|
|
|
LIFE AND DATE OF SHANKARA
Shankara's birth is itself a topic of controversy. The earliest biographical account on Shankara's life, Shankaravijaya by Anantaanandagiri, holds that Shankara was born around 50 BC in Chidambaram in modern Tamil Nadu to Dikshidar Brahmin parents. But this has not received much support in academic circles. Modern Indological opinion places Shankara between the 6th century CE and 8th century CE and also supports the Shankaradigvijaya of Maadhava, that Shankara was born in Kaaladi in modern Kerala, to Namboodiri Brahmin parents - Sivaguru and Aryaamba.
It is said that as a boy he was a youthful prodigy who devoured the Vedic sciences with avidity. He seems to have had an early spiritual experience and unable to reconcile his vision of the truth with the existing philosophical systems, he is said to have traveled around the country seeking out the right teacher. He found what he was looking for in Govinda, a disciple of Gaudapaada and learnt the main principles of the Advaita system from him. Being true to the philosophy, he rejected worldly life and became a samnyaasin even at a very young age. But he was no passionless recluse, for the pure flame of truth burned bright and deep within him. He seemed to have felt that neither the theism of the bhakti movement, nor the scepticism of the Buddhists, nor the ascetic practices of the Jainaas, nor the ritualism of the Miimaamsakas, nor the metaphysical speculation of the other Brahmanical schools, could satisfy the spiritual needs of the people. Only the Advaitic interpretation of the mystic truth of the Upanishads could adequately address the need. He traveled the length and breadth of the land seeking out teachers of rival schools - debating, defeating and converting them to the Advaita fold. His debating skills are legend and the Tamil Saivite saint Maanikkavaachagar refers to him as the, "hurricane, which rocked and shook the world". Within a short span of time he seems to have established Advaita Vedanta as the most dominant system of philosophy in the land, a position the system maintains to this very day. Popular opinion credits him with dealing the deathblow to Buddhism, which by his time, was already on the wane. Such has been his influence on Indian philosophy and religion that almost without exception every new school, which came after him established itself by setting itself up against his views.
Shankara was also a religious reformer who discouraged and put down the grosser manifestations of religion - the extremities in the Shaakta worship in Southern India, the worship of Shiva as a dog under the name of Mallaari in the Deccan and the human sacrificial tendencies of the Kaapaalikaas. According to the Shankaradigvijaya of Maadhava he establised four monasteries (mathas) in four corners of the country - Shringeri in the South, Dwaraka in the West, Puri in the East and Badrinath in the North and disappeared in Kedarnath at the age of thirty two. But another tradition holds that he established his monastery in Kaanchipuram in modern Tamil Nadu and died there. All the above monasteries are fully functional to this day.
Shankara comes across as a person of many diverse skills. His penetrating metaphysical treatises on Advaita Vedaanta reveal his philosophical insight. His incisive dialectic marks him as an intrepid debater full of fire and passion. He is also the author of a number of hymns of exceptional quality, which are sung with reverence to this day. His strategic placing of the four monasteries on the four corners of India to impress upon the people a sense of civilizational unity, reveals his political genius. Above all he was a mystic who tried to show that we're all greater than we believe. "There have been few minds more universal than his".
CAUSALITY
We shall approach Shankara from his views on causality, since such an approach shows us where he stands in respect to the dominant systems of his time - especially Buddhism -and will also show us how Advaita differs from them.
Shankara accepts Nagarjuna and Gaudapaada stand on the ultimate unintelligibility of causality. But still he endeavors to show the intimate relation between the cause and effect and that the latter is in the ultimate sense the cause itself.
That the effect cannot rise from the cause by itself, without external conditions may be true. But still considering that something cannot appear out of non-existence and particular causes give rise to particular effects, we've to concede that the effect is already present in the cause. If the effect is not prefigured in the cause, no amount of activity could bring it forth from the cause. What the agent does is to transform the cause into the form of the effect and if the effect were not in existence prior to its manifestation, then the activity of the agent respecting it would be without an object. Shankara disputes the view that if the effect is already present then the activity of the agent would be purposeless - no, the agent has the purpose of arranging the causal substance in the form of the effect.
To the question why the cause must suddenly change into the effect, Shankara says that the cause is not something which remains unchanged for sometime and then suddenly changes into the effect. Causation is continuous. The cause is ever in the process of changing into the effect and hence there's no question of cause being one distinct thing and changing into the effect - which is another distinct thing. The cause has a certain power (atishaya) by which it brings forth the effect. If by atishaya we mean the antecedent condition of the effect, then we must admit that the effect exists in the cause. If atishaya is the power of the cause assumed with the object of accounting for the fact, that only one determined effect springs from the cause, it must be admitted that the power can determine the particular effect only if it is neither other than the cause or effect nor non existent. For if it were either it would not be different from anything else which is either non existent or other than cause and effect and then it will not be able to produce the particular effect. It follows that the power is identical with the self of the cause and the effect is identical with the self of that power. Cause doesn't merely precede the effect but makes it occur. Unless the cause persists in the effect, the latter cannot be perceived. Clay continues in the vessel and the threads in the cloth. Cause and effect are not two different things which can be seen independent of each other like horse and cow. The different between the effect before manifestation and after is a relative one. Cause and effect represent two phases of one things and are really of one nature.
The underlying identity of cause and effect can also be established on the basis of psychology. Objectively it may be impossible to establish the cause apart from the effect or to say it is one or different. But when one brings in common psychological experience, where individuals irrespective of the change wrought on them by age/experience, can still identify themselves as the same entity before and after the change/experience we can establish the singular nature of the cause and effect. We identify ourselves as the same entity irrespective of the passage of time - as a child or as a man. Devadatta is the same whether he opens his arms or folds them. Cause and effect represent two phases of one thing and are really of one nature. They just represent change in form but not of nature. It may even be said that the cause is the only reality and effects are but mere appearances.
