Jiva, Brahman Itself Deluded as it were

August 9, 2006

Srigurubhyo NamaH

Jiva, Brahman Itself Deluded as it were:

In traditional Vedanta teaching, this statement is considered to be

of vital importance:

Brahmaiva sva-avidyayaa samsarati iva, sva-vidyayaa muchyata iva .

(Brahman alone, due to ignorance pertaining to Its true nature

appears as though in samsara. By virtue of gaining knowledge,

becomes as though freed from samsara.)

A very important question for Advaita is involved in the above

statement. The question is: How is it that Brahman is said to be

deluded, being subject to avidya? Where is it said in the scriptures

that Brahman can become deluded? Is it not unjustified on the part

of Advaita to say this while proclaiming to be a Vedantic doctrine?

To this it is replied: In Advaita Vedanta, the basic premise is the

Absolute Reality of the Non-dual Brahman. The jiva who is seen to be

in samsara is in truth none other than that non-dual Brahman. The

Veda, the source of teaching, is meant for the emancipation of the

jiva. It teaches through the Mahavakyas that jiva is Brahman alone.

The teaching brings about this realization of the Non-dual Truth of

Brahmanhood. When the Vedic teaching can bring about this knowledge

that dispels the samsara and the samsaritva of the jiva, one has to

conclude that the samsara and samsaritva were only avidya-based

appearances. For, the teaching of knowledge is directed to dispel

ignorance. When ignorance is dispelled, its effects are also

dispelled. Since the effects of ignorance are dispelled by

knowledge, it has to be held that those effects did not in truth

exist at any point of time. Thus, Advaita holds that samsara and

samsaritva of jiva never was, never is, and never will be. The

seeming samsara and samsaritva therefore, are ascribed only a

relative reality, to accommodate the teaching and the realization of

the same. In Absolute terms, Truth, Brahman alone is real. In order

to explain the relative samsara and samsaritva, it is said that

Brahman alone appears bound as the deluded jiva and upon realization

of the Truth, becomes released from samsara and samsaritva.

The `iva' = `as though' in that statement is of paramount

importance. It is not that Advaita holds that Brahman is subject to

delusion in absolute terms. What is conveyed by that statement

is `Brahman appears as though deluded and appears as though freed

from the delusion'. It is purely with a view to accommodate the

relative reality of samsara, this construct is employed. Once the

Absolute Truth is realized, this construct loses its meaning and

becomes sublated along with the ignorance-based samsara. Says the

Gaudapadakarika (I.16) :

anAdi-mAyayA supto yadaa jIvaH prabudhyate |

ajam anidram asvapnam advaitam budhyate tadA ||

(When the Jiva, sleeping (i.e. not knowing the Reality) under the

influence of the beginningless Maya is awakened, then does he realize

(in himself) the Unborn, the Sleepless, the Dreamless, the One

without the second.)

The Acharya's bhashya is:

This one, the jiva, the transmigrating individual soul; that is

asleep, while seeing in both the waking and dream states such dreams

as `This is my father, this is my son, this is my grandson, this is

my field, these are my animals, I am their master, I am happy,

miserable, I am despoiled by this one, and I have gained through this

one', and so on, under the influence of dream that is but Maya whose

activity has no beginning … having two facets of non perception of

the Reality and the false perception of Reality. When by a most

gracious teacher, who has realized the Truth that forms the purport

of the Upanishads, he (the individual) is awakened through the

teaching, `You are not a bundle of causes and effects, but `You are

That", then that individual understands thus. How? He knows the

birthless, Sleepless Turiya, since in It there is no sleep or causal

state, consisting in the darkness of ignorance that is the cause of

birth and so on. Since it is sleepless, therefore It is asvapnam,

dreamless, false perception being based on non-perception, nidraa.

Since It is sleepless and dreamless, therefore the individual then

realizes the birthless, non-dual Turiya as his Self.

The next verse is:

Prapancho yadi vidyeta nivarteta na samshayaH

MAyAmAtram idam dvaitam advaitam paramArthataH

(It is beyond question that the phenomenal world would cease to be if

it had any existence. All this duality that is nothing but Maya, is

but non-duality in reality.)

The Bhashya raises a very significant question and answers it:

If one is to be awakened by negating the phenomenal world, how can

there be non-duality so long as the phenomenal world persists?

