How to understand Advaita in simple steps?
Advaita means non dual, and is the opposite of Dvaita which means dual. Normally we think of the external world as an entity different from us. It is practically every one's opinion that there was this universe initially in some form or other and then man eventually came on to this scenario either through evolution or creation or by whatever means that may be. This is what Dvaita or dualism says. However Advaita negates this view and insists on the oneness of the whole universe as well as the human mind. Advaita stipulates that the Brahman (which is the entire universe) and the Self (which is the distinct individuality of the human mind) are absolutely the same and not different from each other, as it seems. According to Advaita, there never was a time when the universe existed alone without the human mind. Both arrived on the scene simultaneously. As a result when the self is not in the picture, the universe also goes into oblivion. In other words, when the self vanishes, even the question of existence of the universe can not arise. The most important requisite to understand Advaita, is a mind free from any prejudice, presumption and assumption. Such a mind should also be able to view things from a totally different perspective.
An ardent student of Advaita had nagging doubts about accepting that the Brahman and self are one and the same. He approached his Guru with the following questions which were subsequently clarified.
Q-1: If Self and Brahman are one and the same, then why is it that the self feels so helpless in the day to day existence with nature inflicting miseries galore on the self? Why life continues to be a pain despite many moments of satisfaction? All around we always see large scale sufferings making us wonder whether this universe serves any purpose at all.
Ans: By its very nature, human life is full of sufferings. As such, nothing can be done about it. As a matter of fact, if sufferings are totally absent in life, it will cease to be life. But a little introspection will prove that the sufferings are not real and they are all of our own making only. As we normally identify the self with the body, we go about the task of meeting all the bodily needs which lead only to suffering. Life is fundamentally based on wants and needs. That is the reason why it is steeped in miseries. As long as one is completely involved in meeting the daily needs, self realisation is always a distance away. In any case all these sufferings are short lived and can not be taken as real. The main problem with life is that it can exist in only one state and it does not have a viable alternative. Non-existence is not an option available to it. It is called life only because it exists.
Existence of any entity has to be an attribute of self and nothing can exist without the self. As the Self and the universe exist only because of each other, it follows that both have to be same. In fact the whole universe is a make believe world which is entirely the making of the self only, though wholly unintentional. The self performs a fabulous mind boggling trick using mind as a tool leading to the emergence of this phenomenal world from literally nowhere. When we see a two dimensional movie on a screen, we know it to be unreal as there is a projector and a screen causing this event. Suppose you see a three dimensional movie without a projector and a screen, you will definitely conclude that it has to be totally unreal, in fact more unreal than a movie shown on a screen. The life around us is just like a three dimensional movie only. It is a drama played out on the world stage for which the self is the projector. That is why Self and Brahman are one and the same. There is no more purpose or meaning behind this phenomenon than what you can attribute to it. Life has already happened and we can do nothing about that now. You can’t attribute any cosmic motive to it other than what you can conjure up for yourself.
Q-2: Why should Brahman enact this sordid drama? Who is really benefited?
Ans: Life is an enigmatic event which has already happened. It is a fait-accompli and there is no point in questioning it now after the event. It happened just like that for no apparent reason. The subconscious mind has already made the world and the conscious mind now has to grapple with the problem. There is no such thing like motive, purpose, desire etc for Nature or Brahman. Suppose a child sipping water from a glass, drops the glass inadvertently and it breaks. Now the child had no intention to either drop the glass or break it. It just happened and that is all there is to it. You can’t question the child about its motive in breaking the glass because there was none. Similarly the world emerged, as it just happened. Brahman had no more motive or purpose behind it than the child dropping the glass. There is absolutely no way for Brahman to realise itself unless it becomes self. Realisation is achieved only through discrimination which can be done only by self. The 'whole' which is Brahman has to necessarily become a miniscule 'self ' in order to make this realisation possible. Perhaps that could be an explanation for why Brahman chose to become the self.
The following narration can explain better how the metamorphosis of Brahman into Self took place. Imagine a scenario where an all powerful Brahman (read nature; read God) surveys the progress of living beings on earth much before the emergence of human beings. Brahman is terribly bored because the living creatures are not at all doing anything special and no significant change is taking place on the earth. A quantum leap in the intelligence of living creatures had become essential and conditions were favourable in the evolutionary scheme of things for the same. Thus the emergence of man with his special tool of powerful intelligence had become inevitable. But Brahman faced here a very serious dilemma. It was not possible to bring about man’s emergence unless Brahman himself gets transformed into man’s self. Again when Brahman becomes self, all the special powers of Brahman will be lost irretrievably and Brahman will become a victim of his own creation. Come what may, Brahman had to take that plunge inadvertently and man emerged on the scene. So here you are, a hapless and helpless Brahman, in the guise of Self. One should be proud of the fact that Brahman had chosen to become the Self, rather than brooding over the problems that beset life. This is Advaita in a nutshell. It is not possible to explain Advaita in any way better than this narration.
Q-3. Your narration is a hypothesis as it is based on an imagination. Is there any solid proof for Advaita?
Ans: A solid proof for Advaita is available in a very short form in just a few sentences below-
a. Let us call the advaitin as Mr.A who claims that as per Advaita the world will cease to exist, the moment he dies; but it will continue to exist in the same way, if anybody else dies and he remains alive. He challenges that this theory can not be disproved, as it is not possible to show him that the world exists even after his death.
b. Suppose Mr A dies. Then the world will continue to exist for the rest of us who are alive. But Mr.A can not be revived and brought back to life and shown that the world continues to exist even after his death. So the theory can not be disproved in the absence of Mr.A
c. If a theory can not be disproved, the very same arguments which establish this premise should serve as a proof for the theory though it may be indirect.
Thus the Advaita theory stands proved.
COMMENT