|
Section 1
- Upanishads do speak of Brahman being
the cause of the universe Tu.2.1.1.
– “Satyam Jnanam Anantam Brahma…..From
that, this Atma space was born, from
space air……. and from food man.” Tu
2.6.1 – “He (Brahman
-
Section 2
Section 3
Section 4
1. In TUB 2.6.1 (commenting on the passage in Tu which
describes creation – ‘idam sarvam asrjata….satyam
ca anrtam ca satyam abhavat’) Sankaracarya
talks of three orders of reality – Brahman
as the sole absolute reality (ekam eva
hi paramaartha satyam brahmaa….satyam
jnaanam anantam) from which everything
in creation is born and of creation consisting
of relative reality, i.e. empirical phenomena
like water which has a higher order of
reality compared to mirage (vyavahaaravishayam
aapekshikam satyam) and absolutely false
things like mirage (anrtam) (Satyam ca
vyavahaaravishayam-adhikaaraat-na-paramaarthasatyam.
Ekam- eva hi paramaarthasatyam brahma.
Iha punah-vyavahaaraharavishayam-aapekshikamekam
satyam, mrgatrshnikaadi-anrta-apekshaya-udakaadi-satyam
ucyate. Anrtam ca tat-vipariitam. Kim
punah ‘etat sarvam abhavata’? satyam paramaartha
satyam. Kim punah tat? Brahma, satyam
jnaanam-anantam brahma-iti prkrtatvaat).
Thus, Sankaracarya explains this part
of Taittiriya II.vi.i as the pramaanam
( authority) for the Advaitic doctrine
of three orders of reality –
(a) absolute reality (paaramaartika satyam)
which is the unconditioned, attributeless,
non-dual Brahman (nirupaadhika, nirguna,
advidiiya Brahman) ,
(b) empirical reality (vyaavahaarika satyam)
which is the entire universe of nama roopa
including the qualified Brahman (saguna
Brahman, Iswara), Maya and the bodies
and minds of living beings
(c) subjective reality (praatibhaasika
satyam), which is the kind of things like
the dream world (swapna prapanca), the
mirage etc.
2. (a) In the first chapter of BSB, Sankaracarya starts
talking of Brahman as the material and
intelligent cause of the universe (upaadaana
kaaranam and nimitta kaaranam respectively
and as the omniscient and omnipotent source
of the manifestation of name and form
(naama roopa) that are associated with
diverse agents and experiences, actions
and results, with well regulated space,
time and causation and as the ordainer
and designer of the manifestation. But
all this is in the context of refuting
the Sankya thesis that pradhaana (equated
with Maya), an insentient entity, is the
material cause of the universe, Later,
however, in BSB 1.1.12, he clarifies that
Brahman is known two aspects – one as
qualified by the upaadhi in the form of
the varieties of modification of name
and form (nama-roopa-vikaara-bheda-upaadhi-visishtam)
and the other free of all upaadhis (sarva
–upaadhi-varjitam). When he comes
to the second Chapter of Brahma Sutra,
he points out that Brahman cannot undergo
change, and explains, in BSB 2.1.14, that
the one becoming many as nama roopa is
an empirical (vyavaharika) phenomenon
conjured up by Avidya; all notions of
differences and of the division of the
experiencer and the experienced are due
to unreal nama roopa conjured up by Avidya
and are there only in a state of ignorance
and that rulership (iisritatvam), omniscience
(sarvajnatvam) and omnipotence (sarvasaktitvam)
are relevant only in the empirical plane;
in the plane of absolute reality (paaramaartika),
there are no empirical transactions. .
In BUB 3.8.12 and AUB 3.1.3, he says that
the transcendental Brahman, devoid of
all attributes and all action, pure,
non-dual, eternal becomes, by the association
of the upaadhi of extremely pure knowledge
(atyanta-visuddha-prajna-upaadhi-sambandhena)
becomes the Omniscient , Iswara and is
known as antaryaami by virtue of his
activator and controller of the activity
of the unmanifested seed of the universe
(sarvajnam iiswaram-sarva-saadhaarana-avyaakrta-jagat-bija-pravartakam
niyatrutvaat antaryaami samjam bhavati);
when it has the upadhis of the bodies
and minds and sense organs, characterised
by ignorance, desire and action, It is
called the transmigrating individual
(samsaari jiva). In TB 9, he defines
Iswara as Brahman conditioned by Maya.
(In VC, the synonyms of Maya are given
as avyaakrta, avyakta, and ajnaana. (The
word, prakriti is also a synonym. The
term, pramaanam used in Sankhya philosophy
also refers to the material cause of the
universe, but there, it is as real as
Brahman, whereas in Advaita, Maya is of
a lower order of reality).
(b) In BSB 2.3.42 and BSB 3.2.38, while
he deals with karmaphalam, he introduces
it as the vyaavahaarika aspect of Brahman
in the form of the division between the
ruler and the ruled and says that the
ordainer of karmaphalam is Iswara; logically,
it is Iswara who is the ordainer of karmaphalam.
For it is He alone who presides over everything
and because of his knowledge of the variegated
environments, time and events involved
in the process of creation, preservation
and dissolution, He alone is in a position
to ordain karmaphalam in accordance with
the karma of Jivas; the inequality in
the karmaphalam of jivas is due to the
differences in their karma; Iswara is
only an instrument for apportioning karmaphalam
in accordance with the karma of jivas
and ( as he clarifies in BSB 2.1.34) there
is no question of partiality or cruelty
on the part of Iswara. In TB 9, Sankaracarya
defines Iswara as Brahman conditioned
by Maya
(c) In BSB 1.4.3, Sankaracarya refers to the power called avyakta
without which the creatorship of the supreme
God (parameswara) cannot be logically
explained and to its subservience to and
dependence on parameswara; the dependence
of Maya on Brahman is mentioned also in
Tattvabodha 7.1., 7.2 and 7.3, BSB 1.4.3
and BSB 1.2.12. In PB 105, he makes a
distinction between Maya and Avidya; he
says that Maya is dependent on Brahman
and Avidya is dependent on jiva (maaya-brahmopagataa-avidya
jiivaasraya prokta).
(d) Citing Mundakopanishad 2.1.2 and Swesvatara Upanishad
4.10 (‘Know Maya to be Prakriti and Maheswara,
the great God to be maayii, the master
of Maya, Sankaracarya reiterates Brahman’s
superiority over avyakta which is the
seed of nama roopa. The lower of reality
of Maya is also indicated in his bhashyam
on Mundakopanishad 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 1.2.1
and 1.2.2 – ‘The nature of this Maya is
to be inferred from the fact of its being
the limiting adjunct (upaadhi) of that
higher Immutable – the Purusha….formless,
birthless…without a second.
(e) In TB 7.1, Maya, depending for its
existence on Brahman, is said to be of
the nature of the three gunas, satva,
rajas and tamas. In VC 113, 115, 140,
141, 144, 145, 146 , Sankaracarya says
that Maya brings forth the universe with
moveable and immoveable (objects); he
talks of the projecting power (vikshepa
sakti) of Maya, pertaining to rajas and
the veiling power (aavarana sakti) of
Maya, pertaining to tamas; the vikshepa
sakti is of the nature of activity ( i.e.
creation of the world); it is also the
cause of the wrong projection by jiva
and the human activity and jiva and the
mental modifications like attachment,
pain, grief, etc.; like raahu concealing
the orb of the sun, the aavarana sakti
envelops the infinite, eternal, non-dual
Brahman; By ignorance caused by the aavarana
sakti, man takes unreal things to be real
and is caught up in bondage (samsaara).
(f) In VC 111 and PB 99 Sankaracarya
says that Maya is neither existent
nor non-existent, neither different (from
Brahman) nor non-different (from Brahman),
neither with parts or without parts.
It is very wonderful and of a form which
is inexpressible (sannapyasannaapyubhyaatmikaa
no bhinnabhyabhinnaapyubhyaatmikaa no
sangaapyaasangaapyubhayaatmiko no mahaatbhootaa-anirvacaniiyaroopaa).
(g)In VC 200, Sankaracarya says that Avidya
and its effects are beginningless.
(h) That Maya is of a lower order of reality
than Brahman is indicated by Sankaracarya
in MUB 2.1.2 (Mu – “Purusha is transcendental….
He is pure and superior to the superior
immutable (divya hi amoortah purushah
sabaahyaantarah hi ajaah apraanah hi amanah
subhrah hi aksharaat paratah parah) (MUB
– akshara-naama roopa-bijopaadhi-lakshita-swaroopaaat
sarva-kaarya-karana-biijatvena-upalaksshyamaanatvaatt-param
tattvam tat-upaadhi-lakshanam avyaakrtam-avyayam
–aksharam sarva-vikaarebhyah tasmaat-paratah-aksharaat-parah
nirupaadhikah purushah iti-arthah).
