What is wrong with samsara and dukkha from the perspective of advaita philosophy?

Question

To my understanding, most Āstika schools of Hinduism view dukkha (suffering) and samsara (the cycle of life and death) as something bad, from which one should strive to be liberated (Moksha). This is also a common belief in other religions such as Buddhism. However, I've never quite understood what is inherently wrong with samsara and why one would want to be liberated from it - most texts seem to assume this as an obvious goal.

However, the following creation story is taught in the Samkhya school (briefly summarized to the best of my understanding): first, there was only Purusha (the supreme soul / pure consciousness). Purusha then had a great idea (Mahat) that it wanted to experience itself and it manifested Prakriti to make this possible.

Now, if the idea to experience Prakriti and the associated suffering (dukkha) through ignorance (avidyā) came originally from Purusha, then what is wrong with actually going through that experience over and over again in samsara?

And similarly, in Advaita Vedanta, moksha is reached by recognizing that the phenomenal world is just an illusion (Maya) and realizing one's true identity as Atman-Brahman.

But again, if Purusha/Atman/Brahman is the ultimate cause of Maya, why would it be wrong for it to continue to experience Maya in the cycle of samsara?

The only arguments I have found so far are roughly in the following two categories:

1. Everything happening within Prakriti / Maya is temporary and therefore cannot lead to ultimate happiness, whereas the realization of our true identity as Atman can (samadhi).
2. Because to be born in the cycle of samsara means that one acts in the world, this leads to karma and suffering. Therefore, the only way to reach permanent happiness is to exit the cycle so that no more karma is accrued and suffering ends.

Regarding 1: why does the fact that something is temporary devaluate its intrinsic value? Is the experience of Prakriti/Maya not more special precisely because it is always changing / temporary?

Regarding 2: by exiting samsara, Purusha only experiences itself. What is so desirable about this? Could Purusha not want to stay in samsara forever and entertain itself indefinitely through Prakriti/Maya that it came up with in the first place?

I'm curious to hear if any philosophers from the Samkhya/Yoga/Advaita schools have an explanation for the doubts I'm having about Moksha. I'm mostly interested in the Advaita explanation, as in that school, there is no fundamental difference between Purusha and Prakriti/Maya (or the witness vs. the witnessed).

Answer 1

There is on earth no intrinsic diversity.
He gets death after life, life after death,
Who perceives here seeming diversity.
As a Unity alone is It to to be perceived.
This One indemonstrable, enduring Being —
Atman

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad

Seemingly unrelated but actually in the same line — Carl Jung.

---

Added later

Dont think its quite suitable to this site. But since it's being pointedly requested in comments, here is the original from here,

मन्त्र १९ [IV.iv.19]

मनसैवानुद्रष्टव्यं नेह नानाऽस्ति किं चन ।
मृत्योः स मृत्युमाप्नोति य इह नानेव पश्यति ॥ १९॥

मन्त्र २० [IV.iv.20]

एकधैवानुद्रष्टव्यमेतदप्रमयं ध्रुवम् ।
विरजः पर आकाशादज आत्मा महान्ध्रुवः ॥ २०॥

I asked a close friend who is a Sanskrit scholar to give a fresh translation. This is what he gave me:

19. The आत्मन् (परब्रह्म) can only be realized by the mind. The परब्रह्म is not "separate" from anything. (everything is ब्रह्मन्). One who sees the ब्रह्म as a separate entity goes from life to life without any realization.

20. It is beyond our intellect, it is constant, and should be realized as "the one that is undivided, non-tainted, not bounded even by the sky, unborn, the greatest, and constant."

---

Edit: information from the comments to complete this answer:

1. "death after life, life after death" is my own idiomatic translation for "mrityo sa mrityum" ie. "death to death". In the context of any dharma system — Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism.... — the bhavsagar cycle of birth and death are assumed.
2. What are the problems with this? Well, if suffering is okay by you, then there is no problem! There are many subsystems in Hinduism that do take this line. Among ancients, the Vaishnavs often say they would prefer to keep loving and embracing and suffering separation from Krishna. Among moderns Aurobindo takes a similar view.
3. From a strictly Advaita vedanta (ajatavada) point of view, there is no bondage (bandha) anyway. So the question is moot. As Buddha had said: "My teaching is for those whose eyes have a little dust". Those with clear vision don't need it. Those who are blind can't be helped. Likewise in advaita vedanta as a sadhana: the recommendation is to see consciousness as the primal reality. The world is created when you awake in the morning.

