|
iis’varaPanchadas’i
- 6.157—iis’vara is the aabhaasa
or semblance of Brahman in maayaa
which is prakr.ti constituted of pure sattva. He controls maayaa
and is the antaryaamii or Inner Controller of all beings. He is omniscient and
is the cause of the universe. According
to the reflection theory iis’vara
is the bimba and the jiiva
is His reflection or pratibimba
in maayaa. In both the theories God is omniscient. There is no
obstruction to his knowledge by nescience, because of the absence of the
veil in the form of gross and subtle bodies (Samkshepa s’aariirakam
2.176). Br.up.3.7—antaryaami
braahmaNam—iis’vara as the antaryaamii
controls all beings from within. B.S.1.2.20.S.B—In
Br.up. 3.7 the Inner Controller is distinguished from the embodied soul.
But this distinction is based on the limiting adjunct in the form of the
body and organs, conjured up by nescience; the distinction is not real.
The indwelling Self can be only one, not two. The one Self is spoken of
as two because of the limiting adjuncts, like the space inside a pot
being looked upon as different from the total space. All the statements
in the Vedas about the difference between the knower and the known,
doership and enjoyership, as well as all injunctions and prohibitions
are based on this standpoint. The text “Because when there is duality,
as it were, then one sees another, etc “ (Br.up.2.4.14) shows that all
dealings are only in the state of ignorance, while the text “But when
to the knower of Brahman everything has become the Self, what (other
thing) can he see and through what (sense-organ)” denies all such
activity after the rise of Self-knowledge. Br.up.3.8.12---
When Brahman has as the limiting adjunct the power of eternal and
infinite knowledge (maayaa) it
is called iis’vara or antaryaamii. B.S.1.1.20.S.B—God
may take various forms at His will through His power of maayaa to bless devotees. B.S.2.1.34,35.S.B—No
partiality or cruelty can be attributed to God because of the inequality
found in creation. The difference is due to the merits or demerits of
individuals, acquired as a result of actions in past births. God is
comparable to rain. While rain is the common cause of the sprouting of
all seeds sown, the nature of the sprout depends on the seed. Similarly,
while God is the common cause of all creation, the nature of a
particular individual’s life depends on the seed he has sown in the
form of actions in past births. God cannot therefore be considered
responsible for the inequalities in the world. Creation is without any
beginning and so there is no such thing as the first birth of a
particular individual for which it could be said that there would be no
cause in the form of past karma. B.S.2.3.46.S.B—God
does not undergo suffering as the jiiva
does, because He has no identification with the body. Even the jiiva will become free from all suffering when he gives up
identification with the two bodies and realizes that
he is the pure Self, untouched by anything that happens to the body or
mind. It is further pointed out here that while a reflection of the sun
in a vessel of water may shake when the water shakes, the sun itself is
not at all affected, so also God is not affected, though the individual
soul may be, by what happens to the limiting adjuncts. B.S.3.2.38,39.S.B—The
fruits of all actions are given by God. The fruit cannot emerge out of apuurva,
the unseen potency, which, being insentient, cannot act unless
stimulated by some conscious agent. This suutra
refutes the view of the Miimaamsakas that karma itself gives the result
through apuurva and it is not necessary to postulate a God for the purpose. B.S.2.1.14.S.B--- sarvajnasya iis’varasya aatmabhuute---------- Name and form which constitute the seeds of the entire phenomenal existence and which are the products of nescience are non-different from the omniscient God and cannot be classified either as real or as unreal. They are described in the Vedas and the Smr.tis as the power of God, called maayaa. Like space being apparently limited by a pot, etc, God appears limited by the limiting adjuncts in the form of name and form, which are created by nescience. And within the domain of empirical existence God rules over the selves which identify themselves with the individual minds and which are, in essence, identical with God. Thus God’s rulership, omniscience and omnipotence are based on the limiting adjuncts conjured up by nescience; but in reality such terms as ‘ruler’, ‘ruled’, ‘omniscience’, etc, are not applicable when speaking of the Self, shining in its own pure nature, after the cessation of the limiting adjuncts as a result of right knowledge. Therefore all the upanishads declare the cessation of all empirical dealings in the state of the Highest Reality. It is with reference to this unconditioned Brahman that the Lord says in B.G. 5.14 and 15:-- “Neither agency nor action does the Lord create for the world, nor does he bring about the union with the fruit of action. It is nature or maayaa that does all that. The omnipresent Lord does not take note of the merit and demerit of anyone. Knowledge is covered by ignorance and so all beings become deluded”. It is seen from this that in the state of the Highest Reality all transactions like those between the ruler and the ruled, etc, cease to exist. But within the state of phenomenal existence, even the s’ruti speaks of divine rulership, etc, as in Br.up. 4.4.22:-- “He is the Lord of all. He is the ruler of all beings. He is the protector of all. He is the embankment that serves as the boundary to keep the different worlds apart”. (Thus the difference between the standpoints from which the unconditioned Brahman, on the one hand, and the conditioned Brahman or God, on the other, are spoken of is brought out here). Contents
|