Māyā and the tradition of Vedic revelation

According to Śaṅkara there are certain Upaniṣadic text dealing with evolution and dissolution of the universe. Their aim is also to establish the identity of jīva and ātman. This is expressed by such well known passages as: ‘that art thou ‘(Chāndogya Upaniṣad VI.8.16)^[1]; ‘whoever worships another divinity (than his Self) thinking that he is one and (Brahman) another, he knows not’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. I.4.10)^[2]. Hence the texts that speak of separateness of jīva and ātman should not be understood in the literal sense. They are figurative/secondary statements. He says that the primary (mukhya) sense of separateness for the bheda vākyas are but re-statements of the pluralistic view of creatures that are under the natural spell of avidyā. Their ultimate aim is the revelation of non-dual ātman.

Śaṅkara now uses the Upaniṣadic mantra namely the VIth chapter of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad to reveal the primacy of non-duality over the (sṛṣṭi prakriyā), the creation process in the following lines: The Chāndogya Upaniṣad speaks of non-duality (oneness) before it speaks of creation. It speaks of ‘In the beginning this was being alone, one only, without a second’ (Chāndogya Upaniṣad VI.2.2)^[3], even before the creation, as referred to in such passage as: ‘It thought’, ‘It sent forth fire’ (Chāndogya Upaniṣad VI.2.3)^[4]. But the same Upaniṣad dealing with the creation finally establishes the non-duality of ātman in these words: ‘That is the true, that is the Self, that art thou’ (Chāndogya Upaniṣad VI.8.7)^[5]. Hence, the idea of creation is the result of ignorance, which is ultimately dispelled by right knowledge.

Śaṅkara concludes his commentary on this kārikā by saying that the separateness of the jīva and ātman which is understood from some scriptural passages in the middle be regarded as figurative, like the statement, ‘He cooks food’, as described earlier in this kārikā.

Gauḍapāda states further into this question of scriptural exegesis in kārikā 15. In this kārikā he states his view about creation which is often cited by later Vedāntins^[6]. He says: (The scriptural statements regarding) creation as illustrated by examples of earth, iron, sparks, etc., or otherwise, (only) serve the purpose of (ultimately) explaining the unity (of jīva and Brahman). (Really speaking) multiplicity does not exist in any manner. He establishes the importance of non-dualism found in the Chāndogya, Muṇḍaka texts. Creation (sṛṣṭi) has been presented in different ways in the Upaniṣads, by using illustration of clay, iron sparks of fire etc. This is a means to lead to the absolute (upāyaḥ avatārāya). There is no difference whatsoever between the jīva and the ātman.

Commenting on this kārikā Śaṅkara anticipates an objection: It is true that before creation all was one, unborn and without a second (non-dual); but after creation all this was born and the embodied beings (jīvas) are mutually separate. The meaning is that after creation the distinction/the multiplicity again arose. Hence advaita does not exist.

According to Śaṅkara this view is not correct. The reason is that the scriptural texts that speak of creation have a different implication or meaning. They are not to be taken literally. The explanation of this objection has already given in kārikā 10. It has already been pointed out that the aggregates (entities) of body etc. are like dream objects, being produced by an erroneous cognition which Śaṅkara calls avidyā or māyā. Again the birth and separateness etc., of jīvas are also explained as like the creation and differences of ghatākāśas etc. (i.e. the ākāśa enclosed in different jars).

Śaṅkara says those very creation texts of the scripture are now again referred to here for the purpose of establishing the identity of jīva and ātman. The creation texts have been expounded in different ways with the help of such illustrations as earth, iron, sparks of fire etc. He says that all that process of creation is a means (upāyaḥ) for preparing the minds of the students, the idea of the oneness of the individual jīva and the ātman, the supreme Self. No duality is implied in this. Śaṅkara cites the wellknown stories of Prānasaṃbāda, the story of the asuras (devils, demons) piercing speech, etc. with evil as an example of a figurative statement as mentioned in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka (I,3.7) and the Chāndogya (I.2) Upaniṣad. According to the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, there was rivalry between the gods (devas) and the demons (asuras), the two classes of Prajāpati’s sons. The gods who were lesser in number than the demons sought to overcome their adversaries by means of the udgītha. They first asked speech (vāk) i.e. the deity which presides over speech to sing the udgītha for them. Speech sang, but in doing so it was not free from selfishness. Hence it easily fell a prey to the demons who pierced it with evil. The result was that the gods were foiled in their attempt to excel their rivals. The nose was the next to be asked to sing. The same thing happened with regard to it also. The eye, the ear and the mind were tried in sequence; and all of them were pierced with evil by the demons. At last came the turn of the breath in the mouth (āsanya prāṇa) ‘Do thou sing for us’, said the gods. ‘Yes’, said the breath and sang. The asuras rushed at it and wanted to pierce it with evil. But as a clod of earth, striking against a rock, hurled at it with the intention of smashing it, is itself smashed to bits. In the same manner the demons were smashed to bits, flying in all directions and perished absolutely. This is how the Śruti describes their destruction with the help of a story.

In the Chāndogya Upaniṣad the same story appears with some variations. Here the sense organs (their deities) are meditated upon as the udgītha by the gods, and not asked to sing the udgītha.

According to Śaṅkara the reference of this story should not be taken literally. It is not to narrate an actual event but to make one realize the superiority of breath over other organs. Here the intention is to teach that breath (prāṇa) is to be meditated upon because it is pure (unsmitten by evil), while speech, etc., which are impure are not proper objects of meditation. The story about prāṇa etc., has different versions in different branches of the vedas. If the story is the narrative of what actually happened, we should have met with a uniform pattern in all the branches of the vedas and not with heterogeneous contradictory presentations. But there are different versions in the vedas. Therefore the vedic texts setting forth the stories of prāṇa etc. are not to be taken literally. Similarly the creation texts are also not to be taken literally. We have to understand only their purport (tātparya) as the creation texts of Śruti also describes the creation process in many varying and mutually contradictory versions.

The objector says that this variation may be referred to different creation cycles (kalpas). Since the cycles of creation differ, the vedic texts dealing with creations of the universe as well as with the stories of prāṇa etc., are divergent with relation to the respective cycles.

Śaṅkara emphatically denies this objection. He says that any such supposition is purportless. It is not possible to imagine any other useful purpose of the śruti texts regarding creation and prāṇa. The only purpose of the Śruti is to make one understand the oneness of an embodied being (jīva) and the Supreme Self. The purport of Śruti is to establish abheda or advaita.

The objector now says let us suppose that the purpose of these creation and conversation (prāna saṃvāda) texts is for meditation (dhyāna). Because the meditator ultimately becomes one with the object meditated. The meaning is that he who meditates on them attains to the status of the breath (prāṇa) deity or gets identified with creation or dissolution.

In reply to this objection Śaṅkara says that dhyāna (meditation) cannot be the purpose. No one desires to get identified with the dispute (in the case of prānasaṃ vāda), or with the creation or destruction (in the case of creation texts). These results are not desirable. Therefore the conclusion is that prāṇa-saṃ vāda texts have their purport (tātparaya) in establishing the special importance of prāṇa. The conversation among the senses is purely imaginary. Its object is to teach the superiority of prāṇa to the other sense-organs. Again, the creation texts have their purport (tātparaya) not in establishing the Reality of creation but to point out that they are only meant as a means to make us ultimately grasp the identity of jīva and Brahman.

Why does the Śruti adopt such a means (upāya)? Gauḍapāda in kārikā 16 says, it is because there are three stages of life corresponding to the three-lower, the middle, and higher-powers of vision. The Śruti, out of compassion (anukaṃpayā) teaches this type of conceptual meditation based upon the ideas of creation and duality.

If according to Śruti texts likes, ‘ātman is one and without a second’, prove that ātman alone is the highest, ever pure, ever free, ever full, the ever existent ultimate reality and all else is entirely unreal then for what purpose has the Śruti prescribed the methods of meditation (or devotion) in such Śruti texts as “ātman should be seen”, “that ātman who is free from all sin should perform sacrifice”; “He desired”; “ātman alone should be invoked”, etc? And what is the object of enjoining karmas like agnihotra and the like? In addition, the Śruti has, even prescribed vedic karma also.

The word “āśramāḥ” in the kārikā means (āśramiṇah) persons qualified for different āśramas (like Brahmacarya, Gṛhasta, Vānaprastha and Sannyāsa). It also includes people of different varṇas (castes) and those who observe the path prescribed for them by the scripture. Śaṅkara says that the word āśrama^[7] is used only in an illustrative sense. These people are placed in three classes: the lower, the middle and the higher level of comprehension.^[8] This meditation (laya upāsanā), as well as rites are prescribed by the Śruti out of compassion for those who belong to the lower and the middle stages; and not for those whose powers of vision are high and who has firmly realized that ātman which is one alone and non-dual.

The purpose of Śruti is that these people of ordinary intelligence who follow the righteous path (san-mārgagāḥ) may ultimately attain, in due course the higher vision of unity declared in Śruti texts as:

‘That which is not thought by the mind but by which, they say, the mind is thought (thinks); that, verily, know thou, is Brahman and not what (people) here adore’ (Kena U 1.6)^[9],

‘That art thou’ (Chāndogya Upaniṣad VI.8-16)^[10],

‘The Self, indeed, is all this world’ (Chāndogya Upaniṣad VII.25.2)^[11].

The various dualistic Śruti passages are regarded as provisional meditations (upāsanā), which are presented as an upāya or teaching devices out of compassion (anukaṃpayā) and which will lead the enquirer gradually to non-dual insight.

In kārikā 15, Gauḍapāda has proved that the Śruti texts regarding creation etc, do not affect the non-dual Brahman. In kārikā 16, he states that the prescription of various disciplines associated with different varṇas and āśramas viz. worship, meditation, vedic rites etc., also does not contradict, the nature of the non-dual ātman. The primary aim of this kārikā is to assist the enquirer to understand the oneness of jīva and Brahman.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Ibid., 458.

[2]:

Ibid., 168.

[3]:

Ibid., 449.

[4]:

Ibid., 449.

[5]:

Ibid., 458.

[6]:

Śaṅkara quotes this kārikā in his commentary upon Brahmasūtra 1.4.14. Sureśvara also cites this kārikā in his vārtikā (2.1.387) to Śankara’s commentary on the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad.

[7]:

Bhattacharya reads āśraya, instead ofāśrama in the kārikā. Karmarkar interprets āśramas and three classes (trividha) as those having the sattva, rajas and tamas in them. Karmarkar, Gauḍapāda-Kārikā, 96.

[8]:

According to Ānandagiri, the men of low vision are those who meditate on the kārya -Brahman (Brahman as effect, viz, Virāj), and the middlings are those who worship the kārana-Brahman. (Brahman as cause, viz, I Ω śvara). Op.cit. T.M.P.Mahadevan, Gauḍapāda: A Study In Early Advaita, 173.

[9]:

S. Radhakrishnan, The Principal Upaniṣads, 583.

[10]:

Ibid., 458.

[11]:

Ibid., 488.