|
Post Content
|
Indeed at the end of the day none of these vadas or any other concept of the mind can be exhaustive descriptions at all of the Nirguna Brahman. [ link to www.medhajournal.com] The main purpose of this brief essay is to examine the longstanding controversy about (and thereby the debates between) parinama-vada and vivarta-vada, and show that vivarta-vada, correctly understood, does not oppose parinama-vada, and subsumes it under itself. I am not concerned here with tracing the history of the conflict between parinama and vivarta; rather, my chief concern here is a thorough analysis of the conflict and clearly point out the misunderstandings which generated the conflict in the first place. Let us begin with a clear understanding of parinama-vada and vivarta-vada; here are the definitions: “parinama-vada” is the theory (view) that when anything, say A, undergoes changes and transformations resulting in B, C, D, etc., these changes and transformations are real; “vivarta-vada” is the theory (view) that the changes and transformations referred to above are not real but merely appearances. Samkara’s Advaita-Vedanta upholds the vivarta-vada and other schools of Vedanta and Samkhya uphold the parinama-vada. I am not concerned with Buddhism, Jainism, etc at this point. Vivarta-vada does not deny changes and transformations but maintains that the changes and transformations are not real; according to Samkara, “real change” is the change by which, something, say X, loses its essential nature and becomes Y, something absolutely different from X; for example, a piece of wood becoming a lump of gold. Thus when Brahman becomes the world, Brahman undergoes no real changes and does not lose its essential nature (and being) as Atman, pure consciousness. Yes, Brahman appears as the world, without undergoing any real change, for there is, in principle, nothing other than Brahman for Brahman to become. Both Samkara and Samkhya subscribe to satkarya-vada, according to which the effect is identical to (and pre-exists in) the cause; that is, there will be nothing in the effect that is not already in the cause. The question now arises: Does all this mean that the cause does or does not undergo any real change in producing the effect? Samkhya, through its teaching of parinama-vada, maintains that the cause does undergo real changes in producing the effects. Samkara points out that such a teaching contradicts satkarya-vada, which the Samkhya upholds, and therefore parinama-vada is false. Let me illustrate the point of Samkara’s critique of Samkhya. When the potter makes, say cups and saucers, from clay, the clay does not undergo any real changes and become something other than clay; the changes the clay undergoes are only in forms and names; note further that the cups and saucers have no existence apart from the clay, whereas the clay exists even when there are no cups and saucers (before the potter made them as well as after he destroys them). Simply put, the clay does not undergo any real changes in becoming cups and saucers but only apparent changes. Hence Samkara rejects parinama-vada and upholds vivarta-vada (changes in appearance only). Similar arguments can also be presented with equal validity and soundness against other schools of Vedanta, such as Ramanuja’s and Madhva’s, which uphold parinama-vada. To conclude, parinama-vada cannot subsume under itself vivarta-vada, whereas the latter can easily subsume the former, insofar as it does not deny changes and acknowledges changes in appearances only, thereby remaining faithful to satkarya-vada, unlike Samkhya and other parinama-vadins. Brahman, in becoming the world, does not undergo any real changes, since there cannot, in principle, be anything other than Brahman for Brahman to become. Is there, then, a real distinction between parinama-vada and vivarta-vada? The answer is clearly in the affirmative; while parinama-vada and vivarta-vada both acknowledge changes in the cause in producing the effects, the changes are not real but only in appearances (forms and names) for the vivarta-vada, whereas they are real for parinama-vada, thereby contradicting satkarya-vada, to which both Samkhya and Samkara subscribe . (Note: Samkhya subscribes to satkarya-vada in regard to the evolution of Prakrti, whereas Samkara subscribes to satkarya-vada in regard to Brahman becoming the world. For Samkhya, there are two ultimates, namely, Prakrti and Purusha, whereas for Samkara there is just the non-dual Brahman, for the doctrine of two ultimates is self-contradictory.) [ link to vedabase.net] vyasera sutrete kahe 'parinama'-vada
