Chapter 2.2 - Śaṅkarācārya on Jagat

In the Kevala-advaita-vedānta-philosophy, the Brahman is stated as the sole cause of the jagat (world). Śaṅkarācārya says that the omniscient Īśvara, which is not different from one’s Self, is the cause of the creation of the world, just like the clay and the gold are the causes of the pots and the ornaments respectively. The very Īśvara is the cause of the continuance of the world through controlling it, like the magician controls the continuance of the māyā. And, the Īśvara himself is the cause of the dissolution of the expanded world into himself, like the earth wherein the four kinds of creatures get dissolved.^[1] Apart from the Īśvara, any other entities, like insentient pradhāna (primary matter or nature), aṇus (atoms), abhāva (non-existence), saṃsārin (transmigratory soul) etc. cannot be the cause of creation, sustainment and dissolution of the world.^[2] Furthermore, the Brahman is itself the upādāna-kāraṇa (material cause) as well as the nimitta-kāraṇa (efficient cause) of the world. In the worldly experience, the clay, the gold etc. are treated as the material causes. They proceed expecting the adhiṣṭātā (supervisor), like potter, goldsmith etc. However, in the case of the Brahman, which is the material cause, no other supervisor or instrumental cause is expected, since the Śrutis declare that there was only one entity before creation.^[3] In the opinion of Śaṅkarācārya, the whole world appearance is illusory. It is not a real transformation of its cause, namely the Brahman. It is imposed on the Brahman due to the avidyā, just as a snake on a rope. Thus, the world is an illusion appearing on the Brahman. ^[4] In this connection, Śaṅkarācārya puts forth the illustrations of the dream etc. The creation of the chariots etc. in the dream does not harm the nature of the individual soul. Moreover, it is seen in the world that the illusory creation of the elephant etc. does not change the nature of its creators, namely the magicians or the gods etc. Similarly, the creation of the world takes place without changing the unified nature of the Brahman. ^[5]

Owing to the acceptance of the Satkāryavāda, i.e. the doctrine regarding the existence of the effect in its cause, Śaṅkarācārya denies the abrupt rise of the world. He admits the latent existence of the world even before its creation. He says that the primal state of the world is not an independent state, but it is dependent on the Īśvara. This state must be assumed, since the creatorship of the Īśvara cannot be established in its absence. The activity of the Īśvara becomes untenable in the absence of this śakti (power). Additionally, the latent power must be admitted to prove the absence of the birth of the liberated ones. The power is burnt away by the vidyā in the case of the liberated souls. This potential power is of the nature of the avidyā and it is indicated by the word avyakta (unmanifested). It is the profound sleep, full of māyā, in which the jīvas sleep without knowing their real nature. The nature of māyā is inexplicable. It cannot be said as real or as unreal.^[6] Thus, the causal state of the world is denoted by various words, such as śakti, avyakta, avidyā, māyā etc. In the context of the īkṣaṇa (visualization) of the Īśvara, Śaṅkarācārya says that this very primal state of the world i.e. the state of unmanifested names and forms, which cannot be said to be similar with the Brahman or different from the Brahman, becomes the object of the knowledge or the vision of the Īśvara before the creation of the world.^[7]

In the commentaries, Śaṅkarācārya has established the Brahmakāraṇa-vāda, i.e. the doctrine of the Brahman as the sole source of the world. He has proved this doctrine with the help of Śruti, Smṛti and yukti (logic). Especially, in the avirodhādyāya viz. in the second chapter of the Brahma-sūtras, he has refuted the doctrines of other systems of philosophy, which are against the Brahma-kāraṇa-vāda. In that very chapter, he has removed the contradiction found in the Śrutis entences regarding the creation of the world. In the various Upaniṣads, the creation is described in different ways. Similarly, the sequence of the creation is also mentioned differently. Śaṅkarācārya puts forth this problem and reconciles these Śrutis entences in his commentary on the Brahmasūtras. ^[8]

According to Śaṅkarācārya, the world cannot stay apart from the Brahman in three states, namely creation, sustainment and dissolution. The world is created from the five elements, which are of the nature of names and forms.^[9] In the commentary on the Taittirīya Upaniṣad, he explains the sequence of the creation of the five elements as follows: the ākāśa (space) is produced from the Brahman, which is of the nature of one’s Self. The space possesses the śabda-guṇa (quality of sound) and it gives the vacuum for all the manifested things. The vāyu (air) is produced from that space. It possesses two qualities, namely the sparśa-guṇa (quality of touch), which is the own quality of the air, and the sound, which is continued in it from the space. In a similar way, the agni (fire) is produced from the air, the ap (water) from the fire and the pṛthivī (earth) from the water. The fire possesses three qualities viz. sound, touch and colour. The former two qualities are continued in the fire from the previous elements and the rūpa-guṇa (quality of colour) is its own. Similarly, the water possesses four qualities. The rasa-guṇa (quality of taste) is its own quality and the remaining three qualities are continued from the previous three elements. The earth possesses five qualities. The gandha-guṇa (quality of smell) is its own quality and the remaining four qualities are continued in it from the previous four elements.^[10]