Sri Ramana described the 3 levels of advaita as (1) gradual (vyavaharika), (2) instantaneous (pratibhasika) and (3) supreme (paramarthika or ajata).

Vyavaharika is the "common sense" view we all start with and try to transcend.

Ajata/paramartha is the goal...
But to the extent we feel we have not yet attained to it... The recommendation is try to keep returning to:

Pratibhasika: the world is an appearance projected by my consciousness.

For the astika advaita sadhaka, this is the viewpoint to keep returning to.

Answer 2

I've never quite understood what is inherently wrong with samsara and why one would want to be liberated from it - most texts seem to assume this as an obvious goal.

The cycle of life and death is associated with ignorance and suffering, and is indeed characterized as what is to overcome, eventually up to one's spiritual enlightenment and liberation.

Though there is a deeper level of understanding, where your doubts find "redemption": all the stories, as all the distinctions, are already illusory, indeed all stories, as all major religions, are stories to satisfy common people.

There is a parabole I cannot find right now, but goes like "the tables were blank and the people would riot: we had to put something on those tables to make them happy." Another bit of wisdom along the same line (again sorry but I cannot recollect/find the source: I will amend my answer if I do, should be around Confucianism anyway), of good government this time, is that "common people must be kept in ignorance, or they just become restless and all evil ensues".

Another example of the underlying attitude, even more radical, is that the pastor who has never encountered civilization is already and naturally enlightened. It is from our experience of culture and society that comes the need for a personal adventure of liberation, such that we get again to enlightenment: though the latter is considered more highly/deep/full, in understanding but also in our ability to come back to the world for how personally liberated, than the natural enlightenment of the free pastor or of the animals themselves, who have never known corruption at all.

Yet, the point remains: the ultimate truth indeed is the one that cannot be put into words...

Answer 3

Red pill or blue pill.

from Lankavatara Sutra p. 51 - 52

It is like the magician Pisaca, who by means of his spells makes a wooden image or a dead body to throb with life, though it has no power of its own. In the same way the ignorant and the simple-minded, committing themselves to erroneous philosophical views become thoroughly devoted to the ideas of oneness and otherness, but their confidence is not well grounded. For this reason, Mahamati, you and other Bodhisattvas-Mahasattvas should cast off all discriminations leading to the notions of birth, abiding and destructions, of oneness and otherness, of bothness and not-bothness, of being and non-being and thus getting free of the bondage of habit-energy become able to attain the reality realisable within yourselves of Noble Wisdom.

Noblesse oblige

Answer 4

Happiness is the core of all beings(Jivas).. incontrovertibly, It is the propensity of human nature to hope for a silver lining in all ramifications that fans out in ones situations/experiences....yet this 'good feel' sought ( an ontologically subjective one) is ever fleeting.

Here, Vedanta only makes a point that this subjective happiness one feels is only a glimpse of the eternal bliss (that is not sustained) , not limited to its embodiment..In other words vishaya-ananda stems from brahma-ananda , that is discovered in a way... not created, for there cannot be another ananda apart from brahma-ananda. This is clarified in a part of 15 chapter of Advaita text Srimad Panchadasi

As soon as the desired object is attained, the mind becomes calm. The bliss of Brahman is then reflected in the mind. The happiness experienced then is wrongly attributed to the attainment of the desired object, while it is really due to the mind becoming calm. This happiness continues only till another desire arises and agitates the mind. When a person has attained complete detachment towards worldly pleasures and is free from desires, his mind is absolutely calm and then supreme bliss is experienced. (Portion of Srimad Panchadasi chap 15, credits Sri SN Saastri

The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says that worldly happiness is only a particle of the bliss of Brahman (Br. Up. 4.3.32).

---

But again, if Purusha/Atman/Brahman is the ultimate cause of Maya,

ignorance (avidyā) came originally from Purusha,

These assumptions are not in terms with advaita 's stand point.

