MIX-UP BETWEEN DIFFERENT LEVELS OF REALITY - A Hairpin bend on the ascent to advaita

MIX-UP BETWEEN DIFFERENT LEVELS OF REALITY  

A Hairpin bend on the ascent to advaita

Questioner: Prof. VK, to state that "Buddhi" is doing everything because of the presence of  Consciousness while the Absolute Consciousness itself  is doing nothing is like saying that in a dream state "TAIJASA" is doing everything but "dreamer" is doing nothing. In fact neither taijasa nor the dreamer is doing anything since there is no act of doing there. It is just a dream. Similarly, even in waking state there is neither doer nor doing. Why even the question of who the doer is while there is no doing???

My dear friend, you are inadvertently slipping  into a standard  mistake that we, learners of Advaita, make. It is the mistake of mixing up one reality with a higher reality . Advaita itself loses its significance if it is interpreted as a ‘kriya-advaita’ (advaita in action), rather than as a ‘bhava-advaita’ (advaita in attitude). All our shastras emphasize and insist on bhava-advaita only. If ‘You’ and ‘I’ are one and the same according to advaita, it does not mean that your property is mine! It is only the attitude of oneness that is recommended, not the actual oneness in the vyaavahaarik (=transactional) plane. (Gita 18 – 20). The attitude of oneness must imply first of all that ‘your’ sorrows must be ‘mine’ before any other oneness is declared, recommended or practised. Again this sentence could be distorted by using the advaita plank itself. For example, when I use the word ‘sorrow’ one could say: Where is sorrow for an advaitin? Sorrow is there only when there is duality!. This is again another example of mixing the vyaavahaarik)  plane with the absolute.

Most of our misunderstandings in advaita discussions can be traced to this single fault in the logic. As a mathematician I used to say that this is like ‘division by zero’ in mathematics. This single fault of ‘division by zero’ made explicitly or implicitly can lead to all sorts of fallacious statements in mathematics. So also by mixing the vyaavahaarik plane and the paaramaarthik plane one could tear to pieces most of the statements asserted by advaita.

This mixing of two planes itself is a cause of confusion to the beginning advaitin. I have recently discovered an analogy from the world of TV serials (soup’ plays). Mostly the same actors play different roles in the different serials. Several serials are telecast every day. Now let us think of someone who is watching several serials day by day. Actor A is a husband in one serial of actress B. In another serial (say, which has a time slot adjacent to the other one in the TV schedules), actress B is the sister of Actor A. A new entrant to the audience of these serials, confuses himself with the roles of A and B in the different serials and asks a question: Why do they show such scenes as somebody going to bed with his sister?  Well, the veteran watcher of these serials knows what kind of confusion the new watcher has landed himself into. The latter has mixed up the roles of A and B in the two serials!. 

This is exactly the case with our initiate in advaita, who asks: If there is only one non-dual reality, then what is the need to pray or worship or do bhakti? The existence of the one non-dual reality is in the absolute level, whereas the praying or worshipping or doing bhakti is in the vyaavahaarik level. A Jivanmukta is so called because he can be in either of the planes according to ‘his will, which, if you ask him, he will ascribe to ‘divine will, because he has no other will except divine will. When we understand him in the Absolute plane as a Jivanmukta, we are looking at one of his roles only. When we understand him in the vyaavahaarik plane, he appears to be one among us. Those of us (Don’t include me -- I have never had that good fortune) who have seen Ramana Maharshi in action, going about asking people at their lunch to have one more serving, or asking a visitor about his travel, must be thinking how is it this Jivanmukta cares to delve into these mundane questions?

The same thing about mAyA.  In the absolute plane there is only one non-dual reality. There is no mAyA there.  But in the vyaavahaarik  plane, everything is mAyA. The vyaavahaarik plane itself is a mAya; but mark it, not to  somebody in the vyaavahaarik plane, but to some one who is outside of it!  To be outside of it, you have to surrender to Him when you are inside of it. Those who surrender to Me when they are in the vyaavahaarik plane, I will take them out of the vyaavahaarik plane to My Absolute Plane, -- says the Lord, in so many words, very explicitly in 7-14 and 18-66. 

Now let me take the statement of the Question:. My comments are in red:

Prof. VK, to state that "Buddhi" is doing everything because of the presence of  Consciousness while the Absolute Consciousness itself  is doing nothing is like saying that in a dream state  (This ‘state’ concept is for the vyAvahaarik plane)"TAIJASA" is doing everything but "dreamer" is doing nothing (this is in the Absolute plane). In fact neither taijasa (this is a vyAvahArik concept) nor the dreamer is doing anything since there is no act of doing there (this ‘not doing’ is in the Absolute Plane). It is just a dream (Dream is only with reference to the dreamer in the waking state, which is a vyAvahaarik concept). Similarly, even in waking state (vyAvahaarik concept) there is neither doer nor doing (this is in the Absolute Plane).  Why, even the question (in the vyAvahaarik plane) of who the doer is (in the vyAvahaarik plane)  while there is no doing (in the Absolute plane)???

****************************