Re: Can Advaita philosophy and Vaishnava views be "merged"?
Originally Posted by
Elizabeth108
Can Advaita philosophy and Vaishnava views be "merged"? Is there such a school within vaishnavism that accepts/involves the advaita views? Or are they (Vaishnava and advaita views) two completely, separated views/ ways / teachings?
Before the muslim destruction, the kashmir valley was the hot beg of religious evolutions and breakthroughs. Along with the more publisized buddhism and shaivism, vaishnavism was also very popular in kashmir and was strictly a monist philosophy. This I was reading in the introduction to manthanabhairavatantra. I don't know any kashmiri monist vaishnava text or tradition ever survived - you may want to research a bit. However one must be clear that strict monism of tantras is not same as shankara advaita vedanta.
The agamic vaishnavism which forms the backbone of the practice of most of the orthodox vaishnavas generally preaches dvaita-advaita in line with shaiva agamas from which they are influenced. All the agamas following dvaita-advaita and tantras following para-advaita were developed in kashmir ... though both shaiva and vaishnava agamas now survive as living traditions only in the south.
It is not surprizing that agamas which dealt with practicalities of religious practice would preach dvaita-advaita, where the god is both transient and imminent in creation. Jiva is forever connected to the God, but doesn't become identical with God after moksha (i.e we don't become God after moksha, which would be a very difficult concept to base one's worship on for a devotee). Instead we become essentially his nature - yet not him. "Sameness" instead of "Oneness" as somebody put it.
However hindu societies who practiced agamas also found it necessary to prove their vedic-ness and developed all these darshanas based on vedanta. Brahmins could not think of living outside vedic dictum.
But agamic religion including vaishnava do not need to cling to any of the vedantic theories ... agamas are themselves too rich in philosophical depth and understanding, and discusses matters of consciousness in much more depth & clarity than the vague poetic estacy of vedanta.
Yet the brahmans of this land could not bear to be called avaidik - so they took up both. For me all of vedic, vedantic and agamic religions are precious as testiments of spiritual evolution and also a history of faith in this land. Also vedic and agamic religions are complimentary to a large extent with different focus. But I follow a evolutionary view of religion, for those who can't bear the thought of vedas being anything else than the one and only source of all religion, and one and only proof of god (which it is clearly not), need to subverse others to one. In the process we have cooked up many theories which are far less original and profound and which now stand as neither vedic nor vedantic or agamic...but something we would want each of these to be.
The medieval darshana movement (advaita, vishistadvaita,dvaita,shuddhadvaita,achinta-bheda-abheda, blah blah mumbo jumbo), the bhakti movements are all examples of such efforts.
I have discarded them and decieded to understand religion as a human invension and God as an aspect of humanity, and study the human discoveries made about consciousness in vedas, vedanta and tantra ... without the need to cook up one true religion. But I am ok to be called a stupid fool and a radical.
What is Here, is Elsewhere. What is not Here, is Nowhere.
Bookmarks