THE SELF (Atman)
Shankara accepts the Mahaayaana Buddhist criticism of the phenomenal world - our senses and memory may deceive us, the past and future may exist only in relation to the present, the world as we know it might be a purely subjective experience, the waking state might only be as unreal as the dream state; in short, there might be nothing substantial in our phenomenal experience - but still there seems to be something in experience which transcends all these states. If one can find within oneself something which is not conditioned by one's environment and that which makes even the evaluation of the sense world possible though itself not part of it, then logic demands that we affirm this transcendent presence within.
Skepticism finds its limit in the self. Everybody is conscious of his own self and nobody thinks, "I'm not". Self experience is an absolute certainty and is prior to the stream of consciousness, truth and falsehood, good and evil, reality and illusion. All the means of knowledge (pramaanas) themselves are dependent on self-experience and since such experience is its own proof, there's no need to prove the existence of the self. Understanding and its functions presupposes an intelligence known as the self which is different from them and whom they sub serve. The gross body, the vital breath, the senses, the mind and the ego all depend on the Atman for existence - it is the essential nature of man.
The self is beyond the grasp of thought, for thought itself belongs to the category of the non-self. But still it is known as the object of the notion of the self and is known to exist on account of its immediate presentation. The subject is opposed to the object like light to darkness. It has being in itself and for itself.
The self is different from the objective world which also includes the mind and the senses. The self cannot be the gross body for consciousness and matter are totally opposed to each other in nature. The self cannot be confused with the senses for then there would be as many selves as the senses and personal identity would be impossible. Also perception through the senses would be simultaneous - we would see, hear and taste at the same time. The self cannot be the series of impermanent mental states, for then memory and recognition would be impossible. The self is not the ego (ahamkaara) either, as the ego is not antecedent to knowledge and is itself an object of knowledge. Even in dreamless sleep there has to be a self, for when one awakens from deep sleep one knows from memory that he had a sleep undisturbed by dreams. This absence of disquiet and knowledge during sleep is not inferred from the memory of the state before sleep and after it. For whatever is presented by memory has to have been perceived and so in deep sleep there's perception of absence of knowledge and disquiet.
A universal consciousness is needed if all the varying contents of consciousness are to be connected. "When it is said, it is I who now know what at present exists, it is I who knew the past and what was before the past, it is I who shall know the future and what is after the future, it is implied in these words that, even when the object of knowledge alters, the knower does not alter, for he is in the past, present and the future, as his essence is eternally present". The temporal series of experiences in our lives can be known as a series only if there's something present alike to each of them and itself therefore out of time. The self is undifferenced consciousness (nirvishesacinmaatram) which is unaffected even when the body is burnt to ashes and the mind perishes.
The world is made up of the conscious and the non-conscious. While the non-conscious cannot be the cause of the conscious, the vice-versa can be true. But this consciousness should not be confused with our finite consciousness, considering that there exists so many non-conscious things outside our finite consciousness. So the finite consciousness is only a fragment of the ultimate consciousness, which is the supreme principle in which there's no differentiation of the knower, knowledge and known. It is pure, non-objective consciousness - infinite, transcendent and the essence of absolute knowledge.
Is the relationship between the Self and intelligence to be regarded as the one between substance and attribute?
The relation between intelligence and the Self can either be identity or difference or identity and difference. Identity and difference is self-contradictory as they are totally opposed in nature like light and darkness. If intelligence is different in nature from the Self, then it would be something apart from the Self. It would then not be possible to regard this relationship as between substance and quality. For then, what relates them? If there's something which relates them, then what relates this relation to the Self and intelligence? It would lead to infinite regress. So identity is the only option left - intelligence must be regarded as identical with the Self.
The Self is not to be confused with logical apprehension where the duality of subject and object is an essential condition. There can neither be existence without intelligence or vice versa. True existence and intelligence go together. The Self is of the nature of bliss - freedom from all suffering. It is perfect in itself - needing nothing to acquire nor nothing to discard. No activity can be associated with the Atman for, "action cannot exist without modifying that in which it abides". Since the self sense (ahamkAra) is essential for all activity, it is necessarily motivated by desire and leads to pain. Activity and enjoyment is dependent on a dualistic vision and is not the highest truth. Activity necessarily involves the limitation of the Self with the physical body and all such limitation is unreal. The Atman by itself has no agency and is devoid of individuality. It is beyond thought, indivisible, devoid of plurality and the same everywhere. It is the ever present light of consciousness - one, universal infinite - the self of all.
THE MECHANISM OF KNOWLEDGE
All determinate knowledge presupposes a threefold modification of the universal consciousness : 1. the subject who knows, 2. the object which is known and 3. the process of knowledge. But the universal consciousness is one only (ekam eva) - all pervasive and enlightening all - the internal organ, its modification (vritti) and the object. The existence of the internal organ or antahkarana is asserted on the grounds that if such a thing didn't exist and then there would be a direct connection between the Atman, the senses and the object. If this were so there would result continuous perception ie we would keep on perceiving the object. But this is not a fact of experience, for it is common experience to have "breaks" in perception due to loss of focus in thought etc. Hence we've to acknowledge the existence of an internal organ as the link between the Atman and the senses, on whose attention or non-attention perception or non-perception take place.
The internal organ is the seat of the functions of the senses and receives and arranges what it receives from the senses. It is made up of parts and it is neither atomic nor infinite in magnitude. With the light of the Atman reflected on it the antahkarana reflects the objects presented to it and perceives them. The apprehension of the object involves modification (vritti) of the form of antahkarana. The modifications are of four kinds : 1. indetermination or samsaya, 2. determination or nischaya, 3. self consciousness or garva and 4. remembrance or smarana. When the antahkarana is in the mode of indetermination it is called the manas or the mind; in the mode of determination it is the buddhi or understanding; in the mode of self-consciousness it is the ahamkaara or the self sense and in the mode of remembrance it is chitta or attention. Phenomenal consciousness is due to the universal consciousness qualified by the internal organ. Based on previous karma the internal organ differs with each individual and so the varied experience of each experiencer.
MEANS OF KNOWLEDGE
Shankara affirms three sources of knowledge : perception, inference and scriptural testimony. But it is to be noted that according to Advaita even these pramaanas are valid only at the phenomenal level and are incapable of helping the aspirant grasp the ultimate truth. Though Shankara makes no effort to explain the psychology of perception and inference, he dwells on length on the importance of scriptural testimony.
The Veda is eternal wisdom and contains the timeless rules of all created existence. They are of superhuman origin (apaurusheya) and express the mind of God. At every world epoch, they are re-uttered by Ishvara for the benefit of humanity. So it is the substance of the texts (Vedaartha) which is eternal and not the texts themselves. The universe is eternal and so the Veda which embodies the ideal form of the universe is also eternal. But it is not eternal in the sense in which the ultimate reality is eternal and in the absolute sense even the shruti is within the realm of avidhya or ignorance. The shruti primarily provides us knowledge about things which are beyond the senses and the mind. Its validity is self-evident and direct even as the light of the sun is the direct means of knowledge of form. But even sruti cannot contradict science about matter and its properties. Still it is the sole authority on matters of virtue and vice. With regard to the nature of reality, inference and intuition too may be used. Smriti in contrast doesn't have absolute validity and is to be accepted only when its teaching confirms with the shruti.
REFUTATION OF SUBJECTIVISM
That Advaita is subjective idealism i.e, it asserts the reality of the subject and denies the reality of the external world is a common misunderstanding. Shankara explicitly refutes this and admits the reality of objects external to knowledge. Even those who endorse the theory that objects do not exist outside of consciousness, state that the form perceived internally seems as if it is external. If there were nothing external, how could the concept of "external" even exist? Object and knowledge are different and the variety of knowledge is due to the variety of objects. An object is not a mental creation, rather it is the nature of the object which triggers mental activity. Consciousness is pure featureless transparency and has no content - what it experiences is something external to it - the object. But again in the ultimate sense, both the subject and object are but phases of the one spirit.
THE CRITERION OF TRUTH
All mental modes (vrittis) have an object - either an object external to it or the mode itself. In the former the cognition takes the form of the external object and in the latter it apprehends itself. But the latter doesn't mean that there's cognition of cognition - an intervening mental mode between the cognitive process and its later cognition. It is due to a direct intellectual intuition, an immediate consciousness. All cognitions are self-luminous as they are objects of their own apprehension.
All knowledge is valid. We cannot think of what is false. If we can, then truth will be beyond us, for any standard of truth which itself is a product of thought, would be tainted by uncertainty. So we must accept that no thought is false and error is due to a clouded intellect caused by passions and interests. And it is here that empirical tests like correspondence of knowledge with the nature of the object, practical efficiency and coherence have their use. By this we make sure that knowledge of a thing is not contradicted by further knowledge which makes the original knowledge invalid. But even these checks have only empirical validity - for the dream state is contradicted by waking experiences and the waking experiences are themselves contradicted by insight into reality, which is beyond the senses and the mind. So logic at best has only a negative value. It helps us break down the psychological hindrances (avidhya), which prevents us from knowing the true nature of things.
Like Nagarjuna, Shankara too rejects the ultimate validity of empirical knowledge. The real is without distinctions and excludes relations. Empirical knowledge which revels in the distinctions of known, knower and knowledge and its relations therefore is inadequate. The object as well as the subject exist only in relation to each other and even this relation between them is ultimately unintelligible. The true Self, the universal witness is beyond them - unmanifest and imperceptible.
ADHYAASA
Adhyaasa is to attribute to a thing what is different from it - it is the appearance of a thing where it is not. When we mistake a rope for a snake - we superimpose a non-existent snake on an existent rope and this is adhyaasa. Similarly all empirical knowledge too is but a superimposition on the one eternal consciousness. Psychologically it is the confusion of the subject with the object where we attribute action, agency and enjoyment to the subject.
The object belongs to the realm of "thou" and the subject belongs to the realm of "I" - both are of a nature opposed to each other like darkness and light. The transfer of the object and its qualities to the subject and the vice-versa are both logically flawed. But still this is the nature of mankind which resting on false knowledge (kithyAjnAnnanimitta) pairs together the true and the false and transfers the being and qualities of one to another.
Adhyaasa which leads to avidhya or ignorance, is the presupposition of all practical distinctions made in ordinary life and also the scripture - between knowledge and its objects and between karma and jnaana in the spiritual texts. The validity of the means of knowledge is only limited to finite understanding and they cease to have value when the ultimate truth is known. So in the ultimate sense all means of knowledge are invalid and hence belong to the realm of avidhya or ignorance.
Due to adhyaasa the one universal consciousness is split up into the relation of subject and object. Adhyaasa results from the very constitution of the human mind and is said to be beginningless (anaadi), endless (ananta), natural (naisargika), possessed of the form of wrong knowledge (mithyaapratyayarupah), the cause of the agency, enjoyment and activity of the individual souls and patent to all.
All perception involves two things : 1. that which is presented to the senses and 2. what our mental apparatus makes of that which is presented. When we mistake a rope for a snake, the error is in the second part of the equation - our conceptual process which superimposes the snake on the rope. But even in this, irrespective of the error in the conceptual part of the perception, however much the forms imposed on the object might change, still the substratum - that which is perceived - persists and is real. This is true in all perception - normal or abnormal, true or false - whatever we perceive - it exists and hence being is the truth - like clay in things made of clay or gold in ornaments.
The real rests in its own nature and is its own explanation. It is the unreal which doesn't remain in its own nature and thus needs explanations. This is due to avidhya which is in the very roots of our being. When our ignorance is known, bondage is broken.
ANUBHAVA OR INTEGRAL EXPERIENCE
The real is beyond the finite mind. Suppression of the mind is necessary to reach the truth. The mind is to be transcended to reach the region which itself can never be transcended. Thought ceases to be thought when the goal is reached - when the individual shrugs off his individuality and identifies with the universal essence. Thought expires in experience and knowledge turns to wisdom when it realizes itself as identical to the known. This is anubhava or integral experience where the Atman shines as eternal knowledge (nityajnaana). It is the intuitional consciousness - a direct apprehension of reality - where the distinctions of the subject and object are superseded and the truth of the supreme self is realized.
It is an experience beyond the categories of the intellect where the individual strips himself of all finite conditions including the intellect. It is not to be confused with normal perception; it is to see in oneself the being of all beings. That which is apprehended is not some subjective fancy. It is a real object beyond space and time which rests in its own nature and is unaffected by our apprehension or non-apprehension. It transforms our whole life and yields the certainty of the divine.
Anubhava is open to all whose minds are prepared for it. It is the noblest blossoming of man's reason.
INTUITION, INTELLECT AND SCRIPTURE
Though there's full certainty when the reality is intuited, still it is very difficult to bring it down to the level of human understanding. The shruti, which contains the experiences of sages who experienced the truth, attempts to do so. Without the experiences as the background, the shruti is but mere sound without sense. Since they are based on actual experience which is of a self satisfying character, the Vedas are their own proof and need no external certification. But still it tries to express the inexpressible - something which language and logic weren't invented to say. So all expressions of reality are by their very nature fallible and so require endless revisions. But still the shruti is the only reliable guide to man regarding reality and in this field it is superior than perception and inference.
Mere reflection without the basis of the shruti rests only on speculation and is hence untenable and will only lead to skepticism. As a source of knowledge the shruti is eternal, its subject stands fast and the full knowledge of it formed there from cannot be turned aside by all the speculations of the past, present and future. It contains the spiritual instincts and the traditional convictions of the race and for those without the insight it is of great value. By accepting the authority of the scripture our spiritual lives is put on firmer and more secure ground. But reason still has an important role in the correct interpretation of the scripture. The scripture discusses a subject which is beyond all empirical knowledge and hence is liable to misinterpretations influenced by wild fancies of imagination. So it is important that we reconcile scriptural pronouncements with reason wherever possible - "shruti cannot make the fire cold" nor "can a thousand scriptures turn a jar into cloth". Reason (tarka), a critical weapon against untested assumptions and a creative principle which selects and emphasizes the facts of truth, is commended by Shankara as a valuable auxiliary of intuition (anubhava).
Though it is the purpose of the shruti to teach the oneness of all existence, the shruti by itself cannot lead to freedom as all investigations involving the intellect are ultimately in the realm of duality - avidhya. Though the shruti cannot effect liberation it still helps us in distinguishing the real from the unreal.
There is no new knowledge after the destruction of ignorance. If it were so there would be infinite regress. Removal of avidhya and the realization of the truth are simultaneous. Beyond logical explanation, it is due to the grace of God.
LEVELS OF KNOWLEDGE
We've the ultimate truth on one hand which tolerates no distinctions and we have the limited world on the other which revels in its variety. So how do we reconcile these two contradictions? Shankara solves this by attributing the latter (the empirical world) to a fall from the higher (Atman). Para vidhya or higher knowledge is the absolute truth where there's only the Atman - one without a second. Apara vidhya or lower knowledge, on the other hand is the empirical truth - the world that we apprehend with its limitations. But this lower knowledge is not illusory or deceptive - it is just relative. It is through the lower knowledge that the higher knowledge can be reached.
There are three levels of existence - 1. paramartha or ultimate reality, 2. vyavahaarika or empirical existence and 3. pratibhaashika or illusory existence. Brahman is of the first kind, the empirical world of space and time the second and imagined objects - like snake in a rope - represents the third kind. Illusory existence is nor universal - it is occasional and has no practical efficiency. This existence ceases when the truth of the underlying substratum is known. Empirical existence ceases when its underlying substratum - Brahman - is known. Empirical existence is of a higher order of reality than illusory existence.
BRAHMAN
Shankara accepts the Buddhist view of the transient nature of the phenomenal world - everything changes and is transient. But again our instinct to go beyond, to seek the real and know the truth indicates that the changing world is not all. It points to the infinite beyond the finite. We live in a world of opposites. There is nothing truly negative. Even to deny something as unreal it is necessary to use as reference something real. To exclude the negative we need something positive. Something isn't, means something is. To deny both is to needlessly endorse nihilism. Even the changing world needs something changeless to rest upon.
The spiritual experiences of the Upanishadic sages is the proof of the changeless, underlying reality which is neither produced nor destroyed. Unless we posit an absolute reality, our whole structure of knowledge and experience comes crashing down. Brahman is the universal fact of life and is open to every man. That the finite mind quests for it, is itself the proof of the existence of Brahman.
The phenomenal is spatial, temporal and is sensible. Brahman being reality is different from the phenomenal. But it is not substance. No spatial relation can be associated with it since it is not a thing. Neither does it have any relation to time, as it is not a cause. Its nature is beyond expression and logic, for Brahman has neither genus, nor qualities, nor does it act, nor is it related to anything else. It is the anti-thesis of all empirical existence. It is neither being nor non-being, as all these conceptions are valid only to phenomena. But it is not non-being - "Brahman, free from space, attributes, motion, fruition and difference, being in the highest sense and without a second, seems to the slow of mind, no more than non-being". It is Being in a different sense. So all expressions of Brahman can only say what it isn't (as expressions cover only the realm of the phenomenal) and not what it is. The descriptions of Brahman in empirical terms in the scripture, is only lower teaching for the purpose of worship. Its ultimate aim is to lead to the higher teaching of Brahman beyond empirical categories.
Brahman transcends all opposites of experience - permanence and change, whole and part, finite and infinite. It is not eternal in the sense of persisting changelessly through time like a motionless being, but in the sense of absolute timelessness and incorruptibility. It can be called real and consciousness and bliss only because it is neither unreal nor unconscious nor pain. All human bliss is a phase of the bliss of Brahman. It is one without another - so it depends on nothing else for its existence and hence never ceases to be. It doesn't unfold, express, develop, manifest, grow or change, for it is self-identical throughout. Since it is uniform in nature, it cannot be regarded as a whole with parts. It is the highest truth, perfect being and fullest freedom.
ATMAN AND BRAHMAN
Atman and Brahman have the same characteristics of being, consciousness, all pervading ness and bliss. Atman is Brahman. The purely subjective is the purely objective.
THE PHENOMENAL NATURE OF THE WORLD
Both Brahman as well as the phenomenal world cannot be equally real. Then there would be no point for one abiding in Brahman to say that the one in the phenomenal world is caught in untruth. And what would deliverance be?
The objects perceived are unreal while the perceiving subject, which itself is not perceived, alone is the truth. The test of the real is that it should be free from self-contradiction. But the world of space, time and cause is full of contradictions and beyond reconciliation. The categories which make the empirical world are not absolutes and they obscure the real. It is said that if we get beyond these categories, then the diversities of the world will collapse into a single unit.
The phenomenal world is not present at all time and is always in a state of becoming. But what is eternal cannot have a beginning and whatever has a beginning cannot be eternal. The eternal is transcendent being.
The world is neither real nor unreal. It is not real because it is transient. It is not unreal since it produces effects. It is neither pure being nor pure non-being as pure being is not an existence or part of the world and pure non-being is an invalid concept. It shares the characteristics of both. The nature of the world is indescribable - tattvaanyatvaabhyaam anirvacaniiyaa.
MAYA
The world is maya since it is neither real, nor unreal, nor both, nor neither. But what is the relation between Brahman and the world? For Shankara, this is an illegitimate question, for when the truth is intuited the question about the relation doesn't arise. Again for such a question to be relevant, there needs to be two distinct entities : Brahman and the world. But Advaita holds that the world is not distinct from Brahman. Brahman and the world are non-different - Atash ca krtsnasya jagato brahmakaaryatvaat tad ananyatvaat. Brahman is identical with the world in one sense and isn't in another. It is identical for it is the basis of the world. It isn't identical for it doesn't suffer the mutations of the world. The world is Brahman for when the latter is known all the doubts regarding the world disappear. They are actually one and the finite itself is the infinite and the phenomenon itself is the noumenon; while the world is an appearance, Brahman is the reality.
It is not logically possible to reconcile Brahman with the world for the "real is never known to have any relation with the unreal". The world somehow exists and its relation with Brahman is indefinable (anivaacaniyaa).
But how did the world come to be?
In truth there's no transformation (parinaama) of Brahman into the world and the world is only an appearance (vivarta) - ajaativaada. Brahman appears to be the world due to limited insight. The world is non-different (ananya) from and non-independent (avyatirikta) of Brahman. Brahman is the innermost essence of the world and if the latter appears to be independent, it is just that it is not what it appears to be. Analogies equating the relation between Brahman and the world like the sea and its waves or tree and its branches are flawed as all these employ intellectual categories of whole and part or substance and attribute. There's no reconciling the infinite with the finite, the changeless with the changing. Brahman appears as the world even as the rope appears as the snake - maayaamaatram hy etad yat paramaatmano vasthaatrayaatmanaavabhaasanam rajjvaa iva sarpaadibhaavena. The world resides in Brahman even as the illusion of a snake is said to reside in the rope.
Maya is the finiting principle which measures out the immeasurable and creates forms in the formless. But it is not anything apart from Brahman for Brahman is one without a second. It is a feature of Brahman though neither identical nor different from it. To assign maya a place independent of Brahman would be to accept fundamental dualism.
AVIDHYA
The psychological implication of maya is avidhya or ignorance. It is the fault of the intellect that Brahman - one without another - appears as the diverse empirical world. The tendency to confuse the transcendental and the empirical standpoints or adhyaasa, however flawed, is natural for the human mind. It is the result of our cognitive mechanism. Avidhya is the deformity in the mind which makes it impossible to view the world except through the prism of space-time-cause. It is not a conscious dissimulation, but an unconscious tendency of the finite mind. We cannot attain knowledge of the reality as long as we're subject to avidhya. Just as the rope appears as a snake, Brahman appears as the world due to avidhya. Just like when the rope is known as the rope the snake becomes unreal, likewise when Brahman is known as itself, the empirical world disappears. Avidhya is either absence of knowledge or doubtful or erroneous knowledge.
Avidhya, which is nothing but the logical mode of thinking, is neither real nor unreal. It is not unreal because it is common experience. It is not real, because it is destroyed by intuitional knowledge.
So what's the cause of avidhya? Does it belong to the Atman? Is it apart from the Atman?
It cannot belong to Atman because Atman is perfect and cannot be tainted by ignorance. It cannot be apart from Atman, for Atman is one without another.
Shankara dismisses these questions altogether as meaningless. Avidhya is inexplicable and to raise such questions is to make transcendent use of an empirical category. To know the relation between avidhya and Atman, we must be beyond the two i.e, avidhya would've disappeared when the Atman alone is. So how can the realized soul talk of a nonexistent category. When avidhya is, the Atman isn't. When the Atman is, avidhya isn't. So the question itself is meaningless. "We admit that Brahman is not the product of avidhya or is itself deluded, but we do not admit that there is another deluded conscious being (besides Brahman) which could be the producer of ignorance".
