Before I discuss further, let me clarify that what I intend to discuss is about Advaita and Dwaita which are often wrongly translated as Monism and Dualism respectively.
Advaita is an Indian philosophic concept which implies that there is a single reality in this world. The diversity we see around is actually ‘appearances’ of the same single entity. Whether it is we ourselves, the material world around us, or even the supreme overseer or creator of this entire existence, are all one and the same. There are no multiple things.
And obviously, Dwaita means just the opposite. It says that diversity is the fact of existence. No two things are same. There is not one but many ‘things’ in this world of ours.
Having clarified these philosophic concepts, let us come to the question.
If you see the history of Indian philosophy, there have been constant debates between rivalling groups each championing one of these two as the real truth. On one extreme we have Philosophers like Sankara who firmly believed and propagated his version of Advaita. On the other end we had stalwarts like Madhva who went to any extent condemning Advaita and stressed on Dwaita.
What is interesting is that both these great masters claim that whatever they say is the obvious conclusion of the very same religious scripture namely the Upanishads!
How can the same scripture speak in multiple voices? Or did it really do that?
Even today, we see many Gurus vociferously asserting and supporting one of these two views. There have been attempts to reconcile between these diametrically opposite views by philosophers like Ramanuja. Ramanuja took a purely devotional stand where he viewed this entire universe, that includes you and me, as the body of God who resides in this ‘universal’ body. Diversity exists, but there is only one independent reality that is God! So, his is a form of qualified Advaita.
But what do Upanishads say?
This is a tricky question. Same Upanishads are interpreted in different ways by different Gurus depending on which stance they have taken. According to Sankara Advaita is a natural conclusion of the Upanishads. But Madhva disagrees. He uses all the logic and reasoning at his disposal to prove that Dwaita and only Dwaita is the right interpretation of the Upanishads!
It is a quite involved technical debate and I will not be able to get into the nitty-gritty in the available time.
Like Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, I take the view that both Advaita and Dwaita are right!
How can two diametrically opposite views ever be the same?
To prove my point, I refer to the ‘creation story’ explained in the Upanishads. Unlike other religious texts, the Upanishads don’t describe ‘created’ as separate from the creator. They symbolically describe how that is possible. One such description runs as follows.
“In the beginning, there was only the Atma. There was nothing else. And this Atma thought ‘Let me be many’. First it created the material world from itself. These material entities combined to form physical bodies. And then the Atma entered these material bodies by taking the form of individual souls. That is how this world came into existence.”
If you observe closely, the multiplicity in this world is nothing but the forms taken by the one and only Atma itself. That is hinted by the initial wish ‘Let me be many’. That means it is the same thing that became many different things, be it the inanimate material things, or the bodies made up of these material things, or even the individual souls that liven up these inert bodies. So, it is the same Atma that exists in various forms. That is Advaita. But the fact that there are multiple forms makes Dwaita also as true.
Wait a minute.
If Atma has taken several forms, then the ‘original’ Atma is no longer there?!
No, it is still there as Atma itself!
How can something be there as something and at the same time be something else?
That is because the Atma is beyond space and time. Unlike the ‘forms’, Atma is not limited to space and time. So, it can be in multiple forms all at once.
Ok. But if the forms are all same as Atma, then why are they helpless when it comes to suffering?
That is because the limits of space and time make it vulnerable to suffering. As long the Atma is in some form it does not have its full potential and so it is not ‘all capable’. This limitation is not something that is imposed by some external thing but it is self-imposed by the Atma itself!
If the Atma has undergone transformation, then does it not make it non eternal? Something that undergoes changes has to ultimately perish?!
Not so. Even after the Atma has taken the forms, it remains unchanged. That is why it is said “PoorNasya poorNamaadaaya, PoorNamEvaavaShishyathE” – even when you exclude the world from the Atma, Atma remains as it was.
So, when an Advaiti says “Aham Brahmasmi”, it is the ‘form’ referring to itself before the form was taken. So, there is no contradiction. So, also when a Dwaiti says no two things in this world are identical. He is referring to the world of forms and the formless Atma that has taken the forms. As long as the forms exist, neither the forms are identical to each other, nor any of them is identical to the Atma. That is Dwaita which is also correct.
What will happen when an individual gets liberated as a result of intense spiritual practice?
Nothing happens except that the form just ceases to continue. Neither the individual merges with the Atma, nor he becomes the Atma. It is just that the separation is removed.
Each of my arguments are based on various Upanishadic sentences. For brevity and due to limitation of time I have skipped the details.
A series discussing questions and answers on Yoga/Philosophy. © Dr. King, Swami Satyapriya 2020-21
Dwaita,adwaita- is like the perception whether a glass is half full or half empty.its how you look at it!
ReplyDeleteYou are very right. But thing is not as simple as that. It is a highly complex subject.
Delete