Maya and Avidya

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sadananda-ji,

I too was struck by that paragraph of Devanathan-ji’s. I wasn’t sure whether it mightn’t be a joke, the creation of an application that generates mock ‘scholarese’. It nearly makes sense. I find ordinary sound scholasticism much more impressive i.e. quote in support of your answer.

The only part of Sankhya philosophy that Shankara definitively rejects, as far as I remember, is the notion of insentient Pradhana as the cause of the universe, cf. B.S.B. I.i.4 ff. Satkaryavada he finds useful c.f.B.S.B. II.i.18. Gaudapada in his karika GK 3.27 seems to be denying the asatkaryavada theory. The self that could come to birth is not the self. At the cosmic level/Absolute level the non-difference of cause and effect implies that change is apparent - "Birth of a thing that already exists ((as the effect pre-exists in the cause)) can reasonably be possible only through Maya and not in reality".(GK 3:27)

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

Hari OM~

Pranams Sri Sadananda ji,

 

I am happy that you enjoy the discussions on the issue. Again Nyaya's

theory of causality is not 'sat-karya' as you had mentioned. It is

Asat-karya vada. In the production of the effect, Nyaya-Vaisesika do

not admit that effect potentially pre-exist in the cause. Nyaya in

particular contends the view that the material cause, the clay, has

some power (sahakari) within it and other instrumental causes like

wheel stick etc, which produces an effect which was not existent

before in the cause originally but newly produced. This theory of

Nyaya is exactly opposite to the Samkhyan theory of Sat-Karya while

Advaitins advocate the 'Sat-Karana vada'.

 

Regarding the causal theory, I am reminded of a Yoga Vasista statement

which says '...Thus, this causeless is Brahman, but it appears to be

part of that which has no parts, to be diverse in the indivisible, to

have a form in the formless ... the ignorant think that Brahman shines

or appears as this creation without a cause; it is again the ignorant

that are caught up in this cause and effect tangle or deluded notion

that causality is inviobly real. This creation takes place as a

coincidence - the ripe coconut falls accidentally just when a crow

lights on it [YV 6.2.144]'

 

My point is exactly this. We cannot totally deny the concept of cause-

effect relationship that exist between Maya & Avidya with which the

entire string of worldly pathologies gets connected to a matrix. As

long as the indeterminable Maya is regarded to be Bhava rupa which

still remains inexplicable - we can very well extend the point to say

that Maya being the cause is also inexplicable and Avidya being the

effect to be indeterminable; so is its converse.

 

Michael ji's counter views to the above stand, is quite misleading and

eventually worried about the followers of this thread in particular.

As I have pointed out in my earlier posts, we have a clear convention

regarding Maya as the cause and Avidya being the effect while both are

not different essentially. These are certain basic assertive Axiomatic

conclusion with which any member here must be able to comfortably

start with. Michael ji must realize that his Questions in objection to

the above views is desperately perplexing and problematic; am afraid

it may push the readers / beginners to interminable imbroglio.

 

With Narayana Smrti,

Devanathan.J

[Guest guest]

--- On Wed, 12/10/08, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

 

 

The only part of Sankhya philosophy that Shankara definitively rejects, as far

as I remember, is the notion of insentient Pradhana as the cause of the

universe, cf. B.S.B. I.i.4 ff. Satkaryavada he finds useful c.f.B.S.B. II.i.18.

Gaudapada in his karika GK 3.27 seems to be denying the asatkaryavada theory.

 

Michael - PraNAms

 

Thanks for your comments. I think Shankara, Goudapaada kaarika (last chapter -

do not have ready reference) and vidyaaranya in his anubhuuti prakaashika all

dismiss both sat kaarya vaada and asat kaarya vaada. In response to Shree

Devanathaji's post I made a note that cause-effect relationship between

maaya-avidya gets us into intellectual jugglery since both are anaadi and

ontologically in par with each other.

 

Sat kaarya vaada emphasis on the effect is as real as the cause itself is

dismissed by the mityaatma vaada - that it is neither sat nor asat - sat asat

vilakshaNam. One can say pot is real from the point of clay but unreal from the

point of name and form - as long as one understands the meaning of real and

unreal in the context. Mityaa is better suited than sat or asat. Hence advaita

is neither sat kaarya vaada or asat kaarya vaada but mithyaatma vaada since it

give equal footing to both cause and effect as effect is nothing but cause

itself in different form.

 

I would not argue on what is the cause and effect relation between maaya and

avidya - since both are anaadi.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

It is an interesting observation that, if one enters ‘sat

karana vada’ into Google, there are only 4 hits. 3 of these point to Devanathan-ji’s posts. The other one is to the book by

Richard King ‘An Introduction to Hindu and Buddhist Thought”. in

which the author refers to Shankara’s position as sat kAraNa vAda. I also

have not encountered this term anywhere else.

Dennis

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of ombhurbhuva

Saturday, December 06, 2008 11:48 AM

advaitin

Maya and Avidya

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Namaste Devanathan-ji,

Here’s the nub of the difficulty for me and I think

the reason why the notion of sat-karana-vada is not mainstream.