An Introduction to advaita vEdAnta
What is guNa?
During the course of hundreds of lives, the actions of the jIva will accumulate certain tendencies or impulses that make the jIva in the current life to react in a friendly or unfriendly attitude towards any object or entity (including living beings). Such a power or characteristic of the jIva expressing as a propensity in the prakriti (nature) is described as guNa. guNa is therefore, the inborn impulse or propensity of a jIva that guides its behavior. This inborn propensity is an expression of the past samskAras (samskAra is the training/experience in life management) of the jIva. Therefore the propensity fulfilled in this life, forms the seed for the guNa in the next life. The guNa is dynamic and not static. The discrimination that an individual exhibits may arrest the negative propensities and promote positive propensities. Even during a life time, gunA can be managed through knowledge of the shAstras and following the instructions there in.
gIta says
"satvam rajah-tama iti guNAh prakriti sambhavAh
nibhadnanti mahAbAho dEhE dEhinam avyayAm" - (14.5)
Three guNas - satva, rajas and tamas- born in prakriti, bind the jiVa to the body (we will see the mechanics of binding shortly). The three guNas are described in gIta (14-6,8).
Satva is of the nature of pure, divine, shining (or clear) and knowledge. Pure indicates absence of defects or blemishes. Contemplation, analytical and logical are the expressions of satva. This expression towards Brahman is divinity. The consequence of such expressions is knowledge or jnyAna (however, the jIva is yet to experience the Brahman). The knowledge (worldly or spiritual) creates a sense of happiness in jIva. The jIva exults in such happiness and knowledge. Such identification with happiness arrests spiritual progress in the realization of Brahman. The jIva comes back in another body to continue the spiritual quest - the jIva binding to the body due to satva.
Rajas is of the nature of action driven by passion and attachment. The rajas expresses as activity to fulfill the desires created by passion and
attachment. The actions lead to fruits of action, which need to be experienced. If all fruits are not experienced in the current life, jIva comes back in another body to experience the remaining fruits - jIva binding to the body due to rajas.
Tamas is of the nature of delusion, ignorance, negligence, carelessness and lethargy. The tamas expresses as inefficiency, excessive sleep, neglect of duty, shirking of work and idleness. gIta (14-8) says tamas expresses as pramAda - wasteful engagement in activities prohibited by shAstra and ignorance of the consequences of undesirable fruits of such engagement. Tamas also binds the jIva to body, either because the jIva has not experienced the fruits of the current life (prArabda) or to experience the fruits of wasteful engagement.
Inert objects like rock etc. are predominantly tamas with traces of rajas. Plants though are also mostly tamas, exhibit higher levels of rajas compared to inert objects. Animals exhibit a mixture of tamas and rajas. Only humans are endowed with satva guNa. All humans exhibit a combination of satva, rajas and tamas in varying proportions from person to person; the proportions will also vary in an individual from time to time, based on the discrimination exercised in behavior over time.
An infant sleeps for most of the day, indicating predominantly tamas during the infancy. As the baby grows, it starts to show rajas in increasing proportions. As the child grows, rajas and satva increase per previous samskAras and activities of current life.
The three guNas cannot exist in pure form in any entity. Life is not possible in the pure form of satva, rajas or tamas ( like gold cannot be shaped in pure form; add impurities like copper to give it a form). Every individual has a certain mixture of satva, rajas and tamas in different proportions and this proportion varies from time to time (may be above and below a mean). When tamas predominates, the individual sleeps, when rajas dominates, he works and when satva predominates, the individual is calm and happy.
The three guNas do not exist in equal proportions either - Satva dominates to overpower rajas and tamas; rajas dominates to overpower satva and tamas; and tamas dominates to overpower satva and rajas (gIta 14-10). As an example, if a thought occurs in us to do a work, which may not be legal or ethical or in accordance with dharma, we may set out to do the work, in accordance with rajas. But there comes a doubt, whether it is the right thing to do (satva domination?); we ponder over it for some time, then unable to decide, we may put away the thought for a while; procrastination sets in (tamas predominates). The thought may come back again, when we may rationalize to do the work (rajas dominates). Finally we may or may not do the work, depending on which of the guNas has a dominant sway on us. Whatever action we undertake and how we undertake, the action will add to the data points that will influence our future propensity. In this way, an individual accumulates thousands (may be even hundreds of thousands) of data points in each life. These current data points along with the infinite data points of past lives make a composite of the guNa for the next life. If we assume a guNa continuum from zero (0) to 100, the approximate breakdown may be described as follows (an arbitrary division to illustrate the guNa continuity);
- Below 30 - predominantly tamas
- 30-50 - predominat tamas and rajas, with traces of satva
- 50-70 - predominantly rajas and sattva, with minor of tamas
- Above 70 - increasing satva with lesser rajas and traces of tamas
We will begin with the study of jagat in the next unit.
Om shAntih, shAntih, shAntih ( Om peace, peace, peace).
One of Isaac Newton's assistants was an atheist. One day, when he walked into the lab, he noticed a working model of the solar system. He asked Newton, who made it. Newton replied; "It happened by itself". The assistant asked again; "Really, who made it Issac? It can't happen by itself". Newton replied; "If the solar system can happen by itself, why can't a model of it happen by itself?
The above conversation presents a nice drop back for the study of jagat and its creation. We will try to understand through some examples from our daily life.
One day a man was passing by through a village. He noticed a huge mass of wet clay in front of a house. When, he returned through the same path in the evening, the clay was not to be seen. There were a bunch of pots, plates, etc set for drying. He asked a boy there, what happened to the clay? Where did all these pots and plates come from? The boy said, they were made from the clay. The man asked who made it. The boy pointed to a middle aged person and said he made it. Next day, when the man passed through the same path again, he noticed that most of the pots and plates were dried and set aside, but a few pots and plates were broken and were tossed into a corner. We understand a few facts about this situation. A material cause and an intelligent cause is required in the creation of any object. In this case, Clay is the material cause of the pots and plates. The Pot Maker is the intelligent cause of the pots and plates. The pots and plates are the effect or product. The same clay is present in the pots or plates. The clay retains its attribute as clay in the product, be it pot, plates or the broken pieces of the pots or plates.
