[Advaita-l] Ghata Bhashya 1 - MUST SEE- superb videos on Sankara Bhashya
bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com
Tue Feb 6 00:43:13 EST 2018
Dear Sir, I have started learning vedanta through some online classed as suggested by some of the senior members of the forum, The same 'Ghata Bhasya' was taught to me one of the followers of Pujaya sri Swami Dayananda Saraswati which was in very simple terms & even the beginners can understand very easily as it is as simple as opening of the banana cover & eating the fruit. i.e "MITHYA'' The reality of a pot made out of clay:A pot of clay is clay in the form of apot. we can use it to carry water, to store food or it can function as adecoration. A pot of clay is a very simple object and is made of out of asingle substance: clay. The existence of the pot is completely depending uponthe clay. Therefore, clay has a higher degree of ‘realness’ than the pot. In this example clay is satyambecause the existence of the pot is dependentupon clay, so the pot cannot be satyamas it has no independent existence. Theexistence of the pot is ‘received’ fromthe clay, because there would be no potwithout the clay. The pot has an odd modeof existence: It definitely exists,but has no existence on its own, since itsexistence is depending on clay. It isnot unreal, asat,but also not independently real, satyam.This peculiar state ismithya,dependent existence.The pot adds nothing substantial to theclay: The weight of the pot is theweight of the clay. If you break the potinto pieces the clay is still there. Theamount of clay has not been diminished,only the shape of the clay has changed.A pot is only name and form, nama-rupa,of clay. Clay can take many forms,not only pot form. It can be moulded intocups, plates, vases and many more.Itis independent of nama-rupa. Thisdependency relationship between pot and clay is not reflected in theEnglishlanguage. We say “a pot of clay”, which implies the pot comes first andclayis an attribute. It seems that potform is satyam andclay is mithya. Butitis the opposite: Clay comes first and pot form is an attribute of clay. Fromthe vantage point of the clay, nothing substantial has been added when it hasbeenshaped into the form of a pot and vice versa, nothing gets lost when thepotgets broken. When we look at the pot, we also see clay. We take the pot tobeseparate from clay, but by understanding the nature of the pot, we see thereisno separation. Though pot is non separate from clay, there is no reciprocalidentityrelationship between them. The pot isnothing but clay, but clay is notonly the pot.If both were reciprocal to each other, both would be satyam, whichis not the case.
> Very nice explanation indeed. The crux of the relationship between kArya (pot) kAraNa (clay) is in this sentence : "The pot has an odd mode of existence: It definitely exists, but has no existence on its own, since its existence is depending on clay". Cause and effect prakriya needs to be understood this way. Shruti-s also say this same truth in its inimitable style : satyamabhavat yadidaM kiMcha, brahmaivedaM purastAt brahmaivedaM vishvaM and at the same time there is no svagata bheda since brahman is nirguNa, nirvishesha, nirAkAra, niravayava etc.. But care needs to be taken while understanding these shruti verdicts by keeping bhAshyakAra clarification in an attempt of samanvaya : ananyatvepi kAryakAraNayOH kAryasya kAranAtmatvaM " na tu kAraNasya kAryAtmatvaM". Understanidng mruttiketyeva satyaM does not mean pot is nonexistent or bhrAnti (like snake in place of rope). The Pot (jagat) is very much there because the clay (the brahman) is the both nimitta and upAdAna kAraNa for the existence of pot and clay is OtaprOta in pot and there is nothing apart from clay in the pot.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list