Guest guest Posted December 11, 2008 Report Share Posted December 11, 2008 advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote: > > 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. > Namaste, If one enters 'satkaranavada' in Google, one gets: http://www.advaitavedanta.co.uk/content/125-science-of-the-absolute- chapter-4-prologue http://tinyurl.com/6nw8td http://tinyurl.com/5v5krn http://tinyurl.com/yf24ke http://tinyurl.com/68hb23 http://tinyurl.com/5t8g3z =============================================================== Results for: satkaranavada SAUNDARYA LAHARI Verses Titles4) PRIMACY OF CAUSE OVER EFFECT: SATKARANAVADA. 5) REFLECTED GLORY (ONTO VISHNU AND MOHINI ) 6) OCCASIONALISM GIVES POWER TO EROS. ... www.advaitavedanta.co.uk/content/240-saundarya-lahari-verses-titles - 21k - Cached - Similar pages Science of the Absolute Chapter 4 - PrologueOther genuine methodological peculiarities known to Vedantic thought such as satkaranavada (giving primacy to cause over effect) are proper to the Advaita ... www.advaitavedanta.co.uk/content/125-science-of-the-absolute-chapter- 4-prologue - 98k - Cached - Similar pages More results from www.advaitavedanta.co.uk » Yoga as Philosophy and Religion - Google Books Resultby Surendra Nath DasGupta - 2003 - Health & Fitness - 212 pages .... is essentially different from the satkaranavada of the ... which ought more properly to be called the satkaranavada theory, lor with them the cause ... books.google.com/books?isbn=0766147053... Samkhya holds that there can be no production of a thing ...But correctly speaking as some discerning commentators have pointed out, the Vedanta theory of causation should be called satkaranavada for according to it ... www.yoga-breathing.com/causation-as-satkaryavada-the-theory-that-the- effect-potentially-exists-before-it-is-generated-by-t... - 35k - Cached - Similar pages [PDF] TYPES OF CAUSES IN ARISTOTLE AND SANKARA by BRANDIE MARTINEZ BEDARDFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML This thesis is called satkaryavada or satkaranavada of the Vedantists ... This one cause is Brahmin and is eternal; this is referred to as the satkaranavada ... etd.gsu.edu/theses/available/etd-09012006- 130347/unrestricted/Martinez-Bedard_Brandie_200608_BA.pdf - Similar pages by B Martinez-Bedard - 2006 Encyclopaedia of Indian Philosophies: Advaita Vedânta Up to ... - Google Books Resultby Karl H. Potter - 1981 - Philosophy - 645 pages .... view satkaranavada, or the view that the cause is existent, especially since other systems, notably Samkhya, ... books.google.com/books?isbn=8120803108... ANNETTE WILKE Keine Urmotive, nur Besonderungen Rudolf Ottos West ... - [ Translate this page ]genannten satkaranavada,. Lehre von der. alleinigen. Realitat der Materialursache). ist der Atman. Dies. ergibt. ein unterschiedliches Verstandnis von ... www.ingentaconnect.com/content/brill/zrg/1997/00000049/00000001/art000 03?crawler=true - Similar pages by A Wilke - 1997 - All 2 versions Indian Philosophy: An Introduction to Hindu and Buddhist Thought - Google Books Resultby Richard King - 1999 - Philosophy - 263 pages .... absolutist view that only the cause really exists (satkaranavada). The effect may be impermanent (anitya), but this does not mean that it does not ... books.google.com/books?isbn=0748609547... A Thousand Teachings: The Upadeúasâhasrî of Úa & #7749;kara - Google Books Resultby Úa & #7749;karâcârya, Sengaku Mayeda - 1992 - Religion - 265 pages .... which is based upon satkaranavada.20 However, ... books.google.com/books?isbn=0791409430... Sureúvara's Vârtika on Aúva and Aúvamedha Brâhma & #7751;a - Google Books Resultby Sureúvarâcârya, Shoun Hino, K. P. Jog - 1990 - Religion - 110 pages All this discussion necessarily implies the Satkaranavada (of Sankara's system of philosophy) and therefore affords ... books.google.com/books?isbn=8120806433... The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Google Books Resultby Edward Craig - 2005 - Philosophy - 1077 pages Since only Brahman truly exists, this theory is also sometimes called satkaranavada (the theory that the cause is real but the effect is not). ... books.google.com/books?isbn=0415324955... Metaphysics: Indian Philosophy - Google Books Resultby Roy W. Perrett - 2000 - Philosophy - 382 pages Since only Brahman truly exists, this theory is also sometimes called satkaranavada (the theory that the cause is real but the ... books.google.com/books?isbn=081533608X... Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Google Books Resultby Routledge (Firm), Edward Craig - 2000 - Philosophy - 1030 pages Since only Brahman truly exists, this theory is also sometimes called satkaranavada (the theory that the cause is real but the effect is not). ... books.google.com/books?isbn=0415223644... Early Advaita Vedânta and Buddhism: The Mahâyâna Context of the ... - Google Books Resultby Richard King, Gau & #7693;apâda Âcârya - 1995 - Philosophy - 341 pages .... metaphysics by the acceptance of satkaranavada (the doctrine of the sole reality of the cause) as the logical consequence of a dialectical analysis of ... books.google.com/books?isbn=0791425134... Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2008 Report Share Posted December 11, 2008 Namaste to all. Dr. N. Veezhinathan, an eminent professor of Vedanta whom Devanathan- ji knows and respects as one of his teachers, says on page 67 of his book `Samkshepasariraka' :-- " This maya is identical with avidya or ajnaana " . Another eminent scholar in Vedanta who retired recently as the Principal of the Madras Sanskrit college, Dr. Krishnamurthy Sastrigal, says in his book `Critical Study of Ishta siddhi vivaranam' (which I had the privilege of translating from Sanskrit to English and which has been published by Adi Sankara Advaita Research Centre, Chennai), that there are two views about maya and avidya. One is that they are the same and the other is that they are different (pages 60 to 64). Neither of these two scholars says that maya is the cause of avidya. In contrast to both the above views, Devanathan-ji says that maya is the cause of avidya. Another member of this group had expressed the view that avidya is the cause of maya. With so many different views, I do not know what to say. (I will not have internet access from Dec 12 to Jan 5, 2009. I will be able to see the further postings on this thread only after that.) S.N.Sastri Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2008 Report Share Posted December 11, 2008 Hi Dennis, I’ve come across the term ‘satkaranavada’ in a couple of places other than in Devanathan-ji’s post. However it was always used to strike a contrast with satkaryavada and did not have a stand alone presence so to speak. "Shankara believes in sat-karyavada but his interpretation of it is different from that of Sankhya. By it he really means satkaranavada. His view is known as vivartavada. The effect, no doubt, must pre-exist in the cause. But ultimately the effect is not something different from the cause. The cause alone is real; the effect is only its appearance". (from A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy by Chandradhar Sharma pg.256) As I said earlier Shankara has adopted the Sankhya theory to his own ends making it a powerful argument against Buddhist Doctrine of Annica (momentariness). He distinguishes between the idea of causality as an illustration or a useful approximation on the relative plane and the dissolution of all conceptions on the absolute. Gaudapada who has no truck with conventional reality rejects the whole cause effect sequence. Cf GK 4,16. I presume he was aware that it was necessary to introduce fire under your pot to get it to boil. Best Wishes, Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2008 Report Share Posted December 11, 2008 On 12/11/08, Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy wrote: > 2008/12/11 snsastri <sn.sastri: > > Neither of these two scholars says that maya is the cause of avidya. > > In contrast to both the above views, Devanathan-ji says that maya is > > the cause of avidya. > > Another member of this group had expressed the view that avidya is > > the cause of maya. > > With so many different views, I do not know what to say. > > When the focus on soteriology is lost, and attention is diverted to > system building, then all these " different views " are natural > outcomes. When the focus on direct observation of reality is lost, funny things happen ! Love Anand Advaitin -- " Giving up old patterns / Forgetting one's self / The long-lost car keys are found / In his own pocket ! " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2008 Report Share Posted December 11, 2008 Many thanks Sunder-ji. I realized after I had posted that I ought to have tried a few variants, since I was using quotation marks. I think the usual expression is: ‘Whoops!’ Best wishes, Dennis advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Sunder Hattangadi Thursday, December 11, 2008 3:37 AM advaitin Re: Maya and Avidya Namaste, If one enters 'satkaranavada' in Google, one gets: http://www.advaitavedanta.co.uk/content/125-science-of-the-absolute- chapter-4-prologue…. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2008 Report Share Posted December 11, 2008 Hi Michael, Yes, it is all very interesting but, in the end, it seems to be just playing with words. On the one hand, since there is only brahman from the standpoint of absolute reality, it sounds ok to say that ‘only the cause is real’ (satkAraNa vAda). But does it actually mean anything at all to refer to a ‘cause’ if there is no corresponding effect? As you say, Gaudapada is totally uncompromising on the subject. Your final sentence implies that you think he was conveniently ignoring the practicalities. But is this an example of cause and effect? After all, boiling water is only cold water with the molecules buzzing about a bit faster. You don’t become