In advaita, does 'matter' matter?

[Guest guest]

yes!

It does matter!!

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

The question raised in subject title of the topic is quite important

for any serious seeker to understand where Advaita stands. Our list

Guru, Sri Sadanandaji has answered the above question numerous times.

Sadaji has repeated his insightful answer more than one time for a

good reason. Many of the list members are youngsters who have

migrated to this country (USA) and they want to get the correct

understanding of 'Shankara's adavaita philosophy.' The list

moderators have the moral responsibility to provide responsible

answers from reliable sources to these youngsters (and also other

serious seekers from the west). I personally want to thank Sadaji

for his dedicated, unselfish and tireless service to the list members

whenever they need clarifications. He has a full time job with the

government and in addition he is also busy conducting the Gita

Satsangh during the weekends. He may not appreciate me saying all

this, but my saying this is only for motivating others to follow his

deeds.

 

Let me now turn my attention to address the question once more. This

time, I want to post an answer provided from one of the most

authoritative source - His Holiness (HH) Sri Chandrasekara Bharati

Swamigal, late Sankaracharya of Sringeri Sharada Peetem. These are

excerpts from the book: "Dialogues with The Guru." The book is a

compilation of His Holiness's discussion and talks, compiled by Sri.

R. Krishnaswami Aiyar first published in 1957 by Chetana Limited,

Bombay. These are from Chapter XII of the book.

 

The book is based on HH's discussions with a disciple, who was well

learned in the vedanta literature and a scholar. The disciple once

approached HH and asked to be initiated in Advaita - the first

portion of the talk relates to ability of one to be initiated/ one to

be able to initiate advaita - HH makes the point that advaita is to

be experienced, like "sweetness" and cannot be described or one

cannot be initiated into it. In the last section, HH addresses the

question related to 'matter' in advaita philosophy.

 

Abbrevations (G = Guru and D = Disciple)

****************************************

G: First we shall try to understand what is meant by Advaita. How

have you understood it?

D: I have heard it explained thus: dvi means two, dvita means the

state of being two, that is two-ness. Dvaitam is the same as dvita.

Advaita is therefore that thing in which there is no two-ness or

duality.

G: Quite so. What do you call that some thing in which there is two-

ness?

D: It is brAhman.

G: Perfectly right. And by brAhman you mean that basic principle of

reality where from the universe derives its existence, whereon it

rests and wherein it disappears?

D: Yes.

G: Let us ignore the word brAhman and its full significance for a

moment. You give the name of Advaita to the principle which is

responsible for the creation, maintenance and dissolution of the

universe?

D: Quite so.

G: You mean then that there is no two-ness in this principle?

D: Yes.

G: In other words, you mean that that principle is one and one only?

D: Certainly

G: To explain it again, you mean that there are no two such

principles?

D: Yes.

G: And you claim that our system of thought is rightly called Advaita

as it enunciates the doctrine of the non-existence of two such

principles?

D: Quite so.

G: That is all right. Now we shall consider for a moment the other

systems of thought, be it Christianity or Mohammedanism,

visishtAdvaitA or dvaitA, tarka or yogA, be it any system of thought

which admits the existence of a principle which is responsible for

the creation, the sustenance and the dissolution of the universe. Do

any of these systems ever proclaim that there are two such principles

or do they all agree in proclaiming that there is and can be only one

such principle?

D: No system postulates any plurality in God. There may be and is

plurality among the devAs, who are as much created beings as

ourselves, but certainly none in the Supreme Godhead. He is ever One.

G: Quite so. No system therefore enunciates any duality so far as God

is concerned?

D: It is so.

G: Then, every system, inasmuch as it negatives the existence of two

Gods is entitled to give the name of Advaita to the God enunciated by

it and to appropriate the same name for itself also. If so, what is

the justification for your monopolising the name Advaita specially to

your God and to your particular system of thought?

D: I pray that Your Holiness may be pleased to explain it.

G: There is another difficulty. You know that in the Advaita

philosophy a practical saguNa brAhman and a transcendent nirguNa

brAhman are both enunciated.

D: Yes.

G: None of the other systems accepts similar distinction and they

decline to conceive of brAhman as twofold?

D: Yes.

G: It would seem therefore that all other systems, except your own,

enunciate a single supreme principle and that in your system only

there is an enunciation of two supreme principles, the saguNa and the

nirguNa. Strictly speaking, therefore, it would seem that all systems

are equally entitled to call themselves Advaita and that, if any

system can be disqualified from using that name by reason of

enunciating plurality in God, it is certainly your system only that

can be so disqualified. The advaita system is thus not entitled at

all to call itself by that name. How do you then call advaita?

D: The answer for this also must come from Your Holiness.

G: Not necessarily, for you yourself can give the answer quite easily.

D: How?

Distinctive Characteristics:

G: Generally speaking, a name gets attached to a particular thing

only if some attribute which is denoted by that name happens to be

the exclusive attribute of that thing. If an attribute is common

between a particular thing and several others, that particular thing

cannot be called by the name which connotes that attribute.

