Neither the Advaitis nor the Dwaitis would accept this equation. Each side is biased by what their preceptors have said. And the debate goes on, about which is the right view. I think if we can see that both are same, many confusions would get resolved. But how do we do that within the framework of the Upanishads?
Let me try to explain this in as simple words as possible.
Let me start with the well-known verse from the Chandogya Upanishad which describes how the world came into existence. It says
“in the beginning ‘this’ (that means the source of this world) alone existed, which was one and only thing.
"agrE idam Ekam Eva Adviteeyakam aaseet”
“that ‘willed’ to be many
"tat bahu syaam prajaayEya iti aikShata”
Chandogya Upanishad 6.2.2-3
The Upanishad goes on to explain how this one and only thing, which the Upanishad refers to as ‘Sat’, became three basic material elements. And how these material elements combined together in various proportions to become further more forms. This constituted the material world which is insentient. Gradually, various physical bodies were formed. Then
“That being thought ‘let me enter these bodies formed by the three basic elements, by taking the form of individual souls, so that I can divide them into individual names and forms’
"Saa iyam dEvataa aikShata ‘aham anEna jeevEna aatmanaa imaa tisra dEvataah anupravishya, naama roopE vyaakaravaaNi’”
Chandogya Upanishad 6.3.2
This is how this world came into existence according to the Upanishads (even other Upanishads explain almost the same way)
But Shankara has problem with this description. Admitting that Sat transformed itself into many bodies and souls, amounts to saying that Sat is subject to change. Anything that changes cannot be eternal. But Sat or Brahma (as Shankara refers to it) is eternal!
So Shankara dismisses the entire narration as just a symbolic way of saying that whatever exists is nothing but Brahma. In that case what about this story? Shankara says that its purpose is just to drive home the point that what we see as world – including material things and the souls etc. – is nothing but Brahma or Sat. This creation never took place. If at all it took place, then it is a creation of the Maya – Maya kalpita – and not real. It is Mithya!
This is Shankara’s Advaita Philosophy – put succinctly as
“Brahma Satya, Jagat Mithya, jeevo Brahmeva, na para"
Brahma is the only reality. This world (of diversity) is an illusion. The individual soul is none other than the Brahma”
But dualists or Dwaitis like Madhva disagree.
Madhva said that
“all the three – the material world (Jada), the individual soul (Jeevatma), and the supreme soul (Paramatma or Brahma) are all real. Not just real, they are eternal too. The difference is that the material world and Jeevatma are not independent and they depend on the Paramatma which is the only independent thing. Obviously, there are three categories of things, not just one – Brahma, Jeevatma, and material world. So, it is a world of multiplicity – or non Advaita or dual or Dwaita.”
These seem diametrically opposing views. How do we reconcile between them?
For that, we need to look at the verses that we discussed earlier, more closely. And ignore Shankara’s objection to taking it as reality. Let us say it really happened. What then?
Does it amount to saying that the Sat can undergo changes and hence it is non eternal? No. It does not imply that. If you look at the long chain of events that were described (I have skipped them for brevity), Sat existed as Sat even after it became many – 3 elements, combination of three elements, physical bodies, individual souls etc. How is it possible that something can become something else and still remain unchanged?
That is the hangover we have from the space-time limited world that we live in. In our world, a thing can be in one place at any given instant of time. It cannot be in multiple places at the same time. That is the space-time limit that binds us to this world. So, we can be in only one place at a time. Extending this logic, we can show that we can be in only one form at any given time (I will skip that reasoning)
But if you see the Upanishads, Upanishads always describe Sat or Brahma as beyond space and time. So, our limits don’t apply to Brahma. Brahma or Sat can be in more than one place in more than one form, all at once! For doing that, Brahma need not have to undergo transformation. It just ‘replicates’ itself. Into as many forms as it wishes to.
This is what is described by the above verses in the Upanishad. The original form multiplied into many, but remained as it was, without any change. So, there is no threat to its eternality. So, we don’t need to take this story as symbolic – not at least for this reason. We don’t need to invent the concept of illusion or Maya as Shankara did. Both the Brahma as well as the material world as well as Jeevatma are all real and there is no illusion. So, multiplicity is real.
But what multiplied as many? It is the same thing. So, in essence, what exists as many things is nothing but the very same thing Brahma or Sat. So, this is almost Shankara’s Advaita except for the ‘Mythya’ part.
Now coming to Madhva, his theory of multiplicity is also right since there are multiple forms – material world, Jeevatma, and Paramatma or Brahma. But are all these three kinds of things exactly equal? No, when a form is taken, it is bound by some specific properties associated with that form. And it is these properties that differentiates between them, even when they are all same in the essence. How? Let me explain this with a simple example.
You have water, ice and steam. Are these same? Definitely not. Water is liquid, it can flow, it can quench our thirst etc. Similarly, ice is solid, it is cold, it cannot flow, it cannot quench our thirst etc. Same is the case with steam. Each has a different property, different form, different usage. But are they different? No. All of them are forms of H2O. So, if you look at the essence, they are same. But as long as they have some form, they are different with different appearances, with different capabilities – naama and roopa.
So, if we can transcend our space time limited world, and look beyond into the Brahma’s world, we can see that there is no difference between Dwaita and Advaita in the real sense.
(I can go on, showing that even the Mandukya Upanishad description of Atma being in 4 different states simultaneously can be explained this way, without rejecting the dualistic world altogether, while maintaining the Advaita)
No comments:
Post a Comment