Brahman, the Material Cause

[Guest guest]

Ref: Message: 3

 

Sun, 22 Jan 2006 05:02:39 -0000

 

"Chittaranjan Naik" <chittaranjan_naik

 

Re: Brahman, the Material cause

 

 

 

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

 

Reply:

Namaste Chittaji:

 

A question was anticipated by me. And that from your good self. See, our

minds have met !!

The Acharya has maintained the position of the Vivartopaadaanatva of Brahman

consistently and has thus not given room for ambiguity. In this very Taittiriya

portion, the unmistakable signature of the Acharya can be seen:

 

Tannaama-rupa-vyakaranam Brahmano bahubhavanam. Na anyathaa Niravayavasya

Brahmano bahutvaapattiH upapadyate alpatvam vaa, yathaa Aakashasya alpatvam

bahutvam cha vastvantara-krtam evam. AtaH tad (naama-rupa-vyakarana)

dvaarenaiva atma bahu bhavati.

 

Translation: ..by this differentiation of name and form, Brahman becomes

manifold. In no other way can the partless Brahman become manifold or become

small. It is, for instance, through other things that akasha appears small or

manifold. So it is through them (name and form) alone that Atman becomes many.

 

The Sayanabhashya for the above 'bahubhavanam=becoming many' portion of the

Tai.Up, is:

Just as a burning faggot, while remaining of one shape, puts on various shapes

owing to some external causes (when it is shaken or whirled round), so also

multiplicity of the Supreme Atman is due to the illusion of names and forms. So,

it is only by way of manifesting Himself in these illusory names and forms that

the Lord must have desired to be born. ..Indeed Brahman being without parts, it

cannot be that He actually becomes manifold. Wherefore, it is only in a

figurative sense that Brahman is spoken of as becoming manifold, in the same way

that akasha becomes manifold through jars and other objects extending in space.

(Sourced from 'The Taittiriya Upanishad' Translated by Sri Alladi Mahadeva

Sastry, 1903, Samata Books p.519 -20)

 

A standard gloss on the Taittiriya Bhashya, named Vanamaala, says:

Parinaamitayaa bahutva asambhavaat, sva-adhyasta-nama-rupa-dvarenaiva Atma

bahutvam aapadyate ityarthaH.

Meaning: Because it is impossible for the Atma to become many through

transformation, the explanation for 'becoming many' is: through the

superimposed names and forms alone It became manifold.

 

For the Brahma Sutra I.iv.7.26, 'AtmakrteH Parinaamaat' the Acharya considered

the possibility of the word 'Parinaamaat' being taken as an independent sutra

and commented upon this possibility too. The gloss Ratnaprabha, commenting on

the word 'parinama' (of the Sutra), says: Atra sutre parinaama-shabdaH

kaaryamaatra-paraH, na tu satya-kaaryaatmaka-parinaamaparaH;

'Tadananyatvam…(Sutra II.i.6.14) iti vivarta-vaadasya vakshyamaanatvaat.

Meaning: The word parinaama connotes the effect alone and not any real

transformation (of Brahman) as the effects; as the Vivartavada is going to be

upheld in the other sutra (II.i.6.14) to be taken up later.

 

Thus the position of the Vedanta as regards the material causehood of Brahman

is the Vivartavaada. In my earlier posting too, I had highlighted this position

alone. As my objective in the post addressed to Srinivas ji was limited to

giving the Sruti/Sutra reference, I had not gone into the details mentioned

above.

 

As I have not studied the Dvaita philosophy, I am unable to comment upon it.

 

With warm regards

subbu

 

 

 

 

 

 

Autos. Looking for a sweet ride? Get pricing, reviews, & more on new and

used cars.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Subramanyana-ji ,

 

Namaste.

 

Thanks for your mail on this issue and quoting Taitt.U.

>

> 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..

 

No, these terms (such as sacch, tyat, anirukta etc) does not indicate

Brahman becoming `all these'.

 

All of above words in their primary sense indicative of Brahman only.

In other words, Brahman is vAchya with all these terms. Because of

this vAchyatva (of B) and such Brahman being controller in the

created things by various Controller Forms.

 

Because of B's various Controller Forms, which gives various aspects

to the created world, this creation also gets those names in their

secondary sense.

 

Brahman is said to be `tyat', because He is vyApta and niyAmaka.

 

Brahman is said to be `anirukta', because no single word can

completely describe Him.

 

Brahman is said to be `nilayana', because He is all-supportive

(sarvAdhAra).

 

Brahman is said to be `vijnAna', because He has Knowledge of

everything in full detail.

 

Brahman is said to be `satya', because He is nirduSTa guNa-swarUpa.

 

Now, how do created things gets those terms in secondary sense? It is

as follows ;

 

Terms such as `sat', `nirukta', `anruta', `avijnAna' and `anilayana'

are indicative of all this creation (other than Sree, hiraNyagarbha

and mukys-prANa tatva-s);

 

- Because there is no limitation in describing a worldly thing

by a word, this world is called nirukta i.e not anirukta

- Because this created world of sentients can not possibly know

everything, it is called `avijnAna'

- Because this created world is not supportive of all, it is

called by `anilayana'

 

All these limitations to the created world is due to various

Controller Forms of B in them, thus B' is primarily vAchya by those

terms.

 

Where as `satya' is indicative of Sree tatva and mukhya-prANa because

of Brahman in them as nirduSTa guNarUpa.

 

So also, terms such as `tyat', `anirykta', `vijnAna' and `nilayana'

are used for chatur-mukha Brahma (hirNyagarbha) because of Brahman's

anteryAmitva in hirNyagarbha.

 

Also, since He plays active role in causing avasAda (khEda),

suvAchyatava, durbhalyatva, ajnAna and duSTa-guNarUpatva to this

created world (other than Sree, hiraNyagarbha and mukys-prANa

tatva), Brahman is said to be vAchya by those terms as well.

 

Thus, in the context of creation what Upanishad is saying is that He

created the world , He took many Controller Forms to manage the

creation. Due to His Role in manifesting various aspects in created

tatva-s through His Controller Forms, He is vAchya by those terms.

 

This topic is much more eleborated in M.bhAshya and I do not think I

covered it completely. I suggest you please study if you find a

chance.

>

> The Acharya has explained that everything in the entire creation is

covered by the above 'becoming of all' by Brahman.

 

As I said earlier, shruti's 'bahu syAM prajAyeya' simply means He

desired to become **many**. The point of contention is why `bahu'

is translated as `all' instead of `many'?

 

Also, Upanishad's assertion of His 'entering' (…prAvishAt) would be

pointless if He were to be the material cause of that which He

is 'entering', even if this 'entering' only be a manifestation (as

some other holds).

 

Brahman taking multiple Forms (other than created things) is

explained in next verse as "asadvA idamagra AsIt.h, tato vai

sadajAyata, tadAtmAnaM svayamakuruta, tasmaattatsukR^itamuchyata

iti . . . '

 

>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'.

>

 

Regarding sUtra-s 23-27 of 4th pAda of samanvaya adhikaraNa, there

is lot to discuss between us. However, here are some pointers;

 

For inter-school comparison on B.sUtra, you may like to read "The

Brahma Sutras and Their Principal Commentaries" by B.N.K. Sharma.

Even though the author is a committed Dvaitin and you'd expect the

appropriate bias, as much as I know it is the only work in English

that offers a thorough comparison of the three primary commentaries

on the Sutras.

 

Coming to the issue of Brahman's being the material cause (as is clay

for a pot) rather than just the effective cause (as is the potter for

a pot), we must note that the Sutras have been incorrectly

interpreted by some to offer such a purport. The ones you're quoting

are in the *samanvaya* ("uniform interpretation") chapter of the

Brahma Sutras. As you know, chapters in sUtra are organized as

samanvaya("uniform interpretation"), avirodha ("treatment of

objections"), sAdhanA, and phala adhyaya-s

 

The first chapter is acknowledged by all schools to refer to the

uniform interpretation of Vedantic epithets as referring solely to

Brahman, i.e., as establishing that all the scriptures have only

Brahman for their purport, rather than other things (also).

 

As both Sri.Shankara and Sri.Ramaanuja did in those sUtras (23-27),

rebuttal of the sAN^khya's prakR^iti has no place in this chapter,

and such refutation should only figure in the second (as indeed it

does).

 

In addition, the establishing of Brahman as the material cause is

sought to be done in rebutting the "nirIshvara" (atheistic) sAN^khya

interpretation of the Vedas, however, in fact the nirIshvara

sAN^khyas do not care to interpret the Vedas at all, which they do

not regard as scripture.

 

For our discussion, let's go each sUtras one by one in a simple

manner.

 

I.4.23 OM || prakRti$ca pratijn~aa dRSTaantaanuparodhaat || OM

 

As per Sri.Shankara, Brahman is also prakRti(material cause) of the

world, because this (thesis) do not contradict

affirmations and examples contained in shruti.

 

But, the point of other school's contention is, this Sutra has to do

solely with establishing that the word `prakR^iti' is an epithet of

Brahman, i.e doing samanvaya of word `prkR^iti' in Brahman. The topic

of B's causality – whether upAdana or nimitta, is outside the scope

of this pAda .

 

As such, this adhikarana is not directly concerned with denial of

tatva-s (such as prakriti etc) other than Brahman.

 

However, if conclusion of non-existence of prakritia as other than B

is to be sought, the sUtra-s would have denyed prakR^iti and would

have established the non-existence of the same in earlier adhikaraNa-

s.

 

The non-existence of prakriti as a tatva would not, therefore , be

valid inference from this adhikaraNa. It is just as how non-existence

of AkAsha as a tatva (other than B) has not followed from AkAsha-

adhikaraNa earlier.

 

I.4.24 OM || abhidhyOpa dEshAchha || OM

 

The wording of the sUtra is not consistent with the requirement of

vivarta-vAda. The viShaya-vAkya reffered by Sri.Shankara is that of

Taitt.U ii.6. It is His Wish that has been referred to as `abhidhyA'

in the sUtra and not the wish to become the substratum of illusory

appearances.

 

 

I.4.26 OM || aatmakRteH pariNaamaat || OM

 

In S.bhAshya, it is been stated as, by the development of what He

has made from Himself (aatmakRtiH)

 

I fail to see why `AtmakR^itiH' must mean "from Himself" rather

than "by Himself."

 

I.4.27 OM || yoniSca hi gIyate ||OM

 

It is said in your school that Brahman is sung about as the source

of the created world.

 

This does not establish that Brahman is the material cause. The

potter can be the source of pots without being their material cause.

Term `yOni' does not mean material causality. If otherwise, the very

third sUtra OM|| shAstra yOnitvAt || OM would render shAstra is the

material cause of Brahmn!

 

In point of fact, the theses of the universe being a modification of

Brahman's form, and of its being of the nature of illusion such as

dream-objects, are both rejected in the Mandukya Upanishad:

 

vibhUtiM prasavaM tvanye manyante sR^ishhTichintakAH |

svapnamAyA sarUpeti sR^ishhTiranyairvikalpitA |

ichchhAmAtraM prabhoH sR^ishhTiriti sR^ishhTau vinishchitAH ||

 

Some people, in consideration of sR^ishhTi, think it as being a

modification (prasavaM) of Brahman's own form (vibhUti). Others

imagine it as being akin (sarUpa) to the illusion of a dream

(svapnamAyA). However, it is established (vinishchitAH) that Creation

is solely by the Lord's own Will (ichchhAmAtraM prabhoH).

 

The point to be understood in this context is that modifications in

the body (such as due to sickness, injury, or aging) *happen without,

and often against, one's wish*. Likewise, the appearance of dream

objects is without, and sometimes against, one's wish. Therefore, if

one proposes that Creation is so, then the doubt would naturally

arise whether Brahman is also similarly impotent in controlling such

change or manifestations. The Shruti therefore firmly rebuts such

talk and says that Creation is solely by His will. Therefore, it is

not a

modification of His form, and it is not a hallucinatory appearance

either.

 

It is been my pleasure to discuss B.sUtra with you, Sri.Subramanyana-

ji ,

 

With warm regards,

Srinivas Kotekal