This quality or characteristic of an object, which retains its unchanging attribute even as it appears differently, is called the svarUpa of the object. Similarly gold retains its attribute as it is made in to bangles, chain or ear ring etc, allowing us to understand the svarUpa of gold.
Now let us take another example. A spider builds a web around itself. What does it build the web from? It uses its own saliva to build the web. So, in this case, the spider is the material cause as well as the intelligent cause of the web.
In the advaita philosophy, the material cause is called the upAdAna kAraNa and the intelligent cause (this is also referred to as Efficient cause) is called the nimitta kAraNa. The effect (product) is called kArya (Effect). Both the upAdAna kAraNa and the nimitta kAraNa are required in the creation of a kArya or Effect. The upAdAna kAraNa, like clay, is generally insentient, but the nimitta kAraNa is always sentient, like the pot maker or the goldsmith. The nimitta kAraNa is the chEtas or chEtana (consciousness) in the pot maker or the goldsmith. Therefore it can be concluded that only a sentient entity can be a nimitta kAraNa for any kArya. So it is very clear that the Intelligent Cause for the creation of jagat is in the chEtana or Pure Consciousness.
Now let us look at the jagat. What is Jagat?
Before we attempt to determine the material and intellectual cause of the jagat, let us try to understand what jagat is. Krishna describes two aspects of jagat in gIta - the aparA prakriti (inferior or lower aspect) and parA prakriti (higher aspect). The verses are 7-4 and 7-5;
" bhUmirApO analO vAyuh kham manO buddhih Eva cha
ahankAra itIyam mE bhinnA prakritih ashTadhA "
- Earth, water, fire, air, ether(space), mind, intellect and ego - This eightfold unit is one aspect of my nature-(7-4)
" aparEyam itah tu anyAm prakritim viddhi mE parAm
jIvabhUtam mahAbAhO yayEdam dhAryatE jagat "
- Oh Arjuna! this (described in the previous verse) is my lower or inferior nature. Know my other nature, the higher (parA prakriti) is the life element by which the universe is supported-(7-5).
So everything we see (and don't see) around us, including us, is jagat.
The mind is also classified under insentient, because it is made of the five insentient elements - Earth, water, fire, air ether. The elements are insentient, so the modifications of them are also insentient. It is interesting to note from the spiritual point that since mind is insentient, it can be controlled like any other insentient object and it can never have power over the sentient. Knowing the difference between jada (insentient), and the chit (sentient), we can clearly understand that that the mind can be trained to what we want it to be.
In the next unit, we will look at the kAraNa for Jagat.
Om shAntih, shAntih, shAntih ( Om peace, peace, peace).
Brahman is the nimitta kAraNa for jagat.
BhagavAn Shankara comments in the sUtra bhAshya (1.1.10) -
" samAnam Eva hi sarvEshu vEdAntEshu chEtana kAraNavagatih "
- All upanishats declare with a single voice that chaitanya (Brahman or Pure Consciousness) is the kAraNa for the creation of the jagat.
Let us review some of these statements from the upanishats.
MunDaka upanishat - 1.1.8 and 9
" tapasA chIyatE brahma tatO annam abhijAyatE
annAt prANO manah satyam lOkAh karmasu cha amritam "
- Brahman expands by tapas, which creates food, consumption of which causes prANa and creation of mind; Then follows the five great elements (satyam); the seven lOkas (universe). The living beings, karma and the fruits of karma follow in succession.
" yah sarvajnyah sarva vidyasya jnyAnamayam tapah
tasmAt Etad brahma nAmarUpam, annam cha jAyatE "
- One who is omniscient and of the nature of knowledge, by Him, this brahma, names, forms and food chain is created.
AitarEya upanishat - 1.1.1
" Om AtmA vA idamEka EvAgra AsIt nAnyat kinchana miShat | sa IkShata lOkAnnu srijA iti "
- Om - this was only Atma in the beginning (without any name and form); there was nothing else; It contemplated to create the jagat (an entity consisting of names and forms).
TaittirIya upanishat - 2-6
"sO-kAmayata | bahu syAm prajAyEyEti | sa tapO atpyata "
- He desired to become many; to be born. (I will show myself in many forms, I will be born in many forms); So He did tapas.
The above statements of shruti declare that this chEtana is the nimitta kAraNa for the jagat. This chEtana must be there prior (between the kalpas) to the creation. Therefore Brahman is the nimitta kAraNa of this jagat. Here a question may arise as to why Brahman even wanted to create the jagat of names and forms associated with all pains and sorrows. We will study later that the jagat is created for the benefit of jIvas-for them to enjoy the fruits of their karma.
Brahman is the upAdAna kAraNa of jagat
We concluded above that Brahman is the nimitta kAraNa of this jagat. But this does not help us understand the svarUpa of jagat. We saw in the examples in the last unit that we will understand the svarUpa of pot or ornament, only when we know the clay or gold; that is when we know the upAdAna kArana of the pot or ornament. Likewise we will understand the svarUpa of jagat only when we understand the upAdAna kAraNa of jagat- that is when we understand the material out of which the jagat is made. Once again we turn to shruti for an understanding of the upAdAna kArANa.
" shounakO ha vai mahAshAlO angirasam vidhivadupasannah papriccha kasminnu bhagavO vijnyAtE sarvamidam vijnyAtam bhavatIti "
- Shounaka, in a tone of humility, asks angIras; Oh! bhagavan, knowing which, all this (jagat) is understood? - munDaka upanishat (1-1-3)
angIras replies;
"yathOrNanAbhih srijatE grihNatE cha yathA prithivyAm Oshadhayah sambhavanti yathA satah purushAt kEshalOmAni tatha akSharAt sambhavtIha viswam "
- Just as the spider creates and retracts the web, just as the trees and plants grow in the world, just as man grows small and large hair, so does all this comes out of akShara - that which does not die - a synonym for Brahman. - munDaka upanishat 1-1-7.
In ChAndOgya upanishat (6-1-3), AruNi asks his son shvEtakEtu (this conversation is reported to have taken place when the son had returned from gurukula; the father asks him what he learnt there. The son discussed all the transactional knowledge he had learnt, which was all he had learnt);
"tam AdEsham aprAkshyO yEna shrutagam shrutam bhavatyamatam matam avijnyAtam vijnyAta-miti katam nu bhagavah sa AdEshO bhavatIti"
- That which is understood, which was not understood before, that which was not discussed becomes discussed, that which was unknown becomes known, do you know "That" ?
AruNi continues to answer the question himself (6-1-4);
" yathA sOmyaikEna mritpinDENa sarvam mrinmayam vijnyAtam syAd-vAchArambhaNam vikArO nAmadhEyam mrittikEtyEva satyam, "
- Oh! sOmya, just as by knowing a lump of clay, all products made out of clay are known; the various products are name sake only (vAchArambhaNa) and the clay is the Real thing,
" sadEva sOmyEdamagra AsIdEkamEvAdvitIyam "
- this (jagat) was earlier the 'One and the Real' Brahman (6.2.1).
In the above illustrations, the objective is to describe Brahman; but what is described is jagat. This can only be possible if the Brahman is the upAdAna kAraNa (material cause) of jagat. Because by knowing the material cause (gold) all its effects (ornaments) are known.
So Brahman is the abhinna-nimitta-upAdAna kAraNa (undifferentiated or one and only material and intelligent cause) of this jagat.
The Relation between kArya (effect) and kAraNa (cause).
If gold(cause) can be removed from the ornament(effect), there is no cause (gold) any more. However, if the ornament (effect) is melted away, the gold(cause) is unaffected. Therefore it can be concluded that the kArya (effect) is not different from kAraNa (cause), but kAraNa is different from kArya. Similarly, jagat is not different from Brahman, but Brahman is different from jagat - Statement 1.
We will review the views of other philosophies regarding the existence of jagat and its kArana and vEdAnta's interpretation of those views. Most of these interpretations are offered by no other than bhagavAn Shankara in His commentaries on brahmasUta. Shankara's commentaries have been summarized in some of the vEdAnta texts; the following is a brief version of those summaries.
The Buddhist View.
There are two groups in Buddhism - shUnyavAda and vijnyAnavAda. We will not discuss the shUnyavAda here. The vijnyAnavAda argues that there is no jagat outside of our experiences, just like we experience an outside world in dream though there is no world outside of the dream. They therefore argue that there is no need to find a kAraNa for this jagat. There is an inconsistency in the Buddhist statement itself. The affirmation of an appearance of an outside world in the dream amounts to accepting an outside world in the waking state (the logic here seems to be that, if there is no outside world in the waking state, where is the need to even talk about it in the dream context? so by talking about it in the dream state, they are implicitly accepting the existence of an outside jagat). In addition, the existence of an outside world is accepted by everyone, since they transact business with the outside world. For example, humans and animals alike search for food outside in order to quench the hunger inside. No one goes after food, where it does not exist. Denying the existence in the waking state by comparing to a dream state is inconsistent logic. After all, the dream is a reflection of experiences in the waking state.
Following the dream, in the waking state, the difference (between dream and waking) is obvious - for example, seeing a friend or relative in the dream does not negate the existence of that friend or relative in the waking state, though that friend or relative does not exist outside of the dream during the dream. vEdAnta, therefore rejects the Buddhist view that the jagat does not exist.
The mImAmsa view.
A mImAmsaka is a follower of vEda. He believes only in the karma kAnda - sections of vEda dealing with karma only - and do not believe in jnyAna kAnda. A mImAmsaka argues that the jagat is not created; it has existed (in steady state) like this for ever from beginning-less time and so there is no need to go after a kAraNa for the creation of jagat. Since they are believers in vEda, shruti pramANa is invoked to counter the inconsistency in their logic and reject their view. For example, the shruti clearly says there is an unseen kAraNa for the jagat in the following shruti statements;
"sadEva sOmya idam agra Asit Ekam Eva advitIyam"
- In the beginning, this (jagat) was the non-dual Reality (chAndOgya upanishat,6.2.1)
" AtmA vA idam Eka Eva agra AsIt "
- In the beginning, This (jagat) was only Atman - ( ItarEya upanishat, 1.1.1).
Other shruti statements even describe that this jagat is subject to creation, sustenance and dissolution, as describe below.
" anEna jIvEnAtma nAnu pravishya nAma rUpE vyAkaravANi"
- I enter as this jIVa form of Atma and classify the names and forms (of this jagat) (chAndOgya 6-3-2). Here, in saying "this jIva", the jIva must be existent even before the name and form. If jIva exists, then a jagat must exist to support jIva.
" yatO vA imAni bhUtAni jAyantE yEna jATAni jIvanti yat prayant-yabhi-sam-vishanti "
- These living entities (bhUta), by which they are born, by which they are sustained and into which they merge, describe Brahman (taittirIya 3.1.3).
"sUryA-chandra-masou dhAtA yathA-pUrvamakalpayat divam cha prithivIm cha-antariksham-athO suvah "
- Ishwara created the Sun and the Moon, dyulOka, earth, space and heaven as usual (rigvEda samhita 10-190-3). Here "as usual" points to the cycle of creation and dissolution.
