Notes on The Mind of Adi Shankaracharya

There is eternal argument about existence of god. Broadly speaking, a conflict between science and faith. I grew up believing in god and also believed in science. Then I went through a phase of crisis and became atheist or non-believer or anything you call a situation of not accepting god. That was a point of rebelliousness on my part I feel, after getting let down horrendously by someone (or something) I believed in.

But my theological journey did not end there. Because our mind never rests. It keeps on imagining, thinking, and questioning.  

Over the years so many questions rose in my mind. Believing in god might be irrational but is not believing in god rational? We shouldn’t believe in god because science supposedly tells us there is no creator or manager of the universe. Science can tell us everything we need to know. But can it? Where does the consciousness come from? If we try to imagine the whole universe and our lives then one has to accept till today science has at best explained only few of the phenomena we witness. But can faith explain all these? Is the absolute truth (if it exists at all) has anything to do with the conflict between science and faith?

So all these questions sprouting from my mind, have propelled me into an interesting journey of viewing the world around me in new lights. My guides in this journey are astrophysics, surrealistic literature and Hindu philosophy. (Disclaimer: I am not claiming to be knowledgeable in any of these areas. At best, I am trying to be a beginner)

Why Hindu philosophy, you may ask. Because is not Hindu philosophy is equivalent to believe in one of those crores of gods? Actually it is not. I was under the same misconception till I read Founders of Philosophy couple of years back.  Hindu philosophy is about higher knowledge. Then why most of us practising Hindus don’t know that?

What I hate about our education system is the way we understand our own people, culture, and history through the eyes of the western people, culture, and history. For instance, if something is great in India then it has to be proclaimed as some second best western thing. For instance Khajjar is India’s Switzerland. Emperor Samudragupta is India’s Napoleon and Kalidas is India’s Shakespeare. Who cares if both Samudragupta and Kalidas lived and flourished much before the said western people. And also unlike Napoleon Samudragupta was never defeated. Kalidas’s writing style is very different than Shakespeare.

The Mind of Adi Shankaracharya, written by Y. Keshava Menon is another step for me in the direction of comprehending India and Hindu philosophy as an Indian.

I remember in primary school, while reading about religious founders, there were few vague lines about Adi Shankaracharya. Jesus Christ founded Christianity, Hazrat Mohammad founded Islam, and Guru Nanak founded Sikhism. These are straight forward facts. The child me wondered about the legitimacy of Shankaracharya as fouder of Hinduism, when he was clearly born after the eras of Ramayana and Mahabharata.

Once again, Amar Chitra Katha came to my rescue. I got to know Shankaracharya infused new life to Sanatana Dharma in a phase when Buddhism was widespread In India. To make the Hindu philosophy more approachable to common practitioner he wrote interpretations of many ancient texts.

He also made the religion more organised. Institutionalised the religion to some extent by establishing 4 mathas at the 4 corners of India.

For some reasons I had thought he is a Shaivite (worshipper of lord Shiva exclusively) and also I had thought most of South Indians are Shaivites.

Like many misleading concepts on history we read in our school history books, this one is another huge one creating a gulf between North India and South India. For some reasons the “historians” who wrote our history textbooks were quite keen on showing North India and South India are dissimilar from each other in every matter including culture, religion, ancestry etc. It is shocking the way they claim to be spreading the idea of India as a unified nation, while all the time inculcating young mind with the idea separatism.

The empirical facts give a different narrative. Shankara was Advaita Vadi and also he worshipped multiple gods. With true wisdom he searched the Brahman. These concepts will be clarified later.

Side bar: There are many big Shiva temples and shrines in North India including the Kashi Vishwanath Temple. Whereas South India is full of Vaishnava temples, from Tirupati to Mamallapuram. The origin of the idea of Shankara as Shaivite, according to the writer Menon, goes back to the force behind the independent India’s curriculum, Jawaharlal Nehru. It seems he has described in his book Glimpses of World History, Shankara as a Shaivite.

Here I should clarify about few of the terms used by me in this piece.

Acharya is a Sanskrit word, which means a spiritual teacher. Shankaracharya’s name is Shankara, which is one of the names of lord Shiva. He is known as Shankaracharya (Shankara+Acharya) for his status as the spiritual teacher. I am referring him both as Shankara and Shankaracharya.

Secondly, Hindu is a term given by outsiders. Indians don’t have a proper term for the followers of this religion. In India some refers to Hindu religion as Sanatana Dharma. I am using Hinduism and Sanatana Dharma interchangeably.

While writing Sanskrit words in roman script, I have mostly used the spelling used in the book.

In this musing I will sum up the book chapter wise first and then give an overall personal assessment of the book.

CHAPTER-WISE SUMMING UP

1. INTRODUCTION

Already I have written how it is a well established misconception that Shankara is a Shaivite. This is not the only misconception surrounding Shankara. In a very well written introduction the writer has covered many such misconceptions including one which proclaims he is one of the earliest communists! Over the years there has been creation of myths about Shankara’s life. These myths make him some kind of super human with special powers. The myths are part of the misconceptions too. These misconceptions make it difficult to analyse Shankara’s works objectively.

Then the writer has made few valid points about terminologies, languages, and concepts getting lost in translation.

For any school of philosophy terminologies and languages are of utmost important. In ancient time students of philosophy in India used to study language (mostly Sanskrit) for more than a decade before progressing to philosophy.

The writer feels the implications of Indian philosophies have been misunderstood widely. Firstly, because of approximation of Sanskrit terminologies while translating. Secondly, our country has an education system currently which has broadly western sensibilities. 

