail "not drowning in this world and its pleasures"? It is against both our direct perception and impending logic also. In fact one who considers the world as mithya can fully drown in this world and its pleasures and if questioned can retort "if this world is mithya, so are its pleasures and so is my indulging in them"!

Q: Instead they worship Vishnu to get rid of karma and eventually become Brahman.

I think our Advaitin friend is thoroughly confused. Advaita does not say "jIva becomes Brahman". It says "jIva is Brahman".

Only in case of physical objects, one uses "becomes" - like milk becomes curd, etc.

Is our Advaitin friend of the notion that, in the above sentence, "Vishnu is saguNa Brahman" and "Brahman" is "nirguNa Brahman" ?

If so, why should jIva strive to become a "nirguNa brahman"?

To start with, is jIva same as Brahman or different? If same, then why this business of worshipping Vishnu? If not same, when jIva becomes Brahman, what happens to the existing Brahman, since one who is not Brahman has now become Brahman!

Q: If one argues that jiva being Brahman doesn't need help, he says Vishnu and other gods are like lion's roar in a dream, meaning the lion's roar helps you wake up, but doesn't make the lion real.

KT: Fantastic! When the lion's roar helps you wake up, you are still what you are only and you neither become a lion nor a lion's roar. Do you? When you wake up, you realize that neither lion is real nor the lion's roar is real and nor you are a lion. What is worse is that you (always this 'you' refers to Advaitin friend) are making the Vishnu and other gods "a lion's roar in a dream" and yet claim as great devotees of such illusory entities!

What has happened is that the Advaita has built its entire philosophy on these ambiguous expressions of "like". Nothing is well-defined there. There are no pramana-s. There is very loose logic.

Q: Similarly, Krishna's Gita or the veda (or anything at all) is a lion's roar to wake you up to the fact that you're Brahman, and is only real in the sense a dream is real to the dreamer.

KT: Isn't it a pity that "Krishna's Gita or the veda (or anything at all)" are as illusory as a lion's roar? Even when you wake up, you remain what you were before you went to sleep and do not become something else. If you are already Vishnu, then why does a real Vishnu need an illusory roar of an illusory Vishnu to wake up!

Further the dream is not "real" (even in terms of Advaitic vyavahAra) to the dreamer either.

Q: It's hard not to consider these points!

KT: Well, actually it is hard to consider these points.

Q: That's correct, why is why bhakti ceases in the state of mukti.

KT: That is against all pramANa-s. There is bhakti even in mukti. There are shruti pramANa-s to that effect. The muktabrahma-s extoll the Lord. The mukta jIvas sing sAmagAna to extol the Lord.

Q: But in samsara, there's multiplicity, hence bhakti is possible.

KT: There isn't a single pramAna which shows that the multiplicity is reduced to singlehood. It is against pratyaxa and Agama. You can make one item by putting together 10 items. But still that single item consists of those multiple items. The multiplicity doesn't go anywhere.

Q: In Dvaita philosophy, "Hari parataraH" - Hari is far greater than us. In Advaita, there is no distinction between the jIva & Vishnu.

KT: Not quite.

Then it is not Advaita. Why? -

Q: In a dream, there are many objects and consequently gradations amongst them. Likewise, in this dream world, there are gradations and Hari happens to be Supreme in that sense.

KT: Now in this samsAra, where an Advaitin speaks of multiplicity, is this world the dream of the jIva or Brahman? If it is the dream of the jIva, which jIva the Advaitin is speaking of? Since there is only one world, if one jIva wakes out of the dream, then all the other jIvas also get liberated. So let an expert Advaitin do the sAdhana and let other jIvas wait for the dream world to disappear. If this world is the dream of the Supreme Brahman, then jIva does not have to wake up. It is the Supreme Brahman who has to wake up!

It is our experience that a dream or sleep is due to dependent nature of a being. Now how come the independent Brahman is lulled into sleep and forced into a dream. All these jIvas - you and me and all the ones are an outcome of the illusory dream! How ridiculous!