anything different when you are running from when you are standing still. (OK, maybe a little more tired!) This is why the emphasis on the vAchArambhaNa. The statue is only clay pushed around a bit into a more aesthetic shape. Best wishes, Dennis advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of ombhurbhuva Thursday, December 11, 2008 9:28 AM advaitin Maya and Avidya As I said earlier Shankara has adopted the Sankhya theory to his own ends making it a powerful argument against Buddhist Doctrine of Annica (momentariness). He distinguishes between the idea of causality as an illustration or a useful approximation on the relative plane and the dissolution of all conceptions on the absolute. Gaudapada who has no truck with conventional reality rejects the whole cause effect sequence. Cf GK 4,16. I presume he was aware that it was necessary to introduce fire under your pot to get it to boil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2008 Report Share Posted December 11, 2008 Yes, it is all very interesting but, in the end, it seems to be just playing with words. On the one hand, since there is only brahman from the standpoint of absolute reality, it sounds ok to say that ‘only the cause is real’ (satkAraNa vAda). But does it actually mean anything at all to refer to a ‘cause’ if there is no corresponding effect? As you say, Gaudapada is totally uncompromising on the subject. praNAmsHare KrishnaYou hit the nail on the head of satkAraNa vAda :-))...Yes, in the absolute sense, there is no meaning in saying Atman/brahman is *sat kAraNa* for the creation/jagat when there is no corresponding *kArya* / effect...But in advaita, for those who believe that there exists jagat and think that they are doing business in that...for those, who have dull intellects, (maNda vivekinAm) for them it has been said that this kAraNa is NOT achetana rUpa & there is a jagat kAraNa and that kAraNa is chaitanya rUpa..But this is not the final stand of advaita, ultimately, those who know the vedantic truth would say that Atman is neither kAraNa nor kArya...it is advitiya...asti vastu bhAvaH iti vadanasheelaanAM dhrudAgrahavatAM shraddhadhAnAnAM manda vivekinAM arthOpAyatvena sA deshitA jAtiH.....vedAnta abhyAsinAM tu svayameva ajAdvayAtma vishayO vivekO bhavishyati iti....na tu paramArthabuddhyA...are the words of shankara in kArikA bhAshya 4-42.....Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2008 Report Share Posted December 11, 2008 Namaste: Please do not try to analyze the following Joke and just enjoy how both maya and Avidya both interplay in life events! " There were two brothers at aged 12 & 8. They were so naughty and always people comes with complain to their parents. Parents became very fed-up and they have taken them to the mental doctor. Doctor firstly call 12 years boy and asked him Tell me where is god? The boy keeps him silence. Then doctor again with loud voice asked him Tell me where is God? The boy suddenly ran away and went to his home and hides himself in his cloth cupboard. When another brother saw that he also ran away after him and reached to the home and asked Brother what doctor asked you and why you ran away? The elder brother said, God is missing and everybody thinking that we did it! " Source: Unknown and received through email from a friend Warmest regards, Ram Chandran advaitin , " Anand Advaitin " <bonekeeper wrote: > > When the focus on direct observation of reality is lost, funny things happen ! > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 Pranams to all...I have been observing this Topic for discussion for a while from learned Members and I thought with my limited knowledge on this subject I shd keep quiet..BUt I felt like posting this,which I feel is what I learnt from my Thatva Bodah classes:-1.Sanakara says in Thatva Bodha:"Aatma Stayam thatanya sarvam Mityethi"If you think.."X " is Satyam..anything else is MItya..so Sat "karana" doesn't arise at all acc to Sankara.If a karana is attributed,it is not Satyam..with respect to allS.Rajah Iyerhttp://www.acupressuresocks.com http://www.srajahiyer.sulekha.com/--- On Thu, 12/11/08, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva Maya and Avidyaadvaitin Date: Thursday, December 11, 2008, 2:57 PM Hi Dennis, I¢ve come across the term ¡satkaranavada¢ in a couple of places other than in Devanathan-ji¢ s post. However it was always used to strike a contrast with satkaryavada and did not have a stand alone presence so to speak. ======================= List Moderators' Note to New and Existing Members: When you send a reply to a poster, please do not include the entire message and cut the less relevant portion of the posters' message. Members cooperation to this expect is appreciated in anticipation. ===================== Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 Dear Sri Rajah, You are quite right. The absolute truth is that brahman is kArya-kAraNa vilakShaNa – it is beyond the distinction of cause and effect. Every ‘thing’ else without exception is mithyA. But this applies to advaita, too. All of the teaching of advaita is mithyA. Nothing that is ultimately true can be said of brahman. The purpose of advaita is to bring us to this understanding via a gradual process, in which statements that are, strictly speaking, untrue are made provisionally and later taken back when the student has reached a better level of understanding (this is called adhyAropa-apavAda). Thus, for example, shruti speaks of creation and accords brahman the status of creator (through the medium of Ishvara and mAyA). And thus it is that we get involved in discussions about cause and effect… Best wishes, Dennis advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of SURI Friday, December 12, 2008 10:17 AM advaitin Re: Maya and Avidya so Sat " karana " doesn't arise at all acc to Sankara.If a karana is attributed,it is not Satyam.. with respect to all S.Rajah Iyer ===================== Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2008 Report Share Posted December 13, 2008 advaitin , " Mouna " <maunna wrote: > > Shyam-Ji, my respects > Mouna-ji PranAms. Sorry for the late reply. Ishwara has control of his mAyA in the sense that Ishwara's Order - the " Wheel " to use your term - is non-separate from Him - the Order is verily Ishwara - He alone IS the Order. That a person has free will or desire, the intellect to decide, and capacity to act, and the fact that the action will result in a particular result or karmaphala are all as per His diktat AND the Order that is represented herein is also Ishwara Alone. In pralaya this Order constituted as the trigunatmic manifest Srshti resolves unto Himself, whereupon He alone IS, as Shivam Shantam Advaitam - His Maya now being only in potential form, and then with His verisame MayaShakti is projected forth again by Him as Himself this verisame Order as another cycle of manifest Srshti. Hence alone he is the srshTi sthithi laya kAraNA GovinDa. What was unmanifest is also Ishwara, what is manifest is also Ishwara. As an aside, hence alone does prayer work - because when you pray, you tap into that Order that is Ishwara and thereby accrue of the results, accrue of Grace. And it is this Grace alone that ultimately confers on us the Freedom that we all seek. Hari OM Shri Gurubhyoh namah Shyam > First of all, awesome presentation, thank you. > > Now, could you expand on the above quoted paragraph?. My idea was that > Ishwara also doesn't have any control on His " dream " , because that is > taken care by Karma and vasanas at the samashti and viashti levels, > but what He " does " is kicking the " Wheel " to turn again after > Everything resolved for a while in pralaya in unmanifested form, and > this will be His control over Maya. In this sense the analogy will > still hold for Ishwara. > Is my thinking wrong? > > Thanks in advance. > > Yours in Bhagavan, > Mouna > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2008 Report Share Posted December 13, 2008 Hari OM~ Pranams Sri Sadananda ji, For the past two days I had been at University of Kerala to attend a seminar where I presented a paper. I had no access to internet there and I am sorry for the late response. Sada ji, I am not sure with the technique of samanadhikaranya you were trying to employ.I do not at all deny the fact that both Maya and Avidya are Anadi. Infact this is the axiomatic connotation that remains static while we manipulate with any causal relation. Now, in my view Maya, which is essentially `anadi', is the cause for Avidya the `apparent' effect which again is apparently `Anadi'; for the effect inherits the characteristic features of cause as such. There is a rule which Advaitins often quote that says `anaditvam ajatve hetuh' referring the `causeless cause is beginingless'. Unless a beginingless `cause' is accepted, we will be cornered to an end in infinite regress and whatever understood to be the primary cause will itself be our Brahman. The `adi karanam is eternally anadi'. Aditvam here cannot be denied of being the origin or the cause which is still beginingless and exist even without an effect to follow. The causality of the beginingless cause is sponsored by Maya. Causality which is Mayic eventually produces the effect – Avidya which is a natural occurance and not a usual intermediate or subsequent transformation of the cause. I would like to apply the badhayam samanadhikarana here; where the characteristic feature of `anadi' is essentially underlying with the polarization of cause and effect between Maya and Avidya while the `badha' falsifies the independent existence of the effect , the Tula-Avidya and affirms the `karanartva' in the `Mula-Avidya' or Maya. The Tula-Avidya as the effect is annulled by the psychological modifications of Mind while the Mula-Avidya is annulled by the meta- psychic realization which remaims impartite. There is no hard and fast rule that the cause-effect relationship