Posts Tagged ‘Surya’

Darshan (Philosophy) XX

Sunday, June 20th, 2010

Shad Darshan – Vedanta philosophies (contd.):

Swaminarayan philosophy – Brahm

Brahm, Akshar, or Aksharbrahm: Part II

As we have seen previously, in the scriptures, Brahm is described as the overall cause of countless brahmands or multiverse. Purushottam Vāsudev Narayan (God), who in the form of Brahm, is the Final or Ultimate cause of the creation, sustenance, and dissolution of countless brahmands. In this manner, Hinduism is crystal clear about the creation and the cause and the source of the creation. In Hinduism, Brahm and Parabrahm are two separate entities, as mentioned in the following verse of Bhagwad Gita. “Sarva yonishu, Kaunteya, murtayaha sambhavanti yāha | Tāsām Brahm mahad yonir, aham bij-pradaha pitā ||” (Bhagwad Gita: 14.4) Meaning, “Of all the pathways or sources of creation or origin, in which all forms of bodies appear, O, son of Kunti, the major source of creation or origin (mahad yonir) is Brahm in which I am (aham – means Parabrahm Purushottam) the seed-provider father – pitā. (The word “bij-pradaha,” means, by providing akshar-muktas (liberated souls) in the form of Purush or Mahapurush as the seed.)” This also suggests that, just as Brahm is different than Parabrahm Purushottam. Purushottam (God or Bhagwan) is different than Purush or Mahapurush.

The characteristics or qualities of Brahm described in the scriptures are almost similar to the qualities described for Parabrahm confusing the scholars. But if one tries to see minutely there is a big difference between Brahm – the penultimate element and Parabrahm – the ultimate Supreme element. First and foremost, Brahm is mentioned, in the scriptures, as the sharir or body of Parabrahm – the shariri or the essence. Without the essence body cannot function. Thus Parabrahm is the life and soul of Brahm. Brahm is subordinate and dependent to Parabrahm for all his activities. Brahm is mentioned as the overall support and overall cause of the whole creation. In the scriptures Brahm is never mentioned as the support, source, or cause of Parabrahm. Brahm works or functions according to the will of Parabrahm. Parabrahm is independent and supreme in all manners. Parabrahm, if He wishes, can stand and sustain on His own supporting the whole creation and countless muktas (liberated souls) without taking the support of Brahm. Brahm is transcendental to everything else but not to Parabrahm. Parabrahm is the Supreme Being. Parabrahm Purushottam is the master of all – Brahm, ishwar, jiv, maya, and everything that is evolved from maya. One can and should make a union with Brahm to attain Parabrahm but no one can be reached to the level of Parabrahm – physically, spiritually, or potentially. Parabrahm is immune to any comparison, impervious to any realities and unparalleled to any being.

Two qualities of Aksharbrahm

In the scriptures two specific qualities of Aksharbrahm are discussed. They are: Anvay quality and Vyatirek quality. Certain characteristics of Brahm can be explained only by these two qualities. The anvay and vyatirek qualities of Aksharbrahm can be explained by taking the example of Akash (space). Just as an ordinary space is penetrating everything, it is also separate from everything. Space is everywhere, it is as vast as the universe at the same time it is as subtle as to penetrate even an atom. Brahm is subtler than even the ordinary space.

Anvay means close association or relation. This quality is because of the subtleness and all-pervasive (vyāpak) or penetrating power of Aksharbrahm. According to his anvay quality, Brahm seems to be closely associated or mixed with maya and the effects (kārya) of maya, such as, infinite numbers of brahmands.  Brahm is the inspirer (prerak) of Prakruti-Purush and all devatas like Surya, Chandra, etc. for all of their activities and functions including creation, sustenance, and destruction. This can be explained on the base of the anvay quality of Brahm. To be effective or inspirer, two entities have to be related. If both entities are not related to each other, they cannot be effective on each other.

Vyatirek means separate, distinct, or different. Even though Brahm is all-pervasive because of his subtleness and penetrating power, he is separate and distinct from everything else. This vyatirek form Brahm is known as his divine Sachchidanand form. In this divine Sachchidanand form, he is present personally in the service of God as the humble servant. As the abode of God he is holding and supporting the whole multiverse of infinite numbers of brahmands. In his vyatirek form, Brahm is transcendental to everything else, including Maya and Prakruti-Purush and the whole creation evolved from them, except Purushottam Narayan (God).

Darshan (Philosophy) IX

Wednesday, June 9th, 2010

Shad Darshan – Vedanta philosophies (contd.):

Dvaita philosophy (contd.)

Shuddha Dvait philosophy of Madhavacharya (contd.):

Madhavacharya categorizes unreleased or non-liberated souls into three more or less fixed categories (intrinsic or inherent gradation called “jiva-traividhya”) depending upon their knowledge, power, and bliss. They are: Mukti-yogya (qualified for liberation), Nitya-sansāri (not qualified for the liberation and forever remain in the cycle of rebirth), and Tamo-yogya (condemned to Hell and never get liberated). The idea was to explain plurality of souls and the co-existence of good and evil living entities in the world. Madhavacharya describes the same kinds of intrinsic differences among the liberated souls also, namely, devas (sarva-prakāsh), rishis (antah-prakāsh), and naras (bahir-prakāsh). This kind of ideology (swarup-tāratamya) was unique and not fully supported by the basic Vedic Hindu philosophy of Prasthan Trayi.

