Every system of Vedanta has to
confront the foundational problem of the relationship between Brahman and the material world. The
world, with its phenomenal diversity and inherent imperfection appears to stand
in stark contrast to the pure, complete and unsullied character of Brahman. How can that which is
infinitely sacred and complete be associated with the finitude and profanity of
the material world? The subject of the relationship between Brahman and the world constitutes a
critical topic in the realm of Vedanta and the issues and questions that it
engenders have been addressed divergently by different schools of Vedantic
thought. My intention in the following few paragraphs is to explore the answers
offered by the traditional schools to this important and foundational question.
Is it, for example, the case that the world is inseparably connected to Brahman thereby potentially implicating
the latter in the evils inherent in the former? Or is there, instead, an
unbridgeable gulf between the world and the absolute reality, which then, of
course, begs the question as to whether this strident dualism injures the
declared integrity and unity of Brahman.
My intention here is to
provide a very brief summary of the various schools without engaging in any
critical analysis. An attempt at a critique of the various schools will be made
subsequently. Each of the views offered in the following sections receive some
support from scripture; indeed, each of the major theologians of the various
schools have sought to uphold their own causation theories on the basis of the Prasthantrayi (the three fundamental
texts on which Vedanta is based, i.e. the Upanisads,
the Brahma-Sutra and the Bhagavad Gita). However, it is my view
and that of many reputable scholars, that despite the elegance with which the
theory is propounded, the Vivartavada
of Adi Sankara constitutions an egregious misrepresentation of the foundational
scriptural texts and can therefore not be accepted as being in strict
conformity with scripture. This does not, in any way however, detract from its
significance as a philosophical account.
What follows, then, are very
basic summaries of the positions of four Vedantic schools on the question of
the relationship between Brahman and the world. My summaries are essentially
personal embellishments of notes extracted from the following sources: 1) The
Roots of Vedanta, Selections from Sankara’s Writings, S. Rangaswami; 2) Advaita
and Visisitadvaita, A study based on Vedanta Desika’s Satadusani, S.M.S. Chari;
3) The Philosophy and Religion of Sri Caitanya, O.B.L. Kapoor; 4) Philosophical
Foundation of Bengal Vaisnavism, S.C. Chakravarti.
Advaita Vedanta
 |
| Adi Sankara with his disciples |
According to Advaita Vedanta, the
world constitutes an illusory appearance that emanates from Brahman. Notwithstanding its empirical
reality, the world is ultimately unreal. The theory of material causality of Brahman, it is argued, supports the view
of the universe as unreal. Like other Vedanta systems, the Advaitins interpret
the Upanisads as putting forth the view of Brahman
as both the material cause (upadana
karana) and instrumental cause (nimmita
karana) of the universe. This material causality of Brahman, however, would only be intelligible, the Advaitin argues,
if the universe is regarded as illusory. Let us explore this argument in
greater detail.
The doctrine of the
immutability of Brahman seems to
permeate many of the scriptural texts. To say that Brahman is immutable is simply to suggest that it does not and
cannot undergo any transformation. The doctrine of the immutability of Brahman, then, seems to problematize the
Brahmaparinamavada (the doctrine of
the transformation of Brahman) of
Yadava Prakasa, which entails the proposition that Brahman itself transforms into the universe just, as a lump of clay
undergoes transformation into the pot. Such a view is both rightly and widely
regarded as being incompatible with basic Upanisadic philosophy. The pantheism
that the doctrine entails injures the unity and immutability of Brahman and degrades its purity by
imposing on it or associating with it the phenomenality of the world along with
its attendant problems, miseries and evils.
According to the Advaitins,
the vivartavada theory of causation (according
to which the world (the effect) is an illusory transformation of Brahman (the cause)) constitutes the
only effective means by which to reconcile the scriptural texts that uphold, on
the one hand, the immutable nature of Brahman,
while accepting, on the other, its role as the material cause of the universe.
The vivartavada theory of causation
postulates the world-appearance as the product of Brahman’s transformation. However, this transformation does not
affect the immutability of Brahman
since the effect or the world appearance is just that, an appearance and hence
illusory and not strictly real. And yet, since the world-appearance has Brahman as its substrate or locus, the
latter can be regarded as the material cause of the former.
By way of elucidation, the
analogy of the rope appearing as the snake is provided. The rope does not transform itself into the
snake. On the contrary, it only appears as a snake due to ajnana or ignorance.
The rope is regarded as the cause of the appearance of the snake in so far as
it is the basis or substrate of the illusory snake. In the same way, Brahman, which is the basis or substrate
of the world appearance, is said to be the material cause of this universe.
Such a view accounts for the material causality of Brahman in conformity with the Upanisads, without at the same time
contradicting the scriptural text referring to the immutable nature of the
universe.
Visistadvaita Vedanta
 |
| Sri Ramanujacharya |
The Visistadvaitins, like the
Sankarites, accept Brahman as both
the material cause (upadana karana)
and instrumental cause (nimitta karana)
of the universe. However, in contrast to the latter school, they do not regard
the world as constituting an illusory transformation of Brahman. Nor do they accept the Brahmanparinamavada
variant offered by Yadava Prakasa, which in their view injects into Brahman the ills and evils of the
universe, thereby compromising, unacceptably, the former’s pristine and
immutable character.