These shruti statements negate the mImAmsa view; the jagat has an intelligent and material kAraNa for its existence.
We will continue with the remaining views in the next unit.
Om shAntih, shAntih, shAntih ( Om peace, peace, peace).
We also reviewed a couple of other views of the causes of jagat. We will continue with the review of what other philosophies say about the causes of jagat.
The VaishEShika view.
A vaishEShika is an ancient scientist. He posits that the gross universe we see is made of four elements - gross earth characterized by smell, taste, form and touch; subtle water characterized by taste, form and touch; subtle fire characterized by subtle form and touch; and subtle air characterized by touch only. During the time of dissolution, they divide and disintegrate continuously until they are like atoms, beyond which no further division is possible. At the time of the next creation, these atoms integrate to become the four elements described above. So the vaishEShikas say that these atoms are the kAraNa for the jagat; by which they also mean that the atoms are the svarUpa of the jagat. vEdAnta addresses these statements as follows;
(i) The atoms being inert, cannot integrate without the support of intelligence during the time of creation. The vaishEShika believes in an Atma who is the doer and enjoyer and is the nimitta kAraNa for the integration of the atoms. However, the advaitin claims that this Atma needs tools and medium of a body to do so. However, this body has to come out of the integration of the atoms. So there cannot be a medium of a body before creation. Therefore the effort required for the integration cannot be provided by this Atma.
(ii) If one concedes that somehow the Atma has obtained a body, the dissolution has to be initiated by this Atma, who is also the enjoyer according to the vaishEShikas. The jagat is created for his enjoyment only. Then why would he dissolve this universe, forsaking the enjoyment?
(iii) The union of atoms - Two kinds of union is possible (a) Complete integration and (b) partial / localized union - Complete union of two atoms results in the fusion of two atoms and remain the size of an atom. So how can they come together and keep increasing the size to become the gross jagat? partial/ localized union posits that the atoms have parts, which is contrary to the vaishEShika theory.
(iv) The characteristics of the atoms - Touch etc. and the Reality (nitya) of them contradict each other. Our experience suggests that all objects
exhibiting touch etc. are effect (kArya) and not cause (kAraNa). For example, the cloth is the kArya of fiber; the fiber is the kArya of cotton etc. The fiber is more real than the cloth (if the cloth is destroyed, fiber still remains); cotton is more real than the fiber (if fiber is destroyed, cotton still remains). Likewise the atoms exhibiting the characteristic of touch can only be a kArya and cannot be a kAraNa. Being a kArya, they cannot be real.
A point to be noted here is that Shankara has not rejected atoms. What He has discarded is the theory that the atoms are the kAraNa of the jagat and the characteristics of atoms as described by vaishEShikas.
The naiyAyika view.
The followers of the Science of Logic are naiyAyikas. They believe in a God defined by logic and not in the vEdic view of God. They define three entities - purusha (jIva), Iswara (God) and prakriti (nature). According to them all the three are mutually independent and infinite. In addition, the prakriti is inert and Iswara is omniscient. The naiyyAyikas posit that the prakriti is the material cause (upAdAna kAraNa) and Iswara is the intelligent cause (nimitta kAraNa). The purusha is the enjoyer. Though they invoke vEdas in arguments, they will not accept vEda as an independent pramANa. vEdAnta explains the following inconsistencies in the NaiyaAyika view;
( i ) prakriti being inert, cannot by itself be the material cause of the jagat. This can only be possible if Iswara is tasked for the creation of the jagat; If so, Iswara's role violates the independency of prakriti.
( ii) Iswara is omniscient, prakriti, purusha and Iswara are independent.This violates the omnisciency of Iswara, since he has no control over the form of prakriti and puruSha. However, even if it is conceded that Iswara has control over prakriti and puruSha, (a) then the infiniteness of prakriti and puruSha is violated, and (b) If the infiniteness of purusha is violated(ie. the number of puruShas), then a finite number of purushas, when they all get liberated from the cycle of birth and death, where is the need for creation of jagat? Then Iswara looses his role of creation! This violates that Iswara is omniscient. Therefore the naiyAyika view is contradictory (Sutra 2.2.39-41). In here, the logic of naiyAyika is used to show the inconsistency of his view. This is called uShtra laguDa nyAya (Logic of camel and the club) - using the firewood load on the camel as a club to control the straying of the camel.
The sAnkhya view.
The sAnkhyAs also use logic as their basis; that is, they use anumAna pramANa, though they invoke vEda in arguing with vEdAntins. There is no Ishwara in this view. They posit that there are two entities - jaDa (inert) and chEtana (consciousness). They claim they don't see jaDa being the cause of chEtana or chEtana being the cause of jaDa. They therefore conclude that the material cause of jagat should be jaDA. The jagat appears to be a composite of satva, rajas and tamas ( We will take up the review of guNas later in the study. At this point, we can understand that satva is divine quality, rajas is characterized by activity and tamas is laziness or lethargic). Therefore the material cause of jagat should also be composite of satva, rajas and tamas. They call this composite of guNas (triguNAtmika or triad) as pradhAna or prakriti. The other is the consciousness or puruSha, (a proxy for jIva). They posit that in each living being, there is a separate puruSha. This puruSha is only a witness, non-engaging, remains detached and does not have any attributes. The pradhAna, by itself automatically transforms to jagat for the enjoyment of puruSha. The three guNas of pradhAna, when they are out of balance, creation happens; when they are in balance, it is dissolution. There are three objections to this theory;
(i) How does pradhAna, being jaDa, transform by itself to jagat? They respond that it is like water flowing by itself? Water can flow on a downward slope, which must have been created by an intelligent force. Or need external agency like a pump to make it flow. So the flow of water is the result of intelligence behind it!
