[Advaita-l] Omnisience .........

V Subrahmanian v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Tue Dec 31 05:41:22 CST 2013

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 the
> 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 in
> 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 reality to
> this creation through the use of karana-karya prakriya. It is during this
> 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 what 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.  Unless
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 thus:

 ...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 jagat
is held mithyA can there be the adviteeya brahma jnAnam possible.  One can
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 is
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, there
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.


> 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

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list