I was going through an article on monism and dualism(http://www.deathreference.com/Me-Nu/Mind-Body-Problem.html ) and hence started contemplating on the use of the two terms in literature. There are multiple uses of the two terms and it is kind of difficult to describe GV as either monistic or dualistic. BVT says that a real idealist must be dualist in the essay " Bhagvat " and he disparages "monism"( identified here with kevala advaita). We are more comfortable accepting madhavacarya's dualism rather than sankara's kevala advaita though GV is kind of a bridge between the two according to me.( ramanuja and nimbarka also have built that bridge though)
But again the problem is that in the west only two realities are conceived: mental and physical. Distinction between the two realities amounts to dualism and non-distinction amounts to monism. In the Eastern traditions soul is placed beyond mind and body and is separate from both of them--according to some people this belief amounts to dualism as there is sharp distinction between material and spiritual( aka I am not the body). At the same time when we look at explanation based on adavya jnana tattva, we say that nothing apart from krsna exists: we qualify this statement by saying that absolute exists along with his energies which are intermingled with him and simultaneously one and different from him. So actually GV can be thought of both as dualistic and monistic depending on the context. Actually Ramanuja's philosophy also has a monistic reality with variegatedness: isvara, prakriti and jiva(so both dualism and monism). It is similar Hegel's organic whole composed of variegated parts.
I think that a level of monism or dualism bestowed towards the absolute reflects our own perception bound in time and circumstances, and not the real position of the absolute. But the absolute allows us such comprehension as the means of understanding himself/herself from different perspectives, and revealing his/her true nature. It's the absolute who controls the faucet of comprehension, not us. But in turn, that comprehension also depends on us.We are more comfortable accepting madhavacarya's dualism rather than sankara's kevala advaita though GV ...
For example, there's monism, but because we talk about the absolute, so we also find its natural opposite, dualism. They're both possible because they come from the absolute. At one time monism seems to be vogue, but then around the corner dualism shows up. Enjoyed separately, they only reveal something, but not the full taste of the absolute.
There is infinite, but there's also finite. There's a spiritual sky and prakrti too. There's a place of ultimate happiness and joy, but there must be a place of darkness and suffering too. Absolute wouldn't be the absolute if it cannot reconcile polarities. Bluntly, although it's infinite, the absolute wouldn't be the absolute if it cannot experience the finite. And we wouldn't be able to experience and fall in love with the absolute if we don't taste those realities the absolute dwells in.
But again the problem is that in the west only two realities are conceived: mental and physical ...
We can also say there are physical and spiritual realities in the west, in fact. Earth is round and east, west, spiritual and physical change as we change our meridians. As mentioned in one post before, we can find as many similarities or differences between the GV and Christianity, or between the east and west as we allow and our heart is ready to recognise.
For example, in the heart of an exalted devotee such as Srila Prabhupada, a world of understanding and ultimate reconciliation was manifested and thus everything he did was a miracle. To paraphrase the words of Mother Theresa, he didn't have time to both judge people and love them -- he had to choose just one.
I would say we are theistic monists—aham evasam evagre . . .. Krsna (brahman) is everything—sarvam kalav idam brahma. When sastra says everything is Brahman, that dos not mean that all things/distinctions are done away with. It means all things are Brahman. So, a number of things exist and they are all Brahman. Furthermore that Brahman is a person, and this should make the point more clear, for a person, as opposed to a void, is one but multifaceted and thus not without distinctions.
It is also important to note that this kind of monism makes for a metaphysic that addresses positively humanity's search for love. In other words it validates our drive for love, rather than dismissing it as kevala advaitavada does.
Not only Ramanuja and Nimbarka, but Vallabha with his suddhadvaita (pure monism) metaphysic also posits a nuanced form of monism from that of advitavada.
At any rate, in today's wold I would go in this direction, calling myself a theistic monist. This to me is an approach that does not go against the current stream of thought concerning the spiritual and at the same time seeks to add something (much) to the popular notion that all is one.
I would say we are theistic monists—aham evasam evagre . . .. Krsna (brahman) is everything—sarvam kalav idam brahma. When sastra says everything is Brahman, that dos not mean that all things/distinctions are done away with. It means all things are Brahman. So, a number of things exist and they are all Brahman. Furthermore that Brahman is a person, and this should make the point more clear, for a person, as opposed to a void, is one but multifaceted and thus not without distinctions.
It is also important to note that this kind of monism makes for a metaphysic that addresses positively humanity's search for love. In other words it validates our drive for love, rather than dismissing it as kevala advaitavada does.
Not only Ramanuja and Nimbarka, but Vallabha with his suddhadvaita (pure monism) metaphysic also posits a nuanced form of monism from that of advitavada.
At any rate, in today's wold I would go in this direction, calling myself a theistic monist. This to me is an approach that does not go against the current stream of thought concerning the spiritual and at the same time seeks to add something (much) to the popular notion that all is one.
nice analogy. acintabedabed
In Gaura-vijaya's original post he said:
So actually GV can be thought of both as dualistic and monistic depending on the context.
This made me think of the expression used by physicists when studying the nature of light: "Ask a particle question, get a particle answer; ask a wave question, get a wave answer." Vadanti tat-tattva vidas tattvam yat-jnanam advayam. . . one's experience of the Absolute is determined by one's approach.