Aurobindo and Shastra

[Guest guest]

Very interesting to note the title "Shankara's Explanation of the Universe".

As a matter of fact, Shankara does not explain the universe nor there is a

need to explain the universe. The existence of universe as an 'entity' is

not accepted in tradition and is not a reality either. Shankara starts his

works saying that though there are many great works on the shastras, I am

doing this work in order to put down things in a simpler way and throw more

light on the shastras. So, shankara never claims an independent exposition

and hence cannot either be called a 'mayavadi' or 'brahmavadi'. He does not

propose any vada. He just throws light on sruti which is the pramana (like

eye). We see through eyes though light is also necessary. Likewise, the

sruti shows the sadvastu which is brahman and acharyas add light to the

dristi.

Words like maya, mithya, sat, sathyam etc., are technical usages. They mean

more than what the literal meaning of the words are. Tradition throws light

on what it means by these words and uses the words to explain the sad vastu.

Also maya, aabhaasa, prathibimba etc., are only different 'prakriyaas' or

'methodologies' to show the reality that is brahman. Shastra does not stick

on to any of these, since there is no thaathparya in any one of them. At

various places, shastra uses various methods to show the one reality. Even

the creation is explained differently in different places. There is

panchikaranam and there is thrivrithkaranam. So, there is no thaathparya in

srishti. The universe itself is not a 'reality' and hence there is no

meaning in talking about its 'creation'. In one of the prakriyas, the

individual-world-lord (jiva-jagat-iswara) trio are explained by

chaitanya-maya-avidya model which models the experience as :

chaitanya+avidya being jiva, chaitanya+maya being iswara and world (from

standpoint of chaitanya it is iswara and from the standpoint of maya it is

the world). Once this model unfolds in the student's mind, maya and avidya

being nonreality and unsubstantive, chaitanya is understood as the only

reality. This is the place of maya in the teaching of vedanta. It can be

handled only by the teacher who is a sampradayavith. Shankara does not

propose any maya nor does he ask us to 'believe' in illusoriness of world.

Maya is TAUGHT. It has to be UNDERSTOOD. I liked Jaishankarji's

explanation on this : "Maya 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."

Aurobindo's understanding of shastra and shankara are flawed. Since he is

commenting on Shankara, let us look at his views critically.

<snip>

"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."

<snip>

This only shows that Aurobindo is not even sure on what Shankara says. He

is basing his views on the interpretations of too many people. There are

varying traditions in advaita differing mainly on the prakriya, like

abhaasa, prathibimba, avachcheda etc., but I really doubt if they are

differing on the main thatva and maya. The holenarsingpur view (another

prakriya) is slightly different from others on the maya standpoint.

 

Aurobindo uses the term "jaganmithya" and takes mithya as "false". Mithya

is a 'technical' term used in vedanta to mean 'dependent reality'. An

example for mithya is 'pot'. In a clay pot, clay is the substantive and pot

is the adjective (though in the language, it is the other way round). So,

clay is satyam and pot is mithya (or dependent reality). Jagat is mithya in

similar sense. The chaitanyam is satyam and the jagat is mithya.

<snip>

"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.

<snip>

This is not Shankara's philosophy (actually, should be termed not shastra

dristi). We (tradition) only say that from the vyaavaharika drishti

(empirically), the world is a 'dependent reality' and from the

paaramaarthika drishti (really) brahman alone is the reality. This is just

like, from the vyaavaharika drishti, pot is a 'dependent reality' and the

paaramaarthika drishti, clay alone is the reality (weight of pot is weight

of clay, when we touch pot we touch clay, when we take clay out pot is gone,

clay exists irrespective of pot, pot does not exist other than clay etc.,

etc.,). So, does world/pot exist? We cannot say 'yes' because as an entity

apart from chaitanya/clay they dont. We cannot say 'no' because a

non-existant cannot be talked about and conceived. So, we call it

'anirvachaneeya' or 'unclassifiable between existence and non-existence'.

HAVE WE NOT EXPLAINED MAYA? UNCLASSIFIABLE is the 'nature' of MAYA. But it

is not INEXPLICABLE.