is strictly captured within the realms of time. For instance when Sruti says `AtmanaH akasaH sambhutaH' –`Akasah originated from Atman' it clearly means to denote Atman as the cause and Akasa as its product. The cause and effect relationship here is not within the frames of time; for the very word sense `atmanaH' assumes an intrinsic semantical sense, ie, `atmanah' , the ablative sense as the `source'of the verb `to be born' will have the fifth case ending `from' in this connotation. Particularly in current issue on cause-effect relationship between Maya and Avidya, the fifth case ending turns to be ablative, which endorses the effect non- difference from cause holding the former as the source and the latter its off-shoot. I personally don't encourange personality issues unless it is entertained by my critics. With Narayana Smrti, Devanathan.J Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2008 Report Share Posted December 13, 2008 Hari OM~ Sri Michael ji, `Cow's Milk, her curd and her cheese'. This example clearly tells us that the cause is an order of creation which is interpreted logically by knowing the sequence of their corresponding effects. All transactions in the metempsychic realms correspond to these order and sequence that persist with the cause and the effect respectively. Avidya is a medium upon which the very empirical transaction at micro levels is made possible while it essentially expects a cause from a macro level which we call the Maya. An ontological root of Avidya is traced back to Maya while both being essentially inexplicable on a metaphysical platform. As followers of Bhamati, the distinction we make between Maya and Avidya is to make a clear reference to ontological derivation of all existences at vyavaharic levels which apparently delineated to the metaphysical origins of the same. When Sankara uses expressions like `Ajnana tat karyam' and so on ; it is evident that he means karyam as the effect which is essentially Avidya while the word sense `Ajnana' is nothing but Mula-Avidya which we call Maya. Our intention is not to dissect Maya or dessiminate Avidya rather we feel the need to discern the two to justify our causal theories in a much pragmatic tone. Inexplicability in your liberal sense is quite vicious when it somes to dialectics of Indian Philosophy. Over-emphasis on this feature of Maya's inexplicability may help you to provisionally escape things out without warranting the need for theoretical justifications on metaphysical claims. If you are too conscious about Maya being indeterminable, you will do it at the cost of calling Maya as `Parinami-upadana karana', which is the very tenet of the system. In BG 4-7 Sankara makes a clear reference to the order of creation in cause-effect series from prthvi to Avidya in one phase as the effect and regards the `Mula-Maya Sakti' as the cause at the cosmic phase on the other. Sankara classifies Prakrti or Maya into two, Para and Apara. Para, as Sankara calls Visuddha Prakrti to be Karana bhuta while he refers apara prakrti as anarta / asuddha bhuta. Sankara categorically adds a point to say `Prakrti yoniH karanam' iti. Further, terminologies that Sankara uses in categorizing `Para prakrti and Apara Prakrti' evident from the prasthana bhasyas is strongly stands against your views to oppose conceptualizing Maya- Avidya in causal terms. With Narayana Smrti, Devanathan. J Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2008 Report Share Posted December 13, 2008 Hari OM~ Sri Dennis ji, For precise understanding of Sat-Karana theory, it is important that you must pay close attention to the following statements that Sankara makes [cf. Br. S.Bh II.iii.14] `…so long as the effect persists, the cause cannot logically dissolve; for when the cause gets dissolved, the effect cannot continue; but it is quite logical that a cause can persists even after the dissolution of the effect; for this is what is observed in the case of the clay (with regard to Brahman)'. Sankara handles and advocates sat-karana vada in a very sensitive mood as we see it in Ch Up Bh III.xvi.1 where he says `… through a reverse process the very order of birth get merged in that very Brahman – the cause, and becomes wholly identified with that, while it continues to live and function on that very Brahman during the state of existence' [cf. Br.Su.Bh. II.1.9]. He further opines that the effect merging into the cause will not tarnish with its own drwbacks. Though cause and effect are non-different, in Sankara's opinion, the effect has the nature of `cause' and `not' vice-versa [cf. Br Su Bh II.1.14]. Henceforth, the difference between the cause and effect which in reality does not exist at all actually denotes the non-existence of difference of effect with respect to its `isolation' from its cause without dissolving the `existence' of `cause' (sat-karana) ultimately. With Narayana Smrti, Devanathan. J Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.