nirguna and saguna ( a Brahma sutra quote)

[Guest guest]

Namaskaram,

 

I give a quote of Shankara's Sutra commentary (Ramakrishna math

translation) and raise questions. You may think of me as a Sankhya or

rigid Gaudapada follower, if my points seem contrary to Advaita, and

think of how to contradict what I say. I myself think this indeed is

where Advaita points to. THIS IS A CHALLENGE. It is not meant to

present wrong ideas or confuse new-comers. No matter, if it does

either: let those who stay stay. I am not waiting to be refuted, but

the points should be considered without sentimental bias.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

Janmaadhyasya Yathaha || 2 ||

 

Origin etc. (i.e. sustenance and dissolution) of this (world) from

which.

 

(Brahman is that omniscient, omnipotent cause) from which proceed the

origin etc., (i.e. sustenance and dissolution) of this (world).

 

 

Sutra 1.1.2 based on Ramakrishna Math translation of Shankara's

commentary:

 

(QUOTE)

 

.... Knowledge of Brahman leads to Liberation. Now in order that we

may attain this knowledge of Brahman, It must have some

characteristics by which It can be known; otherwise it is not

possible to have such knowledge. The opponent holds that Brahman has

no such characteristics by which It can be defined, and in the

absence of definition there can be no knowledge of Brahman, and

consequently no Freedom.

 

This Sutra refutes that objection and gives a definition of

Brahman: " That which is the cause of the world is Brahman " -- where

the IMAGINED " cause of the world " is indicative of Brahman. This is

called the Tathastha Lakshana, or that characteristic of a thing

which is distinct from its nature and yet serves to make it known. In

the definition given by this Sutra, the origin, sustenance and

dissolution are characteristics of the world and as such in NO WAY

related to Brahman, which is eternal and CHANGELESS; yet these

indicate Brahman, which is IMAGINED to be the cause of the world,

just as an imagined snake indicates the rope when we say, " that which

is the snake is the rope " .

 

The scriptures give another definition of Brahman which describes Its

true nature: " Truth, Knowledge, Infinity is Brahman. " This is called

the Svarupa Lakshana, that which defines Brahman in Its true essence.

These words, though they have different meanings in ordinary

parlance, yet refer to the one indivisible Brahman, even as the

words, father, son, brother, husband, etc. refer to one and the same

person according to his relation with different individuals.

 

(UNQUOTE)

 

Why is " imagined " used as an adjective? The cause can be imagined

only if the effect is imagined. The effect affirmed in mind is world,

and the cause inferred as corresponding to world is Ishvara, the

Creator. The commentary says this Ishvara is " imagined " .

 

The imagined effect is attributed the duality of sentience and

insentience. Sentience is seen in conjunction with the ability to

will and act; insentience is an abidance to law. Ishvara, the

Creator, is therefore concluded as being sentient. The

word " imagined " refutes all this as vyavahaarika (non)sense.

 

Conclusion: Brahman in the context of a certain collection of

limiting adjuncts realizes ItSelf as jiva (within) and jagat

(without). This distinction, which is the basis for distinctions of

sentience and insentience, is imagined: relevant as truth only in the

context of the jiva's reference frame. So phooey to the idea that

jagat is insentient and jiva is sentient; they both indicate the non-

dual Brahman and the rest is superimposition: the fault is yours,

foolish jiva-believing mind! AND this ISHVARA, your imagined pet-

cause of all this, is your own putting-into-context and approaching

the non-dual Reality that is basis for your imagined ideas

of " sentience " , " insentience " and so forth. The Personalization of

Ishvara is your business, has no implication on Brahman. The Sankhyan

is wrong if he claims the " cause " as insentient, and to him we

say " sentient " ; but you are equally wrong if you make this

sentience/insentience distinction a reality unto itself and attempt

thereby to implicate a Cause with the connotation of sentience.

 

Sat/Sentient refers that Brahman is not asat/insentient.

 

Where Brahman is related to Causally, there the vyavahaarika

standpoint is adopted. The effects are affirmed in the mind, and the

cause is inferred in the context of the assumed effects -- again our

putting into context; don't demand objectivity of It as such. A

preferential assignment of Personality/sentience, a He/She, is not

justified: that is the jiva's eulogy and atharva-vada (as someone in

this list once said). It may be partially justified in the sense that

for the jiva who seeks Personality, the response experienced is

Personality. But don't conclude therefore a definitive limitation of

the first Cause and label It the Sentient God, thinking (like

yourself) with a bigger mind and so on.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

 

Namaskaram,

 

I give a quote of Shankara's Sutra commentary (Ramakrishna math

translation) and raise questions. You may think of me as a Sankhya or

rigid Gaudapada follower, if my points seem contrary to Advaita, and

think of how to contradict what I say. I myself think this indeed is

where Advaita points to. THIS IS A CHALLENGE. It is not meant to

present wrong ideas or confuse new-comers. No matter, if it does

either: let those who stay stay. I am not waiting to be refuted, but

the points should be considered without sentimental bias.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

Janmaadhyasya Yathaha || 2 ||

 

Origin etc. (i.e. sustenance and dissolution) of this (world) from

which.

 

(Brahman is that omniscient, omnipotent cause) from which proceed the

origin etc., (i.e. sustenance and dissolution) of this (world).

 

 

Sutra 1.1.2 based on Ramakrishna Math translation of Shankara's

commentary:

 

(QUOTE)

 

.... Knowledge of Brahman leads to Liberation. Now in order that we

may attain this knowledge of Brahman, It must have some

characteristics by which It can be known; otherwise it is not

possible to have such knowledge. The opponent holds that Brahman has

no such characteristics by which It can be defined, and in the

absence of definition there can be no knowledge of Brahman, and

consequently no Freedom.

 

This Sutra refutes that objection and gives a definition of

Brahman: " That which is the cause of the world is Brahman " -- where

the IMAGINED " cause of the world " is indicative of Brahman. This is

called the Tathastha Lakshana, or that characteristic of a thing

which is distinct from its nature and yet serves to make it known. In

the definition given by this Sutra, the origin, sustenance and

dissolution are characteristics of the world and as such in NO WAY

related to Brahman, which is eternal and CHANGELESS; yet these

indicate Brahman, which is IMAGINED to be the cause of the world,

just as an imagined snake indicates the rope when we say, " that which

is the snake is the rope " .

 

The scriptures give another definition of Brahman which describes Its

true nature: " Truth, Knowledge, Infinity is Brahman. " This is called

the Svarupa Lakshana, that which defines Brahman in Its true essence.

