[Advaita-l] ghaTa bhAShya sAra

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste,
I was revisiting the ghaTa bhAShya recently and wrote down an aide memoire
summarising my understanding of it. Sharing it in case it helps anyone.

The opening mantra of the second brAhmaNa in the first adhyAya of the
brihadAraNyaka upaniShad(1.2.1) sees a very beautiful commentary by
ShankarachArya called the ghaTa bhAShya.

The mantra reads: नैवेह किञ्चनाग्र आसीन्मृत्युनैवेदमावृतमासीदशनाययाशनाया हि
मृत्युस्तन्मनोऽकुरुतात्मन्वी स्यामिति । सोऽर्चन्नचरत्तस्यार्चत
आपोऽजायन्तार्चते वै मे कमभूदिति तदेवार्कस्यार्कत्वं कं ह वा अस्मै भवति य
एवमेतदर्कस्यार्कत्वं वेद ॥ १ ॥
Here, the first sentence of the mantra, नैवेह किञ्चनाग्र आसीत् - 'there was
nothing here before (creation)', is taken up for an elaborate discussion.

Prima facie, this sounds like shUnyavAda - before the creation of the
world, there was nothing at all. However, such a meaning is not accepted by
advaita, and it directly contradicts the words of Lord Krishna. नासतो
विद्यते भावो नाभावो विद्यते सतः -
that which exists cannot cease to be, and that which is non-existent cannot
come into existence, says the Lord in the gIta.

Therefore, in order to interpret this shruti vAkya correctly,
ShankarachArya commences on a very elaborate refutation in a famous,
scintillating argument called the ghaTa bhAShya - the commentary of the
pot. Using the example of the creation of a pot from clay, Shankaracharya
establishes satkAryavAda - the existence of the effect in the cause prior
to its creation.

Broadly speaking, he divides the groups of philosophers that oppose such a
view into two camps -
1) asat kAraNa vAda - those that hold that there is no cause before
creation. The shUnyavAdin and the kshaNika vijnAnavAdin buddhists would
belong to this cateogry
2) asat kArya vAda - those that hold that there is no effect before
creation - The naiyyAyikas, etc. belong to this category.

A substantial portion of the bhAShya is devoted to refuting the second
group, with a relatively smaller, initial portion devoted to refute asat
kAraNa vAdins.The gist of both is presented here:

Refutation of asat kAraNa vAda - The basic refutation is on the basis of
pratyabhijnA, recognition. It is common knowledge that when someone sees a
pot, one recognises that it is made of clay. That is, it is the same clay
that one saw previously as a lump that now appears as a pot. If the cause -
clay, did not exist prior to the pot's creation, such a recognition,
pratyabhijnA, would be impossible.

The shUnyavAdin and the kshaNika vijnAnavAdin refute this by saying that it
is not the prior existence of the clay that causes this recognition -
rather, it is simply a result of sAdrishya, similarity. One saw clay before
and later one seems a similar clay present in a pot. This similarity leads
one to the mistaken view "that clay is in this pot."

ShankarAchArya refutes this in several ways, but the clinching argument
that he makes is that in order for two things to be similar, the same
observer would have to observe both. Similarity is only possible if one
observer sees two things in different instances of time and concludes that
they are similar to each other. However, according to kshaNika vijnAnavAda,
everything is kshaNika, momentary - including the observer. Therefore, if
an observer saw a lump of clay in one instant, it is not the same observer
that later sees the pot in another instant. If the clay observer ceases to
exist after the instant of clay perception, how can a different pot
observer cognise similarity?

Therefore, recognition, pratyabhijnA implies that one observer sees the
clay first and pot later. The clay must have existed prior to pot creation.
asat kAraNa vAda stands refuted.

