The Theory of Evolution and the Vedic perspective of Creation

[Guest guest]

Rishi-ji Wrote:

 

 

Brahman is the material cause of the upadhi - the upadhi is not

something different from Brahman. Since the material cause of the

upadhis is partless and has no internal differentiation, there can be

no upadhis "in" Brahman or "made out of" Brahman in reality. The

upadhis, thus, are superimposed upon Brahman. This superimposition can

only take place when the mind is there and thus the superimposed

objects are only present when the mind is present. In the absence of a

mind which carves various upadhis out of Brahman which is actually

homogenous, there are no such upadhis. That being the case, it is not

tenable that upadhis are present even when the mind is not. This is

the gist of my previous postcas well,

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Namaste Rishi-ji,

The theory of satkaryavada has it that the cause

and effect are non-different because the absoloute non-existence of the

cause when the effect has come into play would mean that something had

come out of nothing or was caused by nothing. The bridge of being is

preserved by the non-difference of cause and effect. Shankara holds that

creation is beginningless so the being of things is non-dual with the

Absolute Being/Consciousness. If human mind is a late comer in the

history of this planet we also know that it could only come if in fact the

potential were there all along. There was no sudden infusion as an

uncaused event; there was a steady progress towards the self-awareness

which is implicit in existence itself. Because 'mind' is always there in

the form of the proto-experiential there is not any question of objects

popping into existence upon the arrival of humans.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "dhyanasaraswati"

<dhyanasaraswati wrote:

>

> Once again a very scholarly discussion is going on 'DSV' and 'sdv'

> and ajativada etc etc etc ....

>

> but after reading all these posts , i just couldnot help

remembering

> the shata-sloki of Adi Shankara Bhagvadapada! Our beloved

> Professorji had started writing on the verses Iin the SHATA SLOKI

> and tgen took a long break and left for India - i do not know if

he

> completed all the 100 verses of it .

>

> Meanwhile , today it is my pleasure to bnring verse 81 of the

Shata

> sloki in the context of DSV !

>

> HERE IS AN EXPLANATION OF THE VERSE -

>

> When the nacre in front is not known to be such, it is mistaken

for

> silver. The sun's rays falling on sand create the illusion of

water.

> A rope is mistaken for a snake in dim light. These appearances

last

> only for a short time, till the substratum is known. The

appearance

> of silver causes joy and the appearance of the snake gives rise to

> fear, but all these appearances are clearly false. The silver,

water

> and snake are created only when they are seen. Similarly, the

> multifarious names and forms which we see appear only because the

> substratum, the Self, is not known. They also cause such emotions

as

> joy, sorrow and fear. They are created only when they are

perceived.

> They have no real existence apart from the substratum, the Self.

>

> The principle propounded in this verse is known as 'drishti-

srishti-

> vaada' according to which all things are, during the period they

are

> cognized by a person, created by him through his nescience. This

is

> also known as `ekajivavaada' the 'Theory of Single Jiva'. Sri

> Madhusudana Sarasvati says in his work 'Siddhantabindu', which is

a

> commentary on Sri Sankara's 'Dasasloki', that this is the pre-

> eminent Vedantic view. According to this view, the Jiva is the

cause

> of the world by the power of nescience. All objects of perception

> last only as long as they are perceived. There is only one Jiva.

> Only when this Jiva attains liberation all Jivas become liberated.

> The statements about Suka and others having attained liberation is

> only eulogy or 'Arthavada'.

 

............

>

> Subbuji and others , please explain to a layman what does all

> translate into !

>

 

 

 

Namaste Madam,

 

May i attempt an understanding of the above to aid a 'layman'?

 

When we take a mirage for example, there is no mirage there before i

see it. This is because, only from a particular distance and angle

and other parameters, from the position of where i am placed, i

experience a mirage. At the point where i see a mirage, there is no

real puddle of water. The place is dry. So, to say that 'in the

beginning there was no mirage' is correct. When i proceed to the

spot where i have apprehended water, even as i cover a few meters, i

see that the spot is free from the water that i perceived earlier.

