BRAHMAN AND THE UNIVERSE :-
RELATIONSHIP OF BRAHMAN AND THE UNIVERSE :
==== From The Viewpoint Of Advaita Vedanta ====
According to Hinduism there is a beginningless and endless cycle of creation, maintenance and dissolution or resolution, called “srishti”, “sthithi”, ”laya.” In each srishti, the variety and pattern of objects, the attributes of the bodies and minds and the events and situations have to be fashioned to suit the karmas of the myriad of sentient beings that have to undergo their karmaphalam in the course of their janmas during that srishti.
The Vedas declare that Brahman is the cause of the origin, subsistence, and dissolution of this world. This view is consistent with two kinds of causality:
(1) substantial (or material) causality, in which a substance such as clay or gold is related to an earthen pot or golden ornament as cause to effect; and
(2) efficient causality, in which the cause is an active agent such as a potter or goldsmith who shapes a substance such as clay or gold into an object such as an earthen pot or golden ornament.
Which of these two kinds of causality applies when we say that Brahman is the cause of the world?
Shankaracharya says Brahman alone is originally and ultimately real. Nothing can exist independently of Brahman. Thus, it would seem that Brahman is both the efficient and the material cause of the universe. That is, Brahman is the agent (efficient cause) that causes the world to be and also the substance of which the world is composed (or from which the world is projected) (material cause). For Shankara, the universe is not created "out of nothing"(ex nihilo) but out of Brahman.
According to Sastra, Brahman is eternal and changeless. In various passages, Upanishads state that Brahman is eternal (”nityam”); “nityam” implies changelessness. In Muktikopanishad and in the BhagavadGita , Brahman is specifically said to be changeless. In Brahma Sutra bhashyam II.i.14, Sankaracarya says that Brahman is changeless and eternal and it has been denied that Brahman can undergo any modification whatsoever.
There is, however, a problem here, with which Shankara and his followers have grappled. For Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is unchanging, whereas the world of experience (produced by and from Brahman) is evidently full of change. How is the changing universe related to the changeless Brahman? The problem does not arise with regard to efficient causation. It seems possible for an unchanging Supreme Being (Brahman) to command that let the changing world exist ("Let there be light," and so forth). However, if Brahman is also the material (substantial) cause of the world, and if the world is changing, doesn't that mean that Brahman is also changing?
Shankara and his school distinguish between two kinds of material change: (1) parinama (change of substance, actual change) and (2) vivarta (change of appearance).
(1) The following is an illustration of the parinama principle: Milk can be used to make cheese. In the process of cheese-making, the milk is transformed into cheese and becomes unrecoverable, i.e., once the cheese has been made, we cannot recover the milk. The milk has been changed into a substance other than itself.
(2) For an example of the vivarta principle, consider the fashioning of a ring out of silver. In this case, the silver (the material cause) does not change into something other than itself. The silver now appears in the form of a ring, but it remains silver, and it could be refashioned into some other piece of jewelry. In a significant sense, the silver itself does not change when it is fashioned into a ring or other ornament. It continues to be what it is.
For Shankaracharya, the relationship between Brahman and the world does not involve parinama. In producing the world, Brahman does not become the world. Brahman remains itself. However, in the process of creation, does Brahman take on the shape or form of the world, as does the silver that is used to make a ring? The vivarta concept comes closer to Shankara's understanding of the relationship between Brahman and the world. Brahman takes on the appearance of the world, as does the silver take on the appearance of a ring. But in taking on the appearance of a ring, the silver itself is molded and shaped into a certain form. For Shankara, this is not what happens in the Brahman-world relationship. Shankara denies that Brahman, as the material cause of the universe, changes in any way whatsoever. Thus, neither the parinama nor the vivarta view is satisfactory. They both presuppose that cause and effect are separate realities. In parinama, the material cause (e.g., milk) is transformed into a substance different from itself (e.g., cheese); and in vivarta, the material cause (e.g.,silver) is changed into the shape of its material effect (e.g., a ring).
