[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Hacker on bija and creation

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Very nicely presented Venkatraghavan ji. Thanks for the references from
texts such as PrakaTArtha VivaraNam.

Regards.

On Fri, 23 Aug, 2024, 08:10 Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Sri Michael,
> I hope you do not mind me intruding into your illuminating conversation
> with Sri Sudhanshu. A few points on Hacker's article you kindly posted
> before.
>
> 1) Hacker says "according to S's only definition, avidyA is the same as
> adhyAsa" and quotes the sentence from the adhyAsa bhAshya "tametam
> lakshaNam adhyAsam paNDitAh avidyeti manyante". However, that is not true.
>
> As we have shown through multiple quotations provided by Sri Sudhanshu -
> wherever avidyA is used in connection with vyAkRta nAmarUpa (manifest names
> and forms) in the bhAShya - Shankara has referred to such nAmarUpa as
> avidyAkRta, avidyApratupasthApita etc - creations or projections of avidyA
> - consistently.
>
> Names and forms are superimpositions (adhyAsAh) on Brahman. Therefore, it
> follows to reason that according to Shankara, the adhyAsa that is name and
> form, is avidyAkRta, avidyApratupasthApita, a product of avidyA. In the
> sentence from the adhyAsa bhAShya quoted by Hacker (tametam lakshaNam
> adhyAsam...), Shankara says that wise men consider adhyAsa, the product, to
> be identical with avidyA, the cause.
>
> If as according to Hacker, avidyA is the same as adhyAsa, the multiple
> references to nAma rUpa being products or creations of avidyA (avidyA-kRta,
> avidyA-pratyupasthApita) would be incorrect in every form of causation -
> except material causation.
>
> To explain - Normally, it would be inappropriate to refer to a product
> (adhyAsa) as its cause (avidyA), if the cause were to be anything other
> than a material cause - No one will consider a pot to be a potter, let
> alone, wise ones - for example. However, if the cause were to be a material
> cause, then it is quite appropriate to refer to a pot made of clay as clay.
> Therefore, Shankara must necessarily hold avidyA to be the material cause
> of adhyAsa, for the two statements "wise ones consider adhyAsa to be
> avidyA", and "names and forms are creations of avidyA" to both hold true
> simultaneously.
>
> This is the basis of satkAryavAda In Advaita. It is in this sense of
> satkAryavAda, where the effect is identical with its material cause, that
> Shankara employs the sentence - "wise men refer to this kind of adhyAsa as
> avidyA".
>
> Hacker himself half acknowledges the material causation of avidyA
> elsewhere -  "The second expression, avidyAtmaka, is employed with
> satkAryavAda in mind: where the upAdhis are formed from avidyA as their
> prime amatter, they are "of the nature of avidyA" (avidyAtmaka), since for
> the satykAryavAdin the effect or product is identical with the material
> cause."
>
> Therefore, Shankaracharya is not *defining* avidyA as adhyAsa, rather he
> is *referring* to adhyAsa as avidyA.
>
> 2) Hacker also says " For S. avidyA is the same as mithyAjnAna, for other
> Advaitins it is the cause for it".
>
> This is not true for all advaitins. In the Panchapadika, a commentary on
> the Brahma Sutra, Padmapada too equates mithyAjnAna with avidyA, the
> material cause of adhyAsa (a).  So too do the authors of the Ratnaprabha
> (b), Prakatartha Vivaranam (c), Bhashyabhavaprakashika (d) and the Nyaya
> Nirnaya (e).  It is only the bhAmati where the bhAShya reference to
> mithyAjnAna, occurring in the phrase mithyAjnAna-nimittah found in the
> adhyAsa-bhAShya, is interpreted to mean adhyAsa, which is caused by ajnAna
> (f).
>
> Hence, it is not a universal truth that all Advaitins consider avidyA as
> the cause of mithyAjnAna - as shown, at least 5 commentators of the Brahma
> Sutra Bhashya of Shankara consider avidyA and mithyAjnAna as the same, like
> Shankara himself. Therefore, the charge that Shankara's followers differ
> from Shankara in considering avidyA and mithyAjnAna to be different, does
> not hold.
>
> 3) Despite half-acknowledging the material causation of avidyA, Hacker
> goes on to say "Nevertheless, in view of the frequency of avidyA-nimitta we
> cannot draw the conclusion that S sees a *causa materialis* relationship
> here either".
>
> This is a flawed analysis. In the ancient works of Vedanta - ie around the
> time of Shankara and previous to his time, the term "nimitta" did not come
> to exclusively refer to efficient causation. The clear and exclusive
> differentiation in the usage of the terms "nimitta-kAraNa" to mean
> efficient causation and "upAdAna-kAraNa" to mean material causation, is a
> post Shankara development. Please note - I am referring to a development in *the
> way the terms are used*. I am not rejecting the idea of avidyA's material
> causation in Shankara's works (as Hacker and Sri SSS do), or claiming
> (again as Hacker and Sri SSS do) an introduction of avidyA's material
> causation as an act of post Shankara commentators.