IS THE WORLD AN ILLUSION?
A common misinterpretation of Advaita is the stand that the world is an illusion - ie Brahman though is the basis of the world is apart from it and on its realization, the world physically disappears.
Shankara expressly refutes this view. Brahman is the basis of the world. If Brahman were absolutely different from the world and the Atman is absolutely different from the waking, dream and deep sleep states, then the repudiation of the reality of the world or the three states cannot lead to the truth. The practice of love, wisdom and asceticism in the world as preparation for realization would lose all meaning. We shall then have to embrace nihilism and treat all teaching as purposeless.
"A barren woman cannot be said to give birth to a child either in reality or in illusion". If the word is regarded as baseless, as not rooted in any reality, as having its origin in non-being, then we shall have to repudiate all reality, even that of Brahman. Moksha doesn't mean the disappearance of the world. Then, on the first case of moksha, the world would have disappeared! If moksha is taken as annihilation of plurality, then the right way to go about it would be to destroy the world and not replace avidhya with vidhya.
The illusory snake doesn't spring out of nothing and doesn't disappear into nothing when the illusion is corrected. The root of the illusion is logical and psychological and not metaphysical. The pluralistic universe is an error of judgment. Correction of the error means change of opinion. The rope appears as the snake and upon correction of the illusion, the snake returns to the rope. Similarly the world of experience becomes transfigured upon the realization of Brahman. The world is not so much negated as reinterpreted. The world is unreal and not illusory. And if it weren't so, analogies of the relation between the real and the unreal in the Upanishads like clay and things made of clay or gold and gold ornaments would be meaningless.
Though the world and Brahman are not complementary, they are not antagonistic either. The world is non-different (ananyatva) from Brahman. But this doesn't mean identity, but only denies difference. The effect is identical with the cause, but not the cause with the effect.
MAYA AND AVIDHYA
Shankara doesn't distinguish between avidhya and maya and uses the terms indiscriminately. What is metaphysically referred to as maya is in the psychological sense called avidhya. Even as the Brahman and Atman are one, so are maya and avidhya one. Avidhya is the tendency of the human mind to see as many what is really one. Maya is both subjective as well as objective, individual as well as universal, that out of which the conditioned forms of our intelligence as well as objective existence arise. The phenomenal self and the phenomenal world are mutually implicated facts. Avidhya and the praakriti of Brahman are co-eternal and belong to the world of experience. The conditions of the possibility of objective experience are also the conditions of the possibility of logical selfhood or self-consciousness. But even this finiteness is necessary to reach the infinite : "Avidhya no doubt constitutes a defect in consciousness in so far as it impedes the presentation of non-duality and gives rise to the presentation of duality; but on the other hand, it constitutes an excellence since it forms the material cause and thus renders possible the cognition of Brahman".
JIVA OR THE INDIVIDUAL SELF
The aim of the Vedanta is to lead us from the limitation of the individual self (jiva) to the reality of the absolute self (Atman). While the jiva being a complex of desires, intellect and ego, is subject to change, the Atman is the changeless absolute. But the shruti teaches "tat tvam asi" - "that art thou" i.e, the jiva itself in essence is the Atman. There is not much force in the argument that things with contrary qualities cannot be identical, for the opposition of qualities can be shown as false.
The object of self-consciousness is the kartr or the enjoying individual endowed with objective qualities. It is the agent of all activities - an active force striving towards some end. But activity is essentially pain and salvation is freedom from pain - the cessation of activity. If activity is the essential nature of the Self then there can be no delivery from it. "The activity of the Self depends only on the qualities of the upaadhis being ascribed to it and not to its own nature". Agency abides in the upaadhi or limitation. The jiva is the Atman limited or individuated by objects due to ajnaana which is basically logical knowledge. But the basis of individuality is to be found neither in the Atman nor the upaadhis - but in moral determination, which is a complex of knowledge (vidhya), works (karma) and experience (prajnaa). The Atman clothed in the upaadhis is the jiva, which enjoys and suffers (bhoktar) and acts (kartr), from both of which conditions the Atman is free. It is this jiva which rules the body and the senses and is connected with the fruits of the actions.
In the waking condition, we apprehend object by means of the mind and the senses. In the dream state only the mind is active and the senses are at rest. Due to the impressions left on us by the waking condition, we know objects. In deep sleep state both the senses and the mind are at rest and the Self abides in itself in its true nature. The we wake up as the same person who went to sleep is the proof of the existence of the Self. But still even in deep sleep the upaadhi which binds the jiva to samsaara exists potentially, else when we wake up we would not be in bondage. So there's a difference between this temporary union with Brahman in deep sleep and the permanent union in moksha.
It is these limiting adjuncts which give individuality to the souls. They determine the nature of the body, the caste of the jiva, the duration of life etc The souls are different on account of these upaadhis and there is no confusion of actions or fruits of actions.
SAAKSHIN AND JIVA
The eternal consciousness, the internal organ and the effect of the objects experienced - this complex make up the jiva. The eternal consciousness is called saakshin when the internal organ serves as the limiting adjunct to it and when it illuminates objects. The mere presence of the internal organ is enough to transform the ultimate consciousness into the saakshin. When the eternal consciousness operates in an individual subject it is called saakshin. Though the witnessing consciousness arises when objects are experienced, still its existence doesn't depend on the objects experienced but is presupposed by it. The saakshin observes the actions of the gross and subtle bodies without itself being affected in anyway. On liberation when the enjoying ego has ceased to exist, it is due to the saakshin in the series of mental ideas, that the identity of the seer is preserved. The saakshin is the mere onlooker, without qualities and not an enjoyer of the fruits. Like a lamp which illuminates both objects and itself, the saakshin illuminates the empirical ego (jiva), the inner organ and the objects and shines of its own accord in sound sleep, where all these are absent. Shankara commenting on the famous passage in Mundaaka Upanishad which describes two birds perched on a branch of a tree says : "Of these two so perched, one, the kshetrajna occupying the subtle body, eats from ignorance the fruits of karma marked as happiness and misery, palatable in many and diversified modes; the other, the Lord eternal, pure, intelligent and free in nature, omniscient and conditioned by sattva, does not eat; for he is the director of both the eater and the eaten". "His mere witnessing is as good as direction as in the case of a king".
