Prof. VK prabhuji's explanation on 3 analogies - reproduced

[Guest guest]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

As I said in the earlier mail, here is Prof. VK prabhuji's explanation on

the term mAya / reality of the world which has been explained through

three different analogies...picked from my personal folder :

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

// quote //

 

Namaste.

The following question has been raised by Sri Venkat Ramanan.

"In advaita, is Maya considered real or imaginary. I mean if everything

except for the self is unreal, then is Maya also considered unreal ?"

 

I am pretty sure the same question must have been raised earlier in the

list and must have been answered. But I did not make the search. As the

question is any way very important, I venture to give my answer now.

 

Let me first attempt to state the questioner's viewpoint. Unless mAyA is

already present, neither concealment nor projection can take place. Is

mAyA then coeval with brahman? Do they exist side by side? Does this not

contradict the non-dual status of brahman? Where does mAyA operate? What

is its base of operation? These questions raise very profound issues.

The base of activity of mAyA cannot be brahman because the latter is

Absolute Luminosity and there is no place in it for ignorance or darkness.

Nor can the jIva be the base of operations of mAyA. For jIva itself cannot

come into existence until mAyA has operated. There seems to be an

irresoluble logical difficulty here.

 

But the difficulty will vanish once we realize that we are here making an

implicit assumption that is not valid. We are actually assuming the prior

reality of time and space before the appearance of mAyA. Otherwise we

could not have asked the question: Where does mAyA operate? When does it

come into existence? These questions are valid only if you have a frame of

reference in time and space independent of mAyA. But time and space, says

Sankara, are themselves creations of mAyA. (cf. 'mAyA-kalpita-desha-kAla-

kalanAt' in his dakshiNAmUrti-stotra, sloka no.4). In fact, this is also

the answer to the physicist's question: When did time originate? Time did

not originate in a timeless frame because we would then be begging the

question. The very fact that we are conscious of the passage of time is a

consequence of mAyA. So questions such as, 'Where does mAyA operate?'

and 'When did it start operating?' are not properly posed. Time and space

cannot claim prior existence. It is therefore wrong to ask whether mAyA is

prior to jIva or later than jIva. Ultimate Reality is beyond space and

time. In the words of Swami Vivekananda, time, space and causation are

like the glass through which the Absolute is seen. In the Absolute itself,

there is neither space, nor time nor causation.

As in the field of modern physics, so in the field of vedanta, time and

space are modes incidental to sense perception and should not be applied

to what is trans-empirical. jIva and mAyA are both given a priori in our

experience and we have to take them as such. They are anAdi

(beginningless). The only relevant question that you can ask about them is

about their nature and final destiny. Examination will show that mAyA is

neither real nor unreal. 'I am ignorant' is a common expression, within

anybody's experience. Hence mAyA is not completely unreal. But it

disappears with the onset of knowledge. So it is not real either. Thus it

is different from both the real and the unreal. In Sanskrit it is

therefore called 'sad-asad-vilakshaNa', meaning that it is different from

both the real and the unreal. And for the same reason it is said to

be 'anirvacanIya', meaning, that which is undecidable or that which

cannot be defined one way or the other. It is in this sense we say that

the world of perception, the common world of experience, cannot be

rejected out of hand as totally false, like the hare's horn or the lotus

in the sky; nor can it be taken to be totally real because it suffers

contradiction at a higher level of experience. It is real in the empirical

sense and unreal in the absolute sense.

This is also the case with a dream. For the dreamer, the dream is real.

The acceptance of the reality of the dream to the dreamer is the king-pin

of Sankara's explanation of advaita. He bases many of his arguments on

this phenomenal reality of the dream. This reality, called 'vyAvahArika-

satyaM' is in between the total unreality - 'asat' ? of the barren

mother, and the total reality ? 'sat' - of brahman. The dream and

similarly the perceptible universe is neither 'sat' nor 'asat'. It

is 'mithyA'. The meaning of the word 'mithyA' is not falsehood but

comparative unreality. It is not total non-existence like hare's horn but

it is midway between the absolute truth of brahman and the absolute

falsehood of hare's horn.

