FREE ESSAY ON THE UPANISHADS VIEWS

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 it's 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 don't 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 it's endless absolute power and
these things necessarily don't 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 it's the only thing that exists among everything.
Everything we see is a fa?ade 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 don't 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 weren't real there wouldn't 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