The Nature of the Universe and the Doctrine of Causation: Systems of Vedanta Compared

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)[1] 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.

---

[1] Brahman and Bhagavan constitute different manifestations of the one non-dual reality. Bhagavan is Brahman replete with form, energy and attributes. Brahman’s undifferentiated nature appears on account of it not possessing the aforementioned characteristics; it is, in other words, a substance without its attributes or a subject without its predicates. Notwithstanding the terminological difference, I will use the terms interchangeably here.