Creation: A Fourth View

November 28, 1999

Namaste to all:

With respect to the recent discussion of various (3)

'creation theories' of Advaita Vedanta, I would like

to draw attention to a fourth, that of Sri Aurobindo.

Although this is not an orthodox view, my understanding

is that Aurobindo considered his philosophy to be a form

of Advaita Vedanta.

Although Aurobindo disagrees with Shankara on some important

points, there are passages in his writings where he praises

Shankara as being one of India's greatest thinkers, who

"takes up, completes and replaces Buddha."

Although Aurobindo's full treatment of these matters is

mainly in his two volume "The Life Divine", the following

excerpts from two letters to yoga sadhaks (which I happen

to have on disk) gives a good summary picture into this

'evolutionary' view:

*** From first letter: ---------------------------

The Shankara knowledge is, as your Guru pointed out,

only one side of the Truth; it is the knowledge of

the Supreme as realised by the spiritual Mind through

the static silence of the pure Existence. It was

because he went by this side only that Shankara was

unable to accept or explain the origin of the universe

except as illusion, a creation of Maya. Unless one

realises the Supreme on the dynamic as well as the

static side, one cannot experience the true origin of

things and the equal reality of the active Brahman.

The Shakti or Power of the Eternal becomes then a

power of illusion only and the world becomes

incomprehensible, a mystery of cosmic madness, an

eternal delirium of the Eternal. Whatever verbal or

ideative logic one may bring to support it, this way

of seeing the universe explains nothing; it only

erects a mental formula of the inexplicable. It is

only if you approach the Supreme through his double

aspect of Sat and Chit-Shakti, double but

inseparable, that the total truth of things can become

manifest to the inner experience. This other side was

developed by the Shakta Tantriks. The two together,

the Vedantic and the Tantric truth unified, can arrive

at the integral knowledge. But philosophically this

is what your Guru's teaching comes to and it is

obviously a completer truth and a wider knowledge

than that given by the Shankara formula. It is

already indicated in the Gita's teaching of the

Purushottama and the Parashakti (Adya Shakti) who

become the Jiva and uphold the universe. It is

evident that Purushottama and Parashakti are both

eternal and are inseparable and one in being; the

Parashakti manifests the universe, manifests too the

Divine in the universe as the Ishwara and Herself

appears at His side as the Ishwari Shakti. Or, we may

say, it is the Supreme Conscious Power of the Supreme

that manifests or puts forth itself as Ishwara

Ishwari, Atma Atma-shakti, Purusha Prakriti, Jiva

Jagat. That is the truth in its completeness as far

as the mind can formulate it.

*** From a different letter: ------------------------

I don't know that I can help you very much with an

answer to your friend's questions. I can only state

my own position with regard to these matters.

1. SHANKARA'S EXPLANATION OF THE UNIVERSE

It is rather difficult to say nowadays what really was

Shankara's philosophy: there are numberless exponents

and none of them agrees with any of the others. I

have read accounts given by some scores of his

exegetes and each followed his own line. We are even

told by some that he was no Mayavadin at all, although

he has always been famed as the greatest exponent of

the theory of Maya, but rather, the greatest Realist

in philosophical history. One eminent follower of

Shankara even declared that my philosophy and

Shankara's were identical, a statement which rather

took my breath away. One used to think that

Shankara's philosophy was this: that the Supreme

Reality is a spaceless and timeless Absolute

(Parabrahman) which is beyond all feature or quality,

beyond all action or creation, and that the world is a

creation of Maya, not absolutely unreal, but real only

in time and while one lives in time; once we get into

a knowledge of the Reality, we perceive that Maya and

the world and all in it have no abiding or true

existence. It is, if not non-existent, yet false,

jaganmithya; it is a mistake of the consciousness, it

is and it is not; it is an irrational and inexplicable

mystery in its origin, though we can see its process

or at least how it keeps itself imposed on the

consciousness. Brahman is seen in Maya as Ishwara

upholding the works of Maya and the apparently

individual soul is really nothing but Brahman itself.

In the end, however, all this seems to be a myth of

Maya, mithya, and not anything really true.

If that is Shankara's philosophy, it is to me

unacceptable and incredible, however brilliantly

ingenious it may be and however boldly and incisively

reasoned; it does not satisfy my reason and it does

not agree with my experience.