(ii) The purusha, being inactive, cannot be the cause behind the transformation of pradhAna to jagat, like the potter transforming the clay to a pot.
(iii) pradhAna, being jada, obviously has no benefit in transforming itself to jagat. Even if so, the puruSha also has no benefit, since he is unattached and has no enjoyment; since he is unattached, even the benefit of self realization over time is absurd (the purusha, being detached, no desire to live or even attain self realization, what is the purpose of his existence?).
These arguments make the sAnkhya view flawed and unsustainable.
Contemporary Scientific View.
The contemporary scientific view, like the sAnkhya view, believes that the cause of this jagat is jada. They cite the example that the atoms in a gas are continually in a state of motion and are responsible for the enjoyment of puruSha! Or the atoms explode by themselves. If this were true, then the atoms must always be moving in a uniform path or speed. However, it has been a scientific observation that the temperature changes cause the atoms to move faster or slower. In fact it is thus controlling the movement of the atoms that the puruSha uses it for his enjoyment. So the movement is controlled by heat and heat is controlled by an external agency or chEtana; so chEtana should be the cause of the movement of atoms.
Again, the movement of the atoms cannot be stopped at all, even by controlling temperature, for at some low temperature, the movement of atoms attains a certain state, beyond which any further decrease of temperature does not change the movement of atoms. The scientist counters then, that this is its natural behavior (jaDa undergoing no change even with application of heat - external force or chEtana). The vEdAntin argues that the chEtana of the scientist is overpowered by a higher chEtana in subduing further change in movement. Similar logic applies to the explosion of atoms also.
The scientist is contradicting himself when he says that an inert body needs an external force to change its state of rest or of uniform motion and at the same time saying that the inert atoms move by its own.
In summarizing these views, the following observations can be made. As much as the jagat is visible, the cause of the jagat is invisible. Therefore none of the visible pramANas can be applied to determine the cause of the jagat. Inference and arthApatti (Inference by removing inconsistency) are also helpless, since there are no telltale signs for the jagat; since jagat being unique, even a simile fails to describe jagat. Therefore its cause has to be determined by shruti statements only, as has been proposed by advaita vEdAnta, that we studied earlier.
Om shAntih, shAntih, shAntih ( Om peace, peace, peace).
We reviewed causes of jagat as posited by other philosophies and countered them. In this unit, we will revisit the advaita view of cause of jagat to firmly establish the validity of the advaita view.
Further Review of Brahman as the kAraNa for jagat.
We established earlier that Brahman is the material and intelligent cause of the jagat. We also countered all other views on the cause of jagat, systematically rejecting either the logic or the inconsistency in the hypothesis. We will now firm up the advaita view that Brahman is the material and intelligent cause of jagat by posing some objections that one may raise and defending the view against those objections. Shankara, in his BrahmasUtra bhAshya, has adopted the sthUNA nikhanana nyAya -Firm Anchor logic (firming up an anchor by repeatedly shaking it, driving it down further until the anchor is firm and does not shake any more). Here BhagavAn Shankara has himself advanced the kind of objections any one could raise and has provided firm rejoinders to those potential objections, to establish that the shruti pramANa is the only reliable basis for establishing the jagat kAraNa. Prior to reviewing the objections, we will revisit the chAndOgya statement we reviewed earlier;
" sadEva sOmyEdamagra AsIdEkamEvAdvitIyam "
- this (jagat) was earlier the 'One and the Real' Brahman (6.2.1).
This chAndOgya statement established that kArya is not different from kAraNa (ananya) and hence jagat is not different from Brahman (Statement 1).
If Brahman alone existed before creation, then it is possible to say that what ever exists now is not different from Brahman; this includes jagat (the kArya) and jIva (which is not a kArya). We still have not studied jIva yet; however, we will make a statement here about jIva and Brahman (to understand the objections and the responses), that we will establish when we study the subject of jIva. The statement is
jIva is not different from Brahman; Brahman is different from jIva --- Statement 2.
Objection 1 - No Difference between the enjoyer and the enjoyed.
If Brahman is the kAraNa for jagat is accepted, then nothing is different from Brahman. That means, the enjoyer jIva is Brahman and the enjoyed jagat is Brahman. So there is no difference between the enjoyer and the enjoyed. However, we experience the difference universally in the daily life. So the vEdAntic view of "Brahman is the kAraNa for jagat" is objectionable.
vEdAntin: This objection is not valid, because though jagat and jIva are identical in svarUpa, they are different in presentation. The transaction of enjoying is in the presentation and not in the svarUpa. As an example, steel is the material cause of both the anvil and the hammer. The svarUpa of both is steel, but in presentation, anvil is not hammer, hammer is not steel. There is no objection to the transaction between them - hammer is the banger and the anvil is the banged. The steel (svarUpa) neither bangs nor is banged. Similarly, though the jIva(enjoyer) and the jagat(enjoyed) are identical in svarUpa (Brahman), they are different in presentation and there is no objection to a transaction in the presentations.
Objection 2 - Non-beneficial (HitAkaraNa).
If nothing is different from Brahman, even the ever suffering jIva is also Brahman.
Since Brahman is the creator of jagat, then jIva is also creator of jagat. So the jIva creates a jagat that is not beneficial to him. This is contradictory. In addition, it is known that jIva has no role in creation, sustenance and dissolution. So the theory that Brahman is the kArana for the jagat is not correct.
vEdAntin: Even if the unhappy jIva is Brahman, Brahman is different from
jIva (Statement 2); As much as they are identical in svarUpa, jIva does not
have the abilities of Brahman at any time. As an example, coal and diamond
are both carbon in their svarUpa; however diamond is much more precious and
valuable than coal. Likewise Brahman is invaluable (shrEshTa) in comparison
with jIva. Regarding the other objection of jIva's role as creator etc.,
Shankara says the following in the sUtra bhAShya (1.1.2);
" na jagatah yathOkta vishEShaNam Iswaram muktvA anyatah samsAriNOvA utpatyAdi sambhAvayitum shakyam "
- Apart from the Iswara with special attributes described, the jIva has no capability of creating this jagat (as a side note, if jIva can be kAraNa for jagat, each jIva may want the jagat to his or her liking; so we would have multiple jagats, which is absurd). So this objection is invalid.