There are actually different analogies to explain the peculiar

relationship between brahman and the universe. The analogy that Sankara

very often uses is the relationless relationship of the rope that is

mistaken for the snake, because of poor lighting. The rope appears as a

snake no doubt, but actually there is no snake there, ever. Even when it

appeared to be there, it was not there. But the one who saw it did really

get scared on 'seeing' the snake and only when help came in the form of

better lighting did the person realize that what 'was there' all the

time was only a rope. The second analogy that is used in the literature

is the appearance of water in a mirage. And the third one is that of the

dreamer and his dream. Each of these three analogies has its own

limitation in explaining the relationship between brahman which is

invisible and the universe which is visible. Brahman is the rope; the

visible universe is the snake. What appears as the universe is not really

the universe. When spiritual illumination takes place we will know that

what was there all the time was only brahman. Similarly in the example of

the mirage and water, the water appearance is only an illusion. What is

there in reality is only sand, no water. The dream of course is totally a

mental aberration, fully subjective and it vanishes the moment the person

wakes up.

The three analogies are not however just three analogies in place of one.

There is a gradation, says Ramana Maharishi. First it may be questioned,

with reference to the analogy of the rope and the snake that when the

lighting situation improves the appearance of the snake is no more there,

whereas, in the case of brahman versus universe, even after learning that

brahman is the substratum of truth, and the universe is only a

superimposition like the snake on the rope, we still continue to see the

universe; it has not disappeared! For this the Maharishi wants you to go

to the analogy of the mirage. Once you understand it is the mirage and no

watershed, the appearance of water is no more there. But now there is

another objection. 'Even after knowing that there is only brahman and the

universe is only an appearance, one gets certain wants fulfilled from this

appearance of a universe: one gets one's hunger satisfied, thirst quenched

and so on. But the water in the mirage does not quench one's thirst; so to

that extent the analogy is inappropriate'. The analogy of the dream meets

this objection, says the Maharishi. The dreamer has his thirst quenched in

the dream. The thirst itself is a dream thirst and it is quenched by

drinking (dream) water in the dream; so also the wants that one feels in

this universe like hunger and thirst are also quenched by corresponding

objects in this universe. Thus in this sense the analogy of the dream is

reasonably perfect. Maybe that is why Sankara uses the analogy of the

dream so emphatically to describe the reality or unreality of the

universe.

In advaita the concept of reality is always comparative. Relative to

materials things made out of the materials are unreal. In other words if a

bucket is made out of plastic, the bucket is unreal relative to the

plastic. It is the cause that is 'more real' than the effect. The cause of

the world versus the world itself gives us a comparison about their

relative reality. When we say that the universe is unreal, we mean that IT

IS UNREAL AS THE UNIVERSE, BUT IT IS SURELY REAL AS BRAHMAN, ITS CAUSE. In

order to explain this relative unreality the theory of superimposition is

meticulously worked out by Sankara. While the snake is superimposed on the

rope, the rope undergoes no aberration or modification in the process. It

is the same rope all the time. What appears to you is only in your mind.

The visible universe is just a perishable (kShara) superimposition on

brahman. Brahman does not undergo any change in the process. All the time

brahman remains as brahman, the imperishable (akShara) substratum. This is

where the nirguNa (attributeless) character of brahman is effectively

applied by Sankara to his explanation of this mysterious relationship.

This phenomenon of brahman not being visible but something else, the

universe, being visible, is exactly what the term 'mAyA' means. It does

two things. It hides brahman from you. Simultaneously it projects the

universe to you. The declaration that this is what is happening comes

forth from the Lord Himself in Gita IX ? 5, 6. 'Everything that is

perceptible is pervaded and permeated by Me, who is unmanifested. All the

beings are established in Me but not I in them; they are not in Me either,

this is my divine yoga.'. He remains unmanifested while what is visible is

basically a permeation by him. While he remains unchanged, and

imperceptible, the universe is what is perceptible. Everything visible is

supported by Him as the only substratum, whereas He Himself is not

supported by anything. He is His own support. The snake appears on the

rope, the rope does not undergo any change, but the snake is supported by

the rope, (meaning, without the rope there is no snake). But in reality

the snake was never there and so it is also true to say that the snake is

not in the rope. To the question: Where is the snake?, the answer is: it

is in the rope. To the question, Is the snake there?, the answer is, there

is no snake, the snake was never in the rope. It is in this strain that

the Lord gives out, almost in the same breath, what appears to be two

contradictory statements. Everything is in Me; and nothing is in Me. This

is the cosmic mystery of the existence of the Universe. It is and is not ?

sad-asad-vilakshaNa, mAyA!

 

praNAms to all seekers of spirituality.

profvk

 

// unquote //