<snip>

"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."

<snip>

If my previous explanation of maya and shastra drishti are accepted,

Aurobindo loses his argument. The so-called "Shankara's theory" is only

"Aurobindo's understanding of shastra and shankara". Aurobindo wants an

explanation for universe and wants to reason it out. The shastra

(tradition, shankara) is just saying that all that is here is only brahman

and nothing else. To make a student understand this, we have to start from

the perceived world just like we show the moon starting from the branch of a

tree (they call it shaakachandra nyaya, i think). Maya and other prakriyaas

are meant to do this. It is very unfortunate that people at all levels are

stuck with this. As Jaishankarji pointed out, ASAMPRADAAYAVITHVAM alone is

the reason for this.

<snip>

"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."

<snip>

This statement, if true, shows Vivekananda is a bad light. Any way,

Vivekananda's acceptance or non-acceptance does not evaluate Shankara. I

wonder how far the clinging to personalities can go?

<snip>

"The Shankara knowledge is, as your Guru pointed out, only one side of the

Truth..."

<snip>

The assumption here is that what Aurobindo is going to tell is the Truth.

Since Shankara and tradition are not in consent with what Aurobindo is

telling, they have become Untruth(one side of truth?) automatically!

 

"static silence of the pure Existence" --- yogic terminology probably

pointing to nirvikalpa state. This is definitely not what shastra says.

 

"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." --- By saying dynamic side, Aurobindo is attributing a

reality to vikalpa or modification. Shankara has already discussed this in

so many places. He says 'na vikalpaha nama kinchit vastu asti'. That is,

there is no THING called modification, the SUBSTANTIVE in the 'modification'

is alone the truth and the 'modification' is just a superimposition on the

truth like 'pot on clay'. Similarly, dynamic side is nothing but a

modification of the substantive alone. Both 'dynamic' and 'static' are

nothing but states of the SUBSTANTIVE and the substantive ALONE is the

REALITY. Both 'lumpness' and 'potness' are equally unreal whereas the clay

alone is real. Aurobindo clearly MISSED this and went on to propose some

theory of HIS own.

 

"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."

Absolutely baseless allegations based only on the faulty understanding of

Aurobindo himself. On the contrary, Aurobindo does not offer 'MOKSHA' in

his theory. His theory has what is called 'Anirmokshap prasangaha' -- 'non

possibility of liberation'. It offers nothing but an intellectual web and

hundred and one assumptions. To take support of shastra for this concoction

is the zenith and is unacceptable.

 

"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."

If Aurobindo had read the bhashya on "Satyam Jnaanam Anantham Brahma" in the

taittariya upanishad, he would not have said sat and chit are double

(atleast in the shastra dristi). Also sat and chit cannot be double. There

is no sat other than chit (like pot clay). The satta of anything is only

chit. This is what shastra shows. The 'shakthimatvam' of chit is only

incidental and non-separate from sat/chit. There is no independent reality

called shakthi (like pot, again). The very foundation of Aurobindo's theory

is faulty.

 

"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."

There is a third side which is currently being developed in antartica. Let

us wait for it to complete, before concluding.

[Guest guest]

kalyankumar muthurajan:

 

What you write is very interesting, but it might have more

effectiveness if you could provide explanatory descriptions

of some of the technical Vedantic terms for us Westerners.

 

Namaste,

-- Max

 

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

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

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

[Guest guest]

Namaste, kalyankumar muthurajan.

 

I'm still working through your text, but let me know if

I'm getting at least this point:

> . . . We (tradition) only say that from the vyaavaharika drishti

>(empirically), the world is a 'dependent reality' and from the

>paaramaarthika drishti (really) brahman alone is the reality. This is just

>like, from the vyaavaharika drishti, pot is a 'dependent reality' and the

>paaramaarthika drishti, clay alone is the reality (weight of pot is weight

>of clay, when we touch pot we touch clay, when we take clay out pot is gone,

>clay exists irrespective of pot, pot does not exist other than clay etc.,

>etc.,). So, does world/pot exist? We cannot say 'yes' because as an entity

>apart from chaitanya/clay they dont. We cannot say 'no' because a

>non-existant cannot be talked about and conceived. So, we call it

>'anirvachaneeya' or 'unclassifiable between existence and non-existence'.

