David: Isvara creates the phenomenal universe out of the power of his maya. This necessitates that all sentient beings being caught in a long drawn out cycle of samsara. But why create a world of maya at all?
Rory: Thats the million-dollar question. It’s a very common one, and the truth is it’s not an answerable question. It’s like trying to gain knowledge of the waking world when you’re dreaming. The two occupy different orders of reality, and the understanding of the dream-self will necessarily be confined to the limits of the dream-world. The highest knowledge available to the dreamer is the knowledge that they are, in fact, dreaming.
The only answer as to why the Self dreams up this whole phenomenal world of maya is…because it does. Perhaps it’s just the nature of consciousness to do so, much as it’s the nature of our mind to create an entire world of dreams as we sleep at night.
David: Is there a difference between Isvara and Brahman?
Rory: Ultimately, no. Everything is Brahman/the Self. Isvara is a term used to describe the Self associated with form; the Self wielding the power of maya in order to create this universe of multiplicity. Brahman underlies and pervades this seeming creation, while itself remaining unchanged. (To complicate things, sometimes the term ‘Isvara’ is used to refer to Brahman as well. But I myself try to keep it simple and only use the term ‘Isvara’ to mean the Self associated with form.)
It’s a subtle understanding, I hope that makes some sense? If it doesn’t, or you have further questions, please fire away.
David: Yes, thank you. There is just one aspect of Vedanta as you explain it that I have a difficulty with and that is the teaching of Isvara. For me, at least, the explanation of how the world of apparent form arose and why are more convincingly explained in A Course in Miracles. That said I do not know which teaching is is in fact true or indeed if either of them are! How can that be known? Isvara cannot be proven only deduced. It may be a helpful teaching in that it helps to fill in some blanks but it is not one which is open to verification through personal enquiry in the same way that the truth of Tat Tvam Asi can be.
Rory: At the most pragmatic level, Isvara simply means our environment and the innate intelligence creating and sustaining it. So, we’re actually experiencing and knowing Isvara all the time. Even our very bodies belong to Isvara, and the thoughts that run through our minds. Anything objectifiable by the mind and senses is Isvara.
Perhaps what’s tripping you up is the idea of Isvara as symbolised as a deity or deities? This is done as a concession to the mind, to help turn what’s quite an abstract understanding into something more concrete and graspable. As I said in the book, there are three levels of understanding Isvara and these relate to the spiritual and intellectual maturity of the seeker. If the idea of a divine personality doesn’t wash, that’s completely unnecessary, as you might simply think of Isvara as the world of objects both gross and subtle.
David: So my question (probably my last one!) is this. Does it matter? What does it matter if I come to the realisation of Tat Tvam Asi without embracing the teaching of Isvara and you come to the same realisation as I having found that teaching helpful?
Rory: Good question! As a Vedanta teacher, I see why it’s necessary to teach the entire teaching and to fill in all the blanks. Vedanta is a complete roadmap whereas most teachings such as Neo Advaita talk about the Self and the jiva but have no real understanding of what the material reality is and ultimately what the jiva is either. That opens one to so many levels and layers of confusion. In fact, the Neo Advaita teachings begin falling apart by failing to include an understanding of Isvara. They just kind of bypass the manifest world with no way of explaining what it is, how it exists or how it works.
In general, it’s necessary to have an understanding of Isvara in order for karma yoga to work, and the cultivation of an attitude of devotion is also enormously beneficial psychologically and helps qualify the mind like nothing else. The loss of belief in a God concept or a higher power has had an enormous impact on us culturally the last century or so. What happens when we ditch God is the ego unconsciously fills the vacuum and gets promoted to godlike status. I believe that may partly explain our society’s present epidemic of narcissism and psychological misery. It’s a topic that fascinates me and I intend to research and write about it.
One of the key things knowledge of Isvara does is neutralise the ego’s false notion of doership and ownership. By understanding God, we realise that, at the level of maya, the jiva doesn’t actually own anything — not even it’s own body and mind — and it doesn’t DO anything either. That’s why I like the middle sections of the Gita, such as ‘The Divine Glories’, because they cut the ego down to size, making realise us that everything here actually belongs not to us, but to the field of phenomenal existence, ie., Isvara. The twin notions of doership and ownership are hard-wired into the jiva, but they are just erroneous concepts. In actuality, all the doing and owning belongs to Isvara, which is simply the field of material existence.
