Introduction To Vedanta - P. Nagaraja Rao 7 страница

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 11 из 20Следующая ⇒

the world and another part remains unchanged the

position becomes open to all the previous questions

directed against the concept of God. A later Advaitin

compares such an answer to the act of one who takes

one half of a foul for cooking and the other for lay-

ing eggs. It is the innumerable difficulties of Arambha

Vada and Parinama Vada that led Sankara to formu-

late his famous Vivarta Vada.

The Advaita theory of causation is called the

Vivarta Vada. It has striking resemblance to

-86 INTRODUCTION TO VEDANTA

Parinama Vada and has also its own distinctness. The

cause add the effect alike are real according to

Sankhyans. They both belong to the same order of

Reality. According to Advaita, cause and effect be-

long to two different orders of Reality. Brahman is

the cause of all things. The world of things and

souls does not have an independent existence. They

have for their cause Brahman. Brahman is the

reality of the world. Brahman cannot be the effici-

ent cause of the world, for there is nothing beside it

which can be moulded into form. Brahman being

an unchanging principle cannot undergo transforma-

tions. Yet Brahman is the cause of all things.

Vivarta vada explains the unique relation be-

tween the world and Brahman. The cause is in-

dependent of the effect. But the effect is

dependent on the cause. The cause suffers nothing

by the faults, foibles, and taints of its effect. The

cause appears as the effect. Brahman appears as the

world of matter and souls. Sankara observes in his

commentary on the Chaandogya Upanisad, “that the

multiplicity of creatures existing under name and

form when viewed as self-dependent is not true,

but when viewed as having the Real as its substrata

it is true” ( sadatman& eva satyam, svatastu anrtam).

The effect has no organic relatedness to the cause.

Vacaspati the great commentator of Sankara clinches

the issue in precise logical terms. The effect is

asserted to be non-different from the cause ( tadnanya ).

When the Vedanta sutra declares that the cause Brah-

man is non-different from the effect i. e., the world, we

must clearly understand the implications of the de-

scription. It means that Brahman is the ground of the

world. If there is no Brahman there is no world.

SANKARA’S ADVAITA

The non-existence of the world will not affect Brah-

man in any way. There is the invariable negative

concomitant relation ( Vyatiraka Vydptif between the

non-existence of Brahman and the non-existence of

the world. When Sankara asserts non-difference be-

tween Brahman and the world, he does not mean

identity but he only negates the otherness. What is.

aimed at, in this way of describing the causal rela-

tion, is the denial of the, reality to the effect apart

from the cause.

The effect and the cause differ in several res-

pects. The effect is particular, finite, inert etc., the

cause is infinite, eternal and of the nature of con-

sciousness. The effect falls short of Reality and is

not absolute unreality. It is not real. If it were real

it would have independent Reality. It is not un-

real for it is cognised by us. We live and have our

being in it. It cannot be real and unreal at the same

time for such a position violates the law of contra-

diction.

Vivarta Vada is a one-sided type of causal rela-

tion envisaged by Sankara to explain the connection

between Brahman and all other things. It is a rela-

tion between Brahman and its appearances. The

Ground of the appearance is Brahman. Brahman ap-

pears as the world, soul and Isvara. This appearance

is due to the working of Maya. The doctrine of Maya

is the explanation for the world of appearance.

Next to Brahman, the doctrine of Maya occupies

the central place in Advaita Metaphysics. Maya is

responsible for all the appearances of Brahman. Be-

sides Brahman, Sankara accepts Maya as another phi-

losophical category.

Maya is a quality which pertains to sentiment

INTRODUCTION TO VEDANTA

beings. It is a cetana dharma and is found only in

souls. It is a type of ignorance. It is beginningless. It

requires a loAis and a content. Ignorance must belong

to some and must be of something. Its locus is Atma.

