Philosophy of Ishwara | Vivekananda
Who is Ishwara?!
—He is Ishwara—
and above all:
—“He the Lord is, of His own nature, inexpressible love."
These certainly are the definitions of a Personal God. Are there then two Gods?
The “Not this, Not this”, the Sat- Chit-Ānanda, the Existence-Knowledge-Bliss, of the philosopher, and this God of Love of the Bhakta?
No, it is the same Sat-Chit-Ānanda who is also the God of Love, the impersonal and personal in one.
It has always to be understood that the Personal God worshipped by the Bhakta is not separate or different from the Brahman.
All is Brahman, the one without a second; only the Brahman, as unity or absolute, is too much of an abstraction to be loved and worshipped; so the Bhakta chooses the relative aspect of Brahman, that is, Ishwara, the Supreme Ruler.
To use a simile: Brahman is as the clay or substance out of which an infinite variety of articles are fashioned. As clay, they are all one; but form or manifestation differentiates them.
Before every one of them was made, they all existed potentially in the clay; and, of course, they are identical substantially; but when formed, and so long as the form remains, they are separate and different; the clay-mouse can never become a clay-elephant, because, as manifestations, form alone makes them what they are, though as unformed clay they are all one.
Ishwara is the highest manifestation of the Absolute Reality, or, in other words, the highest possible reading of the Absolute by the human mind. Creation is eternal, and so also is Ishwara.
In the fourth Pāda of the fourth chapter of his Sutras, after stating the almost infinite power for, and knowledge which will come to the liberated the soul after the attainment of Moksha, Vyāsa all makes the remark, in an aphorism, that none, however, will get the power of creating, ruling, and dissolving the universe, because that belongs to God alone.
In explaining the Sutra it is easy for the dualistic commentators to show how it is all ever impossible for a subordinate soul, Jīva, to have the infinite power and total independence of God.
The thorough dualistic commentator Madhwacharya deals with this passage in his usual summary method by quoting a verse from the Varaha Purāṇa .
In explaining this aphorism the commentator Rāmānuja says:
“This doubt being raised, whether among the powers of the liberated souls is included that unique power of the Supreme One, that is, of creation etc., of the universe and even the Lordship of all, or whether, without that, the glory of the liberated consists only in the direct perception of the Supreme One, we get as an argument the following:
It is reasonable that the liberated get the Lordship of the universe, because the scriptures say, ‘He attains to extreme sameness with the Supreme One and all his desires are realised.’
Now extreme sameness and realisation of all desires cannot be attained without the unique power of the Supreme Lord, namely, that of governing the universe. Therefore, to attain the realisation of all desires and the extreme sameness with the Supreme, we must all admit that the liberated get the power of ruling the whole universe.
To this we reply that the liberated get all the powers except that of ruling the universe.
Ruling the universe is guiding the form and the life and the desires of all the sentient and the non-sentient beings.
The liberated ones, from whom all that veils His true nature has been removed, only enjoy the unobstructed perception of Brahman, but do not possess the power of ruling the universe.
This is proved from the scriptural text:
‘From whom all these things are born, by whom all that are born live, unto whom they, departing, return—I ask about It, That is Brahman.’
If this quality of ruling the universe be a quality common even to the liberated, then this text would not apply as a definition of Brahma, defining Him through His rulership of the universe.
The uncommon attributes alone define a thing; therefore in texts like—
‘My beloved boy, alone, in the beginning, there existed the one without a second. That saw and felt: “I will give birth to the many.” That projected heat;’ ‘Brahman indeed alone existed in the beginning. That One evolved. That projected a blessed form, the Kshatra. All these gods are Kshatras—Varuṇa, Soma, Rudra, Parjanya, Yama, Mrityu, Īśāna;’ ‘Atman indeed existed alone in the beginning; nothing else vibrated; He thought of projecting the world; He projected the world after;’ ‘Alone Nārāyaṇa existed; neither Brahma nor Īśāna, nor the Dyāvā Prithivī, nor the stars, nor water, nor fire, nor Soma, nor the Sun. He did not take pleasure alone. He after His meditation had one daughter, the ten organs, etc.;'’
and in others as, ‘Who living in the earth is separate from the earth, who living in the Atman, etc.’
—the Śrutis speak of the Supreme one as the subject of the work of ruling the universe. . . . Nor in these descriptions of the ruling of the universe is there any position for the liberated soul, by which such a soul may have the ruling of the universe ascribed to it.”
In explaining the next Sutra, Rāmānuja says:
“If you say it is not so, because there are direct texts in the Vedas in evidence to the contrary, these texts refer to the glory of the liberated in the spheres of the subordinate deities.”