ATMAN AND JIVA
Atman is merely the screen on which the mental facts play. It cannot be said that the Atman gives rise to these for the real is not affected by what's confused with it. It is the relation of the Atman to the upaadhis - the body, the senses, the mind and the sense objects that accounts for its phenomenal character. How can the changeless Atman be the source of the individual self whose nature is action and desire? Even as a magnet without itself moving, moves things of iron, so the is changeless Atman the source of the changing ego.
The relation between the individual ego and the absolute cannot be the relation between part and whole, since the absolute being beyond space and time is without parts. It cannot be totally different from the absolute, since there's nothing other than the absolute - it is one without a second. It cannot be a modification of the absolute, since the latter is unchangeable. Since the shruti never states that the soul is created, it cannot be created by God either. The jiva is the Atman itself and it is only due to the upaadhis that its true nature is not known. And if the jiva were not identical with the Atman, then the promise in the Upanishads that knowing one's Self everything else is known, cannot come true. It is not possible for one to attain the identity of another altogether different and since the Upanishads say that the knower of Brahman becomes Brahman, the knower must be one with Brahman.
Even as the space in the jar is not different from the space outside, the jiva is not different from Atman. As when the limitation of the jar is removed the limited spaces merge with the space outside, so also when the limitations are removed the jiva becomes one with the Atman. As when the space inside the jar is affected with dust and smoke, the other parts of space are unaffected, likewise when one jiva is affected by pleasure or pain, other jivas are not affected by it. There's only one space and it has different names depending on the objects it occupies, while the space itself remains unchanged. As space in a jar cannot be said to be either a part or a transformation of the one infinite space, so also the jiva cannot be said to be parts or modifications of the Atman. As space is neither produced nor destroyed when the jar is produced or destroyed, so also the Atman is not born nor does it die. Jiva is the changeless Brahman ignorant of its true nature. Personal consciousness is an inexplicable presentation of Brahman.
ISHVARA
When we view the world from samsaara we need an explanation for it. The changeless Brahman cannot be the cause of the changing world. But if it never ceases to be itself, the world cannot be explained. So the only solution is a saguna or changing Brahman, an Ishvara who combines within himself the natures of both being and becoming. Ishvara is the principle of being in the universe binding all things to each other in binding them to himself. Ishvara is a combination of Brahman and praakriti. He is a self-conscious personality by whose power praakriti develops the whole world - "He designed - I'll become many, I'll procreate". When the world (objects) are created, Brahman who is essentially knowledge, becomes the knower (subject). Ishvara is all comprehensive and contains within himself all that exists, potentially in pralaya and actually in creation. He is both the material and the efficient cause of the world. Even prior to evolution Ishvara has an object in the names and forms which can neither be defined as being or non-being, which though are not evolved are striving towards evolution.
Ishvara is full of activity and hence changes. The activities of living beings produce various modifications in maya or praakriti, which is the upaadhi or the body of Ishvara. The appearance and disappearance of the world shows that the divine nature undergoes change, contraction and expansion. Ishvara is the permanent background to whose body these changes pertain. Ishvara assumes an undeveloped subtle body forming the seed plot for names and forms and serving as the groundwork for the Lord, yet only as a limitation ascribed to himself. Whatever changes happens to Ishvara it is only in the accidents and not in the essentials. His oneness is not impaired by the self-expression in the many. "As the magician is not affected by the maya which he has himself created, since it is unreal, so also the Supreme is not affected by the maya of samsaara".
Maya is the energy of Ishvara by which he transforms the potential in to the actual world. "The One, motionless, unconditioned, then became by its own power of maya, that which is known as maker". Maya transforms itself into two modes - desire and determination and it is with this eternal creative power that God creates this world. Maya is not anything apart from Ishvara - the relation between them is like that between heat and fire. Maya is the causal body of Ishvara through which he imposes names and forms on the formless during creation. Maya - the material substratum in the creation of the world which possesses the three gunas - can neither be described as the self of Ishvara or different from it.
While Ishvara is omniscient, all powerful and all pervading, the jiva is ignorant, weak and small. Ishvara with superior limiting adjuncts rules the jivas with inferior limiting adjuncts. Since maya is under his control the limiting adjuncts do not affect Ishvara's knowledge and he's ever free from avidhya. It is avidhya caused by maya which deludes the jiva into the false belief of plurality. While Brahman associated with maya is Ishvara, when it is associated with avidhya it is the jiva. The jivas are parts of Ishvara like sparks to fire. The jivas worship Ishvara who distributes the rewards according to karma. Since Ishvara is always aware of his oneness with Brahman he enjoys eternal bliss, but the jiva deluded by avidhya is caught in samsaara.
While Brahman is the indeterminate (nirguna), Ishvara or the personal god is determinate (saguna). Ishvara is the highest product of man's intelligence - it is the most that our finite minds can grasp of the indeterminate Brahman and thus the unconditioned consciousness becomes conditioned. Ishvara is Brahman reflected in or conditioned by maya. It is the personal aspect of the impersonal Brahman. This is the distinction Shankara makes between God and the Absolute.
