Introduction to Vedanta-6

[Guest guest]

Description of Brahman: God defined is God defiled,

says a popular proverb. We want to know what the

cause is for this Universe. Vedanta says for any

creation, there are two causes; the intelligent cause

consisting of know-how or the knowledge and the skills

for the creation, and material cause or matter.

Intelligent cause can only be a conscious entity while

the material cause can only be an inert entity. In

the case of the Universe, both causes rest in one just

as the creation of a spider net, both the intelligent

and the material cause are one, the spider. But in

the case of spider, the net is still separate from the

spider. In the case of the Universe, Vedanta says

creator cannot be separated from the creation, since

he is all-pervading, omnipresent or antaryamin,

indweller of everything. In addition, creation is an

action. If Brahman is infinite, as the very word

indicates, then he (we are using the word in a generic

sense) cannot be an agency of an action, that means he

cannot create. This is because only finite can do

action, since every action involves triad – actor,

action and acting - and each one limits the other. In

addition, action involves a modification, a change of

status for the agency of action. Brahman being

absolutely infinite cannot undergo a modification,

unlike any agency of action does. This in Sanskrit is

called avikaaraH (vikaara means modification and

avikaara is without modification). At the same time

Vedanta says he is the cause for creation. How can

that be? Here we need to understand how Vedanta

teaches that which cannot be taught and why it is

considered as pramaaNa or means of knowledge.

 

Progressive teaching method: When we were studying

atomic structure, we learned first the Rutherford

model. Later we learned what is wrong with that model

and how the Bohr’s model provides a better description

of an atom. We were wondering why we were taught

Rutherford model at all when we know that it is not

correct. Looking back it is clear that we need to

learn that before we proceed to learn a better model.

Vedanta also provides a progressive teaching method

called in Sanskrit as adhyaaropa apavaada. That is it

takes us to a stage in order for our intellect to give

up some of our previous notions, and once we think we

have now understood, it negates that also (as though

pulling the rug underneath) to uplift us to the next

level. Previous concepts are discarded in stages

until the mind becomes free from all concepts. Hence,

from what reference level a given statement, is made

has to be clear. Otherwise the student will get

thoroughly confused; another reason for the insistence

of a competent teacher. (Most of the back and forth

discussions sometimes reflect this lack of common

reference). Brahman is first introduced as the cause

for the creation. Taittireya Upanishad defines

Brahman as that because of which the whole universe

rose, by which it is sustained and into which it goes

back – know that is Brahman. By declaring that

Brahman is the cause for the Universe, it confirms to

some extent some of the deep rooted concepts we have

about God, who is the creator, controller and

destroyer. Furthermore, this definition provides

clear description for the material cause by saying

that the universe is sustained by Brahman and it goes

bock into Brahman when universe dissolves – just gold

is the material cause for all the gold ornaments.

Thus, we can say that from which all the golden

ornaments arose, by which they are sustained and into

which they go back – know that is gold. Without gold,

gold-ornaments cannot be sustained – it has to be the

material which is inseparable from the effects, the

ornaments. But a chemist or physicist does not define

or identify gold (Au) in this way. He uses some

confirming tests to know it is gold and nothing but

gold – We are all familiar with Eureka-story of

Archimedes, when he discovered the density method to

identify gold.

 

The definition of an object that helps temporarily to

identify the object, but that which is discarded later

for a better definition is called incidental

qualification or taTasta LaxaNa, like John’s house is

that where a crow is sitting right now. Brahman

defined as creator of the universe is an incidental

qualification. If we examine our analysis, we

introduced Brahman only when we tried to find out

cause for the Universe that we are experiencing.

Otherwise there is no need for us know about Brahman.

Since I feel I am limited by this vast universe, I

need to know the cause for this Universe that is

limiting me and why am I stuck here in this Universe.

Since we see the Universe which we called as creation,

we needed a creator to create it. In a way we created

a creator to create the creation that we see or

experience. If we do not have any creation, then the

purpose of the creator is also redundant. That is how

Brahman has been introduced in Vedanta as the cause

for the universe. But this is only an incidental

qualification just as the crow sitting on John’s house

helps us to identify the house. But once we know the

house, we do not need crow any more to identify the

house. Similarly Vedanta discards the earlier

definition to take us further into the inquiry of

Brahman.

