Eight

Why is Advaita philosophy Unacceptable?

Does Islam agree with Advaita philosophy? If not, why?
`Advaita' was introduced as a philosophical concept by Sri Sankaracharya. It is generally held that he lived at the end of the seventh century or at the beginning of the eighth century. Some believe that he lived at the end of eighth century, and some others believe it to be the first half of the ninth century. Kaladi, in the state of Kerala is believed to be his birthplace. Sankaracharya adopted Advaita philosophy from Gowdapathan, who was the Guru of his Guru, Govinda. Sankaracharya presented his Advaita philosophy as an interpretation to Badarayana's Brahma sutra. Brahma sutra is the combined form of the verses from the Upanishads.
Vidya vachaspathi V. Panoli, who was a strong advocate of `Advaita' in Kerala, writes: ''Acharya's views can realize the Advaita philosophy. No religious scholar, except Sreesankara, could prove that `Brahma' is nirguna, and the jeevatma (individual soul) and `paramatma' (Supreme Soul) are one and the same'' (Sreesankaradarsanam, Mathrubhumi Printing and Publishing Company Limited, 1998, P. 61.) Sreesankaracharya formed the advaita philosophy to counter Buddhism. Panoli writes: ''Sreesankara had to face opposition from a degenerate Budhism, and in this condition he had to form a novel and powerful philosophy to counter threats from Buddhism. Sreesankara's advaita philosophy very boldly encountered this challenge (Ibid P. 138).
To encounter Buddhism, Sankaracharya adopted their own ideas. V. Panoli writes that Sankara adopted whatever was acceptable from Buddhism and integrated those ideas with his own view. Sreesankara had even the nickname ''Buddha in disguise'' (Ibid P. 68)
Sankaracharya has presented his advaita philosophy thus.
''Brahma Sathyam, Jagatmithya, Jeevo Brahmaiva Na para: (Brahma is real and Jagath is unreal. Life is nothing other than Brahma).
Panoli writes that ''Thousand years ago Sreesankaracharya declared to the world that this visible universe originated from Brahma. Brahma is one and permanent. Brahma is also known by names such as `ankaran', `amaran' and `paramatma'. If one knows Brahma, he can know everything in the world. Vedas too have the name `Brahma'. Paramatma (Supreme Soul) and jeevatma (Individual Soul) are one and the same. They seem to be different out of ignorance and ignorance alone is the cause of grief. Ignorance will be removed by the light of self knowledge. Creation and consumption are the works of the individual soul. The wise have no karma, no bodily bond. The worshippers of Brahma evolve into Brahma (Ibid PP 113).
Panoli continues: ''Mundakopanishad declares that this jagat (the world) originated from the everlasting Brahma, like the cobonsinated from the spider and hair from the body. (Ibid page 48)
In order to bring home the point that only Brahmam is real and jagat unreal or illusion, and out of ignorance jagat is felt real, the supporters of advaita philosophy have presented several instances. Some are given below.
1. Pointing to a gold chain, if someone asks ''what is it''? Everybody will answer: `It is golden chain.'' If the chain is melt and a bangle is made, the answer will be ''It's a bangle'', if an anklet is made the answer is ''it's an anklet''. In reality they are none of these. The state of being gold remains unchanged. Like this, visible `jagath' is only a translated version of the `Brahma'. Seeing this translated world people assume it real out of ignorance. With knowledge of the self they realize that whatever things in the jagat are only transactionary; and only brahma is real; like one knows bangle, chain, and anklet are really gold.
2. The experience in dream and in a state of waking is not similar. However the experience in dream is not real. Similarly what one feels real out of ignorance; one will feel illusory with the acquiring of knowledge in the same way as experience in the dream is felt unreal in the state of waking.
3. In semidarkness a piece of rope may be misunderstood for a serpent. In light one knows reality. In the same way the jagat appears real due to ignorance. With the knowledge of the Brahma it becomes clear that Jagat is only illusion, and Brahma alone is real.
