[Advaita-l] Omnisience .........
v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Tue Dec 31 09:59:36 CST 2013
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 6:09 PM, H S Chandramouli
<hschandramouli at gmail.com>wrote:
> Namaste. The difference is this. In snake rope the two are of different
> levels of reality. While rope is real ( vyavaharika ) snake is unreal (
> pratibhasika ). In clay pot, reality level of the two are the same, not
> different. clay is unmanifest while pot is manifest. That is all. Karana is
> always the unmanifest upadana while karya is always the manifest.
> unmanifest and manifest are not two different levels of reality. Both are
> vyavaharika level of reality only. Pot is a transactable effect while the
> snake is not.
This 'transactability' (arthakriyAkAritvam) is seen in superimposed things
too, till the substratum is not known. We have the famous example of the
'bAlayakSha' aka 'gumma'. The unreal , non-existent, entity here is quite
capable of accomplishing the vyavahAra of invoking and causing fear and the
resultant compliance on the part of the child. The snake too has the
capacity to create fear, trembling, in the deluded person and also make him
share that feeling with the other people who too take his words for true
without enquiry. In fact the BSB 2.1.14 case of treating the Veda too as a
superimposed entity yet being capable of delivering liberation to the
aspirant is admitted.
> Pot is a vikara of clay no doubt but not vivarta in clay.
Both are of course vivarta in Brahman. When the Chandogya you have quoted
> mentions clay as the truth and pot as anrutha, it is definitely not in the
> ultimate sense of Reality.
So what? It is to drive home the point that when one looks for the tattva,
one understands the clay to be real and the effects to be unreal as effects
but real only as clay. I have not suggested that the upanishad teaches the
clay to be the ultimate reality.
> Can we say clay is as real as Brahman? It is
> only for the limited purpose of establishing the upadana karana only.
> Shruti intends to show the entire creation as vivarta in Brahman. However
> instead of considering each and every item of creation with reference to
> Brahman, it first reduces the number of independent variables which go to
> form creation to the minimum and then show them as vivarta in Brahman.
Even while doing that at the very sub-kArya-kAraNa level the Upanishad
establishes the anRtatvam of the kAryam.
> This is much akin to say the atomic theory of modern science. It shows all
> elements as formed of only three variables namely protons, neutrons and
> electrons. It has reduced the entire variety of materials to just three
> independent variables. It has its own advantages. But this does not mean
> that there are the only three real elements in creation. Same way with the
> karya-karana technique . Its main advantage lies in the fact that the
> entire creation is finally reduced to only a few which then are shown to be
> vivarta in Brahman. With this the whole of creation stands proved to be
> vivarta in Brahman. But as far as creation itself is concerned all the
> karyas as well as karanas are of same level of reality.
It is at this very level the Upanishad shows that the kAryam is of a lower
level of reality than the kAraNam. That is why it declares the entire
clay-products as mere words, unsubstantiated by the 'entity' 'pot' but
substantiated only by clay. If this two-level reality is not
admitted/established in the dRShTAnta there is no 'punch' in extending it
and applying it to the dArShTAntika.
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 5:11 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
> > On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 4:14 PM, H S Chandramouli
> > <hschandramouli at gmail.com>wrote:
> > > Namaste.
> > >
> > > Since my earlier mail was held back by the Moderator due to exceeding
> > > permitted length, presumably due to clubbing together of all mails
> > therein,
> > > I have taken the liberty of resending this as a separate mail.This is
> > > reply to Sri Sji's mail.
> > >
> > > Namaste.
> > >
> > > Sorry. The earlier mail went thru by mistake in the computer. I have no
> > > where stated that the Real Karanam ( Brahman ) undergoes vikara. I have
> > > mentioned that it is through Maya that it appears to undergo vikara in
> > the
> > > form of creation. This is the start of vivarta. Upanishads do ascribe
> > > reality to begin with for this vikara and followup with negating
> > to
> > > this creation through the use of karana-karya prakriya. It is during
> > > negation that it uses the principle that karya is not different from
> > karana
> > > as it is dependent on karana. You had mentioned in your first mail that
> > > rope snake is the ONLY example of depndence of this nature. This is
> > i
> > > had disputed. There is certainly a difference between the two types of
> > > dependence, rope snake and clay pot.
> > What is that difference? Advaita does not see any difference between the
> > two. In fact the three examples of clay, gold and iron given by the
> > Chandogya 6th ch. is the basis to hold the mithyAtva of the kAryam.
> > applied/applicable in the dRShTAnta how will the upaniShad (and following
> > that the BhAShyakAra) be correct in applying it to the dArShTAntika? The
> > bhAShyam for the first example-mantra (clay-clay products) concludes
> > ...वागालम्बनमात्रम् नामैव केवलम्, न विकारो नाम वस्त्वस्ति *परमार्थतो*,
> > मृत्तिकेत्येव तु *मृत्तिकैव सत्यम् वस्त्वस्ति *। ६.१.४
> > Thus even in the example, clay - clay products, the bhAShyam applies the
> > satyam - mithyA rule and holds the kAryam, effects, to be false and the
> > cause, kAraNam, alone to be real. If the kAryam is also real, the
> > upaniShadic advaita jnAnam will not arise. Only if the brahmakAryam
> > is held mithyA can there be the adviteeya brahma jnAnam possible. One
> > see the non-difference between the rope-snake example and the clay - clay
> > products example. Just as the rope is the real vast there and the snake
> > not, so too the clay is the satyam vastu there and not the effects,
> > products, of clay.
> > The clay products depend on the clay for their *very existence*. So,
> > wherever this 'यत्सत्त्वे यत्सत्त्वम्, यदभावे यदभावः’ rule applies,
> > is this dependence of the one on the other for *the very existence.* The
> > only example possible for this is the rope-snake which is non-different
> > from the kAraNa-kArya type examples. If someone holds the upAdaanakAraNa
> > and kAryam example, it goes without saying, as seen above, that even this
> > is no different from the rope-snake example.
> > regards
> > vs
> > > Whatever you have quoted from the
> > > upanishads is only with reference to Brahman and that has no where been
> > > disputed by me. We are discussing only the methodology adopted by
> > > upanishads to bring home this truth.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> > >
> > > For assistance, contact:
> > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list