It has a positive nature. Though it is beginningless

yet it is not eternal like Brahman. It is destroyed at

the time of Brahman realisation. r

The function of Maya is two-fold. It suppresses

and conceals the real nature of the object and

shows up in its place some other object. These two

powers of Maya are respectively called avarana and

vikshepa. It conceals Brahman and shows up in

its place the universe and world of souls. It not

only makes us not apprehend Brahman but creates

some other thing in its place. It projects something

in the place it conceals. Hence it is considered as a

positive substance. (Bhava rupa).

The functioning of Maya makes the Absolute ap-

pear as the empirical world. The world is empirical;

Brahman is real. We must grasp the correct signifi-

cance of the term Maya for properly understanding

the philosophy of Sankara. Professor Hiriyanna ob-

serves that* “the unity of the Absolute of Brahman

may be compared to the unity of a painting, say, of a

landscape. Looked at as a landscape, it is a plurality;

hill, valley, lake and streams; but its ground, the sub-

stance of which it is constituted is one, viz., the can-

vas. It is rarely that analogies in philosophy admit

of extension, but this one does, in one particular. The

canvas appears not only as hill, a valley and a stream,

but also as the garment of the shepherd that may be

figured on it. Similarly, the Absolute which is of the

essence of sentience, manifests itself not only as in-

sentient objects but also as sentient subjects. ”

SANKARA’S ADVAITA

Maya before it functions, being a cetana dharma,

requires a locus as well as a content. If we say that

the locus of Maya is the jiva and the content is Brah-

man, there is the question as to how prior to the func-

tioning of Maya there are jivas (souls). Without the

existence of souls there will be no loci for Maya. Thus

there is the defect of reciprocal dependence i. e., for

Maya to function we require the existence of souls,

and for the existence of sopls there is the necessity for

the functioning of Maya. To avoid this defect the Ad-

vaitin declares that Maya is beginningless. Maya is

existent but not Real like Brahma. It is not eternal. It

is not coeval with Brahma. It is destroyed by Brah-

man realisation. So there are no two ultimate cate-

gories in Advaita. Brahman is both sat and positive.

Maya is positive but not sat. The positive nature ofs

Maya indicates that it is objective and not real.

The locus of Maya is described differently by the

different Advaita thinkers. Some hold that Brahman

itself is the locus and also the content of Maya,

(asraya and visaya). This view regards that all is pure

and simple illusion, that things exist only when they

are perceived and dissolve into nothing as soon as we

cease to perceive them. This school of thought has

not the sanction of Advaita tradition. Further, Brah-

man is described in scriptures as pure and so it can-

not become the locus of Maya which is impurity i. e.

ignorance. Ignorance cannot be attributed to

Brahman.

Scripture declares that there are two types of

souls, bound and the released. The theory of one soul

goes against the scriptural declaration of many souls.

S ankara’s view is th at the individual sop l ig thp lnrns

of Maya. Ignorance is in u$. Its content is Brahman.

*0 INTRODUCTION TO VEDANTA

With the onset of Brahman-knowledge, Mfiya is

destroyed in us. If caitra drinks the. poison Maitra

does not die. For world appearance 'Brahman

and Maya are the causes.

Some regard Brahman as the material cause for

the wofld, for there is no other second entity. The. fol-

lowers of the Vivaraspa school hold/ that Brahman

associated with Maya is the cause of the world. A

third view maintains that the world is the parinama

of Maya and the vivarta of Brahman.

Sankara in his description of Reality envisages

a distinction between three states of existence. The

first is the Paramdrthika state. It is the absolutely

real state. It is never sublated. The second state is

Vydvaharika state. It is objective, positive but not

ultimately real. It is relatively real. The world of

nature belongs to. it. The third state is called Pratib-

hdsika state. The world of dreams and illusion covers

this state. All these three states of existence differ in

their degrees of reality. The first alone is absolutely

real and the other two are relatively real. There is

a core of realism in the logic of Sankara. He never

dissolves the things of the world into ideas as the

" Vijnana vdda school of Buddhism. He accords reality

to the objects of knowledge and grades them. Among

the objects of the world some are absolutely real.

They are sat. Some are absolutely unreal. They are

asat e. g., barren woman’s son, sky-lotus. Yet other

things are real and unreal.

The world of object is declared by Sankara to be

mithya. It does not mean that the world is absolutely

unreal like the horn of a hare or a sky-lotus. Maya-

vada is not asat vdda. The critics of Mayu-v& da are

legion. They hold that there is no middle ground

SANKARA'S ADVAITA

between the Real and the Unreal. For them what is

other than the Real is Unreal. When Sankara declares

the world as mithya he means that it is different from

the Real and also different from the Unreal. It is

not Real because it is not eternal or perfect like Brah-

man. It is not Unreal because it is cognised. It is not

Real and Unreal at the same time. Such a position

violates the law of contradiction. Sankara describes

the world as indescribable or indeterminable in terms

of the Real and the Unreal. It is anirvacanlya.

When the world is described as mithya it does

not mean that it is non-existent and has no worth in it.

In fact, all qualities and action belong to the world of

nature. The law of causation i. e. karma, holds good

only in the world. The concepts cannot apply to

Brahman. “Causal rigidity in the empirical, world is

consistent with its denial in the transcendental re-

alm. ” In fact, the world is the training ground for

the art of soul making. It is the place where we

work for our moral and metaphysical desires. The

world is not categorisable as Real or Unreal.

It is difficult to give an intellectually satisfactory ac-

count of the doctrine of Maya. The Advaitin him-

self admits that there is a core of unintelligibility asso-

ciated with the doctrine. With remarkable clarity

Sankara explains the nature and the working of Maya

in his celebrated Adhyasa Bhapya. He writes, Maya

is coevel with life. We do not know how or when

we got into it. Nobody walks into an illusion

consciously. We can only know how to get out of it.

It is the result of a false identification of the Real and

the Unreal. It may be asked as to how it is possible

to identify the Real which is Perfect, Infinite, and

Bliss with the temporal, the finite and the imperfect.

' INTRODUCTION TO VEDANTA

How is it possible to mistake light for darkness?

In spite of all these questions, Sankara points out with

. great persuasive skill and a charm or style that the

confusion between the self and the n ot-se lf is in the

very nature of man’s experience. It is svabhavika

and naisargika. When the body is ill or well, one

says I am ill or well; when the body lacks the sense

of sight or hearing one says I am blind or deaf. We

know too well that the senses are material and belong

to the category of the not-self. Still we identify our-

selves with them.

Sankara further argues that without Maya no

human activity is possible. All intellectual, reli-

gious, moral and social activities presuppose Maya,

unless one identifies oneself with the sense organs.

One cannot become the knowing subject. He must

think that the eyes through which he sees are his.

Everyone of our activities is the work of Maya.

Swami Vivekananda has put the whole issue in very!

simplelanguage. “Maya is a simple statement of facts, /

it is what we are and what is around us. ”

Post-Sankara thinkers like Vacaspati, Chitsu-

kha, Srlharsa, Madhusudana and Appayya have

laboured very hard to establish with the help of

pure logic the doctrine of Maya. They have tried to

establish with the help of inference the nature of

Maya. The dialectics of post-Sankara thought is a

glorious chapter in Indian Logic. It can regale the

most ardent lover of mataphysics and also at times

'baffle the expert. In point of comparison, they do not

compare unfavourably with the dialectics of Hegel,

Hradley, Plato, Kant and others.

