OM

Ajnanatimirintasyajnananjanasalakaya

Cakshurunmilitam yena tasmai 

srigurave namah

ADVAITA VEDANTA

D   Krishna Ayyar

APPENDIX 2
EXPLANATORY NOTES

Note No.s 2 - 10

Note No. 2– Concept of a real creation  negated  

(1) In  Brahma sutra, Vyasacarya points out the fallacies of philosophies which talk of a real creation and of a creator who is only the intelligent cause ( “nimitta karanam”) of the universe and not the material cause (“upadhana karanam”) . The main points are –

(a) To contact the material, the intelligent cause must have a body and it must be a doer. In that case, it becomes subject to pleasure and pain, desire, hatred etc; in short, it becomes a samsari. This is contrary to the notion of God being perfect.

(b) Since space, time and matter emerge only when creation  takes place, there are certain  questions which defy answer. viz.;

(i) Where was the creator when he created the world

(ii) When did he create?

(iii)Why did he create? Where was the raw material which constituted how own body?

(iv) Where was the raw material which he could use to create the universe?

(c) Beings appear in the universe with different physical and mental characteristics, finding themselves in different situations, undergoing experiences involving enjoyment and suffering of diverse nature. A creator  who creates this diversity will be a partial and cruel creator. Even in a scheme of transmigration with karma of men being responsible for rebirth and enjoyment and suffering ,the diversity in the first creation will remain. This is contrary to the concept of a perfect God.

(d) If the world and the Jivatma‘s notion that he is a karta transacting with a real world were real, kartrutvam and the consequent samsara would be inherent and what is inherent cannot go away – which means that there would be no liberation ( moksha). Since Sastra teaches moksha as the highest goal in life, it is clear that the world, the jivatma’s identification with the body mind complex and his notion of kartrtvam and the consequent samsara are all unreal.

(e) If Brahman really transforms into jivas, Brahman will also become a samsaari and attaining a samsari Brahman would be futile.

(f) Advaita Vedanta avoids such problems, by ) saying  that (i) there is no real creation (ii) Iswara  is the material as well as the intelligence cause, (iii) the cycle of creation  and dissolution, jivas and their karma are beginningless; there is nothing like the first creation or the first karma or the first janma,  (iv) the cycle of creation and dissolution is an alternation of Maya which is part of Iswara differentiating into names and forms which include the bodies and minds of living beings and their karma and resolving into unmanifest condition in Iswara, (v) the reality is Brahman, who as Existence-Consciousness-Infinity, serves as the substratum for the unevolved as well as the evolved condition of names and forms (vi) Iswara including Maya is mithya and (vii) though  there is no origination for a jiva and his karma, for any particular jiva, it is possible to be free of the cycle of births and deaths by gaining knowledge of his real nature as the infinite Brahman

(2) Gaudapada defines reality as that is ever existent and unreality as that is temporarily existent. (Sankaracarya gives another definition . That which is seen or known is unreal. That which cannot be seen or known, i.e., that which cannot be objectified is real. Atma is the only entity that cannot be objectified ; it is one oneself.) Pursuant to his definition. Gaudapada points out that none of the three states – the jagrat, swapna , sushupti – is permanent; when the one is there, the two others are not there. When we are dreaming or in deep sleep state, the world of the waking state is not there.  Therefore, the world we experience during the waking stage is also unreal.

(3) Aitereya Upanishad I.iii.12 says, “Of Him there are three abodes – three (states ) of dream. This one is an abode, this one is an abode, this one is an abode.” This Upanishad is referring to all three states of experience of the Paramatnma in the empirical (vyaavahaarika) form of jivatma – the waking state (jaagrat avastha), dream state (swapna avastha) and deep sleep state (sushupti avastha) as states of dream. It indicate that the world of waking experience is as unreal as the world of dream experience.

