follow the instructions
Edwingary
PhilosophicalApproachestotheUltimate.pptxPhilosophy of Ultimates: The Existence and Nature of God
Phil 105, Ben Birkenstock
Authority
- a sources we trust to guide our beliefs about the world
For example:
Family/community
Personal experience (same as above)
Experts (like a family you come to trust because of skill not (just) proximity)
Reason
Reason is not opposed to authority; reason IS an authority.
John Wesley (1703-91) ennumerated a group of 4 authorities for faith:
Scripture,
Tradition
Reason
Experience (observation)
1. Scripture
Moves from the experience of God in history to producing texts in various genres
Area of authority - grand narrative of how God is reconciling all things through Christ. A narrative that needs to be told, revealed, in order to be aware of it
2. Tradition
A community, a type of expertise and of reasoning, practices and interpretations handed down through time, and way of experiencing
Area of authority: depends. Very influential, often without being noticed
3. Reason
Best practices for learning across disciplines, and the content gained from these practices
area of authority - very wide; engineering to history to philosophy
4. Experience
What is it: “sum total of one’s perspective of how things feel on the inside,”
something we cannot get outside of, it ‘is’ us in a sense
Area of Authority: Not Reliable/broad, but very often experience is a catalyst for change in our approach to other authorities
Authorities/sources of belief can be fallible; the place our authorities are wrong is located most accutely ‘in’ us.
Aquinas’ Five Ways
of Arguing for God’s Existence
Important concepts: Potentiality (Potency) and Actuality (Act)
Actuality: the way something is.
Potentiality: the way something could be. no potential can become actual without an actuality that actualizes it
e.g. you cannot be holding your pen (potential) without the action of your fingers (actualizer), your body cannot survive (potential) without your lungs (actualizer), etc.
The 1st & 2nd Ways:
The Unmoved Mover
Observation: An order of change, and of motion (cause & effect)
Best explanation: A first cause that is uncaused, an ultimate (unchanging) source of change, an unmoved mover
Let’s see some examples…
Every thing or event is actualized by something else
That ‘something else’ must itself be actual.
In this way, we could go on to infinity for every event in the world, but that would not explain why anything was an actuality, a reality, in the first place.
So, we conclude that there is a source of actuality that does not need to be actualized by anything else; it is “pure actuality.”
The 3rd Way: Possible & Necessary Existence
Observation: Things exist, but they don’t have to exist. They could have not existed.
Explanation: A source of things exists, that DOES have to exist, whose very nature is existence, i.e. a self-existing existence.
Most of what we observe is contingent, that is, everything has the possibility not to exist
(all things come and go, even planets, stars, universes, your car keys, your boyfriend, etc.).
Everything we observe therefore at some point did not exist
Therefore, it is possible that nothing ever existed
If so, nothing would ever have caused anything else to exist.
So their must be an absolute existence, something that exists un-contingently, that has to exist, a necessary being, that is the source of its own necessity.
Could the universe have existed/moved forever?
There is no such thing as pure energy or matter that exists by itself independent of things or forms
It is true that matter/energy do not simply appear/disappear or stop moving randomly.
However, since they only exist in concrete things and transactions whose existence are contingent and temporary, they are not “eternal” or “necessary” beings per se
Rather, their motion and existence in finite forms stills depends upon an uncaused, unmoved source
The 4th Way: Participation in Perfection
Observation: Grades of perfection or excellence in beings
Explanation: A perfect being, a source of all highest excellence.
Existing things display transcendental perfections - goodness of will, truth of mind - to varying degrees.
Since things are not absolutely good, true, or beautiful, they cannot be the source of these excellences.
If I had the full reality of goodness inside me, i would not be able to move from less good to great, I would already be completely great.
So, goodness must come from outside of individual being, in a source that possesses full goodness in its nature.
The 5th Way: Final Causality
Observation: Non-intelligent things act for the sake of ends
Explanation: Supreme Intelligence of purpose in non-intelligent things/agents.
The predictable outcomes and reactions which non-conscious things generate have no mind or intelligent order within themselves to direct them.
Therefore, the regularity of the effects generated by non-conscious things points toward ends or goals towards which all things move.
Thus, we can infer the existence of a supreme intelligence that is the source of the orderly ends or goals towards which all things move.
If this source was not intelligent--that is, rational--we would not expect things to behave consistently towards observable outcomes,
E.g. particles and planets travel in a predictable direction, plants grow, balls roll, etc.
