Is Shankara a Mayavadin?

[Guest guest]

Hari Om Max:

 

Shankara was framed as 'Mayavadin' by nonadvaitins and the propaganda was quite

effective and I am not surprised how confusion still remains on what Shankara

stands for. The Advaita Philosophy of Shankara was quite abstract and the well

established orthodox pandits of his time failed to grasp the logic. They

misinterpreted his contention and few thought that he was quite revolutionary

and his philosophical ideas are not tuned to the customs and practice of Vedic

rituals! Though they failed understand Advaita, they were quite successful in

creating doubts on the validity of Advaita. Shankara the 'Brahmavadin' became

the 'Mayavadin' due to the vigorous efforts of non-advaita philosophers. Their

propganda was quite effective and convincing and it appears that even some

advaitins such as Aurobindo became victims!

 

I fully agree with your thoughtful observation: "I know that there are some

subtleties in the hilosophy of Advaita Vedanta which are difficult to explain,

especially for us Westerners (my area of 'experise' is actually Western

Existential Phenomenology). I confess that I am finding it difficult to 'pin

down' what is really the correct interpretation of Shankara's views on reality,

maya and Brahman."

 

Shankara explains Maayaa using the example of the rope and snake. This analogy

is quite sutble. In the dark (due to ignorance) we mistake the rope for the

snake. With a torch light (knowledge, we were able to recognize the rope and

immediately the snake disappeared! In this analogy, Brahman is the rope and the

world is the snake. The world is our imagination (perception) due to our

ignorance of the reality the Brahaman! In the case of snake and rope, we have

the experience of both the snake and rope. However, in the case of the Brahman

and the World, we only have the experience of only the World and not the

Brahman. The example is quite powerful and there is a hidden subtle message

which becomes difficult to grasp until we experience the Brahman. The Maayaa

here only represents our absence of the knowledge of Brahman and this puzzle

can never be resolved untile we realize the Brahman!

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends

 

"f. maiello" <egodust wrote

 

" 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]. "

 

I agree with what Shri.Frank is saying. Shankara has been wrongly criticised

as a Mayavadin by many people. 'Maya' is not a creation of Shankara. In the

Bhagavad Gita Bhagavan says 'Yogamayasamaavrtaha' and 'Bhraamayan sarva

bhootanaam yantraaruudani Mayayaa'. Also the Svetasvetara Upanishad says

'Mayam tu Prakrtim viddhi Mayinam tu Maheshvaram' - 'Know Prakrti as Maya

and Maheshvara as the wielder of Maya'. Another Upanishad says 'Indraha

Pururupaha Bhavathi Mayabhihi'.

 

So Maya was not introduced by Shankara. It is introduced by the Upanishads

and Gita. Shankara only expounded it brilliantly in his commentaries. In

fact all our Shastras are only interested in establishing the Atma as

Brahman and they are not interested in establishing Maya. Maya is only

introduced as a means to explain away the apparent world.

 

I also want to point out that Maya is wrongly being translated as

inexplicable by many people. In the tradition we say 'Ya Ma Sa Maya' - 'That

which cannot be measured or categorised is Maya'. The correct translation

for Maya is uncategorisable. It cannot be categorised as either existent or

non-existent etc. That Maya is not categorisable can be explained and taught

and so I think it is not correct to say that it is inexplicable.

 

Further Frank wrote

 

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

 

 

I think the problem with people like Aurobindo is that they did not have a

traditional Guru. Aurobindo might have been a great Yogi and a great person

but I think his understanding of the shastras were flawed because he did not

have a proper Guru. The teaching tradition (Sampradaya) is very important

because only a traditional teacher has the methodology to unfold the words

of the Vedas so that it becomes a valid means of knowledge. Others who don't

know the methodology to teach Vedanta cannot be effective teachers. I think

the fact that an Aurobindo or JK could'nt produce another Aurobindo or JK is

proof enough. That the tradition has survived for thousands of years with

Jnani's in every generation shows the effectiveness of the traditional way

of teaching and learning Vedanta. I think the words of Mundaka Upanishad 'Sa

Gurum Eva Abhigacchet Shrotriyam Brahmanishtam' - 'Approach a teacher who is

a Shrotriya (one who has studied shastras and knows the traditional way of

teaching) and Brahmanishta (one who is committed to the vision of the Vedas)

and the words of Shankara 'Asampradayavit Moorkhavat Apekshaniyaha' - 'The

one who is not a Sampradayavit( one who knows the tradition) is to be kept

away like a fool' , is very relevant here.

 

with love and prayers,

 

Jaishankar.

 

_

[Guest guest]

Namaste, Ram Chandran.

