The Quest for Knowledge
We want to know. We ask questions. Then we take a long journey in search for the answers.The quest for knowledge begins…
The Labels
As we advance, exploring and mapping the unknown, we label the things we find.We label anything and everything already known.Of course we label the labels too. In modernphilosophythese labels are called “terms”. Bereft of the “solid ground” of the experimental science, philosophy isfacingits own difficulties while advancing and mapping its new territories. The abstract nature of philosophy has provided unique challenges in regardto the terms it introduces. Throughout history many big, big debates havearisen over what certainterms designate. Some of these debates seem to have been blessed with immortality.
A new term was introduced into Western philosophy in the fifteenth century by Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464)
The “Absolute”
The root comes from the Latin absolutus, the perfect or the completed (derived from the verbum absolvere, to detach, to free, to acquit).The absolute is the ultimate, underlying and all-inclusive reality that depends upon nothing else for its existence. All other things depend upon it. The absolute is substance as it is, rather than as we perceive it.Thus we can't really know conceptually and logically what the Absolute is, because the Absolute by its very nature transcends the mind and the mental concepts.
While inthe West it took quite a while for the word Absolute to make its way intocommon vocabulary, in the East, particularly in the Vedic traditionthe term has alwaysbeenaround. In Sanskritit’s called Brahman. There are yet otherrelated Sanskritterms which will be introduced shortly.
The Absolute in the Vedas
The Vedas, particularly Vedanta Sutra and the Upanishads deal exclusively and extensively with Brahman.
Paradox
But howcould the Vedaspossibly describe Brahman? After all, the Absolute is inaccessible to designation. The Vedas are full of qualitative descriptions, but Brahman is, without qualities. Obviously, a metaphor based on similar qualities cannot apply in the case of something that has no qualities. Brahman is beyond all causes and effects. Having no connection with any manifest existence, subtle or gross, the Absolute cannot be expressed by either a meaning derived etymologically, orby a metaphor, since both require some relationship of Brahman to other entities.
At this point, before we can continue any further we need to look closer at the definition of Brahman in the texts of the Vedas.
The Three Aspects of the Absolute
“Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual substance Brahman, ParamatmaorBhagavan.”(BhagavataPurana 1.2.11)
Vaishnava Vedanta Purport
The Absolute Truth is both subject and object, and there is no qualitative difference there. Therefore, Brahman, Paramatmaand Bhagavan are qualitatively one and the same. The same substance is realized as impersonal Brahman by the students of the Upanishads, as localized Paramatmaby the yogis, and as Bhagavan by the Vaishnavadevotees. In other words, Bhagavan, or the Personality of Godhead, is the last word of the Absolute Truth. Paramatmais the partial representation of the Personality of Godhead, and impersonal Brahman is the glowing effulgence of the Personality of Godhead, as the sun rays are to the sun-god. Less intelligent students of either of the above schools sometimes argue in favor of their own respective realization, but those who are perfect seers of the Absolute Truth know well that the above three features of the one Absolute Truth are different perspective views seen from different angles of vision.
The Supreme Truth is self-sufficient, cognizant and free from the illusion of relativity. In the relative world the knower is different from the known, but in the Absolute Truth both the knower and the known are one and the same thing. In the relative world the knower is the living spirit or superior energy, whereas the known is inert matter or inferior energy. Therefore, there is a duality of inferior and superior energy, whereas in the absolute realm both the knower and the known are of the same superior energy. There are three kinds of energies of the supreme energetic. There is no difference between the energy and energetic, but there is a difference of quality of energies. The absolute realm and the living entities are of the same superior energy, but the material world is inferior energy. The living being in contact with the inferior energy is illusioned, thinking he belongs to the inferior energy. Therefore there is the sense of relativity in the material world. In the Absolute there is no such sense of difference between the knower and the known, and therefore everything there is absolute.
Solving the Paradox
Now that we have introduced the key Sanskrit terms from the Vedas, concerning the Absolute, we have sufficient vocabulary to proceed with our analysis of the paradox, in accordance with the GaudiaVaishnava philosophy. IsBrahmanreally indescribable by words?IfBhagavan had not created the intelligence, mind and senses, then sound and the other objects of perception would all be just as indescribable as Brahman. We would have been blind and deaf since birth, and would know nothing about physical forms and sounds, what to speak of the Absolute. So, just as Bhagavan has given us all faculties of perception for experiencing and describing to others the sensations of sight, sound and so forth, He may also give someone the receptive capacity to realize Brahman. He may, if He chooses, create some extraordinary way for words to function - apart from their ordinary references to material substances, qualities, categories and actions - that will enable them to express the Supreme Truth. He is, after all, the almighty Bhagavan, and He can easily make the indescribable describable.
And yet there are different Vedic schools rejecting one another’s understanding of the Vedic texts. Specifically, the definition of the Absolute, is the core of anexistential question of immenseimportance; a question which has triggered numerous debates among the Western philosophers as well as in the circles of the Vedic pundits; a question expressing our deepest doubts about our very nature.We just arrived at the very epicenter of what has been an epic dilemmasince time immemorial for those among the mortals who dared to ask for immortality.
Is the Absolute Personal or Impersonal?
In accordance with the Vedic tradition the answer should be searched in the Vedas.
There is a school which considersbrahmanto be impersonal.Analyzing the Vedas, they apply a logical approach, known as gaunavrittiorlaksana-vritti. This is the Advaitaschool of thought.
The school which describesbrahmanas personal,applies a different logical approach known as mukhyavrittior abidha.This is the Vaishnava school. It has several branches. The main areDvaita, Vishishtadvaita, Dvaitādvaita, Shuddhadvaita and AchintyaBhedābheda. The last in the list is the technical term for the GaudiaVaishnava philosophy.