(i)The unreality of the world i.e., the
superimposed nama roopa is mithya, as
distinguished from the adhishtaanam, Brahman,
as Existence) is brought out in many parts
of Sankaracarya’s commentaries and in
his other works - e.g., BUB 2.1.20 - The
relative conditions of the transcendent
atma are erroneous, like the notion of
that a crystal is red or any other colour
owing to its association with its upadhis.
US 17.13 – This universe is unreal. Existence-Consciousness
alone is real. It is the forms only that
are unreal. US 19.10 – Unreal like the
circular form of a burning torch (alaatacakravat),
superimposition has no existence independent
of that of the non-dual Atma. BSB 2.1.33
– The Vedic statement of creation does
not relate to any reality……such a text
is valid only within the range of activities
pertaining to name and form conjured up
by Avidya and the purpose is to teach
the fact that everything is Brahman.
US 16.35 – All the modifications of Maya
are to be understood to be unreal on the
basis of Sastra which says that they are
nothing but words. US 17.29, 30 – Just
as a magician comes and goes on an elephant
(created by his own magic), so also, Atma,
though devoid of all motion, appears to
be undergoing conditions such as Hiranyagarbha,
waking, dream, deep sleep etc., none of
which has real existence.
3. From a harmonious construction
of what has been cited above, we
can conclude that according to Sankaracarya,
the attributeless Brahman (nirguna
Brahma) is neither the intelligent
cause (nimitta kaaranam) nor the material
cause (upaadaana kaaranam) of the
universe; the intelligent cause of
creation and the guiding factor for
Maya being the material cause of creation
is a qualified Brahman (saguna brahma),
Brahman with May as upaadhi; Maya
is the material cause of creation,
in the sense of seed of nama roopa
evolving into manifested nama roopa
and being superimposed (adhyastam,
aropitam) on the reality, the nirguna
Brahman.
- Sankaracarya’s description of jiva
seems to the fore runner of all the
three prakriyas. TUB 2.6.1, he talks
of jiva as being perceived in the
cavity of the intellect, as possessed
of such distinctions as being a seer,
a thinker, a knower etc. In BUB 2.1.14,
he talks of Brahman conforming to
upadhis, like space conforming to
pots, jars, etc. ( The example of
space in pot, jar, cave etc. is also
given in BSB 1.1.5, BSB 2.3.7 and
MUB 2.1.1 for the conditioning of
the consciousness by the intellect
whereas in US 12.1, he talks of the
intellect as being pervaded by a semblance
of pure consciousness. In US 5.4,
he says that the modifications of
the intellect are pervaded by the
reflection of consciousness and in
BUB 1.4.7, he says that atma is perceived
in the as a reflection of sun etc,
in water and the like. In PB 114,
he says that the Pure Consciousness
which is reflected in the intellect
is called the jiva and the jiva causes
the manifestation of (the sense) of
“I” in the body. In PB 117 and 118,
he says that just as the light of
the sun which is reflected in the
vessels made of bell metal and the
like, having entered into the interior
of a house, illumines other objects,
the reflection of pure consciousness
in the intellects which has become
the jiva, illumines the objects outside
through the paths of the eyes and
other senses. In 4.3.7, he talks of
atma imparting its luster to the intellect
like an emerald dropped in milk. In
MUB 3.2.7, both the comparison of
pot space and reflection in sun, moon
etc. in water appear in the commentary
on the mantra which talks of the fifteen
constituents of the body going back
to their sources. The various terms
that he uses are caitanya-pratibimba
(reflection of consciousness – US
5.4, drasht-aabhaasa (semblance or
false replica of the witness-consciousness
– US 12.1, chaaya (shadow – US 14.33),
caitanya aabhaasa (semblance or false
replica of consciousness- US )
atma-aabhaasa (semblance or false
replica of atma) – US 18.53 aabhaasa
(semblance or false replica) – US
18.107, 18.120).
- Even though it seems that Sankaracarya
does not preclude from the teaching
any of the three prakriyas, the weight
seems to be in favor of aabhaasa vaada,
and not pratibimba vaada or avacceda
vaada. The extracts below would support
this view.
(a) In BUB 1.4.7, the opponent asks”
If Paramatma has entered, the jivas
entered into being subject to samsaara,
Paramatma will also become subject
to samsaara and will be happy, miserable
and so on. Sankaracarya’s answer
is “No, the perception of (of misery)
etc. are the objects of only the particular
form that Paramatma takes owing to
the Its being the support of Its upaadhi
(i.e., the intellect.).
- In CUB 6.3.2, the opponent asks “Is
it not incongruous for the omniscient
Deity, not being a samsaari, to deliberately
wish and enter into the body and subject
Itself to sorrow?” .The answer is
“Yes, if the Deity had desired ‘
I will enter in my unmodified form
and I will experience sorrow’. But
it is not so. As the Upanishad states
expressly, the ‘entry’ is in the form
of several jivas. A Jiva is merely
a semblance (aabhaasamaatram) of the
Deity. …It is like the reflection
of a person seeming to have entered
into a mirror and like the sun in
water etc. The contact of the Deity
with the intellect results in a semblance
of consciousness (Jivah hi naama devataayaa
aabhaasa-maatram). ……The Deity does
not Itself become connected with the
human happiness, sorrow etc…..
- BUB 3.4.2 – The atma is the witness
of vision. Vision is of two kinds,
worldly and paaramaartika. Worldly
vision is a mode of the mind…… It
arises as a reflection of the atma.
It has a beginning and an end
- In MUB 3.2.7, the atma consisting
of knowledge identified with the intellect
etc. entering the different bodies
is talked about
- In PS 125, Sankaracarya asks, “When
one vessel (made of bell metal and
the like in which the light of the
sun is reflected is broken by chance,
does the sun perish? Des the sun become
a moving object on account of the
moving nature of the reflected image?”
- In BUB 2.4.12 and 2.4.13, (the commentary
on the passage “na pretya samja asti”),
in the dialogue between Maitreyi and
Yajnavalkya, there is a clear distinction
between the eternal, all pervading
consciousness and the differentiated,
individual consciousness (i.e., the
objective consciousness). Yajnavalkya
tells Maitreyi “In the one who is
freed of the body-mind complex, there
is no more the differentiated (i.e.
individualized) consciousness such
as ‘I am the son of so and so; this
is my land and wealth; I am happy;
I am miserable, because it is engendered
by Avidya. Since Avidya is absolutely
destroyed by knowledge of Brahman
where is the possibility of differentiated
consciousness for the knower of Brahman
who is established in his nature as
Brahman? Even when the body is there
the particular consciousness is not
there; where is the possibility of
its being there, when he is absolutely
freed of the body mind complex?” In
BUB 2.4.13, Maitreyi says, “By talking
of opposite features in the same entity,
Brahman, you have confused me.” (Atra-eva
ekasmin-eva ekasmin-vastuni brahmani
viruddha-dharmarnatvam-acakshanena
bhagavatah mama moha krtah….) Having
said first that atma is homogenous
(eternal) consciousness, then you
say when the body dies, consciousness
is no more there. How can it be homogeneous
consciousness and after death cease
to be consciousness? (Poorvam-vijaanaghana
eva-iti pratijnaaya punah na pretya
samjna asti iti; katham vijnanaghana
eva? katham va na pretya samjna asti
it?). Yajnavalkya’s significant
reply is,” I did not attribute them
to the same entity. You have mistaken
the same entity to have opposite attributes.
(Na maya idam ekasmin dharmini abhihitam.
Tvayaa eva idam viruddha-dharmatvena-ekam
vastu parihgrhiitam bhrantyaa) What
I said was this: When the differentiated
forms of the atma associated with
the body mind complex engendered by
Avidya is destroyed by knowledge,
the differentiated consciousness
connected with the body mind complex
characterized by a vision of otherness
is destroyed when the upaadhi , the
body mind complex is dissolved, like
the destruction of the reflection
of moon and the reflected light etc
when their support, water etc. are
destroyed. But there is no destruction
of the transcendental Brahman, the
homogenous consciousness , just as
there is no destruction of the real
moon etc. (Yasya-tu-avidya-prasrtyupaapitah-kaarya-karana-sambhandii-aatmanah-khilyabhaavah
tasmin-vidyayaa nasite, tannimittaaa
yaa viseshasamjnaa sariiraadi-sambhandinii-
anyatva-darsana-lakshanaa, saa kaarya-karana-sanghaata-upadhou
pravilapite nasyati hetu-abhaavaat
udakadi-aadhaara-naasaad-iva candraadi-pratibimba-
tvannimitta-ca-prakaasaadi. Na punah
paramaartha-candraaditya-swaroopa-anaasavad-asamsaari-brahma-swaroopasya
vijaanghnasya nasah)
- US 18.32, 18.33 – The semblance of
the face is different from the mirror
because it behaves as the mirror does.
