Sri Aurobindo on Shankara

[Guest guest]

>They want to show that Shankara was not so savagely illusionist as he

>is represented that he gave a certain temporary reality to the world,

>admitted Shakti etc.

 

No, no, no (see below).

>Now that the general turn is away from the

>rigorous Illusionism, many of the Adwaitins seem to want to hedge and

>make Shankara hedge with them.

 

No hedging here. It's just that the idea "the world is an illusion" is being

misunderstood, or not understood deeply enough. What's illusory is the

notion that the world is in any way existant in and of itself (ie, separate

from Brahman). When this incorrect notion is dispelled, the world is

seen to be Reality. My understanding of "maya", then, is epistemological,

not ontological (though I'm sure not everybody will agree with this). So

from the standpoint of ontology, one could even argue that Sankara is

teaching the opposite of "illusionism" - there is NOTHING BUT reality.

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends,

 

Sometime ago, I recall someone, mentioning to Ramji, that

Shankara's advaita-vedanta teachings is clearly different

from the other shades of vedanta (dwaita, dwaita-advaita etc.),

No one, I believed, ventured to comment.

 

In light of this apparently unresolved ancient debate, I include for

your review and comments, Sri Aurobindo's (purna-vedanta) views.

 

 

Volume: 22-23-24 [sABCL] (Letters On Yoga), Page: 42

 

 

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. I don't know exactly

what is meant by this yuktivada. If it is meant that it is merely for the sake

of arguing down opponents, then this part of the philosophy has no

fundamental validity; Shankara's theory destroys itself. Either he meant

it as a sufficient explanation of the universe or he did not. If he did, it is

no use dismissing it as Yuktivada.

I can understand that thorough-going Mayavadin's declaration that the

whole question is illegitimate, because Maya and the world do not really

exist; in fact, the problem how the world came to existence is only a part

of Maya, is like Maya unreal and does not truly arise; but if an explanation

is to be given, it must be a real, valid and satisfying explanation. If there

are two planes and in putting the question we are confusing the two planes,

that argument can only be of value if both planes have some kind of

existence and the reasoning and explanation are true in the lower plane but

cease to have any meaning for a consciousness which has passed out of it.

 

 

MORE COMMENTS ON SHANKARA

 

Volume: 22-23-24 [sABCL] (Letters On Yoga), Page: 54

 

I believe according to the Adwaitins, God is only the reflection of

Brahman in Maya just as Brahman is seen outwardly as the world which

has only a practical not a real reality, so subjectively Brahman is

seen as God, Bhagavan, Ishwara, and that also would be a practical not

a real reality which is and can be only the relationless Brahman all

by itself in a worldless eternity. At least that is what I have read I

don't know whether Shankara himself says that. One is always being

told by modern Adwaitins that Shankara did not mean what people say

he meant so one has to be careful in attributing any opinion to him.

 

* * *

They want to show that Shankara was not so savagely illusionist as he

is represented that he gave a certain temporary reality to the world,

admitted Shakti etc. But these (supposing he made them) are

concessions inconsistent with the logic of his own philosophy which is

that only the Brahman exists and the rest is ignorance and illusion.

The rest has only a temporary and therefore an illusory reality in

Maya. He further maintained that Brahman could not be reached by

works. If that was not his philosophy, I should like to know what was

his philosophy. At any rate that was how his philosophy has been

understood by people. Now that the general turn is away from the

rigorous Illusionism, many of the Adwaitins seem to want to hedge and

make Shankara hedge with them. Vivekananda accepted Shankara's

philosophy with modifications, the chief of them being

Daridra-Narayan-Seva which is a mixture of Buddhist compassion and

modern philanthropy.

 

* * *

 

Volume: 22-23-24 [sABCL] (Letters On Yoga), Page: 39

 

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.

 

* * *

~dave