Reg. a point made by Rishi

[Guest guest]

Ref.Msg,No.8 of Digest no.2751

 

Dear Rishiji

Namaste.

This point of yours seems to be interesting:

Classical Advaitins seem to agree sometimes that Brahman is the cause

of the world, but hold that Brahman is unborn in one sense and

everything else is unborn in another.

 

Can you elaborate on this? Maya is called ajA, unborn. Brahman is said to be

the cause of the world in association with Maya, for by Itself, Brahman is

nishkriyam, avikaari, etc. Shankara comments for the Urdhvamulam of the 15th

chapter, Gita:

Urdhvamulam = kaalataH suukshmatvaat kAranatvaat nityatvaat mahatvaaccha

Urdhvamuchyate Brahma and hastens to add: Avyakta-maayaashaktimat....

Alladi M.Sastry tr.:As Brahman with Maaya or the unmanifested potentiality

issubtle in point of time, as He is the Cause, as He is eternal, as He is great,

He is spoken of as the one 'above'=Urdhvam.

Anandagiri adds: Brahman is the cause because He is the invariable

antecedent of all effects.

This word 'invariable' Kutastha upaadaana kaaranam, is significant, for Maya

which is also spoken of as the cause, is parinaami upaadaana kaaranam,

'changeful' material cause. In what context is Brahman spoken of as unborn?

 

Regards

subbu

 

 

 

 

 

Photos – Showcase holiday pictures in hardcover

Photo Books. You design it and we’ll bind it!

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Subrahmanianji,

 

"In what context is Brahman spoken of as unborn?"

 

Brahman is Eternal so it could not have been born.

 

"Anandagiri adds: Brahman is the cause because He is the invariable

antecedent of all effects."

 

This is not acceptable since the logic does not make sense.

 

Suppose there is a patch of land. In the patch of land there is a

tree. After a while another tree grows. The first tree is antecedent

to the second tree, but obviously its not the cause of the second

tree. A cause/effect relationship is a very specific one and

antecedency is not enough grounds for a relationship to be described

as such.

 

Instead of glossing over it, perhaps we should simply believe Shankara

when he says that Brahman is the cause?

 

More generally, look at what Shankara says in the last sutras of the

fourth pada of the first adhyaya in the Brahma Sutra Bhasya.

 

In Sutra 14, Shankara clearly says Brahman is the cause and says the

only point of creation illustrations with clay and gold is to show

that the effect (the world) is not different from the clay/gold

(Brahman). In your system the effect is a product of avidyashakti,

completely different from Brahman.

 

Shankara says (in Sutra 23) that one of the reasons why Brahman is the

material cause is that in the Upanisahds Brahman is spoken of that

which being known, all things become known. Shankara explicitly says

that the knowledge of everything is possible through the knowledge of

the material cause, since the effect is non-different from the cause.

 

In the all those verses until the end of the Adhyaya, Shankara never

talks about avidya being the material cause - he says over and over

again that Brahman is the material cause and that the effect is

non-different from the cause. In your system, how is Brahman the

material cause? How is the effect non-different from the cause?

 

Also I am asking from a Vyavahara perspective, so you can't answer by

saying "this is only from perspective of avidya". Even from Vyavahara

perspective, how is Brahman the material cause in your system? How is

the effect non-different from the cause?

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.