Here an interesting thing comes to my mind. We don’t have an Indian word for religion. We use the word “Dharma” as the meaning of religion but actually “Dharma” means duty. When we say Sanatana Dharma or Hindu Dharma we literally mean what is the duties of a person following Sanatani marga (path).

The chief theological and philosophical texts of India are the Vedas and Upanishads.

When the cornerstone of any philosophy becomes translation/interpretation in terms of western theology and philosophy inaccuracies bound to arise. The religious texts of Abrahamic religions calls for literal interpretations while Vedas and Upanishads need analytical and logical approach. The devotion to a personal god is the ultimate goal of Abrahamic religions while in Sanatani Dharma devotion to a personal god is one of wrings in the ladder.

Shankara believing in Vedas is different then western theologians believing bible. Western theologians believe in bible because it contains “words of God” while Shankara believes in Vedas because it narrates the proven truth as experienced by many scholars before him.

2. THE GENERAL BACKGROUND

This chapter covers the framework of scriptures on which Shankara’s works are based on. These scriptures are written in Sanskrit. Sanskrit is to Indian spiritualism and languages what Greek and Latin are to western spiritualism and languages. Yet the parallel characteristic is limited. In contrast to ancient Greek and Latin, Sanskrit is still a big part of Indian culture and religion.

According to the writer the three scriptures of Hindu canon are:  

1. VEDAS

Vedas are basic scriptures of Hinduism. Vedas are divided in four parts. Each part has a main portion known as Samhita. Samhitas are generally in form of hymn. Apart from Samhita there are two parts written in prose form. One is Brahmana. It has the rituals of a householders. The second one is Aranyaka (forest book). Aranyaka has rules of sacrifices and worship for those people who have left the worldly life and living in forests as … Aranyaka goes beyond rituals. The rules are of higher form compared to the rules given for householders. Some Upanishads are associated with each Veda.

The Vedas are known as the spiritual institute of Hinduism.

The time period of …. Vedas is unknown as every other time period in ancient India. The hymns are estimated to have written over centuries, from 2000 B.C. to 1000 B.C. Many things about the society of those time can be concluded from reading Vedas. The priest’s office (that means anyone in that position) was important, but the caste system was not yet developed.

Vedas are also known as Shruti, which means “to listen”. They are supposed to be only listened and memorised. It should not be recorded or transcribed. In later period, Vedas are collected and classified by different scholars. Broadly Vedas are classified in 4 kinds.

I. Rig Veda

In this section I did not find anything on Rig Veda, not even a mention.

II. Sama Veda

– Consists of two parts: Samhita and Gana (tune book)

–  Brahmana – technical matters related to priests’ rituals

– Associated Upanishads – Chandogya and Kena

III. Yajur Veda

Exists broadly in two versions

– Black (obscure) Yajur Veda

– combination of at least 3 earlier forms, which have Yajus (sacrificial prayers) and Brahmanas are mixed

– Associated Upanishads – Taittiriya, Mahanarayana, Katha, Svetasvara, and Maitrayani  

– White (lucid) Yajur Veda

– There are two later versions where texts are reorganised to separate the Mantras (prayers) section from Brahmanas

– Associated Upanishadas – Isa and Brihadaranyaka

According to the writer Brihadaranyaka is the most important Upanishads.

IV. Atharva Veda

               – Traditionally associated with two mythical priest families: the Atharvans and the Angiras

               – Associated with superstitious practices like magical rites, suitable for people at lower stage of social and religious advancement

               – This is the last Veda to be recognised while most poorly preserved…..  

– Associated Upanishads – Mundaka, Prasna, Mandukya

2. BHAGAVAD GITA

It is a well known fact that Bhagavad Gita is part of the epic poem Mahabharata. Lord Shri Krishna in a philosophical discourse teaches Arjuna about duty, life, and afterlife on battle field. Like Vedas, this also must have written by multiple writers over the years. The time of this work is estimated to be between 300 B.C. to 200 A.D.

Gita is intellectually the subordinate to Vedas. It is called smriti (memory).

Gita is known as the institute of tradition in Hinduism. 

3. BRAHMA SUTRAS

The Sutras give essence of commentary on Vedas and Upanishads in smallest possible words. This might be to spread the essence of scriptures among the mass with minimal use of precious writing materials.

Like Vedas Brahma Sutras are called Shruti too.

The Brahma Sutras are known as the rational institute of Hinduism.

SOME CONCEPTS WHICH NEED MENTION

I. Vedanta

Vedanta is combination of two words Veda+Anta(end). Depending on the use of the two words in relation to each other, Vedanta is interpreted in different ways by different scholars. Majority of Vedic scholars interprets Vedanta as Upanishads, which comes after (at the end of) Vedas.    

II. Buddhism

In Shankara’s life time Buddhism started its downward spiral in India after achieving the zenith.

SHANKARA

As mentioned above, there are many myths surrounding the life of Shankara. Most of those consequence of him being a child prodigy and in the massiveness of his achievements in a short life. He studied all available original scriptures, he wrote commentary on them, he wrote original works, and most importantly he travelled all over the India to spread his wisdom.

