Knowledge and The Means of Knowledge - 12

[Guest guest]

Sadadji wrote: (on behalf of clay)

It realizes that now I am in the form jar, I can be in other

forms, the forms are only for transactions and my nature is pure

formless colorless clay.

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

 

Namaste Sadaji,

Clay as you will know being a scientist is not a

formless lump. Even a lump has a shape and can be drawn or what we take

to be a lump may have a use we are not familiar with. It could be a

modernistic paperweight. Clay has form atomically and molecularly.

There is clay suitable for pots and clay that is more like humus and so

forth. The ultimate reality going by the way of thinking that you favour

is that the ultimate reality is some formless basic atomic indivisible

continuous stuff.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

--- ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

 

> Clay as you will know being a scientist is

> not a

> formless lump. Even a lump has a shape and can be drawn or what we

> take

> to be a lump may have a use we are not familiar with. It could be a

>

> modernistic paperweight. Clay has form atomically and molecularly.

 

Michael - PraNams

 

Thanks for your input.

 

First let us appreciate that any example that we take at transactional

level has limitations in applying to the absolute truths. That Brahman

which is infinite and therefore formless is becoming multitude of forms

and names is a mystery indeed. Hence it is only appearance and not

real -is the dictate of Advaita Vedanta. To illustrate this Upanishad

uses simple examples of clay becoming pot or gold becoming ornaments

etc. The example is only to extract the basic postulate - effect is

nothing but cause itself in different form. Using these loukika

examples the Upanishad jumps to paaramaarthika. As long as we

understand the intent, and not to extend the example beyond its

intended application, there is no problem.

 

Coming to your point, there is no intrinsic shape for the clay - even

at molecular level - shapes are dictated by the minimization of the

potential energy of the system -At molecular level they system becomes

dynamic and kinetic energy kicks in and uncertainity in location

overrides. Anyway these may be of little concern here as long as one

understood that any form is only relative and not absolute.

 

> There is clay suitable for pots and clay that is more like humus and

> so

> forth. The ultimate reality going by the way of thinking that you

> favour

> is that the ultimate reality is some formless basic atomic

> indivisible

> continuous stuff.

 

About the last statement - What I favor is the Vedic doctrin - The

ultimate reality is formless existence-consciousness - nothing to do

with atomic (that is jaina and to some extent sankhya in terms of

prakRiti - postulates). Hence everything is formless form Brahman but

with superimposed names and forms. - We have no equivalent example

perhaps other than dream example.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Sada-ji wrote:

 

First let us appreciate that any example that we take at transactional

level has limitations in applying to the absolute truths. That Brahman

which is infinite and therefore formless is becoming multitude of forms

and names is a mystery indeed. Hence it is only appearance and not

real -is the dictate of Advaita Vedanta. To illustrate this Upanishad

uses simple examples of clay becoming pot or gold becoming ornaments

etc. The example is only to extract the basic postulate - effect is

nothing but cause itself in different form. Using these loukika

examples the Upanishad jumps to paaramaarthika. As long as we

understand the intent, and not to extend the example beyond its

intended application, there is no problem.

 

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

 

Namaste Sadaji,

I am glad that you see the use of the material

cause as an analogy. This lines up with Ch.Up. VI.ii.1 i.e.

Undifferentiated Being becomes particular beings as indeterminate clay

becomes various vessels. That is not to say that there is precisely the

same relationship between Undifferentiated Being and particular Being as

there is between clay and vessels made of clay which would imply that

there is an equivalent relationship between the Absolute and the Relative

as that between two aspects of the relative.

 

Discussions about Matter, Form, Substance and accidents on the relative

plane and what is the ultimate subject of predication are a separate

discussion and ought not to be drawn into the material identity analogy.

I believe that this mistake is often made.

 

On the matter of analogy Sankara writes Tai.Up.II.i.1:

" The intention here is to make that very human being enter into the inmost

Brahman through knowledge. But his intellect, that remains engaged in the

particulars that simulate the outer objects, thinking them to be the Self,

though they are non-Selves, cannot without the support of some distinct

object, be suddenly made contentless and engaged in the thoughts of the

inmost, indwelling Self. "

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

--- ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

 

 

> Discussions about Matter, Form, Substance and accidents on the

> relative

> plane and what is the ultimate subject of predication are a separate

>

> discussion and ought not to be drawn into the material identity

> analogy.

> I believe that this mistake is often made.

 

Michael - PraNAms

 

Yes you are right. The points you made are well taken.

 

In those particular examples, the emphasis is from two points. One is

the kaaryakaaraNa samAnadhikaraNa - that effects are cause itself in

differnt form, where the cause we are referring to is the material

cause. The examples are provide to show that knowing kaaraNam, the

cause, one can know all the effects that are produced out of that

cause.

 

The second is the emphasis on the vivarta kaaraNa - that is

transformationless transformation - and not pariNAma kaaraNa -= just a

gold becoming ornaments without ceasing to be gold and not like milk

becoming curds or yogurt where milk gets destroyed in forming curds.

 

Yes I agree that extending the examples beyond the intended

applications, can lead to confusion only rather than clarification.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda