Interpretations of the Mahavakyas by Shri Shankara

Shri Shankara attributes the sense of absence to the prefix ‘na’ and takes the word ‘advaita ’ to mean not-two (really meaning one), for, the absence of two is unity, not in other numbers like two, three etc. Shri Shankara reinforces his interpretation by qualifying his meaning of advaita with the word kevala and says that Parabrahman is one only. It cannot bear any implication of duality either in itself or in the presence of any other entity of the same category or of another category i.e., there cannot be svahata (difference in the attributes of different parts of the object) or sajatiya (intra-difference between same class of objects) or vijatiya bheda (inter-difference in class groupings). Of the three entities—anatma , individual self and Brahman—there cannot be any anatma apart from Brahman , for that would entail Vijatiyabheda . There cannot also be individual self separately, for that would imply sajatiya bheda. Brahman cannot also be conceived as a whole, made up of parts, for that would bring svahata bheda . Brahman is a Being of pure intelligence. Nothing can be affirmed of it. Thus it is clear that after taking the word advaita to mean not two (i.e., meaning one) it does not fit in with the scheme of Shankara unless the word is further qualified by the adjunct kevala . According to him, gold and the ornaments made out of gold are illustrative of the identity of Godhead and jivatma .

Abheda refutation

In the illustration, God and man are considered identical since the ornaments of gold are made out of gold only. Both are identical in reality. This leads to a question regarding the meaning of God’s creation. What is the purpose of God’s creation? If it is conceived as the sport of God, then to interpret it as the result of ignorance ends up in inconsistency. Even assuming that God has a purpose for His creation, a question arises as to whetherHe needs something out of the created ones? Shaiva Siddhanta accepts that there is a meaning in His creations.^[1] So the analogy of gold and ornaments made of gold impliesthat His creations are made of Him and this is not acceptable to Shaiva siddhantins. According to Umapati Shivam, the nishkala (unmanifested) form of the Lord and the sakala form of iccha , jnana and kriya are both forms of Lord Shiva. These two forms are identical in essence as gold and ornaments of gold are. Hence the analogy of gold is helpful in illustrating the nishkala and sakala forms, but not for illustrating the identity of Brahman and individual self.^[2]

Shivajnana Munivar considers the analogy of the vowel ‘A’ which is found in all letters, as a refutation of the abheda . He explains that the non-difference in union conceived of by the Siddhanta is to be understood in the sense of pervasion. The Vedas means that if the vowel ‘a’ is not, there can be no other letter and if Brahman is not, nothingisthere. Tiruvalluvar says: ‘the Primal Bhagavan is first—originating Supreme Prime Being—of the universe, as ‘a-m’ is the first of all letters.^[3]

The examples of gold changing into ornaments, of clay into pots etc., do not support Mayavada even in the remote sense of suggesting a theory of appearance (Vivartavada) vis-à-vis the theory of transformation (Parinamavada).They only illustrate that there can be no action without an agent to act, contrary to proving the identity of cause and effect so that the effect as effect is only an appearance of cause. The analogy illustrates that what undergoes action is as such not the same as the agent that acts.

The basic question is the relation of Brahman to maya . If maya were Ignorance and is not of the nature of being, then Brahman cannot be intrinsic or natural, just as it is intrinsic or natural to a seed to unfold into a tree. If the world were intrinsic to the Being then it must be of the essence of Being, but if the world were non-being then it cannot also be asserted that it belongs to Being as its nature, as tree belongs to the seed. Brahman owning the world as cause owning its effect, on the interpretation of Mayavada, will be as contradictory a notion as, light encircling darkness^[4].

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Atthan yiyatrum itthozil pirarkko
Thanakko vino enakkidhu yiyambuga
Vin yenil pittharmanpu arum thozilpola
Thalaimaiyum arivum yiladhu yena nigazvar .—Sankarpa-Nirakaranam 9.12.

[2]:

Porpani yavum ponnamdhanmaiyin
Nitkala sakalath thiruvuru nilaiyum
Isane yenap pesuvar .—ibid.55.57.

[3]:

Tirukkural-1.

[4]:

Irul podhi vilakkena—SN