Tag Archives: appearance

Appearance and Existence don’t go together

Posted on by
3

Shri Prasanth Neti Ji writes in his comment on a post at FB-SAV:

Prasanth Neti: When bhAShya (i.e., Shankara’s Commentary) teaches “just like snake is a projection / appearance on rope, world is a projection / appearance in brahman”, the only intention of that teaching is to negate all [or any sort of] existence to snake and world.

It is unfortunate that Post-Sankara Vedantins teach or talk about projection / appearance as a positive phenomenon.
The sole purpose of teaching that ‘snake is only a projection’ is to negate any sort of existence to snake. But it is not at all intended to understand or talk about in the lines of “existence to appearance”!!
shAstra is apavAda-pradhAna (i.e., Vedanta is mainly based on “negation.”) Snake/World is a projection means, it does not exist. Period.
The implied negation is the heart of such teaching and there is no intention either to vouch for ‘appearance as a positively occurring phenomenon’ or to ‘vouch for existence of an appearance’.
Therefore, phrases such as ‘world, body, mind are not independently real but exist only as appearance’ is a misunderstanding of Vedānta – do not use the word existence along with appearance.
‘World, body and mind do not exist but brahman alone exists’ is the only intention when bhAShya teaches, ‘World is a Projection.”

Q.551 – Illusoriness of the world (again)

Posted on by

Q: Why exactly is the world considered illusory? In what sense is it illusory?

Objects change their form and so the form is unreal. We have ideas about objects but these are unreal being imagination only. The whole subjective world with a person as its center is born of imagination.

I can see that objects including the body-mind appear in this field of awareness and everything functions by itself. But the differentiation still exists. There is awareness and also its contents. So how are they illusory? Is it because they are dependent on awareness?

A: Advaita does not say that the world is illusory. (This is a mistranslation by some modern teachers.) Nor is it ‘imaginary’. The world is mithyā, which means that it derives its existence from Brahman. It is ‘name and form’ of Brahman just as we can say that a chair is name and form of wood.

Continue reading →

Q. 548 – God and germs

Posted on by

Q: It is said that God is everywhere. So God is very much in the human body as well. He is in every cell/atom of a human body. My question is: what is the position /status of God, who is within the body, when  every cell/atom becomes infected? Is infection more powerful than God?

A: God is not ‘in the  human body’. The human body is name and form of Brahman. Similarly, bacteria are name and form of Brahman. There is ONLY Brahman in reality.

At the level of appearance (world etc.), God (Īśvara ) provides an interim explanation of the laws that govern the seeming creation.  One of these laws is that bacteria can infect bodies and affect their working, even to the extent of ‘killing’ them. But God, bodies and bacteria do not exist as separate entities in reality. They are all Brahman.

Continue reading →

Q.547 – Māyā an attribute of Brahman?

Posted on by

Q: Can Advaitins explain how Maya can be an attribute of the supposedly attributeless Brahman? Why was the creation needed if Brahman alone existed? What is Ishwara?

A (Martin): Maya is not an attribute of Brahman. Maya is a diffuse, or polyvalent, concept which gives rise to much confusion, particularly by translating it as ‘illusion’ (see below). This concept can be viewed from the psychological, epistemological, and ontological perspectives.

Purely from the standpoint of Shankara’s  Advaita Vedanta, Maya is tied in with the concept of ‘ignorance’ (avidya), which is prior to it; that is, avidya is the necessary condition for Maya. Once ignorance has been annihilated by knowledge, Maya disappears. That means that from the higher (of two) points of view, Maya does not exist. This is contrary to most post-Shankara authors, with the exception of Sureshvara, who taught that Maya is a positive entity or force. If that were the case, how could a positive entity be removed by knowledge? Swami Satchidanandendra, practically alone in the 20th Cent. has defended the former, Shankarian position.

Continue reading →

Q.546 – Mind and Soul

Posted on by

Q: Advaita says that there is nothing beyond consciousness. Nothing can take place/occur without   the background of consciousness. When consciousness takes the form of a human body, it is called soul/jīvātmā. When the body becomes sick, is it the soul which grieves / or only the mind?

A: There is nothing OTHER THAN Consciousness in reality. (‘Beyond’ implies that there are other things.) Consciousness is the foreground as well as the background! It is the mind that grieves when it thinks that ‘I am the body’. Consciousness never ‘does’ anything at all (including thinking).

Q: So what is the purpose of such ‘Being without doing anything’ in maintaining such BIG universe?

A: There is no universe in reality; there is ONLY Consciousness (Brahman). Please do not ask why there is the appearance of a universe, when there is only Brahman. Advaita does not really have an answer for this. The j~nAnI still sees a world but knows that it is Brahman. It is the mind that perceives ‘form’ and gives this a ‘name’.

Q.545 – How can I ‘do’ anything?

Posted on by

Q: In Advaita, there’s the prevailing idea that you are not the mind or the body, that everything is just an appearance in the self.  If I think of myself as just the conscious observer, how can I bring myself to take action and get rid of non-beneficial thoughts. If I am not the mind, then how can I tell the mind to eat healthier if that is just a thought in and of itself? Even the idea of enlightenment must happen at the level of the mind, but if conceptually I am not that, how do I go about trying to change perspectives and recurring mindsets?