Note No.3. Significance of videhamukti.  Though , for practical purposes, there is no difference between jivanmukti and videhamukti, there is a theoretical difference.  A jivanmukta continues to perceive a world through his antahkarana,  though it has been falsified by jnanam. But, after videha mukti, that antahkaranam is no longer there to perceive the falsified world. This means that, the vyavaharika world exists only for jivas who are in the universe. For nirguna Brahman, there is no world and there is no Maya or Iswara. Cf. verse 32 of Vaitathya prakaranam of Mandukya karika – “There is no dissolution, no origination, none in bondage, none striving or aspiring for salvation, and none liberated. This is the position from the standpoint of paramartika satyam”. Sureswaracarya says expressly that for Brahman, there is no world or Maya.

Note No.4. Relationship of Brahman and Maya.  Sometimes, it is said that Maya is a peculiar power of Brahman.  Even saying “it is a power” is not correct, because power can increase or decrease. If power undergoes change, possessor of power has also to undergo change, but Brahman is changeless. Nor can we say it is a product of Brahman, Because Brahman is neither cause nor effect. We cannot say that it is a state of Brahman, because Brahman does not go from one state to another. It is not also not possible to say whether Maya is a part of Brahman or is separate from Brahman. If we say that Maya is a part of Brahman, we are faced with two logical problems. One problem is that Brahman is partless and  Maya cannot be accepted to be even a part of Brahman . The other problem is that when a part undergoes change, the whole will also undergo change. Maya does change from the unevolved condition to the evolved differentiated condition of names and forms. So, Brahman will also have to undergo change. This cannot be, because Brahman is changeless. To avoid these problems, if we say that Maya is separate from Brahman, as a real entity, we have to accept two real entities – one, Brahman, two Maya. We cannot accept this, because  Brahman is non-dual, i.e.,  there cannot be a second real entity.  So, we say that Maya is “anirvacaniya” (i.e., undefinable) and that it is Mithya ( i.e.,  that Maya is of a lesser order of reality than Brahman.) Once we   accept a status of a lesser order of reality for Maya, Brahman’s status as the only absolute changeless reality is not affected.

Note No.5.  Maya’s avarana sakti does not affect Iswara.

(1) (a) (Iswara is aware that he is Brahman. He is like the juggler who creates magic objects and projects magic phenomena that delude the audience but is himself beyond delusion.  Avarana sakti is like the cloud that hides the sun from the sight of human beings on earth; the cloud does not affect the sun. Like that, the true nature of human beings i.e., the fact that they are Brahman is hidden by the avarana sakti of Maya from the mental vision of human beings. But since Iswara is himself Maya endowed with the reflection of Brahman, he is not affected by the avarana sakti of Maya. He is like the magician who produces illusory objects and deludes the   audience but is himself not deluded.

(b) Vidyaranya gives an ingenious explanation for Jivas being affected by the avarana sakti of Maya and Iswara not being affected. He says Iswara’s upaadhi is satva guna predominant Maya and Jiva’s is rajo and tamo guna predominant Maya.  (Upadhi is a technical term for an object which appears to transfer its character to another object that is close by.); Maya gives the false idea to jivas that they are different from Brahman.  

Note No. 6 – Moksha not an event in time

In Mandukya Karika, Gaudapada refutes all philosophers who talk of attainment of Moksha as an event in time. His logic is that whatever has a beginning must have an end. So a moksha that is attained will be temporary. Unless, as Advaita Vedanta says, being beyond samsara is our permanent nature and what is called liberation is only the removal of the wrong notion that one is bound, moksha cannot be permanent.

Note No. 7– Mithya not mere imagination

Apropos of mithya, a question that has been discussed in  Advaita Vedanta literature, in  the context of the example of rope snake to illustrate the unreality of the world is whether there is actual perception of a snake on a rope or is it just a thought in the mind. It is said that mere imagination of a snake cannot produce fear. Only if the cognition itself is to the effect that there is a snake in front, the person will be frightened. This is the basis for saying that snake is experienced but it is negated when the rope is revealed. Technically, it is said to be mithya of the pratibhasika variety.     Like that, the world is also mithya   but of the vyavaharika variety. . There is a difference between the snake mithya and the world mithya. Snake disappears when the rope is revealed. But the world continues to be experienced even after Brahman is revealed. So, Advaita Vedanta cites the example of mirage, sunrise etc. Even after we know that they are not real, we continue to experience them. 