The material cause of the
universe, according to the Visistadvaitins, is Brahman associated with cit
(spirit) and acit (matter) in their
subtle form (suksma
cid-acid-visista-Brahma). Treating Brahman
as the material cause of the universe does not affect the former’s immutability
since what actually transforms, according to this view, is acit or matter which constitutes but a mode or attribute of Brahman. As the basis of acit, Brahman remains unaffected by the change.
However, the question may be
raised that if Brahman as qualified
by cit and acit be the material cause of the universe, causality would pertain
to the latter and Brahman could not
therefore consistently or coherently be regarded as the world’s material cause.
The Visistadvaitins respond by arguing that, notwithstanding the fact that
causality proper pertains strictly only to cit
and acit, Brahman can still be regarded as the material cause of the world in
so far as it is the basis of that which undergoes change (vikara-sraya). While acit
or matter is the substrate of change directly, Brahman is the substrate of it only indirectly, that is through
matter.
In other words, though the
transformation belongs to matter (which is held to constitute the body or sarira of Brahman), it is nonetheless still possible and accurate to say that
Brahman transforms in as much as it
is the adhara or basis of matter. On
such a view, given Brahman’s indirect
relation to the substance that undergoes transformation, the creation of the
universe does not entail any corresponding change in Brahman and thereby preserves its immutability.
By way of illustration, the
analogy of a boy growing into a youth and a youth attaining manhood is given.
The analogy indicates that the changes entailed by the transition in states
such as youth, manhood, etc, pertain only to the body, while the self, which
constitutes the basis or adhara of
the body, is in no way affected by said changes. Nevertheless in such usage as
the boy grows into a youth, the terms youth etc, are used to include the self
as the latter is the basis of the body. The Visisitadvaitins argue that the
causality of Brahman should be
understood in the same sense, the different states involving changes do belong
to Brahman and yet the immutable
character of Brahman remains
unaffected.
Dvaita Vedanta
Madhva’s theory of the constitution
of matter and the evolution of the world is based on the Samkhya metaphysics of the Upansidas, the Epics and the Puranas.
Madhva accepts the doctrine of the evolution of matter (prakriti).
 |
| Sri Madhvacharya |
Madhva has stoutly opposed the
attempts of other commentators on the Vedanta who have denied a place to prakriti as the material stuff out of
which the universe is evolved by Brahman
in the philosophy of the Vedanta. He argues for prakriti as the insentient, dependent material principle, which is
the material cause (upadana karana)
of the world.
Caitanya Vaishnavism
The Caitanya School of Vedanta
follows rival schools of Vedanta (except that of Madhva’s) in accepting Brahman as both the material and the
instrumental cause of the world. The Caitanya Vedantins postulate a peculiar
form of parinamavada wherein what is
transformed is not the substance, but some power of the same or some phenomenon
that the latter produces. Since according to this theory the substance or root
cause remains unaffected (avikrta)
inspite of the real transformation of its power, it is called avikrta parinamavada (the theory of
immutable transformation). Of course, the acceptance of a real transformation
distinguishes this view from the Sankarite
system, which postulates a theory of illusory modification (vivartavada).
 |
| Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu |
Central to the Caitanya School
is the concept of sakti or energy.
According to the tradition, Brahman
(or more accurately Bhagavan)
is intrinsically spiritual and exercises his spiritual power in three forms,
known as svarup sakti, jiva sakti and maya sakti. Unique to the Caitanya School is its articulation of maya’s position vis-à-vis Brahman.
The tradition regards maya not
as an intrinsic power (antaranga sakti)
of the Absolute but as an external power (bahiranga
sakti), which has no direct contact with the essentially spiritual nature
of the deity.
Nonetheless, maya, being a sakti (power/energy) of Bhagavan,
stands in the relation of inconceivable difference in non-difference (acintya bhedabheda) to Bhagavan who not only supports it but
also transcends it. The world is not a direct transformation (parinama) of Bhagavan or Brahman, but
it is regarded as such, in as much as it is a real modification of the maya-sakti, which is non-different from Bhagavan. The spiritual unity of Brahman however suffers no
transformation through the transformation of the bahiranga sakti or external power into the material world of
phenomenal diversity. The world is thus an effect of Brahman who is its material and efficient cause through his
external power, called maya, but
whose transcendental nature is never affected by that power or is modification.
This view of causation is
generally known by the name avikrtaparinamavada
since it recognizes the real modification (parinama)
of maya, while maintaining the integrity of Brahman
uninjured and unaffected. The Caitanya School of Vaishnavism regard the effect
as both identical with and different from the cause and at the same time
confess the inconceivability of such a relation. The view of causation as held
by this school has also been described as acintyaparinamavada
or the theory of inconceivable modification implying thereby that it is a
mystery how the cause which is non-different from its sakti remains unaffected when the latter is actually transformed
into the effect. If the world be a transformation of Bhagavan through his maya
(which being his own sakti, is non
different from him), it is really inconceivable how Bhagavan escapes transformation when his sakti undergoes it.
The School’s theologians cite
the illustration of cintamani, a
fabulous gem, which by virtue of the unthinkable power inherent in it produces
various objects without undergoing any change in its own nature. It is held by
such thinkers that since Bhagavan is
the repository of all inscrutable power and all contradictions merge in him,
there should be no doubt about the transformation of the immutable Bhagavan into the world.
