The Advaita of Sankara says that “only the God exists and this world is just an illusion – or Mythya, - Brahma Satya, Jagat mythya”.
And many modern Swamis like the one I was referring to in the previous episode, keep repeating this view. This in spite of the fact that many later Indian philosophers, who succeeded Sankara, strongly refuted this concept of mythya as put forth by Sankara. They did not agree that this world is an illusion.
But Sankara was a great intellectual and questioning his views definitely needs lot of deliberation.
Though Sankara has not put down his views as a formal theory, one can glean his views from his commentaries and the synthetic debates he puts forward in some of his works. Later Sankara followers kept refining this theory and came up with their own versions of Advaita which may or may not be exactly what Sankara had in his mind. The Swami in question also keeps referring to some of the more recent works of later Sankara followers, and presents them as ‘The Advaita’. In doing that there is also a suggestive claim that that was exactly what the Upanishads conveyed.
It is important to dispel some of these claims since that could lead to further departure from the original message of the Upanishads.
To start with, what are the points I differ with this Swami? What exactly is he saying?
Swami says the following
-
Only a single consciousness exists. This is what is referred to as Brahma or Atma or Turiya by the Upanishads.
-
So, his version of Advaita has the backing of the Upanishads. In fact, the Swami presents it in such a way as to show that his theory of Advaita naturally follows from what is discussed in the Upanishads.
-
He further says that the perceptible world does not really exist outside of this consciousness.
-
The objects and events that ‘appear’ to exist ‘out there’ are only happenings within this consciousness and as such have no independent existence. In other words, the world that we perceive does not exist. In fact, ‘we’ ourselves don’t really exist outside this consciousness.
-
The objects, events and so on that appear to exist, are like the dream objects that one experiences while dreaming. The dream objects are created by the mind and have a meaning only within the dream. That means that each one of us is just a ‘dream character’ within the cosmic dream of the ‘one and only consciousness’.
-
In many of his talks, swami asserts that only deep pondering can make one experience this ‘one and only consciousness’. He rules out any other ways talked about by many scriptures, as a means to attain this reality of Advaita. He suggests that those other ways can at best help in moving towards that state but do not as such take you to that state.
-
Swami says that this theory of consciousness has the backing of science too. He says that many well-known scientists also suggest the possibility of some non-material reality which is beyond the purview of science. They call it consciousness. Swami offers his theory of Advaita as one of the ways to look at this idea of consciousness pondered about by the scientists. The Swami is confident that his theory of Advaita is an answer to the ‘Hard problem of consciousness’ which these scientists are grappling with.
Now, where do I find problems? I find problems mainly on three counts.
Problem 1.
Yes, the Upanishads do talk about one and only ultimate reality. They generally say that this ultimate reality is indescribable in a positive way, i.e., as ‘what it IS’. It can only be described by saying ‘what it is NOT. They call this reality variably, as Brahma, Atma, Sat and so on. This nomenclature is only to aid discussion about it, but it does not as such succinctly describe it.
Upanishads talk about this Brahma as Sat Chit Ananda – existence, consciousness, bliss. They don’t say that Brahma exists but that Brahma IS existence itself. Similarly, Brahma does not have consciousness but Brahma IS consciousness. Again, Brahma is not blissful but Btahma IS bliss.
Now, limiting this Brahma to merely consciousness is neither in tune with the Upanishads nor other scriptures like Bhagavad Geetha which is derived from the Upanishads. ‘Consciousness only’ is the version of Advaita propounded by Gaudapada and not by the Upanishads. Upanishads talk about the emergence of the world from this Brahma and they never say that the world is an illusion.
Even the Bhagavad Geetha talks about the three forms in which this Brahma exists – as the material world, as the sentient souls and finally as itself.
“bhoomiraapO analO vaayuh kham manO buddhirEvacha
ahamkaara itheeyam mE bhinnaa prakrthirashtadhaa
aparEyamithasthvanyaam prakrthim viddhi mE paraam
jeevabhootham mahaabaahO yayEdham dhaaryathE Jagath”
Which means
“The Brahma has two other aspects. One is called the lower level nature (i.e. Para) and the other is called higher level nature (i.e. Apara).
