Read Aloud the Text Content

This audio was created by Woord's Text to Speech service by content creators from all around the world.

Text Content or SSML code:

advaitins cannot be. Therefore, the advaitin needs to separate jiva from Brahman. Beginningless Brahman cannot become jiva unless there is an adjunct and any adjunct must have a beginning. Since, an originated adjunct is involved in jiva, and un-originated Brahman cannot become Himself a jiva without adjunct, jiva must have a beginning. If Sankara still argues that jiva has no beginning because texts speak of its eternality, then he has to accept that Brahman has been eternally in the form of jivas. It implies that it is only the universe which undergoes the process of creation, sustenance and destruction. This position appears similar to the Samkhya philosophy and, therefore, it cannot be acceptable for Advaitins. Also, it is illogical to say that there exists an un-originated soul which has as its ingredient an originated adjunct, namely, intellect. Thus, one must accept that jiva must have a beginning. The other view, namely, that jiva and srsti are anadi because the beginning of the first creation is not known due to innumerable past cycles of creation, is also not convincing. For, the Upanisads clearly describe the details of the first creation. It is stated in the Chandogya Upanisad that in the beginning, before creation, there was only Existence, one without a second. This statement implies that there was at least one instant, namely, before creation, when Brahman existed as It was without any qualities such as the merit and demerit of the jivas. Another statement, namely, ‘It thought why can’t I be many and created-,’ shows that there was a state of Brahman without creation and then creation began with akasa, etc. Thus, even according to the Upanisads, creation must have had a beginning. It follows from this that jiva, whose coming into existence depends on the created antahkarana, must also have a beginning. The advaitin’s argument for anaditva of creation and jiva is thus proved to stand on flimsy grounds. . . Partless Non-dual Brahman and Partial Creation According to Sankara, at the time of first creation Brahman had transformed partly into the universe. 0 For he says, ‘The Upanisads prove both the facts for Brahman –the non-transformation of Brahman as a whole and partlessness’ . But, this position of Sankara is fallible. For, if Brahman is one, non-dual and partless and It wished to become many, then It must have transformed Itself completely into this universe. Against the arguments for a total transformation of Brahman in creation, Sankara contends: ‘Do not bring those things within the range of argumentation which are beyond thought. The nature of a thing beyond thought consists in its being other than the thing within Nature.’ But while Sankara thus criticizes the other philosophical systems for rationalizing the existence of metaphysical entities, he conveniently ignores his own prohibitive injunction and brings all metaphysical concepts into the fold of reasoning. If any philosophical stand is irrational then one should reject the same. Sankara claims that all the other systems maintain irrational philosophical positions, and so, he rejects them all. Similarly Sankara’s own philosophical position, namely, ‘partless Brahman gets partly transformed into universe’ is also irrational and therefore, should be rejected outright. 0 Just because Sankara states that is possible for Brahman to have partial transformation while being partless, one need not accept it. For it is an open contradiction. If an advaitin insists on the power of Brahman to have partial transformation, then, he should accept the fact that Brahman is not partless. To say both that Brahman has partial transformation and is also partless is, again, a blatant contradiction. . . . Entry of Untransformed Brahman into the Bodies If an advaitin says that Brahman had completely transformed Itself into the world, then nothing would remain of It and hence Its entering into the cavities of the hearts of living beings as jiva would be rendered impossible. With this, all the identity formulae such as, ‘I am Brahman’ would also become absurd. Alternatively, if it is contended by the advaitin that only one part of Brahman got transformed into the world and that remaining part, in its entirety, became the jivas, he can yet be questioned. For, this position as such implies that the whole creation stands divided into two basic categories, namely, (i) World; and (ii) Consciousness in the body (jiva). This categorization appears similar to the well-known dualism of Kapila in his Samkhyasutra. However, to be in the same group with Kapila must be anathema to the advaitin. For, a major portion of Vedantasutra devotes itself to refuting Samkhya view by making Samkhya philosophy as the prime wrestler (pradhana malla). The above arguments have proved that Sankara’s faith in the partial transformation of partless Brahman is unreasonable and, therefore, to be rejected. There will not arise any question regarding the untransformed Brahman after creation, because, such a view is nonsensical and impossible. Further, since the concept of jiva in Advaita Vedanta is based on such an impossible untransformed Brahman, one can reject the same. . . Brahmacaitanya is Not the Source of Jivacaitanya. In Advaita Vedanta, jiva, could be understood in two ways: (i) Nonfunctional; and (ii) Functional. As non-functional, jiva is defined as Consciousness conditioned by avidya (Avidya avacchinnacaitanyam jivah). As the functional, jiva is defined as Consciousness conditioned by the antahkarana (Antahkarana avacchinnacaitanayam jivah). One can understand from the advaitin’s definitions of jiva as non-functional and functional that there are three principles in it: (i) Caitanya, (ii) Avidya and (iii) Antahkarana. Advaitins believe that Jivacaitanya is identical with Brahmacaitanya. For, in the process of creation Brahmacaitanya directly enters into the bodies as Jivacaitanya. The advaitin’s view that Brahmacaitanya is the source of Jivacaitanya can be criticized as follows. . . . Thinking Capability and Caitanya: An Argument Consciousness (caitanya) in Advaita Vedanta needs to be understood from two perspectives: (i) Jivacaitanya; and (ii) Brahmacaitanya. Competency for thinking is very essential for Consciousness in Advaita Vedanta. For, as the pure Brahman, Consciousness cannot create the universe and become many without thinking. As jiva, Consciousness cannot enjoy jivatva without thinking. The argument here is: Since, according to Sankara, Jivacaitanya and Brahmacaitanya are identical; their thinking modalities should also be the same. If there is any difference between the thinking capabilities of Jivacaitanya and Brahmacaitanya, then jiva and Brahman cannot be identical. Further, if the difference in the thinking capabilities of jiva and Brahman can be established, then it will strengthen my later argument (referred to in the section: Is the Direct Presence of Brahman Necessary to Make a Human-body Conscious?) that the conscious antahkarana obviates the necessity of Brahman’s entering into the bodies to make them conscious. Let us now examine whether the thinking capabilities of jiva and Brahman are the same. The thinking potentiality of jiva is proved by the fact that it is revealed in one’s personal experience. The Upanisads also speak about it. The non-functional Jivacaitanya (Prajna) can be identified with the state of deep sleep (susupti), whereas the functional state of the same is identified with the states of waking (jagrat) and dream (svapna). It is said in Advaita Vedanta that susupti is the cause and the functional states are the effects. As pure Jivacaitanya, jiva cannot think or act in his non-functional state (susupti). This state is defined as Consciousness conditioned by avidya. When avidya gives rise to its effect, that is, the antahkarana, jiva starts thinking and acting. This shows that jiva in its pure state, being devoid of the antahkarana cannot think or act. Avidya in susupti is said to conceal the real nature of Jivacaitanya and in the functional state, it not only conceals the real nature of Jivacaitanya but also projects the false multitude to the jiva. Now, let us examine the thinking potentiality of Brahmacaitanya in order to see whether it is identical with that of Jivacaitanya. As in the case of jiva, there are two states of Brahmacaitanya: (i) Brahmacaitanya after pralaya or before creation; and (ii) Brahmacaitanya at the time of creation. The first state is a state of non-function and the second a state