However, in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, the creation of the space and the air is not stated from the Brahman. But, this Śruti directly asserts the creation of the tejas (fire) from the Sat viz. the Existence and then the creation of the water from the fire and the creation of the the anna (earth) from the water. After this, it states the manifestation of names and forms by the supreme Deity viz. the Existence through the process of trivṛtkaraṇa (making three-fold).^[11] About this exclusion of the space and the air from the fire etc., Śaṅkarācārya asserts that this is not a fault, since these two are found in a thing possessing of colour. In the fire, which possesses the quality of colour, the sound and the touch are also perceived. And, thereby, the existence of the space and the air can be inferred, since they possess the qualities of sound and touch subsequently.^[12] The trivṛtkaraṇa-śruti, in which the process of making each element three-fold is explained, is accepted in the Kevala-advaitavedānta-philosophy as a basis of the pañcīkaraṇa-process (making each element fivefold).^[13] The process of the trivṛtkaraṇa, which is related to the threefoldness of fire, water and earth, is explained by Śaṅkarācārya as follows: While making each element threefold, the very element in turn becomes predominant and remaining two in turn become subordinate. If this is not accepted, the process of threefoldness would become one only, just as making a rope threefold by collecting its three threads together. And, so there would not be the different process of threefoldness in the case of each of three deities, namely the elements. Thus, by the process of threefoldness, the fire, the water and the earth have obtained the separate name and the distinct identity, such as ‘This is fire’, ‘This is water’ etc.^[14] Further, in the Brahma-sūtras, the Īśvara alone is stated as the creator of the names and the forms. Hereupon, Śaṅkarācārya comments that the Īśvara, who is the creator of the threefoldness, manifests the names and the forms, and not the jīva. The agency of the Īśvara in this creation is unquestionable. The jīva, which is not the Īśvara, is not capable of manifesting various names and forms, such as mountains, rivers, oceans etc. And even the things, which can be manifested by the jīva, are manifested only by depending on the Īśvara. ^[15] Furthermore, in the Brahma-sūtras, it is asserted that the elements such as space etc. do not create their effects by themselves, but it is the Īśvara who creates the effects by residing in the form of that specific element and meditating upon that effect.^[16]

In the state of continuation too, the world-appearance cannot remain different from its cause, namely the Brahman. Here, Śaṅkarācārya quotes some Śrutis entences stating the non-difference of the world from the Brahman and says that the effect is non-different from its cause in a same way during creation, continuation and dissolution.^[17] The sequence of the dissolution of the elements takes place exactly in a reverse order of their creation, i.e. the earth merges into the water, the water merges into the fire and so on. Ācārya says that the effect dissolves in its immediate cause and not in the cause of its own cause. Thus, all the effects enter into the nearest, subtle and the subtlest cause successively and in this manner, finally they all merge into the supreme and extremely subtle cause viz. the Brahman. ^[18] Thus, the whole world successively dissolves into the Brahman. But, it dissolves leaving its latent power behind. The world emerges again having the latent power as its source. If this is not accepted, the emergence of the world will be accidental, i.e. it will emerge without the cause.^[19]

While speaking of the variations in the Śruti-passages about the creation of the world, Śaṅkarācārya says that each Vedānta-text differs regarding the sequence of the space etc. in the case of the sequence of creation, but these texts do not contradict with each other regarding the creator. Each Vedānta describes the Brahman as being the cause of the creation in a similar way. In every Vedānta, the cause of the world is described as omniscient, controller of all, Self of all and non-dual.^[20] Therefore, the intended purpose of all the Vedāntas is the Brahman. In the opinion of Ācārya, all the ākhyāyikās (narratives) related to the theory of creation are eulogistic and their intended purpose is the Self-realization alone. Or, just as seen in the ordinary world, these narratives are meant for the easy comprehension of the truth that the Īśvara, who is the great magician, omniscient and omnipotent, has created all the things just as a magician. Otherwise, any result cannot be obtained by mere understanding of the narratives of the creation. On the other hand, the immortality, which is the highest goal, can be achieved by the knowledge of the unitary nature of the Self.^[21] So, the objective of all the Vedāntapassages, explaining the creation, is none but the Brahman.

