Re:What is common in Adwaitha and Sakthaadhwaitha?

[Guest guest]

priya mahASayAh, One scholarly pITAdhipati has defined adwaita as "maru marIcikA nyAyam" and SAktAdwaita as "mR^idGaTa nyAyam". I don't know how far this illustration is appropriate. But he did not answer my above query I still have the doubt how SrI SankarAcArya and his followers have chosen to follow both the sampradAyAs simultaneously, because adwaita says there will be no water at all in the mirage whereas in SAktaadwaita there is the mud

and also the pot. I request all our members to clarify my doubt giving proper examples to understand easily.Thanking you all in advance,Yours always in the service of the motherkrishnarao (SrIparasuKAnandanAtha)

 

Dear Lanka Garu,

Your query seems simple but requires elaboration and also it seems that you already know something about it and yet express it as a doubt to prove your two cents in this matter.

Anyways, let me express what I know best, though I might not be as erudite as you are or as the ‘’Peetadhipathy’’, whom you derogatorily quote.All the credits go to my Gurunathar and all the defects are mine alone.

Your swasanusandhana path and queries are interesting, though, in making me share some information with the members.

Thank you for the same.

Always start with clarity and 'emptiness'.Emptiness does not mean idiocy, it is the highest truth.When you start with these two in reading any scripture or statement, the falsity is weeded out automatically.The moment clarity is lost then filth enters into the understanding how muchever scriptural and scholarly you may be.

However, I would say here at the outset that there is no inherent contradiction in the path chosen by Adi Shankara’s devotees in an amalgam of both the Nyaayaas as you putforth.

There seems to be a contradiction but if one spiritually analyses the logicality is dissolved in the ‘ParamAthmika’

We need not go too much into Vedantic Hubris, let us start with Lalitha Sahasranama.

 

 

Lalitha Sahasranama has the appelation “Kaarya-Kaarana-Nirmuktha†(862nd Nama; 161st Verse)Karya and karana, the ontology.

Saubhaagya Bhaaskara Bhaashyam says thus:

“Kaaryaani Mahatwaadeeni Kaaranam Moolaprakruthihi Tairvinirmukthaa Chaitanye’ Te’shaam ParamaarthathO abhAavaath “Na tasya Kaaryam-Kaaranam cha vidhyathe†ithi shruthihiâ€

It is the Moolaprakrithi (Primal feminine) which is the avikaara (unperverted) cause of the Universe.All the Mahaatatwaas emanated from this and the Devimoolaprakrithi Chaitanya comesforth as one which transcends this primal cause.

 

The karya (effect) and karana (cause) form an important area for investigation in all the systems of Vedanta.

Two karanatvas (ways of being the cause) are recognised:Nimitta karanatva — Being the instrumental cause. For example, a potter is assigned Nimitta karanatva as he acts as the maker of the pot and thus becomes the pot's instrumental cause. Upadana karanatva — Being the material cause. For example, the mud is assigned Upadana karantva as it acts as the material of the effect (the pot) and thus becomes the pot's material cause.

 

 

Advaita assigns Nimitta karanatva to Brahman vide the statements from the Vedas (only two are given below):Sarvani rupani vicitya dhirah. Namani krtvabhivadan yadaste — That Lord has created all the forms and is calling them by their names (Taitiiriya Aranyaka 3.12.7).Sa ikshata lokannu srja iti — He thought, “Let Me create the worlds†(Aitareya Upanishad 1.1.1)Advaita also assigns Upadana karanatva to Brahman vide the statements from the Vedas (only two are given below):

 

 

(Idaikaadar Siddha, realizing the moment of truth through the Pots--"Mrudhghaktika Nyaya" experentially relaized.I think this is what I would seek for than an hurbical explantion of the Nyaaya and racking my head!)

Yatha somyaikena mrtpindena sarvam mrnmayam vijñatam syadvacarambhanam vikaro namadheyam mrttiketyeva satyam — Dear boy, just as through a single clod of clay all that is made of clay would become known, for all modifications is but name based upon words and the clay alone is real (Chandogya Upanishad 6.1.4)Sokamayata bahu syam prajayeti — (He thought) Let me be many, let me be born (Taittiriya Upanishad 2.6.4).The Chandogya Upanishad 6.2.1 states: Ekamevadvitiyam — It is One without a second.Thus, based on these and other statements found in the Vedas, Advaita concludes that Brahman is both the instrumental cause and the material cause. Karya-karana ananyatvaAdvaita states that karya (effect) is non-different from karana (cause).

However karana is different from karya. This principle is called Karya-karana ananyatva (the non-difference of the effect from the cause). To elaborate, if the cause is destroyed, the effect will no longer exist. For example, if from the effect, pot, the cause, mud particles, are removed, there will be no pot, i.e., the pot is destroyed. Similarly if in the effect, mud particles, the cause, individual elements, are removed, there will be no mud, i.e., the mud is destroyed.

This is brought out by Adi Shankara in the Brahmasutra Bhashya , commentary on the Brahma sutra, 2.1.9, as: Ananyatve'pi karyakaranayoh karyasya karanatmatvam na tu karanasya karyatmatvam —

Despite the non-difference of cause and effect, the effect has its self in the cause but not the cause in the effect. The effect is of the nature of the cause and not the cause the nature of the effect. Therefore the qualities of the effect cannot touch the cause.During the time of its existence, one can easily grasp that the effect is not different from the cause. However that the cause is different from the effect is not readily understood. As to this, it is not really possible to separate cause from effect.

But this is possible by imagining so. For example, the reflection of the gold ornament seen in the mirror is only the form of the ornament but is not the ornament itself as it (the reflection) has no gold in it at all. Adi Shankara says in the Chamdogya Upanishad Bhashya, commentary on the Chandogya Upanishad, 6.3.2: Sarvam ca namarupadi sadatmanaiva satyam vikarajatam svatastu anrtameva —

All names and forms are real when seen with the Sat (Brahman) but are false when seen independent of Brahman.This way Advaita establishes the non-difference of effect from cause. To put it in a nutshell, Karya is not different from karana; however karana is different from karya.

In the context of Advaita Vedanta, Jagat (the world) is not different from Brahman; however Brahman is different from Jagat. There are three levels of truth which you might be aware

The transcendental or the Paramarthika level in which Brahman is the only reality and nothing else; the pragmatic or the Vyavaharika level in which both Jiva (living creatures or individual souls) and Ishvara are true; here, the material world is completely true, and, the apparent or the Prathibhasika level in which even material world reality is actually false, like illusion of a snake over a rope or a dream. According to Adi Shankara, God, the Supreme Cosmic Spirit or Brahman is the One, the whole and the only reality. Other than Brahman, everything else, including the universe, material objects and individuals, are false. Brahman is at best described as that infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent, incorporeal, impersonal, transcendent

reality that is the divine ground of all Being. Brahman is often described as neti neti meaning "not this, not this" because it cannot be correctly described as this or that. It is the origin of this and that, the origin of forces, substances, all of existence, the undefined, the basis of all, unborn, the essential truth, unchanging, eternal, the absolute. How can it be properly described as something in the material world when itself is the basis of reality? Brahman is also beyond the senses, it would be akin a blind man trying to correctly describe color. It (grammatically neutral, but exceptionally treated as masculine), though not a substance, is the basis of the material

world, which in turn is its illusionary transformation. Brahman is not the effect of the world. Brahman is said to be the purest knowledge itself, and is illuminant like a source of infinite light.Due to ignorance (avidya), the Brahman is visible as the material world and its objects. The actual Brahman is attributeless and formless (see Nirguna Brahman). It is the Self-existent, the Absolute and the Imperishable (not generally the object of worship but rather of meditation). Brahman is actually indescribable. It is at best "Satchidananda" (merging "Sat" + "Chit" + "Ananda", ie, Infinite Truth, Infinite Consciousness and Infinite Bliss). Also, Brahman is free from any kind of differences. It does not have any sajatiya (homogeneous) differences because there is no second Brahman. It does not have any vijatīya (heterogeneous) differences because there is nobody in reality existing other than Brahman. It has neither svagata (internal) differences, because Brahman is itself homogeneous.Though Brahman is self-proved, Adi Shankara also proposed some logical proofs:Shruti — the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita and the Brahma Sutras describe Brahman in almost exact manner as Adi

Shankara. This is the testimonial proof of Brahman.

 

 

Psychological — every person experiences his soul, or atman. According to Adi Shankara, Atman = Brahman. This argument also proves the omniscience of the Brahman. Teleological — the world appears very well ordered; the reason for this cannot be an unconscious principle. The reason must be due to the Brahman. Essential — Brahman is the basis of this created world. Perceptible feeling — many people, when they achieve the turīya state,

claim that their soul has become one with everything else. "The manifold universe is, in truth, a Single Reality.â€There is only one Great Being, which the sages call Brahman, in which all the countless forms of existence reside.

 

“That Great Being is utter Consciousness, and It is the very Essence, or Self (Atman) of all beings.†According to Adi Shankara, Maya is the complex illusionary power of Brahman which causes the Brahman to be seen as the material world of separate forms. It has two main functions — one is to "hide" Brahman from ordinary human perception, and the other is to present the material world in its stead. Maya is also said to be indescribable, though it may be

said that all sense data entering ones awareness via the five senses are Maya, since the fundamental reality underlying sensory perception is completely hidden. It is also said that Maya is neither completely real nor completely unreal, hence indescribable. Its shelter is Brahman, but Brahman itself is untouched by the illusion of Maya, just like a magician is not tricked by his own magic. Maya is temporary and is transcended with "true knowledge," or perception of the more fundamental reality which straddles Maya.

Since according to the Upanishads only Brahman is real, but we see the material world to be real, Adi Shankara explained the anomaly by the concept of this illusionary power Maya.

He explained this using the “Maru Mareechika Nyaayamâ€. (“Water in Mirage Lawâ€)

This complements with the Mrud-Ghatika-Nyayam(Mud-pot-Law) explained earlier.

Both actually emnate scripturally and it was not Sri Adi Shankara who put forth it first.

Im sure you must be knowing Adheya and Adhaara concepts as well as Samanaadhikarana. It is explained by way of of a spiritual logicality in the erroneous consideration of taking the changing effect ie., in this case: Mud to Pot as the ultimate reality and completely forgetting that the Aadhara(base) clay does not undergo any change(actually the example taken is not completely correct because the clay does undergo a small chemical change while the baking process is done but you can consider this example from an unbaked pot’s view) in becoming a pot.(You may substitute this with even a paper being made into an small airplane used for playing by children in a classroom.The inherent material paper does not undergo any change just because the notebook page has been turned into an

areoplane)

The pot is only a utilarian extension to mud (Vyavahaara)

The effects are vyaavahaarika and cause is (relatively speaking in this example) paaramaarthikam.

 

Mirage photo...(courtesy Britannica.com)

In the marumariicika example, error lies in human perception. Human perception is essentially flawed but perfect in the human’s reference frame.Human perception as the name suggests comes because of perceiving due to the lawsof glancing angle-reflection which are based on laws of physics.

Because of similarity in reflection, one mistakes as the water.It is an optical illusion.

The most common quote in Adwaitha used in this Nyaya is the snake and the rope error.Taking onething for another; an objective error.

Here the water in the mirage does not exist and when we know that the mirage is frustrated in its deception.

In both the examples you see there is a common thread of objectivity.Thus the moment you know the truth behind that perception or the reality behind them then the illusion vanishes.The commentator Shakthibeeja says thus: “Pot still remains after knowing it is nothing but clay - one can also say pot was never there to start with since it is only clay in different forms - forms are mithyaa while substantive is real. It all depends on how much you are in need of a pot compare to clay!â€

In other words, how much a person is behind Mayavic elements rather than the base which is Brahman which is the moot-point.

The same is the case with Water in a mirage example.We have errors on two counts --Vyavahaarika and Prathibhaashika.In the same way with jnaanam or knowledge of the reality, the subjective errors, praatibhaasika errors that involve samsaara, or subjective source of problems, will disappear while the objective reality although apparent like pot, the truth of that appearance is also understood.

Shakthaadhwaitham uses the mrudhghatika nyaya(or loshtaprasthara nyaayam) because a water in a mirage is easily discernable while the pot and mud law is not easily recognizable and it takes the adhwarya of Tantra to become “That†to realize the “mud-in-the-potâ€.

Someone said that this Law putforth for shaktha adwaitham is grosser than the water in mirage analogy but I think that it is subtler at an experiential level.Im sure no one would say , “I see the mud in the pot and thus I’m buying mud in the form of a pot†while buying a pot from a shop.The maya is deep and profound. But I guess while in a desert for an informed traveler, he or she is likely to say, “Naah! This is water in a mirage; let us not rush toward itâ€

I think you start with a base of Dwaitha and Adwaitha unclearly defined and thus this confusion.

Both are purely experiential states and I’m sure would dissolve in meditation of the Paramaathmika which resides in you,and your pot called humanbody, if your query is real, i.e.

Yours Yogically,

Shreeram Balijepalli

 

 

 

 

 

Hreem Rajarajeshwari Paradevatha!

Purity, Powers, Parabrahmam...