Who Is Affected By Ignorance?
Sun, 02/10/2008 - 17:46 — admin
MICHAEL: So the first question, then, is who is being affected by ignorance, illusion, or what have you. Regardless of Shankaracharya attempted explanation that Brahman is not actually affected but only appears to be affected by ignorance, since he refuses to acknowledge the existence of any other being than the impersonal Brahman, it is Brahman, and Brahman only, that is being deluded.
TEACHER: That’s right. If there is an illusion, someone must be experiencing it. And if no one exists other than Brahman, then it must be Brahman who is experiencing the illusion. Now, if it is Brahman who is Illusioned, then this means that Brahman is not all-powerful. This means ignorance or illusion is more powerful than Brahman since it has the ability to affect it. This also means that Brahman is not changeless, since ignorance has changed Brahman. Actually, Shankara attempted to answer both of these criticisms by saying that the self by its very nature cannot be affected by ignorance or change.16 This statement merely contradicts his other statements, however, so it offers no solution to the problem. Therefore, Shankara’s inability to logically explain how Brahman comes to be affected by ignorance stands out as a weak point in his system of thought. His statement about a “superimposed individual self” who is affected by ignorance is just not acceptable to mature philosophers. There are numerous reasons for this. One of them is the fact that Shankara was unable to introduce the concept of a superimposed individual self without alluding to ignorance. So even if we are to accept that not Brahman, but Shankara’s superimposed self, is the deluded one, of what use is this in arguing that ignorance does not affect the Supreme Self, if when we try to explain the existence of the superimposed self we say that it has arisen from the Supreme Self because of ignorance? So again we come back to the same point-that ignorance has acted upon the Absolute Truth.
MICHAEL: This raises an interesting question in my mind. If Brahman is not Illusioned, then Brahman can obviously not seek liberation. Similarly, if the living entities are really non-beings, i.e., nonexistent, then they also cannot seek liberation, can they? Who, then, is seeking liberation?
TEACHER: That is a very perceptive observation, Michael! If the individual souls are apparent realities, then there is no question of one of them again realizing “I am Brahman,” nor is there any question of Brahman again realizing “I am Brahman” because Brahman is always pure in consciousness and never forgets its identity. On the basis of these considerations, we must consider that the liberation which Shankara speaks of is illusory, since according to him there is no entity in existence who actually passes through the experience of being freed from material bondage.
In the same way that we do not befriend or reject somebody just on the basis of the type of clothing he is wearing, we should not feel prejudice nor bigotry towards others just because of the type of body that they are wearing. We should know that we aren’t our bodies and thus not relate with others according to their temporary bodies.Who Is Affected By Ignorance?
Science of Identity Foundation – Siddhaswarupananda
MICHAEL: So the first question, then, is who is being affected by ignorance, illusion, or what have you. Regardless of Shankaracharya attempted explanation that Brahman is not actually affected but only appears to be affected by ignorance, since he refuses to acknowledge the existence of any other being than the impersonal Brahman, it is Brahman, and Brahman only, that is being deluded.
TEACHER: That’s right. If there is an illusion, someone must be experiencing it. And if no one exists other than Brahman, then it must be Brahman who is experiencing the illusion. Now, if it is Brahman who is Illusioned, then this means that Brahman is not all-powerful. This means ignorance or illusion is more powerful than Brahman since it has the ability to affect it. This also means that Brahman is not changeless, since ignorance has changed Brahman. Actually, Shankara attempted to answer both of these criticisms by saying that the self by its very nature cannot be affected by ignorance or change.16 This statement merely contradicts his other statements, however, so it offers no solution to the problem. Therefore, Shankara’s inability to logically explain how Brahman comes to be affected by ignorance stands out as a weak point in his system of thought. His statement about a “superimposed individual self” who is affected by ignorance is just not acceptable to mature philosophers. There are numerous reasons for this. One of them is the fact that Shankara was unable to introduce the concept of a superimposed individual self without alluding to ignorance. So even if we are to accept that not Brahman, but Shankara’s superimposed self, is the deluded one, of what use is this in arguing that ignorance does not affect the Supreme Self, if when we try to explain the existence of the superimposed self we say that it has arisen from the Supreme Self because of ignorance? So again we come back to the same point-that ignorance has acted upon the Absolute Truth.
MICHAEL: This raises an interesting question in my mind. If Brahman is not Illusioned, then Brahman can obviously not seek liberation. Similarly, if the living entities are really non-beings, i.e., nonexistent, then they also cannot seek liberation, can they? Who, then, is seeking liberation?
TEACHER: That is a very perceptive observation, Michael! If the individual souls are apparent realities, then there is no question of one of them again realizing “I am Brahman,” nor is there any question of Brahman again realizing “I am Brahman” because Brahman is always pure in consciousness and never forgets its identity. On the basis of these considerations, we must consider that the liberation which Shankara speaks of is illusory, since according to him there is no entity in existence who actually passes through the experience of being freed from material bondage.