We had a good satsang last week and an interesting question was posed. In the purANas we encounter the story of Gajendra, the elephant, who attains moksha or liberation by remembering the Lord at the time of his death at the hands of a crocodile. The question is whether, in a broader sense, liberation for those who worship God is different from those who follow the path of advaita (as we are reading in the mANDukya upanishad which does not refer to a personal God). This is an important and pertinent question!
First, the evidence from scripture (to be followed by personal experience!): the tripurA rahasya notes that the jnAna of jnAnis is not different. In other words the truth or wisdom beheld by various Seers is not different, even though the Seers themselves appear to be different in their approach and behavior. While this is simple and straightforward, it may be useful to understand this in a little more detail- besides, what better way to pass this lovely sunny winter afternoon?!
So I will explain this from a yogi's perspective. When shakti sleeping as kuNDalinI is awakened in the body the shakti travels up the central channel or nADI called suShUmnA and the yogi experiences certain experiences that can only be properly classified as extra-sensory, or beyond the senses. Energy normally traveling through the sense organs produces the experiences we have in the waking and dream states. In the deep sleep state the senses are not active. This kuNDalinI awakening triggers certain chemicals in the body and the corresponding biochemical reaction produces these experiences. The yogic awakening is attained through the practice of prANAyAma, or breath regulation. The same experiences are mimicked by certain drugs such as DMT, the active ingredient in ayahuasca, a vegetable alkaloid used in certain Native American rituals in Central and South America. I strongly discourage the practice of drugs of any kind since they are contrary to the yogic path (and addiction to the senses is bad enough to not complicate that by addiction to external substances!), but the description of states in the medical literature is so strikingly similar to kuNDalinI experience that there is no doubt in my mind that these are the aushadhI (or herbs) that Patanjali refers to in the Yoga Sutra itself (YS states that samAdhi can be attained through aushadhI). Anyway, the details are irrelevant, but the more important point is that these biochemical reactions amplify latent impressions in the mind. This is why devotion to the Lord and purity of mind are very important on the yogic path.
If the mind is full of latent impressions that are fearful, such people who have this kuNDalinI awakening experience can go crazy and not be able to return to 'normal' everyday life. In such cases the actual awakening does not result in any spiritual growth in that life (although it might be remembered in subsequent lives), which is why yoga started to be viewed with some skepticism by jnAna yoga adherents. The manipulation of shakti through prANAyAma is a rapid way to purify the mind, but mental purification can also be done through other means such as selfless action (karma yoga), devotion to the Lord (bhakti yoga) or contemplation of the Truth (jnAna yoga). After all the antidote to ignorance is wisdom and not dramatic experience. The dramatic experience accelerates and strengthens faith in the path and gives a fast track to purify the mind.
If on the other hand the mind has retained latent impressions of the Divine, then the most fabulous and ecstatic experience of the Lord in any of the divine forms is experienced. All humans share a common cultural memory of the divine experience. Jung would have called this an archetype. However, the specifics of the divine experience have become different among different cultures. So a Hindu might experience SarasvatI or Brahma or Hanuman, a Christian may have a vision of Jesus Christ or Mother Mary and a Muslim may experience a vision of Prophet Mohammad. In vedanta we call this the experience of saguNa Brahman, or Brahman (the sole Truth and Consciousness) experienced with attributes or guNas. Since the mind of the aspirant or devotee is filled with guNas, in this case sattva guNa, it experiences the divine forms of the Lord. If the mind were filled with tamas then it would experience terrifying demonic figures that amplify the latent illusory fears in the mind (arjuna's experience of VishvarUpa in BG for instance).
The dvaita philosophy says that while the individual soul or jIva can experience the Supreme soul or paramAtma, the two are distinct and forever separate. Advaita philosophy subsumes dvaita, just as relativistic mechanics subsumes classical mechanics. While non-duality can explain duality, duality is unable to explain non-duality. The dvaitin's experience stops short of the ultimate because of mental pre-conceptions.
Typically dvaita adherents are therefore unable to explain and reconcile the various forms of religious experience. A Krishna bhakta cannot understand or explain why a follower of Christ or Islam might have a similar spiritual experience. Therefore, dvaita philosophy does not allow one to understand and embrace the diversity of philosophical and religious traditions in the world. Dvaita is good if one is content to only interact with those who are followers of that same God. Jesus' statement 'I am the Way' (and some may feel the only way!) is fine as long as we are all Christians. But especially in today's world, it is only advaita that can allow us to all practice our spiritual paths and be tolerant, accepting, and most importantly, understanding of other faiths.
In this context, SrI RAmakRShNa, the great saint of India and one of the three true Gurus in my opinion, showed through the example of his own life that he could attain Allah and Jesus by following the paths of Islam and Christianity, respectively, and he confirmed that the ultimate experience and the ultimate ending place or goal is the same. In this sense, RAmakRShNa was the true advaitin (relevant to another related question that came up in satsang). A dvaitin would have clung only to Kali (RAmaKRShNa's chosen deity or IShta devatA), but it required an advaitin to show the identity of the goal of all dvaita paths.
If the yogi continues to practice sAdhanA and experience samAdhi beyond the saguNa stage (this now corresponds to the nirvikalpa samAdhi), then the mind becomes so purified and devoid of guNas that the nirguNa Brahman is experienced. This is the advaitic experience. It is complete identity with the true Self.
However, the paradoxical nature of Reality is that once the mind emerges from that state of non-duality to report back to the 'seeming others' the nature of this experience, the only truth that it can aver in the dual state is the affirmation of the Lord or the divine, both within and without. This is why the great advaita philosopher and Guru, SrI Adi ShankarAcArya composed so many devotional hymns in praise of the personal Lord.
Indeed, even the Upanishad says that these statements of non-duality are for the sake of instruction only. Strictly speaking, one who has the non-dual experience cannot communicate it in words. Hence, the Lord as dakshinAmUrti instructed the sages RShis in silence.
In a sense, the great mahAvAkyas such as 'aham brahmAsmi' cannot be uttered in truth because if "I am the Universal Self" then the absurdity of the situation is to whom is this statement addressed? And yet, to enlighten the ignorant, it is necessary to resort to such statements for otherwise the mind sunk in sense experience cannot awaken to the possibility of experience beyond the senses.
The difference between dvaita and advaita is therefore only seen in the latter's non-insistence on the supremacy of any one Personal God, acceptance of the non-uniqueness of paths to spiritual salvation, the non-denial of the unity of the individual and the Supreme, and the quiet affirmation of non-duality.
Even so, the dvaita philosophy or path of duality, is recommended for the vast majority of human aspirants. That is mainly to prevent the explosion of ego that can happen among the ignorant who even in the absence of any spiritual experience may aggrandize the notion of superiority to themselves, let alone identifying with the Supreme Self! Dvaita is better for the vast majority for sure, but there are those who are deeply dissatisfied with its fundamental propositions, and for those few, advaita is the recommended path.
These are all very delightful topics to discuss for those whose minds are so inclined.