Most probably he lived in 800 A.D. Around 400 works are attributed to Shankar. Only 24 out of the 400 are authenticated to be really by him. His works are not exotically oriental. His philosophy has universal appeal. Present book covers –

I. Shankara’s commentaries all three institutes of Hinduism

II. A metrical cum prose work named Upadesasahasri by Shankara

III. A poetical work by Shankara named Vivekachudamani

IV. Some hymns written by Shankara

3. SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE

Shankara considers Brahman as the supreme being. Is it the ultimate god? In Shankara’s philosophy Brahman is the ultimate truth and maybe the ultimate god for its believers. It has created everything. It is nirguna or it has no quality. At least it does not have the qualities we have ever known of. It is not easy to understand Brahman. We are surrounded by Maya or illusions. The world we see is a Maya superimposed on the Brahmana. Taking out the illusions all around us, we need to see the truth.

There is a part of the Brahman is inside us as our essence. That self is our truest form. The first step towards recognising Brahman is to recognise our own true self.

In this chapter the writer constantly compares the ideas of Christianity with Shankara’s ideas. The objective is chiefly to give context to non-Hindu or/and non-Indian readers.

As we know Hindus worship many gods. This is comparable to Christians worshipping Jesus Christ, Mother Mary, or the Trinity. The highest point in both cases is full devotion to the respective gods. That is the zenith of Christianity. But in case of Hinduism that phase is the lowest phase. If one wants to know the true knowledge they need to shed Avidya or false knowledge and climb up and up. Because according to Shankara the personal gods are part of illusion too. But this does not imply being devoted to personal gods is in any way wrong. It is one of the lowest wrings in the ladder. Without stepping on it one can’t climb higher.

The point to be noted here is Shankara did not advance any new doctrine. He worked on Vedas and Upanishads.

In Vedas also Shankara has distinguished between higher knowledge and lower knowledge. The rituals, hymns, and prayers in Vedas given for householders are lower knowledge. The portions of Vedas intented for the persons who have renounced the worldly life… are higher knowledge.

Shankara did not use reasoning or empirical evidence as method of proof.

When we use reason to proof something we need to assume a statement axiomatically to further our argument. So reasoning can’t go back beyond a certain point. At that point we need to assume some fact. Or some time we proof A is correct because of B and B is correct because of C and so on. When we need to prove C we have to go on the other direction. C is correct because B and then A are corrects. Thus some time reasoning goes circular. The scope of reason is limited. If we follow western philosophical terminologies then in that sense Shankara is not a rationalist. But in his own way he is rational. Here I want to point out again the peril of seeing everything through western ideas.  

Empirical evidence he rejects on the basis of the fact that things we witness or perceive are not correct all the time. For instance we may see Sun rises in the east but actually sun does not rise. Earth’s revolution… around sun gives us this idea.

Shankara’s logic is intuitive based on true knowledge and experience. 

Man’s finite mind can’t contain… infinite truth and Brahmana. Human must use any tool they have.

A student desiring to study higher knowledge must have these qualifications

– ability to distinguish between the seen (temporary phenomena) and the unseen (eternal)

– indifference towards any kind of pleasure or reward, not even the expectation of some kind of heaven in afterlife

– Self-discipline and self-control

– A strong desire to be liberated

It is to be noted here that a so called moral life including self-discipline and self-control are essential not because some personal god/deity or some religious text book dictates it. From the experiences of many scholars it has been found that with self-discipline and self-control, the intuitive power deepens which helps in attainment of higher knowledge.

Writer has written how western philosophers have always advocated intellectual process as the only method to find the truth. Here the problem, according to the writer is, each philosopher thinks the best contemporary intellectual method to be the best while these methods keep on improving with time. So the truth found 100 years back, used an inferior method compared to today. Then how valid is the “truth”? To give an instance, the great western philosopher George Hegel proved the most ideal form of government is the Prussian militarist state.

Shankara feels a student must apply his whole being and body to study. Applying only intellect to study is not enough. Living and experiencing are big part of learning.

Spiritual learning of a student starts only after choosing a guru (literal meaning is teacher but in ancient Indian tradition guru means a teacher and a spiritual guide) and then complete submission to them. Modern readers especially western readers may find this part strange. To explain the writer has given here the instance of sports coaches in western countries and their influence. The student should study Upanishads under initiation of their guru. My personal opinion is complete submission requires a true guru without any personal agenda. Where to find such a guru in today’s world!

The second part of spiritual learning is reasoning in students’ own mind. Reasoning is not for establishing any new truth. It is for dealing with self doubts regarding the true knowledge. Complete conviction is the final result.

The third part is meditation, which helps in identifying their individual self with the Brahman.

4. THE SELF

As written above, consciousness is maybe the most mysterious concept. This chapter explores Shankara’s philosophy on consciousness.

Writer has started the discussion by discussing our perception of the external. Suppose there is a table near us then we can see (which the writer calls the common sense view) the qualities of the table such as height, colour etc. But there is no way of knowing the table. We see the it is of brown coloured. But the scientists would say the table is not actually of brown colour. The light wave coming from it gives a specific reaction to our eyes which is processed by our brain as brown colour. Some philosophers think the table exists only till we see it. The moment it is out of our vision it ceases to exist. According to major Buddhist schools of philosophy the table has never existed. Like everything else it is an illusion too. However, according to Shankara there is no difference between us and the table. If I perceive the table then I am subject and the table is the object. Shankara feels the distinction between subject and object is purely illusory. Because

…my mind is in the world and the world is in my mind.

But what is my mind? For that we need to know “me” or “I”.

According to Shankara I can have 4 different meanings.

1. The inner consciousness or the knower

2. The “antahkarana” or inner organ

3. The ego

4. The “jiva” or soul

The present chapter focuses on the number one. The writer calls it Self (with capital S)

Characteristic of Self

Self is a surreal concept which can be realised only by intuition. There is no way one can know it through studying theories or empirical facts. There are few psychological instruments which might help in intuitive study.

It is a part of us which remains constant through time, experiences, and emotions. Have you ever felt among the voices in your head there is one impartial observer? Self is closest to that voice. Or some time we have this feeling of observing ourselves from outside as an Dispassionate observer in a time-stopping-around-us kind of way. This observer is the Self. No matter how less evolved one might be they have at least once a glimpse of this Self. Apart from this there is not much to describe the Self. Because Self is indescribable.

Only way to describe it is by pointing out what it is not. For instance the Self is neither soul nor mind. The Self is indivisible. It does not have individuality. The Self is called Atman in Sanskrit. Atman and Brahman are used interchangeably in Upanishads and in Shankara’s works. This shows the Self is universal in nature.

Self is not an attribute of consciousness because Self is consciousness. Brahman is the universal consciousness while Atman (Self) is the individual consciousness. And yet both are identical. The holder of true knowledge can see the universe inside them.

Matter and consciousness are different. Consciousness can be found in matters albeit not all matters (like dead bodies). But when Avidya is removed completely we can see consciousness is everywhere even without matter. Because as mentioned above the distinction between subject and object is illusory. The consciousness is inside my body, in my purse, and in the empty space in front of my face.

Consciousness is not senses. Otherwise for five senses there would be five consciousness of one single person.

Self is limitless, eternal, and without a second (Adwitiya).

Self is described in scriptures as the absolute existence, absolute consciousness, and absolute bliss.

Any person dear to us only because the Self within them is dear to us.

Although the Self is not bound by time we can’t see/hear simultaneously every time in the past, present, and future. We only see/hear the present time. That’s because there are two kinds of visions: seen by our mortal eyes (perceived by our antahkarana) and by our Self. Similarly there are two kinds of hearing: heard by our mortal ears (perceived by our antahkarana) and by our Self. When veil of avidya raised from antahkarana one may sense simultaneously all times.

 Some of the arguments for Self by Shankara

Buddhists feel there is no Self as everything is illusion. But Shankara retorts there has to be something to devise this idea of void or everything is illusion. A void can’t devise the idea of void.

Western philosophers give exclusive importance to our mental state. We know only our mental state. There can’t be any other existence other than us and our mental state. The writer has mentioned Hume in this regard. There can exist only us and our mental states. There is no point of introspection. However, in the end Hume had doubts on his own theory. In Shankara’s time there is a philosophical school in India with an idea close to Hume’s. Shankara counters them by citing mental state can’t illuminate itself. It needs Self to be illuminated. Mental state is transient. It can’t lead to a valid knowledge. To explain in simple words when we are in happy state of mind we suddenly decide the world is a beautiful place and in 5 minutes we are sad and then feel world is a terrible place. But deep inside our mind we know the world is in between these two extremes. I have of course over simplified the philosophy, but I hope you have got the idea.

From above it can be seen that Shankara’s arguments are intuitive. It is difficult to prove or disprove the idea of the Self backing fully with evidence. There is no need for an evidence backed proof because according to Shankara the Self is not inferred from something. It is the original truth.

Self can’t be proved by proofs. It can’t be denied because denying it by a consciousness implies existence of the Self. It can’t be grasped logically. It has to be grasped intuitively. The Self can be realised by a person when they remove Avidya (non-knowledge) from their mind.  Self is the basis of all knowledge.

The Self is without limit because awareness of limit arises when there is existence of something outside of limit.

The Self or consciousness is not perishable because perishable presupposes there should be a consciousness which is conscious of the perishability. This implies consciousness must exist at its point of destruction. That is not possible hence no point of destruction.

Self in other schools of philosophy

Shankara’s theory of Self is devoid of kind of dogmas including religious ones. It is universal. In other philosophies also one can find the idea of the Self.

Berkeley tried to find this Self. His search mostly stops at a spiritual level.

Christianity in general believes in supremacy of a personal god and his teachings but there are many Christian mystics who talked about ideas related to Self such as “kingdom of heaven” being inside us.

In Islam, Sufism, and Jewish tradition there is talk of knowing self for knowing god.

In Chinese culture Lao Tze talked about an infinite being.

Greek philosopher talked about “know thy self”

Thus writer has given how in many cultures and many philosophies there are mentions of Self. My personal view is in the instances he has given, in most cases “self” is used in the sense of our mind or our inner character. There is a big chance, as a philosophy novice I am incorrect though.

5. EPISTEMOLOGY

According to the writer, Shankara’s analysis of Antahkarana and the part it plays in the perceptive process through which we derive our empirical knowledge can be called his theory of psychology in Western terminology.

WHAT IS ANTAHKARANA

Antahakarana is our material mind or what we refer to as “mind” in our general conversations. Here I have referred to Antahkarana as mind.

It processes both intellectual thoughts and emotions.

Senses are the tools through which Antahkarana apprehends objects. On the other hand if Antahkarana is not in attention the senses may not work. For instance if our mind is distracted our sensory organs eyes may miss seeing something just in front of our face.

Antahkarana is neither infinitely small nor infinitely large.

It’s size, according to the writer, should be same as the body. As mind prevails all over the body.

It is shiny like a mirror, on which objects are manifested.

Its power is not inherent. It comes from mind’s association with the Self. The mind splits the Self in three parts

– the subject – who knows

– the object – the known  

– cognition – the process of knowing

Antahkarana is not a purely philosophical concept. Shankara regards it as a real object which can be detected through experience.

