Advaita Vedanta: Qualified Non-Dualism

[Qu'otar]

Here is a starting point to a discussion on Advaita Vedanta. The Advaita varietal is split into Strict Non-Dualism (All is One) and Qualified Non-Dualism (All is One from the perspective of Brahman, but is the Many from the perspective of objective reality). I pretty much go with the second in my philosophy.

 

[Qu'otar]

Here are some good wiki links:
My exposure was through Vivekananda: Advaita Vedanta
Allah is Brahman
Brahman as the personal God is Ishvara
The selfless Self is Atman

The Brahman as consciousness in Sankhya (a dualistic school of Hindu philosophy as compared to Vedanta) is Purusha and the realm of the universe (Garden) is Prakriti

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Why don't you go with the first one?

Do you distinguish Brahman from Parabrahman?

 

[Qu'otar]

Why don't you go with the first one?

Do you distinguish Brahman from Parabrahman?

I can hopefully posts links, now...

In talking from the progression from atman to Atman, one must come face to face with Ishvara. As Atman, one is One, so it is Barhman at that point. in my understanding.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Qu'otar —

The Advaita varietal is split into Strict Non-Dualism (All is One) and Qualified Non-Dualism (All is One from the perspective of Brahman, but is the Many from the perspective of objective reality).

Is not the second position a relative one, subsequent to the first?

Non-Dualism has always been somewhat discreet in my Tradition (Catholicism), although it is explicitly stated in some of the more arcane and obscure sources.

There's a little books by an anonymous author "a Monk of the West" that argues that Christian non-dualism is neither pan(en)theism nor monism, and that there is no incompatibility between orthodox Christian doctrine and the strictest understanding of non-dualism in the Advaita Vedanta.

God bless

Thomas

 

[Qu'otar]

Hi Qu'otar —

Is not the second position a relative one, subsequent to the first?

Non-Dualism has always been somewhat discreet in my Tradition (Catholicism), although it is explicitly stated in some of the more arcane and obscure sources.

There's a little books by an anonymous author "a Monk of the West" that argues that Christian non-dualism is neither pan(en)theism nor monism, and that there is no incompatibility between orthodox Christian doctrine and the strictest understanding of non-dualism in the Advaita Vedanta.

God bless

Thomas

Hi Thomas,

I am not precisely sure what you mean about the second being relative to the first. Could you explain further? I do think that the first is true, from God's perspective. I am more concerned with my perspective.

I found the book you refer too, but I cannot afford it at this time. That is a real shame, as I started my religious journey in Vedanta and would like to resovle it in Christianity. I have trouble with the Trinity, so I am Unitarian.

I am a panentheist. I also think God is both impersonal (Brahman) and personal (Ishvara)

Nameste.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Q,

What do you see as unresolvable discrepancies between Vedanta and Christianity?

 

[Qu'otar]

Q,

What do you see as unresolvable discrepancies between Vedanta and Christianity?

It is an issue of putting it into words that other Christians understand. Plus, I donot know enough about Christian Philosophy, myself.

It is the same as resolving other Hindu gods, such as Krishna, Vishnu and Brahma and Shiva into the personal Godhead (Ishvata) then to the impersonal God (Brahman).

To me, in both cases, what it is is a spiritual ladder of consciousness. It is an inside/outside thing. God is in the Father. Christ is in the Father and the Father is in Christ. Therefor, the Father is in God.

So, God pervades all of creation (parentheism) and all consciousness is pervaded by him, too, including polytheistic concepts like the Trinity.

The Father (superconsciousness), the Mother (The Holy Spirit/The World) and the Son (Krishna/the starting religious consciousness).

Nameste.

PS. I responded to you other post, but I included a link, so it is held up for moderation. Any way the moderators can clear me to post links?

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Q,

You do not think you need to post links. Many people here are already well-versed on these ideas and do not need links. We can simply discuss the ideas.

I see what you are saying about God, but Vedanta contains the idea that there is something even 'greater' than God. Would you agree?

"It is an issue of putting it into words that other Christians understand."

--> It is much more than that. I don't think you can reconcile Christianity and Vedanta. Do you?

 

[Qu'otar]

Q,

You do not think you need to post links. Many people here are already well-versed on these ideas and do not need links. We can simply discuss the ideas.