>
> Why? The bhAShyakAra himself uses the term nimitta without strictly
> meaning efficient causation in a plethora of places. Just as a very small
> sample, see BSB 1.1.2 "प्रतिनियतदेशकाल*निमित्त*क्रियाफलाश्रयस्य",
> "विशिष्टदेशकाल*निमित्ताना*मिहोपादानात्",  BSB 1.1.4 "धर्माधर्मतारतम्य
> *निमित्तं*" , BSB 1.1.5 "चेतनत्वात्सत्त्वोत्कर्ष*निमित्तं*
> सर्वज्ञत्वमुपपन्नमित्यनुदाहरणम्", BSB 1.1.23 "सतस्तत्त्वानवबोध*निमित्तो*"
> -  this is a very small selection of the vast number of results that show
> up for the word "nimitta" in just the BSB. There are many more references
> where the term nimitta does not mean efficient causation. Therefore, the
> mere use of the term does not necessarily imply that efficient causation is
> meant or material causation is denied.
>
> Therefore, a word frequency based analysis is not something that we can
> rely on to conclude that Shankara rejected material causation when he used
> the term "avidyA-nimitta".
>
> 4) Hacker says "in his (Shankara's) case, avidyA is never designated as
> material cause of the physical world". However this is an incorrect
> conclusion.
>
> In BSB 1.4.3, Shankara says "अविद्यात्मिका हि
> बीजशक्तिरव्यक्तशब्दनिर्देश्या", meaning, the causal power, referred to by
> the word avyakta, is of the nature of avidyA. In KathopaniShad Bhashya
> 1.3.11, he says "अव्यक्तं सर्वस्य जगतो बीजभूतमव्याकृतनामरूपं", meaning,
> avyakta, being unmanifest name and form, is the causal seed of the world,.
>
> Hacker himself acknowledges that "In any case, there are several places in
> the SBh where namarupe are quite clearly understood as a kind of prime
> matter or primal state of the world. They are called in this reading "the
> undeveloped namarupe".
>
> Hacker is referring to BSB 1.1.5 "तत्त्वान्यत्वाभ्यामनिर्वचनीये नामरूपे
> अव्याकृते व्याचिकीर्षिते इति ब्रूमः". Shankara here is using the term
> avyAkRte nAmarUpe, which Hacker translates as "the undeveloped namarupe",
> which in Hacker's words is a "kind of prime matter", i.e. a material cause.
>
> Putting BSB 1.4.3, KaTha 1.3.11 and BSB 1.1.5 together, the conclusion
> that we are invariably drawn to is that according to Shankara - avyakta, *whose
> nature is avidyA *(BSB1.4.3), which cannot be said to either be identical
> to Brahman or different from it, which is "undeveloped namarupe" (BSB
> 1.15), is the causal seed of the world's names and forms (Katha 1.3.11) - *ie
> avidyA, as unmanifest names and forms, is the material cause of the world,
> which is manifest names and forms.*
>
> This is half acknowledged by Hacker when he says "the occassionally
> occurring expressions avidyA-bIja and avidyAtmaka suggest, strictly
> speaking,  a relationship of material causation". However, in light of the
> "occassional occurrence" of the former two expressions in contrast to the
> frequency of "avidyA nimittah", Hacker erroneously concludes that the
> "strict interpretation" of the terms avidyAtmaka and avidyA-bIja as
> material causation, has to be set aside.
>
> But as we have shown, the frequency of the usage of a term "nimitta" is no
> basis to conclude that material causation is denied - nimitta has been used
> even more frequently by Shankara to mean "cause" in a general sense, and
> not to mean efficient causation, or deny material causation, at all. The
> meaning and the context of each usage is to be separately analysed, and one
> cannot apply a general rule that "nimitta" can never mean material
> causation, according to Shankara - especially when there is contrary
> evidence of Shankara referring to avidyAtma-bIja-shakti to mean a material
> cause.
>
> 5) Interestingly Shankara refers to this avyAkRta nAma rUpa as
> "tattva-anyatvAbhyAm-anirvachanIye" in the BSB 1.1.5 quote referenced
> above. Hacker says "he (Shankara) never calls it (avidyA)
> anirvachanIya...In the SBh the word occurs only as an adjective of
> nAmarUpa".
>
> However, as shown in point 4 above, the anirvachanIya avyAkRta nAma rUpa
> of BSB 1.1.5 *is* the anirvachanIya avidyA that we are referring to -
> precisely because the avyAkRta nAma rUpa, which is avyakta (per the
> statement of the identity - avyaktam...avyAkRtanAmarUpam in KaTha 1.3.11),
> is avidyAtmikA (per the statement of the bIja shakti referred to as avyakta
> being avidyAtmikA in BSB 1.4.3).
