Q: I am trying to understand what is meant by ‘unmanifest’. Is it:
- an upādhi like deep sleep; i.e. a ‘state’ or a ‘subtle object’? Or, if it is not an upādhi, then presumably
- it is pure Brahman, with a label ‘māyā’ for the purpose of discussing creation. i.e. it is not a state or subtle object.
I think it’s #2, but I have heard that deep sleep can be equated with māyā upādhi (at the micro level) or the unmanifest. This seems a bit confusing to me as I view the deep-sleep experience as an occurrence within manifestation.
I believe the Gīta says something like… When Brahma-ji awakes it is manifestation and when he sleeps it is un-manifestation. This makes me think maybe it is like deep sleep. If this is the case, then what about before Brahma-ji? This would indicate that there is something other than or standalone from the unmanifest or prior to the unmanifest (Brahma-ji’s sleep state).
Some clarification would be greatly appreciated!
A: There are some questions that can really bother a seeker who uses their intellect too much! This is not a personal criticism – I have done precisely this sort of thing in the past. I once agonized about karma and reincarnation.
The problem with any such topic is that it relates to an attempt in vyavahāra to ‘explain’ something that is mithyā. And it carries the same warning as use of metaphor – don’t try to take them beyond the bounds of their applicability.
All of the teaching of Advaita (and I mean ALL) is mithyā. You will have heard of adhyāropa-apavāda. This applies to everything. Some teaching is introduced to help you to advance your understanding. Then it is taken back and a more subtle teaching presented. Ultimately, everything is taken back.
You will also have heard of ajāti vāda. There has never been any creation; there is only ever the non-dual Brahman. Therefore, what could be the possible meaning of pralaya?
It is possible that you know all of this already and are simply asking about how Advaita copes with this concept in the intermediate stages. I have to say that I don’t know! I don’t recall coming across anything on the topic in the past 50 years. (Mind you, this doesn’t mean that I haven’t – my memory sometimes does not stretch to last week!) I tried asking Copilot-ChatGPT but the answer there was pathetic and of no help at all.
The closest I could find in my ‘spreadsheet of references’ was to Muṇḍaka 2.3.7. Śaṅkara says in his bhāṣya: “Whatever was mentioned above, like karma and vijñānamaya-ātmā (i.e. ahaṃkāra), all of them, when all the reflecting mediums are gone, become one with the eternal one which, like the space is not subject to decay, and which is limitless and infinite, and which is that Brahman.” And he then quotes from Brihad. 4.4.25 and 2.5.19 and Māṇḍ. 7.
Q: ‘Agonized’ is the perfect word!
It’s interesting… I have always had a clear understanding that all teachings are mithyā and this in some sense has protected me from falling down perplexing rabbit holes – but somehow this topic has taken me for a spin, a big one. Your email has given me a well needed reminder + nice to hear you’ve been there before.
The quote was actually quite helpful too. It touches on the issue nicely.
A question just arose… Would you agree that ultimately every vyāvahārika answer at the mithyā level will break down if scrutinized deeply enough, as that’s part of the nature of mithyā being ‘unreal’ – it can’t have certainty as it is relative and limited by the mind? Almost like a house of never-ending doors, you open one and then another one will be presented and so on and so forth.
Sometimes it’s hard to know when to stop, as there is also the fear of ‘what if I don’t get it?”. So I guess each method isn’t used to know Brahman or get certainty, but rather to point us towards a ‘more’ correct orientation (e.g., to not objectify)
Any further thoughts would be useful.
A: The entirety of the teaching is mithyā – it has to be; it is language in duality. It is not possible to give any pāramārthika answer. Even ‘advaita’ is a concept. Many of the post-Śaṅkara authors don’t seem to get this. I recently completed the ‘Confusions Vol. 2 on ‘Ignorance and its Removal’, which involved looking at many of these texts. I was amazed at how they invented and then argued over the most ridiculous concepts. Where understandable, these just caused confusion. Fortunately (?), they were mostly incomprehensible, or at least unreadable!
So best to stick with prasthāna traya and Śaṅkara (and maybe Sureśvara). The trouble is that, unless you are fluent in Sanskrit, you have to rely on the commentaries of others, many of whom will have also studied these post-Śaṅkara authors. And there is a tendency for them to introduce ‘alien’ concepts. Consequently, even these can cause confusion!