At this juncture i conclude that 'it is after all a mirage, no water

in truth is (has been) there.'. So, it is correct to say that 'in

the end also there is no mirage'; the 'end' signifying my

realization of the actual state of affairs. What then is the

situation for the period that i thought that there is water there?

The conclusion is that 'even in that period, that is from

the 'beginning till the end', the mirage water is not there.' This

is what is meant by the explanation given in the above paragraph.

So, the 'water' was 'created' coeval with my 'perceiving'

the 'water'. Before, after and in the meantime the water is not

there in truth. This is what is meant by drishti-srishti. Drishti,

perceving(by the indivdual) is srishti, creation, coming into being,

of the 'water'.

 

This is where the Upanishadic teaching of a Creation and a Creator

becomes relevant, for, finally the teaching is: You (the 'samsari')

are That (Creator).' In the Mahavakya-analysis the 'samsari' from

You is negated and the 'Creator' from the That is negated, retaining

the Pure Consciousness that is the essence of You and That.

 

In the Gita bhashya 15. 3rd verse, the Acharya says:// the world is

akin to 'svapna-marIchyudaka-mAyA-gandharva-nagara-samatvAt, drishta-

nashta-svarUpo hi saha, ....'

 

The meaning is: The tree of samsara ...its form as such is perceived

by nobody here; for it is very much like a dream, a mirage, an

imaginary city in the sky produced by a juggler's art; indeed it

appears and disappears.//

 

He says the same in the Kathopanishad II.iii.1 too:

 

//....it changes itself every moment, inasmuch as no sooner is it

seen than its nature is destroyed like magic, water in a mirage, a

city in the sky, etc., and it eases to exist ultimately like a tree;

it is without any heart-wood like the stem of a plantain tree...//

 

What is to be noted about dristi-srishti vaada is that the object

comes into being upon perceiving it (when it is imagined) and

continues to be till the perceiving continues and ceases to be when

the perceiving ends. This is what the Acharya means when He

says 'drishta-nashta'.

 

Just as in the example, the jiva's situation is that of imagining a

samsara with all its content, animate and inanimate, joys, sorrows,

etc. etc.. due to ignorance of the Truth. When through the

scriptural instruction and the Guru's guidance he sees the Truth,

the samsara, along with its contents, animate and inanimate, ends.

This is what is meant by 'when this one jiva attains liberation,

then all other jivas get liberated'. All other jivas are there only

in this one jiva's imagination. The question to be asked by each one

of us is: 'Am i that jiva who is experiencing samsara now? What am

i doing to get rid of the samsara?' It is this jiva who is the 'eka

jiva' experiencing (seeing) in his private dream all the others who

are also appearing to be experiencing samsara.

 

I have not said anything what others already do not know. If

any 'layman' is helped by the above, it is good.

 

Pranams,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

>

> Rishi-ji Wrote:

>

>

> Brahman is the material cause of the upadhi - the upadhi is not

> something different from Brahman. Since the material cause of the

> upadhis is partless and has no internal differentiation, there can

be

> no upadhis "in" Brahman or "made out of" Brahman in reality. The

> upadhis, thus, are superimposed upon Brahman. This superimposition

can

> only take place when the mind is there and thus the superimposed

> objects are only present when the mind is present. In the absence

of a

> mind which carves various upadhis out of Brahman which is actually

> homogenous, there are no such upadhis. That being the case, it is

not

> tenable that upadhis are present even when the mind is not. This is

> the gist of my previous postcas well,

>

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

|||

> Namaste Rishi-ji,

> The theory of satkaryavada has it that

the cause

> and effect are non-different because the absoloute non-existence

of the

> cause when the effect has come into play would mean that something

had

> come out of nothing or was caused by nothing. The bridge of being

is

> preserved by the non-difference of cause and effect. Shankara

holds that

> creation is beginningless so the being of things is non-dual with

the

> Absolute Being/Consciousness. If human mind is a late comer in

the

> history of this planet we also know that it could only come if in

fact the

> potential were there all along. There was no sudden infusion as

an

> uncaused event; there was a steady progress towards the self-

awareness

> which is implicit in existence itself. Because 'mind' is always

there in

> the form of the proto-experiential there is not any question of

objects

> popping into existence upon the arrival of humans.

