[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Real import of creation-sentences

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Blessed Selfr Dear Sudhanshuji and Bhaskarji,  Forgive me for injecting
myself here but I think it is important to understand differences rather
than just gloss over them. Sudhanshuji's comments in //

//this kAraNatva attributed to Brahman is by accepting the
ajnAna-adhyAsa.//
Accepting adhyasa is the explanation accepted by all. What ajnana means is
the issue. Ajnana to mulavidya is some kind of positive identity. If you
deny it is positive you need to explain what is meant by something that is
indeterminable or that covers and projects or that is a shakti or continues
in all three sattas. How might you interpret  this as other than something
positive? From Siddhanta Bindu, "Isvara is threefold, as Vishnu, Brahma and
Rudra in accordance with the three gunas of avidya which is the limiting
adjunct of Brahman." Avidya is material guna with the ability to limit
Unalloyed Self

//and you say - Brahman is material cause... his attribution is negated to
reveal shuddha nirvishesha Brahman, devoid of imputed causality.//
Again we agree. Cause is adhyasa. Causation is discussed only for munda
adhicaris. . . .
However, again from Siddhanta Bindu, "The five elements before the process
of quintuplication which are called subtle are constituted of the three
gunas, sattva, rajas, and tamas, since they are identical with their cause
(maya or avidya)"
and again, "In deep sleep no vritti of the mind is possible because the
mind is dormant. So it is concluded that there is a vritti of avidya which
is the causal state of the mind, through which the ignorance was known
during deep sleep"

//You may like to give it great importance. Go on. But do it on the fact of
tacit admission of violation of BhAshyakAra//
It is you who give jagat importance in violation of Bhashyakara by
distinguishing rope/snake and hare's horn. Thus, mulavidya vada invents a
distinction between vyavahara and pratibhasika that cannot be found in
bhasya. By doing so, you inject into vyavahara a status more real than
dream,. calling it relative reality or borrowed reality or temporary
reality - again never in bhasya. This comes from drawing distinction in
non-existence, the seen snake and the never seen hare's horn. Neither
exists ... not that one is more real or less non-existent.

These discussions are too free wheeling with cherry picked citations and
brash generalizations. We should choose a text, go through it carefully and
pick out objections to discuss. I think that's more worthy manana.