Again — don’t get too hung up on words and terminology. If for whatever reason the word Isvara doesn’t work for you, use whatever does. Isvara can be understand in either theistic or non-theistic terms. Or both. You might just want to call it ‘the field’.
While Isvara is a necessary part of the teaching for most students, for more advanced seekers it may not be. Here’s why. Ultimately, the core of Vedanta is Self-knowledge and the discrimination between satyaand mithya; the real and the apparently real. It’s been said that if you have nothing more than a clear and assimilated understanding of satya and mithya, you don’t actually need the rest of Vedanta. Vedanta is a throw-away teaching. It’s a tool to free the mind of its false self-identification, and once that’s done, it’s no longer needed and can be set aside like a can opener that’s fulfilled its function. As Krishna says, to the liberated soul, the scriptures are as much use as a puddle when the land is flooded.
David: They are only concepts which are all equally mithya. Only Tat Tvam Asi is not a concept but Reality.
Rory: You’re absolutely correct in that Isvara relates to mithya and only the Self is Real. That’s the highest level of the teaching and the ultimate truth of Vedanta.
The earlier stages of the teaching grant the world of maya a provisional existence rather than negating it entirely. We have to lead from the jiva’s perspective. That’s why we have creation theories and talk of Isvara, etc. Then, we get to a point where we turn it around and say, “well, actually, while that’s true from the jiva’s perspective, at the absolute level, there’s nothing but awareness/consciousness”. That’s the only Reality; all else is but appearance.
That’s why you shouldn’t get too hung up on Isvara. For me, it’s necessary for explaining and understanding the whys and hows of this apparent creation, and seeing that the jiva is just but a small aspect of this field; a wave in a cosmic ocean. But when you get down to the nuts and bolts of it, you realise that Isvara, jiva, and all the worlds and galaxies are just appearances in the Self, which is the only Reality. We rarely lead with that, however, as it’s a teaching far too radical for…well, almost anyone.
David: In fact, as I am sure you know, not all teachers of Vedanta teach about Isvara. In fact they argue that nowhere in the Upanishads can such a teaching be found. I have not studied the Upanishads so I can’t say but in any case as with all scriptures so much is down to interpretation and what one wants to find there.
Rory: The term ‘Isvara’ is comparatively more recent, but the Vedas and Upanishads are filled with God, described in many ways and forms and with many names. It was Adi Shankaracharya that essentially codified Vedanta, beautifully and brilliantly contextualising the Upanishads. He used the term Isvara to mean ‘Saguna Brahman’; the Self apparently assuming form—which means anything perceivable or conceivable, from the myriad gods and heavens to this universe and all the bodies and minds. So, whether the term ‘Isvara’ is used or not, the implicit understanding is there. Some later commentators put their own spin on things of course and a number of different sub-schools exist, including some of which see the creation as a duality rather than a non-duality. I’m open minded, but for my money, none have come close to Shankara’s teaching in terms of scope and logic.
David: PS. I do have one further reflection on the teachings relating to Isvara, for me the most tricky aspect of the whole teaching. I could conceive of Isvara in the following way in an attempt to be faithful to the teaching as a whole which includes an understanding of Isvara. The world of form (the universe) is mithya and therefore unreal and yet from the perspective or point of reference of the Jiva it appears real. This is how we see the world through our individual unconsciousness or ignorance (microcosmic delusion). From the perspective or point of view of the entire created world or cosmos we may deduce that it has been brought into “existence” as a result of our collective unconsciousness which is Isvara(macrocosmic delusion). So to the the Jiva, Isvara would represent the creator or God (in the dream so to speak) and to whom he could offer devotion (Bhakti). So although both the Jiva and Isvara are equally delusional concepts it may however be helpful for learning purposes to “pull the wool over our own eyes” so to speak in recognising Isvara as God. Once our ignorance is removed both the Jiva AND Isvara are seen for what they really are as illusory or “unreal”. Is there a way you can tweak my (mis)understanding in a way which conforms to the teachings and so in a way that I can more readily accept?
Rory: I wish I’d fully read this before I answered. If I’m reading this right, I think you nailed it. From the perspective of the jiva, Isvara is that which creates and sustains the universe; the visible and invisible forces that keep the worlds and galaxies in motion. Understanding this and developing a mindset of bhakti helps purify the mind, and removing the mistaken idea that we are the agents of ownership and authorship.
From the perspective of the Self, jiva is unreal, being just an aspect of Isvara, and Isvara is unreal, being just an apparent object (and objects are by nature limited) appearing in this divisionless and limitless universal awareness/consciousness.