The doctrine of Maya is opposed by the Realists

-With the dilemma: “If Maya is real, then there is a

Sankara’s advaita

second Reality besides Brahman; and if it is not Real,

then, the world which is due to Maya cannot be

Unreal. It becomes Real. ” The Advaitin’s answer

is very simple. He does not admit the ultimate rea-

lity of Maya. He admits that in the ultimate analy-

sis there is a core of unintelligibility in the doctrine

of Maya. Sankara suspends judgment about the

nature of the world. He does not recklessly repu-

diate without evidence. By the very use of the logi-

cal categories Sankara builds his powerful opposition

to Nyaya. The great lesson of Advaita logic is that

it exposes the clayfooted nature of Nyaya logic. In

the words of Rangaraja “the Advaitin is not out to

demonstrate this or that position. He points out that

every other position held by the opponent is unten-

able. The positive definitions and poofs attempted

by Advaitins are only a concession to the dualistic

mode of expression. ”

But this does not mean that Sankara ends his

philosophy with a sceptical note. He did not despair.

He believed in the existence of Brahman. Prof. S.

Suryanarayana Sastry describes that Sankara’s scepti-

cism is of a more rational type than the one of which

Bradley subscribed. Bradley writes “I mean by

scepticism the mere denial of any known satisfactory

doctrine, together with the personal despair of any

future attainment. ” Sankara is a Brahmavadiri and

not a sceptic or an agnostic.

The doctrine of Maya appears to some as a veiled

confession of one’s inability to describe the nature of

the world and its relation to Brahman. But such an

inability is inherent in human knowledge. Prof.

A. N. Whitehead observes, “It is no doubt true that

INTRODUCTION TO VEDANTA

curiosity is the craving of reason, that the fact discri-

minated in experience he understood. It means the

refusal to be satisfied with the bare welter of facts. ”

The mystery element in the world is not anything

that discredits the intelligence of man. In a grand,

description Prof. Bradley has indicated the truth of it.

He says that “to show how and why the universe is so,

that finite existence belongs to it, is utterly impossible;

that would imply the understanding of the whole, not

practicable for a part. ” Again in the words of White-

head “All effort of human thought only dimly dis-

cerns it, misdescribes and wrongly associates things. ”

It is interesting to note that Bertrand Russell con-

cludes his Volume, Human Knowledge: Its Scope and

Its Limits with an observation that is higly relevant to

our context. “All human knowledge is uncertain, in-

exact and partial. To this doctrine we have not found

any limitation whatever. It is only an examined life

that leaves no wonder to us. A completely rational

explanation of the world is not within the scope of

man’s intellect. ”

Closely allied with the doctrine of Maya is the

nature of the world we live in. Ignorant critics de-

clare that Sankara is an illusionist and that the world

according to him is a dream and a. delusion. They make

Sankara a mentalist who regards the world as a series

of ideas. Nothing is farther from truth than this accu-

sation of Sankara. The world is not an empty dream

nor is it a delirium. It is not a bundle of ideas with no

substance behind it. Maydvdda is not solipsism.

Sankara is opposed to Vijnana Vada, i. e. mentalism.

There is a strong realistic element in Sankara’s theory

of knowledge.. He analyses knowledge into two parts.

(1) The physical adjunct i. e., antahkarana and (2) the

6 ANKARA’S ADVAITA

awareness element i. e. Sakfin which is psychical

in its nature. , All knowledge points to an object ex-

ternal to itself as it does to a subject. There is no

knowledge which does not imply this double refe-

rence.

The world of object is not to be treated as a dream.

It is objective: it is not the creation of the individual’s

fancy. It has a common objective reference. It is

the world and not many worlds.

The world of objects is not on par with dreams.

The dream world is private and personal. The world

of experience is public, and has an objective reference.

It also satisfies the pragmatic test. All of us refer to

the world as “the world. ” If it is contended that it

is a collective illusion shared by all of us, we have

only to say that it is more than a dream. The objects

of the world are not our creations. We cannot choose

or argue away their existence. The world is not a sha-

dow-show nor an unreal phantasmagoria. We live

in the world and undertake our spiritual quest here.

