pUrNamadah pUrNamidam... revisited (April 04 topic)

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskar Prabhuji,

 

 

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

>

> On 29th of April 2004 Sri Chittaranjan prabhuji wrote:

>

> CN:

>

> If avidya is the cause of the world, then the Acharya's arguments

> against the doctrine of the Samkhyas showing that pradhana can't

> be the cause of the universe breaks down. Your argument that

> avidya (and not intelligence) is the cause of the world is

> (essentially) the same as the Samkhya argument in so far as it

> places the cause elsewhere than in the intelligence of Brahman.

> How does the Acharya refute the claim of the Samkhyas? Isn't it

> by showing that a sentient Being is necessarily required as the

> source of action?

>

> Bhaskar prabhuji:

>

> prabhuji, I donot know why you are bringing in sAnkhya theory

> of creation here. I am neither talking about sAnkhya's prAdhAna

> nor vaiSESika's paramANu vAda, as we know both have been refuted

> by shankara in sUtra bhAshya.

 

CN:

 

I am bringing in Samkhya theory here because you have postulated

avidya as the efficient cause of the universe which is essentially

the same as pradhana being postulated as the efficient cause in so

far as both avidya and pradhana are not sentient (Brahman). The

Acharya has argued (at considerable length) that the efficient cause

has to be sentient, and that it is Brahman and Brahman only. Please

see BSB 1.1.2 and 1.1.3. Again, in BSB 1.1.5 it is clearly argued

that the first cause is possessed of consciousness. How do you

reconcile the fact that the efficient cause has to be conscious with

your postulate that avidya is the cause? I have asked this earlier,

but you simply ignore the question. Despite it being clearly stated

and emphasised in the Bhashya, you ignore the assertion that the

efficient cause has to be conscious and you continue to repeat that

avidya is the cause. If you are saying that the Acharya's position is

that avidya is the efficient cause of the universe, then you are

implying that the Acharya has contradicted himself by saying that the

first cause is possessed of consciousness. Prabhuji, you need to find

a reconciliation in these statements, and not merely repeat something

with a high and mighty air of confidence. No answer that you give

will be satisfactory unless you can point out how the efficient cause

steps aside in favour of avidya as the efficient cause. So, an

explanation is necessary before repeating that avidya is the cause of

the universe.

_______________

 

Bhaskar prabhuji:

> Now let us take the term avidyA which shankara saying is the

> main cause of vyAkrutAvyAkruta jagat. First of all, what is

> the meaning of avidyA/adhyAsa?? shankara in adhyAsa bhAshya

> makes it very clear what avidyA is. When shankara say avidyA

> is the cause of the world, it does not mean avidyA has the

> causal potentiality parallel to brahman & running a

> separate established office to do srushti kriyA:-))

 

CN:

 

If avidya has any kind of causal potentiality (which is your

position), and if it is not parallel to Brahman, then its office

(established or otherwise) has to be Brahman. That would make Brahman

the seat of ignorance. Is that your position? If you deny it, please

provide the reasons why it is not so.

 

________________

 

Bhaskar prabhuji:

> Since we have dealt with the concept *avidyA* several time

> before, I don't think we should start this once again afresh.

 

CN:

 

Merely having dealt with something several times is not meaningful

unless the questions are resolved.

________________

 

 

Bhaskar prabhuji:

> I once again would like to reiterate that avidyA is not a

> positive entity which others claim that it has AvaraNa &

> vikShEpa Sakti. In reality avidyA is NOT there.

 

CN:

 

You are right Prabhuji, avidya is not there. But how do you

understand this? I hope you don't point to something and say it is

not there. :-)

________________

 

Bhaskar prabhuji:

> Please see shankara's bhAshya on the 13th chapter of gIta for

> further details. Also refer sUtra bhAshya where shankara say:

> avidyA kalpitEna cha nAmarUpa lakShaNEna rUpabhEdhEna

> vyAkrutAvyAkrutAtmakEna tattvAnyatvAbhyAm anirvachanIyEna

> brahma pariNAmAdhi *sarva vyavahArAspadatvam* pratipadyate!

> paramAthikEna cha rUpENa *sarva vyavahArAtItam apariNataM

> avathisTatE.

 

 

CN:

 

So, you are saying that the Acharya has contradicted himself by

saying elsewhere that the efficient cause is conscious (Brahman)?

_________________

 

> CN:

>

> Again, if the entire universe is only constituted by Maya (which you

> equate to avidya),

>

> bhaskar prabhuji:

>

> small correction here prabhuji, I am not equating avidyA with

> mAya prabhuji. mAya is avidyA kalpita or avidyA lakShaNa.

> *avidyA lakShaNA prakrutiH mAyA* pravartate" (pls. see gItA

> bhAshya) The important point to be noted here is shankara

> here clearly stating that *avidyA lakShaNa prakrutiH mAyA* So,

> prabhuji mAyA cannot be equated here with avidyA, mAyA

> is avidyA lakshaNa.

 

 

CN:

 

Yes Prabhuji, Maya is not avidya, but if you understand it correctly,

Maya is Reality seen through avidya. Maya is Brahman itself. The

efficient cause is Brahman creating the world in accordance with the

jivas' avidya. If you don't see the razor's edge, you will make the

Acharya seem to contradict himself.

________________

 

Bhaskar prabhuji:

> It is evident that there is no such thing called mAya

> since it stems out of avidyA.

 

CN:

 

Nothing of this sort is evident! You said that avidya is not there,

so how can there be a "stemming out" of what is not there? Maya is

not non-existent -- it is the power of the Lord. Maya does not stem

out of avidya.

 

The active side of Brahman, called Maya, is seen by a jiva

characterised by avidya.

________________

 

Bhaskar prabhuji:

> Prabhuji, for our convenience we can say avidyA is subjective

> defect whereas mAya is objective false appearance due

> to subjective defect in jIva bhAva.

 

CN:

 

It is not a matter of convenience Prabhuji. :-)

________________

 

Bhaskar prabhuji:

> avidyA is the dOsha of pramAtru's antaH karaNa, through this

> avidyAkruta antah karaNa dOsha he perceives something outside

> which is really not there.

 

 

CN:

 

No, he perceives something outside which is really not outside of

Self. That doesn't mean that the object is not really there at all!

The effect is pre-existent in the cause. Bt according to you, the

effect is totally false even though it is stated that it is pre-

existent in the cause. Advaita is full of riddles, and this is

another riddle that you wan't to leave unresolved when asking us to

accept your interpretation.

_________________

 

Bhaskar prabhuji:

> This false appearance is called mAyA which is in turn

> avidyAkruta or avidyAkalpita or mithyAbhAsa.

 

CN:

 

What is it that appears falsely? Or is it nothing that appears

thusly?

________________

 

 

Bhaskar prabhuji:

> To substantiate this we can see shankara's sUtra bhAshya on

> ArabhaNAdhikaraNa's sUtra tadanyanyatvamArambhaNashabdAdhibhyaH

> also prabhuji, here shankara's distinction between avidyA &

> mAyA is very clear. He says, this mAya/prakruti is fictiously

> imagined by avidyA.

 

CN:

 

The Acharya doesn't say that. What is the translation of this sutra?

It is: "There is non-difference of (those) cause and effect on

account of the text about origin etc."

 

Why should the universe be asserted to be non-different from Brahman,

and then explained away as a fiction? Why can't it be simply asserted

to be a fiction? Can you please explain this seeming superfluity?

 

The bhashya on this sutra states that creation by name and form, and

omniscience etc are contingent upon nescience. The word "contingent"

is important. When something is contingent on another thing, it does

not mean that it is the cause of that something. If I pull the

curtains on my window and the sunlight streams into the room, what is

the cause of the light in my room? Is it my pulling the curtain, or

is it the nature of the sun and sunlight? Or do you think this

example is not good because it from the material world? :-)

 

The Acharya states in the context of the same sutra that "the origin,

continuance, and dissolution of the world result not from the

insentient Pradhana or anything else, but from God who is by nature

eternal, pure, intelligent, and free, as also omniscient and

omnipotent. That assertion remains intact. Nothing contradictory to

that is stated here again."

 

How is contradiction avoided when the efficient cause is conscious

and yet it is said that the creation of the world is contingent upon

avidya? Can you please explain this? Please remember that avidya even

in the presence of Brahman does not make it a cause just as pradhana

in the presence of Purusha does not make pradhana a cause (see the

Acharya's arguments against Samkhya).

 

_______________

 

Bhaskar prabhuji:

> Here mAyA described as the figment of avidyA & identified with

> prakruti.

 

CN:

 

No, that is your interpretation (or figment of imagination :-)).

__________________

 

 

Bhaskar prabhuji:

> So, prabhuji root cause for false appearance (mAyA/prakruti)

> is avidyA.

 

CN:

 

If you had left out the contents within the paranthesis, I would have

agreed with you, but .....

_________________

 

> CN:

>

> then the words that we speak are also constituted

> by avidya and hence the statement that "avidya is the cause of the

> universe" would also be constituted by avidya and would make the

> entire argument self-refuting. The proposition reduces to what is

> called the liars-paradox -- one which is false if it is true, and

> true if it is false.

>

> bhaskar prabhuji:

>

> prabhuji, your argument reminds me Sri rAmAnuja's objections

> on advaita in SribhAShyaM. While commenting on shankara's

> concept of avidyA he raises the same objection.

 

CN:

 

Sri Ramanauja's objection is not on the Advaita of Sri

Shankaracahrya, but on the kind of interpretation that you have been

giving to Advaita.

__________________

 

 

Bhaskar prabhuji:

> Anyway, if the statement itself which says *avidyA is the

> cause of the universe* is also avidyA, let it be prabhuji.

 

CN:

 

There is no "let it be" here, we are discussing about the truth. It

is not a matter of letting uncomfortable things be just because we

find ourselves unequal to the task.

_________________

 

Bhaskar prabhuji:

> Afterall that is what we are trying to say here is it not??

> when shankara says sarva loukika, vaidika vyavahAra is avidyA

> let that statement also be a product of avidyA only.

 

CN:

 

You are mixing up what the Acharya says with your own interpretation

to derive absurd statements. Do you realise what you are asserting?

It is like saying "All of this world, including all the sentences I

speak, are false, but this statement is true!". It is this kind of

interpretation that has made Advaita vulnerable to attacks by the

purva paksha! Prabhuji, you have your interpretation, but don't you

think you should desist from making such confident assertions while

standing on such a shaky foundation?

 

 

Regards,

Chittaranjan