Philosophers have faced huddles in describing the relationship among the Self, mind, and the physical body. Shankara has said the Self contains mind. Mind reflects (does not contain) the Self. He has not worked on the interaction of body with the other two.

Western philosophers have focused on the relationship between mind and body. The Vedantic view on this relationship is – when the body comes across an object, a part of mind stays in the body and a second part of the mind streams out of the body through senses. A third part “modal knowledge’ connects the other two parts. Without mind sensory organs can’t percept any object. In absence of mind, it would be like a blind man staring at flower.

According to the Vedantic view there are two kinds of perceptions – one happens through senses and other one is not. For instance perception of sadness does not come through any sense.

The collection of deeds of perception creates memory.

Shankara views that Antahkarana makes an illusionary split of the Self. The illusion is one part of the Self is what inside us and the other one is the universal one (Brahman). But as we have already read the Self in us or outside us is the same indivisible one.

MIND AND OUTSIDE OBJECT UNDER DIFFERENT PHILOSOPHY

Idealist – Mind never makes contact with outside objects. It has ideas which can be representation of the objects outside. This implies mind can never understand outside thoroughly except just a representation of it from the ideas mind has. For instance looking at a man standing, mind may know the height, weight etc of the man. By talking to the man the mind may assess the man is honest, sincere etc. But mind can never know the man entirely from inside.

Realist – Mind is like a searchlight. It looks at the objects looks at the outside object and reports. There can’t be any mistake if mind has really observed the outside object.

Shankara – All errors in perception are located in Antahkarana

AVIDYA

The meaning of Vidya is close to enlightenment so Avidya might be translated as anti-entitlement. The writer describes Vidya as the empirical form of Maya. He is of the view there is no English counterpart of the word Maya, whereas roughly we refer Maya in English as illusion. Maya is the original material from which Avidya is created.

According to Shankara, there are three orders of reality

– the absolute: the Self alone illuminating itself

– the empirical: empirical perceptions

– the apparent: all illusory perceptions including dreams

One school postulates  all knowledge (empirical, spiritual etc) are self-evident. While the other school believes knowledge is only valid if passes certain tests. Shankara took the middle course. He says knowledge is self-evident only if it is free from any Dosa (defect). This defect may arise because of the way the knowledge is realised.  

6. COSMOLOGY

 External world/object

According to the philosophies of Buddhists and Hume there is no real world and we have no real self only succession of mental states. According to Shankara, we can’t declare something to be not-real if we can’t compare it with something which we think to be real. So there be bound to be something real.

He does not completely rule out the phenomenal world. He thinks there is a limited reality to it. It reflects the reality of Brahman.

Saguna and Nirguna

Objects can exist only in relation to a consciousness which can comprehend it. To understand the universe and the constant activities in it an infinite, omniscient, omnipotent mind is required. This infinite mind’s body is the universe and it is called Saguna.

The Brahman without any quality is called Nirguna. The Nirguna associated with a mind trying to comprehend the universe is called Saguna.

Stages of spirituality

Shankara understood the crave for the warmth and support of a personal god in an ordinary life. The next wring in the ladder is to understand Sanguna and the final stage is to know Nirguna.

Creation of the World

Personal god is core of Abrahamic religions. In these religions the god creates the universe. It implies god dwells outside of the universe. Shankar does not concur to this idea.

According to him, Brahman creates the universe using part of itself. It regularly absorbs the world in itself. Thus the cycle of creation and destruction has been going on forever without any beginning or end. Our limited mind wants a first cause or a beginning to comprehend but Brahman’s actions can’t be limited by our mind.

A substance with which Brahman creates universe is Maya, it is not illusion. So Maya is part of Brahman. Maya’s power is two folds. It creates and it also acts as a veil. As a veil it becomes source of Avidya and illusion.

In each cycle of creation, the first element created is Akasha (sky). It is the subtlest element. From it arises air, from air fire, from fire arises water, and from water earth. In dissolution the sequence is exactly opposite.

Writer has written a parallel can be found in modern science, which states common particles electron, proton, and neutron have created everything in the universe. Other parallel idea is the connection between energy and matter. Brahman creates matter out of energy from a common raw material.

Creation of Human

Human is created from different elements. Antahakarana is created out of earth, the prana or vital organs out of water, and vak or speech out of fire. Souls enter into bodies and create four classes of living beings: gods, men, animals, and plants.

Men have growing power of plants, moving and sensing powers of animals, and also have powers of reasoning, determination, discrimination, and willing. Men with good actions can become gods.

Actions and Consequences

In Abrahamic religions one goes to heaven if they are true to their gods. In Sanatana dharma the belief is good actions lead to a good life in next birth and bad actions lead to an inferior rebirth. It is in a being’s hand to improve their actions and Karma. In the end each being get Nirvana by getting absorbed by the Brahman.     

How can the perfect Brahman create a world with evil and imperfections

This query arises because we perceive evil from our perspective. Like the Corona endemic is bad for humans but if we look at it from the Covid virus’s perspective then the virus flourished during the endemic. Brahman treats every being equally. At the same time as mentioned above every bad action has its consequence.

And also there actually no “I” as every being is part of Brahman. So no question of “I” suffering from anything.

After a creation cycle everything gets reabsorbed in Brahman. The imperfections become perfection inside Brahman. Like when a pot is turns out imperfect the potter presses it back to the clay dough and put back with the original clay. There is no remnant of the badly made pot in the clay.  

What is the external world if everything is the same

FEW QUESTIONS IN MY MIND

Even if there is no “I” still there is suffering and flaws. What could be the reason behind these sufferings and flaws?