Hence the jeevatma has existence only at the transactional level; at the reality level it is nothing other than Brahma. In other words `Jeevatma' and `Paramatma' (Individual and supreme soul) are one and the same. One understands it with knowledge. Brahma sutra is vague and difficult to understand and any one can interpret it in all ways. Dr. Radhakrishnan writes that ''In the anxiety for economy of words which is carried to an excess the sutras are not intelligible without a commentary'' (Brahma Sutra P. 23).
Hajimi Nakamura wrote that without the help of interpretation it is difficult to understand even a single sentence of Brahmasutra. The style of Brahmasutra is such that it is common for sentences to lack object for subject. Sometimes the most important word is missing. In its absence the sentence cannot be understood. One sutra consists of two - to - ten words. Long sentence is very rare. Some sutras have only one word. (History of Early Vedanta Philosophy).
The difficulty and lack of coherence gave much importance to the imagination of the interpreter. This is one reason for the emergence of contradicting theories, based on Brahmasutra. The advaita philosophy of Sankaracharya, the Visista Advaita of Ramanujacharya and the Dvaita (dualism) philosophy of Madvacharya were all based on Brahmasutra. The scholars who have studied these different schools of philosophy say that Brahmasutra is closer to Dvaita than Advaita. They have also expressed the view that the real source of Advaita is the degenerate Buddhist philosophy.
Mr. Dasgupta, renowned scholar who had made a comprehensive study of Indian philosophy writes "Judging by the sutras alone, it does not seem to me that the Brahma-Sutra supports the philosophical doctrine of Sankara, and there are some sutras which Sankara himself interpreted in a dualistic manner." (A History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. II. P. 2)
He continues that Sankara was interested in proving that this philosophy was preached in Upanishads; but in Upanishads, there are many passages which are clearly of atheistic and dualistic purport; and no amount of linguistic trickery could convincingly show that these could yield a meaning which could support Sankara's thesis." (Ibid P. 2)
There have been more than a half dozen Vaishnava commentators of Brahma-Sutra who not only differed from Sankara's interpretation, but also differed largely amongst themselves in accordance with the different degree of stress; they laid on different aspects of their dualistic creeds. But, however that may be, I am myself inclined to believe that the dualistic interpretation of the Brahma-Sutras were probably more faithful to the sutras than the interpretations of Sankara." (Ibid, Vol. 1, P. 420-21)
Dr. Radhakrishnan, an ardent follower of Sankaracharya and himself an Advaita philosopher writes: "It is clear that the Sutra Kara does not hold that the world is due to vidya. He takes the problem of the creation of the world seriously and urges that the world is the product not of pradhana of the Samkhya system but of Brahman possessed of intelligence. There is no suggestion here of the unreality of the world." (Brahmasutra P. 252).
Radhakrishnan also refutes the Sankara philosophy which tells that individual soul and supreme soul are one and the same. "The embodied self acts and enjoys, acquires merit and demerit and is affected by pleasure and pain and so on; the universal self is of a different nature; it is free from all evil, etc. on account of the difference between the two the experiences of the individual soul do not affect the supreme self. The individual soul undergoes pleasure and pain because it is subject to Karma, whereas the lord is not subject to it. It is not living in the body but subjection to Karma that involves a soul in the experiences of pleasure and pain." (Ibid. 273)
''Brahman, the creative principle, is different from the embodied self. The Jiva cannot create himself or destroy himself. The faults such as doing what is not beneficial and like do not attach to Brahman. There is nothing beneficial to be done by it or non-beneficial to be avoided by it. There is nothing which Brahman cannot know or do. The individual soul, being different in nature, may have the defects mentioned." (Ibid, 355).
