Brahman, the material cause

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Subrahmanian-ji,

 

Refer your post 30041

 

advaitin, V Subrahmanian <subrahmanian_v>

wrote:

> A question was anticipated by me. And that from your

> good self. See, our minds have met !!

 

Your good self and my good self are always met in the One Self. But

I'm afraid the ripples of our minds are still dancing slightly

different tunes!! :-)

 

> 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:

 

The unmistakable signature is seen by me as well. There is no

transformation of Brahman. Brahman does not have parts. I think our

minds are met here. The meeting is not happening in the paradoxical

bowl of vivarta.

 

> Meaning: The word parinaama connotes the effect

> alone and not any real transformation (of Brahman)

> as the effects;

 

Subrahmanianji, why are we discussing parinama here? Both you and I

claim that we are vivartavadins, so shouldn't we leave parinama

aside? Did I ever say there was a real transformation of Brahman?

Have I not said that Brahman is Akshara?

 

If you are saying that an effect as a transformation is an illusion

due to the illusory difference of names and forms, then let me tell

you that I agree with it - the transformation is denied. But if you

are using this to say that there is no effect, then please remember

that there is no cause as well because they both arise in the context

of causality. When there is no causality there is neither cause nor

effect (nor avidya) because it is the context of seeing One without a

second:

 

"But when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the Self,

then what should one smell and through what, what should one see and

through what, what should one hear and through what, what should one

speak and through what, what should one think and through what, what

should one know and through what? Through what indeed should one know

That owing to which all this is known – through what, O Maitreyi,

should one know the knower?" (Br.Up.III.iv.14).

 

Causality along with both cause and effect arise in the context of

speech. You cannot use the words 'cause' and 'effect' as applicable

to a different context (of the merger of speech) to deny only one of

them, the effect, and not the other, the cause. The context of

material causality is a context in which both cause and effect are

spoken of. It is in this context that Advaita and Dvaita present

their doctrines of word-denotations. Advaita says that a word has a

single denotation, and Dvaita says that a word has dual connotations.

Your quotations from scriptures and bhashyas do not insulate you from

the fact that you use words as if they have dual connotations (like

the Dvaitins do).

 

> Thus the position of the Vedanta as regards the

> material causehood of Brahman is the Vivartavaada.

 

Yes, but what is vivarta? You haven't replied to my question: What is

it that is same and what is it that is different in vivarta? This is

the key to understanding why real transformation is an illusion.

 

> 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.

 

I accept that what you had highlighted in your post to Srinivas-ji

was okay. I had not questioned that - because I agree with it. It is

just that your own position regarding the connotation of the

word 'effect' is more in conformance with the way Dvaitins use it

than with the way Advaita uses it, due to which I saw an irony in

your arguments against the Dvaita position. We are both Advaitins,

and a bit of vada is good to get our own understanding of Advaita

right. If I have come across as being a bit harsh in my messages, my

apologies to you.

 

By the way, Sri Bhaskar Prabhuji once told me that the Acharya has

never used the word 'vivarta' in his bhashyas. Not having read the

bhashyas in Sanskrit, I really can't say whether he has used this

word in his bhashyas. Can you enlighten me on this point?

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Srinivas ji:

Thank you for that reply. Glad to see that you have studied the Bhashya of

Sri Madhwacharya and studied the comparative position of the different schools.

As i had already mentioned, i have not studied the other schools in good detail.

Since we belong to two different sampradayas, any discussion is most likely to

'generate more heat than light', as somebody put it. But within the same school

a discussion has the benefit of clearing misconceptions, doubts, etc and lead to

a proper understanding of the siddhanta. This takes the form of chintanam.

That is the reason i feel reluctant to enter a debate. I once again admire

your deep scholarship.

 

Warm regards

subbu

 

 

 

 

With a free 1 GB, there's more in store with Mail.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri.SubramaNyian-ji,

 

Namaste.

 

Thanks for your reply.

 

Yes, I also believe this forum is not the proper place for inter-school

debate. My reason to post all these is to bring to attention of

Advaitin community that we Dvaitins do not simply 'assume' Brahman is

not upAdhana kAraNa, as Sri Sadananda-ji had commented in one of his

reply to Sri.CN-ji. My intention was only to eradicate any

misconception about Dvaita's position and nothing else.