>

> Best Wishes,

> Michael.

>

 

 

Namaste,

 

May i present my understanding on the above? The idea of 'satkarya

vada' was discussed at length before also. Let me state some of the

observations that had come up then:

 

The Vedanta satkArya vAda differs from the Saankhya satkArya vAda

thus:

 

A. SAnkhya: The effect, before manifestation, was present IN the

cause.

B. Vedanta: The effect, before manifestation, was present AS the

cause.

 

In my humble opinion, this second statement B is what conveys the

position of Vedanta of Shankara, namely the Vivarta vaada. I am

able to see that this is the position that Rishi ji has stated in

the paragraph seen first above. It is this position that will allow

for the Vedantic teaching of 'one appearing as another'; Brahman

itself appearing as the world consisting of the seer, the seeing and

the seen.

 

In the Brahma sutra bhashya II.i.14, the very beginning is made with

this observation, rather an assertment, by Shankara. A reading of

these lines with the authoritative commentaries of the BhAmati and

the Ratnaprabha brings out the final Vedantic position on the theory

of 'non-difference of the cause and effect'.

 

To start with, Shankara says:

 

 

14. Sutra: The non-difference of them (i.e. of cause and effect)

results from such terms as 'origin' and the like.

 

//The refutation contained in the preceding Sûtra was set forth on

the condition of the practical distinction of enjoyers and objects

of enjoyment being acknowledged. //

 

The Ratnaprabha points out: The very objection of the previous sutra

is now replied in this sutra with the pre-eminent 'vivarta vaada'

argument. The earlier sutra was dealt with with the 'pariNAma

vaada' (sankhya) and this sutra has the 'vivarta vada' for its

basis. (The Sankhya's parinaama vaada, based on the 'practical

distinction' as noted by Shankara in the above lines, is admissible

as a stepping stone in Vedanta, only to be replaced by the final

viewpoint of Vivartavada where such a distinction is not primary.)

 

The Bhahsya continues:

 

//In reality, however, that distinction does not exist because there

is understood to be non-difference (identity) of cause and effect.

The effect is this manifold world consisting of ether and so on; the

cause is the highest Brahman. Of the effect it is understood that in

reality it is non-different from the cause, i.e. has no existence

apart from the cause.--How so?--'On account of the scriptural

word "origin" and others.'//

 

The BhAmati has something very interesting to say in this regard:

 

//By the expression 'Non-difference (of the cause and effect), we do

not articulate non-distinctness or oneness of the two; what we

accomplish by the expression 'non-difference' is the negation of

the (mistaken) notion of (real) difference between the two (the

cause and the effect).//

 

The exact BhAmati sentence is something very nice to contemplate

upon:

 

//na khalu ananyatvam iti abhedam brUmaH, kintu bhedam vyAsedhAmaH,

tatashcha na abhedAshraya-doSha-prasangaH//. The Bhamati reasons

that if this understanding is not admitted, there will be the defect

of the expression 'non-difference' giving rise to problems of (a)

the effect definitely does not have all the properties of the cause

and (b) practical utility fulfillment will be absent. To explain:

The pot is considered to be non-different from its material cause,

clay. Supposing someone requiring a pot to store water or to use a

pot as a cooking utensil, he cannot be given some clay and told: the

effect is non-different from the cause. Again, clay could be seen

as one heap or lump but the effects, pot, and numerous earthenware

are multiple in number.

 

Shankara cites the 'multiplicity' in his bhashyam:

 

//The effect is this manifold world consisting of ether and so on;

the cause is the highest Brahman.//

 

The wonderful bhashya states further:

 

