The nature of this world-The rope & the snake

Growing up in the Advaita tradition, I was taught that the world is Maya, an illusion. Dva means two. Advaita means that there is no two, there is only one, which is Brahman (God). But if all is one & the Atman (soul) alone is Brahman, isn't an illusory world of Maya different from the Atman? How can this be called Advaita then?

Advaita is the most prominent philosophy of Hindus. A competing philosophy, Vishishta-advaita states that all is one, but the one is qualified as Chit (conscious material), Achit (unconscious material) & Ishwaram (God). Within the one, the Jivatmans can aim to serve Vishnu, but the Jivatman is not Paramatman. The subsequent competing philosophy, Dvaita, states that there is Paramatman God Vishnu & everything else. Followers have attacked Advaitins for considering the world as Maya. The world is real, and part of the body of Paramatman. The Gaudiya Vaishnavas, popularly part of the ISKCON movement, criticize the Advaitins as Mayavadis.

But is that really true? Is that what Adi Shankara, the founder of Advaita said? Is the world Maya? Let's examine this further.

Adi Shankara:
श्लोकार्घेन प्रवक्ष्यामि यदुक्तं ग्रन्थकोटिभिः।
ब्रह्म सत्यं जगन्मिथ्या जीवो ब्रह्मैव नापरः।

I expound in half a verse, what has been spoken of in a million texts: Brahman is the true reality and the world is a misunderstanding of this truth; the Jiva (soul) is no different from Brahman.

Note the key phrase here. ब्रह्म सत्यं जगन्मिथ्या : Brahman satyam, Jagath Mithya. Brahman is the truth. The world is Mithya.

What is Mithya?

The word myth seems to originate for Mithya. But that seems similar to Maya. An illusion. So, what is Mithya? Why is this a separate word from Maya?

Shankara explains this with an analogy.

A traveler is walking in the dark. He steps on a snake. He is terrified. Later when there is light, he looks at what he stepped on. It is actually a rope. He had misunderstood the rope to be a snake.

When the mind is uncontrolled & in darkness, the world appears to be a snake, but that is not its true nature. Once you realize your Jiva (also called self or Atman) after Dhyanam and see the light, you realize the world as it actually is, like a rope. The nature of the world did not change. Only your own understanding of the nature of the world changed after you realized yourself.

Sankara enlightens Totakacharya-script for a drama

Narrator:
The religious heads of the mutts (matams) founded by Adi Shankara are called Shankaracharyas. Anyone can apply to become a Sanyasi. Among the Sanyasis, one is chosen to be a Shankaracharya. Traditionally, these are people who are well versed in the Hindu scriptures and volunteer for Sanyasam (renunciation) to become a monk.

Upon Sanyasam, all varna/jati/caste attributes are discarded. This includes the sacred threads, if they were being worn before Sanyasam. This means that Sanyasis including Shankaracharyas in the Advaita Sampradaya (tradition) can't be called as Brahmins (if one assumes that Brahmins are by birth, rather than the scriptural definition of one who knows Brahman).

But have there been any non-Brahmins (by birth) who have become Shankaracharyas? It turns out, yes. The first one was Totakacharya who was in the first lineage after Adi Shankara. Who was Totakacharya?

Scene:
Shankara meets a boy.

Narrator:

In Sringeri, Adi Shankara met a boy named Giri.

Scene:
Giri washes the clothes of Shankara, massages his feet, brings him food & water, cooks, gathers fruits, lights fires to keep him warm.

Narrator:
Giri was a devoted disciple of Shankara. He was not knowledgeable in the scriptures. But he was happy in just serving his Guru without expecting anything in return.

Scene:
Shankara with all sishyas except Giri. Sishyas look expectantly towards Sankara to begin his upanyasam (discourse). Sankara waits. Giri runs in after washing clothes. Sankara starts the discourse.

Narrator:

Adi Shankara, however, would ensure that Giri was present in his upanyasams, though Giri wouldn't understand it.

Narrator:

One day, Adi Shankara was waiting for Giri to commence his upanyasam. Giri was busy washing his Guru's clothes in the river. Padmapada, another sishya (disciple) of Shankara, was devout, but also a learned Pandit in all the scriptures before he joined Shankara. Impatient for the discourse, he pointed to a wall, indicating that it was no use for Shankara to wait for Giri, and that his discourse to Giri was equivalent to giving it to a wall.

Scene:
Adi Shankara waits with expectant Sishyas. Padmapada points to the wall.
Giri, who is washing clothes in the background, suddenly looks up with enlightenment.

Narrator:

At this point, Giri, who was washing the clothes, was endowed with all scriptural knowledge.

Scene:
Giri runs to Shankara.

Narrator:
Giri sings Shankara's praises as eight slokas as Totaka (laghu, lagu, guru) syllables in the highest Sanskrit. These verses are in praise of Shankara, his Guru, for endowing him with the wisdom. From this point, he was called as Totakacharya. Interestingly, Shankara didn't use a physical Deeksha (initiating touch); just compassionate thoughts acted as a Deeksha & endowed Giri with wisdom. Also, the ego-the sense of I- (Aham-bhaavam) remnants of Padmapada was subtly driven away, which is what a Guru would do. (Ahama is one of the last veils over the soul).

Totakacharya later condensed the teachings of the Upanishads as Totaka syllables as Shruti Saara Samudhram (Shrutis-Vedas-essence-ocean). Totakacharya was the first Madathipathi (mutt head) of Joytirmath in Uttarkhand.

Interestingly, one of the Swami sects of Hinduism is called Giri, meaning mountain. Some of the Giri Swamis do trace lineage to Giri/Totakacharya. Some recent examples of the Giri sect are Paramahamsa Yogananada Giri, disciple of Yukteshwar Giri and Haridas Giri, disciple of Jnanananda Giri. Yogananda & Haridas had deep reverence for their respective Gurus. The preachings combine self-realization (meditation) with Bhakthi (devotion) towards God & Guru.

Adi Shankara meets Mandana Mishra-Script for a drama

Narrator:

Hinduism has six core philosophies. The fifth philosophy is Jaimini's (Purva) Mimamsa & the sixth is Badarayana's Uttara Mimamsa or Vedanta.

The young Sanyasi, Adi Shankara, a Vedantic scholar, goes to Mahishmati intending to debate with the Mimamsa scholar, Mandana Mishra. Mandana Mishra was performing the Sraddha ceremony of his expired father.

Scene:

Mandana is performing the Sraddha ceremony in a closed house. Adi Sankara walks to the outside of the house.

Sankara thinks aloud:

The house is locked. According to a Sanyasi's Dharma, I shouldn't enter a locked house. However, I need to meet Mandana & debate him, as requested by Kumarila Bhatta. For the greater good, I'll enter the house.

Scene:

Mandana looks in surprise at the Sanyasi.

Mandana thinks aloud:

Only those who don't wish to engage with the rigors of the world & the Vedic rituals will take up Sanyasam. And here is this young boy who hasn't had experience with this world who has already taken up Sanyasam. A Sanyasi shouldn't enter a closed house. Also, a Sanyasi shouldn't come during a Sraddha ceremony. Why is he here?

Mandana to Sankara, sarcastically:

Kuto Mundi?

Narrator:

This means: Where have you come from, O clean shaven one?

Sankara noted the sarcasm. He deliberately misunderstands Mandana's question with an alternate meaning.

How far have you shaved?

Sankara, sarcastically:

Agalan Mundi

Narrator:

This means: Shaven up to the neck

Mandana thinking aloud:

This Sanyasi has misunderstood my question.

Mandana:

Margam Prichate Maya?

Narrator:

This means: I am asking the path.

This has two meanings.

I am asking the path that you came from, which Mandana meant.

Or can mean:

I am asking the path, where the path is considered an entity being addressed a question.

Sankara:

Kim kaha Patha?

Narrator:

This means: So, what did the path tell you?

Mandana, angrily:

Patha prokta tava Matuh Vidhava

Narrator:

This means: The way said that your mother was a widow

Sankara:

Tha Thevahi

Narrator:

This means: May be it is true

This implies that the 'path' was talking about Mishra's own mother.

Mandana, extremely angrily:

Sura Pita?

Narrator:

This means: Are you drunk?

This also means: Is liquor yellow?

Sankara, calmly:

Sura Shweta na Pita

Narrator:

This means: Liquor is white, not yellow

Mandana, with anger & sarcasm:

Tatha hi, tvam janasi varnam!

