06-23-2005, 09:51 PM
Carl, Thanks for the detailed response. There is much to discuss, but for now a couple of points:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Kapila, son of Devahuti, propounded a Sankhya which falls in line with Vedanta, albeit at a lower level of discussion (in the Noetic model I outlined previously at some length). There is the other, non-theistic Sankhya interpretation given by another 'Kapila', and you are speaking in reference to that. Just thought I'd mention it, because many people seem to be unaware of this. It was the former that Krishna references in the Bhagavad Gita, and it is the former that is referenced in the Bhagavatam, etc.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, Probably they are the same vedic sage Kapila. Texts like Sankhya-Sutra and Sankhya-Karika were composed much later than vedic times. What part of original wisdom of sage Kapila is present in these relatively modern texts we don't know. But taking all the Sankhya like statements in Veda ( e.g. 3 coloured goat ( ajaa hyekaa lohit-shukla-krishna varnaa), and two birds living on a tree (dvaa suparnaa sayujaa sakhayaa), and in Gita and puranas, there seems to be fair agreement on the basics of Sankhya. Your objection seems to be against the "Ishvara-asiddheh" (Since God is unproven) sutra. Traditional Sankhya doesn't make any claims one way or another about Ishvara. It doesn't reject or affirm Ishvara. On the other hand, associated darshana of Yoga has a "purusha vishesha" called Ishavra. When Buddhists borrow Sankhya they are happy with the atheistic interpretations. But for most hindus, atheistic or non-theistic part of Sankhya is not critically important. Main point of Sankhya was to theoretically explain meditation, something which lets a practitioner to go deeper within oneself and see one's own self separate and deeper than various inner constructs such as mind, intellect and ego.
This non-theistic (or even atheistic by some accounts) streak in Sankhya is problematic to systems that are theistic. But that doesn't necessarily mean original sage Kapila himself had proposed a theistic system. I am neutral even if sage Kapila wer a hardcore atheist. Doesn't lessen his contribution in any way. Albeit in Gita the Sankhya sections are clearly theistic.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This is where the confusion arises. "Being" and "non-being" are misleading terms, and therefore need qualification, which Vedanta provides (but Sankhya doesn't). Sat and asat are clearly differentiated in terms of eternality and transience as per Vedanta (including Shankara's commentary on it). So let's be quite clear about this. The time-dimension is crucial to distinguishing the Sat from the Asat, i.e., the material from the spiritual. In oscillating back and forth between Vedanta and the particular commentary of Sankhya that you are referencing, you may be confusing semantics.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree that while using 'sat' and 'asat' there is indeed a risk of mixing up semantics.
The simplest meaning of 'sat' is simplely 'being'. A 'sat' object is something which 'is'. In that sense there is no temporal permanence implied. Only the state of being at the present time. But then one may doubt if something is 'really existent' if it vanishes next moment. In that sense a truly 'sat' object could be expected to have permanence in time.
But in Advaita Vedanta it is not the temporal permanence that is taken as a characteristic of 'sat'. For example I can remain in 'illusion' forever and think that a particular rope lying in a dark room is a snake. If I never turn on the lights, then that 'snake' will have a temporal permanence for me. But that 'snake' wouldn't be called 'sat' in Advaita. <b> In advaita 'sat' is determined by permanency under increasing illumination (Jnana). </b> Only if a person's state of illumination (or knowledge, Jnana) is increasing with time, would 'sat' then also correspond with permanence in time. But if a person's illumination is not increasing with time, then for him things can have temporal permanence, but which would not be classified as 'sat'.
Although in the timeless state of Brahman, all these different meanings of 'sat' merge. Because Brahman is not only timeless, but is also the state of highest illumination and also existing or 'being' in the simplest sense of the word.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"The perception of a different object when a real object takes another form is called parinama (or vikara). Perception of a different object when there is actually no different object is called vivarta."
This is the original definition of concepts fundamentally related to maya.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->This is indeed a big debate. In Vedic literature one can find instances where God became the universe, or God created the universe and then entered it, or Brahman has 'become' everything.. Many such statements seem to support 'parinaama' type transformation.
But in advaita, as you also mentioned, 'vivarta' is assumed. The famous rope-snake example is clearly a 'vivarta' example. Let me just mention here that advaita is a very 'careful' philosophy and 'vivarta' helps in securing many ends.
If you consider 'parinaama' then there are many other kinds of problems. If God (or Brahman) has indeed now become everything, how can he still be one? Does that mean creation of universe by God is like a self-sacrifice on his part? Then God and universe wouldn't be existing simultaneously.
A way out for 'parinaama' type of theories could be the 'achintya-bheda-abheda' which you prefer. God becomes the multiplicity and yet remains one. But as we have argued in the past, the apparent contradiction in the concept can be philosophically controversial.
Another example is like that of a spider creating a web from its own silk (yathorna-nabhih srijate-grihnate cha). In that case universe although materially derived from God, will have a separte reality from him. But here creation will then 'limit' the creator. Any distinguishing attribute is a limiting attribute too. And if universe and God are distinguished, they also limit each other.
Another theory is that God creates the universe out of nothing and rules over it as a separate entity. This theory has many holes. Creation of something out of nothing is philosophically very problematic. Although we have statements like 'asad-eve idam agre aaseet'. But this 'asat' usually is not translated as 'nothing', but as an absence of forms, not an absence of essence.
Out of all 'parinaama' type of theories, 'achintya bheda-abheda' is the strongest, although the implied contradiction in the concept pulls it more towards mysticism than philosophy.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, maya springs from Godhead (the Supreme Soul) itself, therefore it cannot operate on fragmental parts of this Supreme Soul unless there is some sense of "spiritual separateness", or otherwise you end up with other contradictions. In fact, if Absolute Oneness is your theory, then what is maya itself? Where does it spring from, and why? In answering these questions, the mayavadis practically admitted defeat.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->It superfiacially appears that there is a big difference between 'parinaama' type of transformation and 'vivarta'. Vivarta type of transformation allows advaita to confine the action of Maya at the level of individual observer. But if God's universal Maya (Yogamaya), caused a 'parinaama' type of transformation of God himself, then any individual's 'mukti' can not bring that individual to a state of undifferentiated oneness. Not until the pralaya when God decides to withdraw the multiplicity into himself.
But I think this is indeed a superficial difference. When an individual attains mukti, then he also attains a timeless state. Creation, sustenance and pralaya of the universe by God all are within time. If individual 'mukti' is timeless, then there is no need for the individual to be waiting till 'pralaya' for the multiplicity to submerge back into God. He is already there. Bounds of time do not apply to him when he has transcended to a timeless state.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->So how will you explain your understanding of maya, and discrete consciousness within maya existing in parallel with this "Lonely Oneness"?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Advaita doesn't talk about things as they 'are'. But rather things as seen by a certain observer. More of epistemology than ontology.
An observer's observation span a range from multiplicity of phenomenal and temporal world all the way to timeless unity of Brahman. These observations are not made 'simultaneously'. So there is no need to explain Maya, and jivas existing simultaneously with the "Lonely Oneness". In one state of illumination (Jnana), the observer is in multiplicity and under the influenece of Maya. But when in unity, there is no multiplicity and no need for Maya there. Remember the 'rope' doesn't become real (for a certain observer) till the lights are turned on. But then the 'snake' vanishes.
The theory is careful. But nagging questions about the 'origins' of Maya do remain. Advaita calls the origin of Maya 'anivachaniya' or not explainable wihin the theory. This is perhaps the weakest part of the theory, as you have also mentioned repeatedly. But it doesn't break the theory. The action of Maya is indirectly inferred from the need to reconcile the range of experiences that an observer can have, from multiplicity to unity. So need for Maya is justifiable. Its two fold action of covering and projecting is explained. But origin of Maya is left unsatisfactorily explained.