Upanishads also say that Brahman is devoid of instruments of action and thinking (karta amanah). There are also statements in the Upanishads to the effect that Brahman is neither neither cause nor effect. A changeless Brahman, a Brahman that is akarta, cannot be the transforming material cause (parinaami upaadaana kaaranam) of the perceived world. Since Brahman is amanah, It cannot be the intelligent cause (“nimitta kaaranam.”) of the perceived world, either.
So, the question arises, how does creation come?
Shankara's position is that the world is a mere appearance of Brahman caused by ignorance (avidya) and illusion (maya). There is no real creation. Brahman does not really act, nor does it change in any way.
Thus, for Shankara, it seems that Brahman is both the cause of the world's existence and not the cause of the world's existence. To avoid this apparent contradiction, Shankara utilizes a distinction between two ways in which the nature of Brahman is experienced and understood. This is the distinction between Saguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman,"Brahman with attributes" and "Brahman without attributes" . Saguna Brahman is qualified by limiting conditions owing to the multiplicity of the names (mental entities) and forms (bodies) arising out of the cosmic evolutionary process (i.e., out of the plurality of the created world) and as possessing a plethora of attributes (e.g., truth, beauty, knowledge, consciousness, bliss, power); Nirguna Brahman is free from all limiting conditions whatever and devoid of all attributes. Saguna Brahman is the personal God of religion, an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-present creator of the world and a divine savior to whom we owe our love and devotion. Nirguna Brahman is the Transcendent Absolute, having none of the attributes associated with "God" in the various theistic religions of the world. For Shankara, Brahman appears differently to different people depending on whether the Supreme Being is the object either of knowledge (jñana) or of ignorance (avidya). In reality (so says Shankara) the soul and Brahman are one. In Shankara's view, one and the same Self (Atman) is present, although hidden, in all beings.
Thus, Shankara holds that Brahman, when properly understood (i.e., from the standpoint of knowledge), is devoid of all attributes (Nirguna Brahman). When Brahman is described as possessing attributes such as truth, knowledge, or infinity, or when Brahman is described as Pure Being (sat), Pure Consciousness (chit), and Pure Bliss (ananda), these characterizations of Saguna Brahman (Brahman with attributes) are attempts to describe Brahman from the standpoint of ignorance. Such characterizations are, in reality, just words, and the true nature of Brahman cannot be described in words. The truth of the matter, according to Shankara, is that Brahman's true nature is completely devoid of any attributes.
When Brahman is said to be the efficient and material cause of the world's existence, it is Saguna Brahman, not Nirguna Brahman, that is so described. To speak of Brahman as the cause of the world presupposes a duality of Brahman and world, and such dualistic thinking is grounded on ignorance of the true nature of Brahman and Atman. Although Brahman is characterized in various Vedic texts as the efficient and material cause of the universe, Shankara holds that these texts refer to Saguna Brahman and that thinking of Brahman as Saguna ("with attributes") constitutes only a preliminary view of Brahman, a view based on the human need to explain the apparent existence of the universe. However, in order to understand the true nature of Brahman, we must go beyond this preliminary view and understand Brahman as it is in itself, not in relation to the universe, i.e., in non-dualistic terms. At that level of comprehension, it is seen that the entire universe is nothing but a superimposition upon and mere appearance of Brahman, the underlying reality of all that is. In the knowledge of the true nature of reality, which is the Brahman-Atman unity, this superimposition is "sublated." (Sublation is the process of correcting our understanding by replacing false judgments with true judgments.)
This line of argument leads Shankara to his famous distinction between two levels of reality and understanding:
(1) phenomenal or relative reality (vyavaharika satya), in which dualities and distinctions appear, and
(2) transcendental and absolute reality (paramarthika satya), in which there are no dualities or distinctions whatsoever. It is only from the phenomenal and relative standpoint of dualistic and distinctionist thought that Brahman (i.e., Saguna Brahman) is the cause of the existence of the universe.
From the standpoint of absolute reality and understanding, there is nothing in existence other than the Brahman-Atman unity. Thus, in one sense, Brahman is the cause of the world's existence and, in another sense, Brahman is not the cause of the world's existence.
For the purposes of his arguments against Samkhya philosophy, Shankara adopts the phenomenal-relative perspective, insisting that, if we are to posit the existence of the universe as a product of causation, then we must conclude that Brahman-Atman (i.e., in the guise of Saguna Brahman) is both the efficient and the material cause of the world.
