The first principle of Vedanta philosophy is : Now, begins the inquiry into brahman (athaato brahmajignyaasaa). In other words, he who is a four-fold-qualification-complete mumukshu, he who wants to permanently remove all sorrow and attain supreme bliss, should begin contemplation of brahman. The question is, what is the definition (lakshana) of the brahman mentioned here?
Brahman is non particular (nirvishesha) therefore it does not have a definition, this is the common view. Undefinable alone is its definition. But shruti gives its definition: That from which all these beings and entities are being created, after being created are living, towards which all these are headed, and that into which all of these merge in the end, develop curiosity towards that (Taittireeya Upanishad 3.1). Such a definition of brahman is available in abundance in the Upanishads. In the Vedanta philsophy, Bhagavaan Vyaasa has created a principle in regards to this : "Janmaadyasa Yataha" (Brahma Sootra 1.1.2). In other words, that from which the birth etc. of this creation happens, that is brahman.
When we accept brahman as the cause of creation, we may face an obstacle, which is that cause and effect both contain faults. The fault of the effect is its perishable nature, and that of the cause is that it is subject to modification. The seed becomes wet, it bursts, it opens up, then a sprout grows out, it bears fruits and flowers, and eventually dies. Then, how can the cause of creation become the definition of the imperishable and non modifiable anvil-like brahman? This obstacle is removed as follows. If we need to prove that brahman is the cause of creation, and therefore we present the afore-mentioned definition, then there is a fault. But that is not the case. The cause of creation as a definition of brahman is mentioned to prove the non-dual (ever non-differentiated in soul, world, Ishvara) nature of brahman.
Definition is that by which something is seen, something is known. Both definition and means enable us to recognize an object. A definition should be free from three faults - avyaapti, ativyaapti and asambhava. That definition which does not completely cover the defined entity has the fault of avyaapti or incompleteness. If someone says "that which does not have cloven hooves is a cow". But the hooves of a cow are cloven.
That definition which covers not just the defined object but some other object as well suffers from the fault of ativyaapti or stretching. If someone says "that which has horns is a cow", it is not precise enough.
That definition which does not cover its defined objects suffers from the fault of asambhava or impossibility. If someone says "a one hoof animal is a cow" it is incorrect since no cow has one hoof.
Another common fact about any definition is that the definition remains in the defined object alone. But this is not compulsory. Also, that a definition needs to be true also is not compulsory. For instance, imagine that person A sees a snake and person B who knows that it is not a snake but a rope. B says to A : "Please bring me that rope". A says to B : "This is a snake, which rope are you speaking about?". What will B say now? Won't he say : "My friend, the rope alone has become a snake. That from which the snake has been created, that in which the snake is situated and that into which the snake will dissolve, and that in which there is no snake in all three times, that is the rope. That which is the snake-absence-perceived (sarpaabhaavopalakshita) object, that alone is the rope." In this manner, the real rope becomes the definition of the illusory snake. It has entered into its defined object (rope) but it is not existing in the rope.
In this manner "that from which the birth etc. of creation happens is brahman alone", this is the definition of brahman. It is a particular and illusory definition in order to reveal the non particular and real brahman. In the true nature of brahman, there is no situation like birth of creation etc. Also, the defined object, which is the Ishvara-nature (causal nature) of brahman, is also depicted in order to define the no particular nature of brahman alone.
Question: If birth and other definitions are not established in brahman, then it will become a fault of incompleteness, since according to Vedanta philosophy, birth etc. happen to the world, not to brahman.
Answer: This is not a fault. There are two types of definitions : direct and indirect (svaroopa and tatashta lakshana). In the "shaakha chandra nyaaya", the moon in shown by saying "the moon is two hand lengths above the branch of the tree". Then, is the moon really two hand lengths above the tree? No, but by this imagined definition, the moon can be seen. In this manner, even if it does not cover the moon directly, two hand lengths can define the moon indirectly. And if we say "the brightest star in the sky that is round in shape is the moon", this will become the direct definition of the moon. Similarly, the presence and absence of the snake, necklace etc. becomes the indirect definition of the rope.
This "cause of the birth etc. of the world" is the indirect definition of brahman, not the direct definition. That is why, even if it is based on another, it is capable of revealing the object of its definition, brahman.
There are some objects that are proven by delusion. Even those illusory objects cane become revealers of their substratum. This is because no illusion can exist without a substratum. This is the reason why shruti describes the cause of birth etc. as an indirect definition of brahman.