These words, though they have different meanings in ordinary

parlance, yet refer to the one indivisible Brahman, even as the

words, father, son, brother, husband, etc. refer to one and the same

person according to his relation with different individuals.

 

(UNQUOTE)

 

Why is " imagined " used as an adjective? The cause can be imagined

only if the effect is imagined. The effect affirmed in mind is world,

and the cause inferred as corresponding to world is Ishvara, the

Creator. The commentary says this Ishvara is " imagined " .

 

The imagined effect is attributed the duality of sentience and

insentience. Sentience is seen in conjunction with the ability to

will and act; insentience is an abidance to law. Ishvara, the

Creator, is therefore concluded as being sentient. The

word " imagined " refutes all this as vyavahaarika (non)sense.

 

Conclusion: Brahman in the context of a certain collection of

limiting adjuncts realizes ItSelf as jiva (within) and jagat

(without). This distinction, which is the basis for distinctions of

sentience and insentience, is imagined: relevant as truth only in the

context of the jiva's reference frame. So phooey to the idea that

jagat is insentient and jiva is sentient; they both indicate the non-

dual Brahman and the rest is superimposition: the fault is yours,

foolish jiva-believing mind! AND this ISHVARA, your imagined pet-

cause of all this, is your own putting-into-context and approaching

the non-dual Reality that is basis for your imagined ideas

of " sentience " , " insentience " and so forth. The Personalization of

Ishvara is your business, has no implication on Brahman. The Sankhyan

is wrong if he claims the " cause " as insentient, and to him we

say " sentient " ; but you are equally wrong if you make this

sentience/insentience distinction a reality unto itself and attempt

thereby to implicate a Cause with the connotation of sentience.

 

Sat/Sentient refers that Brahman is not asat/insentient.

 

Where Brahman is related to Causally, there the vyavahaarika

standpoint is adopted. The effects are affirmed in the mind, and the

cause is inferred in the context of the assumed effects -- again our

putting into context; don't demand objectivity of It as such. A

preferential assignment of Personality/sentience, a He/She, is not

justified: that is the jiva's eulogy and atharva-vada (as someone in

this list once said). It may be partially justified in the sense that

for the jiva who seeks Personality, the response experienced is

Personality. But don't conclude therefore a definitive limitation of

the first Cause and label It the Sentient God, thinking (like

yourself) with a bigger mind and so on.

 

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

>

>

>(QUOTE)

 

> This Sutra refutes that objection and gives a definition of

> Brahman: " That which is the cause of the world is Brahman " -- where

> the IMAGINED " cause of the world " is indicative of Brahman. This is

> called the Tathastha Lakshana, or that characteristic of a thing

> which is distinct from its nature and yet serves to make it known. In

> the definition given by this Sutra, the origin, sustenance and

> dissolution are characteristics of the world and as such in NO WAY

> related to Brahman, which is eternal and CHANGELESS; yet these

> indicate Brahman, which is IMAGINED to be the cause of the world,

> just as an imagined snake indicates the rope when we say, " that which

> is the snake is the rope " .

 

 

As it turns out, the preface of this translatory work (by Swami

Vireshwarananda) has the comment:

 

" The word-for-word translation is very literal, but the running

translation is made as literal as possible consistent with easy

reading. "

 

Since the word " imagined " is used in the running translation of

Shankara's commentary, one cannot tell whether that is part of

Shankara's actual wording or whether RK math did their editorial

fudging.

 

CAN ANYONE WHO HAS ACCESS TO THE LITERAL TRANSLATION PROVIDE IT FOR THE

ABOVE PARAGRAPH IN SHANKARA'S COMMENTARY? Thanks.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

 

> Why is " imagined " used as an adjective? The cause can be imagined

> only if the effect is imagined. The effect affirmed in mind is world,

> and the cause inferred as corresponding to world is Ishvara, the

> Creator. The commentary says this Ishvara is " imagined " .

>

> The imagined effect is attributed the duality of sentience and

> insentience. Sentience is seen in conjunction with the ability to

> will and act; insentience is an abidance to law. Ishvara, the

> Creator, is therefore concluded as being sentient. The

> word " imagined " refutes all this as vyavahaarika (non)sense.

>

> Conclusion: Brahman in the context of a certain collection of

> limiting adjuncts realizes ItSelf as jiva (within) and jagat

> (without). This distinction, which is the basis for distinctions of

> sentience and insentience, is imagined: relevant as truth only in the

> context of the jiva's reference frame. So phooey to the idea that

> jagat is insentient and jiva is sentient; they both indicate the non-

> dual Brahman and the rest is superimposition: the fault is yours,

> foolish jiva-believing mind! AND this ISHVARA, your imagined pet-

> cause of all this, is your own putting-into-context and approaching

> the non-dual Reality that is basis for your imagined ideas

> of " sentience " , " insentience " and so forth. The Personalization of

> Ishvara is your business, has no implication on Brahman.

 

=======

 

Dear Sir,

 

First of all, are you sure that Shankara is referring to ishwara here?

'I may be wrong', but, as far as my understanding goes, AchArya is

referring to brahman, not Ishwara or saguna brahman. If my

understanding is wrong, I request other learned members of the forum

to correct me. If AchArya is referring to brahman here, and, if we

'assume' that brahman is IMAGINED, then thats the end of the story!

Kindly see the following passage:

 

(Quote)

 

The full sense of the Sûtra therefore is: That omniscient omnipotent

cause from which proceed the origin, subsistence, and dissolution of

this world--which world is differentiated by names and forms, contains

many agents and enjoyers, is the abode of the fruits of actions, these

fruits having their definite places, times, and causes 1, and the

nature of whose arrangement cannot even be conceived by the

mind,--that cause, we say, is Brahman. Since the other forms of

existence (such as increase, decline, & c.) are included in

origination, subsistence, and dissolution, only the three latter are

referred to in the Sûtra. As the six stages of existence enumerated by

Yâska 2 are possible only during the period of the world's

subsistence, it might--were they referred to in the Sûtra--be

suspected that what is meant are not the origin, subsistence, and

dissolution (of the world) as dependent on the first cause. To

preclude this suspicion the Sûtra is to be taken as referring, in

addition to the world's origination from Brahman, only to its

subsistence in Brahman, and final dissolution into Brahman.

 

George Thibuat's translation.

Source:

http://www.bharatadesam.com/spiritual/brahma_sutra/brahma_sutra_sankara_34008.ph\

p

 

Secondly, about the adjective IMAGINED, I think Swami

Vireshwaranandaji is using it as a synonym to the word 'INFERRED'.

