Vedanta - Discussion Forum I (introductory))

[Sunder]

Shruthi says, 'The knower of Brahman becomes Brahman.' This is a statement. The Mahavaakyas say, "AHAM Brahmaa'smi" and not Aham Brahma asthi. It is said, 'Thath Thvam asi'. These statements directly point out that the Jeeva is none other than the Brahman. Else, the maha-vaakhyas would say, "You are *like* Brahman", or that you are a tiny version of Brahman. We see that Shruthi does not declare so.

Also, how can one BECOME Brahman by knowing 'IT' unless the knower is already IT? Thus, Advaitha explains that the false notion of 'I am the body' is given up, and 'I am Brahman' is realized. This fact is supported by the Chandogya Upanishad with the incident of Indra and Virochana taking up Brahmacharya under Prajapathi.

Vishishtadvaitha does not have a convincing explanation of the Mahavaakhyas if the distinction between jeeva/jagath/ishwara is clearly demarcated.

Speaking of Narayana, Nirguna etc. I now resort to Purusha Suktham, where it mentions that 'Tripaadasaamrutham dhivi', and 'Thripaad-oordhva Udaith Purushah, Paadosya Ihaa Bhavaath Punah'. Only a small fraction of the Nirguna is actually appearing as the Universe. The Nirguna, is conceptually beyond and apart from the drama of Creation. Here, Vishishtadvaitha talks only of the smaller portion as the Narayana, which caters to and maintains this Universe. The Above and Beyond seems to be beyond the scope of Vishishtadvaitha.

If this is the case, i.e. scope limitation. Then there is absolutely no contradictions in the philosophies.