D: Certainly.

G: A name is therefore given to a particular thing when that thing

has an exclusive characteristic of its own which is associated with

that name.

D: Quite so.

G: Now, what is the exclusive characteristic of our system of

philosophy which is absent is all other systems?

D: I suppose, the doctrine of mAyA.

G: Quite so; and its implications.

D: What are the implications?

G: Before we go to that question, tell me what do you understand by

mAyA?

D: I have heard it explained as the differentiating principle which

is responsible for diversity in the universe.

G: In the universe of matter or in the universe of souls?

D: In both. mAyA is the prime cause of all diversity, in the

objective as well as the subjective universe.

G: Then, but for mAyA, there can be no diversity at all?

D: I have heard it so said.

G: Matter, inert as it is, will have no independent existence of its

own but for mAyA?

D: Yes.

G: Similarly, I suppose, we, individuals as we are now, will have no

independent existence of our own, but for mAyA?

D: It would seem so.

G: If we do not enunciate any differentiating principle as mAyA,

matter - inert matter - will persist in having an existence of its

own consistently with God the Supreme Principle, just as the mud from

which a pot is made claims consistent existence with the potter who

uses it for making the pot?

D: It is so. In some other systems, they assign to God only the

status of the potter and enunciate a primary substance, be it

pradhAna or the atoms or any other thing, as the material out of

which the universe is made.

G: But there are some systems which deny the independent existence of

matter and which enunciate that God is Himself the material cause as

well as the efficient cause. That is, He is as much the mud as the

potter.

D: Quite so. I think such as idea is formulated by the

viSishtAdvaitins.

G: It finds a place in some other systems also. Though they conceive

of God as the material as well as the efficient cause of the

universe, they do not grant that God is the material cause of

individual souls, for souls are not matter; nor is God the efficient

cause of souls, for souls are not 'made'.

D: I understand.

G: Then, by postulating that the individual souls are not made but

exist from time beginningless, they assign them an existence, an

independent existence, co-eval with God Himself.

D: No doubt so, for they call all souls eternal.

G: But so do we. The difference between our system and theirs lies

not is ascribing eternal existence to the individual soul, but in

their ascribing eternal independent existence to all individual souls

and in out ascribing the eternality to brAhman and deny to the souls

any existence independent of brAhman.

D: It is so.

G: Now then, we find that there are some systems which postulate the

existence of God as the Supreme Being and at the same time grant the

independent existence of matter and also the independent existence of

individual souls. In some other systems, God is conceived of as the

Supreme Being as well as the primary material cause of the universe

of matter, thereby denying to inert matter an independent existence

of its own, but conceding such as existence to individual souls.

D: Yes,

G: It is only in the advaita system that matter is denied existence

independent of God and the individual soul also is denied existence

independent of God.

D: Quite so.

G: It will be clear now that the distinguishing characteristic which

is responsible for the name advaita, which our system has

appropriated to itself and by which it is generally known to all.

D: But how does the name advaita convey the idea of this distinctive

characteristic?

G: You your self said that advaita signified a negation of duality.

D: But Your Holiness pointed out that no religion in the world

postulated a duality in God?

G: Quite so. You committed the mistake of understanding 'negation of

two-ness in God' to mean 'negation of two Gods', thereby giving room

for my further questions. If advaita meant negation of two Gods, our

system has no sole right at all to appropriate that name to itself

but, if it means on the other hand negation of any second principle

independent of God, we have the sole right to monopolize that name

for our system. It is only in the latter sense that our system goes

by the name of advaita.

D: I now understand the significance of the name; but there is mAyA

the differentiating principle which is responsible for the diversity

in the universe of matter and of individual souls. Surely, that is a

second principle.

G: No. That cannot be a second principle. Viewing it as the sakti or

power or potentiality of brAhman, it can have no independent

existence of its own apart from the sakta, the Supreme Person or

brAhman. From the still higher standpoint of absolute truth, it has

no existence at all. mAyA is the name given to it because it IS NOT

(ya ma), but seems to be, borrowing its seeming reality from the

eternal verity called brAhman.

*******************************************

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <rchandran@c...>

wrote:

> yes!

> It does matter!!

[Guest guest]

--- Ram Chandran <rchandran wrote:

> Our list

> Guru, Sri Sadanandaji has answered the above question numerous times.

 

Ram - Thanks for your kind comments. Did not recognize I had unassigned

post when so many stalwarts are there. Frankly Benjamin forced me to

think about the suutra we discussed. I had to thank him for that.

Similarly Prof. VK who prepelled me to think deeply on Pancadasi slokas

and Nanda who discussed freely on the topics. The list is helping me to

learn a lot. Many a time I had to learn and think myself before I can

comment on it, since I have prepared B.Suutra notes only up to the fifth

Suutra. I have to resume the notes slowly as I prepare myself for my

retirement.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.