==== From The Viewpoint Of Advaita Vedanta ====
According to Hinduism there is a beginningless and endless cycle of creation, maintenance and dissolution or resolution, called “srishti”, “sthithi”, ”laya.” In each srishti, the variety and pattern of objects, the attributes of the bodies and minds and the events and situations have to be fashioned to suit the karmas of the myriad of sentient beings that have to undergo their karmaphalam in the course of their janmas during that srishti.
The Vedas declare that Brahman is the cause of the origin, subsistence, and dissolution of this world. This view is consistent with two kinds of causality:
(1) substantial (or material) causality, in which a substance such as clay or gold is related to an earthen pot or golden ornament as cause to effect; and
(2) efficient causality, in which the cause is an active agent such as a potter or goldsmith who shapes a substance such as clay or gold into an object such as an earthen pot or golden ornament.
Which of these two kinds of causality applies when we say that Brahman is the cause of the world?
Shankaracharya says Brahman alone is originally and ultimately real. Nothing can exist independently of Brahman. Thus, it would seem that Brahman is both the efficient and the material cause of the universe. That is, Brahman is the agent (efficient cause) that causes the world to be and also the substance of which the world is composed (or from which the world is projected) (material cause). For Shankara, the universe is not created "out of nothing"(ex nihilo) but out of Brahman.
According to Sastra, Brahman is eternal and changeless. In various passages, Upanishads state that Brahman is eternal (”nityam”); “nityam” implies changelessness. In Muktikopanishad and in the BhagavadGita , Brahman is specifically said to be changeless. In Brahma Sutra bhashyam II.i.14, Sankaracarya says that Brahman is changeless and eternal and it has been denied that Brahman can undergo any modification whatsoever.
There is, however, a problem here, with which Shankara and his followers have grappled. For Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is unchanging, whereas the world of experience (produced by and from Brahman) is evidently full of change. How is the changing universe related to the changeless Brahman? The problem does not arise with regard to efficient causation. It seems possible for an unchanging Supreme Being (Brahman) to command that let the changing world exist ("Let there be light," and so forth). However, if Brahman is also the material (substantial) cause of the world, and if the world is changing, doesn't that mean that Brahman is also changing?
Shankara and his school distinguish between two kinds of material change: (1) parinama (change of substance, actual change) and (2) vivarta (change of appearance).
(1) The following is an illustration of the parinama principle: Milk can be used to make cheese. In the process of cheese-making, the milk is transformed into cheese and becomes unrecoverable, i.e., once the cheese has been made, we cannot recover the milk. The milk has been changed into a substance other than itself.
(2) For an example of the vivarta principle, consider the fashioning of a ring out of silver. In this case, the silver (the material cause) does not change into something other than itself. The silver now appears in the form of a ring, but it remains silver, and it could be refashioned into some other piece of jewelry. In a significant sense, the silver itself does not change when it is fashioned into a ring or other ornament. It continues to be what it is.
For Shankaracharya, the relationship between Brahman and the world does not involve parinama. In producing the world, Brahman does not become the world. Brahman remains itself. However, in the process of creation, does Brahman take on the shape or form of the world, as does the silver that is used to make a ring? The vivarta concept comes closer to Shankara's understanding of the relationship between Brahman and the world. Brahman takes on the appearance of the world, as does the silver take on the appearance of a ring. But in taking on the appearance of a ring, the silver itself is molded and shaped into a certain form. For Shankara, this is not what happens in the Brahman-world relationship. Shankara denies that Brahman, as the material cause of the universe, changes in any way whatsoever. Thus, neither the parinama nor the vivarta view is satisfactory. They both presuppose that cause and effect are separate realities. In parinama, the material cause (e.g., milk) is transformed into a substance different from itself (e.g., cheese); and in vivarta, the material cause (e.g.,silver) is changed into the shape of its material effect (e.g., a ring).
Upanishads also say that Brahman is devoid of instruments of action and thinking (karta amanah). There are also statements in the Upanishads to the effect that Brahman is neither neither cause nor effect. A changeless Brahman, a Brahman that is akarta, cannot be the transforming material cause (parinaami upaadaana kaaranam) of the perceived world. Since Brahman is amanah, It cannot be the intelligent cause (“nimitta kaaranam.”) of the perceived world, either.