The lower level nature comprises of five basic elements such as Bhoomih or earthy, Aaapah or watery, Analah or fiery, Vaayu or airy and Kham or space. In addition, it has subtle components such as manah or mind, buddhih or intellect, and ahamkaarah or ego. These eight are material in nature.
The higher-level nature of Brahma has the Jeevatma or individual souls which are totally different from these material things.
Together, these two aspects of Brahma – paraa and aparaa - comprise the world.”
-- Bhagavad Geetha 7.4-5
What it means is that Brahma has these two additional forms other than its own indescribable form. The Upanishads give a detailed account of how these two forms of Brahma come into existence. I will discuss that in the next episode.
Even sage Badarayana starts off his Brahma Sutra - with the assertion that Brahma is the root cause of the emergence of this world as well as its sustenance and final re-merger.
Janmaadyasya yatha
Which means
Brahma is that from whom the emergence etc. of this world
Brahma Sutra 1.1.2
Saying that such a world does not really exist or calling it an illusion goes against all these scriptures.
I don’t know what compelled Gaudapada or Sankara to come up with their version of Advaita. Probably that was the only way they could counter the Buddhists who were moving towards nihilism. But harping too much on unreality of the world not only goes against the central message of the Upanishads but also makes the entire discourse meaningless. If the world were really unreal, then the Upanishads, Sankara, his Advaita, our Swami and his hours of videos, all become meaningless since none of them really exist! That takes us nowhere.
Justifying all these contradictions by categorizing reality as ‘practical reality’ – ‘Vyavaharika Satya’ and ‘ultimate reality’ – ‘Paramarthika Satya’ is just philosophic hair splitting and does not help.
Problem 2:
The Swami often claims that the path of enquiry or Jnana Marg is the only one that can lead one to ultimate reality or the Brahma. He even relegates meditation or devotion as just the aids that help in this path but by themselves cannot take one to the ultimate goal.
To some extent, what the swami says is in tune with what Sankara says in his commentary on Brahma Sutra. Sankara dismisses Yoga as not worth discussion since it has the same limitations as Samkhya, of which it is a companion school. Sankara was a staunch opponent of Samkhya and probably that is the reason why he rejects Yoga.
Or it could be because Buddhists bank heavily on Yoga or meditation. If Sankara accepts meditation as a means to know the ultimate truth, then he has to give credence to whatever Buddha had said, since Buddha is supposed to have attained that realization through meditation.
But Sankara does not seem to give a secondary role to devotion as a path. If many of the devotional compositions of Sankara are of any significance, it is unlikely that Sankara rejected devotion as a path in itself.
Bhagavad Geetha gives Bhakti or devotion the same status as Jnyana Marg or path of pondering. It views devotion as one of the paths leading to the ultimate emancipation.
Even Ramakrishna, the preceptor of the Swami in question, always emphasized on devotion as a path leading to realization. The oft quoted saying of Ramakrishna, which even this swami also quotes once in a while, is “Jaato Mat, tato path” which means “there are as many paths as there are mental conditions”. Ramakrishna himself verified this statement by following various spiritual paths. So, relegating meditation and devotion to a supporting role does not make much sense.
Problem 3:
Trying to project Advaita as a solution to the ‘Hard problem of Consciousness’ which is being grappled by modern scientists, can put the Swami in trouble, however tempting it is. It can backfire the way it has done to another well-known doctor turned spiritual healer. This doctor tried to adapt quantum theory to his version of Advaita and became a target of ridicule.
For one thing, the problem being addressed by the scientists revolves around individual’s subjective experiences and whether or not the brain conjures them up. Most of these scientists are dualists who see the world as a combination of material things and probably non-material individual consciousness. They don’t seem to be talking about a single mind that imagines the world around us, the way this Swami puts it!
Bottom line is, it is not necessary to show everything as scientific. Afterall, science is not the end of the world 😉
No comments:
Post a Comment