The face which does not depend on
the semblance of the face is different
from the semblance in the mirror.
Similarly the reflection of atma is
held to be different from atma. The
ego is also regarded like the reflection
of the face which is different from
the face. The pure Self is considered
to be different from its reflection
like the face. (Mukhaat-anyah mukha-aabhaasah
yatha adarsah anukaaratah. Aabhaasaat-mukham-api-evam-aadarsa-
ananuvartanaat. Ahamkrti-aatamani-bhaasah
mukha-aabhaasavat-ishyate. Mukhavat-smrta
aatma-anyah-avibktou tou tathaiva
ca). In US 18.114, the semblance of
consciousness in the intellect is
compared to the appearance of snake
on the rope. US 18.37 - The reflection
of the face (mukha aabhaasa) in the
mirror is neither a property of the
face nor of the mirror. If it were
either, it would continue even if
the other was removed. US 18.38 –
It cannot be the property of the face,
because it is not seen even when the
face is there (and the mirror is removed).
US 18.39 - It is not the property
of both, because it is not seen when
both are present (but improperly placed.)
US 18.43 – The atma, Its reflection
and the intellect are comparable to
the face, its reflection and the mirror.
The unreality of the reflection is
known from the scriptures and reasoning.
(Atma-aabhaasa-aasraya-ca-evam mukha-aabhasa-aasraya
yatha. Gamyante sastra-yuktibhyaam-aabhaasa-asattvam-eva
ca). US 18.114 – If you say that there
will be changes in the intellect in
case the reflection is accepted, we
say ‘No’. For we have already said
that the reflection of Consciousness
in the intellect is an unreality like
a snake appearing to be a rope and
like the reflection of the face in
the mirror appearing to be the face
itself. (Aabhaase parinamah cet na
rajjvaadi-nibhatvavat. Sarpaadi-ca
tatha-avocaama-aadarse ca mukhatvavat).US
120 – The ego which is pervaded by
the reflection of the Consciousness
(aabhaasena sampvyaaptah) is called
the knower or the agent of knowing.
One who knows oneself (the sakshi)
to be different from all these three
(the agent, the object and the instrument)
is a (real) knower of the atma.
- BSB 2.3.50 – It is to be understood
that the jiva is only a semblance
of Paramatma like the sun in water.
The (empirical) Jiva is not the atma
itself. (Aabhaasa eva ca esha jivah
paramaatmanah jalasooryaadivat-pratipattavyah
na sa eva saaakshaat). US 18.27 –
On account of the constant proximity
of the atma (the consciousness described
in US 18.26 as self-effulgent, seer,
the innermost, Existence, free from
actions, directly cognized, the Self
of all, Witness, One imparting consciousness
to others, Eternal, devoid of qualities
and non-dual) , the ego becomes its
semblance (samnidhou sarvadaa tasya
syat tat aabhaasah abhimaanakrt).
- Brahman is non-dual, eternal, and
changeless and is neither cause nor
effect. It is the cause of time. It
has no parts. There is no material
external to Brahman working on which
Brahman can create anything. Brahman
has no organs of perception and is
devoid of intellect, desire and will.
To talk of creation of the universe
by Brahman of such a nature is illogical
(TUBV II. 140, 142,143,144,375, BUBV
Vol. 1.2.1.385,2.4.244, M II 54).
The Sruti (Kathopanishad 1.2.14) which
says that nothing originates from
atma nor does the atma originate from
anything negates (the idea that atma
is the) cause etc. ( BUBV Vol. 1 -
2.4.24).To imagine in Parameswara,
in the One Self-luminous Existence,
the relation of cause and effect is
like imagining the head of Rahu. (M.VIII.
5-6).Plurality of forms is not tenable
for Brahman which is without parts.
(TUBV II 375).
- Brahman, in Itself, is not the cause
of the universe nor is It the inner
controller (antaryaamin) or the witness
of the world process. Without avidya,
desire cannot arise. Brahman can be
the cause of the universe only when
Brahman is considered as having the
upaadhi 'of ajnana (avidya, Maya).
It is nama roopa that constitutes
the limiting adjunct (upaadhii) ofParameaswara.
(BUBV2.4.1O). Iswara is a semblance
(aabhaasa) of Brahman¬consciousnes
in Avidya also known as Maya (BUBV
3.7.43,44). Iswara, the semblance
of Brahma caitanyam in Maya, is the
cause of the universe, is the Inner
Controller and is the witness of the
world process. Iswara is omniscient
(sarvajna) and omnipotent (sarv3saktimaan).
Having deliberated, Iswara created
the universe, taking into consideration
the proper order, colour, previous
karma of all beings (TUBV 373~. Iswara's
creation of the universe is all a
display of Maya. Ajnana is the material
cause of the universe. From Maya,
with Brahma caitanyam reflected in
it (maayaam- pratibirnba- anusangatah)
.. ..jivas come into being. Avidya
with a semblance of Brahma caitanyam
(caitanya-aabhaasastha) is the cause
of sthoola and sukshma sariras. Primary
avidya (moola avidya) appears as the
manifest and the unmanifest. (BUBV,
5 -1.4.1, I - 1.2.27, 1-12.26, TUBV
II 373;377, IvIII 56, M II 32), Pranava-vartika
39.
- The world which is composed of names
and forms has no existence of its
own. Brahman is existence. The existence
in all phenomenal things proceed from
the eternal Iswara. Everything has
its being in the being of atma. The
names and forms - ahamkaara and other
objects - are superimposed on Bralunan.
The gross and the subtle (vyaavahaarika
satyam) and the illusory like the
mirage (praatibhaasika satyam) have
sprung from avidya. (TUBV II 407,408,416,417,418,
M III 2,3, NS II 45). That is real
which never attains another form different
from that in which it has once been
known. (NS iII.56). Since this universe
along with the ego appears and disappears,
it is false. (NS II. 95) It should
be known through reasoning that the
world of duality which is a false
appearance, which has no reality of
its own, which is caused by avidya
and defies understanding, is different
from atma ( NS II. 44)
- From the extracts given above, we
can say that, according to Sureswacarya,
the cause of the universe is not nirguna
Brahman but Iswara, constituted by
the semblance of Brahma caitanyam
in Maya which is mithya. The reality
is Brahman as existence. The mithya
names and forms displayed by Maya
are superimposed on Brahman, the reality,
the existence. Iswara who is omniscient
and omnipotent is the intelligent
cause of creation.
- Maya is designated as Pradhana, A
vyakta, A vidya, Ajanana, Akshara,
A vyakrta, Prakrti and . Tamas. C1'1
iI.31). The name 'Maya' is given to
an appearance which cannot be accounted
for ,Maya is a thing that defies understanding
(avicaritasiddha) (BUVB 1.4.332,444;
2.3.224 NS sambandhokti 1.1.) It is
not non-existent because it appears;
It is not existent because it is negated.(M.
VIII.13). It is mithya. It is not
different from Brahman inasmuch as
it is located in Brahman. Nor is it.
non-different from Brahman, because
Brahman is non-dual and avidya is
not a real entity. It is said to be
notrnade of parts, because no parts
caused it. It is not devoid of parts
because its effects are made up of
parts. (M.VIII. 15). (pranava-vartika
39-43). It is beginningless (anaadi)
(in the sense that its beginning is
not in time and it has no cause) (NS
Introduction to Chapter I, M VIII
13, 15, Pranava-vartlka 39-43, BHBV
Vol. 2¬4.3.5). Ajnaana is the
material cause of (upadhaana kaaaranam)
of the universe, the false appearance
of duality (BUBV 1 -1.4371). \~'hatever
exists is manifested by avidya. Sruti
clearly says so, vide Swetasvatara
Upanishad, " Understand that
Prakriti is Maya and that Maheswara
is the possessor of Maya. (BUBV vol.
1- 1..4.382). Avidya, though not really
existing, appears as name and fomm
(BUBV .1 - 1.2). Primary avidya (mooIa
avidya) continuously appears in the
fonn of the manifest and the unmanifest
(BUBV 1 -1.2.5.).
- Any mithya has to have a real sub-stratum
(adishtaanam). Not-Sdf (anaatma) is
mithya. And it is a product of Maya.
Cause is antecedent to effect. Therefore
anatma cannot be the locus of Maya.
Apart from anaatma, there is only
Brahman and Brahman is satyam and,
being eternal, It is not an effect.
Therefore Brahman alone is the locus
of Maya. (I1JBV II 64, Introduction
to NS Third Chapter). . Brahman is
also the content of Ajaanam( Avidya).
- Anaatma cannot be the content of ignorance
because it is a product of ignorance.
What is a product cannot be the content
of its cause. If anaatma was the content
of ignorance, when ignorance is removed
by knowledge, knowledge would be tantamount
to knowledge of anaatma and not knowledge
of atma.. Falsdy perceived silver
is the product of shell. Silver is
not the content of ignorance of shell.