Consider the following passage in the sutra:

 

(Quote)

 

For the comprehension of Brahman is effected by the ascertainment,

consequent on discussion, of the sense of the Vedânta-texts, not

either by inference or by the other means of right knowledge. While,

however, the Vedânta-passages primarily declare the cause of the

origin, & c., of the world, inference also, being an instrument of

right knowledge in so far as it does not contradict the Vedânta-texts,

is not to be excluded as a means of confirming the meaning ascertained.

 

(Unquote)

 

Please do comment, and give the reasons if you feel that my

understanding is incorrect.

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Vinayaka " <vinayaka_ns wrote:

>

> advaitin , " putranm " <putranm@> wrote:

>

> > Why is " imagined " used as an adjective? The cause can be imagined

> > only if the effect is imagined. The effect affirmed in mind is

world,

> > and the cause inferred as corresponding to world is Ishvara, the

> > Creator. The commentary says this Ishvara is " imagined " .

> >

> > The imagined effect is attributed the duality of sentience and

> > insentience. Sentience is seen in conjunction with the ability to

> > will and act; insentience is an abidance to law. Ishvara, the

> > Creator, is therefore concluded as being sentient. The

> > word " imagined " refutes all this as vyavahaarika (non)sense.

> =======

>

> Dear Sir,

>

> First of all, are you sure that Shankara is referring to ishwara

here?

> 'I may be wrong', but, as far as my understanding goes, AchArya is

> referring to brahman, not Ishwara or saguna brahman. If my

> understanding is wrong, I request other learned members of the forum

> to correct me. If AchArya is referring to brahman here, and, if we

> 'assume' that brahman is IMAGINED, then thats the end of the story!

> Kindly see the following passage:

>

 

Dear Vinayaka,

 

First, I would like the learned members to comment on the precise

translation of Shankara's commentary before deciding on our two

versions.

 

Now to your comments:

 

The issue is that in this sutra causality is attributed to Brahman:

it is the origin of this (world). Brahman is Reality; no imagination.

Brahman seen with the linkage of causality is precisely Ishvara, as I

understand. So the word IMAGINE brings to light two points:

 

1. First, Advaita seeks to undermine the attribution of causality to

Brahman. That is why the effect is referred to as unreal or 'apparent

modification'; hence the causal view of Brahman, i.e. Ishvara, is

undermined, by stating it as imagined.

 

Of course, exactly how this undermining is to be interpreted in

Advaita is important; and this recently was discussed quite a bit.

 

2. Second, and perhaps more to my point, even if the effects are

affirmed at the sensual vyavahaarika level, and hence Brahman is

affirmed as the Reality of what we see, still the causal

objectification of Brahman as Ishvara: the personal or sentient God,

is purely IMAGINation of the jiva.

 

It is the ego-bound " jiva " who relates to the Reality of Self as

distinct and calls It Ishvara. However this status of distinction is

often objectified as an independent Sentient Reality, that exists

with " as much " reality as the jiva. The Self, objectified and marked

as sentient, becomes the Creator of the world. That objectification I

argue is according to the commentary IMAGINED.

 

Now why even bring in this version of Ishvara? The word " cause "

forces such an objectification; add to it " He willed " , etc. and you

get the whole package. Ishvara becomes more than just our best

assessment of Brahman.

 

Inference is a logical tool: we use it to put-into-context the non-

dual Reality of " this " and " that " . This method of inferring Brahman

as the Reality of " this " is justified as it is in accordance with

scripture. However if we use inference to determine Brahman

as " cause " of the " effect " of world, then we have gone further and

into the realm of imagination. For to affirm the cause, we must

affirm the effect as real unto itself: the vyavahaarika viewpoint is

adopted, and we botch it further for what comes within the experience

of jiva (notion of individuality, etc) is extended to our

imagined " cause " as well.

 

This may be partially justified as the jiva's experience may include

such manifest versions of Ishvara. This however goes only so far and

perhaps only subjective experiences. To label Brahman singularly as

cause and attempt to characterize the " cause " within the framework of

our dualistic notions of " sentience " and " insentience " is unjustified.

 

So I think. Do give your comments, if any.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Vinayaka " <vinayaka_ns wrote:

 

> Dear Sir,

> Kindly see the following passage:

>

> (Quote)

>

> The full sense of the Sûtra therefore is: That omniscient omnipotent

> cause from which proceed the origin, subsistence, and dissolution of

> this world--which world is differentiated by names and forms, contains

> many agents and enjoyers, is the abode of the fruits of actions, these

> fruits having their definite places, times, and causes 1, and the

> nature of whose arrangement cannot even be conceived by the

> mind,--that cause, we say, is Brahman. Since the other forms of

> existence (such as increase, decline, & c.) are included in

> origination, subsistence, and dissolution, only the three latter are

> referred to in the Sûtra. As the six stages of existence enumerated by

> Yâska 2 are possible only during the period of the world's

> subsistence, it might--were they referred to in the Sûtra--be

> suspected that what is meant are not the origin, subsistence, and

> dissolution (of the world) as dependent on the first cause. To

> preclude this suspicion the Sûtra is to be taken as referring, in

> addition to the world's origination from Brahman, only to its

> subsistence in Brahman, and final dissolution into Brahman.

>

> George Thibuat's translation.

> Source:

>

 

Dear Sri Vinayaka,

 

Thanks for your reference. It seems George Thibuat's version is more

literal. Swami Vireshwarananda need not say " imagine " if he could have

used " inferred " . The purpose is not to mislead here. So why he uses it

is important and probably reflects meaning implicit in Advaitic

thought. Also the second para (below) that you quote regarding

inference also has a version in Swamiji's translation which I did not

write up in my post. But I did make a point in my previous reply on

where inference is allowed and where not, perhaps. Of course, it is

definitely not the case that I am definitive in my position but am

hoping to present viewpoints for which the Advaitins here can properly

respond. This is one way we can fine-tune our knowledge: ask deep

questions and get answers, rather than read people's books and essays.

Since no answers are forth-coming from the group at present, best to

leave it. Do send me an email if ever you get precise response from

knowledgable people. Thanks.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.bharatadesam.com/spiritual/brahma_sutra/brahma_sutra_sankara_34008.ph\

p

>

> Secondly, about the adjective IMAGINED, I think Swami

> Vireshwaranandaji is using it as a synonym to the word 'INFERRED'.

> Consider the following passage in the sutra:

>

> (Quote)

>

> For the comprehension of Brahman is effected by the ascertainment,

> consequent on discussion, of the sense of the Vedânta-texts, not

> either by inference or by the other means of right knowledge. While,

> however, the Vedânta-passages primarily declare the cause of the

> origin, & c., of the world, inference also, being an instrument of

> right knowledge in so far as it does not contradict the Vedânta-texts,

> is not to be excluded as a means of confirming the meaning ascertained.

>

> (Unquote)

>

> Please do comment, and give the reasons if you feel that my

> understanding is incorrect.

>

> Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

>

> Br. Vinayaka.

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

 

> Thanks for your reference. It seems George Thibuat's version is more

> literal. Swami Vireshwarananda need not say " imagine " if he could have

> used " inferred " . The purpose is not to mislead here. So why he uses it

> is important and probably reflects meaning implicit in Advaitic

> thought.

 

=============

 

Dear Sir,

 

I think Swamiji has given a precise definition and left no scope for

ambiguity. Let us see the full passage, which you are referring to:

 

(Quote)

 

This Sutra refutes that objection and gives a definition of

Brahman: " That which is the cause of the world is Brahman " -- where

the IMAGINED " cause of the world " is indicative of Brahman. This is

called the Tathastha Lakshana, or that characteristic of a thing

which is distinct from its nature and yet serves to make it known.

 

In the definition given by this Sutra, the origin, sustenance and

dissolution are characteristics of the world and as such in NO WAY

related to Brahman, which is eternal and CHANGELESS; yet these

'indicate' Brahman, which is IMAGINED to be the cause of the world,

just as an 'imagined' snake indicates the rope when we say, " that

which is the snake is the rope " .

 

(Unquote)

 

Here, the word 'imagined' is precisely defined, with sufficient

explanation, isn't it? This perfectly agrees with the shankara's view

and it does not decry the concept of ishwara as imagination either.

 

Until and unless we realize or intuit the reality as it is, it is an

'imagination' for us and calls for faith in the words of sadguru too.

 

 

Swamiji has written in the preface of the book that, The word-for-word

translation is very literal, but the running translation is made as

literal as possible consistent with easy reading. Though it is not a

litral translation.

 

I feel this translation is readable and clear and quite reliable. If

you are looking for literal translation you can read translations by

other authors like, Dr. George Thibaut, Swami Gambhirananda-ji etc.

 

Hope you agree with me. :-)

 

Yours in the Lord,

 

Br. Vinayaka

[Guest guest]

Hari Om. Pranams.

 

The link below has more information related to this topic.

 

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/realis/realis_4e.html

 

Actually, that whole chapter is worth reading. Here is the link where

it starts..

 

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/realis/realis_4.html

 

Love and Respect

advaitin , " Vinayaka " <vinayaka_ns wrote:

> (Quote)

>

> This Sutra refutes that objection and gives a definition of

> Brahman: " That which is the cause of the world is Brahman " -- where

> the IMAGINED " cause of the world " is indicative of Brahman. This is

> called the Tathastha Lakshana, or that characteristic of a thing

> which is distinct from its nature and yet serves to make it known.

>

> In the definition given by this Sutra, the origin, sustenance and

> dissolution are characteristics of the world and as such in NO WAY

> related to Brahman, which is eternal and CHANGELESS; yet these

> 'indicate' Brahman, which is IMAGINED to be the cause of the world,

> just as an 'imagined' snake indicates the rope when we say, " that

> which is the snake is the rope " .

>

> (Unquote)

> Yours in the Lord,

>

> Br. Vinayaka

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Vinayaka,

 

You are probably right: I never understood what " Ishvara " really is in

Advaita; it ranges anywhere between a completely independent entity

and an abstract causal reference to Brahman by the jiva. Swamiji

defines " imagine " in his final snake-rope analogy in this way:

 

" the imagined snake (world) indicates rope (Brahman) "

 

The way he uses the word " imagine " before that is quite different,

since he uses it as an adjective for the " cause " itself (first time)

and not for the supposed world. And in the second, he uses it to

suggest that " rope " is imagined to be the cause for our perception of

" snake " . Both are quite seriously misleading.

 

And as said above, when he gets to the actual analogy, the word

imagine is used for the snake and not the rope.

 

The first two uses DO INDEED suggest Ishvara, for the cause becomes

the basis for imagination, and hence they DO suggest imagination of

Ishvara at work. This usage we take to be concominant with the

imagination of the world, for the effect of world is in our methods of

analysis to be related to the cause simultaneously.

 

I believe Advaita rejects the Sankhya approach, because Sankhya wants

world and Brahman (purusha) but NO CAUSAL connection with Ishvara. In

Advaita, the Reality of world is Brahman; they are the same: one seen

as another. But if we are to bring in a reason of why one is seen as

another, we speak causally: when this is done, it is an implicit

reference to Ishvara. So as I see it, logic demands that this sutra

refers to Brahman as Ishvara.

 

Now Swamiji uses " imagine " as a reference for the cause but in his

analogy he switches it to the effect. It is an open question whether

he does this knowingly or by being too casual about it. Either can be

justified, but we can leave it for now.

 

I had some other thoughts which I will write up separately on this

issue. Thanks also to Sri pjoshi for his reference.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

 

 

> =============

>

> Dear Sir,

>

> I think Swamiji has given a precise definition and left no scope for

> ambiguity. Let us see the full passage, which you are referring to:

>

> (Quote)

>

> This Sutra refutes that objection and gives a definition of

> Brahman: " That which is the cause of the world is Brahman " -- where

> the IMAGINED " cause of the world " is indicative of Brahman. This is

> called the Tathastha Lakshana, or that characteristic of a thing

> which is distinct from its nature and yet serves to make it known.

>

> In the definition given by this Sutra, the origin, sustenance and

> dissolution are characteristics of the world and as such in NO WAY

> related to Brahman, which is eternal and CHANGELESS; yet these

> 'indicate' Brahman, which is IMAGINED to be the cause of the world,

> just as an 'imagined' snake indicates the rope when we say, " that

> which is the snake is the rope " .

>

> (Unquote)

>

> Here, the word 'imagined' is precisely defined, with sufficient

> explanation, isn't it? This perfectly agrees with the shankara's view

> and it does not decry the concept of ishwara as imagination either.

>

> Until and unless we realize or intuit the reality as it is, it is an

> 'imagination' for us and calls for faith in the words of sadguru too.

>

>

> Swamiji has written in the preface of the book that, The word-for-word

> translation is very literal, but the running translation is made as

> literal as possible consistent with easy reading. Though it is not a

> litral translation.

