Brahman, the Material cause

[Guest guest]

Ref: Message: 2

 

Wed, 18 Jan 2006 21:58:45 -0000

 

"Srinivas Kotekal" <kots_p

 

Re: Brahman - Revelation and Confusion

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Sri. Sadananda-gAru,

 

 

 

Namaste.

 

 

 

 

 

Sir, with due respect, it is an misunderstanding in holding that

 

Dvaitin are assuming about Brahman not being material causality.

 

 

 

There are so many pramAna-s in prastAnatraya which establishes our

 

position. As per my limited understanding, the analysis goes like

 

this;

 

 

 

Taittariya Up. II.vi.1 says "He desired: 'May I be many, may I be

 

born. He performed austerities. Having performed austerities, He

 

created all this – whatever there is. Having created all this, He

 

entered into it."

 

 

 

Upanishad does not say He `became' all of this world, instead it

 

says: `He created all this'. 'bahu syAM prajAyeya' simply means "He

 

desired to become many". His becoming 'all this' (of World) is not in

 

shruti as such.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response: In this very anuvaka, II.vi. of the Tai.Up, there are the vakyams:

 

 

 

Saccha Tyaccha abhavat. Niruktam cha aniruktam cha.Nilayanam cha anilayanam

cha.vijnanam cha avijnanam cha. satyam cha anrtam cha satyam abhavat. yadidam

kim cha. Tat Satyamityachakshate..

 

 

 

The Acharya has explained that everything in the entire creation is covered by

the above 'becoming of all' by Brahman. The Brahmasutras I.iv.6.23 – 27 teach

the material causehood of Brahman. In the 26th sutra the Acharya points out the

'saccha tyaccha abhavat' to show the material causehood of Brahman. For the

very Tai.vakyam: Yato vaa imaani bhutaani jaayante' the Acharya shows the Panini

Sutra 1.4.30 'JanikartuH prakrtiH' and establishes that the upadanakaaranam is

Brahman. These sutras may have been explained in a different way by other

schools. I am not entering that debate. I just wanted to show that the above

Tai. vakyams are there for His 'becoming all'.

 

 

 

Regards,

 

subbu

 

 

 

 

Photos

Got holiday prints? See all the ways to get quality prints in your hands ASAP.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Subrahmanianji,

 

Refer your post 30015 (your response to Sri Srinivas Kotekal)

 

advaitin, V Subrahmanian <subrahmanian_v>

wrote:

 

There is an irony in your opposition to the Dvaita doctrine of

material causality considering that your own interpretation of

material causality (as explained by you in your last message titled

Vikshepa Shakti) is closer to the position of Dvaita than to that of

Advaita. In your efforts to justify the (unconditional) mithyatva of

the world, you differentiate between the effect that is 'same as

Brahman' and the effect that appears to be different from Brahman

i.e., the objects of this world. Let us see how such a

differentiation in 'effect' leads to Dvaita. Firstly, you would be

ignoring the fact that (according to Advaita) the denotation of the

word 'effect' cannot be nullified without the word 'effect' itself

getting nullified. But the meaning of the word 'effect' which you use

in the phrase 'the effect that is same as Brahman' is not in fact the

meaning of the word 'effect' because effects such as cow, sun, moon,

world, etc which are denoted by the word 'effect' have lost their

character of being cow, sun, moon, world, etc in the way you use the

term by saying that it is an effect that is 'same as Brahman' but

different from the objects of the world. In order to be consistent

with the denotation of words, you will have to coin a new word for

the so-called 'effect' that is 'same as Brahman', but then its

referent will not be the same referent that the word 'effect' has

(such as the objects of the world). The denotation of a word has to

remain consistent if your statements are to be logically coherent.

You use the word 'effect' with a dual connotation. The logical

position that follows from this dual connotation is the Dvaita

position that Brahman is NOT the material cause of the world. Let me

explain this a bit further.

 

According to Advaita, a word denoting an object has a single

connotation. According to Dvaita, it has dual connotations. In Dvaita

all words referring to objects refer to Brahman in the primary sense

and to the objects in a secondary sense.

 

If you read Madhva Bhashya on the sutras related to material

causality, you will see that Sri Madhvacharya first says that Brahman

is both the male principle and the female principle. He actually is

speaking Advaita here. Then he uses the dual connotation of words to

prove that Brahman is not the material cause of the universe.

According to Madhvacharya, the female principle is the will of

Brahman called prakriti, and Vishnu is the male principle, the Being

that resides in Prakriti. Brahman is the unchanging principle, and

prakriti is the changing principle, and words in their primary sense

always point to Brahman, the unchanging principle, and in a secondary

sense they point to the changing principle, the prakritic objects of

the world. The changing principle in its undifferentiated state

(prakriti, avyakta) is the material cause of the universe and Brahman

is the efficient cause who brings about transformation through yoga-

vritti-prakriti. Without the dual connotation, Dvaita will not stand.

And now I see that you are holding on to the very principle (of dual

connotation) that Dvaita uses to establish that Brahman is not the

material cause of the universe, and you are arguing against Dvaita

that Brahman is indeed the material cause of the universe. That is

the irony that I saw.

 

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan