Página inicial > Oriente > Shah-Kazemi (PT:I-1) – Brahman - Senhorio

Shah-Kazemi (PT:I-1) – Brahman - Senhorio

sexta-feira 30 de setembro de 2022


To speak of Brahman   as possessing the attributes of “Lordship,” such as omnipotence, justice, omniscience, and so on, is both true and false: true if what is in question is the “lower” or “lesser” Absolute, Apara Brahman, but false if it is the “higher” Absolute, Para Brahman (Enlightenment, 61-62); this same distinction is found   expressed as Brahma   saguna and Brahma nirguna, the first relating to the Absolute as endowed with qualities, the second relating to the Absolute insofar as it transcends all qualities. When the Absolute is spoken of as being the “performer of all actions” and as knowing all things, “we are speaking of it as associated with adjuncts. In its true state without adjuncts it is indescribable, partless, pure, and without empirical attributes” (Upadesa (A), II, 15.29).

It may be objected here that the Advaita   principle is violated: there is one Absolute that is associated with relativity and another that is not. But this objection would be valid only if it were established that the Absolute undergoes real modification by virtue of its “association” with the adjuncts; only then would there be a fundamental dualism constituted by the adjunctless Absolute, on the one hand, and the Absolute associated with adjuncts, on the other. Such a dualism, however, is precluded for Shankara   by the fact that no such modification takes place in reality, since the “association” in question is but an appearance, an illusory projection of the Real which cannot, qua illusion, constitute any element or “pole,” such as could allow of an irreducible duo-dimensionality of the Absolute:

[T]he Lordship, omniscience, and omnipotence of the Lord exist relative to the limitations and distinctions of ignorance only, and in reality there can be no practice of rulership or omniscience on the part of the Self, in which all distinctions remain eternally negated in knowledge (Creation, 66).

This does not deny the relative reality of the divine attributes themselves nor does it deny that the attributes do indeed pertain to the One Absolute; that the Absolute is the omnipotent Creator and the omniscient Witness is affirmed as a reality that is mediated through the upadhis and received by all created beings. These attributes are the forms in which the One relates to the world, and for as long as worldly experience holds; what Shankara does deny is the ultimate metaphysical reality of this whole domain of relations and distinctions, “set up by ignorance”: the One appears as many in relation to a world that is itself illusory. Thus:

[N]on-duality which is the Supreme reality appears manifold through Maya  , like the one moon   appearing as many to one with defective eye-sight. . . . This manifold is not real, for Atman   is without any part. . . . (It) cannot in any manner admit of distinction excepting through Maya (Karika, III, 19).

Ver online : Shah-Kazemi