Tag Archives: maya

The Limitations of Metaphor

Posted on by
Reply

Advaita teaching frequently makes use of metaphor in its explanations of the various topics. These are indisputably invaluable, although there is also the danger of taking them beyond the realm of their applicability and either drawing erroneous conclusions or simply failing to see the point that is being made. This also highlights the necessity of using the metaphor that is most appropriate for conveying the message. Take the example of sarvam khalvidam brahma – all this (world) is really Brahman.

We might start with the ubiquitous rope-snake metaphor. We think we see a snake but the light is poor. (We think we see a world of separate objects, but we haven’t yet gained the Self-knowledge of Advaita – our perception is covered by ignorance.) When we bring torchlight to shine into the darkness, we see that it is really a rope. (Having been taught Advaita, we realize that the world is really name and form of Brahman.)

Continue reading →

Eight Upanishads (Topic-wise) Part 32

Posted on by
5

Part 31

Chapter 6 JnAna and moksha
 6-9 Taittiria Upanishad- BrahmAnanda Valli
6-9-3 AnuvAka 6
If a person says that Brahman is non-existent, he is adhArmic. Brahman-knowledge cannot be the goal of such a person. He does not accept the authority of the Vedanta sastras. For such a person a preparatory righteous life constituting karma yoga and upAsanA yoga would not make any sense. His life is meaningless. On the other hand, a seeker initially accepts Brahman because the scriptures say so and eventually, he clearly understands that Brahman exists not as an object, but as I, the very subject. It is different from and witness to the five sheaths.

Continue reading →

Dṛṣṭi- sṛṣṭi-vāda

Posted on by

There has just been a brief discussion on the Advaitin List under the heading of ‘Quotes from samkshepa shaareeraka’. This was effectively on the perceived consequences of accepting the theory of dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda – the creation theory that claims that the world is the mental imagination of the jīva; a theory equating to the Western belief of solipsism. Sri ‘Sudhanshu Shekhar’ made the original post and Sri ‘Bhaskar YR’ represented the objections (with which I agree). Rather than joining in, I thought I would ask ChatGPT for an ‘opinion’ and its response seems to me to be very reasonable. (I even find myself more disposed to DSV than I was before!) Here is the exchange:

Q: How do Advaita believers in dṛṣṭi- sṛṣṭi-vāda explain how they can discuss the topic with other believers and non-believers?

A: In Advaita Vedānta, particularly within the framework of dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda (the doctrine that perception precedes creation), explaining and discussing the philosophy with others presents an interesting challenge. Since dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda asserts that the world arises in accordance with the perceiver’s experience, the question arises: how can multiple individuals engage in a discussion if each person’s world is subjectively projected?

Continue reading →

Eight Upanishads (Topic-wise) Part 21

Posted on by

Part 20

Chapter 6 JnAna and Moksha
6-5 Katha Upanishad
6-5-23 Katha 2.1.5 to 2.1.10 Some technical terms used by the Upanishad need explanation. Brahman is all-pervading Original Consciousness (OC). It is AtmA at the individual level. The OC manifests through matter, the Reflecting Medium (RM). It is Reflected Consciousness (RC). OC is only one, but RCs are as many as RMs. The quality of RC depends upon RM. The OC remains unaffected. The material universe is divided into three pairs: three belonging to the microcosm and three belonging to macrocosm. Consciousness reflects in any of the six mediums. There are 6 mediums RM1 to RM6 and six reflected consciousness RC1 to RC6. At the individual level, there are three mediums: RM1 (physical -gross), RM2 (mental-subtle) and RM3 -causal.

Continue reading →

Eight Upanishads (Topic-wise) Part 20

Posted on by

Part 19

Chapter 6 JnAna and Moksha
6-5 Katha Upanishad
6-5-14 Katha 1.3.11 The unmanifested (Avyakta) is higher than mahat, the Purusha is higher than the unmanifested. Purusha is the highest. He is the highest goal.
At the end of a cycle of creation called pralaya, the world resolves in Brahman and is in potential and causal state. It is the ‘unmanifested’ mentioned in the mantra above. It is the maya power of Brahman. Brahman is also called Purusha. In the next cycle of creation, cosmic subtle body is the first born and creation of names and forms unfolds in stages. The cosmic subtle body is Hiranyagarbha, also called mahat. The unmanifest causal body is superior to Hiranyagarbha. Beyond this unmanifest, there is another unmanifest called Brahman (BG 8.20) or Purusha. The universe has two states, namely, unmanifest (potential form) and manifested names and forms. To know Brahman is the highest human goal, i.e., moksha.

