THE WORLD — REAL OR ILLUSION?
Nevertheless, some theoretical teaching is necessary as the basis for the practical work of spiritual training. With the Maharshi this took the form of non-duality, in complete accordance with the teachings of the great Sage, Shankara. The agreement does not, however, mean that Bhagavan was, as a philosopher would put it, `influenced by' Shankara, merely that the recognised Shankara's teaching as a true exposition of what he had realised and knew by direct knowledge.D.: Is Bhagavan's teaching the same as Shankara's?
B.: Bhagavan's teaching is an expression of his own
experience and realisation. Others find that it tallies with Sri Shankara's.1
D.: When the Upanishads say that all is Brahman, how
can we agree with Shankara that this world is illusory?
B.: Shankara also said that this world is Brahman or the
Self. What he objected to is one's imagining that the Self is limited by the names and forms that constitute the world. He only said that the world has no reality apart from Brahman. Brahman or the Self is like a cinema screen and the world like the pictures on it. You can see the picture only so long as there is a screen. But when the observer himself becomes the screen only the Self remains.2
Shankara has been criticised for his philosophy of Maya
(illusion) without understanding his meaning. He made three statements: that Brahman is real, that the universe is unreal, and that Brahman is the Universe. He did not stop with the second. The third statement explains the first two; it signifies
Page 5
that when the Universe is perceived apart from Brahman, that perception is false and illusory. What it amounts to is that phenomena are real when experienced as the Self and illusory when seen apart from the Self.51
The Self alone exists and is real. The world, the individual and God are, like the illusory appearance of silver in the mother- of-pearl, imaginary creations in the Self.52 They appear and disappear simultaneously. Actually, the Self alone is the world, the `I' and God. All that exists is only a manifestation of the Supreme.53
D.: What is reality?
B.: Reality must always be real. It has no names or forms
but is what underlies them. It underlies all limitations, being itself limitless. It is not bound in any way. It underlies unrealities, being itself Real. It is that which is. It is as it is. It transcends speech and is beyond description such as being or non-being.54
He would not be entangled in apparent disagreements due merely to a different viewpoint or mode of expression.
D.: The Buddhists deny the world whereas Hindu
philosophy admits its existence but calls it unreal, isn't that so?
B.: It is only a difference of point of view.
D.: They say that the world is created by Divine Energy
(Shakti). Is the knowledge of unreality due to the veiling by illusion (Maya)?
Page 6
B.: All admit creation by the Divine Energy, but what is
the nature of this energy? It must be in conformity with the nature of its creation.
D.: Are there degrees of illusion?
B.: Illusion itself is illusory. It must be seen by somebody
outside it, but how can such a seer be subject to it? So, how can he speak of degrees of it?
You see various scenes passing on a cinema screen: fire seems to burn buildings to ashes; water seems to wreck ships; but the screen on which the pictures are projected remains unburnt and dry. Why? Because the pictures are unreal and the screen real.
Similarly, reflections pass through a mirror but it is not affected at all by their number or quality.
In the same way, the world is a phenomenon upon the substratum of the single Reality which is not affected by it in any way. Reality is only One.
Talk of illusion is due only to the point of view. Change your viewpoint to that of Knowledge and you will perceive the Universe to be only Brahman. Being now immersed in the world, you see it as a real world; get beyond it and it will disappear and Reality alone will remain.61
As the last excerpt shows, the postulate of one universal Reality calls for the conception of a process either of illusion or creation to explain the apparent reality of the world.
The world is perceived as an apparent objective reality when the mind is externalised, thereby abandoning its identity with the Self. When the world is thus perceived the true nature
Page 7
of the Self is not revealed; conversely, when the Self is realised the world ceases to appear as an objective reality.71
That is illusion which makes one take what is ever present and all pervasive, full to perfection and self-luminous and is indeed the Self and the core of one's Being, for non-existent and unreal. Conversely, that is illusion which makes one take for real and self-existent what is non-existent and unreal, namely the trilogy of world, ego and God.72
The world is indeed real, but not as an independent, self- subsistent reality, just as a man you see in a dream is real as a dream-figure but not as a man.