'vyasa bhranta' -- bali' tara uthaila vivada"In his Vedanta-sutra Srila Vyasadeva has described that everything is but a transformation of the energy of the Lord. Sankaracarya, however, has misled the world by commenting that Vyasadeva was mistaken. Thus he has raised great opposition to theism throughout the entire world." PURPORT Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura explains, "In the Vedanta-sutra of Srila Vyasadeva it is definitely stated that all cosmic manifestations result from transformations of various energies of the Lord. Sankaracarya, however, not accepting the energy of the Lord, thinks that it is the Lord who is transformed. He has taken many clear statements from the Vedic literature and twisted them to try to prove that if the Lord, or the Absolute Truth, were transformed, His oneness would be disturbed. Thus he has accused Srila Vyasadeva of being mistaken. In developing his philosophy of monism, therefore, he has established vivarta-vada, or the Mayavada theory of illusion." In the Brahma-sutra, Second Chapter, the first aphorism is as follows: tad-ananyatvam arambhana-sabdadibhyah. Commenting on this sutra in his Sariraka-bhashya, Sankaracarya has introduced the statement vacarambhanam vikaro namadheyam from the Chandogya Upanishad (6.1.4) to try to prove that acceptance of the transformation of the energy of the Supreme Lord is faulty. He has tried to defy this transformation of energy in a misguided way, which will be explained later. Since his conception of God is impersonal, he does not believe that the entire cosmic manifestation is a transformation of the energies of the Lord, for as soon as one accepts the various energies of the Absolute Truth, one must immediately accept the Absolute Truth to be personal, not impersonal. A person can create many things by the transformation of his energy. For example, a businessman transforms his energy by establishing many big factories or business organizations, yet he remains a person although his energy has been transformed into these many factories or business concerns. The Mayavadi philosophers do not understand this simple fact. Their tiny brains and poor fund of knowledge cannot afford them sufficient enlightenment to realize that when a man's energy is transformed, the man himself is not transformed but remains the same person. Not believing in the fact that the energy of the Absolute Truth is transformed, Sankaracarya has propounded his theory of illusion. This theory states that although the Absolute Truth is never transformed, we think that it is transformed, which is an illusion. Sankaracarya does not believe in the transformation of the energy of the Absolute Truth, for he claims that everything is one and that the living entity is therefore also one with the Supreme. This is the Mayavada theory. Srila Vyasadeva has explained that the Absolute Truth is a person who has different potencies. Merely by His desire that there be creation and by His glance (sa aikshata), He created this material world (sa asrijata). After creation, He remains the same person: He is not transformed into everything. One should accept that the Lord has inconceivable energies and that it is by His order and will that varieties of manifestations have come into existence. In the Vedic literature it is said, sa-tattvato 'nyatha-buddhir vikara ity udahritah. This mantra indicates that from one fact another fact is generated. For example, a father is one fact, and a son generated from the father is a second fact. Thus both of them are truths, although one is generated from the other. This generation of a second, independent truth from a first truth is called vikara, or transformation resulting in a by-product. The Supreme Brahman is the Absolute Truth, and the energies that have emanated from Him and are existing separately, such as the living entities and the cosmic manifestation, are also truths. This is an example of transformation, which is called vikara or parinama. To give another example of vikara, milk is a truth, but the same milk may be transformed into yogurt. Thus yogurt is a transformation of milk, although the ingredients of yogurt and milk are the same.In the Chandogya Upanishad there is the following mantra: aitad-atmyam idam sarvam. This mantra indicates without a doubt that the entire world is Brahman. The Absolute Truth has inconceivable energies, as confirmed in the Svetasvatara Upanishad (parasya saktir vividhaiva sruyate), and the entire cosmic manifestation is evidence of these different energies of the Supreme Lord. The Supreme Lord is a fact, and therefore whatever is created by the Supreme Lord is also factual. Everything is true and complete (purnam), but the original purnam, the complete Absolute Truth, always remains the same. Purnat purnam udacyate purnasya purnam adaya. The Absolute Truth is so perfect that although innumerable energies emanate from Him and manifest creations which