>
>
> Clearly, there are several points raised by Hacker, as well as by Sri SSS
> - whose scholarship, monumental efforts and devotion to the bhAShyakAra are
> unquestionable - that are valid. However, the central themes of our
> discussion, namely whether the identity between avidyA and mAyA, as a
> consequence of which avidyA being the material cause of creation,
> necessarily requiring avidyA to not be of the nature of absence, are all
> well founded on a closer analysis of the prasthAna-traya-bhAShya of
> Shankaracharya.
>
> I think I will stop here in the interests of time - I do not feel the need
> to criticise Hacker, or heavens forbid, Sri SSS, for criticism's sake. The
> purpose of this exercise is to merely prove the points above. Therefore, I
> do not feel the need to quote Hacker's entire paper verbatim and disprove
> every aspect of that work that I disagree with - just enough to accomplish
> my purpose.
>
> *Non-Shankara-bhAShya references to mithyAjnAna occurring in the adhyAsa
> bhAShya*
> (a) PadmapAdAchArya - Panchapadika "मिथ्याज्ञाननिमित्तः इति । मिथ्या च
> तदज्ञानं च मिथ्याज्ञानम् । मिथ्येति अनिर्वचनीयता उच्यते । अज्ञानमिति च
> जडात्मिका अविद्याशक्तिः ज्ञानपर्युदासेन उच्यते । तन्निमित्तः तदुपादानः
> इत्यर्थः ॥"
> (b) Ramananda Yati - Ratnaprabha, "अध्यासस्योपादानमाह - मिथ्याज्ञाननिमित्त
> इति । मिथ्या च तदज्ञानं च मिथ्याज्ञानं तन्निमित्तमुपादानं यस्य स
> तन्निमित्तः । तदुपादानक इत्यर्थः ।"
> (c) AnubhUtisvarUpAchArya, Praktartha Vivaranam, Page 12,
> Sharirakamimamsabhashyam with three commentaries, Part 1, edited by Mani
> Dravid Shastrigal
> (d) ChitsukhAchArya, Bhashya-Bhava-Prakashika, Page 12,
> Sharirakamimamsabhashyam with three commentaries, Part 1, edited by Mani
> Dravid Shastrigal
> (e) Anandagiri AchArya, Nyaya Nirnaya, Page 12, Sharirakamimamsabhashyam
> with three commentaries, Part 1, edited by Mani Dravid Shastrigal
> (f) Vachaspati Mishra, Bhamati, "पूर्वकालत्वसूचितमध्यासस्य व्यवहारकारणत्वं
> स्फुटयति - मिथ्याज्ञाननिमित्तः व्यवहारः । मिथ्याज्ञानमध्यासस्तन्निमित्तः ।
> तद्भावाभावानुविधानाद्व्यवहारभावाभावयोरित्यर्थः ।"
>
> Kind regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
> On Thu, 22 Aug 2024, 21:59 Michael Chandra Cohen via Advaita-l, <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Sudhanshuji,
>> I replied personally without noticing your public response. So I'm
>> repeating.
>>
>> Namaste Sudhanshuji, Hacker mentions namarupa bijashakty-avastham from
>> BSbh1.4.2-3 (text 2) in the abstract in my previous message.
>>
>> and here's another quote of particular reference on Namarupa and Avidya
>> p74ff, "
>> The renderingol avidyii into a material thing, the prime matter of the
>> cosmos, was already widespread prior to S. in Vedantic and Vai�cyava
>> cirdes. 33 He rejected it, to be sure, not with an explicit refutation but
>> by means of his linguistic usage. That is to say, S. clearly always strove
>> to follow the Upaniiads closely in his method of thought and terminology.
>> But one simply cannot extricate the theory of avidyil as prime matter from
>> those texts. On the other hand, one can base the theory of namarripa as
>> the
>> world seed on Upani�adic passages if, as shown above, one interprets them
>> from the standpoint of the satkaryavada. Moreover, in pural)ic thought
>> avidya is only another name for pralq-ti and does not connote an illusion.
>> S. thus could have feared that the word would have been misunderstood in a
>> dualistic-realistic sense had he employed it in the sense of "prime
>> matter.'
>> "
>> Only proving Hacker's observations are FUNDAMENTALLY mistaken and not
>> merely topically in error can you claim a superior understanding of
>> bhasya.
>> Hacker makes SSSS easy with an accounting of evidence and a technician's
>> exegesis.
>>
>> Have you read Hacker? Maybe a point by point analysis - point you on the
>> map :)
>>
>> regards, michael
>>
> --
> 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/CAL34aEn9w6H3_Ccc6rTSX21_SpOM_Y_M%3D%3Dk5DWFsNtWyR03ZFw%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEn9w6H3_Ccc6rTSX21_SpOM_Y_M%3D%3Dk5DWFsNtWyR03ZFw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>