regards, mcc

On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 9:14 AM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear Bhaskar ji,
>
> //If srushti is immaterial in Advaita siddhAnta pratipAdana, please don’t
> try your hand / logic to prove DSV, SDV etc. //
>
> DSV, SDV are taught only to those who think that there is srishTi. Through
> the teaching, it becomes clear that srishTi is immaterial. So, the teaching
> is prior to the conclusion that srishTi is immaterial. Don't reverse the
> order.
>
> //But it is a matter of fact that shankara quite categorically said: jagat
> kAraNa is brahman, he is the abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa, if there is no
> nAma rUpa creation, you would definitely not knowing that brahman is
> ultimately nirguNa, nirvishesha and prajnAna ghana.//
>
> Sir, this kAraNatva attributed to Brahman is by accepting the
> ajnAna-adhyAsa. That is why VArtikakAra said- अस्य द्वैतेन्द्रजालस्य
> यदुपादानकारणम्। अज्ञानं तदुपाश्रित्य ब्रह्मकारणमुच्यते।।
>
> So, we must understand that jagat-kAraNatva is by admitting ajnAna-adhyAsa
> and it is not some swarUpa-lakshaNa of Brahman. It is a mere
> taTastha-lakshaNa as explained by VArtikakAra. This attribution is negated
> to reveal shuddha nirvishesha Brahman, devoid of imputed causality. So,
> don't stop midway. Go the entire distance.
>
> //And more importantly he announced Ishwara hetuka srushti is ‘vedAnta
> maryAda’.//
>
> This VedAnta MaryAdA is itself maryAdita to the domain wherein srishTi is
> admitted. That is why it is important to understand the model within which
> maryAdA is spoken about.
>
> //Though ‘order’ of srushti is hardly the matter of concern to the shruti,
> the srushti itself is not just a joke in shruti / bhAshya.//
>
> It is an appearance. It is asat which appears as sat. It is a
> mirage-water, an elephant conjured by magic. You may like to give it great
> importance. Go on. But do it on the fact of tacit admission of violation of
> BhAshyakAra --- क्षेत्रं च
> मायानिर्मितहस्तिस्वप्नदृष्टवस्तुगन्धर्वनगरादिवत् ‘असदेव सदिव अवभासते.’
>
> //The role of logic, limitations of dry logic etc. in siddhAnta nirNaya
> simply thrown out of window here.  Shrutyukta, anubhava sammata tarka is
> quite conspicuously absent here.//
>
> When the entire kshetra is asat, merely appears as sat, you attachment to
> "wet logic" is quite amusing. All tarka mentioned here are in accordance
> with Shruti. It is up to you to attribute dryness or wetness thereto.
>
> //All the vedAntic statements teach about the creation as that which has
> Ishwara as (the rationally valid and acceptable) hetu, the cause of
> creation. That Ishwara is hetu means, He creates the jeevas according to
> their own Karma.//
>
>
> Within a certain model.
>
>
> //If we don’t accept these observations then we are no good than shUnya
> vAdins ( even vijnAnavAdins ).//
>
>
> No. Because, illusion requires substratum. That substratum is non-dual
> Brahman. Hence, no shUnyavAda. This is VedAnta 101.
>
>
> //By saying srushti is mere time pass theory in shruti we are hitting
> prakriya-s like: (a) concept of Ishwara (b) Omniscience of brahman (c)cause
> and effect (d) empirical reality of the universe ( e) Atmaikatva vAda /
> samyak darshana/ sarvAtma bhAva (f) the essential identity of the universe
> with brahman etc. etc. for a BIG SIX completely ignoring its place and
> status in Advaita siddhAnta pratipAdana.//
>
>
> Please apply this charge to BhAshyakAra who equates creation to AkhyAyikA. सुखावबोधप्रतिपत्त्यर्थं
> लोकवदाख्यायिकादिप्रपञ्च इति युक्ततरः पक्षः । न हि
> सृष्ट्याख्यायिकादिपरिज्ञानात्किञ्चित्फलमिष्यते ।
> ऐकात्म्यस्वरूपपरिज्ञानात्तु अमृतत्वं फलं सर्वोपनिषत्प्रसिद्धम् ।
>
>
> Sir, this creation is certainly a story. If you are believing in this
> story, please come to SDV, I have many very-very interesting stories
> therein to entertain.
>
>
> When causality is taught to be owing to ignorance, the "BIG SIX" must go
> out of window.
>
>
>
> // Atmaikatva or the unity of Atman (or brahman) is the ONLY absolute
> truth according to the shruti-s as shown by bAdarAyaNa interpreted by
> shankara, even while the distinction of sentient and non-sentient nature
> remains quite real from the empirical standpoint.  The universe as an
> effect is NONDIFFERENT from the cause or brahman and is ESSENTIALLY one
> with brahman.//
>
>
> As stated above by VArtikakAra, kAraNatva of Brahman is not Its intrinsic
> feature. It is owing to adhyAsa of avidyA therein. It is the avidyA which
> is the material cause. You superimpose this feature of avidyA in Brahman,
> and you say - Brahman is material cause. It is upAdhi-prayukta and not
> inherent to Brahman.
>
>
> Empirical standpoint is itself result of ignorance. So, within ignorance
> -- you term Brahman whatever. Hardly matters!!
>
>
> //And shruti elsewhere warns us : If anyone sees the world in front of us
> as non Atman / abrahman / asarvaM etc., then the world would reject and
> throw out such a one as ineligible for mOksha, liberation.//
>
>
> Sir ji. This is called bAdhAyAm sAmAnAdhikaraNya. I have explained it
> earlier. This means that world is illusory and non-existent and only
> Brahman is the reality.
>
>
> //So any one trying to prove absolute non-existence of jagat through mere
> dry logic, they are doing so by comfortably going against shruti verdict.
> May the Almighty srushtikarta guide them in the right path.//
>
>
> Very nice. MAyA-nirmita-hasti, gandharva-nagar-vat-asat world does not
> have absolute non-existence!! Indeed a great "wet logic"!! If only one
> understood the concept of bAdhAyAm sAmAnAdhikaraNya when BhAshyakAra says -- ‘सर्वं
> ब्रह्म’ इति तु सामानाधिकरण्यं प्रपञ्चप्रविलापनार्थम् -- one would not have
> had this doubt.
>
>
> "World is Brahman" is identical to "snake is rope". The sAmAnAdhikaraNya
> is for negating the snake/world and not to equate world with Brahman
> through mukhya-sAmAnAdhikaraNya. Such fanciful ideas are rejected by
> BhAshyakAra by propounding bAdhAyAm-sAmAnAdhikaraNya in ‘सर्वं ब्रह्म’ इति
> तु सामानाधिकरण्यं प्रपञ्चप्रविलापनार्थम्.
>
>
> Regards.
>
> Sudhanshu Shekhar.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "advaitin" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBAcOK3sFYU6tfHwzQ6S5gS9FxLpdZb9wjcxoTK7B4-hSw%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBAcOK3sFYU6tfHwzQ6S5gS9FxLpdZb9wjcxoTK7B4-hSw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>