Difference between revisions of "Nonduality in Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta"
(Created page with "{{DisplayImages|93}} By Dr. Alexander Berzin Nonduality in Buddhism Chittamatra System In the Chittamatra (mind-only) system of Indian Buddh...") |
|||
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
− | In the Chittamatra (mind-only) system of Indian Buddhist tenets, nondual refers to the absence (voidness) of the appearance (object) aspect of a cognition and the cognitive aspect of the cognition coming from different natal sources (Skt. dravya). The natal source of something is that from which something is born and which produces it, like an oven for a loaf of bread, or a potter's wheel for a clay pot. The natal source for both the appearance of an object and the consciousness and accompanying mental factors that perceive it is a karmic tendency (bija, seed) imputed on the alayavijnana (all-encompassing foundation consciousness, storehouse consciousness). It is not that the appearance of an object derives from a separate "external" object as its natal source. "External" means having a separate natal source from the mind that perceives it. Objects and the consciousness of them appear to come from different natal sources, but that duality is like an illusion. It does not correspond with the true situation. | + | In the [[Chittamatra]] ([[mind-only]]) system of [[Indian Buddhist]] [[tenets]], [[nondual]] refers to the absence ([[voidness]]) of the [[appearance]] ([[object]]) aspect of a [[cognition]] and the [[Wikipedia:cognition|cognitive]] aspect of the [[cognition]] coming from different natal sources (Skt. [[dravya]]). The natal source of something is that from which something is born and which produces it, like an oven for a loaf of bread, or a potter's [[wheel]] for a clay pot. The natal source for both the [[appearance]] of an [[object]] and the [[consciousness]] and accompanying [[mental factors]] that {{Wiki|perceive}} it is a [[karmic]] tendency ([[bija]], seed) [[imputed]] on the [[alayavijnana]] ([[all-encompassing foundation consciousness]], [[storehouse consciousness]]). It is not that the [[appearance]] of an [[object]] derives from a separate "external" [[object]] as its natal source. "External" means having a separate natal source from the [[mind]] that [[perceives]] it. [[Objects]] and the [[consciousness]] of them appear to come from different natal sources, but that [[duality]] is [[like an illusion]]. It does not correspond with the true situation. |
− | The Chittamatra system, however, considers that objects of bare perception (seeing, hearing, etc), consciousness of them, alayavijnana, as well as voidness (nonduality) all have true unimputed existence, which means that their existence as this or that is established by defining characteristics on their own sides, independently of their being imputed on a basis (unlike a category existing non-truly, as something imputable on individual items sharing certain defining characteristic features). | + | The [[Chittamatra]] system, however, considers that [[objects]] of bare [[perception]] ([[seeing]], hearing, etc), [[consciousness]] of them, [[alayavijnana]], as well as [[voidness]] ([[nonduality]]) all have true unimputed [[existence]], which means that their [[existence]] as this or that is established by [[defining characteristics]] on their [[own]] sides, {{Wiki|independently}} of their being [[imputed]] on a basis (unlike a category [[existing]] non-truly, as something imputable on {{Wiki|individual}} items sharing certain defining [[characteristic]] features). |
Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
− | In the Sakya, Nyingma, and Kagyu Madhyamaka systems, nondual has a similar meaning. It refers to the absence of the appearance (object) aspect of a cognition and the cognitive aspect of the cognition having separate existence from each other, and coming from difference sources (though they do not use the term "natal source"). They define alayavijnana quite differently from Chittamatra, and each of these three Tibetan systems has its own individual explanation in terms of the clear light (subtlest) level of mind. The important distinction between these three systems and Chittamatra is that nothing has true unimputed existence. | + | In the [[Sakya]], [[Nyingma]], and [[Kagyu]] [[Madhyamaka]] systems, [[nondual]] has a similar meaning. It refers to the absence of the [[appearance]] ([[object]]) aspect of a [[cognition]] and the [[Wikipedia:cognition|cognitive]] aspect of the [[cognition]] having separate [[existence]] from each other, and coming from difference sources (though they do not use the term "natal source"). They define [[alayavijnana]] quite differently from [[Chittamatra]], and each of these three [[Tibetan]] systems has its [[own]] {{Wiki|individual}} explanation in terms of the [[clear light]] (subtlest) level of [[mind]]. The important {{Wiki|distinction}} between these three systems and [[Chittamatra]] is that nothing has true unimputed [[existence]]. |