There is no way out of this terrible jam unless the whole thing is rejected. This entire dream business is against all pramANa-s. We note in the scriptures statements which compare the world to a dream. That is purely to indicate the transient nature. Nothing more. If one says that the kinf fights like a lion, it means that he fights ferociously and not that he fights on his fours. Stretching an example beyond its limits is terrible.

Q: And in advaita, there's no distinction between jiva and Brahman in mukti but in samsara, there's an illusion of distinction caused by ajnaana which is beginningless.

KT: The Advaitin goes in circles and that oo with the strength of only confusion. The Advaitin says "dream" and also "aj~nAna". If an advaitin asks himself very simple questions and keeps an open mind, he will dump Advaita like hot potato.

Simple questions:

1. Is the dream due to aj~nAna or aj~nAna due to dream?

2. Does the dream belong to jIva or Brahman?

3. Is the dream in samsAra or in mukti?

If it is in samsAra, then how can there be samsAra without the dream. If the dream is in mukti, how can there be a dream in mukti?

4. Who gives this dream to the Brahman? None.He has to give the dream to Himself. Why should He give dream to Himself and there by create these illusory jIva-s.

5. How can the omniscient Brahman be affected by aj~nAna?

6. Did the aj~nAna start the dream world/samsAra or dream world/samsAra lead to aj~nAna.

If former, how can aj~nAna be there without samsAra. If latter, how can samsAra be there without the aj~nAna?

7. Why did the independent Brahman subject Himself to this torture of samsAra?

8. Since the distinction is only illusory and exists only in samsAra, how foolish it is to bother about the illusory distinction? Let us not do anything? Why bother?

One can go on with several questions, which brazenly expose the ludicrousness of the whole situation.

Q: He says in this dream world, he is different from the Vishnu he's worshipping. Which makes all people caught in bondage dvaitins. Out of bondage, there's only oneness.

KT: In other word, the Advaitin claims that the jIva has at least some existence in samsAra and in Multi, the jIva ceases to exist. In other words, the purpose of sAdhana is to achieve extinction! Mukti seems really scary! Oh nothing to worry. All the pramANa-s reject that approach. Even in Mukti, the jIva-s exist and enjoy in the company of God.

Q: Do you have to view the world as mithya to not be drowned in its pleasures? Consider the many great yati-s like Sri Madhvacharya, Rayaru, Sri Vadirajaru, etc. They were very strong proponents of 'jagat satyatva' - the world is real.

KT: According to dvaita itself, these men are devatas, so it doesn't apply to them.

There are many ordinary mortals also, who do not believe in MithyAtva and yet not drowned in pleasures.

Q: He gives the example of decadence in western societies which consider the world to be real.

KT: They are two unrelated factors. There are also many who believe that the world is mithya and are yet drowned in pleasures. It is incorrect to connect two unrelated things. Even one counter example is enough to reject such theory.

Q: Dream is real for the dreamer, so Vishnu is real in that sense.

KT: Who is the dreamer here? Vishnu or jIva? Dream is not real (in Advaitic sense) even for the dreamer. Also what does it mean by "in that sense"? Is Vishnu not real in some other sense?

Q: A round square is asat at all times (so no devotion is possible wrt a non-existent entity), but Vishnu is real as long as the dream lasts, KT: Is vishnu in the dream or outside? You seem to indicate that He cease to exist as soon as the dream ends! So Vishnu is not everlasting!

KT: Is vishnu in the dream or outside? You seem to indicate that He cease to exist as soon as the dream ends! So Vishnu is not everlasting!

Q: hence He serves a utilitarian purpose in waking us up, as the lion's roar wakes us up from our dreams

KT: Wow - *our* dreams? There is only one universe. Whose dream is it? If the lion's roar wakes one of the beings up from one of the dreams, the world must cease to exist.

Q: According to dvaita, perception of the imaginary lion is real, that it causes our awakening is also real. Likewise, advaiti bhakti toward Vishnu is genuine.

KT: But according to *advaita*, perception of the imaginary lion is *not* real, that it causes our awakening is also *not* real! Then advaita bhakti is not real.

Q: He gives the instance of a person in front of a mirror. If the image gets deluded, it doesn't mean the object is also deluded.

KT: Yes, only to indicate this and also to indicate the "independent and dependent nature", the "bimba-pratibimba" bhAva is given. To extend the example beyond certain limit leads to lot of difficulties.

Q: ..., the image is due to upadhi. Once that knowledge occurs, the upadhi is destroyed and the image becomes one with the object.

KT: First of all that knowledge does not destroy the upAdhi. Even when the upAdhi is destroyed, it is against every logical reasoning that the image becomes one with the object. Just imagine. You stand in front of the mirror and see your image. You break the image. Do you think that your image came and merged with you? No, it just got destroyed. Period. This basic concept is missed.

Q: Needless to say, the image is the jiva and upadhi ajnaana, and the object is Brahman.

KT: aj~nAna must have a locus. What is it? If you say that it is jIva, how can the jIva form without aj~nAna? If you say that it is Brahman, then how can the omniscient Brahman be affected by aj~nAna?

Q: A thing cannot disappear into nothingness, because even according to dvaita, every object has a source, it doesn't come out of nothing. Even God creates out of prakriti. A mud pot, when destroyed, doesn't disappear into nothingness, it merges into the mud from which it was created.

KT: You are getting mixed up between the material cause and the type of destruction you are talking about. If a pot is broken, its shape gets destroyed only. The mud is still there, but the shape of the pot is gone only. Even if you make a pot again, that is a different pot only.

Q: Likewise, if the upaadhi is destroyed, the reflected image HAS TO MERGE into its source, which is the object itself.

KT: That is wrong. The reflected image is formed out of the light rays. When the mirror is broken, the light rays are still there, but they are not forming any image. Those light rays do not get merged into the object standing in front of the mirror!

Q: There is, therefore, no extinction of the jiva, rather a merging of the jiva into Brahman. Which is the same as saying the jiva becomes one with Brahman.

KT: Firstly there is no evidence for such a situation. Secondly it is an equivocal statement. If A merges into B, then only B exists and A does not exist.

Q: Even phrases like "Muktaanaam ParamaagatiH" are explained with this logic in view. If dvaitins say it proves distinction between muktas and Brahman (by making Brahman as support and muktas as the supported), then advaitins wonder whether there was a time when Brahman was NOT a support.

KT: Wher did Advaitins wonder? If anyone wonders so, it only shows lack of understanding.

Q: If so, Brahman is not supreme.

KT: There is no question of "if so". Note the statement in Bhagavata:

"dravyaM karmashcha kAlashcha svabhAvo jIva eva cha |

yadanugrahataH santi na santi yadupexayA ||"

Q: Otherwise, we have to admit to scriptures containing the flaw of redundancy.

KT: Why so. Then is the above statement from Bhagavata is also redundant?

Q: The "merging" theory is not caught in such contradictions.

KT: Even worse. It is against scriptural satements like

"so.asnute sarvAn.h kamAn.h saha brahmaNA vipashchitA"

It has self-contradictions like

1. "Brahman is omniscient" and yet caught in "ignorance and amnesia".

2. "upAdhi led to ignorance that makes jIva think that he is not Brahman" and also "ignorance created the upAdhi".

3. "The jIva is Brahman" and also "the jIva merges into Brahman" (you say A merges into B only if A is different from B. If A is same as B, there is no question of merging).

4. The world is neither real nor unreal. Anybody who has some basic mathematical thinking can see the ludicrousness in this. If A' denotes the complement of A (meaning A' contains elements that are not in A), and if we define a set X as one which contains elements that are neither in A nor in A', then X is null set only.

In other words, if a thing is not real, then it is unreal and if it is not unreal, then it is real. There is no such thing as "neither real nor unreal".

Further, if one brings in this weird notion of "relative truth", that is only to promote and justify ambiguity. The "relative truth" is nothing but a "white lie". Only ignorance can take shelter in "relative truth". There is no such thing as "relative truth".

What happened to the terrible concept of "dream world", where this real world is deemed as a dream? I have raised a bunch of objections.

