GRD 5 B: SECTION 3 (C) THE CONCEPT OF MAYA OR ILLUSION (Continued)

[Guest guest]

GRD 5 B: SECTION 3 © THE CONCEPT OF MAYA OR ILLUSION (Continued)

==================================================================

(xi) When a colorful flower is placed beside a spotless diamond, it reflects

the color of the flower. This also is case of 'Optical illusion'.

COMMENT OF THE OTHER SCHOOLS:

May be, the color acquired by the diamond may be an optical illusion but the

example does not disprove the reality of the acquisition of the color by the

diamond.

*On the other hand, it only underlines the reality of the Reflection*

 

(xii) When a burning torch is rotated, it looks like a fiery circle.

Another case of " Optical illusion.'

COMMENT OF THE OTHER SCHOOLS

The same argument holds good here also. The example does not disprove the

reality of the appearance.

*Both the burning torch and the fiery circle are equally true to the

observer*

 

(xiii)

(a) Ghata AkAsa and Bahir AkAsa:

There is no difference between the air in a pot and the air outside. Once

the pot is broken, the air within and the air without become one.

(b) Partition of a room:

Similarly, when in a room that has been partitioned by means of room

dividers, once the dividers are removed the full view of the room becomes

visible. So also, when the illusion of differentiation disappears through

knowledge, the reality of Brahman would become evident.

COMMENT OF THE OTHER SCHOOLS:

(a) It cannot be denied that when the pot remains in tact, the air within is

called ' Ghata AkAsa' -'Air within' the pot and the air outside is called '

Bahir AkAsa' - 'Air without'. So long as this distinction can be discerned

the two remain realities in their respective realms.

*The one does not cancel the other*

(b) As for the partitioned room-

*So long as the partitions remain, the various cubicles do remain separate

and are used as such in reality*

 

(xiv) Another dimension of the activity of illusion is referred to as its

" VIKSHEPA SAKTI'- the power of transmutation. (e.g)

(a) water in the water-bubble,

(b) thread becoming cloth,

© gold made into rings, chains etc,

(d) sugar transforming into sweetmeats of various kinds.

In all these cases the raw materials are forgotten and are known by

the names and forms of the end products. So also, while the raw

material of Brahman alone is truly there, it is ignorance through its

powers of transmutation that shows up the world as having different

names and forms.

THE OTHER SCHOOLS MEET THIS STATEMENT AS FOLLOWS:-

( i ) Whether it is AvaraNa Sakti or VikshEpa Sakti- the fact remains that

-

(a) the screen and the scene,

(b) the cloud and the Sun,

© the smoke and the fire,

(d) the person and the images in the mirrors,

(e) the moon and its reflections,

(f) the flower and the diamond.,

(g) the torch and the fiery circle,

(h) the air within and without the pot,

(i) the partitioned cubicles and the un partitioned space,

(j) the bubble and the water,

(k) the thread and the cloth,

(l) the gold and the jewelry,

(m) the clay and the pot,

(n) the sugar and the sweets

*ARE ALL REAL TO THE OBSERVER*

 

*What causes the optical illusion is the fact that there is some

characteristic common in the respective pairs that has given rise to the

altered vision. So long as the common factors exist, the so-called illusion

is as real to the observer as the so-called originals*

 

" The hare and the horn conceived in organic relation- hare's

horn may be unreal but that does not establish the unreality of

either the entity of the hare or the entity of the horn "

(Kesava Iyengar in his Introduction to Satadhooshani p.64)

 

(ii) If the JeevAtma is just a reflection of the Paramatma, how can

the Nirvisesha Brahman being Nirvisesha witness the reflection?

Assuming that it can,

*The disappearance of the reflection would be the annihilation not only of

the JeevAtma but also of the very ParamAtma, whose reflection it is*

 

(iii) The word ' mAya' does not mean illusion. Everything is real because we

see them, smell them, hear them, taste them, feel them. Our experiencing

them is as real as it could be and it is such a wonderful experience as the

word 'mAya' actually means.

 

(iv) If the world were not real, there is no need to create an illusion. The

Vedas describe the process of creation in all seriousness and declares that

Brahman created the world. When Brahman is true, what he has created can

only be true and there is no reason why it should not be true.

 

There is no mention in the Vedas or Upanishads that the world is an

illusion. If it is a mere illusion, why would the Vedas take so much pains

to describe the process of pancheekaranam etc?

 

Prof. NarayanAchArya observes-

" There is nothing in the text to indicate that the described forms are

" falsely fancied' " .

