[Advaita-l] Hacker on bija and creation

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

   -

   Namaste Sudhanshuji,
   -
   -

   Please sir, how do your arguments hold up against Hacker’s study? I have
   abstracted below a few of Hacker’s relevant conclusions on bija and
   creation.



   -

   Attached also is Hacker’s 44 page pdf on avidya, maya, namarupa and
   eshwara that should be required reading for any defense of mulavidya. You
   have already taken issue with Hacker but only on one or two instances -
   insufficient imho.
   -
   -

   Hacker study has influenced a generation of Western scholarship. I
   suspect Hacker drew inspiration from SSSS though he only offers scant
   recognition,




   -

   ."the Unmanifest" (bija-saktir avyakta-sabda-nirdesya) .is av-atmaka
   (1,4,3
   -

   Awakening from deep sleep (SU$uptad utthana) . ..is
   av-atmaka-bija-sadbhava-karita (II ou,3,31,
   -
   -

   “If one wished to assign the causal operation of avidya to one of the
   two categories of causal relation which the Vedanta distinguishes material
   causation and efficient causations-then one might, because of the numerous
   occurrences of avidya-nimitta and mithyajnana nimitta, be tempted to see
   here a relationship of efficient causation. Thus, a marked difference
   between S. and all other Advaitins, with the possible exception of Totaka,
   would be established: whereas they consider avidya as causa materialis, it
   is causa efficiens for S. However, we are not justified in making such a
   sharp contrast; for the occasionally occurring expressions avidya-bija and
   avidyatmaka suggest, strictly speaking, a relationship of material
   causation. (The second expression, avidyatmaka, is employed with the
   satkAryavada in mind: where the upadhis are formed from avidya as their
   prime matter, they are "of the nature of avidya" (avidyAtmaka), since for
   the satkaryavadin the effect or product is identical with the material
   cause.) Nevertheless, in view of the frequency of avidya-nimitta we cannot
   draw the conclusion that S. sees . . . . a causa materialis relationship
   here either. We must keep in mind that the causal connections between a
   avidya and its effects are, preponderately, indicated with unique
   expressions that are used only for these relations (pratyupasthiipita,
   adhyasta, adhyc'iropita, vijrmbhita, kalpita), or else with the very
   general and indefinite word krta, or with phrases which denote merely
   coexistence or succession. The preference for such expres. sions indicates
   that, as S. conceives it, one has to do here with a causal relationship of
   a very special kind. Nevertheless, this much can be affirmed with regard to
   the differentiation of the interpretation of S. from that of all other
   Advaitins-that in his case avidya is never designated as material cause of
   the physical world. It is never referred to as upadana• karana or prakrti,
   whereas even Suresvara, who is closer to S. than anyone else in his
   understanding of avidya, uses the expression upadana to refer to avidya.
   -

   The frequent descriptions of causal chains, beginning with avidyJ in
   SBh, also suggest that, as S. conceives it, the causality of avidya is
   unique. This matter will be dealt with in the section on nilmanlpa (l[,5).
   In that connection S.'s avidya interpretation also will have to be further
   clarified.p64


“Also in these contexts namarupe are presented as a kind of prime matter.
They are that which is avidya or maya is for other Advaitins before and
after Sankara. “P68

>From an overwhelming maiority of these passages it is clear that avidya and
the world seed (jagad� bija) are conceived by S. to be two different,
though closely related, thmgs. And that distinguishes S. again from the
other teachers of his school, according to whose interpretation the prime
matter of the cosmos falls together with the magical potency of illusion,
avidya, and with maya, so that the term nilmarupa becomes disensable as a
designation of the seed of the cosmos.p76

In all four texts sakti is conceived as something material. God cannot
create if he does not have the corresponding power (text 2). But this power
is not just a capacity. It is also a substance out of which God forms the
world: the sakti of lsvara is a bfja-s akti. And the prime matter is also
the primary state of that which is to be created (text 2). Creative power,
the material of creation, and the original state of the world thus coincide
-- a consequence of the substantialist way of thinking as well as the
satkaryavada.
S.'s preferred expression for the prime matter of creation is (avyalqte)
namarrlpe

//..The account of creation in his system has only the propaedeuhc function
of drawmg attention to the unity of being.p84-85

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pCvQ-Y36h3xqii-JlcMtJxiAdO1FOMIV/view?usp=sharing