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

[H S Chandramouli]

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. 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. 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. 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.

Regards


On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 5:11 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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.
>
> 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
>