 

Vedanta provides the next level of definition for the

earnest seekers. It is called intrinsic

qualifications or swaabhaavika laxaNa. This

definition is one of the four aphorisms or great

statements or mahaavaakyaas, for Brahman. There are

four great statements, one from each Veda, and they

provide us the next level of operating definitions for

Brahman. The one we are interested here is

“prajnaanam brahma” – consciousness is Brahman. To

appreciate the depth of this definition, we need to

understand little bit about intrinsic qualifications

or inherent qualifications of an object. This is a

topic of great interest in Indian philosophy – the

relation between an object and its qualifications. The

foundations of VishiShTa advaita rests on this.

Without going into too much of detail we will present

that which is relevant for our discussion from the

point of Advaita. Here we distinguish two types of

intrinsic qualifications; a necessary qualification,

and a necessary and sufficient qualification. Those

who have some exposure to math can know the difference

between the two. To illustrate this, we take the

example of sugar. When we say sugar is sweet, the

sweetness of the sugar is a necessary qualification.

If it is sugar, it necessarily should be sweet. If it

looks like sugar and is not sweet like sugar, then it

is not sugar- it may be the salt. But we all know

that sweetness, although a necessary qualification, is

not a sufficient qualification to define sugar. To

prove the sufficiency requirement, a converse

definition has to be valid. Converse statement for

‘sugar is sweet’ is ‘sweet is sugar’, that is, if

something is sweet it has to be sugar. We know that

if it is sweet, it need not be sugar; it could be

Equal or aspartame. Therefore sweetness is necessary

but not sufficient qualification to define sugar. For

sufficiency requirement, the converse statement has to

be valid. Now let us examine how Vedanta defines

Brahman in the aphoristic statement ‘consciousness is

Brahman’, implying that ‘consciousness’ is both

necessary and sufficient qualification to define

Brahman. It means if there is a conscious entity

anywhere, it must be Brahman. Necessary and

sufficient qualification makes it as, what is known

as, ‘swaruupa laxaNa’. H2O, for example, is a

swaruupa laxaNa of water – that is it is both

necessary and sufficient qualification for water – If

it is water it has to be H2O and if it is H2O it has

to be water – there is no question about it.

Swaruupa laxaNa essentially defines its intrinsic

structure or form for the object that one is defining.

 

Vedanta therefore is very precise in its definition

for Brahman by providing it in a converse form

‘prajnaanam brahma’ or ‘Consciousness is Brahman and

not as ‘Brahman is conscious’ That means

‘Consciousness’ is therefore both necessary and

sufficient qualification for Brahman or it is its

swaruupa laxaNa, as Shankara discusses in his analysis

of the above Vedic statement. The definition has very

profound implications; hence it is considered as

mahaavaakya or great aphorism. Brahman, who is both

intelligent cause and material cause for this entire

universe, is ‘consciousness’ itself as its very

structure. Since it necessary and sufficient

qualification, it implies that if I say I am conscious

being, that consciousness aspect of the being is

Brahman only. Consciousness is its very structure of

Brahman implies that consciousness is not really a

qualification, since a qualification needs a locus for

its existence. ‘PrajnAnam brahma’ is an identity

relation where consciousness is identically equal to

Brahman – this is also the meaning of swaruupa laxaNa.