This is not a fatal flaw in the theory. But rather an incompleteness. Other theories may be able to delve on nature of Maya or Shakti more adequately. Somewhat like Mechanics, Thermodynamics, electromagnetism etc being separate theories explaining the same old material world, but with different emphases. What Advaita does best is the enunciation of Self, Consciousness and Being. There may be other theories that do better in other things.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Kapila, son of Devahuti, propounded a Sankhya which falls in line with Vedanta, albeit at a lower level of discussion (in the Noetic model I outlined previously at some length). There is the other, non-theistic Sankhya interpretation given by another 'Kapila', and you are speaking in reference to that. Just thought I'd mention it, because many people seem to be unaware of this. It was the former that Krishna references in the Bhagavad Gita, and it is the former that is referenced in the Bhagavatam, etc.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, Probably they are the same vedic sage Kapila. Texts like Sankhya-Sutra and Sankhya-Karika were composed much later than vedic times. What part of original wisdom of sage Kapila is present in these relatively modern texts we don't know. But taking all the Sankhya like statements in Veda ( e.g. 3 coloured goat ( ajaa hyekaa lohit-shukla-krishna varnaa), and two birds living on a tree (dvaa suparnaa sayujaa sakhayaa), and in Gita and puranas, there seems to be fair agreement on the basics of Sankhya. Your objection seems to be against the "Ishvara-asiddheh" (Since God is unproven) sutra. Traditional Sankhya doesn't make any claims one way or another about Ishvara. It doesn't reject or affirm Ishvara. On the other hand, associated darshana of Yoga has a "purusha vishesha" called Ishavra. When Buddhists borrow Sankhya they are happy with the atheistic interpretations. But for most hindus, atheistic or non-theistic part of Sankhya is not critically important. Main point of Sankhya was to theoretically explain meditation, something which lets a practitioner to go deeper within oneself and see one's own self separate and deeper than various inner constructs such as mind, intellect and ego.
This non-theistic (or even atheistic by some accounts) streak in Sankhya is problematic to systems that are theistic. But that doesn't necessarily mean original sage Kapila himself had proposed a theistic system. I am neutral even if sage Kapila wer a hardcore atheist. Doesn't lessen his contribution in any way. Albeit in Gita the Sankhya sections are clearly theistic.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This is where the confusion arises. "Being" and "non-being" are misleading terms, and therefore need qualification, which Vedanta provides (but Sankhya doesn't). Sat and asat are clearly differentiated in terms of eternality and transience as per Vedanta (including Shankara's commentary on it). So let's be quite clear about this. The time-dimension is crucial to distinguishing the Sat from the Asat, i.e., the material from the spiritual. In oscillating back and forth between Vedanta and the particular commentary of Sankhya that you are referencing, you may be confusing semantics.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree that while using 'sat' and 'asat' there is indeed a risk of mixing up semantics.
The simplest meaning of 'sat' is simplely 'being'. A 'sat' object is something which 'is'. In that sense there is no temporal permanence implied. Only the state of being at the present time. But then one may doubt if something is 'really existent' if it vanishes next moment. In that sense a truly 'sat' object could be expected to have permanence in time.
But in Advaita Vedanta it is not the temporal permanence that is taken as a characteristic of 'sat'. For example I can remain in 'illusion' forever and think that a particular rope lying in a dark room is a snake. If I never turn on the lights, then that 'snake' will have a temporal permanence for me. But that 'snake' wouldn't be called 'sat' in Advaita. <b> In advaita 'sat' is determined by permanency under increasing illumination (Jnana). </b> Only if a person's state of illumination (or knowledge, Jnana) is increasing with time, would 'sat' then also correspond with permanence in time. But if a person's illumination is not increasing with time, then for him things can have temporal permanence, but which would not be classified as 'sat'.
Although in the timeless state of Brahman, all these different meanings of 'sat' merge. Because Brahman is not only timeless, but is also the state of highest illumination and also existing or 'being' in the simplest sense of the word.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"The perception of a different object when a real object takes another form is called parinama (or vikara). Perception of a different object when there is actually no different object is called vivarta."
This is the original definition of concepts fundamentally related to maya.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->This is indeed a big debate. In Vedic literature one can find instances where God became the universe, or God created the universe and then entered it, or Brahman has 'become' everything.. Many such statements seem to support 'parinaama' type transformation.