 

(v) Regarding transmutation, just because there is change in name and form,

they do not cease to exist. On the other hand, in fact, only when they

acquire name and form they are recognized as such and made use of in day to

day life.

 

*Mutation is not illusion*

 

(vi) Any other interpretation would only mean that there is no

'Prapancha' at all. It is only the hallucination on the part of Brahman to

imagine it to be existent.

*Nothing could be more disparaging to the omniscient Brahman than this

allegation hurled at him*

 

(vii) This is “like” the argument of the Buddhists who oppose the Vedas

“from without” while Advaitins seem to do it “from within” by

misinterpreting the Vedas.

There is no difference between saying -

(a) 'Sarva Sunyam' as Buddhists would have it and everything is 'mAya' or

illusion as Advaitins interpret;

(b) the Buddhists calling the World ' Samvritti Satya' and the Advaitins

calling it 'VyavahArika Satya';

© the Buddhist's 'Soonyam' or ' Duhkam' and Advaitin's 'Nirvachaneeyam'.

 

YAmuna muni, the teacher's teacher of RamAnuja describes God as " the ground

*beyond* speech and mind and in the very next breath as the ground *within*

speech and mind, as a paradox:

NamO namO vAk manasAti bhoomayE

NamO namO vAk manasaika bhoomayE (Stotra Ratnam 2.1)

 

Prof. NarayanAchArya explains -

The experience of the Divine is always paradoxical in matters of expression

and grasp in terms of ordinary human faculty.

" Anirvachaneeya " (inexpressibility), if taken as a matter of “inadequacy”

will be in tune with Sruti contexts. But, if it is construed to mean a

*void* (the approximation to Buddhist *Soonya* or *Duhkam*), it goes against

the Sruti context. It is not that Brahman Himself is incapable of being

described but only ‘our incapacity’ to describe Him adequately that is the

theme of these and all other similar texts " *No wonder, they are called –

'Crypto-buddhists'- 'Prachchanna Bouddhas' as distinct from the 'Prakatana

Bouddhas' - those openly declared as Buddhists*

 

(viii) Also, all illusions require two entities without which there can be

no illusion- reality of the substratum and the reality of the imposition.

 

ChAndOkya Up. clearly states that " these have him as their soul;

These are as true as He is true and not false "

" Sa Esho Nimaita Tatmyam Idam Sarvam Tat Satyam Sa Atma "

 

" It should be noted that all the schools of Vedanta with the solitary

exception of Nirvisesha Advaitins are unanimous in their affirmation of the

reality of the universe and in their rejection of the illusion theory "

 

" A sterile perception is an inconceivability...However that may be, no

theory has ever asserted that life is a dream and all experienced events are

illusions " . (Sri Kesava Iyengar)

 

Prof. NarayanAchArya comments:

" We do not need philosophies to tell us that life is meaningless. That comes

easily enough, with no guide whatsoever, in our moments of distress,

disillusionment and despair, as the most natural outcome of helplessness,

ignorance and perversions. Philosophy, if it has any meaning, must combat

this challenge to show us the path of wisdom, towards greater and ever

greater fulfillment of life and a way towards perfection. It is not a false

comfort that we, however, seek of philosophy. That comfort must be based on

wisdom, enlightenment and hope, argued out and supported on experience as

evidence and harmonized, so as to leave out no aspect of given experiences

in life. Where this is not done, we have only visions of impatience and

fatigue, anti-life, anti-philosophical "

 

Aurobindo comments:

" Therefore, we arrive at the escape of an illusory non-existent soul from an

illusory non-existent bondage in an illusory non-existent world as the

Supreme good which that non-existent soul has to pursue! For, this is the

last word of knowledge: There is none bound, none freed, none seeking to be

free. " Vidya " turns out to be as much a part of the phenomenal as " Avidya " ;

mAya meets us even in our escape and laughs at the triumphant logic which

seemed to cut the knot of her mystery " (Life Divine p.47)

 

Dr. S. Radhakrishnan in " Hindu view of Life " has the last say:

 

" One or two later followers of Sankara lend countenance to this hypothesis

but it cannot be regarded as representing the main tendency of Hindu

thought...

The uniformity of nature, the orderliness of the cosmos and the steady

reaching forward and upward on the course of evolution proclaim not the

unconscious throbbing of a soulless engine but the directing mind of an all-

knowing Spirit...

the different theistic systems adopted by the large majority of the Hindus

do not advocate the doctrine of 'mAya'.

 

The theory is held by Sankara, who is regarded often as representing the

standard type of Hindu thought.

===================================================================

GRD 6: Section 3D, E, F, G, and H - Other Distinctions will follow

===================================================================

 

 

______________________________\

_____

Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com