Advaita theory of causation posits vivartavada where prakriti is an illusory superimposition (adhyasa) on purusha.where purusha and prakriti are beginning less. and ignorance is anirvachaniya (inexplicable).Here, prakriti is not independent of purusha but subsists on purusha,

Some references

maayaa is called Unmanifest It is the power of Paramesvara, the supreme Lord. It is beginning less Nescience. It is constituted of the three guNas, sattva, rajas and tamas. Its existence cannot be directly known, but can only be inferred from its effects. It is the cause of this universe.(Vivekachudamani 110)

it is neither real, nor unreal, nor both. It is neither different from Brahman, nor non-different, nor both. It is neither possessed of parts, nor without parts, nor both. It is most wonderful and is of indescribable nature.(Vivekachudamani 111)

The mind and all the organs are insentient.. It is only by the light of the Pure Consciousness which is reflected in the mind, that the mind acquires sentiency. This can be compared to a mirror on which the reflection of the sun falls. If the mirror, with the reflection of the sun on it, is turned towards a dark room, the room becomes lighted. It would then appear as if the light belongs to the mirror itself. In the same way, the mind, which receives the reflection of the consciousness of the Self, appears as if it is itself conscious. The eye and all other organs, which receive the reflection of consciousness from the mind, also appear, in turn, to have consciousness. It is because of this that it is said in this verse that the Self is the cause of the activities of the mind and organs. But the Self is actionless. It neither acts, nor does it prompt the mind and organs to act. The Self is the cause only in the sense that in its mere presence the mind and organs act. This is explained by the analogy of the sun being considered as the cause of the activities of all beings. When the sun rises, everyone begins his work in its light, but the sun does not make anyone act in any particular manner. The sun merely provides the light for all activity. What kind of activity a person engages in depends on himself alone. The sun is not at all involved in it. The sun neither benefits nor suffers because of the activities of any person. In the same way, the Self gives the mind and organs sentiency, which makes them capable of performing action, but the Self does not make any one act in any particular manner(Hastamakakiyam verse 1 credits : Sri SN Saastri

Regarding 1: why does the fact that something is temporary devaluate its intrinsic value? Is the experience of Prakriti/Maya not more special precisely because it is always changing / temporary?

Its just not about the change/temporariness , but the complex structure of limiting predicament that ever remains , ie. notwithstanding the fall of physical sheath.

Its just a matter of choice ..choosing the bait/rat trap confinement over the extrication of such limitation.. So the answer to this question seems to be whether one is opinionionated Eastly or Westly (in YOLO mode, who may not botherwhat is inherently wrong with samsara)..

Swami Vivekananda says

The West knows the universe to be full of happiness, and as such, it is to them a place where they can enjoy the most; but the East is born with the conviction that this Samsara, this ever-changing existence, is full of misery, and as such, it is nothing, nothing but unreal, not worth bartering the soul for its ephemeral joys and possessions. For this very reason, the West is ever especially adroit in organised action, and so also the East is ever bold in search of the mysteries of the internal world.
Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Lectures from Colombo to Almora, The Religion we are born in – Swami Vivekananda

Culmination of human life according to East is to discern the Self from Non self .

bhidyate hṛdayagranthiśchidyante sarvasaṃśayāḥ . kṣīyante cāsya karmāṇi tasmin dṛṣṭe parāvare 
Mundakopanishad 2.2.8) The fetters of the heart are broken, all doubts are resolved and all works cease to bear fruit, when He is beheld who is both high and low

Regarding 2: by exiting samsara, Purusha only experiences itself. What is so desirable about this? Could Purusha not want to stay in samsara forever and entertain itself indefinitely through Prakriti/Maya that it came up with in the first place?

The proof of pudding is in the eating.

When self is realised the samadhi can neither be attempted or given up
Ramana Maharshi,Maha yoga page 193

Answer 5

Samsara is full of suffering. In this world (samsara), there are three kinds of suffering.

Samkhya Aphorism 1.1. Well, the complete cessation of pain [which is] of three kinds is the complete end of man.

b. By saying that the complete cessation of pain, which is of three kinds,—viz., (1) due to one's self (ádhyátmika), (2) due to products of the elements (ádhibhautika), and (3) due to supernatural causes (ádhidaivika),—is the complete end of man, he means to say that it is the chief end of man, among the four human aims, [viz., merit, wealth, pleasure, and liberation (see Sáhitya-darpaṉa, § 2)]; because the three are transitory, whereas liberation is not transitory: such is the state of the case.

