Question on Sankhya prakruti versus Advaita maya from Vedanta Paribhasha

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram all,

I have a question regarding note#9 on page#41 in the English translation of Vedanta Paribhasha (Advaita Ashrama edition - fourteenth reprint).

There is a sentence in the footnote where Swamiji says "If the Sankhyan view of Prakrti is modified so as to make it sentient and dependant on God, then Vedanta will have no objection to accepting it as a synonym of maya."

I understand the relationship of dependence, but I do not understand the usage and context of the word 'sentient' with respect to prakruti or maya. Is Prakruti or Maya in Advaita considered to be sentient? Could someone please clarify this point?

Thank you!

prostrations,

Vikram

[Bhaskar YR]

Is Prakruti or Maya in Advaita considered to be sentient?

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

mAya is shakti and mAyin is shaktivanta, there is no difference in these two says bhAshyakAra.  However there is a trend that equates mAya with avidyA in Advaita vedAnta.  And that avidyA shakti is brahmAshrita so says some mUlavidyAvAdins.  That aside, the Chaitanya (sentient) is only one in Advaita no second Chaitanya entertained in Advaita.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Vikram Ji,

Please refer BSB 1-4-3. I think your question is answered there. 

You may also  like to refer to BSB 1-4-8 for a discussion on the Sv. Up mantra referred to in the Foot Note in VP mentioned by you.

Regards

Virus-free.www.avast.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAM7AOLfpzFw4Rj-qBuuj8qEot9FtZCGxQi2EoKZ8D06B_aJ-Zw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Shri Bhaskar ji,

Thank you for your response. The last statement that Chaitanya (pure sentience) is the only sentient entity and whatever appears to be other than sentience is mithya and insentient - is my current understanding. But I am not able to understand Swamiji's statement.

Namaskaram Shri Chandramouli ji,

Thank you for your directions. I read through the mentioned sutras and also associated relevant sutras. Unless I missed something I did not see any reference to Prakruti or Maya being sentient. The closest is that Maya is the divine power of Isvara, similar to Shri Bhaskar ji's opinion. Could you clarify or direct me further?

Thank you!

prostrations,

Vikram

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Could you please clarify or direct me further?

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaskaram Vikram Ji,

In BSB 1-4-3, Purva Pakshi claims that according to SAnkhya,

//  अस्यैव जगतः प्रागवस्थायाः प्रधानत्वेनाभ्युपगमादिति । //

//  asyaiva jagataH prAgavasthAyAH pradhAnatvenAbhyupagamAditi | //

Translation (Swami Gambhirananda) // for the primordial (undifferentiated) state of this very universe is called PradhAna //.

Objection of PP is that Advaita also understands avyAkruta as the primordial (undifferentiated) state of this very universe. Hence just a change of terminology cannot make the Advaitin’s  avyAkruta  any different from the sAnkhyAn’s  PradhAna.

Response of the advaitin is as below.

//  यदि वयं स्वतन्त्रां काञ्चित्प्रागवस्थां जगतः कारणत्वेनाभ्युपगच्छेम, प्रसञ्जयेम तदा प्रधानकारणवादम् । परमेश्वराधीना त्वियमस्माभिः प्रागवस्था जगतोऽभ्युपगम्यते, न स्वतन्त्रा । //

//  yadi vayaM svatantrAM kA~nchitprAgavasthAM jagataH kAraNatvenAbhyupagachChema, prasa~njayema tadA pradhAnakAraNavAdam | parameshvarAdhInA tviyamasmAbhiH prAgavasthA jagato.abhyupagamyate, na svatantrA | //,

Translation  //  Should we admit some primal state as an independent cause of the world, we shall be opening the door for the theory of PradhAna as the cause. But this primal state is held by us to be subject to the Supreme Lord, but not as an independent thing //.

As per SiddhAnta, mAyA (another term for avyAkruta) is capable of undergoing transformation, but is jada (inert). It cannot do so by itself. Chaitanya is changeless. Hence cannot create anything by itself. It is the combination of the two which enables Creation. That is the प्रागवस्था  (prAgavasthA) (primal state) of this universe. mAyA derives its sattA (existence) and sphuraNa (ability to activate its capacity for transformation) from Chaitanya. That is what is addressed by the Swamiji in the Foot Note 9

//  If the Sankhyan view of prakṛti is modified so as to make it sentient and dependent on God, then Vedanta will have no objection to accepting it as a synonym of māyā //.

Swamiji also adds

//  The author, who accepts the three gunas as the constituents of māyā, may have some such compromise in his mind //.

Swamiji’s statement is not to be understood as Prakruti or mAyA in Advaita is considered to be sentient.

Regards

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Thank you, Shri Chandramouli ji. This is super helpful.

To summarize my understanding based on the information you shared, when Swamiji says "so as to make it sentient" the intent is to communicate that the prakruti / maya derives its sphurana from Chaitanya. Thus it expresses / manifests / reflects / conditions Sentiency (Chaitanya) to appear "as if" it is sentient (implied in terms such as sakthi or vritti-jnana etc.) . In other words, though maya / prakruti is jada and capable of undergoing change, it does so only because of dependence and influence of Chaitanya (analogy - magnet and iron filings).

Please let me know if further corrections are required in my understanding. 

prostrations,

Vikram

[V Subrahmanian]

In the Bh.Gita 13th chapter we have a very clear statement of the jaDatva of prakriti:

यथा प्रकाशयत्येकः कृत्स्नं लोकमिमं रविः ।
क्षेत्रं क्षेत्री तथा कृत्स्नं प्रकाशयति भारत ॥ ३३ ॥

As the single sun illumines this whole world, similarly, O descendant of the Bharata dynasty, the Knower of the field illumines the whole field.

Since the Kshetrajna, Brahman, has to illumine the entire creation, it follows that the latter is insentient.  For, in Vedanta, only svaprakasha Atman/Brahman is self-luminous and does not require any external agent to illumine it.  

The Gita itself has grouped the entire creation including the body-mind complex and the emotions/thoughts, reactions, etc. as prakriti:

महाभूतान्यहङ्कारो बुद्धिरव्यक्तमेव च ।
इन्द्रियाणि दशैकं च पञ्च चेन्द्रियगोचराः ॥ ५ ॥

इच्छा द्वेषः सुखं दुःखं सङ्घातश्चेतना धृतिः ।
एतत्क्षेत्रं समासेन सविकारमुदाहृतम् ॥ ६ ॥

And the opening question of the Kenopanishat is: Impelled by what do the prana, manas, senses, etc. act? The reply is 'Atman'.  The question arises because these being insentient, can't act by themselves. They require a sentient entity other than themselves to activate them. 

Om Tat Sat

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAM7AOLf%3DHz9r2GYH%2B53o2hrg2S2qU-RStdPu802%3D79PCGCYdPw%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Vikram-ji,

I give possibly a variant perspective:

Initially we use the language of sankhya and resolve their meaning in Advaita, by linking everything back to chaitanya. This we can say prakriti is jada but chaitanya activates it. But ultimately we want to transition from their language based in duality.

It is not that prakriti is jada but appears as if sentient. But that chaitanya appears as if jada prakriti. The ajnani sees the appearance and considers the manifest prakriti to have an existence devoid of consciousness but dependent on it for its functioning. For the jnani, existence is synonymous with consciousness. The world and its supposed cause pradhana are not entities apart from chaitanya having a mutual interaction/relation with one another or with chaitanya, but only nama-rupa denotations of chaitanya.

Suppose we still ask, "how and whence this duality of nama-rupa as an appearance/denotation in/of chaitanya?" The answer is that Chaitanya as Ishvara is cause of world (nama-rupa) appearance that He projects by recourse to His maya-shakti aka His self-determining will-power.

Is this maya same as chaitanya (real) or jada/different (unreal) from chaitanya? It is anirvachaniya - cannot be characterized as real or unreal. That is an ontological conundrum, if you will, of the vyavaharika standpoint that is based on nama-rupa identifications, and the word maya is yet another nama-rupa that obtains a descriptive meaning as if in relation to chaitanya. It is not unreal because there is nothing jada, all denote chaitanya; yet not real because the very usage of language imposes a dualistic identity as if apart from chaitanya and related to it - which then we want to explain away in that language world. That runs us in circles. Hence anirvachaniya. The paramarthika standpoint is in the realisation of non-dual chaitanya beyond this linguistic world of duality. The dreamer-dream duality is entirely sublated in Self, and there is none left to talk about it.

thollmelukaalkizhu 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAM7AOLf%3DHz9r2GYH%2B53o2hrg2S2qU-RStdPu802%3D79PCGCYdPw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

This we can say prakriti is jada but chaitanya activates it

 

praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Infact, it is other way round !! prakruti as mAyA shakti activates the nishkriya Chaitanya And when it is said nishkriya Chaitanya gets activated through its shakti there is no difference between shakti and shaktimaan hence mAyA as shakti is brahmAbhinna😊

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

I added an introduction to my original post, in order to send to my family -friend group, under subject "Sankhya and Vedanta". Let me know if any serious error in understanding.