>

> I feel this translation is readable and clear and quite reliable. If

> you are looking for literal translation you can read translations by

> other authors like, Dr. George Thibaut, Swami Gambhirananda-ji etc.

>

> Hope you agree with me. :-)

>

> Yours in the Lord,

>

> Br. Vinayaka

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

 

> Now Swamiji uses " imagine " as a reference for the cause but in his

> analogy he switches it to the effect. It is an open question whether

> he does this knowingly or by being too casual about it. Either can be

> justified, but we can leave it for now.

 

(Quote)

 

In the definition given by this Sutra, the origin, sustenance and

dissolution are characteristics of the world and as such in NO WAY

related to Brahman, which is eternal and CHANGELESS; yet these

'indicate' Brahman, which is IMAGINED to be the cause of the world,

just as an 'imagined' snake indicates the rope when we say, " that

which is the snake is the rope " .

 

(Unquote)

 

Dear Sir,

 

Yes, I do agree with your observation. Though this methodology cannot

be declared as amounting to a logical fallacy, it does confuse the

reader a bit nay a lot. :-)

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

[Guest guest]

Hari Om. Pranams.

 

I am a beginner and not even sure if I am understanding what both of

you are talking about. But still I thought to write my understanding

so my concepts will get clear.

 

I think the word " imagined " is used for the " effect " in both places

and there is no ambiguity about it. Only if " effect " is imagined the

question of " cause " arises. e.g. if snake is imagined then only the

cause needs to be hunted for. This cause is however NOT imaginary

because without rope no one will be able to imagine snake there. I

can't imagine snake on bare patch of land where there is no rope. So

rope indeed is the cause in relation to the effect snake and a very

real cause too as long as I am seeing snake. Without substratum how

can there be world? So when I see world, I have to look at Brahman as

cause of it. Presence of world itself " indicates " to me presence of

substratum which is Brahman as its cause and it is a very

real " cause " from perspective of imagined world.

 

So when an effect is superimposed on Brahman, cause too gets

superimposed on Brahman simultaneously. Nevertheless, Brahman is not

an imagined entity whether looked on its own or as a cause (Ishwara)

because the two are not really different. Rope is always there

whether snake is imagined on it or not. Even if it is called

as " rope " or " cause of snake " , rope remains rope. It is not imagined

in either case. Brahman and Ishwara is one and the same. When Brahman

is looked at as " cause " due to imagined " effect " it is called Ishwara

but what is talked about is one and the same.

 

This is just my understanding. Please do correct me as needed.

 

Love and Respect

Padma

> > Now Swamiji uses " imagine " as a reference for the cause but in his

> > analogy he switches it to the effect. It is an open question

>

> (Quote)

>

> In the definition given by this Sutra, the origin, sustenance and

> dissolution are characteristics of the world and as such in NO WAY

> related to Brahman, which is eternal and CHANGELESS; yet these

> 'indicate' Brahman, which is IMAGINED to be the cause of the world,

> just as an 'imagined' snake indicates the rope when we say, " that

> which is the snake is the rope " .

 

 

> Yes, I do agree with your observation. Though this methodology

cannot

> be declared as amounting to a logical fallacy, it does confuse the

> reader a bit nay a lot. :-)

[Guest guest]

WOW. Padma-ji, you are'nt a beginner! Well, explained.

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

_______________

 

advaitin , " pjoshi99 " <pjoshi99 wrote:

> I am a beginner and not even sure if I am understanding what both

of

> you are talking about. ....................>

>

>

> So when an effect is superimposed on Brahman, cause too gets

> superimposed on Brahman simultaneously. Nevertheless, Brahman is

not

> an imagined entity whether looked on its own or as a cause

(Ishwara)

> because the two are not really different. Rope is always there

> whether snake is imagined on it or not. Even if it is called

> as " rope " or " cause of snake " , rope remains rope. It is not

imagined

> in either case. Brahman and Ishwara is one and the same. When

Brahman

> is looked at as " cause " due to imagined " effect " it is called

Ishwara

> but what is talked about is one and the same.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " pjoshi99 " <pjoshi99 wrote:

 

Dear Padma-ji,

 

Namste,

 

If we accept, that, brahman and ishwara are one and the same, then, In

Sarikara's Advaita, Brahman the Absolute is not very responsive to

human emotions or prayers. The Isvara we bank on is either unreal or

has a precarious existence.

 

By the grace of Sri Ramakrishna, all my doubts on pertaining to this

issue have been dispelled. But, I am trying to understand, sincerely,

the definition of ishwara, his nature and his reality in the shankara

sampradya.

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

 

 

 

 

Brahman and Ishwara is one and the same. When Brahman

> is looked at as " cause " due to imagined " effect " it is called Ishwara

> but what is talked about is one and the same.

>

> This is just my understanding. Please do correct me as needed.

>

> Love and Respect

> Padma

[Guest guest]

Hi Padma-ji,

 

Just a quick comment - I never seem to find time to join in any of these

discussions at present (I'm sure others will take up the 'cause' if my

comments are unclear!)

 

You say " So when I see the world, I have to look at Brahman as the cause of

it. "

 

You cannot do this. Brahman is described by Gaudapada as

karya-kAraNa-vilakShaNa - it cannot be either a cause or an effect, since

this would negate its non-dual status. It is for this reason that one has to

conclude that there has never been any creation - ajAtivAda. There apprears

to be a world because of adhyAsa, mistaken superimposition or mixing up of

real and unreal as a result of ignorance in the mind. Similarly, rope is not

the 'cause' of the snake, only the locus on which it appears.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of pjoshi99

06 May 2007 05:08

advaitin

Re: nirguna and saguna ( a Brahma sutra quote)

 

 

..

 

<http://geo./serv?s=97359714/grpId=15939/grpspId=1705075991/msgId=3

5876/stime=1178424496/nc1=4507179/nc2=3848546/nc3=3848568>

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennis-ji.

 

Since I endorsed Padmaji's explanation, I believe I should step in.

 

Brahman cannot be either a cause or effect. You are right and I

don't think Padmaji disagrees with you.

 

AjAtivAda is also accepted. But, the conclusion of ajAtivAda as well

as adhyAsa takes place only in creation which the vAda negates! In

creation, we need language. Padmaji, in my opinion, has made very

effective use of it to convey an understanding that can only be

*understood* in wordlessness and reconciled the seeming contradiction

between Brahman and Ishwara!