Both schools base their conclusionson the same Vedic scriptures, namely Vedanta Sutra, the Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita and for the Vaishnava school, additionally -BhagavataPurana.Nevertheless, toreach different conclusions after applying different logical systems of interpretation is not very surprising.
Direct and Indirect Meaning
The different ways a word refers to its meaning are distinguished as mukhya-vritti, lakshana-vritti and gauna-vritti. The sabda-vritti termed mukhya is the primary, literal meaning of a word; this is also known as abhidha, a word's "denotation," or dictionary meaning. Mukhya-vritti is further divided into two subcategories, namely rudhi and yoga. A primary meaning is called rudhi when it is based on conventional usage, and yoga when it is derived from another word's meaning by regular etymological rules. For example, the word go ("cow") is an example of rudhi, since its relation with its literal meaning is purely conventional. The denotation of the word pacaka ("chef"), on the other hand, is a yoga-vritti, through the word's derivation from the root pac ("to cook") by addition of the agent suffix -ka.
Beside its mukhya-vritti, or primary meaning, a word can also be used in a secondary, metaphorical sense. This usage is calledlakshana. The rule is that a word should not be understood metaphorically if its mukhya-vritti makes sense in the given context; only after the mukhya-vrittifails to convey a word's meaning may lakshana-vrittibe justifiably presumed. The function of lakshana is technically explained in the kavya-sastras as an extended reference, pointing to something in some way related to the object of the literal meaning. Thus, the phrase gangayamghoshah literally means "the cowherd village in the Ganges." But that idea is absurd, so here gangayam should rather be understood by its lakshana to mean "on the bank of the Ganges," the bank being something related to the river.Gauna-vritti is a special kind of lakshana, where the meaning is extended to some idea of similarity. For example, in the statement simhodevadattah ("Devadatta is a lion"), heroic Devadatta is metaphorically called a lion because of his lionlike qualities. In contrast, the example of the general kind of lakshana, namely gangayamghoshah, involves a relationship not of similarity but of location.
The Arguments
The authority of the Vedas is unchallengeable and stands without any question of doubt. Whatever is stated in the Vedas must be accepted completely; otherwise one challenges the authority of the Vedas.The Vedic injunctions are self-authorized, and if some mundane creature adjusts the interpretations of the Vedas, he defies their authority. Here the indirect interpretation (lakshana-vritti) serves no purpose. There are four kinds of understanding, called: (1) direct perception (pratyaksha), (2) hypothetical understanding and reasoning (anumana), (3) historical understanding (aitihya) and (4) understanding through sound (sabda). Of these four, understanding from the Vedic scriptures (which are the sound representations of the Absolute Truth) is the best method. The traditional Vedic students accept understanding through sound to be the best. Thus theGaudiaVaishnavasprotest against misinterpretations of the Upanishads, and reject any explanation which do not give the direct meaning of the Upanishads.They are simply not Vedic. The Vedic statements of the Upanishads are like sunlight. Everything is clear and very distinct when it is seen in the sunlight; the statements of the Vedas are similarly clear and distinct. The philosophers, attached to their own doctrine are trying to expound it through the codes of Vedanta-sutra, with the means of laksana-vritti,but they simply cover the sunlight with the cloud of misinterpretation.
The Choice
In the light of the above presentation, now we can revise the formulation of the question:Is the Absolute Personal or Impersonal?
As it was already demonstrated, fromthe GaudiaVaishnava standpoint the question actuallyis: Am I going to interact with the personal aspect of the Absolute, Bhagavan, or am I going to focus on His effulgence, the impersonalBrahman?
Once the mind rises to the conceptof the Absolute, this is a personal choice nobody can avoid.
The GaudiaVaishnavaPhilosophy in Nutshell
1. The Vedic literature is the only source of knowledge about the Absolute Truth.
2. Hari (Krishna), the Almighty, is the Supreme Lord.
3. Krishna is always invested with infinite powers.
4. Krishna is the ocean of rasa(mellows of love).
5. The soul is Krishna’s separated part.
6. Certain souls are engrossed by Krishna’s illusory energy (Maya).
7. Certain souls are released from Krishna’s illusory energy.
8. All spiritual and material phenomena are simultaneously one with and different from Krishna.
9. Pure devotional service is the only means for attaining the final objective of life.
10. Pure love of Godhead is the final objective of life.
Epilog
The GaudiaVaishnava philosophy is an interpretation of the ultimate reality as being itself personal in character and of such a kind as to allow for the dependent reality of finite persons. Personality is constituted by unity of self-consciousness, and every being who is conscious of its identity, a lasting I, existing in itself and knowing of itself, is a person. Although, because of the flowing nature of his consciousness, man may doubt his own personality, the “true identity” of the subject, it is not possible to doubt the personality of God once we have ascribed conscious identity to him. If we do not want to relinquish everything conceivable, we must perforce acknowledge that “the highest intelligence” also possesses the “highest degree of personality”. It is therefore not true that man’s personality is ascertainable while God’s is not, that God is less personal than man. The opposite is the case.The GaudiaVaishnava Philosophy defends the status and the moral freedom of the individual, the moral values of the ordered community of persons, and the personality and transcendence of the Absolute or the God, according to the preferred terminology.Our experience as persons – our experience of personality in ourselves, as freedom, emotions, intelligence, and will – is indicative of God’s personality. If God’s personality is denied, the result will be that man will elevate his own personality to the position of God and worship himself. Man’s grounding of himself in himself alone is nothingness or self-deification, the ‘conceit of omnipotence’. In a putative religion of secular people who make themselves God, everyone has a divinized nature and no longer needs to turn toward the real God. They are gods and goddesses who can worship themselves as they like, until they die.
The End
No comments:
Post a Comment