Reconciliation between three mathās of vedānta

 (Submitted to HUA course - ADVAITA, VIŚIŚTĀDVAITA AND DVAITA – THE THREE FLAVORS OF VĒDĀNTA ŚĀSTRA)

Abstract: This essay briefly introduces the problem statement and then attempts reconciliation by reflecting on (a) identifying commonalities, (b) learning from each other, (c) revisiting the framing (questions) of each paradigm (in each Mathā), can potentially be achieved. Reconciliation cannot be achieved by eliminating the key philosophical differences, which in reality, actually enrich and inspire each system. Only by appreciating the need to have those differences and the impact/value they have to the respective followers, we can develop true reconciliation, based on acceptance and respect.

I: Introduction

Each of the Mathas which are pre-eminently Vedic in origin and character, have three levels at which they guide their respective adherents – namely  through Karma (rituals, prescribed actions, injunctions), upāsanā (devotional absorption/meditation into divinity), Siddhanta (jnāna).  For the purposes of this discussion, I’d use the term Siddhanta to imply Philosophy, as gleaned from the intricate expositions of the acharyas of their respective traditions, through their commentaries, prākarana granthas. When it comes to discussing the need for reconciliation, we have to recognize that it’s mainly at siddhanta level that there have been important differences. At Karma or Upāsanā level, the differences are minimal (even though, the choice, method and the goal of the upāsanā is largely determined by the underlying siddhanta).

A simple example of Karma would be something like Agnihotrā or sandhyāvandhana, which most people with dvija samskara (i.e. upanayana) ought to do.  Upāsana, or single-minded absorption into devata/tattva (i.e. divinity), is born out of Vedas and developed further with the smriti śāstrās. Different upasana techniques are in vogue in all three matās – like Japa & Dhyāna – which can be found in sandhyāvandhana, for instance. There are also Vedic upāsanās like Aksipurusavidya (Ch. Up 4.15; 8.7.4), Antarāditya vidya (Brih.Up 5.5.2), Bhoomavidyā (Ch. Up. 7.23-26), Daharāvidyā (Chan.Up.8.1) etc.], are acceptable to votaries of all three matas.

Of-course the first sign of difference that can crop-up between sadhakās in upāsana path, from each of the different matās, is the question – who is the highest deity, to whom I perform upāsanā? The answer to this question, is given differently in each of the Matas. For example, Advaita – accepts the equal validity of all devata upāsanās, with the fine print that Saguna-Brahman or Ishwara, as revealed in Vedas, is ultimately worshipped in and through all the upāsanās. So, we have Saguna brahma bhaktas in Advaita sampradhaaya, who accept śanmatās (6-types of mathas) worshipping – Śiva, Śakti, Hari, Ganapathi, Subramaniya, Sooryā – each as saguna brahman.

The emphasis within the Dvaita sampradhāyā upheld by Sri Madhvāchārya and Visistādvaita of Sri Rāmānuja, is based on accepting Sriman Nārāyana (i.e. Sri Viśnu) as the Brahman or Ishwara (i.e. Brahman can only be Saguna, as per these sampradhāyā). Other sampradhāyās like Śaiva siddhanta of meikkanda devar, or Śivādvaita of srikantha – are very similar in siddhanta to dvaita and visistādvaita, respectively, with the only difference being Sri Sadāśivā being the ultimate (instead of Sri Viśnu).  So far we have discussed the difference that may arise at upāsana level, between the three matās.

When it comes to the siddhānta, which does influence the upāsana approach of each of the mathas, we find differences are more crystalized. These differences are necessary to put the followers of the respective mata, on firm footing w.r.t making spiritual progress, to their pre-defined goal, as understood from śāstra and sampradhāyā. We could examine the nature of the differences broadly speaking from three perspectives (1) epistemological, (2) ontological and (3) axiological. On broad inspection the epistemological differences are very minimal between the three siddhantas – like for instance they all employ similar epistemology (though not identical) and accept the categories of prakriti, puruśā, three gunās etc. They even come very close to establishing that knowledge of one’s Self as not entangled in the prakriti (ātma vidyā), is an important pre-requisite for making spiritual progress from the upāsana standpoint as well. In other words, overcoming dehātma buddhi and developing jīva bhava, so that we can sincerely follow the injunctions of the sastra to undertake prescribed karma and upāsana. Also, the axiological differences are very minimal – they all agree that end goal is Mokśā, which involves complete cessation of suffering and experience of limitless bliss. There are however prominent differences on the ontological level, which we shall briefly examine next. 