 

 

As a side note, we learn by careful analysis that no

object in the world (inside the universe) can have a

swaruupa laxaNa. In the example cited, when we say H2O

is its intrinsic structure, it is only at a

transactional level. It is a compound made up of

parts, H2 and O2, and therefore divisible. Everything

that is divisible into finer parts cannot have

absolute structure since by reassemble one looses that

swaruupam. That is, its structure is valid only at

some relative plane. Hence all objects have relevance

and validity only at their transactional level, since

they are all assemblage of some other finer structural

units. Let us take an example of a carpet. We all know

what a carpet is. Yet if we examine not casually but

carefully we do not know what a carpet is! The problem

is there is no ‘substance’ called carpet. More

technically, there is no necessary and sufficient

qualification that defines a carpet from any other

object in the universe. If one looks carefully what

we call a carpet is just an assemblage of polymer

fibers, assembled in a particular fashion. If we

rearrange the fibers in the form of a heap, it is no

more a carpet. The reason is there is no substantive

called ‘carpet’ other than a name give for a form

assembled using say polymer fibers. The fibers, in

turn, are an assemblage of some other finer entities

called ‘polymer molecules’. And, in principle, one

can go on with no end in sight. Does that mean there

is no carpet? Of course, there is carpet, there are

fibers, and there are molecules, and so on. Each of

them has a relative validity in their plane of

reference. Besides, we cannot fully dismiss the

carpet, since there is big market for that. Carpet

has its utility value or transactional value. We all

know now that all materials are fundamentally made up

of electrons, protons and neutrons. Yet we do

distinguish food from garbage, even though we know

that fundamentally they are made of up of the same

fundamental units, but assembled differently. The

point to note is there is no confusion in

understanding as long as we are fully aware from what

reference level the discussion is made. From the point

of our discussion, we have a reality at transactional

level and absolute level, called in Sanskrit

vyaavahaarika satyam, and paaramaarthika satyam,

respectively. We will come back to this discussion

later when we discuss about the liberation.

 

Coming back to our discussion of swaruupa laxaNa of

any object, there is no intrinsic substantive for any

object since every object is an assemblage of simpler

units. From the point of water, even H2 and O2 can be

decomposed into finer particles and if one continues

further we will soon end up at quantum level. Thus we

end up breaking into finer and finer component

particles using high speed accelerators to understand

the fundamental building blocks of all matter. In the

limit, we run into peculiar situation wherein the very

investigation which necessarily involves the conscious

entity as an observer affects the observation of the

observed. Essentially we come to a limiting case

where observations or fundamental material content

depends on the observer, a conscious entity. Thus the

observed, object depends on the observer, but observer

does not depend on the observed. That is, the

consciousness of the observer is unaffected by the

observations. Implication of this limiting case in

science is that an investigation of the fundamental

building blocks for the universe is futile unless one

takes into consideration the role of consciousness

present. At the quantum level, the concept of a

particle becomes fuzzy with the concept of a wave, or

a probability wave. The classic example of

Schrödinger’s cat problem in Physics is a case in

point. Physics can only tell us the probability of a

cat alive or dead is only 50% when it is exposed to

radiation in an enclosed chamber. It becomes 100%,

alive or dead, only when the conscious entity i.e. an

observer interferes with the observation, by opening

the camber for examination. Here we are zeroing on the

essence of the problem. We raised a question before –

whether consciousness is a product of matter as

objective scientists seem to push or the other way

around as Vedanta proclaims. From the point of

Vedanta, by proclaiming that Brahman, the

consciousness as the material cause for the universe,

it is negating the validity of the world of plurality,

the universe. It is not the plurality that is negated

but the validity of the plurality or reality of the

plurality that is negated. What it means is that

plurality is accepted at a relative plane (vyavahaara

state) but negated as real from an absolute plane

(paaramaarthika state). The world is real or not real?

The answer depends on from what reference the question

is asked. From the point of carpet salesman, carpets

are real. But from the point of Chemist, there is no

material called carpet, even while he is paying a high

price for the carpet that he is buying.

 

Attribute and substantive:

 

When there are two things, A and B, and if they are

related, we can have several types of relations

between the two. If we say ‘Jar is on the table’.

Their association with each other is called

conjunction, samyoga, where they are separable and

each can exist on their own right. Each qualifies the

other, although temporarily as in incidental relation.

Table is qualified by having a jar on top of it and

jar is qualified by being present on the table. Here

the qualities that jar and table possessed by their

mutual association are temporal. The relation between

an attribute or a quality and the substance has been

elaborately discussed by Indian philosophers. Taking

an example of blue lotus, the blueness is inseparable

from blue lotus and in addition the blue color cannot

exist, without substance such as lotus as its locus.

