Vyavarika and Paramarthika

[Guest guest]

Namaste all.

 

I am back at my desk after a gap of a few days. I tried to

catch up with the varied debates on Jivan-mukti, Sannyasa,

Karma, Bhakti and Jnana. But I think it is going to be

difficult to be able to precisely report or recall what

each member is saying. So what I write below is only a

general response in the light of what I have understood of

the debate after a quick browsing through the mails. At

the same time let us respect Ramchandranji’s and Nair-ji’s

appeals not to endlessly drag this topic of Jivanmukta and

Sannyasa by repeating ourselves. Accordingly this post,

though it may be in response to the thought processes of

the other thread, has actually a different focus.

 

First let me recall my apologies made in my post (of 29th

July):

http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m26430.html

 

where I had said I was writing hurriedly. Well, I used the

word ‘mental sannyasa’ there. It appears this usage has

given rise to some confusion. Here ‘mental’ refers to the

attitude. It is the attitude of renunciation that is

important rather than the physical sannyasa itself. This

sentence also can be misinterpreted. I hope it will not

be.

 

In the shastras very often one finds statements something

like the following. “ If you do such and such a wrong

thing, then you will be committing the sin of killing a cow

in Kashi on the banks of the Ganges!” This does not mean

that it is alright to kill a cow at places other than

Kashi! The emphasis is only on the enormity of the sin –

there is no intention of saying that you are allowed to

kill a cow anywhere else.

 

So also when I say that it is the attitude that is

important rather than the physical renunciation, it does

not mean to bring down the importance of physical

renunciation. Read in the right spirit, it means that

without the right attitude, the physical renunciation

itself will lose its value. And I have noticed that many

of the members have also pointed this out in their own

way.

 

Secondly, just as Sannyasa has to be necessarily

accompanied by the right attitude, so also the concept of

advaita itself loses its significance if it is interpreted

as a ‘kriya-advaita’ (advaita in action), rather than as a

‘bhava-advaita’ (advaita in attitude). All our shastras

emphasize and insist on bhava-advaita only. If ‘You’ and

‘I’ are one and the same according to advaita, it does not

mean that your property is mine! It is only the attitude

of oneness that is recommended, not the actual oneness in

the vyvavaharika plane. (Gita 18 – 20). The attitude of

oneness must imply first of all that ‘your’ sorrows must be

‘mine’ before any other oneness is declared, recommended or

practised. Again this sentence could be distorted by using

the advaita plank itself. For example, when I use the word

‘sorrow’ one could say: ‘Where is sorrow for an advaitin?

Sorrow is there only when there is duality!’. This is

again another example of mixing the vyvaharik plane with

the absolute.

 

Most of our misunderstandings in advaita discussions can be

traced to this single fault in the logic. As a

mathematician I used to say that this is like ‘division by

zero’ in mathematics. This single fault of ‘division by

zero’ made explicitly or implicitly can lead to all sorts

of fallacious statements in mathematics. So also by mixing

the vyvaharika plane and the paramarthika plane one could

tear to pieces most of the statements asserted by advaita.

 

 

This mixing of two planes itself is a cause of confusion

to the beginning advaitin. I have recently discovered an

analogy from the world of TV serials (‘soup’ plays).

Mostly the same actors play different roles in the

different serials. Several serials are telecast every day.

Now let us think of someone who is watching several serials

day by day. Actor A is a husband in one serial of actress

B. In another serial (say, which has a time slot adjacent

to the other one in the TV schedules), actress B is the

sister of Actor A. A new entrant to the audience of these

serials, confuses himself with the roles of A and B in the

different serials and asks a question: Why do they show

such scenes as somebody going to bed with his sister?

Well, the veteran watcher of these serials knows what kind

of confusion the new watcher has landed himself into. The

latter has mixed up the roles of A and B in the two

serials!.

 

This is exactly the case with our initiate in advaitin, who

asks: If there is only one non-dual reality, then what is

the need to pray or worship or do bhakti? The existence of

the one non-dual reality is in the absolute level, whereas

the praying or worshipping or doing bhakti is in the

vyavaharik level. A Jivanmukta is so called because he

can be in either of the planes according to ‘his will’,

which, if you ask him, he will ascribe to ‘divine will’,

because he has no other will except divine will. When we

understand him in the Absolute plane as a Jivanmukta, we

are looking at one of his roles only. When we understand

him in the vyvaharik plane, he appears to be one among us.

Those of us (Don’t include me -- I have never had that

good fortune) who have seen Ramana Maharshi in action,

going about asking people at their lunch to have one more

serving, or asking a visitor about his travel, must be

thinking how is it this Jivanmukta cares to delve into

these mundane questions?

 

The same thing about mAyA. In the absolute plane there is

only one non-dual reality. There is no mAyA there. But in

the vyvavaharika plane, everything is mAyA. The vyavaharik

plane itself is a mAya; but mark it, not to to somebody in

the vyavaharik plane, but to some one who is outside of it!

To be outside of it, you have to surrender to Him when you

are inside of it. Those who surrender to Me when they are

in the vyavaharik plane, I will take them out of the

vyavaharik plane to My Absolute Plane, -- says the Lord, in

so many words, very explicitly in 7-14 and 18-66.

 

Well, I started with something in mind; but it has turned

out to be something else. That again, is God’s Will!

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

 

 

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

 

New on my website, particularly for beginners in Hindu philosophy:

Empire of the Mind:

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/HNG/ManversusMind.html

 

Free will and Divine will - a dialogue:

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/HNG/FWDW.html