It was different than the special titles assigned to some souls by Ramanujacharya, and was not accepted by traditional Hindu philosophers. All souls deserve salvation or liberation limited to their knowledge, behavior, and efforts. Another understanding of Dvaita philosophy which did not get wide acceptance in the mainstream Hinduism was ill-defined or poorly understood “Tāratamya” or “devatā-tārātamya”, meaning, hierarchy among subordinate or minor gods (devatās). According to Madhavacharya’s philosophy, as it is in Ramanujacharya’s philosophy, Vishnu is considered as the Supreme God and Laxmi (the female deity) as His eternal consort. Vishnu is considered as the cause of all Avatars or incarnations of God. Thus, Vaishnavism is also continued in Madhavacharya’s philosophy. In Madhavacharya’s philosophy, Vishnu and Laxmi are placed at the higher level than the level of Brahmā, Shiv, and Vayu god but, with that, other demigods, such as, Surya, Chandra, Indra, Varun, etc. were also placed at different hierarchically lower levels. This was also less acceptable for the Hinduism of that period. According to Madhavacharya all souls, although ontologically identical, are different in potential. Demigods or devas are not of God category so they are of jiv category but according to devata-taratamya they are of different hierarchical levels – higher than ordinary souls of all living beings. One important concept introduced by Madhavacharya was, to maintain the supremacy of God and to maintain the hierarchy; Vishnu was paced at the highest level being completely divine having no worldly body. Vishnu as Shri Hari is considered as sarvottama (the Supreme Being). Laxmi was placed at just a little lower level categorizing her as akshar (imperishable) having indestructible (aprākrut) body as against the mundane (prākrut) bodies of other entities like Brahmā, demigods or devas, and jivas that are destructible or kshar (perishable). This was the indirect or unintentional beginning of separation of Akshar, the penultimate element from God, the ultimate element, but no one could realize it at that time.

Basically, except some minor differences, Madhavacharya accepts the basic understanding of Vaishnava philosophy of Ramanujacharya and also stresses more on Bhakti (devotion) or worshiping. The followers of Ramanujacharya worship Vishnu as Narayan, Sriman Narayan, or Shri Lakshmi-Narayan (it is a one word used for Narayan Himself only, with Lakshmi residing in His heart), whereas the followers of Madhavacharya worship Vishnu as Krishna, Bāla-Gopāla (young Krishna), Bāl-Gopāl-Krishna, Venugopala Krishna or Radha-Krishna (it is also a one word used for Krishna Himself only, with Radha residing in His heart). Until Madhavacharya’s period God was worshiped alone. Shiv, Vishnu, Pārvati (Devi), and Lakshmi were worshiped by themselves alone. Madhavacharya started worshiping Krishna alone and later on worshiping Krishna with his choicest bhakta Arjun was started. Initially, during the Madhavacharya’s period conjugal love (premlakshanā bhakti) in worshiping Krishna with Radha was not fully developed, it was added later on and by the time of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu it had reached to a higher level. Thus, Vishnu’s worship as a young innocent Krishna was turned into fully Krishna’s worship with Radha by a devotee showing an utmost love that only spouse can show towards her partner by Chaitanya’s period.

In Madhavacharya’s period Karmis (those who believe more in Karmas), Gnānis (those who just believe more in tattva-gnan or just philosophy), and Māyāvādis (those who believed in impersonal God) were all freely respected along with truly devotees who as well believe in utmost devotion (bhakti). In Hinduism, devotion (bhakti) is always placed higher than the philosophical knowledge only. Knowing philosophy only without having the devotion attached to it has no value. Also merely blind devotion without knowing whom one worships is also of no value. Hinduism believes in both, the philosophical knowledge of the Truth and the utmost devotion (bhakti) to the Supreme God. Madhavacharya’s period also marks the beginning of worshiping Krishna (the latest and greatest form or incarnation of Purushottam – God) as the principal object of worship from worshiping Vishnu (Narayan) as the principal object of worship in Ramanujacharya’s period.

Madhavacharya maintains that Brahm referred to God (Vishnu) by saying “Brahmashabdashcha vaishnaveva”, thus identifying Brahm with God. That period was unifying Brahm with God or unifying Shaivism with Vaishnavism or rather tending towards replacing Brahm with God. One can see that in the story of Lord “Ananteshwara.” Lord Vishnu, during the period of incarnation as Parashurāma, stayed and enshrined in the Shivalinga and being known as Ananteshwara. The place is known as Shivarupya or Shivalli (Udupi). Although Madhavacharya’s philosophy (Dvaita) was strongly against or exactly opposite of Shankaracharya’s philosophy (Advaita), he himself worshiped Shivalinga as Vishnu in the form of Ananteshwara. Also he respected or rather highly regarded Brāhmins irrespective of their worship to Lord Shiva or Lord Vishnu. At the same time, Madhavacharya goes one step further in separating Vishnu from other deities, establishing further the monotheistic nature of Hinduism. According to him Vishnu is the Supreme God and the primary object of worship, whereas, other deities are subordinate to him. Thus, he translates Hinduism from polytheism to monotheism and adds one more distinction between deities (Devas) or so-called demigods and God proper reestablishing or revitalizing the supremacy of God. The important contribution of Dvaita philosophy of Madhavacharya to Hinduism is that Atma and Brahm (also known as Vishnu or God) are eternally and ontologically two different realities, one is subordinate to the supreme other, respectively – a big and daring separation, at that time, from the Advaita philosophy of Shankaracharya and still maintain unity between Shaivism and Vaishnavism. This is the beauty of Hinduism. Brahm and Parabrahm (God) were still considered a one and the same reality in that period. Brahm was tried to be concealed away by promoting Parabrahm (God). In essence, according to Dvaita philosophy of Madhavacharya, there exist three clear-cut fundamental eternal realities, soul, Nature (universe), and God quite distinct from each other and not the part and parcel (ansh-anshi) of each other. The distinction between God and Brahm was still left-off for the future. Both were used synonymously.