Ignorance – The Cause of Bodily Identification part2
Mon, 02/04/2008 - 20:09 — admin
The reflection of a face in a mirror is different from the face, as it imitates the mirror. The face which does not depend on the mirror (for its existence) is also different from its reflection. Similarly, the reflection of the self in the ego is also regarded (as different from the pure self) like that of the reflected face which is different from the face. The pure self is considered to be different (from its own reflection) like the face (which is different from its own reflection). In fact, however, the self and its reflection are free from real distinction (between each other, like the face and its reflection).11
In these verses Shankara is saying that although there is an apparent distinction between the Self and what he calls the reflected self, there is not actually any real distinction. His point is that the self which is reflected on the ego has no existence independent of the actual Self and therefore, since there is no factual distinction, whatever is experienced by the reflected self is actually being experienced by the real Self. In this way, Shankaracharya has very adroitly arranged his words in a manner which has allowed him to reintroduce his original concept that the self within each body is actually the One Supreme Self. He is thus able to simultaneously propose that the Supreme Self is the one who experiences the transmigratory cycle and yet does not experience the transmigratory cycle. The Supreme Self in the form of the superimposed or reflected self is covered by ignorance, yet simultaneously the Supreme Self is not covered by ignorance. Therefore, Sri Krishna Chaitanya has accused Shankaracharya of word jugglery.
Many people practice tai chi, chi gong, and so on with the aim of keeping their bodies fit for a long time. There is certainly nothing wrong with keeping one’s body fit—indeed, it is one of the aims of yoga — but unfortunately, many such people are trying to run away from the inevitable death of the body. Some mystic yogis strive to keep their bodies alive forever — but that is not possible. Even if one was the greatest yogi and could keep his body alive for thousands of years, that still is not forever.But let’s get back to the immediate point at hand, namely, Shankara’s statement that God did not actually become affected or covered by ignorance, but only appeared to. Shankara recognized the fact that a supreme, all-knowing, all-powerful being would certainly not be able to come under the influence of ignorance. Nevertheless, he simultaneously propagated the idea that all of the living beings in the phenomenal world were, in effect, nondifferent from that supreme, all-powerful, all-knowing being. These individual living beings, however, had no knowledge of their so-called identity with the Supreme Being. Therefore, obviously, if they were that Supreme Being, they must be suffering from ignorance. There is no other satisfactory explanation available. Obviously, Shankara could not say that they were not the Supreme Being and that they were suffering from ignorance, for to do so would be to admit that the individual living beings had a type of separate existence, i.e., that they actually were individual living beings-which, of course, contradicts his “all is one” proposal. He therefore postulated apparent ignorance or apparent illusion. He did this by claiming that individual consciousness, and also perception of the phenomenal world, were superimposed onto the Self. Therefore, the Supreme Self seems to be subject to pain, pleasure, ignorance, bondage, etc., although in actuality the Supreme Self is not subjected to these things.10 Shankara gives various examples to illustrate the point he is trying to make. For example, he states that the superimposition of the individual self on the Supreme Self is like the reflection of a real face in the mirror. In introducing this example, Shankara introduces an even more complex concept into his theory, which I wil1 attempt to explain to you after first reading the verse itself.
Science of Identity Foundation – Chris Butler Speaks
The reflection of a face in a mirror is different from the face, as it imitates the mirror. The face which does not depend on the mirror (for its existence) is also different from its reflection. Similarly, the reflection of the self in the ego is also regarded (as different from the pure self) like that of the reflected face which is different from the face. The pure self is considered to be different (from its own reflection) like the face (which is different from its own reflection). In fact, however, the self and its reflection are free from real distinction (between each other, like the face and its reflection).11
In these verses Shankara is saying that although there is an apparent distinction between the Self and what he calls the reflected self, there is not actually any real distinction. His point is that the self which is reflected on the ego has no existence independent of the actual Self and therefore, since there is no factual distinction, whatever is experienced by the reflected self is actually being experienced by the real Self. In this way, Shankaracharya has very adroitly arranged his words in a manner which has allowed him to reintroduce his original concept that the self within each body is actually the One Supreme Self. He is thus able to simultaneously propose that the Supreme Self is the one who experiences the transmigratory cycle and yet does not experience the transmigratory cycle. The Supreme Self in the form of the superimposed or reflected self is covered by ignorance, yet simultaneously the Supreme Self is not covered by ignorance. Therefore, Sri Krishna Chaitanya has accused Shankaracharya of word jugglery.