[Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: (no subject)

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji
Hare Krishna

A very significant statement of the author of the bhAmatI.  Says Sri Vachaspati Mishra in the gloss to the Bhashya on the sutra: 2.1.14 तदनन्यत्वं आरम्भणशब्दादिभ्यः -  ‘ न खल्वनन्यत्वमित्यभेदं ब्रूमः, किंतु भेदं व्यासेधामः ...(by non-difference we do not suggest identity; but only negate absolute difference…). By imposing identity between the cause, clay, and the effect, pot, a difficulty would arise where the practical utility/parlance cannot be accomplished.  When a man wants a pot to store water/cook rice, etc., he goes to a potter to buy one.  In case the potter hands him a lump of clay saying ‘take this, for is not the pot the same as clay?’, that would be an undesirable situation.  This is not the way Advaitins want the cause-effect non-difference to be understood.  

>  I agree with this hence directly writing to you.  Yes clay as pot has its own practical utility clay as cause here different from effect i.e. pot.  Here as you mentioned above, the effect pot available for vyavahAra where as clay as its cause not available for this transaction.  You can ask for the big or small pot but not the big or small clay 😊 clay does not hold the water but the clay which has the name and form as pot can hold the water.  The effect can be destroyed but the cause cannot be destroyed not it can have shapes like big / small.  But the effect pot would not be available for the transaction if it were independent of the cause clay.  One cannot go to potter and ask for the pot without clay.  What does it mean effect the pot is entirely dependent on the cause -clay for its existence whereas clay as cause can not have these restrictions.  In this sence kArya as pot in its kAraNa rUpa satyaM it is because of the simple fact we cannot imagine pot without clay.  Hence bhAshyakAra clarifies savaM cha nAmarUpAdhi sadAtmanaiva satyaM vikArajAtaM 'svatastu' anrutameva'.  And at the same time we have to keep in mind that kArya has the kAraNa as its substance whereas kAraNa does not have kArya, the ananyatvaM between kArya-kAraNa needs to be understood this way :  ananyatvepi kAryakAraNayOH kAryasya kAraNAtmatvaM '' na tu kAraNasya kAryAtmatvaM".  So, even though there is a strong talk about the non-difference of the kArya-kAraNa ultimately it means that the kArya is only a form of cause but its contrary cannot be applied.  And as a siddhAnta this kArya-kAraNatvaM of brahman is just there to establish the fact that brahmaikatvaM or AtmaikatvaM nothing more nothing less than this.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar