Question: I have been reading Bhagavad Gita, Upanishad’s like Mundakopanishat, Khathopanishat and some works by Shree Swami Vivekananda, Shree Swami Chinmayananda (Chinmaya Trust, Bangalore) and some Dvaita school of thoughts by Shree Madhvacharya. There are so many twist and turns and inter connections between one and other, I realize, I can’t figure out some of the things without a Guru’s Blessings and I don’t have all the books and perhaps time as well .To begin with these are my doubts
1) “When Shree Madhvacharya (incarnation of God Vayu) preached Dvaita, did he mean people following Advaita should quit and follow? Is Dvaita for “Realization and liberation”?
2) Did he really mean Advaita is misguiding people by its MAYA vada? My concern is both Shree Sankaracharya and Shree Madhvacharya are believed to be incarnations of God (Lord Shiva, Lord Vayu respectively) So I can’t think of any one lying for any sake. Both the doctrine’s have to be true isn’t it?
3) If both are true considering both the schools of thought address spirituality in different angles and hence approaches differ, still I would have some questions like i) Dvaita Philosophy says “Brahman is not the material cause of universe? Does this mean, Brahman (Parabrahman, Ultimate God) does not create this earth and other planets but only are dependent on him? “If this true then who creates? And also what about Advaita philosophy which says ÒExistence of universe is because of only one real ‘Chaitanya’ that is Brahman?
ii) Dvaita maintains that the distinction between Atman and Brahman is eternal, and union after salvation doesn’t mean that Atman will get merged with Brahman.
My understanding is that “Advaita is conveying the same message but at a higher level” Here is how I interpret:
Advaita never denies the Brahman with form. It accepts both forms and formless (impersonal) Brahman. So when Advaita says “Atman gets
merged/united with Brahman after salvation/liberationÓ it may well mean like following 2 ways
a) Atman the individual soul is freed of cycle of birth and death and is living in Gods planet along with God blessed by him forever, offering transcendental service to the Almighty Lord. This is when Brahman is perceived as with form
b) And when Brahman is thought as of impersonal, the salvation may mean ÒThe individual soul after liberation is like Brahman in terms of nature and quality and hence Atman essentially is like merged with Brahman”. It may not be to state that Atman is equal to Brahman but he becomes like him, or he becomes one in him”. So physically they me be different but conceptually they are same, just one.”
Can I interpret like above..? Is it right?