How do you define reality?
Sankara defines it as something which is changeless and eternal.
Is asat, opposite of sat or
absence of sat? Sankara defines asat as absence of sat.
He also thinks that Sat can be of
three kinds – 1. When it is pure, changeless and eternal - paramarthika 2. With changes and impermanence – vyavaharika, (phenomenal) and 3. Real sometimes, not real sometimes
such as mistaking rope for a snake before you see the actual thing – called prathibhasika. The word Mithya is used to denote items 2 and 3.
How do various systems of Indian
philosophy deal with this?
Charavaka says: Universe is real.
Brahman is not. (since it is a concept and there is no direct proof)
Nyaya-Vaiseshika: Universe is
real; so is Brahman.
Samkhya says; Universe is unreal
(it is active only because of Purusha); Purusha (Brahman) is real.
Advaitham says: Brahman is real.
Universe is both real and unreal (mithya)
Dvaitham: Universe is real; so is
Brahman
Why did Adi Sankara bring in the
concept of mitya and ma̅ya? If you say that Brahman
created the cosmos, what did He use to create? If He used something other than
Himself, then you cannot say that all of this Universe came from One. If you
say He became the Universe, just as milk becomes curd (pariṇama va̅da), then the original has lost its originality. It
is not there anymore. Change is not the feature of the original, primordial.
This is why Ṣankara
suggested that this universe is mitya,
neither real nor unreal. It appears to be separate; but it is not. It is ma̅ya.
Buddhism says: Universe is unreal
and so is Brahman (Atman). They are misperceptions by our senses and the mind.
(Sunyatta)
All this means, no one knows for
sure. That is where humility has to come in, as was shown by our ancestors in
the Nasadiya Sukta of Rg Veda. I posted it on March 21, 2010. Here it is again.
It is the 129th hymn, in Chapter
10 of the Rg veda. It is attributed to Rishi Prajapathi, is about Parabrahman
and is in Anuhstup chandas, 4 lines of 11 syllables each. It is called Nasadiya
because it starts with the words: naasat
aasit no sad aasit which means “in
the beginning there was no asat
(opposite of sat, non-existent, un-manifest,
non-being), nor was there any sat,
being”. Here is my own translation of the Sukta with one word of caution. I am no scholar in either Sanskrit or Rg Veda.
“In the beginning there was no asat (non- existent, un-manifest, non-being),
nor was there any sat, being. Then,
there was no earth, no sky. In that state, who (what) was covering what? And
for what purpose? Was there deep water? (Sloka/Stanza1)
There was no death; no immortality either;
There was no means for finding out the difference between day and night. Not
moved by any wind, it was breathing by its own power. There was nothing else. (Sloka/Stanza
2)
Some say that there was darkness or there
was water enveloped in darkness. But, that all powerful Brahman covered by
Maaya came into manifestation by austerity and transformation from that one
Brahman. (Sloka/Stanza
3)
The seed of the mind of this, which first
came into existence, became desire (kaama)
(to create the world). Great minds have seen that this is the initial relation
between the sat (the manifest, the
being) and the asat, the unmanifest
Parabrahman. (Sloka/Stanza
4)
A ray fell transversely between them. If you
say It was below, It was also above. Some of these grew bigger pervading on one
side by Its own prowess and pervading everything on the other side. (Sloka/Stanza
5)
Who is there who can explain how the sat (the manifest) developed and from
whom? Who knows for sure? Even the gods came only after the sat came into being? Then, who is to
know from where it came? (Sloka/Stanza
6)
The adhyaksha
(the Primordial One) may know how the development of the Sat came about or did not come about.
Perhaps, even He may not know that!" (Sloka/Stanza
7)
No comments:
Post a Comment