Q: How can Advaitins be any bhakta-s? If they are God, they cannot be bhaktas, unless each claims to be his own bhakta!

KT: In the conditioned state, The conditioned state is like a paper lion, which is unsupported in scriptures. Is the conditioned state real or false. If it is real, one cannot call it an illusion. If it is an illusion, one need not worry about it.

Q: there is an illusion of distinction between themselves and God,

KT: If the distinction is an illusion, then the worship is irrelevant.

Q: hence worship of God becomes relevant until this distinction is bridged.

Why do you worry about bridging a distinction that is an illusion?

Q: That's why they say, “Worship Brahman to become Brahman."

KT: It is strange that in spite of so much of analysis, some don't see how ridiculous it is to say that Brahman has to worship Brahman to become Brahman.

Q: If that were the case, how can an ordinary mortal claim that he is all supreme God! What punishment awaits such a claimant!

KT: Advaitin wonders whether such emotions as the desire to punish etc. are part of God. If someone puts a hand in the fire and then complains that God is cruel since He created the fire that burns, how wise is it? God is beyond any emotions or desires. It is by the shear nature of the jIva, who claims identity with God, gets what he/she desires.

Q: If so, how can such entity be God?

KT: Just the same way as fire is fire.

Q: How ridiculous it is to claim that the superb and unique creation of the Lord, this fantastic universe is mithya!

KT: He says Dvaitins believe God is karuna sagara. There's so much sorrow in this world that if we accept creation to be real, then it's tantamount to questioning God's karunya.

I see the problem of this Advaitin in hiding. Since he does not want to question God’s karunya, he wants to believe that the world is not real. If there is thorn in the leg, it is better to take out the thorn and not the leg itself. Suppose there is a lion in the front and if one is scared a lot, it does not help to imagine that the lion is not real. There is no problem with the world having sorrow and God being karuna sagara. There may be a problem for the philosophies, which believe in one birth and no karma theory. Calling a real thing as an illusion does not solve any problem; quite contrarily it just makes the whole thing a problem.

Q:In fact one who makes such a claim is a hater of Vishnu as that person is only ridiculing the creator as a cheat who created only a mithya!

KT: Since mithya has no beginning, Vishnu didn't create it. Great. There is enough evidence in the scriptures that say that the world has a beginning. Even the science, which speaks of Big Bang, says that the world has a beginning. So, the world, which has a beginning cannot be mithya, which has no beginning (according to Advaita). So even Advaita has to concede that the world is not mithya.

Q: So how can there be hatred of Vishnu?

KT: As shown above, if world is not mithya, then that aspect is fine.

Q: Besides, one can also argue that a person who accepts Vishnu as creator hates Vishnu, because he's indirectly blaming Vishnu for the world's sorrow.

Then all the religions, who believe that God created the world, must hate the God. But it is quite evident that it is not true. Even the ones that have no karma theory do not see the problem. It is strange that ones who have the karma theory (which is complicated and must be learnt from a proper guru) have to resort to such a drastic measure of refusing the creation power of God.

Q: Is there no lesson to be learnt from the episodes of Paundraka Vasudeva and Vena?

KT: Vena and Paundrika were claiming identity with Vishnu in the conditioned state, similar to a person whilst still in a dream claiming to be fully awake.

Is there any one who woke up from the dream? If not, he can’t help the ones as he himself did not wake up. If yes, he can’t come back into this dream and so still can’t help. What a pity! No matter what - an advaitin guru can never help.

Q: Such knowledge is flawed, according to advaita.

KT: And that is what advaita is doing exactly. No matter which bottle is used, that is the content.

Q: ...can retort "if this world is mithya, so are its pleasures and so is my indulging in them"!

KT: Which means, he'll remain in the illusion as long as he's indulging and never attain identity with brahman.

Who is "he" - isn’t he Brahman? One who is Brahman - why should "he ATTAIN identity, which is there already?

Q: But since an advaitin's goal is precisely that, rationalization in the manner described would be impossible.

KT: Rationalizing that in any manner is impossible. An irrational thing can never be rationalized.