Narrator:

A Sanyasi is not supposed to drink alcohol.

This means: So, you know the colour of liquor?

Sankara, calmly:

Maya varnat etavat janami, tvam ruchim api jasyati va

Narrator:

This means: I know the colour, but maybe you know the taste as well.

Brahmanas aren't supposed to drink alcohol. Mandana was a Brahmana.

This pokes fun at Mandana's demeanor while also implying that since Mandana first asked Sankara if he was drunk, he knew what it was.

Scene:

Other people intervene.

Intervener:

Why don't you just ask this Sanyasi what he wants & give him Bhiksha?

Narrator:

Bhiksha means alms.

Mandana:

What Bhiksha can I give you?

Sankara:

Vaada Bhiksha

Narrator:

This means a Bhiksha or debate.

Mandana:

I agree.

Intervener:

We need a judge for the debate. How about the learned Pandita, Ubhaya Bharati, wife of Mandana?

Sankara:

I agree.

Mandana:

I agree.

Scene:

Sankara & Mandana face each other for debate. Bharati presides over the debate as a judge.

Bharati:

Let both of you wear a flower garland. The one whose flowers wither faster would lose the debate. The one who is able to keep his mind steady & perfectly under control would not generate inner heat that would cause the flowers to wither faster. The one who is more egoistic will allow emotions to flare up during the debate resulting in the flowers wilting faster.

Scene:

Sankara & Mandana wear a garland.

Mandana:

It is important to lead a good life, performing rituals and worshipping Bhagawan. Just do your karma & duty, and be a good person. That is sufficient to attain Moksha.

Sankara:

What you say is good to help start calming the mind. But this is not the end goal. This is a stepping stone to prepare the mind for Dhyanam (meditation). Ultimately, it is only through Dhyanam that you can realize the truth of this world and yourself.

Mandana:

What is the true nature of the world?

Scene (to the side of the debate):

A rope lies on the ground. A person is walking. 

Walking person:

It is night. What is around me?

Scene:

The walking person steps on the rope. He shrieks: snake & jumps back.

Walking person:

I'm going to climb a tree & wait out the night.

A short pause.

Walking person:

It is now morning. Let me get down. Oh, here is what I stepped on last night. It is just a rope & not a snake. I just assumed it to be a snake in the darkness.

Sankara:

When the mind is uncontrolled & in darkness, the world appears to be a snake, but that is not its true nature. Once you realize your self after Dhyanam & see the light, you perceive the world as it actually is, like a rope. The nature of the world did not change, only your perception changed.

Mandana:

So, what is the nature of God?

Sankara:

श्लोकार्घेन प्रवक्ष्यामि यदुक्तं ग्रन्थकोटिभिः।
ब्रह्म सत्यं जगन्मिथ्या जीवो ब्रह्मैव नापरः।
I expound in half a verse, what has been spoken of in a million texts: Brahman is the true reality and the world is a misunderstanding of this truth; the Jiva (soul) is no different from Brahman.

Brahman is all pervading and is in everything. Brahman is your own self & the world regardless of how you perceive it. God is like a rope misunderstood to be the snake & also the actual rope itself. Dva means two. Advaita means that there is no two, there is only one, and that is Brahman. Through Dhyanam, you can realize the true nature of your Jiva (also called self & Atman).

Narrator:

The debate goes on for 8 days. Finally, Mandan's garland of flowers have withered but Sankara's remain fresh.

Bharati:

Sankara has won the debate with Mandana. 

Scene:

Mandana falls at Sankara's feet.

Mandana:

Dear Guru, thank you for enlightening me. What should I do?

Sankara:

Take up Sanyasam and become by Sishya.

Mandana to Bharti:

Bharti, by Dharma, a married man has to get his wife's permission for Sanyasa. Will you grant me permission?

Bharti to Mandana:

Sankara has defeated you in debate. I will grant you permission on one condition.

Bharti to Sankara:

A wife is half her husband. Unless you defeat me in debate as well, Mandana is not yet fully lost. Do you agree? Will you debate me?

Sankara to Bharti:

I agree

Scene:

Sankara & Bharti now debate.

