Illusion! For whom? (Upanishads...)

The Advaitic concept of Maya or illusion is often taken for granted and projected as the obvious conclusion of the Upanishads. But is it really that obvious?

The rope that appears like a snake! (Upanishads...)

In the previous post we saw a very interesting allegory used by a Swami to explain the concept of Turïya – the ultimate reality as per the Advaita philosophy. The original allegory used by the well known Advaita philosopher Šankara is what I am going to explain now.

Demystifying the strange mantra

Recall the original strange mantra we started with.

 

“That is complete. This (too) is complete. (This) complete has come from (that) complete. When complete is removed from complete, what remains is also complete”

If we equate ‘that’ to the original ‘That’ which alone existed in the beginning (recall the Chändogya Upanishad creation story) and ‘this’ to our perceptible world we see around, including us, the meaning of this apparently strange mantra becomes almost clear. 

This world came from ‘That’. And as per the Upanishad, even after this world came out, ‘That’ remained as it was. ‘That’ did not get transformed into ‘this’. It took more forms and coexists with all those forms.

There is no doubt about the fact that the original ‘That’ was limitless or ‘complete’. But each of the forms taken by ‘That’ is definitely not limitless and complete.  Each has its own shortcomings.

If that is the case, how does the above mantra say that ‘this’ is also complete?

We probably have to see each of the entities in ‘this’ sans the name and form it has taken. What do we see there? ‘this’ is same as ‘That’. This is what exactly, many Upanishads say – when all names and forms are dropped, ‘this’ becomes indistinguishable from ‘that’ or in some way ‘this’ merges with ‘That’ in the same way “the rivers merge with the sea when they finally lose their individual names and forms”. Before merging, each river had a name and its own characteristics such as speed, breadth, length, force and so on. But once they merge with the sea, there is no river but just the sea.

This is also the momentary experience one gets in advanced stages of meditation or samädhi. When the identity with the body is overcome, the limited ‘I’ becomes universal ‘I” which is limitless. 

So, ‘this’ is also ‘complete’ in reality.

PS: I am aware of possible objections some staunch Dvaita adherents may have to my explanation. I am only trying to unify diversity in views and see sense in various Upanishadic verses, and great philosophies of these masters whom I hold in high esteem. After all, in the domain of ‘infinity’ our ‘limited’ algebra does not work as we saw earlier.

Previous post               start from beginning (strange mantra)

Strange Philosophies

Two of the highly intriguing Indian Philosophies in recent times (I am talking in a wide time frame) is the Advaita philosophy propagated by Šankara and the Dvaita philosophy of Madhva - both from Southern India, both being staunch supporters of ancient Vedic ideologies.

 

Strangely, the philosophies advocated by these two great masters were diametrically opposite! – Or at least they appeared to be so, on the face of it.

Very briefly, Šankara’s view was that the multiplicity seen in the world is just an illusion. There are not infinitely many things in this world! In ‘reality’ there is only a single entity in the world namely, the indefinable Brahma or Ätma.

While his counterpart, namely Madhva, held the view that multiplicity is the reality and there is not one, but three categories of things in this world, and each of them is real. None of these is identical, nor are they even comparable.

The interesting point to note is that both these scholars claim the Upanishads to be the basis of their assertions. Each has his own reasoning and logic to prove his point. Each has written volumes of commentaries to support his views and each has wide following.

How can the same source (Upanishads) give out such seemingly contradictory views? Strange isn’t it?

To sort out this seeming contradiction, probably we need to look at the source i.e. the Upanishads themselves. That is what I am going to do next.

Previous post          Next post     start from beginning

Strange Mantra

There is a strange mantra that is normally recited in the beginning of many Upanishads (philosophic parts of ancient Indian scriptures, namely Veda). 

 

Literally translated, the mantra says

“That is complete. This (too) is complete. (This) complete has come from (that) complete. When complete is removed from complete, what remains is also complete”

On the face of it, it sounds absurd. If something is complete, how can it remain complete when something is removed from it! 

Scholars have given varieties of interpretations to this apparently absurd mantra. Many chant it with religious fervor without bothering much about its meaning and implication. But it does have very profound meaning.

In the subsequent posts, I am going to use this mantra to explain several such seeming absurdities, be it in mathematics or philosophy.

Let me start next with a case in mathematics.

Next post  

“Who am I? Swami” – on ultimate reality

(Continued from previous post)

Knowing the ultimate reality has always been the quest of all intellectuals from time immemorial. Each philosopher has his/her own version of this reality. What does Ramana have to say about this ultimate reality?

Ramana’s often repeated assertion is that in the ultimate sense this world does not exist!  What we perceive as world around us is “just a creation of the mind” and as such it actually does not exist!

Ramana gives the example of deep sleep when we are totally unaware of any world around us though we know that we exist. The world “appears” only when we wake up from our sleep and our mind once again starts functioning. Similarly, in samädhi - deep state of meditation (when the mind has stopped functioning), once again the world disappears. The obvious conclusion of Ramana is that world exists only when the mind functions. Or in other words, it is the creation of the mind.

People who are familiar with ancient Indian philosophy at once recognize similarity of this view with that of Vijñänavädi Buddhists, or the philosophy of Gaudapäda – grand Guru of well known Advaita proponent Sankara.

In my book “Some important missing dimensions in our current understanding of the mind”, I have discussed in detail how Gaudapäda puts forth his argument and even claims support from Upanishads. In that book, I have also discussed how Sankara later disagrees with this theory, and ridicules the Vijñänavädis in his commentary on Brahma sutra – one of most important ancient texts on Veda.

One of the readers of my book strongly objected to my view that Sankara disagrees with this theory even though I had quoted profusely from Sankara’s commentary. This reader felt that it is “a commonly accepted fact that Sankara propagated the same philosophy put forth by Gaudapäda”.

It is interesting that one of the visitors to Ramana points out this fact (that Sankara has refuted this view in his commentary), Ramana refuses to change his view and continues to say that world is only a creation of the mind and it does not exist!

I wonder whether the words in the Brahma sutra commentary attributed to Sankara were introduced later by his followers to escape from the allegation that this view is borrowed from the Buddhists. Since Ramana quotes heavily from Yoga Vasista – a supposedly 10^th century composition (which was believed to have been continuously modified till 18^th century), is it likely that  Yoga vasista was composed based on Sankara’s original views which were modified later on by his followers ? – I am only trying to hazard a guess.

On my part, I find it difficult to accept Ramana’s/Gaudapäda’s views on this since I feel

1. Upanishads don’t support this view as Gaudapäda tries to show.

2. Sankara’s views expressed in the Brahma sutra commentary are genuine unless proven otherwise.

3. It is possible to logically show that the deep sleep analogy given by Ramana, or the dream analogy given by Gaudapäda are not foolproof.

4. It does not make any sense to have any discussion or enquiry if the entire thing is only nonexistent.

I have discussed all these issues in my book mentioned above. As always, my intention is not to show that all these great men were wrong, but to question till satisfactory answers are got.