Guest guest Posted January 20, 2002 Report Share Posted January 20, 2002 Dear Steve, FYI, with love and prayers, Jaishankar In the sixth chapter of chandogya upanishad Uddalaka teaches his son svetaketu, sadvidya - the knowledge of existence. "sadeva somya idam agre AsIt ekam eva advitIyam. tad ha eke Ahu: asadeva somya idam agre AsIt ekam eva advitIyam tasmat asata: sat jAyata." "O dear one, in the beginning this was existence alone, one only, without a second. with respect to this some say, "in the beginning this was non-existence alone, one only, without a second. From that non-existence issued existence." Further "kuta: tu khalu somya evam syAt iti hOvAca katham asata: sat jAyeta iti. sat tu eva somya idam agre AsIt ekam eva advitIyam." "He said 'O dear one, by what means of knowledge it is established that existence verily comes out of non-existence? But surely O dear one, in the beginning this was existence alone, one only, without a second." Commenting on these two upanishad vAkyAs Shankara says the following (I have translated only relevant portions here) The word sat here means the vastu (object of knowledge) which is mere existence, subtle, without any qualities, all pervasive, one, taintless, partless, consciousness, which is known from all the vedAntavAkyas ( the sentences of the vedanta, the teaching of the upanishads). The word 'eva' is used for emphasis. What is that which is being determined? This is being said: "This world which has names, forms and action and which is a modification was that existence alone." The words sadeva(existence alone) is connected to the word AsIt (was). When was all this, existence alone? This is answered as 'agre' - in the beginning, before the creation of this jagat (universe). Objection: Is it that this (the world) is not existence now, because of which it is said that it was existence in the beginning? Reply: No Objection: Then why is it said so? Reply: Even now it is existence alone but having names and forms as qualifications and is the object of the word 'this' and so it is denoted by the word 'this'. But before creation, in the beginning, it was only the object of the word 'existence'. Thus it was determined that 'in the beginning this was existence alone." Before creation it was not possible to cognise this as having name and having form even like in deep sleep. As someone after getting up from sleep recognises that there was mere existence alone in sleep, similarly before creation the vastu (substance, object of knowledge) was just existence alone. ...... With respect to the determination of that substance before creation some, the vainAshikA:, the buddhists say while determining this substance, that this world was in the beginning before creation, only non-existence merely an absence of existence. The Buddhists propose merely the absence of existence as the reality before creation. They dont desire(propose) any other substance opposed to existence like the NaiyAyikAs who propose that existence and non-existence as it is and as things opposed to each other. Objection: If the opinion of Buddhists is that before creation there was mere absence of existence, then by asserting that 'before creation it existed as non-existence, one only, without a second', how can they speak of a connection with time, connection with number and non-duality. Reply: Quite so. This is not tenable for those who accept the absence of existence alone. And their acceptance of mere non-existence is also untenable because the existence of the person who denies existence, cannot be denied. If it is said that the cogniser (of non-existence) exists now but not before creation, then it cannot be so, because there is no means of knowledge to know the absence of existence before creation. It is illogical to imagine that there was non-existence alone before creation. ....... After having shown the view of the mahAvainAshikas (absolute nihilists) which is erroneous, the sruti negates it. By what means of knowledge O dear one, it is established that existence verily comes out of non-existence? The meaning is that this is not possible by any means of knowledge. Their view that a sprout is seen to come out of a seed that is destroyed i.e. it comes out of non-existence itself, is contrary to their own conclusions. How? Those which are the constituents of the seed, which are characterised by the form of the seed, continue in the sprout as well. They are not destroyed when the sprout comes out. Again, other than those constituents which form the seed, nothing as a substance which can be destroyed at the time of the birth of the sprout, is accepted by the vainAshikas (Buddhists). Even if they accept a substance which is other than the constituents, then also there will be contradiction with their accepted view. Objection: Now, what if it is said that the configuration in the form of the seed accepted in popular usage gets destroyed? Reply: What is this thing that is called popular usage? Is that existence or non-existence? If it is non-existence, no analogy can be cited in support. If, on the other hand, it is existence, then the sprout does not come out of non-existence. ( Which is his initial statement). Because the sprout is born from the constituents of the seed. Objection: If it is said that the constituents also become destroyed? Reply: No, because the same logic applies to the constituents also. As per the vainAshikas, just as a thing constituted by the arrangement of the parts of the seed does not exist, so also the constituents do not exist. Therefore their destruction is also untenable. The constituents of the seed have themselves subtle constituents, and of those constituents again there are subtler constituents. In this manner this process has no end, therefore the destruction of all these is not tenable. Since the cognition of existence persists throughout and since there is no cessation of existence, therefore, for the sadvadis ( those who hold the view of existence of cause before the effect comes) the birth of an existing thing from another existing thing will be acceptable. But in the case of those who hold the view of nonexistence, no example can be cited for illustrating the birth of an existing thing from non-existence. According to the sadvAdi, a pot is born from a lump of clay, because the pot exists when the clay is there and it does'nt exist when the clay is not. If a pot can come out of non-existence then somebody wanting a pot would not take up a lump of clay. And the cognition of non-existence,and indication by the word 'non-existence' will persist even in the pot. But this is not so. Therefore, existence does not come out of non-existence. Even if they say "the cognition of clay is the cause of the cognition of pot, therefore the cognition of clay produces the cognition of pot but in reality neither the clay nor the pot exists." , even then the cognition of clay as an existing thing becomes the cause of the cognition of the pot. In this way existence is not produced from non-existence. Objection: If it is said that, what is meant by cause and effect is only a succession of the cognition of the clay and the cognition of pot, but there is no relationship as between a cause and its effect? Reply: No. The vaiNashikas cannot cite any external examples to prove that cognitions succeed one another, ( The Buddhists do not accept existence of external objects. Therefore according to them even the cognition of clay and pot do not exist externally. Hence it is illogical to cite these cognitions for explaining external experiences of succession or causality because there is no seperate witness to testify the succession or causality.) Therefore he said "O dear one, how can this really be so? How, in what way can existence be born out of non-existence?". The implication is that there is no example whatever, to illustrate the birth of existence from non-existence. ...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2002 Report Share Posted January 20, 2002 advaitin, "Srividya Jaishankar" <srijai@e...> wrote: > Dear Steve, > > FYI, > > with love and prayers, > > Jaishankar > > <BIG snip> Dear Jaishankar, Wow, that's just brilliant! The critique is so on target. What a spiritual genius Shankara was! I was interested to note, by the way, that the problem of an infinite regress, which I mentioned in a previous post, was also identified by Sharkara. It is a conumdrum that lies at the heart of Buddhism, in my opinion -- but then, that might be said of all religious teaching since first causes and orignation have always been the most difficult of all philosophic and metaphysical inquiry! This post obviously took a great deal of time and research to do, so thank you very much for this unselfish effort. There is much to ponder in what you shared, and I will be glad to study. The grace of God be with you, Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.