2011

Hinduism Midterm Paper Essence Jones

[THE CENTRAL CONTRADICTION]

The World of Change and How Brahman Fits In

Sarvam khalvidam brahma. Brahman is everything. He is immutable, fixed. The whole of

Brahman is made up of the world and all that exists within it. Brahman is not contained by bounds. The world, however, changes. As Brahman cannot, how do Hindu philosophers accommodate the concept of an unchanging or unchangeable Brahman who is of a world that exists only through change? Two Hindu philosophers, Shankara and Vallabha, offer different explanations of how Brahman can exist in this realm without shifting. With each, we will find a varying view of reality and different implications accordingly. As Shankara attempts to explain one theory of unchanging Brahman, Vallabha counters his efforts with yet another explanation. The Upanishads describe Brahman as infinite, eternal, and irreducible. The Vedas propose that Brahman is the Absolute or Paramatman. In the Bhagavad Gita, Arjuna questioned Krishnu about Brahman, asking, What is Brahman? To which Krishnu replied, The Supreme Indestructible. As exemplified in these examples, the nature of Brahman is one of continual being. This is a resounding truth amongst Hindus. Brahman is a constant realization, a truth that never changes, a being that never ceases to be, and an unyielding force even. Another consensus among the philosophers would be that the world is the opposite of Brahman. The belief is that the world is changing, to its own demise, and that fact alone is a foil to the very essence of Brahman. Brahman is not an exclusive being. Brahman is not all that does not change and nothing of what does, simply because Brahman is everything. To make things clearer, we have a sky, and we understand that Brahman is that sky, the clouds of that sky, and all the products of that sky. However, the sky changes color, the clouds change formations, the weather varies. Does this mean that Brahman can no longer be the sky? Or that the sky is not truthfully Brahman? Or is Brahman the sky despite the fact it doesnt remain the same? Is it the sky that changes or our perception of it? All these questions influence the definition of Brahman and his composition as it relates to the changing world.

We are faced with a dilemma; either the world is not Brahman or Brahman is not everything. Shankaras solution was not to alter the inclusivity of Brahman or change the status of the world, but to redefine our personal perceptions of it. He proposed that there are three categories for things: Real, False, and Unreal. The real (Sat) consists of all unchanging things, which, subsequently, would be Brahman. The sat or transcendental level is one in which Brahman is the only and ultimate reality, as Brahman is forever the same. The False, mitya, is everything we experience, the self, the ego, the world. Brahman cannot be realized in this reality because our experiences, ourselves, and the world changes. The Unreal, asat, are things that cannot be experienced, comically put, the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. If Brahman can only be in the sat, what do we do? Everything we know is false, including the world. This implies that one resides in a realm in which Brahman cannot reside, and that places a distinction between our world, the creation, and Brahman, the Creator. How can we realize Brahman if we inhabit and experience a world that is false? Is Brahman ethereal, in that we assume he is in a realm that we cannot reach due to our falsehood? Shankara believes that it is not the world that changes but our perception of it. Brahman is the world, in its static state. Brahman is not, however, our perception of the world, which is dynamic. This places a strain on ones understanding of the world though. Firstly, Brahman is the world, but not as we perceive it. So to us, the real and static world that comprises Brahman is unreal, as we cannot experience it. Secondly, if the entire world is false or rather our perceptions of the entire world are an illusion, whats its value? To us it would have none and our focus would be to realize Brahman in the real world. If we must focus on realizing the real world in order to realize Brahman, we must abandon our false and illusory world. We must leave the false behind. That necessitates inaction in the form of a

monastic life, devoted to the realization of Brahman. To realize Brahman, you escape the falsehood, find a teacher, and meditate. Those are the only actions. What does that mean for the world and those within it? If everyone abandoned the false and attempted to attain Brahman, there would be disorder. No doctors to heal, teachers to teach, or babies to populate the world. Shankaras proposition of Brahman in the changing world is one lacking an outlook on practicality. Social justice and morality would be forever gone but then again, would they be necessary in a world where we only meditated? Criticisms of Shankara raised questions like: Is everything we sense false or an illusion? How can my experience be false? Can my falsehood be someone elses reality? How do you judge gurus? Wouldnt the world be chaotic if everyone renounced it? What is the nature of illusion? These are legitimate questions, however, Shankara did not answer them. We have a rather opposite response from Vallabha, whose perspective is simpler and makes manifest the position of Brahman in this changing world. Vallabha clarifies this contradiction by stating that everything, even the world in its impermanence, is Brahman. Whereas Shankara proposes that our senses and what they perceive are false, Vallabha says that they too are Brahman. He believes that with each of these senses Brahman can be sensed and experienced. The issue of realizing Brahman and knowing you have realized it are erased. You no longer need to find, judge, and devote yourself to the teachings a guru at the sake of your life. Your path to realizing Brahman, lies in your personal devotion to God. Vallabha is easier to understand. There is no false reality, no illusions. What you see, feel, touch, or experience are and should be Brahman. To Vallabha, Brahman is omnipresent, infinite, and static. He is sat, chit, and ananda. However, part of Brahman is concealed. The sat can be seen and experience but the chit and ananda are not made manifest in the world. In that, Brahman is not contained, restricted, or manifested solely in the realm we can sense. Brahman is beyond our senses perception while at the

same time being sensible to us. The argument that our perceptions of the world change does not apply here. In fact, our perceptions are just as real as Brahman. The fact that parts of Brahman are manifest and others are concealed explains why we cannot grasp how Brahman can be the world but not change. If the whole of the world is Brahman, but not all of Brahman is the world, we can see a similarity to the Purusha-Supta. Where the world can do as it will and not cause a change in the matter or substance or realization of Brahman. Vallabha and Shankara are both attempting to fit Brahman into a schematic of change. With two different approaches to the problem, they have produced two different responses. It is apparent that Vallabhas attempt to clarify the issue has completely covered the issue by declaring that Brahman is everything. His response had no drawbacks or negative implications. Shankaras complicated response was filled with negative societal consequences that were resultant of his plot to separate Brahman from the world.