Sri Gurubhyo Namaha
Since December 2020, the YouTube channel by name Tattva Shankara has released many videos of Q&A (Prashnottara) on Vedantic and Dharmic topics with Jagadguru Sri Sannidhanam of Sringeri, Sri Vidhushekarabharati Mahaswamin. The language of these is Kannada. Though the Kannada spoken both by the devotee and the Jagadguru is very much understandable by most South Indians, the wider public who are desirous of listening to the Guru have requested on several occasions for English subtitles.
The below is an attempt at an English translation of the first Q&A video by Tattvashankara with the Guru – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nKTTo6agD4. In this the Jagadguru has clarified some key points of the Advaita Siddhaanta using a novel example. The Jagadguru’s explanation here will be most enjoyed by anyone who has a basic knowledge of Advaita Siddhaanta or more.
The translation is mostly verbatim and not condensed, and it is attempted to the best of my Kannada and Vedanta knowledge. This translation is not official nor has it been checked by authentic sources. Thus if there are any mistakes I alone am responsible. They may be intimated to me by commenting below the article and I will promptly look into them.
Sadgurosharanam,
Prasad (Shivaraatri day, 2021).
Question: Many people feel that Vedanta is very difficult to comprehend, Advaita Siddhaanta is only for scholars. They feel that they being laukikas (practising worldly professions) cannot understand it. How do people like us understand the basics of Vedanta?
Answer:
The two propositions of Advaita Siddhaanta
The teaching of Advaita Siddhaanta is that “That which exists is only one entity. No other entity exists really speaking”. There are two things or propositions to be kept in mind regarding this Siddhaanta.
- The first proposition is that it is possible that though there is only one real existence, by the result of superimposition in the presence of upaadhis (apparent limiting adjuncts), it is possible to transactionally experience multiple entities. It is not necessary that for transactional experience of multiple entities, existence of multiple absolutely real entities is required. This confusion often comes to many people who listen to Advaita Siddhaanta and get to know that it posits the existence of only one entity. They wonder how it is possible to admit this position, when we routinely experience multiple objects in our life? Is it not the case that all of these objects exist separately? What we say is that, for experience of the multitude of objects, it is not necessary to admit their individual multiple existences from an absolute standpoint (paaramaarthika standpoint). From an absolute standpoint, using multiple apparent limiting adjuncts (upaadhi) on the same absolute existence, it is possible to generate the experience of multiple entities and thus admit multiplicity from a relative or transactional standpoint. This is the first important observation.
- Now the second proposition. The Siddhaanta talks about ‘Satkaaryavaada‘. Sat-kaarya-vaada is a understanding regarding the manifestation or creation of an object (an effect or kaarya) from its cause (kaarana). What it means is that the object (the effect) is not newly manifested or create-able from its cause, it must have surely existed in a seed form or an unmanifest, subtle form (sukshma) in the cause. If the conditions are created in the cause (kaarana) suitable for the manifestation of the kaarya or effect, then the kaarana is brought into manifestation in the gross (sthula) form also.
This is Satkaaryavaada. In the Shaastras (various Indic philosophies), there is both satkaaryavaada and asat-kaarya-vaada. Asatkaaryavaada refers to that position which is the opposite of satkaaryavaada, i.e., that the effect or kaarya was completely newly created and never present (hence asat-kaaryavaada) in any form in the cause or kaarana. This asatkaaryavaada is accepted by the Naiyaayikas (The nyaaya philosophers, or the logicians). The Saankhyavaadins, the Yogis, and the Vedantins, however accept the Satkaaryavaada, which implies that they accept the existence of the effect in a subtle form in its cause, and therefore the effect is manifested from the cause into a gross (sthula) state if the situation for manifestation is created.
These two observations or propositions must thus be understood clearly. Firstly that by admitting the upaadhis, one can accept the experience of transactional duality or multitude though there is only a singular real existence. Then the proposition of Satkaaryavaada. Both of these propositions enable us to understand Advaita SIddhaanta properly.
The Analogy of the Paper and Circles
Now the question was raised as to how regular people (without elevated scholarship) can understand Advaita Siddhaanta easily. For this purpose we can understand this first proposition of apparent multitude – real singular existence through a simple example.
Consider an empty white sheet of paper. Wherever we see on the paper, we see that it is uniformly of a single white color and has no other distinction. In that white paper, suppose we draw a big circle which splits the area of the paper into two, seemingly – one part of the area is within the circle, and another is outside the circle. Suppose we further draw smaller separate circles outside the big circle, each one a bit smaller than the previous. Now see what has happened? – A separate area ‘appears’ as it were within the big circle, and further within each one of the circles separate areas appear.
Prior to drawing any circle on the paper, suppose we give it to someone and say ‘Write something on this’ , then the person is not confused about this instruction . Wherever he wants he can write, he does not see any issue. Whereas, if the same paper is given after drawing these circles, and the same instruction is told, then the person can ask ‘Where should I write on this? There are many spaces to write, which one should I use?’ . Why does this question arise? If we think about this, we see that it arises because of the multiple circles which have been drawn on the paper.
Now let’s assume that we tell him to write something within the biggest circle and he fills it up with some words and sentences. After seeing his work, now we demand that he should write the exact same thing that he has written within the bigger circle within the smallest circle also. He is sure to respond with his incapability that it is not possible to do so, as the smallest circle is much smaller than the big circle. That’s no surprise, it is expected.
The point to note is that though all of the circles lie within the same paper, how come it is that the same text cannot be written in the different circles? Why should it be that ‘more’ can be written on the outer circle, while ‘less’ only in the inner circle when it is the same paper? The person says ‘That is because the outer circle is bigger than the inner circle’. But then does it mean that there are multiple sheets of paper, as the writing capability in the areas inscribed by the circle are different? ‘That is also not the case’, he says,
‘Neither it is possible to say that we can write the same amount of text in spaces within different circles, nor is it true that there are multiple sheets of paper.’
What is the resolution of these two apparently contradictory positions ? Obviously the resolution lies in the fact that there is only one sheet but the way we have drawn the circles, such as bigger ones and smaller ones, makes it impossible to write same amount in differently sized circles. But this does not make the sheet of paper into two. These circles with respect to which apparent split in the writing space arises, is an analogy for an upaadhi (apparent limiting adjunct).
We can further extend this analogy. Suppose we fill the bigger circle with some colour. Then the other circles still remain uncoloured. It remains so, with different spaces differently coloured, though it is the same paper. All this is very much obvious to anyone. We are simply understanding this in a detailed manner, so that it can aid us in understanding the first proposition (mentioned above) in Advaita Siddhaanta.
The Correspondence of the Analogy in Advaita Siddhaanta: Individual(Jiva) and God (Ishwara)
Just as the sheet of white paper exists without any divisions or differences, in the same way the only existence that is there always is that Sacchidaananda Parabrahma, that which is Nitya-shuddha-buddha-mukta-swaroopa (which is eternal, pure, free, Consciousness principle). Only that Entity alone exists, and is immanent throughout the manifestation. It is also Nirguna or free-from-qualities, as the Shruti (Veda) says ashabdam-arupam-asparsham-avyayam (wordless, formless, un-experienceable, un-changing). This is the singular absolutely existing entity, and nothing else exists really, just as the white sheet of paper in our example.
In this Absolute reality, there is an upaadhi called Maaya. Analogous to the various circles that we drew on the single sheet, in the same way this Maaya is also modified into various objects, with different forms, natures and names. All these various objects act as upaadhis for that Pure Consciousness principle which is the singular absolute reality, and create apparent (not real) divisions in this absolute reality. Just as the various circles appear to have created various separate spaces in the same white sheet, in the same way, because of the upaadhis called Maaya and its derivative-upaadhis called avidya (literally, `ignorance’), apparent divisions arise in the Absolute reality. That Consciousness principle apparently limited by (or associated with) Maaya is called Ishwara ( ‘Lord’ or Universal Conscious Creator Principle), as this Maaya is like the large circle which limits (apparently) the white sheet into a big enclosed area. Similarly, analogous to the smaller areas arising apparently from the smaller circles, the upaadhis such as avidya (or antahkarana) apparently limit the Pure Consciousness principle to ‘create’ as it were the jiva (the individual conscious principle).
Thus Ishwara and Jiva, the Universal and the Individual, these are not really two but indeed arise out of the same Pure Consciousness or Shuddha Chaitanya. By Ishwara we mean the Lord who is available for worship by the jivas, that is, the Consciousness principle endowed with all the auspicious qualities or gunas, the Saguna-Brahman. The Pure Consciousness principle, which is free from (not limited by) all upaadhis, is however Nirguna-Brahma, whereas this Maaya-limited Consciousness is called Saguna Brahman or Ishwara. This Saguna Brahma or Ishwara is the Creator or Manifesting Entity of the whole universe. This same Saguna Brahma is worshipped by different people in different names and forms, as Ishwara (Shiva), Vishnu, Devi, etc.