--------------------------------

The dualistic philosophy of Sankhya says Reality has two distinct ontological components. First, there is the World that we perceive as existing. According to Sankhya, the world is reducible to a cause called Pradhana (prakriti, "Nature"). Pradhana is devoid of consciousness; it is Existence that is jada, inert. Then how does it act, change, become in the world? It does so in the presence of the other reality which is Chaitanya, the non-acting all-pervading Witness-Consciousness. Like iron filings move and organise themselves in a uniform unchanging magnetic field, so also does pradhana following inherent laws create the flux-order of our world (and the mind) within the benign witness-field of Chaitanya. The world is a robot that is self-activated into motion in the presence of Chaitanya. And in the jada body-minds of sentient beings, this Chaitanya becomes reflected as our individual consciousness of self and world. (See also Note 1 below).

Chaitanya is therefore the pure Consciousness that by virtue of pervading the world is also its action-less Seer - the Witness, Sakshi. The world is the seen. The seeing, thinking, deciding, acting are all robotic phenomena of the world, of jada Prakriti, that is dependent on but not directed by Chaitanya. Prakriti appears sentient but is not really so. This clear-cut dualistic framework of Sankhya, of Chaitanya vs Pradhana, has both significant alignment and stark contrast with Vedanta. 

In (Advaita) Vedanta also, Brahman at the substratum level is impersonal Sat-Chit-Ananda (Existence-Consciousness-Bliss). Nirguna (attribute-less), nirakara (formless), nishkriya (action-less). With reference to the perceived world, Brahman is its unchanging unaffected sakshi-chaitanya, the world itself being the play of Maya aka Prakriti.

The terminology up to this point seems to correspond the Vedantic Brahman with the Sankhya Chaitanya. However, there are irresolvable differences. The primary distinction is that in Vedanta, Brahman is non-dual Reality. There is no duality of jada Sat vs chaitanya Chit. That which is Sat is also Chit, and vise-versa.

The implication of non-duality is profound. Unlike in Sankhya, the Self or Atma of all identifiable objects - jiva, jagat, Ishvara - is the same: Brahman. Like Necklace, bracelet, ring are different name-form denotations of Gold, so also the world and its supposed cause "Nature" are nama-rupa denotations of Brahman. Brahman is the reality, the Sat of all that exists, it is Existence itself. Brahman is also the reality of the Consciousness, the awareness of existence, that is the defining characteristic of us sentient beings: thus Brahman is Chaitanya. Do these features make Brahman, if It denotes (or is denoted by) both Existence and Consciousness, a Two-in-one or a One appearing/manifest as two? The answer is the latter.

Initially we use the language of sankhya and resolve their meaning in Advaita, by linking everything back to chaitanya. Thus we can say prakriti is jada but chaitanya activates it. But ultimately we want to transition from their language based in duality.

It is not that prakriti is jada but appears as if sentient. But that chaitanya appears as if jada prakriti. The ajnani sees the appearance and considers the manifest prakriti to have an existence devoid of consciousness but dependent on it for its functioning. For the jnani, existence is synonymous with consciousness. The world and its supposed cause pradhana are not entities apart from chaitanya having a mutual interaction/relation with one another or with chaitanya, but only nama-rupa denotations of chaitanya.

Suppose we still ask, "how and whence this duality of nama-rupa as an appearance/denotation in/of chaitanya?" The answer is that Chaitanya as Ishvara is cause of world (nama-rupa) appearance that He projects by recourse to His maya-shakti aka His self-determining will-power.

Is this maya same as chaitanya (real) or jada/different (unreal) from chaitanya? It is anirvachaniya - cannot be characterized as real or unreal. That is an ontological conundrum, if you will, of the vyavaharika standpoint that is based on nama-rupa identifications, and the word maya is yet another nama-rupa that obtains a descriptive meaning as if in relation to chaitanya. It is not unreal because there is nothing jada, all denote chaitanya; yet not real because the very usage of language imposes a dualistic identity as if apart from chaitanya and related to it - which then we want to explain away in that language world. That runs us in circles. Hence anirvachaniya. The paramarthika standpoint is in the realisation of non-dual chaitanya beyond this linguistic world of duality. The dreamer-dream duality is entirely sublated in Self, and there is none left to talk about it.

Note 1: (Besides the fundamental duality between Purusha and Prakriti, Sankhya proper also asserts that Purusha or Chaitanya is itself not One but infinitely many. Each jiva is a unique chaitanya. However we will not emphasize this fact and instead focus on the more general dualistic framework.)

thollmelukaalkizhu 

On Thu, 15 Feb, 2024, 3:27 am putran M, <putr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaskaram Vikram-ji,

I give possibly a variant perspective:

[Ravindra Shivde]

Dear Putanji,

Kindly correct the spelling to 'vice versa'

- Ravindra Shivde

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-rAj%2B0ZUrnYnfxs4pbHPWLNLbMn%2Bntk74FwupDFQVEh%2BA%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Ravindra-ji,

Thanks for the correction. I did not expect that to be pointed out but will probably remember the right spelling of that phrase henceforth.