How could there be an object to be perceived if everything is the same singularity?

The absolute truth is gained when all kinds of pluralities in terms of time, space, and everything else are lost, we reach at the singularity before the Big Bang. So, what is the point of anything? Especially why would the oh-so-perfect Brahman would engage infinitely in the futile activity of creating and destroying an external world? Shankara says the creation is done by a part of Brahman not by it. Why this absolute consciousness is so clueless about what a part of it has been doing?

Or maybe, as Shankara has said, my finite mind is not able to comprehend the infinite Brahman.

Finally, how significant I might be I would like to be “me” not a part of something grand like Brahman.

7. MAYA AND AVIDYA

CHARASTICS OF MAYA

1. Relationship with Brahman is beginning-less and is same as the relationship between the energy and energiser. Brahman is the energiser imparting energy on Maya.

2. It has two powers: creation power and veiling power. It becomes source of illusion because of its power of veiling

3. It is beyond logic and rationalisation

4. It is neither real nor unreal

5. Neither positive nor negative

6. It cannot be explained or defined

ILLUSION

Maya is translated to English as illusion but it is a wrong interpretation. Illusion is a side effect of the veiling characteristic of Maya. Broadly, in two ways illusions are caused. Firstly, due to perception – a half-hidden sea shell in sand may look like silver. Secondly due to the way an inherent quality is interpreted by our common sense. The writer considers this the deeper illusion. The example is, suppose we see sugar look alike silica on dining table. Our common sense would perceive the silica as sugar because of its look and also because of its presence on the dining table.

AVIDYA

Maya and Avidya are almost similar but there are subtle differences.

For concepts in relation with Brahman, Maya is used. While in relation to the personal conciousness Atman, Avidya is used. So Avidya is individualistic while Maya is universal. Maya is the creative process while Avidya is how the creative process looks from individual perspective. Since from individual perspective most of the time the reality is hidden, Avidya is associated with veiling.  

The world which we see normally is termed as phenomenal world in the book and the experiences in this world are termed as empirical.

Avidya literally translates to “absence of knowledge”. But actually Avidya is not a negative world. It contains all the knowledge of the material world. It helps a person in crossing death while Vidya helps the person in achieving immortality.

Like everything else Avidya originates from Brahman. It does not originate from Atman (Brahman in individual form) because individuality itself is a product of Avidya.

Time is a product of Avidya.

Avidya is inexplicable like other concepts of Advitva (non-duality).

Avidya dwells in our Antahkarana (inner organ), which consists of Manasa (mind), Buddhi (intellect), and Chitta (attention). Using these three we can remove Avidya and the veils created by it.

JIVA

Jiva is combination of Atman (the brahman or consciousness inside an individual) and Avidya (power to create appearances or power of veiling).

Nature of Jiva is core to Shankara’s philosophy. The writer has mentioned Jiva is individual soul and Atman is the part of Brahman inside us. If Avidya is removed from Jiva we get Atman. The emotions desires, yearning etc exhibited by Jiva origin from the Avidya in it.

Antahkarana is an attribute of Jiva and a limitation of Jivasakshin. Jivasakshin is the Atman but limited by the antahkarana. Here the point to be pondered is that Avidya dwells in Antahkarana.

Jiva contains the following limiting adjuncts (upadhia) in ascending order fineness:

1. The material: people with most materialistic outlook have this outer sheath

2. The vital or sheath of breath: The people who recognise all living beings are different than inert/inorganic/dead materials have removed the outer layer and at the second layer.

3. The mental: Those who understand and feel the nature, have removed both outer layers or sheaths. They are at the third one.

4. The intellectual or the sheath of the buddhi: Those who can comprehend abstract ideas about the world have removed 3 layers and at the 4.

5. The blissful: If one can feel pure joy from art and literature then they have reached at the last sheath.

These are also called sheaths veiling the pure consciousness. As the sheaths are removed from Jiva, sheaths become finer and finer.

To remove all sheaths one has to be detached towards the sheaths, as they remove one after another till they reach at pure consciousness.

It has to be remembered that Jiva progresses not by dismissing these sheaths or Avidya but by understanding them. For instance the material sheath is related to our body. That sheath is removed not by killing the body but by mastering over the body. The blissful sheath is a rehearsal of feeling pure joy after attaining pure consciousness.

I find parallel here with the Goddess Kali’s devotees who engage in activities considered conventionally taboo to understand the world better and to get close to the Goddess.

The sheaths are removed as written before, by activities of Antahkarana. The writer says in these activities, the Chitta or concentration is most important.

The sheaths in Jiva maybe regrouped in 3 entities of body corresponding to three states of conciousness:

1. The material body: the only part which goes away at death, the rest are immortal. This corresponds to the waking state.

2. The subtle body: This includes the mental and intellectual sheaths along the five senses; corresponds to the state of dream in sleep

3. The causal body: corresponds to the dreamless sleep state when the Self returns to its original form of the non-dualistic

A liberated person can be conscious of all three states in their waking state.

The Self being at the core of three bodies is called Jivasakshin.

 Ultimately, the writer states, the real truth is Brahman everything else is just our perception or vantage points of looking at it.

8. SELF IN THREE STATES

In the last chapter the writer has introduced the concept of three states of consciousness: waking, dreaming in sleep, and dreamless sleep. This chapter discusses in detail about these states.

The writer starts by criticising western philosophical theories for not covering dream and sleep at all. With their fixation on subject and object, they should have been interested in deep sleep when the subject disappears.

Dreams are studied by western scholars only as a psychological phenomenon that too from the perspective of the waking consciousness.