 

Thank you for describing the rope/snake analogy,

but this analogy seems open to two 'Advaitic'

interpretations given prior posts on this topic:

 

In Frank's "realistic Advaitic" interpretation, the

rope would be the world seen clearly as Brahman and

the snake would be the world misperceived as separate

from Brahman. In seeing the rope clearly we clearly

see the rope as world-and-Brahman. The world still is,

and this is compatible with Aurobindo's view.

 

In GM's "two-level" interpretation, the rope would

be Brahman and Brahman alone -- the superimpositions

which give the appearance of the world would vanish

upon seeing the rope clearly. However, in level B

one could be aware of the rope while still seeing

mainly the snake, which is better than just seeing

the snake, but there's still some maya.

 

I apologize to Frank and GM if I have misunderstood

their messages and therefore misconstrued the implications

of their messages upon the interpretation of the rope/snake

analogy. All I want to know is this: If I clearly see

the rope, can I still enjoy the company and love of my

wife and daughter?

 

Namaste,

-- Max

 

 

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

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

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

[Guest guest]

Namaste Max:

 

First, Please relax and enjoy the company and love of your wife, daughter,

relatives, friends and foes. We see the Brahman through the World without

realizing that there is no difference! This is our own creation of notions about

'Brahman.' Follow the Upanishadic message, "Life is a bridge, enjoy while

crossing without building a castle on it." If we determine to be confused and be

dualistic, then no one can stop it!

 

The example is given for clarification and to remove all notions about Brahman

and once we decide to have our own notion using our perception of the world,

then clarification becomes the confusion! Frank, GM and Frank says the same

thing based on our own understanding and that is our difficulty and I don't want

to pretend that I convinced you. We don't know the origin of the confusion and

we will never know until we know the Brahman. Slowly and steadily we delete one

notion but replace with another notion and this journey will continue until we

exaust all notions!

 

All I can answer is the following: When you really enjoy the love and company of

your wife, daughter, relatives, friends and foes then you will see the rope

(Brahman) and it is not the other way!

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

>

[Guest guest]

Hi!

The snake-rope and pot-clay analogy to explain or understand the world

and Brahman are often used and interesting. Shakara's analogies are

mainly to emphasize the functionings of our minds with a subtle

suggestion to go beyond.

 

In the snake-rope analogy, snake appears as a rope or vice versa due to

the subjective interpretation of the observer's mind and its associated

fear or lack of fear. However, both snake and rope have similarity in

their form, not in substance. Snake and rope have existence independent

of each other. Using the sense of touch one can know whether it is a

snake or just a rope. One knows the world (snake and rope) through the

senses. But the Brahman is not known to the senses. However, the analogy

drives home the point that the rope (Brahman) is real and the perceived

snake (world) is maya.

 

In the pot-clay analogy, one knows that the pot does not exist without

the clay. When the pot is broken the clay still exists. However, both

the pot and clay are known through the senses. But the Brahman is not

known to the senses. However, just as above, the analogy drives home the

point that the clay (Brahman) is real and the pot (world) is one

manifestation of the clay.

 

Both these examples are for the conditioned minds to peak out beyond

their boundaries and recognize what is not recognizable through the

senses.

 

A child which has not developed its mind-skills and conditionings sees

no difference between the snake and the rope nor does it differentiate

between the pot and the clay. For the child there is no difference

between the real and unreal!

 

An unconditioned mind is in a state of awareness and in that state "the

knowing" is not dependent on the senses and therefore it "knows" the

Brahman and all its manifestations without any effort. There are no

comparisons!

 

-- Vis

[Guest guest]

[R. Viswanathan wrote]

<snip>

>A child which has not developed its mind-skills and conditionings sees

>no difference between the snake and the rope nor does it differentiate

>between the pot and the clay. For the child there is no difference

>between the real and unreal!

>An unconditioned mind is in a state of awareness and in that state "the

>knowing" is not dependent on the senses and therefore it "knows" the

>Brahman and all its manifestations without any effort. There are no

>comparisons!

<snip>

 

Your analogy between a child and a jivanmukti is useful but could

also be misinterpreted and be a source of confusion for many,

especially the "back to Eden" romantics. Instead, this can become

a retrograde step in consciousness,

 

The liberated "individual" is childlike but not childish.

 

A child lives in a state of self-love and unconsciousness, so

naturally (s)he is unable to differentiate between self and not-self,

hence immune from psychological suffering. It is only when the

"ice" thaws, as the child gets older, that (s)he become aware of

problems and seeks knowledge for obtaining solutions.

 

The wise man, also lives in an innocence, but he has transcended

seeking or hankering after conventional knowledge (avidya), He

knows or recognizes everything is sheer mystery and wonder,

hence the reson he is called a Mystic.

 

The child does not yet enjoy this privileged "attainment" ( although

(s)he lives in a similar but pseudo-state) and must pass through the

painful learning process, via knowledge, to "arrive" at the "state"

beyond knowledge.

 

There is a richness in the Jnani's experience; enlightenment is not

that cheap!

 

~dave