The vedas acknowledge divine karma as the origin of all creation, preservation, and destruction. However, since God does not have desires, unlike humans, he is not constrained by them. In the first chapter of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (1.6.1), we discover that karma is one of the three main causes of diversity, alongside name and form. The variety in names is a result of speech, and the variety in forms is a result of the eye, while the mind and body are the sources for the variety in actions. For every action, the body serves as the source, the controller, or the lord. Within the body, the mind, speech, breath, organs of action, and organs of perception are regarded as the primary deities who receive sustenance from the body and carry out their respective functions. Nevertheless, we cannot solely depend on them to combat the impurities and the malevolent forces that can infiltrate our body, as they are susceptible to evil and demonic influences, thoughts, desires, temptations,...
This blog will try to make us all understand the existence of the Universe when we see it from a Vedantic point of view while keeping Brahman into the play.
The Universe is not separate from Brahman. The reason for this is that we call Brahman being existing by itself. So if we logically think that there is something as 'existing by itself' and then if something is separate from its existence, it itself becomes non-existent. For e.g. something other than wood is not wood likewise something other than existence is non-existent. So, if we say the Universe is other than Brahman, we are actually saying that it is separate from existence, which concludes that the Universe is non-existent!. We positively, therefore, have to conclude that the Universe cannot be apart from Brahman.
If we conclude this, our next question that arises would be of the Universe being the same as Brahman. But, we cannot say this too, because the universe has all the sufferings, people getting happy, people getting sad, death, birth, and many more materialistic things. On the other hand, Brahman is pure existence. Hence, all these characteristics would never match Brahman. Here, we now conclude that the Universe is not the same as Brahman.
This is where the paradox of Maya comes into the play. The Universe is neither apart from Brahman nor it is exactly the same as Brahman. This state of paradox, where we are not able to classify a thing to be a pure existence or not existing in Sanskrit is called "Sad-Asad Vilakshana or Anirvachaniya" and this is a classical definition of Maya when we study Advaita Vedanta. It is classified as beyond speech because of its paradox.
According to the non-dualism, the nature of the Universe is indeterminate. There is another term for such a case in Sanskrit, which is Mithya (false). This word 'false' is misinterpreted. It doesn't mean non-existing. This would be well understood by knowing the difference between truth, lie and silence. Silence is no speech and so the existence of something is also questioned. Truth is the correct speech of a truly existing thing. And, the lie cannot be considered as non-existing. It is the wrong appearance of the truth. The word 'appearance' in itself means there is something behind it which might be an appearance of truth or Maya. Similarly, Vedantic texts have the Universe summed up to the term Maya, Mithya and its appearance.
Swami Vivekananda used another term for those who didn't like this Universe to be called Maya or Mithya. He used the term "higher truth" and "lower truth". This world is a lower truth of which Brahman is the higher truth. They are not separate by themselves. One plays the role of making it appear as the real appearance.
Twitter:@merrill_ab
👍✔️🙏
ReplyDelete