[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Saguna and Nirguna Brahman
Due to unforeseen circumstances, I dropped out of a discussion I was
having with Pradip Gangopadhyay, regarding the advaita concepts of
Saguna and Nirguna Brahman. I wish to revive part of the discussion
here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an earlier post, Pradip Gangopadhyay had written:
Kevala Advaita
Sri Sankara's model satisfies both conditions by making the
whole relative world unreal from the point of view of paramarthika. This
solves both problems. Since there is no relative from the paramarthika
point of view there is no connection between the relative and the
Absolute. There is also no real change of Brahman only an apparent
change. It seems that the Kevala Advaita model is completely consistent.
But is it? There are some consequences for making the whole relative
world unreal from the paramarthika level. It is at this point that I can
not accept Kevala Advaita system. Let me first spell out the
consequences:
(1) If the whole world is unreal then our cognition is defective at the
very roots due to Avidya. I have no problem with that.
(2) If the relative is unreal then Maya Shakti of Brahman is also unreal
from the paramarthika point of view. This has serious consequences on
the very concept of Brahman. After all in Kevala Advaita only Brahman
is. Thus if Maya is unreal then Brahman is unreal. It is at this point
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sri Sankara introduces the device of anirvacaniya Maya to rescue Kevala
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Advaita model from collapse. If Brahman is unreal then there is no point
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
of studying Vedanta. I have not been able to accept this point of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
KevalAdvaita system.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I only wish to address the underlined portion above. Firstly, if mAyA
has no reality at the paramArtha level, it does not follow that
therefore brahman is also "unreal". You are arguing backwards, from
effect to cause, which is not very advisable. Specifically, in the
sat-kAraNa-vAda of vedAnta, you cannot attribute properties of the
effect to the material cause, whether you think of material causality as
vivarta or as pariNAma. The gold bangle has a specific shape, but the
specific shape belongs to the bangle, not to the gold, the material
cause of the bangle. The curds obtained from milk have particular
properties which do not belong to milk, a material cause of the curds.
Similarly, the specific properties of the universe cannot be held to be
true of brahman, the material cause of the universe.
Neither can you attribute properties of an effect to an instrumental
cause. You can talk of a rabbit's horn, which is unreal, but that does
not make you, who caused this unreal entity in your imagination, unreal
as well. You have dreams every night, all the objects in which are
typically labelled as unreal upon waking up, But that does not make you,
the dreamer, unreal as well. You might be one of those who holds that
the dream state is not as real as the waking state. Or you might hold
that the dream is as real as the waking state. In either case, you have
to agree that the dream does not exist once it is over. This does not
imply that the dreamer, the instrumental cause of the dream, also has no
existence. Similarly with brahman, the instrumental cause of the
universe. Thus, advaita's stand that mAyA has no existence at the
paramArtha level, does not imply that Brahman is unreal.
Secondly, Sruti, when it talks of creation, asserts only one principle,
calling It Atman, sat, and brahman in different places. There is no talk
of mAyA in the condition of brahman prior to creation. If mAyA does not
exist prior to creation, does that mean brahman is unreal? Of course
not. mAyA is just a word that points to the impossible nature of trying
to describe the indescribable, of trying to capture in vAk (speech),
that which is vAcAm agocaram (unapproachable by speech). Trying to
attach any more value to mAyA is counter-productive and misleading.
Finally, ask yourself whether advaita does say that brahman is unreal,
or that there is no point in studying vedAnta. Your final sentence "I
have not been able to accept this point of KevalAdvaita system" accuses
advaita as taking a position which is diametrically opposite to what
advaita actually says. I would request you to re-evaluate your
understanding of advaita vedAnta before proceeding to find fault with
it.
S. Vidyasankar
