The world is regarded as maya in the Advaita System. The worldly objects undergo change and therefore are not real. Brahman alone is real. Samkara says: ' What is eternal cannot have a begining, and whatever has a begining is not eternal.' What is the relationship between the Brahman and the world? He is of the opinion that the question itself is not legitimate and therefore impossible to answer. When one has realized the absolute Bhahman the question of relation of Brahman to the worldly objects does no more remain valid. Even logically, if Brahman alone exists, the question of relating Brahman to the world does not arise. A relation can be established only when two distincts exists, but the Advaita says nothing exists in the world except the Brahman. Explaining this Dr. S. Radhakrishnan says: ' Brahman and the world are non-different, so the question of the relation between the two is an admissible one. The world has its basis in Brahman. But the Brahman is and is not identical with the world. It is, because the world is not apart from Brahman; it is not because Brahman is not subject to mutations of the world.' The mind perceives the world as reality, but as soon as the reality of the Brahman is realized the world fades away
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samkara holds that it is impossible to logically explain the relation between Brahman and the world. He examines different views and finds that all are unsatisfactory. To hold that infinite Brahman is the cause of the finite world and creates it, amounts to accepting that the infinite is subject to limitations of time. Cause and effect imply succession. If we say that Brahman is the cause and the world is the effect, it will tantamount to acceptance of two identities namely Brahman and the world. Moreover, how can the infinite unconditioned be the cause of the finite world? How can we ascribe action to the infinite? For him both are identical and it is a case of eternal co-existence in temporal sense. ' The effect is the manifested world begining with akasa; the cause is the highest Brahman. With this cause, in the sense of the highest reality, the effect is identical, having no existence beyond it. (Samkara Bhasya on Brahma Sutra, ii.1.14) The world seems to be so because of lack of insight.
Samkara does not hold the view that Brahman, either in whole or in part, changes into the world. If the whole changes, the Brahman is before our eyes and therefore there is nothing to seek. If it is the part only, then being capable of partition, it is not eternal. Scriptures hold that the Brahman is devoid of parts. When either partially or totally it changes into the world, it becomes a different substance and therefore no longer independent. The absolute cannot be relative.
Samkara says that there are two types of causality. One is vivartopadana where the cause without undergoing any change produces effect. The other is parinamopadana where the cause itself is transformed in producing the effect. Vivarta means perversion. He brings out that the phenomenal world is the translation of the absolute Brahman at the plane of time and space. Silver appears to be present in the shell, though in fact it is not. Integrity of the the cause is not disturbed in this illustration. In the same manner the Brahman appears as the world of mutiplicity though it remains unchanged.
Any effort to connect the Brahman with the phenomenal world is bound to end in failure. No system could logically establish the connection between the two. Samkara says: ' To show how and why the universe is, so that finite existence belongs to it, is utterly impossible. That would imply understanding of the whole not practicable for a mere part.' Maya, thus, points out a gap in our knowledge. .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samkara holds that it is impossible to logically explain the relation between Brahman and the world. He examines different views and finds that all are unsatisfactory. To hold that infinite Brahman is the cause of the finite world and creates it, amounts to accepting that the infinite is subject to limitations of time. Cause and effect imply succession. If we say that Brahman is the cause and the world is the effect, it will tantamount to acceptance of two identities namely Brahman and the world. Moreover, how can the infinite unconditioned be the cause of the finite world? How can we ascribe action to the infinite? For him both are identical and it is a case of eternal co-existence in temporal sense. ' The effect is the manifested world begining with akasa; the cause is the highest Brahman. With this cause, in the sense of the highest reality, the effect is identical, having no existence beyond it. (Samkara Bhasya on Brahma Sutra, ii.1.14) The world seems to be so because of lack of insight.
Samkara does not hold the view that Brahman, either in whole or in part, changes into the world. If the whole changes, the Brahman is before our eyes and therefore there is nothing to seek. If it is the part only, then being capable of partition, it is not eternal. Scriptures hold that the Brahman is devoid of parts. When either partially or totally it changes into the world, it becomes a different substance and therefore no longer independent. The absolute cannot be relative.
Samkara says that there are two types of causality. One is vivartopadana where the cause without undergoing any change produces effect. The other is parinamopadana where the cause itself is transformed in producing the effect. Vivarta means perversion. He brings out that the phenomenal world is the translation of the absolute Brahman at the plane of time and space. Silver appears to be present in the shell, though in fact it is not. Integrity of the the cause is not disturbed in this illustration. In the same manner the Brahman appears as the world of mutiplicity though it remains unchanged.
Any effort to connect the Brahman with the phenomenal world is bound to end in failure. No system could logically establish the connection between the two. Samkara says: ' To show how and why the universe is, so that finite existence belongs to it, is utterly impossible. That would imply understanding of the whole not practicable for a mere part.' Maya, thus, points out a gap in our knowledge. .
கருத்துகள் இல்லை:
கருத்துரையிடுக