Afrer introducing jiva and ishvara chaitanyam, we started to understand how shAstra communicates the oneness of two opposite principles of jiva and ishvara.
We went onto understanding the meaning of the word 'sathyam' in the general wordly way, and then understood in previous post, how vedanta, lends a special meaning to the word sathyam, and sathyam in vedanta, refers to absolute, non negatable, limitless truth.
ShAstra says chaitanyam is this absolute anatham sathyam, or limitless truth, and saying so, we wanted to understand, if chaitanyam is sathyam, then what about the manifold universe of names and forms.
That is where we introduced the word mithya, and said mithya refers to, a degree of reality, that is neither altogether false ( like horn of a hare, that does not even exist for any functional utility), nor as true as sathyam of vedanta, which is a word that can ONLY be used for the non dual cause of the universe, which is ishvara, and ishvara being chaitanyam, means the word sathyam can only be used for chaitanyam.
The question can be, if ishvara is chaitanyam, and he has become this world, why do we even need a new word mithya. Since by definition, it appears sathyam chaitanya became sathyam universe.
This is where we need to add discuss in more detail about the nature of sathyam.
What is the nature of clay in a clay pot, or gold in a bracelet. From the golds point of view, has it become anything other than gold? From golds point of view, there is gold ALONE, it has not undergone any change whatsoever to become a bracelet, it remains GOLD as it is.
Thus if we are to say, if ishvara chaitanyam, were satyam, then ishvara chaitayam, never ever should have desired or created this world out of himself ( as claimed by upanisad), since creation, means change. ShAstra says tad AkAshaH sambhootaH, akAshAt vayuH, vayoh tejaH, etc.
Which means from chaitanyam, came space, from space came air, from air fire, from fire water, from water earth.This means change in name and form.
However if we are to look at chaitanyam as 'sathyam' ( like gold of a bracelet), gold never has any name and form of itself, other than being just gold. Gold does not BECOME the bracelet from its OWN point of view, but the bracelet will say ' I am gold'. Same bracelet if you melt and make it a bangle, bangle will also say ' I am bangle', but if you ask gold, gold will say, well I was , am and will be ONLY gold .
So it appears shastra is contradicting itself. It says chaitanyam is changeless satyam. It also says from chaitanyam universe arose and resolves back into chaitanyam that makes it appear as though chaitanyam undergoes change.
Well shAstra solves this problem, by saying, in truth, or as far as absolute truth is concerned, chaitanyam, never became many, never underwent change, never took up the role of creator, preserver or destroyer, never created the world out of itself, but is was and will simply remain as it is, as chaitanyam.
The ishvartvam, ishvaraness, of chaitanyam, which we call as ishvara chaitanyam, is in fact an incidental FORM or attribute to chaitanyam, like a bracelet is form of gold. So chaitanyam becoming the universe, being the cause for the universe, this causal status is mithya. a dependant reality.
Hence ishvaratvam, or ishvara chaitanyam, is in fact mithya. Same applies to jiva chaitanyam also, jivaness is also mithya.
We went onto understanding the meaning of the word 'sathyam' in the general wordly way, and then understood in previous post, how vedanta, lends a special meaning to the word sathyam, and sathyam in vedanta, refers to absolute, non negatable, limitless truth.
ShAstra says chaitanyam is this absolute anatham sathyam, or limitless truth, and saying so, we wanted to understand, if chaitanyam is sathyam, then what about the manifold universe of names and forms.
That is where we introduced the word mithya, and said mithya refers to, a degree of reality, that is neither altogether false ( like horn of a hare, that does not even exist for any functional utility), nor as true as sathyam of vedanta, which is a word that can ONLY be used for the non dual cause of the universe, which is ishvara, and ishvara being chaitanyam, means the word sathyam can only be used for chaitanyam.
The question can be, if ishvara is chaitanyam, and he has become this world, why do we even need a new word mithya. Since by definition, it appears sathyam chaitanya became sathyam universe.
This is where we need to add discuss in more detail about the nature of sathyam.
What is the nature of clay in a clay pot, or gold in a bracelet. From the golds point of view, has it become anything other than gold? From golds point of view, there is gold ALONE, it has not undergone any change whatsoever to become a bracelet, it remains GOLD as it is.
Thus if we are to say, if ishvara chaitanyam, were satyam, then ishvara chaitayam, never ever should have desired or created this world out of himself ( as claimed by upanisad), since creation, means change. ShAstra says tad AkAshaH sambhootaH, akAshAt vayuH, vayoh tejaH, etc.
Which means from chaitanyam, came space, from space came air, from air fire, from fire water, from water earth.This means change in name and form.
However if we are to look at chaitanyam as 'sathyam' ( like gold of a bracelet), gold never has any name and form of itself, other than being just gold. Gold does not BECOME the bracelet from its OWN point of view, but the bracelet will say ' I am gold'. Same bracelet if you melt and make it a bangle, bangle will also say ' I am bangle', but if you ask gold, gold will say, well I was , am and will be ONLY gold .
So it appears shastra is contradicting itself. It says chaitanyam is changeless satyam. It also says from chaitanyam universe arose and resolves back into chaitanyam that makes it appear as though chaitanyam undergoes change.
Well shAstra solves this problem, by saying, in truth, or as far as absolute truth is concerned, chaitanyam, never became many, never underwent change, never took up the role of creator, preserver or destroyer, never created the world out of itself, but is was and will simply remain as it is, as chaitanyam.
The ishvartvam, ishvaraness, of chaitanyam, which we call as ishvara chaitanyam, is in fact an incidental FORM or attribute to chaitanyam, like a bracelet is form of gold. So chaitanyam becoming the universe, being the cause for the universe, this causal status is mithya. a dependant reality.
Hence ishvaratvam, or ishvara chaitanyam, is in fact mithya. Same applies to jiva chaitanyam also, jivaness is also mithya.
No comments:
Post a Comment