II. Brief overview of the Ontological differences

The key differences in Siddhantas are more ontological - like for instance the question what is the material cause of all duality?

a. Advaita has to posit the māyā, as Iśvara śakti, to explain how the changeless Brahman (of the nature of pure consciousness – prajnānam brahma – Ait.Up) appears as (“vivarta”) phenomena. Brahman as pure consciousness has no attributes, and non-dual, for it to remain changeless and impartite.

b. Visistādvaita explains the modification of Brahman into phenomena, by positing that Brahman is an inherent heterogenous whole – consisting of Ishwara, Chit (sentient beings) and Achit (Prakriti). Thus, any transformation is only transformation of the “Non-Ishwara” part of the Brahman. In its initial and final stages – Brahman despite being heterogenous, is an indistinguishable, inscrutable whole, which one ought to view as Ishwara who has everything else has His body-mind-complex.

c. Dvaita explains the phenomena through pratyaksha pramāna and strong Śruti vākya pramāna which upholds ontological duality. It says everything is different from each other (look for pancha bhedas in dvaita siddhānta literature) and that Brahman is not the material cause. Brahman is Ishwara Alone. Since Brahman is not the material cause, the problem of transformation of Brahman in whole or part is a moot point, in dvaita vedanta.

These ontological differences, have had an impact on the respective matās. The Advaita ontology, inspires a process of ātmā-unātma vivekā (which is mostly similar but not exactly same as what Visistādvaita and Dvaita adopts). This first step in Advaita is recognition of the Self as pure consciousness (which expresses itself as sākśi chaithanyam – witness consciousness to the changeful phenomena – namely body, mind, senses, personality and sense objects). The second step is then (guided by the teaching tradition of Advaita), to recognize this Self to be the limitless existence consciousness or Brahman (i.e. existence ~ satyam, consciousness ~ jnānam, infinity ~ anantam are not properties of Brahman, but svarūpa lakśana, indicators of Brahman). This is achieved primarily by adopting one or more of the vedanta prakriya like avasta traya Viveka, pancha kosha Viveka, adhyārOpa apavāda nyāya etc – to recognize here and now, beyond doubt that Self is Brahman. Here the attention of the seeker, is turned by the Guru to the experience of changeless-Self as pure consciousness – nitya, suddha, mukta, buddha, ātma svaroopam. This svaSvaroopa pratyabhijnya (recognition of the Self as the infinite) is brought about by śravanam, mananam and nididhyāsanam. Infact for uttama adhikāri (aspirant of the highest mental purity in whom śraddha is ripe), śravanam alone would bring about the direct recognition of one’s Self as limitless, non-dual consciousness (as per vivarna school of Advaita). This is not yogic samādhi, but instant recognition of the Self, in which the duality experienced does not conflict with one’s recognition of one’s nature as pure consciousness. Such recognition remains valid across all three states (waking, dream and deep sleep). For the rest of the sādhakās, consistent mananam, followed by nididhyāsanam is emphasized, post śravanam. In some cases, nirvikalpa samādhi is attained at the culmination of nididhyāsana, even though it’s not considered a requirement, as per Advaita siddhānta.

The Visistādvaita (VA) and Dvaita (D) siddhantas differs here. All though, all three siddhantas agree in principle that mokśā is complete cessation from suffering and attainment of highest sukam (atyanta dukkha nivrrti and paramārtha suka prāpti) – unlike Advaita, VA and D do not think it’s possible to attain “complete” cessation of suffering while in body, due to lingering identification with the upādhi or body/mind-complex (however thin that identification might be). So, they are not as eager to advertise the sadyOmukti (instant liberation here and now, upon knowing one’s Self), as Advaitins do. They emphasize on developing jeevātma bhāvā through jnāna (from sāśtra, sampradhāyā) and putting that jeevatma bhāvā through the rigorous (but joyful) path of upāsanā/yoga with Bhakti to Ishwara, to attain moksha. 

Advaita also upholds importance of  bhakti, both as Ishwara Bhakti and also as svasvaroopa anusandhānam (devoted ātmā vichārā). But since Advaita does consider the path of jumping from ātmā/unātma viveka to direct cognition of Self as Brahman (āparOkśānubhooti) as the direct path to mokśā, it can convey the impression that bhakti is at best only hetu for jnāna niśtā (i.e. being established in the knowledge that I am infinite). This is of course incorrect assessment of Advaita (e.g. BG 7.16 and BG 18.54 bhāśyās of Sri Sankara). It is to the jnāni that parābhakti is revealed says Gita – BG 18.55. So, there is bhakti pre and post enlightenment in Advaita. Pre-bhakti is hetu for sraddha and parābhakti after jnāna śravanam (as indicated in BG 18.54 – pls see Śankara Bhāśyā) is expression of Jeevan mukti.

