[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Compare what KH says about "God" with the Dvaita Vedanta School

May 10, 2007 10:55 PM
by danielhcaldwell

Compare what KH says about "God" 
with what the Dvaita Vedanta School teaches

Master KH writes in Mahatma Letter No. 88 (Chrono ed.):

Pantheistic we may be called -- agnostic NEVER. If people are willing 
to accept and to regard as God our ONE LIFE immutable and unconscious 
in its eternity they may do so and thus keep to one more gigantic 
misnomer. But then they will have to say with Spinoza that there is 
not and that we cannot conceive any other substance than God; or as 
that famous and unfortunate philosopher says in his fourteenth 
proposition, "practer Deum neque dari neque concepi potest 
substantia" -- and thus become Pantheists....

. . . We are not Adwaitees, but our teaching respecting the one life 
is identical with that of the Adwaitee with regard to Parabrahm. And 
no true philosophically trained Adwaitee will ever call himself an 
agnostic, for he knows that he is Parabrahm and identical in every 
respect with the universal life and soul -- the macrocosm is the 
microcosm and he knows that there is no God apart from himself, no 
creator as no being. Having found Gnosis we cannot turn our backs on 
it and become agnostics....

This view of "God" is totally different from what, for example,
the Dvaita Vedanta School of India teaches.

Below are some relevant extracts from Wikepedia on Dvaita:

Dvaita...a school of Vedanta (the most widespread Hindu philosophy) 
founded by Madhvacharya, stresses a strict DISTINCTION between God 
(Vishnu) and the individual living beings (jivas). According to 
Madhvacharya, souls are not 'created' by God but do, nonetheless 
depend on him for their existence....

Like Ramanuja, Madhvacharya espoused a Vaishnava theology that 
understands Brahman to be endowed with attributes and a PERSONAL God, 

Dvaita asserts that THE DIFFERENCE between the individual soul or 
jîva, and God, (Îshvara or Vishnu), IS ETERNAL AND REAL. Actually, 
this is just one of the five differences that are so stated -- all 
five differences that constitute the universe are eternal....

Some teachings of Madhvacharya look different from mainstream 
Hinduism. One example is his doctrine of ETERNAL DAMNATION. Generally 
Hindus believe in the eventual salvation of every soul. Many of the 
doctrines in the Dvaita traditions resemble those of STRICT 
MONOTHEISM that is predominant amongst followers of Semitic 
religions. Dvaita provides a greater role to Bhakti than other 
schools of Vedanta. Followers of Dvaita believe in the supremacy of 
Vishnu over other deities including Shiva and do not believe in the 
Hindu concept of Trinity, Trimurti of Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva. Shiva is 
worshipped as a subordinate god (deva). Though this appears 
intolerant, it is because of the strong monotheistic belief in A NON-
IMPERSONAL GOD unlike Advaita for which the identity of God does not 
matter as it is Nirguna. Historically, Dvaita scholars have been 
involved in vigorous debates against other schools of thought, 
especially Advaita. Whereas Advaita preaches that Atman and Brahman 
are one and the same, which is not evident to the atman till he comes 
out of a so-called illusion, Madhvacharya puts forward the truth as 
Brahman (Vishnu) and Atman (soul) TO BE ETERNALLY DIFFERENT, with God 
always the most superior one. It is the same point that Madhvacharya 
reinforces in one of his doctrines:

"If you feel there is no God, how do you explain as to why you cannot 
free yourself from the limitations on Earth? If you feel YOU are the 
one in control of everything (as Advaita preaches that Soul and God 
are one and the same), then how come you don't enjoy happiness always 
and are also subject to sorrow and pain (as God is supposed to be an 
eternity of happiness)?"
caps added except the caps in YOU.
Quoted from:

Now some may say that all of the above doesn't really matter, but 
here is what Master KH once wrote to Mr. Hume:

As you say this need "make no difference between us" -- personally. 
But it does make a world of difference if you propose to learn and 
offer me to teach. For the life of me I cannot make out how I could 
ever impart to you that which I know since the very A.B.C. of what I 
know, the rock upon which the secrets of the occult universe, whether 
on this or that side of the veil, are encrusted, is contradicted by 
you invariably and a priori. 

My very dear Brother, either we know something or we do not know 
anything. In the first case what is the use of your learning, since 
you think you know better? In the second case why should you lose 
your time? You say it matters nothing whether these laws are the 
expression of the will of an intelligent conscious God, as you think, 
or constitute the inevitable attributes of an unintelligent, 
unconscious "God," as I hold. I say, it matters everything, and since 
you earnestly believe that these fundamental questions (of spirit and 
matter -- of God or no God) "are admittedly beyond both of us" -- in 
other words that neither I nor yet our greatest adepts can know no 
more than you do, then what is there on earth that I could teach 
Quoted from:


[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application