Dao & Sophia: The humility of God in the ziran of Laozi
And
the personalism of Maximos & Bulgakov
The idea of Dao (道 - way, path, teaching) emerged in warring states China (400’s - 200’s BCE)
Heaven (天) was supposed to throw down rulers who did not care for their people
People were asking, why has Heaven (天) allowed so many chaotic and evil rulers?
Many teachers, such as Confucius, tried to find the way (dao) to bring peace to the world through ethical rituals, politics, and logical arguments.
However, Laozi and Zhuangzi realized that peacefulness was often found not in action and self-cultivation, but in stillness and, in carefree, low positions:
Bowed down then preserved; / Bent then straight; / Hollow then full; / Worn then new; / A little then benefited; / A lot then perplexed. / Therefore Sages embrace the One and are a model for the empire. / Do not show themselves, and so are conspicuous; /
Do not consider themselves right, and so are illustrious; / Do not brag, and so have
merit; / Do not boast, and so endure. / It is because they do not contend that no one in
the empire is in a position to contend with them. / The way the ancients had it, ‘Bowed down then preserved,’ is no empty saying. / Truly it enables one to be
preserved to the end.
(Daodejing Chapter 22)
曲則全，枉則直，窪則盈，弊則新，少則得，多則惑。是以聖人抱一為天下式。不自見，故明；不自是，故彰；不自伐，故有功；不自矜，故長。夫唯不爭，故天下莫能與之爭。古之所謂曲則全者，豈虛言哉！誠全而歸之
What does this have to do with dao as Ultimate?
The reason Laozi believes that being low is better than being high is because reality does not know human distinction
so “high” positions are artificial, fake
humility is closer to reality！
When the people of the Earth all know beauty as beauty, / There arises (the recognition of) ugliness.... Difficult and easy complement each other...High and low set measure to each other...Back and front follow each other /…Therefore, the Sage...denies nothing to the teeming things. / He rears them, but lays no claim to them. / He accomplishes his task,
but does not dwell upon it. / And yet it is just because he does not dwell on it / That nobody can ever take it away from him.
天下皆知美之為美，斯惡已。皆知善之為善，斯不善已。故有無相生，難易相成，長短相較，高下相傾，音聲相和，前後相隨。是以聖人處無為之事，行不言之教；萬物作焉而不辭，生而不有。為而不恃，功成而弗居。夫唯弗居，是以不去。（道德經 地二章）
If humility effectively avoids destruction,* the source of reality must be unselfish and spontaneous (自然）
Cycles of life confirm this:
all things return to weakness, stillness, and non-existence.
So there is a pattern and a source that guides all reality through weakness, not strength
人之生也柔弱，其死也堅強。萬物草木之生也柔脆，其死也枯槁。故堅強者死之徒，柔弱者生之徒。是以兵強則不勝，木強則共。強大處下，柔弱處上。
揣而銳之，不可長保。金玉滿堂，莫之能守；富貴而驕，自遺其咎。功遂身退天之道。
When man is born, he is tender and weak; / At death, he is hard and stiff. / When the things and plants are alive, they are soft and supple; / When they are dead, they are brittle and dry. / Therefore hardness and stiffness are the companions of death, / And softness and gentleness are the companions of life. / Therefore when an army is headstrong, it will lose in a battle./ When a tree is hard, it will be cut down. / The big and strong belong underneath. / The gentle and weak belong at the top. (DDJ Ch. 76)
Keep on beating and sharpening a sword, / And the edge cannot be preserved for long. / Fill your house with gold and jade, / And it can no longer be guarded. / Set store by riches and honour, / And you will only reap a crop of calamities. / Here is the Way of Heaven: / When you have done your work, retire! (DDJ Ch. 9) *(See also characteristic #5 below)
大道汎兮，其可左右。萬物恃之而生而不辭，功成不名有。衣養萬物而不為主，常無欲，可名於小；萬物歸焉，而不為主，可名為大。以其終不自為大,故能成其大。
This means the nature of reality is spontaneous (自然)；it has no desire for honour or recognition
The Great [D]ao is universal like a flood. / How can it be turned to the right or to the left? / All creatures depend on it, / And it denies nothing to anyone. / It does its work, But it makes no claims for itself. / Constantly without desire, It clothes and feeds all, / But it does not lord it over them: / Thus, it may be called "the Little." / All things return to it as to their home, / But it does not lord it over them: / Thus, it may be called "the Great." / It is just because it does not wish to be great / That its greatness is
fully realised. (DDJ Ch. 34)
“There was Something undefined and yet complete in itself, / Born before Heaven-and-Earth. / Silent and boundless, / Standing alone without change, / Yet pervading all without fail, /It may be regarded as the Mother of the world. / I do not know its name; / I style it ‘Tao’” / And, in the absence of a better word, call it "The Great." / To be great is to go on, / To go on is to be far, / To be far is to return. / Hence, "Tao is great, / Heaven is great, / Earth is great, / King is great." / Thus, the king is one of the great four in the Universe. / Man follows the ways of the Earth. /
The Earth follows the ways of Heaven, / Heaven follows the ways of Tao, / Tao follows [spontenaity].