2. Adwaita

People are apt to speak of the Adwaita as if it were

identical with Mayavada monism, just as they speak of

Vedanta as if it were identical with Adwaita only;

that is not the case.

There are several forms of Indian philosophy which

base themselves upon the One Reality, but they admit

also the reality of the world, the reality of the

Many, the reality of the differences of the Many as

well as the sameness of the One. But the Many exist

in the One and by the One, the differences are

variations in manifestation of that which is

fundamentally ever the same.

This we actually see as the universal law of existence

where oneness is always the basis with an endless

multiplicity and difference in the oneness; as, for

instance, there is one mankind but many kinds of man,

one thing called leaf or flower but many forms,

patterns, colours of leaf and flower. Through this we

can look back into one of the fundamental secrets of

existence, the secret which is contained in the one

Reality itself. The oneness of the Infinite is not

something limited, fettered to its unity; it is

capable of an infinite multiplicity. The Supreme

Reality is an Absolute not limited by either oneness

or multiplicity but simultaneously capable of both;

for both are its aspects, although the oneness is

fundamental and the multiplicity depends upon the

oneness.

There is possible a realistic as well as an

illusionist Adwaita. The philosophy of my ‘The Life

Divine’ is such a realistic Adwaita. The world is a

manifestation of the Real and therefore is itself

real. The reality is the infinite and eternal Divine,

infinite and eternal Being, Consciousness-Force and

Bliss. This Divine by his power has created the world

or rather manifested it in his own infinite Being.

But here in the material world or at its basis he has

hidden himself in what seem to be his opposites,

Non-Being, Inconscience and Insentience. This is what

we nowadays call the Inconscient which seems to have

created the material universe by its inconscient

Energy, but this is only an appearance, for we find in

the end that all the dispositions of the world can

only have been arranged by the working of a supreme

secret Intelligence.

The Being which is hidden in what seems to be an

inconscient void emerges in the world first in Matter,

then in Life, then in Mind and finally as the Spirit.

The apparently inconscient Energy which creates is in

fact the Consciousness-Force of the Divine and its

aspect of consciousness, secret in Matter, begins to

emerge in Life, finds something more of itself in Mind

and finds its true self in a spiritual consciousness

and finally a supramental Consciousness through

which we become aware of the Reality, enter into it

and unite ourselves with it. This is what we call

evolution which is an evolution of Consciousness and

an evolution of the Spirit in things and only

outwardly an evolution of species. Thus also, the

delight of existence emerges from the original

insentience, first in the contrary forms of pleasure

and pain, and then has to find itself in the bliss of

the Spirit or, as it is called in the Upanishads, the

bliss of the Brahman. That is the central idea in the

explanation of the universe put forward in The Life Divine.

---------------------------

DAILY NEWS @ http://www.PhilosophyNews.com

FREE EMAIL @ http://www.Philosophers.net

November 28, 1999

Max Harris wrote:

>

> With respect to the recent discussion of various (3)

> 'creation theories' of Advaita Vedanta, I would like

> to draw attention to a fourth, that of Sri Aurobindo.

> Although this is not an orthodox view, my understanding

> is that Aurobindo considered his philosophy to be a form

> of Advaita Vedanta.

hariH OM!

this serves to illustrate what i was trying to point

out in my post to Sri Devendra, re that jnani-s aren't

necessarily infallible in their comprehension or

elucidation of the universal metaphysics. Aurobindo,

although evidently a jnani himself, lacked the insight

into the gist of what Sankara formulated. Aurobindo's

philosophical conception was *precisely* what Sankara

was himself saying! but he misinterpreted it. as did

so many, who wrongly categorized Sankara as a mayavadin.

Sankara was a brahmavadin(!) who *clearly* emphasized

"all this is verily brahman," which embraces brahman's

projection into [the indescribable] world of maya [as

brahman Itself is equally indescribable].

Aurobindo's further assertion that "Sankara completes

and replaces Buddha," also illustrates his lack of

insight into what Buddha was really saying. Nagarjuna

clarified much of the prevailing distorted interpretations

that classified Buddha as a *nihilistic* mayavadin, which

(also!) continues even today. Nagarjuna's Madyamika

school of Mahayana Buddhism expounds on the relationship

of sunyata (emptiness), and pratityasamutpada

(interdependence). sunyata means that dharmas or upadhis

(objects, thoughts, ideas, feelings, etc) exist only in

interdependence with other dharmas, they do not have

svabhava (self-being), which parallels the idea that

they lack a separative existence apart from the essence

of what is causal to the phenomenon of interdependence.

this is *exactly* what Sankara was saying.

thus, not all jnani-s are equally effective teachers.

the ones who excel, possess the universal key, and

sanction and uphold the esoteric doctrines of *all*

the great sages, from Sankara, Krishna, Buddha, Christ,

Milarepa, Padmasambhava, Bodhidharma, Hui-Neng, Hsueh

Feng, Suzuki Roshi, Tsong Ka-Pa, Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu,

Jnaneshwar, Ramana, Ramakrishna, Sathya Saibaba, and

many others.

so what is the criteria of a jnani? the best way i

believe one can allude to the 'stateless state,' is

by affirming that it is the awareness-connection of

the [irrespectively everpresent] condition of bliss

in the Heart of one's Being. the bliss of the Self,

which is universally accessible, just by and through

the elimination of the barrage of thought obstacles.

either by stopping or defusing the impact of thought,

the wisdom in the Heart unfolds purely automatically.

namaste

November 29, 1999

>"f. maiello" <egodust

>

>(snip) Aurobindo,

>although evidently a jnani himself, lacked the insight

>into the gist of what Sankara formulated. Aurobindo's

>philosophical conception was *precisely* what Sankara

>was himself saying! but he misinterpreted it. as did

>so many, who wrongly categorized Sankara as a mayavadin.

>

>Sankara was a brahmavadin(!) who *clearly* emphasized

>"all this is verily brahman," which embraces brahman's

>projection into [the indescribable] world of maya [as

>brahman Itself is equally indescribable].

Yes, this is the very point that hung me up for years - when

I finally grasped it (thanks largely to Ramana), I was finally

reconciled (intellectually) to Sankara's teaching. I do think,

though, that this is not clearly understood by many "orthodox"

teachers of Advaita Vedanta - at least that is my impression.

Here's part of a relevant dialogue from "Talks with Sri Ramana

Maharshi":

"The tantriks and others of the kind condemn Sri Sankara's

philosophy as mayavada wothout understanding him aright.

What does he say? He says: (1) Brahman is real; (2) the

universe is a myth; (3) Brahman is the universe. [NOTE:

Isn't Ramana misquoting Sankara here? Isn't Sankara's

third statement "the Self is Brahman"?] He does not stop

at the second statement but continues to supplement it with

the third. What does it signify? The universe is conceived

to be apart from Brahman, and that perception is wrong.

The antagonists [tantriks, etc.] point to his illustration of the

rope and the snake. This is unconditioned super-imposition.

After the truth of the rope is known, the illusion of snake is

removed once and for all. But they should also take into

account the conditioned super-imposition [ie, a mirage of

water in a desert]. (In this case,) the mirage does not dis-

appear even after knowing it to be a mirage. The vision is

there, but the man does not run to it for water. Sri Sankara

must be understood in light of both of these illustrations.

The world is a myth. Even after knowing it, it continues to

appear. It must be known to be Brahman and not apart.

"If the world appears, yet to whom does it appear? he asks.

What is your reply? You must say 'the Self'. If not, will the

world appear in the absence of the cognising Self? There-

fore, the Self is the reality. That is his [sankara's] con-

clusion. The phenomena are real as the Self, but are myths

apart from the Self.

"Now, what do the tantriks, etc., say? They say that the

phenomena are real because they are part of the Reality

in which they appear.

"Are not these two statements the same?"

Warren

November 29, 1999

Namaste, f. maiello.

>hariH OM!

Thanks for your response, including the interesting comments

about Nagarjuna's school of Buddhism. I read something recently

about Nagarjuna's "Buddhist logic" (very non-Aristotelian!);

otherwise I'm weak on Nagarjuna.