It is shell the ignorance of which
is removed when silver is negated.
\Vhat is concealed from jiva is Brahman.
For these reasons, Brahman alone is
the content of Ajnaana. (paraphrase
ofIntroduction to Chapter III ofNashkarmyasiddhi).
- Objection:
Brahman cannot be the locus of Maya
(A vidya), because (a) Brahman is
of the nature of knowledge, whereas
A vidya is of the nature of ignorance
and (b) Brahman is without a second.
Answer:
W'hen we talk of locus of Avidya,
we are not referring to knowledge
as the opposite of ignorance (pramaana
jnaanam) but to consciousness which
is Brahman's nature (swaroopa jnaanam).
Swaroopa jnanam is not opposed to.
ignorance. It is pramaana jnaanam
that is opposed to ignorance. As for
the second objection, A vidya is only
a superimposition on Brahman; it is
not a real entity. So the question
of non-duality of Brahman being violated
does not arise.
- Objection:
Brahman cannot be the content of Avidya>
because ignorance> like knowledge,
is in someone and it is about something
else. So, locus and content have to
be different. If Brahman is the locus,
the same Brahman cannot be the content.
Since Brahman is partless, you cannot
even say that one part of Brahman
is the locus and another part is the
content.
Answer:
Jnanottama, the commentator of Manasollasa,
provides the answer. It is a matter
of common experience for us to say«
I know myself' and also" I do
not know myself'. Thus, the content
of knowledge or ignorance and the
person who has it are the same entity.
"I know myself" , as applied
to anna, means that the existence
and conscious aspect are known ( -
no one can deny that one exists and
that one is a conscious being) and
" I don't know myself' means
that the non-duality and bliss aspects
are not known. So the view that ajnaana
is not only located in hut has Brahman
as its content is tenable.
(The distinction between the changing consciousness
and the changeless conscxiousness is also
discussed in this portion)
- He, the Supreme Lord, the Magician,
having created the universe through
Maya, entered that very universe in
the same way as a garland (1s said
to enter) the illusory serpent>
etc. (TOBV II 378). Brahman which
is without differentiation is cognised
in this (the intellect) which is thesource
of all differentiation. Since in the
luminous intellect we perceive Brahman
as the seer, hearer and so on, due
to illusion (mohaat) the entry by
Brahman is imaginarily suggested by
Sruti Hence, the entry of Brahman
into the intellect is an imaginary
representation. It is not conveyed
in the literal sense. (rUBV II 397,
398).. The entry of one who by nature
cannot have entered (into the universe)
is stated in such a way as if it has
entered with a view to teach the oneness
of atma and Brahman by discarding
the distinction between kshetrajna
(sakshi) and Iswara,(TUBV401). The
non-dual reality appears through avidya
in the fonns of kshetranja (sakshi)
and Iswara. (TUBV 530).
- Plurality of fonns in the real sense
is not valid for Brahman which is
impartible, The pur;ility is an apparent
plurality (I1JBV II 375). By removing
avidya, we must realise the oneness
of kshetranga and Iswara. The non-dual
Seer (atma) appears as many in several
bodies, because of the presence of
the antahkarana.
- Just as a rope appears in the fonn
of a snake through avidya, though
it is not really competento become
that, so also, atrna appears as the
jiva consisting of the five sheaths
(pancakosas) and suffers, as, it were,
in the form of jiva (TOBV II 250).
The distinction
between jivatrna and paramatrna is
caused by the upaadhi of the body.
(M III.9).
- The "J" does not exist
without the atma; Without the atma,
it will cease to be. (The "I"
cannot exist on its own. It is mithya;
\vithout its sub-stratum, it will
cease to be ( NS II 56 ).If, in the
objective consciousness, the thinker
were not to manifest himself as "I"
the whole world be like one asleep.
(1'.1. IV 2). If the insentient objects
were to shine by themselves, everything
would present itself to everyone's
consciousness. (M IV 4-5). If the
sentient and the insentient be alike
self-luminous, each will perceive
and, in turn, be perceived by the
other and so on.. And the sense organs,
being unrestricted in their scope
of perception, taste would be known
by the eye and so on. (M IV 5-6).
- Ignorance of atma on the part of
jiva is the root cause of suffering.
Ignorance conceals bliss which is
the nature of atma, (Introduction
to N.S. Chapter I).Though the Inner
Self (pratyagatrna) whose light ever
shines and never sets is the ,vitness
of a'\;.dya, it is nevertheless obstructed
by avidya, (rUBV II 438). Just as
the mirror is dimmed by a stain attaching
to it, so consciousness is veiled
by avidya and, thereby creatures are
deluded. (Ajnaanena-aavrtam jnaanamtenamuhyantijantavah).(M.
III. 8). Maya is responsible for non-apprehension
(agrahana or ajaaana), misapprehension
(anyathaa jnaana or vipariitajnaana)
and doubtfuJ cognition (samsayajnaana).
Misapprehension is the result of non-apprehension.
(BUVB 1.4..)
- Like a rope becoming a serpent through
avidya, separating himself from the
non-dual¬Brahma caitanyarn, through
avidya,jiva makes himself an agent
and enjoyer. (TIJBV II 463). The text
"When there is duality, as it
were. . . .one knows something"
(Brhadaranyaka 2.4.14) etc,.have conveyed
to us that the notion of duality (dwaya-aabhaasam)
in the form of enjoyment and enjoyershiop
is caused byavidya. (TIJBV III. 68).
Owing to the conceit (abhimaana) "
I am the knower", the jiva, indeed,
performs the acts of cognition. Again,
on account of the delusion" I
ani the thinker", he does all
mental activities". (TUBV II
225).
- By ignorance, attributes of the insentient,
unreal and the finite body are ascribed
to the conscious atma and the reality,
consciousness and bliss of atma are
ascribed to the body, just as the
mother of pearl is mistaken for silver
which is quite a different thing..
(M VII 21-22). The following is said
with a view to showing how, owing
to avidya, there is mutual
superimposition between the atrma
which is self-established (swata-siddhah)
and the not-self (anaatma) which is
established by another (parata-siddhah)
, in the same way as there is mutual
superimposition between the empirical
rope and the (illusory) snake:-:
Just as the movement of clouds is
superimposed on the moon, even so
the qualities of the intellect such
as pleasure are thought of as in the
atma. (NS 101). Just as an ignorant
man ascribes the burning nature of
the fire to the (red-hot) iron, even
so consciousness which belongs to
the atma is ascribed to the agent
(i.e. the internal organ - antahkarana)
due to delusion. (NS II 102) All this
false appearance (aabhaasa) is due
to delusion (avidya) (moha¬maatra-upaadhaanatvaat).
(NS 51). All our mundane experience
iis a display of Maya (M.VIII.12).
- The ego-consciousness, the feeling
of mineness (aham-mamatvam) and desire
are not the attributes of atma, for
they are experienced as objective
and and they are subject to cessation
NSII 22).
- Without change there can be no sufferer.
How can that which changes be the
witness (of the changes)? Therefore,
the atma is the unchanging witness
to the thousand modifications of the
mind (NS II 77).to. The mind cognises
objects by fragments. If it does not
change in this manner, it will be
omniscient like the atma (NS n. 87).
- The atma is the witness to the momentary
modifications of the mind. Indeed
in the absence of the immutable consciousness,
the appearance and disappearance of
the mind cannot be established. (NS
II 82)
- The intellect which contains the
semblance of atma caitanyam is the
agent (karta); atma is not the agent,
because It is immutable. (Atmacaitanyaroopa
dhii kartru na dhruvavtatah) (TUBV
II 308). The agency of the unchanging
atma is an illusion, in the same way
as the ascription of motion to the
trees is an illusion due to the movement
of the boat (NS II 63)
- The body, the senses, the mind and
the determinative modes of the intellect
are rejected as not-Self, because
they are perceived and are subject
to origination and cessation The internal
organ (antahkarana) which has the
'I' notion also is perceived and appears
and disappears; it is also, therefore,
not-Self (anaatma) (NS II 82).
- The intellect which contains the
semblance of atma caitanyam is the
agent (karta); atma is not the agent,
because it is immutable (NS II 63).
If the 'I' notion was an attribute
of the atma, it would be eternal,
like the atma; that is, it will continue
during sushupti and even in
the state of liberation.
- Knowledge and ignorance which inhere
in the mind are cognised. Therefore
neither is the attribute of the atma;
they belong to the sphere of name
and form (fUBV II 578).
16. Brahman, in Itself, is not the
individual cogniser (pramaata) or
agent (karta), or enjoyer (bhokta).
These are characteristics of the jiva,
constituted by the semblance of consciomsnes
in the intellect. (BUVB. 5 (1) 4 (1).