It is impossible to prove the existence of a creator God by reason alone - all the epistemological, the cosmological, the psysico-theological arguments are ultimately futile. The cosmological argument which deals with the finite cannot avoid making God finite; The teleological proof at best, points to a conscious principle behind creation; The ontological proof can only give an idea of God and not God as a real object. So logical proofs at best point to the possibility of the existence of God. So it is best to take the aid of the testimony of the seers regarding the existence of God, as recorded in the scriptures. Regarding the creatorship of Ishvara the shruti is the only means of knowledge. But this doesn't mean that reason is discarded. To accept the shruti is to accept belief for which there are no disproofs, though there are not adequate proofs. So Shankara battles arguments against the existence of God as well as provides positive arguments as proofs of his reality.
Though Ishvara is only the highest approximation by man's intelligence of Brahman, still this empirical postulate has a practical utility. Only for the liberated soul does Ishvara become unreal. For those caught up in samsaara, Ishvara is the highest power and the object of devotion. Ishvara is sat-chit-ananda (knowledge, existence and bliss). He is the supreme spirit, all knowing (sarvajna) and possessed of all powers (sarvashaktisamanvitam). He is the soul of nature, the principle of the universe, its animating breath and actuating spring and the source and end of all existent modes. He is morally perfect and is beyond evil. He is the immanent spirit (antaryaamin) pervading both the subject and the object worlds. He is the creator, ruler and the destroyer of the universe. Philosophically he's the identity in difference.
But in the absolute sense, Ishvara and jiva are only the inexplicable appearances (vivarta) of Brahman due to maya. But even Ishvara is only the jiva's view of Brahman. Since avidhya doesn't operate on him, God never feels himself as God and is always the eternal Brahman - one without another. When the jiva is under the spell of maya, the God is the lord of Maya.
MOKSHA
"That which is real in the absolute sense, immutable, eternal, all penetrating like aakaasha, changeless, all satisfying, undivided, whose nature is to be its own light, in which neither good nor evil, nor effect, nor past nor present nor future has any place, this incorporeal is called liberation".
The real is not something to be reached or gained. It always is - eternal and changeless and the principle of all things. And it is not something totally apart from the world that we live. It is always present even in this samsaara, but due to our ignorance that it is shielded from us. It is neither something in the imagined future nor a continuance of existence in a world to come after the present life is ended, but a state of identification with the real here and now. When avidhya is removed the Self stands self revealed.
Freedom is not abolition of the self, but the realization of the self of its true form (svaatmanyavasthaanam). Realization is not an objective process by which we try to destroy the whole world - if it were so the world would have been destroyed at the first instance of liberation. Realization doesn't mean abolition of plurality, but only the removal of the sense of plurality - jnaate dvaitam na vidyate. This insight into the true nature of the world is moksha itself. Though the phenomenal world still carries on its charade, it doesn't affect the liberated soul in the least - for he has no more ties to it.
Avidhya highlights the crux of the problem. Pain is only due to the error of false knowledge (mithyaabimaanabhramanimitta eva duhkhaanubhavah) and with deliverance there's cessation of pain. But this doesn't mean that the world has changed physically - the world remains as it is, but the way we view it is transformed. Moksha is thus not the dissolution of the world but only the disappearance of a false outlook. For one who has realized the unity of Brahman and Atman, all duality - souls, objects, God - ceases.
The forms in which the world appears to our limited insight changes on the realization of the identity of the Atman with Brahman. The things that we know as the contents of our environment in this practical life of ours are not present, as such, in the absolute. Turiya includes the three states (waking, dreaming and dreamless sleep) but yet transcends them - trayaanaam vishvaadinaam purvapurvapravilaapanena turiyasya pratipattih. Like Naagaarjuna, Shankara too uses the phrase "prapanchopashamam" to indicate that the world of plurality is merged into reality on liberation. In turiya the world is viewed from another angle from where it is seen that the reality of the world is Brahman itself.
Liberation is the state of all selfness (sarvaatmabhaava) which lifts one beyond the distinctions of the empirical world. The state of moksha is "none other than one's own inherent nature as Brahman and is not an acquired state like svarga (heaven). Brahman is of one nature and therefore the liberation attained is also of one sort.
Brahman is described negatively as the state where there's neither day nor night, where time has stopped, where the sun and the stars are swept away from the sky. The distinctions of knowledge do not apply there. But that doesn't mean it is mere blankness and it would appear so only to the feeble minded. The liberated soul doesn't see another, but sees himself in all. Moksha doesn't mean obliteration of complete consciousness - only the dissolution of individual consciousness. In moksha only the upaadhis are destroyed and the pure substance of the Atman shines forth.
All activity implies dualism and hence moksha is in one sense the cessation of all activity. There's no contradiction with regards jivanmukthas engaging in teaching the truth to the world, as they are beyond the sense of egoity and hence above the bonds of karma.
KNOWLEDGE AND ACTION
For Shankara Brahman can be realized only by knowledge. Karma and upaasanaa are subsidiary and they can at best only help in the purification of the mind preparing it for the saving knowledge. But ultimately it is knowledge alone which destroys ignorance and enables the jiva to be one with the absolute. Knowledge and action are contradictory and are opposed to each other like light and darkness. Shankara chides those who advocate the path of knowledge cum action for not paying heed to the teaching of the Brhadaaranyaka Upanishad and the repeated warnings in the shruti and the smritis. Action is prescribed for those who're still sunk in ignorance and not for the enlightened.
KNOWLEDGE AND LIBERATION
Reality stands by itself and doesn't need knowledge to verify it. Knowledge only removes ignorance and then Reality shines forth by itself. Shaastra only generates the right knowledge.
Knowledge is not mental activity and depends not on the mind but on the thing that it represents. Unlike action which depends on our thinking, knowledge leaves no choice for us for its being this or that, for its existence of non-existence. It is not in our hands to make or unmake or change knowledge. So knowledge of Brahman depends on Brahman itself. True knowledge is produced by the pramaanas and conforms to the object it represents. There is also no succession in knowledge and once it dawns it dawns forever and removes all ignorance and liberates us. The person who's realized reality is liberated here and now.