[Advaita-l] Samsāra as 'software' and the world as 'hardware' – both are mithyā – Bhāgavatam

[V Subrahmanian]

*Samsāra as 'software' and the world as 'hardware' – both are mithyā –
Bhāgavatam*

*Saṁsāra* refers to the experience of birth, death, pleasure, and pain. It
is abstract, subtle. *Prapañca* (the world) is the physical system or
infrastructure necessary for these experiences. It is concrete, gross.
Therefore, neither can exist independently of the other. Experience is
possible only for a conscious being. The world that enables that experience
is *jada* (inert). But what's strange is that the *Bhagavad Gītā* teaches
that this world and the experiences arising from it is *kṣetra* – the inert
– nature (*prakṛti*), and the principle that perceives and illuminates this
experience and the world that enables it is called *kṣetrajña*,
consciousness:



*श्रीभगवानुवाच — इदं शरीरं कौन्तेय क्षेत्रमित्यभिधीयते । एतद्यो वेत्ति तं
प्राहुः क्षेत्रज्ञ इति तद्विदः ॥ १ ॥*

The principle that knows (or illuminates) the *kṣetra* is *kṣetrajña*
(Puruṣa).


*महाभूतान्यहङ्कारो बुद्धिरव्यक्तमेव च । इन्द्रियाणि दशैकं च पञ्च
चेन्द्रियगोचराः ॥ ५ ॥*


*इच्छा द्वेषः सुखं दुःखं सङ्घातश्चेतना धृतिः । एतत्क्षेत्रं समासेन
सविकारमुदाहृतम् ॥ ६ ॥* (*kṣetra* = *prakṛti*)

These two verses describe as *kṣetra* the world, the sense organs that
perceive it, the mind, and also the experiences of desire, aversion,
pleasure, and pain.

In the same chapter, though *kṣetrajña* and *kṣetra* (Puruṣa and Prakṛti)
are fundamentally distinct principles, their impossible mix up is  said to
be the cause of *saṁsāra* — the cycle of birth, death, etc., experienced by
the *puruṣa*:


*पुरुषः प्रकृतिस्थो हि भुङ्क्ते प्रकृतिजान्गुणान् । कारणं गुणसङ्गोऽस्य
सदसद्योनिजन्मसु ॥ २१ ॥*

The remedy is also given there itself:

To discriminate the *kṣetrajña* from the *kṣetra* by means of *viveka*
(discrimination) — this alone releases the *puruṣa* from bondage.

But is this bondage real or *mithyā*?

Though the *Bhagavad Gītā* answers this, the *Śrīmad Bhāgavata* provides a
clear resolution:
*Saṁsāra* is *mithyā*:

Bondage and liberation are only conceptual; they are not real — says
Vedavyāsa.

In the *Bhāgavata*, the root cause of *saṁsāra* is said to be the
constructs (imaginations) of the *buddhi*. These imaginations rest on the
three *guṇas* of *prakṛti*. Therefore, *saṁsāra* is dreamlike:

From the words of the Paramātmā to Uddhava in *Śrīmad Bhāgavatam* (11.11):





*श्रीभगवानुवाच बद्धो मुक्त इति व्याख्या गुणतो मे न वस्तुत: । गुणस्य
मायामूलत्वान्न मे मोक्षो न बन्धनम् ॥ १ ॥ शोकमोहौ सुखं दु:खं देहापत्तिश्च
मायया । स्वप्नो यथात्मन: ख्याति: संसृतिर्न तु वास्तवी ॥ २ ॥*

Just as a dream appears real to the dreamer, so too is *saṁsāra* not
ultimately real.
*Prapañca* is *mithyā*:

*Prapañca, *the world, is merely an appearance, like mistaking a rope for a
snake or a garland for a snake:




*आत्मानमेव आत्मतया अविजानतां तेनैव जातं निखिलं प्रपञ्चितम् । ज्ञानेन
भूयोऽपि च तत्प्रलीयते रज्ज्वामहेर्भोगभवाभवौ यथा ।। 10.14.25*

Due to ignorance of one’s own true nature, the entire *prapañca* appears.
Upon the arising of knowledge, it vanishes — like the snake seen in a rope
disappears.

