[Advaita-l] DSV in the advaitasiddhi: kAryakAraNabhAva

[Anand Hudli]

nanvevaM- pratItimatrasharIratvena niyatakAraNa-ajanyatve shrutiShu
svargAdyarthaM jyotiShTomAdividheH brahmasAkShAtkArArthaM
shravaNAdividher-AkAshAder-vAyvAdihetutvasya coktirayuktamiti cet|
(Objection): Under dRShTi-sRShTi, the world becomes merely an appearance
(prAtibhAsika) where nothing arises from an established cause. It follows
that Vedic vidhis, such as the one which prescribes jyotiShToma yaaga for
the attainment of heaven( jyotiShTomena svargakAmo yajeta), the one that
enjoins shravaNa, manana, nididhyAsana for Brahman realization (AtmA vA are
shrotavyo mantavyo nididhyAsitavyaH), and the description of AkAsha as the
cause of Vayu (air) (tasmAdvA etasmAdAtmana AkAshaH saMbhUtaH AkAshAd
vAyuH- taittirIya shruti), etc., become unsuitable. (In other words, there
would be a kArya-kAraNa-bhanga-prasangaH).

(Madhusudana) :  na, svApnakAryakAraNabhAvabodhakavAkyavadupapatteH| na
caivaM vedAntavAkyasya tanmImAMsAyAshca svapnavAkyatanmImAMsAtulyatApattiH,
viShayabAdhAbAdhAbhyAM visheShopapatteH| ata eva- tRptyarthaM bhojane
parapratyAnArthaM shabdAdau ca pravRtterayogena svakriyAvyAghAta iti-
nirastam| svApnavyavahAravadupapatteH|
Not so. (The vidhis enjoining jyotiShToma for attainment of heaven,
shravaNa, etc. for brahmasAkShAtkAra) are substantiated, just as statements
in a dream can provide knowledge about cause and effect relationships. Nor
can you say that  Vedanta vAkyas  and their examination become equivalent
to statements and their examination in a dream (and hence invalid), since
there is a difference between whether the matter conveyed is sublated or
not. For the same reason, the objection that one cannot be convinced with
words to consume food for satisfaction (of hunger) stands refuted, since
transactional relationships in a dream are substantiated.

The argument advanced by the pUrvapakShin is to deny any causal
relationship under DS and if such relationship is admitted as in a dream,
it would not be valid due to belonging to the "dream reality." However,
Madhusudana points out that causal relationships do exist in dreams and it
is not always the case that such causality is invalid on grounds of
belonging to prAtibhAsika reality. It is noticed, for example, that a
mantra upadesha by a Guru in a dream bears fruit despite belonging to
prAtibhAsika reality (svapne gurvAdidattasiddhamantrAdilAbhadarshanAt). So
too in the case of DS, a vidhi from the shruti is not in vain. A vidhi
enjoining jyotiShToma for attaining heaven will be valid. A further
objection may be raised as follows. Due to the peculiarity of DSV whereby
ajnAtasattA of objects is denied, heaven is not perceived/known prior to
performing the jyotiShToma, and hence it does not exist! How is it possible
to urge a person to perform jyotiShToma when the result does not exist for
him? To this, Madhusudana replies by way of a common example. In a dream, a
person is urged to consume food to satisfy his hunger. Clearly, at the time
of urging him to eat, it is possible that food is not yet perceived (it is
not yet cooked, etc.) and, therefore, does not exist. However, the person
in question still is driven to action and procures his food in some way and
proceeds to eat. In a similar fashion, a person may be enjoined to perform
a Vedic act for attaining a result such as heaven, or follow the shravana,
manana, nididhyAsana discipline for Self realization. shrutyAdivAkyamapi
svApnavAkyatva-avisheShe api abAdhitArthakamiti vailakShaNyaM
bAdhitArthakasvApnavAkyAt iti bhAvaH|

Anand