Narrator:

The debate goes on for 17 days. Realizing that Shankara is unbeatable in Vedic philosophies & knowing fully well that he is a Sanyasi, she asks him a question from the Kama Shastra specific to pleasing women. Shankara is silent. He is a Sanyasi. He doesn't know. 

Bharti to Sankara:

Without householder experience, how could you claim that renunciation, meditation, self-realization & Vedanta to be the best path? 

Sankara:

Please give me time to answer your question.

Bharti:

Please take your time.

Narrator:

After some dramatic episodes, Sankara finally returns and answers Ubhaya Bharti. Bharti admits defeat and allows Mandana to take up Sanyasam & follow Sankara. Mandana becomes Sureshwaracharya, the first Peethadipathi of the Shringeri Matam.

Sources:

http://vedham.blogspot.com/2018/04/when-shankara-first-met-mandana-humor.html
http://bharatbhumika.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-timeline-of-adi-sankaracharya.html
https://historyunderyourfeet.wordpress.com/page/10/

The Yoga of hate

God is a loving merciful being. Worship the one true God. What?! You don't agree?! You're going to be roasted for eternity in hell by God.

Do you see a logical problem with this thought?

Surprisingly, this is the belief of most religious people on our planet.

But Hinduism has an interesting angle to this.

In the Srimath Bhagavatham, Yudhishthira observes someone who has hated the divine for his entire life merging with divinity. He is puzzled. How is this possible? Narada explains.

The sense of I, created by the ego (aham) is a veil of the soul. Feeling happy when praised & angry when criticized is an attribute of the ego.

The divine is beyond ego. The divine will not reward someone for praising nor punish someone for criticizing.

You will become whatever you focus your mind on. In general, focussing the mind is difficult. If you do manage to focus the normally restless mind relentlessly on one goal, you will attain it.

If you focus your mind on the divine, you will merge with the divine. The emotion does not matter. Divinity does not differentiate between love & hate. Just as the sun radiates the earth without discrimination on good & bad, divinity will not discriminate on the emotion. The stronger the focus, the better. Since hate is a powerful emotion, if one is able to hate the divine with single minded focus, this will help one merge with the divine sooner than the other paths. This is called Sambhrama Yoga.

Source: Chapter 78-Yudhishtira's doubt, Page 153 in Srimath Bhagavatham translated by Kamala Subramaniam

A historical precedent for religious harmony

My God is the only true God. My religion is the only true religion. No, you're wrong, mine is. No, you're wrong, it's mine. Fight... Sounds familiar?

I'm not talking about today. Nor about the last 2000 years. Let us go to ancient India around the time of Adi Shankara around 2500 years back. (Source of date per traditional sources: http://bharatbhumika.blogspot.com/2014/08/puranic-chronology-of-india.html)

There used to be six religions. This was called Shanmatha. They were worshippers of Shiva (Shaivites), Vishnu (Vaishnavites), Shakthi (Shaktas), Kumara (Kaumaras), Ganesha (Ganapathyas) & Surya (Sauras). Each sect believed that they were the only true religion & their God was the only true God. There have been clashes between the sects.

Let us look at some concepts from the Upanishads.
The paths may vary but the goal is the same.
God is one but is worshipped in different forms and names.
Just like all rivers go to the ocean, all prayers go to God.
At the beginning of a path at the base of the mountain, it appears that your path is different. The higher you go, the closer you appear to someone else's path. At the goal (summit), you realize that all paths had the same goal.

Adi Shankara, in his short life of 32 years, debated and was able to convince the common people of these concepts. One of his greatest achievements is that he brought these warring religions under one umbrella. Every person can have his own Ishta Deivam (preferred deity/God). Even today, in most Hindu families, every person may have a different Ishta Deivam, and they coexist without conflict. Compare this with interfaith families which insist on conversion and bringing up kids in a specific faith.

In addition to this, all philosophies were brought under one umbrella (Nyaya, Vaiseshika, Samkya, Yoga, Purva Mimamsa & Uttara Mimamsa/Vedanta). Adi Shankara debated on the superiority of Vedanta over other philosophies, but they were all brought under one umbrella.

