Skip to main content

Karma as the Source of Diversity

The Vedas recognize divine karma (the action of God) as the source of all creation, preservation and destruction. However, since God performs them without desires, unlike human beings he is not bound by them. From the first chapter of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (1.6.1) we learn that karma is one of the triple causes of diversity, the other two being name and form. The diversity in names arises from speech, and the diversity in forms comes from the eye, whereas the (mind and) body is the sources for the diversity in actions. For all actions, the body is the source, the controller, or the lord. Within the body, the mind, the speech, breath, the organs of action, and the organs of perception are considered the main deities who receive their share of food from the body and perform their actions. However, we cannot fully rely upon them to fight the impurities and the evil that can infest our body, since they are all vulnerable to evil and demonic actions, thoughts, desires, temptations, a

WITHOUT EYE

In deep sleep awareness there are two justifications of the existence of pure awareness or consciousness and non-existing 'I' awareness are contradictory, because if nothing is known in a state that means it would become an unconscious state. 'All states of experience, have for their object something that is marked by some characteristics'. Vedanta Desika on behalf of Visistadvaita position, raises a question regarding deep sleep 'whether or not there is any experience in that state?' and says 'if there be any experience, it will present itself as qualified by attributes; if there be no experience, what is it that manifests itself as indeterminate?' Actually the thing is self-consciousness is the essential and inseparable feature of consciousness. Self is a conscious subject, which never loses its selfhood i.e., 'Ahampratyaya'. 

There is awareness of 'I' in the deep sleep but not pure consciousness is important in Visistadvaita philosophy. Therefore the individuality of the self that causes multiplicity is false notion and it can be replaced by the right knowledge of the self. As a result, individual self or jivatman emerges in the ultimate self, Paramatman i.e., Brahman. Consequently, in Sankara, there is no possibility forever lasting individuality, such as 'I' that would distinguish from the other. First criticism is concerning the 'egoity', which, is not the superimposed self. 

This criticism is irrelevant, because in the meaning of pure consciousness, you cannot say 'I am consciousness'. The reason is that the pure consciousness is without subject and object; there can be only the subject-less and objectless self. Seksena reminds that there is no identification of these concepts in Advaita, with jiva the one which is still undergoing the experience of modifications. Nevertheless, there is no need of even discussing such consciousness, for the self cannot be apart of its awareness as 'I'. Self is not the knowledge but the subject of that knowledge. 

Ramanuja says the non-intelligent ahankara or antahkarana could not become a knower. Ahankara is unconscious and there is no way the knowledge could become the agency of knowledge. Even the theory of egoity 'as a reflection of the pure self' as it is expounded by his opponent Sankara is possible. Consequently, it is asked, how the reflection of intelligence is imagined to take place? Whether consciousness becomes reflection of ahankara or ahankara becomes reflection of consciousness? Neither of these is impossible to become a knower; in the former alternative, the quality of being a knower is not allowed to consciousness; and in the latter, consciousness being non-intelligent cannot reflect ahamkara, the sense of 'I' which forms self of jiva.


Twitter:@merrill_ab

Comments

  1. Jaya Jaya Shankara Hara Hara Shankara. This can be a part of academic discussion only unless there is a realisation as happened to Bhagwan Shri Ramana Maharishi when all theories dissolves into the Purshottam. In that state I object merges with the absolute I and only one I remains. The search is always on for "Who am I".
    Sarva Guruve namaha Sarva Gurubhyo namaha. Sarva Gurupadam Saranam. Only Guru can bless us for this realisation after which all theories also becomes irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Please tweet for any doubts or problems.

Popular posts from this blog

WATER

Let's analyse the functioning mind of a worldly occupied person and the mind of a Yogi. Let's discover some similarities if any or, how they differ from each other. Although, talking about "the mind" Yogi has no place or a stand because, for a yogi, the body and the mind are separated from the pure existing self. But this blog would be on how the mind functions and what are the extra locks or keys in Yogi's mind which makes a being so adorable and Priestley. A philosophical view to understanding the functioning of these two different sorts of mind is by taking the example of the river. The river in the monsoon season has a much higher volume of water which is flowing vigorously, that is compared to the mind of a worldly occupied person. There are so many thoughts flowing, that are not in control and are also changing very fast. Also when there are landslides the river gets muddy, and then this drinkable water cannot be used by us, nor can we offer it to someone.

SILENT MIND

What are we? Is our notion of self real? How does it come into existence? Is it the sum total of our experiences and awareness? Or is it a mere notion sustained by a few persistent memories, attachments and desires? Are we the sum total of a few selected thoughts and memories or all thoughts and memories? Are we sustained by a few aspects of our past or all our past? Do we come into existence by the association of these thought and memories, or do we exist without them? If we are a selection of thoughts and memories, what happens to us when we enter into deep sleep? Do we still exist then? Such were the questions the Upanishadic seers explored in ancient India several thousands of years ago to know the secrets of existence. In doing so they followed a very unique method to minimize the interference of the mind and transcend its limitations. They silenced their minds and allowed the higher knowledge to manifest itself in their consciousness. We can do it even today. There are two types

Dvaita vs Advaita

Dvaita and Advaita are two divergent schools of Vedanta philosophy in Hinduism which interpret reality and the relationship between Brahman, the Supreme Universal Self, and the rest of His manifestation differently in terms of duality and non duality respectively. According to the former (Dvaita) Brahman and His creation are existentially and fundamentally different and according to the latter (Advaita) the difference is only in our perception and understanding since all is Brahman only and nothing else. Putting it differently, the question these two schools try to resolve is whether the distinction between the subject and the object, or the knower and the known is permanent and real or a mere illusion arising from the limitations of the senses and of the mind. Standing in between these two in terms of a compromise is the third schools known as Visistadvaita, which acknowledges notional distinction, called bheda-abheda (different from not different). The questions that everyone may gra