Q: Instead they worship Vishnu to get rid of karma and eventually become Brahman.

KT: I think our Advaitin friend is thoroughly confused. Advaita does not say "jIva becomes Brahman". It says "jIva is Brahman".

Only in case of physical objects, one uses "becomes" - like milk becomes curd, etc.

He says the word 'becoming' can be used in two ways.

Why only two ways. It can be several ways - like - becoming sad, glad, mad, happy, angry, irritated, excited, entangled, skilled, depressed, impressed, dirty, clean, nasty, calm, lazy, active, etc.

Q: Milk becoming curd is one of them, where there's difference in the entities involved.

KT: Isn't it strange that one sees difference between milk and curd, while the transformation is right in front of the eyes, but sees no difference between the helpless jIva and almighty Lord, even though scriptures declare the difference so clearly and wonderfully and pratyaxa knocks on the head every second!

Q: In the second case, there's no such difference in the process of becoming.

KT: Even granting that there is one case like what you say, where is your proof that the jIva and Brahman belong to this case?

Q: For instance, Valmiki becoming satvik doesn't entail a tamasic soul transforming into a satvik soul,

KT: It is inaccurate to say that valmiki became satvik. He was always satvik, even if there is temporary aberration.

Q: because according to dvaita, swabhava is unchanging.

KT: How come Advaita, which does not believe in the reality of the world itself, wishes to use the above dvaita principle, to prove its point! It is like riding on two horses that too travelling in opposite direction.

Q: So the word 'becoming' is used in the sense a satvik soul is simply restored to its original satvik nature.

KT: It is like saying "Just as the goat jumped over the fence, I jumped from the earth to the moon and then to the sun."

By giving an example of a feasible thing, one cannot conclude an impossible thing. No jIva can ever become Paramatma. Even in case of a satvik soul restored to original state, still remembers what happened. How many NirguNa brahmans are there? Only one. How many jIvas are there? Many.

Every time a jIva, who is hit with amnesia, is restored to Nirguna brahman state, the Nirguna Brahman has to wonder "What had happened to me" - but then it is NirguNa Brahman; so even He cannot wonder. Atleast the Saguna Brahman should know that He is the Nirguna Brahman. But unfortunately that is also not true.

No where in the scriptures is this bifurcation of Brahman mentioned. The Saguna Brahman also should know that all jIvas are NirgUna Brahman. Then He should declare that He is all the jIvas and He remembers that too. But lo! hearken! Lord Krishna says

"bahUni me vyatItAni janmAni tava chArjuna |

tAnyahaM veda sarvANi na tvaM vettha parantapa || 4-5||"

"O tormentor of the enemies! I have taken many janma-s, so hast thou. I know them all, but not you."

How long can one cheat oneself with the vyAvahArika mumbojumbo.

Q: In this type of becoming, no difference is admitted, because the entity before and after change is identical.

KT: Please see above. This "type of becoming" is impossible between jIva and Brahman. A crow can never become a swan.

Q: "jiva becomes Brahman" should be understood in this sense, not as a process of transformation.

KT: A misunderstanding cannot make an illusion into reality.

Q: Is our Advaitin friend of the notion that, in the above sentence,

"Vishnu is saguNa Brahman" and "Brahman" is "nirguNa Brahman" ?

If so, why should jIva strive to become a "nirguNa brahman"?

Because that's the jiva's original state.

KT: Even for a hallucination, there has to be a limit. There is no pramANa for that. No precedence for that. No evidence of any kind.

Q: To start with, is jIva same as Brahman or different? If same, then why this business of worshipping Vishnu?

KT: Same, but there's an illusion of distinction. To get rid of this, jiva worships Vishnu, who is Saguna Brahman.

Why aren't you getting this simple point. If the distinction is an illusion, there is no need to get rid of that. If it is real, you cannot get rid of that.

Now jIva worships Vishnu to "become NirguNa Brahman". Now what should Vishnu do? Should He attempt to become NirguNa Brahman or should He remain SaguNa Brahman? Does He know that while He remains SaguNa Brahman, the jIvas worship Him and attain the state of NirguNa Brahman?