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Kalyan]

Dear Sri Putranji

Namaskaaram

I am not very familiar with Samkhya, but please allow me a humorous take. I think your Samkhya is colored by Vedanta. :)

My understanding of Samkhya is that there are many purushas rather than one single Chaitanya. The purushas are not all-pervading. Purushas are plural and they are conscious.

Best Regards

[putran M]

Namaskaram Kalyan-ji,

I agree with your assessment; I was free-lancing a bit and likely colouring Sankhya with a Vedantic brush. I tagged in the disclaimer in my Note 1 at the bottom! 

I don't however understand how sankhya says the world as a whole operates if prakriti requires the presence of chaitanya in its vicinity to be in motion and chaitanya is limited spatially to purushas. On what basis then do distant galaxies go about their business? That itself may be a logical reason that supports the all-pervading Chaitanya, to begin with. Assuming this much, my writing was meant to clarify that we still need to distinguish Vedantic non-duality from a dualistic Chaitanya vs Pradhana framework.

thollmelukaalkizhu

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

Added some notes, to delineate the way I understand some of the nuances.

Suppose we still ask, "how and whence this duality of nama-rupa as an appearance/denotation in/of chaitanya?" The answer is that Chaitanya as Ishvara is cause of world (nama-rupa) appearance that He projects by recourse to His maya-shakti aka His self-determining will-power.

Level 0: Brahman is ekam-eva-adviteeyam, nondual sat-chit-ananda. There is no nama-rupa duality in this (paramarthika) standpoint, nor the identification of Ishvara.

Level 1: Once we try to understand Brahman in relation to the nama-rupa duality, we are in vyavaharika standpoint. Brahman then is Ishvara=Chaitanya+Maya. 

Ishvara projects (identifies) Himself in His Consciousness through the world of nama-rupas (as jivas, as jagat and its objects, and as ishvara the Lord), all of whose Self is Him alone. The nama-rupa world in all its manifestations is eternally His Knowledge and He is the self-determining Cause for its present manifestation. 

Every nama-rupa identification of Ishvara can be realised as a pointer to and denotation of the nirguna Brahman (instead of being limited to the particular nama-rupa). If however we are asked to explain the nama-rupa duality (in relation to Brahman), then the right answer is that it is Ishvara who appears as if dual world due to His maya-shakti. 

Just as we may realize Gold alone no matter whether it appears as ring or necklace or a non-descript blob; and yet if someone asks about Gold appearing differently in necklace vs ring, we reply correctly that it changes appearance due to its malleability property. The same 'Gold' (that earlier denoted the non-dual All) is now known in terms of a Substance vs Property duality.

Level 2: Why did the Gold transform from Necklace to bangle? Why does Ishvara project the world and how does He decide its evolution? We are shifting now from the reduction of all duality to Ishvara (maya) to the Play enacted by Him. The basis for His self-determination is the nature of His nama-rupa identifications. 

Ishvara projects jagat as if jada (identified with Ignorance) and His decisions therein abide to a large extent to deterministic laws. As jivas His Consciousness shines but is still limited by body-mind identification and the ajnana of self, so that His decisions therein (i.e. via our use of iccha, jnana, kriya Shakti) reflect the conditioned state. And as ishvara of jiva-jagat, He is the Lord, God, Bhagavan. ishvara identifies with the Total Creation, has total Knowledge, and maintains the Order in a detached manner, directing its manifestation so as to optimally present the jivas the phala for their karmas. He is our karmaphaladata and the Object of all our personal worship as well.

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Shri Putran ji,

Sincere apologies for the delayed response and acknowledgement of your comments. My travel & family health was a major factor.

Though didn't respond, I did read through your comments carefully and in agreement with you.

 

You are right that it is Chaitanya alone that appears as the jada prakruti. Just because we are currently unable to perceive any manifestation of Chaitanya through prakruti, we simply label it as jada; but the truth is that "the effect is nothing but the cause itself in a different form". Consequently the jada prakruti cannot be anything different whatsoever from the sentient Chaitanya.

 

Thanks for unlocking this subtle point.

prostrations,

Vikram

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-rAj%2B0ZUrnYnfxs4pbHPWLNLbMn%2Bntk74FwupDFQVEh%2BA%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Vikram-ji,

Thanks. Just yesterday, I wondered whatever happened to you all of a sudden. Glad that you are back.

thollmelukaalkizhu