 

Now about the last point, is there much difference between the

following two statements?

 

1. The world (snake) appears *because* of Brahman (the rope) (where

Brahman (rope) is the *cause*.

2. The world (snake) appears *on* Brahman (the rope) (where Brahman

(rope) is the *locus*

 

If we accept ajAtivAda, the world has never come into being with

Brahman remaining impeccably non-dual. Brahman cannot be a cause or

an effect or even a locus. Do such linguistic nuances then matter

much? Besides, the cause and effect model has been exhaustively

dealt with in the sUtrAs.

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Dear Vinayaka,

 

" If we accept, that, brahman and ishwara are one and the same, then,

In

Sarikara's Advaita, Brahman the Absolute is not very responsive to

human emotions or prayers. "

 

Well, it depends what you mean by " responsive. " Either we have to say

that Ishvara does nothing or we have to say that Ishvara does

everything, but we cannot say that Ishvara does some things and

doesn't do other things. Ishvara responding to our prayers is through

the various upadhis in the world alone, through the law of karma, and

never some action that doesn't involve upadhis (that is impossible).

There is also no extra-karmic grace, for instance the Yoga Vasistha

says that karma-phala and ishvara-anugraha are two names for the same

thing.

 

In that sense, it is not just that Nirguna Brahman is impersonal but

Ishvara is also thoroughly impersonal. It is " personal " only in the

sense that it can be personified, but the very fact that it can be

personified means that it is not actually personal. Ishvara doesn't

have a personality, or emotions, or love-vrittis or anything of that

sort because Ishvara is amanaska.

 

Please tell me if I am mistaken, of course.

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

Hi Nair-ji,

 

I tried to say that I didn't want to get drawn into a discussion! Damn! :-)

 

You ask " do such linguistic nuances matter? " Yes! This is why many current

satsang teachers are wreaking havoc amongst seekers. If the words we use are

not correctly defined, people will not understand the sentences in which we

use them. This is also why we use Sanskrit terms when the precise concept is

not expressed in English.

 

You ask if there is much difference between appearing 'because of a cause'

and appearing 'on a locus'. Yes! All the difference in the world. Cause and

effect implies that something has actually happened- first one thing, then

another. In the case in question, the implication is that Brahman has

projected the appearance, i.e. done something. But 'doing' does not apply to

Brahman. In actual fact, nothing has been done at all. The snake (world) is

misperceived because of (insufficient light) ignorance. As soon as light

(knowledge) comes in, the rope (Brahman) is seen as it always was - nothing

ever happened.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of Madathil Rajendran Nair

06 May 2007 12:44

advaitin

Re: nirguna and saguna ( a Brahma sutra quote)

 

 

..

 

<http://geo./serv?s=97359714/grpId=15939/grpspId=1705075991/msgId=3

5880/stime=1178451848/nc1=4507179/nc2=3848571/nc3=3848584>

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hari Om. Salutations Rishiji,

 

> sense that it can be personified, but the very fact that it can be

> personified means that it is not actually personal.

 

Yes, this is exactly what my Guruji told me too :-) Only Nirguna can

take on Gunas, so Saguna has to be Nirguna only.

 

Love and Respect

Padma

[Guest guest]

Namaskarams Sri Padmaji,

 

Your explanation is very clear. I think it is also the most standard

version of subjectively interpreting Ishvara in Advaita.

It states:

 

1. The world is imagination or superimposition upon Brahman.

2. In the context of the imagined effect, we correspond the

Reality/Substratum as being its cause. This causal reference to

Brahman is alternatively called Ishvara.

 

Let me point out a possible concern. The world is imagination not for

the senses: it is very real for the jiva. One basic question is

whether, in the vyavahaarika context, Ishvara constitutes a third

independent entity, " AS REAL " as the jiva and jagat appear to be.

In the imagined vyavahaarika, the jiva talks about pralaya, karma,

reincarnation, of multiplicity of other jivas and of jagat. There is

really no need to state that the jiva's dream world includes all these

but not a separate Entity called Ishvara.

 

The Ocean has its waves but the essence is only water. So the

vyavahaarika denotes the surface wave level of analysis and the

paramaarthika is the water level. Both denote the same Reality only.

However on the surface: Is it the case that Brahman, this Ocean,

awakens to a primordial Individuality (Ishvara) and then deliberates

to project forth the jiva-individualities and jagat? IF THIS IS THE

CASE, then truly the jiva can call the world an effect and Brahman its

Cause, putting in the Ishvara-causal connection.

 

Sri Vinayaka says YES. This is objective interpretation.

Rishiji says NO. This is subjective interpretation.

 

Well, that is why I made a fuss on the word " imagine " ; it does make a

difference when it is placed on the " cause " . As Dennisji points out,

the very word " cause " forces us to think objectively as some Potter

made the pot out of clay. However one cannot run away to this " nothing

ever happened " ajatavada here; our whole question is with regard to

the surface of the Ocean, where it surely is common consensus that

Jupiter is a planet out there.

 

So 1. is the Individuality of Ishvara a real imagination for the jiva,

in the sense of a " barren woman's son " ?

Or 2. is the cause-effect formulation of Ishvara-jiva-jagat alone the

imagination being referred to?

 

YOUR ANSWER MAY ONLY REFLECT YOUR PREFERRED APPROACH TO ADVAITA. Is

there a universal consensus? Please inform us if your Guru-ji has a

clear answer on this. Thanks. It may also be nice if more moderators

can comment on this question, since I REALLY would like to know.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

advaitin , " pjoshi99 " <pjoshi99 wrote:

>

> Hari Om. Pranams.

>

> I think the word " imagined " is used for the " effect " in both places

> and there is no ambiguity about it. Only if " effect " is imagined the

> question of " cause " arises. e.g. if snake is imagined then only the

> cause needs to be hunted for. This cause is however NOT imaginary

> because without rope no one will be able to imagine snake there. I

> can't imagine snake on bare patch of land where there is no rope.

So

> rope indeed is the cause in relation to the effect snake and a very

> real cause too as long as I am seeing snake. Without substratum how

> can there be world? So when I see world, I have to look at Brahman as

> cause of it. Presence of world itself " indicates " to me presence of

> substratum which is Brahman as its cause and it is a very

> real " cause " from perspective of imagined world.

>

> So when an effect is superimposed on Brahman, cause too gets

> superimposed on Brahman simultaneously. Nevertheless, Brahman is not

> an imagined entity whether looked on its own or as a cause (Ishwara)

> because the two are not really different. Rope is always there

> whether snake is imagined on it or not. Even if it is called

> as " rope " or " cause of snake " , rope remains rope. It is not imagined

> in either case. Brahman and Ishwara is one and the same. When Brahman

> is looked at as " cause " due to imagined " effect " it is called Ishwara

> but what is talked about is one and the same.

>

> This is just my understanding. Please do correct me as needed.

>

> Love and Respect

> Padma

> > > Now Swamiji uses " imagine " as a reference for the cause but in his

> > > analogy he switches it to the effect. It is an open question

> >

> > (Quote)

> >

> > In the definition given by this Sutra, the origin, sustenance and

> > dissolution are characteristics of the world and as such in NO WAY

> > related to Brahman, which is eternal and CHANGELESS; yet these

> > 'indicate' Brahman, which is IMAGINED to be the cause of the world,

> > just as an 'imagined' snake indicates the rope when we say, " that

> > which is the snake is the rope " .

>

>

> > Yes, I do agree with your observation. Though this methodology

> cannot

> > be declared as amounting to a logical fallacy, it does confuse the

> > reader a bit nay a lot. :-)

>

[Guest guest]

Hari Om Dennis-ji, Salutations.

 

> You ask " do such linguistic nuances matter? " Yes! This is why many

current

> satsang teachers are wreaking havoc amongst seekers. If the words

we use are

> not correctly defined, people will not understand the sentences in

which we

> use them. This is also why we use Sanskrit terms when the precise

concept is

> not expressed in English.

 

I am sorry if my words are confusing to others. I really am novice.

All errors in my writing are due to my insufficient understanding. My

Teachers are Great, they are not to be blamed. They are from

Sankara's Advaita Sampradaya(Chinmaya Mission), they teach but I

don't get it always. I got exposed to Vedanta only 4 years ago. I had

not heard anything about it before that (Except one senior Swamiji

from Ramakrishna Mission used to visit and stay at our home when I

was very young and He once had talked to me about it while answering

my question.) You all are very learned Scholars. Normally I never

participate. I don't know proper vedantic words and I also do not

know sanskrit terms. I hope you please forgive me. Thanks Nair-ji for

clarifying things.

 

> Yes! All the difference in the world. Cause and

> effect implies that something has actually happened- first one

thing, then

> another. In the case in question, the implication is that Brahman

has

> projected the appearance, i.e. done something. But 'doing' does not

apply to

> Brahman. In actual fact, nothing has been done at all. The snake

(world) is

> misperceived because of (insufficient light) ignorance. As soon as

light

> (knowledge) comes in, the rope (Brahman) is seen as it always was -

nothing

> ever happened.

 

Here is my clarification according to my 'current understanding'.

Feel free to correct if needed. -

 

" Happening " assumes " Time " . " Time " is creation of " mind " . So if we

are thinking in terms of something " happening or not happening or

never happening " then we are very much " in our mind " . We are

in " effect " zone, so then " cause " comes into picture. I agree with

you, that " only if there is effect " then only cause will be there. If

there is " no effect " then obviously there will be no such thing

as " cause for it " , neither will be there any " happening " .

 

I also agree with you that rope doesn't do anything to cause the

snake. Because we see snake we hunt for its cause and superimpose it

on rope. For example, please read your statment " snake is

mispercieved because of insufficient light. " One uses the words

like " Because of " (cause) when one is in effect. It just happens that

way because of the effect(snake). Not because rope did something.

 

However, it is equally true that just insufficient light would not

cause misperception of snake. Something else also has to be there.

Say, there is a huge tree. In insufficient light we wouldn't

mispercieve that huge tree as snake. There has to be some

substratum that kind of resembles snake(don't take this

literally..sorry about words..just trying to express importance of

role of rope in misperception of snake).

 

So, in that respect, rope (Substratum) plays a role in " causing

snake " (effect) when thought about with respect to effect. And that

substratum(cause) is very 'Real' (not the 'causeness' of it

but 'ropeness' is real..again forgive the words.). When light

(knowledge) comes in, ONLY rope is seen (substratum). And we realise

that 'there never was any such thing as snake' so 'there never was

any such thing as cause of snake'.

 

In other words, the two statements below imply one and the same

thing. It depends what standpoint they are made from, that's all.

 

Ignorance: Saguna is Nirguna (Ishwara is Brahman)

Knowledge: There is no Saguna, Nirguna alone is.(There is no such

thing as Ishwara, Brahman alone is.)

 

I wouldn't write any more on this :-) Thanks for everybody's patience

with me and thanks for insightful writing in this group from all

learned. I learn a lot from you all.

 

Love and Respect

Padma

[Guest guest]

Dear Padma-ji,

 

We are all learning here. No one is lower or higher, no one is smaller

or bigger and no one is dumber or smarter.

 

We are all progressing from lower truths to higher truths. So, each

one is bound to make mistake in one way or the other. Please do

participate in the discussions. Suppose, if we make mistake while

defining or expressing our understanding, there will many who can

correct us also. This is the main purpose of satsang too.

 

I don't know why senior members like Prof. Vk-ji, Sada-ji etc., are

not participating in these meaningful discussions. Yes, for them it

will be a kind of repetition, but, if they can spend little time, it

will be of immense help for the newcomers and novitiates.

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka

 

 

 

advaitin , " pjoshi99 " <pjoshi99 wrote:

>

> Hari Om Dennis-ji, Salutations.

>

> > You ask " do such linguistic nuances matter? " Yes! This is why many

> current

> > satsang teachers are wreaking havoc amongst seekers. If the words

> we use are

> > not correctly defined, people will not understand the sentences in

> which we

> > use them. This is also why we use Sanskrit terms when the precise

> concept is

> > not expressed in English.

>

> I am sorry if my words are confusing to others. I really am novice.

> All errors in my writing are due to my insufficient understanding. My

> Teachers are Great, they are not to be blamed. They are from

> Sankara's Advaita Sampradaya(Chinmaya Mission), they teach but I

> don't get it always. I got exposed to Vedanta only 4 years ago. I had

> not heard anything about it before that (Except one senior Swamiji

> from Ramakrishna Mission used to visit and stay at our home when I

> was very young and He once had talked to me about it while answering

> my question.) You all are very learned Scholars. Normally I never

> participate. I don't know proper vedantic words and I also do not

> know sanskrit terms. I hope you please forgive me.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " risrajlam " <rishi.lamichhane wrote:

 

> There is also no extra-karmic grace, for instance the Yoga Vasistha

> says that karma-phala and ishvara-anugraha are two names for the same

> thing.