>HAVE WE NOT EXPLAINED MAYA? UNCLASSIFIABLE is the 'nature' of MAYA. But it

>is not INEXPLICABLE.

 

The idea at root here seems to be that only that which is not a

dependent reality is real, and therefore only Brahman is real.

This type of thinking has occurred in the West as well. In a

sense what we're saying is: That which is eternal and self-grounded

(God) is more real than anything else, and all other occurrences

are of a lesser reality. Transient formations within the one

reality are not 'real' in the same sense that the one reality

is real.

 

The problem is that just because transient formations are

of a lesser reality than Brahman doesn't mean that they are

not in some sense 'existing' or occurring. However, because

your tradition chooses to not say that transient formations

'exist', you say that maya is "between existence and

non-existence." One could just as well say that transient

formations possess a different type of 'existence' than

Brahman.

 

In a sense, we are playing language games, thought games.

Yet it is also not a game; we seek real insight.

 

I think a problem Advaita Vedanta has with many seeking to

understand it is that the "between existence and non-existence"

category is often overlooked, and people hear instead the

misleading "world=maya=illusion" line. This middle category,

if overlooked, leaves Advaita Vedanta looking like illusionism.

>From what I've heard on this list, it is not that.

 

I agree that transient formations, all the rich texture of

Brahman which is the world, is of a different order of reality

than Brahman -- wholly dependent, with beginning and end and

too little in between -- but it is maddeningly confusing to

call these occurrences "illusions" simply because they are

dependent transient formations, ripples in the sea of Brahman.

 

Am I getting warmer?

 

Namaste,

-- Max

 

 

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

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

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

[Guest guest]

HariH Aum Kalyan:

 

Thanks for explaining the vision of Shankara from the traditional point of view

and I admire your scholarship and understanding. I have great faith in our

traditions and consequently will agree that sruti contains the TRUTH. I also

believe that

sruti and Truth are synonymous. I have no problem in accepting the fact that

Shankara was able to visualize the Truth through the Shastras. However, it is

beyond me to do the same becuase I can't follow the light of Shankara and

visualize the

TRUTH through the Vedas. It is not me but most of us experience the same

problem because we are ignorant to utilize the light of Shankara and we can't

see through the eyes of Shastras. It seems that we may additional light and

extra vision!

These difficulties may partly explain why we have so many visions of Shankara's

Advaita Philosophy. Most of the times, our discussions seem to magnify our

ignorance instead of clarifying our doubts..

 

But the postings from you and Jaishankarji has brought some new insights to our

discussions and they did help us to realize how little we know. I do request

both of you to continue with your exposition of the traditional view points as

forcefully

as you can so that we can understand and benefit from the discussions. I also

request both of you to explain the new Sanskrit terms so that the readers who

are not conversant with the terminology can appreciate your view points.

 

On behalf of all the list moderators, I want to thank you and Jaishankarji for

sharing the traditional view points and the list is quite fortunate to have your

scholarship and participation.

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

Sorry this message appears twice. I posted it 3 days back but there

are some SMTP problems my system is facing, hence this reposting.

>

> kalyankumar muthurajan [sMTP:kalyankumar]

> Tuesday, November 30, 1999 10:45 PM

> advaitin

> Aurobindo and Shastra

>

> "kalyankumar muthurajan" <kalyankumar

>

> "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."

> There is a third side which is currently being developed in antartica.

> Let

> us wait for it to complete, before concluding.

[Madhava Replies:]

 

Dear Kalyankumar,

 

I would like to know about this third side, which is being developed

in Antarctica! Is it anyway related to philosophy? I heard that only

scientists stay there! Could you please provide more information (if

possible web links) on this matter. Thank you very much in advance.

 

Best Regards,

Madhava