Karya Karan question

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, sadananda wrote:

> sadananda <sada

>

> >"Vivekananda Centre" <vivekananda

> >

> >

> >Before I take up other points raised by Sri Sadanandji's response - I

> >respectfully request other members to throw more light on this interesting

> >topic.

> >

> >pranams jay of

> >Vivekananda Centre

>

> Welcome for the thought provoking discussions and I join the Vivekananda

> center in welcoming others input on the topic. Where is everybody? Aikya,

> Greg, Murthy, Wikner, and other spirited discussers.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

 

Namaste.

 

I welcome Shri Sadananda into the discussions again and I echo his call

for discussers. Sometimes, it gets lonely to keep posting (as I noticed

during the new year break) and it gets difficult to gauge whether the

articles posted are of any interest or not, without feedback and counter-

or pro- arguments.

 

-----------------------------

 

Now, regarding cause and effect: my understanding of cause and effect is

very similar to Shri sadananda's. When we seek "cause and effect", we are

at intellectual level. Advaita vedanta is beyond the intellectual level,

or beyond seeking "cause and effect".

 

Every statement we make is at a certain language level, and the statement

is meant to be understood at that level. When a scientist says that is the

cause and this is the effect, he/she is speaking at intellectual level.

When an advaitin talks of Brahman and mAyA, he/she is not talking at

intellectual level, or let me say one should not construe it at the

intellectual level.

 

As an example, let us look at the question: Why did God create the world?

The type of answer we give to this question exhibits our understanding of

advaita (since it is only advaita which stands up at the end of ultimate

analysis, understanding and beyond). Every answer is correct and justifiable

at the level of understanding by that jeeva. But the final answer is only

one: advaita.

 

At intellectual level, we cannot comprehend when we say cause and effect

are one and the same [or as Shri Sadananda pointed out recently in answer

to my question on adhyAsa that the object and subject are one and the

same. I am grateful to him for pointing that out for me so clearly while

I was searching for subject - object in understanding adhyAsabhAshhya].

But advaita and the upanishhads say clearly that cause and effect are one

and the same.

 

I like to discuss the Brahman (nirguna) and the jagat and the relation

in this context. If we come to the understanding that cause and effect

are one and the same and the acceptance of that without any doubt and

that this understanding is part of us, then there is no question at all.

In that case, we readily accept (just like we accept that the body is

part of us) that the cause for the jagat is our ignorance and that

Brahman is the only reality.

 

If we do not reach that understanding, we can see that the jagat is the

effect and the Brahman is the cause. I like to put forward various

propositions where the intellectual thinking (that cause and effect are

different) breaks down and the upanishhadic wisdom prevails.

 

Q. If there is no difference between cause and effect, the jagat with

all its inherent differences will pollute Brahman when it merges into

Brahman.

 

A. The vessels of clay differ in size, shape and color, but when they

are destroyed, they just become clay without in any way retaining their

previous properties. When ornaments of gold are melted down, they become

simply gold and they do not carry over their distinctive characteristics

into the new state. Thus we can understand that when the jagat with its

distinctions is dissolved and merged into Brahman, the distinctions of

the jagat are not retained.

>From the upanishhads, we see that the jagat (which is the effect) is

not different from Brahman (the cause). This is so because the effect and

its properties are superimposed (or imagined in) the cause, the Brahman

and this is because of ignorance.

 

Q. If Brahman is the sole reality, and if everything is superimposed on

it, then all distinctions would be abolished. As an example, Devadatta

eats an apple. The apple that is eaten and Devadatta the person who eats

would be one and the same, for both are Brahman. This would make a

travesty of our experience.

 

A. In reality, there is no jagat. Even if we take there is jagat, the

oneness of the object and the subject cannot be denied. The waves of the

ocean are not different from the ocean, yet we speak of them as if they

are different. Even though subject and object are not different from

Brahman, yet our minds do not identify them with It.

 

Upanishads say repeatedly that Brahman alone is the reality, and

everything else is a name and is just superimposition. Brahman which

is one cannot be both one and many (we see duality in jagat all around).

That is, what is perceived has no substantial nature, and is just an

illusion. So, all modifications are illusions. The essential nature of

clay, which remains even when there are modifications, or where there

are no modifications, alone is real. Since the relation between Brahman

and jagat is the same as between clay and the pots, the jagat being

non-different from Brahman (just like pots are non-different from clay),

Brahman alone is the reality, although jagat is the one that is perceived.

 

The effect is simply a change (small or large) and the reason for that

change is the cause. Advaita does not see a change, hence there is no

effect and no cause.

 

We can find many examples and arguments where the intellectual thinking that

the effect is due to a cause fails and we have no alternative except to accept

the upanishhadic wisdom as the last word.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

An addendum to my earlier post on this topic. GauDapAda

kArika (1.11) says

 

kAryakAraNabaddhau tAv ishhyate vishva-taijasau

prAjnah kAraNabaddhas tu dve tu turye na siddhyatah

 

Vishva and taijasa (the wake-up and dream states) are bound with

cause and effect. But prAjna (the deep sleep state) is conditioned

by cause alone. These two (cause and effect) do not exist in turIya,

the fourth state.

 

The traditional interpretation of kArya and kAraNa here are different

from how we use them in the English language. Vidhusekhara Bhattacharya,

in his commentary on GauDapAdakArika calls kAraNa, the cause as

non-grasping of the truth, while the effect, kArya is grasping the

truth otherwise.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

>Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

>I like to discuss the Brahman (nirguna) and the jagat and the relation

>in this context. If we come to the understanding that cause and effect

>are one and the same and the acceptance of that without any doubt and

>that this understanding is part of us, then there is no question at all.

>In that case, we readily accept (just like we accept that the body is

>part of us) that the cause for the jagat is our ignorance and that

>Brahman is the only reality.

 

Just a word of caution here - or paraphrasing of the words for clarity or

emphasing some aspects which Murthygaaru is fully aware:

 

Cause of the Jagat is maaya ( but maaya should not be construed as

ignorance) and maaya manifests as ignorance only at an individual level

when the individual does not know that it is maaya. Out of ignorance he

takes maaya as not maaya but is real. Illusion part by itself is maaya.

But delusion that makes one see the illusion as real is the ignorance of

the fact that "it is only maaya". At collective level maaya manifests as

the parameswara shakti - power of the Lord or Iswara. From Brahman point

there is no separation of jeeva, Iswara or jagat and therefore maaya

either.

>If we do not reach that understanding, we can see that the jagat is the

>effect and the Brahman is the cause. I like to put forward various

>propositions where the intellectual thinking (that cause and effect are

>different) breaks down and the upanishhadic wisdom prevails.

 

yes - but truly Brahman is not really a cause since in Brahman there is no

effect. At Iswara level yes - jeeva, jagat and Iswara all manifest in the

cause-effect relations -Actually Iswara is brought in by Jeeva to provide a

locus for cause for creation (it may sound funny - Iswara is created by

Jeeva so that Iswara can creat Jeeva and jagat!) and maaya is like

bringing in mathematics the concept of X; let X be the answer (that is why

it is maaya - that which exists but upon inquiry does not exist) and X

drops out when the problem is solved. It is only a convenience to explain

and conduct vyavahaara. Maaya is brought in as an explanation since

question is being asked. But the explanation itself drops out as part of

the maaya when the questioner realizes that he is the beyond the questions

and answers.

>Q. If there is no difference between cause and effect, the jagat with

>all its inherent differences will pollute Brahman when it merges into

>Brahman.

>A. The vessels of clay differ in size, shape and color, but when they

>are destroyed, they just become clay without in any way retaining their

>previous properties. When ornaments of gold are melted down, they become

>simply gold and they do not carry over their distinctive characteristics

>into the new state. Thus we can understand that when the jagat with its

>distinctions is dissolved and merged into Brahman, the distinctions of

>the jagat are not retained.

 

 

You are absolutely right - but one caveat here -there is no dissolution

and merging into Brahman either as stated above. It is always Brahman even

now. The distinctions being adhyaasa or apparent projections they are not

real and hence dissolution and merging etc. are all intellectual concepts

too. Brahman was, is and will be and it is "ekameva advitiiyam". One

without second - that throws out even the maaya that is why it is called

maaya.

 

 

>>From the upanishhads, we see that the jagat (which is the effect) is

>not different from Brahman (the cause). This is so because the effect and

>its properties are superimposed (or imagined in) the cause, the Brahman

>and this is because of ignorance.

>

>Q. If Brahman is the sole reality, and if everything is superimposed on

>it, then all distinctions would be abolished. As an example, Devadatta

>eats an apple. The apple that is eaten and Devadatta the person who eats

>would be one and the same, for both are Brahman. This would make a

>travesty of our experience.

>

>A. In reality, there is no jagat. Even if we take there is jagat, the

>oneness of the object and the subject cannot be denied. The waves of the

>ocean are not different from the ocean, yet we speak of them as if they

>are different. Even though subject and object are not different from

>Brahman, yet our minds do not identify them with It.

 

Yes that is the true understanding and what is implied also in my cautions.

 

>Upanishads say repeatedly that Brahman alone is the reality, and

>everything else is a name and is just superimposition. Brahman which

>is one cannot be both one and many (we see duality in jagat all around).

>That is, what is perceived has no substantial nature, and is just an

>illusion. So, all modifications are illusions. The essential nature of

>clay, which remains even when there are modifications, or where there

>are no modifications, alone is real. Since the relation between Brahman

>and jagat is the same as between clay and the pots, the jagat being

>non-different from Brahman (just like pots are non-different from clay),

>Brahman alone is the reality, although jagat is the one that is perceived.

>

>The effect is simply a change (small or large) and the reason for that

>change is the cause. Advaita does not see a change, hence there is no

>effect and no cause.

 

Beautiful .

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

>

>We can find many examples and arguments where the intellectual thinking that

>the effect is due to a cause fails and we have no alternative except to

>accept

>the upanishhadic wisdom as the last word.

>

>Regards

>Gummuluru Murthy

>------

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>------

>To from this mailing list, or to change your subscription

>to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at and

>select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left.

>------

>Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy

>focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. List Archives available

>at: /viewarchive.cgi?listname=advaitin

>

 

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623