But in advaita, as you also mentioned, 'vivarta' is assumed. The famous rope-snake example is clearly a 'vivarta' example. Let me just mention here that advaita is a very 'careful' philosophy and 'vivarta' helps in securing many ends.
If you consider 'parinaama' then there are many other kinds of problems. If God (or Brahman) has indeed now become everything, how can he still be one? Does that mean creation of universe by God is like a self-sacrifice on his part? Then God and universe wouldn't be existing simultaneously.
A way out for 'parinaama' type of theories could be the 'achintya-bheda-abheda' which you prefer. God becomes the multiplicity and yet remains one. But as we have argued in the past, the apparent contradiction in the concept can be philosophically controversial.
Another example is like that of a spider creating a web from its own silk (yathorna-nabhih srijate-grihnate cha). In that case universe although materially derived from God, will have a separte reality from him. But here creation will then 'limit' the creator. Any distinguishing attribute is a limiting attribute too. And if universe and God are distinguished, they also limit each other.
Another theory is that God creates the universe out of nothing and rules over it as a separate entity. This theory has many holes. Creation of something out of nothing is philosophically very problematic. Although we have statements like 'asad-eve idam agre aaseet'. But this 'asat' usually is not translated as 'nothing', but as an absence of forms, not an absence of essence.
Out of all 'parinaama' type of theories, 'achintya bheda-abheda' is the strongest, although the implied contradiction in the concept pulls it more towards mysticism than philosophy.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, maya springs from Godhead (the Supreme Soul) itself, therefore it cannot operate on fragmental parts of this Supreme Soul unless there is some sense of "spiritual separateness", or otherwise you end up with other contradictions. In fact, if Absolute Oneness is your theory, then what is maya itself? Where does it spring from, and why? In answering these questions, the mayavadis practically admitted defeat.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->It superfiacially appears that there is a big difference between 'parinaama' type of transformation and 'vivarta'. Vivarta type of transformation allows advaita to confine the action of Maya at the level of individual observer. But if God's universal Maya (Yogamaya), caused a 'parinaama' type of transformation of God himself, then any individual's 'mukti' can not bring that individual to a state of undifferentiated oneness. Not until the pralaya when God decides to withdraw the multiplicity into himself.
But I think this is indeed a superficial difference. When an individual attains mukti, then he also attains a timeless state. Creation, sustenance and pralaya of the universe by God all are within time. If individual 'mukti' is timeless, then there is no need for the individual to be waiting till 'pralaya' for the multiplicity to submerge back into God. He is already there. Bounds of time do not apply to him when he has transcended to a timeless state.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->So how will you explain your understanding of maya, and discrete consciousness within maya existing in parallel with this "Lonely Oneness"?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Advaita doesn't talk about things as they 'are'. But rather things as seen by a certain observer. More of epistemology than ontology.
An observer's observation span a range from multiplicity of phenomenal and temporal world all the way to timeless unity of Brahman. These observations are not made 'simultaneously'. So there is no need to explain Maya, and jivas existing simultaneously with the "Lonely Oneness". In one state of illumination (Jnana), the observer is in multiplicity and under the influenece of Maya. But when in unity, there is no multiplicity and no need for Maya there. Remember the 'rope' doesn't become real (for a certain observer) till the lights are turned on. But then the 'snake' vanishes.
The theory is careful. But nagging questions about the 'origins' of Maya do remain. Advaita calls the origin of Maya 'anivachaniya' or not explainable wihin the theory. This is perhaps the weakest part of the theory, as you have also mentioned repeatedly. But it doesn't break the theory. The action of Maya is indirectly inferred from the need to reconcile the range of experiences that an observer can have, from multiplicity to unity. So need for Maya is justifiable. Its two fold action of covering and projecting is explained. But origin of Maya is left unsatisfactorily explained.
This is not a fatal flaw in the theory. But rather an incompleteness. Other theories may be able to delve on nature of Maya or Shakti more adequately. Somewhat like Mechanics, Thermodynamics, electromagnetism etc being separate theories explaining the same old material world, but with different emphases. What Advaita does best is the enunciation of Self, Consciousness and Being. There may be other theories that do better in other things.