THE |
|
a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining
to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects. |
To: soc.religion.eastern From: vidya@cco.caltech.edu (Vidyasankar Sundaresan) Subject: Maya and Vedanta (9406.mayavdn.vs) Date: 49940602 In the previous two postings, I have tried to point out two major points : 1) Firstly, Advaita as the philosophy of Vedanta existed at the time of composition of the Vishnu Purana (i.e. nearly 2000 years ago). Parasara presents the ultimate description of Vishnu as the Nirguna Brahman of Advaita, goes on to affirm the identity of the individual Atma (Vasudeva) with Vishnu who transcends the world, and leaves the question of the ontological status of mAyA unanswered. This corresponds in all major details to the position taken by Advaita Vedanta. The identity of the Atman and Brahman may be questioned, for Vasudeva is a term with some personal connotation, but the Nirguna Brahman cannot be denied. This answers Mani's comments about the influence of Buddhism on Advaita's maintaining the Ultimate Reality as Nirguna Brahman. 2) It might be argued that even if some sort of Advaitic tradition existed before Sankara, this was also influenced by Buddhism. Such an argument can really have no basis, if one looks at the historic relationship between Buddhism and Vedanta. In my posting on GaudapAda, Sankara's paramaguru, I have tried to show the important philosophical differences between Buddhism and GaudapAda's writing. Advaita being "Buddhism in disguise" is a favorite criticism for the other schools of Vedanta, and they are not going to give it up that easily. Still, I think an impartial reader would see the major points of difference as well as the points of agreement, and decide for himself how much Advaita is indebted to Buddhism. My thesis is that later developments in Buddhism itself are based at least partly on Upanishadic thought and the similarity between mAdhyamika Buddhism and Advaita is only due to that. Even GaudapAda's being conversant with Buddhist doctrines is not enough for the Visishtadvaitin to substantiate the claim that Advaita is "prachanna bauddham". For Advaita is defined more by Sankara's writings than by GaudapAda's. Thus, the Visishtadvaitin tries to show that the basic philosophy of Advaita is itself Buddhist in origin. This is done by attacking the Advaitin's use of the word mAyA. It does not matter for the critic that the most important tenet of Advaita - Brahma satyam - is not and cannot be a borrowal from Buddhism. He thinks his job is done if he chips at the lesser detail of how Advaita views mAyA. More often than not, the criticism is based on misunderstanding the Advaitin's statement, deliberately or otherwise. This post focuses on this topic. Sankara doesn't say more than that mAyA is anirvachanIya. That is, mAyA is inexplicable. It is neither being, nor non-being, nor both nor neither. Now this is the famous four-fold negation of Nagarjuna. Is it unique to Madhyamika Buddhism however? The rudiments of this philosophical speculation are found in the oldest Hindu scripture, the RgVeda. The nAsadIya hymn says- It was not Non-Being, nor was it Being ............... That which was coming into Being was covered by void ............... The wise discovered in their hearts the bond of Being to non-Being. ............... Whence is this creation? Is it founded or not? The presiding Deity in the skies knows it, or perhaps He does not. To be sure, the hymn affirms a presiding Deity, so it is not indicative of SUnyavAda. So what is this thing which was not non-Being, and also not Being? The Being and the non-Being are in this creation. The ending line "perhaps He does not" already points to the very early origin of the philosophical speculation whether world-origination is a conscious act of will of this Deity or not. For if there were no question, the hymn could have just told us "Only the presiding Deity in the skies knows it." The Upanishads represent the major details of this philosophical speculation of the Vedic seers. For the most part, the origin of the world from Being (Brahman) is affirmed, though it is open to question whether such origination is active or not. In other words, does the world-origination change the Brahman from which the world originates? For if it were active or conscious, Brahman itself gets changed by the very fact of world-origination. Furthermore, Brahman manifests Itself as the world, so after the manifestation, is the original Brahman changed or left unchanged? This question can be said to be the cornerstone on which the various schools of Vedanta are divided. In Advaita Vedanta, God (Brahman) is defined as Being. This is in perfect accordance with the Upanishad which