III: Reconciliation

Reconciliation cannot be achieved by eliminating the philosophical differences between them, which are beautifully established by the respective āchāryās and the tradition of teachers. Also, from the study of their respective bhāśyās in the tradition, it’s clear that all three systems enrich and inspire each other, through their works – however polemic it might get. The philosophical differences do not seem to affect the impact and value they have for their followers. So, what is left to be done is to appreciate how they hold firmly to what they hold to be true. The reconciliation between the matās can be attempted on following lines : -

a)      Identifying the commonalities.

b)     Learning from each other

c)      Revisiting the framing of each paradigm

a)     Commonalities:

1.      In the Bhagavad gita, we see in chapter 2 between verses 11-29 – Atma vidya being expounded. Clearly from Sri Rāmanujā’s, Sri Sankarā’s and Sri Raghavendra Swāmi’s bhāśyās its clear the Ātmā/Unātma Viveka is acceptable by all three of them and is an integral first step. (Even though Advaita takes it further from the self (Jeeva)  to the Self - Brahmātman).

2.      In chapter 12 we see Bhakti to brahman (as saguna) is the easy path, compared to the Yogic approach to Nirguna brahman. This is acceptable to all three āchāryās. Also, Sri Sankara is very clear that for vast majority of us, Karma Yoga with Ishwarārpana buddhi and Ishwara prasāda buddhi, is the way. This bhakti-oriented approach, is highly overlapping with vast majority of votaries for all three matās, not just in principle but also in practice.

3.   Ishwara, avatāra, veda pramāna, bhakti, karma yoga, chitta śuddhi, understanding that jeeva is a sentient principle, understanding that prakriti is composed of three gunās, importance of smriti and Bhagavān Vyāsa’s purānas, itihāsās, a generic definition of moksha (cessation of suffering and attainment of highest) - all of these aforesaid principles are acceptable to all three matas. This is the biggest commonality. This accounts for nearly 99% public consciousness. This must not be forgotten.

b)     Learning from each other

1.      What can Advaita Brahmajigyāsus learn from Viśistādvaita and Dvaita Sampradhāyā?

In Advaita tradition,  every āśramee has adhikāra to brahmavidya, or Atma vichārā, but that requires a certain amount of punya viseśa, which can only come from Ishwarānughraha. Even the tat-tvam-asi mahāvākya of chāndogya upaniśad, is interpreted by Sri Śankara, based on Ishwara being the explicit meaning of Tat and Brahman as pure consciousness being the lakśanārtham or Tat padam. So besides explicitly advocating bhakti to Ishwara in the form of karma yoga, Sri Sankara’s siddhanta is primarily based on Ishwara vāda, with the only difference being, the possibility of recognizing our inherent divine nature as being of the same essence, as Ishwara (divested of his Ishwarattvam) – namely pure consciousness-existence-infinite.  

Inspite of all this, some modern Advaitins, claim Bhakti to Ishwara is optional and that mere textual deliberation without prior sadhana balam, can lead to recognition of one’s infinite nature. This is not acceptable to traditional Advaitin. So, modern Advaitins can do well to learn from the well-ingrained commitment to Ishwara Bhakti, Upāsana, from the Viśistādvaita and Dvaita siddhantas, which is so well integrated into their respective siddhantas.

Also, Advaita Brahmajigyāsus have to learn from Viśistādvaita and Dvaita (whether Saiva-or Vaishnava) sādhakās, about the importance of Yoga (i.e. Patanjali sampradhāyā). Yoga methodology enables us to attain a high degree of mental purity and control, which allows for Buddhi, to ascertain the Mahāvākya tātparyanirnayam, easily. This would be, as Śringheri Śankarāchāryā Śri Vidyāranya says “lighting lamp in a windless place” (in jeevanmukti-vivekā), else all Atma vichārā, as per Advaita-Vedanta Prakriya, would at best clear some doubts but not lead to doubtless recognition of one’s infinite Self. Not everyone has quietened/purified their manas, so that buddhi can dominate the discourse. So, for vast majority of us Yogānuśāsanam is unavoidable. This emphasis on Yoga/upāsanā, can be learnt from Viśistādvaita and Dvaita, followers. 

2.      What can Viśistādvaita and Dvaita followers learn from Advaita?

Similarly, Viśistādvaita and dvaita followers would gain the benefit of the inclusivist theology of Advaita, wherein followers of each of the śanmatās, are all placed on equal pedestal. There is no gradation in each of the six manifestation of Saguna Brahman, in Advaita Theology.

What Advaitins hope to aspire with jnāna is buddhi sukśmattvam, wherein the Mahāvākya taatparya nirnayam, results in akandākāravritti, which then abides in the Self, which is now revealed as pure infinite being. This is not necessarily accompanied by Nirvikalpa Samadhi, as some might think. In some cases, like with Sri Ramakrishna and Totāpuri, we see Sri Ramakrishna entering nirvikalpa samādhi, post Brahma vidya śravanam. This is not a necessity in Advaita tradition, even though its welcome. So, the possibility of realization of infinite Self, in Advaita, without recourse to (Nirvikalpa) Samadhi, is something the Visistādvaitins and dvaitins must be open to consider. 

3.      What can we learn from Viśistādvaita?

The exclusive path of prapatti (total surrender of body, mind and self) to Ishwara, as outlined in Viśistādvaita, is to be studied and absorbed. Advaita accepts the primary of the consciousness and believes that brahmavidya as Vritti jnāna will lead to abidance in svarūpa jnāna, which is identical with Self. It views this abidance as some kind of surrender, but the same effect could be had, if one explores the path of complete surrender to Ishwara, for ultimately Ishwara the master can liberate us too. 

4.      What can we learn from Dvaita?

The heavy reliance on Smriti Śāstrās like purānas, by Madhvāchārya, is very inspiring. Also, their intent is not to philosophize, but appears to keep it simple so that philosophy does not get in the way of bhakti. This in itself is a lesson for Advaita and Viśistādvaita, aspirants. 

c)      Revisiting the framing (questions) of each paradigm (in each Mathā)

One can view the three siddhantas as beautiful expressions of sincere search for truth, each driven by an innate urge to answer some fundamental paradigmatic questions. This is one way to reconcile is by acknowledging the need for philosophical differences, with the overarching guiding principle of respect.

1. Advaita tries to answer the impersonal question - like for instance - what is that by knowing which everything else becomes known ? or what is the changeless source of creation etc. ? The answer to this line of questioning leads to the Self of the nature of pure consciousness - pulsating incessantly within - anuvartamānam aham ity antaḥ sphurantaṃ sadā (Sri Sankarā in Dakśināmurthy aśtakam).  Knowing one’s infinite nature is identical with recognizing one’s Self, as “I am Brahman”.

2. Visistadvaita tries to answer or rather provide satisfactory answers to the question - In whom do I find fulfillment ? - Needless to say, it is in Sriman Nārāyana or Parameshwara (i.e. Lord Siva in śivādvaita), as one's upAsana samskaara might be. So, Brahman is the whole, and I am a part. My fulfillment consists in recognizing my part, in the divine whole – this is jnāna, which liberates.

3. Dvaita tries to answer the primary question of : - Is there anyone who is "independent" in this otherwise complex matrix of "interdependency" ? - The answer that shines forth from Sruti, Smriti is - its Ishwara on whom we are all dependent and He is the ONLY independent reality. So, leading a life in complete dependency on His will and grace, is the way to overcome come suffering and attaining eternal bliss (Mokśā).

Each of the mathās, succeeded and are succeeding in their respective missions. They carry out the intent of Śruti māta, to raise her children the right way (according to their natural law of growth), to propel us in our spiritual journey to Mōkśā.

IV: Conclusion

The following śloka is attributed to Swāmi Hanumān (which perhaps comes in one of the less known Rāmāyanās) captures the spirit of reconciliation between the three mathās in full.

deha buddhya tu daasoham, jiva buddhya tvadaamsakah, ātma buddhya tvamevaham, iti me nishchita matih - Swami Hanuman says to Sri Rama, “If I have deha buddhi, then I am your daasa. If I have jeeva buddhi, then you are whole, and I am part. And if I have ātma buddhi You am I”

This was often quoted by Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsā.

Only by appreciating the need to have the key philosophical differences and the impact/value they have to the respective followers, we can develop true reconciliation. Also, we must never lose sight of the commonalities, learn from each other and appreciate the different paradigmatic approaches to seeking truth.  One fact that can’t be denied is that they all emphasize on developing āśrayabuddhi to the nitya vastu (call it Brahman, Iśvara, Ātman, Self, Consciousness, Existence etc.). The differences only appear when we start articulating a siddhanta, to explain the nitya vastu and what our relation is to it.