Introduction to Vedanta-10

[Guest guest]

Relationless Relation:

 

Vedanta provides different descriptions of creation

process depending on the maturity of the student.

Existence alone was there in the beginning, and that

existence was one without a second. It saw and wanted

to become many and became many, says in Chandogya Up.

It also provides how one became many – as discussed

before it is similar to gold becoming many ornaments.

Since that existence that was there before the

creation has the capacity to see, it implies that

existence is of the nature of consciousness. Since

there is nothing other than itself to see, seeing also

implies that it is self-conscious entity. Thus Brahman

is self-existent and self-conscious entity. In fact,

self-conscious entity alone is self-existent entity,

since as we discussed before existence and knowledge

of the existence have to go together. In addition,

Brahman cannot be conscious of anything other than

itslef since it is one without a second, and there is

no other thing for it to be conscious of. That is

there are no inert things for Brahman to be conscious

of. Brahman cannot have parts either to have some

parts that are inert and some parts that are conscious

entities. Thus it is not an assemblage of things as

some philosophers argue. It is homogenous mass of

consciousness, prajnaana ghanam or simply prajnaanam

brahma - consciousness is Brahman.

 

Another Upanishad says that what was there before the

creation was only the self, aatma, and it decided to

become many. In Gita Krishna says under my

presidentship, the prakRiti projects itself into

movable and immovable entities. In another Upanishad,

the prakRiti is described as nothing but maaya – that

which appears to be there, but really not there

(maayantu prakRitim vidhyaat). Krishna himself says

prakRiti is nothing but his lower nature or lower

order of reality. That which supports all this lower

nature is his higher nature. Krishna says, ‘He is the

source, support and locus for dissolution of the whole

world’. This we discussed as material cause for the

universe. Along with these statements, description of

Brahman as infinite, which is attributeless and

therefore free from space-wise, time-wise and

object-wise limitations, and is of the nature of

existence-consciousness-limitless

(satyam-jnaanam-anantam brahma) should provide us a

consistent description of the nature of reality and

its relation to the world of plurality.

 

>From these descriptions we gather that the relation

between the world and Brahman cannot of the type that

we are normally familiar with. Some philosophers have

described that relationship as that between attributes

and it locus, inseparable but yet different. Some

have described it that between two different entities

one dependent and the other independent. Advaita

provides the correct description of the relation

between the two. One is real and the other is mithya

– the relation can only be of the type described as

adhyaasa or superimposition. ‘Advaita’ word itself

means non-dual. It is not monism but the very

description involves negation of duality as reality.

Such a description of the truth as non-dual has

validity only to those who sees or experiences duality

in the day to day life, that is, for the most of the

seekers who are trying to gain the knowledge of the

reality. How can the truth be non-dual when we

experience duality all the time? It is similar to a

student asking a question, “How can you say that there

is no sunrise and sunset when I experience them

everyday?”. Hence Vedanta emphasizes that experience

is different from knowledge. Knowledge involves

understanding of the truth behind the experience.

Hence advaita Vedanta says the relation between

Brahman and the world is that of superimposition or

adhyaasa. It is like the relation between gold and

its ornaments, a relationless relation. One is

vyaavahaarika satyam, transactional reality and the

other is pAramArthika satyam, absolute reality. Ring

can change into bangle or necklace but gold remains

the same during these changes. Ring, bangle and

necklace are different names for different forms and

they are all different from gold, yet they are the

nothing but gold. Gold is not the ring, not the bangle

not the necklace; neti, neti, neti .., not this, not

this, not this, yet it includes the ring, bangle and

necklace, as well. It is the essence of all names and

forms too. One is the substantive and the other is

superimposed name and a form. One is permanent and

eternal while the other is changing continuously. What

is perceived through the senses is only the attributes

that belong to the name and form, just as what is

perceived is ring, bangle or necklace. What is not

perceived is Brahman which is very consciousness

because of which all perceptions are possible.

 

This aspect is beautifully described in Kenopanishad.

