Part XXX – Relationless Relation
Vedanta provides different descriptions of
the 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,
it says in the Chandogya Up. It also describes how one became
many – as discussed before it is similar to gold becoming
many ornaments. Since the 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 a self-conscious
entity. Thus Brahman is a self-existent and self-conscious
entity. In fact, a self-conscious entity alone is a 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 itself since it
is one without a second, and there is no other thing for it
to be conscious of. I.e. 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 a homogenous mass of consciousness – praj~nAna
ghanam – or simply “praj~nAnam brahma” – “Consciousness
is Brahman.”
Another Upanishad says that what was there before
the creation was only the self, Atma, and it
decided to become many. In the Gita, Krishna
says that, under my presidentship, the prakRRiti
projects itself into movable and immovable entities.
In another Upanishad, the prakRRiti is described
as nothing but mAyA – that which appears
to be there, but is really not there (mAyantu
prakRRitim vidhyAt). Krishna himself says that
prakRRiti is nothing but his lower nature or
lower order of reality. That which supports all
this lower nature is his higher nature. Krishna
says: ‘I am the source, support and locus
for dissolution of the whole world’. This
we discussed as the material cause for the universe.
Along with these statements, the 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-j~nAnam-anantam
brahma), should provide us a with consistent
description of the nature of reality and its
relation to the world of plurality.
From these descriptions we gather that the relationship
between the world and Brahman cannot be of the
type that we are normally familiar with. Some
philosophers have described this relationship
as that between attributes and their locus, inseparable
but yet different. Some have described it as
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
relationship can only be of the type described
as adhyAsa or superimposition. The word ‘Advaita’ itself
means ‘non-dual.’ It is not the same
as monism; the very description involves the
negation of duality as reality. Such a description
of the truth as ‘non-dual’ has validity
only to those who see or experience duality in
their day to day life, i.e. for most of the seekers
who are trying to gain knowledge of 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 adhyAsa. It is
like the relation between gold and its ornaments – a
relationless relation. One is vyAvahArika satyam,
transactional reality and the other is pAramArthika
satyam, absolute reality. The ring can change
into a bangle or necklace but gold remains the
same during these changes. Ring, bangle and necklace
are different names for different forms, yet
they are the nothing but gold. Gold is not the
ring, not the bangle not the necklace - neti,
neti, 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 a superimposed name
and 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 the very consciousness
because of which all perceptions are possible.
This aspect is beautifully described in the
kenopaniShad (I.4-7 paraphrased):
Brahman is that which the eyes cannot see, but
that because of which the eyes have the capacity
to see; know that alone to be 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 to be 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 to be
Brahman and not this that you worship. It is
that which the mind cannot think, but that because
of which the mind has the capacity to think;
know that alone to be Brahman and not this that
you worship.
t is the very life principle in all of us because
of which all physiological activities are possible,
know that alone to be 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.
Proceed to the next
essay.
|