That which needs to be present in the adjoining prior moment in time for the production of the effect is known as the cause (kaarana). This is the definition of the Nyaaya school. Prior to the making of a pot, we need clay, a potter, a wheel, a rod etc. Therefore they are the causes of the pot. Now divide these causes into two: required (samavaayee kaarana) cause and incidental (asamavaayee kaarana) cause. Required means that which is always embedded in the effect, stay in the effect even after the effect is created. Incidental cause is that which does not remain in the effect after the effect is produced. In this manner, the required cause of the pot is clay, and the incidental causes are potter, wheel, rod etc. Vedantic people refer to the required cause as the material cause (upaadaana kaarana).
We can again divide the incidental causes into two: instrumental cause (nimitta kaarana) and assisting cause (sahakaaree kaarana). The instrumental cause is aware, like the potter, he is a doer. And those causes which are used by the doer to assist him are the assisting causes like rod, wheel etc. In each effect, the presence of a material cause and an intelligent cause are mandatory.
The shruti says: That from which the world is created, on which it is situated, and into which it will dissolve, that cause is brahman. By being the cause of its creation, brahman is the intelligent cause of the world, and by being the substratum of its dissolution, it is the material cause of the world. The pot always gets dissolved into clay, not into the potter. Therefore, brahman is the non-distinct intelligent material cause of the world (abhinna nimittopaadana kaarana). That which is only the intelligent or material cause of the world cannot be brahman. All philosophies accept brahman as the intelligent cause, but not as the material cause. But the Upanishads assert that by the knowledge of one, everything will be known. They give examples such as pot, cup etc. This is only possible when even the material cause of the world is brahman. That is why, even the principles of Vedanta have asserted that even Prakriti is one name of brahman (Brahma Sootra 1.4.23).
Definition is always made by a known entity, and it is used to recognize an unknown entity. This world is known, and we have to use it alone to recognize the unknown brahman. In other words, we have to use the effect to recognize the cause.
The Nyaaya school accepts that the cause can be inferred from its effect. In their opinion, the material cause remains visible. It is always embedded in its effect. For example, we do not infer clay from looking at a pot since clay is visible. In fact, we infer that there has to be someone who created this pot. In this manner, there is a definitely a creator of this vivid and variegated world, and that intelligent cause is Ishvara, this can be inferred.
In the opinion of Saankhya, by seeing the effect, the material cause (Prakriti) can be inferred. The Prakriti as described by Saankhya can never be visible. By seeing an object (vastu), the five elements, ego, mahat element, and the unmanifest Prakriti, in this sequence, the root material cause Prakriti is inferred.
If both the material cause and intelligent cause are different, then the afore mentioned case holds. But when there is a non distinct intelligent material cause, like of brahman, then what is the outcome? There is no example available in the world where both the intelligent and material causes are one. The example of the spider web is also not correct since the aware aspect of the spider is the intelligent cause, and the inert aspect is the material cause. Then, how can the non distinct intelligent material cause of the world be used as a definition for brahman?
In reality, there is no causality in brahman, but it is visible in brahman due to maayaa. Sitting in which place, which time and in which matter is brahman becoming the cause of the world? How exactly is this causality of the world? Otherwise, anyone's intellect cannot enter into the beginningless past and endless future to witness the birth or death of the universe. Who has seen the creation come out of brahman or dissolve into brahman? That is why, when the Upanishad describes brahman as the birth etc. of the world, its secret has to be understood with a teacher-teaching-refined intellect.
This notion of direction - east, west, north, south, where did these directions originate? From me, from my body. What faces front of my body, what is behind me, to the left or right of me, this alone is the notion of direction.
Where does time begin - from this second. The start and end of the current second is the start and end of time. That me in which this present second is experienced, that "I" alone am the substratum of the start and end of time. The beginninglessness and endlessness of time is me alone.
This flower exists. Where did this arise from? It was born in the tree, this is the common thought. The other thought is : The perception of the flower happens in the eyes, the eye form thought flow is in the heart, and there is a substratum and illuminator of that thought flow. That is where the flower is born, has arisen. That without which the flower cannot be attained, and that by which this flower is attained, that alone is the cause of the flower.
In the search for the cause, do not spread your thought too much. Why do you throw your thought millions of years into the past? You are an extremely ancient ancestor! Why do you through your thought millions of years into the future? You are extremely impractical! You should develop your thinking in this manner. Think of the object in terms of what it is right now. Then, to begin with, your "I" comes in front. Now begin to think, what is this "I"? When you examine this, you will realize that this very "I", which is situated in the cave of the heart and is pulsating as the "I", "I" is the very brahman, and in reality, it is the non distinct intelligent material cause of creation. It is that very "I", which due to ignorance, is pulsating in the form of "I-you-that-this". Just like the same rope due to ignorance pulsates as a necklace, arm, stick, crack etc. which are all erroneous.