Refutation of asat kArya vAda - shankarAchArya employs five arguments to
prove that the effect is present in the cause even before its creation.
1) अभिव्यक्ति लिङ्गत्वात् - because it comes into manifestation. In a dark
room, a table is not seen. When light is switched on, the table is seen.
The table was always present in the room - even when it is not manifest.
Similar to this is the creation of a pot - It was not seen previously in a
lump of clay, but it does not mean that the pot did not exist then.  The
effect therefore exists in the cause even before it becomes manifest.

The naiyyAyika responds - if this were true, if we keep a lump of clay in a
dark room, a pot should automatically manifest itself when the light is
turned on. The potter's activity would be rendered meaningless.

To this, shankarAchArya says - this does not happen because in order for
the manifestation to occur, the AvaraNa, the obstacle must be removed. For
the table to manifest, the obstacle of darkness has to be removed. However,
the obstacle that prevents the manifestation of the pot in a clay lump is
different. When that is removed, the pot manifests.

What is the obstacle? Form is the obstacle. Clay can assume any number of
forms, but it can assume only one form at a time. Without the destruction
of the previous lump form, pot form cannot be manifest. The effort of the
potter is to destroy all forms except the pot form and bring out the pot
form.

2) विप्रतिषेधात् - when someone asks a potter for a pot, he says the pot
will be ready tomorrow. In the statement "The pot will be created tomorrow"
- is the pot existent or non-existent? If it is not existent, then there
will be no subject in the sentence. If it be said that the sentence is only
spoken from the viewpoint of the future - In the future, the pot already
exists, so the sentence will not be "the pot will be created tomorrow".
Therefore, we have to admit that the pot is potentially existent now,
before it's creation. If a pot is existent before creation, why do people
say there is no pot? Existence is of two types - functional, and real. The
real existence always exists, but functional does not. When people say the
pot is not present now, they mean that the functional existence is not
present.

3) सर्वज्ञज्ञान अप्रामाण्यात् - Ishvara and yogis have knowledge of past,
present and future. This is accepted by both the naiyyAyika and the
advaitin. If the future can be talked about in present, and it is a valid
statement, then it must already be existent in some potential form. If it
is not existent, Ishvara's and yogi's knowledge will be object-less and
invalid. Thus the effect must be admitted to exist prior to creation.

4) अभावत्वात् - There are four kinds of absence according  to nyAya -
prAgabhAva, dhvamsa, atyantAbhAva, anyonyAbhAva.
prAgabhAva is the absence of a thing before it is created. dhvamsa is the
absence of a thing after it is destroyed. atyantAbhAva is the absolute
absence of a thing and anyonyAbhAva is the difference of one thing from
another thing.

ShankarachArya argues that anyonyAbhAva, or difference, is bhAvarUpa - that
is, it does not refer to an absent entity, but to some positive, existent
entity. When we say the cloth is different from the pot, that difference is
present in cloth - if it was not present, the cloth would not be different.
Thus, anonyAbhAva is bhAvarUpa.

Similarly, other absences also must be positive only. When we say there is
no pot on the ground, what we mean is that the ground is present. Thus the
absence of the pot, is the presence of the ground.

Therefore, prAgabhAva, or the absence of a thing before creation, must also
refer to an existent thing. The pot must exist before its creation.

5) असत्संबन्ध अभावात् - this is based on the idea of creation according to
nyAya. Before creation, according to nyAya, the pot was non-existent.  It
comes into existence by getting an intimate association, samavAya
sambandha, with clay. When the non-existent pot originates with samavAya
sambandha with clay, it borrows it's existence from clay.

shankarAchArya uses this to argue that if the logician proposes that a
samavAya sambandha is the basis for creation, it can only exist between two
existent entities. A relationship needs two existent entities - it cannot
be between one existent entity and a non-existent entity. Therefore, if the
pot has a samavAya sambandha with clay, it must exist even before it is
created.

Therefore, on the basis of these five reasons, one must conclude that the
effect pre-exists in the cause. The veda mantra therefore needs to be
re-interpreted so that "there was nothing here" means "the cause and effect
were both present, but in an unmanifest form".

Regards,
Venkatraghavan