Continue reading →

Adhyāropa-apavāda (Part 2)

Posted on by

ADHYĀROPĀPAVĀDA: REVISITING THE INTERPRETATIONS OF SVĀMI SACCIDĀNANDENDRA SARASVATĪ AND THE POST-ŚAṄKARĀDVAITINS (continued)
by Manjushree Hegde
(Read Part 1)

  1. Levels of Deliberated Attribution in the Prasthānatraya Texts

According to SSS, deliberated attribution occurs on three distinct levels in the texts of the prasthānatraya:16 words, sentences, and methodological procedures or prakriyās employed to articulate the inquiry.17 Each of these levels can be illustrated with examples. Consider the level of words. It is notable that most words themselves can be categorized as adhyāropas. Indeed, even a term as fundamental as ‘ātman’ is itself an adhyāropa. In the CUB 7.1.3, Śaṅkarācārya writes:

The term ‘ātman’ serves as a means of identifying it in contradistinction to the corporeal vehicle it inhabits. Moreover, the term is extended to convey the referent which persists after the repudiation of the body and other non-self entities as illusory. Finally, the word is used to reveal what is inexpressible by words.18

The term “ātman” is an adhyāropa; the aim of invoking the term is not its designation per se, but rather to draw attention to its distinctiveness from the nonself entities, to discriminate it from the nonself referents (body, mind, etc.). Loundo writes, “[Understanding it as an adhyāropa] prevents the reification of ātman and, concomitantly, of its negatum, in the process of distinguishing the former from the latter (body, etc.)” (Loundo 2015, p. 72). Similarly, the term “brahman,” derived from the verbal root “bṛḥ, expansion,” is an adhyāropa that seeks to invalidate the potential limitations associated with “ātman” (BUB 2.3.6). Most words of the prasthānatraya texts—including jīva, īśvara, jagat, avidyā, māyā, bandha, mokṣa, and so on—are adhyāropas.

Continue reading →

Q.555 State Express

Posted on by

(A few people might appreciate the joke! Google will give you the answer.)

Q: I am trying to appreciate what is meant by the ‘unmanifest state’. Two ‘explanations’ present themselves:

1. The unmanifest is itself an upādhi like deep sleep. It’s a state or a subtle object

2. The unmanifest is not an upādhi. It’s pure Brahman, with a label ‘māyā’ for the purpose of discussing creation. It is not a state or subtle object

I think it’s #2, but I have heard that deep sleep is equated with the 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. Can you please clarify?

2. I believe the Gīta says something like: When Brahmāji 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 Brahmaji? This would indicate that there is something other than, or standalone from, the unmanifest or prior to the unmanifest (Brahmaji’s sleep state).

Some clarification would be greatly appreciated!

Continue reading →

Eight Upanishads (Topic-wise) Part 4

Posted on by

Part 3

Part 4

Chapter 3 Jiva Jagat Isvara

3-1 Introduction
It is desirable to begin with the obvious, namely, the creation and human being. The world is constituted of living and non-living beings. It also includes invisible entities, e.g., thoughts, and emotions. A human being is a living being. Though Upanishads differ in the details of creation, there is consensus about a causeless creator called Brahman and that the creation is cyclic, not linear. A linear creation with a beginning and an end runs into logical fallacies. In the cyclic version, there is no beginning and no end. Pedantically, it is absurd to talk about any beginning of creation because time is a part of creation. An immediate question that begs an answer is about the source of raw materials for creation. Before the creation, there was nothing except the creator. Upanishadic answer is that the creator has the material within Himself like a spider having material inside itself. The material is the mAyA power of Brahman which does not exist separately from Brahman. Cyclic creation and the material within the creator lead to a third proposition. In one cycle, the world emerges out of the creator, runs its course according to certain laws, and then resolves into the creator to remain there in potential form and become ready at an appropriate time for the next cycle. It is called creation-sustenance-dissolution. The word ‘creation’ is a misnomer because it conveys that a new thing comes into existence which is not correct. A more appropriate word is manifestation.

Continue reading →

Advaita in the Vedas – Rig Veda 6.47.18

Posted on by

There is a verse in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad which says, 

Indra, through Maya, appeared as many forms. [1]

It has been quoted by both Gaudapada and Shankara to illustrate how, through the illusion of Maya, Brahman appears as many. With knowledge of Advaita, this illusion is dispelled. 

The full verse says,

He shifted shape to match every shape, to manifest his shape. Indra, through Maya, appeared as many forms. his horses, hundreds and ten, are yoked.

Though quoted in Advaita literature, the verse is, itself, a quote — from the Rig Veda [2].

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 →