There is a person who sees a snake in the rope. In order to give him knowledge of the rope, you have to tell him this definition of the rope : "That substratum in which this imagined object in the form of the snake is appearing, that alone is the rope". Similarly, "This name-form-endowed complete world, along with its creation, maintenance and destruction, is appearing in a substratum which is devoid of name form etc. That alone is brahman", such a definition of brahman has to be described.
In the absolute sense, there is no snake on the rope. But it appears on the rope due to ignorance. Therefore, the ignorance of the rope alone is both the intelligent cause and material cause of the snake's existence. In that state of ignorance, in order to point out the rope, the rope can be denoted as the cause of the snake. When knowledge of the rope happens, the causality of the rope in the snake, which is ascribed, can also be negated. Similarly, the shruti has revealed a definition of brahman which is ascribed in the form of world causality.
Therefore, the world is of the nature of name and form, contains many doers and enjoyers, is the refuge of activity and result of activity caused by time and space, and its creation and nature is unthinkable by the mind. That omniscient, omnipotent cause by which such a word is created, maintained and destroyed, that is brahman.
Whatever is "this"-denoted, that is the world. Its definition is creation, maintenance and destruction. This-denoted means the world is an object of perception. Therefore, the shruti and principles say that this object of this-perception, the seen-world, and its visible creation, maintenance and destruction, these visible creation etc. are happening due to a cause, which is brahman.
The creation-destruction of the entire universe cannot become an object of experience. Therefore, the goal of the shruti is not to take you into the beginningless past and the endless future. Its aim is the following. In this moment, in each space, in each object, that non-stop birth, maintenance and destruction which is perceived by you, that by which this perception is happening, that is brahman.
This means that whatever is being perceived as the this-formed entity which undergoes birth etc., that in which this happens and by which this happens, is the brahman, non distinct from the inner self.
Now, that by which the birth, maintenance and death of the "this" is known, that brahman itself is free from creation-maintenance-destruction and is devoid of this-ness. Therefore brahman is aware, non distinct than the inner self, and is an infinite entity. Through this, another afore mentioned definition of brahman also arises.
This is the aim of the shruti: That which is different from the seen, that in which there is no seen, in that, the seen is being perceived. Therefore, by being perceived in the contained of its absence, the seen is illusory. The "this", along with its transformations of birth etc., is illusory.
The "this" is many, but the non-this is one. In that one, many are appearing. Therefore many-ness is illusory. That which is "this" is inert, the "I" which is the illuminator of the "this" is aware. There is no inert in the aware, but appears, therefore, the inert in the aware is illusory. In the same manner, finitude appears in the infinite, and therefore finitude (disconnectness) is illusory. Since the not-self appears in the self, the not-self (seen, this) is illusory.
Even the shruti "yato vaa imaani" says : "That by which the creation, sustenance and dissolution of objects seems to be appearing, but in which these are not, in other words, in which these are illusory visible, that is brahman. That alone should be made the target of curiosity".
Brahman is that by which the "this"-like visible world appear to be created etc. Therefore brahman is real. Brahman is that by which the "this"-denoted entire seen world, along with its birth etc., appears. Therefore brahman is aware. Brahman is that by which all beings are satisfied therefore brahman is bliss. Brahman is that by which the world is created-sustained-destroyed, therefore brahman is the non distinct intelligent material cause of the world, like the rope-snake. That is why it is the non distinct non dual. The world is always merged into brahman which means falsified, because brahman remains intact even after the world merges into it. Therefore, the nature of brahman is "existence-consciousness-bliss non-dual".
The next shruti of the Taittireeya Upanishad says that "bliss is brahman alone, know this. Truly, all these beings are created from bliss alone, live due to bliss, are satisfied with bliss alone, and are merged into bliss alone" (Taittireeya Upanishad 3.6). Therefore, "yato vaa imaani" named shruti refers to this very same bliss-brahman. No matter how bliss is, it always is based in the self. Therefore, brahman is always non distinct from the inner self.
That which is beyond birth, non-transforming, different than the "this"-ness, non distinct from the inner awareness "I", of the nature of reality, bliss-formed, undivided non-dual existence, in which this world is appearing, and even while appearing is not real, that is brahman.
No comments:
Post a Comment