 

Dear Sir,

 

My question was not on ishwara's role and grace which is precisely

defined in the scriptures and reiterated by the sages. But it was

about the exact definition and reality assigned. I don't know in which

context the above statement is made made in yoga vashishta. We cannot

term karma-phala as ishwara anugraha. Hence, it is definitely cannot

be said as two names for the same thing. The anugraha can be used only

when we get more than what we have done. The concept of grace and

karma (Self-effort) is beautifully explained by Kanchi Maha Swamigal,

in the Advaita Sadhana Discourse. I am very much satisfied with that.

 

========

 

> In that sense, it is not just that Nirguna Brahman is impersonal but

> Ishvara is also thoroughly impersonal. It is " personal " only in the

> sense that it can be personified, but the very fact that it can be

> personified means that it is not actually personal. Ishvara doesn't

> have a personality, or emotions, or love-vrittis or anything of that

> sort because Ishvara is amanaska.

>

> Please tell me if I am mistaken, of course.

 

Reply: I definitely did not mean an anthropomorphic diety by the term

ishwara here. I agree to the rest of your points. Ishwara has an

infinite power, and possibilities are infinite for him!

 

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " pjoshi99 " <pjoshi99 wrote:

>

> Hari Om. Salutations Rishiji,

>

> > sense that it can be personified, but the very fact that it can be

> > personified means that it is not actually personal.

>

> Yes, this is exactly what my Guruji told me too :-) Only Nirguna can

> take on Gunas, so Saguna has to be Nirguna only.

 

 

Dear Advaitins,

 

This is precisely what I was trying to ask. In the shankra's advaita,

is this view accepted? If yes, doesn't it go against ajAtivAdA?

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

[Guest guest]

> Yes, this is exactly what my Guruji told me too :-) Only Nirguna can

> take on Gunas, so Saguna has to be Nirguna only.

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

IMHO, we have to be bit carefull while interpreting this...we cannot say

nirguNa, nirAkAra, nirvishEsha brahman *sometimes* literally takes some

guNa-s & appears in a personified form...Shruti repeatedly says there is no

duality whatsoever in brahman..So, thinking about *taking * guNa-s

sometimes goes against very non-dual nature of brahman...It is shruti, just

to accommodate maNda & madhyama adhikAri-s to do upAsana, attributes

auspicious qualities to nirguNa brahman (see prashna upanishad where OmkAra

has been described as both para & apara brahman)..But it does not anyway

mean that parabrahman *sometime* will become aparabrahman by taking some

guNa-s..shankara in sUtra bhAshya makes it clear that whenever there is a

problem in interpretation of non-dual nature of brahman due to *bhEda*

vAkya-s..we've to interpret those sentences without disturbing the ultimate

nirguNa, nirAkAra nature of brahman.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennis-ji.

 

Your post # 35885.

 

I also don't like to prolong this debate. However, I can't sit quiet

without clarifying. Let me do that point by point:

 

1. My views have nothing to do with satsanghs about which I am

sure you are going to give us ample opportunities for debates in the

near future (Smile). My observations relate to BS, to which AdhyAsa

BhASya, on which you mainly rely, is preamble.

2. You say " cause and effect implies that something has actually

happened – first one thing, then another " . The objection is to

duality as well as agency. Duality is there even when the accurate

word " locus " is used. Doesn't being the whence or the location of

even a misconception is suggestive of duality, for then you have the

locus as well as the misconception occurring on it? Even if you

conclude that adhyAsa occurs due to anAdi avidya, the situation is

still complexly dual from the vyAvahArika point of view due to

several entities entering the scenario (like the locus, the result

that seems to occur on a the locus due to avidya, avidya itself and,

above all, an entity that suffers from avidya). We can't, therefore,

escape duality even in the `locus' understanding. In fact, it is

much worse here. Yet, if properly guided, we do appreciate the non-

dual meaning of Brahman despite the duality.

3. Now let us go to the accusation of attributing agency on

Brahman. Here I am afraid the word `cause' has been sadly mistaken

and understood as pedestrian `reason'. Let us better begin weekly

definitions for English words frequently used in Vedanta

discussions. Whoever said Brahman as `cause' of the world implies

Brahman has got into creating? You point out that the `reason' for

adhyAsa is ignorance. Quite right. But, even for that reason to

operate and for a misapprehension to appear, a locus (Brahman) is

needed. The reason can't operate independently of the locus. That is

the fundamental meaning conveyed when the sublime word `cause' is

used. Terms like jagatkAraNa and jagatkAraka have been used in

Vedantic texts to drive home this meaning. " Cause " stands for

Sanskrit kAraNA. The latter word has just too many shades of meaning

like origin etc. which demand us to look in the direction of the

Absolute. So, `cause' is not causative. It can even stand up

to `locus' or even tower over it if properly understood as standing

for the Non-Dual.

4. What I am trying to point out will be clear if Shankara

BhAshyA for BS I.i.2 (janmAdyasya yataH) is understood. (That is

Brahman from which (are derived) the birth etc. (birth, sustenance

and dissolution) of this (universe) – Tranlsation by Sw.

Gambhiranandaji). Another way to say the same thing is to quote

Tai. Up. 3.1 – Yato vA imani bhUtani jAyante, yena jAtani jIvanti,

yat prayantyabhisamvishanti, tad brahma, tat vijijnAsaswa. (That

from which all these beings arise, due to that which they are

sustained and that in which they find their final dissolution – that

is the Brahman to be known.) This lakSaNa of Brahman, if literally

understood, would seem to impose an agency on Brahman. But, do you

think any vedantin in his right senses would do that?

5. Thus, we state: (a) (Because) GOLD IS, ornaments are. (b)

(Because) BRAHMAN IS, the universe is. I have inserted the

word `because' in parentheses because most of our teachers make the

above two statements without that word although they can't escape

imparting that meaning of a seeming causation. Perhaps, they are

afraid of objections like the one you have raised now. That is the

pity of language when it comes to the Non-Dual. Your `locus' is no

exception although it may seem better with reference to AdhyAsa

BhASya where the main theme is mutual superimposition.

Superimposition demands a surface or locus. But, the word 'cause'

understood as 'kArana' is philosophically most sublime. It can stand

on its own and fully represent Brahman as a synonym.

6. Lastly, I would like someone to tell me the Sanskrit word

which morphs to `locus' in English together with the exact Sanskrit

quote of where it occurs. Curiosity of the ignorant.

 

Thank you, Dennis-ji, for your patience with me.

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair