"Uncaused Cause" (was Swami Chinmayananda on "God")

[Guest guest]

I respect Swami Chinmayananda for his great contributions to

Vedanta, but most philosophers would find problems with his

arguments for the existence of God as they appear in a dialog

posted to the advaitin list. (I have also CC-ed the advaita-l

list since the interests of the lists are the same in this

regard.)

 

praNAms Sri Karthik prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I think, swamiji here, was not talking with another vEdAntin about kArya

(effect)-kAraNa (cause) theory...he was talking to an atheist. Swamiji

used the initial steps in vEdAnta to teach a tyro in adhyAtma vidya that

*god* is the primary cause (mUla kAraNa) behind this effect as creation.

In this context, I'd say swamiji's answer is appropriate.

 

But when it comes to traditional teachings of advaita, yes, you are right

prabhuji, there is no kArya as such apart from kAraNa...whatever kArya is

there that is only for name sake (vAchAraMbhaNam vikAro nAmadhEyaM). In

the strict sense of advaita, there is nothing which may be called as an

effect...it is only a name/vikAra & unreal. what is illustrated as *cause*

in the cause & effect theory, that is the only reality. I think swamiji

would have endorsed this view if he was talking to an traditional advaitin.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Karthik:

 

Shankara's objection to the Vaiseshika theory postulated by Kanada

was due to the fact Kanada believed that `logic alone is sufficient

to know the Brahman.' Kanada's position is a contradiction to the

Scriptural statement that the Brahman is beyond `logic and

intellect.' For those with strongest faith in the scriptures such as

Sankara, Swami Chinmayananda the existence of the Brahman (God) is

without any doubt. God existed in the beginning, in the present and

will be present without an end (there is no beginning or end in the

existence of God). When the mind is conditioned with this

understanding then God becomes the `Only single cause for all the

effects.' I don't see any contradiction between what Sankara said

and how Swamiji interpreted to cultivate the faith to the

nonbelievers.

 

At this time, let me restate the famous statement regarding the role

of `faith' by St. Augustine: "Faith is to believe what we don't see;

and its reward to see what we believe!" This statement is quite

profound and Swami Chinmayanandaji often states the above quotation

during his discourses . Swamiji's commentary on `Bhajagovindham also

contains the quotation of St. Augustine. Essentially, I want to say

that Swamiji knows the importance of Scriptural Wisdom in unfolding

the `Self.' In order to understand where Swamiji stands on this

issue, we should read his lifetime work, and we should avoid quoting

his answers to stray questions from strange audiences during his

discourses.

 

I also want Sri Karthik to read carefully chapters 9 and 10 of

Bhagavad Gita especially the commentary by Sankara (SankaraBhashya)

which extensively describes Lord Krishna's Glories. Lord Krishna

implicitly makes a similar (Swamiji explanation of cause and effect)

persuasive approach especially in chapter 10 to convince Arjuna and

all of us. In conclusion, I want to thank you for articulating the

importance of Sastras to unfold the ultimate Truth.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin, S Jayanarayanan <sjayana> wrote:

> I respect Swami Chinmayananda for his great contributions to

> Vedanta, but most philosophers would find problems with his

> arguments for the existence of God as they appear in a dialog

> posted to the advaitin list. (I have also CC-ed the advaita-l

> list since the interests of the lists are the same in this

> regard.)

>

[Guest guest]

Hari AUM,

 

First of all - very sorry for the very late reply to the mail by

Karthik-ji. Ramji has already addressed this but still would like to put

forth my limited views on this topic.

 

If a person considers himself the jeeva, that very moment there is the

creator God also present. The arguments which Chinmaya gives are valid

if they are considered from a little different perspective.

 

I don't want to enter into any hair-splitting logical debates but still

am trying to put forth some views regarding what Chinmaya has said.

 

Of course there is nothing wrong in using the "uncaused cause" argument

if the final conclusion arrived at is that the "uncaused cause" is not a

CAUSE but only a SUBTRATUM of the illusion of the process of causation.

 

And as explained by other learned members, for ignorant people these are

some ways of explaining the existence of God (which is not different

from Brahman even though there might be slight difference in Vedanta).

AMMA initially said to a devotee "telling that God is not there is like

telling with one's own tongue that I don't have a tongue!!!!".

>>I respect Swami Chinmayananda for his great contributions to

>>Vedanta, but most philosophers would find problems with his

>>arguments for the existence of God as they appear in a dialog

>>posted to the advaitin list. (I have also CC-ed the advaita-l

>>list since the interests of the lists are the same in this

>>regard.)

 

Does it really matter what "most philosophers" think???? According to

Ramana Maharshi, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what others think

because the very thought of "others" itself is only in the mind and an

illusion alone.

 

And moreover no arguments are required for the existence of God. The

moment the jeeva is there (who is limited and in bondage), the Ishwara

also comes into picture (that very moment itself). Thus, there requires

no argument to prove the same. The moment jeeva vanishes -- then that

time also Ishwara or Brahman alone exists. Thus in both the cases, God

exists (in one case he seems to be the creator whereas in other case he

is one's own very nature of Self). Arguments are required when one is

trying to either explain to others or prove to others.

>>The following points are to be noted as simple observations

>>only. I must reiterate that no disrespect whatsoever is

>>intended:

>>There are several counter-objections to the above argument:

>>1) If you assume that every cause must have had a preceding

>>cause, then God, being a cause, must also have another cause

>>preceding him! So who or what caused God? What justifies your

>>claim that God is "uncaused"? Perhaps your "God" is also caused!

 

Yes, cause should have a cause which will lead to infinite regress. Any

thing which leads to infinite regress has to be indescribable or mithyaa

or illusory (as Sri Harsha says). Any illusion doesn't have a cause but

surely has a substratum in which it appears. This substratum is a cause

of the illusory object (from the ignorant's view who sees the illusion

and not the substratum). The rope is the cause of the snake until the

rope is realized. The desert is the cause of the water until one

realizes that there is no water but only desert. What Chinmaya wants to

show here is that the God is uncaused cause from the ignorant hearer's

view. Of course if a person is realized, the question itself will not

arise -- hence it is justified of Swamiji using such a term for the

substratum or adhistaanam of Brahman as God.

 

Hence Swamiji's "God" is nothing but Brahman or Ishwara according to

Advaita.

 

Also Vedanta itself uses the Chandra shaaka nyaaya to go from the nearby

world to its substratum of Brahman (should be ideally termed as Saguna

Brahman or Ishwara as in Nirguna Brahman there is no other thing even to

think of an illusion appearing in it). This is what even the Upanishads

and Brahma Sutra (very second sutra says). Thus there it is clearly

mentioned that Brahman or God is the creator of the world who is thus

the uncaused cause of the illusory world (since the world is illusory

the word "uncaused cause" is also illusory and the real world is

"substratum".

 

>>2) From the claim, "Every cause must have had a preceding

>>cause", it does not follow that the universe must have had ONE

>>cause. Why should there not be more number of causes? As

>>Bertrand Russell has pointed out, it is like saying, "All human

>>beings have a mother, therefore the entire human race must have

>>had one mother."

 

This objection if I am right is raised by Kalpatharu and Parimalam. This

objection that "why not the universe have had more than one cause" is

valid only if there is mentioned two causes of efficient and material.

But in this case, the God mentioned is both the efficient as well as the

material cause and hence this objection is not valid.

 

And again here "every cause must have had a preceding cause" leads one

to tell that the universe have had ONE cause alone --- as the universe

is considered as a whole (which has intermediate causes and effects of

various things which are inside the entire "universe") --- this is

because the universe can have multiple causes only if the material and

efficient causes are different.

 

The pot has multiple causes because the material cause of mud and

efficient cause of potter are different.

 

It is only when according to Naiyyayikas, God is mentioned as just the

efficient cause -- this problem occurs. But according to Vedanta the God

is both the efficient and material cause of the universe. In such a

case, one can easily conclude that there should be only ONE cause for

the universe.

>From "every cause must have lead to an uncaused cause" -- it follows

that the universe must have had ONE cause. "every cause must have had a

preceding cause" leads one to infinite regress which then leads to the

conclusion that the causation itself is only an illusion and hence there

is an "uncaused cause" which is the substratum of the illusion (from

this it can easily be deduced that the universe must have had or rather

universe has ONE cause alone).

>>We can accept that individual events have causes, which DOES NOT

>>IMPLY that the entire set of causal events must have had a

>>single cause. What prevents the entire universe from having

>>evolved out of 23 causes (for instance)? Why limit it to ONE

>>cause (instead of 23 causes) for the universe? It is entirely

>>possible that the preceding causes go on ad infinitum.

 

It is not possible because Sruthi says and through inference also one

can come to the conclusion that there is only ONE cause for the

universe. Of course this cause is both the efficient as well as the

material cause.

>>3) Even if it be accepted that there is a single cause to the

>>universe, there is no reason to believe that the cause must be a

>>conscious being. Can this be "God", a supreme being that is

>>essentially inanimate?

 

It cannot be an unconscious being because in that case you would see the

pot coming out of the mud automatically. You would then see the computer

automatically sending replies to the group :-) which is not at all

possible.

 

The example of spider creating web (in Mundaka Upanishad) shows that the

material and efficient cause is the animate spider (not inanimate

spider).

>>>> He is the oldest, the most

>>>> ancient, He was before TIME. The Sanaatanah, the Puraanah.

>>I'm not sure if Swamiji is saying that Vedantins give the

>>"uncaused cause" argument. But traditional advaitins have

>>considered and rejected this argument. In Vidyaranya's Shankara

>>Digvijayam, it is said that this is an argument of Kanada, which

>>Shankara refutes.

 

Again I believe Kanada says that God is the uncaused cause (efficient

cause alone). There is no problem in using the "uncaused cause" argument

even according to Vedanta (of course logic alone cannot be depended upon

but doesn't sruthi also come to the same conclusion that there is the

uncaused cause of Brahman which is both the efficient and material

cause???)

 

If something wrong has been mentioned here it is only due to limited

intellectual knowledge in sruthi as well as in tarka. Kindly request the

learned members to forgive any such faults and errors.

 

HARI AUM

Hariram

 

>>-Kartik

[Guest guest]

Pranams,

 

If creation is accepted from the view-point of the Jeeva,the necessary

corolloray is the cause for the effect-creation. Like a similiarity that can be

deciphered, in every painting of the same painter, what is the magnitude of the

Creation, which consists of inumerable Galaxies, each having its star-systems,

planetary systems etc. It is infinite. The frontiers, of created matter is not

known. Then there is the principple of uncertainity when we step into atomic and

sub-atomic physics.Thus when the creation is infinite the cause is also

infinite,having neither a form nor a name. If Jeeva has a name and form then the

cause for the creation which is noting but the Jeeva, and its percpetions, the

cause is what the effect feels. The term uncaused-cause, means infinite and the

human brain or the network of memory cannot catch it. When day to day

experiences cannot be caught on the screen of consciousness or memory, the

eternal cause can only be termed" uncaused-cause", which necessarily is

slightly disturbing if not irritating. Nextly the cause of the Jeeva, leads to

infinte regression seeking cause for casue for cause adinfinitum. This is

possible only in the waking consciousness which is noting but one quarter of the

total. The entirety can digest the entity but the other way reound is not

possible. To feel or understand a person shpould be pre-dominantly righht

brained( only the right hemisphere of the bi-cameral brain should work).In

Turiya there is neither a body nor a mind but only the Self.

 

OM TAT SAT.

 

 

 

 

 

 

India Matrimony: Find your partner now.

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- Hariram_Subramonia <Hariram_Subramonia wrote:

 

[..]

> >>I respect Swami Chinmayananda for his great contributions to

> >>Vedanta, but most philosophers would find problems with his

> >>arguments for the existence of God as they appear in a

> dialog

> >>posted to the advaitin list. (I have also CC-ed the

> advaita-l

> >>list since the interests of the lists are the same in this

> >>regard.)

>

> Does it really matter what "most philosophers" think????

 

If (a huge if) Swamiji made the statement, "I is knowing this",

then I would say, "Most Professors of English language would

find grammatical mistakes in what Swamiji's statement." Is it

necessary to learn what English professors think in this regard?

Absolutely, because Swamiji is speaking in English, and the

question concerns English grammar! The people best suited to

answer questions on English grammar are English language

professors. It is not like we are asking the *opinion* of the

professors on religion, but we are only considering their

expertise on the English language. (I understand that Swamiji

would never make a mistake in English grammar because he was an

M.A. in English, but I'm only making a point).

 

Similarly, when Swamiji is discussing cause and effect theory,

which is philosophy, we must necessarily learn if it is

philosophically sound. Vedantins are philosophers who discuss

causation (just take a look at the GauDapAdIya KArikA), and they

have dismissed the "first cause" theory for several reasons.

Naiyayikas are also philosophers who accept the first-cause

theory, but their ideas are refuted by Shankara. Besides, the

argument has historically been a part of Western philosophy

(having originated with three Catholic saints

Augustine-Aquinas-Anselm) and has been extensively analyzed in

the Western traditions of philosophy. The very term "uncaused

cause" appears several times in St. Thomas Aquinas' texts on the

topic, hence my appeal to the Christian/Western philosophical

tradition.

 

I just thought I should make myself clear as to why I considered

the opinion of philosophers in this regard, because given the

context, it is very relevant.

 

-Kartik

 

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

Work for the Employer with the best benefits! Work for God!