[Advaita-l] Advaiti Response to this report?

Venkatesh Murthy vmurthy36 at gmail.com
Fri Jan 13 20:08:16 CST 2012


This explanation of Satkaryavada you have given is conflicting with
Vacarambhana Sruti. If the Effect Pot is Mithya before creation and
after destruction why is this Sruti teaching us Knowing Clay we can
know Pot. What is there to know if Pot is Mithya? The Sruti becomes
useless. It becomes wrong also because it is teaching Knowing a real
Thing like Brahman is same as Knowing a Mithya thing. This is
impossible.  The way to explain things is there is no Absolute Non
Existence of any thing any time.  Everything is existing in some
condition always. There is no Nasha of any thing.

The Sruti is teaching us there is no destruction of any thing because
Brahman is the Material Cause of Everything and Brahman cannot be
destroyed. The Pot cannot be destroyed because it will become Clay and
even that Clay is Brahman only. The Vacarambhana Sruti is teaching us
Any thing is a transformation Vikara of Brahman with a Name and the
Name is got from Words. Vacarambhanam Vikaro Namadheyam.

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:01 PM, V Subrahmanian
<v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com>wrote:
>> Namaste
>> With this point I am replying to above and also now replying to your
>> other important point- if a thing is existing in the middle but not
>> before and after it is not existing any time. These two points are
>> replied in this way by Ramanuja and his followers. Why do you say a
>> pot is not existing before it is created? We don't agree. There is no
>> absolute nonexistence for any thing. If you say Pot was not existing
>> before we say it was existing as Clay. This is Satkaryavada. The
>> Effect Pot is Existing in Cause Clay. It is accepted by Advaitis also.
>> If you say Pot is destroyed some time and it is again non existing. We
>> say no. Even when it is destroyed it is existing as Clay. There is no
>> time when Pot did not exist. This same is true for World also. The
>> Brahman is Upadana Cause. The World is Effect. The World is always
>> Existing. First it is in Brahman then it is created and when it is
>> destroyed also it is Brahman only. In this argument there is no need
>> for Mithyatva any where. Why assume Mithyatva if we can explain it
>> like this?
> It does not take much time and effort for the Advaitin to reply to the
> above:
> In Vedanta satkAryavAda though the effect, before manifesting, is held to
> be in the cause AS the cause, still even at that state it is mithyA only as
> it remains non-different from the cause.  This is the same with the
> post-destruction state too.  कालत्रय्ऽपि कार्यं कारणादनन्यतया एव वर्तते .
> At all the three periods the effect can never be separately shown from the
> cause.  Just as we say the effect is nothing but a name/word in the
> manifest state so too the effect even in the pre-manifestation state is
> only a word/name.
> This applies to the world as well.
>  subrahmanian.v
>> p.s. I am thankful to Vidwan Shri Kutumba Sastry who presented a paper at
> Tumkur on 'satkAryavAda'.  He neatly presented the idea that 'whether
> before manifestation or after, the effect is mithyA alone.'



More information about the Advaita-l mailing list