[Advaita-l] ghaTa bhAShya sAra

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sadaji,
Of course, this knowledge belongs to everyone.

Thanks,
Venkatraghavan

On Wed, 8 Aug 2018, 11:39 kuntimaddi sadananda, <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>
wrote:

> Venkatraghavanji - PraNAms
>
> Beautifully presented.
>
> with your permission, I will share this.
>
> Hari Om!
> Sadananda
>
>
> On Wednesday, August 8, 2018, 2:19:48 AM EDT, Venkatraghavan S via
> Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>
> Namaste,
> I was revisiting the ghaTa bhAShya recently and wrote down an aide memoire
> summarising my understanding of it. Sharing it in case it helps anyone.
>
> The opening mantra of the second brAhmaNa in the first adhyAya of the
> brihadAraNyaka upaniShad(1.2.1) sees a very beautiful commentary by
> ShankarachArya called the ghaTa bhAShya.
>
> The mantra reads: नैवेह किञ्चनाग्र आसीन्मृत्युनैवेदमावृतमासीदशनाययाशनाया हि
> मृत्युस्तन्मनोऽकुरुतात्मन्वी स्यामिति । सोऽर्चन्नचरत्तस्यार्चत
> आपोऽजायन्तार्चते वै मे कमभूदिति तदेवार्कस्यार्कत्वं कं ह वा अस्मै भवति य
> एवमेतदर्कस्यार्कत्वं वेद ॥ १ ॥
> Here, the first sentence of the mantra, नैवेह किञ्चनाग्र आसीत् - 'there was
> nothing here before (creation)', is taken up for an elaborate discussion.
>
> Prima facie, this sounds like shUnyavAda - before the creation of the
> world, there was nothing at all. However, such a meaning is not accepted by
> advaita, and it directly contradicts the words of Lord Krishna. नासतो
> विद्यते भावो नाभावो विद्यते सतः -
> that which exists cannot cease to be, and that which is non-existent cannot
> come into existence, says the Lord in the gIta.
>
> Therefore, in order to interpret this shruti vAkya correctly,
> ShankarachArya commences on a very elaborate refutation in a famous,
> scintillating argument called the ghaTa bhAShya - the commentary of the
> pot. Using the example of the creation of a pot from clay, Shankaracharya
> establishes satkAryavAda - the existence of the effect in the cause prior
> to its creation.
>
> Broadly speaking, he divides the groups of philosophers that oppose such a
> view into two camps -
> 1) asat kAraNa vAda - those that hold that there is no cause before
> creation. The shUnyavAdin and the kshaNika vijnAnavAdin buddhists would
> belong to this cateogry
> 2) asat kArya vAda - those that hold that there is no effect before
> creation - The naiyyAyikas, etc. belong to this category.
>
> A substantial portion of the bhAShya is devoted to refuting the second
> group, with a relatively smaller, initial portion devoted to refute asat
> kAraNa vAdins.The gist of both is presented here:
>
> Refutation of asat kAraNa vAda - The basic refutation is on the basis of
> pratyabhijnA, recognition. It is common knowledge that when someone sees a
> pot, one recognises that it is made of clay. That is, it is the same clay
> that one saw previously as a lump that now appears as a pot. If the cause -
> clay, did not exist prior to the pot's creation, such a recognition,
> pratyabhijnA, would be impossible.
>
> The shUnyavAdin and the kshaNika vijnAnavAdin refute this by saying that it
> is not the prior existence of the clay that causes this recognition -
> rather, it is simply a result of sAdrishya, similarity. One saw clay before
> and later one seems a similar clay present in a pot. This similarity leads
> one to the mistaken view "that clay is in this pot."
>
> ShankarAchArya refutes this in several ways, but the clinching argument
> that he makes is that in order for two things to be similar, the same
> observer would have to observe both. Similarity is only possible if one
> observer sees two things in different instances of time and concludes that
> they are similar to each other. However, according to kshaNika vijnAnavAda,
> everything is kshaNika, momentary - including the observer. Therefore, if
> an observer saw a lump of clay in one instant, it is not the same observer
> that later sees the pot in another instant. If the clay observer ceases to
> exist after the instant of clay perception, how can a different pot
> observer cognise similarity?
>
> Therefore, recognition, pratyabhijnA implies that one observer sees the
> clay first and pot later. The clay must have existed prior to pot creation.
> asat kAraNa vAda stands refuted.
>
> Refutation of asat kArya vAda - shankarAchArya employs five arguments to
> prove that the effect is present in the cause even before its creation.
> 1) अभिव्यक्ति लिङ्गत्वात् - because it comes into manifestation. In a dark
> room, a table is not seen. When light is switched on, the table is seen.
