Brahman, the material cause

[Guest guest]

Ref. Msg,7 of Digest No.2752

 

 

 

Dear Rishiji:

 

Namaste. The delay in replying was due to my preoccupation with some other work.

 

 

 

Rishi:

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Response:

In the beginning of my post where the Mandukya scheme was taken up for

explaining the Adhyasa concept, I had mentioned that the Turiya is not

considered in this discussion as even without that the purpose on hand could be

served. The idea was that without vitiating the material causehood of Brahman,

the paadatrayam was sought to be shown as the cause and effect of samsara. In

order to make the whole idea clear to me, I conceived of this picture:

There is a Big Circle , Brahman. Within that circle, there is a smaller circle

representing Prakriti/maya. Inside this circle, the jiva is placed. This

smaller circle represents the paadatrayam. Thus Brahman, the Turiya is the

substratum of the paadatrayam, inherent in all the three paadas and at the same

time transcending them. If the word material cause is to be used, then Brahman

is the material cause of the paadatrayam which represents the whole of the

prapancha. So, the effect, the prapancha, not having an existence apart from

that of Brahman, is non-different from the cause.

 

A cause-effect relationship could still be established between the Prajna and

the taijasa-vishwa, without affecting the Bigger cause-effect spoken of above.

 

In the sutram I.4.3, the Vedantin says:….Should we admit some primal state as

an independent cause of the world, we shall be opening the door for the theory

of Pradhana as the cause. But this primal state is held by us to be subject to

the supreme Lord, but not as an independent thing. That state has to be

admitted, because it serves a purpose. Without that latent state, the

creatorship of God cannot have any meaning, inasmuch as God cannot act without

His power (of Maya). "

 

In Vedanta two material causes are admitted, simultaneously operating. It

may sound highly illogical. This is how the arrangement goes: Maya or Avidya

is termed the 'Parinaami-upaadaana kaaranam, roughly translatable as 'changeful

material cause' and Brahman is the 'Vivarta-upaadaana kaaranam. I do not know

how to translate this. However, the example, later, can make it clear.

Every effect that is born has to have a cause and the rule is that the

material cause has to inhere in the effect. Now every object is made up of

gunas, sattva, etc. Maya or avidya is trigunaatmika and this is seen reflected

in every effect. So, the effect being non- different from its cause is

established when Maya is considered the material cause. Thus Maya is the

parinaami-upaadaana kaarana of the universe. This is confined to the smaller

circle only. I had said that the Prajna is the cause and the taijasa-vishwa the

effect in this sense. Since the Prajna itself cant be outside Turiya, the

Turiya pervading the Prajna and through the Prajna the others, is maintained

intact.

 

Since Brahman does not undergo any parinaama to 'become' the world, the

material causehood of Brahman is called Vivartopaadaanatva. The 'snake' is the

vivarta of the rope. The paadatraya , the inner circle, the prapancha, is the

vivarta of Brahman. That is why the Turiya was termed prapanchopashamam.

 

As the 'effect', the snake, cannot claim an existence independent of the

rope, it is non-different from the 'cause' the rope. As the world cannot claim

an existence independent of Brahman, it is non-different from Brahman.. In the

Bhashyam for the sutra II.1.14 Tad-ananyatvam…, Shankara says: "As the spaces

within the pots or jars are non-different from the cosmic space or water in a

mirage is non-different from a (sandy) desert – since they sometimes appear and

sometimes vanish away, and as such their nature cannot be defined, even so it is

to be understood that this diverse phenomenal world of experiences, things

experienced, and so on has no existence apart from Brahman." Thus in

vivartavada, there is no scope to use the expression: cause-effect.

 

I could not give a one line answer and so it became so big. Again, it goes

without saying that this is just my understanding.

 

Warm Regards

subbu

 

 

 

 

 

Photos

Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays,

whatever.