To those who have not realised the Self as well as to those who have, the world is real. But to the former, Truth is adapted to the form of the world whereas to the latter Truth shines as the formless Perfection and the Substratum of the world. This is the only difference between them.73
As I recalled Bhagavan saying sometimes that unreal
(mithya [?], imaginary) and real (satyam) mean the same, but did not quite understand, I asked him about it. He said, `Yes, I do sometimes say that. What do you mean by real? What is it that you call real?'
I answered: "According to Vedanta, only that which is permanent and unchanging can be called real. That is the meaning of Reality."
Then Bhagavan said: "The names and forms which constitute the world continually change and perish and are therefore called unreal. It is unreal (imaginary) to limit the Self
Page 8
to these names and forms and real to regard all as the Self. The non-dualist says that the world is unreal, but he also says, `All this is Brahman'. So it is clear that what he condemns is, regarding the world as objectively real in itself, not regarding it as Brahman. He who sees the Self sees the Self alone in the world also. It is immaterial to the Enlightened whether the world appears or not. In either case, his attention is turned to the Self. It is like the letters and the paper on which they are printed. You are so engrossed in the letters that you forget about the paper, but the Enlightened sees the paper as the substratum whether the letters appear on it or not.81
This is still more succinctly stated as follows:
The Vedantins do not say that the world is unreal. That is a misunderstanding. If they did, what would be the meaning of the Vedantic text: `All this is Brahman'? They only mean that the world is unreal as world but real as Self. If you regard the world as non-self, it is not real. Everything, whether you call it illusion (Maya) or Divine Play (Lila) or Energy (Shakti) must be within the Self and not apart from it.82
Before leaving the theory of the world as a manifestation of the Self, devoid of objective reality, it must be stressed once again that theory had importance for the Maharshi only insofar as it helped a man's spiritual development, not for its own sake. Cosmology as understood in modern physical science simply did not concern him.
D.: The Vedas contain conflicting accounts of
cosmogony. Ether is said to be the first creation in one place, vital energy in another, water in another, something else in
Page 9
another; how can all this be reconciled? Does it not impair the credibility of the Vedas?
B.: Different seers saw different aspects of truth at different
times, each emphasising some viewpoint. Why do you worry about their conflicting statements? The essential aim of the Vedas is to teach us the nature of the imperishable Self and show us that we are That.
D.: About that part I am satisfied.
B.: Then treat all the rest as auxiliary arguments or as
expositions for the ignorant who want to know the origin of things.91
Major Chadwick was copying out the English translation of the Tamil Kaivalya Navaneetha, when he came across some of the technical terms in it which he had difficulty in understanding. He accordingly asked Bhagavan about them, and Bhagavan replied. "These portions deal with theories of creation. They are not essential because the real purpose of the scriptures is not to set forth such theories. They mention the theories casually, so that those readers who wish to, may take interest in them. The truth is that the world appears as a passing shadow in a flood of light. Light is necessary even to see the shadow. The shadow is not worth any special study, analysis or discussion. The purpose of the book is to deal with the Self and what is said about creation may be omitted for the present."
Later, Sri Bhagavan continued: "Vedanta says that the cosmos springs into view simultaneously with him who sees it and there is no detailed process of creation. It is similar to a dream where he who experiences the dream arises simultaneously with the dream he experiences. However, some people cling so
fast to objective knowledge that they are not satisfied when told this. They want to know how sudden creation can be possible and argue that an effect must be preceded by a cause. In fact they desire an explanation of the world that they see about them. Therefore the scriptures try to satisfy their curiosity by such theories. This method of dealing with the subject is called the theory of gradual creation, but the true spiritual seeker can be satisfied with instantaneous creation."92
Page 10