− | [See: Alaya and Impure Appearance-Making: Non-Gelug Positions] | + | [See: [[Alaya]] and Impure Appearance-Making: Non-Gelug Positions] |
− | Several masters from these three systems differentiate self-voidness and other-voidness. There are many explanations of the two. Self-voidness being beyond words and concepts refers to voidness being beyond the conceptually knowable categories of existent, nonexistent, both, and neither. Other-voidness being beyond words and concepts refers to it being a level of mind that is subtler that the conceptual one. | + | Several [[masters]] from these three systems differentiate [[self-voidness]] and [[other-voidness]]. There are many explanations of the two. [[Self-voidness]] being beyond words and [[Wikipedia:concept|concepts]] refers to [[voidness]] being beyond the conceptually knowable categories of [[existent]], [[Wikipedia:Nothing|nonexistent]], both, and neither. [[Other-voidness]] being beyond words and [[Wikipedia:concept|concepts]] refers to it being a level of [[mind]] that is subtler that the {{Wiki|conceptual}} one. |
− | [See: Why Tantra Is More Efficient Than Sutra, Part 2] | + | [See: Why [[Tantra]] Is More Efficient Than [[Sutra]], Part 2] |
Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
− | In the Gelug Prasangika-Madhyamaka system, nondual refers to the absence of true findable existence. True findable existence is "dual," in the sense that if it were to exist, it would be a second type of existence other than the absence of true findable existence. Although a mind having the instincts of grasping for true existence gives rise to an appearance of true findable existence, that appearance does not correspond to anything real, since there is no such thing as true findable existence. "True findable existence" means existence established by findable defining characteristics on the side of an object. | + | In the [[Gelug]] [[Prasangika-Madhyamaka]] system, [[nondual]] refers to the absence of true findable [[existence]]. True findable [[existence]] is "dual," in the [[sense]] that if it were to [[exist]], it would be a second type of [[existence]] other than the absence of true findable [[existence]]. Although a [[mind]] having the {{Wiki|instincts}} of [[grasping]] for [[true existence]] gives rise to an [[appearance]] of true findable [[existence]], that [[appearance]] does not correspond to anything real, since there is no such thing as true findable [[existence]]. "True findable [[existence]]" means [[existence]] established by findable [[defining characteristics]] on the side of an [[object]]. |
− | Both the Sakya, Nyingma, and Kagyu Madhyamaka and the Gelug Prasangika-Madhyamaka views derive from Nagarjuna. None of them say that everything is exactly the same as an illusion. Shantideva clearly points out that there is a distinction between killing a man and killing an illusion of a man. The non-Gelug systems, however, assert that everything that appears to a mind infected with unawareness (ignorance) is an illusion. These systems assert that because, unlike Gelug, they do not differentiate between the appearance of what something is and the appearance of how it exists. Because everything that appears to a mind mixed with unawareness appears to be truly existent, all those appearances are an illusion. Gelug, on the other hand, asserts that all such appearances are merely like an illusion. How they appear to exist is like an illusion in that it doesn’t correspond to how things actually exist, but their valid conventional appearance is not an illusion. | + | Both the [[Sakya]], [[Nyingma]], and [[Kagyu]] [[Madhyamaka]] and the [[Gelug]] [[Prasangika-Madhyamaka]] [[views]] derive from [[Nagarjuna]]. None of them say that everything is exactly the same as an [[illusion]]. [[Shantideva]] clearly points out that there is a {{Wiki|distinction}} between {{Wiki|killing}} a man and {{Wiki|killing}} an [[illusion]] of a man. The non-Gelug systems, however, assert that everything that appears to a [[mind]] infected with unawareness ([[ignorance]]) is an [[illusion]]. These systems assert that because, unlike [[Gelug]], they do not differentiate between the [[appearance]] of what something is and the [[appearance]] of how it [[exists]]. Because everything that appears to a [[mind]] mixed with unawareness appears to be [[truly existent]], all those [[appearances]] are an [[illusion]]. [[Gelug]], on the other hand, asserts that all such [[appearances]] are merely [[like an illusion]]. How they appear to [[exist]] is [[like an illusion]] in that it doesn’t correspond to how things actually [[exist]], but their valid [[Wikipedia:Convention (norm)|conventional]] [[appearance]] is not an [[illusion]]. |
Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
− | Advaita Vedanta shares some terminology with the Madhyamaka systems, and thus appears to have many similarities. However, Shankara's system has many crucial differences: | + | [[Wikipedia:Advaita Vedanta|Advaita Vedanta]] shares some {{Wiki|terminology}} with the [[Madhyamaka]] systems, and thus appears to have many similarities. However, [[Shankara's]] system has many crucial differences: |
− | The Conventional Self | + | The [[Conventional]] [[Self]] |
− | Shankara asserts that the conventionally existent, empirical living self (jiva) is the combination of a passive observer consciousness (sakshin) and an active inner physical organ (antahkarana) that assumes the form of objects cognized. Before liberation (moksha), the two are always together, although in deep sleep, the observer consciousness withdraws into ignorance (avidya), which is each living self’s share of illusion (maya). Buddhism asserts that the conventionally existent self is imputable on the aggregates, but is not the combination of any of them. | + | [[Wikipedia:Adi Shankara|Shankara]] asserts that the {{Wiki|conventionally}} [[existent]], [[empirical]] living [[self]] ([[jiva]]) is the combination of a passive observer [[consciousness]] (sakshin) and an active inner [[physical]] {{Wiki|organ}} ([[antahkarana]]) that assumes the [[form]] of [[objects]] [[Wikipedia:Cognition|cognized]]. Before [[liberation]] ([[moksha]]), the two are always together, although in [[deep sleep]], the observer [[consciousness]] withdraws into [[ignorance]] ([[avidya]]), which is each living self’s share of [[illusion]] ([[maya]]). [[Buddhism]] asserts that the {{Wiki|conventionally}} [[existent]] [[self]] is imputable on the [[aggregates]], but is not the combination of any of them. |
− | The Relation between the Self and Either Brahma or Voidness | + | The [[Relation]] between the [[Self]] and Either [[Brahma]] or [[Voidness]] |
− | Shankara asserts that each observer consciousness is identical with nirguna brahman (brahman without qualities), and that with liberation, the inner physical organ associated with that observer consciousness returns to maya-illusion, and that the observer consciousness merges with brahman without qualities. If we look in Buddhism at the relation of the conventionally existent self and self-voidness (the absence of true existence), Buddhism never says that the two are identical, nor that they merge with liberation or enlightenment. Self-voidness is the manner in which the conventional self exists, namely devoid of existing as a truly existent self. As for a truly existent self, there is no such thing. If we analyze in terms of other-voidness, and take other-voidness to refer to the clear light mind, then although, in general, both the appearance of a non-truly existent self and of a truly existent self are the appearance aspects of the clear-light mind, they are not identical with the clear light mind. "Identical" in Buddhism means totally the same. Although with enlightenment there is no longer an appearance of a truly existent self, let alone a belief in one, that does not mean that the truly existent self has merged with the clear light mind. Also, even with enlightenment, there is still a non-truly existent imputable self. | + | [[Wikipedia:Adi Shankara|Shankara]] asserts that each observer [[consciousness]] is [[identical]] with [[nirguna brahman]] ([[brahman]] without qualities), and that with [[liberation]], the inner [[physical]] {{Wiki|organ}} associated with that observer [[consciousness]] returns to maya-illusion, and that the observer [[consciousness]] merges with [[brahman]] without qualities. If we look in [[Buddhism]] at the [[relation]] of the {{Wiki|conventionally}} [[existent]] [[self]] and [[self-voidness]] (the absence of [[true existence]]), [[Buddhism]] never says that the two are [[identical]], nor that they merge with [[liberation]] or [[enlightenment]]. [[Self-voidness]] is the manner in which the [[Wikipedia:Convention (norm)|conventional]] [[self]] [[exists]], namely devoid of [[existing]] as a [[truly existent]] [[self]]. As for a [[truly existent]] [[self]], there is no such thing. If we analyze in terms of [[other-voidness]], and take [[other-voidness]] to refer to the [[clear light mind]], then although, in general, both the [[appearance]] of a non-truly [[existent]] [[self]] and of a [[truly existent]] [[self]] are the [[appearance]] aspects of the [[clear-light mind]], they are not [[identical]] with the [[clear light mind]]. "Identical" in [[Buddhism]] means totally the same. Although with [[enlightenment]] there is no longer an [[appearance]] of a [[truly existent]] [[self]], let alone a [[belief]] in one, that does not mean that the [[truly existent]] [[self]] has merged with the [[clear light mind]]. Also, even with [[enlightenment]], there is still a non-truly [[existent]] imputable [[self]]. |
− | Shankara asserts that maya-illusion is the potency (shakti) in the God Ishvara. Empirical reality, perceived publicly by all, is the creation of Ishvara (ishvara-srshta) and is the practical commonsense world (vyavaharika). Private reality, perceived individually, is the creation of each living self (jiva-srshta) and is the apparent world (pratibhasika). Both the empirical world and the various private worlds spring from maya-illusion. I have no idea how Shankara's concept of srshta (springing, creation) compares with the Chittamatra discussion of natal sources and alayavijnana. I doubt that they are the same. | + | [[Wikipedia:Adi Shankara|Shankara]] asserts that maya-illusion is the [[potency]] ([[shakti]]) in the [[God]] [[Ishvara]]. [[Empirical]] [[reality]], [[perceived]] publicly by all, is the creation of [[Ishvara]] (ishvara-srshta) and is the {{Wiki|practical}} commonsense [[world]] ([[vyavaharika]]). Private [[reality]], [[perceived]] individually, is the creation of each living [[self]] (jiva-srshta) and is the apparent [[world]] ([[pratibhasika]]). Both the [[empirical]] [[world]] and the various private [[worlds]] spring from maya-illusion. I have no [[idea]] how [[Shankara's]] {{Wiki|concept}} of srshta (springing, creation) compares with the [[Chittamatra]] [[discussion]] of natal sources and [[alayavijnana]]. I [[doubt]] that they are the same. |
− | Maya-illusion in Advaita is not like the Samkhya assertion of existent primal matter (prakrti), with all objects being illusory (maya) perturbations (vikara) of primal matter. | + | Maya-illusion in [[Wikipedia:Advaita Vedanta|Advaita]] is not like the [[Samkhya]] [[assertion]] of [[existent]] primal {{Wiki|matter}} ([[prakrti]]), with all [[objects]] being [[illusory]] ([[maya]]) perturbations (vikara) of primal {{Wiki|matter}}. |
− | [See: Basic Tenets of the Samkhya and Yoga Schools] | + | [See: Basic [[Tenets]] of the [[Samkhya]] and [[Yoga]] Schools] |
− | According to Shankara, maya-illusion cannot be characterized as existent or nonexistent. Ignorance is when we confuse our private world with the public world. Objects perceived privately endure only so long as they are perceived by a particular living self, while objects perceived publicly endure even when no living self is perceiving them, since they are always perceived by Ishvara. Buddhism is very different from this, both in Chittamatra and Madhyamaka, as discussed above. | + | According to [[Wikipedia:Adi Shankara|Shankara]], maya-illusion cannot be characterized as [[existent]] or [[Wikipedia:Nothing|nonexistent]]. [[Ignorance]] is when we confuse our private [[world]] with the public [[world]]. [[Objects]] [[perceived]] privately endure only so long as they are [[perceived]] by a particular living [[self]], while [[objects]] [[perceived]] publicly endure even when no living [[self]] is perceiving them, since they are always [[perceived]] by [[Ishvara]]. [[Buddhism]] is very different from this, both in [[Chittamatra]] and [[Madhyamaka]], as discussed above. |
Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
− | Shankara asserts that the various manifold living selves themselves, as well as maya-illusion itself, and Ishvara himself, are in neither space nor time. All publicly and privately perceived objects are in space and time, and space is in time. Time is what relates the various living selves and maya-illusion. | + | [[Wikipedia:Adi Shankara|Shankara]] asserts that the various manifold living selves themselves, as well as maya-illusion itself, and [[Ishvara]] himself, are in neither [[space]] nor time. All publicly and privately [[perceived]] [[objects]] are in {{Wiki|space and time}}, and [[space]] is in time. Time is what relates the various living selves and maya-illusion. |
− | In Madhyamaka, time and space are not conceived as containers for objects. Time is a measurement of change, and space is the absence of anything tangible or obstructing that would prevent a material object from occupying three dimensions. Both time and space are devoid of true existence. | + | In [[Madhyamaka]], [[time and space]] are not [[conceived]] as containers for [[objects]]. Time is a measurement of change, and [[space]] is the absence of anything {{Wiki|tangible}} or obstructing that would prevent a material [[object]] from occupying three {{Wiki|dimensions}}. Both [[time and space]] are devoid of [[true existence]]. |
− | Nonduality | + | [[Nonduality]] |
− | Brahman without qualities (nirguna brahman) displays or translates (vivarta, literally: turns) itself in the sphere of space and time as various objects springing from maya-illusion, as well as various individual living selves and Ishvara. However, brahman without qualities itself does not change. The unity (aikya) of all these diverse displays – in the sense of them all being displays springing from maya-illusion – is brahman with qualities (saguna brahma). Brahman without qualities, however, is nondual (advaita) in the sense of being beyond the differentiation of unity and diversity. Thus, Shankara's Advaita Vedanta theory is not the same as Ramanuja's Vishishta Vedanta theory of the evolution of maya-illusion and living selves from brahman as transformations (parinama) of it. Nor is it the same as the Kumarila's Purva Mimamsa theory of unity within diversity (bheda-abheda). | + | [[Brahman]] without qualities ([[nirguna brahman]]) displays or translates ([[vivarta]], literally: turns) itself in the [[sphere of space]] and time as various [[objects]] springing from maya-illusion, as well as various {{Wiki|individual}} living selves and [[Ishvara]]. However, [[brahman]] without qualities itself does not change. The {{Wiki|unity}} (aikya) of all these diverse displays – in the [[sense]] of them all being displays springing from maya-illusion – is [[brahman]] with qualities ([[saguna brahma]]). [[Brahman]] without qualities, however, is [[nondual]] ([[advaita]]) in the [[sense]] of being beyond the differentiation of {{Wiki|unity}} and diversity. Thus, [[Shankara's]] [[Wikipedia:Advaita Vedanta|Advaita Vedanta]] {{Wiki|theory}} is not the same as Ramanuja's Vishishta [[Vedanta]] {{Wiki|theory}} of the [[evolution]] of maya-illusion and living selves from [[brahman]] as transformations ([[parinama]]) of it. Nor is it the same as the [[Kumarila's]] [[Purva Mimamsa]] {{Wiki|theory}} of {{Wiki|unity}} within diversity (bheda-abheda). |
− | When Madhyamaka uses the argument of neither one nor many, this refers to the fact that if things were truly existent, such as the self and the aggregates, there would need to be either just one such thing (in which case the self and the aggregates would be the same thing, totally identical) or there would need to be several truly existent things, totally separate from each other. Since neither of these is logically the case, then there is no such thing as true existence. Voidness is the absence of true existence – the absence of there being either one or many truly existent things. | + | When [[Madhyamaka]] uses the argument of [[neither one nor many]], this refers to the fact that if things were [[truly existent]], such as the [[self]] and the [[aggregates]], there would need to be either just one such thing (in which case the [[self]] and the [[aggregates]] would be the same thing, totally [[identical]]) or there would need to be several [[truly existent]] things, totally separate from each other. Since neither of these is [[logically]] the case, then there is no such thing as [[true existence]]. [[Voidness]] is the absence of [[true existence]] – the absence of there being either one or many [[truly existent]] things. |
Latest revision as of 13:01, 9 February 2020
Chittamatra System
In the Chittamatra (mind-only) system of Indian Buddhist tenets, nondual refers to the absence (voidness) of the appearance (object) aspect of a cognition and the cognitive aspect of the cognition coming from different natal sources (Skt. dravya). The natal source of something is that from which something is born and which produces it, like an oven for a loaf of bread, or a potter's wheel for a clay pot. The natal source for both the appearance of an object and the consciousness and accompanying mental factors that perceive it is a karmic tendency (bija, seed) imputed on the alayavijnana (all-encompassing foundation consciousness, storehouse consciousness). It is not that the appearance of an object derives from a separate "external" object as its natal source. "External" means having a separate natal source from the mind that perceives it. Objects and the consciousness of them appear to come from different natal sources, but that duality is like an illusion. It does not correspond with the true situation.