 

I also admire your erudition in Advaita and looking forward to read

your mails.

 

With warm regards,

Srinivas.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri. Chittaranjan-ji ,

 

Namaste.

 

With refernce to your message #30019,

> 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.

>

 

I'm afraid you have a very mistaken understanding of

Sri.MadhvAcharya's view of prakriti.

 

In order to better understand him, we need to look at the concept of

samanvaya in understanding of vEdic terms.

 

In order to understand this, we need to look at the role played by

sUtra-s and mImAmsA in deriving real purport of vEdOpanishads. This

real purport is called `vEdAnta'. Note that the term `anta' in

vEdAnta is commonly interpreted as `end of vEda', which is not

correct as per Madhva. As a matter of fact, Vedas consider

themselves to be infinite ` ananto vai vedAH. (kAThaka samhitA). In

which case, to talk of 'end of vedAs' would be incorrect. Therefore,

the 'anta' of 'vedAnta' should be understood as 'nirNayAtmaka' i.e.,

the decisive portions of Vedas. This interpretation of 'anta'

as 'nirNayAtmaka' (i.e., decisive after a thorough analysis) is seen

in Gita 2.16. Similarly, 'vedAntakR^it.h' in Gita 15.15 does not

mean 'one who has terminated the Vedas', instead one who has written

the decisive text on the Vedas i.e., brahmasUtrAs.

 

Let's look at the circumstance in which Brahma sUtras were originated

..

The importance of sUtra has been mentioned in Bhagavad Gita verse

(XIII-5).

Sri.Madhva in his sUtra bhAshya quotes the skAnda purANa about

definition and the background of creation of sUtra-s. In fact,

Sri.Madhva is the first ever commentator (among previous 21

commentators) to quote Sri.vEdavyAsa in regards to the definition

and history of B. sUtra.

 

According to this purANa, in the Krta Yuga, Narayana alone was known

and worshipped as the Supreme, and no doubt about this existed in any

quarter; some doubts arose in the Treta, and in the Dvapara, due to

the sage Gautama's curse upon the Vaidika-s, the knowledge was

severely dissipated and the Vedic traditions got mixed up. Thus,

when Narayana Himself was approached by the gods headed by Brahma,

Rudra, etc., He incarnated in Satyavati and Parashara, and arranged

the Vedas four-fold, with the divisions further having 21, etc.,

rescensions. Further, in order to settle the purport of these

conclusively, He composed the sUtra-s, those having the qualities of

`alpAxaramasandigham.h,' etc. These sUtra-s are the ultimate tool for

deciding the meanings of all the

Vedic literature, and indeed of all text-based pramANa-s. In this

manner,

having established the knowledge for the benefit of all including

Brahma,

Rudra, etc., the Lord Narayana sports, etc.

 

Thus, the concept that Brahma sUtra-s are the `nirNayaka' or the

texts by whom meaning is decided, with all the other texts (vEdas)

being `nirNeya' or texts whose meaning is decided, is based on this.

 

But, how one would do that ? sUtra-s themselves provides the

methodology.

 

Fourth sUtra OM| tattu samanvayAt | OM constitutes four

terms ; `tat', `tu', `sam' and `anvayAt'. Here `anvaya' means

application of tAtparya linga-s in understanding of vEdic terms.

These linga-s are upakrama, upasaMhAra, abhyAsa, apUrvata, phala,

arthavAda, upapatti.

 

Why `sam' is used in sam-anvayAt by sUtrakAra?

 

Some times, we can derive several opposite meaning for a Upanishad

vAkya. Out of which, a particular meaning may be compliance with

upakrama. A totally opposite meaning would be in compliance with

upasamhAra. In such circumstance, we need to evaluate relative

strength among these linga-s and should come to correct conclusion.

 

Thus, sam-anvayAt means applying (anvaya) these linga-s correctly

(sam).

 

Second sUtra (janmAdhysyayataH) attributes laxaNa-s (let's leave

aside the question of either svarUpa or tatAsTa for a while) creation

etc to Brahman. Only when each and every shAstric terms denotes such

creator Brahman, the third sUtra (shAstra yOnitvAt) would become

sensible. Otherwise, one would get confuse as which being the vEda-s

are glorifying. For example, consider following seemingly

contradictory statements regarding who exactly is the creator of this

world ;

 

` EkO rudrO na dwitIyAya tastE' (No one before creation except Rudra)

 

` hiraNyagarbhaH samavartatAgrE' (Charturmukaha was there in the

beginning)

 

` jIvAd bhavanti bhUtAni ` (sristi is from jIva-s)

 

`pradAnAd IdamAvirAsIt' (sristi is from jada prakriti (pradAna) )

 

The Rg Veda text "Yo devanam namadhaeka eva" preceded by " Indram,

Mitram, Varunam, Agnim a - huh. etc." conveys the truth that names of

the various gods in their highest primary sense refer to one Supreme

Being and only secondarily to the other gods.

 

Following this methodology of samanvaya, Sri.Madhva holds the

position that all vEdic names in their highest primary sense refer to

one Supreme Being vishNu and only secondarily to the other sentient /

insentient in their respective spheres of jurisdiction.

 

But why VishNu ?

 

He quotes several explicit support in this regard, such as ;

 

Visnu/Narayan denotes the one Supreme Being which alone survives in

Maha- pralaya as the one " Tad Ekam" of the Na -sadiya su- kta of Rg

Veda (X, 129) breathing windless by its own power with no equal or

superior. The same Being according to Chandogya Upanisad is

called "Jala-a- n"(III.14).

 

"sarvottamaM sarvadoshhavyapetaM guNairasheshhaiH

pUrNamanyaM samastAt.h | vailaxaNyAjj~nApayituM pravR^ittAH sarve

vedA mukhyato naiva chAnyat.h" -iti mahopanishhadi |

| 437||

 

The Mahopanisad says: 'All the Vedas aim at revealing Narayana who is

all-surpassing, free from all evil, abounding in all excellences and

different from all

else by reason of his uniqueness. This they do in their direct

signification and they teach nothing else.'

 

Also of interest in this regard is shruti's assertion that "sarva

dEva namaskaaraH kEshavam pratigachchati." (Salutations offered to

all gods go to Keshava or VishNu)

 

 

Now, let's look at vEdic term `prakriti'.

 

This topic is covered by sUtrakAra in sUtra-s 23-27 of 4th pAda of

samanvaya adhikaraNa under prakriti-adhikaraNa.

 

Here Sri.Madhvacharya says all feminine terms such

as `prakriti', `stree', `yOni' `sUti' etc denotes vishNu only in

their primary sense. This where Madhva is only the commentator (among

three) sticks to the real purpose of this adhikarana, which is doing

samanvaya of terms in Brahman. As said earlier, both Sri.Shankara and

Sri.RamAnuja takes up the issue of material causality of Brahman,

which according to Madhva, uncalled for and an asangati.

 

pUrvapaxa objects to this application of such purely feminine terms

to Brahman on the grounds of `tadgatatvam' or presence of properties

in question. It may however be justified on the grounds

of `tadadhInatvam' or dependence of such feminine attributes on

Brahman.

 

Sri.Madhva's position is that application of such feminine terms to

Brahman is fully admissible from the point of view of actual presence

(tadgatatva) of both female and male principles in Vishnu.

 

A purely conventional application of all names would not be competent

to achieve the true significance of `sarva-shabda-samanvaya' in

Brahaman.

This can be achieved only when applied words are charged with the

deep meaning.

 

Then, how one would apply both female and male principles in VishNu ?

 

Sri.Madhva explains that, VishNu plays both, female and male roles in

creation. Fifth sUtra (in this adhikaraNa) points out exactly this

meaning that there is no difficulty in understanding that female and

male principles are to be understood in their esoteric and

fundamental sense of bringing forth `directly' and `indirectly'.

 

VishNu as a female principle brings forth Chit prakriti (from the

state of praLaya) during the creation. This is His `direct'

involvement. He is called `yOni' in this sense. At this point we can

recall the assertion of Sree tatva called `ambriNi' in Rig-Samihita

10-125-5

 

"yam kAmayE tam tam ugram kriNomi tam brahmANam tam sumEdhAm"

(Whom I want to make Rudra I make him Rudra. I make him chaturmukha-

brahmA whom I want to make Chaturmukha. I make him a sage whom I

want make a sage. I make him wise whom I want to make wise )

 

Having stated this, She continues "mama yOnirapsu antah samudrE"

(that which gives me birth dwells in the water within the sea)

 

Also, in this sense VishNu is called by another feminine

term `prasUti' as in

` yata prasUta jagatha prasUti ` (From Him born the mother of this

jagat)

-MahaNarayaNa Upanishad

 

As a male principle, He enters into prakriti so as to enable it to

evolve from the subtle to grosser state of Mahat, AhankAra etc.

 

Acharya Madhva explains VishNu is called `prakriti' in the sense that

term `krit' (creative activity) of jada-prkrit is indeed `pra' or

stupendous. That is to say, jada-prakriti (the matter of this

universe) can not evolve on its own and has to depend on VishNu for

its evolution. It is very necessary that VishNu should educe

creativity from within by entering (as stated in Taittariya Up.

II.vi.1 ) ab initio.

 

He quotes several shruti and smirit refernces in this regard.

 

1. ubhayAtmaka sUtitvAtat vAsudEvaH paraH pumAn | prakritiH

purushachEti shabhdairEkO abhidhIyate || (BrahmAnda purANa)

 

(Indirect cause in creation by male thru female is called `pumstva'.

Direct cause is called prakriti. Because of both, direct and indirect

roles, Vasudeva is called by both purusha and prakriti)

 

2. PaingI shruti states "yEsha stree, yEsha purushH, yEsha

prakritiH, yEsha aatma, yEsha brahma, yEsha lOkaH, yEsha alOkaH,

yOshou hariH aadhiH , anAdhiH anantOnantaH , paramaH parAd

vishvarUpaH "

 

(He is Hari, who is stree, purusha, prakriti, aatma, brahma, prakAsha-

rUpa. He is supporter of various loka-s. Although He is aadi

(starting point) for this jagat, He does not have aadi nor end.

Although He is antaka (end) to this jagat, He does not have any end.

He is superior than prakriti by name para. He has vishva-rUpa. )

 

 

3. Brahman is also characterized by shruti as being everything,

wide "purusha-evEdam-sarvam" (Everything is Brahman), "sarvam

khalvidam brahma" (everything is indeed Brahman). These assertion,

per Madhva , needs to be understood as Brahman as Contoller of

everythin as per "sayam samApnOshi tatOsi sarvaha" (He is all

because He is in all).

 

 

4. In the same understanding, the para and apara prakritis as

stated in gIta 7th chapter, Madhva refutes that it refers to the

lower or Higher natures of the Lord.

 

 

Thus, Brahman VishNu is called by both the term prakriti and pUrusha

in this sense.

 

When Parabrahman VishNu is said to use Prakriti to create this world,

it does not show His dependence and limitedness as such. It only

shows His Aishwarya.

 

That creative ability is what shAstra calls parama-Aishwarya. Using

any sAdhana in His creative activity only indicates this parama-

Aishwarya,

Because that sAdhanatva is also given to that sAdhana by the same

Parabrahman VishNu.

 

"sAdhanAnAm sAdhanatvam yadA AtmAdheenamishyatE sAdhana-sampattihi

Aishwarya dyOtikA bhavEt" - AchArya Madhva

 

Now, Chitta-ji, it is not at all correct to understand Sri.Madhva as

you have understood; as VishNu is male and prakriti is female aspects

of (nirguNa) Brahman. I am not sure what is your source in your

understanding of Dvaitic position in saying Vishnu is the male

principle that resides in Prakriti !

 

It is important to understand that Sri.Madhva does samanvaya of both

the terms prakriti and pUrusha in Brahman, Who is nothing but VishNu.

 

For Madhva, VishNu is jagadEka-kAraNa. In this sense, Madhva's

is `Brahma-advitIya-vAda' and not `advaita' as you have mentioned.

 

>Without the dual connotation, Dvaita will not stand.

 

It is incorrect to think that Dvaita has dual connotation. Rather it

is shruti's and sUtrakara's (a aapta) mandate in application of sarva-

shabda-vAchyatava of Brahman.

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

> connotation.

 

What is source of this position? Perhaps it may have origin in

grammarian Brathahari's works.

 

But as per vEdantins are concerned, such position is untenable, for

any pourushEya grammarians rules is applicable only to the loukika

vAkyas and definitely not for vEdic text.

