Difference between God & God’s power (the process of generation of world from God is unimaginable)
Difference between God & God’s power (the process of generation of world from God is unimaginable)
When God is wonderful, we can call the power of God also as wonderful and thus the first sense of Maya (the power of God) can also stand for the power of God. In such case, there is no need of the second meaning of Maya which means that the power of God does not exist at all. The sun is like God and the sunlight or solar energy is like the power of God. Both exist separately and we can say that the power cannot be isolated from the source. Since, the power cannot be isolated from God, the modification of the power or the world cannot be also isolated from God. Therefore, Ramanuja said that God and world couldn’t be separated like the property (Dharma or Visheshana) and the substratum (Dharmi or Visheshya). The problem of changes in the world effecting God is answered by Shankara through the power of God being modified into world instead of God directly. In such case the power of God is the material cause and not the God.
Since the power cannot be isolated from God, we can treat God to be the material cause indirectly. In such case the significance of the power becomes more than God and this leads to the evolution of the cult of Shakteya, which says that God is just a rubber stamp like the president in India. The power of God is the real material cause through direct modification and is also the real designer also since the power is also awareness (Jnana Shakti), according to Shakteya philosophy. This means that we can do away with God completely and if at all we give a place for God, it is only on the simple consideration that the power needs a source. This leads the suppression of Vedanta, which gives complete importance to God.
At this point, Shankara told that the power cannot exist without source and cannot be isolated from God in any way. That single point cannot give the absolute and complete importance to God. The second meaning of Maya is applied in this sense only i.e., the power does not exist by itself without God. A child could not have been born without parents but all the subsequent greatness of the child cannot be attributed to parents based on this single point. Without Hiranyakashipu (father of Prahlada), Prahlada could not be produced. Based on this single point you cannot say that all the credit of the devotion of Prahlada should go to his father. For this reason only i.e., to give importance to God, Ramanuja and Madhva treated this power or material as inert and the power or the material is only the material cause but not the designer.
Even then at least the power or material gets half importance. If you want to give complete importance to God only, there is only one way i.e., to say that the power does not exist at all. The second meaning of Maya is now applied to the power in its full sense. In such case, all the above objections come into picture (direct modification of God, changes in the world effecting God etc.) since God is the direct material cause. All these objections can be simply ruled out by one stroke i.e., the unimaginable God creates the world in unimaginable way. This point is already indicated by Shankara by the word “Anirvachaniyata Khyati” which means that the process of generation of world from God is unimaginable.
This is the absolute truth and Shankara knows this very well. This point can be supported by simple argument i.e., there cannot be two unimaginable items like God and His power. When you say that you do not know what is present in a locked room, will anybody ask you “Whether one unknown item is present or two unknown items are present in the room?”. When what is present is unknown, how can you say that it is one or two or several? In such case why Shankara did not say this straightly through out His theory? The reason is a practical point.
When God is wonderful, we can call the power of God also as wonderful and thus the first sense of Maya (the power of God) can also stand for the power of God. In such case, there is no need of the second meaning of Maya which means that the power of God does not exist at all. The sun is like God and the sunlight or solar energy is like the power of God. Both exist separately and we can say that the power cannot be isolated from the source. Since, the power cannot be isolated from God, the modification of the power or the world cannot be also isolated from God. Therefore, Ramanuja said that God and world couldn’t be separated like the property (Dharma or Visheshana) and the substratum (Dharmi or Visheshya). The problem of changes in the world effecting God is answered by Shankara through the power of God being modified into world instead of God directly. In such case the power of God is the material cause and not the God.
Since the power cannot be isolated from God, we can treat God to be the material cause indirectly. In such case the significance of the power becomes more than God and this leads to the evolution of the cult of Shakteya, which says that God is just a rubber stamp like the president in India. The power of God is the real material cause through direct modification and is also the real designer also since the power is also awareness (Jnana Shakti), according to Shakteya philosophy. This means that we can do away with God completely and if at all we give a place for God, it is only on the simple consideration that the power needs a source. This leads the suppression of Vedanta, which gives complete importance to God.
At this point, Shankara told that the power cannot exist without source and cannot be isolated from God in any way. That single point cannot give the absolute and complete importance to God. The second meaning of Maya is applied in this sense only i.e., the power does not exist by itself without God. A child could not have been born without parents but all the subsequent greatness of the child cannot be attributed to parents based on this single point. Without Hiranyakashipu (father of Prahlada), Prahlada could not be produced. Based on this single point you cannot say that all the credit of the devotion of Prahlada should go to his father. For this reason only i.e., to give importance to God, Ramanuja and Madhva treated this power or material as inert and the power or the material is only the material cause but not the designer.
Even then at least the power or material gets half importance. If you want to give complete importance to God only, there is only one way i.e., to say that the power does not exist at all. The second meaning of Maya is now applied to the power in its full sense. In such case, all the above objections come into picture (direct modification of God, changes in the world effecting God etc.) since God is the direct material cause. All these objections can be simply ruled out by one stroke i.e., the unimaginable God creates the world in unimaginable way. This point is already indicated by Shankara by the word “Anirvachaniyata Khyati” which means that the process of generation of world from God is unimaginable.
This is the absolute truth and Shankara knows this very well. This point can be supported by simple argument i.e., there cannot be two unimaginable items like God and His power. When you say that you do not know what is present in a locked room, will anybody ask you “Whether one unknown item is present or two unknown items are present in the room?”. When what is present is unknown, how can you say that it is one or two or several? In such case why Shankara did not say this straightly through out His theory? The reason is a practical point.
Comments
Post a Comment