It is the very nature of the soul to try to cease the suffering. For example, when you feel hungry, you look for food because food removes the hunger - a form of suffering. When you are ill, you take medicine because you want to get rid of illness - a form of suffering. So, there is no doubt that you want the end of suffering.

Samkhya Aphorism 1.3. [Let us consider the doubt] that the soul's desire [the cessation of pain, may result] from exertions for the obviation [of pain], as is the case with the obviation of daily hunger

a. When pain shall arise [let us suppose one to argue] then it is to be obviated; and thus there is the soul's desire, the cessation of pain; just as one should eat, when there is hunger; and thus there is the soul's desire of the eater, viz., the cessation of hunger. In regard to this [doubt] he states the recognized decision:

Samkhya says that these visible means (food, medicine etc.) can only remove suffering temporarily. For example, you may fall sick again.

Samkhya Aphorism 1.2. The effectuation of this [complete cessation of pain] is not [to be expected] by means of the visible [such as wealth, &c.]; for we see [on the loss of wealth, &c.,] the restoration [of the misery and evil,] after [its temporary] cessation.

a. 'The visible,' in the shape of the drugs, &c., above-mentioned [§ 1. c.].

b. 'The effectuation of this,' i.e., the effectuation of the complete cessation of pain.

c. Why is it not [to be thus effected]? Because, after the cessation (the cessation of pain is understood), we see its restoration, the springing up again of pain in general, [from whichever of its three sources (§ 1. b.)].

d. The state of the matter is this: not by the expedients above-mentioned is there such a removal of pain, that no pain arises thereafter; for, when, by this or that expedient, this or that pain has been destroyed, we see other pains springing up. Therefore, though it be not easy [§ 1. c.], the knowledge of truth [as a complete remedy] is to be desired.

e. But then, grant that future pain is not debarred by drugs, &c., [employed to remove present pain], still, by again and again obviating it [as often as it presents itself], there may be the cessation of future pain, also. This doubt he states [as follows]:

You might argue, okay, whenever, I will fall sick, I will take medicine. This is not a viable option, as you might be ill in a place where there is no doctor. and these means of ending suffering are ineffective. You have an incurable disease (like cancer) or the doctor may be incompetent; wrong treatment is a reality.

Samkhya Aphorism 1.4. This [method of palliatives (§ 3)] is to be rejected by those who are versed in evidence; because it is not everywhere possible [to employ it at all], and because, even if this were possible, there would be an impossibility as regards [ensuring] the perfect fitness [of the agents employed].

a. For there are not physicians, &c., in every place and at all times; and [to rely on physicians, &c., would not be advisable], even if there were the possibility,—i.e., even if these were [always at hand], since physicians are not perfect [in their art];—for pain cannot with certainty be got rid of by means of physicians, &c., with their drugs, &c. Moreover, when corporeal pain has departed, there may still be that which is mental, &c.; so that there is not [under such circumstances], in every respect, liberation from pain. For these reasons, such a soul's aim [as that which contents itself with temporary palliatives] is to be rejected by those who are versed in evidence, [i.e., who are acquainted with authoritative treatises].

Only liberation can lead to a complete and permanent end of suffering. That is why it is desirable.

By the way, you have a wrong notion that Prakriti is manifested from Purusha. This is not the Samkhya view. Purusha and Prakriti are distinct. Prakriti exists always. When Purusha comes in contact with Prakriti, Prakriti starts getting manifested. Prakriti is the unmanifested primordial matter. Liberation is attained when the soul realizes that it is not part of Prakriti. All the suffering is inherent in Prakriti.

Samkhya Karika 3: Nature (Prakriti), the root (of material forms), is not produced. The Great One (Mahat=Buddhi or Intellect) and the rest (which spring from it) are seven (substances), producing and produced. Sixteen are productions (only). Soul is neither producing nor produced.

References -

1. Samkhya Aphorisms translated by James R Ballantyne
2. Samkhya Karika translated by John Davies