The Chittamatra system, however, considers that objects of bare perception (seeing, hearing, etc), consciousness of them, alayavijnana, as well as voidness (nonduality) all have true unimputed existence, which means that their existence as this or that is established by defining characteristics on their own sides, independently of their being imputed on a basis (unlike a category existing non-truly, as something imputable on individual items sharing certain defining characteristic features).
Non-Gelug Madhyamaka Systems
In the Sakya, Nyingma, and Kagyu Madhyamaka systems, nondual has a similar meaning. It refers to the absence of the appearance (object) aspect of a cognition and the cognitive aspect of the cognition having separate existence from each other, and coming from difference sources (though they do not use the term "natal source"). They define alayavijnana quite differently from Chittamatra, and each of these three Tibetan systems has its own individual explanation in terms of the clear light (subtlest) level of mind. The important distinction between these three systems and Chittamatra is that nothing has true unimputed existence.
[See: Alaya and Impure Appearance-Making: Non-Gelug Positions]
Several masters from these three systems differentiate self-voidness and other-voidness. There are many explanations of the two. Self-voidness being beyond words and concepts refers to voidness being beyond the conceptually knowable categories of existent, nonexistent, both, and neither. Other-voidness being beyond words and concepts refers to it being a level of mind that is subtler that the conceptual one.
[See: Why Tantra Is More Efficient Than Sutra, Part 2]
Gelug Prasangika System
In the Gelug Prasangika-Madhyamaka system, nondual refers to the absence of true findable existence. True findable existence is "dual," in the sense that if it were to exist, it would be a second type of existence other than the absence of true findable existence. Although a mind having the instincts of grasping for true existence gives rise to an appearance of true findable existence, that appearance does not correspond to anything real, since there is no such thing as true findable existence. "True findable existence" means existence established by findable defining characteristics on the side of an object.
Both the Sakya, Nyingma, and Kagyu Madhyamaka and the Gelug Prasangika-Madhyamaka views derive from Nagarjuna. None of them say that everything is exactly the same as an illusion. Shantideva clearly points out that there is a distinction between killing a man and killing an illusion of a man. The non-Gelug systems, however, assert that everything that appears to a mind infected with unawareness (ignorance) is an illusion. These systems assert that because, unlike Gelug, they do not differentiate between the appearance of what something is and the appearance of how it exists. Because everything that appears to a mind mixed with unawareness appears to be truly existent, all those appearances are an illusion. Gelug, on the other hand, asserts that all such appearances are merely like an illusion. How they appear to exist is like an illusion in that it doesn’t correspond to how things actually exist, but their valid conventional appearance is not an illusion.
