Maya and Avidya

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chabard and Devanathan,

re your post 42399 Devanathan, the theory you refer to is generally

called Satkaryavada and it asserts the non-difference of cause and

effect. It does not go so far as to state that there is no difference

whatever between the cause and the effect. If that were the case it

would be saying that they were identical which would run counter to even

ancient science. Consider the description of milk and curds which are

often given as an example of non-difference. They differ from each

other in significant ways, taste, pourability, molecular structure etc.

However it is only from milk that curds can be made, not from sand or

oil; there is a linkage of potentiality between the two. A full

discussion of the Satkaryavada theory can be found in

Brahma-Sutra-Bhasya (B.S.B) II.i.13-18

 

 

I have a short note on this topic at

http://homepage.eircom.net/~ombhurbhuva/satkarya.htm

 

 

Best Wishes,

Michael

[Guest guest]

advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

>

> Namaste Chabard and Devanathan,

> re your post 42399 Devanathan, the theory you refer to is generally

> called Satkaryavada and it asserts the non-difference of cause and

> effect. It does not go so far as to state that there is no

difference

> whatever between the cause and the effect. If that were the case

it

> would be saying that they were identical which would run counter to

even

> ancient science. Consider the description of milk and curds which

are

> often given as an example of non-difference. They differ from each

> other in significant ways, taste, pourability, molecular structure

etc.

> However it is only from milk that curds can be made, not from sand

or

> oil; there is a linkage of potentiality between the two. A full

> discussion of the Satkaryavada theory can be found in

> Brahma-Sutra-Bhasya (B.S.B) II.i.13-18

>

>

> I have a short note on this topic at

> http://homepage.eircom.net/~ombhurbhuva/satkarya.htm

>

>

> Best Wishes,

> Michael

 

Namaste Michael a chara,

 

Yes I agree like a pot is not just clay but worked clay or a bangle

is not gold but worked gold. However that is only at the level of

gross material and the perception of the Jiva. Ultimately for the

unrealised there is a basic ground of vibration or one energy or one

field...The final truth being beyond mind and perception to

Ajativada.............Cheers Tony.

[Guest guest]

Hari OM~

Pranams, Shri Sreenivasa Murthy ji,

 

Every religion has its own version of pre-suppositions which at most

times become problematic. Not getting into the list of axiomatic pre-

suppositions assumed by different schools, it is important here to

note that there is yet another key element which lies common in

every system and religion – the element of Faith. Whether orthodox

or hetredox, the Indian systems underscores the significance of

Faith either directly or indirectly. Buddha for instance wanted his

followers to `believe' in him and in him alone. He makes assertive

statements like these: `do not sit with others (jainas or Brahmins)

while you eat'; `do not think or speculate about future'; `do not

believe in sacred acts; don't even rinse your mouth as a Brahmin

does'.. While Buddha speaks like this, he speaks

about `Nirvana' `rebirth' `meditation' and `trance'. Followers of

Buddha prescribe `others' to have strong `faith' in their ideals

which Buddha had taught, whom they call the `brainiest'. Buddhism

teaches us stories about 400 previous births of Buddha, which

they `believe' it to be true and they essentially ascribe `faith' in

them.

 

To me Faith is prejudice but positive in character. Positive

prejudice helps one interpret and speculate one's own tradition in

the horizons of cultural sitautedness. It gives an impetus to

stimulate critical assessment of ones own tradional ideologies

taught by his own anscestors. The genetic line is the string that

carries the message which is transmitted to a person who is

conducive to receive and conceive them with proper acceptance in the

name of faith or belief. Ofcourse one is free to derail from their

tradition as Buddha and others did discarding the element of faith

in the Vedic tradition but again the fact remains as history that

those who did not believe in their preceptors ironically compelled

others to believe in them faithfully.

 

All this that I can tell I can telling you now may not

coherently correspond the Questions you have raised; for what I am

telling you are not answers but if you can meditate on what is said

now you will convince yourself. Philosophy atleast to me is

intrinsic and subjective. We need to decide on what we are upto,

what we need from philosophy and accordingly we prepare ourselves to

touch the waters of interest. The very touch gives you a feel from

where you begin. This `beginning' may be termed a pre-supposition or

a positive prejudice or otherwise which again is subjective.

 

The concepts like Maya and Avidya are the necessary pre-

suppositions. What is special here is that these notions are known

from Vedic sources which we `believe' to have come to us not from

the moods of mankind. It is rather unauthored authority which begins

with a notion of `beginingless'. The beginingless being

is `believed' to be Brahman. Knowing Brahman is to believe `to

become Brahman'. `Brahman never becomes anything' is `believed' to

be axiomatic; for that which `becomes' is unreal and what is real is

nothing but the `Being'. The dichotomy between `Being and Becoming'

is marginalized by Maya. Maya's nature is impermanent and inert.

Adhrdha-svabhava says Mandana. Each entity as we believe has its

inherent nature which is innate and immediate. Maya's innate nature

is inexplicable or in other terms inexplicability is the inherent

nature of Maya. A thing can be verified only when it is explained.

But what remains inexplicable apparently can never be verified. If

Maya is pushed in the realms of verification, either what is pushed

in is non-Mayic or what was Maya ceases to be so.

 

Different analogies that attempts to explain the

inexplicable, postulating the thing that is not explained can only

explain the nature `inexplicability' of the inexplicable. Accepting

this needs tremendous Shraddha in Sastras from where we begin to

investigate paving the path towards self realization. Accepting the

quality of `acceptance' or Shraddha is sought only by accepting the

quality of `Astikya' which again is nothing but Shraddha that will

make you another `Astika'. Advaitins are parama-Astikas.

 

With Narayana Smrti,

Devanathan. J

[Guest guest]

Pranams Shri Michael ji,

 

I still stand on the term 'Sat-Karana vada' as the theory of causality

to which Advaitins . 'Sat-Karana vada' is commonly equated

with the vivarta vada according to which the effect exists in cause

while the former is non-different from latter and that the latter is a

mere appearance of the former ie, the latter's appearance is only an

projection of the former and hence unreal while the former alone is

real. This is precisely what 'Sat-Karana vada' means to an Advaitin.

 

Sat-Karya vada, the Samkhyan theory of causality is closely observed

in line with the Advaitins case but it is evident that we see huge

conceptual difference where Samkhyans ascribe reality to the effect

unlike what Advaitins do. Your writing regarding this issue on the

link you have provided needs a revision in my humble opinion.

 

With Narayana Smrti,

Devanathan. J