says "sadeva sowmya idam agra AsIt." (sat = Being/Reality, eva = only -> Being alone, dear student, was here in the beginning.) This world, not being Brahman as is, is therefore, not Being. However, it is not non-Being either, because, Being is the substratum of this world. That it is neither follows at once. Also it is not both, because no entity can be both Being and non-Being at the same time. Automatically, it can only be perceived as mithya, as mAyA. The same argument holds for the mAyA conceived as the power of creation too. Whether this mAyA is real or not is the next question. For Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is the only Reality. Thus mAyA is not Real, not Unreal, nor both, nor neither. That is the primary meaning. Illusion comes about only as a popular secondary meaning, because that which is mAyA is generally understood as illusion. As regards the world, the conclusion of Advaita is that this world is a vivarta on Brahman, not a pariNAma - i.e. the world-origination does not change Brahman, which continues to be the changeless Nirguna. In that sense, the world is one of appearances, not of ultimate reality. How is that we perceive the world around us as real then? How is it that the world originates from Brahman, but Brahman Itself is not changed by it? The answer is - that is inexplicable, that is mAyA, which is "anirvachanIya", a mystery. Advaitins use mAyA in this technical sense. Critics of Advaita, both Dvaitins and Visishtadvaitins, purposely misunderstand it in the popular sense as mere illusion, and find fault with it. For the Visishtadvaitin, there are other reals. Hence he finds no problem in ascribing reality to mAyA too. Advaita does not differentiate various things in Ultimate Reality, because as the Upanishads repeatedly tell us, the Highest is undifferentiated, without parts. Advaitins also maintain this "anirvachanIya" nature of mAyA only at the Ultimate level. The meaning of mAyA as neither real nor unreal occurs only at the level of "pAramArthika satya". At the level of "vyAvahArika satya" - mAyA is as real as anything else, but then that is only because one doesn't apprehend the pAramArthika at the level of the vyAvahArika. To find fault with mAyA at the level of objective reality is putting the cart before the horse - what we perceive as objectively real is due to this mysterious thing called mAyA; we cannot say anything about its reality or otherwise unless we have known the pAramArthika satya. Visishtadvaitins easily slip into characterizing the Advaitic idea of mAyA as unreal. Advaita is careful to point out that ultimately, if mAyA is not real, it is not unreal either. To argue that such a category cannot exist, that mAyA has to be either wholly real or wholly unreal, is being simply blind to the logic behind such a categorization. It is true that the Buddhists had used this categorization before Sankara, but then it is not Sankara's fault that he lived in the 7-8 th cent. A. D., while Nagarjuna lived in the 1st-2nd cent. A. D. It goes to Sankara's credit that he is prepared to accept that which is logical in a school opposed to his own. Mere dogma does not stand in his way of appreciating what doesn't contradict the Upanishads from any system, be it Samkhya or Buddhism or Nyaya or Bhagavatism. Moreover, the influence of Upanishadic ideas on the development of mAdhyamika Buddhism itself cannot be denied. Also, there is substantial difference between Buddhist usage and Advaitic usage of mAyA. For the Buddhist, there is no Brahman, therefore mAyA is like pure dream. For Advaita, Brahman is Supreme, therefore mAyA can be many different things. When Brahman is seen as Saguna, it is the power of self-expression of ISvara. Ultimately, it is incomprehensible. Sankara's description of mAyA-Sakti as "anirvachanIya" fully captures the mystery that the Upanishads indicate it is. There are many sub-schools of post-Sankaran Advaita which try to explain mAyA in myriad different ways. Because mAyA can be many different things, each person sees some of those things. These sub-schools are all subordinated to the original teaching of Sankara, so that differences of opinion about what mAyA is, do not lead to major schisms within Advaita on a philosophical or a religious basis. The emphasis remains on understanding and knowing Brahman as one's own Atman. For, whatever mAyA is thought to be, when the Atman is known as Brahman, mAyA is fully understood to be "anirvachnaIya". In no way can the Advaitic idea of mAyA be dismissed as a mere illusion. Having said that, let me turn to the other criticism about mAyA. Mani - For example, consider the ontological status of mAyA, the principle that is supposed to be the source of avidyA and hence our