In Advaita Vedanta, it is said that the world is a manifestation/appearance of Brahman like ornament (world) and gold (Brahman) in gold-ornament metaphor. A hearer is puzzled as to how can the material world be envisaged as a manifestation/appearance of Brahman which is of the nature of pure existence (Existence) and is non-material. Existence is not perceived, world is perceived, whereas both gold and ornament are perceived. In this sense, the hearer argues that there is a disconnect of the gold-ornament from Brahman-world.
The counter argument from a co-hearer is that a metaphor is never similar to the thing illustrated for otherwise it ceases to be a metaphor. The principle is that in a metaphor, similarity is the focus and dis-similarity is ignored. In the instant case, dis-similarity due to material and non-material is ignored. What is the similarity then? Here comes the concept of mithya, i.e., neither nor unreal. Brahman is of the nature of Existence. It lends existence to the world which has no independent existence as it continuously changes. Brahman is real and world is mithya (ब्रह्म सत्यं जगन्मिथ्या). In the gold-ornament metaphor, ornament has no existence separate from that of the gold. Gold is real and ornament is mithya. Thus, there is a similarity (of mithyatatva) between the illustration and the illustrated.
Agreement: In the gold-ornament metaphor to explain that the world is a manifestation/appearance of Brahman, the focus is on mithyatatva.
3 thoughts on “Manifestation/Appearance – A view”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
That is very clearly explained, Bimal!
Although I think that, often, whether or not a metaphor ‘works’ depends upon how it is managed. Here, for example, there is a direct parallel if we talk about ‘isness’.
In the case of the ornament, we do usually say that there ‘is’ an ornament, or more pedantically ‘the ornament IS’. But, when we anlayze this, we realize that the ‘isness’ does not belong to the ornament at all, but to the gold. The ornament is simply name and form of the gold.
Then, when we apply this metaphor to the world, we can say that there ‘is’ a world, or more pedantically ‘the world IS’. But here we realize that the ‘isness’ does not belong to the world at all, but to Brahman. The world is simply name and form of Brahman.
As you say, the correct term for this situation is ‘mithyA’.
Best wishes,
Dennis
Dear Dennis,
The word ‘form’ is confusing, at least for me. It is easy to comprehend that a bangle is a form of gold but difficult to comprehend that world is a form of Brahman. How can formless Brahman have a form? This is precisely the point which I have tried to highlight by using the words material and non-material respectively for form and formless.
Best wishes,
Bimal
Dear Binal,
Sounds reasonable. But you are saying in the original post that the world is material and Brahman is non-material.
Is it not the case that Brahman is the ‘substance’ of the world, in the way that gold is the ‘substance’ of ornament? So how can the world be material? Brahman is said somewhere to create the world out if its own substance in the way that a spider makes a web.
Best wishes,
Dennis