You make four points to which I would briefly respond:

1) Aurobindo misunderstood Shankara, and if he understood him

correctly he would realize they meant the same things;

2) Aurobindo misunderstood Shankara, therefore providing further

proof that Jnanis are not infallible;

3) All the Jnanis in your list taught the same thing; and

4) Awareness-connection with the bliss of the Self is the

ultimate truth and is best reached through the elimination

of thought.

Points 1 and 2 presuppose that Aurobindo misunderstood Shankara.

I don't know if that's true, but even if Aurobindo did misunderstand

Shankara, I think there is sufficient textual evidence that they

either didn't share identical views about maya, or sure expressed

themselves differently.

I agree with the conclusion of point 2 irrespective of the truth

or falsity of the premise. I view no one as infallible. All

sages are fallible and all "scriptures" are defective and imprecise.

On point 3 I disagree. I would point out that just because

different teachers and teachings can lead to the same 'place'

doesn't mean that the teachings are the same. I think it is

possible to be pointed to the Truth from many different angles,

while allowing the angles to retain their uniqueness. It isn't

simply a matter of who's correct and who's wrong, or who's effective

and who's ineffective; there are any avenues into God/Truth/Being,

and I assume all teachers and teachings are relatively incorrect

yet still relatively effective (doesn't mean they're all equal,

though).

I agree with the first part of point 4 and maybe the second part

as well, but I have a positive attitude about the value of thought

to be an avenue into God/Truth/Being, and there are conceptions

of 'thought' which may refer to what accompanies one into this

'stateless state' (but this is a whole other topic or two!).

I listen closely to this list because I want to get a better

feel for Aurobindo's place within Advaita Vedanta, and to better

understand the rich wisdom of Vedanta. Although I have read

widely in Aurobindo, I have a lot to learn about all the other

riches of Advaita Vedanta, and I see that there is a lot here.

Namaste,

-- Max

---------------------------

DAILY NEWS @ http://www.PhilosophyNews.com

FREE EMAIL @ http://www.Philosophers.net

November 29, 1999

HariH Om:

The discussions on this thread is quite illuminating and let me join Dan and Max

to congratulate Frank for his clarity and moderating ability. I have modified

Max's four points on a familiar framework where ignorance is ever present. We do

need its presence to continue this discussion and understand that we are

fallible!

1. We have understood or misunderstood what Shankara and or Aurobindo perceived.

2. We have misunderstood Shankara, Aurobindo and have perceived Jnanis

incorrectly.

3. Due to our subjective bias toward Jnanis, we think that they say different

things about "Truth." Consequently, we even go to the extent saying that Jnanis

are fallible.

4. All our thoughts only demonstrate our ignorance and the presence of wisdom is

impossible When thoughts are present.

regards,

Ram Chandran

>"Max Harris" <max_harris

>

>Namaste, f. maiello.

>

>>hariH OM!

>

>You make four points to which I would briefly respond:

>1) Aurobindo misunderstood Shankara, and if he understood him

>correctly he would realize they meant the same things;

>2) Aurobindo misunderstood Shankara, therefore providing further

>proof that Jnanis are not infallible;

>3) All the Jnanis in your list taught the same thing; and

>4) Awareness-connection with the bliss of the Self is the

>ultimate truth and is best reached through the elimination

>of thought.

>

>Points 1 and 2 presuppose that Aurobindo misunderstood Shankara.

>I don't know if that's true, but even if Aurobindo did misunderstand

>Shankara, I think there is sufficient textual evidence that they

>either didn't share identical views about maya, or sure expressed

>themselves differently.

>

>I agree with the conclusion of point 2 irrespective of the truth

>or falsity of the premise. I view no one as infallible. All

>sages are fallible and all "scriptures" are defective and imprecise.

>

>On point 3 I disagree. I would point out that just because

>different teachers and teachings can lead to the same 'place'

>doesn't mean that the teachings are the same. I think it is

>possible to be pointed to the Truth from many different angles,

>while allowing the angles to retain their uniqueness. It isn't

>simply a matter of who's correct and who's wrong, or who's effective

>and who's ineffective; there are any avenues into God/Truth/Being,

>and I assume all teachers and teachings are relatively incorrect

>yet still relatively effective (doesn't mean they're all equal,

>though).

>

>I agree with the first part of point 4 and maybe the second part

>as well, but I have a positive attitude about the value of thought

>to be an avenue into God/Truth/Being, and there are conceptions

>of 'thought' which may refer to what accompanies one into this

>'stateless state' (but this is a whole other topic or two!).

