real and unreal

February 9, 2010

Namaste Advaitins,

I may be thought captious but there are a couple of points not dealt with

by Subbu/Sadda-ji. The implication of " non-existence in isolation from

Brahman " is surely 'existence together with Brahman' which brings in the

idea of substratum and in the case of the world the substratum of the

actual. That word 'actual' is important. The world may be impermanent

and contingent but it is actual. It acts, we are part of it and we

interact with it. Without it all these discussions would not occur.

Subbu/Sada-ji reach back to the Karikas of Gaudapada which espouse a form

of illusionism or acosmism. The suggestion of many scholars is that this

was a starting point for the more mature Advaita that could find the

permanent within the impermanent by a progressive suspension of

superimposition.

Bhaskar-ji,

You are looking at the clay/vessels illustration and thinking that the

derogation of name and form may be suspect, if I read you correctly. The

trouble with the Subbu/Sada-ji interpretation is that it makes the clay

itself to be nominal and insubstantial which is a paradoxical result.

Clay as an existent always presents itself in some shape or other, even a

lump has a shape. If we have no particular use for that shape we can call

it X. Squeeze the clay again and call that shape X+1. The existence of

pure clay without any shape, accidental though it be, is not possible. If

it were then we would have a substance which had no shape or form and thus

no presence. It would be a substance which could not be a substantive or

a subject of predication. The point is that just because something can be

thought as separate it can exist separately. Clay as the material cause

of the vessel does not mean that there is a 'clay' that is out there but

not a something yet.

This raises the question as to what the scope of the clay/vessel analogy

is.

Best Wishes,

Michael.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 8.5.435 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2675 - Release 02/08/10

07:35:00

February 9, 2010

advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

>

> Namaste Advaitins,

>

> I may be thought captious but there are a couple of points not dealt with

> by Subbu/Sadda-ji. The implication of " non-existence in isolation from

> Brahman " is surely 'existence together with Brahman' which brings in the

> idea of substratum and in the case of the world the substratum of the

> actual. That word 'actual' is important. The world may be impermanent

> and contingent but it is actual. It acts, we are part of it and we

> interact with it. Without it all these discussions would not occur.

> Subbu/Sada-ji reach back to the Karikas of Gaudapada which espouse a form

> of illusionism or acosmism.

Namaste Michael ji,

I think the above views do not find approval even by Shankara. Just the other

day I was reading the Brahmasutra bhashya and found Shankara quoting a Gaudapada

karika to make a point. (As I do not remember the exact location, I am not

giving the reference) I have noticed that you have long held this view that the

GK is something extraneous to mainstream Vedanta of Shankara. This view is not

at all shared by sampradaya/ traditional vedantins. If such a view is presented

to them they would summarily reject it as that of an 'asampradAyavit' (someone

who has not studied the Vedanta according to Shankara's own established

tradition.) You will find reason in this since I pointed out just one instance

where Shankara Himself quotes the GK in the BSB. I have also pointed out to you

several times in the past that the views of what you term 'illusionism or

acosmism', which only critics of Shankara would use to charge Him, are happily

found in Shankara's Brihadaranyaka and other Upanishad and BSB. Having said

this, let me point out that there is no 'reaching back' to the GK as you seem to

be accusing. Did I not make a detailed account of Shankara's views on MithyAtva

from His own words in the Gita Bhashya and show how they are in perfect

one-to-one correspondence with the GK and His Bhashya on the GK by even giving

exact references? Pl. go thru the File recently uploaded. You will find at

least two specific instances in support of my point.

You say:

The suggestion of many scholars is that this

> was a starting point for the more mature Advaita that could find the

> permanent within the impermanent by a progressive suspension of

> superimposition.

This is also patently a distorted view of Shankaran Vedanta. Nowhere does one

find support to this view across Shankara's commentarial literature. If any

scholars have suggested this, they are definitely wrong and are to be seen as

the 'asampradayavits'.

You say:

> Bhaskar-ji,

>

> Clay as an existent always presents itself in some shape or other, even a

> lump has a shape. If we have no particular use for that shape we can call

> it X. Squeeze the clay again and call that shape X+1. The existence of

> pure clay without any shape, accidental though it be, is not possible. If

> it were then we would have a substance which had no shape or form and thus

> no presence. It would be a substance which could not be a substantive or

> a subject of predication. The point is that just because something can be

> thought as separate it can exist separately. Clay as the material cause

> of the vessel does not mean that there is a 'clay' that is out there but

> not a something yet.

>

> This raises the question as to what the scope of the clay/vessel analogy

> is.

>

> Best Wishes,

> Michael.

>

The above observation of yours is definitely a valid one and deserves

clarification. Even here you can find the answer in my recent article on page

2:

//Hence a mutable thing is unreal, for in the text, â€˜All transformation has

speech as its basis, and it is name only. Clay as such is the reality.â€™

(Chandogya Up. 6.1.4), it has been emphasized that, that alone is true that

Exists (Ch.Up. 6.2.1)//

And on Page 9:

//Only when the realization dawns that â€˜there is no pot as apart from clayâ€™

does one give up the reality wrongly attributed to the pot. Names and forms

that are what is â€˜producedâ€™ are unreal, mithya, and the material cause alone

is real. The Chandogya Shruti there says: mRttikA iti yeva satyam. This means:

The effect, pot, etc. is real only as clay. This is the meaning of the word

â€˜itiâ€™ in the passage. The cause alone is transacted in the form of an effect

and with a new name. //

This observation of yours is addressed by/reflected in the Chandogya Upanishad

and Shankara in His commentary.

The mantra 6.1.4 gives the illustration of the clay-clay products:

//yathA somya yekena mRtpiNDena sarvam ...vijnAtam syAt...vikAro nAmadheyam

mRttikA iti yeva satyam//

// " Just as, my dear, by one lump of clay all that is made of clay is known, the

modification being only a name, arising from speech, while the truth is that

all is clay; //

Shankara comments:

//...as in the world, through the KNOWLEDGE of a single lump of earth which is

the material cause of a water-pot, pitcher, etc, all other things, all

transformations of that earth, which are made of earth, become known........It

is only a name dependent merely on speech. Apart from that (speech) there is no

substance called transformation. In reality earth as such is the thing that

truly exists.// Pl. read the entire discussion from the translation.

Shankara has conveyed the purport of the above mantra in the most intelligible

manner. He uses the word 'vijnAtena', 'through the knowledge of a single lump

of earth..' This clarification of Shankara is crucial to the correct

understanding of the purport of the mantra. The mantra just says: 'by one lump

of clay..' But Shankara adds, most appropriately, 'by the knowledge of one lump

of clay..'

As you have observed, Shankara (and of course the Upanishad) points out that

clay is something that cannot be seen, used by anyone unless with a form: and

that form the Mantra specifies is: a lump, clod, pinDa. The method of the

Upanishadic teaching is: One has to KNOW, vijnAtena, the truth of this lump,

pinDa. What is this pinda made of ?: Clay. What then is the 'lump', 'pinda'?

It is just a name. So, the very first thing an experimenter has to do is to

'know' what this pinda is in truth. He knows that this pinDa is just clay in

truth, substantial, and the name (and form) 'lump, pinDa' is insubstantial. Why

is the name lump, pinda, insubstantial? Because when the transformation takes

place into a pot, etc. the name/form 'pot' replaces the name/form 'lump'. The

name/form 'lump' is no longer used/seen. However, the clay in the 'lump' is

there continuing in the name/form 'pot' too. [You can go back to the commentary

on 2.16 in the File and immediately appreciate this].

By thus ascertaining the truth regarding the cause, the experimenter extends

this knowledge (of the lump of clay) to everything that is a product of clay and

knows that all effects are only their cause in truth; they are all 'real' only

'as' their cause; as their names and forms, however, they are unreal.

Thus it is not as if the Upanishad and/or Shankara have not addressed the

concept you have presented above. It is indeed a valid point and a crucial one

too to understand the Upanishadic teaching. You get the credit for bringing

this up for elucidation. You can see how Shankara takes forward this concept

while giving an illustration in this very Upanishad commentary: 6.2.1 p.414 of

Sw.Gambhirananda's

translation.

I made this post chiefly to address this point on the 'lump' as I felt that it

has not been touched upon in the past. It could be that I am unaware of any

discussion on this with the Chandogya in perspective.

Regards,

subbu

>

> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

> Version: 8.5.435 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2675 - Release 02/08/10

07:35:00

>

February 9, 2010

In advaitin , " subrahmanian_v " <subrahmanian_v

wrote:

> I made this post chiefly to address this point on the 'lump' as I

felt that it has not been touched upon in the past. It could be that I

am unaware of any discussion on this with the Chandogya in perspective.

>

Dear Subbuji and All,

Just as a side posting, I posed this question three years ago (posting#

38864) to Sadaji in this form:

(quote)

" I have a " beginners " question that has been bothering me for quite a

long time now in relation to the gold/ring analogy, in relation to

the independent/dependent relationship.

You (Sadaji) wrote:

" Gold is independent and can exist without being a ring, but ring

cannot exist without being a gold. "

At the very beginning of studying Advaita Vedanta I found this analogy

quite enlightening, but after a while, on second thoughts, the doubt

appeared: Yes, I understand the concept, but gold, actually, cannot

really exist without a form. For example, even to imagine gold, one is

forced to imagine a " lump " of gold if rings and bracelets are melt

back into... " gold " . I may not be a ring or a bracelet, but it will

always be a lump of a different shape anyway. Or, one can speak also

about the " concept " or the platonic " pure form " of gold, but that

wouldn't mean that I am also giving a conceptual " form " to gold?

In view of these lines of thoughts, would this doubt mean that

although I can see a ring or lump of gold, I would never be able to

see and understand what gold means?, that I am not be able ever to

experience the " gold in the gold " ?

Am I thinking only from the vyavaharika level?

Am I pushing the analogy beyond its limits?

(The same may apply to the wave/ocean or the witness/witnessed

analogy...)

I'll be honored to receive an explanation from your part or from any

of the learned membres.

(end of quote)

And Sri Sadaji responded me as follows (message# 38866):

(Quote)

" Here is my understanding:

You are using the example beyond what was intended.

The example is given by Ch. Up. Ch. 6. by

father-teacher to his son-student. When the student

returns home after his 12 yrs of study and being proud

that he knows everything, Father tries to nail him

down and asks in essence - Have you learned that

knowing which you know all other things. Son was

baffled and said that is not possible - How knowledge

of one thing can lead to knowledge of the other? But

father says that is possible - if one knows the

kaaraNa all the kaaryam of that kaaraNa are as well

known. He gives three examples to establish his point

- gold ornaments from gold, mud pots from mud, and

iron tools from iron. In all cases what is being

proved is kaarya kaaraNa sambandha or

samaanaadhikaraNam. If I know the material cause, I

know in essence all the effects since effect is

nothing but cause itself in different form. Different

pots and vessels made of mud - once I know mud, all

effects are cause itself in different from.

The thesis is - if we know the material cause, all the

effects are as well known.

His son Swetaketu concedes the possibility and

requests his father to teach him knowing which

everything in the creation is known.

That is the start of the teaching - the first part

involves creation since father has to show that

creation started from one thing knowing which all the

crated effects are as well known. He says- the

material cause for the universe as SAT - knowing which

everything which is nothing but sat-swaruupam is

known. The first part of the ch. establishes that from

SAT alone panca bhuutas and bhoutikaas are generated.

That establishes Brahma satyam, and jagat mithyaa.

The second part of the teaching involves jiiva

brahmaiva naaparaH. Hence the teaching continues to

show that SAT which is Brahman is nothing but you.

Tat Tvam Asi. Hence knowing your own nature, you have

the essence of the knowledge of everything.

Hence to answer your question - the gold example is

intended to show only that if one knows the material

cause all the effects of that cause are 'as well'

known since effects are nothing but different forms

with different names just as gold is the cause and

ring, bangle, necklace, and even the lump are names

and forms. Gold is just Au - with some atomic number.

Now tell me what form is true form of gold!

Hope this helps. "

(End of quote)

Pranams to All,

Mouna

February 9, 2010

advaitin , " subrahmanian_v " <subrahmanian_v wrote:

>

> advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@> wrote:

> >

> > Namaste Advaitins,

> >

> > I may be thought captious but there are a couple of points not dealt with

> > by Subbu/Sadda-ji. The implication of " non-existence in isolation from

> > Brahman " is surely 'existence together with Brahman' which brings in the

> > idea of substratum and in the case of the world the substratum of the

> > actual. That word 'actual' is important. The world may be impermanent

> > and contingent but it is actual. It acts, we are part of it and we

> > interact with it. Without it all these discussions would not occur.

> > Subbu/Sada-ji reach back to the Karikas of Gaudapada which espouse a form

> > of illusionism or acosmism.

>

> Namaste Michael ji,

>

> I think the above views do not find approval even by Shankara. Just the other