Samsara is not a barren place. “It gives us a succes-

sion of spiritual opportunities to realise the best in

us” in the words of Dr. Radhakrishnan. “Unreal the

world is; illusory it is not. ”

Some critics regard that the doctrine of Maya is

not found' in the Upani$ads and is the creation of San-

kara. Prof. Ranade answers the critics with a wise

observation: “The doctrine of Maya is neither a fabri-

cation of Sankara nor merely the outcome of Bud-

dhistic nihilism nor found full-fledged in the Upani-

sads. The Upanisad felt the mystery of creation.

They saw that the world cannot be real at the level

of Brahman. And what they felt and saw, they ex-

pressed in their own way. Their ideas are given a

96 INTRODUCTION TO VEDANTA

systematic form by Sankara and his followers. But

on one point all the Upanigads are almost unanimous,

namely, that ultimate Reality is of the nature of cons-

ciousness. ”

The concept of Maya has great significance. It is

the material cause of the world in conjunction with Is-

vara. It enjoys the same function as' that of the

prakyti of the Sankhya school. Dr. Radhakrishnan

sums up the significance of the term Maya as follows:

(a) the world is not self-explanatory; it shows its

phenomenal character. This is signified by the term

Maya, (b) The incomprehensibility of the relation be-

tween ultimate reality and the world of plurality is

signified by the term Maya, (c) It is the power through

which Brahman manifests as Isvara. The significance

of the term Maya is very wide; it is responsible for all

creation. Brahman is regarded as the material and

efficient cause of the world.

The efficient cause is non-different from the mate-

rial cause. Brahman is the abhinna-nimitto’pddana

Tcarana of the world. Primal nature by itself cannot

create the world nor can matter conform to activity

when there is no sentient being guiding its activity.

So the world is the result of Maya and Brahman and

is not the creation of the individual souls or of his

dream.

Let us advert to the consideration of the nature

of the soul. In Advaita the souls are many in their

apppearance. They are appearances of Brahman. The

status of the soul is on a higher level than that of the

world' of matter. It has a special status. There are

three different views put forward by Advaita think-

ers about the nature of the relation between the soul

and Brahman. Some are of opinion that Brahman

SAtiKARA’S ADVA IT A

as reflected in mdyd appears as Isvara and Brahman as

reflected in avidyd appears as the soul (jiva). This

view is called abhdsavada advocated by Suresvara-

carya.

The second view is called pratibimbavdda or the

reflection theory. This theory holds that Isvara is

the reflection of Brahman in Mdyd and that the soul

(jiva) is the reflection of Brahman in avidyd.

The third view is called avacchedavdda. This is

the limitation view. This school finds it difficult to

accept the reflection theory; for, how can a formless

Brahman be reflected in Maya? So they hold that

when Maya conditions and limits Brahman, the jiva

appears. The jiva is the locus of Maya and Isvara is

content. The content is in no way affected by Maya.

Thus we see that there are various ways of looking at

the relation between the Brahman and the soul.

Sankara’s conception of the soul is unique. It is

not a simple substance. It is a complex of the sdksin

and antahkarana. These two elements with the co-

operation of the senses function in the waking life.

In dream experience the sdksin and the antahkarana

are there, but there is not the co-operation of the sense

organs. But there is only the sense of immediacy and

new creation.

In the state of deep sleep the sdksin alone exists

with its avidyd. The antahkarana is merged in the

avidyd. In this state there is the concealment of the

one but not the projection of the many. Individuality

still persists. After waking up we are able to re-

collect the experience of the happiness of the sleep.

The souls are not many. The empirical egos are

many. The transcendental self is one. Atman is for

all ( atmd sarvasya dtma). In its essence it is Brahman.

V— 5

INTRODUCTION TO VEDANTA

It is not different from Brahman. Creatureliness, lini-

tude, ignorance and misery are only the conditioned

state and not the permanent nature of man. They are

adventitious and not native to the soul. Man is not a

fallen creature tied to a body of lust and sin with no

glimmer of divinity in him. He is divinity concealed.