>

>I listen closely to this list because I want to get a better

>feel for Aurobindo's place within Advaita Vedanta, and to better

>understand the rich wisdom of Vedanta. Although I have read

>widely in Aurobindo, I have a lot to learn about all the other

>riches of Advaita Vedanta, and I see that there is a lot here.

>

>Namaste,

>-- Max

November 29, 1999

Max Harris wrote:

>

> You make four points to which I would briefly respond:

> 1) Aurobindo misunderstood Shankara, and if he understood him

> correctly he would realize they meant the same things;

> 2) Aurobindo misunderstood Shankara, therefore providing further

> proof that Jnanis are not infallible;

> 3) All the Jnanis in your list taught the same thing; and

> 4) Awareness-connection with the bliss of the Self is the

> ultimate truth and is best reached through the elimination

> of thought.

>

> Points 1 and 2 presuppose that Aurobindo misunderstood Shankara.

> I don't know if that's true, but even if Aurobindo did misunderstand

> Shankara, I think there is sufficient textual evidence that they

> either didn't share identical views about maya, or sure expressed

> themselves differently.

>

what i was attempting to show is the fact that not

all jnani-s possess the universal metaphysical key.

and those that do, would be capable of piercing the

outer teachings of all sages (of whom Aurobindo is

also one), and discovering their essence, which is

esoteric.

here's Sankara's advaitic formula:

1. Brahman is the only Reality.

2. The world is an illusion.

3. Brahman is the world.*

*the third axiom is translated as "jiva is not apart

from brahman." however, jiva is also the perceptual

hub of jagat and Isvara (the world and God). jiva

has *created* the world and God (drishti-srishti vada

[the creation-follows-perception doctrine] which is

called forth by the nature of this third axiom).

What this apparent contradiction of ideas is saying is that the world

is an illusion on its *own terms*, but is Reality as Brahman Itself!

Moreover, it's important to understand that the world, or anything

in it, is not an aspect of Brahman, but Brahman Itself. That is, every

concept, object, event and perception in and of the world is AT ONCE

the Entirety.

Moreover, it should be understood clearly that the only condition where

illusion arises is if any conceivable thought or thing in Life is

believed to be a separate reality apart from its substratum source in

the Absolute (Brahman). Aside from that, everything is real and is

Brahman itself. As the Upanishads tell us, "All this, verily, is

Brahman." So that, whenever something is spoken of in these pages

as not real, it is meant, not real apart from its substratum source

in Brahman. The idea that the world is purely an illusion is a

misconception commonly attributed to Advaita Vedanta; whereas it's

really not saying that at all! It is vitally important to understand

this. If not, we're propounding dualism. Advaita is telling us the

entirety of what is, Manifest and Unmanifest, Immanent and

Transcendental,

Relative and Absolute, Phenomenal and Noumenal, Physical and Spiritual,

is ONE BEING.)

> I think it is

> possible to be pointed to the Truth from many different angles,

> while allowing the angles to retain their uniqueness. It isn't

> simply a matter of who's correct and who's wrong, or who's effective

> and who's ineffective; there are any avenues into God/Truth/Being,

> and I assume all teachers and teachings are relatively incorrect

> yet still relatively effective (doesn't mean they're all equal,

> though).

>

yes, all [jnani]-teachers are effective for at least

some. but very few possess the universal key, capable

of extracting the essence behind all others. and these

will not refute the teachings of a Sankara or Buddha or

Christ, etc. they will see the esoteric doctrine.

> I agree with the first part of point 4 and maybe the second part

> as well, but I have a positive attitude about the value of thought

> to be an avenue into God/Truth/Being, and there are conceptions

> of 'thought' which may refer to what accompanies one into this

> 'stateless state' (but this is a whole other topic or two!).

>

yes, thought is of course indispensible *en route*

to the center in the Heart. once, however, the

threshold to the Heart is approached, thought has

to be abandoned...simply because it will continue

diverting the attention from the primal to the limit.

a pure Mind is no-mind. the Zens call it mu-shin;

the Advaitins call it manonasa or cidakasa.

namaste

November 29, 1999