In2-MeC

Satara, Maharastra, India
19 April 2004

They say that whatever exists is one, being at the same time one and all--
but they cannot agree about what to call it.

This observation is attributed to a Greek satirist who live 400 years before Christ. His barb was aimed at the monistic philosophers of the Hellenic world: Pythagoras ("What is, exists equally, not more or less; it is all continuous"), Parmenides ("The oneness cannot be divided, because the whole of it is present everywhere"), Heraclitus ("All things are one; the waking share one common world but when asleep each man turns away to a private one"), Zeno ("Reality is indivisible and motion is illusion"). So many hoary old sages saying the same thing--"all that is real is nondifferent, all that is different is unreal"--yet differing with one another over the details.

In India, of course, there have been many monistic philosophers through the ages; they too differed about how all is one. And that's not simply because these philosophers, being human, fell short of pristine monism. The philosophy itself is riddled with gaps in logic.

Madana Misra lived soon after Adi Sankaracarya. He tried to patch up some of the gaps in Sankara's teachings: 1) what is bound by birth and death--jiva or Brahman? 2) who is tattvamasi (the same as Brahman)--only the fully-realized jiva, or all jivas realized and unrealized? 3) Who is under the influence of ignorance--jiva or Brahman? 4) Is there only one avidya, or are there many? Madana Misra's answers to these questions were 1) jiva, 2) the fully-realized jiva only, 3) the jiva, 4) there are as many avidyas as there are jivas in avidya.

Following the line set down by Madana Misra, Vacaspati Misra wrote a commentary called Bhamati. In pursuance of the doctrine of this commentary, a Mayavada school of thought arose known as the Bhamati school. Now, Vacaspati Misra wrote Bhamati to fill in the gaps of logic in the writings of his predecessor, Madana Misra. In doing so he moved away from some of his predecessor's doctrinal positions.

One major gap is, if there are many selves each under his own special avidya, why do we share one common world? To explain this, Vacaspati Misra appealed to the doctrine of Isvara that Sankaracarya taught: that above the many jivas is one "Lord" who orchestrates and harmonizes all their illusions. This Isvara is also in illusion, but it is a more exalted illusion than that of the ordinary living entities. Madana Misra had been dismissive of Isvara. . . he was quite openly an atheist. According to Vacaspati Misra, Isvara limits and reflects Brahman, and thus creates tulavidya, the individual ignorances that cover the individual jivas.

The Bhamati school is in competition with the Vivarana school. Padmapada, a disciple of Adi Sankaracarya, wrote a commentary entitled Pancapadika; a follower of his, Prakasatman, wrote a commentary called Vivarana that became the name of the school that keeps Padmapada at its head.

Padmapada taught that ignorance resides in Brahman. Thus there is only one ignorance, not many. He saw ignorance as reflecting Brahman more than limiting it. He affirmed a role for Isvara in this, but isn't clear as to whether Isvara is Brahman or a jiva.

Prakasatman, in trying to clarify Padmapada's position, argued that Brahman has two natures. (A very curious argument from an "all-is-one" advocate!) These are svarupa and tatastha. The first is the nature of Brahman itself as saksin or witness, the second is the nature of Isvara. Isvara is powerful. He creates the world from avidya. The jivas are reflections of Brahman in that creation of Isvara. The jivas are identical with Brahman; they are just fooled by their own reflections. And because they are fooled by the reflection of Brahman, the conclusion is that ignorance resides in Brahman.

All this stress on reflection as the explanation of the origin of the jivas raises the question of why jivas have individual sentience if they are just reflections. The reflection we see in the bathroom mirror in the morning is insentient. If there is only one ignorance, then why aren't all the jivas liberated as soon as any one of them is liberated? How are all these complexities of creation made possible by the reflection of a Brahman that is nirvisesa--without form, quality, activity, etc. ?

Sarvajnanatman was another Mayavadi philosopher coming after Sankaracarya. He stuck to the the idea that there is one Self only, not many selves. If there is only one Self, it may be asked, then who is the guru? For the guru is another besides our self who is necessary for our attainment of liberation. Sarvajnanatman's answer is that the guru is our imagination. Then how is it possible for imagination to give us liberation? Liberation and bondage, he replied, are both nothing more than a dream. If scripture is taken literally, Advaita will be destroyed.

Suresvara wrote a huge commentary on Brhadaranyaka Upanisad. Ignorance is in Brahman, he maintained. All the complexities and distinctions in Advaita philosophy--which are full of contradictions that divide different Advaitist philosophers from one another--are for the people in ignorance. For those in pure knowledge, there is only oneness.

Prakasananda wrote the Vedanta-siddhanta-mukta-valli. His philosophy is called drsti-srsti-vada ("the philosophy that seeing the world creates the world"). In Western terms, this philosophy is metaphysical solipsism: I am the only Self; all else is my creation. For Prakasananda there is no external world. There is no God. There is no difference between pratibhasika and vyavaharika illusion. (The first degrades the jiva into lower births; the second elevates him to higher levels of consciousness in which he has a better chance of understanding Brahman. ) Prakasananda dismissed any notion of liberation coming in gradual stages (e. g. first the jiva has to get higher births, and then in these more sattvik conditions of life he may come closer and closer to Brahman realization). Gradualism, Prakasananda contended, goes against monism. He rejected all notions of causation. When Sankaracarya wrote of Isvara and the modes of material nature as the engine of creation, he was just giving a metaphor. Another name for Prakasananda's philosophy is ajativada ("the philosophy that nothing is caused"). His doctrine is very close to the Sunyavada of the Buddhist acarya Nagarjuna.

<< Back