Brahman is that which the eyes cannot see, but that

because of which the eyes have the capacity to see,

know that alone is Brahman and not this that you

worship; It is that which ears cannot hear, but that

because of which ears have the capacity to hear, know

that alone is Brahman and not this that you worship;

it is that which you can not speak about but that

because of which all speech is possible, know that

alone is Brahman and not this that you worship; it is

that which mind cannot think, but that because of

which the mind has the capacity to think, know that

alone is Brahman and not this that you worship. It is

the very life principle in all of us because of which

all physiological activities are possible, know that

alone is Brahman and not this that you worship. Thus

by negating all that which can be objectified as not

Brahman, Vedanta uplifts the mind to something beyond

words and descriptions, to the very core of one’s

individuality, the very life principle in each one of

us, to that which can only be expressed as ‘I am’ –

the existent-consciousness entity that I am.

 

Concept of Iswara or God-Hood:

 

Since we see the creation, and Brahman being infinite

does not create, we bring in a third factor, Iswara,

God or the Lord, who is empowered to create. He is

maayaavi, the wielder of maaya i.e. he is not affected

by maaya. What is maaya? Maaya is that power because

of which one appears to be many. In the example of the

gold, we can say it is that power that makes gold to

appear in varieties of ornamental forms. Maaya is a

factor brought in to explain how one becomes many.

Krishna says in Gita, ‘This maaya of mine is of divine

origin, it is very difficult to overcome this power of

maaya. Only by surrendering to me one can cross over

and realize”. When we recognize and understood that

there is really no creation at all and all this is

nothing but Brahman, the concept of Iswara, a

creator-sustainer-annihilator is no more needed.

Creator comes into picture when one recognizes the

existence of creation.

 

When did this creation start?

Creation-sustenance-annihilation is cyclic process and

therefore there is no beginning. In accounting the

creation, for those who are perceiving creations

different from them, the God principle who is both the

material and instrumental cause, is also described in

the from of trinity – Brahma (note Brahma is not the

same as Brahman, the infinite consciousness), Vishnu

and maheswara. This is further fragmentation in order

to understand the concept of creation. Brahma is in

charge of creation. For creation, knowledge (or

know-how of how to create) is required and therefore

he is married to Saraswati, the goddess of knowledge.

Vishnu is in charge of maintenance, which is an

expensive affair. He is married to goddess of wealth,

Lakshmi. Lord Shiva is in charge of dissolution which

requires all the missile power and therefore he is

married to Shakti or Parvati. The concepts of Gods

and Goddesses are mostly pouraanic, where the

processes of creation etc are explained in

mythological story form. Gods and goddesses are also

symbolic to help the mind to go beyond the plurality.

All phenomenal forces in nature are sybolized in the

form of Gods and Goddesses. Krishana says when we

perform work to its fulfilment and offer them to Gods,

they give the results. The producation potential in

the feild of action is symbolized as Gods. Hence gods

are pleased when the action is done to its fulfilments

and they have to rain down the results for the actions

performed. These are the laws of Nature that Krishna

brings out in his analysis of action and results and

the role of gods in giving the results for the action.

All the phenomenal forces are conceptualized in the

form of Gods.

 

Since conceptualization is the only way our limited

minds can understand any concepts, Gods are also

symbolized to help a seeker who needs a spring board

to make a quantum leap into the present, where one’s

ego is completely surrendered. Since everything in

the creation is nothing but Brahman, which is

formless, it can be invoked in any form, as long as

one understands the form is only a symbolic to denote

that which cannot be denoted. It is similar to

assigning a flag to symbolize the nation. When we

salute a flag and chant a national anthem, it is not

the piece of cloth that we are saluting but saluting

the nation that it stands for. Similarly a Hindu does

not salute a piece of stone or figure but that which

it symbolizes, the infinite consciousness that

pervades all forms and names. Hindus are not idol

worshipers but worshipers of ideal behind the idols.

The Vedic rituals that are involved in performing the

rituals all have deeper meaning than what meets the

eye. Since that which pervades in all forms, can be

invoked in any form for the purpose of symbolism, we

have many gods and goddesses. The ultimate truth of

course is beyond any name, form and symbol.