Advaita Vedanta
Advaita Vedanta shares some terminology with the Madhyamaka systems, and thus appears to have many similarities. However, Shankara's system has many crucial differences: The Conventional Self
Shankara asserts that the conventionally existent, empirical living self (jiva) is the combination of a passive observer consciousness (sakshin) and an active inner physical organ (antahkarana) that assumes the form of objects cognized. Before liberation (moksha), the two are always together, although in deep sleep, the observer consciousness withdraws into ignorance (avidya), which is each living self’s share of illusion (maya). Buddhism asserts that the conventionally existent self is imputable on the aggregates, but is not the combination of any of them. The Relation between the Self and Either Brahma or Voidness
Shankara asserts that each observer consciousness is identical with nirguna brahman (brahman without qualities), and that with liberation, the inner physical organ associated with that observer consciousness returns to maya-illusion, and that the observer consciousness merges with brahman without qualities. If we look in Buddhism at the relation of the conventionally existent self and self-voidness (the absence of true existence), Buddhism never says that the two are identical, nor that they merge with liberation or enlightenment. Self-voidness is the manner in which the conventional self exists, namely devoid of existing as a truly existent self. As for a truly existent self, there is no such thing. If we analyze in terms of other-voidness, and take other-voidness to refer to the clear light mind, then although, in general, both the appearance of a non-truly existent self and of a truly existent self are the appearance aspects of the clear-light mind, they are not identical with the clear light mind. "Identical" in Buddhism means totally the same. Although with enlightenment there is no longer an appearance of a truly existent self, let alone a belief in one, that does not mean that the truly existent self has merged with the clear light mind. Also, even with enlightenment, there is still a non-truly existent imputable self.
Shankara asserts that maya-illusion is the potency (shakti) in the God Ishvara. Empirical reality, perceived publicly by all, is the creation of Ishvara (ishvara-srshta) and is the practical commonsense world (vyavaharika). Private reality, perceived individually, is the creation of each living self (jiva-srshta) and is the apparent world (pratibhasika). Both the empirical world and the various private worlds spring from maya-illusion. I have no idea how Shankara's concept of srshta (springing, creation) compares with the Chittamatra discussion of natal sources and alayavijnana. I doubt that they are the same.
Maya-illusion in Advaita is not like the Samkhya assertion of existent primal matter (prakrti), with all objects being illusory (maya) perturbations (vikara) of primal matter.
[See: Basic Tenets of the Samkhya and Yoga Schools]
According to Shankara, maya-illusion cannot be characterized as existent or nonexistent. Ignorance is when we confuse our private world with the public world. Objects perceived privately endure only so long as they are perceived by a particular living self, while objects perceived publicly endure even when no living self is perceiving them, since they are always perceived by Ishvara. Buddhism is very different from this, both in Chittamatra and Madhyamaka, as discussed above.
Space and Time
Shankara asserts that the various manifold living selves themselves, as well as maya-illusion itself, and Ishvara himself, are in neither space nor time. All publicly and privately perceived objects are in space and time, and space is in time. Time is what relates the various living selves and maya-illusion.
In Madhyamaka, time and space are not conceived as containers for objects. Time is a measurement of change, and space is the absence of anything tangible or obstructing that would prevent a material object from occupying three dimensions. Both time and space are devoid of true existence. Nonduality
Brahman without qualities (nirguna brahman) displays or translates (vivarta, literally: turns) itself in the sphere of space and time as various objects springing from maya-illusion, as well as various individual living selves and Ishvara. However, brahman without qualities itself does not change. The unity (aikya) of all these diverse displays – in the sense of them all being displays springing from maya-illusion – is brahman with qualities (saguna brahma). Brahman without qualities, however, is nondual (advaita) in the sense of being beyond the differentiation of unity and diversity. Thus, Shankara's Advaita Vedanta theory is not the same as Ramanuja's Vishishta Vedanta theory of the evolution of maya-illusion and living selves from brahman as transformations (parinama) of it. Nor is it the same as the Kumarila's Purva Mimamsa theory of unity within diversity (bheda-abheda).
When Madhyamaka uses the argument of neither one nor many, this refers to the fact that if things were truly existent, such as the self and the aggregates, there would need to be either just one such thing (in which case the self and the aggregates would be the same thing, totally identical) or there would need to be several truly existent things, totally separate from each other. Since neither of these is logically the case, then there is no such thing as true existence. Voidness is the absence of true existence – the absence of there being either one or many truly existent things.