(The purport of the question is this: The earlier verse spoke

about `awakening'. The situation post-awakening is said to be the

Advaitam, Turiya. It is possible to say that the situation pre-

awakening is one of duality. The implication in the question is that

non-duality is an impossibility as the Ultimate Absolute Truth if it

is a condition that has come into being afresh, after awakening.

This question is answered by the bhashya in the sequel.)

Such indeed would be the case (yadi prapanchaH vidyeta), if the

phenomenal world had existence. But being superimposed like a snake

on a rope, it does not exist (at any point of time). There is no

doubt about this. If it had existed, it would cease to be. (Here

the Acharya is considering the question of an actual going-out-of-

existence of the world) Certainly, it is not that the snake, fancied

on the rope through an error of observation, exists there in reality

and is then removed by correct observation. Verily, it is not that

the magic conjured up by a magician exists in reality and then

removed on the removal of the optical illusion of its witness.

Similarly, MAyAmAtram idam dvaitam, this duality that is nothing but

Maya, and is called the phenomenal world is, in Absolute terms,

ParamArthataH, non-dual, just like the rope and the magician. ( the

idea is, the snake in truth is the rope only and the magic-illusion

is in reality the magician alone because the illusion was created by

the magician by his powers that inhere in him. Even when the

illusion was visible to the spectators, it is non-different from the

creator-magician.) Therefore, the purport is that there is no such

thing as the world that appears or disappears. (unquote).

Now, while the above is enough evidence for us to see the

development of the concept of the `deluded' jiva (Brahman)

later `waking up' to the Truth,there are other Upanishads were the

jiva is asked to wake up to the Truth, like for example the

Kathopanishad: utthishtatha, jaagrata..'. The Gita says: jnaanam

labdhvaa paraam shantim …adhigacchati. This means: Gaining knowledge,

one attains to Supreme Peace. The idea is this:

The Vedanta teaches that there is only One non-dual Truth, the

Consciousness Principle called by different names as Brahman, Turiya,

etc. The Vedanta also teaches that the jiva is a Conscious entity.

This has to be so, for otherwise the Vedanta would not be giving out

its teaching to an insentient being. The Gita is very clear about the

nature of the jiva: na jaayate, mriyate vaa, nityaH, sarvagataH,

achalaH, sanaatanaH etc. All these are the `properties' of the Non-

dual Brahman. Thus, we have a situation where there cannot be two or

more Conscious Principles sharing the same characteristics of

nityatva, sarvagatatva, etc. It is illogical to have two different

entities with these characteristics. The Vedanta teaches through the

Mahavakyas `Tat tvam asi', etc. that the jiva is none other than

Brahman. We thus have the Vedanta teaching that there is only one

Entity and that the jiva is in truth that Entity. At the same time

we see that the Vedanta addresses all its teachings to this entity

called jiva. That ultimately amounts to this. The only Entity

appears as the jiva in samsara and finally realizes its true nature

to be the One Ever-Free Entity, Brahman. When a teaching has brought

about this change in perception on the part of the samsari-jiva, what

else could this be other than that of Brahman itself appearing as the

samsari-jiva due to delusion pertaining to its own true nature and

Brahman itself becoming freed from the delusion by knowing its true

nature? The Gita says: ajnaanena aavritam jnaanam tena muhyanti

jantavaH. (Knowledge being obscured by ignorance, the jivas are

deluded). Since there is only one Entity in absolute terms, this

deluded entity has to be that one Entity alone.

>From the above Mandukya teaching we understand that `being in

delusion' and `freeing from delusion' are just seeming events. They

are not real. The appearance of a snake and its subsequent

disappearance are not deemed to be real events. Thus there is

nothing odd about saying that Brahman Itself appears as though it is

the jiva and becomes freed from the delusion. From the Absolute

standpoint however, there was no delusion and no removal of

delusion. The One Secondless Truth Ever was, is and will be.

The Brahma-bindu Upanishad, the Amritabindu Upanishad and the

Mandukya kaarika teach:

Na nirodho na cha utpattiH na baddho na cha saadhakaH

Na mumukshur na vai muktaH ityeshaa paramaarthataa

(There is neither destruction nor origination, neither a bound nor a

struggling soul, neither a seeker after liberation nor a liberated

one. This is the absolute Truth.)

Pranams to all advaitins,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

August 9, 2006

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v"

<subrahmanian_v wrote:

>

> Srigurubhyo NamaH

>

> Jiva, Brahman Itself Deluded as it were:

>

> In traditional Vedanta teaching, this statement is considered to

be

> of vital importance:

>

Subbu-ji, that was good. You may also recall "dhyAyatIva,

lelAyatIva" from BrahadAranyakopanishad.

Also let readers see

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/gohitvip/33page7.html

where the word 'iva' in Shloka 19 of Shruti Gita is explained in the

same context.

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

August 10, 2006

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v" <subrahmanian_v

wrote:

>

> Srigurubhyo NamaH

>

> Jiva, Brahman Itself Deluded as it were:

>

> In traditional Vedanta teaching, this statement is considered to be

> of vital importance:

>

> Brahmaiva sva-avidyayaa samsarati iva, sva-vidyayaa muchyata iva .

>

subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v > wrote:

Srigurubhyo NamaH

Jiva, Brahman Itself Deluded as it were:

From

Sankarraman

Dear Sir,

Almost in alternate pages, what you say is

brought into clear relief by Bhaghavan Ramana in the works, "Talks," and

"Day by day with Bhaghavan." Bhaghavan says that if the experience of

the Self were brought into being afresh, it would be lost like all the

other phenomenal objects. So it amounts to this that that only from the

viewpoint of illusory anthakarnas created by avidya, there are multiple

jivas. In point of fact, there is only one jiva who is none other than

Brahman, and that both enlightenment and bondage belong only to the

mind-construct. Even in every day experience, we are able to see that

the seeming others exist only in the light of a subjective ego,

psychologically it being impossible for two subjects to exist

simultaneously, just as it is impossible for two thoughts to exist

simultaneously. Further, the Bridhaharanyaka Upanishads is replete with

the ideas quoted by you. "When the self remains in the dream state,

these are its achievements (results of past action): It then becomes a

great king, as it were; or a noble brahmin, as it were; or attains, as

it were, high or low states. Even as a great king, taking with him his

retinue of citizens, moves about, according to his pleasure, within his

own domain, so does the self, taking with it the organs, move about

according to its pleasure, in the body." Next, when the self goes

into deep sleep—when it does not know anything—it returns along

the seventy—two thousand nerves called hita, which extend from the

heart throughout the whole body and remains in the body. As a baby or an

emperor or a noble brahmin lives, having reached the summit of

happiness, so does the self rest.As the spider moves along

the thread it produces, or as from a fire tiny sparks fly in all

directions, even so from this Atman come forth all organs, all worlds,

all gods, all beings. Its secret name (Upanishad) is "the Truth of

truth." The vital breaths are the truth and their truth is Atman." (

II.1.18, 19 & 20 )

Sankaracharya in his

commentary clarifies, in detail, whether the individual self, which woke

up on being pushed, the perceiver of sound etc, subject to

transmigration, is according to the scriptures, the Ultimate reality

denoted by the Upanishads, or that reality is a transcendental reality.

The great acharya makes an adroit distinction between the phenomenal

self and the transcendental Self, disowning the idea that there is a

self other than the inmost being, which is figuratively being described

as having entered the body. The acharya does not accept the idea of the

transcendental self being the cause of the universe, and that one should

worship him as some thing other than oneself. All the theories of the

individual self being a part of the supreme, or a modification of the

supreme, or even admitting of the relationship of the part and whole are

being discountenanced. All ideas of part and whole, cause and effect,

time and space, are declared to be unmitigated illusions. All relative

conditions in the transcendental self are being attributed only to the

unreal adjuncts of name and form. Further, the idea of the scriptural

injunctions being rendered meaningless in the event of the sole reality

of the supreme self being advocated, is also clarified by pointing out

the fact that such of those injunctions are relevant only from the

viewpoint of the erroneous notion of agency and action being foisted on

the supreme self, which is valid only in the context of avidya. Surely,

when one realizes one's true nature-which statement is also

metaphysically erroneous-all avidya experienced all along shall have

been found to be unreal.

What is delineated by the acharya is very

lucidly explained by Bhaghavan in his great work, "Reality on forty

verses." The very first verse is an ample commentary on what you

have wonderfully clarified. "If Reality did not exist, could there

be any knowledge of existence? Free from all thoughts, Reality abides in

the Heart, the Source of all thoughts. It is, therefore, called the

Heart. How then is one to contemplate it? To be as It is in the Heart,

is Its contemplation."

Further you say, "It is beyond question that

the phenomenal world would cease to be if it had any existence. All this

duality that is nothing but Maya, is

but non-duality in reality.The Bhashya raises a very significant

question and answers it:

If one is to be awakened by negating the phenomenal world, how can there

be non-duality so long as the phenomenal world persists?