"We do not view the lord as identical with the soul because of the declaration of difference'' (Ibid, 417)
Many philosophers like Dr. Radhakrishnan have said that Brahma sutra doesn't support Sankaracharyas theory which argues that jeevatma and paramatma are one and same. Inspite of being a close follower of Sankara's Advaita philosophy, Dr. Radhakrishnan had to express his disagreement to the above point. The word `maya' (illusion), which Sankaracharya has repeatedly used, occurs only once in the Brahmasutra. (Brahmasutra 3:2:3). Where the word `maya' was used, the author of Brahmasutra was explaining the fact that the world of dream by its very nature was mere illusion, and it doesn't have the features of experience in a state of waking. In other words, he used the word `maya' only once; and that too with a sense quite contrary to Sankara's theory. Sankara's philosophy had argued that the experiences of dream and of the state of waking were alike.
Sankaracharya classified reality into two; absolute and practical experience and argued that practical experience was merely illusory. But this division is unacceptable to Brahma Sutra. Dr. Nakamura wrote that ''Sankaras explanation is merely transactional, and not factual. At the factual level they are one and same - and such thoughts of Sankara do not agree with the essence of Brahmasutra.'' (History of Early Vedanta philosophy).
It is clear from the above that the Advaita philosophy of Sankaracharya is quite contrary to the Vedas and to the Brahmasutra which is a combined form of verses from the Upanishads. Sankara's real source Gowdapadan had admitted this to the Buddhists. Dr. Radhakrishnan writes that "to the Buddhists he appealed on the ground that his view did not depend on any theological text revelation. (Indian Philosophy by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan Vol.2, P. 453).
The Advaita philosophy of Sankaracharya is not only against Vedas, but also irrational. For many relevant questions the Advaita philosophers have no answer. Some of these questions are given below.
1) If Sankaracharya argues that the world is mere illusion does it not mean that his body, organs of his body, mind and intellect are also illusion? As the mind, which finds the universe illusory, is itself an illusion, does it not mean that the theory of illusion is another illusion? Advaita Philosophy, being a product of the mind, does it not mean that advaita is an illusion. So as a philosophy based on illusion, is not Advaita philosophy, including its theory of world as maya, just another illusion?
2. Are not Badarayana and his Brahmasutra Mayas? If Brahmasutra is an illusion, isn't the interpretation of Brahmasutra by Sankaracharya, an illusion of another illusion?
3. What is the relationship between the real Brahman and the unreal jagat? If jagat is not outside Brahman, and if it is based on Brahman, how can the jagat, which is subject to change, and Brahman which is not subject to change become one and same? Can illusion and reality be identified with each other?
4. Does the Brahman which is real, accept the universal which is an illusion? Is Brahman the cause of jagat? If so, Brahman being timeless and cause in itself, jagat which is the Brahmans effect should also have been timeless and cause in itself.
5. If the jagat is only a shadow as said by Sankaracharya, can there be any shadow for the perfect Brahman? Can there be virtues and sins in the shadow of sinless Brahman? How can there be virtues and sins in the shadow?
6. Has maya any existence? If it doesn't have, then what of this jagat? Maya is seen powerful enough to cause the jagat. If the jagat has any existence, is there anything that has equal existence with the Brahman. If so, then will it not become `dvaitam (dual)?
7. What is the cause of the jagat? Is it Brahman or ignorance? Who causes ignorance? Is Brahman the cause of ignorance? Isn't ignorance an illusion? So is not the theory that tells the universe is felt real out of ignorance which is actually an illusion, maya by itself?
8. If the argument is that ignorance is a factual truth; then there is also factual Brahman along with ignorance. Isn't it admitting of the dvaita? Isn't it admitting of the two factual truths. So won't both claims - that ignorance is a factual truth or transactional - become baseless?
9. Isn't Sankaracharya's claim about the likeness of experiences in dream and in the state of waking wrong? Isn't the thought that dream is real quite unreal? One may dream of falling and breaking his leg; and it is a mere feeling. Will the breaking of one's leg in a state of waking, remain a mere thought?
10. The experiences in a state of waking will have cause and effect. If there is a wound there is bleeding. Wound is the cause of bleeding. Without such cause and effects things can happen in a state of dream and it shows that the experiences of dream and of the state of waking are not alike.
11. Dream is not unreal or illusion by itself. For dream there must be a person who is dreaming, he must sleep; and whatever is dreamed should have some existence in the real world. So is not the argument that dream is a maya (illusion) yet another illusion. Sleep and waking up are real and dream occurs only in a state of asleep. Is not it? Can the blind, who has never seen anything in the world, dream? So are not eyes-which are reality - essential for dreaming?
12. A piece of rope is mistaken for serpent in darkness. It happens because darkness, rope and serpent are realities. When light comes the rope is recognised as it is. Doesn't it show that rope has its own existence? If there were no darkness, rope or serpent in the real world, then the misunderstanding of rope for serpent would not have occurred. So is not Sankaracharya's example for proving his argument - that the world is an illusion and it appears real out of ignorance - actually prove that the world is real, and not an illusion?
13. Sree Sankaracharya claims that in reality the jivatma and paramatma are one and the same. He further argues that individual soul is an illusion, and by acquiring the knowledge of the Brahman the jeevatma recognizes its being paramatma. How can the jeevatma, which has existence only at the transactional level, become the paramatma which has existence at the reality level? According to Sankaracharya and Gaudapada the Paramatma is like the sun and jivatma its reflection in water. The reflection is neither the sun nor its part. If the reflection doesn't have an existence of its own, how can it become the sun? If the jeevatma is factually an illusion, how can the jeevatma which is maya, acquire the knowledge of the Brahma. Is jeevatma factual or transactional? If it is illusory and merely transactional, how can a thing which has no existence, acquire the knowledge of the Brahman? If the jeevatma is factual, doesn't it have existence along with the paramatma? And if so, isn't it dvaita? (Dualism)
14. Is the knowledge of the Brahman transactional or factual? If it was transactional, how can something be acquired which has no existence? If it was factual the knowledge of the Brahma must have existed simultaneously with Brahman.
15. Is the comparison of gold, spider, human body and other things - which are maya and exist only at the transactional level - with Brahma - which is nirguna and has existence at the factual level - appropriate? How can the spider or its web which are illusions, or the Human body and the hair, again both illusions be compared with Brahman? The Brahman is factual while others are only transactional.
16. The advaita is not a practical philosophy for society to adopt. Vidyavachaspathi V. Panoli has explained it several times.
''The thoughtful, the wise and ascetic are not even one in a million. Only those who are blessed with the dawn of wisdom, and those who realize the transitory nature of the universe, only such people alone achieve deliverance. The number of such people is very small'' (Sree Sankara Darsanam, P. 136).
Among the millions of people, one or two may have deliverance as their objective'' (Ibid page 14).
It is absolutely foolish and meaningless for the masses to follow a philosophy, which is acceptable only for a few.
17. Presenting the Advaita philosophy Sreesankaracharya said; ''Karmanam Cha Vidwa Dwishaya:'' (Deeds, (Karma) are meant for the ignorants only).
In his book ''Ishopanishad'' Aurobindoghosh has criticised Sankaracharya that ''he made Indians averse to Karma (Quoted Ibid, P. 35).
Answering to this criticism V. Panoli writes that ''the observing of Adhyatma is as difficult as walking on the edge of a sword. If one in a billion could reach the other shore of this ocean of universe, that itself is great fortune. So to say that Acharyapadar made Indians averse to work is baseless (Ibid PP 35).
It all explains that not even one among the millions is capable of accepting Advaita philosophy and living accordingly. Indirectly Panoli even admits that if people accept and live according to the Advaita philosophy they will become averse to work, which will eventually result in the ruin of the country and the people.
18. Sankaracharya says that ignorance will disappear with the dawn of self knowledge. Procreation and consumption are the duty of the jeevatma. The wise have no Karma, or other bodily bond. Those who worship the Brahma become Brahman (Ibid P. 113). Is there anyone in the world who has had this advaita experience? In other words, is there anyone who lives without food and without the bodily functions? (Even these amount to dependence on maya) If there is anyone who can live so, who is he? and where? Could Sankaracharya himself live without Karma and other bodily functions? Didn't he put forth a theory, which he could not practise himself?