Finally, if there is no free will, then how can one take action and try to grow as a person? It’s hard for me to make myself do things when I can just say, “Since there is no free will, I (consciousness) can’t really do anything because I am not the mind.”

Continue reading →

Q.544 – Evil in the world

Posted on by

Q:  I understand that ultimately, from a pāramārthika perspective, Brahman is all that there is, and that ‘that’ reality is what we are/ I am. However, on a vyavahāra level, there is so much suffering. Not my personal suffering – that’s just a small insignificant thing.

My question is: How can one look at war, hunger, poverty, of sentient beings, human and animal and not be affected by it? How can one put it into context?

Advaita seems to say that this universe / world / body-mind complex are all ‘mithyā’; just an ‘appearance’; dream-like, having no independent nature of its own. “Brahma satyam, jagat mithyā, jīvo brahmaiva nāparaḥ”. It seems cold and uncaring, and kind of an easy way out just to brush it off as ‘appearance’ only.

I find it hard to brush of as ‘just an appearance’ all the suffering that I see. How does Advaita rationalize this?

Continue reading →

mAyA an attribute of Brahman

Posted on by

Q: Can Advaitins explain how Maya can be an attribute of the supposedly attributeless Brahman? Why was the creation needed if Brahman alone existed? What is Ishwara?

A (Martin):

 1) Maya is not an attribute of Brahman which, as you say, is attributeless. Maya is a diffuse, or polyvalent, concept that gives rise to much confusion, particularly by translating it as ‘illusion’ (see below). This concept can be viewed from psychological, epistemological, and ontological perspectives. Purely from the standpoint of Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta, Maya is tied in with the concept of ‘ignorance’ (avidya), which is prior to it; that is, avidya is the necessary condition for Maya. Once ignorance has been annihilated by knowledge, Maya disappears. That means that from the higher (of two) point of view, Maya does not exist. This is contrary to most post-Shankara authors, with the exception of Suresvara, who taught that Maya is a positive entity or force. If that were the case, how could a positive entity be removed by knowledge? Swami Satchidanandendra, practically alone in the 20th Cent. has defended the former, Shankarian position.

Maya can also be viewed as the power or energy of Brahman to create the world, and etymologically the word comes from ‘magic/magician’.

But note that the (phenomenal) world is not pure illusion, as stated above, but mithya (relatively real)

2) ‘Brahman alone is real. The world is appearance. The world is not other than Brahman’ (one of the ‘great sayings’ – mahavakya).

3) Ishvara is Brahman considered as creator and ‘personal’ by those who need or are proclive to a devotional relationship (creator/creature). It is also known as ‘saguna brahman’ (Brahman with attributes), as (apparently) different from ‘nirguna Brahman’.

Supreme Consummation of Self-knowledge (in Summary)

Posted on by

[This Article, “The Supreme Consummation of Self-knowledge (in Summary)” is about the aspect of “How To” attain the unbroken abidance in/as the Self by a mature and ready seeker. It is (mainly) based on Shankara’s explanation at 18.50, BGB.]

Q: Of what nature is the Self-knowledge?

A: Of the same nature as the Self.
(In other words, Self and Self-knowledge are one and the same).

Q: Of what nature is the Self ?

A: Of the (same) nature as described by Lord Krishna (in the Bhagavad-Gita) and (also) as mentioned in the Upanishads.

Q: But the Upanishads say that the Supreme Self is formless and featureless. For example, 

अरूपम् (formless)  — 1.3.15, kaTha Upanishad. 

Further, it is also said that the Self is not an ‘object’ that is available for perception:

न सन्दृशे तिष्ठति रूपमस्य न चक्षुषा पश्यति कश्चनैनम् (His form does not exist within the range of vision; nobody sees Him with the eye)  – 4.20, Shwetaswatara; 2.3.9, kaTha.

In addition, the Self is,

अशब्दमस्पर्शम् (soundless, not touchable)  –  1.3.15, kaTha.

The Self and the cognition (*) there of being formless and intangible, how can there be constant consummation on the Self? Continue reading →

Gaudapada on the Appearance of a world

Posted on by

The most “radical version of Non-dual teaching” goes back to Revered Gaudapada (of 5th or 6th CE) who forms a watershed mark in the Advaita tradition. With him started the human form lineage of teacher-disciple. (Before him it was a lineage of Sages preceded by the lineage of Gods – see here).

Gaudapada says that we are prisoners of an unwavering belief in cause-effect relationships. He avers that cause-effect relationships do not exist. For example, he writes:

नास्त्यसद्धेतुकमसत्सदसद्धेतुकं तथा ।
सच्च सद्धेतुकं नास्ति सद्धेतुकमसत्कुतः ॥  — 4.40, Gaudapada kArikA on mANDUkya Upanishad.

Meaning: The unreal cannot have the unreal as its cause. Nor can the real be produced from the unreal. The real cannot be the cause of the real. And it is much more impossible for the real to be the cause of the unreal. (Translation: Swami Nikhilananda). Continue reading →