有物混成，先天地生。寂兮寥兮，獨立不改，周行而不殆，可以為天下母。吾不知其名，字之曰道，強為之名曰大。大曰逝，逝曰遠，遠曰反。故道大，天大，地大，王亦大。域中有四大，而王居其一焉。人法地，地法天，天法道，道法自然。 （道德经 第25章）
This means that Dao is benevolent, but not like people;
it is benevolent because violence and selfishness are forced, not natural
provision and equity are spontaneous
天之道，其猶張弓與？高者抑之，下者舉之；有餘者損之，不足者補之。天之道，損有餘而補不足。人之道，則不然，損不足以奉有餘。孰能有餘以奉天下，唯有道者。是以聖人為而不恃，功成而不處，其不欲見賢。
信言不美，美言不信。善者不辯，辯者不善。知者不博，博者不知。聖人不積，既以為人己愈有，既以與人己愈多。天之道，利而不害；聖人之道，為而不爭。
The Tao (way) of Heaven, / Is it not like the bending of a bow? / The top comes down and the bottom-end goes up...It is the way of Heaven to take away from those that have too much / And give to those that have not enough. / Not so with man's way: / He takes from those that have not / And gives it as tribute to those that have too much. / Who can have enough and to spare to give to the entire world? / Only the man of Tao. / Therefore the Sage acts, but does not possess, / Accomplishes but lays claim to no credit, / Because he has no wish to seem superior. (DDJ Ch. 77)
True words are not fine-sounding; / Fine-sounding words are not true. /A good man does not argue; / he who argues is not a good man....The Sage does not accumulate (for himself). / He lives for other people, / And grows richer himself; / He gives to other people, / And has greater abundance. / The Tao of Heaven / Blesses, but does not harm. / The Way of the Sage / Accomplishes, but does not contend. (DDJ Ch. 81)
So we can learn to 知足; to know contentment and accept the end of our success:
天下有道，卻走馬以糞。天下無道，戎馬生於郊。禍莫大於不知足；咎莫大於欲得。故知足之足，常足矣。
When the Dao prevails in the world, they send back their swift horses to (draw) the dung- carts. When the Dao is disregarded in the world, the war-horses breed in the border lands. There is no guilt greater than to sanction ambition; no calamity greater than to be discontented with one's lot; no fault greater than the wish to be getting. Therefore the sufficiency of contentment is an enduring and unchanging sufficiency. （Ch. 46）
Six characteristics of Dao
(Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-ultimates/index.html#ref-45)
Immanence: it’s influence is present in everything
東郭子問於莊子曰：「所謂道，惡乎在？」莊子曰：「無所不在。」東郭子曰：「期而後可。」莊子曰：「在螻蟻。」曰：「何其下邪？」曰：「在稊稗。」曰：「何其愈下邪？」曰：「在瓦甓。」曰：「何其愈甚邪？」曰：「在屎溺。」東郭子不應。
Master Tung-kuo asked Chuang Tzu, "This thing called the Way - where does it exist?" Chuang Tzu said, "There's no place it doesn't exist." "Come," said Master Tung-kuo, "you must be more specific!" "It is in the ant." "As low a thing as that?" "It is in the panic grass."
"But that's lower still!" "It is in the tiles and shards." "How can it be so low?" "It is in the piss and shit!" Master Tung-kuo made no reply.
Six characteristics of Dao
Spontenaity (自然): Dao is “pure actuality / uncaused cause;”
it’s existence is completely natural, fundamental, and good in itself
人法地，地法天，天法道，道法自然。 （道德经 第25章）
The Earth follows the ways of Heaven, / Heaven follows the ways of Tao, / Tao follows [spontenaity].
Six characteristics of Dao
Emptiness (空、无): Because it is spontaneous, Dao is not a form or a thing, it is an “absence:”
It is beyond specific forms
It does not use force
It gives being by providing the openness and power for things to emerge and grow spontaneously
反者道之動；弱者道之用。天下萬物生於有，有生於無。
Reversal is the movement of Dao. Weakness is the use(fulness) of Dao. All things are born of presence, presence is born of absence (DDJ Ch. 40)
Six characteristics of Dao
Nonaction / Wuwei (无为): Dao makes all things (happen) with “non-making;” it acts by enabling, not forcing
Primary causality attracts, it does not push.
道常無為而無不為
Dao makes nothing and nothing is not made (DDJ Ch. 37)
萬物恃之而生而不辭，功成不名有。衣養萬物而不為主,常無欲
All creatures depend on it, / And it denies nothing to anyone. / It does its work, But it makes no claims for itself. / Constantly without desire, It clothes and feeds all (DDJ Ch. 34)
Six characteristics of Dao
Dao causes the world through stages;
absence causes presence
unity gives birth to polarity, polarity causes multiplicity
(this is why lowliness is prior to honour)
道生一，一生二，二生三，三生萬物。萬物負陰而抱陽，沖氣以為和。人之所惡，唯孤、寡、不穀，而王公以為稱。故物或損之而益，或益之而損。人之所教，我亦教之。強梁者不得其死，吾將以為教父。
The Dao produces One; One produces Two; Two produces Three; Three produces All things. All things leave behind them the Obscurity (out of which they have come), and go forward to embrace the Brightness (into which they have emerged), while they are harmonised by the Breath of Vacancy.
What men dislike is to be orphans, to have little virtue, to be as carriages without naves; and yet these are the designations which kings and princes use for themselves. So it is that some things are increased by being diminished, and others are diminished by being increased. What other men (thus) teach, I also teach. The violent and strong do not die their natural death. I will make this the basis of my teaching. (DDJ Ch. 42)
Six characteristics of Dao
Dao’s essence spontenaity (自然) of emptiness (無), weakness (柔弱) and non-doing (无为)…
…is essentially life-giving (生生不息)!
Maximos the Confessor
(600’s CE)
Maximos lived after a big controversy about the identity of Jesus divinity.
Maximos defended the idea that Jesus was one person (hypostasis) in two natures (ousia - ‘essence’) - divine and human.
Divine nature is infinite, perfect, uncreated, and beyond comprehension.
Human nature if finite, limited, created, and visible/temporal.
Maximos the Confessor
(600’s CE)
However, we can never know a “nature” or essence without a concrete subject
Furthermore, Christ is a human person - and a person cannot be reduced to a category
So the living, historical person of Christ is the foundation both for divine/uncreated nature and human/created nature
Maximos the Confessor
(600’s CE)
Only in Jesus do we see God; and only in Jesus do we see what it is to be a creature!
Without the God-become-human Jesus, there would be no world
Jesus is the source of both the unity and difference between being God/uncreated and world/created
That means the most fundamental category of existence is the ‘hypostasis,’ the PERSON
Everything is fundamentally personal!
Maximos the Confessor
(600’s CE)
Most importantly, this historical person died and rose again for his friends & the whole world:
What it means to be both God/uncreated and human/creature is to humble ourselves for others,
to find eternal life through death to evil,
through holistic, healthy sacrificial love
Sergei Bulgakov (Russian theologian/sophiologist, Marxist economist, and philosopher, 1871 - 1944)
What does it mean for the fundamental nature of reality to be a person?
Whenever we talk, our sentence has a basic subject - copula (verb) - object structure:
‘I am Ben; the table is white; it is raining’
This structure is fundamentally personal: we are ascribing a type of subjectivity - personality - to things
My course is hard; your job is killing you
So our basic understanding or reality is personal
Sergei Bulgakov (Russian theologian, Marxist economist, and philosopher, 1871 - 1944)
The subject - verb - object structure also shows that personhood is essentially interpersonal / relational:
“I am a man” - I can only know myself as a person in relation to concepts and things outside of myself
Moreover, this relational structure or process is essentially tripartite, 3 - fold:
“I am human” / subject - verb - object
I only know myself through you (another person, e.g. mother)
I and you only know one another through her/him, or “we”
Sergei Bulgakov (Russian theologian, Marxist economist, and philosopher, 1871 - 1944)
For Bulgakov, the teaching of the Christian Trinity (三一体) reveals the basic structure of reality:
Reality is personal, and personhood is a relationship between you, me, and us, (subject - verb - object)
The Trinity is the revelation of Christ, and Christ is revealed in humility of God so that of humans can take part in God.
Jesus said “he who sees me sees the Father”
“I will send the Spirit - He will lead you in all truth”
Jesus’ followers only fully recognized his divinity through his death and rising again
So, God is Father revealed by the Son and given to us in Spirit because God is revealed in personhood in history and present everywhere
Therefore, the way to become one with God is by loving others through the spirit of Jesus;
and all things are personal & reflect God’s care!
Being,
Consciousness,
Bliss
Brahman in the Vedanta tradition(s)
Sources:
A Hindu Theology of Liberation : Not-Two Is Not One
The Advaita Worldview : God, World, and Humanity
“Although not moving, the one is swifter than the mind; the gods cannot catch it, as it speeds on in front. Standing, it outpaces others who run; within it [are] the waters. It moves—yet it does not move It is far away—yet it is near at hand! It is within this whole world—yet It is also outside this whole world.” (Īśa Upanisad 4–5)
Brahman as Being (Sat)
…and as the source of all beings
“its [activities and] relation with the world does not imply limits” - Rambachan, The Advaita Worldview
The dependence and union of the world with Brahman
For Sankara and Advaita Vedanta (Non-dualism),
the most fundamental aspect of reality is Brahman (God/consciousness):
Only Brahman is fully real in and of itself
It is the cause of all finite things
But when finite things come and go, it is really just Brahman that exists in them.
The most famous example is the clay and the pot:
before and after the (name/form of a) pot exists, there is only clay
However, even while the pot exists, it is only the clay that truly exists in pot form
Thus, the pot has a real existence, but its existence is wholly caused by and inseparable from the clay
The clay, however, is clay no matter if the pot exists or not
name (nāma) and form (rūpa):
All finite things are a composite of name and form
However, unlike in Aristotle, names make forms perceivable by humans
Names/forms are the way we mistakenly understand existence
Since Brahman is pure consciousness, the true material cause of objects is not matter, but undivided consciousness
It is therefore a mistake of our finite understanding to think that material objects have existence apart from Brahman/God.
Once we realize nonduality, we see that names and forms of objects are only naming aspects or appearances of Brahman, not individual existences
For Advaitins, unlike Thomists, forms are completely derivative of smaller forms
All objects and names are composed of ever smaller parts
Greater parts/forms have no more independent existence than smaller parts/ forms
This does not mean that nothing exists, only that objects do not divide existence
Existence (Brahman) is nondual and undivided
Forms (including space & time) are divided and dependent
Therefore, forms and objects are identical to nondual existence
How would one isolate the object’s existence within its particular form? For Śaṅkara, this question is misguided and unanswerable because form does not delimit existence. When one encounters a form and seeks its existence in the locus of its substantial cause, one encounters another form that decomposes into further forms. For example, the existence of a shirt depends on its causal cloth substance; however, cloth existence depends on threads, thread existence depends on fibers, and fibers are composed of further subtle causes, ad infinitum.
…Similarly, we may view the pot beyond the boundaries of an illustration—clay is the material cause of the pot, but has further causes, like minerals and water, which themselves depend on a descending chain of subtler causes. Reductions of wholes to aggregates of parts, forms to further forms, properties to other properties, effects to causes, or names to further names are infinite. They never bottom out in a metaphysical foundation. (SEP, “Sankara”)
Does this mean the universe does not exist?
…is our world of maya (appearance) completely an illusion?
Yes…and no. Sankara accepts that the infinite, relative forms of the universe are not merely projections of our minds;
Rather, they are wholly dependent on Brahman and wholly relative to Brahman:
“[Sankara’s] understanding of what is unreal as a less-than-real appearance does not contradict what is real. The universe of names and forms holds a unique ontological position as indeterminable..as brahman or something else other than brahman. It is not identical to brahman (even though reducible to brahman), but is not different either—it does not constitute a second reality.” (SEP, ‘Sankara’)
The Analogy of the Dream:
The world of our experience is like a dream; when we dream of a pot, it is based on the pot we experienced when awake
When we experience relative multiplicity, it is ultimately grounded in absolute nonduality
The Dream is a real state or experience
In the dream, we really experience;
Sankara is an empirical realist: our experience of reality is not purely irrational
However, there is not causal connection between the things in the dream and the real experience when awake
When we examine the pot in our dream, we can never find the real pot of our waking life
Thus, the world of multiplicity is not even an effect of nonduality in the absolute sense;
Rather, it is just a reflection; nonduality has no cause and effect, no change, and no multiplicity, but is pure blissful awareness
Isvara: the Highest Lord
Sankara believes that the universe has a form of experiential reality,
So, there must be a material and formal cause to the universe.
So, there must be an intelligent God, or Lord (“Ishvara”)
However, since the forms of the world have no ultimate reality …
…the universe is not separate from God’s knowledge, and God is just the experiential form of nondual consciousness (Brahman)
Even though a dream is not the same as waking reality,
…the fact that there is a real dream means there must be a real dreamer
However, the dream is not separate from the mind of the dreamer
And the mind of the dreamer is not separate from the waking reality the dreamer belongs to
however, you are also separate from your dream experiences;
you are the experiencer of your dream
You are the source of dream, and only a character in your dream, the subject and the object of your dream
All the other characters in your dream are just you!
So, Isvara (God) is the universe, but he is also the mind of the universe, the source of the universe’s order and intelligence(s)
The universe is like Isvara’s body, consciousness is like Isvara’s form or mind.
People are like “mini Isvara’s” - microcosms of the universe (like in Daoist religion); however, unlike Isvara, our limited minds/experience cannot produce the world
Ultimately, only blissful nondual awareness is real - everything else is a projection or an experience of nonduality.
The dependent reality of our world of appearance
However, unlike a dream, our reality does not disappear when we realize our unity with Brahman
We may mistake a rope for a snake in the darkness; when the light comes, we realize it is a rope, but our vision of it does not disappear
So, we may mistake this world as having independent realities, but
when we realize its
nonduality,
our experience of the world does not disappear or become void
Empirical or pragmatic reality…is the category to which the world belongs, while absolute reality is the ontological status of brahman. When the truth of brahman’s non-duality is understood, the world, unlike an illusion, does not cease to be. A false view of the universe, and not the universe itself, is destroyed. One who understands brahman no longer commits the error of assuming the world to have a reality and existence independent of brahman. One understands the world to be of the nature of brahman while not superimposing the nature of the world on brahman. The world is understood to be non-different in essential nature from brahman. Unlike a dream in relation to waking, however, the world does not cease to be as a consequence of the knowledge of brahman. “Just as brahman, the cause is never without existence in all three periods of time, so also the universe, which is the effect, never parts with existence in all three periods. But Existence is only one.” (Rambachan, The Advaita Worldview)
“While the world is non-different from brahman, brahman is different from the world…
…Advaita admits that the world in its relationship to brahman is an indefinable mystery...
…Although analogies of various kinds are used…no analogy is entirely adequate to the task.
…clay and gold are finite objects within space and time and their transformation into pots and jewelery cannot fully explain how the
world comes from
brahman.
Brahman is limitless and non-dual and has no analogical parallel” (Ibid).
“What is meant by this sublation of the universe of manifestations? Is the world to be annihilated like the destruction of the solidity of ghee by contact with fire; or is it that the world of name and form, created in brahman by nescience like many moons created in the moon by the eye-disease called timira, has to be destroyed through knowledge? Now if it be said that this existing universe of manifestations, consisting of the body etc., on the corporeal plane and externally of the earth etc., is to be annihilated, that is a task impossible for any man, and hence the instruction about its extirpation is meaningless. Moreover, (even supposing that such a thing is possible, then) the universe, including the earth etc., having been annihilated by the first man who got liberation, the present universe should have been devoid of the earth etc.” (Sankara in ibid.)
“the world is brahman inexplicably appearing as the world.
…since brahman has ultimate value, the relationship of non-difference between the world and brahman enriches the value of the world.
…The world, in itself, is neither illusory nor deceptive. The world simply is.
…Ignorance is overcome when we understand the world to be the indefinable expression of brahman. The world is a celebrative expression of brahman’s fullness, an overflow of brahman’s undiminishing limitlessness.
… Its value is derived from the fact that it partakes of the nature of brahman even though, as a finite process, it can never fully express brahman.” (Ibid.)
“Just as the brahman, the cause, is never without existence in all three periods of time, so also the universe, which is an effect, never parts company with Existence in all the three periods.” (Sankara in ibid.)
(Here we may see a subtle difference between Brahman and Dao and Aquinas’ God):
In Brahman, there is an infinite fullness of bliss and being, which is expressed by the world but not dependent on the world
On the other hand, the world is the fullness of the life and beauty of Dao; Dao does not depend on the world, but it does not necessarily have fullness of being apart from the world
In God, there is an independent infinite fullness of activity, but while it is gives being to the world, it is not exactly identical with the world
“ignorance… is also to think that the seeing of the One requires the devaluing and negation of the many.
…authoritative texts…consistently present [liberated understanding] as a way of seeing both brahman and the world.
…seeing reality…does not require negation of the world of plurality, but a celebration of its relationship with brahman.
Meaning and value are added,
not taken,from the
world, when its
ontological unity and inseparable existence from brahman is affirmed.” (ibid.)
“One who sees me everywhere and sees everything in me is not lost to me, nor will I be lost to him.
One who sees the great Lord existing equally in all beings, the imperishable in the perishable, truly sees.
That knowledge by which one sees one imperishable being in all beings, indivisible in the divisible, is the highest.”
Bhagavadgita in ibid.
The worth of gold is not destroyed by making it into an beautiful ornament; The nondual bliss of Brahman is not threatened by the existence of the world
The Purpose of Creation
“Let me become many; let me be born.” from our class reading, Chandogya Upanisad
“He knew fullness as brahman. From fullness all these beings are born; by fullness they live after birth and into fullness they return.” Taittirīya Upaniṣad
The Brahmasūtra (2.1.33) uses the term līlā , [which] Śankara… explains… through the analogy of sport or play.
“just as rainfall is a common cause for the growth of paddy, barley, etc., ...the differences being the individual potentiality of the respective seeds, similarly God is the common cause... … ………..while the individual fruits of works…are the uncommon causes for…the differences among the gods, men and others. Thus God is not open to the defects of partiality and cruelty” (Sankara in ibid.)
“The all in all cannot lack anything because nothing exists that it is not and that may be an object of its desire…
This important text suggests powerfully that we must think of creation as expressing the limitlessness of the infinite, an overflow of divine fullness and a celebration of what the infinite is.
Because it does not spring from any want, it does not have a self-directed character, and the infinite does not seek a private end from creation. “Love” is the word that is used often to describe actions that are performed without selfish intent and without expectation of personal reward. …The pouring of divine fullness is continuous. May we speak also of this sustaining activity as loving?
Creation as celebration and as proceeding from the fullness of the infinite confers value to the world and becomes, very importantly, a model for human action.” (Ibid.)
The Purpose of Creation
“In the beginning, my dear, that was Being only, one, without a second…It thought, ‘May I become many; may I grow forth.’”
from our class reading, The Chāndogya Upaniṣad
“the infinite, without being subject to time, loss of nature, or limitation of any kind, generates effects. Its relationship with such effects can only be described as not-two (advaita), because the existence of the effects cannot be denied, even though the substance of their existence is the infinite.”
Rambachan, The Advaita Worldview
“The moon is in awareness because I am aware of the moon. Between awareness, you and the moon in awareness, what is the distance? There is no distance.
Between the awareness and the moon in awareness, if there is any distance, what should it be? Space. And the space is where? In awareness.
Between awareness and space there cannot be any distance. Therefore, in awareness is the space, in space is the moon, in space is the sun…and space is in awareness
…There is no distance between awareness and this physical world”
Swami Dayananda in ibid.
Brahman as Cit - Consciousness/Awareness
“There is a single awareness knowing and objectifying all minds and all bodies.
The analogy used most often by Advaita teachers to instruct about its transcendence of spatial limits is space
The ātmā as awareness objectifies everything without itself ever becoming an object. Awareness cannot become an object to itself. Awareness is timeless and invariably present in all states of experience.
As the unitary, indivisible self of all, ātmā is not limited by space. It is the all-pervasive reality in which the objectified universe exists.”
Rambachan, A Hindu Theology of Liberation
Awareness has no change, but it is able to contain all things
Tt is the source of intellegence (Isvara), and intelligence is the source of the world
It is present in all things, and contains all things, but things do not contain it; that is why the world is not a projection of our minds, but rather a creation of pure consciousness
“Which one cannot grasp with one’s mind, by which, they say, the mind itself is grasped—Know that that alone is brahman…Which one cannot see with one’s sight, by which one sees the sight itself—Know that that alone is brahman…Which one cannot hear with one’s hearing, by which hearing itself is heard—Know that that alone is brahman, and not what they here meditate.”
Kena Upanisad in ibid.
Brahman as Ananda (Bliss, fullness)
Why is nonduality good news? Why would we want to become aware (attain moksha, liberation)?
Awareness does not suffer; it is unchanging and pure. It exists, and it enjoys
Because it observes AND is the source of everything, it does not have any needs
However, because it is pure, it is not bored or sad - boredom and sadness come from having needs that are unfulfilled
Since Brahman is awareness and existence without sadness, Brahman is pure experience, pure bliss, or peacefull enjoyment
Therefore, the self that gives our bodies life is pure bliss
Once we realize this, we can have joy no matter the circumstances, and accept that everyone else shares this bliss even when circumstances between us are difficult.
“…according as ignorance and desire become attenuated, that very Bliss appears in the vision of one, who is learned, versed in the Vedas, and free from passion, as rising higher and higher…when the division of subject and object is eliminated by enlightenment, there is only the all-pervading and intrinsic Bliss that is one without a second.” (Sankara in ibid.)
“Inasmuch as those Brāhmanas ([those] who have realized Brahman) are seen to be as happy as one is from obtaining an external source of joy though, in fact, they do not take help of any external means of happiness, make no effort,
and cherish no desires,
it follows, as a matter of course,
that Brahman is the source of their joy. Hence there does exist that Brahman which is full of joy, and is the spring of their happiness.” (Bhagavadgita in ibid)
“There is no particular object that makes all people happy. An object that is desirable for one person may, at the same time, be a source of sorrow for another.
…in the fulfillment of a desire for a preferred object or goal, the mind of the desirer, hitherto agitated by desire, becomes desireless and free from agitation. At this time there is a condition of fullness [ananta] that is identical with the nature of self.
[If] the person …wrongly attributes it to the object or goal attained…Soon the mind grows tired or bored with its gain
One who understands the nature of the self as limitless (ananta) is able to claim fullness without depending on the gain of anything outside the self.”
Rambachan, The Advaita Worldview
If we are already completely one with nondual Brahman, how can anything we do remove our ignorance of this fact?
“Mental purity is the removal of epistemic obstructions to knowing brahman, such as greed, anger, selfishness, violence, jealousy, and distraction. It also includes developing positive qualifications such as ethical attitudinal values of equanimity, acceptance, truthfulness, compassion, and benevolence.”
(SEP, ‘Sankara’)
It can’t…however, our finite actions can both remove obstacles and create space for moksha (liberating self-knowledge) to take place:
Sankara compares self-control and kindness to food sacrifices to the gods
We “offer actions [of love] to īṣvara [God] for the benefit of all beings…and the harmonious functioning of the world.” (ibid.)
We accept the results of our good actions without attachment to pleasure or pain, like a priest eating the remains of a sacrifice
Like this priest, our good actions result in peace and freedom from the disapointment and anger that comes from being attached to material goods.
Postscript: the plurality of Indian traditions
Sources:
https://www.philosophybasics.com/general_eastern_indian.html
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/personhood-india/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-ultimates/
Advaita (nondualism) is not the only school of vedanta (Indian philosophy based on the Vedas/Scriptures)
Samkhya and Yoga
- Universal dualisms (cf Descartes) that see the self as the soul and the material world as the body, with yogic exercises helping embodied creatures to become aware of the soul
Nyaya and Vaisheshika - Based on a system of logic that [sees]…obtaining valid knowledge (the four sources of which are perception, inference, comparison and testimony) [as] the only way to gain release from suffering…objects in the physical universe are reducible to a finite number of atoms, and Brahman is regarded as the fundamental force that causes consciousness in these atoms.
Postscript: the plurality of Indian traditions
Purva Mimamsa: [Emphasizes] regular performance of the Vedic fire-sacrifices to sustain all the activity of the universe. …accept the logical and philosophical teachings of the other schools,
…later shifted its views and began to teach the doctrines of Brahman and freedom, allowing for the release or escape of the soul from its constraints through enlightened activity.
Vedanta: Concentrates on the philosophical teachings of the Upanishads. The Vedanta focus on meditation, self-discipline and spiritual connectivity, more than traditional ritualism. Subschools:
Advaita (nondualism): The self and Brahman are one and the same
Visishtadvaita (qualified nondualism): Brahman and world are one and separate; the Supreme Being has a definite form, name - Vishnu - and attributes
Dvaita (dualism): Vishnu + eternal soul are separate from material world
Dvaitadvaita: Brahman exists independently, while soul and matter are dependent
Shuddhadvaita: Krishna is the absolute form of Brahman
Acintya Bheda Abheda: combines monism and dualism by stating that the soul is both distinct and non-distinct from Krishna, or God