On the other hand lotus can exist on its own without

being blue. This inseparability of the quality from

the substance is characterized according to logicians

(taarkikaas – particularly nyaaya-vaiseshikaas) by a

relation called samavaaya. Others question the need to

bring a separate relation to relate the quality and

the substance. Everybody, in one way or the other,

accepts the inseparability of the quality from its

locus, substance. When the object perceived through

the eyes, the blueness is perceived inseparably with

the object. VishiShaatdvaita calls this

inseparability as apRithak siddhi – pRithak means

separate and apRthak means inseparable and siddhi here

means two things. So the name indicates that the

quality and the substantive cannot be perceived

separately. Advaita s to a concept of

adhyaasa or superimposition – one is dependent and

other is independent. You may be wondering why we are

discussing all this weird stuff leaving Vedanta.

 

We want to know, ‘what is the relation between the two

sets of things that we discussed; Brahman and the

world, individual self and the world, and individual

self and Brahman’? Some epistemological issues are in

order to appreciate their relations. Let us first

discuss about the relation between Brahman and the

world? We have arrived at the following facts: (a)

Brahman and the world – both are infinite, (b) world

consists of objects which are finite and space

containing the objects which is infinite, © Brahman

is both intelligent and material cause for the

universe, (d) Brahman is pure consciousness. Therefore

consciousness has to be infinite. (e) World is inert

or unconscious entity. There seems to be some

incompatibilities in these statements. How an inert

world can come out of the cause which is pure

consciousness? How can consciousness and the world

both be infinite, since one limits the other and both

cease to be infinite? Essentially what exactly is the

relation between Brahman and the world of objects

including space?

 

Brahman is not an object. Object is one that is

finite, and is distinguishable from other objects in

the world. Each object is distinguishable from other

objects in the world by its distinguishable

attributes, which differ from those of other objects.

Only through its attributes an object can be

identified from the other objects and without its

attributes even the existence of the object cannot be

established. Precise definition of an object

therefore rests on the precise definition of its

distinguishing attributes. Brahman being infinite

cannot have attributes, just as space does not have

any attributes. Vedanta calls it as nirguNa,

attributeless entity. Since attributes distinguishes

one object from the other and Brahman is one without a

second, and hence there is nothing to differentiate

Brahman from any other entity. (In this sense, advaita

differs from vishiShTaadvaita as well as other

Vedantic interpretations. These philosophies treat

Brahman as all pervading, infinite but with infinite

auspicious attributes). Consciousness is not an

attribute of Brahman as some philosophers assume. As

it has been pointed earlier, it is its intrinsic

structure to differentiate it from all that is

unconscious entities. Then, are there two entities;

conscious entity and unconscious entities? In

addition, is there one conscious entity or many

conscious entities, as there are many beings in the

world? These are very deep philosophical questions

that need to be analyzed systematically.

 

First, let us ask some basic questions which escaped

attention of many. How do we know that there is a

world out there? – What kind of question is that? I

know the world, because I experience the world every

day, in fact every minute. I am in the world,

everything reminds me of that fact including your

question. - Good. Let us pose the next question,

does the world exists if we do not experience it? Of

course it does, whether we experience or not; we come

into this world and we exit from the world, and world

has always been there from our four fathers’ time and

it will be there even after we leave. We do exit from

this world, but world will always exists. – Is that

so? But, how do you know that? Does the world tell

you that it exists? Or you infer that the world exists

based the information you have gathered in books or

listening to others? If there is no conscious entity

to report, can one prove that the world exists? World

cannot declare that it exists, since it is inert.

Others including historians report that the world has

been existing from the time of big bang and there is

no reason why it should disappear. In fact, the

matter can never be destroyed – that is the law. We

are not discussing here the destruction of mater, we

are questioning the very existence of the matter,

before we talk about its destruction. Can one prove

the existence of the matter or any inert entity

without conscious entity establishing its existence?

Essentially, can one establish the existence of the

universe independent of the conscious entity?