//The word 'origin' is used in connexion with a simile, in a passage

undertaking to show how through the knowledge of one thing

everything is known; viz. Ch. Up. VI, 1, 4, 'As, my dear, by one

clod of clay all that is made of clay is known, the modification

(i.e. the effect; the thing made of clay) being a name merely which

has its origin in speech, while the truth is that it is clay merely;

thus,' &c.--The meaning of this passage is that, if there is known a

lump of clay which really and truly is nothing but clay , there are

known thereby likewise all things made of clay, such as jars,

dishes, pails, and so on, all of which agree in having clay for

their true nature. For these modifications or effects are names

only, exist through or originate from speech only, while in reality

there exists no such thing as a modification. In so far as they are

names (individual effects distinguished by names) they are untrue;

in so far as they are clay they are true.--This parallel instance is

given with reference to Brahman; applying the phrase 'having its

origin in speech' to the case illustrated by the instance quoted we

understand that the entire body of effects has no existence apart

from Brahman.--Later on again the text, after having declared that

fire, water, and earth are the effects of Brahman, maintains that

the effects of these three elements have no existence apart from

them, 'Thus has vanished the specific nature of burning fire, the

modification being a mere name which has its origin in speech, while

only the three colours are what is true' (Ch. Up. VI, 4, 1).--Other

sacred texts also whose purport it is to intimate the unity of the

Self are to be quoted here, in accordance with the 'and others' of

the Sûtra. Such texts are, 'In that all this has its Self; it is the

True, it is the Self, thou art that' (Ch. Up. VI, 8, 7); 'This

everything, all is that Self' (Bri. Up. II, 4, 6); 'Brahman alone is

all this' (Mu. Up. II, 2, 11); 'The Self is all this' (Ch. Up. VII,

25, 2); 'There is in it no diversity' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 25).--On any

other assumption it would not be possible to maintain that by the

knowledge of one thing everything becomes known (as the text quoted

above declares). We therefore must adopt the following view. In the

same way as those parts of ethereal space which are limited by jars

and waterpots are not really different from the universal ethereal

space, and as the water of a mirage is not really different from the

surface of the salty steppe--for the nature of that water is that it

is seen in one moment and has vanished in the next, and moreover, it

is not to be perceived by its own nature (i. e. apart from the

surface of the desert 1)--; so this manifold world with its objects

of enjoyment, enjoyers and so on has no existence apart from

Brahman.//

 

A careful study of the above portion of the bhashya would make it

clear that by 'non-difference' 'ananyatvam', Shankara means 'the

effect is not existent apart from the cause'. That is, the effect

has no existence independent of the cause. He substantiates it

with the Chandogya Shruti and explicitly says 'the effect...merely

words....are untrue'....as clay alone they are true. He gives the

example (typical of vivartavada) //On any other assumption it would

not be possible to maintain that by the knowledge of one thing

everything becomes known (as the text quoted above declares). We

therefore must adopt the following view. In the same way as those

parts of ethereal space which are limited by jars and waterpots are

not really different from the universal ethereal space, and as the

water of a mirage is not really different from the surface of the

salty steppe--for the nature of that water is that it is seen in one

moment and has vanished in the next, and moreover, it is not to be

perceived by its own nature (i. e. apart from the surface of the

desert 1)--; so this manifold world with its objects of enjoyment,

enjoyers and so on has no existence apart from Brahman.//

 

This unmistakable final position of Shankara does not give room for

the conception that:

 

// If human mind is a late comer in the

> history of this planet we also know that it could only come if in

fact the

> potential were there all along. There was no sudden infusion as

an

> uncaused event; there was a steady progress towards the self-

awareness

> which is implicit in existence itself. Because 'mind' is always

there in

> the form of the proto-experiential there is not any question of

objects

> popping into existence upon the arrival of humans.//

 

 

In fact the idea of the world existing in a potential form has been

proposed by the Mandukya Upanishad while speaking about the third

pAda, the PrAjna (Ishvara). But this has been explicitly negated

subsequently in the seventh mantra by the same Upanishad and the

Turiya is presented as the Absolute Truth, Brahman, Atman,

transcending/bereft of /free from the duality of cause-effect.

Turiya is kArya-kArana-vilakshanam. So, in the final view of

Advaita, the duality consisting of the cause AND effect is a

superimpostion in Brahman which is itself no cause of anything.

Even from the Chandogya Shruti it is clear that it gives no room for

the idea that the effects 'existed' in the casue prior to

manifestation.

 

The post became very long because of the quotes. This is just my

understanding. It is also possible that i have not captured the

viewpoint of Michael ji correctly. Others may hold different views.

 

Best regards,

subbu

Om Tat Sat