5

My background is in Vishistadvaita and I have always had a few challenges in understanding some of the concepts from Advaita and have wondered if later acharyas in the Advaita sampradaya have provided answers to some of these. I am wondering if anyone here is able to clarify and provide references to me for further reading. One such concept is the analogy of a dream to explain vyavahaarika sat (existential reality).

According to the Advaita, there is only one Brahman and whatever realities different living entities are going through are only like a dream which all come to an end the moment their egos are destroyed. In a dream, one person (the same consciousness) becomes life to many characters that all seem to interact with each other. From what I understand, just as the entire dream consisting of all these characters comes to an end the moment one wakes up and one realizes that all these characters do not exist except oneself, the moment a person awakens to knowledge/liberation, they realize they are the Brahman.

Taking this example, what is not clear to me is when a person wakes up from a dream, all characters end all at once. However, when one person is liberated (say, the Guru), there are still others who are living here who are in ignorance. How, then, can parts of Brahman be in knowledge while other parts are in ignorance? Is not Brahman supposed to have a unified conscious experience? How can other characters continue to exist when at least one person is liberated? Shouldn't at least one be equal to everyone's liberation at the same time? Also, to begin with, why does the Brahman that is "yah sarvajna sarvavit" impose avidya upon Itself and become many realities? In Adi Shankaracharya's commentary on the Gita for verse 13.2, he writes that "bondage and liberation cannot be simultaneous states of the Self as they both are mutually opposed". How then, can one Self simultaneously have parts of it that are in knowledge and parts that are in ignorance?

rk567
  • 498
  • 2
  • 11
  • This is a classic problem addressed in Advaita. One's liberation is not everybody's liberation. Its not a theoretical phenomenon, its real. Brahman is the unified consciousness true, but it differs in a Jiva. There is an entire tattva for Jivas' existence. A Jiva has a part of Brahman in it deluded by Maya. Plus a Jiva constitutes of Panch-tattva, Indriyas, Tanmatras etc. all in its combined state. The spiritual progression level of one Jiva depends on the Atma embedded (temporarily) in that Sthula Sharira. The unified existence is there. Its just the veil of Maya, which keeps us. –  Jun 20 '18 at 22:12
  • Plus Moksha or spiritual endeavors depend on karma, or what action a Jiva has done, which they must account for. A Guru can do anything, because they have mastered the Self, controlled the Indriyas, Tanmatras, Tattvas etc, through sadhana and yoga. They've realized the illusory things and segregated them accordingly. They are able to disintegrate an integrate their body, and matter all around them because they have reached that state. By "THEY" I mean the Atman enclosed in that Jiva. This is where the term Atman comes into picture. Whereas in essence Atman and Brahman are one. –  Jun 20 '18 at 22:15
  • Atman is yet to realize that because its in form of that Jiva. –  Jun 20 '18 at 22:16
  • That's why its not like a linked computer network where any update is reflected in other systems as well. Its more of an Inheritance problem, if you're familiar with Programming. The base class (Jivatman) derives its basic self from the superclass (Brahman) but has things which are exclusive to it (tattvas, indriyas, tanmatras) from which the superclass (Brahman) is free. –  Jun 20 '18 at 22:18
  • But Hinduism is not Programming, so in Hinduism the Baseclass and the Superclass are one and the same. Atman is Brahman but in a material form. Material form has no value without Brahman which when injected, becomes Atman. Cheers!! –  Jun 20 '18 at 22:20
  • @ArkaprabhaMajumdar I like your example of base class, but where does "jiva" come from when Advaita does not accept another tattva? Where is there room for karma, for Brahman which is nirguna and niranjana? And how can part of Brahman get encapsulated in a jiva tattva, because the Gita says "acchedyo'yam" - the soul cannot be cut? You have given room for one base class and then several objects that instantiate this, but then where is room for them? where does karma come into picture from? – rk567 Jun 20 '18 at 22:23
  • I'm sorry, but I still have difficulty understanding what you mean by "atman enclosed in a jiva" - how can avidya touch Brahman which is niranjanam, and nirvikalpam? – rk567 Jun 20 '18 at 22:26
  • Avidya touches Brahman only when it is under the influence of Maya. Jivas are all infused with Brahman, which becomes Atman with respect to a Jiva. Avidya actually never does touch Brahman. Avidya deludes the Jiva, or, as you probably have read, the darkness which makes us mistake a rope for a snake. This Adhyaasa is the cause of delusion. –  Jun 20 '18 at 22:54
  • "The Soul cannot be cut" is different than what I mean. It means that the soul cannot be cut by a knife, or drenched by water, or burnt by fire or dried by air, because it transcends the material. Death doesn't touch the soul. But the instance of Brahman entering a Jiva is like infusing the Consciousness energy into the lifeless Material Body. A metaphor obviously. –  Jun 20 '18 at 22:55
  • Its like this. Electrical energy cannot be cut and distributed. It can only be generated and provided to many houses. Still there is no shortage of electricity, and more electricity can be generated. Its not like you have a HUUGEE pizza, you cut a slice, give it to someone etc. until the whole thing finishes. No. Its an unlimited supply. Similarly when one house has a power cut, it doesn't affect any other house (for example; this is just the simplest case), similarly one Jiva's status doesn't affect others/ –  Jun 20 '18 at 22:58
  • Your electic energy example appears very similar in purport to your super class example. Thanks for them both. when you say "Brahman entering a Jiva is like .. lifeless material body", by jiva you are meaning body? The challenge I'm having is that when you say avidya contracts Brahman, doesn't this directly contradict the statement of sruti that Brahman is "sarvajnah sarva-vit". Also, neither of your two examples seem to clarify how the experience will still be unified consciousness. You might say that the differentiation in consciousness dons the Brahman the moment it contracts a jiva, but – rk567 Jun 21 '18 at 01:21
  • why does Brahman even get affected by avidya? If this is the case, how does Advaita explain incarnations of God? – rk567 Jun 21 '18 at 01:22
  • I don't find mentioned point by Adi Shankaracharya in his commentary on verse 13.2 – Pandya Jun 21 '18 at 07:51
  • 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. 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 is then removed on the removal of the optical illusion of its witness. –  Jun 21 '18 at 08:01
  • Jiva is not a lifeless body. A Jiva is the pristine Brahman interpolated and contaminated by the other cosmic formations like Tattva, Indriya, Tanmatra etc. Due to the effect of these, it is natural for the consciousness to get deluded and think of the body as "This is me" etc. and so is every Jiva different in material attribution. They identify themselves as not the Pure Consciousness but I am this body etc. A physical body is the accumulation of the total Jiva tattva, consisting of all cosmic formations. This is the same for a dog, cat, bee, human, snake etc. –  Jun 21 '18 at 08:05
  • From the Mandukya Upanishad 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 Truth Ever was, is and will be. –  Jun 21 '18 at 08:05
  • A Jiva tattva does not end at this physical body only. It consists of all other sthula shariras, sukshma shariras as well, and all other shariras while we are in the ocean of Samsara, until and unless our delusion is blown off, like a person blowing on the smoke from an incense. –  Jun 21 '18 at 08:07
  • The question on size of Jivatma is relevant. The Jiva is supposed to transmigrate from body to body, may be from an elephant’s body to an ant’s body. In such a case a question arises about the size. Vedanta envisages three possibilities, i.e. it could be atomic in size, or of the size of the body it occupies, or it could be all-pervading. After a lengthy discussion into apparently contradictory statements of the Shruti texts it is decided that the Jiva is a vibhu, i.e. all-pervading (BS 2-3-29). The difference we find is only in terms of bodies but not in terms of the Atman. –  Jun 21 '18 at 08:08
  • The Atman is in delusion when it is still in transmigratory existence. –  Jun 21 '18 at 08:08
  • What is the use of a realized soul going from elephant to ant, ant to bee, bee to human, human to shark? Why then does material nature manifest? For what reason? For the Brahman to realize itself just as we cannot look at our face by our eyes, provided we have a mirror in front of us. –  Jun 21 '18 at 08:10
  • You previously mentioned Advaita doesn't accept another tattva. That is a slight misconception. Advaita accepts everything, but not in the absolutism, as it appears. Every tattva is transient but one and equal with Brahman. Kevala Advaita. –  Jun 21 '18 at 08:14
  • @Pandya please refer to pg 286 of https://archive.org/details/bhagavadgitawith00maharich – rk567 Jun 21 '18 at 10:41
  • 1
    Btw, refer Ajatvada I discussed here. I think it can explain or answer the confusion you may have. It also refutes the existence of Maya! – Pandya Jun 21 '18 at 11:59

0 Answers0