Posted on: 16 Feb 2007
Adi Shankara made certain assumptions, which are hypothetical to preach the spiritual knowledge to the devotees at various levels. Generally the devotees are trained in the logic pertaining to the imaginable items in the world. The development of a concept by them is from a worldly example and also its application is to another worldly example. For example since the black color of mud (cause) enters into the pot (its effect), the conclusion is that the nature of the cause enters its effect. This conclusion is applied to another worldly example and they say that the bright color of the gold-lump (cause) must also enter the chain (its effect). Here, mud, pot, gold lump and chain are all imaginable items and are worldly examples. Hence, all their logic is limited to only imaginable items and that cannot be extended to the unimaginable God and His link with creation, which is also unimaginable because it is a link between the unimaginable God and the imaginable creation. This does not mean that logic is useless. It is useful in denying an imaginable item claimed to be unimaginable. For example in ancient times, awareness was thought to be an independent energy like a free electromagnetic wave in space. But today due to the advancement of science and the analytical faculty, it is clearly proved that awareness is not an independent item but it is completely dependent on the co-existence of a functioning nervous system and the inert heat-energy produced by the oxidation of food. It is only a special work-form of energy appearing through a complicated special technology of the brain and the nervous system. It is not independent even like electromagnetic radiation traveling in space. That which was wonderful yesterday is clear today. It was unimaginable then, but now is imaginable. Therefore, there is a knowable region extending up to space in the creation. In this knowable region there are certain layers of attained knowledge and certain layers of unimaginable nature. But even those layers of unimaginable nature will certainly be analyzed by logic and science in the course of time. But there is a dead limit of this logic and analysis of science, which is space—beyond which the region of eternal unimaginable nature exists. Therefore, by conquering the unimaginable layers within the knowable region, it does not mean that one day or the other, logic or science will cross the dead limit of space also and capture the unimaginable God existing beyond space. That is impossible. You may try and try and one day you may touch the roof of your house by the constant practice of high jumping. But this does not mean that one day or other you will also touch the sky by the continuous practice of high jumping. Today the unimaginable layers within the knowable region may appear wonderful and these layers can be called as Maya.
Meanings of Maya
The word Maya comes from root meaning “wonder” (Maya vaichitrye). The word wonder does not mean that it will be always unimaginable. The temporarily unimaginable systems also look wonderful before the analysis. The magic show looks wonderful but it can be analyzed and the wonder may disappear after analysis. Hence, wonder need not mean only the permanently unimaginable item. The deeper layers of this universe are wonderful without analysis but may be realized in the future. These layers are temporarily unimaginable and the word wonder is used in the case of these also. Therefore, the Gita says that you will find the universe as wonderful (Mayamtu Prakritim…). The universe is infinite with an unimaginable beginning and an unimaginable end. This means that the cause from which the universe started and the same cause in which the universe ends on dissolution, is the unimaginable God. Mud is the beginning stage of the pot and also the end stage since the pot ends in mud on destruction. The universe exhibits the unimaginable God by its unimaginable limits of beginning and end. Space is generated from God and the dissolution of space alone can show the real nature of its cause (God). When the chain is dissolved [melted] in fire, then alone can the gold-lump, which is the cause of the chain, appear in its original form. But even if you imagine for millions of years, you can never imagine the dissolution of space and therefore you can never imagine the original nature of God. God is beyond space and God is the permanently unknowable region even for the intelligence enriched with science and logic. Hence, God is a permanent wonder and the creation consists of some knowable regions of knowledge, without any wonder and also some temporarily unimaginable regions, with temporary wonder. Now the word Maya can be used for both the wonders, that which is permanent (God) and also that which is temporary (the deeper layers of the world up to the space).
The word Maya also has another meaning. It means that which does not exist (Ya Ma Sa Maya). This does not mean that the temporarily wonderful deeper layers of Prakriti do not exist. If you say so, it contradicts the practical experience of the world [since we perceive the world]. This also does not mean that the permanently wonderful God does not exist because it contradicts the scriptures and also the proof of the scriptures given by God descending in human form. Then what is the place of the application of this alternative meaning of the word Maya? We have said that God generated the world and that God is both the designer (Nimitta) and material cause (Upadanam) of the world. If God is the material cause, a portion of God must have been modified into the world and in such a case God is a little lesser than what He was. This is impossible (Purnamevaavashishyate…—Veda). If God remained the same even after the creation, the world should have been totally unreal because the material in the world must be unreal since it was not supplied from God. In such a case there would be no entertainment for God from the non-existent world. Even for God, the world has to exist with real material in it, for the sake of entertainment. In such a case if the bloody soul says that the world is non-existent for it, it is highly ridiculous, since the soul itself is a part of the creation. Thanks to science, the invention of the robot, has clearly proved that pure awareness is simply a special work-form of the inert energy working in a special technology [mechanism, device]. This helps a lot for one to understand that the pure awareness is only an item of the creation and not the Creator, who is beyond space.
To remove this contradiction we can neither accept the real modification of God nor can we accept a separate independently existing material of the world, which is not generated from God. The followers of Ramanuja mocked at the concept of Shankara that God is the material cause of the world. In order to avoid such criticism, Shankara has already said that God is the material cause through His power called as Maya. Hence, the power of God (Maya) is modified and not the original God. The solar energy captured by the photochemical cell is modified into electrical energy and this does not mean that the sun is modified into electricity. Therefore, the third item (power of God) is now created as the meaning of the word Maya. The power of God is also wonderful and is also a permanently unimaginable item like God, which is beyond space and can never be analyzed by science. The follower of Ramanuja is again mocked at by the followers of Madhva (along with the followers of Shankara) who objected to the modification of the power of God. When the modification of the power of God is treated as the body of God by Ramanuja, the modification of the body of God is also equally objectionable like the modification of God Himself. Ramanuja treated the modified product of the power of God, as the body of God. In that case, the changes in the inert world and the sins of the souls, would also affect the body of God since Ramanuja treated souls also as a part of the body of God. In order to avoid all this criticism totally, Madhva treated the material of the world as a separate independent item like mud and treated God as only the pot maker (designer). This ended the criticism finally and the process of creation is explained well without any objection to all the devotees.
Adi Shankara stands in the beginning point of preaching for atheists (Purvamimamsakas and Buddhists) and Anjaneya stands for giving a message to the topmost devotees, who recognize the contemporary human incarnation and render even personal service to please God. Shankara preached a lot through debates and Anjaneya preached only through practice. Both these incarnations of Lord Shiva cover both the extreme ends of the spiritual chain and in between come Ramanuja and Madhva. Madhva is very close to Anjaneya since He claimed to be Anjaneya’s youngest brother. The preaching started with Shankara and ended with Madhva. In the case of Anjaneya, we find service, which should be the final modification of knowledge. The silence of Anjaneya on preaching shows the realization of the top most truth and the final stage of service to the contemporary human incarnation. The final truth of the entire preaching is found with Adi Shankara also and that is the alternative meaning of the word Maya, which means that Maya does not exist at all. But this alternative meaning should be confined only to the power of God and not to God or to the world, since both God and the world (in deeper layers) exist and are wonderful permanently and temporarily respectively. Both God and the world are Maya in the sense of wonder alone which is the first original sense of the root word.
When God is wonderful, we can call the power of God also as wonderful and thus the first sense of Maya can also stand for the power of God. In that case, there is no need of the second meaning of Maya, which means that the power of God does not exist at all. The sun is like God and the sunlight or solar energy is like the power of God. Both exist separately and we can say that the power cannot be isolated from the source. Since, the power cannot be isolated from God, the modification of the power or the world cannot be also isolated from God. Therefore, Ramanuja said that God and world couldn’t be separated like the substratum (Dharmi or Visheshya) and the property (Dharma or Visheshana). The problem of changes in the world affecting God is answered by Shankara through the power of God being modified into world instead of God directly. Thus the power of God is the material cause and not God. Since the power cannot be isolated from God, we can treat God to be the material cause indirectly. In that case, the significance of the power becomes more than God and this leads to the evolution of the cult of Shakteya, which says that God is just a rubber stamp [figurehead] like the President in India. The power of God is the real material cause through direct modification and is also the real designer also since the power is also awareness (Jnana Shakti). This means that we can do away with God completely and if at all we give a place for God, it is only due to the simple consideration that the power needs a source. This leads to the suppression of Vedanta, which gives complete importance to God. At this point, Shankara said that the power cannot exist without source and cannot be isolated from God in any way. That single point cannot give absolute and complete importance to God. The second meaning of Maya is applied in this sense alone i.e., the power does not exist by itself without God. A child could not have been born without parents but all the subsequent greatness of the child cannot be attributed to the parents based on this single point. Without Hiranyakashipu, Prahlada could not be produced. Based on this single point you cannot say that all the credit of the devotion of Prahlada should go to his father. For this reason alone i.e., to give importance to God, Ramanuja and Madhva treated this power or material as inert and the power or the material is only the material cause but not the designer.
Even then the power or material gets at least half the importance. If you want to give complete importance to God alone, there is only one way i.e., to say that the power does not exist at all. The second meaning of Maya is now applied to the power in its full sense. In that case, all the above objections come into picture (direct modification of God, changes in the world affecting God etc.) since God becomes the direct material cause. All these objections can be simply ruled out by one stroke i.e., by saying that the unimaginable God creates the world in an unimaginable way. This point is already indicated by Shankara by the word “Anirvachaniyata Khyati” which means that the process of generation of the world from God is unimaginable. This is the absolute truth and Shankara knew this very well. This point can be supported by a simple argument i.e., there cannot be two unimaginable items like God and His power. When you say that you do not know what is present in a locked room, will anybody ask you “Whether one unknown item is present or two unknown items are present in the room?” When what is present is unknown, how can you say that it is one or two or several?
Practical Considerations of Shankara
In that case why did Shankara not say this directly throughout His theory? The reason is a practical point.
If a student comes and asks the preacher “What is God?” and the preacher says, “God is Unimaginable”; then the student asks again “How did God create this world?” and the preacher says, “The process of creation is also unimaginable”, the student will think that the preacher does not know the answers for his questions and will leave the preacher. This is the practical problem in revealing the absolute truth. The preacher should answer in a positive way and the answers should satisfy the logical faculty of the student. Now you should analyze the basis of the logical faculty of the student. The basis is the observation of this world containing all imaginable items alone. Hence all his logic is based only on the observation of the nature of imaginable items and the relationships between the imaginable items. This means that the preacher should say that God is an imaginable item and the imaginable process of the generation of the imaginable world from the imaginable God is also in an imaginable way. Every sentence of the preacher should be imaginable to the student and then alone will the student get satisfied. The introduction of the word “Unimaginable” by the preacher leads the student to think that the preacher is ignorant. Hence to satisfy the student and to solve this practical problem, the preacher has to make certain assumptions and should preach about God through hypothesis alone and not through real [factual] theory.
The reality is that the unimaginable God created the world through an unimaginable way. But to satisfy the student, the hypothesis introduced here is that God is pure awareness. Here the infinite ocean of pure awareness is an assumption created because there is no proof of such an ocean of awareness anywhere, because you can only find an infinite ocean of inert energy. The infinite ocean of awareness is created by the preacher and that ocean charged by God can be treated as God Himself, like the live wire can be treated as electric current. Now the student is satisfied. Similarly, the creation of the world from God should also be done through an imaginable way, answering all the objections through imaginable ways alone. This makes it necessary to make another assumption for the process of creation of the world by God. The assumption here is that a second unimaginable item called as the power of God is created, which is modified into the world. Since the power is negligible, the world is negligible and maintains the existence of a single God or Brahman. It is like the dream of a person created by the modification of the mind and the mind is negligible compared to the material person. In course of time, to satisfy the logic of students, changes in the hypothesis were made by Ramanuja and Madhva who introduced the assumption of a separate material, which is modified as the world without any connection to God. The hypothetical assumptions can be varied for the sake of preaching the truth to the students in order to satisfy their logic developed from the observation of the world containing only imaginable items. This does not mean that the theories are different.
There is only one real theory that both God and the link between God and world are unimaginable. But the preaching requires the complete elimination of the word unimaginable and the whole preaching should continue with the assumptions of imaginable items and imaginable relationships between those imaginable items alone. In such a case all the assumptions are not true at all in the absolute sense. You need not misunderstand that the three Acharyas differ from each other with different theories about the truth. The same truth is explained in different ways with different created assumptions and hypotheses for the sake of the understanding of students with various types of mentalities, which are always based on the constant observation of only imaginable items (Ekam Sat Viprah bahudha vadanti—Veda).
The final truth was known to Anjaneya, who did not like to preach the truth through assumptions and hence He kept silent in preaching. He showed the essence of all the divine knowledge through action (karma) alone because only karma can be real and fruitful. His recognition of the contemporary human incarnation and practical service to Him is the essence of the message of Anjaneya. For those who cannot accept the human incarnation, Shankara preached the divine knowledge with several assumptions and the most powerful assumption is that the soul itself is God. Shankara preached to atheists and this powerful assumption attracted them to come and at least listen to the subject. All the Acharayas followed this method of using assuptions to preach to various levels of students, who are based only on the logic of imaginable items.