Thursday, October 16, 2014

[gita-talk] Dwait (duality) and Adwait (non-duality), please explain


In a recent sadhak daily message Swamiji  said :   When there is no such thing named as "Dwait"  (Duality), then in that, what is good and what is bad ? 
 Please kindly share the word meaning (shabdaarth),   implied meaning (bhaavaarth),  and implication of the word "Dwait",  by which I can understand what Swamiji has said.  
Also please try to explain  the word meaning (shabdaarth),   implied meaning (bhaavaarth),  and implication of the word "Adwait" as well. 
 It will not be sufficient to say -  that which is not "dwait" is itself called "adwait". 
Thank you very much.   
Humbly,   Sadhak

स्वामीजीने कहा है : जब द्वैत नामकी कोई वस्तु ही नहीं है तो फिर उसमें 
क्या अच्छा और क्या बुरा?
द्वैत शब्दका शब्दार्थ, भावार्थ और  निहितार्थ बतानेकी कृपा करें जिससे कि 
स्वामीजीका कहा हुआ समझमें आ जाय।  
अद्वैत शब्दका शब्दार्थ, भावार्थ और निहितार्थ भी बतानेकी कृपा करें। 
यह कह देना पर्याप्त नहीं होगा कि जो द्वैत नहीं उसे ही अद्वैत कहा है।   
Dear Sadaks,
You are in to understand as common man, saying your leg, your hand etc. Means, you are telling your hand, which implies that you are separate from you. This is Duwaitha (Duality).But when you think your hand is not part of you but part of Prakurthi, YOU alone stand. Then you become like Jada Baratha, Christ, Buddha, Gyaneswar, Tukaram etc as NON Destructible. Example Prahalad never feared any punishment of his father. So his body and Athuma , Paramathuma became as ONE PART. Many of think my wife, son, daughter etc. Nothing wrong. That thought is given by GOD, so that you think my GOD also. The problem starts, when you show attachment on them in not detaching when they neglect you. There are number of Bakthas all over India  when they lost their son/ daughter, said "Oh GOD YOU gave me and YOU took it". How many of us can do this. If we do we are ADVAITHA else my son and me duwaitha
 Dear All,

What is dvaita ? and what is advaita ?.

Both these words are vedic words  and hence we need to understand them as Veda uses them.   It is quite wrong to use them for names of schools of thought, as it is often done.

When Veda is eternally present,  to claim that  'Brahman alone exists'  would be quite against that eternally present Veda,  and to call such a vedAnta as advaita would be against Veda, because that is not how Veda uses the term advaita.

The term 'advaita'   is used  in the Veda to imply  uniqueness,  adviteeya.   There is nothing in this world that is like Parabrahman.   That is His uniqueness.   Hence advaita means Parabrahman.   It never meant, there is nothing else apart from Brahman.   After all,  it is quite silly to talk about uniqueness where there is only one thing.  Veda has indeed accepted a hierarchy among all that exists as this universe.

Similarly,  when the AcArya himself says, "ekam tu shubhamuddishTam ashubham dvaitamucyate"  to  call his vedAnta as dvaita  would be quite wrong.

Solution ?.

Enquire into VedOpanishats without getting hung up on these words.

Jay N.
HINDI BLOG: http://


Posted by: Sadhak <>
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (2)
All past 4925+ messages are accessible and searchable at

28,000+ sadhakas

A list of all topics discussed in 2009 along with their links are at



No comments: