The Bhagavatam and Brahman the Material Cause

[Guest guest]

advaitin, sreenivasa murthy <narayana145

wrote:

>

> From : H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

> Pranams to all.

>

> Dear Sri Subramanian,

>

> Your statement Viz. " Advaita accepts two upadana

kaaranams for the universe" is bit difficult to swallow. Has Sri

Shankara stated like that in his commentaries on prasthanatraya?

With 35 years of study of the commentaries, I have not come across

with a passage which supports the above statement. It might not have

come to my notice. I request you to provide me with the relevant

passages from Sri Shankara's commentaries which corraborate the

statement. Quotations from other texts are not authoratative and

hence not acceptable. Further, the explanation that has been given,

is it anuBavAtmaka or a speculation? I am asking this because, I am

coming across with such concepts for the first time. There is a

beautiful statement: " na hi kiMcidapi avicArya na SraddhAtavyam" and

this has been the guideline for me throughout so far. I am sure you,

an eminent scholar, will appreciate the spirit in which this is

written.

>

> with respectful and warm regards,

Ø Sreenivas Murthy

 

 

Shrigurubhyo NamaH

Namaste Sir,

 

First let me assure you Sir, I am not a scholar, much less an eminent

one. I am an ordinary aspirant striving for Realization. What I had

written in the earlier post is not speculation, but an understanding

that has been gained from the teaching and training that I have

received.

 

The above statement `na kinchidapi…..' is excellent. Let me bring to

your recollection a point made by our Acharya in the Sutrabhashya

(I.i.2): shrutyaadayo, anubhavaadayashcha yathaasambhavam iha

pramaanam'. In this Brahmajijnaasaa, unlike in dharmajijnaasa, the

shruti, etc. are not the only pramana, but the shruti, etc. and

anubhava etc. are also a pramana, as deemed fit in the circumstances.

 

Your insisting on confining to the prashtaanatraya bhashya of the

Acharya alone and rejecting outright anything outside this as pramana

is quite antithetical to what the Acharya Himself has taught and also

practiced. Dwelling on the two `etc.'s in the above statement of the

Acharya would be extremely rewarding.

 

There is a Rg.Vedic statement:

Aa no bhadrAH kratavo yantu vishvataH (Let noble thoughts come to us

from every side) I.89.i.

 

 

There is this verse connected to learning:

 

AchAryAt paadam aadatte, paadam shiShyaH sva-medhayA

Paadam sa-brahmachaaribhyaH paadam kaalakrameNa cha

 

(The student imbibes a little from the Teacher. He adds to the

learning from his own thinking, cogitating. By discussions with

colleagues he learns a little more. The completion comes over time

as he gathers more and more experiences in life.)

 

Now coming to the topic of discussion, while the relevant passage

from the Acharya's bhashya on the jagat-kaaranam will be provided

later, may I present the following verses from the Bhagavad Gita, a

prashthanatraya work?.

 

There are three types of verses, all issuing forth from the Holy Lips

of the Lord.

 

Type A: (Verses where the Lord says that a power other than Him is

the source of the universe)

(The English meanings are not given by me; a standard book may be

referred.):

 

 

AvyaktAdIni bhUtAni vyakta-madhyAni bhArata

Avyakta-nidhanAnyeva ………(Second chapter..28)

 

Etad-yOnIni bhUtAni sarvANItyupadhAraya (VII.6 ab)

 

……….prakRRitiH sUyate sacharaacharam (IX.10)

 

avyaktAdvyaktayaH sarvAH prabhavanti aharAgame

rAtryAgame pralIyante tatraiva avyakta sanjnake (VIII.18)

 

na tadasti pRRithivyAm vaa divi deveShu va punaH

sattvam prakRRitijair muktam yat ebhiH syAt tribhir guNaiH (XVIII.40)

UrdhvamUlam adhaH shAkham ashvattham …(XV . 1)

 

 

 

Type B (where the Lord says that He Himself is the source of the

universe):

 

Aham kritsnasya jagataH prabhavaH pralayas tathA (VII.6 cd)

 

MattaH parataram nAnyat kinchidasti dhananjaya

Mayi sarvamidam protam sUtre maNigaNA iva (VII.7 )

 

Ye chaiva sAttvikA bhAvAh rAjasAstAmasAshcha ye

Matta eveti tAn viddhi …..(VII.12)

 

Mayaa tatamidam sarvam jagat avyakta mUrtinA (IX.4 ab)

 

SarvabhUtAni kaunteya ……kalpaadau visRRijAmyaham (IX 7)

 

……………visRRijAmi punaH punaH

BhUtagrAmamimam kRRitsnam…..(IX.8)

 

Then, there is another type, C, which is neither A nor B:

 

Mama yOnir mahad brahma tasmin garbham dadhaamyaham

SambhavaH sarva bhUtAnAm tato bhavati Bharata (XIV .3)

 

MayA adhyakSheNa prakRRitiH sUyate sacharaacharam (IX.10)

 

 

 

 

With the above data and your familiarity with the Acharya's

commentary, may I request you to inform us decisively as to what is

the Source, kAraNam, of the universe? This investigation should give

us the final result that is the one accepted in the Advaita Vedanta

of the Acharya. I am making this request based on your earlier

statement that the Acharya has established that Brahman is the

material cause in the Sutrabhashya. You may kindly provide the

references as to how this has been established.

 

The response from me can wait till you give your answer based on your

understanding of the Acharya's position.

 

Namaskarams and respectful regards,

Subbu

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

--- H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

In advaitin, "subrahmanian_v" <subrahmanian_v

wrote:

 

Dear Sri Subramanian,

Your statement "Your insisting on confining to the

prashtaanatraya bhashya of the Acharya alone and rejecting outright

anything outside this as pramana is quite antithetical to what the

Acharya Himself has taught and also practiced." is quite correct. As

for the Vedantic jnana and vijnana I confine myself to Sri Shankara's

commentary because there only I have been able to get the correct

Upanishadic teaching in the true sampradaya. And also I have not felt

the need to go to other advaitic texts.

You have asked: "I request you to inform us decisively as to what is

the Source, kAraNam, of the universe?" My firm understanding and

conviction is provided by the following Sruti Mantras:

" yatO vA imAni BUtAni jAyantE| yEna jAtAni jIvantI| yat

prayantyaBisaMviSanti|tad vijij~jAsasva| tad brahmEti||"

"sarvaM KalvidaM brahma tajjalAniti||There are plenty of such

mantras which declare without any ambiguity that Brahman is the SOLE

material cause.

Brahman is the only upAdAnakAraNa for this universe,

NONE OTHER.

 

You have asked:"I am making this request based on your earlier

statement that the Acharya has established that Brahman is the

material cause in the Sutrabhashya. You may kindly provide the

references as to how this has been established.". Sutras, from

2-1-1 to 2-1-32 and the commentary Of Sri Sankara to those sutras,

provide the necessary guidance to understand how Sri Sankara has

established the above stated fact.

If any doctrine has to be stated as true, it should be

verifiable and should be verified in the light of

sArvatrikapUrNAnuBava provided by THE LIFE itself. It is very

important. That is the uniqueness of Sri Sakaracharya.That is the

reason why I have confined myself to Sri Sankara.

Please permit me to end the discussion on the subject.

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy.

>

>

 

 

--- >

> Namaskarams and respectful regards,

> Subbu

> Om Tat Sat

>

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Subbu prabhuji :

 

Type A: (Verses where the Lord says that a power other than Him is

the source of the universe)

 

bhaskar :

 

prabhuji do you accept a separate chaitanya (other than him!!) that can be

capable of doing creation on its own?? does it not make Ishwara as

*parichinna*...From the advaita perspective, you know how to treat the

concept of *mAya*..Hence Type A does not arise in advaita's domain...&

these verses of BG should be properly understood contextually without

disturbing the *mUla siddhAnta* of advaita.

 

Subbu prabhuji:

 

Type B (where the Lord says that He Himself is the source of the universe):

 

bhaskar :

 

This would be an appropriate & ideal stand of most of the advaitins...For

those who believe in creation theory brahman is both efficient (nimitta) &

material (upAdAna) cause of this universe. shruti itself at various places

says this, Sri Srinivas Murthy prabhuji already quoted couple of maNtra-s.

While on the subject we can also recall taitirIya, *sOkAmayata, bahusyAM

prajAyEyEti, sa tapOtapyatha, sa tapastatva..tadEvAnuprAvishatu,

sacchatyaccha bhavatu, yadidaM kiNcha etc. This is just to drive home the

point that *if at all *effect* is there that is absolutely nothing but

*cause*...kArika clears the doubt about creation and says birth is taught

as a doctrine by the wise ones to those who hold to the doctrine that

things exist because of their appearance and practical efficacy and who are

always afraid of that which is unborn...

 

Subbu prabhuji:

 

Then, there is another type, C, which is neither A nor B:

 

bhaskar :

 

If we take these verses literally then we will have to consider that

brahman is a person, he has a bodily structure like us & doing the business

of planting the seeds in hiraNya garbha etc :-))..again, context is

important here, literal interpretation of these verses can noway lead us to

advaita's nirvishEsha brahman.

 

Finally, gaudapAdAchArya discards all these theories from the highest view

point & declares there is no creation at all, no aspirant, no bondage &

even no liberation..*ajAyamAno bahudA vijAyate*...asserts shruti..

 

My few thoughts

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "narayana145" <narayana145

wrote:

Re: The Bhagavatam and Brahman the Material Cause

 

--- H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

In advaitin, "subrahmanian_v" <subrahmanian_v

wrote:

 

Dear Sri Subramanian,

Your statement "Your insisting on confining to the

prashtaanatraya bhashya of the Acharya alone and rejecting outright

anything outside this as pramana is quite antithetical to what the

Acharya Himself has taught and also practiced." is quite correct. As

for the Vedantic jnana and vijnana I confine myself to Sri Shankara's

commentary because there only I have been able to get the correct

Upanishadic teaching in the true sampradaya. And also I have not felt

the need to go to other advaitic texts.

 

Srigurubhyo NamaH

Namaste Sir,

 

Thank you very much for that response. While I do not wish to trouble

you by demanding further participation in this thread, let me point

out the following.

 

Here is a portion of the Acharya's bhashya for the

Sutram `tadadhInatvAt arthavat':

 

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). "

 

The above quote makes it clear that the material causehood of Brahman

is impossible to be established unless the role of Maya is brought

in. Brahman is nirvikari, nishkriyam. It is absolutely devoid of

desire and action that are involved in creation. The above bhashya

brings out many other important points about the terms maya, avyakta,

etc.

 

The purpose of showing the various verses from the Gita was only to

drive home the above guideline established by our Acharya.

 

My special thanks to Shyam ji for the excellent prism example. My

thanks to Bhaskar ji for his participation.

 

Pranams

Subbu

Om Tat Sat