Another example of the same kind is given in *Bhāgavata* 4.22.38:




*यस्मिन्निदं सदसदात्मतया विभाति माया विवेकविधुति स्रजि वाहिबुद्धिः । तं
नित्यमुक्तपरिशुद्धविशुद्धतत्त्वं प्रत्यूढकर्मकलिलप्रकृतिं प्रपद्ये ॥ ३८ ॥*

Here, instead of a rope, the example used is a garland of flowers. One may
mistake it for a snake. The *prapañca* appears as *sat* (effect) and *asat*
(cause) in that very Brahman due to delusion. With discrimination (*viveka*),
one recognizes the truth — that this world does not exist in Brahman. This
aligns with the famous Upaniṣadic statement:


*'मनसैवानुद्रष्टव्यं नेह नानास्ति किञ्चन । मृत्योः स मृत्युमाप्नोति य इह
नानेव पश्यति' ॥ १९ ॥* (*Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad* 4.4.19)

This means, “Here” (*iha* = in Brahman), there is no multiplicity. The
*Bhāgavata* restates this using a delusional metaphor
(*bhrama-dṛṣṭānta*): *yasmin
idaṁ... vibhāti*.

Thus, *Śrīmad Bhāgavata* teaches that both *saṁsāra* and the corresponding
*prapañca* are not ultimately real (*pāramārthika*).

Why are they not real? The *Bhāgavata* answers:
The *jīva* is truly ever-liberated (*nitya-mukta*):




*सुपर्णावेतौ सदृशौ सखायौ यदृच्छयैतौ कृतनीडौ च वृक्षे । एकस्तयोः खादति
पिप्पलान्नम् अन्यो निरन्नोऽपि बलेन भूयान् ॥ ६ ॥*

Two birds reside in the same tree. One of them eats the fruit, the other,
though not eating, is mighty.




*आत्मानमन्यं च स वेद विद्वान् अपिप्पलादो न तु पिप्पलादः । योऽविद्यया युक् स
तु नित्यबद्धो विद्यामयो यः स तु नित्यमुक्तः ॥ ७ ॥*

The one who realizes himself as the bird that does not eat — he is the wise
one, the one who does not enjoy karma-phala. One with ignorance is always
bound (*nitya-baddha*), the one with knowledge is ever-free (*nitya-mukta*).

In the same section, Śuka Maharṣi tells Parīkṣit:


*त्वं तु राजन् मरिष्येति पशुबुद्धिमिमां जहि । न जातः प्रागभूतोऽद्य
देहवत्त्वं न नङ्‌क्ष्यसि ॥ २ ॥*

“O king, abandon this animalistic thinking of ‘I will die.’ You were never
born before, and though now associated with a body, you will never perish.”





*मृत्यवो नोपधक्ष्यन्ति मृत्यूनां मृत्युमीश्वरम् ॥ १० ॥ अहं ब्रह्म परं धाम
ब्रह्माहं परमं पदम् । एवं समीक्ष्य चात्मानम् आत्मन्याधाय निष्कले ॥ ११ ॥
दशन्तं तक्षकं पादे लेलिहानं विषाननैः । न द्रक्ष्यसि शरीरं च विश्वं च
पृथगात्मनः ॥ १२ ॥*

No death can touch the Lord of Deaths. “I am Brahman, the Supreme Abode; I
am the Supreme State called Brahman.” Having thus realized the Self and
fixed the mind in the indivisible, you will no longer perceive the body or
the world as separate from yourself.

Thus we understand: “The Lord of all deaths” refers to our true Self. Śuka
Maharṣhi affirms this as the state of immortality. A similar teaching
appears in the *Bhagavad Gītā*, Chapter 2 in the advice given to Arjuna.

In these various ways, *Śrīmad Bhāgavata* presents the experience of
*saṁsāra* and the supporting *prapañca* as *mithyā* — ultimately unreal.

*Om Tat Sat*

subbu
------------------------------