Vedanta has a particular method. It first proves the tiny adjuncted soul, then it proves the all-adjuncted Ishvara, and then proves the non-difference in the non-particular awareness-only. The final conclusion here is that brahman is awareness-only and it only is the substratum of the creation, sustenance and dissolution of the world. That brahman is not just the instrumental cause of creation etc., it is also the material cause. Apart from this, since it is the womb of scripture, and since we see complete order and arrangement in the world, brahman should also be omniscient and omnipotent. In the scripture, the brahman essence which is indicated by the cause of birth etc. of the world, is given the name of Ishvara. He is also omniscient, omnipotent and all-pervading. Through the "that" aspect (tat pada), the shruti has indicated the entire adjuncted awareness. The literal meaning of the "you" aspect is the soul, and the indicated meaning is the pure witness or the inner self. The literal meaning of the "that" aspect is Ishvara and the indicated meaning is the adjunct-less brahman. "You are that", this statement reveals the identity of these two indicated meanings. Through the vision of this non-difference, the adjuncts of both soul and Ishvara are pointed out as illusory.
Question: Per sage Yaska, every object in this world undergoes birth, existence, growth, change, decay and death, all these 6 state changes. Therefore, instead of causality of birth etc. of this world, can we accept the causality of these six state changes as the indication of brahman?
Answer: This is umwarranted stretching of the definition (ativyaapti dosha). The refuge of state changes within objects can also be noted as the five elements or Prakriti. Therefore, we will have to accept brahman as the inert five elements or inert Prakriti which is not conducive to Vedanta. Also, in Vedanta, the shruti is the primary means. So then, we will have to accept the causality of birth etc. of the world as the indication of brahman, which is mentioned in the shruti. Five elements and Prakriti are undoubtedly the world alone. The experience of their birth etc. happens through that awareness which is brahman.
Question: In the absence of shruti, can we still accept Prakriti etc. alone as the cause of the world?
Answer: All these causes are counter to logic and are also contradictory. World was created from four elements (Chaaravaaka), creation happened through continuous moving imperishable inert matter (Marxist), through void or science (Buddhist), created from Pudgal (Jain), created by action (Poorva Mimaamsaa), creation with atoms (Nyaaya Vaisheshika), created by the non-aware Pradhaana (Saankhya), created by a deity, soul or Hiranyagarbha (devotee), all these opinions use inference as their means, and depend upon intellectualization.
It is not possible for any of these causes to be visible, since whomever is the seer of that visible means will be separate from the world, which is what is being investigated here. Four cannot be the cause, since there has to be a cause of those four. If the creation has come out of inertness, then we should also be inert, but we never have the experience that "I am inert". Accepting void as the cause cannot be proven transactionally, there is even no illustration for this. Science is momentary, therefore the stability of the world which is experienced also cannot be possible. Action itself is inert, it cannot be accepted without some other aware element. Atoms are indivisible, how is their association possible? If you accept Pradhaana as the doer, how do we see transgressions in rules? Why are the rules of Prakriti so orderly and firm? The soul is disconnected, with limited intellect and subservient. Therefore, even if he is the best soul, he cannot become the doer of the entire world. Since the soul is adjuncted, it cannot be independent, and the adjunct itself is the world whose cause is being investigated. Hiranyagarbha is also a soul, since the shruti speaks of its creation (Shvetaashvatara 6.18).
Since all of these contradict each other, there cannot be any philosophy here. Only that reality can be described as the cause which can be the cause even of all of these. Tulsidas has called this as "Ishvara" alone. Vedanta posits that this world is an effect of the omniscient, omnipotent, supreme Ishvara. And what is Ishvara? The brahman which is indicated by the casuality of the world is Ishvara.
The omni in omniscient is a pointer to the material cause, and the "scient", of the intelligent cause. In other words, that which is omniscient is the clay and potter, both, of this world. It is the non-distinct-intelligent-material cause brahman. The creator and the created are one.
(sarva = all/omni, jnya = scient). Jnya knows the sarva. Therefore, in the sarvajnya, the jnya aspect is changeless and sarva aspect changeful, even so, both are one in sarvajnya. Now, is the sarva the effect of the jnya, or the error (vivarta) of jnya? In other words, is sarva the transformation of jnya or does the jnya remain as it is, yet be experienced as the sarva? There is no transformation (parinaama) possible in knowledge otherwise there will be no knowledge of the transformation. That is why, that which is the all-form and the knower of all from a transactional sense, is the non-dual brahman fundamentally. This alone is the meaning of the word "sarvajnya" in other words, the erroneous (vivartee) non-dual intelligent material cause brahman. In Vedanta, this meaning alone is accepted for the term "sarvajnya".
The "Nyaayanirnayakaara" says that there are two meanings of sarvajnya : non-dual reality and existence-consciousness reality. By being the erroneous substratum, sarvajnya means non-dual. And since it itself is the root of the sarva which is existence, and the root of the jnya which is consciousness, it is existence-consciousness. The transformationless non-negated reality is existence and self-illumined all-illuminator is knowledge. Therefore, sarvajnya means : non-negated non-dual changeless conscious reality.
What is the difference between self-reality and Ishvara-reality? "That" (Ishvara) is in that space, in that time, and "you" (self) is in this space, and this time. Both are of the nature of existence-consciousness-bliss. But, in the oneness of both, there is separation of space, time and matter. "You are that", this great statement negates this separation, and restores the proven oneness of both. That aware-only entity which is indicated by the absence of space, time and matter, its oneness is demonstrated by Vedanta. It is in this direction that there is ascribing and refutation of causality in brahman.
Now, let us focus on the word omnipotent. Omnipotent means the power to do anything. Electricity is a form of energy that has the power to heat, cool, light, burn, attract through magnetism etc. Power can be inferred from its effect. But the power in inert and aware is different. The power in inert is subservient, whereas the power in aware is independent. Independence means: the power to act, to not act, or to act in an opposite manner. The power in inert is very limited and acts according to rules. The aware can break these rules. Therefore, when the aware brahman, Ishvara, supreme self is called omnipotent, it means that the supreme self is fully independent, it can act/not act/act opposite. This is also the secret of the diversity of this world.
By being the material cause of all, brahman is omni-form (sarvaroopa), by being omniscient it is the transformation-less erroneous substratum, and by being omnipotent it is independent, supreme-bliss-nature. The intent of calling Ishvara omnipotent and omniscient is to denote him to be the existence-conscious-awareness non-dual brahman. Shruti says: All this is a mass of knowledge (Brihadaarnyaka 4.5.13). You are such a brahman (Brahma Sootra 3.2.16).
No comments:
Post a Comment