Thus, though there is one singular Pure Consciousness principle that alone exists, due to the apparent association or limitation with the upaadhis, it appears as multiple entities with different names and forms. That Pure Consciousness when it is associated with the giant-upaadhi called Maaya , is called Ishwara. This Maaya-limited Consciousness or Ishwara has infinite power, so much so that it is capable of manifesting the entire universe. Whereas the jiva, the avidya-limited Consciousness does not have that kind of power, and hence cannot do such an act of creation or manifestation. This is analogous to the situation that we can write a lot more in the bigger circle than the smaller one; the spaces within both are different, though they are both within the same sheet of paper.
Just as the apparently contradictory positions exist in the analogy, namely the differences in writing space though within the same sheet of paper, in the same way here too in our case, Ishwara has all kinds of capabilities such as capability to manifest the universe, capability to grace the devotees who pray to Him, etc., whereas the Jiva does not have any such capabilities. These differences are there though they both have the same underlying reality, which is that Shuddha Chaitanyam or Pure Consciousness. We cannot demand that the Jiva should also have same capability as Ishwara, or ask questions such as ‘If both share the same reality, why should the jiva worship Ishwara?’. Such questions are meaningless, as surely there is a difference in the upaadhis, the limiting adjuncts, which cause such differences in the capabilities of jiva and Ishwara.
The Unchanged Underlying Reality
As long as the upaadhis remain, the differences also remain as they are, in the world of transactions these differences are maintained. Such as in the case of the sheet of paper, as long as the circles remain, there is also a difference in the writing space available within them, and when anyone wants to write the appropriate space is to be chosen. However, suppose we erase off the circles with an eraser, then the differences vanish and we come back to the original situation where no distinct spaces were present. Then the person can write on it without any confusion, it is the same singular sheet of paper without the distinct areas.
In the same way, in Advaita, as long as the upaadhis of Maaya and avidya remain, the differences between Ishwara and jiva remain. If the upaadhis disappear, then the differences and transactional multitude also vanish, and the Pure Conciousness principle is the only existence that remains.
Further we also should keep in mind the important fact – inspite of all the apparent divisions arising out of the various circles drawn on the paper, the sheet of paper remains unchanged as it was before. That is why even after erasing the drawn circles, it regains its old state, as it were, which was never changed. It’s ‘purity’ is not touched. In the same way, Pure Consciousness remains unchanged even though there arise apparent differences such as Ishwara and jivas transactionally due to the upaadhis of Maaya and multiple individual avidyas. All these divisions are falsely superimposed due to Maaya and its various forms, they are not real.
When we get the knowledge (Atmajnaana or Brahmajnaana) this Maaya gets destroyed and only the Pure Consciousness remains. Thus, these three-fold Consciousness are available – Jiva-Chaitanya (Consciousness limited by avidya), Ishwara-Chaitanya (Consciousness limited by Maaya) and Shuddha Chaitanya (Pure Consciousness not limited by any adjunct) – these appear as three different only due to the upaadhis, not in actuality.
Advaita Siddhaanta fundamentally talks about the unity of jiva-chaitanya and Ishwara-chaitanya. What does this mean ? It means that the underlying reality of these two, which is Shuddha Chaitanya, is one and the same. Seen from the standpoint of the upaadhis they are indeed different. But this difference is only apparent, it is a false in the absolute sense. In the context of this difference, that is, as long as the upaadhi of avidya or maaya has not been removed by Atmajnaana, jiva has to worship Ishwara, Ishwara will bless the jiva, all these transactional things remain. But really speaking, that is, the absolute paaramaarthika reality is that jiva and Ishwara are not different but only that Pure Consciousness alone.
In this way we can understand through this example the teaching of Advaita Siddhaanta. Many such examples that enable us to easily understand Advaita are given by our Acharyas. There will not be difficulty in understanding Advaita if we grasp these analogies well.
____
If you liked this translation, please visit the Tattva Shankara video – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nKTTo6agD4&ab_channel=TattvaShankara. Please find the comment containing this link (search “vairaagya.wordpress”) and upvote it so that it gets more visibility and benefits people. To see more translations of the videos that appear on this Youtube channel, search the tag “tattvashankara” on this blog.
____
vairaagya 