When you interact with the world around you, have you ever noticed something? No matter what your eyes see, or ears hear, or tongue tastes, or nose smells or your hands touch, it is your mind that ultimately provides you the information. If you are asleep, or unconscious, no matter what your eyes see or ears hear, and so on, you will not be aware of anything! So, it is the mind that sees, or hears, touches, tastes, and smells.
That being the case, how do you know that what you see, or what you hear, or what you touch etc. actually exists out there?
When you fall asleep and dream, you do see many things and go to many places. But do any of those things really exist? We all know that whatever we perceive during dream exist only in our minds. Those things have no separate existence apart from our mind. Because those are the objects created by our mind.
Is it possible that the things that we perceive when we are awake are also imagined by our minds? And they don’t really exist?
Later Buddhists did exactly that. They said that whatever we see in the world is just the creation of our mind. There is no object outside, that corresponds to what we see. It is all in our mind. What it means is that only the mind exists and all objects experienced by the mind are creations of the mind!
These Buddhists are called Vijnyanavadis. Vijnyana means consciousness or mind. These philosophers argue for ‘consciousness only’ or ‘Mind only’ idea. That is why they are called Vijnyanavadis. According to them, what exists is a monist world where only the minds exist! Various objects that we perceive around us and even our own bodies don’t really exist. Only their images exist in the mind. These people claim that even Buddha hinted at this monism, though he talked in terms of duality just for the sake of lay people.
Is there a single mind or multiple of them? There has to be multiple of them since each has a different experience.
But later Indian philosophers like Sankara ridiculed these Vijnyanavadis. Sankara refuted the comparison of dream world and the one that we perceive when we are awake. He agreed that dream objects are the creation of the mind. But these dream objects were based on the memory of real objects perceived when one was awake. Or else, where did these memories come from? Saying that memories exist but there is no object corresponding to what is memorized is akin to calling someone as ‘son of a barren woman’ – self-contradictory – Sankara pokes fun at them.
Sankara did not buy the Buddhist justification that these memories were developed over several rebirths and they were randomly generated by the mind to start with. So, they are not based on any real object out there, or its memory.
If they were randomly generated, Sankara argued, then a human being should appear like a dog or monkey at different times. How is it that all human beings are perceived almost similar? That has to be a great coincidence 😉
But surprisingly, Sankara’s grand Guru, that is his teacher’s teacher, Gaudapada also argued very similar to the way Vijnyanavadis did. Gaudapada also equated dream world to the wakeful world and said that both are not based on fact. But he slightly deviated from what Vijnyanavadis said.
Gaudapada said that there exists a single mind or consciousness in which the entire world ‘appears’ to exist! There is nothing ‘outside’ of this single mind. This is Gaudapada’s version of Advaita or monism. Gaudapada explains out the apparent multiplicity of the minds as spaces within different jars – the well-known ‘Ghatakasha’ analogy. The spaces in different jars appear to be different but if you break the jars, all that remains is just a single space which was always the truth. So also, the multiplicity of minds which is just an illusion.
Gaudapada appears to correct the mistake done by the Vijnyanavadis in understanding Buddha’s words. Towards the end of his well-known work on Advaita, namely the Mandukya Karika, Gaudapada is quoted as saying “This is not what Buddha said” – “Naitad Buddhena BhaShitam”.
I suspect that this sentence should have been “Etad Buddhena BhaShitam” - “This is what Buddha said”. The prefix ‘na’ seems to have been added later on, to negate the meaning, to avoid Gaudapada being seen as a Buddha supporter. Otherwise, what was the need to bring Buddha suddenly into the picture!?.
Interestingly, Gaudapada starts off his chapter by bowing down to Buddha – ‘sambuddhah tam vande dvipadaa varam’ – ‘I salute to Buddha who is the best among bipeds or men’. So, it seems certain that Gaudapada was trying to espouse the correct interpretation of what Buddha had said.
Gaudapada uses one of the Upanishads namely the Mandukya Upanishad, to equate this single ‘one and only mind’ to Turiya, or Atma talked about in that Upanishad. Atma or Brahma is the word often used by the Upanishads to talk about the one reality behind all existence. This Brahma is defined as the one from which this world emerged, one which sustains this world, and into which this world ultimately converges. Or in lay man’s language it refers to God.
Gaudapada goes on to explain why the world appears in this ‘one and only mind’. He gives the simile of the illusion created when a burning torch is rotated in a circular fashion. One sees a circle of fire when a torch is rotated that way. The circle of fire does not actually exist, but it ‘appears’ to exist because of the motion of the torch. Similarly, when there are vibrations in this ‘one and only mind’ the world ‘appears’ in it though it does not really exist!
Gaudapada’s descendent Sankara refined this theory of Gaudapada and propounded his theory of Advaita or monism. The central theme of his theory is ‘Only God or Brahma exists, the world is just an appearance and is untrue’ – ‘Brahma Satya, Jagath Mithya’. Sankara called this illusion as Maya, though there is no corresponding idea in the Upanishads.
So ultimately, the conclusion of these philosophers is that only God or Brahma exists and everything else is false. They are spiritual monists – other extreme of physical monists like the present-day scientists and materialists.
If you look around on the net, you come across many well known Sankara followers who convince you that this theory of Advaita is the ultimate truth. They also assert that this is what is conveyed by the Upanishads – the ultimate authority in ancient Indian philosophical thought.
There is one well known Advaita Swami who keeps publishing hours and hours of videos on the YouTube, promoting this monist view of the world. He is a swami from Ramakrishna order currently stationed in US. He often presents this Advaita theory as not only the central theme of the Upanishads but also a very scientific one.
I have lot of respect for Ramakrishna, Vivekananda and his lineage. But I am afraid, that this scholarly Swami, who has even gone through training in Harvard Divinity school, is misrepresenting not only the original Advaita of the Upanishads, but also the views of Ramakrishna - his own predecessor.
I know I am making some strong statements that could hurt many of Swami’s admirers and even the Swami. I have no intention to rake up any controversy, nor I wish to show any disrespect for this saintly person. Probably I need to give more clarification on this. That is what I intend to do in the next episode.
No comments:
Post a Comment