- If the ego is an attribute of anna,
it would be eternal, like consciosness
(Braluna-caitanyam) and continue,
not only in deep sleep, but in liberation
and scriptural texts which speak of
liberation (from duality) will certainly
become futile. Since it does not continue,
the ego must belong to something else
( ie. the mind - NS II.32, 33).
- The object of being burnt and the
agency that bums co-exist in the fire
and the fuel. In the same way, the
property of being the knower and that
of being the object known coexist
in the knlower ands the ego ( NS III
59).
- One who wakes up from deep sleep
says, "I did not know anything
in sleep". Here, the term, "I",
signifies the Paramatma, as the ego
is suspended in sleep. (NS II 54).
- Viewing the atma as conditioned by
the agency of the adjuncts (upaadhis)
such as the intellect which are caused
by ajnaanam, it was said, on the basis
of anvaya-vyatireka that the notions
of "1 am happy", "1
am miserable" etc. of the ego
are the qualities of the not-sdf (anaatma).
If it is accepted that the atma is
unconditioned, It cannot be involved
in any experience, for it is not fit
enough for that; nor can any &uit
accrue to It. Now, by presupposing
the witness-nature (saakshitvam) of
the atma which is a pmjection of avidya,
the following is said with a view
to denying (of the atma) all kinds
of transformation such as agency:-
There is no such thing as the act
of illumination. The approach of the
object to be illumined within its
range is figurativdy spoken of as
the act of illumination on the part
of the atma.
(NS II. 68 ).
- Question: If the atma in all bodies
is one, would not a person who has
realised the atma not experience the
sufferings of all ? Answer: Even prior
to gaining knowledge of our real nature
as atma, the suffering in other bodies
does not affect us. How can it affect
a person who has disidentified ...vith
the suffering of his own body? (NS
II 90).
- Jiva is it semblance ofBrahma caitanyam
(cit-aabhaasa) in the intellect. An
aabhaasa is different from the original
but is resembles the original (cidvilakshanatve
sati cidvat¬bhaasamaanatvam cidaabhaasatvam)
(BlJBV 4.3.1320).
- Nescience (avidya) blended
with a semblance of atrna
caitanyam is the cause of
sthoola and suksma swas (Caitanya-aabhaasaswacittamm
sariiradwaya-kaaranam). (pranava-vartika
39)
- The mind has the power of
cognizing owing to the influence
of that unchanging consciousness
(NS III.IS). The atma which
does not see... .does not
change.. ..does not hate,
does not get angry, does notsuffer,
does not enjoy ..is unmoving,
is timeless, immutable, is
relative, id the inner undivided
Reality and is infinite perceives
in all bodies the mind which
sees, hears, desires,hates,
gets angry, suffers, enjoys,
. .is subject to time, past,
present and
future, perishes every moment,
is relative... ..and is finite
(NS II 71-75). A radiant jewel
remains changelessly the same,
whether (it is illuminimg)
an object like pot when it
is in its proximity and (it
is not illumining) when the
pot is not its proximity (NS
II 64, 65). In the same way,
the supreme Self (paramatma)
which is of the nature of
illumination, remains immutable
in the presence as well as
in the absence of the modifications
of the intellect (NS II 66).
The unchanging I is the wi?1ess
of the thousand modifications
of the mind (NS II
- This seer of inextinguishable and
undivided awareness witnesses the
insentient dance of the operations
of all the minds, though in reality
there is no such thing as the act
of witnessing on his part (NS II 58).
A radiant jewel remains changelessly
the same, whether it is illumining
an object like the pot when it is
its proximity or not illumining it
when it is not in is proximity. Like
that, Paramatma, remaining immutable
in the presence as well as the absence
of the modifications of the intellect
reveals (illumines) the intellect.
(NS II 66). In the atma, there is
no such thing
- Talking of jiva, Sureswacarya uses
all the three terms - 'aabhaasa',
'pratibitnba' and 'conditioning of
Brahma caitanyam' - while defining
jiva as, seen from the extracts given
below
- Like unto a clear mirror,
the intellect (buddhi) because
of its predominance of sattva
in it and in virtue of the
reflecction of atma in it
receives images of external
objects. (1-'lanasollasa
IV.8,9 ).
- Jiva is a semblance ofBrahma
caitanyam (cit-aabhaasa) in
the intellect. An aabhaasa
is different from the original
but is resembles the original
(cidvilakshanatve sati cidvat-bhaasamaanatvam
cidaabhaasatvam) (BUBV 4.3.1320).
- The non-dual Seer (atma)
appears to be many in several
bodies, because of the presence
of the internal organ (antahkarana),
just as the sun appears to
be many in different water
vessels (NS II 47).
- As the space within a jar
is marked off from the infinite
space by the upaadhi of the
jar, so is the distinction
between jivatma and Paramatma
caused by the upaadhi of the
body (M III 9).
- Manifesting Himself by way
of reflection (pratibimbe
sphuran) in the kriya-sakti
and jnaanasaktii, in the antahkarana,
the Lord (Iisah) is spoken
of as the doer and knower.
(M IV
7-8).
- However, the extracts given below
indicate that the preferance ofSureswaracarya
is, like Sankaracarya's, is aabhaasa
vaada:, which in essence is the positing
of a secondary consciousness, which
functions along with the mind and
is of a lower order of reality than
Paramatma, the eternal uncchanging
consciousness. We have ti infer this
since the teaching is a combination.
of a sakshi being aware of the modifications
of the mind and the absence of any
such thing as the act of illumination
on the part of the atma as the act
of illumination. The approach of the
object to be illumined within its
range of illumination is figuratively
spoken of as the act of illumination
(NS 67).
(The numbers in brackets are references
to Vidyaranya’s Pancadasi)
- According to Vidyaranya, it is
not the paaramaartika nirguna
Brahman (the absolute Brahman
devoid of attributes) who is the
creator of the universe but it
is a vyaavahaarika mithya saguna
Iswara (an empirical mithya entity,
with attributes, called Iswara)
who is the creator. Citing Tu
.1 and 1.4 ( satyam jnaanam anantam
brahma and yato vaco nivartante
apraapya manasaa sahaa) to establish
the transcendental nature (asangatvam)
of Brahman and another sruti “
Controlling Maya, the master of
Maya , creates the universe through
Maya “ (maayii srjati visvam as
Mayii srjati visvam sanniruddha
tatra mayayaa…….tena iiswara srjet),
he says that if you analyse Sruti
passages applying the six fold
criteria (shadlinga like upakrama
and upasamhaara), you will come
to know that it is not the transcendental
(asanga) Brahman but Maheswara,
the master of Maya ( Maayaavi
Maheswarah) who creates the universe
(6.195, 196,197).
- Vidyaranya talks of Prakriti as
an entity which has the three
qualities (gunas), satva (the
quality of knowledge, purity and
goodness), rajas (the quality
of activity and passion) and tamas
(the quality of darkness, ignorance,
illusion and error) and which
is equipped with a reflection
of Brahman. Prakriti has three
varieties, one, suddha satva (satva
predominant variety) called Maya,
visuddhi satva guna or malina
satva (rajas tamas predominant
variety) called Avidya and three,
tamas predominant variety, called
Tamas. Maya with the reflection
of Brahman-Bliss-consciousness
(cidaanandamayabrahma) becomes
the omniscient, blissful Iswara,
the (sarvajna aanandamaya iiswara).
Maya is under Iswara’s control.
The intellect, dominated by Avidya,
with the reflection of Brahman-consciousness
(Brahma caitanyam) becomes the
jiva, the knower-consciousness
(vijaanamaya jiva). Owing to gradations
of Avidya, jivas are of different
species (1.15, 16,17,4.11, 6.157,
and 6.212). Vidyaranya compares,
respectively, the all pervading
Brahman, Maya, Iswara, atma (called
kootastha), the all pervading
consciousness available in the
individual and the jiva to the
all pervading space, the cloud,
the space reflected in the water
in the cloud, the space in the
pot and the space reflected in
the water in the pot. Maya is
compared to the cloud. (6-18).
- Iswara visualises creation according
to the requirement of the karma
of jivas, and, directed by Iswara,
Tamas modifies from seed form
and produces names and forms
(nama roopa) consisting of the
five elements , the subtle bodies
of jivas (sukshma sarira) with
the five organs of knowledge (jnaanendriyas),
the five organs of action (karmendriyas),
the fivefold vital airs (praana),
and the antahkarana comprising
the manas and buddhi ( roughly,
the deliberation and decision
aspects of the mind and intellect),
the physical body of jivas (sthoola
sarira), the various worlds and
objects of the universe (jagat).
This creation flowing from Iswara
consists in Maya unfolding the
unmanifest nama roopa (avyaakrta
nama roopa), and superimposing
the manifest nama roopa (vyaakrta
nama roopa) on Brahman the Existence
, like a picture of variegated
colours being painted on a wall
or like imagined things such as
wondrous cities (gandharvanagara),
blueness and dome-like shape being
superimposed on space. Not only
nama roopa like the five elements
and their products, but space
and time are also superimposed
by Maya. The folding and unfolding
of nama roopa by Maya, (aavirbhaavam,
srshti) and the alternating dissolution
(viliinam, pralaya), controlled
by Iswara, is like a painter exposing
the painting he has executed on
a canvas and then folding it up.