Note No. 8 – A criterion of Mithya

In Gaudapada’s Mandukya karika, it is said that one of the criteria for holding that both the external world and the mind is mithya is mutual dependence (“anyonya asrayatvam”) which is tantamount to absence of independent existence. The world cannot be proved without the mind. Only when a thing is  perceived or inferred on the basis of certain perceptions can we say that a thing exists. So, mind is necessary to predicate the existence of objects. The other way about, if there is no world as object, there is no place for mind as subject. The known is proved by the knower and the knower is proved by the known. This is the mutual dependence which makes us relegate both the mind and the world to the category of mithya.

 Note No. 9– Illustratios for Brahmasatyam jaganmithya

(1) Several examples are given in the Sastra to illustrate the juxtaposition of  Brahman, the paramarthika satyam, the substratum (“adhistanam”) and the superimposed (“adhyasta”) mithya world, the vyavaharika  satyam – Brahmasatyam jaganmithya. Each example is intended to highlight one or two aspects. No example should be stretched too far. Let us take the example of the clay and the pots, jugs etc made out of it. In Chandogya Upanishad VI.i.4, it is said that pots, jugs etc, made of clay are nothing but different words and what is the reality is clay alone.  Clay alone is substance. The pot shape, the jug shape etc. are only forms with names (nama roopa). There is no pot other than clay. We do not count pot as a separate entity. We do not say ‘ number one, clay; number two, pot’. There is no effect other than the cause. When pot is made, no new substance is created. When pot is destroyed, clay is not gone. Pot cannot exist without clay but clay can exist without pot. Similarly, Brahman is the only substance   (as existence) and the world of external objects and bodies and minds are only nama roopa. The clay pot example is only to show that Brahman is nondual and the world is not to be counted as a second entity. Another aspect that can be taken is that the shape of the pot etc is already there in the lump of clay in a potential condition. Similarly, the world of the differentiated names and forms are there in potential form, in undifferentiated form in Maya . And Maya is  in Brahman as a lower  order of reality. The wise man who sees the essence that is Brahman is like one who is saying that what he is holding is only clay, even while he is drinking water from a jug. Other examples in this category are gold and ornaments, wood and articles of furniture, water and waves etc. ( For a full discussion of Brahmasatyam jaganmithya, one should study Sankaracarya's Bhashyam   on Arambhadhikaranam of Vyasacarya’s Brahmasutram - sixth adhikaranam in the first pada of the first Chapter . The significance of the Bhashyam on this adhikaranam is that it refutes other propositions which would make the world also as real as Brahman or a real part of Brahman.) To show how, on account of Maya, we perceive the unreal world as a real thing  and hence are  caught up in Samsara and how when we gain knowledge of reality we are free of sorrow, fear, etc., the classic example is a person walking in semi-darkness who perceives an object lying across the path. He mistakes it to be a rope and he is frightened. Another person who has a torch comes along and directs the flashlight at the object. Then, this person realises that  there is no snake and that the object is only a rope. Maya is like the semi-darkness and it veils our vision of Brahman just as the vision of the rope is veiled. On account of ignorance of our true nature as Brahman we take the world and our body mind complexes to be real and are afflicted by fear, sorrow etc., like the man perceiving a snake and getting frightened. Like the man with the torch revealing the rope,  the teacher reveals to us that the reality is Brahman,  the Existence-Cconsciousness-Infinity and we ourselves are Brahman and that the world that we perceive  and our body mind complexes are only a superimposition of names and forms and we are free of fear, sorrow etc.  Similarly we mistake the shell to be silver when the spiral part of it is buried in the sand. The rope-snake example is to show that we are frightened by things we mistake to be the source of sorrow and the shell-silver example is to show that we hanker after things that we mistake to be the source of happiness. Also, just as the snake could not be perceived if the rope was not there, the world of names and forms cannot be perceived if the substratum Brahman is not there.  Apart from showing the real-unreal relationship between Brahman and the world an example to show how the world which is of a lower of reality cannot affect us, we have the example of the dream.  In the dream, we are mauled by a tiger. On waking up we do not find any wound in the body.

(2) Mandukya karika is an elaborate and illuminating commentary on Mandukyaupanishad, containing a lot of creative explanations, written by Gaudapada – Sankaracharaya’s ‘paramaguru’ – teacher’s teacher-, in which the main theme is brahmasatyam   jaganmithya.  In the karika, in ‘ alata santi prakaranam’, Gaudapada gives the example of the firebrand to show the reality and nondual nature of Brahman and the unreality of the world. When a firebrand which is a fixed single point of light is rotated and moved in various ways, we perceive varieties of light patterns. We do experience the multiplicity of light patterns but we know that they are not real. Even when the motions take place, the only thing that really exists is the nondual firebrand. We cannot say  where the light patterns originate or where they go when the motion is stopped. It is not as if the various light patterns were produced as entities from the firebrand when the firebrand was set in motion or they were resolved as entities into the firebrand when the motion was stopped. Nor can you say that they came from something outside and went back to something outside.  From the firebrand example given by Gaudapada in his Mandukya Karika we  learn that just as the different effulgent patterns that appear when the firebrand is rotated or moved in other ways have no independent existence and that what really exists is the single lighted tip of the firebrand , the world does not have  real existence and that what really exists is only Brahman. The firebrand is only one but the patterns that appear are many. Like that, on the nondual Brahman countless objects appear. You cannot say that firebrand is the cause and patterns are the effects. Real cause effect relationship can exist only between  objects of the same order of reality.  So, you cannot say that Brahman is the cause and the world is a real effect.   

(3) Another line of approach which Gaudapada adopts in the earlier section in his Karika, the ‘vaithatya prakaranam’, is to show that like the world that we experience during dream (the swapna prapanca)), the world that we experience in the waking stage (jagrat prapanca) is also unreal. He wants us to extrapolate our experience of the swapna prapanca to the jagrat prapanca. The dream world  that I perceive as external to me is nothing but thoughts in the mind. While I am dreaming, I do experience a world of external objects but when I wake up I know that there was no such world, that the external objects that I experienced were nothing but thoughts passing through my mind.  Gaudapada says that just as the swapna prapanca is unreal from the point of view of the waker, the jagrat prapanca is unreal from the point of view of one who has understood that the only entity that exists as absolute reality (paramarthika satyam) is Brahman.

Note No. 10 –  Original and reflected consciousness  - An illustration

In Pancadasi, Vidyaranya gives  beautiful examples for the original consciousness,  the reflecting medium and the reflected consciousness (1) at the macrocosmic level and (2) at the microcosmic level. The examples, respectively, are  (1)  space pervading the cloud, water vapour laden cloud,  space reflected in the conglomerate of  water vapour droplets in the cloud and (2) space conditioned by a water filled pot, the water in the pot and space reflected in the water in the pot. At the macrocosmic level, Brahma caitanyam is compared to space pervading the cloud. The reflecting medium,  namely, Maya, is compared to the conglomerate of water vapour droplets in the cloud. The reflection of the consciousness aspect of Brahman  in Maya is compared to  the reflection of space in the conglomerate of water droplets in the cloud. At the microcosmic level, Sakshi caitanyam is compared to the space pervading the pot. The reflecting medium, namely, the sukshma sarira is compared to the water in the pot.   The reflection of consciousness in the sukshma sarira is compared to the reflection of space pervading the pot in the water contained in the pot, (Space is everywhere. It is in the cloud; it is in the pot also. Like that, all pervading consciousness is available in Maya as well as the sukshma sarira.)

                                                                                                     THIS IS APPENDIX 2