appear to be different from Him, He nevertheless maintains His personality. He never deteriorates under any circumstances. It is to be concluded that the entire cosmic manifestation is a transformation of the energy of the Supreme Lord, not of the Supreme Lord or Absolute Truth Himself, who always remains the same. The material world and the living entities are transformations of the energy of the Lord, the Absolute Truth or Brahman, who is the original source. In other words, the Absolute Truth, Brahman, is the original ingredient, and the other manifestations are transformations of this ingredient. This is also confirmed in the Taittiriya Upanishad (3.1): yato va imani bhutani jayante. "This entire cosmic manifestation is made possible by the Absolute Truth, the Supreme Personality of Godhead." In this verse it is indicated that Brahman, the Absolute Truth, is the original cause and that the living entities (jivas) and the cosmic manifestation are effects of this cause. The cause being a fact, the effects are also factual. They are not illusion. Sankaracarya has inconsistently tried to prove that it is an illusion to accept the material world and the jivas as by-products of the Supreme Lord because (in his conception) the existence of the material world and the jivas is different and separate from that of the Absolute Truth. With this jugglery of understanding, Mayavadi philosophers have propagated the slogan brahma satyam jagan mithya, which declares that the Absolute Truth is fact but the cosmic manifestation and the living entities are simply illusions, or that all of them are in fact the Absolute Truth and that the material world and living entities do not separately exist. It is therefore to be concluded that Sankaracarya, in order to present the Supreme Lord, the living entities and the material nature as indivisible and ignorant, tries to cover the glories of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He maintains that the material cosmic manifestation is mithya, or false, but this is a great blunder. If the Supreme Personality of Godhead is a fact, how can His creation be false? Even in ordinary dealings, one cannot think the material cosmic manifestation to be false. Therefore Vaishnava philosophers say that the cosmic creation is not false but temporary. It is separated from the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but since it is wonderfully created by the energy of the Lord, to say that it is false is blasphemous. Nondevotees factually appreciate the wonderful creation of material nature, but they cannot appreciate the intelligence and energy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is behind this material creation. Sripada Ramanujacarya, however, refers to a sutra from the Aitareya Upanishad (1.1.1), atma va idam agra asit, which points out that the supreme atma, the Absolute Truth, existed before the creation. One may argue, "If the Supreme Personality of Godhead is completely spiritual, how is it possible for Him to be the origin of creation and have within Himself both material and spiritual energies?" To answer this challenge, Sripada Ramanujacarya quotes a mantra from the Taittiriya Upanishad (3.1) that states: yato va imani bhutani jayante yena jatani jivanti yat prayanty abhisamvisantiThis mantra confirms that the entire cosmic manifestation emanates from the Absolute Truth, rests upon the Absolute Truth and after annihilation again reenters the body of the Absolute Truth, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The living entity is originally spiritual, and when he enters the spiritual world or the body of the Supreme Lord, he still retains his identity as an individual soul. In this connection Sripada Ramanujacarya gives the analogy that when a green bird enters a green tree it does not become one with the tree: it retains its identity as a bird, although it appears to merge with the greenness of the tree. To give another analogy, an animal that enters a forest keeps its individuality, although apparently the beast merges with the forest. Similarly, in material existence, both the material energy and the living entities of the marginal potency maintain their individuality. Thus although the energies of the Supreme Personality of Godhead interact within the cosmic manifestation, each keeps its separate individual existence. Merging with the material or spiritual energies, therefore, does not involve loss of individuality. According to Sri Ramanujapada's theory of Visishtadvaita, although all the energies of the Lord are one, each keeps its individuality (vaisishtya). Sripada Sankaracarya has tried to mislead the readers of the Vedanta-sutra by misinterpreting the words ananda-mayo 'bhyasat, and he has even tried to find fault with Vyasadeva.
|