Objection 3 - Brahman has no supporting Tools.
We observe tools in support of many intelligent causes, like the potter's wheel, the goldsmith's anvil etc. Brahman does not have any such supporting tools (we will study this later). So Brahman cannot be the cause of jagat.
vEdAntin: Supporting tool is not a necessity for all activities. For example, we need eyes, light and mind to see an object. However some night
animals can see with eyes and mind only. A yOgi is known to see by mind only. One may need a roller to make flat bread; however some may do with hand only (like a pizza cook or nan maker). This objection is not supportable.
Objection 4 - Brahman has no Body/Limbs.
If not supporting tools, Brahman at least needs a body with limbs of action and organs of knowledge. Since He does not have these (again, we will study this in the subject of Brahman), Brahman can not be the cause of jagat.
vEdAntin: The same shruti that says Brahman is the cause of jagat also says that Brahman has no body or limbs. A vEdAntin cannot accept one statement of shruti and reject another statement of shruti. So the vEdAntin ignores this objection. The shrutis declare that even without a body, creation of this world is testament to the omnipotence of Brahman. The limitations of jIva cannot simply be applied to Brahman.
Objection 5 - Usefulness / Uselessness of Creation.
The chEtana will engage in the creation of jagat only if there is a utility; otherwise not. Then what is the purpose of creation? If the creation is for its satisfaction, then it suggests that Brahman was dissatisfied before the creation. This is against the renunciation of all desires (AptakAma) of Brahman. Is it without any purpose? That would be a foolish play, which violates the omniscience of Brahman - then Brahman cannot be the kAraNa for jagat.
vEdAntin: The real purpose of creation is as follows;
The jIvas of the previous cycle of creation, with all their karma would be merged with the Brahman during the period of dissolution. These jIvas need an environment to enjoy the fruits of their karma during the creation before. So Brahman creates the jagat for the usefulness of jIvas to enjoy the fruits of their past karma.
We will take up the remaining objections in the next unit.
Om shAntih, shAntih, shAntih ( Om peace, peace, peace).
We reviewed causes of jagat as posited by other philosophies and countered them. In this unit, we will continue to revisit the advaita view of cause of jagat to firmly establish the validity of the advaita view.
Further Review of Brahman as the kAraNa for jagat.
Objection 6 - Brahman is Partial and Cruel
There is wide range of differences in the creation of jagat. There are some who are very happy. Some of the animals undergo immense hardship and distress. Some others would have a mix of happiness and sorrow. So is Brahman partial? In addition, at the time of dissolution, all jIvas experience extreme distress. So is Brahman very cruel? If so, Brahman cannot be the kAraNa for jagat!
vEdAntin: The jagat creation with differences in the happiness among jIvas is organized according to their karma. The variations, in the level of happiness among jIvas, is a result of their own making. Brahman is not responsible for this (In business life also, every one is rewarded according to their contributions!). The cause of dissolution is the aggregate karma of jIvas. So this objection of Brahman's partiality or cruelty is not accurate.
Objection 7 - awkwardness (Contamination) of Brahman
(i) When the kArya (jagat) is dissolved, it merges in its upAdAna (Brahman). So at the time of dissolution, all the contamination of the jagat, merges into Brahman. This destroys the svarUpa of Brahman. So Brahman cannot be the kAraNa for Jagat.
vEdAntin: When the ornament dissolves into gold, the gold is not contaminated in any way; Likewise, no kArya will contaminate its upAdAna (kAranA). In addition, even in sustenance, the upAdAna is not affected. Little jewel, big jewel, loose jewel, tight jewel will not likewise translate to gold(little gold or big gold has no meaning). This is the nature of upAdAna. So Brahman is not contaminated during dissolution.
(ii) Brahman being of the nature of consciousness, though its intelligent cause (nimitta kAraNa) for the jagat is acceptable, its material cause cannot be accepted for the jagat which is jada (opposite characteristic from that of Brahman). The kArya cannot be different in characteristics from kAraNa. The kAraNa should carry its characteristics into kArya. But the jagat does not exhibit the characteristics of Brahman. Therefore Brahman cannot be the cause of jagat. There are possibly three aspects of this objection; the vEdAntin addresses the three aspects as follows;
vEdAntin: (a) All characteristics of Brahman should be found in the jagat - If all characteristics of a kAraNa are to be found in a kArya, then there is no difference between kArya and kArNa and kArya has no opportunity to show itself. The expectation of all characteristics of kAraNa to be found in kArya is untenable. If all the characteristics of Brahman follow into jagat, there is no difference between Brahman and jagat. Then there is no creation. So this aspect of objection is invalid.
vEdAntin:(b) At least one characteristic of Brahman should be found in the jagat; none of the characteristics of Brahman is found in jagat - The vEdAntin accepts this is a fair objection. If even a single characteristic of the kAraNa is not found in the kArya, the kAraNa is invalid. An example would help. Sweet drink is the kArya, water and sugar are the upAdAna kAraNa (material). The sweet drink is watery; so water is the material cause is obvious. However, the crystal touch and the white form of sugar are not obvious in the drink. However, tasting the drink will confirm the sugar as its material cause. Likewise it is necessary that at least one characteristic of Brahman follow into the jagat. Which of the characteristics of Brahman follows into jagat is determined as follows - Brahman 'is' changeless, jagat 'is' changing; Brahman 'is' consciousness, jagat 'is' inert. The characteristic 'is' of Brahman is found in the jagat as 'is' [ brahmaNo api sattA lakshaNah svabhAvah AkAshAdishu anuvartamAnO drishyate - sattA(is) of Brahman is followed into sky etc, sUtra 2.1.6]. So the objection that even a single characteristic of Brahman is not found in jagat is not valid.
vEdAntin:( © Brahman's consciousness must be found in jagat to accept Brahman is the kAraNa for jagat; jagat is jada, so Brahman is not kAraNa for jagat- What is the basis for this requirement? does the crystalline touch of sugar follow in to the sweet drink? still the sugar is upAdAna of the drink is obvious. So this objection is rejected.
