A

 I read Half of the balkand of ramacharitra manas and the entire kalika purana. I understood quite clearly their symbolic meanings, for example, in ramachandra manas it talks about Sant and Asant and says birds are chanting ram naam at the house sant and in asant they are cursing. It's a symbolic meaning of the point of view of both. Sant finds ram naam in the chirping of birds while asant finds it disturbing. And another example being Lord shiva and maa parvati meditates on Ram naam in ramacharitra manas while in kalika purana, Lord shiva was told to meditate on the name of param brahma.

I used advaita vedanata to decode both ram and param brahma are the same consciousness.

I remember trying to read gita a year ago but was taking the literal meaning of each word hence got confused.

I'm not sure how the dvaita followers understand those scriptures. Do please enlighten and give me suggestions on how to improve my reading.

A

Your approach is already much closer to how many traditional commentators read these texts than you may realize. What you are doing is called lakṣaṇārtha or inner/indicated meaning reading — seeing the psychological, metaphysical, and spiritual principles behind narrative language.

Your example from Ramcharitmanas is excellent. The same outer event can appear differently according to citta (state of mind). A saint hears harmony; an agitated mind hears noise. That is fully aligned with Vedantic psychology.

Likewise, your observation connecting Rama and Param Brahman through Advaita Vedanta is not arbitrary. Many nondual commentators explicitly interpret divine names as manifestations of the same consciousness appearing through different devotional forms.

Where confusion usually begins is when people assume there is only one valid layer of interpretation.

Indian scriptures are traditionally read on multiple levels simultaneously:

• Literal / historical (itihāsa-purāṇa)
• Devotional (bhakti)
• Ethical / psychological
• Yogic / symbolic
• Metaphysical
• Nondual

The problem with first-time reading of the Bhagavad Gita is that people often read every verse only literally, or only philosophically, or only devotionally. But the text moves fluidly between levels.

For example:

• Sometimes Krishna speaks as a teacher of ethics.
• Sometimes as Īśvara (personal God).
• Sometimes from the standpoint of pure consciousness.
• Sometimes using Sāṅkhya language.
• Sometimes in bhakti language.

Without recognizing shifts in standpoint, the Gita feels contradictory.

Now regarding your question about how Dvaita followers understand these scriptures:

Dvaita Vedanta does not deny spiritual symbolism, but it interprets the ontological relationship differently.

For an Advaitin:

• Brahman alone is ultimately real.
• Jīva and Īśvara are appearances within nondual consciousness.
• Rama, Shiva, Kali, Krishna are expressions of the same reality.

For a Dvaitin:

• God and soul are eternally distinct.
• Vishnu (or the supreme deity) is absolutely independent.
• Liberation means eternal loving relationship with God, not identity with Brahman.

So when a Dvaita reader sees Shiva meditating on Rama or Param Brahma, they generally interpret it as:

• Shiva genuinely worshipping the Supreme Lord,
• not consciousness meditating on itself.

The symbolic dimension may still exist psychologically, but the metaphysical conclusion differs.

Similarly:

• An Advaitin may say “Rama is consciousness itself.”
• A Dvaitin may say “Rama is the Supreme Person distinct from individual consciousness.”

Both are using the same scripture but different interpretive frameworks (darśanas).

An important thing to understand about Hindu traditions is that scripture is often intentionally layered enough to support multiple levels of realization. This is one reason the same texts produce:

• Advaita commentaries,
• Vishishtadvaita commentaries,
• Dvaita commentaries,
• Tantra-based readings,
• Bhakti readings,
• Yogic readings.

A very useful improvement in your reading would be this:

1. Separate “what the text says” from “what lens I am using”

For example:

• Text says: “Shiva meditates on Rama.”
• Advaita lens: consciousness contemplating itself.
• Dvaita lens: Shiva worshipping Supreme Lord.
• Bhakti lens: ideal devotion.
• Yogic lens: mind dissolving into mantra.

This prevents premature conclusions.

2. Learn the traditional vocabulary of interpretation

A few especially useful terms:

• Vyāvahārika — practical/relative reality
• Pāramārthika — absolute reality
• Saguna Brahman — Brahman with attributes
• Nirguna Brahman — attributeless Brahman
• Adhikāra-bheda — teachings differ according to preparedness
• Lakṣaṇā — indirect meaning
• Tatparya — intended meaning of a passage

These unlock huge clarity.

3. Read commentaries from multiple traditions

This is extremely important.

Try comparing:

• Adi Shankaracharya
• Ramanujacharya
• Madhvacharya

on the same verses of the Gita.

You’ll suddenly see:

• where interpretations diverge,
• what assumptions each school starts from,
• and how subtle Sanskrit terms permit different readings.

4. Avoid reducing everything immediately into symbolism

This is a subtle trap many intellectually inclined readers fall into.

Not every narrative element is merely allegory.

Traditional Hindu reading often allows:

• literal truth,
• symbolic truth,
• mystical truth,
• and metaphysical truth
  to coexist.

For example, Hanuman can simultaneously be:

• a historical/devotional being,
• prāṇa,
• disciplined mind,
• perfect bhakti,
• and awakened strength.

The traditions rarely force only one layer.

5. Read slowly and contemplatively

Traditional scriptural study (svādhyāya) is not information consumption.

A good method:

1. Read literally.
2. Ask context.
3. Ask philosophical implication.
4. Ask inner psychological meaning.
5. Compare commentaries.
6. Sit quietly with unresolved passages.

Often understanding matures over months rather than immediately.

Your shift from literal-only reading toward layered reading is actually a major step forward. The next stage is developing interpretive discipline so symbolism does not become projection.

You are already asking the right kinds of questions.