Fair enough. Still, it would be nice to post some links...

btw, I just found this, which I have not read: (archive.org/stream/Sarvepalli.Radhakrishnan-Brahma.Sutra-The.Philosophy.of.Spiritual.Life/Radhakrishnan-Brahma.Sutra-The.Philosophy.of.Spiritual.Life#page/n0/mode/2up)

I see what you are saying about God, but Vendanta contains the idea that there is something even 'greater' than God. Would you agree?

Well, is God a personal or impersonal God in Christianity, or both? I think he is commonly viewed as a personal God in Christianity and an impersonal God in Islam.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

I think it's safe to say God is personal in Christianity, although I do like the idea that Brahmān (accented) is personal whereas Brahman (unaccented) is impersonal, an idea that has become lost in modern Christianity. Not sure about Islam. But I'm still waiting to hear your ideas about Brahman vs. Parabrahman, with the idea that Brahman (as well as Brahmān) is God.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

I also think God is both impersonal (Brahman) and personal (Ishvara)

I also think Internet Forum Posters are both impersonal (temporary beings) and personal (Me ---I don't know about other people).


Personal God means Person
[yeah yeah, by God I refer to God as Transcendental to Time and Material Guna etc]

If God is a Person ---then our samsara cycle of being is clear,
we are meant to gain the audience of that Majestic Person known as God;

God is a person I am a Soul [who in essence is a Persona] --together we are persons.

[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]​

Or if God is a NON-Person, we are in a free-for-all.

Yet the lessons of life and History is often not heeded nor paid attention to by the masses.

And the bosses are attending to narrow fields of expertise.
And the Monarch is burdened with self-hubris and impotency.
Alas, kali yuga has us on the run.

But it all Depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. No?

 

[Qu'otar]

I think it's safe to say God is personal in Christianity, although I do like the idea that Brahmān (accented) is personal whereas Brahman (unaccented) is impersonal, an idea that has become lost in modern Christianity.

Did Christianity ever have an impersonal conception of God?

Not sure about Islam.

He is considered impersonal, to my understanding.

But I'm still waiting to hear your ideas about Brahman vs. Parabrahman, with the idea that Brahman (as well as Brahmān) is God.

I tried, but the links blocked the message. To my understanding, in Vedanta, Parabrahman is the personal Godhead, or Brahmān. Brahman is the impersonal God within which is creation AND Parabrahman. Parabrahman is the Father in Christianity. I am a little confused as to whether he is Lord Vishnu (I believe so to Vaishnavites) or Ishvara. There are different meanings to Parabrahman.

Here is where I think Vedanta has some very interesting ideas in this area: (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta#Three_Levels_of_Reality_.28Ontologically.29) which it would be GREAT if I could post links. No newbie, no bot, brothers and sisters.

 

[Qu'otar]

I suppose my core question regarding the personal God is whether Ishvara is Lord Vishnu? There are so many different models in Hinduism. I had thought Ishvara was the reflection of Brahman in Maya, and that Ishvara then creates Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.

Perhaps Krishna gets one to Vishnu is the lower representation that gets you up to Ishvara, like Christ leads to the Father which leads to God. Not a simple fit between the two.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

Vedanta contains the idea that there is something even 'greater' than God. Would you agree?

As per my understanding, the "Conclusion of the Veda [aka, veda-anta]" is:
Artha - acqusitions [aka, "stuff" as the comedian George Carlon called it.]
Kama - pleasure
dharma - dignity etal
moksha - liberation

Since these things 4 activities are common pursuits of all creatures, from the insects up to demagogues from up on high, within the material world [a comos of 'time and transcience and manifest space'] . . .

so therefore, I would re-state the question thus:

Vedanta contains the idea that there is something even 'greater' than the ---cosmic machine and all it's temporary material manifestation of demigods, men, animals, etc., with their false names, fame, egos, etc..

Would you agree?

Beyond the acquistion of artha-kama-dharma-moksha is
"krsnas tu bhagavan svayam"
The 'adi-purusha' is the Originating source of all "Things & beings & light & space" ---that auto-cratic self-manifest primevial mystery behind mysteries is a Transcendental Absolute Personage.

God is the reservoir of stuff . . . Yes.
So too, God is the reservoir of creative pursuits, yes, God is the reservoir of personal artistic sensibilities

. . .