He is of the same substance as of Brahrrfan. Sankara’s

doctrine of the consubstantiality of man and god is

unique. “The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord. ”

The Chandogya Upanisad repeats that man and God

are identical in essence. Svetaketu is instructed about

this final truth by his father a number of times. “That

which is the subtle essence, this whole world has for

itself. That is the true, That is the self. That art thou

Svetaketu”. Spinoza said “We feel and know that

we are eternal. ” The divinity of man is one of the

fundamental doctrines of Sankara.

Prof. Hiriyanna in his Essentials of Indian Philo-

sophy brings out the difference between the soul and

the world. He observes that at the moment of Brah-

man-realisation the world is negated completely

whereas the- soul is not negated but only its finitude,

separateness, ignorance, misery etc., are destroyed.

Hence, the soul is on a higher level than the world in

its relation to Brahman. We are all as it were in an

egg. The senses are bad witnesses. They hide the

Real from us. Man is a many-levelled being. The

innermost core of his life is his Self and it is one with

Brahman. The identity between the individual soul

and Brahman is not actual but potential. Hence the

need for moral effort and spiritual meditation.

The personal God of Sankara is called the I& vara.

It is a very important concept and has to be carefully

understood. There is a good deal of misunderstanding

SANKARA’S ADVAITA

and uninformed criticism about Sankara’s God.

The Isvara of Sankara and the souls are not on the

same level. Isvara is the appearance of Brahman in

Maya. He is not affected by Maya. Ignorant critics

argue that Sankara’s Isvara is not as real as the Brah*

man and so need not be worshipped. Tradition holds

a different opinion. They believe that the worship of

Isvara is necessary for Brahman-realisation. Yet others

are of the opinion that the concept of God in Advaita

is a concession to the masses who are not competent

to contemplate the impersonal absolute.

The criticism against the concept of Isvara has

to be understood with great caution. Advaita tra-

dition and practice have accorded a very important

place to Isvara. While it is true that the absolute

alone is the ultimate reality and not Isvara or souls

it should not make us forget that the individual souls

differ from God.

Sankara’s God is not a second metaphysical cate-

gory. There are no two or multiples of Brahman in

Advaita. The existence of Isvara is assumed on the

authority of scriptures. Isvara is Brahman in relation

to the world. Brahman that transcends the world is

impersonal (nirguina). Sankara does not admit that

primal matter or Prakrti can be the cause of the

world. Maya is the power of Isvara and is his energy.

He is the energiser. There is non-dilference between

6akti and Saktimat. Brahman is non-different from

Isvara.

There are distinctions between Isvara and the

Soul. The Jiva i! e. the soul is only the enjoyer of

£ he world and not its creator. Isvara wields Maya

and is not deluded by it. He is the Mayin. The indi-

vidual soul can only create his private universe. He

INTRODUCTION TO VEDANTA

cannot give rise to the objective world. He has help-

lessly to experience them as they are given to him

by God. He cannot condition them. On the other

hand, Isvara is the cosmic subject with the world as his

object. He is not only the creator but is also the sus-

tainer and destroyer of the world. The relative rea-

lity and objectivity of the world are du£ to him. Its

regularity and law-abiding nature are due to him.

If the world is the world and not the dream world,

this is due to Isvara. The God of Sankara lasts as

long as there is even a single finite soul. He is co-

eval with all souls and the world. Maya is the inter-

polating principle between Brahman and Isvara and

in fact between all that exists and Brahman. San-

kara’s God is the Absolute in the world context.

He is the supreme from the cosmic end. He is the

logical highest as IsvaTa and Brahman is the intuitive

highest. Brahman is the philosophical ideal, Isvara

is the religious goal. We can never realise Brahman

by denying and eschewing God. Only by realising

⇐ Предыдущая 6 7 8 9 101112 13 14 15 Следующая ⇒