This also is an easy solution of the difficulty. Although the system of Rāmānuja admits the unity of the total, within that totality of existence there are, according to him, eternal differences.
Therefore, for all practical purposes, this system also being dualistic, it was easy for Rāmānuja to keep the distinction between the personal soul and the Personal God very clear.
We shall now try to understand what the great representative of the Advaita School has to say on the point.
We shall see how the Advaita system maintains all the hopes and aspirations of the dualist intact, and at the same time propounds its own solution of the problem, in consonance with the high destiny of divine humanity.
Those, who aspire to retain their individual mind even after liberation, and to remain distinct, will have ample opportunity of realising their aspirations and enjoy the blessing of the qualified Brahman.
These are they who have been spoken of in the Bhagavata Purāṇa thus:
“O king, such are the glorious qualities of the Lord that the sages whose only pleasure is in the Self, and from whom all fetters have fallen off, even they love the Omnipresent with the love that is for love’s sake.”
These are they who are spoken of by the Sānkhyas as getting merged in nature in this cycle, so that, after attaining perfection, they may come out in the next as Lords of world-systems. But none of these ever becomes equal to God (Ishwara).
Those who attain to that state where there is neither creation, nor created, nor creator, where there is neither knower, nor knowable, nor knowledge, where there is neither I , nor thou , nor he, where there is neither subject, nor object, nor relation, “there, who is seen by whom?”
—such persons have gone beyond everything, to “where words cannot go nor mind”, gone to that which the Śrutis declare as “Not this, Not this”;
but for those who cannot, or will not reach this state, there will inevitably remain the triune vision of the one undifferentiated Brahman as nature, soul, and the interpenetrating sustainer of both—Ishwara.
So, when Prahlāda forgot himself, he found neither the universe nor its cause; all was to him one Infinite, undifferentiated by name and form; but as soon as he remembered that he was Prahlāda, there was the universe before him and with it the Lord of the universe, “the Repository of an infinite number of blessed qualities.”
So it was with the blessed Gopis. So long as they had lost sense of their own personal identity and individuality, they were all Kṛṣṇas; and when they began again to think of Him as the one to be worshipped, then they were Gopis again, and immediately:
Now to go back to our Āchārya Shankara:
“Those,” he says, “who by worshipping the qualified Brahman attain conjunction with the Supreme Ruler, preserving their own mind—is their glory limited or unlimited?
This doubt arising, we get as an argument:
Their glory should be unlimited, because of the scriptural texts, ‘They attain their own kingdom;’ ‘To him all the gods offer worship;’ ‘Their desires are fulfilled in all the worlds.’
As an answer to this, Vyāsa writes:
‘Without the power of ruling the universe.’ Barring the power of creation etc. of the universe, the other powers such as Anima etc., are acquired by the liberated.
As to ruling the universe, that belongs to the eternally perfect Ishwara. Why?
Because He is the subject of all the scriptural texts as regards creation etc., and the liberated souls are not mentioned therein in any connection whatsoever.
The Supreme Lord indeed is alone engaged in ruling the universe. The texts as to creation etc., all point to Him. Besides, there is given the adjective ‘ever-perfect.’
Also the scriptures say that the powers Anima etc., of the others are as from the search after, and the worship of, God. Therefore they have no place in the ruling of the universe.
Again, on account of their possessing their own minds, it is possible that their wills may differ, and that, whilst one desires creation, another may desire destruction. The only way of avoiding this conflict is to make all wills subordinate to some one will.
Therefore the conclusion is that the wills of the liberated are dependent on the will of the Supreme Ruler.”
Bhakti, then, can be directed towards Brahman only in His personal aspect:
—“The way is more difficult for those whose mind is attached to the Absolute!”
Bhakti has to float on smoothly with the current of our nature. True it is that we cannot have any idea of the Brahman which is not anthropomorphic, but is it not equally true of everything we know?
The greatest psychologist the world has ever known, Bhagavān Kapila, demonstrated ages ago that human consciousness is one of the elements in the make-up of all the objects of our perception and conception, internal as well as external.
Beginning with our bodies and going up to Ishwara, we may see that every object of our perception is this consciousness plus something else, whatever that may be; and this unavoidable mixture is what we ordinarily think of as reality.
Indeed it is, and ever will be, all of the reality that is possible for the human mind to know.
Therefore to say that Ishwara is unreal, because He is anthropomorphic, is sheer nonsense. It sounds very much like the occidental squabble on idealism and realism, which fearful-looking quarrel has for its foundation a mere play on the word ‘real.’
The idea of Ishwara covers all the ground ever denoted and connoted by the word ‘real’, and Ishwara is as real as anything else in the universe; and after all, the word ‘real’ means nothing more than what has now been pointed out.
Such is our philosophical conception of Ishwara.