For the Hindu mystical tradition, the ultimately real is to be found within each human person
abracad, · Categories: externally authored, spiritualityby Malgorzata Duszak
The Hindu mystical tradition offers a lot to the spiritual seekers who pursue a deeper connection with God and who desire to understand better their inner nature, the universe, and life in general. It does not offer, however, the uniform insights into these matters. Hindu mysticism abounds in a great variety of concepts and theories relating to those issues all trying their best to arrive at the truths about them the closest possible. Much spiritual understanding as they share, there arose, however, a lot of conflicts throughout the centuries regarding the precise interpretation of some of those concepts. Different schools, philosophies, and teachers appeared who claimed to know exactly how the universe operates and what its secrets are.
One of the subjects that they all believed to have the correct insight into was the idea of the Ultimately Real. Three separate “schools†in particular occupy themselves enormously with this topic: Advaita associated with the master Shankara, Visistadvaita promoted by Ramanuja and Dvaita led by Mahva. All of them deal with the Ultimately Real in a similar manner inasmuch as they all agree on the existence of such the Absolute that they call Brahman. Furthermore, there appears not much discrepancy as to Its “whereabouts.†All three traditions teach that in order to find the Ultimate Reality one must not seek it in the external world but turn within, the portal to the understanding of Brahman.
However, the agreement seems to end here and the differences on the Ultimately Real within begin piling up. The very nature of the Absolute and the self’s experience of it takes on a different quality in Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva’s traditions. The soul in the Shankara system merges with Brahman in unity whereas the other two insist on its distinct identity. For Advaita followers, God, humans, and the universe constitute one while others conceive them separately. Finally, it is the very experience of self-realization and enlightement that differs. It does indeed take place within, but what goes on in there nonetheless varies.
To begin this comparative analysis, some light must be shed on what the three traditions are. The Advaita system was started by the Indian scripture interpreter and spiritual leader in the sixth century A. D., Shankara. [1] His school of thought bases its philosophy primarily on the notion of non-dualism, that is the unity of God, universe, and self. Ramanuja, the propagator of the second great Hindu system, Visistadvaita, lived slightly later in 1017 A. D. to 1137 A. D. [2] Zaehner refers to his philosophy as “non –duality with a difference.†[3] Finally Sri Madhvacarya (1238-1317) was the founder of the third Hindu system in question, Dvaita, dualism, or, as Madhva called it himself, ‘Tattvavada’ (realism). [4]
The three systems differ enormously on a number of metaphysical concepts. Without delving into the source of their alleged truths, it can be stated that they do not share the common understanding of how the world works. One subject, however, has not rendered itself to the debate, and that is the belief in the Ultimately Real, the Absolute Brahman.
Brahman represents the highest principle, the ground of all existence, the Supreme Being beyond all description, the infinite essence that underlies the entire creation, the All. “He†is the goal of every spiritual quest and the source of all ultimate values, truth, beauty, righteousness, and bliss. Brahman, as the Supreme tatva or Reality, [5] represents the transcendental concept not possible to define. The mystics attribute to it three qualities. The Absolute is eternal (sat), alogical (cit) and blissfull (ananda). [6] It is the source and the sustainer of the entire creation as well as its final destiny.
Crave to know that from which all beings take birth, that from which being
born they live, and that towards which they move and into which they merge.
That is Brahman. [7]
Brahman represents the immortal self in all beings. It is that aspect of the existence that is immovable, eternal, beyond space and time. The Ultimately Real, Brahman, constitutes the indestructible element present in all that exists. The Hindu texts refer to it as Self.
The Self is eternal, all-pervading, unchanging…The Self is the same forever:
unmanifest, unthinkable, still. [8]
Brahman, as the immortal, divine substance permeating and sustaining all beings represents for the Hindu mystics the Ultimate Reality that the three systems of Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva agree on. Furthermore, none of them questions the concept of seeking it primarily within. Since Brahman’s infinite consciousness underlies all the existence, to seek it within appears a logical consequence.
The Hindu traditions teach that suffering comes as the result of the ignorance of the true self and to recognize its true nature as the eternal essence means to end the suffering, the fleeting phase of our existence. The self-realization entails the discovering, or unveiling the Self that already is and always has been present within. [9]
The Self always is. There is no knowing it. It is not some new knowledge
to be acquired. What is new and not here and now cannot be permanent. [10]
The Self represents the Ultimately Real and the path to it leads through the contemplation of one’s own depth. The Upanishads make definite statements about this:
Life eternal, higher than the high, indeed, shines here in the cave of the heart.
