The Individual Soul: God Or Spark Of God? part1
Mon, 02/04/2008 - 19:27 — admin
The proposition that the real identity of the living being is Brahman or atman (spirit) is also accepted by both schools of thought but it is at this point of understanding that vehement disagreement enters. Shankara interprets “Brahman” to refer to God alone, Who exists in His all-pervading, undivided splendor. The Vaishnavas, however, assert that “Brahman” refers not only to the undivided Supreme Lord, but also to the jivas (individual souls), who are expansions of His internal, or spiritual, potency.
On the basis of their respective conclusions, both schools of thought have presented elaborate commentaries on the Vedic scriptures. These commentaries, of course, are as different as night and day. The argument between the Vaishnava and Mayavadi communities as to which commentary is the correct one has gone on for many centuries and it continues up to this very day.
MICHAEL: If the conclusions are as extreme as you say they are, they can obviously not both be correct. And yet, from my limited understanding, both viewpoints seem to be supported by arguments which are well thought out and highly developed.
TEACHER: Having spent a considerable amount of time examining the question at hand, I have learned that the impersonal conclusion propagated by Sripad Shankaracharya, while obviously well thought out, cannot stand up to close scrutiny. In short, there are many philosophical defects and contradictions in this system, and as we continue our discussion I will try to point out the major defects in a systematic manner. For me to say that I discovered these defects as a result of my own philosophical inquiry would be both true and untrue. It is because I inquired into the matter that I became aware of the weaknesses in Shankara’s philosophy, but I am by no means the first person to discover them. All of these arguments or variations of them have been presented in great detail by Sri Ramanuja, Sri Vishnu Swami, Sri Nimbaditya, and most recently and boldly by Sri Krishna Chaitanya and his disciplic descendants.
Those who engage in the culture of nescient activities shall enter into the darkest region of ignorance. Worse still are those engaged in the culture of so-called knowledge.Actually, it’s not surprising that non-identification with the material body is recognized by both the Vaishnavas and the Mayavadis. This is a central tenet of the Vedic scriptures, and both schools of thought present themselves as followers of the Vedic conclusion. The Vedic scriptures are filled with literally thousands of verses whose import is identical or similar to the verses I’ve just mentioned. So there seems to be agreement on this fundamental principle.
~Sri Ishopanishad, Mantra 9
Unfortunately, most of humanity spends the majority of its time in the culture of ignorance. We cultivate ignorance by serving our tongue, belly, genitals, and other senses like obedient slaves. The vast majority of our energy goes into this mad pursuit of sense pleasure. Left with frazzled nerves, frustration, anger, jealousy, envy, greed, hate, loneliness, and confusion; we seek an escape in alcohol, cocaine, heroin, and a myriad of other legal and illegal consciousness dimmers. This is the cultivation of ignorance.
Science of Identity Foundation – Siddhaswarupananda
The proposition that the real identity of the living being is Brahman or atman (spirit) is also accepted by both schools of thought but it is at this point of understanding that vehement disagreement enters. Shankara interprets “Brahman” to refer to God alone, Who exists in His all-pervading, undivided splendor. The Vaishnavas, however, assert that “Brahman” refers not only to the undivided Supreme Lord, but also to the jivas (individual souls), who are expansions of His internal, or spiritual, potency.
On the basis of their respective conclusions, both schools of thought have presented elaborate commentaries on the Vedic scriptures. These commentaries, of course, are as different as night and day. The argument between the Vaishnava and Mayavadi communities as to which commentary is the correct one has gone on for many centuries and it continues up to this very day.
MICHAEL: If the conclusions are as extreme as you say they are, they can obviously not both be correct. And yet, from my limited understanding, both viewpoints seem to be supported by arguments which are well thought out and highly developed.
TEACHER: Having spent a considerable amount of time examining the question at hand, I have learned that the impersonal conclusion propagated by Sripad Shankaracharya, while obviously well thought out, cannot stand up to close scrutiny. In short, there are many philosophical defects and contradictions in this system, and as we continue our discussion I will try to point out the major defects in a systematic manner. For me to say that I discovered these defects as a result of my own philosophical inquiry would be both true and untrue. It is because I inquired into the matter that I became aware of the weaknesses in Shankara’s philosophy, but I am by no means the first person to discover them. All of these arguments or variations of them have been presented in great detail by Sri Ramanuja, Sri Vishnu Swami, Sri Nimbaditya, and most recently and boldly by Sri Krishna Chaitanya and his disciplic descendants.