Brahman and action (was Re: The non-reality of free will (2.5.97))

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

Dennis Waite <dwaite at INTERALPHA.CO.UK>

[ ... ]

> I thought that, in this context, Brahman could be compared to the petrol in
> a car. Without the petrol, the car can do nothing but in no sense could the
> petrol be said to be acting. Similarly, electricity enables a refrigerator
> to beome cold but the electricity is not cold, or it enables a cooker to
> become hot but is not itself hot. In an analagous manner, no-one and nothing
> can act without the support of aatman but aatman itself does not act. It
> will support the actions of a murderer just as much as those of a doctor in
> the same way as the petrol will enable both tank and ambulance to perform
> their respective functions.

There are two ways Atman is "described":

1. by the neti neti statement
2. by sarvaM khalvidaM brahma

The first is from the point of view of ajAti, the final conculsion of
vedAnta. Thus anything other than brahman, i.e., the so called
phenomenal existence is denied.

The second is when an empirical reality is admitted. In this case
vedAnta says that these are not really true, they are perceived due to
mAyA only. But any illusion requires a substratum and Atman is the
substratum. Thus sarvaM khalvidaM brahma. This corresponds to the
analogy you have given above.

shrI sha.nkara makes this point clear in his commentary on the gauDapAda
kArikA-s.

That brahman acts, it has a free-will and so on is an idea propogated by
the shAkta-s and tAntrik schools like the Kashmir Shaivism. It is not
admitted by vedAnta. I believe I mentioned this in my previous post on
this topic.

Ramakrishnan.
--
                   http://yake.ecn.purdue.edu/~rbalasub/