Ishvara is accepted in Vedanta also. But Ishvara is not absolutely independent in governing and in dispensing results. Even in that, the actions performed by the individual soul come in the middle become the cause. If we do not accept action then two flaws become clear. These are "Akritaabhyaagana dosha" and "Kritanaasha dosha".
Let's assume one individual soul is experiencing sorrow. If this is not a result of his prior actions, then it is injustice. This is "Akritaabhyaagana dosha". And if he has performed some good actions in the past, and if those actions expire without giving the result, then even that is considered injustice. This is "Kritanaashaa dosha". Then who would want to perform good actions ever? That is why there is an aware link between action, enjoyment and the enjoyer individual soul. This is a scripture-sanctioned philosophy.
Those in Saankhya who do not accept Isvhara are illogical. The self of Saankhya is an enjoyer, not a doer. But without being a doer, how can there be variety in the enjoyment of the enjoyer? That is why the self needs to be both a doer and an enjoyer. In this manner, the entire Saankhya opinion is refuted. If we say that Ishvara does become the cause for this (like the Seshvara Saankhya school) then you tell me this: Does Ishvara dispense results on the basis of independence or of actions? If he does so on the basis of independence, then the afore-mentioned "Akritaabhyaagana dosha" and "Kritanaasha dosha" flaws will arise. And if he does so on the basis of actions, then it becomes the opinion of Vedanta.
The Purusha of the Saankhya is the witness. Now the witness is the witness alone, he is the witness of Prakriti. If Prakriti is agitated or is stable, what effect does that have on the witnessing? Therefore, in the agitations of the mind (the state of the witness when similar to thought-flow) and in the blockade of the mind (the state of the witness when situated in his inherent nature) there is no reason for the variety in the enjoyment of the witness. This leads us to conclude that "the witnessing of the witness is his enjoyment alone". This is the opinion of Vedanta.
The Saankhya schoola accepts the self as the enjoyer and Prakriti as the doer. Their self is the consumer of the bliss of Prakriti, but is not inherently of the nature of bliss. Therefore, the bliss-devoid self, for his bliss-seeking, will need to identify with the transformations of Prakriti alone. As a result, he cannot be free from either attraction or aversion. This is the state of the enjoyer self.
So in order to ensure that there is no interruption in bliss, bliss keeps increasing, we have to accept Ishvara, the lord of Prakriti. Yoga has described the nature of that Ishvara who provides the bounty of samaadhi as : "That creative source (Ishvara) is a particular consciousness (purusha) that is unaffected by colourings (kleshas), actions (karmas), or results of those actions that happen when latent impressions stir and cause those actions." (klesha karma vipaka ashayaih aparamristah purusha-vishesha Ishvara). In that pure consciousness (Ishvara) the seed of omniscience has reached its highest development and cannot be exceeded. (tatra niratishayam sarvajna beejam). By terming him as a particularized Purusha, Ishvara is described as distinct from the individual soul.
If someone accepts themselves as doer-enjoyer-disconnected individual soul, but does not accept the omniscient omnipotent Ishvara distinct from themselves, then he cannot attain happiness. If your limited happiness is not connected to the infinite happiness, then even that limited happiness will decay.
How is Ishvara? Ishvara is just like you? If you are aware, then Ishvara is aware. If you have assumed a body, then even your Ishvara has assumed a body. The difference is independence versus dependence. Due to ignorance you wander in the world, he assumes an incarnate body through his play(leelaa) and maayaa. And the day you realize yourself to be the ever pure, aware, free, non-inter-intra-part-whole-difference existence-consciousness-bliss non-dual brahman, that day your Ishvara will not have a nature and existence distinct from you.
In reality, that very brahman-nature Ishvara is your inner self (pratyagaatmaa) who supports the knowledge "I am". The difference between the individual soul and Ishvara is only during the time of ignorance. In the time of knowledge, both are same entity. Or, they are two names of the same entity.
People take the theory of incarnation and give credence to the notion of distinctness, but the theory of incarnation is meant to negate all distinctness, not to establish distinctness. We can only know this if we fully pervade the incarnation.
The Ishvara who is the self, is he an enjoyer or not? If he is an enjoyer then he also needs to be the doer. And if he is the doer of creation-dissolution then he will have to bear the merit of creation and sin of dissolution. Then he will be happy and sad as well. In this manner, if Ishvara is the doer then he will have to be the enjoyer of the results of actions, he will lose his independence, and his Ishvara-ness will fall. Therefore Ishvara is not the enjoyer, he is the inner controller of the enjoyer. Happiness is the inherent nature of Ishvara, he is not the enjoyer of happiness.
If you say that Ishvara is not the enjoyer, but the propeller of enjoyment, whereas the individual is the enjoyer. Or, Ishvara is the enjoyer of the macrocosm, and the individual soul is the enjoyer of the microcosm. Then the pure awareness which is Ishvara in reality is the non-enjoyer, but appears as an enjoyer due to maayaa. The distinction between macrocosm and microcosm is due to identification with the body alone, not in reality, If there is not identification with the body then neither is the enjoyer in a body will prove to be the individual soul, nor will the macrocosm enjoyer prove to be Ishvara. Only a pure aware witness remains. That alone is brahman, that alone is the "I" in all.
In Vedanta, the seer, the witness, he is aware, and the seen, that is inert. Recognizing (knowing, seeing) is not an activity or attribute of the witness, it is the inherent nature of the witness. Therefore the seer-witness is of the nature of knowledge, not a possessor of knowledge as an attribute. In Vedanta, that which is known as the seer is brahman, he alone is the non-dual existence-consciousness-bliss-mass and his scenes are illusory.
The seer is perceived in 2 ways : with adjunct and without adjunct. The adjunct-less awareness is brahman. The awareness with adjunct is experiences in 2 ways : effect-adjuncted (with body) awareness which is the "individual soul", and the cause-adjuncted (with the cause of the body - Prakrti or maayaa) awareness which is called Ishvara. But no matter which scene is discussed, it remains real so long as its substratum is not known. After that happens, the scene become sillusory. Then, that adjunct which creates a distinction between the individual soul and Ishvara becomes illusory, and then even the distinction between the individual soul and Ishvara becomes illusory.
Ishvara is that entity which is present in all places, all times, as the self of all. If we do not recognize him in the form of the self, then we cannot even recognize heaven and Vaikuntha! Where the "I" that wants to search and strive is sitting, Ishvara is also sitting there. He is your self, you are that alone.
No comments:
Post a Comment