The effects are seen to be manifested in the form of nāman (name) and rūpa (form) on the basis of the Brahman. In the viewpoint of Śaṅkarācārya, these differences are not real. The division is accepted to be imagined on the Brahman due to the avidyā, so the Brahman has no parts in itself. The moon does not become many, even when it is perceived as if many by a person, who has a timira-doṣa (blurred vision). The Brahman is supposed to have all the empirical usages, such as transformation etc. because of this multiform-nature, which is as same as names and forms imagined by the avidyā. These names and forms are of the nature of both manifested and non-manifested. These cannot be explained as real or unreal, so these are inexplicable. The names and the forms do not have real existence, but these are generated from the speech only. The Brahman remains beyond all such empirical dealings in its real state.^[22] Further, the names and the forms cannot be separated from the Brahman, since the Brahman is their intrinsic nature. In all the conditions, these are essentially the Brahman alone, because they have no existence apart from the Brahman. On the contrary, the Brahman is not essentially the names and the forms. It only appears to be connected with the empirical dealings such as knower, things to be known and knowledge owing to the limiting adjuncts of the names and the forms.^[23]

Śaṅkarācārya declares the falsity of all the effects on the ground of the non-difference of the effect from its cause. The effect cannot be absolutely real, since it always changes. The form of earthen pot etc. perceived through the eyes is unreal, because it cannot be perceived apart from its material cause viz. the clay. Similarly, all the effects are unreal owing to their non-perception apart from their cause. Additionally, the effects do not get manifested before their production and after their destruction. So, they are unreal.^[24] In short, this whole universe is nothing else but the highest Brahman alone. All the ideas, related to the nonBrahman, are mere avidyā, just like the perception of a snake on a rope. The Vedas declare the absolute reality of the Brahman alone.^[25] The nondifference of the effect from its cause is thought over in the Brahmasūtras (II.1.6.14-20). In the commentary on these sūtras (aphorisms), Śaṅkarācārya proves this non-difference using various Śrutis entences as well as the logic. For instance, he quotes the illustration of the clay and its effects such as pot etc. ([Chāndogya Upaniṣad] VI.1.4) and says that the modifications of the clay are originated from the speech alone. In truth, the modifications do not have independent existence. The clay alone is true. In a similar way, any effect does not have separate existence from the Brahman. Accepting this non-difference, the declaration of the Śruti that all things are known by the knowledge of one thing, can be proved. Therefore, as the space contained in the pot is not different from the cosmic space or the mirage is not different from the desert, so there cannot exist the world comprised of experiencer and things to be experienced, if it is seen other than the Brahman. ^[26] Thus, in the opinion of Ācārya, all the effects in the form of names and forms are real only in their essential nature as Existence viz. the Brahman, but they are unreal by themselves.^[27]

Śaṅkarācārya further says that the association of the soul with actions, their instruments and results is produced owing to its contact with the adjuncts of the names and the forms. This association is superimposed on the soul by the avidyā. Owing to this association with the limiting adjuncts, the jīva experiences the saṃsāra.^[28] The saṃsāra is of the nature of agentship and enjoyership. It is related only with the jñeya (things to be known) but it is wrongly imposed on the jñātā (knower) due to the avidyā. Therefore, the perceiver does not get contaminated by the saṃsāra, just as the space is not affected by the qualities such as the concave or the dirtiness etc. imposed on it by ingnorants. In a similar way, the Īśvara exists in all the kṣetras viz. the fields or the adjuncts, not getting affected by the saṃsāra. In the common experience too, it cannot be seen that anyone is benefited or ruined by a certain quality imposed by the avidyā. ^[29] In this manner, the Brahman, on which the names and the forms are superimposed by the avidyā, can never get contaminated by them.

At some places, Śaṅkarācārya has mentioned the māyā as the cause of multiplied appearance on the Brahman. But, he does not discuss any conceptual difference between the māyā and the avidyā. ^[30] Moreover, he has not developed the concept of māyā in the commentaries. In the commentary on the Bhagavadgītā, he mentions that the māyā, which is the cause of all the effects, is possessed by the Īśvara and it is of the nature of triguṇas (three qualities) viz. sattva, rajas and tamas. ^[31] Furthermore, he explains the illusory nature of the māyā in the Kaṭha Upaniṣad. The puruṣa viz. the Self is hidden in all the creatures. He is concealed on account of the avidyā viz. the māyā, hence he does not appear in the form of one’s own Self, even though he is the Self of everyone. The māyā is deep-rooted, difficult to understand and diversified in nature. Owing to this māyā, all the creatures do not grasp their basic identity with the supreme Self. They identify with the aggregate of the body and the senses, even though these entities are not the Self and also these are the objects of perception, just as pot etc. All the creatures transmigrate because of the delusion of the māyā of the supreme Self.^[32] In the Gauḍapāda-kārikās, the māyā is said to be non-existent. Hereupon, Śaṅkarācārya comments that the māyā is not a real entity, namely the Brahman. A thing, which does not exist in real sense, is called māyā. ^[33] The unreality of the world is established in the Gauḍapāda-kārikās by asserting the dependence of the world-phenomena on the mind. In the commentary on these kārikās, Śaṅkarācārya says that any movement does not occur in the Self. All the entities in the world can be experienced, only when the mind becomes active. So, these entities are not real in the absolute sense.^[34] The duality is not different from the mind. It is not seen in the absence of the mind. The mind stops functioning in its perfectly controlled state and also in the state of deep sleep. Anybody cannot experience the duality in these states. Therefore the duality is none other than the imagination of the mind.^[35] Further, Ācārya says that the mind is also sat (existent), when it is seen not to be different from the Self. A snake imagined on a rope is regarded as existent, when its substratum viz. the rope is considered. Similarly, the mind is existent, when its substratum viz. the Self is thought over.^[36]

Although Śaṅkarācārya has always declared the falsity of the world, he has accepted the temporal existence of the world in the sphere of avidyā for the sake of explaining the vyavahāras (empirical or worldly usages). He strictly opposes the existence of any entity apart from the Brahman in the state of abidance in the Self-knowledge. For this, he quotes the Śrutis entences declaring the oneness of the Brahman and further asserts that the worldly usage regarding actions, instruments of actions and their results is not rejected for the avivekin (one who is unable to discriminate) in the empirical state of names and forms. So, the scriptural and the empirical viewpoints are respectively based on the knowledge and the ignorance.^[37] Further, using the dream analogy, he asserts that all the empirical dealings can be regarded as true before attaining the knowledge of the unity of the jīva and the Brahman, just like the dealings in the dreams are not suspected as false before one wakes up. As long as one does not experience the unity of the Self, he cannot consider the empirical dealings such as means of knowledge, objects of knowledge and results etc. to be false.^[38] In this way, Śaṅkarācārya accepts the continuation of all the empirical dealings before realizing the unitary experience of the Self i.e. the Brahman.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Ibid II.1.1.1 Preface

[2]:

Ibid I.1.1.2

[3]:

Ibid I.4.7.23; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Chāndogya Upaniṣad] VI.2.1

[4]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] II.1.11.33 [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Gauḍapāda-kārikās] II.32

[5]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] II.1.9.28

[6]:

Ibid I.4.1.3; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] I.2.6.22

[7]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] I.1.5.5

[8]:

Ibid II.3.1.1

[9]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad] II.2.1 Preface

[10]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Taittirīya Upaniṣad] II.1.1; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] II.3.1.1 to II.3.6.12

[11]:

[Chāndogya Upaniṣad] VI.2.2-4 Ibid VI.3.3

[12]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Chāndogya Upaniṣad] VI.4.2-4

[13]:

[Nyāya-nirṇaya Ṭīkā] on [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] II.4.9.20

[14]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Chāndogya Upaniṣad] VI.3.3; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] II.4.9.22

[15]:

[Brahma-sūtra] II.4.9.20 [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] II.4.9.20

[16]:

[Brahma-sūtra] II.3.7.13 [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] II.3.7.13

[17]:

Ibid II.1.3.9

[18]:

[Brahma-sūtra] II.3.8.14 [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] II.3.8.14

[19]:

Ibid I.3.8.30; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bhagavad-gītā] IX.18

[20]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] I.4.4.14

[21]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Aitareya Upaniṣad] II.4.1 Preface; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] I.4.4.14, II.1.11.33, IV.3.5.14;[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad] I.4.7; [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Gauḍapāda-kārikās] I.7; [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Gauḍapāda-kārikās] III.15

[22]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] II.1.9.27; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Praśna Upaniṣad] VI.3

[23]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Taittirīya Upaniṣad] II.6.1

[24]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bhagavad-gītā] II.16

[25]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad] II.2.11

[26]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] II.1.6.14

[27]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Chāndogya Upaniṣad] VI.3.2

[28]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad] II.1.15

[29]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bhagavad-gītā] XIII.2

[30]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] I.3.5.19; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Gauḍapāda-kārikās] 3.10

[31]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bhagavad-gītā] XIV.3; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bhagavad-gītā] VII.25, XIII.19, XV.1

[32]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Kaṭha Upaniṣad] III.12

[33]:

[Gauḍapāda-kārikās] IV.58 [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Gauḍapāda-kārikās] IV.58

[34]:

Ibid II.33

[35]:

Ibid II.32; cf. [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Gauḍapāda-kārikās] III.31

[36]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Gauḍapāda-kārikās] III.29

[37]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad] III.5.1

[38]:

[Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] II.1.6.14; See also [Śāṅkara Bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra] I.2.5.20, III.2.1.4, III.2.5.15