Advaita: What is it and What are its Consequences?

In this post, I intend to examine a prominent Hindu Philosophical view: Advaita or Non-dualism. I answer four questions to help you understand what it means and its pros and cons. 1. Advaita: What is it? 2. Advaita: What are its deficiencies? 3. Advaita: Why does it seem Impossible? 4. Advaita: Why does it seem Impractical? In the end, I briefly explain Kristu Yogaha (Union with God through Jesus Christ), and contrast it with Advaita. Some of the material in this post is borrowed from my previous writings published in Academia.

 

1. Advaita: What is it?

The Brahmanical Hindu worldview combines Advaita(pantheism) and polytheism. We can understand it in two ways: philosophically and mythologically. Philosophically, Advaita(non-dualism) considers the cosmos as collective consciousness (Brahman) and existence as its emanation (Maya).[1]Like a drop in the ocean, every being is a part of the Brahman. So, unlike the Western model, the creation and creator are not two but one. 

 

Mythologically, Brahma-Vishnu-Maheshis a manifestation of Brahman, and perceived reality is Brahma'sdream (Maya). So, Brahmagenerates, Vishnuoperates, and Mahesh (Shiva-Shakti) destroys existence. Finally, they merge into the Brahman, and the cycle begins again. Therefore, to a Hindu, all living beings have spirit, gods are a part of the creation, God is a collective spirit (Brahman) whose emanation is Brahma, and reality is Brahma's dream (and hence, an illusion).[2]The ultimate salvation (Moksha) of a soul is to escape the cycle of Karma and rebirth by uniting with the Brahman. 

 

Gita recognizes four paths to attain Moksha:

1.  Gnana: the path ofknowledge, which emphasizes philosophical Hinduism (cognitive).
2.  Bhakti: the path ofdevotion, where devotees have a personal relationship with the gods (avatars) in a dualistic framework (affective).
3. Nishkama karma: the path of duty-bound works without personal attachment to results, which is evaluative. 
4. Raja yoga: the path ofmeditation (the ultimate way to dissolve into the cosmic consciousness and, thus, attain Moksha).

The framework appears holistic because it emphasizes the cognitive, affective, and evaluative aspects of salvation. 

 

2. Advaita: What are its deficiencies?

First, Adavita is deficient in assuring Moksha. Nobody gets an assurance of Moksha even if they are born as a Brahmin male and are under the guidance of the best possible guru.To many Hindus, Moksha isa distant, unreachable dream that needs an arduous process. It is, however, possible to bridge present life and future salvation by successive rebirths that progressively enhance a person's merit, reflected by the caste one is born into in future births.

 

Hence, following his Dharma (caste-based duty), a Shudra can climb up the caste ladder and be reborn as a Vaishya, Kshatriya, and Brahmana to attain Moksha eventually. Hindus do not have the concept of people's inherent sinfulness. Hindus who abide by their Dharmawill not concede that they are sinful and need a savior. Thus, most Hindus believe every soul is immortal, has multiple lives, and transmigrates. It keeps entering fleshly bodies to resolve experiences, learn life lessons, purify its Karma (actions), and finally attain Moksha.[3]There is no guaranteed Moksha for anybody. 

 

Second, Advaita fails to address people's concerns like provision, healing, and guidance. Hindu gods and goddesses (avatars of Vishnu, Siva, and Shakti) and their mediums, like sorcerers, astrologers, and black magicians, assist people in obtaining these. Thus, they chip in to bridge this void. To Hindus, an avatarmeans either one among their many mythical gods, one among God's various periodical and temporal appearances (a theophany with a non-human body), or a partial manifestation of the Brahman. An avatar isnot co-equal or co-eternal to the Brahman (God).[4]  

 

However, Hinduism does not recommend people resign to their fate. Instead, it challenges them to do good works to reach Moksha.[5]Still, this view, in its entirety, makes sense only if one views it with a pantheistic lens because, ultimately, Moksha is a merger into the cosmic consciousness. Pantheism views God as an impersonal force that indwells everyone and everything, good and bad. Thus, in effect, it equalizes unfairness and justice and invites people to receive Hindu fatalism. 

. 

 

Hindu fatalism condones people “being born as invalids, mosquitos or untouchables due to their past wrongs.”[6]Moreover, how does one test the validity of this theory, as people cannot remember their past lives? Hindu scholars appeal to the authority and insight of Hindu sages who were non-political and aboveboard.[7]This appeal makes it more difficult to accept the Advaita worldview at face value.

 

3. Advaita: Why does it seem Impossible?

Gita 16 argues that there is something called a perspective of goodness. Then, by implication, evil needs to exist. Good and evil would necessitate duality (making Advaita =non-duality impossible). Further, it would also point to the need for a moral code to separate good from evil. God is holy and utterly devoid of corruption. However, experientially, we know that people (created beings) are sinful (have sinned and broken the moral code at least once). Therefore, God needs to be separate from creation. In other words, God and creation (sinful people) cannot be the same. 