Objection 8 - Insentient from Consciousness ?
How can Brahman of the svarUpa of consciousness be the upAdAna of the jagat which is inert? This question may arise to any one. This is being answered using a familiar example from contemporary science. According to science, the material cause of water is the two gases, oxygen and hydrogen. The hydrogen is a highly combustible gas and oxygen is a supporter of combustion. The effect (kArya) of these - water - does not have either one of these characteristics. A flame is put off if dipped in water. In this example, the liquidity (of water) is not in the cause, but is present in the effect. The combustibility of cause is not in the effect. So it is no surprise if characteristics of kArya and kAraNa are different. So the shruti statement that the consciousness Brahman is the material cause of the inert jagat is not troublesome.
Objection 9 - Conflict of Limbs / Organs
The chAndOgya upanishat says of the jagat -
" tAvAnasya mahimA atO jyAyAmscha pUruShah pAdO asya sarvA bhUtAni tripAdasyAmritam divi ":
all the living beings are his one fraction (quarter), the remaining three quarters are in the outer world (3.12.6). Brahman is thus described as having limbs or parts in this shruti. There are other shrutis which say Brahman is niravaya - limbless or organless. These are conflicting statements and therefore it cannot be accepted that Brahman is the cause of jagat.
vEdAntin: Again this objection is resolved through an example. Say gold has taken the form of a ring. Gold is gold weather it is in the form of ring or not in the form of ring. Either way gold itself, is not impacted. So it is obvious that "gold is in the ring and is beyond it (gold transcends ornament)". Similarly what the chAndOgya shruti is saying is Brahman is also jagat and transcends jagat. It should not be interpreted as Brahman having parts. He is niravaya.
Objection 10 - Which is the authority?
The doctrine of vEdAnta is conflicting with sAnkhya, yOga and other smritis. These smritis are works of great people. So it is difficult to accept Brahman as the cause of jagat.
vEdAntin: Manu, Apastamba, vyAsa etc. all have reiterated that Brahman is the cause of jagat. Wherever there is a conflict between smriti and shruti, shruti is authoritative. Everyone has to also accept those sections of smritis which are not in conflict with shruti.
In countering the above objections, the thrust of the argument is that "the kArya is not different from kAraNa, but kAraNa is different from kArya". The difficulty in understanding this concept is alleviated through the use of a term "upAdhi".
upAdhi
Let us consider the ring again. It is a form to identify the gold. The ring is a name for Gold in that form (vAchArambhaNa). Even though gold is identified in the form of ring, the form itself will not affect gold; the gold is completely independent of ring. The knowledge of gold, thus obtained is not influenced by the ring. That knowledge is one and the same, whether the knowledge is derived from ring, bracelet or necklace. The ring, - which is not a part of gold, but used to identify gold - is called the upAdhi of gold.
Now let us take another example, say a crystal. The crystal is not likely visible in isolation. However, if a red flower is placed behind the flower, the crystal becomes clearly visible in red color. In association with the red flower, the crystal appears red, though it is not actually red. In this case the red flower is the upAdhi for the crystal. In this case the red flower is not attached to the crystal, like the ring was attached to gold. If a different color flower, say blue, replaces the red flower, the crystal now appears blue. So by the crystal appearing as different color, in association with different colored flowers, we conclude that the crystal is transparent. Whereas the crystal was not visible by itself, the upAdhi helps us see the crystal (a safety decal placed on clear glass doors, helps people avoid bumping into the glass door - the sticker - which helps to see the glass as a glass door - is the upAdhi for the glass; birds many times bump into clear glass panes and die). This is the benefit of upAdhi. The following statement can be made regarding upAdhi;
upAdhi, though attached to object, is not attached; upAdhi though appears to be in object, is not in object. - Statement 3.
Likewise, the names and forms of jagat are upAdhis for Brahman. Brahman is able to be identified only through the upAdhi of names and forms. If Brahman had not created the jagat, we would not have known its svarUpa (we would not have been here to debate this!). Yet, Brahman is not affected by the awkwardness of jagat, just as gold is not affected by the ring or the crystal is not affected by an association with a colored object near it.
Brahman is jagat and is beyond jagat is equivalent to saying that jagat is the upAdhi for Brahman. We may recall here the declaration of Krishna in gIta
"mat sthAni sarva bhUtAni na cha aham tEshu avasthitah"
- all beings are in Me and I am not placed in them (9-4) [Brahman is jagat and is beyond jagat]. Clay is in all pots; yet, if the pot is broken, clay is not impacted; clay is still clay (the name and form is lost, yet the substratum is not affected). So, the pot is not in clay. The pot is an upAdhi of clay. Similarly the jagat is an upAdhi of Brahman. A heap of clay is also a form; one should not consider this as different from a pot or a pan; It is form resulting from the intelligence that it occupies the smallest floor area vs. a bed of clay for example.
If the heap is disturbed the clay remains as clay. Similarly a nugget of gold is also a form, like an ornament, cast into the form of a nugget using a mold (think of intelligence in preparing the mold and casting into it!).
We may review another example to understand upAdhi. I am a son, a father, a husband, an employee etc. But father, son, husband etc. are not in me. These are roles only. These roles are the upAdhis that make me appear as a father, husband etc.
We have now understood, that Brahman is the "abhinna nimitta upAdAna kAraNa" (undifferentiated material and intelligent cause) of the jagat. We need to next look at the mechanics of the jagat coming into being. This is a difficult task. We need to understand a power of Brahman, called mAyA in order to understand the jagat coming into being.
Om shAntih, shAntih, shAntih ( Om peace, peace, peace).
We reviewed causes of jagat as posited by other philosophies and countered them. We established that Brahman is the one and only (undifferentiated) material and intelligent cause of the jagat.
In this Unit, we will begin to understand the mechanics of creation, that brings us to understand mAyA.
The Play of mAyA.
We reviewed in the previous units, that Brahman is the " abhinna nimitta upAdAna kAraNa " (non-differentiated or [one and the same] material and intelligent cause) of the jagat. In this section, we will try to understand the mechanics of how the jagat came into being. This is a difficult task, since the humans, conditioned by space and time, are experiencing jagat posterior to jagat coming in to being. So the only recourse to understand this mechanics is the upanishads. However, the upanishadic point of view seems to be different in different upanishads. But there can only be one mechanism of this jagat coming into being; so which of the upanishads describe the correct mechanics? Why such seemingly different views among upanishads?
Before we try to understand these various upanishadic views, it is instructive to understand why vEdAnta even discusses the creation of jagat. After all jagat is jaDa; there is no value in understanding the creation of jagat other than the inquisitiveness of the jIva. From a vEdAntin's perspective, as such there is nothing to be gained by understanding the mechanics of the jagat coming into being. The goal of vEdAntin is to present Brahman, whose understanding is necessary in the realization of Brahman. However, Brahman cannot be presented without the presentation of jagat, because the invisible Brahman has to be understood only through the visible jagat. So it is inevitable for vEdAnta and the vEdAntin to understand the creation of jagat.
A fact of creation of an object has a definite mechanism of creation. Its description also will be consistent. Advaita's view is that this jagat was not created in the traditional sense. Then what to talk about the mechanics of its creation? However, it is the general belief of jIvas that this jagat was created. vEdAnta follows this track of jIva's understanding in initially supporting this concept of creation of jagat; As the understanding becomes firm, vEdAnta presents how the jagat actually came into being . This is the method of teaching of vEdAnta.
The upanishats have presented several mechanics of creation, as deemed necessary, consistent with seeker's experience of jagat. As the seeker's knowledge and ability in judgment and reasoning intensifies, it helps him to understand that the jagat we see is the play of mAyA. This is the method of vEdAnta. This method and the fact that the jagat is not created are consistent with the nature of Brahman.
What is mAyA?
Now let us look at the following mantra from the taittirIya upanishat -
"agnih pUrva rUpam, Aditya uttara rUpam, Apah sandhih, vaidyutah sandhAnam (1.3)
- Fire is the first form, Sun is the second form, union of these two is water and the force or power that causes the union is the lightening (electric potential). We know a similar phenomena in Science. Hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water with the application of electricity. Hydrogen is a gas and combustible (characteristic of agni). Oxygen is a gas and supporter of combustion (characteristic of Sun - caused by temperature differences resulting in wind currents, supporting combustion). Water is the resulting union, caused by Electricity (vaidyutah) - the medium or power that helps in the union to form water.
Water is a liquid and puts out fire. The two gases - Hydrogen and Oxygen - are combustible and supporter of combustion respectively. How did water, which puts out fire result from two gases which are combustible and supporter of combustion? That is the power in electricity. Science tells us here that it is the power of electricity, by which the kArya (water) is of a totally opposing characteristic from the kAraNa (Oxygen and Hydrogen - upAdAna). vEdAnta also presents that such a power exists - a power in Brahman. Brahman is of the nature of consciousness and limitless in space and time, and actionless, is the kAraNa for the jagat, which is of the nature of inert and limited in time and space. Such power of Brahman, which hides its characteristics of consciousness and limitlessness and presents itself as the inert limited jagat is mAyA.
Sri Shankara, in Prashna upanishat (1.16) comments as follows;
"bahiranyathA AtmAnam prakashya anyathaiva kAryam karOti sA mAyA"
- mAyA is that power of Brahman that enables an outward presentation different from the internal characteristics.
Following the taittirIya mantra, Brahman is the first form (pUrva rUpa), Iswara is the second form (uttara rUpa), jagat is the sandhi and mAyA is the power causing the sandhi.
We will focus on understanding what this mAyA is, the play of this mAyA and how it helps in nderstanding the jagat coming into being. However, it should be noted that mAyA is not invented by advaita to explain some aspect of jagat. The shrutis and smritis extol this mAyA in several contexts like;
indrO mAyAbhih pururUpa IyatE
- indra (Brahman) appears to be of many forms due to mAyA ( brihadAraNyaka upanishat - 2.5.19)
mAyAm tu prakritm vidyAt, mAyinAm tu mahEshvaram
- The prakriti should be understood to be mAyA and the Iswara as mAyAvi (swEtAsvatara upanishat - 4.10)
daivI hi EshA guNamayi mama mAyA duratyayA
- This divine mAyA of mine, caused by the guNas is difficult to crossover (gIta - 7.14).
In the next unit, we will review some of the statements of scriptures regarding the creation of jagat.
Om shAntih, shAntih, shAntih ( Om peace, peace, peace).
Om Tat Sat
(Continued...)
(My humble salutations Sreeman Brahmasri Ramakrishna- Advaita Vedanta dot org for the collection)
0 comments:
Post a Comment