Q: If not same, when jIva becomes Brahman, what happens to the existing Brahman, since one who is not Brahman has now become Brahman!

KT: Jiva/Brahman identity is never lost, it's only covered by avidya, therefore it's wrong to say one who's not Brahman has become Brahman.

Jiva/Brahman identity was never there and so there is no question of "it being lost". It is like a beggar saying "I never lost a million dollars". True - it's wrong to say one who's not Brahman has become Brahman. And only one thing can be more wrong - that is to say one who is not a Brahman is Brahman.

Q: He says if illusory entities have utilitarian value, what's the harm in respecting them?

KT: The harm is in terms of ignorance. Illusory entities cannot have utilitarian value. Imagine a person, who sleeps at all times and in his dreams, he takes wonderful food and does great exercise. Do you think, that is good enough? Even the ones like KumbhakarNa, who has the boon, has to wake up once in 6 months to take his food!

Q: To break the illusion of jiva/Brahman distinction, other illusions come in handy, similar to illusory water quenching an illusory thirst in our dreams.

KT: That is right. Illusory water can quench only an illusory thirst, but not real thirst. Similarly the illusory approach of an Advaitin cannot remove the real distinction of jiva/Brahman and for moxa sAdhana, this realization is very vital.

Q: Friend also reasons that only Advaitins can be great Vishnu Bhaktas, because they consider the world mithya, and hence are not drowned in this world and its pleasures. Instead they worship Vishnu to get rid of karma and eventually become Brahman. If one argues that jiva being Brahman doesn't need help, he says Vishnu and other gods are like lion's roar in a dream, meaning the lion's roar helps you wake up, but doesn't make the lion real. Similarly, Krishna's Gita or the veda (or anything at all) is a lion's roar to wake you up to the fact that you're Brahman, and is only real in the sense a dream is real to the dreamer. It's hard not to consider these points!

PT: Your friend seems to be a bit confused...one can't have bhakti towards oneself! In Dvaita philsophy, "Hari parataraH" - Hari is far greater than us. In Advaita, there is no distinction between the jIva & Vishnu. How is there scope for Bhakti? Also, whereas Dvaitins view Vishnu as 'sarvaguNa sampURNaH', Advaitins either view Vishnu as 'nirGuna' (devoid of any attributes--how can you have devotion towards something that has no good qualities?), or view the 'saguNa' Brahman as mithya!

Very simple question - ask your friend when he worships Vishnu, he thinks of Vishnu as someone different from himself. If he answers yes, then he is a Dvaitin (Again, in Advaita nothing exists besides the self). If he answers no, then he is essentially worshipping himself. If he says that Vishnu Himself is mithya, then what exactly is your friend worshipping? Nothing?!

Do you have to view the world as mithya to not be drowned in its pleasures? Consider the many great yati-s like Sri Madhvacharya, Rayaru, Sri Vadirajaru, etc. They were very strong proponents of 'jagat satyatva' - the world is real. If it is not real, then all the good deeds you do in the world are also mithya, right? But, just because they accepted the world as real, does not mean that they were caught in material pleasures.

You see, they did not have *attachment* to worldly pleasures. But that's something completely different from whether the worldly pleasures actually exist or not. He's comparing Krishna's Gita to a lion's roar (this is actually something I've come across before, I believe by Madhusudhana Saraswati).

Tell me, how can you have any bhakti towards something that does not really exist? The lion in the dream is not real, and your friend wants to argue that neither is Vishnu. If the Advaitin is not willing to accept the reality of Vishnu, does bhakti towards Vishnu have any meaning? For the Dvaitin, Vishnu is real, not only that, but is the only 'svatatantra' independent real entity. "tena vinA trNamapi na chalati" - without Vishnu not even a blade of grass can move. So understanding the omnipotence and 'sarvaprerakatva' of Vishnu (as opposed to saying Vishnu is like an imaginary lion in a dream), the bhakti that the Dvaitin has towards Vishnu is genuine.

Why not argue that jIva and Brahman are separate? Both Advaitins & Dvaitins accept that Brahman is free from any flaws like ignorance. If something X is affected by mithya, then it is clearly different from Brahman right?

I don't know how Advaitins get around this issue. They want to say jIva is affected by mithya (which Dvaitins also accept, though a different kind of mithya - the ignorance of its own true nature and relation to paramAtman), Brahman is NEVER affected by mithya, yet they want to say both are the same! The Dvaitin gets around this easily by saying Brahman=Vishnu (both have the same root in Sanskrit and denote guNa pUrNatva) is always free from any kind of ignorance.

The jIva which is distinct from Brahman is affected by ignorance (jIvacchadika, paramacchadika ajnana) , until it achieves aparoksha jnana and subsequently moksha. Even then, it remains distinct from Brahman. One is finite, the other is infinite, one is affected by samsara, the other is forever free from samsara. How can the two ever be one and the same?

Q: In the conditioned state, there is an illusion of distinction between themselves and God, hence worship of God becomes relevant until this distinction is bridged. That's why they say, " Worship Brahman to become Brahman."

PT: Someone once asked Shankaracharya "kasya avidya"? In other words "whose ignorance?" The point is that in Advaita, there is NOTHING besides Brahman. So if something is affected by ignorance, it either has to be non-existent (how can something that doesn't even exist be affected by avidya?), or nirguNa Brahman is affected by an illusion (there are too many problems with this).

Shankaracharya's answer? Obviously he couldn't wriggle out of the problem, so he responded by saying "tava" - your ignorance. To make up for Advaita's inability to answer the question - what thing is affected by avidya/maaya, you say the fault lies on the part of whoever asks the question.

Q: If that were the case, how can an ordinary mortal claim that he is all supreme God! What punishment awaits such a claimant!

PT: Advaitin wonders whether such emotions as the desire to punish etc. are part of God. If so, how can such entity be God?

The desire to punish is not a part of God? So...all the criminals in the world can simply avoid any consequences for their actions? What would happen to the world if such a frightful thing were true?!

Q: He says Dvaitins believe God is karuna sagara.There's so much sorrow in this world that if we accept creation to be real, then it's tantamount to questioning God's karunya.

PT: Well..we can take 2 approaches. We can either try to understand how it is possible for duhkha to exist in a world that is created by a benevolent God, or we could say the world is non-existent as are the attributes of kaaruNya in the world. Which is the more sensible approach? To me, it seems like the former. You see, one of the key tenets of Indian philosophy is the eternality of the soul. That is, souls are not created, but exist since time immemorial.

When we understand this in light of their 3 different natures (sattvic, tamasic, rajasic), we can see that it is not God who is responsible for their nature.

A just God would allow each soul to work out its own destiny. Good souls would be motivated along a good path, bad souls along a bad path. However it's more complicated than that, because sometimes good souls perform bad deeds because their association with prakriti, then, of course they reap the consequences of their deeds. In no way does it pose a problem to God's kaaruNya.

In fact, as an interesting side note, this past weekend my father gave a lecture on "Chakrabja Mandala", a means of meditating on the Lord, with HIs various forms & names laid out in the form of a flower. At the very center of the "chakrabja mandala" is inscribed "Om ghRNi Om" - which translates to the Lord's kaaruNya. That is the central place given in Dvaita to God's kaaruNya.

Q: Since mithya has no beginning, Vishnu didn't create it. So how can there be hatred of Vishnu? Besides, one can also argue that a person who accepts Vishnu as creator hates Vishnu, because he's indirectly blaming Vishnu for the world's sorrow.

PT: See above...Vishnu is not to blame for the innate nature of the souls.

Q: Vena and Paundrika were claiming identity with Vishnu in the conditioned state, similar to a person whilst still in a dream claiming to be fully awake. Such knowledge is flawed, according to advaita.

PT: Doesn't it seem even worse to be claiming identity when "fully awake"? A person who kills someone in his dream is not treated like a murderer, but if the same person did so in real life? How much worse is it? From an Advaitin's perspective, if it's wrong to claim identity with Vishnu or Brahman in this dream world, then to claim identity in the REAL state...how much worse is that?