Histories and the theories etc are all products of the

conscious entity based on the observations and

deductions. Fact of the matter is existence of the

world can never be proved without a conscious entity

present. Let us pose the question in a different

way. Does the world exist when you go deep sleep

state? Of course it exists, when I get up in the

morning everything was in the same place as I left

them in the night, including all the problems that I

had. The world was there before you went to sleep,

since you were there to experience it. World is there

in the morning, since you are there to experience it –

the question is without the presence of an

experiencer, a conscious entity, can one prove the

existence of the inert world on its own. Remember we

posed a similar question when you are in a pitch dark

room. You are there independent of any means of

knowledge or pramaaNa since you are a self-conscious

entity and therefore self-existent entity. But you

were not sure about the presence of any objects in the

dark room since you can not see them or experience

them. The question is the same, but now being asked

in terms of the world of objects. If one analyzes

carefully, the world of objects – nay the whole

universe that includes not only the objects as well as

other beings (from my reference all other beings are

only objects, since I can only perceive their body and

at the most infer about their minds or manifested

aspects of their consciousness). The existence of the

world independent of a conscious entity is not

possible since world is not a self-conscious and

therefore not a self-existent entity. One can infer

its existence based on the continuity principle but

even to infer, I have to be there. Whether the world

can exist independent of me can become a mute question

since there is no way to prove that existence. Hence

Shankara calls it as ‘anirvacaniiyam’ – inexplicable

or in the world of math it is called inderminate

problem. That is, one cannot say the world is nor

one cannot say world is not; and to say is or is not,

I, the conscious entity has to exist first.

Furthermore, I should also illumine the world for me

to be conscious of the world. This is in addition to

any other illuminating factors needed to illumine the

objects for me to be conscious of the objects. Recall

the example of pitch dark room. I am there alright,

but I also need other light to see the existence or

non-existence of the objects in that room. Otherwise I

can illumine the darkness only that envelopes all the

objects. Until I illume the objects too, in the

presence of a light, I cannot say the objects in the

room exists or not - Their existence is indeterminate.

Suppose I am not there, but there is a bright light

burning in that room. I still would not know if any

objects exist in that room or not. That means two

factors are needed to establish the existence of the

universe. One is conscious entity that I am, and the

other factor is presence of all the factors needed for

complete operation of the means of knowledge or

pramaaNa. If I am there but the light is too dim for

me to see clearly, I may see snakes present instead of

ropes. The bottom line is without presence of ‘I am’,

the existence of world cannot be established.

 

You can postulate the world is real and it is always

present as some philosophers propose. But even to

postulate them, I have to be there. No, No – Vedas

says so – Sir, that is your interpretation. Vedanta

says in fact the opposite in tune with the above

analysis. But fact of the matter even to validate

what Vedanta says, I have to be there. Vedas are also

part of this world, not out of this world. No – they

are apouruSheyam, not written by a human being and

they eternally exist. Yes, even to believe that I

have to be there first. This is blasphemy. No. Vedas

are scientific truths and they themselves declare that

they come under apara vidya, like any other scientific

truths, which are eternal. However, I have to be

there even to validate the existence of the Vedas too.

In short, ‘I am’ comes before the world comes into

existence.

 

This is really weird. You have mentioned before that

Vedas are only pramaaNa or means of knowledge to know

the absolute. And now, you are dismissing the Vedas

too along with the world. You are contradicting

yourself. How can Vedas which are part of the world

be a means of knowledge that which is beyond the world

of plurality? This is not Vedanta.

 

Sir, contradictions are only at the level of the mind.

Vedas are pramaaNas for POINTING in the direction of

the truth that is beyond any means of knowledge. The

truth as we said before is ‘aprameyam’, beyond any

means of knowledge. What we said is Vedanta in the

hands of a teacher becomes the means for a

well-prepared mind to take off to a ‘state’ beyond any

description and beyond that even Vedas describe as

indescribable – ‘adRishTam, avyapdesyam, agraahyam,

achintyam, - imperceptible, indescribable,

unattainable, unthinkable etc.

 

More in the next post.