Sleep in important because it is the death of each day’s life.

Materialists’ views: They are forced to accept subject as one of the objects in the world because the world exists before the rise of the consciousness and after the fall of it. This leads to the paradox of the world existing in the mind and mind existing in the world. Some tried to take care of this by saying mind is not real. But if it is not real, why is it giving this opinion or any opinion for that matter!

 Only thing, according to the writer, makes sense is if there is an observer/consciousness inside us which observes both subjects and objects.

WAKING STATE

Phenomenal world is perceived by only the waking consciousness not our complete consciousness. Writer is saying western philosophies are incomplete as they deal with only part of our consciousness. 

Ego is confined to waking state only. Jiva’s contact with the phenomenal world happens only in waking state. The writer has mentioned the individuality of a person exists only in this state. In the remaining two states it does not exist. I am no expert, but does not individuality exist in our dream state? At least to some extent?

DREAM STATE

Dream state includes the dream in sleep, day dreaming and illusory beliefs.

SIMILARITIES BETWEEN WAKING STATE AND DREAM STATE

1. Realities of both states are not absolute.

2. Subject, object, and relative realities for both states are created by the Self.

3. Avidya creates perceptions and illusions in both cases.

4. There is an underlying consciousness, which contains in both states.

DISSIMILARITIES BETWEEN WAKING STATE AND DREAM STATE   

1. Both states have correspondingly their own relative realities.

2. The waking ego and dreaming ego are both different entities. They move in different ways in different worlds. The dreaming ego does not ever wake up and the waking ego does not dream.

3. Dreaming consciousness is private. It is limited to the dreamer. When they wake up the dream world creases to exist. Whereas waking world belongs to waking consciousness of everyone. It does not cease to exist if one person stops waking and starts dreaming or sleeping.

DREAMLESS DEEP SLEEP

In this state the jiva merges with Brahman and consciousness is pure. There is no existence of individuality. But even in this situation Atman is covered with a thin veil this stops Atman from becoming simultaneously the consciousness of the world.

SAMADHI OR TURIYA

In this state the Jiva becomes one with Brahman even more than deep sleep state. Atman becomes Brahman. Pure consciousness is achieved.

  9. ETHICS

Ethics is not only an extensive but also quite confusing field. This chapter contrasts the views on ethics by western philosophers and Hindu philosophy (more specifically Shankara’s philosophy).

WESTERN PHILOSOPHY

The writer has given an overview on western philosophy. The salient points of the overview dealing with diverse views of the western philosophers:

1. Plato’s Republic: Human beings are basically selfish creature and don’t care about ethics. Over time they realise the advantage of living in society. Ethics is developed to adapt to an amicable lifestyle in society.

2. Ethical nihilism: The good and bad are personal illusions

3. Ethical silence: A person comprehend good and evil in their mind but can’t communicate to others

4. The definitions of good and evil change over time, place, and the concerned philosopher.

5. Western philosophy has a utilitarian view on ethics – the pursuit should be for the greatest good of the greatest number. The pursuit must produce results in the material world. Over time the net benefit must increase. While Hindu philosophy says net benefit always stays constant. Development is a zero sum game.

6. Western philosophy broadly deals with the phenomenal world so society is the ends for them while for Hindus society is a means. The western philosophy gives rise to the idea of protecting their society/unit at any cost because their unit is the best. This leads to classism, casteism, jingoistic nationalism, attacking other countries etc. On the other hand, the Hindu philosophy dictates as a citizen of a country the person must fulfil his duty to the country, not because their country is the best. But along being citizen of the country they are also the citizen of the world so they can’t harm another country without provocation.

FREE WILL AND DETERMINISM

Ethics is meaningless if there is no free will and everything is predetermined by some kind of god. While western view endorses determinism Hindu philosophy is about determinism. At every point one has the option to choose the better “Karma” (job).

HINDU ETHICS

Good and evil have relative existence. Each of our action either take us nearer to the final destination or father from it. Bad actions take us away from the final destination while good actions take us nearer to it. In the long run, which covers birth after birth, we are constantly moving towards the realisation of pure consciousness (or Nirvana in common language). So following blindly a god is not the way to the salvation for Hindus like Abrahamic religions. Our redemption lies with good Karma.

Our present suffering is result of bad Karma we did in this life or in a previous life. (I am referring to reincarnation here). We can have a better future in this life and/or in next life by doing good Karma.

Right kind of pleasures and right kind of actions lead to liberation (nirvana). Reading and enjoying this book is right kind of pleasure while stealing money to enjoy few days in Goa is not right kind of pleasure.

What is Karma?

As written above Karma’s literal translation is job. In ancient India caste system was not rigid. It was distribution of professions based on talent. So let’s discuss Karma in terms of duty of a profession. Killing is bad but if one is a professional soldier it is their duty to kill enemy soldiers. When they perform their duty of their profession that is not bad Karma. Ancient Indian culture stresses on Dharma (literally can be translated to duty) aspect of Juddha (war). This states in a war any civilian must not be harmed in any way. So during war if a soldier kills children or rapes, those are bad Karma.

But a person is not only their profession. The person is a parent, a friend, a neighbour, a citizen etc. The duties as each aspect of their persona must be done.

Some schools of Indian philosophy stress on Karma Kanda (rituals) as part of duties. Shankara also favours it but only as a minor mode to pure consciousness. The ultimate mode for him is true knowledge of Brahman.

A person with evolved soul (implies nearer to Nirvana) does his duties with detachment. 

Hindu philosophy has both subjective and objective aspects.

Subjective aspects: asceticism (sanyasa) and harmlessness (Ahimsa)

Sanyasa is not for everyone. When time is right and Jiva is at the correct place one can adopt this path. But it does not necessarily mean leaving home and staying in forest. One can go on living normal life but their actions should be Sanyasa like. They must carry on with their duties with detachment, especially detachment towards the result of the action. (Remember Shri Krishna’s advice to Arjuna in Gita). Hindu philosophy does not prescribe any kind of masochistic practices for becoming a Sanyasi.

Objective aspects: Dharma (duty)

Many Indian philosophers have listed the virtuous actions as guides for Dharma. From these lists, two important western philosophers’ virtues courage and justice are missing. That’s because courage is only a means in Hindu tradition. With courage is right action is not done it becomes bad. If everyone follows the right actions and right pleasures, justice automatically follows.    

But looking at the aspects in full context we can see subject and object are essential the same.

Avidya gives the idea that we are different than other. According to Shankara this is the root cause of our sufferings.  

Since every being including the person themselves is Brahman itself, every being is divine. Every being should be revered and shown kindness. Here being follows the Hindu tradition, that is, each and every living thing.

GURU

In recent centuries Guru has become a dirty word with so many immoral people pretending to be guru. A true guru is important to initiate one towards Sanyasa or final liberation. 

10. SUMMUM BONUM

The literal meaning of summum bonum is the ultimate goal. This chapter covers the topics on life after death of mortal body.

FOUR STEPS TO SPIRITUAL PROGRESS GIVEN BY SHANKARA

1. People guided by instincts and impulses and aren’t disciplined by any scriptures, Vedas, or any other higher laws. They are reborn as low form of organisms.

2. People follow Vedic rules but without gaining wisdom or piety. After death they are sent to the lunar regions as their reward. They live there till the result of their good Karma exhausts, then they are reborn.

3. People who follow scriptures, avoid taboos, and deeply devoted to personal god. There are several personal gods, highest among them is Hiranyagarbha or Ishvara. After death they live in Brahmaloka with gods at the feet of the highest God till in the end they merge with Brahman.

4. People who achieve the highest form of knowledge/consciousness. It corresponds to the state of samadhi. These people are called Jivanmukta. After getting liberation they continue to live till their accumulated Karma account is sorted. After death they merge with Brahman and become free from rebirth. Some liberated souls opt for rebirth willingly to help people.

Looking at liberation in full context it is illusionary because the absolute knowledge and/or consciousness exist forever. But from our views we need to remove the veils of Avidya.

WHAT HAPPENS AFTER MERGING WITH BRAHMAN

The merging with Brahman is sounding like the science fiction idea of uploading our brain to clous post-death. But actual liberation is more than uploading only the brain, it is uploading the whole being. Hence it is scary because it is like death. One ceases to exist. We find the idea scary only because we have the illusion of an individual ego.

It is not possible to say exactly what happens after merging with Brahman because Brahman is indescribable so is the merging with it. Still the writer has tried to describe it. It is like a blissful and conscious death.

Like last chapter, here too the writer has stressed on a true Guru. He also has written journey becomes easier in the company of like minded people.

11. APPENDIX

This chapter discusses the life of Shankara. Doing any kind of historical research on a person from ancient India is difficult because:

History is so much adulterated with folklores and mythologies that finding facts from the available narrations is almost impossible.

Indian writers and philosophers have this habit of giving credit of their works to gods/mythical person/a famous person. Recognising the real works of a person is tough.

The physical evidences are gone with time and also because of systematic destruction by the invaders and the latter day rulers.

Writer has tried to give a life story of Shankara devoid of any fantasy. His chief source is Shankara’s biography attributed to Vidyaranya. The writer has tried to take out all unrealistic facts from the biography.

Shankara was born to a Brahmin couple in Kerala, most probably in the last part of the eighth century. He left home to become an asceticism. Most probably he was a prodigy and finished learning fast. After that he wrote his original works. He travelled all over India to spread his non-duality philosophy. He established learning centres at many parts of India. He debated with many contemporaries and defeated them.

In his time Hindus worship one single god (either Vishnu or Shiva or Goddess Shakti etc.). He spread the words to worship all the gods together. He has also written some works in praise of these personal gods. To reach at Brahman, the road goes through worshipping these gods. The less evolved souls need the personal gods to reach at a higher plain.

It seems tough he has accomplished so much only in his 32 years of mortal life. Some historians theorise his mortal life was actually for 92 years.

MY TWO PENNIES

Ancient India had many schools of philosophy. Advaita or non-dualism is one of the major schools. Shankara with his hard work and intelligence made it the core of the Indian philosophy. He has also reformed the Sanatana Dharma.

The present book is meant for both Indian readers and non-Indian readers. The writer has tried to show the difference in the style and thoughts of Christianity/western philosophy and Hindu philosophy at each step. This will give context to the western readers.

His language is straight forward thankfully because I have been reading a lot of books with a need for an editor with huge red pencil in hand. The language of the book is Indian English. I don’t feel anyone going all elite on it. If millions of people are using this form of English then why it is not as valid as American English or Australian English!

There are a little part which might feel like “lost in translation” because of using English language for an Indian concept. But that has happened on rare occasions.

Shankara’s theory is too abstract for a beginner hence both Shankara and scholars of his works have heavily taken help of metaphors to explain the abstract concepts. Writer has also used many real life metaphors/examples to illustrate the abstract theories.

I would say the book is must read for any beginner interested in Shankara’s philosophy.