We eternal souls in the temporal material world are here "enjoying" outside the abode of the Supreme Soul.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

I suppose my core question regarding the personal God is whether Ishvara is Lord Vishnu? There are so many different models in Hinduism. I had thought Ishvara was the reflection of Brahman in Maya, and that Ishvara then creates Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.

Perhaps Krishna gets one to Vishnu is the lower representation that gets you up to Ishvara, like Christ leads to the Father which leads to God. Not a simple fit between the two.

Krishna first expands his 'internal' shakti into the personage of his Brother, Balarama.

Balarama expands to the 4 plenary expansions of Vishnu (the quadruple of: Shankarshan, Pradyumna, Anirudhra, and Vasudeva).

Then, the next plenary expansion is Maha-vishnu [this is now Krishna's 'external energy'] thus forming the manifest material worlds & cosmos.

Maha-Vishnu's plenary expansions are:
Karanadakashayi-Vishnu,
Ksirodakashayi-Vishnu,
Garbhodakashayi-Vishnu.

Then comes Brahma's birth.
Then comes Shiva's birth.
Then comes Manu's birth.
Then comes all the varieties of living creatures, humans, devas.
Then comes lessons from the Vedas.

Then comes endless eons of time . . .
To be continued as before . . .

 

[Thomas]

I think it's safe to say God is personal in Christianity, although I do like the idea that Brahmān (accented) is personal whereas Brahman (unaccented) is impersonal, an idea that has become lost in modern Christianity.

Lost on you perhaps ... not on us.

Check out the apophatic tradition ... or ask any orthodox Christian ...

God bless

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Hi Qu'otar

I am not precisely sure what you mean about the second being relative to the first.

OK. The way I read it:
The Advaita varietal is split into Strict Non-Dualism (All is One)...
So I read it as within the content of SN-D, 'All is One' which is my terms I would say 'The One is Absolute'.

and Qualified Non-Dualism (All is One from the perspective of Brahman, but is the Many from the perspective of objective reality).
I think I've answered my own question, but is Q N-D a different doctrine to S N-D?

When I asked the question I was wondering if one could hold both view, with Q N-D being subsequent to S N-D.

I have trouble with the Trinity...

So do a lot of people! I have some 'perspectives' on it, if that might help?

I am a panentheist.

I have trouble with that! Seems like wanting the best of both worlds to me.

I also think God is both impersonal (Brahman) and personal (Ishvara)

I think God is impersonal (Father), personal (Son) and anonymous (Holy Spirit) ... There, that's probably made it worse.

How about:
God the Father is
God the Son is the self-knowing of the Father
God the Holy Spirit is the communication of that self-knowing that leads to selfhood-as-such and beyond the self ...

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Q,
　
I would not say Parabrahman is the personal Godhead. Brahman is the Godhead. Parabrahman is beyond Brahman.
　
"Brahman is the impersonal God within which is creation AND Parabrahman."
　
--> I see it differently I do not see Brahman equal to Parabrahman.
　
I’m curious. I see no need to distinguish a personal God from an impersonal God. Is this an important distinction in Hinduism?
　
"Parabrahman is the Father in Christianity."
　
--> I disagree. Brahman is the Father in Christianity, Brahmān is the third person of the Trinity, but Parabrahman is beyond them all. Does that make sense?
　
"There are different meanings to Parabrahman."
　
--> I disagree. I see only one meaning, which is that Parabrahman is beyond Brahman. The very word Para means beyond.

 

[Qu'otar]

Krishna first expands his 'internal' shakti into the personage of his Brother, Balarama.

Balarama expands to the 4 plenary expansions of Vishnu (the quadruple of: Shankarshan, Pradyumna, Anirudhra, and Vasudeva).

Then, the next plenary expansion is Maha-vishnu [this is now Krishna's 'external energy'] thus forming the manifest material worlds & cosmos.

Maha-Vishnu's plenary expansions are:
Karanadakashayi-Vishnu,
Ksirodakashayi-Vishnu,
Garbhodakashayi-Vishnu.

Then comes Brahma's birth.
Then comes Shiva's birth.
Then comes Manu's birth.
Then comes all the varieties of living creatures, humans, devas.
Then comes lessons from the Vedas.

Then comes endless eons of time . . .
To be continued as before . . .

What is the tradition with this interpretation? Are you claiming this is Vedanta? I have never ever heard of it. I ask out of interest. Honestly, if there are other monotheistic Hindu traditions, we should integrate them.

Nameste.