 

As always, it's been my pleasure in discussing this topic of B's

causality with you, Chitta-ji.

 

With warm regards,

Srinivas Kotekal

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Srinivas Kotekal-ji,

 

Refer your post 30095

 

Thank you for your lucid explanation. Most of the little that I know

about Dvaita, I have learnt from you and Jay. It is possible that my

understanding of Dvaita is not correct. But still (even after reading

your message) I am unable to make out where I am going wrong. I find no

difficulty in accepting that the feminine attributions point to Vishnu

in the primary sense. You see, for me the dual connotation is not

duality of the object, but duality of cognitive modes. That is how

Advaita comes to have a single denotation as far as the denoted object

is concerned. Only the cognitive mode differs according to the spheres

of Vishva, Taijasa, Prajna and their resident mode of the unchanging

Turiya. The last denotation is where Advaita differs from Dvaita

because Dvaita calls it the primary sense of the word whereas it calls

the others the secondary sense. Difference of word 'unfoldment' exists

both in Advaita and Dvaita, but whereas the difference in Dvaita

pertains to the actual denotation of the word, in Advaita it pertains

to the difference of the cognising mode and not to the denoted object.

This is not something that comes from Bhartrahari, it is something

directly related to the interpretation of AUM, and it is the reason

that Brahman is said to be the material cause of the world. But we

shall discuss this topic another day when I can spare sufficient time

for it.

 

When I said that (according to Dvaita), Vishnu resides in Prakriti, it

came from the following statements of Madhva:

 

1. "Brahman is both the male and female principles in world creation."

 

2. "The Lord's Will is denoted by the word Prakriti. 'Know that Maya or

God's Will is Prakriti. And the mighty Lord is the wielder of Maya.'

(Sv.Up. 4.10)... Hence, Will is the very nature of the Lord. Though the

Lord is of the nature of meditation, He meditates. So it is said. He is

happiness itself, even then He is said to be happy. He has supreme

Grandeur. Thus He is both the substance and the attributes. Because of

His grandeur He has the opposite meaning qualities".

 

3. The comments on the Sutra "He brings about transformation in

Prakriti and Himself abides in them in many forms. Hence, the Lord is

denoted by the word Prakriti" wherein Sri Madhva says "By yoga vritti,

Prakriti is one whose creative activity is excellent. Because entering

Prakriti and bringing about transformations in it, He abides in them as

their inner controller."

 

Maybe I was also influenced by the Visishtadvatins who say that the

Lord comes to be called Sree-nivasa because he resides in Sree.

 

There are certain things in Dvaita that are not clear to me, especially

with regard to amsha. I have an intuitive feeling that it may relate to

the way in which apavarga and anandamayakosha are interpreted. Maybe we

should have a 'question and answer' kind of discussion so that we can

learn about Dvaita without getting caught in the wrangling of vada. But

it will have to wait for another day. Right now I am caught up in some

other problems. For now, let me say that I value your scholarship and

knowledge immensely.

 

Lastly, I have always understood Vedanta as 'nirNayAtmaka' just as I

have understood 'transcendence' as logical transcendence and not

physical or temporal separation; so I have no difficultly with that.

 

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

advaitin, "Srinivas Kotekal" <kots_p> wrote:

>

> Dear Sri. Chittaranjan-ji ,

>

> Namaste.

>

> With refernce to your message #30019,

> I'm afraid you have a very mistaken understanding of

> Sri.MadhvAcharya's view of prakriti.

>

> In order to better understand him, we need to look at

> the concept of samanvaya in understanding of vEdic terms.

[Guest guest]

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

Brahman is the Vivartavaada.

 

praNAms Sri SubramaNiyan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Kindly give me the shankara bhAshya reference for this *brahma

vivartavAda*....also kindly let me know what is the difference between

kArikA's mAyA satkArya vAda & brahma vivartavAda...

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

The below mail had been written long back for some other purpose....just

sharing with the list as it is relevant to the context of this

thread....main theme of the below mail is *how brahman is the material

cause of this universe*...If this mail already there in the

archieves...kindly ignore & delete...

