quote:
Christi,
I am confused by your post and was wondering if you got it backwards. I thought Shankara was talking from the stand point of Advaita. In Advaita as in the Vedanta of the Upanishads, the existence of this manifested world (Prakriti) itself is denied. The manifested world (Prakriti) that we perceive as real, is many times compared to the dreams that appear and disappear in the state of sleep. The Prakriti or manifested world is completely denied as non-existent in advaita and vedanta, if I understand it right. It is said that the manifested world is projected by our senses, similar to how our mind can project the dream worlds while we sleep. We easily understand that the dream world did not exist -- after we wake up -- and was just a projection of our mind. But to understand that the manifested world (Prakriti) is also a dream experienced or projected through the senses and to wake up from that dream is explained as enlightenment in the upanishads. So, Shankara claims he is none of the aspects of the Prakriti or the manifested world (since Prakriti or the manifested world that we see as real did/does not exist in the first place!) So, there remains only ONE who is the Purusha. Therefore it is called advaita, since it accepts the reality of the only one truth, the Brahman.
But Krishna was acknowledging the Prakriti (the manifested world), claiming that it was part was his lower nature, and the Purusha to be his higher nature. Krishna came down from the stand point of the highest Upanishads and Vedanta, where the manifested world is out-rightly rejected as non-existent, and claimed as just a projection of the senses. He accepts the validity of the manifested world (Prakriti), but claims it is of his lower nature (The moment he brought lower and higher, we are not in the realm of advaita). So, he is talking from the stand point of dvaita, right? He accepts both Purusha and Prakriti. So, there is more than ONE, hence dvaita or duality or the plurality of the manifested world.
Regards,
Ram
Hi Ram,
Yes, it sounded like it was the wrong way round didn’t it. I’ll try and explain more clearly.
![[:)]](http://www.aypsite.com/plus-forum/Smileys/akyhne/icon_smile.gif "Smile")
As you know, Adi Shankara taugh what is called Advaita Vedanta. For Adi Shankara, the world was an illusion (as you say), but not non-existent, just illusory. For him the only true reality was Brahman, and the atman (soul of the individual) is, in it's highest reality (it's enlightened state), one with Brahman. For Adi Shankara, as the creation is illusory, Brahman, being absolutely real, is attributeless. In other words, for him, Brahman alone is truly existent, the world is illusory (but existent on some level), and the realized soul is merged with Brahman. This is what he called advaita, the unification of the atman with the attributeless Brahman, with all that is ultimately real. That is why he made the satement that you quoted at the top of the page: "I am neither the mind, nor the intellect etc..."
But what is usually referred to as advaita is not really advaita, because actually there is still separation. "I am this, I am not that...", "I am pure being, I am not this body...etc.". It is still in the realm of dvaita, two things, one thing identified with, the other denied.
The next level (higher level) of realization takes us to the place where everything is included and known to be a part of the Self. Creation is seen to be flowing continuously from the unborn, and is not separate from it in any way. In truth, Prakriti and Purusha are one. So the dualities are accepted, and united. This is the true meaning of advaita, non-duality, unity, oneness.
Adi Shankara represents the first stage of the journey, the going out with the denial of the world as illusion (neti, neti). Sri Krishna, represents the second stage, the coming back with the acceptance of all things as the Self. The first is a journey of bliss, the second is a journey of love. The state that Sri Krishna taught from is sometimes referred to as the realization of Brahman with attributes. In other words the soul (atman) is merged with Brahman who is all (both form and formless).
This knowing, that Brahman is not only the principle and creator of all there is, but is also the sum totality of the universe and its phenomena, is the highest teaching of the Upanishads, and it is this that Krishna taught.
You can see the way in which apparent duality is merged into non-duality in this verse of the Mudaka Upanishad:
“Om- That supreme Brahman is infinite, and this conditioned Brahman is infinite. The infinite proceeds from infinite. Then through knowledge, realizing the infinitude of the infinite, it remains as infinite alone.”"That supreme Brahman" is the attributeless transcendental Brahman (Purusha), "this conditioned Brahman" is the phenomenal universe (Prakriti).
quote:
PS: In another part of Gita, Krishna himself makes statements that is contradictory to his own acceptance of the reality of Prakriti.
Remember that the Bagavad Gita is a training manual, not an essay on the nature of reality. Krishna is speaking to Arjuna who is still lost in the dream of body identification. So he is taking him from there on a long journey to enlightenment. On the way he sometimes stresses some aspects of realization, and at other times, other aspects. At first he says to Arjuna (paraphrasing): “You are not this…, you are not that…”, leading him towards realization of the attributeless Brahman. In the end he says (again paraphrasing): “I am all”.
Christi
