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.)

But realization is one thing and actual ‘seeing’ another. In the case of what was thought to be a snake, we now really do see a rope. We no longer see a snake and know that it was only an illusion. But we still see the world and apparently interact with it. Does that mean that we are not enlightened after all? Or was that metaphor not entirely applicable?

Let’s try the mirage metaphor instead! Walking in the desert heat and being thirsty, we think that we see a pool of water ahead. (Having desires and fears, we think we see objects and situations that will ‘satisfy’ them.) But when we walk towards it, the water also recedes and may well totally disappear. We realize that it is not real and there is no water to satisfy our thirst. (As we assimilate the teaching of Advaita, we realize that the world is only apparent and ultimately will not satisfy our desires. But that metaphor is already beginning to break down!)

More importantly, however, if we return to the initial spot, we still see the water, despite now knowing that it is not real. This aspect is relevant to convincing us that the world does not disappear. The appearance of water is not real as water; it is real as a refraction of the sunlight through the hot air above the sand. Similarly, the world is not real as world; it is real as name and form of Brahman.

But still the metaphor does not entirely work. The mirage water never satisfies my thirst but the world does satisfy many of my wants (some of the time). Their degree of reality is not really comparable.

So we move on to the dream metaphor. Here, while we are in the dream, we believe totally in the reality of that world. The apparent things of the dream world satisfy me or frighten me, just as they might in the waking world. Here, the dream water does satisfy my (admittedly only) dream thirst. Only when I wake up do I realize that all of that was unreal.

But here there is now a tendency to claim that, just as the dream world literally disappears when we wake up, so the waking world disappears when we gain enlightenment. But I am not going to slide into that discussion again! It is definitely a case of taking the metaphor too far!

One of Rupert Spira’s favorite metaphors is the movie screen. We watch a movie and become totally involved in the action that is portrayed, closing our eyes and quickening the heart when we see a scary scene and even shedding a tear when a character apparently suffers. Of course we would immediately concede that we know it is not real; that the entire landscape and all of the characters are only two-dimensional images. The ‘reality’ is the white screen, as we can see when the film is over and the lights go on in the theatre. Just as the ‘reality’ is the screen and the images are only temporary appearances, so it is with the world appearance and Brahman its reality.

But isn’t the screen an inert object? Isn’t the ‘real’ action, with all of the world and its occupants, produced by the light passing through the film in the projector? Clearly this metaphor must definitely not be taken too far, or we end up with studios, actors, producers and directors etc.

A variant of this metaphor which is less ambiguous is the hologram. Here, the image (world) is not itself real but ‘consists’ entirely of the light (Consciousness) projected by the laser. But then what actually ‘manipulates’ the light to form the particular image is the interference pattern on a film or plate. So this metaphor is also ambiguous. We can say that the light source corresponds to Consciousness and the film to māyā but this hardly helps to consolidate the truth of non-duality.

Perhaps waves in the ocean are less likely to be taken too far. The world is the totality of waves, with each person/object a single wave, having its own characteristics. The metaphor works best if we equate Consciousness to water. Then we can say that the ocean is the totality of ‘creation’ and each of us in an individual wave. But this might leave us with the impression that Brahman is the universe, which is not quite the same as the universe being Brahman.

The incipient problem with all metaphors is the danger of taking them beyond the stage of their correspondence with the actual situation. They should be viewed only as mental triggers or stepping-stones to advance our understanding of the problem that is being addressed. And here, of course, is the perfect opportunity for Wittgenstein’s ladder metaphor! In order to reach the roof of a high building, we have to employ the assistance of a ladder, since our physical make up is such that we cannot simply step onto it from the ground. When we are unable to understand or accept what initially appears to be an outlandish proposition, we need to have it explained step by step, in terms that are appropriate for our limited mental capability.

Once we have climbed up onto the roof, we can push the ladder away since it is no longer needed (unless, of course, we are going to want to climb down again later – metaphor breakdown!). Similarly, the step by step explanations were interim only and probably do not make sense once we have the final understanding. Each is dropped as it is replaced by a ‘higher’ (more sophisticated) explanation. This is the process of adhyāropa-apavāda that has been explained in other posts.

The bottom line is that any metaphor that helps you to the final understanding is useful, even it has been misunderstood or taken beyond its strict applicability. And, like Wittgenstein’s ladder, be sure to discard it after it has been used! Unfortunately, metaphors can actually be counter-productive if they are misunderstood. So they should only be used in conjunction with a more formal explanation by a qualified teacher! The adjective ‘qualified’ is very important because some modern teachers, not having themselves understood the methodology of traditional Advaita, may just be passing on their own misunderstandings!

(This is an extract from my next book, which is now virtually complete but cannot be expected until the end of next year after ‘Self Seeking’ and ‘Confusions in Advaita: Ignorance and its Removal’. Those should be available later this year.)