bondage in this world. Other Vedantins wish to know, if Brahman is pure, homogeneous Consciousness, admitting of no difference whatsoever, how does mAyA fit into the picture? Advaitins respond by saying "it is anirvacanIya (incomprehensible)". Now you tell me, is that a response in the context of a debate? My response to this frivolous charge is this. Don't you resort to incomprehensibility yourself? Let me elaborate. Visishtadvaita explains the relationship between the Atman and the Brahman, not as an Identity (even though Upanishad expressly tells us so) but as a SarIra-SArIrin relationship. When asked how is it that changes in the SarIra (one's AtmA) do not affect the SArIrin (Brahman), what is the Visishtadvaitin's answer? He cannot say that one's individual AtmA is changeless, because that is the Advaitic view. However, Brahman, the AtmA of this Atma, must remain changeless, because Upanishad says so. How does he resolve this? He resorts to this same mysteriousness! The Visishtadvaitin can hardly find fault with Advaita for saying mAyA is anirvachanIya. The double standard in his reasoning is patent. When the Advaitin says mAyA is inexplicable i.e. mysterious, that is not a proper response in the context of a debate. When the Visishtadvaitin says "Mysterious are the ways of the Lord", that is a wonderful response in the debate and the Advaitin should exalt him as a great bhakta, I suppose! Advaita would rather leave the ontological status of mAyA as anirvachanIya, than compromise on the Upanishadic teaching of identity between Atman and Brahman. When the Upanishad says "tat tvam asi" it does not mean "tad tava AtmA". Similarly, "ayamAtmA Brahma", not "asya Atmana: AtmA Brahma". No SarIra-SArIrin relationship here, no soul of the soul description, only absolute identity. In fact, it is this identity that is unique to the teaching of the Upanishads, in no other religion is such powerful non-duality affirmed. (Buddhism teaches identity, but not with Brahman, because there is no concept of Brahman in Buddhism.) Visishtadvaita offers alternative explanations to such identity, and is comfortable with it; Advaita does not wish to dilute the Upanishadic teaching. Nobody disputes the Visishtadvaita claim that Brahman is described as Saguna in the Upanishads. The Advaitin accepts the Saguna fully, as a manifestation of the Nirguna. What the Advaitin disputes is the Visishtadvaitic denial of the Nirguna. Ultimately the Advaitin's answer to the Visishtadvaitin is that you cannot just wish away the Nirguna Brahman and claim that Brahman is Saguna always. You cannot just wish away the identity affirmed in the Upanishads. You cannot adequately explain Yajnavalkya's affirmation of non-duality as the ultimate truth in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (IV, 5. 15, for example), in terms of Visishtadvaita. The Advaita explanation is the only one to fully understand the teaching of the Upanishad. Even if you do explain Yajnavalkya's affirmation of non-duality in terms of Visishtadvaita, at least recognize that the Advaita explanation is an alternative explanation, and in fact the older one with the force of tradition behind it. Do not arbitrarily dismiss Advaita as nihilistic and do not search for imaginary origins in Buddhism. At the very least, do not claim that Visishtadvaita is the only true school of Vedanta. Vidyasankar
The Arcane Archive is copyright by the authors cited.
Send comments to the Arcane Archivist: tyaginator@arcane-archive.org. |
Did you like what you read here? Find it useful?
Then please click on the Paypal Secure Server logo and make a small donation to the site maintainer for the creation and upkeep of this site. |
The ARCANE ARCHIVE is a large domain,
organized into a number of sub-directories, each dealing with a different branch of religion, mysticism, occultism, or esoteric knowledge. Here are the major ARCANE ARCHIVE directories you can visit: |
|
interdisciplinary:
geometry, natural proportion, ratio, archaeoastronomy
mysticism: enlightenment, self-realization, trance, meditation, consciousness occultism: divination, hermeticism, amulets, sigils, magick, witchcraft, spells religion: buddhism, christianity, hinduism, islam, judaism, taoism, wicca, voodoo societies and fraternal orders: freemasonry, golden dawn, rosicrucians, etc. |
SEARCH THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
There are thousands of web pages at the ARCANE ARCHIVE. You can use ATOMZ.COM
to search for a single word (like witchcraft, hoodoo, pagan, or magic) or an
exact phrase (like Kwan Yin, golden ratio, or book of shadows):
OTHER ESOTERIC AND OCCULT SITES OF INTEREST
Southern
Spirits: 19th and 20th century accounts of hoodoo,
including slave narratives & interviews
|