There were competing religions of Buddhism (derived from Samkya) & Jainism which did not accept the Vedas, the Hindu holy scriptures. These followers were the Sramanas. Fast forward a few centuries. In Hindu temples, there is one main deity worshipped as the supreme manifestation surrounded by other deities. Many Hindu temples have Buddha & Mahavira (the last Jain Teerthankara) as deities. Buddhist temples have Rama, Sita, Shiva as deities. Jain temples have Padmavati/Lakshmi as deities. These concepts percolated through all these religions. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4ZgKKlmUl0

Fast-forward to today. In Chennai, you'll find liberal Hindu auto drivers carrying pictures of Ganesha, Jesus & Mecca. This will be absent from the conservatives of intolerant religions. Paramahamsa Yogananda, credited with spreading Yoga in the USA, along with his Guru: Yukteshwar Giri (who went to a Christian school as a child), have a Yogic interpretation of the Christian scriptures, and have incorporated Hindu & Christian worship into a meditative practice of self-realization.

The totalitarian religious beliefs of converting everyone to their faith to establish peace has failed, as recorded by history. After Shankara's unification of Shanmathi, religious conflict dropped drastically and there was improved harmony and tolerance in interfaith marriages, and in society. As a historical precedent, it would be best if there was mutual respect (not just tolerance but respect) between faiths, and the right to follow different beliefs and faiths. This will require totalitarian faiths to drop the notion of being the only true faith and having the only true God. Following this way would eventually result in harmony.

References:

https://adbhutam.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/shankara-shanmata-eng.pdf

The first non-Brahmin Shankaracharya

The religious heads of the mutts (matams) founded by Adi Shankara are called Shankaracharyas. Anyone can apply to become a Sanyasi. Among the Sanyasis, one is chosen to be a Shankaracharya. Traditionally, these are people who are well versed in the Hindu scriptures and volunteer for Sanyasam (renunciation) to become a monk.

Upon Sanyasam, all varna/jati/caste attributes are discarded. This includes the sacred threads, if they were being worn before Sanyasam. This means that Sanyasis including Shankaracharyas in the Advaita Sampradaya (tradition) can't be called as Brahmins (if one assumes that Brahmins are by birth, rather than the scriptural definition of one who knows Brahman).

But have there been any non-Brahmins (by birth) who have become Shankaracharyas? It turns out, yes. The first one was Totakacharya who was in the first lineage after Adi Shankara. Who was Totakacharya?

In Sringeri, Adi Shankara met a boy named Giri. He was a devoted disciple of Shankara. He was not knowledgeable in the scriptures. But he was happy in just serving his Guru without expecting anything in return.

Adi Shankara, however, would ensure that Giri was present in his discourses, though Giri wouldn't understand it.

One day, Adi Shankara was waiting for Giri to commence his discourse. Giri was busy washing his Guru's clothes in the river. Padmapada, another sishya (disciple) of Shankara, was devout, but also a learned Pandit in all the scriptures before he joined Shankara. Impatient for the discourse, he pointed to a wall, indicating that it was no use for Shankara to wait for Giri, and that his discourse to Giri was equivalent to giving it to a wall.

At this point, Giri, who was washing the clothes, was endowed with all scriptural knowledge. He immediately came over to Shankara, and sang his praises as eight slokas as Totaka (laghu, lagu, guru) syllables in the highest Sanskrit. These verses are in praise of Shankara, his Guru, for endowing him with the wisdom. From this point, he was called as Totakacharya. Interestingly, Shankara didn't use a physical Deeksha (initiating touch); just compassionate thoughts acted as a Deeksha & endowed Giri with wisdom. Also, the ego remnants of Padmapada was subtly driven away, which is what a Guru would do. (Ego is one of the last veils over the soul).

Totakacharya later condensed the teachings of the Upanishads as Totaka syllables as Shruti Saara Samudhram (Shrutis-Vedas-essence-ocean). Totakacharya was the first Madathipathi (mutt head) of Joytirmath in Uttarkhand.

Interestingly, one of the Swami sects of Hinduism is called Giri. Some of the Giri Swamis do trace lineage to Giri/Totakacharya. Some recent examples of the Giri sect are Paramahamsa Yogananada Giri, disciple of Yukteshwar Giri and Haridas Giri, disciple of Jnanananda Giri. Yogananda & Haridas had deep reverence for their respective Gurus. The preachings combine self-realization (meditation) with Bhakthi (devotion) towards God & Guru.