19. Since advaita philosophy doesn't offer people an acceptable way of life what is its use? and if it is not practicable even for a single person in a million, why such a philosophy and for whom?
Advaita philosophy has no answer to such many questions. All these questions are raised not with the assumption that everything should be rational. They are raised because of the attitude of its supporters, who try to analyse everything in the light of reason. Besides, the question is not that Advaita philosophy is beyond the realm of reason. Rather, it is irrational. So, instead of solving philosophical issues, Advaita makes them more complicated. In the words of Aurobindo Ghosh, "the theory of `maya' in the sense of illusion, and the argument that the universe is unreal does not solve any philosophical issues; on the other hand it creates issues. It does not really solve existential problem; rather this problem is left unresolved. (Sri Aurobindo, The Life Divine, 1949, Quoted by Thomas O' Neil).
As stated earlier as an ideology of life even Sankaracharya, the father of Advaita philosophy could not practise it in his own life. He strongly argued that temples or sanctum are not needed; yet he visited temples, and in the last days of his life he was regretful about it. Dr. Radhakrishnan writes: "It is said that Sankara on his death-bed prayed for forgiveness for having frequented temples, since by so doing he had seemed to deny the omnipresence of God. (Indian Philosophy, Vol. 2, P. 652)
It is clear that Sreesankaracharya has said many things which do not agree with Advaita philosophy. V. Panoli writes that ''In 1985 when Srimat Bharati Theerthaswamikal, (Sreesankaracharya of Sringeri Mat) came to Calicut I visited him. Besides being a scholar of great stature, he was a definite authority and spokesman of Sankara's philosophy. So his views on the works of Sreesankara are more acceptable. When I raised a doubt that certain thoughts in some of Sankara's works like Viveka Choodamani, have not the sublimity of ideas expressed in some other works, His response was thus:'' Don't we see many usages in Kalidasa's works like Raghuvamsam, which are grammatically unacceptable. We have to assume that the great poet used his words under the influence of certain conditions. Almost in a similar way we can assume the nature of contradictions in some of Acharyapadar's works like Vivekachoodamani (Sreesankaradarsanam P. 44-45)
The statement makes clear that even Sankaracharya could not always stick to the Advaita theory. It also proves that Sankaracharya had no knowledge of the Brahman. If he had acquired it there would have been no contradiction in his ideas.
Islam does not agree with Advaita theory which is against Vedas and also irrational. As Vedas and the Brahmasutra which is the combined form of verses from the Upanishads, teaches that it is Brahma or God or Allah who created this universe and everything in it. It also teaches that this world is neither illusion (maya) nor absolute reality. The world is a creation of God and it has temporary reality. The creator is not nirguna. He has many qualities. But the creator and the created are never equal in anything. They are not similar. The created has no qualities of the creator. In other words nothing or no one is equal to the creator. The same theory is emphasised by the Vedas and the Brahmasutra.
The Quran introduces Allah who is omnipotent, omniscient, and who controls everything. The Brahma, introduced by the Brahmasutra is the same God.
In the interpretation to the Brahmasutra verse, Janmadi Asyayada (Brahmasutra 1:1:2) Dr. Radhakrishnan writes: ''This sutra gives us what is called natural Theology. We build up a theory of ultimate being from empirically observable facts. The next sutra takes us to authoritative sources. From the nature of the world, we infer the existence of one supreme, personal, self-subsistence mind to whose creative and ruling activities the world owes its existence, nature, coherence and consummation." (P. 236)
Hence, Brahmasutra, which Sankaracharya has claimed to be his real source, says that "Brahma is the cause of creation, sustenance and destruction of the world (1:2) It explains that the will of Brahma is cause of creation. Islam also teaches the same. Allah is the creator, sustainer and controller of this universe and the cause of creation is His will (Iradat or Masheeat) and decision (Qada). It also discards the advaita theory which is contrary to this explicit view.