If identity with Brahman is really the ultimate goal of life, then aren't those people like Paundraka Vasudeva closer to achieving this "goal" than we are? Should we follow their example? You can see the absurd consequences this leads to. Whereas an enlightened person who sees Vishnu not only as distinct but far superior to him will only become more convinced of this "bheda", thus never wanting or somehow fusing with Vishnu, but simply remaining His bhakta.

Q: because the entity before and after change is identical. Therefore, "jiva becomes Brahman" should be understood in this sense, not as a process of transformation.

PT: Once again the very fact that the jIva is in samsaara, affected by mithyaa proves that he is not Brahman, since at no point in time is Brahman ever affected by either ignorance/sorrow. I think the only way out is to possibly say that the jIva itself is an illusion...but that leads to 'anavastha'...what then "thinks" that the jIva exists, is under an illusion, etc. Wouldn't this headache simply be solved by saying jIva and Brahman are completely distinct...what's the problem for the Advaitin in accepting bheda between the two? It seems to solve SO many of the issues!

Q: Same, but there's an illusion of distinction. To get rid of this, jiva worships Vishnu, who is Saguna Brahman.

PT: Perhaps here's the issue...an illusion does not simply exist like a rock or stone. Some *thing* has to be affected by the illusion.

The question (which Shankaracharya, let alone his followers, could not answer) is what is affected by this illusion. But the problems don't end there...is the jIva worshipping himself (since there is only one thing in Advaita)? Is the jIva worshipping an illusory Vishnu (if so, isn't he deluding himself)?

The Advaitin is stuck with nothing but Brahman! You can't simply say while he's under an illusion this is true, later it's not. Either something is real (exists), or does not exist (unreal). What other possibility is there? The elephants in a dream are never the same as real elephants, whether you think they're real or not is completely irrelevant to their absolute reality. [However, the "stuff" that dreams are made of, vasanas mental impressions, are considered to be real by Dvaitins]. An object cannot be real from one perspective, but unreal from another -- so you either have to say:

1) The real jIva is worshipping an illusory Vishnu (so something is worshipping nothing)

2) The illusory jIva is worshipping an illusory Vishnu (nothing is worshipping nothing)

3) The real jIva is worshipping real Vishnu (for the Advaitin, since there is nothing other than Brahman, something is worshipping itself which is probably the height of egotism!)

4) The illusory jIva worships a real Vishnu (this is probably the most absurd of them all, nothing worshipping something!)

Please, save yourself & others some headache...Vishnu is real, the jIva is real. When the jIva worships Vishnu, he is worshipping something far superior to him and distinct from him. 2 different real objects, not Advaita.

Q: He says if illusory entities have utilitarian value, what's the harm in respecting them?

PT: The harm is that you're deluding yourself. How can one ever obtain knowledge through delusion? Contrast this to the Dvaitin view of worship, that you worship Vishnu to obtain His grace (yad anugrahataH santi, na santi yadupekShayaa), obtain aparoksha jnana, and eventually moksha. In fact there are plenty of shruti vaakya-s that describe different types of moksha -- saalokya, saarupya, saayujya, (I'm sorry, I'm missing one)...if there is identity in moksha, why point out all these different types of mukti?

Q: To break the illusion of jiva/Brahman distinction, other illusions come in handy, similar to illusory water quenching an illusory thirst in our dreams.

PT: In the case of a dream, if you were to ask me what is affected by the illusion that there is real thirst, water, etc...I can plain & simple say "the dreamer", more specifically,NOT the physical body on the bed, but the conscious entity inside. If I had to be even more specific, NOT the conscious entities controlling the person's mind (manobhimani=Rudra), NOR is it the sarvajna Vishnu who is controlling all this, but the jIva who has abhimaana over his body & identifies the body/mind as his own. The jiva is affected by avidya. Now in Advaita, as pointed out earlier, Shankaracharya could not explain what is affected by avidya/illusion...can you do better?