 

And also please note that this is not an invitation for our dvaita

prabhuji's to debate on *brahma upAdAna kAraNatva*..The subject has been

dealt with an understanding from *advaita* perspective.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

// quote //

 

It's always been fascinating to see the deliberations on whether brahman is

the material cause of creation or not!! We advaitins ultimately say that

both kArya & kAraNatva have been superimposed on nirvikAri brahman.

Dualists will say No, brahman cannot be the material cause of srushti,

under his control prakruti is taking care of it!!. First of all we should

see what shruti says here as regards to creation...it gives different

account of creation as regards to this jagat as well as jIva-s...If

shruti-s primary intention is to convey the creation aspect of jagat per se

then definitely it would have given clear picture of it instead of speaking

about it differently at different places!! But for those who believe in

shruShti prakriya (creation theory) in brahman, there is a method of

teaching in shruti-s which say brahman is both material (upAdAna) as well

as efficient (nimitta) cause for this universe.

 

As we know our shad darshana-s differing in this issue & giving their own

theory of creation. sAnKhya & vaishEshika schools say that an insentient

principle (jada) the *pradhAna* or the *atom* is the material cause of this

world.

Though they differ themselves in the process etc. they say that jada is the

material cause of this world. yOga brings in Ishwara here & they endorse

IshavarAdhIna prakruti being the material cause of this world. Anyway let

those theories be aside, because sAnkhya & vaishEshika both schools have

been refuted by both sUtrakAra & bhAshyakAra so not an ideal place to

discuss it.

 

Now being vaidik dharma followers, we take shruti, smruti & nyAya prasthAna

as antya pramANa & resolve any complications with regard to creation with

the help of prasthAna trayi. Now let us see what shruti is going to offer

us with regard to creation & its material cause.

 

Being a vaidik, first I'd like to see shruti-s where we can find brahman

being the material cause of this universe...because according to advaita &

shruti ultimately brahman is yEkamEva advitIya satya. So, to substantiate

this assertion of shruti-s we should understand shruti purports

contextually & arrive at the conclusion which should not differ from parama

siddhAnta of shruti-s that is yEkamEva advitIyatva of Atman.

 

Since prakruti is aswatantram or dependent it cannot have its own existence

apart from brahman. Hence it should be noted that though at places where

prakruti is mentioned as the material cause in shruti-s ultimately it tries

to drive home the point that only the Brahman is the material cause. This

has been very evident in the sUtra by declaring that

Brahman is indeed the material cause . The question may arise how can

shruti-s

contradicting itself in teaching & declaring at one side Brahman as the

material cause and other places prakruti is the material cause. Strictly

speaking there is no contradiction. According to shruti-s there is no

second entiry that can exist apart from brahman. Since prakruti does not

exist independent of brahman ultimately it is brahman ONLY the material

cause of this universe for those who believe there is a world out there

apart from brahman or in brahman.

 

We can find lot of quotes where shruti categorically saying that brahman is

indeed material cause & why and how brahman is the material cause of the

universe. The vEdAnta sUtra janmAdyasya yatah has been amply and lucidly

dealt with this subject & shankara bhAshya on this sUtra is very

appropriate to study to ascertain why brahman is the material cause.

 

We can approach shruti vAkya with two different perspective in mind :

 

(a) brahman is the material cause of this world

(b) brahman is NOT the material cause but under his control prakruti is

doing this creation.

 

Let us see how some of the shruti quotes justify (a) & denies the (b).

 

Only if we stick to (a) it is justifiable to say that everything can be

known through the knowledge of brahman which is what is asserted in

passages like *knowing which, everything becomes known* *having known

that, nothing else remains to be known' yajnAtvA nEha bhUyOnyAjnAtavyaM

avashishyAte.. says lord in gIta 'by one handful of mud all articles of

mud become known, so everything that is mud is only a play with words (and

forms), what is true is only earth' vAchAraMbhaNam vikAro nAmadhEyam

mruttikEtyEva satyaM (chAndOdya shruti)..No need to mention if we think

about (b) in these cases we will be short of the knowledge of (a)...

 

In the shruti statements like *May I be many, May I grow forth* etc. it is

evident that (a) is the verdict of shrutis. *tadAtmAnaM svayamakuruta*.

(That Itself manifested Itself) . Here the use of the two words *AtmAnam*

and *svayam* both meaning 'itself' shows that there exists no other cause.

So (a) is quite conspicuous here no room for (b) anyway....the word svayaM

/ AtmAnaM stresses this point that only (a) is the ultimatum of shruti-s as

regards to shrushti prakriya.

 

While on the subject, I'd like to make it clear that there are two

different view points of advaita with regard to world. The first one says

the modification as kArya of brahman is only apparent & avidyAkruta mAya,

while the second says the modification is real & ever existent in brahman

as brahman. Former version of advaita says through avasthAtraya prakriya

that the modified appearance of brahman as the universe is a projection

like a movie & restricted to one avastha either waking or dreaming so the

apparent modification of the brahman in the form of universe is time &

space bound hence avadyAkruta, while other version of advaita says that it

is an actual play on the stage & in brahman this world is ever lasting as

brahman itself. I dont want to dig this further, anyway my stand is former

i.e. projection of the universe is space & time bound...nevertheless since

brahman is the secondless reality there is no other cause but brahman for

the temporal projection.

 

Now, let us come back to our present discussion, as said above, there is a

very famous statement in chAdOgya shruti *brahman is One, One Only,

without Second*. This implies there is no supporting or controling separate

entity from it; therefore there cannot be (b) here apart from (a) It also

says there is nothing other than brahman; therefore there is no (b).

Incidentally, this statement 'ekam eva advitIyam brahma' has three

significant words: 'ekam' (= One), 'eva' (=Only), 'advitIyam' (=without a

second). All these words more or less conveying the same meaning &

stresses the point in (a).

 

In the sUtra bhAshya makes it clear by saying kArNasyAtmabhUtA shaktiH

shaktEshchAtma bhUtaM kAryaM...meaning there is absolutely no different

between kAraNa, its shakti & kArya..it is one & the same.

 

Atmana AkAsh saMbHutaH, AkAshAdvAyuH, vAyoragniH, agnE ApaH etc. clears

that from the Atman only panchn bhUta-s eminating not from (b) as above.

But if you see another shruti prashna it says first he created prANa from

this faith then comes the ether (sa prANamasrujata...kham...etc.) Here also

(a) emphasized though *order* of srushti is slightly different here. In

this context we can see taitirIya also sO kAmayatha, baghusyAm praja yEyEti

here brahman *wished* to become plenteous, & he *thinks* may I be born as

the manifold* etc. etc. again (a) is evident here not be.

>From the above it is quite evident that shruti declaring that brahman is

the ONLY reality & He is both material & efficient cause of this universe

....that is how it should be understood those who strongly believe there is

a creation from brahman....

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

// unquote //

[Guest guest]

Namaste all

 

Just to recall an old post on this subject (6th August 2001):

advaitin/message/10400

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

 

 

 

 

 

_____

 

 

 

* Visit your group "advaitin

<advaitin> " on the web.

 

*

advaitin

<advaitin?subject=Un>

 

*

<> Terms of Service.

 

_____

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk wrote:

>

> Namaste all

>

> Just to recall an old post on this subject (6th August 2001):

> advaitin/message/10400

 

OM TAT SAT

Respected Sir, It was a pleasure to see your post after a while. As

usual, your post (or the reference thereof) is a feast for the student

of Vedanta.

 

my humble pranams,

OM TAT SAT

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri.Krishnamurthy-ji.

 

Thanks for your reference to the old mail.

 

No Sir, all the seven shruti pramANa-s you have quoted does not

establish Brahman's upAdhana kAraNatva. Since this forum is not the

right place to refute such interpretations and explore correct

understanding, it is my pleasure to invite you to vAdAvaLi

group, a forum more suited for such endeavors. We can discuss

exhaustively there why we think Brahman is not upAdhana karANa etc.

 

Looking forward to discuss with you.

 

With warm regards,

Srinivas Kotekal

 

 

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk

wrote:

>

> Namaste all

>

> Just to recall an old post on this subject (6th August 2001):

> advaitin/message/10400

>

> PraNAms to all advaitins

> profvk

>

>

>

>

>

> _____

>

>

>

> * Visit your group "advaitin

> <advaitin> " on the web.

>

> *

> advaitin

> <advaitin?subject=Un>

>

> *

> <> Terms of Service.

>

> _____

>

>

>

>

>