( 1.16 t0 26,2.59, 2. 60 et seq.,
3.36, 4.6 to 8, 123 to 125, 6.131,
183).The non-dual Brahman (advaitam)
alone is real. The dwaitam (the
nama roopa superimposed by Maya
on Brahman, the Existence) is
unreal. (6.155, 156)... Similarly,
cidaabhaasa with the physical
and subtle body is a superimposition
(adhyaasa) on kootastha, like
the silver seen on shell. (6.33).
Negation (baadha) consists in
the determination of the mithya
nature (mithyaatvam) of jagat
and jiva (i.e. the antahkarana
cidaabhaasa mixture) and the reality
(satyatvam) of Paramatma. (6.12,
13, 14).
- Vidyaranya says that Maya’s nature
is that it can do the impossible;
it makes the non-existent appear
as existent. It makes the changeless
transcendental atma (kootastha
asanga atma) (Brahman) appear
as Iswara jiva and jagat. The
phenomenon is like the mithya
dream world appearing to be real
to the one who dreams. The phenomenon
of the animate and the inanimate
universe like Iswara, jiva etc.
appearing on the non-dual Brahman
(advidiiya brahmatattve) Iswara,
jiva and jagat has no more reality
than the mithya dream is to the
person who has woken up(2-70,
6-133, 134, 211,). Considering
the in determinability of Maya,
learned people declare Maya to
be just magic. (6.143). Pursuing
this line of thought, Vidyaranya
says that the aanandamaya Iswara
and the vijaanamaya jiva are conjured
up (kalpitou) by Maya and, in
turn, Iswara conjures up the creation,
visualising and entering it and
jiva conjures up, until liberation,
samsaara in waking and dream
states (6.112,113).
- Vidyaranya talks of Maya as the
power of Brahman (Brahma-sakti)
(2-47) and as resting on Brahman
(brahma-aasraya) (2-59). However,
he clarifies that it is different
from Brahman (which is the non-dual
existence), has no existence of
its own (so said to be unreal –
nistattva). It derives existence
only from its association with
Brahman. It cannot be said to
be absolutely non-existent because
the nama roopa, the products from
which it is inferred, are experienced
by us. (2.47 to 2.51). Thus,
from the point of view of sruti)
i.e., from the paaramaartika standpoint,
Maya is non-existent. If you go
by reasoning, it is anirvacaniiya
i.e. you can neither say that
it is existent nor can you say
that it is non-existent. From
the vyaavahaarika point view it
exists, since its products are
perceived (tucca anirvacaniiyaa
ca vaastavii cet asou tridha;
jneyaa maayaa tribhirbodhaiih
sroutayouktikaloukikaih) (6-130).
Since Maya does not have independent
existence, like non-existence,
it is not counted as a second
entity, apart from the non-dual
Brahman (2.51)
- Maya called Maheswari on account
of its association with the great
God (Maheswara) has a two fold
power¸ the power of projection
(nirmaana sakti, vikshepa sakti)
and the power of veiling (moha
sakti, aavarana sakti). (4.12,
6-26). ). Jiva is a mixture of
the adhishtaanam, the Brahma caitanyam,
the sukshma-sarira and the reflection
of consciousness in it (4-11).
Deluded by the aavarana sakti
of Maya, jiva becomes ignorant
of his true nature as Brahman
(ignorant of ‘aham brahma asmi’).
By its vikshepa sakti, Maya makes
the jiva identify with his bodies,
the physical and the subtle (sthoola
and sukshma), deprived of the
awareness of the transcendental
asanga kootastha, pratyagaatma
( Jiva’s own consciousness, which
is the same as Brahman-consciousness,
Brahma caitanyam) (like the adhyaasa
of taking the shell to be silver),
react with external objects and
other jivas (paragdarsinah), regarding
himself as different from all
and is involved in a chain of
action, enjoyment and suffering
and transmigration (which is called
samsaara) (1-25, 29,30; 6.23,
24,25, 26, 27, 6-33, 34 6,36,
6-134). Iswara’s creation is related
to the karma of all jivas taken
together. Iswara-srshti, the
universe of objects created by
Iswara is the same for all. But
jiva-srshti the mental reaction
to them, likes and dislikes of
and the attitude to other beings
and things and the consequent
action, enjoyment and suffering
vary from individual to individual,
based on that Jiva’s past karma
and upaasana and his vaasana,
the imprint of experience of past
janmas and exercise of free will
in the current janma. It is not
Iswara srshti but jiva srshti
that is the cause of man’s bondage.
Vidyaranya cites Brhadaranyaka
Upanishad saptaanna braahmana
- the past karma and upaasana
is four-fold sacrifices and offerings
( action and thought towards ancestors,
gods, other human beings and other
jivas like plants, animals, insects
etc.;) this becomes the karma
of jivas consisting of punyam
or paapam as, the case may be,
depending on the good or bad action,
thought and attitude; the bhogyam
of karmaphalam, the experience
of happiness and sorrow in return
for the past karma, is through
the particular medium with which
one is , in the form of the mind
(manah), vital force (praana)
and speech (vaak), equipped with,
in the current janma. (4.13 to
35).
- Dealing with the question as to
how Avidya and its aavarana sakti
can appear on kootastha which
is self-effulgent (swaprakaasa)
Vidyaranya says that Kootastha
caitanyam is not inconsistent
with Avidya and its aavarana sakti.
If caitanyam and Avidya were opposed,
who would be subject to the aavarana
sakti (of Avidya)? As we see in
the jnaani, it is the discriminative
knowledge (viveka), knowledge
of Brahman that is opposed to
Avidya. (6.28,31,32.). [The idea
is that, without kootastha caitanyam
which is only another name for
Brahma caitanyam which is the
adhishtaanam( 6.237), the mithya
Maya and its aavarana sakti cannot
exist. Without kootastha caitanyam,
there is no cidaabhaasa. Just
as the aavarana sakti and vikshepa
sakti of Maya are responsible
for Jiva’s ignorance of Brahmatvam
and his samsaara, it is Jiva’s
antahkarana with cidaabhaasa that
is responsible for jiva coming
to know (through Sastra) Maya
and its powers and negating Maya
as mithya. In short, whereas kootastha
and Maya are not opposed, knowledge
of kootastha and Maya are opposed.)
Dwaitam (which, as a technical
term refers to the universe of
nama roopa) being the product
of the mithya Maya is not opposed
to advaitam (Brahman) (6.245,
246), because dwaitam is unreal
and advaitam is real. Entities
of different orders of reality
can co-exist. A bachelor can go
to sleep and have a dream that
he has a wife and has a number
of children and grandchildren.]
- Iswara is the antaryaami (Inner
Controller) in jivas. From this,
one may think that the actions
and thoughts are controlled by
Iswara, (whose control is in
accordance with the praarabdha
of jivas) and that jivas have
no free will. Vidyaranya says
that, by the grace of Iswara,
Jivas do have free will and it
is by free will that they gain
the knowledge of their identity
with atma and attain moksha (6.157,
171,177,178,179,183)
Vacaspati Misra - Avacceda vaada
- Bhavati Tradition (Bhamati Sampradaaya)
- Following Sankaracarya and Sureswaracarya,
Vacaspati Misra rules out nirguna
Brahman being the material cause
actually transforming as the universe,
since Brahman, according to sruti,
is non-dual and immutable. He
says that if the universe was
an actual transformation of Brahman,
(Brahman being consciousness)
all objects of the universe -not
merely jivas - would be sentient.
So, Brahman is only an apparent
material cause (vivarta upaadhaana
kaaranam). He makes a distinction
between unconditioned Brahman
(nirupaadhika Brahman) and conditioned
Brahman (sopaadhika Brahman).
Owing to the upaadhi of avidya
(Maya), Brahman acquires the attributes
of omniscience and omnipotence.
. (Sat eva muktah sat eva kevalah;
anaadi avidya-vasaa-tu bhrantyaa
tathaa avabhaasata iti arthah.
Tat eva anoupaadhikam roopam darsayitva
avidya-upaadhikam roopam aaha
– sarvajnam sarvasakti-samanvitam
(B on BSB 1.1.1). This sopaadhika
Brahman called Iswara is the material
and intelligent cause of the universe.
Maya is the upaadhi of Iswara
and the intellects are the upaadhis
of jivas. . Maya is beginningless
and indefinable (anirvacaniiya).
- Vacaspati Misra talks of the indeterminability
of the universe (anirvacaniiyatvam)
giving the analogy of the mirage.
Is the cognition of water appearing
in the rays of the sun reflected
from the desert sand real or not?
If it was real, it would not be
negated. But we do negate it,
when we reach the spot where we
perceived it and find that there
is no water. At the same time
we cannot absolutely deny the
existence of the water, because
water was cognized. The experience
of the perception of water, qua
experience, cannot be negated.
Thus, the mirage is neither existent
nor non-existent nor existent-cum-non-existent.
Similarly, the universe of objects,
bodies and organs are also, indescribable
as existent or non-existent. Brahman’s
absoluteness (paaramaartika satyam)
is proved by scripture and reasoning.
The objects, bodies, sense organs
and intellects (antahkarana) of
the universe are superimposed
on Brahman owing to Avidya. The
sub-stratum of this superimposed
mithya world is Brahman, just
as the rope is the sub-stratum
of the erroneously perceived snake.
. Avidya, in the form of superimposition,
is indeterminable (Mithya-pratyaya-roopah
mithya-pratyayaaanam roopam anirvacaniiyatvam;
tadyasya sa tadokthah anirvacaniiya
ityarthah.)
- Jiva is not different from Atma
(Brahman) or nor is jiva a modification
of Brahman. Jiva is Brahma caitanyam
itself appearing to be limited
owing to the influence of avidya
(Na jiva aatmanah anyah. Na api
tat vikaarah. Kintu atma eva avidya
upaadhaana kalpita avaccedah)
(B on BSB 1.4.22.) Avidya operates
at the empirical (vyaavahaarika
plane), through its dual power
of concealment (aavarana) and
projection (vikshepa). Jivas are
at the mercy of the concealing
and projecting powers of Avidya.
Iswara, being its Lord is not
affected by avidya. . The concealing
power of avidya gives rise to
the non-apprehension of the identity
of jivas with Brahman. The consciousness
in the body mind complex is wrongly
apprehended as finite just as
space (apparently) enclosed in
pots etc is apprehended as the
limited space. Brahman is homogenous,
undifferentiated consciousness,
but, owing to the qualities superimposed
by avidya, It appears as differentiated
objectifying intellects and as
numerous limited individuals.
- Like other Advaita philosophers,
Vacaspati Misra also says that
the content of avidya is Brahman
It is due to the influence of
avidya that jivas, forgetting
the identity of Brahma caitanyam
and pratyagaatma, regard the enclosed
pratyagatma to be a limited individual
knower-consciousness and themselves
to be limited individuals.
- As regards locus of avidya Vacaspati
Misra holds that Jiva is the locus
of moola avidya. His argument
is that it is only the jiva who
is the agent (karta), the enjoyer
(bhokta), the one who has the
notion of “I” (ahamkaara-aaspada),
the transmigrator (samsaari) and
the victim of all suffering (sarva-anartha-bhaajanam).
Therefore jiva alone can be the
locus of the avidya which is the
root cause of all these. On the
other hand, Brahman is pure (suddha),
defect less (niranjana) and is
of the nature of knowledge (vidyaatma).
Therefore it is illogical to speak
of Brahman as the locus of avidya.
Further, it is the jiva, not Brahman,
who requires the saving knowledge
for removing avidya. Logically,
the destroyer, vidya and the destroyed,
avidya, must have the same locus.
- According to Vacaspati Misra,
avidya is not one. there are as
many avidyas as there are jivas.
If avidya was a single entity,
then when one jiva attains the
knowledge ‘I am Brahman’ (aham
brahmaasmi jnaanam), the single
avidya will be removed and, there
being no avidya to delude other
jivas, all jivas will be simultaneously
liberated, without any effort
on their part. He explains the
use of “Maya” in singular in Su
4.10 by interpreting it as the
state of being deluded by avidya
(avidyaatva).
- The objection raised against this
is “If avidya which is the cause
of jivas and is responsible for
hiding their Brahmatvam from jivas
is located in the jivas, there
arises the defect of mutual dependence
(anyonya asraya). What is a product
of avidya cannot be its locus.
Vacaspati Misra’s answer is “there
is a succession of janmas; my
present janma is due to the ignorance
located in me in my previous janma
and the ignorance located in me
in the present janma will produce
my next janma; thus, there are
two beginningless series, one
of janmas and the other of ignorance.
So there is no defect of anyonya
asraya.”
- Prakasatman cites Tu 31.1., 2.7.1
and Cu 6.2.3 which talk of Brahman
as the material and intelligent
cause of the universe and goes
on to point out the difficulties
in regarding nirupaadhiika Brahman
as the transformative material
cause or the intelligent cause.
Brahman can be the material cause
only if It undergoes modification
into the form of the world, leaving
its earlier form. Even if it is
argued that, after undergoing
modification into the form of
the world, Brahman would regain
its earlier form, since it will
retain its susceptibility to modification,
we have to face the unwelcome
prospect of liberated jivas returning
to bondage again. But we have
the Upanishadic text, “The atma
(Brahman) is birthless, all pervasive
and immutable” (Bu 4.4.20). Immutability
and modification cannot be the
nature of the same entity. It
follows that nirupaadhika Brahman
cannot be the material cause of
the universe (V. p. 464). As regards,
Brahman being the intelligent
cause, only an entity with a thinking
mind which can visualize and design
the universe can be the intelligent
cause. But this process is not
possible in the case of Brahman
which Sastra says is of the nature
of consciousness devoid of instruments
of visualisation and action (Bu
3.8.8. etc.). Therefore nirupaadhika
Brahman cannot be the intelligent
cause of the universe, either.
Therefore, Prakasatman says that
Sruti and Smriti texts introduce
the principle of Maya. He cites,
inter alias, Su 4.10, “Know that
Prakriti is Maya and the wielder
of Maya is the great Lord” and
says that Brahman, the pure consciousness,
associated with Maya, should be
regarded as the material cause
of the universe.
- The pure consciousness is reflected
in avidya and thus, jivas are
formed. As the prototype of the
reflection (pratibimba), pure
consciousness acquires an adventitious
status as its original (bimba).
This is called Iswara. Maya functions
at the behest of Iswara. Iswara,
as bimba caitanyam, is omniscient.
Thus Iswara and Maya taken together,
is the material and intelligent
cause of the universe. Maya is
the transformative material cause
(parinaami upaadhaana kaaranam),
but Brahman as existence, being
the sub-stratum of Maya, is figuratively
said to be the material cause
(is the vivarta upaadhaana kaaranam).
Maya is Iswara’s mind; thus pure
consciousness associated with
Maya gets the empirical (vyaavahaarika)
status of the omniscient (sarvajna)
Iswara with the knowledge and
desire required for creation.
While the material of the world
is transformed Maya, Iswara visualizes
and designs the universe and guides
Maya. The appearance of the word
upon Brahman is mithya. Prakasatman
defines mithya as “the state of
being the counterpositive (pratiyogin)
of the absence of an entity at
all three periods of time in a
sub-stratum where it is perceived
to exist
- Avidya (Maya) is one, vide Swesvatara
Upanishad 4.10, “Know Maya to
be Prakriti (the material cause
of the universe) and the Lord
(Maayii) to be its controller
or possessor, where the word,
Maya, is used in the singular.
Avidya (Maya) is a single entity,
but the reflection of consciousness
in avidya results in a plurality
of jivas; the main feature of
jiva is the intellect; since the
intellects projected by avidya
are many, jivas with intellects
carrying the apparent reflection
of consciousness are many.
- According to Prakasatman, the
pratibimba caitanyam is identical
with Brahma caitanyam. If that
were not so, the mahavakyas revealing
identity of jivatma and paramatma
like “Thou art That “where the
words are in aikyasamaanaadhikaranyam,
will become meaningless. Though
that is a fact, owing to the veiling
power (aavarana sakti) of Maya
(Avidya) jivas mistake the consciousness
o be different from Brahma caitanyam
and, consequently regard themselves
as limited individuals and undergo
samsaara.
- Philosophers like Vacaspati Misra
preclude the very possibility
of reflection. But this is refuted
by citing the example of mahaakaasa
which does not have form being
reflected in the water of a pond
and sound reflected as echo in
the space in a cave, which does
not have as form.
- The thesis that reflection is
identical with the original is
beset with problems. The example
of mirror is taken. It is argued
that (a) one does not perceive
one’s eyeballs in one’s face on
the neck but one perceives it
in the reflection (b) the location
is different; one’s face is on
one’s neck; the reflection is
in the mirror (c) the reflection
appears in front of the man facing
the mirror and (d) a person standing
by the side of the man facing
the mirror cognizes the face of
that man and the reflection in
the mirror as two different entities.
