Creation theories in Advaita

[Guest guest]

Namaste!

 

Those interested in the Advaitin view of the 'reality' (or lack

thereof) of the world should read the highly authoritative webpage

called 'Creation Theories in Advaita' mentioned recently on this list:

 

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/creation.html

 

For those who do not have the time, I will summarize the essence.

Advaita does NOT teach a single theory but rather several theories,

depending on the student's level of insight and spiritual progress.

At the lower (vyAvahArika) level are the more dualistic sRshTi-dRshTi

vAda (what has been created is perceived) and dRshTi-sRshTi vAda

(perception is simultaneous with creation). The higher

(pAramArthika) level teaches ajAti vAda (creation is not an absolute

and real event). Shankara drew on all these views, whereas later

Advaitins tended to emphasize one or the other. (Therefore it is

misleading to over-emphasize a few selected quotations from Shankara.

Like Ramana and the Upanishads, he sometimes seems to 'contradict'

himself, because he addresses a wide variety of students.)

 

Basically, sRshTi-dRshTi vAda is for beginning students, who

naturally see the world as distinct from themselves, since this is

the normal human reaction. This illusory view is intimately

connected with the equally illusory view of oneself as an individual

jIva (soul): they are two sides of the same coin. This jIva is the

'I am' of small-self affirmation, not the pure 'I' of Self

affirmation. If we divide ourselves from the 'world' by drawing a

conceptual boundary around what we are pleased to call our (small)

self, then that same boundary 'causes' a distinct and seemingly real

world to spring into being. ('Real' here means that the world

appears as a distinct 'existing' entity, as do we.) Such a world

needs a 'creator', and this is supplied by Brahman in its lower

illusory conceptual representation as ISwara. This is also the view

of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and other philosophically-challenged

religions. (Ooops! There I go being prejudiced again!) Finally,

there is not just one jIva but a multiplicity of them (as in the JCI

religions).

 

From a purely logical point of view, this accordance of a measure of

independent reality to mAyA (i.e. the 'world') clearly contradicts

the mighty mahAvAkya which says Brahman is One without a second,

which is the very essence of advaita. Nevertheless, in this lower

'dualistic' teaching, there is still a subtle distinction with the

truly dualistic sAm.khya philosophy. It is understood that mAyA does

not have an ultimate existence distinct from brahman. In sAm.khya

the closely related concept of prakRti does indeed have an absolute

existence of its own. The lower teaching of Advaita understands that

mAyA is reabsorbed into brahman as illusion is dispelled.

 

The other 'dualistic' view is dRshTi-sRshTi (perception is

simultaneous with creation). This view says that the various jIvas

'create' the world in the act of cognition. The webpage author finds

similarities to subjective idealism and the Buddhist vijnAnavAda.

Whether this is true depends on just what is meant by 'create' here.

In my view, subjective idealism and vijnAnavAda do NOT create a

distinct world but rather absorb the seemingly distinct world into

perception, which is in turn an aspect of consciousness. Then one

must ask if there is some subtle distinction between perception and

the consciousness which is conscious of the perception. I believe

that ultimately there is not, but there is a long tradition in

Advaita which distinguishes between the Consciousness and the mind

(including perceptions). Again, I believe that this distinction is

only at the vyAvahArika level. Indeed, all distinctions of any kind

must be at the vyAvahArika level, since at the pAramArthika level

brahman is One without a second. QED.

 

Anyhow, let us move on to the last and highest (i.e. nondual)

advaitin view. This is the ajAti vAda (creation is not an absolute,

real event), or, stated differently, creation never occurred. THIS is

what I call subjective idealism and vijnAnavAda. This is the view

that mAyA (i.e. the apparent world) has no reality in itself, as

brahman is the only reality (One without a second). (Advaitin math

is very simple!) The seeming reality of the 'external' world is only

an illusion projected or superposed (adhyasa) by the mind upon the

sole reality of Consciousness, like the snake on the rope, and this

is called mAyA. This disappearance of mAyA naturally occurs as the

jIva is understood to be an equally illusory creation of the mind.

Conversely, ajAti vAda is incomprehensible as long as one clings to

any notion of oneself as a discrete self-existing entity (i.e. jIva).

As mentioned above, these are two sides of the same coin.

 

The ajAti vAda was taught by gauDapAda, Shankara's paramaguru, who

may perhaps be considered the 'purest' advaitin since he was so

unequivocally nondual. (I imagine gauDapAda as being a true forest

dweller.) Shankara dealt with a much vaster audience and had to

teach a variety of views in order to accommodate the levels of the

different students. An infant cannot learn to run until it first

learns to walk. We embark on the spiritual path with a firm belief

in the reality of what is revealed by our senses.

 

The article states that ajAti vAda is also the realization that the

true brahman is nirguNa, i.e. without attributes. When brahman is

thus understood, mAyA dissolves, which establishes an interesting

correspondence between the apparent reality of the world and the view

of God with attributes. As brahman is realized in its essential

nature as nirguNa, the world simultaneously 'disappears'. (By the

way, the notions of nirguNa brahman and the disappearance of the

world bear a striking resemblance to the 'emptiness' of Mahayana, but

I won't belabor that point here.) I would only caution that the

'disappearance' of the world is not like a television screen going

black when switched off. Rather, it means that there is no longer

the dualism of perceiver and perceived, of jIva and jAgrat (world).

It is in this sense that one says that this state is adRshtam

(unseeable), agrAhyam (ungraspable), alakshaNam (without any

attributes), acintyam (unthinkable), avyapadeSyam (cannot be

indicated as an object), advaitam (nondual), and so forth.

 

Although this state is realized in its purest form in the 'fourth'

stare of turIya [the other three states being jAgrat or waking state,

svapna or dream state, and sushupti or deep sleep state], we must not

forget that turIya encompasses these other three states and is in

fact the essence of consciousness, the substratum itself. That is

why the realized man can operate in the world as jIvan-mukti.

Neverthless, due to its ineffable nature, the turIya or realized

state is one of complete peace and bliss, as all disturbance and

suffering arise with the activity of the mind, as does the illusion

of the world.

 

As the bRhadAraNyaka says (Part 2 Chapter 4):

 

"For when there is duality, as it were, then one smells another, one

sees another, one hears another, one speaks to another, one thinks of

another, one knows another. But when everything has become the Self,

then what should one smell and through what, what should one see and

through what, what should one hear and through what, what should one

speak and through what, what should one think and through what, what

should one know and through what? Through what should One know That

owing to which all this is known-through what, my dear, should one

know the Knower?"

 

Anyhow, the fundamental point that I wish to make is that at this

highest level the reality of the world is indeed denied, in the sense

explained above. In my opinion, this is close to if not identical to

subjective idealism. Sadanandaji has agreed with me, and I could

quote countless unambiguous passages from Shankara, Ramana and

Nisargadatta in support of this view. Those who recently on this

list have dwelt on a few passages of Shankara that seem to postulate

a 'real' world simply do not understand that different views of

'creation' are taught in Advaita, depending of the level of the

student.

 

Om!

Benjamin