Vishwaroopam is not an advaitic vision. It has an entirely different purpose and context, in the battlefield. Let us assume it to be dualistic - so what? It doesn’t contradict the philosophy of Advaita in any way. Please peruse the entire Vishwaroopam chapter of the Gita.
The scope and purpose of Vishwaroopam is clearly indicated by Krishna in Gita (11.32) and (11.33).
Vishwaroopam is to reveal to Arjuna that, even without his efforts, the warriors ranged against him in the battlefield will die, as their
‘Time is Up’. So Krishna is exhorting Arjuna to be the instrument in the
‘hands of Time’ and fight the enemies.
In the vision of Vishwaroopam, Arjuna sees the leading warriors of both sides rushing into the mouth of Time. See sloka (11.26) and other related slokas of the Gita.
Now, Arjuna survives the 18-day battle, so obviously it is not logical to see him
‘eaten up by Time’ in the Vishwaroopam vision.
Nor is it expedient, in the context of the purpose of making him fight in the imminent battle, to scare Arjuna off by showing his future death (which anyway occurs a full 36 years later), through the Vishwaroopam.
Hence it is quite logical for Krishna to not make Arjuna see
himself in the jaws of Time, through the Vishwaroopam.
Now did Arjuna truly 'see' Vishwaroopam, and if so how?
In Gita (11.8), Krishna states - "You cannot see my Vishwaroopa form, with this mortal eye. I will provide you with
'divya chakshus' or divine eye."
So, (if you trust the words of Krishna) - it is by no mortal sight, that Arjuna was enabled to perceive the Vishwaroopam. But, that Arjuna was able to perceive, must be clear from this.
And as I mentioned yesterday, (if you accept Krishna as a Brahmajnani), he can not only acquire the powers of the all-consuming Time, but also share such vision with Arjuna.
And as I quoted from Sankaracharya earlier,
Asmaakam apratyakshamapi chirantanaanaam pratyaksham (Brahmasutra bhashyam 1.3.3)
Meaning: - Even things that are beyond the limits of our perception, were matters of direct perception of our forefathers.
The metaphor is not mine, but one frequently used by Sankaracharya in his Bhashyam to explain Advaitic thought. See the Bhashyam to Aitareya Upanishad for example.
Again you are falling into the fallacy of the dualists. To consider ignorance as an opposite to Advaita, is to give an identity to falsehood/ignorance, separate from Brahman, and thereby postulate a duality. That is NOT the Advaita position, whatever else you name it.
Perhaps a perusal of the original texts of Advaita, and the Bhagavad Gita
No no. I learnt Advaita by perusing the original texts like the Sankara Bhashyams under the guidance of a Guru, and then had experiences that
strengthened my belief. That was what I said.
Sir, to discuss contradictions in Advaita you need to first ensure that your understanding of Advaita is right. How can you ignore the texts of Advaita and simply resort to "read and re-read"ing whatever stuff comes up in your google searches.
No, that is the failed logic used by the Buddhists. That might have worked in their fights with the dualists but not with the Advaitins. The Advaitic idea is, the characteristic being ‘experienced’, is inherent in and inseparable from the experiencer. For example, if you take the experience ‘Anandam’, that is not something separate from the experiencer. Because Brahman is sat-chit-anandam. (as the Upanishads proclaim). And in Advaita,
there is only Brahman, and nothing other than Brahman exists. So the experience of Anandam, or any other experience cannot indicate dualism.
In post 133, you had stated "Again I do thank you for getting me interested in trying to read Gita. I must say that this book with Bhashya translation is hard to follow for a novice. Chapters like 11 and even 10 are easier to read. I have only skimmed the book so far."
So far, I have enjoyed answering your doubts in the past several days. For my explanation I have used direct references from the Advaitic texts and to texts like the Gita.
If you are a sceptic that's great. If you see contradictions in Advaita, that's fantastic. Let me add...you are in alignment with many others who disbelieve in Advaita, like Sri Vaagmi
I don't consider myself an expert in Advaita. I am a learner, as I indicated in our earlier discussion too.
But apparently your understanding of Advaita or Vishwaroopam episode of the Gita, is not as per the standard texts. So, most of my time in replying, (though I like writing on Advaita), has been spent on explaining the basics of Advaita, or in repeating my posts, or quoting from the texts and so on.
So going forth, my humble suggestion to you is to not ask me your doubts without first perusing the original Advaita texts and the Gita. And if your doubts persist, please open a fresh thread here outlining your understanding
with references from the texts you have read, your doubts or the contradictions whichever way you see them, and then if I have time, we can discuss further.