 

Some Advaitists say, "There is nothing called sin." However, the same people would still believe that some people are born into lower castes because of their past evil Karma or sin. Gita 18 considers only those who possess the Brahmana traits as real Brahmanas. However, no human can flawlessly possess Brahmana qualities: peace, austerity, self-control, courage, charity, calmness, modesty, non-violence, honesty, gentleness, forgiveness, and generosity. Thus, Gita makes it impossible for anyone to remain perfect from birth. Therefore, God and creation (sinful people) cannot be the same. 

 

Scientifically, we know that nothing existed at the point of the origin of this universe. If so, since the creation was nothing at this point, God would also become nothing. We also know that creation would cease to exist in the end. If so, the creator would cease to exist at that point if we follow the logic of Advaita. However, God –the creator– cannot cease to exist. Therefore, Advaita seems impossible. If we consider God as an amoral Advaita-kind-of-nothingness, he does not need to interfere with his creation at all. Such a God will not require morality, will not answer people's prayers, nor will they enter into a relationship with humans or end their sufferings.

 

4. Advaita: Why does it seem Impractical?
Suppose somebody believes there is nothing in this world and that everything they see, experience, and own is an illusion. Then, their greatest enemy to this realization would be their identity. They would want to lose their identity like a drop of water loses its identity in a vast ocean. Why would such a person own anything at all? 

 

Thus, their biggest enemy in this world would be the Aadhar card. The Aadhar, if linked with their PAN card, will give out all the information about their wealth and debts. Such an antar-yami yogi will not publicize their meditation. Instead, they would try to escape from all worldliness and give away all their possessions and worldly ties.

 

I wonder what such a person would eat since food and carrion are illusions to them. Even if they eat, they may not feel any difference between them. Further, what would such a person wear? They may not prefer to wear any clothes because weather changes or moral values cannot affect them. They will never have any anxiety about anything present or future.

 

Perhaps they will live in constant forgetfulness, forgetting anything that happened a moment ago since they are always living in the present. Some of them can close their eyes, hold their breath between their eyebrows, and focus on the root of their nose –the location of their nasal spirit– for hours together. Honestly, I have not seen such a yogi mahatma in real life. That is why Advaita is non-practical.

5. Advaita versus Kristu Yogaha: Christ in us and Union with God by God's grace.

When we unite with Christ by grace, it can be termed Kristu Yogaha in Hindustani terms. Yoga means union. Jesus said, "I and the Father are One. (John 10:30) On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you." (John 14:20) Even so, it's not the same as Advaita where the creation merges with the creator, and loses its identity, purpose, and function like a drop in an ocean. 

Instead, Kristu Yogaha is a union with God through Christ. Here, a human unites with God, yet maintains his identity and purpose. We don't get dissolved in God and lose our identity or purpose of existence, nor do we become God himself (Aham Brahmasmi). God is God. Humans are humans. Though we unite with God, our functions and position still remain seperate. We can't become God, and have the same authority, position, and power as him. But we become God's children, inferior to him in authority and position, yet sharing in his essence and love.

---

[1]“Brahman - Definition of Brahman in English | Oxford Dictionaries,” Oxford Dictionaries | English, accessed June 27, 2017, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/brahman.

[2]A Western mind makes sharp distinctions between God and creation, spiritual and natural beings, ascribes different kinds of life to various living organisms, assumes an objective reality, and regards God as a personal being separate from creation. Paul G. Hiebert, “Cultural Differences and the Message,” in Anthropological Insights for Missionaries(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 1986), 146–47.

[3]John Hunt, AMG’s Handi-Reference World Religions & Cults(Chattanooga, Tenn.: AMG Publishers, 2008), 182.Emmanuel James, A Study of Religions, 3rd ed. (Bangalore, India: Theological Book Trust, 2016), 227.

[4]Therefore, while the term avatar is helpful to describe the descent of Christ into this world, it may convey some wrong concepts about the being of Christ to a Hindu unless appropriately qualified. Again, “In Hinduism, there is no concept of an avatar taking away people’s sin by dying for them.” Subin Raj, “Why Jesus Is Not an Avatar: A Critique of the Indian Hindu and Christian Incarnation Idea of Jesus as ‘avatar’ based on Nicene Affirmation for Future Missions,” Missio Apostolica22, no. 1 (May 2014): 97–98.

[5]Fatalism: yielding to one's lot in life and accepting the world as it is ordained to be. Tharoor,Why I Am a Hindu?87–89.

[6]Tharoor, Why I Am a Hindu,5, 90-91.

[7]Tharoor, Why I Am a Hindu, 90-92.