This is refuted by saying that
when the sense of sight comes
into contact with the mirror,
the rays of light proceeding from
the face of the person standing
before the mirror are turned back
by the mirror, then reach the
original face and comprehend all
parts of it fully. On the original
face comprehended fully, the other
characteristics mentioned by the
opponents constituting the state
of reflection (pratibimbatva)
(namely presence of the reflected
face inside the mirror, reflection
facing the original and the difference
between the original and the reflection)
are superimposed. If there was
no mirror, there would be no such
superimposition. That is to say,
the appearance of the one face
being an original and a reflection
(bimbatva and pratibimbatva) is
a false notion (adhyaasa. This
amounts to saying that when a
person thinks that he is seeing
a reflection of his face in the
mirror, what he actually perceives
is the face on his neck. (This
also seems to accord with science.
According to science also, when
the rays of light carrying the
image of the face of the person
standing in front of the mirror
falls on the surface of the mirror,
they do not enter the mirror;
they are turned back and fall
on the eyes of the person standing
in front of the mirror. The perception
of the face as being inside the
mirror is an optical illusion.)
In the same way, caitanya pratibimbatva
and caitanya bimbatva are superimposed
on Brahma caitanyam, due to avidya.
These two features are indeterminable
as they are caused by avidya.
But Brahman per se, whether it
is as the consciousness of Iswara
or the consciousness of jivas,
is real and the same. The superimposition
of bimbatva leads to the false
notion (adhyaasa) of jivas that
they are limited individuals.
The adhyaasa which is caused by
avidya is removed by the knowledge
of the identity of the jiva with
Brahman.
- If avidya is said to be one, one
has to meet the objection that
when any one jiva overcomes the
aavarana sakti of avidya by gaining
the knowledge, “I am Brahman”,
and gets liberation avidya be
destroyed altogether and all other
jivas will get liberated, simultaneously,
without any effort on their part.
(The distinction between any one
jiva getting liberated and other
In Siddhanta-lesa-sangraha, Appayya
Dikshita explains that it is quite
possible to account for the distinction
between the liberation of one
jiva and the bondage of others
since we accept that Maya is an
indeterminable (anirvacaniiya)
entity. An anirvacaniiya entity,
single entity can have anirvacaniiya
parts. It is one anirvacaniiya
part of avidya alone that gets
removed by one jiva attaining
ahambrahmasmi knowledge; other
anirvacaniiya parts continue to
influence the minds of other jivas
holding them in bondage.)
- Like all other Advaita philosophers,
Prakasatman holds that Brahman
is the content (vishaya) of avidya
- According to Prakasatman, Brahman
is the locus of avidya. Jiva cannot
be said to be the locus of avidya.
Jiva is dormant, in the causal
state (kaarana avastha). There
is no Jiva to say “I do not know
anything.” Only consciousness
and avidya are there, It is true
that jiva recollects, on waking,
“I slept happily; I did not know
anything” but he also says “I
was absent in sushupti”. What
he recollects is the bliss of
pure consciousness and the ignorance
of avidya. Jiva’s intellect is
a reflecting medium. A reflecting
medium appropriates the property
of the original as its own, just
as the mirror appropriates the
face.
- Is avidya also the cause of the
praatibhaasika adhyaasa perception
of silver in shell? If so, the
adhyaasa will be removed only
by knowledge of Brahman. Prakasatman
says that as derivatives of the
primal avidya (moola avidya),
there are modal ignorances (toola
avidyas or avastha ajnaanams).
While the content of moola avidya
is Brahman, the content of a toola
avidya is the consciousness conditioned
by an object. Thus, perception
of silver on shell is one of the
toola avidyas concealing the caitanyam
conditioned by the shell. When
this toola avidya is removed,
by the shell vritti, this toola
avidya is removed and perception
of silver ceases.
From all this, we can arrive at the
common ground in the teaching of all
the Advaita preceptors mentioned above.
- Brahman is not the actual material
cause of creation. It is the tranfigurative
material cause (vivarta upaadhaana
kaaranam). It is the adhishtaanam
(sub-stratum), as Existence-Consciousness–Existence
which is the essence of the objects
of the world – the nama roopa
- and the source of the consciousness
of living beings.
- Avidya (Maya) is the transformative
material cause (parinaami upaadhaana
kaaranam). It superimposes the
names and forms on the adhishtaanam.
Brahman associated with Avidya
is the intelligent cause of creation.
The world of solid objects that
we experience is mithya. It is
an appearance like the snake perceived
on the rope.
Brahman, Existence- Consciousness-Infinity
which is non-dual, formless and
attributeless is the only reality.
- The notion of jivas that they
are different from Brahman and
are doers (karta and bhokta) and
knowers (pramatas) is adhyasa,
an erroneous notion caused by
avidya.
- Avidya has the power of concealing
Jivas’ nature as Brahman (aavaraNa
sakti) and not only projects the
world of nama roopa but deludes
jivas so that they identify themselves
with their body and knower-mind
and undergo samsaara.
- Whether jivas are said to have
a secondary, unreal consciousness,
in addition to a Brahma caitanyam
(abhasa vaada) or the Brahma caitanyam
available in the intellect is
itself mistaken to be a reflection
confined to the individual intellect
(pratibimba vaada) or the consciousness
appearing to be enclosed in the
intellect is mistaken to be a
consciousness confined to the
intellect (avacceda vaada), in
all the cases, there is the false
notion (adhyaasa) on the part
of jivas that they are limited
individuals different from Brahman.
- 1. Advaita Ashrama (Kolkata) publications
of Swami Gambhirananda’s translations
in English of Sankaracarya’s Bhashyas
of Brahma Sutra, the Eight Upanishads
(2 volumes), Brhadaranyaka Upanishad
and Chandogya Upanishad.
- Publications of Chinmaya Mission
and Central Chinmaya Mission Trust
Translations in English by Swami
Chinamayananda of Sankaracarya’s
Tattyvabodha, Atmabodha, and
of Kaivalya Upanishad.
- Mylapore, Chennai, Ramakrishna
Mutt publication of Translation
in English of Sankaracarya’s Upadesa
Sahasri.
- Chennai Samata Books publication
of Translation in English by Alladi
Mahadeva Sastry of Sureswaracarya’s
Manasollasa and Pranava vartika.
- The following chapters in Madras
University Philosophical Series
Volume II Part 2:- ( First Published
in 2000 by Professor Bhuvan Chandel,
Member Secretary, Centre for Strides
in Civilisation, Tughlakabad Institutional
Area, New Delhi)
- Post-Sankara Advaita –
the Vivarana tradition
by
- N. Veezhinathan
- Post-Sankara Advaita –
The Bhamati Tradition
by N.Sankaranarayanan.
- Madras University Philosophical
Series
Translation in English by R. Balasubramanian
of Sureswaracarya’s Taittiriya
Upanishad Bhashya vartrikam and
Naishykarmyasiddhi
- Vivekacudamani with Siddinathananda
Swami’s commentary, in Malayalam,
published by Sri Ramakrishna Asram,
Puranaattukara, Trichur.
- Swetaswatara Upanishad with Mrdananda
Swami’s commentary, in Malayalam,
published by Sri Ramakrishna Asram,
Puranattukara, Trichur.
- Tattvamasi by Sukumar Azhikode,
published by D.C. Books, Kottayam.
- Vakyavritti of Sankaracarya by
Swaqmi Jagadananda – published
by Sri Ramakrishna Math, Mylapore,
Chennai.
- Atmajnanopadesavidhi of Sankaracarya
by Swami Jagadananda – published
by Sr Ramakrishna Math, Mylapore,
Chennai.
- Drg-Drsya-Viveka of SankaraCARYA
OR Vidyaranya or Bharati Tirtha
by Swami Nikhilananda – published
by Sri Ramakrishna Math, Mylapore,
Chennai.
- Advaita-Siddhi of Madhusudana
Saraswati by Karuna Bhattacharya
–publoished by Indian Council
of Philosophical Research, New
Delhi.
- Vicara Sagaram (inHindi) of Sadhu
Nischala Das, translated in Sanskrit,
with footnotes and explanatrions
by Sri Vasudeva Brahmendra Saraswathi
Swamigal by Sr Vasudeva Brahmendra
Saraswathi Swamigal Library, Mayiladuthrai,
Tamil Nadu.
- Vidyaranya’s Pancadasi with commentary
in Malayalam by Swami Jnanananda
Saraswati, published by Anandakudeeram,
Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu.
- Sankaracarya’s Vivekacudamani
by Sringeri acarya Swami Chandrasekhara
Saraswati (Sanskrit passages of
Sankaracarya’s Upanishad bhashyams
given in brackets have ben taken
from publications of Gita Press,
Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh. Sanskrit
passages of Sankaracarya’s Brahmasutra
Bhashyam have been taken from
Motilal Bnardsidas’s Sri Sankaracarya
Granthavali Sankarabhashopedam
Part III.)
- Tattvamasi by Sulumar Azhikode
( in Malayalam)
- A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy
by Chadradhar Sharma (Motilal
Banarsidas)
- Mukti in Advaita Vedanta by A.
G. Krishna Warrier (University
of Madras)
|
