Hello Vishnudeva,
I have a question: Since the whole world and everything which appears in it is just an illusion (Maya), and there is no real person, how does the Advaita Vedanta explain the doctrine of Karma and reincarnation?
V: Hi Henry. Advaita Vedanta is nothing but the teachings of the Upanishads. On that basis, Advaita Vedanta accepts the theory of karma put forth in the Upanishads themselves. An example of this theory is found at verse 4.3.3 of one of the most ancient Upanishads, the Brihadaranyka:
“[Rebirth] is like this. As a caterpillar, when it comes to the tip of a blade of grass, reaches out to a new foothold and draws itself onto it, so the self, after it has rendered the body inert, reaches out to a new foothold and draws itself onto it.”
H: In other schools of Indian philosophy there is a kind of Dualism between Jiva Atma and ParamAtma. I can understand this doctrine, but not according to Advaita Vedanta, because there never existed an individual person or entity in the first place. I would like to know your stand on this subject.
V: You are correct that in Advaita Vedanta, there is ultimately no dualism between jiva atma and paramatma. But that does not make the jiva atma non-existent, seeing as the jiva atma (body/mind entity) is obviously experienced by all conscious beings. And Shankara, Advaita’s greatest teacher, says that the claims of even a thousand scriptures cannot contradict common experience and turn fire cold or light into darkness.
So, Advaita does not deny the existence of the jiva atma, because it is obviously experienced, as is the world. And in that world, there are natural laws, one of which is karma and rebirth. Action causes results, which must necessarily be reaped by the agent of those actions. Since a living being performs innumerable actions in life, reaping the results of those actions requires future lives.
Now, even though Advaita does not question the existence of karma and rebirth, it does question its reality. There is a difference, for we can experience something, yet still question whether or not it is actually real. A common example is experiencing a dream, but questioning its reality upon waking.
But why would Advaita question the reality of life at all? Well, if the theory of karma and rebirth is true, then every moment in the present is the effect of a past action, and every reaction to the present moment is the cause for yet another moment in the future. And so forth. How then can liberation from karma and rebirth be achieved when every karma leads to more karma and future rebirths in and endless chain of cause and effect?
At best, we can perform good karma and try to go to some kind of heavenly realm when our body dies. The fly in the ointment though, is that the same scripture that endorses the performance of karma to get to heaven also says that our trip to heaven will be temporary, seeing as it was caused by a limited entity performing a finite number of actions life. This means that when the good karma that we’ve accrued runs out, we are once again born in the world. The implication here is that liberation from karma and rebirth cannot be found in the performance of karma itself, for a limited number of transient actions cannot logically produce an infinite, permanent result i.e. liberation.
Since liberation from karma and rebirth is the aim of all schools of Indian Philosophy, the issue of karma potentially presents an intractable conundrum: If we really are this body and mind, which is the effect of old karma as well the producer of new karma and new bodies, then how can we ever truly be free by doing more karma? We’re stuck in a loop!
Luckily, the scriptures (to which all orthodox schools of Indian Philosophy supposedly owe their allegiance) offers a solution:
“The knower of Brahman attains the highest. Brahman is existence, consciousness, infinity” -Taittiriya Upanishad 2.1
“This self is Brahman” -Mandukya 2
“I take that to be the self, I who have the knowledge, I who am immortal…the breathing behind breathing, the sight behind sight, the hearing behind hearing, the thinking behind thinking…with mind (understanding) alone must one know it. There is no diversity here. From death to death he goes, who sees here any kind of diversity.” -Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.19
“I am Brahman”–Brihadaranyaka 1.4.10
Here, the scripture, irresespective of any particular school of philosophy’s views on atma and paramatma, rather plainly states that there is no relationship possible between “I” (jiva atma) and Brahman (paramatma/self) on the basis that paramatma and atma are non-different.
When paramatma and atma are non-different, then liberation, rather than being the result of action, is the result of understanding. It is not what we do that causes liberation. Rather, liberation is directly realizing what we are: “Oh! We’ve been free this whole time, because freedom is our nature.”
But…the jiva atma exists. How is this so, when there is only Brahman?
“The lord, on account of his maya, appears variously” -Brihadaranyaka 2.5.19
The scripture answers by saying that the difference between jiva atma and paramatma consists in appearance alone. The difference is only “as if.”
For instance, from experience we know that there is a difference between a lump of clay and a clay pot. The lump of clay is just a formless mass but the pot is round. The lump of clay can’t be used for anything but the pot can hold water. On the superficial level, the lump of clay is not a clay pot.
But digging beneath the surface level of appearance, what is the actual difference between the lump of clay and the clay pot? In reality, the clay pot is nothing but clay. So while the clay may assume a form and a function, this does not alter its fundamental nature as clay. The pot may be broken and remolded, but it nontheless remains clay, despite any appearance to the contrary.
It is the same with paramatma. It is the clay that appears to be the clay pot of jiva atma. When the jiva atma thinks it is the clay pot of the body, it believes that it will be broken and refashioned endlessly. But when the jiva atma understands that it is really paramatma, and nothing but paramatma, it knows that karma and reincarnation are only happening on an “as if” basis, similar to a dream. Just as a dream is real when we think it is real, so is the jiva atma. But just as a dream is seen to ultimately unreal upon waking, so is karma and reincarnation seen to unreal upon waking up to the reality of Brahman.
Mandukya Karika 2.31-32 says, “Just as dream, magic or a city in the sky are seen to be unreal, so also is this whole universe known to be unreal from the Upanishads by the wise. There is no destruction, no origination, none in bondage, none striving or aspiring for salvation, and non-liberated (Because all are already the ever-free Brahman). This is the highest truth.”
So, Advaita’s position on jiva atma and paramatma is that they are only superficially different. When this superficial difference is thought to be real, then we think that the jiva atma’s karma and reincarnation applies to us, defines us and limits us. When we see that jiva atma is really paramatma, then though the appearance of the jiva atma (body/mind) persists until death, it is known that the appearance in no way whatsoever affects us.
Thank you very much,
Henry
V: You’re welcome Henry. This was a good question and I enjoyed answering. If you have additional questions, feel free to ask. Though, as you may have noticed, I am always speedy with my replies. Life always keeps me busy with plenty of karma, wink wink.
All my best,
Vishnudeva
End Of Knowledge 