> The table was always present in the room - even when it is not manifest.
> Similar to this is the creation of a pot - It was not seen previously in a
> lump of clay, but it does not mean that the pot did not exist then.  The
> effect therefore exists in the cause even before it becomes manifest.
>
> The naiyyAyika responds - if this were true, if we keep a lump of clay in a
> dark room, a pot should automatically manifest itself when the light is
> turned on. The potter's activity would be rendered meaningless.
>
> To this, shankarAchArya says - this does not happen because in order for
> the manifestation to occur, the AvaraNa, the obstacle must be removed. For
> the table to manifest, the obstacle of darkness has to be removed. However,
> the obstacle that prevents the manifestation of the pot in a clay lump is
> different. When that is removed, the pot manifests.
>
> What is the obstacle? Form is the obstacle. Clay can assume any number of
> forms, but it can assume only one form at a time. Without the destruction
> of the previous lump form, pot form cannot be manifest. The effort of the
> potter is to destroy all forms except the pot form and bring out the pot
> form.
>
> 2) विप्रतिषेधात् - when someone asks a potter for a pot, he says the pot
> will be ready tomorrow. In the statement "The pot will be created tomorrow"
> - is the pot existent or non-existent? If it is not existent, then there
> will be no subject in the sentence. If it be said that the sentence is only
> spoken from the viewpoint of the future - In the future, the pot already
> exists, so the sentence will not be "the pot will be created tomorrow".
> Therefore, we have to admit that the pot is potentially existent now,
> before it's creation. If a pot is existent before creation, why do people
> say there is no pot? Existence is of two types - functional, and real. The
> real existence always exists, but functional does not. When people say the
> pot is not present now, they mean that the functional existence is not
> present.
>
> 3) सर्वज्ञज्ञान अप्रामाण्यात् - Ishvara and yogis have knowledge of past,
> present and future. This is accepted by both the naiyyAyika and the
> advaitin. If the future can be talked about in present, and it is a valid
> statement, then it must already be existent in some potential form. If it
> is not existent, Ishvara's and yogi's knowledge will be object-less and
> invalid. Thus the effect must be admitted to exist prior to creation.
>
> 4) अभावत्वात् - There are four kinds of absence according  to nyAya -
> prAgabhAva, dhvamsa, atyantAbhAva, anyonyAbhAva.
> prAgabhAva is the absence of a thing before it is created. dhvamsa is the
> absence of a thing after it is destroyed. atyantAbhAva is the absolute
> absence of a thing and anyonyAbhAva is the difference of one thing from
> another thing.
>
> ShankarachArya argues that anyonyAbhAva, or difference, is bhAvarUpa - that
> is, it does not refer to an absent entity, but to some positive, existent
> entity. When we say the cloth is different from the pot, that difference is
> present in cloth - if it was not present, the cloth would not be different.
> Thus, anonyAbhAva is bhAvarUpa.
>
> Similarly, other absences also must be positive only. When we say there is
> no pot on the ground, what we mean is that the ground is present. Thus the
> absence of the pot, is the presence of the ground.
>
> Therefore, prAgabhAva, or the absence of a thing before creation, must also
> refer to an existent thing. The pot must exist before its creation.
>
> 5) असत्संबन्ध अभावात् - this is based on the idea of creation according to
> nyAya. Before creation, according to nyAya, the pot was non-existent.  It
> comes into existence by getting an intimate association, samavAya
> sambandha, with clay. When the non-existent pot originates with samavAya
> sambandha with clay, it borrows it's existence from clay.
>
> shankarAchArya uses this to argue that if the logician proposes that a
> samavAya sambandha is the basis for creation, it can only exist between two
> existent entities. A relationship needs two existent entities - it cannot
> be between one existent entity and a non-existent entity. Therefore, if the
> pot has a samavAya sambandha with clay, it must exist even before it is
> created.
>
> Therefore, on the basis of these five reasons, one must conclude that the
> effect pre-exists in the cause. The veda mantra therefore needs to be
> re-interpreted so that "there was nothing here" means "the cause and effect
> were both present, but in an unmanifest form".
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>