Vedanta - Discussion Forum I (introductory))

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Let me add another analogy
a) Ocean and drops of ocean water
Jivatma - water drops
Paramatma - Ocean <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Do you know what I mean? Think of Brahman, Existence-Knowledge-Bliss
Absolute, as a shoreless ocean. Through the cooling influence as it were, of
the bhakta's love, the water has frozen at places into blocks of ice. In
other words, God now and then assumes various forms for His lovers and reveals
Himself to them as a Person.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Although Brahman as an ocean has been mentioned several times in Indian scriptures, the advaitic view of brahman is not that of an ocean. The ocean still is made of a multiplicity of water elements/molecules. While the brahman is one without a second, without any divisions or parts whatsoever.

What I am trying to say is that vedanta literature in India is more than the specific advaita and vishishtadvaita philosophies. There is clear mention in Gita of Shri Krishna as the one who is the self in all beings. In that sense he is none other than the narayana (the one who dwells in all beings). God as an all pervading unity is a prevalent theme in hinduism. Brahman is often described as 'all'. The advaitic view of brahman is not this. Brahman is not 'all' that appears. It is the one when the ignorant perception of multiplicity constituting the sense of 'all' is negated by a higher perception of 'unity'.

In this sense there is a real problem. Scriptures have many statements which would suggest the God/Brahman/Narayana exists simultaneously and independently along with the world. Advaita on the other hand clearly states that when one becomes conscious of the brahman, the world can not be real in that state.

Vishistadvaita takes this view that Narayana is present simultaneously with the multitude of jivas. In that sense it is faithful to a large body of scriptural evidence. However as I mentioned earlier, the philosophical problem of connecting 'one' with the 'many' is not tackled satisfactorily by vishistadvaita. It seems that merely giving a name 'narayana' is taken to be sufficient to explain the problem.

I don't think that is satisfactory. Advaita's construct of the 'unity' and 'multiplicity' being in mutually exclusive percieved realities hs more depth philosophically speaking.