Cause of Creation

kuntimaddi sadananda kuntimaddisada at YAHOO.COM
Tue Nov 12 06:50:33 CST 2002

--- Ravisankar Mayavaram <miinalochanii at YAHOO.COM> wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 04:40:09 -0800, kuntimaddi sadananda
> <kuntimaddisada at YAHOO.COM> wrote:
> >Dwaita:
> >
> >Frankly I never understood or appreciated this concept.  In this
> >NarayaNa is not the upaadana kaaraNa - he is only nimitta kaaraNa.
> The fact that a Potter is different from clay is clear to us in
> this
         > vyAvahara. So is yoga's idea of prakriti different from
purushha. I
        > see no
> complexity in that idea of dvaita, but only an inherent simplicity.

Ravi - there are several conceptual problems as well as
Inconsistencies with scriptural statements that arise.  Shree Madhava
       uses several rare puraaNaas to justify his analysis. Nobody
can find
those references nor available anywhere. Validity of a pramaaNa is
      based on one ability to cross check that independently.

1. T.U statement - that defines Brahman - ya tovaa imaani bhuutaani
      jaayante, yena jaatani jiivanti, yatpryam tyabhisam vishanti -
       vij~naanasasva - tat brahmeti. From which the whole world
arose, by
         which it is sustained into which it goes  back - In the case
of pot
maker making pot with nimitta kaarana different from upaadana
      kaarana, he does not sustain the pot and if the pot brakes it
       not go back into potmaker. That which sustains has to be the
         kaarana alone. - Ramanuja gets around this problem saying
that he is
      the antaryaami of the prakriti

    2. As I understand the aatmaa-s are tiny in both
      and dviata - suukshma is translated in terms of size rather
subtlety. But suukshma buddhi that is required is not translated as
    tiny biddhi! There it is subtle buddhi.

3. Tat tvam asi swetaketo - which will not make sense in the
     separateness - hence - Madhava  splits into atat tvam asi - you
not that and he justifies that the other two pramaNa-s - pratyaksha
and anumaana confirms that we are not Iswara-s as everyone’s daily
experience.  The problem is why should scripture has to repeat nine
times what we already know through day to day experience.  That
actually violates the shaastra as pramaaNa - If it has to be
justified as an independent pramaaNa it has to tell me something that
          I can not deduce by pratyaksha and anumaana.  I do not need
scriptures to tell me that I am limited and that I am not Brahman.
That is in fact my day to day experience. Shaastra becomes a pramaaNa
only if I cannot establish either by pratyaksha or anumaana, just as
anumaana is pramaNa if it cannot be established by directly
pratyaksa. Example is - since I cannot see the fire on that distant
hill, But I can only see the smoke and the hill, I have to infer that
there must  be fire.  If I see the fire directly, I don’t need to
      infer - anumaana is useless in that case. Similarly the -a tat

            Ramanuja's explanation is little different.  The identity
is with
           respect oneness of the antaryaamin - yet different from
           Universal self pervades the Universal body that consists
of jiiva-s
        and prakriti yet different from individual jiiva-s and

4. Finally, if the upaadana kaarana is different from the nimitta
         kaarana, we already have a problem - one limits the other.
       there are two real, neither one can be infinite or limitless.
That is
           the problem for both vishisshTaadaviata and dvaita.  To
get around
          the problem - vishishhTaadvaita invokes the universal
person concept
         that pervades as one (hence vishishhTa advaita). By
       statement it is declared that he is the Lord - but that
excludes things beyond him - prakriti and jiiva - to overcome this
problem it is said that he is the controller or both - this is the
     sesha-seshii bhaava - and concept of liila is introduced.  Sound
until ones goes into deeper analysis. If prakriti is independently
      real - on what basis it exists independent of brahman.  pot is
      independent of pot maker true - but remember pot is put
together by
      the forces - starting from atomic forces to molecular forces to
        chemical forces - to one integral entity.  Are these forces
under the category of prakRiti or purusha that is  jadam or chaitanya
vastu Pot maker is differnt form the pot alright but also different
       from these forces that sustain the pot too -

          5. There are lots of epistemologial and ontological
questions that
crops - that deal with visheshaNa and viseshaya sambandha -I touched
base to some of this in discussing savikalpa or nirvikalpa aspects in
the recent post when I was explaing pancadasi sloaks - Please refer
       to that discussion and see is the savikalpa which is the
universe of
         creation has any basis independent of nirvikalpa Brahman.
     kahali idam Brahman can not be accounted correctly if we
separate the
        upaadana kaarana and nimitta karaNa as two.

6. The ideal of potter and pot maker is not the correct example for
     this - More appropriate example if the dreamer and the dream -
     the whole of Mandukya Upanishad - which analysis the three
states of
       experience and takes a total look at human life in

7. Dwaita has a big problem if there are distinctions and gradations
in the jiiva-s  even in mukti. The cause of suffering is the very
gradations and if that persists as intrinsic, one may claim that your
pot is full but other fellow’s pot is bigger than mine and that very
bigger and better than mine is beginning of samsaara as we experience
everyday.  They use the TU that says - manushya ananda is smaller
      than deva-s etc.  But that is in the state of samsaara.  Once
       realizes that one is pure unqualified anannda - there are not
    gradations in the ananda itself.

       8. Because of this problem - aham brahma asmi - ayama aatma
      vaachaarambaNam vikaaro naamadheyam etc have to be interpreted

        9. Shree Madhva ascertains that dvaitic statements are more
in number
than advaitic statements in Vedanta - hence by shear number that is
more correct - hence primary emphasis is dviata and secondary only to
advaita. and advaitic statements have to interpreted taking the
primary teaching as the primary fact. Ramnauaja I find provides a
      better correlation of the two trying to integrate the dvaitic
     advaitic statements in terms of universal person. Of course,
    take vyavahaarika and paramaarthika status to explain the dviata
adviata - The basis is not only the mahaavaakya-s but Mandukya U
teaching as well.

     10. Finally the very first sloka in avadhuuta Giita by
     endorses the fact that only by God's grace one gains the
     understanding of the adviatic understanding of the reality.

           Hari OM!

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list