Those striving for it realize it. [11]
…Those who…realize Him as abiding in the Heart become indeed immortal. [12]
and
In the space within the heart lies the controller of all, the lord of all, the
ruler of everything. [13]
Through the practices of self-inquiry, a spiritual seeker develops the intuitive seeing, or dars’ana, [14] and discovers the Ultimate Real, Brahman, in the most profound corners of one’s self. The Self emerges to the mystic as the Inner Controller, [15] the inner self as well as the transcendental Sat. [16] He or she realize the immortal ground of their soul, as Buber calls it, “the original prebiographical unityâ€, [17] the infinite consciousness of Brahman constantly involved in the creation and preservation of the universe.
Upon the realization of one’s true nature, the mystic knows his or her self within as the creator of all. Self is Brahman. Self is the Ultimate Reality itself. Self is the entire universe.
I am a child whose playground is the universe. All beings and things are my
toys in my Divine Game. [18]
Kshemaraja puts it this way:
The individual soul…in whom consciousness is contracted possesses the
Universe in a contracted form. [19]
Within the space of the individual self there dwells the portal to the Infinite Brahman, the Ultimate Self. To experience the immortal self within means to know the Absolute Brahman Itself. It means to realize that one has always been Brahman Itself.
It is precisely here that the agreement between the three philosophical systems seems to wane. The experience of the Ultimately Real within begins to alter depending on what mystical tradition one decides to ascribe to. As it has been previously stated, all three “schoolsâ€, Advaita, Visistadvaita as well as Dvaita share the belief in Brahman as the Absolute Reality. They also believe that the self within constitutes the “vehicle†to reach it. However, the disagreement emerges when the discussion shifts to the precise nature of the encounter between the self and the Absolute Brahman.
To explain the conflict briefly, the Shankara system equates the inner, immortal self Atman with Brahman whereas the other two insist on the preservation of the separate identities of individual souls. For the Shankara followers, self-realization involves the unveiling of one’s true nature as that identical with Brahman. To experience Atman within is to feel one’s own essence permeating the entire creation, manifest or unmanifest. It is to know oneself as Brahman, the Ultimate Reality.
That which is the most subtle-this whole universe has That as its self.
That is the Real. That is the Self. That you are. [20]
Atman, the highest self, represents for Shankara that pure, infinite and transcendental state of being that is not by any means different from Brahman. They are identical. [21] “What is embraced and what embraces are one and the same.†[22] The individual soul has no distinct personality when merged with the Absolute. The two become one, or, rather, the soul re-discovers it has never really been separate. To search for God as distinct from Atman is for Shankara students pointless.
Those who make a difference in mind between the self and God, cannot see
God, and labour in vain. [23]
This understanding of Atman being identical with and merging with Brahman poses a problem for both Ramanuja and Madhva. The Visistadvaita philosophy claims that the liberated self does merge in the final stage of self-realization with the Absolute, but does still retain its distinct personality. [24] Whereas in the Shankara tradition the self dissolves into Brahman, in the Ramanuja’s interpretation this does not happen. Instead, the soul undergoes perfection in the process of communion with God. “There is unity between the seeker and the sought, not by way of…identification but by inclusion of the subject into the infinite and immanent object of communion and adoration.†[25] In this experience, the addition rather than the subtraction of essences takes place. [26] In such an encounter, the soul retains enough of its individuality to worship and love Brahman [27] as still a reality beyond itself.
Madhva, alike Ramanuja, maintains the distinct nature of both Brahman and self even after the liberation of the latter. [28] For him the souls are somewhat akin to the God’s essence, but different nevertheless. Both Brahman and soul possesses the qualities of sat, cit, and ananda. [29] Their inherent nature is bliss and consciousness, [30] but apart from that the souls and the world are entirely dependent on Brahman. [31] They are His prototypes, but never identical to Him. [32] Chakravarti explains that souls in Madhva philosophy could be regarded as servants and Brahman as overlord. [33] They might possess some common features with the Absolute in regards to kind , but they differ enormously from It in order and degree, Sharma clarifies further. [34]
The very nature of the Ultimate Reality as found within varies in the three systems as well. The Advaita tradition considers Brahman to represent neither a personal Being nor an impersonal concept but rather a transcendental state that the soul experiences at the evaporation of all subject/object duality. [35] Ramanuja, however, inspired by the devotional poetry, [36] regards Brahman as a personal Being, the object of worship [37] and not the abstract idea of the Advaita followers. He claims that only the bhakti relationship can lead the soul to its full perfection. [38] As Sivaraman states, Ramanuja “concretized the image of Narayana the Supreme Deity out of the limitless panoramic vision of the Brahman of Shankara.†[39] Similarly in Madhva tradition, God is not the transcendental state of the Advaita, but a Supreme Being with countless manifestations, attributes, and forms. [40]
This leads the discussion to the next subject that all three philosophies differ on, and that is the Ultimate Reality as one with or distinct from universe and souls. As seen above, the Shankara system holds the same identity between Atman and Brahman. It also believes Brahman to represent a state with no subject/object sense of duality. It does not come as a surprise, then, to discover that the Advaita system claims the intrinsic unity between Brahman’s material manifestations, soul-Atman and Brahman itself. According to this belief, all exists as one.
You now think that you are an individual; outside you there is the universe,
and beyond the universe is God…This idea must go. For God is not separate
from you and cosmos. [41]
The Ultimate Reality as discovered within by the Advaita followers presents itself, then, as the non-dualistic experience of God and “His†creation all constituting one. According to Shankara, the entire world is “imbued with self-hood,†[42] or Brahman. Self only appears as God, individual beings, and the world as distinct, but in reality they are all one. The Ultimate Reality is one. As can be suspected, both Ramanuja and Madhva do not support Shankara’s view. Ramanuja perceives reality as consisting of three categories: the world, the spiritual realm of souls and God. [43] Elsewhere he draws a body/soul analogy where the universe represents a body of Brahman and soul stands for Brahman “Himself†implying further a clear distinction between the two. [44]
Madhva alike does not consider Brahman, soul, and matter as unity. For him, they all represent separate realities where solely God exists independently. The world and soul function separately from the Supreme, but they are both still dependent on “Him†for their continuation. [45] Furthermore, Madhva proclaims the plurality of souls with each having a unique and distinct identity. [46]
Finally, but categorically not lastly, the very goal of the enlightenment, or self-realization, differs for all three philosophies under discussion. All Shankara, Ramanuja, and Madhva define the last stage of the spiritual progress in the framework of the entire belief system that they constructed. In the Advaita, the direct experience of one’s own self Atman as the Supreme Brahman represents the ultimate state in the discovery of self within. [47] To realize all the existence as one, as Brahman, that is enlightenment.
For Ramanuja, to state that one’s goal is to recover oneness with God does not seem correct. According to him, the soul can only realize itself as a tiny fraction of the Supreme Being. When this takes place, it then begins to crave and love Brahman to whom it owes its existence. It is only here that it begins to really know “Himâ€, which marks the final stage in the spiritual search. [48] Madhva, in turn, defines the self-realization process as the discovery of one’s soul’s dependence on Brahman as “His†reflection, or prototype.
The analysis of the contrasts between Advaita, Visistadvaita, and Madhva could continue for hundreds of pages, but, unfortunately, this essay has only the limited number of them to use. As a result, it must draw some conclusions and end. As it has been pointed out, all three traditions share the similar beliefs regarding the existence of the absolute Reality, Brahman. They do not differ on the idea to seek it first and foremost within either. The self, without no one debating it, constitutes the gateway to the Ultimate Being.
However, the experience of the encounter with that Supreme Being changes in three systems. Advaita self dissolves blissfully into Brahman and realizes that it has always been one with “Himâ€. The Ramanuja and Madhva, in turn, retain the identity of the individual soul. Shankara teaches unity of all manifestations as one with Brahman whereas the other two regard the world, soul, and God as three separate realities. Brahman in the Advaita system signifies the transcendental state of non-duality or nor-division. Visistadvaita worships Brahman as the force existing as if outside or beyond the soul.
Despite the fact that Shankara, Ramanuja as well as Madhva have long been departed from this dimension (?), the debates and philosophical discussions undeniably continue up to this day. Hindu spiritual seekers all long to reach and understand the Ultimately Real veiled somewhere beyond it all. They seem to agree that It is not, however, veiled from us at all. It dwells right there, in the deepest corners of our hearts and souls. It dwells within. Remembering Shankara, Ramanuja, and Madhva’s different interpretations, to seek It means probably to arrive at different perceptions of what It actually is. However, should it prevent us from pursuing Its beauty? It definitely will not.
BIO:
Born and raised in Poland, Duszak graduated from the English college in Elblag after which she left to the United States to work as an au-pair. She stayed in the USA for another year travelling across the continent. She discovered a lot about the spiritual and esoteric matters in that time, and deepening the knowledge of the subject remained her most cherished passion ever since.
Malgorzata also graduated from the Religious Studies program at the University of Queensland in Australia. Despite lots of personal turmoils, she continued to explore life following her never-ending desire to venture into the unknown regions of the world and of her mind.
She has been a spiritual adventurer and the true “experience collector,†as she calls herself, for years. She participated in the variety of religious and spiritual events and ceremonies on three continents, open to always increase her connection with the truths hidden beyond the ordinary perception. Her questioning mind and metaphysical curiosity has taken her into the most unusual situations and human encounters. She studied with Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons as well as with more alternative philosophers. She explored the Occult, New Age, the UFO phenomena, participated in ancient as well as modern ceremonies, visited native lands, deserts, jungles as well the busiest cities.
Her ongoing odyssey to find the ultimate truths might provoke the questions and answers within us all so that our own odyssey may continue forever onward.
She is currently living in Central America, soon to prepare her move back to Europe.
www.facebook.com/odysseyofanairhead
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Baba, M., The Everything and the Nothing, Sheriar Press, Beacon Hill, 1989
Carman, J. B., The Theology of Ramanuja; An Essay in Interreligious Understanding, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1974
Chakravarti, S. C., The Philosophy of the Upanishads, Nag Publishers, Delhi, 1979
Deutsch, E., Advaita Vedanta; A Philosophical Reconstruction, An East-West Center Book, Honolulu, 1969
Ed. by George, V. A., Self-realization (brahmaanubhava): the advaitic perspective of Shankara, The Council for research in values and philosophy, Washington, 2001
Comp. By Klostermaier, K. K., The Wisdom of Hinduism, Oneworld, Oxford,2000
Lott, E. J., God and the Universe in the vedantic theology of Ramanuja, Ramanuja research society, Madras, 1976
Mukerjee, R., The Theory and art of mysticism, Asia Publishing House, London, 1960
Sharma, B. N. K., Philosophy of Sri Madhvacarya, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1986
Ed. by Sivaraman, K., Hindu Spirituality; Vedas through Vedanta, Crossroads, New York, 1989
Srinivasachari, P. N., Mystics and Mysticism, Sri Krishna Library, Madras, 1951
Zaehner, R. C., Hindu and Muslim Mysticism, Schocken Books, New York, 1969
[1] Ed. by V. A. George, Self-realization (brahmaanubhava): the advaitic perspective of Shankara, The Council for research in values and philosophy, Washington, 2001, p. 5
[2] P. N. Srinivasachari, Mystics and Mysticism, Sri Krishna Library, Madras, 1951, p. 198
[3] R. C. Zaehner, Hindu and Muslim Mysticism, Schocken Books, New York, 1969, p. 95
[4] B. N. K. Sharma, Philosophy of Sri Madhvacarya, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1986, p. xv
[5] Srinivasachari, p. 360
[6] ibid, p. 313
[7] Quote from Taittiriya Upanishad, E. Deutsch, Advaita Vedanta; A Philosophical Reconstruction, An East-West Center Book, Honolulu, 1969, p. 27
[8] Quote from Bhagavadgita, Compiled by K. K. Klostermaier, The Wisdom of Hinduism, Oneworld, Oxford, 2000, p. 86
[9] Ed. by K. Sivaraman, Hindu Spirituality; Vedas through Vedantas, Crossroads, New York, 1989, pp. 372-4
[10] quote from Maharsi in Sivaraman, p. 374
[11] quote from Kaivalya Upanishad in ibid, p. 275
[12] ibid, p. 276
[13] ibid, p. 275
[14] Srinivasachari, p. 48
[15] quote from Brihadaranyaka Upanishad in Klostermaier, p. 87
[16] Srinivasachari, p. 354
[17] Zaehner quoting Buber, p. 29
[18] Meher Baba, The Everything and the Nothing, Sheriar Press, Beacon Hill, 1989, p. 70
[19] Kshemaraja in Klostermaier, p. 33
[20] quote from Chandogya Upanishad in Klostermaier, p. 14
[21] Deutsch, p. 48
[22] George, p. 63
[23] quote from Sakta Tarangini in R. Mukerjee, The Theory and art of mysticism, Asia Publishing House, London, 1960, p. 232
[24] S. C. Chakravarti, The Philosophy of Upanishads, Nag Publishers, Delhi, 1979, p. 147
[25] Sivaraman, p. 262
[26] ibid
[27] J. B. Carman, The Theology of Ramanuja; An Essay in Interreligious Understanding, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1974, p. 108
[28] Sivaraman, p. 340
[29] ibid, p. 301
[30] Sharma, p. 259
[31] ibid, p. 28
[32] Sivaraman, p. 304
[33] Chakravarti, p. 147
[34] Sharma, p. 318
[35] Deutsch, p. 9
[36] Sivaraman, p. 264
[37] E. J. Lott, God and the Universe in the Vedantic Theology of Ramanuja, Ramanuja Research Society, Madras, 1976, p. 146
[38] ibid, p. 80
[39] Sivaraman, p. 299
[40] ibid, p. 300
[41] Sivaraman quoting Maharsi, p. 369
[42] Sivaraman quoting Shankara, p. 73
[43] Zaehner, p. 15
[44] Lott, pp. 41 and 86
[45] Sivaraman, p. 301
[46] ibid, p. 304
[47] George, p. 65
[48] Zaehner, pp. 47-8
See also:
Filed in: externally authored, spirituality
Leave a Reply