Seven reasons that brahman is the material cause.

[Guest guest]

I am trying below to give seven reasons from scriptural authority

why and how brahman is the material cause of the universe.

Sadanandaji has already covered this ground in his brahma-sutra

postings, particularly in his scholarly Notes on BSB I-i-2-1E (31st

January 2001). The brahma sutra authority in the form of Sutra No.2

(janmAdyasya yatah) has been amply and lucidly dealt with by him.

In the process he has referred to other Upanishad passages also.

What I am doing below is to collect the scriptural authority from the

Upanishads and organise them together in the form of seven

'reasons' in the hope that this may be more appealing than the heavy-

going Sutra No.2. Of course there is an overlap with Notes on BSB I-

i-2-1E.

 

No.1. Only if brahman is the material cause of the world, it is

possible to know everything of the universe through the knowledge

of brahman - which is what is asserted in passages like

'knowing which, everything becomes known' (Mundaka U. 1-1-2);

'having known that, nothing else remains to be known' (B.G. VII - 2);

'by which unheard becomes heard, uncognised becomes cognised,

unknown becomes known' (Chandogya U. VI-1-3);

'by one handful of earth all earthen articles become known, so

everything that is earthen is only a play with words (and forms),

what is true is only earth' (Chandogya VI-1-4).

 

No.2. 'May I be many, May I grow forth' (Taittiriya U. II - 6). This, in

so many words, says that He Himself became the multiplicity of

created beings.

 

No.3. 'tad AtmAnam svayam akuruta' (Taittiriya U. II - 7). Meaning:

'That Itself manifested Itself' . Here the use of the two words

'AtmAnam' and 'svayam' both meaning 'itself' shows that there exists

no other cause. So the universe is only a modification of brahman.

The only difference between the advaita viewpoint and the

visishtadvaita viewpoint is that the former says the modification is

only apparent, while the latter says the modification is real. To

borrow another metaphor from the modern world of technology,

advaita says that the modified appearance of brahman as the

universe is a projection like a movie, while visishtadvaita says that it

is an actual play on the stage!.

 

No.4. The standard statement 'all these beings were born from this'

(Taittiriya U. III-1-i). The word that is being used here for 'this

brahman' is 'yat'. This word is a connective pronoun like the english

'which' , used to indicate an antecedent noun. 'yat' is a self-

substituting entity. Panini's grammar gives a special meaning to this

word, as 'prakRti'. We know prakRti is the power of brahman that

becomes the universe in the presence of brahman. cf. 'Under my

supervision, prakRti gives birth to all things, moving and unmoving'

(B.G. IX - 10). Sadanandaji has elaborately dwelt on this topic

whether prakRti is really the ultimate material cause or not and

concludes:

<Since prakR^iti is a-swatantram or dependent in Vedanta,

<hence at places where prakR^iti is mentioned as the material cause

<upanishhads ultimately imply only that Brahman is the material

cause.

<This aspect Vyasacharya emphasizes in this suutra by declaring

that

<Brahman is indeed the material cause.

(Incidentally I want to point out a crucial typing error in

Sadanandaji's notes:

<We will present here few arguments why Vyasacharya chose

chetana

<brahman as the material cause for the world.

..........

<4. The question then arises how can upanishads teaching

contradict

<itself by declaring at one side Brahman as the material cause and

<other places prakR^iti is the material cause. Actually there is no

<contradiction. According to upanishhads, prakR^iti does exist

<independent of purusha (it is a-swatantram or para-tantram and not

<swa-tantram ).

 

I think the last sentence should read: 'prakR^iti does not exist

independent of purusha'.).

 

No.5.There is a very famous statement in Chandogya U. VI-2-2.

'brahman is One, One Only, with no Second'. This implies there is no

supporting entity; therefore there cannot be another 'efficient' (=

instrumental) cause. Secondly it says there is nothing other than

brahman; therefore there is no other material cause.

Incidentally, this statement 'ekam eva advitIyam brahma' has three

significant words: 'ekam' (= One), 'eva' (=Only), 'advitIyam' (=without

a second). Before we say that an entity is One, there are three

obstacles to overcome. A look at these will clinch the issue of

difference in perspective among the three schools of vedanta.

There could be within that One, several parts -- like the hands and

feet of a human being or the branches and leaves of a tree. If this

distinction is present, we call it 'sva-gata-bheda' , that is, distinction

within itself. There is no such distinction within itself, in brahman,

says Sankara, because it is 'ekam'. He says brahman is Whole, bereft

of parts or attributes. Ramanuja and Madhwa both differ from this

reading of the Upanishads by Sankara.

The second word 'eva' says that there is no distinction within the

category. In other words there is no other entity within the same

category as brahman, that is, there is only one brahman. If there is

such a distinction, that is, in the same category if there are more than

one -- such as two living beings, one a human and the other an

animal; or two different trees, one a mango tree and the other an

apple tree -- we call it 'sa-jAtIya-bheda', a distinction within the

category. The word 'eva' says that there is no such distinction, that

is, there is nothing else, equivalent to brahman. On this point the

three schools of vedanta agree.

The third word 'advitIyam' says there is no category distinction. For

instance, there could be distinct categories like trees and mountains.

There is nothing other than brahman and so there is no non-brahman

category, says Sankara. In other words, brahman admits no vi-jAtIya-

bheda (= inter-category difference). Sankara says there is only one

category, namely brahman, and everything is brahman. Ramanuja

also says there is only one category brahman, but he adds,

everything else is a part of it. Anyway both Sankara and Ramanuja

agree that with respect to brahman there is no vijAtIya-bheda. But

Madhva disagrees. He maintains that the category of individual

souls and the category of universe are categories different from

brahman and so, even from the absolute point of view, there is inter-

category difference.

 

No.6. Mundaka U. (I-1-7) gives three analogies for the relationship

between universe and brahman. 'Just as the spider emits its own

saliva, builds the web and withdraws it, just as plants grow on earth

naturally, just as hairs grow on a man, so also the universe emanates

from the Imperishable' . The first example raises the doubt that

brahman may have some purpose, like the spider. No, look at the

second example. Again there may be an objection questioning

whether brahman is unconscious or inert like the Earth. To answer

this, look at the third example. Hair grows on a man without effort or

strain, so does the universe sprout from brahman, just as an

extraneous projection of his Sakti.

 

No.7. The Chandogya U.(I-9-1) explains what happens at the time of

dissolution. 'All these elemental principles emanate from AkASa

(=Space) and they finally dissolve into AkASa'. In the TaittirIya U.

also, after the statement that they all come from 'yat' it is said that

they finally dissolve into 'yat'. (See No.4 above). A thing may be

said to be produced from its efficient cause but it cannot return to

that at dissolution unless it is also the material cause.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

 

You may access three on-line books of mine at the following site:

http://www.geocities.com/profvk

The books are:

Science and Spirituality - A Vedanta Perception

Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought, Vision & Practice

Overview of Hindu worship with spl. refce. to South India

 

_______

 

Get your free @ address at