The Upanishads Views The Upanishads views The Upanishads, were mystical and speculative texts. They have influenced Indian religious thought and spiritual philosophy as well as Buddhism and Jainism. The Upanishads define Brahman using how the world it creates. They are the basis of classical philosophies, which is known as Vedanta. According to Vedanta (The Upanishads) there are two different views which identify Brahman. 1) Theistic Vedanta and 2) Advaita Vedanta.
Firstly, Theistic Vedanta is something that has to do with god. It explains that Brahman is more of a personal god. Brahman is said to be not totally identical to everything, but all things are part of Brahman. All of this theory is called emarationism.
So with this view we can say that there is one god whom is the creator of all being and universe. And everything is a part of this god. Secondly, the Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is like an impersonal force. More like a monistic view, which means that there is only one reality. It says that Brahman is the only thing that can exist . Everything else is an illusion.
Here there is an eternal non-dual consciousness. All things are just these consciousness-misperceived illusions. I think both of these views face problems. First the Theistic Vedanta; In this view Brahman is identified as one god which created everything. However I think there is a missing point in this definition.
It says there is only one god and its not identical to anything, but all thing are part of Brahman. In my opinion the concept of being one god, one creator is a supreme thing, god is above everybody and anything. I dont think that since he created everything that everything has to be part from him. To acknowledge god I think that all that is needed to done is to observe the things he created for example, a simple cell of a plant or human, even then one can see its endless absolute power and these things necessarily dont have to be parts form Brahman. Secondly, The Advaita Vedanta in this view god is seen as a force. It is neither present nor not existing.
It says that its the only thing that exists among everything. Everything we see is a faade and while trying to understand god one should remember that nothing we do or see even our selves is just the illusion of our consciousness. I think in this view the thing I dont understand or I see as a problem is that how come we can feel , touch anything we can see around us like a table , pencil . If everything is an illusion of our minds misperceived concepts, how come there is life and death . I assume that an illusion should be a trick to the human eye or unreal dreams that are thought to be real .
But all these things are not because we can not smell , touch or fell them in the contrary they are temporary. If we werent real there wouldnt be suffering, poverty and death but there would be eternal perfection. I think both views are satisfactory up to a level. They are both the oldest views of Indian philosophy and it has influenced many religions. For the time that they were practiced ( they still are) The answers they provided were satisfactory for the people.
However today for example their definition of god Brahman is not enough for m Philosophy Essays.
