Shankara on Cause, Effect, and the Absolute

Śaṅkara is entirely on common ground with the Sūtras when he defends upanishadic monism by declaring not only that the effect is real before its production, but also that it is real before and during manifestation, and even that its future existence is real now and subject to apprehension by a yogin.

It is real, however, not in itself, but only as the cause, as the pot is real not qua pot but qua clay. The doctrine of the Sūtras that the objects come forth from, and return back to, the Absolute is defended.

But at times Śaṅkara goes back behind the doctrine of the Sūtras to certain texts of the old Upanishads and maintains that the effect is strictly nothing over and above the cause. As we already know, if the cause is said to be identical with the effect, this means that the effect has the nature of the cause, while the cause does not have the nature of the effect.

This, however, is to reduce the effect to the cause. If the world has an intelligible structure, and curds can only be obtained from milk and not from clay, this means that a certain power or predisposition to evolve into curds must be in the milk.

But Śaṅkara declares that all objects are non-different from the ‘powers, (śakti) or predispositions from which they proceed, while the powers, in turn, are non-different from the substances in which they lie, and the substances themselves are traceable finally to the great elements from which they proceed and into which they will eventually dissolve back, so that the whole world, beginning with the primordial element ether, is reduced to a mere inexplicable appearance arising on the face of the Absolute, while causality, law and intelligibility still reign within the appearance.

Śaṅkara transforms the older doctrine of Sat-kārya Vāda, the mere doctrine of the reality of the effect before its manifestation, into an instrument for affirming, yet again, the transcendence of the Absolute, which triumphs ultimately over all predicates attributed to it by the human mind.

~A J Alston from 'Shankara on the Absolute', p.126

Shankara on the Deeper Levels

The circumstance which prevents man from realizing his own true nature as pure Consciousness is attachment to the forms set up by nescience, and the deeply rooted habit of taking them for real.

The purpose of all religious practices, when viewed in the context of the path to liberation, is to weaken the hold of the illusory forms by developing a counter-awareness of deeper levels of reality hidden beneath the more superficial forms.

These ‘deeper levels’ of reality are themselves ultimately illusory from the very fact of being accessible to the understanding and will of man. They are, according to the rather drastic formula of Śaṅkara’s Commentary on Gauḍapāda’s Kārikā II.4, ‘false because seen’. 

Nevertheless, the contemplation of the Lord as manifest under illusory forms relieves the mind of its burden of attachment to the grosser and more oppressive phases of the world-appearance, in particular to the objects of crude sense-enjoyment. Thus it prepares the soul for the final rejection of all forms as illusory,

~A J Alston from 'Shankara on the Creation', p.82

Shankara on the Unmoving Mover

The view that the Lord, though pure Consciousness in his true nature, is somehow at the same time an active being manipulating his power of Māyā, is appropriate and useful for the development of the religious consciousness, which is a necessary preliminary before the final stages of the spiritual path for most people. But if it is taken as the final truth, it will imply that the Lord is an agent and is subject to change and is consequently Himself phenomenal.

The stricter usage, therefore, is to reserve the terms Hiraṇyagarbha, Brahmā or Prajāpati for the world-soul and to use the term ‘Īśvara’ (the Lord) to denote pure Consciousness as Witness and that by whose Light the world-soul and all living beings carry out their powers of activity and knowledge within the phenomenal world.

Within the world-appearance there are deities or powers which carry out their cosmic functions owing to the presence within them of the Light of the Lord, who is Himself a motionless, actionless Witness.

So Śaṅkara says, ‘Thus the lordship, omniscience and omnipotence of the Lord exist relative to the limitations and distinctions of nescience only, and in reality there can be no practice of rulership or omniscience on the part of the Self, in which all distinctions remain eternally negated in knowledge’.

Nevertheless, precisely because He is thus pure Consciousness (cit), He is the only effective root of all activity and knowledge, for He is that which alone exists. Thus, although He is in the true sense bereft of all form, body, organs or action, He is in fact the effective controller of the world-display.

For ‘The cosmic powers take up and lay down their activities in a controlled way through the mere proximity of the Lord as actionless Witness’.

Thus the Lord, though without bodies and organs of His own, carries out activities through the bodies and organs of the deities or cosmic powers. The conception of unmoving mover is illustrated by the analogies of a magnet and a king, both of which cause directed activity in others by their mere presence.

~A J Alston from 'Shankara on the Creation', p.80

Shankara on the Absolute as Lord

We have already seen that the texts teach the existence of the Absolute as ‘that from which all this comes forth’. But did they imply that this Being is actively involved in the creation and control of the world, or is it merely conceived as an actionless divine ground on which the world manifests through nescience?

Śaṅkara’s answer is that from the standpoint of the highest truth there is no plurality and no world and no Creator, and only the divine ground exists, if even the notions of existence or ground can be applied to it.

But from the standpoint of nescience the world of duality is a fact. And from that standpoint it is a grievous error to believe that the world-process goes on through the operation of any blind force and without the conscious support and control of an omniscient and omnipotent Lord.

To correct this error, the upanishadic texts speak occasionally of the Lord (īśa, etc.) and imply that He is the efficient and material cause of the universe, the Inner Ruler and Divine Magician who spreads forth the whole world-appearance under His own conscious control as a mere illusion.

~A J Alston from 'Shankara on the Creation', p.8

Shankara on Avidya (nescience)

If, says Śaṅkara, you demand to know to whom this ‘not-being-awake-to-the-Self’ (aprabodha) belongs, we reply, ‘To you who ask this question’.

If you were awake (prabuddha) to this, you would see that in truth no nescience exists anywhere for anyone. 

Śaṅkara argues in a rather similar way in his Gītā Commentary. First he asserts that nescience does not afflict the true Self. 

Then he brings forward a pupil who wants to know what it does afflict if it does not afflict the Self. It afflicts, he is told, whatever it is perceived to afflict.

To ask further ‘What is that?’ is a useless question, since one cannot perceive nescience at all without perceiving the one afflicted by it. 

Śaṅkara so conducts the remainder of the argument that the pupil has to admit that, because he cannot help perceiving the one afflicted with nescience, he cannot himself be the one afflicted with nescience.

Thus bondage is an illusion and enlightenment does not imply any real change of state. Enlightenment does not so much destroy nescience as reveal that it never existed.

~A J Alston fom 'Sankara on the Absolute' p.88

Mechanics of Maya

The world of maya is an illusion which doesn’t look like one because the person looking is illusionary too.

Understanding the metaphysics of maya doesn’t mean ignoring the newtonian ones. Even quantum mechanics doesn’t go there. Everybody needs a bed to sleep on.

Understanding all is illusion is one thing. Knowing it's one is another. The former is mindful and the latter is atman.

2. east and west

All coding appears in the mind. Waves don’t make a sea. DNA may make the mind but the mind is an appearance in consciousness. Like AI.

Spacetime appears in consciousness and not the other way around. They say understanding this is the big difference between east and west. Sunrise appears in consciousness. Sunset appears in the mind.

3. tending to satcitananda

Happiness does not reside in the mind. War resides in the mind.

Desires aren't happiness but it's the only thing the mind has got.

People think they are tending to satcitananda by making a living, bless our little hearts.

4. me, s/he, & I

me is a reflection of I

s/he is a reflection of god

I am Self-luminous

5. talking kena 2.4

Consciousness is timeless.

Existence is spaceless.

Talking right here and right now.

I am the witness consciousness.

In absolute consciousness, there is nothing to witness.

In reflected consciousness, the dreaming is non-stop.

Attention minus thought equals awareness.

Pratibodha viditam.

footnotes

pratibodhaviditaṁ matamamṛtatvaṁ hi vindate, ātmanā vindate vīryaṁ vidyayā vindate'mṛtam.