So, the question arises, how does creation come?
Shankara's position is that the world is a mere appearance of Brahman caused by ignorance (avidya) and illusion (maya). There is no real creation. Brahman does not really act, nor does it change in any way.
Thus, for Shankara, it seems that Brahman is both the cause of the world's existence and not the cause of the world's existence. To avoid this apparent contradiction, Shankara utilizes a distinction between two ways in which the nature of Brahman is experienced and understood. This is the distinction between Saguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman,"Brahman with attributes" and "Brahman without attributes" . Saguna Brahman is qualified by limiting conditions owing to the multiplicity of the names (mental entities) and forms (bodies) arising out of the cosmic evolutionary process (i.e., out of the plurality of the created world) and as possessing a plethora of attributes (e.g., truth, beauty, knowledge, consciousness, bliss, power); Nirguna Brahman is free from all limiting conditions whatever and devoid of all attributes. Saguna Brahman is the personal God of religion, an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-present creator of the world and a divine savior to whom we owe our love and devotion. Nirguna Brahman is the Transcendent Absolute, having none of the attributes associated with "God" in the various theistic religions of the world. For Shankara, Brahman appears differently to different people depending on whether the Supreme Being is the object either of knowledge (jñana) or of ignorance (avidya). In reality (so says Shankara) the soul and Brahman are one. In Shankara's view, one and the same Self (Atman) is present, although hidden, in all beings.
Thus, Shankara holds that Brahman, when properly understood (i.e., from the standpoint of knowledge), is devoid of all attributes (Nirguna Brahman). When Brahman is described as possessing attributes such as truth, knowledge, or infinity, or when Brahman is described as Pure Being (sat), Pure Consciousness (chit), and Pure Bliss (ananda), these characterizations of Saguna Brahman (Brahman with attributes) are attempts to describe Brahman from the standpoint of ignorance. Such characterizations are, in reality, just words, and the true nature of Brahman cannot be described in words. The truth of the matter, according to Shankara, is that Brahman's true nature is completely devoid of any attributes.
When Brahman is said to be the efficient and material cause of the world's existence, it is Saguna Brahman, not Nirguna Brahman, that is so described. To speak of Brahman as the cause of the world presupposes a duality of Brahman and world, and such dualistic thinking is grounded on ignorance of the true nature of Brahman and Atman. Although Brahman is characterized in various Vedic texts as the efficient and material cause of the universe, Shankara holds that these texts refer to Saguna Brahman and that thinking of Brahman as Saguna ("with attributes") constitutes only a preliminary view of Brahman, a view based on the human need to explain the apparent existence of the universe. However, in order to understand the true nature of Brahman, we must go beyond this preliminary view and understand Brahman as it is in itself, not in relation to the universe, i.e., in non-dualistic terms. At that level of comprehension, it is seen that the entire universe is nothing but a superimposition upon and mere appearance of Brahman, the underlying reality of all that is. In the knowledge of the true nature of reality, which is the Brahman-Atman unity, this superimposition is "sublated." (Sublation is the process of correcting our understanding by replacing false judgments with true judgments.)
This line of argument leads Shankara to his famous distinction between two levels of reality and understanding:
(1) phenomenal or relative reality (vyavaharika satya), in which dualities and distinctions appear, and
(2) transcendental and absolute reality (paramarthika satya), in which there are no dualities or distinctions whatsoever. It is only from the phenomenal and relative standpoint of dualistic and distinctionist thought that Brahman (i.e., Saguna Brahman) is the cause of the existence of the universe.
From the standpoint of absolute reality and understanding, there is nothing in existence other than the Brahman-Atman unity. Thus, in one sense, Brahman is the cause of the world's existence and, in another sense, Brahman is not the cause of the world's existence.
For the purposes of his arguments against Samkhya philosophy, Shankara adopts the phenomenal-relative perspective, insisting that, if we are to posit the existence of the universe as a product of causation, then we must conclude that Brahman-Atman (i.e., in the guise of Saguna Brahman) is both the efficient and the material cause of the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment